bike lanes again

[RogerS]

. bike riders in this country kill approximately none.

.....

How can you have 'approximately none'? What is 'approximately none'? One? Two ? A quick Google shows that 'approximately none' is actually more than 'none'.

For example, http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pedestria ... t-5742315/

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ars-169828

I do accept that there are many more cyclists killed or injured although what proportion are directly down to the car or vehicle owner or how much the cyclist themselves contributed to their accident is not known.

And let's not keep blaming the motorist. In fact, the ratio of 'blame' for collisions is almost 50:50 between car drivers and cyclists.
Source: RoSPA

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.

So maybe a few folks round here should get off their high-horse (or bicycle )

 

[Jacob]

"*What the available statistics say
Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists. This is based on 10% of pedestrian casualties being on the pavement or verge as was the case 2007-2008. The ratio of pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles to those killed by cyclists is therefore 121.4:1. The ratio from 1998-2008 is 820.1:3 or 273:1 (uses the same 2007-2008 10% pedestrian casualties figure).
E&OE. "

Just a random google produced the above. Presumably typical and not exceptional.
Killed by drivers on pavements 60.7
Killed by cyclists on pavements 0.5
Fairly uncommon either way but vehicles kill 121 times as many as cyclists, on pavements alone.

Then according to this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... death-2011 you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist

 

[Lons]

Vote for proper cycle tracks, then bikes won't trouble you.

Pay a licence fee and insurance on all adult bikes and I'll vote for that! (hammer)

 

[Finial]

Context Roger! By 'approximately none' I mean a tiny fraction of those killed by drivers, one now and again, with long intervals when the number is zero. Not one in London for years as far as I know, and probably no driver has ever been killed by a bike rider. Yet some people say bikes are a menace.

You quote some findings on blame, others have found that motorists and pedestrians cause more accidents than bike riders. But much of the blood is on the hands of the politicians. They have failed miserably over the years to provide infrastructure fit for purpose, that protects people from the mistakes of others and their own.

I use a bike. I've been hit from behind three times while cycling completely in accordance with the highway code. I've had more near misses than I can count. For example, a driver pulling out in front of me, then another pulling across my path within about 100 yards on the same trip, each leaving me with only just enough room to stop. Another day, two similar incidents plus a driver zooming over a zebra crossing that I was half way across, all in half an hour. I don't see people cycling dangerously, and I've never been caused any problem by bike riders when I'm driving. My experience tells me that drivers are far and away more careless on the road. Many can't overtake a lamppost or even pass a building without running into it, let alone a moving bike or another car. You see damage everywhere, and it's caused by drivers, not bike riders. It annoys me when people say bike lanes are only needed because people cycle badly.

 

[Finial]

Vote for proper cycle tracks, then bikes won't trouble you.

Pay a licence fee and insurance on all adult bikes and I'll vote for that! (hammer)

If we didn't have pavements, would you expect pedestrians to pay a licence fee and carry insurance? How much would it be worth to you to get pedestrians and bikes out of your way?

I'd pay more if it got me proper cycle tracks. At present the roads I pay for aren't fit to cycle on because of all the incompetent drivers.

 

[Wuffles]

Context Roger! By 'approximately none' I mean a tiny fraction of those killed by drivers, one now and again, with long intervals when the number is zero. Not one in London for years as far as I know, and probably no driver has ever been killed by a bike rider. Yet some people say bikes are a menace.

You quote some findings on blame, others have found that motorists and pedestrians cause more accidents than bike riders. But much of the blood is on the hands of the politicians. They have failed miserably over the years to provide infrastructure fit for purpose, that protects people from the mistakes of others and their own.

I use a bike. I've been hit from behind three times while cycling completely in accordance with the highway code. I've had more near misses than I can count. For example, a driver pulling out in front of me, then another pulling across my path within about 100 yards on the same trip, each leaving me with only just enough room to stop. Another day, two similar incidents plus a driver zooming over a zebra crossing that I was half way across, all in half an hour. I don't see people cycling dangerously, and I've never been caused any problem by bike riders when I'm driving. My experience tells me that drivers are far and away more careless on the road. Many can't overtake a lamppost or even pass a building without running into it, let alone a moving bike or another car. You see damage everywhere, and it's caused by drivers, not bike riders. It annoys me when people say bike lanes are only needed because people cycle badly.

You what?!

Plus, can you please refrain from using the phrase "bike riders", you mean "bicycle riders" and you're tarnishing the good name of us proper road users

 

[RogerS]

.....
You what?!

Plus, can you please refrain from using the phrase "bike riders", you mean "bicycle riders" and you're tarnishing the good name of us proper road users

=D> =D> =D>

 

[RogerS]

Context Roger! By 'approximately none' I mean a tiny fraction of those killed by drivers, one now and again, with long intervals when the number is zero. Not one in London for years as far as I know, and probably no driver has ever been killed by a bike rider. Yet some people say bikes are a menace.

You quote some findings on blame, others have found that motorists and pedestrians cause more accidents than bike riders. But much of the blood is on the hands of the politicians. They have failed miserably over the years to provide infrastructure fit for purpose, that protects people from the mistakes of others and their own.

I use a bike. I've been hit from behind three times while cycling completely in accordance with the highway code. I've had more near misses than I can count. For example, a driver pulling out in front of me, then another pulling across my path within about 100 yards on the same trip, each leaving me with only just enough room to stop. Another day, two similar incidents plus a driver zooming over a zebra crossing that I was half way across, all in half an hour. I don't see people cycling dangerously, and I've never been caused any problem by bike riders when I'm driving. My experience tells me that drivers are far and away more careless on the road. Many can't overtake a lamppost or even pass a building without running into it, let alone a moving bike or another car. You see damage everywhere, and it's caused by drivers, not bike riders. It annoys me when people say bike lanes are only needed because people cycle badly.

Well, what do RoSPA know about accidents then ? You are reporting from a sample of one (which is fair enough). RoSPA look at the complete picture.

 

[RogerS]

"*What the available statistics say
Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists. This is based on 10% of pedestrian casualties being on the pavement or verge as was the case 2007-2008. The ratio of pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles to those killed by cyclists is therefore 121.4:1. The ratio from 1998-2008 is 820.1:3 or 273:1 (uses the same 2007-2008 10% pedestrian casualties figure).
E&OE. "

Just a random google produced the above. Presumably typical and not exceptional.
Killed by drivers on pavements 60.7
Killed by cyclists on pavements 0.5
Fairly uncommon either way but vehicles kill 121 times as many as cyclists, on pavements alone.

Then according to this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... death-2011 you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist

That figure is irrelevant. Now factor in the figures in relation to the number of miles driven by each. House of Commons say that 1% of vehicle miles are on a cycle. Therefore the true figure taking into account number of miles travelled is, to be comparable, 0.5 x 100 ie 50%.

So yet again cyclists are almost 50% to blame !!!!

 

[Jacob]

What about the mileage up and down stairs? (Factor in age and incontinence.)
Who would you blame for stair accidents?
Itinerant Bulgarian carpet-fitters working for cash?

 

[Finial]

cyclists are almost 50% to blame !!!!

So who is to blame for all the car/car collisions and the bent lampposts and smashed bollards? Why do the commonest bike accidents happen when someone overtakes a bike and turns left into it, or opens a car door directly in the path of the bike?

 

[Jacob]

Quite simply our roads were not built wide enough which means in the majority of cases a car driver has to go over on the opposite side of the road to overtake.....

They were built wide enough for vehicles (including bikes) before the combustion engine came along. Maybe motors should be excluded from all but motorways? It's going that way anyway.

 

[Fitzroy]

Was trying so hard not to get involved....... But as both a driver and a regular cyclist (up front clause to justify my position) I witness poor driving and poor cycling, probably in similar measure.
- Cyclists going through red lights, or through a junction when there is a pedestrian green man is the most common, yes at times it may be safer and there is legislation being discussed at present to allow this, but until that is past it is illegal. This is just one example of where cyclists do things to ease THEIR journey. Obey the rules and drivers may give us some more respect.
- Drivers driving 2 foot behind a cyclist waiting for an opportunity to squeeze past is the most regularly witnessed poor behaviour. This is covered under law as dangerous driving where the highway code is normally presented as evidence of what constitutes "what would be expected of a competent and careful driver", ie giving cyclists the same space as a car when overtaking. Again this behaviour is just one example of drivers trying to ease THEIR journey.

Both of these behaviours are selfish disregard of laws and bring addition risk to other road users and pedestrians. For me personally I get frustrated at bad cycling and it makes me want to rage. Whereas at bad driving it gives me the absolute willies. Until you are the cyclist, with the protection of your foam hat and lycra shorts against that 1500kg of metal, you will have no idea how terrifying it is to have a driver 2' behind you or overtake you within an arms-length at 60 mph.

Most of the people you interact with on the road are parents, brothers/sisters or someone's child do you really want to be responsible for that individual being hurt/crippled/dead? Respect for each other seems to be ever dwindling in society.

F.

 

[RogerS]

What about the mileage up and down stairs? (Factor in age and incontinence.)
Who would you blame for stair accidents?
Itinerant Bulgarian carpet-fitters working for cash?

Irrelevant. You really hate it when you get called up short on your (mis)use of statistics!!

 

[RogerS]

cyclists are almost 50% to blame !!!!

So who is to blame for all the car/car collisions and the bent lampposts and smashed bollards? Why do the commonest bike accidents happen when someone overtakes a bike and turns left into it, or opens a car door directly in the path of the bike?

You can't simply wipe the statistics from RoSpa et al under the carpet just because they do not concur with your own world view, I'm afraid.

(Not sure what the relevance of your car/car collisions is, either)

 

[Lons]

Vote for proper cycle tracks, then bikes won't trouble you.

Pay a licence fee and insurance on all adult bikes and I'll vote for that! (hammer)

If we didn't have pavements, would you expect pedestrians to pay a licence fee and carry insurance? How much would it be worth to you to get pedestrians and bikes out of your way?

I'd pay more if it got me proper cycle tracks. At present the roads I pay for aren't fit to cycle on because of all the incompetent drivers.

The first sentence is irrelevant and a bit silly tbh, we already all pay for the provision and upkeep of pavements through our general and council taxes whether we are motorists or not and in general pedestrians don't walk along the roads forcing vehicles to overtake on the wrong side of the road.

I'm not a cyclist but as a motorist I contribute to the roads even though I know only a small percentage is actually spent on them. If you are a motorist and a cyclist then maybe you should contribute a greater portion. At very least it should be compulsory for cyclists to be insured.

How much would it be worth to you to get pedestrians and bikes out of your way?

Why on earth should I pay extra? It's cyclists who should pay for better and safer cycle routes and though you mention incompetent drivers, which of course there are, you conveniently forget about the equally incompetent cyclists who are happy to ride through red lights and clearly are scared to take a hand off the handlebars to signal once in a while.
There are of course very many compent drivers and cyclist on the roads as well

 

[andys wood shed]

Cyclists sign HERE

 

[Jacob]

Yes and pedestrians should chip in too. Perhaps rated on weight, shoe size and mileage. And prams and pushchairs. Wheel barrows? Pogo sticks, roller skates? Make the buggers pay!

 

[Lons]

Cyclists sign HERE

Hmmm. perhaps there should also be a legislation make it an offence for cyclists to ride 2 or more abreast.

 

[Lons]

Yes and pedestrians should chip in too. Perhaps rated on weight, shoe size and mileage. And prams and pushchairs. Wheel barrows? Pogo sticks, roller skates? Make the pippers pay!

What a load of ****** Jacob. They already chip in via taxes, or the rest of us on their behalf if they claim benefits. You're on a different planet! :lol: