| Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikey-two-Names
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 4108
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:44 pm Subject: Road Safety Bill |
 |
|
Here's a CTC campaign to make things better for the more vulnerable road users such as us skaters, pedestrians and cyclists. Please use the form to directly lobby your MP:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3996 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Xia
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Posts: 874
Location: Geneva (Suisse)
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:37 pm Subject: |
|
|
Nope, couldnt see that much stuff for me to agree to improuve my safety.
Just a lot of things to infuriate motorist even more and antagonising them even more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikey-two-Names
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 4108
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:42 pm Subject: |
|
|
| ??? I don't understand what you don't agree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 5914
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:43 pm Subject: |
|
|
Not going to do it either. They are just having another go at drivers. Nothing wrong with wanting things to be safer for bikes but by making it difficult to drive is not the way forward. I would push back at compulsory extensive road cycle safety training and examination for all school children. Third party insurance for cyclsits or at least those people that use their bicycles for business purposes, e.g. couriers and the like. Number plates for bikes, as in Netherlands, and an owners registration so that in the event of an accident the owner can be traced and perhaps prosecuted. I don't want any of that either.
If they want to make cycling safer then they should look at ways of getting more people to ride rather than just targeting the people who get hit with everything. Forcing train companies to make provision for carrying of bikes at all times (doesn't have to be free) but a lot of people who commute into London every day would ride bikes if they were allowed to take them onto trains and there was space allocated for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikey-two-Names
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 4108
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:52 pm Subject: |
|
|
| But none of this is making it difficult to drive in any way. They are simply common sense measures that improve matters for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dan_b
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 2428
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:35 pm Subject: |
|
|
| Rick wrote: |
| Third party insurance for cyclsits or at least those people that use their bicycles for business purposes, e.g. couriers and the like. |
If the CTC can afford to provide free £5m third-party insurance for their members (at a cost of £12/year) that suggests to me that there might not be a heck of a lot of particularly expensive claims against cyclists anyway. Admittedly a CTC member may be a lower risk than the average cyclist if the latter group includes urban kamikaze couriers and teenage bmx chavs, but it's probably still indicative at least for an order of magnitude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 5914
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:28 pm Subject: |
|
|
| ls_mike wrote: |
| But none of this is making it difficult to drive in any way. They are simply common sense measures that improve matters for all. |
lowering speed limits does, it makes drivers switch off. Many are already 20. Making it the default leaves too much up to the driver to determine what kind of area they are ing. Putting up signs is the best way and no law is needed for that.
Black boxes puts up the cost of cars significantly in the case of budget vehicles.
The drivers libility thing is what is in other parts of Europe. Someone should not be held responsible for what is beyond their control. An aside to this is insurance premiums will rise and there will be enven more uninsured drivers on the roads making everything less safe as without insurance you can't get taxed if you not taxed why get an MOT? Then you get cars that are unsafe. It's the only reason you need one. Just buy a second hand car, pay cash and give a false name and address to the seller, then clone another cars plates and you're safe. The fines are smaller than the cost of insurance. You can also speed without getting a ticket as the fine will go to someone else.
Other comments on what is pointless:
Making radar/laser detectors illegal won't get rid of all the ones that are there and people will simply get them abroad. It's unenforcable.
Making hands freekit use illegal is pointless. People will ignore it. What do you do to get people pull people over for moving their lips while driving? Could be singing along. So also unenforcable. Saying conversations are dangerous is simply stupid. People have been talking to other passengers for decades what difference is there if they are not in the car. The only problem is with answering the call or the quality of the kit where you have to concentrate to hear. I am against ones that plug into your ear as they detract from other noises making the driver less aware but making all cars have built in bluetooth hands free kits is actually quite sensible.
What I consider to be reasonable:
Drink driving limit can be zero as far as I am concerned as some people are more affected than others and if we have to have a measurable level that is safe then the only safe limit is zero. Effectively a little above as a zero threshold is difficult to achieve if you use mouthwash or take certain medications.
Giving decent sentences for vehicular homicide. Should be a separate offence so the judges aren't limited by manslaughter terms. It should be common knowledge that a car is a potentially lethal weapon and used incorrectly can main and kill. I see no difference to killing while under the influence of drink/drugs and waving a loaded gun around and randomly pulling the trigger. You may not intend to hit or kill someone because you weren't aiming but you'ld get minimum 10 years for that not maximum. Similar for unsafe vehicles. Trouble is prisons are full and it costs too much to incarcerate people.
Feel free to post your viewpoint I like to see other views if they are rational. I even adjust my position from time to time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam B(GMF)
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:40 am Subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Driver liability:
New rules to make it easier for cyclists and other non-motorised road users to claim damages from drivers who hit them.
|
good idea but like Rick says needs to vut both ways that cyclists need insurance and a way to be clearly identified in they are riding on the road |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lemming
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 693
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:13 pm Subject: |
|
|
Some of it makes sense. Some of it doesn't. I agree that htere needs to be more accountability for cyclists though. I almost smacked one last night on teh way home in my car 'cos it was dark, he didn't have lights on and just pulled out into the road in front of me.
Obviously, not all cyclists have so little self regard for their safety, but it's annoying all the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikey-two-Names
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 4108
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:15 pm Subject: |
|
|
OK here's my rebuttal of many of these ill-informed points.
20mph is a very appropriate speed for residential areas. We're not talking through roads here, but places where people live and play. It's the kind of thing that causes a huge drop in fatalities due to accidents, and in these residential areas you largely can't safely go more than 20 anyway.
Cyclist liability and accountability. Cyclists are already just as accountable as pedestrians are. Who kills 3600 people and injures 300,000 people a year in the UK? It's motor vehicle drivers who are largely responsible, that's why they need to be accountable and insured.
The rest of the stuff is largely illegal already, and I'd agree needs much better enforcement. Illegal number plates/uninsured/no MOT? Just confiscate and crush the car. Problem over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lemming
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 693
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:40 pm Subject: |
|
|
I agree - 20 mph IS sensible on a lot of roads and I obey these limits whether I'm in my car or on my bike (it has a motor, so I have to...).
My point isn't that these ideas are bad necessarily, but it's all down to the individual. There are always going to be people who do NOT obey the law (phones, speed limits, no signalling, jumping red lights or whatever) but just because I'm in a car/motorbike/pushbike/skates doesn't mean that I should be more penalised or less penalised when it isn't my fault.
Obviously if you crash a car into someone then there's a much higher possibility that that person is going to be hurt than if you were on a pushbike. However, if that pushbike has pulled out in front of you with no warning, no signal and you have not had a chance to react, then it's not your fault.
It's the individual who needs to be targetted and there's no easy way to do this.
Higher speeds obviously reduce stopping times and the larger momentum will cause more accidents. There's no doubt about that. But I'd take me doing 25 or 30 (in a 30 mph limit for teh sake of arguement) and paying attention to the road conditions being a safer driver than someone else who's talking on their mobile and doing 20. Trouble is, prosecuting these irresponsible drivers is near impossible and there's never a cop around when you need one. I've been overtaken in a 30 doing 30 mph (ish - was on the motorbike) by some tw@ in a nova (or other ridiculous car - sorry nova drivers...) who actually stayed out and overtook the car in front of me. Then pulled into the garage 100 metres ahead. The move was stupid, but what can you do. People don't appreciate their responsibility when they get a licence.
| Quote: |
| The rest of the stuff is largely illegal already, and I'd agree needs much better enforcement. Illegal number plates/uninsured/no MOT? Just confiscate and crush the car. Problem over. |
I disagree, I think we should crush the people driving them. Extreme, but it would soon stop the problem. 
| Quote: |
| yclists are already just as accountable as pedestrians are |
That's true. I feel so glad that if someone drives into my car while it's parked (or my bike which has happened and knocked it over) that I can take the number plate and report it. Good job we can do that with bikes and pedestrians too... Oh wait... They might be as accountable, although I think that's more down to the individual or witnesses, but it's much harder to pinpoint them. Although I do agree, people are hopefully more aware of themselves when they're not in a little metal box.
The bottom line for me is that I think you're probably a good cyclist, Mike,. You'll be aware of what's going on around you and you probably won't do something stupid that will get you killed. I have absolutely no problem with cyclists who are like that and aware of their own mortality. It's the ones who ride with no lights at night time, do not indicate, jump red lights and generally exhibit suicidal tendencies who wind me up. (I am aware of the irony of using the term suicidal...)
In fact, your post just above is 100% accurate. Except that not ALL cyclists are as good as you.
This be a fun topic... now to find out what sort of gearing my skates have and to get my pushbike out and find out how fast I can cycle... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 5914
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:10 am Subject: |
|
|
| ls_mike wrote: |
| 20mph is a very appropriate speed for residential areas. We're not talking through roads here, but places where people live and play. It's the kind of thing that causes a huge drop in fatalities due to accidents, and in these residential areas you largely can't safely go more than 20 anyway. |
It depends on the layout. On a wide residential street with off street parking and houses well back from the road. i.e. you can see for a good distance that there nothing going to happen in a safe stopping distance then 30mph is a completely safe speed. On a narrow road with cars parked all the way along it's length and barely much pavement space to be able to see what is happening then 20mph is most acceptable and possibly a little fast sometimes. Someone who drives at 50mph down one of the wider roads is going to drive down it at 50mph if the speed limit is 20, 30 or 40mph. Changing the speed limit won't change the attitutde of drivers who speed it just gives them more opportunity to do it. It isn't speeding that kills but the inappropriate use of speed. Changing speed limits won't do much to improve road safety.
Lastly, and there is long term research done in my home town of Reading to back this point up, if everyone did drive at 20mph round all residential areas then they would not be able to go above 3rd gear. This increases polution through higher emissions for the distance driven and is far more dangerous for the health of the health of children than teaching them to cross the road.
Research was old and compared children of similar ages who lived next to roads with 30mph and 40mph speed limits and measured the amount of lead in their system. No lead now so less brain damage but the principle is the same - more particulates and heavy gasses (NO2 and SO2) producing more asthmatic children.
Better road design is better reducing the number of through roads and reducing the parking on the roads you want people to use. This is happing bit by bit in some London boroughs like Ealing and Houslow where small residential cut throughs are being traffic calmed or blocked off and more bus lanes and red routes created. This is a much better policy for road safety and health as it reduced emissions in streets where many people live and helps to keep the traffic flowing where less people live. As a motorist, I can't say I like the speed bumps as they cause more wear and tear on my car but as an environmentalist and humanitarian I think the calming principle is a better way to go. Shame the road network doesn't have enough wide roads round my way or enough front gardens to force parked cars off all the major arteries for two busses to be able to pass each other but we live in an imperfect world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikey-two-Names
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 4108
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:52 am Subject: |
|
|
| I'm really horrified by you guys' beliefs here. There is so much wrong with what you've written and it seems so deeply entrenched that I'm just not going to bother debating it. Seriously, I think you're more motorphiles than skaters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 5914
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:12 pm Subject: |
|
|
Mike, you really have moved towards a blinkered activist position. It's only a short walk from there to extremist. Basically you are sounding more and more like a nut job with every bike post. It's like you've joined a cult and can't step back see the rest of the world's view because you've been brainwashed.
I am pro skating, pro-cylcing, pro-public transport, pro-walking, environmentally conscious. I am not a motorphile in the sense I think you are getting at.
Cars are rather useful and sometimes essential in this country. I see no reason to be anti-motorist but I am distinctly against cars having it all their way. I see every reason to discourage un-necessary journeys, encourage more environmentally sound forms of commuting but I am also a pragmatic realist. You get a backlash if you force people to do certain things. In an ideal world everyone would be able to afford to live near to where they worked and would have time to walk their children to school. There would be cheap and efficient public transport and it would be easy to get around by bike and have secure places to lock them up, and free showers in every company, blah, blah, blah. Life just isn't like that.
So you want to make things easy for cyclists, that's great. Do it properly in a way in which people can co-exist i.e. not one form of transport at the expense of the others. Be anti-bad road user rather than anti-car as not all bad road users are motorists, and you will get a better response from those around you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dan_b
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 2428
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:41 am Subject: |
|
|
| lemming wrote: |
| But I'd take me doing 25 or 30 (in a 30 mph limit for teh sake of arguement) and paying attention to the road conditions being a safer driver than someone else who's talking on their mobile and doing 20. Trouble is, prosecuting these irresponsible drivers is near impossible |
... although, probably, easier now there are laws explicitly against the use of mobiles while driving so the CPS no longer need to prove whatever more general "careless driving" offence it was previously supposed to be covered under. Which is probably a point in favour of such stupidly specific legislation, even though personally I think it's a dumb way to make law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
