Compulsory testing for cyclists

[ash[_2_]]

Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
year.

As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
help reduce these figures further !

You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)

[Derek C]

On Jun 1, 12:36*pm, ash > wrote:
> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> year.
>
> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> help reduce these figures further !
>
> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)

Good idea, but the psycholists will attribute the fall in death rates
to anything (better cars, better roads, speed limits, alcohol limits,
etc, etc) that doesn't impact on them in any way. Doubtless the
argument that it will deter people from 'eco-friendly green' cycling
will be used!

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Jun 1, 1:07*pm, Matt B > wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
>
> > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>
> In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. *In 1935 that
> figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.
>
> Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely down
> to the driving test, and nothing else. *Funny that because others have
> claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed limit in towns
> that year (30 mph), or the introduction of pedestrian crossings that
> year, or the introduction of HGV licences that year. *What is your
> reason for not crediting any of these latter innovations with having had
> any effect?
>
> > As a
> > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > year.
>
> Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is proportional
> to the number of cars on the road?
>
> --
I foretold these sorts of stupid arguments in the second message in
this thread!

Derek C

[Matt B]

On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.

In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. In 1935 that
figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.

Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely down
to the driving test, and nothing else. Funny that because others have
claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed limit in towns
that year (30 mph), or the introduction of pedestrian crossings that
year, or the introduction of HGV licences that year. What is your
reason for not crediting any of these latter innovations with having had
any effect?

> As a
> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> year.

Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is proportional
to the number of cars on the road?

--
Matt B

[mileburner]

"ash" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> year.
>
> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> help reduce these figures further !
>
> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)

Sounds like a good idea!

I'd be quite willing to apply to be one of the examiners.

People need to be careful about what they wish for.

[ash[_2_]]

On 1 June, 13:07, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:07*pm, Matt B > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
>
> > > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>
> > In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. *In 1935 that
> > figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.
>
> > Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely down
> > to the driving test, and nothing else. *Funny that because others have
> > claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed limit in towns
> > that year (30 mph), or the introduction of pedestrian crossings that
> > year, or the introduction of HGV licences that year. *What is your
> > reason for not crediting any of these latter innovations with having had
> > any effect?
>
> > > As a
> > > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > > year.
>
> > Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is proportional
> > to the number of cars on the road?
>
> > --
>
> I foretold these sorts of stupid arguments in the second message in
> this thread!
>
> Derek C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You were right lol !

[ash[_2_]]

On 1 June, 13:07, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "ash" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > year.
>
> > As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > help reduce these figures further !
>
> > You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> Sounds like a good idea!
>
> I'd be quite willing to apply to be one of the examiners.
>
> People need to be careful about what they wish for.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is nothing at all wrong with you doing this. You would however
have to demonstrate competence in your own abilities which means your
own standards would have to rise if they are not already there ;o).
Bear in mind that car drivers and motorcyclists have already been
tested to a given standard to be allowed on the roads unsupervised
already so this group is already out of your remit. I do applaud your
efforts to raise the standards of cycling and subsequent improvements
in the KSIs we see - especially amongst the london riders !

[Derek C]

On Jun 1, 1:48*pm, Matt B > wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 13:07, Derek C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 1:07 pm, Matt > *wrote:
> >> On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
>
> >>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> >>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> >>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> >>> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> >>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>
> >> In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. *In 1935 that
> >> figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.
>
> >> Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely down
> >> to the driving test, and nothing else. *Funny that because others have
> >> claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed limit in towns
> >> that year (30 mph), or the introduction of pedestrian crossings that
> >> year, or the introduction of HGV licences that year. *What is your
> >> reason for not crediting any of these latter innovations with having had
> >> any effect?
>
> >>> As a
> >>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> >>> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> >>> year.
>
> >> Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is proportional
> >> to the number of cars on the road?
>
> > I foretold these sorts of stupid arguments in the second message in
> > this thread!
>
> Please explain your reason for assuming that one, and not another, or
> not a combination of the measures introduced that year influenced the
> road casualty figure. *Also, why you think that road deaths rose again
> in 1936, 1937 and 1938 reaching 8,272 by 1939 - despite driving tests
> still being in force.
>
> --
Probably because of increasing numbers of cars on the road. Other than
that, I rest my case.

Derek C

[Matt B]

On 01/06/2010 13:07, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:07 pm, Matt > wrote:
>> On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
>>> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>>
>> In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. In 1935 that
>> figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.
>>
>> Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely down
>> to the driving test, and nothing else. Funny that because others have
>> claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed limit in towns
>> that year (30 mph), or the introduction of pedestrian crossings that
>> year, or the introduction of HGV licences that year. What is your
>> reason for not crediting any of these latter innovations with having had
>> any effect?
>>
>>> As a
>>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
>>> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
>>> year.
>>
>> Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is proportional
>> to the number of cars on the road?
>>
> I foretold these sorts of stupid arguments in the second message in
> this thread!

Please explain your reason for assuming that one, and not another, or
not a combination of the measures introduced that year influenced the
road casualty figure. Also, why you think that road deaths rose again
in 1936, 1937 and 1938 reaching 8,272 by 1939 - despite driving tests
still being in force.

--
Matt B

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

ash wrote:

> Isn't it about time this was introduced.

No. Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be policed? 2,
What age would you have to be tested at?

> When the driving test was
> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> year.

Are you sure the deaths dropped purely as a result of testing? I think
not.

> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> help reduce these figures further !

How are cyclists "disproportionately represented in these figures" ?

> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)

Many cyclists don't simply blame others .. especially those ****wits
that ride up the sides of lorries in cities.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Derek C]

On Jun 1, 1:56*pm, Matt B > wrote:

>
> 2. Do you think that, possibly, much of the reason for the apparent
> increase in road safety is in fact that most people now keep away from
> streets and roads and not actually that they are safer?
>
> --
Have you been in central London recently?

Derek C

[Matt B]

On 01/06/2010 13:20, ash wrote:
> On 1 June, 13:07, Derek > wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 1:07 pm, Matt > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
>>>> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>>>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>>
>>> In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. In 1935 that
>>> figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.
>>
>>> Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely down
>>> to the driving test, and nothing else. Funny that because others have
>>> claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed limit in towns
>>> that year (30 mph), or the introduction of pedestrian crossings that
>>> year, or the introduction of HGV licences that year. What is your
>>> reason for not crediting any of these latter innovations with having had
>>> any effect?
>>
>>>> As a
>>>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
>>>> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
>>>> year.
>>
>>> Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is proportional
>>> to the number of cars on the road?
>>
>> I foretold these sorts of stupid arguments in the second message in
>> this thread!
>
> You were right lol !

Ash, what are your answers to my questions above?

Here are some more for you...
1. Do you think that people, particularly children, walk, cycle and play
on the streets now to the same extent as they did in, say, 1934?

2. Do you think that, possibly, much of the reason for the apparent
increase in road safety is in fact that most people now keep away from
streets and roads and not actually that they are safer?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

On 01/06/2010 13:47, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:48 pm, Matt > wrote:
>> On 01/06/2010 13:07, Derek C wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 1:07 pm, Matt > wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
>>
>>>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
>>>>> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>>>>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>>
>>>> In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. In 1935 that
>>>> figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.
>>
>>>> Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely down
>>>> to the driving test, and nothing else. Funny that because others have
>>>> claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed limit in towns
>>>> that year (30 mph), or the introduction of pedestrian crossings that
>>>> year, or the introduction of HGV licences that year. What is your
>>>> reason for not crediting any of these latter innovations with having had
>>>> any effect?
>>
>>>>> As a
>>>>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
>>>>> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
>>>>> year.
>>
>>>> Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is proportional
>>>> to the number of cars on the road?
>>
>>> I foretold these sorts of stupid arguments in the second message in
>>> this thread!
>>
>> Please explain your reason for assuming that one, and not another, or
>> not a combination of the measures introduced that year influenced the
>> road casualty figure. Also, why you think that road deaths rose again
>> in 1936, 1937 and 1938 reaching 8,272 by 1939 - despite driving tests
>> still being in force.
>>
> Probably because of increasing numbers of cars on the road.

That, I assume, is your answer to my second question. What's your
answer to my first question - do you rule out any effect from the
introduction of urban speed limits and pedestrian crossing?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

On 01/06/2010 13:53, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:56 pm, Matt > wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. Do you think that, possibly, much of the reason for the apparent
>> increase in road safety is in fact that most people now keep away from
>> streets and roads and not actually that they are safer?
>>
> Have you been in central London recently?

Yes. Why? Is there evidence there somewhere that UK roads are now
actually safer, rather than that people no longer use them on foot in
the same way that they once did?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

On 01/06/2010 19:04, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT), >
> wrote:
>
>> On 1 June, 12:36, > wrote:
>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
>>> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
>>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
>>> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
>>> year.
>>>
>>> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
>>> lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
>>> was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
>>> help reduce these figures further !
>>>
>>> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
>>> reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
>>> denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>>>
>> You are ignoring a simple fact that many more cyclists are killed than
>> kill and in circumstances which are largely beyond their control. No
>> amount of cyclist training will prevent a runaway or drunk driver from
>> killing them and yet cyclists do not kill drivers. Obviously it is the
>> potential killers who injure cyclists that need more training, or
>> better still permanent removal from our roads, and the actual killers
>> should have much longer prison sentences than they do at present.
>> Lives are irreplaceable..
>
> Think long-term, Doug.
>
> No child leaves primary school without passing Bikeability Level 2,
> and no child leaves secondary school without passing Bikeability Level
> 3.
>
> Within two or three generations every driver will also have passed
> Bikeability Level 3 and understand the needs of cyclists; all people
> in the UK will have the skills and confidence to cycle on modern roads
> in modern traffic conditions; all secondary school pupils will have
> the skills and confidence to cycle to school using local roads.
>
> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
> their vehicle safe for cyclists.

Better still would be if every school leaver was also qualified to drive
a car. Research (somewhere in Scandinavia IIRC) shows that those who
learn to drive before they are 17 become safer drivers than those who
learn to drive after they are 17.

Roadmanship (as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver) should become the 4th
"R" - it is no less a necessary life skill than the other 3.

This could be funded from some of the savings that would result from
having a road-safe population.

--
Matt B

[OG]

"ash" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.

You must be really stupid if you genuinely think that's 'concrete proof'.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:07 pm, Matt B > wrote:
>> On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll
>>> in the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>>
>> In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. In 1935 that
>> figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.
>>
>> Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely
>> down to the driving test, and nothing else. Funny that because
>> others have claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed
>> limit in towns that year (30 mph), or the introduction of pedestrian
>> crossings that year, or the introduction of HGV licences that year.
>> What is your reason for not crediting any of these latter
>> innovations with having had any effect?
>>
>>> As a
>>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in
>>> the UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to
>>> 2500 per year.
>>
>> Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is
>> proportional to the number of cars on the road?
>>
>> --
> I foretold these sorts of stupid arguments in the second message in
> this thread!

To be fair, you didn't need to be Derren Brown to do that :-)


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Matt B wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 13:20, ash wrote:
>> On 1 June, 13:07, Derek > wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 1:07 pm, Matt > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 01/06/2010 12:36, ash wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death
>>>>> toll in the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000
>>>>> which is concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>>>
>>>> In 1934 there were 7,343 people killed on the roads. In 1935 that
>>>> figure dropped by *841* to 6,502.
>>>
>>>> Anyway, you seem very sure that the actual drop of 841 was purely
>>>> down to the driving test, and nothing else. Funny that because
>>>> others have claimed that it was due to the introduction of a speed
>>>> limit in towns that year (30 mph), or the introduction of
>>>> pedestrian crossings that year, or the introduction of HGV
>>>> licences that year. What is your reason for not crediting any of
>>>> these latter innovations with having had any effect?
>>>
>>>>> As a
>>>>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads
>>>>> in the UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen
>>>>> to 2500 per year.
>>>
>>>> Do you have evidence that the number of road fatalities is
>>>> proportional to the number of cars on the road?
>>>
>>> I foretold these sorts of stupid arguments in the second message in
>>> this thread!
>>
>> You were right lol !
>
> Ash, what are your answers to my questions above?
>
> Here are some more for you...
> 1. Do you think that people, particularly children, walk, cycle and
> play on the streets now to the same extent as they did in, say, 1934?
>
> 2. Do you think that, possibly, much of the reason for the apparent
> increase in road safety is in fact that most people now keep away from
> streets and roads and not actually that they are safer?


<WRIGGLE ALERT><WRIGGLE ALERT><WRIGGLE ALERT>


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[ash[_2_]]

On Jun 1, 9:57*pm, "OG" > wrote:
> "ash" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>
> You must be really stupid if you genuinely think that's 'concrete proof'.

You really 'are' stupid if you genuinely think that training road
users to a good standard makes no difference to how they behave on the
roads !

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Matt B wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 14:27, Derek C wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2:22 pm, Matt > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So what proportion of the reduction in road fatalities in 1935 do
>>> you attribute to:
>>> 1. The introduction of the 30 mph urban speed limit.
>>> 2. The introduction of pedestrian crossings.
>>> 3. The introduction of driving tests.
>>> 4. Other factors.
>>>
>> Probably all of the above contributed to improved road safety. From a
>> statistical and experimental point of view, you should only change
>> one factor at a time to find your answers, but this approach would be
>> unlikely to go down well politically!
>
> Do you imagine that the casualty figures would be exactly the same
> each year if no new "road safety" measures were introduced?
>
>> As in the cycle helmets debate, you are doing your best to confuse
>> the issue!
>
> I'm attempting to clarify, not confuse, the issue!

No you are not! You are desperately trying to wriggle. Compulsory training
& testing might lead to registration, which might lead to taxation - which
cyclists would hate.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> ash wrote:
>
>> Isn't it about time this was introduced.
>
> No. Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be policed? 2,
> What age would you have to be tested at?

1. Registration plates for push bikes.
2. When you stop being a child.

It would cost a bit to administer - but we could get that back by taxing
cyclists.



--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> ash wrote:
>
>> On 1 June, 13:52, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>> ash wrote:
>>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced.
>>>
>>> No. Two issues I immediately see are
>>
>>> 1, How would it be policed?
>> Register the cycles in the same way other carriages are for road use
>
> Doesn't work well for cars, why do you think it'd work for bikes?

Here we go again, that old chestnut. It works very well for the vast
majority of motorists.
>
> Indeed most of the 'Bad driving on camera' type TV shows we see are of
> drivers who don't actually have licences, MOT's, Insurance, or even
> own the cars they're destroying.

Oh dear - they should be arrested for doing that. Hang on a minute - they
are.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Jim A wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 12:36 PM, ash wrote:
>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll
>> in the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in
>> the UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to
>> 2500 per year.
>>
>> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due
>> to lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this
>> mode was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove
>> competence to help reduce these figures further !
>>
>> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they
>> themselves reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon
>> whilst denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can
>> we)
>
> I wouldn't have any objection to a test. The cost of implementing it
> could be funded from VED and taxes on fuel. ;-)

Even better, sponging cyclists could start paying thier way - for a change.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
> wrote:
>
>> On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll
>>> in the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
>>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in
>>> the UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to
>>> 2500 per year.
>>>
>>> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due
>>> to lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time
>>> this mode was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove
>>> competence to help reduce these figures further !
>>>
>>> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they
>>> themselves reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon
>>> whilst denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can
>>> we)
>>>
>> You are ignoring a simple fact that many more cyclists are killed
>> than kill and in circumstances which are largely beyond their
>> control. No amount of cyclist training will prevent a runaway or
>> drunk driver from killing them and yet cyclists do not kill drivers.
>> Obviously it is the potential killers who injure cyclists that need
>> more training, or better still permanent removal from our roads, and
>> the actual killers should have much longer prison sentences than
>> they do at present. Lives are irreplaceable..
>
> Think long-term, Doug.
>
> No child leaves primary school without passing Bikeability Level 2,
> and no child leaves secondary school without passing Bikeability Level
> 3.
>
> Within two or three generations every driver will also have passed
> Bikeability Level 3 and understand the needs of cyclists; all people
> in the UK will have the skills and confidence to cycle on modern roads
> in modern traffic conditions; all secondary school pupils will have
> the skills and confidence to cycle to school using local roads.
>
> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
> their vehicle safe for cyclists.

Typical cyclist. We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get motorists to
pay for it. Sponging *******s. Did it ever occur to you to pay your own
way.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[OG]

ash wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:57 pm, "OG" > wrote:
>> "ash" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
>>> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>> You must be really stupid if you genuinely think that's 'concrete proof'.
>
> You really 'are' stupid if you genuinely think that training road
> users to a good standard makes no difference to how they behave on the
> roads !

Did I say that that's what I think?

But you DID make the stupid 'this is concrete proof' statement!

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:32:49 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>Roadmanship (as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver) should become the 4th
>"R" - it is no less a necessary life skill than the other 3.

What about commuting using public transport?

Some of my colleagues are aghast that I am taking my class of thirty
5/6 year olds to see a concert of Little Red Riding Hood by the London
Symphony Orchestra at the Barbican by overground and underground
train, changing at London Bridge.

I say that learning to use public transport is a life skill. And
school parties travel for free on London Transport. The hire of a
coach for 30 children and a brace of adults would cost at least £400
and take twice as long as the train and tube making the trip price per
child over £16.50 instead of the £3.20 per child it is costing. And
which mode of transport do you think five year olds find most
exciting?

Last term I took my class to the Horniman Museum.
http://www.horniman.ac.uk/
We took a train to London Bridge then another train to Forest Hill.
The trip was free - WOW!

And the term before that we went to the Planetarium in Greenwich Park.
We walked to the Park.
The Planetarium show cost £3 per child. What a bargain! And they
experienced crossing the A2 safely using a toucan crossing to boot.

[Matt B]

On 01/06/2010 22:19, The Medway Handyman wrote:
> Paul - xxx wrote:
>> ash wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced.
>>
>> No. Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be policed? 2,
>> What age would you have to be tested at?
>
> 1. Registration plates for push bikes.
> 2. When you stop being a child.

Should untested children be allowed to use the roads until they are old
enough to be tested?

--
Matt B

[Martin Nyman]

The Medway Handyman wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll
>>>> in the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>>>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
>>>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in
>>>> the UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to
>>>> 2500 per year.
>>>>
>>>> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due
>>>> to lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time
>>>> this mode was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove
>>>> competence to help reduce these figures further !
>>>>
>>>> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they
>>>> themselves reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon
>>>> whilst denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can
>>>> we)
>>>>
>>> You are ignoring a simple fact that many more cyclists are killed
>>> than kill and in circumstances which are largely beyond their
>>> control. No amount of cyclist training will prevent a runaway or
>>> drunk driver from killing them and yet cyclists do not kill drivers.
>>> Obviously it is the potential killers who injure cyclists that need
>>> more training, or better still permanent removal from our roads, and
>>> the actual killers should have much longer prison sentences than
>>> they do at present. Lives are irreplaceable..
>> Think long-term, Doug.
>>
>> No child leaves primary school without passing Bikeability Level 2,
>> and no child leaves secondary school without passing Bikeability Level
>> 3.
>>
>> Within two or three generations every driver will also have passed
>> Bikeability Level 3 and understand the needs of cyclists; all people
>> in the UK will have the skills and confidence to cycle on modern roads
>> in modern traffic conditions; all secondary school pupils will have
>> the skills and confidence to cycle to school using local roads.
>>
>> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
>> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
>> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
>> their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>
> Typical cyclist. We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get motorists to
> pay for it. Sponging *******s. Did it ever occur to you to pay your own
> way.

LOL - wind him up and watch him clatter, clatter, clatter, across the
keyboard!

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:25:50 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> wrote:

>> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
>> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
>> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
>> their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>
>Typical cyclist. We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get motorists to
>pay for it. Sponging *******s. Did it ever occur to you to pay your own
>way.

On this occasion, no.

Compulsory cycle training in primary and secondary schools, funded by
a £10 vehicle safety duty, would benefit all children, not just
cyclists' children.

[Matt B]

On 01/06/2010 22:44, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:32:49 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
>> Roadmanship (as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver) should become the 4th
>> "R" - it is no less a necessary life skill than the other 3.
>
> What about commuting using public transport?

Why would anyone aspire to being reduced to relying on that? ;-)

> Some of my colleagues are aghast that I am taking my class of thirty
> 5/6 year olds to see a concert of Little Red Riding Hood by the London
> Symphony Orchestra at the Barbican by overground and underground
> train, changing at London Bridge.

Ah, yes. PT usage should be included as some will end up living in
London where it can be the only viable option.

> I say that learning to use public transport is a life skill. And
> school parties travel for free on London Transport. The hire of a
> coach for 30 children and a brace of adults would cost at least £400
> and take twice as long as the train and tube making the trip price per
> child over £16.50 instead of the £3.20 per child it is costing. And
> which mode of transport do you think five year olds find most
> exciting?

Yes, you've convinced me. We'll add that to our manifesto.

> Last term I took my class to the Horniman Museum.
> http://www.horniman.ac.uk/
> We took a train to London Bridge then another train to Forest Hill.
> The trip was free - WOW!

Subsidised by London council tax payers and/or by London CC payers?

> And the term before that we went to the Planetarium in Greenwich Park.
> We walked to the Park.
> The Planetarium show cost £3 per child. What a bargain! And they
> experienced crossing the A2 safely using a toucan crossing to boot.

Brilliant!

--
Matt B

[ash[_2_]]

On Jun 1, 10:47*pm, Tom Crispin
> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:25:50 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
>
> > wrote:
> >> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
> >> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
> >> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
> >> their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>
> >Typical cyclist. *We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get motorists to
> >pay for it. *Sponging *******s. *Did it ever occur to you to pay your own
> >way.
>
> On this occasion, no.
>
> Compulsory cycle training in primary and secondary schools, funded by
> a £10 vehicle safety duty, would benefit all children, not just
> cyclists' children.

Why should motorists have to pay for this. If you want to learn to
drive a car or motorcycle, you pay them for the training (DSA approved
instructors), you pay them for the license and testing (the
government), not the other way around. If people don't want to learn
to ride a cycle o the road safely, then that is OK, but they should be
penalised if they do so in the same way an unlicensed vehicle user
is.

Perhaps if obstacles were put in the way of people wanting to use a
cycle, then it might become desirable to use one in the eye of the
general public - in the way car and motorcycle use is viewed !

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Matt B wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 22:19, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>> Paul - xxx wrote:
>>> ash wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced.
>>>
>>> No. Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be policed? 2,
>>> What age would you have to be tested at?
>>
>> 1. Registration plates for push bikes.
>> 2. When you stop being a child.
>
> Should untested children be allowed to use the roads until they are
> old enough to be tested?

Nope. They could play with their toys on the pavements under adult
supervision.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:25:50 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> > wrote:
>
>>> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
>>> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
>>> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
>>> their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>>
>> Typical cyclist. We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get
>> motorists to pay for it. Sponging *******s. Did it ever occur to
>> you to pay your own way.
>
> On this occasion, no.
>
> Compulsory cycle training in primary and secondary schools, funded by
> a £10 vehicle safety duty, would benefit all children, not just
> cyclists' children.

Why should motorists paY? Why shouldn't cyc;ists pay?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[webreader]

On Jun 1, 10:25*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
> >>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> >>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> >>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll
> >>> in the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> >>> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> >>> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in
> >>> the UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to
> >>> 2500 per year.
>
> >>> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due
> >>> to lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time
> >>> this mode was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove
> >>> competence to help reduce these figures further !
>
> >>> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they
> >>> themselves reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon
> >>> whilst denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can
> >>> we)
>
> >> You are ignoring a simple fact that many more cyclists are killed
> >> than kill and in circumstances which are largely beyond their
> >> control. No amount of cyclist training will prevent a runaway or
> >> drunk driver from killing them and yet cyclists do not kill drivers.
> >> Obviously it is the potential killers who injure cyclists that need
> >> more training, or better still permanent removal from our roads, and
> >> the actual killers should have much longer prison sentences than
> >> they do at present. Lives are irreplaceable..
>
> > Think long-term, Doug.
>
> > No child leaves primary school without passing Bikeability Level 2,
> > and no child leaves secondary school without passing Bikeability Level
> > 3.
>
> > Within two or three generations every driver will also have passed
> > Bikeability Level 3 and understand the needs of cyclists; all people
> > in the UK will have the skills and confidence to cycle on modern roads
> > in modern traffic conditions; all secondary school pupils will have
> > the skills and confidence to cycle to school using local roads.
>
> > And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
> > and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
> > Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
> > their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>
> Typical cyclist. *We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get motorists to
> pay for it. *Sponging *******s. *Did it ever occur to you to pay your own
> way.
>
> --
> Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
> viable form of transport.

Here's a wild idea, we could require each cyclist to contribute a fee
every year to fund such training, we could call it CED.


WSR

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 23:04:57 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>> Last term I took my class to the Horniman Museum.
>> http://www.horniman.ac.uk/
>> We took a train to London Bridge then another train to Forest Hill.
>> The trip was free - WOW!
>
>Subsidised by London council tax payers and/or by London CC payers?

I think that the Chancellor contributes large amounts to Transport for
London, so the taxpayer in general will contribute. That tax burden
falls far more heavily on Londoners than any other British region.

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 23:25:00 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:25:50 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
>>>> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
>>>> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
>>>> their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>>>
>>> Typical cyclist. We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get
>>> motorists to pay for it. Sponging *******s. Did it ever occur to
>>> you to pay your own way.
>>
>> On this occasion, no.
>>
>> Compulsory cycle training in primary and secondary schools, funded by
>> a £10 vehicle safety duty, would benefit all children, not just
>> cyclists' children.
>
>Why should motorists paY? Why shouldn't cyc;ists pay?

It is motorists who make the roads unsafe for cyclists.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 23:25:00 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> > wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:25:50 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on
>>>>> each and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD
>>>>> (Vehicle Safety Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they
>>>>> have a duty to keep their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> Typical cyclist. We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get
>>>> motorists to pay for it. Sponging *******s. Did it ever occur to
>>>> you to pay your own way.
>>>
>>> On this occasion, no.
>>>
>>> Compulsory cycle training in primary and secondary schools, funded
>>> by a £10 vehicle safety duty, would benefit all children, not just
>>> cyclists' children.
>>
>> Why should motorists paY? Why shouldn't cyc;ists pay?
>
> It is motorists who make the roads unsafe for cyclists.

I rather think its ****wits like you, who insist on towing overloaded
trailers through complex junctions during rush hour traffic who are making
the roads unsafe for yourselves.

Grow up and realise that a push bike simply isn't a viable form of
transport. Its a childs toy. Showing off on your push bike at the age of
12 might have impressed the girls, now it marks you as a tosser.




--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

webreader wrote:
> On Jun 1, 10:25 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>>>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>>>>> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>>>>> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death
>>>>> toll in the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000
>>>>> which is concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As
>>>>> a continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads
>>>>> in the UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen
>>>>> to 2500 per year.
>>
>>>>> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures
>>>>> due to lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about
>>>>> time this mode was brought into line and made to sit a test to
>>>>> prove competence to help reduce these figures further !
>>
>>>>> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they
>>>>> themselves reach a standard which you will struggle to improve
>>>>> upon whilst denying your own failings (we can't be far off that
>>>>> now can we)
>>
>>>> You are ignoring a simple fact that many more cyclists are killed
>>>> than kill and in circumstances which are largely beyond their
>>>> control. No amount of cyclist training will prevent a runaway or
>>>> drunk driver from killing them and yet cyclists do not kill
>>>> drivers. Obviously it is the potential killers who injure cyclists
>>>> that need more training, or better still permanent removal from
>>>> our roads, and the actual killers should have much longer prison
>>>> sentences than they do at present. Lives are irreplaceable..
>>
>>> Think long-term, Doug.
>>
>>> No child leaves primary school without passing Bikeability Level 2,
>>> and no child leaves secondary school without passing Bikeability
>>> Level 3.
>>
>>> Within two or three generations every driver will also have passed
>>> Bikeability Level 3 and understand the needs of cyclists; all people
>>> in the UK will have the skills and confidence to cycle on modern
>>> roads in modern traffic conditions; all secondary school pupils
>>> will have the skills and confidence to cycle to school using local
>>> roads.
>>
>>> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
>>> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
>>> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
>>> their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>>
>> Typical cyclist. We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get
>> motorists to pay for it. Sponging *******s. Did it ever occur to you
>> to pay your own way.
>>
>> --
>> Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's
>> toy, not a viable form of transport.
>
> Here's a wild idea, we could require each cyclist to contribute a fee
> every year to fund such training, we could call it CED.

I can already hear their arseholes puckering at the very thought of having
to pay their way.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 1 June, 19:04, Tom Crispin >
wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
> >> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> >> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> >> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> >> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> >> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> >> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> >> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> >> year.
>
> >> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> >> lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> >> was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> >> help reduce these figures further !
>
> >> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> >> reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> >> denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> >You are ignoring a simple fact that many more cyclists are killed than
> >kill and in circumstances which are largely beyond their control. No
> >amount of cyclist training will prevent a runaway or drunk driver from
> >killing them and yet cyclists do not kill drivers. Obviously it is the
> >potential killers who injure cyclists that need more training, or
> >better still permanent removal from our roads, and the actual killers
> >should have much longer prison sentences than they do at present.
> >Lives are irreplaceable..
>
> Think long-term, Doug.
>
> No child leaves primary school without passing Bikeability Level 2,
> and no child leaves secondary school without passing Bikeability Level
> 3.
>
> Within two or three generations every driver will also have passed
> Bikeability Level 3 and understand the needs of cyclists; all people
> in the UK will have the skills and confidence to cycle on modern roads
> in modern traffic conditions; all secondary school pupils will have
> the skills and confidence to cycle to school using local roads.
>
> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
> and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
> Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
> their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>
I have no problem with cyclist testing at a young age if it is applied
to all, including future motorists.

Doug.

[Derek C]

On Jun 2, 6:18*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 1 June, 19:04, Tom Crispin >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
> > wrote:
>
> > >On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
> > >> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > >> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > >> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > >> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > >> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > >> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > >> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > >> year.
>
> > >> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > >> lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > >> was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > >> help reduce these figures further !
>
> > >> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > >> reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > >> denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> > >You are ignoring a simple fact that many more cyclists are killed than
> > >kill and in circumstances which are largely beyond their control. No
> > >amount of cyclist training will prevent a runaway or drunk driver from
> > >killing them and yet cyclists do not kill drivers. Obviously it is the
> > >potential killers who injure cyclists that need more training, or
> > >better still permanent removal from our roads, and the actual killers
> > >should have much longer prison sentences than they do at present.
> > >Lives are irreplaceable..
>
> > Think long-term, Doug.
>
> > No child leaves primary school without passing Bikeability Level 2,
> > and no child leaves secondary school without passing Bikeability Level
> > 3.
>
> > Within two or three generations every driver will also have passed
> > Bikeability Level 3 and understand the needs of cyclists; all people
> > in the UK will have the skills and confidence to cycle on modern roads
> > in modern traffic conditions; all secondary school pupils will have
> > the skills and confidence to cycle to school using local roads.
>
> > And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
> > and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
> > Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
> > their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>
> I have no problem with cyclist testing at a young age if it is applied
> to all, including future motorists.
>
Even for those people who have no intention of ever riding a bicycle?

[Doug[_3_]]

On 2 June, 06:21, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 6:18*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On 1 June, 19:04, Tom Crispin >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
> > > >> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > > >> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > > >> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > > >> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > > >> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > > >> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > > >> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > > >> year.
>
> > > >> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > > >> lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > > >> was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > > >> help reduce these figures further !
>
> > > >> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > > >> reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > > >> denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> > > >You are ignoring a simple fact that many more cyclists are killed than
> > > >kill and in circumstances which are largely beyond their control. No
> > > >amount of cyclist training will prevent a runaway or drunk driver from
> > > >killing them and yet cyclists do not kill drivers. Obviously it is the
> > > >potential killers who injure cyclists that need more training, or
> > > >better still permanent removal from our roads, and the actual killers
> > > >should have much longer prison sentences than they do at present.
> > > >Lives are irreplaceable..
>
> > > Think long-term, Doug.
>
> > > No child leaves primary school without passing Bikeability Level 2,
> > > and no child leaves secondary school without passing Bikeability Level
> > > 3.
>
> > > Within two or three generations every driver will also have passed
> > > Bikeability Level 3 and understand the needs of cyclists; all people
> > > in the UK will have the skills and confidence to cycle on modern roads
> > > in modern traffic conditions; all secondary school pupils will have
> > > the skills and confidence to cycle to school using local roads.
>
> > > And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on each
> > > and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD (Vehicle Safety
> > > Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they have a duty to keep
> > > their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>
> > I have no problem with cyclist testing at a young age if it is applied
> > to all, including future motorists.
>
> Even for those people who have no intention of ever riding a bicycle?
>
There are lots of things they are taught which they may never take up,
like religion for example, but they are taught such things just in
case. Since long-distance, high-speed travel is a mass modern
obsession I see not reason why it should not be taught remedially in
schools and cover all forms of transport, including bicycles.

Many children, however, will already have a prior experience of cars
as they would no doubt have been carted around in them for most of
their young lives, along with the family dog/s perhaps.

Doug

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

The Medway Handyman wrote:

> Paul - xxx wrote:
> > ash wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't it about time this was introduced.
> >
> > No. Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be policed?
> > 2, What age would you have to be tested at?
>
> 1. Registration plates for push bikes.
> 2. When you stop being a child.
>
> It would cost a bit to administer - but we could get that back by
> taxing cyclists.

When a lot of bikes these days cost less than ?100, the registration
fee would have to be small otherwise people simply wouldn't bother
cycling. Stopping people cycling is a retrograde step and would
possibly create more danger on the roads for cyclists.

Or perhaps that's the intention, to have fewer bikes on the road?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_3_]]

On 2 June, 01:10, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 23:25:00 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Tom Crispin wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:25:50 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on
> >>>>> each and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD
> >>>>> (Vehicle Safety Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they
> >>>>> have a duty to keep their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>
> >>>> Typical cyclist. *We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get
> >>>> motorists to pay for it. *Sponging *******s. *Did it ever occur to
> >>>> you to pay your own way.
>
> >>> On this occasion, no.
>
> >>> Compulsory cycle training in primary and secondary schools, funded
> >>> by a £10 vehicle safety duty, would benefit all children, not just
> >>> cyclists' children.
>
> >> Why should motorists paY? *Why shouldn't cyc;ists pay?
>
> > It is motorists who make the roads unsafe for cyclists.
>
> I rather think its ****wits like you, who insist on towing overloaded
> trailers through complex junctions during rush hour traffic who are making
> the roads unsafe for yourselves.
>
> Grow up and realise that a push bike simply isn't a viable form of
> transport. *Its a childs toy. *Showing off on your push bike at the age of
> 12 might have impressed the girls, now it marks you as a tosser.
>
You seem to forget, or more likely do not know, that people cycle
right around the world which certainly makes it a very effective form
of transport. It is also judged to be more efficient than walking.

Cars, OTOH, are polluting, congesting killing machines, which suggests
they are not a viable form of transport, at least not in a civilised
society, but judging by your posts alone it isn't civilised so in your
mind it makes cars OK.

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

[ash[_2_]]

On 2 June, 07:22, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
> > Paul - xxx wrote:
> > > ash wrote:
>
> > > > Isn't it about time this was introduced.
>
> > > No. *Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be policed?
> > > 2, What age would you have to be tested at?
>
> > 1. Registration plates for push bikes.
> > 2. When you stop being a child.
>
> > It would cost a bit to administer - but we could get that back by
> > taxing cyclists.
>
> When a lot of bikes these days cost less than ?100, the registration
> fee would have to be small otherwise people simply wouldn't bother
> cycling. *
What sort of cyclists are you trying to encourage, from this statement
- anyone and everyone which is the situation we have at the moment,
who totally disregard the rules of the roads and use the pavements as
their own personal highways irrespective of who they put at risk or
intimidate.

>Stopping people cycling is a retrograde step and would
> possibly create more danger on the roads for cyclists.

I disagree, Stopping cyclists who ride in a manner which endanger,
intimidate or inconvenience others is a positive step forward in
encouraging the mode/pastime. Cycling is seen as the poor relation of
road transport in the UK, and the reason for this is the cavalier and
selfish riding style which many riders adopt.
>
> Or perhaps that's the intention, to have fewer bikes on the road?
Stripping the wheat from the chaff is no bad thing where the
reputation is in the gutter!
If the majority of cyclists didn't take the **** all the time and
observed the rules of the road, then it would garner a lot lore sepect
than it has as it stands.

>
> --
> Paul - xxx
>
> '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
> Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

ash wrote:

> On 2 June, 07:22, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > The Medway Handyman wrote:
> > > Paul - xxx wrote:
> > > > ash wrote:
> >
> > > > > Isn't it about time this was introduced.
> >
> > > > No. *Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be
> > > > policed? 2, What age would you have to be tested at?
> >
> > > 1. Registration plates for push bikes.
> > > 2. When you stop being a child.
> >
> > > It would cost a bit to administer - but we could get that back by
> > > taxing cyclists.
> >
> > When a lot of bikes these days cost less than ?100, the registration
> > fee would have to be small otherwise people simply wouldn't bother
> > cycling. *
> What sort of cyclists are you trying to encourage, from this statement
> - anyone and everyone which is the situation we have at the moment,
> who totally disregard the rules of the roads and use the pavements as
> their own personal highways irrespective of who they put at risk or
> intimidate.

Yes. Cycling always has and in my opinion always should be free and
available to anyone. I agree there ought to be more training
facilities and availability of training but I think it's unnecessary to
make it compulsory.

There's already too many laws and regulations already, to add more and
to police them adequately adds even further burdens on the police
forces.

> > Stopping people cycling is a retrograde step and would
> > possibly create more danger on the roads for cyclists.
>
> I disagree, Stopping cyclists who ride in a manner which endanger,
> intimidate or inconvenience others is a positive step forward in
> encouraging the mode/pastime. Cycling is seen as the poor relation of
> road transport in the UK, and the reason for this is the cavalier and
> selfish riding style which many riders adopt.

Heheheh, is it really? My bike cost more than my previous car ...

> > Or perhaps that's the intention, to have fewer bikes on the road?
> Stripping the wheat from the chaff is no bad thing where the
> reputation is in the gutter!

But it isn't. OK, we're speaking in an environments of conflict here
on the newsgroup, but I find, on the roads, that theres little actual
conflict between drivers and riders.

> If the majority of cyclists didn't take the **** all the time and
> observed the rules of the road, then it would garner a lot lore sepect
> than it has as it stands.

I know of few if any cyclists who take the **** all the time. The
majority ride normally and stick mostly to the rules of the road. But
then I don't live in a city ...

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[ash[_2_]]

On 2 June, 10:43, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> ash wrote:
> > On 2 June, 07:22, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > The Medway Handyman wrote:
> > > > Paul - xxx wrote:
> > > > > ash wrote:
>
> > > > > > Isn't it about time this was introduced.
>
> > > > > No. *Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be
> > > > > policed? *2, What age would you have to be tested at?
>
> > > > 1. Registration plates for push bikes.
> > > > 2. When you stop being a child.
>
> > > > It would cost a bit to administer - but we could get that back by
> > > > taxing cyclists.
>
> > > When a lot of bikes these days cost less than ?100, the registration
> > > fee would have to be small otherwise people simply wouldn't bother
> > > cycling. *
> > What sort of cyclists are you trying to encourage, from this statement
> > - anyone and everyone which is the situation we have at the moment,
> > who totally disregard the rules of the roads and use the pavements as
> > their own personal highways *irrespective of who they put at risk or
> > intimidate.
>
> Yes. *Cycling always has and in my opinion always should be free and
> available to anyone. *I agree there ought to be more training
> facilities and availability of training but I think it's unnecessary to
> make it compulsory.
>
> There's already too many laws and regulations already, to add more and
> to police them adequately adds even further burdens on the police
> forces.
>
This is a prime example of apathy though - and just an excuse to
pretend there is no problem with the behaviour of errant cyclists
because there are softer targets to chase - like cars and motorcycles
carrying registration plates !

> > > Stopping people cycling is a retrograde step and would
> > > possibly create more danger on the roads for cyclists.
>
> > I disagree, Stopping cyclists who ride in a manner which endanger,
> > intimidate or inconvenience others is a positive step forward in
> > encouraging the mode/pastime. Cycling is seen as the poor relation of
> > road transport in the UK, and the reason for this is the cavalier and
> > selfish riding style which many riders adopt.
>
> Heheheh, is it really? *My bike cost more than my previous car ..

You must buy cheap cars ;o)
..
>
> > > Or perhaps that's the intention, to have fewer bikes on the road?
> > Stripping the wheat from the chaff is no bad thing where the
> > reputation is in the gutter!
>
> But it isn't. *OK, we're speaking in an environments of conflict here
> on the newsgroup, but I find, on the roads, that theres little actual
> conflict between drivers and riders.

The real conflicts come on the pavements. If a cyclist decided to act
like an idiot and run a red light - and gets knocked off by a car,
then the cyclist will come off worse. This is not the case for
pedestrians who live in fear of reckless cyclists moving quickly and
silently on the pavements (which are supposed to be a place of refuge
from wheeled traffic). In the towns and cities, there is a groundswell
of discontent for the way that cyclists charge around on both the
pavements and shared spaces with no regard for others around them. So
many times I use a shared path to exercise the dog, walk the kids and
and the cyclists very rarely slow down when passing a couple of feet
away. It is very un-nerving to be passed by a cyclist doing 20+mph who
doesn't even back off to acknowledge your presence there. You can see
the other pedestrians cringing when they bomb through and this is
where the 'lycra lout' tag has come from. Traceability would reduce
their contempt for others if they had to face the music for their
antisocial (and dangerous) actions.

>
> > If the majority of cyclists didn't take the **** all the time and
> > observed the rules of the road, then it would garner a lot lore sepect
> > than it has as it stands.
>
> I know of few if any cyclists who take the **** all the time. *The
> majority ride normally and stick mostly to the rules of the road. *But
> then I don't live in a city ...
>
I do, What you do on country lanes rarely affects anyone, but in the
towns and cities it really needs regulation.

> --
> Paul - xxx
>
> '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
> Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Squashme]

On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> year.
>
> As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> help reduce these figures further !
>
> You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)

What do other countries do by way of training and testing all cyclists?

[ash[_2_]]

On 2 June, 12:01, Squashme > wrote:
> On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > year.
>
> > As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > help reduce these figures further !
>
> > You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> What do other countries do by way of training and testing all cyclists?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What relevance does that have here ?

[[email protected][_2_]]

On 2 June, 12:10, ash > wrote:
> On 2 June, 12:01, Squashme > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>
> > > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > > year.
>
> > > As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > > lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > > was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > > help reduce these figures further !
>
> > > You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > > reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > > denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> > What do other countries do by way of training and testing all cyclists?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What relevance does that have here ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Do you own this thread? Isn't anyone allowed to ask tangential
questions?

Colin

[ash[_2_]]

On 2 June, 12:26, " >
wrote:
> On 2 June, 12:10, ash > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 June, 12:01, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>
> > > > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > > > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > > > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > > > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > > > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > > > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > > > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > > > year.
>
> > > > As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > > > lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > > > was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > > > help reduce these figures further !
>
> > > > You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > > > reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > > > denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> > > What do other countries do by way of training and testing all cyclists?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What relevance does that have here ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Do you own this thread? *Isn't anyone allowed to ask tangential
> questions?
>
> Colin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If oyu know the answer, feel free to chip in!

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

ash wrote:

> On 2 June, 10:43, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > ash wrote:
> > > On 2 June, 07:22, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > > The Medway Handyman wrote:
> > > > > Paul - xxx wrote:
> > > > > > ash wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Isn't it about time this was introduced.
> >
> > > > > > No. *Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be
> > > > > > policed? *2, What age would you have to be tested at?
> >
> > > > > 1. Registration plates for push bikes.
> > > > > 2. When you stop being a child.
> >
> > > > > It would cost a bit to administer - but we could get that
> > > > > back by taxing cyclists.
> >
> > > > When a lot of bikes these days cost less than ?100, the
> > > > registration fee would have to be small otherwise people simply
> > > > wouldn't bother cycling. *
> > > What sort of cyclists are you trying to encourage, from this
> > > statement - anyone and everyone which is the situation we have at
> > > the moment, who totally disregard the rules of the roads and use
> > > the pavements as their own personal highways *irrespective of who
> > > they put at risk or intimidate.
> >
> > Yes. *Cycling always has and in my opinion always should be free and
> > available to anyone. *I agree there ought to be more training
> > facilities and availability of training but I think it's
> > unnecessary to make it compulsory.
> >
> > There's already too many laws and regulations already, to add more
> > and to police them adequately adds even further burdens on the
> > police forces.
> >
> This is a prime example of apathy though - and just an excuse to
> pretend there is no problem with the behaviour of errant cyclists
> because there are softer targets to chase - like cars and motorcycles
> carrying registration plates !

I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I don't see much of a problem as
either a driver or cyclist, though Doncaster's not a big town .. ;) I
certainly don't see the 'problem' as needing further legislation.

> > > > Stopping people cycling is a retrograde step and would
> > > > possibly create more danger on the roads for cyclists.
> >
> > > I disagree, Stopping cyclists who ride in a manner which endanger,
> > > intimidate or inconvenience others is a positive step forward in
> > > encouraging the mode/pastime. Cycling is seen as the poor
> > > relation of road transport in the UK, and the reason for this is
> > > the cavalier and selfish riding style which many riders adopt.
> >
> > Heheheh, is it really? *My bike cost more than my previous car ..
>
> You must buy cheap cars ;o)

Mostly. The last one was £500 ... ;)

> > > > Or perhaps that's the intention, to have fewer bikes on the
> > > > road?
> > > Stripping the wheat from the chaff is no bad thing where the
> > > reputation is in the gutter!
> >
> > But it isn't. *OK, we're speaking in an environments of conflict
> > here on the newsgroup, but I find, on the roads, that theres little
> > actual conflict between drivers and riders.
>
> The real conflicts come on the pavements. If a cyclist decided to act
> like an idiot and run a red light - and gets knocked off by a car,
> then the cyclist will come off worse.

For which training probably won't help, whether voluntary or forced.

> This is not the case for
> pedestrians who live in fear of reckless cyclists moving quickly and
> silently on the pavements (which are supposed to be a place of refuge
> from wheeled traffic).

I regularly go into town as a pedestrian and cyclist. As a ped I've
never felt threatened by cyclists, as a cyclist I simply don't go
quickly, i go just over walking pace .. enough to make progress. ;)

> In the towns and cities, there is a groundswell
> of discontent for the way that cyclists charge around on both the
> pavements and shared spaces with no regard for others around them. So
> many times I use a shared path to exercise the dog, walk the kids and
> and the cyclists very rarely slow down when passing a couple of feet
> away. It is very un-nerving to be passed by a cyclist doing 20+mph who
> doesn't even back off to acknowledge your presence there. You can see
> the other pedestrians cringing when they bomb through and this is
> where the 'lycra lout' tag has come from.

We obviously live in different places and have had different
experiences.

> Traceability would reduce
> their contempt for others if they had to face the music for their
> antisocial (and dangerous) actions.

Would that be the same traceability as those drivers we regularly see
on the "****wit driver trying to ecade police" programs on TV? Those
who don't drive their own cars, or drive without licences, whilct
banned, without insurance etc etc etc? Doesn't sem to stop them, why
do you think it would cyclists?

> > > If the majority of cyclists didn't take the **** all the time and
> > > observed the rules of the road, then it would garner a lot lore
> > > sepect than it has as it stands.
> >
> > I know of few if any cyclists who take the **** all the time. *The
> > majority ride normally and stick mostly to the rules of the road.
> > *But then I don't live in a city ...
> >
> I do, What you do on country lanes rarely affects anyone, but in the
> towns and cities it really needs regulation.

Maybe so, but I doubt that compulsory training and registration would
solve anything, it hasn't stopped some car drivers being ****wits.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Squashme]

On 2 June, 12:10, ash > wrote:
> On 2 June, 12:01, Squashme > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>
> > > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > > year.
>
> > > As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > > lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > > was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > > help reduce these figures further !
>
> > > You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > > reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > > denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> > What do other countries do by way of training and testing all cyclists?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What relevance does that have here ?

"Compulsory testing for cyclists" - "On 1 June, 12:36, ash
> wrote: Isn't it about time this was
introduced?"

None at all apparently. I'll just **** off as you suggest.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>> Paul - xxx wrote:
>>> ash wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it about time this was introduced.
>>>
>>> No. Two issues I immediately see are 1, How would it be policed?
>>> 2, What age would you have to be tested at?
>>
>> 1. Registration plates for push bikes.
>> 2. When you stop being a child.
>>
>> It would cost a bit to administer - but we could get that back by
>> taxing cyclists.
>
> When a lot of bikes these days cost less than ?100, the registration
> fee would have to be small otherwise people simply wouldn't bother
> cycling. Stopping people cycling is a retrograde step and would
> possibly create more danger on the roads for cyclists.
>
> Or perhaps that's the intention, to have fewer bikes on the road?

I'd prefer 'none' but fewer would be a start.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:

>
> Maybe so, but I doubt that compulsory training and registration would
> solve anything, it hasn't stopped some car drivers being ****wits.

But it stops the vast majority.



--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 2 June, 01:10, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 23:25:00 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:25:50 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> And all this could be funded by a simple £10 levy per annum on
>>>>>>> each and every motor vehicle in the UK. Let's call it VSD
>>>>>>> (Vehicle Safety Duty) giving motorists a clear signal that they
>>>>>>> have a duty to keep their vehicle safe for cyclists.
>>
>>>>>> Typical cyclist. We need this to benefit cyclists - lets get
>>>>>> motorists to pay for it. Sponging *******s. Did it ever occur to
>>>>>> you to pay your own way.
>>
>>>>> On this occasion, no.
>>
>>>>> Compulsory cycle training in primary and secondary schools, funded
>>>>> by a £10 vehicle safety duty, would benefit all children, not just
>>>>> cyclists' children.
>>
>>>> Why should motorists paY? Why shouldn't cyc;ists pay?
>>
>>> It is motorists who make the roads unsafe for cyclists.
>>
>> I rather think its ****wits like you, who insist on towing overloaded
>> trailers through complex junctions during rush hour traffic who are
>> making the roads unsafe for yourselves.
>>
>> Grow up and realise that a push bike simply isn't a viable form of
>> transport. Its a childs toy. Showing off on your push bike at the
>> age of 12 might have impressed the girls, now it marks you as a
>> tosser.
>>
> You seem to forget, or more likely do not know, that people cycle
> right around the world which certainly makes it a very effective form
> of transport. It is also judged to be more efficient than walking.

WTF has that got to do with anything? Just because some sad git cycles
around the world doesn't make a push bike viable.

> Cars, OTOH, are polluting, congesting killing machines, which suggests
> they are not a viable form of transport, at least not in a civilised
> society, but judging by your posts alone it isn't civilised so in your
> mind it makes cars OK.

I wonder why they have risen to the top of the transport pool?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Jim A]

On 06/02/2010 09:15 PM, The Medway Handyman wrote:
> WTF has that got to do with anything? Just because some sad git cycles
> around the world doesn't make a push bike viable.

Reminds me of the guys who rode across America on a Segway..

http://www.10mph.com/

Awesome! (probably) - I haven't bothered to watch it myself. 10mph is
much too fast.

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

[ash[_2_]]

On Jun 2, 5:25*pm, Squashme > wrote:
> On 2 June, 12:10, ash > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 June, 12:01, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>
> > > > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > > > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > > > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > > > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > > > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > > > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > > > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > > > year.
>
> > > > As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > > > lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > > > was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > > > help reduce these figures further !
>
> > > > You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > > > reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > > > denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> > > What do other countries do by way of training and testing all cyclists?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What relevance does that have here ?
>
> "Compulsory testing for cyclists" - "On 1 June, 12:36, > wrote: Isn't it about time this was
>
> introduced?"
>
> None at all apparently. I'll just **** off as you suggest.

That wasn't what I suggested, I asked what relevance the situation in
other countries has to the situation here ?

Chill squashme, this is only the interweb !

[Squashme]

On 2 June, 21:51, ash > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:25*pm, Squashme > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 June, 12:10, ash > wrote:
>
> > > On 2 June, 12:01, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>
> > > > > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > > > > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > > > > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > > > > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > > > > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > > > > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > > > > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > > > > year.
>
> > > > > As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > > > > lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > > > > was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > > > > help reduce these figures further !
>
> > > > > You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > > > > reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > > > > denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> > > > What do other countries do by way of training and testing all cyclists?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > What relevance does that have here ?
>
> > "Compulsory testing for cyclists" - "On 1 June, 12:36, > wrote: Isn't it about time this was
>
> > introduced?"
>
> > None at all apparently. I'll just **** off as you suggest.
>
> That wasn't what I suggested, I asked what relevance the situation in
> other countries has to the situation here ?
>
> Chill squashme, this is only the interweb !

Chilled as much as current weather will permit.

Relevance:-

1. Other countries have cyclists, some in large numbers, I am reliably
informed.

2. If it is a good idea, it may well have come up or been used
elsewhere. No man is an island. Even here.

3. I was probing your research or knowledge.

[ash[_2_]]

On 3 June, 08:22, Squashme > wrote:
> On 2 June, 21:51, ash > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 5:25*pm, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > On 2 June, 12:10, ash > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2 June, 12:01, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 June, 12:36, ash > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > > > > > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > > > > > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > > > > > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > > > > > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives. As a
> > > > > > continuation of this there are now 35 million cars on the roads in the
> > > > > > UK (14 times as many as in 1934) and the KSIs have fallen to 2500 per
> > > > > > year.
>
> > > > > > As cyclists are disproportionately represented in these figures due to
> > > > > > lack of training and spacial awareness, itsn't it about time this mode
> > > > > > was brought into line and made to sit a test to prove competence to
> > > > > > help reduce these figures further !
>
> > > > > > You can only keep on blaming others for so long before they themselves
> > > > > > reach a standard which you will struggle to improve upon whilst
> > > > > > denying your own failings (we can't be far off that now can we)
>
> > > > > What do other countries do by way of training and testing all cyclists?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > What relevance does that have here ?
>
> > > "Compulsory testing for cyclists" - "On 1 June, 12:36, > wrote: Isn't it about time this was
>
> > > introduced?"
>
> > > None at all apparently. I'll just **** off as you suggest.
>
> > That wasn't what I suggested, I asked what relevance the situation in
> > other countries has to the situation here ?
>
> > Chill squashme, this is only the interweb !
>
> Chilled as much as current weather will permit.
>
> Relevance:-
>
> 1. Other countries have cyclists, some in large numbers, I am reliably
> informed.
>
I don't think it is numbers as a whole which is the problem, it is the
way which the cycling population in these countries behaves when
mixing with other modes. As with car use back in the 30's, demandes
were made and met for regulation because it became a problem. We live
with a much bigger population now in the UK and as a result are
required to be bound by various bits of legislation to keep us apart.
Cycling being seen as a 'green' mode has ben encouraged at any cost by
the Labour government. This is fine provided the ones who take it up
understand that they have to behave responsibly - many don't. You know
this I know this - even Doug knows this.

> 2. If it is a good idea, it may well have come up or been used
> elsewhere. No man is an island. Even here.

It has come up many times, but the ability to administer it has been
lacking.Technology is a wonderful thing.though and will surely come to
the rescue ,

>
> 3. I was probing your research or knowledge.- Hide quoted text -
>
Most people on BB's use Google to find stuff out. I am no different.
There have been many calls for cycle registration systems over the
years all over the world. I personally think that registration would
discourage people to use cycles where they cause problems to others,
and fining non registration plate holders could form the basis of a
good revenue stream stream for governments to tap into to make up for
the loss in revenue as the switch is made from car use ;o)

> - Show quoted text -

[DavidR[_2_]]

"ash" > wrote

> Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.

Somehow you miss the point that the people driving untested in 1934 were
still driving around untested in 1935 - and in 2010 for that matter.

[DavidR[_2_]]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote
>
> But it isn't. OK, we're speaking in an environments of conflict here
> on the newsgroup, but I find, on the roads, that theres little actual
> conflict between drivers and riders.
>
> I know of few if any cyclists who take the **** all the time. The
> majority ride normally and stick mostly to the rules of the road. But
> then I don't live in a city ...

Well said Paul! I haven't a clue what some other posters keep banging on
about.

[ash[_2_]]

On 3 June, 23:02, "DavidR" > wrote:
> "ash" > wrote
>
> > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
> > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
> > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
> > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
> > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>
> Somehow you miss the point that the people driving untested in 1934 were
> still driving around untested in 1935 - and in 2010 for that matter.

Well obviously they were, but you have to draw a line in the sand and
say 'from this point in time onwards....'

It happened to me with my motorbike in 83 when they introduced the
125cc law for learners. I had been riding around on a 185cc suzuki
twin for 6 months on L-plates, and the earliest test slot for the part
2 bike test was 3 weeks after they dropped the limit for learner
riders down from 250cc down to 125cc, This change in the law took me
off the road for that period of time even though I'd been riding
perfectly safely up to that point. The law had to change to reflect
what was going on in terms of motorbike development as the then latest
models performance jumped from 95mph to about 110mph with the
introduction of the Yamaha LC250 - which prompted a change in the law.


At the time I thought it was very unfair to be removed from the road
as being a kid, I wanted to ride the biggest and fastest bike I could
get my hands on - and someone moved the goalposts

However looking back in retrospect, given the circumstantial changes
it was the right thing to do (faster machines being made available to
kids with no experience).

Likewise to draw a parallel with cycling, the roads are now getting
much busier (especially in London) , and people both on cycles and
around them need to be protected from the actions of the untrained and
undisciplined. Training empowers people with the ability to follow the
laws relevant to them and gives them a good understanding of why they
should. It isn't rocket science, just good old fashioned common sense !

[DavidR[_2_]]

"ash" > wrote
> On 3 June, 23:02, "DavidR" > wrote:
>> "ash" > wrote
>>
>> > Isn't it about time this was introduced. When the driving test was
>> > introduced in 1934 there was nearly 7500 deaths on the UK roads
>> > despite there only being 2.5 million cars in the UK. The death toll in
>> > the UK on the road the following year dropped by 1000 which is
>> > concrete proof that training and testing saves lives.
>>
>> Somehow you miss the point that the people driving untested in 1934 were
>> still driving around untested in 1935 - and in 2010 for that matter.
>
> Well obviously they were, but you have to draw a line in the sand and
> say 'from this point in time onwards....'
>
Well obviously. But for new drivers only. For the training & test to have
made any difference it would have taken several years before sufficient
numbers of new drivers provided a dilution. What brought the casualties down
in 1935 had nothing to do with the test and everything to do with other rule
changes.

> It happened to me with my motorbike in 83 when they introduced the
> 125cc law for learners. I had been riding around on a 185cc suzuki
> twin for 6 months on L-plates, and the earliest test slot for the part
> 2 bike test was 3 weeks after they dropped the limit for learner
> riders down from 250cc down to 125cc, This change in the law took me
> off the road for that period of time even though I'd been riding
> perfectly safely up to that point.

What you describe didn't happen in 1935.

> Likewise to draw a parallel with cycling, the roads are now getting
> much busier (especially in London) , and people both on cycles and
> around them need to be protected from the actions of the untrained and
> undisciplined. Training empowers people with the ability to follow the
> laws relevant to them and gives them a good understanding of why they
> should. It isn't rocket science, just good old fashioned common sense !

That's assuming there is a real problem with cyclists and not a perceived
one.