Another cyclist dies in London

[Europa1]

SteveSteveson said:

walm said:

10kgs that struggles to get to 20mph.

Pah. Speak for yourself

Seriously though, I do think that lack of understanding of road rules is an issue for cyclists in some areas. You see it in Oxford all the time. Students who have never driven, do not hold a driving license and may have never been on a road in the UK before are suddenly let loose. There are many people who don't know the rules of the road at all and cycle. Equally however there seem to be, both from the road and from reading here, many drivers who don't know the rules of the road, possibly because in many cases they learned what they needed to know in the highway code for a driving test many years ago.

Something needs to be done to improve peoples knowledge all round. We need a sensible discussion without the mud slinging and stupid comments of "You don't pay road tax" or "Cyclists are not a danger to anyone".

Agree on all counts.

Well actually, these days I might struggle to hit 20mph on my trusty steed, but the point about lack of understanding of road rules certainly applies in the light blue city as well.

I also agree that people need to come out of the trenches and have a calm, sensible dialogue.

[GadgeS3C]

gazza285 said:

Yet more motorcyclists are killed in London than cyclists, and the KSI numbers are higher as well. Why is that after all that training?

Speed kills?

[walm]

FourWheelDrift said:

You understand there is a theory test as well for drivers. Education is cheap.

It isn't cheap compared to FREE.
Administering any kind of test for millions of people simply isn't cheap.

[v12Legs]

Europa1 said:

v12Legs said:

Mr2Mike said:

v12Legs said:

My view is that the majority of cyclists are already only too well aware of how vulnerable they are, and most of us do everything possible to keep ourselves safe. Obviously there are some crap and inattentive cyclists, but I see no evidence that there are more cyclists in that category than drivers. Same humans, after all.

I don't think most of you do though or at best not a particularly large majority. Some do certainly, but since there is no minimum standard of competence required to ride a bike, any idiot can jump on one and go and play in the traffic. Sadly it appears that a considerable number of idiots do.

Motorcyclists have to take compulsory basic training before being allowed on a road, and cyclists are more vulnerable in many ways.

And yet, as already established, it is the driver at sole fault in the overwhelming majority of collisions.
You personal anecdotes don't trump the evidence, however much you'd like them to.

Other than the collisions in other surveys:

‘cyclist failed to look properly’ was attributed to the
cyclist in 43% of all serious collisions.

and

The second most common contributory factor
attributed to cyclists was ‘cyclist entering the road
from the pavement’. This was assigned in a fifth
of serious collisions and was especially common
for children (over a third of serious collisions).

Have you got a link to that, as it runs counter to the well established evidence I posted earlier?
I can only think that that percentage is of the subset of collisions that were wholly or partly the fault of the cyclist in the first place.

[v12Legs]

FourWheelDrift said:

We are not talking about drivers, we are talking about cyclists who have no road knowledge, they do not know what road signs mean, red lights, being seen properly at night. From my own experience what side of the road they should be on, who they should be giving way to, giving hand signals when making a turn, white line markings on the road and what they mean.

As I have said before you would not let someone drive on the roads without passing a test, so why allow cyclists? Answer that instead of changing the subject.

I already have, but walm put it better than me.

walm said:

It's so blindingly obvious it doesn't really require an answer but here's 7.

1. Bikes weigh very little.
2. Bikes are very slow.
Hence 3. Bikes don't damage other people or property very much.
4. They are cheap.
5. They are healthy.
6. They reduce congestion.
7. No test = no admin. Admin costs money. Bicycles aren't really much of a menace on the road (no matter how much PH want them to be) so that money is far better spent trying to stop people drink driving say.

Letting someone out with say 300bhp in a tonne of steel that can go 150mph is a very different risk proposition to 10kgs that struggles to get to 20mph.

[FourWheelDrift]

walm said:

FourWheelDrift said:

You understand there is a theory test as well for drivers. Education is cheap.

It isn't cheap compared to FREE.
Administering any kind of test for millions of people simply isn't cheap.

Cheap compared to lives.

[braddo]

All motorists should have take a driving test to renew their licence (i.e. every 10 years for most people).

This should include driving on the motorway and a section about awareness of vulnerable road users (and lane discipline, and indicating, and merging in turn etc etc). Edit - and a cycling proficiency test?

It seems that on the PH, the majority of groaning about cyclists focuses on London, Oxford and Cambridge. There should be better education campaigns for cyclists in such locations (with use of community support officers and random police enforcement to help bolster the education).

Edited by braddo on Tuesday 27th January 14:22

[IroningMan]

ZX10R NIN said:

okgo said:

It should be the other way round that to drive a car you must cycle on the roads for a few weeks. That would help a lot of people see just how dangerous and mindless some drivers are. The key for me is that when two people get angry which does happen when you're on the same roads at times, you should NEVER use your car as a weapon, stop the car, get out and do whatever but to run someone off the road or swerve at them should come with very harsh punishment.

On the flip side of that you should NEVER punch someones wing mirror or damage their car

I broke someone's mirror once - it smashed on the end of my handlebars as he clipped me from behind. I'll try not to do it again.

[Europa1]

v12Legs said:

Europa1 said:

v12Legs said:

Mr2Mike said:

v12Legs said:

My view is that the majority of cyclists are already only too well aware of how vulnerable they are, and most of us do everything possible to keep ourselves safe. Obviously there are some crap and inattentive cyclists, but I see no evidence that there are more cyclists in that category than drivers. Same humans, after all.

I don't think most of you do though or at best not a particularly large majority. Some do certainly, but since there is no minimum standard of competence required to ride a bike, any idiot can jump on one and go and play in the traffic. Sadly it appears that a considerable number of idiots do.

Motorcyclists have to take compulsory basic training before being allowed on a road, and cyclists are more vulnerable in many ways.

And yet, as already established, it is the driver at sole fault in the overwhelming majority of collisions.
You personal anecdotes don't trump the evidence, however much you'd like them to.

Other than the collisions in other surveys:

‘cyclist failed to look properly’ was attributed to the
cyclist in 43% of all serious collisions.

and

The second most common contributory factor
attributed to cyclists was ‘cyclist entering the road
from the pavement’. This was assigned in a fifth
of serious collisions and was especially common
for children (over a third of serious collisions).

Have you got a link to that, as it runs counter to the well established evidence I posted earlier?
I can only think that that percentage is of the subset of collisions that were wholly or partly the fault of the cyclist in the first place.

It was in an exchange between speedy11 and pablo a few pages back - pablo quoted some statistic to back up a claim about motorists at fualt, speedy11 then quoted another part of the same report.

[Killboy]

We definitely need more rules, tests, taxes, and should make insurance mandatory too. Especially for 8 year old riding around on their little basket bikes in cul de sacs. What right to those little fkers have to the road??

Makes my blood boil.

[v12Legs]

Europa1 said:

It was in an exchange between speedy11 and pablo a few pages back - pablo quoted some statistic to back up a claim about motorists at fualt, speedy11 then quoted another part of the same report.

OK, thanks.
Looks like it must be a percentage of those collisions where fault, partial or whole, was attributed to the cyclist. So not 43% of all collisions, just 43% of the <25% that were wholly or partially the cyclist's fault.

[saaby93]

pablo said:

saaby93 said:

Someone got to ask for source of this

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090417002224/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/ppr445.pdf

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the driver’s having ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at junctions).

Now thats just "failing to look properly" and "seriouis collisions at junctions" and wont include other key contributing factors, road types etc so its fair to assume that 75% is a good minimum...

Of the accidnets at jucntions 60% were due to not looking properly and it's not far off 50:50 car to bike 57:43?

stats said:

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at junctions). ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car drivers in 57% of serious collisions. Available sources fail to show whether drivers are looking but failing to see the cyclist or failing to look for them. Equally, the strategies adopted by cyclists at junctions are also not well understood: ‘cyclist failed to look properly’ was attributed to the cyclist in 43% of all serious collisions.

I think that means both need to try harder

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 27th January 15:01

[v12Legs]

saaby93 said:

pablo said:

saaby93 said:

Someone got to ask for source of this

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090417002224/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/ppr445.pdf

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the driver’s having ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at junctions).

Now thats just "failing to look properly" and "seriouis collisions at junctions" and wont include other key contributing factors, road types etc so its fair to assume that 75% is a good minimum...

It's not far off 50:50 57:43?

stats said:

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, ‘failed to look properly’ was reported to be a key contributory factor for drivers and riders at junctions (reported in almost 60% of serious collisions at junctions). ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car drivers in 57% of serious collisions. Available sources fail to show whether drivers are looking but failing to see the cyclist or failing to look for them. Equally, the strategies adopted by cyclists at junctions are also not well understood: ‘cyclist failed to look properly’ was attributed to the cyclist in 43% of all serious collisions.

I don't think you're reading it correctly.
That report shows that in motorist/cyclist collisions, the motorist is at sole fault in 60-75% of cases; the cyclist is solely to blame in 17-25% of cases, and the remainder shared or unclear fault.

So it cannot be the case, according to this data, that in 43% of all collisions involving a cyclist, a contributory cause is the cyclist failing to look properly. It must be 43% of the 17-25% where the cyclist had a contributory factor assigned to them.

[v12Legs]

And I'm by no means suggesting that cyclists don't need to make any effort to observe and keep themselves safe; far from it.

However, it's quite clear that if we want to make the biggest impact at reducing KSIs, it is drivers who we would be better off directing our efforts at.

[GC8]

ZX10R NIN said:

As a professional driver the lorry driver will always be arrested & bailed in the event of a death as he or she is more likely to be prosecuted for any offence be it a Tacho Violation weight infringement etc it does not mean they are guilty of anything to do with the accident itself. The driver was bailed pending further inquiries.

Is it also unforgivable if it turns out to be the cyclist that has ended up being in the wrong because the driver now has to wake up everyday knowing someone died while he was driving a truck.

I'd say it's sad all round

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Tuesday 27th January 12:11

Another half-arsed patronising post from you.

He wasn't arrested at the time. Its the 'at the time' part which is relevant. He will not 'always be arrested'.

I doubt that you know more than me, so stop being such a tool.

[Speedy11]

v12Legs said:

I don't think you're reading it correctly.
That report shows that in motorist/cyclist collisions, the motorist is at sole fault in 60-75% of cases; the cyclist is solely to blame in 17-25% of cases, and the remainder shared or unclear fault.

So it cannot be the case, according to this data, that in 43% of all collisions involving a cyclist, a contributory cause is the cyclist failing to look properly. It must be 43% of the 17-25% where the cyclist had a contributory factor assigned to them.

The point you are missing is that this is about Junctions.

~66% of accidents happen at junctions
~60% of these accidents is because a driver or rider ‘failed to look properly’ of these the failure to look is in the ratio of 57:43

So that report does not show that the motorist is at sole fault in 60-75% of cases.

[SteveSteveson]

v12Legs said:

I don't think you're reading it correctly.
That report shows that in motorist/cyclist collisions, the motorist is at sole fault in 60-75% of cases; the cyclist is solely to blame in 17-25% of cases, and the remainder shared or unclear fault.

So it cannot be the case, according to this data, that in 43% of all collisions involving a cyclist, a contributory cause is the cyclist failing to look properly. It must be 43% of the 17-25% where the cyclist had a contributory factor assigned to them.

You are doing some very strange maths there...

Cyclist is solely to blame in 17-25% of cases...
In 43% of all collisions involving a cyclist, a contributory cause...

It does not follow that "It must be 43% of the 17-25% where the cyclist had a contributory factor assigned to them."

You are very quick to change solely to blame to 17-25% where the cyclist had a contributory factor

This kind of nonsense is the kind of rubbish that keeps the stupid arguments going and both sides saying the other is to blame.

Edited by SteveSteveson on Tuesday 27th January 15:30

[ZX10R NIN]

pablo said:

I'm just a little surprised that anyone can still think that its the responsibility of the cyclist to take all necessary precautions to lessen the severity of injury even if the fault lies with the other party? How fked up is that? How about everyone take responsibility for their actions?

If I fall off on my own accord whilst riding on the road, which in 20+ years has yet to happen, its my fault, yes I get this. However, its far more likely that, when I personally am invovled in a incident, on account of having some roadcraft and self preservation, it will almost certainly be the fault of the motorist.

As a Motorcyclist you're taught to ride defensively & understand that while you may be in the right if another road user causes you to crash you're going to end up HURT so you're taught it's better to ride in a manner that means you avoid the more dangerous situations which in 8 out of 10 occasions you can see unfolding in front of you.

YOU on the other hand seem to want to leave your safety in the hands of other Road Users which only reinforces my belief there should be more training put on offer so Cyclists can be educated to the dangers.

[gazza285]

ZX10R NIN said:

pablo said:

I'm just a little surprised that anyone can still think that its the responsibility of the cyclist to take all necessary precautions to lessen the severity of injury even if the fault lies with the other party? How fked up is that? How about everyone take responsibility for their actions?

If I fall off on my own accord whilst riding on the road, which in 20+ years has yet to happen, its my fault, yes I get this. However, its far more likely that, when I personally am invovled in a incident, on account of having some roadcraft and self preservation, it will almost certainly be the fault of the motorist.

As a Motorcyclist you're taught to ride defensively & understand that while you may be in the right if another road user causes you to crash you're going to end up HURT so you're taught it's better to ride in a manner that means you avoid the more dangerous situations which in 8 out of 10 occasions you can see unfolding in front of you.

YOU on the other hand seem to want to leave your safety in the hands of other Road Users which only reinforces my belief there should be more training put on offer so Cyclists can be educated to the dangers.

Answer why more motorcyclists are killed or seriously injured then, if they have had all the training.

[ZX10R NIN]

v12Legs said:

Er, yeah. The overwhelming majority of bad road use is from drivers.

No it's not bad road use is not exclusive to motorists Cyclists are just as bad as has been said on here before bad riding/driving is just that BAD.

Drivers are happy to admit there are bad drivers out there why can't cyclists?

Before you say there are more bad drivers than riders think about how many cars are on the road compared to bikes & I think you'll find in terms of percentages it's about the same.