Top Ten Tips for Winning Pub Arguments about Cycling

OldSkoolKona

I came across the following doc when looking through the CTC Website:

Top Ten Tips for Winning Pub Arguments about Cycling

Particuarly like the following quote:

From 2000- 2004, in all of Great Britain there were 9 people killed by cyclists on the pavement and 3885 people killed by motorists driving on the pavement.

Scary :shock:

downfader

When I roll out the stats they just put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la!!" :roll:

One person a day has been killed on the pavement by drivers since 2005 I read. And by cyclists on the pavement... 4.

People are idiots. They should be screened at birth.

tailwindhome

OldSkoolKona wrote:

I came across the following doc when looking through the CTC Website:

Top Ten Tips for Winning Pub Arguments about Cycling

Particuarly like the following quote:

From 2000- 2004, in all of Great Britain there were 9 people killed by cyclists on the pavement and 3885 people killed by motorists driving on the pavement.

Scary :shock:

I find that stat a bit hard to believe

Thats about the same number as were killed in 30 years of troubles in NI or were killed in the Twin Towers.

Scary if its true

Edit even if it were 38 I'd still be shocked

OldSkoolKona

About 10 people die on the roads every day, give or take

Clever Pun

Myself and Il Principe were discussing which is better for fitness Fixed or SS

I say fixed, he wrongly says SS.. discuss

MonkeyMonster

Fixed

OldSkoolKona

Don't just take my word for it, here's the stats from the DfT.

Fatalities in road accidents: 2007: Road Accident Statistics Factsheet No. 2 – 2008
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... tsheet.pdf

Puts into perspective the rider down threads here on BikeRadar - while they are each tragic and worrying and we should do everything to eliminate them (particularly with regards to HGVs) they have to be seen in perspective otherwise people will be put off cycling as its perceived to be too dangerous. More pedestrians are killed in London every year than cyclists.

choirboy

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

I came across the following doc when looking through the CTC Website:

Top Ten Tips for Winning Pub Arguments about Cycling

Particuarly like the following quote:

From 2000- 2004, in all of Great Britain there were 9 people killed by cyclists on the pavement and 3885 people killed by motorists driving on the pavement.

Scary :shock:

I find that stat a bit hard to believe

Thats about the same number as were killed in 30 years of troubles in NI or were killed in the Twin Towers.

Scary if its true

Edit even if it were 38 I'd still be shocked

I think the numbers are right but the peds were not necessarilly "on the pavement" when hit. Most likely scenario is a ped stepping out in front of a vehicle.

Wallace1492

Correct, the statistics are being slightly skewed to suggest that cars kill more pedestrians on pavements than cyclists. The total of 3885 is the total of pedestrians killed, either on the road or pavement.

There will of course be a number of there where the car has mounted the pavement for whatever reason, but to suggest that all the fatalities are on the pavement is just plain wrong.

CiB

Not a well written piece and the idea that 3885 peds are run over is not believable. It may be based on fact, but it's not credible, which will lead any saloon bar know-it-all to reject the other points too. Anyway, I just chanced upon this list of myths and the 'facts'.

It is a legal requirement to...

Have a bell fitted
Not in the UK (except Nothern Ireland, apparently)

Have working, certified lights fitted
This one is true, but only after dark. The legality of LED or flashing lights in particular is something of a grey area, and as such they are best used in conjunction with steady incandescent bulbs.

Give way to motor vehicles OR Keep tight against the kerb when cycling on the road
No, although they might like to make you think that. The Highway Code requests, however, that you not disrupt faster-moving traffic unnecessarily, but the general rule on this one is "safety first".

Use cycle lanes or paths where provided
Untrue - cyclists have a legal right to use whichever part of the road they wish. The term "mandatory cycle lane" only means that motorists aren't allowed in, not that cyclists aren't allowed out.

Cycle on the pavement
No idea where this one came from - it's actually illegal to cycle on the pavement unless specifically indicated otherwise.

It is safer to...

Cycle on the pavement
The pavement tends to be full of pedestrians. Pedestrians can move fairly randomly in any direction, and as such can be very hard to avoid. Cycling on the pavement also requires you to cross far more junctions - and this is where most accidents tend to happen.

Cycle close to the kerb
If motorists see you squeezing into the kerb, they tend to join in by squeezing past you - and they don't always slow down to do this, or judge correctly. Conversely, and perhaps non-intuitively, I've found that motorists tend to give you as much clearance when passing you as you give the kerb - so if you want to be passed at 3 feet, stay 3 feet from the edge. However, this observed rule tails off somewhat after about 4-5 feet.

Forget it all and stay home in an armchair
Cycling will generally increase your fitness and health. A sedentary lifestyle has many health risks. As such, cycling is one of the very few supposedly "dangerous" activities that actually increases your expected lifespan.

Cyclists don't...

Pay for the roads
Roads are paid for by the Treasury, and cyclists, like anyone else, all pay tax. In fact, the VAT on most bikes alone will more than pay for the damage done to the road during that bike's lifetime.

Pay Road Tax
There's no such thing as "Road Tax". This is an inaccurate colloquial term for "Vehicle Excise Duty" - which is paid on a specific piece of heavy machinery to licence it to be used on the public highway.

Have a right to use the road, as they don't pay VED
Generally, anything that you have to pay for isn't a right, but something done under licence. Cyclists, pedestrians, and horse riders all have a basic legal right to use the road (excluding motorways). Motorists are permitted to use these roads under specific restrictions so long as both they and their vehicles are appropriately licensed.

Have to keep their vehicles in working order
There are more restrictions on cycles than are commonly realised. They must, for example, have two independent and working braking systems, a certain range of reflectors, and lights after dark. It is a measure of the elegant simplicity of the bike compared to the car, that these checks can be done at the roadside without requiring a complex MOT.

Pay Fuel Tax
Yes we do, there's VAT on Mars bars too, you know.

Pay Fossil Fuel Tax
Well no, that's because we don't use fossil fuels. Non-smokers don't pay cigarette tax either, but no-one seems to think this odd.

When using cycle "facilities"...

Bikes can negotiate curves of any radius
While bikes can generally negotiate any tight curve that a car can at a higher speed, this capability is not infinite. In particualar, bikes can't turn at right angles without effectively stopping, and tandems or bikes with trailers need extra room. Appropriate design radii are set out in the relevant design guides.

Cyclists are happy to get on and off their bikes at frequent intervals
Once moving, a cyclist's greatest asset is their momentum, and they are loath to give this up without good reason. Having to stop and dismount is much like expecting a motorist to get out and push.

It has been calculated that an average stop-and-dismount equates to adding an extra 100 yards to a cyclist's journey.

Cyclists always value segregation from motorists more than speed and convenience
Saying "cyclists always" is something of a non-starter; the versatility of the bike is such that there is a wide range of types of cyclist. While there are undoubtedly some who prefer to stay away from the perceived danger of the motor vehicle, there are many who would far prefer to use their right to the road to get to their destination quickly and conveniently.

Bikes can get through any gap that a person can
Not often true, and even less so when trikes, child trailers, or tandems are considered.

Misc

Cyclists aren't legally required to pass a test or be insured
Once more, true. Driving is, of course, a highly complex task involving control of heavy machinery with a high capacity to damage, injure, or kill. Cycling is a far simpler task - after all, a child can do it - which exposes other road users to levels of risk in the same range as that of a pedestrian or horse rider. As such it is hardly suprising that one is far more tightly controlled than the other.

That said, it should of course be noted that many cyclists have taken some form of training and/or insurance - many cyclists will have passed the driving test, taken voluntary advanced training, and/or have insurance through their membership of cycling campaigns or clubs.

choirboy

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Not a well written piece and the idea that 3885 peds are run over is not believable. It may be based on fact, but it's not credible, which will lead any saloon bar know-it-all to reject the other points too. Anyway, I just chanced upon this list of myths and the 'facts'.

....

+1

Wallace1492

choirboy wrote:

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Not a well written piece and the idea that 3885 peds are run over is not believable. It may be based on fact, but it's not credible, which will lead any saloon bar know-it-all to reject the other points too. Anyway, I just chanced upon this list of myths and the 'facts'.

....

+1

The stats for 3885 pedestrians killed is correct, it is suggesting that they were all on the pavement that is wrong. Many will have been mowed down crossing the road.

tailwindhome

ChrisInBicester wrote:

It is a legal requirement to...

Have a bell fitted

Not in the UK (except Nothern Ireland, apparently)

Never Never Never

Specialized Needs

OldSkoolKona wrote:

From 2000- 2004, in all of Great Britain there were 9 people killed by cyclists on the pavement and 3885 people killed by motorists driving on the pavement.

Scary :shock:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Don't just take my word for it, here's the stats from the DfT.

Fatalities in road accidents: 2007: Road Accident Statistics Factsheet No. 2 – 2008
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... tsheet.pdf

That DfT report shows (in Chart 2) that there were approx 800 pedestrian deaths per year over that five year period (2000-2004) in all reported road accidents; nothing about splitting this into being on paths or on roads, nor into the type of vehicle involved.

DfT wrote:

43% of pedestrian fatalities had the contributory factor ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’

That would tend to suggest to me that a substantial proportion of the pedestrian deaths, at least in 2007, were in a place where not looking properly is a risk factor (i.e. not in a pedestrian area such as a footpath).

Table 3 shows the breakdown for deaths by vehicle type. If I read it correctly, for 2007 pedestrians killed by bikes = 3; pedestrians killed by an accident involving a single car = 355 or approx 1 per day. That would include on and off road.

Still an appalling death toll and I would have thought enough to use in a campaign.

It is hard to cross link the statistics without the raw data. I bet I've misread or misunderstood some of those tables, though - come on, correct me

mattybain

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Pay Fuel Tax
Yes we do, there's VAT on Mars bars too, you know.

I really like that one

CiB

Wallace1492 wrote:

choirboy wrote:

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Not a well written piece and the idea that 3885 peds are run over is not believable. It may be based on fact, but it's not credible, which will lead any saloon bar know-it-all to reject the other points too. Anyway, I just chanced upon this list of myths and the 'facts'.

....

+1

The stats for 3885 pedestrians killed is correct, it is suggesting that they were all on the pavement that is wrong. Many will have been mowed down crossing the road.

That was my point; not that 3885 peds didn't die, but the lurid and therefore lacking in credibility claim that they were run over on the pavement. In a 'discussion' with an anti-cyclist, you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to claim that 3885 people have been run over on the pavements in the last 10 years.

Specialized Needs

duncedunce wrote:

pedestrians killed by bikes = 3

I forgot to add that I doubt (although I could be wrong) whether many if any of these 3 deaths was on the pavement.

choirboy

One according to this

Wallace1492

"On average, three pedestrians die each year in Britain in collisions with cyclists. Just ten per cent of those accidents occur on footways. "

Therefore 1 every 3 years.

"In contrast, about 40 pedestrians are killed annually by motor vehicles on footways or verges, the CTC said."

Still not the best.

Specialized Needs

choirboy wrote:

One according to this

No source for the CTC's stats, but in that Metro article they are quoted as saying:

Metro wrote:

On average, three pedestrians die each year in Britain in collisions with cyclists. Just ten per cent of those accidents occur on footways.

In contrast, about 40 pedestrians are killed annually by motor vehicles on footways or verges, the CTC said.

Making it approx 130 times more likely a pedestrian death on a footway or verge is due to a car rather than a bike (am I right?).

choirboy

duncedunce wrote:

choirboy wrote:

One according to this

No source for the CTC's stats, but in that Metro article they are quoted as saying:

Metro wrote:

On average, three pedestrians die each year in Britain in collisions with cyclists. Just ten per cent of those accidents occur on footways.

In contrast, about 40 pedestrians are killed annually by motor vehicles on footways or verges, the CTC said.

Making it approx 130 times more likely a pedestrian death on a footway or verge is due to a car rather than a bike (am I right?).

They also mention that one ped was killed in 2007 (which is the year in question for the DfT stats).

Frankly the numbers are so low for cyclists that there will be a huge amount of scatter in the data but the conclusion seems valid.

unscarred

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Bikes can get through any gap that a person can

I saw the most amazing thing the other day. I was leaving the Thames path on my way out of Canary Wharf, joining Narrow Street. This is a shared use path, and there's barriers there presumably to stop cars trying to drive in or something.

As usual I slowed down to weave through the chicane created by these barriers, and was surprised when the cyclist behind me suddenly appeared alongside me - he had ducked down on his mountain bike so low that he just went straight under the barrier!

Porgy

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Cycle on the pavement
No idea where this one came from - it's actually illegal to cycle on the pavement unless specifically indicated otherwise.

.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/james-daley-i-was-handed-a-16330-fine-for-riding-on-the-pavement-1365928.html

It's more of a grey area than most people think.

I wish I'd known this last year - there's a junction in Camberwell always causes conflict when I want to turn right there. the road isn't quite wide enough for two lanes, and northbound traffic - where the bus lane ends - cars go into the left had lane to try to undertake other traffic. Which means there's usually a race between the two cars at the front - just where muggings is stopped waiting to turn right. If I set myself back a but to avoid danger then I come into conflict with the traffic behind me - doing exactly the same in the oppostie direction.

I've had some close calls and some really nasty death threats from c*nts.

So what I do is when all the lights are red, I nip across to the pavement on the other side, quickly cut the corner, and joint he road again on the road goign right from the junction.

I've been doing this for a few years with no problem. Last year I did it and a plastic copper was booking a hoodie for riding his bmx danegrously on the pavement (as they do round there) and saw me. He told me he had total sympathy and admitted that the junction was dangerous - had no answer to my quandry of what else can i do? I got a fine - he told me he had to cos he was fining the hoodie.

I would defintely have appealed if i'd seen this earlier.

Clever Pun

unscarred wrote:

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Bikes can get through any gap that a person can

I saw the most amazing thing the other day. I was leaving the Thames path on my way out of Canary Wharf, joining Narrow Street. This is a shared use path, and there's barriers there presumably to stop cars trying to drive in or something.

As usual I slowed down to weave through the chicane created by these barriers, and was surprised when the cyclist behind me suddenly appeared alongside me - he had ducked down on his mountain bike so low that he just went straight under the barrier!

that's pretty damned impressive, wonder how many times he's brained himself doing that

Mike Healey

The actual figures for the 8 years ending 31.12.05 were:

Pedestrians killed by cylist collisons on pavements (defined as footways and verges) - 2
Pedestrians killed by motor vehicle collisons on pavements - 382

Ditto on pedestrian crossings:
Cyclist collision - 3
Motor vehicle collision - 530

No. of pedestrians killed on London pavementsin cyclist collisions in last 5 year - 0
Motor vehicles - 17

No. of programmes/articles about cyclists on pavement dangers - umpteen
Motor vehicles ditto - a big fat zero

tailwindhome

Mike Healey wrote:

The actual figures for the 8 years ending 31.12.05 were:

Pedestrians killed by cylist collisons on pavements (defined as footways and verges) - 2
Pedestrians killed by motor vehicle collisons on pavements - 382


<snip>

No. of pedestrians killed on London pavementsin cyclist collisions in last 5 year - 0
Motor vehicles - 17

I would suggest that of the 382 killed by motor vehicle on pavements, the majority of these were on verges on busy roads rather than a raised kerbed pavement.

tailwindhome

Clever Pun wrote:

Myself and Il Principe were discussing which is better for fitness Fixed or SS

I say fixed, he wrongly says SS.. discuss

Buy some gears ya big weirdo


This comment will be instantly retracted should I ever set foot on English soil.

itboffin

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Myself and Il Principe were discussing which is better for fitness Fixed or SS

I say fixed, he wrongly says SS.. discuss

Buy some gears ya big weirdo


This comment will be instantly retracted should I ever set foot on English soil.

CX

Simples!!!