Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
hornetrider said:
No it doesn't. At least, not until you have the raw numbers. Percentages don't tell you anything as the 0-15 could be 10 accidents, and 16-24 could be 10,000 accidents.
Speedy11 said:
Which is what I said, you can make the data say anything you want.
What I said was correct, cyclists equally share the blame. It is also correct to say cyclists above 25 and over are less likely to be at fault.
I always said adult cyclists.What I said was correct, cyclists equally share the blame. It is also correct to say cyclists above 25 and over are less likely to be at fault.
Would we agree with blame criteria? For example, if a cyclists rides down the nearside of a large vehicle and is then injured when it turns right, who is blamed?
I suspect that the driver will be in many cases, but feel strongly that it would be the cyclist who was principally to blame.
In this type of accident the cyclist is only blameless where they were overtaken by a vehicle which then turned right. It sounds ridiculous, but I suspect that it still happens a good deal.
I suspect that the driver will be in many cases, but feel strongly that it would be the cyclist who was principally to blame.
In this type of accident the cyclist is only blameless where they were overtaken by a vehicle which then turned right. It sounds ridiculous, but I suspect that it still happens a good deal.
v12Legs said:
I always said adult cyclists.
It could still be thus - I'd count 16-24 as adults. If they are by number a larger portion than the older age groups then you're incorrect. Give us the raw numbers which may well prove your argument. Not that it matters as it is somewhat arbitrary.hornetrider said:
v12Legs said:
I always said adult cyclists.
It could still be thus - I'd count 16-24 as adults. If they are by number a larger portion than the older age groups then you're incorrect. Give us the raw numbers which may well prove your argument. Not that it matters as it is somewhat arbitrary.hornetrider said:
No it doesn't. At least, not until you have the raw numbers. Percentages don't tell you anything as the 0-15 could be 10 accidents, and 16-24 could be 10,000 accidents.
From the same report, 15% of the total are the 16-24 age range compared to 63% for all other adults.
I've been trying to crunch the STATS19 figures for myself, but the contributory factors are not publicly available as part of that dataset, as it has a row for each collision, so in theory you could use the information to identify individuals, which would breach the DPA.
So the issue I have is that the summary ONS data doesn't give me what I need.
I can see how many and what percentage vehicles are assigned a contributory factor, but not how that is split in multi-vehicle collisions.
So the only thing I have to go on is the TRL report that summarises to percentage, the graphs of which I embedded above.
The only thing I can do is to add in the percentage that makes up each age band, to see whether the ones that show higher fault for the cyclist contain more cyclists in the first place. That's the table embedded above.
I'd love to get my hands on the raw data, but until then we have to draw our conclusions based on the report we have. And that is pretty clear, that for adult cyclists the driver is overwhelmingly to blame for collisions.
Edited by v12Legs on Tuesday 3rd February 15:47
Why do the stats not then reduce, when at least half of the kids (probably much more) would have hung up their handlebars by 18 and bought a motor vehicle/started using public transport?
As people supposedly get more mature and sensible as they become adults, why are they at least twice as likely to be in an accident?
Or, has that sudden drop in usage been disguised under the 16-19 category.
As people supposedly get more mature and sensible as they become adults, why are they at least twice as likely to be in an accident?
Or, has that sudden drop in usage been disguised under the 16-19 category.
Hol said:
Why do the stats not then reduce, when at least half of the kids (probably much more) would have hung up their handlebars by 18 and bought a motor vehicle/started using public transport?
As people supposedly get more mature and sensible as they become adults, why are they at least twice as likely to be in an accident?
Or, has that sudden drop in usage been disguised under the 16-19 category.
It's percentage of cyclists in a KSI, not percentage of all people.As people supposedly get more mature and sensible as they become adults, why are they at least twice as likely to be in an accident?
Or, has that sudden drop in usage been disguised under the 16-19 category.
Magog said:
okgo said:
Running red lights has resulted in almost no fatal accidents from the figures I last saw. Not saying its right but its an irrelevance, the issue is people getting run over by trucks as they're not fit to be on the tight streets of London with the lack of safety features they have, and of course cyclists awareness is often not up to scratch either.
Also the stupidly relaxed laws on running over and killing someone on a bike, i.e. you'll likely get off with nothing more than a few hours of wasted time in the station means not a lot will change I guess.
Agree with all the above, cyclists in London seem to be able to interact with nearly all vehicles from motorbikes to articulated lorries without dying. It's almost exclusively skip and tipper lorries that are killing cyclists.Also the stupidly relaxed laws on running over and killing someone on a bike, i.e. you'll likely get off with nothing more than a few hours of wasted time in the station means not a lot will change I guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-311077...
Different type of tipper
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/second-cycli...
Turning left accident again
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 3rd February 20:27
edgyedgy said:
you can clearly see signage on rear of truck saying not get too close.very sad still.
Why instinctively blame the cyclist? I've seen dozens of left hooks, or near left hooks. Occasionally you met a driver who assumes that anyone he's just overtaken instantly disassembles into their constituent atoms.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZCS3FLgYWM
walm said:
St John Smythe said:
This always seems to happen to cyclists who think it's a good idea to go up the inside on lorries.
Maybe it is the lorries left hooking the cyclists?In this particular case, we have no idea.
Ahimoth said:
That one's been posted before. If it wasnt for the cycle lane the cyclist looks as though they're going to follow the road around to the left until they start drifting to the right, no signals. Luckily the truck kept an eye on them or it could have been worse. The truck driver got fined. Someone said the junction's been changed now. There are usually 3 parties involved.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff