Woman jailed for 4 Years for knocking down a cyclist while texting and driving.

[Darbees]

Tens of thousands killed each year. I think you need to check your figures again:

 

These figures are from the BBC website for 2006:

 

According to the Department for Transport, in 1930 there were only 2.3 million motor vehicles in Great Britain, but more than 7,000 people were killed in road accidents.

 

In contrast nowadays there are more vehicles but fewer deaths - there are more than 27 million vehicles and 3,180 people were killed in the 12 months to March this year, provisional results show.

Yes, meaning that proportionately there were 30 times more deaths on the roads before which, considering how congested but faster (when they get chance) cars are is quite an improvement.

[Zamo]

Tens of thousands killed each year. I think you need to check your figures again:

 

These figures are from the BBC website for 2006:

 

According to the Department for Transport, in 1930 there were only 2.3 million motor vehicles in Great Britain, but more than 7,000 people were killed in road accidents.

 

In contrast nowadays there are more vehicles but fewer deaths - there are more than 27 million vehicles and 3,180 people were killed in the 12 months to March this year, provisional results show.

 

OK, so motor cars kill 'only' 3,000 people each year in Great Britain. And how many people did your stats show as being injured? And I believe that the annual insurance payout tops £1bn each year doesn't it? Just remind us... how does this compare to cyclists?

 

There is simply NO comparison between cyclists and motorist in terms of damage, death and injury caused. As such there is no need, no point, no business case for imposing the same conditions of the use on a bike as there is a car.

[Zaytsev]

OK, so motor cars kill 'only' 3,000 people each year in Great Britain. And how many people did your stats show as being injured? And I believe that the annual insurance payout tops £1bn each year doesn't it? Just remind us... how does this compare to cyclists?

 

There is simply NO comparison between cyclists and motorist in terms of damage, death and injury caused. As such there is no need, no point, no business case for imposing the same conditions of the use on a bike as there is a car.

 

I'm not having a go, as a Motorcyclist I know only too well how dangerous the roads can be with semi comatose drivers at the wheel but I do object to emotive language such as 'killing machines' and wildly inaccurate figures being bandied about to justify a position on either side.

 

As for imposing the same conditions on cyclists as cars or even motorbikes I agree with you, however where I disagree is that they should follow the rules of the road and one of the most important rules has to be not going through red lights.

[Zamo]

I'm not having a go, as a Motorcyclist I know only too well how dangerous the roads can be with semi comatose drivers at the wheel but I do object to emotive language such as 'killing machines' and wildly inaccurate figures being bandied about to justify a position on either side.

 

As for imposing the same conditions on cyclists as cars or even motorbikes I agree with you, however where I disagree is that they should follow the rules of the road and one of the most important rules has to be not going through red lights.

 

Fair enough. I guess it comes down to what effort and expense you go to to make cyclist follow the rules. I really don't think there's much more to be done. There is simply no business case for imposing compulsory training, testing, licencing, taxing, insuring, safety equipment wearing etc on cyclists.

[Zaytsev]

Fair enough. I guess it comes down to what effort and expense you go to to make cyclist follow the rules. I really don't think there's much more to be done. There is simply no business case for imposing compulsory training, testing, licencing, taxing, insuring, safety equipment wearing etc on cyclists.

 

Absolutely agree, but when an incident occurs like the case of the orignal link I posted a moments reflection on the cause needs to be taken rather than the rabid 'cars are killing machines' rants that appear. The only killing machine was the vacuous bint at the wheel.

 

I do think the use of helmets may be should be compulsory, although I have seen arguments against I don't know the satistics for the number killed as a result of wearing a helmet as against those that were definitely saved.

[531c]

I can't see why you are making this hypothesis without the red light. The cyclist has made an error of judgement by going against the red light, making the fatal decision to compromise his own safety on the basis that no one other than himself would be breaking the law, of course he didn't deserve to die for making such a misjudgement. At the same time the woman was also compromising safety by speeding and texting and the actions of both of these people and the bad luck that the combination of those factors and the coincidence that they met at same point in a fraction of a second together lead to the accident. Without just one of those factors it probably would not have happened and we wouldn't all be over analysing it here looking for blame. They were both to blame in different degrees but sadly the one least to blame paid the highest price.

 

I didn't make a hypothesis. I described a few hypothetical situations. And the point was to show how one broken rule (cycling through a red light with care and attention) isn't even the same sport as another (50% over the speed limit or texting while driving). I realise there are some people who will either never think about it enough to understand the point or will never concede it because they have their opinion and nobody is going to change it.

 

Someone else has quoted some road accident stats. Here are some more from 2006: -

 

killed: 3,172

seriously injured: 28,673

children killed or seriously injured: 3,294

 

Cars are the cause of the vast majority of these accidents and the hundreds of thousands of less serious ones.

 

The point has been well made a number of times that cyclists rarely kill or seriously injur anyone. This should be the first consideration when the bogus subject of cycle third pary insurance, MOTs, licenses and the other half baked chestnuts that have been tossed into this thread come up. Thankfully, so far, the politicians who have ever considered it have looked at the evidence, recognised that cyclists pose virtually no risk to other road users and have had more sense than to listen to the knee jerk complaining of a few frustrated people who see cyclists 'breaking the rules' and lose the plot.

[Zaytsev]

I didn't make a hypothesis. I described a few hypothetical situations. And the point was to show how one broken rule (cycling through a red light with care and attention) isn't even the same sport as another (50% over the speed limit or texting while driving). I realise there are some people who will either never think about it enough to understand the point or will never concede it because they have their opinion and nobody is going to change it.

 

Someone else has quoted some road accident stats. Here are some more from 2006: -

 

killed: 3,172

seriously injured: 28,673

children killed or seriously injured: 3,294

 

Cars are the cause of the vast majority of these accidents and the hundreds of thousands of less serious ones.

 

The point has been well made a number of times that cyclists rarely kill or seriously injur anyone. This should be the first consideration when the bogus subject of cycle third pary insurance, MOTs, licenses and the other half baked chestnuts that have been tossed into this thread come up. Thankfully, so far, the politicians who have ever considered it have looked at the evidence, recognised that cyclists pose virtually no risk to other road users and have had more sense than to listen to the knee jerk complaining of a few frustrated people who see cyclists 'breaking the rules' and lose the plot.

 

There you go again, how do you know the car is the cause, please provide proof.

[sccsux]

how do know the car is the cause

 

He doesn't, and his ascertion is wrong.

 

People are the cause of the vast majority of these accidents and the hundreds of thousands of less serious ones.

[Slurper]

The point has been well made a number of times that cyclists rarely kill or seriously injur anyone. This should be the first consideration when the bogus subject of cycle third pary insurance, MOTs, licenses and the other half baked chestnuts that have been tossed into this thread come up. Thankfully, so far, the politicians who have ever considered it have looked at the evidence, recognised that cyclists pose virtually no risk to other road users and have had more sense than to listen to the knee jerk complaining of a few frustrated people who see cyclists 'breaking the rules' and lose the plot.

Aside from worthless and unrelated statistics, the fact remains that cyclists DO cause accidents, and cyclists DO cause damage to cars.

 

Now, I haven't use a pedal cycle for years, but if I still did I'd want to be insured for my own protection. Imagine causing a fatal accident and being forced to pay up for the rest of your life – just because insurance for bicycles isn’t a legal requirement doesn’t mean that a cyclist wouldn’t be responsible for his actions.

 

Similarly, if a cyclist caused damage to my car – however slight – I’d pursue him for compensation. If he were penniless and uninsured I’d have him in court and paying a pound a week as a matter of principle, as well as arranging unpleasant anonymous visitors to his house.

 

We’re all responsible for our actions on the roads – and cyclists are not excluded from that, with or without insurance.

[Zamo]

He doesn't, and his ascertion is wrong.

 

People are the cause of the vast majority of these accidents and the hundreds of thousands of less serious ones.

 

Note the word he used was "caused".

 

The deaths, the injuries and the damage where caused by cars. So, for example, this cyclists death was 'caused' by 1.5 tons of metal (otherwise known as a car) smashing into him, shattering his body and no doubt leaving bits of brain all over the place. This is a fairly typical of an impact between human and car.

 

On the other hand. When a human collides with another human, or a cyclist, the damage is normally limited and almost never fatal. Spot the difference yet?

 

The 'blame' may not always lie with the motorists but the "cause" of the death, injury, damage is the car. This makes cars a dangerous form of transport and it is why there is a need for tests, licences, MOT's, insurance etc, etc. It isn't a requirement for bicycles for the simple reason it isn't needed, wouldn't achieve anything and would be a waste of time and money trying to enforce.

 

Understand?