Interesting essay on cycle safety

[ComedyPilot]

http://www.copenhagenize.com/


A couple of paragraphs jumped out at me and summed up our car-obsessed country and this government's attitude to cyclists/peds:

"A 1947 book by J. S. Dean, former Chairman of the Pedestrians’ Association, is instructive here. In his ‘study of the road deaths problem’, Murder Most Foul, Dean's basic tenet is that, ‘as roads are only “dangerous” by virtue of being filled with heavy fast moving motor vehicles, by far the greatest burden of responsibility for avoiding crashes, deaths and injury on the roads should lie with the motorist’ (Peel n.d., 3)."

And

"Yet road safety education concentrates not on the drivers of vehicles, but on those who they have the capacity to kill. Dean saw how placing responsibility for road danger on those outside of motorised vehicles might lead, by stealth, to placing of culpability on those groups, and Murder Most Foul is a tirade against the placing of responsibility for road accidents on children."

And this was written in 1947.

 

[Davidc]

A well thought out article.

It addresses one interesting question: Does the British government really want to increase cycling?

The portrayal of cycling as dangerous, including helmet promotion; the continuing introduction of cycle road infrastructure which demonstrably increases danger for cyclists; schools being allowed to ban cycling to school by pupils and many more examples might suggest they don't.

The government stands to lose revenue if there is any move away from the motor car. They can tolerate more efficient and lower carbon cars, as tax can be raised or introduced when enough people have converted to them. Taxing cycling or walking is much more difficult and taxing public transport is politically fraught.

If our government really wanted to reduce car use and increase cycling and walking (the healthy alternatives) it could do so. The models from Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands are there waiting to be copied!

 

[ComedyPilot]

It saddens me on an almost-daily basis to read of yet another person killed in a collision with a vehicle. These deaths are totally avoidable, if there were decent cycling facilities available.

People will ride more, get fitter, are less of a drain on the NHS for being ill, reduce pollution, and ease congestion. I will still have a car for journeys that are suitable for a car, but if we could just get the mindset of the public to see the benefits, we could get it moving.

The Dutch and Danish were in a similar situation in the 1970's and 1980's, congested streets and high traffic vs cycling-related casualties and fatality rates. Their electorates ( about 20m both countries combined is a THIRD the size of ours) said enough was enough and got change. We are in a position to do the same - if we had people in power with the BALLS to stand up and make strong LEADERSHIP decisions.

 

[Davidc]

It saddens me on an almost-daily basis to read of yet another person killed in a collision with a vehicle. These deaths are totally avoidable, if there were decent cycling facilities available.

I totally agree. We need a change of mindset to stop the injuries and deaths.

I think the published figures suggest it is about one death a day. Safer than walking though.

(Although of course it's really the fault of people silly enough to walk run or cycle, especially if they're children. Even if the motorist is at fault they only deserve 3 points and a £60 fine, after all if the pedestrian, jogger, cyclist hadn't been there in the first place they wouldn't have been killed would they?)

 

[hackbike 666]

People aren't scared of what the law can throw of them in England as there seems to be a total lack of disrespect.

Issue all cops with guns .

Seems to work here...saw a cop with a gun in the bar and it shut me right up.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Fines, points, bans or any other pathetically lenient punishment will not bring back dead people, or heal injuries due to conflict with tons of metal moving at high speed.

What is needed is a complete overhaul of the cycling infrastructure in this country. Holland and Denmark did it in the 70's and 80's with the power of their respective electorates (20m people combined). My point is, with a similar sized amount of land, and over 3 times the people, why can't we do the same?

I don't think the CTC or Sustrans (goods work that they've done so far) are up to the task. We need a new dedicated body to get this country the facilities that it deserves.

It will be an uphill struggle because we are so car-centric, that fuggin clowns like Clarkson and that James Martin (cock/cook?) have a powerful voice. We need a similar voice to lead our cause and get the country behind it.

With 2012 round the corner, recent sporting results on the track and the roads, rising motoring costs and the inherant damage caused to the environment, cycling should be given the prominent recognition as a sustainable transport mode that it is, and afforded proper infrastructure.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

It's exactly as you stated in post 3 CP.

No-one's got the guts to do anything even remotely radical. If people saw their 'freedom' being taken away by restrictions on their car usage by a car free town centre for example or money being spent on redesigning road systems to accommodate bikes they'd go nuts. Even the most minor petrol related activities have a stronger voice than cycling, it's never going to happen..sadly.

When you've got a government that does everything it can to encourage people to buy more cars by pumping millions of pounds into the car industry what hope do you think there is of a change in attitude towards cycling - it's none!

 

[cannondale boy]

The car is just another tax for the government to suck up. Think about it, the percentage of tax on petrol is around 70%. Now if you take a million cars off the road the government would have to cut back, or increase tax's else where.

Its going to take a long time before were even near what the netherlands have achieved. I think london is on the up for cycling and the reason for more people cycling into london is due to one factor which is the congestion charge.

Town planners were at fault fifty years ago for just building roads for cars and not thinking about the cyclist.

 

[HJ]

A well thought out article.

It addresses one interesting question: Does the British government really want to increase cycling?

The portrayal of cycling as dangerous, including helmet promotion; the continuing introduction of cycle road infrastructure which demonstrably increases danger for cyclists; schools being allowed to ban cycling to school by pupils and many more examples might suggest they don't.

The government stands to lose revenue if there is any move away from the motor car. They can tolerate more efficient and lower carbon cars, as tax can be raised or introduced when enough people have converted to them. Taxing cycling or walking is much more difficult and taxing public transport is politically fraught.

This is a major fallacy the cost to the country as a whole of motoring is massive. For instance by increasing the amount of cycling or walking and there by increasing the general fitness of the population could dramatically reduce the cost of the NHS. Then there is road maintenance, policing, etc, etc...

Our current car based transport system is very inefficient and very expensive for government, the amount raised from VED is no where near the cost of maintaining the roads alone, let alone the other costs...

It is more an issue of public ignorance and political cowardice!

 

[Lazy-Commuter]

This is a major fallacy the cost to the country as a whole of motoring is massive. For instance by increasing the amount of cycling or walking and there by increasing the general fitness of the population could dramatically reduce the cost of the NHS. Then there is road maintenance, policing, etc, etc...

Our current car based transport system is very inefficient and very expensive for government, the amount raised from VED is no where near the cost of maintaining the roads alone, let alone the other costs...

It is more an issue of public ignorance and political cowardice!

That's always the problem with any discussion of this nature: it's easy to see it as a "loss of revenue of x". But the "savings of y" are often overlooked ..

We have a long way to go, sadly. Look at the "online debate" thread and follow the link to the DM website to see how fixated on their cars much of the population is.

 

[siadwell]

That's always the problem with any discussion of this nature: it's easy to see it as a "loss of revenue of x". But the "savings of y" are often overlooked ..

Quite true, because the "loss of revenue of x" begins to bite before the "savings of y" start to filter through. And with the short-termist view of politicians - in this country at least - it's no wonder nothing changes.

 

[Lazy-Commuter]

Quite true, because the "loss of revenue of x" begins to bite before the "savings of y" start to filter through. And with the short-termist view of politicians - in this country at least - it's no wonder nothing changes.

I guess it's partly understandable: "x" is easy to quantify, but "y" is a bit more tenuous. So it's hard to present it as a simple balance sheet.

Defo agree with your short-termist views point though, and it's worse than that 'cos they'd never do anything likely to be unpopular, and how popular do you think another "burden on the otherwise law abiding taxed to the hilt motorist" would be?

 

[ComedyPilot]

What burden would it be? It would benefit people in the pocket to transfer at least some of their car journeys to bike, and every car off the road for that journey is one less in total clogging the roads, polluting the atmosphere, and killing and maiming other road users.

 

[Lazy-Commuter]

What burden would it be? It would benefit people in the pocket to transfer at least some of their car journeys to bike, and every car off the road for that journey is one less in total clogging the roads, polluting the atmosphere, and killing and maiming other road users.

You and I know that. But I refer you to the lovely Zara that we discussed in another thread .. hence the quotes in my first post. Plenty of people - led by newspaper editorials - see everything as "a burden", and any kind of initiative is seen as a "tax on otherwise law abiding motorists*", no matter what benefits it could bring to them / others if they gave it a try.

* who might do 50mph in a 30 limit sometimes, but that doesn't really count as breaking the law does it?

 

[ComedyPilot]

The reason this country is car-centric is because we have bought into the whole american consumerism bile. Buy this car, and your life will be 'perfect', people will envy you. Feed 'em up on stodge/burgers/shakes etc, get 'em hooked, and coin it in when they need a car to drive everywhere, or a mobility scooter cos they can't walk anymore. Then we can sell them Thigh/Abs/Butt trainers from infomercial sites on a sunday. Or £30.00 a month memberships to poundwatchers to 'help' them lose weight.

Totally insidious.