Road deaths surge linked to cash cuts

[srw]

Any idea of the numbers of cyclists generally? ANyone?

The stats aren't cycle-specific. If you follow the link I provided you can find all the information you need.

 

[ufkacbln]

The AA is keen on some aspects of road safety, but usually only the ones that restrict others and NOT their members.

Take the recent helmet exercise. High profile campaign to hand out helmets etc to cyclists in London in order to reduce cyclist injuries.

Obviously a campaign for their members to act appropriately around cyclists, not to left hook and give way properly at junctions would be unacceptable.

 

[Bicycle]

The AA is keen on some aspects of road safety, but usually only the ones that restrict others and NOT their members.

Take the recent helmet exercise. High profile campaign to hand out helmets etc to cyclists in London in order to reduce cyclist injuries.

Obviously a campaign for their members to act appropriately around cyclists, not to left hook and give way properly at junctions would be unacceptable.

I'm not sure how the AA would or could successfully run a campaign against left-hooking or similar.

It's a noble aspiration, but what would it lok like? Where would it play? How would it be pitched? Would it be aimed at all motorists (their natural constituency) or at members?

I had a peep at AA sites on cycling. Some of their advice makes good sense (food and hydration) some of it is not my own preference (always wear a helmet). Some of it seems slightly eccentric (always use a cycle path where you can). None of it looks like arrant poppycock to me.

The AA also appear to be a bicycle retailer, which surprised me a little.

Even as someone who seldom wears a helmet, I see a metropolitan campaign to hand out free helmets as a not-altogether-bad idea.

Is there any benefit in looking for fault in the AA when they are merely behaving as many of their members might like or expect them to?

 

[elmsall missile]

Misuse of statistics is one of my pet hates, and here's a classic: "The number of child pedestrians killed or injured rose three percent to 480."

Statisticians who put "killed or injured" as one group should be subjected to a punishment which renders them killed or injured - perhaps then they'll learn there is actually a difference between the two.

There is a similarity though they have all been hit by adults driving lethal weapons!

 

[Matthew_T]

I dont understand why we couldnt just benefit out of more public transport systems. Trains, planes, boats and bicycles came before cars. So why was there the need for cars?
If we induldged more money into making more railways and more efficient modes of transport other than cars, just think of how many lifes will be saved. People would be more inclined to walk places and therefore decrease the overall global weight problem (thinking of USA and us here), there would be more money available to members of the public and the government because car insurance, VED, MOT, repairs, etc wont have to be forked out by people. Plus the government would not have to pay claims and benefits to people who have been injured in a vehicle collision.

Yes, when there is eventually an incident involving a train or plane, the results would be far worse than a simple car collision, but more money could be included in the safety designs of the systems.


If automobiles hadnt been invented, our public transport systems would be a lot further into the future than we are now.