new jacket invented

wafflycat said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=476237&in_page_id=1965

From the inventor...

"It is so dangerous without bike lanes"

But turning into a one way street obviously isn't! :-(

wafflycat said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=476237&in_page_id=1965

From the inventor...

"It is so dangerous without bike lanes"

And anyway, it's all the cyclists' own fault:- "According to the latest
official statistics, 148 cyclists were killed on roads in the UK in 2005
- up ten per cent on the previous year - and thousands more were injured.

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety blamed the
increase on more inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads. "

Not the fault of the motorists who hit them, then...

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

"The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety blamed the
increase on more inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads. "

A ten per cent rise in accidents and an 83% rise in cycling, thus
disproving the PACTS contention and adding weight to the general rule
that the more cyclists there are on the roads the safer the roads
become. France has clamped down severely on speeding- a major factor
in discouraging cycling- and France has seen a cycling boom and a
reduction in speeding offences and the inevitable fatal collisions
speeding causes.

I hate these cack-handed suppositions- cycling is SAFER now than
before, something probably deliberately ignored in the Daily Mail
article.

First year, Ten cyclists- one hurt.

Next year- a hundred cyclists- two hurt.

Daily Mail headline?

CYCLING NOW TWICE AS DANGEROUS!!!!!!!

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology....

From the inventor...

"It is so dangerous without bike lanes"

"the Mail's main purpose is to "terrify its readers" and make the
world seem like a more menacing place" - according to a documentary by
Nick Angel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2152257,00.html

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:12:27 -0700, spindrift <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

France has clamped down severely on speeding- a major factor
in discouraging cycling-

Rubbish. I don't believe for a second that French would-be cyclists
were ever put off by sorries about speeding.

Quoted message said:

and France has seen a cycling boom and a
reduction in speeding offences and the inevitable fatal collisions
speeding causes.

This, together with the following:

Quoted message said:

I hate these cack-handed suppositions

really made me laugh.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

"bbish. I don't believe for a second that French would-be cyclists
were ever put off by sorries about speeding. "

Yes, I believe the statistics show that you are 5 times safer on the
road, on a bike, in France, compared to UK. And there are two simple
reasons for that:

1: France has more roads and fewer people, so there's less congestion,
hence less impatience, and it's easier to find roads with little
traffic.

2: France, like any genuinely civilised country, has "driver
liability". So if a motorist runs into a person he'll take the rap,
unless he can prove that person did something to deserve it. That
risk, backed up with genuine on-the-spot fines enforced if necessary
at gunpoint, concentrates the driver's mind wonderfully.

Doubting that cyclists, whether French or anything else, are not
intimidated by speeding drivers, is not sensible IMO.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:38:53 -0700, spindrift <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Doubting that cyclists, whether French or anything else, are not
intimidated by speeding drivers, is not sensible IMO.

Have you ever cycled in France? If so, you would be aware that in
general motorists leave absolutely loads of space when overtaking
cyclists, and will be prepared to wait until such space is available.
In such circumstances, suggesting that people refrain from cycling
here "because of speeding motorists" is plainly a nonsense.

And the main reason for this behaviour is nithing to do with liability
as you claim, but is simple - most french motorists were/are/would
like to still be cyclists themselves.

Oh, and you're (still) wrong about the idea that a motorist is always
to blame in a cycle or pedestrian collision. We had this discussion
recently in a x-posted thread with ukrm where first-hand experience
showed otherwise.

Find me a reliable reference for this assertion if you can - I'd be
most interested.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

" Have you ever cycled in France?"

Toured Brittany for two weeks, then cycled Cherbourg to Spain.

"Oh, and you're (still) wrong about the idea that a motorist is
always
to blame in a cycle or pedestrian collision. "

Please do not misrepresent what I said. I know exactly what the law
says and it does not say the motorist is always guilty and neither did
I.

Ace said:

And the main reason for this behaviour is nithing to do with liability
as you claim, but is simple - most french motorists were/are/would like
to still be cyclists themselves.

Quite possibly a greater factor is traffic density. A population density
less than half that of the UK means there is less frustration from
congestion and less temptation to leave insufficient room overtaking with
less traffic coming the other way.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and you're (still) wrong about the idea that a motorist is always to
blame in a cycle or pedestrian collision. We had this discussion
recently in a x-posted thread with ukrm where first-hand experience
showed otherwise.

Mostly to blame in a cyclist collision, mostly not to blame in a
pedestrian collision IIRC.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Ace said:

And the main reason for this behaviour is nithing to do with liability
as you claim, but is simple - most french motorists were/are/would like
to still be cyclists themselves.

Quite possibly a greater factor is traffic density. A population density
less than half that of the UK means there is less frustration from
congestion and less temptation to leave insufficient room overtaking with
less traffic coming the other way.

I'm sure that's a factor too, but how much I don't know. And of
course, any comments about courtesy and traffic density won't apply to
central Paris, just as in the same way one wouldn't extrapolate a
London experience to the whole of the UK.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, and you're (still) wrong about the idea that a motorist is always to
blame in a cycle or pedestrian collision. We had this discussion
recently in a x-posted thread with ukrm where first-hand experience
showed otherwise.

Mostly to blame in a cyclist collision, mostly not to blame in a
pedestrian collision IIRC.

I agree that this is likely to be the case, but I don't think it's
anything to do with any legal viewpoint, simply that more often it's
the motorist's fault.
--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:59:41 -0700, spindrift <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

" Have you ever cycled in France?"

Toured Brittany for two weeks, then cycled Cherbourg to Spain.

"Oh, and you're (still) wrong about the idea that a motorist is
always
to blame in a cycle or pedestrian collision. "

Please do not misrepresent what I said. I know exactly what the law
says and it does not say the motorist is always guilty and neither did
I.

What you said was :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2: France, like any genuinely civilised country, has "driver
liability". So if a motorist runs into a person he'll take the rap,
unless he can prove that person did something to deserve it.

If you know the law so exactly as you claim, I'd like to see a
reference to the above assertion, because I've never been aware of any
such rule.

Oh, and to continue your quote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That risk, backed up with genuine on-the-spot fines enforced if necessary
at gunpoint, concentrates the driver's mind wonderfully.

would seem to imply that drivers in France are much more law-abiding
than those in the UK. Again, I don't know where you get this sort of
idea from, but would be open to references. IME they (we) are just as
likely to speed and drive dangerously as in any other country.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

spindrift said:

France has clamped down severely on speeding- a major factor
in discouraging cycling- and France has seen a cycling boom and a
reduction in speeding offences and the inevitable fatal collisions
speeding causes.

France may have had a particular problem with speeding, have they
clamped down as much as we have on speeding?

Recently published stats[1] on free flow vehicle speeds in GB show that:

"the average free flow speed of cars in 2006 on 40 mph limit roads was
36 mph and on roads with a 30 mph limit the average speed was 30 mph."

We know from the latest publication on contributory factors[2] to road
accidents that:

"Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in
accidents".

What we also know however, from the latest quarterly RCGB data[3], is
that for the year to March 2007:

"killed or seriously injured casualties were unchanged, compared with
the 12-month period ending March 2006"

[1]
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221546/226956/261695/roadstats06tsc.pdf>
[2]
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/contributoryfactorstoroadacc1802>
[3] <http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/264769/264814>
--
Matt B

What you said was :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2: France, like any genuinely civilised country, has "driver
liability". So if a motorist runs into a person he'll take the rap,
unless he can prove that person did something to deserve it.

Refuse to post the whole of what I said or admit you're a liar, your
call. This is a troll B tactic, selectively misquote people and put
words in their mouth. Pack it in, read my post again and take careful
note of the word "UNLESS".

"Again, I don't know where you get this sort of

Quoted message said:

idea from, but would be open to references. "

Google "cycle safety uk france"

"If you know the law so exactly as you claim, I'd like to see a
reference to the above assertion, because I've never been aware of
any
such rule. "

You probably read the dishonest spin put on the proposal for the UK to
adopt this law by the motoring lobby.

Google "assumed liability" and all will become clear.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:57:34 -0700, spindrift <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What you said was :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>2: France, like any genuinely civilised country, has "driver
>liability". So if a motorist runs into a person he'll take the rap,
>unless he can prove that person did something to deserve it.

Refuse to post the whole of what I said or admit you're a liar, your
call.

WTF? What exactly are you claiming I've lied about? Genuine question,
as I've not been stating anything as fact, merely questioning your
assertions, so it's difficult to see how I could be lying.

Quoted message said:

This is a troll B tactic,

Bwaahaahaahaa!

Quoted message said:

selectively misquote people and put
words in their mouth. Pack it in, read my post again and take careful
note of the word "UNLESS".

FFS. I quoted an entire, unabridged, paragraph of yours which didn't
have any qualification in the rest of the text. Including the word
"unless".

And if you want to talk about troll tactics, then suggesting, as you
have in your other replies, that a questioner googles for something
that you yourself have asserted, is just that - if you're so convinced
you're right then why not show the evidence on which you've based that
conviction?

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

We in the UK have known for a long time of the proven efficacy of
speed cameras. Now France has learned the same lesson.

Paris:
The number of road accidents in France has decreased more that 85
percent since the installation of automatic traffic radars
last year, the road safety department of the Transportation
Ministry said. Since the deployment of 200 radars around the
country, the number of highway deaths has dropped by 50 percent [sic].
France intends to install a total of 560 of the radars by the
end of next year, with an ultimate goal of 1,000 fixed and mobile
radars installed around the country to dissuade drivers from
speeding. (AFP)

Country 2002 popn 2003 rd dths 2003 rd per 100,000 pop

Austria 8.1m 931 11.5
Denmark 5.4m 432 8.0
Finland 5.2m 379 7.3
France 59.5m 5,731 9.6
Germany 82.5m 6,613 8.0
Greece 10.6m 1,615 15.2
Ireland 3.9m 337 8.6
Italy 57.7m na na
Netherlands 16.1m 1,028 6.4
Norway 4.5m 280 6.2
Portugal 10.2m 1,356 13.3
Spain 40.9m 5,399 13.2
Sweden 8.9m 529 5.9
Switzerland 7.3m 546 7.5
UK 59.2m 3,658 6.2

Observe that there are simple technical means to reduce accidents in
some countries. France's road deaths were reduced 50% through
enforcing
speed limits and DUI regulations.

I said the motorist is at fault unless...

You claimed I said the motorist is always at fault.

Are you:

1/

An idiot

2/

A liar?

The Netherlands have suggested this system five years ago, with the
political compromise that car drivers are always liable for at least
50% of
the damage (the original 100% proposal didn't make it after vehement
reactions from the car world). Now there is a chance that the EU will
impose
the rule, despite misleading motoring lobby lies which explain the
confusion above where people claim the motorist will always be in the
wrong.

BTW: in cases where the cyclist very obviously has acted
unresponsibly
the liability is lower than 50%.

I believe is that the presumption of guilt is always on the driver and
he/she must prove that the cyclist was at fault. Apparently the "I
just didn't see him, officer" does not work.

This law would improve safety for everyone, and your insurance will
only go up in line with the improved compensation of cyclists and
pedestrians.No-claims benefits will become really important, and that
will be the thing that slows us all down and makes us look when
passing the school.

If you take a tiger for a walk you must not let it bite anyone.That's
what this law says.