Yet another cyclist violently assaulted by motorist/s.

wrote:
Matt B wrote:

Are you suggesting I'm a 'speedophile'? Have you ever read any of my posts?


Sorry Matt, I misread 'speedophobe' as speedophile.

Easy mistake to make ;-) It could have been worse - you could have
misread it as speediatrician!

I can only plead
that reading the rest of your what you have posted temporarily turned
my brain to mush...

So you are still not convinced that we can get /much/ safer urban roads
by concentrating on de-regulation and relying upon human nature, rather
than getting into the vicious circle of creating ever more regulations
and then needing to enforce them all and creating a divide in the road
using population?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:


So you are still not convinced that we can get /much/ safer urban roads
by concentrating on de-regulation and relying upon human nature, rather
than getting into the vicious circle of creating ever more regulations
and then needing to enforce them all and creating a divide in the road
using population?


Matt, I realise that your 'libertarian' mindset prevents you from
thinking in a rational way, and that there is no point wasting time
'discussing' matters with you. Consequently the following is intended
more for anyone who is at all swayed by Matt's 'arguments'. However, I
have a feeling that no one else is by now taking any notice of what he
says either. (Or come to that what I say!).

What you suggest might work across a tiny segment of our roads network
(though I am doubtful given the 'get out of my way' mindset of many UK
drivers) , but there are a number of obvious flaws in your 'thinking'.

Firstly, if we rely on 'human nature' to regulate human affairs, the
only law that will prevail is the 'law of the jungle'. For the most
part laws exist to protect the weak from the strong, and scrapping laws
does not lead to a net increase in 'freedom', rather it brings about a
shift in power towards the already powerful. This is why
'libertarianism' is most often no more than right-wing politics
pretending to be something else, something which is also highlighted by
the 'libertarian's' belief that no matter how many laws should be
scrapped, the laws of property should be sacrosanct.

Yes, Blair and the NLP have brought in some laws which are oppressive
and prospectively 'totalitarian' (such as the Legislative and
Regulatory Reform Bill, a virtual duplicate of Hitler's 1933 Enabling
Act), but most laws are much more akin to a set of rules which no
reasonable human being with any sense of social responsibility could
object to, including traffic laws.

You talk of 'de-regulation and relying upon human nature', well, I feel
most would see the idiocy of what you say if you were to make an
exactly equivalent claim and, for example, to try to argue that an
effective way of dealing with theft would be to abolish the laws on
theft and to leave it to 'human nature' to sort things out, or to
address the problem of rape in a similar fashion. Perhaps you believe
that we still need 'totalitarian' laws to deal with such cases, in
which case might I suggest that you faith in 'human nature' is proven
to be rather misplaced.

I see that you refer only to urban roads and suspect that you already
realise that the 'law of the jungle' will continue to exist on 'fast'
rural roads no matter what is done in built-up areas, with the users of
high-speed motor vehicles, feeling 'empowered' and of a higher status
in their expensive metal boxes than cyclists and pedestrians continuing
to expect others to 'get out of their way'. As such other methods which
will be effective in ALL situations, such as the use of ISA systems and
holding drivers to be properly accountable for their actions, must be
primary, not least because the kill-rate of cyclists on rural roads
(where your 'negotiation' simply is not going to happen) is almost 3
times that found on urban roads.

In reality the same applies to most urban situations as well as it is
impossible to turn every through-fare into a 10 Mph zone where drivers
are going slowly enough to 'interact' with other road users on 'equal'
terms. (Not that such terms can EVER be truly equal when one road user
is sitting in a highly crash-worthy steel box and it is always going to
be the vulnerable road user who is going to be killed or injured). Not
least this is because the powerful motor lobby simply wouldn't allow
this to happen, (the law of the jungle operating again), as is
witnessed by the constant moaning from drivers about being expected to
drive at under 30 Mph (meaning in reality under 35 Mph) and the calls
for urban ring roads and through routes to carry 40 Mph and higher
speed limits. (In fact if we left it to 'human nature' many motorists
would happily drive at even higher speeds, irrespective of the
intimidation and danger this would create for others).

You also seem to have overlooked the fact that in countries where
drivers are held to be more accountable for their actions, for example
by allowing injured cyclists and pedestrians to make a civil claim for
compensation without having to prove the fault of the driver (something
which has no bearing on the criminal responsibility of otherwise of the
driver involved by the way), the result is not greater 'division' but
drivers taking more care not to run cyclists and pedestrians down. So
yes we do need to look to 'human nature', but only in that we need to
recognise that human beings are rational, if rather selfish animals and
that when faced with a choice, be it 'should I steal that item from
work' or 'should I try to bully past that cyclist at that pinch-point',
engage in an often unconscious risk-benefit analysis.

To give an example, the benefit of bullying past a cyclist is often
high (no delay experienced, reduced fear of upsetting a driver behind
for going 'too slowly', a preservation of the drivers self-image as a
high-status road user and so on), and currently the perceived 'costs'
are low, with drivers knowing that even if the cyclist is seriously
injured that can expect only a small fine or perhaps have to attend a
short 'driver awareness course', and that they may well be able to
evade a ban by, for example, claiming that they 'need' their car for
work or to take a relative shopping. And this is if the police/CPS
even bother proceeding with a prosecution, which in the vast majority
of cases they don't. (A local inspector admitted to me that it was an
unofficial 'official' policy of his force NOT to prosecute drivers who
injured cyclists unless the cyclist had being killed or effectively put
into a wheelchair).

Ample psychological research shows us that such a 'cost/benefit'
analysis is a universal aspect of the 'human nature' you feel we should
pay such regard to, and as such we can make our roads safer by greater
regulation and law enforcement, thereby weighting the 'costs' of
irresponsible driving more highly.

wrote:
Matt, I realise that your 'libertarian' mindset prevents you from
thinking in a rational way...

I will ignore the /Ad hominem/ and try to address the issues you raise.

What you suggest might work across a tiny segment of our roads network
(though I am doubtful given the 'get out of my way' mindset of many UK
drivers),

Across most town/village centre type environments, where the streets are
shared by all users, and are the focus of social activity, and should be
available to all-comers, I think.

but there are a number of obvious flaws in your 'thinking'.

Firstly, if we rely on 'human nature' to regulate human affairs, the
only law that will prevail is the 'law of the jungle'.

You have a poor opinion of your fellow man. Describe how that manifests
itself in the largely unregulated world of the pedestrian. Take *any*
pedestrian-only area in the UK. You will find no speed limits, no
'parking' restrictions on public benches, no give-way signs, no traffic
lights, no keep-lefts, no centre lines, no speed humps. Does anarchy
prevail? Are the weakest trodden underfoot by the strongest? Quite the
opposite I think you'll find. Old ladies are respected, even if they
are tottering along with a dog and a shopping trolley. Doors will be
held open, way will be given. The occasional yob may shove past whilst
dashing along dropping litter etc., but on the whole civility dominates
the proceedings. If someone drops their shopping there will be no
shortage of helpers chasing apples.

For the most
part laws exist to protect the weak from the strong,

Some do. Some don't. Some laws are a mere committing to paper of
actions which it goes without saying are bad: murder, burglary, assault,
etc. Some laws are the result of a political reaction to a well
publicised outrage: hand gun ownership, 'dangerous' dog ownership, etc.
These are laws which penalise the huge majority of reasonable and safe
gun or dog owners as an attempt to satisfy a mob reaction. The law may
result in a more dangerous society than previously existed - guns and
'dangerous' dogs will still be owned by criminals who, surprisingly,
disregard the law. Some laws are well intended, but misguided. Some
laws result in the opposite effect to that which was desired. Some laws
are based on what seemed logical at the time, but was never tested or
proven by sound research (we are all too well aware of the helmet debate).

and scrapping laws
does not lead to a net increase in 'freedom',

It depends upon which law it was. Allowing those who used to
participate in hand gun sports to do so again would.

rather it brings about a
shift in power towards the already powerful.

Decriminalising the selling of, say, cannabis, would /remove/ very much
power from those who the current law gives huge power to.

This is why
'libertarianism' is most often no more than right-wing politics
pretending to be something else,

A sweeping statement with no evidence to support it. There may well be
such a thing as 'radical libertarianism', or something, but my brand is
very moderate. I don't like 'laws for the sake of laws' whether they do
any good or not, and definitely not when they do more harm than good.
And I will not disregard apparently beneficial scrapping of rules
elsewhere simply because I think rule breakers need punishing.

something which is also highlighted by
the 'libertarian's' belief that no matter how many laws should be
scrapped, the laws of property should be sacrosanct.

Would you welcome a law which specified that in all circumstances men
should give-way to women when entering a shop door - with a £60 fixed
penalty for any transgression? Would you argue that without that law it
will never happen?

Yes, Blair and the NLP have brought in some laws which are oppressive
and prospectively 'totalitarian' (such as the Legislative and
Regulatory Reform Bill, a virtual duplicate of Hitler's 1933 Enabling
Act),

If you say so ;-)

but most laws are much more akin to a set of rules which no
reasonable human being with any sense of social responsibility could
object to,

I don't know whether it is "most" or not, but some certainly are.

including traffic laws.

Equally some traffic laws fall into that category, yes. It is the
others though, which I think we should question.

You talk of 'de-regulation and relying upon human nature', well, I feel
most would see the idiocy of what you say if you were to make an
exactly equivalent claim and, for example, to try to argue that an
effective way of dealing with theft would be to abolish the laws on
theft and to leave it to 'human nature' to sort things out,

The inevitable outcome of that logic is that a law specifying priority
at shop doors would need to be created. I would suggest that most
people agree that theft is bad. I don't think though that the majority
would agree that 20 mph is always good and that 21 mph is always bad
outside a school. I think that most would agree that 20 mph is
sometimes bad too.

or to
address the problem of rape in a similar fashion.

Another example with no similarity at all to the types of regulations we
are discussing. Rape is one of those activities which it almost goes
without saying - is wrong. The only reason we need a law in this case
is to legitimise the punishment of those who commit this abhorrence, not
to point out that it is wrong. Again, who would accept that parking 1
foot over a yellow line is an equivalent crime?

Perhaps you believe
that we still need 'totalitarian' laws to deal with such cases, in
which case might I suggest that you faith in 'human nature' is proven
to be rather misplaced.

No, the laws aren't required to highlight the wrongness, but to allow
the punishment, and to deter those who disrespect humanity. The test of
a good law is whether the prohibited act is by all tests implicitly and
always wrong.

I see that you refer only to urban roads

Yes, the measures I was discussing are those which I believe are the
most appropriate way of moderating the impact of motorised traffic in
the shared spaces of our towns and villages.

and suspect that you already
realise that the 'law of the jungle' will continue to exist on 'fast'
rural roads no matter what is done in built-up areas,

"Horses for courses". The problem with inter-urban roads is different.
Traffic needs to exist. Motor vehicles need to be allowed to be used
efficiently. The best solution here is to provide dedicated roads
(motorways) for motor traffic and banish as much of the motorised
traffic as possible to them. The normal public roads would then be
released for the leisure driver and cyclists, equestrians, pedestrians
etc, and could be furnished appropriately. Similar to the way railways
were incorporated in their day.

with the users of
high-speed motor vehicles, feeling 'empowered' and of a higher status
in their expensive metal boxes than cyclists and pedestrians continuing
to expect others to 'get out of their way'.

Yes, it's a sad fact of the way our roads have developed. Part of the
problem is the resistance to the provision of adequate roads to keep the
nuisances out of the way of everyday local road users, and the mistake
of not insisting that all new relief roads, by-passes, trunk roads etc.
are built as motorways, leaving the more direct 'old' roads for the sole
use of the less impatient users.

As such other methods which
will be effective in ALL situations, such as the use of ISA systems and
holding drivers to be properly accountable for their actions, must be
primary, not least because the kill-rate of cyclists on rural roads
(where your 'negotiation' simply is not going to happen) is almost 3
times that found on urban roads.

If and when we provide the alternatives that motorised traffic needs,
and if we still suffer casualties from anti-social motor use, then will
be the time to worry about that.

In reality the same applies to most urban situations as well as it is
impossible to turn every through-fare into a 10 Mph zone where drivers
are going slowly enough to 'interact' with other road users on 'equal'
terms.

Why? Never mind the 10 mph bit. Slower speeds than that are normal in
such schemes. Other European towns are doing it what is different here?
Obviously there will be the need for some motorway type through-routes
in our larger towns and cities, but have you seen what the Victorians
achieved in London with the tube system when trains were in vogue?

(Not that such terms can EVER be truly equal when one road user
is sitting in a highly crash-worthy steel box and it is always going to
be the vulnerable road user who is going to be killed or injured).

Drachten, a Dutch town of about 45,000 inhabitants has had a dramatic
reduction in serious road casualties since they converted their town,
several years ago. To date they have removed all but 2 of the original
18 traffic-light controlled junctions. They have also removed over half
of the original road signs. Bohmte (pop. 13,500) in Germany, a small
town which suffers from 2 fast main roads passing through its centre is
about to remove its kerbs and tarmac, and pave its streets to one level
in stone. Their aim to remove the division between cars and
pedestrians. Indeed the article, describing those two towns, in the
German Spiegel newspaper[1] claimed that European planning authorities
imagine a future where streets do not have _any_ rules and regulations!
They suggest that drivers and pedestrians will react in a civilised
fashion when the rules have been removed, and that eye contact will be
the new enforcer. There will be no prohibitions, restrictions or
warnings signs. How plain can it be - other authorities in other
countries want to actually improve the lot of their populations, not set
one lot against another.

Not
least this is because the powerful motor lobby simply wouldn't allow
this to happen, (the law of the jungle operating again), as is
witnessed by the constant moaning from drivers about being expected to
drive at under 30 Mph (meaning in reality under 35 Mph) and the calls
for urban ring roads and through routes to carry 40 Mph and higher
speed limits. (In fact if we left it to 'human nature' many motorists
would happily drive at even higher speeds, irrespective of the
intimidation and danger this would create for others).

They should not be given the choice. They are more likely to accept
de-regulation than more rules and more enforcement. And they will then
reap the benefits.

You also seem to have overlooked the fact that in countries where
drivers are held to be more accountable for their actions, for example
by allowing injured cyclists and pedestrians to make a civil claim for
compensation without having to prove the fault of the driver (something
which has no bearing on the criminal responsibility of otherwise of the
driver involved by the way), the result is not greater 'division' but
drivers taking more care not to run cyclists and pedestrians down.

I haven't. We haven't been discussing that.

So
yes we do need to look to 'human nature', but only in that we need to
recognise that human beings are rational, if rather selfish animals and
that when faced with a choice, be it 'should I steal that item from
work' or 'should I try to bully past that cyclist at that pinch-point',
engage in an often unconscious risk-benefit analysis.

Which is why the European model has so much going for it - as opposed to
the regulate-enforce-punish model. One works, the other doesn't. The
former capitalises on the 'risk homeostasis' phenomenon.

To give an example, the benefit of bullying past a cyclist is often
high (no delay experienced, reduced fear of upsetting a driver behind
for going 'too slowly', a preservation of the drivers self-image as a
high-status road user and so on), and currently the perceived 'costs'
are low, with drivers knowing that even if the cyclist is seriously
injured that can expect only a small fine or perhaps have to attend a
short 'driver awareness course', and that they may well be able to
evade a ban by, for example, claiming that they 'need' their car for
work or to take a relative shopping.

Now if you change the values... If you know that the driver behind will
expect you to be courteous to the cyclist (as would a pedestrian behind
you if you, as a pedestrian, were held-up by a disabled pedestrian), if
you know that no-one expects you to be pushy, even if you /are/ driving
a BMW (you wouldn't expect an Armani wearer to push over an old lady any
more than a George wearer), and if the costs were disgrace for bullying
another more vulnerable road user (as if as a pedestrian you kicked the
stick away from a slow pensioner) then the whole equation changes. That
/is/ how the new model works - it changes the values.

And this is if the police/CPS
even bother proceeding with a prosecution, which in the vast majority
of cases they don't.

They need sufficient evidence. They can't get it. They know most
juries would reject a call to convict someone for a momentary lapse. A
tragic consequence doesn't always require a malicious or deliberate
intent. The Dutch have studied this too. They contrast "intentional
violations" and "unintentional errors".

(A local inspector admitted to me that it was an
unofficial 'official' policy of his force NOT to prosecute drivers who
injured cyclists unless the cyclist had being killed or effectively put
into a wheelchair).

Because they know that the chances of assembling sufficient proof of
intent are slim.

Ample psychological research shows us that such a 'cost/benefit'
analysis is a universal aspect of the 'human nature' you feel we should
pay such regard to, and as such we can make our roads safer by greater
regulation and law enforcement, thereby weighting the 'costs' of
irresponsible driving more highly.

I've shown how 'shared space' principles can chance the magnitude of the
values on each side of the equation. The research still holds.

I hope you can see some merit in some of the above. I'm not a nutter,
and I'm not a troll. I have a passion for casualty reduction policies
that work. I am not interested in policies driven by preconceptions, or
in policies driven by hatred, envy, or revenge for that matter :-(. I
believe that there is some serious merit in releasing the human being
from the motorist. Some humans /are/ bad, yes, but that attribute is
not the one that turns a human into a motorist.

Read (again) some of the many reports on the web of the works of Hans
Monderman. Take a look at the shared space website -
www.shared-space.org. Don't dismiss it as worthless - at least until
you have read it ;-)

Did I gather that you are based in France? Which part? There are some
very innovative schemes there which date back more than 10 years.

[1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/...448747,00.html

--
Matt B

wrote:

To give an example, the benefit of bullying past a cyclist is often
high (no delay experienced, reduced fear of upsetting a driver behind
for going 'too slowly', a preservation of the drivers self-image as a
high-status road user and so on), and currently the perceived 'costs'
are low, with drivers knowing that even if the cyclist is seriously
injured that can expect only a small fine or perhaps have to attend a
short 'driver awareness course',

I don't think it's as calculating as that.

Most drivers just don't see anything wrong with bullying their way
past cyclists - and probably don't even see it as bullying. They
overtake the cyclist without hitting him, what's the problem - surely
it's only dangerous if you have an accident?

Unfortunately, this is a perception problem that is exacerbated by the
propensity of some cyclists to ride in the gutter, leaving an inviting
looking wide space past them, and the propensity of many councils to
install totally inappropriate cycling facilities, typically cycle
lanes that are too narrow, or other routes to get cyclists off the
road - and so drivers start to cyclists as a nuisance to be got past
as quickly as possible.

The vast majority of the time, it's thoughtless, but not malicious.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D wrote:

Most drivers just don't see anything wrong with bullying their way
past cyclists - and probably don't even see it as bullying. They
overtake the cyclist without hitting him, what's the problem - surely
it's only dangerous if you have an accident?


I do agree that many drivers think that 'a miss is as good as mile',
but there is ample research showing that most drivers are fully aware
of the risks that their actions pose to others and feel that doing so
is 'wrong', even if they do not act on this knowledge in practice. For
example TRL report 549 'Drivers' perceptions of cyclists' found that
when asked about whether or not they would try to overtake a cyclist at
a pinch point the great majority said 'No, that would be dangerous' and
so on, so drivers are fully aware that such behaviour is dangerous. In
comparison on-road DfT research shows that the great majority of
drivers actually will try to overtake a cyclist at a pinch point! See
'Cyclists at road narowings' which notes that 'It should normally be
anticipated that at least 70% of drivers will attempt to overtake a
cyclist within or close to a 3.5m narrowing.'

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ds_504706.hcsp

I am not saying that (most) drivers intend to cause harm or act
'maliciously' (although some certainly do). Rather, they know what they
are doing is wrong, but the cost/benefit analysis is heavily weighted
in favour of trying to bully past that cyclist rather than waiting
until it is safe to pass. (And as you say, they also feel that they are
unlikely to actually hit the cyclist, especially if there is a couple
of inches to spare, and this is another very important factor which
enters the cost-benefit analysis).

One of the most common reasons given for not waiting is that this might
trigger a 'road rage' incident on the part of a following driver, so it
also seems that most drivers know how many psycho drivers there are
around! Plus, of course, there is the strong pressure to follow the
social norm of behaviour, and unfortunately, cutting up cyclists at
pinch points or overtaking them at high speed with only a few inches to
spare has become the social norm.