Safe Speed Forums

Hmm... Un-intended consequences?
By congesting the roads and making everyone's journeys take longer people are now doing things on the way to work which they would otherwise do at home or at work?

_________________
Andrew.

JT .. You are local


but it's true.. we do tend to be neighbourly and support our own villagers here. The burb types perhaps live a more aloof lifestyle .. so it seems "alien" to them.


But then the townies complain about animal noises when they buy the weekend homes .. birdsong wakening them.. church bells a-ringing and the murmuring throb of a tractor.. ...

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

London's roads seem less congested today than they ever have been; so much for that theory.

Londons roads are less congested because when you get there there is nowhere to park. Every car park has been built on. Poorer people are being priced out of London by high road and rail prices. Even the disabled blue badge has no meaning in London.

_________________
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

Pedant as well as troll!!

(This is merely my opinion. )

The ABD chap is convinced -due to a chat with a mole- that the intention was to stop people driving to Wellington in order to prmote them going to Telford, instead. This was done under the previous Labour administration which hated Wellington as it was: "A Tory town."

Bizarre? Unlikely? Yes, but the previous Labour administration at Telford and Wrekin WAS bizarre and unlikely.

The Conservatives took it last May and a mate in the new administration tells me that some of the stuff they have found in the archives is very worrying. Lots of anti-car stuff and so on.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

No I disagree. On first reading, the phrase "an Asian" did jar. However as JT said, it was relevant to the the later points in the post so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, if I were Asian I would have taken offence.

Why though?

Why would "an Asian" jar, but presumably "an Australian" or even "a Briton" not be a problem?

It's almost like everyone has become so sensitised to racism that they are looking for insult where none exists.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I can't believe i am having to defend myself for these comments!

I just want to clarify, it was in no way intended to be racist. I was merely pointing it out for the reason said earlier, that it was relevant to the story later on.

I have no experience of any "close nit communties" as such, and therefore i can only base my opinion on is incident. He was told by the police that he'd have to quit his job, and not to go back there.

I am in no way racist whatsoever, however i do find it really disturbing that comments and conversation in this country can be taken completely out of context, blown way out of proportion and are told they are not politcally correct. I was told in a cafe a few months back i wasn't allowed to ask for a "black coffee", but a "coffee without milk"! unbelievable!

As for the point about teaching cyclists to obey the law, i wasn't saying that all road users obey the law except cyclists, but cyclists, in my OPINION, are notorious for not obeying red lights. i see it day in day out on my way to work. However that said, i also nearly got taken out last week by a car jumping a red light

Sorry i took this thread off topic.

From an edition of the Daily Mail.

Stiffer punishments for drivers promised as cyclist deaths soar
Last updated at 10:23am on 26th October 2006

Motorists who kill cyclists could face jail in an attempt to ensure dangerous drivers face tougher punishment.

Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald is to tell prosecutors to charge more motorists who cause fatalities with dangerous driving - which has a penalty of prison - instead of careless driving, for which offenders can only be fined.

He also wants the Crown Prosecution Service to make full use of laws coming into effect next year that will introduce an offence of causing death by careless driving.

It will carry a maximum penalty of five years in jail. Mr Macdonald's comments came as new figures from Transport for London revealed a sharp rise in the number of cycling fatalities. There were 21 deaths last year, up from eight in 2004.

The accidents have prompted increased concern about the lack of awareness displayed by some drivers and demands for stiffer punishments for those who kill on the roads.

Mr Macdonald said he believed the public were now less tolerant of motorists who caused death or injury.

"Society's view of drivers who behave carelessly or dangerously has toughened up and, in my view, prosecutors need to toughen up too and so do sentences," he said.

Mr Macdonald said although a review of prosecution policy towards drivers who kill had still to be completed, it would result in a more robust approach.

This would apply to drivers who kill pedestrians, other motorists or cyclists but he acknowledged there were specific concerns about the number of cycling fatalities.

He said he had personally known three cyclists who had died in collisions with vehicles.

"If you are driving at 40mph in a 30 limit and you go within a few inches of a cyclist that is dangerous in my opinion and we should prosecute accordingly," he said.

Mr Macdonald said the new Road Safety Bill had created the new offence of causing death by careless driving.

Although the actual sentences imposed for drivers convicted of it would be a matter for the courts, he said prosecutors would be determined to spell out where a driver was particularly negligent and why they deserved a custodial sentence.

London's cyclists have been hit by a spate of deaths and serious injuries in recent months.

Amateur bicycle racer Patrick Goodacre, 28, is in a critical in hospital after a collision with a car in Richmond Park.

Fatalities this month alone include Chelsea FC events manager Victoria Buchanan, 28, who was struck by a lorry at traffic lights in Fulham Road, and a woman who was killed in a collision with a Smart car in Talgarth Road, Hammersmith.

Also among this year's deaths are Naqibullah Aman, 25; Wendy Gay, 42; Andrew Rawling, 38; Patricia Mcmillan, 32; Darren Hughes, 28, and Charlotte Morse, 27.

At least one cyclist was killed or seriously injured every day last year, with 372 casualties.

TfL refused to publish precise data for this year but early indications are of another year-on-year increase as more commuters take to two wheels.

TfL admits the high casualty rate among cyclists has cast a shadow over a 45 per cent reduction in all road casualties in the past decade.

The Mayor of London has ordered TfL to halve the number of cyclists killed and seriously injured in the capital by 2010.

In 2003, 19 cyclists were killed on London's roads. Before that figures were recorded in financial years - there were 19 deaths in 2001/2 and 14 in 2000/1.

The London Assembly Green Party said that of the 87 deaths between 1999 and May 2004, 49 involved a collision with a lorry.

These were most likely to happen during the morning rush hour and at junctions and crossings.

More than half involved vehicles turning left when either the cyclist or lorry - or both - was stationary at traffic lights.

Green Assembly member Jenny Jones, the Mayor's road safety adviser, said lorry drivers had to learn to take responsibility for 'vulnerable' cyclists.

TfL said: "We will continue to work to improve road safety for all users."

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Cut out the "40 in a 30" bit of that statement and it'd be fine, but with it left in it gives the impression that it'd be safe to leave just a few inches of clearance provided you were under the limit... Bad bad bad, we ought to be hearing messages which reinforce the need to give cyclists plenty of room, not messages which just seem to reinforce the same old oversimplified "speeding=dangerous, not speeding=safe" codswallop.




And cyclists need to take responsibility for their own safety - when the idiots amongst their ranks finally get a clue and stop trying to filter up the nearside of long vehicles after it's clear they intend turning left, or stop changing lanes without checking that the lane is clear first, or learn what give way lines mean, or how much easier they'd be to spot at night if they invested in some basic illumination, or stopped ignoring red lights, no entry/one way signs, etc etc, then and only then would it be fair to continue blaming anyone except the cyclist in the event that accidents continued to happen.

Note that I'm not suggesting all/a majority of cyclists do these things, nor that there are more than a tiny minority of genuine two-wheeled morons who do most/all of them, but I do see too many instances of cyclists doing at least one of these (and similar) things. Yes, some motorists behave just as badly, but if they mess up the chances of them being a KSI statistic are quite a bit lower than for the cyclist - improving vehicle safety features might be breeding a level of complacency in motorists, what excuse do the cyclists have?

_________________
Chris

If I were a cyclist friend of Mr McDonald, I would be very scared. He must be a Jonah.

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

Sincere apologies from me then insanity, by the term "My mate killed an Asian" is very open to such misinterpretation, when for instance "My mate killed an Asian bloke" is a bit less so, IMO.

Good point, but to add, passing too close faster will undoutably unsettle somebody more than passing too close slower, then there's the matter of the wash which is going to be stronger at 40 than it is at 30 and finally if you do manage to glance somebody at 40 the results are most likely going to be much worse than if you glance them at 30 given 1/2 mv squared and all that.

..er, didn't he collide with a stationary car?



If you double the number of cyclists you double the number of collisions involving cyclists - all other things being equal



WTF????

The only thing that stops them from passing ever-more onerous laws is when - inevitably - one of their number falls foul of it. I would not be surprised to see the following headline in the not-too-distant future:

"MP gets ten years for killing cyclist while chewing gum"

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

1/2 mv squared = kinetic energy. For that energy to be dissipated in a collision the vehicle has to be brought to a stop wholly by the collision - no braking or anything else involved.
A vehicle glancing you is only going to dissipate a microscopic proportion of its kinetic energy.
In any case, using that same equation would mean that being hit by a bus at 10mph is just as bad as being hit by a car at 40mph

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Er, no?

If you double the number of cars do the number of car on car crashes double?

Would you rather be struck by a wing mirror of a vehicle passing you at 30 or 40?

Er, yes

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Probably wouldn't make much difference - the mirror would probably snap back or break off in either case, and would probably hurt no more (or less) than a kick in the ribs

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler