Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 02, 2020 06:42

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 20:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 15:20
Posts: 37
Location: London NW10, UK
"In Gear", on the 'Roadpeace and CW' thread, wrote
Quote:
common sense values of helmets, high viz clothes and lights
may be a start on the part of those riding bikes. ....

British car drivers are the least likely to die in road accident
whilst UK pedestrians and cyclists are the most likely” ....

Pedestrians in German, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden can be
fined for jay-walking or crossing when the red man shows. ....


Yes, absolutely !

I'm a pedestrian myself and all road users including pedestrians, have
reponsibilities for Road safety.

So why aren't British pedestrians being fined for Jay-walking ?

And why are British pedestrians not being urged to wear
high-visibility/reflector clothing, and to use electric torches
when crossing the road at night ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 20:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Dowlais wrote:
So why aren't British pedestrians being fined for Jay-walking ?

Because there is no such offence, I would have thought.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 19, 2006 23:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 15:20
Posts: 37
Location: London NW10, UK
PeterE wrote:

.... Jay-walking .... there is no such offence .....


There is no such offence as Jay-walking - 'illegally crossing the
road' - in British law but there is such an offence in many other
countries.

But Jay-walking should be illegal - so as to ram home the message
that all road-users are responsible for their actions. You cannot
effectively tackle Road Safety without confronting the problem of
irresponsible pedestrians.

Britain already has a large nationwide force of plain-clothes detective
police presently employed prosecuting 120,000 people a year for not
having TV licences. Let's just redeploy some of them onto doing
something useful.

Here in London pedestrians make up about a fifth of all road-accident
victims. I cannot quote you chapter and verse but I think that I have
read statistics indicating that in most of those cases the pedestrian was,
at least in part, the author of his own misfortune.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 01:28 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
A few weeks ago I mentioned the fact that some cyclists choose not to use the cycletrack provided, and as such take their life in their hands.

This sequence of pictures show the extended time this cyclist was exposed to risk... and the problem he posed to vehicles too.

Image
Here the vehicle behind cannot pull out because of a vehicle which has launched itself past a line of cars before the cyclist was visible.
A possible reaction might be BRAKE - and risk being rear ended, or shave past the cyclist. The trouble is not eased by the fact the rear car probably has not yet seen the cyclist because of the mercedes jeep in front.

Image
Image
Image
Image

The cyclist was struggling on the hill - and took a good few minutes to make it to the top. The best that can be said was that he was not wobbling!
The cycle path cost £120,000+ to build - the least he could do is to use it, and keep himself and others safer as a result.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 01:57 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Ernest Marsh wrote:
the least he could do is to use it


why? He has every right to be riding on that bit of road. There's plenty of room there so why should he get off his bike, walk across to the other side, ride up, get off his bike, cross the road yet again, before continuing on his way just so a couple of drivers don't lose all of a few seconds of their precious time?
The road is there to be shared by all road users, please don't start an us vs them battle in here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 04:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
johnsher wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
the least he could do is to use it


why? He has every right to be riding on that bit of road. There's plenty of room there so why should he get off his bike, walk across to the other side, ride up, get off his bike, cross the road yet again, before continuing on his way just so a couple of drivers don't lose all of a few seconds of their precious time?
The road is there to be shared by all road users, please don't start an us vs them battle in here.


By not making use of the dedicated lane provided, these photographs illustrate only too well how he could have ended up as a statistic.

The merits or otherwise of a cycle lane from a road user integration perspective are one discussion. However, given the presence of a cycle lane to give riders the opportunity to lessen risks for all road users I suggest that riders typically should use it unless there are compelling reasons not to. Whether crossing the road twice is the greater risk or a compelling enough reason not to I do not know as I do not know the road at all first hand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 05:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dowlais wrote:
But Jay-walking should be illegal - so as to ram home the message
that all road-users are responsible for their actions. You cannot
effectively tackle Road Safety without confronting the problem of
irresponsible pedestrians.


I think it would be absolutely excellent to improve pedestrian behaviour, but I don't believe you can confer responsibility with the law.

Surely laws intended to standardize behaviours actually take responsibility away?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 08:14 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Roger wrote:
I suggest that riders typically should use it unless there are compelling reasons not to.

the number one reason I've mentioned is that it promotes the idea that "those !"£%!)*£ cyclists shouldn't be on the road".
They're usually inconvenient.
They're usually poorly maintained.
They're usually covered in stones, mud, sticks, broken glass etc.
They're usually designed by people who think cyclists get along at 5mph.

Is that enough reasons for you?

Quote:
these photographs illustrate only too well how he could have ended up as a statistic.

What a ridiculous comment. Not only can that be said ANYWHERE that a car is passing a bike but those photographs actually show cars passing him with a huge gap. If you want to take photos of a cyclist "about to become a statistic" just visit any other road where cars pass with inches to spare.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 08:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
What a ridiculous place to put a cycle path.

If it was intended to help cyclists it should have been on the up lane, not the down lane! No wonder he is not using it.

And I'm afraid I'm with Johnsher - it's not about the cyclists actions, it's about the drivers driving within their capabilities, what they can clearly see ahead, and overtaking as per the Highway Code.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
johnsher wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
the least he could do is to use it


why? He has every right to be riding on that bit of road.


The reason why is called Common Sense. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean it is a good idea to actually do it. When I'm on my bike self preservation is a far higher priority than being right. If I get hit by a car it will hurt me regardless of whose fault it was or how fast we were going etc.

If you deliberately put yourself in a vulnerable position when there is an easily available safer alternative then you are just daft.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:58 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
semitone wrote:
If you deliberately put yourself in a vulnerable position when there is an easily available safer alternative then you are just daft.

using that logic why don't we all just ride on the footpath? No cars there (in theory). Better yet, why don't we just stay at home? That way we won't inconvenience any motorists at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
johnsher wrote:
semitone wrote:
If you deliberately put yourself in a vulnerable position when there is an easily available safer alternative then you are just daft.

using that logic why don't we all just ride on the footpath? No cars there (in theory). Better yet, why don't we just stay at home? That way we won't inconvenience any motorists at all.


Perhaps I should have specified a legal and safer alternative then. If you feel the only way to remain safe is to stay at home then do so. The rest of us will continue to use common sense and hope to remain safe that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:43 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
semitone wrote:
The rest of us will continue to use common sense

well your common sense is wrong as there are many studies that show using cycle paths is far more dangerous than using the road.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:48 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
to be honest in that scenario i probably would have considered the road option being fairly low risk because there are two lanes and plenty of room for traffic to pass safely.... as risky at least as trying to cross 3 lanes on foot wearing cleats or scoot across 3 lanes without clipping in... twice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:53 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
So in simple terms, are cycle paths a bad thing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:54 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
SafeSpeed wrote:

I think it would be absolutely excellent to improve pedestrian behaviour, but I don't believe you can confer responsibility with the law.

Surely laws intended to standardize behaviours actually take responsibility away?


Pedestrian behavior should not be beyond the law,
at the very least
Walking on the motorway is illegal
jumping railings or ignoring "no pedestrian" signs should be illegal.
and completly reckless behavior should be prosicuted. such as playing chicken. and not just a £30 fixed penalty!!!

The highway code includes pedestrians. Maybe gross ignoring of this should be prosicuted ?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
johnsher wrote:
semitone wrote:
The rest of us will continue to use common sense

well your common sense is wrong as there are many studies that show using cycle paths is far more dangerous than using the road.


I have never heard of a cyclist being hit by a car on a separated cycle path. It is certainly true that not all cycle paths are good or safe but the example being discussed above does seem safer than the road.

The problem with many of the cycle lanes near me is that they are not properly separated or they just stop so I am fully aware of the limitations but I still believe that common sense needs to be applied.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:20 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Johnnytheboy wrote:
So in simple terms, are cycle paths a bad thing?

yes,
and here's another reason from The Scotsman

Quote:
Yobs target cyclists with trip wires and bricks
ALAN RODEN TRANSPORT REPORTER

CYCLISTS in the city are being targeted by thugs with trip wires as they ride on secluded paths.

In recent months, a number of cyclists have been thrown from their bikes by lengths of washing-line fixed between trees or lampposts in the north of the city.

In the latest incident, one biker also had a brick thrown in his face, causing serious injury.

At least three of the evening attacks have taken place on a stretch of cycle path close to Craigleith Retail Park over the last two months, but it is feared many similar incidents may not have been reported to the police.

Cycling lobby groups today called on the council to ensure there is better street lighting for off-road paths, and urged police to regularly patrol the areas and use CCTV to catch those responsible.

The local authority has invested thousands of pounds in creating an extensive network of off-road cycle routes in the city, to ensure bikers don't have to ride on busy roads. The paths are widely used throughout daytime, but have proved dangerous to ride on once darkness falls.

Stuart Smith, 43, from Davidson's Mains, was cycling home from work last Tuesday night when he was attacked.

"I was about 200 metres short of Davidson's Mains bridge when I spotted one of the lights wasn't working on the path," he said.

"Then I was struck with something on the side of my face, and I saw the silhouette of somebody running away. I looked down to see half a brick, and just in front of me was a length of washing-line across the path. There was also a small uprooted tree.

"Since Christmas, there have been quite a few barricades put in the way of cyclists and there are bits of washing-line still tied to lampposts along the route.

"I always take precautions around that area, and although it won't stop me using the cycle path, I wouldn't let my daughter use it and I now carry some cutting pliers. Other cyclists have chosen to take their chances with the potholes and traffic on the roads."

Mr Smith, who reported the incident to Drylaw police, was treated for his bruised and swollen face at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

Another keen cyclist - Maggie Wynn, co-ordinator of the Try-Cycling in Edinburgh initiative - was recently thrown from her bike by a trip wire in the same area of the city.

The 41-year-old from Davidson's Mains said: "I was heading to a meeting at around 6pm, but I didn't spot that a length of washing-line had been fixed from one lamppost to a bollard at knee height.

"I wasn't badly injured, but I was quite shaken and it could have been a lot worse. The cycle paths are lovely during the day, but they are not inviting at night.

"The council needs to have more lighting, and should cut back the vegetation. I would also like to see more police officers patrolling the route." The city's transport leader, Councillor Andrew Burns, said: "We will investigate the lighting on this cycle path to see if we can do more to protect users.

"We are keen to promote cycling in the city. It is essential cyclists feel safe when using the routes and we will do everything possible to ensure this happens."

Councillor Lesley Hinds, Lord Provost and local councillor for Drylaw, said: "It is disgraceful that individuals have taken to this very dangerous behaviour. It is unacceptable. I have recently requested a meeting with the local community police to look at preventative measures to resolve this issue."

A police spokeswoman said: "We take this very seriously and encourage anyone who has been involved in similar incidents to get in touch."


Last edited by johnsher on Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:24, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AND Cyclists too
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:22 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
semitone wrote:
I have never heard of a cyclist being hit by a car on a separated cycle path.

the problem arises because motorists are no longer expecting to see bikes so anywhere the path has a road junction disaster ensues.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:36 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
johnsher wrote:
and here's another reason
Quote:
Yobs target cyclists with trip wires and bricks



The problem here is really anything to do with cycle paths though, is it? They should get the b :censored: s that did it and use some of their washing line to string them up by their b :censored: s. That should make them think before they do it again :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.565s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]