Cycling: Promotion of a dangerous activity?

[teuchter]

Teucher - in resopose to your comments:

There is a third way in looking at risks (posed from driving or to cyclists). Look at the risk to society - and the goverment, or in this case TFL should consider the wider implications, not just the implications to the indivual. So it might not matter who caused the accidents but if they can be reduced on the whole it can only be a good thing.

Also the per mile / per trip way of measuring. You will travel further if you have a car, for instance to the out of town retail park vs local shops, and many routes are shorter on a bike (through town vs ring road). Additionally I don't know how typical I am but since deciding to get rid of my car when I look for work I make sure its in cycling distance from where I live.

It is interesting to wonder if its right to promote cycling due to risks but I don't see it as a risky activity. Infact I see cycling as a solution for many of the problems which face us today.

I know what you're saying, and I fully agree with everything you say about the wider implications (to society rather than just the individual) of car ownership.

Encouraging cycling is one of the ways of reducing car dependency. But I actually think the priorities should be public transport and walking. For various reasons, cycling is only really an option for certain people. Whereas a good public transport system is something that can be available to everyone.

So I see a switch from car use to cycling as a positive thing. But a switch from public transport to cycling, not so much so, although I have no wish to restrict people from cycling if that's what they choose.

I suppose that's why I'm a little sceptical about TFL's current active promotion of cycling in London. I'm not entirely convinced that it's really solving any great transport problems, because London has actually got a relatively effective and widely used public transport system (compared to the rest of the UK) and so I doubt that encouraging cycling is really reducing car use. But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

 

[Radar]

So I see a switch from car use to cycling as a positive thing. But a switch from public transport to cycling, not so much so, although I have no wish to restrict people from cycling if that's what they choose

I've always thought cycing was promoted because of the wider health implications. If you can dodge the killer tin cans, a cyclist will be healthier than a public transport user (assuming no other form of organised exercise) and should be less of a burden on the NHS !

And if the tin cans do get you, it still costs less overall than keeping you alive into old age.

Cynical moi ?? I'm a biker, we don't do cynicism

 

[teuchter]

I've always thought cycing was promoted because of the wider health implications. If you can dodge the killer tin cans, a cyclist will be healthier than a public transport user (assuming no other form of organised exercise) and should be less of a burden on the NHS !

Yes, perhaps you are right. It does of course depend on how much excercise the public transport user gets through other means than cycling, though, like you say.

 

[eoin_k]

Isn't also about healthier cities? If we were encouage to cycle in London (for example) and it was a more cycle friendly city, wouldn't it be a healthier place to live?

If we are going to rant, I see taxis getting access to bus lanes as a much more rant worthy point. taxis spend much of thier time plowing arround London's bus lanes. The only explanation I can find for this is that the taxi using classes (e.g. MPs, GLA members, media wankers, magistates, judges, senior civil servants and their friends and familes) are influential.

To add insult to injury they are empty half the time as they drive arround like loons pumping out diesel fumes...

 

[Radar]

Isn't also about healthier cities? If we were encouage to cycle in London (for example) and it was a more cycle friendly city, wouldn't it be a healthier place to live?

Back to teuchter's observation.

In the short term...
Car=>Bike: Yes, healthier environment. One less car journey.

pub trans=>Bike: No difference. PT service will still run

 

[rich!]

Isn't also about healthier cities? If we were encouage to cycle in London (for example) and it was a more cycle friendly city, wouldn't it be a healthier place to live?

If we are going to rant, I see taxis getting access to bus lanes as a much more rant worthy point. taxis spend much of thier time plowing arround London's bus lanes. The only explanation I can find for this is that the taxi using classes (e.g. MPs, GLA members, media wankers, magistates, judges, senior civil servants and their friends and familes) are influential.

To add insult to injury they are empty half the time as they drive arround like loons pumping out diesel fumes...

Although, at one point the london cabbie magazine explained in small words what Critical Mass was about, and the cabbies understood for a while.

Still, they is driving scum. Burn them with Clarkson! Burn, drivers, Burn!

(I have a tolerant mode towards inveterate drivers. When they are banned, then I tolerate them)

 

[teuchter]

Isn't also about healthier cities? If we were encouage to cycle in London (for example) and it was a more cycle friendly city, wouldn't it be a healthier place to live?

Yes, absolutely. As long as it can be demonstrated that the money spent doing so couldn't have been spent more productively improving public transport instead.

If we are going to rant, I see taxis getting access to bus lanes as a much more rant worthy point. taxis spend much of thier time plowing arround London's bus lanes. The only explanation I can find for this is that the taxi using classes (e.g. MPs, GLA members, media wankers, magistates, judges, senior civil servants and their friends and familes) are influential.

To add insult to injury they are empty half the time as they drive arround like loons pumping out diesel fumes...

I'm not really ranting about the promotion of cycling ... I'm not really decided either way on the matter, in fact. Just wanted to open a bit of a discussion on it.

I think I might agree with you about the taxis, however. Perhaps that's another thread for the future ......

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

But fuck all for cyclist behaviour probably.

There is no way an assumption of legal responsibility should be made just because there's a bit of a problem. Should we assume all men are guilty whenever there is an allegation of rape because it's difficult to get convictions?

Many more people are killed by motorists than cyclists, with speeding motorists representing a significant part of the problem. Approximately 900 of the annual c3,250 road deaths involve excessive speed.

The responsibility of drivers, as the prime causers of road deaths and injuries, to obey the law should be highlighted, including consideration of the principle of driver liability. This has the effect of throwing the burden of proof onto the driver to prove that he is NOT liable for a death or serious injury of a vulnerable road user when this has occurred, and in other European countries which have already adopted this, it has made a significant impact on casualty figures ie it has reduced the number of road deaths.

with thanks to this blog

 

[jusali]

no you should still always overtake on the right.

Except when a cycle lane is on the left and the traffic is stationary, perhaps?

 

[detective-boy]

I don't know what the best alternative is but some people have suggested greatly increasing the penalty for injuring/killing a cyclist. After reading that a driver got three points and a £500 fine for killing a cyclist, I'd have to agree. What sort of deterrent is £500?

It's not a penalty or deterrent for "killing a cyclist". It's probably a penalty / deterrent for driving without due care and attention.

If there had been sufficient evidence of a more serious offence - and if there had been any evidence of any intentional or reckless killing of the cyclist - there would have been other charges, with other penalties up to life imprisonment.

JUST because someone dies does not mean that there is / should be criminal liability for anyone else involved in the incident. That is the law in relation to everything, not just the roads. There is an argument that the road traffic laws need to be changed, that there is room for a new offence of causing death by careless driving (at present the only charge requires excess alcohol to be involved as well) and that the penalties for careless / dangerous driving of all sorts (whether involving death or not) need to be increased.

But it does not help to portray the law as rating the "killing of a cyclist" as worth only a fine and some points. That is simply dishonest.

 

[detective-boy]

This has the effect of throwing the burden of proof onto the driver to prove that he is NOT liable for a death or serious injury of a vulnerable road user when this has occurred, and in other European countries which have already adopted this, it has made a significant impact on casualty figures ie it has reduced the number of road deaths.

So just to get this clear: You are arguing for the introduction of the principle that you are guilty until proven innocent, yes?

And if there simply is no proof, I assume you will remain guilty, yes?

 

[rutabowa]

Except when a cycle lane is on the left and the traffic is stationary, perhaps?

yes. if there is a cycle lane then you should cycle in that whether or not the traffic is stationary.
of course when i actually cycle i just fit through any gap to get ahead, but i understand that by doing this i'm putting myself at risk more, and am extremely careful of pedestrians who might not be expecting something to be coming.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

So just to get this clear: You are arguing for the introduction of the principle that you are guilty until proven innocent, yes?

And if there simply is no proof, I assume you will remain guilty, yes?

The proof is the other dead road user(s), one or more of the, in excess of, 3,000 killings every year on the road by motorists. I do find it slightly strange how you will argue for any number of proposals that serve to increase the powers of the state, byway of using authoritarian enforcement techniques such as denial of jury trial, denial of legal representation, victim statements influencing sentences, etc etc.

Yet, in a situation of motorists clearly being the most dangerous participant in public interactions, because they kill and injure thousands every year let's not forget, you think that they shouldn't take responsibility for piloting a ton of metal around?

You're obfuscating but yes no proof no guilt no law except that love is the law.....do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

 

[detective-boy]

The proof is the other dead road user(s), one or more of the, in excess of, 3,000 killings every year on the road by motorists. I do find it slightly strange how you will argue for any number of proposals that serve to increase the powers of the state, byway of using authoritarian enforcement techniques such as denial of jury trial, denial of legal representation, victim statements influencing sentences, etc etc.

Yet, in a situation of motorists clearly being the most dangerous participant in public interactions, because they kill and injure thousands every year let's not forget, you think that they shouldn't take responsibility for piloting a ton of metal around?

The "proof" is nothing of the sort. You clearly have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about. Just because someone is dead does NOT mean that anyone else involved in the incident is guilty of anything. Your fuckwittery is beyond belief.

And please provide a link to any post where I have arfgued for the removal of jury trial (I haven't, I believe it is an important aspect of our system) or the removal of the right to legal representation (I haven't. In fact, I have argued that in serious cases it should not even be a matter that the suspect has to choose to exercise - they should get a lawyer and have to actively tell them to piss off if they don't want them).

I have argued that it is right for victims views to be taken into account in deciding an appropriate sentence, for a variety of reasons not least that justice is something which applies to victims as well as those convicted. But, to be honest, I think it displays the absolute depth of your ignorance for you to argue that this is wrong as part of your argument that, er, the rights of the victim should take absolute precedence over the rights of the suspect.

I do NOT think that motorists "shouldn't take responsibility" for their driving. They should. They should be held more responsible in a number of ways. But the hysterical bollocks you are spouting is just plain fucking stupid.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

What hysterical bollocks is that then? The fact that in excess of 3,000 people are killed by motorists every year, with ~30% of these deaths due to excessive speed? So motorists should be held more responsible in a number of ways, except in the one way that has been proven to actually change their behaviour then?

You're the one who needs to put his toys back in the pram, love. Seriously, calm down before you get in the car this morning, we don't want another statistic...

 

[Hollis]

Firstly, I'd like to be clear this isn't some kind of anti-cyclist thread ... I used to cycle a lot (before I lived in London) myself purely as a leisure activity, and support the rights of cyclists to share the roads with others.

It's just that I'm not entirely sure about the current official promotion (by TFL etc.) of cycling in London as a method of transport ... given that (as I understand it) cycling is just about the most dangerous method of transport there is.

This thought was prompted by someone commenting on the radio this morning that her husband has cycled to work every day for the past 20 years and on average gets injured every 18 months or so, on several occasions ending up in hospital. This seems to tally with most of my friends who regularly cycle to work, who seem to come a cropper with worrying frequency.

It strikes me that if there were similar rates of injury on the tubes or buses, say, there would be general outrage.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the choice of cycling if they want - it's just that it seems a little inconsistent for "the authorities" to be promoting a dangerous activity while simultaneously discouraging (and rightly so) other dangerous activities such as speeding, binge drinking, etc. etc.

Just a thought. It may be that the statistics aren't as bad as I have been led to believe, or that there is a view that the health benefits from the excercise somehow outweigh the risks... I would be interested to know what others think.

Depends what your perception of dangerous is really. I cycled for a year around London then stopped. Considered it too dangerous and unpleasant.

The stats speak for themselves - but you have to be wilfully ignorant to denigh you're putting yourself in a position of vulnerability on a bicycle.

I've discouraged afew people from cycling, and will do so again - nobody should feel they ought to cycle.

 

[fredfelt]

Depends what your perception of dangerous is really. I cycled for a year around London then stopped. Considered it too dangerous and unpleasant.

The stats speak for themselves - but you have to be wilfully ignorant to denigh you're putting yourself in a position of vulnerability on a bicycle.

I've discouraged afew people from cycling, and will do so again - nobody should feel they ought to cycle.

I also believe that no one should feel they ought to drive as cycling is percived to be too dangerours.

We must also be looking at different stats, or have a different perception of what is an acceptable risk.

 

[Herbsman.]

It's not a penalty or deterrent for "killing a cyclist". It's probably a penalty / deterrent for driving without due care and attention.

If there had been sufficient evidence of a more serious offence - and if there had been any evidence of any intentional or reckless killing of the cyclist - there would have been other charges, with other penalties up to life imprisonment.

JUST because someone dies does not mean that there is / should be criminal liability for anyone else involved in the incident. That is the law in relation to everything, not just the roads. There is an argument that the road traffic laws need to be changed, that there is room for a new offence of causing death by careless driving (at present the only charge requires excess alcohol to be involved as well) and that the penalties for careless / dangerous driving of all sorts (whether involving death or not) need to be increased.

But it does not help to portray the law as rating the "killing of a cyclist" as worth only a fine and some points. That is simply dishonest.

Fair enough

 

[lintin]

You lot seem to like arguing for the sake of it. If you look at my previous points in this thread I have nailed the issue. Yes there is a problem -- the lot of the cyclist in London is miserable -- so why dont you complain to the local authorities and TFL rather than continually whinging on this board.

 

[Hollis]

You lot seem to like arguing for the sake of it. If you look at my previous points in this thread I have nailed the issue. Yes there is a problem -- the lot of the cyclist in London is miserable -- so why dont you complain to the local authorities and TFL rather than continually whinging on this board.

lintin.. I respect you alot.

You are entirely missing the point of bulletin boards..

 

[lintin]

Given London could be great for cycling with minimum investment -- Why havent TfL, local councils etc been investing more ?

Could it be that less passengers on buses & the tube mean less revenue ?

 

[Crispy]

Tfl is investing. I keep spotting new cycle stands, and if you compare the tfl cycle map of 2001 (which I have) with the 2007 one, you can see all the new cycle lanes that have been put in. Money's being spent, but there's so so much to do, it's hard to notice

 

[lintin]

Cycle stands and a green paint stripe on the road do not constitute investment as they are not proper infrastructure.

I'd like to see a map of 'real' cycle lanes and proper secure parking.