Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
feef said:
this statement reinforces my own belief, that there's two kinds of bicycle users.. "Cyclists" and "Pedestrians on bikes". The former usually know what they are doing, the latter are the ones we need to watch out for.
This is an accurate statement. Most cyclists involved with clubs, some kind of competition or cycling for pure training purposes act very differently in some cases to commuters. ZX10R NIN said:
but training & licensing will help reduce the numbers of accidents.
I challenge you to back that up regarding cyclists. I think it's easier to prove the opposite. Segregation has worked very well too where it's been done properly, far more successful than any other method.
heebeegeetee said:
ZX10R NIN said:
but training & licensing will help reduce the numbers of accidents.
I challenge you to back that up regarding cyclists. I think it's easier to prove the opposite. Segregation has worked very well too where it's been done properly, far more successful than any other method.
Both my kids have just done their Cycling Proficiency through their respective schools - I don't think that's was a waste of time. And before anyone rips it to bits as kids, basic, not licensing ..... I know, just pointing out it happens and will (my opinion) reduce accidents.
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
Boshly said:
heebeegeetee said:
ZX10R NIN said:
but training & licensing will help reduce the numbers of accidents.
I challenge you to back that up regarding cyclists. I think it's easier to prove the opposite. Segregation has worked very well too where it's been done properly, far more successful than any other method.
Boshly said:
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
The other school of thought is that better integration improves matters, so we all become used to other road users and behave accordingly. What do you do outside the segragation zones?
Boshly said:
Training and licensing will INCREASE the number of accidents? Not even you believe that surely??
Both my kids have just done their Cycling Proficiency through their respective schools - I don't think that's was a waste of time. And before anyone rips it to bits as kids, basic, not licensing ..... I know, just pointing out it happens and will (my opinion) reduce accidents.
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
Show me where licensing cyclists has improved public health by any measure, anywhere. It has been shown to have completely the opposite to the desired effect.Both my kids have just done their Cycling Proficiency through their respective schools - I don't think that's was a waste of time. And before anyone rips it to bits as kids, basic, not licensing ..... I know, just pointing out it happens and will (my opinion) reduce accidents.
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
saaby93 said:
Boshly said:
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
The other school of thought is that better integration improves matters, so we all become used to other road users and behave accordingly. What do you do outside the segragation zones?
heebeegeetee said:
ZX10R NIN said:
but training & licensing will help reduce the numbers of accidents.
I challenge you to back that up regarding cyclists. I think it's easier to prove the opposite. Segregation has worked very well too where it's been done properly, far more successful than any other method.
Why will it increase the number of accidents, the motorcycle test was made harder recently & I wasn't happy about it but it seems that the number of accidents has dropped admittedly only slightly(it'll be another year before we know for sure) but if every other Road User has to go through some form of training why shouldn't those who are commuting in by push bike?
Just because you can walk along a pavement or drive a car it doesn't mean you can competently ride a push bike in the same way it doesn't mean you're competent to drive a Bus/HGV or ride a Motorbike, separation means more lights which means more hold ups for all.
Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 31st May 15:43
I'm wary that youre trying to shift all the efforts onto cyclists, but in these collisions how many have already undergone some training such as I think it was called cycling proficiency
If there was a voluntary cylcing proficiencey scheme, would that help?
What about tourists getting onto one of the Boris Bikes - what sort of training should they have?
How far do you extend this.
Should tourists have a similar scheme before driving cars in London
We're already assuming the bus and truck drivers are as well trained as they can be
I cant help thinking most of these accidents are just ordinary people - has there been any breakdown
If there was a voluntary cylcing proficiencey scheme, would that help?
What about tourists getting onto one of the Boris Bikes - what sort of training should they have?
How far do you extend this.
Should tourists have a similar scheme before driving cars in London
We're already assuming the bus and truck drivers are as well trained as they can be
I cant help thinking most of these accidents are just ordinary people - has there been any breakdown
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 31st May 15:42
heebeegeetee said:
Show me anywhere where integration has been more successful than integration. Again, the complete opposite is the case. Segregation increases the numbers of cyclists and cyclists are always more safer in greater numbers.
The UK will never do segregation properly. Our current cycle lanes are a joke.The 20 feet on my commute to work are either too narrow to get a bike down or so covered in gravel that my tyres ping stones at the side of cars like a catapult. Where I lived previously you had to stop and cross a road every 50 feet, pedestrians and dogs wandered across them gormlessly and the surfaces was crap.
Holland has a beautiful network on the major roads and in towns, combined with the far greater respect for other road users that drivers in most other countries exhibit.
ZX10R NIN said:
What about the rest of my statement.
Why will it increase the number of accidents, the motorcycle test was made harder recently & I wasn't happy about it but it seems that the number of accidents has dropped admittedly only slightly(it'll be another year before we know for sure) but if every other Road User has to go through some form of training why shouldn't those who are commuting in by push bike?
Just because you can walk along a pavement or drive a car it doesn't mean you can competently ride a push bike in the same way it doesn't mean you're competent to drive a Bus/HGV or ride a Motorbike, separation means more lights which means more hold ups for all.
You can't compare the two. Motorised transport licensed in tiers yields less deaths, fairly obvious. Back when I took my test it was easy to ride around the block then walk into the local dealer and pick up a new YPVS on finance. We all fell off, some died. If we'd have been made to ride slower bikes they're would have been less. Why will it increase the number of accidents, the motorcycle test was made harder recently & I wasn't happy about it but it seems that the number of accidents has dropped admittedly only slightly(it'll be another year before we know for sure) but if every other Road User has to go through some form of training why shouldn't those who are commuting in by push bike?
Just because you can walk along a pavement or drive a car it doesn't mean you can competently ride a push bike in the same way it doesn't mean you're competent to drive a Bus/HGV or ride a Motorbike, separation means more lights which means more hold ups for all.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 31st May 15:43
IMO you need to treat all cyclists as kids, the roads are full of holes and people are sometimes stupid. A moments lack of concentration is normal in every form of transport, whilst cycling, it's a bad thing. It would be a major benefit to this country to make full on cycle lanes and copy the model of other countries. I'll stand by my original comments though and say that the UK is one of the worst places to ride, especially the South East.
Case in point a few days back. Approached a cyclist on an A road, I dont use it in rush hour on a bike but hey ho. The car in front squeezes past the guy, I slow then get flashed by the car behind. Much holding of his head and posturing. When it's clear I pass, guy behind passes but leaves little space. He then backs away from my car before we both catch the traffic at the next roundabout...the cyclist passes us both by. That's the mentality we are dealing with.
If it was an offence to hit a cyclist and you had to prove it wasn't your fault things would change very quickly. Since everybody here is advocating both safety and reducing congestion this new law wouldnt bother anyone, because we all give lots of room to cyclists and treat them with respect? Motorists should be made responsible in the event of an accident with a cyclist, similarly cyclists should be liable in respect of pedestrians.
saaby93 said:
I'm wary that youre trying to shift all the efforts onto cyclists, but in these collisions how many have already undergone some training such as I think it was called cycling proficiency
If there was a voluntary cylcing proficiencey scheme, would that help?
What about tourists getting onto one of the Boris Bikes - what sort of training should they have?
How far do you extend this.
Should tourists have a similar scheme before driving cars in London
We're already assuming the bus and truck drivers are as well trained as they can be
I cant help thinking most of these accidents are just ordinary people - has there been any breakdown
I'm not trying to shift all the efforts onto cyclists but HGV & Bus drivers have had to undertake extra training & spend Money on making certain modifications to there vehicles to help lower the number of accidents.If there was a voluntary cylcing proficiencey scheme, would that help?
What about tourists getting onto one of the Boris Bikes - what sort of training should they have?
How far do you extend this.
Should tourists have a similar scheme before driving cars in London
We're already assuming the bus and truck drivers are as well trained as they can be
I cant help thinking most of these accidents are just ordinary people - has there been any breakdown
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 31st May 15:42
At some point cyclists need to make some effort to, as for the tourists yes a quick briefing & training wouldn't hurt, I understand that means less collection points at first, but a small amount of inconvenience but a simple card similar to an oyster once you've had the training would mean you could collect a bike from anywhere thereafter.
yonex said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Motorists should be made responsible in the event of an accident with a cyclist, similarly cyclists should be liable in respect of pedestrians.
What if I'm driving along at 30mph, catch up a cyclist doing 20mph, I pull out to overtake him leaving the 'correct gap', whatever that is, as I'm approaching his rear wheel he sharply turns right for no reason with no indication. I run him over, there are no witnesses. Are you saying that should be my fault?feef said:
Boshly said:
heebeegeetee said:
ZX10R NIN said:
but training & licensing will help reduce the numbers of accidents.
I challenge you to back that up regarding cyclists. I think it's easier to prove the opposite. Segregation has worked very well too where it's been done properly, far more successful than any other method.
Therefore I would suggest my initial interpretation was correct and thus doesn't make sense. Ie training and licensing would increase the number of accidents which i can't imagine even HBGT agrees with.it was just a pointless statement.
We're off topic now however.
Boshly said:
Not sure I see that or agree. Using your example for the opposite it would state "not training and licensing would reduce the number of accidents". As such why would "no change" change anything? And be easier to prove? It doesn't make sense.
Therefore I would suggest my initial interpretation was correct and thus doesn't make sense. Ie training and licensing would increase the number of accidents which i can't imagine even HBGT agrees with.it was just a pointless statement.
We're off topic now however.
I don't have an issue with training. You have to be taught to cycle, it's not something that comes naturally, and most cyclists are drivers anyway so all have had some training. Therefore I would suggest my initial interpretation was correct and thus doesn't make sense. Ie training and licensing would increase the number of accidents which i can't imagine even HBGT agrees with.it was just a pointless statement.
We're off topic now however.
But licensing cyclists hadn't been shown to improve safety anywhere and there is strong evidence that it will do the opposite because it will reduce numbers (if enforced, which it rarely has where it had been imposed).
saaby93 said:
Boshly said:
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
The other school of thought is that better integration improves matters, so we all become used to other road users and behave accordingly. What do you do outside the segragation zones?
I heartily agree with you, sensible integration is the answer. Both parties (which some are keen to ignore or avoid) need better education training and marshaling for things to improve significantly. That includes recognising ones own responsibilities for keeping themselves and those around them safe as much as possible and practical.
heebeegeetee said:
Boshly said:
Training and licensing will INCREASE the number of accidents? Not even you believe that surely??
Both my kids have just done their Cycling Proficiency through their respective schools - I don't think that's was a waste of time. And before anyone rips it to bits as kids, basic, not licensing ..... I know, just pointing out it happens and will (my opinion) reduce accidents.
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
Show me where licensing cyclists has improved public health by any measure, anywhere. It has been shown to have completely the opposite to the desired effect.Both my kids have just done their Cycling Proficiency through their respective schools - I don't think that's was a waste of time. And before anyone rips it to bits as kids, basic, not licensing ..... I know, just pointing out it happens and will (my opinion) reduce accidents.
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
You are also ignoring (selectively?) the most relevant "training" which i do believe will improve matters (ala speed awareness courses??).
I do happen to think licensing will help as accountability - for all road users - is key here, and being anonymous could help more people ignore their own liabilities and accountabilities. I'm not sure there will be any proof available and is purely my opinion for the debate.
heebeegeetee said:
saaby93 said:
Boshly said:
Of course segregation will improve matters but it's how it's done and to what compromise; that's the discussion.
The other school of thought is that better integration improves matters, so we all become used to other road users and behave accordingly. What do you do outside the segragation zones?
Actually before going down this debate any further some clarification on what people mean by segregation will help.
I have no doubt that segregation such as the camel trail between Wadebridge and Padstow where an old rail line (have I got that right?) carries bikes and walkers only, would naturally be safer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff