Another cyclist dies in London

[giantdefy]

fangio said:

Why don't ALL cyclists use the footpaths, instead of just MOST of them?

Schrödinger's Cyclist - They are all on the pavement - They are all cluttering up the roads

[saaby93]

Mr Will said:

83% of cyclists hold a current driving licence. You actually are more likely to encounter an uninsured driver than a cyclist who hasn't passed their driving test.

But never mind - carry on the ranting based on nothing but your personal prejudice.

He's not the only one available to be accused of using personal prejudice
Anyway 17% of drivers are uninsured?
What percentage or the non driving licence cyclists, are involved in the cycling deaths in London

[Mr Will]

saaby93 said:

Mr Will said:

83% of cyclists hold a current driving licence. You actually are more likely to encounter an uninsured driver than a cyclist who hasn't passed their driving test.

But never mind - carry on the ranting based on nothing but your personal prejudice.

He's not the only one available to be accused of using personal preudice
Anyway 17% of drivers are uninsured?

~1.4 million uninsured drivers in the UK vs ~867,000 cyclists who don't have driving licences. I'll leave it to you to decide which is the bigger issue.

[Mr Will]

saaby93 said:

What percentage or the non driving licence cyclists, are involved in the cycling deaths in London

It's a good question, and one I cannot find any numbers for. What I can tell you though is that the substantially majority of the people at fault in the collisions were legally required to have a licence, because they were driving a motor vehicle at the time.

By way of contrast, less than 2% of cyclist KSI collisions are due to risky cycling (DfT figures via the Police records).

[Vipers]

Just thinking here, how many motorised vehicles are involved in accidents with other motorised vehicles in London v cyclists for the same period of time.

But as most motorised accidents rarely result in fatalities, whereas cyclists do, is the percentage of cyclist accidents higher or lower.

Obviously a cyclist being injured or killed makes the headlines. A car shunting another car doesn't.

[Mr Will]

Vipers said:

Just thinking here, how many motorised vehicles are involved in accidents with other motorised vehicles in London v cyclists for the same period of time.

But as most motorised accidents rarely result in fatalities, whereas cyclists do, is the percentage of cyclist accidents higher or lower.

Obviously a cyclist being injured or killed makes the headlines. A car shunting another car doesn't.

The really interesting one here is pedestrians. They are killed and injured at very similar rates (per mile and per hour) to cyclists yet we don't hear about it in the same way. I think it's a combination of cycling being a hot topic right now, plus the number of casualties being just low enough that it doesn't oversaturate the media. That's just my guess though.

[Vipers]

Mr Will said:

Vipers said:

Just thinking here, how many motorised vehicles are involved in accidents with other motorised vehicles in London v cyclists for the same period of time.

But as most motorised accidents rarely result in fatalities, whereas cyclists do, is the percentage of cyclist accidents higher or lower.

Obviously a cyclist being injured or killed makes the headlines. A car shunting another car doesn't.

The really interesting one here is pedestrians. They are killed and injured at very similar rates (per mile and per hour) to cyclists yet we don't hear about it in the same way. I think it's a combination of cycling being a hot topic right now, plus the number of casualties being just low enough that it doesn't oversaturate the media. That's just my guess though.

I am not surprised about pedestrians, most cross when their light shows green, most don't even glance at the traffic, very common to see some still on the phone as they cross.

I even check when crossing a one way street, seen a few coming the wrong way before now.

[Mr Will]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Based on a lot of the driving that I see, it doesn't mean they have the appropriate skills to operate a motor-vehicle either but that's an argument for another thread!

[saaby93]

Ok if we agree there are poor cyclists and poor drivers

Mr Will said:

It's a good question, and one I cannot find any numbers for. What I can tell you though is that the substantially majority of the people at fault in the collisions were legally required to have a licence, because they were driving a motor vehicle at the time.

By way of contrast, less than 2% of cyclist KSI collisions are due to risky cycling (DfT figures via the Police records).

That may be so but it wasn't it approx 50:50 (45:55?) cyclist error vs driver error

About umpteen pages back we were talking about some of things that could reduce these collisions
Holding station in traffic, avoid undertaking, removing ASLs all to improve bike and car behaviour
Have we moved on?

[Digby]

Mr Will said:

83% of cyclists hold a current driving licence. You actually are more likely to encounter an uninsured driver than a cyclist who hasn't passed their driving test.

But never mind - carry on the ranting based on nothing but your personal prejudice.

I have no clue what that has to do with wanting to share roads with riders who are more aware of the dangers and subsequently are less likely to get squashed.

I also have no clue why anyone who does cycle would look for excuses and stats etc to use as ammunition to counter my suggestion.

There may not be many cyclists killed, but there are a lot of narrowly avoided collisions that should never have developed in the first place.

As for ranting on about personal prejudice, you couldn't be more wrong. I have a very real fear of killing someone during my working day and I would like the chances of that happening to be a great deal lower. That makes me prejudice?

[Mr Will]

Digby said:

Mr Will said:

83% of cyclists hold a current driving licence. You actually are more likely to encounter an uninsured driver than a cyclist who hasn't passed their driving test.

But never mind - carry on the ranting based on nothing but your personal prejudice.

I have no clue what that has to do with wanting to share roads with riders who are more aware of the dangers and subsequently are less likely to get squashed.

I also have no clue why anyone who does cycle would look for excuses and stats etc to use as ammunition to counter my suggestion.

There may not be many cyclists killed, but there are a lot of narrowly avoided collisions that should never have developed in the first place.

As for ranting on about personal prejudice, you couldn't be more wrong. I have a very real fear of killing someone during my working day and I would like the chances of that happening to be a great deal lower. That makes me prejudice?

I want to share the road with drivers who are more aware of the dangers and subsequently are less likely to squash me. I already do everything I can to take care of myself. I'd like you (and all the other drivers) to do the same.

The police figures state that the driver is at fault in between 60 and 75 percent of collisions involving a cyclist. Seeking to divert blame on to cyclists with statements like "they don't have licences", " they need more training" is not the solution to this problem. There are many, many terrible and illegal road users out there. Why focus on cyclists when they are rarely the danger?

Since I'm guessing from your comments that you are a truck driver, so defend this to me: During a recent police crackdown, 70% of lorries in London were found to be illegal. That includes mechanical defects, missing safety equipment, unlicensed drivers and drivers working over their legal hours. *

Perhaps if you're worried about killing someone, the cause is closer to home.

* source for these figures is the metropolitan police, via the times: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/a...

[Mr Will]

saaby93 said:

That may be so but it wasn't it approx 50:50 (45:55?) cyclist error vs driver error

Police figures are that the driver is at fault in between 60 and 75 percent of collisions. I've no idea why they quote that slightly strange range, but that's the figure they give.

saaby93 said:

About umpteen pages back we were talking about some of things that could reduce these collisions
Holding station in traffic, avoid undertaking, removing ASLs all to improve bike and car behaviour
Have we moved on?

Nope, these arguments just go round and round in circles until someone kicks off a new thread and we start again from the beginning

[George111]

Mr Will said:

Digby said:

Mr Will said:

83% of cyclists hold a current driving licence. You actually are more likely to encounter an uninsured driver than a cyclist who hasn't passed their driving test.

But never mind - carry on the ranting based on nothing but your personal prejudice.

I have no clue what that has to do with wanting to share roads with riders who are more aware of the dangers and subsequently are less likely to get squashed.

I also have no clue why anyone who does cycle would look for excuses and stats etc to use as ammunition to counter my suggestion.

There may not be many cyclists killed, but there are a lot of narrowly avoided collisions that should never have developed in the first place.

As for ranting on about personal prejudice, you couldn't be more wrong. I have a very real fear of killing someone during my working day and I would like the chances of that happening to be a great deal lower. That makes me prejudice?

I want to share the road with drivers who are more aware of the dangers and subsequently are less likely to squash me. I already do everything I can to take care of myself. I'd like you (and all the other drivers) to do the same.

The police figures state that the driver is at fault in between 60 and 75 percent of collisions involving a cyclist. Seeking to divert blame on to cyclists with statements like "they don't have licences", " they need more training" is not the solution to this problem. There are many, many terrible and illegal road users out there. Why focus on cyclists when they are rarely the danger?

Since I'm guessing from your comments that you are a truck driver, so defend this to me: During a recent police crackdown, 70% of lorries in London were found to be illegal. That includes mechanical defects, missing safety equipment, unlicensed drivers and drivers working over their legal hours. *

Perhaps if you're worried about killing someone, the cause is closer to home.

* source for these figures is the metropolitan police, via the times: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/a...

A lot of the 70% are technical infringements - nothing to to with the driver not having a driving license or the vehicle being unsafe.

The Police also class the driver of a vehicle as being at fault if he could have seen that the cyclist was there. So the lorry driver doesn't have to actually do anything wrong - the fact that the cyclist was there and the driver might have been able to see that if he peered over the end of his door, means he's part of your 60%-75%. A bit like the one third lie - one third of all accidents are caused by speed . . . they're not but you can attribute most accidents to the fact a vehicle was moving so therefore speed was a contributory factor as if it wasn't moving (speed=0) there would be no accident.

[Mr Will]

George111 said:

A lot of the 70% are technical infringements - nothing to to with the driver not having a driving license or the vehicle being unsafe.

Oh, some of them were only breaking the law a little bit - so that's all right then

George111 said:

The Police also class the driver of a vehicle as being at fault if he could have seen that the cyclist was there. So the lorry driver doesn't have to actually do anything wrong - the fact that the cyclist was there and the driver might have been able to see that if he peered over the end of his door, means he's part of your 60%-75%. A bit like the one third lie - one third of all accidents are caused by speed . . . they're not but you can attribute most accidents to the fact a vehicle was moving so therefore speed was a contributory factor as if it wasn't moving (speed=0) there would be no accident.

I'd class driving over another vehicle because you didn't look properly as "doing something wrong" but hey, I guess we all have different standards. It's not like correct use of mirrors is part of the driving test or anything.

[George111]

Mr Will said:

George111 said:

A lot of the 70% are technical infringements - nothing to to with the driver not having a driving license or the vehicle being unsafe.

Oh, some of them were only breaking the law a little bit - so that's all right then

George111 said:

The Police also class the driver of a vehicle as being at fault if he could have seen that the cyclist was there. So the lorry driver doesn't have to actually do anything wrong - the fact that the cyclist was there and the driver might have been able to see that if he peered over the end of his door, means he's part of your 60%-75%. A bit like the one third lie - one third of all accidents are caused by speed . . . they're not but you can attribute most accidents to the fact a vehicle was moving so therefore speed was a contributory factor as if it wasn't moving (speed=0) there would be no accident.

I'd class driving over another vehicle because you didn't look properly as "doing something wrong" but hey, I guess we all have different standards. It's not like correct use of mirrors is part of the driving test or anything.

I might be breaking the law by not having a TV license but it doesn't affect my driving - same with those lorries. Some infringements were to do with waste transfer licenses - something the drivers are probably not even aware of or involved in if they work for a company.

They do use mirrors, but as you must be aware by now, not all cyclists will appear in a mirror - so it doesn't mean that all these 60% to 75% of lorries just drove over a cyclist because they felt like it. There's a lot more to it than that but the stats don't show it because they're too simple as I explained above.

[Digby]

Mr Will said:

Oh, some of them were only breaking the law a little bit - so that's all right then

It's not at all hard to end up on that list regardless of how hard you try. Tachograph hours are a genuine nightmare to keep on the legal sisde of during city driving. You can spend 300 days on the road during a year and be ONE SECOND over a break requirement on just one of those days and you will make that list.

One bulb just popped out of twenty? You are on the list.

Didn't get the required mirror fitted by the time the changes came in to force? On the list.

Load security almost always points to the easy target scaffold trucks, but can also relate to changes to strapping requirements etc. One tiny fraying edge on one strap out of twenty? On the list.

Light items unstrapped but behind curtains? On the list.

Rear spray suppression mud flap a little too high or low? Mechanical defect. On the list.

We were told numerous times that the Vosa of old is now privately funded and that we could expect massive increases in fines.

As an example, I was recently fined £50 for forgetting to write a single world on a tacho (I was broken down for three hours and forgot to write where this had happened) and was given a verbal warning and let off £600 worth of fines for not showing a break during a swap from a digi card to a disc (even though they said they could see I had my break) and for not writing the circumstances of my break down on the rear of a tacho.

Hardly crimes of the century, but I would be well and truly on top of that list. During my brief chat with the cash-hungry people checking to make sure dozens upon dozens of daily rules and checks were all in order (and from the previous 28 driving days before this), I was told foreign drivers still display the worst abuse.

No haulage firm wants to lose their operators licence and to keep it, you have to jump through an ever increasing and expensive amount of hoops, have ongoing training and even more safety items fitted to vehicles.

If the same people doing these checks were put in charge of checking cycles and cyclist safety equipment etc, you could fill these forums with shocking tales for months.


As for the problem being closer to home, I'm afraid you are yet again making excuses for not wanting more aware and safer riders on the roads. I can, yet again if you wish, list all I have been through and all my vehicle has been through for the specific reason of cycle safety. If I do, maybe you can then list all the things the average cyclist has to go through to be made more aware of me. Deal?

Mr Will said:

I'd class driving over another vehicle because you didn't look properly as "doing something wrong" but hey, I guess we all have different standards. It's not like correct use of mirrors is part of the driving test or anything.

Do you know how long it takes to check six or seven mirrors and cameras? Do you realise it is almost impossible to keep track of a dozen + cyclists in those mirrors? You can easily lose track of one! Every time you check another mirror, the enviroment can have completely changed in the previous ones. Your opinion, I'm afraid, shows total naivety on your part.

There are several hundred riders out there right now completely unaware that they were extremely lucky not to be injured by my vehicle. I did all I could and they did nothing but get impatient, or were ignorant of the dangers. It's that simple.

Edited by Digby on Wednesday 1st June 13:08

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

I also have no clue why anyone who does cycle would look for excuses and stats etc to use as ammunition to counter my suggestion.

It's very easy to answer. Any restrictions on cyclists results in fewer cyclists, and research has shown that the more cyclists there are the safer they are.

More cyclists means more safety, fewer cars, less pollution, fewer casualties etc etc.
You're campaigning for the opposite of this.

[walm]

Digby said:

I'm afraid you are yet again making excuses for not wanting more aware and safer riders on the roads. I can, yet again if you wish, list all I have been through and all my vehicle has been through for the specific reason of cycle safety. If I do, maybe you can then list all the things the average cyclist has to go through to be made more aware of me. Deal?

Once again you are asking for some bizarre symmetry which is totally idiotic.
A cyclist doesn't need to be "more aware" of something the size of a house and more noisy than an Aerosmith concert.
But guess what - an HGV driver might need some help spotting a tiny silent thing.

And of course if it were possible to drop training and experience into every cyclists' brain for free, I am sure we would all want it.
Sadly in a world of limited resources we have to PRIORITISE.
We want more aware and safer riders on the road but that costs money, needs infrastructure and takes time.
Perhaps it would be quicker, cheaper and easier to force haulage companies to train their drivers?

Endlessly repeating "training is good, we must have it" simply suggests you haven't considered all the options.
In particular, you are naturally biased to your own situation.
You don't want to run down cyclists YOURSELF so you would like them to steer clear of you. Fair enough.
But perhaps we need to look at what is actually killing cyclists and determine what the best course might be in aggregate and most efficiently, not just from one perspective with no cost consideration.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

It's very easy to answer. Any restrictions on cyclists results in fewer cyclists, and research has shown that the more cyclists there are the safer they are.

More cyclists means more safety, fewer cars, less pollution, fewer casualties etc etc.
You're campaigning for the opposite of this.

Given the restrictions and expense placed on those wishing to use a car, truck, bus, motorcycle, why are there still millions of those in use?

And given many cyclists drive, why would they jump through so many hoops to use a car etc, but not jump through even a tiny and possibly free hoop to enjoy riding on city streets?

I'm campaigning to save lives, nothing more. You, like others, are simply making excuses because you don't want to have to be involved in what is required to make that happen.

[Digby]

walm said:

A cyclist doesn't need to be "more aware" of something the size of a house and more noisy than an Aerosmith concert.

You do realise that there have been numerous courses and free demonstrations etc to make cyclists "more aware"?

They were operated and run (and still run) by those who have a far greater understanding of what cyclists need to be aware of than you obviously do.

Or how about the Transport For London operated cycle courses?

They include:

Basic cycle skills

Urban cycle skills

Advanced cycle skills

Family cycle skills

It also includes..

"The Bikeability scheme rewards youngsters for taking part in cycle training. They can work their way through the following three levels as they move from primary to secondary school"

Level 1: Learn to control your bike in a safe, off-road environment
Level 2: Cycle safely on the road with other traffic on quieter roads
Level 3: Cycle on busier roads and manage complex junctions in London

They obviously think there is a very real reason to have some form of training and I agree. If only the parents of those children who regularly try to pop themselves under my wheels could see it..

Again, for whatever reason, you are simply making excuses.

Edited by Digby on Wednesday 1st June 13:49