A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Blockade of King's Cross



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 30th 11, 12:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Nick Finnigan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On 29/12/2011 15:30, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:29:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:


(Stats 20 Notes on Stats 19)

This data is often used to "prove" cyclists have few accidents yet
has been shown in several studies comparing hospital admissions to
Stats 19 data to substantially under report cyclist accidents.
Moreover, accidents between cyclists and pedestrians which take place
on cycle tracks with no lawful access for motor vehicles are
specifically excluded from Stats 10 as are accidents involving
cyclists and pedestrians on footpaths,


Which part of Stats 20 do you think excludes cycle tracks and footpaths?

car parks, shopping parks and
pedestrian malls. Rather unfortunately this is where many such
accidents seem to occur.

Ads
  #52  
Old December 30th 11, 12:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:44:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, Judith
wrote:




snip

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.




OH hello - the Porker has reset his kill-file yet again.

Or - did it reset on its own and he knows nothing about it :-)

There are odd things happen to his web pages without him knowing - so perhaps
the same happens to his kill-file.

Anyway - nice for him to converse with me.

  #53  
Old December 30th 11, 12:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Nick Finnigan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On 30/12/2011 10:43, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

snip obfuscation

What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a
problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures.

No point discussing this again until you have that data.


http://www.transportresearchfoundation.co.uk/PDF/HES_STATS19_final%20140909.doc.pdf

shows 1,860 emergency admissions for pedestrians hit by pedal cycles over
10 years. Assuming they were all 'serious injuries' with an average cost of
prevention around £200,000, the size of the problem is something over £1
per cyclist per year.

  #54  
Old December 30th 11, 01:09 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,164
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:21:25 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote:


Which part of Stats 20 do you think excludes cycle tracks and footpaths?


http://www.stats19.org.uk/html/stats_20_notes.html

"S2 Notes

The following table gives examples of locations at which accidents
should or should not be reported

Cycle path/track with no lawful access for motor vehicles - No
Footpath or bridleway with no lawful access for motor vehicles - No"
  #55  
Old December 30th 11, 02:04 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,164
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:43:11 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a
problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures.


Ah, "I'm basing what I say on the blind acceptance of figures I know
are wildly inaccurate and will continue unthinkingly until someone
produces figures which are more accurate". Commonly called the three
monkeys approach to research.

  #56  
Old December 30th 11, 02:30 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Tom Crispin[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip



So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only
required for those aged 14 and above.


Why 14?



Why not? Do you have a better suggestion?

(Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion")


Allow unlicenced road users use the road without let or hinderance.
  #57  
Old December 30th 11, 02:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Tom Crispin[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:17:57 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:49:42 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:38, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000,
wrote:

In , "Just zis Guy,
you writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000,
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious& fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.


So, if as a pedestrian and I am in a collision with a car and I suffer a
permanent life changing injury, due to the driver loosing control the
driver saves himself a lot of grief, both financial and moral by having
insurance and at least knowing that I will receive suitable financial
compensation to allow me some amount of independence and care for the
rest of my days.

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

To quote "I would suggest that all road users should require
insurance," This would not only include motorists, cyclists but also
horse riders and anyone else, even pedestrians that could possibly be in
a position to cause "accidental" harm to others.

If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives.

How about having a national scheme to protect those against otherwise
unisured risk from the slight chance of injury by cyclists,
pedestrians, golfers and the like. This could be imposed by an income
related premium, so the richer people pay more than the unwaged or
poorer people in society. Let's call this insurance National
Insurance. ... Oh... Hang on... don't we already pay such an
insurance premium?

A. Cyclists are simply not in the same category as "pedestrians, golfers and
the like" (IOW, they aren't "the like" of those others and pose much more of
a threat).

B. National Insurance is not an insurance scheme and is not intended and does
not attempt to restore the victim's economic status to the same as that which
existed before they were attacked or injured.

C. Wther "we" pay "such an insurance premium" (one assumes you mean National
Insurance contributions, which, of course, is not an insurance premium)
depends on who "we" are. I pay, for instance. Many people here will not be
paying, for various reasons.


So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


The child's parents or guardians are responsible in any case. They ned to be
insured against that risk.

That's making the sweeping assumption that any civilised adult would allow a
toddler out onto the highway on a bike or trike. As I am sure you will agree
without demur, doing so would come perilously close to culpable child neglect.


I said "public space" not "highway". What makes you think the two are
synonymous?
  #58  
Old December 30th 11, 03:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:30:10 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip



So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only
required for those aged 14 and above.

Why 14?



Why not? Do you have a better suggestion?

(Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion")


Allow unlicenced road users use the road without let or hinderance.



Requiring them to be insured in nothing to do with let or hindrance.

If the phrase really worries you - then they could be licensed at the same
time as they take out their insurance.

  #59  
Old December 30th 11, 05:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,386
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:37:31 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 10:43, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

snip obfuscation

What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a
problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures.

No point discussing this again until you have that data.


http://www.transportresearchfoundation.co.uk/PDF/HES_STATS19_final%20140909.doc.pdf

shows 1,860 emergency admissions for pedestrians hit by pedal cycles over
10 years. Assuming they were all 'serious injuries' with an average cost of
prevention around £200,000, the size of the problem is something over £1
per cyclist per year.


As an upper limit that is plausible, though no record of fault
(pedestrians are known to be at fault in most road collisions where
they are injured, whereas the opposite is true of cyclists). So it
seems to me like it's not actually a big enough problem to be worth
bothering about as a matter of public policy, other than to try to
make the roads less hostile so that pedestrians and cyclists are not
so often in conflict. I am certainly not a fan of most shared-use
facilities.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
  #60  
Old December 30th 11, 05:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Blockade of King's Cross

On 30/12/2011 13:30, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom
wrote:


snip



So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only
required for those aged 14 and above.

Why 14?



Why not? Do you have a better suggestion?

(Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion")


Allow unlicenced road users use the road without let or hinderance.


Good news for chavs in clapped out Vauxhall Novas if it ever happens of course.

 




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
King's Cross vigil on Tuesday to highlight cycle safety lessons Simon Mason[_4_] UK 34 December 19th 11 02:30 PM
700c front wheel 2-cross lacing vs 3-cross & lateral flex kwalters Techniques 31 April 4th 07 07:58 AM
Route advice - King's Cross to Cannon Street iakobski UK 9 December 23rd 05 02:58 PM
FS: Fuji Cross, 60cm, versatile road or cross bike - $600 Darrell Marketplace 0 July 12th 05 02:39 AM
Cyclist killed in King's Lynn - hit & run dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers UK 20 December 17th 03 05:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 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.