Amir Khan and irresponsible driving

On Jul 15, 8:24*am, Matt B wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

Roll on european harmonisation of liability laws.

Presumably you want a system similar to ours rolled-out across Europe,
where liability is based solely on fault. *Or do you want our roads to
be less safe than they would otherwise be too?

A draft report that "spindrift" recently brought to our attention[1]
concludes: "...research in countries that have adopted some form of
no-fault insurance suggests that it may lead to adverse effects
regarding traffic safety."

[1] http://eale2002.phs.uoa.gr/papers/Visscher%20&%20Kerkmeester.doc

--
Matt B

Not borne out by the stats:

Anyone who has cycled in The Netherlands, Germany or Scandinavia knows
that by and large motorists take more care around cyclists. This may
also be connected with the Strict Liability laws there, but the
research, gathered by people trained in statistical analyses and
compiled into reports that are then peer-reviewed, together with my
own experience demonstrates to me that increased cycling rates lead to
safer roads.

That the BMJ results were 'unexpected' suggests more that a completely
different scenario was envisaged:


Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers ofpeople
walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisionsbetween motorists
and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdomholds that the number of
collisions varies directly with theamount of walking and bicycling.
However, three published analysesof collision rates at specific
intersections found a non-linearrelationship, such that collisions
rates declined with increasesin the numbers of people walking or
bicycling.
Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three populationlevel
and two time series) to compare the amount of walkingor bicycling and
the injuries incurring in collisions with motorvehicles.
Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicyclingwill
be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amountof walking or
bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communitiesof varying
size, from specific intersections to cities and countries,and across
time periods.Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is
unlikelythat the people walking and bicycling become more cautious
iftheir numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior ofmotorists
controls the likelihood of collisions with peoplewalking and
bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust theirbehavior in the
presence of people walking and bicycling.


http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...stract/9/3/205

The NSW research goes further:

Local and international research reveals that as cycling participation
increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor
vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is
also true for pedestrians.

And it's not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but
because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely
when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.

Research has revealed the safety-in-numbers impact for cyclists in
Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, 14 European countries and 68
Californian cities.


"It's a positive effect but some people are surprised that injury
rates don't go up at the same rate of increases in cycling,"

says Sydney University's Dr Chris Rissel, co-author of a 2008 research
report on cycling.


"It appears that motorists adjust their behaviour in the presence of
increasing numbers of people bicycling because they expect or
experience more people cycling. Also, rising cycling rates mean
motorists are more likely to be cyclists, and therefore be more
conscious of, and sympathetic towards, cyclists."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0903112034.htm

Strict liability encourages more cycling.

The more cyclists there are, the safer the roads become!

You could argue that increased cycling is a side-effect of cycling-
friendly legislation, but the end result is that fewer people are hurt
or killed.

It's been noted in the UK too, without any Strict Liability law:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's been shown already by Jacobsen 2003 - the number of accidents is
inverse to the number of cyclists on the road. Hence partly why there
are so few accidents in the Netherlands - and partly why there are so
many more in London - drivers aren't looking for cyclists as
relatively so few of them.


More cyclists= safer roads.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ork-calderdale


The trend is clear, with areas popular for cyclists tending to be
safer on average, with the differences sometimes significant. Top of
the list is traditionally bike-friendly York, where around one in
eight commuters cycle to work and 0.1% are badly hurt in accidents
each year. Not far down the road, Calderdale, West Yorkshire, a
district centred around Halifax, is at the other end of the scale.
Here, fewer than 1 in 120 commuters use bikes, and those that do face
a danger level 15 times higher than in York.

spindrift wrote:

my own experience

Is worthless.

mileburner wrote:

You mean, they don't have the attitude, get out of the way you stupid,
stupid cyclists?

Nor do motorists here in the UK. Mind you cyclists in continental Europe
are not bloody-minded road obstructing fascists, which is also different
from the UK and the "hypoCritical Mess" ****s.

On 15 July, 14:17, (Steve Firth) wrote:
mileburner wrote:
You mean, they don't have the attitude, get out of the way you stupid,
stupid cyclists?

Nor do motorists here in the UK. Mind you cyclists in continental Europe
are not bloody-minded road obstructing fascists, which is also different
from the UK and the "hypoCritical Mess" ****s.

You said this before Steve, that The Primary Position was designed to
frustrate motorists.

When I showed you why it's often the safest way to cycle, you
disappeared.

Now you're back spouting the same drivel.

What's your opinion on the road safety advisers who recommend the
Primary Position please?
Why do you think you are right and they are all wrong?

spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:17, (Steve Firth) wrote:
mileburner wrote:
You mean, they don't have the attitude, get out of the way you stupid,
stupid cyclists?
Nor do motorists here in the UK. Mind you cyclists in continental Europe
are not bloody-minded road obstructing fascists, which is also different
from the UK and the "hypoCritical Mess" ****s.

You said this before Steve, that The Primary Position was designed to
frustrate motorists.

When I showed you why it's often the safest way to cycle, you
disappeared.

Now you're back spouting the same drivel.

What's your opinion on the road safety advisers who recommend the
Primary Position please?
Why do you think you are right and they are all wrong?

Because it is not in the Highway Code?

Bod

On 15 July, 14:44, Bod wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:17, (Steve Firth) wrote:
mileburner wrote:
You mean, they don't have the attitude, get out of the way you stupid,
stupid cyclists?
Nor do motorists here in the UK. Mind you cyclists in continental Europe
are not bloody-minded road obstructing fascists, which is also different
from the UK and the "hypoCritical Mess" ****s.

You said this before Steve, that The Primary Position was designed to
frustrate motorists.

When I showed you why it's often the safest way to cycle, you
disappeared.

Now you're back spouting the same drivel.

What's your opinion on the road safety advisers who recommend the
Primary Position please?
Why do you think you are right and they are all wrong?

Because it is not in the Highway Code?

Bod- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' are widely used in all
recognised manuals - most notably the book Cyclecraft, endorsed by The
Department For Transport and the CTC (Cyclists'Touring Club). The
primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the
secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind
see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary
position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/art...ositioning-197

spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:44, Bod wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:17, (Steve Firth) wrote:
mileburner wrote:
You mean, they don't have the attitude, get out of the way you stupid,
stupid cyclists?
Nor do motorists here in the UK. Mind you cyclists in continental Europe
are not bloody-minded road obstructing fascists, which is also different
from the UK and the "hypoCritical Mess" ****s.
You said this before Steve, that The Primary Position was designed to
frustrate motorists.
When I showed you why it's often the safest way to cycle, you
disappeared.
Now you're back spouting the same drivel.
What's your opinion on the road safety advisers who recommend the
Primary Position please?
Why do you think you are right and they are all wrong?
Because it is not in the Highway Code?

Bod- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' are widely used in all
recognised manuals - most notably the book Cyclecraft, endorsed by The
Department For Transport and the CTC (Cyclists'Touring Club). The
primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the
secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind
see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary
position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/art...ositioning-197

Ok,so if it's such an important safety issue,why isn't it in the H/Code?

Bod

On 15 July, 14:55, Bod wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:44, Bod wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:17, (Steve Firth) wrote:
mileburner wrote:
You mean, they don't have the attitude, get out of the way you stupid,
stupid cyclists?
Nor do motorists here in the UK. Mind you cyclists in continental Europe
are not bloody-minded road obstructing fascists, which is also different
from the UK and the "hypoCritical Mess" ****s.
You said this before Steve, that The Primary Position was designed to
frustrate motorists.
When I showed you why it's often the safest way to cycle, you
disappeared.
Now you're back spouting the same drivel.
What's your opinion on the road safety advisers who recommend the
Primary Position please?
Why do you think you are right and they are all wrong?
Because it is not in the Highway Code?

Bod- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*While the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' are widely used in all
recognised manuals - most notably the book Cyclecraft, endorsed by The
Department For Transport and the CTC (Cyclists'Touring Club). The
primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the
secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind
see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary
position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/art...ositioning-197

Ok,so if it's such an important safety issue,why isn't it in the H/Code?

Bod- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Highway Code often make cock ups.

Highway Code cracked: more than 40 rules changed for cyclists

Following a high-profile campaign by CTC, the UK’s national cyclists'
organisation, the Government has agreed to amend the Highway Code to
improve cyclists’ safety and to encourage drivers to take more care
around vulnerable road users.

In total over 40 rules in the Highway Code have been changed to the
benefit of cyclists and will come into effect this summer.

Last year, the Department for Transport proposed a revised version of
the Highway Code. Cyclists feared that this version contained rules
which would see them held partly liable if hit by a driver while not
using a cycle lane or cycle track. 11,000 people contacted their MPs,
20,000 signed an online petition and a cross-party coalition in both
Houses of Parliament defended cyclists' right to cycle on the road.


http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/pages/highwy_cod.htm

The original version contravened best practice on safe cycling (as
taught under Bikeabiltity - the new Government-backed National
Standard for cycle training) which in many situations advises cyclists
not to use cycle facilities, not least because many of them are very
poorly designed. Cyclists feared that rules in the original version of
the new Highway Code could put them legally at risk if they chose not
to use a cycle lane or cycle track. Although it would not have created
any new offences, cyclists risked loosing out on damage claims against
drivers who had hit them if a cycle facility was nearby, and could
have faced charges for offences such as "inconsiderate cycling".

As well as changing the rules on cycle lanes and cycle facilities, the
Highway Code now contains clearer advice on overtaking cyclists and
advises cyclists to be more confident when using roundabouts.

On 15 July, 14:57, spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:55, Bod wrote:





spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:44, Bod wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:17, (Steve Firth) wrote:
mileburner wrote:
You mean, they don't have the attitude, get out of the way you stupid,
stupid cyclists?
Nor do motorists here in the UK. Mind you cyclists in continental Europe
are not bloody-minded road obstructing fascists, which is also different
from the UK and the "hypoCritical Mess" ****s.
You said this before Steve, that The Primary Position was designed to
frustrate motorists.
When I showed you why it's often the safest way to cycle, you
disappeared.
Now you're back spouting the same drivel.
What's your opinion on the road safety advisers who recommend the
Primary Position please?
Why do you think you are right and they are all wrong?
Because it is not in the Highway Code?

Bod- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*While the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' are widely used in all
recognised manuals - most notably the book Cyclecraft, endorsed by The
Department For Transport and the CTC (Cyclists'Touring Club). The
primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the
secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind
see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary
position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/art...ositioning-197

Ok,so if it's such an important safety issue,why isn't it in the H/Code?

Bod- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Highway Code often make cock ups.

Highway Code cracked: more than 40 rules changed for cyclists

Following a high-profile campaign by CTC, the UK’s national cyclists'
organisation, the Government has agreed to amend the Highway Code to
improve cyclists’ safety and to encourage drivers to take more care
around vulnerable road users.

In total over 40 rules in the Highway Code have been changed to the
benefit of cyclists and will come into effect this summer.

Last year, the Department for Transport proposed a revised version of
the Highway Code. Cyclists feared that this version contained rules
which would see them held partly liable if hit by a driver while not
using a cycle lane or cycle track. 11,000 people contacted their MPs,
20,000 signed an online petition and a cross-party coalition in both
Houses of Parliament defended cyclists' right to cycle on the road.

http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/pages/highwy_cod.htm

The original version contravened best practice on safe cycling (as
taught under Bikeabiltity - the new Government-backed National
Standard for cycle training) which in many situations advises cyclists
not to use cycle facilities, not least because many of them are very
poorly designed. Cyclists feared that rules in the original version of
the new Highway Code could put them legally at risk if they chose not
to use a cycle lane or cycle track. Although it would not have created
any new offences, cyclists risked loosing out on damage claims against
drivers who had hit them if a cycle facility was nearby, and could
have faced charges for offences such as "inconsiderate cycling".

As well as changing the rules on cycle lanes and cycle facilities, the
Highway Code now contains clearer advice on overtaking cyclists and
advises cyclists to be more confident when using roundabouts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Primary Position is taught taught under Bikeabiltity - the new
Government-backed National Standard for cycle training.

Maybe Steve Firth could contact them and explain why he thinks they're
wrong and he's right?

The cyclist taking the primary position (the middle of the lane)
encourages drivers to behave in a safe manner.

The cyclist who rides well out:

is more visible to other road users
has a better view of what is going on all around them
is able to make their intent much clearer to other road users
discourages drivers from cutting them up at side roads and junctions
discourages drivers from overtaking too closely (as demonstrated in
this video.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=0GC9Amu4Ld4

avoids riding in debris that gathers in the gutter such as leaves,
glass, nails, thorns, and other rubbish
keeps well away from slippery drain grates
does not undertake vehicles waiting to turn left
Cyclists should keep out of the gutter to avoid hazards and
unnecessary punctures, for both their own general safety, and that of
other road users.

On Jul 15, 2:51*pm, spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:44, Bod wrote:



spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:17, (Steve Firth) wrote:
mileburner wrote:
You mean, they don't have the attitude, get out of the way you stupid,
stupid cyclists?
Nor do motorists here in the UK. Mind you cyclists in continental Europe
are not bloody-minded road obstructing fascists, which is also different
from the UK and the "hypoCritical Mess" ****s.

You said this before Steve, that The Primary Position was designed to
frustrate motorists.

When I showed you why it's often the safest way to cycle, you
disappeared.

Now you're back spouting the same drivel.

What's your opinion on the road safety advisers who recommend the
Primary Position please?
Why do you think you are right and they are all wrong?

Because it is not in the Highway Code?

Bod- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*While the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' are widely used in all
recognised manuals - most notably the book Cyclecraft, endorsed by The
Department For Transport and the CTC (Cyclists'Touring Club). The
primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the
secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind
see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary
position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/art...ositioning-197

Where we see from the very first sentence of the answer to the very
first question is "The primary riding position is in the centre of the
lane".

Why did you deny this to be the case in another post? I quote from you
"Primary isn't the middle of the lane at all.

It's roughly where the nearside wheel of a vehicle would be."

Caught out again. You're just a nutter who can't even cite sources to
back up his own statements. Why should we take anything you say
seriously?

MBQ