Will rising motoring costs mean fewer cyclists killed or injured?

Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost. Maybe this is the
best way to reduce the number of motorists on our roads as policing
doesn't seem to work and can you imagine what it would be like if fuel
had no tax?

"The rising cost of fuel is having a major impact on people who drive
for a living.

Petrol and diesel prices have been running at record levels for the
past year, with driving instructors and cab drivers among those
affected.

The cost of fuel has tripled in the last 20 years which has also led
to car owners cutting down on the number of journeys they make."

More with vid:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16382866

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 03/01/2012 07:24, Doug wrote:
Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost. Maybe this is the
best way to reduce the number of motorists on our roads as policing
doesn't seem to work and can you imagine what it would be like if fuel
had no tax?

"The rising cost of fuel is having a major impact on people who drive
for a living.

Petrol and diesel prices have been running at record levels for the
past year, with driving instructors and cab drivers among those
affected.

The cost of fuel has tripled in the last 20 years which has also led
to car owners cutting down on the number of journeys they make."

More with vid:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16382866


UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

Thank you for your input Doug-Weapon

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:24:33 -0800, Doug wrote:

Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost.

No this is not obvious to me. Fewer cars on the road can mean there is
more room for more people to drive recklessly.
"Safety in numbers" probably also applies to motorised traffic.


-- .

snip


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Jan 4, 12:00*am, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:24:33 -0800, Doug wrote:
Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost.

No this is not obvious to me. *Fewer cars on the road can mean there is
more room for more people to drive recklessly.
"Safety in numbers" probably also applies to motorised traffic.



I like there to be more cars on the road - gridlocked streets are much
safer to ride on.

--
Simon Mason

On Jan 4, 12:00*am, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:24:33 -0800, Doug wrote:
Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost.

No this is not obvious to me. *Fewer cars on the road can mean there is
more room for more people to drive recklessly.
"Safety in numbers" probably also applies to motorised traffic.


Interesting point. Don't forget though that at present cars are driven
recklessly along rat runs to escape congestion . Also, congestion
tends to be concentrated at certain times of day, leaving the rest of
the day free for reckless drivers. A simple solution would be to
reduce speed limits.

My opinion though is that the fewer cars there are on our roads the
better all round and especially for vulnerable cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 04/01/2012 05:44, Doug wrote:
On Jan 4, 12:00 am, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:24:33 -0800, Doug wrote:
Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost.

No this is not obvious to me. Fewer cars on the road can mean there is
more room for more people to drive recklessly.
"Safety in numbers" probably also applies to motorised traffic.


Interesting point. Don't forget though that at present cars are driven
recklessly along rat runs to escape congestion . Also, congestion
tends to be concentrated at certain times of day, leaving the rest of
the day free for reckless drivers. A simple solution would be to
reduce speed limits.

My opinion though is that the fewer cars there are on our roads the
better all round and especially for vulnerable cyclists.


UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

Thank you for your input Doug-Weapon

On 04/01/12 00:00, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:24:33 -0800, Doug wrote:

Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost.

No this is not obvious to me. Fewer cars on the road can mean there is
more room for more people to drive recklessly.
"Safety in numbers" probably also applies to motorised traffic.


-- .

snip



But due to lower congestion, they won't feel the need as often to drive
recklessly due to less holdups.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 23:24:33 -0800 (PST), Doug
wrote:

Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost. Maybe this is the
best way to reduce the number of motorists on our roads as policing
doesn't seem to work and can you imagine what it would be like if fuel
had no tax?

"The rising cost of fuel is having a major impact on people who drive
for a living.

Petrol and diesel prices have been running at record levels for the
past year, with driving instructors and cab drivers among those
affected.

The cost of fuel has tripled in the last 20 years which has also led
to car owners cutting down on the number of journeys they make."

More with vid:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16382866

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it will just mean more vehicle crime. Stealing fuel from parked
cars, it's easy to puncture a plastic fuel tank. Driving off from
petrol stations without paying on cloned plates. Steal a car, drive
until it's too hot then burn it. These people don't give a monkeys
about who they hit.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:20:41 +0000, Adam Lea wrote:

On 04/01/12 00:00, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:24:33 -0800, Doug wrote:

Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost.

No this is not obvious to me. Fewer cars on the road can mean there is
more room for more people to drive recklessly.
"Safety in numbers" probably also applies to motorised traffic.


-- .

snip



But due to lower congestion, they won't feel the need as often to drive
recklessly due to less holdups.

Try telling that to the testosterone-charged brigade.

It is interesting that since the 1970's, as the numbers of cars have
increased, the road toll has in general decreased. I know that there are
many reasons for this (safer cars, more rules, better roads etc), but
slowing trafffic due to increased congestion possibly also plays a part.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On 05/01/2012 00:06, Peter Keller wrote:

Adam Lea wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
Doug wrote:

Obviously fewer car journeys means fewer lives lost.

No this is not obvious to me. Fewer cars on the road can mean there is
more room for more people to drive recklessly.
"Safety in numbers" probably also applies to motorised traffic.

snip

But due to lower congestion, they won't feel the need as often to drive
recklessly due to less holdups.

Try telling that to the testosterone-charged brigade.
It is interesting that since the 1970's, as the numbers of cars have
increased, the road toll has in general decreased. I know that there are
many reasons for this (safer cars, more rules, better roads etc), but
slowing trafffic due to increased congestion possibly also plays a part.

Are you sure it isn't down to 'Cold Turkey' slipping down the charts?

Or perhaps it's because you can't get Spangles any more.

I mean, can you rule them out?