Cabbie asks Jeremy Vine to condemn 'speeding cyclists'... doesn't get the response he wanted; Daftest idea of the year awards, featuring proposed Cambridge 'Tesla Lanes'; Cycle lane with built-in kitchen; National Pothole Day + more on the live blog

I saw that comment before I saw what it was about and I thought the Velo Wales closed road ride was back on. 

If you zooooom right in you can see down the bottom - the cab is going 19-20mph.

On an uncalibrated device the same as the cyclists. GPS speed measurements would not be admissable in court but they are not doing more the 23 or so even then. The first car just before the corner is probably doing the same speeds if not more then the cyclists. 

mdavidford wrote:

If you zooooom right in you can see down the bottom - the cab is going 19-20mph.

Good spot! So assuming he's correctly calibrated the cyclists are doing about 22...

The speed limit is now 20mph on the Outer CIrcle

lukei1 wrote:

The speed limit is now 20mph on the Outer CIrcle

Which would be why I edited my comment and said my bad hours ago, but thanks x

The speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists apparently. They would like cyclists to stick to it, but ultimately it's a judgement of "reckless cycling" that will been enforced.

Can't say I'm aware of any campaigns to raise awareness of the dangers of purple cars.

mdavidford wrote:

Can't say I'm aware of any campaigns to raise awareness of the dangers of purple cars.

How about green 1.2l 3-door cars 23 months old?

Sriracha wrote:

Vine's defence of cyclists (only causing 2 deaths per year) is disingenuous. I don't suppose purple cars are very high on the numbers either - should we give them a pass?

I suppose if the colour of the car made a significant difference to their lethality you may have a point.

I would have thought that the relevant factors would be weight, speed, acceleration and driver behaviour though....

Captain Badger wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Vine's defence of cyclists (only causing 2 deaths per year) is disingenuous. I don't suppose purple cars are very high on the numbers either - should we give them a pass?

I suppose if the colour of the car made a significant difference to their lethality you may have a point.

I would have thought that the relevant factors would be weight, speed, acceleration and driver behaviour though....

 

I'm not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point? Of course the colour makes no difference to the lethality. But there being relatively few purple cars on the road does reduce the number of pedestrians killed on account of them. Likewise bicycles, there's not many of them, compared to cars, so comparing raw fatality numbers is disingenuous. What counts is deaths per urban mile or some such rate.

Sriracha wrote:

....

I'm not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point? ....

.

Now now....

The point is that the statistic that Vine produced, imperfect as it is, illustrates well the fact that vehicles pose a far greater risk to pedestrians than bikes in absolute terms at the very least. The factors (relevant to lethality) that distinguish them from cars is not colour, but things like size weight speed power/acceleration and operator behaviour.

Is it maybe you who are deliberately (?) missing the point?

Captain Badger wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

....

I'm not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point? ....

.

Now now....

The point is that the statistic that Vine produced, imperfect as it is, illustrates well the fact that vehicles pose a far greater risk to pedestrians than bikes in absolute terms at the very least. The factors (relevant to lethality) that distinguish them from cars is not colour, but things like size weight speed power/acceleration and operator behaviour.

Is it maybe you who are deliberately (?) missing the point?

Clearly using colour confused the point I was trying to make - rate not number.

I believe I made the same point on another thread by using V8 cars. Maybe that makes the point better. I'm assuming large powerful cars such as V8s are if anything more lethal. But if you just followed Vine's logic I'm equally sure V8s could be exonerated on account of the low numbers they killed. It's just that there are not many of them. And there aren't many bicycles either.

Sriracha wrote:

 Clearly using colour confused the point I was trying to make - rate not number. I believe I made the same point on another thread by using V8 cars. Maybe that makes the point better. I'm assuming large powerful cars such as V8s are if anything more lethal. But if you just followed Vine's logic I'm equally sure V8s could be exonerated on account of the low numbers they killed. It's just that there are not many of them. And there aren't many bicycles either.

Vine's response is holding a mirror to the cabby's "logic". That is to pick out cyclists as a problem (because they overtook him). It would be equally illogical for the cabby to say "bloody V8s"

The cabby was making out that the riders were a danger to the public. Against the backdrop of the staggering disparity between vehicular and non-vehiclular road deaths, the cabby was utterly missing the point. 

In fact, I agree that as a stat for policymaking, it is not good enough without taking into account vehicle miles, and where those miles are. However to point out the ludicrousness of the cabby's argument, and to indicate the staggering scale of the road violence death toll involving vehicles, it is perfectly adequate.

I just think it is difficult to make the case for more cyclists when the only defence against these charges rests on how few cyclists there are.

Sriracha wrote:

I just think it is difficult to make the case for more cyclists when their only defence against these charges rests on how few cyclists there are.

I don't think that is what is happening here though. And the case for cycling certainly does not rest on how few (although the case for more would by definition rest on that)

I would love however to see a better break down of stats to fatalities by mile. I can't believe that the analysis hasn't been done (although I'm not currently aware of where to find it)

Of course, as cyclists ride predominantly in areas of high pedestrian concentration, and cars drive significantly in areas where there are no pedestrians (to all intents and purposes) you'd have to take into account motorway mileage by cars - about 20%. You'd also want to decide whether A roads were a significant factor in the statistic -  about 40% of vehicle miles. So potentially 60% of vehicle milage may favourably skew apparent vehicle/pedestrian safety. 

I haven't seen such an analysis, but I'd be really keen to.

Captain Badger wrote:

And the case for cycling certainly does not rest on how few

I see what you did there, but I never said that! Having just got rid of socratism, let's not introduce sophistry.

Quote:

I would love however to see a better break down of stats to fatalities by mile. I can't believe that the analysis hasn't been done 

Me too. But aware that the base reference is disputable (by miles? trips? urban only? etc), I showed only pedestrian deaths (rules out motorways anyway) by bicycle and by car/van.

On that basis motor vehicles are present at the death of pedestrians 72 times more than are bicycles. I can't think that the choice of base reference will flatter that number much.

Sriracha wrote:

...I see what you did there, but I never said that! Having just got rid of socratism, let's not introduce sophistry.

Fie, I'm sure I don't know what you mean...

Sriracha wrote:

Me too. But aware that the base reference is disputable (by miles? trips? urban only? etc), I showed only pedestrian deaths (rules out motorways anyway) by bicycle and by car/van. On that basis motor vehicles are present at the death of pedestrians 72 times more than are bicycles. I can't think that the choice of base reference will flatter that number much.

Like Rendel, I'm not sure that I accept that number, it looks like that figure compares deaths by type on pavements.

Yes, how you base it is debatable. Miles seems a fair base to me to start, but whatever you use it must reference the environment that the vehicle is operating in.

It is true that pedestrian deaths rarely happen on motorways, that is indeed why the milage by type must necessarily be discounted when comparing risk to peds from cyclists versus cars - cars are ~zero risk to peds when on motorways due to peds (or cyclists for that matter) rarely being there. It would be disingenuous indeed to include it.

Mate, of the two of you, only one is reminding me of Socrates the Cyclist.

Sriracha wrote:

Vine's defence of cyclists (only causing 2 deaths per year) is disingenuous. I don't suppose purple cars are very high on the numbers either - should we give them a pass?

Don't think that really works, more relevant is that cyclists account for just over 1% of total vehicle mileage in the UK, with motorised traffic 99%; cycle collisions kill two people and motor vehicles around 1750. So with 99x the mileage, motors kill nearly 900x the number of people. So it's a fair point to say they're what needs focus.

Incidentally it's incorrect to say cyclists "cause" two deaths each year. Two deaths a year result from cyclists colliding with pedestrians, that doesn't show how many were a result of pedestrian error, e.g. running out from behind a parked van straight into the path of a cyclist. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Vine's defence of cyclists (only causing 2 deaths per year) is disingenuous. I don't suppose purple cars are very high on the numbers either - should we give them a pass?

Don't think that really works, more relevant is that cyclists account for just over 1% of total vehicle mileage in the UK, with motorised traffic 99%; cycle collisions kill two people and motor vehicles around 1750. So with 99x the mileage, motors kill nearly 900x the number of people. So it's a fair point to say they're what needs focus.

Incidentally it's incorrect to say cyclists "cause" two deaths each year. Two deaths a year result from cyclists colliding with pedestrians, that doesn't show how many were a result of pedestrian error, e.g. running out from behind a parked van straight into the path of a cyclist. 

My apologies, I only added the relevant data after some delay. 72 times more pedestrian deaths from cars than bicycles. The argument about apportioning blame applies equally to cars and bicycles. Let us assume they are no more likely to throw themselves under one than the other.

Edit - and thank you, at least one person understands that it is some measure of rate, not number, that is at issue. The deaths by car that you show are total deaths (including car occupants etc). I was showing specifically pedestrian deaths. But the basic argument is as you say.

Sriracha wrote:

Let us assume they are no more likely to throw themselves under one than the other.

I'm not sure that's a safe assumption - being smaller and quieter than the average car, it's much easier to fail to notice a bicycle if you're not properly paying attention.

mdavidford wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Let us assume they are no more likely to throw themselves under one than the other.

I'm not sure that's a safe assumption - being smaller and quieter than the average car, it's much easier to fail to notice a bicycle if you're not properly paying attention.

Well, that's a bit harsh. Why are low beams generally padded? Surely nobody should walk into them? Just consider that the stealth of an approaching bicycle contributes to the hazard it presents.

Sriracha wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Let us assume they are no more likely to throw themselves under one than the other.

I'm not sure that's a safe assumption - being smaller and quieter than the average car, it's much easier to fail to notice a bicycle if you're not properly paying attention.

Well, that's a bit harsh. Why are low beams generally padded? Surely nobody should walk into them? Just consider that the stealth of an approaching bicycle contributes to the hazard it presents.

Eh? I'm not sure what point you're making here? That bicycles should be padded because they're harder to spot?

We're talking about pedestrians being a cause of a collision with a vehicle by suddenly and unexpectedly walking in front of it without having paid adequate attention to whether the road is clear (at least that's how I would understand 'throw themselves under'). I'm suggesting that if it's a motor vehicle it may be more likely to have registered even if they're only half paying attention, and so they're less likely to do this than if it's a bicycle. So it's conceivable that a higher proportion of collisions with bicycles were caused by the pedestrian.

Regardless of stealthiness, neither a sensibly ridden bicycle nor a sensibly driven car should pose a hazard if you're paying proper attention to your surroundings and don't throw yourself under it in the first place.

mdavidford wrote:

.....

Eh? I'm not sure what point you're making here? That bicycles should be padded because they're harder to spot?

....

 

Aah, that's why BMXs used to be sold with pads!

Sriracha wrote:

 72 times more pedestrian deaths from cars than bicycles.

With respect, think you've got your figures muddled somewhere: for 2019 there were 470 pedestrian deaths in the UK (Source, RAC Foundation). I can't find the figures for those caused by cycle incidents that year but assuming the usual average of two that means motor vehicles were involved in 234x more pedestrian deaths than bicycles.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

 72 times more pedestrian deaths from cars than bicycles.

With respect, think you've got your figures muddled somewhere: for 2019 there were 470 pedestrian deaths in the UK (Source, RAC Foundation). I can't find the figures for those caused by cycle incidents that year but assuming the usual average of two that means motor vehicles were involved in 234x more pedestrian deaths than bicycles.

I did give a source link. Here are the numbers as I found them (better in landscape!):

Table 1: Number of deaths where a pedestrian was injured in collision with
(a) a pedal cycle, or (b) a car, pick-up truck or van, England and Wales,
2006-2010

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Deaths (persons) |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by |
| | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

^1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of
Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes V01.1, V01.9 (Pedestrian injured
in collision with pedal cycle) and V03.1, V03.9 (Pedestrian injured in
collision with car, pick-up truck or van).

^2 Deaths include accidents in traffic and where the place of death was
unspecified whether the accident was in traffic or in nontraffic.

^3 Includes deaths of non-residents, based on boundaries as of May 2011.

^4 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year. ^

You have the right to have this response to your freedom of information
request reviewed internally by an internal review process and, if you
remain unhappy with the decision, by the Information Commissioner. If you
would like to have the decision reviewed please write to Frank Nolan,
Office for National Statistics, Room 1127, Government Buildings, Cardiff
Road, Newport, Gwent, NP10 8XG.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Kind regards,

Paul Wearn LLB (Hons)
Legal Services
Office for National Statistics

Source: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes