"..Cyclists and pedestrians in the UK are in greater danger than those in most other industrialised

[Matt B]

Howard wrote:
> On May 14, 8:43 pm, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, the Netherlands use a "risk liability" system, with motorists
>> automatically deemed to be 50% liable for personal injury compensation
>> of vulnerable (pedestrian or cyclist) adult road users (100% for
>> children), regardless of culpability, caused in any collision they are
>> involved in, the other 50% being decided by fault. Any resultant
>> criminal actions, whether against the motorist or the "vulnerable user"
>> are based 100% on fault.
>>
>
> I believe you are right on this one, the 'automatic' liability relates
> only to civil compensation awards.

Yes.

> However, the clear message is
> still that he who poses the greatest risk carries the greatest burden
> of responsibility, as it should be.

It does, though, ignore the amount of care being taken. If, knowing my
responsibilities to other road users, and as a very careful, and very
considerate driver, I was hit by a reckless cyclist, through absolutely
/no/ fault of my own, I would be miffed to have to pay him a penny, let
alone 50% of any damages he managed to scam his way into receiving.

> Such a principle is nothing new in
> Europe, although the motoring lobby ensured such a principle was not
> adopted in the car-dominated UK when it was proposed back in 2002.

I think that the anti-social element of the cycling fraternity bears a
lot of responsibility for that decision. It was successfully argued
that, given their propensity to ignore traffic lights, ride on
pavements, and generally weave with gay abandon through the traffic,
that there would be a glut of wilful claims against "innocent" motorists
triggered simply by the fact that they would be given licence to ride as
recklessly as they wished, regardless of the consequences, and that the
nearest motorist to any collision, or "accident", involving a cyclist,
would be forced to pick up the bill.

--
Matt B

 

[Howard]

On May 16, 10:13 am, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>
> I think that the anti-social element of the cycling fraternity bears a
> lot of responsibility for that decision.
>
You obviously have never seen the way 'Continental' cyclists ride!
>From what I have seen in Holland it is 'de rigueur' to ride along one
handed whilst carrying an umbrella in the other hand and ones
girlfriend side-saddle on the rear rack as you 'weave through the
traffic' and ignore traffic lights. Thing is, on the Continent such
behaviour is hardly considered to be 'anti-social' any more than
pedestrians who fail to wait for the 'Green man' are thought to be
'anti-social' in the UK. Riding in 'pedestrianised' areas is also seen
as a non-issue as well, and is legal in most places. That many cyclist
behaviours which are regarded as 'normal' on the Continent are seen as
being examples of 'anti-social behaviour' in the UK just illustrates
the fact that Britain is a strongly hierarchical- authoritarian (or
even quasi-fascist) country where cyclists are regarded as being
members of a low-status 'out-groups' and are targeted as such, whilst
motorists, as a dominant social group are, quite literally, allowed to
get away with murder.

 

[Matt B]

Howard wrote:
> On May 16, 10:13 am, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that the anti-social element of the cycling fraternity bears a
>> lot of responsibility for that decision.
>>
> You obviously have never seen the way 'Continental' cyclists ride!

Well, actually... But anyway, we are talking the conservative UK here,
where "rules is rules".

>>From what I have seen in Holland it is 'de rigueur' to ride along one
> handed whilst carrying an umbrella in the other hand and ones
> girlfriend side-saddle on the rear rack as you 'weave through the
> traffic' and ignore traffic lights.

They tend to be much more laid-back in their attitudes to many things
than we are here. I wonder if there is a causal link between our "over
regulation" and the fact that we are near or at the bottom of the
European league tables in many measures of "anti-socialness".

> Thing is, on the Continent such
> behaviour is hardly considered to be 'anti-social' any more than
> pedestrians who fail to wait for the 'Green man' are thought to be
> 'anti-social' in the UK.

Sad, I know. Roll-on the day when we can co-exist on our streets with
none of the burdensome and unnecessary regulations and attitudes that we
are currently lumbered with.

> Riding in 'pedestrianised' areas is also seen
> as a non-issue as well, and is legal in most places.

Fine, so long as due respect is given by, and too, all.

> That many cyclist
> behaviours which are regarded as 'normal' on the Continent are seen as
> being examples of 'anti-social behaviour' in the UK just illustrates
> the fact that Britain is a strongly hierarchical- authoritarian (or
> even quasi-fascist) country where cyclists are regarded as being
> members of a low-status 'out-groups' and are targeted as such, whilst
> motorists, as a dominant social group are, quite literally, allowed to
> get away with murder.

It applies all ways. Motorists are treated equally contemptuously in
many innocent and harmless situations. We need to embrace each other
and respect each other. All users of the road should be able to respect
each other and get-along without conflict. While we have unnecessary
rules the "British attitude" will prevail, and expect them to be obeyed
to the letter. Some pedestrians would rather be killed than stand-back
for an errant car on a zebra crossing because it is there "right" to
cross there. Equally motorists assume de-facto priority in most road
encounters, because of the way they have been "brought up" to respect
the road and to be fearful of its dangers, and because of the road
markings, signs, etc. which only serve to reinforce their views.

--
Matt B

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 16 May 2007 10:13:28 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>I think that the anti-social element of the cycling fraternity bears a
>lot of responsibility for that decision. It was successfully argued
>that, given their propensity to ignore traffic lights, ride on
>pavements, and generally weave with gay abandon through the traffic,
>that there would be a glut of wilful claims against "innocent" motorists
>triggered simply by the fact that they would be given licence to ride as
>recklessly as they wished, regardless of the consequences, and that the
>nearest motorist to any collision, or "accident", involving a cyclist,
>would be forced to pick up the bill.

That such a load of shite was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by our
parliamentarians reflects their utter stupidity, corruption, and
subservience to the car lobby.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Howard wrote:

> You obviously have never seen the way 'Continental' cyclists ride!
>>From what I have seen in Holland it is 'de rigueur' to ride along one
> handed whilst carrying an umbrella in the other hand and ones
> girlfriend side-saddle on the rear rack as you 'weave through the
> traffic' and ignore traffic lights.

Don't be silly Howard. They don't have 3 hands, and will be using the
second to hold their mobile 'phone while chatting into it. After all,
with a back-pedal brake you don't /really/ need your hands on the bars...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 10:13:28 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that the anti-social element of the cycling fraternity bears a
>> lot of responsibility for that decision. It was successfully argued
>> that, given their propensity to ignore traffic lights, ride on
>> pavements, and generally weave with gay abandon through the traffic,
>> that there would be a glut of wilful claims against "innocent" motorists
>> triggered simply by the fact that they would be given licence to ride as
>> recklessly as they wished, regardless of the consequences, and that the
>> nearest motorist to any collision, or "accident", involving a cyclist,
>> would be forced to pick up the bill.
>
> That such a load of shite was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by our
> parliamentarians reflects their utter stupidity, corruption, and
> subservience to the car lobby.

No, if anything it was the insurance lobby that called the tune there.
It demonstrates again, the propensity for self-serving MPs, to be
influenced by the interpretation of public opinion as portrayed in the
non-quality press. It happens prolifically /against/ the preferences
and wishes of motorists too.

--
Matt B

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message
<1hy6erd.1w67hts1lces4N%[email protected]>, Ekul
Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Ah. So you are threatening me. Would you rather killfile those who
> disagree with you than learn how to use a newsreader?

Look, don't be ridiculous. It isn't 'threatening you' to suggest someone
may put you in their killfile. It does you no harm, no hurt, and no injury
to be killfiled. People choose what they want to read; no-one has a duty
to read what you (or I) post. I know I'm in the killfile of one regular
contributor to this group because he's told me so; I'm sure I'm in the
killfiles of many more who have not told me so. So what? It's no skin off
my nose.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison

 

[mb]

On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:56:40 -0700, Howard wrote:

> On May 15, 7:35 pm, mb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Dutch drivers are more likely to get caught because of the way cameras are
>> hidden and the amount of speed traps. Surely the fact that Dutch drivers
>> still speed despite this shows that hidden cameras and speeding fines
>> don't actually stop speeding.
>>
>
> No it doesn't. What it might show is that if fines are set at too low
> a level to be an effective deterrent (such as 21 Euros...) drivers will
> still speed!

You seem to have changed your tune now that you can see Dutch speeding
fines for yourself. Now you're saying the fines are too low [1].

Still waiting for your explanation of your earlier "Even if that were the
case..."


[1] Still referring to speeding under 50km/h here.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message
> <1hy6erd.1w67hts1lces4N%[email protected]>, Ekul
> Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Ah. So you are threatening me. Would you rather killfile those who
> > disagree with you than learn how to use a newsreader?
>
> Look, don't be ridiculous.

I was fighting the ridiculous with the ridiculous.

> It isn't 'threatening you' to suggest someone
> may put you in their killfile. It does you no harm, no hurt, and no injury
> to be killfiled.

Maybe. But if people believe that those who disagree with them should be
killfiled, it becomes a waste of time to respond to those people.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:32:39 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Maybe. But if people believe that those who disagree with them should be
>killfiled, it becomes a waste of time to respond to those people.

I've never understood the need for killfiles other than to guard
against spam attacks.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> I've never understood the need for killfiles other than to guard
> against spam attacks.

That's 'cos you have a higher boredom threshold than us.

 

[Adam Lea]

"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1hy4e35.1u5xtbi1u3cklzN%[email protected]...
> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> > Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Another factor that will work against the UK is the percentage of
>> >> journeys able to be undertaken on motorways. The UK has by far the
>> >> smallest motorway network, pro-rata, of any major nation. In the
>> >> Netherlands in 2005 more than 42% of all motor vehicle mileage was
>> >> travelled on motorways. In Belgium the figure was 34%, in Germany
>> >> 31%,
>> >> in Denmark 24%, in Austria 23%, and in France 22%. The figure for the
>> >> Great Britain was a measly 19%. More motorways means less motor
>> >> traffic
>> >> on roads which are shared with vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
>> >
>> > What are the figures for the USA, Russia, China, Norway and Spain?
>>
>> Dunno, they weren't in the report I read.
>
> So you have no means to back up your statement that "The UK has by far
> the smallest motorway network, pro-rata, of any major nation. "
>

Don't we need to compare motorway and dual carriageway provision rather than
just motorway provision? Many dual carriageways in the UK are effectively
motorways in all but name (e.g. A34, A14, A23).

 

[Adam Lea]

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>> I know the UK has one of the worst child casualty rates and I read
>>>> that Denmark, for instance, has a cycling safety record ten times
>>>> better than the UK.
>>>>
>>>> What are the actual stats please?
>>> The quote you use in your subject line is based on data from 1996[1]...
>>>
>>> Another factor that will work against the UK is the percentage of
>>> journeys able to be undertaken on motorways. The UK has by far the
>>> smallest motorway network, pro-rata, of any major nation. In the
>>> Netherlands in 2005 more than 42% of all motor vehicle mileage was
>>> travelled on motorways. In Belgium the figure was 34%, in Germany 31%,
>>> in Denmark 24%, in Austria 23%, and in France 22%. The figure for the
>>> Great Britain was a measly 19%. More motorways means less motor traffic
>>> on roads which are shared with vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
>>
>> What are the figures for the USA, Russia, China, Norway and Spain?
>
> Dunno, they weren't in the report I read.
>
>> If it wasn't for the motorways that connect my town with Manchester,
>> Birmingham, Carlisle and Blackpool, I think a lot more of the local
>> population would either work locally or would catch public transport.
>
> So the limited motorways we do have have presented opportunities to those
> people that they would't otherwise have had.
>
>> Any figures I have ever seen relating to increased motorway provision
>> show a consequent increase in motor vehicle use.
>
> Can you give some references. Motorways /can/ release latent demand, but
> generally after a period of "bedding-in", use stabilises.
>

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

 

[Matt B]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> I know the UK has one of the worst child casualty rates and I read
>>>>> that Denmark, for instance, has a cycling safety record ten times
>>>>> better than the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the actual stats please?
>>>> The quote you use in your subject line is based on data from 1996[1]...
>>>>
>>>> Another factor that will work against the UK is the percentage of
>>>> journeys able to be undertaken on motorways. The UK has by far the
>>>> smallest motorway network, pro-rata, of any major nation. In the
>>>> Netherlands in 2005 more than 42% of all motor vehicle mileage was
>>>> travelled on motorways. In Belgium the figure was 34%, in Germany 31%,
>>>> in Denmark 24%, in Austria 23%, and in France 22%. The figure for the
>>>> Great Britain was a measly 19%. More motorways means less motor traffic
>>>> on roads which are shared with vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
>>> What are the figures for the USA, Russia, China, Norway and Spain?
>> Dunno, they weren't in the report I read.
>>
>>> If it wasn't for the motorways that connect my town with Manchester,
>>> Birmingham, Carlisle and Blackpool, I think a lot more of the local
>>> population would either work locally or would catch public transport.
>> So the limited motorways we do have have presented opportunities to those
>> people that they would't otherwise have had.
>>
>>> Any figures I have ever seen relating to increased motorway provision
>>> show a consequent increase in motor vehicle use.
>> Can you give some references. Motorways /can/ release latent demand, but
>> generally after a period of "bedding-in", use stabilises.
>>
>
> http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

Hardly likely to be a neutral and balanced appraisal, coming from an
organisation interested in public transport development, do you think?

Like I said - new roads release latent demand. They also change traffic
flow patterns. If those things aren't allowed for, then we get, as with
the M25, more problems. If a road network is properly designed (network
being the key word), then the released demand, and changed flow patterns
will be absorbed, and congestion will be reduced. We do see examples of
that happening around the country, even with our woeful record for
providing adequate road infrastructure.

--
Matt B

 

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 17 May, 00:21, Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:
> > I've never understood the need for killfiles other than to guard
> > against spam attacks.
>
> That's 'cos you have a higher boredom threshold than us.

Some use them on people they don't like their view point...

spam, cross-posters, adverts etc

 

[Roger Merriman]

Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:

> > I've never understood the need for killfiles other than to guard
> > against spam attacks.
>
> That's 'cos you have a higher boredom threshold than us.

just kill the subthread or thread if it gets into a "it is!" "it is
not!" type. or mark as unread. a killfile is very blunt tool.

roger

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> just kill the subthread or thread if it gets into a "it is!" "it is
> not!" type. or mark as unread. a killfile is very blunt tool.

But still appropriate in some cases. Has Mike Vandeman, hater of
mountain bikes, /ever/ posted anything on a Usenet group that's worth
reading? I really don't think so, so he's in the killfile. And so on.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Roger Merriman]

wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

> > Silent majorities are silent because they are not bothered.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Luke
> >
>
> Please don't feed the local troll.

he really isn't google chris holland (1) for some proper trollish
behavour.

yes Matt B can be go on and on about his idea. and will use any chance
to voice them, and yes it probably would be more a uk transport etc than
cycling as such but he's not a troll proper. that doesn't mean that he
might be anoying or whatever.

roger

 

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > just kill the subthread or thread if it gets into a "it is!" "it is
> > not!" type. or mark as unread. a killfile is very blunt tool.
>
> But still appropriate in some cases. Has Mike Vandeman, hater of
> mountain bikes, /ever/ posted anything on a Usenet group that's worth
> reading? I really don't think so, so he's in the killfile. And so on.
>
> Pete.

never seen any of his posts, i guess he posts to another group? but yes
you can get get folk who do just post hate and bile, though most change
names to get around kill files.

roger

 

[Roger Merriman]

The other view point, there is one you know...
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 17 May, 00:21, Mark Thompson
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:
> > > I've never understood the need for killfiles other than to guard
> > > against spam attacks.
> >
> > That's 'cos you have a higher boredom threshold than us.
>
> Some use them on people they don't like their view point...
>
> spam, cross-posters, adverts etc

most of which while be once only genreated names then the next lot will
change again.

roger