Miss-Shelf
I'll meet you further on up the road
Crispy said:
back when fields were green etc it seemed to go more places than just the scopa zone!
Cyclist killed on Brixton Hill
- Thread starter T & P
- Start date
back when fields were green etc it seemed to go more places than just the scopa zone!
Why are the government opposing the mirrors mentioned in the link copied from the comments, I wonder?
Interesting that such a high ratio of people killed by lorries last year were women.
Sadly - depending on which year it refers to - I knew one of them. Cycling in the evening, well illuminated, an experienced cyclist who had been on cycle training workshops - trying to save money and travel home safely at night, killed by a lorry.
And now this poor woman.
Another family devastated..
Interesting that such a high ratio of people killed by lorries last year were women.
Sadly - depending on which year it refers to - I knew one of them. Cycling in the evening, well illuminated, an experienced cyclist who had been on cycle training workshops - trying to save money and travel home safely at night, killed by a lorry.
And now this poor woman.
Another family devastated..
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
OK, on that mirrors thing...they reckon 1200 lives across the EU, between 08 and 20.
OK, times that £100 x 2 for each lorry and then find somewhere which gives the total number of lorries across all 27 member states. Factor in the costs associated with creating, implementing and enforcing the legislation.
Then take that number, divide by the number of lives to be saved, and you'll find out the actuarial cost per life. I don't know what basic number the EU applies per life, but the higher it is the less likely safety legislation will be enacted. Same thing went for the signalling on the railways - if it's more than £500K per life saved it won't be done...varies from industry to industry, but thems the basic maths.
*rereads* Ah, 2.4 billion/1200...equals €2mn per life...that's why retrofitting isn't going to be forced...
Also, it doesn't make it clear which countries are opposing this, so 'Why are the government opposing the mirrors mentioned in the link copied from the comments, I wonder? ' is a bad question...
OK, times that £100 x 2 for each lorry and then find somewhere which gives the total number of lorries across all 27 member states. Factor in the costs associated with creating, implementing and enforcing the legislation.
Then take that number, divide by the number of lives to be saved, and you'll find out the actuarial cost per life. I don't know what basic number the EU applies per life, but the higher it is the less likely safety legislation will be enacted. Same thing went for the signalling on the railways - if it's more than £500K per life saved it won't be done...varies from industry to industry, but thems the basic maths.
*rereads* Ah, 2.4 billion/1200...equals €2mn per life...that's why retrofitting isn't going to be forced...
Also, it doesn't make it clear which countries are opposing this, so 'Why are the government opposing the mirrors mentioned in the link copied from the comments, I wonder? ' is a bad question...
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Miss-Shelf said:
I seem to remember despatchers doing this spontaneously in London a few times way back whenever - in the 80s?
I know that in New York the same people that organise Critical Mass do a once-a-year memorial where they visit every site in the city where a cyclist has been killed that year and have a short vigil. Relatives and friends are welcome to come (as well as anyone on a bicycle) and I have heard it is quite a powerful and moving event. Because the police and media seem to view it as a less "political" event it has been hassled less and got more favourable coverage.
If anyone knows any of the relevant people to talk to from CM, I am very willing to put in some time identifying where cyclists have been killed in London and to try and contact families etc. PM if you think the idea's a runner.
I think it's disgraceful how these killings are swept under the carpet. At a time when we desperately need more people to get out of their cars it is clear that one of the main reasons that many won't do so is because of the intimidation and danger that cyclists have to deal with.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
co-op said:
Moron, I was pointing out how cost/risk/benefit analysis on this kind of thing is worked out. You take the implemetation cost and divide by the number of lives saved. If that number is </>X you either do it or not.
This kinf of testing is nothing to do with me at all, it's how actuaries in government departments work these things out.
2nd line is hyperbolic rubbish.
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
OpalFruit said:
I've been cycling round London for a decade and its only in the last few years have I've seen quite so many girls on their bikes. I hope its not just some fad.
There should be defensive cycling schools set up so people can be taught that any vehicle on their right that's moving is a bad thing and one to avoid at all costs. This is especially true when in a bus lane. People have got so used to them, they often forget that they are in the outer lane and just cut across you.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
kyser_soze said:
Oooh, playground abuse, classy.
kyser_soze said:
Clearly my tongue-in-cheek line about the 'kyser_soze test' flew a mile over your head. I'll keep it cruder for your benefit in future.
kyser_soze said:
No it's a relevant question. If you don't understand it say so. If you can't answer it, I think ignoring it is acceptable.
Dismissing it out of hand - and with a jolly big word too! well done! - is just middle-class huffing and puffing. I thought you were a little brighter than this.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
laptop said:
We're not abandoning the streets to lorries and cars tho - and in the context of the discussion about mirrors it was hyperbole.
Speaking as a cyclist I'd love to see less car road and more bike road.
Buffalo Bill
London 4th most famous exenger
co-op said:
Yeah, that happened in 1989 (Chris Shaw), 1992 (Edward Newstead) and more recently CM visited the site of the death of Seb Lukomski. We also went and painted the road at the sites of messenger deaths in 2002 and 2003.
http://www.londonmessengers.org/lbma-marks-the-street
Buffalo Bill
London 4th most famous exenger
OpalFruit said:
No, not a high proportion of cyclists killed by lorries were women, a high proportion (85%) of women cyclists killed were killed by collisions with lorries.
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/art...yclists-killed-by-hgvlgvs-in-london-1999-2004
Buffalo Bill
London 4th most famous exenger
kyser_soze said:
No, 1 mirror per lorry.
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/lorry-blind-spot-demo-in-trafalgar-square
Buffalo Bill
London 4th most famous exenger
co-op said:
Generally, if CM 'knows' about a cyclist death, they will visit the spot.
This happened a couple of times this year
http://www.flickr.com/photos/movingtarget/sets/72157600040133277/
- CM's I've been on have generally stuck to the center.kyser_soze said:
Fair enough - part of my problem is that I can't open the moving target links...so am going on the posts after the Guardian article or on here.
I wonder if our gvt are among the objecting nationals?
And if these mirrors are now being fitted on new vehicles?
Is your figure of £500k per life an example or real? £500k per death of a working parent of several young children (for e.g) seems quite low...especially when you take into account the doubtless astronomical costs of policing and investigating a death, lawyers fees on both sides as the possible prosecution and/or insurance claim is worked out, maybe 40 years of earning power, 17 years of childcare / support, not to mention the aditional hospital costs of the not-dead-but-injured-and-possibly-disabled victims of lorries' blind spots.
I feel for the driver, too. He may also be a victim of a decision not to fit a mirror. Can't be nice to be the cause of someone's death, whether purely accidental or involving momentary carelessness.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
You seem to be misapprehending what this means - none of that stuff is relevant. When you look at things like safety costs you get an actuary to say 'A persons life is worth X in compensation' (for example - it will vary depending on what you're doing the assessment for) Much of this cost data comes from insurance companies cos a major part of their business is assesing risk against cost.
Your exploration into ongoing social costs etc is irrelevant when it comes to making a decision like this, at least from the POV of a government that has to cost out, implement and enforce something like this.
One of the big issues is the amounts that often calculated, especially between transport modes - trains are the highest, with a human life worth about a million quid, which is one of the reasons travelling by train is so expensive as well, the insurance costs are higher.
The best ever exposition of this is in Fight Club when Ed Norton explains how car industry product recalls work...basically the same theory.
kyser_soze said:
But the costs i have mentioned are not 'social costs', but actual costs, which will impact on the economy. An economically productive human unit (aka person) with responsibilities which wuold have to be picked up by the welfare state. Equally hospital costs are real and actual cash costs which the gvt has to manage - and which as far as i know insurance companies don't re-imburse if one of their clients spends time being patched up in an NHS hospital. So I am suprprised that these costs wouldn't be considered in an overall cost-benefit-analyisis of mirrors.
But I would not be at all surprised if I m misapprehending, this is new to me and I am grateful for explanations.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Apparently the woman killed was a DEFRA lawyer, so I've just been informed
