Car vandalism

It applies to all sorts of human activity. Nobody is going to give up their cars. And cyclists, who are an equal menace to pedestrians ain't going to give up their bikes.

But awareness of "Alpha State" and education can do an awful lot to reduce the associated risk.

Cheers

Don

It ain't working. Motorists continue to kill each other at an alarming rate. The trend of reduction in fatalities is largely attributed to safer cars and roads (and in some cases more congestion and lower speeds), but not-so-much to more law-abiding, alert or cautious drivers. The reduction in drink-driving is the exception to this, and that has certainly improved. The recent emergence of text-driving is its replacement, of course.

Not true. Plenty of people giving up personal cars. The rate of young people getting their driving licences is in decline. Fewer are bothering, and those that are, are sometimes doing it later in life.

Patently not true. Motorists kill many, many, more pedestrians than cyclists do (who kill hardly any).

Dear Don,

Actually cycles are virtually no risk to pedestrians or cars.

Cars are a menace to both.

Look at the death rates of pedestrians by cars, and look at the death rate among cyclists, caused by car drivers.

Look at the death rate for car drivers by pedestrians. Look at the death rate for car drivers by cyclists. Look at the death rates for car drivers caused by other car drivers.

I have done this for the UK for the last thirty years,  and it is instructive, but clearly you have not, or else your view would be different.

Then tell us all that the problem is with cyclists or pedestrians.

It may be of interest to you to know that I am a cyclist and on occasion have to drive for work, previously have run cars and a lorry for over thirty years, and will soon have a Nissan Micra [1992 model] as a rescue saving it from the scrap man. It will only be used for those journeys not easily managed by cycle train or bus.

In my many years of driving I have not remotely come close to a collision.

This is because I drive with a much greater sense of the need for separation than most drivers, and a view that the speed limit is a maximum, and not the statutory minimum. It does not have to be approached as an aim.

If the human can suffer momentary lapses of concentration - and who would deny it? - then he needs to operate such a dangerous machine as a car with this in mind and leave himself the time, physical separation, and sufficiently cautious speed of motion to recover concentration before injuring or killing someone.

If he has not been sufficiently cautious to compensate for his own frailty and inability to concentrate 100 per cent of the time, then he should face at least a five year driving ban, as clearly he is an irresponsible person in charge of a dangerous machine. You would not be allowed to have a shot-gun if you could not show that you were a responsible person, and yet the car is potentially just as dangerous in irresponsible hands.

ATB from George

Firstly, thats simply because there are far, far fewer cyclists.

secondly, "menace" isn't confined to "killing". The number of aggressive cyclists in London who tear down streets shouting at pedestrians to get out of their way is alarming.

but my point is, cyclists should pay to use the exting roads, just like motorists have to pay VED if they want to use the roads.

cheers

Don

"nobody" was too strong a word. apologies.

"not many in the west" and these reductions are outnumbered by increases elsewhere eg India and China.

cheers

Don

Thats because it hasn't been introduced to any significant extent yet.

When I first mentioned it a few months back, nobody on this forum had heard about it.

cheers

Don 

From Yahoo News [so it must be true]:

Miss Way said: 'If I have known it would get this far I would never have sent the tweet to be honest.
'If I could take the tweet back I would but I can't. There is definitely a lesson to be learnt here but everyone knows what social media is like.
'I would never have written it if I thought it would get as far as it has now.'
Miss Way now faces potential charges of failing to stop at the scene of the accident, driving with due care and attention [driving without perhaps?] and failing to report an accident to the police.
She has also been suspended by her employers.

So she regrets writing a text message that has landed her up to the neck in it, but says nothing of regret [or apologised] for knocking down the cyclist!

Debs

I think this thread has moved sufficiently far from the opening for me to continue to hijack it...

I went for my interview with the police today in respect of the accident on Tuesday. They were very helpful, tolerant of my French (which is pretty good, but every new experience taxes the vocabulary). The first thing that the officer said was that the driver had been calling often to find out how I was doing, and had spent the rest of the evening it happened likewise calling the hospital. This is a small thing, but meant a lot to me.

She had to ask my permission to relay anything to him, so I asked her to thank him for stopping after the accident and calling the emergency services (she took slight umbrage at this, after all if he had driven off he would have committed a greater crime, but I'm sure many people would have done so, albeit possibly out of panic more than malice).

I have at least discovered why home insurance is so expensive in France (although I don't think it's compulsory). It transpires that my home insurance policy will cover the costs in the event they are unrecoverable, and they will pursue the other side. The driver was insured, and the police officer was in no doubt that it was entirely his fault (I was on a crossing, but you never know). Nevertheless, everyone is paying home insurance premiums, seems slightly odd/unfair that cyclists and pedestrians use the same policy to claim for uninsured driving accidents, although I guess city dwellers pay higher premiums. 

I was asked whether I wanted to register a "plainte". This is a slightly weird complaint procedure that can force the police to investigate something they might otherwise ignore. I thought it was only used in  quarrels between neighbours and harrassment and stuff like that. At the very least I would have assumed it had to involve an accusation of something deliberate. Anyway, slightly bouyed by his apparent remorse, I certainly didn't want to record a plainte, although I checked that I wasn't shedding my rights to a claim for the bike etc.

I am finding being one-armed to be even more of a trial than I might have imagined. I can't drive, so am at the mercy of people giving me lifts. Yesterday I found a steak in the fridge that was about to go out of date. I managed to cook it. But I couldn't cut it to eat it. So the dog is up on the deal after all. I can't face the ordeal of getting to Monaco on public transport on Sunday so have forfeited my place to watch the Grand Prix. I'm flying to China on Friday and I am now dreading something that previously I was really looking forward to. Oh well. It's my left arm, and I'm righthanded, so that's something I suppose.

More wine now. (From a screwcapped bottle, obviously).

Yes, that is unbelievable. The lesson she learnt was about the dangers of social media? WTF? She has learnt nothing about the dangers and consequences of running down cyclists?

To be fair, this quote might be out of context. She might have just finished talking at length about the true lessons of culpable driving and her remorse for nearly killing someone and fleeing the scene, and then moved for a moment to the tweeting stuff quoted here.

No, I take that back. She actually said that the twitter message "was the biggest mistake of (her) life". Bigger mistake than nearly killing someone. Wow. She should NEVER be allowed behind the wheel of a car. She just doesn't get it. I am sensing that she is actually to stupid to drive, or perhaps even too stupid to be part of our society in any meaningful way.