Cleared of killing a cyclist

[Boris Bajic]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.












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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Isn't it nice when we all get along!

 

[Crankarm]

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...

Me.

 

[dawesome]

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]

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]

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]

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.
The study, carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory – which has also published a report on helmet-wearing that we have covered separately today – found that one in four accidents resulting in death or serious injury to a cyclist was due to the bicycle being struck by a vehicle from behind.
Meanwhile, according to police reports studied as part of the research, wearing dark clothing at night was thought to be a possible cause of just 2.5% of accidents resulting in serious injury to the cyclist, with not using lights or jumping red lights each blamed in 2% of cases. Those percentages rose slightly in instances when the cyclist was killed, although in those circumstances police could only rely on evidence from the driver and other witnesses.
The report’s findings show clearly that far from being the danger to other road users that certain elements of the media have portrayed them as in recent months, cyclists are themselves put at risk by the actions of motorists, with the police attributing blame to the driver in up to three quarters of collisions between a bicycle and other vehicle in accidents involving adult bike riders.

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

 

[Kizibu]

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" .