Latest quarter: Drop in road deaths, but cyclist casualties rise.

On 09/11/2013 12:20, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 08/11/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

it would not stop the many cyclist casualties and deaths that occur
when
they go too fast down hill or compete in races or ride straight into
trains or into the side of passing vehicles or cycle over red
lights in
the dark, no lights while ****ed, etc.

So? What is your answer to cutting injuries to cyclists?

He answered that in his OP.

"Perhaps cyclists road techniques need improving"

So how would you achieve that?

In an ideal world decent training, a proper assessment before being
allowed on the road, being properly registered and identifiable, and a
license that can be endorsed and suspended. It's the only way to remove
the ingrained culture of irresponsibility and sense of immunity from
consequences.

If you think driving standards are bad now, imagine how they would be if
drivers weren't required by law to have a license, insurance or
roadworthy vehicles. And most importantly, could drive without
registration plates and therefore be unidentifiable. That's how we see
cyclists. Not forcing responsibility onto any section of society only
breeds more irresponsibility. Made worse by the irresponsible and/or
criminal minimising their chances of not getting caught. It's why bank
robbers wear masks. It's not about the damage cars can do compared to
bikes, it's about being held accountable for your actions.

FX: APPLAUSE

On 09/11/2013 12:20, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 08/11/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

it would not stop the many cyclist casualties and deaths that occur
when
they go too fast down hill or compete in races or ride straight into
trains or into the side of passing vehicles or cycle over red
lights in
the dark, no lights while ****ed, etc.

So? What is your answer to cutting injuries to cyclists?

He answered that in his OP.

"Perhaps cyclists road techniques need improving"

So how would you achieve that?

In an ideal world decent training, a proper assessment before being
allowed on the road, being properly registered and identifiable, and a
license that can be endorsed and suspended. It's the only way to remove
the ingrained culture of irresponsibility and sense of immunity from
consequences.

If you think driving standards are bad now, imagine how they would be if
drivers weren't required by law to have a license, insurance or
roadworthy vehicles. And most importantly, could drive without
registration plates and therefore be unidentifiable. That's how we see
cyclists. Not forcing responsibility onto any section of society only
breeds more irresponsibility. Made worse by the irresponsible and/or
criminal minimising their chances of not getting caught. It's why bank
robbers wear masks. It's not about the damage cars can do compared to
bikes, it's about being held accountable for your actions.


Excellent synopsis.

On 09/11/2013 12:20, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 08/11/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

it would not stop the many cyclist casualties and deaths that occur
when
they go too fast down hill or compete in races or ride straight into
trains or into the side of passing vehicles or cycle over red
lights in
the dark, no lights while ****ed, etc.

So? What is your answer to cutting injuries to cyclists?

He answered that in his OP.

"Perhaps cyclists road techniques need improving"

So how would you achieve that?

In an ideal world decent training, a proper assessment before being
allowed on the road, being properly registered and identifiable, and a
license that can be endorsed and suspended. It's the only way to remove
the ingrained culture of irresponsibility and sense of immunity from
consequences.

If you think driving standards are bad now, imagine how they would be if
drivers weren't required by law to have a license, insurance or
roadworthy vehicles. And most importantly, could drive without
registration plates and therefore be unidentifiable. That's how we see
cyclists. Not forcing responsibility onto any section of society only
breeds more irresponsibility. Made worse by the irresponsible and/or
criminal minimising their chances of not getting caught. It's why bank
robbers wear masks. It's not about the damage cars can do compared to
bikes, it's about being held accountable for your actions.



No, what it is actually about is you being ****ed off because cyclists
hold you up for a few minutes on your way to nowhere particular. That's
the truth, but we won't dwell on that one.

Where do you stop with regulation? Do you start requiring pedestrians to
be regulated? After all, a registration plate tied to your arse would do
a lot to increase the chances of a criminal being caught.

Children use bikes. Are you going to start registering the my little
pony trike that a child rides down the pavement on, and are you perhaps
happy to just have her made to ride on the road?

Whether you like it not, a bike - although very useful for serious
journeys - is mainly a leisure machine and is more akin to walking than
driving a car. It isn't the fault of cyclists that roads have developed
in a way that is so hostile to the concept of sharing.

I totally agree that the standards of road skills that some cyclists use
are appalling and I am often left shaking my head in disbelief,
especially in London, but even if I agreed with your draconian measures,
on the one hand I can't see any sign of tighter regulation of cyclists -
though there are welcome signs of some existing laws being enforced -
but I am still left absolutely certain that your tru agenda is not to
improve road safety or to save lives, but to force cyclists off the road.

"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message

If you think driving standards are bad now, imagine how they would be if
drivers weren't required by law to have a license, insurance or roadworthy
vehicles.

Standards don't matter. Danger matters. Yes, if drivers and owners weren't
required to do all this, casualties would rise dramatically.

Now, explain the connection to cycling.

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:05:24 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:21:41 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

3 per cent down for killed overall (despite a half percent rise in
motorised traffic, 5 per cent down for KSI, BUT cyclists up 4 percent on
deaths and 12 percent on KSI.

Perhaps cyclists road techniques need improving ?

http://road.cc/content/news/98492-la...ist-casualties

This report says:
=====Quote=====
Between April and June 2013, 450 people were killed in reported road
accidents, 12 per cent more than in the same period for 2012
=====/Quote=====
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...es-q2-2013.pdf


Here is a little competition:

During the reporting period there we

3 percent drop in all fatalities
5 per cent drop in KSI
6 percent drop in car passenger KSI
1 percent drop in pushbike KSI
7 per cent drop in pedestrian KSI
6 percent in motorcycle KSI
12 percent drop in child casualties
11 percent drop in child KSI



Which mode of transport is showing the least improvement of all transport
modes.

(There will be no prize this week - as I suspect that many people knew the
answer before the competition was even produced)

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:53:28 -0000, "TMS320" wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote

How would you feel about a guaranteed 6 percent reduction in cycling
casualties, it would be good wouldn't it? Answer : ban road racing.

Road racing is banned except by special arrangement with relevant
authorities. If racing casualties are included in official road casualty
figures then they ought to be discounted.

But I know that you think certain events are "road racing" when they aren't
racing under the official definition. Instead of constantly muttering about
it, you should provide a better definition.



Here we go again: the cyclists invented time trials in order to overcome the
ban on cycle racing on the roads.

Time trials are races in all but name - even organisers refer to them as
"races" - because that is what they are.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:20:52 -0000, "TMS320" wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 08/11/2013 10:53, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

How would you feel about a guaranteed 6 percent reduction in cycling
casualties, it would be good wouldn't it? Answer : ban road racing.

Road racing is banned except by special arrangement with relevant
authorities. If racing casualties are included in official road casualty
figures then they ought to be discounted.

But I know that you think certain events are "road racing" when they
aren't
racing under the official definition. Instead of constantly muttering
about
it, you should provide a better definition.

A race is any event where there is any element of timing or coming first.

That's a definition of sorts but not a workable one. OK, you would need
someone to turn it into legalese but you still have to provide the bones to
make the distinction clear. Ban timing? No good when large numbers of
utility and leisure cyclists are carrying loggers.



ffs - can you really not differentiate between what is a race and what isn't?

Have a search for the text: " time trial" means a race or trial of speed
between bicycles or tricycles

and then please report back.

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:21:47 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:05:24 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:21:41 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

3 per cent down for killed overall (despite a half percent rise in
motorised traffic, 5 per cent down for KSI, BUT cyclists up 4 percent on
deaths and 12 percent on KSI.

Perhaps cyclists road techniques need improving ?

http://road.cc/content/news/98492-la...ist-casualties

This report says:
=====Quote=====
Between April and June 2013, 450 people were killed in reported road
accidents, 12 per cent more than in the same period for 2012
=====/Quote=====
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...es-q2-2013.pdf


Here is a little competition:

During the reporting period there we

3 percent drop in all fatalities
5 per cent drop in KSI
6 percent drop in car passenger KSI
1 percent drop in pushbike KSI
7 per cent drop in pedestrian KSI
6 percent in motorcycle KSI
12 percent drop in child casualties
11 percent drop in child KSI



Which mode of transport is showing the least improvement of all transport
modes.

The motor vehicle - it is still the main killer of car passengers,
pushbike riders, pedestrians and children.

(There will be no prize this week - as I suspect that many people knew the
answer before the competition was even produced)

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:33:22 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:21:47 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:05:24 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:21:41 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

3 per cent down for killed overall (despite a half percent rise in
motorised traffic, 5 per cent down for KSI, BUT cyclists up 4 percent on
deaths and 12 percent on KSI.

Perhaps cyclists road techniques need improving ?

http://road.cc/content/news/98492-la...ist-casualties

This report says:
=====Quote=====
Between April and June 2013, 450 people were killed in reported road
accidents, 12 per cent more than in the same period for 2012
=====/Quote=====
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...es-q2-2013.pdf


Here is a little competition:

During the reporting period there we

3 percent drop in all fatalities
5 per cent drop in KSI
6 percent drop in car passenger KSI
1 percent drop in pushbike KSI
7 per cent drop in pedestrian KSI
6 percent in motorcycle KSI
12 percent drop in child casualties
11 percent drop in child KSI



Which mode of transport is showing the least improvement of all transport
modes.

The motor vehicle - it is still the main killer of car passengers,
pushbike riders, pedestrians and children.


You may attempt to show that the motor vehicle is showing the least improvement
of all transport if you have some figures to back up your claim.

Please try harder: you may have another go.

Here is a clue: one of the modes of transport has only shown a 1% KSI
improvement . Which is it?

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:44:31 +0000, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 07/11/2013 23:21, Mrcheerful wrote:
3 per cent down for killed overall (despite a half percent rise in
motorised traffic, 5 per cent down for KSI, BUT cyclists up 4 percent on
deaths and 12 percent on KSI.

Perhaps cyclists road techniques need improving ?

http://road.cc/content/news/98492-la...ist-casualties


What would you do to reduce cycling casualties?


make cyclists to have to pass a test before they were allowed on the roads.