Zombie cyclist response lettters

The Chingford Skinhead

Wallace1492 wrote:

...You seem keen on blaming drivers for most crashes, 136 cyclists killed in 2007 is 136 more than anyone would like. But I wonder how many of those contributed to their demise. How many was the vehicle driver wholly responsible for? We simply do not have those figures, but I would think that there would be a fair split there....

The Police estimate that in RTCs involving cyclists, the cyclist is only fully or partly responsible in 25% of cases. (Sorry, I can't recall my source but if I find it I will post it).

number9

"Fault" is not normally assigned in RTAs involving cyclists, but there has been some research:

Who causes accidents—cyclists or drivers?

While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause
of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police
collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in
this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either
failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so.
The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking
unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an
oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of
less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.

The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do
with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling..."

More:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08 ... idents.php


Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that
cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/14/d ... e-factors/

Similarly, the motoring organisation the AA, notorious for underplaying the responsibilities of drivers and being very quick to pass the blame onto cyclists where ever
possible, produced a report called 'Urban Accidents: why do they
happen?' which found that a cyclist was at fault in only 27% of cases,
the lowest 'at fault' rating of all road users.

Wallace1492

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

...You seem keen on blaming drivers for most crashes, 136 cyclists killed in 2007 is 136 more than anyone would like. But I wonder how many of those contributed to their demise. How many was the vehicle driver wholly responsible for? We simply do not have those figures, but I would think that there would be a fair split there....

The Police estimate that in RTCs involving cyclists, the cyclist is only fully or partly responsible in 25% of cases. (Sorry, I can't recall my source but if I find it I will post it).

Ching, probably less than I would have thought, but I do not doubt you at all. It is all food for thought.

spen666

number9 wrote:

"Fault" is not normally assigned in RTAs involving cyclists, but there has been some research:

.......

The assigning of "fault" in RTAs is somewhat biased.

Those who are motorists blame everything but motorists- ie the speed camera caused the accident....- NOT unless it jumped off the verge and into the path of the car or fell into the road. The driver caused the accident by braking when he saw the camera or by driving too close to car in front who braked

Those who are pedestrians/ cyclists tend to blame the motor vehicles or each other...

Most accidents have more than one cause...


Speed is partly to blame in 100% of accidents. If there was no speed, then there could be no accident, because no one was moving.

When fault is blamedo n speed, it is "inappropriate" speed that they are blaming, not speed per se.

As cycling in many ( not all accidents) better or more observant riding by use could help reduce the risk. Those for example who are hit by car doors- if they road further out from parked vehicles could avouid being hit. Those who were hit filtering up the inside, could have reduced the risk by being more alerts and ready to brake or by not filtering down the outside.

We all as road users share some of the risk and some of the blame for accidents

spen666

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Where do you get that figure from.
the figure for killed AND seriously injured is circa 3000


You may note, I gave you a link to the source of my figures. I don't simply quote figures with no supporting evidence

So what is the source of your 3000 killed and 200000 seriously injured.

I dispute both figures, and it seemsfrom the link I gave,that so do the DTI

If you are going to lecture someone on the correct use of figures and give a link, you should at least get your own figures to match with your source.
"the figure for killed AND seriously injured is circa 3000" - Wrong. The figure for killed is 2,940 (almost three thousand). The figure for killed AND seriously injured is 30,720 (over Thirty thousand - not the three thousand you quote (and admittedly not the 200,000 Number 9 quotes but then he could have been referring to the 247,780 road casualties in Great Britain in 2007).

Mea culpa

number9

For me, it's one of the unsung joys of being a London cyclist: bowling along the outer circle of Battersea Park in autumn sunshine, the wind rippling through my Lycra and Primal Scream's Country Girl jangling though my helmet.

So it's bad enough that now, according to the latest scare story, this makes me an "iPod zombie".

What's worse is the latest emphasis on accidents adds to the impression that cycling is only for the suicidally reckless or the recklessly aggressive: as AC/DC's late but great Bon Scott screams through my earphones: "If you want blood, you got it."

This weekend Edmund King, president of the AA, called for the Government to launch a campaign warning cyclists of the risks of riding while listening. Those fussing over the phenomenon point to rising cycling accidents nationwide.

Yet while there are individual cases where cyclists with iPods have caused accidents, it's impossible from the stats to link the two trends. (The more convincing statistical link is simply to rising cyclist numbers.)

I'm not advocating cycling in full headphones, or with an iPod cranked up to full volume.

But at about two-thirds volume on an average road, you've got at least as good awareness of traffic noise as you have in a car with either squabbling kids in the back or the radio turned up.

I certainly have more sense of what's going on around me with The Clash in the background than do the pedestrians who every day wander into the road in front of me without looking, iPods on, or the drivers deep in (illegal) conversation on their mobiles.

You've also got better all-around visibility on a cycle than in a car, something most drivers don't realise until they get on a bike (I certainly didn't before I started cycling in London five-and-a-half years ago).


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... otrhead.do

Wallace1492

number9 wrote:

For me, it's one of the unsung joys of being a London cyclist: bowling along the outer circle of Battersea Park in autumn sunshine, the wind rippling through my Lycra and Primal Scream's Country Girl jangling though my helmet.

So it's bad enough that now, according to the latest scare story, this makes me an "iPod zombie".

What's worse is the latest emphasis on accidents adds to the impression that cycling is only for the suicidally reckless or the recklessly aggressive: as AC/DC's late but great Bon Scott screams through my earphones: "If you want blood, you got it."

This weekend Edmund King, president of the AA, called for the Government to launch a campaign warning cyclists of the risks of riding while listening. Those fussing over the phenomenon point to rising cycling accidents nationwide.

Yet while there are individual cases where cyclists with iPods have caused accidents, it's impossible from the stats to link the two trends. (The more convincing statistical link is simply to rising cyclist numbers.)

I'm not advocating cycling in full headphones, or with an iPod cranked up to full volume.

But at about two-thirds volume on an average road, you've got at least as good awareness of traffic noise as you have in a car with either squabbling kids in the back or the radio turned up.

I certainly have more sense of what's going on around me with The Clash in the background than do the pedestrians who every day wander into the road in front of me without looking, iPods on, or the drivers deep in (illegal) conversation on their mobiles.

You've also got better all-around visibility on a cycle than in a car, something most drivers don't realise until they get on a bike (I certainly didn't before I started cycling in London five-and-a-half years ago).


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... otrhead.do

Good article. However it does have a few flaws.

It mentions that having an iPod on has caused a few accidents - to me there is no downside - not having it on will not have caused any accidents, and would have prevented the ones it caused.

Next, comparing having it on to sitting in a car with squabbling kids is just wrong. In a car you are in a protected enviroment, encased in glass and metal, with impact cage, airbags etc. On a bike you are far more vunerable, and need all of your senses and awareness.

Each to there own, if you want to listen to music do it, however I will not as I believe that it has the potential for you to miss something. It is the risk you are willing to take, so be careful when doing it.