To the cyclist on the pavement ...

[Nigello]

.

[binary_star]

So now you're resulting to personal insults Loz? You refuse to see data sets for what they are because you so badly want to prove that cyclists are dangerous. But the data and metric you keep using is completely inappropriate and now you're getting antsy because I'm just calling you out on it.

My pro-cycling agenda is very transparent. Your anti-cyclist (not anti-cycling) agenda is very transparent. Whenever there is an opportunity, you never fail to have a pop at cyclists.

You try to marginalise genuine opinions from everyday cyclists by calling them 'evangelists' and saying things like:

if anyone wanted to know why people find the cycle-evangelists a pain in the **** then this thread pretty much explains all.

Apparently it's ok for you to speak for cyclists but obviously you need to make sure the message isn't a positive one:

You're are a car driver. According to some cyclists, that makes you are [sic] always in the wrong.

You make incorrect assumptions about why cyclists aren't interested in safety issues that have little to do with 'safety':

Cyclists yell a lot about safety, yet when something effects them, they seem to be no longer interested. Usually vocally so.

And despite all the stats you keep wading in with, your views just remain brain farts about what you *believe* but can't prove. Demonstrated succinctly in a thread asking "Who are the worst drivers in London?", you respond...

Cyclists

No evidence, no stats, no matter, just unhelpful brain farts. You are helping to create an 'us and them' mentality when what we should really be doing is concentrating on improving the safety of our roads.

It's unhelpful and damaging

LadyDeliah is right, the tide is turning and despite what you think local government are very much in favour supporting cyclists and cycling and are investing huge amounts of money in securing a cyclist friendly future.

But do let me know when the DfT or TfL call you up for expert analysis won't you...

[northlondoner]

Binary you're missing the point. Dropping statistical bombs on people won't change their minds. They'll go by the evidence of their everyday lives . I see cyclists charging through red lights , dashing onto pavements and undertaking larger vehicles every day. And councils may be chucking money at cyclists - but the aforementioned behaviour will still piss people off, including fellow cyclists .

[binary_star]

Totally agree northlondoner...it p!sses people off and rightly so!

But getting annoyed by anecdotal accounts of antisocial Lycra Louts doesn't equate to cyclists being any more dangerous than anyone else on the roads. It's just that people are really annoyed about them because they operate under different laws (or rather the same laws that have sensibly different rules for non-motorised vehicles).

It's fine to get annoyed but pretending it's a road safety issue is a bit silly.

[Otta]

I hate myself for posting again on this thread.

binary_star Wrote:

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

> But getting annoyed by anecdotal accounts of

> antisocial Lycra Louts doesn't equate to cyclists being any more dangerous than anyone else on the roads.

But most people are not saying that cyclists are MORE dangerous than anyone else on the roads. The reason these threads go on and on is because SOME people refuse to believe that cyclists can be dangerous at all.

And because SOME people like to wind people up on this forum and this thread is a gift that keeps giving to them.

[Loz]

Oh dear, BS - you wade through about two years of my posting history looking for 'cyclist-bashing' comments and that's all you can dredge up? Bit of a waste of an evening, wasn't it?? You must have been so disappointed. But still, you went with what you had. Bless.

And northlondoner - I am usually impressed by a well-made argument with solid stats to back them. Unfortunately BS seems to have no idea what point he/she is trying to make and just throws in whatever stats he/she can find and makes the rest up. I still have zero clue and to what BS is actually trying to say. My point was simple and correct - henryb was complete wrong to say that 'cyclists don't kill' (even, bizarrely, BS posted proof of this). Since then, BS has gone off on one and your guess is as good as mine as to what he/she's point is.

[Loz]

Otta Wrote:

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

> But most people are not saying that cyclists are MORE dangerous than anyone else on the roads.

Give that man a gold star.

[binary_star]

Today I met with friends, had a lovely lunch in a local cafe and went down the pub with my partner for a pint...but you keep pretending I'm wiling away my weekends trawling through your posting history.

Might take you an evening to copy and paste a few links Loz, the rest of us not that long. An evening, really? Bless. Btw Google is extremely effective (and quick) at searching for stuff...

Anyway personal insults aside (again) I'm not sure how many times I can repeat my point. You have maintained that cyclists are as dangerous to pedestrians as cars are because they cause more deaths per mile.

Two problems with that:

1. They don't. Remember that you originally used such an anomalous year for cyclists that when you actually posted a link to the "rather better" longer term analysis, the stats didn't stack in your favour.

2. "Pedestrian deaths per estimated vehicle road mile travelled in Great Britain" has never and will never be used by any credible authority to measure the danger vehicles pose to pedestrians. In fact so far the only people this makes sense to is you and a random blogger. When you look at deaths per unit travelled by the vehicle that hit the causality (as opposed to the one the casualty travelled in), it's a metric that only makes sense within the wider context of other information, such as whether each vehicle type is using up equal amounts of mileage on roads which have a comparable number or frequency of casualties to kill. That's how the DfT interpret that type of data, as well as TfL and the Transport Research Laboratory...and anyone else with an ounce of common sense.

I'm not entirely sure why you find the last point so difficult to grasp.

And again, if you are going to write cyclists are "that dangerous" you need to qualify what "that" means.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Really? You are confused about two words? Think of it as the opposite of 'not dangerous', as henryb tried to claim.

No. The opposite "not dangerous" is just "dangerous". "That dangerous" implies you can qualify or quantify the danger. If you mean "cyclists are dangerous because they have been involved in a tiny minority of pedestrian deaths" then that's not really "that dangerous" is it?

In the same year that 0 pedestrians were killed in collisions with cyclists, a whopping 55 people died by falling off a ladder. Wow, look at me I'm like a statistician or something and you know, I think this means that ladders are, just like, sooo dangerous! They travel 0 miles yet kill 55 people a year!! Stats don't always mean what you want them to mean...sometimes you just don't interpret them correctly.

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But most people are not saying that cyclists are

> MORE dangerous than anyone else on the roads.

>

> Give that man a gold star.

Ok 'as dangerous' then. Cyclists are nowhere near 'as dangerous'.

If you had the choice of walking out into the road in front of either:

1. A car

2. A bike

Which one would you choose and why? Loz is gonna go for the car because cyclists are 'the worst drivers in London' and the car may have come all the way down from Milton Keynes without hitting anyone else.

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> You have maintained that cyclists are as dangerous to

> pedestrians as cars are because they cause more deaths per mile.

Is THAT what you have your knickers in a twist about?

In that case: no, I haven't. As Otta tried to point out to you.

[henryb]

Loz Wrote:

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

> My point was simple and

> correct - henryb was complete wrong to say that

> 'cyclists don't kill'

I clarified this a couple of pages back to a post to showboat. Yes I was wrong to say they don?t kill - it was an over generalisation.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestriansbrf.pdf

I fully accept that in London 2% of pedestrian collision injuries on the pavement involved cycles.

I also accept that in the UK there are roughly 2 deaths every year (or ~0.05% of total road deaths) from pedestrian/cyclist collisions.

[LadyDeliah]

I want to know why only pedestrian deaths are important.

Surely if we are looking at relative dangerousness, we should be looking at all deaths. All deaths by car or cycle to all road users and pedestrians.

Plus a look at who is at fault needs to be brought into the equation, or again, real dangerousness isn't actually being measured properly.

It also doesn't make sense when measuring general dangerousness, to only include a group of people (pedestrians) who overwhelmingly share a space that is predominantly used by one form of transport (cyclists) over another.

So I dismiss all the flawed stats on here which do not take into account the above and only show deaths of pedestrians as a general indication of relative dangerousness of cycles over cars.

It's a total nonsense.

[LadyDeliah]

Loz, all your stats prove is that motorists do more miles than cyclists and cyclists have more contact with pedestrians, which I doubt anyone would dispute.

They have no worth in proving relative dangerousness of cycles versus cars.

[Otta]

"So I dismiss all the flawed stats on here which do not take into account the above and only show deaths of pedestrians as a general indication of relative dangerousness of cycles over cars."

Can I dismiss the whole thread and any other cycling related thread? I don't know why I keep clicking, I can't help myself. It's like self harming.

[binary_star]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> You have maintained that cyclists are as dangerous to pedestrians as cars are because they cause more deaths per mile.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Is THAT what you have your knickers in a twist about? In that case: no, I haven't. As Otta tried to point out to you.

Err. On the first page of this thread, you wrote (my emphasis)?

"Do we have to dig out the 'cycles and cars are - per mile travelled

- similarly lethal to pedestrians' figures again, henryb?"

Then you posted a link to a blog post by a random cycling activist in Sheffield who came to a very underwhelming conclusion that turned out not to be true.

You've been saying similar stuff at almost every opportunity you can on this forum for ages...

Remember this gem from the last round of 'deaths per mile' stats nonsense (my emphasis)?

"That is my analysis. It proved that cycling causes relatively, by total mileage,

more casualties that [sic] cars and vans and, thus, is more dangerous.

LadyD is right - you might think that 'more deaths per mile travelled' means 'more dangerous', but in the context you are trying to use it, it really REALLY doesn't and thankfully not a single study or credible organisation in Britain defines danger to other road users that way. This is what you're not understanding. You have to result to personal insults and condescending language about pigs singing because although you really really really want what you're saying to be true it's just not.

[binary_star]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> It also doesn't make sense when measuring general dangerousness, to only include a group of people

> (pedestrians) who overwhelmingly share a space that is predominantly used by one form of

> transport (cyclists) over another.

Quite. None of the shared footpath miles would have been counted and actually, pedestrians and cyclists are able to share those spaces very well when designed correctly:

"Accidents between pedestrians and cyclists were very rarely generated in pedestrianised areas (only one pedestrian/cyclist accident in 15 site years) in the sites studied.

Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that cycling could be more widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians;

Cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed, dismounting and taking other avoiding action where necessary."

From a Traffic Advisory Leaflet produced in response to the 1993 study "Cycling in Pedestrian Areas", available from the Transport Research Laboratory.

[northlondoner]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> Totally agree northlondoner...it p!sses people off

> and rightly so!

>

> But getting annoyed by anecdotal accounts of

> antisocial Lycra Louts doesn't equate to cyclists

> being any more dangerous than anyone else on the

> roads. It's just that people are really annoyed

> about them because they operate under different

> laws (or rather the same laws that have sensibly

> different rules for non-motorised vehicles).

>

> It's fine to get annoyed but pretending it's a

> road safety issue is a bit silly.

Well it is a safety issue, no ? Squeezing thru every available space , jetting the wrong way down one way steets etc is dangerous for the rider. I often worry about older drivers who may not have the split second reactions needed to deal with multiple clowns darting around them in an unpredictable fashion. Look, I've taken some chances on my bike before. But seeing a cyvlist with his head opened up on the pavement disuaded me from doing that shit any more.

[giggirl]

Seven pages and still running.

I just came across this safety light for cyclists. Good idea or not?

https://www.blaze.cc/product/lights/laserlight

[Loz]

BS...

'Similar' is not 'more'. Semantics fail.

And the original calc done ages ago was in response to a very specific challenge, which I rather elegantly met. So, context fail

Really, you are just trying to pick fights where there are none. Are you like this out on the road as well?? I suggest pedestrians keep well out of your way if you are.

[Nigello]

In parts of northern Europe (Finland, for example) it's obligatory to wear a reflector if you are a pedestrian. It makes sense there and would do here. This doesn't remove the obligation from the motorist/cyclist/motorcyclist to drive safely!

[LadyDeliah]

Loz Wrote:

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

> BS...

>

> 'Similar' is not 'more'. Semantics fail.

>

> And the original calc done ages ago was in

> response to a very specific challenge, which I

> rather elegantly met. So, context fail

>

> Really, you are just trying to pick fights where

> there are none. Are you like this out on the road

> as well?? I suggest pedestrians keep well out of

> your way if you are.

You have not shown they are even similar for all of the reasons above.

Your stats are crap.

As I said above, all they show is cars cover more miles than bikes and cyclists have more contact with pedestrians.

They say nothing at all about relative dangerousness of bikes versus cars, so why not stop trying to argue something that is so clearly flawed?

[LadyDeliah]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> I want to know why only pedestrian deaths are

> important.

>

> Surely if we are looking at relative

> dangerousness, we should be looking at all deaths.

> All deaths by car or cycle to all road users and

> pedestrians.

>

> Plus a look at who is at fault needs to be brought

> into the equation, or again, real dangerousness

> isn't actually being measured properly.

>

> It also doesn't make sense when measuring general

> dangerousness, to only include a group of people

> (pedestrians) who overwhelmingly share a space

> that is predominantly used by one form of

> transport (cyclists) over another.

>

> So I dismiss all the flawed stats on here which do

> not take into account the above and only show

> deaths of pedestrians as a general indication of

> relative dangerousness of cycles over cars.

>

> It's a total nonsense.

Just incase you can't be arsed scrolling up Loz.

[spider69]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> -----

> > LadyDeliah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > >

> > anyway and even when I don't I

> > > usually pass the pissed off motorist who

> > screeched

> > > past me, at the next lights.

> >

> >

> > You mean because he has to stop while you go

> > zooming through the red! ;-)

>

> You have just guaranteed another 10 pages of

> boredom.

Its getting there. Give it a break please

[katanita]

Not sure, seems like a good idea but might actually encourage poor road positioning. You should't be putting yourself in a position where you need a light like that for someone to see you in the first place. See also risk compensation behaviour, which often gets raised around the issue of wearing helmets: that riders will adjust their behaviour to be more risky because they feel safer by wearing a helmet/using a safety light etc.

giggirl Wrote:

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

> Seven pages and still running.

>

> I just came across this safety light for cyclists.

> Good idea or not?

>

> https://www.blaze.cc/product/lights/laserlight

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> BS...

> 'Similar' is not 'more'. Semantics fail.

This is painful... It was at the start of this thread you said they were "similarly lethal to pedestrians" but I quoted you verbatim where you said cyclists were 'more dangerous' above.

Loz Wrote:

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

> And the original calc done ages ago was in response to a very specific challenge, which I rather elegantly met. So, context fail.

It was never meant as 'a challenge', it was a genuine request for evidence, which you didn't meet. Here is the context of my original post that asked anyone to:

"Pick any parameter for danger they like, then choose any study, any data set, from any date range. And demonstrate that cyclists are more dangerous than drivers."

Firstly, you didn't pick a study. Picking a credible study or meta-analysis would have at least ensured that someone with some kind of authority on the matter had decided a way to sensibly measure danger. Accurately measuring risk/safety/danger is quite different from you gathering random statistics to troll your local internet forum with.

You picked two unrelated data sets that YOU ALONE decided would create a measurable parameter for danger. They don't do that, so any calculation is meaningless. However, you felt you could justify using these two data sets to 'prove' how dangerous cycling was based on one very anomalous year for pedestrian deaths involving collisions with cyclists. Closer inspection reveals that using that metric over 12yrs (rather than just the one abnormal year), the stats don't actually stack in your favour anyway.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Really, you are just trying to pick fights where there are none.

You pop up in threads about dangerous drivers to have a go at cyclists, you berate the opinions of pro-cycling posters, quote erroneous 'proofs' about how dangerous cyclists are. Not to mention the personal insults and attempts to undermine others' intelligence/competency. There most certainly is a fight being picked here Loz, and if you invite the world into the ring for it, you should expect to take a few blows.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Are you like this out on the road as well?? I suggest pedestrians keep well out of your way if you are.

I used to get quite angry with dangerous drivers but I take a more Zen approach these days. I rarely come into contact with pedestrians as I respect that they have right of way when crossing the road, I avoid shared footpaths, stop at red lights and crossings, and don't cycle on pavements. They don't need to stay out of my way, I stay out of theirs.