Guardian Weekend "Spark the Debate" - independent journalism at its finest

"No 1 in a series of innovative ideas. Why not take cyclists off the
roads completely?

- Brought to you in association with Toyota Prius."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sparkthedebate

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:52:04 +0100, Ken wrote:

"No 1 in a series of innovative ideas. Why not take cyclists off the roads
completely?

- Brought to you in association with Toyota Prius."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sparkthedebate

As I said on the Cycling Plus forum -
well why not get rid of all those pesky horse riders on rural roads then?
And farmers herding cows to the milkshed - get them on the pavement
(oops - no pavement).
And marching boy scouts and those left demonstrators - get them off the
road.
While you're at it, motorcyclists get hurt in accidents too. Can't have
that. Too few wheels.
Of course, the kings of the road are 36 ton trucks - let's get those
tinny little cars off the road to let trucks sweep majestically along
the road.

All of the aboce firmly tongue in cheek.

Response to Ken:
"No 1 in a series of innovative ideas. Why not take cyclists off the
roads completely?

- Brought to you in association with Toyota Prius."

Couldn't make it up, could you?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/sparkthedebate

"Spark is a three part series about the good things that are going on all
over the world, and the people working to create a brighter future for us
all."

Given that Issue 3 on the website has a nice, if-in-retrospect poignant,
piece by John Peel, I wonder how old this is? [ATM listening, as it
happens, to Peely talking about Robert Wyatt!]

--
Mark, UK

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who
are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."

Ken wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sparkthedebate

Amusing.

replied:

The idea that the response to the danger posed to cyclists by motor
traffic should be to remove the victims not the cause of danger is not a
new one. H Alker Tripp, commissioner of police for the metropolis,
advocated this back in the 1930s. It was wrong then, and it is still
wrong now.

It is wrong for many reasons.

First and most important, the evidence appears to be that riding on the
footway is actually more dangerous anyway. Several studies have found
this. Although the chance of being hit form behind is lower between
junctions, this kind of impact is rare to start with and the chances of
a much more common collision, being hit at a junction by a driver who
looks but does not see, is five or six times higher.

Second, when cyclists are injured by motorists, the fault is usually
that of the motorist (up to 85%, and I have seen no study which puts it
lower than 2/3). Pedestrians are responsible for their own downfall in
about 50% of cases, so cyclists appear to be less to blame than other
road users.

Third, the problem of which you speak can be simply and easily remedied
by training. Any well-trained cyclist knows that skimming along between
two lines of traffic is dangerous, because you risk becoming a white van
sandwich. And the largest single cause of cyclist fatalities in London
is being cut off by left-turning goods vehicles; this can be prevented b
y the simple expedient of warning cyclists not to go up the left side of
lorries. Of course, this conflicts with the idea of 18" wide cycle
lanes running along in the gutter, but smart cyclists know to avoid
these anyway.

Fourth, cyclists use the road by right, while drivers use it under
sufferance and only when licensed. Banning a class of vehicles from the
road as a response to the danger posed by another class of vehicles
fails any possible test of equity.

Pavements are for pedestrians. Bicycles are vehicles, and the modern
trend to encourage them to ride on the footway when (often lamentably
ill-informed) council officials want to appear more bike-friendly is a
foolish distraction. Much better to do away with cyclist-hostile road
features in the first place. I have to say that shared-use pavements
are a menace: drivers hate us for riding on the pavement where they do
not exist and bully us if we dare to ride on the road where they do.
The only sensible solution is to get all cyclists back on the roads
where they belong. And to fix the problems which are driving people to
the illusory safety of the pavements in the first place.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Ken wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sparkthedebate

Amusing.

replied:

snip

Similar to mine:

"Why not take cyclists (and other vulnerable road users presumably) off
the roads? For one, cycling is no more dangerous than walking despite
all the attempts to portray it as evidence of a death wish. Second,
research from around the world, including your exemplars of Germany and
the Netherlands, shows that roads are far and away the safest place for
cyclists despite what your author may think of the bendy bus and white
van man*. For example a study by the Berlin Police showed cyclists were
four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on roads with a
cycle path.

The answer to our road problems is not to punish the victims but to
address the source of the danger. The proposed solution is akin to
solving rape by putting a curfew on women. Driver training, more than
the current slap on the wrist from the Courts for even the worst
transgressions and more cyclists on the roads are the best way to
improve cyclist safety. But then that would be challenging the
established heirarchy of he with the biggest vehicle wins."

Tony

* http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Ken" wrote in message
...
"No 1 in a series of innovative ideas. Why not take cyclists off the
roads completely?

- Brought to you in association with Toyota Prius."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sparkthedebate


Wot i rit.

Cycle pavements...

....are the work of Satan. They reinforce the misplaced idea of too many
petrol-headed tosspots that cyclists have no *right* to use the road. When
indeed, along with pedestrians and horseriders, it's the cyclists who have a
right to be on the road, not the mere *licence* to be on the road that a
motorist has. By the way, of the 3500 people killed on UK roads every year
the vast majority are motorists killing other motorists. Surely to be safe,
we should be taking the motor vehicles off the road, as it's the motorists
causing the danger. What actually needs to be done is for the motorists to
take their responsibilities to more vulnerable road users more seriously and
for the law to stop treating death or injury by motorcar when the driver is
at fault (the vast majority of the time it is the fault of the driver) as a
minor accident that could happen to anyone.

I use my bike as a means of transport, not just for a pootle about. I am the
traffic when cycling. My speeds in urban cycling are appropriate for being
on road. Cycling at 15 - 25mph on a footpath is not appropriate, yet I
manage this on road without difficulty. Nor am I some kind of fitness-freak,
I'm a middle-aged woman. Whenever I see an adult cycling on the footpath I'm
tempted to ask them why their Mummy hasn't yet told them they are old enough
to use the road like a real grown-up person. For what it's worth I walk,
cycle and drive, enjoying all three forms of mobility for business and
pleasure and I choose the form of transport that is most appropriate for the
kind of journey I'm doing. There is a perfectly good network of routes for
cyclists to use in the UK - it's called the public highway. Any move to get
cyclists, or any other road user who has a *right* to use the road, should
be resisted and stopped in its tracks. When more of us are on the road
cycling, the safer it becomes for us - the statistics prove this. At a time
when the UK is fighting the ever increasing amount of obesity in the
population, perhaps the easiest and most enjoyable way to get exercise is to
get on your bike! I can understand your shock at your recent experience with
a bendy bus and a white van, but the answer is not to remove the victim -
it's to make the source of the danger (motor vehicle drivers) more aware of
their responsibilities and more accountable for their actions. Don't blame
the vulnerable road user! The apparent growing feeling in the UK that
nothing other than a motor vehicle has any right to be on the road and
anything that gets in its way is a hindrance is appalling.

Think on this - world oil prices are creeping steadily higher. This is
likely to continue as oil is a finite resource. In real terms the costs of
motoring are low when compared to public transport but are going to increase
over time - rightly so due to the oil price increase and as successive
governments have pushed the cost of public transport ever higher. We need to
make serious moves to get away from our increasing overdependence on the
motorcar, so the oil is used less for individual use and more for getting
goods made and delivered to where they are needed. Increasing cycle use is a
small part of getting away from that overdependence on oil. UK cycle
farcilities are just that - a farce not a facility - yet you want to place
cyclists in a situation where the statistics prove cyclists are less safe
(yes, really) than being on road and where the speed they can reasonable
travel at is much reduced, thus reducing the cycle's effectiveness as a
practical alternative to the motor vehicle for many a journey. Even the RAC
has said people should use a bicycle or walk for short journeys.

I notice "Spark" is "Brought to you in association with Toyota Prius" and
it's about getting cyclists off the road... just fancy that!

Cheers, Helen Simmons
(pedestrian, cyclist and motorist)

in message , Tony Raven
') wrote:

The proposed solution is akin to
solving rape by putting a curfew on women.

Very well put. Congratulations, I must remember that.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; when in the ****, the wise man plants courgettes

Tony Raven wrote:

Second,
research from around the world, including your exemplars of Germany and
the Netherlands, shows that roads are far and away the safest place for
cyclists despite what your author may think

Which reminds me: the laws requiring cyclists in Germany and elsewhere
to ride on tracks where provided were enacted by a Government not noted
for its liberality. Somewhat surprising to find the Grauniad advocating
the policies of the Nazi[1] party!

Guy

[1] Not a Godwin post: it is historically correct, as far as my research
can tell the Nazis *did* introduce the German, Dutch and Danish laws.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

Second,
research from around the world, including your exemplars of Germany and
the Netherlands, shows that roads are far and away the safest place for
cyclists despite what your author may think

Which reminds me: the laws requiring cyclists in Germany and elsewhere
to ride on tracks where provided were enacted by a Government not noted
for its liberality. Somewhat surprising to find the Grauniad advocating
the policies of the Nazi[1] party!


A curious side note is that the National Socialist party in Germany did
make cyclepaths compulsory in Germany, Holland and Belgium, to clear the
roads for motorised vehicles, and banned cyclist organisations to
achieve it. Meanwhile the CTC campaigned successfully to prevent
similar moves in the UK at the same time. Now we in the UK look
longingly at cycling in those countries. I wonder what would have
happened if the CTC had lost the argument all those years ago.
--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:14:53 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

A curious side note is that the National Socialist party in Germany did
make cyclepaths compulsory in Germany, Holland and Belgium, to clear the
roads for motorised vehicles, and banned cyclist organisations to achieve
it.
Really! Reference please.

B