Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:08

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 13:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
From The Times today:
Quote:
A man is in critical condition with head injuries after colliding with another cyclist at the first junction in Britain to test a new cycling safety measure.
Traffic lights that give cyclists a five-second head start on vehicles were installed at a crossroads in central Cambridge where 11 cyclists have been badly hurt in the past five years and there have been five serious car crashes.
Cycling activists, who had called for the new lights at the junction of Hills Road and Gonville Place, welcomed their approval in August as part of £900,000 improvements to cycling facilities in the city. Councillor Ian Bates of Cambridgeshire County Council, said the trial “should improve safety for all users at this very busy junction”.
Police are investigating the possibility that one of the bikes did not have a front light. Inspector Mick Bruce of Cambridgeshire Constabulary said police were called to the scene at 6.57pm and that both men had serious head injuries. They were taken to Addenbrooke’s hospital.

So, a great success then. I can't imagine that not having a front light had much bearing on this incident. We will see the true cause in due course but I assume that one cyclist must have jumped red light.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 14:27 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Well, I guess it's the next logical progression from automatically blaming the motorist in an collision between one and a cyclist - they could just find a random motorist who happened to be in Cambridge that day, to blame for an accident between two cyclists I suppose!

£900k...

...that's a lot of money to find from cycling taxes... :scratchchin:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 22:07 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9270
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Quote:
A man is in critical condition with head injuries after colliding with another cyclist


So now ,the authorities might recognise the lethal potential of a cycle ,and ban cyclists from the footpath. Or ,now that a cyclist is critical in a cycling accident, ask WHO is going to pay for his care .Cyclist hits car ,or vice versa, car insurance takes over. Simple cure - registration of this now proved lethal machine and compulsory indemnity to cover other road users .They've only themselves to blame for the dilemma they now find themselves in .
Aw ,well it's only two posts in ,can't expect the cycle Guru to come in to give us his "Expert" opinion.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 22:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
Well, I guess it's the next logical progression from automatically blaming the motorist in an collision between one and a cyclist - they could just find a random motorist who happened to be in Cambridge that day, to blame for an accident between two cyclists I suppose!


Er, no?


Mole wrote:
£900k...

...that's a lot of money to find from cycling taxes... :scratchchin:


The council will have paid for the changes to the junction via the money it collects via council tax. If you check your council tax bill there's a budget devoted to road spending.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 22:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
botach wrote:
So now ,the authorities might recognise the lethal potential of a cycle ,and ban cyclists from the footpath.


Eh? Cyclists are banned from the footpath. It's illegal to cycle on the footpath that runs alongside the road.


botach wrote:
Or ,now that a cyclist is critical in a cycling accident, ask WHO is going to pay for his care .


The NHS I imagine, just like anybody injured or hurt going about their daily business.

botach wrote:
Simple cure - registration of this now proved lethal machine and compulsory indemnity to cover other road users .


Never going to happen, such collisions are so rare and people on bikes very rarely kill others. There have been a couple of cases, but again, more people probably die from tripping up on bad paving than from cyclist crashing into them.

They are NEVER going to register cycles or make insurance compulsory for cyclists, not going to happen, never.

And of course, registration stops car drivers breaking all laws doesn't it...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 22:58 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
Mole wrote:
Well, I guess it's the next logical progression from automatically blaming the motorist in an collision between one and a cyclist - they could just find a random motorist who happened to be in Cambridge that day, to blame for an accident between two cyclists I suppose!


Er, no?


Mole wrote:
£900k...

...that's a lot of money to find from cycling taxes... :scratchchin:


The council will have paid for the changes to the junction via the money it collects via council tax. If you check your council tax bill there's a budget devoted to road spending.


You're assuming this was financed by the Council. I agree, it MIGHT have been - (possibly at least in part out of parking charges levied on motorists...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 08:28 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
weepej wrote:
The council will have paid for the changes to the junction via the money it collects via council tax. If you check your council tax bill there's a budget devoted to road spending.

And about 80% of council expenditure is paid out of central government revenue, a large chunk of which (and certainly vastly more than is spent nationwide on roads) comes from motoring taxes.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9270
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
weepej wrote:
botach wrote:
So now ,the authorities might recognise the lethal potential of a cycle ,and ban cyclists from the footpath.


Eh? Cyclists are banned from the footpath. It's illegal to cycle on the footpath that runs alongside the road.


I've seen as many cyclists obeying that law as there are ones who know what a no entry sign means . I am led to believe that PCSO were introduced to deal with two major problems -one of which was the cycling problem . Back on yer trike ,sonny .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
PeterE wrote:
And about 80% of council expenditure is paid out of central government revenue, a large chunk of which (and certainly vastly more than is spent nationwide on roads) comes from motoring taxes.


I still don't get why you're making a link though?

All I've got to do is say ALL motoring taxes are spent on military equipment (both are of similar order of money) and your argument (whatever it is, you don't appear to have stated that) evaporates.

So I can't understand why you still appear to think there is a link between motoring taxes and road spending... There simply isn't one.

Here you go, educate yourself;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoring_t ... ed_Kingdom


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 21:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
You seem to be having this (somewhat circular) argument - largely with yourself though! Nobody on here is (or ever was!) saying that motoring taxes are only spent on the roads (we wish :roll: )! What we're saying is that motoring is an activity that involves paying taxes to the government that cycling does NOT. SOME of those taxes will be spent on the roads, and some will be spent elsewhere. What's so hard to understand about that?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 22:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9270
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
BUT,this Cycling attitude that cyclists are exempt causes friction . I drive a car on the highway .Therefore I need to indemnify myself against damage to other road users. Why should I not be angry if some non insured person causes damage to my car ,and I'm left to foot the bill . My vehicle is tested by professionals to industry standards and passed before it's let loose on the public highway . WHAT standards are required of a cycle ? My car occupies so much space on the highway ,for which I pay a levy to be on the highway . Four cyclists in parallel can take up as much space ,but pay nothing, and can contribute to congestion . I'd suggest ,the modern equivalent to Spitfire either shut up or should we motorists start lobbying HMG (who are looking to be popular and raise as much in taxes as possible) to consider cyclists as another cashcow.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 21:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
botach wrote:
BUT,this Cycling attitude that cyclists are exempt causes friction . I drive a car on the highway .Therefore I need to indemnify myself against damage to other road users. Why should I not be angry if some non insured person causes damage to my car ,and I'm left to foot the bill . My vehicle is tested by professionals to industry standards and passed before it's let loose on the public highway . WHAT standards are required of a cycle ? My car occupies so much space on the highway ,for which I pay a levy to be on the highway . Four cyclists in parallel can take up as much space ,but pay nothing, and can contribute to congestion . I'd suggest ,the modern equivalent to Spitfire either shut up or should we motorists start lobbying HMG (who are looking to be popular and raise as much in taxes as possible) to consider cyclists as another cashcow.



Thankyou botach, at least some honesty there about why you are making the non existent connection between motoring taxes and road spending.

You are sorely mistaken if you think your VED pays for the space that you take up on the highway, how does that work with vehicles that don't pay it such as Toyota priuses? That this then leads you to think that people on bikes shouldn't be there cos they don't pay it really shows quite how petty minded your average motorist can be about "road tax".

Do have a read of this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 00:10 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9270
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
So, we're getting into cycling mentality . BUT- WEEPY OMITS SOME THINGS. My car is TESTED and serviced to comply with road safety standards. Which cycling expert does this to his bike. Does his bike pass an annual test to ensure it's fit to be on the road. Is Weepy certified to be SAFE on the public highway?
it's not all about about paying into a kitty- it's about being safe . I've got the certs, has WEEPY .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
botach wrote:
So, we're getting into cycling mentality . BUT- WEEPY OMITS SOME THINGS. My car is TESTED and serviced to comply with road safety standards. Which cycling expert does this to his bike. Does his bike pass an annual test to ensure it's fit to be on the road. Is Weepy certified to be SAFE on the public highway?
it's not all about about paying into a kitty- it's about being safe . I've got the certs, has WEEPY .



botach, seriously

I can check a bike over in five minutes and fix most common problems in another five with a 6mm hex key.

My car weighs a tonne, is hugely complex, travels long distances at high speeds with a MASSIVE amount of kinetic energy compared to my bike. If the brakes on my bike fail I can put my feet down to stop myself, if the brakes on my car fail somebody is most likely going to be seriously injured or killed.

If you can't see the difference here you are either blind to reason, or as I suspect, just trolling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 15:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I can fix my car - but I'm still under a legal obligation to have it inspected annually by the state. While bikes are simpler than cars and therefore more people are LIKELY to be capable of maintaining them adequately, that's absolutely no guarantee that they do. In fact, I'd go so far as to venture that a random sample of bikes checked for roadworthiness compared to a random sample of pushbikes, would find more unroadworthy pushbikes than cars!

And spare us the "kinetic energy" carp - a cyclist with dodgy brakes who can't stop at a junction and goes under a truck is still another avoidable KSI.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 16:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
but I'm still under a legal obligation to have it inspected annually by the state.


Are you surprised that there is such an inspection regime for motorised vehicles?

And do you seriously think that running such a regime for cycles would be at all practical? Seriously now.

Mole wrote:
In fact, I'd go so far as to venture that a random sample of bikes checked for roadworthiness compared to a random sample of pushbikes, would find more unroadworthy pushbikes than cars!


I don't quite know how you'd classify an unroadworthy pedal cycle, the pressures and forces involved are so slight that I imagine even a crack in the wheels could be ridden on for miles and miles with no side effects, whereas a crack in the wheel of a car represents a very real and serious danger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 20:00 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Really, I'm surprised at you Weepy! Do you REALLY have a bike and do you REALLY use it much? Even I (infrequent cyclist that I am) know that riding a bike with ineffective brakes in traffic can be highly dangerous! Defective brakes has to be the biggest and most dangerous defect (and, I expect, one of the most common) on a pushbike. After that, defective (or even completely inoperative) lights and reflectors has to be the next biggest defect.

Do I think there will ever be a compulsory roadworthiness regime for pushbikes?

NO.

Do I think it might save the odd life?

YES.

And no, of course I'm not surprised that there is one for cars - and, indeed, I welcome it. I don't know why you seemed to think I was surprised at it? (I've had a fair few in my life now, every year, so it's not like I don't expect them)! I'm not after making cars worse, just bikes better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 21:28 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9270
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Quote:
( from Mole)And no, of course I'm not surprised that there is one for cars - and, indeed, I welcome it. I don't know why you seemed to think I was surprised at it? (I've had a fair few in my life now, every year, so it's not like I don't expect them)! I'm not after making cars worse, just bikes better.


Problem is that IMHO the road safety regime starts young, with road safety awareness at /in schools.Then progress to cycle road safety ,with an idea of safety issues and things to check on bikes . Not only tyres and treads, but chain tension , brake efficiency / poor /badly adjusted bearings .And how many cyclists know that when wet, cycle brakes are almost useless, or that something hanging over the handlebars can lead to a front wheel lock up . Then when the cyclist progresses to a Moped/car ,then they've got a decent grounding in safety .But that was in the ideal world before genuine Police measured success by results & income ,rather than by prevention.
If it was good enough to include basic checks in the driving test, why not have those who HMG tell us were brought in to police cyclists,PCSO, do some roadside stops on cyclists . Perhaps they can't punish them, but perhaps they might do some accident prevention . Before Weepy ASS U ME S that I'm anti car test -I'm not. Possibly it should come in a lot sooner, as I see a lot of two year old cars with faulty lights ,either mal adjusted or not working .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 09:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
botach wrote:
Then when the cyclist progresses to a Moped/car



Progress to a car?

I have a very nice car, but I was much more excited buying my very nice bike(s), and I enjoy riding them much more than I enjoy driving the car!

Suffice to say that in London at least there are quite a few organisations working with kids and bikes showing them how to do safety checks and look after it, fix a puncture etc...

So can we put that one to bed then, nobody thinks that the government needs to set up a cycle licensing agency and conduct MOT tests on bikes right, any suggestion that this should be the case was just trolling?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 13:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Can you show where it was suggested that this should be the case? (or are YOU just tolling)???

This all started out with Botach pointing out (yet another) revenue stream that motorists provide the government with that cyclists don't. Can we also now put to bed the suggestion that as a result of riding their bikes, cyclists make some kind of net positive contribution to the exchequer?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.267s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]