Calderdale MBC warn against 'killer bikes'.

A couple of additional points...

An e-mail has been forwarded to me which has also been sent to
Calderdale MBC pointing out that

'most accidents to the young and the elderly take place in residential
areas, within 500m of the home... the accident record may be a result
of increased car use in residential areas and the relatively
inappropriate speeds of motor vehicles in areas where less experienced
or able road users may be found.'

I.e. rather than blaming child cyclists Calderdale MBC should be
looking at where most of those crashes occur and endeavoring to make
those areas safer.

Another item notes that

'The council's literature is full of stuff about how they put
pedestrians first, cyclists second, PT then car drivers at the bottom
of the list. Then you look at the actual transport budget and you find
that the £668M for 2006-2011 it's allocated as follows:

£514 million for roads (77%)
£150 million for rail including the Guided Bus (22%)
£4 million total for cycleways, footpaths, safer routes to school etc.
(0.6%)

Yes, 0.6%. That's not a typo. And it's not even all for cycling.'

Perhaps they think that if they deter the next generation of potential
cyclists from cycling at all they won't even have to spend that
fraction of 0.6% on cycling in the future...

P.s.

An e-mail has been forwarded to me which has also been sent to
Calderdale MBC pointing out that

'most accidents to the young and the elderly take place in residential
areas, within 500m of the home... the accident record may be a result
of increased car use in residential areas and the relatively
inappropriate speeds of motor vehicles in areas where less experienced
or able road users may be found.'

I.e. rather than blaming child cyclists Calderdale MBC should be
looking at where most of those crashes occur and endeavoring to make
those areas safer.

On 11 Nov 2005 02:16:13 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

An e-mail has been forwarded to me which has also been sent to
Calderdale MBC pointing out that

'most accidents to the young and the elderly take place in residential
areas, within 500m of the home... the accident record may be a result
of increased car use in residential areas and the relatively
inappropriate speeds of motor vehicles in areas where less experienced
or able road users may be found.'

Is this foolish officials campaigning against stairs and parents?
Both cause more death and injury to children than anything outside
the home.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

tale of inappropriate Calderdale press release

I've just got off the phone to a nice lady at Calderdale. It's all a bit
unfortunate - their intentions were very good, but their presentation was
unfortunately wrong.

The intention was not that people be discouraged from buying bikes, but
rather that they don't treat them as a toy with no further input from
parents. Bikes need maintenance - and as we all know even new bikes from the
poorer outlets need work to make them safe.

What they want is for people buying these bikes to realise this, and to
accept this responsibility.

The problem is the way the press release was written - the stuff they wanted
to say is lower down, and at the top is stuff which can rather too easily be
misinterpreted.

Apparently the fallout from this is the biggest thing in their office at the
moment, and they're trying to work out ways round it. They're planning
another campaign in December, more obviously aimed at maintenance.

Unfortunately I'm not an experienced campaigner, so I can't think of ways to
counter the inital impact this has happened. I think letters to the paper
clarifying the issue (_not_ attacking CMBC - their intentions are good) may
be helpful. One could push the local bike shop thing (*) - CMBC aren't
allowed to do this, but other people can.

(* that buying a bike from a decent LBS is rather more likely to get you
something safe than going to asda).

Any other thoughts?

cheers,
clive

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:07:19 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
wrote this:-

I've just got off the phone to a nice lady at Calderdale. It's all a bit
unfortunate - their intentions were very good, but their presentation was
unfortunately wrong.

I suspect that this is their rationalisation after the event. A
press release entitled "Killer Bikes" is deliberately anti-bike in
my view.

The problem is the way the press release was written - the stuff they wanted
to say is lower down,

Then they need to learn how to write a press release. There is much
guidance on the subject, including putting what one wants to say in
the first paragraph, where a journalist is more likely to read it.
Journalists may be lazy or bogged down by press releases, depending
on one's level of cynicism, so putting the important bit at the
start is a basic skill. I find it difficult to believe that a
council does not have someone who knows how to write press releases
and that the council does not have an instruction that all press
releases are to be made by this person or persons.

and at the top is stuff which can rather too easily be misinterpreted.

Or the stuff they intended to say. Either they are anti-bike or
incompetent at dealing with the press. There doesn't seem to be a
third option.

Apparently the fallout from this is the biggest thing in their office at the
moment,

Good.

and they're trying to work out ways round it. They're planning
another campaign in December, more obviously aimed at maintenance.

They should immediately issue another press release, which has what
they claim they want to say at the top. They should then offer
themselves to newspaper, radio and television to explain their
earlier mistake and correct it. If they don't offer to do this then
one can conclude that they are anti-bike.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:07:19 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
wrote this:-

I've just got off the phone to a nice lady at Calderdale. It's all a bit
unfortunate - their intentions were very good, but their presentation was
unfortunately wrong.

I suspect that this is their rationalisation after the event. A
press release entitled "Killer Bikes" is deliberately anti-bike in
my view.

Dunno. Have you read the entire press release? Have you talked to the people
in question? My second reading of the former steered me towards the idea
that it wasn't deliberate, and conversation confirmed this.

Hanlon's Razor is a useful thing to consider in this sort of situation, and
I believe it applies in this case.

The problem is the way the press release was written - the stuff they
wanted
to say is lower down,

Then they need to learn how to write a press release. There is much
guidance on the subject, including putting what one wants to say in
the first paragraph, where a journalist is more likely to read it.
Journalists may be lazy or bogged down by press releases, depending
on one's level of cynicism, so putting the important bit at the
start is a basic skill.

Yup. Agreed.

I find it difficult to believe that a
council does not have someone who knows how to write press releases
and that the council does not have an instruction that all press
releases are to be made by this person or persons.

I think you need to recalibrate your beliefs.

and at the top is stuff which can rather too easily be misinterpreted.

Or the stuff they intended to say. Either they are anti-bike or
incompetent at dealing with the press. There doesn't seem to be a
third option.

I think I implied the second option in my opening statement : "presentation
was unfortunately wrong".

Apparently the fallout from this is the biggest thing in their office at
the
moment,

Good.

and they're trying to work out ways round it. They're planning
another campaign in December, more obviously aimed at maintenance.

They should immediately issue another press release, which has what
they claim they want to say at the top. They should then offer
themselves to newspaper, radio and television to explain their
earlier mistake and correct it. If they don't offer to do this then
one can conclude that they are anti-bike.

Er, you're overreacting. As far as we know, the story has only appeared in
the local press.
They're trying to dig themselves out of this situation. However they're not
going to be able to get the local press to publish a retraction if the local
press are inherently anti-bike - which is not an unlikely situation.
If you've got good positive ideas on how they can remedy things, can I
suggest you contact them - they probably could do with help. But don't just
wade in there and accuse them of being anti-bike, because that simply isn't
the case, and will just annoy them.

It's always helpful to remember when dealing with things such as this that
the people behind them are normal fallible humans - they're not some
super-efficient bureaucratic monster.

cheers,
clive

Clive George wrote:

If you've got good positive ideas on how they can remedy things, can I
suggest you contact them - they probably could do with help. But don't just
wade in there and accuse them of being anti-bike, because that simply isn't
the case, and will just annoy them.


How about they put on free training courses for children who have had a
bike for Christmas to teach them to ride safely on the roads?


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:

If you've got good positive ideas on how they can remedy things, can I
suggest you contact them - they probably could do with help. But don't
just wade in there and accuse them of being anti-bike, because that
simply isn't the case, and will just annoy them.


How about they put on free training courses for children who have had a
bike for Christmas to teach them to ride safely on the roads?

They did say their cycling proficiency courses are doing well - 5 one hour
sessions, 10yo or older, free.

What to do about 5/6yo though? I was riding for several years before I'd
have been allowed to do cycling proficiency. (in fact this was the case,
making it a doddle to pass when I finally did it).

cheers,
clive

On 10 Nov 2005 12:43:08 -0800, said in
.com:

Every Christmas it seems that there are stories of dangerous and
defective toys, but can there be any bigger killer and crippler of
children than the humble bicycle?

Replied:

In your recent press release you ask "can there be any bigger killer
and crippler of children than the humble bicycle?"

I am pleased to be able to give an authoritative answer to your
question: yes.

Being hit by motor traffic (mainly cars) accounts for one in ten child
injury admissions to English hospitals, but that makes up half of all
the injuries resulting in death. The biggest killer and crippler of
children is, without question, the motor car - and I'm sure your RSO
knows this.

Cycling is not dangerous. It accounts for around 7% of admissions,
compared with 50% for trips and falls - the rates per unit exposure
for horse riding are substantially greater. Estimates suggest that
80-90% of child cycling is off road, but half the injuries occur on
road, and these account for most of the serious injuries. The injury
profile is similar for child pedestrians, who account for between 4
and 5 times the number injured.

The one intervention which has been proven time and again to improve
the safety of cyclists is: increasing the numbers of cyclists, the
so-called "safety in numbers effect".

Your press release is, sadly, quite likely to have the opposite
effect.

One significant source of risk is pavement cycling. This causes
problems at junctions (where the cyclist loses priority and has to
watch for traffic from every direction, as well as being out of the
area motorists are actively scanning). Pavement cycling is largely a
response to fear of motor traffic - again, your press release seems
more likely to increase than decrease this risk.

May I suggest that you contact CTC, the national cyclists'
organisation, for some better quality information next time?

Guy Chapman

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Replied:

In your recent press release you ask "can there be any bigger killer
and crippler of children than the humble bicycle?"

I am pleased to be able to give an authoritative answer to your
question: yes.



I sent mine to the Chief Exec of the Council suggesting campaigns for
the Killer Roads of Calderdale, the Killer Streets of Calderdale and the
Killer Canals of Calderdale given the much higher risk of child
pedestrians being hit by a car, assaulted or drowned in the canal. The
pity is that Calderdale is arguably one of the best places in the UK for
mountain biking so an ideal place to encourage young people to get on a
bike and enjoy themselves.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham