Forum menu
mleh
you describe two different scenarios where one lot break the rules
I agree people who break the rules are annoying but not sure culturally what they suggest will work.
i am happy to give it a try but I am not convinced no rules will suddenly turn asshole road users into considerate raod users.
they are a very similar peoples to us being descended from the same tribes with very similar attitudes and so on.
Ahhhh, yes, the famous "tribal origins" school of traffic management.
Not sure I really see the benefits from a cyclists point of view. Traffic lit junctions are rarely a problem, people not seeing you / not paying attention to their driving / passing too close and too fast are more pressing concerns.
pypdjl - safer quicker less stressful road conditions benefit everyone
Well yes they would do, I can't see this making much of a difference though.
i am happy to give it a try but I am not convinced no rules will suddenly turn asshole road users into considerate raod users.
There is and always will be a minority of [i]helplessly assholey[/i] assholes. That's a sad fact we can't change.
However the majority of today's assholes don't really mean to be assholes, nor do they really wish to be thought of as assholes. It is the behaviour of this majority of accidental assholes we'll tackle as a by-product of making life easier, safer and more efficient for the actual majority of people - those that are reasonable, well mannered, caring and have learnt how to conduct themselves in a developed society.
There are a lot more of these people than we ever notice, hidden by their ubiquity while we focus on the tiny minorities we hate.
And in the process, we might just make the compatibility between us and those [i]helplessly assholey[/i] assholes just that bit safer by creating a situation where we can take avoiding action, rather than encouraging us to sail along with the dangerous assumption that coloured lights, reflective paint and kerb stones alone can protect us from them, despite the evidence that it doesn't and never has.
Traffic lit junctions are rarely a problem, people not seeing you / not paying attention to their driving / passing too close and too fast are more pressing concerns.
[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/police-collar-138-drivers-and-cyclists-in-traffic-crackdown-1-2279522 ]The Scotsman article mentioned earlier[/url] does say: [i]"Police are particularly targeting drivers’ behaviour at junctions as, between 2004 and 2009, 74 per cent of cycle casualties in the city were injured at or within 20 metres of a junction."[/i] which suggest that junctions, lit or unlit, are a contributing factor.
jackthedog has it...
Nothing much that can really be added, only that I think the root cause of this "drivers sense of entitlement" can be traced directly to one person - Clarkson...
The solution is quite clear; one final act of brutality we mush Hang him, Hang him High!*
Then move forwards towards our cultural enlightenment, and never speak of that final cruel act upon which it was built...
Long live the "Green Nazi Thugs!"
*I am of course joking... mostly.
which suggest that junctions, lit or unlit, are a contributing factor
Well yes, junctions are clearly a hazard, I would say unlit ones are currently far more of one though, specifically side roads.
74 per cent of cycle casualties in the city were injured at or within 20 metres of a junction.
Smells like bullshit to me. What percentage of any all accident occur at junctions? That stat is only meaninful if it substantially higher than for all vehicles. It won't be.
That stat is only meaninful if it substantially higher than for all vehicles. It won't be.
Not sure I get your point. If the accident rate is higher for all vehicles at junctions then doesn't that just mean that junctions are generally riskier places for all road users? Which seems likely.
Not sure I get your point. If the accident rate is higher for all vehicles at junctions then doesn't that just mean that junctions are generally riskier places for all road users?
That is my point. It meaningless to point out that [i]cyclists[/i] are at greater risk [i]eveyone[/i] is at greater risk. So its junctions that are the problem not cyclists.
Quoting the stats the way the Scotsman article does suggests its cyclist who are the problem.
Don't worry Graham we are on the same side!
Those are the kind of people I would worry about sharing a sign-and-light-free road with!
They won't get to stay that way long as I would expect licences to be revoked and jail-time handed out "pour encourager les autres".
Quoting the stats the way the Scotsman article does suggests its cyclist who are the problem.
Yeah I see what you mean. I don't [i]think [/i]that was necessarily their intent though. I read it as expanding on why motorists encroaching into the ASLs was a genuine issue.
Many motorists seem to regard it as [i]not-a-real-offence[/i], like going through an amber light or driving in bus lanes.
IAM, -got it all wrong, in Denmark, it would be
157 % !