# Why can't we have government sponsored public info' films to discourage shoot driving?



## Accy cyclist (20 May 2018)

Like this sort of thing.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUjhmBDUjFE

I think it's needed as the standard of driving i'm witnessing,now i'm back on my bike(s) is appalling. I could go on and on about the things i see,but i wont as we all must have witnessed such behaviour while either cycling,walking or driving ourselves. Maybe some CCers are guilty of such poor driving. Ok,i'll give one example. On Friday i was waiting to turn right onto a busy road. My head was constantly turning from left to right as i tried to work out when it would be safe to make a dash for it. I was ready to go when all of a sudden this woman driver appeared at the petrol station exit directly opposite to me. I presumed she was going straight on,not turning left or right as she wasn't signalling. She seemed agitated as she had a car full of screaming children. She seemed clueless as to what she was doing,so i took a chance and turned right. All of a sudden this woman turned left and came at me,beeping her horn at me. Ok,she had the right of way,but if only the idiot has indicated left i wouldn't have made that move. I know she had the right of way even if she was going straight on,but i decided that if so she wouldn't be pulling out for a while. Due to the heavy traffic. Her indecisiveness and lack of signalling put me in danger. 
I think it's time the government took control of this bad driving and made new films/videos to discourage it. I know some will say that people who do bad things will ignore such advice,but i think most who drive with a couldn't care less attitude will start to listen if the message is repeated enough times. What do you think? Would such short films make drivers drive with a bit more courtesy,or is it too late for that?


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (20 May 2018)

Everyone knows it is illegal to speed, jump lights etc etc, but the majority do it anyway. The only deterrent that will stop bad driving/riding is a harsher penalty when they are caught.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 May 2018)

Whilst I love the old PIFs... i don't think they really discouraged anything, apart from maybe not painting polystyrene ceiling tiles with gloss paint.


----------



## Accy cyclist (20 May 2018)

Pumpkin the robot said:


> Everyone knows it is illegal to speed, jump lights etc etc, but the majority do it anyway. The only deterrent that will stop bad driving/riding is a harsher penalty when they are caught.


I'm thinking along the lines that television is a brainwashing thing. Subliminal messages are sent out,which are then absorbed without the viewer knowing it. Maybe the "please fecking indicate"!! messages will sink into their brains,even if they don't know it's happening. I was going to give a  sign,but i'm being serious more than trying to put a humorous slant on it.


----------



## Beebo (20 May 2018)

TFL and the Mayor have quite an extensive campaign in London, with the "every journey matters" slogan.


----------



## Tenacious Sloth (20 May 2018)

I’ve thought for a long while that they should bring back PIFs.

It’s the only way to get through to the sheep. Before too long they’ll be screaming at fellow car drivers for not giving a bike sufficient room as shown on a PIF.

Graham


----------



## Accy cyclist (20 May 2018)

Maybe they could dig up Joe and Petunia and have them on,saying how shoot driving affects vulnerable road users.


Edit.. No,it'd be better if Joe was doing the shoot driving,as he was the one who did the nobber things in those PIFs.


----------



## Julia9054 (20 May 2018)

No one watches television live any more


----------



## Lonestar (20 May 2018)

Not sure this would work nowadays.Society is too selfish and just wrapped up in their own little world.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 May 2018)

Women, have a think to yourselves!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt016gTNp_k


----------



## Drago (20 May 2018)

Remember the "clunk-click every trip" adverts? Can't quite remember who presented those...?


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (20 May 2018)

View: https://youtu.be/epTdI-9V6Jk


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (20 May 2018)

View: https://youtu.be/tywC-gRXbq0


----------



## Brandane (20 May 2018)

Pumpkin the robot said:


> The only deterrent that will stop bad driving/riding is a harsher penalty when they are caught.


IMHO, the current penalties are sufficient. The problem being that the chances of actually being caught are now so miniscule that nobody cares any more. What we really need is proper enforcement of the road traffic laws.


----------



## Sharky (20 May 2018)

Drago said:


> Remember the "clunk-click every trip" adverts? Can't quite remember who presented those...?


Probably wasn't a cyclist


----------



## Lonestar (20 May 2018)

User13710 said:


> 30 seconds in, the driver looks back out of the driver's door window before opening the car door .



Yeah shame that wasn't real life.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 May 2018)

Lonestar said:


> Not sure this would work nowadays.Society is too selfish and just wrapped up in their own little world.


I don't think they worked in those days either. Kids talked to strangers, men slipped on polished floors, people got run over, reckless youth drowned in rivers, lakes, canals and quarries and so on.


----------



## screenman (20 May 2018)

I never trust an indicator, around these parts it could be left on from 10 miles back.


----------



## Lonestar (20 May 2018)

screenman said:


> I never trust an indicator, around these parts it could be left on from 10 miles back.



wWhat's an indicator?


----------



## screenman (20 May 2018)

Lonestar said:


> wWhat's an indicator?



An optional extra, it seems on many vehicles.


----------



## User10119 (20 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> ,so *i took a chance* and turned right. All of a sudden this woman turned left and came at me,beeping her horn at me. Ok,*she had the right of way*,but if only the idiot has indicated left i wouldn't have made that move. *I know she had the right of way* even if she was going straight on,*but i decided* that if so she wouldn't be pulling out for a while. Due to the heavy traffic. Her indecisiveness and lack of signalling put me in danger.


Remember that you can control what you do, but not what someone else does.


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (20 May 2018)

Lonestar said:


> wWhat's an indicator?



fFlashing light


----------



## sheddy (20 May 2018)

PIFs ought to be shown on all BBC Channels. 

and I don't understand why the NI campaign https://www.sharetheroadtozero.com/ can't be rolled out across the UK


----------



## Levo-Lon (20 May 2018)

Drago said:


> Remember the "clunk-click every trip" adverts? Can't quite remember who presented those...?




A lot of young girls can


----------



## Levo-Lon (20 May 2018)

Nowadays we have " hot" on a cup of fresh made coffee !!

I think a PIF will be too complicated for most in our society these days


----------



## Bonefish Blues (20 May 2018)

I agree with you Accy.

There, I said it.


----------



## Julia9054 (20 May 2018)

sheddy said:


> PIFs ought to be shown on all BBC Channels.


I repeat - because noone watches actual television. 
A public information film is paid for by public money. Before my taxes are spent on such a thing, i would want evidence of it's efficacy.


----------



## Slick (20 May 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> I repeat - because noone watches actual television.
> A public information film is paid for by public money. Before my taxes are spent on such a thing, i would want evidence of it's efficacy.


Well, maybe no one is a bit strong. 

18 million to watch this nonsense, apparently. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/20/royal-wedding-confirmed-as-years-biggest-uk-tv-event


----------



## winjim (20 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I *presumed she was going straight on,*not turning left or right as* she wasn't signalling*. *She seemed agitated* as she had a car full of screaming children. *She seemed clueless* as to what she was doing,so *i took a chance* and turned right. All of a sudden this woman turned left and came at me,beeping her horn at me. Ok,*she had the right of way*,but if only the idiot has indicated left i wouldn't have made that move.


Assumption being the mother of all fark ups, why would you take a chance turning right across her path? She had priority, seemed 'agitated' and 'clueless'. So you'd already assessed her driving as dangerous and unpredictable. Sounds like a stressed out mother to me.

I also can't find the bit in the Highway Code which mentions indicating as a legal requirement but I'm not feeling well so might not be looking properly.


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (20 May 2018)

screenman said:


> I never trust an indicator, around these parts it could be left on from 10 miles back.



When I was learning to ride my slowped, my dad told me that a flashing indictor only shows that it is working.


----------



## Accy cyclist (20 May 2018)

screenman said:


> I never trust an indicator, around these parts it could be left on from 10 miles back.


I've just been out on my bike. In the space of one hour i saw a left on left side indicator,while the driver passed 2 turn offs(imagine pulling out on a bike,thinking he was going to turn left before he reached you) and someone driving with their hazard warning lights on,for at least 300 yards that i saw. Oh,and a woman in a Chelsea tractor turned right into her drive without indicating, abruptly making 2 young girls(pedestrians on the pavement) give way to her. Obviously she thought being in such a vehicle meant that indicating her intentions to the 2 girls was beneath her.


----------



## Accy cyclist (20 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5250169, member: 10119"]Remember that you can control what you do, but not what someone else does.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes we have to take a chance. I could've been there for ages if i hadn't Plus Mr Angry motorist was behind me,revving his engine which was getting on my wick!


----------



## Accy cyclist (20 May 2018)

winjim said:


> I also can't find the bit in the Highway Code which mentions indicating as a legal requirement


Are you a fan of not indicating your intentions,then?


----------



## winjim (20 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Are you a fan of not indicating your intentions,then?


No, it annoys the piss out of me, but I know I can't rely on other people to do it, plus, afaiaa it is not a legal requirement. I have also been both that stressed out parent making a mistake and that cheeky cyclist taking a chance and coming off worse.


----------



## Brandane (20 May 2018)

winjim said:


> I also can't find the bit in the Highway Code which mentions indicating as a legal requirement


Rule 103 of the Highway Code. While there is no specific offence for failing to indicate, it could be considered to be a contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 3 - which states "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, *or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road* or place, he is guilty of an offence."

Rule 103..........


> Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see ‘Signals to other road users), of your intended actions. You should always
> 
> 
> give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
> ...


----------



## winjim (20 May 2018)

Brandane said:


> Rule 103 of the Highway Code. While there is no specific offence for failing to indicate, it could be considered to be a contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 3 - which states "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, *or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road* or place, he is guilty of an offence."
> 
> Rule 103..........


So not a definite no-no in legal terms then, but maybe a bit subjective. I do agree it's inconsiderate.


----------



## mjr (20 May 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> I repeat - because noone watches actual television.
> A public information film is paid for by public money. Before my taxes are spent on such a thing, i would want evidence of it's efficacy.


Indeed. I suspect money would be better spent rebuilding shoot motoring-supremacist layouts to be less shoot or even updating the plethora of "guidance" on how not to build more shoot into "rules" or "legal duties" that bind highways agents.


----------



## Lonestar (20 May 2018)

mjr said:


> Indeed. I suspect money would be better spent rebuilding shoot *motoring-supremacist *layouts to be less shoot or even updating the plethora of "guidance" on how not to build more shoot into "rules" or "legal duties" that bind highways agents.



Ooooer.I do like that.


----------



## Lonestar (20 May 2018)

Diogenes The Sarcastic said:


> fFlashing light



I know...they are fitted as standard round here but rarely used....perhaps I should have added [sarcasm]what's an indicator?[/sarcasm]


----------



## PaulSB (21 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Sometimes we have to take a chance. I could've been there for ages if i hadn't Plus Mr Angry motorist was behind me,revving his engine which was getting on my wick!



Hold on there. “Sometimes we have to take a chance” said the driver after he knocked down the cyclist........

While you may well be correct regarding the decline in driving standards your opening post and this one indicate you need to consider your own driving standard. 

In your OP you describe closely several warning signs the other driver might behave unexpectedly but ignored these and “took a chance.” Taking a chance in several tons of moving metal is unacceptable and dangerous to other road users.


----------



## User10119 (21 May 2018)

PaulSB said:


> Taking a chance in several tons of moving metal is unacceptable and dangerous to other road users.


Absolutely agree. 

I think that Accy was on his bike on this occasion, mind!


----------



## mjr (21 May 2018)

Lonestar said:


> Ooooer.I do like that.


I don't  but it does rather accurately describe the practice of some highways designers who lay the all-vehicle lanes out first, squeeze the rest in around them and make decisions by modelling only motor vehicle throughput, rather than the widely-stated policies of a modal hierarchy of walking first, then cycling, scheduled mass transport, commercials and only then private cars.


----------



## Accy cyclist (21 May 2018)

PaulSB said:


> In your OP you describe closely several warning signs the other driver might behave unexpectedly but ignored these and “took a chance.” Taking a chance in *several tons of moving metal* is unacceptable and dangerous to other road users.



I know i've had some heavy bikes in my time but not that heavy!! I was on my bike when it happened,not driving my car.


----------



## Accy cyclist (21 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5250933, member: 45"]We now have active forums where members can offer advice to people on how to cycle safely on the roads.[/QUOTE]

you can give all the advice in the world,but we do not have any influence on how other road users are going to act. You could be the most proficient cyclist in the world,but if some couldn't care less motorist's driving puts you in danger then you can't do anything about it,apart from taking evasive action which isn't always possible. I think you're suggesting that cyclists should up their act and learn how to deal with poor motoring standards. I think the government should tell those motorists to get *their *act together and drive correctly.


----------



## PaulSB (21 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I know i've had some heavy bikes in my time but not that heavy!! I was on my bike when it happened,not driving my car.



You didn't say this in your post! In which case apologies but if you want to take a chance on the bike.........................


----------



## mjr (21 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I think the government should tell those motorists to get *their *act together and drive correctly.


Deeds not words. Police the roads, not produce pretty films.


----------



## Accy cyclist (21 May 2018)

PaulSB said:


> if you want to take a chance on the bike...



Cycling in general is taking a chance,i'd say. Whenever we go out there we know that we're putting ourselves in danger.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Cycling in general is taking a chance,i'd say. Whenever we go out there we know that we're putting ourselves in danger.


Speak for yourself!


----------



## ianrauk (21 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Cycling in general is taking a chance,i'd say. Whenever we go out there we know that we're putting ourselves in danger.




Nope.


----------



## Accy cyclist (21 May 2018)

mjr said:


> Deeds not words. Police the roads, not produce pretty films.


I agree,but surely PIF's would be better than nothing. The police can't be everywhere at once,no matter how many of them there are. I must say, i do feel a sense of protection when i'm on my bike and see a police car. What i'd like is for some irate motorist to be giving me some hassle,then a cop car suddenly appears and i wave it down to report Mr Angry. It's only happened once to me, when this nutter jumped out of his white van and was heading towards me for a confrontation. As he was half way there a police car came round the bend. I waved it down and luckily they stopped. After about 5 minutes of both me and Mr Angry giving our accounts of what had happened (he punish passed me by about 1 foot and took offence at me giving an arm movement as if to say keep your distance,so he must've been looking at his left side wing mirror to see my reaction the evil scumbag) they more or less told him to do one! They even followed me for about a mile till they thought he'd have long gone and i was near to home,which was very good of them! I was hoping they might have kicked in his rear lights so they could book him, like they do in those deep south states films,but sadly they didn't.


----------



## Sharky (21 May 2018)

User3094 said:


> Cycling isnt dangerous.


As long as you don't ride through shark infested custard.


----------



## Drago (21 May 2018)

Or if Halfords serviced your bike...


----------



## mjr (21 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I agree,but surely PIF's would be better than nothing. The police can't be everywhere at once,no matter how many of them there are.


Is it better than nothing? PIFs ain't cost-free. I suspect we'd get more bang per buck if that money went into getting roads police in more places more often, despite not being everywhere at once. If it's in some communications budget which can't be transferred to police manpower, I think I'd rather it was spent on social media work to spread similar messages these days.


----------



## Accy cyclist (21 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5250999, member: 45"]Absolutely not.[/QUOTE]



ianrauk said:


> Nope.



So riding on two wheels on potholed roads,next to tons of metal, with wonk brained drivers in control of this metal isn't even the slightest bit dangerous?


----------



## Accy cyclist (21 May 2018)

User3094 said:


> Nope.


So that's two nopes and an absolutely not.


----------



## ianrauk (21 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> So riding on two wheels on potholed roads,next to tons of metal, with wonk brained drivers in control of this metal isn't even the slightest bit dangerous?




I have done it on and off for over 35 years.
If I thought it was dangerous I would have given up long ago. It's simply not.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (21 May 2018)

Diogenes The Sarcastic said:


> View: https://youtu.be/epTdI-9V6Jk




Or the Aussie/Kiwi ones??


----------



## Accy cyclist (21 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5251044, member: 45"]You undertook a dangerous manoeuvre by choosing to take a chance in your OP. Your action was dangerous. No doubt if you were typing this from hospital you'd be blaming the driver.[/QUOTE]
But first i'd phone claims direct!


----------



## MontyVeda (21 May 2018)

Lancashire police will occasionally put a road safety notice on the local Facebook groups... you know... _give cyclists plenty of room when you overtake_ ...that sort of thing.

Everytime these posts attract hundreds of comments claiming we should be taxed and insured, that we all jump red lights, terrorise pensioners by riding on the pavements, etc...

Do you really think a Public Information Film will get the message through?


----------



## User65906 (21 May 2018)

It is tougher sentences that is required, more prisons,
and a system that convicts these people on the video
evidence we can gather ourselves.

Over taking here is a joke, no car should be allowed to
overtake a bicycle on the same side of the road, they
should have to move into the other lane to overtake,
cyclists need more protection than someone sitting in
a steel box that was tested for safety and designed to
protect the occupants, the wind caused by an overtaking
vehicle has not been accounted for, and has a serious
effect on the cyclists ability to keep control of the bike,
people should be pushing for new laws, the current situation
may have worked many moons ago, it is no longer fit for purpose.
The UK may find its self in a unique positon where they won't have
to put up with EU bull**** regarding passing new laws, which 
should make it way easier to make the necessary changes.


----------



## User65906 (21 May 2018)

In competence plays a big part in convicting criminals,
let me explain,
a week ago I went to town, driving home a driver ploughed straight into
the back of me, not once, but twice, I stopped and called the Gards,
they told me to move my vehicles off the road it was blocking traffic,
so I tell the other driver to follow me to a carpark 00 yards away,
I move off slowly, the crook that ran into me never moved, I kept
him in view in the rear mirror for as long as it was safe to do so,
and when I turned into the car park, well where was the drugged out
of his mind driver that ran into me, no where to be seen.

The Guards then turned up to hassle me for insurance documentation,
even though the disk was in its holder on the windscreen, as was the tax
and nct cert.
I can only imagine a cyclist would have been killed, for he hit me, sent
me flying down the road yet was so out of it he hit me again when he
caught up with me, and because of the Guards instructing me to leave
the scene, I had no registration number for the car, which was stuck to
my back bumper, and I did not go near the back of it when I saw the
drivers condition, he got out waving like a tree on a windy day
his eyes were all glossed over and standing in his head,
and a face like beetroot with a blood rush
from what ever he was on, and him barely able to form a word.


----------



## winjim (21 May 2018)

Post EU Britain to become a cyclist's paradise?


----------



## User65906 (21 May 2018)

winjim said:


> Post EU Britain to become a cyclist's paradise?


No idea, but at least the powers that be won't have to run everything past the
EU, they can do their own thing, saves time, money and hopefully lives,
or may be you would like to see the present situation where cyclists are simply
not protected well enough under law continue, and they cyclists keep getting
early non return tickets to a different kind of paradise.


----------



## winjim (21 May 2018)

User65906 said:


> No idea, but at least the powers that be won't have to run everything past the
> EU, they can do their own thing, saves time, money and hopefully lives,
> or may be you would like to see the present situation where cyclists are simply
> not protected well enough under law continue, and they cyclists keep getting
> early non return tickets to a different kind of paradise.


The UK opted out of an EU initiative to allow cross border exchange of information relating to road traffic offences.


----------



## User10119 (21 May 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> but surely PIF's would be better than nothing.


That's just saying "Something must be done!!!!!" regardless of whether or not the something in question is meaningful, useful, productive or effective.


ianrauk said:


> I have done it on and off for over 35 years.
> If I thought it was dangerous I would have given up long ago. It's simply not.


Yeah, with you on that. And I wouldn't let my kids do it with me either. I do though, because while of course there are risks in riding a bike, as there are risks in pretty much everything in life, they are massively outweighed by the benefits on both an individual and a societal scale.


winjim said:


> Post EU Britain to become a cyclist's paradise?


Along the lines of the Netherlands and Belgium and rural France, maybe? Well, will we not have some change out of the 350million quid from the side of a bus to invest? Perhaps we could invest some of that in getting up to scratch, eh...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (21 May 2018)

Didn't the infomercials stop when the broadcaster prices got too high?
After all paying for wars at a million quid a bomb is fine for a government, but paying for something nice like curing cancer or saving lives has to be left to charities.


----------



## User65906 (21 May 2018)

User said:


> So please do tell us which road traffic laws the UK is supposedly prevented from passing due to its membership of the EU?


Europe is one big dictatorship, the powers that be have to ensure what they
do is in line with the EU 's way of thinking, I find the EU to be one enormous
obstacle, they are quick enough to act when it makes the wealthy even wealthier
with their directives, but the ordinary people are the last thing they are concerned
about.
Not really into politics, but not blind to what needs to be done and why it never
get done either.


----------



## User65906 (21 May 2018)

User, I will not be discussing the ways of the EU,
if you can't see how they have gone about doing business then
your not seeing what I see.
Does the fact the UK are discussing their exit of the EU not
indicate anything to you regarding policy making, they are not
leaving because the EU make life easy.
Post EU, the UK won't have to be concerned or contend
with the EU and can push on making what ever changes
the people put before them, no EU dictators involved,
you do realize a law can't be made that conflicts with another
law, and when you are part of the EU, this causes big problems,
for your laws at home will take second place to the EU laws,
old laws are bad enough, try pushing for new ones with the EU
on your back.

In any event, my point is, cyclists need more protection under law,
and new laws can't come soon enough as far as am concerned.


----------



## winjim (21 May 2018)

User3094 said:


> I'm hoping once we're free of the EU
> the use of carriage return will be banned.


We're going back to the halcyon days of blue passports, steam trains and typewriters.


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (21 May 2018)

Severe sentencing isn't the main deterrent, it's the chances of getting caught that deters criminals. I doubt there's a driver in the country that doesn't know using a mobile phone whilst driving is illegal but it's still a very, very common offence because IMO the chances of getting caught are tiny. 

Here's why -



> A freedom of information request has recently revealed a 30% drop in the UK’s traffic police force, dropping from 3,766 officers in 2007 to just 2,643 in 2017. The numbers fell sharply between 2012 and 2017, and have been attributed to severe budget cuts within the department. Some counties have felt the pinch more than others – Northamptonshire Police has seen an 83 per cent drop in its traffic officer ranks over the last ten years, with just nine dedicated officers compared to 52 a decade ago



http://www.evo.co.uk/news/19768/british-road-traffic-police-numbers-on-the-decline

Nine officers in Northamptonshire. Given shifts and holidays say two on duty at any one time. I'm going to bet they're going to be sitting on a flyover on the M1 for most of their shift. 

If you want to see a decline in traffic offences other than speeding, tax and insurance fraud, then you have to put more police on the road.


----------



## User65906 (21 May 2018)

User said:


> Egg or pineapple?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you me for an example, a mere cyclist concerned about the lack of laws to protect us,
I wish I had your abilities, I might be able to instigate changes to help us all.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2018)

User65906 said:


> Europe is one big dictatorship, [...]


I think you're confusing a dictatorship with another word beginning with d for a system of government with a directly-elected parliament, an indirectly-appointed upper chamber (council or House of Lords) and an executive led by the leader of the largest party in the directly-elected parliament (commission or cabinet).



User65906 said:


> Not really into politics,


That surprises me immensely(!)



User65906 said:


> but not blind to what needs to be done and why it never
> get done either.


Do you think it's whatever Murdoch, Rothermere and Desmond say? Do you think those old men in limos are ever going to embrace Road Danger Reduction, Sustainable Safety, Vision Zero or similar?


----------



## MontyVeda (21 May 2018)

User said:


> No - I was asking you to back up your claim that being a member of the EU prevented us from passing domestic legislation relating to road safety... something you;ve singularly failed to do.


To be fair Reg... , it's common knowledge that we (the UK) can't make our own laws for as long as we're a member of the EU.

It's also absolute shoot, but common knowledge all the same. 

Well done for trying to explain it mind. I've never succeeded either.


----------



## winjim (21 May 2018)

This whole thread is making me very sad.


----------



## User65906 (21 May 2018)

@mjr
I couldn't care less what names are used to describe the powers that be,
what banner they hold up, or what party they belong to,
cyclists need more support to protect them.
But not alone cyclists, pedestrians and other drivers are being
harassed on a daily basis by other motorists too, we need change.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2018)

User65906 said:


> I will not be discussing the ways of the EU,


 If you won't discuss something - especially something you've got completely wrong as far as others can tell - then don't post it to a discussion forum, else other people will discuss it anyway!


----------



## User65906 (21 May 2018)

@mjr, good luck with your discussion and you bid to keep your EU Citizenship,
I can see now why you are so keen on discussing what I would like to be no part of.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2018)

User65906 said:


> @mjr, good luck with your discussion and you bid to keep your EU Citizenship,
> I can see now why you are so keen on discussing what I would like to be no part of.


That I actually understand it's very similar to the UK system (but slightly better due to the more proportional elections and greater diversity of parties) and like being able to move across borders without all the faff of most international travel... and that I think the EU has supported much fine work on cycling and the obstacles are in a palace in Westminster, especially the unelected shoots who purport to be scientists and experts but seem to feel no problem with evidence-free claims that cycle superhighways cause more pollution.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (22 May 2018)

When a video of a driver shunting marathon runners and a marshal down a road is on the BBC news website and no immediate real action is seen to be taken apart from noncommittal phrases we can see who is in charge.
I can sit and watch a road and see speeders, mobile users and people reclined so far they can't see over the dash while wearing no seat belt by the dozen.
The police have no control. There's no desire in government to change the situation.
We're here to vote and pay for the one that comes out with the cleverest words and veiled insults, and of course pay our taxes. As long as we don't kill each other we can do as we please.

Yes I'm a bit fed up this morning


----------



## Drago (22 May 2018)

mjr said:


> I
> Do you think it's whatever Murdoch, Rothermere and Desmond say? Do you think those old men in limos are ever going to embrace Road Danger Reduction, Sustainable Safety, Vision Zero or similar?



Rupert Murdoch is too busy embracing Jerry Hall.


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (22 May 2018)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> When a video of a driver shunting marathon runners and a marshal down a road is on the BBC news website and no immediate real action is seen to be taken apart from noncommittal phrases we can see who is in charge.
> I can sit and watch a road and see speeders, mobile users and people reclined so far they can't see over the dash while wearing no seat belt by the dozen.
> The police have no control. There's no desire in government to change the situation.
> We're here to vote and pay for the one that comes out with the cleverest words and veiled insults, and of course pay our taxes. As long as we don't kill each other we can do as we please.
> ...



Top rant, chapeau


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5251936, member: 9609"]where do you get that from ?

from the Gov own stats
https://assets.publishing.service.g...611304/annual-road-traffic-estimates-2016.pdf
Cars, 252.6 billion miles, 1.45 people per car, 8642 KSI = 1 every 42.4 million mile
Cycles 3.5 billion miles, 1 person per bike, 3339 KSI = 1 every 1 million miles

therefore journeys by push bikes are 42x more dangerous than by car.[/QUOTE]
For a start, dangerous to who?
Surely the vast majority of those KSI, regardless of the method of transport of the person killed or seriously injured, are caused by the people in the cars. Were they not travelling by car, everyone would be a lot safer.... just a thought.

Also - trust me on this, my kids are a LOT safer riding their bikes with me than they would be travelling in a car with me at the wheel!


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

User13710 said:


> I'm not going to argue with you over that, reiver, it's just derailing this debate. There's a thread in Advocacy and Safety called Are The Safety Stats Misleading where people went over it in great detail at the end of last year, you posted in it yourself.


Ah - I hadn't realised, or possibly remembered, that. https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/are-the-safety-stats-misleading.228572/ for anyone interested in the question of what the stats do or don't show. I was pleased to see that there was one of Jo's excellent data visualisations linked to, early on. May take a look at the rest of the thread at some point.

[QUOTE 5251961, member: 9609"]well why did you derail it with your very misleading comment?[/QUOTE]
Some people expressed the view that cycling is very dangerous. Some others expressed an opposing view.


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

I should perhaps be clear that I do think motorised vehicles pose the biggest threats on our roads. I just don't think that PIFs would particularly be effective in addressing that; presumed liability, where a driver would be presumed to be responsible IF it was proven that a cyclist or pedestrian hadn't caused an incident by taking a chance or making a poor choice might, I suppose.


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5251992, member: 9609"]you made a statement that was clearly wrong and I corrected it.[/QUOTE]
There's a thread to have that argument in. I even provided a link to it, once @User13710 kindly made me aware of its existence and I went to find it.


----------



## Tim Hall (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252011, member: 10119"]There's a thread to have that argument in. I even provided a link to it, once @User13710 kindly made me aware of its existence and I went to find it.[/QUOTE]
Hat tip, as they say somewhere, to you and @User13710 . That's an interesting thread.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (22 May 2018)

We switch the cameras off, not that 90% of the boxes ever had a camera in them as they're a squillion quid, then give radar guns to community groups. Logic? The plebs loves the government for freeing them to speed, and the wrath transfers to the now 'busybodies' ruining the fun - which is why a PCSO is on hand to prevent the aforesaid members of the public killing of each other.

Road deaths only appear in the media when there's a political point to be scored or some apportioning of blame to anyone other than the ones doing the killing.
Everyone loves a good 'enquiry' to state that lessons are learnt even if the result is sod all.

Second rant today I think I need some chamomile tea


----------



## Inertia (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252042, member: 9609"]well why didn't she make her initial comment in that thread ?
surely if someone makes a post that is clearly wrong then it is reasonable to respond to that post within the same thread it is made?[/QUOTE]
Stats can be misleading, so it’s arguable if she is ‘clearly wrong’


----------



## MontyVeda (22 May 2018)

I certainly feel safer on my bike than i do in a car.


----------



## Milkfloat (22 May 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> I certainly feel safer on my bike than i do in a car.



More importantly, the rest of the population is far safer with you (or anyone else) on your bike rather than in your car.


----------



## Inertia (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252099, member: 9609"]I agree stats can be very very misleading and I accept my own figure derived from the dept of transports own data that cycling is 40x more dangerous than being within a motor car, could be well off the mark (I suspect the risk of being killed or seriously injured is far greater than that, and I'm sure other figures could be found to show it is lower than 40x)

But to suggest it is actually safer is not only completely wrong it is also deeply misleading and very unhelpful. I'm sure those in the motoring lobby groups will just love such statements as it gives them justification to carry on in their current uncaring manner. We need the powers that be to concentrate on giving more protection to vulnerable road users and not to spend their time making it safer for cars.[/QUOTE]
Its a lot more complicated than your set of stats..

We do need them to concentrate but exaggerating the dangers is unhelpful too.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (22 May 2018)

If someone is throwing a large platypus at your face you're a lot safer in a car than riding a unicycle. The statistics have no context.


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252042, member: 9609"]well why didn't she make her initial comment in that thread ?
surely if someone makes a post that is clearly wrong then it is reasonable to respond to that post within the same thread it is made?[/QUOTE]

Lots of people have commented on cycling not really being really dangerous and TMN has clearly stepped away from the conversation. Why are you persisting with continuing an argument that nobody else seems all that interested in, with one specific person who isn't even here?


----------



## Inertia (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252148, member: 9609"]it is the governments own stats, not mine, and massively underplayed to my mind.
[/QUOTE]
Dont worry I didn't think they were your own stats that you had personally obtained. By your stats, I meant the ones you were presenting. HTH


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Second rant today I think I need some chamomile tea



I may join you in a cup.
View attachment 410499


----------



## Tizme (22 May 2018)

I wonder how many cyclists or pedestrians have been KSI while this argument has gone on?


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252181, member: 9609"]Cyclist at 40x greater risk so why are they not acting and acting fast to amend the situation.[/QUOTE]
What do the stats tell us when we compare time as opposed to miles?


----------



## Inertia (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252181, member: 9609"]Indeed, the "Department of Transports" very own stats, and they paint a very bleak picture for the vulnerable cyclist. What better stats could be used to compel the Department of Transport to improve matters for cyclists than their own statistics? if they say they are exaggerated or misleading then why did they publish them? Cyclist at 40x greater risk so why are they not acting and acting fast to amend the situation.

This thread is about public information to help make it safe for cycling, these stats should be in any such information, telling everyone it is virtually risk free and will never help our cause.[/QUOTE]
As I said, Its a lot more complicated than your set of stats.


----------



## mjr (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252176, member: 10119"]I may join you in a cup.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you'll both fit in a cup.

[QUOTE 5252181, member: 9609"]Indeed, the "Department of Transports" very own stats, and they paint a very bleak picture for the vulnerable cyclist. What better stats could be used to compel the Department of Transport to improve matters for cyclists than their own statistics? if they say they are exaggerated or misleading then why did they publish them? Cyclist at 40x greater risk so why are they not acting and acting fast to amend the situation.

This thread is about public information to help make it safe for cycling, these stats should be in any such information, telling everyone it is virtually risk free and will never help our cause.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think they'll react to that by improving road designs or whatever we'd like? Why wouldn't they just do whatever they can to reduce the numbers cycling? After all, they're the Department for Transport and any consequential health problems or air pollution problems from a greater shift to motoring are literally somebody else's problem at the moment!

But really, I agree with others: we wouldn't say guns are safe if few gun users were injured. We'd look at how many are injured BY guns - so why claim that motorists hurting cyclists means that cycling is dangerous? Doesn't it mean motoring is even more dangerous to the public than widely accepted? Now that's some public information which more of us should try to disseminate!


----------



## Milkfloat (22 May 2018)

I think the key stat is that cycling is safer than not cycling (I cannot be arsed to prove it, but I am fairly sure that a combination of KSI stats and health stats can and do show this - feel free to link to them). If more motorists switched to bicycles and stopped KSI'ing cyclists then those stats would only improve.


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252222, member: 9609"]I'm sure there will be a way to massage the stats to show no action is needed as cyclist are adequately safe, and it is the poor motorist we should be concentrating on helping.[/QUOTE]
I'm not looking for anyone to massage the stats, I'm asking what difference it makes to your 40x assertions when you look at things from a slightly different angle. Do you have that information? 
While we're at it how do the stats for peds compare to cycling and driving for both miles and time?


----------



## Tim Hall (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252222, member: 9609"]I'm sure there will be a way to massage the stats to show no action is needed as cyclist are adequately safe, and it is the poor motorist we should be concentrating on helping.[/QUOTE]
No, I think the risk per time exposed to the danger is a much more realistic way of assessing things. It's not massaging the statistics, it's using the data in a meaningful manner.


----------



## mjr (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252240, member: 9609"]I think we're just getting into a silly play on words now. By dangerous we're talking about the likely hood of KSI.[/QUOTE]
It may be silly to you, but words and their ordering do matter. A likely hood is not the same as a likelihood, but fortunately it's obvious this time what word you meant, but I'm still not clear what you mean by "dangerous" - the likelihood of Killed or Seriously Injured, OK, but did you mean the likelihood of being the perpetrator or the victim? I'd say that the mode that is "dangerous" is perpetrators' one, but it sounds like you reckon its the victim's one... do you really think that a van driving along the pavement killing loads of people means that walking is dangerous? That seems backwards to me.

[QUOTE 5252240, member: 9609"]The argument here appears to be cycling is perfectly safe, possibly even safer than being in a car. So if anything we're telling motorists they need to be no more careful around cyclists than they currently are.[/QUOTE]
The second sentence there does not follow from the first. Motoring is dangerous, so if anything we're telling motorists they need to be more careful around everyone than they currently are.

[QUOTE 5252240, member: 9609"]a 20 mile journey is a 20 mile journey I don't see the time scale of it as remotely relevant, (yes there would be less accidents if everyone went slower but that's a different story)[/QUOTE]
If all the 20 mile journeys were being done in isolation, I'd agree with you, but in that data, the timescale is relevant because exposure to dangerous motoring is more related to time taken for the journey than its distance.


----------



## Profpointy (22 May 2018)

mjr said:


> If all the 20 mile journeys were being done in isolation, I'd agree with you, but in that data, the timescale is relevant because exposure to dangerous motoring is more related to time taken for the journey than its distance.



Can't agree with the last point (unless I've misunderstood). By that logic you could make driving in fog safer by driving at 100mph as the risk of accident per hour would be reduced.


----------



## Profpointy (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252279, member: 45"]It depends what you're basing the risk on. If it's per time spent then cycling is going to look safer than if it was per journey or per mile.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand the logic of "per time" for a journey, else you could make the journey "safer" simply by driving faster to reduce the time exposed. This makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

So, having had an opportunity to do the following
[QUOTE 5251971, member: 10119"]May take a look at the rest of the thread at some point.[/QUOTE]
I find myself in agreement with @Tim Hall about that thread


Tim Hall said:


> Hat tip, as they say somewhere, to you and @User13710 . That's an interesting thread.


Interesting stuff indeed.


mjr said:


> I don't think you'll both fit in a cup.


Oh dear. @Nigel-YZ1 - I hope you aren't also a gurl. This thread could take a most unfortunate direction....
[QUOTE 5252222, member: 9609"]I'm sure there will be a way to *massage the stats to show no action is needed* as cyclist are adequately safe, and it is the *poor motorist* we should be concentrating on helping.[/QUOTE]
(my *bolds*)I don't think I've seen anyone attempting to do such a thing. As @mjr says


mjr said:


> The second sentence there does not follow from the first. Motoring is dangerous, so if anything we're telling motorists they need to be more careful around everyone than they currently are.


Although I remain unconvinced that PIFs are a meaningful way of doing so.
And


winjim said:


> This whole thread is making me very sad.


I kind of expect people out in the Big Blue Room to do the 'oh, aren't you brave! Cycling is so dangerous!" thing, but on a cycling forum, where I would expect the one unifying factor would be a love of/enthusiasm for cycling?


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (22 May 2018)

*Mod note:*

This thread has strayed quite a bit from the original topic. I've moved it into the Safety and Advocacy section as it seems better suited there.

Can we all get back to the topic now which is public information films and take the discussion about safety stats over to the dedicated thread which is here: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/are-the-safety-stats-misleading.228572/

Thankyou.


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2006/sep/23/film.society
An interesting, if somewhat elderly, view on PIFs.


----------



## Julia9054 (22 May 2018)

View: https://twitter.com/ScarredForLife2/status/998655482125570050?s=19

Made me giggle today


----------



## MontyVeda (22 May 2018)

This was my favourite PIF... one by one, the Apaches die on the farm


And then i saw The Finishing Line; a school sports day held on the railway line... it's carnage!


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

I remember one about escalators that gave me nightmares. I wouldn't use the things for years - as a Very_Small_Lion I once got lost when I was taken to M&S by some family friends as they blithely hopped on the terrifying foot eating monster of doom and I hid round the corner crying. Perhaps (so long as supervising adults are in the loop) that one would be useful for combatting childhood obesity...


----------



## mjr (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252564, member: 10119"]I remember one about escalators that gave me nightmares. I wouldn't use the things for years - as a Very_Small_Lion I once got lost when I was taken to M&S by some family friends as they blithely hopped on the terrifying foot eating monster of doom and I hid round the corner crying. Perhaps (so long as supervising adults are in the loop) that one would be useful for combatting childhood obesity...[/QUOTE]
So, how could we terrify children to stop their parents motoring so much and so badly?


----------



## Drago (22 May 2018)

This is a surprisingly informative public information film.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVuHEv2VZ4


----------



## User10119 (22 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5252564, member: 10119"]I remember one about escalators that gave me nightmares.[/QUOTE]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirp59zm1qE


*shivers*


----------



## Mugshot (22 May 2018)

I was a little surprised to find that they're actually still making them;

View: https://youtu.be/xbRCGxF5fxI


----------

