Yet another cyclist violently assaulted by motorist/s.

Matt B wrote:
(sorry I accidentally sent this post before addressing the last point -
so here it is)
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 change 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,

The emphasis is wrong - but don't blame motorists - they have been given
the current system - so naturally use it. Blame the system WE have
given them. Change the system (remove motorists' de facto priority in
most situations) and the human psyche will take over - and deliver safer
roads.

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.

This will rankle with you, but I believe that they are unwitting
'victims' too. They are put into a situation - given the 'rights',
privileges, and powers, and taught how to use them, and taught from
childhood to respect those powers given to motorists at risk of death.
I won't draw comparisons with powers given to soldiers in wars etc. but
it is well known in psychology that powers will be used - even if it
means hurting others. That /is/ human nature. We cannot 'blame' those
you obey the laws of nature. We need to chance the environment so that
we allow nature to act as we want it too - fairly and considerately - as
we see where road rules are eliminated and all users become equal.

--
Matt B

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...


Of course not.
Those who point out crimes as above or (back OT) the unacceptable death and injury rates caused by the motor culture are to be
applauded.
However, that is a *very* different matter than promoting divisions that lead to aggression and increased dangers for all. I
suggest you look on uk.tosspot for many examples of the "run that red-light jumper off the road" attitude.

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.

Of course, but that does not have to include promoting behaviour that includes deliberate attacks other road users as in the
examples highlighted.

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.

There is a responsibility to be civil and give other road users equal respect.
If all road users respected each other equally the roads would be far safer for all.
You seem to be arguing otherwise, which will only lead to greater conflict and increased antagonism between motorists and
cyclists.

John B

Matt B wrote:


... 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.


Garbage! I am a motorist as is almost every cyclist I know. I have
nothing against careful, considerate drivers, my target is those who
quite wilfully put the safety of cyclists at risk, the hit and run
drivers, the habitual speeders, the mobile phone users, those who drive
whilst under the influence of drink and/ or drugs, the uninsured and so
on. Sure, this does begin to sound like I am attacking most motorists
but I do see some careful, law-abiding and considerate motorists about
and am quite ready to acknowledge this.

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.

Again, you are talking nonsense. There is extensive research showing
that motor vehicle users are responsible for most road deaths and
injuries. For example, Mills P. in 'Pedal Cycle Accidents: a hospital
study. Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989)
found that cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle
collisions. One such report which is of particular note as it was
produced by a motoring organisation (The AA Foundation for Road Safety)
and so is unlikely to overstate the degree of driver culpability found
that a cyclist was at fault in only 27% of cases. (Carsten et al
'Urban Accidents: Why do they happen' 1989). I also note that the
TRRL report 'Blood alcohol levels in fatalities in Great Britain,
1978-86' found that the average blood alcohol content of those
involved in fatal crashes were 69 mg/100 ml for pedestrians, 51 for
motor vehicle drivers, 46 for motorcycle riders and just 15 mg/100ml
for pedal cyclists.

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.


Again, you display your ignorance. There has been ample research into
just this topic and the causes are well understood, if often played
down for political reasons and due to countervailing pressure from the
motor lobby. For an unbiased, academic overview of some of the evidence
may I recommend that you start off by reading 'Car Crime' by Claire
Corbett. 'Death on the streets: cars and the mythology of road safety'
by Robert Davis is also recommended. There is also a mountain of
relevant research material on th DfT site and elsewhere.

John B wrote:

There is a responsibility to be civil and give other road users equal respect.
If all road users respected each other equally the roads would be far safer for all.

Agreed.

You seem to be arguing otherwise, which will only lead to greater conflict and increased antagonism between motorists and cyclists.


Not at all. But I think that it is perfectly right that the degree of
responsibility one carries be directly related to the degree of risk
one poses to others. Hence, it is only right that the users of motor
vehicles should be expected to carry more responsibility (not ALL
responsibility!).

wrote:
Matt B wrote:

... 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.

Garbage! I am a motorist as is almost every cyclist I know. I have
nothing against careful, considerate drivers, my target is those who
quite wilfully put the safety of cyclists at risk, the hit and run
drivers, the habitual speeders, the mobile phone users, those who drive
whilst under the influence of drink and/ or drugs, the uninsured and so
on.

They are exactly the ones that are 'obeying' the rules of biology. They
are put into a safe secure environment, given priority and right of way
over most other user types, and taght to keep away from the the road and
cars as pedestrians. They are guided along between kerbs, told when to
stop by signals and signs, and given 'safe' speed limits to achieve.
Then we wonder why they don't think for themselves, or respect other
users? The same happens in other walks of life, and has been the
subject of many psychology experiments. It is a /fact/ of human nature.


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.

Again, you are talking nonsense. There is extensive research showing
that motor vehicle users are responsible for most road deaths and
injuries.

Because of the powers they are given, and because of the system we
operate - maybe.

For example, Mills P. in 'Pedal Cycle Accidents: a hospital
study. Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989)
found that cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle
collisions. One such report which is of particular note as it was
produced by a motoring organisation (The AA Foundation for Road Safety)
and so is unlikely to overstate the degree of driver culpability found
that a cyclist was at fault in only 27% of cases. (Carsten et al
'Urban Accidents: Why do they happen' 1989). I also note that the
TRRL report 'Blood alcohol levels in fatalities in Great Britain,
1978-86' found that the average blood alcohol content of those
involved in fatal crashes were 69 mg/100 ml for pedestrians, 51 for
motor vehicle drivers, 46 for motorcycle riders and just 15 mg/100ml
for pedal cyclists.

None of which addressed the issues that I highlighted. They all confirm
that if you give, or at least give them the impression and understanding
that they have, the power, then they will use it - even if it has
negative consequences for others. Why don't pedestrians stop half-way
across zebra crossings and suggest to stopped cars that they proceed
first? Because human nature cuts-in. The pedestrians have been given
priority - some would die (and some have) rather than give-way to a car
in those circumstances. The safe base instincts apply to humans that
are given the power that comes with sitting at the wheel of a car. They
will, on the whole follow road markings, signals etc., but they will not
surrender their de facto priority and right-of-way over all-comers.

We see the exact opposite at Seven Dials in London, where there are no
lines, signs, or signals. Cars, lorries, taxis stop half-way round the
roundabout to wait for cyclists or pedestrians taking the shortest route
across the junction, or taking photos, or talking. Why is that? The
same motorist would toot his horn or make obscene gestures, or even be
aggressive with his vehicle if you walked in front of him at another
roundabout. It proves the link between granted power and the use of power.

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.

Again, you display your ignorance.

I beg to differ! ;-)

There has been ample research into
just this topic and the causes are well understood,

Yes, but it isn't applied to the road traffic environment. It is
applied to soldiers, police, prison officers etc.

if often played
down for political reasons and due to countervailing pressure from the
motor lobby.

No, that is the research which starts with the premise 'motorists are
bad', and then attempts to reinforce that stance.

For an unbiased, academic overview of some of the evidence
may I recommend that you start off by reading 'Car Crime' by Claire
Corbett. 'Death on the streets: cars and the mythology of road safety'
by Robert Davis is also recommended. There is also a mountain of
relevant research material on th DfT site and elsewhere.

Can you cite something that attempts to explain the success of the
'shared space' (Hans Monderman) schemes, or compares them with the
conventional wisdom?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:


Can you cite something that attempts to explain the success of the
'shared space' (Hans Monderman) schemes, or compares them with the
conventional wisdom?


Look Matt, I will over-ride my instinctual feeling that you are
trolling and focus on the above point because I feel it is pretty
central.

As you have implied the main problem is that it is 'human nature' for
those placed in a position of power to abuse that power and to use it
to subjugate the less powerful. We first need to recognise that
currently motorists are in an immensely powerful position. For example
the law applies the principle that not only are motorists only
minimally responsible for their actions, most often they should not be
held to be at all responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Similarly, ongoing pressure from the motor lobby now means that speed
enforcement is all but limited to a few 'high visibility' safety camera
sites whose position is widely publicised so that motorists can easily
evade them.

Such a situation has come about largely because the early motorists
were drawn from the 'social elite', and as such both expected to be
able to act as they more or less pleased and were able to use their
considerable social power to 'protect their interests' as motorists, in
particular ensuring that no one would hold them properly to account
should one of 'the lower orders' 'get in the way' and be killed as they
sped along. Unfortunately, the 'get out of the way' attitudes fostered
in the early days of motoring persisted as more and more people gained
access to cars and are still with us.

'Environmental' changes are important but if the carnage on our roads
is to be reduced it is imperative that motorists are also held more
properly accountable for their actions, and the law itself is part of
the environment in which the driver operates. For example, the roads
environment could be made intrinsically safer by the use of
Intelligent Speed Adaptation systems so motorists are compelled to
drive at a less lethal speed in built up areas. However, unless drivers
know that they will be held to be properly responsible if the run
someone down, a simple reduction in speed will not encourage motorists
to drive with greater consideration. Changing the environment can only
go so far. Similarly, whilst some reactionaries might once have argued
that the way to reduce the incidence of rape was to stop women from
dressing 'provocatively', I think few would today deny that the best
way to reduce the level of such crime is to ensure that those who
commit it stand a good chance of being convicted and when they are
convicted of receiving a substantial sentence.

Thing is both 'environmental' changes such as speed control and
'traffic calming' and more 'social' changes such as holding drivers to
be properly accountable for their actions amounts to tilting the
balance of power so that it lies less in favour of the motorist.
Similarly 'shared space' schemes appear to work because the diminish
the power of the motorist and create a more equitable roads
environment. (That said, they have proven their worth the most in
countries which are already receptive to concepts such as equity and
social responsibility, such as Holland, and it is unclear that they
would work so effectively in a more hierarchical, inequitable country
such as the UK where motorists feel that it is 'the natural order of
things' that they should have priority over others).

The core problem is that, as any group in a position of power,
motorists are generally resistant to ANY changes which erode their
power base, be these 'environmental' ones such as speed control/
enforcement or the creation of 'woonerfs' or more 'social' ones such as
changes in the law regarding driving crime, and as you point out, as
long as motorists continue to maintain their power base, they will also
continue to abuse it.

Matt B wrote:

There has been ample research into
just this topic and the causes are well understood,

Yes, but it isn't applied to the road traffic environment. It is
applied to soldiers, police, prison officers etc.


You clearly haven't read any of the vast literature relating to driver
psychology, highway engineering, 'road safety', driving crime and so
on.


... the research which starts with the premise 'motorists are
bad', and then attempts to reinforce that stance.


You CLEARLY haven't read ANY of the vast literature relating to driver
psychology, highway engineering, 'road safety', driving crime and so
on.

As I said look up Corbett's and Davis's books, then start wading though
some of the research material, as I have done over the last 7 years or
so.

John B wrote:

Those who point out crimes as above or (back OT) the unacceptable death and injury rates caused by the motor culture are to be
applauded.
However, that is a *very* different matter than promoting divisions that lead to aggression and increased dangers for all. I
suggest you look on uk.tosspot for many examples of the "run that red-light jumper off the road" attitude.

Sorry, but I am not clear about what you are trying to say here. Are
you saying that highlighting the level of aggression directed at
cyclists by drivers in the UK (and such behaviour is something I have
not come across since I moved to live in France) somehow makes that
behaviour more likely? That sounds a bit like saying the more cyclists
complain about the level of 'hit and runs' in the UK (around 17% and
rising in the UK as opposed to under 3% in France), the more such
offences will occur.

Yes, I am fully aware of the sort of attitudes displayed on motoring
forums, that is the culture I rail against. Are you perhaps suggesting
that in order not to antagonise those who are already antagonistic
towards cyclists, cyclists should take Jeremy Clarkson's advice and
both literally and metaphorically 'shut up when cut up'? If so, look to
history, such 'Uncle Tom' like behaviour didn't do much to improve the
lot of coloured people in the US, change only came about when people
stood together and became more radical.


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.

Of course, but that does not have to include promoting behaviour that includes deliberate attacks other road users as in the
examples highlighted.


Again, I am a little confused here. In what way is highlighting
incidents where cyclists are attacked by motorists 'promoting' it?
Condemning it more like.

wrote:
Matt B wrote:

Can you cite something that attempts to explain the success of the
'shared space' (Hans Monderman) schemes, or compares them with the
conventional wisdom?

Look Matt, I will over-ride my instinctual feeling that you are
trolling and focus on the above point because I feel it is pretty
central.

No trolling. I can categorically assure you that your instinct is
wrong. I admire and respect your decision to discuss the point, which I
too believe is central.

As you have implied the main problem is that it is 'human nature' for
those placed in a position of power to abuse that power and to use it
to subjugate the less powerful.

Not even necessarily 'abuse' it, but merely use it fully as it has been
granted.

We first need to recognise that
currently motorists are in an immensely powerful position.

I agree.

For example
the law applies the principle that not only are motorists only
minimally responsible for their actions, most often they should not be
held to be at all responsible for the consequences of their actions.

No, I disagree with that. The law has historically (rightly IMHO)
distinguished between the intention, and the consequences, of an action.

Similarly, ongoing pressure from the motor lobby now means that speed
enforcement is all but limited to a few 'high visibility' safety camera
sites whose position is widely publicised so that motorists can easily
evade them.

Speed limit enforcement is controversial everywhere, and its impact on
road casualties is by no means clear-cut. There are more ways to reduce
traffic speeds than by applying arbitrary speed limits. It would surely
be better to tackle the 'disease' rather than the 'symptoms'.

Such a situation

(I'll assume that by that you mean the situation of motorists having the
power)

has come about largely because the early motorists
were drawn from the 'social elite', and as such both expected to be
able to act as they more or less pleased and were able to use their
considerable social power to 'protect their interests' as motorists, in
particular ensuring that no one would hold them properly to account
should one of 'the lower orders' 'get in the way' and be killed as they
sped along.

Slightly disingenuous, perhaps, but certainly it was felt that motor
vehicles should be allowed to progress, unhindered by other road users.

Unfortunately, the 'get out of the way' attitudes fostered
in the early days of motoring persisted as more and more people gained
access to cars and are still with us.

Yes, reinforced by the laws and customs created in the meantime to give
them free passage.

'Environmental' changes are important but if the carnage on our roads
is to be reduced it is imperative that motorists are also held more
properly accountable for their actions,

That is again tackling the symptom. If we get it right there will be no
more need to hold motorists to account for their actions than there is
to hold anyone else to account for theirs. We should be all treated
equally. If someone gets injured as the result of someone else's
actions then the action needs to be fully investigated, whether it
involved a motor vehicle, a chainsaw, a dog or a bicycle. No
'preferential' treatment should be expected or given.

and the law itself is part of
the environment in which the driver operates.

Yes, and motoring is quite unique in the quantity of unnecessary
legislation created in an attempt to control it and at the same time
liberalise it.

For example, the roads
environment could be made intrinsically safer by the use of
Intelligent Speed Adaptation systems so motorists are compelled to
drive at a less lethal speed in built up areas.

Or by making it unlikely that they could or would even contemplate
driving at lethal speeds in such situations. I've never seen or heard
of anyone driving at a lethal speed around Seven Dials when it has been
encircled with pedestrians and cyclists. If they don't have the de
facto priority given to them they won't do it. Simple. There is no
point giving them the power then attempting to police haow they use it.
Just don't give it to them.

However, unless drivers
know that they will be held to be properly responsible if the run
someone down, a simple reduction in speed will not encourage motorists
to drive with greater consideration.

Is that why you don't knock over old people and children willy-nilly in
pedestrian plazas - because you know that the law will punish you
heavily? No. You don't (I assume ;-)) because it is not socially
acceptable and, anyway, you're a decent considerate sort of chap! Now
if you were a riot policemen, and you were attending a pensioners
demonstration, and they were pushing back your lines, you might allow
yourself to whack a few of them with your baton, or push a few over.
You have the power, the excuse and the authority. Take away one of
those and you will act differently.

Changing the environment can only
go so far.

Again, think pedestrian plazas. What controls the behaviour of the
crowds during Christmas shopping peaks? Laws? Regulations?
Punishments? Enforcement? How many times do you hold a door open for
someone, or accept an open door from someone else - with thanks? Do you
think motorists are made of different stuff - or could someof it
possibly be down to the position they are given.

Similarly, whilst some reactionaries might once have argued
that the way to reduce the incidence of rape was to stop women from
dressing 'provocatively', I think few would today deny that the best
way to reduce the level of such crime is to ensure that those who
commit it stand a good chance of being convicted and when they are
convicted of receiving a substantial sentence.

Is it the chance of detection or the threat of a severe sentence that
deters you from raping every candidate you come across in your daily
life? First you need to have the inclination and lack of inhibition to
commit rape before any deterrent comes into effect - surely.

Thing is both 'environmental' changes such as speed control and
'traffic calming' and more 'social' changes such as holding drivers to
be properly accountable for their actions amounts to tilting the
balance of power so that it lies less in favour of the motorist.

Or, simpler still, remove the power. You never told us if you've ever
been to Seven Dials, or any of the Monderman type schemes in the
Netherlands and elsewhere. There the road rules have gone and normal
human and social interactions, as found in pedestrian plazas and
elsewhere prevail. Traffic speed is dramatically reduced (without any
artificial enforcement of arbitrary limits), crashes and injuries are
practically eliminated, and most surprising of all is that congestion is
eliminated too.

Similarly 'shared space' schemes appear to work because the diminish
the power of the motorist and create a more equitable roads
environment.

Yes, what's wrong with that???

(That said, they have proven their worth the most in
countries which are already receptive to concepts such as equity and
social responsibility, such as Holland, and it is unclear that they
would work so effectively in a more hierarchical, inequitable country
such as the UK where motorists feel that it is 'the natural order of
things' that they should have priority over others).

Seven Dials is in London (UK) - and it seems to work. Britain is one of
the most socially responsible nations on the planet!

The core problem is that, as any group in a position of power,
motorists are generally resistant to ANY changes which erode their
power base,

Where and how did they resist the Seven Dials scheme? Do they rebel
against it? Do they ignore it? No, it is a given, and so is accepted
'as is'.

be these 'environmental' ones such as speed control/
enforcement

That is a ridiculous concept though, tackling the symptom rather than
the cause.

or the creation of 'woonerfs'

These are widespread in the UK as 'homezones', and welcomed practically
everywhere they are created.

or more 'social' ones such as
changes in the law regarding driving crime,

Crime is crime. We don't need special crimes created to target
motorists when we already have shed-loads of generic crimes.

and as you point out, as
long as motorists continue to maintain their power base, they will also
continue to abuse it.

So remove it - simple.

If, as a motorist (or as a cyclist or pedestrian), you had to negotiate
by eye-contact, with every pedestrian, every cyclist, every motorist,
and every other road user, who goes first into the piece of road that
you plan to use next, do you think that you would be driving at much
more than walking pace in a bust street environment? It is nothing but
the priorities given to motorised traffic that causes all the problems.

--
Matt B

wrote:

Yes, I am fully aware of the sort of attitudes displayed on motoring
forums, that is the culture I rail against. Are you perhaps suggesting
that in order not to antagonise those who are already antagonistic
towards cyclists, cyclists should take Jeremy Clarkson's advice and
both literally and metaphorically 'shut up when cut up'? If so, look to
history, such 'Uncle Tom' like behaviour didn't do much to improve the
lot of coloured people in the US, change only came about when people
stood together and became more radical.

Excellent analogy. Top Gear is to road safety what the KKK is to racial
harmony....