Why are Police now enforcing laws & advising cyclists?

[creampuff]

otolith said:

Yet despite this the casualty rate remains low, and those accidents which do occur tend not to be in the circumstances you describe. Perhaps if these things happen all the time and nothing happens, they should be legalised?

You mean like in that Telegraph link above; young girl knocked down on pedestrian crossing?

Or this US link showing about 1,000 pedestrians requiring medical treatment per year in NYC following collisions with biycycles?

or

http://road.cc/content/news/75569-teenage-pedestri...

Considering there are relatively few journeys made by bicycle compared with car journeys, the rate that pedestrians are getting hit by bicycles doesn't really seem so small, does it?

Do go on.

Edited by creampuff on Wednesday 27th November 10:24

[otolith]

creampuff said:

otolith said:

Yet despite this the casualty rate remains low, and those accidents which do occur tend not to be in the circumstances you describe. Perhaps if these things happen all the time and nothing happens, they should be legalised?

You mean like in that Telegraph link above; young girl knocked down on pedestrian crossing?

Or this US link showing about 1,000 pedestrians requiring medical treatment per year in NYC following collisions with biycycles?

or

http://road.cc/content/news/75569-teenage-pedestri...

Considering there are relatively few journeys made by bicycle compared with car journeys, the rate that pedestrians are getting hit by bicycles doesn't really seem so small, does it?

Do go on.

Sense of proportion needed.



Personally, I would have said that the activities you describe are dangerous, but if as you claim people are doing them all the time and the figures remain so low, I must be wrong, and those activities are not really very dangerous at all.

[creampuff]

otolith said:

Sense of proportion needed.



Personally, I would have said that the activities you describe are dangerous, but if as you claim people are doing them all the time and the figures remain so low, I must be wrong, and those activities are not really very dangerous at all.

You have failed to take into account the low number of bicycle journeys in comparison to motorised vehicle journeys, which is reflected in the low absolute rate of injuries caused by bicycles. The absolute annual casualty rate is not the per bicycle mile rate and it is not the per bicycle journey rate nor is it the per bicycle rate.

If you see someone walking around with a loaded gun, I'm sure you don't say to yourself "the overall rate of firearm crime in the UK is low, thus I'm quite safe with this guy waving a gun at me"

Here is some data from CTC. CTC reach a conclusion that bicycles pose a low risk to pedestrians "Cyclists do very little harm to other road users, including pedestrians" based on absolute number of collisions causing injury.

However they say:
"In 2010, cycles accounted for about 1.9% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic, but were
involved in 1.1% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.5% of serious pedestrian casualties."

"This means that in 2010, mile for mile, motor vehicles were 1.35 times more likely than a cycle
to seriously injure a pedestrian and about 1.75 times more likely to kill them"

So a motor car is only 1.35 (or 1.75) times more risky to a pedestrian per mile than a car. This is not that big a difference.

I'd further put it to you that pedestrians can often (but not always) avoid being in an incident with a motor car by crossing at pedestrian crossing, walking on the footpath or waiting for their own green light to cross the road. However pedestrians cannot so easily avoid collisions with bicycles which go through pedestrian crossings, or through red lights.

So long as bicycle journeys remain at only 1% or 2% the number of car journeys, then it is no surprise that all cyclists put all pedestrians in hospital only 1% as often as cars, is it? This does not change the fact that an individual cyclist cycling around is not that much less likely to hospitalise an individual pedestrian as a car. In London there are a lot of cyclists. The risk posed to pedestrians is not small.

[otolith]

So to summarise, the number of incidents is low because there aren't many cyclists, but something must be done because there are lots of cyclists.

[creampuff]

otolith said:

So to summarise, the number of incidents is low on a national level because there aren't many cyclists, but greater enforcement of existing laws should take place in London, where, compared to the national average there are; a lot of cyclists, a lot of pedestrian-cyclist interactions and the risk posed by cyclists is therefore not small. Meanwhile while greater enforcement is taking place in London, I will try to educate myself so as not to appear a plonker by first saying cyclist-pedestrian incidents don't happen, then when shown that they do happen by saying bicycles are just low risk because they just are, then by trying to rubbish other posters who point out that cycles are individually a similar although smaller risk to pedestrian than motor cars.

I have reworded that.

[7db]

I thought the helmet debate went along the lines that helmets only reduce superficial head injuries and deep brain trauma happens regardless of helmet use, but helmets discourage people from cycling so they die of heart attacks.

[Devil2575]

creampuff said:

I'd put it to you that a cyclist going the wrong way up a one way street, or riding on the footpath which is being used by pedestrians, or going through a red light causing other traffic to avoid them or riding through a pedestrian crossing is at least 10,000 times more likely than a mugger stealing a bag.

The 10,000 is probably conservative. It is based on seeing some cyclist do something stupid several times a day in London vs never having seen a mugging or know anyone who has been mugged in England.

Is it conservative or even realistic? Is it just pulled out of the air to fit your opinion?

[otolith]

Thanks, but that's not what I meant. HTH.

In any case, perhaps we should get back to the topic of cyclist fatalities, since the behaviours you seem concerned about have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[Engineer1]

Devil2575 said:

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

Devil2575 said:

D4MJT said:

In all honesty, I don't really understand why anyone who cycles would choose not to wear a helmet, whether cycling on or indeed off road.

I agree.

Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean other people will act the way you would. Just look at the popularity of The X-Factor.

Again, Wikipedia has the info.

It's hardly conclusive though is it.

It has been hypothesised that the wearing of helmets may make cyclists feel safer and thus take more risks. This hypothetical effect is known as risk compensation or risk homeostasis. Some authors have suggested that risk compensation occurs with other road safety interventions such as seat belts and anti-lock braking systems,but these views are disputed by other road safety experts.

So it's a hypothesis.

A damn good one, I ride trails and there are some bits I wouldn't ride without pads.

[Devil2575]

Engineer1 said:

Devil2575 said:

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

Devil2575 said:

D4MJT said:

In all honesty, I don't really understand why anyone who cycles would choose not to wear a helmet, whether cycling on or indeed off road.

I agree.

Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean other people will act the way you would. Just look at the popularity of The X-Factor.

Again, Wikipedia has the info.

It's hardly conclusive though is it.

It has been hypothesised that the wearing of helmets may make cyclists feel safer and thus take more risks. This hypothetical effect is known as risk compensation or risk homeostasis. Some authors have suggested that risk compensation occurs with other road safety interventions such as seat belts and anti-lock braking systems,but these views are disputed by other road safety experts.

So it's a hypothesis.

A damn good one, I ride trails and there are some bits I wouldn't ride without pads.

But it is just a hypothesis, so not fact.

The argument heard most often against helmet laws is that they would discourage cycling and so result in a net reduction of general health. I've heard this from credible sources and there does appear to be some evidence to support it.

I wouldn't ride without a helmet, but then I travel at speeds up to 40 mph on my bike.

It's discussed briefly here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc

Eposiode about Risk from the 18th November.

[Hol]

I dont want to get into another insurance argument per se.. but,


The majority of motorcycle through to commercial vehicle incidents will HAVE to have been reported as it is a crime not to (hit and run etc.). Also, there are the obvious insurance implications - which we should ignore for now.


Can anyone say that EVERY cycle incident involving a pedestrian is reported. I have seen a few myself in London, but nobody has ever waited for the Police to be called in before one or both parties depart.

[creampuff]

Devil2575 said:

Is it conservative or even realistic? Is it just pulled out of the air to fit your opinion?

I don't know mate, what do you think is more common, a cyclist on a footpath or going through a red light or your old lady getting mugged? You tell me.

[Devil2575]

creampuff said:

Devil2575 said:

Is it conservative or even realistic? Is it just pulled out of the air to fit your opinion?

I don't know mate, what do you think is more common, a cyclist on a footpath or going through a red light or your old lady getting mugged? You tell me.

I'd guess the cyclist on a footpath, but to put a number to it without any evidence whatsoever other than your own anecdotes is pure folly.

[ewenm]

creampuff said:

Devil2575 said:

Is it conservative or even realistic? Is it just pulled out of the air to fit your opinion?

I don't know mate, what do you think is more common, a cyclist on a footpath or going through a red light or your old lady getting mugged? You tell me.

Neither are as common as speeding cars and yet the vast majority of speeders get away scott-free! I demand action!

[SegueUK]

ewenm said:

Neither are as common as speeding cars and yet the vast majority of speeders get away scott-free! I demand action!

Not in Central London, where all this is happening.

[Devil2575]

SegueUK said:

ewenm said:

Neither are as common as speeding cars and yet the vast majority of speeders get away scott-free! I demand action!

Not in Central London, where all this is happening.

How common are driving offences in general in the capital?

[creampuff]

Devil2575 said:

I'd guess the cyclist on a footpath, but to put a number to it without any evidence whatsoever other than your own anecdotes is pure folly.

I first came to live in London about 13 years ago. I see about 2 cyclist doing something silly per day on average; if I stay home in bed I see zero, if I walk around a lot I see more. By silly, I exclude cyclists just going through a red light when there is a red light but no traffic. 13 years * 2/day * 365 days/year is about 10,000. Yes, I do sums for a living; as usual, I thought before opening my mouth (or typing in this case).

Devil2575 said:

How common are driving offences in general in the capital?

Quite common. Typically stopping in ahead of the stop line instead of behind it. Exceeding the speed limit is less common because this is London and there is less scope for it. However, of vehicle (incl cyclist) offences in the Capital, it is cyclists who do the dodgy things which actually make me as a pedestrian avoid them. I can't remember the last time I've been walking around in a law-abiding manner and had to get out the way of a motor vehicle doing something illegal. Having to get out of the way of a cyclist cycling illegally along the footpath, that's just meh, happens all the time. I actually had a cyclist swear at me as I wasn't fast enough to get out of his way when I was walking along the FOOTpath. Hilarious.

Edited by creampuff on Wednesday 27th November 15:24

[Devil2575]

creampuff said:

Devil2575 said:

I'd guess the cyclist on a footpath, but to put a number to it without any evidence whatsoever other than your own anecdotes is pure folly.

I first came to live in London about 13 years ago. I see about 2 cyclist doing something silly per day on average; if I stay home in bed I see zero, if I walk around a lot I see more. By silly, I exclude cyclists just going through a red light when there is a red light but no traffic. 13 years * 2/day * 365 days/year is about 10,000. Yes, I do sums for a living; as usual, I thought before opening my mouth (or typing in this case).

Yes but this is still based on anecdotal evidence. Your experience may not be representative.

Also, people don't tend to get mugged out in the open, so you only tend to hear about them if you are affected or someone you know is. However cyclists do silly things in view of everyone.

I'm not saying that your number was wrong, just that anecdotal evidence is not a good basis to make a judgement.

A better measure would be the number of incidents where the cyclist was found to be at fault compared to the number of reported muggings.

[creampuff]

Devil2575 said:

I'm not saying that your number was wrong, just that anecdotal evidence is not a good basis to make a judgement.

A better measure would be the number of incidents where the cyclist was found to be at fault compared to the number of reported muggings.

I think you need to spend a few days walking around London looking at cyclists. I think you will find plenty of evidence.

[Zod]

Devil2575 said:

It's hardly conclusive though is it.

It has been hypothesised that the wearing of helmets may make cyclists feel safer and thus take more risks. This hypothetical effect is known as risk compensation or risk homeostasis. Some authors have suggested that risk compensation occurs with other road safety interventions such as seat belts and anti-lock braking systems,but these views are disputed by other road safety experts.

So it's a hypothesis.

It's utter bks. The same rubbish was peddled about seatbelts. You also see it in threads here about ski helmets.