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

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:03:59 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"
wrote:


"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:42:58 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"
wrote:


"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...

Clearly you didn't understand the effect of the weather on road use or
casualty rates.

Circumstance number 3,693,231 under which cycling is not viable.

Can you name the other 3,693,230?

See previous posts by cyclists.

That's a "no" then.

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.

On 08/11/2013 12:10, Bertie Wooster 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?

Good question.

20mph limits in built up areas;
50mph rural limit on single carriageway roads;
Rigourous enforcement of these limits;
Random motor vehicle safety checks;
Police escort required for construction vehicles without side guards.

Happily that would help reduce all casualties, not just cycling
casualties, so win-win.

It would also help if the 1865 locomotive act was reinstated.


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.

On Friday, 8 November 2013 10:54:18 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 08/11/2013 09:37, wrote:

What percentage "are caused by their own stupidity"?

All of the ones where cyclists lose control in single-vehicle accidents
whilst descending steep hills (often on footways bounded by brick or
stone walls), for a start.

Wouldn't you agree?

Similar arguments apply to single vehicle crashes for any vehicle, this is not peculiar to cycling. Their cause could be stupidity, drunkenness, vehicle defect...

On 08/11/2013 12:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 08/11/2013 12:10, Bertie Wooster 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?

Good question.

20mph limits in built up areas;
50mph rural limit on single carriageway roads;
Rigourous enforcement of these limits;
Random motor vehicle safety checks;
Police escort required for construction vehicles without side guards.

Happily that would help reduce all casualties, not just cycling
casualties, so win-win.

It would also help if the 1865 locomotive act was reinstated.


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?

"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"

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.

If it looks like a duck...

Simply make cycling subject to the same rules as driving, where *any*
racing, whether directly against a real-time competitor or against the
cliock - "time trialling" - on the highway is illegal.

There'd be no problem in getting a definition tight enough for a Bill,
if that's what you fear.

"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.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

If it looks like a duck...

Simply make cycling subject to the same rules as driving, where *any*
racing, whether directly against a real-time competitor or against the
cliock - "time trialling" - on the highway is illegal.

Is time trialling by motor vehicle illegal? I doubt it. "Treasure hunts"?

OK, so you and Cheerless get together and produce a draft that could be
turned into something watertight.

There'd be no problem in getting a definition tight enough for a Bill, if
that's what you fear.

I don't fear it because I do not take part in racing or time trials - unless
carrying gps for social/utility riding meets the Nugent-Cheerless
definition. It just amuses me when you claim that it would be easy.

On 08/11/2013 15:36, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

If it looks like a duck...

Simply make cycling subject to the same rules as driving, where *any*
racing, whether directly against a real-time competitor or against the
cliock - "time trialling" - on the highway is illegal.

Is time trialling by motor vehicle illegal? I doubt it.

Your motor insurance (if you had any) very specifically won't cover you
for it.

How illegal do you want it to be?

"Treasure hunts"?

Yes, I can see the argument. You have a point. If those fund-raising
activities for clubs and societies are causing measurable numbers of
road casualties (especially fatalities), there's a case for banning them
as though they were time-trials.

OK, so you and Cheerless get together and produce a draft that could be
turned into something watertight.

There'd be no problem in getting a definition tight enough for a Bill, if
that's what you fear.

I don't fear it because I do not take part in racing or time trials - unless
carrying gps for social/utility riding meets the Nugent-Cheerless
definition. It just amuses me when you claim that it would be easy.

The impression you gave was not that you had a selfish counter-interest.

It was that you were pessimistic about (a) being able to define this
particular sort of anti-social behaviour or (b) getting cyclists to obey
the law.