On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 06:59:03 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:52:32 AM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James
wrote:

On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
"Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in
the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need
to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you
really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a
nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe."

Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236



Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling
from bed, I know the rhetoric.

It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!",
but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use
lights & reflectors, etc."

In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these
precautions..."

Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all.

Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor
visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not
riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to
give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and
slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of
what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc.

It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously,
knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any
one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful.

Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the
usual recommendations put together!

Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate
cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than
Australia.


The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the
larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault
and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including
replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of
income, and even funeral costs if necessary.

While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in
Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my
neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have
been found to be the fault of the motorcycle.

Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least at the
moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict liability) results in
much foaming from the mouth and calls for bicycling licenses and
registration, or bicycle prohibition from the roads.

It would be polarizing anywhere. As a general rule in the US states, the violation of a traffic law raises a presumption of negligence. So if a driver violates a law and causes an injury, the driver is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with cyclists. This promotes compliance with the traffic laws by cyclists and drivers. Why would you want to presume a driver is at fault for merely driving a car and not violating any laws? The "larger vehicle" rule would favor a lot of road users who have proved (to me) that they do not follow the laws, including skateboarders and escooter "drivers." A bicycle, being a larger vehicle, would be presumed at fault. One of my greatest hazards around here are pedestrians who just step off curbs, against lights, looking down at cell phones.

-- Jay Beattie.

The point isn't that it is "fair" or unfair, it is the point that
there is a definite set of rules that are adhered to... and people are
penalized for not adhering..

Singapore law, for example states that the penalty for possession of
two grams of Heroin is death. If you are caught with drugs the drugs
are sent to the National Laborites and purified and than weighed. If
it is two grams or more than you go before the judge who hands down
the mandatory sentence - death. Since 2013 if the accused can prove
that he/she is only a drug courier; that they suffer from some mental
disability; and they must have helped the Central Narcotics Bureau in
some substantive way, the sentence may be commuted to life
imprisonment.

The results?

The law is consistent with Singapore's authoritarian law enforcement
culture' harsh laws, mercilessly applied, are thought to work best at
deterring social evils like drug use.

Singapore's top diplomat in the UK, Michael Teo, defended Singapore's
harsh drug laws by pointing to the country's lower rates for drug use.
"8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore, it is
0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for
Singapore; and for opiates\u2014such as heroin, opium, and morphine -
0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore,"
--
cheers,

John B.