Safety review CONSULTATION

[Cyril Haearn]

The German media occasionally hover around homosexuality in football

One journalist looked at the players preening themselves after a game and wondered whether in fact homosexuality was the norm

No idea why, do gays spend more on grooming?

[Vorpal]

The German media occasionally hover around homosexuality in football

One journalist looked at the players preening themselves after a game and wondered whether in fact homosexuality was the norm

No idea why, do gays spend more on grooming?

That is the stereotype; 'excessive' grooming is considered effeminate. It's is a sexist perspective. There are plenty of women and gay men who have little interest in such things, and plenty of straight men who do.



not that it has anything to do with the safety review consultation

[Steady rider]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/tipping- ... es/9712342

Beware helmet promotion and legislation. Some of the thousands of children discouraged from cycling in the 1990's may now be suffering the consequences.

[reohn2]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/tipping-the-scales/9712342

Beware helmet promotion and legislation. Some of the thousands of children discouraged from cycling in the 1990's may now be suffering the consequences.

I watched the program in the link and wasn't surprised in the least at the way multinational companies are controlling the government in Aus.
l've no reason to believe that isn't the same throughout the world,it's an evil not only confined to the sugar industry,but to any product we consume that makes profit.
Evil isn't too strong a word to describe corporate multinational business.

[thirdcrank]

To put a slightly different slant on this, am I alone in thinking that responding to this sort of conultation merely serves to legitimise it? I've made the point before that the CTC was always willing to go along and explain to anybody who seemed to be listening what a good thing cycling is. CyclingUK seems to be treading the same old path. We shouldn't need to make that point or argue a case. Nor do we need more nugatory guidelines or futile inquiries. It needs implementation.

And bickering about whether this or that type of cyclist is the problem will not change a thing at official level.

[reohn2]

To put a slightly different slant on this, am I alone in thinking that responding to this sort of conultation merely serves to legitimise it? I've made the point before that the CTC was always willing to go along and explain to anybody who seemed to be listening what a good thing cycling is. CyclingUK seems to be treading the same old path. We shouldn't need to make that point or argue a case. Nor do we need more nugatory guidelines or futile inquiries. It needs implementation.

It seems to me cycling is up against a bought government who interests lie with who funds it and as such anything to do with cycling is window 1dressing.
As for CUK,it's had any remaining teeth removed through the same process,namely it won't bite(or should that be suck?)the hand that feeds it.
Its club(snigger) membership,err sorry donorship,come second when government approval and funding are up for grabs.
The words stitch, and up,spring to mind

And bickering about whether this or that type of cyclist is the problem will not change a thing at official level.

It seems bickering between ourselves is what cyclists seem to do best,especially on these boards,unfortunately
EDIT:- just to be clear my last sentence wasn't a in any way a poke at yourself BTW.

[Wanlock Dod]

...am I alone in thinking...

Quite possibly. The whole purpose of the consultation is for the government to look as though it might be doing something when in actual fact it won't. A whole load of stuff will be put forward, 99.9% of which we could have done 25 years ago if we had wanted, but we didn't want to then and we don't want to now. The NHS could easily fund rather a lot of work as an investment in future healthcare savings, but the profit based healthcare model favours lots of expensive healthcare for an unhealthy population. Ultimately the problem with cycling in the UK is that the main beneficiary of increased levels of cycling is society as a whole, and we don't do anything which doesn't prioritise the individual above all else.

[reohn2]

...am I alone in thinking...

Quite possibly. The whole purpose of the consultation is for the government to look as though it might be doing something when in actual fact it won't. A whole load of stuff will be put forward, 99.9% of which we could have done 25 years ago if we had wanted, but we didn't want to then and we don't want to now. The NHS could easily fund rather a lot of work as an investment in future healthcare savings, but the profit based healthcare model favours lots of expensive healthcare for an unhealthy population. Ultimately the problem with cycling in the UK is that the main beneficiary of increased levels of cycling is society as a whole, and we don't do anything which doesn't prioritise the individual above all else.

+1,most of western society isn't there for the good of society but for a way for an increasingly smaller element of society to feed off,that will be seen by many as absurd.
But by looking back into history it was ever thus,only now the 'movers and shakers' realise they risk their own demise if they don't give the masses at least a leettle cake.
But in recent years those 'movers and shakers have become increasingly more greedy......

[Steady rider]

I believe the consultations do not publish the submissions. So if someone makes some good points how many people get to see the points made? All submissions should be open to viewing unless marked as confidential.

[mjr]

To put a slightly different slant on this, am I alone in thinking that responding to this sort of conultation merely serves to legitimise it?

Probably not, but they're going to claim it's legitimate regardless of whether we comment, so we're better off adding our voices shouting into the well than not. If we refuse to do so, possibly only the motoring lobbyists will be shouting there and then there's really no hope of any sensible outcomes.

I've made the point before that the CTC was always willing to go along and explain to anybody who seemed to be listening what a good thing cycling is. CyclingUK seems to be treading the same old path. We shouldn't need to make that point or argue a case. Nor do we need more nugatory guidelines or futile inquiries. It needs implementation.

Sure, but our ability to implement is limited, so we might as well keep shouting at the politicians to implement.

As you may know, Norfolk has many excellent policies supporting cycling which go much further than national guidance does. A recent one is a brilliant policy on public spaces which says "City and town centres, vehicle-restricted areas and new developments will need to accommodate through cycle journeys where possible." And yet, a load of new "no cycling" signs have just appeared across our town centre, where people have been cycling happily and - as far as I've heard - generally without incident since the last lot were removed about three years ago, including some streets that large vans are allowed to drive along. It feels like we've loads of lovely policies in favour of cycling and almost sod-all implementation.

And bickering about whether this or that type of cyclist is the problem will not change a thing at official level.

Indeed. It probably won't change a thing about the other type of cyclists at personal level either. It is one of the most futile actions I can think of. As I mentioned earlier, I can understand why it happens, but it's best not to devote too much time to it - spend even less time on it than this consultation, ideally!

[mjr]

I believe the consultations do not publish the submissions. So if someone makes some good points how many people get to see the points made? All submissions should be open to viewing unless marked as confidential.

It varies by consultation, but this is a good reason for cycling advocates to post their submissions to their own websites and/or sites like cyclescape... but cycling groups don't always have enough volunteer time to post everything as widely as we might like - I'm pretty sure that KLWNBUG doesn't.

[Steady rider]

I have in mind to submit the following;

I am making suggestions on several issues where improvements are possible, also attaching a draft research paper on the fatality aspect of cycling and helmets.

The European Commission ‘cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities’ (page 36) details the risk of death for pedestrians and cyclists who appear 15m before a vehicle. At 40 km/hr (25 mph) the risk is 10% and at 50 km/hr (31 mph) the risk is 80%. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archive ... ing_en.pdf

In the UK, the Minister has to give permission to use 25mph speed limits that deters introducing the 25 mph limit in suitable locations. For busy and congested urban roads and streets where 30 mph limits apply, a 25 mph limit may be more suitable and a 20 mph may be consider too low, the use of 25 mph limits would reduce the risk of death to pedestrians and cyclists. I suggest introducing criteria to indicate which road situations may be suitable for a 25 mph limit and allow local traffic engineers to assess and use 25 mph zones without the Ministers permission.

I suggest the rural default speed limit is reset to 50 mph, unless signed otherwise. This in most cases would result in 60 mph limits on A roads where suitable and 50 limits on most other wide roads. Most of the narrow minor roads could be subject to a 40 mph limit, unless signed otherwise.

Research on the benefits of having a ‘Passing law’ shows there is a need for specific legislation detailing the minimum requirements when passing cyclists, refer ‘Benefits from a UK law regarding motorists passing cyclists’
http://www.harbug.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... -paper.pdf

This should be speed related for passing speeds, e.g. below 30 mph and above 30 mph. Even if passing with the minimum clearance required by law the road situation may still require extra care. A specific passing law would help change the driving culture to being more careful when overtaking cyclists and reduce the feeling of being threatened by close passing vehicles.

To promote cycling seriously, 3% of total transport sending should be ring fenced for cycling facilities built to a high standard kept in good condition with priority over minor side roads and access entrances.

Where traffic condition or road surfaces (potholes for example) pose a high risk to cyclists, they should be allowed to cycle on the pavements, if not heavily used by pedestrians and cycled at moderate to low speed without undue to risk to others.