Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On May 25, 7:42*am, Abo wrote:
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

You could use a bicycle trailer for trips to the Post Office. Where
there's a will there's a way.

Doug.

On 25/05/2011 00:14, JNugent wrote:

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.

Depends where you are. In London crossing the road on foot can be
downright dangerous at times. Up here, there is less of a hipster
attitude and the cycling enthusiasts I've encountered obey the rules of
the road. The probem here is different in that most people on bikes tend
to be those who are effectively wheeled pedestrians bimbling around on
the pavement etc. etc.

On 25/05/2011 07:49, Doug wrote:
On May 25, 7:42 am, wrote:
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

You could use a bicycle trailer for trips to the Post Office. Where
there's a will there's a way.

Doug.

To be fair you have a point.

On 24/05/2011 23:10, 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?

Because you accept the benefit of using the roads.

Sponging freeloader.


He pays for the roads through general taxation same as everyone else who
pays tax in this country.

On 25/05/2011 00:12, JNugent wrote:

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)?

How much would it cost to administer the system?

On 25/05/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:
....
Well we know from past surveys that a majority of motorists knowingly
exceed speed limits,...

When the Road Research Laboratory did an extensive study of speed
limits, their conclusion was that the purpose of speed limits should not
be seen as being to keep traffic at or below the set limit. Rather, they
should be seen as a way to avoid large differentials in traffic speed
and as a way to reduce significantly the number of vehicles that grossly
exceed the set limit. Their suggestions of what constituted 'grossly
exceeding' the limit quite closely match the ACPO recommendations on the
point at which prosecution would be appropriate.

Colin Bignell

On 25/05/2011 07:42, Abo wrote:
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

Sounds reasonable enough to me, use whatever form of transport is best
for what you are doing, whenever you are doing it.

On May 24, 11:19*pm, wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I also cycle with bald tyres, no MOT, no VED disc, no reg number, no
windscreen wipers, over the drink drive limit (in the past), no
catalyser or exhaust pipe and guess what?

I am breaking no laws *whatsoever* - get over it.

--
Simon Mason

On May 25, 8:12*am, Abo wrote:
On 25/05/2011 00:12, JNugent wrote:

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)?

How much would it cost to administer the system?

As a VED disc cost about a quid to issue, then it would be at least 30
million to issue a VED disc saying "fee £0" on it.
Every year, i.e. heavily cash negative to the Treasury.

--
Simon Mason

On Tue, 24 May 2011 23:00:53 +0100, davidlang wrote:



But other than that a completely useless form of transport.

No it isn't a completely useless form of transport.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.