From: Matt B on
On 01/08/2010 11:48, Bob wrote:
>
> "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message
> news:8bks3mFdavU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> On 31/07/2010 19:46, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and thus caution, leading to slower and safer roads. Where do
>>>> most crashes occur now?
>>>
>>> On roads where traffic moves at a slower speed?
>>
>> In 2008, 52% of all fatal crashes in built-up areas occurred at a
>> junction and 70% of _all_ casualty crashes in built-up areas occurred
>> at a junction.
>>
>> All of those crashes occurred simply because one road user assumed
>> absolute priority over another.
>>
>> From those statistics alone we can see that our priority rules must be
>> deeply flawed.
>
> But in those cases surely there is someone either completely
> disregarding or with a poor understanding of the priority rules.

Yes. For their efficacy they rely on 100% human infallibility - all of
the time.

> No
> matter how perfect a rule is if someone doesn't follow it then accidents
> will happen.

How can a rule that requires the defiance of the laws of human nature be
"perfect"?

> Will someone who RLJ's suddenly stop driving unsafely if a
> different rule is introduced?

Apparently, based on the experiences at places where the removal (not
replacement) of rules has virtually eliminated serious casualties.

--
Matt B
From: Tony Raven on
Matt B wrote:
> On 31/07/2010 22:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>> A bonus for you: I bet you didn't know that you're many times more
>> likely to be killed or injured by a car on the pavement than by a
>> bicycle on the pavement.
>
> Here's one for you:
>
> The current DfT stats give "vehicle travelling along pavement" as one of
> the factors contributing to 9 fatalities for 2008, one of those was
> probably attributed to a pedal cycle.
>
> Motor vehicles were used for 108 times the number of vehicle miles as
> pedal cycles that year.
>

Think your stats are up the creek.

46 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle on the pavement or verge in 2008
(RRCGB 2008, Table 32) (and another 59 were killed on a pedestrian
crossing).

The number of pedestrians killed on the pavement or verge by a cyclist
averaged one every four years over the past decade.

Despite the Daily Mail perception you are far more likely to be killed
by a car on the pavement than by a cyclist.

Tony


From: Matt B on
On 01/08/2010 17:55, Tony Raven wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> On 31/07/2010 22:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>
>>> A bonus for you: I bet you didn't know that you're many times more
>>> likely to be killed or injured by a car on the pavement than by a
>>> bicycle on the pavement.
>>
>> Here's one for you:
>>
>> The current DfT stats give "vehicle travelling along pavement" as one
>> of the factors contributing to 9 fatalities for 2008, one of those was
>> probably attributed to a pedal cycle.
>>
>> Motor vehicles were used for 108 times the number of vehicle miles as
>> pedal cycles that year.
>
> Think your stats are up the creek.

Not at all, you not me I think are misrepresenting the stats.

The DfT gave "vehicle travelling along pavement" as a factor in 9
fatalities for 2008 - see RRCGB 2008, p44, Table 4a.

The DfT only allow "vehicle travelling along pavement" to be coded as a
contributory factor if the vehicle was on the pavement deliberately, and
not as a result of losing control as a consequence of something else
having happened on the main carriageway.

The figures you are are trying to foist upon us include casualties of
vehicles which lost control on the main carriageway, so which were on
the pavement or verge accidentally.

See DfT STATS20: Instructions for the Completion of Road Accident Reports:

<http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/committeesusergroups/scras/2008reviewstats19/stats20instruct.pdf>

Page 89.

"309 Vehicle travelling along pavement

Code can apply to any vehicle type (including ridden horses)
travelling along the pavement. Code only applies to vehicles
which were intentionally travelling along the pavement. Includes
pedal cycle riders or drivers of electric invalid vehicles
colliding with pedestrians, or being hit by vehicles emerging from
private driveways.

Do not include vehicles which were travelling along or across the
pavement as a result of having lost control on the main carriageway.

Also, skateboards, toy scooters and toy tricycles are not defined as
vehicle types and should not be included within this code.

This code is not intended for use with shared use facilities."

It is very clear indeed.

--
Matt B
From: Bob on

"Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:8bllimF39iU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> On 01/08/2010 11:48, Bob wrote:

<snip>

>> But in those cases surely there is someone either completely
>> disregarding or with a poor understanding of the priority rules.
>
> Yes. For their efficacy they rely on 100% human infallibility - all of
> the time.

As would any other system apart from, I'd imagine, an entirely automated
transit system. I've seen plenty of incidents of collisions that have
nothing to do with traffic lights - just bad judgment.

>
>> No
>> matter how perfect a rule is if someone doesn't follow it then accidents
>> will happen.
>
> How can a rule that requires the defiance of the laws of human nature be
> "perfect"?
>

I'm not saying the rule is perfect. I'm arguing that you can't always
counter ignorance, stupidity or arrogance. Rules or no rules.


>> Will someone who RLJ's suddenly stop driving unsafely if a
>> different rule is introduced?
>
> Apparently, based on the experiences at places where the removal (not
> replacement) of rules has virtually eliminated serious casualties.
>

Not familiar with this so can't argue there. What examples do you give as a
matter of interest?

I'd still say that someone who regularly RLJ's does so through impatience
and probably does likewise in other scenarios where they perceive it safe to
continue. No doubt we've all seen a lot of examples of this.

What about pedestrians as well? Surely a large number of traffic lights are
also provide means for safely crossing the road?


Bob

From: Adam Lea on
On 31/07/2010 22:36, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:58:02 +0100, "GT"<a(a)b.c> wrote:
>
>> "Matt B"<matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>> news:8bi2oiF5pmU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> On 31/07/2010 08:39, Derek C wrote:
>>>> From the court reports in my local newspaper:
>>>>
>>>> [snipped details of some motoring offences]
>>>>
>>>> If only penalties like these were applied to cyclists, we would soon
>>>> see a drop in deliberate RLJing, no lights at night and the many
>>>> other offences that cyclists seem to get away with scot free!
>>>
>>> Should the penalty be proportional to the size of the risk posed at the
>>> tine?
>>
>> How do you determine the risk posed by a cyclist with no lights on?...
>
> To you or to him? There's also a vast variation in risk depending on
> the roads themselves.
>
>> A lorry driving along suddenly, at the last minute sees a cyclist with no
>> lights on and swerves to avoid him. In doing so he wipes out 2 cars, each
>> containing a family of four and the mangled mess then ploughs through a
>> bus-stop of kids coming home from the cinema.
>
> s/cyclist/deer/
>
> Or pedestrian.
>
> Or fallen tree.
>
> The requirement to drive within the distance you can see to be clear
> is not contingent on all potential obstacles being lit.
>
> Guy

In an ideal world, yes, no-one would ever make mistakes and everyone
would always be able to avoid anything and everything that appears in
their path. In the real world, however, it is a different story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjNE5hTXL3k
http://www.deercollisions.co.uk/

Personally, as a cyclist, I'd rather not emulate the tree at 1:50 in the
first video or any of the 42-74,000 dear in the second link.