Cycle Savvy

Some interesting comment here
Read more!

Bit late with this anyhow!!!


Submitted by burningplanet on Mon, 2005-10-10 18:29.
On Friday 30th September, those who joined London's monthly Critical Mass ride, found themselves being issued with letters from the Metropolitan Police, threatening arrests at future Critical Mass rides, unless the 'organisers' give notice of the route at least six days in advance, and warning that the police can impose restrictions on the rides once the advance notice has been given.The letter stated that the police are reviewing their 'policy' towards critcal mass.

A callout has been issued to make October's London Critical Mass the biggest one yet.

JOIN LONDON’S BIGGEST EVER CRITICAL MASS CYCLE RIDE -FRIDAY OCT. 28TH

London CM meets at 6pm on the last Friday of each and every
month. The first 45 minutes or so is usually spent socialising and the ride has usually left the meet-up point by 7pm. On average the ride lasts about 2 hours but the time is flexible depending on who is there and what the weather is like. This meet up point is central, chilled out and great for pre-ride socialising/planning.

There are a couple of bars/cafes nearby for any cyclists looking for refreshments. The ride often flows around central London taking in major tourist attractions. There is no set route, and the direction we move in is spontaneously chosen as we cycle. Anyone is free to join or leave the ride while it is taking place. The ride usually ends somewhere pretty central, often a pub! People on any form of unpowered wheeled transport are also welcome (eg skates, skateboards, unicycles, wheelchairs, supermarket trolleys…).

SO WHY IS THIS CRITICAL MASS GOING TO BE THE
BIGGEST EVER?

On Sept 30th police (who usually facilitate the mass in an
unobtrusive way) handed out warning letters to cyclists
(reproduced overleaf) in an indefensible attack on freedom of
assembly/expression/transport, and the mass will go ahead bigger and more fun than ever in the face of this unprecedented attempt at repression.

Critical Mass in London has rolled on since 1994 without police threatening to use the POA to impose conditions. Why invoke it now when there's been no need up to now?
Why are they wasting time threatening innocent cyclists? Car
drivers flock together to block the roads on a daily basis
commuting to and from work. We don’t block the traffic – we AREthe traffic!!!

www. criticalmasslondon.org.uk

More information is available at - indymedia

» login or register to post comments
Read more!

Two independent trends in the developed world are likely to reverse some of the hard won improvements that have been made in road safety. One is the ageing of the population; the other the increase in the use of sports utility vehicles (SUVs, high performance four wheel drive cars capable of off-road driving).The first trend produces a growing number of vulnerable road users; the second produces a likelihood of more severe injuries when vehicles and pedestrians collide. Public health professionals will need to work with transportation and road safety agencies to avoid the inevitable consequences of more vulnerable road users and more lethal vehicles.

Among road users, pedestrians are already a group at high risk, and elderly pedestrians are particularly at risk. People over 60 are more than four times as likely to die if injured by a car than younger people1: in a pattern repeated around the developed world, older people in Ireland account for 30% of pedestrian deaths but only 11% of thepopulation.

2 The World Health Organization has recognised protection of

older pedestrians as a key safety measure for this age group.3 Pedestrian protection is an even more pressing problem in the developing world. Pedestrian injuries and deaths from collisions with vehicles represent about 20% of automotive casualties in the European Union,4 but they rise to nearly 50% of casualties in developing countries, which have poorer roads and more travel by foot.w1

Pedestrian protection is achieved in several ways. These include separation of vehicles from pedestrians, reduction of vehicle speeds,5 w2 w3 the development of "smart vehicles" to avoid collisions, and improved vehicle design to reduce injuries to pedestrians.w4 The proliferation of sport utility vehicles represents a backwards step in safer vehicle design.

In Europe sales of SUVs have increased by 15% in the past year, while sales of standard cars have dropped by 4%.w5 In Ireland, SUVs now represent almost 8% of new registrations. In the United States 40% of new vehicles purchased are classified as light trucks or vans (many of which are SUVs).6 Gabler and Lefler have used the US fatal accident reporting system database (FARS) to analyse the relative dangers posed to pedestrians by these high fronted vehicles. Their results show that, for the same collision speed, the likelihood of a pedestrian fatality is nearly doubled in the event of a collision with a large SUV compared with a passenger car.6 Other studies have consistently showing higher rates (up to four times greater) of severe injury and death for pedestrians in collisions with SUVs.7-9

A common misconception is that the increased vehicle mass of SUVs is responsible for the increased hazard to pedestrians. In fact, although vehicle mass is important in car to car collisions, it is a minor factor in vehicle-pedestrian collisions given the disparity between the weights of the pedestrian and of the vehicle.w6 The increased mortality and morbidity from SUVs arises primarily from the geometry of the front end structure. In a typical collision between a car and an adult, the bumper strikes the lower legs and the leading edge of the bonnet strikes the femur/pelvis, causing the pedestrian to rotate towards the bonnet. This results in the bonnet or windscreen hitting the shoulders or head. After this further injuries often occur through impact with the ground. A key mitigating factor in injury severity is the relatively peripheral nature of the primary impact of the bumper to the lower legs.w7-w9 This affords some protection to the critical upper body regions in the primary impact, and the resulting body rotation on to the bonnet tends to further diminish the impact-a characteristic often called "wrap and carry." The principal pedestrian injuries from cars are predominantly fractures of the tibia and fibula and knee injuries from the primary impact with the bumperw10 and head injuries from the secondary impact with the bonnet or windscreen.

w11 SUV bonnets are higher than those of cars and this results in a more severe primary impact on the critical central body regions of the upper leg and pelvis.w12 Also, there is less rotation as the impact is closer to the body centre of mass, resulting in a more efficient transfer of energy. For example, raising the bonnet leading edge height from 600 mm to 850 mm increases the impulse by a factor of about two.w13 This results in a doubling of injuries to vulnerable regions such as the head, thorax, and abdomen.

9 Another group of vulnerable road users are small children, and a well described risk with SUVs are accidents in driveways, in which SUVs and light trucks are over-represented.w14 w15 This is probably a result of the increased height of the SUV and the driver's reduced ability to see things around the vehicle.

Thus the evidence shows that SUVs represent a significantly greater hazard to pedestrians than ordinary cars-and those pedestrians are getting older and more vulnerable. Addressing this threat requires an integrated approach from public health and transportation and road safety agencies (including vehicle designers). One measure should include changing crash investigation processes to identify SUVs in vehicle-pedestrian impact statistics. Given the increasing economic

importance of the SUV market to car manufacturers, traffic safety activists in the health professions will need to keep pressure on governments to make sure they don't put economic and industrial interests ahead of effective safety strategies.10

In the meantime, informing consumers of the increased risk to pedestrians from SUVs may represent a useful first step in raising public awareness. The Irish Medical Organisation has recently called on motor manufacturers and distributors to display warning notices on SUVs that advise potential purchasers of the increased risk of severe injury and death to pedestrians associated with these vehicles. Resistance from the industry to such initiatives is likely to be strong, just as it has been from the tobacco industry for warnings on cigarettes.11 Nevertheless, healthcare advocates should take heart from previous successful traffic safety initiatives.12 Addressing the hazards posed by SUVs to pedestrians is an emerging and real traffic safety challenge in the developed world.

Ciaran Simms, lecturer in mechanical engineering, Desmond O'Neill, associate professor of medical gerontology

(arhc@amnch.ie) Trinity Centre for Bioengineering and Medical Gerontology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

{webplus.f1}Additional references appear on bmj.com

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Sklar DP, Demarest GB, McFeeley P. Increased pedestrian mortality among elderly. Am J Emergency Med 1989;7: 387-90.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 2. National Roads Authority. Road Accident Facts Ireland, 2000. Dublin: National Roads Authority, 2000. 3. Hakamies-Blomqvist L, O'Neill D. Older people and road traffic injury. World Report on Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva: WHO, 2004: 47. 4. European Transport Safety Council. Reducing traffic injuries through vehicle safety improvements-the role of car design. Brussels: European Transport Safety Council, 1993. 5. Liu XJ, Yang JK, Lovsund P. A study of influences of vehicle speed and front structure on Pedestrian Impact Responses using mathematical models. Traffic Injury Prevention 2002;3: 31-42.[CrossRef] 6. Lefler DE, Gabler HC. The fatality and injury risk of light truck impacts with pedestrians in the United States. Accid Anal Prev 2004;36: 295-304.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 7. Henary BY, Crandall J, Bhalla K, Mock CN, Roudsari BS. Child and adult pedestrian impact: the influence of vehicle type on injury severity. Ann Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med 2003;47: 105-26. 8. Roudsari BS, Mock CN, Kaufman R, Grossman D, Henary BY, Crandall J. Pedestrian crashes: higher injury severity and mortality rate for light truck vehicles compared with passenger vehicles. Inj Prev 2004;10: 154-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. Ballesteros MF, Dischinger PC, Langenberg P. Pedestrian injuries and

vehicle type in Maryland, 1995-1999. Accid Anal Prev 2004;36: 73-81.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] 10. Breen J. Protecting pedestrians. BMJ 2002;324: 1109-10.[Free Full Text] 11. Chapman S, Carter SM. "Avoid health warnings on all tobacco products for just as long as we can": a history of Australian tobacco industry efforts to avoid, delay and dilute health warnings on cigarettes. Tob Control 2003;12 (suppl 3): 13-22.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 12. Breen J. Road safety advocacy. BMJ 2004;328: 888-90.[Free Full Text] _______________________________________________ Cm-roma mailing list Cm-roma@inventati.org https://www.inventati.org/mailman/listinfo/cm-roma
Read more!

Community Can Cycle Home Page
Read more!

Independent Media Center | www.indymedia.org | ((( i )))
Read more!