Drivers and peds more to blame states report

[Simon Mason]

Salient bits from the Westminster data:

QUOTE:
"According to the council, in 68 per cent of road traffic incidents
over the past 12 months in which a cyclist was injured and a motor
vehicle involved and for which detailed information, apparently
gathered from police STATS19 report forms, is available, the driver
was deemed to be at fault."

The City of Westminster also analysed 133 incidents in which cyclists
were involved in a collision with a pedestrian, an emotive issue, as a
scan of comments to any article about cycling on a local newspaper
website demonstrates.

However, the data reveal that in 60 per cent of those incidents, the
cause was attributed to some action on the pedestrian�s part

http://road.cc/content/news/83104-two-thirds-cyclist-injuries-following-collisions-motor-vehicle-due-driver-says

--
Simon Mason

[Molly Mockford]

At 17:35:21 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote
in <3240d30b-8b46-462b...@a3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>:

Interesting. However, the study appears to concentrate only on
incidents which took place *on the roads*. I have just returned from a
few days spent in Westminster, and I noticed that pavement cycling was a
very popular past-time, and saw two near misses between the front of a
bicycle and the back of a pedestrian.
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>Interesting. However, the study appears to concentrate only on
>incidents which took place *on the roads*. I have just returned from a
>few days spent in Westminster, and I noticed that pavement cycling was a
>very popular past-time

This is an absurd interpretation. STATS19 includes on-pavement collisions;
this includes on-pavement collisions.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, May.
Tomorrow will be Second Tuesday, May.

[Molly Mockford]

At 18:51:11 on Thu, 9 May 2013, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<uDo*4x...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>Interesting. However, the study appears to concentrate only on
>>incidents which took place *on the roads*. I have just returned from a
>>few days spent in Westminster, and I noticed that pavement cycling was a
>>very popular past-time
>
>This is an absurd interpretation. STATS19 includes on-pavement collisions;
>this includes on-pavement collisions.

Are you suggesting that a pedestrian would be deemed to be at fault for
not looking behind them to see a cyclist silently approaching them on
the pavement? I can quite see that a pedestrian crossing the road would
be at fault for not looking around, but surely on the pavement they have
a right to expect that they will not be struck from behind?

[Clive George]

On 09/05/2013 22:06, Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 18:51:11 on Thu, 9 May 2013, David Damerell
> <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
> <uDo*4x...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
>> Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>> Interesting. However, the study appears to concentrate only on
>>> incidents which took place *on the roads*. I have just returned from a
>>> few days spent in Westminster, and I noticed that pavement cycling was a
>>> very popular past-time
>>
>> This is an absurd interpretation. STATS19 includes on-pavement
>> collisions;
>> this includes on-pavement collisions.
>
> Are you suggesting that a pedestrian would be deemed to be at fault for
> not looking behind them to see a cyclist silently approaching them on
> the pavement?

I don't see any such implication, either in the site mentioned or in
David's post.

> I can quite see that a pedestrian crossing the road would
> be at fault for not looking around, but surely on the pavement they
> have a right to expect that they will not be struck from behind?

Has anybody suggested otherwise?

I'd not be surprised if pavement cycling had plenty of what people
thought were near misses, but actual collisions were more common on the
road and harder too. The faster riders use the roads - IME people on
pavements tend to be pottering, and at lower speeds you can get a lot
closer without actually hitting, especially since both parties can take
avoiding action.

Doesn't stop it being annoying, especially having to take avoiding
action for somebody who really shouldn't be there, but the stats aren't
about annoying, they're about actual collisions.

[Molly Mockford]

At 22:34:42 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote in <MP2dnXtWeNz8ixHM...@brightview.co.uk>:

>On 09/05/2013 22:06, Molly Mockford wrote:
>> At 18:51:11 on Thu, 9 May 2013, David Damerell
>> <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
>> <uDo*4x...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>>
>>> Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>>> Interesting. However, the study appears to concentrate only on
>>>> incidents which took place *on the roads*. I have just returned from a
>>>> few days spent in Westminster, and I noticed that pavement cycling was a
>>>> very popular past-time
>>>
>>> This is an absurd interpretation. STATS19 includes on-pavement
>>> collisions;
>>> this includes on-pavement collisions.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that a pedestrian would be deemed to be at fault for
>> not looking behind them to see a cyclist silently approaching them on
>> the pavement?
>
>I don't see any such implication, either in the site mentioned or in
>David's post.

/Quote starts/

The City of Westminster also analysed 133 incidents in which cyclists
were involved in a collision with a pedestrian, an emotive issue, as a
scan of comments to any article about cycling on a local newspaper
website demonstrates.

However, the data reveal that in 60 per cent of those incidents, the

cause was attributed to some action on the pedestrian’s part, including:

28 per cent – the pedestrian were the pedestrian failing to look
properly and

16 per cent – the pedestrian failing to judge the vehicle’s path
or speed.
/Quote ends/

If, as David claims, the incidents related not just to collisions on the
roads but also to collisions on the pavements, there is no reason to
assume that these figures do not also relate to collisions on the
pavements.

>> I can quite see that a pedestrian crossing the road would
>> be at fault for not looking around, but surely on the pavement they
>> have a right to expect that they will not be struck from behind?
>
>Has anybody suggested otherwise?

Well, if David's claim that the figures include pavement cycling
accidents is correct, and his claim that my interpretation is therefore
absurd is also correct, then I would certainly consider that he was
also, in your terms, "suggesting otherwise".

>I'd not be surprised if pavement cycling had plenty of what people
>thought were near misses, but actual collisions were more common on the
>road and harder too. The faster riders use the roads - IME people on
>pavements tend to be pottering, and at lower speeds you can get a lot
>closer without actually hitting, especially since both parties can take
>avoiding action.

But only if the pedestrian knows there is a cyclist approaching them
from behind - which, in these days of no bells or any other audible
warning, is hard to tell.

>Doesn't stop it being annoying, especially having to take avoiding
>action for somebody who really shouldn't be there, but the stats aren't
>about annoying, they're about actual collisions.

Agreed, and I didn't suggest otherwise.

[Clive George]

Yes, the figures will include collisions on pavements as well as on
road, but there's no implication that the split by category will be at
all even - and indeed it could well be 0-100 for some. Those two example
categories don't really apply on the pavement, because looking properly
and judging vehicle speeds while on the pavement doesn't really apply -
it's assumed to be a safe environment for blind people.

>>> I can quite see that a pedestrian crossing the road would
>>> be at fault for not looking around, but surely on the pavement they
>>> have a right to expect that they will not be struck from behind?
>>
>> Has anybody suggested otherwise?
>
> Well, if David's claim that the figures include pavement cycling
> accidents is correct, and his claim that my interpretation is therefore
> absurd is also correct, then I would certainly consider that he was
> also, in your terms, "suggesting otherwise".

I disagree - I think your interpretation is incorrect, for the reasons
stated above. I think the statistics don't imply what you think they do.
There's no reason that 28+16% have to be split evenly between road and
pavement, and I believe they'll probably most if not all be on the road.

It's also fairly likely that the proportion where the collision is the
cyclist's fault will be significantly higher on the pavement. This
shouldn't really be surprising.

[Molly Mockford]

At 00:48:08 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote in <PI6dnbSXotA6qBHM...@brightview.co.uk>:

>> cause was attributed to some action on the pedestrian’s part, including:
>>
>> 28 per cent – the pedestrian were the pedestrian failing to look
>> properly and
>>
>> 16 per cent – the pedestrian failing to judge the vehicle’s path

>> or speed.
>> /Quote ends/
>>
>> If, as David claims, the incidents related not just to collisions on the
>> roads but also to collisions on the pavements, there is no reason to
>> assume that these figures do not also relate to collisions on the
>> pavements.
>
>Yes, the figures will include collisions on pavements as well as on
>road, but there's no implication that the split by category will be at
>all even - and indeed it could well be 0-100 for some. Those two example
>categories don't really apply on the pavement, because looking properly
>and judging vehicle speeds while on the pavement doesn't really apply -
>it's assumed to be a safe environment for blind people.
>
>>>> I can quite see that a pedestrian crossing the road would
>>>> be at fault for not looking around, but surely on the pavement they
>>>> have a right to expect that they will not be struck from behind?
>>>
>>> Has anybody suggested otherwise?
>>
>> Well, if David's claim that the figures include pavement cycling
>> accidents is correct, and his claim that my interpretation is therefore
>> absurd is also correct, then I would certainly consider that he was
>> also, in your terms, "suggesting otherwise".
>
>I disagree - I think your interpretation is incorrect, for the reasons
>stated above.

And I still think it is reasonable, for the reasons I clarify below.

> I think the statistics don't imply what you think they do.
>There's no reason that 28+16% have to be split evenly between road and
>pavement, and I believe they'll probably most if not all be on the road.
>
>It's also fairly likely that the proportion where the collision is the
>cyclist's fault will be significantly higher on the pavement. This
>shouldn't really be surprising.

Which means that what I wrote ("However, the study appears to
concentrate only on incidents which took place *on the roads*") is not
in fact "an absurd interpretation", but logically reasonable - the study
itself makes no mention of pavements, or distinction of causes of the
accidents between roads and pavements (which it makes total sense should
be apportioned as you suggest), and therefore it is not unreasonable to
assume that the study's figures do indeed relate to accidents *on the
roads* rather than pavements - and that, therefore, where pedestrians
were at fault for negligence, this was also on the roads rather than on
pavements.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>:
>Salient bits from the Westminster data:

Another neat catch here, alas, is that as usual they want to redesign
roads to provide more farcilities to reduce the perception of danger
(which is overwhelmingly cited as the reason that people don't cycle),
rather than encourage the Police to actually reduce the danger by taking
action against motorists. Surprise, surprise.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>However, the data reveal that in 60 per cent of those incidents, the
>cause was attributed to some action on the pedestrian's part, including:

> 28 per cent - the pedestrian were the pedestrian failing to look
>properly and

>If, as David claims, the incidents related not just to collisions on the
>roads but also to collisions on the pavements, there is no reason to
>assume that these figures do not also relate to collisions on the
>pavements.

Overall, they do, obviously. Does that mean that in 28 percent of cases
on the pavement fault was ascribed to the pedestrian because exactly the
same standard of alertness was demanded of them as it would be when
walking on the road, and that furthermore these were generally
attributable to direct collisions from behind as you suggest? No.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in

>>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>>Interesting. However, the study appears to concentrate only on
>>>incidents which took place *on the roads*. I have just returned from a
>>>few days spent in Westminster, and I noticed that pavement cycling was a
>>>very popular past-time
>>This is an absurd interpretation. STATS19 includes on-pavement collisions;
>>this includes on-pavement collisions.
>Are you suggesting that a pedestrian would be deemed to be at fault for
>not looking behind them to see a cyclist silently approaching them on
>the pavement?

No. I'm saying that your interpretation that the document deals only
with collisions on the road rather than with those on the pavement or
anywhere else in Westminster where the Police became involved is absurd.

--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.

[Owen Dunn]

David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Quoting Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>:
>>Salient bits from the Westminster data:
>
> Another neat catch here, alas, is that as usual they want to redesign
> roads to provide more farcilities to reduce the perception of danger
> (which is overwhelmingly cited as the reason that people don't cycle),
> rather than encourage the Police to actually reduce the danger by taking
> action against motorists. Surprise, surprise.

Do we have any evidence that the police taking action against
motorists has a positive effect on the safety of cyclists, or more
importantly on how safe would-be cyclists think the road will be?

(S)

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-09, Molly Mockford wrote:

> /Quote starts/
> The City of Westminster also analysed 133 incidents in which cyclists
> were involved in a collision with a pedestrian, an emotive issue, as a
> scan of comments to any article about cycling on a local newspaper
> website demonstrates.
>
> However, the data reveal that in 60 per cent of those incidents, the
> cause was attributed to some action on the pedestrian’s part, including:
>
> 28 per cent – the pedestrian were the pedestrian failing to look
> properly and
>
> 16 per cent – the pedestrian failing to judge the vehicle’s path
> or speed.
> /Quote ends/
>
> If, as David claims, the incidents related not just to collisions on the
> roads but also to collisions on the pavements, there is no reason to
> assume that these figures do not also relate to collisions on the
> pavements.

I don't see how they could interpret a collision on a pavement in the
strict sense as being the pedestrian's fault at all (since no-one
should be cycling there); those failures to look/judge properly must
refer to pedestrians crossing the street in front of cyclists or to
incidents in shared-use paths, parks, &c.

[Molly Mockford]

At 08:33:52 on Fri, 10 May 2013, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<I4k*JL...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
>>>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>>>Interesting. However, the study appears to concentrate only on
>>>>incidents which took place *on the roads*. I have just returned from a
>>>>few days spent in Westminster, and I noticed that pavement cycling was a
>>>>very popular past-time
>>>This is an absurd interpretation. STATS19 includes on-pavement collisions;
>>>this includes on-pavement collisions.
>>Are you suggesting that a pedestrian would be deemed to be at fault for
>>not looking behind them to see a cyclist silently approaching them on
>>the pavement?
>
>No. I'm saying that your interpretation that the document deals only
>with collisions on the road rather than with those on the pavement or
>anywhere else in Westminster where the Police became involved is absurd.

That's twice you have aimed the word "absurd" in my direction. If you
disagree with my interpretation of the document (which quite clearly
includes no mention of pavements) then that is absolutely fine; but to
respond with insulting language, twice, does nothing to promote sensible
and informed debate.

[Mark]

Do we have any evidence that the police do take action against
motorists when they collide with cycles?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

[Owen Dunn]

Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:30:21 +0100, Owen Dunn
> <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Do we have any evidence that the police taking action against
>>motorists has a positive effect on the safety of cyclists, or more
>>importantly on how safe would-be cyclists think the road will be?
>
> Do we have any evidence that the police do take action against
> motorists when they collide with cycles?

At least some, e.g.:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/17/driver-jailed-bus-weapon-cyclist

http://www.sussex.police.uk/whats-happening/latest/news-stories/2013/04/30/amended-worthing-driver-sentenced-for-hit-and-run-collision/

http://www.ctc.org.uk/police-officer-convicted-of-dangerous-driving-which-left-cycling-musician-seriously-injured

(S)

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>be apportioned as you suggest), and therefore it is not unreasonable to
>assume that the study's figures do indeed relate to accidents *on the
>roads* rather than pavements

... because it would make perfect sense for Westminster's draft Cycling
Strategy, Westminster being as blighted with on-pavement routes as
anywhere else, to ignore on-pavement collisions even though they are
documented in exactly the same data used for everything else? That's
ridiculous.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Tuesday, May.
Tomorrow will be Second Wednesday, May.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>:
>I don't see how they could interpret a collision on a pavement in the
>strict sense as being the pedestrian's fault at all (since no-one
>should be cycling there);

Up a drive? Of course, ordinarily one should give way in that case, but
I'm sure one can imagine a case where a particularly heroic leap on the
part of the ped results in an unexpected collision.

... or, of course, on the pernicious blight of shared-use pavements.

[Molly Mockford]

At 15:17:36 on Fri, 10 May 2013, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<48u*Z8...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>be apportioned as you suggest), and therefore it is not unreasonable to
>>assume that the study's figures do indeed relate to accidents *on the
>>roads* rather than pavements
>
>... because it would make perfect sense for Westminster's draft Cycling
>Strategy, Westminster being as blighted with on-pavement routes as
>anywhere else, to ignore on-pavement collisions even though they are
>documented in exactly the same data used for everything else?

What "on-pavement routes"? I was talking about illegal pavement
cyclists, weaving in between the pedestrians (many of whom, being
tourists, were likely suddenly to stop in their tracks to take photos,
or otherwise move unpredictably) and being very lucky to avoid
collisions. I saw no marked "on-pavement routes" in my walks around
that area (of course, I did not walk every single street in the Borough,
and maybe there are loads I could not see - that's irrelevant). I did
see cycle paths marked on roads, and on some areas which were neither
roads nor pavements, but were carefully divided to allow cycling in both
directions. I saw a number of cyclists using the paths marked on roads,
and a number of cyclists using the roads themselves; I saw quite a
number of cyclists riding on the pavement, but no cyclists on
"on-pavement routes".

> That's ridiculous.

Maybe it is, but this time it was your own suggestion, not mine. I
don't even know what you are talking about with "Westminster's draft

Cycling Strategy, Westminster being as blighted with on-pavement routes

as anywhere else". If your meaning is that you also deplore cyclists on
pavements, even when officially sanctioned as well as when illegal, then
we would find ourselves approaching agreement. The only advantage, to
my mind, of having an official cycle path on a pavement is that it gives
the pedestrians a modicum of warning as to what they are liable to
encounter during their walk. Otherwise, I think it's asking for
trouble.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>rather than encourage the Police to actually reduce the danger by taking
>>action against motorists. Surprise, surprise.
>Do we have any evidence that the police taking action against
>motorists has a positive effect on the safety of cyclists,

Do we have any evidence that it doesn't? Is this part of a general thesis
that law enforcement is ineffective? We could save an awful lot of money
if that turned out to be the case.

--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!

Today is Second Tuesday, May.
Tomorrow will be Second Wednesday, May.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <tVe*Mf...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Quoting Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>>
>>>rather than encourage the Police to actually reduce the danger by taking
>>>action against motorists. Surprise, surprise.
>>Do we have any evidence that the police taking action against
>>motorists has a positive effect on the safety of cyclists,
>
>Do we have any evidence that it doesn't? Is this part of a general thesis
>that law enforcement is ineffective? We could save an awful lot of money
>if that turned out to be the case.

Regrettably, yes :-(

There is a heck of a lot of evidence that draconian penalties for
a small proportion of the worst offenders does not work in reducing
crime. That was the principle of 18th century English law, which
seems to be the time that the people who are currently ruining the
country regard as the golden age.

The problem is that more widespread enforcement costs real money,
and the UK has an army of fat cats to support and a decreasing
number of productive and competitive workers. I have some solutions
for that, but they are beyond radical :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Owen Dunn]

David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Quoting Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>rather than encourage the Police to actually reduce the danger by taking
>>>action against motorists. Surprise, surprise.
>>Do we have any evidence that the police taking action against
>>motorists has a positive effect on the safety of cyclists,
>
> Do we have any evidence that it doesn't? Is this part of a general thesis
> that law enforcement is ineffective?

Not particularly, but if our aim is either to make cyclists safer or
to make them feel safer, it could be useful to know whether bopping
motorists on the head with a truncheon helps us achieve this.

(S)

[Clive George]

On 10/05/2013 15:52, Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 15:17:36 on Fri, 10 May 2013, David Damerell
> <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
> <48u*Z8...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
>> Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>> be apportioned as you suggest), and therefore it is not unreasonable to
>>> assume that the study's figures do indeed relate to accidents *on the
>>> roads* rather than pavements
>>
>> ... because it would make perfect sense for Westminster's draft Cycling
>> Strategy, Westminster being as blighted with on-pavement routes as
>> anywhere else, to ignore on-pavement collisions even though they are
>> documented in exactly the same data used for everything else?
>
> What "on-pavement routes"? I was talking about illegal pavement
> cyclists, weaving in between the pedestrians (many of whom, being
> tourists, were likely suddenly to stop in their tracks to take photos,
> or otherwise move unpredictably) and being very lucky to avoid
> collisions.

I'm not going to dispute what you've seen, but none of that tells us
that the stats showing that pedestrians are at fault in 60% of
cyclist/pedestrian collisions don't include pavement collisions.

David has pointed out that the source data for that includes both, and
I'm inclined to believe that at the moment.

What it does tell us is that the perception of the dangers of pavement
cycling may very well be at odds with the reality, because you believed
that the numbers couldn't include pavement collisions since obviously if
they did the proportion which were the cyclists fault would be much
higher. The stats tell us that it's not so, and it might be that what
you class as lucky might have more deliberation behind it than you think.

Based on personal experience, I'd be not at all surprised if there were
more pedestrian/cyclist collisions on the road, and that a higher
proportion of them were the pedestrian's fault.

(When I'm riding on a pavement (legally...) I do take more care around
pedestrians. I know they're significantly more likely to leap sideways
than to appear suddenly in front of me in the road, because those who do
the latter tend to get flattened by cars very quickly.)

[Molly Mockford]

At 16:47:00 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote in <VridnS4e-qT7ixDM...@brightview.co.uk>:

>I'm not going to dispute what you've seen, but none of that tells us
>that the stats showing that pedestrians are at fault in 60% of
>cyclist/pedestrian collisions don't include pavement collisions.

Nor that they do. They are in fact silent on the subject.

>David has pointed out that the source data for that includes both, and
>I'm inclined to believe that at the moment.

He has said that the form which is completed after accidents mentions
pavements; however, in other parts of the form (e.g. 1.1.4, Road Type)
pavements are not mentioned at all. Pavements don't appear until
question 2.9, "Vehicle location at time of accident restricted lane/away
from main c'way". Then, under "Contributory factors", there are two
which mention pavements: "Cyclist entering road from pavement" and
"Vehicle travelling along pavement".

That form really does not appear designed to collect details of
accidents occurring between cyclists and pedestrians on pavements where
cycling is not permitted.

>What it does tell us is that the perception of the dangers of pavement
>cycling may very well be at odds with the reality, because you believed
>that the numbers couldn't include pavement collisions since obviously
>if they did the proportion which were the cyclists fault would be much
>higher.

Yes, I still maintain that if a cyclist is cycling illegally on a
pavement, then the main responsibility for any collision lies with the
cyclist. Pedestrians should not have to look constantly over their
shoulders just in case there is an illegal cyclist (or horse-rider, or
raging bull) approaching with no audible warning.

>The stats tell us that it's not so,

No, they don't, really they don't. Some people interpret them as saying

this; but other can interpret them otherwise. For example, Adam said:

"I don't see how they could interpret a collision on a pavement in the
strict sense as being the pedestrian's fault at all (since no-one should

be cycling there); those failures to look/judge properly must refer to
pedestrians crossing the street in front of cyclists or to incidents in
shared-use paths, parks, &c."

>and it might be that what you class as lucky might have more
>deliberation behind it than you think.

I grant you that every time an illegal pavement cyclist avoids hitting a
pedestrian, s/he has done so deliberately; and I think it is very
likely that when they do actually hit a pedestrian they have not done so
deliberately. Naturally a cyclist prefers not to ram into people, or
they wouldn't get from A to B as fast as they want to go. Nevertheless,
they are breaking the law and as a result must accept responsibility for
any accidents which occur.

>Based on personal experience, I'd be not at all surprised if there were
>more pedestrian/cyclist collisions on the road, and that a higher
>proportion of them were the pedestrian's fault.

I would certainly agree with that. A pedestrian on a road has a strong
obligation to look around and see what other road users are within
collision distance of them. They have no such obligation while on the
pavement, which is why I take issue with the assertion made by David
that they are likely to be just as much to blame for such accidents as
for ones taking place on the road.

>(When I'm riding on a pavement (legally...) I do take more care around
>pedestrians. I know they're significantly more likely to leap sideways
>than to appear suddenly in front of me in the road, because those who
>do the latter tend to get flattened by cars very quickly.)

And because every pedestrian over five years old knows that roads are
more dangerous than pavements, as they have lethal traffic traversing
them at speed. So they know to take precautions when crossing the road
that they would mostly think (if you will pardon the expression)
"absurd" to be expected to take when walking along the pavement.

[Toom Tabard]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 00:48:08 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:

>
> It's also fairly likely that the proportion where the collision is the
> cyclist's fault will be significantly higher on the pavement. This
> shouldn't really be surprising.

Unless the pedestrian pavement is officially marked as dual use as a cycle way,
then a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian would by default be deemed
to be the cyclists fault at common law liability for injury (and probably also
a road law offence). The cyclist would have to provide evidence either that
there was some overt (contributory) negligence by the pedestrian, or that it was
someone else's fault he was on the pavement (e.g. someone else's negligence
caused him to run off the road). It's one scenario in which 'res ipsa loquitor'
(the facts speak for themselves) would apply - the pedestrian is where he is
entitled to be and where he should be safe. The cyclist is where he is not
entitled to be. Same considerations apply if a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian
on the pavement.

Toom

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in

>>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>>be apportioned as you suggest), and therefore it is not unreasonable to
>>>assume that the study's figures do indeed relate to accidents *on the
>>>roads* rather than pavements
>>... because it would make perfect sense for Westminster's draft Cycling
>>Strategy, Westminster being as blighted with on-pavement routes as
>>anywhere else, to ignore on-pavement collisions even though they are
>>documented in exactly the same data used for everything else?
>What "on-pavement routes"? I was talking about illegal pavement
>cyclists,

Ah. So you think the study includes shared-use paths, but not other
pavements? Because it seems to me that that is not consistent with the
original absurd idea that the study deals only with "roads".

[Alan Braggins]

In article <EgMq16mI...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford wrote:
>Yes, I still maintain that if a cyclist is cycling illegally on a
>pavement, then the main responsibility for any collision lies with the
>cyclist.

Has anyone anywhere ever maintained differently? (At least for the
case where "any collision" is with a pedestrian, not another illegal
cyclist, or someone who is illegally driving on the pavement.)

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>At 16:47:00 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>

>>I'm not going to dispute what you've seen, but none of that tells us
>>that the stats showing that pedestrians are at fault in 60% of
>>cyclist/pedestrian collisions don't include pavement collisions.
>Nor that they do. They are in fact silent on the subject.

We just have to consider the plausibility of the idea that Westminster
carefully stripped on-pavement collisions out of the STATS19 data
because... er...

>>David has pointed out that the source data for that includes both, and
>>I'm inclined to believe that at the moment.

>That form really does not appear designed to collect details of
>accidents occurring between cyclists and pedestrians on pavements where
>cycling is not permitted.

Are you seriously suggesting that STATS19 forms are not used after
pavement collisions?

>>What it does tell us is that the perception of the dangers of pavement
>>cycling may very well be at odds with the reality, because you believed
>>that the numbers couldn't include pavement collisions since obviously
>>if they did the proportion which were the cyclists fault would be much
>>higher.
>Yes, I still maintain that if a cyclist is cycling illegally on a
>pavement, then the main responsibility for any collision lies with the
>cyclist.

I wonder who is saying that is not so? Anyone?

>>The stats tell us that it's not so,
>No, they don't, really they don't. Some people interpret them as saying
>this; but other can interpret them otherwise. For example, Adam said:

Adam said something entirely consistent with what Clive writes above, so
your point is?

[Andy Morris]

On 10/05/2013 19:34, Toom Tabard wrote:
>
> Unless the pedestrian pavement is officially marked as dual use as a cycle way,
> then a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian would by default be deemed
> to be the cyclists fault at common law liability for injury (and probably also
> a road law offence). The cyclist would have to provide evidence either that
> there was some overt (contributory) negligence by the pedestrian, or that it was
> someone else's fault he was on the pavement (e.g. someone else's negligence
> caused him to run off the road). It's one scenario in which 'res ipsa loquitor'
> (the facts speak for themselves) would apply - the pedestrian is where he is
> entitled to be and where he should be safe. The cyclist is where he is not
> entitled to be. Same considerations apply if a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian
> on the pavement.
>

At the risk of going off on a tangent does this mean that when people
park on the pavement, if I stumble by their car and steady myself with
my hammer carrying hand that happens to hit their car, I can't be done?


--
Andy Morris
Andy dot Jinkas at Googlemail

[Adam Funk]

ITYM a D-lock, surely.

(not serious)

[Andy Morris]

On 10/05/2013 09:30, Owen Dunn wrote:

>
> Do we have any evidence that the police taking action against
> motorists has a positive effect on the safety of cyclists, or more
> importantly on how safe would-be cyclists think the road will be?
>

I'm not sure that compared to my own safety, I give a proverbial flying
one about how safe would-be cyclists think the road will be

[Zebee Johnstone]

In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Fri, 10 May 2013 16:47:00 +0100

Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> What it does tell us is that the perception of the dangers of pavement
> cycling may very well be at odds with the reality, because you believed
> that the numbers couldn't include pavement collisions since obviously if
> they did the proportion which were the cyclists fault would be much
> higher. The stats tell us that it's not so, and it might be that what
> you class as lucky might have more deliberation behind it than you think.
>
> Based on personal experience, I'd be not at all surprised if there were
> more pedestrian/cyclist collisions on the road, and that a higher
> proportion of them were the pedestrian's fault.
>
> (When I'm riding on a pavement (legally...) I do take more care around
> pedestrians. I know they're significantly more likely to leap sideways
> than to appear suddenly in front of me in the road, because those who do
> the latter tend to get flattened by cars very quickly.)

People who cycle illegally on the footpath that I see either do it for
failrly short distances, do it slowly, or if they are fast are doing
it with a deal of concentration.

THe faster ones do piss off peds but they don't seem to hit them.

Zebee

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-10, Molly Mockford wrote:

> At 16:47:00 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote in <VridnS4e-qT7ixDM...@brightview.co.uk>:

>>The stats tell us that it's not so,
>
> No, they don't, really they don't. Some people interpret them as saying
> this; but other can interpret them otherwise. For example, Adam said:
>
> "I don't see how they could interpret a collision on a pavement in the
> strict sense as being the pedestrian's fault at all (since no-one should
> be cycling there); those failures to look/judge properly must refer to
> pedestrians crossing the street in front of cyclists or to incidents in
> shared-use paths, parks, &c."

...

>>Based on personal experience, I'd be not at all surprised if there were
>>more pedestrian/cyclist collisions on the road, and that a higher
>>proportion of them were the pedestrian's fault.
>
> I would certainly agree with that. A pedestrian on a road has a strong
> obligation to look around and see what other road users are within
> collision distance of them. They have no such obligation while on the
> pavement, which is why I take issue with the assertion made by David
> that they are likely to be just as much to blame for such accidents as
> for ones taking place on the road.

Just to be clear, I'm not condoning pedestrian-blaming even on the
road. As far as I'm concerned, pedestrians should be deemed the
rightful "owners" of the highways, it should be extremely difficult to
convict a pedestrian of a road-related criminal offence except in
egregious cases such as walking on motorways, & it should be the
responsibility of all wheeled road users to watch out for pedestrians
& avoid hitting them (even off the pavement) to the greatest practical
extent.

[Clive George]

On 10/05/2013 17:47, Molly Mockford wrote:
> Yes, I still maintain that if a cyclist is cycling illegally on a
> pavement, then the main responsibility for any collision lies with the
> cyclist. Pedestrians should not have to look constantly over their
> shoulders just in case there is an illegal cyclist (or horse-rider, or
> raging bull) approaching with no audible warning.

Nobody is disagreeing with that.

>> The stats tell us that it's not so,
>
> No, they don't, really they don't. Some people interpret them as saying
> this; but other can interpret them otherwise. For example, Adam said:
>
> "I don't see how they could interpret a collision on a pavement in the
> strict sense as being the pedestrian's fault at all (since no-one should
> be cycling there); those failures to look/judge properly must refer to
> pedestrians crossing the street in front of cyclists or to incidents in
> shared-use paths, parks, &c."

That's not relevant to what the stats are saying.

>> and it might be that what you class as lucky might have more
>> deliberation behind it than you think.
>
> I grant you that every time an illegal pavement cyclist avoids hitting a
> pedestrian, s/he has done so deliberately; and I think it is very
> likely that when they do actually hit a pedestrian they have not done so
> deliberately. Naturally a cyclist prefers not to ram into people, or
> they wouldn't get from A to B as fast as they want to go. Nevertheless,
> they are breaking the law and as a result must accept responsibility for
> any accidents which occur.

Nobody is disagreeing with that.

>> Based on personal experience, I'd be not at all surprised if there
>> were more pedestrian/cyclist collisions on the road, and that a higher
>> proportion of them were the pedestrian's fault.
>
> I would certainly agree with that. A pedestrian on a road has a strong
> obligation to look around and see what other road users are within
> collision distance of them. They have no such obligation while on the
> pavement, which is why I take issue with the assertion made by David
> that they are likely to be just as much to blame for such accidents as
> for ones taking place on the road.

David has asserted no such thing. We're back to your starting point, and
you seem to have missed the point that there's nothing saying that
accidents which are the pedestrian's fault happen on the pavement. We've
got 60% of all bike/pedestrian accidents being the pedestrian's fault.
This could easily be say 20% on the pavement, 20% on the road with the
cyclist at fault, the rest on the road with the pedestrian at fault.
Personal experience says that's not at all unlikely.

>> (When I'm riding on a pavement (legally...) I do take more care around
>> pedestrians. I know they're significantly more likely to leap sideways
>> than to appear suddenly in front of me in the road, because those who
>> do the latter tend to get flattened by cars very quickly.)
>
> And because every pedestrian over five years old knows that roads are
> more dangerous than pavements, as they have lethal traffic traversing
> them at speed. So they know to take precautions when crossing the road
> that they would mostly think (if you will pardon the expression)
> "absurd" to be expected to take when walking along the pavement.

Nobody here, including I believe David, believes that pedestrians need
to take that sort of care on the pavement. That's something you've made up.

[Molly Mockford]

At 19:35:10 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Alan Braggins
<ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<slrnkoqc1...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

Yes, David has; I said that the culpability figures seemed to relate to
on-road collisions rather than on-pavement collisions (where I later
clarified my argument that the responsibility for avoiding such
collisions differs), and have twice been told that this was "absurd".

[Molly Mockford]

At 19:34:31 on Fri, 10 May 2013, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<APz*rJ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
>>>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>>>be apportioned as you suggest), and therefore it is not unreasonable to
>>>>assume that the study's figures do indeed relate to accidents *on the
>>>>roads* rather than pavements
>>>... because it would make perfect sense for Westminster's draft Cycling
>>>Strategy, Westminster being as blighted with on-pavement routes as
>>>anywhere else, to ignore on-pavement collisions even though they are
>>>documented in exactly the same data used for everything else?
>>What "on-pavement routes"? I was talking about illegal pavement
>>cyclists,
>
>Ah. So you think the study includes shared-use paths, but not other
>pavements? Because it seems to me that that is not consistent with the
>original absurd idea that the study deals only with "roads".

No, your interpretation of my words is "absurd". I was talking about
the pavement cycling I witnessed in Westminster, which did not include
any shared-use paths. You first used the term "on-pavement routes", and
I didn't see any of those either. Really, David, it sounds as though
you are *trying* to misunderstand my point; which was that when in the
area in which this survey was conducted, I witnessed a considerable
amount of illegal pavement cycling, and it seemed highly improbable that
the survey could have reasonably held pedestrians to blame for
collisions occurring as a result of that activity. I'm getting tired of
repeating myself for the minority who deliberately choose to
misunderstand; I suspect there are more interesting debates taking
place in alt.test.

[Clive George]

On 11/05/2013 09:18, Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 19:35:10 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Alan Braggins
> <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
> <slrnkoqc1...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
>> In article <EgMq16mI...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford wrote:
>>> Yes, I still maintain that if a cyclist is cycling illegally on a
>>> pavement, then the main responsibility for any collision lies with the
>>> cyclist.
>>
>> Has anyone anywhere ever maintained differently? (At least for the
>> case where "any collision" is with a pedestrian, not another illegal
>> cyclist, or someone who is illegally driving on the pavement.)
>
> Yes, David has; I said that the culpability figures seemed to relate to
> on-road collisions rather than on-pavement collisions (where I later
> clarified my argument that the responsibility for avoiding such
> collisions differs), and have twice been told that this was "absurd".

Let's make it a third time shall we? Why do you not believe me when I
say that what he says does not imply what you think it does, complete
with explanation?

There's nothing saying the culpability figures don't apply to all
collisions. David and I are not saying that the responsibility for a
collision doesn't lie with the cyclist, we're saying that the
proportions of collisions which occur mean that even taking into account
those which do take place on the pavement and are therefore the cyclists
fault, there can still be more collisions on the road which are the
pedestrian's fault than total collisions on the pavement.

Do you believe there are many more recorded collisions on the pavements
than on the roads? If so, what is the basis for that belief? Observation
of near misses, or collision stats?

[Clive George]

On 11/05/2013 09:19, Molly Mockford wrote:

> Really, David, it sounds as though
> you are *trying* to misunderstand my point; which was that when in the
> area in which this survey was conducted, I witnessed a considerable
> amount of illegal pavement cycling, and it seemed highly improbable that
> the survey could have reasonably held pedestrians to blame for
> collisions occurring as a result of that activity.

Nobody is saying that they are being blamed. Several people including
David have explicitly said they're not.

What we are saying is that despite the fact that cyclists would be to
blame for collisions on the pavement, it's still reasonably likely that
there are sufficiently more recordable collisions (*) on the road that
the numbers end up the way that they do, with more pedestrians to blame.

(* something ending in injury, property damage or the police getting
called would seem relevant here. I wouldn't count brushing somebody as
such a collision - that happens as a pedestrian sufficiently often anyway)

> I'm getting tired of
> repeating myself for the minority who deliberately choose to
> misunderstand; I suspect there are more interesting debates taking
> place in alt.test.

You're not the only one getting frustrated at repetition of the point
being made failing to get across. I think I understand your point - but
it's wrong.

[Scion]

Toom Tabard put finger to keyboard:

I thought that only pavements running alongside roads were by default
illegal to cycle on; those not running alongside roads could be made
illegal by appropriate signage but were otherwise OK.

Someone will hopefully be along to say whether that is right.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <av4tpc...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Morris wrote:
>On 10/05/2013 09:30, Owen Dunn wrote:
>
>> Do we have any evidence that the police taking action against
>> motorists has a positive effect on the safety of cyclists, or more
>> importantly on how safe would-be cyclists think the road will be?
>>
>I'm not sure that compared to my own safety, I give a proverbial flying
>one about how safe would-be cyclists think the road will be

However, encouraging would-be cyclists to become actual cyclists will
almost certainly improve your own safety, other things being equal
(which they won't be, but...).
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1186.html

[Alan Braggins]

In article <M4EozMwp...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford wrote:
>At 19:35:10 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Alan Braggins
><ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
><slrnkoqc1...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
>>In article <EgMq16mI...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford wrote:
>>>Yes, I still maintain that if a cyclist is cycling illegally on a
>>>pavement, then the main responsibility for any collision lies with the
>>>cyclist.
>>
>>Has anyone anywhere ever maintained differently? (At least for the
>>case where "any collision" is with a pedestrian, not another illegal
>>cyclist, or someone who is illegally driving on the pavement.)
>
>Yes, David has;

I find that hard to believe. Where and when?

> I said that the culpability figures seemed to relate to
>on-road collisions rather than on-pavement collisions (where I later
>clarified my argument that the responsibility for avoiding such
>collisions differs), and have twice been told that this was "absurd".

Whether the figures include on pavement collisions or not has nothing
to do with whose fault the on pavement collisions are.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <kmq8fg$juu$1...@dont-email.me>, Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Toom Tabard put finger to keyboard:
>

>I thought that only pavements running alongside roads were by default
>illegal to cycle on; those not running alongside roads could be made
>illegal by appropriate signage but were otherwise OK.
>
>Someone will hopefully be along to say whether that is right.

Essentially, yes. That doesn't mean that you have a right to cycle
along other ones, but does mean that it needs a separate bylaw or
other condition to make it a crime to do so.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com>:
>Unless the pedestrian pavement is officially marked as dual use as a cycle way

>then a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian would by default be deemed
>to be the cyclists fault at common law liability for injury

Which, of course, has no direct bearing on the subject under discussion;
how the STATS19 form would be filled out.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Friday, May.
Tomorrow will be Second Saturday, May - a weekend.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>:
>Trying to imagine some reason why on earth the researchers would comb
>through the stats19 data carefully separating out only those
>collisions which took place on non-shared-use footways seems to be an
>exercise in futility.

Well, not only that. The original thesis was that it dealt only with those
on the "roads", not pavements at all. This morph into "not on pavements
where cycling is prohibited" doesn't bear much relationship to that
original thesis at all.

Frankly, this reads to me like a stock pavement cycling rant (and, while
it's regrettable, if you're looking for actual danger to pedestrians
you're looking for fish in a tree next to the river) which is trying to
latch onto this study.

>I wouldn't be certain that the data is even necessarily sufficient to
>manage such a task, and I can't see any reason why on earth anyone
>would want to.

My perusal of the STATS19 form suggests it's not impossible (just
pointless).

[Owen Rees]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:36:11 +0100, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<JIb*RR...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>Which, of course, has no direct bearing on the subject under discussion;
>how the STATS19 form would be filled out.

The working draft of the City of Westminster Cycling Strategy 2013-2026
from which the figures were taken does not, as far as I can discover,
mention STATS19. The 'analysis of contributory factors' is on page 33 of
91 in
http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Policy_and_Scrutiny_Committees/Current_P_and_S_Committees/Environment/2013/25%20April%202013/Item%206%20App%203%20DRAFT%20Westminster%20Cycling%20Strategy%202013%20v5%20for%20committee.pdf

The article at
http://road.cc/content/news/83104-two-thirds-cyclist-injuries-following-collisions-motor-vehicle-due-driver-says
says 'apparently gathered from police STATS19 report forms' but with no
source for that assertion. Note also that the strategy document
'analysis of contributory factors' follows other figures for 'cyclist
KSIs in the last 12 months' and seems to imply that the analysis is of
those incidents.

The analysis of contributory factors for 'accidents between pedestrians
and cyclists' is for a period of 36 months (the report at road.cc omits
that difference in period).

The one thing I think we can be reasonable sure of is that the 'cyclist
KSI' data and the 'accidents between pedestrians and cyclists' data are
not from a single consistent source so comparison of the figures from
the analysis is of questionable value in the absence of more details.

[Toom Tabard]

On Monday, 13 May 2013 14:36:11 UTC+1, David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Unless the pedestrian pavement is officially marked as dual use as a cycle way
> >then a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian would by default be deemed
> >to be the cyclists fault at common law liability for injury
>
> Which, of course, has no direct bearing on the subject under discussion;
> how the STATS19 form would be filled out.
>
>

It was additional, pertinent information on the point at issue, which
is why I qualified it as 'the cyclists fault at common law liability for injury.'

I wonder how many cyclists on pavements would be aware of their default liability, or the principle of res ipsa loquitur? I suspect, not many.

It is also an interesting point in relation to the often raised issue
of default responsibility of motorists for collisions with cyclists.

Toom

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-15, Toom Tabard wrote:

> I wonder how many cyclists on pavements would be aware of their default liability, or the principle of res ipsa loquitur? I suspect, not many.

I think there are a few different kinds of cyclists on pavements:

1. obnoxious, aggressive ones;
2. the ones who are scared off the roads (or a particular road) by
motor traffic;
3. the ones who don't really know what they're doing (including kids).

The solution to 1 & 2 is the same: more police on the streets
enforcing the law on all wheeled road users.

> It is also an interesting point in relation to the often raised issue
> of default responsibility of motorists for collisions with cyclists.

I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved
to be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian). I
also think it would be a fair trade to make cyclist subject to speed
limits in exchange for the overnight abolition of all bylaws & TROs
restricting cycling anywhere other than on a pavement in the strict
sense ("pedestrian" shopping streets, subways, &c.); they could be
subjected to 10 mph speed limits (& of course responsibility for
avoiding pedestrians) instead.

[Molly Mockford]

At 21:45:22 on Wed, 15 May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote
in <q18d6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>:

>I think there are a few different kinds of cyclists on pavements:
>
>1. obnoxious, aggressive ones;
>2. the ones who are scared off the roads (or a particular road) by
> motor traffic;
>3. the ones who don't really know what they're doing (including kids).
>
>The solution to 1 & 2 is the same: more police on the streets
>enforcing the law on all wheeled road users.

But would the police take any interest in enforcing the law, especially
on #1? Although I would increase your classifications to include
another one: the lazy ones who find it too much trouble to use the road
system.

Around here there are two particularly dangerous places involving
cyclists, in one case danger from cyclists to others, and in another
danger to the cyclists. One is a steep hill downwards into town, with a
single narrow pavement bordering a busy road. The nearest lane is the
uphill one, and the oncoming traffic tends to speed up the hill,
although traffic going downhill is slower because it starts to snarl up
as it gets into town. Most residential properties are on the uphill
side of the road. Rather than cross the road (and there is a suitable
crossing place) and ride downhill on the road, cyclists tend to ride at
speed down the pavement. (Uphill cyclists seem to use a different, if
longer, route, because you don't see nearly as many of them as the
downhill ones.) If two pedestrians are walking side by side there
really is not room for a cyclist to pass without risk to all concerned,
and I have seen a girl jink her cycle onto the road, in the teeth of an
oncoming vehicle, and then back onto the pavement again in order to pass
a pedestrian without having to slow down. She could have so easily have
been killed; I felt sick with horror.

The other is a narrow and winding but level one-way street, which
cyclists frequently ride the wrong way because following the legal
one-way system would involve going up a bit of steep hill and then down
again; on a couple of occasions I have seen cyclists very nearly
involved in head-on collisions with cars (which were being legally
driven in the correct direction), because they simply couldn't see each
other in time.

Both streets have been reported to the police as areas where dangerous
behaviour occurs, by cyclists in both cases and car drivers in the first
case; not once has anything been done about it.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>I didn't see any of those either. Really, David, it sounds as though
>you are *trying* to misunderstand my point; which was that when in the
>area in which this survey was conducted, I witnessed a considerable
>amount of illegal pavement cycling, and it seemed highly improbable that
>the survey could have reasonably held pedestrians to blame for
>collisions occurring as a result of that activity.

And since no-one's saying that it would, I have no idea why you're trying
to argue with a point of view no-one holds. But that's not all you said;
you also suggested first that the survey only included "roads", as in, not
pavements, apparently (as far as I can make out) based on the bogus
deduction that "if the survey says x% of collisions are peds' fault, it
must mean that x% of collisions in any given area are peds' fault, this is
not plausible on pavements, therefore it doesn't include pavements".
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is Second Sunday, May - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Gloucesterday, May.

[Tom Gardner]

Adam Funk wrote:
> I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
> to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved
> to be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).

How do you propose to be able to prove that? The only
way I can think of is for everybody to have cameras on
their bikes and in their cars.

My understanding is that in Russia the situation is as
you propose. Many car drivers do carry videos in their
cars for that reason -- hence the large number of videos
of that meteorite a couple of months ago.

I've also seen youtube videos which show peds stepping
out in front of a car, noticing the video, and promptly
getting out of the way. Yup, there's a cottage industry
getting money from insurance claims, much like whiplash
injuries in the UK.

[Owen Dunn]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:

> I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
> to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved
> to be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).

I don't have a particular problem with this, although I'd make it just
a hierarchy of presumed fault in the context of existing offences or
civil actions.

> I also think it would be a fair trade to make cyclist subject to
> speed limits in exchange for the overnight abolition of all bylaws &
> TROs restricting cycling anywhere other than on a pavement in the
> strict sense ("pedestrian" shopping streets, subways, &c.); they
> could be subjected to 10 mph speed limits (& of course
> responsibility for avoiding pedestrians) instead.

I disagree with this. I think for speed limits to make sense for a
class of vehicle you need to mandate a speedometer so you can measure
the speeed, and probably some testing to make sure said device reads
correctly. I don't think we want to create barriers to cycling by
making it more expensive or bureaucratic.

(S)

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, Owen Dunn wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>
>> I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
>> to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved
>> to be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).
>
> I don't have a particular problem with this, although I'd make it just
> a hierarchy of presumed fault in the context of existing offences or
> civil actions.

Yes, better than what I said.

>> I also think it would be a fair trade to make cyclist subject to
>> speed limits in exchange for the overnight abolition of all bylaws &
>> TROs restricting cycling anywhere other than on a pavement in the
>> strict sense ("pedestrian" shopping streets, subways, &c.); they
>> could be subjected to 10 mph speed limits (& of course
>> responsibility for avoiding pedestrians) instead.
>
> I disagree with this. I think for speed limits to make sense for a
> class of vehicle you need to mandate a speedometer so you can measure
> the speeed, and probably some testing to make sure said device reads
> correctly.

Cars were subject to speed limits quite a while before they were
required to have speedometers. Most "normal" cyclists probably don't
go over 30 on the road anyway, or 20 in the areas where Living
Streets & 20's Plenty wnat a 20 MPH limit.

> I don't think we want to create barriers to cycling by
> making it more expensive or bureaucratic.

I agree, but speedometers aren't necessary except for high-speed
cyclists.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, Molly Mockford wrote:

> At 21:45:22 on Wed, 15 May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote
> in <q18d6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>:
>
>>I think there are a few different kinds of cyclists on pavements:
>>
>>1. obnoxious, aggressive ones;
>>2. the ones who are scared off the roads (or a particular road) by
>> motor traffic;
>>3. the ones who don't really know what they're doing (including kids).
>>
>>The solution to 1 & 2 is the same: more police on the streets
>>enforcing the law on all wheeled road users.
>
> But would the police take any interest in enforcing the law, especially
> on #1?

I don't see why not, if the public paid for them to go out & do it (&
if the police weren't diverted to other more glamorous tasks).

> Although I would increase your classifications to include
> another one: the lazy ones who find it too much trouble to use the road
> system.

OK (they probably overlap 1 & 2 a bit).


...

> Both streets have been reported to the police as areas where dangerous
> behaviour occurs, by cyclists in both cases and car drivers in the first
> case; not once has anything been done about it.

Well, the masses complain about the "war on the motorist" if the
police enforce the law against drivers; the masses whine about paying
taxes; & our political masters are diverting police effort to
"terrorism"; ....

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <0fre6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>On 2013-05-16, Owen Dunn wrote:
>
>>> I also think it would be a fair trade to make cyclist subject to
>>> speed limits in exchange for the overnight abolition of all bylaws &
>>> TROs restricting cycling anywhere other than on a pavement in the
>>> strict sense ("pedestrian" shopping streets, subways, &c.); they
>>> could be subjected to 10 mph speed limits (& of course
>>> responsibility for avoiding pedestrians) instead.
>>
>> I disagree with this. I think for speed limits to make sense for a
>> class of vehicle you need to mandate a speedometer so you can measure
>> the speeed, and probably some testing to make sure said device reads
>> correctly.
>
>Cars were subject to speed limits quite a while before they were
>required to have speedometers. Most "normal" cyclists probably don't
>go over 30 on the road anyway, or 20 in the areas where Living
>Streets & 20's Plenty wnat a 20 MPH limit.

The big change, which has happened in my driving lifetime, is that
the concept of speeding has been changed from driving too fast to
be safe, with the limits as an indication of what that was, to
exceeding the formally posted speed limit, irrespective of any
safety considerations.

While I agree with a speed limit of 10 MPH in places where cyclists
are mixed with pedestrians, it will be simply harmful with the new
interpretation. Just as the new, blanket, 20 MPH zones that we are
about to see rolled out will be harmful for pedestrians and cyclists.

TPTB may rail against the speed limits being used as a target and
not as limits, but the simple fact is that they have changed the law
(as read, not as written) to ensure that is the case. Of course,
they deny it, but they would, wouldn't they?[*]

[*] And, yes, I would sooner side with an honest whore than a lying
politician, which is one of the things I have in common with a
certain Jewish carpenter :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Molly Mockford]

At 12:30:18 on Thu, 16 May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote
in <3ore6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>:

>On 2013-05-16, Molly Mockford wrote:

>> But would the police take any interest in enforcing the law, especially
>> on #1?
>
>I don't see why not, if the public paid for them to go out & do it (&
>if the police weren't diverted to other more glamorous tasks).

Glamorous? Around here, they might as well be sitting in their HQ with
a cup of coffee and their feet on their desks. Or sometimes whizzing
around in their cars, with their sirens blaring even when totally
unnecessary. There are two female Police Community Support Officers
(little and large) who wander around chatting to people at random, but
they have no powers actually to do anything; their role is purely
cosmetic.

During the campaigning for the police commissioner elections, I wrote to
all the candidates about pavement cycling, and the danger to both
pedestrians and cyclists of the particular hill I mentioned. Only two
candidates replied, one helpfully and one not. The Tory, who won,
didn't even acknowledge my e-mail.

>Well, the masses complain about the "war on the motorist" if the
>police enforce the law against drivers; the masses whine about paying
>taxes; & our political masters are diverting police effort to
>"terrorism"; ....

And of course we are spending so much money on ludicrously unjustifiable
wars and high-profile funerals that we have to bankrupt the poor, the
disabled and the elderly in order to finance it, and certainly don't
have any money left to put a bobby back on the beat.

Vote Monster Raving Looney, they're the only ones who seem to have any
sense these days!

[Scion]

Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:

<snip>

> I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
> to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved to
> be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).

Not wishing to be rude, but I think that idea is ridiculous.

As a cyclist, would you *really* think it fair to get a criminal record
because a ped suddenly stepped out in front of you, and you don't have any
witnesses?

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>>Cars were subject to speed limits quite a while before they were
>>required to have speedometers. Most "normal" cyclists probably don't
>>go over 30 on the road anyway, or 20 in the areas where Living
>>Streets & 20's Plenty wnat a 20 MPH limit.
>
> The big change, which has happened in my driving lifetime, is that
> the concept of speeding has been changed from driving too fast to
> be safe, with the limits as an indication of what that was, to
> exceeding the formally posted speed limit, irrespective of any
> safety considerations.

Isn't that a problem with how speeding is enforced & how difficult it
is to get a conviction other than against an absolute number, rather
than a problem with the law?

> While I agree with a speed limit of 10 MPH in places where cyclists
> are mixed with pedestrians, it will be simply harmful with the new
> interpretation. Just as the new, blanket, 20 MPH zones that we are
> about to see rolled out will be harmful for pedestrians and cyclists.

How are they going to be harmful to them?

> TPTB may rail against the speed limits being used as a target and
> not as limits, but the simple fact is that they have changed the law
> (as read, not as written) to ensure that is the case. Of course,
> they deny it, but they would, wouldn't they?[*]
>
> [*] And, yes, I would sooner side with an honest whore than a lying
> politician, which is one of the things I have in common with a
> certain Jewish carpenter :-)

Yes, there is that.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, Scion wrote:

> Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:
>
><snip>
>
>> I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
>> to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved to
>> be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).
>
> Not wishing to be rude, but I think that idea is ridiculous.

Yes, I like Owen's idea better (as I said earlier).

> As a cyclist, would you *really* think it fair to get a criminal record
> because a ped suddenly stepped out in front of you, and you don't have any
> witnesses?

There's also physical evidence. But in general, I think a motorist
who clips a cyclist without witnesses should get a criminal record.

If people were forced to drive patiently & with proper regard for the
safety of cyclists, cyclists could be confident about moving out from
the pavement when pedestrians are nearby, in case they step out. (As
Nick once said, people used to drive that way to some extent.)

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, Molly Mockford wrote:

> At 12:30:18 on Thu, 16 May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote
> in <3ore6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>:

>>Well, the masses complain about the "war on the motorist" if the
>>police enforce the law against drivers; the masses whine about paying
>>taxes; & our political masters are diverting police effort to
>>"terrorism"; ....
>
> And of course we are spending so much money on ludicrously unjustifiable
> wars and high-profile funerals that we have to bankrupt the poor, the
> disabled and the elderly in order to finance it, and certainly don't
> have any money left to put a bobby back on the beat.

I suspect we are both preaching to the choir here.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <pf1f6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>>>Cars were subject to speed limits quite a while before they were
>>>required to have speedometers. Most "normal" cyclists probably don't
>>>go over 30 on the road anyway, or 20 in the areas where Living
>>>Streets & 20's Plenty wnat a 20 MPH limit.
>>
>> The big change, which has happened in my driving lifetime, is that
>> the concept of speeding has been changed from driving too fast to
>> be safe, with the limits as an indication of what that was, to
>> exceeding the formally posted speed limit, irrespective of any
>> safety considerations.
>
>Isn't that a problem with how speeding is enforced & how difficult it
>is to get a conviction other than against an absolute number, rather
>than a problem with the law?

As I say in the next paragraph, "the law as read". That is part of
it, but actually not a primary reason - that difficulty actually
dates from later than the start of the shift. There was no great
difficulty back in the 1960s in the cases that really mattered.

>> While I agree with a speed limit of 10 MPH in places where cyclists
>> are mixed with pedestrians, it will be simply harmful with the new
>> interpretation. Just as the new, blanket, 20 MPH zones that we are
>> about to see rolled out will be harmful for pedestrians and cyclists.
>
>How are they going to be harmful to them?

M'Lud, the cyclist is charged with speeding through a crowd of elderly
pedestrians, knocking five down, two of whom are still in hospital.

M'Lud, the prosecution has asserted that the cyclist was speeding,
but has put forward no admissible proof that he was exceeding 10 MPH.

Case dismissed.

It is virtually unknown nowadays for a person to be charged with
driving without due care and consideration, let alone convicted,
even if he kills someone, unless he was also committing a provable
technical offence. The same would apply.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Scion]

Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:

> On 2013-05-16, Scion wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
>>> to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved
>>> to be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).
>>
>> Not wishing to be rude, but I think that idea is ridiculous.
>
> Yes, I like Owen's idea better (as I said earlier).

My post was delayed somewhat by moderation and written before your reply
to Owen.

>> As a cyclist, would you *really* think it fair to get a criminal record
>> because a ped suddenly stepped out in front of you, and you don't have
>> any witnesses?
>
> There's also physical evidence. But in general, I think a motorist who
> clips a cyclist without witnesses should get a criminal record.

On my part I hope the current standard of proof required for criminal
convictions will remain.

> If people were forced to drive patiently & with proper regard for the
> safety of cyclists, cyclists could be confident about moving out from
> the pavement when pedestrians are nearby, in case they step out. (As
> Nick once said, people used to drive that way to some extent.)

Cyclists should already be able to cope with the potential of pedestrians
stepping out. If motorists decide to intimidate cyclists, it is they who
should be targeted. This does not happen effectively enough at present.

[Percy Picacity]

Are we talking about criminal convictions or civil responsibility for
accidents? The latter would be much easier to sell to the motoring
public, as they would assume their insurance would pay, while most
people in this country would feel that a criminal conviction requires
evidence greater than the balance of probabilities.
(Whether the police proceed when there is evidence is a whole separate issue.)

--

Percy Picacity

[Toom Tabard]

It would hardly be tenable if we start giving convictions for mistakes and
misjudgements to people who in general tend to be acting in good faith and
with good intent. That is totally different from acting without DUE care
and attention (a sin of omission) or dangerously (a sin of commission)
which might reasonably incur criminal penalties.

For mishaps, mistakes and misjudgements, then it should remain a civil law
issue, with amendments to that if there is a case for it.

Toom

[Peter Clinch]

It's popular to raise this sort of spectre (more popularly in the UK
replacing the above with a car hitting a bike), but the fact is it's
widely used elsewhere and has been shown to work acceptably well. Would
it be widely used and have been shown to work reasonably if it were
really "ridiculous"? (well, looking at some laws around the world that
may be a bad question, but countries where it is in place don't appear
to have folk queueing up asking for our system).

Let's try a counter-case. As a cyclist/pedestrian, would you really
think it's fair that a car hit you and permanently disabled you, but
there was no compensation because you didn't have any witnesses?

There is no system which can guarantee justice. You can have failures
of the system with both implied fault and no implied fault.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, Percy Picacity wrote:

> On 2013-05-16 13:00:24 +0000, Adam Funk said:

>> There's also physical evidence. But in general, I think a motorist
>> who clips a cyclist without witnesses should get a criminal record.
>>
>> If people were forced to drive patiently & with proper regard for the
>> safety of cyclists, cyclists could be confident about moving out from
>> the pavement when pedestrians are nearby, in case they step out. (As
>> Nick once said, people used to drive that way to some extent.)
>
> Are we talking about criminal convictions or civil responsibility for
> accidents?

Let's say we're only talking about points, rather than jail time. A
driving licence is a privilege, not a right, & retaining a licence (or
an untarnished one) should not be subject to the same rules as normal
criminal acquittal or conviction.

> The latter would be much easier to sell to the motoring
> public, as they would assume their insurance would pay, while most

And look how effective the current system is at punishing or
disqualifying people for bad driving. The basic problem is that mass
car ownership & use is completely out of hand & people think they have
a right to drive, & even to expect people to get the **** out of their
way.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>>> While I agree with a speed limit of 10 MPH in places where cyclists
>>> are mixed with pedestrians, it will be simply harmful with the new
>>> interpretation. Just as the new, blanket, 20 MPH zones that we are
>>> about to see rolled out will be harmful for pedestrians and cyclists.
>>
>>How are they going to be harmful to them?
>
> M'Lud, the cyclist is charged with speeding through a crowd of elderly
> pedestrians, knocking five down, two of whom are still in hospital.
>
> M'Lud, the prosecution has asserted that the cyclist was speeding,
> but has put forward no admissible proof that he was exceeding 10 MPH.
>
> Case dismissed.

Maybe, but I doubt it. In the shopping street, the cyclist should
look out for pedestrians & defer to them, just as on the carriageway
the driver should do the same for cyclists & pedestrians.

> It is virtually unknown nowadays for a person to be charged with
> driving without due care and consideration, let alone convicted,
> even if he kills someone, unless he was also committing a provable
> technical offence. The same would apply.

Surely we agree that the requirement for a technical offence is wrong
with regard to bad driving?!

Anyway, how are the 20 MPH zones possibly harmful to pedestrians?

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <q3rf6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>>>> While I agree with a speed limit of 10 MPH in places where cyclists
>>>> are mixed with pedestrians, it will be simply harmful with the new
>>>> interpretation. Just as the new, blanket, 20 MPH zones that we are
>>>> about to see rolled out will be harmful for pedestrians and cyclists.
>>>
>>>How are they going to be harmful to them?
>>
>> M'Lud, the cyclist is charged with speeding through a crowd of elderly
>> pedestrians, knocking five down, two of whom are still in hospital.
>>
>> M'Lud, the prosecution has asserted that the cyclist was speeding,
>> but has put forward no admissible proof that he was exceeding 10 MPH.
>>
>> Case dismissed.
>
>Maybe, but I doubt it. In the shopping street, the cyclist should
>look out for pedestrians & defer to them, just as on the carriageway
>the driver should do the same for cyclists & pedestrians.

"Should" and a couple of quid will buy you a cup of coffee. Why
do you doubt that the treatment of motorists at present would not
extend to cyclists?

>> It is virtually unknown nowadays for a person to be charged with
>> driving without due care and consideration, let alone convicted,
>> even if he kills someone, unless he was also committing a provable
>> technical offence. The same would apply.
>
>Surely we agree that the requirement for a technical offence is wrong
>with regard to bad driving?!

Sigh. Yes. And do you know how it got that way? Because it used
not to be the case.

>Anyway, how are the 20 MPH zones possibly harmful to pedestrians?

I explained, though I didn't spell it out. The more that you
emphasise speed limits, the more that you encourage drivers to
use them as targets and the more that you deprecate driving
according to the conditions. This has happened, badly, in 30
MPH zones in my driving lifetime, but has not yet affected the
inner cities and residential cul de sacs too badly because a
30 MPH limit is effectively derestricted. Imposing a 20 MPH
zone will do the same for at least more of them that was done
by the 30 MPH ones.

I am not claiming that things were better in the 1960s, but I
AM claiming that motorists drove far more according to the
conditions (which includes avoiding pedestrians and cyclists)
than they do today. Now, they drive according to the limit,
and often don't even notice the pedestrians and cyclists.
More speed limits having an impact will mean more of that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> In article <q3rf6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> While I agree with a speed limit of 10 MPH in places where cyclists
>>>>> are mixed with pedestrians, it will be simply harmful with the new
>>>>> interpretation. Just as the new, blanket, 20 MPH zones that we are
>>>>> about to see rolled out will be harmful for pedestrians and cyclists.
>>>>
>>>>How are they going to be harmful to them?
>>>
>>> M'Lud, the cyclist is charged with speeding through a crowd of elderly
>>> pedestrians, knocking five down, two of whom are still in hospital.
>>>
>>> M'Lud, the prosecution has asserted that the cyclist was speeding,
>>> but has put forward no admissible proof that he was exceeding 10 MPH.
>>>
>>> Case dismissed.
>>
>>Maybe, but I doubt it. In the shopping street, the cyclist should
>>look out for pedestrians & defer to them, just as on the carriageway
>>the driver should do the same for cyclists & pedestrians.
>
> "Should" and a couple of quid will buy you a cup of coffee. Why
> do you doubt that the treatment of motorists at present would not
> extend to cyclists?

Populist appeal among anti-cycling "poor motorists".

>>> It is virtually unknown nowadays for a person to be charged with
>>> driving without due care and consideration, let alone convicted,
>>> even if he kills someone, unless he was also committing a provable
>>> technical offence. The same would apply.
>>
>>Surely we agree that the requirement for a technical offence is wrong
>>with regard to bad driving?!
>
> Sigh. Yes. And do you know how it got that way? Because it used
> not to be the case.

I don't know how it got that way, but I suspect it has to do with
reduced funding for police on the roads.

>>Anyway, how are the 20 MPH zones possibly harmful to pedestrians?
>
> I explained, though I didn't spell it out. The more that you
> emphasise speed limits, the more that you encourage drivers to
> use them as targets and the more that you deprecate driving
> according to the conditions. This has happened, badly, in 30
> MPH zones in my driving lifetime, but has not yet affected the
> inner cities and residential cul de sacs too badly because a
> 30 MPH limit is effectively derestricted. Imposing a 20 MPH
> zone will do the same for at least more of them that was done
> by the 30 MPH ones.
>
> I am not claiming that things were better in the 1960s, but I
> AM claiming that motorists drove far more according to the
> conditions (which includes avoiding pedestrians and cyclists)
> than they do today. Now, they drive according to the limit,
> and often don't even notice the pedestrians and cyclists.
> More speed limits having an impact will mean more of that.

I don't know. If bad driving is residential areas is only prosecuted
above the technical limit of 30, it seems to me a good thing to reduce
that to 20 --- although I agree with you that it would be much better
to prosecute all bad driving.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <bm8h6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Should" and a couple of quid will buy you a cup of coffee. Why
>> do you doubt that the treatment of motorists at present would not
>> extend to cyclists?
>
>Populist appeal among anti-cycling "poor motorists".

Considering that at least some of the cyclists are likely to pay
for expensive barristers, and the liking of all the higher courts
for consistency between vehicles and precedent, I think that you
are being naive.

>>>> It is virtually unknown nowadays for a person to be charged with
>>>> driving without due care and consideration, let alone convicted,
>>>> even if he kills someone, unless he was also committing a provable
>>>> technical offence. The same would apply.
>>>
>>>Surely we agree that the requirement for a technical offence is wrong
>>>with regard to bad driving?!
>>
>> Sigh. Yes. And do you know how it got that way? Because it used
>> not to be the case.
>
>I don't know how it got that way, but I suspect it has to do with
>reduced funding for police on the roads.

You suspect wrong. There are other plausible explanations, but
that is not one of them. That did not happen during the relevant
period - quite the converse, in fact.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <4ftbp8tkek7ljthid...@4ax.com>,

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>As I say in the next paragraph, "the law as read". That is part of
>>it, but actually not a primary reason - that difficulty actually
>>dates from later than the start of the shift. There was no great
>>difficulty back in the 1960s in the cases that really mattered.
>>

>>It is virtually unknown nowadays for a person to be charged with
>>driving without due care and consideration, let alone convicted,
>>even if he kills someone, unless he was also committing a provable
>>technical offence. The same would apply.
>

>Surely you have to blame the courts for that, not the politicians.

I have selected out what I wrote, and you will see that I said
"the law as read", which includes the courts, fat-cat barristers
and their fatter clients, politicians, the gutter press, the
legislative bureaucrats and, last but definitely not least, the
DafTies.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Dave Larrington]

On 17/05/2013 10:15, Adam Funk wrote:

> I don't know how it got that way, but I suspect it has to do with
> reduced funding for police on the roads.

Haven't you heard, Adam? Coppers are there to prevent crime, not catch
crims. Tom Winsor said so, so it /must/ be true.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
a yo-yo" - Enoch Root.

[Toom Tabard]

On Thursday, 16 May 2013 19:59:29 UTC+1, Peter Clinch wrote:
> On 16/05/2013 13:07, Scion wrote:
> > Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
> >> to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved to
> >> be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).
> >
> > Not wishing to be rude, but I think that idea is ridiculous.
> >
> > As a cyclist, would you *really* think it fair to get a criminal record
> > because a ped suddenly stepped out in front of you, and you don't have any
> > witnesses?
>
> It's popular to raise this sort of spectre (more popularly in the UK
> replacing the above with a car hitting a bike), but the fact is it's
> widely used elsewhere and has been shown to work acceptably well. Would
> it be widely used and have been shown to work reasonably if it were
> really "ridiculous"? (well, looking at some laws around the world that
> may be a bad question, but countries where it is in place don't appear
> to have folk queueing up asking for our system).
>

The issue you've quoted above is whether it should automatically
be deemed a *criminal* offence. Is that common elsewhere?

> Let's try a counter-case. As a cyclist/pedestrian, would you really
> think it's fair that a car hit you and permanently disabled you, but
> there was no compensation because you didn't have any witnesses?
>

Yes, but that is a presumption of civil liability to pay compensation
not a criminal issue. e.g. at present if a car mounts a pedestrian pavement
and hits a pedestrian, the motorist would be deemed at fault and liable to pay
compensation. He would be the one required to produce witnesses or evidence if
he claims he is not at fault

>
> There is no system which can guarantee justice. You can have failures
> of the system with both implied fault and no implied fault.
>

But again 'fault' is usually civil law, 'offence' is criminal law.

Toom

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <kn288a$dvp$3...@dont-email.me>

Isn't that how it works in the Netherlands?

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Scion]

Peter Clinch put finger to keyboard:

> On 16/05/2013 13:07, Scion wrote:
>> Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
>>> to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved
>>> to be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).
>>
>> Not wishing to be rude, but I think that idea is ridiculous.
>>
>> As a cyclist, would you *really* think it fair to get a criminal record
>> because a ped suddenly stepped out in front of you, and you don't have
>> any witnesses?
>
> It's popular to raise this sort of spectre (more popularly in the UK
> replacing the above with a car hitting a bike), but the fact is it's
> widely used elsewhere and has been shown to work acceptably well.

I doubt that *any* country criminalises people in minor collisions, which
are included in Adam's suggestion.

> Would
> it be widely used and have been shown to work reasonably if it were
> really "ridiculous"? (well, looking at some laws around the world that
> may be a bad question, but countries where it is in place don't appear
> to have folk queueing up asking for our system).

Are those the countries where some unlucky drivers have had their
insurance hiked and their driving record blemished by people inventing
accidents and giving the registration number of a random passing car as
the culprit?

> Let's try a counter-case. As a cyclist/pedestrian, would you really
> think it's fair that a car hit you and permanently disabled you, but
> there was no compensation because you didn't have any witnesses?

Well, that depends. If I stupidly cycled into the car's path and the
driver couldn't avoid me then it would be fair. If the driver was at fault
(and denied it/fabricated his side of the story) then it wouldn't be fair.

> There is no system which can guarantee justice. You can have failures
> of the system with both implied fault and no implied fault.

In-car cameras, popular in Russia I believe, would on the whole improve
the situation.

[Peter Clinch]

I don't know, are they? The reason I don't know is that's the first
time I've seen any mention of it, suggesting it's not an insurmountable
problem creating enormous waves of popular uprising demanding reform.

[Peter Clinch]

On 17/05/2013 12:39, Toom Tabard wrote:
<snip>

> The issue you've quoted above is whether it should automatically
> be deemed a *criminal* offence. Is that common elsewhere?

My Bad, not properly noted the difference before flexing my typing
fingers...

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-17, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> In message <kn288a$dvp$3...@dont-email.me>
> Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I think it would be a fair trade: a criminal offence for any road user
>> > to collide with a more vulnerable one unless the latter can be proved to
>> > be at fault (HGV > LGV > car > horse > cyclist > pedestrian).
>>
>> Not wishing to be rude, but I think that idea is ridiculous.
>>
>> As a cyclist, would you *really* think it fair to get a criminal record
>> because a ped suddenly stepped out in front of you, and you don't have any
>> witnesses?
>
> Isn't that how it works in the Netherlands?

I think their presumed liability in favour of the more vulnerable road
user is civil only, not criminal. I would favour a presumptive
approach to slapping points on drivers who collide with more
vulnerable road users, though (including drivers who hit more
vulnerable drivers, e.g., HGV vs LGV/car).

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-17, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> In article <bm8h6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Should" and a couple of quid will buy you a cup of coffee. Why
>>> do you doubt that the treatment of motorists at present would not
>>> extend to cyclists?
>>
>>Populist appeal among anti-cycling "poor motorists".
>
> Considering that at least some of the cyclists are likely to pay
> for expensive barristers, and the liking of all the higher courts
> for consistency between vehicles and precedent, I think that you
> are being naive.

Well, let's look at the famous case of a cyclist AND barrister (the
same person) trying to get action taken against a piece of aggressive
road trash.

>>>>Surely we agree that the requirement for a technical offence is wrong
>>>>with regard to bad driving?!
>>>
>>> Sigh. Yes. And do you know how it got that way? Because it used
>>> not to be the case.
>>
>>I don't know how it got that way, but I suspect it has to do with
>>reduced funding for police on the roads.
>
> You suspect wrong. There are other plausible explanations, but
> that is not one of them. That did not happen during the relevant
> period - quite the converse, in fact.

Will you stop the suspense & just tell me why we ended up in this
situation?

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
><ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
>>Has anyone anywhere ever maintained differently? (At least for the
>>case where "any collision" is with a pedestrian, not another illegal
>>cyclist, or someone who is illegally driving on the pavement.)
>Yes, David has;

No, I haven't.

>I said that the culpability figures seemed to relate to
>on-road collisions rather than on-pavement collisions (where I later
>clarified my argument that the responsibility for avoiding such
>collisions differs), and have twice been told that this was "absurd".

It is absurd. Why can't they pertain to the sum of all collisions?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Teleute, June.
Tomorrow will be Oneiros, June.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>I've also seen youtube videos which show peds stepping
>out in front of a car, noticing the video, and promptly
>getting out of the way. Yup, there's a cottage industry
>getting money from insurance claims, much like whiplash
>injuries in the UK.

Or perhaps they actually notice... the car, and the videos are selected
for those that give the false impression they've noticed a tiny camera
behind the windscreen in exactly the way you wouldn't with a car bearing
down on you?

As criminal pursuits go, "I'll get hit by a ton of metal then sue" is a
pretty implausible one.

[Colin McKenzie]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:44:25 +0100, Owen Dunn
<ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> writes:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:30:21 +0100, Owen Dunn
>> <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Do we have any evidence that the police taking action against
>>> motorists has a positive effect on the safety of cyclists, or more
>>> importantly on how safe would-be cyclists think the road will be?
>>
>> Do we have any evidence that the police do take action against
>> motorists when they collide with cycles?
>
> At least some, e.g.:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/17/driver-jailed-bus-weapon-cyclist

Action after collisions isn't the point. As Nick says, a small chance of a
big penalty isn't much of a deterrent.

What is needed is a big chance of a small penalty for all those offences
that make cycling far less pleasant than it should be - and make it appear
unsafe to those contemplating it.

That mainly boils down to passing too fast and too close. Near-universal
compliance with speed limits - simply achieved by concealed cameras -
would be a good start. A statutory minimum passing clearance would also
send a good message, and I believe would be enforceable.

Colin McKenzie

--
Cycling in the UK is about as safe as walking, and helmets don't make it
safer. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Andy Morris]

On 16/05/2013 21:15, Adam Funk wrote:
>
> Let's say we're only talking about points, rather than jail time. A
> driving licence is a privilege, not a right, & retaining a licence (or
> an untarnished one) should not be subject to the same rules as normal
> criminal acquittal or conviction.
>

Also ...

>
> And look how effective the current system is at punishing or
> disqualifying people for bad driving. The basic problem is that mass
> car ownership & use is completely out of hand & people think they have
> a right to drive, & even to expect people to get the **** out of their
> way.
>

Spot on.

If you show that you have problems driving safely, you licence should be
removed until you undergo training and testing that show that you have
overcome your problems.

They did this to me recently when I was caught speeding, but without a
test at the end of it, although if I get caught speeding again, they
will reconsider my original offence.

It does not have to be a criminal matter, nut a 'fitness to operate' matter


--
Andy Morris
Andy dot Jinkas at Googlemail

[Toom Tabard]

On Saturday, 25 May 2013 13:42:00 UTC+1, Colin McKenzie wrote:

>
>
> That mainly boils down to passing too fast and too close. Near-universal
> compliance with speed limits - simply achieved by concealed cameras -
> would be a good start. A statutory minimum passing clearance would also
> send a good message, and I believe would be enforceable.
>

Even wearing my car-driver's hat, I'd be in favour of mobile and hidden
speed cameras. The idea that they are fixed and conspicuously painted
so that you need only comply when you know you are being watched, is
ludicrous. However, I'd be in favour of allowing moderate drift
over the limit and a warning for first or occasional transgressions,
since it's possible for even careful drivers to trangress slightly when
dealing with other hazards. Otherwise the points and the fine should
quickly escalate to penalise the extent of obvious transgressions:
say a fixed fine of �100 or �200 plus something related to the
square of the amount you are over the speed limit - �10 x �10 for
ten miles over and �20 x �20 for twenty miles over, and escalating points
to at least brief disqualification for blatant offences

With regard to the claim that speed cameras are revenue raising, I'd be
delighted if even more taxes were ones you could have the option of
paying or not according to the legality of your behaviour.

Similarly, we should stop pussyfooting about with use of mobile phones or
texting whilst driving, and the google-specs type technololgy is
going to be another road-safety nightmare. It's an absolute offence: an
automatic ban of one-month for a first offence would probably cure the
problem tomorrow.

Toom

[Simon Mason]

On May 25, 5:20�pm, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 May 2013 13:42:00 UTC+1, Colin McKenzie �wrote:
>
> > That mainly boils down to passing too fast and too close. Near-universal
> > compliance with speed limits - simply achieved by concealed cameras -
> > would be a good start. A statutory minimum passing clearance would also
> > send a good message, and I believe would be enforceable.
>
> Even wearing my car-driver's hat, I'd be in favour of mobile and hidden
> speed cameras. The idea that they are fixed and conspicuously painted
> so that you need only comply when you know you are being watched, is
> ludicrous. However, I'd be in favour of allowing moderate drift
> over the limit and a warning for first or occasional transgressions,
> since it's possible for even careful drivers to trangress slightly when
> dealing with other hazards.

As I was out driving yesterday I noticed that every (ex RAF
Leconfield) L plated HGV was doing exactly 40mph on NSL single
carriageways which is their speed limit.

Non L plated HGVs all seem to drive at 56mph on the same roads except
when passing camera sites.

--
Simon Mason

[JNugent]

On 25/05/2013 17:19, Andy Morris wrote:


> If you show that you have problems driving safely, you licence should be
> removed until you undergo training and testing that show that you have
> overcome your problems.
>

> They did this to me recently when I was caught speeding...

Really?

I am happy to say that it has certainly never happened to me.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-25, Toom Tabard wrote:

> On Saturday, 25 May 2013 13:42:00 UTC+1, Colin McKenzie wrote:

>> That mainly boils down to passing too fast and too close. Near-universal
>> compliance with speed limits - simply achieved by concealed cameras -
>> would be a good start. A statutory minimum passing clearance would also
>> send a good message, and I believe would be enforceable.
>>
>
> Even wearing my car-driver's hat, I'd be in favour of mobile and hidden
> speed cameras. The idea that they are fixed and conspicuously painted
> so that you need only comply when you know you are being watched, is
> ludicrous. However, I'd be in favour of allowing moderate drift
> over the limit and a warning for first or occasional transgressions,
> since it's possible for even careful drivers to trangress slightly when
> dealing with other hazards. Otherwise the points and the fine should
> quickly escalate to penalise the extent of obvious transgressions:
> say a fixed fine of £100 or £200 plus something related to the
> square of the amount you are over the speed limit - £10 x £10 for
> ten miles over and £20 x £20 for twenty miles over, and escalating points
> to at least brief disqualification for blatant offences

Excellent ideas. Maybe the fines should also escalate with income ---
& perhaps also car price!

> With regard to the claim that speed cameras are revenue raising, I'd be
> delighted if even more taxes were ones you could have the option of
> paying or not according to the legality of your behaviour.

lottery tickets ;-)

> Similarly, we should stop pussyfooting about with use of mobile phones or
> texting whilst driving, and the google-specs type technololgy is
> going to be another road-safety nightmare. It's an absolute offence: an
> automatic ban of one-month for a first offence would probably cure the
> problem tomorrow.

With a lifetime ban for the third offence, or for any offence that
happens just before a collision.

[Andy Morris]

Yep, 34 in a 30 area, should of been concentrating, went off for a day
of education, very useful.

[Adam Funk]

Do you mean that you've never exceeded the speed limit, or never been
caught?

[JNugent]

I thought you said your licence had been removed.

Neither thing has ever happened to me, I hasten to add.

[JNugent]

I mean that I have no problem in driving safely (subject, of course, to
the fact that we are all human and have frailties for that reason) and
that I have never had my driving licence "removed" or been subject to
"re-education".

[The Luggage]

Which in itself is bizarre, because speed cameras can't differentiate
between cars and lorries and set their trigger points accordingly.
Therefore, the speeding lorries are quite 'safe' to pass the cameras
at 56 without fear that they will be caught for speeding.

TL

[Alan Braggins]

I assumed he meant that when caught, his licence wasn't taken away, even
if he was invited to attend a speed awareness course. I too am surprised
that it could be for speeding, at least without other factors that might
lead to a charge of e.g. dangerous driving.

(Or unless it was a repeated offence leading to a ban for the total number
of points on the licence, and in that case I'd expect it to be for a minimum
time regardless of training and testing.)

It occurs to me that the rules on HGV and/or PSV licences might be stricter.

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <848d61eb-b5a9-4d56...@googlegroups.com>

Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 25 May 2013 13:42:00 UTC+1, Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > That mainly boils down to passing too fast and too close.
> > Near-universal compliance with speed limits - simply achieved by
> > concealed cameras - would be a good start. A statutory minimum
> > passing clearance would also send a good message, and I believe
> > would be enforceable.
> >
>
> Even wearing my car-driver's hat, I'd be in favour of mobile and hidden
> speed cameras. The idea that they are fixed and conspicuously painted
> so that you need only comply when you know you are being watched, is
> ludicrous. However, I'd be in favour of allowing moderate drift
> over the limit and a warning for first or occasional transgressions,
> since it's possible for even careful drivers to trangress slightly when
> dealing with other hazards. Otherwise the points and the fine should
> quickly escalate to penalise the extent of obvious transgressions:
> say a fixed fine of £100 or £200 plus something related to the
> square of the amount you are over the speed limit - £10 x £10 for
> ten miles over and £20 x £20 for twenty miles over, and escalating points
> to at least brief disqualification for blatant offences
>
> With regard to the claim that speed cameras are revenue raising, I'd be
> delighted if even more taxes were ones you could have the option of
> paying or not according to the legality of your behaviour.
>

I'd favour the use of speed averaging technologies as being way superior
to fixed point speed traps. It's possible to deploy these technologies
in quite a sophisticated way, for example in urban residential streets
you can set up a series of cameras at key gateway points and use
algorithms to analyse the data collected to see if vehicles are rat
running through the area at above the speed limit.

The effect of speed averaging cameras on the A14 near Cambridge has had
a major impact on the way car drivers behave. They used to break hard as
they approached each camera and then accelerate away again once passed.
Now with averaging the traffic flows much smoother and keeps much closer
to the speed limit.

[Molly Mockford]

At 08:34:21 on Tue, 28 May 2013, Andy Morris <AndyM...@deadspam.com>
wrote in <b0i2p9...@mid.individual.net>:

>Yep, 34 in a 30 area, should of been concentrating, went off for a day
>of education, very useful.

There was a series on TV recently where some newly-qualified drivers
were filmed attempting to drive themselves and friends around, and then
assessed to see whether they should be given a car of their own (not, I
think, a new one - and I wonder who paid the insurance?) or advanced
driving lessons. Every single one treated the advanced driving lessons
as a punishment rather than a reward. Me, I would have leapt at the
offer to extend my learning - and probably still would, even after 40+
years of fault-free driving.

What sort of things did they teach you? Presumably not just stopping
distances, although I would guess it would certainly include that?
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

[Mike Causer]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 13:34:17 +0100
The Luggage <alan.p....@googlemail.com> wrote:

> [....] because speed cameras can't differentiate

> between cars and lorries and set their trigger points accordingly.
> Therefore, the speeding lorries are quite 'safe' to pass the cameras
> at 56 without fear that they will be caught for speeding.

The speed recorders that the police use in Cambridgeshire to find 85%
speeds seem to be able to. The spreadsheets found at
http://www.cambs.police.uk/roadsafety/speed_surveys/survey_results.asp
distinguish between them, and these things are fully automatic, not
roadside surveys by humans.

No prosecutions result from these surveys (AFAIK), but the peak speeds
through towns and villages early in the morning should get the perps
into big trouble. Almost every record has peaks above 70mph but
they're all situated in 30mph zones.


Mike

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <ju9a7ax...@news.ducksburg.com>
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

[snip]

> Excellent ideas. Maybe the fines should also escalate with income ---
> & perhaps also car price!
>

That's a principle that is applied in Switzerland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/12/record-speeding-fine-switzerland

"Motorist could face record speeding fine of £650,000 in Switzerland

Swedish man receives highest possible penalty calculated on basis of his
income and speed of 300kph"

[Clive George]

On 28/05/2013 14:46, Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 08:34:21 on Tue, 28 May 2013, Andy Morris <AndyM...@deadspam.com>
> wrote in <b0i2p9...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Yep, 34 in a 30 area, should of been concentrating, went off for a day
>> of education, very useful.
>

> What sort of things did they teach you? Presumably not just stopping
> distances, although I would guess it would certainly include that?

I had a similar course. Lots of basic stuff which people _really_ ought
to know.

I was there for 70 in a 60 (discovered the hard way my new car has a
less optimistic speedo than the old one :-) ). I think everybody else
was in 30s or 40s. I tend to obey the 30 and 40mph limits, and might be
a little more flexible in NSL.

Things included :

How to tell what the speed limit is (yup, basic HC - street lights,
motorway signs, repeaters).
Speed limits for different vehicles (again, yup, basic HC).
Hazard perception (lots of things are hazards. Can't remember if they
mentioned the idea that if you think there are too many hazards to spot,
the trick is not to start filtering them out but to slow down).
One bit mentioned was dropping a gear in a 30 limit if you find you're
going too fast a lot.

Ie practical stuff to avoid getting caught again and generally being a
safer driver.

The scary thing was how bad the rest of the people on that course were
at this sort of thing. Ok, I'm fairly keen - not IAM keen, but I've read
a certain amount and do try and do things better. But people there
really didn't know a lot of this stuff.

The good thing was that the comments at the end from the participants
were generally positive.