Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 09, 2020 16:45

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 22:56 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Found this article in "Telgraph" a fortnight ago and rescued it before consigning the papers to the recycle bin :wink:

IG has been busy posting some basics in this section recently and i gether he has some other points of potential cycling danger. As you must guess - we are family and in contact personal touch and I am aware that IG is very coincerned over a rise in cyclist deaths and even Durham saw a slight rise in these apparently - hence his concerns. :(

This article appeared in the "Telegraph" about three weeks or so ago...

The opening paragraphs appear to back up Paul's figures in that road deaths were decreasing year on year before the scammers took over and given the increased volume of traffic - despite the apperently high figures if you were to take the actual percentages - deaths have apparently started to increase since 1994.... :cry: .

Quote:
New Department for Transport figures for 2004 suggest that the Government is continuing to reduce the number of people being killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads.



The targets, set in 2000 in a review of road safety called Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone, aim for a 40 per cent cut by 2010 (50 per cent among children), and a 10 per cent reduction in slight casualty rates.

But as the previous 10 years' figures show, these percentage reductions were happening anyway. Since 1994, the number of cars on the road has increased by 5 million (a 25 per cent increase), and the number of motorbikes (over 125cc) has more than doubled; we drive 15 per cent more vehicle miles. Oh yes, and there's been a 3.4 per cent increase in population. It seems that we're all driving really well.


Yes .... I think this is right despite Wildy's rant over her past two commutes to work over on PH where she met the numpties from hell ...who had scant regard for anyone else on the road apparently... If you want to see a rant about drivers - check out that one :wink: .. my wild feline-like wife in a strop is ... just ....:rotfl: .

Telegraph wrote:
However, the one group that has experienced a statistical blip is cyclists. The 134 killed in 2004 is, at 18 per cent, the biggest rise within the general improvement in the fatality rates for 10 years.


It does not say the circumstances... but we noted too many without lights in the rural areas where we live and if they behave thus in congested areas - I can see a part of the problem - along with an element of complacency and a ridiculously appalling knowlede of the Highway Code and basic manners on the road by our numptiest of all road users whether on two wheels or fur wheels.

Telegraph wrote:
Unsurprisingly, most occur in London, which reflects population size and traffic flows. It is difficult to generalise though, given that in car-centred Milton Keynes, there were just five serious bicycle casualties; while in cycle-mad Oxford, there were 43.


Of course, the more people, the denser the traffic, .the more hazards faced by all road users. It depends as well on road layout. London as I recall from driving and being driven there, has more people intent on getting to where they feel an state of urgency to arrive there, more pinch points and danger zones than Milton Keynes which was more or less purpose buiilt despite the rather dire and uninspiring architecture which do remind more of utilitarian old Eastern Block than quaint old England... :roll: As for Oxford and Cambridge .... probably more student cyclists per head of population - and where there is an abundance of people doing anything - there is a greater danger of an accident - which brings us back to John Franklin, page 51 of his book and ........C O A S T :wink:

Telegraph wrote:
Few statistics exist on the blood alcohol levels of cyclists but, suffice it to say, cyclists seem to be becoming more reckless.


In soapbox I noted a thread on binge drinking.... people in the UK seem to see drinking as "something a bit naughty" and all behave like kids in a sweet shop for some reason. Cyclists.. drivers... pedestrians... I see few exceptions overall and I know what my colleagues down in A&E put up with in reality. IG, Ian and Stephen could no doubt give anecdotes of "drunks they have met and who have thrown up over their uniforms..." The legal limit relates to cyclists just as much as it does to drivers but few are breathalysed unless they are unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident. As with drivers, some test positive and some do not - but unlike drivers, cyclists do not get hauled before the courts and any conviction would not doubt fall and be mixed with other drunk and disorderly convictions. :roll:

Telegraph wrote:
Unscientifically, I admit, I recently stood in central London, in the 7pm gloom, and counted 134 cyclists without lights in under 28 minutes. Why 134? Coincidentally, this is the last published figure for the number of prosecutions of cyclists riding without lights in 2002 - in the whole of the UK. Back in 1990, there were 1,578 prosecutions brought for lighting and reflector offences.


:scratchchin: About same drops in drink drive tests and why bad driving goes as unchecked as bad cycling. :roll:

Cyclists really do need to use lights. I find my lights help me see ahead and help all other road users to see me. I wear a fluorescent strip or a high viz vest dependent upon situation I think I will be riding in and find I never have too many problems - despite the odd occasional numpty. :roll:

Telegraph wrote:

In 2004, cycling campaigners CTC told the House of Commons Transport Committee: "It's important to understand why these offences occur… even red-light jumping is often justified on safety grounds - at a busy junction, it is safer to move into clear space." Try that one yourself next time.


Hmmm - and this body are first to criticise when a driver sasy they have to accelerate out of danger? :scratchchin: Red light jumping is nevere justified as it is never ever safe for a driver, let alone a slower moving cyclist opr pedestrian and I fail to see why being "invisible" can ever be justified I actually like to see the road ahead of me and my bike lights show this and any potholes and grids by virtue of their beam and even the cheapest lights can help you see them!


Telegraph wrote:
Maybe a policeman with a notebook and half an hour to spare might be able to reduce the cycling fatality rates better than all the audit-driven government PR campaign managers put together.



For sure... for all road safety issues..... for all of us...

Police spot bad drivers, dangerous drivers, defective cars.... and cyclists who need a wake up call regarding personal safety and responsibility to themselves and others.

In short - the article gives the same message as John Franklin in CycleCraft and all the regulars on this board...

Namely: road safety requires education, skill development, personal responsiblity, constant evaluation with a view to learn and improve and a thorough understanding of the Highway Code and C O A S T! :wink:

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 23:58 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Mad Moggie wrote:
Hmmm - and this body are first to criticise when a driver sasy they have to accelerate out of danger? :scratchchin: Red light jumping is nevere justified as it is never ever safe for a driver, let alone a slower moving cyclist opr pedestrian...


to avoid confusion I'll state up front that when I'm in cyclist mode I obey all the rules including stopping at red lights and pedestrian crossings.

now for the controversial bit... let's be honest here, JUMPING a red light as opposed to RUNNING a red light IS usually safe as the people doing it (usually) wait for a break in the traffic before proceeding. Here is something to ponder. If the cyclist dismounted, walked across the intersection and then remounted would anyone be complaining?


and one more question. What percentage of the cycling fatalities where there was another vehicle involved were the cyclist's fault?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 01:29 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
johnsher wrote:
Mad Moggie wrote:
Hmmm - and this body are first to criticise when a driver sasy they have to accelerate out of danger? :scratchchin: Red light jumping is nevere justified as it is never ever safe for a driver, let alone a slower moving cyclist opr pedestrian...


to avoid confusion I'll state up front that when I'm in cyclist mode I obey all the rules including stopping at red lights and pedestrian crossings.

now for the controversial bit... let's be honest here, JUMPING a red light as opposed to RUNNING a red light IS usually safe as the people doing it (usually) wait for a break in the traffic before proceeding.


You can never be 100% sure that driver will not accelerate to beat traffic lights. It's why pedestrians and cyclists get run over at traffic lights. You'd be surprised at the frequency..... :( It is astonishing and a cause for concern.


Quote:
Here is something to ponder. If the cyclist dismounted, walked across the intersection and then remounted would anyone be complaining?


If you walk across and remount - that is different. It is not riding and you would be crossing with pedestrians at the red/green man no doubt.

But in reality the time gain is mininal :wink: You may as well wait and set off from the light change - I find it just as quick.

Quote:
and one more question. What percentage of the cycling fatalities where there was another vehicle involved were the cyclist's fault?


Have come across a number of incidents whereby the cyclist was at fault - pulling out in front of driver, swerving out of a side street or from the pavement into his path, undertaking a long vehicle and under-estimating distance to stay behind and failing to note that the long vehicle has moved into the outer lane when turning left so that he can clear teh trun without taking out half the pedestrians on the pavement and a couple of bollards and railings.... :roll:

Also many more than one in my career to date whereby the deceased cyclist ignored a red light, misjudged the speed of on-coming cars in the "break" in traffic....and filters have proven to be a problem area for some cyclists too.

Have investigated incidents in the past whereby potholes have thrown cyclists as well as incidents iolving two or three cyclists and no cars as well as car drivers colliding with cyclists - driver fault.

However you travel you have to be aware of danger and your awareness and responsibility to other road users and it applies to all of us all the time when out and about on the roadways.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 01:48 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 15:20
Posts: 37
Location: London NW10, UK
Mad Moggie wrote:
.... This article appeared in the "Telegraph"
Quote:
New Department for Transport figures for 2004 suggest that the
Government is continuing to reduce the number of people being killed or
seriously injured on Britain's roads.



But how reliable are these statistics ? Even when figures are compiled
the same way, by the same people, year in year out they can still vary
for all sorts of reasons. Inevitably there will always be some 'intelligent
guestimates' and matters of judgement.

But when there is pressure from the top for managers to meet targets
then everyone has to go along with that, especially the people
filling in bits of paper. 'A nod to a wise man is as good as a sermon.'

An awful lot of these statistics aren't worth tuppence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 06:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dowlais wrote:
An awful lot of these statistics aren't worth tuppence.


The roads fatality stats have been very good. Every fatal is investigated and recorded. It's possible for some definition tweaking to take place, and I have suspected some fiddling recently. However no evidence has been found.

Injury and Serious Injury stats are subject to huge external influences, and as such are unsuitable for year to year comparisons. TRL suggested that they are under-reported by a factor of 2.8 (i.e 10 of every 28 are reported and recorded). There's every reason to suspect that the rate of under-reporting is increasing.

See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:06 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
In Gear wrote:
You can never be 100% sure that driver will not accelerate to beat traffic lights. It's why pedestrians and cyclists get run over at traffic lights. You'd be surprised at the frequency..... :( It is astonishing and a cause for concern.

given personal observation around here people just walk blindly across the road if they see someone else do it. The first one might have timed that gap just right... it's only driver alertness that stops more getting squashed.

Quote:
Have come across a number of incidents whereby the cyclist was at fault

I don't doubt that at all, I was just wondering the actual percentages of cyclist hit car vs car hit cyclist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 19:45 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 02:07
Posts: 242
Most traffic light jumping is stupidly dangerous. However I will normally advance beyond the stop line to get ahead of the traffic, and that makes me visible. Sometimes the stop line is a long way behind where the crossing traffic is.

There are times where it is perfectly safe to make a left turn at a red light and I may do that sometimes.

Also pedestrian signals where there are no pedestrians, especially several automatic ones in London, and some that remain red long after all the pedestrians have gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 20:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
I like your logic.

Earl Purple wrote:
Most traffic light jumping is stupidly dangerous.


except when I do it...

Quote:
There are times where it is perfectly safe to make a left turn at a red light and I may do that sometimes.

Also pedestrian signals where there are no pedestrians, especially several automatic ones in London, and some that remain red long after all the pedestrians have gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.520s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]