Another study on cycling

MadammeMarie

From The Guardian. Very interesting read, and quite good- and sensible - comments from the readers. What a difference a good newspaper makes!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

il_principe

The TRL published a separate DfT-commissioned report today in which it was estimated that the universal use of helmets could save between 10 and 15 lives a year, a conclusion disputed by the CTC.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

Music to my ears.... money needs to be spent on drivers not ridiculous campaigns about helmets etc.

always_tyred

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

How are these two paragraphs consistent with each other? The police have found that motorists are between 2 1/2 and 4 1/2 times more likely to be at fault than a cyclist, in collisions between cyclists and cars. How is that "more or less equal"?

Il Principe - do you think 10-15 deaths is insignificant? You do know that only around 100-120 cyclists are killed on UK roads anually, don't you? 10-15 is quite a big proportion of those, I would say.

tailwindhome

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
How are these two paragraphs consistent with each other?

Child cyclists skew the data as they are to blame in a greater proportion of cases?

Including child stats the blame is even - 1st para

Removing child stats the blame is on motorists -2nd para

biondino

Always Tyred wrote:

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

How are these two paragraphs consistent with each other? The police have found that motorists are between 2 1/2 and 4 1/2 times more likely to be at fault than a cyclist, in collisions between cyclists and cars. How is that "more or less equal"?

You're only quoting accidents involving adults. With children the number is reversed, leaving the total average "more or less equal". A pedant like you shouldn't make these mistakes.

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

You're only quoting accidents involving adults. With children the number is reversed, leaving the total average "more or less equal". A pedant like you shouldn't make these mistakes.

I didn't have my glasses on.

Wallace1492

A super article. However, this shows nothing new. It is no surprise at all.

However, how do we reduce the number still further? Drivers at fault, so harder driving tests, better education, ongoing evaluation, more driving penalties for lesser offences - short term bans.

More cyclist education too, might be the drivers fault, but if we can anticipate them, and avoid them, we live.

Helmets? I am against them being compulsory, but if they do save lives, then why not.

always_tyred

Wallace1492 wrote:

A super article. However, this shows nothing new. It is no surprise at all.

However, how do we reduce the number still further? Drivers at fault, so harder driving tests, better education, ongoing evaluation, more driving penalties for lesser offences - short term bans.

Assuming the motorist is at fault until demonstrated otherwise would be a start. I've heard stats (I can't remember where) indicating that the bias towards fault of the motor vechivle operator is far more extreme. The biggest suprise of this article is that despite inherent anti-cycling sentiment, the data are still skewed towards motorists' blame.

More cyclist education too, might be the drivers fault, but if we can anticipate them, and avoid them, we live.

Particularly regarding long vehicles. I was encouraged by a drier of a parked HGV that it was okay for me to go ahead of him inside of another HGV that was in the lane in front of me. I told him that I didn't want to.

So, I'm not even sure HGV drivers are all on message.

Helmets? I am against them being compulsory, but if they do save lives, then why not.

Dude, don't go there.

Bassjunkieuk

Wallace1492 wrote:

A super article. However, this shows nothing new. It is no surprise at all.

However, how do we reduce the number still further? Drivers at fault, so harder driving tests, better education, ongoing evaluation, more driving penalties for lesser offences - short term bans.

More cyclist education too, might be the drivers fault, but if we can anticipate them, and avoid them, we live.

Helmets? I am against them being compulsory, but if they do save lives, then why not.

As has already been said this is a fantastic article that pretty much confirms what us cyclists already knew! Both of the collisions that have resulted in me being knocked off my bike (ignoring the numerous close shaves) I've had in the 3 years I've been commuting in town have been to stupid driver behaviour - first I was knocked off my a driver turning right across me in a case of SMIDSY or not realizing how fast a cyclist can travel and the second was a twunt in a white van who left hooked me.

As far as driver education goes I'd like to see more adverts on telly in a similar vein to the drink driving and recent "Think Bike" campaign which seemed to centre on motorbikes. As far as penalties go I think the only really effective ones would be to hit drivers where it hurts, in their wallet and with points on their license. Unfortunately this won't happen until the justice system takes a harsher look at crimes committed in a vehicle as the current penalties are laughable at best - after all if you can kill someone in a car and get away with a £250 fine what reason have you got to be careful?

Fireblade96

Truly a good article, and followed up with a great comment from the writer in response to the entirely predictable comments that followed:

Guardian Blogger Dude wrote:

WasBascule:

This only addresses injuries to cyclists by motorists then? What about pedestrians, when a cyclist shoots through a red light and you don't see them for the stopped vehicles?

Correct, this report is only about injuries to cyclists. It gets a bit boring to repeat this endlessly, but here goes anyway: red light-jumping cyclists are a nuisance, but not a real danger in any meaningful sense, with very few serious injuries each year. It's the red light-jumping car that'll kill you.

Sadly the debate following the article then descends into the traditional, unproductive, entrenched guff that accompanies any cycling article in the press. I have lost the will to even read these.

Headhuunter

So basically RLJ-ing barely increases the likelihood of an accident occuring and in fact, according to other studies/articles, may in fact help you get out of trouble!

Bassjunkieuk

FB - I actually thought the debate on the comments section was quite good for such an article. I think it might have helped tho that this was posted on the cycle-blog section of the site IIRC so didn't attract the usual "lynch the lycra louts" yob that you find so often on the Daily Fail cycling articles. I also think the idea that RLJ/Pavement riding cyclist caused so many injuries was also shot down in flames by some stats posted by another contributor that showed motorised vehicles are responsible for considerably more deaths & injuries in those circumstances.

Eau Rouge

Headhuunter wrote:

So basically RLJ-ing barely increases the likelihood of an accident occuring and in fact, according to other studies/articles, may in fact help you get out of trouble!

Great! I'll tell my motorbike and scooter riding friends tomorrow, they too can jump red light and therefore be safer.
I might try it in the car tonight too, see how it works out.

deptfordmarmoset

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

FB - I actually thought the debate on the comments section was quite good for such an article. I think it might have helped tho that this was posted on the cycle-blog section of the site IIRC so didn't attract the usual "lynch the lycra louts" yob that you find so often on the Daily Fail cycling articles. I also think the idea that RLJ/Pavement riding cyclist caused so many injuries was also shot down in flames by some stats posted by another contributor that showed motorised vehicles are responsible for considerably more deaths & injuries in those circumstances.

Trouble is that it's preaching to the converted. After a quick search last night, I got the impression that none of the other papers had carried the item. Motorists will continue to sit in traffic jams and seeing cyclists passing them and, in a mixture of outrage and frustration, will continue to buy into the Daily Maelstrom-style anti-cycling tirades. And the fact that the papers in general did not cover the story is evidence that inconvenient facts do not need to get in the way of a rant.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

So basically RLJ-ing barely increases the likelihood of an accident occuring and in fact, according to other studies/articles, may in fact help you get out of trouble!

With the emphasis on "may". There is no data to support this, only an unexplained statistic to do with men/women, with the the rlj explanation thrown in as conjecture, rather irresponsibly, to explain the data.

There is CTC data that suggests its very much not safer to RLJ.

Eau Rouge

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Motorists will continue to sit in traffic jams and seeing cyclists passing them and, in a mixture of outrage and frustration, will continue to buy into the Daily Maelstrom-style anti-cycling tirades.

Lets be very clear here.
Motorists stuck in traffic jams are outraged and frustrated at cyclists, yes.
They are also equally outraged and frustrated at the pedestrains they recognise from when they walked past at the previous set of lights too.
They are even more outraged and frustrated by all these other muppets in their cars for being there to cause the traffic jam in the first place, especially jams outside rush hour.
They get outraged and frustrated by any taxi, bus or delivery lorry that they see as holding traffic up by stopping to pick up/drop off passengers or goods.
They get really outraged and frustrated if the jam is caused by road works.
They get really outraged and frustrated by anyone not driving quite as brilliantly as they think they do and, in their eyes, holding up traffic in some way.

Yeah, cyclists are in there, but angry, outraged frustrated motorists having a terrible attitude towards other road users and driving badly as a result isn't just a cycling issue.
"Be nicer to cyclists" isn't a message that's going to work too well.
"Your a guest on the road, act like one" would be a better starting point.

The Chingford Skinhead

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

So basically RLJ-ing barely increases the likelihood of an accident occuring and in fact, according to other studies/articles, may in fact help you get out of trouble!

Great! I'll tell my motorbike and scooter riding friends tomorrow, they too can jump red light and therefore be safer.
I might try it in the car tonight too, see how it works out.

ER - I think you'll find many motor vehicles do jump red lights - I see it every day. However they'll be no safer and everyone else will be less safe. The argument for cyclists doing it (rightly or wrongly) is that it gives the vulnerable road user a head start of the traffic most likely to kill them (see the stats in the very article we are discussing).

But, let's not get into a helmet / no helmet or RLJ good / bad argument as it is a distraction from the main topic. That being, the need for Govt and society to address the real danger on the road (and pavements!) motorists rather than scapegoating or blaming the vicitms.

deptfordmarmoset

Yeah, cyclists are in there, but angry, outraged frustrated motorists having a terrible attitude towards other road users and driving badly as a result isn't just a cycling issue.
"Be nicer to cyclists" isn't a message that's going to work too well.
"Your a guest on the road, act like one" would be a better starting point.

Eau Rouge, agreed but that's an issue far wider than this thread's title seemed to allow.

cjw

Eau Rouge wrote:

Lets be very clear here.
Motorists stuck in traffic jams are outraged and frustrated at cyclists, yes.
They are also equally outraged and frustrated at the pedestrains they recognise from when they walked past at the previous set of lights too.
They are even more outraged and frustrated by all these other muppets in their cars for being there to cause the traffic jam in the first place, especially jams outside rush hour.
They get outraged and frustrated by any taxi, bus or delivery lorry that they see as holding traffic up by stopping to pick up/drop off passengers or goods.
They get really outraged and frustrated if the jam is caused by road works.
They get really outraged and frustrated by anyone not driving quite as brilliantly as they think they do and, in their eyes, holding up traffic in some way.

Very well summed up

Just two to add...

They get really outraged if anothercar is turning the off main carriageway and they want to carry on ahead and slow them up. (Had this today)

They get really outraged if pedestrians use crossings and hold them up.

Just the other day I was crossing at a pelican and the car who had to stop was revving his engine like mad. So I walked up to the window and tapped politely asking what the problem was. "You f'kin' holding me up" came the reply. Ah I said (still very polite). Next time I see you on a crossing you won't mind if I run you over then will you? Smiled and went on my way.

For some reason though attitudes seem to completely change when people get behind the wheel :roll:

John Stevenson

Eau Rouge wrote:

Yeah, cyclists are in there, but angry, outraged frustrated motorists having a terrible attitude towards other road users and driving badly as a result isn't just a cycling issue.
"Be nicer to cyclists" isn't a message that's going to work too well.
"Your a guest on the road, act like one" would be a better starting point.

How about "If driving makes you this angry do us all a favour and stop doing it."