Why are Police now enforcing laws & advising cyclists?
Discussion
creampuff said:
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. 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.
Personal experiences are not good evidence.
creampuff said:
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. 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.
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.
Interesting.
creampuff said:
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.
Have you got a link to this report?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.
Hol said:
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.
Nope. I've been knocked over by a cyclistin London, causing 'slight' injuries, but I never reported it.Incidentally, I've not been hit by a car or motorbike, so statistically, cyclists have been proven to cause me as a pedestrian more harm than anything else and should be banned...
oyster said:
What you're saying is that if motor vehicles were banned from urban areas then pedestrian fatality rates would fall?
Interesting.
If motor vehicles were banned then pedestrian casualties would fall. Interesting.
If bicycles were banned then pedestrian casualties would fall. Casualties due to bicycle riders falling off by themselves would also fall.
If pedrestrians were banned from being pedestrians and required to lay in bed all day then pedestrian casualties would also fall.
I don't see the point of your post.
Hol said:
Devil2575 said:
None of which would be a valid basis to draw a conclusion.
Personal experiences are not good evidence.
Unless they are called a witness and giving evidence in court, of course. Personal experiences are not good evidence.
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/...
creampuff said:
Devil2575 said:
None of which would be a valid basis to draw a conclusion.
Personal experiences are not good evidence.
Which is your personal opinion. Personal experiences are not good evidence.
This pretty much sums it up.
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
creampuff said:
Devil2575 said:
Have you got a link to this report?
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestriansbrf.pdfIt would be interesting to see if the rate of injuries associated with bicycles rose in line with usage. At the moment it isn't an issue due to the relatively small proportion of miles that cycling accounts for, but if usage rises significantly and so do KSIs then there would be a strong case to take it more seriously.
Devil2575 said:
It also happens to be the opinion of pretty much anyone who has undertaken any form of scientific study. It has also been proven that anecdotes and personal experiences are poor forms of evidence, not least because they are subject to personal bias.
This pretty much sums it up.
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
As I said, you need to have a walk around London. This pretty much sums it up.
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
As I linked above, pedal cycles have been shown to be not much less dangerous to pedestrians than motor vehicles on a mile-travelled basis in a ratio of 1:1.35 for injuries or 1:1.75 for fatalities. That is not anecdotal or conjecture.
Devil2575 said:
I have to admit, this doesn't look good for cyclists.
It would be interesting to see if the rate of injuries associated with bicycles rose in line with usage. At the moment it isn't an issue due to the relatively small proportion of miles that cycling accounts for, but if usage rises significantly and so do KSIs then there would be a strong case to take it more seriously.
Considering a bicycle+rider may weigh under 100kg, having 1.6 tonne motor cars causing only 1.35 times the number of pedestrian casualties as bicycles is concerning. It would be interesting to see if the rate of injuries associated with bicycles rose in line with usage. At the moment it isn't an issue due to the relatively small proportion of miles that cycling accounts for, but if usage rises significantly and so do KSIs then there would be a strong case to take it more seriously.
I personally think that the rate of cyclist injuries caused by motor vehicles will decline on a per mile basis but increase in absolute numbers with incrased cycling. This effect has been seen with motorcycles, where other road users come to expect and look out for motorcycles.
The rate of bicycle to pedestrian casualties may increase. Other than this current police operation which will last only a few weeks, I see no regular enforcement of existing laws on cyclists going through red lights when there is opposing traffic, riding on footpaths or riding through pedestrian crossings.
I also think that the rate of injuries to pedestrians will generally increase with bicycle usage. Or maybe pedestrians will come to look out for bicycles more, but this looking out will still be in situations where pedestrians have priority and should not need to look out... as I said when they are crossing the road with lights in their favour or on pedestrian crossings or walking along the footpath.
Edited by creampuff on Thursday 28th November 11:13
creampuff said:
As I linked above, pedal cycles have been shown to be not much less dangerous to pedestrians than motor vehicles on a mile-travelled basis in a ratio of 1:1.35 for injuries or 1:1.75 for fatalities. That is not anecdotal or conjecture.
Whether they are not much less dangerous is a matter of opinion. I'd say that 1:1.75 is quite a bit better. Not an order of maginitude better, but still almost twice as safe. It is higher than I expected though.
Edited by Devil2575 on Thursday 28th November 11:25
creampuff said:
Considering a bicycle+rider may weigh under 100kg, having 1.6 tonne motor cars causing only 1.35 times the number of pedestrian casualties as bicycles is concerning.
I personally think that the rate of cyclist injuries caused by motor vehicles will decline on a per mile basis but increase in absolute numbers with incrased cycling. This effect has been seen with motorcycles, where other road users come to expect and look out for motorcycles.
The rate of bicycle to pedestrian casualties may increase. Other than this current police operation which will last only a few weeks, I see no regular enforcement of existing laws on cyclists going through red lights when there is opposing traffic, riding on footpaths or riding through pedestrian crossings.
I also think that the rate of injuries to pedestrians will generally increase with bicycle usage. Or maybe pedestrians will come to look out for bicycles more, but this looking out will still be in situations where pedestrians have priority and should not need to look out... as I said when they are crossing the road with lights in their favour or on pedestrian crossings or walking along the footpath.
'I see no regular enforcement of the law' on the roads full stop, but as a cyclist & driver would be delighted if this were the case, as I'd fell a lot safer, in my car but mainly on my bike.I personally think that the rate of cyclist injuries caused by motor vehicles will decline on a per mile basis but increase in absolute numbers with incrased cycling. This effect has been seen with motorcycles, where other road users come to expect and look out for motorcycles.
The rate of bicycle to pedestrian casualties may increase. Other than this current police operation which will last only a few weeks, I see no regular enforcement of existing laws on cyclists going through red lights when there is opposing traffic, riding on footpaths or riding through pedestrian crossings.
I also think that the rate of injuries to pedestrians will generally increase with bicycle usage. Or maybe pedestrians will come to look out for bicycles more, but this looking out will still be in situations where pedestrians have priority and should not need to look out... as I said when they are crossing the road with lights in their favour or on pedestrian crossings or walking along the footpath.
Edited by creampuff on Thursday 28th November 11:13
As for pedestrians, too many of the iPod/iPhone generation seem so obsessed by their mobile devices that they don't bother with trivial things like looking for traffic before they step off the pavement, or else they see me coming on my bike then walk out in front of me anyway because I'm 'just a cyclist'.
Evolution has stopped - we now have 'survival of the idiots'...
BGarside said:
'I see no regular enforcement of the law' on the roads full stop, but as a cyclist & driver would be delighted if this were the case, as I'd fell a lot safer, in my car but mainly on my bike.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-powers-and-procedures-in-england-and-wales-201112/police-powers-and-procedures-in-england-and-wales-2011-12#fixed-penalty-notices"There were 1.5 million FPNs for motoring offences issued by the police (including police-employed traffic wardens) in 2011"
Going by the ratio of motorised traffic journeys to bicycle journeys, there would have had to be around 20,000 FPNs issued to cyclists assuming the same level of enforcement and the same level of law-breaking. I wonder how many FPNs were issued to cyclists?
BGarside said:
As for pedestrians, too many of the iPod/iPhone generation seem so obsessed by their mobile devices that they don't bother with trivial things like looking for traffic before they step off the pavement, or else they see me coming on my bike then walk out in front of me anyway because I'm 'just a cyclist'.
Case law has shown that heavier or faster vehicles generally have an obligation to look out for and predict the behaviour of lighter and slower road users. For example if a drunk pedestrian was crossing the road and was hit by a motorist, the motorist could expect their insurance to compensate the pedestrian. I think pedestrians engrossed in smartphones is foolish but motorists are obliged to avoid them and generally they do; so should cyclists.
Edited by creampuff on Thursday 28th November 13:25
creampuff said:
Case law has shown that heavier or faster vehicles generally have an obligation to look out for and predict the behaviour of lighter and slower road users. For example if a drunk pedestrian was crossing the road and was hit by a motorist, the motorist could expect their insurance to compensate the pedestrian.
I think pedestrians engrossed in smartphones is foolish but motorists are obliged to avoid them and generally they do; so should cyclists.
Do you really think that cyclists don't try to avoid pedestrians?I think pedestrians engrossed in smartphones is foolish but motorists are obliged to avoid them and generally they do; so should cyclists.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff