Independent cycling column

"Paul Coombs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are
re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting. Even his words suggest he hasn't
done his research, let alone the content.

The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off these days
but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
sort out apparently.

Quoted message said:

Further into his column he implies that cycle/motor veichle colisions are
usually the fault to the cyclist.

I think that is what is often assummed even though it may be incorrect.
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

naked_draughtsman said:

"Paul Coombs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are
re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting. Even his words suggest he hasn't
done his research, let alone the content.

The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off these days
but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
sort out apparently.

But that sort of accident isn't really "Killed or Seriously Injured".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Paul Coombs said:

Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

Yes. With gems such as:
"...with many more miles of cycle paths helping to keep cyclists out of
the way of the traffic..."
and: "And while most cycling lanes have served to increase cycling safety".

Quoted message said:

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting.

Under reporting is quite likely. The DfT are worried about it too, as
it undermines their claims for speed-camera usefulness. TRL have been
looking into it, as have other researchers. It appears that although
the official statistics for casualties have been showing year-on-year
drops in the numbers of KSIs, hospital data shows no such thing.

--
Matt B

In article <[email hidden]>,
Paul Coombs" <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

No, but I may when I get home.

|> He also supports stickers on the back of lorries to
|> stop cyclist from sneaking down the inside. I agree that being squashed
|> through lack of attention of the driver is still being squashed, but it's
|> the drivers that need proper training !!!

Not at all. That is a place where the cycle lobby needs the training.
It is things like sub-standard psychle lanes and advanced stop boxes
that encourage naive cyclists to believe that is a sane thing to do.

And, yes, many of them claim that very narrow optional psychle lanes
(not just a metre, but sometimes down to 50 cm) are a good idea because
they allow cyclists to ride down the left of stationary traffic. How
many cyclists are clued-up enough to know when that is safe and when
it isn't? I have been abused and even run into by other cyclists for
not doing that when it wasn't safe.

|> Is there any point in writing into the Indy, or is he a lost cause?

There is no point in trying to correct a symptom. Tackle ones of the
causes.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

naked_draughtsman wrote on 08/05/2007 12:07 +0100:

Quoted message said:

The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off these days
but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
sort out apparently.

The definitions of killed and seriously injured have not changed and
those are not situations that are going to readily escape reporting.
Minor injuries maybe.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article <[email hidden]>,
Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
|> naked_draughtsman wrote on 08/05/2007 12:07 +0100:
|> >
|> > The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off these days
|> > but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
|> > sort out apparently.
|>
|> The definitions of killed and seriously injured have not changed and
|> those are not situations that are going to readily escape reporting.
|> Minor injuries maybe.

Not really. With the shortage of beds, a lot of hospitals don't take
accident victims as in-patients where they would have before. See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html

Quite a lot of nominally serious injuries don't get recorded, because
no police car gets called and the report gets lost somewhere between
the hospital and the police. I have no idea if that is increasing.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The police aren't particularly interested if you get knocked off
these days
but can walk away from it. It's a matter for the insurance companies to
sort out apparently.

Quoted message said:

But that sort of accident isn't really "Killed or Seriously Injured".

Given that serious is defined as needing hospital admission, I can think
of many hand, wrist, facial and other injuries with which you mabe able
to get up and walk but still need admission for treatment.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"Paul Coombs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

He states that there has been a 70% increase in cycling since 2000 and a
drop of 33% for KSI over the same period. Ok, so far. Then however, he
says that the drop in KSI is probably because the 'authorities' are
re-caragorising
serious injuries and under reporting. Even his words suggest he hasn't
done his research, let alone the content.

Further into his column he implies that cycle/motor veichle colisions are
usually the fault to the cyclist.

His solution to all these woes is 'more and better cycling facilities',
though he does actually agree that some of teh exiasting farcilities are
dangerous to cyclists. He also supports stickers on the back of lorries to
stop cyclist from sneaking down the inside. I agree that being squashed
through lack of attention of the driver is still being squashed, but it's
the drivers that need proper training !!!

Have you even driven a Van, let alone a 7.5 tonne lorry or a HGV? In a van
with no side windows, your blind spots down the sides of the van are
humungous compared to a car. In an actual lorry, they're rather a lot worse.
Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically discouraged by the
highway code. Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers to get out and have a
look around for idiots stupid enough to get where they shouldn't be?

Doki wrote on 08/05/2007 16:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Have you even driven a Van, let alone a 7.5 tonne lorry or a HGV? In a
van with no side windows, your blind spots down the sides of the van are
humungous compared to a car. In an actual lorry, they're rather a lot
worse. Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically
discouraged by the highway code. Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers
to get out and have a look around for idiots stupid enough to get where
they shouldn't be?

No, I expect them to have appropriate mirrors fitted and to use them

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Doki said:

Have you even driven a Van, let alone a 7.5 tonne lorry or a HGV? In a van
with no side windows, your blind spots down the sides of the van are
humungous compared to a car. In an actual lorry, they're rather a lot worse.
Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically discouraged by the
highway code. Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers to get out and have a
look around for idiots stupid enough to get where they shouldn't be?

I would suggest that if a driver of ANY veichle is driving without being
able to see other road users they are either incompetent or the veichle
is in some way defective. Either way they should not be on the public
highway. So yes, if s/he can't see part of his veichel, s/he should get out
and check before s/he moves off.

Doki said:

Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically
discouraged by the highway code.

As a pragmatic step to avoid a /real/ danger.

Quoted message said:

Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers
to get out and have a look around for idiots stupid enough to get where
they shouldn't be?

No, regretably, I wouldn't expect /all/ HGV drivers to do everything
within their power to ensure that they are not about to cut across
someone or something as they turn. However, given the /real/ and clear
possibility that they /may/ cause such injury or damage, surely any such
"blind" manoeuvre, especially on a busy urban road, is criminal and
gross negligence.

I'd probably not rely though, on either the driver's integrity, or on
his fear of legal consequences, to keep me safe.

--
Matt B

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doki wrote on 08/05/2007 16:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Have you even driven a Van, let alone a 7.5 tonne lorry or a HGV? In a
van with no side windows, your blind spots down the sides of the van are
humungous compared to a car. In an actual lorry, they're rather a lot
worse. Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically
discouraged by the highway code. Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers
to get out and have a look around for idiots stupid enough to get where
they shouldn't be?

No, I expect them to have appropriate mirrors fitted and to use them

You'll always have blind spots. You can go down the route of plastering the
vehicle with mirrors, but then you simply create new blind spots behind the
mirrors...

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul

Coombs (') said:

Doki said:

Have you even driven a Van, let alone a 7.5 tonne lorry or a HGV? In a
van with no side windows, your blind spots down the sides of the van are
humungous compared to a car. In an actual lorry, they're rather a lot
worse. Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically
discouraged by the highway code. Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers
to get out and have a look around for idiots stupid enough to get where
they shouldn't be?

I would suggest that if a driver of ANY veichle is driving without being
able to see other road users they are either incompetent or the veichle
is in some way defective. Either way they should not be on the public
highway. So yes, if s/he can't see part of his veichel, s/he should get
out and check before s/he moves off.

Errrmmm.. great rant, and all that, but a quick reality check...

No HGV driver can see what's behind the vehicle, and if a driver of an
articulated truck stops on a bend (quite often the case in urban traffic
light situations) he can't see along the sides of the vehicle, either. Now
you may say that HGVs ought to be fitted with blind-spot cameras with a
monitor in the cab, but very few are. And if every HGV driver had to get
out of his cab and check all round the vehicle before driving off at every
traffic light, gridlock would suddenly get a lot worse.

Be very circumspect around HGVs. Their drivers are mostly both skilled and
careful, but they have real problems which people who've never driven one
may not appreciate.

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

;; Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,
;; but most stupid people are conservatives -- J S Mill

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Be very circumspect around HGVs. Their drivers are mostly both skilled and
careful, but they have real problems which people who've never driven one
may not appreciate.

It cuts both ways. IME the majority of HGV drivers are pretty good. However
there are some who don't live up to this. In London, skip/tipper drivers are
notoriously a lot worse than normal - possibly due to the way they get paid.

cheers,
clive

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> Errrmmm.. great rant, and all that, but a quick reality check...
|>
|> No HGV driver can see what's behind the vehicle, and if a driver of an
|> articulated truck stops on a bend (quite often the case in urban traffic
|> light situations) he can't see along the sides of the vehicle, either. Now
|> you may say that HGVs ought to be fitted with blind-spot cameras with a
|> monitor in the cab, but very few are. And if every HGV driver had to get
|> out of his cab and check all round the vehicle before driving off at every
|> traffic light, gridlock would suddenly get a lot worse.
|>
|> Be very circumspect around HGVs. Their drivers are mostly both skilled and
|> careful, but they have real problems which people who've never driven one
|> may not appreciate.

Quite. NEVER undertake HGVs, psychle lane or no psychle lane, if
there is any chance of them moving off before you can get into
clear road. Especially if there is a barrier. And similarly for
overtaking if they might be turning right.

It's actually a pretty damn-fool thing to do to even cars, as a
careful driver will check those locations first and look ahead
while actually accelerating - if you shoot in front from the blind
side at just the wrong moment, it won't be his fault if you get
knocked off.

But, having looked at the article, I can't see what the fuss is
about. He's a twerp about cycle lanes, the figure of 70% is almost
certainly bogus[*] and so on, but the general gist was sound. The
KSI fall could well be an artifact of under-reporting.

[*] What proportion of that is people who take a couple of mountain
bicycles on the back of their 4x4 or campervan on holiday, drive to
a pointless Sustrans route, ride 5 miles, and claim to have taken
up cycling?

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Paul Coombs wrote on 08/05/2007 11:47 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else read James Daley's twaddle this morning?

Online at http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article2519597.ece

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Nick Maclaren wrote on 08/05/2007 18:20 +0100:

Quoted message said:

[*] What proportion of that is people who take a couple of mountain
bicycles on the back of their 4x4 or campervan on holiday, drive to
a pointless Sustrans route, ride 5 miles, and claim to have taken
up cycling?

Not a lot in the London figures which are +83% for cycling and -28% for
accidents since 2000

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In message <[email hidden]>

Tony Raven said:

Nick Maclaren wrote on 08/05/2007 18:20 +0100:

Quoted message said:

[*] What proportion of that is people who take a couple of mountain
bicycles on the back of their 4x4 or campervan on holiday, drive to
a pointless Sustrans route, ride 5 miles, and claim to have taken
up cycling?

Not a lot in the London figures which are +83% for cycling and -28% for
accidents since 2000

Where an injury happens to a cyclist on an off-road section of route,
is it recorded as an RTA involving a cyclist in the statistics?

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Doki said:

Now, passing on the nearside of a vehicle is specifically
discouraged by the highway code.

As a pragmatic step to avoid a /real/ danger.

Quoted message said:

Do you seriously expect all HGV drivers
to get out and have a look around for idiots stupid enough to get where
they shouldn't be?

No, regretably, I wouldn't expect /all/ HGV drivers to do everything
within their power to ensure that they are not about to cut across
someone or something as they turn. However, given the /real/ and clear
possibility that they /may/ cause such injury or damage, surely any such
"blind" manoeuvre, especially on a busy urban road, is criminal and
gross negligence.

Cutting inside a lorry which can cause great injury is, in many cases,
grossly negligent. Individuals who cannot be bothered to look after
their own wellbeing should not expect others to do so on their behalf.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush