Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
uk.rec.cycling
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Cycling Safer than Walking?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Dave - Cyclists VOR  
View profile  
 More options Oct 2 2012, 3:56 pm
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
From: Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:56:39 +0100
Local: Tues, Oct 2 2012 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: Cycling Safer than Walking?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 02/10/2012 16:46, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:35:47 +0100, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:

>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 06:36:03 -0700 (PDT), PhilO <goo18...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>> On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:14:17 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
>>>> I see from the DfT recent figures that there are 450 pedestrian casualties per
>>>> million of the England population.

>>>> Unless of course I am missing something?

>>> I notice the switch to "per million of the England population"

>>> You always used "per billion passenger miles" before. Did that not suit you any more?

>>> Is cycling a mile still less likely to lead to your death than walking a mile?

>>> I think you'll find it is.

>>> Cycling is not nearly as dangerous as you pretend.

>> Don't take my word for it:

>> Cycling became more dangerous last year, when the rate of cyclists killed and
>> seriously injured rose sharply, official figures showed today.
>> The rate of cyclists killed and seriously injured measured as a proportion of
>> distance travelled rose by 9 per cent in 2011. It was the third consecutive
>> year in which the rate of death and serious injury amongst cyclists had
>> increased.

>> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3551562.ece

> Further proof, if further proof is needed, that motor traffic needs to
> be slowed by more and bigger speed humps, with a bump bypass for
> cyclists, more speed cameras with tougher enforcement, wider lanes for
> use by buses and cyclists, and tougher restrictions on HGVs in town
> centres.

But why should we bother?

The vast majority should not be inconvenienced by measures designed to
help the poor and/or strange minority - who contribute nothing to the roads.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google