Yet another cyclist violently assaulted by motorist/s.

AndyMorris wrote:
Matt B wrote:
Would you care to explain what it is that fuels your contempt for
those who are not happy with the impact that current policy is having
on road safety?

Maybe its because their all up their own arse ******s like yourself.

A clever trick if you can manage it ;-)

Their are things more important then showing off in your car.

What /are/ you talking about? What has "showing off in your car" got to
do with reducing the unacceptably high number of casualties that occur
on our roads each year, and restoring the downward trend that has
recently levelled off. You'd have been closer to the mark if you'd said
"there are things more important than ensuring that any measures
generate huge revenues".

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:


You'd rather concentrate on one of the factors contributing to only 5%
of injury collisions - the one that speed cameras can detect.

You continue to condemn and vilify those who believe it is better to
concentrate on the more significant factors that lead to injuries on our
roads.


It's a pity that this thread has degenerated into yet another speed
camera 'debate'. However, I can't help but point out your selective use
of the data. True many crashes occur at 'legal' speeds, often at low
speeds. However, the fact that such crashes occur does not reduce the
significance of speed in crashes which occur at higher speeds,
especially illegally high speeds! Low speed shunts in supermarket car
parks do not somehow prove that doing 90 Mph down some 'B' road is not
inherently more risky than doing 50 Mph!

If anything the number of injury crashes which occur at 'legal' speeds
show just how ridiculously high many of our speed limits are, and it is
imperative that many of them are lowered so as to make more allowance
for all these 'errors' that drivers constantly make when driving. It
also seems morally wrong that should a third part make an error than
the penalty for this should be disablement or death. At lower speeds
minor errors tend to have minor consequences, and it is abhorrent that
motorists feel that they have some sort of God-given right to drive a
heavy, threatening vehicle on the public's roads at potentially lethal
speeds.

You forgot to mention that a full one third of all Fatal crashes are
attributed to excessive speed, meaning speed that was both excessive
for the conditions and above the legal limit. In fact the whole
recording process tends to downplay the significance of speed. For
example, it is not possible to list excessive speed as a primary or
precipitating cause, only a secondary factor. In addition many
'factors' which are used are in fact analogues for driving at excessive
speed, such as 'losing control'.

In reality speed plays an intimate part in the causal chain leading to
most crashes and it is disingenuous to try to claim that 'other
factors' somehow operate in isolation. A crash might needs a wet road
and excessive speed, but one cannot discount the significance of speed
and of course it is right to focus on speed because it is one factor
which is under full control of the driver, whereas many other factors
are not or are inherently unpredictable. Also, whatever the cause of a
crash, one of the primary determinants of how serious the consequences
will be is the speed the vehicles were travelling at.

The ball is in 'the motorists court' as it were. I would suggest that
if drivers want to effectively be allowed to drive at any speed they
think fit, 'road safety' organisations such as the notorious
'SafeSpeed' actually take positive steps to educate motorists to drive
in a more responsible manner so as to reduce the impact of all these
'other factors' they constantly go on about. When drivers have proven
themselves responsible, and road deaths and injuries have fallen
correspondingly, perhaps they might be trusted to drive at speeds which
are currently illegal. Of course, by this point most truly
'responsible' drivers would see current limits and the speeds people
currently habitually drive at as being grossly irresponsible!

Yes, the fall in road deaths in the UK has levelled off but this has a
lot to do with improvements in car design and the introduction of
better rescue and post-crash emergency care, the benefit of which has
now largely levelled off.

I would however agree that the current speed camera regime is flawed.
Most of all the use of 'high visibility' cameras mean that motorists
now feel free to drive at illegal speeds anywhere where they can't see
a big yellow box/ camera van by the side of the road. No wonder they
are proving ineffective at reducing the overall number of road deaths,
even if fatalities do fall at most camera locations, even after taking
into account 'regression to the mean' effects and so on. The supposed
'ineffectiveness' of the current speed enforcement regime is not an
argument for scrapping cameras altogether but rather an argument for
the blanket use of covert speed enforcement, so average speeds are
reduced across the network as a whole, not just at a few
highly-publicised safety camera sites.

As to cameras being 'revenue raisers', what a joke! The Treasury
benefits from camera schemes to the tune of less than £1 for every
driver in the UK, so as a revenue raising scheme it looks like the most
ineffective 'tax' ever! Plus contribution to this tax is entirely
voluntary! Don't want to pay? Don't break the law!

A Passing Sheddi wrote:
Harry?


TANBH, HAND

wrote:
Matt B wrote:

You'd rather concentrate on one of the factors contributing to only 5%
of injury collisions - the one that speed cameras can detect.

You continue to condemn and vilify those who believe it is better to
concentrate on the more significant factors that lead to injuries on our
roads.

...I can't help but point out your selective use
of the data. True many crashes occur at 'legal' speeds, often at low
speeds. However, the fact that such crashes occur does not reduce the
significance of speed in crashes which occur at higher speeds,
especially illegally high speeds!

I haven't been selective. The 2005 data is clear and specific. Data on
contributory factors was collected by the police for practically every
injury collision in 2005. Their instructions were clear. If speed was
a factor they should add it. If the speed was over the limit they
should code it as such. If speed was a factor, because it was
excessive, but was within the limit, they coded that too.

The results were that "speeding" was a contributory factor (not
necessarily the only factor) in 5% of all injury collisions. Speed
within the limit was a contributory factor in another 12% of all injury
collisions.

The data was broken down further by injury severity. "Speeding"
appeared in 12% of fatal collisions, 7% of serious and 4% of slight.
Speed within the limit appeared in 17% of fatal, 13% of serious and 11%
of slight.

So you see "illegally high speeds" are not as significant a factor in
/any/ type of collision as excessive speed within the limit.

A measure that can only tackle speeding, such as speed cameras can only
target those 5% of collisions for which speeding is a factor. A measure
which can eliminate excessive speed can target the up to 17% of
collisions for which that is an issue (remember "speeding" may also be
"excessive for the conditions" so would also be tackled by the latter
type of measure).

Low speed shunts in supermarket car
parks do not somehow prove that doing 90 Mph down some 'B' road is not
inherently more risky than doing 50 Mph!

No, they're no even collected in the stats! It is only injury
collisions on public roads.

If anything the number of injury crashes which occur at 'legal' speeds
show just how ridiculously high many of our speed limits are, and it is
imperative that many of them are lowered so as to make more allowance
for all these 'errors' that drivers constantly make when driving.

That is a red herring. Excessive speed can be within the limit, so if
tackled properly the limit has no relevance. We all know of situations
on country roads where 60 mph would be a ludicrous speed to travel at -
targeting "excessive speed for the conditions" would target those
situations. We all know that 30 mph, or even 20 mph outside schools at
8:30 is crazy - again that would be eliminated.

Speed limits cannot reflect the appropriate speed for every inch of
every road, for every driver, for every vehicle, for every lighting
condition, for every weather type, for every time of the day - but
tackling "excessive speed for the conditions" can do /all/ of those
things - because it is adaptable "for the conditions".

It
also seems morally wrong that should a third part make an error than
the penalty for this should be disablement or death. At lower speeds
minor errors tend to have minor consequences, and it is abhorrent that
motorists feel that they have some sort of God-given right to drive a
heavy, threatening vehicle on the public's roads at potentially lethal
speeds.

Yes, wouldn't you rather those risks, even within the holy grail speed
limit were eliminated too?

You forgot to mention that a full one third of all Fatal crashes are
attributed to excessive speed, meaning speed that was both excessive
for the conditions and above the legal limit.

No, they never claimed it was all above the limit. It's old-hat now
anyway, and they've abandoned that ploy. Now they know better. That
was a spin on old data. They had to roll in all sorts of factors such
as skidding, driving too close, failing to judge others' speed and so
forth to justify a figure plucked out of the air years before the data
was produced.

Now they have published data which rubbishes all that because /if/ speed
or speeding is a factor it is explicitly recorded (and included in my
figures above).

In fact the whole
recording process tends to downplay the significance of speed.

No, the new system was tweaked to emphasise speed, and factors were
added and instructions issued to ensure no excuse was missed to add
speed as a factor.

For
example, it is not possible to list excessive speed as a primary or
precipitating cause, only a secondary factor.

Speed influences the outcome. Driver skill may lead to the wrong choice
of speed. Speed is within the conscious control of a driver, it is not
itself an input to the driving process. Tackle the driver's skills and
speed will be automatically targeted.

In addition many
'factors' which are used are in fact analogues for driving at excessive
speed, such as 'losing control'.

No, this is the fallacy. You can skid, loose control etc. at any speed.
It is not speed which causes those driving errors - it is the
opposite. Wrong choice of speed is another symptom of poor driving skills.

In reality speed plays an intimate part in the causal chain leading to
most crashes and it is disingenuous to try to claim that 'other
factors' somehow operate in isolation.

The same fallacy. Innappropriate speed is a consequence of something else.

A crash might needs a wet road
and excessive speed, but one cannot discount the significance of speed
and of course it is right to focus on speed because it is one factor
which is under full control of the driver, whereas many other factors
are not or are inherently unpredictable.

Wrong speed for the conditions isn't /caused/ by speed, it's caused by
poor driving. Tackle the poor driving and the speed will tackle itself.

Also, whatever the cause of a
crash, one of the primary determinants of how serious the consequences
will be is the speed the vehicles were travelling at.

Yes. So eliminate the cause of the crash - don't accept crashes at
lower speeds as the goal.

The ball is in 'the motorists court' as it were.

Partially. Society and "the establishment" has a lot to answer for too.
For about a century drivers have been given de facto right-of-way on
most public roads. They have been given kerbs, lines, and signals too,
to speed them on their way. Pedestrians, and other road users more
vulnerable than motorists, have been warned and taught not to interfere
with the priority given to the car - or to suffer the consequences.

Psychology (and history) dictates that if you are given power you will
probably use it. We give them (motorists) the power to dominate, then
complain when they do.

I would suggest that
if drivers want to effectively be allowed to drive at any speed they
think fit, 'road safety' organisations such as the notorious
'SafeSpeed' actually take positive steps to educate motorists to drive
in a more responsible manner so as to reduce the impact of all these
'other factors' they constantly go on about.

Whether motorists "want to effectively be allowed to drive at any speed
they think fit", or not, is not the issue. The issues are the factors
that go into the driver's cpu, and the process that takes place there to
choose the speed to travel at.

When drivers have proven
themselves responsible, and road deaths and injuries have fallen
correspondingly, perhaps they might be trusted to drive at speeds which
are currently illegal.

Drivers need help to do this. Have you seen the 'Shared Space' ideas
and implementations, mainly those engineered by Hans Monderman in the
Netherlands? He has shown that if an environment, which removes the de
facto power from motorists to rule the roads, is provided, that
motorists respond by regressing from being 'motorists' to being 'human
beings' again. That the social interactions that dictate how we behave
on foot, in plazas, and pedestrian areas (where speed limits, traffic
lights, etc. aren't required to stop us crashing into each other) become
the norm for drivers again too.

Of course, by this point most truly
'responsible' drivers would see current limits and the speeds people
currently habitually drive at as being grossly irresponsible!

It doesn't, and won't work like that. Remember, give them a foot and
they'll take a yard.

Yes, the fall in road deaths in the UK has levelled off but this has a
lot to do with improvements in car design and the introduction of
better rescue and post-crash emergency care, the benefit of which has
now largely levelled off.

But we shouldn't be complacent. We should strive to restore the rate.

I would however agree that the current speed camera regime is flawed.
Most of all the use of 'high visibility' cameras mean that motorists
now feel free to drive at illegal speeds anywhere where they can't see
a big yellow box/ camera van by the side of the road. No wonder they
are proving ineffective at reducing the overall number of road deaths,
even if fatalities do fall at most camera locations, even after taking
into account 'regression to the mean' effects and so on.

That is an interesting take on it, but it relies on the "us and them"
and secret surveillance of "the enemy". Better the Monderman approach
of reducing everyone to the same level, and relying on the natural
goodwill which is displayed by most 'normal' individuals to their peers.
Remove their power and implicit priority, and share the space!

Have you ever walked or cycled around the Seven Dials junction in the
Covent Garden area of London? There seven roads converge to a single
junction. In the middle of the junction is a small 'island' on which is
a monument in the form of a small stone column with steps up to it. It
is unique as a road junction in that it has no road markings or signs.
There pedestrians cross the junction in any direction, directly across
the 'road'. Traffic stops halfway round the monumnet in deference to
pedestrians. You can pose for a phot with trucks and cabs waitng
patiently for you to move. Horns don't get tooted. Cyclist pass either
way around the central feature. People sit on the steps, eating
ice-cream, with their feet on the road itself. It works!!!

The supposed
'ineffectiveness' of the current speed enforcement regime is not an
argument for scrapping cameras altogether but rather an argument for
the blanket use of covert speed enforcement, so average speeds are
reduced across the network as a whole, not just at a few
highly-publicised safety camera sites.

Speed reduction is the clue, but not by the enforcement of arbitrary,
and inflexible 'hard coded' meaningless limits by automated means.
Speed will is reduced to unimaginably low levels at Seven Dials, not by
posting limits (there are no signs there) or by hidden speed cameras,
but by removing the 'special' status given to motorists, and by removing
their psychologically programmed need to exploit that 'special' status
to the full. How? By removing the 'special' status. Let them
negotiate, by eye contact and hand gestures, whether they are to occupy
a particular piece of road space next or whether someone else -
pedestrian , cyclist - or whoever is. Just like we used to before the
roads were dedicated to the motorised users!

As to cameras being 'revenue raisers', what a joke! The Treasury
benefits from camera schemes to the tune of less than £1 for every
driver in the UK, so as a revenue raising scheme it looks like the most
ineffective 'tax' ever! Plus contribution to this tax is entirely
voluntary! Don't want to pay? Don't break the law!

2003-04 revenue was £122m. It is sure to be higher now. Psychology
dictates our actions; you know that, I know that, 'they' know that! ;-)

--
Matt B

wrote in message
ps.com...

Matt B wrote:


You could only find 1 incident in the last 6 months then? And only
about 10 in the last 5 years - that's an average of 2 per year.

BTW, you missed one:

Buzzard continues cyclist attacks...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3828903.stm


I have seen dozens of such reports spindrift hasn't mentioned. A few
notable ones:

http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/d...cycle_lane.php

Wednesday 28th June 2006

Terror in the cycle lane

A pensioner broke his collarbone and suffered severe internal bleeding
after becoming the latest victim of a spate of sick attacks on
cyclists.

Bonar Law, a 68-year-old retired teacher from Watlington, was pushed
off his bike by a passing motorist. Thames Valley Police are linking
the assault on Mr Law, which happened on the B4009 just outside Princes
Risborough last week, to two similar attacks in south Oxfordshire.

Mr Law, a keen cyclist, was travelling home when someone passing very
close in a small white van leaned out of the window and pushed him off.

He said: "I could hear the car but I didn't take much notice of that,
and wham, I just hit the ground and I didn't know what had happened."

He believes it was a deliberate attack because the van had already
driven close to him once before, then pulled into a drive ahead and
waited for him to get ahead before making a second pass.

Mr Law said: "How can it be anything else if somebody leans out of the
car window and pushes you off the road?

"It was not a collision with the car, I was well into the side of the
road. They were driving just sufficiently close in order to push me
off."

Mr Law suffered a broken collarbone which doctors have said they cannot
reset.

He added: "It has made me feel very unsafe. I would like to see these
people brought to justice and, as a person who has suffered this, I
would like the punishment to fit the crime.

"The pain, the trauma, the shock, the inconvenience, the loss of time
and the incapacity as a result of it, and the fact that I am probably
not going to be quite the same again for the remainder of my life. To
them it is like watching Buster Keaton on a silent movie. They do it
for laughs."

Mr Law warned other cyclists to be on their guard and keep an eye out
for the people who assaulted him. He added: "I was out there enjoying
myself, really going for it. You don't think about things like that. I
am not going to let it get me down."

A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said: "It would certainly seem to
be very similar to the recent incidents that we have been investigating
involving somebody in a white van pushing people off cycles.

"We are still investigating and we are very keen to hear from anybody
who saw a white van in the area. We are also appealing to anybody who
may have been subject to similar assaults as we are trying to build up
as much information as possible."


Other side of the coin..... from
http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.u...res/crime.html (today!)

A THUG riding a black and silver mountain bike ran down two teenage girls as
they walked to school at Warrington.
Both the girls, who were walking along Lingley Green Avenue towards Great
Sankey High School, suffered minor injuries in the incident.
Police say it appears the cyclist deliberately ran into the girls.
The man was aged 28-30, about 5ft 9 inches tall and of large build. His left
eyebrow was pierced with a silver bar bell and he wore dark tracksuit
bottoms, a dark waterproof jacket and a dark beanie hat.
Anyone who witnessed the incidents, or who recognises the offender from his
description, is asked to contact PC Rachel Parr on 0845 458 0000.

(

ian henden wrote:

wrote in message
ps.com...

A pensioner broke his collarbone and suffered severe internal bleeding
after becoming the latest victim of a spate of sick attacks on
cyclists.


Other side of the coin..... from
http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.u...res/crime.html (today!)

A THUG riding a black and silver mountain bike ran down two teenage girls as
they walked to school at Warrington.

Ian - this is *not* "the other side of the coin".

They are both attacks by violent individuals against others and are both to be condemned
equally. Such attacks have no place in a civilised society. Regrettably they seem to be
increasing.

This is not helped by the fact that some people seem to wish to promote divisions amongst
different classes of road user.

John B

"John B" wrote in message
...


ian henden wrote:

wrote in message
ps.com...

A pensioner broke his collarbone and suffered severe internal bleeding
after becoming the latest victim of a spate of sick attacks on
cyclists.


Other side of the coin..... from
http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.u...res/crime.html (today!)

A THUG riding a black and silver mountain bike ran down two teenage girls
as
they walked to school at Warrington.

Ian - this is *not* "the other side of the coin".

They are both attacks by violent individuals against others and are both
to be condemned
equally. Such attacks have no place in a civilised society. Regrettably
they seem to be
increasing.

This is not helped by the fact that some people seem to wish to promote
divisions amongst
different classes of road user.

John B

You are, of course, not wrong.

)

Just attempting to counter the "all cyclists are victims" thing that seems
to pervade urc....

ian henden wrote:


Just attempting to counter the "all cyclists are victims" thing that seems
to pervade urc....

Hmmm. I think that there are good grounds for arguing that just about
all cyclists are, one way or another, 'victims' of Britain's car
culture, be this via the provision of inconvenient and dangerous 'cycle
facilities' whose primary purpose is to get cyclists 'out of the way'
of motorists, the indifferent way the law often treats cyclists who are
injured by errant drivers, or as a consequence of being bullied,
intimidated or treated with less than due care and consideration by
drivers who feel that cyclists have no right to use 'their' roads.

In addition, every cyclist who is assaulted, is injured or killed due
to the actions of an errant motorist or who is the 'victim' of a 'hit
and run incident' is certainly worthy of being called a 'victim',
though obviously (and thankfully) not 'every' cyclist is a victim in
this more direct sense.

On the subject of the 'victims' of hit and run offences, here is yet
another...

http://www.northamptontoday.co.uk/Vi...icleID=1960914

08 January 2007
Arrests as cyclist dies

FOUR people remained in custody early today after being arrested in
connection with the death of a man who was knocked down and killed in
an alleged hit-and-run accident in Northampton.

The victim, 59-year-old James Hargreaves, of Tresham Green, Duston,
Northampton, was allegedly hit by a car as he cycled along St James
Road at about 7.20am on Saturday. He died, some 16 hours later, from
his injuries at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

The car believed to have been involved, a green Fiat Punto registration
R832 AGV, was found burnt out in Victoria Park, just off St James Road,
in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Police confirmed yesterday that four people had been arrested on
suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and conspiring to
pervert the course of justice.

Detective Chief Inspector John Jones, of Northamptonshire Police
homicide and major crime division, is leading the investigation into
the accident.

He said: "We are taking this incident extremely seriously. To drive off
after a collision is a most callous act and we are sparing no resources
to try to find the driver of this car."

Several police officers attended the scene of the accident, which took
place opposite St James Church at the junction with Bowden Road. St
James Road was closed to traffic for several hours on Saturday, causing
traffic chaos as lorries which use the route, one of the busiest in
Northampton, were forced to turn back.

One shopkeeper, who was opening his store at the time of the crash,
said: "It was still pitch black at 7am, so it would have been difficult
to see anything cycling or driving along there."

Another man, who asked not to be named, said his brother witnessed the
accident as he was on the way to work. He said: "You could tell it
looked pretty serious.

"People always drive too fast along this road, no matter what time of
day it is. But the car just drove off without stopping, it's horrible."

Police have stressed that this is an ongoing investigation.

They still want to hear from witnesses who saw the crash or any unusual
activity in Victoria Park on Saturday night. They are also appealing
for details about the green Fiat Punto and its driver. Anyone with
information can call 08453 700700.

John B wrote:


This is not helped by the fact that some people seem to wish to promote divisions amongst different classes of road user.


Perhaps you also feel that those who speak out on, say, crimes
motivated by racial hatred or homophobia are simply trying to promote
'divisions' between racists and homophobes and their victims...

I would suggest that until far more people speak out and argue that the
level of death and injury on road is unacceptable, and highlight the
fact that most of this death an injury is due to the selfish actions of
motorists, the root causes of 'the motor slaughter' will remain
unaddressed.

In addition the 'we are all equally responsible' mindset you seem to
support will continue to play straight into the hands of the motor
lobby who have long argued that driving a couple of tons of high-speed
metal brings with it no more responsibility than pushing a pram. It
will also help to bolster their 'blame the victim' culture where more
emphasis is placed on cyclists wearing ineffective polystyrene hats
than the need not to run them down in the first place, more emphasis is
be placed on cyclists dressing from head to foot in fluorescent yellow
than the need for drivers to take proper observations, and drivers go
unpunished when they run down a cyclist because the cyclist had the
audacity to cycle on a 'busy' road.

wrote:
John B wrote:

This is not helped by the fact that some people seem to wish to promote divisions amongst different classes of road user.

Perhaps you also feel that those who speak out on, say, crimes
motivated by racial hatred or homophobia are simply trying to promote
'divisions' between racists and homophobes and their victims...

No. Can you not see it is YOU who are creating the divide. You are the
equivalent of the racist or homophobe in your example. You are, in
effect, /making/ the motorists the victims of hatred - because they
/are/ motorists.

I would suggest that until far more people speak out and argue that the
level of death and injury on road is unacceptable,

That is an accepted fact - who contests that?

and highlight the
fact that most of this death an injury is due to the selfish actions of
motorists,

WADR, that comes across as a bigoted opinion - based on preconceptions,
ignorance and, apparently, hatred. Albeit formed in 'good faith' - for
all the right reasons.

the root causes of 'the motor slaughter' will remain
unaddressed.

It is not being addressed fully because the cause hasn't been fully
understood - probably because no research has been commissioned in this
context.

In addition the 'we are all equally responsible' mindset you seem to
support will continue to play straight into the hands of the motor
lobby who have long argued that driving a couple of tons of high-speed
metal brings with it no more responsibility than pushing a pram.

We cannot chance our biological make-up. We need to address the problem
at source. If we present a motorists with, in effect, an unobstructed
'runway', and teach other road users to keep out of the way, psychology
takes over. The same happens at zebra crossings, bus lanes, or 'mother
and toddler ' parking in supermarkets. If you are granted priority you
damn well defend it at all costs - that /is/ human nature. Like it or not.

It
will also help to bolster their 'blame the victim' culture where more
emphasis is placed on cyclists wearing ineffective polystyrene hats
than the need not to run them down in the first place,
be placed on cyclists dressing from head to foot in fluorescent yellow
than the need for drivers to take proper observations, and drivers go
unpunished when they run down a cyclist because the cyclist had the
audacity to cycle on a 'busy' road.



--
Matt B