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

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:36:50 +0000, 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.

Perhaps not, but I expect it would do much more to reduce cycling
casualties than tightening up the "wanton and furious cycling" law,
the road racing laws, level crossing laws, traffic signal laws,
lighting laws and drunk cycling laws - combined.

On 08/11/2013 19:57, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:36:50 +0000, 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.

Perhaps not, but I expect it would do much more to reduce cycling
casualties than tightening up the "wanton and furious cycling" law,
the road racing laws, level crossing laws, traffic signal laws,
lighting laws and drunk cycling laws - combined.

Stop press! Extra! Extra!

Read all about it!

"If British living standards were returned to what they were in 1895,
lives would be saved!".

"Or something".

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

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.

It's not difficult for cyclists to get insurance. Usually one or two Pounds
to take part in a one off, or less than £15 a year. Insurers obviously
aren't concerned about it. Legal or not, that's the real test, isn't it? You
can have whatever illogical/stupid prejudices you want about cyclists but in
the real world co-operation with insurance companies is essential.

How illegal do you want it to be?

To do a driving time trial in the manner of cycle time trials would require
ordinary road laws to be broken - I doubt the idea of an organised let's see
who's fastest at going up and down a dual carriageway at 69.9mph would get
many takers.

"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.

I took part in two treasure hunts about 30 years ago. I pulled out of the
second because I was uncomfortable about no claims bonus remaining intact.

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.

Anti-social is in the eye of the beholder; I just don't have any desire to
pedal up & down a dual carriageway. But I am confident to think you would
not be able to produce or get a clear enough definition of a "time
trialling" to stop it. People in yellow jackets at the roundabouts, perhaps?
Then what about a country ramble with people in yellow jackets way marking
the junctions?

On 08/11/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"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"

So how would you achieve that?

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:29:24 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 08/11/2013 19:57, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:36:50 +0000, 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.

Perhaps not, but I expect it would do much more to reduce cycling
casualties than tightening up the "wanton and furious cycling" law,
the road racing laws, level crossing laws, traffic signal laws,
lighting laws and drunk cycling laws - combined.

Stop press! Extra! Extra!

Read all about it!

"If British living standards were returned to what they were in 1895,
lives would be saved!".

"Or something".

Cyclists are still bound by Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, so
why shouldn't motorists be bound by the 1865 Locomotive Act?

On 08/11/2013 21:15, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:29:24 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 08/11/2013 19:57, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:36:50 +0000, 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.

Perhaps not, but I expect it would do much more to reduce cycling
casualties than tightening up the "wanton and furious cycling" law,
the road racing laws, level crossing laws, traffic signal laws,
lighting laws and drunk cycling laws - combined.

Stop press! Extra! Extra!

Read all about it!

"If British living standards were returned to what they were in 1895,
lives would be saved!".

"Or something".

Cyclists are still bound by Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, so
why shouldn't motorists be bound by the 1865 Locomotive Act?


perhaps it was repealed?

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:47:27 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 08/11/2013 21:15, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:29:24 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 08/11/2013 19:57, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:36:50 +0000, 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.

Perhaps not, but I expect it would do much more to reduce cycling
casualties than tightening up the "wanton and furious cycling" law,
the road racing laws, level crossing laws, traffic signal laws,
lighting laws and drunk cycling laws - combined.

Stop press! Extra! Extra!

Read all about it!

"If British living standards were returned to what they were in 1895,
lives would be saved!".

"Or something".

Cyclists are still bound by Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, so
why shouldn't motorists be bound by the 1865 Locomotive Act?


perhaps it was repealed?

Indeed. Hence my comment:
It would also help if the 1865 locomotive act was reinstated.

On 09/11/2013 01:39, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:47:27 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 08/11/2013 21:15, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:29:24 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 08/11/2013 19:57, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:36:50 +0000, 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.

Perhaps not, but I expect it would do much more to reduce cycling
casualties than tightening up the "wanton and furious cycling" law,
the road racing laws, level crossing laws, traffic signal laws,
lighting laws and drunk cycling laws - combined.

Stop press! Extra! Extra!

Read all about it!

"If British living standards were returned to what they were in 1895,
lives would be saved!".

"Or something".

Cyclists are still bound by Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, so
why shouldn't motorists be bound by the 1865 Locomotive Act?


perhaps it was repealed?

Indeed. Hence my comment:
It would also help if the 1865 locomotive act was reinstated.



But do you realise why it was repealed/rewritten?

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:42:58 +0000, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

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

However under circumstance number 3,693,232 bicycling is very viable.

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 08/11/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"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"

So how would you achieve that?

In an ideal world decent training, a proper assessment before being allowed
on the road, being properly registered and identifiable, and a license that
can be endorsed and suspended. It's the only way to remove the ingrained
culture of irresponsibility and sense of immunity from consequences.

If you think driving standards are bad now, imagine how they would be if
drivers weren't required by law to have a license, insurance or roadworthy
vehicles. And most importantly, could drive without registration plates and
therefore be unidentifiable. That's how we see cyclists. Not forcing
responsibility onto any section of society only breeds more
irresponsibility. Made worse by the irresponsible and/or criminal minimising
their chances of not getting caught. It's why bank robbers wear masks. It's
not about the damage cars can do compared to bikes, it's about being held
accountable for your actions.