MIDNIGHT DEADLINE to reply to Highway Code consultation; "Nobody who lives in London needs an SUV" - Twitter debate rages as Keir Starmer hits cyclist; Council accused of hypocrisy over cycleway + more on the live blog

Zigster wrote:

 (though one can see why he might not have been keen on the very unwelcoming road).

Then he should have been pushing his bike along the pavement, and maybe nobody would have got hurt.

Zigster wrote:

If the pedestrian had walked out of a shop without looking

You don't know that the pedestrian didn't look. Maybe they looked through the shop window and saw the pavement was clear and walked out, not expecting there to be an idiot cycling illegally on the pavement.

Zigster wrote:

But the pedestrian walked into him rather than the cyclist hitting the pedestrian. If the pedestrian had walked out of a shop without looking and banged into a mobility scooter or a pushchair would he also have been complaining that he had been treated like a piece of dirt?

Should someone walk out and bump into another it's a case of "watch where you're going" and nothing more. Certainly not a black eye (unless things get heated)

Those driving mobility scoots have a duty of care too, and driving at a speed likely to knock someone over would be irresponsible.

It is clear in the video that the rider is going too fast, and his actions resulted in injury to someone else. That is the circumstance at hand.

Sriracha wrote:

Quote:

Of collisions with pedestrians that resulted in death, just 1% were involved with cyclists. Incidents between car drivers and pedestrians were the leading cause of pedestrian deaths, accounting for 68% of cases.

You trot out these figures as if they convey some meaning. However without comparing the relative numbers of bicycles versus motor vehicles at large, they are meaningless. It's no different than saying that far fewer injuries are caused by motorists driving V8s compared to 4-cylinder cars, with the implication that V8 drivers are therefore not part of the problem.

There are many and various ways of displaying data, some more informative and accurate than others.  Using a pie chart of miles travelled isn't particularly helpful when a large segment of those miles is travelled by motor vehicles on motorways from which pedestrians are banned, skewing the data against cyclists.  A fairer comparison would be urban miles for motor vehicles and bicycles, the places where pedestrians are actually at risk.

Sriracha wrote:

Quote:

Of collisions with pedestrians that resulted in death, just 1% were involved with cyclists. Incidents between car drivers and pedestrians were the leading cause of pedestrian deaths, accounting for 68% of cases.

You trot out these figures as if they convey some meaning. However without comparing the relative numbers of bicycles versus motor vehicles at large, they are meaningless. It's no different than saying that far fewer injuries are caused by motorists driving V8s compared to 4-cylinder cars, with the implication that V8 drivers are therefore not part of the problem.

can you provide the same chart but with miles in urban environments where collissions with pedestrians take place?

Your argument seems to be that cars cause 68% of deaths but 77% of miles travelled while cyclists are 1% and 1% therefore if all cyclists switched to cars safety would increase. 

Sriracha wrote:

Quote:

Of collisions with pedestrians that resulted in death, just 1% were involved with cyclists. Incidents between car drivers and pedestrians were the leading cause of pedestrian deaths, accounting for 68% of cases.

You trot out these figures as if they convey some meaning. However without comparing the relative numbers of bicycles versus motor vehicles at large, they are meaningless. It's no different than saying that far fewer injuries are caused by motorists driving V8s compared to 4-cylinder cars, with the implication that V8 drivers are therefore not part of the problem.

Indeed. relatively few casualties on motorways with massive amounts of miles driven. Strike that out to include only roads used by all and we'd get a fairer picture still.

It's still the case that drivers as a group (of which I am one)  impose a disproportionate amount of mayhem on the populace at large thorugh collisions. That's not even accounting for deaths by pollution, and degradation to life quality through noise, restriction of movement and soaking up the public space, amongst other things.

Sure, I understand that you might want to compare only urban miles - but at least we need some basis of comparison.

Simply stating the raw figures with no comparison is misleading, probably deliberately so. And it finds receptive minds here; I constantly see arguments advanced here on the lines of, deal with the motorists first, they are the bigger problem because so few injuries are caused by cyclists compared to motorist. On the same basis you would ignore injuries by motorists in brown cars.

The case for cycling is good enough without appealing to a deceptive use of statistics. In fact, doing so can only be counterproductive.

Sriracha wrote:

Sure, I understand that you might want to compare only urban miles - but at least we need some basis of comparison.

You are correct, we do. And I for one do not think there is a case to "ignore this until we have dealt with that". Concurrent activity is obviously possible with enough resource. In the case at hand, my view is that the rider was entirely at fault, and in addition, I believe Road's immediate "but this hardly ever happens" was unhelpful (I believe my comments on this thread attest to that view).

However, any suggestion that bikes are an equal risk as cars either in frequency of collisions, or outcomes of collisions when they do happen would need to be rigorously argued - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Captain Badger wrote:

However, any suggestion that bikes are an equal risk as cars either in frequency of collisions, or outcomes of collisions when they do happen would need to be rigorously argued - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

And of course I never made any such claim. It just rankles with me when stats are used in a deliberately deceptive way. I'm quite sure that a mile cycled is less harmful on any measure than a mile driven, and I don't think that deceptive use of stats helps advance that argument.

Sriracha wrote:

And of course I never made any such claim. It just rankles with me when stats are used in a deliberately deceptive way. I'm quite sure that a mile cycled is less harmful on any measure than a mile driven, and I don't think that deceptive use of stats helps advance that argument.

I think we can agree that it would be fascinating to see more nuanced breakdowns of teh stats than the usual tired old broadbrush.

Agreed ;-(

Gus T wrote:

he was cycling far to fast for the circumstances, forcing his way,at speed through the pedestrians

He was cycling illegally on the pavement. No excuse for it.

pedestrian-pete wrote:

Gus T wrote:

he was cycling far to fast for the circumstances, forcing his way,at speed through the pedestrians

He was cycling illegally on the pavement. No excuse for it.

Paul Boateng, Govt Minister, 1999:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.

"Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

Oh - and, Mr First Post - go back to your bridge!

brooksby wrote:

Paul Boateng, Govt Minister, 1999:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.

"Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

There is no reason for adults to cycle on the pavement. Completely understand that there are sections of road that people may feel uncomfortable cycling along. In which case they could stop, get off their bike and push it along the pavement, and everybody is safe.

brooksby wrote:

Oh - and, Mr First Post - go back to your bridge!

Sorry... I don't understand... should my first post have been extolling the virtues of cycling? 

I think reasons for adults cycling on pavements were covered in Brooksby's comment, quoting Paul Boateng. In addition, there seems to be cross-party agreement as this view was further endorsed by one Mr Goodwill in '14. The discretion mentioned would clearly allow action to be taken in this case, but also makes the "no excuse" opinion just that - an opinion.

Personally, I'm not about to start frothing and renew my Daily Heil subscription if I see a grown-up on a bike whilst on the pavement, provided they're being sensible.

pedestrian-pete wrote:

Sorry... I don't understand... should my first post have been extolling the virtues of cycling? 

And you registered and joined the road.cc community because...?

Possibly because a previous incarnation got 'vanished'?

didsthewinegeek wrote:

Quelle surprise a policeman breaking the law, riding on a pavement where there is a road to cycle on, Road traffic act 2005. Whilst ignorance is not a defence, that should be doubly so for a policeman. I see it far to often, people on bikes on pavements and the police letting them do so.

A 'police worker', not a police officer. 

didsthewinegeek wrote:

I see it far to often, people on bikes on pavements and the police letting them do so.

I believe that Paul Boateng gave the direction to use discretion back in 1999 when it was made an FPN offence. Robert Goodwill reiterated this request in 14

Captain Badger wrote:

didsthewinegeek wrote:

I see it far to often, people on bikes on pavements and the police letting them do so.

I believe that Paul Boateng gave the direction to use discretion back in 1999 when it was made an FPN offence. Robert Goodwill reiterated this request in 14

Yes, discretion. I take that to mean to not arrest every cyclist pootling quietly and with care along a pavement just because it's a pavement, but to use the legislation to target idiots like this one.

Sriracha wrote:

]
Yes, discretion. I take that to mean to not arrest every cyclist pootling quietly and with care along a pavement just because it's a pavement, but to use the legislation to target idiots like this one.

I would concur

My understanding is you would only move a casualty if it was in their interests to do so, i.e. they were in real danger where they were.