BentMikey and a Subaru Driver

[BentMikey]

Yes, there's not a particularly good signal to noise ratio there, at least on the D4N topic.

I'm quite pleased how your reaction is much more toned down and reasonable now. That's also what a video camera does to most drivers on the road. It changes their behaviour significantly for the better. To be honest it changes my own too, I'm much less sweary and much calmer. Best of all, I've often found what I've done wrong in my own riding and how to play the odds and ride to a higher standard in future. One example is the recent Robinson's removals lorry clip. I really should have taken the whole lane there, though that was a particularly hard case given the trickle of earlier traffic, and the speed at which he approached me from behind.

You do realise I on occasion offer this sort of footage to production companies? At least one clip has made it onto Road Wars, so D4N might be more famous than he planned.

You want more numberplates, including on bikes for the consequences and improvement in road behaviour. The helmet video youtubed by so many people also equals consequences. Not really that different, are we.

 

[thomas]

You say that bikes should "never be licenced". Why?

As cycling gets more popular (and it will, as motoring costs rise and average speeds drop) you can be sure the govt. will start eyeing us as an extra revenue stream.

The Gov got 17.5% of what my bike cost when I bought it, along with clothes and accessories at different levels of taxation. They already make money off cyclists.

As for never be licences, we have a inbuilt right to use the roads without licence. Roads were built for horses and bicycles! I would not be against bike training becoming easier to get access to, as this would probably do a lot of cyclists some good - but don't think people should be put of cycling by having to pass a test before they can do it.

I don't believe licensing bicycles would solve any problems, it would just put people off which can only be bad for any "green" debate, congestion, people's fitness....

Is it true speed limits do not apply to recumbents/cyclists as BentMikey says?

Yes, you can't officially be done for speeding as speed limits only cover motorised vehicles. However, if you were found to have killed someone because of doing 40mph in a 30mph then you could be done for warent and furious driving (not cycling!!), dangerous cycling or something else. Basically, if you were being stupid the police would probably give you some advice...do a search on here though, there are a few threads with links to the actual legal mumbojumbo.

 

[Dan B]

It's not a question of being happy and of course (as I have said several times already) I think we should always strive to reduce the numbers injured and killed on the roads, but it is this subtext buibbling along underneath here that we shouldn't tolerate even one injury or death per year as the ONLY way that is going to happen is to ban motor vehicles and of course being a self confessed petrolhead I don't want that.

I asked you what number you would find acceptable: I didn't say that the only correct answer is zero.

It's the fact you view it as unfairness that is the disturbing thing.

It's the fact you don't ... ;-)

It's clear that you recognise that the danger on the roads is overwhelmingly due to the operation of motor vehicles thereon. I can see three possible responses: one is to ban motor vehicles from roads, one is to ban everything else from the roads (after all, we don't let anyone walk around on the railways) and the third is to make car users a lot more careful than they presently are. All these have different tradeoffs (I would be as unhappy about option 1 as you would option 2) but the "shoot happens, live with it" position you seem to be resigned to is really not worthy of a civilised country.

 

[PBancroft]

Fair enough and that is where we differ as while even one is not acceptable I still feel it is inevitable, but I truly admire your optimism. Fair play to you.

Sorry to hear about your friend too, a loss of life is sad no matter whose fault it is.

It was ten years ago, but thank you. My point remains however ... was his death inevitable? I don't think it was, and I strongly - vehemently even - oppose the idea that it was. He was driving far too fast for the conditions of the road (actually far too fast full stop) and wrapped his car around a tree. It was not a momentary lapse of judgement or attention. He was not aware of the limitations of his own ability. It wasn't inevitable that he or anyone would do this, and I think it lessens peoples lives to assume that it is otherwise.

Better training, better social awareness, better enforcement of the law and other measures could have prevented his death, just as they could prevent others across the country every day, not to mention countless injuries.

To say that these deaths could not be prevented - that they are inevitable - is to accept them and implicitly state that they are acceptable.

They are not.

 

[ufkacbln]

(section removed)

So it's not so much a case of accepting it as being realistic in my view. Given what I have said above and given the fact that I do not want to lose the ability to drive my car to get from A to B I know there will be accidents as a trade off for the fact we all have the freedom to use the roads so to a certain extent yes I guess I accept it but with caveats as mentioned above. If you really think accidents can be reduced to zero without the draconian measures of banning all motorised vehicles for instance then I applaud your optimism.

They can be reduced by removing the numpties - the ones who are too stupid to realise that using a phone whilst driving isn't safe, that stopping at junctions is a good idea and that parking on pavements is unacceptable.

The answer is simple - people like our "DAN" need to be removed from th road - the simplest and most effective road safety measure we can apply.

 

[purplepolly]

The answer is simple - people like our "DAN" need to be removed from th road - the simplest and most effective road safety measure we can apply.

it could be simplified even further - break a highway code 'must' and loose your licence. simples.

 

[Tinuts]

it could be simplified even further - break a highway code 'must' and loose your licence. simples.

Or, use a mobile phone whilst driving and you get your car crushed. For a repeat offence you get crushed with the car.

 

[Dan B]

I think it does no real good to pretend that all offences are equally bad. (If you genuinely believe all offences are really bad, I won't bother trying to argue with you, but please be aware that your opnion is not universally held)

Honestly, which is more dangerous: answering the phone while doing 50mph on a clear straight empty road, or tailgating in fog? Where would you rather devote enforcement effort? A sense of proportion hurts nobody

 

[BentMikey]

it could be simplified even further - break a highway code 'must' and loose your licence. simples.

That might be slightly over the top. More seriously, a bit more rigour in applying the current points system, and more traffic police and enforcement, and driving standards and safety would go up considerably.

Besides which, corpulent Dan might just get a little happier and healthier from the exercise and endorphins. That's got to be good for all who come in contact with him.

 

[PBancroft]

it could be simplified even further - break a highway code 'must' and loose your licence. simples.

I've said this a few times - but what is it with this "points" malarky?

It's OK to break the law a couple of times before you get properly punished? It makes no sense. You can get caught breaking road laws several times before you have to prove you can drive within the law.

Its ridiculous.

 

[fossyant]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Car driver is a Muppet - being passed again by said driver..oh...eck.... but he's obviously on the same route regular........

 

[purplepolly]

I think it does no real good to pretend that all offences are equally bad. (If you genuinely believe all offences are really bad, I won't bother trying to argue with you, but please be aware that your opnion is not universally held)

Honestly, which is more dangerous: answering the phone while doing 50mph on a clear straight empty road, or tailgating in fog? Where would you rather devote enforcement effort? A sense of proportion hurts nobody

They're not all equally bad but if people knew their licence would taken away for contravening the HC then almost everyone would drive very very carefully. Practically speaking though, this is impractical as standards are so low that most drivers break the code eveytime they drive a car. It would solve congestion though.

 

[purplepolly]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Car driver is a Muppet - being passed again by said driver..oh...eck.... but he's obviously on the same route regular........

or near home

 

[BentMikey]

Well he lives in Biggin Hill apparently, so I'm likely to see more of him. The next encounter might be interesting...

 

[thomas]

They're not all equally bad but if people knew their licence would taken away for contravening the HC then almost everyone would drive very very carefully. Practically speaking though, this is impractical as standards are so low that most drivers break the code eveytime they drive a car. It would solve congestion though.

Well, I got 7 minors on my driving test does that mean I should loose my licence 7 times?