Worrying and a touch frightening

[Fram]

Tragically there's a very sad case locally where an 84 year old car driver with VERY poor eyesight hit and killed a local cyclist; currently a court case. I'm afraid there are certain things in life we have no control over and the benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers IMO.

 

[Wookee]

My job is part dealing with fatal collisions and engineering solutions to prevent them from re-occurring and part working with councils to introduce new road schemes. Most schemes these days are designed around cyclists and pedestrians, in fact that is about all they will get funding for. So things will be improving over time (in London at least).

There are far fewer cyclist serious injuries and fatalities than you might think and often it is something the cyclist has done, not a motor vehicle driver. I cycle for most of my work journeys and I always wear a helmet and some hi-viz and I never wear headphones. You can do what you want, that is a personal choice - I've just made my own choice based on what I've seen and read about at work. I ride defensively and often take a whole lane where it is the safest thing to do.

If you think about close passes; these happen all the time in cars as they very often squeeze past each other, it just feels (and is) more dangerous on a bike. I try to anticipate pinch points where this might happen in advance and move out to dominate the lane long before they get the chance to squeeze through, it can't always work and in those instances I just slow down to make it safer for everyone (mainly me!!).

what will make things safer for every cyclist is improved infrastructure and, more importantly, cyclists using that infrastructure!

 

[Drago]

As it stands, per journey mile it's more dangerous to ride on cycling specific infrastructure than the road (source: CUK, Pravda). I'll only use infrastructure where there is a benefit to using it, not when some cyclist hating home counties council simply wants us out the way of their chief executives Jag.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

.There are far fewer cyclist serious injuries and fatalities than you might think and often it is something the cyclist has done, not a motor vehicle driver.

Don't know where you get the idea it’s the cyclist fault. What source are you quoting for that assertion?

 

[Wookee]

Don't know where you get the idea it’s the cyclist fault. What source are you quoting for that assertion?

I am a Police officer in London. Part of my job is to look at fatal collisions and their contributory factors. I read the facts and not the assumptions, but am unable to say anything until any court or coroner's case is concluded. One from 2019.

 

[Wookee]

As it stands, per journey mile it's more dangerous to ride on cycling specific infrastructure than the road (source: CUK, Pravda). I'll only use infrastructure where there is a benefit to using it, not when some cyclist hating home counties council simply wants us out the way of their chief executives Jag.

It really does depend on how it is done. Waltham Forest are held up as the best example of cycle and walking infrastructure, but even they have changed the way they do it over the last couple of years. Instead of squeezing segregated cycleways into main roads they are now eliminating vehicle traffic on parallel roads to turn them over to pedestrians and cyclists (referred to as Quietways).

This works much better as the problem is when different road users come into conflict - which is why junctions are notoriously bad for collisions. So, if you remove/reduce the conflicts you remove/reduce collisions.

So when I saw some Covid knee-jerk reactions I really did wince. Case in point would be the Old Shoreham Road. If you look on casualty map you can see that it has lots of collisions at it's junctions - but almost none involving cyclists. Why? Well I would suggest that it is such a bad road that cyclists wouldn't go near it. So, the council take a lane away from the motorists and give it to the cyclists - but they still have to go through the same junctions! If you look at a map you can see that there is a perfectly good parallel road which offers a much better opportunity. Remove/reduce the traffic along there instead, and leave the motorists to sit in the traffic on the main road and not be able to rat-run past the residential homes.

 

[Tripster]

Good to hear and read positives. My post may not of explained very well. I was remarking on how many reports of cycling incidents on just the first few pages of this particular section and how worrying and frightening it is, how people will hit and run without a care etc.
As for personally been put off, that was not really what I meant (sorry I am rubbish at chat forums) I ride motorbikes and have since I was 16 (now 45) and know the risks but happily ride. I think it surprised me how many incidents but as a few have said, people are more likely to report the bad than the good

 

[mjr]

By the same score if the sun is low ahead or to the side switch a rear light on.

That's the opposite score! Reducing your contrast by lighting up into low sun seems a really dim idea to me.

 

[mjr]

As it stands, per journey mile it's more dangerous to ride on cycling specific infrastructure than the road (source: CUK, Pravda).

Oh what a surprise that there's no real source to back that up(!)

Agree that we should only have to use the decent bits, though.

 

[mjr]

I am a Police officer in London. Part of my job is to look at fatal collisions and their contributory factors. I read the facts and not the assumptions, but am unable to say anything until any court or coroner's case is concluded. One from 2019.

Your view contradicts national analyses such as https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

Maybe it's just where you work?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I am a Police officer in London. Part of my job is to look at fatal collisions and their contributory factors. I read the facts and not the assumptions, but am unable to say anything until any court or coroner's case is concluded. One from 2019.

So anecdote from the limited data you will see. The published data says drivers are responsible about 70% of the time.

 

[Mike_P]

That's the opposite score! Reducing your contrast by lighting up into low sun seems a really dim idea to me.

If it's low it's going to be in drivers eyes and you need to increase your visibility

 

[hatler]

London is a very different cycling environment to much of the rest of the country.

 

[Wookee]

Your view contradicts national analyses such as https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

Maybe it's just where you work?

That's an interesting and quite specific bit of analysis there in that it says for over 25's and in collisions with vehicles. It is also from 2012 and it says wholly or partly to blame, so that would mean that there was some amount of blame on the cyclist in some of the cases. To give an extreme example of a lorry turning left and killing a cyclist this could be recorded as both 'failed to look properly', therefore the lorry driver is held partly to blame and would be included in those stats. In fact, when you look at the graph for all ages the drivers and the cyclists are about even.... so my statement of cyclists often being at fault would be supported by that. Also bear in mind that those stats don't include cases like the one I linked to as no vehicle was involved.

The law says that all injury collisions must be reported to the Police and as is the case more and more these end up being self reported by the injured party, they do it online and there is very little, if any, police involvement. For those that do have an officer attend then it is that reporting officers' opinion that is recorded as the contributory factors. In the modern police service, about 10-15% of new recruits don't have a driving licence yet these are the ones who will be reporting collisions and giving their opinion on the contributory factors. Do you think that in either of these scenarios the contributory factors are going to be very accurate?

In the case of a fatal, or extremely serious injury, collision there is a very detailed investigation and a report from a Forensic Collision Investigator who is an expert. This investigation produces data that can be deemed as accurate, so any contributory factors recorded for these collisions can be relied upon. This is why it is the only data I use when looking at collisions and trying to prevent them from occurring again.

 

[classic33]

That's an interesting and quite specific bit of analysis there in that it says for over 25's and in collisions with vehicles. It is also from 2012 and it says wholly or partly to blame, so that would mean that there was some amount of blame on the cyclist in some of the cases. To give an extreme example of a lorry turning left and killing a cyclist this could be recorded as both 'failed to look properly', therefore the lorry driver is held partly to blame and would be included in those stats. In fact, when you look at the graph for all ages the drivers and the cyclists are about even.... so my statement of cyclists often being at fault would be supported by that. Also bear in mind that those stats don't include cases like the one I linked to as no vehicle was involved.

The law says that all injury collisions must be reported to the Police and as is the case more and more these end up being self reported by the injured party, they do it online and there is very little, if any, police involvement. For those that do have an officer attend then it is that reporting officers' opinion that is recorded as the contributory factors. In the modern police service, about 10-15% of new recruits don't have a driving licence yet these are the ones who will be reporting collisions and giving their opinion on the contributory factors. Do you think that in either of these scenarios the contributory factors are going to be very accurate?

In the case of a fatal, or extremely serious injury, collision there is a very detailed investigation and a report from a Forensic Collision Investigator who is an expert. This investigation produces data that can be deemed as accurate, so any contributory factors recorded for these collisions can be relied upon. This is why it is the only data I use when looking at collisions and trying to prevent them from occurring again.

Which police force do you work for?

Cyclist RTC's/RTA's are seldom investigated to the same level as those in which a motor vehicle is involved. Especially when it's the only vehicle involved.