wafflycat said:"Cyclists in busy urban areas may have to sound a bell almost
continually as they cycle along under government plans to force them not
only to have bicycle bells fitted, but to use them to warn pedestrians
of their approach. "
"The moves come amid concerns over accidents caused by cyclists and
cases of people going through red lights or riding on pavements,
according to today's Sunday Telegraph. A dozen pedestrians have died in
collisions with cyclists in the past five years, while 148 cyclists died
on the roads last year alone - the highest total for six years."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1433446.ece
Is this old news? What's the point of making a statement to Parliament
when it's on holiday?
That figure of 12 deaths looks high and most of them will have been on
the road.
Quoted message said:Now, how to compose a reasonable letter to Transport minister Stephen
Ladyman telling him what I think of his idea without it being 99%
expletives. What an utterly, utterly stupid idea. Bicycle bells are
useless as they are ignored.
1. It won't solve any problem
2. It will be another law the police won't have time to enforce
3. It will fuel more anti-cyclist bigotry
1. Audible warning is not reliable as a way to avoid collisions. How
many of the dozens of cars that killed pedestrians on the pavement
last year had silent engines? Cyclists should be taught to go slowly
enough to avoid pedestrians, no matter what they do, until they become
aware of their presence. Pedestrians should be taught to rely on eyes,
not ears, when not on a footway.
2. See speeding, mobile phones, cycle lights etc.
3. There is an important general point we need to be aware of here.
Where the government attempts to appease extremists by moving in their
direction on an issue, the result is always bad. The extremists are
not happy, and clamour for further movement. But now the centre ground
of the argument has shifted, and non-extremists start debating about
things they previously condemned. The classic example here is
treatment of asylum-seekers. The policy is far stricter (more
inhumane) than it was 10 years ago. Yet all the debate that's reported
is about making it yet more severe, instead of exposing just how
unjust the system is already to genuine fleers of persecution.
Now we fight to keep cyclepaths and helmets optional. Lose those
fights, and there will be new debates about even more anti-cyclist
measures. There is a slippery slope in politics, and if you don't want
to be forced down it you need to be moving up.
If this is new news, I'll write to my MP, who's Ladyman's PPS.
Colin McKenzie
--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?
