# Cleared of killing a cyclist



## User (14 Jul 2012)




----------



## Ian Cooper (14 Jul 2012)

Clearly, under English law, motorists are not required to avoid people in front of them. Good to know, as I was planning a bicycle trip to the Peak District next year. Maybe I'll go to the Dordogne instead. I understand the French courts are capable of convicting motorists who kill people.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (14 Jul 2012)

So, he's driving so close to the vehicle in front that when it did " suddenly" swerve out, he didnt ave time to react sufficiently to miss the cyclist?

Of course he's not guilty - not guilty of driving safely by keeping sufficient distance from the vehicle in front which would have allowed him time to react accordingly.


----------



## derrick (14 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1933834, member: 9609"]This was all a little too close to home for me, so not sure if I am being a little biased; But I do find this outcome to be a little odd.

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/van-driver-cleared-of-killing-cyclist-1-4696000

From what I understand one van following another, the first moves out to pass a cyclist, the second van does not have time to move out and kills cyclist. Van driver cleared of blame -[/quote]
It just makes you wonder what is going on in our courts.


----------



## HLaB (14 Jul 2012)

Jeez, he's not guilty of serious murder IMO but he is guilty of something. I hope also its the typical lazy reporting but


> He said a van in front of him suddenly swerved to the right


and later:


> He said: “There was a car in front.


----------



## Pauluk (14 Jul 2012)

I sometimes wonder if the press do this sort of thing on purpose. This man was found not guilty by a *jury*, so what facts did they have that weren't reported in the headline story. Is it a case of the press just sensationalising a story by withholding certain facts to sell papers.

That being said, I for one do not believe Britain has a credible justice system.


----------



## Dragonwight (14 Jul 2012)

Im always a bit wary of what they print in papers maybe it is as black & white as the paper says on the other hand maybe it isnt and thats why he got found not guilty. Either way its a tragedy for the cyclists family.


----------



## Tiberius Baltar (14 Jul 2012)

I don't understand this at all. If I knocked down and killed a pedestrian/cyclist/motorway maintenance worker then how could I be "cleared" of killing that person? The man driving the van hit and killed this poor unfortunate cyclist, that is surely a fact. So how is it possible to clear him?
What sort of technical jargon or ridiculous loophole would allow this to happen? I understand that this was a terrible and unfortunate accident and I am not saying that this man is in any way a bad/dangerous driver but the vehicle he was in charge of has ended up causing someones death. So how is he cleared?
More importantly, my heartfelt sympathy goes out to everyone involved in this. Tragic and pointless way to die.


----------



## MrJamie (14 Jul 2012)

Its always horrible to read these stories of cyclists being killed and must be awful for her family and fiancé, but I cant help but read that with some sensationalist spin on it obscuring the facts.

Theres another earlier story here: http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-...d-near-cramlington-court-told-61634-31269012/

I dont get how on the one hand he says he didnt have time to steer round her but on the other hand he says he didnt see her at all, unless its just quotes in poor english "i never seen her" out of context.

Very sad


----------



## snorri (14 Jul 2012)

Pauluk said:


> This man was found not guilty by a *jury*, .


 
I think you have underlined the reason for the verdict.
The jury is drawn from the general populace and is likely to include a high percentage of drivers many of whom think "there but for the grace of god" when they look at a driver in the dock and will look sympathetically on those charged with driving offences, particularly when the victim is not another driver.


----------



## Ian Cooper (14 Jul 2012)

Tiberius Baltar said:


> I don't understand this at all. If I knocked down and killed a pedestrian/cyclist/motorway maintenance worker then how could I be "cleared" of killing that person?


 
I think the report that he's 'cleared of killing' the cyclist is just journalistic shorthand. Most likely, he's cleared of legal fault for her death. Not really surprising, given that the chances are that the jury were all motorists, none of them cyclists, and probably more than half of them, when they drive, drive too close to the vehicle in front of them.

If the victim is not a member of a group members of the jury can self-identify with, and if the killer is, the jury is more likely to acquit. If the victim had been driving a car, or if the killer had been another cyclist, chances are the killer would have been convicted.


----------



## sidevalve (14 Jul 2012)

Pauluk said:


> I sometimes wonder if the press do this sort of thing on purpose. This man was found not guilty by a *jury*, so what facts did they have that weren't reported in the headline story. Is it a case of the press just sensationalising a story by withholding certain facts to sell papers.
> 
> That being said, I for one do not believe Britain has a credible justice system.


 I for one do not believe that britain has a credible [or reliable] PRESS. Facts do not sell newspapers,scandal and hype does. A large part of the world would fight [and many would willingly die] for a legal system such as ours [even with it's flaws and mistakes,and there are many]. The very fact that we can freely critisize it in open forum is some proof of that.
As for the "ooh look at us we're being picked on" attitude. I for one have heard the same sort of thing from m/cyclists, car drivers, farmers, truck drivers,several assorted ethnic groups and dog walkers, and that's only so far this week. It aint a perfect world, get over it.
Finally comment without all the facts is, as Blackadder would say, like a broken pencil, pointless.


----------



## HLaB (14 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> I think you have underlined the reason for the verdict.
> The jury is drawn from the general populace and is likely to include a high percentage of drivers many of whom think "there but for the grace of god" when they look at a driver in the dock and will look sympathetically on those charged with driving offences, particularly when the victim is not another driver.


I want to think otherwise but I know you are right


----------



## Accy cyclist (14 Jul 2012)

sidevalve said:


> I for one do not believe that britain has a credible [or reliable] PRESS. Facts do not sell newspapers,scandal and hype does. A large part of the world would fight [and many would willingly die] for a legal system such as ours [even with it's flaws and mistakes,and there are many]. The very fact that we can freely critisize it in open forum is some proof of that.
> As for the "ooh look at us we're being picked on" attitude. I for one have heard the same sort of thing from m/cyclists, car drivers, farmers, truck drivers,several assorted ethnic groups and dog walkers, and that's only so far this week. It aint a perfect world, get over it.
> Finally comment without all the facts is, as Blackadder would say, like a broken pencil, pointless.


 
Oh so that's alright then? Because we have a legal system "many would die for" the fact that some poor highly visible( "The experienced rider and triathlete was wearing high-visibility clothes and visored helmet. She also had reflectors fitted to her cycle") cyclist was mowed down by white van man doesn't really bother you? If you notice all the ones you say claim to be picked on don't fall into the category of having their lives put at risk(apart from motorcyclists) like us cyclists. They might have a gripe about "equality" or "unfairness" but that doesn't involve being killed then seeing the law turn a blind eye to their death does it?! Every time i go out i'm concious of people like Daniel McKay, are they concious of me when they go out..i don't think so!
We have an anti cycling culture in Britain. Cyclists are hated by many because we "don't pay road tax" or we "ignore the highway code",and because we are generally fitter than the average slob motorist, which they hate, but are in denial about! Why should the ones like Elizabeth Brown pay the ultimate price for someone elses's bad attitude?


----------



## StuartG (14 Jul 2012)

First point. We were not in court. We didn't hear the evidence and are hence clueless whether we would have come to the same conclusion as the jury. 

Second point. Whilst a jury may be influenced by their demographic (more likely to be experienced drivers than cyclists) and hence imperfect in outlook - many of us would fight tooth and nail for our right whenever possible to be judged by a jury. Better a collection of imperfect individuals than a judge who considers himself perfect.

Don't knock the jury system please.


----------



## Ian Cooper (14 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> Cyclists are hated by many because we "don't pay road tax" or we "ignore the highway code",and because we are generally fitter than the average slob motorist, which they hate, but are in denial about)! Why should the ones like ....pay the ultimate price for someone elses's bad attitude?


 
Here in the US, we have 'hate crime' legislation. Sadly, cyclists aren't considered a protected class.


----------



## Accy cyclist (14 Jul 2012)

"Mr Hodson said: “Asked what he thought the stopping distance at 60mph was, he put it was about 18 metres, not the 73 metres required in the Highway Code".​ 
And then they say that us CYCLISTS don't know the Highway Code!!! ​
​


----------



## Ian Cooper (14 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> "
> Mr Hodson said: “Asked what he thought the stopping distance at 60mph was, he put it was about 18 metres, not the 73 metres required in the Highway Code".


 
Isn't 18 metres about the stopping distance for a bicycle going <20mph? What sort of moron thinks you can bring 3,000lbs of metal to a stop from 60mph in 18m?


----------



## Hip Priest (14 Jul 2012)

It seems on the face of it that the accident was caused by aggressive tailgating from the accused. In which case, one wonders why he wasn't found guilty of dangerous driving. But the jury heard the whole case and I didn't, so there you go.


----------



## MrJamie (14 Jul 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> It seems on the face of it that the accident was caused by aggressive tailgating from the accused. In which case, one wonders why he wasn't found guilty of dangerous driving. But the jury heard the whole case and I didn't, so there you go.


I guess its probable that because the driver's on the right of the vehicle, the van in front would obscure the view of the left side of the road ahead but it would otherwise look clear and he wouldnt see the impending need to overtake until the van in front went for a ninja overtake through a gap that was only big enough for one. In which case he would be driving too fast for his visable distance and should drop back, but I dont think many people do that and thats probably why the jury sided/empathised with him. It really is massive speculation though.


----------



## Arch (14 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> "
> Mr Hodson said: “Asked what he thought the stopping distance at 60mph was, he put it was about 18 metres, not the 73 metres required in the Highway Code".​
> And then they say that us CYCLISTS don't know the Highway Code!!! ​​​


 

To be fair, I have no idea of stopping distances in metres or yards - I think I learned by rote when learning and promptly forgot. But I have a decent visual idea of them on the road (using the 2 second rule), and hope to err on the cautious side at all times.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Here in the US, we have 'hate crime' legislation. Sadly, cyclists aren't considered a protected class.


 
I'm not sure whether you believe that cyclists should be considered an oppressed minority subject to protection under 'hate crime' legislation. I rather fear you are.

There is hate crime legislation in the UK too. Cyclists are not an oppressed minority. We have no need of protection under hate crime legislation.

If you were joking, I'm not sure I get the joke. If you were serious, I find your use of the word 'sadly' unusual.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Jul 2012)

I am in agreement with other posters who prefer the legal system here to that in almost any other country.

To convict, a jury must believe that the case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. They will be guided in matters of law by the judge. They will have heard cases put both by the defence and the prosecution.

In this (the OP's) case the jury did not convict. We know only what was written in a fairly skimpy newspaper piece.

There have been miscarriages of justice in the UK in the past. There will be more in the future. On the basis of what little we can read in the article, this verdict does seem eccentric, but conjecture about jurors being motorists who will bring a bias with them seems scarily paranoid.

Ghastly business nonetheless and condolences to the loved ones left behind.


----------



## Pauluk (14 Jul 2012)

Reiver said:


> It is so sad that people dying on our roads is often thought of as just one of those things, hopefully one day attitudes will change and an attitude of unacceptability will prevail.


I'd like to think so and its a great hope. I won't be holding my breath though as I'm afraid things are going to get worse as money gets ever more tighter and the roads get busier with more aggressive driving behaviour.


----------



## Pauluk (14 Jul 2012)

sidevalve said:


> A large part of the world would fight [and many would willingly die] for a legal system such as ours [even with it's flaws and mistakes,and there are many]. The very fact that we can freely critisize it in open forum is some proof of that.


I agree with this to a large extent with regard to the legal system (although I do believe that it is far too incestuous), but I still say that in my opinion criminal justice is poor and weak in the UK.


----------



## snorri (15 Jul 2012)

StuartG said:


> many of us would fight tooth and nail for our right whenever possible to be judged by a jury..


Would the wish for a jury trial have more to do with avoiding punishment and little to do with justice?


----------



## Ian Cooper (15 Jul 2012)

Pauluk said:


> ...I'm afraid things are going to get worse as money gets ever more tighter and the roads get busier with more aggressive driving behaviour.


 
With oil prices set to either go through the roof or bring in a new recession in the next couple of years, I think we'll see fewer people driving and more people cycling. That has to be a good thing.


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Jul 2012)

I think it is difficult to be objective when you only hear what the papers report.

It sounds like the cyclist had all the right gear on and was experienced. On the evidence of the newspaper report it does sound like the van driver was tailgating the other van BUT a jury of people just like you and I, some of them possibly cyclists, have found him not guiltty.

That makes me believe that there is more to this case than has been reported.

Steve


----------



## Nihal (15 Jul 2012)

I repeat,everyone in that jury were either too fat to ride cycles or too lazy or not interested or.............


----------



## dawesome (15 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Here in the US, we have 'hate crime' legislation. Sadly, cyclists aren't considered a protected class.


 
That was one of the PCC rulings after a nasty piece appeared in the Times advocating attacking cyclists- you cannot discriminate against a section of society based on their method of transport. Therefore, stuff that would be illegal to print were it about jews or blacks is absolutely fine if the target is cyclists.

What do you reckon would happen to a paper that carried:

_"We should run over and kill black people on the roads, they get in the way, we should smash their skulls and slice their throats, they don't pay anything, they should be killed"?_


----------



## Ian Cooper (15 Jul 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> BUT a jury of people just like you and I, some of them possibly cyclists, have found him not guiltty.


 
It's extremely unlikely, given the percentage of cyclists in the general population, that any of the jury were cyclists. Even if just one of the jury was a cyclist, it is important to note that many cyclists - possibly most - are fearful of riding in the road and believe that riding in the road outside of the gutter is risky, and that accidents like this are caused by a cyclist riding in primary or secondary position. It's not just motorists who believe that.

If we want to discuss why the jury ruled the way they did, what we need to know is precisely what needs to be shown to prove the case. It would be useful to know the judge's instructions to the jury.

One thing to note is that the killer claimed that the car in front 'swerved' to pass the cyclist. This is a common claim by motorists and even police (see http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011...10-year-old-should-not-ride-bike--ar-1275159/) who see a normal overtake of a cyclist who is riding in primary or secondary position - because motorists expect cyclists to be in the gutter so that they can overtake without changing lanes or moving laterally.

I expect the jury's decision may have had to do with the lateral road position of the cyclist. If the victim was riding in primary or secondary position, the jury may not have a clue that this is normal, so they may have partially based their decision on her "dangerous" road position.


----------



## Accy cyclist (15 Jul 2012)

If it's true that a newspaper wrote words advocating attacking cyclists then words fail me!!​What's all this crap about "they don't pay road tax"?! We shouldn't have to.....we don't churn up the damn roads, we don't cause pollution, we don't, cause mayhem outside schools because we're too damn lazy to walk a few hundred yards etc etc!​I'd be happy to pay road tax if they'd provide decent maintained cycle lanes, that lazy motorists are fined for parking in. Tarmac a yard from the pavement, enabling cyclists to enjoy a bump bump, pot hole free ride, ensure that cars are ticketed, and those responsible are named to get the message across, don't bother tarmacing the whole road, cars can take the bumps, we can't!​The local council have just completed tarmacing a pavement hardly used by pedestrians, outside a carwash/second hand car business. Guess what! the car wash owners now have a nice new forecorte, to fill with their vehicles, but no cyclists or pedestrians are allowed as the cars take up the whole width of the pavement, and the cycle lane.​​


----------



## Accy cyclist (15 Jul 2012)

Going back to the poor woman mowed down by white van man. Will her family receive any form of compensation? I know it'll mean very little, but surely some payment for her funeral or compensation for her potential loss of earnings is due to her family?


----------



## dawesome (15 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> One thing to note is that the killer claimed that the car in front 'swerved' to pass the cyclist. This is a common claim by motorists and even police


 
Yep, the driver admitted tail-gating in court, that's usually enough to secure a conviction. The driver was way too close to the vehicle in front. So saying "the cyclist suddenly appeared" is moving the blame, cyclists don't suddenly materialise out of thin air.


----------



## Ian Cooper (15 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> ...I'd be happy to pay road tax if they'd provide decent maintained cycle lanes, that lazy motorists are fined for parking in. Tarmac a yard from the pavement, enabling cyclists to enjoy a bump bump, pot hole free ride, ensure that cars are ticketed, and those responsible are named to get the message across, don't bother tarmacing the whole road, cars can take the bumps, we can't!...
> ​


 
The problem is, cyclists don't all confine themselves to the left-hand 3ft of roadway, and some of us think it's unsafe to do so. I never ride that close to the kerb. I agree with the idea behind your argument, but if we start voluntarily segregating ourselves from the general traffic lane, we're playing into the hands of those who want us off the road. I believe all of the road should be surfaced with cyclists in mind, because cyclists can and should use all of the road.


----------



## Ian Cooper (15 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> Going back to the poor woman mowed down by white van man. Will her family receive any form of compensation? I know it'll mean very little, but surely some payment for her funeral or compensation for her potential loss of earnings is due to her family?


 
Here in the US (not sure if it's the same in the UK - I only began being a cyclist advocate since I moved to the US), there are different trials for criminal and civil law. The criminal trial is usually first, and there's a high level of proof required to convict. In a civil trial, which comes later, any monetary damages are assessed and the level of proof needed to find fault is lower.


----------



## bellevueace (15 Jul 2012)

If the vehicle in front of him had braked and he had run in the back of it he would have been liable, so i cant understand how hes not liable for the cyclist given he didnt leave enough room to take avoiding action, its the lack of time to avoid the cyclist that caused the fatality.


----------



## bellevueace (15 Jul 2012)

When i drive im always aware of being too close to the vehicle in front, but as you say is the norm i always end up with someone right on my back bumper, too many have little patience and common sense and sadly it leads to tragedies like the one in the story.


----------



## Accy cyclist (16 Jul 2012)

Being"tailgated" is a bad enough experience in a car, but when on a bike it makes you think "my life is in this idiots hands"!


----------



## Peowpeowpeowlasers (16 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1934450, member: 9609"]No body seems to have picked up on the 2½ - 4 transit lengths the driver says he was behind the vehicle in front. Let us assume that the transit was travelling at 55mph (a bit unusual a white van doing less that 70 on the spine road but let's give him the benefit of the doubt) At 55mph and a vehicle length of 4.3m, to be at the edge of the recommended 2 second rule he would have needed to have been 11½ transit lengths behind. Now if he had been 11½ vehicle lengths (50 metres) behind there would have been ample time to avoid the collision, or at least braked to such a speed that the impact would have been minimal..[/quote]

You assume that the driver manoeuvred himself into such a position, when in reality the van he was following may seconds before the accident have changed lanes. I can't count the number of times someone's pulled across in front of me like that.


----------



## Crankarm (16 Jul 2012)

Life is cheap. One of the reasons I don't ride on the roads any more. If you are run down the criminal justice system will more than likely do bugger all to apprehend, prosecute, convict and punish the killer driver. I know in this case the jury found McKay not guilty but the prosecution must have presented what was a strong case extremely poorly which is no surprise as the CPS have form on this. He should have been prosecuted with causing death by reckless or dangerous driving. The CJS is so heavily stacked against cyclists in many instances failing miserably.

There was a similar case here in Cambs where cyclist Mr Mark Robinson was killed in much the same way except by an approaching car over taking at speed driven by a Matthew Rice. The first car pulled in having passed the vehicle they were over taking having seen cyclist Mr Robinson but the second over taking car driven by Rice hadn't seen him as he was so close to the rear of the car in front. RIce ploughed straight into Mr Robinson when the car in front pulled back in, hitting him head on causing him multiple serious injuries from which he died shortly after in hospital. Rice was also a young male driver like McKay. Rice was actually jailed for 20 weeks but this was over turned on appeal. Shocking, only 20 weeks for what should have been causing death by dangerous driving and then let out on appeal!

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Driver-who-killed-cyclist-freed-from-jail.htm


----------



## Peowpeowpeowlasers (16 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1936469, member: 9609"]That's an even worse scenario - in that case the driver should have been aware he was approach a cyclist before the other van cut in front of him and obscured his view.
Can anyone come up with a scenario where the van driver is blameless?[/quote]

The court found the driver blameless, and it had access to all the available evidence. You don't have that same access so what makes you think you're right?


----------



## Boris Bajic (16 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1936469, member: 9609"]That's an even worse scenario - in that case the driver should have been aware he was approach a cyclist before the other van cut in front of him and obscured his view.
Can anyone come up with a scenario where the van driver is blameless?[/quote]

I cannot, but the jury did not say he was blameless, nor were they asked to deliver a verdict on that question.

On the evidence put before them, they found that they could not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Blamelessness didn't come into it and in that context, rightly so. 

For all that, it is a horrible story - one that will cause many of today's cyclists to shiver a little when they think of their own daily ride.


----------



## 400bhp (16 Jul 2012)

I've just read this thread.

Given the type of accident (rear ended) I thought I'd have a look at the road in question, here

It's not a road that I would choose to cycle on-indeed, stuff like this reinforces my opinion that I am doing the right thing by avoiding A roads where I can.

Is there something to be said in banning cycles off roads like this? For clarity, I am not suggesting banning cycles from all A-roads, just ones that have are more like urban motorways (ring roads/dual carriageways with speed limits greater or equal to 50). I appreciate that it could be perceived as a thin edge of the wedge and that it is drivers that should take more care, but there's only one outcome when colliding with a vehicle whose speed is 50 or above.

I wonder how many cycle fatalities can be subdivided into collisions on such roads, with left turning lorries etc? Anyone know?


----------



## Accy cyclist (16 Jul 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Life is cheap. One of the reasons I don't ride on the roads any more. If you are run down the criminal justice system will more than likely do bugger all to apprehend, prosecute, convict and punish the killer driver. I know in this case the jury found McKay not guilty but the prosecution must have presented what was a strong case extremely poorly which is no surprise as the CPS have form on this. He should have been prosecuted with causing death by reckless or dangerous driving. The CJS is so heavily stacked against cyclists in many instances failing miserably.
> 
> There was a similar case here in Cambs where cyclist Mr Mark Robinson was killed in much the same way except by an approaching car over taking at speed driven by a Matthew Rice. The first car pulled in having passed the vehicle they were over taking having seen cyclist Mr Robinson but the second over taking car driven by Rice hadn't seen him as he was so close to the rear of the car in front. RIce ploughed straight into Mr Robinson when the car in front pulled back in, hitting him head on causing him multiple serious injuries from which he died shortly after in hospital. Rice was also a young male driver like McKay. Rice was actually jailed for 20 weeks but this was over turned on appeal. Shocking, only 20 weeks for what should have been causing death by dangerous driving and then let out on appeal!
> 
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Driver-who-killed-cyclist-freed-from-jail.htm


 That is a chilling story there Crankman. I've always been a fan of wearing the brightest cycle clothing possible, and having reflectors and lights that can be very easily seen. In fact i'm very similar to those Blackpool trams http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...xIEUNuALKf80QXnmeGxBw&ved=0CGgQ9QEwCA&dur=159 they have during the illuminations.
The reason being that i don't want any one who god forbid, knocks me off my bike to say in court "he was hard to see, so that's why i ran into him"! Don't give the swines an excuse i say!! However as we've read, the poor woman in Sunderland was lit up like a Christmas tree but her safety concious attitude failed to save her from white van man. It seems that even when highly visible some idiots are oblivious of our presence on the road, or are aware but don't give a toss about our right to cycle and more importantly our right to return home safely!
I couldn't begin to imagine how her loved ones must feel about her death, and to be honest, if it was my relative i'd be thinking that justice definately had not been done and i'd be looking at alternative measures to see that it was!


----------



## Arjimlad (16 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> Being"tailgated" is a bad enough experience in a car, but when on a bike it makes you think "my life is in this idiots hands"!


 I'd like to tweet that comment, says it all ,really..


----------



## Crankarm (16 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> That is a chilling story there Crankman. I've always been a fan of wearing the brightest cycle clothing possible, and having reflectors and lights that can be very easily seen. In fact i'm very similar to those Blackpool trams http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Blackpool_Trawler_Illuminated_Tram.jpg/220px-Blackpool_Trawler_Illuminated_Tram.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminations_(festival)&h=165&w=220&sz=16&tbnid=zMhkjueDuiP05M:&tbnh=84&tbnw=112&prev=/search?q=pics+of+luminous+blackpool+trams&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=pics of luminous blackpool trams&usg=__TGcs0OBUjbOSB-dEDzp04MTv74A=&docid=gDVRU2DEpN4UfM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FxIEUNuALKf80QXnmeGxBw&ved=0CGgQ9QEwCA&dur=159 they have during the illuminations.
> The reason being that i don't want any one who god forbid, knocks me off my bike to say in court "he was hard to see, so that's why i ran into him"! Don't give the swines an excuse i say!! However as we've read, the poor woman in Sunderland was lit up like a Christmas tree but her safety concious attitude failed to save her from white van man. It seems that even when highly visible some idiots are oblivious of our presence on the road, or are aware but don't give a toss about our right to cycle and more importantly our right to return home safely!
> I couldn't begin to imagine how her loved ones must feel about her death, and to be honest, if it was my relative i'd be thinking that justice definately had not been done and i'd be looking at alternative measures to see that it was!


 
Yup RIP Mark Robinson. I have ridden the road where his life was smudged out, but not since I gave up. Awful awful for his family. I believe the Robinson family are suing Rice for millions as his son was in the prime of life with a young family to support, good job and devoted to cycling when this moron ran him down. It goes for all the other cyclists who have had their lives smudged out by motons - Edi Cairns Nottinghill London, Major Evans A1 Bedfordshire, Dr Colin Hawkes NSPCC Chief - Islington, Catriona Patel - Oval station (yes that one), Graham Thwaites in St Paul's Cray to name but a few. Approx 110-130 cyclists lose their lives on UK roads each year and many more, hundreds are seriously injured and the numbers are increasing. The roads are just not safe. How much longer does the carnage and slaughter have to continue before something is done?

Strangely, this is just what an RAC guy said in court when he re-counted seeing me knocked down by a moton on a roundabout on the outskirts of Huntingdon may moons ago.

Black is the new hi-viz. All that yellow hi viz stuff gives drivers something to aim at, marks you out as a target. I stopped wearing it after being knocked down for the second time. It's not very stylish either.


----------



## CopperCyclist (16 Jul 2012)

Crankarm said:


> The CJS is so heavily stacked against VICTIMS in many instances failing miserably.



FTFY.

(And for once, doesn't mean I didn't agree with the original. Just think its a much wider issue!)


----------



## Crankarm (16 Jul 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> FTFY.
> 
> (And for once, doesn't mean I didn't agree with the original. Just think its a much wider issue!)


 
You are probably right, but as a cyclist one is viewed as lower than a rat in many drivers eyes. You are public enemy number one. There is so much aggression toward cyclists on the roads afaik other groups of victims just don't experience this. I am not saying you are wrong, but you only have to listen to prats like James Martin, slob Rayner, Nick Knowles, to$$pot Matthew Parris and on occasion Clarkson to see what is going on. The UK is not a nice place to cycle. It may change when Wiggins wins the TdF and Team GB cyclists bring home a huge haul of medals, but don't bank on it. Drivers are given far too much benefit of the doubt and leeway so they are not prosecuted or walk away from killing people. Shocking.


----------



## Accy cyclist (16 Jul 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Yup RIP Mark Robinson. I have ridden the road where his life was smudged out, but not since I gave up. Awful awful for his family. I believe the Robinson family are suing Rice for millions as his son was in the prime of life with a young family to support, good job and devoted to cycling when this moron ran him down. It goes for all the other cyclists who have had their lives smudged out by motons - Edi Cairns Nottinghill London, Major Evans A1 Bedfordshire, Dr Colin Hawkes NSPCC Chief - Islington, Catriona Patel - Oval station (yes that one), Graham Thwaites in St Paul's Cray to name but a few. Approx 110-130 cyclists lose their lives on UK roads each year and many more, hundreds are seriously injured and the numbers are increasing. The roads are just not safe. How much longer does the carnage and slaughter have to continue before something is done?
> 
> Strangely, this is just what an RAC guy said in court when he re-counted seeing me knocked down by a moton on a roundabout on the outskirts of Huntingdon may moons ago.
> 
> Black is the new hi-viz. All that yellow hi viz stuff gives drivers something to aim at, marks you out as a target. I stopped wearing it after being knocked down for the second time. It's not very stylish either.


 
I do believe that many cyclist deaths/injuries are NOT accidents, and as you say high viz gives them something to aim for, but i do think that the majority of decent motorists are more likely to appreciate a cyclist letting themselves be seen, therefore making them less likely to be involved in an accident with one. I do some night time cycling and i've always felt that motorists are more courteous when the see a reflective jersey/jacket and good lights as opposed to being confronted by a two wheeled dark object.
On a lighter note, high viz is very popular in this years TdF,with quite a good few high viz bikes(front forks)helmets, jerseys and team cars.


----------



## Boris Bajic (16 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> I do believe that many cyclist deaths/injuries are NOT accidents, and as you say high viz gives them something to aim for, but i do think that the majority of decent motorists are more likely to appreciate a cyclist letting themselves be seen, therefore making them less likely to be involved in an accident with one. I do some night time cycling and i've always felt that motorists are more courteous when the see a reflective jersey/jacket and good lights as opposed to being confronted by a two wheeled dark object.
> On a lighter note, high viz is very popular in this years TdF,with quite a good few high viz bikes(front forks)helmets, jerseys and team cars.


 
I mean no offence, but I get the impression from the above that if you think many cyclist deaths and injuries are not accidents then they are the result of deliberate intent to cause harm by another road user. Am I reading your post correctly?

How many is 'many'?

I've been cycling for over forty years and driving for over thirty. Much of that was in London and a good bit of it in parts of the world considered hostile at the time. I was a motorcycle courier for a good while, and if there's any ill will floating around, couriers do tend to attract it.

All my children now cycle. I accept that there are dangers to be faced when cycling on the public highway, but I have never seen a road user deliberately try to use his or her vehicle to cause harm or injury to another.

One reads the odd article about a complete nutter who rams a cyclist, but I wouldn't use the word 'many' to describe the number of such incidents.

Similarly, one reads of the occasional shooting during a bank raid, but I wouldn't say that 'many people who enter banks are armed robbers intent on theft'. 

I agree with you about other road users showing more courtesy to cyclists who've made sure they can be seen, but I find the implied assertion that many injuries and fatalities are non-accidental does not tally with my own several decades of experience.

Commenting on your TdF observation, you are quite right. There's one chap on a yellow cycle, wearing a yellow hat and a yellow jumper. It is not the right colour for him, but he seems happy.


----------



## Crankarm (16 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I mean no offence, but I get the impression from the above that if you think many cyclist deaths and injuries are not accidents then they are the result of deliberate intent to cause harm by another road user. Am I reading your post correctly?
> 
> How many is 'many'?
> 
> ...


 
These are the bankers. Best way to rob a bank is to work in one.


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I mean no offence, but I get the impression from the above that if you think many cyclist deaths and injuries are not accidents then they are the result of deliberate intent to cause harm by another road user. Am I reading your post correctly?
> 
> How many is 'many'?
> 
> ...


 
Many, but not meaning the majority i meant. I think that many "accidents" are avoidable if the offending motorists would show more consideration to cyclists, therefore the collisions aren't accidents, they're incidents that the motorists have caused!
If a motorist for example doesn't look beyond that parked car he/she is overtaking thinking "oh well, if something's coming the other way they've got brakes, or an airbag if the worse comes to the worse",then they hit a cyclist observing the Highway Code, then their lack of consideration and observation has caused an avoidable incident, not a "no one was at fault accident". I'm not saying that all go out their way to hit the cyclist on purpose, but their disregard for more vunerable road users cannot be classed as accidental, more avoidable, therefore they've hit that cyclist because of their disregard for the cyclists life!
I'm not anti car by the way, i drive 150 miles a week and i see many cyclists who i'd like to pull over and tell them that they give decent cyclists a bad name. Yet apart from the few idiots who've literally come at me going down the wrong way of a one way street, or pulled out in front of me in the dark, without lights or reflectors, i've never(touch wood)been close to making contact with a cyclist. The fact that i'm a keen cyclist myself and have the upmost empathy with our plight will make me less likely to hit a cyclist granted, but if motorists looked way ahead on the road, and not just at what's directly in front of them then they'd be less likely to hit a cyclist also.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Jul 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> Many, but not meaning the majority i meant. I think that many "accidents" are avoidable if the offending motorists would show more consideration to cyclists.....


 
A very reasonable response. I deleted much of it from this post simply because it is there for all to see and I don't want to fill the whole Internet.

You and I appear to disagree on the semantics of the meaning of the word 'accident', but that is not a big deal.

Certainly, the past few times I've been bowled off my bicycle, there was fault with one party or the other. All were accidents, but all would have been avoidable had the driver or I (or both of us) been paying a little more attention.

I'd thought you were suggesting some sort of malign intent on the part of many motorists who cause collisions with cyclists. That was what got my interest.

As you weren't, I think we're about a squillimetre away from having very similar views.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2012)

I think the word "accident" can in some circumstances be problematic, as some people will say "oh, it was just an accident", the implication being that it was unavoidable.

But clearly, there are many things that are accidents, in that the outcome was unintended and possibly unforeseen, that are still someone's fault, and someone's responsibility.

Using a rather less serious example, the tennis player at Wimbledon who kicked the sign and injured the line judge. It was an accident, in that his intention was not to injure the line judge, but it was entirely his fault, as he should have easily foreseen that kicking the sign might have had that outcome.

Having said all that, if the seriousness of incidents are being trivialised and downplayed on the basis that they are "only" accidents, then I think there's a problem.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> I think the word "accident" can in some circumstances be problematic, as some people will say "oh, it was just an accident", the implication being that it was unavoidable.
> 
> But clearly, there are many things that are accidents, in that the outcome was unintended and possibly unforeseen, that are still someone's fault, and someone's responsibility.
> 
> ...


 
In your final paragraph above, the word implying the trivialisation of a serious incident is _'only'_. The word _'accident'_ is fine. It trivialises nothing. 

_"In 1977 two passenger aircraft collided over Tenerife. It was an accident. More than 500 people were killed." _

The above trivialises nothing. The word 'only' inserted in the second sentence might have a trivialising effect.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> In your final paragraph above, the word implying the trivialisation of a serious incident is _'only'_. The word _'accident'_ is fine. It trivialises nothing.
> 
> _"In 1977 two passenger aircraft collided over Tenerife. It was an accident. More than 500 people were killed." _
> 
> The above trivialises nothing. The word 'only' inserted in the second sentence might have a trivialising effect.


 
Yes, but I do think that there is a mentality with _some_ drivers that the horrific death toll on our roads is largely unavoidable, because they are accidents. We, as a society, accept this as a price worth paying for use of motor vehicles.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> Yes, but I do think that there is a mentality with _some_ drivers that the horrific death toll on our roads is largely unavoidable, because they are accidents. We, as a society, accept this as a price worth paying for use of motor vehicles.


 
I cannot disagree with this.

As a man with three cycling children and an occasionally cycling wife, I have to admit that I too have in mind a figure one might classify as 'acceptable losses'.

I do not mean by this that I write off the death of a road user as inevitable. I mean rather that while fewer than 150 cyclists are killed annually in London, I will still ride there. Above that figure I might ride, but would probably suggest my childen take the tube.

Similarly, if the figure in my county rose to over 50, I might think again. It stands at fewer than 10 KSI per annum at present. I do not presume to trivialise any of those deaths or injuries, but it is a figure which does not put me off cycling. In a sense, i see it as a figure which does not present a strong enough case against motor vehicles to encourage me to change my habits or require anyone else to change theirs.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> Yes, but I do think that there is a mentality with _some_ drivers that the horrific death toll on our roads is largely unavoidable, because they are accidents. We, as a society, accept this as a price worth paying for use of motor vehicles.


 
We need to ask why cycling in Denmark is TEN TIMES safer than cycling in the UK.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> We need to ask why cycling in Denmark is TEN TIMES safer than cycling in the UK.


 
I'm no mathematician but I'll have a go at this one: The likelihood is that in Denmark acyclist is ten times less likely to get themselves killed or injured than they are in the UK. This should produce the statistic whose origin arouses your curiosity.

Am I right? If so, is there a prize?


----------



## dawesome (17 Jul 2012)

It's about 30 times more dangerous per mile to cycle than to travel by car in the UK.

This is where the "vehciluar cycling" philosophy (i.e. that cyclists are basically vehicle users and must cycle among other motor vehicles) has left us after decades of fruitless campaigning by the UK cycle campaign establishment.

Only the application of the Dutch model will make London a safe, mass cycling city. That requires segregated cycle tracks on all major routes. Despite signing up up to "Going Dutch" Boris hasn't built a single centimetre of safe cycle track while mayor. Instead all we get is bluster.

Separating cyclists from motor vehicles isn't difficult. All it requires is the political will.

To go on expecting cycling to thrive in a city where innumerable drivers are talking on mobile phones, jumping red lights, speeding, and overtaking in a reckless and dangerous manner, is absurd. The sentences handed out to the worst kind of driver have been getting lighter, the government has removed the funding for speed cameras, and the police don't regard motoring crimes as "real&quot; crimes. The Met has massively cut its traffic police and is a notoriously anti-cycling force, refusing to enforce cycle boxes at major junctions, turning a blind eye to road rage drivers even when caught on film, and treating cyclists generally with contempt. Road deaths also don't get anywhere near the same level of police resourcing as murders. The Met's poor record in tracking down hit and run killer drivers is another example of its car-centric agenda.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jul 2012)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...afer-says-family-of-dead-cyclist-7952577.html


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> A very reasonable response. I deleted much of it from this post simply because it is there for all to see and I don't want to fill the whole Internet.
> 
> You and I appear to disagree on the semantics of the meaning of the word 'accident', but that is not a big deal.
> 
> ...


 Ok!


----------



## Kizibu (18 Jul 2012)

The death reported in the OP is appalling and rightly makes us fearful and angry.

But reading this thread gives the impression that things are getting worse rather than better for cyclists on the road.

In fact the latest official figures are said to show fewer cyclist died on UK roads last year than the previous year though the opposite was true for pedestrians, drivers and passengers.


*ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11*


Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

And if I read the stats correctly deaths and serious injuries to cyclists fell by over a quarter over the last decade:
111 cyclists were killed on GB roads in 2010 compared with an average of 146 a year between 1994 and 1998 ( a 40% decline)
And 2,660 were seriously injured in 2010 compared with 3,560 a year between 94 and 98 (25% drop - 26% overall for KSI)
See here


----------



## dawesome (18 Jul 2012)

You'd have to take into account cycling rates doubling in London over the last ten years. pedestrian and cyclist KSIs are sharply up in London.


----------



## Kizibu (18 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> You'd have to take into account cycling rates doubling in London over the last ten years. pedestrian and cyclist KSIs are sharply up in London.


 
I'd be interested to see the figures for the increased number of cyclists and the casualties that point to this.

If I understand them correctly, the official figures for reported accidents show cyclists killed or seriously injured in Greater London down from an average of 679 in the mid nineties to 490 in 2010. That's almost a 28% drop.

The figures for pedestrians killed or seriously injured in Greater London were 1,102 in 2010 compared with the mid nineties average of 2,728.


----------



## snorri (18 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> The death reported in the OP is appalling and rightly makes us fearful and angry.
> 
> But reading this thread gives the impression that things are getting worse rather than better for cyclists on the road.


 
Statistics can be interpreted in different ways, but both the IAM and CTC are expressing concerns.........
http://road.cc/content/news/61816-i...sts-calls-tougher-penalties-dangerous-drivers


and the CTC

*CTC demands action following critical parliamentary report on cycle safety*



CTC has called for concerted action after MPs have criticised Government policy on road safety, demanding stronger leadership on road safety and cycle safety in particular. 



The Transport Select Committee report – published on Wednesday – comes after evidence sessions given by CTC earlier this year, and then by CTC President, Jon Snow, and Vice-President Josie Dew following the launch of The Times’s ‘Cities fit for cycling’ campaign. The report has highlighted the weaknesses in leadership from the Government on road safety in general, and on cycle safety in particular. Jon Snow told the Committee in May: “There is no leadership in Government in cycling at all. It is a completely neglected area.” [1]



CTC welcomes the Committee’s call for the Government to show stronger leadership on cycling, after recent evidence showed that the risk of cycling was rising. In one year alone there has been a 16% increase in serious injuries to cyclists - a far higher increase than the 2% increase in cycle use. Casualties also increased amongst other road user groups, with a 6% increase in car occupant serious injuries and a 12% increase in pedestrian fatalities. CTC has attributed the deterioration in road safety for all transport modes to a decline in road traffic policing and the consequence of the Government’s rhetoric of ‘ending the war on the motorist.’ [2]



CTC’s Campaigns Director Roger Geffen said: “With cycle casualties now increasing faster than cycle use and with worsening safety for other road users too, it is clear that the Government needs to show far stronger leadership on reducing danger on our roads. It is all very well asking local authorities to consider more 20mph limits, and providing the occasional spurt of funding for a few cycle-friendly junction improvements.” 



He continued: “What is really needed is a concerted, properly funded action plan to get councils, police forces and the freight industry pulling together to reduce traffic speeds, ensure cycle-friendly design for all roads and junctions and reduce the threats from lorries. Police forces must give the safety of pedestrians and cyclists the priority it deserves.”


----------



## Kizibu (18 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> Statistics can be interpreted in different ways, but both the IAM and CTC are expressing concerns.........
> 
> CTC’s Campaigns Director Roger Geffen said:
> 
> He continued: “What is really needed is a concerted, properly funded action plan to get councils, police forces and the freight industry pulling together to reduce traffic speeds, ensure cycle-friendly design for all roads and junctions and reduce the threats from lorries. Police forces must give the safety of pedestrians and cyclists the priority it deserves.”


 
I agree that statistics are open to interpretation. But I'd be interested to see an explanation for how a 25% reduction is the numbers of cyclists recorded as killed and seriously injured over almost a decade when bike use is increasing actually represents an increase in the casualty rate. 

But even if fewer cyclists really are being killed its still too many. So I fully support everything Roger Geffen says is needed - particularly if bikers and pedestrians are to play their part in reducing carbon emissions, road congestion and obesity. But I'm not in favour of distorting the facts, making out cycling to be more hazardous than it is or demonising car drivers. There is already enough rage about on the road without adding to it. 

I am a cyclist and a car driver and I know I could benefit from better skills and concentration in both activities (and better designed roads). We all know some cyclists act stupidly or thoughtlessly just as some drivers do. ROSPA even put a figure on that:

"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. "


----------



## dawesome (18 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> ROSPA even put a figure on that:


 
That gets quoted a fair bit. It's a flase conclusion, ROSPA use Stats 19 data- not designed to apportion blame.

Worldwide studies confirm cyclists are to blame for less than 20% of accidents involving a vehicle. Usually, it's the driver who is to blame. Makes sense when you think about it- cyclists don't want to collide with anything because the consequences willbe more serious than a scratched bumper.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jul 2012)

Why focusing just on Casualty Stats is giving the wrong picture;



> *Road safety: narrow focus on casualty statistics is misleading*
> 
> Recording public perceptions of risk would give society a more holistic view on whether our roads are getting safer or not
> 
> ...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jul/18/road-safety-casualty-statistics


----------



## Kizibu (18 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Why focusing just on Casualty Stats is giving the wrong picture;


 
I don't think focusing on actual casualty statistics would be as misleading as focusing upon a false premise that cycling casualties are rising if in fact they are falling.

If it is true that cycling deaths and serious injuries have gone down by a quarter in a decade, as the official statistics seem to indicate ( I say ' if ' since some seem to regard this as spurious though no contrary evidence has so far been produced here)... if it is true then surely the interesting question is why has this happened? And could that cause be replicated to save even more biker's lives?

Why has there been a drop in reported cycling casualties? I don't know and so far have yet to find anyone who has seriously acknowledged that it has happened let alone addressed the question why. 

Dawesome's point about the A25 might be part of the answer. Maybe more cyclists have been intimidated off the main roads (or off the roads altogether) by road improvements aimed at allowing higher traffic speeds?

Or maybe the growth of cycling means more of those behind the steering wheeel know what its like to be behind the handlebars?

Or maybe it's the result of creating more cycle lanes or better road layouts? 

Or maybe the greater use of hi-viz jackets and cycling helmets has contributed? 

Or maybe it's greater safety awareness or improved road skills on the part of cyclists?

Maybe it's because more women are riding (80 per cent of bike casualties are men)?

Or maybe parents are restricting their children's bike riding more (20 per cent of casualties are children)?

Or maybe its not something anyone has done on purpose at all: could it be a result of increased congestion reducing urban traffic speeds (75% of bike accidents happen in urban areas but most cycling deaths occur on rural roads where collision speeds are higher on average).

Or maybe its the impact of flexi-time working on the hours of commuter riders (most bike accidents happen beween 8am and 9am or 3pm and 6pm)?

Who knows: but I suspect trying to find out would save more lives of cyclists than villifying motorists or rubbishing the stats. .


----------



## snorri (19 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> I don't think focusing on actual casualty statistics would be as misleading as focusing upon a false premise that cycling casualties are rising if in fact they are falling.
> Who knows: but I suspect trying to find out would save more lives of cyclists than villifying motorists or rubbishing the stats. .


I don't believe anyone is rubbishing the statistics, if you look at the KSI figures for cycling you will see a steady increase over the last 4 years from 2428 in 2007 to 3085 in 2011.


----------



## Kizibu (19 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> I don't believe anyone is rubbishing the statistics, if you look at the KSI figures for cycling you will see a steady increase over the last 4 years from 2428 in 2007 to 3085 in 2011.


 
Thank you Snorri. Those figures are a more up to date set than the ones I was using and give a fuller picture..

There does appear to have been a steady decline in cycling deaths and serious injuries on the roads for a decade from the mid nineties. Then an apalling rise in serious injuries again (up 26% since 2005) cancelling the improvements since the mid nineties though cycling deaths continued to fall (down 16% from 130 in 2005 to 107 in 2011). All other road casualty categories without exception since 2005 showed a decline suggesting this is a very cycling specific phenomenon.

Given the increase is in serious injuries (most of which happen in urban areas) rather than cycling deaths (most of which happen on rural roads),is this a result of more people commuting by bike due to increased fuel costs over the past four years?


----------



## snorri (19 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> is this a result of more people commuting by bike due to increased fuel costs over the past four years?


IMV it's due to UK law and roads infrastructure offering poor protection to cyclists.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jul 2012)

> Since I was a child brought up in a rural are there has been a massive reduction in pedstrians and cyclists using roads for getting around on. So the self-evident reason there has been this apparent drop in casualties, is not because roads have really become safer, but because most of the vulnerable road users are now too terrified to use them. Being terrified to use a road because it is perceived as being so dangerous is self-evidently not consistent with it being a safe road.


 
Guardian link upthread.

Biggest con ever, terrify people off the roads then cite lower ped/cyclist KSI rates as "proof" roads are safer.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Guardian link upthread.
> 
> Biggest con ever, terrify people off the roads then cite lower ped/cyclist KSI rates as "proof" roads are safer.


 
Who is conning whom?

Who is terrifying whom?

When I read the posts of some contributors, I imagine they might be writing about some grotesque Bond-style or horror-film baddie whose evil assassins are creeping in dark cloaks around our highways scaring cyclists off the road.

Why would these beings of unspeakable evil do such a ghastly thing?

Why, so that by terrifying us off the roads they could use lower KSI rates as 'proof' of safer roads of course! Such pure, wicked, evil genius.

Schreck's portrayal of _Nosferatu_ comes to mind as a helpful visual image.

I know nobody who has been terrified off the roads. I know a few parents who are so barmily overprotective that they don't let their bloated offspring near a bicycle, but that has nothing to do with any 'con' perpetrated by Count Orlok and his evil brethren.

Is it time to move away from the emotive language and tone of some recent contributions?

Probably not, but I had to ask...


----------



## dawesome (19 Jul 2012)

> *Two-thirds of commuters think UK roads are 'not safe enough for cycling'*


 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/transport.children?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487



> *Parents afraid to allow their children to cycle on roads*


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/transport.children?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

People choose not to use lawless roads where speeding is rife, mobile use is unpoliced and drivers threaten and bully vulnerable road users, intimidating them off the road. Naturally casualty rates for vulnerable road users decline, and the road is then declared "safe".

Bonkers.

No British children under ten years old were killed in Afghanistan this year. So, Afghanistan is "safe" for children under ten?



> The question I would have liked to hear MPs put to ministers is about whether public perceptions of risk on the roads are rising or falling, especially for non-motorised users.
> 
> But the Department for Transport doesn't measure perceptions, only crash statistics.


 
Speeding is top of the league when it comes to antisocial behaviour, a University of Reading study has shown. Thames Valley Police approached psychologists at the University of Reading and asked them to analyse the British Crime Survey - which considers the concerns of more than 17,000 people across the UK.

Speeding traffic was rated as a significantly greater problem than all other antisocial behaviours, with 43% of the population regarded speeding traffic as a 'very' or 'fairly big' problem in their area.

Furthermore, the perception of speeding traffic as the antisocial behaviour of most concern was held by both men and women - young, middle aged, and old. 

http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR3936.aspx


Is a road 'safe' for cyclists because there have been no accidents on it?


----------



## Kizibu (19 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> IMV it's due to UK law and roads infrastructure offering poor protection to cyclists.


You may be right that cyclists are poorly protected. But how did that change in the last 4 years to produce reversal of previous 25% improvement in serious injuries?


----------



## dawesome (19 Jul 2012)

Even if you allow for more cyclists it doesn't seem to explain why ped KSI rates are up too, at least in the capital:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-pedestrian-deaths-and-cycle-injuries-soar-7899270.html

I understand that if in one year two cyclists use the roads and one gets hurt then the next year a hundred cyclists use the road and three get hurt the actual numbers of injured riders increases but the chance of being involved in an accident DECREASES, but what's happening with pedestrian figures, are there that many more people walking about, or are removed pedestrian crossings, "smoothing traffic flow" and shortening crossing sequences?


----------



## Kizibu (20 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Even if you allow for more cyclists it doesn't seem to explain why ped KSI rates are up too, at least in the capital...


 
I think the differences between London and the rest of the country are potentially interesting.

Serious injuries to cyclists have beeen gone up everywhere by about a quarter but nationally cycling deaths are down. 

London is interesting because its a single transport and police authority and under Boris Johnson measures to increase traffic speeds have had priority over increased road safety. In London not only are cycling deaths up year on year (compared to the national picture where they are down) but serious injuries have risen by 36% since 2005-9 compared with 25% nationally. The serious injuries in accidents and cycling fatalities are usually linked with higher speeds (most cycling accidents happen in towns where cars are slowed, most cycling deaths on rural roads where speeds are higher). Increased speeds may also be impacting on London pedestrians (deaths and serious injuries up). Nationally pedestrian casualties - and all other road user casualties other than cyclists - are falling. 

In the country as a whole cycling deaths are down but serious injuries are up by 25% over the past 3-4years. This might be a reflection of the greater numbers taking up cycling. The percentage increase in injuries is probably far greater than the percentage increase in the numbers of cyclists. But you would only expect the percentages to be the same if accidents were random events. If novice riders are more prone to accidents and injury then a small increase in the percentage of riders could result in a larger percentage increase in accidents since most riders are not involved in serious accidents. 

This is not to blame novice riders - it merely underlines the need to make roads safer for bikes - especially since it is Government policy to encourage more people to take up cycling.


----------



## dawesome (20 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> If novice riders are more prone to accidents and injury then a small increase in the percentage of riders could result in a larger percentage increase in accidents since most riders are not involved in serious accidents.
> 
> This is not to blame novice riders - it merely underlines the need to make roads safer for bikes - especially since it is Government policy to encourage more people to take up cycling.


On the surface, this makes sense. It appeals to logic- more cyclists = more accidents. But it seems the evidence is that things are the other way round- more cyclists means an actual decrease in the rate of accidents. 



> International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians. And it's not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.​​Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.​


 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm

Worth noting too that inexperienced cyclists have never been a significant causal factor in collisions, many of the cyclists killed on London roads were experienced, seasoned riders. Two of them were couriers, Sebastien Lukowmski and Henry Warwick.



> This is a point made by a number of people on the London Fixed Gear forum. For example, somebody calling himself “Badman ratio” writes:
> 
> “IT DOESNT MATTER HOW GOOD YOU ARE or how good you THINK you are, sudden death or being maimed for life can snatch you off your machine quicker than you say fixie. Henry was probably the most experienced/exemplary courier in London, if not Europe”
> 
> It’s just so sad and agonising.


 
http://cycling-intelligence.com/201...n-bishopsgate-was-a-very-experienced-courier/


----------



## Kizibu (20 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> On the surface, this makes sense. It appeals to logic- more cyclists = more accidents. But it seems the evidence is that things are the other way round- more cyclists means an actual decrease in the rate of accidents.
> 
> 
> 
> Worth noting too that inexperienced cyclists have never been a significant causal factor in collisions, many of the cyclists killed on London roads were experienced, seasoned riders. Two of them were couriers, Sebastien Lukowmski and Henry Warwick.


 
Another helpful post Dawesome - thanks.

My point is a bit more complicated than more bikers=more accidents.

If there are 100,000 bikers (by way of example) and just 1% suffer accidents every year there will be 1,000 accidents. If the numbers of bikers increases by 10 per cent to 110,000 then you might expect random accidents to increase by 10 per cent to 1,100. That's the simple more=more equation.

But if novices are a bit more accident prone so that 2% of them have accidents ... there will be 1200 accidents a year which is a 20 per cent increase on 1,000. But only 200 of the 1200 involve novices. So inexperience isn't standing out as the obvious cause of the increase....and anyway isn't recorded in the official statistics. The few high profile deaths of highly experienced and well-known riders do stand out. They are terrible and regrettable tragedies. But they may not in fact be typical of most bike accidents.


----------



## Glow worm (20 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Who is conning whom?
> 
> Who is terrifying whom?
> 
> ...


 
I can never be arsed to read through your posts with all that tedious white space to scroll through, but the first bit about who is terrifying whom - well how about the knuckledragging moton yesterday who decided I should be on the (2' wide glass strewn) cycle path and not on 'his' road, yelling abuse at me whilst revving his engine and passing within an inch of my handlebars? His face when I knocked on his door a few minutes later to discuss the matter, after spotting his snotbucket outside his house was a picture but that's another story.
I don't know what planet you're on, (clearly one where they still use words like ghastly), but the fact is, this kind of shoot happens, thankfully rarely, but I can well understand incidents like the above putting some people off for good.


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Jul 2012)

Glow worm said:


> I can never be arsed to read through your posts with all that tedious white space to scroll through, but the first bit about who is terrifying whom - well how about the knuckledragging moton yesterday who decided I should be on the (2' wide glass strewn) cycle path and not on 'his' road, yelling abuse at me whilst revving his engine and passing within an inch of my handlebars? His face when I knocked on his door a few minutes later to discuss the matter, after spotting his snotbucket outside his house was a picture but that's another story.
> I don't know what planet you're on, (clearly one where they still use words like ghastly), but the fact is, this kind of s*** happens, thankfully rarely, but I can well understand incidents like the above putting some people off for good.


 
What an extraordinary post. I detect a tone not far removed from personal invective in your reply. 

I'm sorry you have a problem with white space. You might want to avoid the Alps in winter. 

My questions were a response the the post I was quoting. Looked at in the context of that post from dawesome, it's clear I wasn't referring to road users terrifying anyone. That being so, I'm not sure where your scary story fits in with my post, but I understand the need to share.

You're right. I do live on a planet where they still use words like _ghastly_. They also use words like g_jakemarrje_,_ feux d'artifice_ and _raskidanje. (_How dull to restrict oneself to just a few words or even a few languages). 

It's also the planet where people (bizarrely and inexplicably) respond completely out of context to my posts, criticising my use of language and my spacing, then adding that they find them too tedious to read through. This last point didn't need to be made, as it was clear the post hadn't been read. 

I'm sorry you had an incident, but I'm pleased you had a chance to stand up and share your bold door-knocking adventure with the rest of the class. Have a House Point for that. 

Close passes can be ghastly. One of my sons suffered a bad one when we were out doing intervals last week. I was scathing about it afterwards, but he just rolled his eys and said "Dad, one in thirty drivers is probably crap - and we're passed by hundreds every time we go out. Get over it." Once I'd cooled down a little, I thought he'd made a good point. 

My language, my tone, my acres of white space or perhaps my fatalistic attitude seem to have upset you in some way. Many other members have discovered the joy of the 'ignore' button. May I recommend it to you, too. I don't expect my posts to get any better any time soon...












I fear I shall also be leaving a lot of whte space for the time being.


----------



## dawesome (20 Jul 2012)

Glow worm said:


> I can never be arsed to read through your posts with all that tedious white space to scroll through, but the first bit about who is terrifying whom - well how about the knuckledragging moton yesterday who decided I should be on the (2' wide glass strewn) cycle path and not on 'his' road, yelling abuse at me whilst revving his engine and passing within an inch of my handlebars? His face when I knocked on his door a few minutes later to discuss the matter, after spotting his snotbucket outside his house was a picture but that's another story.
> I don't know what planet you're on, (clearly one where they still use words like ghastly), but the fact is, this kind of s*** happens, thankfully rarely, but I can well understand incidents like the above putting some people off for good.


 

I popped him on ignore after he posted his "hilarious" smilies in a thread about a dead cyclist.


----------



## dawesome (20 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> Another helpful post Dawesome - thanks.
> 
> My point is a bit more complicated than more bikers=more accidents.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure if this bears out, I'd be happy too see any evidence that "novice"* cyclists are involved in more crashes.
*(I'm not even sure how to define that, don't most children ride a bike by 6 or 7 or so? It's the closest thing to flying we humans have, kids love it.).
Surely newer riders would use off-road facilities, or may even be more timid on commutes, I see people dismount and wait on pavements if a large vehicle approaches. Depresses the hell out of me. Also, many more men than women cycle and so the demographics mean more risks are taken by young male cyclists. I have no idea, but bad cycling behaviour of ANY kind is not a significant factor in KSI rates.


----------



## Norm (20 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> I popped him on ignore after he posted his "hilarious" smilies in a thread about a dead cyclist.


I don't suppose that you could support that, could you?


----------



## dawesome (20 Jul 2012)

Page 4. Sarcasm and happy smiling faces don't really contribute much of anything worthwhile to the debate, boris is an offensive double-spacing troll.


----------



## Hector (20 Jul 2012)

The term ''ask stupid questions...' springs to mind reading the above.


And it's gone from posting ''hilarious'' smiles about a dead cyclist to sarcasm and happy smiling faces.


Boris was answering your question - not taking the piss out of a dead cyclist. FFS you really are an idiot Spinners.


----------



## Norm (20 Jul 2012)

Oh, just another opinion posted as fact then. 

Much like the 'troll' thing, I'm always amazed how the people who use that word are so often in danger of busting the irony overload meter.


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> I don't suppose that you could support that, could you?


 
Thank you for that, Norm. I didn't want to challenge it myself, but it did rather threaten to drag me through the gutter.


----------



## Kizibu (20 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> I.... bad cycling behaviour of ANY kind is not a significant factor in KSI rates.


 
Is that a research you are quoting here Dawesome or an opinion?

According to ROSPA 20 per cent of cycle/vehicle collisions involve cycles entering a road from a pavement. Seems likely some of those might have been avoided by better cycling behaviour.


----------



## Glow worm (20 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> I popped him on ignore after he posted his "hilarious" smilies in a thread about a dead cyclist.



I'm not that keen on ignore lists tbh. There's a lot of great stuff on here and I can cope with the odd idiot here and there.


----------



## dawesome (20 Jul 2012)

Hector said:


> Boris was answering your question.


 
In what way did Boris's idiocy come any way close to shedding illumination? It was sarcasm with a laughing face, some people would think a thread about a dead cyclist would be the wrong place for posting stuff like that, but not our boris. The sad thing is his children probably get exposed to his stupidity.




Kizibu said:


> According to ROSPA 20 per cent of cycle/vehicle collisions involve cycles entering a road from a pavement. Seems likely some of those might have been avoided by better cycling behaviour.


 
Once again, Stats19 reports are not designed to allocate blame. I did tell you this upthread.



> *Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds*
> 
> Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Fact, not opinion.


----------



## dawesome (20 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> My questions were a response the the post I was quoting. Looked at in the context of that post from dawesome, it's clear I wasn't referring to road users terrifying anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Of course you were.

I said that people are bullied off the roads. You posted a sneering contribution denying anyone is bullied off the roads. Someone posted an example of being bullied off the roads and you react with outrage and denial and claim you've been misunderstood. You're a troll. You deliberately disrupt threads by posting nonsense and whimsy and pointless sarcasm and smiley faces.


----------



## Kizibu (21 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
> 
> Fact, not opinion.


 
Thanks for that Dawesome. But the headline seems to refer just to accidents involving cyclists jumping red lights or riding in dark clothing rather than their share of responsibility for collisions overall. On that score the Guardian story says: "The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall..." 

That doesn't seem to me to substantiate your suggestion that " _.. bad cycling behaviour of ANY kind is not a significant factor in KSI rates." _ (its your emphasis on ANY not mine). Isn't cycling off the pavement without looking "bad cycling behaviour" ?


----------



## Glow worm (22 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I fear I shall also be leaving a lot of whte space for the time being.


 
I was out of order upthread - apologies.
I'd just had a bad incident with a driver and wasn't up for reading about peace and harmony on British roads.


----------



## Boris Bajic (23 Jul 2012)

Glow worm said:


> I was out of order upthread - apologies.
> I'd just had a bad incident with a driver and wasn't up for reading about peace and harmony on British roads.


 
I do appreciate that. I think my reply to yours was slightly waspish. That too is out of order.

Apologies accepted and reciprocated.


----------



## benb (23 Jul 2012)

Isn't it nice when we all get along!


----------



## Crankarm (23 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Who is conning whom?
> 
> Who is terrifying whom?
> 
> ...


 
Me.


----------



## dawesome (23 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> Isn't cycling off the pavement without looking "bad cycling behaviour" ?


 
Third time. Your statistics you keep posting from ROSPA are based on Stats 19 reports, not designed to allocate blame, yet you repeatedly cite it to try to blame cyclists.


----------



## Kizibu (24 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Third time. Your statistics you keep posting from ROSPA are based on Stats 19 reports, not designed to allocate blame, yet you repeatedly cite it to try to blame cyclists.


 
And this is the third time you have claimed Stats 19 figures are not designed to allocate blame without saying why.

The figures I quoted were from the Transport Research Laboratory Report "Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain's roads: establishing the causes" which was the basis for the Guardian report you cited as evidence that risky activity by cyclists was not to blame for accidents. 

The TRL conclusions were based on Stats 19 figures among others, including subjective views on who was responsible for accidents from police officers who were usually not present at the time of the accident. So they are far from perfect. But as the report acknowledges : " They should ... be seen as giving an indication of the likely causes". 

I don't especially want to blame cyclists for accidents. It seems likely they are responsible for some. I'm simply interested in how many and what kind. 

Are you saying cyclists are never responsible for accidents?

One in six reported accidents resulting in cyclists being killed or seriously injured did not even involve another vehicle or driver.


----------



## dawesome (24 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> And this is the third time you have claimed Stats 19 figures are not designed to allocate blame without saying why.
> 
> The figures I quoted were from the Transport Research Laboratory Report "Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain's roads: establishing the causes" which was the basis for the Guardian report you cited as evidence that risky activity by cyclists was not to blame for accidents.
> 
> ...


 
Those figures don't appear in the article based on the report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

What's your source?


----------



## dawesome (24 Jul 2012)

Kizibu said:


> the headline seems to refer just to accidents involving cyclists jumping red lights or riding in dark clothing rather than their share of responsibility for collisions overall.


 
Nope:



> *Report in to DfT casualty stats says cyclists not to blame in 93 per cent of cases*
> 
> 
> *Bike riders tearing through red lights, wearing dark clothing or riding at night without lights are to blame for less than 7% of accidents that result in a cyclist being seriously injured, according to research commissioned by the Department for Transport.*
> ...


 
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases


----------



## Kizibu (25 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Those figures don't appear in the article based on the report
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
> 
> What's your source?


 
I have already told you the source (post #108). It's the TRL report _"Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain's roads: establishing the causes"_ .


----------



## Kizibu (25 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Nope:
> 
> 
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases


 
This headline (*Report into DfT casualty stats says cyclists not to blame in 93 per cent of cases*) 
is rubbish. The 7% of accidents attributable to cyclists refers to those mentioned in the first sentence only, those involving "​*Bike riders tearing through red lights, wearing dark clothing or riding at night without lights"*
not all accidents involving cyclists. .​ 
 Neither the headline nor the article accurately represent the findings of the TRL report it is supposed to be based on in my view.

The TRL report states in several places that responsibility for causing reported accidents in which cyclists are killed or injured is split "fairly equally" between cyclists and drivers by the police investigating the accidents. 

The claim that the police attribute_ "blame to the driver in up to three quarters of collisions between a bicycle and other vehicle "_ is technically true but so highly misleading that its nonsense. Its based on the fact that cyclists of different age groups were more or less likely to be blamed for accidents. Overall for cyclists of all age groups blame is roughly equally apportioned between bikers and motorists though it says children might be blamed unfairly when its their word against an adult driver.

The only accidents where drivers were blamed 75% of the time were slight accidents involving the oldest riders aged 40-99. Where cyclists are killed, cyclists are blamed more often than motorists. But that may be a case of deadmen tell no tales. In serious accidents (where the cyclist survives to give their version) slightly more are blamed on motorists than cyclists - but only slightly more. In about 10% of cases both cyclist and motorist are held to have contributed to the accident. _Edited to correct attribution of article and headline at 2312. _


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Jul 2012)

It is very sad that this cyclist has died in this way. Apparently, of no fault of her own.

But members of the forum have decided that the jury were not cyclists and in fact they were too fat to be cyclists. How this has been decided is beyond me but it is obviously been decided just to put weight on our end of the arguement. It does not add anything to our credibility as far as I am concerned.

I have looked at that road and it is not a place I would like to ride at any time, never mind rush hour traffic.

I don`t know how the van driver got away with it. But we cannot complain every time a decision goes against a cyclist. Especially when the whole story is not known to us.

Steve


----------

