This is discussed above. It doesn't seem to happen in practice. That's in line with the current view that removing the immediate means for suicide reduces the rate and doesn't simply displace to another means.
Jonathan
This is discussed above. It doesn't seem to happen in practice. That's in line with the current view that removing the immediate means for suicide reduces the rate and doesn't simply displace to another means.
You did indeed make that claim above - and even posted a link to a study which you claimed supported your view. However, the report states:
I have put a bit more emphasis on the relevant bit as you seem to have missed it last time I pointed this out.Efficacy_of_suicide_barriers_for_saving_lives wrote: Many studies have shown that well-designed suicide barriers stop people from jumping at a particular site, but no study has found the overall suicide rate within an area decreased significantly after a barrier went up as a result of that barrier.
From their perspective, why should they, as it’s just another lobbying group.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 6:29am Perhaps one thing to reflect on here is that the relevant authorities don't seem to see cUK as significant.
My point is that they don't. Had they been going to do anything involving motor traffic, especially a prolonged ban of a class of vehicle, I'd be pretty sure that the relevant haulage / driving interests would have been consulted about what was planned or notified were there no time for consulation. Now, cUK presents itself as the national representative of cyclists generally yet from the POV of the HBB, it might as well not exist.From their perspective, why should they, as it’s just another lobbying group.
Fair enough - understand now.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 10:08amMy point is that they don't. Had they been going to do anything involving motor traffic, especially a prolonged ban of a class of vehicle, I'd be pretty sure that the relevant haulage / driving interests would have been consulted about what was planned or notified were there no time for consulation. Now, cUK presents itself as the national representative of cyclists generally yet from the POV of the HBB, it might as well not exist.From their perspective, why should they, as it’s just another lobbying group.
markjohnobrien wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 10:11amFair enough - understand now. Your point is that they are particularly ineffective, not good at raising awareness, and useless as being seen as a key, strategic partner who is a key consultee. Policy capture, which other lobbying groups are brilliant at, doesn’t happen for Cycling UK.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 10:08amMy point is that they don't. Had they been going to do anything involving motor traffic, especially a prolonged ban of a class of vehicle, I'd be pretty sure that the relevant haulage / driving interests would have been consulted about what was planned or notified were there no time for consulation. Now, cUK presents itself as the national representative of cyclists generally yet from the POV of the HBB, it might as well not exist.From their perspective, why should they, as it’s just another lobbying group.
markjohnobrien wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 10:14amAghhh- damn iPhone messed up my reply.markjohnobrien wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 10:11amFair enough - understand now. Your point is that they are particularly ineffective, not good at raising awareness, and useless as being seen as a key, strategic partner who is a key consultee. Policy capture, which other lobbying groups are brilliant at, doesn’t happen for Cycling UK.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 10:08am
My point is that they don't. Had they been going to do anything involving motor traffic, especially a prolonged ban of a class of vehicle, I'd be pretty sure that the relevant haulage / driving interests would have been consulted about what was planned or notified were there no time for consulation. Now, cUK presents itself as the national representative of cyclists generally yet from the POV of the HBB, it might as well not exist.
Don't let the dead get in the way of another opportunity to knock CUK, reflect on that.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 6:29am Perhaps one thing to reflect on here is that the relevant authorities don't seem to see cUK as significant.
I'm sorry if it came across like that, although I make no secret of having opposed the charity conversion and so on.PH wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 11:43amDon't let the dead get in the way of another opportunity to knock CUK, reflect on that.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 6:29am Perhaps one thing to reflect on here is that the relevant authorities don't seem to see cUK as significant.
Yes, I've read that on stations, things as seemingly unconnected as the orientation of the seating can make a difference. If seating is perpendicular to rather than facing the tracks, it seems to reduce the number of suicides: requires just that little bit more conviction to launch yourself, I guess.millimole wrote: ↑10 Apr 2021, 8:59pmA family member who has a little knowledge of this type of thing suggests that potential suicide individuals will demonstrate behaviour that indicates their intent. Their experience is on railway stations, and apparently these souls are relatively easy to spot by their behaviour.mjr wrote:Maybe I shouldn't post this, but how will CCTV help? Can the bridge workers run/drive from their posts quick enough to reach a jumper?KTHSullivan wrote: ↑10 Apr 2021, 6:40pm but I understand from this evenings report that the Bridge Authority are intending to install some further CCTV before that happens.
I'd imagine that seeing someone walking purposefully walking over the bridge would be something of a 'green flag', but someone dithering uncertainly might be a warning sign.
OK, but you could just as easily made that point without the party politics, the criticism of the bridge authority is that they haven't given pedestrians and cyclists due consideration. While there's something in that, it's an attitude that predates CUK by many decades. You might reflect on how this situation came about, and why the country hasn't had an effective organisation that stopped that attitude becoming so prevalent, but this isn't the thread for it.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 12:18pmI'm sorry if it came across like that, although I make no secret of having opposed the charity conversion and so on.PH wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 11:43amDon't let the dead get in the way of another opportunity to knock CUK, reflect on that.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 6:29am Perhaps one thing to reflect on here is that the relevant authorities don't seem to see cUK as significant.
And that's just the point I was trying to make when I wrote that the CTC was not a statutory consultee for traffic regulation orders. FWIW, I have a bit of personal experience of that. When I started as a CRN rep, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed (as if) I quickly discovered that I was only finding out about schemes too late. With the help of highwaymen in the newly-created section to promote cycling, I got myself on the automatic consultation list for all Leeds TROs. A bit of an eye-opener because eg every individual on-road parking place for a disabled driver (outside their own house) involves a TRO. But the blunderbuss approach meant I got everything - even though the important spending decisions had been made years even decades before.... it's an attitude that predates CUK by many decades. ..
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/199 ... gulation/6Consultation
6.—(1) An order making authority shall, before making an order in a case specified in column (2) of an item in the table below, consult the persons specified in column (3) of the item.
( ... )
7. All cases
(a) The Freight Transport Association
(b) The Road Haulage Association
(c) Such other organisations (if any) representing persons likely to be affected by any provision in the order as the order making authority thinks it appropriate to consult
The problem is not that they see CUK as insignificant it is that they see cyclists as insignificant.thirdcrank wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 6:29am Perhaps one thing to reflect on here is that the relevant authorities don't seem to see cUK as significant.