Very uncool....

jedster

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28945834

25% of guide dogs working in London have been hit by cyclists...

Don't know how reliable their survey is but just how much of an @rsehole would you feel if you hit a guide dog? think it would require some harikiri type gesture like publicly chopping up your bike with an angle grinder :roll:

cookeeemonster

yeah I saw that...dont believe it to be honest. Have 25% of pedestrians been hit on the pavement? Never seen one in my life (though I know it does happen).

Wonder what the stats are for guide dogs and blind people being hit/klilled/seriously injured by cars? (not that it makes the idiots on bikes less like scum)

Colinthecop

CookeeeMonster wrote:

yeah I saw that...dont believe it to be honest.

But it's the Beeb - well known for their open and honest reporting without any agenda. :shock:

jedster

to be honest, and for all its faults, I still think the Beeb is less biased than the alternative UK media outlets...
I wouldn't describe it as anti-cyclist in general either.

Whether or not the stats are accurate, I do think it must be pretty awful being a vulnerable pedestrian in London (blind or elderly). I see even a lot of relatively considerate cyclists nipping across zebras before the pedestrians are completely clear (and yes I know drivers do this too) - I think that is pretty scary for the infirm.

iPete

Reminds me of Guide Dogs for the Blind who lobbied Woking council to remove cyclist from the shared use routes.

Koncordski

Bloody guide dogs, should stop using twitter and look where they're going.

notsoblue

Really? But how? I've never even come close to colliding with a guide dog. I just don't see how this could ever happen unless someone is riding recklessly on the pavement.

pblakeney

How can we explain to the general public the difference between a cyclist and someone who cycles on the pavement?

Scrotes.

Colinthecop

And how would the owner know it was a bike that hit their dog...?





Sorry, i'll get my coat. :oops:

jds_1981

jedster wrote:

25% of guide dogs working in London have been hit by cyclists...

Another one wondering how they got their stats. Who saw the collision?

jds_1981

They've also released a video with some bad cyclists in.
http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2 ... d-cycling/
I'm sure they could have found some better examples of bad cycling though. Some of the examples I'm quite 'meh' about - the woman who decides to cycle onto the pavement to get off her bicycle for instance.

pblakeney

jds_1981 wrote:

They've also released a video with some bad cyclists in.
http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2 ... d-cycling/
I'm sure they could have found some better examples of bad cycling though. Some of the examples I'm quite 'meh' about - the woman who decides to cycle onto the pavement to get off her bicycle for instance.

Is that the best they have got?
Some RLJing which I disapprove of but nothing I would call dangerous.

And as for the intro, what is that all about?
Blind people do not rely on cyclist's eyes, they rely on guide dog's eyes.

slowbike

jds_1981 wrote:

They've also released a video with some bad cyclists in.
http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2 ... d-cycling/
I'm sure they could have found some better examples of bad cycling though. Some of the examples I'm quite 'meh' about - the woman who decides to cycle onto the pavement to get off her bicycle for instance.

Bad or unsafe? Not sure any of those examples were unsafe - they may have been jumping red lights or riding on the pavement which is wrong - but they weren't causing any pedestrians (sighted or otherwise) to jump out of the way.

rower63

In all my many years (25) of more-or-less daily commuter cycling, I've never seen a cyclist hit a dog of any description, or any domestic animal. I've seen plenty of cyclist-ped collisions though, and been an active participant in 5 of those, four as a cyclist and one as a ped. Where I was the cyclist, every time it was 100% the ped's fault, and in two categories: either foreigner leaping into the road without warning looking the wrong way thinking it's clear; or ped on phone running across road without looking and without warning. When I was the ped, I was walking along King's Road when a teenager on a BMX came tearing round a corner on the pavement and straight into me.
And I've witnessed dozens of ped-cyclist incidents too, can't recall a single one where it wasn't the ped's fault, and none resulting in any injury, though one recent one did involve waiting for an ambulance (ped stepped straight into road from behind a blind corner, cyclist had no chance, somersaulted over handlebars and landed in sitting position on road. Nasty leg bruise for ped, who got up and was able walk around after 10 mins, but no damage - I was 5 metres behind).

MonkeyMonster

my first thought was that they are using the bucket term of cyclist - where they meant person on a two wheeled pedaled convenience. Ie like one of those visible 3-5 groups of yoofs who twat about on the road doing wheelies and generally fcuking about constantly and generally being exceptionally thoughtless and dangerous as being hte likely culprits.

tangled_metal

Well I wonder if they need to train the guide dogs better. I mean how good is a guide dog that not only puts it's blind owner at risk walking into the path of a cyclist but actually gets hit themselves. Or perhaps its something like the dog taking the bullet (or cyclist hit) for the blind owner.

Sorry but barring a limited number of genuine hits I do not believe 25% of guide dogs being hit is down to the fault of the cyclist community. There are other factors from training of the dogs/owners, junction/road design or simply operator error (owner was directing the dog to proceed even though not safe, perhaps the dog picked up on cues to go and that over-rode their instincts for self preservation somehow).

I don't know but seriously a quarter of all london based guide dogs? If that isn't the same or higher for all types of dogs then doesn't it mean there is something inherently riskier for guide dogs? If so shouldn't there be better awareness or training for their owners and the dogs themselves?? They are supposed to be keeping the blind person safe afterall.

asprilla

Clearly it's 25% of blind dogs for the Guides. Those young girls clearly don't get adequate training in order to look after such a disadvantaged animal.

davis

Tangled Metal wrote:

Sorry but barring a limited number of genuine hits I do not believe 25% of guide dogs being hit is down to the fault of the cyclist community. There are other factors from training of the dogs/owners, junction/road design or simply operator error (owner was directing the dog to proceed even though not safe, perhaps the dog picked up on cues to go and that over-rode their instincts for self preservation somehow).

I think it probably is the fault of the person on the bike.

Whenever I see a dog/cat/rabbit/deer/child/dragon/macaque I assume it's going to instantly and without warning attempt to leap under my front wheel. I therefore ride accordingly, and I'd be even more careful around the guide dog.

UndercoverElephant

People have a gross distortion of what Guide dogs actually can and can't do. It's not the dog that chooses when or if to cross a road,they just give an indication to the owner as to the position of the curb, though they can also disobey their owner if they ask them to cross when they think it unsafe.

Most owners base this the decision to cross on whether or not they can hear an engine approaching, as such they may not realise that a bike is approaching, nor an electric car. How can you stop, look and listen when you can't look and there is nothing to listen for?

I would implore anyone on a bike to be very cautious if they saw a blind person with or without a dog. There's nothing wrong with slowing down and providing a wide-berth, even on a Strava segment.

slowbike

Hang on ...

There are 41,060 people registered blind or partially sighted in London with just over 320 using guide dogs in the city.

So - 320 guide dogs ...

A survey involving a fifth of guide dog owners in the city

So - 64 people with guide dogs were surveyed ...

A quarter of guide dogs working in London have been hit by a bike, according to the organisation Guide Dogs.

so - in actual terms that was 16 out of the 64 surveyed had been hit buy someone using a bike.

IMHO the sample size is too small to make it a reliable statistic and with no idea of the cause of the collision there is the probability that the sighted person is entirely responsible for far less than the 25% figure being banded about. Also, the report doesn't include a timescale - were these 16 incidents this year, last 12 months, 2 years or since they've had a guide dog - has one been hit multiple times?

TBH, with 320 guide dogs in London it wouldn't take much to take a 100% sample size - then, if it was still just those 16 incidents the hit rate would be just 5%, which for a guestimated 5 year time span would make it 3 collisions a year or <1% of the guide dogs working in london get hit each year - all of a sudden it doesn't sound so bad, which is probably why some facts are not mentioned ...

[edit] Although this shouldn't detract from the message that we should be cautious around others, especially those with impaired vision.

tangled_metal

That was what I was kind of thinking. The operator (blind person) is making decisions as to actions the dog is responding and I guess wanting to please the alpha. That is why I question whether part of this high figure is down wholly to the cyclist. The blind person can't see or hear the cyclist approaching and perhaps in a busy town/city the cyclist has so much going on around him/her that perhaps it is easy to miss the fact that the man or woman with a dog is blind. I've seen people out with guide dogs without those handle type of leads with just a simple lead before now and didn't catch on the person was blind at first. Doubt that is the reason but it is possible that you wouldn't spot the risk among so many around you as the cyclist. For the figure to be so high there is a factor that comes from the blind person that increases the risk. Takes two to tangle after all (or three if you include the dog).

Perhaps both parties need more awareness of the risks???

I agree wholeheartedly with the wide berth and taking extra care when you see the blind person while out on your bike. And stuff the Strava segment up your...well that is never important compared to your safety and that of others.

notsoblue

Apparently this is where they got their data from:
https://twitter.com/GuidedogsLondon/sta ... 8756337664

"Vision impaired with strong views on cyclists in London?Fill in our survey to help with our campaign"

They surveyed people with "strong views on cyclists in London". Its hardly a surprising result.

UndercoverElephant

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps both parties need more awareness of the risks???

I'm sure they'd love to be able to: how aware of the risks do you imagine someone with little or no vision can be?

Tangled Metal wrote:

I've seen people out with guide dogs without those handle type of leads with just a simple lead before now and didn't catch on the person was blind at first

Those would be the white leads with the hi-viz flash, rather than the harness. That means that the dog was off-duty and probably about to go on a free-run to let off steam. Everyone deserves a day-off.

Slowbike wrote:

TBH, with 320 guide dogs in London it wouldn't take much to take a 100% sample size - then, if it was still just those 16 incidents the hit rate would be just 5%, which for a guestimated 5 year time span would make it 3 collisions a year or <1% of the guide dogs working in london get hit each year - all of a sudden it doesn't sound so bad, which is probably why some facts are not mentioned ...

I think you're misrepresenting the statistics also, there are 4,800 guide dog owners in the UK, I would imagine that more than 320 of them go into the city on occasions. Perhaps the 320 are those whose owners who work every day in the city? A small sample it may be, but it may well be perfectly representative, or it may be under-reporting the problem, the 48 dogs who weren't hit may have been the only ones, making it a 85% rate!!!! - I can play the Daily Mail statistics game too.

Either way, your pet dog got hit by a bike, you'd think it was awful. If you totally relied on a dog to get around, and if it got hit by a bike, you'd be livid. These dogs won't just think, "Oh well, never mind, I'll just carry on as before!", they may well be far too timid to work properly again, there's a huge investment in each of these incredible animals. Time, money and love, to say that blind people should be more aware of cyclists is cringe-worthy and so selfish it's untrue.

rower63

notsoblue wrote:

Apparently this is where they got their data from:
https://twitter.com/GuidedogsLondon/sta ... 8756337664
"Vision impaired with strong views on cyclists in London?Fill in our survey to help with our campaign"
They surveyed people with "strong views on cyclists in London". Its hardly a surprising result.

I would suggest many of those developed their strong views as a direct result of an incident or near-miss with a cyclist, so as you imply, it was likely very far from an independent sample of guide-dog owners. Bad science and poor reporting. But, hey, it's the BBC.

Edit: In fact it's close to saying: "been hit or nearly hit by a cyclist in London? Then fill in our survey." Which then gets reported as "100% of guide-dog owners surveyed have been hit or nearly hit by a cyclist in London". It's totally self-fulfilling.

notsoblue

rower63 wrote:

I would suggest many of those developed their strong views as a direct result of an incident or near-miss with a cyclist, so as you imply, it was likely very far from an independent sample of guide-dog owners. Bad science and poor reporting. But, hey, it's the BBC.

Its pretty shocking. They've already changed the headline.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said a quarter of guide dogs working in London had been hit by a bike. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has since said the information it provided was incorrect.

The title has gone from:
"25% Of London Guide Dogs hit by Cyclists"
to
"Guide dog owners 'fearful' of cyclists in London, charity claims"

Of course, the damage to the reputation of cyclists in London has already been done. And people say that red light jumpers give us a bad name amongst the general public...

notsoblue

For some reason this campaign has particularly annoyed me... Look at the Evening Standard's coverage of this, and the picture they chose to use.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/l ... 92714.html

Here we see a bunch of people riding their bikes in an entirely lawful manner, being juxtaposed with stories of cyclists menacingly running down the blind. Crazy. The Guide Dogs for the Blind PR department has a lot to answer for.

rower63

In fact I'm so appalled I waded through the BBC's "make an official complaint" process and sent them the following:

Please note that this complaint is written even after a "correction" to tone it down. It presents the results of a survey conducted by The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association as if the respondents to the survey were an independent sample of the Association's members.
The BBC article states:
"In a survey conducted by the association, of 33 guide dog owners in London who responded, 14 said they had been involved in a collision and 25 said they had been involved in a "near miss" with cyclists on pavements or jumping red lights."
If the respondents were an independent sample of the Association, that would be a pretty shocking result, as I'm sure the author intends.
In fact, the survey in question starts with
"Vision impaired with strong views on cyclists in London?Fill in our survey to help with our campaign".
So the survey is inviting only people with strong views on cyclists. I would suggest that respondents with strong views may have acquired them from an incident or near-miss, and given the fact there are 41,000 members in London, it's perfectly feasible to expect to find a reasonable number who have had such an experience and to respond to the survey.
There is no mention of this upfront filtration in the article.
It's a self-fulfilling "shocking" headline. It's nearly "Been hit by a cyclist? Fill in our survey" leading to the headline: "100% of respondents from ABC association's survey say they have been hit by a cyclist."
This is appalling and disingenuous reporting.

Mikey23

A valid point is being made and is worthy of consideration by the cycling community. Sadly, many of the responses posted here are predictable...

I very rarely come to London or any big city unless i really have to. One of the principal dangers to the safety of myself and my family is the unpredictability and sheer stupidity or impatience of some cyclists. Im not blind or partially sighted but my agility has saved me from damage on more than one occasion. Substitute the label onto any other vulnerable group such as those with learning difficulties or physical incapacity. We would encourage them to be out in the community and leading fulfilled and independent lives rather than sitting at home drinking coffee, watching daytime tv, fearful of going out and being supported by the taxpayer

Mikey23

@rower63... I trust that your diatribe was correctly attributed as a personal response rather than representing the views of the cycling community?

rolf_f

Mikey23 wrote:

A valid point is being made and is worthy of consideration by the cycling community. Sadly, many of the responses posted here are predictable...

I very rarely come to London or any big city unless i really have to. One of the principal dangers to the safety of myself and my family is the unpredictability and sheer stupidity or impatience of some cyclists. Im not blind or partially sighted but my agility has saved me from damage on more than one occasion. Substitute the label onto any other vulnerable group such as those with learning difficulties or physical incapacity. We would encourage them to be out in the community and leading fulfilled and independent lives rather than sitting at home drinking coffee, watching daytime tv, fearful of going out and being supported by the taxpayer

No - we don't know if it is a valid point and the responses here are reasonable. The survey does not take the views of blind people who haven't strong views on cyclists into account so is therefore inherently biased - it is half way to being a survey of people who have had altercations with cyclists

Incompetent survey wrote:

In our survey of people knocked over by cyclists, 100% of respondents reported having been knocked over by cyclists

And the sample set is miniscule - if they hadn't biased the survey to start with, they'd have had more meaningful stats - but they didn't so it means nothing. It may well be that cyclists represent a significant risk to the blind but we have no way of knowing as a result of this incompetent piece of work - and it is so obviously incompetent that it should have been obvious that it simply wasn't worth reporting. We know that there is plenty of bad riding - especially in London - but it would be useful to know the facts rather than making stuff up which is effectively what has been done here.

This is why you pay organisations to undertake surveys for you - people who know what they are doing and how to write non leading questions. This is amateur rubbish.

Edit - Lol, apols to Rower63 for effectively saying exactly the same thing!

notsoblue wrote:

Its pretty shocking. They've already changed the headline.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said a quarter of guide dogs working in London had been hit by a bike. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has since said the information it provided was incorrect.

The title has gone from:
"25% Of London Guide Dogs hit by Cyclists"
to
"Guide dog owners 'fearful' of cyclists in London, charity claims"

Of course, the damage to the reputation of cyclists in London has already been done. And people say that red light jumpers give us a bad name amongst the general public...

Do you think that if we asked nicely, they would change the title to:

0.03% of London Guide Dogs hit by Cyclists (on the basis that that is the percentage of blind people out of 41060 in total who have stated that they have been in a collision with a cyclist). It's not really a very correct conclusion but it is the most justifiable number we have so far......

mroli

rower63 wrote:

In all my many years (25) of more-or-less daily commuter cycling, I've never seen a cyclist hit a dog of any description, or any domestic animal. I've seen plenty of cyclist-ped collisions though, and been an active participant in 5 of those, four as a cyclist and one as a ped. Where I was the cyclist, every time it was 100% the ped's fault, and in two categories: either foreigner leaping into the road without warning looking the wrong way thinking it's clear; or ped on phone running across road without looking and without warning.

I take my dog for a walk every day and it involves crossing a fairly busy road outside a school to get to the river. Pretty much 90% of cyclists fail to stop for me/the dog on it, 90% of cars do stop. I'm as pro-cycling as they get, but it f*(king infuriates me - especially as it is by a school. Only been hit once (because I am EXTRA cautious crossing), where a cyclist didn't see me, locked his front brake, went over the bars. I ended up catching him to save him hitting the floor.