To the Cycling Adult with a child on Goodrich Road at 22.45 on Sat 26th July

[mako]

Just because there are other (arguably) more important precautions, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light. Just because our cycling infrastucture is behind many other cities, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light. Just because cars pose more of a danger than bikes, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light.

I agree Jeremy. However just because others dont have a light does not mean you should break their concentration by shouting at them, and break your concentration at the same time if you are an unfit cyclist travelling at speed. You claim my point is diversionary but I think it is central to the argument. All groups concerned are happy to criticise others and not look closer to home where they may be at fault. If everyone was really concerned for everyone else then they would find ways to help others in the community. i dont think shouting at a young cyclist is productive and posting it on a forum has close to zero likely benefit. I am sure the cyclists in question were aware of the extra risks they were taking for whatever reason but felt the risk was worthwhile to them, and unlikely to pose much risk to anyone else.

[mako]

Shame when a genuine concern for road users has

> turned into a cyclist versus motorist debate.

If there is genuine concern then shouting at them isn't productive and neither is posting on a forum

[LadyDeliah]

Otta, so you don't beleive any of the measures outlined above would make any difference to road safety?

[Cedges]

mako Wrote:

> If there is genuine concern then shouting at them

> isn't productive and neither is posting on a forum

Look how many people are talking about bike lights and probably thinking about it when on the road. A call for awareness is very productive. Should we stop all cancer awareness campaigns because they don't actually stop the cancer? No. Exactly.

[edcam]

All road users have a responsibility to be as safe as they can possibly be, whether lorries, cars, buses, motorbikes or bikes. I find it frankly bizarre that anyone thinks riding around at night on a bike with a kid with no lights is anything but irresponsible.

[Otta]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Otta, so you don't beleive any of the measures

> outlined above would make any difference to road

> safety?

Where did I say that? Some of those measures make perfect sense.

Do you believe that some cyclists get knocked off their bikes because they're idiots on the road?

[mako]

Should we stop all cancer awareness campaigns because they don't actually stop the cancer?

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't a main part of cancer awareness campaigns either to get early diagnosis to help stop cancer or to raise funds to help stop cancer, or to change behavior (e.g. smoking) to stop cancer. So not really relevant imo

[LadyDeliah]

I can't say how many people were killed purely because of some idiotic act on their part and neither can you. If the proper measures are brought in to make vehicles as safe to others as possible, then the liklihood of anyone, idiots or not, being killed or maimed will be drastically reduced.

We account for people's idiot self-harming behaviour in our control of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes (which I would guess don't harm as many people as vehicles do).

We have some regulations to attempt to minimise the harm done by vehicles, but if these were drastically ramped up, the harm would be far less and would benefit everyone (except those who feel that it is their divine right to drive no matter the consequences of their actions on others).

In order to even begin to tighten up the controls on vehicle use, we need to get a massive change in people's attitudes.

[LadyDeliah]

Ok, here's another way to look at it.

If all the bikes disappeared overnight, would the death toll on our roads be ended?

Or the pedestrians?

What about if all the vehicles disappeared and there were only pedestrians and cylists? How many deaths do you think there would be on the roads then? About one a year on current data.

It is clear that the root cause is the dangerousness of vehicles. Taking safety measures such as lights, hi-viz etc play a very small part in road safety. If there were no bikes, pedestrians would still be killed. If there were no bikes or pedestrians, there would still be other drivers killed.

It comes down to how intrinsically unsafe vehicles are and how our regulation of them is woefully inadequate.

[Jeremy]

Mako - I take your point on the shouting thing. But I really don't think that "they felt the risk was worthwhile" is any sort of reasonable defence at all. It's the same defence a cyclist would use for going the wrong way down a one way street or jumping a red light. The same defence a driver would use for failing to indicate or even driving after a couple of pints. There are simple steps you can take, and rules to follow to make the roads safer, and it's frustrating when people don't do it. It's also really frustrating when people appear to be making excuses for them.

LD - if you have video footage worthy of prosecution, I don't understand why you wouldn't take the time to submit a couple of the worst cases to the police. Seems strange to me. Your choice though, of course.

[Jeremy]

LD, what sort of vehicle regulation would you like to see? Other than stricter/repeated tests for drivers?

[Loz]

I suspect something similar to that dreamed up somewhere in the Wannsee Villa, Jeremy.

[LadyDeliah]

I've pretty much set it out already above.

I'd like to see higher standard driving tests and re-tests and an onus on the driver to prove they can operate a vehicle with a very high level of safety.

I outlined the laws I would want to be used to prosecute drivers for injuring or killing others. The ones the rest of us are subject to if we kill or injure someone, not the ones covered in the driving offences which are an insult to victims and their families. Plus much more serious punishments and cancellation of the driving licence.

A crackdown on complusory HGV safety measures which are barely monitored and regularly flouted (30% from recent sting). Banning HGV's from inner city roads between 7am - 7pm. Far more prosecutions of the unlawful dangerous and careless driving that we see daily already and higher penalties and all of the 10 points in the Stop The Killing list, to start with.

Re the video, if someone could recommend a good free video editor programme that is simple to use, I'll be able to start doing the police's job for them forthwith :-)

Oh and for anyone who thinks that these measures are too harsh, if you are one of the skilled and careful drivers, you have nothing to worry about and wobbly kids starting to cycle to school won't have either.

[Otta]

I certainly think older motorists should have to have sight tests regularly.

And I think dangerous driving should hold much tougher penalties. On that I totally agree with you.

But I also think that dangerous cycling should be punished pretty harshly whether or not it's likely to kill. And I think if you are on a vehicle (which a bike is) on the road, you should have to follow the same rules of the road as everyone else.

[LadyDeliah]

Not going to argue with the harsher punishments, obviously, but the regulation of MOTOR vehicles (pedant)was introduced to minimise their harm to others. Other road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have not had the same regulation on the roads, because the harm they present to others is minimal.

In addition the roads have been designed over the past however many decades, with the needs of the MOTOR vehicle in mind and are not adequate for the needs of the cyclists, so actually following the rules of the road in many instances puts cyclists in more danger than if they ignored them.

Sight is not the only thing that can affect someone's ability to control their MOTOR vehicle safely. There should be medical tests like there are for pilots and bus drivers in addition to regular re-testing of driving knowledge and skill.

[LadyDeliah]

I think people will look back on the history of driving with the same incredulity as when we look at the history of medicine.

In the past anyone could set themselves up as a surgeon and hack people's limbs off and perform all kinds of scary looking operations which resulted in countless deaths. No-one now would ever advocate a loosening of the regulation of surgeons because we expect a high standard of those who hold our lives are in their hands.

In the future I cannot imagine that the some of the people who are currently allowed to take inherently dangerous machines out into our public space, would be allowed anywhere near a motor vehicle.

If you think about it, it's total madness.

We've had huge casualties year after year, but no-one questions the right of drivers to actually put other people's lives at risk.

It's so ingrained in our culture that we only talk about the few dangerous drivers when discussing road safety, when the debate should be turned on it's head and only the few extremely safe drivers should be given the responsibility of taking a dangerous machine onto the roads.

[Otta]

But we don't really have huge casualties in the great scheme of things, and one could argue that the benefit outweighs the risk.

I'm just playing devil's advocate on here really, I don't really care that much either way.

[LadyDeliah]

Transport Dept Statistics for 2013: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-main-results-2013

1,713 killed & 183,670 injured, 21,657 seriously.

Quite a lot if you ask me.

[titch juicy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Transport Dept Statistics for 2013:

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reporte

> d-road-casualties-in-great-britain-main-results-20

> 13

>

> 1,713 killed & 183,670 injured, 21,657

> seriously.

>

>

> Quite a lot if you ask me.

lowest figures since records began in 1926 despite many more road users

[Otta]

And that's UK wide. I searched for London earlier, and it was something like 14 cyclists killed and 69 pedestrians. Will have to double check that now, but if that is right, then London is unbelievably safe.

[LadyDeliah]

Still too many and the numbers could easily be reduced.

I doubt telling the family of a victim that the numbers are lower than last year would provide much comfort.

[titch juicy]

Otta Wrote:

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

> And that's UK wide. I searched for London earlier,

> and it was something like 14 cyclists killed and

> 69 pedestrians. Will have to double check that

> now, but if that is right, then London is

> unbelievably safe.

..and i don't know, but am willing to bet that at least half of those in London were from cycling up the inside of a vehicle turning left at a junction, and I bet that most of those vehicles had a bright sticker on the back saying 'cyclists, stay back'.

[Otta]

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/june/casualties-on-london-s-roads-at-lowest-level-ever

There were 132 fatalities on London's roads in 2013, the second lowest number since records began, with fatalities involving pedestrians down six per cent (65 down from 69 in 2012)

Deaths involving powered two-wheeled riders also fell by 19 per cent (22 down from 27 in 2012), while cyclist deaths remained the same at 14

During 2013 there were 489 killed and serious injuries to cyclists, compared with 671 in 2012 - this 27 per cent reduction means that around one in every 434,000 cycle journeys made in London end in the cyclist being killed or seriously injured (KSI)

Pedestrian KSIs were also significantly down during 2013 with the total number down 25 per cent compared to 2012 (838 down from 1,123). This is also 31 per cent down when compared to the 2005-2009 baseline and 55 per cent down when compared to the year 2000 (838 down from 1,870)

The number of children killed and seriously injured continued to fall across London in 2013, with a 31 per cent reduction to 187 (down from 270 in 2012). This is also a reduction of around three quarters when compared to the year 2000, showing the continuing long-term progress in London in making its streets safer for all.

[Townleygreen]

Reducing the numbers of deaths on the roads (as has been done recently) is obviously good.

But surely 132 fatalities is 132 too many? 132 families who lost a loved one? Is that fair, or acceptable?

Think what you are saying here!!

[Otta]

I am thinking. Of course any deaths are unfortunate and any sane minded person would rather there were none, but think what you are saying, and be realistic. 132 is a tiny tiny number in a City the size of London, and of that 132, only 14 were cyclists, which suggests that actually the roads are pretty bloody safe for cyclists.

5 times more pedestrians were killed, and they only cross roads.