Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On 24/05/2011 19:11, Squashme wrote:
On May 24, 4:01 pm, wrote:
On 24/05/2011 10:45, FrengaX wrote:



On May 23, 11:53 pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:

wrote in message
...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

Actually, regulation would be much better. Number plates, compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance, payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

Oh, of course regulation always solves everything doesn't it? So many
cack-handed examples of regulation by government doing nothing but
frustrating people and keeping civil servants in a job. How, for
example, would taxing cyclists reduce the casualty rate?

By paying for the registration system and its operation (along with
inspection and enforcement of cycling standards and compulsory insurance) so
that it would be not a charge upon the taxpayer.

Is there any reason why the taxpayer should bear the cost?

Accepting your idea that "inspection and enforcement of cycling
standards" would "reduce the casualty rate," do you have any idea of
how much your idea would cost and how much it would reduce the
casualty rate?

Was there an accurate idea of how many casualties would be eliminated by the
introduction of motor vehicle driving licences, road tax, compulsory
insurance, regulation of construction (constantly amended), compulsory
driving tests or periodic test of vehicle roadworthiness?

If there wasn't, does that mean it all shouldn't have been done?

Do you think that cyclists would be any more willing to pay for the
scheme than motorists would be willing to pay for vehicles with
automatic braking in order to save many thousands of deaths and
serious injuries?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, aren't you?

Why on Earth would law-abiding cyclist not be willing to pay for
registration, licenising and insurance?

After all, they're Considerably Richer Than Yow (on average).

On May 24, 7:30*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2011 19:11, Squashme wrote:





On May 24, 4:01 pm, *wrote:
On 24/05/2011 10:45, FrengaX wrote:

On May 23, 11:53 pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:

* *wrote in message
om...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

Actually, regulation would be much better. *Number plates, compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance, payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

Oh, of course regulation always solves everything doesn't it? So many
cack-handed examples of regulation by government doing nothing but
frustrating people and keeping civil servants in a job. How, for
example, would taxing cyclists reduce the casualty rate?

By paying for the registration system and its operation (along with
inspection and enforcement of cycling standards and compulsory insurance) so
that it would be not a charge upon the taxpayer.

Is there any reason why the taxpayer should bear the cost?

Accepting your idea that "inspection and enforcement of cycling
standards" would "reduce the casualty rate," do you have any idea of
how much your idea would cost and how much it would reduce the
casualty rate?

Was there an accurate idea of how many casualties would be eliminated by the
introduction of motor vehicle driving licences, road tax, compulsory
insurance, regulation of construction (constantly amended), compulsory
driving tests or periodic test of vehicle roadworthiness?

If there wasn't, does that mean it all shouldn't have been done?

Do you think that cyclists would be any more willing to pay for the
scheme than motorists would be willing to pay for vehicles with
automatic braking in order to save many thousands of deaths and
serious injuries?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, aren't you?

Why on Earth would law-abiding cyclist not be willing to pay for
registration, licenising and insurance?

Er, are you seriously asking that? Why on earth should I pay some
arbitrary tax that would be of zero benefit to me?

On May 24, 7:11*pm, Squashme wrote:

Do you think that cyclists would be any more willing to pay for the
scheme than motorists would be willing to pay for vehicles with
automatic braking in order to save many thousands of deaths and
serious injuries?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Motorists are happy to pay extra when they are seen to get some
benefit - a younger driver can get cheaper insurance if they have "spy
in the cab" technology which logs their driving style and other data
such as time of day. And of course, they get the chance to forgo
speeding points by paying up for speed awareness courses instead.

--
Simon Mason

On Tue, 24 May 2011 02:45:28 -0700 (PDT), FrengaX
wrote:

On May 23, 11:53*pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:



"Theodore" wrote in message
.. .

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

Actually, regulation would be much better. *Number plates, compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance, payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

Oh, of course regulation always solves everything doesn't it? So many
cack-handed examples of regulation by government doing nothing but
frustrating people and keeping civil servants in a job. How, for
example, would taxing cyclists reduce the casualty rate?

I don't think the people proposing it are necessarily interested in reducing
the cyclists casualty rate :-)

It wouldn't.

BUT : it would enable those anti-social *******s to be caught and pay fines for
breaking the law willy nilly as many of them do every day.

Also - those who run in to someone or someone's property and bugger off
smartish could be reported, caught and made to cough up.


Can you see the benefits now?

--
DfT latest: UK Per billion passenger kilometres
Killed : Pedestrian 26 Cyclist 21
KSI: Pedestrian 319 Cyclist 547
All: Pedestrian 1420 Cyclist 3444

Which is by far the most dangerous?

(Thanks to PhilO for the sig idea)

On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On May 23, 12:16*pm, Doug wrote:


"...During his time as a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet,
Coleman has built up a reputation as an outspoken supporter of car
driving, leading Richard Littlejohn to label him a "hero" for
introducing a policy of removing road humps when the roads of Barnet
are resurfaced.

In Hull, residents can contact KHCC and request that a 20mph zone be
put in down their street. The Traffic Services officer then assesses
the request and if passed, a 20mph zone policed by humps is installed.
Since their introduction, not a single one has been removed, on the
contrary, there is a back log of requests. No wonder, as they are so
popular.

5. WHAT RESIDENTS THINK

In August 2000, we asked 3,700 residents of existing 20 mph zones
what they thought of the scheme, 546 replied (15 per cent).

— Over 25 per cent of respondents said that they walked or cycled
more since the scheme was introduced.

— Nearly 80 per cent of respondents thought that the installation of
the scheme was a good idea.

— Over 70 per cent of respondents said that they would recommend
traffic calming to someone in another area.

— 78 per cent of respondents felt that traffic speeds had reduced
since the measures were installed.

— 25 per cent of respondents felt that there was less traffic since
the 20 mph zone had been installed.

— Over 50 per cent of respondents felt that the 20 mph zone had made
the area a more pleasant place in which to live. This was particularly
encouraging since all of the areas surveyed also suffer from a variety
of other problems.

— 60 per cent of respondents felt that more children played in the
street.


We asked one local cyclist - Simon Mason (aka Simple) whether he thought
cyclists should obey the 20mph limits as other road users are required to do.
Not at all - said Simple - the limits do not apply to cyclists. Anyway I have
no idea of my stopping distance at 25mph - other than knowing it is better
than a car - so I see no need to reduce my speed for the benefit of other,
often vulnerable, road users when there is no benefit to me.
--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
This includes exceeding the speed limit past three schools. A total disregard for the well-being of vulnerable road users.
The actions of a true psycholist.

On May 24, 7:30*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2011 19:11, Squashme wrote:



On May 24, 4:01 pm, *wrote:
On 24/05/2011 10:45, FrengaX wrote:

On May 23, 11:53 pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:

* *wrote in message
om...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

Actually, regulation would be much better. *Number plates, compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance, payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

Oh, of course regulation always solves everything doesn't it? So many
cack-handed examples of regulation by government doing nothing but
frustrating people and keeping civil servants in a job. How, for
example, would taxing cyclists reduce the casualty rate?

By paying for the registration system and its operation (along with
inspection and enforcement of cycling standards and compulsory insurance) so
that it would be not a charge upon the taxpayer.

Is there any reason why the taxpayer should bear the cost?

Accepting your idea that "inspection and enforcement of cycling
standards" would "reduce the casualty rate," do you have any idea of
how much your idea would cost and how much it would reduce the
casualty rate?

Was there an accurate idea of how many casualties would be eliminated by the
introduction of motor vehicle driving licences, road tax, compulsory
insurance, regulation of construction (constantly amended), compulsory
driving tests or periodic test of vehicle roadworthiness?

If there wasn't, does that mean it all shouldn't have been done?

Do you think that cyclists would be any more willing to pay for the
scheme than motorists would be willing to pay for vehicles with
automatic braking in order to save many thousands of deaths and
serious injuries?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, aren't you?

If you mean that your scheme for cyclist-harassment would have little
benefit for cyclists or their fellow road-users, compared to the large
benefits to thousands of potential victims from automatic braking,
then yes, bananas probably.
But you know this.


Why on Earth would law-abiding cyclist not be willing to pay for
registration, licenising and insurance?

Because the losses would outweigh the gains perhaps?

On May 24, 8:07*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2011 19:36, FrengaX wrote:



On May 24, 7:30 pm, *wrote:
On 24/05/2011 19:11, Squashme wrote:

On May 24, 4:01 pm, * *wrote:
On 24/05/2011 10:45, FrengaX wrote:

On May 23, 11:53 pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:

* * *wrote in message
news:079lt6psn9hpjdvusd0c0kb2jqa8bcf5th@4ax .com...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

Actually, regulation would be much better. *Number plates, compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance, payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

Oh, of course regulation always solves everything doesn't it? So many
cack-handed examples of regulation by government doing nothing but
frustrating people and keeping civil servants in a job. How, for
example, would taxing cyclists reduce the casualty rate?

By paying for the registration system and its operation (along with
inspection and enforcement of cycling standards and compulsory insurance) so
that it would be not a charge upon the taxpayer.

Is there any reason why the taxpayer should bear the cost?

Accepting your idea that "inspection and enforcement of cycling
standards" would "reduce the casualty rate," do you have any idea of
how much your idea would cost and how much it would reduce the
casualty rate?

Was there an accurate idea of how many casualties would be eliminated by the
introduction of motor vehicle driving licences, road tax, compulsory
insurance, regulation of construction (constantly amended), compulsory
driving tests or periodic test of vehicle roadworthiness?

If there wasn't, does that mean it all shouldn't have been done?

Do you think that cyclists would be any more willing to pay for the
scheme than motorists would be willing to pay for vehicles with
automatic braking in order to save many thousands of deaths and
serious injuries?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, aren't you?

Why on Earth would law-abiding cyclist not be willing to pay for
registration, licenising and insurance?

Er, are you seriously asking that? Why on earth should I pay some
arbitrary tax that would be of zero benefit to me?

Are you not a member of the society which would benefit from curbing the
excesses of scofflaw dangerous cyclists?

Are you NEVEr a vulnerable pedestrian?

What, neveR? / No, NEVEr! / What, nEVer? / Well, hardly evER!


Do you NEVER wish to cross the road in safety?

Why did the chicken?


If it will benefit all, as you suggest, then perhaps it SHOULD come
out of general taxation, after all.

On May 24, 8:07*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2011 19:36, FrengaX wrote:





On May 24, 7:30 pm, *wrote:
On 24/05/2011 19:11, Squashme wrote:

On May 24, 4:01 pm, * *wrote:
On 24/05/2011 10:45, FrengaX wrote:

On May 23, 11:53 pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:

* * *wrote in message
news:079lt6psn9hpjdvusd0c0kb2jqa8bcf5th@4ax .com...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

Actually, regulation would be much better. *Number plates, compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance, payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

Oh, of course regulation always solves everything doesn't it? So many
cack-handed examples of regulation by government doing nothing but
frustrating people and keeping civil servants in a job. How, for
example, would taxing cyclists reduce the casualty rate?

By paying for the registration system and its operation (along with
inspection and enforcement of cycling standards and compulsory insurance) so
that it would be not a charge upon the taxpayer.

Is there any reason why the taxpayer should bear the cost?

Accepting your idea that "inspection and enforcement of cycling
standards" would "reduce the casualty rate," do you have any idea of
how much your idea would cost and how much it would reduce the
casualty rate?

Was there an accurate idea of how many casualties would be eliminated by the
introduction of motor vehicle driving licences, road tax, compulsory
insurance, regulation of construction (constantly amended), compulsory
driving tests or periodic test of vehicle roadworthiness?

If there wasn't, does that mean it all shouldn't have been done?

Do you think that cyclists would be any more willing to pay for the
scheme than motorists would be willing to pay for vehicles with
automatic braking in order to save many thousands of deaths and
serious injuries?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, aren't you?

Why on Earth would law-abiding cyclist not be willing to pay for
registration, licenising and insurance?

Er, are you seriously asking that? Why on earth should I pay some
arbitrary tax that would be of zero benefit to me?

Are you not a member of the society which would benefit from curbing the
excesses of scofflaw dangerous cyclists?

Are you NEVEr a vulnerable pedestrian?

No. I feel perfectly safe when walking.

Do you NEVER wish to cross the road in safety?

All the time, and I take care when doing so as everyone should.

There is no evidence that any of your suggestions would make it any
safer than it is anyway.

On 24/05/2011 00:54, BartC wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:


"Theodore" wrote in message
...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

And if pedestrian injuries also increased, perhaps ban them as well?

Actually, regulation would be much better. Number plates, compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance, payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

In that case, one might as well ride a motorbike. A great way of
encouraging one of the most efficient, simplest, cheapest and
environmentally-friendly means of private transport on the planet.

The real problem is that cars and bikes don't mix, and neither do bikes
and pedestrians.

It would however be odd to [ban] one of the most effective forms of
transport
in central London

Effective?

Yes. Second only to walking. If it wasn't for an actual bike to keep
chaining up, it would be better than walking. (I'm talking mainly about
the congestion-charge zone, where bikes can easily keep up with traffic.)

But other than that a completely useless form of transport.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 24/05/2011 10:45, FrengaX wrote:
On May 23, 11:53 pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:



wrote in message
...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

Actually, regulation would be much better. Number plates, compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance, payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

Oh, of course regulation always solves everything doesn't it? So many
cack-handed examples of regulation by government doing nothing but
frustrating people and keeping civil servants in a job. How, for
example, would taxing cyclists reduce the casualty rate?

The taxation would cover the admin costs of number plates, driving
tests, insurance, safety test.

Then cyclists would be properly trained, insured, ride safe bikes & more
importantly - they could be identified & prosecuted if they broke the
law - by endangering pedestrians & motorists.




--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk