Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?

[Shuggie]

[email protected] wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
> > An 80 year old woman was knocked down and seriously injured, on the
> > pavement yesterday, in another cyclist hit and run incident[1].
> >
>
> 'Another' cyclist hit and run incident??? In the whole of the UK each
> year there are only 60 or so recorded injuries due to collisions
> between pedestrians and 'pavement cyclists', most resulting in minor
> injuries and few of these were 'hit and runs'.

Only 60 a year in the UK? That seems quite low based on my admittedly
small sample personal experience:

In the last two years, our office receptionist has been knocked over by
cycle couriers twice, both times within 50 metres of the office, and
both times injured (the first time she was hospitalised and off work
for two weeks, the second time cut, bruised and shocked). One time she
was stepping onto a crossing with a green light in her favour when a
courier dropped off the gutter behind her and collected her; she was
still on the footpath the other time, on which occasion two people were
hurt. The police were called both times but the cyclists were never
identified.

Based on your figures, only one in a million people are knocked over
and injured by hit and run cyclists each year. If that is correct, then
our Rosie must be one unlucky lady to be that one in a million two
years running!

James

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Based on your figures, only one in a million people are knocked over
> and injured by hit and run cyclists each year. If that is correct, then
> our Rosie must be one unlucky lady to be that one in a million two
> years running!

"only 60 or so _recorded injuries_"

 

[David Martin]

Paul - *** wrote:
> David Martin came up with the following;:
> >> As for legislation - how will that reduce hit and runs?
>
> > Legislating to give every child a right to cycle training might..
>
> Every child already has the right to have cycle training. They may not have
> the werewithall or facilities to do it.

Do you have a reference for that? It would be useful to badger theLA
into doing something rather than washing their hands of it.

...d

 

[[email protected]]

Shuggie wrote:

>
> Based on your figures, only one in a million people are knocked over
> and injured by hit and run cyclists each year. If that is correct, then
> our Rosie must be one unlucky lady to be that one in a million two
> years running!
>

Not my figures, they are the official figures from the DfT, as
presented to the House of Commons (see the links to Hansard above).
What's more since both the incidents you mention were reported they
would have appeared in the official statistics.

As with all such figures there may be some under-reporting but if
anything it is the cycle casualties which are under-reported the most.
The OECD report 'Safety of Vulnerable Road Users (RS7)' Found that in
the UK 82-91% of serious injuries to pedestrians were reported and
60-80% of slight injuries. In comparion only 12-41% of serious injures
to cyclists were reported and 9-29% of slight injuries to cyclists.

I have a feeling that injuries to pedestrians as a result of 'pavement
cyclists' are very likely to be reported, given the hysteria which
surrounds such behaviour. One thing which is certain is that more
cyclists are killed and injured as a result of being knocked off by
careless pedestrians whilst they cycle on the road than pedestrians are
killed by 'pavement cyclists'.

 

[p.k.]

[email protected] wrote:
>One thing which is certain is that more
> cyclists are killed and injured as a result of being knocked off by
> careless pedestrians whilst they cycle on the road than pedestrians
> are killed by 'pavement cyclists'.

**I** don't act carelessly putting cyclists at risk when crossing the road,
but I do on a very regular basis (SW London) need to take avoiding action
when on the pavement as a pedestrian to avoid cyclists cycling on the
pavement.

Why do you give the impression of defending the pavement cyclist?

pk

 

[[email protected]]

Shuggie wrote:

> Based on your figures, only one in a million people are knocked over
> and injured by hit and run cyclists each year. If that is correct, then
> our Rosie must be one unlucky lady to be that one in a million two
> years running!
>
> James

P.s the figures I provided above relate to all injuries to pedestrians
involving a cyclist, not just those involving a 'hit and run' offence.

To give a comparison, in 2004 in total 670 pedestrians were killed
after being hit by a motor vehicle and 34,628 injured, 6,765 of these
seriously.

Even just looking at injuries to pedestrians which occured on the
pavement it is clear that motor vehicles post a vastly greater threat
to pedestrians than do 'pavement cyclists. Each year around 3,500
pdestrians are run down by the driver of a motor vehicle as they walk
along a footway and 40 or so of these killed. Fatalities to pedestrians
as result of being run down by a 'pavement cyclist' are very are,
occurring once every 3-5 years on average.

I have just checked the figures in Transport Research Laboratory report
612 which looks at 'hit and run' offences and note that when
pedestrians are hit by a motor vehicle, in 12.9% of cases where the
pedestrian is killed the driver does a runner, in 15% of cases where
the pedestrian is seriously injured the driver does a runner and in
18.8% of cases where the pedestrian is slightly injured the driver does
a runner.

Taking last years figures that means that in 2004 there were over 5000
incidents of a driver commiting a 'hit and run' offence after hitting
a pedestrian.

 

[[email protected]]

p.k. wrote:

>
> Why do you give the impression of defending the pavement cyclist?
>

I was not 'defending' anyone. I was merely trying to put the issue into
proper perspective...

I certainly know cyclists personally who have been injured after being
knocked off by pedestrians who stepped into the road without looking.
One regular cycling partner of mine lost an eye when this happened and
another cyclist I know received a badly broke hip. Don't worry in both
cases the pedestrians involved received nothing more than a few
bruises...

 

[Paul - xxx]

David Martin came up with the following;:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>> David Martin came up with the following;:
>>>> As for legislation - how will that reduce hit and runs?
>>
>>> Legislating to give every child a right to cycle training might..
>>
>> Every child already has the right to have cycle training. They may not
>> have the werewithall or facilities to do it.
>
> Do you have a reference for that?

For what? If you mean for 'the right' then there is no reference. Why
would there be? Everyone who cycles has the right to whatever training they
or their parents deem fit.

What sort of legislation do you propose?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[p.k.]

Paul - *** wrote:
or facilities to do it.
>>
>> Do you have a reference for that?
>
> For what? If you mean for 'the right' then there is no reference. Why
> would there be? Everyone who cycles has the right to whatever
> training they or their parents deem fit.
>
> What sort of legislation do you propose?

I think he was making the transposition: My right = someody's duty to
provide

pk

 

[p.k.]

[email protected] wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do you give the impression of defending the pavement cyclist?
>>
>
> I was not 'defending' anyone. I was merely trying to put the issue
> into proper perspective...
>
> I certainly know cyclists personally who have been injured after being
> knocked off by pedestrians who stepped into the road without looking.
> One regular cycling partner of mine lost an eye when this happened and
> another cyclist I know received a badly broke hip. Don't worry in both
> cases the pedestrians involved received nothing more than a few
> bruises...

my point was: I am deliberately observant and considerate of cyclists and
pedestrians, be I motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. Why should I regularly
have to take special care on pavements to avoid being hit by cyclists?

Should I be punished or have to take that special care because of the past
actions of some unconnected person?

Whether you intend to or not, you come across as an apologist for the
pavement cyclist: "But please sir, the drivers and pedestrians are nasty to
us cyclists so it is ok if a cyclist is nasty back to one of them!"

Inconsiderate drivers are pillocks!

Inconsiderate pedestrians are pillocks!

Inconsiderate cyclists are pillocks!

pk

 

[David Martin]

p.k. wrote:
> Paul - *** wrote:
> or facilities to do it.
> >>
> >> Do you have a reference for that?
> >
> > For what? If you mean for 'the right' then there is no reference. Why
> > would there be? Everyone who cycles has the right to whatever
> > training they or their parents deem fit.
> >
> > What sort of legislation do you propose?
>
> I think he was making the transposition: My right = someody's duty to
> provide

It is a common interpretation, such as the 'right to state benefits'.
And that was what I meant. The alternative (that there is currently a
prohibition on children receiving training) is so ludicrous it never
crossed my mind that that was what you meant.

...d

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> vernon levy wrote:
>
>>"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>An 80 year old woman was knocked down and seriously injured, on the
>>>pavement yesterday, in another cyclist hit and run incident[1].
>>>
>>>We don't want to adopt the deeply flawed and institutionally abused system
>>>introduced in this country for motor vehicles to combat this very problem,
>>>and indeed already adopted for cyclists elsewhere in the world - that is
>>>cycle registration and number plates.
>>>
>>>The question is then, how best to halt the increasing number of hit and
>>>run incidents perpetrated by cyclists, before the popular press force
>>>knee-jerk cycle registration onto our statute books.
>>>
>>
[...]
>>
>>As for legislation - how will that reduce hit and runs?
>
> Legislating to give every child a right to cycle training might.. At
> present the current provision is woefully inadequate. I'd suggest that
> much pavement cycling occurs because kids haven't been taught to ride
> on the road (and subsequently turn into motor vehicle operators who do
> not expect cyclists to be on the road.)

Yes, I agree completely. I'd add "roadmanship" to the national
curriculum. It has got to be one of the fundamental "life skills".
With the option to carry it through to a full driving licence.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>An 80 year old woman was knocked down and seriously injured, on the
>>pavement yesterday, in another cyclist hit and run incident[1].
>
> 'Another' cyclist hit and run incident??? In the whole of the UK each
> year there are only 60 or so recorded injuries due to collisions
> between pedestrians and 'pavement cyclists', most resulting in minor
> injuries and few of these were 'hit and runs'.

"recorded" maybe. But, as I'm sure you are aware there are many many
unrecorded. One of the problems with bike accident stats is that many
bike only, bike - bike, and bike - pedestrian accidents /never/ get to
the police.

Additionaly bikes are being used more and more as "get away" vehicles by
street robbers (did you see the recent news references in the recent
"number plate" thread?).

> What's the answer? the only one I can see is to strive to develop a
> fairer, more inclusive and equitable society where everyone is expected
> to acknowledge the responsibility they have to others. In fact what's
> needed is a total turn around away from the 'look after number one'
> competitive individualism which dominates today towards a system which
> places much more emphasis on social values.

Perhaps you could start by refraining from inserting anti-car stuff into
every thread you get involved in ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>The question is then, how best to halt the increasing number of hit and
>>run incidents perpetrated by cyclists,
>
> Increasing number? Have you any actual figures showing this? The number
> of actual collisons between cyclists and pedestrians is much lower now
> than than it was10 years ago and certainly shows no sign of rising
> significantly.

We don't know, because they don't tend to get reported.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Marz wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>
>>The question is then, how best to halt the increasing number of hit and
>>run incidents perpetrated by cyclists, before the popular press force
>>knee-jerk cycle registration onto our statute books.
>>
>>Matt B
>
>
> Another question is whether there has been an any increase in the
> number of hit and runs by cyclists or is the knee-jerk media already
> misreporting the problems?

Either way, once the popular press start a campaign the politicians will
be /obliged/ to take action. Examples: motor vehicle registration,
vicious dogs, hand guns, motorway speed limits - all knee-jerk
legislation which is unjust and inconvenient to the overwhelming
majority of law abiding pursuers of the affected activities.

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >
> >>An 80 year old woman was knocked down and seriously injured, on the
> >>pavement yesterday, in another cyclist hit and run incident[1].
> >
> > 'Another' cyclist hit and run incident??? In the whole of the UK each
> > year there are only 60 or so recorded injuries due to collisions
> > between pedestrians and 'pavement cyclists', most resulting in minor
> > injuries and few of these were 'hit and runs'.
>
> "recorded" maybe. But, as I'm sure you are aware there are many many
> unrecorded. One of the problems with bike accident stats is that many
> bike only, bike - bike, and bike - pedestrian accidents /never/ get to
> the police.

And you have any evidence that these are increasing?

>
> Additionaly bikes are being used more and more as "get away" vehicles by
> street robbers (did you see the recent news references in the recent
> "number plate" thread?).

And there is evidence that these are increasing? Bikes have IMM always
been used as getaway vehicles for street robbery (eg handbag snatching)

You make allegations but are very thin on real evidence to back them
up.

...d

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >
> >>The question is then, how best to halt the increasing number of hit and
> >>run incidents perpetrated by cyclists,
> >
> > Increasing number? Have you any actual figures showing this? The number
> > of actual collisons between cyclists and pedestrians is much lower now
> > than than it was10 years ago and certainly shows no sign of rising
> > significantly.
>
> We don't know, because they don't tend to get reported.

Then why diod you state they are increasing if you have no evidence for
this?

...d

 

[Tim Hall]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:28:52 -0000, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> vernon levy wrote:
>>> I'm looking at doing a Channel to Med ride next year. Probably Calais to
>>> Monpelier (sp?) and if there's enough time a pootle to Spain. I'm
>>> counting
>>> on my basic French to carry me through. I intend to camp all of the way
>>> and catch the coach service operated by a Teeside company back. Are there
>>> any pitfalls for cycle tourists in France? Is there anything that I would
>>> have difficulty buying to replace a broken part on my Dawes Galaxy?
>>
>> AS long as you can manage the french for 'excuse me, pleas could you
>> tell me the neares place where I can find someone to weld my frame back
>> together' you should be fine..
>
>Yebbut are you allowed assistants on the bellows these days?
>

Tee Hee.

November's Tandem Club ride was organised by "Chris and Helen" who
live near Godalming. During lunch I entertained a small boy forming
part of our group by getting him to find out what the various bits of
tat fixed to the pub wall were. He did this by asking people in our
group that I nominated. For example he thought a "yard of ale" glass
was a hooter, so I got him to ask one of the beer drinkers in the
party what it was. And so on.

A pair of bellows was spotted. I got him to (1) find out what they
were and (2) find out the connection with the TdF. I suggested he ask
"Chris" mentioned earlier. The lad came back with a full and detailed
answer, including how "a boy just like me helped with the bellows",
but then he should have done as "Chris" is Chris Juden, who knows a
thing or two about bikes.


Tim

 

[calum]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:

> "recorded" maybe. But, as I'm sure you are aware there are many many
unrecorded. <

How many?
How have you arrived at this?

Calum

 

[[email protected]]

Matt B wrote:
>
> "recorded" maybe. But, as I'm sure you are aware there are many many
> unrecorded. One of the problems with bike accident stats is that many
> bike only, bike - bike, and bike - pedestrian accidents /never/ get to
> the police.
>

Hospital based research shows that the majority of crashes were
pedestrians are injured do get recorded. Given the hysteria surrounding
'pavement cycling' and so on I certainly think it is reasonable to
assume that most people would have little hesitation in reporting such
injuries.

Yes lots of 'bike only' crashes go unrecorded, and a I suspect that
quite a few bike/pedestrian crashes which occur on the road and where
only the cyclist is injured go unrecorded too, especially given that
the law might hold the cyclist responsible even if the pedestrian has
stepped into their path. I have certainly read of a few cases where a
cyclist has collided with a pedestrian who ignored a red light on a
crossing and has virtually become the target of a lynch mob!

I quoted some relevant figures earlier but to refresh your memory The
OECD report 'Safety of Vulnerable Road Users (RS7)' Found that in the
UK 82-91% of serious injuries to pedestrians were reported (and so
recorded by the police) and 60-80% of slight injuries. In comparison
only 12-41% of serious injures to cyclists were reported and 9-29% of
slight injuries to cyclists.