Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?

[Jim Ley]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:50:19 +0000, [email protected] (Just zis Guy, you
know?) wrote:

>So: the *fact* as documented by Howard and others is that the "problem"
>as you put it is actually *decreasing*, not increasing, despite the
>number of pavements designated as shared use in the last decade.

Shared use facilities remove the incidents on them from the statistics
quoted in this thread...

> Again, you have been shown mamy times where
>to find the figures which show that bicycles *do not* pose an unusual
>risk to others,

Er, they certainly do,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040616/text/40616w02.htm

shows 53 seriously injured people in incidents between 1999 and 2002,
that's certainly a risk, and I would certainly say it's an unusual
one.

The posts responding on this thread give a strong feeling that people
are defending cycling on the pavement, continually saying the risk is
low might be worthwhile if you're arguing for less resources to be
spent combating it, but I've seen no such arguments, just people
saying "pavement cyclists only kill a few people..." without making
any specific point to why they're saying it, that's what gives the
impression of defending the practice.

Jim.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> Which is, of course, nonsense as we all know because those figures do
> not take account of the vast majority of accidents involving pedestrians
> and cyclists which are unreported, so are worthless.

The "vast majority" of incidents resulting in death and serious injury
are indeed recorded.

The "vast majority" of ioncidents not involving death or serious injury
are not reported in any sphere. There are around 5 million motor
insurance claims each year, these collisions are not reported, as you
can tell from the DfT website.

Your argument relies on at least two assumptions: (a) that injuries
caused by cyclists are less likely to be reported than those caused by
motorists - for which you need to cite some evidence; (b) that although
the reported figures are clearly declining, the real figure is rising,
i.e. the proportion unrrported is rising despite the high publicity
given to these cases by the press - again, you need to cite some
evidence.

--
Guy

 

[calum]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> calum wrote:
>> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>the increasing problem of collisions between bikes and pedestrians.<
>>
>> I'm still waiting to see your statistics on this.
>
> Did you miss my explanation of that? There are /no/ statistics because
> these events don't get reported. <

If there are no statistics, how have you determined that there exists an "
increasing problem of collisions between bikes and pedestrians" ?
Over what period is your determination based?

Calum

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Here you go again, using the fact that more people are injured in
>>collisions involving motor vehicles, and particularly /cars/, than with
>>pedal cycles, in an attempt to sweep away the actual topic of this
>>thread - that of t
>
> As it happens I am at my mother's computer right now, which does not
> have the killfile from home, so I saw this reply.

She is more open minded than yourself? ;-)

> So: the *fact* as documented by Howard and others is that the "problem"
> as you put it is actually *decreasing*, not increasing, despite the
> number of pavements designated as shared use in the last decade. So
> your assertion is in direct opposition to the verifiable facts of the
> case, and your continued use of that asseriton amounts to wilful
> ignorance since not only have the correct figures been quoted, the
> source for verification has also been cited.

My 'assertion' is that, based upon empirical evidence, the problem of
cyclists hitting pedestrians is getting worse. The official 'figures'
are obviously worthless as they are based on reported incidents, which
we all know to be useless wrt cycle incidents. Do you deny that cycle
incidents are largely unreported?

> The *fact* that the risk is massively higher from motor vehicles,
> despite the widely-publicised tendency of cyclists to habitually ride on
> the pavement, indicates that your suggestion that the "problem" be fixed
> using a solution similar to that aplied to the danger posed by motor
> vehicles is equally false.

I never suggested a fix - so what are you referring to?

> Again, you have been shown mamy times where
> to find the figures which show that bicycles *do not* pose an unusual
> risk to others, while motor vehicles do.

In this thread we are not discussing the threat that motorists may pose
- why raise it?

> To post a false asseriton is simply clueless, most of us have done so at
> least once. To continue to post this false assertion long after its
> falsehood has been pointed out to you and reputable authorities cited,
> is trolling.

As none of your premises are true your conclusion is invalid.

> The jury is in: you are a convicted troll.

Your evidence is simply "bearing false witness", so /your/ verdict is
overthrown.

> As to how individual group
> members respond to this fact,

Fallacy actually.

> that is up to the individuals concerned.

You are _so_ magnanimous.

> Poking trolls with a stick is a popular form of internet sport, if you
> don't want to be poked with a stick you can either stop trolling or ****
> off. I don't really care which.

Please keep the juvenile personal attacks out of future replies.

--
Matt B

 

[p.k.]

Jim Ley wrote:
> The posts responding on this thread give a strong feeling that people
> are defending cycling on the pavement, continually saying the risk is
> low might be worthwhile if you're arguing for less resources to be
> spent combating it, but I've seen no such arguments, just people
> saying "pavement cyclists only kill a few people..." without making
> any specific point to why they're saying it, that's what gives the
> impression of defending the practice.
>


It is cyclists doing it, therefore to some in this group, it - by
definition - cannot be wrong.

I've posted here criticising stealth cyclists and pavement cyclists and on
each topic have found myself being criticised - the classic was an occasion
when I "popped out to the shops in the car" and encountered a two up black
dressed pair of black faced guys with no lights and a dark bike". One of the
responses dismissing my post was "What sort of person pops out to the shops
in the car (instead of on the bike)?" Others criticised my lack of
observation (despite the fact I did see and avoid and said so in my post).
Others resorted to the same deflection [card drivers do bad things] you
bridle at above.

all cyclists good. all else bad. Is a far too common mind set here.

pk

 

[Tony W]

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

> My 'assertion' is that, based upon empirical evidence, the problem of
> cyclists hitting pedestrians is getting worse. The official 'figures'
> are obviously worthless as they are based on reported incidents, which
> we all know to be useless wrt cycle incidents. Do you deny that cycle
> incidents are largely unreported?

I would specualte that the official figures will be pretty accurate for
deaths, somewhat less accurate for serious injuries and least accurate for
minor injuries. However, even if the majority of minor accidents are
unreported a percentage clearly are and one can further speculate that the
percentage of incidents reported is likely to be fairly constant (there
being little reason to presume otherwise). Hence a falling official number
suggets that your claim that the figures are 'worthless' is clearly bollox.

T

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> The "vast majority" of incidents resulting in death and serious injury
> are indeed recorded.
>

As are those resulting in slight injury where accidents between
pedestrians and cyclists on pavements are concerned. The definition of
"slight injury" being "An injury of a minor character such as a sprain
(including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to
be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside assistance. This
definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment"
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_507490.hcsp

An average of 46 pedestrians and cyclists a year fell in that category
between 1999 and 2002.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Which is, of course, nonsense as we all know because those figures do
>>not take account of the vast majority of accidents involving pedestrians
>>and cyclists which are unreported, so are worthless.
>
> The "vast majority" of incidents resulting in death and serious injury
> are indeed recorded.

Which, of course, only account for a small percentage of incidents.

> The "vast majority" of ioncidents not involving death or serious injury
> are not reported in any sphere.

Good you agree with me then.

> There are around 5 million motor
> insurance claims each year, these collisions are not reported, as you
> can tell from the DfT website.

That's as maybe, but totally, utterly, absolutely and without doubt
irrelevant to this thread.

> Your argument relies on at least two assumptions: (a) that injuries
> caused by cyclists are less likely to be reported than those caused by
> motorists - for which you need to cite some evidence;

Why involve motorists in this thread???

> (b) that although
> the reported figures are clearly declining, the real figure is rising,
> i.e. the proportion unrrported is rising despite the high publicity
> given to these cases by the press - again, you need to cite some
> evidence.

Yes, I have done that.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

calum wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>calum wrote:
>>
>>>"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>><snipped>
>>>
>>>>the increasing problem of collisions between bikes and pedestrians.<
>>>
>>>I'm still waiting to see your statistics on this.
>>
>>Did you miss my explanation of that? There are /no/ statistics because
>>these events don't get reported. <
>
> If there are no statistics, how have you determined that there exists an "
> increasing problem of collisions between bikes and pedestrians" ?
> Over what period is your determination based?

It is empirical, based on what I read and what I hear. You you deny it
is true? Do you believe the problem of conflicts between cyclists and
pedestrians, on the pavement is diminishing?

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> The "vast majority" of incidents resulting in death and serious injury
>> are indeed recorded.
>
> As are those resulting in slight injury

But only if reported - which the vast majority are not.

--
Matt B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:20:54 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>It is cyclists doing it, therefore to some in this group, it - by
>definition - cannot be wrong.

Is the wrong answer. But - and this is the bit we're trying to get
across - the fact that the cyclist is wrong does not mean they should
be killed for it.

>I've posted here criticising stealth cyclists and pavement cyclists and on
>each topic have found myself being criticised - the classic was an occasion
>when I "popped out to the shops in the car" and encountered a two up black
>dressed pair of black faced guys with no lights and a dark bike". One of the
>responses dismissing my post was "What sort of person pops out to the shops
>in the car (instead of on the bike)?" Others criticised my lack of
>observation (despite the fact I did see and avoid and said so in my post).
>Others resorted to the same deflection [card drivers do bad things] you
>bridle at above.

In the end a cyclist dressed from head to foot in black and riding an
unlit cycle is functionally identical to a black horse or a black tree
on the road - and if a driver hits either of those it is the driver's
fault, because the HC says you should always be able to stop *well*
within the distance you can see to be clear. CTC speculated when
compulsory rear lights for cyclists were mooted that the result would
be that drivers would begin to blame the cyclists if they (the
drivers) failed to see them. Which is exactly what has happened (cf.
Pete Longbottom, whose light would now be legal, to cite but one case
of many).

Most of us *strongly* recommend lights, even while acknowledging that
there is no actual evidence they improve safety. Ditto reflective
clothing. And most of us *strongly and repeatedly* advise against
pavement cycling not only where it is illegal, but also where the man
with the paint pot has made it legal (the difference between the two
is not recorded in the Government figures quoted, as far as I can
tell). We recommend this because, unlike lights and bright clothing,
there is solid evidence to show it is more dangerous to ride on the
pavement. And many of us don't just *say* this, we lead by example,
even to the cost of being subjected to traffic tantrums for failing to
ride on the pavement where it is legal.

At the same time we, like the government, recognise that the main
reason that people ride on the pavement is from fear of motor traffic.
So the widespread tendency to recommend various treatments for a
symptom, without addressing the cause, is unlikely to be effective.

To say nothing of the fact that there is precious little evidence that
the symptom is much of a problem anyway; I suspect that the risk to
the cyclist is probably greater than that to the pedestrians.

I seem to recall most of these points being put to you before, but I
could be wrong.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Jim Ley]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:35:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>It is cyclists doing it, therefore to some in this group, it - by
>>definition - cannot be wrong.
>
>Is the wrong answer. But - and this is the bit we're trying to get
>across - the fact that the cyclist is wrong does not mean they should
>be killed for it.

Yet you insist on claiming that it's them being killed for it, and not
an accident, you don't seem to accept that people can have accidents,
unless they are cyclists - you're happy to talk about cyclists who
fall off their bicycles without decrying what they do, yet you do not
extend the same courtesy to other road users.

Most road users can cope with other peoples abuse of the road, because
they're driving sufficiently within what would be safe if everyone did
properly, however that only means they can cope with one abuse, in a
more complicated situation they can fail to recover from the other
abuse of the road.

That is why it's every road users responsibility to act properly, keep
their equipment maintained, to know the laws - because if the rules
are perhaps not wholly rational, they are still what other users are
most expecting - and to act safely.

Your posts continually deny to criticise cyclists if they do not
fulfil that. Yes no-one deserves to die for anything, but no-one is
trying to kill another road user.

>In the end a cyclist dressed from head to foot in black and riding an
>unlit cycle is functionally identical to a black horse or a black tree
>on the road

A horse perhaps, it's certainly not the same as a tree, since it
moves, and once you've seen it you have to watch it carefuly to see
what other stupid things it's going to do. Any road user who has
shown such disregard for the laws of the road is grossly unsafe and
unpredicatable and all other users have to take excessive care over
them, that is likely to cause an accident - for example the other user
would be less likely to spot the 2nd idiot your so keen to defend.

> CTC speculated when
>compulsory rear lights for cyclists were mooted that the result would
>be that drivers would begin to blame the cyclists if they (the
>drivers) failed to see them. Which is exactly what has happened (cf.
>Pete Longbottom, whose light would now be legal, to cite but one case
>of many).

So what? what does it matter what excuse people use after the
accident happens, it's about accidents prevented, and even if the law
is not wholly grounded in sense (which I do dispute but I'll go along
with your lights make no difference to safety because it's irrelevant
to the point) then a cyclist who has shown their own contempt for the
law is likely to violate other laws...

Roads only work if everyone agrees, your continous defence of idiots
who risk everyones lives makes it not surprising that the laws aren't
the best, your strategy of cyclists can never be to blame makes all
your arguments sound foolish, and your sensible arguments are lost in
your less rational rhetoric.

Jim.

 

[David Martin]

It might be argued that one of the most dangerous 'road safety' aids is
the presence of cat's eyes on country A roads. Knowing where the road
goes without having to actually see the tarmac (or any unlit deer,
trees, horses or legally lit but dim in relation to the intesity of a
cats eye road user ) is a recipe for faster speeds and hence more
dangerous.

...d

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> It might be argued that one of the most dangerous 'road safety' aids is
> the presence of cat's eyes on country A roads. Knowing where the road
> goes without having to actually see the tarmac (or any unlit deer,
> trees, horses or legally lit but dim in relation to the intesity of a
> cats eye road user ) is a recipe for faster speeds and hence more
> dangerous.

Agreed.

--
Matt B

 

[MartinM]

David Martin wrote:
> It might be argued that one of the most dangerous 'road safety' aids is
> the presence of cat's eyes on country A roads. Knowing where the road
> goes without having to actually see the tarmac (or any unlit deer,
> trees, horses or legally lit but dim in relation to the intesity of a
> cats eye road user ) is a recipe for faster speeds and hence more
> dangerous.

when they downgraded the A41 S ot Brum to various B roads one of the
first things they did was take the cats eyes out.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Jim Ley
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:35:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>It is cyclists doing it, therefore to some in this group, it - by
>>>definition - cannot be wrong.
>>
>>Is the wrong answer. But - and this is the bit we're trying to get
>>across - the fact that the cyclist is wrong does not mean they should
>>be killed for it.
>
> Yet you insist on claiming that it's them being killed for it, and not
> an accident, you don't seem to accept that people can have accidents,
> unless they are cyclists - you're happy to talk about cyclists who
> fall off their bicycles without decrying what they do, yet you do not
> extend the same courtesy to other road users.

If you're driving a ton of metal at 30mph and it hits something, that is
not an accident. It's either driver negligence or mechanical failure.
Same applies if you fall off a bike, of course, but the consequences of
that are usually rather less severe.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

 

[p.k.]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> In the end a cyclist dressed from head to foot in black and riding an
> unlit cycle is functionally identical to a black horse or a black tree
> on the road - and if a driver hits either of those it is the driver's
> fault, because the HC says you should always be able to stop *well*
> within the distance you can see to be clear.

Guy, once again you are choosing to mislead and deceive by mis-referencing
the highway code.

the HC rule you refer to is:

Stopping distances

105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear. You should

a.. leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you
can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is
never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping
Distances diagram below)
b.. allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front
on roads carrying fast traffic. The gap should be at least doubled on wet
roads and increased still further on icy roads
c.. remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to
stop.
and relates to distances between vehicles.

A little more intellectual honesty on your part might not go amiss.

pk

 

[p.k.]

Jim Ley wrote:
> Roads only work if everyone agrees, your continous defence of idiots
> who risk everyones lives makes it not surprising that the laws aren't
> the best, your strategy of cyclists can never be to blame makes all
> your arguments sound foolish, and your sensible arguments are lost in
> your less rational rhetoric.


Well said, Jim.

Guy, you are clearly not stupid, but your argument do make you appear at
times foolish in the extreme as you contort arguments to support whatever
any cyclist does

pk

 

[James Annan]

p.k. wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>the HC says you should always be able to stop *well*
>>within the distance you can see to be clear.
>
>
> Guy, once again you are choosing to mislead and deceive by mis-referencing
> the highway code.
>
> the HC rule you refer to is:
>
> Stopping distances
>
> 105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
> you can see to be clear.

>
> A little more intellectual honesty on your part might not go amiss.
>

Am I the only one having difficulty fitting a ***-paper between these
two supposedly different versions of the highway code?

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

 

[Tony W]

"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jim Ley wrote:
>> Roads only work if everyone agrees, your continous defence of idiots
>> who risk everyones lives makes it not surprising that the laws aren't
>> the best, your strategy of cyclists can never be to blame makes all
>> your arguments sound foolish, and your sensible arguments are lost in
>> your less rational rhetoric.
>
>
> Well said, Jim.
>
> Guy, you are clearly not stupid, but your argument do make you appear at
> times foolish in the extreme as you contort arguments to support whatever
> any cyclist does

Please re-read Guy's post and tell us where he distorts arguments.

He clearly states he is in favour of proper lights, reflectives, riding on
the road rather than the pavement -- all of which seem sensible.

He points out the current government ad police position that pavement
cycling can e considered acceptable if the cyclist has a reasonable fear of
cycling on a 'dangerous road'. The government are tackling the wrong
problem here. It would be much better to improve the safety of the road for
ALL road users than to accept that some roadusers may feel excluded from the
road.

Where exactly does Guy 'contort arguments to support whatever any cyclist
does'?

Jim Ley says 'roads only work if everyone agrees' -- then seems to expect
one class of road user (cyclists) to go to extreme lengths to make life
simpler for motorised vehicle drivers.

Cyclists are well advised to make themselves conspicuous to other road
users. However, in doing so the response seems not to be 'thank you -- you
are easier to see now'. Rather is seems to be 'good, I can now drive faster
and less responsibly -- get a bigger light or get off of my f*cking road'.

T