Traffic Offfences - stop blaming cyclists

England/Wales Data

2. The starting point has been the Home Office bulletin of motoring
offence statistics published in March 2006 – chosen purely because it
was the information source most readily available. It gives
statistical information about such offences in England and Wales. The
most recent year for which information was available is 2004.

3. In 2004 there were 29m licensed vehicles. In total there were 2.8m
offences which led to endorsements without disqualification and 31k
offences which led to disqualification under the totting up procedure.
2.1m endorsements arose from the issue of a fixed penalty notice, 2.0m
offences were detected by camera and 1.9m of those offences were for
speeding.

4. Broadly speaking therefore, offences leading to endorsement amount
to about 10% of the licensed vehicle population, and the overwhelming
majority of them have been detected by a camera and are for speeding.

These are the latest figures the DFT has. In that year 10%
(approximately) of all vehicles were caught committing an offence
(from speeding to obstruction - parking incorrectly).

In other threads here we see ridiculous generalisations about cyclists
and their behaviour. I could find no figures to suggest that 10% of
all cycles had been the subject of action by the police or prosecuting
authorities.

Yesterday I broke the speed limit as well - in my car. I was not
caught. A realistic approach will be based upon a greater percentage
of motorists regularly committing offences than cyclists.

On Nov 23, 5:50*am, Justin wrote:
England/Wales Data

2. The starting point has been the Home Office bulletin of motoring
offence statistics published in March 2006 – chosen purely because it
was the information source most readily available. It gives
statistical information about such offences in England and Wales. The
most recent year for which information was available is 2004.

3. In 2004 there were 29m licensed vehicles. In total there were 2.8m
offences which led to endorsements without disqualification and 31k
offences which led to disqualification under the totting up procedure.
2.1m endorsements arose from the issue of a fixed penalty notice, 2.0m
offences were detected by camera and 1.9m of those offences were for
speeding.

4. Broadly speaking therefore, offences leading to endorsement amount
to about 10% of the licensed vehicle population, and the overwhelming
majority of them have been detected by a camera and are for speeding.

These are the latest figures the DFT has. In that year 10%
(approximately) of all vehicles were caught committing an offence
(from speeding to obstruction - parking incorrectly).

In other threads here we see ridiculous generalisations about cyclists
and their behaviour. I could find no figures to suggest that 10% of
all cycles had been the subject of action by the police or prosecuting
authorities.

Yesterday I broke the speed limit as well - in my car. I was not
caught. A realistic approach will be based upon a greater percentage
of motorists regularly committing offences than cyclists.

It should also take into account that motorists are much more
dangerous than cyclists. Maybe we need a danger rating to make the
comparison more meaningful? We also know that motorists are roughly 40
times more numerous than cyclists as well as much more dangerous.

What particularly concerns me is that killer drivers using a car
weapon almost invariably have their licences returned, freeing them to
use a car weapon to kill yet again. So what use are endorsements
anyway?

BTW there is a World Service documentary series called 'Road Kill'
where Sheena McDonald travels the world, which kills 5 million people
every ten years on its roads, to compare the road dangers posed by
various countries. Apparently the United Nations is striving to halve
that figure. Clearly this world-wide campaign to improve road safety
is not about cyclists at all but instead about the burgeoning use of
cars around the world. Indeed, much safer bicycles have been
considerably ousted by car use worldwide, even in poorer countries.

Clearly the addiction to car use has been allowed to be prioritised
over road safety and that lies at the root of the problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ill_Episode_1/

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 23 nov, 07:49, Doug wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:50*am, Justin wrote:

England/Wales Data

2. The starting point has been the Home Office bulletin of motoring
offence statistics published in March 2006 – chosen purely because it
was the information source most readily available. It gives
statistical information about such offences in England and Wales. The
most recent year for which information was available is 2004.

3. In 2004 there were 29m licensed vehicles. In total there were 2.8m
offences which led to endorsements without disqualification and 31k
offences which led to disqualification under the totting up procedure.
2.1m endorsements arose from the issue of a fixed penalty notice, 2.0m
offences were detected by camera and 1.9m of those offences were for
speeding.

4. Broadly speaking therefore, offences leading to endorsement amount
to about 10% of the licensed vehicle population, and the overwhelming
majority of them have been detected by a camera and are for speeding.

These are the latest figures the DFT has. In that year 10%
(approximately) of all vehicles were caught committing an offence
(from speeding to obstruction - parking incorrectly).

In other threads here we see ridiculous generalisations about cyclists
and their behaviour. I could find no figures to suggest that 10% of
all cycles had been the subject of action by the police or prosecuting
authorities.

Yesterday I broke the speed limit as well - in my car. I was not
caught. A realistic approach will be based upon a greater percentage
of motorists regularly committing offences than cyclists.

It should also take into account that motorists are much more
dangerous than cyclists. Maybe we need a danger rating to make the
comparison more meaningful? We also know that motorists are roughly 40
times more numerous than cyclists as well as much more dangerous.

What particularly concerns me is that killer drivers using a car
weapon almost invariably have their licences returned, freeing them to
use a car weapon to kill yet again. So what use are endorsements
anyway?

BTW there is a World Service documentary series called 'Road Kill'
where Sheena McDonald travels the world, which kills 5 million people
every ten years on its roads, to compare the road dangers posed by
various countries. Apparently the United Nations is striving to halve
that figure. Clearly this world-wide campaign to improve road safety
is not about *cyclists at all but instead about the burgeoning use of
cars around the world. Indeed, much safer bicycles have been
considerably ousted by car use worldwide, even in poorer countries.

Clearly the addiction to car use has been allowed to be prioritised
over road safety and that lies at the root of the problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...y_Documentary_...

-- .
World Carfree Network.
*http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Anecdotes are not evidence. However, I witnessed an accident in which
a driver overtook another car on a blind bend having crossed double
unbroken white lines in the middle of the road. Police evidence
supported his having broken the speed limit. He killed an oncoming
cyclist almost instantly: he was dead on arrival at hospital.
The sentence was not even custodial.
I was not particularly radical in regard to the conflict between
cyclists and motorists but unfortunately one becomes radicalised (in
favour of cyclists) when reading the hateful submissions from the
motoring lobby in this newsgroup. I realise they are baiting but the
callousness of their postings palces them beyond all reason.
This posting is written by someone with two cars. I do not apologise
for that.

On Nov 23, 6:49*am, Doug wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:50*am, Justin wrote:



England/Wales Data

2. The starting point has been the Home Office bulletin of motoring
offence statistics published in March 2006 – chosen purely because it
was the information source most readily available. It gives
statistical information about such offences in England and Wales. The
most recent year for which information was available is 2004.

3. In 2004 there were 29m licensed vehicles. In total there were 2.8m
offences which led to endorsements without disqualification and 31k
offences which led to disqualification under the totting up procedure.
2.1m endorsements arose from the issue of a fixed penalty notice, 2.0m
offences were detected by camera and 1.9m of those offences were for
speeding.

4. Broadly speaking therefore, offences leading to endorsement amount
to about 10% of the licensed vehicle population, and the overwhelming
majority of them have been detected by a camera and are for speeding.

These are the latest figures the DFT has. In that year 10%
(approximately) of all vehicles were caught committing an offence
(from speeding to obstruction - parking incorrectly).

In other threads here we see ridiculous generalisations about cyclists
and their behaviour. I could find no figures to suggest that 10% of
all cycles had been the subject of action by the police or prosecuting
authorities.

Yesterday I broke the speed limit as well - in my car. I was not
caught. A realistic approach will be based upon a greater percentage
of motorists regularly committing offences than cyclists.

It should also take into account that motorists are much more
dangerous than cyclists. Maybe we need a danger rating to make the
comparison more meaningful? We also know that motorists are roughly 40
times more numerous than cyclists as well as much more dangerous.

What particularly concerns me is that killer drivers using a car
weapon almost invariably have their licences returned, freeing them to
use a car weapon to kill yet again. So what use are endorsements
anyway?

BTW there is a World Service documentary series called 'Road Kill'
where Sheena McDonald travels the world, which kills 5 million people
every ten years on its roads,

Sheen McDonald kills 5 million people in 10 years !?!? Wow, she's
busy.

You really must take more care in constructing your sentences.

On Nov 23, 5:50*am, Justin wrote:
England/Wales Data

2. The starting point has been the Home Office bulletin of motoring
offence statistics published in March 2006 – chosen purely because it
was the information source most readily available. It gives
statistical information about such offences in England and Wales. The
most recent year for which information was available is 2004.

3. In 2004 there were 29m licensed vehicles. In total there were 2.8m
offences which led to endorsements without disqualification and 31k
offences which led to disqualification under the totting up procedure.
2.1m endorsements arose from the issue of a fixed penalty notice, 2.0m
offences were detected by camera and 1.9m of those offences were for
speeding.

4. Broadly speaking therefore, offences leading to endorsement amount
to about 10% of the licensed vehicle population, and the overwhelming
majority of them have been detected by a camera and are for speeding.

These are the latest figures the DFT has. In that year 10%
(approximately) of all vehicles were caught committing an offence
(from speeding to obstruction - parking incorrectly).

In other threads here we see ridiculous generalisations about cyclists
and their behaviour. I could find no figures to suggest that 10% of
all cycles had been the subject of action by the police or prosecuting
authorities.

There is also no suggestion that 10% of motorists are prosecuted.
There are inevitably multiple prosecutions of the same people (as with
most crime).

Further, and even though I am not in favour of the ridiculous
suggestions of licensing of bikes, motoring offences are easier to
detect automatically, e.g. with cameras. If red light cameras could
tag all those cyclists blowing straight through the red lights, then
the numbers would be different. My non-scientific, anectodal
observations in central London would put red-light jumpers at
somewhere between 30 and 50%.


Yesterday I broke the speed limit as well - in my car. I was not
caught. A realistic approach will be based upon a greater percentage
of motorists regularly committing offences than cyclists.

And committing offences which are actually create a threat. Go through
a speed camera on an empty road outside a school at the dead of night
doing 30 instead of 20, and you'll be done. Cycle though a red light
in the middle of the night because the sensors don't realise you're
there, and you'll get away with it. Neither is a threat to anyone.

On Nov 23, 6:49*am, Doug wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:50*am, Justin wrote:

England/Wales Data

2. The starting point has been the Home Office bulletin of motoring
offence statistics published in March 2006 – chosen purely because it
was the information source most readily available. It gives
statistical information about such offences in England and Wales. The
most recent year for which information was available is 2004.

3. In 2004 there were 29m licensed vehicles. In total there were 2.8m
offences which led to endorsements without disqualification and 31k
offences which led to disqualification under the totting up procedure.
2.1m endorsements arose from the issue of a fixed penalty notice, 2.0m
offences were detected by camera and 1.9m of those offences were for
speeding.

4. Broadly speaking therefore, offences leading to endorsement amount
to about 10% of the licensed vehicle population, and the overwhelming
majority of them have been detected by a camera and are for speeding.

These are the latest figures the DFT has. In that year 10%
(approximately) of all vehicles were caught committing an offence
(from speeding to obstruction - parking incorrectly).

In other threads here we see ridiculous generalisations about cyclists
and their behaviour. I could find no figures to suggest that 10% of
all cycles had been the subject of action by the police or prosecuting
authorities.

Yesterday I broke the speed limit as well - in my car. I was not
caught. A realistic approach will be based upon a greater percentage
of motorists regularly committing offences than cyclists.

It should also take into account that motorists are much more
dangerous than cyclists. Maybe we need a danger rating to make the
comparison more meaningful? We also know that motorists are roughly 40
times more numerous than cyclists as well as much more dangerous.

What particularly concerns me is that killer drivers using a car
weapon almost invariably have their licences returned, freeing them to
use a car weapon to kill yet again. So what use are endorsements
anyway?

BTW there is a World Service documentary series called 'Road Kill'
where Sheena McDonald travels the world, which kills 5 million people
every ten years on its roads, to compare the road dangers posed by
various countries. Apparently the United Nations is striving to halve
that figure. Clearly this world-wide campaign to improve road safety
is not about *cyclists at all but instead about the burgeoning use of
cars around the world. Indeed, much safer bicycles have been
considerably ousted by car use worldwide, even in poorer countries.

Clearly the addiction to car use has been allowed to be prioritised
over road safety and that lies at the root of the problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...y_Documentary_...

-- .
World Carfree Network.
*http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

How many motorists have been involved in a second fatal accident? I
think you have no evidence that car drivers who are to blame for a
road deaths go on to be involved in other unrelated road deaths,
probably there are just a handful at most, hardly proving the car is
generally used as a weapon in normal everyday use.

"Justin" wrote in message
news:7e231112-a1f5-4709-aa1e-

I have driven in the London area and I did not see cyclists blatantly
breaking traffic laws.

Are you blind?

Mr. Benn wrote:
"Justin" wrote in message
news:7e231112-a1f5-4709-aa1e-

I have driven in the London area and I did not see cyclists blatantly
breaking traffic laws.

Are you blind?

it is possible, I drove through the blackwall tunnel and the limehouse link
tunnel the other day, while in them I did not see any cyclists break any
laws at all. Coming into london on the M4 is another way that does not seem
to have lawbreaking cyclists either.

On Nov 23, 11:22*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
"Justin" wrote in message
news:7e231112-a1f5-4709-aa1e-

I have driven in the London area and I did not see cyclists blatantly
breaking traffic laws.

Are you blind?

it is possible, I drove through the blackwall tunnel and the limehouse link
tunnel the other day, while in them I did not see any cyclists break any
laws at all. *Coming into london on the M4 is another way that does not seem
to have lawbreaking cyclists either.

If cyclists were using the M4 they would be breaking the law anyway!
Just to make it clear to the dimmer psycholists, cycling is prohibited
on Motorways.

Derek C

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:14:38 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

snip


Anecdotes are not evidence. However, I witnessed an accident in which
a driver overtook another car on a blind bend having crossed double
unbroken white lines in the middle of the road. Police evidence
supported his having broken the speed limit. He killed an oncoming
cyclist almost instantly: he was dead on arrival at hospital.
The sentence was not even custodial.

I do not believe you.

You are either lying or have not given the full story.

Feel free to correct your post.

--


Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)