Forum Member Quoted by BBC

[DarloRich]

Cycling will never properly work in this country because

a) There aren't any segregated cycle lanes like say...Holland
b) The country isn't flat.

The places where bikes work best are places without big gradients - Cambridge, Amsterdam, Duesseldorf

You cannot claim to support the bike if you don't provide somewhere to ride it. The best routes in hilly areas are of course, old railway lines which sustrans are doing an excellent job of restoring.

However, you can't be expected to commute on a bike in a hilly area without any cycle lanes

Works canny well just along the way from you in Milton Keynes

 

[D365]

It's quite common this way for cyclists to have very little or no lighting on their bikes at night. It's also very rare to see a cyclist stop at a red light, they tend to either go throgh them, or onto the pavement and then back onto the road on the other side.

Even when cycle lanes are provided they don't always use them. Viewed a local road on Streetview that has a long section of cycle lane and you can see a cyclist riding on the pavement instead

I really don't appreciate the suggestion that (almost) all cyclists are a menace. Though based on past remarks of yours I'm really not surprised.

 

[jon0844]

In central London, certainly along the main trunk roads, it's almost certainly more than 50% cycling badly (and, yes, there are also all the bad drivers, psychotic pedestrians etc).

Go further out to the suburbs and I am sure it changes. Out here in Herts, the bigger problem in the winter is from shift workers that have no lights and wear dark clothing (but some do still wear hi-vis from work, which is something).

I would say that since the new cycle lanes and lights have been installed along Embankment and around the Houses of Parliament, I've been pleasantly surprised that most cyclists are law abiding and waiting. Even if this is just because they've worked out it's safer in the long run, it doesn't matter too much - the point is they're not jumping lights and they're not riding along the riverside pavement.

Just because there are loads of idiot cyclists on the road doesn't mean there always has to be.

 

[anme]

I'm can't believe I actually have to write this, but anyone who believes they are more at risk from cyclists than cars seriously needs to do some research.

 

[tony_mac]

For every mile that they travel, a cyclist is something like twice as likely as a car driver to be involved in an accident that results in serious injury or death to a pedestrian.

 

[D365]

For every mile that they travel, a cyclist is something like twice as likely as a car driver to be involved in an accident that results in serious injury or death to a pedestrian.

Is there a source for this statistic?

 

[tony_mac]

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics

 

[43074]

...a cyclist travelling a mile in Great Britain is 15 times more likely to have a fatal accident than a car driver going the same distance. While this sounds alarming, the risk from death for both forms of travel is quite low.
...
But cycling a certain distance generally takes longer than it would take in a car, so over the same trip there is greater exposure to an accident for a cyclist. Based on the time spent travelling, a cyclist is five times more likely to have a fatal accident than a car driver.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29878233

Quite a bit more than 'twice' as likely however you measure it.

There's quite a bit of info in this DfT report from 2013: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358042/rrcgb2013-02.pdf

 

[D365]

Quite a bit more than 'twice' as likely however you measure it.

What tony_mac was referring to was the chance that a pedestrian is injured in an accident with a cyclist, compared to in an accident with a car. It's a statistic that I have not seen quoted anywhere.

 

[tony_mac]

What tony_mac was referring to was the chance that a pedestrian is injured in an accident with a cyclist, compared to in an accident with a car. It's a statistic that I have not seen quoted anywhere.

You do have to work it out for yourself - I'm on my phone so can't access it now.
Government stats give the total number of accidents reported, you then have to find the total driving and cycling mileage and divide.
(from memory, cyclists make up about 2% of the accidents but only 1% of the mileage per year)

I think it's a vaguely interesting stat, but it is basically meaningless. It does indicate that cyclist-pedestrian collisions are not entirely insignificant.

 

[jon0844]

Going right back to the start, and what the BBC story was about, I feel more at risk from cyclists than cars.

It doesn't mean I don't realise a car hitting me will probably be very bad, and a cyclist may just be a bruise, but the fact is - I'm more likely to make contact with a cyclist than a car.

If I don't fall into a road, or step out in front of one, and wait for the car/van/lorry/bus to stop at red lights, then I'm pretty much assured of never having any involvement with a motorised vehicle.

But a cyclist is a totally different story, as they can be anywhere at any time. I could step out of a shop on a high street and get clipped, or worse. I can be on a pavement and move towards a bin, and get hit from behind (I do generally look over my shoulder when changing direction, which has saved me many times on one path alone).

When I'm on my bike, I get frustrated when people wander into the cycle lane, but I still give way. I might curse them inside, but don't do what other cyclists do. In fact, only yesterday on a walk with my 4 year old along the Alban Way (cycle route 61) there was one - and only one - cyclist who thought he was in a street race. He rang his bell repeatedly but never slowed down. My son could so easily have been hit, along with other walkers (and a dog).

There are signs along there giving the rules for cyclists and I'd have loved to pull it out of the ground and present it in front of his face.

But, he was the only one. Everyone else was cycling just fine, along with many cycle groups enjoying a nice sunny, if cold, country walk.

Frankly, if we allowed cyclists to just use pavements however they want, it would be carnage because of the mentality of some cyclists. Cyclists who would somehow feel vindicated and get worse.

 

[radamfi]

There will always be conflict as long as cyclists have to share with pedestrians or motorists. Bikes and cars don't mix and neither do bikes and pedestrians. The Dutch have known that for decades and so the relationship between the modes is much more harmonious. If you don't build infrastructure then you are asking for conflict and you get threads like this.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

For every mile that they travel, a cyclist is something like twice as likely as a car driver to be involved in an accident that results in serious injury or death to a pedestrian.

As others have said, this statistic needs a source. I've looked around but can't find anything that either confirms or denies it. But for what it's worth, I find it utterly implausible that cyclist-pedestrian accidents would cause death at a higher rate per mile than cyclist-car accidents: Cyclists just don't on the whole go fast enough for death to be the likely result of an accident. However, I do find it very plausible that the number of pedestrian injuries would be higher for cycles than for cars, for several reasons, some of them already pointed out:

1. Cyclists come are required to share space with pedestrians far more often than cars are. (Think for example of the prevalence of joint pedestrian/cycle paths).
2. Cycles are quieter, so pedestrians are more likely not to hear them and step out in front of them.
3. Cycles are much more manoeuvrable and therefore less predictable than cars.
4. There is no age limit for cyclists - so you'll often get young teenagers cycling - at an age when they would never be allowed to drive.
5. And of course, there is a significant proportion of cyclists who are inconsiderate (I am inclined to agree that on average standards of cycling are lower than standards of driving).

 

[fowler9]

Not sure about the circumstances of the road you speak of but it would help if cycle lanes were designed properly and to go places were people might use them and where segregation from other traffic is highly beneficial to all concerned. Far too often, a lick of paint just off a kerb is classed as a cycle lane to tick some box.

You get things like this too...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4...qqJ8yXtEJ4fsTm96tzlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Totally separate two way cycle line that dies a sudden death just before a signal intersection. Where do the cyclists go from here? The crossing? Carry on, on the pavement? Are they meant to head to the road and queue up at the traffic light? Why no cycle lane at or beyond the intersection?

In all likely hood, the cycle lane was put in their because of the bags of space available. There's not much thought about how cyclists get on or off it or how it fits into any wider network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Again, it's not an argument. Idiot motorists don't make idiot cyclists mute.

You are right mate, idiot motorists do not make idiot cyclists become a none problem .

Re the cycle way in question it is part of the Trans Pennine Trail. It is for the most part pretty well thought out.

 

[tony_mac]

As others have said, this statistic needs a source. I've looked around but can't find anything that either confirms or denies it.

here's one example...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes
Cycling is about 1% of total mileage, so the number should be about 1% of cars - but it's 1.4% over that 5 year period. It's at least plausible that is a higher rate. (but it's still a mostly nonsense statistic anyway)

(when I said 'deaths and serious injuries', I meant the two numbers added together).

 

[yorkie]

For every mile that they travel, a cyclist is something like twice as likely as a car driver to be involved in an accident that results in serious injury or death to a pedestrian.

Does that include mileage on roads with no pedestrians, such as motorways? If so, it's comparing apples and oranges.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Going right back to the start, and what the BBC story was about, I feel more at risk from cyclists than cars.

The article was about Camden not fining cyclists who were just on the pavement and not doing any actual harm. You were given as an example of someone who disagreed with not fining people who were not considered to be acting dangerously.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But, he was the only one. Everyone else was cycling just fine, along with many cycle groups enjoying a nice sunny, if cold, country walk..

This is much more balanced than some of your previous views on the subject, and is good to hear!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Frankly, if we allowed cyclists to just use pavements however they want, it would be carnage because of the mentality of some cyclists. Cyclists who would somehow feel vindicated and get worse.

You gave an example of someone breaking the rules. The rules didn't prevent them carrying out their actions.

Do you think that you'd actually see a noticeable increase in genuine cyclists using pavements? Most prefer to be on the road, and virtually all will be on the road, if the road is suitable (ironically leading to some trolls to moan when cyclists are not on 'shared use' pavements!). The chavs you see on stolen bikes in many suburban areas do not care about rules much, whether they are on a bike or not!

 

[EM2]

I'm can't believe I actually have to write this, but anyone who believes they are more at risk from cyclists than cars seriously needs to do some research.

As a pedestrian, I have been hit by cyclists twice, and would have been hit by cyclists if I had not taken evasive action five times.
I have been hit by motor vehicles zero times, and would have been hit by motor vehicles if I had not taken evasive action zero times.

 

[yorkie]

As a pedestrian, I have been hit by cyclists twice, and would have been hit by cyclists if I had not taken evasive action five times.
I have been hit by motor vehicles zero times, and would have been hit by motor vehicles if I had not taken evasive action zero times.

I have been nearly hit by motor vehicles many times, and had I not taken evasive action I would not be here today (both as a pedestrian and a cyclist) while in contrast I have been nearly hit by cyclists very few times, if any. As a pedestrian, I've nearly been hit by umbrellas carried by other pedestrians on several occasions!

On one occasion I was hit by a car, in an almost head-on collision (on a road in which a pedestrian aged about 11 was killed by a car about 6 years ago). Fortunately the car came off worse than my bike, though I had to hobble for a while. The motorists tried to blame me, despite the fact he was pulling out of a side road at the time. A very lucky escape for me.

 

[tony_mac]

Does that include mileage on roads with no pedestrians, such as motorways? If so, it's comparing apples and oranges.

I know - I said as much in the first post - there are all sorts of reasons why they aren't comparable in a very meaningful way.
(about 20% of traffic is on motorways, and about 33% is on 'urban' roads)

 

[fowler9]

Sadly stats tell us very little unless used in context. If motorway travel is included in pedestrians killed per car miles travelled then we may as well include how many pedestrians are injured or killed by Aircraft and conclude that we are best off going to work in a taxiing A320.

 

[yorkie]

I know - I said as much in the first post - there are all sorts of reasons why they aren't comparable in a very meaningful way.
(about 20% of traffic is on motorways, and about 33% is on 'urban' roads)

No worries

Sadly stats tell us very little unless used in context. If motorway travel is included in pedestrians killed per car miles travelled then we may as well include how many pedestrians are injured or killed by Aircraft and conclude that we are best off going to work in a taxiing A320.

That's a brilliant answer, I'll have to remember that one for future reference