This week’s issue has a double page spread regarding its endorsement of Road Peace because “too many cyclists die after collisions with cyclists.”
Perhaps a bit more on Cycle Craft and little less carping about common sense values of helmets, high viz clothes and lights may be a start on the part of those riding bikes.
Per the “Grauniad” - British car drivers are the least likely to die in road accident whilst UK pedestrians and cyclists are the most likely”
The inference
from this rather sweeping statement leads the likes of the net troll and his little chums to find an excuse to blame Britain’s thirty odd million drivers for all the crashes.
Yet – I know from my own job that each accident results from its own set of circumstances and – all too often a mistake by ALL parties leads to tragedy.
Also - the other factor, which they fail to accept, is this:
1.Pedestrians in German, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden can be fined for j walking or crossing when the red man shows. I know this to be true. As you know – am related to the Swiss mob and in my boyhood – used to stay with them in school holidays. When aged 14 
– was stopped by a stern looking Swiss policeman read the riot act and fined on the spot for ignoring a red man. The Swiss brothers who were with me at the time – were hammered for “not looking after me” at the time. 
2. All these countries have established cycle lanes, which all cyclists are encouraged to use – and the cyclists are also fined if they ride in the pedestrianised areas – and contrary to popular cycling myth – they are also legally required to have lights and helmets in the case of one EU country. This little factor takes the riders out of potential conflict with a car and accounts for some of the higher perceived safety rates.
The article sadly
still refers to the unfortunate Rhyl driver losing control of his car. All reports and evidence gathered to date – including the accounts of those riders who survived this tragic accident point to a poorly gritted road and a lethal patch of black ice. Had the driver been travelling at 30 mph – he would still have skidded into the riders and even if the car had been travelling at 20 mph – it could still have caused the same fatal head injuries based on reports of point of impact to the deceased
The article misquotes Road Peace – claiming that accidents are a form of “road traffic violence”
Er –
road rage is traffic violence. Accidents are caused by a number of different circumstances - usually poor COAST skills by ALL parties.
I spend most of my time walking.
I ride a bike.
I ride a motorbike too
and I also drive.
When near any road – I tend to look out for other road users and plan my courteous and safety led interaction with them – which means not stepping off into the path of traffic and if on any wheeled contraption – waiting at junctions, and concentrating, observing and anticipating all likely dangers to myself and other road users. It’s called “responsible behaviour”
The article mentions a report made by the CTC, which says there are only 250 convictions per year for causing death by dangerous driving.
Really? Well
- the problem is that the people who cause these deaths are usually those we cannot even trace… the hit and runners who disappear – leaving the carnage behind them. The CTC is quoted
Quote:
“Does this mean that 3150 of the death toll were due to carelessness or the fault of the person who died?”
It criticises the law for examining the gravity of the offence and not the outcome. However, the reason why we look at the gravity of the offence is because one can be driving to the speed limit and still manage to kill or maim the person who fails to give a lifesaver glance or exercise patience of waiting at the kerb until safe to cross – and there has to be some parental responsibility to ensure children do not treat roads as an extra playground
Well –
sadly a careless action on the part of one or all victims leads to tragedy and it is the accidental nature and any contributory factor, which courts take into account.
Now unpalatable as it seems – Mad Doc did highlight a case whereby a dangerous driver escaped a dangerous charge because the teenager who died had consumed two bottles of vodka at the time she staggered into the path of the car.
Two wrongs can have appalling outcomes – and one of my lads did comment to me on a road rage case he dealt with - in which a young woman broke a car’s wing mirror by swinging her bag at it and then claiming the car had run her over. She had no injuries and the driver stated that she was waiting at a bollard by a mini roundabout, looked like she was about to step in front of him, so he stopped to allow her to cross - and his courtesy was rewarded with what turned out to be a drink fuelled rage Two weeks later the girl lands in hospital after a collision with another car – similar incident.
Now the article asks one important question
Quote:
WHAT DO WE DO TO STOP THE CARELESS MISTAKES!
And states there is a need to make drivers more aware of consequences of careless errors/
I think we answered this in the early days of this forum…
- in which we debated the logistics of a periodic assessment for motorist and cyclists alike – with incentives such as help with insurance costs.
Not surprisingly the article bangs on about reducing speed limits…
Nope…:banghead: reducing a speed limit does not make a driver any more safety led as there is now an attitude that driving to a lolly prevents an accident and somehow placing a speed camera by the road side suddenly makes a driver drive attentively at all times
Answer to me is clear – more of my lads and lasses – with a strong COAST led safety message.
. And accuses drivers of causing 33K KSI per year and deliberately cutting up riders
As said elsewhere
– if this is really occurring – no one appears to be reporting it. If you do not report – zilch can be done.
Now as for the rise in cycling deaths… a good many of these KSI are actually those who, like my middle aged bikers who cause me a real headache up in Teesdale and Weardale, have taken to using a bike without actually refreshing their cycling skills or being aware that life on the road these days for a 40 + Returner just is not the same as it was when he or she did a Cycling Proficiency and there is also the little matter of not over estimating their stamina and cadence to ride out of trouble. – And the fact they buy a multi-geared bike and do not know how to use the gears to effect. As said in another thread – get it wrong – you have bother. (One of reasons why I posted a series on basics)
Yes
– will agree that third gear in urbans is a useful gear – which we use mostly and if I am tootling down a residential – am usually 10-15 mph and checking underneath cars – something which has been posted on this site, by Wildy on PH and by Kriss or Mike last year on a certain other place.
Will agree on holding a mobile phone – Wildy can rant about this far better than any of us.
Will agree that the driving test needs a severe overhaul and fuller medicals l to include all road user usage – but have to draw the line at including a cycling test within it on the basis that some mildly handicapped yet fit to drive could be deprived of a much needed independence and cycling does not suit everyone. You cannot force riding bikes onto people. If that’s the argument – let’s insist we all have horse riding as part of the test and a cycling Proficiency only passable if a Horse riding Proficiency is taken
Ah – finally they agree – we need Traffic Police … more traffic police.
Ta! I like that idea!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Can see his point .. I burnt my fingers on my toast this morning and yep - loads of real butter and Chunky Cut Marmy on it... 
b-butter.. j-jam... Tskk - and I nearly scalded myself dunking that doughnut too...