...and another cycling death

[Just Zis Guy]

"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'm not sure about this business of driving at the speed that allows you to stop within the
> distance that you can clearly see ahead at night.

That, my friend, is precisely the point I was making. I *am* sure, we *should* do precisely that,
at all times. The fact that we don't, and we ususally get away with it, doesn't mean we shouldn't
be doing it.

> don't think there are many people who drive on motorways at 40mph at night and I haven't heard of
> any government proposals to introduce lower speed limits at night.

There is no need to introduce lower limits at night because the requirement to drive within the
distance you can see to be clear already exists.

The road safety establishment hasn't seen fit to make much fuss about this, because that would mean
asking poeple to slow down a bit - and we can't have that, can we?

FWIW people are killed on motorways as a result of drivers failing to drive within the distance they
can see to be clear. Especially in fog, of course. But for the most part you can get away with more
on a motorway simply because it is limited access. However, the fact that pedestrians are not
normally allowed on motorways doesn't mean they can never exist there. Consider the case of a driver
chanigng a wheel.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[Dave Larrington]

The Real Slim Shady wrote:

[stull]

If this wasn't a wind-up, it'd be worth cross-posting under and assumed name to the Ian and Ed Show
over on a.r.b.r. Under an assumed name.



Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Marc]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Heh! You mean the Golden Age when people drove as if there was a steel spike sticking out of the
> steering wheel?

"as if there was"? Most Pre-war cars had exactly that, the steering colunm, mounted in front of the
engine/wheels with a direct shaft from the steering box to the chest .

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >There is no need to introduce lower limits at night because the
requirement
> >to drive within the distance you can see to be clear already exists.

> It's not a requirement, it's a recommendation, isn't it?

I think it's a requirement to leave adequate headway, but I will have to check the RTRA.

> >The road safety establishment hasn't seen fit to make much fuss about
this,
> >because that would mean asking poeple to slow down a bit - and we can't
have
> >that, can we?

> Did you mean 'road safety establishment'

Well, I really meant road "safety" establishment, as in the unholy trinity of the DfT, motor lobby
and tame experts who believe that cycle helmets are a "solution" to the problem of clueless cagers
knocking cyclists off their bikes.

> I'm sure that if it could be shown that introducing lower speed limits at night would save a
> substantial number of lives someone would campaign for it.

And it would possibly get passed in the first week of a new Government, to be suitably watered down
before the next election ;-)

> >FWIW people are killed on motorways as a result of drivers failing to
drive
> >within the distance they can see to be clear. Especially in fog, of
course.
> >But for the most part you can get away with more on a motorway simply because it is limited
> >access. However, the fact that pedestrians are not normally allowed on motorways doesn't mean
> >they can never exist there. Consider the case of a driver chanigng a wheel.

> Despite the fact that the government has invested huge amounts in advertising to tell people not
> to do this. In fact, you're supposed to get right away from the vehicle and off the hard shoulder.
> As Helen suggested, all road users have some responsibility in respect to safety.

And the Government recently suggested alloing recovery vehicles to have red flashing lights in
addition to the Diamond Grade, amber flashing lights and Hi-Viz clothing, to protect the operators.
Until cars and all associated components are 100% reliable there is always a chance you might end up
on the hard shoulder, and someone has to get out to do the needful.

> Traffic is a complex system governed by a large number of rules in order to keep it moving and
> maximise safety.

I would dispute "maximise" - keep it oving as fast as possible without killing too many people would
be closer to the mark.

> There are some compromises that have to be made in order to enable the system to function in any
> worthwhile way. One of these compromises is an assumption that other road users will not do
> stupid things. We all accept some risk in our lives and have to rely on others to minimise total
> system risk.

The primary assumption is that everybody will get out of the way of the cars. Which works nicely for
the car driver, less well for those who are not in cars.

Drivers don't have to make too many of the compromises, either. And those they do have to make, they
bleat about.

Sometimes I think I'm the only driver on the road who doesn't think their willie will shrivel if
they are not at the front of every queue.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fzw5cy.1n8w25l1xsyaznN%[email protected]...

> > Heh! You mean the Golden Age when people drove as if there was a steel spike sticking out of the
> > steering wheel?

> "as if there was"? Most Pre-war cars had exactly that, the steering colunm, mounted in front of
> the engine/wheels with a direct shaft from the steering box to the chest .

Ayuh. That was the irony bit ;-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:01:14 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Lets go the way of Holland and say that in any accident between a car and a bicycle, the car
>is to blame

I would be happy to see that but I'm sure the Association of British Dickheads would have something
to say about it, and the editor of the Daily Wail would give them the space to do so :-(

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

 

[Ian]

Just zis Guy, you know? must be edykated coz e writed:

> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:01:14 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lets go the way of Holland and say that in any accident between a car and a bicycle, the car is
>> to blame
>
> I would be happy to see that but I'm sure the Association of British Dickheads would have
> something to say about it, and the editor of the Daily Wail would give them the space to do so :-(
>
Unfortunately it hasn't worked, cycle accidents have risen as a result.

Ian

 

[Andymorris]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

"One of these compromises is an assumption that other road users will not do stupid things"

Traffic runs along roads that are shared by adults( sober and drunk), children, old people, horses,
cows, sheep, cats, dogs, foxes, the occasional badger and my mother in law.

Assuming that none of the above will not do anything stupid is hopelessly optimistic.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Marc]

AndyMorris <[email protected]> wrote:

> > They don't wash or wipe their bottoms properly either.
>
> Have any been sighted outside of the feited fantasies of the daily mail since 1975?

Have you been in a Job Centre recently? There you will find two types of people, terrified middle
aged men who are sick to their stomach whilst watching DHSS staff whip a red pen through 3hrs and 36
pages of forms, scrubbing out all the bits which mean they can't claim anything, and 30 somethings
that breeze in to sign on, fill out the requesite cards/poke the terminals for the required
time/frequency, then saunter over to hand in a "claim" for something else the "back to work club/job
club /what ever it's called this week" scuttlebut has found and passed on.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:51:48 +0100, "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Traffic runs along roads that are shared by adults( sober and drunk), children, old people, horses,
>cows, sheep, cats, dogs, foxes, the occasional badger and my mother in law. Assuming that none of
>the above will not do anything stupid is hopelessly optimistic.

LOL! I enjoyed that.

I was re-reading Death on the Streets on the way home today (train from Brum). While it errs on the
side of polemic rather more than one might like, Davis makes a lot of very interesting points
challenging the "car supremacist" movement.

Like: why should we accept that young children should learn traffic sense and defer to the car when
many of their parents were able to play football in the street in relative safety?

Like: the cost to parents in lost time of ferrying children by car on school journeys which would
previously have been made unsupervised on foot or by bicycle has been estimated at not less than
£5bn and up to £20bn (1990 prices); this is mainly because of the increased danger posed by motor
traffic. The Daily Mail monomania over lone predatory paedos might play a small part, but this is
also exacerbated by the fact that the pedestrians who used to people urban streets are now either
sitting in cars or terrified prisoners in their own homes.

Like: Los Angeles has half the population density of London, a tenth in the suburbs, so distances
are too great for easy walking or cycling; $61bn spent on new roads (more miles of freeway in one
city than the whole of Britain) did not remove the suburban gridlock generated by the city's cars,
more cars in 1990 than China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia /combined/.

Like: the work of H Alker Tripp in trying to segregate cyclists and pedestrians from cars,
effectively removing non-motorised traffic from the public roads, as a response to the danger posed
by the motor traffic (a bit like segregating blacks into ghettos to protect them from the Klan, I
suppose). This was in 1930, when the car was firmly the domain of the privileged few.

Like: Winston Churchill's argument against the introduction of a road tax: "It will be only a small
step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions
have created." The Road Fund was intended to pay up to half (at most) of the cost of road schemes.

Statistics, handle with care, but an interesting and thought-provoking thesis.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:17:05 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Lets go the way of Holland and say that in any accident between a car and a bicycle, the car is
>>> to blame

>Unfortunately it hasn't worked, cycle accidents have risen as a result.

Really? As a result of that, rather than as a result of increased car use?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:32:34 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:

>People are more likely to ride without lights now or ride drunk etc... because they now have
>"Volvo" syndrome, i.e. it is always the car drivers fault regardless of cause, I can see how this
>would appeal to you ;-)

Bog-standard risk compensation, not really a surprise I suppose. Still and all, a reverse burden of
proof would certainly seem fair given the balance of danger.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

 

[Ian]

Just zis Guy, you know? must be edykated coz e writed:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:17:05 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Lets go the way of Holland and say that in any accident between a car and a bicycle, the car is
>>>> to blame
>
>> Unfortunately it hasn't worked, cycle accidents have risen as a result.
>
> Really? As a result of that, rather than as a result of increased car use?
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
> Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!
People are more likely to ride without lights now or ride drunk etc... because they now have "Volvo"
syndrome, i.e. it is always the car drivers fault regardless of cause, I can see how this would
appeal to you ;-)

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Ian]

Just zis Guy, you know? must be edykated coz e writed:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:32:34 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> People are more likely to ride without lights now or ride drunk etc... because they now have
>> "Volvo" syndrome, i.e. it is always the car drivers fault regardless of cause, I can see how this
>> would appeal to you ;-)
>
> Bog-standard risk compensation, not really a surprise I suppose. Still and all, a reverse burden
> of proof would certainly seem fair given the balance of danger.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
> Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!
Spoken like a true socialist.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> writes
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:17:05 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Lets go the way of Holland and say that in any accident between a car and a bicycle, the car is
>>>> to blame
>
>>Unfortunately it hasn't worked, cycle accidents have risen as a result.
>
>Really? As a result of that, rather than as a result of increased car use?
>
Perhaps this is an example of the breakdown of common sense. If you say that cars are _always_ to
blame then there will be some cyclists who apply their right of way irrespective of a real and
immediate risk. Better to die with right on your side than have to give way to a car. Despite their
reputation for tolerance the Dutch are actually a more rule driven society than most people would
expect. (I said 'perhaps'. I have no idea why cycle accidents have risen. Perhaps it's the result of
increased cycle use.)
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk

 

[Colin Blackburn]

In article <BB685932.D4E6%[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Just zis Guy, you know? must be edykated coz e writed:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:32:34 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> People are more likely to ride without lights now or ride drunk etc... because they now have
> >> "Volvo" syndrome, i.e. it is always the car drivers fault regardless of cause, I can see how
> >> this would appeal to you ;-)
> >
> > Bog-standard risk compensation, not really a surprise I suppose. Still and all, a reverse burden
> > of proof would certainly seem fair given the balance of danger.
> >
> Spoken like a true socialist.

I think you might have read the wrong definition of socialist.

Colin

 

[Dave Larrington]

Ian wrote:

> Spoken like a true socialist.

Don't you mean "Spoken like a true left wing liberal extremist wacko nut", Ian?

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Ian]

Dave Larrington must be edykated coz e writed:

> Ian wrote:
>
>> Spoken like a true socialist.
>
> Don't you mean "Spoken like a true left wing liberal extremist wacko nut", Ian?
>
> Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
> ===========================================================
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ===========================================================
>
>
Same meat different gravy. Has Fiona got the cheque yet?

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Dave Larrington]

Ian wrote:

> Has Fiona got the cheque yet?

Pass... She didn't mention anything last w/e.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Lardy Ninja]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> >Again this is victim blaming. For instance, I realise that where I live has a high violent crime
> >rate due in part to drugs wars. Were I to be shot on my way home one night I would like to think
> >that the reaction wouldn't be "well you knew how dangerous it was and didn't wear a bullet-proof
> >jacket, you've only got yourself to blame".
>
> Well, that wouldn't be my reaction, I can assure you. But more cautious souls may advise you not
> to go out after dark. You can't abdicate all of your personal responsibilities, whether on a bike
> or walking a darkened street.

Well this just highlights the difference between our POV. I think that a crimninal bears all the
responsibilities for their actions and you like to shift part of them onto the victim.

LN