PeteM01 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 At the risk of repeating myself - in New Zealand the accident rate increased by 20% when they made it compulsory to wear cycle helmets. Don't tell Tommo that this was thought to be due to reduced numbers of cyclists on the roads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 So pedal cyclists it you want to use the public roads for more than pedestrians do then not only did you ought to contribute more than pedestrians do, you are the only road users that have money spent to cater soley for you with no extra contribution from you rerquired. Pedestrians, motorists, cyclists, we all contribute through general taxation. It's only been said about 25 times in this thread, I can see how you missed it. Hold on, pedestrians get pavements and roads, motorists get motorways. Cyclists get a few half assed bits of red paint. Sadly June 1st 1973 was when helmet wearing for motorcyclists was made compulsory no doubt much lobbying by the helmet producers was a contributory factor. It is inevitable pedalcyclists will have a similar compulsions soon, which will hopefully open the door to more. Fortunately you're wrong. You will also have to start obeying some legislation like proper road users have to; like licence plates, 3rd party insurance, proof of competence for yourselves like the CBT and road worthiness like the MoT for your pedal cycles and of course start complying with some safety legislation including compulsory helmets. Adults having to stay off pavements and pedestrian precincts would also be a welcome compulsion too. None of this is likely, or sensible. On the up side all those pedal cyclists having to get their hands in their pockets like other road users would no boubt provide a small boost to the economy, whilst discouraging the irresposible. . . I'll happily pay out £0.00 per day for using my bike. But I will of course be expecting £1.50 reimbursement for each day I don't use my car. I'd welcome intelligence and empathy tests for drivers. I realise that it might mean that many people have to stop driving, but it's a small price to pay IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achorste Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 When a thread is getting on for 50 pages worth of repetitive comments, then I suspect that could be said of most people! Fair point - maybe it needs to be stickied to the top of the forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Don't tell Tommo that this was thought to be due to reduced numbers of cyclists on the roads... I did put a post outlining this very point with a link to some research that supports this point of view. Here's the post It has been suggested that the fall in the number of people cycling that happened in New Zealand after the laws were passed and enforced vigorously, led to a lot less people cycling which in turn caused the higher accident rate. The research does seem to support the hypothesis that more cycling leads to a lower accident rate, or to put in another way. The more to barriers to cycling that you put up, the higher the accident rate is. I'm sure Tommo has taken all this in, but he's happy to ignore it as it'll take one of his sticks away that he uses to attack cyclists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM01 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I'd welcome intelligence and empathy tests for drivers. I realise that it might mean that many people have to stop driving, but it's a small price to pay IMO. I made that point several pages back: driving test examiners should have a copy of DSM-V to hand to check for personality disorders...the roads would be so much nicer to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 It is both rude and not a little ignorant when people misquote you to prove a point of their own or discredit you. . I said I would not be a witness on the behalf of THAT cyclist. Which is true I wouldn't. Given that I said that you had stated that you would turn a blind eye to a driver hitting a cyclist, and considering that "THAT cyclist", is "a cyclist", it's pretty clear that the only rudeness and ignorance is your assertion that I would begin a sentence with 9 commas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Oh dear, someone hasn't read all the previous posts about how the road system is funded, how cyclists reduce congestion for other road users, and how they pay disproportionately more for the roads than other road users. Please do not believe the old saying bullshi* baffles brains...it doesn't No matter how you might dress it up; Pedal cyclists contribute no more towards roads than pedestrians, other then the VAT on the purchase of their pedal cycle, which through some employers' schemes some of them pay very little for. Not including pedestrians and horse riders, through various compulsory charges and the taxation on fuels all road users other than pedalcyclists contribute far more to the state which in turn is used in part to maintain and build roads. Dress it up any way you like you can't change that simple fact. Pedalcyclists you alledge reduce road congestion for other road users. I would really like to see clear evidence of that. Because in my experience that is not the case. There is I admit often a lot of unused space in front of pedal cyclists, now if they had the manners to let people pass that might be a different matter, but as they often block access to it the road's lack of congestion is wasted. I see you did not comment on the fact that pedalcyclists in comparison to other road users make far more demands and have them met and have specifically designated space either taken from the existing highway or deliberately added for their almost sole use at great expense for which they make no extra contribution. . ---------- Post added 08-06-2015 at 19:19 ---------- .........it's pretty clear that the only rudeness and ignorance is your assertion that I would begin a sentence with 9 commas. What? FFS . . . ---------- Post added 08-06-2015 at 19:31 ---------- I do apologise for both missing this and not responding to it earlier Quote: It has been suggested that the fall in the number of people cycling that happened in New Zealand after the laws were passed and enforced vigorously, led to a lot less people cycling which in turn caused the higher accident rate. The research does seem to support the hypothesis that more cycling leads to a lower accident rate, or to put in another way. The more to barriers to cycling that you put up, the higher the accident rate is. I see someone is abusing statistics. By the logic implied in the post... If everyone only used pedalcycles on the roads there would be no accidents involving legitimate road users and cyclists. AND if there were no pedalcyclists on the road at all many more of them would be involved in accidents... but there wouldn't be any to be involved in accidents. I'll concede that there being no pedalcyclists on the roads would be a good thing but more of them being involed in accidents because they were not on the roads would probably still the fault of motorists in their somewhat blinkered view. . . Edited June 8, 2015 by Tommo68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 No matter how you might dress it up; Pedal cyclists contribute no more towards roads than pedestrians, other then the VAT on the purchase of their pedal cycle, which through some employers' schemes some of them pay very little for. Not including pedestrians and horse riders, through various compulsory charges and the taxation on fuels all road users other than pedalcyclists contribute far more to the state which in turn is used in part to maintain and build roads. Dress it up any way you like you can't change that simple fact. Pedalcyclists you alledge reduce road congestion for other road users. I would really like to see clear evidence of that. Because in my experience that is not the case. There is I admit often a lot of unused space in front of pedal cyclists, now if they had the manners to let people pass that might be a different matter, but as they often block access to it the road's lack of congestion is wasted. I see you did not comment on the fact that pedalcyclists in comparison to other road users make far more demands and have them met and have specifically designated space either taken from the existing highway or deliberately added for their almost sole use at great expense for which they make no extra contribution. You're (once again) ignoring the fact that most of the drivers who you claim aren't contributing have already paid VED etc and are using their cars less than they otherwise would. If you'd like to see clear evidence about the difference they make to congestion then I suggest you go for a drive tomorrow and let us know if it's a queue of bikes or a queue of cars you get stuck behind. ---------- Post added 08-06-2015 at 19:55 ---------- I'll concede that there being no pedalcyclists on the roads would be a good thing but more of them being involed in accidents because they were not on the roads would probably still the fault of motorists in their somewhat blinkered view. . . You do realise that most motorists aren't like you, don't you? Most of them are reasonable, rational human beings. It's only you, and a couple of others who are caricaturing them as mean, heartless idiots who take pleasure in other people's suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I see someone is abusing statistics. By the logic implied in the post... If everyone only used pedalcycles on the roads there would be no accidents involving legitimate road users and cyclists. AND if there were no pedalcyclists on the road at all many more of them would be involved in accidents... but there wouldn't be any to be involved in accidents. I'll concede that there being no pedalcyclists on the roads would be a good thing but more of them being involed in accidents because they were not on the roads would probably still the fault of motorists in their somewhat blinkered view. . . No, that is not the logical conclusion. Can you given me a suggestion as to why the accident rate increased in New Zealand when they made it compulsory to wear helmets, and enforced it vigorously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Please do not believe the old saying bullshi* baffles brains...it doesn't No matter how you might dress it up; Pedal cyclists contribute no more towards roads than pedestrians, other then the VAT on the purchase of their pedal cycle, which through some employers' schemes some of them pay very little for. Not including pedestrians and horse riders, through various compulsory charges and the taxation on fuels all road users other than pedalcyclists contribute far more to the state which in turn is used in part to maintain and build roads. Dress it up any way you like you can't change that simple fact. You're ignoring the fact that cycles damage the roads far less than cars. Highway engineers calculate the damage to roads caused by various vehicles using the fourth power law. Basically, they take the axle weight, raise it to the fourth power and then multiply it by the number of axles. If you feed typical values for a cyclist + bike (100 Kg) and car + driver (1000 Kg) into that you find that the car causes 10000 times as much damage to the road as a cycle does. Buses and lorries are much, much worse. So what you're doing is claiming that it's unfair that the people who damage the roads least pay less than those who damage them the most. Pedalcyclists you alledge reduce road congestion for other road users. I would really like to see clear evidence of that. Because in my experience that is not the case. There is I admit often a lot of unused space in front of pedal cyclists, now if they had the manners to let people pass that might be a different matter, but as they often block access to it the road's lack of congestion is wasted. How much time do you spend waiting to pass cyclists? How much time do you spend waiting in traffic jams - including when you don't get through lights on the next green cycle? What is the real cause of congestion? I see you did not comment on the fact that pedalcyclists in comparison to other road users make far more demands and have them met and have specifically designated space either taken from the existing highway or deliberately added for their almost sole use at great expense for which they make no extra contribution. Cyclists would really like all car drivers to be observant, overtake considerately, etc. so they can share the road and no special provision have to be made Unfortunately, a significant number of car drivers are incapable of doing that, so the call goes out for alternative facilities. Many of those car drivers who are not observant or considerate enough to safely share the roads with cyclists also think there should be separate cycling facilities. I see someone is abusing statistics. By the logic implied in the post... If everyone only used pedalcycles on the roads there would be no accidents involving legitimate road users and cyclists. AND if there were no pedalcyclists on the road at all many more of them would be involved in accidents... but there wouldn't be any to be involved in accidents. I'll concede that there being no pedalcyclists on the roads would be a good thing but more of them being involed in accidents because they were not on the roads would probably still the fault of motorists in their somewhat blinkered view. It's simple enough - the more you see something on the roads the earlier you notice it and have more time to take appropriate action. Newly qualified car drivers have little 'road sense' which they only get from repeated exposure to other vehicles on the roads. If car drivers only rarely see cyclists they won't build up 'cyclist sense'. The more cyclists on the roads, the more familiar drivers become with them and the better able they are to driver safely around them. The same goes for inexperienced cyclists and 'car sense' but to a lesser extent - partly because many adult new cyclists drive and have built up road sense from that and partly because there are far more cars on the roads so they have more opportunities to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts