DfT Stats - 2009
JMS
It is of course of note that if you look at the stats - you will see
that for cars, vans, motorcycles, pedal cycles and pedestrians all
figures (except one) compared with 2008 have gone down.
Which of those figures is the only one to have gone up?
Yep - Killed and seriously injured on a pedal cycle.
It looks like cycling gets more dangerous year on year.
PhilO
Judith,
Are you deliberately trying to deceive?
TSGB0107 shows pedal cycle Killed decreased from 24 in 2008 to 21 in
2009 - a 12.5% decrease
KSI has increased from 541 to 547 - a 1% increase.
Do you think the 1% change statistically significant?
Why did you fail to report the much larger decrease in cyclist Killed?
And Judith, how did you miss this statistic:
Killed per billion passenger km: Pedal cycle 21, Pedestrian 26.
So, Judith, doesn't that mean you are more likely to die walking a
mile than cycling a mile?
I wondered why you didn't post a link to the data. Did you not want
others to see it? I found it here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/modal/passenger/tsgb0107.xls
Thanks for letting me know these figures were out.
PhilO
Derek C
>
> Thanks for letting me know these figures were out.
>
> PhilO
But also note that cycling has a much higher death and serious injury
rate than cars or vans. I make it that cycling is 32 times more
dangerous than motoring, with 547 cycling KSI per billion passenger
kilometres against 17 for cars in 2009. The overall casualty rate for
push bikes is actually quite close to motorcycles 3447 to 3665. The
lower KSI rate is probably only because cyclists tend to have lower
speed accidents than motorcyclists. Despite public perception, the
rate for aviation is pretty close to zero.
Derek C
JMS
wrote:
<snip>
>I wondered why you didn't post a link to the data. Did you not want
>others to see it? I found it here:
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/modal/passenger/tsgb0107.xls
>
>Thanks for letting me know these figures were out.
>
>PhilO
Of course I knew that no other poster would know where to find the
figures.
But bugger me - you have managed to. I suppose you had quite a clue
with :
"I see the DfT have published the latest stats for 2009"
You can try and put any gloss on the figures - yes the number actually
killed was three down on last year.
I understand that that is because the numbers using cycle helmets has
gone up again - hence fewer deaths as the accident rate goes up.
But in a nutshell - of all modes of transport - the only killed or
seriously injured figure which went up per billion miles traveled was
cycling.
KSI for all other modes went down.
Tom Crispin
In assessing the most dangerous type of vehicle, it would be useful to
know how many cyclists died after a collision with a motor vehicle;
how many cyclists died after a collision with a bicycle; how many
drivers and passengers died after a collision with a motor vehicle;
and how many drivers; and passengers died after a collision with a
bicycle.
Justin
>
> Thanks for letting me know these figures were out.
>
> PhilO
Thanks Phil. I am seriously contemplating one of two courses of
action:
1) giving up pedestrian activity or
2) donning protective clothing and headgear before venturing out upon
the pavements of Great Britain.
Has anyone any idea what JMS's agenda is when she posts this half-
information? She refuses to be unequivocal about this.
Justin
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:38:32 -0800 (PST), PhilO <goo18...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I wondered why you didn't post a link to the data. Did you not want
> >others to see it? I found it here:
>
> >Thanks for letting me know these figures were out.
>
> >PhilO
>
> Of course I knew that no other poster would know where to find the
> figures.
>
> But bugger me - you have managed to. I suppose you had quite a clue
> with :
>
> "I see the DfT have published the latest stats for 2009"
>
> You can try and put any gloss on the figures - yes the number actually
> killed was three down on last year.
>
> I understand that that is because the numbers using cycle helmets has
> gone up again - hence fewer deaths as the accident rate goes up.
>
> But in a nutshell - of all modes of transport - the only killed or
> seriously injured figure which went up per billion miles traveled was
> cycling.
>
> KSI for all other modes went down.
travelled! Nice mistake from someone who choses to comment on others'
English.
Justin
Exactly, Chris. There is a danger here that people such as JMS and her
ilk will reach the following conclusion:
"Cycling is dangerous. Cycling should be regulated or banned."
What JMS and others resolutely avoid mentioning is that the danger to
cyclists is predominantly formed by motorised traffic combined with
the pathetic facilities and protection afforded to cyclists by the
British Government. Cycling has become so dangerous in GB that I no
longer train there when visiting: unfortunately the more that adopt my
viewpoint the easier it is for the anti-cycling lobby to argue that
there is little demand for the facilities to which I refer. A self-
fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
No - just troll.
>TSGB0107 shows pedal cycle Killed decreased from 24 in 2008 to 21 in
>2009 - a 12.5% decrease
>KSI has increased from 541 to 547 - a 1% increase.
>
>Do you think the 1% change statistically significant?
Do you think that the 12.5% is, either?
>Why did you fail to report the much larger decrease in cyclist Killed?
Numerically, it's only 3 versus 6. Statistically, neither are
significant at even the 20% level.
>And Judith, how did you miss this statistic:
>
>Killed per billion passenger km: Pedal cycle 21, Pedestrian 26.
Well, I could explain why it is deceptive - as are the raw numbers.
The KSI rate per trip might well show a statistically significant
increase, but none of the figures are reliable and meaningful
enough to draw definite conclusions from.
>So, Judith, doesn't that mean you are more likely to die walking a
>mile than cycling a mile?
No. Using population statistics (ESPECIALLY ones calculated in
the way that those have been) doesn't indicate individual risk at
all well.
I suggest that you ignore JMS's trolling - and don't post equally
bogus figures in return!
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Mr. Benn
No - just troll.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
================
Path: nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk
Says it all really. A server used by psycholists.
Mr. Benn
news:cb66cdd6-2175-4675...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
=================
Mr Lewis sir, you are not in the classroom now in front of a room full of
Dutch schoolchildren. In the adult world, even educated adults make typos
when writing. That includes me and probably you as well.
Justin
Exactly. However, JMS does choose to address and belittle people for
having done so. I merely elected to point out the hypocrisy of that
position.
Steve Firth
> Because it undermines it's case.
Who do you think is belittled by the use of "it" instead of she? Here's
a clue, it's not Judith.
Here's another, it's you.
Steve Firth
> What JMS and others resolutely avoid mentioning is that the danger to
> cyclists is predominantly formed by motorised traffic
<snort> Here we go with the cycling "lets repeat something a lot and
hope it is true" coupled with "in any collision make the motorist
responsible".
If cyclists stopped riding like twats and ignoring red lights their
accident rate would reduce. If cyclists cannot voluntarily respect the
Highway Code then it is high time for compulsory registration, licensing
and insurance. And it's long overdue that the police actually do
something about the twats on bikes.
Just zis Guy, you know?
Hash: SHA1
On 27/11/2010 03:16, Derek C wrote:
> also note that cycling has a much higher death and serious injury
> rate than cars or vans.
yes, cars are much more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than
cyclists and pedestrians are to drivers. Well done for highlighting the
important question: "dangerous to whom?". Also well done for drawing
attention to the documented fact that cycling is not dangerous, the
problem is just that cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable; this is of
course best tackled by modifying the behaviour of the dangerous, not the
vulnerable.
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8TDAAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/CFMH/RiB+vPMjHaya76SD3GfpH7N
l9dBwuzdad4o+Mg8pIQJMtWchwgME7XhPREIP17/3BUvZWNLZGMJ0di03OATM0Qs
8wOQvwNFNO4hvczl4pDnrCt5t8W6velsWJOhDaiD4qRW3BCcATAxr+JBETnvD1v/
l/5NHjDzspaIf3qMNJf54ANTiJXdD9WRXfZQuT29wIgCe+q3Ekq1hOezSm6rT7E8
mUxtlw95HQy7aTg5dTpALOSLRj+TqxRiLyfuRO9E669GrrsfVMEyxidHVKWHwr9L
8zS6D7wZFHWxyfUutFZ58Mx1Zs1B8aWxCjccNbOX8d3UAZZvYoVxHti1iaG4j1M=
=q1xQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Alan Braggins
>On Nov 26, 2:01�pm, JMS <jmsmith2...@live.co.uk > wrote:
>
>Judith,
>
>Are you deliberately trying to deceive?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Derek C
<usenet...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 27/11/2010 03:16, Derek C wrote:
>
> > also note that cycling has a much higher death and serious injury
> > rate than cars or vans.
>
> yes, cars are much more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than
> cyclists and pedestrians are to drivers. Well done for highlighting the
> important question: "dangerous to whom?". Also well done for drawing
> attention to the documented fact that cycling is not dangerous, the
> problem is just that cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable; this is of
> course best tackled by modifying the behaviour of the dangerous, not the
> vulnerable.
>
> - --
> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
Simple question. If cycling is not dangerous, then why do cyclists
have such a high casualty rate? Could this be down to law-breaking,
lack of skill, lack of common sense, and not riding defensively?
Derek C
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Derek C <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Simple question. If cycling is not dangerous, then why do cyclists
>have such a high casualty rate? Could this be down to law-breaking,
>lack of skill, lack of common sense, and not riding defensively?
As you trolls have been told many times before, cyclists do NOT
have a particularly high casualty rate - it's comparable with
pedestrians.
The reason that it is higher than car drivers and passengers is
that those have a ton of steel to protect them from their own
imbecilities - which is the main reason that they are responsible
for most of the casualties of more vulnerable road users.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Mrcheerful
I am fairly sure that pedestrians outnumber cyclists by a huge amount, so
the fact that an approximately equal number of cyclists and pedestrians are
injured means that as a cyclist your chances of injury are far higher than
as a pedestrian.
Marc
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Mrcheerful <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I am fairly sure that pedestrians outnumber cyclists by a huge amount, so
>the fact that an approximately equal number of cyclists and pedestrians are
>injured means that as a cyclist your chances of injury are far higher than
>as a pedestrian.
If the premise were a fact, the conclusion would be true. It isn't.
Many more pedestrians are injured than cyclists - roughly pro rata,
you will be flabberghasted to hear.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Mrcheerful
How are the distances calculated?
Tony Raven
And that is only counting pedestrians injured by a vehicle. If you add
in the pedestrians who injure themselves, it increases the numbers fivefold.
Tony
Marc
a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
A KM is a M*1000
Mrcheerful
yes, and how is the total distance travelled by the cyclists or the
pedestrians calculated?
Marc
you occupied for a while.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
No, it doesn't, as you know perfectly well, any more than the HES
data show that the number of cyclists who injure themselves is
twice the number injured by motor vehicles.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Mrcheerful
Typical cyclist response.
I take it that you mean you don't know the answer?
JMS
>In article <01df5673-cdf1-47d1...@u3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>Derek C <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Simple question. If cycling is not dangerous, then why do cyclists
>>have such a high casualty rate? Could this be down to law-breaking,
>>lack of skill, lack of common sense, and not riding defensively?
>
>As you trolls have been told many times before, cyclists do NOT
>have a particularly high casualty rate - it's comparable with
>pedestrians.
Oh really - comparable eh?
Per billion passenger kilometres
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian KSI 358
Tony Raven
There is no reason for the pedestrian statistics to be that much off for
serious injury accidents requiring hospital admission.
Cyclist data in the HES on the other hand is very unreliable because in
those studies where they have tried to match up police accident records
and hospital admission records they have found that up to 50% of the
cyclists in the hospital records turned out to be motorcyclists.
Tony
Tony Raven
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does "passenger km" mean anything to you?
>>>>> How are the distances calculated?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
>>>> during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second"
>>>> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A KM is a M*1000
>>> yes, and how is the total distance travelled by the cyclists or the
>>> pedestrians calculated?
>>>
>>>
>> Why don't you fuck off and read the original research, that would keep
>> you occupied for a while.
>
> Typical cyclist response.
> I take it that you mean you don't know the answer?
>
>
No it means the answer is easy to find out if you are interested enough
to look instead of asking to be spoonfed the answers all the time.
Tony
Mrcheerful
ha! you are a one to talk, that is your tactic at every turn.
It is a couple of simple questions really, which I cannot easily find an
answer to, surely with your massive knowledge you know the answer:
How is the total distance per year travelled by cyclists calculated?
and:
How is the total distance per year travelled by pedestrians calculated?
Justin
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> And that is only counting pedestrians injured by a vehicle. If you
>>> add in the pedestrians who injure themselves, it increases the
>>> numbers fivefold.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, as you know perfectly well, any more than the HES
>> data show that the number of cyclists who injure themselves is twice
>> the number injured by motor vehicles.
>
>There is no reason for the pedestrian statistics to be that much off for
>serious injury accidents requiring hospital admission.
As you have been told before, that is NOT the issue. You are as
bad as Derek C.
The first is that an unknown proportion (perhaps the vast majority)
are NOT pedestrians travelling from A to B, as measured by the
travel survey. They are people standing around, going in and out
of buildings and vehicles and so on. If THEIR trips and time were
to be included, cycling would be much more dangerous per hour
and per trip - and possibly even per mile, as such milling around
might well exceed the distance travelled by pedestrians in the
survey.
The second is that it includes much more of the very vulnerable,
and is therefore not like-for-like. It would be easy enough to
balance for age, but a far more reliable comparison would be the
pedestrian injury rate for people who also cycle, and that can't
be done with the published data.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Tony Raven
> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>> No it means the answer is easy to find out if you are interested
>> enough to look instead of asking to be spoonfed the answers all the
>> time.
>> Tony
>
> ha! you are a one to talk, that is your tactic at every turn.
Really? I think I probably link to more sources of data and information
than anyone else here.
> It is a couple of simple questions really, which I cannot easily find an
> answer to, surely with your massive knowledge you know the answer:
> How is the total distance per year travelled by cyclists calculated?
> and:
> How is the total distance per year travelled by pedestrians calculated?
>
Household surveys and road monitoring.
Tony
Tony Raven
> In article <8ldbnt...@mid.individual.net>,
> Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>>>> And that is only counting pedestrians injured by a vehicle. If you
>>>> add in the pedestrians who injure themselves, it increases the
>>>> numbers fivefold.
>>> No, it doesn't, as you know perfectly well, any more than the HES
>>> data show that the number of cyclists who injure themselves is twice
>>> the number injured by motor vehicles.
>> There is no reason for the pedestrian statistics to be that much off for
>> serious injury accidents requiring hospital admission.
>
> As you have been told before, that is NOT the issue. You are as
> bad as Derek C.
>
> The first is that an unknown proportion (perhaps the vast majority)
> are NOT pedestrians travelling from A to B, as measured by the
> travel survey. They are people standing around, going in and out
> of buildings and vehicles and so on. If THEIR trips and time were
> to be included, cycling would be much more dangerous per hour
> and per trip - and possibly even per mile, as such milling around
> might well exceed the distance travelled by pedestrians in the
> survey.
Your evidence for this is? The figures I've quoted are emergency
admissions from pedestrian falls on the highway, not people going in and
out of buildings.
>
> The second is that it includes much more of the very vulnerable,
> and is therefore not like-for-like. It would be easy enough to
> balance for age, but a far more reliable comparison would be the
> pedestrian injury rate for people who also cycle, and that can't
> be done with the published data.
>
Easily done. The over 65's and under 15's make up 58% of the pedestrian
only accidents. Even if you assume they are all infirm or accident
prone and exclude all of them that still only reduces the factor five
increase to a factor three.
Tony
PhilO
> Oh really - comparable eh?
>
> Per billion passenger kilometres
>
> Cycle KSI 541
> Pedestrian KSI 358
Yes.
Killed per billion passenger km: Pedal cycle 21, Pedestrian 26.
But you've already had that pointed out to you in this thread before,
and ignored it then.
Marc
of smegma like you.
Jon Anderson
Let's say you're walking down the street. Some drunk person staggers
over and vomits on your shoes, tells you they need a beer, and then says
the world is controlled by reptilian aliens who can move in and out of
human form at will.
Do you tell them to piss off, ignore them entirely or engage them in
wholehearted debate about why the world is not controlled by reptilian
aliens who can shift in and out of human form at will?
"JMS" is like that person in the street. You've effectively stopped and
had a full blown conversation with this freak rather then the more
sensible option (for you at least) of moving on.
Jon
Mrcheerful
concrete walls (colchester last week), fence posts (afew months ago),
barriers across paths(about two months ago), down the side of rivers(last
month), even other cyclists(any time trial), you name it they ride into it,
they also run into parked cars(several incidents in time trials), the sides
of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc. Do you suggest that
all these things should be banned to protect cyclists?
Mrcheerful
Cyclists response again.
Keep trying, you may even bust a blood vessel.
Mrcheerful
Mrcheerful
so hardly calculated, more supposed partly at least on the basis of
anecdotes.
Justin
> Justin wrote:
> > On 27 nov, 16:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> Justin <justinlewis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> What JMS and others resolutely avoid mentioning is that the danger
> >>> to cyclists is predominantly formed by motorised traffic
>
> >> <snort> Here we go with the cycling "lets repeat something a lot and
> >> hope it is true" coupled with "in any collision make the motorist
> >> responsible".
>
> >> If cyclists stopped riding like twats and ignoring red lights their
> >> accident rate would reduce. If cyclists cannot voluntarily respect
> >> the Highway Code then it is high time for compulsory registration,
> >> licensing and insurance. And it's long overdue that the police
> >> actually do something about the twats on bikes.
>
> > With what are cyclists colliding?
>
> concrete walls (colchester last week), fence posts (afew months ago),
> barriers across paths(about two months ago), down the side of rivers(last
> month),
>even other cyclists(any time trial),
each other?
you name it they ride into it,
> they also run into parked cars(several incidents in time trials), the sides
> of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc.
turn onto the cyclist.
Do you suggest that
> all these things should be banned to protect cyclists?
Steve Firth
> A cyclist going straight on has priority.
That will be such a consolation in the morgue. However no vehicle has
"priority" to pass another vehicle to the left.
> The lorry in these events turn onto the cyclist.
The cyclists are fuckwits who try to pass large vehicles on the wrong
side. Given the likely consequences "fuckwits" doesn't seem to be a
strong enough term.
Tony Raven
> Justin <justinl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The lorry in these events turn onto the cyclist.
>
> The cyclists are fuckwits who try to pass large vehicles on the wrong
> side. Given the likely consequences "fuckwits" doesn't seem to be a
> strong enough term.
>
Yes, they should make allowances for the driver in the cab being drunk
and on the phone when he pulls up behind them.
Tony
Mrcheerful
> >> the sides of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc.
> A cyclist going straight on has priority. The lorry in these events
> turn onto the cyclist.
the cyclist rode off a pavement straight into the side of the trailer of an
artic, by what mechanism could the lorry driver have forseen that someone
would do such a thing? It happened a few seconds after the lorry cab had
gone past the spot the cyclist left the pavement, it could have been easily
prevented by the cyclist stopping at the kerb, looking and listening and
then proceeding (a procedure which is covered in the highway code)
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> As you have been told before, that is NOT the issue. You are as
>> bad as Derek C.
>>
>> The first is that an unknown proportion (perhaps the vast majority)
>> are NOT pedestrians travelling from A to B, as measured by the
>> travel survey. They are people standing around, going in and out
>> of buildings and vehicles and so on. If THEIR trips and time were
>> to be included, cycling would be much more dangerous per hour
>> and per trip - and possibly even per mile, as such milling around
>> might well exceed the distance travelled by pedestrians in the
>> survey.
>
>Your evidence for this is? The figures I've quoted are emergency
>admissions from pedestrian falls on the highway, not people going in and
>out of buildings.
Well, you COULD look at the definitions they use. It may have
escaped your notice that the pavement is part of the highway,
including any steps on it. The HES data includes ALL injuries
on the highway, and classifies anyone not in or on a vehicle or
animal as a pedestrian. The travel survel considers only cases
where people walk from A to B and regard that as a significant
trip.
>> The second is that it includes much more of the very vulnerable,
>> and is therefore not like-for-like. It would be easy enough to
>> balance for age, but a far more reliable comparison would be the
>> pedestrian injury rate for people who also cycle, and that can't
>> be done with the published data.
>
>Easily done. The over 65's and under 15's make up 58% of the pedestrian
>only accidents. Even if you assume they are all infirm or accident
>prone and exclude all of them that still only reduces the factor five
>increase to a factor three.
It clearly has escaped your notice that even people in the range 15-65
vary a lot in ability, and cyclists are self-selected from among the
less vulnerable.
But there is also the case that you are so keen on making much of,
that the HES data seriously misclassifies incidents - you favour
the example of motorcyclists being misclassified as pedestrians,
but it is unclear how many 'pedestrian' accidents are actually
cyclists or motor vehicle users (especially ones who fall getting
in or out).
Enough is enough. You, JMS and other trolls deserve each other.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Mrcheerful
you asked what cyclists collide with and I answered: virtually anything, as
evidenced from news reports, I cite a few examples above. There were
several crashes during time trials this year, some lead to deaths. you did
not specify that you wanted to know what cyclists 'collide with causing
their deaths', I assumed it was a general question of what do they crash
into.
Roland Perry
on Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>> The lorry in these events turn onto the cyclist.
>
>The cyclists are fuckwits who try to pass large vehicles on the wrong
>side. Given the likely consequences "fuckwits" doesn't seem to be a
>strong enough term.
They tend to justify their actions by saying that the highway code says:
# stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If
the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you
may pass on the left
Although many times there isn't actually a cycle lane to the left of
these motorised vehicles. And they selectively ignore the preceding
para:
# only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is
signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
--
Roland Perry
Justin
> Justin <justinlewis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A cyclist going straight on has priority.
>
> That will be such a consolation in the morgue. However no vehicle has
> "priority" to pass another vehicle to the left.
markings at certain traffic lights at junctions in built up areas
which invite cyclists to gather in front of motorised traffic. The
cycle lane is on the left but the bay for waiting is in front of the
traffic.
> > The lorry in these events turn onto the cyclist.
>
> The cyclists are fuckwits who try to pass large vehicles on the wrong
> side. Given the likely consequences "fuckwits" doesn't seem to be a
> strong enough term.
Justin
Which cyclist and which lorry?
Steve Firth
Or perhaps the cyclist could engage their bloody brain before they pass
vehicles on the left had side?
Revolutionary as a concept I know. But the three cunts who passed my
vehicle on Friday to the left, ignoring my left hand indicator, could
probably have benefitted from adopting it.
Still, don't let that get in the way of your testosterone-filled
ranting, you never have in the past.
Mrcheerful
I was referring to this tragedy:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/197436/Peril-of-headphones-exposed-after-girl-cyclist-dies-in-crash
Tony Raven
> In article <8ldfe8...@mid.individual.net>,
> Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>> Your evidence for this is? The figures I've quoted are emergency
>> admissions from pedestrian falls on the highway, not people going in and
>> out of buildings.
>
> Well, you COULD look at the definitions they use. It may have
> escaped your notice that the pavement is part of the highway,
> including any steps on it. The HES data includes ALL injuries
> on the highway, and classifies anyone not in or on a vehicle or
> animal as a pedestrian. The travel survel considers only cases
> where people walk from A to B and regard that as a significant
> trip.
Yes, and the data is all coded under the Transport Accidents section and
only walks of less than 50 yards are excluded and noted to not make a
significant change to the total distance. But I suppose your thesis is
there are hordes of people out there on the highways who are just
milling around for no particular purpose rather than going somewhere.
And while they are milling around not going anywhere they suddenly
manage to trip over some uneven pavement. Can't say I've seen much
evidence of it to be honest. But if you have evidence of what you
claim, please feel free to share your data rather than attack the data
the ONS has produced.
>
>>> The second is that it includes much more of the very vulnerable,
>>> and is therefore not like-for-like. It would be easy enough to
>>> balance for age, but a far more reliable comparison would be the
>>> pedestrian injury rate for people who also cycle, and that can't
>>> be done with the published data.
>> Easily done. The over 65's and under 15's make up 58% of the pedestrian
>> only accidents. Even if you assume they are all infirm or accident
>> prone and exclude all of them that still only reduces the factor five
>> increase to a factor three.
>
> It clearly has escaped your notice that even people in the range 15-65
> vary a lot in ability, and cyclists are self-selected from among the
> less vulnerable.
Pedestrians are self selected too. Can't say I see a large percentage
of mobility impaired pedestrians around on the streets such that would
significantly affect the conclusions.
>
> But there is also the case that you are so keen on making much of,
> that the HES data seriously misclassifies incidents - you favour
> the example of motorcyclists being misclassified as pedestrians,
> but it is unclear how many 'pedestrian' accidents are actually
> cyclists or motor vehicle users (especially ones who fall getting
> in or out).
Actually cyclists and motorcyclists are the only categories where
significant misclassification has been found to occur. The rest map
pretty well within margins of error.
>
> Enough is enough. You, JMS and other trolls deserve each other.
>
"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
Marcus Tullius Cicero.
Tony
Halmyre
@malloc.co.uk says...
Testosterone? Hardly, given the effect of a bicycle saddle on the
testes. Bile-filled ranting, now that's more like it.
--
Halmyre
Steve Firth
> On 28 nov, 12:10, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Justin <justinlewis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > A cyclist going straight on has priority.
> >
> > That will be such a consolation in the morgue. However no vehicle has
> > "priority" to pass another vehicle to the left.
> Pertinently incorrect.
No, it's correct and you seem to be sixpence short of an argument.
> Look at the highway code and also at the road markings at certain traffic
> lights at junctions in built up areas which invite cyclists to gather in
> front of motorised traffic. The cycle lane is on the left but the bay for
> waiting is in front of the traffic.
And anyone using the advance stop line is not, or should not, be to the
left of the vehicle that is moving left. Your interjection is pointless
and discusses something else other than the matter under discussion. The
correct use of advance stop lines was not in question. The sanity of
cycling to the left of a vehicle indicating a left turn was.
> > > The lorry in these events turn onto the cyclist.
> >
> > The cyclists are fuckwits who try to pass large vehicles on the wrong
> > side. Given the likely consequences "fuckwits" doesn't seem to be a
> > strong enough term.
> Nice.
<sigh> What do you call morons who put their own life in danger by
cycling in this manner? If anyone is so short of imagination that they
cannot imagine the consequences of a truck turning left on them then
Darwin awaits them.
I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety and the
ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to play lemming on
the roads.
Justin
The anti-cyclist lobby cannot resist stereotyping, can it? Nowhere in
the article is there even a suggestion that this young lady was
cycling on the pavement. Nowhere! She was in a cycle lane.
Any normal driver turning left across a cycle lane would look behind
in order to ensure that no cyclists were approaching. Unfortunately he
may well have done so whilst may have have been in the lorry's blind
spot,.
Indeed it was a tragedy: it is ill advised to not be able to hear the
traffic around you.
Mrcheerful
I think you would find that the cycle lane/pavement had ended, she just rode
straight off the end, there was no question of the lorry or any other
vehicle turning across the cycle lane. (if there was somewhere that
vehicles could turn across a cycle lane then it would be marked up as such
and the cyclist would have to give way (be expected to give way)
Mr. Benn
news:378d67c9-0ad2-4535...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
The anti-cyclist lobby cannot resist stereotyping, can it?
===================================================
What is this "anti-cyclist lobby" you keep going on about and who are they?
Anyone who is critical of some cyclists?
As well as being critical of irresponsible cyclists, I am also critical of
irresponsible drivers. Does that make me part of an anti-driving lobby?
Just zis Guy, you know?
Hash: SHA1
On 28/11/2010 14:56, Mrcheerful wrote:
> I think you would find that the cycle lane/pavement had ended, she just rode
> straight off the end,
That is indeed a massive flaw with many of the ill-judged farcilities
that councils erect.
Much better to keep to the road.
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8nO+AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/MbEH/iHW71fn7/mmbP4HWqvtC8jJ
UyNpKIKCDMbRNQeNDS7IR0dbqcJllqnxPFju6S5dd9t3vcEy0lpwvSxN4zRw4pE7
x7XV8hi13bNVUPRNaVy6LuhQNyopX0cNZTih3CjTcl+fQvBMRvuY4Q1KaGm+KsHR
NwDwdsX9jrjeUyYoVVFAKFQGM0Kjl/BTUXDYVoxLbvx/gNI2+5F2pKh9H5uv8rng
lGtZpl4P4xIQkMKAFnEm7GuHMDAX/ZlrM9PoKSh+ZD41lM/1Uq4BysBHxHs/VV5U
cKPG7T5BkIrGx1+DwBdgjyw7BBlsrweTAy7ja2/L9efbkXv42CGSw/x/XtecRd4=
=ogXu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Justin
But little knowledge of the highway code.
Justin
believe it, but do you know this?
Justin
cyclists.
For example: I quote - "The cyclists are fuckwits who try to pass
large vehicles on the wrong
> > side.""
Seems anti-cyclist to a reasonable reader. Given that this is part of
a pattern of postings by a significant group that posts here I am
justified in my chosen terminology.
JMS
<nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I was referring to this tragedy:
>http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/197436/Peril-of-headphones-exposed-after-girl-cyclist-dies-in-crash
>
"Amber liked to ride her mountain bike singing to music by Britney
Spears, Kylie Minogue and Michael Jackson."
Sums things up nicely.
--
Per billion passenger kilometres
Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358
(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures
Who says cycling is safer than walking?
Steve Firth
> > I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety and the
> > ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to play lemming on
> > the roads.
>
> But little knowledge of the highway code.
Also untrue, but I can see that you are now clutching at straws. The
Highway Code does not recommend passing vehicles on the left hand side,
other than in particular circumstances. You seem to be ignorant of Rule
72 and Rule 73.
Of course if you are getting sniffy about the Highway Code then perhaps
you can explain why cyclists habitually ignore:
Rules 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78?
Mr. Benn
news:f2b573b2-cde1-425a...@g19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
==================
I can think of one or perhaps two people who use this newsgroup who are
rabidly anti-cyclist. Many of the others are normal people like me who are
both a cyclist and a driver. They are critical of users of both modes of
transport who behave dangerously and selfishly on the roads. There also
exists another group of contributors who think that anyone else choosing
"their" mode of transport can never be in the wrong and that if there is an
accident, it is automatically the fault of someone else without considering
their own responsibilities to use the roads safely and to show consideration
to other road users. They will always defend other users of "their" mode of
transport regardless of the circumstances and blame. It's an amusing and
rather pathetic display of tribalism.
The person who called cyclists "fuckwits" was referring to some cyclists who
are stupid enough to try and pass vehicles on the left which is a lot
riskier for the cyclist than to pass a vehicle on the right. So he was
quite right to use that term. Unless you live in the Netherlands of course
in which case it would be more appropriate to pass on the left. He wasn't
calling cyclists in general "fuckwits". Many car drivers are also fuckwits
but that doesn't mean that they all are.
So it seems that your "anti-cycling lobby" is probably only 2 strong here.
Unless you count me as one of them which will make it 3.
Justin
182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn
left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for
traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if
driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users
in particular may be hidden from your view.
Do not cut in on cyclists
183
When turning
• keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway
from either direction
Steve Firth
> There are a number of posters who generalise negatively about all
> cyclists.
That's a lie.
> For example: I quote - "The cyclists are fuckwits who try to pass
> large vehicles on the wrong side.""
Yes, the cyclists who try to pass vehicles on the wrong side are
fuckwits. As indeed is anyone who tries to quote out of context as you
have in order to score a cheap point.
The comment did not, as you allege apply to all cyclists, unless you are
volunteering the information that all cyclists are fuckwits who cycle up
the wrong side of vehicles that are indicating a turn.
Mrcheerful
I don't think that cycle lanes ever go straight across a road. have a look
on google earth.
Nick Finnigan
>
> I don't think that cycle lanes ever go straight across a road. have a look
> on google earth.
Northam Road Southampton, near Princes Street, heading into the city.
I'm struggling to spot a cycle lane on Streetview.
Mrcheerful
other people said at the time that is was, it looked to me like ordinary
pavement set back from the road a little.
Justin
You referred to all cyclists involved in collisions with vehicles/
lorries turning left. A generalisation - negative.
JMS
>In article <cYcIo.20388$4J5....@newsfe04.ams2>,
>Mrcheerful <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I am fairly sure that pedestrians outnumber cyclists by a huge amount, so
>>the fact that an approximately equal number of cyclists and pedestrians are
>>injured means that as a cyclist your chances of injury are far higher than
>>as a pedestrian.
>
>If the premise were a fact, the conclusion would be true. It isn't.
>Many more pedestrians are injured than cyclists - roughly pro rata,
>you will be flabberghasted to hear.
Absolute bollocks.
And no doubt you will be including all those people who trip and fall
on the pavement - more than 50% of whom are aged over 65.
But don't tell him - as it will spoil the point you were wanting to
make.
Feel free to explain why the STATS19 figures show:
Per billion passenger kilometres
Cyclists Killed or seriously injured : 541
Pedestrians Killed or seriously injured 358
Dft 2008 Figures
Tony Raven
Try looking on the City Council's cycle route map.
Tony
Nick Finnigan
Dotted purple, 'Possible Shared Pedestrian / Cycle Route'.
After the junction: orange 'On Road Cycle Facility' (also on Streetview)
Tony Raven
>
> I don't think that cycle lanes ever go straight across a road. have a look
> on google earth.
>
They do. Aylesbury for example has lots of them but they are too recent
for Google Earth or Streetview. You can see picture of them though here
(linked to a Google Docs rendition as the original pdf download seems
borked)
http://tinyurl.com/2as338d
Tony
Marc
> "Mrcheerful"<nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010
> had anything at all to do with it.
> She was riding properly in the cycle lane, not on the pavement.
> The truck just overtook her and immediately turned left, killing her.
>
> Typical to blame the victim though - after all, we can't expect truck
> drivers to comply with any kind of standards, can we.
No, they are morons!
> And as for expecting them to remember what they have overtaken for
> long enough not to kill it, that would be far too much trouble for
> anyone with an attention span rather lower than a woodlouse.
We agree on something.
Nick Finnigan
I see cycle tracks and one inaccurate sign reading 'cycle lane'.
(I don't know whether the distinction is relevant to Mr C).
Tony Raven
>>
> Ah yes, the one where there is no evidence at all that the headphones
> had anything at all to do with it. She was riding properly in the
> cycle lane, not on the pavement. The truck just overtook her and
> immediately turned left, killing her.
>
Actually not. She was riding on the on pavement cycle track there and
the truck turned right across her path. If she had been a pedestrian
the driver would have been at fault but because she was a cyclist he wasn't.
Tony
Justin
> Justin <justinlewis...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 06:06:27
> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >On 28 nov, 12:34, "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Justin wrote:
> >> > >> the sides of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc.
> >> > A cyclist going straight on has priority. The lorry in these events
> >> > turn onto the cyclist.
>
> >> the cyclist rode off a pavement straight into the side of the trailer of an
> >> artic, by what mechanism could the lorry driver have forseen that someone
> >> would do such a thing? It happened a few seconds after the lorry cab had
> >> gone past the spot the cyclist left the pavement, it could have been easily
> >> prevented by the cyclist stopping at the kerb, looking and listening and
> >> then proceeding (a procedure which is covered in the highway code)
>
> >the article is there even a suggestion that this young lady was
> >cycling on the pavement. Nowhere! She was in a cycle lane.
>
> >Any normal driver turning left across a cycle lane would look behind
> >in order to ensure that no cyclists were approaching. Unfortunately he
> >may well have done so whilst may have have been in the lorry's blind
> >spot,.
>
> misinformation. Driven properly, there are almost no occasions when a
> truck will have to drive into one of it's own blind spots.
>
> >Indeed it was a tragedy: it is ill advised to not be able to hear the
> >traffic around you.
>
Which is why there have been a spate of blind spot casualties and
Dutch law (perhaps European) has obliged truck manufacturers to fit
equipment to provide vision of what was previously concelaled from the
driver.
I used to be a truck driver and there are substantial blind spots.
Justin
How do you know that?
Tony Raven
>>>
>>> Northam Road Southampton, near Princes Street, heading into the city.
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to spot a cycle lane on Streetview.
>>
>> Try looking on the City Council's cycle route map.
>
> Dotted purple, 'Possible Shared Pedestrian / Cycle Route'.
> After the junction: orange 'On Road Cycle Facility' (also on Streetview)
Well all I can say is its there on the ground.
Tony
Tony Raven
I presumed he meant cycle tracks as on road cycle lanes have the
priority of the road they are on and there are plenty of those that go
across the ends of side roads. I assumed therefore he was meaning
continental style cycle tracks that cross side roads as opposed to the
usual British ones that stop at every side road.
BICBW
Tony
Mrcheerful
does the cycle lane go straight across a road?
Nick Finnigan
There are no cycle lanes.
Nick Finnigan
The report quoted reads 'into the rear of a Volvo truck trailer'.
An earlier report reads 'the lorry was travelling in the same direction'.
Tony Raven
>
> The report quoted reads 'into the rear of a Volvo truck trailer'. An
> earlier report reads 'the lorry was travelling in the same
> direction'.
>
> http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5086628.Tributes_to__stunningly_beautiful__cyclist_killed_in_accident/
>
That was at the time of the accident. Local reports of the inquest -
can't find any that are on-line - were that it was turning right which
would be consistent with using the main truck routes into the city for
the docks (although the driver in this case wasn't going to the docks
the same route would be very likely).
Tony
Halmyre
says...
What a fucking stupid headline. What relevance does her physical
appearance have to her death?
--
Halmyre
Mark Goodge
typed:
>"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010
>12:44:06 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Justin wrote:
>>> On 28 nov, 12:34, "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>>>> the sides of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc.
>>>>> A cyclist going straight on has priority. The lorry in these events
>>>>> turn onto the cyclist.
>>>>
>>>> the cyclist rode off a pavement straight into the side of the
>>>> trailer of an artic, by what mechanism could the lorry driver have
>>>> forseen that someone would do such a thing? It happened a few
>>>> seconds after the lorry cab had gone past the spot the cyclist left
>>>> the pavement, it could have been easily prevented by the cyclist
>>>> stopping at the kerb, looking and listening and then proceeding (a
>>>> procedure which is covered in the highway code)
>>>
>>> Which cyclist and which lorry?
>>
>>I was referring to this tragedy:
>>http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/197436/Peril-of-headphones-exposed-after-girl-cyclist-dies-in-crash
>>
>Ah yes, the one where there is no evidence at all that the headphones
>had anything at all to do with it.
>She was riding properly in the cycle lane, not on the pavement.
She was on an off-road cycle path (or, to be more accurate, a shared-use
pavement/cycle path) running parallel to the road that the truck was on.
The cycle path ended where it met another road running which crossed the
main road. There is no on-street cycle lane at that point.
>The truck just overtook her and immediately turned left, killing her.
The truck was travelling in the opposite direction to her. It turned
*right* at the junction from the main road into the side road, crossing her
path. She didn't stop at the junction and ran into the side of the truck.
>Typical to blame the victim though - after all, we can't expect truck
>drivers to comply with any kind of standards, can we.
The inquest found that the truck driver was not at fault.
>And as for expecting them to remember what they have overtaken for
>long enough not to kill it, that would be far too much trouble for
>anyone with an attention span rather lower than a woodlouse.
The truck hadn't overtaken her, since she wasn't going in the same
direction as the truck. She wasn't even on the same road as the truck -
until she failed to give way at the junction and ran into the side of it.
That it was entirely her own fault is beyond any reasonable dispute.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mrcheerful
real cyclists are far beyond reasonable dispute.
Roland Perry
2010, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> remarked:
>> I don't think that cycle lanes ever go straight across a road. have
>>a look on google earth.
>
>They do. Aylesbury for example has lots of them but they are too
>recent for Google Earth or Streetview.
Here's one near where I live: http://goo.gl/maps/evak
Only thing is, I think I've seen one cyclist there in five years!
Also, these two nearby which go halfway across a junction:
http://goo.gl/maps/bDtb
--
Roland Perry
Just zis Guy, you know?
Hash: SHA1
It makes it a Tragedeee, dunnit.
Like the T-shirts that say "I'm not clever or popular, please don't
murder me".
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8t66AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/mroH/3yZU/Wj+B5yqOpCdyabe98D
fGpDXGk4apvB+3zjWYYMNrJby2Os6MTeEs6ZQWlF6xACi9/1DmsukvWXHWt8iXsY
GZrLILJEWxzzQlzEeerieyrNUst/X2AFSpciJri3QQlUXhGnMR0elYRfu9X3G+yc
Zv31ckDphWnI/uXhi6q6BPj4ozZpd4ASW+Mqu2gBk0C1wpEOJ4vFQ3bLY1Lfk3yu
3ElQjI4Zqm52DRZVqv1Zw/rziuEh69hoJ+aV17/EVAprHjXsfiGnz9XEYXcfDGyK
mr/FaLszX9gRZtN0r+CMKtglRXej75Ow/PiolaDteQu0RijW4pfmE6mo+HE8CcI=
=hkPv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Adam Lea
That is how the media operate isn't it? If they can increase the
sensationalism by appealing to emotion then they will.
PhilO
> --
>
> Per billion passenger kilometres
>
> Car KSI 18
> Cycle KSI 541
> Pedestrian 358
>
> (KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
> Dft 2008 FIgures
>
> Who says cycling is safer than walking?
I do (or see them as not significantly different).
Killed per billion passenger km: Pedal cycle 21, Pedestrian 26.
DfT 2009 figures.
Yes, the 2009 figures are out, Judith. Haven't you heard?
JMS
wrote:
>"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010
>12:44:06 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Justin wrote:
>>> On 28 nov, 12:34, "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>>>> the sides of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc.
>>>>> A cyclist going straight on has priority. The lorry in these events
>>>>> turn onto the cyclist.
>>>>
>>>> the cyclist rode off a pavement straight into the side of the
>>>> trailer of an artic, by what mechanism could the lorry driver have
>>>> forseen that someone would do such a thing? It happened a few
>>>> seconds after the lorry cab had gone past the spot the cyclist left
>>>> the pavement, it could have been easily prevented by the cyclist
>>>> stopping at the kerb, looking and listening and then proceeding (a
>>>> procedure which is covered in the highway code)
>>>
>>> Which cyclist and which lorry?
>>
>>I was referring to this tragedy:
>>http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/197436/Peril-of-headphones-exposed-after-girl-cyclist-dies-in-crash
>>
>Ah yes, the one where there is no evidence at all that the headphones
>had anything at all to do with it.
>She was riding properly in the cycle lane, not on the pavement.
>The truck just overtook her and immediately turned left, killing her.
"The inquest heard that she had been pedalling along a cycle lane but
failed to stop at a junction and slammed into the rear of a Volvo
truck trailer that was turning into a side road."
She failed to stop
She slammed in to the rear of the lorry.
I wonder if she perhaps did not realise that it was there?
Did she have all of her senses working for her?