Why can't we have government sponsored public info' films to discourage shoot driving?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
U

User65906

Guest
@mjr, good luck with your discussion and you bid to keep your EU Citizenship,
I can see now why you are so keen on discussing what I would like to be no part of.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
@mjr, good luck with your discussion and you bid to keep your EU Citizenship,
I can see now why you are so keen on discussing what I would like to be no part of.
That I actually understand it's very similar to the UK system (but slightly better due to the more proportional elections and greater diversity of parties) and like being able to move across borders without all the faff of most international travel... and that I think the EU has supported much fine work on cycling and the obstacles are in a palace in Westminster, especially the unelected shoots who purport to be scientists and experts but seem to feel no problem with evidence-free claims that cycle superhighways cause more pollution.
 
When a video of a driver shunting marathon runners and a marshal down a road is on the BBC news website and no immediate real action is seen to be taken apart from noncommittal phrases we can see who is in charge.
I can sit and watch a road and see speeders, mobile users and people reclined so far they can't see over the dash while wearing no seat belt by the dozen.
The police have no control. There's no desire in government to change the situation.
We're here to vote and pay for the one that comes out with the cleverest words and veiled insults, and of course pay our taxes. As long as we don't kill each other we can do as we please.

Yes I'm a bit fed up this morning :sad:
 

Joey Shabadoo

My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
When a video of a driver shunting marathon runners and a marshal down a road is on the BBC news website and no immediate real action is seen to be taken apart from noncommittal phrases we can see who is in charge.
I can sit and watch a road and see speeders, mobile users and people reclined so far they can't see over the dash while wearing no seat belt by the dozen.
The police have no control. There's no desire in government to change the situation.
We're here to vote and pay for the one that comes out with the cleverest words and veiled insults, and of course pay our taxes. As long as we don't kill each other we can do as we please.

Yes I'm a bit fed up this morning :sad:

Top rant, chapeau ^_^
 
[QUOTE 5251936, member: 9609"]where do you get that from ?

from the Gov own stats
https://assets.publishing.service.g...611304/annual-road-traffic-estimates-2016.pdf
Cars, 252.6 billion miles, 1.45 people per car, 8642 KSI = 1 every 42.4 million mile
Cycles 3.5 billion miles, 1 person per bike, 3339 KSI = 1 every 1 million miles

therefore journeys by push bikes are 42x more dangerous than by car.[/QUOTE]
For a start, dangerous to who?
Surely the vast majority of those KSI, regardless of the method of transport of the person killed or seriously injured, are caused by the people in the cars. Were they not travelling by car, everyone would be a lot safer.... just a thought.

Also - trust me on this, my kids are a LOT safer riding their bikes with me than they would be travelling in a car with me at the wheel!
 
I'm not going to argue with you over that, reiver, it's just derailing this debate. There's a thread in Advocacy and Safety called Are The Safety Stats Misleading where people went over it in great detail at the end of last year, you posted in it yourself.
Ah - I hadn't realised, or possibly remembered, that. https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/are-the-safety-stats-misleading.228572/ for anyone interested in the question of what the stats do or don't show. I was pleased to see that there was one of Jo's excellent data visualisations linked to, early on. May take a look at the rest of the thread at some point.

[QUOTE 5251961, member: 9609"]well why did you derail it with your very misleading comment?[/QUOTE]
Some people expressed the view that cycling is very dangerous. Some others expressed an opposing view.
 
I should perhaps be clear that I do think motorised vehicles pose the biggest threats on our roads. I just don't think that PIFs would particularly be effective in addressing that; presumed liability, where a driver would be presumed to be responsible IF it was proven that a cyclist or pedestrian hadn't caused an incident by taking a chance or making a poor choice might, I suppose.
 
[QUOTE 5251992, member: 9609"]you made a statement that was clearly wrong and I corrected it.[/QUOTE]
There's a thread to have that argument in. I even provided a link to it, once @User13710 kindly made me aware of its existence and I went to find it.
 
We switch the cameras off, not that 90% of the boxes ever had a camera in them as they're a squillion quid, then give radar guns to community groups. Logic? The plebs loves the government for freeing them to speed, and the wrath transfers to the now 'busybodies' ruining the fun - which is why a PCSO is on hand to prevent the aforesaid members of the public killing of each other.

Road deaths only appear in the media when there's a political point to be scored or some apportioning of blame to anyone other than the ones doing the killing.
Everyone loves a good 'enquiry' to state that lessons are learnt even if the result is sod all.

Second rant today I think I need some chamomile tea :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Inertia

I feel like I could... TAKE ON THE WORLD!!
[QUOTE 5252042, member: 9609"]well why didn't she make her initial comment in that thread ?
surely if someone makes a post that is clearly wrong then it is reasonable to respond to that post within the same thread it is made?[/QUOTE]
Stats can be misleading, so it’s arguable if she is ‘clearly wrong’
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom