Pedestrians get hurt

mick_cornick

I have recently heard several stories in the press about the dangers cyclist pose to pedestrians, just wodering if a cyclist has ever managed this amount of devastation?
Maybe some nutty Peer could whack this twat with her handbag?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7238455.stm

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

What is your point?
Shall we use plane crashes to down play the severity of car accidents?
:roll:

Random Vince

seems a bit hard do the charges there, but then i'm imagining the guy just loosing control by slipping on a drain cover or something

a friend of mine was killed in an incident like i've described above, the learner biker lost control in the corner, came off, the bike bounced up the kerb and knocked my friend over as he was walking home from the student bar, he died in hospital a few hours later.

the Beeb haven't given any context of how the accident linked to in the OP happened tho.

mick_cornick

No the person causing all the chaos was driving, he just hit a motorcyclist as well as all the pedestrians!
My point is that in one incident this guy has done as much damage as all of the cyclists who have an accident involving pedestrians in the last year! However the press still portray cyclists as a major threat to pedestrians.

spen666

Mick Cornick wrote:

No the person causing all the chaos was driving, he just hit a motorcyclist as well as all the pedestrians!
My point is that in one incident this guy has done as much damage as all of the cyclists who have an accident involving pedestrians in the last year! However the press still portray cyclists as a major threat to pedestrians.

Irrespective of whether someone else driving a motor vehicle hits pedestrians, cyclists can still be a major threat to pedestrians

you cannot excuse or explain away the danger cyclists may cause to pedestrians by saying cars do damage. The threat from cyclists will still be there

mick_cornick

The questions are how much of a threat do cyclist pose and how much is this threat being blown out of all proportion?
I am certainly not saying that cycling irresponsibly is o.k. because cars cause more damage, but I really think that the general public is being sold a pup if they believe that they are more likely to be hit or injured by a cyclist than a car!

spen666

Mick Cornick wrote:

The questions are how much of a threat do cyclist pose and how much is this threat being blown out of all proportion?
I am certainly not saying that cycling irresponsibly is o.k. because cars cause more damage, but I really think that the general public is being sold a pup if they believe that they are more likely to be hit or injured by a cyclist than a car!

how much of a threat is not affected by how much of a risk a motorist may or may not pose to a pedestrian
If 1 in 2 pedestrians will be hit by a cyclist ( ridiculous figure I know), then 1 in 2 pedestrians will be hit by cyclists, irrespective of the fact that every other pedestrian will be hit by a car.

You are barking up the wrong tree to try to say that because cyclists may pose less danger than motorists to pedestrians that the risk cyclists pose is reduced or can be ignored.

Who is saying pedestrians are more likely to be hit by a cyclist than a motor vehicle? You can spin these figures however you like and make them support what you want. Do you use minutes driven/riden, distances travelled? simple numbers of accidents - all spin figures in different ways

Parkey

Mick Cornick wrote:

The questions are how much of a threat do cyclist pose and how much is this threat being blown out of all proportion?
I am certainly not saying that cycling irresponsibly is o.k. because cars cause more damage, but I really think that the general public is being sold a pup if they believe that they are more likely to be hit or injured by a cyclist than a car!

Actually, if you look at the overall national statistics, on average, per mile a cyclist is just as likely to kill a pedestrian as a motorist. Of course it happens a lot less often because the total mileage by motorists is much more than the total mileage by cyclists.

This said it is possible to argue that on urban roads where the risk of hitting a pedestrian is higher motorists present a greater level of danger than cyclists as about 60% of motoring is done on comparatively safe roads, such as motorways and rural roads, and this brings the averages down somewhat (only about 20% for cyclists' mileage is on rural roads).

Of course those are just statistics. I wouldn't mind betting that a good proportion of pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists are a result of bad and technically illeagal practices such as riding on pavements or running red lights at pedestrian crossings.

ellieb

Umm. I wouldn't mind betting that the majority of pedestrian deaths are caused by pedestrians stepping into the road without looking. No stats...no proof either way

Tourist Tony

I'd be interested in more background to this, especially regarding the rather unusual assault charges

nwallace

A pedestrian being hit by a car at 30 is due to cars now being designed to lift pedestrians onto the bonnet rather than push them under the wheels less likely to suffer as serious an injury as if hit by any form of cycle, bus or lorry at the same speed.

As Parkey says statistically a pedestrian is more likely to be hit by a car.

Is there a charge of Causing(?) [GBH/ABH/Assault] by Dangerous Driving?
If not it would explain why he is on the ABH and GHB charges as well as the Dangerous Driving one.

spen666

nwallace wrote:

A pedestrian being hit by a car at 30 is due to cars now being designed to lift pedestrians onto the bonnet rather than push them under the wheels less likely to suffer as serious an injury as if hit by any form of cycle, bus or lorry at the same speed.

As Parkey says statistically a pedestrian is more likely to be hit by a car.

....

Never mind that the chances of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at the same speed as a car hitting a pedestrian are tiny

nwallace

spen666 wrote:

nwallace wrote:

A pedestrian being hit by a car at 30 is due to cars now being designed to lift pedestrians onto the bonnet rather than push them under the wheels less likely to suffer as serious an injury as if hit by any form of cycle, bus or lorry at the same speed.

As Parkey says statistically a pedestrian is more likely to be hit by a car.

....

Never mind that the chances of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at the same speed as a car hitting a pedestrian are tiny

It's potential injuiry and risk rather than actual.

A massive mechanical failure on an aeroplane is likely to kill you, on trans-oceanic cruise liner you have a few hours to get onto the little boats. yet there is statistically much more chance of dying at sea than in the air.

At all speeds though a collision with a bike, bus or lorry is going to cause more damage than being scooped onto the bonnet of a car.

spen666

nwallace wrote:

spen666 wrote:

nwallace wrote:

A pedestrian being hit by a car at 30 is due to cars now being designed to lift pedestrians onto the bonnet rather than push them under the wheels less likely to suffer as serious an injury as if hit by any form of cycle, bus or lorry at the same speed.

As Parkey says statistically a pedestrian is more likely to be hit by a car.

....

Never mind that the chances of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at the same speed as a car hitting a pedestrian are tiny

It's potential injuiry and risk rather than actual.

A massive mechanical failure on an aeroplane is likely to kill you, on trans-oceanic cruise liner you have a few hours to get onto the little boats. yet there is statistically much more chance of dying at sea than in the air.

At all speeds though a collision with a bike, bus or lorry is going to cause more damage than being scooped onto the bonnet of a car.

The risk of a car hitting a pedestrian at 30mph is millions of time higher than the chances of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at 30mph.

richardast

The Euro NCAP ideal may be for the car to scoop the pedestrian up onto it's bonnet, but the reality is rather alarmingly different.
The vast majority of cars score 0,1 or 2 stars out of a possible 4 on the pedestrian collision tests.
Try to jump onto the bonnet rather than assuming you will be scooped.
http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.aspx

Mike Healey

Pedestrian deaths 1998 - 2005 inclusive, by cause: MV= motor vehicle, PC=pedal cycle
Location MV PC

On Footway/verge 382 2
On refuge 37 0
On Ped. crossing 530 3
Unkown 364 1
On carriageway 4999 16
[/b]Totals 6312 22

Furthermore, in London in the last 5 years, no pedestrians have died in collisions with cyclists, while 17 have died on pavements from MV collisions

We can make several reasonable assumptions:
1. deaths on footways/verges will almost certainly be the driver/rider's fault
2. deaths on crossings will probably be driver/rider's fault
3. carriageway deaths may be pedestrian's or driver's or rider's or joint fault, bearing in mind that a fairly high % of pedestrian deaths involve alcohol in the their bloodstream (don't have figures to hand)

Regardless of the cause of the collision, all the above deaths will have caused immense pain plus financial and other hardships and utter disruption of many lives.

But it is undisputable that the greates danger to all of us comes from driver behaviour. But, which group raises the greates media ruckus? Cyclists, because most of our infractions/indiscretions/follies take place under direct public gaze.

RLJing, riding through pedestrians on crossings and pavement riding are more visible than drivers speeding or amber gambling. Even the enormous disparity between the numbers killed on pavements fails to direct public anger in the direction of drivers, because, I strongly suspect, they take place when the motor vehicle is crossing the pavement. They are not, therefore, seen as flouting the law in the casual and brazen fashion that cyclists are held to do, simply because they ride along the pavement and are therefore seen for longer by, and interact with, far more people than see drivers behaving badly.

We are already seen as "other" by drivers, as was discovered by TRL research several years ago and therefore not worthy of the same respect for our right to be on the road. If that were the only problem, our case would still have to overcome considerable obstacles, but it is made far worse by the public perception of cyclists as "lycra louts", "cycle/eco nazis", etc.

As a result, all of us who have campaigned, attended meeting with local councils, spoken on the radio, etc., have to first wade through the usual, justified complaints by non-cyclists who see us as casual and often contemptuous law-breakers, with no respect for others, be they pedestrians or drivers.

And it is this perception, not the actual reality ,of the dangers posed by cyclists which still governs the ground on which we have to conduct our public debate.

The idiot who prompted the good baroness to swing at him with her handbag was regarded as typical of our behaviour and not the exception. Which is why we were on the back foot in the debate from the start. Any of us who deliberately ignore traffic lights, ride on pavements, swerve (apparently recklessly) in and out of traffic, ride the wrong way up one-way streets, etc., contribute to the difficulties we have in stating our case.

I was invited to speak on Radio Leeds on that particular incident and was face to face with the usual special pleader representing the ABD and, in spite of quoting the above statistics, guess who was on the receiving end of public criticisms. Not the representative of those who create the maiming, crippling and killing of 6312 pedestrians over those 8 years, naturally.