tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249117075374778494.post7441977628681200458..comments2023-11-02T10:03:54.724+00:00Comments on RadWagon: Compulsory Helmet Laws and Current Safety Measures Shown UpRadWagonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14988837097499697107noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249117075374778494.post-79681736694032964572012-05-16T11:07:51.562+01:002012-05-16T11:07:51.562+01:00Yep - not to mention the on-road incidents that do...Yep - not to mention the on-road incidents that don't involve a RLJ but do involve 'normal' carelessness, most of which have the standard of driving of motorists of one form or another as a proximate cause.<br /><br />I just like the points that we (as people who do give a damn about human-friendly transport) raise to be as un-pickable as possible (even when the arguments from the motoring lobby are just stalling tactics in sheep's clothing.)countertonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05076138671082802336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249117075374778494.post-24136895071055803362012-05-15T22:33:38.908+01:002012-05-15T22:33:38.908+01:00Hmm, yes, I do get the point, and you are not wron...Hmm, yes, I do get the point, and you are not wrong. If you want to look at the figures that way, they are included in the CTC document.<br /><br />However, what I wanted to do here was highlight the commonly held myth that it's cyclists who create massive amounts of danger whilst drivers somehow aren't responsible for the damage they cause. It's plastered all over the news about RLJing cyclists on the pavement terrorising pensioners and small children, whereas the poor old motorist is simply stuck in a bad system that caused them to kill & injure many, many people, they couldn't help it of course!RadWagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14988837097499697107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249117075374778494.post-87377746927089894472012-05-15T14:32:39.523+01:002012-05-15T14:32:39.523+01:00Trouble with the pedestrian-injury link is that, m...Trouble with the pedestrian-injury link is that, much like Mike Penning's statement not so long ago, it's not scaled using the frequency of occurrence of footway cycling (or driving). It tells us what's more likely to happen to a pedestrian, but that's not a useful measure of how dangerous the vehicle in question is when it's being operated on the pavement, and so isn't a useful statistic for informing enforcement priorities.<br /><br />Sure, common sense tells us that a motor vehicle should be more dangerous (and I'm sure that if we had statistics for total km cycled or driven of footways the motor vehicles would continue to cause more KSIs per km), but as far as I can tell the CTC-collated figures don't in themselves support or refute that.<br /><br />If I've missed something obvious, please tell me and junk this comment, as I'd hate to be Wrong On The Internet! ;-)countertonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05076138671082802336noreply@blogger.com