Cycling question

[RogerS]

......
The evidence is the result of police investigations that show drivers are usually the cause of accidents. Not much traffic law applies to pedestrians, but they aren't as careful as people on bikes, as a general thing - they cause more accidents.

Passing red lights - far more drivers do this than bike riders, at least in London. Almost every light change, one, two or sometimes three drivers keep going, sometimes after the opposite light is green. Many bike riders do as well, everyone knows that. But it is very rarely dangerous when they do. They look before they cross, like pedestrians do. Wouldn't you?

A few people ride on the pavement. They are almost always careful and considerate and safe. But people fuss about it in this country, even though driving and parking on the pavement is now completely commonplace, and far more dangerous.

Most people who might like to cycle now don't do so, and the reason they give is fear of traffic. Self preservation does indeed take up the attention of the few who do. That's why bike riders are, on the whole, the safest traffic group.

Sorry but this is all still hearsay. It might be personal observation but without any links to surveys/studies etc then it all remains just that - hearsay.

 

[bugbear]

In towns and cities, pedestrians are a menace.

In quiet areas, they (tend to) only listen for a car before confidently stepping out to cross the road.

If your cycle is well maintained, and silent, they thus step in front of you without warning.

Which is fun for everybody. :roll:

BugBear

 

[Eric The Viking]

I've often wondered if the driving qualification system should be altered to be a progression:

1. get some sort of qualification on a bicycle (proficiency test).
2. eligible for the motorcycle training/test scheme.
3. eligible for a car test, after, some bedding-in period on a bike.

I took my motorcycle test late in life, and it transformed my view of road safety, even though I am a pretty safe driver and have cycled for decades. That feeling of vulnerability when you first go on the road should be forced on every driver.

I don't often feel that prescriptive, but I've been knocked off my pushbike twice, once by a car cutting me up on a roundabout, and once by a car turning right out of a left minor road without looking properly (and then stopping right in front of me). In the second case I ended up under the car's back wheel.

We live on a busy road, on a commuter route, and daily you see truly dreadfully unsafe driving. They only get away with it because it's at very slow speeds, but there is a lot of glass and plastic in our gutters locally, particularly at the end of the road, which is a T-junction with reduced visibility.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

1. get some sort of qualification on a bicycle (proficiency test).
2. eligible for the motorcycle training/test scheme.
3. eligible for a car test, after, some bedding-in period on a bike.

100%

As an aside, though, I've seen friends of my children (who thankfully have no interest in bikes) go out and ride like idiots after they've passed a proficiency test - they think they are invincible because they've passed a test.

 

[bugbear]

I've always cherished the idea that a 6" spike sticking out of the centre of all steering wheels would
do wonders for decency, care and courtesy in driving behaviour.

BugBear

 

[mseries]

I've always cherished the idea that a 6" spike sticking out of the centre of all steering wheels would
do wonders for decency, care and courtesy in driving behaviour.

BugBear

Risk compensation. The safer you feel the more risk you'll take. Happens in all activities.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

+ 1
If you see a total ***** on a cycle, you can guarantee he/she will be wearing a helmet.

 

[Finial]

There's too much victim blaming on this thread.

Are the roads safe enough for anyone to cycle? No.
Is that because all riders are suicidal? No.
Do all riders always obey the law and follow the highway code? No.
Do all drivers? No.
Which group is most vulnerable? The riders.
Which group injures and kills them (and pedestrians)? The drivers.
Is it always the driver's fault? No.
Is this ever going to change? Not any time soon.

The answer is good quality separate cycle tracks.

 

[novocaine]

some interesting stats for you.

yes I'm a cyclist, I also ride a motorcycle and drive a car and a van.
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice ... s-figures/

being predictable is the best form of defense against other road users no matter how you are travelling.

 

[Finial]

being predictable is the best form of defense against other road users no matter how you are travelling.

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, being predictable is no guarantee of safety. For example, if you are clearly visible on a roundabout and in the correct position, that is predictable. But a van driver on the phone can still enter the roundabout as if you were not there. As happened to me. Riding along, clearly visible in the middle of a traffic lane to keep clear of parked cars is also predictable, but a driver can still run into you from behind, as happened to me. Twice.

And nothing is more predictable than street furniture, but lots of drivers can't even overtake a bollard without hitting it!

 

[Jacob]

......
The answer is good quality separate cycle tracks.

Yes but not necessarily always separate. Too complicated and expensive. Better marking and priority for cyclists at junctions etc. and less of this dangerous nonsense:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... h/book.htm

 

[novocaine]

I said it was the best defence I didn't say it was the only defence.

The incidents you describe are unusual as apposed to the norm but they do happen, nothing you did could have prevented the incident you describe short of not being there in the first place and as he wasn't really paying any attention there is every chance he'd have hit a car, however the majority of incidents (as born out by the stats posted) and especially those incidents involving teenagers and children could have been prevented by the driver being able to read and judge what you were doing and about to do.
as an aside about me so you know why I know the stats and where to find them and why I say the above.

I put in around 4000 miles a year not including weekend pootles with the family. I have ridden and built every type of bike you could name and done more types of riding than most including being a cycle courier and being in closed road racing (and open road for that matter) I have acted as marshal for events and taught cycle proficiency to teenagers a number of times and will continue to tell them that being predictable is going to help them on the road. all but a few of the incidents I have been involved in have been down to either myself or the other party not being predictable (granted some of them have been because I was stupid but they didn't tend to involve anyone else)

as for street furniture, there is nothing predictable about it, that lamp post really did jump out and hit me officer.

 

[RogerS]

novocaine ..great link, thanks. I think RoSPA could be a bit more clever with their figures, though. For instance saying that 80% of cyclist casualties are men. That may be true but suggests causation rather than correlation. Are there more male cyclists than female, for example.

 

[Doris]

As long as both bikes and cars are operated by humans there will always accidents happening.

I cycle almost everyday and have so far had one accident. I was cycling on the pavement to get to a cycle path and was knocked down by a car pulling forward (not reversing) out of their drive. The driver admitted he wasn't looking where he was going but his passenger still insisted on swearing at me and saying I shouldn't be on the pavement in the first place.

I took responsibility for my part in the accident as did the driver and that was that. It happened all to fast for anyone to change what had happened, yet his passenger still insisted I was to blame. This is what seems to happen a lot drivers are quite happy to blame cyclists when they are sometimes just as much at fault themselves.

 

[Finial]

As long as both bikes and cars are operated by humans there will always accidents happening.

I cycle almost everyday and have so far had one accident. I was cycling on the pavement to get to a cycle path and was knocked down by a car pulling forward (not reversing) out of their drive. The driver admitted he wasn't looking where he was going but his passenger still insisted on swearing at me and saying I shouldn't be on the pavement in the first place.

I took responsibility for my part in the accident as did the driver and that was that. It happened all to fast for anyone to change what had happened, yet his passenger still insisted I was to blame. This is what seems to happen a lot drivers are quite happy to blame cyclists when they are sometimes just as much at fault themselves.

Yes. Drivers kill about 200 times as many pedestrians on the pavement than bike riders do. But somehow it's the bikes that are the problem. Why did you say you were responsible? Would it have been different if you were a pedestrian or pushing the bike?

It's usually, not sometimes, the driver at fault. I've had to jump out of the way of a pavement driver more than once. This country needs a 'presumed liability' law.

 

[Finial]

novocaine ..great link, thanks. I think RoSPA could be a bit more clever with their figures, though. For instance saying that 80% of cyclist casualties are men. That may be true but suggests causation rather than correlation. Are there more male cyclists than female, for example.

I think you will find there are substantially more male riders, mostly young. In London there have been a disproportionate number of women killed and there has been speculation that this is because they may be more law abiding. Traffic law is not designed for cycling. Stopping at lights can endanger them because it puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. The suggestion is that young men are more likely to jump the lights and keep themselves safe.

 

[RogerS]

..... Traffic law is not designed for cycling. Stopping at lights can endanger them because it puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. ......

You're really confusing me now. Are you saying that it is OK for cyclists to jump red lights ? And then if they do 'presumed liability' means that it is the car drivers fault because some ******** of a cyclist has jumped the lights ?

puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. But I thought that everyone else was advocating that the cycle boxes at the front of the queue and taking primary position was the right thing to do. Now you seem to be suggesting that drivers see those cyclists as targets ??

 

[RogerS]

.....
Yes. Drivers kill about 200 times as many pedestrians on the pavement than bike riders do. .....

Link please (again) to the evidence to support your statement.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

If anyone is killed by a cyclist on a pavement, the cyclist was probably there deliberately. Anyone killed by a car on the pavement is unlikely to have been killed by a car driver who intended to be on the pavement. There are many times times more drivers than cyclists anyway, which makes that statistic meaningless.

 

[Finial]

..... Traffic law is not designed for cycling. Stopping at lights can endanger them because it puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. ......

You're really confusing me now. Are you saying that it is OK for cyclists to jump red lights ? And then if they do 'presumed liability' means that it is the car drivers fault because some ******** of a cyclist has jumped the lights ?

puts them in the way of motors when the lights change. But I thought that everyone else was advocating that the cycle boxes at the front of the queue and taking primary position was the right thing to do. Now you seem to be suggesting that drivers see those cyclists as targets ??

No I'm not saying it's OK for cyclists to jump lights. Just that, paradoxically, it can be safer. It has been hypothesised that waiting at the lights then to be run down is an explanation for some of the deaths. I don't have a view on that. The cycle boxes are of little value in practice. They are often blocked by motorists, they encourage bike riders to pass lorries on the left to get into them, they place riders in the front blind spot of high vehicles and they don't necessarily stop vehicles turning left over the rider.

No, presumed liability means that in the event of an accident, the driver is presumed at fault for insurance purposes. If it can be shown that the rider caused the accident any claim would be settled as it is now. It's like when a car drives into the back of yours. It's deemed to be their fault unless they can show you were reversing into them. If ever you get run over, you would get compensation even if you had no witnesses so couldn't prove the driver was at fault.

As for primary position, I'm not convinced it works very well, from personal experience, having been hit twice by drivers who thought they could squeeze past without getting their paint scratched but were wrong.

You ask for evidence. I suggest that you stand by some traffic lights for a bit and count. I predict that you will see some people cycling through on red, and that there will be a larger number driving through. That is certainly the case in my part of London. Then walk a bit of pavement. I predict you will see none or a small number of people cycling there, and that they will be riding with care, but you will see a larger number of vehicles parked on the pavement, all of which were driven there. You will also see the pavement extensively smashed up by cars and lorries having driven on it.

My position on all this is that cyclists get a lot of unjustified and ignorant criticism from drivers, who are in fact the worst offenders and far more dangerous. Bikes and motors are fundamentally incompatible. I would like to see them separated, as completely as possible.