"Japan cracks down on 'killer' cyclists." D. Telegraph, 7.4.2004

Japan cracks down on 'killer' cyclists
By Colin Joyce in Tokyo
(Filed: 07/04/2004)


Japanese police announced a campaign against cyclists yesterday after more
than 2,000 pedestrians were injured and six killed in collisions with
bicycles last year.

In Japan cyclists are allowed to ride on pavements, but public patience has
worn thin.

Last year, police made only one arrest for a cycling offence, but they gave
notice yesterday that their approach is hardening. Cycling while using a
mobile phone or holding an umbrella will be liable to fines of up to £250 or
up to three months in jail.

Cyclists who cause fatal accidents may be prosecuted for manslaughter and
those carrying a passenger on a bicycle will be fined up to £100.

Motorists remain the cause of most traffic accidents in Japan and cyclists
say they would be at great risk if they were forced to use roads.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$IVGSE5NWUA1BJQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2004/04/07/wcycle07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/07/ixworld
..html

Scott Leckey wrote:

Japan cracks down on 'killer' cyclists

Bit of fun, reply below:

Sir,

"Japan cracks down on 'killer' cyclists" (7/4/2004)

Those Japanese cyclists who think that riding on the pavement is safer than
riding on the road are, I'm afraid, deluding themselves. The risks of
pavement riding are well documented internationally, and it is only the
constant barrage of disinformation portraying road cycling as uniquely
dangerous which causes people to act otherwise. Japanese cyclists would be
well advised to study the remarkable results achieved in London in the last
year. TFL are doing something right: the biggest drop in cyclist casualty
rates in the world ever, as far as I can tell.

British cycle commuters have 28% lower mortality from all causes than
average, which would hardly be possible if cycling were as dangerous as it's
made out to be. But then, the UK does not have pavement cycling on anything
like the scale of that in Japan, and this is reflected in the casualty
figures. I was staggered to discover that you are roughly two hundred times
as likely to be killed by a motor vehicle on Britain's footways than by a
cyclist; and the number of pedestrians killed on crossings and footways by
motor vehicles outweighs the combined total of all those killed and injured
by cyclists, regardless of location (or indeed fault).

I only wish that councils would stop blurring the boundaries by arbitrarily
declaring that certain pavements are safe for cyclists. Apart from anything
else this leads to the absurd situation where we are demonised for riding on
the pavement in some places and shouted at for not doing so in other places.
I cannot conceive of a situation where 100kg of man and bike travelling at
20mph and more could ever be safe on a pavement.

The proper place for adult cyclists is on the road with the rest of the
traffic. If you find the road intimidating then contact CTC
(http://www.ctc.org.uk) to find out about adult cycle training courses, and
read Cyclecraft (John Franklin, 1997, The Stationery Office ISBN 0 11 702051
6 - a reprint is in process). Londoners are even better off in that they
have the London Cycle Campaign (http://www.lcc.org.uk) as well.

And console yourself with the following facts: the benefits of cycling
outweigh the risks 20:1; cycling to work is reckoned to be the single most
beneficial healthy lifestyle option available; a regular cyclist has a
fitness level equivalent to a non-cyclist ten years younger; cyclists live
two years longer than average; it takes 3,000 years of average cycling to
suffer a serious injury.



--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bit of fun, reply below:

Sir,

Excellent reply.

Cheers, helen s



--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

Scott Leckey wrote:
Japan cracks down on 'killer' cyclists By Colin Joyce in Tokyo (Filed:
07/04/2004)
Japanese police announced a campaign against cyclists yesterday after
more than 2,000 pedestrians were injured and six killed in collisions
with bicycles last year.
In Japan cyclists are allowed to ride on pavements, but public patience
has worn thin.
Last year, police made only one arrest for a cycling offence, but they
gave notice yesterday that their approach is hardening. Cycling while
using a mobile phone or holding an umbrella will be liable to fines of
up to £250 or up to three months in jail.
Cyclists who cause fatal accidents may be prosecuted for manslaughter
and those carrying a passenger on a bicycle will be fined up to £100.
Motorists remain the cause of most traffic accidents in Japan and
cyclists say they would be at great risk if they were forced to
use roads.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$IVGSE-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$IVGSE- 5NWUA1BJQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2004/04/07/wcycle07.x-
ml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/07/ixworld .html



For my experience of living in Japan, if you're not cycling with an
umberella, AND on the phone whilst riding on the pavement then you are
the only one, and we all know about nails being hammered down :-)

Also most Japanese bike have 'interesting' brakes, the squeal is
meant to make the peds move out of the way, or so I was told. but
then again most pavements are so crowded, it's very dificult to get
up any decent speed

Bryan



--

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

: Bit of fun, reply below:

I'd be very wary of applying results from the UK to somewhere as
different as Japan personally.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Scott Leckey wrote:

Japan cracks down on 'killer' cyclists
By Colin Joyce in Tokyo
(Filed: 07/04/2004)


Japanese police announced a campaign against cyclists yesterday after more
than 2,000 pedestrians were injured and six killed in collisions with
bicycles last year.

In Japan cyclists are allowed to ride on pavements, but public patience has
worn thin.

It's amazing how little evidence there is of the fact that "public
patience has worn thin". But I merely live there (here).

Last year, police made only one arrest for a cycling offence, but they gave
notice yesterday that their approach is hardening. Cycling while using a
mobile phone or holding an umbrella will be liable to fines of up to ?250 or
up to three months in jail.

Driving while watching the TV seems common enough, not sure about its
legality.

Cyclists who cause fatal accidents may be prosecuted for manslaughter and
those carrying a passenger on a bicycle will be fined up to ?100.

Looks like the end of the road for our tandeming, then :-)

Or perhaps not.

James

On 7/4/04 11:56 am, in article
, "James Annan"
wrote:

Cyclists who cause fatal accidents may be prosecuted for manslaughter and
those carrying a passenger on a bicycle will be fined up to ?100.

Looks like the end of the road for our tandeming, then :-)

But neither of you are passengers? You both actively ride the bike.

How do they define 'passenger'?

What about a tandem where both can steer and brake?
...d

Motorists remain the cause of most traffic accidents in Japan..


Too right, in Japan 10,000 people a year are killed by car drivers every year.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Scott Leckey wrote:

Japan cracks down on 'killer' cyclists

Bit of fun, reply below:

Sir,

"Japan cracks down on 'killer' cyclists" (7/4/2004)

Those Japanese cyclists who think that riding on the pavement is
safer than riding on the road are, I'm afraid, deluding themselves.
The risks of pavement riding are well documented internationally, and
it is only the constant barrage of disinformation portraying road
cycling as uniquely dangerous which causes people to act otherwise.
Japanese cyclists would be well advised to study the remarkable
results achieved in London in the last year. TFL are doing something
right: the biggest drop in cyclist casualty rates in the world ever,
as far as I can tell.

British cycle commuters have 28% lower mortality from all causes than
average, which would hardly be possible if cycling were as dangerous
as it's made out to be. But then, the UK does not have pavement
cycling on anything like the scale of that in Japan, and this is
reflected in the casualty figures. I was staggered to discover that
you are roughly two hundred times as likely to be killed by a motor
vehicle on Britain's footways than by a cyclist; and the number of
pedestrians killed on crossings and footways by motor vehicles
outweighs the combined total of all those killed and injured by
cyclists, regardless of location (or indeed fault).

I only wish that councils would stop blurring the boundaries by
arbitrarily declaring that certain pavements are safe for cyclists.
Apart from anything else this leads to the absurd situation where we
are demonised for riding on the pavement in some places and shouted
at for not doing so in other places. I cannot conceive of a situation
where 100kg of man and bike travelling at 20mph and more could ever
be safe on a pavement.

The proper place for adult cyclists is on the road with the rest of
the traffic. If you find the road intimidating then contact CTC
(http://www.ctc.org.uk) to find out about adult cycle training
courses, and read Cyclecraft (John Franklin, 1997, The Stationery
Office ISBN 0 11 702051 6 - a reprint is in process). Londoners are
even better off in that they have the London Cycle Campaign
(http://www.lcc.org.uk) as well.

And console yourself with the following facts: the benefits of cycling
outweigh the risks 20:1; cycling to work is reckoned to be the single
most beneficial healthy lifestyle option available; a regular cyclist
has a fitness level equivalent to a non-cyclist ten years younger;
cyclists live two years longer than average; it takes 3,000 years of
average cycling to suffer a serious injury.

I disagree with all that but we've had this conversation before. Cycling on
the pavement as though it were a road is no doubt dangerous to peds and
oneself. Riding on the pavement as if a pedestrian is far safer than the
road although slower, not as much fun etc so is best avoided unless
necessary IMHO. In Japan the majority bikes are known as "mama chari" -
ridden by old ladies, salary men in suits etc - basically heavy, upright
shoppers usually in black but occasionally red or grey. All have bells which
are rung frequently and are usually laden with shopping or a briefcase in
the basket ie they aren't going much faster than those walking around them.
You get the odd kid on a bike on the pavement but even they are adept at
weaving in and out really quick and almost everyone will stop if there are
peds nearby. My mate was once told to get *on* the pavement by a cop whilst
cycling on a busy dual carriageway in Japan - it's really not a problem I
feel. Pavements in city centres are pretty wide, there's loads of bike
parking and unofficial cycle lanes. I would be most happy if the UK was half
as cycle friendly as Japan.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 19:58:49 +0100, "Stephen \(aka steford\)"
wrote in message
:

Cycling on
the pavement as though it were a road is no doubt dangerous to peds and
oneself. Riding on the pavement as if a pedestrian is far safer than the
road although slower, not as much fun etc so is best avoided unless
necessary IMHO.

Based on what evidence? Five times as many children are killed and
seriously injured as pedestrians than while cycling, so it is clearly
not perfectly safe. Citations?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University