Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On 24/05/2011 11:11, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 24, 10:45 am, 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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would quite happily "pay" for the use of a zero rated VED vehicle
which would fall into Band A - fee nothing at all.

If you believe that Road Tax is an environmental issue you are even
simpler than I thought.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

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?

Cost wouldn't matter, cyclists could pay it.

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?

Cyclists are sponging freeloaders so they don't like paying for anything.

Do you have real figures for the 'many thousands' of deaths caused by
lack of auto braking?


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

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
...

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?

Because you accept the benefit of using the roads.

Sponging freeloader.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 24/05/2011 20:55, Squashme 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
...

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?


You gain from using the roads, you pay. Simple.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 24/05/2011 17:26, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 23, 12:16 pm, 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.

And 100% of arrogant anti social cyclists rode at 25mph because "the law
doesn't apply to me".


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 24/05/2011 20:55, Squashme 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
...

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 I don't mean that, and it is a puzzle how you could feasibly, having
started from what I did say, have arrived at such an improbable and
preposterous interpretation of it.

Perhaps you'd like to try again.

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?

That is certainly the case with the total of taxation on motor vehicles and
their use.

Why would/should it be different for cyclists (not that I suggested setting
the taxation at any more than the cost of administering the system)?

On 24/05/2011 21:31, FrengaX wrote:
On May 24, 8:07 pm, 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
...

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.

So do most peestrians. But too many find that their feeling was misplaced.

Do you NEVER wish to cross the road in safety?

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

You know you cannot trust cyclists to stop and give way to you, whether you
are on one of the ever-diminishing number of zebra crossings or any pelicon
with the lights at red for traffic.

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

Only by tracing and punishing transgressors. That's the whole idea.

On May 24, 8:54*am, FrengaX wrote:
On May 24, 6:02*am, Doug wrote:









On May 23, 6:01*pm, JNugent wrote:

On 23/05/2011 12:16, Doug wrote:

"The highest number of road deaths in London last year happened in
Barnet, Transport for London figures show.

In 2010, nine people died and 1,520 injured on the borough's road
network, a rise of 8% on the previous year..."

Hmm! So casualties are up and our roads are not getting safer after
all, contrary to popular opinion from motorists on these newsgroups..

"...Overall, outer London saw a 4% increase in casualties, up to
16,507 for the 12 months, and inner London, a 2% increase.

Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

Mo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13499789

But get this!

"...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.[27] Coleman quotes the Metropolitan Police and the
London Ambulance Service as being supporters of this policy while road
safety critics argue that the policy is reckless and driven by
populism and self promotion..."

Mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C...Pro-car_policy

Fancy a local politician having the bare-faced effrontery to do what the
majority want.

Where *will* it end?

When you say 'majority' I take it you mean a car user mob who seem to
have no regard for the safety of others.

Strangely, no. I think you'll find that the "car user mob who seem to
have no regard for the safety of others" are not in the majority,
whereas drivers who are generally well-intentioned and don't go around
ploughing into bus queues, houses, cyclists etc. are the overwhealming
majority.

Well we know from past surveys that a majority of motorists knowingly
exceed speed limits, aka break the law with no regard for the safety
of others, so what other dangerous activities does your 'majority' get
up to?

Anyone driving a car is a potential threat to vulnerable road users,
whether intentionally or not, so don't try to wriggle out of it.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On May 25, 7:17*am, Doug wrote:
On May 24, 8:54*am, FrengaX wrote:







On May 24, 6:02*am, Doug wrote:

On May 23, 6:01*pm, JNugent wrote:

On 23/05/2011 12:16, Doug wrote:

"The highest number of road deaths in London last year happened in
Barnet, Transport for London figures show.

In 2010, nine people died and 1,520 injured on the borough's road
network, a rise of 8% on the previous year..."

Hmm! So casualties are up and our roads are not getting safer after
all, contrary to popular opinion from motorists on these newsgroups.

"...Overall, outer London saw a 4% increase in casualties, up to
16,507 for the 12 months, and inner London, a 2% increase.

Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

Mo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13499789

But get this!

"...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.[27] Coleman quotes the Metropolitan Police and the
London Ambulance Service as being supporters of this policy while road
safety critics argue that the policy is reckless and driven by
populism and self promotion..."

Mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C...Pro-car_policy

Fancy a local politician having the bare-faced effrontery to do what the
majority want.

Where *will* it end?

When you say 'majority' I take it you mean a car user mob who seem to
have no regard for the safety of others.

Strangely, no. I think you'll find that the "car user mob who seem to
have no regard for the safety of others" are not in the majority,
whereas drivers who are generally well-intentioned and don't go around
ploughing into bus queues, houses, cyclists etc. are the overwhealming
majority.

Well we know from past surveys that a majority of motorists knowingly
exceed speed limits, aka break the law with no regard for the safety
of others, so what other dangerous activities does your 'majority' get
up to?

Anyone driving a car is a potential threat to vulnerable road users,
whether intentionally or not, so don't try to wriggle out of it.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


Well we know from past surveys that a majority of cyclists knowingly
break the law with no regard for the safety of others, so what other
dangerous activities does your 'majority' get
up to?

Anyone riding a bike is a potential threat to vulnerable road users,
whether intentionally or not, so don't try to wriggle out of it.

On 24/05/2011 23:00, wrote:

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.

Useless how? I used to walk my short journeys and take my car on longer
ones mainly from a time perspective. There was a point where (to me)
there was a time payoff where taking the car became a better choice.

With the bike I've extended my range further and reduce my number of car
trips, and I feel fitter for it.

It's all about using the most appropriate form of transport for the job
in hand. I wouldn't for example try and take a huge parcel to the Post
Office on my bike, I'd take the car even though I could easily ride
there in 5 minutes. Likewise I wouldn't take the car to the local shop
if all I wanted was a few nicknacks