Yet another cyclist violently assaulted by motorist/s.

wrote:
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.

Did you not understand any of it - or was it like I said?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
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

"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."

You've clearly never negotiated this roundabout by bike. This junction
is a nightmare, cars and vans edge out and block the roundabout so that
you have to slam your brakes on in the middle of the roundabout. There
is anarchy at this roundabout, no driver takes a blind bit of notice of
cyclists here and accidents are common, including the florist's van
that sideswiped me.

Matt B wrote:

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.


Disagree with what? The legal situation is as I state it, and it seems
you agree with it. Whilst this is the case with motoring law it is not
universally applied. For example, stab someone without the intention
of killing them, and they non-the less die, you will face a
manslaughter charge, not a wounding charge. In any case, the
consequences of an act are not the only factor, the degree of
culpability is vital too, and in most road crashes, drivers are to
culpable to a high degree.


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'.


Pray tell, which motoring lobby group do you subscribe to? The ABD?

... 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.


Not 'disingenuous' at all. A matter of historical record. To Quote Ruth
Brandon (another cyclist-hater by the way) from her book 'Automobile'

'...motorists behavior invited excess [punishment]. And no one seemed
able or willing to curb it. For the section of society from which
motorists were drawn was the very section accustomed to do the curbing.
They were the ones who made the rules and set the standards of
behaviour. Any attempt to regulate them was seen as an insult, and they
used all their considerable muscle to defeat such socialist notions.'

Plenty of the original sources I have on file paint exactly the same
picture.


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.


Good God, you are not another 'libertarian' crank are you. If so that
would explain a lot.


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!

That might be so in my case, but plenty of people out there are NOT
'decent considerate' chaps, and I have no doubt that in many cases the
known laxity of the law, for example in relation to 'hit and run'
offences, is a major reason why the occurance of such offences is so
high.


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.


The main difference is that a motorist sits in a tin and glass box, in
their own space and psychologically separated from the external world.
Plus cars can have a very powerful 'empowering' effect, in fact this is
the message most often used by advertisers. Being in a car has a
powerful effect on its user, something which is well documented. Marsh
and Collett in 'Driving Passion; the psychology of the car (1986) write
that the car:

'conjures up images of speed, excitement and vitality. At the same time
it also communicates a sense of cosy seclusion- a womb-like refuge. Its
potential deadliness gives it an air of aggression whilst its power and
shape endow it with a sense of sexual potency...

'It is precisely because the car can communicate such a variety of
messages that it has captured our imagination. As if this were not
enough, we have provided the automobile with the potential for
communicating a second set of symbolic messages. These are to do with
the style and class, status, elegance and personal taste of the
individual. This combination of both types of symbols makes the car the
most psychologically expressive object that has so far been devised.'

In short, once in a car people tend to become 'motorists', or as more
recent research suggests, simply themselves:

'... the on-road environment is conducive to impatience and aggression,
and the fact of being in a car makes many people less concerned about
the social and physical consequences of displaying this type of
behaviour. This combination of environment and security means that many
people are prone to act in a more 'primal' way than they otherwise
would. Indeed, it does seem possible that people have a latent capacity
to be disrespectful, but are persuaded to be respectful by fear of the
consequences and social inhibition. By removing this danger and
inhibition, the driving situation allows them to fulfil their 'natural'
urge to be disrespectful.'

From

Respect on the road: Qualitative research to explore public attitudes
towards, and participation in anti-social behaviour on the roads.
Published: 12 June 2006.


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


Which planet is that? It's certainly not planet Earth where I live.
After the Thatcher/Blairite program of social engineering I feel it can
now be truly said that in the UK 'there is no such thing as society'.

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'.


I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the local authority was deluged
with objections from motorists. The ABD encourages it's members to
object to any sort of traffic calming on principle, calling the
'traffic jamming' schemes and so on. When I worked in a local authority
highways team the objections to any sort of traffic calming, or
pedestrianised or similar scheme were voluminous. We even used to get
response from drivers to consultations saying things like 'Put in any
more traffic calming schemes and I will come down there, find who is
responsible and punch their face from one end of the road to the other,
then back again,' To recall one memorable response.


or the creation of 'woonerfs'

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

By residents yes. By drivers generally no. Just look at 'Safespeed's
views on homezones and 20 Mph zones...


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


Your 'libertarian' agenda is showing again. What would be the
appropriate charge for driving whilst uninsured or driving under the
influence of alcohol, theft? Also just consider the difficulties in
proving many 'generic' offences, even motoring ones such as 'dangerous
driving', to the required degree...


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.


At last something we can agree on.

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.


And the way to ensure that motorists DO drive in such a manner is to
change the law so that any driver who hits a pedestrian or cyclist is
always held to be at least party responsible, as is the case in
Continental Europe. (And perhaps the introduction of automated speed
enforcement).

spindrift wrote:
Matt B wrote:

"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."

You've clearly never negotiated this roundabout by bike.
This junction
is a nightmare, cars and vans edge out

Ah, "edge out".

and block the roundabout so that
you have to slam your brakes on in the middle of the roundabout.

Not if you use it with the same respect as the motorists and "edge out"
yourself.

There
is anarchy at this roundabout,

That is the idea.

no driver takes a blind bit of notice of
cyclists

Respect is mutual. If a yob pushes past you as a pedestrian would you
not treat him with contempt. I have seen taxis and lorries waiting
whilst a tourist photographed his partner posing in the middle of the
road in front of the monument on the roundabout. No aggression was
displayed. I've observed cyclists crossing that junction - most do it
cautiously, some go around the roundabout the 'wrong' way, I've never
seen a problem. I've seen a disrespectful cyclist zooming across with
no regard for other users - zig-zagging between stationary taxis and
chatting pedestrians - but he was tolerated as a typical high-spirited
asbo candidate.

here and accidents are common,

Can you cite sources? Are they more common and more (or less) serious
than at a similar junction with conventional traffic management?

including the florist's van
that sideswiped me.

Did you report it? Was it your or their 'fault'? Have you ever been
involved in a similar, or worse, incident elsewhere?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Matt B wrote:

"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."

You've clearly never negotiated this roundabout by bike.
This junction
is a nightmare, cars and vans edge out

Ah, "edge out".

and block the roundabout so that
you have to slam your brakes on in the middle of the roundabout.

Not if you use it with the same respect as the motorists and "edge out"
yourself.

There
is anarchy at this roundabout,

That is the idea.

no driver takes a blind bit of notice of
cyclists

Respect is mutual. If a yob pushes past you as a pedestrian would you
not treat him with contempt. I have seen taxis and lorries waiting
whilst a tourist photographed his partner posing in the middle of the
road in front of the monument on the roundabout. No aggression was
displayed. I've observed cyclists crossing that junction - most do it
cautiously, some go around the roundabout the 'wrong' way, I've never
seen a problem. I've seen a disrespectful cyclist zooming across with
no regard for other users - zig-zagging between stationary taxis and
chatting pedestrians - but he was tolerated as a typical high-spirited
asbo candidate.

here and accidents are common,

Can you cite sources? Are they more common and more (or less) serious
than at a similar junction with conventional traffic management?

including the florist's van
that sideswiped me.

Did you report it? Was it your or their 'fault'? Have you ever been
involved in a similar, or worse, incident elsewhere?

--
Matt B


You've never cycled this roundabout, have you?

I obey the rules of the road, the vehicles ignore them and place me in
danger.

Meet up one day this week on a bike and I'll show you.

Maybe when you see it for yourself you'll understand how dangerous it
is.

wrote:
Matt B wrote:

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.

Disagree with what?

Your statement: "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"

There is no 'law' that excepts motorists from the normal 'common law' of
the land that applies equally to all citizens. We are all responsible
for our actions - no exceptions.

The legal situation is as I state it, and it seems
you agree with it.

What led you to believe that? The legal situation is NOT as you stated
it. All common law applies to motorists. And, as if that wasn't
enough, there is a whole raft of law which /only/ applies to motorists
on top of that.

Whilst this is the case with motoring law it is not
universally applied. For example, stab someone without the intention
of killing them,

Ah, stab them accidentally - or with the intention of seriously hurting
them?

and they non-the less die, you will face a
manslaughter charge, not a wounding charge.

If police are satisfied with the evidence - maybe.

In any case, the
consequences of an act are not the only factor, the degree of
culpability is vital too,

Exactly. As I said, historically the 'inention' was also important, not
/just/ the consequences. Now see how that would differ if, instead of
deliberately stabbing someone, you deliberately ran someone over with a
car. It would probably be treated as attempted murder.

and in most road crashes, drivers are to
culpable to a high degree.

There was not malicious intention though (usually) - that is the key
difference - the intent as I said before - not just the consequences.
If you hurt someone accidentally in a kitchen when a knife flew out of
your hand you would see a different approach taken by the police.

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'.

Pray tell, which motoring lobby group do you subscribe to? The ABD?

?

... 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.

Not 'disingenuous' at all. A matter of historical record. To Quote Ruth
Brandon (another cyclist-hater by the way) from her book 'Automobile'

'...motorists behavior invited excess [punishment]. And no one seemed
able or willing to curb it. For the section of society from which
motorists were drawn was the very section accustomed to do the curbing.
They were the ones who made the rules and set the standards of
behaviour. Any attempt to regulate them was seen as an insult, and they
used all their considerable muscle to defeat such socialist notions.'

Just one author's view. How is that significant?

I could quote from a social history book by Setright: "Why had
Victorian Britain been so hostile to the motor car? Why did legislation
so deliberately handicap the use of horseless carriages on roads? Was
it, as has been suggested, because Britain was a nation of horse-lovers
who could not bear to see the 'noble' animal supplanted?"

Plenty of the original sources I have on file paint exactly the same
picture.

Same here.

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.

Good God, you are not another 'libertarian' crank are you.

Crank, no.

If so that
would explain a lot.

Elaborate.

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!

That might be so in my case, but plenty of people out there are NOT
'decent considerate' chaps,

You're not the sort of crank who wants traffic lights and speed limits
in pedestrian plazas are you?

and I have no doubt that in many cases the
known laxity of the law, for example in relation to 'hit and run'
offences, is a major reason why the occurance of such offences is so
high.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. The original offence (the
'hit') will be treated the same if the culprit is caught, as it would
have been if he hadn't 'run'. The 'run' is no different to other
'runs'. Is burglary treated differently if the culprit doesn't stay at
the scene to be apprehended? The difference is that for motorists a new
offence has actually been created (which is not present for other
activities) which compels the 'criminal' to report their own crime. Is
it a surprise to you that some chose not too? Would you support a law
change which compelled anyone (not just motorists) to assist an injured
person if they were aware of them? We could repeal the law requiring
motorists alone to stay at injury or crime scenes, and expect anyone
(and everyone) to.

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.

The main difference is that a motorist sits in a tin and glass box, in
their own space and psychologically separated from the external world.

Yes!

Plus cars can have a very powerful 'empowering' effect, in fact this is
the message most often used by advertisers.

Yes, but we've seen that 'power' is only used where authority is given
(by signs, lines, signals etc.). Motorists don't assume power where
they haven't been given it on a plate (c.f. Monderman schemes).

Being in a car has a
powerful effect on its user, something which is well documented. Marsh
and Collett in 'Driving Passion; the psychology of the car (1986) write
that the car:

'conjures up images of speed, excitement and vitality. At the same time
it also communicates a sense of cosy seclusion- a womb-like refuge. Its
potential deadliness gives it an air of aggression whilst its power and
shape endow it with a sense of sexual potency...

'It is precisely because the car can communicate such a variety of
messages that it has captured our imagination. As if this were not
enough, we have provided the automobile with the potential for
communicating a second set of symbolic messages. These are to do with
the style and class, status, elegance and personal taste of the
individual. This combination of both types of symbols makes the car the
most psychologically expressive object that has so far been devised.'

Yes, like I said, if they are granted the power, they will use it. When
did you last see a motorist exercising unreasonable and ungranted
'power' in, say, a church car park on a Sunday morning whilst
worshippers are leaving the church.

In short, once in a car people tend to become 'motorists',

Yes, but they only become dangerous if, and when, they think they have
been given 'permission'.

or as more
recent research suggests, simply themselves:

'... the on-road environment is conducive to impatience and aggression,
and the fact of being in a car makes many people less concerned about
the social and physical consequences of displaying this type of
behaviour. This combination of environment and security means that many
people are prone to act in a more 'primal' way than they otherwise
would. Indeed, it does seem possible that people have a latent capacity
to be disrespectful, but are persuaded to be respectful by fear of the
consequences and social inhibition. By removing this danger and
inhibition, the driving situation allows them to fulfil their 'natural'
urge to be disrespectful.'

Yes, but not if the priority and right-of-way is denied.

From

Respect on the road: Qualitative research to explore public attitudes
towards, and participation in anti-social behaviour on the roads.
Published: 12 June 2006.

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


Which planet is that? It's certainly not planet Earth where I live.
After the Thatcher/Blairite program of social engineering I feel it can
now be truly said that in the UK 'there is no such thing as society'.

Your view?

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'.

I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the local authority was deluged
with objections from motorists. The ABD encourages it's members to
object to any sort of traffic calming on principle, calling the
'traffic jamming' schemes and so on.

That's probably to the current fashionable 'traffic jamming' schemes
which have no obvious benefit, other than providing excuses to introduce
congestion charging.

When I worked in a local authority
highways team the objections to any sort of traffic calming, or
pedestrianised or similar scheme were voluminous.

Good. Bad ideas should be subject to scrutiny. But the objections
were, of course, ignored.

We even used to get
response from drivers to consultations saying things like 'Put in any
more traffic calming schemes and I will come down there, find who is
responsible and punch their face from one end of the road to the other,
then back again,' To recall one memorable response.

There will always be people like that objecting to any scheme.

But, given the level of road casualties in this country don't you wish
that better consideration had been given to creating effective schemes
which actually worked - as the Moderman schemes where motorists are not
demonised appear to?

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

By residents yes. By drivers generally no.

And the resident drivers?

Just look at 'Safespeed's
views on homezones and 20 Mph zones...

Life is too short - what do they say about them?

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

Your 'libertarian' agenda is showing again. What would be the
appropriate charge for driving whilst uninsured

The same one used for chain-sawing whilst uninsured.

or driving under the
influence of alcohol,

The same one used for chain-sawing under the influence of alcohol.

theft?

Theft.

Also just consider the difficulties in
proving many 'generic' offences, even motoring ones such as 'dangerous
driving', to the required degree...

Define 'dangerous chain-sawing'. The offence would be to do with level
of care - and apply to all activities equally. I no more want to be hit
by a falling tree than by an out-of-control car.

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.

At last something we can agree on.

This is the crux. The problem is /how/.

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.

And the way to ensure that motorists DO drive in such a manner is to
change the law so that any driver who hits a pedestrian or cyclist is
always held to be at least party responsible, as is the case in
Continental Europe.

No. It is to remove their priority so they don't do it - as has
happened in many places in Europe, and in at least one place in the UK.

(And perhaps the introduction of automated speed
enforcement).

Ha ha. And lose all the advantage of returning the responsibility to
the drivers.

--
Matt B

spindrift wrote:
Matt B wrote:
spindrift wrote:

You've never cycled this roundabout, have you?

I obey the rules of the road, the vehicles ignore them and place me in
danger.

The only useful rule there is that there are no rules. That is why it
is such an elegant solution.

What 'rules' are you obeying, and which are the motorists ignoring?

Meet up one day this week on a bike and I'll show you.

Maybe when you see it for yourself you'll understand how dangerous it
is.

I've seen it - but never seen the dangers you describe. Can you cite
any news reports?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Matt B wrote:

"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."

You've clearly never negotiated this roundabout by bike.
This junction
is a nightmare, cars and vans edge out

Ah, "edge out".

and block the roundabout so that
you have to slam your brakes on in the middle of the roundabout.

Not if you use it with the same respect as the motorists and "edge out"
yourself.

There
is anarchy at this roundabout,

That is the idea.

no driver takes a blind bit of notice of
cyclists

Respect is mutual. If a yob pushes past you as a pedestrian would you
not treat him with contempt. I have seen taxis and lorries waiting
whilst a tourist photographed his partner posing in the middle of the
road in front of the monument on the roundabout. No aggression was
displayed. I've observed cyclists crossing that junction - most do it
cautiously, some go around the roundabout the 'wrong' way, I've never
seen a problem. I've seen a disrespectful cyclist zooming across with
no regard for other users - zig-zagging between stationary taxis and
chatting pedestrians - but he was tolerated as a typical high-spirited
asbo candidate.

here and accidents are common,

Can you cite sources? Are they more common and more (or less) serious
than at a similar junction with conventional traffic management?

including the florist's van
that sideswiped me.

Did you report it? Was it your or their 'fault'? Have you ever been
involved in a similar, or worse, incident elsewhere?

--
Matt B


Nice equation of cyclists with yobs there.

You plainly don't cycle and you have no idea what cycling is like at
this roundabout.

You are told that a van pulls out in front of a cyclist who has right
of way and you ask if the cyclist is at fault.

You are a gibbering idiot, a trenchant buffoon and an irredeemable
dickcheese.

spindrift wrote:


You've never cycled this roundabout, have you?
I obey the rules of the road, the vehicles ignore them and place me in danger.
Meet up one day this week on a bike and I'll show you.
Maybe when you see it for yourself you'll understand how dangerous it
is.

You won't convince him spin. It is interesting, however, to how
similar the 'thought process' and obsessive behaviour of those with a
'libertarian' outlook tend to be, be they Paul you know who, our friend
Matt B or, to take a classic example, libertarian nut 'par excellence'
Sean Gabb. It's all rather scary really, a bit like doing a web search
and discovering all those right-wing BNP supporters who live a few
streets away and the dawning realisation that looking at the world
though sane eyes does not reveal the insanity which lurks beyond.

To be honest MattB's 'shared space' obsession rather sounds as though
it is just another in the long line of attempts made by motorists to
absolve drivers of responsibility for their actions. (The propagation
of the myth of 'dangerous roads' for example, actually meaning roads on
which it is more than averagely dangerous to drive dangerously). In
tune with this Matt's assertion that 'We cannot 'blame' those who obey
the laws of nature'. What was it that quote from 'The African Queen',
Oh yes:

Bogart: A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human
nature.

Katharine Hepburn: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world
to rise above.

Despite Matt's view that most drivers are at heart 'decent considerate
sort of chaps' in reality far too many people couldn't give a flying
what-not about the well-being of those who 'get in their way' when they
are driving. As Richard Freeman of the AA, said in The Guardian of 27
June 2003 regarding the lack of interest in pedestrian safety features
on the part of motorists when buying a car

"Occupant safety is something they can sell to the consumer. But the
attitude too often is that 'if somebody's stupid enough to walk in
front of my car, I don't give a monkey's what happens to them'."

wrote:
spindrift wrote:


You've never cycled this roundabout, have you?
I obey the rules of the road, the vehicles ignore them and place me in danger.
Meet up one day this week on a bike and I'll show you.
Maybe when you see it for yourself you'll understand how dangerous it
is.

You won't convince him spin. It is interesting, however, to how
similar the 'thought process' and obsessive behaviour of those with a
'libertarian' outlook tend to be, be they Paul you know who, our friend
Matt B or, to take a classic example, libertarian nut 'par excellence'
Sean Gabb. It's all rather scary really, a bit like doing a web search
and discovering all those right-wing BNP supporters who live a few
streets away and the dawning realisation that looking at the world
though sane eyes does not reveal the insanity which lurks beyond.

To be honest MattB's 'shared space' obsession rather sounds as though
it is just another in the long line of attempts made by motorists to
absolve drivers of responsibility for their actions. (The propagation
of the myth of 'dangerous roads' for example, actually meaning roads on
which it is more than averagely dangerous to drive dangerously). In
tune with this Matt's assertion that 'We cannot 'blame' those who obey
the laws of nature'. What was it that quote from 'The African Queen',
Oh yes:

Bogart: A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human
nature.

Katharine Hepburn: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world
to rise above.

Despite Matt's view that most drivers are at heart 'decent considerate
sort of chaps' in reality far too many people couldn't give a flying
what-not about the well-being of those who 'get in their way' when they
are driving. As Richard Freeman of the AA, said in The Guardian of 27
June 2003 regarding the lack of interest in pedestrian safety features
on the part of motorists when buying a car

"Occupant safety is something they can sell to the consumer. But the
attitude too often is that 'if somebody's stupid enough to walk in
front of my car, I don't give a monkey's what happens to them'."

Hi Howard

Hope things are good in France.

We've met MattB in various forms before, I fully expect his latest
humiliation to deter him not one jot from his defence of killer drivers
and speedophiles.

This is the man, remember, who DEFENDED Smith's perversion of justice
posts that gained exposure on Cycling Plus recently.

Why a speedophile clogs up cycling forums when he plainly doesn't use a
bike is beyond me, although i would heartily recommend he puts the
famous London drivers' tolerance to the test on the Seven Dials
Roundabout he keeps wanking over. Give us all a break if nothing else.