"My brush with a psycholist"

[rh100]

Whilst i'm sure it's uncommon, and I largely agree, it can still be a dangerous vehicle in the wrong hands

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-life-hit-cyclist-outside-supermarket.html

Ok the cyclist shouldn't be there etc, but it proves the damage that can be done

BTW I think the article was a wind up also, we all know for every story of a bad cyclist theres loads more of a bad driver - a question of scale I suppose

 

[Wheeledweenie]

I'm off to hug a WVM!!

My dad's one so I shall hug him tomorrow.

 

[theclaud]

The point of the article, surely, is to suggest that the Strict Liability proposals are A Bad Thing. All the rest is just attention-getting flummery.

Clearly they are not such A Bad Thing, since most of the rest of northern Europe gets along with them quite nicely, and most of the rest of northern Europe is, I think, a pleasanter place to drive, and to cycle, than Britain.

Whether that's because of the Strict Liability laws, I couldn't say, but I'm pretty sure it helps.

Quite. Not only that, but it's an anti-cyclist/pro-motorist piece dressed up as a "balanced view". There's nothing sufficiently reasoned in the article to undo the effect of the title and the characterisation of the cyclist in the anecdote. Besides, this faux-balance thing gets on my tits - the whole point is that we are already dealing with unequal relationships. Mutual respect is all very well, but it seems to me a cover for the attitude that lets drivers refuse to address their responsibilities as long as they can cite an instance or two of unacceptable cyclist behaviour to pretend that there's a level playing-field. And in case no-one else has noticed, carrying gravel might be weird, but there's nothing in the article that demonstrates that the taxi-driver did not in fact endanger the cyclist.

 

[Archie_tect]

Considered and balanced article as far as I'm concerned... well done Ms Midgley.

 

[brokenbetty]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/pedestrianfactsheet07.pdf[/url]

Although did you see the KSI per 100 million kilometres table? The rates for cars and bikes are the same.

It's time for cyclists and car drivers to put aside their differences, hold hands and throw gravel at the buses

 

[Cab]

Although did you see the KSI per 100 million kilometres table? The rates for cars and bikes are the same.

It's time for cyclists and car drivers to put aside their differences, hold hands and throw gravel at the buses

Subtract from the car stats the number of kilometers travelled on motorways (where there are no pedestrians) and I'm sure you'll see a different story. All of those cycle ksi's are on roads where you CAN be a pedestrian.

 

[Origamist]

Welcome back, Cab.

 

[Cab]

Welcome back, Cab.

Haven't been away, just not been saying much.

 

[jig-sore]

on a lighter note, this made me chuckle .....

Cyclists argue that, unlike motorists, they do not create poisonous emissions. But anyone who has sat downwind of a work colleague who has cycled into work that morning and left their damp clothing drying in the office may beg to differ.

 

[swee'pea99]

Although did you see the KSI per 100 million kilometres table? The rates for cars and bikes are the same.

It's time for cyclists and car drivers to put aside their differences, hold hands and throw gravel at the buses

Well no, but so what? In what even people hereabouts are calling a 'balanced' article, she cited cyclists as 'triumphantly quoting figures showing cars kill 50 times more people than cyclists', when on average, i n fact, cyclists kill around 1 person a year, cars around 3,000. The distances either travel are neither here nor there.

 

[Dan B]

The reason for considering rates per million km is presumably that cycling is less common than driving, so if we want to consider which would be a greater danger if both were equally popular we need to multiply the cycling accidents by something to make up for its current comparative rarity. But unless we define what we mean by "equally popular" then all arguments over which figure best represents that are basically specious. Equally popular for 5 mile urban journeys, or equally popular as a way of getting from London to Edinburgh?

 

[Cab]

Clearly most people aren't going to cycle from hundreds of miles very often, but they'll drive it. Which is why we have motorways, where there are no pedestrians, and dualled A-roads (and other very busy routes) from which pedestrians are effectively excluded. If we could find figures for mileage done on M and dualled roads as a proportion of car miles travelled and subtracted that from the total car miles done, I'll wager that the KSI rate per unit distance travelled would be WAY higher for bikes than for cars.

 

[Swift Dan]

The article taken as a whole I think was well written and thought provoking.

There is no one section of road users better than another. We can all be tw*ts

At least she seemed to be looking at the issue from all angles.

My only question is "What sort of person carries gravel in their pockets?"

An auctioneer????