Moderators (requests and notices)

I have a problem with the word accident, it's as if we're saying "Oops!". Are accidents avoidable? Are we OK about tolerating accidents that end in fatality? I'd rather call them incidents, and figure that something should be addressed. This something doesn't necessarily put blame on anyone involved, it might be that town planning led to the creation of a dangerous junction, that there was oil on the road, or that fog descended. Not all incidents need have solutions, but certainly the cause behind them should be examined and there should be less of an "Oops!" about it.

I think it was Professor Thrun (not a rapper), who basically wondered aloud about why we (mankind) permit one of the largest cause of deaths in youth (road traffic incidents) to occur. I largely agree with him... if we (all road users) collectively wanted it to end, we have it within our means to do so. The very first part of that is to stop calling them accidents, stop thinking that they are things that just happened, and instead call them incidents, and ask the question "What can be done to avoid this in future?".

That does make us lobbyists to some extent. And the point of the black header was to recognise that a death has occurred that may have been avoidable, and to help trigger collective action. It's done with sympathy to the thought, "It could have been me.". Not to say that collective grief is the desire... that would be gruesome. But that appreciating life and recognising loss should be a cause for great anger about why we let this happen.

I think I rambled and talked myself in knots. I don't think it's promoting collective grief though.
We try to have them referred to by the MET/Council/other powers that be, as crashes, which is also in accordance with RoadPeace: http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/Crash_Not_Accident_April_2007.pdf

https://www.lfgss.com/thread86853.html

Self-explanatory.

Can you update the thread title on this thread please:

http://www.lfgss.com/thread78175.html#post2925476
2012-08-25 - Shakespeare Ride ++NEW DATE++

Completely agree regarding the word accidents which is all part of the tolerance we have for people who harm people using cars. Another element of this is referring to people as 'cars' and saying absurd things like 'the car didn't see him'. When we personalise our interactions on roads and make people who use them responsible for their actions the better for all. However I am not sure I agree with marking every fatality with a logo colour change which like ghost bikes focuses on and exaggerates the dangers of cycling and which is almost anti cycling-promotion.

Around 3000 people die on the roads annually in the UK, people using all modes and each death is terrible. The fact the we bike riders are better at forming groups and campaigning and flagging up incidents that happen to fellow riders better than, say people who walk (Yes we all walk) makes it seem to people who don't ride that we are doing something very risky which we are not. (Since per mile travelled you are more likely to come to harm as a pedestrian than as a bike rider)

I agree with David.

Around 3000 people die on the roads annually in the UK, people using all modes
Fortunately, this figure has fallen considerably since the early 2000s when it used to be the case:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-00.pdf

(2010 is the latest year for which we have complete figures. The 2011 report should be out in a few days.)

You can also look at this report:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-01.pdf

Can you update the thread title on this thread please:

http://www.lfgss.com/thread78175.html#post2925476
2012-08-25 - Shakespeare Ride ++NEW DATE++

Done, but without the shouty bit and superfluous special characters.

Done, but without the shouty bit and superfluous special characters.

Cheers. It wasn't my writing but I'll admit to liking the superfluous crosses. Unsurprising really.

weird evader?

https://www.lfgss.com/member23021.html

started with a question and then just posting "test" in various threads

Fortunately, this figure has fallen considerably since the early 2000s when it used to be the case:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-00.pdf

[URL="http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-01.pdf"][/URL]

Thanks for posting this correction Oliver. It is significantly improved.

can this https://www.lfgss.com/thread86914.html be renamed reflounce?

http://www.lfgss.com/thread86888.html

too far?

At least there's now a right place to talk about Veronica Moser

not at all, have you been to ratemypoo.com?

V that

Too far

not far enough below the water line, will require extra brushing after flushing

Thank god (David) for that.

Merge
https://www.lfgss.com/thread83724.html
into
https://www.lfgss.com/thread8174.html
?

Happy to keep them separate because of the extra specificity.

I thought you were walking this weekend.

Amazing how quiet the forum was last weekend when the weather was good. Or is it that we are all at home to watch the Jubilee.

evaserator

https://www.lfgss.com/member33342.html

Can we merge aero road wheels under £400 with the road wheels thread. it's not really adding anything extra.

http://www.lfgss.com/thread86960.html#post2930236

http://www.lfgss.com/thread20845.html

pls.

wow i like this one

http://www.lfgss.com/member33347.html

Evader:

https://www.lfgss.com/member33365.html

Schick the Bounty Hunter

pls.

http://www.lfgss.com/member33347.html

This guy has now posted adverts which are incomprehensible and is fishing for offers. Should we offer him a way out yet?