vernon wrote:
> >
> > http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/justice.html
>
> Four instances and still I suggest that these are not representative of
> every day behaviour. Injustices may have occurred but their effects are
> localised and are not a national trait.
Sorry Vernon, you are talking total rot. The above instances were
chosen largely because the illustrate important points about the way
the law is interpreted in the UK. I could add hundreds of similar ones.
The degree of injustice in the case of road killings and injuries is
such that The House of Commons Transport Committee produced a report on
this as part of the 2003-2004 session called 'Traffic Law and its
Enforcement'. This reported
'a tendency to treat serious incidents as "nobody's fault" or
even to blame the victim; a belief it was not appropriate for motorists
to take as much care when driving a motor vehicle as they would when
undertaking other activities which might endanger the public; a justice
system which frequently did not take into account the consequences of a
crash; and a disregard for the victims and their families.'
'our witnesses had no confidence that the police would properly
investigate cases in which harm had been caused, particularly when
vulnerable road users had been injured. We were given instances of
cases in which it was alleged that the police had automatically assumed
that a cyclist or pedestrian, rather than a driver, was at fault; in
which evidence and witness statements were not promptly collected; and
in which police could not be persuaded to take an interest even though,
in some cases, serious injury had occurred.'
Etc. etc. etc.
Many other reports have highlighted the failings of the British
'Justice' system with regards driving crime. In 1994 the European
Federation of Road Traffic Victims (EFRTV) conducted a systematic study
of the plight of road traffic victims involving nearly 10,000 families
across Europe. British victims expressing the lowest satisfaction of
all with 97% of the bereaved and 100% of those disabled in a car crash
due to the actions of a third party feeling they had been denied
criminal justice.
Again, the CTC can hardly be dismissed as a bunch of radicals and yet
thier view on the British 'justice' system is that 'the real issue is
the number of cyclists who are killed or injured every day by
motorists; the insurance companies that refuse to accept their
responsibilities and the courts that hand out derisory sentences to
those responsible for crashes involving cyclists.'
('Cycle Touring and Campaigning' October/November 2002)
The trends are national and not 'localised'. Even 'localised' trends
are so widespread that they cannot be dismissed lightly. For example in
many areas including Manchester, Liverpool and Hull over half of all
crashes causing death or serious injury result in the driver committing
a 'hit and run' offence. You might try to dismiss these a 'localised'
trends but over a million people live in just those areas above.
> >
> > http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/current.html
>
> The above appears to be nothing more than an anti car rant with very little
> relevance to cyclists
> >
Anti car rant? It is just the reproduction of newspaper reports of road
killings! It is telling when the presentation of such plain facts is
seen as being 'anti-car'. The reports have much relevance to cyclists
as many of the stories report the deaths of cyclists!
> >
> > I know no one who dismissed well designed purpose built cycle routes
> > 'out of hand'. The usual inconvenient and downright dangerous 'cycle
> > facility' designed by car drivers will the aim of getting cyclists 'out
> > of the way' of drivers are another matter altogether...
>
> Getting cyclists 'out of the way'...whose assertion is that?
For one some of the traffic engineers I have worked with in a
professional capacity...
As to why cyclists tend to be dismissive of the concept of 'cycle
facilities', there are many good reasons. Cyclists have a legal right
to use the road and the road network is well-maintained, comprehensive
and so on. Cycle facilities often undermine the cyclists right to use
that primary network. The main existing problem with the roads network
is that for generations it has been developed purely with the 'needs'
of motor vehicle users in mind, as a result it is very car-centric and
'cycling unfriendly'. The creation of separate 'facilities' simply
exacerbates this problem.
They say a picture paints a thousand words so you might like to look
here for a few examples of why so many cyclists are dismissive of
'cycle facilities' as typically created in the UK
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
I was sent another one just yesterday and unfortunately such
'facilities' can be found all over the country, even when they
supposedly form part of "The National Cycle Network, as they do here:
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/downloads/NCN-Carlise.JPG
>
> > If you think cycle helmets= safety you are sadly misguided. Cycle
> > helmets can only do what they are constructed and designed to do-
> > protect the wearer against cuts and mild concussion in simple low
> > speed falls under 12 Mph or so.
>
> And there's a lot of cyclists peddling at that speed......
Yes, and at that speed genuinely seriously or fatal injuries are highly
unlikley, unless the wearer is hit by a car in which case a helmet is
about as much use a chocolate fireguard.
>
> >Cycle helmet promotion is for the most
> > part a smokescreen used by the car-centric to divert attention away
> > from the sort of measures which would genuinely improve cyclists
> > safety,
>
> Another instance of cyclists' conspiracy theory 
Not at all, just a realistic take on how politics operate. For example,
the 'Government' is keen to promote cycle helmet wearing despite their
limitations. This is because the Government has set targets to reduce
deaths and serious injury and a 'serious' injury is any one that
requires hospital treatment. Now many admissions of cyclists to
hospitals are for such 'serious' head injuries as treatment for cuts to
the scalp or observation after mild concussion. Cycle helmets would in
all probability reduce the incidence of such minor 'serious' injuries
and so help the Government to meet its targets. Just as many and quite
possibly more cyclists would be killed or receive genuinely serious
injuries (due to risk compensation effects, the increased likelihood of
rotational trauma due to the size and mass of wearing a helmet and so
on) but what the hell, the targets would have been met and the illusion
would be given that our roads were getting 'safer'. All this could be
done without upsetting the motor lobby by increasing the level of speed
enforcement and so on even though it is such 'anti-car' measures which
need to be taken if we are to make our roads genuinely safer and so
reduce the incidence of fatal and genuinely serious injuries.
>
> You can quote historical fact 'til you are blue in the face, it isn't going
> to change the present one jot.
> Life for the cyclist is still good out there. The statistics are still in
> the cyclists favour. It's widely reported that the risks of a premature
> demise are greatly outweighed by the health benefits and increased life
> span.
True, even in todays hostile road environment cycling is more likely to
extend your life than shorten it. However, I don't think we should down
play the risks faced or fail to look further than the plain statistics.
For example, one of the primary reasons road deaths for cyclists are
not higher is that there are, relatively speaking, so few cyclists on
the road, certainly when compared to countries such as Holland and
Denmark. Further UK cyclists have to live in a constant state of
awareness, some might even say fear, trying to anticipate whether or
not that car driver is going to ignore the fact they are approaching
and pull out on them, or is going to overtake them and then immediately
turn left across their path etc. etc. etc. Such compensatory action on
the part of cyclists might keep the casualty figures down but in turn
also means that the casualty figures do not accurately reflect the
degree of danger on our roads.
>
> > I don't think it is amatter of claiming 'the moral high ground' in any
> > case, just calling for justice where it is due.
>
> Campaign against the law then and not against the motorist.
Unfortunately the motoring lobby see any call for the law to be
tightened, or for higher levels of enforcement as being 'anti-motorist'
in any case. Plus the law is only a part of the problem, it is just as
important to challenge unacceptable driver behaviour as well.
