"Is dangerous cycling a problem" BBC

roger geffen of ctc was on radio 4 yesterday debating this with leadsom.

he did well.

It's the same with cars bikes and even peds. There are always mongs out there who shouldn't attempt to be in control of the bike/car/legs. They think it's a 'right' that they should be allowed to drive.

Having to take your driving test 10 fucking times should give you a hint of how shit you are at driving. If there were a cycling licence as there is a driving licence think of the amount of people who would fail such a thing.

.

i think that a person making a decision to walk or cycle is contributing to health and safety in the community.

i think a person making a decision to drive is detracting from health and safety in the community.

i think rospa and / or the health and safety executive should be called upon to undertake a thorough review of how the public should be moving around in the community.

or maybe a public inquiry or a royal commission ?

maybe leadsom may have started something that we can finish ?

write to your own mp's asking for health and safety principles to be applied to the roads / the community.

:-)

With you until the last point because nobody actually wants that do they?

The conclusion would probably be 'Don't cycle. Drive an Volvo'.

BTW what show was Roger Geffen on?

sorry it was monday not yesterday.

it was sometime about lunchtime.

may have been 'you and yours' but i think it was actually part of the 1'o clock news.

Think I've got it. Cheers.

Scrobble to 30mins into Monday's You & Yours.

With you until the last point because nobody actually wants that do they?

The conclusion would probably be 'Don't cycle. Drive an Volvo'.

BTW what show was Roger Geffen on?

well i think it would help.

because the point about health and safety principles is that tries to make the person making the risk responsible for it and answerable for their consequences.

so it would be the volvo driver, the volvo manufacturer, the road designer, the road funding authority, the road owner and the oil producer would have to think about pedestrians and cyclists safety in every decsion they made.

so an example is the construction industry in our country.

there used to be many more deaths and injuries than there are now and it used to have argue like mad who was responsible.

as a result the government introdued CDM (the construction, design and management regulations).

amongst other things CDM made the client responsible for the health and safety plan and answerable for deaths and injuries on site. (the architect, building contractor and building operative also have responsibilities).

but the big change was that person creating the risk i.e. the client was now in the hot seat for the health and safety plan.

and lo and behold since CDM deaths and injuries have dropped substantially.

The numbers are irrelevant, unless turned into percentages

Not true, the numbers are an accurate reflection of how things are in the current UK environment and by their nature take into account the number of cars and cyclists on the road.

If a pressure group / government wishes to reduce the numbers of deaths in the UK, the percentages are irrelevant, they need only look at the above figures to help them decide whether they think it would be better to turn their attention to saving a few or thousands.

In case you didn't know cars are being rated for the collision safety. The Ncap people now do 2 tests - how passengers of the car survive in a crash from all sorts of different situations but also there is a ped test. This has been out for a few years now but there are still many cars that get a single star. E.g the Citroen C6 - when in a crash the rear of the bonnet is popped up to make it less damaging for a ped. The same with the Nissan R35.

I've seen a few cases where the police have taken action against Councils about the lack of road maintenance.

But I see your point that if everyone in the chain does everything possible to make it safe then all that is left is human error - not something which can be easily predicted.

"Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died".
In the same year 50 UK servicemen died in action in Afghanistan.
True fact.

so an example is the construction industry in our country.

there used to be many more deaths and injuries than there are now and it used to have argue like mad who was responsible.

as a result the government introdued CDM (the construction, design and management regulations).

amongst other things CDM made the client responsible for the health and safety plan and answerable for deaths and injuries on site. (the architect, building contractor and building operative also have responsibilities).

but the big change was that person creating the risk i.e. the client was now in the hot seat for the health and safety plan.

and lo and behold since CDM deaths and injuries have dropped substantially.

Who would the 'client' be. The road planners? The authority that commissioned the road planning? We need roads even if they're imperfect.

^ I'm play devils advocate slightly.

Who would the 'client' be. The road planners? The authority that commissioned the road planning? We need roads even if they're imperfect.

^ I'm play devils advocate slightly.

With lorries it would be the firm that employed the driver, like Thames Materials' Dennis Putz. The HSE crawl over building site deaths, when it's a cyclist on the roads they sweep up the mess and forget about it.

a simpler example may be the smoking (ban) in public places.

it is the smoker that is producing the smoke so they should be responsible for its consequences.

not the non smoker (who is not producing the smoke but is adversely affected by it).

so it is the smoker that needs to adapt their behavour accordingly - by going outside.

so again back to making the person responsible for producing the risk responsible for it.

and yes there can be profound consequences of such regulation.

so in the construction industry much more of the building is made in a factory rather than on site.

(i dont think there has been commensurate rise in factory deaths).

With lorries it would be the firm that employed the driver, like Thames Materials' Dennis Putz. The HSE crawl over building site deaths, when it's a cyclist on the roads they sweep up the mess and forget about it.

So your saying corporate responsibility should be investigated in the event of road deaths?

what i would hope for is the government would reduce speed limits in built up areas.

which would make our public realm safer and so helping to reduce deaths amongst pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

So your saying corporate responsibility should be investigated in the event of road deaths?

Definitely. In Putz's case Thames employed a driver with a long list of convictions including driving bans.

^ this could mean better training is compulsory for Taxis, White Vans, LGVs, HGVs, Buses etc.

Unlikely to happen under a tory government in a recession.

if you want to drive fast go to a track = your risk = your consequences.

if you want to ride a bike fast go to a track (or some other organised event) = your risk = your consequences.

^ this could mean better training is compulsory for Taxis, White Vans, LGVs, HGVs, Buses etc.

Unlikely to happen under a tory government in a recession.

Extremely unlikely to happen under the current transport minister, Philip Hammond, who I believe to be a cock.

if you want to ride a bike fast go to a track (or some other organised event) = your risk = your consequences.

But then what is 'fast' on a bike? To some 15mph is considered fast but to me it's something I would think of as moderate to slow.

Who would the 'client' be. The road planners? The authority that commissioned the road planning? We need roads even if they're imperfect.

^ I'm play devils advocate slightly.

yes the road planners and funders are the government so yes the government have a big role to play here.

hence my suggestion write to your mp asking for health and safety principles to be applied to the roads.