Shouldn't the driver get out and open the door for him?
He's not a socialist for goodness sake.
He's not a socialist for goodness sake.
Transport Minster - new cycling policy?
- Thread starter shemozzle999
- Start date
Happy to note it was. "Tongue in cheek ".
Most accidents by cyclists will end up damaging themselves and not third parties. Most home insurance policies cover indemnity to third parties by the householder, that insurance companies have not found it necessary to restrict access to this fund or to provide specific insurance policies for normal cycling is evidence that this is not a major problem.
Accidents and incidents causing injury can occur anywhere, including the home. Would we ban homes or make people take tests to live in their home?
Riding a bike, whether electric or not is not a particularly hazardous activity hence does not need regulating.
Overtaking on the inside is a dangerous practice, and does not need to be tested. Going through a red light is dangerous. How would you test for it? Both of these conditions are listed in the rules of the road.
Cyclists do collide with other cyclists and with pedestrians, fortunately the incidence of fatal collisions is rare and the incidence of serious personal injury is also rare. It is when cyclists pedestrians collide with moving cars and other motorised vehicles that serious life changing events occur.
Cyclists can and do get prosecuted when breaking rules.
The purpose of a tax is to raise revenue. An ancillary purpose is to modify public behaviour. What purpose would taxing cyclists achieve.
I,m very surprised at your cavalier attitudes because as you point out its the cyclists that suffer.
Perhaps you should google " Cyclist Deaths on UK roads" and read a few reports.
The bottom line is a cyclist is 17 times more likely to die on a cycle journey than a car driver on a car journey, figure is nationwide , and worse for London. If that's not an issue requiring some kind of legislation/ testing I,m not sure what is?
Most deaths occur when vehicles turn left with a cyclist on inside. Obviously vehicle driver must take some responsibility ( I,d guess it ruins drivers life)
The video above is , as I,m sure you,ll know, perfectly normal. I see it most days in London. ( ie Cyclists undertaking parked or slow moving vehicles)
Forums such as this should be campaigning for training, not dismissing it as imposition on freedoms.
Having said that,its blatantly obvious some posters on here cant follow simple forum rules, so following road laws is simply not going to happen under current legislation.
How many deaths are tolerated in name of environment and freedom?
Personally think anyone cycling on uk roads must be mad. Makes extreme sports look like tiddly winks.
Perhaps you should google " Cyclist Deaths on UK roads" and read a few reports.
The bottom line is a cyclist is 17 times more likely to die on a cycle journey than a car driver on a car journey, figure is nationwide , and worse for London. If that's not an issue requiring some kind of legislation/ testing I,m not sure what is?
Most deaths occur when vehicles turn left with a cyclist on inside. Obviously vehicle driver must take some responsibility ( I,d guess it ruins drivers life)
The video above is , as I,m sure you,ll know, perfectly normal. I see it most days in London. ( ie Cyclists undertaking parked or slow moving vehicles)
Forums such as this should be campaigning for training, not dismissing it as imposition on freedoms.
Having said that,its blatantly obvious some posters on here cant follow simple forum rules, so following road laws is simply not going to happen under current legislation.
How many deaths are tolerated in name of environment and freedom?
Personally think anyone cycling on uk roads must be mad. Makes extreme sports look like tiddly winks.
Last edited:
No that's not the bottom line, it isn't even necessarily a problem since your comparison is plainly very silly.
The car driver is obviously much less likely to die, protected as they are in a large metal box designed to contain them in safety. The bump that can kill a cyclist might scarcely jolt a car driver. So the death ratio comparison is worthless.
And you seem to forget that cyclists can cause their own deaths, sometimes even without another vehicle involved.
.
Utter rubbish.
In 2014 107 cyclists died on roads. 3 died off road.
The fact cyclists are so vulnerable simply means the need more training or exercise much greater care.
BTW there is no such thing as an accident. They all died in incidents caused by either themselves, a driver or combination of the two.
The drivers have all gone through training and testing...the cyclists should too.
And the 17 times more likely to die takes into account mileage...( deaths per constant mileage) In reality its far worse.
No matter how you spin it a cyclist is 17 times more likely to die than a driver/ passenger. In London figure must be nearer 50...very few drivers die in city collisions.
And here you are a " responsible" cyclist advocating doing nothing.
In London it averages out at 1 cyclist per month killed...It doesn't even make the news..Its appalling. I,ll bet there are lots of families wishing members had not taken up cycling or that they,d had training or something done along lines in foreign cities.
In 2014 107 cyclists died on roads. 3 died off road.
The fact cyclists are so vulnerable simply means the need more training or exercise much greater care.
BTW there is no such thing as an accident. They all died in incidents caused by either themselves, a driver or combination of the two.
The drivers have all gone through training and testing...the cyclists should too.
And the 17 times more likely to die takes into account mileage...( deaths per constant mileage) In reality its far worse.
No matter how you spin it a cyclist is 17 times more likely to die than a driver/ passenger. In London figure must be nearer 50...very few drivers die in city collisions.
And here you are a " responsible" cyclist advocating doing nothing.
In London it averages out at 1 cyclist per month killed...It doesn't even make the news..Its appalling. I,ll bet there are lots of families wishing members had not taken up cycling or that they,d had training or something done along lines in foreign cities.
Last edited:
You really are a chump! Of course few drivers die in city collisions, the average speeds are far too slow and their protection in modern cars is far too great for death to occur.
If you are going to use statistics, please use them correctly. London has by a very big margin the highest rate of cycling in the UK, so that alone makes comparison on death numbers invalid. London is by far the safest place in the UK to cycle, the death rate dropping for years and now at well under one a month and a long way below the rest of the country.
This isn't just what I'm saying, the official statistics state as much.
.
Some people should just stick to scuba diving... When are you buying a bike again?
You learn very quickly to be careful on a bike unless you are of a suicidal nature. Cyclists don't just die they are killed in the majority of cases. The cyclist is being careful because he doesn't have a protective metal box around him. The problem is he thinks that drivers are being careful too and can see him. Cars have blind spots. Trucks have HUGE blind spots. Something rear view mirror designers haven't been working on for over 100 years now, they just design just enough so that you can more or less see other cars and trucks.
You also learn to stop counting the number of times car drivers refuse priority or don't stop at stop signs or overtake without leaving enough space or are even homicidal maniacs...
You learn very quickly to be careful on a bike unless you are of a suicidal nature. Cyclists don't just die they are killed in the majority of cases. The cyclist is being careful because he doesn't have a protective metal box around him. The problem is he thinks that drivers are being careful too and can see him. Cars have blind spots. Trucks have HUGE blind spots. Something rear view mirror designers haven't been working on for over 100 years now, they just design just enough so that you can more or less see other cars and trucks.
You also learn to stop counting the number of times car drivers refuse priority or don't stop at stop signs or overtake without leaving enough space or are even homicidal maniacs...
Hi
You have indicated that I am being cavalier in my attitudes to risk, I would dispute that . Had you continued in your analysis and used the base line figures you would have found that in the same year the actual road deaths , not the number of accidents or incidents tell a completely different story. Deaths are final events not subject to statistical spin and give the true facts of life.
Of course any premature death is to be abhorred, but these are the official department of transport data for UK 2014 .The overall total was 1775
Motorists inc passengers. . 797
Motorcycists. 339
Pedestrians. 446
Cyclists. . 113
Other. 80
The basis for your selective statistics based on passenger journeys as accidents per mile, is the same class of analysis which proves that flying is the safest mode of transport..... . Or the international space station must surely be the safest because it has never had a fatality in the 120,000 earth orbits made to date .
In my opinion, there are good reasons to segregate pedestrians and cyclists from faster moving traffic.
This topic has had sufficient airing and I do not intend making any further responses.
No matter how you analyse it 113 cyclist deaths is extremely high when you consider the number of miles and people going on car journeys.
Had folk had same attitude to road safety in 70,s we would never have seen the dramatic reduction in road deaths we,ve seen. Arguing to keep current status quo, especially from cyclists, is at best bizarre.
I wonder how many of those 113 deaths could have been avoided either with training, testing,comulsory high vis or lights. You are all burying your heads in the sand pretending things are fine when they blatantly are not.
Something needs doing, folk getting killed on self propelled machines with average speeds of I,d guess 14mph is plain stupid.
Why such as yourselves are not lobbying,moaning or something is odd.
A death a month in London is not acceptable.
Had folk had same attitude to road safety in 70,s we would never have seen the dramatic reduction in road deaths we,ve seen. Arguing to keep current status quo, especially from cyclists, is at best bizarre.
I wonder how many of those 113 deaths could have been avoided either with training, testing,comulsory high vis or lights. You are all burying your heads in the sand pretending things are fine when they blatantly are not.
Something needs doing, folk getting killed on self propelled machines with average speeds of I,d guess 14mph is plain stupid.
Why such as yourselves are not lobbying,moaning or something is odd.
A death a month in London is not acceptable.
Will you please stop using false figures.
Nearly 100 deaths nationwide outside London can be considered high in a nation which has a low level of cycling. but this does not apply to London.
From a peak of 22 deaths in a year long ago the rate has been diminishing as a result of the many sensible measures taken, so this year at nearly the end we've had 9 deaths. That is not 1 death a month.
That 9 deaths have mainly occurred during over 128 million cycle commuting journeys alone. That's one death per 14 million cycle commuting journeys, so someone would have to live well over 600 lifetimes to reach that many cycle commuting journeys.
And that's without including all the other forms of cycling in London. We have a very active sport cycing scene, both road and mountain biking, plus extensive BMXing, and there's also more utility bike use than in most of Britain.
As I said before and have shown here, cycling in London now is incredibly safe and much safer than anywhere else in the country. Our death rate this year is only just over half that of the rest of the country, despite us having three times the cycling rate of the rest.
So preach to the rest of the country if you wish, but please stop using historic and sometimes inaccurate internet figures about London now.
.
I must agree strongly with this. My latest brush with my fate came two weeks ago at the hands of the driver of a car whom was breaking the rules, driving carelessly and with total disregard to my well being. A high end car driven by a man in a suit whom supposedly was "trained and licensed". Part of my body dented the rear quater panel. My front wheel had to have damaged the side. He didn't even touch his brakes and kept right on going. What was I doing? I was traveling at 22mph, in a defensive position, traveling between cars parked on both sides. He decided to plow through anyway. My knee and hip are still quite sore but happily I am otherwise ok.
Sorry to be a little long winded but what "training and licensing " would have helped me here? Every incident, on my bike, I have had since riding as a boy has been because of the driver of a car doing the wrong thing. And there have been many.
What needs to happen is increased training for drivers of cars that focus on interactions with vunerable traffic; Horse, milk wagons, horse drawn carriages, and BICYCLES! Along with this, cyclist should be able to have careless drivers charged under the criminal code and not the highway code. Punishment for negilgent drivers that kill, maim and injure is laughable; except for the victims and their families.
All the training in the world will not replace respect and due diligence. Presently there is no pressure on the drivers of cars to have either for cyclist. Rant over, Merry Christmas all.
Flecc
I used 113 deaths from danid post.
And if those deaths ( whatever the number is its too high especially in London) were attriibutable to driver faults the distribution of cyclists killed would be random. It is not. It is predominantly male ( even after taking into account more males cycle) and from age range 15 to 25...
I agree drivers are at fault in many cases ,but not all...but either way training would benefit . Look how CBT and harder testing has reduced motorcycle deaths ( again even after taking into account fewer riders)
To dismiss any changes from training to higher profile is ridiculous. Government dont care, they get drivers out of cars . Its such as this place that should be lobbying for change, instead you just blame drivers and ignore the facts.. One death on a cycle is one too many. One a month in London and circa 100 plus a year nationally is a disgrace.
But end of day it does not affect me. I don't cycle on roads and I insist none of my family do either...its simply way too dangerous...fact. Just look at the figures for goodness sake.
Sports diving is an extremely dangerous activity. Its death rate has been reduced over last 20 years with PADI and BSAC training to order of 1 death per 200,000 dives. Its still not good enough. I,d guess cycling through London is far worse and nobody has to dive. I,d guess some folk have to cycle to earn a living.
I used 113 deaths from danid post.
And if those deaths ( whatever the number is its too high especially in London) were attriibutable to driver faults the distribution of cyclists killed would be random. It is not. It is predominantly male ( even after taking into account more males cycle) and from age range 15 to 25...
I agree drivers are at fault in many cases ,but not all...but either way training would benefit . Look how CBT and harder testing has reduced motorcycle deaths ( again even after taking into account fewer riders)
To dismiss any changes from training to higher profile is ridiculous. Government dont care, they get drivers out of cars . Its such as this place that should be lobbying for change, instead you just blame drivers and ignore the facts.. One death on a cycle is one too many. One a month in London and circa 100 plus a year nationally is a disgrace.
But end of day it does not affect me. I don't cycle on roads and I insist none of my family do either...its simply way too dangerous...fact. Just look at the figures for goodness sake.
Sports diving is an extremely dangerous activity. Its death rate has been reduced over last 20 years with PADI and BSAC training to order of 1 death per 200,000 dives. Its still not good enough. I,d guess cycling through London is far worse and nobody has to dive. I,d guess some folk have to cycle to earn a living.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
That doesn't sound right if you mean only 3 cyclists died off road. My neighbour was a cyclist and he died in his bed (off-road) of cancer in 2014. Is he included in your 3. In fact 500,000 deaths were registered in England and Wales in 2014. I bet a fair proportion were cyclists..
More bunkum, you clearly know absolutely nothing about the London cycling situation. How can you say "especially" too high in London when London's death rate is so much lower than the rest of the country?
And the gender issue is completely the reverse in London, it's female cyclists who dominate the deaths. Less than 1 in 4 cycling commuters are female yet year after year their death rate is far higher than that, Here's the fact from published information:
According to Transport for London, women make only a quarter of our city’s bike journeys, yet they represent 39 per cent of adult cycling fatalities in the past six-and-a-half years.
And this imbalance has always been the case, 10 of the 13 London cyclists killed in 2009 were female despite making only a quarter of the journeys for example, and in one year historically all 8 London cycling deaths were female.
This is especially true of the truck v cyclist deaths, most of those are of female cyclists and it's well understood why, as you'd find out if you researched the issue properly.
.
No 6 were female and yes you are correct it seems a particular problem for what could be timid cyclists not getting away from junctions when large trucks turn left...but if you actually examine numbers killed and seriously hurt( life changing injuries) you,ll see even in London its males suffering the most, and yes country roads account for more deaths owing to likely speed of impact...but whatever your reasoning, whoever is being killed the numbers ate there.
And it was 113 in year mentioned , and although death rate is lower serious injury is seeing roughly a 4% increase pa., above the increase in cycle usage.
Its crying out for legislation to change something ...
Arguing training could not help is plain stupid. Its helped motorcyclists who all argued against its inclusion ( CBT) as they also argued against helmet law.
Yes, older cyclists with years of experience may well be fine. The experience to double guess stupid drivers, the experience to guess or know Tha truck might turn left. The sort of things regular cyclists take for granted that this 6 females crushed by dumper trucks had no idea about. Its morally indefensible to not try and pass that knowledge on. Its too easy to jump on a bike read the propoganda claiming you are safe and off you go.
Divinbg claims a death every 200,000 dives. A sports diver might, if he,s lucky, do 30 dives a year. Cyclists go on roads daily.
I just can not understand any Body of governance agreeing to this situation. Its all about selling bikes and getting folk out of there safe cars.
A death a month in our capital, no matter what you say Flecc is absolutely unacceptable.
For the umpteenth time, it is not a death a month now!
There's been huge improvements in London as I've pointed out, and that's resulted from all the efforts made which you appear to now nothing about. That is why I'm angry at your assumption that nothing is being done about the situation when so much has been done and is still being done, including by me!
The reduction in deaths from well over 20 when cycling was far less than half as common, to single figures now with such high cycling rates hasn't happened by accident. It's resulted from all the changes made.
They've included the following:
Trucks operating in the central area now have to meet minimum equipent standards, including a mix of such measures as extra mirrors, repeater indicators along the side of the truck, sound buzzer warnings of a left turn going to happen, additional warning signs on the left rear of the truck.
Truck operating companies have been helped to have cycle awareness training sessions for their drivers, in addition to all the added measures on the trucks.
TfL and the police have had cyclist and truck driver sessions to get them to appreciate each other's difficulties. This has included putting cyclists in the truck driving seats and drivers on bikes in the blind spots around trucks, forcing the message home.
The specific issue of the way women cyclists far too high death rate has been widely publicised, and I've taken part in that, including posting threads here three years running to bring their attention to what is going wrong and what to do about it.
And in Autumn last year, the Metropolitan Police had a several week session of flooding London's streets with officers specifically tackling the cyclist accident issue. During that time they kept watch at junctions and issued tens of thousands of behaviour warnings to drivers and cyclists. From memory they also fine ticketed over 8000 people, split roughly evenly between drivers and cyclists.
TfL had an advertising campaign with full page ads in the various London newspapers promoting awareness of cyclists to drivers.
Both ITV and the BBC regions had specific items on the issues, including a half hour peak time ITV program about the truck v cyclist issue, which included a re-enactment of how a cyclist is so easily accidentally run over by a truck at a left turn.
So much is being done and the results prove how effective that's been.
As for you saying a death a month is unacceptable, without reference to context, I remind you that it's a cyclist death per over 600 cycle commuting lifetimes, which is entirely acceptable, indeed excellent.
.
.
Last edited:
Flecc
The 2016 results are not published yet but online there is a list of fatalities.
It currently stands at 118 nationwide and having scanned them 11 were in London. So yes not quite averaging 1 a month for this year.Lets hope it does not increase before 31st to make it 1 a month.
Serious injuries are way up..
Whatever is happening is not enough but carry on defending a ridiculous argument.
As a bare minimum riders should be made to wear helmets and high vis jackets. Yes , perhaps ineffective but if it saved one death well worth it.
Folk who have cycled for years should be advocating training. For the life of me I just do not understand your view point. Its as if deaths are somehow acceptable...every single one was avoidable. ( well actually one poor chap had heart failure so perhaps not that one)
If cyclists must share space with 10 tonne trucks they should at a minimum be expected to attend some training. Its simply barmy.
I cant launch a boat, go for a dive,go jet skiing or anything ( especially in Europe) without either training and insurance..yet a 14 year old ( and younger) can simply borrow any old bike and pedal through London 2 feet away from 20tonne trucks. Its plain ridiculous.
We have been anesthetised to the danger of traffic.
Drivers are foolish, many incompetent, some drunk, some speed, some drive recklessly, many drive whilst phoning yet you advocate letting new cyclists mix amongst them with zero training. Its utterly bewildering .
In a 100 years we,ll look back with incredulity and say in 21st century kids could share roads with trucks with absolutely no training...
The 2016 results are not published yet but online there is a list of fatalities.
It currently stands at 118 nationwide and having scanned them 11 were in London. So yes not quite averaging 1 a month for this year.Lets hope it does not increase before 31st to make it 1 a month.
Serious injuries are way up..
Whatever is happening is not enough but carry on defending a ridiculous argument.
As a bare minimum riders should be made to wear helmets and high vis jackets. Yes , perhaps ineffective but if it saved one death well worth it.
Folk who have cycled for years should be advocating training. For the life of me I just do not understand your view point. Its as if deaths are somehow acceptable...every single one was avoidable. ( well actually one poor chap had heart failure so perhaps not that one)
If cyclists must share space with 10 tonne trucks they should at a minimum be expected to attend some training. Its simply barmy.
I cant launch a boat, go for a dive,go jet skiing or anything ( especially in Europe) without either training and insurance..yet a 14 year old ( and younger) can simply borrow any old bike and pedal through London 2 feet away from 20tonne trucks. Its plain ridiculous.
We have been anesthetised to the danger of traffic.
Drivers are foolish, many incompetent, some drunk, some speed, some drive recklessly, many drive whilst phoning yet you advocate letting new cyclists mix amongst them with zero training. Its utterly bewildering .
In a 100 years we,ll look back with incredulity and say in 21st century kids could share roads with trucks with absolutely no training...
Last edited:
I am fully on flecc's side of this so called ridiculous argument. Programs such as what London are putting out there is the way forward. Programs that create greater awarness between both drivers and cyclist. The herculean and expensive program of training future cyclists in the obvious would be a futile exercise. I doubt highly that incidents of death and injury amonst cyclist would happen. Cyclist are in the class of vunerable traffic for a reason yet drivers often and regularly ignore this fact. Penalties for drivers whom injure and kill vunerable road users is laughable. There seems to be little or no coincidence for drivers even when video evidence is present. Points and a fine for killing or injuring someone on a bike is a reality in this country even when proven negligent. This is because it is handled through the highway code and not the criminal court system. Like I said in an earlier post.
Lets just say for a moment you are correct in stating that training and licensing for cyclist is necessary. What type of training would you suggest to protect cyclist from drivers breaking road rules (highway codes 204 to 225 and 182, illegal left turn)?
So you are happy wth the 11 London cyclists who died this year? Ir the 118 nationally? Ofcourse you are not ! So what are your suggestions ?
We,ve been trying to reduce road deaths and injury since 50's. Had Ford, Volvo and a few others had tho attitude we,d not be bothering with seat belts( which many argued against when made compulsory)
Same with CBT and helmets...
We,ve been trying to reduce road deaths and injury since 50's. Had Ford, Volvo and a few others had tho attitude we,d not be bothering with seat belts( which many argued against when made compulsory)
Same with CBT and helmets...
Exactly, and another of the reported deaths wasn't actually in London but over the border.
Hence it's 9 as I've said.
You should apply context when stating any figures.
As I've said above, it's 9 deaths in some 128 million cycle commuting journeys this year and goodness knows how many sport, MTB, BMX and utility cycling trips. That's an amazingly low rate of deaths, only one death per over 600 cycle commuting lifetimes, without counting all the other cycling.
The odds against a London cycling commuter getting killed as they set out on a commute are 14 million to 1, which happens to be almost exactly the same as the chance of one Lotto ticket winning the jackpot. Your hysteria about London cycling deaths is equivalent to you thinking most lottery tickets win jackpots
The Netherlands are widely considered to have a low cycling death rate. They have a little over a quarter of the UK population and extensive segregation of their many cyclists, yet have an average 200 cycling deaths per year, nearly double the UK average.
The fact is the UK leads the world in road safety, no other country getting near to our very low death and injury rates.
.