Motor Taxes

[Slim]

Spanna: Because safety can always be improved, and because there are 'hotspots' which are unnecessarily dangerous.

 

the safety aspect isn't about bike safety, or car safety, it is about how safe you are on a bike AMONGST the cars, if there were NO bikes on the roads, car accidents and deaths would still around what they are now. but if there were no cars on the roads, i doubt there would be many cyclists killed ( not much left to hit them ), but there would still be a few bent spokes. in a single vehicle accident at the same speed in the same place, i would expect the car driver to fair better every time. and in a bike vs car accident it is still likely that the car driver will come out of it better, so on those grounds the car is safer. but, the car is a danger to the cyclist, but the cyclist is little threat to the car, so the vulnerabillity of cycling is what makes it more dangerous than being in a car regardless of the stats. we should all be travelling around in 'zorbs', really big ones that an electric vehicle can fit inside so you just aim it where you want to go and bounce off any obstacles.

 

That assumes every accident is bike vs car. Car vs car and car vs wall tends to be a bit more messy. I agree with what you're saying about feeling vulnerable around cars though.

[WTF]

i did assume the crashes were bike vs car, cos that was the comparrison i thought was being made? if you chose car vs lorry, the lorry would be safer even though there are less of them on the roads. if we all had tanks ( no guns on them ), no one would get hurt and we wouldn't need roads!! would cylist be safe then??

 

just to add, roads themselves are safe as they are inanimate, it is our very poor use of them that causes the problems. to improve 'safety' all that is required is for drivers to drive safely, we all know what we do wrong, but because we get away with it 99.9% of the time, the actual danger aspect of it is perceived as negligable - nill, untill it actually goes wrong. when it does go wrong we don't accept it as our fault. my point is perhaps that we already KNOW how to be safe, that's how we are taught to drive, but we don't drive in that manner the second we pass our test. it isn't cars or bikes or whatever vehicle we're in, it is US that are the danger, just because of our nature. regardless of 'hotspots' etc they are perfectly negotiable in an APPROPRIATE manner. we seem to think that because the car can do 80mph, the roads should be fit to drive on at 80mph where ever we are!!

[Slim]

i did assume the crashes were bike vs car, cos that was the comparrison i thought was being made? if you chose car vs lorry, the lorry would be safer even though there are less of them on the roads. if we all had tanks ( no guns on them ), no one would get hurt and we wouldn't need roads!! would cylist be safe then??

 

It was about relative safety, from my perspective anyway. People perceive that cycling on the roads is too dangerous for their children, but statistically it's less dangerous than swimming, fishing and playing in a playground, yet those things are an acceptable risk to parents.

 

It's the perception I'm arguing against, which is actually damaging to cyclists saftey, as more cyclists make cycling safer. Sebrofs post that said cyclists would be better off staying off the road until dedicated facilities are required is quite damaging to cycling safety. Check this article for example:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/200...york-calderdale

[Sebrof]

It was about relative safety, from my perspective anyway. People perceive that cycling on the roads is too dangerous for their children, but statistically it's less dangerous than swimming, fishing and playing in a playground, yet those things are an acceptable risk to parents.

 

Just to remind you of what you actually said:

 

"They're safer on a bike than in a car".

 

I haven't examined the basis for claiming that cycling is less dangerous than swimming, but it may be just as dubious as your claim about cars.

 

This is the problem, Slim, your blind faith in statistics. A wiser man than you, Benjamin Disraeli, said that there are three kinds of lie: lies, damned lies, and statistics. And he was right in so far as people allow themselves to be so easily misled by statistics.

 

Let's take an example:

 

Last year, no children in the UK were attacked by lions or tigers (if you add them all up, there are quite a lot of lions and tigers in the various zoos around the UK). During the same period, several hundred children were attacked by dogs.

 

With your approach to statistics, you would claim that this proves that dogs are more dangerous than lions and tigers.

 

The reality is that sensible people recognise that lions and tigers are much more dangerous, and put in place effective measures to ensure that people are protected from them.

 

Likewise, on the roads, sensible parents ensure that their children are prevented from dying under the wheels of cars by ferrying them to school in their 4x4s, or making them walk. When children DO venture onto the roads on bicycles, they are usually in the company of adults and kept away from busy roads in the rush hour. Thus, there are few accidents.

 

The moral? You cannnot take statistics at face value, Slimbo; or you'll make a fool of yourself.

 

It's the perception I'm arguing against, which is actually damaging to cyclists saftey, as more cyclists make cycling safer. Sebrofs post that said cyclists would be better off staying off the road until dedicated facilities are required is quite damaging to cycling safety. Check this article for example:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/200...york-calderdale

 

Again, Slimbo, you have to be careful when looking at figures from partisan sources. Are cyclists safer in York because there are more of them, or are they safer because the roads are better suited to cyclists than the roads of Calderdale? Are there more accidents in Calderdale because there are fewer cyclists, or because the roads are inherently more dangerous? The low number of cyclists in Calderdale suggests to me that people recognise it is not a good place to be on a bike, and the larger number in York suggests to me that it's a relatively safe place to cycle.

 

In other words, the research is flawed because a major variable (the relative safety of the roads for cycling on) has not been excluded.

 

So I'm sorry, but I'm unconvinced by the CTC's argument. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong, but I'd like to see some rigorous research by competent and disinterested people, not amateurs desperately trying to prove a point. That article is reminiscent of the "facts" adduced by Jehovah's Witnesses and conspracy theorists, and I'm rather surprised you quoted it. Probably, you couldn't find anything better.

 

S

[Slim]

Any research and statistics are better than nothing, which is exactly what you've provided to back up your point.

 

Here's the results of study about relative safety by the way:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html

 

Even without the research, it seems like common sense to me. Cars kill cyclists, more cyclists mean less cars which means less killed cyclists.

[jimbms]

Just to repeat a little of what I stated before, the cyclist personal injury accidents for the last 5 years is very low and yes this is direct from official figures of recorded data, in fact all bar a couple of these accidents are not children but are caused by adult cyclists exiting a junction without stopping or looking or jumping red lights, therefore that proves the act of cycling is in fact not that dangerous but it is the actions of the minority of cyclists that fail to obey the highway code that have caused most accidents. Now on the other hand the majority of damage only accidents involving cyclists are due to cycles scraping the sides of cars whilst pushing through to the front at traffic lights and on personal injury accidents regarding cyclists and pedestrians all bar 2 are due to cyclists being on the pavement.

[Sebrof]

Any research and statistics are better than nothing, which is exactly what you've provided to back up your point.

 

Here's the results of study about relative safety by the way:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html

 

Even without the research, it seems like common sense to me. Cars kill cyclists, more cyclists mean less cars which means less killed cyclists.

 

So what your argument finally comes down to is that cycling would be safer if there were fewer cars.

 

Thank you for that insight, Slimbo. You have earned the gratitude of millions.

 

S

[WTF]

perceived danger isn't actual danger, just like perceived wealth in banks wasn't actually 'real' wealth!! thinking something is dangerous doesn't make it dangerous. and more cycles doesn't necessarilly mean less cars, unless the cyclists WERE the car drivers. if everyone that passed their driving test in a car this year went out and bought a bike instead of a car, the amount of cars on the road would be the same, there would just be even more bikes. the percentage ratio of bikes would go up, but the cars and available tarmac would be the same. and on that note, the knob head car drivers that cause the problems would be the LAST people opting for pedal power cos they are having to much fun taking chances.. dedicated cycle lanes away from the roads would be ideal, but not i fear possible.

[Sebrof]

Just to repeat a little of what I stated before, the cyclist personal injury accidents for the last 5 years is very low and yes this is direct from official figures of recorded data, in fact all bar a couple of these accidents are not children but are caused by adult cyclists exiting a junction without stopping or looking or jumping red lights, therefore that proves the act of cycling is in fact not that dangerous but it is the actions of the minority of cyclists that fail to obey the highway code that have caused most accidents. Now on the other hand the majority of damage only accidents involving cyclists are due to cycles scraping the sides of cars whilst pushing through to the front at traffic lights and on personal injury accidents regarding cyclists and pedestrians all bar 2 are due to cyclists being on the pavement.

 

In other words, cars are only a danger to cyclists when cyclists misbehave. Clearly, the answer is to get cyclists off the road as they are the primary cause of car-bicycle accidents.

 

Over to you, Slim.

 

S

[Sebrof]

Here's the results of study about relative safety by the way:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html

 

You're doing it again. Quoting flawed, partisan research.

 

Unbelievable.

 

S

[Slim]

perceived danger isn't actual danger, just like perceived wealth in banks wasn't actually 'real' wealth!! thinking something is dangerous doesn't make it dangerous. and more cycles doesn't necessarilly mean less cars, unless the cyclists WERE the car drivers. if everyone that passed their driving test in a car this year went out and bought a bike instead of a car, the amount of cars on the road would be the same, there would just be even more bikes. the percentage ratio of bikes would go up, but the cars and available tarmac would be the same. and on that note, the knob head car drivers that cause the problems would be the LAST people opting for pedal power cos they are having to much fun taking chances.. dedicated cycle lanes away from the roads would be ideal, but not i fear possible.

 

I guess that depends if you believe the CTC's figures or not, they think more cyclists does mean less cars as many of the trips by cycle are ones that would have been taken in a car. You can't be out in your car and on your bike at the same time, so I don't agree with what you're saying. There's also an argument that even if car numbers stay the same, more bikes make cycling safer because drivers become more used to having bikes on the road.

 

But yeah, perceived danger definitely isn't actual danger.

 

Sebrof, yes, I'm saying cycling would be safer if there were fewer cars. I said that in response to you saying kids shouldn't be on their bikes, they should be driven around in cars, because bikes on the road aren't safe enough. Do you see how that's self-fulfilling? Do you finally see the point I'm trying to make? If you'd stop the weird Slim bashing obsession and concentrate on the actual discussion you might find it easier to follow.

[Max Power]

Perhaps if cyclists were prosecuted more regularly for misdemeanours then it may deter some of the poor riding?

[Slim]

Perhaps if cyclists were prosecuted more regularly for misdemeanours then it may deter some of the poor riding?

 

Agree yes, from dog shit to driving, if we had better enforcement of existing rules things would improve.

[jimbms]

Just to add to my previous, this data is only for the Isle of Man as that is the only data I have direct access to or done any statistics on. (Plus the fact I don't give a flying fuck on what happens in the UK, they can all kill themselves for all I care)

[WTF]

Perhaps if cyclists were prosecuted more regularly for misdemeanours then it may deter some of the poor riding?

 

Agree yes, from dog shit to driving, if we had better enforcement of existing rules things would improve.

 

 

NOOOOOOOOO, i have to agree with you.