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

On 17 Oct 2004 08:12:17 -0700, Silas Denyer wrote:

That isn't the point - widespread lawlessness amongst one section of
the road-using community will IMHO inevitably lead to an increase in
the same or similar behaviour by other sections.

Indeed. The vast majority of road users break teh speed limit, and
even have the gall to moan about being caught doing so. As you
observe, this widespread lawlessness tends to lead to yet more
lawlessness. What do you propose?

Do you agree with the laws about red lights? 1. Yes / 2. No

Yes.

Do you believe that such laws should not apply to cyclists? 1. Yes /
2. No

Yes

If your score is 2 then we're all in trouble.

But it isn't, so everything's fine?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

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

Silas Denyer wrote:

Furthermore, the resources required to plate cycles are hardly large,
are they? The infrastructure all exists, as do the laws, the
enforcement regime, etc. But I don't think anybody wants that, so time
for the human approach.


I think you will have the law of unintended consequences visiting you.
Every cyclist journey is approx. one less car journey. Cyclists make up
about 2% of journeys across the country. Introducing the paraphernalia
of plates etc and many people won't bother. If motor journeys increase
by 2% as a result, deaths on the roads will to first order increase 2%
or approximately 60 people a year. Cyclists currently kill one or two
people a year. Your scheme would be net 58 people a year more killed.

Now you can argue over exactly how many cyclists would give up, how many
journeys might be by train rather than car but at the end of the day you
need a lot of big factors in your favour before you come close to
removing the huge deficit in human life your proposal creates.

Tony

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
And as has been pointed out to you more than once now, this argument
only applies in a situation of unlimited resources. And arguably not
even then, else we would outlaw many things which occasionally cause
injury, albeit with very low risk.

I am perfectly happy to consider both (or indeed many) points of view,
but I think that the point you're somewhat missing here is that the
debate has already been had - riding or driving on pavements is
illegal, as is running red lights. In our democratic society it was
decided many, many years ago that this was so, and laws were enacted.

The debate as to whether the "problem" should be "addressed" is (in
the terms you seem to consider) spurious. The law is the law, and the
debate should be whether we are happy with laws which are applied
inequitably to different sections of society. And are we happy with
those who are charged with enforcing those laws breaking the same laws
themselves?

For the record I have said all along that the source of the problem is
that roads thought to be so dangerous due to careless drivers that
there is too much incentive for cyclists to take to the pavement, and
councils make this worse by painting bikes on pavements seemingly at
random. To pick on the effect rather than the cause is absurd.

My whole point (or intended point!) in my original post was to provide
a few direct (rather than second-hand) observations, and to invite
consideration of suggestions for how the law as it exists could be
evenly applied.

In all other areas this debate would be irrelevant - we wouldn't
accept the enforcement of, say, parking laws based upon the colour or
the car concerned, or the serving of noise-abatement orders only on
those who play opera. This would be rightly considered scandalous, and
would contribute to a complete (or further) decline in any respect for
the law or due process at all. Should women not pay taxes whilst men
do? Can I drive my car on the pavement if I like, along your street
whilst your children are playing?

Most road traffic laws are applied reasonably even handedly. I have
actually been stopped for speeding on my bicycle, for instance, but
never in my car. As a pedestrian I have been hit by a bicycle in an
"illegal place" but never by a car.

I have never, ever, seen a cyclist stopped for running a red light or
riding on a pavement. I almost never see cyclists indicating on the
roads anymore, or bothering to display legal (or indeed any) lights,
or observing give way signs or zebra crossings, etc., yet they are
likely to be legislated for as always non-culpable (source: [1] - see
links below) if we're not careful. That is the point, and the one I
had hoped might be discussed, but it appears that the majority of
posters to this thread are genuinely unconcerned with any of this.

Finally, some stats for those who want them.

First, RoSPA's stats (which obviously only deal with reported
accidents - usually only about 3% for non-fatal, source: [2]) for 2002
are 170 pedestrians collided with a cyclist - three of those died, and
40 sustained serious injuries. Not the same as those for powered
vehicles, but still there all the same. For reference, 775 pedestrians
were killed in 2002 in total in road accidents.

Now, for some context. The West Midlands Road Accident Review 2000
concluded that, of 34 pedestrian fatalities in that sample, 0 were
caused by vehicle failure to accord precedence at a pedestrian
crossing, 1 was caused by a vehicle failing to conform to a traffic
signal/sign. 21 of 34 (62%) were caused by pedestrians randomly
stepping, walking or running from the footpath (source: [3]). So if we
exclude those factors from the equation, we're looking at only 38% of
pedestrian fatalities being caused by motorists.

This implies (on linear scaling, with all the caveats that implies)
that of the 775 pedestrians killed UK-wide about 295 were caused by
road vehicles (including bicycles). Therefore bikes were responsible
for 1% of all pedestrian road deaths caused by vehicles (3 of 295).
Using the West Midlands data as a model, this would put cyclist-caused
pedestrian deaths in the same class as those caused by, say, failure
of motorists to conform to traffic signs/signals.

Now let's consider miles driven / ridden to get some further
statistical context. According to the DfT (source: [4]), in 2002 total
(car,van,taxi) traffic was 490 billion vehicle kilometres. The
equivalent figure for cycles was 320 million for London (source: [5]),
and for the UK as a whole 4 billion (source: [6]).

So it looks like pedestrians are something like 60 times more likely
(per billion kilometre cycle-miles travelled) to be killed by a
bicycle hitting them than, say, by a car failing to head a sign or
signal.

In conclusion, based on this analysis (and I'm sure there are others
that could be done) bikes simply aren't as safe for pedestrians as is
made out. Sure there are less cycles, and hence less pedestrians
killed, but that doesn't make cycles safe for pedestrians to be around
- the average bike is far more likely to kill you than the average car
running a red light!

Put another way, less than 1% of all vehicle miles driven (the
bicycles) caused 1% of all traffic-caused pedestrian fatalities. On
that analysis, bicycles are just as likely (on a per-mile basis) to
kill pedestrians as cars are, whilst pedestrians are far more likely
to cause their own death at the "hends" of a vehicle than either of
these!

Best wishes, Silas

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2097872.stm
[2] http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html
[3] http://www.ringroad.org.uk/wmrar2000.htm
[4] http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ts_026282.hcsp
[5] http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/21107w03.htm
[6] http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ats_026292.xls

Silas Denyer wrote:

Most road traffic laws are applied reasonably even handedly. I have
actually been stopped for speeding on my bicycle, for instance, but
never in my car.

In that case, unless you were in Richmond Park at the time, you were
wrongly stopped. Royal Parks excepted, the laws which set out the
offence of speeding relate only to motor vehicles. You cannot break the
speed limit on a bicycle.

Tony

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:55:49 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:-

2. The acceptance into mainstream business of law breaking as a
competitive advantage

Speeding, you mean?

Also tachograph offences, drivers hours, lorry maintenance and lorry
loading. This sort of lawlessness is common enough to mean that a
large proportion of lorries stopped at checkpoints have something
illegal about the vehicle or its driver.


--
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 =---

On 17 Oct 2004 08:22:53 -0700 someone who may be
(Silas Denyer) wrote this:-

I have been hit (as a pedestrian) by a cyclist (breaking the law),
whose head (down, not looking, helmetted) struck me in the face.

Individual anecdotes are all very well. However, one needs to look
at the big picture to see the place to start.

I have never been hit by a cyclist. However, I have been run over by
motorists twice while I was walking along the pavement. Does this
mean that I discount the problems of people cycling along pavements?
No it does not. I frequently complain about councils that add some
white paint and blue signs to pavements and make them into "cycle
facilities". (However, I have no objection to people cycling slowly
along suitable pavements, much to the disgust of many in
uk.rec.cycling)


--
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 =---

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 =---

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Silas Denyer wrote:

I have actually been stopped for speeding on my bicycle.

You cannot break the speed limit on a bicycle.

However, you can be busted for cycling "furiously".

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes