Another cyclist dies in London

[anonymous-user]

Digby said:

yet the riders they are trying to protect have to do nothing?

And some seem to almost rejoice in the fact!

[Moonhawk]

Digby said:

Training, more training and yet more training accompanied by various vehicle additions and alterations all to protect cyclists.

Almost none of which will make a great deal of difference to the survival chances of most of the riders on display in the earlier video.

This is the problem with road safety in this country today - it's far too focused on the vehicle/driver.

To really get casualty rates down - we need a holistic approach that targets pedestrians, cyclists as well as the motorist.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s we used to have public information films warning pedestrians not to step out into traffic.

By the 2000s the message had changed to put the onus on the motorist (remember the ad that went "This car is travelling at 35mph, had it been travelling at 30mph it would have stopped here" before knocking a kid down).

Nothing in this ad addressed the question "WTF was the kid doing crossing the road without even looking". Both aspects of such an accident should be addressed so you double your chances of avoiding the accident.

By taking onus off pedestrians and cyclists in road safety campaigns - it is implied (IMO at least) that they are absolved of any responsibility. This sends out the wrong message.

[Mave]

Moonhawk said:

Mave said:

Yes it is possible, but why would you focus on cyclists without acknowledging that motorists also behave irresponsibly and dangerously and try to address that issue as well?

That issue is being addressed though.

We have mandatory driver training and testing, more so for professional drivers. We have mandatory vehicle registration, insurance and MOTs.

We have ANPR, red light cameras, yellow box junction cameras, bus lane cameras, CCTV, speed cameras, parking wardens and trafpol all of which can identify the car and possibly the driver too and which can be used to encourage good behaviour (or punish bad).

We have traffic calming measures which mostly affect motorised vehicles.

We have new rules coming into force all the time to punish drivers for bad behavior (e.g. the new harsher rules for people who use mobile phones whilst in control of their vehicle.)

Why do you think poor behavior on the part of the motorist isn't being addressed?

Because every day I see motorists going through red lights, stopping on box junctions, driving in bus lanes, speeding, parking on double yellows, using their phones. In a serious crash between a cyclist and a motorist it is significantly more likely to be the motorist at fault than the cyclist. There are more drivers without driving licenses than cyclists without driving licenses. There are more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists. That's why I think poor behaviour on the part of motorists isn't being addressed.

[Moonhawk]

heebeegeetee said:

2. Wrong yet again. The highway code tells you that pedestrians are the most vulnerable road user,

Is it not therefore bonkers that pedestrians don't need to undergo any mandatory education or training to use the roads?

Transport accidents represent the largest killer of 5-19 year olds - yet the HC is not taught at school.

Seems like a massive missed opportunity to me.

[Moonhawk]

Mave said:

Because every day I see motorists going through red lights, stopping on box junctions, driving in bus lanes, speeding, parking on double yellows, using their phones. In a serious crash between a cyclist and a motorist it is significantly more likely to be the motorist at fault than the cyclist. There are more drivers without driving licenses than cyclists without driving licenses. There are more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists. That's why I think poor behaviour on the part of motorists isn't being addressed.

That doesn't mean it's not being addressed.

There far more motor vehicles on the road and they are a lot larger and more obvious when they do something like this - throw in a little confirmation bias into the mix - and you are bound to notice a lot motorists breaking the rules.

However - yet again the discussion is deflected away from cyclists and onto motorists.

[SlimJim16v]

Motorist goes through red light, gets hit by car, claims on insurance.
Cyclist goes through red light, gets hit by car, has a ride on an ambulance.

Which one's the stupidest ?

[IroningMan]

SlimJim16v said:

Motorist goes through red light, gets hit by car, claims on insurance.
Cyclist goes through red light, gets hit by car, has a ride on an ambulance.

Which one's the stupidest ?

More stupid.

[SlimJim16v]

IroningMan said:

More stupid.

Which is more stupid?

[IroningMan]

SlimJim16v said:

Which is more stupid?

Given that it's just blind luck which determines whether the car driver is hit by something big enough to put him in an ambulance too? I'd say honours even.

[Stickyfinger]

SlimJim16v said:

Motorist goes through red light, gets hit by car, claims on insurance.
Cyclist goes through red light, gets hit by car, has a ride on an ambulance.

Which one's the stupidest ?

The questioner ?

[Mave]

Moonhawk said:

Mave said:

Because every day I see motorists going through red lights, stopping on box junctions, driving in bus lanes, speeding, parking on double yellows, using their phones. In a serious crash between a cyclist and a motorist it is significantly more likely to be the motorist at fault than the cyclist. There are more drivers without driving licenses than cyclists without driving licenses. There are more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists. That's why I think poor behaviour on the part of motorists isn't being addressed.

That doesn't mean it's not being addressed.

There far more motor vehicles on the road and they are a lot larger and more obvious when they do something like this - throw in a little confirmation bias into the mix - and you are bound to notice a lot motorists breaking the rules.

However - yet again the discussion is deflected away from cyclists and onto motorists.

Rolleyes? Let's go back a step.

I said we needed to address both cyclist and motorist driving. Everyone. Not just cyclists, or motorists, or HGVs, but everyone.

If I say "let's talk about everyone", and you say
"we don't need to talk about motorists", who's the one deflecting the discussion? Or are you wanting to only discuss what cyclists should be doing differently rather than how to prevent cyclists deaths?

Edited by Mave on Wednesday 1st March 22:29

[Digby]

I would suggest nothing is going to change and if you don't like cars and trucks, stop riding.

(just copying a similar suggestion made earlier)

[Mave]

SlimJim16v said:

Motorist goes through red light, gets hit by car, claims on insurance.
Cyclist goes through red light, gets hit by car, has a ride on an ambulance.

Which one's the stupidest ?

Does it matter? They're both stupid, both behaviours need to be addressed. Road safety isn't a race to the bottom in terms of who can be the stupidest.

[WinstonWolf]

SlimJim16v said:

Motorist goes through red light, gets hit by car, claims on insurance.
Cyclist goes through red light, gets hit by car, has a ride on an ambulance.

Which one's the stupidest ?

They're both equally stupid. That's the point I keep trying to make, it isn't the mode of transport it's the person using it

[Mave]

Digby said:

I would suggest nothing is going to change and if you don't like cars and trucks, stop riding.

(just copying a similar suggestion made earlier)

The people posting the incidents, asking what can / should be done, pointing the fingers are not the cyclists.

[Digby]

Mave said:

Does it matter? They're both stupid, both behaviours need to be addressed. Road safety isn't a race to the bottom in terms of who can be the stupidest.

But in all honesty, how often do you see a driver ignore a red light regardless of how long it has been red?

How often do you see them dodge around patient, stationary vehicles, and simply mix it up with other vehicles manoeuvring in front of them due to having a green light?

Drivers tend to jump reds a fraction of a second after they have turned when they do; many riders simply do not care what colour the lights are or what's happening with traffic etc.

The driver may get a fine, the rider may get killed or seriously injured.

I think we can agree there are different levels of stupidity.

[Digby]

Mave said:

The people posting the incidents, asking what can / should be done, pointing the fingers are not the cyclists.

Some of them are, sorry.

[WinstonWolf]

Digby said:

Mave said:

Does it matter? They're both stupid, both behaviours need to be addressed. Road safety isn't a race to the bottom in terms of who can be the stupidest.

But in all honesty, how often do you see a driver ignore a red light regardless of how long it has been red?

How often do you see them dodge around patient, stationary vehicles, and simply mix it up with other vehicles manoeuvring in front of them due to having a green light?

Drivers tend to jump reds a fraction of a second after they have turned when they do; many riders simply do not care what colour the lights are or what's happening with traffic etc.

The driver may get a fine, the rider may get killed or seriously injured.

I think we can agree there are different levels of stupidity.

I saw two RLJ'ers tonight the selfish bds.

Both in cars funnily enough...

[Mave]

Digby said:

Mave said:

Does it matter? They're both stupid, both behaviours need to be addressed. Road safety isn't a race to the bottom in terms of who can be the stupidest.

But in all honesty, how often do you see a driver ignore a red light regardless of how long it has been red?

How often do you see them dodge around patient, stationary vehicles, and simply mix it up with other vehicles manoeuvring in front of them due to having a green light?

Drivers tend to jump reds a fraction of a second after they have turned when they do; many riders simply do not care what colour the lights are or what's happening with traffic etc.

The driver may get a fine, the rider may get killed or seriously injured.

I think we can agree there are different levels of stupidity.

Yes there are different levels of stupidity. But you're adding scenarios to the question that wasn't posed. I could equally ask whether a cyclist going through a red light in gridlocked traffic where he can see what's coming is more stupid than a motorist who sees an amber, puts his foot down, and goes through a second or two after the lights are red with no idea if anything is coming.

[Mave]

Digby said:

Mave said:

The people posting the incidents, asking what can / should be done, pointing the fingers are not the cyclists.

Some of them are, sorry.

Ok, maybe some, but not most.