On The Radio

[ferret fur]

Welcome to the forum: The stats you ask for are impossible to collect Try riding a bike for a few days & then tell us how it feels

There are pretty dim people on every forum. As I said in that thread, I'm basing my opinions on what I'm seeing: At 14 red lights in my journey I counted no less than 38 cyclists running a red light. In that same distance I counted exactly zero cars do the same thing.



No, I'm willing to accept that there are bad drivers in all road vehicles. What I'm struggling with is how most of the videos on BSRU's site don't seem to display anything other than normal road use to me.



I stand by my comments. A road user should pay road tax. And do I accept the pension concept is dead.




I'm pretty certain Adam isn't a cyclist. MEP in that thread is a cyclist and a very nice fellow. For what its worth I PM'd Adam, the admin in question complaining that the thread was closed. I'd be happy to continue here though. As per one of my last posts:

Show me the data and I'm willing to believe you. At the moment it's your say against my say and no one is going to win that argument. If you think this is a big deal, back it up with facts and we'll have a real discussion about it. Not local facts to you, real, comprehensive, national stats.

So, lets see some data to prove that car drivers are worse behaved than cyclists.

cheers
Jason

 

[jnoiles]

Welcome to the forum: The stats you ask for are impossible to collect Try riding a bike for a few days & then tell us how it feels

Trust me. No one wants to me in cycling kit. I'm much better to look at when wrapped in a car

 

[BSRU]

I stand by my comments. A road user should pay road tax. And do I accept the pension concept is dead.

The "road tax" argument is lost as soon as you call it "road tax", Winston Churchill got rid of "road tax" in 1937 exactly for the reason he did want motorists to think they owned/paid for the roads.

Roads are paid for out of general taxation and council tax, so everyone who pays any tax at all of any kind contribute to the funding of the public road networks.

Vehicle Excise Duty is based on CO2 emissions, meaning zero emissions equals zero tax, that's why electric cars do not pay anything. I'm sure once electric cars start to dominate the cars in this country VED will be transformed into something else to raise revenue. There are quite a few small petrol engined cars that pay zero VED, I even have a video of 2 litre diesel BMW using the bus lane that apparently only pays thirty pounds a year.


I agree, I see more cyclist's breaking the law than car drivers but I have no statistics to back up my personal observations.
The difference is that the consequences, if a collision occurs, of car drivers breaking the law are far more serious and deadly than if a cyclist does, this no way justifies cyclists breaking the law.

 

[downfader]

There are pretty dim people on every forum. As I said in that thread, I'm basing my opinions on what I'm seeing: At 14 red lights in my journey I counted no less than 38 cyclists running a red light. In that same distance I counted exactly zero cars do the same thing.



No, I'm willing to accept that there are bad drivers in all road vehicles. What I'm struggling with is how most of the videos on BSRU's site don't seem to display anything other than normal road use to me.



I stand by my comments. A road user should pay road tax. And do I accept the pension concept is dead.




I'm pretty certain Adam isn't a cyclist. MEP in that thread is a cyclist and a very nice fellow. For what its worth I PM'd Adam, the admin in question complaining that the thread was closed. I'd be happy to continue here though. As per one of my last posts:

Show me the data and I'm willing to believe you. At the moment it's your say against my say and no one is going to win that argument. If you think this is a big deal, back it up with facts and we'll have a real discussion about it. Not local facts to you, real, comprehensive, national stats.

So, lets see some data to prove that car drivers are worse behaved than cyclists.

cheers
Jason

You shouldnt base everything you beleive in on what you see, or see locally, as you yourself aluded to later in your reply above. There are national figures for road use that have looked into causality, the picture is still pretty hard to diagnose.

One study of London collisions by the Met and DFT from 2009 found that around 93% of cyclists involved in collisions with other vehicle types were not to blame.

http://road.cc/content/news/12065-cyclists-not-blame-road-casualties-says-study-commissioned-dft (links to the official report within the article)

You state "normal road use". By that definition if normal is dangerous or risky, is that acceptable and do we have to change what we perceive as normal to something more conducive to safety. Simply by looking at the figures, taking a loose average of the past 5 years we see that:

Cyclists
-killed 2 people a year
-seriously injured around 200 a year (requiring hospital treatment in some capacity)

Motorists
-killed 3000+
-injured up to 200,000 (who required hospital treatment in some capacity)
-27,000 seriously injured

Here are 2008's figures as an example: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008

With "road tax" I think you are missing several salient points as to why those costs are incured by drivers:
- added burden to the road system for maintenance (car tyres and weight wear out road surfaces)
- increased emmissions (not just CO2 but there are other factors like benzine and lead derived chemistry that ends up in water, soil and air for example)
- the Highways Agency costs an average of £6.5bn a year to run the motorways, and this cost is increasing. One could argue that VED is to cover motorways more than normal council maintained road networks. VED only raises £5.5bn.

- it is actually far easier for councils to raise the money from council tax than for Governments to get the money from cyclists if we did impose a new tax on cycling. Forcing cyclists to pay something that is a) not needed and b) complicated to impliment will mean people are dissuaded from cycling (eg get back in the car), it incurs a cost to the legal framework to change the law, to Police the law and an admin cost to run it.

You also have logistical problems with bike-VED in that how do you check a bike is "paid" and valid..? You cannot put plates on bikes as they will be too small and are a PITA to fit. It would require Police presence to stop cyclists and check the bike over. You would need to develop a system to recognise the bike. Is that system fool-proof, or is it as easily abused as car plates are? The list of problems just goes on..

Then it is unfair that cyclists would have to pay when others do not.

Further reading on tax: http://ipayroadtax.com/itv-ignorance-about-road-tax/why-isnt-beer-tax-used-to-build-better-pubs/ (includes externalities of costs caused by motoring, something motorists groups and the press fail to mention)

Car drivers may not be worse behaved, but no one can miss the fact that they pose far more of a danger to themselves and others. I think with red light runners the cyclists fall mostly into the "make it across when its safe" category, and drivers into the "its only just changed" category. When you're sat at a light you wont see the drivers misbehaving as the cyclists will be more mobile, but stand by most sets of lights and the driver behaviour becomes clear. The IAM have done surveys, as have the AA on this.

As a point in note: I disagree with any road user disobeying road signals. There are good reasons why we should follow those laws... the prime one being it makes the roads a little safer.

Welcome to the forums btw.

 

[jnoiles]

You shouldnt base everything you beleive in on what you see, or see locally, as you yourself aluded to later in your reply above. There are national figures for road use that have looked into causality, the picture is still pretty hard to diagnose.

Indeed. Hence the request for stats and thank you for bringing some to the discussion.

One study of London collisions by the Met and DFT from 2009 found that around 93% of cyclists involved in collisions with other vehicle types were not to blame.

http://road.cc/conte...ommissioned-dft (links to the official report within the article)

I read that and I don't see anything that says 93%? There are a lot of other things in that link that jump out at me though. Particulary Chris Peck's comments about helmet use. Yes, I understand you're saying there's other issues Chris, but are you seriously suggesting helmets aren't important? Really? This argument has been done to death in various US states via the motorcyclist lobby. Helmets are a good idea. Suggesting otherwise makes you sound like a crackpot.

Speaking of sounding like a crackpot, he then goes on to say:

We believe that the government should now focus on tackling the causes of injury which appears to be mainly inconsiderate and dangerous driving. Reduced speed limits, stronger traffic law enforcement and cycle-friendly road design are the solutions.

You're not going to fix inconsiderate and dangerous driving. You're simply not. I know people like to think that if we impose fines and setup cameras and sanctions that we'll somehow have this motoring utopia where everyone does the right thing and we all treat each other with respect. The reality is that this is simply not the case. The average UK motorist is a selfish, distracted, incompetant prick. I wouldn't attempt to suggest otherwise. We are, for better or worse, a nation of hideous drivers and with the best will in the world that ain't changing in our lifetime. There are too many bad drivers out there. And successive improvements in technology and car safety make the problem worse. To whine about this is pointless. It's just the way it is. The intelligent thing to do is make yourself aware of the risks and arm yourself against them.

 

[jnoiles]

You state "normal road use". By that definition if normal is dangerous or risky, is that acceptable and do we have to change what we perceive as normal to something more conducive to safety.

No. See my earlier comments above. If you get squashed by a lorry turning a corner you really shouldn't put yourself in that position. I'm a car. I know that putting myself into a dangerous situation with a vehicle bigger than me will result in me coming off second best. So no, we don't need to change. We need people to accept reality.

Simply by looking at the figures, taking a loose average of the past 5 years we see that:

Cyclists
-killed 2 people a year
-seriously injured around 200 a year (requiring hospital treatment in some capacity)

Motorists
-killed 3000+
-injured up to 200,000 (who required hospital treatment in some capacity)
-27,000 seriously injured

Here are 2008's figures as an example: http://www.dft.gov.u...mainresults2008

Thank you. Those figures seem quite reasonable to me.

With "road tax" I think you are missing several salient points as to why those costs are incured by drivers:
- added burden to the road system for maintenance (car tyres and weight wear out road surfaces)
- increased emmissions (not just CO2 but there are other factors like benzine and lead derived chemistry that ends up in water, soil and air for example)
- the Highways Agency costs an average of £6.5bn a year to run the motorways, and this cost is increasing. One could argue that VED is to cover motorways more than normal council maintained road networks. VED only raises £5.5bn.

I'm not suggesting for a second that road tax is fair or applied solely to roads. Like any tax it goes into the government slush fund to piss up against the wall on whatever demented whim suits them this week. But the fact remains, we as road users have to pay it. Until you make the concession and start paying at least a nominal fee then you get no sympathy from a lot of motorists.

- it is actually far easier for councils to raise the money from council tax than for Governments to get the money from cyclists if we did impose a new tax on cycling. Forcing cyclists to pay something that is a) not needed and b) complicated to impliment will mean people are dissuaded from cycling (eg get back in the car), it incurs a cost to the legal framework to change the law, to Police the law and an admin cost to run it.

Right. So it's ok to enforce things for cars but its all a bit complex and expensive to do the same for bikes so we shouldn't bother. This is why car people don't take you seriously. If you want people to take you seriously as a road user, act like a road user.

You also have logistical problems with bike-VED in that how do you check a bike is "paid" and valid..? You cannot put plates on bikes as they will be too small and are a PITA to fit. It would require Police presence to stop cyclists and check the bike over. You would need to develop a system to recognise the bike. Is that system fool-proof, or is it as easily abused as car plates are? The list of problems just goes on..

The system seems to work perfectly well for motorcyclist.

 

[jnoiles]

Then it is unfair that cyclists would have to pay when others do not.

And I wouldn't disagree with that either. I disagree with electric cars and low emission cars getting a free pass as well. That's nothing more than politicians pandering to a convenient cause.

Car drivers may not be worse behaved, but no one can miss the fact that they pose far more of a danger to themselves and others.

Not arguing there.

I think with red light runners the cyclists fall mostly into the "make it across when its safe" category, and drivers into the "its only just changed" category. When you're sat at a light you wont see the drivers misbehaving as the cyclists will be more mobile, but stand by most sets of lights and the driver behaviour becomes clear. The IAM have done surveys, as have the AA on this.

Neither of those road users is correct. If you run a red you're in the wrong. The difference is that cars can be caught and punished for it. Bikes can't be. That's a problem.

As a point in note: I disagree with any road user disobeying road signals. There are good reasons why we should follow those laws... the prime one being it makes the roads a little safer.

Completely agree. So why the reluctance for this to be enforced on cyclists?

Welcome to the forums btw.

Thanks!

 

[Norm]

Wow. CCers go and kick off on another forum and they reckon that the users of the other forum are idiots. FWIW, next time you sign up to another forum just to create trouble, have a little ponder on the fact that we usually delete users who come here to do that and any backlash has to be sorted by Shaun, not those who went to have their little "fun" on another forum. I think you got away lightly just having the thread closed.

That said, welcome Jason and thanks for bringing an alternative to the cyclist blinkers viewpoint.

I stand by my comments. A road user should pay road tax. And do I accept the pension concept is dead.

I have 3 cars and two motorbikes, I pay more than enough road tax so I have no guilt on my conscience when I cycle.

Yes, I understand you're saying there's other issues Chris, but are you seriously suggesting helmets aren't important? Really? This argument has been done to death in various US states via the motorcyclist lobby. Helmets are a good idea. Suggesting otherwise makes you sound like a crackpot.

A couple of linked issues there. Firstly, helmets offer little to no protection from other road users. Their design limitation runs out at around 12mph. I wear a lid when I cycle to protect my from my own mistakes, it will do nothing if there's another vehicle involved.

Secondly, motorcycle helmets are completely irrelevant. Comparing the protective capabilities of a bike and motorbike helmet is like comparing the protective capabilities of a Trabant with the carbon monocoque in a Maclaren. In fact, it's even more extreme than that as cars are tested against the same standards, whereas cycle and motorbike helmets are massively different.

Bike helmets really are not relevant when considering protection from other road users.

Right. So it's ok to enforce things for cars but its all a bit complex and expensive to do the same for bikes so we shouldn't bother. This is why car people don't take you seriously. If you want people to take you seriously as a road user, act like a road user.

The system seems to work perfectly well for motorcyclist.

The point missing here is that cars, and motorbikes have to be licensed to be used on the road, by drivers who have to be similarly licensed. Cycles, horses and pedestrians don't need to be licensed, they have a right to be there. People of any age and ability can cycle, ride or walk on the road.

 

[BSRU]

Wow. CCers go and kick off on another forum and they reckon that the users of the other forum are idiots. FWIW, next time you sign up to another forum just to create trouble, have a little ponder on the fact that we usually delete users who come here to do that and any backlash has to be sorted by Shaun, not those who went to have their little "fun" on another forum. I think you got away lightly just having the thread closed.

No-one from this forum signed up to the other forum to create any trouble, it seemed like a reasonable discussion to me with people having various viewpoints/opinions, much like this one, sometimes .

 

[niggle]

I read that and I don't see anything that says 93%? There are a lot of other things in that link that jump out at me though. Particulary Chris Peck's comments about helmet use. Yes, I understand you're saying there's other issues Chris, but are you seriously suggesting helmets aren't important? Really? This argument has been done to death in various US states via the motorcyclist lobby. Helmets are a good idea. Suggesting otherwise makes you sound like a crackpot.

Welcome to the crazy world where your assumptions don't necessarily turn out to be true! There is in fact a sizeable number of people who ride bicycles who do not think that wearing a cycle helmet is in their best interest, and in fact the evidence for helmets providing effective protection is completely inconclusive. Note for instance that the Cyclist's Touring Club is completely neutral regarding advice whether to wear a cycle helmet and is opposed to compulsion. This is totally different to motorcycle helmets which do provide proven protection and where the argument was simply about freedom of choice to act in a risky manner. With cycle helmets there is a lot more to it, have a look on here for some of the arguments: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ or here: http://forum.ctc.org...wforum.php?f=41

You're not going to fix inconsiderate and dangerous driving. You're simply not. I know people like to think that if we impose fines and setup cameras and sanctions that we'll somehow have this motoring utopia where everyone does the right thing and we all treat each other with respect. The reality is that this is simply not the case. The average UK motorist is a selfish, distracted, incompetant prick. I wouldn't attempt to suggest otherwise. We are, for better or worse, a nation of hideous drivers and with the best will in the world that ain't changing in our lifetime. There are too many bad drivers out there. And successive improvements in technology and car safety make the problem worse. To whine about this is pointless. It's just the way it is. The intelligent thing to do is make yourself aware of the risks and arm yourself against them.

One way or another things are definitely better in some parts of Europe, so it seems likely that in that case we can improve things, if we have the will to, by following their examples and emulating the changes they made in legislation and infrastructure to achieve this. Adopting stricter liability legislation and redesigning cities along the lines of Copenhagen would necessarily bring about a big change in driving behaviour IMO

 

[downfader]

@Norm..

..yes, the last thing we need is "forum wars". I don't see anyone starting one tbh. I was being specific on this forum about two commenters on the other (and christ knows theres a few on here, LOL). Sometimes, on either side of the equation, a forthrightness to express an opinion can be misinterpreted as rude, or angry, etc. Sometimes it is a feeling that one is on the backfoot and in need to defend your stance or viewpoint.

@Jnoiles..

..you seem to think its unfair that you pay something others do, and (perhaps slighty poorly worded on your part) that its partly the fault of the cyclist that we do not pay? Please clarify if this is what you mean, or if you mean something else. I should however point out that having spoken to many non-cyclists who drive that there is a slight jealously involved in the VED debate. Jealously should never be a reason to impose a tax, only where a need actually necessitates.

There is no reluctance for enforcement on cyclists. If you go back through many threads and related blogs some of us have written you'll see we encourage and approve of it. We point out problem areas and solutions to pavement abuses.

With cycle helmets there are problems with the research - the Niggle has already pointed out one good site. There are other resouces linked on the CTC forums in their Helmet section. Theres also http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ and http://wrongheaded.org.uk/

Big research by people like Erke and Elvik shows increased risk to cyclists by 14%. Dr Ian Walker found helmeted cyclists were passed an average of 8.5cm closer than unhelmeted. The DFT even found some evidence on a psychological level of risk compensation behaviour in both drivers and cyclists, where drivers said they'd drive closer as they "felt the cyclist to be more protected" (paraphrased)

Helmets typically seem to be encouraged by those that don't cycle. The AA recently got a jab in the ribs for handing out free helmets despite the ambiguous evidence at best. Some members of the BMA who voted to encourage compulsion a few years back now seem to be against it, the BMA only got the vote through into their policy after something like a 51% advantage.

I still disagree on fixing inconsiderate driving. It takes a group effort by all, not just cyclists and pedestrians but everyone that uses and crosses the road system. People power will push through change. People power has worked in the past for womens rights, gay rights, ethnic minorties, cancer care, even tackling the clampers... I do feel the momentum has already begun. We're discussing this online, after all.

 

[lukesdad]

I had an email from a presenter from a local radio station, BBC Wiltshire, who enjoys watching my channel and wants to interview me .

Unfortunately I had to turn it down as I have an agreement with my better half with regards to my video cycling malarkey and she wouldn't be best pleased, putting it mildly. She also would be very upset that I somehow find time to do a radio interview when I don't have time to finish the bathroom .

mmm unless you know her well I d be wary of her motives .

 

[al78]

One study of London collisions by the Met and DFT from 2009 found that around 93% of cyclists involved in collisions with other vehicle types were not to blame.

No it doesn't say that, it states that jumping red lights, wearing dark clothing and not using lights at night are only responsible for 7% of accidents. There are other ways that a cyclist can be partly or wholly to blame in an accident.

The figures I heard thrown about suggest somewhere around the high 70's% of motorist/cyclist accidents were the fault of the motorist. Whether that means totally at fault, mostly at fault or at fault in any way whatsoever, however small, I don't know.

 

[downfader]

No it doesn't say that, it states that jumping red lights, wearing dark clothing and not using lights at night are only responsible for 7% of accidents. There are other ways that a cyclist can be partly or wholly to blame in an accident.

The figures I heard thrown about suggest somewhere around the high 70's% of motorist/cyclist accidents were the fault of the motorist. Whether that means totally at fault, mostly at fault or at fault in any way whatsoever, however small, I don't know.

From the article:
"Report in to DfT casualty stats says cyclists not to blame in 93 per cent of cases"

It clearly says it via way of percentages of all the KSIs.
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-cyclists-not-blame-road-casualties-says-study-commissioned-dft

Come on, what other ways could a cyclist be partially or wholey to blame? Looking at the driver funny?

 

[Rebel Ian]

From the article:
"Report in to DfT casualty stats says cyclists not to blame in 93 per cent of cases"

It clearly says it via way of percentages of all the KSIs.
http://road.cc/conte...ommissioned-dft

Come on, what other ways could a cyclist be partially or wholey to blame? Looking at the driver funny?

How about not looking before undertaking a manoeuvre? I'm staggered if people really think the examples quoted in the article are the only things a cyclist could do wrong.