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

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:18 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:55:51 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:12:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

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.

You will not find me disagreeing that that would help - but would it
help as much as lowering speed limits as I suggested above, and
rigorously enforcing them?

And enforcing speed limits may bring money into the treasury, whereas
providing Bikeability to Level 3 to all school pupils by the age of 13
would cost quite a lot of money.

Why should people over 16 not have to take a cycle test which they pay for -
and pay for any training they need. That would bring money in to the treasury
if that is the object of your exercise.

Because I cannot se any earthly reason for banning cycling to school.

Why not just charge every cyclist who cycles on the pavement, £100 - and the
same for jumping through the red light.

Nothing to do with enforcing the law you understand - just a way of filling the
chancellor's coffers.

On 11/11/2013 10:27, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:18 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:55:51 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:12:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

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.

You will not find me disagreeing that that would help - but would it
help as much as lowering speed limits as I suggested above, and
rigorously enforcing them?

And enforcing speed limits may bring money into the treasury, whereas
providing Bikeability to Level 3 to all school pupils by the age of 13
would cost quite a lot of money.

Why should people over 16 not have to take a cycle test which they pay for -
and pay for any training they need. That would bring money in to the treasury
if that is the object of your exercise.

Because I cannot se any earthly reason for banning cycling to school.

Neither can I.

And I cannot see any earthly reason for banning driving to school,
whether the driving is done by parents, teachers and other school staff
or pupils - *provided* that all the necessary legal requirements have
been fulfilled.

What's the difference?

Why not just charge every cyclist who cycles on the pavement, £100 - and the
same for jumping through the red light.
Nothing to do with enforcing the law you understand - just a way of filling the
chancellor's coffers.

Why not charge then £200 a year for use of the carriageway as well?

"Judith" wrote in message
...

Anthony Bournes has given probation officers, the police and CPS a real
headache in his obsession, and it is surprising someone has not
sectioned him yet under the mental health act. Perhaps one day this
mental case will be locked up for his own safety with his stunted
"precious" to keep him company.

"Judith" wrote in message
...

Anthony Bournes has given probation officers, the police and CPS a real
headache in his obsession, and it is surprising someone has not
sectioned him yet under the mental health act. Perhaps one day this
mental case will be locked up for his own safety with his stunted
"precious" to keep him company.

"Judith" wrote in message
...

Anthony Bournes has given probation officers, the police and CPS a real
headache in his obsession, and it is surprising someone has not
sectioned him yet under the mental health act. Perhaps one day this
mental case will be locked up for his own safety with his stunted
"precious" to keep him company.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:53:44 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 11/11/2013 10:27, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:18 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:55:51 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:12:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

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.

You will not find me disagreeing that that would help - but would it
help as much as lowering speed limits as I suggested above, and
rigorously enforcing them?

And enforcing speed limits may bring money into the treasury, whereas
providing Bikeability to Level 3 to all school pupils by the age of 13
would cost quite a lot of money.

Why should people over 16 not have to take a cycle test which they pay for -
and pay for any training they need. That would bring money in to the treasury
if that is the object of your exercise.

Because I cannot se any earthly reason for banning cycling to school.

Neither can I.

And I cannot see any earthly reason for banning driving to school,
whether the driving is done by parents, teachers and other school staff
or pupils - *provided* that all the necessary legal requirements have
been fulfilled.

What's the difference?

Why not just charge every cyclist who cycles on the pavement, £100 - and the
same for jumping through the red light.
Nothing to do with enforcing the law you understand - just a way of filling the
chancellor's coffers.

Why not charge then £200 a year for use of the carriageway as well?

Write to your MP with the suggestion.

On 11/11/2013 17:19, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:53:44 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 11/11/2013 10:27, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:18 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:55:51 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:12:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

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.

You will not find me disagreeing that that would help - but would it
help as much as lowering speed limits as I suggested above, and
rigorously enforcing them?

And enforcing speed limits may bring money into the treasury, whereas
providing Bikeability to Level 3 to all school pupils by the age of 13
would cost quite a lot of money.

Why should people over 16 not have to take a cycle test which they pay for -
and pay for any training they need. That would bring money in to the treasury
if that is the object of your exercise.

Because I cannot se any earthly reason for banning cycling to school.

Neither can I.

And I cannot see any earthly reason for banning driving to school,
whether the driving is done by parents, teachers and other school staff
or pupils - *provided* that all the necessary legal requirements have
been fulfilled.

What's the difference?

Why not just charge every cyclist who cycles on the pavement, £100 - and the
same for jumping through the red light.
Nothing to do with enforcing the law you understand - just a way of filling the
chancellor's coffers.

Why not charge then £200 a year for use of the carriageway as well?

Write to your MP with the suggestion.

I might. I'll be able to say that a well-known cycling instructor and
"activist" couldn't think of a bad word to say for the idea.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:27:36 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:18 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:55:51 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:12:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

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.

You will not find me disagreeing that that would help - but would it
help as much as lowering speed limits as I suggested above, and
rigorously enforcing them?

And enforcing speed limits may bring money into the treasury, whereas
providing Bikeability to Level 3 to all school pupils by the age of 13
would cost quite a lot of money.

Why should people over 16 not have to take a cycle test which they pay for -
and pay for any training they need. That would bring money in to the treasury
if that is the object of your exercise.

Because I cannot se any earthly reason for banning cycling to school.


You are a fool.

Just where did I propose banning cycling to school?

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:42:48 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:27:36 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:18 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:55:51 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:12:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

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.

You will not find me disagreeing that that would help - but would it
help as much as lowering speed limits as I suggested above, and
rigorously enforcing them?

And enforcing speed limits may bring money into the treasury, whereas
providing Bikeability to Level 3 to all school pupils by the age of 13
would cost quite a lot of money.

Why should people over 16 not have to take a cycle test which they pay for -
and pay for any training they need. That would bring money in to the treasury
if that is the object of your exercise.

Because I cannot se any earthly reason for banning cycling to school.


You are a fool.

Just where did I propose banning cycling to school?

How to you propose that children cycle to school if they are banned
from the road until they have training, but the education system
doesn't provide them with the training.

On 12/11/2013 00:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:42:48 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:27:36 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:04:18 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:55:51 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:12:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

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.

You will not find me disagreeing that that would help - but would it
help as much as lowering speed limits as I suggested above, and
rigorously enforcing them?

And enforcing speed limits may bring money into the treasury, whereas
providing Bikeability to Level 3 to all school pupils by the age of 13
would cost quite a lot of money.

Why should people over 16 not have to take a cycle test which they pay for -
and pay for any training they need. That would bring money in to the treasury
if that is the object of your exercise.

Because I cannot se any earthly reason for banning cycling to school.


You are a fool.

Just where did I propose banning cycling to school?

How to you propose that children cycle to school if they are banned
from the road until they have training, but the education system
doesn't provide them with the training.

The education system doesn't provide anyone with driving lessons either,
but they seem to learn just the same.

Is it too much to expect citizens to pay for their own family's cycling
training?