Another cyclist dies in London

[ZX10R NIN]

Magog said:

Seems to me that a lot of posters here like to use the term 'cyclist' to dehumanise the people who are dying.

It's the same when they say a Motorcyclist or Car driver Pedestrian Lorry Driver has died does that dehumanise those people as well?

[walm]

ZX10R NIN said:

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.

I am sure it is similar.
Which when you consider the damage a car can do - it is a shame motorists don't take their responsibilities more seriously.

[GadgeS3C]

gazza285 said:

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.

It could be the same reason more car drivers are KSI'd?

[v12Legs]

ZX10R NIN said:

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.

I think you're probably right.

So it's quite bemusing that the focus in this thread seems to be on cyclists doing more to look out for the bad drivers, rather than driving standards being enforced.

Edited by v12Legs on Tuesday 27th January 16:16

[v12Legs]

SteveSteveson said:

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

No, it's you that is misunderstanding.

The driver is solely at fault in 60-75% of all collisions.
The cyclist is solely at fault in 17-25% of all collisions.
The remainder is shared or unclear fault.

Therefore, there can not have been a contributory cause assigned to the cyclist in those 60-75% of collisions where the driver was at sole fault, else the driver would not have been at sole fault, would they?

Therefore, the 43% of collisions where a contributory factor was the cyclist not looking properly must be 43% of the collisions that were either the sole fault of the cyclist or shared fault.

Clear?

[ZX10R NIN]

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.

You could say the same for Motorbikes especially when it comes to congestion for those living on the outskirts of London. If you are a road user you should have some form of training, The Admin is already there so why not make them earn there money & hopefully save lives.

If you as a cyclist come off at 20mph you'll hurt yourself

[GadgeS3C]

v12Legs said:

I think you're probably right.

So it's quite bemusing that the focus in this thread seems to be on cyclists doing more to look out for the bad drivers, than driving standards being enforced.

I think quite a few people on this thread are saying that all road users need to improve. The most vulnerable have the most to lose by not improving.

I'd love to see a big push to improve driving standards (for all road users but especially car drivers) but I don't see the will to make it happen. Sadly lots of the improvements in safety have come from making cars even more crash proof and safe for the occupants, which maybe allows the occupants to be even less worried about hitting things than they used to.

I still wonder if we have a particular issue in places like London where improved risk perception for some cyclists might help. That's a pragmatic view not a moral or an apportioning blame one.

[ZX10R NIN]

braddo said:

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

In that case all road users should take a test every 10 years that way no one Road User Group can call foul plus all road users should have insurance in the case of cyclists this should be capped to a maximum of £80.00 (it should cost less but we all know what insurance companies are like)that way if they are hit they have the legal cover to pursue compensation if they hit a vehicle or pedestrian they in turn can be pursued for compensation.

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Tuesday 27th January 17:19

[saaby93]

v12Legs said:

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...

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

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.

Maybe I'm reading it too quickly. Where does it say 60-75%?

[Europa1]

ZX10R NIN said:

Magog said:

Seems to me that a lot of posters here like to use the term 'cyclist' to dehumanise the people who are dying.

It's the same when they say a Motorcyclist or Car driver Pedestrian Lorry Driver has died does that dehumanise those people as well?

I must say, I thought most people were using the term as simply descriptive, to distinguish them from the other categories of road user being referred to such as motorist, truck driver, motorcyclist or pedestrian.

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

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

Because no matter how much legislation you have you can't take away the human factor. Plus the motorcycle will be doing 30mph compared to 15mph, so with his/her own body weight factored in as well, more life threatening injuries will happen.

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Tuesday 27th January 17:16

[v12Legs]

saaby93 said:

v12Legs said:

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...

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

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.

Maybe I'm reading it too quickly. Where does it say 60-75%?

That detail is in the full paper which requires registration. I do have it somewhere, but the relevant analysis is:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...
and backed up by a similar study in Westminster

[Speedy11]

v12Legs said:

saaby93 said:

v12Legs said:

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...

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

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.

Maybe I'm reading it too quickly. Where does it say 60-75%?

That detail is in the full paper which requires registration. I do have it somewhere, but the relevant analysis is:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...
and backed up by a similar study in Westminster

As with most statistics you can more or less make them show what you want.

From the full report, you can say for fatal accidents it is ~42% drivers fault, 42% riders and about 15% both share blame
For accidents about 40% riders, 50% drivers and 10% both share blame.

However if cherry pick the data and just use for example the 40-54 age group you can make it 65% driver, 25% rider and about 10% both to blame.

[saaby93]

ok can we take it to first order and accept that all 3 parties can improve

[Europa1]

saaby93 said:

ok can we take it to first order and accept that all 3 parties can improve

I'm certainly fine with that.

[ZX10R NIN]

saaby93 said:

ok can we take it to first order and accept that all 3 parties can improve

Most people have been saying that from day one but some on here keep on insisting it's the drivers fault.

Better awareness & lane discipline from all Road Users is the only way things will improve & that comes down to the individual people will always make mistakes as a road user being in a car or on a bike it's down to YOU to try not to become part of someone else's mistake or to involve someone else in yours.

Easier said than done but possible.

[v12Legs]

Speedy11 said:

As with most statistics you can more or less make them show what you want.

From the full report, you can say for fatal accidents it is ~42% drivers fault, 42% riders and about 15% both share blame
For accidents about 40% riders, 50% drivers and 10% both share blame.

However if cherry pick the data and just use for example the 40-54 age group you can make it 65% driver, 25% rider and about 10% both to blame.

I've finally found my copy of the actual report that fed the analysis, and it clearly shows that for adult cyclists, the driver is solely at fault much more often than the cyclist.

As the report is freely available, I'll post the graphs here.
In the meantime I'll try and get the raw data, which I think comes from the ONS.



So if anyone is cherry picking, it's you.
Clearly there is a massive shift towards the cyclist being at fault for children, but as the report says: "It is not clear whether this means children are more likely than adults to behave in ways that result in a collision or whether the police are simply more likely to attribute contributory factors to a child."

[hornetrider]

v12Legs said:

I've finally found my copy of the actual report that fed the analysis, and it clearly shows that for adult cyclists, the driver is solely at fault much more often than the cyclist.

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]

v12Legs said:

I've finally found my copy of the actual report that fed the analysis, and it clearly shows that for adult cyclists, the driver is solely at fault much more often than the cyclist.

As the report is freely available, I'll post the graphs here.
In the meantime I'll try and get the raw data, which I think comes from the ONS.



So if anyone is cherry picking, it's you.
Clearly there is a massive shift towards the cyclist being at fault for children, but as the report says: "It is not clear whether this means children are more likely than adults to behave in ways that result in a collision or whether the police are simply more likely to attribute contributory factors to a child."

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.

[okgo]

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.

So there is a graph there that shows its almost always the car drivers fault and yet you're saying its equal blame, how is that possible? Can you not see you're calling black, white? Its rarely kids in London, so lets keep it relevant...