Cycling UK Forum

Bubsy wrote:

skidd wrote:The Times has launched a campaign for safer cycling. see http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3306502.ece This thread is to discuss it. I am fascinated by the issues surrounding transport, and percieve that although the motives may be admirable, the methodology is fundamentaly flawed, a bit like drawing up legislation in 1780 to be nice to slaves, as opposed to treating all humans with respect, and offering them all the same chances.

There is no getting away from the cold fact that in a typical year 100 cyclists will die in 'accidents' with cars, and no car drivers will die in 'accidents' with bikes. Until such time as we adopted a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach to transport casualties, favouring the more vulnerable users, we will always have a slew of fatalities where the dead cannot defend themselves. This approach is fundamental to continental approaches. People don't just cycle in Holland 'cos it's flat. (30 counties in this country are flatter). People cycle because cyclists are not treated like second class citizens to be patronised.

I couldn't agree more; driving is utterly selfish and dangerous, and those who are irresponsible enough to do it should only be allowed to do it on the basis that any collision is automatically their fault. I would actually go further than "guilty until proven innocent"; I don't think you can be "innocent" as a motorist. If you collide with a cyclist, then, whatever they may or may not have done leading up to the collision, the collision is invariably your fault, because you're the one who chose to go speeding around in two tons of metal cage when you didn't need to. As with slavery and everything else of that ilk, there is always a more responsible and humane alternative to motoring, and those who claim otherwise are just making excuses to give themselves a lazier and easier life at the direct expense of others, which I find totally deplorable.

The only reason we don't all see motoring as barkingly, madly dangerous is because it is so widely practised and accepted. (This is almost always the case where you find otherwise reasonable and respectable people doing something fundamentally unreasonable; take religion as another example.) Those of us who are more enlightened, and are able to think independently, owe it to all road users to set about changing this terrible perception which causes so many thousands of completely avoidable and senseless deaths. In the meantime, until we can educate everyone, we need to discourage motoring as much as possible by creating new offences, extending existing ones (e.g. by lowering speed limits and bringing in more speed cameras), and coming down very, very hard on infringements (we need much more in the way of instant lifetime bans, 4-figure and 5-figure fines, and prison sentences). We need to close the motorways, narrow other roads (where this would not endanger cyclists), and generally be as much of a pain to drivers as we possibly can, and we shouldn't be ashamed of doing so. This approach ought to force drivers to consider cycling, even where they are too selfish to do so because of mere "unimportant" reasons like not being a lethal danger to vulnerable, legitimate road users.

Sorry if I'm ranting, but it's a subject which I feel very strongly and passionately about. Every time I go cycling or walking, it makes me incredibly angry to see all those cars speeding past, especially when you consider that so many journeys are under 2 miles in length. It's one of the very worst things about today's society IMO.

Yes, it's disgraceful, isn't it, my elderly disabled parents driving to us to see their grandchildren when they could cycle the 40 miles. Or we could, with children of 7,5 and 3.

You've really not thought this through except with your spleen.

Bubsy wrote: I couldn't agree more; driving is utterly selfishand dangerous and those who are irresponsible enough to do it should only be allowed to do it on the basis that any collision is automatically their fault.

No, driving isn't selfish at all, it is very often a necessary mode of transport due to many factors that have developed in society, it can be dangerous and sometimes is, the majority of it isn't. To call those people who choose to drive or have to drive a motor vehicle irresponsible is really way off.

Bubsy wrote: there is always a more responsible and humane alternative to motoring, and those who claim otherwise are just making excuses to give themselves a lazier and easier life at the direct expense of others, which I find totally deplorable.

You have not thought that through very well, there are hundreds of situations that do not apply (see last post above as one example)

Bubsy wrote:The only reason we don't all see motoring as barkingly, madly dangerous is because it is so widely practised and accepted. (This is almost always the case where you find otherwise reasonable and respectable people doing something fundamentally unreasonable; take religion as another example.) Those of us who are more enlightened, and are able to think independently, owe it to all road users to set about changing this terrible perception which causes so many thousands of completely avoidable and senseless deaths. In the meantime, until we can educate everyone, we need to discourage motoring as much as possible by creating new offences, extending existing ones (e.g. by lowering speed limits and bringing in more speed cameras), and coming down very, very hard on infringements (we need much more in the way of instant lifetime bans, 4-figure and 5-figure fines, and prison sentences). We need to close the motorways, narrow other roads (where this would not endanger cyclists), and generally be as much of a pain to drivers as we possibly can, and we shouldn't be ashamed of doing so. This approach ought to force drivers to consider cycling, even where they are too selfish to do so because of mere "unimportant" reasons like not being a lethal danger to vulnerable, legitimate road users.

Sorry if I'm ranting, but it's a subject which I feel very strongly and passionately about. Every time I go cycling or walking, it makes me incredibly angry to see all those cars speeding past, especially when you consider that so many journeys are under 2 miles in length. It's one of the very worst things about today's society IMO.

I agree with you to an extent on people's perception, it often only becomes an issue when it affects them directly, however one does not need to be 'enlightened' to think independently, education and enforcement will change the way people think about the dangers driving presents. That said your suggestion that people receive life bans from driving is utterly ridiculous and in a civilised society not acceptable. I agree that some people should be fined heavily and in cases proven that a driver caused harm then prison sentences should be very seriously considered, that decision would have to be taken with due consideration for the impact it has as a whole not just willy nilly throwing people in jail.
The monetary cost to some does not have the same impact as a temperary loss of license or even a short visit at her majesty's pleasure and given a big fine for someone who is clearly not able to pay it makes handing out 4 or 5 figure fines nonsensical.

As for your comments about closing motorways, you are really beyond the bounds of logic and reality, also narrowing roads makes damn sure cyclists are put in more danger, you can't 'force' people to cycle, education and encouraging local people to work in their local area as well as looking at other ways of reducing workforce migration has to be the way to go.

Sorry but your rant is more like deluded hatred for all things with a combustion engine and every person that drives them, you clearly haven't thought through the impact of pretty much eveything you wrote.

rootes wrote:
just pleasing to see the power of big media... and the attention it can focus also shows that The Times knows how to run a campaign and get in public eye.

- the CTC should learn from them (that is me speaking as a member as well).


Rootes - I am sure we could and it would be great to have their resources. However, dont underestimate the support that CTC officers have given the Times journalists in preparing their campaign and shaping most of the 8 points. a lot of this is down to Roger Geffen. Cycling Weekly covers this well in today's edition

Really? I thought a number of the 8 points were out of step with the CTC normal campaigns.

Good if they did help out though. But overall not been too impressed with the style of CTC campaigning - seem to spend more time talking to people whp are already cyclists i.e. preaching to the converted but when dealing with the general populous make us out to be a group apart.. that is wrong.

"Sorry but your rant is more like deluded hatred for all things with a combustion engine and every person that drives them, you clearly haven't thought through the impact of pretty much eveything you wrote."

Why do people always say 'clearly' when what they are suggesting is not clear at all? Having read Busby's posts I tend to think he has thought a deal about the impact of what he was saying, to the extent of apologising! He is, however, largely correct. Restraint of motoring reduces motoring. The motorist gets a two for one deal at the moment, for every kilometre they drive they get a free kilometre paid for by society in general. The vast majority of people who drive are selfish. They may be sweet, kind, upstanding members of society, but in this aspect of their lives they are selfish, they perform an activity which has more costs to society than benefits. Call it evil, call it naughty, call it innefficient, call it what you like, but without doubt a rationalisation of costs would lead to massive social benefits. Failing that restraint is a better option than doing nothing.

And the Grandparents living 40 miles away and driving is a perfect example of selfish behaviour, perhaps on the part of the party who moved 40 miles away in the first place. And while we are at it, cycling 40 miles with 3 young kids can be done. It would help if they were not threatened with death by collision six times a minute, not have to constantly breath in 8 of the 9 air pollutants of greatest concern to the EC, could ride three abreast like their mates in 4x4s, could listen to their ipods and/or conversations without being drowned out, without suffering abuse from fat blokes for cheap petrol, without having to get snarled up in traffic jams, traffic lights, stops, junctions and turns created by and for car drivers, without having to drive in the detrius at the roadside, without having to endure the pitiful state of the roads at this moment in time, without speed humps and 'no cycling' signs and without being refused at MacDonalds drive throughs.

Deaths 2009: Cyclists 100, Drivers 0
Sentencing: Drivers; practically insignificant.

How many deaths would it take to make you consider hatred non-deluded?? Come on, 1000? A Million? 101?

The problem is that the vast majority of cyclists, including most here, also drive.

So yes, driving may be selfish, but it's a selfishness practised by most of us. Most of us have not overcome the practical difficulties of modern life without a car. Many of us may not even want to.

Equally, we all eat more than our fair share of the world's food, and use more than our fair share of other resources. Even if I did live without a car, I'm not sure I'd be in a position to criticise other lifestyles.

So I'm not sure that an us vs them approach helps, when most of us are also part of them anyway. What helps more is to show why we have more fun, and are better off in health, financial and/or whatever other terms may matter to us, and how we can help more people to benefit in the way that we already do.

And demonstrating that 40 miles isn't really that far

I hope to collect my wife from hospital about a mile away, maybe I could find a way of taking her a bike in so that she can ride home. To do different would after all be totally selfish and cause the death of so many babies and untold species of living things causing the life of the planet to be shortened by how long?

Wait a minute she is in there with a broken back, I hate to think of the pollution of her having an operation or being paralyzed from trying to ride a bike.

But hey that's me selfish to the core.

skidd wrote:Deaths 2009: Cyclists 100, Drivers 0

If you are going to quote numbers try using the correct ones please. A ref helps as well. In 2009 104 cyclists were killed. 1059 car users were killed. I think you'll find some of them were the drivers.

Only 14 bus users were killed so if you are going to dictate behaviour on the numbers then you had better discourage driving and cycling and get everyone onto the buses. Of course what the numbers actually show is that given the billions of miles travelled our roads are actually very safe. Room for improvement of course but I'll take our system against any non motorised society I've ever heard of.


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... gb2009.pdf

Despite all the name calling there are some pertinent points.

We've all made lifestyle choices based on the ease with which we can jump in a car and get somewhere. We *know* that those choices are detrimental to society. Deep down we also know that it's unlikely those choices are sustainable.

I'm not sure it's correct to say people are selfish, but it's probably true to say we bury our heads when it suits.

irc wrote:

skidd wrote:Deaths 2009: Cyclists 100, Drivers 0

If you are going to quote numbers try using the correct ones please. A ref helps as well. In 2009 104 cyclists were killed. 1059 car users were killed. I think you'll find some of them were the drivers.

Only 14 bus users were killed so if you are going to dictate behaviour on the numbers then you had better discourage driving and cycling and get everyone onto the buses. Of course what the numbers actually show is that given the billions of miles travelled our roads are actually very safe. Room for improvement of course but I'll take our system against any non motorised society I've ever heard of.


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... gb2009.pdf

I imagine he was looking at the stats of cycle/motorvehicle collisions...

Thanks [XAP] Bob.

Of course I was talking about motorist cyclist collisions.

Good point Kwackers, though I hope we can agree to differ. I maintain it may be many negative things to call people selfish, but if they are selfish it is not incorrect.

Edwards. I not sure if your last post was aimed at me, but I for sure, and I would imagine all rational 'car haters', would certainly endorse the use of motor vehicles, but only when the external costs are internalised to the driver. That goes for any activity that is not a natural part of a normal existence. So you are welcome to use the car to pick your wife, kids or grandparents up, just pay the costs.

Drosall: Some parts of cycling are not more fun than driving, and that is wrong, because those least fun bits are not the rain, the wind and the hills, but the impact of motor vehicles and their drivers. All of them. Motorists costs are ecternalised and fall upon us (cyclists, pedestrians, animals, society in general and other motorists). On our Wakefield Met token cycling brochure it says something like 'Cycle For Fun and Enjoyment' on the front cover. I just wish it said 'Cycle to get from A to B quickly, cheaply, healthily and (most importantly) In safety'. If you want fun buy a monkey! (I hope I am not seeming to be rude to you here, your post is very good, but after 52 years of becoming ever more puzzled about collective human stupidity, six months in hospital, 12 months in a cast, A dead Grandmother, A dead nephew, a dead dog [and I mean my lovely faithfull friendly, loyal and treasured pet of 5 years], A local council and engineering department that don't give a flying feck about social welfare, a BBC which gives free rein to Jeremy Clarkson and a clunge of morons who believe it is a right and not a priveledge to drive a motor car and a society of which an uncomfortable number never see that the bike they will overtake within the next 20 secons is actually NOT a car they will not get past for three minutes I have to disagree. It us Us and Them) (And I drive!).

Irc: You are right about the ref, but I would supply it if questioned. Who wants a non-motorised society? I think I am endorsing a rationalisation of costs, and others are advocating restraint. It is a false dichotomy to suggest this argument is about all or nothing, it is not. But if it was I do believe their are many examples of non motorised societies which were quite the paradise compared to what we have now. Hey but we gave 'em all religion, alcohol, syphilis and smallpox - that's progress!

I do believe their are many examples of non motorised societies which were quite the paradise compared to what we have now.

Name one. From everything I've read most, if not all, pre-industrial societies had short human lifespans, hunger, disease, higher violent death rates etc. Anyone lucky enough to have been born in the late 20th century in the UK or a similar country won the lottery compared to any previous society I've heard of.

A random example from a R4 podcast I listened to last night - In the 1603 plague outbreak in London 20% of the population died.

irc wrote:

I do believe their are many examples of non motorised societies which were quite the paradise compared to what we have now.

Name one. From everything I've read most, if not all, pre-industrial societies had short human lifespans, hunger, disease, higher violent death rates etc. Anyone lucky enough to have been born in the late 20th century in the UK or a similar country won the lottery compared to any previous society I've heard of.

A random example from a R4 podcast I listened to last night - In the 1603 plague outbreak in London 20% of the population died.

I'm not sure confusing an improving technology with industrialisation or mobility of the workforce via private transport demonstrates anything worthwhile.
If the car hadn't been invented other technologies would have continued and the improvements you speak of would have happened anyway.

Cars have pulled a great trick on us. They've made themselves indispensable and so we praise them for their help. If they'd never existed we'd have done things differently and I reckon we'd be happier.

skidd wrote: a BBC which gives free rein to Jeremy Clarkson and a clunge of morons who believe it is a right and not a priveledge to drive a motor car

Big raps for getting 'clunge' on a cycling forum, not heard that in years though it seems to have resurfaced since the inbetweeners used it.. I'm guessing the mods and/or automated filter haven't a clue...lmao

kwackers wrote:I'm not sure confusing an improving technology with industrialisation or mobility of the workforce via private transport demonstrates anything worthwhile.
If the car hadn't been invented other technologies would have continued and the improvements you speak of would have happened anyway..

But the car was a consequence of other technologies you can't take the benefits of all modern technology then say "but I don't want the car". The car is the most practical invention that combines personal mobility over long distances, passenger and load carrying capacity and protection from weather. If it is available then people will choose to use it.

kwackers wrote:Cars have pulled a great trick on us. They've made themselves indispensable and so we praise them for their help. If they'd never existed we'd have done things differently and I reckon we'd be happier.

But they do exist so why shouldn't we enjoy their benefits?

I'm still waiting for someone to identify a non motorised society with a lifestyle of the quality we have in the Uk.

When your boiler breaks down would you mind putting it on your bike trailer and bringing it to me as the tools I require to fix it are too heavy / numerous to carry on my bike.

I'll fit it onto a test jig (at your expense), fix it, hand it back to you. Then you can take it home on your bike, refit it and relax in that lovely bath of hot water you now have.

Oh, whats that, it's the Gas Safe inspector at your door wanting to see if you are a competent person to touch gas and flues, damn, just as you were enjoying your first hot bath for 5 days and the bstard has ..... driven there as well.

etc etc etc