henryb

Yes I noticed them too. Real delight when they return.

> Am I being cynical when I suspect that this > seminar will have little to do with getting > cyclists to obey the law? It is car drivers breaking the law is a bigger road safety problem. It is unsuprizing if people focucs on that.

I don't think you can do either. Parking in such a way it blocks a road also illegal.

I think you would probably find that a lot of people want to use their cars less and would sacrifice some convenience and cost to do so. However the cost and loss of convenience is too high in many cases for it to be viable. If we are serious as society in solving this problem then yes the individual can do a lot but for real change the Government needs to take the lead in making substantial capital investment in the public transport infrastructure. Even if it is at the cost of other things.

Well said.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > henryb - of course drivers need to make sure they > can stop should the unexpected happen, but your > black and white view which seems to amount to "the > motorist is always to blame" seems pretty bizarre > even by EDF standards. My view is if you are doing something dangerous to others in a public place that it is your responisbility not injure anyone. Driving a car is dangerous to others. Crossing a road with a child isn't. It terms of actual policy I would like to see default 20 limit in residential areas and presumed liability for accidents between motor vehicles and other road users.

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So when someone gets hit by a car (regardless of > fault) going 20mph, then what? In most cases the pedestrian goes home with a few bruises.

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: > So if a pedestrian runs out in front of a car, it > is always the drivers mistake? Regardless of > speed? I think that if that happens the car should be travelling at a speed so is more likely to be able to react in time and if there is a collision there is a significantly reduced chance of serious injury or death than there is currently with a 30 limit. I also think we should introduce presumed liability (not culpability) for accidents between motor vehicles and more vulnerable road users as there is in most of Europe. DJKillaQueen Wrote: > If we need more zebra crossings and pelican > crossings then let's build them. Yep. A better one is needed here clearly.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: > > I awould argue that someone that only cycles, or > only drives, or is only a pedestrian is more > likely to have a biased view. That's what makes > these kinds of discussions so polarising. Too many > people hold views based out of self interest. I drive, cycle and walk. I am more than happy to drive at 20 in areas where children are likely to be around. I think other peoples safety is more important than a marginal difference to my journey time. > What I don't do is scream and shout that > all drivers are killers because they sometimes > makes mistakes, any more than I demonise all > cyclists because a few don't think red lights etc > apply to them, or demonise pedestrains because > some of them don't realise that vehicles need time > to slow down or stop if they run out. The difference is when car drivers make a mistake it is other people end up seriously hurt or worse. That why the limit needs to be reduced so those mistakes don't end up being fatal.

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: > Was speed a factor? No. How fast were you going? If you were driving at over 20mph in an area were children were playing about by a bus stop and then in my view you were going too fast. This is fairly common view these days and why 20mph zones are being introduced here and in other countries. Streets in town/cities are primarily places where people live, not for cars to speed on. The rights of residents to live in safety must take precedence over the right of private car owners to drive a bit faster. > 30 mph is not too fast if you teach children to > cross the road safely. The thousands of people killed and seriously injured every year by cars would suggest it isn?t. > If we did make the speed limit 20 mph, then we'd > have threads complaining about the increase in > pollution. 20mph areas have lower pollution because there is less acceleration/deceleration. > What we need to do is realise that ALL of us need > to take an equal share of responsibility. And > that, sadly, accidents do sometimes happen in > life. No, the onus of safety and presumed liability should be on the party engaged in the intrinsically dangerous activity. In this case that is the car driver.

They industrially compost the waste so a few ants won't matter.

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: > At last, a voice of reason on this thread. Why is it reasonable? Because it doesn't blame the driver? Were you there? Another witness on this thread has said they thought the driver was going too fast. Presumably you think their view was unreasonable because it was "anti-car"? If you are driving a ton of metal through a populated area then the onus is on you to do it in a way that means you don't hit anyone. If you knock down a child crossing the road then you are going too fast. Blaming it on the pedestrian is unacceptable. It is like throwing a brick into crowded room then blaming the person it hits for not ducking. 30 mph limit is too fast for residential areas and it needs to be reduced.

ellieaness Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think there are many pubs that are child > free round here - certainly I haven't been able to > find them. The Rose has a beer garden with no play area. I have not seen any children or families there. I think the Herne is the only pub in the area with a play area so it is definitely a shame if it goes. It is probably the biggest pull for the pub. I don't think we would go there without it. Obviously it is up to them but losing the family crowd in East Dulwich may make a too big a hole in the clientele to fill with people who don't like kids and have been avoiding it because of the play area.

Parents are too scared to let their kids walk/cycle school because of all the cars.

Do local schools do go-ride clubs? http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/go-ride/article/goridest-Go-Ride-for-Schools

How about some nicer weather? Lots of people out on their bikes today.

> So, how many is too many? The DfT figures > recorded over 33,000 incidents involving bicycles, > of which in about 52% of cases the bicycle > contributed in some way towards the incident. And > remember that injuries cause can mean huge medical > bills. And of how many of those was the other road user injured? And of how many of those was the cyclist fully negligent and liable for damages. For someone who accuses others of distorting and misusing statistics you seem very willing to do it yourself.

Any kind of public service provision which varies in quality depending on which street you live on can easily be described as unfair. However oversubscribed schools have to make the selection somehow. What is clear is another school or two is needed in the area.

It is the same if a pedestrian walks out in front of cyclist and kills them. Most home insurance has some personal liability cover but then home owners have a house you can take off them. But yes there is always a risk you might be injured in an accident and not be able to get any money from the person responsible. If it is a real concern then you should probably get your own life insurance as fatal dog attacks and lightening strikes do happen.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And if the Cyclist is on benefit or poor? who pays > then? > If a cyclist killed a Father of Three aged 30 > that's 30 years of lost earning/ support > not many people have that kind of spare cash. > Surely wouldn't insurance do the job? Hmm as you are roughly 60 times more likely to struck by lightening than be killed by a cyclists it is not actually at the top of concern list. However if it was a criminal act then I suppose criminal injuries compensation would be available.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as shown by your claim that the above > statistic showed that "only 2% of accidents > involving cyclists are caused by risky behaviour > by the cyclist." Yes I should have been more specific but the point still remains that the type of behaviour that registration is suppose to reduce is itself only responsible for tiny propertion of serious injuries to cyclists themselves on the road let alone other road users. > Cyclists yell a lot about safety, yet when > something effects them, they seem to be no longer > interested. Usually vocally so. Registration and > insurance is a sensible step forward, and the > arguments against them are pretty weak to > non-existent at best... and a weak attempt at > distraction at worst. I am not sure who these "Cyclists" you talk about are. I am personaly a car owner and drive regulary and have been for 23 years. I fully support compulsory 3rd party insurance and registration for car drivers is it a dangerous activity and reckless driving causes a significant risk to others. I do not support it for cyclist as they do not pose a significant risk others and it is likely to be at best ineffective, at worst counter productive, not to mention costly.

:o)

> So say the cyclist and the greens. > > Not true in my experience It is from the Department of Transport.

> And if we want to improve safety for everyone, > then insurance and registration for cyclists is > obvious. And we can improve driving skills. The > two are not mutually exclusive in any way. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/four-in-every-five-crashes-between-cars-and-bicycles-caused-by-driver-of-car/story-e6frea83-1226581475412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19746515 It may be obvious to you but that does not make it true. It certainly isn?t obvious to me that cyclist should insured and regristered for the sake of public safety anymore than it is ?obvious? that joggers should be insured and registered for the sake of public safety. If anything the evidence suggests that red tape would discourage cycling and that would be a bad thing for road safety. More cyclists - safer the roads ? for everyone. There is no evidence that registration and insurance would either change cyclists behaviour or that if it did that behaviour change would cause a significant decrease in the risk casued to others. Cyclists simply aren't a major danger especially when compared the cars. Even when they cycle recklessly (not that they should of course).

> Equally, given the increased number of cyclists on > the roads, there is no excuse for them not to > carry insurance. Registration would increase > safety all round, as any road law transgressions > and accidents would be able to identify the person > involved. The reason there is no need for cyclists to have compulsory 3rd party insurance is because their potential to cause damage to others' property and person is very limited ? pretty much on par with a pedestrian. Car drivers need insurance because their potential to cause damage to others is huge. Likewise with registration ? all it is likely to do is discourage cyclists which will make the roads more dangerous for everyone. Only 2% of accidents involving cyclists are caused by risky behaviour by the cyclist. The vast majority (over 70%) of accidents between cyclists and motor vehicles are the fault of driver of motor vehicle. If we want to improve safety for cyclists on the roads we need to primarily focus on changing driver behaviour. Boris bikes are registered and they are just as prone to being hit by cars and lorries as other bikes.