Perhaps time to res...
 

  You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more

[Closed] Perhaps time to restart the "War On Motorists"?

85 Posts
25 Users
0 Reactions
190 Views
Posts: 16025
Free Member
 

Problem is, that's how you're taught. If you mince around everywhere at 20mph on your driving test, you'll fail due to a 'failure to make progress'.

It's not how you're taught - you'll also fail if you take a NSL blind bend at 60mph.


 
Posted : 04/07/2012 4:12 pm
Posts: 31206
Full Member
Topic starter
 

you'll also fail if you take a NSL blind bend at 60mph.

True, however I'm not sure how it was on your test, but mine was a bimble through some residential streets then a blast up a couple of junctions on a (nice straight) dual carriageway.

No bendy rural NSL.

(and no Motorway either obviously, which is another bugbear of mine)


 
Posted : 04/07/2012 4:19 pm
Posts: 16025
Free Member
 

True, however I'm not sure how it was on your test, but mine was a bimble through some residential streets then a blast up a couple of junctions on a (nice straight) dual carriageway.

No bendy rural NSL.

Actually, there was a NSL road. My instructor had taught me to accelerate up to near the limit on the straight bit, and slow down for the corner. It would seem that a few people have trouble with the slowing down bit, as the whole section is now designated 40mph.


 
Posted : 04/07/2012 4:24 pm
Posts: 25815
Full Member
 

A rise of 12% over a period of ten years doesn't explain a 16% rise in the number of serious accidents in one year.
This years rise can't simply be dismissed as "more people cycling"
Yeah, but stats being stats, there's more to it I suspect

Where did the deaths happen, in cities ? (110% rise in London cycling - presumably very much dominated by on-road)

I'll also wait a year or two and I bet we see regression to the mean in numbers (unless that's what this latest figure already is, after a good spell)

Don't get me wrong - I do not in any way think current, past, or any, level of fatalities is acceptable but I don't believe "the end of the war on motorists" is involved causally


 
Posted : 04/07/2012 6:35 pm
Posts: 91000
Free Member
 

Whether the limits are targets or not is by the by, unfortunately that's how they're commonly perceived.

Round by me, no-one perceives the limits at all, they just drive at whatever speed they feel like. Until they see a speed camera or van, then they slam on the brakes because they have no idea what speed they were supposed to be doing.


 
Posted : 04/07/2012 6:54 pm
Posts: 31206
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Some interesting analysis of the cycling injury figures from the CTC, including some pretty graphs:

http://beta.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/16-increase-in-serious-injuries-so-whats-happening

The "more people cycling" argument doesn't seem to account for all of it, given that injuries fell sharply as cycling increased between 1996 and 2004:

[img] [/img]
"The graph above shows cycle use and casualties, indexed (ie, turned into percentages) based on three year averages, starting in 1996."


 
Posted : 05/07/2012 12:00 pm
Page 2 / 2

6 DAYS LEFT
We are currently at 95% of our target!