Share the Road

1121315171821

Comments

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    According to this article in the Guardian there was testimony that he would have been able to stop if his bike had the legally required front brake. This seems like reasonable grounds to conclude that he had some culpability for the incident.

    Seriously?

    At 18 mph, it would take 0.82 seconds to travel the distance estimated by this "investigator". That's barely enough time to shout "hey!" or something less polite.

    Someone on the jury had clearly passed GCSE maths.
    Yes, seriously. I think it's much more likely that the jury convicted Alliston because they thought he was culpable in the pedestrian's death than that they did so because they just have a hatred of cyclists.

    Debating whether I want to continue defending Alliston as he's a very unattractive character and not a good advert for cycle commuting (to put it mildly, but it should be born in mind that he is a very young man who had lost his father at 16, so may not be in the best place psychologically).

    However, quite frankly it could have been me or any number of other cyclists in that dock.
    Then perhaps you, too, should consider equipping your bike with a front brake. Meeting the legal requirements could go a long way to reducing a jury's judgement of your degree of culpability.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Cyclists can be annoying away from roads and pavements too. I was walking my dog in the woods and a mountain biker came crashing down the hill, nearly hitting me into a deep ravine :triumph:

    The value of having biking-dedicated paths and trails seems obvious. It's a pity that all we can do is blame each other for suffering what we don't have instead of making things actually better.

    I don’t own the land, what could I do?

    What can citizens do regarding the rules of their homeland? We can conceive and promote how to make them work best. This pedantic referral to the dysfunctional current state of the rules whilst also complaining about the resulting malfunction is an exercise for the small-minded.

    Wise and entirely correct. Had a chat a week ago about our local city councillor and the seeming miraculous change that has had him speak at meetings and provide concrete proposals with actual drawings and costs for making a car-only area accessible to pedestrians including installing signals and pathways. This is someone I'd have previously dismissed as a stuffed shirt, interested only in the monied class of people. I'd say we both experienced "conversion".
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    According to this article in the Guardian there was testimony that he would have been able to stop if his bike had the legally required front brake. This seems like reasonable grounds to conclude that he had some culpability for the incident.

    Seriously?

    At 18 mph, it would take 0.82 seconds to travel the distance estimated by this "investigator". That's barely enough time to shout "hey!" or something less polite.

    Someone on the jury had clearly passed GCSE maths.
    Yes, seriously. I think it's much more likely that the jury convicted Alliston because they thought he was culpable in the pedestrian's death than that they did so because they just have a hatred of cyclists.

    Debating whether I want to continue defending Alliston as he's a very unattractive character and not a good advert for cycle commuting (to put it mildly, but it should be born in mind that he is a very young man who had lost his father at 16, so may not be in the best place psychologically).

    However, quite frankly it could have been me or any number of other cyclists in that dock.
    Then perhaps you, too, should consider equipping your bike with a front brake. Meeting the legal requirements could go a long way to reducing a jury's judgement of your degree of culpability.

    I've read nothing in Rocinante's posts to imply they don't have a front brake. The issue is that any of us could have a pedestrian walk out in front of us too close for us to stop because of the laws of physics.
  • The only pedestrian I hit stepped out in front of me. I was cycling on the road, not travelling that fast as I was moving up the side of a queue of stationery cars waiting for traffic lights to change. She didn't walk to the crossing at the lights, but stepped off into the road to walk through the stationery cars, without looking. I had nowhere to go to avoid her, because there were cars to my right and the pavement with other pedestrians to my left. And yes I did try braking, but I still hit her and we both hit the ground.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    As both a cyclist and motorcyclist, I have found moving past a line or lines of stationary traffic to be one of the most hazardous things. If the traffic is otherwise stationary, neither the occupants of cars or pedestrians expect anything else to be moving.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Now you're just being foolish. I walk. A lot. I walk a dog daily on "shared use" paths. I cycle most weekdays. I drive as well.

    And how do you feel, as a pedestrian, when cyclists blow past you too fast and too close, or fail to move out of the way when they're heading directly toward you?
    I don't "blow through" anything, I fail to put my foot down and stop slowly rolling at some stop signs when it is safe to do so and when it is my turn to go. Car drivers don't fully stop at about the same rates as cyclists, if you care to check data.

    As I have said repeatedly, I am not accusing anyone here of cycling misdeeds; I am citing some that I have witnessed frequently, and, often, been threatened by.

    And, of course, we all know that drivers are a bigger threat to cyclists or pedestrians. As for not stopping fully for stop signs, are you saying that two wrongs make a right? Why can't you admit that cyclists are often a problem when they don't follow the rules?


  • Landlubber wrote: »
    Fast cyclists round here do use the (30mph speed limit) carriageway but mostly in single file.
    If there's a group of cyclists travelling together, riding 2 or 3 abreast is better as it causes less delay to motor traffic. Though, the delays caused by serious cyclists on a 30mph road are minimal - as said several times speeds of 20mph are not unusual, so they're only a little below the speed the cars would travel at if they weren't there.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    According to this article in the Guardian there was testimony that he would have been able to stop if his bike had the legally required front brake. This seems like reasonable grounds to conclude that he had some culpability for the incident.

    Seriously?

    At 18 mph, it would take 0.82 seconds to travel the distance estimated by this "investigator". That's barely enough time to shout "hey!" or something less polite.

    Someone on the jury had clearly passed GCSE maths.
    Yes, seriously. I think it's much more likely that the jury convicted Alliston because they thought he was culpable in the pedestrian's death than that they did so because they just have a hatred of cyclists.

    Debating whether I want to continue defending Alliston as he's a very unattractive character and not a good advert for cycle commuting (to put it mildly, but it should be born in mind that he is a very young man who had lost his father at 16, so may not be in the best place psychologically).

    However, quite frankly it could have been me or any number of other cyclists in that dock.
    Then perhaps you, too, should consider equipping your bike with a front brake. Meeting the legal requirements could go a long way to reducing a jury's judgement of your degree of culpability.

    I've read nothing in Rocinante's posts to imply they don't have a front brake. The issue is that any of us could have a pedestrian walk out in front of us too close for us to stop because of the laws of physics.
    I don't think that is the issue in this case - I think the jury was blaming the cyclist for not having a properly equipped bicycle, not for his inability to transcend the laws of physics. So if Rocinante feels as vulnerable to such a charge as Alliston was, I'm suggesting (for the sake of a snarky Hell comment) that a trip to the local bike shop may be in order.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Dave W wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    According to this article in the Guardian there was testimony that he would have been able to stop if his bike had the legally required front brake. This seems like reasonable grounds to conclude that he had some culpability for the incident.

    Seriously?

    At 18 mph, it would take 0.82 seconds to travel the distance estimated by this "investigator". That's barely enough time to shout "hey!" or something less polite.

    Someone on the jury had clearly passed GCSE maths.
    Yes, seriously. I think it's much more likely that the jury convicted Alliston because they thought he was culpable in the pedestrian's death than that they did so because they just have a hatred of cyclists.

    Debating whether I want to continue defending Alliston as he's a very unattractive character and not a good advert for cycle commuting (to put it mildly, but it should be born in mind that he is a very young man who had lost his father at 16, so may not be in the best place psychologically).

    However, quite frankly it could have been me or any number of other cyclists in that dock.
    Then perhaps you, too, should consider equipping your bike with a front brake. Meeting the legal requirements could go a long way to reducing a jury's judgement of your degree of culpability.

    I've read nothing in Rocinante's posts to imply they don't have a front brake. The issue is that any of us could have a pedestrian walk out in front of us too close for us to stop because of the laws of physics.
    I don't think that is the issue in this case - I think the jury was blaming the cyclist for not having a properly equipped bicycle, not for his inability to transcend the laws of physics. So if Rocinante feels as vulnerable to such a charge as Alliston was, I'm suggesting (for the sake of a snarky Hell comment) that a trip to the local bike shop may be in order.

    I think the point being made was that the jury were wrong - not having a front brake made no difference to not being able to stop in the split second available. The prosecution in the end was furious cycling - apparently 18mph in a 30 zone was considered too fast. It's questionable whether a motorist would be considered to be going too fast in these circumstances
  • <<sigh>> ok not done.

    If the CPS were really concerned about the front brake issue, then a prosecution under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) regs would have been appropriate. They didn't bring any such prosecution, instead they tried a punt on a very speculative manslaughter charge, with a fall-back of de facto speeding.

    There was then a general moral panic at the idea of cyclists travelling at such outrageous speeds (20 mph! the very thought!), which was undoubtedly the desired effect.

    Any experienced cyclist who is confronted by a sudden hazard at speed will first try to manoeuvre around it. Slamming on the brakes is an absolute last resort that invites disaster. (My brakes are fine, btw. They're in good shape because I try to ride in a way that minimises my use of them. Steady acceleration, steady deceleration.)

    There are no jaywalking laws in the UK. Pedestrians are free to cross roads wherever they judge it safe. If your chosen crossing point isn't safe, that's your lookout: I have enough on my plate protecting my own life on the road without having to take responsibility for yours as well.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    According to this article in the Guardian there was testimony that he would have been able to stop if his bike had the legally required front brake. This seems like reasonable grounds to conclude that he had some culpability for the incident.

    Seriously?

    At 18 mph, it would take 0.82 seconds to travel the distance estimated by this "investigator". That's barely enough time to shout "hey!" or something less polite.

    Someone on the jury had clearly passed GCSE maths.
    Yes, seriously. I think it's much more likely that the jury convicted Alliston because they thought he was culpable in the pedestrian's death than that they did so because they just have a hatred of cyclists.

    Debating whether I want to continue defending Alliston as he's a very unattractive character and not a good advert for cycle commuting (to put it mildly, but it should be born in mind that he is a very young man who had lost his father at 16, so may not be in the best place psychologically).

    However, quite frankly it could have been me or any number of other cyclists in that dock.
    Then perhaps you, too, should consider equipping your bike with a front brake. Meeting the legal requirements could go a long way to reducing a jury's judgement of your degree of culpability.

    I've read nothing in Rocinante's posts to imply they don't have a front brake. The issue is that any of us could have a pedestrian walk out in front of us too close for us to stop because of the laws of physics.
    I don't think that is the issue in this case - I think the jury was blaming the cyclist for not having a properly equipped bicycle, not for his inability to transcend the laws of physics. So if Rocinante feels as vulnerable to such a charge as Alliston was, I'm suggesting (for the sake of a snarky Hell comment) that a trip to the local bike shop may be in order.

    I think the point being made was that the jury were wrong - not having a front brake made no difference to not being able to stop in the split second available. The prosecution in the end was furious cycling - apparently 18mph in a 30 zone was considered too fast. It's questionable whether a motorist would be considered to be going too fast in these circumstances
    They may have been wrong; I haven't seen a thorough account of the testimony they heard. But Rocinante suggested that they convicted Alliston because they just didn't like cyclists, not because they (rightly or wrongly) thought he was culpable, and I think that's pretty unlikely.
    Rocinante wrote: »
    <<sigh>> ok not done.
    Nobody's making you write this stuff, you know. You probably enjoy arguing on the internet as much as the next person. Don't pretend to be so put upon; if you want to stop, you can.
  • Yeah, I'm spending today in the garden, a much more productive use of time.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    According to this article in the Guardian there was testimony that he would have been able to stop if his bike had the legally required front brake. This seems like reasonable grounds to conclude that he had some culpability for the incident.

    Seriously?

    At 18 mph, it would take 0.82 seconds to travel the distance estimated by this "investigator". That's barely enough time to shout "hey!" or something less polite.

    Someone on the jury had clearly passed GCSE maths.
    Yes, seriously. I think it's much more likely that the jury convicted Alliston because they thought he was culpable in the pedestrian's death than that they did so because they just have a hatred of cyclists.

    Debating whether I want to continue defending Alliston as he's a very unattractive character and not a good advert for cycle commuting (to put it mildly, but it should be born in mind that he is a very young man who had lost his father at 16, so may not be in the best place psychologically).

    However, quite frankly it could have been me or any number of other cyclists in that dock.
    Then perhaps you, too, should consider equipping your bike with a front brake. Meeting the legal requirements could go a long way to reducing a jury's judgement of your degree of culpability.

    I've read nothing in Rocinante's posts to imply they don't have a front brake. The issue is that any of us could have a pedestrian walk out in front of us too close for us to stop because of the laws of physics.
    I don't think that is the issue in this case - I think the jury was blaming the cyclist for not having a properly equipped bicycle, not for his inability to transcend the laws of physics. So if Rocinante feels as vulnerable to such a charge as Alliston was, I'm suggesting (for the sake of a snarky Hell comment) that a trip to the local bike shop may be in order.

    I think the point being made was that the jury were wrong - not having a front brake made no difference to not being able to stop in the split second available. The prosecution in the end was furious cycling - apparently 18mph in a 30 zone was considered too fast. It's questionable whether a motorist would be considered to be going too fast in these circumstances
    They may have been wrong; I haven't seen a thorough account of the testimony they heard. But Rocinante suggested that they convicted Alliston because they just didn't like cyclists, not because they (rightly or wrongly) thought he was culpable, and I think that's pretty unlikely.
    Rocinante wrote: »
    <<sigh>> ok not done.
    Nobody's making you write this stuff, you know. You probably enjoy arguing on the internet as much as the next person. Don't pretend to be so put upon; if you want to stop, you can.

    I think it's more subtle than that; that they convicted him because they thought 18mph was fast, unreasonably so - a speed that would have been considered cautious in a motorist.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    My actual road experience as a cyclist has taught me that pedestrians often don’t respond either to a shout from me or to a bell being rung.

    Depends what you mean by "respond". The usual respond to hearing a shout is to stop, turn around, and try to figure out what the shouting is all about. And if you've just stepped into the path of a cyclist, then stopping and slowly rotating is probably not the response you need to make.
  • If there's a group of cyclists travelling together, riding 2 or 3 abreast is better as it causes less delay to motor traffic.

    No, it doesn't. Motor traffic encountering the rear of your peleton has to slow down until it's safe to pass. The question of which arrangement of cyclists causes the least delay is entirely controlled by whether it is faster / easier for cars to pass a lane-wide, shorter clump of cyclists, or a longer line of cyclists at the side of the road. And that also depends on the number of cyclists. If we're talking about half a dozen or so, then single file is always better (6 cyclists nose-to-tail are short compared to the distance needed for a car to move to the right and move back to the left again). If we're talking about several tens, and there's a reason why they must remain in one bunch, then you might be right (assuming normal UK roads).
  • If there's a group of cyclists travelling together, riding 2 or 3 abreast is better as it causes less delay to motor traffic.

    No, it doesn't. Motor traffic encountering the rear of your peleton has to slow down until it's safe to pass. The question of which arrangement of cyclists causes the least delay is entirely controlled by whether it is faster / easier for cars to pass a lane-wide, shorter clump of cyclists, or a longer line of cyclists at the side of the road. And that also depends on the number of cyclists. If we're talking about half a dozen or so, then single file is always better (6 cyclists nose-to-tail are short compared to the distance needed for a car to move to the right and move back to the left again). If we're talking about several tens, and there's a reason why they must remain in one bunch, then you might be right (assuming normal UK roads).
    To pass a single cyclist a driver needs a clear lane to move into. And, that lane has to be clear for long enough to pass the cyclist. If there are half a dozen cyclists in single file then the lane needs to be clear long enough to pass all of them, if they're riding 3 abreast then the distance needed is reduced by a factor of three. Which allows a car to pass through a shorter gap in on-coming traffic, and hence pass the cyclists sooner.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Curse your appeals to logical deduction and assumptions of correct behaviour, Alan.

    Clearly the single-file cyclists are so aligned to allow motorists to squeeze past them in the same lane. Because that's perfectly safe and never horrifying, thanks to the obvious right of way nature has a tendency to make for higher momentums.
  • To pass a single cyclist a driver needs a clear lane to move into. And, that lane has to be clear for long enough to pass the cyclist. If there are half a dozen cyclists in single file then the lane needs to be clear long enough to pass all of them, if they're riding 3 abreast then the distance needed is reduced by a factor of three. Which allows a car to pass through a shorter gap in on-coming traffic, and hence pass the cyclists sooner.

    To pass a single cyclist, the driver needs to move a car's width or so to the outside, in order to leave sufficient space between his car and the cyclist. To pass cyclists travelling three abreast, he has to move further across, in order to achieve the same separation between his car and the outermost cyclist. Three cyclists side-by-side occupy about a car's width of road, so the driver has to move twice as far across to pass your side-by-side cyclists as he does to pass a single cyclist.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    To pass a single cyclist a driver needs a clear lane to move into. And, that lane has to be clear for long enough to pass the cyclist. If there are half a dozen cyclists in single file then the lane needs to be clear long enough to pass all of them, if they're riding 3 abreast then the distance needed is reduced by a factor of three. Which allows a car to pass through a shorter gap in on-coming traffic, and hence pass the cyclists sooner.

    To pass a single cyclist, the driver needs to move a car's width or so to the outside, in order to leave sufficient space between his car and the cyclist. To pass cyclists travelling three abreast, he has to move further across, in order to achieve the same separation between his car and the outermost cyclist. Three cyclists side-by-side occupy about a car's width of road, so the driver has to move twice as far across to pass your side-by-side cyclists as he does to pass a single cyclist.

    He still needs a clear lane however far he needs to move over on the vast majority of roads. This is easier to achieve if the group is longer rather than wider. Riding two abreast has the advantage of forcing drivers to wait for a proper gap instead of squeezing between the cyclist and the oncoming traffic
  • I really didn't mean to start the single file argument off: classic example of having no control over what happens once the post has been made. The cyclist in my anecdote was, in fact, alone. The rest was just context. Aagh.
  • A few weeks ago I read something about proposed revision to the Highway Code regarding cyclists, but I spent a fair bit of time last night looking for it without success.

    Part of that was drivers overtaking cyclists, with a much more explicit statement than the current"as much space as you would give a car" to say move into the next lane. I know the current code has a photo of a car passing a bike in the next lane, but it doesn't actually say to do that.


    The other part of the revision was about cycle position on the road. Not needing to be all the way to the left, but recommending the middle of the lane. And, changing the current single file on narrow roads and no more than two abreast with riding two or three abreast to reduce the distance a car needs to be in the other lane to pass. All with illustrations. Single track roads with passing places may need different rules. And, clearly riding slowly two or three abreast to chat will be annoying to other users, but my recollection was that it was aimed at commuters and others cycling to get somewhere quickly.
  • This blog (link) entitled Update The Highway Code to make cycling safer: why wouldn’t you?, Alan?
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    Rocinante wrote: »
    It was a collective spluttering of "you shouldn't go so fast" like we all hear from time to time. Well sorry, but we can and it's perfectly legal. If you step into our path you may get hurt.

    Seriously?

    Try this on for size. Imagine this being said by the average driver of a motor vehicle going the speed limit on an average road, with regard to the cyclist who just blew through a stop sign in front of him. (For reference, the speed limit on surface streets hereabouts is generally 30 mph.)
    "It was a collective spluttering of "you shouldn't go so fast" like we all hear from time to time. Well sorry, but we can and it's perfectly legal. If you cycle into our path you may get hurt."

    I know, I know - #notallcyclists. Whatever. #notalldrivers either.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    jbohn wrote: »
    ...Try this on for size. Imagine this being said by the average driver of a motor vehicle going the speed limit on an average road, with regard to the cyclist who just blew through a stop sign in front of him. (For reference, the speed limit on surface streets hereabouts is generally 30 mph. ...

    Yes. But, as we have learned in this thread, it is simply much too inefficient to expect cyclists to obey stop signs.


  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Yes. But, as we have learned in this thread, it is simply much too inefficient to expect cyclists to obey stop signs.

    Well, quite. And I could have sworn some were arguing that exercise is one of the points of cycling. I must be mistaken.
  • Realizing that this is Hell and over-simplifying is part of the deal, a bicycle is not a car. To expect bicycle riders to behave exactly like motorists is like expecting stand-up paddle boarders to follow the same rules as motor boaters.

    We need laws for bicycles which are based on cycling as its own form of transportation, rather than a "bicycle is the same as a car" way of thinking. Never suggesting no laws or rules, and understanding that dickishness is part of universal human potential, but it would be even nicer if the laws that we are asking people to follow make sense. The physics of cycling mean that stopping every 250 ft is just not going to happen.

    And when the sensors in the roadway actually can pick up the weight of a cyclist as well as a car and then the light will then change for me to go through, then I'll do what the light says. As it stands, the don't walk signal cycles, but if it don't sense a car, the traffic light never changes. So I either go through some red lights or get off the bike, use the stand and park it in the lane, walk over the pedestrian light "beg button", return to my bicycle and wait for the effing green. And I have to stand it in the lane because if I don't and cars come, I'm screwed for my left turn or getting into the line of traffic. If there are no cars, I'm simply not going to do all of that. Would you put your car in park, get out and push a button to cross an intersection? I'm going to wait until it is safe - meaning no cars - and we have no cars at all many times, which may differ place to place. I don't think I saw no cars in New York, Vienna, London...

    Here's a study about drivers and cyclists which might help: Cyclists Are More Law-Abiding Than Drivers. "...new study, which also found that drivers tend to cause crashes and close calls way more often than road bikers,,,Everyone seems to break the rules, whether they’re on two wheels or four. The big difference is that some do it on an 18-pound bicycle and some do it in a 4,000-pound SUV that can cause exponentially greater harm. "

    And again, when walking, you're much more likely to have a crash with a car than a bicycle. I will never hit a pedestrian, never have. I have certainly had the opportunity.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    jbohn wrote: »
    Well, quite. And I could have sworn some were arguing that exercise is one of the points of cycling. I must be mistaken.

    Transportation is supposed to be the chief end of bicycling. But inconveniencing cyclists with tedious things like stop signs is apparently so absurd that some here dismiss the very idea of obeying the law. After all, if you blow a stop sign and get hit by a driver who can't stop in time, you may end up crippled for life, but it will clearly be all the driver's fault for, well, driving.

    Speaking as a pedestrian, I have had far more terrifying encounters with cyclists in the last few years than with drivers. Perhaps that's because I stick to sidewalks (where cyclists and cars aren't supposed to be, and drivers actually obey the law) and crosswalks.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Transportation is supposed to be the chief end of bicycling. But inconveniencing cyclists with tedious things like stop signs is apparently so absurd that some here dismiss the very idea of obeying the law. After all, if you blow a stop sign and get hit by a driver who can't stop in time, you may end up crippled for life, but it will clearly be all the driver's fault for, well, driving.

    No one here (but you) has said that.

    But lots of people have made the entirely cogent point - and one you plainly refuse to deal with - that 'the law' is designed for motor vehicles, and not other road users, and is such that it's not just inconvenient but also sometimes dangerous to obey its every jot and tittle.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Just because I am getting irritated by @Rossweisse's repeated iterations on cyclists on pavements, I went looking for actual data for the UK (link) - this is in answer to a FOI request asking about figures for deaths of pedestrians on pavements by both cars and bicycles, which are not kept in that form:
    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 | 
    +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
    

    So the number of deaths of pedestrians recorded as being hit by a bicycle between 2006 and 2010 varies between 0 and 6. The number of deaths of pedestrians recorded as being hit by a car varies between 141 and 267. Please note that cars do not include lorries or motorbikes.

    The most recent figures I've found in a cursory search are the 2015 figures (pdf), page 93
    2 pedestrian fatalities caused by a bicycle compared with 212 by a car (254 c/f above)
    10 pedestrian fatalities caused by motorbikes

    Comparing all accidents involving bicycles and/or cars, however severe:
    408 accidents between pedestrians and bicycles, 16416 with cars (18,274 c/f above)
    945 accidents between motorbikes and pedestrians.

    This is a referenced discussion about Cyclists riding pavements (link) from the Cycling Embassy. The link to the blog, Where is the Good Cyclist? (link) suggests that in the current environment it could be said the only "good" cyclist could be a non-cyclist.

    PS @BroJames - it's a long time since I hit that pedestrian and the various bone breaking collisions with motorised vehicles cycling as a student, and I learned a lot from doing so . I have continued to cycle on and off as a commuter over the decades since.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    jbohn wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    It was a collective spluttering of "you shouldn't go so fast" like we all hear from time to time. Well sorry, but we can and it's perfectly legal. If you step into our path you may get hurt.

    Seriously?

    Try this on for size. Imagine this being said by the average driver of a motor vehicle going the speed limit on an average road, with regard to the cyclist who just blew through a stop sign in front of him. (For reference, the speed limit on surface streets hereabouts is generally 30 mph.)
    "It was a collective spluttering of "you shouldn't go so fast" like we all hear from time to time. Well sorry, but we can and it's perfectly legal. If you cycle into our path you may get hurt."

    I know, I know - #notallcyclists. Whatever. #notalldrivers either.

    Sorry, can't make any sense of this. I think it may a rather rubbish attempt at "whataboutery" citing a hypothetical cyclist and an "average driver". What is the relevance of the 30mph limit?

    If a motorist obeying the speed limit ran down a cyclist who suddenly emerged from a side road with a stop sign controlling it, then it would be the cyclist's fault. No argument with that.

    I never "blow through" anything.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    jbohn wrote: »
    ...Try this on for size. Imagine this being said by the average driver of a motor vehicle going the speed limit on an average road, with regard to the cyclist who just blew through a stop sign in front of him. (For reference, the speed limit on surface streets hereabouts is generally 30 mph. ...

    Yes. But, as we have learned in this thread, it is simply much too inefficient to expect cyclists to obey stop signs.


    You claim not be accusing anyone on this thread of anything, but you continually assert that all cyclists disobey signs, lights and the rules of the road. I call bullshit.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    In this context, "blow through" is shorthand for "slow down, check carefully for traffic, and only if the way is clear, proceed with caution but don't actually come to a dead stop from which it's much more difficult to enter the main traffic flow."

    Or something like that.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...
    Speaking as a pedestrian, I have had far more terrifying encounters with cyclists in the last few years than with drivers. Perhaps that's because I stick to sidewalks (where cyclists and cars aren't supposed to be, and drivers actually obey the law) and crosswalks.

    Honestly, I can't remember a single close call with a cyclist that was as scary as the shit I see drivers do every day. It's natural to feel vulnerable and it's natural to be pissed at asshole cyclists. However, confirmation bias is also natural, and the facts show that a pedestrian is orders of magnitude more likely to be injured or killed by an asshole driver. And pedestrians get creamed in crosswalks on a regular basis around here.


  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    In this context, "blow through" is shorthand for "slow down, check carefully for traffic, and only if the way is clear, proceed with caution but don't actually come to a dead stop from which it's much more difficult to enter the main traffic flow."

    Or something like that.

    A possible pond difference is that "Stop" signs are quite rare in the UK. The usual requirement is to "Give Way", which doesn't require anyone, motorist or cyclist, to actually stop if the main road is clear.
  • Rocinante wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    In this context, "blow through" is shorthand for "slow down, check carefully for traffic, and only if the way is clear, proceed with caution but don't actually come to a dead stop from which it's much more difficult to enter the main traffic flow."

    Or something like that.

    A possible pond difference is that "Stop" signs are quite rare in the UK. The usual requirement is to "Give Way", which doesn't require anyone, motorist or cyclist, to actually stop if the main road is clear.

    There is however a requirement that the motorist or cyclist approaching the Give Way sign must LOOK. In plenty of instances they do no such thing, but breeze onto the road expecting others to give way to them, as is the practice on motorways.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Again, "plenty of instances" means "I've seen this happen at least once and the fucker didn't die like they deserved to".
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Again, "plenty of instances" means "I've seen this happen at least once and the fucker didn't die like they deserved to".

    A bit more than that. Every Sunday we drive from Newport to Cardiff. There is a five mile stretch of motorway hich becomes the A48. There is a slip road not long after the motorway ends which has a "Give Way" sign and if three cars join the road, the driver off at least one won't look. I'll bet the house on it. Mrs Sioni, who does the driving, deliberately slows down approching this junction to avoid them.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    edited August 2018
    So to clarify, this is drivers of motor vehicles, and not cyclists not motor cyclists? I mean, yes, obviously drivers do this all the time because they expect on slip roads that other traffic will see them trying to join the road and either pull out or slow down to allow them to keep moving.

    They are, in fact, sharing the road, and such courtesy is laudable, even forgiving of others' mistakes and inattention. We should have more of this, not less.
  • Indeed, I'm all for making room for people joining the motorway, it's a complicated manoeuvre and we can all use a little help. The problem is if there are three lanes of bumper to bumper traffic and people still expect you to move aside for them. Move aside into what space, exactly? I believe in these circumstances you are officially supposed to wait in the slip lane until the road is clear. There would then be a high chance of getting rear-ended by someone less patient. Another reason why I try to avoid driving at busy times.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Rocinante wrote: »
    You claim not be accusing anyone on this thread of anything, but you continually assert that all cyclists disobey signs, lights and the rules of the road. I call bullshit.

    Call whatever you like; I have never said that. I do say, because I have observed on a frequent and regular basis, that too many cyclists do so. It's dangerous for all concerned.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    ...They are, in fact, sharing the road, and such courtesy is laudable, even forgiving of others' mistakes and inattention. We should have more of this, not less.

    Ahh-men.

    Safely sharing the road depends upon the courtesy and compliance of all who use it.


  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Indeed, I'm all for making room for people joining the motorway, it's a complicated manoeuvre and we can all use a little help. The problem is if there are three lanes of bumper to bumper traffic and people still expect you to move aside for them. Move aside into what space, exactly? I believe in these circumstances you are officially supposed to wait in the slip lane until the road is clear. There would then be a high chance of getting rear-ended by someone less patient. Another reason why I try to avoid driving at busy times.

    Closest I've ever come to being in a motorway crash has been joining when it's like that.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    jbohn wrote: »
    Imagine this being said by the average driver of a motor vehicle going the speed limit on an average road, with regard to the cyclist who just blew through a stop sign in front of him. (For reference, the speed limit on surface streets hereabouts is generally 30 mph.)

    I don't have to imagine a cyclist not following the rules of the road, getting killed, and the driver not being blamed. I can give you an example in my town from a few weeks ago:
    Police said the bicyclist was riding west on the Seventh Street sidewalk just before the crash, but when he neared the crosswalk at Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, he started riding the wrong way in the eastbound lanes of Seventh Street.

    The truck, a 2004 Chevrolet Silverado driven by a 41-year-old Long Beach man, hit the bicyclist immediately after he veered into the street, authorities said.

    The truck’s driver stopped and started giving CPR to the bicyclist in the bed of the truck, police said.

    ...

    The driver cooperated with investigators, police said. He had a valid license and insurance, and alcohol was not a factor, police said.

    Witnesses told police the truck entered the intersection on a green light, according to Long Beach Police Department Lt. Melvin McGuire.

    And from last summer:
    The preliminary investigation revealed the bicyclist, a white man approximately 50 years old, was riding his bicycle in a northwesterly direction across the northbound lanes of Downey Avenue from the east service road of Downey Avenue and Hedda Street.

    The vehicle, a 2013 Hyundai Genesis, driven by a 20-year-old male resident of Hawaii, was traveling northbound Downey Avenue in the left lane approaching Hedda Street, the police report said. Upon seeing the bicyclist diagonally crossing Downey Avenue, the driver merged into the right lane of Downey Avenue to avoid the bicyclist. At the same time the driver was changing lanes, the bicyclist made a right hand U-turn into the same lane of Downey Avenue and into the path of the vehicle. The driver could not avoid the bicyclist and collided with him, police said.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    You claim not be accusing anyone on this thread of anything, but you continually assert that all cyclists disobey signs, lights and the rules of the road. I call bullshit.

    Call whatever you like; I have never said that. I do say, because I have observed on a frequent and regular basis, that too many cyclists do so. It's dangerous for all concerned.

    You may not say it so many words, but it was you who first brought up cyclists in a thread originally about bad driving. Your response to any discussion of transport policy or infrastructure is to rant about cyclists. Your response to any cyclist here saying that they or the cyclists they know may not be baby-eating monsters who are out to kill as many pedestrians as possible, is to rant about cyclists. Ok this is Hell, the place for rants, but when your posts are simply cut-and-pastes of previous rants, which completely fail to engage with the foregoing posts, people are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

    I absolutely get that in your neck of the woods there are a large number of inconsiderate cyclists. There's absolutely nothing I can say or do to change that. I am not those people. I am me. I try to drive and cycle as safely as I can. I also want to get to my destination during the reign of the present monarch, so sometimes I cycle quite fast.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    Rocinante wrote: »

    Sorry, can't make any sense of this. I think it may a rather rubbish attempt at "whataboutery" citing a hypothetical cyclist and an "average driver". What is the relevance of the 30mph limit?

    The relevance of the speed is that you noted you are allowed to go that fast. So is our hypothetical motorist.
    Rocinante wrote: »
    If a motorist obeying the speed limit ran down a cyclist who suddenly emerged from a side road with a stop sign controlling it, then it would be the cyclist's fault. No argument with that.

    Glad to see we agree.
    Rocinante wrote: »
    I never "blow through" anything.

    I'm glad to hear that. If the idiot I almost collided with just the other day had followed suit, I'd be a much happier motorist.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    In this context, "blow through" is shorthand for "slow down, check carefully for traffic, and only if the way is clear, proceed with caution but don't actually come to a dead stop from which it's much more difficult to enter the main traffic flow."

    Or something like that.

    Nope - it's shorthand for "barely glanced sideways before riding bicycle into path of oncoming vehicles, very nearly becoming a Lycra-clad slice of road pizza".

    I don't see anyone saying (and I'm certainly not) that all cyclists are horrible rule-breakers. Lord knows there are plenty of drivers that need to do better - and I'm sure I'm sometimes one of them. The attitude of a few pro-bicycle (and seemingly anti-motor vehicle) folks here is a bit much, though.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Yes, the pro-antelope lobby are wildly mistaken in their anti-lion sentiments. Guilty as charged.
  • Oh, so if the speed limit for bikes is 30mph, then the speed limit for cars is...also 30mph! It's the same for everyone! Oh I get it now! It's so obvious when you think about it!
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    edited August 2018
    Rocinante wrote: »
    ...Ok this is Hell, the place for rants, but when your posts are simply cut-and-pastes of previous rants, which completely fail to engage with the foregoing posts, people are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

    Nope, I don't do cut-and-paste, and I don't respond unless I have something relevant to add. The fact that you object to my point of view is not my problem.
    I absolutely get that in your neck of the woods there are a large number of inconsiderate cyclists. There's absolutely nothing I can say or do to change that.

    It's not just my "neck of the woods." I've been traveling a lot in the last several years (while I still can), and I have had these problems (as previously noted) in various parts of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Japan. In fact, the only times I encountered rude Japanese was when having to dodge kamikaze cyclists on the wrong side of sidewalks. They don't change their course for anyone.
    I am not those people. I am me. I try to drive and cycle as safely as I can. I also want to get to my destination during the reign of the present monarch, so sometimes I cycle quite fast.

    Yes, you are you, and you seem to be a jerk. You really do seem convinced that two-wheels-goo-oo-d, four-wheels-ba-a-ad - and the hell with pedestrians. And I really do believe (especially as someone who loved cycling and greatly misses being able to ride) in the proposition that we should share the road.

    Perhaps the subject line for this thread should be changed to something that more closely approximates the sentiments expressed by you and a couple of other cyclists, like "Share the road, hell. Get out of our way!"


  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    You really do seem convinced that two-wheels-goo-oo-d, four-wheels-ba-a-ad - and the hell with pedestrians.

    [citation needed]
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    [tangent]
    Rocinante wrote: »
    Oh, so if the speed limit for bikes is 30mph, then the speed limit for cars is...also 30mph! It's the same for everyone! Oh I get it now! It's so obvious when you think about it!

    Having said that - little known point of law - outside of Royal Parks (and very occasional byelaws elsewhere), in the UK speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.

    Contrary to popular myth, this has absolutely nothing to do with possession or otherwise of a speedometer. It's very specifically worded in the legislation to be a restriction on mechanically propelled vehicles only.

    [/tangent]

    Actually, this isn't 100% anecdotal. It's pertinent to why bicycles are not (and should not be) subject to registration, compulsory insurance and compulsory competence tests.

    All three of the above, together with speed limits, are, all else being equal, infringements of liberty - specifically the right to free passage along the highway. They therefore have to be well justified. When motor vehicles were invented they didn't exist. They were introduced post facto as a result of a number of factors:

    1. the massively increased cost of maintaining and expanding the road network to accommodate motor vehicles;

    2. the financial cost of injury claims where motorists' errors cause accidents which can, because of the masses and speeds involved, be out of all proportion from the degree of error. Only much later was this extended to cover damage to third party property, incidentally - 1988 RTA IIRC.

    3. the death and injury toll from incompetent drivers.

    In all these cases these measures were introduced to address a problem of significant enough degree to restrict the freedom to use the road with a motor vehicle. This is not the case with cycling. No-one is claiming that cyclists cause no injuries via error or incompetence, but the degree to which they do so is so low that it does not justify compulsory liberty-infringing interventions.

    This is why, by the way, your home insurance provider is willing to provide liability insurance which will cover you for cycling automatically and thus for no additional cost, whereas to be covered for motoring you need a separate policy costing at least a three figure sum.

    When cyclists injure as many people each year specifically on the pavement - as drivers do, not even including people drivers hit as they're crossing the road - then perhaps there'll be an argument.

    https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians

    I would draw particular attention to the following snippets:

    "In 2016, 43 pedestrians died in collisions involving a vehicle on the footway or verge. None of them involved a cycle.
    From 2007-16, no pedestrians in Britain were killed by red light jumping cyclists, while around five a year were killed by red light jumping drivers."

  • Landlubber wrote: »
    Fast cyclists round here do use the (30mph speed limit) carriageway but mostly in single file.
    If there's a group of cyclists travelling together, riding 2 or 3 abreast is better as it causes less delay to motor traffic. Though, the delays caused by serious cyclists on a 30mph road are minimal - as said several times speeds of 20mph are not unusual, so they're only a little below the speed the cars would travel at if they weren't there.

    Interesting. Doesn't the Highway Code still say:

    'Don't ride more than two abreast. On busy or narrow roads ride in single file'?

    That was one of the 'Six extra rules for cyclists' that I learnt verbatim when taking my Cycling proficiency test at the age of 11.

    <Tangent>Just showing off now, how these things stick in the mind, but the longest cyclists rule from the 1970 Highway Code went as follows IIRC:
    'On busy roads, if you want to turn right, it is often safer to pull in to the left side of the road and wait for a safe gap in the traffic coming in both directions, before you start to cross'</Tangent>
Sign In or Register to comment.