On 17 Oct 2004 08:41:52 -0700, (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message :

I think there will shortly be a significant backlash against cyclists,
from *all* sections of the community.

LOL! Been living in a hole the last few years, have you?

Bizarrely, I've lived and worked in a many "cyclist-friendly" places,
such as Oxford where the "reclaim the streets" lot actually managed to
get cars pretty much banned from the city centre (along with most of
the customers for local businesses, but, hey, the cycling's great
now...).

No shortage of people in the city centre businesses last time I was in
Oxford. And you are missing the point: the backlash is alive and well
and living in the Daily Mail, and has been all along.

But from your example above I would hazard a guess that you are both
pedestrian and motorist, and picking on cyclists because that is
easier than challenging your own behaviour.

Most people I know don't actually hate cyclists per se, and most of my
social circle are in fact cyclists and "career pedestrians" rather
than motorists. However I don't think I've ever seen such a complete
disregard for the law as I see now, hence my original post.

You should try cycling some time. Disregard for the law is abundant
among our motorised brethren too, with much more dangerous
consequences. Most on urc are in favour of compliance by all road
users. On the other hand, Michael Howard seems to think that traffic
offences are not worth pursuing at all.

The
not-so-recent EU proposal to make motorists responsible for all
accidents involving cyclists didn't help, of course,

And the fact that it also applied to accidents involving pedestrians,
who are at fault in about half of cases rather than the one in five or
less where cyclists are at fault, somehow never made it into the
papers. Funny, that.

A perfect example of the anti-cyclist bigotry already common in the
press, I'd say.

and I must admit
that the current tarring of motorists with the brush of "sinners"
isn't too helpful either,

In what way is it unhelpful? Have you never seen the transport
fatality statistics? Are you not aware that road traffic crashes are
responsible for half of all fatal child injuries? These are not
cyclists who are causing these deaths; we are victims of road danger
just as much as pedestrians are. That's why the leading cyclists'
organisation works closely with pedestrians' campaigning bodies.

but above I simply believe that good old
social conscience, disapproval, comment, personal and local
engagement, etc. are a terribly good way to get things to change for
the better.

And why not. It works a treat with motor law enforcement, doesn't it?
Look at the scorn poured on those stupid enough to be convicted of
speeding, and the huge support for traffic law enforcement in the
popular press.

Oh, wait...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Silas Denyer wrote:

I must admit
that the current tarring of motorists with the brush of "sinners"
isn't too helpful either,

Why not. An estimated 2 million of them will have been prosecuted in
2003 for speeding and running red lights. Out of 30 million license
holders thats a lot of sinners and those are just the ones that get caught!

Tony

On 17 Oct 2004 08:41:52 -0700 someone who may be
(Silas Denyer) wrote this:-

The
not-so-recent EU proposal to make motorists responsible for all
accidents involving cyclists didn't help, of course,

There was no such proposal. That was what the Daily Wail and the
like claimed the proposal was.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Silas Denyer wrote:
Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
registration of the riders (plate on the back of a mandatory
reflective jacket, perhaps). This isn't trivial law-breaking - this is
anarchy in which business, the police, and the general public are
wholesale ignoring the law of the land, and frequently endangering the
lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?

Best wishes, Silas


Just get the police to do their job. You pay for them with your taxes.
Troll.

"Silas Denyer" wrote in message
m...
Last week I had to drive (in a car) across London. I made a note of
all cyclists I saw with red traffic lights against them, and their
behaviour. Of 182 I encountered on my (fairly long and, as you'll
gather, dull) drive, only 8 stopped at a red light against them - less
than 5%.

Right. If you were really making such meticulous notes of cyclists, you
couldn't have been paying proper attention to your own driving.


Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
registration of the riders (plate on the back of a mandatory
reflective jacket, perhaps). This isn't trivial law-breaking - this is
anarchy in which business, the police, and the general public are
wholesale ignoring the law of the land, and frequently endangering the
lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?

Not me. Get a life.

"David Splett" wrote in message ...
"Silas Denyer" wrote in message
m...
Last week I had to drive (in a car) across London. I made a note of
all cyclists I saw with red traffic lights against them, and their
behaviour. Of 182 I encountered on my (fairly long and, as you'll
gather, dull) drive, only 8 stopped at a red light against them - less
than 5%.

Right. If you were really making such meticulous notes of cyclists, you
couldn't have been paying proper attention to your own driving.

Well, I was stopped at the red lights in question, so that wasn't
really a problem. I suggest that I was concentrating rather harder
than the cyclists in question.

Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
registration of the riders (plate on the back of a mandatory
reflective jacket, perhaps). This isn't trivial law-breaking - this is
anarchy in which business, the police, and the general public are
wholesale ignoring the law of the land, and frequently endangering the
lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?

Not me. Get a life.

So I take it that you condone these activities and the breakdown of
law?

Silas

"Silas Denyer" wrote in message
om...
Well, I was stopped at the red lights in question, so that wasn't
really a problem. I suggest that I was concentrating rather harder
than the cyclists in question.

So you were ready to take action should a lorry come up behind you at speed?
Was your engine switched off?


So I take it that you condone these activities and the breakdown of
law?

To be honest, I don't care about these activities as long as they don't
affect me. Of course I have been involved in situations where pavements
cyclists and red-light-disregarders have irritated or inconvenienced me, but
I tend to take it more as an individual issue, and don't make unjustified
generalizations about groups of people based upon a handful of incidents. A
prat is a prat in any situation - whether they are driving a car, riding a
bike, sitting on a train or whatever.

Silas, I understand your anger. However, I suggest that it's fundamentally born of envy. In point of fact, the people who are most in danger when cycling through red lights are the cyclists themselves. If you were accustomed to cycling in London, you would recognise that careful traversing of crossroads on a bicycle when lights are red, greatly increases their safety, since they are in far greater danger when vehicles are moving off at a junction as the light goes green. This is because drivers' behaviour often involves failing to indicate when turning and frequently desiring to be first off the line ahead of someone in another lane in order to be in front when two lanes become one. This is perilous for a cyclist who is likely to get squeezed out being 'smaller'. I came to a junction on my bike in Wandsworth last night. The light ahead was red. A coach overtook me in the narrow lane to queue behind the six or eight other cars at the red light. I was forced abruptly to a standstill as the coach came in around me to hug the kerb.
Until it is recognised that cyclists have equal use of the road and should be treated no differently from other road users, they will continue to bend the rules in order to secure their safety, which given their physical vulnerability, having no cage around them, is surely paramount in the argument. Councils need to recognise this and put in place measures which support their safety. Green boxes for bicycles at junctions are often ignored by drivers and are insufficient protection when traffic moves off simultaneously: perhaps the answer is a green light for bicycles prior to that for motorised vehicles.
Such measures would be a fitting acknowledgement of the greater sense in travelling by pedal power, both environmentally and in terms of the health it promotes, not to mention the efficiency in saving time which is so important to London travellers who are increasingly frustrated by over-burdened public transport.