Look out for the cyclist

[miga]

.

[the man with a van]

Oh so I am thick am I funny because you do not know me so I can say you are a stupid idiot who says most cyclists do not break the law a load of bollocks

[the man with a van]

Hi davidk I am doing 80 down lordship lane now and I am on my phone texting

[miga]

.

[FJDGoose]

I dont wish to appear heartless or in any way unfeeling about the fact the cyclists are losing their lives on london streets , but I really think that cyclists should look out for pedestrians , I see cyclists breaking the rules every single day , just this morning I witnessed this old boy almost knocked for six by a a cyclist ignoring a red light at a crossing

[Townleygreen]

yawn.

How is this relevant to the thread?

[grabot]

Two elements of the current media coverage sadden me:

1. That people: sons, daughters,fathers,mothers, have died.

2. The response of a number of people that this is in some way not a tragedy because of some perceived slight caused by a cyclist at some point.

Society truly does worry me at times. How quick we are to wish the worst on each other. I guess this is why bad things have happened throughout humanity`s history. What a vile species we are!

[Applespider]

the man with a van Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Really most do I would say you are wrong because I

> would say most do not because they do not get

> caught go over vauxhall bridge on the cycle super

> highway at 5 pm a raceway for cyclists that most

> do not stop f

> act

There's no super highway on Vauxhall Bridge. The cycle lane southbound is miniscule - just about wide enough for handlebars and not much else. It's pretty much lethal to end up in there at rush hour since coaches or trucks are too wide for the nearside land and regularly impeded the narrow cycle lane. If you are a cyclist capable of keeping a reasonable speed (more than 15-20mph), you are far safer in the lane there.

If you're talking about the CS5 crossover on the Embankment, I'd say that's one of the few junctions where you rarely see RLJ since there's almost constant traffic as each of the four lanes go. You do see anticipation of lights there where cyclists start moving just before their lights change but that's more about getting out of the way of traffic accelerating but they are rarely over the midway point of the junction before it actually turns green.

Where you do see cyclists RLJ more are the junctions where there is a phase where all the traffic stops and all the pedestrian lights are green. It's still wrong and it annoys the heck of me (as a law-abiding cyclist who is stopped) just as much as it does you.

FJDGoose - I'm sorry that you saw someone nearly knocked for six which I expect shocked him immensely despite not being hit and it would be nice if that cyclist is one of those pulled over next week when the police start their new crackdown. I'm not condoning going through 'green men' at all but it is safe to say that even those idiots going through don't want to hit a pedestrian since it's likely to hurt them more than the pedestrian if they come off. So there are likely to be a lot of 'close shaves' but not as many accidents. Cyclists do need to realise that a close shave to a pedestrian by a cyclist is just as scary to them as a close shave with a car is to one of us. It would also be nice though if pedestrians realised that bikes don't come equipped with power-steering and ABS brakes and looked before stepping off the kerb in front of us even if it's just a little hop on/off to get past a slower pedestrian.

[mynamehere]

On Friday afternoon, around 2.20pm, two men thought to be in their 60s died after being hit by a double decker bus in Romford. Less than 90 minutes later a woman in Roehampton died after being hit by a lorry. Both drivers have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

http://londonist.com/2013/11/three-pedestrians-die.php

3 pedestrians dead since Friday 2 by a bus and one by a lorry

not one story anywhere about a rogue cyclist killing anyone

And drivers need to stop: texting, watching films, applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating

[Loz]

Do I need to dig those stats I did showing cyclists are at least just as lethal to pedestrians as cars/vans per mile driven/cycled? Otherwise you could argue that white HGVs driven by women with nose piercings are safer than bicycles to pedestrians.

[davidk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do I need to dig those stats I did showing

> cyclists are at least just as lethal to

> pedestrians as cars/vans per mile driven/cycled?

> Otherwise you could argue that white HGVs driven

> by women with nose piercings are safer than

> bicycles to pedestrians.

Yes please.

[davidk]

the man with a van Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh so I am thick am I funny because you do not

> know me so I can say you are a stupid idiot who

> says most cyclists do not break the law a load of

> bollocks

Haha yeah it's hard to imagine how anyone could draw the conclusion that you are a meathead.

[LadyDeliah]

Injuries and deaths to pedestrians per mile driven is not particularly useful because huge amount of miles are clocked up on motorways and other roads where pedestrians are excluded.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Injuries and deaths to pedestrians per mile driven

> is not particularly useful because huge amount of

> miles are clocked up on motorways and other roads

> where pedestrians are excluded.

They are more useful than trying to compare absolute numbers when the number of cars and cycles on the road are so vastly different.

Davidk - I'll dig them out in a bit.

[edcam]

davidk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-not

> e-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf

>

> Here is the data. Actually, it's a little less

> than 17%.

>

> These are FACTS, WVM. Actually observed facts.

This data is very out of date but I'd say 17% is a pretty high number anyway. The problem is that the 17% (or whatever the true figure is now) are cocking things up massively for those cyclists that are sensible. Every day I see cyclists jumping lights and I think that is too often.

That said, there seem to be a large number of HGV drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers and motorists in general who make it their mission to make life difficult for cyclists.

We need better infrastructure and much tougher penalties for motorists AND cyclists when they break the rules. Catching them is the problem.

[davidk]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> davidk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-not

>

> > e-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf

> >

> > Here is the data. Actually, it's a little less

> > than 17%.

> >

> > These are FACTS, WVM. Actually observed facts.

>

> This data is very out of date but I'd say 17% is a

> pretty high number anyway. The problem is that

> the 17% (or whatever the true figure is now) are

> cocking things up massively for those cyclists

> that are sensible. Every day I see cyclists

> jumping lights and I think that is too often.

>

> That said, there seem to be a large number of HGV

> drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers and motorists

> in general who make it their mission to make life

> difficult for cyclists.

>

> We need better infrastructure and much tougher

> penalties for motorists AND cyclists when they

> break the rules. Catching them is the problem.

Of course 17% is too many - The point I was making with that figure is that it is very similar to the proportion of motor vehicles doing it. So if you're going to call yourself White Van Man and call out cyclists for RLJing, at least have a bit of self awareness (not you, I know).

The other angle here of course is that not all RLJs are equal. Many do it because it feels safer. And/or in response to hostile road design. Still no excuses ultimately and I don't do it myself.

[titch juicy]

"...... If you are a cyclist capable of

> keeping a reasonable speed (more than 15-20mph),

> you are far safer in the lane there......"

Or, just cycle at a speed more suitable to the volume of traffic around you.

This is one of my main bugbears- the impression you get that certain cyclists feel that as in some places they can cycle at 20mph, they have the right to do it everywhere. Regardless of circumstances and location.

[taper]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LadyDeliah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Injuries and deaths to pedestrians per mile

> driven

> > is not particularly useful because huge amount

> of

> > miles are clocked up on motorways and other

> roads

> > where pedestrians are excluded.

>

> They are more useful than trying to compare

> absolute numbers when the number of cars and

> cycles on the road are so vastly different.

>

> Davidk - I'll dig them out in a bit.

Here's the data you are looking for

http://www.greatgasbeetle.com/cyclists-terrorising-pedestrians-a-review-of-the-data/

[Loz]

Nice find, Taper. Not entirely different to what I calculated, though I only did for deaths and for one year. Nice to see soemone has backed my back-of-a-fag-packet casualty calc with a bit more research.

I used 2007 as another (pro-cycling poster) had quoted that year and with those concluded that cyclists were about 1.6 times as lethal per mile travelled as cars/vans. I'm not too surprised that, when you took a wider view as Taper's figures did, it came out more as parity between the modes of transport. But, as more cyclists take to the road, the figure for cycling is rising.

Anyway... my calculation, as promised to davidk.

In 2007, 6 pedestrians died as a result of colliding with a cycle. 275 died by being hit by a car/van. Sounds one-sided, but what this fails to take into account is the difference between the number of miles travelled by cars/vans/cycles. If you don't take this into account you can come to bizarre conclusions like the Ford Focus is thousands of times more dangerous than a Hummer, or even drunk drivers are safer than sober drivers.

I can't find the 2007 'miles travelled per transport mode' figures to match year to year, but I have found the 2010 figures. But, as cycling is getting more popular, that probably helps the cyclists case. These show that car and light van traffic made up 285.6 billion miles travelled and cycles made up 3.1 billion miles that year. Simple maths show that on a per mile travelled basis, cyclists are roughly twice as deadly (2.98:6 actually) to pedestrians than cars and vans.

Ah, I hear you say: but a lot of car/van mileage is on motorways, etc, where the chances of hitting a pedestrian is pretty small. Well, about 20% of traffic is motorway traffic, so even if you knock that off the car/van figures, you still have car/van pedestrian deaths at 3.73 for every 6 cycle caused deaths.

So, at the moment, cyclist are only 'markedly less of a danger' to pedestrians because, like Hummers, there are less of them and they don't get used as much. But actually, by standardising on a per mile travelled basis, cycles are relatively more deadly to pedestrians than cars/vans.

[LadyDeliah]

Pedestrian deaths are nothing to do with cycle safety and why are you only looking at pedestrian deaths anyway? You should be looking at total deaths caused by all modes of transport if we are examining safety on our roads.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pedestrian deaths are nothing to do with cycle safety ...

BREAKING NEWS: Scientists today discovered that the world does not revolve around cyclists. More in the main bulletin...

[LadyDeliah]

Er, it's a thread about cyclists and road safety.

You can always resurrect the pavement cycling thread if you want to bang on about that again.

[davidk]

Thanks for digging that out. It's an interesting way of looking at it. Although perhaps a little cynical? Are you basically saying that the deaths on our roads can be explained away as statistical collateral damage?

If I was prioritising policing resources I wouldn't be trying to clamp down on a mode of transport (cycling) that causes less than one death per year. I'd be focusing on the mode that kills hundreds (thousands if you include externalities), whatever the figures per mile travelled.

This of course isn't to excuse the behaviour of any cyclist who is genuinely endangering people. I just don't think it is as big a problem as many try to make out. Infact it isn't really a problem at all IMO.

[alice]

no stats to prove this one but what if the bad cyclists [jumping lights /pavement use / too fast etc] are not the ones getting killed / injured

that their strategies are keeping them safe

[El Pibe]

Entirely plausible, thing is they're the ones causing all the anger and resentment and making some drivers behave more aggressively and other's more carelessly, whilst yet others are now ignoring zebra crossings and the like completely.

If so, their safety is at the cost of injuries and lives of others.