Cyclist fined for doing 25 mph
Charlie Spackman
I heard on the radio this morning that a cyclist out on a midnight
training ride in the centre of Cambridge? has been fined 120 pounds
for riding at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone.
He was apparently convicted of "riding furiously".
He is refusing to pay up.
On the face of it this sounds outrageous.
Does anyone have any more details ?
Does this set any sort of precedent ?
###################################################################
## ,__o ,__o ##
## _-\_<, Charlie....@ffei.co.uk _-\_<, ##
##(*)/'(*) (*)/'(*) ##
###################################################################
Steve Shadbolt
c...@hh.ffei.co.uk (Charlie Spackman) wrote:
>In article <60866g$b8h$2...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Nick Maclaren <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>*
>*That has little to do with the 30 mph zone, but a lot to do with the
>*built-up nature of the location. Do you know central Cambridge?
>*
>*|> On the face of it this sounds outrageous.
>*
>*Why? Whether the action, the penalty, both or neither are outrageous
>*depends critically on exactly when and where the action took place.
>*Down King's Parade at 11 pm - or down Queen's Road at 2 am?
>
>I don't know Cambridge, but if a 30 mph limit applies it seems
>unreasonable to be nicked for doing 25 mph.
>
>Are you saying that a motorist would similarly be charged with some
>offence for doing the same speed ?
I wouldn't have thought a motorist could be charged with anything
after all doing 25 mph in a 30 mph zone is perfectly legal. If in the
police's opinion he was driving dangerously or without due care and
attention then that is different.
It seems to me that riding furiously is a bit of a catchall and that
any plod who's had a bad day can take it out on any cyclist he feels
like. The problem is what exactly does it mean, it doesn't have any
relation to speed - there's a hill near where I live where I can reach
40 just free wheeling - on the flat if I use a granny gear I'll be
pedalling furiously while only going 20 mph, on the same road in a
reasonable gear I can do 25 mph without pedalling like the clappers.
I think the law should be changed to match the law for drivers in this
case eg riding furiously should become riding dangerously or riding
without due care and attention at least we would then have some idea
of what it means.
shad...@logica.com
Views expressed are mine not Logica's
Nick Maclaren
In article <60894m$1...@suneng1.hh.ffei.co.uk>, c...@hh.ffei.co.uk (Charlie Spackman) writes:
|> In article <60866g$b8h$2...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
|> Nick Maclaren <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
|> *
|> *That has little to do with the 30 mph zone, but a lot to do with the
|> *built-up nature of the location. Do you know central Cambridge?
|> *
|> *|> On the face of it this sounds outrageous.
|> *
|> *Why? Whether the action, the penalty, both or neither are outrageous
|> *depends critically on exactly when and where the action took place.
|> *Down King's Parade at 11 pm - or down Queen's Road at 2 am?
|>
|> I don't know Cambridge, but if a 30 mph limit applies it seems
|> unreasonable to be nicked for doing 25 mph.
You clearly don't. I had chosen those examples deliberately. Kings
Parade (sorry - spelling error in above) is a semi-pedestrianised
street that usually has a lot of semi-sober people walking about at
that time. Queen's Road (I think - though it may be Queens) is an
inner traffic route round the city centre.
|> Are you saying that a motorist would similarly be charged with some
|> offence for doing the same speed ?
It is quite possible that he was cycling arse over tit and staring
closely at his front wheel, which is dangerous at any speed and is
grounds for disqualification in many road races. The offence of
furious cycling implies that the police claimed that he was not
in proper control of his bicycle - it was the original charge that
later was turned into driving without due care and attention and
dangerous driving.
If he were charged SOLELY on the basis that he was doing 25 MPH,
then he has grounds for suing the police and magistrates (as I said
earlier). But that is fairly unlikely.
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: nm...@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
Tech Head
-----Original Message-----
From: c...@hh.ffei.co.uk (Charlie Spackman)
[SMTP:c...@hh.ffei.co.uk]
Posted At: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 10:37 AM
Posted To: uk.rec.cycling
Conversation: Cyclist fined for doing 25 mph
Subject:
I heard on the radio this morning that a cyclist out on a
midnight
training ride in the centre of Cambridge? has been fined 120
pounds
for riding at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone.
He was apparently convicted of "riding furiously".
He is refusing to pay up.
So would I. But I would have a good defense
On the face of it this sounds outrageous.
All things can be made to sound outrages without giving the full
facts
Does anyone have any more details ?
Does this set any sort of precedent ?
Most competent racing cyclist can do 25 mph average for one hour
at least eg in time trials. I regularly reach speeds over 30 mph just
commuting especially with a tail wind. However after seeing some cyclist
attempting the same one could conclude they were riding furiously. I
feel the only way that this chap can clear himself is to get a car to
follow him at the same place same speed with a video on board and from
his style of riding it can then be determined.
Some riders do look like animals when they ride especially when
trying however you do not normally need to try very hard at 25 mph for a
short distance.
As for setting a president I doubt it . It was probably some
young probationer new to the job. A lot of policemen do time trials and
they have cycling clubs Greater Manchester Police for one.
However it could be said they would flash the old warrant card
and ride on.
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk
Brian Passingham (br...@sagent.demon.co.uk) wrote:
<snip>
: My suspicion is that he got arrested because he ignored the
: "foot police" who first signalled him to stop, thinking that they
: were waving at someone else.
Funny how they can always organise the cavalry for this sort of
nonsense, and yet are always moaning about being undermanned.
Brian Passingham
>In article <6082j4$1...@suneng1.hh.ffei.co.uk>, c...@hh.ffei.co.uk (Charlie
>|> I heard on the radio this morning that a cyclist out on a midnight
>|> training ride in the centre of Cambridge? has been fined 120 pounds
>|> for riding at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone.
>|> He was apparently convicted of "riding furiously".
>
>
>|>
>
>
>case, he should sue the magistrates and police for malicious
>prosecution.
The article in the Guardian doesn't have any details about the
location. Superintendent David Auton was quoted as saying, "If a cyclist
is going so fast as to be a danger - and even if you hit someone at
25mph you are likely to kill them - we have to revert to this
legislation." This strikes me as pretty absurd, unless they propose
rounding up everyone who has driven a car at, say, 12mph for "dangerous
driving" on similar grounds. Mr Adams claims that he "wasn't even
pedalling furiously", and that he'd slowed down because of potholes in
the area. If speed alone is the basis for the prosecution, then we're
all in trouble. If, on the other hand, he was going through a "busy"
pedestrianized area at that speed, then there is a definite case to
answer.
My suspicion is that he got arrested because he ignored the
"foot police" who first signalled him to stop, thinking that they
were waving at someone else.
-- Brian Passingham
David Humphreys
In article: <aglsNKAv...@sagent.demon.co.uk> Brian Passingham <br...@sagent.demon.co.uk>
writes:
> My suspicion is that he got arrested because he ignored the
> "foot police" who first signalled him to stop, thinking that they
> were waving at someone else.
or he got a bit lippy when they stopped him.
--
David Humphreys
Dept of I.T.
Tameside + Glossop Acute Care NHS Trust
Charlie Spackman
In article <60866g$b8h$2...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Nick Maclaren <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
*
*That has little to do with the 30 mph zone, but a lot to do with the
*built-up nature of the location. Do you know central Cambridge?
*
*|> On the face of it this sounds outrageous.
*
*Why? Whether the action, the penalty, both or neither are outrageous
*depends critically on exactly when and where the action took place.
*Down King's Parade at 11 pm - or down Queen's Road at 2 am?
I don't know Cambridge, but if a 30 mph limit applies it seems
unreasonable to be nicked for doing 25 mph.
Are you saying that a motorist would similarly be charged with some
offence for doing the same speed ?
###################################################################
Nick Maclaren
In article <6082j4$1...@suneng1.hh.ffei.co.uk>, c...@hh.ffei.co.uk (Charlie Spackman) writes:
|> I heard on the radio this morning that a cyclist out on a midnight
|> training ride in the centre of Cambridge? has been fined 120 pounds
|> for riding at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone.
|> He was apparently convicted of "riding furiously".
That has little to do with the 30 mph zone, but a lot to do with the
built-up nature of the location. Do you know central Cambridge?
|> He is refusing to pay up.
|>
|> On the face of it this sounds outrageous.
Why? Whether the action, the penalty, both or neither are outrageous
depends critically on exactly when and where the action took place.
Down King's Parade at 11 pm - or down Queen's Road at 2 am?
In the former case, he should shut up and pay up. In the latter
case, he should sue the magistrates and police for malicious
prosecution.
|> Does anyone have any more details ?
|>
|> Does this set any sort of precedent ?
No. There is long established precedent for this, and it was only
a magistrates' court anyway.
Rhys Williams
c...@hh.ffei.co.uk (Charlie Spackman) writes:
>I heard on the radio this morning that a cyclist out on a midnight
>training ride in the centre of Cambridge? has been fined 120 pounds
>for riding at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone.
>He was apparently convicted of "riding furiously".
>Does anyone have any more details ?
It's on the front page of the Guardian. Apparently he's a 25 year old
postie who's training to try and beat Boardman's Hour Record by riding
for 5 miles a night on a 2,000 quid bike. Hmmm... He thinks it's a waste
of taxpayers money when the police could be arresting speeding boyracers
in their BMWs. The law is an outdated one, originally applied to
horseriders, and he's refusing to pay the fine and faces three months in
jail.
Rhys
Rhys Williams
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk () writes:
>Funny how they can always organise the cavalry for this sort of
>nonsense, and yet are always moaning about being undermanned.
The cyclist himself made the point that the police could have been
doing something more useful, like arresting speeding boyracers.
Rhys
Tim Williams
>In article <6082j4$1...@suneng1.hh.ffei.co.uk>, c...@hh.ffei.co.uk (Charlie
> Spackman) writes:
>|> I heard on the radio this morning that a cyclist out on a midnight
>|> training ride in the centre of Cambridge? has been fined 120 pounds
>|> for riding at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone.
>|> He was apparently convicted of "riding furiously".
>|> Does anyone have any more details ?
This is what it says on Bill's Results Pages...
"British oddity
The British cyclist Anthony Adams, training for the speed world record, has
refused to pay a penalty of 150 British pounds for riding too fast in the
centre of Cambridge. Adams denied that he had ridden faster than 40 kilometers
per hour."
I've been cycling round here (Cambridge) for the last 7 years and I don't know
"the british cyclists Anthony Adams".
Tim
Jeremy Rickard
In article <aglsNKAv...@sagent.demon.co.uk>, Brian Passingham
<br...@sagent.demon.co.uk> writes
> The article in the Guardian doesn't have any details about the
>location. Superintendent David Auton was quoted as saying, "If a cyclist
>is going so fast as to be a danger - and even if you hit someone at
>25mph you are likely to kill them - we have to revert to this
>legislation." This strikes me as pretty absurd, unless they propose
>rounding up everyone who has driven a car at, say, 12mph for "dangerous
>driving" on similar grounds.
I wonder where Superintendent David Auton gets his facts from? We know
that being hit by a car moving at 25 mph is likely to kill a pedestrian,
but I've never heard figures quoted for bicycles.
Given that very few pedestrian deaths are caused by cyclists, I doubt
this data is available, and think he should quote his source.
Perhaps this inability to comprehend simple statistics explains why the
police largely turn a blind eye to speeding motorists, known to kill
hundreds of pedestrians each year.
Or is it just that they are corrupt?
--
Jeremy Rickard
Nick
OK ... Just agree to disagree!! My opinion is this. The law is there. It's
very easy to disagree when you don't live there, but the law *should* be
there for peoples safety, and if so should be rigoursly enforced.
We can all come with stories/facts of breaking 50/40(me)/and 30mph limits
but, at 25mph it's hardly likely that NORMAL riding would be at fault.
If he want's to be the next Chris Boardman, maybe he ought to consider
sponsorship (if he's really that good, and not trying to pluck the British
heartstrings with his hard life story about how poor he is).
Sod him if he's in the wrong.
I must admit, that i've had a bike nicked the other day, and I would LOVE
to see more plod on the beat, rather than sitting in their nice, warm cars.
The crime level here is high (IMO) , because they are lazy @@nts, who think
that bikes being stolen is petty crime.
P.S. Any unclaimed bikes will be sold by an auction house in Cheltenham
very soon, by the police. I reckon they rely more on the insurance
companies than their own skills.
P.P.S. I'm also angry with the lack of respect towards cyclists (e.g.
councils etc.) so I apologise if I offend with my ouburst.
Nick
This really has nothing to do wih David's post.....
David Humphreys <dav...@tac-it.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<491744...@tac-it.demon.co.uk>...
Chris Dunlop
Mark Goodson wrote:
> That may be so, but if the speed limit is 30mph... then it's 30mph. If
> some spotty youth in an XR2 with deafening stereo blasting, picking his
> nose, adjusting his baseball hat and shouting at this 4 mates on the
> backseat is allowed to do 30mph by the "powers that be", why can't our
> man do 25mph (was he actually clocked with Vascar or radar doing this > or is it Plod's best guess?)
<snip>
My initial reaction as a cyclist is outrage, but the hard facts are a
little thin on the ground. If I remember right, the Guardian report
quoted Anthony Adams as saying that he had slowed down for the road
that he was stopped in, because of pot-holes. It also says that he was
doing 25mph when he was stopped. This suggest to me that he might have
been doing well over 30mph when he was originally seen, so he might well
have been riding over the speed limit then.
> Furthermore if the area was Kings St and it is littered with "Hoorays"
> overcome with shandy staggering back to college surely it ought to be a
> 20mph zone or totally pedestrianised at all times... no bikes, no cars.<snip>
IMO, the fact that a 'semi-pedestrianised street' does not have a reduced
speed limit (below the normal 30mph in towns), does not excuse riding
recklessly fast for the street. I'm not accusing Anthony of doing this.
just making that general point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dunlop
Administrative Computing, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
c.du...@uea.ac.uk
Mark Goodson
Nick
As a fellow Cambridge cyclist I can only sympathise with the poor sod.
>
>You clearly don't. I had chosen those examples deliberately. Kings
>Parade (sorry - spelling error in above) is a semi-pedestrianised
>street that usually has a lot of semi-sober people walking about at
>that time. Queen's Road (I think - though it may be Queens) is an
>inner traffic route round the city centre.
That may be so, but if the speed limit is 30mph... then it's 30mph. If
some spotty youth in an XR2 with deafening stereo blasting, picking his
nose, adjusting his baseball hat and shouting at this 4 mates on the
backseat is allowed to do 30mph by the "powers that be", why can't our
man do 25mph (was he actually clocked with Vascar or radar doing this or
is it Plod's best guess?)
>
>|> Are you saying that a motorist would similarly be charged with some
>|> offence for doing the same speed ?
>
>It is quite possible that he was cycling arse over tit and staring
>closely at his front wheel, which is dangerous at any speed and is
>grounds for disqualification in many road races. The offence of
>furious cycling implies that the police claimed that he was not
>in proper control of his bicycle - it was the original charge that
>later was turned into driving without due care and attention and
>dangerous driving.
Who is to say that he was biking "arse over tit"... surely that's very
subjective?
Furthermore if the area was Kings St and it is littered with "Hoorays"
overcome with shandy staggering back to college surely it ought to be a
20mph zone or totally pedestrianised at all times... no bikes, no cars.
>
>If he were charged SOLELY on the basis that he was doing 25 MPH,
>then he has grounds for suing the police and magistrates (as I said
>earlier). But that is fairly unlikely.
>
--
Regards
Mark
******************************
14mph up hill, 14mph down hill
Don't step in my way Hooray
******************************
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk
Callum Wilson (wil...@logica.com.DELETE) wrote:
: This is bad news to me because I average 21 mph reaching speeds of 30mph every
: few minutes on mycommute in.
It is worrying, because anyone trying to put on a bit of speed, in
cycling terms, may well appear to be cycling "furiously" to people
whose only exercise is stooping to pick up dropped car keys, even
though they may be in perfect control of their bicycle, and within
the speed limit.
Jeremy
> Does anyone have any more details ?
Well, I was told by a fellow member of the Cambridge CTC that this guy
was riding down Sidney Street at about 11pm, which is a semi-
pedestrianised narrow road in the city centre. (By the way, we were at
the time cycling down Sidney Street at 11pm last night doing 13 mph,
being careful not to appear furious in any way). He apparently refused
to stop and was not caught until half way up Castle Hill, perhaps a mile
further on.
25mph down Sidney Street at 11 pm is a little too fast, but if stopped a
polite appology may well have been the end of it.
Jeremy
--
jer...@elmc.demon.co.uk
Cambridge
England
Chris McSweeny
Chris Dunlop wrote:
> My initial reaction as a cyclist is outrage, but the hard facts are a
> little thin on the ground. If I remember right, the Guardian report
> quoted Anthony Adams as saying that he had slowed down for the road
> that he was stopped in, because of pot-holes. It also says that he
> was
> doing 25mph when he was stopped. This suggest to me that he might
> have
> been doing well over 30mph when he was originally seen, so he might
> well
> have been riding over the speed limit then.
But then speed limits only apply to cars anyway!
Chris McSweeny
cpmcs...@dera.gov.uk
James D Annan
Jeremy <Jer...@elmc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>25mph down Sidney Street at 11 pm is a little too fast, but if stopped a
>polite appology may well have been the end of it.
Too fast for what? Do you imagine that a car driver going at 25mph
in the same place would have been stopped and charged with dangerous
driving? Have you _EVER_ heard of a car driver being stopped and
charged with dangerous driving for travelling at 25mph in a 30mph
zone?
(The cyclist apparently said a car had just overtaken him - however
the cyclist also appears to have a shaky grip on reality if he thinks
that he's going to break boardman's record...)
James
--
James Annan jdan(at)pol.ac.uk
Proudman Oceanographic Lab
Bidston, Merseyside, L43 7RA
Chris McSweeny
Brian Passingham wrote:
> The article in the Guardian doesn't have any details about the
>
> location. Superintendent David Auton was quoted as saying, "If a
> cyclist
> is going so fast as to be a danger - and even if you hit someone at
> 25mph you are likely to kill them - we have to revert to this
> legislation."
Some policemen don't half spout a load of rubbish! According to the
advertising aimed at overly fast drivers, 90% of children hit at 20mph
by a car survive. In this case it seems very unlikely to me that more
than 50% of people hit by a bicycle at 25mph would be killed (which is
an accurate interpretation of Superintendent Auton's comments). In fact
I've survived an impact with the road at more than 25mph, as proved by
this post (or maybe it's disproved?!). In the race I did on Sunday
somebody crashed at about 28mph, then got hit by somebody else, and I
didn't hear anything afterwards about dead bodies littering the course.
Oh no, I just realised - this is anecdotal evidence like that given by
helmet advocates and doesn't prove anything. Does anybody have a proper
statistical study of deaths caused by cyclists hitting pedestrians? :-)
In any case this seems a typical example of the establishment attitudes
we have to put up with. If this was really the opinion of the police, I
suspect the conviction was made on the basis of biased attitudes, and
Anthony has a right to feel aggrieved.
Chris McSweeny
cpmcs...@dera.gov.uk
p.s. Sorry for the helmet mention - please don't anybody start a new
helmet thread from this!
Rhys Williams
Chris McSweeny <cpmcs...@dra.hmg.gb> writes:
>Some policemen don't half spout a load of rubbish! According to the
>advertising aimed at overly fast drivers, 90% of children hit at 20mph
>by a car survive. In this case it seems very unlikely to me that more
>than 50% of people hit by a bicycle at 25mph would be killed
(SNIP)
>Oh no, I just realised - this is anecdotal evidence like that given by
>helmet advocates and doesn't prove anything. Does anybody have a proper
>statistical study of deaths caused by cyclists hitting pedestrians? :-)
For more anectdotal evidence, cast your mind back to the Tour de
France a few years ago when Nelissen and Jalabert smacked into that
snap-happy gendarme. They must have been going at nearly 40mph, the guy
got hit twice (at least), and he suffered, what, a couple of broken ribs?
If a cyclist hits a ped, the cyclist will probably be worse off, hitting
the road at 25mph - we don't have metal cages and airbags to lull us
into a false sense of security.
Rhys
James D Annan
Chris McSweeny <cpmcs...@dra.hmg.gb> wrote:
> Does anybody have a proper
>statistical study of deaths caused by cyclists hitting pedestrians? :-)
There were some stats in the CTC mag a while ago (from DoT I think)
saying that about bikes kill about 6 peds per year, and cars kill
around 1000. The figures do not apportion blame (ie was it a cyclist
on the pavement or a ped stepping out onto road without looking).
Adjusting for miles travelled reduced the danger ratio to a surprisingly
low (IMO) 4:1.
Callum Wilson
In article <491744...@tac-it.demon.co.uk>, dav...@tac-it.demon.co.uk wrote:
>In article: <aglsNKAv...@sagent.demon.co.uk> Brian Passingham
> <br...@sagent.demon.co.uk>
>writes:
>> My suspicion is that he got arrested because he ignored the
>> "foot police" who first signalled him to stop, thinking that they
>> were waving at someone else.
>
>or he got a bit lippy when they stopped him.
>
apparrently (the times) a car overtook him with no lights (at night) just as
the foor-soldier cop shouted, so he carried on.
This is bad news to me because I average 21 mph reaching speeds of 30mph every
few minutes on mycommute in.
callum
-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Callum Wilson Mountain Biker, Internet Consultant
Import java.awt.disclaimer;
Logica UK Ltd. http://www.logica.com
Rapid Descent Innovations. http://www.proflex.demon.co.uk
Garret Cotter
In article <60bg7r$u...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>, <m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Chris McSweeny (cpmcs...@dra.hmg.gb) wrote:
>: helmet advocates and doesn't prove anything. Does anybody have a proper
>: statistical study of deaths caused by cyclists hitting pedestrians? :-)
>
>and it would be skewed if it did for the same reason.
But you wouldn't need very many events to rule out the hypothesis that
``bike at 25mph hitting pedestrian kills the pedestrian more than 50% of
the time''. . . any volunteers? (only half a smiley, given that the person
who came up with the statistic is in such a position of authority)
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk
Chris McSweeny (cpmcs...@dra.hmg.gb) wrote:
: helmet advocates and doesn't prove anything. Does anybody have a proper
: statistical study of deaths caused by cyclists hitting pedestrians? :-)
No, and of course it does not exist due to the extremely small number,
and it would be skewed if it did for the same reason. OK, I've just seen
the smiley, but seriously, I would be extremely interested (and not for
macabre reasons) in discovering any facts and figures (and ideally,
causes) for any deaths or serious injury caused by pedal cycles hitting
pedestrians with no other sort of vehicle involved. Equally interesting
would be deaths/serious injuries cause by pedal cycles hitting other
pedal cycles with no other sort of vehicle involved. Say, over the last
10 years.
John B Wilkinson
In article <01bcc86d$33cb8e60$013d...@el.yob>, Nick <el....@virgin.net>
writes
>
>P.S. Any unclaimed bikes will be sold by an auction house in Cheltenham
>very soon, by the police. I reckon they rely more on the insurance
>companies than their own skills.
>
--
John B. Wilkinson e-mail jo...@comtecil.demon.co.uk
SuperVet Trailquesting Mountain Biker - Canalcoholic - Radio Amateur G0JBW
Visit our web pages http://www.comtecil.demon.co.uk/
Richard Brockie
Rhys Williams (rw...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: For more anectdotal evidence, cast your mind back to the Tour de
: France a few years ago when Nelissen and Jalabert smacked into that
: snap-happy gendarme. They must have been going at nearly 40mph, the guy
: got hit twice (at least), and he suffered, what, a couple of broken ribs?
One of his legs was broken.
: If a cyclist hits a ped, the cyclist will probably be worse off, hitting
: the road at 25mph - we don't have metal cages and airbags to lull us
: into a false sense of security.
Absolutely.
--
R.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Brockie B.Sc.(Hons), The tall blond one.
Adaptive Optics Chap. Email: R.Br...@roe.ac.uk
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= http://www.roe.ac.uk/rmbwww =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
James D Annan
nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>If a car HAD overtaken him then and there, at the speed he was going,
>then the car was being driven extremely dangerously. But I slightly
>doubt that a policeman would have ignored such an extreme breach of
>the law.
You've got to be joking. I get overtaken by cars travelling above
the speed limit all the time, in a wide range of dangerous situations,
including immediately outside a school in the morning rush hour. None of
them have _ever_ been stopped by police, who are occasionally present. In
fact one of the overtaking vehicles _was_ a police car, not that long ago.
They've got better things to do with their time, like catching `real'
criminals...
Nick Maclaren
In article <34293...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>, James D Annan <jd...@see.signature.for.address> writes:
|> Jeremy <Jer...@elmc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|>
|> >25mph down Sidney Street at 11 pm is a little too fast, but if stopped a
|> >polite appology may well have been the end of it.
|>
|> Too fast for what? Do you imagine that a car driver going at 25mph
|> in the same place would have been stopped and charged with dangerous
|> driving? Have you _EVER_ heard of a car driver being stopped and
|> charged with dangerous driving for travelling at 25mph in a 30mph
|> zone?
Yes, I have.
|> (The cyclist apparently said a car had just overtaken him - however
|> the cyclist also appears to have a shaky grip on reality if he thinks
|> that he's going to break boardman's record...)
If a car HAD overtaken him then and there, at the speed he was going,
then the car was being driven extremely dangerously. But I slightly
doubt that a policeman would have ignored such an extreme breach of
the law.
Pete Whelan
> >location. Superintendent David Auton was quoted as saying, "If a cyclist
> >is going so fast as to be a danger - and even if you hit someone at
> >25mph you are likely to kill them - we have to revert to this
> >rounding up everyone who has driven a car at, say, 12mph for "dangerous
> >driving" on similar grounds.
<snips from lots of others>
This chap used to 'cycle' in Ipswich. He rarely took a straight line,
and could be seen weaving through traffic uttering curses. He once
joined some of the local racing clubs, but was not allowed to start on
some of the time trials due to a lack of brakes. He claimed a front
brake was the only requirement, 'cos he had seen pictures of bikes like
that in magazines. It was pointed out that they were fixed wheel.
I seriously doubt his ability to ride fixed, yet alone attack the hour
record.
I have little sympathy for the chap if he was riding in anything but a
straight line when he was caught.
No doubt this posting will cause another series of comments and flamings
to me.
Pete Whelan
Woodbridge, Suffolk
Rhys Williams
Pete Whelan <whel...@boat.bt.com> writes:
>This chap used to 'cycle' in Ipswich. He rarely took a straight line,
>and could be seen weaving through traffic uttering curses. He once
>joined some of the local racing clubs, but was not allowed to start on
>some of the time trials due to a lack of brakes.
I thought it was a bit odd if he was a serious racer that he was
wearing a Banesto jersey and Mapei shorts. I mean, if I was being
photographed for the front page of a national newspaper I'd make sure my
club got a little publicity from it!
Rhys
Pete Whelan
Rhys Williams wrote:
>
> I thought it was a bit odd if he was a serious racer that he was
> wearing a Banesto jersey and Mapei shorts. I mean, if I was being
> photographed for the front page of a national newspaper I'd make sure my
> club got a little publicity from it!
>
> Rhys
I'd rather my club was not mentioned as being associated with him. We
wouldn't allow him to rejoin the following year.
Pete Whelan
Tim Williams
In article <342A10...@boat.bt.com>, whel...@boat.bt.com wrote:
>
>This chap used to 'cycle' in Ipswich. He rarely took a straight line,
>and could be seen weaving through traffic uttering curses. He once
>joined some of the local racing clubs, but was not allowed to start on
>brake was the only requirement, 'cos he had seen pictures of bikes like
>that in magazines. It was pointed out that they were fixed wheel.
>
>I seriously doubt his ability to ride fixed, yet alone attack the hour
>record.
>
>I have little sympathy for the chap if he was riding in anything but a
>straight line when he was caught.
>
>No doubt this posting will cause another series of comments and flamings
>to me.
Here is the first, though it is a supplementary comment rather than a flame.
I've not come across the guy cycing in or around Cambridge but I was talking
to a friend who described someone with a carbon monocoque, one brake, tiny
tri-bars and a single oversized chainring who was unable to ride in a straight
line (though my friend attributed that to the state of his wheels) on a Sunday
club run. My friend described the guy as a liability and said that nobody
would ride anywhere near him.
Tim
>
>Pete Whelan
>Woodbridge, Suffolk
James D Annan
nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>Look, I know Cambridge and you don't. If you ever visit it, take a
>look at Sidney Street and you will see that it is not the sort of
>outer city road that you are assuming. It is a semi-pedestrianised
>city centre street that, for most of its length, has been narrowed
>to the width of a single vehicle.
Actually, I do know Cambridge. From what I remember, Sidney St is not
pedestrianised (semi-pedestrianised?) at night. I think any available
statistics would support my view that bicycles are a negligible
danger to pedestrians when compared to cars. I have also never
heard of car drivers being prosecuted for merely driving well below
the legal limit (although I saw you wrote earlier that you have).
What do you think would be a safe speed for a cyclist to travel
along that road, or any other road with a pavement beside? And
what about a car? Is there any other particular risk beside that
of a pedestrian stepping out without looking?
Tony Raven
James D Annan <jd...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in article
<342a6...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>...
> I think any available
> statistics would support my view that bicycles are a negligible
> danger to pedestrians when compared to cars.
The statistics published in the CTC October/November 1996 magazine and
taken from "Road Accidents Great Britain" published by the DoT are:
Number of Pedestrians killed per million vehicle-kilometers is:
Bus/coach 16.3
Motorbike 14.7
HGV 4.8
LGV 3.7
Car 3.6
Bicycle 0.9
The total number of pedestrians killed by cars is 200 times that killed by
bicycles (57) but the total car kilometers is 50 times that for bikes.
Either way the numbers for bicycles are suprisingly non-significant.
Tony Raven
"For every complex problem there is a simple answer and its wrong"
H L Mencken
Tony Raven
Koen De Smet
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk wrote:
> but seriously, I would be extremely interested (and not for
> macabre reasons) in discovering any facts and figures (and ideally,
> causes) for any deaths or serious injury caused by pedal cycles hitting
> pedestrians with no other sort of vehicle involved. Equally interesting
> would be deaths/serious injuries cause by pedal cycles hitting other
> pedal cycles with no other sort of vehicle involved. Say, over the last
> 10 years.
>
> --
> Mike.E...@rl.ac.uk
I saw a breakdown of all road deaths for the Netherlands recently. results were
grouped by vehicle/pedestrian causing accident and vehicle/pedestrian used by
casualty. I can't remember the exact figures, but deaths caused by cylists were
in single figures, I even think less than 5 per year, for each category
(cycle-cylcle and cycle-pedestrian).
Can we assume there are more cyclists there than in the UK?
Comes to think of it, I seem to remember there was one cardriver killed by a
pedestrian somehow!
And finally, please don't qoute these figures, cause I saw them a few months
ago! I am just trying to add to the confusion in this tread.
Koen De Smet (No, I am not Dutch!)
_______________________________________________________________
To reply by email, remove "nospam." from the above address
_______________________________________________________________
___ ___
___ Department of Medical Microbiology ___
___ Imperial College School of Medicine at St Mary's ___
___ London W2 1PG ___
___ http://www.sm.ic.ac.uk/medmicro/home. ___
_______________________________________________________________
Nick Maclaren
In article <60e2rt$l0i$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, li...@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.I. Endell) writes:
|>
|> Am I totally wrong in thinking that Sidney Street is the street with
|> Sainsbury's and Sidney Sussex College on? In which case, it is
|> pedestrianised between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and outside of those hours is a
|> normal road. And frequently cars try to overtake me as I cycle along there
|> on my way home (after 5 p.m.) which is why these days I cycle three feet
|> out from the kerb/parked cars.
You are correct, and you will have noted that any parked cars are on
the pavement, because the road is single lane - REALLY single lane.
It was narrowed to that when they 'pedestrianised' the area. Yes,
drivers will try to overtake you regardless, but I was assuming that
anyone cycling at 25 mph WAS 3' out from the kerb!
And the claim was that a car HAD overtaken. Hence my remark that it
would have had to have 2 wheels on the pavement.
L.I. Endell
ford.ac.uk> <60dfh9$9lh$2...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
<342a6...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>
<60e1f2$k09$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>:
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
Distribution: uk
Nick Maclaren (nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <342a6...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>,
: James D Annan <jd...@see.signature.for.address> writes:
: |> nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
: |>
: |> >Look, I know Cambridge and you don't. If you ever visit it, take a
: |> >look at Sidney Street and you will see that it is not the sort of
: |> >outer city road that you are assuming. It is a semi-pedestrianised
: |> >city centre street that, for most of its length, has been narrowed
: |> >to the width of a single vehicle.
: |>
: |> Actually, I do know Cambridge. From what I remember, Sidney St is not
: |> pedestrianised (semi-pedestrianised?) at night.
: Well, I can assure you that it is. Cars are permitted to use it at
: night, but they do NOT remove the obstructions - and they are the
: semi-pedestrianisation. The driver would either have to overtake
: between the bollards outside Lloyds Bank and those at Market Hill
: (under 50 yards) or in the tight single lane section beyond that
: (which would mean having two wheels on the pavement).
Am I totally wrong in thinking that Sidney Street is the street with
Sainsbury's and Sidney Sussex College on? In which case, it is
pedestrianised between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and outside of those hours is a
normal road. And frequently cars try to overtake me as I cycle along there
on my way home (after 5 p.m.) which is why these days I cycle three feet
out from the kerb/parked cars.
If I am wrong, where *is* Sidney Street?
Linz
--
Lindsay Endell li...@cam.ac.uk & li...@earthling.net
Conference Administrator, Trinity Hall, Cambridge CB2 1TJ
Do I come here often? TOGG Motto
Who would you like to be related to today?
Graham O'Hanlon
Tony Raven wrote:
>
[snip]
Number of Pedestrians killed per million vehicle-kilometers is:
Bus/coach 16.3
Motorbike 14.7
HGV 4.8
LGV 3.7
Car 3.6
Bicycle 0.9
Lets see, if my sums are right then a 1km trip in a car is only four
times more likely to end in a pedestrian fatality than the equivalent
trip by bike. Blimey, I wouldnt call that:
> suprisingly non-significant.
Can this be right? It seems surprisingly high to me (or do I just have
my head in the sand). Anyone any more info?
Graham
evans-the-swim
I heard the interview with the cyclist who was fined and he seemed to
me to be clueless. He didn't appear at the court where he was
convicted! How stupid can you be? Now he says he's going to try to
have it appealed. Hunh.
If the cops/law are wrong, well, you SHOW UP IN COURT and make it
obvious. What this guy has done is introduce a recent conviction for
a badly-defined offence, one which may of use in the future to the
detriment of cyclists.
Tim Forcer
Mike (m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>Tony Raven (tony_...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>
>>The statistics published in the CTC October/November 1996 magazine and
>>taken from "Road Accidents Great Britain" published by the DoT are:
>
>
>>Bus/coach 16.3
>>Motorbike 14.7
>>HGV 4.8
>>LGV 3.7
>>Car 3.6
>>Bicycle 0.9
>
>>that killed by bicycles (57) but the total car kilometers is
>>50 times that for bikes. Either way the numbers for bicycles
>>are suprisingly non-significant.
>
>
>Since I find it hard to believe that the number of peds killed
>by bikes each year anything like approaches double figuers... cut...
>
>Thanks for posting these figures Tony, even though I for one
>find them puzzling, and wonder what exactly they do show.
>Useful to have the references, also.
I agree that it's good to have the figures. Mike sounds as if he has
some opinions which the figures tend to contradict, so wants to
undermine them in various ways.
As the recent train crash shows, just because a cause of death is
extremely unlikely, it doesn't stop the public at large (there's a nice,
undefined, wooly term for you) demanding that the likelihood become even
smaller. Tony's post (and others) show clearly that bike accidents DO
involve pedestrian deaths, and there seems little point trying to claim
that cycling is a fatality-free mode of transport. Sure, one can argue
for ages about fault, and the Dutch figures posted could indicate that
decent, segregated, cycle tracks reduce fatalities?
As to the idea that death is out of the question because a cyclist and
bike have vastly less energy and momentum than a car, consider that
deaths occur on sports fields, with just the energy involved in one
human being crashing into another at speeds below 25mph.
My 2p worth is that it is possible that in some accidents a bike will
cause greater/more serious injuries than a car, because there are all
sorts of things which stick out of a bike, whereas most modern cars are
relatively smooth. (The exception being the wing mirror - carefully
sited by most manufacturers at exactly the same height as all the others
- and pretty close to standard handlebar height.)
What's this thread called? Oh dear, way off topic again. Sorry.
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Nick Maclaren
In article <342B6F...@udcf.gla.ac.uk>, Graham O'Hanlon <Gor...@udcf.gla.ac.uk> writes:
|> Tony Raven wrote:
|> >
|> [snip]
|> Number of Pedestrians killed per million vehicle-kilometers is:
|>
|> Bus/coach 16.3
|> Motorbike 14.7
|> HGV 4.8
|> LGV 3.7
|> Car 3.6
|> Bicycle 0.9
|>
|> times more likely to end in a pedestrian fatality than the equivalent
|> trip by bike. Blimey, I wouldnt call that:
|>
|> > suprisingly non-significant.
|>
|> Can this be right? It seems surprisingly high to me (or do I just have
|> my head in the sand). Anyone any more info?
Surprisingly HIGH? Yes, your head is definitely in the sand, unless
you meant LOW! However, the reason is as follows:
The majority of car miles are spent on motorways and other roads
from which pedestrians are excluded or extremely rare. Many London
roads fall into this category, incidentally.
The majority of pedestrian fatalities are within built-up areas,
and I believe on 'side roads'. And the majority of cycling is done
there, too.
So, the relative lethality of the vehicles is probably more like 20:1,
when given the correct weighting (vehicle-pedestrian interactions).
I am surprised that it is that low.
James D Annan
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk () wrote:
>Tony Raven (tony_...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>
>: The statistics published in the CTC October/November 1996 magazine and
>: taken from "Road Accidents Great Britain" published by the DoT are:
>
>
>: Bus/coach 16.3
>: Motorbike 14.7
>: HGV 4.8
>: LGV 3.7
>: Car 3.6
>: Bicycle 0.9
>
>: bicycles (57) but the total car kilometers is 50 times that for bikes.
>: Either way the numbers for bicycles are suprisingly non-significant.
>
>
>which is nearly 4 times the number of all people killed on the
>roads each year, in recent years.
The figures are a total over 10 years, and so are entirely
credible.
Of course, the reason why the discrepancy between car and bike
risk factors is so surprisingly small, is that many of the car
miles are on motorways and other roads where no/few pedestrians
are present. Also, a lot more children ride bikes than drive cars
and the danger they pose is presumably much greater (since they
are't allowed to drive cars!). So the comparative danger posed
by a adult riding a bike on a particular route and driving the
same route would show a much larger difference, if anyone would
/could produce relevant figures.
Daniel Johnson
Graham O'Hanlon wrote:
>
> Tony Raven wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> Number of Pedestrians killed per million vehicle-kilometers is:
>
> Bus/coach 16.3
> Motorbike 14.7
> HGV 4.8
> LGV 3.7
> Car 3.6
> Bicycle 0.9
>
> times more likely to end in a pedestrian fatality than the equivalent
> trip by bike. Blimey, I wouldnt call that:
>
> > suprisingly non-significant.
>
> Can this be right? It seems surprisingly high to me (or do I just have
> my head in the sand). Anyone any more info?
>
The figures are surely distorted by the fact that a large proportion of
car km are covered on motorways, which are notably (generally) devoid of
pedestrians. So this means that you cannot really compare the figures. A
more interesting study would be to compare urban casualty statistics for
car-pedestrian and bike-pedestrian collisions.
Just my 2p worth
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Johnson
James D Annan
nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>|> I have also never
>|> heard of car drivers being prosecuted for merely driving well below
>|> the legal limit (although I saw you wrote earlier that you have).
>
>No, I didn't. You have since added the word "merely", which completely
>changes the meaning.
I've gone back and looked it up, and I actually wrote
"Have you _EVER_ heard of a car driver being stopped and
charged with dangerous driving for travelling at 25mph in a 30mph
zone?"
to which you replied
"Yes, I have."
I don't agree that `merely' makes a big change to the meaning. If you
thought I meant
"Have you _EVER_ heard of a car driver being stopped and
charged with dangerous driving _while_ travelling at 25mph in a 30mph
zone?" ^^^^^^^
then of course there is a difference. But it's not what I said or meant.
Nick Maclaren
In article <342b9...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>, James D Annan <jd...@see.signature.for.address> writes:
|> nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
|>
|> >|> I have also never
|> >|> heard of car drivers being prosecuted for merely driving well below
|> >|> the legal limit (although I saw you wrote earlier that you have).
|> >
|> >No, I didn't. You have since added the word "merely", which completely
|> >changes the meaning.
|>
|> I've gone back and looked it up, and I actually wrote
|>
|> "Have you _EVER_ heard of a car driver being stopped and
|> charged with dangerous driving for travelling at 25mph in a 30mph
|> zone?"
|>
|> to which you replied
|>
|> "Yes, I have."
|>
|> I don't agree that `merely' makes a big change to the meaning. If you
|> thought I meant
|>
|> "Have you _EVER_ heard of a car driver being stopped and
|> charged with dangerous driving _while_ travelling at 25mph in a 30mph
|> zone?" ^^^^^^^
|>
|> then of course there is a difference. But it's not what I said or meant.
One of the cases that I was thinking of was when there were some road
works that produced a narrow lane with people working immediately
adjacent to it. A driver shot through at c. 25 and was stopped. He
tried to defend himself on the grounds that he was (a) within the
speed limit and (b) concentrating on driving. He lost, on the sole
grounds that 25 MPH was an excessive speed for the conditions.
I will unhappily admit that such cases are extremely rare, but they
have occurred.
Graham O'Hanlon
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> |>
> |> Can this be right? It seems surprisingly high to me (or do I just have
> |> my head in the sand). Anyone any more info?
>
> Surprisingly HIGH? Yes, your head is definitely in the sand, unless
> you meant LOW! However, the reason is as follows:
I did mean high, but wrt the cyclist. I would have expected to be
seriously lower than for the car.
Graham O'Hanlon
email:- gora19 at UDCF dot gla dot ac dot uk
adapt and survive!
Robert J Draper
Rhys Williams wrote:
> The cyclist himself made the point that the police could have been
> doing something more useful, like arresting speeding boyracers.
>
> Rhys
What, go after horrible, scruffy, abusive kids (who will winge to a
social worker and get sent on a safari holiday) when they can wait
till the end of a shift and grab a reasonably sane cyclist, forcing
themselves into overtime? The police aren't stupid you know!
Seriously though, it seems that cyclists are treated as traffic when
it suits them (ie. must stop at junctions, not cycle in pedestrian
areas, etc.) and as something else when it doesn't suit them such as
in this case. Put more Police on bikes and we would soon see the law
leaning in favour of the cyclist.
Rob Draper
James D Annan
nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>Well, I can assure you that it is. Cars are permitted to use it at
>night, but they do NOT remove the obstructions - and they are the
>semi-pedestrianisation.
Ah, I think I've just misunderstood your meaning. If cars are allowed,
then a route isn't pedestrianised, is it? Semi-pedestrianised seems
a strange idea - do you just mean that the road is narrowed, or is
there something else about it?
>|> I have also never
>|> heard of car drivers being prosecuted for merely driving well below
>|> the legal limit (although I saw you wrote earlier that you have).
>
>No, I didn't. You have since added the word "merely", which completely
>changes the meaning.
I'd be interested to hear of the circumstances in which a car driver
was arrested while driving comfortably below the speed limit, not
causing any accident or injury and not generating any significant
risk of accident or injury. If you think the cyclist is responsible
for the safety of pedestrians who might happen to jump out in front
of him, then presumably you think the same about car drivers - in
which case what speed do you think would be safe for any ordinary
urban road with a pavement beside it?
Nick Maclaren
In article <342b8...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>, James D Annan <jd...@see.signature.for.address> writes:
|> nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
|>
|> >Well, I can assure you that it is. Cars are permitted to use it at
|> >night, but they do NOT remove the obstructions - and they are the
|> >semi-pedestrianisation.
|>
|> Ah, I think I've just misunderstood your meaning. If cars are allowed,
|> then a route isn't pedestrianised, is it? Semi-pedestrianised seems
|> a strange idea - do you just mean that the road is narrowed, or is
|> there something else about it?
The road is narrowed, surrounded by obstacles, and forbidden to
cyclists. It is not, however, forbidden to all motor vehicles,
and there are enough to prevent pedestrians walking safely anywhere
except on the pavement. So what would you call it?
Yes, yes, I know - a disaster :-( But I think that the term
semi-pedestrianised is a close as anything.
Richard Stamper
In article <01bcc9f7$d132be40$faf0...@jq43.dial.pipex.com> "Tony Raven"
<tony_...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> The statistics published in the CTC October/November 1996 magazine and
> taken from "Road Accidents Great Britain" published by the DoT are:
>
>
> Bus/coach 16.3
> Motorbike 14.7
> HGV 4.8
> LGV 3.7
> Car 3.6
> Bicycle 0.9
>
> bicycles (57) but the total car kilometers is 50 times that for bikes.
> Either way the numbers for bicycles are suprisingly non-significant.
>
The figures for cars (and other motor vehicles) are misleading because
something like 50% of vehicle-kilometres (although a much smaller percentage
of journeys) are driven on motorways where there are no pedestrians. Another
large chunk of driven kilometers will be accounted for by major trunk roads,
where there are also very few pedestrians.
The vehicle-kilometres that count, as far as pedestrian safety is concerned,
are those in towns and villages. The ideal would be to weight the
vehicle-kilometres by pedestrian density - thus 100 km of motorway would count
for nothing, since pedestrian density is 0, whereas 100 km in busy shopping
streets would count for a lot. A good first approximation would be to ignore
motorway-kilometres, so roughly doubling the risk from motor-vehicles without
changing the risk from bicycles.
--
Richard Stamper
--
WDC C1 for Solar Terrestrial Physics Email : R.St...@rl.ac.uk
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Tel : +44 1235 446602
Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, UK. Fax : +44 1235 445848
Peter Bennett
Jeremy <Jer...@elmc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Does anyone have any more details ?
>Well, I was told by a fellow member of the Cambridge CTC that this guy
>was riding down Sidney Street at about 11pm, which is a semi-
>pedestrianised narrow road in the city centre.
What is a semi-pedestrianised road? Either a road is open to non-
pedestrian traffic or it isn't. Do you mean that the road was
pedestrianised at some times of the day, and not pedestrianised at
others? I don't know the details of this case, but could it be that
there was some ambiguity in the indications of the status of this
road? There are a few streets in city centres which are like this
these days. These streets are quite dangerous, and so one should
(1) be very careful when cycling on them; (2) castigate our friends :)
in the highways departments for bringing them into existence.
Could one, in this case, put any blame on the highways dept.?
Peter Bennett
p...@pavilion.co.uk
http://www.pavilion.co.uk/users/pjb/welcome.htm
The opinions expressed here are mine and belong to me and
do not belong to anyone else.
All property is theft.
John Buckley
Tim Williams wrote:
> >
> >I seriously doubt his ability to ride fixed, yet alone attack the hour
Typical cyclist. Do those who try down.
People have to start somewhere and have ambitions.
they may not be reallistic IYHO. Give the lad a chance.
Boardman was once a trier.
John Buckley
Hgrps wrote:
>
> In article <608j9d$p...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>, m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk () writes:
> >
> >Funny how they can always organise the cavalry for this sort of
> >nonsense, and yet are always moaning about being undermanned.
> >
True. Security and police always seem to target the easy groups.
My two daughters, aged two and four were apprehended in a hypermarket
for wearing cycling helmets whilst we were on tour. Apparently it is a
security risk. they could have been armed robbers.
John Buckley
Garry Lee
In 1995 28 cyclists were killed in the Irish Republic. Of these, 4 were
killed due to collisions with pedestrians. None killed by collisions with
other cyclists, as far as I know.
Alex Heney
On 26 Sep 1997 09:13:52 GMT, nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
<snip>
> The majority of car miles are spent on motorways and other roads
>from which pedestrians are excluded or extremely rare. Many London
>roads fall into this category, incidentally.
>
> The majority of pedestrian fatalities are within built-up areas,
>and I believe on 'side roads'. And the majority of cycling is done
>there, too.
>
>So, the relative lethality of the vehicles is probably more like 20:1,
>when given the correct weighting (vehicle-pedestrian interactions).
>I am surprised that it is that low.
>
>
I'm not really surprised that it is so low, because once you have
similar conditions, the pedestrian is more likley to SEE a car, and
then avoid placing themselves in its path. Therefore, for x Km
travelled on minor urban roads, there are probably MORE accidents
involving bikes and pedestrians than there are involving cars and
pedestrians (even though the better maneuverability of the bike will
tend to offset this a little).
Once an accident occurs, at any given speed, the bike is actually
likely to do more damage, due to the extra sticky-out bits (although
even in that type of area, average car speeds are higher than average
bike speeds).
--
Alex Heney, global villager
Please remove NO and SPAM from above
address if replying by email.
David Swarbrick
In article <60flpn$g...@kew.globalnet.co.uk>, evans-the-swim <pevans@glob
alnet.co.uk.removethispart> writes
>I heard the interview with the cyclist who was fined and he seemed to
>me to be clueless. He didn't appear at the court where he was
>convicted! How stupid can you be? Now he says he's going to try to
>have it appealed. Hunh.
fined for doing 25mph. He was convicted for riding furiously.
Still as you say if he didn't turn up he must have agreed with tbe
police
>
--
David Swarbrick
Alex Farran
a.j....@btNOinterSPAMnet.com (Alex Heney) wrote:
>I'm not really surprised that it is so low, because once you have
>similar conditions, the pedestrian is more likley to SEE a car, and
>then avoid placing themselves in its path. Therefore, for x Km
>travelled on minor urban roads, there are probably MORE accidents
>involving bikes and pedestrians than there are involving cars and
>pedestrians (even though the better maneuverability of the bike will
>tend to offset this a little).
This is all theory and is completely unsupported by the facts just
posted. We are looking at pedestrian deaths per kilometre. Bike
kilometres are nearly all on urban roads and never on motorways. Car
kilometres are made up of a large percentage of major roads and
motorways. There are very few pedestrians on major roads and
motorways and even fewer pedestrian fatalities.
So, if we exclude motorways and major roads from the calculation:
The total distance travelled by car is dramatically reduced.
The total distance travelled by bike is much the same.
The total number of pedestrian fatalities caused by cars is much the
same.
The total number of pedestrian fatalities caused by bikes is much the
same.
This means that the pedestrian fatalities per kilometre caused by cars
goes up, while the pedestrian fatalities per kilometre caused by bikes
stays the same.
>Once an accident occurs, at any given speed, the bike is actually
>likely to do more damage, due to the extra sticky-out bits (although
>even in that type of area, average car speeds are higher than average
>bike speeds).
Well I'd rather be hit by a nice light bicycle than a heavy car, no
matter how many "sticky-out bits" it has. Think about it, all things
being equal would you rather someone hit you with a hollow aluminium
tube or a solid iron bar?
Alex
Alex Heney
>a.j....@btNOinterSPAMnet.com (Alex Heney) wrote:
>
>>I'm not really surprised that it is so low, because once you have
>>similar conditions, the pedestrian is more likley to SEE a car, and
>>then avoid placing themselves in its path. Therefore, for x Km
>>travelled on minor urban roads, there are probably MORE accidents
>>involving bikes and pedestrians than there are involving cars and
>>pedestrians (even though the better maneuverability of the bike will
>>tend to offset this a little).
>
>This is all theory and is completely unsupported by the facts just
>posted. We are looking at pedestrian deaths per kilometre. Bike
>kilometres are nearly all on urban roads and never on motorways. Car
>kilometres are made up of a large percentage of major roads and
>motorways. There are very few pedestrians on major roads and
>motorways and even fewer pedestrian fatalities.
>
<snip>
You are just repeating what was in the post I was responding to (and
several others). I also completely agree with what you said (including
what I snipped). It does not affect the validity of what I posted.
>
>>Once an accident occurs, at any given speed, the bike is actually
>>likely to do more damage, due to the extra sticky-out bits (although
>>even in that type of area, average car speeds are higher than average
>>bike speeds).
>
>Well I'd rather be hit by a nice light bicycle than a heavy car, no
>matter how many "sticky-out bits" it has. Think about it, all things
>being equal would you rather someone hit you with a hollow aluminium
>tube or a solid iron bar?
Remember I said "at any given speed". I know that if hit by a car you
are (overall) more likely to be hurt than if hit by a bike. But this
is due to the fact that average speed of cars (even in the places
where they hit pedestrians most often) is higher than bikes.
I still think that if an adult who is upright is hit by a bike at
20mph, they are more likely to be seriously injured than if hit by a
car at 20mph. Simply because you are not likely to get any part of the
car sticking into you.
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk
John Buckley (gui...@pitkin.u-net.com) wrote:
: Tim Williams wrote:
Possibly our "furious" cyclist is an ass of the first water,
but it is also possible that he is an eccentric individualist.
I would like to think there is room for such people in the
society I live in.
After all, Obree was not exactly a dull conformist.
There is too much pressure to conform these days.
After what we've heard about some of the elitist attitudes
of certain bike clubs, to be rejected by a bike club does
not necessarily prove an awful lot.
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk
Tim Forcer (t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk) wrote:: >>The statistics published in the CTC October/November 1996 magazine and
: >>taken from "Road Accidents Great Britain" published by the DoT are:
: >
: >>Number of Pedestrians killed per million vehicle-kilometers is:
: >
: >>Bus/coach 16.3
: >>Motorbike 14.7
: >>HGV 4.8
: >>LGV 3.7
: >>Car 3.6
: >>Bicycle 0.9
: >
: >>The total number of pedestrians killed by cars is 200 times
: >>that killed by bicycles (57) but the total car kilometers is
: >>50 times that for bikes. Either way the numbers for bicycles
: >>are suprisingly non-significant.
: >Over what time period is this, I wonder? ...big cut...
: >
: >Since I find it hard to believe that the number of peds killed
: >by bikes each year anything like approaches double figuers... cut...
: >
: >Thanks for posting these figures Tony, even though I for one
: >find them puzzling, and wonder what exactly they do show.
: >Useful to have the references, also.
: I agree that it's good to have the figures. Mike sounds as if he has
: some opinions which the figures tend to contradict, so wants to
: undermine them in various ways.
I'm not quite sure how to take that. It's just that I have never
ever heard of an individual cyclist-induced pedestrian death being
reported directly, and if they are as common as the statistics
posted here would seem to suggest, then I think I would have heard
of at least one case personally. I know of one or two cases of
cyclist-involved pedestrian injury; quite minor ones, as it happens.
Until recently, I had never even seen any statistics on the subject.
Now I hear that some exist, I want to know more about them.
: involve pedestrian deaths, and there seems little point trying to claim
: that cycling is a fatality-free mode of transport. Sure, one can argue
I don't disagree with this.
: As to the idea that death is out of the question because a cyclist and
: bike have vastly less energy and momentum than a car, consider that
: deaths occur on sports fields, with just the energy involved in one
: human being crashing into another at speeds below 25mph.
Nor this, and of course, if the person hit is a frail, old person,
death or an injury which to them will be quite serious is not
so unlikely.
Car=Problem, Bike=Solution
Alex Farran
a.j....@btNOinterSPAMnet.com (Alex Heney) wrote:
>You are just repeating what was in the post I was responding to (and
>several others). I also completely agree with what you said (including
>what I snipped). It does not affect the validity of what I posted.
Remember we are talking about actual deaths, not simply accidents.
The case for pedestrian deaths is pretty clear: Cars are much more
dangerous than bikes. For other degrees of injury I have no idea.
There are many factors involved, some of which you have mentioned, and
I have no statistics.
>Remember I said "at any given speed". I know that if hit by a car you
>are (overall) more likely to be hurt than if hit by a bike. But this
>is due to the fact that average speed of cars (even in the places
>where they hit pedestrians most often) is higher than bikes.
Speed is not the only factor. The kinetic energy (.5mv^2) of a car
travelling at 20mph is very much greater than the KE of a bike at
20mph. That KE is absorbed by the pedestrian. This is what I was
trying to illustrate with my comparison of the bar and the tube. Of
course, projections from the vehicle and any other aspects of it's
shape do have some effect on the outcome, but I think that this is
minor compared to the effect of the total energy involved.
Alex
James D Annan
a.j....@btNOinterSPAMnet.com (Alex Heney) wrote:
I think this is ridiculous.
When a cyclist hits a pedestrian, the major forces (such as they are)
are almost certainly going to be between two human bodies, both
of which are fairly soft and both of which absorb the energy of
the impact roughly equally. Anecdotally, the three cyclist-ped
collisions I know of directly took the form of a cyclist going
literally head-first into the ped (in each case, the ped was
a tourist who stepped out looking the wrong way).
When a car hits a pedestrian, it's a solid object with a lot of
mass (momentum) hitting a soft one. Guess which one absorbs the
energy this time! (and don't start on about crumple zones, they
are designed to crumple on car-car impact not car-ped impact).
Paul Rudin
>>>>> "Alex" == Alex Heney <a.j....@btNOinterSPAMnet.com> writes:
Alex> I still think that if an adult who is upright is hit by a
Alex> bike at 20mph, they are more likely to be seriously injured
Alex> than if hit by a car at 20mph. Simply because you are not
Alex> likely to get any part of the car sticking into you.
I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it :-)
Chris McSweeny
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk wrote:
I'm not sure what bike clubs you're referring to. The vast majority of
bike clubs are happy to welcome pretty much anybody - while admittedly
most are racing oriented. What they don't want is people on their rides
who are not only a danger to themselves, but also a danger to all the
other perfectly well behaved cyclists. Generally a club will even try to
educate these - it's just those who refuse to be educated who are
rejected. Do you actually happen to belong to a bike club, and have you
tried to join one?
Regarding our mad cyclist's ambitions - it's a well known coaching point
that you have to have achievable goals. I very much doubt that somebody
who's only known of as being a dangerous rider (rather than somebody
capable of winning British time trials) would be capable of even making
a realistic attempt at Boardman's hour record within the next five years
(remember he said he was training to do this). After all Boardman may
have started out rather further down the scale than he is now, but he
did win junior events, and was a prodigious winner of UK time trials as
long as seven or eight years ago. He even won an Olympic gold medal five
years ago (remember that?)
Chris McSweeny
cpmcs...@dera.gov.uk
James D Annan
Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> wrote:
>OK, here's personal experience of a different cyclist-pedestrian impact:
>Point of impact was my brake lever into his chest. Direct consequence
>was front wheel tried to turn, couldn't (his legs in way), coupled with
>abrupt front-end decelleration, buckled front wheel, twisted bars re
>forks, toppled me off bike onto road with usual grazing, etc etc.
>Pedestrian was well padded with clothes and excess body tissue, had
>minor bruising. Any human/human contact was very much secondary. Speed
>at impact probably around 10mph.
>
>Do you still say it is ridiculous to suggest that pedestrians can be
>injured by the sticking-out bits of a bike?
Not only do I not still say it is ridiculous to say such a thing, I
never said it in the first place (I think). What I did say is that
the prospects of serious injury are much lower with a bike-ped
crash than car-ped.
If you had been going much faster, you would have continued in the
direction of travel and made human/human contact. You would find it
fairly hard to hurt someone with the `sharp' bits of a bike since
the momentum behind these parts is only significant when there is
a cyclist pushing behind them. As soon as you slip forwards off the
saddle, put your hands out or hit them with your head/shoulder,
there's no force behind the `pointy bit'.
Of course there's always the _possibility_ of an unfortunate
serious injury (something in the ped's eye, for example). But
that doesn't make it more likely than for a same-speed car-ped
crash, which was what the originally poster asserted (and what
I said was ridiculous).
Tim Forcer
James D Annan wrote:
>
>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>>I still think that if an adult who is upright is hit by a bike at
>>20mph, they are more likely to be seriously injured than if hit by a
>>car at 20mph. Simply because you are not likely to get any part of the
>>car sticking into you.
>
>
>When a cyclist hits a pedestrian, the major forces (such as they are)
>are almost certainly going to be between two human bodies, both
>of which are fairly soft and both of which absorb the energy of
>the impact roughly equally. Anecdotally, the three cyclist-ped
>collisions I know of directly took the form of a cyclist going
>literally head-first into the ped (in each case, the ped was
>a tourist who stepped out looking the wrong way).
OK, here's personal experience of a different cyclist-pedestrian impact:
Point of impact was my brake lever into his chest. Direct consequence
was front wheel tried to turn, couldn't (his legs in way), coupled with
abrupt front-end decelleration, buckled front wheel, twisted bars re
forks, toppled me off bike onto road with usual grazing, etc etc.
Pedestrian was well padded with clothes and excess body tissue, had
minor bruising. Any human/human contact was very much secondary. Speed
at impact probably around 10mph.
Do you still say it is ridiculous to suggest that pedestrians can be
injured by the sticking-out bits of a bike?
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
James D Annan
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk () wrote:
> It's just that I have never
>ever heard of an individual cyclist-induced pedestrian death being
>reported directly, and if they are as common as the statistics
>posted here would seem to suggest, then I think I would have heard
>of at least one case personally. I know of one or two cases of
>cyclist-involved pedestrian injury; quite minor ones, as it happens.
>
>Until recently, I had never even seen any statistics on the subject.
>Now I hear that some exist, I want to know more about them.
Well, I heard of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist a few months ago
somewhere in this area (Merseyside). At approx 6 per year (the figures
quoted were a total over 10 years) you wouldn't expect to hear many
(I doubt they are considered nationally newsworthy).
I've already mentioned that the figures don't suggest who is to blame
in each incident (in the one I remember, I think it was an old lady
killed by a cyclist on the pavement).
James D Annan
Chris McSweeny <cpmcs...@dra.hmg.gb> wrote:
>
>I'm not sure what bike clubs you're referring to. The vast majority of
>bike clubs are happy to welcome pretty much anybody - while admittedly
>most are racing oriented. What they don't want is people on their rides
>who are not only a danger to themselves, but also a danger to all the
>other perfectly well behaved cyclists. Generally a club will even try to
>educate these - it's just those who refuse to be educated who are
>rejected. Do you actually happen to belong to a bike club, and have you
>tried to join one?
Of course you are right, but I think it's unfair to judge a solo
cyclist by the standards required for fast group riding (sort-of
implied by a previous poster IIRC). This is a much higher standard
(at least in principle) than that required for perfectly adequate
safety on the roads.
Tim Forcer
Paul Rudin wrote:
>
>Alex Heney writes:
>
>>I still think that if an adult who is upright is hit by a
>>bike at 20mph, they are more likely to be seriously injured
>>than if hit by a car at 20mph. Simply because you are not
>>likely to get any part of the car sticking into you.
>
Who was it said "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."?
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk
Chris McSweeny (cpmcs...@dra.hmg.gb) wrote:
: I'm not sure what bike clubs you're referring to. The vast majority of
: bike clubs are happy to welcome pretty much anybody - while admittedly
: most are racing oriented. What they don't want is people on their rides
: who are not only a danger to themselves, but also a danger to all the
: other perfectly well behaved cyclists. Generally a club will even try to
: educate these - it's just those who refuse to be educated who are
: rejected. Do you actually happen to belong to a bike club, and have you
: tried to join one?
No. I was merely referring to some bad experiences of some clubs'
attitudes that I have read, either as postings here, or possibly
in urbancyclist-uk.
: long as seven or eight years ago. He even won an Olympic gold medal five
: years ago (remember that?)
Yes. To be honest, I can't imagine anyone getting too far with this kind
of thing without the encouragement that a good club, I would hope,
would offer.
Tim Williams
In article <342BCA...@pitkin.u-net.com>, John Buckley <gui...@pitkin.u-net.com> wrote:
>Tim Williams wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I seriously doubt his ability to ride fixed, yet alone attack the hour
>
..and Tim Williams says "No I didn't. Count those '>'s"
..but I must admit that, based on all the evidence that I have so far heard,
it is the opinion that I am coming to.
>Typical cyclist. Do those who try down.
I might as well refute this while I'm at it too. :-)
Tim.
Ben Sales
As far as I understood you can't be prosecuted for speeding on a bike
unless you have a means of measuring your speed, so simply take the
battery out of your computer and hit the 30 zone at 40 :-))
Ben
Tim Forcer
James D Annan wrote:
>...
>Tim Forcer wrote:
>
>>...
>>Do you still say it is ridiculous to suggest that pedestrians can be
>>injured by the sticking-out bits of a bike?
>
>never said it in the first place (I think). What I did say is that
>the prospects of serious injury are much lower with a bike-ped
>crash than car-ped.
You are absolutely correct and I apologise. A case of riting furiously
or engaging write-before-read mode.
I agree that it is more likely that a car at 25mph will cause serious
injury than a bike/rider ditto, but I don't agree that the relative
probabilities are vastly different. Without wanting to prolong this
thread unduly, consider simple head-on impact at 25mph. A car will
probably break a leg or wreck the knee, but the force of impact of head
onto car bonnet probably won't be serious (relatively speaking). With a
bike, the initial impact probably won't cause anything nearly as serious
as the car's leg damage, BUT the pedestrian will be knocked onto the
ground, and the major energies of impact will be deployed then, rather
than on initial contact. Thus I suspect any head injuries in the two
scenarios would be more serious for bike/ped rather than car/ped FOR
THIS SPECIFIC impact. As regards my original suggestion that
sticking-out bits can be very dangerous, I wonder if there are any
figures for spleens ruptured during bike/anything accidents?
What is totally unarguable is that a car driver will normally have
negligeable or no injuries if the vehicle hits a pedestrian, whereas a
bike rider can expect to have injuries of similar severity to the
peds'. Maybe the casualty figures include cyclists killed in
bike/pedestrian incidents?
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Department of Electronics & Computer Science
Paul Rudin
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> writes:
Tim> I agree that it is more likely that a car at 25mph will cause
Tim> serious injury than a bike/rider ditto, but I don't agree
Tim> that the relative probabilities are vastly different.
This is just not sensible (sorry), if a ped is hit by a car at 25mph
there must be a significant chance of death and a high chance that
they'll be seriously injured. If a bike hits you at 25mph the energy
involved is much less due to the much lower mass of the bike. The
chances of being killed must be extremely small.
Of course, the chance of the car driver being seriously injured is
very small, unlike the cyclist....
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk
Tim Forcer (t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk) wrote:
: peds'. Maybe the casualty figures include cyclists killed in
: bike/pedestrian incidents?
I think you may be on to something there, which is one reason why
I would like to know more about how these stats are gathered, and
the details of some cases.
Tim Forcer
Paul Rudin wrote:
>
>Tim Forcer writes:
>
>>I agree that it is more likely that a car at 25mph will cause
>
>This is just not sensible (sorry), if a ped is hit by a car at 25mph
>there must be a significant chance of death and a high chance that
>they'll be seriously injured. If a bike hits you at 25mph the energy
>involved is much less due to the much lower mass of the bike. The
>chances of being killed must be extremely small.
It IS sensible. Read the post to which you responded. A ped hit
head-on by a car is impacted on the legs. The head and upper body fold
over and/or fall towards the car bonnet. Impact speed of head on bonnet
is relatively low, and the bonnet has some "give" in it - certainly more
than enough to avoid serious head injuries with the initial impact at
25mph. Later in the accident, the victim will fall/roll off the bonnet
onto the ground, at which point severe head injuries are possible. In a
bike/ped incident, the impact is much higher up the body, and the head
will be thrown towards the ground, with nothing in between, giving
significant possibility of serious head injury. (Note that in the Tour
de France gendarme incident already quoted by some in this thread the
victim was trying to get out of the way at the very last moment, and
virtually all the impact energy was taken by his leg/lower body.)
In other impact scenarios, such as glancing blow, the car is capable of
imparting significant energy to the victim without the injury-reduction
factor of a bonnet landing. That would probably produce a head/ground
impact harder than in the head-on bike/ped collision, and I'm not
claiming that a car will always cause less injury, just that there are
situations where this will be the case. There is no such thing as a
"standard" collision, and I still see nothing suspicious in figures
showing fatalities resulting from cyclist/pedestrian accidents.
Final thought - are "road-rage" incidents included where
cyclists/drivers have a go at idiot pedestrians strolling around the
road or doing other stupid things? Shouldn't happen, but human nature
being what it is...
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Paul Rudin
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> writes:
Tim> Paul Rudin wrote:
>> Tim Forcer writes:
>>
>>> I agree that it is more likely that a car at 25mph will cause
>>> serious injury than a bike/rider ditto, but I don't agree that
>>> the relative probabilities are vastly different.
>> This is just not sensible (sorry), if a ped is hit by a car at
>> 25mph there must be a significant chance of death and a high
>> chance that they'll be seriously injured. If a bike hits you at
>> 25mph the energy involved is much less due to the much lower mass
>> of the bike. The chances of being killed must be extremely small.
Tim> It IS sensible. Read the post to which you responded.
I did, I wasn't convinced. The trouble with this kind of debate is
that its near impossible to prove anything. The most useful thing to
do would be to look at statstically significant number of cases of the
two types of accident. I'd bet that you'd have hard time of finding
enough instances of bikes hitting peds to be meaningful in this sense.
The next best thing would be to do some testing of the kind that car
companies do with dummies (the inanimate kind as in the volvo ads) and
so on. I bet there are pretty comprehensive analyses of the likely
injuries sustained by pedestrains hit by cars at various speeds. But I
doubt that this kind of thing has been done in anger for bike/ped
collisions.
David Hansen
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:15:55 +0100, Tim Forcer
<t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> wrote:
>What is totally unarguable is that a car driver will normally have
>negligeable or no injuries if the vehicle hits a pedestrian, whereas a
>bike rider can expect to have injuries of similar severity to the
>peds'. Maybe the casualty figures include cyclists killed in
>bike/pedestrian incidents?
In round terms 3 cyclists are killed a year by pedestrians and 3
pedestrians a year are killed by cyclists.
What is very interesting is that the road lobby have managed to get
some pedestrians and pedestrian groups the become highly agitated by
those three dead pedestrians, while not being so agitated by the
hundreds of pedestrians killed by the drivers of motorised vehicles. I
take my hat off to the road lobby for their Mandelsonian skills.
David Hansen | david...@NO.spidacom.co.SPAMuk | PGP email preferred
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | key number 6AC0AC7D
Due to the amount of spam now killing e-mail I have modified my address
to reply remove SEND NO SPAM.
Tony Raven
The figures were quoted as pedestrian deaths per million vehicle
kilometers. I think it is fair to assume therefore that it does not
include the cyclist unless he was on foot and pushing his bike at the time.
As for the car versus bike impact I would think it fair to assume that a)
the average speed of a car on pedestrian impact is likely to be higher than
that of a cycle, b) something is killing those pedestrians in the bike
accidents despite all the arguements here that it isn't possible at the
same speed let alone slower speeds than cars and c) if bikes are so much
less likely to cause a pedestrian death in a collision there must be a hell
of a lot more bike-pedestrian accidents than car-pedestrian accidents per
vehicle kilometer to bring the actual death stats so close.
Tony Raven
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk wrote in article <60qmkr$r...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>...
> Tim Forcer (t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk) wrote:
>
> : peds'. Maybe the casualty figures include cyclists killed in
> : bike/pedestrian incidents?
>
James D Annan
"Tony Raven" <tony_...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>As for the car versus bike impact I would think it fair to assume that a)
>the average speed of a car on pedestrian impact is likely to be higher than
>that of a cycle, b) something is killing those pedestrians in the bike
>accidents despite all the arguements here that it isn't possible at the
>same speed let alone slower speeds than cars and
I haven't seen anyone argue such a thing, but there's been a lot of
discussion over whether a bike can be as dangerous as a car at the same
speed.
> c) if bikes are so much
>less likely to cause a pedestrian death in a collision there must be a hell
>of a lot more bike-pedestrian accidents than car-pedestrian accidents per
>vehicle kilometer to bring the actual death stats so close.
And this would be hardly surprising, given that a large proportion of
car miles are on roads where pedestrians are extremely scarce, whereas
a large proportion of bike miles are on urban streets, `shared-use paths',
which could often be more accurately described as `shared, useless paths',
or car-free areas where conflict is hard to avoid.
James D Annan
Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> wrote:
>I agree that it is more likely that a car at 25mph will cause serious
>injury than a bike/rider ditto, but I don't agree that the relative
>probabilities are vastly different. Without wanting to prolong this
>thread unduly, consider simple head-on impact at 25mph. A car will
>probably break a leg or wreck the knee, but the force of impact of head
>onto car bonnet probably won't be serious (relatively speaking). With a
>bike, the initial impact probably won't cause anything nearly as serious
>as the car's leg damage, BUT the pedestrian will be knocked onto the
>ground, and the major energies of impact will be deployed then, rather
>than on initial contact. Thus I suspect any head injuries in the two
>scenarios would be more serious for bike/ped rather than car/ped FOR
>THIS SPECIFIC impact. As regards my original suggestion that
>sticking-out bits can be very dangerous, I wonder if there are any
>figures for spleens ruptured during bike/anything accidents?
While I take your point about not unduly prolonging the thread,
consider the oft-quoted statistic (from DoT?) that at 20mph car
speed, `only' 10% of children are killed. That's still a lot
of dead people! If the danger of a bike hitting a ped is similar
(note 25mph is worse than 20mph!) then this would indicate that
there are only about 50-60 bike-ped crashes at this speed per year.
This sounds unreasonably low to me, given that my wife and I have
both individually been involved in such incidents...
I think your description of a 25mph car hitting a ped is very optimistic.
25mph is a very high sprinting speed. Imagine running into a brick
wall.
>
>What is totally unarguable is that a car driver will normally have
>negligeable or no injuries if the vehicle hits a pedestrian, whereas a
>bike rider can expect to have injuries of similar severity to the
>peds'. Maybe the casualty figures include cyclists killed in
>bike/pedestrian incidents?
No, the casualty figures quoted were pedestrian victims only.
For what it's worth, someone posted elsewhere that only one
of the ped deaths (out of 4 that year) was on the pavement,
of course the others might have been caused either by cyclists
going through ped crossings or from peds stepping out sharply
without looking.
Geoff Valenti
In article <34321...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>, James D Annan
<jd...@see.signature.for.address> writes
>there are only about 50-60 bike-ped crashes at this speed per year.
>
>This sounds unreasonably low to me, given that my wife and I have
>both individually been involved in such incidents...
>
>
So what are the pair of you, careless cyclists or habitual jaywalkers.
:-)
--
Geoff Valenti
James D Annan
Geoff Valenti <Ge...@jazzland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>This sounds unreasonably low to me, given that my wife and I have
>>both individually been involved in such incidents...
>>
>>James
>>
>
>So what are the pair of you, careless cyclists or habitual jaywalkers.
Um, occasionally both (though not simultaneously). However when the incidents
occurred, we were students in university towns with a large foreign
contingent...it's not easy to avoid a ped who walks smartly out into the
street looking the wrong way (or even looking the right way but failing
to notice you!).
Richard Brockie
James D Annan (jd...@see.signature.for.address) wrote:
: Um, occasionally both (though not simultaneously). However when the incidents
: occurred, we were students in university towns with a large foreign
: contingent...it's not easy to avoid a ped who walks smartly out into the
: street looking the wrong way (or even looking the right way but failing
: to notice you!).
I had a classic case of this today - I was returning home after my
early morning training ride. I was approaching a left turn and there
was a well dressed looking chap heading along the pavement at a fair
crack carrying a briefcase. Our relative speeds meant that I would be
going round the corner just as he stepped off the kerb if he failed to
look for traffic. Sure enough, he didn't hear any cars, so continued
on at his quick pace.
As he was in mid-stride off the kerb, I went over some rough tarmac
causing my chain to chatter. The chap must have jumped a good 6 inches
into the air. I found it rather amusing, but was able to stifle a
chuckle until I was out of earshot.
--
R.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Brockie B.Sc.(Hons), The tall blond one.
Adaptive Optics Chap. Email: R.Br...@roe.ac.uk
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= http://www.roe.ac.uk/rmbwww =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
R.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Brockie B.Sc.(Hons), The tall blond one.
Adaptive Optics Chap. Email: R.Br...@roe.ac.uk
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= http://www.roe.ac.uk/rmbwww =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Andreas Grothey
Richard Brockie wrote:
> I had a classic case of this today - I was returning home after my
> early morning training ride. I was approaching a left turn and there
> was a well dressed looking chap heading along the pavement at a fair
> crack carrying a briefcase. Our relative speeds meant that I would be
> going round the corner just as he stepped off the kerb if he failed to
> look for traffic. Sure enough, he didn't hear any cars, so continued
> on at his quick pace.
>
> As he was in mid-stride off the kerb, I went over some rough tarmac
> causing my chain to chatter. The chap must have jumped a good 6 inches
> into the air. I found it rather amusing, but was able to stifle a
> chuckle until I was out of earshot.
>
> --
> R.
Am I wrong with my interpretation of the Highway Code, or do even in
this country cars (and bikes!) have to give way to pedestrians crossing
sidestreets?
I think the relevant section reads something like: ..should give way to
pedestrians crossing the road they are turning into...
Okay it says 'should' not 'must', but that doesn't imply that going
round corners at 30mph is what is intended (no matter whether it's a cab
or a bike).
I'm just afraid that unless our streets are save for walking again, we
won't get many people out of their cars.
I at least will continue to force my right of way crossing sidestreets
(after looking, just in case there's one of these 'you jaywalk so I've
got the right to kill you'-motorists)
Anyone care campagning for pedestrian rights?
Hm, slightly off topic, just something that keeps annoying me...
Andreas
L.I. Endell
Andreas Grothey (a...@maths.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: Am I wrong with my interpretation of the Highway Code, or do even in
: this country cars (and bikes!) have to give way to pedestrians crossing
: sidestreets?
Quite true.
: I at least will continue to force my right of way crossing sidestreets
: (after looking, just in case there's one of these 'you jaywalk so I've
: got the right to kill you'-motorists)
I do this too.
: Anyone care campagning for pedestrian rights?
Yes, I will - alongside campaigning for cyclists' rights. Today I yelled
at 6 cyclists - 4 cycling the wrong way down one way streets and 4 cycling
in a pedestrian zone (yes, two of the ped. cyclists were also wrong way
cyclists) - one of whom had to weave between two pedestrians carrying
*white sticks*.
One day I will do bloody murder on a cyclist who thinks "But I'm only
cycling one way" is a good reason for going the wrong way...
Linz, yes I am a cyclist too...
--
Lindsay Endell li...@cam.ac.uk & li...@earthling.net
Conference Administrator, Trinity Hall, Cambridge CB2 1TJ
Do I come here often? TOGG Motto
Who would you like to be related to today?
Richard Brockie
Andreas Grothey (a...@maths.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: Am I wrong with my interpretation of the Highway Code, or do even in
: this country cars (and bikes!) have to give way to pedestrians crossing
: sidestreets?
: I think the relevant section reads something like: ..should give way to
: pedestrians crossing the road they are turning into...
: Okay it says 'should' not 'must', but that doesn't imply that going
: round corners at 30mph is what is intended (no matter whether it's a cab
: or a bike).
Of course I gave way to him! I took the corner wider than normal to
avoid him. There is the small matter of looking where you are going
when being on a road and this chap was not aware of what was going on
around him. Lucky for him I was.
Koen De Smet
Richard Brockie wrote:
>
> James D Annan (jd...@see.signature.for.address) wrote:
> : Um, occasionally both (though not simultaneously). However when the incidents
> : occurred, we were students in university towns with a large foreign
> : contingent...it's not easy to avoid a ped who walks smartly out into the
> : street looking the wrong way (or even looking the right way but failing
> : to notice you!).
>
> early morning training ride. I was approaching a left turn and there
> was a well dressed looking chap heading along the pavement at a fair
> crack carrying a briefcase. Our relative speeds meant that I would be
> going round the corner just as he stepped off the kerb if he failed to
> look for traffic. Sure enough, he didn't hear any cars, so continued
> on at his quick pace.
>
> As he was in mid-stride off the kerb, I went over some rough tarmac
> causing my chain to chatter. The chap must have jumped a good 6 inches
> into the air. I found it rather amusing, but was able to stifle a
> chuckle until I was out of earshot.
>
you have to give way to people crossing the street when you turn left? Had you hit
him, it would have been your fault.
(OK, I admit it, I also enjoy "buzzing" close to people who carelessly cross the road,
get of routmaster buses, etc.)
Koen De Smet
_______________________________________________________________
To reply by email, remove "nospam." from the above address
_______________________________________________________________
___ Imperial College School of Medicine at St Mary's ___
___ London W2 1PG ___
___ http://www.sm.ic.ac.uk/medmicro/home. ___
_______________________________________________________________
Tim Hall
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:08:55 +0100, Tim Forcer
<t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> wrote:
<Snip>
>My pet hate in this situation (well, more likely to be the road I'm on
>rather than a turning off it) is the person standing about 2 feet out
>from the kerb. They usually move (but not always) and there's no way to
>predict whether they'll move forwards or backwards.
If only one pedestrian is doing this, ride at them. They will not stay
where they are. This used to work for me when living in London 15
years ago.
Tim - only half joking.
m...@unixfe.cc.rl.ac.uk
Tim Forcer (t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk) wrote:
: My pet hate in this situation (well, more likely to be the road I'm on
: rather than a turning off it) is the person standing about 2 feet out
: from the kerb. They usually move (but not always) and there's no way to
: predict whether they'll move forwards or backwards. I once came across
: a group of three stood like this. Yes, you've guessed it, one stood
: still, one went forwards, one went back. I managed to slalom through,
: but it was a close thing. (And there was a stream of traffic passing on
: my right, which the "forwards" guy almost walked into.)
IMHO, this situation could be assisted by increasing the rights
of pedestrians wishing to cross minor road junctions, such that
they _always_ have right of way. If you see a bunch of pedestrians
either crossing, or anywhere near a point from which they could
cross such a junction, and you are tuning into or out of the
minor road, then you (vehicle, motorised, or not) always stop and
give way.
Jonathan Sanderson
James D Annan <jd...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> occurred, we were students in university towns with a large foreign
> contingent...it's not easy to avoid a ped who walks smartly out into the
> street looking the wrong way (or even looking the right way but failing
...and in the split second when you could shout a warning, you hesitate
while trying to work out which language to shout in.
Been there. :(
--
Jonathan Sanderson <jona...@quern.demon.co.uk>
Specialist Researcher, science TV <http://www.quern.demon.co.uk>
If I had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter (Pascal)
Tim Forcer
Andreas Grothey wrote:
>
> Richard Brockie wrote:
>
>> I had a classic case of this today....
>
>Am I wrong with my interpretation of the Highway Code, or do even in
>this country cars (and bikes!) have to give way to pedestrians crossing
>sidestreets?
>
>I think the relevant section reads something like: ..should give way to
>pedestrians crossing the road they are turning into...
I note you say "crossing", not "looking as if they are about to cross".
Those about to cross should give way to traffic turning into (not about
to turn into) the side road (having looked and found that there is such
traffic)?
My pet hate in this situation (well, more likely to be the road I'm on
rather than a turning off it) is the person standing about 2 feet out
from the kerb. They usually move (but not always) and there's no way to
predict whether they'll move forwards or backwards. I once came across
a group of three stood like this. Yes, you've guessed it, one stood
still, one went forwards, one went back. I managed to slalom through,
but it was a close thing. (And there was a stream of traffic passing on
my right, which the "forwards" guy almost walked into.)
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
RobH...@compuserve.com
On 1997-09-26 t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk said:
>As the recent train crash shows, just because a cause of death is
>extremely unlikely, it doesn't stop the public at large (there's a
>nice, undefined, wooly term for you) demanding that the likelihood
>become even smaller.
But, interestingly this doesn't deter people from driving well beyond the
speed limit...
Number of BSE/CJD deaths(ever): 21
Train crash deaths (annual) : 10 or so
RTAs due to speeding (annual) : 4000+ (50% of RTAs due to speeding(1))
(1) Avon&Somerset Constabulary Radio Advert, Jan 1997
Rob - feet first on three wheels.
Net-Tamer V 1.07X; Beta - Test Drive
David Reid
In outpouring of consciousness known as <3436d08c...@news.btintern
et.com>, Alex Heney <a.j....@btNOinterSPAMnet.com> spake thusly:
> Almost all Road traffic police favour
>raising most speed limits.
Is this not just because they can't enforce the current ones?
> And most insurance companies insist that
>you tell them about all traffic convictions *withe the exception of up
>to 1 speeding offence in 5 years*. This means that their statistics
>show that people convicted of speeding are no higher risk than those
>who have not been.
>
Which could mean that speeding is not dangerous or it could mean that
practically everyone does it but only a few get caught.
--
David Reid Da...@davita.demon.co.uk http://www.davita.demon.co.uk
WARNING:
This message contains sensitive electrons, do not drop, do no expose to
dust or moisture, do not expose to extremes of temperature. NO USER SERVICEABLE
PARTS INSIDE.
Hgrps
>IMHO, this situation could be assisted by increasing the rights
>of pedestrians wishing to cross minor road junctions, such that
>they _always_ have right of way. If you see a bunch of pedestrians
>either crossing, or anywhere near a point from which they could
>cross such a junction, and you are tuning into or out of the
>minor road, then you (vehicle, motorised, or not) always stop and
>give way.
>
Brilliant - and maybe we can also formalise the concept of once a ped has
started crossing any road all wheeled traffic must stop if this facilitates
the completion of the action, thus encouraging peds to keep moving
predictably forwards, and not do these instant retreats which appear to
cause most conflict with cyclists.
Dave
Dave Holladay - Engineer & Transport Consultant - 30 years exp. in
alternative transport
Builder of cyclepaths, TDM research, bikes on bus & train, folding bikes &
boats supplier
Tall Persons Club - Edinburgh Fringe Festival - Dancing(many types inc
Sc.)
Tim Forcer
RobHague wrote:
>
>Tim Forcer said:
>>As the recent train crash shows, just because a cause of death is
>>extremely unlikely, it doesn't stop the public at large (there's a
>>nice, undefined, wooly term for you) demanding that the likelihood
>>become even smaller.
>
>But, interestingly this doesn't deter people from driving well beyond the
>speed limit...
>
>Number of BSE/CJD deaths(ever): 21
>Train crash deaths (annual) : 10 or so
>RTAs due to speeding (annual) : 4000+ (50% of RTAs due to speeding(1))
>
>(1) Avon&Somerset Constabulary Radio Advert, Jan 1997
But members of the general public have the attitude that "I" only exceed
the speed limit where it is absolutely safe to do so (and in any case,
everyone else does too), whereas "they" should do something about train
crashes. Same applies in all areas of life. We even see it in this
newsgroup, I leave everyone to remember their favourite examples.
I think your reference to RTAs is misleading, as others have posted. I
thought the quote was that "excessive speed is a factor in 50% of RTAs"
(or words to that effect). Note "factor". Also "excessive speed" can
be below the speed limit, which is something considered many times in
this thread, and is very close to comments made close to its starting
point. To restate this view: if 25mph is "excessive" for the
circumstances, the motor vehicle speed limit is irrelevant, and it
should not be legitimate to defend the excessive speed PURELY on the
basis that the speed was not illegal in itself.
Richard Brockie
I wrote:
: Read it again.
OK, I didn't state that I took a wider line - I thought I had. I did. Even
if he had kept going at his speed, there would have been plenty of space
between us. As it was, he heard me and stopped, leaving even more space.