Cull motorists - save deer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...adly-deer.html

"Experts we consulted estimate that accidents involving deer on
British roads are on the rise by up to six per cent a year. "

"An average of 15 to 20 motorists die each year after encounters
similar to Gary's. A further 1,100 are seriously injured and some 700
sustain less serious injuries. "

And yet the idotic motorists refuse to wear helmets. Does anybody
doubt that they would save lives or lessen injuries?

"Without intervention their numbers rise at the rate of about 30 per
cent a year; their population can double in three years."

So deer are increasing faster than cyclists are.

"Only the lucky ones are humanely destroyed by vets or the RSPCA,
which deals with 3,500 cases a year in England and Wales.

[Deer that is].
Motorists are sad that cyclists, on the other hand, are relatively
cosseted, despite being similar dangers and nuisances.

"Many make a hasty one-way journey to local freezers; the corpses
often "disappear" by the time rescue workers reach the scene. "

How useful dead deer are, compared with dead cyclists.

"I had insisted that culling was no way to reduce road accidents but I
had to eat my words. Culling is an emotive issue but if it's done
professionally and it all goes into the pot, people can see the
value."

"In Europe and the United States "green bridges" - soil-lined tunnels
under or even over roads - have been pioneered, costing up to €3
million (£2.47 million) each. But British authorities haven't made
that kind of money available, with the result that there is just one
such bridge, in Essex. Elsewhere, deer have been known to use ordinary
bridges or even drainage to avoid encounters with speeding traffic."

When they pay their share of road tax, then they will get some
expenditure on their needs. Ruminant scroungers!

On 07/13/2010 12:29 AM, Squashme wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...adly-deer.html

"Experts we consulted estimate that accidents involving deer on
British roads are on the rise by up to six per cent a year. "

"An average of 15 to 20 motorists die each year after encounters
similar to Gary's. A further 1,100 are seriously injured and some 700
sustain less serious injuries. "

And yet the idotic motorists refuse to wear helmets. Does anybody
doubt that they would save lives or lessen injuries?

"Without intervention their numbers rise at the rate of about 30 per
cent a year; their population can double in three years."

So deer are increasing faster than cyclists are.

"Only the lucky ones are humanely destroyed by vets or the RSPCA,
which deals with 3,500 cases a year in England and Wales.

[Deer that is].
Motorists are sad that cyclists, on the other hand, are relatively
cosseted, despite being similar dangers and nuisances.

"Many make a hasty one-way journey to local freezers; the corpses
often "disappear" by the time rescue workers reach the scene. "

How useful dead deer are, compared with dead cyclists.

"I had insisted that culling was no way to reduce road accidents but I
had to eat my words. Culling is an emotive issue but if it's done
professionally and it all goes into the pot, people can see the
value."

"In Europe and the United States "green bridges" - soil-lined tunnels
under or even over roads - have been pioneered, costing up to €3
million (£2.47 million) each. But British authorities haven't made
that kind of money available, with the result that there is just one
such bridge, in Essex. Elsewhere, deer have been known to use ordinary
bridges or even drainage to avoid encounters with speeding traffic."

When they pay their share of road tax, then they will get some
expenditure on their needs. Ruminant scroungers!


I cycled right by a small deer on my way in to work yesterday.

It wasn't wearing a helmet.

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:29:53 +0100, Squashme wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...adly-deer.html

"Experts we consulted estimate that accidents involving deer on
British roads are on the rise by up to six per cent a year. "

"An average of 15 to 20 motorists die each year after encounters
similar to Gary's. A further 1,100 are seriously injured and some 700
sustain less serious injuries. "

Since many drivers operate on the basis that the road round the next bend
must be clear because it has been up to now, this is hardly surprising.

At night, an additional default clicks in: if you can't see a light,
there's nothing there.

It could do a lot of good if the government reminded drivers about the
risk to them from random objects/livestock on the road, instead of
implying that non-motorised human users are at fault if drivers don't see
them.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Jul 13, 8:23*am, "Colin McKenzie" wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:29:53 +0100, Squashme wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...adly-deer.html

"Experts we consulted estimate that accidents involving deer on
British roads are on the rise by up to six per cent a year. "

"An average of 15 to 20 motorists die each year after encounters
similar to Gary's. A further 1,100 are seriously injured and some 700
sustain less serious injuries. "

Since many drivers operate on the basis that the road round the next bend *
must be clear because it has been up to now, this is hardly surprising.

At night, an additional default clicks in: if you can't see a light, *
there's nothing there.

It could do a lot of good if the government reminded drivers about the *
risk to them from random objects/livestock on the road, instead of *
implying that non-motorised human users are at fault if drivers don't see *
them.

Does this include cyclists who do not carry working lights at night?
This seems to be normal practice in my area!

Derek C

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:55:02 +0100, Derek C
wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:23*am, "Colin McKenzie" wrote:
It could do a lot of good if the government reminded drivers about the *
risk to them from random objects/livestock on the road, instead of *
implying that non-motorised human users are at fault if drivers don't
see them.

Does this include cyclists who do not carry working lights at night?
This seems to be normal practice in my area!

They should carry working lights, as it's a legal requirement. But I would
not allow drivers to use a cyclist's lack of them as an excuse for
colliding with him/her.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie wrote:

Derek C wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:

It could do a lot of good if the government reminded drivers about the
risk to them from random objects/livestock on the road, instead of
implying that non-motorised human users are at fault if drivers don't
see them.

Does this include cyclists who do not carry working lights at night?
This seems to be normal practice in my area!

They should carry working lights, as it's a legal requirement. But I
would not allow drivers to use a cyclist's lack of them as an excuse for
colliding with him/her.

How would you prevent it?

If there is a legal requirement for lights on bicycles, that is because of
the need to be seen.

On 13 July, 16:53, JNugent wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Derek C wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:
It could do a lot of good if the government reminded drivers about the *
risk to them from random objects/livestock on the road, instead of *
implying that non-motorised human users are at fault if drivers don't
see them.
Does this include cyclists who do not carry working lights at night?
This seems to be normal practice in my area!
They should carry working lights, as it's a legal requirement. But I
would not allow drivers to use a cyclist's lack of them as an excuse for
colliding with him/her.

How would you prevent it?

If there is a legal requirement for lights on bicycles, that is because of
the need to be seen.

Does it therefore follow that if there is not a legal requirement for
lights on something, then there is no need for it to be seen? Maybe
something like a deer? Or a pedestrian?

Colin

wrote:
On 13 July, 16:53, JNugent wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Derek C wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:
It could do a lot of good if the government reminded drivers about the
risk to them from random objects/livestock on the road, instead of
implying that non-motorised human users are at fault if drivers don't
see them.
Does this include cyclists who do not carry working lights at night?
This seems to be normal practice in my area!
They should carry working lights, as it's a legal requirement. But I
would not allow drivers to use a cyclist's lack of them as an excuse for
colliding with him/her.

How would you prevent it?
If there is a legal requirement for lights on bicycles, that is because of
the need to be seen.

Does it therefore follow that if there is not a legal requirement for
lights on something, then there is no need for it to be seen?

Quite the opposite.

Most vehicles have powerful headlights and their operators can pick out
things in front of them (but not necessarily things which are out of the beam).

Maybe something like a deer? Or a pedestrian?

Two rather different sets of requirements there. It is reasonable to expect a
pedestrian to exercise a certain degree of caution in the presence of
approching engine noise accompanied by a pool of light from headlights. An
animal might not understand what those things mean.