How to Normalise Cycling in East Dulwich

[Medley]

Good points about VED and health benefits.

Can I add that there's also the benefit to public transport users from cyclists not taking up space on public transport. In a less crowded city that argument could go the other way - i.e. less revenue from public transport fares - but in London most of the system is so crowded that it's actually a benefit.

[henryb]

> There is no such thing as road tax; it was

> abolished in 1937. Roads are paid for from general

> taxation which cyclists are just as subject to as

> every other citizen.

I think a good thing to encourage cycling would be an information campaign targeted at drivers explaining that cyclists have the right to use the road - the whole lane if they want to, that if a they want to overtake a cyclist they should give plenty of room ? i.e. if the cyclist can reach out and touch the car it is not enough; and not to stop in the ASL zones.

Although things are improving there is still a lot very aggressive driving out there and it is off putting for new cyclists. I think some of that comes from a widespread view that roads are for cars and cyclist should not be there and are in the way.

[Medley]

Agree with that. There's also the denial drivers have about how fast they can go overall - sure, they're quicker than bikes outright, but they often scorch past me only for me to then overtake them at the next obstruction and probably get to my destination at much the same time or quicker than they do.

But they don't recognise that/don't want to recognise that.

[Loz]

susiq Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> perhaps cyclist could pay something towards road

> tax or pay for some sort of road tax.

I'd be happy if they were just all made to have compulsory insurance and identifiable reg numbers on their bikes.

[the-e-dealer]

But if they all paid ?5 a year for a road tax they could have all sorts of amenities added to roads to make them safer.

[James Barber]

Hi Loz,

Isn't that an over reaction. More unsinsured cars are being driven around, with many crashing, than all the cyclsits cycling around. The former cause far more damage. 13% of cars believed to be unisured - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/capital-tops-league-of-uninsured-drivers-6778723.html

Hi susiq,

95% of roads in Southwark are provided and maintained by Southwark Council from Council Tax. So non car drivers who don't cycle pay as much as cars drivers or cyclists to maintain our roads. If you argue for cyclsits to pay a road tax then perhaps you should also be seeking a refund for those that don't drive or cycle.

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Loz,

> Isn't that an over reaction. More unsinsured cars are being driven around, with many crashing, than

> all the cyclsits cycling around. The former cause far more damage. 13% of cars believed to be

> unisured -

> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/capital-tops-league-of-uninsured-drivers-6778723.html

Eh? That's a bit of whataboutery (in Guardian language). You are sayign that cyclists shouldn't need insurance because a completely other set of people ignore the law? How about we crack down on uninsured drivers and introduce insurance on cyclists and make everything doubly better?

These days, with automatic number plate checks in police cars and the insurance database, there is really no excuse for the number of uninsured drivers out there. If it is indeed over one in every 10, then police should be acting accordingly. The have the tools at hand.

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.

[V511]

Following on from what Applespider and James Barber say - Roads were built and maintained out of general public finances for years before cars came along. They are for public movement, which over the years happens to have become dominated by motorised vehicles. As James Barber correctly points out, public taxation doesn't work on the basis of a direct correlation between taxation and usage otherwise every tax payer would be claiming refunds for 101 different things they don't use.

[henryb]

> 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.

[Loz]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

I'd like to source for those statistics, because I think they are very wrong. Apart from anything else, no statistics I have ever seen attribute 'fault', only 'contributing factors' (and these are very different concepts, and rarely attributed to a single party, unlike fault).

Here's a pretty independent look at the figures released by the Department for Transport. It concludes that "around half of all one-on-one collisions involving a cyclist were attributed in some part to the cyclist, although this does not imply the cyclist was responsible for the accident."

> If we want to improve safety for cyclists on the roads we need to primarily focus

> on changing driver behaviour.

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.

[Charles Notice]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

So say the cyclist and the greens.

Not true in my experience

[henryb]

> 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).

[henryb]

> So say the cyclist and the greens.

>

> Not true in my experience

It is from the Department of Transport.

[Charles Notice]

Government statistics, say no more

[henryb]

:o)

[mynamehere]

Charles what you imply in your posts is no different than the urban myth about the MMR Jab. The willingness of parents to follow the "greater truth" that there was a conspiracy of science to hurt now threatens the public health with a measles out break. The repetition of myths all over the world is a curious phenomena: Polio vaccines are really to sterilise ethnic groups, global warming is a myth and so can be ignored. So you imply statistics that don't suit you about cycling vs driving are a government conspiracy. Why? Why would these statistics be distorted?

[Loz]

From the Guardian...

The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

Sounds like a prime piece of cherry-picking of stats. And then, this gets further distorted and further away from the truth when others misuse even these, 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." (which is quite clearly not what is claimed even in the Guardian). As you get further and further from the original report, the claims get more and more false. It's notable that the Guradian, unusually, failed to link to the original report in the article. My rather more independent link says that this is a very, very distorted view of the truth. Where 'distorted' = 'false'.

And anyway - it proves nothing. It's a bit like newspapers producing some dodgy stats to show that only 2% of newspaper articles involve phone hacking and therefore claiming nothing needs to be done.

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.

[edhistory]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> .

I agree.

John K

[Applespider]

Loz - I am insured as a cyclist via my membership of the LCC and through my household insurance. I've done my Bikeability training and I have a driving licence. I'd have no objection to being registered.

BUT, I can't see how registration would practically work nor how cost-effective it would be. Do you register each bike? Or each rider? What about kids - do they need to be registered or insured? If the requirement is for the bike to have a registration capable of being seen and noted by cameras/public, what form does it take? Given the propensity for anything attached to a bike to be nicked (I've had the plastic rear light mount (not the light) unscrewed and nicked in the past), how do you ensure that it remains in place while being able to be transferred reasonably easily? Where do you put it to make it visible enough to be seen without negatively impacting riding the bike in terms of wind-resistance? Given that the policy appears to be to encourage cycling, this puts another barrier in the way.

The cost of implementation, administration and then policing it would likely cost more than all the claims put together given that the amount of damage a bike can do is far lower than any larger vehicle.

And while two wrongs don't make a right; registration and compulsory insurance hasn't stopped bad driving. Good drivers abide by it but there are still bad drivers out there illegally without licenses and/or insurance. I suspect the bad cyclists out there would still ignore that law just as they do the ones re traffic lights and using lights at night.

[DaveR]

"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 haven't actually seen you articulate the supposed benefits of registration and insurance yet, so please go ahead. When someone suggested that the time, effort and cost in setting this up would be better spent pursuing uninsured drivers, you seemed to regard that as somehow absurd, yet a comparable cost/benefit analysis is the most sensible approach, no? The Dep of Transport have access to more and better stats than most so it's not difficult - they know pretty much to the penny what the real cost of road accidents are, and they're very good at modelling what the likely effect of changes to rules or road layouts will be. That's why, for instance, urban 20mph zones have proliferated.

Obviously, if you have no interest in benefiting the wider public but just have an irrational, deep-seated resentment of cyclists then your stance makes perfect sense.

[macutd]

does anybody else agree that the coach parking in-front of JAGs on east dulwich grove is a dangerous bottleneck, especially for cyclists?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

does anybody else agree that riding down Lordship Lane and tackling Goose Green roundabout on a bicycle while towing a blue wheelie bin in one's left hand is not the way to normalise cycling?

[LadyDeliah]

Loz Wrote:

...

>

> 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.

Insurance for what Loz?

Cars need to be insured because the damage they cause when they hit someone/something else is unlikely to be able to be paid for by the errant car driver. What damage are cyclists likely to cause that would require compulsory insurance?

[henryb]

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.

[the-e-dealer]

So who pays when a cyclist kills a pedestrian?