What ever you do, dont ride today if you live in Surrey!!!

ashleymp777

I'll never ride again :-(*

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/s ... endocument

cooldad

Rocket science. More cyclists are hurt when more cyclists are on the road.

shm_uk

Wow

Groundbreaking stuff. Rocket surgery

"more cyclists are hurt between 7-9am on a nice June morning when more of them are out, probably commuting to work"

paulbox

What a sh!t article... :roll:

I had a brief conversation with a colleague this afternoon, he knows that I'm in to cycling and was asking why some road riders feel the need to ride two abreast. He then told me how he often leans on his horn when he gets held up by cyclists and was shocked when I told him what I would do to his car if he did that to me (and I got lucky and caught him at some lights)... :roll:

supersonic

December - rise in wrapping paper related choking incidents in under fives.

cooldad

Spring - rise in bodies in ditches. When Sheeps clears out his shed.

Kaise

March - Rise in internet stalking when MissBint returns from Ski Season!

Gizmokev

silly surrey survey wrote:

The figures also revealed cyclists are most likely to be hurt:

within 1km of their homes (39%)
at junctions (71%)
in dry, light conditions (65%)
on urban roads with a 30mph speed limit (66%)

Within 1k of their homes....most people dont cycle more than 1k to get to work if they do cycle. Kids dont tend to cycle more that 1k from their home especially in Surrey as they get Mama and Papa to take them in their 4x4.

At junctions....because most motorists dont see cyclists

In dry light condition....you mean when most people will commute the 1k or less to work as opposed to when its p1ssing it down and blowing a hooly.

On urban roads......I must admit I have never seen a cyclist injured on the M6 or any other motorway or dual carriageway for that matter.

What a waste of Surrey taxpayers money.

Anonymous

Gizmokev wrote:

What a waste of Surrey taxpayers money.

If there's one statistic that's accurate it's the one that shows how much Surrey CC wastes.

Buckled_Rims

I love statistics and I believe 110% of them!

Anonymous

Pftt, that's nothing. It's been proven that ALL cyclists who have ever cycled in Worth Nails will die.

diy

Sadly if you knew the folk involved you'd give them a little slack they are not bright by any measure. The data is 3 years old and its just another press release telling us how our council tax is wasted.

Drive smart is just a way of raising revenue on the side. They are not really interested in the real causes of casualties, rather wanting to be seen to do something for the money they get.

There is absolutely nothing useful in that article since it doesn't show the causes of injury or at the very least the contributing factors.

According to that article we should cycle on the motorway,in the rain at night.
Numpties.

Anonymous

The 7am to 9am statistic would at least help against the clock forward arguers as if they had their way it would be darker between these times at some times during the year.

(bearing in mind their argument for putting the clocks forward is that "statistically" kids get knocked over when going home from school in the dark :roll: ).

Anonymous

deadkenny wrote:

The 7am to 9am statistic would at least help against the clock forward arguers as if they had their way it would be darker between these times at some times during the year.

(bearing in mind their argument for putting the clocks forward is that "statistically" kids get knocked over when going home from school in the dark :roll: ).

Wait, you want to fight against the clock forwarders?
I'm not speaking to you again, ever. We should leave the clocks on summer time and be done with it. GRRRRR

Anonymous

I just see it as pointless. If you want a lighter evening later, just go to work earlier and finish earlier. Same thing as changing the clocks, without having to change the clocks.

I'm all for lighter evenings, especially as I'm not into "night" riding, but it's just down to how we live and work. It's not like we're changing the orbit or the earth or position of the sun.

Anonymous

Yeah, cause choosing the time I go to work is an option I have :roll:

bails87

Gizmokev wrote:

At junctions....because most motorists dont see cyclists

True. Sometimes they don't see other cars, so what hope do we have!

On urban roads......I must admit I have never seen a cyclist injured on the M6 or any other motorway or dual carriageway for that matter.

In dry light condition....you mean when most people will commute the 1k or less to work as opposed to when its p1ssing it down and blowing a hooly.
[/quote]

What about rural roads? You'd probably think that rural, unlit roads in bad weather would be worst, whereas short local trips in good weather are (apparently) fairly dangerous. Of course, there are probably more cyclists on urban roads at rush hour in June than there are at 2am on a sleety night in December. It could be that there are twice as many injuries in 'good' conditions but 100 times as many cyclists, which makes the numbers kind of useless without any context.

What a waste of Surrey taxpayers money.

I'd imagine this was a fairly cheap flick-through-accident-reports type of job. At least they're looking at this type of stuff, would have been more useful to do some kind of cyclist count to know what the x% is out of.

But I suppose they're going after the biggest gains, so if they can change driver behaviour at junctions they could stop a huge amount of injuries. If they go for the more dangerous per mile/less well travelled areas then they might make a bigger % difference to a small number.

Daz555

Thankfully Wednesday is the day i stay at home and do heroin. Lucky escape for me I think you'll ll agree. 8)

diy

There is absolutely nothing that can be concluded from the data. Definitely not anything that relates to accident causation, behavior, problems. I bet not a single cyclist was injured due to the things that their campaign is targeting (speeding and antisocial driving).

Most accidents happen at junctions, and in 30mph zones, these are facts for all forms of transport, nothing special about cycles.

They should close the project and spend the £2M on fixing pot holes.

Briggo

Its all the idiots who jump red lights.

Infact those who do jump red lights are also causing global warming.

MrChuck

diy wrote:

bet not a single cyclist was injured due to the things that their campaign is targeting (speeding and antisocial driving).

Most accidents happen at junctions, and in 30mph zones, these are facts for all forms of transport, nothing special about cycles.

I'd say a lot accidents at junctions where the driver is at fault are the result of antisocial driving.

In my book antisocial driving covers more than the stuff scrotes in Novas often do, it includes not taking your responsibilities as a driver seriously and not paying enough attention or giving enough respect.

Briggo

How is not paying attention being 'anti social', you can respect the road but if you don't know how to drive properly it doesn't make any difference.

Its not being 'anti social', its called being negligent, epic failure, idiot driver or the classic: old granny.

diy

Anti social driving is sec 59 Police Reform Act offences typically. And sorry mate I didn't see yous or didn't look or you rode taking unbelievably stupid risks is not.

MrChuck

Briggo wrote:

How is not paying attention being 'anti social', you can respect the road but if you don't know how to drive properly it doesn't make any difference.

Its not being 'anti social', its called being negligent, epic failure, idiot driver or the classic: old granny.

If you're piloting a ton of metal through busy streets with so little care that you collide with people at junctions then that's antisocial IMO. In the bigger picture a culture which promotes or at least condones this is also antisocial IMO.

@diy: I'm talking about antisocial in the wider sense rather than the letter of the law, which is why I said 'in my book'.

bails87

I agree with MrChuck. I was very, very nearly taken out a few weeks ago by a guy who nearly hit me three times in less than 100 yards. In my mind at least one of them was deliberate, that was the one that I had to take drastic action to avoid. When I said "what were you doing" he laughed and said "I didn't know you were there"......despite the fact that he was half way through overtaking me when he veered over towards me.

If I'd gone under the wheels and been killed, he'd have spun some story about not seeing me, or me undertaking him and it would have gone down as just one of those things or maybe careless driving.

As he said, if you're driving your great big executive saloon into people, that's fairly 'anti-social'

This sounds antisocial, as does this.

As a cyclist, on a bike forum, I don't 'get' the hositility towards trying to make drivers more aware of us.

Anonymous

MrChuck wrote:

If you're piloting a ton of metal through busy streets with so little care that you collide with people at junctions then that's antisocial IMO. In the bigger picture a culture which promotes or at least condones this is also antisocial IMO.

Where the hell do you live, to find a society that promotes such behaviour?

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

If you're piloting a ton of metal through busy streets with so little care that you collide with people at junctions then that's antisocial IMO. In the bigger picture a culture which promotes or at least condones this is also antisocial IMO.

Where the hell do you live, to find a society that promotes such behaviour?

He lives in Britain, where our best selling newspaper encourages that kind of thing.

diy

I think there is confusion over what antisocial driving is.

In Bail's first example - we see clearly the actions of a seriously disturbed person. In the second there is not enough info to know. Both sound cases of dangerous driving, though the former will get a longer sentence due to the attempt to pervert.

This is DRIVE Smarts campaign.

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/s ... endocument

What do we mean by the term anti-social driving?
Any road behaviour that affects other peoples' quality of life in a negative way would be considered as anti-social driving. It could cause an accident or serious injury, or it could simply be annoying or inconvenient to other road users, causing them stress and anxiety. Typical examples include:

Speeding
Tailgating
Driving whilst using a hand-held mobile phone
Bad parking (parking on white zig-zags, double yellow lines etc)

Not the same at all.

bails87

diy wrote:

I think there is confusion over what antisocial driving is.

In Bail's first example - we see clearly the actions of a seriously disturbed person. In the second there is not enough info to know. Both sound cases of dangerous driving, though the former will get a longer sentence due to the attempt to pervert.

This is DRIVE Smarts campaign.

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/s ... endocument

What do we mean by the term anti-social driving?
Any road behaviour that affects other peoples' quality of life in a negative way would be considered as anti-social driving. It could cause an accident or serious injury, or it could simply be annoying or inconvenient to other road users, causing them stress and anxiety. Typical examples include:

Speeding
Tailgating
Driving whilst using a hand-held mobile phone
Bad parking (parking on white zig-zags, double yellow lines etc)

Not the same at all.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Those things lead to deaths and injuries, trying to reduce them is a good thing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 89615.html

In that case, the cyclist jumped a red, which is wrong, but it could easily have been a cyclist riding in the same direction of the speeding car, or a ped crossing the road. A speeding and texting driver killed someone in a collision that in the eyes of the law would have been avoided if she was driving at/below the limit and not illegally using a phone.

Both those things are against the law and are pretty easy to avoid doing, it's not like getting confused with a complicated tax return and ticking the wrong box, or crossing the line of 'reasonable' force when defending yourself. They're black and white laws. You don't break the speed limit, you don't use your phone, you don't park on double yellows or white zig zags, it's not hard. If they clamp down on people stupid enough to do that stuff in front of a police car then good for them.

Parking on zig zags is actually pretty dangerous. Stepping out from between illegally parked vans on a zebra/pelican crossing is not a fun experience, especially for kids and the elderly.

Anonymous

bails87 wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

If you're piloting a ton of metal through busy streets with so little care that you collide with people at junctions then that's antisocial IMO. In the bigger picture a culture which promotes or at least condones this is also antisocial IMO.

Where the hell do you live, to find a society that promotes such behaviour?

He lives in Britain, where our best selling newspaper encourages that kind of thing.

Oh look, the daily mail (on suday), who'd have thunk it?

Frikking muppets. :roll:

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Oh look, the daily mail (on suday), who'd have thunk it?

Frikking muppets. :roll:

God yes, but people buy it.