Colin McKenzie wrote:
Would anyone care to argue that motoring offences are at an acceptably
low level? Enforcement of speed and red lights is still treated as a
game, with a slap on the wrist if you are dozy enough not to spot a
bright yellow camera. Elsewhere, 90% of drivers treat speed limits as
advisory.

The speed argument is silly though. It's been turned into a major issue
because there's technology on the cheap to enforce it; in fact, there's
cheap technology that makes it profitable to enforce it. It fails to
recognise that speed is a minor cause of accidents, even if it /can/
have a more serious effect when one happens. It fails to catch those
who are not qualified to drive, drunk, under the influence of drugs, on
their phone, not up to standard etc. Real police enforce these things,
but are rapidly disappearing in favour of cameras on the one hand, and
CSOs on the other.

I've just driven from England to Sweden, via France, Belgium, Holland,
Germany and Denmark. Most countries now have a speed limit of 130kph,
with Germany having their infamous autobahns that carry 1/3rd of all
traffic, yet have just 6% of all accidents. Most roads are just two
lanes, yet it's quite easy to do 120-130kph or even a GPS-verified
202kph (in a diesel Mondeo!) on the open stretches. It's totally legal,
and amazingly the only complaints in Germany are down to the
environmental cost, not the brainwashed message we have that 'speed
kills'. If I did 125mph in the UK, I'd be considered to be on the same
level as Saddam Hussein. Do it in Germany, and the most hassle I'll get
is having to pull in to allow a Porsche through wanting to do 300kph!

Even Sweden with 'vision zero' is experimenting with an increased limit
to 130kph from 110kph! I saw one potential road rage incident in
Germany, but otherwise motorists are far more tolerant than a British
motorist will ever be.

The problem in the UK is the quality of driving which seems to be
terrible and getting worse (even though new drivers have a far more
thorough test than we ever did). Speeding can be enforced easily, but
the policy in the last 10 years of reducing many limits from 70 to 50
(supplemented by cameras) isn't working. Fatalities have remained
almost constant (give or take 100 here and there) suggesting speed
cameras aren't working either. In fact, it seems to prove only how many
people must be speeding and on the fact that most people speeding
aren't killing anyone!

Jonathan

Jonathan Morris wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Would anyone care to argue that motoring offences are at an acceptably
low level? Enforcement of speed and red lights is still treated as a
game, with a slap on the wrist if you are dozy enough not to spot a
bright yellow camera. Elsewhere, 90% of drivers treat speed limits as
advisory.

The speed argument is silly though. It's been turned into a major issue
because there's technology on the cheap to enforce it; in fact, there's
cheap technology that makes it profitable to enforce it. It fails to
recognise that speed is a minor cause of accidents, even if it /can/
have a more serious effect when one happens.

No, it is important, in producing a more cycle-friendly and
pedestrian-friendly road system. A couple of illustrations.

An elderly pedestrian wants to cross a road where sightlines are not
too good. She starts crossing when no traffic is in sight. The faster
the traffic, the more likely it is that a motor vehicle will arrive
before she finishes crossing.

A cyclist at 15mph is approached from behind by a car. The road isn't
wide enough to overtake safely, though there's just room to squeeze
past. If the car is going at 40 mph, the closing speed is double what
it is at 27.5. The driver at 40 has to think twice as fast, and slow
down twice as much to wait for a safe place to overtake. Which do you
think is more likely to barge past anyway, and which will be more
frightening when it does?

It fails to catch those
who are not qualified to drive, drunk, under the influence of drugs, on
their phone, not up to standard etc. Real police enforce these things,
but are rapidly disappearing in favour of cameras on the one hand, and
CSOs on the other.

Of course. See my other points.

The problem in the UK is the quality of driving which seems to be
terrible and getting worse (even though new drivers have a far more
thorough test than we ever did). Speeding can be enforced easily, but
the policy in the last 10 years of reducing many limits from 70 to 50
(supplemented by cameras) isn't working. Fatalities have remained
almost constant (give or take 100 here and there) suggesting speed
cameras aren't working either. In fact, it seems to prove only how many
people must be speeding and on the fact that most people speeding
aren't killing anyone!

You have a point, but the issue is complicated and a lot of things are
going on. Speed cameras and lower limits on dual carriageways do
reduce speeds where they are used - but the limits are still above the
level at which pedestrians are likely to die in collisions.

Another factor not often mentioned is airbags - a rarity 10 years ago,
now in most cars. Where are the lives these have saved?

In both cases, interventions that should save lives are apparently not
affecting overall fatalities. So are they pointless, or would we be
worse off without them? Don't forget that traffic levels continue to
rise - maybe per journey safety is improving at the same rate.

In general drivers compensate for safety improvements by taking more
risks. Over time, this appears to have transferred risk from users of
enclosed vehicles to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?

Dave Arquati wrote:
There are two ways to enforce this - manually (by having police or traffic wardens
out and about catching them) or automatically (using cameras). Ken seems to
want bike registration plates so that cameras can catch bikes automatically

More police is the *only* answer. If you think you'll be stopped and
given an £80-100 on the spot fine, you might reconsider (if not then
you might after paying hundreds of pounds by getting done repeatedly).
CCTV would fail for so many reasons it's not even worth considering
(fake plates, unreadable plates, simply not displaying a plate because
you know there are no police officers out there to force you to, the
huge cost for what isn't perceived as a big problem).

My opinion is that a "soft" publicity-based campaign against antisocial
cycling would be far more effective.

Yes, combined with the increased number of police officers being
proactive (and obviously performing other duties at the same time).
Forget CSO's unless they're given more effective powers.

Jonathan

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle registration,
and wants a private bill put through Parliament to achieve this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm

I definitely have mixed feelings about this. I disagree with the guy from
British Cycling who says a "tiny minority of cyclists" are flouting road
regulations - in my reasonably frequent cycling experience, I reckon about
half of cyclists go past me through red lights, and as a pedestrian I come
across people cycling on non-shared-use pavements nearly every day.


Yes, it isn't a tiny minority. I'd even say it's a majority.

But I don't understand why everyone agrees that jumping lights is such a
terrible thing for cyclists. Is there not an argument to be made that
different rules do apply and *ought* to apply to cyclists, simply because
cyclists are making life or death decisions every second they are on the
road.

If you follow the Highway Code to the last letter while driving a car, the
consequences of another road user making a mistake are sometimes but very
rarely fatal. When I'm driving, I don't always slow down to check whether
someone is jumping their red light as I approach my green light. I don't
always glance to the right behind me when turning left, to check if someone
might cut me off as they try to make a left turn.

When I'm cycling, I do these checks 100% of the time, because if I didn't I
would have been killed several times by now. Following the Highway Code to
the letter does not protect me in the same way as it protects a car driver.

So what I'm saying is that cyclists are checking if the coast is clear all
the time, regardless of whether a green light or the rules tell them it's
safe or not. Their reasoning is that the green light is useless to them -
they need to double-check regardless - so why should they be bound by a red
light, when they can see that it's perfectly safe for them to cross.

And if you force cyclists to follow the letter of the law in all situations
(thereby telling them that their own safety is no longer in their own
hands), I think the actual accident statistics would increase.

j

Jim wrote in message
:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Apparently, the Mayor is now in favour of bike user/vehicle
registration, and wants a private bill put through Parliament to
achieve this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm

I definitely have mixed feelings about this. I disagree with the guy
from British Cycling who says a "tiny minority of cyclists" are
flouting road regulations - in my reasonably frequent cycling
experience, I reckon about half of cyclists go past me through red
lights, and as a pedestrian I come across people cycling on
non-shared-use pavements nearly every day.

Yes, it isn't a tiny minority. I'd even say it's a majority.

But I don't understand why everyone agrees that jumping lights is
such a terrible thing for cyclists. Is there not an argument to be
made that different rules do apply and *ought* to apply to cyclists,
simply because cyclists are making life or death decisions every
second they are on the road.

No, no and thrice no! I disagree in the strongest terms that different rules
should apply to cyclists. You seem to be saying that because cyclists are
more vulnerable if they make a mistake (and *maybe* are more vigilant
because of this) they should be exempt from obeying traffic lights. I'm an
advanced driver and therefore maybe am more vigilant - should I also be
exempt from obeying parts of the Highway Code?

A cyclist who jumps the lights and hits or is hit by a car who has a green
light doesn't even carry third-party insurance to cover the damage that he
causes to the car.

Jim wrote:

So what I'm saying is that cyclists are checking if the coast is
clear all the time,

Are you serious? You might, I might and Martin might - but I would venture
that we are very much in the minority these days. It's quite terrifying
watching the behaviour of some of our fellow cyclists (mind you, it's
equally terrifying watching some of the suicidal antics of our motorised
brethren in their upholstered roller skates!).