Mobile Speed Cameras......Again

[RogerS]

found this on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245

Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport

Those figures aree meaningless. What you are ignoring is that the central premise of the Times article/research was that cyclists travel less miles in total than motorists. If you then look at the number of accidents caused by cyclists compared to motorists per miles travelled then proportionately cyclists cause just as much injury.

All I am really after is an agreement that just as there are bad inconsiderate motorists, so to are there bad and inconsiderate cyclists.

Of course I agree that there are bad and inconsiderate cyclists,it really waters me off that there are because it's those who get us all a bad name and cause other road users to demand various sanctions for riders.

Those figures are not meaningless,if they are true and I suspect they are it means that cars killed many more pedestrians than cycles did in the same time frame. The Times interpretation of the data to me says the same thing because I know that cycles generally travel fewer miles than cars and are less common so hence less likely to kill. The data that the BBC page showed isn't per mile, it's a body count, that many people were killed by each mode of transport it's real, to me it puts it into perspective, you are nearly 200 times more likely to be killed on the pavement by a car than you are by a bicycle.

Where does 'pavement' come in?

 

[Finial]

but I've never been hit, threatened or even inconvenienced by someone on a bike, .....

I have as a pedestrian walking on the pavement in London!

Your experience shows there are some careless riders. Every once in a while a pedestrian is killed by a bike rider. Drivers frequently kill both pedestrians and people on bikes. I know more than one bike rider who was injured when a pedestrian stepped off the kerb in front of them without looking. it's happened to me, though without injury. Perhaps pedestrians ought to wear mirrors on their shoulders.

 

[Preston]

 

[RogerS]

but I've never been hit, threatened or even inconvenienced by someone on a bike, .....

I have as a pedestrian walking on the pavement in London!

Your experience shows there are some careless riders. Every once in a while a pedestrian is killed by a bike rider. Drivers frequently kill both pedestrians and people on bikes. I know more than one bike rider who was injured when a pedestrian stepped off the kerb in front of them without looking. it's happened to me, though without injury. Perhaps pedestrians ought to wear mirrors on their shoulders.

 

[RogerS]

I've been right all along. DRIVE FASTER !!

Less accidents ......

http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/crashes ... 37.article

Crashes 11 times more likely at 40mph than 70mph - Wunelli

 

[Finial]

That's a misleading headline. The article says

crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road.

Not that driving at 40 causes more accidents than driving at 70.

 

[MMUK]

It's a well known fact that motorways are the "safest" roads in the country. Accidents are much less frequent. However, when they do occur they are generally a lot more serious.

 

[RogerS]

That's a misleading headline. The article says

crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road.

Not that driving at 40 causes more accidents than driving at 70.

How do you work that out? Road with a 40 mph speed limit....chances are people will be driving at or around 40mph. So if crashes are more likely to occur on a 40 mph road then it follows that the speed is also 40 mph.

Ditto 70 mph. ..which could be a dual carriageway...not limited to motorways.

 

[Finial]

I was thinking that a road with a lower limit would have more hazards - junctions, traffic queues, houses with driveways etc. Bicycles even. And also that most drivers would often be exceeding the limit anyway. That article is about the roads not the driving speed. To me, it indicates that the 40 limit is often too high.

How can driving slowly enough to be able to see what's happening in front of you and stop if necessary be more dangerous than going over the limit?

Terry

 

[John Brown]

I was thinking that a road with a lower limit would have more hazards - junctions, traffic queues, houses with driveways etc. Bicycles even. And also that most drivers would often be exceeding the limit anyway. That article is about the roads not the driving speed. To me, it indicates that the 40 limit is often too high.

How can driving slowly enough to be able to see what's happening in front of you and stop if necessary be more dangerous than going over the limit?

Terry

It can't be. It's a meaningless, or at the very least, confusing, statistic. A bit like the old chestnut about how 30% of accidents are caused by drivers who've had too much to drink. Therefore 70% of accidents are caused by drivers who haven't had enough to drink.

 

[MIGNAL]

70 MPH road. Likely that everyone is travelling in the same direction with a central reservation between those going in the opposite direction. No pedestrians, cyclists, no road junctions as such. Plenty of reasons why they are relatively safer.

 

[Benchwayze]

Hi

I believe speedo error can be plus or minus 10% - however manufacturers err on the low side to prevent compensation claims from speeding drivers citing incorrect speedometers as the cause for their offence.

One of the first things I do with a new vehicle is to compare the relevant speedo readings, (30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 mph), with a sat nav readout - this will be more accurate than the speedo in most cases, at least then I know when I'm speeding.

I don't condone speeding but feel that most of us do it, either intentionally or accidentally, either way, if caught we deserve to be punished for breaking the law.

Regards Mick

Having a faulty speedo is an entirely separate offence. (If the error is outside permitted allowances.) It doesn't affect any prosecution for speeding. If you are exceeding a speed limit, you are exceeding a speed limit. End of I'm afraid. You could argue in mitigation that your speedometer was reading less than the limit, but the percentage of error is so small, it probably won't make much odds; definitely not to the camera! The Magistrates might accept your explanation of course, and discharge you.