Northumbria police initiative.....

[Markymark]

The fecking inconsiderate pavement cyclist I have posted about are more than an irritation. They are a very real danger and far far too common.

Where are the hospitals hiding all the injured people from cyclists then?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The fecking inconsiderate pavement cyclist I have posted about are more than an irritation. They are a very real danger and far far too common.

I get that when you're in a scary near miss with a cyclist it really upsets you, you're not alone in that experience. But when you look at it in the context of road danger reduction, the focus surely has to be on the most prevalent, and lethal, of danger bringers.

 

[mjr]

If only. KSI rates are about 25,000 per year. The 1,700 is just the 'killed' rate.

Sorry - I misread the newspaper quote. Still important to mention the numbers because they're lower than many think.

 

[spen666]

If only. KSI rates are about 25,000 per year. The 1,700 is just the 'killed' rate.

When looking at fatalities, cyclists are about 6%, motorcyclists about 21% and pedestrians about 24%.

the other 49% are motorists? If so, a much higher % than are seriously injured

 

[jefmcg]

In the past few days.

.... approximately 20 people have been killed by motor vehicles across the UK.

 

[jefmcg]

the other 49% are motorists? If so, a much higher % than are seriously injured

Makes sense. It's easy to be seriously injured (eg broken bone, concussion or hospital admission) on a bike or as a pedestrian. But the sort of lower speed accidents that might result in a serious injury for a vehicle occupant, they would be completely protected by the seatbelt and the safety features of the car. They are only going to get a serious injury if the accident occurs with such force as to defeat those safety features, eg a high speed collision, which would be one where the risk of death was also greater.

Eg I was in a single-cycle accident where I broke my clavicle. It's hard to imagine a car accident where you get one broken bone.

P.S. Don't you just love local newspapers? Puppy rescued from burning building in Berwick - but no picture of the puppy

 

[crazyjoe101]

Yeah, cos a cyclist riding with no lights at night is going to cause far more damage than a car at night with no lights, so cyclists should short themselves out first.

I don't see why cyclists shouldn't sort themselves out, yes motorists cause much more damage when they are involved in a collision but that's really no reason why cyclists shouldn't cycle responsibly - because they won't damage anything too much.
Anecdotally of course - of the road users I see on my commute, cyclists tend to have the highest % of people doing dodgy manoeuvres or having no lights on at night. Yes cyclists have far less of an impact on others if anything goes wrong but it still needs to change because everyone gets tarnished with the same brush, when someone sees me on my bicycle they know I am more likely to jump a red light simply because I'm riding a bike and that is annoying as someone who rides reasonably well.

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 4717148, member: 9609"]and if we give average occupants of motor vehicles as 1.5[/QUOTE]
I'd assume that the occupancy rate was already taken into account in the number.

(I could be mistaken. Apologies if you know better)

 

[Spinney]

I don't see why cyclists shouldn't sort themselves out, yes motorists cause much more damage when they are involved in a collision but that's really no reason why cyclists shouldn't cycle responsibly - because they won't damage anything too much.
Anecdotally of course - of the road users I see on my commute, cyclists tend to have the highest % of people doing dodgy manoeuvres or having no lights on at night. Yes cyclists have far less of an impact on others if anything goes wrong but it still needs to change because everyone gets tarnished with the same brush, when someone sees me on my bicycle they know I am more likely to jump a red light simply because I'm riding a bike and that is annoying as someone who rides reasonably well.

Not saying they shouldn't, but the post I was responding to seemed, to me, to imply that it was as important for cyclists to sort themselves out as motorists. I agree with you that some motorists seem to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

 

[mjr]

[…] when someone sees me on my bicycle they know I am more likely to jump a red light simply because I'm riding a bike and that is annoying as someone who rides reasonably well.

Not only annoying but false. When people have surveyed it, motorists have been more likely to jump reds. Anecdotally, I now see it so often, it's pretty astonishing - if they can't see another motorist, they just leave their foot down, long after the red's showing, and screw any cyclists or people crossing.

 

[crazyjoe101]

Not only annoying but false. When people have surveyed it, motorists have been more likely to jump reds. Anecdotally, I now see it so often, it's pretty astonishing - if they can't see another motorist, they just leave their foot down, long after the red's showing, and screw any cyclists or people crossing.

That is surprising because I see a cyclist go through a red nearly every day on my commute but drivers are normally just gambling ambers, I'm not sure if those are included or not. I have seen plenty of RLJ from drivers but I see a cyclist do it every day if I'm out.

 

[mjr]

That is surprising because I see a cyclist go through a red nearly every day on my commute but drivers are normally just gambling ambers, I'm not sure if those are included or not. I have seen plenty of RLJ from drivers but I see a cyclist do it every day if I'm out.

I think you should have a word with that cyclist

Most surveys don't count amber gamblers. I go past (mostly bypassing or immediate change) ten sets of lights on my 4½ miles to/from town and it's a rare day when no motorists jump red. Mostly just an amber gambler or two and then one or two through red, but some are as brazen as I described earlier. It's getting silly and we should have red light cameras to stop it.

 

[PK99]

I have one set of traffic lights when I take Jack to the park. You can guarantee at least one motorist will jump the red on each cycle.

Cars going through on the amber or just on the red are predictable and expected hazards, it should not be like that but it is. As a pedestrian, not crossing till cars have stopped is advisable.

What is not so predictable or acceptable, is cyclists passing stopped motor traffic and conflicting with pedestrians on their Green Man phase. There are a couple of local crossings where I find myself having to actively watch for cyclists coming up the inside of stopped traffic and going through the red light and across the crossing.

There is on particular crossing, that is at a road T junction, combined with Tram crossing parallel to the leg of the T. I fully expect to see a cyclist under a tram one day as I have seen a number go through, as I am on the crossing, and having to do hard stops to avoid a tram as it passes inches from their front wheel. One guy on his mobile had to do a one handed emergency stop.

 

[mjr]

Cars going through on the amber or just on the red are predictable and expected hazards, it should not be like that but it is. As a pedestrian, not crossing till cars have stopped is advisable.

What is not so predictable or acceptable, is cyclists passing stopped motor traffic and conflicting with pedestrians on their Green Man phase. [...]

That's not acceptable but (contrary to your implication) motorists jumping red isn't acceptable either and the growing number of "I see no other cars are coming so I'm gonna continue through that red at full speed" is scary.

I'm surprised that you've not seen any pass stopped motor traffic where it's easy for them to do so (multi-lane lights, mostly) and blast through a crossing green phase... but that's local variations for you. I've definitely seen more motorists blast through long-lit reds than cyclists jumping red in the last month, but (for a change) I've not ridden in London in that time

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I don't see why cyclists shouldn't sort themselves out,

As a collective group? No thanks, I'm already a responsible cyclist with no need to pay penance for the misdeeds of others in that group. I see hundreds of infractions every day by drivers but I don't hold any one of them (particularly the good ones) accountable for the actions of all the rest.

Anecdotally of course - of the road users I see on my commute, cyclists tend to have the highest % of people doing dodgy manoeuvres or having no lights on at night

My experience is the exact opposite - anecdotally of course - and I don't think Glasgow is worse than average for that sort of thing.

Yes cyclists have far less of an impact on others if anything goes wrong but it still needs to change because everyone gets tarnished with the same brush

By whom? Whoever they are need to have their misconception(s) challenged, not entertained or repeated.

I've had this at work when some blowhard (often a cyclist) goes on about a rider he saw doing something wrong and how it reflects badly on all cyclists. The observation that "he wasn't even wearing a helmet!" gets thrown in for good measure and I then have to explain that people are individuals with responsibility for themselves. When it comes to law-breaking, people who cycle are not one homogenous mass.

I have never yet heard anyone say of the bad, even dangerous, behaviour of any driver that it gives all drivers a bad name. It's bollocks.

This is a serious point because in the past we've had councillors and politicians express sympathy for the view that cycling infrastructure provision ought to be withheld until cyclists improve their behaviour. This is a stance reserved exclusively for cycling, no other transport mode would even be considered for such treatment. Can you imagine the reaction if anyone in authority suggested that all new road building or parking facility projects be mothballed until drivers 'sort themselves out'?

when someone sees me on my bicycle they know I am more likely to jump a red light simply because I'm riding a bike

Again, that is the prejudiced view of the observer and is neither your problem nor mine.