Coach firm involved in London cyclist's death has been subject of slew of complaints on social media from cyclists, pedestrians and motorists

Bill H wrote:

If women are disproportionately affected by road deaths it is far more likely to be caused by misogyny than any other factor. Trying to find any intrinsic fault with women smacks of victim blaming.

Is that sarcasm? False-flag provocation? I can't tell.

It misses the point, either way.

There might be some minor academic interest in speculating why women at least _appear_ to get whacked by drivers more often than men do, but I don't see that it's relevant to the main issue - which is why drivers keep killing people (note a - male - pedestrian was killed the same day).

Heck, you could just as well ask why its men who seem to kill cyclists more often (almost all those left-hooking HGV and tipper-truck drivers seem to be male), if you want to ask divisive questions that divert attention from the real issue.

One crucial point is that both male and female cyclists are a self-selected, entirely unrepresentative, sample of their respective populations. Both groups are not typical of the wider population, and its possible they might be unrepresentative in different ways in each case.

Males who cycle might be, even by general male standards, disproportionately confident risk-takers, and, say, more likely to jump red-lights and ride on pavements, both of which seem to improve surivival chances, even if not to be approved of for other reasons. The same might not be true of women who cycle, who might differ fom non-cycling women in different ways.

The important point is that as long as drivers of either sex continue to kill people in significant numbers, you are never going to get more than that small self-selected group to ride a bike on the roads.

So its not 'why do female poeple get killed' its 'why do people in motorised vehicles kill'.
(People can waste time on the first question if they like, but it just suggests to me they have the wrong priorities).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Bill H wrote:

If women are disproportionately affected by road deaths it is far more likely to be caused by misogyny than any other factor. Trying to find any intrinsic fault with women smacks of victim blaming.

Is that sarcasm? False-flag provocation? I can't tell.

No, me neither, it has to be the most obtuse, self-defeating, and unintentionally hilarious set of propositions I've ever seen. I will definitely be borrowing that!

[/quote] So its not 'why do female poeple get killed' its 'why do people in motorised vehicles kill'. (People can waste time on the first question if they like, but it just suggests to me they have the wrong priorities).[/quote]

 The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.

If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won't prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense  provides the answer.

Grumpy17 wrote:

 

 The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.

If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won't prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense  provides the answer.

I didn't say 'the urban tactics' I said the psychology and mentality. Which, assuming it's real, isn't something that could be, or should be, taught. It's just coincidental.

I don't think it would be a sensible solution to try and teach more people to have more of a 'fuck you' attitude to drivers, which, it seems to me, is what you need to ride on roads as they are - e.g. taking the lane when you know some drivers will be enraged by it, or breaking the rules by nipping onto pavements or jumping the lights at tricky junctions. I think the emphasis should be on changing the roads so as not to demand that attitude, because many people will never have it (and it would be better all-round if they didn't).

And, in fact, if those factors slightly increase survival-chances in conditions as they are that's a condemnation of conditions as they are and another reason why they need to be changed.

Also you went and mentioned the dread 'common sense'! Pet hate of mine, that term!

The difference between the numbers of male and female riders killled is small, so the effect of any alleged different behviour (even assuming it could or should be 'taught') is small compared to the huge effect of crap road design (and lack of enforcement of good driving).

And that's not getting started on the point that the main health effect from current conditions is not RTAs but increased morbidity due to the inactivity and pollution that is caused by most people not cycling at all (and not walking that much either).

Looking at the death rate among existing cyclists is thus only a small part of the story. So you are focussing on a very small issue within a small issue, and one that I suspect can't be changed anyway.

But I accept that its fine to wonder, in an abstract kind of way, about what the gender difference might mean...it's just I don't think it will lead to anything useful.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

 

 The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.

If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won't prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense  provides the answer.

I didn't say 'the urban tactics' I said the psychology and mentality. Which, assuming it's real, isn't something that could be, or should be, taught. It's just coincidental. I don't think it would be a sensible solution to try and teach more people to have more of a 'fuck you' attitude to drivers, which, it seems to me, is what you need to ride on roads as they are - e.g. taking the lane when you know some drivers will be enraged by it, or breaking the rules by nipping onto pavements or jumping the lights at tricky junctions. I think the emphasis should be on changing the roads so as not to demand that attitude, because many people will never have it (and it would be better all-round if they didn't). And, in fact, if those factors slightly increase survival-chances in conditions as they are that's a condemnation of conditions as they are and another reason why they need to be changed. Also you went and mentioned the dread 'common sense'! Pet hate of mine, that term! The difference between the numbers of male and female riders killled is small, so the effect of any alleged different behviour (even assuming it could or should be 'taught') is small compared to the huge effect of crap road design (and lack of enforcement of good driving). And that's not getting started on the point that the main health effect from current conditions is not RTAs but increased morbidity due to the inactivity and pollution that is caused by most people not cycling at all (and not walking that much either). Looking at the death rate among existing cyclists is thus only a small part of the story. So you are focussing on a very small issue within a small issue, and one that I suspect can't be changed anyway. But I accept that its fine to wonder, in an abstract kind of way, about what the gender difference might mean...it's just I don't think it will lead to anything useful.

Very noble aspirations I'm sure in wanting to 'change the roads' -what a lovely idealised vision of the world! Think it will ever be achieved?

In the meantime, before that cycling utopia of yours becomes a reality, survival tactics are the order of the day,even if that means 'breaking the rules' as you put it.

But ,hey, each to their own. In a world of danger you ,the individual ,must feel free to die by your principles of saintly adherence to the  Highway code.

Grumpy17 wrote:

 

So its not 'why do female poeple get killed' its 'why do people in motorised vehicles kill'. (People can waste time on the first question if they like, but it just suggests to me they have the wrong priorities).[/quote]

 The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.

If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won't prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense  provides the answer.

[/quote]

Generalise as much as you like, but doesn't multiple repeat offending point the finger at the operator and their drivers in this particular case? To re-iterate the atricle:

https://storify.com/NotInventedHere/clarks-coaches-complaints

Grumpy17 wrote:

The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride 

As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) - yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) - the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.

JustCyclist wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride 

As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) - yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) - the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.

I agree with this, and it's not only women doing this...

one point though is that when you say, "usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them" - this is only a partial interpretation of the rules - iirc there is some "rule" in the highway code that overrides the "rules" - for example, if the traffic is moving at 35mph in a 30 zone, and you insist on doing 29mph, then you are the anal retentive - I can't remember the exact phrasing and cba to look it up

beezus fufoon wrote:

JustCyclist wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride 

As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) - yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) - the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.

I agree with this, and it's not only women doing this...

one point though is that when you say, "usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them" - this is only a partial interpretation of the rules - iirc there is some "rule" in the highway code that overrides the "rules" - for example, if the traffic is moving at 35mph in a 30 zone, and you insist on doing 29mph, then you are the anal retentive - I can't remember the exact phrasing and cba to look it up

Or maybe you're the hero who saves someone's life. On my road near the traffic lights there's a lamp post with a dozen bunches of flowers + cards etc attached to it due to someone being killed, it's a 30mph road but of course the cars are regularly speeding on it. Speed limits are there for good reason.

kie7077 wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

JustCyclist wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride 

As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) - yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) - the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.

I agree with this, and it's not only women doing this...

one point though is that when you say, "usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them" - this is only a partial interpretation of the rules - iirc there is some "rule" in the highway code that overrides the "rules" - for example, if the traffic is moving at 35mph in a 30 zone, and you insist on doing 29mph, then you are the anal retentive - I can't remember the exact phrasing and cba to look it up

Or maybe you're the hero who saves someone's life. On my road near the traffic lights there's a lamp post with a dozen bunches of flowers + cards etc attached to it due to someone being killed, it's a 30mph road but of course the cars are regularly speeding on it. Speed limits are there for good reason.

the point is - if you think there's an rule in the highway code that will put you into danger - you've misunderstood - even the most clear and well defined rules such as as speed limits are not absolute by the rules of the code itself, so there is no way that you could endanger yourself by following those rules.

Jogle wrote:

It might be good to note that Clarke's is now owned by National Express. So they aren't some small family owned firm, they are part of a huge company with shareholders (of which I am one). This does also mean that Debbie Newman is no longer a director though. As a shareholder, I don't like the thought that I'm profiting from dangerous drivers who are endangering lives and think that the company should come down hard on bad driving

If you are a shareholder you can turn up at the AGM and ask questions about their (lack of) safety procedures. It's hard work but it has been tried before, with Cynthia Barlow of RoadPeace buying Cemex shares and questioning themt his way. Cemex have since become more safety conscious - I don't know if that would happen with these people.

But it is a tactic which you could employ. Hard work and time consuming though.

clayfit wrote:

Is there a lawyer there who could comment on whether, assuming that there is evidence that the coach driver was to blame for the death of Karla Roman, that the other anecdotes and patterns of behavior of this company could be used to bring a case of corporate homicide or corporate negligence?

the quotation from debbie newman does seem to imply that these deaths are simply nature's way of redressing the balance and that the individuals killed simply got in the way of the otherwise smooth running of the industry

unconstituted wrote:

@Grumpy17

 

what is the percentage of male cyclists that are killed per mile ridden compared to women? I haven't seen any figure, so no idea if women are actually mnore vulnerable on the roads.

If we are talking about London(which we are) there is evidence that they ARE more vulnerable than men.

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/why-women-seem-to-be-mor...

Grumpy17 wrote:

 But why are so many female cyclists being killed in London? This should be properly  addressed once and for all because it is surely disproportionate to the total number of cycling fatalaties for both genders in the capital. If, as I believe, this points to a lack of road sense or awareness on the part of some female cyclists in knowing how to 'survive' cycling in big cities then some realistic 'on the road' training should be offered, using a greater slice of the cycling budget than is available presently,  and with priority given to females.

 

I think (I may be wrong) that the problem is more to do with slower moving cyclists (including those who move away from the lights slower) and the incredible levels of impatience shown by drivers towards them - some cyclists/drivers may benefit from training...but thats not gonna work in the real world tbh...the current driving test etc doesnt work for instance. More segregated lanes (decent ones) are the only real solution if we're talking about main roads especially.

If you're not happy with your 8 year old kid or 80 year old grandma using it then it's not fit for purpose as they say.

Grumpy17 wrote:

If, as I believe, this points to a lack of road sense or awareness on the part of some female cyclists in knowing how to 'survive' cycling in big cities then some realistic 'on the road' training should be offered,.

 

Nope it's rubbish infrastructure that practically ensures minor mistakes (such as a coming together in the cycle 'lane' means some one dies or suffers life changing injuries because they fell into the lane filled with fast moving squishing machinery...

the Dutch have got the solution... separation of vulnerable road users in both time AND space from heavy squishing machines... minor mistakes are thus NOT fatal or life changing

google 'sustainable safety' it does not require high-viz, helmets or fast riding...

'Duurzaam veilig'...

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/sustainable-safety/

WillRod wrote:

I worked away from home during my apprenticeship and every 6 weeks we had the same dangerous coach driver, we complained, provided video evidence and asked our company to stop using them. That driver is still driving dangerously and has caused many near misses, but has never been stopped from driving.

 

I imagine driving a coach or lorry is hard and frustrating, but it doesn't excuse the horrendous driving I see.

This is a case in point - they're responsible for up to 60 or more lives inside the coach as well as countless lives on the outside, so what gives with these idiots?