Police Acknowledge Drivers at Fault - So Hand Out Hi-Viz!

[Red Light]

Dawesome,

You still haven't said what cyclists rights have been eroded.

Nobody wants to see cyclists, or any other road user killed or injured, but you seem to think that if somebody is harmed then some "right" has been infringed. Nobody has conferred a right to injure cyclists on drivers, or anyone else.

The most basic of the Human Rights, the right to life? The lack of enforcement of a person's right to be protected if their life is at risk is an infringement of their Human Rights.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think it sounds slightly barking as an idea, but I like to encourage a sense of adventure in my loved ones.

I've lived and worked in Serbia but never cycled there. If we go, it will be a new thing to me.

I used to cycle to my office in the RS entity of Bosnia, which in many ways is 'Serbia outside Serbia' (but don't say I said that).

My general impression of cycling in the western Balkans is that motorists may not be expecting to find a cyclist in their path and may react unusually.

How was the cycling in Slovenia?

rather lovely. I wasn't on a cycling holiday per se, rather we were staying for two weeks in someone's winter skiing retreat just west of Bled. so long as I stayed off the main MAIN roads all was good. Lubjana was quite a cycling friendly city iirc.

 

[dawesome]

Dawesome,

You still haven't said what cyclists rights have been eroded.

It doesn't trouble you when two of the most prominent politicians with influence over cycling are exposed as not having a frigging clue about the dangers or safety of cycling? Traf pol numbers slashed, police admitting they do not enforce ASLs or 20 mph speed limits, whilst targeting cyclists for the exact same breach?
Think about your average day, maybe you see someone throw litter, spray graffiti, shoplift, whatever.
I bet you any money you like the most flagrant breaches of the law that you see are on the roads. Speeding, chatting on a mobile, side swiping, tail gating, checking facetube whilst at the wheel, whatever.

It sounds like I'm on a massive downer about cycling, I'm not, it's relatively safe, you're as likely to win the lottery as get killed on a bike, but anyone who thinks things have got better for cyclists is barmy, in thirty years of doing at least 3000 miles a year the roads have got far more unpleasant and drivers have a whole new range of in-car distractions. Meanwhile the cops ignore drivers who break the law.

 

[Recycler]

The most basic of the Human Rights, the right to life? The lack of enforcement of a person's right to be protected if their life is at risk is an infringement of their Human Rights.

So every car driver who dies on the roads has had his Human Rights removed? Every accident at work is a Human Rights matter?

You clearly don't understand what Human Rights Legislation is all about. It has nothing to do with the safety of cyclists, motorists or pedestrians or even workers.

 

[Recycler]

in thirty years of doing at least 3000 miles a year the roads have got far more unpleasant and drivers have a whole new range of in-car distractions. Meanwhile the cops ignore drivers who break the law.

The thing that has really changed in that time is that traffic volumes and the size of the vehicle population have increased. That is why the roads are arguably more unpleasant....for cyclists, car drivers and goods vehicle drivers.

At the same time the authorities have, for environmental and PC reasons, attempted to improve things for cyclists. Arguably not enough, but I can honestly say that, in my view, there is far more provision for bikes than there was thirty years ago.

On your other point, yes, I see drivers flouting the law all the time. I also see cyclists doing the same. RLJ, riding on pavements, riding the wrong way on one way streets, no lights, sometimes speeding (!), ...........I've been guilty of it all myself.

 

[dawesome]

Who protects the human rights of cyclists? Writing here and in The Times following the serious injury of journalist Mary Bowers, Channel 4 News Presenter Jon Snow calls for urgent action.

Cyclists are in a fine position to observe what's going on our roads. The dominant creature on the urban road is the single-occupancy car. One person in motorised 60 square foot metal box.
And what are we? One person on a thin strip of mineral with two wheels. One has the power, the presence, and the rights; the other is deprived of all three. Is that equality under the law?

I would willingly pay a license fee to cycle if it introduced me into the world of road rights in which separated cycle ways were provided as my right. My children were deprived of the right to cycle to school, even of the right to cycle safely at university - it was, and is quite simply too dangerous.

http://www.channel4.com/news/jon-snows-manifesto-for-safer-cycling

I oppose segregation, but Snow is right about the imbalance on the roads. The media (and the politicians cited above) take on a "cyclists are asking for it" attitude, hence we get stupid remarks about helmets in newspapers covering the death of a cyclist hit by a lorry, where a helmet wouldn't make an iota of difference. Forty years ago people would say a woman was "asking" to be raped if she wore a short skirt, we see similar attitudes towards cyclists today.

The press and public opinion go hand in hand. The media can influence public opinion, but at the same time, they pander to popular opinion. Newspaper columnists know if they write an anti-cyclist piece it will get the support of the anti-cyclist public, and sell newspapers.​

When ​

Matthew Parris wrote in the London Times,​

advocating decapitation of cyclists with piano wire, there was an outcry from the cycling community, but little support from the general public. ​

Mr. Parris is not the only one to have written such inflammatory anti-cyclist articles. If these journalists used the words, Black, Jew, or Moslem in the place of “Cyclist” they would have been hauled off to jail. ​

Just read any online rant by someone on a blog or forum concerning cyclists, and they inevitably start talking about the skin tight shorts, those ridiculous shoes, and of Lance Armstrong wanna-bes. Totally irrelevant to the original complaint, but showing that all too human trait, to hate those perceived a little different.​

​

Viewed in this light, isn’t the whole issue of people riding bikes on public roads a human rights issue? Cyclists are human, and they have a definite right to be on the road. Yet I have never heard of a cycling advocate pursuing it in this light, or a lawyer arguing that a cyclist’s civil rights were violated.​

​

http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/human-rights.html

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement [...]"
"Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Is Urban Mobility a basic human right?

Do we not have the right to move about the urban landscape as we see fit? It has been so for most of human history, after all.

 

[Recycler]

clip, clip clip
Is Urban Mobility a basic human right?

Do we not have the right to move about the urban landscape as we see fit? It has been so for most of human history, after all.

Other than to say that everyone has an equal right, within reason, to move around as they see fit we'll have to agree to differ.

 

[dawesome]

Other than to say that everyone has an equal right, within reason, to move around as they see fit we'll have to agree to differ.

On which point are we differing? I'd say it's obvious that we have a right to move around urban centres in whatever way we feel is best, but if the police, legal system and administration of the country have a bias toward one method of transport over another then it's not a level playing field. And so long as the media carry articles like Parris's that call for cyclists to be decapitated or James Martin boasts of using his vehicle as a weapon against cyclists then we've a long way to go.

 

[Red Light]

So every car driver who dies on the roads has had his Human Rights removed? Every accident at work is a Human Rights matter?

You clearly don't understand what Human Rights Legislation is all about. It has nothing to do with the safety of cyclists, motorists or pedestrians or even workers.

Neither apparently do the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means that you have the right to be protected if your life is at risk.​

​

Similarly, public authorities should consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or which affect your life expectancy.​

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...an-rights/the-human-rights-act/right-to-life/​

 

[Recycler]

On which point are we differing? .

That this is anything to do with Human Rights.

 

[dawesome]

That this is anything to do with Human Rights.

Pretty fundamental human right, isn't it recycler? To travel to work and not get squished?

 

[Recycler]

Neither apparently do the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means that you have the right to be protected if your life is at risk.​

​

Similarly, public authorities should consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or which affect your life expectancy.​

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...an-rights/the-human-rights-act/right-to-life/​

If you really believe that your interpretaion of EHRC means that cyclists are having their human rights eroded then I suggest that you take the Authorities, or whoever you think is doing this, to court.

My only concern is that cyclists, moaning about Human Rights in this way, is likely to put peoples backs up. The very people we need to influence will simply roll their eyes and start complaining about their right to be able to move around on the roads.
The next thing we'll have is car drivers complaining that their human rights are being eroded because other motorists, who may crash into them, are allowed on the road when they want to travel.

 

[Recycler]

Pretty fundamental human right, isn't it recycler? To travel to work and not get squished?

Fine. If you believe that you have a case, just take them to Court. Till then, as you don't want to agree to differ, we'll just have to disagree and differ.

 

[Red Light]

If you really believe that your interpretaion of EHRC means that cyclists are having their human rights eroded then I suggest that you take the Authorities, or whoever you think is doing this, to court.

Already in progress

My only concern is that cyclists, moaning about Human Rights in this way, is likely to put peoples backs up. The very people we need to influence will simply roll their eyes and start complaining about their right to be able to move around on the roads.
The next thing we'll have is car drivers complaining that their human rights are being eroded because other motorists, who may crash into them, are allowed on the road when they want to travel.

It seems like its you that doesn't understands Human Rights.

 

[dawesome]

Fine. If you believe that you have a case, just take them to Court. Till then, as you don't want to agree to differ, we'll just have to disagree and differ.

Take who to court?

What about the example of London, Boris pursues a policy to "Smooth traffic flow"- ie motor traffic. He also comes out with that bullshit upthread about cyclists being at fault in accidents. So in London, have cyclists' rights been enhanced or eroded? I'd say eroded, who do I sue? You can think a situation exists and also accept you have no legal remedy.