UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters

[Linas.P]

10 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Thanks

In 2016 there were 1792 road deaths of which 102 were cyclists. 18477 cyclists were Injured (many more as all don't get reported)

In 2016  3 people were killed by cyclists....did you read that.....that was THREE

 

If you are seriously making an issue out of these figures and claiming the law is skewed then as I said you have a disproportionate issue with other legitimate road users.

And you comparing apples with oranges... + do not adjust for usage. 

1792, that is total number killed including those 3 killed by cyclists and doesn't even mean it was fault of driver. These will include people jumping of the bridges onto motorway, drivers dying from heart attacks etc. The statistics for actual numbers of death caused by drivers at fault is very hard to come by, obviously everyone like to quote the total number because that helps the narrative (regardless of how tiny it is compared to other causes).

For example I have found that in Scotland there were 31 death caused by dangerous or careless driving in 2016, during the same period total road deaths were 175. I cannot find same statistics for UK, but I just want you to understand that 1792 is not people killed by drivers.

Anyway - do you agree that one should receive same prison sentence for killing the person, regardless of what they used to kill?

[Guest]

I would also add that this thread has been heavily moderated. Posts have disappeared yet posts are still being quoted by a certain poster.
If you want to read a balanced debate on the issue of speed - then clearly you won't see it here !

Yes this is the Lexus Orwellian Club :)



Sent from my BV5800 using Tapatalk

[Guest]

Makes you wonder why other countries seem to be so far ahead in implementing new road technology eg smart roads,smart cameras etc etc lol [emoji16]

Yeah I mean its best to catch them pesky people driving 1 mph too fast rather than say...... Police with no driving licence?

http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/562255/article/2019-04-02/implique-dans-un-accident-le-policier-municipal-n-avait-plus-de-points-sur-son

Sent from my BV5800 using Tapatalk

[doog442]

15 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

And you comparing apples with oranges... + do not adjust for usage. 

1792, that is total number killed including those 3 killed by cyclists and doesn't even mean it was fault of driver. These will include people jumping of the bridges onto motorway, drivers dying from heart attacks etc. The statistics for actual numbers of death caused by drivers at fault is very hard to come by, obviously everyone like to quote the total number because that helps the narrative (regardless of how tiny it is compared to other causes).

For example I have found that in Scotland there were 31 death caused by dangerous or careless driving in 2016, during the same period total road deaths were 175. I cannot find same statistics for UK, but I just want you to understand that 1792 is not people killed by drivers.

Anyway - do you agree that one should receive same prison sentence for killing the person, regardless of what they used to kill?

Home Office statistics are quite accurate. Hell I used to spend a stupid amount of time filling them out back in the day!

 

For your Information  the Road Traffic Act states (I've lifted it hence some of the quotations)

owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which—

(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(b)damage is caused—

(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

 

Theres is no grey area Linas ..The onus is on the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

 

That said , you are comparing someone sat in the seat of a 2000kg steel cage capable of a minimum of 90 / 100 MPH with someone sat on a 10Kg bicycle. 

You then have the temerity to state everything should be equal.

 

 

 

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, doog442 said:

That said , you are comparing someone sat in the seat of a 2000kg steel cage capable of a minimum of 90 / 100 MPH with someone sat on a 10Kg bicycle. 

You then have the temerity to state everything should be equal.

No - it is you who compares "someone sat in the seat of a 2000kg steel cage with someone sat on a 10Kg bicycle" i.e. the "tool".

What I am comparing is death with death i.e. the result.

[doog442]

25 minutes ago, Comedian said:

Yes this is the Lexus Orwellian Club 🙂



Sent from my BV5800 using Tapatalk
 

I'm absolutely in favour of keeping the core values of the forum alive. However I had a post removed for suggesting a certain poster had an an inherent dislike of slower moving vehicles, No bad language, no offensive remarks..

The same poster has demonstrated my point in its entirety tonight 😉  

[doog442]

4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

No - it is you who compares "someone sat in the seat of a 2000kg steel cage with someone sat on a 10Kg bicycle" i.e. the "tool".

What I am comparing is death with death i.e. the result.

The tool 🤣

Its a bike mate.and in a population of 65 million 3 people lost their life as a result of a collision with said 'tool' .....more people died falling over and banging there head or falling off a ladder.

There is no comparison so forget it 😉 

 

Last week some 'tool' in his van nearly wiped me out. Sat in his steel cage he had the cheek to tell me to stop swearing at him for nearly killing me. Yeah mate.

 

 

 

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, doog442 said:

I'm absolutely in favour of keeping the core values of the forum alive. However I had a post removed for suggesting a certain poster had an an inherent dislike of slower moving vehicles, No bad language, no offensive remarks..

The same poster has demonstrated my point in its entirety tonight 😉  

Not sure what is your problem with me asking for cyclists to be treated same as motorists when it comes to rules and laws?

Secondly, as per your previous post - "onus on the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle" is not the same as driver of such vehicle being at fault. For example, there were 337 fatalities on the railways, but how many train drivers were at fault of that?

https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/39103/rail-safety-statistics-2017-18.pdf

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, doog442 said:

.....more people died falling over and banging there head or falling off a ladder.

Yes - falls killed more people than all road casualties... period. when we are planning to ban ladders? 

[doog442]

1 minute ago, Linas.P said:

Not sure what is your problem with me asking for cyclists to be treated same as motorists when it comes to rules and laws?

Secondly, as per your previous post - "onus on the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle" is not the same as driver of such vehicle being at fault. For example, there were 337 fatalities on the railways, but how many train drivers were at fault of that?

https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/39103/rail-safety-statistics-2017-18.pdf

That's suicide Linas....a different subject altogether. 

 

 

[Linas.P]

Just now, doog442 said:

That's suicide Linas....a different subject altogether. 

Not all deaths on tracks were suicides and by the way that is not even my point - the death occurring due to accidents on the road i.e. 1792 are not all drivers fault.

Yet you still cannot provide any reason why cyclist has to be treated any differently for causing death? 

[doog442]

11 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Not all deaths on tracks were suicides and by the way that is not even my point - the death occurring due to accidents on the road i.e. 1792 are not all drivers fault.

Yet you still cannot provide any reason why cyclist has to be treated any differently for causing death? 

Most were suicides. Trains dont randomly run over people because the driver gets impatient for example.

Why should cyclists get treated differently for causing death you ask? Such a massively rare occurrence that you are seemingly using to deflect the issue here.

I've noticed you are saying cyclists 'causing death' when you have totally smudged and minimalised road deaths, almost refusing to accept they happen and not least due to speed. 

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, doog442 said:

I've noticed you are saying cyclists 'causing death' when you have totally smudged and minimalised road deaths

That article specifically quoted "killed by cyclists", that implies fault of cyclists. Rather than "died as result of being hit by cyclists", which would imply it could have been fault of pedestrians themselves.

How many death on roads were suicides? 

Why don't you want to answer simple question - why cyclist has to be treated differently for causing death?

[doog442]

15 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Why don't you want to answer simple question - why cyclist has to be treated differently for causing death?

I've never said they should be treated differently ? 

The Law decides that Linas (not the made up law you quoted earlier I'm afraid pal ) and the reason the law decides that is that unlike you they can differentiate  between someone getting on a bike and someone getting in a car. 

How many cyclists were done for speeding last year ? (You see I can throw some daft statistic into the equation just to divert the issue)

 

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, doog442 said:

I've never said they should be treated differently?

How many cyclists were done for speeding last year? 

But as a matter of fact they are... why law should "differentiate the difference" - are you saying promoting cyclist is good enough reason to allow cyclists to act in the way which would be punishable offence for anyone else? What happened with notion that everyone should be treated equally by the law?

Or you simply acknowledging fact that the law discriminates motorists?... in which case I agree.

As for speeding... probably not a single one, because most are simply not capable to reach posted speed, never mind exceed it. That is part of the problem perhaps why...

31 minutes ago, doog442 said:

 the driver gets impatient for example

How many were done for jumping red lights vs. how many actually jumped red lights? 

[doog442]

10 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

But as a matter of fact they are... why law should "differentiate the difference" - are you saying promoting cyclist is good enough reason to allow cyclists to act in the way which would be punishable offence for anyone else? What happened with notion that everyone should be treated equally by the law?

Or you simply acknowledging fact that the law discriminates motorists?... in which case I agree.

 

There is a massive difference between the responsibilities of someone getting on a bike or behind the wheel of a car, a 45 ton HGV or if you really want to take it further piloting a plane or commanding a 100,000 ton oil tanker.  

Even you must accept that your capacity to cause Injury, death or damage is massively increased in a car. There are numerous cycling offences available out there, seemingly not the one you insist on simply to make a point based on three deaths. 

Also don't lump all cyclists into the same pot - you appear very black and white on the issue. Cycling is a transport of choice across the social spectrum. Some members of this spectrum don't give a toss about the law.

As for jumping red lights. Yeah of course no motorist ever does that but by god should a cyclist do it then hell shall rain down on the bloke.

 

 

[Linas.P]

30 minutes ago, doog442 said:

There is a massive difference between the responsibilities of someone getting on a bike or behind the wheel of a car, a 45 ton HGV or if you really want to take it further piloting a plane or commanding a 100,000 ton oil tanker.  

Even you must accept that your capacity to cause Injury, death or damage is massively increased in a car. There are numerous cycling offences available out there, seemingly not the one you insist on simply to make a point based on three deaths. 

Also don't lump all cyclists into the same pot - you appear very black and white on the issue. Cycling is a transport of choice across the social spectrum. Some members of this spectrum don't give a toss about the law.

As for jumping red lights. Yeah of course no motorist ever does that but by god should a cyclist do it then hell shall rain down on the bloke.

Indeed there is a difference in likelihood of causing damage on bicycle compared with a car. However, at least in my opinion when damage is caused the responsibility for the accident should be the same. As said before causing death is causing death regardless how you caused it... maybe more relevant example would be simple scrape across the side of the other car?! If I scrape the side a car and cause £300 damage to the door (say, there is scratch and door needs to be painted), then there is no difference if I scraped it in another car, on the motorbike, on the bicycle or in 12ton truck? Right? 

When it comes to lumping cyclist into the same pot - how it is different from lumping motorists into one pot? However, if you observe busy intersection I am sure you will find that there will be 1 car per hour jumping red lights and perhaps 3 cyclists every second. Obviously, the numbers are just an example, but cyclist jumping lights are so common... it doesn't seems to be considered an offence anymore, certainly it is not enforced in anyway. And yes not every cyclist jumps every light, but most cyclists jumps most lights... maybe that is just in London... I haven't observed lights anywhere else.

"Cycling is a transport of choice across the social spectrum." - well that spectrum represents 1% of population and is often referred to as "Lycra warriors" and before somebody claims any offence points - "Lycra warriors" are official cycling team name and the name used by cyclists themselves. Other one is "Mamil"... Anyhow - average cyclist in London is very different from say ones in Copenhagen. It is often more about "making a point" and not just commuting... I think that is because the laws are partial and when you are almost untouchable by the law I understand there is temptation to take a **** from everyone else. That is why I think the law and the rules should be made equal - in many ways that would help cycling culture as well.

One other point... and probably more related to the topic - extra training for drivers is needed as well. And it is hard one, because it is not "technical" training which is lacking... is is kind of culture which currently very poor in UK compared to most other European countries. It is very hard to judge, but for me it feels British drivers are generally too relaxed and ignorant. Is not that people don't know the rules, but somehow many are not bother to really follow them. Even simple things like indicating, changing the lanes where appropriate, making sure other driver is letting you in when changing lanes or pulling in.

Maybe a way is to have more police on the roads, pulling people over for minor infractions and giving warnings... I don't know maybe that is the way? Because now people are basically driving from "camera to camera" i.e. when it comes passing speed camera they temporarily behave themselves and then continue driving as they pleased.. 

That.. I think it would be more useful then implementing "smart" speed limiters... 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, doog442 said:

I'm absolutely in favour of keeping the core values of the forum alive. However I had a post removed for suggesting a certain poster had an an inherent dislike of slower moving vehicles, No bad language, no offensive remarks..

 

I agree 100% 

 

[Guest]

I used to be in the CTC (Cycling touring club) when I was young and we were also taught "cycling proficiency" and road safety at school.

As far as I know these practical things are no longer taught in the rush to obtain a higher position on the examination results charts.

There is also a societal shift towards a lack of personal responsibility, not accepting blame, a fear of failure and lack of trying to just be a good citizen by treating everyone decently. 

This starts at the top and flows all the way through TV, schools, social media and ends up with an angry population suffering mass cognitive dissonance. 

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Comedian said:

I used to be in the CTC (Cycling touring club) when I was young and we were also taught "cycling proficiency" and road safety at school.

As far as I know these practical things are no longer taught in the rush to obtain a higher position on the examination results charts.

There is also a societal shift towards a lack of personal responsibility, not accepting blame, a fear of failure and lack of trying to just be a good citizen by treating everyone decently. 

This starts at the top and flows all the way through TV, schools, social media and ends up with an angry population suffering mass cognitive dissonance. 

Same here, when I started attending primary school we had what would roughly translate into "safety on the streets" class... bear in mind we were allowed to commute to the schools on our own... being supervised by parents after 1st week was considered shameful. I remember kids literally being bullied for it i.e. "you cry baby, your parents still walks you to the school". I think we had safety class as very first thing when we started the school and then it was once a month for the first year and it would be various activity related to the topic, but adapted to kids, like watching a film explaining dangers on the road and how to act properly, or we would have police officer to come and talk with us, or visit "road safety museum" or finally filling some kids test on road safety. Simple things overall, like graphically showing the injuries to catch kids attention, or explaining to look around when crossing the street, do not run over pedestrian crossings, stop for a second before stepping onto pedestrian crossing to see if cars are slowing down for you (especially true in the dark and unlit roads), wear reflective accessories, dismount from the bicycle when crossing pedestrian crossing etc. etc. 

Literally, I don't think that here people realise they have any responsibilities when it comes to road safety - everything is drivers fault and pedestrians/cyclists have no responsibilities to stay safe themselves.

Later we had safety training for cycling, because I believe there used to be a law that you are only allowed to cycle on the road if you 18 and have secondary education or if you are 14 and have safety training... it was mandatory. I know in UK you can still have "cycling proficiency" training, but it is optional.

When it comes to drivers licenses - yes training it is not enough, but on the other hand if there any place to put the blame - drivers seems to be the only ones who have mandatory training at all. How anyone expects this to work when half of the road users have no formal training at all?!

I feel that early training and basically "indoctrination" of the sense that "road is not a playground" later reflects on the driving culture as well i.e. culture is set, getting driving license only gives you technical knowledge of what signs means etc. 

[Guest]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-47798168

If only there were more cameras on the M55 to save these poor people!

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 

I feel that early training and basically "indoctrination" of the sense that "road is not a playground" later reflects on the driving culture as well i.e. culture is set, getting driving license only gives you technical knowledge of what signs means etc. 

I was captain of the primary school road safety quiz team. However, I do not use this as authority over others 

[Linas.P]

10 minutes ago, Comedian said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-47798168

If only there were more cameras on the M55 to save these poor people!

nooooo... the intelligent speed limiter, which would have prevented them going over 70MPH... that would have helped a lot. Because, I am sure everyone were doing 128MPH on that snow.. hence carnage!

[doog442]

8 hours ago, Comedian said:

I used to be in the CTC (Cycling touring club) when I was young and we were also taught "cycling proficiency" and road safety at school.

As far as I know these practical things are no longer taught in the rush to obtain a higher position on the examination results charts.

There is also a societal shift towards a lack of personal responsibility, not accepting blame, a fear of failure and lack of trying to just be a good citizen by treating everyone decently. 

This starts at the top and flows all the way through TV, schools, social media and ends up with an angry population suffering mass cognitive dissonance. 

The CTC is still going strong btw. Their forum ( recently renamed Cycling UK forum) is in many ways similar to this place. Its mainly full of enthusiasts who simply want to go about their life unmolested by motorists who think they have a divine right to 'own the road'.

I agree about personal responsibility or lack of it. 95% of my many thousands of cycling miles a year are fine, with no confrontation. However there will always, without fail be the motorist who sees a cyclist ahead and their first thought is simply to get by them. Likewise there are cyclists with a similar mindset with role reversal in heavy traffic situations.

I had to google your last word (despite an O level grade B ) and having done so, thoroughly agree. 

[Guest]

...............and here it is - the real reason to install tracking technology

GPS = Global POSITIONING system

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/new-fuel-tax-annual-road-toll/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CHUB_INSUR_A_W1_2019-04-03_160446_10175219&cid=eml-email-CHUB_INSUR_A_W1_2019-04-03_160446_10175219-Drive_NL_INSU_1st_Feature