U
p.k. wrote:
> Whether you intend to or not, you come across as an apologist for the
> pavement cyclist: "But please sir, the drivers and pedestrians are nasty to
> us cyclists so it is ok if a cyclist is nasty back to one of them!"
I have never said any such thing and it seems odd that you should
regard a simple statement of the casualty figures for crashes involving
cyclists in such terms. What's more there is a lot of difference
between been accused of being an 'apologist' and being accused of
arguing that the bad behaviour of one group makes it 'OK' for another
group to behave in a bad way. Perhaps next you will accusing me of
inciting inconsiderate behaviour...
> Inconsiderate drivers are pillocks!
> Inconsiderate pedestrians are pillocks!
> Inconsiderate cyclists are pillocks!
>
Agreed! However, when considering what should be done to address such
behaviour what we need to do first is consider how much actual damage
is done by each group. On any measure the inconsiderate behaviour of
motorists claims far more lives and cripples far more people than that
of cyclists and so should be focus of far more attention in order to
prevent the amount of harm which is done: the principle of
proportionality and all that.
If, as 'The Hate Mail on Sunday' ranted the other week the few
pedestrian deaths which involve a cyclist amount to a 'crisis' what on
earth can the number of deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicle
drivers be called?!
I would have no problem with 'zero tolerance' policing of cycling
offences if a proportionate amount of effort were put into a similar
'zero tolerance' campaign to tackle the offences of motor vehicle
drivers. This simply does not happen and as such amounts to
discrimination against cyclists. It is also no coincidence that often
the loudest calls for 'clampdown's on cyclists comes from those opposed
to the law being enforced in a robust manner when it comes to driving
crimes. The overstatement of the risks posed by cyclists plays into the
hands of such people who are able to use the issue of the 'danger'
posed by cyclists as a diversionary tactic so people play less
attention to the much greater problem posed by inconsiderate and
dangerous driving.
Just compare the way 'pavement cycling' is tackled compared to speeding
which claims far more lives. On the one hand we have CSO's and the
police handing out FPN's to cyclists whilst taking no notice of the
Home Office guidelines on the way FPN's should be used. On the other
hand the enforcement of the speed limit is largely confined to
locations where 4 or more people have been killed or seriously injured
in the preceding 3 years, and what's more using easily-evaded
high-visibility cameras, whose location is indicated with large warning
signs whilst the times and location of mobile enforcement is advertised
on the internet and in the local press!
To me the hysteria over issues such as 'pavement cycling' is
symptomatic of a far greater problem where everyone tries to pretend
that whilst bicycles pose a major threat to public safety, motor
vehicles are not 'dangerous'. So we get hysterical rants in the
right-wing press about the 'menace' of pavement cycling and how 'zero
tolerance' policing is the only answer, practically alongside articles
claiming that speed (when done by a motor vehicle) 'does not kill' and
that speed enforcement amounts to an assault on the freedom of the
driver and is all about 'revenue generation', not safety.
The effect of this extend to much more than the way the law is
enforced. For example, it seems almost 'standard practice' to assume
that if a cyclist is killed or injured it is they who must have been at
fault, after all it is practically willfully negligent to ride
something as 'dangerous' as a bike in the first place. Similarly, local
authority 'road safety' officers seriously talk about 'killer bikes'
but not 'killer cars' and newspapers write articles blaming cyclists
who have been run over by lorries for their own demise because they did
something as obviously 'dangerous' as ride a bike whilst not wearing a
polystyrene hat. The core message is that cycles are intrinsically
'dangerous' but cars are 'safe', a complete reversal of reality. This
message even extends to child's toy catalogues where even a small girl
on her 'Little Princess' bicycle complete with dolly carrier will be
shown wearing a helmet (needed because bicycles are 'dangerous') whilst
children riding on electrically powered cars and motorcycles will all
be without helmets. After all we don't want tomorrows consumers to grow
up associating cars with 'danger' do we?
I would argue that the first step which needs to be taken in order to
address the carnage on our roads is to bring a sense of perspective to
the road safety debate and central to this must be to challenge the
reversal of reality whereby cycles are for some reason regarded as
being inherently far more dangerous than motor vehicles, especially
where pedestrians are concerned.
> Whether you intend to or not, you come across as an apologist for the
> pavement cyclist: "But please sir, the drivers and pedestrians are nasty to
> us cyclists so it is ok if a cyclist is nasty back to one of them!"
I have never said any such thing and it seems odd that you should
regard a simple statement of the casualty figures for crashes involving
cyclists in such terms. What's more there is a lot of difference
between been accused of being an 'apologist' and being accused of
arguing that the bad behaviour of one group makes it 'OK' for another
group to behave in a bad way. Perhaps next you will accusing me of
inciting inconsiderate behaviour...
> Inconsiderate drivers are pillocks!
> Inconsiderate pedestrians are pillocks!
> Inconsiderate cyclists are pillocks!
>
Agreed! However, when considering what should be done to address such
behaviour what we need to do first is consider how much actual damage
is done by each group. On any measure the inconsiderate behaviour of
motorists claims far more lives and cripples far more people than that
of cyclists and so should be focus of far more attention in order to
prevent the amount of harm which is done: the principle of
proportionality and all that.
If, as 'The Hate Mail on Sunday' ranted the other week the few
pedestrian deaths which involve a cyclist amount to a 'crisis' what on
earth can the number of deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicle
drivers be called?!
I would have no problem with 'zero tolerance' policing of cycling
offences if a proportionate amount of effort were put into a similar
'zero tolerance' campaign to tackle the offences of motor vehicle
drivers. This simply does not happen and as such amounts to
discrimination against cyclists. It is also no coincidence that often
the loudest calls for 'clampdown's on cyclists comes from those opposed
to the law being enforced in a robust manner when it comes to driving
crimes. The overstatement of the risks posed by cyclists plays into the
hands of such people who are able to use the issue of the 'danger'
posed by cyclists as a diversionary tactic so people play less
attention to the much greater problem posed by inconsiderate and
dangerous driving.
Just compare the way 'pavement cycling' is tackled compared to speeding
which claims far more lives. On the one hand we have CSO's and the
police handing out FPN's to cyclists whilst taking no notice of the
Home Office guidelines on the way FPN's should be used. On the other
hand the enforcement of the speed limit is largely confined to
locations where 4 or more people have been killed or seriously injured
in the preceding 3 years, and what's more using easily-evaded
high-visibility cameras, whose location is indicated with large warning
signs whilst the times and location of mobile enforcement is advertised
on the internet and in the local press!
To me the hysteria over issues such as 'pavement cycling' is
symptomatic of a far greater problem where everyone tries to pretend
that whilst bicycles pose a major threat to public safety, motor
vehicles are not 'dangerous'. So we get hysterical rants in the
right-wing press about the 'menace' of pavement cycling and how 'zero
tolerance' policing is the only answer, practically alongside articles
claiming that speed (when done by a motor vehicle) 'does not kill' and
that speed enforcement amounts to an assault on the freedom of the
driver and is all about 'revenue generation', not safety.
The effect of this extend to much more than the way the law is
enforced. For example, it seems almost 'standard practice' to assume
that if a cyclist is killed or injured it is they who must have been at
fault, after all it is practically willfully negligent to ride
something as 'dangerous' as a bike in the first place. Similarly, local
authority 'road safety' officers seriously talk about 'killer bikes'
but not 'killer cars' and newspapers write articles blaming cyclists
who have been run over by lorries for their own demise because they did
something as obviously 'dangerous' as ride a bike whilst not wearing a
polystyrene hat. The core message is that cycles are intrinsically
'dangerous' but cars are 'safe', a complete reversal of reality. This
message even extends to child's toy catalogues where even a small girl
on her 'Little Princess' bicycle complete with dolly carrier will be
shown wearing a helmet (needed because bicycles are 'dangerous') whilst
children riding on electrically powered cars and motorcycles will all
be without helmets. After all we don't want tomorrows consumers to grow
up associating cars with 'danger' do we?
I would argue that the first step which needs to be taken in order to
address the carnage on our roads is to bring a sense of perspective to
the road safety debate and central to this must be to challenge the
reversal of reality whereby cycles are for some reason regarded as
being inherently far more dangerous than motor vehicles, especially
where pedestrians are concerned.
