Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#132
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17 Oct 2004 08:12:17 -0700, Silas Denyer wrote:
That isn't the point - widespread lawlessness amongst one section of the road-using community will IMHO inevitably lead to an increase in the same or similar behaviour by other sections. Indeed. The vast majority of road users break teh speed limit, and even have the gall to moan about being caught doing so. As you observe, this widespread lawlessness tends to lead to yet more lawlessness. What do you propose? Do you agree with the laws about red lights? 1. Yes / 2. No Yes. Do you believe that such laws should not apply to cyclists? 1. Yes / 2. No Yes If your score is 2 then we're all in trouble. But it isn't, so everything's fine? regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#133
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Silas Denyer wrote:
I must admit that the current tarring of motorists with the brush of "sinners" isn't too helpful either, Why not. An estimated 2 million of them will have been prosecuted in 2003 for speeding and running red lights. Out of 30 million license holders thats a lot of sinners and those are just the ones that get caught! Tony |
#134
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Silas Denyer wrote:
Furthermore, the resources required to plate cycles are hardly large, are they? The infrastructure all exists, as do the laws, the enforcement regime, etc. But I don't think anybody wants that, so time for the human approach. I think you will have the law of unintended consequences visiting you. Every cyclist journey is approx. one less car journey. Cyclists make up about 2% of journeys across the country. Introducing the paraphernalia of plates etc and many people won't bother. If motor journeys increase by 2% as a result, deaths on the roads will to first order increase 2% or approximately 60 people a year. Cyclists currently kill one or two people a year. Your scheme would be net 58 people a year more killed. Now you can argue over exactly how many cyclists would give up, how many journeys might be by train rather than car but at the end of the day you need a lot of big factors in your favour before you come close to removing the huge deficit in human life your proposal creates. Tony |
#135
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
And as has been pointed out to you more than once now, this argument only applies in a situation of unlimited resources. And arguably not even then, else we would outlaw many things which occasionally cause injury, albeit with very low risk. I am perfectly happy to consider both (or indeed many) points of view, but I think that the point you're somewhat missing here is that the debate has already been had - riding or driving on pavements is illegal, as is running red lights. In our democratic society it was decided many, many years ago that this was so, and laws were enacted. The debate as to whether the "problem" should be "addressed" is (in the terms you seem to consider) spurious. The law is the law, and the debate should be whether we are happy with laws which are applied inequitably to different sections of society. And are we happy with those who are charged with enforcing those laws breaking the same laws themselves? For the record I have said all along that the source of the problem is that roads thought to be so dangerous due to careless drivers that there is too much incentive for cyclists to take to the pavement, and councils make this worse by painting bikes on pavements seemingly at random. To pick on the effect rather than the cause is absurd. My whole point (or intended point!) in my original post was to provide a few direct (rather than second-hand) observations, and to invite consideration of suggestions for how the law as it exists could be evenly applied. In all other areas this debate would be irrelevant - we wouldn't accept the enforcement of, say, parking laws based upon the colour or the car concerned, or the serving of noise-abatement orders only on those who play opera. This would be rightly considered scandalous, and would contribute to a complete (or further) decline in any respect for the law or due process at all. Should women not pay taxes whilst men do? Can I drive my car on the pavement if I like, along your street whilst your children are playing? Most road traffic laws are applied reasonably even handedly. I have actually been stopped for speeding on my bicycle, for instance, but never in my car. As a pedestrian I have been hit by a bicycle in an "illegal place" but never by a car. I have never, ever, seen a cyclist stopped for running a red light or riding on a pavement. I almost never see cyclists indicating on the roads anymore, or bothering to display legal (or indeed any) lights, or observing give way signs or zebra crossings, etc., yet they are likely to be legislated for as always non-culpable (source: [1] - see links below) if we're not careful. That is the point, and the one I had hoped might be discussed, but it appears that the majority of posters to this thread are genuinely unconcerned with any of this. Finally, some stats for those who want them. First, RoSPA's stats (which obviously only deal with reported accidents - usually only about 3% for non-fatal, source: [2]) for 2002 are 170 pedestrians collided with a cyclist - three of those died, and 40 sustained serious injuries. Not the same as those for powered vehicles, but still there all the same. For reference, 775 pedestrians were killed in 2002 in total in road accidents. Now, for some context. The West Midlands Road Accident Review 2000 concluded that, of 34 pedestrian fatalities in that sample, 0 were caused by vehicle failure to accord precedence at a pedestrian crossing, 1 was caused by a vehicle failing to conform to a traffic signal/sign. 21 of 34 (62%) were caused by pedestrians randomly stepping, walking or running from the footpath (source: [3]). So if we exclude those factors from the equation, we're looking at only 38% of pedestrian fatalities being caused by motorists. This implies (on linear scaling, with all the caveats that implies) that of the 775 pedestrians killed UK-wide about 295 were caused by road vehicles (including bicycles). Therefore bikes were responsible for 1% of all pedestrian road deaths caused by vehicles (3 of 295). Using the West Midlands data as a model, this would put cyclist-caused pedestrian deaths in the same class as those caused by, say, failure of motorists to conform to traffic signs/signals. Now let's consider miles driven / ridden to get some further statistical context. According to the DfT (source: [4]), in 2002 total (car,van,taxi) traffic was 490 billion vehicle kilometres. The equivalent figure for cycles was 320 million for London (source: [5]), and for the UK as a whole 4 billion (source: [6]). So it looks like pedestrians are something like 60 times more likely (per billion kilometre cycle-miles travelled) to be killed by a bicycle hitting them than, say, by a car failing to head a sign or signal. In conclusion, based on this analysis (and I'm sure there are others that could be done) bikes simply aren't as safe for pedestrians as is made out. Sure there are less cycles, and hence less pedestrians killed, but that doesn't make cycles safe for pedestrians to be around - the average bike is far more likely to kill you than the average car running a red light! Put another way, less than 1% of all vehicle miles driven (the bicycles) caused 1% of all traffic-caused pedestrian fatalities. On that analysis, bicycles are just as likely (on a per-mile basis) to kill pedestrians as cars are, whilst pedestrians are far more likely to cause their own death at the "hends" of a vehicle than either of these! Best wishes, Silas [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2097872.stm [2] http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html [3] http://www.ringroad.org.uk/wmrar2000.htm [4] http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ts_026282.hcsp [5] http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/21107w03.htm [6] http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ats_026292.xls |
#136
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Silas Denyer wrote:
Most road traffic laws are applied reasonably even handedly. I have actually been stopped for speeding on my bicycle, for instance, but never in my car. In that case, unless you were in Richmond Park at the time, you were wrongly stopped. Royal Parks excepted, the laws which set out the offence of speeding relate only to motor vehicles. You cannot break the speed limit on a bicycle. Tony |
#137
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:55:49 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:- 2. The acceptance into mainstream business of law breaking as a competitive advantage Speeding, you mean? Also tachograph offences, drivers hours, lorry maintenance and lorry loading. This sort of lawlessness is common enough to mean that a large proportion of lorries stopped at checkpoints have something illegal about the vehicle or its driver. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#138
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17 Oct 2004 08:22:53 -0700 someone who may be
(Silas Denyer) wrote this:- I have been hit (as a pedestrian) by a cyclist (breaking the law), whose head (down, not looking, helmetted) struck me in the face. Individual anecdotes are all very well. However, one needs to look at the big picture to see the place to start. I have never been hit by a cyclist. However, I have been run over by motorists twice while I was walking along the pavement. Does this mean that I discount the problems of people cycling along pavements? No it does not. I frequently complain about councils that add some white paint and blue signs to pavements and make them into "cycle facilities". (However, I have no objection to people cycling slowly along suitable pavements, much to the disgust of many in uk.rec.cycling) -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#139
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17 Oct 2004 08:41:52 -0700 someone who may be
(Silas Denyer) wrote this:- The not-so-recent EU proposal to make motorists responsible for all accidents involving cyclists didn't help, of course, There was no such proposal. That was what the Daily Wail and the like claimed the proposal was. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#140
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tony Raven" wrote in message
... Silas Denyer wrote: I have actually been stopped for speeding on my bicycle. You cannot break the speed limit on a bicycle. However, you can be busted for cycling "furiously". -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
'Near miss' between District and Piccadilly line trains near EalingBdwy | London Transport | |||
OTish: Laptops on planes - hand luggage? | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport |