Cycle question...
Discussion
Wasn't the OP asking about cyclists going out in large packs - or 'pelotons' as they'd probably like to be called?
Certainly this seems to be more of a thing in my part of the world and despite what some are saying here, that they'll always helpfully pull over and wave motorists past, I have never seen them do this.
Certainly this seems to be more of a thing in my part of the world and despite what some are saying here, that they'll always helpfully pull over and wave motorists past, I have never seen them do this.
Graveworm said:
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. By drivers.
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
I don’t know where you get the threat to others figures from but I would imagine that most of the 600 or so pedestrian and cyclist deaths every year are caused by cars as would be most of the 1200 or so car and motorcycle deaths.
Foss62 said:
Again this is a dubious use of the ‘safety per miles travelled’ statistics (solid or not). If you used the same rationale on the group of office workers who in the third week decided to walk to work, you would conclude that they were 1800 percent more at risk than travelling by car and consequently safer on bicycles.
I don’t know where you get the threat to others figures from but I would imagine that most of the 600 or so pedestrian and cyclist deaths every year are caused by cars as would be most of the 1200 or so car and motorcycle deaths.
I get the threat from the number of people killed by motor cars and dividing it by the distances they drive. Then subtracting the same calculation for cycling. Moving from a car to a cycle doesn't reduce the threat by anything like the risk increases to the cyclist. So pretty easy. I don’t know where you get the threat to others figures from but I would imagine that most of the 600 or so pedestrian and cyclist deaths every year are caused by cars as would be most of the 1200 or so car and motorcycle deaths.
Per mile driven more cyclists are killed by other cyclists than by cars. 25 percent of cycling deaths don't involve another vehicle at all, from earlier, cyclists present a marginally increased risk to pedestrians for the same journey and 44 percent of cycling deaths happen during the rush hour. Cars for the same journey are of course safer than most other motor vehicles.
The argument for cycling is well made out but its indirect benefits underpin it
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 29th August 14:10
gazza285 said:
NDA said:
Wasn't the OP asking about cyclists going out in large packs - or 'pelotons' as they'd probably like to be called?
No cyclist I know has ever called a group of riders out on the road a peloton. To do so would lead to ridicule.Donbot said:
Graveworm said:
Per mile driven more cyclists are killed by other cyclists than by cars.
Eh?Cars represent 78 percent of road traffic but, in 2 vehicle fatal accidents, the second vehicle is a car in only 58% of cases.
QED
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 29th August 16:09
Graveworm said:
Donbot said:
Graveworm said:
Per mile driven more cyclists are killed by other cyclists than by cars.
Eh?Cars represent 78 percent of miles travelled but, in 2 vehicle fatal accidents, the second vehicle is a car in only 58% of cases.
QED
Graveworm said:
Donbot said:
Graveworm said:
Per mile driven more cyclists are killed by other cyclists than by cars.
Eh?Cars represent 78 percent of road traffic but, in 2 vehicle fatal accidents, the second vehicle is a car in only 58% of cases.
QED
They care about miles CYCLED.
And here, obviously, as you state: in 1% of 2-vehicle accidents the other vehicle is a bike, and in 58% of cases it's a car.
QED.
Just because cars do lots of driving miles away from cycles (say on a motorway) that doesn't make one jot of difference to the risk they pose to cyclists.
walm said:
The problem is that no cyclist gives a toss what drivers get up to when they aren't driving around cyclists (which accounts for the majority of miles driven).
They care about miles CYCLED.
And here, obviously, as you state: in 1% of 2-vehicle accidents the other vehicle is a bike, and in 58% of cases it's a car.
QED.
Just because cars do lots of driving miles away from cycles (say on a motorway) that doesn't make one jot of difference to the risk they pose to cyclists.
This is clutching at straws. Again I am a cyclist. I am passionate about cycling. My view is it makes no sense to deny the downsides as we lose credibility. I was skewing the figures to be kind to cyclists - Car occupants are way safer in urban 30/20mph limits and cyclists are disproportionately killed in rural areas. Motorways are the safest roads in the UK. Bottom line, on the same journey swapping from a car to a bicycle increases the risk of death to the cyclist and other cyclists from collisions. They care about miles CYCLED.
And here, obviously, as you state: in 1% of 2-vehicle accidents the other vehicle is a bike, and in 58% of cases it's a car.
QED.
Just because cars do lots of driving miles away from cycles (say on a motorway) that doesn't make one jot of difference to the risk they pose to cyclists.
None of which makes the raw figures or the conclusions. (Not my conclusions but the DfT conclusions) wrong. It's bike vs. bike so implicity roads where bikes go. It's still hard to sidestep that BIKES are 1 percent of traffic (Presumably on roads where bikes do go) BUT are the other vehicle in MORE than 1 percent of fatal accidents.
Not to mention if ALL the fatalities involving collisions with cars were stopped. It would still be more dangerous to cycle than take a car.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 30th August 02:19
MarcelM6 said:
VAGLover said:
Cyclist’s are proper C U Next Tuesdays
The troll has arrivedand for completeness - car drivers are Friendly Understanding Considerate KnightS
ish, it isn't hard to take their reg and report them to the Police.T-195 said:
Not wanting to appear trollish but if a car driver is ish, it isn't hard to take their reg and report them to the Police.
Yes,you could do that. But you'd also need a very good understanding of the law, which most road users (cyclists included) don't have.ish, it isn't hard to take their reg and report them to the Police.Reporting something to the police that isn't illegal is pointless and wasting their time. And it is quite easy to drive like a prat and not break any laws
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff