presta
Guru
Why would pedestrian deaths in 2013 be materially different to most other years?
Misguided Cycling Safety Campaigns
- Thread starter PedallingNowhereSlowly
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Why would pedestrian deaths in 2013 be materially different to most other years?
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
I wanted specifically to know if it was less than 8, the number of people on the ground killed by helicopters in 2013. So a small difference would be material to that comparison.
presta
Guru
It would make more sense to find the average number killed by helicopters than cherry pick one year in particular.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Cherry picking is the whole point on the exercise. 2013 is the one year in which it could legitimately be said that the danger from falling helicopters exceeded that from bikes.
OP
OP
PedallingNowhereSlowly
Senior Member
Admiral (the insurance company) shared this with their customers this morning:
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/gu...erstanding-the-rules-for-cyclists-and-drivers
The usual stuff is there about hi-viz and cycle helmets. I think the advice to drivers overtaking cyclists is woeful - it should recommend that drivers should not overtake on approach to a junction, pedestrian crossing, pedestrian refuge and certainly not if the intend to turn left.
It refers to the 1.5m rule in respect of overtaking but fails to mention that applies at speeds of up to 30 mph and that more space should be allowed when cycling at higher speeds. I also don't know where this 'maintain a steady course' guff has come from. Especially given this excerpt from HC Rule 67:
I am not sure where the rules and regulations come from in the section "Are cyclists allowed to ride on dual carriageways?".
All in all, awful.
https://www.admiral.com/magazine/gu...erstanding-the-rules-for-cyclists-and-drivers
The usual stuff is there about hi-viz and cycle helmets. I think the advice to drivers overtaking cyclists is woeful - it should recommend that drivers should not overtake on approach to a junction, pedestrian crossing, pedestrian refuge and certainly not if the intend to turn left.
It refers to the 1.5m rule in respect of overtaking but fails to mention that applies at speeds of up to 30 mph and that more space should be allowed when cycling at higher speeds. I also don't know where this 'maintain a steady course' guff has come from. Especially given this excerpt from HC Rule 67:
I am not sure where the rules and regulations come from in the section "Are cyclists allowed to ride on dual carriageways?".
All in all, awful.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
Really?
Why do you think it "awful".
There is little in it to disagree with, and it almost all follows what is said in the Highway Code.
Not perfect, but IMO pretty good overall.
OP
OP
PedallingNowhereSlowly
Senior Member
It's an article on sharing the road aimed at drivers and cyclists.
It conveys nothing to drivers about what cyclists have to contend with, nor vice versa.
It should advise drivers why it's important to leave space when overtaking. It should explain why a cyclist might not maintain a straight line, instead of insisting they do.
It shouldn't just quote the highway code, that riding side by side may be safer, it should explain why. Same IRO not using cycle lanes.
It should not infer wearing a cycle helmet is mandatory for riding on a dual carriageway.
It goes to great lengths to point out what is, and what is not legal on a bike (carrying passengers) and what offences cyclists may commit - mentions nothing of the sort for drivers. The bias is clear.
If I were to write such an article, I would talk about the importance of observation as that's the biggest problem for cyclists and drivers alike when sharing the road. Failure to look properly is the leading contributory factor to accidents involving cyclists and drivers whether it is the driver or cyclist at fault.
I would also seek to humanise both modes of transport, and perhaps also draw on why more people cycling is beneficial for everyone, drivers included.
It conveys nothing to drivers about what cyclists have to contend with, nor vice versa.
It should advise drivers why it's important to leave space when overtaking. It should explain why a cyclist might not maintain a straight line, instead of insisting they do.
It shouldn't just quote the highway code, that riding side by side may be safer, it should explain why. Same IRO not using cycle lanes.
It should not infer wearing a cycle helmet is mandatory for riding on a dual carriageway.
It goes to great lengths to point out what is, and what is not legal on a bike (carrying passengers) and what offences cyclists may commit - mentions nothing of the sort for drivers. The bias is clear.
If I were to write such an article, I would talk about the importance of observation as that's the biggest problem for cyclists and drivers alike when sharing the road. Failure to look properly is the leading contributory factor to accidents involving cyclists and drivers whether it is the driver or cyclist at fault.
I would also seek to humanise both modes of transport, and perhaps also draw on why more people cycling is beneficial for everyone, drivers included.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
Cripes, how often are you falling off your bike?
Bristolian
Senior Member
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Whilst I agree that the article is not perfect it is better than nothing. But, as I doubt many Admiral car drivers will read it or take any notice it's not worth pointing out the inconsistencies or factual failings to the author.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
More often than I would like, but still not all that often.
I had two either side of Christmas, none since then, and before that would have been around May or June last year.
