Interesting viewpoint on death by cycling ..

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:21:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Put it into the police pension funds, perhaps.

There is no police pension fund.

Police pensions are paid by current police pension contributions and
topped up by the taxpayer. Any money raised from fines and fixed
penalties used to pay police pensions would, in effect, assist the
taxpayer, not the police.

On 13/04/2011 16:34, Tom Crispin wrote:

wrote:

Put it into the police pension funds, perhaps.

There is no police pension fund.

Police pensions are paid by current police pension contributions and
topped up by the taxpayer. Any money raised from fines and fixed
penalties used to pay police pensions would, in effect, assist the
taxpayer, not the police.

Sounds even better. Of course, the officer could just get a monthly or
Christmas bonus slice of the income.

JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2011 16:17, Paul - xxx wrote:
JNugent wrote:

If it did, the "man" in the case that gets all the attention would be
languishing in prison. But he isn't.

I don't know enough about it to know ..

The fact that so many of the usual suspects are dead against this
proposal is additional evidence that it is desperately needed.

Sorry, I don't get you, who are the usual suspects?

You have to make the offence serious enough for the police to regard
it as "real police work".

You seem to think that a cyclist can kill someone and get away with it
because police don't consider a death as 'real police work'. Maybe
there's more to the case in point than we know.

--
Paul - xxx

On Apr 13, 2:41*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 14:14, Paul - xxx wrote:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

"There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than
cyclists.

To their supporters, Britain's bike-riders are clean, green,
commuters-with-a-conscience, who relieve congestion on the nation's
roads while keeping themselves fit.

But to certain newspapers, and indeed plenty of motorists, they are
"lycra louts", jumping red lights, hurtling past pedestrians on
pavements and denying the Highway Code applies to them."

The article goes on to look at the 'issue' in a fairly even-handed,
fair way.

My take on it, as both a cyclist and a driver, is that we don't need
anything extra as the existing legislation seems to adequately cover
what is being introduced. *It seems a lot of money and fuss over a
(statistically) infinitessimally small problem.

The figures speak for themselves.

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transporthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

For every pedestrian killed by a cycle, a car kills almost 200. Of
course that does not make it OK but when you also take into account the
number of cyclists who routinely ride on pavements and with no regard to
the rules of the road, if cyclists were to ride more courteously, the
number they kill could possibly be eliminated entirely.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would be more effective to eliminate
poor cycling by way of a heavy-handed approach to minor offences than it
would be to offer severe punishment to those cyclists who kill, largely
due to their arrogance, incompetence and overall lack of courtesy.

Riding outside of the law (eg. on pavements and jumping red lights etc),
has become acceptable and this is what needs to change.

Similarly by eliminating poor motoring there would be many fewer
pedestrian deaths that at present, something that is often
conveniently overlooked on this motorist dominated NG.

What also needs to be taken into account when handing out punishments
is that cyclists cannot kill motorists during collisions but that
motorists can kill cyclists. This makes a good argument for vulnerable
victims to be regarded as blame free, i.e. any pedestrian killed
either by a cyclist or a motorist should be free from blame as should
any cyclist killed by a motorist.

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

On 13/04/2011 17:31, Doug wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:41 pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 14:14, Paul - xxx wrote:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

"There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than
cyclists.

To their supporters, Britain's bike-riders are clean, green,
commuters-with-a-conscience, who relieve congestion on the nation's
roads while keeping themselves fit.

But to certain newspapers, and indeed plenty of motorists, they are
"lycra louts", jumping red lights, hurtling past pedestrians on
pavements and denying the Highway Code applies to them."

The article goes on to look at the 'issue' in a fairly even-handed,
fair way.

My take on it, as both a cyclist and a driver, is that we don't need
anything extra as the existing legislation seems to adequately cover
what is being introduced. It seems a lot of money and fuss over a
(statistically) infinitessimally small problem.

The figures speak for themselves.

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transporthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

For every pedestrian killed by a cycle, a car kills almost 200. Of
course that does not make it OK but when you also take into account the
number of cyclists who routinely ride on pavements and with no regard to
the rules of the road, if cyclists were to ride more courteously, the
number they kill could possibly be eliminated entirely.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would be more effective to eliminate
poor cycling by way of a heavy-handed approach to minor offences than it
would be to offer severe punishment to those cyclists who kill, largely
due to their arrogance, incompetence and overall lack of courtesy.

Riding outside of the law (eg. on pavements and jumping red lights etc),
has become acceptable and this is what needs to change.

Similarly by eliminating poor motoring there would be many fewer
pedestrian deaths that at present, something that is often
conveniently overlooked on this motorist dominated NG.

What also needs to be taken into account when handing out punishments
is that cyclists cannot kill motorists during collisions but that
motorists can kill cyclists. This makes a good argument for vulnerable
victims to be regarded as blame free

Have you ever encountered the term "non-sequitur"?

"Simon Weaseltemper" wrote in message
...
On 13/04/2011 14:14, Paul - xxx wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

"There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than
cyclists.

To their supporters, Britain's bike-riders are clean, green,
commuters-with-a-conscience, who relieve congestion on the nation's
roads while keeping themselves fit.

But to certain newspapers, and indeed plenty of motorists, they are
"lycra louts", jumping red lights, hurtling past pedestrians on
pavements and denying the Highway Code applies to them."

The article goes on to look at the 'issue' in a fairly even-handed,
fair way.

My take on it, as both a cyclist and a driver, is that we don't need
anything extra as the existing legislation seems to adequately cover
what is being introduced. It seems a lot of money and fuss over a
(statistically) infinitessimally small problem.


The figures speak for themselves.

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

For every pedestrian killed by a cycle, a car kills almost 200. Of course
that does not make it OK but when you also take into account the number of
cyclists who routinely ride on pavements and with no regard to the rules
of the road, if cyclists were to ride more courteously, the number they
kill could possibly be eliminated entirely.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would be more effective to eliminate
poor cycling by way of a heavy-handed approach to minor offences than it
would be to offer severe punishment to those cyclists who kill, largely
due to their arrogance, incompetence and overall lack of courtesy.

Riding outside of the law (eg. on pavements and jumping red lights etc),
has become acceptable and this is what needs to change.

I cannot see anything wrong with riding on pavements, when you consider the
state of some roads, cycling on many roads are VERY dangerous, with potholes
and sunken drains!

But jumping red lights is another matter, but one has to consider that some
lights are poorly phased and stay red for a very long time even though there
is no traffic crossing the road ahead.

Alan

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:21:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Put it into the police pension funds, perhaps.

There is no police pension fund.

Police pensions are paid by current police pension contributions and
topped up by the taxpayer. Any money raised from fines and fixed
penalties used to pay police pensions would, in effect, assist the
taxpayer, not the police.

And it would encourage the police to prosecute more people whether they have
commited an offence or not, I don't trust the police on many matters.

Alan

On 13/04/2011 17:31, Doug wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:41 pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 13/04/2011 14:14, Paul - xxx wrote:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

"There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than
cyclists.

To their supporters, Britain's bike-riders are clean, green,
commuters-with-a-conscience, who relieve congestion on the nation's
roads while keeping themselves fit.

But to certain newspapers, and indeed plenty of motorists, they are
"lycra louts", jumping red lights, hurtling past pedestrians on
pavements and denying the Highway Code applies to them."

The article goes on to look at the 'issue' in a fairly even-handed,
fair way.

My take on it, as both a cyclist and a driver, is that we don't need
anything extra as the existing legislation seems to adequately cover
what is being introduced. It seems a lot of money and fuss over a
(statistically) infinitessimally small problem.

The figures speak for themselves.

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transporthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

For every pedestrian killed by a cycle, a car kills almost 200. Of
course that does not make it OK but when you also take into account the
number of cyclists who routinely ride on pavements and with no regard to
the rules of the road, if cyclists were to ride more courteously, the
number they kill could possibly be eliminated entirely.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would be more effective to eliminate
poor cycling by way of a heavy-handed approach to minor offences than it
would be to offer severe punishment to those cyclists who kill, largely
due to their arrogance, incompetence and overall lack of courtesy.

Riding outside of the law (eg. on pavements and jumping red lights etc),
has become acceptable and this is what needs to change.

Similarly by eliminating poor motoring there would be many fewer
pedestrian deaths that at present, something that is often
conveniently overlooked on this motorist who are also cyclists dominated NG.

What also needs to be taken into account when handing out punishments
is that cyclists cannot kill motorists during collisions but that
motorists can kill cyclists.

Why.

This makes a good argument for vulnerable
victims to be regarded as blame free, i.e. any pedestrian killed
either by a cyclist or a motorist should be free from blame as should
any cyclist killed by a motorist.

Wrong again, as you have been told if you are blameworthy then you are
to blame.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

Doug wrote:

What also needs to be taken into account when handing out punishments
is that cyclists cannot kill motorists during collisions

Untrue, as ever.

"Bangla cyclist killed 57 yrs old uncle motorist with 3 child"

Biker dies after collision with cyclist A MOTORCYCLIST has died after
colliding with a bicycle, in the second fatal crash involving cyclists
this week. The accident took place in Admiralty Road West in the
direction of Sembawang Road at around 6.40pm on Tuesday. Police said the
motorcyclist was in the left lane of the two-lane road. It is believed
that the cyclist veered into his path. Just a day...

http://boardreader.com/thread/Bangla...eeX1svz .html

Everyone watch out for some prime Duhg wriggling...

On 13/04/2011 18:15, alan.holmes wrote:
"Simon wrote in message
...
On 13/04/2011 14:14, Paul - xxx wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

"There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than
cyclists.

To their supporters, Britain's bike-riders are clean, green,
commuters-with-a-conscience, who relieve congestion on the nation's
roads while keeping themselves fit.

But to certain newspapers, and indeed plenty of motorists, they are
"lycra louts", jumping red lights, hurtling past pedestrians on
pavements and denying the Highway Code applies to them."

The article goes on to look at the 'issue' in a fairly even-handed,
fair way.

My take on it, as both a cyclist and a driver, is that we don't need
anything extra as the existing legislation seems to adequately cover
what is being introduced. It seems a lot of money and fuss over a
(statistically) infinitessimally small problem.


The figures speak for themselves.

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

For every pedestrian killed by a cycle, a car kills almost 200. Of course
that does not make it OK but when you also take into account the number of
cyclists who routinely ride on pavements and with no regard to the rules
of the road, if cyclists were to ride more courteously, the number they
kill could possibly be eliminated entirely.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would be more effective to eliminate
poor cycling by way of a heavy-handed approach to minor offences than it
would be to offer severe punishment to those cyclists who kill, largely
due to their arrogance, incompetence and overall lack of courtesy.

Riding outside of the law (eg. on pavements and jumping red lights etc),
has become acceptable and this is what needs to change.

I cannot see anything wrong with riding on pavements, when you consider the
state of some roads, cycling on many roads are VERY dangerous, with potholes
and sunken drains!

As a cyclist you need to keep your eyes on the road ahead so the
pot-holes and sunken ironworks are avoided. I cannot agree that
pavements or footpaths are in any way safer as they have the added
danger of what is generally known as “street furniture”, not forgetting
people walking and even cars crossing over them.

If you *do* confine yourself to the pavement, it will also have a zero
effect on traffic calming: in other words, when you ride on the pavement
the traffic will zoom past and take absolutely no notice of you. If you
*do* happen to end up in the road you will be dead meat.

But jumping red lights is another matter, but one has to consider that some
lights are poorly phased and stay red for a very long time even though there
is no traffic crossing the road ahead.

I have mixed feelings on this. There is one set of lights I use where
during the red phase there is no reason why I could not turn left (with
care as there is a pedestrian crossing too) as it would not put me or
anyone else at risk. It would put me further ahead from the (usually)
inpatient car driver behind, who often wants to speed off as fast as
they can on amber or green .

To avoid this, I have started going when the phase from the other
direction hits amber which gives me a few seconds head-start. It means I
go on red. It’s illegal for sure. The drivers behind probably appreciate
it, and it will certainly get up some peoples noses. I doubt whether the
police would be bothered as they are not bothered about other low level
cycling offenses.