'Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics'
- Thread starter youngoldbloke
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
growingvegetables
Guru
- Location
- Leeds
Sheeyit.
The number of pedestrians fatally or seriously injured by cyclists has doubled since 2006. Jeeze.
Field day for headline writers and their agendas.
The number of pedestrians fatally or seriously injured by cyclists has doubled since 2006. Jeeze.
Field day for headline writers and their agendas.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
It does not say who is responsible for the accidents, but it is safe to say it is not all down to the pedestrians.
The law is obviously outdated and needs revising. I cannot see a problem in that.
The law is obviously outdated and needs revising. I cannot see a problem in that.
Nigel-YZ1
Guru
- Location
- Somewhere else... maybe soon.
I keep getting tempted to put comments on this garbage. But all that will do is generate junk mail for me and give a load of ranting tossers someone else to insult and repeat their 0% fact mantras at.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Thanks for the screenshot, which I've recycled elsewhere.
mustang1
Legendary Member
- Location
- London, UK
Are you a Muppet or something? When cars and trucks kill people, that is normal. They pay taxes which pay for the police and ambulances to take the dead people away.
The cyclists do pay nothing and so if on the off chance, they kill some moron crossing the road while checking out Facebook, what do you think the outcome will be?
I am a daily express reader and I am expressing my outrage at people like you.
(Of course, I'm kidding with you -in case not obvs, or more likely, a real daily express reader comes across this thread).
How seriously injured to you need to be to make the SI of KSI? Is it a visit to a hospital A&E, an overnight stay, some kind of life-changing effect?
According to wiki:
The definition is less clear-cut and may vary more over time and in different places. The UK definition covers injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient.[4]
According to wiki:
The definition is less clear-cut and may vary more over time and in different places. The UK definition covers injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient.[4]
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
The headline is confusing. Does it mean that each cyclist maims or kills two people a week?
numbnuts
Legendary Member
- Location
- Gone over the hill and far away
Another one with no brakes sorry it's in the Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966080/Cyclist-rode-bike-without-brakes-jailed.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966080/Cyclist-rode-bike-without-brakes-jailed.html
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
To be fair I'd expect a car driver with no brakes to be jailed in such circumstances, but the Daily Mail aren't known for their balanced perspective.
bozmandb9
Insert witty title here
- Location
- South Oxfordshire
Hhhhmmm. Since the invention of the iPhone basically...coincidence? I think not.
bozmandb9
Insert witty title here
- Location
- South Oxfordshire
This trend for using track bikes on public roads is concerning. I'd like to see the Police stopping cyclists on track bikes, and confiscating the bikes. Looking at that bike, it's exactly the same as the one my son is currently using at Newport velodrome, for it's intended purpose.
I don't see what there is to keep debating about here. Others have already posted the facts about this situation, and here's another summary, albeit out of date, but the figures haven't changed significantly;
Pedestrian casualties 2001-09
And this;
Key facts:
·Mile for mile in urban areas in the UK from 2009-13, motor vehicles were more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian, and over twice as likely to kill them.
·In London (1998-2007), just 4% of reported pedestrian injuries due to red-light-jumping involved cyclists - the other 96% were hit by red-light-jumping motor vehicles.
·Even on London’s pavements, just 2% of reported pedestrian collisions in the 1998-2007 period involved cyclists, the other 98% involved motor vehicles.
It's quite clear which problem needs looking at as a high priority, and worrying about 'track bikes' or the hysterical anti cycling ranting of sections of the press is completely missing where the problem lies, and where something needs to be done.
Pedestrian casualties 2001-09
- Killed by cycles: 18
- Seriously injured by cycles: 434
- Killed by cars: 3,495
- Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
And this;
Key facts:
·Mile for mile in urban areas in the UK from 2009-13, motor vehicles were more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian, and over twice as likely to kill them.
·In London (1998-2007), just 4% of reported pedestrian injuries due to red-light-jumping involved cyclists - the other 96% were hit by red-light-jumping motor vehicles.
·Even on London’s pavements, just 2% of reported pedestrian collisions in the 1998-2007 period involved cyclists, the other 98% involved motor vehicles.
It's quite clear which problem needs looking at as a high priority, and worrying about 'track bikes' or the hysterical anti cycling ranting of sections of the press is completely missing where the problem lies, and where something needs to be done.
Similar threads
