Cycle question...

[Graveworm]

walm said:

So cyclists should accept what exactly? Graveworm makes stuff up because he doesn't like people on bikes?

Oh and feel free to link your actual sources because that seems an odd statistic.
I would be more worried about the facts from my earlier link
"Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does."
https://cyclinguphill.com/reviews/stats-cycling-re...

Why don't I like people on bikes I cycled over 3000km last year.
Interestingly that is a very similar stat when you put it into context with:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Cyclists: 1 percent of distance travelled caused 4 percent of red light pedestrian accidents vs
Cars 78 percent of distance travelled causing 71 percent of red light pedestrian accidents.
So a little more than 4 times as likely.
Overall from 2012 to 2016, 2,120 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle in Britain—0.8% of these involved a bicycle, and 66% involved a car.
So about the same amount by mile travelled but, unless you think that car vs pedestrian is inherently safer than cycle vs pedestrian then we are looking at a higher incidence of accidents.
Which is confirmed by the seriously injured where, 2 percent involve bikes and 81 percent involved cars so cycles are causing disproportionate numbers of serious injuries to pedestrians.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 28th August 15:07

[Graveworm]

Foss62 said:

I doubt you are right. A normally driven car will exceed the posted limit many times on every journey - anecdotal, but try driving strictly to all the limits and then assess what others are probably doing...
Cyclists on the other hand are not subject to speed limits (excepting a few odd situations) so there are fewer possibilities for law breaking.
I am trying to get my head round your red light statistic, but if cyclists are only 4 times more likely to cause a red light collision per mile then this would suggest that per individual they are MUCH LESS likely to cause such a collision.
I must admit, I am not greatly impressed by the rage about cyclists red light running. I suspect most of the observed incidents are completely safe left turns. With no licence to lose SOME cyclists will take these as fair game. Watching car drivers turn incandescent, but then pull away and accelerate up to 22 in a 20 or 33 in a 30 whilst muttering darkly about law breaking cyclists.

Hence why I said like for like. A cyclist exceeding the posted limit, in many cases, could meet the definition for one of the non specified offences.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 28th August 15:23

[Antony Moxey]

Graveworm said:

Antony Moxey said:

iven that there are less cyclists on the road than there are uninsured motorists, I would suggest cyclists should accept no such thing.

Per mile ridden vs per mile driven I think it's a different story. I do both I drive about average amounts and cycle well above average. I tend to stick to the rules when cycling 100% but do exceed the speed limit when driving. However I do see an awful lot of red lights and pavement/where forbidden cycling I am pretty sure I don't see 73 times as many infractions by cars.

Bet you do. How many motorists that you see each day are speeding? Go past a school at drop off and pick up times and see how many are double parked, parked on zig zags, parked on crossings, parked across corners. How many do you see that don't stop at stop lines but either stop just after or sail on through, how many come to a stop in box junctions, how many park with two wheels on the road and two on the pavement? The list of every day motoring infractions is endless. I bet if next time you're a passenger have a look at motoring infractions (regardless of how trivial) and how many cycling infractions you see that there's a huge proportion more from motorists.

[Foss62]

Graveworm said:

walm said:

So cyclists should accept what exactly? Graveworm makes stuff up because he doesn't like people on bikes?

Oh and feel free to link your actual sources because that seems an odd statistic.
I would be more worried about the facts from my earlier link
"Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does."
https://cyclinguphill.com/reviews/stats-cycling-re...

Why don't I like people on bikes I cycled over 3000km last year.
Interestingly that is a very similar stat when you put it into context with:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Cyclists: 1 percent of distance travelled caused 4 percent of red light pedestrian accidents vs
Cars 78 percent of distance travelled causing 71 percent of red light pedestrian accidents.
So a little more than 4 times as likely.
Overall from 2012 to 2016, 2,120 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle in Britain—0.8% of these involved a bicycle, and 66% involved a car.
So about the same amount by mile travelled but, unless you think that car vs pedestrian is inherently safer than cycle vs pedestrian then we are looking at a higher incidence of accidents.
Which is confirmed by the seriously injured where, 2 percent involve bikes and 81 percent involved cars so cycles are causing disproportionate numbers of serious injuries to pedestrians.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 28th August 15:07

This is not really a valid argument though, because cars are much more likely to undertake long journeys on which the chances of encountering pedestrians are minimal or non existent (Motorways); and have very few routes that are directly shared with pedestrians.

[MarcelM6]

Wow - so much hate. I experienced this first hand this weekend when 2 of us were cycling in single file and were still being shouted at by drivers, fingers wagged, fists shaken. But 99 cars out of 100 didn't have a problem with us and just safely passed.

I'm sure there is a cyclist forum somewhere that is calling for the scrapping of all cars due to car drivers being fat, lazy oxygen thieves that waste taxpayers money by abusing the NHS etc etc

As has been said, a few bad ones (on both sides) spoil it for the rest.

[Graveworm]

Foss62 said:

This is not really a valid argument though, because cars are much more likely to undertake long journeys on which the chances of encountering pedestrians are minimal or non existent (Motorways); and have very few routes that are directly shared with pedestrians.

Why is it not a valid argument when it supports what I said? Sure it partially explains the difference but pointing out cars use safer roads does not negate the benefits. That's like saying trains are only safer because they use the rail network. Of course cars also travel much faster and have much greater mass than cycles, so severity of accidents should significantly benefit cyclists.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 28th August 16:56

[Graveworm]

Antony Moxey said:

Bet you do. How many motorists that you see each day are speeding? Go past a school at drop off and pick up times and see how many are double parked, parked on zig zags, parked on crossings, parked across corners. How many do you see that don't stop at stop lines but either stop just after or sail on through, how many come to a stop in box junctions, how many park with two wheels on the road and two on the pavement? The list of every day motoring infractions is endless. I bet if next time you're a passenger have a look at motoring infractions (regardless of how trivial) and how many cycling infractions you see that there's a huge proportion more from motorists.

How are parking violations like for like? I don't include lighting offences etc by bikes either fir the same reason.

[walm]

Graveworm said:

How are parking violations like for like? I don't include lighting offences etc by bikes either fir the same reason.

You have dramatically back-tracked from "bending the rules more" to "being dangerous to pedestrians at red lights on a per mile basis".
Absolutely no idea where your requirement of "like-for-like" came in. You just seemed to have picked on RLJing.

Interestingly from your linked stats, 46% of cars are speeding on the motorway (page 15) which strongly implies that cars bend the rules for a LOT of distance travelled (not surprisingly).

[Antony Moxey]

Graveworm said:

Antony Moxey said:

Bet you do. How many motorists that you see each day are speeding? Go past a school at drop off and pick up times and see how many are double parked, parked on zig zags, parked on crossings, parked across corners. How many do you see that don't stop at stop lines but either stop just after or sail on through, how many come to a stop in box junctions, how many park with two wheels on the road and two on the pavement? The list of every day motoring infractions is endless. I bet if next time you're a passenger have a look at motoring infractions (regardless of how trivial) and how many cycling infractions you see that there's a huge proportion more from motorists.

How are parking violations like for like? I don't include lighting offences etc by bikes either fir the same reason.

Depends where you park. Just because it’s ‘just’ a parking violation doesn’t mean it’s a trivial offence. Double yellow lines and zig zags are there for a reason, and if you think parking on a blind bend is nothing to be concerned about then crack on.

This simple fact is you’re choosing to ignore what you consider trivial to reinforce your point about cyclists break8ng more rules than motorists, but if you really look, and I do mean really look, you’ll see motorists commit far more offences than cyclists, and like I said originally, there are more uninsured motorists than there are cyclists.

[Solocle]

Graveworm said:

How are parking violations like for like? I don't include lighting offences etc by bikes either fir the same reason.

Your stats don't include fault. Far more pedestrians ready to step out right infront of me when I'm on the bike, that wouldn't step out ahead of a car. Part of the reason that I ride so far from the kerb, especially at higher speeds. There are the pedestrians tuned out of the world on shared use paths, who jump in a random direction when they hear a bell. The pedestrians who don't know which side to walk on on the segregated versions.
Pedestrians are far more often in conflict with cyclists than motorists.

[Graveworm]

Antony Moxey said:

Depends where you park. Just because it’s ‘just’ a parking violation doesn’t mean it’s a trivial offence. Double yellow lines and zig zags are there for a reason, and if you think parking on a blind bend is nothing to be concerned about then crack on.

This simple fact is you’re choosing to ignore what you consider trivial to reinforce your point about cyclists break8ng more rules than motorists, but if you really look, and I do mean really look, you’ll see motorists commit far more offences than cyclists, and like I said originally, there are more uninsured motorists than there are cyclists.

I didn't use trivial I did however use like for like earlier in the thread, I do look i looked for a living. In the US they have done the work and it's 50-50 there. If we don't go like for like you are of course correct - there are way more specific offences available to cars than cycles.

[Graveworm]

Solocle said:

Your stats don't include fault. Far more pedestrians ready to step out right infront of me when I'm on the bike, that wouldn't step out ahead of a car. Part of the reason that I ride so far from the kerb, especially at higher speeds. There are the pedestrians tuned out of the world on shared use paths, who jump in a random direction when they hear a bell. The pedestrians who don't know which side to walk on on the segregated versions.
Pedestrians are far more often in conflict with cyclists than motorists.

No they don't include fault, I was asked to provide a source for the stat, so I did. They are vulnerable road users just like cyclists. I would however suggest that fault really isn't that important, in the same way it isn't a priority when it comes to stopping cyclists from being hurt. I agree what you say explains what happens. I think it's almost certainly the reason why, along with possibly (Heaven forbid) that occasionally cyclists ride on the pavement or don't give priority to pedestrians in shared use.
I'm in favour of blind spot measures for lorries no matter whose at fault in accidents between them and cyclists.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 28th August 20:12

[Foss62]

Graveworm said:

Foss62 said:

This is not really a valid argument though, because cars are much more likely to undertake long journeys on which the chances of encountering pedestrians are minimal or non existent (Motorways); and have very few routes that are directly shared with pedestrians.

Why is it not a valid argument when it supports what I said? Sure it partially explains the difference but pointing out cars use safer roads does not negate the benefits. That's like saying trains are only safer because they use the rail network. Of course cars also travel much faster and have much greater mass than cycles, so severity of accidents should significantly benefit cyclists.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 28th August 16:56

It’s only valid if you compare like for like. The vast majority of bike journeys will be short, urban ones, so you need to compare with cars used for the same purpose.

[Graveworm]

Foss62 said:

It’s only valid if you compare like for like. The vast majority of bike journeys will be short, urban ones, so you need to compare with cars used for the same purpose.

Why? Cycling takes more dangerous journeys so cycling isn't more dangerous? I get that's why it's more dangerous but it's still more dangerous. As I said train journeys are safer, why that is doesn't detract from that fact.

[Foss62]

Graveworm said:

Foss62 said:

It’s only valid if you compare like for like. The vast majority of bike journeys will be short, urban ones, so you need to compare with cars used for the same purpose.

Why? Cycling takes more dangerous journeys so cycling isn't more dangerous? I get that's why it's more dangerous but it's still more dangerous. As I said train journeys are safer, why that is doesn't detract from that fact.

But you’re not establishing anything useful if you take things out of context. For example, if 50 people drive to an office one week and then the next week they all cycle is there a higher chance that one of them will kill a pedestrian? I very much doubt it...

[Graveworm]

Foss62 said:

But you’re not establishing anything useful if you take things out of context. For example, if 50 people drive to an office one week and then the next week they all cycle is there a higher chance that one of them will kill a pedestrian? I very much doubt it...

No idea but I do know there is much greater chance of someone getting killed.

[meatballs]

Foss62 said:

I must admit, I am not greatly impressed by the rage about cyclists red light running. I suspect most of the observed incidents are completely safe left turns. With no licence to lose SOME cyclists will take these as fair game. Watching car drivers turn incandescent, but then pull away and accelerate up to 22 in a 20 or 33 in a 30 whilst muttering darkly about law breaking cyclists.

Your argument holds no weight as speeding is 100pc acceptable.

I once dawdled over a pedestrian crossing after watching ped press button, cross the road, and get to the other side before the lights changed so everyone came to a stop for no reason. The driver behind hurled abuse at me with the window down whilst navigating the next roundabout without watching where they were going. I could also have hopped off my bike, walked, hopped back on in 3-4 seconds too.

No abuse of the pedestrian who could have looked before pressing the button. No abuse for the council who could use a more appropriate zebra crossing. No abuse for government who could just introduce crossing that flash amber instead of going to red for ages. No abuse for the mindless basic electronic timer that takes the decisions away from rational and thinking beings and instead forces them to obey an arbitrary countdown that benefits nobody.

[walm]

Graveworm said:

Foss62 said:

But you’re not establishing anything useful if you take things out of context. For example, if 50 people drive to an office one week and then the next week they all cycle is there a higher chance that one of them will kill a pedestrian? I very much doubt it...

No idea but I do know there is much greater chance of someone getting killed.

Yes.
By drivers.

[Foss62]

Graveworm said:

Foss62 said:

But you’re not establishing anything useful if you take things out of context. For example, if 50 people drive to an office one week and then the next week they all cycle is there a higher chance that one of them will kill a pedestrian? I very much doubt it...

No idea but I do know there is much greater chance of someone getting killed.

That’s pure speculation and depends on whether the increased risk to the cycling office workers outweighs the reduced risk to others they encounter on their journeys.

[Graveworm]

walm said:

Yes.
By drivers.

I know we are still being killed though. In terms of fault it's about 50:50, for deaths, for cyclists as quite a few don't involve third parties. . Motorists are slightly more to blame in collisions between cars and cycles though. Even if you take out all the non fault it's still a significantly higher risk.

Foss62 said:

That’s pure speculation and depends on whether the increased risk to the cycling office workers outweighs the reduced risk to others they encounter on their journeys.

Nope the statistics are very solid that an increased risk of over 1500 percent to the cyclist is greater than the decreased threat they present to others. They are massively over represented at commuter times.
There are other indirect benefits that, of course, should be factored in.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 29th August 11:06