Another cyclist dies in London

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Right here goes, the figures linked earlier by CB showed that out of the 31 deaths in years 2014-16 inclusive, 16 involved a lorry.

That's after a very quick perusal, and excludes bus /coach figures.

So where does the claimed 18% come from?

TRL PPR 445 main findings summary.

Thanks, so on a thread discussing about cyclist deaths in London, the 18% comes from a report covering the national road network.

So there have been what felt like endless pages arguing the minutiae over figures effectively comparing apples and oranges then.

Unbelievable.

No. We've been arguing about whether it has been established that cycling fatalities generally occur in collisions with HGVs, when they are turning.

The national data suggests that fatalities are associated with HGVs in only 18% of the cases.
CBs data suggests that over a particular 3 year period, just over half involved HGVs - but out of the total 8 years where data were reported, there were only 2 years where HGV related collisions were in the majority. Over the total deaths reported, less than half involved HGVs.

Based on that data, I still don't believe we have established that generally cycling fatalities in London involve HGVs turning.

[FiF]

Mave said:

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Right here goes, the figures linked earlier by CB showed that out of the 31 deaths in years 2014-16 inclusive, 16 involved a lorry.

That's after a very quick perusal, and excludes bus /coach figures.

So where does the claimed 18% come from?

TRL PPR 445 main findings summary.

Thanks, so on a thread discussing about cyclist deaths in London, the 18% comes from a report covering the national road network.

So there have been what felt like endless pages arguing the minutiae over figures effectively comparing apples and oranges then.

Unbelievable.

No. We've been arguing about whether it has been established that cycling fatalities generally occur in collisions with HGVs, when they are turning.

The national data suggests that fatalities are associated with HGVs in only 18% of the cases.
CBs data suggests that over a particular 3 year period, just over half involved HGVs - but out of the total 8 years where data were reported, there were only 2 years where HGV related collisions were in the majority. Over the total deaths reported, less than half involved HGVs.

Based on that data, I still don't believe we have established that generally cycling fatalities in London involve HGVs turning.

Despite the report that you cited clearly stating that there appears to be a particular problem with HGVs in London when turning left, and cites another report which again shows that the largest category for fatalities involves HGVs and turning or moving to the left. Furthermore specifically at traffic light controlled junctions it showed that of those fatalities 59% involved HGVs.

Yet you glibly quote 18% in defence of some semantic point. What a waste of space.

Not going to engage further on this seeing the level of bickering and downright disingenuous behaviour. Good day.

[saaby93]

There's a further issue that I think that both these stats involve 100% cyclists
Are they both the same involving 100% of cyclists in a collision with another vehicle
or is it a wider 100% of all cycling KSIs?
Just need to get the basics straight

[FiF]

saaby93 said:

There's a further issue that I think that both these stats involve 100% cyclists
Are they both the same involving 100% of cyclists in a collision with another vehicle
or is it a wider 100% of all cycling KSIs?
Just need to get the basics straight

Certainly the stats CB pointed towards include some where no other vehicle involved as does the TRL report. However they do look at different time frames and in both cases the data is not complete. Hope that answers your question.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Right here goes, the figures linked earlier by CB showed that out of the 31 deaths in years 2014-16 inclusive, 16 involved a lorry.

That's after a very quick perusal, and excludes bus /coach figures.

So where does the claimed 18% come from?

TRL PPR 445 main findings summary.

Thanks, so on a thread discussing about cyclist deaths in London, the 18% comes from a report covering the national road network.

So there have been what felt like endless pages arguing the minutiae over figures effectively comparing apples and oranges then.

Unbelievable.

No. We've been arguing about whether it has been established that cycling fatalities generally occur in collisions with HGVs, when they are turning.

The national data suggests that fatalities are associated with HGVs in only 18% of the cases.
CBs data suggests that over a particular 3 year period, just over half involved HGVs - but out of the total 8 years where data were reported, there were only 2 years where HGV related collisions were in the majority. Over the total deaths reported, less than half involved HGVs.

Based on that data, I still don't believe we have established that generally cycling fatalities in London involve HGVs turning.

Despite the report that you cited clearly stating that there appears to be a particular problem with HGVs in London when turning left, and cites another report which again shows that the largest category for fatalities involves HGVs and turning or moving to the left. Furthermore specifically at traffic light controlled junctions it showed that of those fatalities 59% involved HGVs.

Yet you glibly quote 18% in defence of some semantic point. What a waste of space.

Not going to engage further on this seeing the level of bickering and downright disingenuous behaviour. Good day.

Noting that there is a problem with HGVs turning left is clearly very different to stating that cycling fatalities generally occur with HGVs turning left.

The report also refers to drivers failing to look at junctions (as a separate comment to the one about HGVs turning left), cyclists being hit from behind in low light conditions, and significant numbers of fatalities on rural roads.

You asked a question about the percentages, and I replied with an answer about the percentages. I notice you didn't acknowledge that they don't support CBs "facts", but instead moved on to talk about the HGV narrative.... But didn't mention the rest of the narrative discussing other scenarios involving fatalities. Seems to me that's rather disingenous. In your summary yesterday of the TFL report you stated "looking at the data it shows fault on all quarters and statistically very similar shapes to the general preponderance of contributory factor guilt for various modes of transport"; but you didn't mention that the statistics are heavily skewed by children. Seems rather disingenous as well.

Oh, and the London specific report cited within the TFL PPR report lists total HGV AND bus AND coach turning left as being 23 out of 92 fatal accidents. A nice round 25%. It later lists HGV involvement in 37 out of the 92 accidents for all accident types, not just turning left.

So let me ask this straight - do you honestly believe that the data and narrative in any of the reports supports the assertion that fatal cycling accidents generally occur when HGV's are turning left, rather than that fatal accidents generally occur over a broader range of scenarios beyond just HGVs turning left?

Edited by Mave on Monday 29th May 22:06

[saaby93]

Mave said:

The report also refers to drivers failing to look at junctions (as a separate comment to the one about HGVs turning left), cyclists being hit from behind in low light conditions, and significant numbers of fatalities on rural roads.

Careful with any dft type stat on rural roads it may not mean what you think it does
It doesn't just mean quiet country lanes, it can mean small villages, largish villages and small towns ( I think)
There's a definition of it somewhere

[Mave]

saaby93 said:

Mave said:

The report also refers to drivers failing to look at junctions (as a separate comment to the one about HGVs turning left), cyclists being hit from behind in low light conditions, and significant numbers of fatalities on rural roads.

Careful with any dft type stat on rural roads it may not mean what you think it does
It doesn't just mean quiet country lanes, it can mean small villages, largish villages and small towns ( I think)
There's a definition of it somewhere

Yep. I know ta. I only mentioned it to avoid being accused of being disingenous!

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

Not going to engage further on this seeing the level of bickering and downright disingenuous behaviour. Good day.

Well said, Mave is utterly deranged! 18%??? FFS!!!!! FFFS!!!!!

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

FiF said:

Not going to engage further on this seeing the level of bickering and downright disingenuous behaviour. Good day.

Well said, Mave is utterly deranged! 18%??? FFS!!!!! FFFS!!!!!

Is that your reasoned, civil point of debate?

The London specific TFL report suggests 25% for HGV turning left. The spreadsheet data you linked shows less than 50% for all HGV related accidents. So far, all the facts you have provided refute your assertion rather than substantiate it.

Edited by Mave on Monday 29th May 22:14

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

And yet... The London specific TFL report suggests 25% for HGV turning left. The spreadsheet data you linked shows less than 50% for all HGV related accidents. So where is your data that supports YOUR assertion?

It doesn't show anything of the sort! Like Fif I'm over dealing with you. Keep trotting out your nasty little mantra all you like, there's zero reasoning to be had with you... you are genuinely not right in the head! Now go away and find someone else to annoy, shouldn't take you long!

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

Mave said:

And yet... The London specific TFL report suggests 25% for HGV turning left. The spreadsheet data you linked shows less than 50% for all HGV related accidents. So where is your data that supports YOUR assertion?

Like Fif I'm over dealing with you. Keep trotting out your nasty little mantra all you like, there's zero reasoning to be had with you... you are genuinely not right in the head! Now go away and find someone else to annoy, shouldn't take you long!

How is that a nasty little mantra? I'm challenging the data you claim supports your assertion. I don't have a physics degree, but in my simple world of maths 18%, 25%, 40% all represent a minority so whichever way you cut the data, it doesn't agree with your statement.

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

Mave said:

And yet... The London specific TFL report suggests 25% for HGV turning left. The spreadsheet data you linked shows less than 50% for all HGV related accidents. So where is your data that supports YOUR assertion?

It doesn't show anything of the sort!

Page 13, table 3-1, pedal cycling fatalities by broad collision type "HGV or bus or coach turning left or changing lane to left and struck cyclist" 23 collisions out of 92 total investigated collisions.

[FiF]

Mave said:

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Right here goes, the figures linked earlier by CB showed that out of the 31 deaths in years 2014-16 inclusive, 16 involved a lorry.

That's after a very quick perusal, and excludes bus /coach figures.

So where does the claimed 18% come from?

TRL PPR 445 main findings summary.

Thanks, so on a thread discussing about cyclist deaths in London, the 18% comes from a report covering the national road network.

So there have been what felt like endless pages arguing the minutiae over figures effectively comparing apples and oranges then.

Unbelievable.

No. We've been arguing about whether it has been established that cycling fatalities generally occur in collisions with HGVs, when they are turning.

The national data suggests that fatalities are associated with HGVs in only 18% of the cases.
CBs data suggests that over a particular 3 year period, just over half involved HGVs - but out of the total 8 years where data were reported, there were only 2 years where HGV related collisions were in the majority. Over the total deaths reported, less than half involved HGVs.

Based on that data, I still don't believe we have established that generally cycling fatalities in London involve HGVs turning.

Despite the report that you cited clearly stating that there appears to be a particular problem with HGVs in London when turning left, and cites another report which again shows that the largest category for fatalities involves HGVs and turning or moving to the left. Furthermore specifically at traffic light controlled junctions it showed that of those fatalities 59% involved HGVs.

Yet you glibly quote 18% in defence of some semantic point. What a waste of space.

Not going to engage further on this seeing the level of bickering and downright disingenuous behaviour. Good day.

Noting that there is a problem with HGVs turning left is clearly very different to stating that cycling fatalities generally occur with HGVs turning left.

Depends what you mean by generally. The PPR report covering national road network refers to the report by M Keigan et al, a report specific to London. It's that report to which I refer.

The largest subset of vehicles involved in cyclist fatal accidents were HGVs > 7.5t 39%, HGVs 3.5-7.5t 3%, so HGVs were in total 42%, table 1.3 refers. Bus and coach were shown separately at 7%. The second highest category were car/taxi at 35%, but considering the disproportionate numbers of the classes of vehicles, it's clear that interaction with large HGVs is a problem significantly worse than any other. I'm not going to get into an argument on the semantics around the interpretation of the word generally, that's your argument with another poster and I flatly refuse to get dragged into that. Sorry, but on your bike on that.

Now as for turning left. Table 3.1, the greatest broad collision reason, 23 out of 92, was heavy goods vehicle, Bus or coach turning left or moving to the left, 22 HGV, 1 bus. The next largest category was less than half of this. 11 each for, cyclist loses control or wobbles and hits vehicle / cyclist rides across road / vehicle hits cyclist from rear.

Again not getting into the semantics if generally or not, probably a bad choice of word imo, but it's THE most significant category, but hey carry on arguing over split hairs if you want, but it won't be with me.

Mave said:

The report also refers to drivers failing to look at junctions (as a separate comment to the one about HGVs turning left), cyclists being hit from behind in low light conditions, and significant numbers of fatalities on rural roads.

You asked a question about the percentages, and I replied with an answer about the percentages. I notice you didn't acknowledge that they don't support CBs "facts", but instead moved on to talk about the HGV narrative.... But didn't mention the rest of the narrative discussing other scenarios involving fatalities. Seems to me you're the one being disingenous. Oh, and the London specific report cited within the TFL PPR report lists total HGV AND bus AND coach turning left as being 23 out of 92 fatal accidents. A nice round 25%. It later lists HGV involvement in 37 out of the 92 accidents for all accident types, not just turning left.

So let me ask this straight - do you honestly believe that the data and narrative in any of the reports supports the assertion that fatal cycling accidents generally occur when HGV's are turning left, rather than that fatal accidents generally occur over a broader range of scenarios beyond just HGVs turning left?

Edited by Mave on Monday 29th May 20:55

On the matter of listing HGV AND bus AND COACH, I dealt with that earlier, it was 22 + 1, maybe you missed that.

Clearly there are other scenarios, has anyone actually stated that it's Just HGVs and just turning left, well no they haven't, although it seems you have thought that by your interpretation of what someone intended by the word generally.

I honestly believe the data shows that the most significant problem is when large vehicles are turning or moving to the left, plus looking at the subset of traffic light controlled junctions, then the problem is significantly more noticeable. HGVs 21 out of 34, table 3-17 refers. 14 of the fatalities at TLJ involved large vehicles turning left, double the next highest category, where the cyclist lost control, table 3-18 refers. Just to make it clear, it's THE most significant category amongst a whole range of scenarios, that's what the data shows.

I'll ignore your attempt at diversion about why I didn't talk about this or that, or not acknowledging whatever, it was simply diversion. I could ask about the 5 deaths at TLJs where the cyclist ignored the lights, table 3-18 again, but that's pulling the same stunt as you. Finally as for your accusation of disingenuity, coming from THE most disingenuous and blinkered poster on this thread that's rich.

Anyway you carry on wasting lots of bandwidth arguing with another on nothing much more than a bit of semantics thus ruining the thread.

[Vipers]

Just the lighter side of bikes and cars.

My pal was driving to work last week in his big Toyota 4 x 4 when he was about to pass a guy from work who was cycling in.

As a joke he put his passengers side window down and gave his pal st about bloody cyclist etc etc etc.

Thinking he was in for some come back at work, he was prepared for it.

As he parked up and walked into the bothy there was his pal sitting there in his coveralls.....

He suddenly realised wrong cyclist. To this day he has absolutely no ide who he shouted at.

Back to the discussions.

[will_]

cb1965 said:

I drive round London quite a lot these days and there are some idiots in cars, taxis, vans etc. but by quite a long way the proportion of cyclists doing daft things is much higher.

I see that you are back with your obsession of cyclists.

Any independent evidence for this sweeping generalisation?

And what does the "proportion" matter - surely all you should be caring about are the pure numbers? Are you more likely to be harmed by another motorist or a cyclist?

When you say "daft" things, would you consider motorists doing things that you cannot necessarily see (e.g. driving without a licence, without insurance, drink driving) to be doing "daft" things" too....?

cb1965 said:

I really do think if all cyclists behaved like some do and paid a bit more attention to what's going on around them and didn't take silly chances the rate of injury and death would come down further. That's not to say all motorised vehicles are perfect either, but the the police could actually deal with a lot of them better if they chose to focus a bit more on the various misdemeanours some of them get up to.

There are pages and pages of evidence of drivers doing unbelievably stupid things - the Bad Parking thread, the Dashcam thread and numerous other discrete examples. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that not all "motorised vehicles are perfect". They are very far from perfect, except in cycling threads where the preposterous suggestion is made that motorists are such excellent drivers that they are able to avoid all these suicidal cyclists hence why there are relatively few cycling deaths given the number of cyclists on London's roads.

The police did, however, undertake an operation to focus on the bad behaviour of all road users (which is what they should be doing, rather than focusing on any single group) in light of a particularly unusual spate of deaths of cyclists. The result? More motorists being given tickets than cyclists (in fact double). That includes many more motorists being fined for jumping red lights than cyclists, even though cyclists have a much greater opportunity to do so. Adds some perspective to your anecdotal evidence, doesn't it?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-than-13000...

So if we're going to see the police focusing on the misdemeanours of all road users, it will be the drivers who get the most tickets - which, given they represent the highest risk to others, and break the "rules of the road" more than cyclists (see above), seems about right, doesn't it?

[anonymous-user]

will_ said:

There are pages and pages of evidence of drivers doing unbelievably stupid things - the Bad Parking thread, the Dashcam thread and numerous other discrete examples. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that not all "motorised vehicles are perfect". They are very far from perfect, except in cycling threads where the preposterous suggestion is made that motorists are such excellent drivers that they are able to avoid all these suicidal cyclists hence why there are relatively few cycling deaths given the number of cyclists on London's roads.

The police did, however, undertake an operation to focus on the bad behaviour of all road users (which is what they should be doing, rather than focusing on any single group) in light of a particularly unusual spate of deaths of cyclists. The result? More motorists being given tickets than cyclists (in fact double). That includes many more motorists being fined for jumping red lights than cyclists, even though cyclists have a much greater opportunity to do so. Adds some perspective to your anecdotal evidence, doesn't it?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-than-13000...

So if we're going to see the police focusing on the misdemeanours of all road users, it will be the drivers who get the most tickets - which, given they represent the highest risk to others, and break the "rules of the road" more than cyclists (see above), seems about right, doesn't it?

Are you Mave in disguise? I can't be bothered to point out the multiple flaws in your drivel, I have learned on this thread that logic and real world evidence means nothing to a pro cycling obsessive!

[WinstonWolf]

cb1965 said:

will_ said:

There are pages and pages of evidence of drivers doing unbelievably stupid things - the Bad Parking thread, the Dashcam thread and numerous other discrete examples. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that not all "motorised vehicles are perfect". They are very far from perfect, except in cycling threads where the preposterous suggestion is made that motorists are such excellent drivers that they are able to avoid all these suicidal cyclists hence why there are relatively few cycling deaths given the number of cyclists on London's roads.

The police did, however, undertake an operation to focus on the bad behaviour of all road users (which is what they should be doing, rather than focusing on any single group) in light of a particularly unusual spate of deaths of cyclists. The result? More motorists being given tickets than cyclists (in fact double). That includes many more motorists being fined for jumping red lights than cyclists, even though cyclists have a much greater opportunity to do so. Adds some perspective to your anecdotal evidence, doesn't it?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-than-13000...

So if we're going to see the police focusing on the misdemeanours of all road users, it will be the drivers who get the most tickets - which, given they represent the highest risk to others, and break the "rules of the road" more than cyclists (see above), seems about right, doesn't it?

Are you Mave in disguise? I can't be bothered to point out the multiple flaws in your drivel, I have learned on this thread that logic and real world evidence means nothing to a pro cycling obsessive!

Go ahead, point it out we're all due another laugh at your expense.

The floor is all yours.

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

Are you Mave in disguise? I can't be bothered to point out the multiple flaws in your drivel, I have learned on this thread that logic and real world evidence means nothing to a pro cycling obsessive!

Evidence? What, like the evidence you presented to try to support your established "facts" but which actually refuted them?

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 30th May 22:22

[Mr2Mike]

will_ said:

There are pages and pages of evidence of drivers doing unbelievably stupid things - the Bad Parking thread, the Dashcam thread and numerous other discrete examples.

Whereas there is no evidence of cyclists doing anything stupid, they are all perfect?

[will_]

cb1965 said:

Are you Mave in disguise? I can't be bothered to point out the multiple flaws in your drivel, I have learned on this thread that logic and real world evidence means nothing to a pro cycling obsessive!

No, but I have identified you as someone with an irrational, obsessive and unsupported view of cyclists (including advocating violence against cyclists). I've asked you for actual "real world" evidence to support your views, but you can't provide any other than your own anecdotes and opinions - hence my first question which you have chosen to ignore. You appear to be yet another poster who crops up on PH expecting it to be an echo chamber for their ill-informed and easily rebutted opinions about cyclists, who then gets very upset when challenged - see above.

If what I have posted is "drivel" then it shouldn't be too difficult to identify the "multiple flaws" should it? If you can't even "be bothered" to do something that straightforward, why should anyone attribute any value to your views?

What do you mean by "real world evidence"? If you are talking about your own anecdotal evidence, then you surely agree that has little weight when compared to independent statistical evidence?

I mean, you said....

cb1965 said:

And yes some motorised vehicles jump the lights, but it is a tiny minority compared to the cycling fraternity!

Is that right?

And, as I asked before, why does the proportion matter?

You say things like:

cb1965 said:

Some will stop on red but a very good proportion will just merrily cycle through them and I don't mean just as they change to red, I mean when they're on red and traffic is coming the other way.

And

cb1965 said:

A tiny tiny proportion of motorised vehicle drivers do it and they're idiots, but a massively larger proportion of cyclists do it and it's becoming the accepted norm.. certainly in London. Yet until the law is changed it's not acceptable!

So if the law changed it would suddenly be "acceptable"? So it's all to do with breaking the law, and not about danger and/or risk? Do you mind motorists breaking the law? Do you obey all laws when driving?

And this gem:

cb1965 said:

No they won't be FFS! Do you actually ever travel by road in central London? A fair proportion of cyclists are a bloody menace and I'm surprised more of them aren't killed and in a few extreme cases genuinely disappointed as it's what they deserve!

What do you mean by "a very good proportion" or "a massively larger proportion" or "a fair proportion" of cyclists? That's pretty vague (at best) isn't it? What evidence is there to support your views? What about drivers who are a "bloody menace" because they are drunk, or uninsured, or don't have a licence - but you can't see that, so you ignore it? (As an aside, it's nice to see that you consider running a red light to be deserving of death - what do think about speeding motorists or drink drivers - presumably torture first, and then death? Something worse than death?)

You appear to have very strong views on the intelligence of other posters. Given that you are very well educated (apparently), before voicing your vague opinions (often followed by throwing insults around if challenged), why don't you read around the subject and educate yourself as to "real world" evidence beyond your own prejudiced views? You may be surprised. Sadly I doubt that you can "be bothered" to do that either.

The thing is, you're not completely wrong - there are plenty of bad cyclists out there. Is that really a surprise though - would you expect perfection from cyclists? If so, why? And does it matter that much that there are bad cyclists, given the very limited harm done by cyclists, particularly when compared to other road users? Is it worth all this anger and bile when the reality is that you are far more likely to be killed or have your property damaged by a car than a bike? Is it worth dedicating resources to stopping cyclists who run red lights when there are a million uninsured cars on the road?