A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

UK road safety data



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 10th 14, 02:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default UK road safety data

On 10/10/2014 5:50 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Well that's one reason that increased cycling numbers tends to decrease
cycling danger. Once you get past the local driver waving at the local
cyclist who have both known each other for ages, you start to get
strangers in cars dealing with unexpected strangers on bikes. It's when
the strangers on bike are enough that they are no longer unexpected by
the motorists the accidents tend to go down. I prefer this than, to
paraphrase, depending on the beneficence of strangers.


And to get increased cycling numbers you have to take steps to decrease
danger. A government has the resources to take the first steps.

1. Laws regarding motorist behavior such as minimum passing space (just
enacted in California) and enforcement of those laws.

2. Money for bicycle infrastructure. One thing that has helped cause a
big increase in my area is a number of projects that have enabled
cyclists to get over "walls" that were created by freeways, safely.

3. Laws aimed at cyclists, such as proper equipment so motorists can see
cyclists, day and night. Of course some cyclists always balk at being
told that they must spend money to equip their bicycle for safe riding,
and you don't want to reduce cycling levels by requiring expensive
equipment.

4. Tax incentives for similar to what the government does for certain
cars--tax credits for fully equipped commuter bicycles. I.e. we are
getting a $4000 tax credit on our 2014 taxes because we bought a plug-in
hybrid, versus no tax credit on the similar vehicle without the plug-in
feature.

5. Encouraging adults to wear helmets and visible clothing.
Ads
  #12  
Old October 10th 14, 05:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default UK road safety data

On Friday, October 10, 2014 2:19:54 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote:
"Andre Jute" xxx wrote in message ...

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:10:09 PM UTC+1, James wrote:

On 10/10/14 04:09, Andre Jute wrote:




On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote:




The latest UK road safety data has been released recently


[snip]



Until proven otherwise, I'm happy to assume that riding in the city is less pleasant and more dangerous than riding in the countryside.




[snip]



Apparently, and this was the point picked up by the media relating to driving, rural roads are the "most" dangerous for all modes. Whilst there are far more accidents resulting in injuries in urban areas speeds tend to be far lower and deaths thereby less likely. Apparently you are more likely to get killed on a rural road in the UK whatever your mode if you are involved in an accident. This is put down to drivers driving far too fast for their range of vision, their ability to react to the unexpected and their basic level of driving skill. I do most of my riding in the lanes of the Cotswolds and have had quite a few "interesting" experiences. Please no Danger Danger! comments.


I read that in the report you linked, Graham. I had already changed modes from general statistical comment on the report to remarking on my personal circumstances, as signalled by "assume".

There is no doubt that the report is right, country roads and lanes are more dangerous, for whatever reason. The same is true here; in fact the biggest and most heavily trafficked roads out of my little town are lethal to the extent that the police superintendent, who presumably should know which roads are safe for cyclists, a few years ago was killed cycling on one of them (on which I refused to ride with him only a few weeks before...). My lanes are carefully chosen to be as stressfree as possible. I realize they are not statistically generic or even indicative where I live, or in comparison with your report. But they are mine and I am happy to have them.

Andre Jute
Just back from an agreeable ride with agreeable people
  #13  
Old October 10th 14, 06:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joe Riel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,071
Default UK road safety data

sms writes:

On 10/10/2014 5:50 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Well that's one reason that increased cycling numbers tends to decrease
cycling danger. Once you get past the local driver waving at the local
cyclist who have both known each other for ages, you start to get
strangers in cars dealing with unexpected strangers on bikes. It's when
the strangers on bike are enough that they are no longer unexpected by
the motorists the accidents tend to go down. I prefer this than, to
paraphrase, depending on the beneficence of strangers.


And to get increased cycling numbers you have to take steps to
decrease danger. A government has the resources to take the first
steps.

1. Laws regarding motorist behavior such as minimum passing space
(just enacted in California) and enforcement of those laws.


We'll see if it has any effect. I doubt it. That the portion of
the law allowing a driver to cross a double yellow, provided it
can be done safely, to maintain the three feet, was excluded does
not bode well. Mainly that doesn't matter in that most drivers
will cross the double yellow anyway.

2. Money for bicycle infrastructure. One thing that has helped cause a
big increase in my area is a number of projects that have enabled
cyclists to get over "walls" that were created by freeways, safely.

3. Laws aimed at cyclists, such as proper equipment so motorists can
see cyclists, day and night.


Sounds like someone is trying to get in on the regulatory capture.

5. Encouraging adults to wear helmets and visible clothing.


The invisible stuff has certain advantages.

--
Joe Riel
  #14  
Old October 12th 14, 09:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default UK road safety data

On 11/10/14 00:19, Graham wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
... On
Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:10:09 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 10/10/14 04:09, Andre Jute wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:46:24 PM UTC+1, Graham wrote:


The latest UK road safety data has been released recently

[snip]

Until proven otherwise, I'm happy to assume that riding in the city
is less pleasant and more dangerous than riding in the
countryside.


[snip]

Apparently, and this was the point picked up by the media relating to
driving, rural roads are the "most" dangerous for all modes. Whilst
there are far more accidents resulting in injuries in urban areas
speeds tend to be far lower and deaths thereby less likely.
Apparently you are more likely to get killed on a rural road in the
UK whatever your mode if you are involved in an accident. This is put
down to drivers driving far too fast for their range of vision, their
ability to react to the unexpected and their basic level of driving
skill. I do most of my riding in the lanes of the Cotswolds and have
had quite a few "interesting" experiences. Please no Danger Danger!
comments.



http://www.vicpolicenews.com.au/news...road-toll.html

--
JS
  #15  
Old October 12th 14, 10:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default UK road safety data

On Sunday, October 12, 2014 9:51:39 PM UTC+1, James wrote:

http://www.vicpolicenews.com.au/news...road-toll.html

A big argument against going to live in Victoria again! And I presume the same is true of South Australia.

Andre Jute
  #16  
Old October 12th 14, 10:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default UK road safety data

On Friday, October 10, 2014 6:32:24 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/10/2014 5:50 AM, Duane wrote:



snip



Well that's one reason that increased cycling numbers tends to decrease


cycling danger. Once you get past the local driver waving at the local


cyclist who have both known each other for ages, you start to get


strangers in cars dealing with unexpected strangers on bikes. It's when


the strangers on bike are enough that they are no longer unexpected by


the motorists the accidents tend to go down. I prefer this than, to


paraphrase, depending on the beneficence of strangers.




And to get increased cycling numbers you have to take steps to decrease

danger. A government has the resources to take the first steps.



1. Laws regarding motorist behavior such as minimum passing space (just

enacted in California) and enforcement of those laws.



2. Money for bicycle infrastructure. One thing that has helped cause a

big increase in my area is a number of projects that have enabled

cyclists to get over "walls" that were created by freeways, safely.



3. Laws aimed at cyclists, such as proper equipment so motorists can see

cyclists, day and night. Of course some cyclists always balk at being

told that they must spend money to equip their bicycle for safe riding,

and you don't want to reduce cycling levels by requiring expensive

equipment.



4. Tax incentives for similar to what the government does for certain

cars--tax credits for fully equipped commuter bicycles. I.e. we are

getting a $4000 tax credit on our 2014 taxes because we bought a plug-in

hybrid, versus no tax credit on the similar vehicle without the plug-in

feature.



5. Encouraging adults to wear helmets and visible clothing.



I think the government should pay me to ride my bike and that I should get a police escort any time I ride more than a mile. The federal government should also provide me with tires, chains, cassettes and other wear items -- like the federal cheese program or free school lunches for the under-privileged.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #17  
Old October 12th 14, 11:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default UK road safety data

jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 10, 2014 6:32:24 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/10/2014 5:50 AM, Duane wrote:



snip



Well that's one reason that increased cycling numbers tends to decrease


cycling danger. Once you get past the local driver waving at the local


cyclist who have both known each other for ages, you start to get


strangers in cars dealing with unexpected strangers on bikes. It's when


the strangers on bike are enough that they are no longer unexpected by


the motorists the accidents tend to go down. I prefer this than, to


paraphrase, depending on the beneficence of strangers.




And to get increased cycling numbers you have to take steps to decrease

danger. A government has the resources to take the first steps.



1. Laws regarding motorist behavior such as minimum passing space (just

enacted in California) and enforcement of those laws.



2. Money for bicycle infrastructure. One thing that has helped cause a

big increase in my area is a number of projects that have enabled

cyclists to get over "walls" that were created by freeways, safely.



3. Laws aimed at cyclists, such as proper equipment so motorists can see

cyclists, day and night. Of course some cyclists always balk at being

told that they must spend money to equip their bicycle for safe riding,

and you don't want to reduce cycling levels by requiring expensive

equipment.



4. Tax incentives for similar to what the government does for certain

cars--tax credits for fully equipped commuter bicycles. I.e. we are

getting a $4000 tax credit on our 2014 taxes because we bought a plug-in

hybrid, versus no tax credit on the similar vehicle without the plug-in

feature.



5. Encouraging adults to wear helmets and visible clothing.



I think the government should pay me to ride my bike and that I should
get a police escort any time I ride more than a mile. The federal
government should also provide me with tires, chains, cassettes and other
wear items -- like the federal cheese program or free school lunches for
the under-privileged.

Lol.
Well I think the government should do better to prevent some kid from
killing you because he's texting. They seem to be doing something here in
Quebec along those lines by increasing fines and points for texting and
driving. The points are now 4 and since adolescent drivers have only 4
this means a license suspension. Stronger prosecution for accidents caused
by this would be better but this is something.


--
duane
  #18  
Old October 13th 14, 02:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default UK road safety data

On 10/12/2014 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I think the government should pay me to ride my bike and that I should get a police escort any time I ride more than a mile. The federal government should also provide me with tires, chains, cassettes and other wear items -- like the federal cheese program or free school lunches for the under-privileged.


I've ridden with police escorts and it's rather annoying though pretty safe.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spanish road safety film teaches drivers how to share the road Simon Mason UK 0 January 17th 12 04:22 PM
"More or Less" on bicycle safety data Frank Krygowski[_3_] Techniques 9 August 27th 11 10:50 PM
"More or Less" on bicycle safety data Frank Krygowski[_3_] General 0 August 22nd 11 03:17 PM
Source of British data on cycling & safety Frank Krygowski[_2_] Techniques 0 February 25th 11 09:12 PM
Some data on Safety In Numbers. spindrift UK 22 November 10th 08 04:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.