poo!

BrettM said:

I'm not taking sides but the figures do exist. Check the
crash databases carefully and you'll find more than a few
cyclist accidents and some that involve a cyclist jumping a
red light. Others of course include a cyclist getting
clobbered by a car jumping said red light.

The total figure is a sum of all accidents put down to red
lights, the cyclist accidents are rolled up in this figure.

Is that available on-line?

If anything that strengthens the case against rego for bikes.

If the figures showed that the cost to society of bikes jumping red lights outweighed the cost to society of requiring rego for bikes then rego for bikes would be implemented.

To the red light jumpers:

That doesn't excuse breaking the law. It's discourteous, annoys law abiding cyclists, annoys all motorists and generates needless friction.

No one is so important that they should be allowed to break the law with impunity. Just get over yourself and submit to the laws of the land will you?

EuanB <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

BrettM said:

I'm not taking sides but the figures do exist. Check the
crash databases carefully and you'll find more than a few
cyclist accidents and some that involve a cyclist jumping
a red light. Others of course include a cyclist getting
clobbered by a car jumping said red light.

The total figure is a sum of all accidents put down to red
lights, the cyclist accidents are rolled up in this
figure.

Is that available on-line?

If anything that strengthens the case against rego for
bikes.

If the figures showed that the cost to society of bikes
jumping red lights outweighed the cost to society of
requiring rego for bikes then rego for bikes would be
implemented.

I don't think you can access it on-line (although the
research is available I think). Any police station should
have access to the states crash data.

In terms of cost to society I expect that it would be very
high in cyclist/car accidents. We have a sort of public
health system and this is where most of the accident costs
accrue. Given the potential severity of a car/cyclist
accident I think medical costs would be high. But I haven't
checked this though.

Cheers

BrettM

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "BrettM" == BrettM <[email hidden]> writes:

BrettM> In terms of cost to society I expect that it would be very
BrettM> high in cyclist/car accidents. We have a sort of public
BrettM> health system and this is where most of the accident costs
BrettM> accrue. Given the potential severity of a car/cyclist
BrettM> accident I think medical costs would be high. But I haven't
BrettM> checked this though.

In the latest Ride On Harry Barber quotes some figures:

Less than ten cycling deaths a year.

About two hundred serious hospitalisations caused by collisions with
motor vehicles per year.

Riders skidding and crashing all by themselves, about eight hundred a
year.

That doesn't even scratch the surface of the 13,500 red light incidents
each year, and that's just one small subset of the accidents which
happen on our roads. I suggest the cost to society is negligible,
especially when you consider that 20% of premature deaths are attributed
to lack of exercise with only 2% coming from the road toll.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)