Dave Arquati wrote:
I'm sure someone will pop up to say that a cyclist almost killed them,
but the statistics just don't support this as a common thing - of the
210 pedestrians hit by cycles in the whole of 2004 in the whole of Great
Britain, 1 was killed and 42 were seriously injured [1].

With the increase in fuel costs, parking charges, the higher congestion
charge, people not wanting to use public transport (cost, safety post
7/7, heat, multiple changes etc) and higher costs of parking your car
at a rail station (so you cycle to the station, or get a folder so you
can use it at the other end too) and many other reasons, the use of
bikes has rocketed and in London it now looks like Amsterdam or
Cambridge. However, these recent bikers have no road sense at all, even
if they've come out of their car to take to two wheels. The cycle
network is a joke too, meaning you quickly come to realise it's better
(and often safer) to take to the road than use lanes that can put you
in serious danger.

It's rather worrying that many cyclists believe they are legally
allowed to go through red lights, which explains why I'd put it at
about 70-80% jumping lights in London, from crossings (where the
pedestrians would come off worse) to junctions (where cyclists will
come off worse). Going on the pavement at speed is another problem. Go
along Embankment in the morning or after 5pm to see how close some of
them come to having an accident. People can take sudden turns (e.g. a
tourist stepping back to take a photo) and no cyclist can predict that
or react in time.

I'd be interested to see what the figures are in 2005 and 2006. I doubt
many pedestrians will be killed by a cyclist, but I bet injuries will
rocket and they don't have to be life threatening (and therefore
recorded) to give some innocent victim a seriously bad day, from cuts
and bruises to other relatively minor injuries or damage to property
being carried.

More cyclists will be injured too. In areas where the vast majority
flout the law, pedestrians are quite literally hitting back. I've
witnessed three cyclists being thrown off their bikes on a pelican
crossing, and the verbal abuse towards them is increasing too. It's
only a matter of time until someone is killed (cyclist or pedestrian)
not because of a collision but because of 'bike rage'. You can also see
that the cyclists that do abide by the law seem to annoy those that
don't, if being stopped hinders their progress.

To keep on topic, a registration system isn't workable. You just need
to have more cops issuing expensive on-the-spot penalties to those that
don't care, combined with proper education to tell those who really
don't know, what the rules actually are. Maybe Ken should push for more
REAL police rather than the plastic ones that stand around without any
power to do jack s**t!

Jonathan

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

In article , Martin
Underwood writes

police or traffic-light cameras. It's rare to see cars go through red
traffic lights (I see maybe one every couple of months)

That's odd. I used to see motorists drive through red at virtually every
junction on my commute to work from Fulham to the West End. Every day.

whereas almost every
day I see cyclists ride straight through lights as if they don't apply to
cyclists

I saw plenty of those too.

--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

congokid wrote:
police or traffic-light cameras. It's rare to see cars go through red
traffic lights (I see maybe one every couple of months)

That's odd. I used to see motorists drive through red at virtually every
junction on my commute to work from Fulham to the West End. Every day.

Yes, I have to say that at a junction you will see people accelerate on
amber (even though there's nobody behind them) or jump red. However,
you may get one car or perhaps two but after that, it sorts itself out.
This is why red light cameras are such a good idea, but surprisingly
rare compared to speed cameras.

When it comes to cyclists, they go through red at any time. Even if the
lights have been red for 10-20 seconds, and this is what makes it so
much more dangerous especially for pedestrians.

Cyclists will also ride the wrong way on a one way street (so a
pedestrian may not even look, although common sense says you should)
which a car would only do by mistake in 99.9% cases I'm sure. Cyclists
will also turn left/right on a straight ahead only junction, which
again puts pedestrians at risk. A car must give way to a pedestrian
when turning into a side road.. you try crossing if a bike is coming
your way (at best you'll be called a blind c**t, at worst they'll try
and clip you).

So, while a car jumping lights may well be far more dangerous IF they
hit you, I think on the whole it's the cyclist that is more likely to
come into contact with a pedestrian. You can usually tell if a car
isn't going to stop, while a cyclist will often slow but then go ahead
anyway. If a car is braking (i.e. the car is dipping) I'd say it's
unheard of for them to suddenly accelerate through you as a bike
would/does.

For anyone not clear, I am talking about London (inner and outer) and
hope it isn't like this throughout the UK. If it is, god help us all
and how did we allow it to get like this?

Jonathan

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:20:27 +0100, "David Biddulph"
wrote:

"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
.. .
On 29 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700, "
wrote:

But, does Cambridge University not still have a mandatory College
resistration system for students' bicycles? I remember my number -
Q283, from all those years ago! I'm not sure what the sanction was for
failing to register and/or display one's number.

Yes it does (I'm told), and I've no idea what the penalty is, or even
if the situation ever arises.

In my day the fine for most offences was six shillings and eight pence.
More severe offences warranted thirteen shillings and four pence.

It probably still is!

A sign once went up warning us of a GBP25 fine for removing books from
the college library without signing them out. Someone (*cough*) wrote
"But how will you know?" on the bottom. The next day someone else had
added "That's not the point, you moral reprobate". (Quite a few of us
spotted that it was cheaper to pay 3-4 years of weekly overdue book
fines than actually buy the books)

FWIW, when I put the radio on tonight I got the tail end of something
about a student last century who noticed that while he wasn't allowed
a car in the city, the rules said nothing about aeroplanes.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

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?

In article .com,
(Jonathan Morris) wrote:

The cycle network is a joke too, meaning you quickly come to realise
it's better (and often safer) to take to the road than use lanes that
can put you in serious danger.

As someone who bikes in Cambridge and London, London is well provided
with bike facilities and in some areas much better provided with
alternatives away from main roads which Cambridge just doesn't have.

What is noticeable is that London hasn't caught on to various devices
which are common in Cambridge. For example we have few one-way streets,
just streets with No Entry restrictions at one end which allow cycling
in both directions.

The biggest problem with that is where there isn't room for a cycle slip
lane bypassing a No Entry sign and No Motor Vehicles (low flying
motorcycles) signs have to be used instead. Almost every motorist seems
to believe that all such signs have "Except for Access" plates attached
even when they don't and they also believe that the exception always
includes them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(congokid) wrote:

In article ,
Martin Underwood writes

police or traffic-light cameras. It's rare to see cars go through
red traffic lights (I see maybe one every couple of months)

That's odd. I used to see motorists drive through red at virtually
every junction on my commute to work from Fulham to the West End.
Every day.

Try the lights on Parliament Square. I set off when my lights change to
green. There are still vehicles coming out of Broad Sanctuary every time.

whereas almost every
day I see cyclists ride straight through lights as if they don't
apply to cyclists

I saw plenty of those too.

WHS.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

Moreover, all resident Members of the University were required to
obtain the Motor Proctor's written consent before having motor
vehicle in the City. I wonder whether that still applies.?

It seems to me that fewer students cycle these days despite motor
controls which continue as strongly as ever, now backed by the
Planning Authority and applied to ARU and private education-linked
housing too.

The other change nowadays seems to be that the Motor Proctor seems to
have lost his former responsibilities for aircraft.

--
Colin Rosenstiel