Cleared of killing a cyclist

[Boris Bajic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

..

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]

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 gjakemarrje, 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.