Safe Speed Forums

BRAKE regularly attacked for being hsyterical busy bodies on these pages. For you to suddenly rely on them as a font of knowledge is hypocritical, rather.

Please explain how you think one safety measure you believe will save lives is good when another is not.

I don't have a problem if people want to wear helmets, god luck to them. I oppose compulsion because it reduces cycling rates and would make my commute more dangerous.

I recognise that the greatest threat to child health is obesity; I agree that encouraging sport and an active lifestyle in children is essential to preventing obesity in childhood and later life; while welcoming moves to encourage the use of cycle helmets, I am persuaded that making it a criminal offence for children to cycle without wearing a helmet will discourage children from cycling and have a detrimental effect on child obesity; I agree that this health risk is far greater than the risks of head injury posed by cycling; and I call on the Government, not to criminalise young cyclists, but to encourage cycling and make it safer by improving cycle lanes and facilities around the country and promoting the potential benefits of wearing a helmet without compulsion.


I hope that's clear.

You're being watched, fellas:

Bob if you read the SS forum thread you’ll see SS were also referred to as a charity in the Daily Mail. Now I can imagine one “honest” mistake but two, by different organisations? I think you’d have to be naive to think that could happen.

Has anybody read the SS forum thread? 999Oliver wipes the floor with them.


http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12600195

I would suggest a complete ban on cycling would reduce all cycling related injuries and deaths to ZERO. People can either walk or take public transport instead, if the journey takes a little longer or costs more then that is a small price to pay for saving so many lives. Other forms of exercise can be taken to replace the cardiovascular benefits of cycling, exercise bikes or swimming for instance.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

NEWSFLASH

Bikeradar, a well known cycling safety charity, watches developments on Safespeed keenly.

Edit: Is it being suggested that SS had the reference to charity included or that the two organisations actually support SS so wish to promote it?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

No one intends to be distracted. And I'm sure even you fall foul of this most human of traits when driving. As for suggesting that my post meant I think we should 'shrug our shoulders' and 'do nothing'. I meant nothing of the sort. I think you know that. And I don't much appreciate being called complacent off the back of you deliberately misconstruing what I said.

As Alexander Pope said 'To err is human'. Ergo those who never err aren't human?

Enough, if you'd like a proper discussion that would be fine but clearly not.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

Oh dear, Bikeradar has just been described as a charity on TWO public fora.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 0Safespeed

How on earth could that have happened?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I don't quite understand how it would make your commute more dangerous? Is there any evidence to suggest this, or that cycling rates are reduced? If you've already provided a link, I apologise in advance.

I would suggest a complete ban on cycling would reduce all cycling related injuries and deaths to ZERO.

Good luck with that. Strange that senior member here was strident that no prejudice exists here and then stuff like cyclist bans gets raised...


Claire made the point that the beeb made a mistake. I'm intrigued that the Mail made the exact same mistake. How very odd.

As for suggesting that my post meant I think we should 'shrug our shoulders' and 'do nothing'. I meant nothing of the sort.


In response to the Swedish example you said accidents will always happen. That implies that you think enough is being done, apologies if that's not the case.
Then you'd support a Zero Initiative here?

Oh dear, Bikeradar has just been described as a charity on TWO public fora.

By you. I would suggest you are more likely to deliberately lie about Bikeradar than The Mail or the BBC, especially on an obscure pro-speeding website where people express delight at a picture of a child cyclist being killed:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... artless%20"pro-speeding%20lobby%20group"....

Xaero


"Is it wrnog that I laughed at the picture?"


lotusryan


I could care less about bikers. Natural selection at its best.


Eddh


all that picture needs is PWN3D in big red lettering written at the
bottom and then its perfect


http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 541931&i=0

I read the thread before they deleted it. Always interesting
to see what lies behind the mask of the poor hard done by motorist.

The same mentality is demonstrated by those who advise violent
action against cyclists.

Thanks, now I've spat tea over my desk.

So I am being prejudiced against myself now? Why would I want to ban something I enjoy doing? I simply pointed out that removing cycling would reduce cycling related accidents to zero, nothing you do with motor vehicles can do this as not all cycling accidents involve motor vehicles.




It is possible that journalist read other journalist work and treat it as fact. As posted on bikeradar "Naiive question, how does poor journalism equate to being pretending to be a charity?"



So what way are you going to get cyclists to wear life saving helmets? They may not be appropriate at all times, however why do you think us cyclists can be trusted to make the right decision as to when this is? The evidence points to the contrary. Some drivers make a poor decision about what constitutes a safe speed and this sometimes leads to injuries which should not have occurred, however to prevent this all drivers must drive everywhere at a speed which is considered to be safe in the worst situation over a wide and varied area.




Apology accepted.

Accidents will always happen, it is inherent in a universe that contains freewill. There is also a well established principle called the law of diminishing returns.

As has been pointed out by other regular Safespeeders, and something I also agree with, more indeed needs to be done, but reducing speed limits and automated enforcement of them is not the best way to do it.

It would be easy for me to demand; no license for under 25s (or 40s for that matter), I would not though, as while this would reduce accidents it would be blatantly unfair.

There is a post way back where if you are hit by someone you do not say "please slow by 1mph next time", but "look where you are going next time". I think it may have been weepej that poo poohed this - sorry if not weepej.

I have been knocked of push and motor bikes a few times, guess what? I did not ask them to slow down! On two occasions the driver pulled across my path so their speed relative to me was zero anyway, no speed limit would have prevented that.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

So what way are you going to get cyclists to wear life saving helmets?

I'm not, as I've said a few times now.

I don't understand the rest of your post. You claim accidents always happen. I refer to the Zero Initiative and ask if you'd support such measures in the UK. You post:

more indeed needs to be done, but reducing speed limits and automated enforcement of them is not the best way to do it.

and yet the Swedish initiative, which rolled out speed cameras and lowered limits, achieved extremely positive results. The way to reduce KSI rates included reducing speeds. It worked. It could work here.

Plus, there's the home zones referred to. The Hull example was:

Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of:



— Total accidents -56 per cent

— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent

— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent

— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent

— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.
It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 57ap80.htm

Now, this thread has reams of stuff highlighting the clearly established link between reducing speeds and reducing accidents.

All that's been posted to counter the view is:

"The research biased"

"It doesn't work"

"Accidents happen"

"People are brainwashed"

"20 moh zones cause brain injuries so the corporate nazis can do something or other".


See what I mean?

This goes to the heart of your campaign, when confronted with evidence that refutes your view you have nothing but airy dismissals of the research based on....very little other than unfounded opinion.

Did you not expect these questions to be asked when you promote your views in the media?

So you accept that the BBC and Mail made a mistake rather than lying deliberately?

Speaking of obscure sites that promote hate towards anything different, I could find equally damning posts on bikeradar. The problem is that solutions are not found by taking the extreme case of the opposite point of view as justification for you own extreme views.

I say again,

I walk,
I cycle,
I bike,
I drive,
and have even been known to ride horses.

There are some very bad drivers out there, whether deliberately or due to irredeemable lack of ability, that should be taken off the roads - I probably would not even let some of them ride a push bike. The majority of drivers do a pretty good job otherwise we would have far more accidents, what we need to do is encourage them to raise their game not resent the restrictions placed on them. If you enforce the rules too rigidly you will get a work to rule mentality.

I would not like to be a cyclist doing less than the posted speed limit if this happens.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Very well put.

So you accept that the BBC and Mail made a mistake rather than lying deliberately?

Remember what I said about posts here that start with:

"So, what you are saying is..."

inevitably end up being a pile of misrepresentative crap? You've not let me down again. Two mistakes by two seperate organisations with no connection suggests something else to me, that both organisations were deliberately or accidentally misled.

I could find equally damning posts on bikeradar.

I'll give you a fiver to donate to a charity of your choice for every post from Bikeradar that laughs at and derives pleasure from a photo of a child being killed like the thread on Pistonheads.

Deal?

Yup. You may say that. It shows you up though. The debate may now improve without you.

What is a numpty driver? Could you elaborate?

Its just a nice little catchphrase I wouldn't get too excited about it if I was you. You might turn into Roy Walker.

Thank you. It may only be correct within certain prescribed circumstances, but then the same can be said of 'Speed kills'.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I just read the bikeradar thread that our ill informed troll posted. It appears that he gets even less support over there, they don't even want to talk to him - shame!