Cause of 'Accidents'

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by John B, May 13, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John B

    John B Guest

    An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
    cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".

    As a result he does not want tougher actions on motorists but rather to see cyclists subject to more
    prosecutions.

    Can anyone point me towards any correct figures?

    Additionally he quotes "a town" (unnamed) with off-road cycle routes where "cyclists who hit
    cyclists that needed hospital treatment was almost 500 in one year".

    Any guesses, or again pointers?

    He claims "the Government has neglected enforcement of the law regarding cyclists in its paranoic
    drive to get us out of our cars". so you can see where he is coming from.

    He also claims to be a cyclist!

    Naturally this type of letter needs response, particularly as it is the main featured letter
    in the rag.

    Can anyone supply me with some websites with some accurate figures to quote back at this pr*t?

    John B
     
    Tags:


  2. W K

    W K Guest

    "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
    > cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".

    Yeah. Common sense says drive instead.
     
  3. Chilly

    Chilly Guest

    John B <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
    > cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".
    >
    Statistics can be played with.

    I wonder what the ststistics would show if you removed everyone under 15 years of age from the
    accidents figures. From my own experience, the youngsters round where I live are accidents waiting
    to happen. Most of them don't display common sense, and it is thanks to the alertness of drivers
    that there are not more accidents involving them.

    Bill
     
  4. Nc

    Nc Guest

    "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
    > cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".
    >
    > As a result he does not want tougher actions on motorists but rather to see cyclists subject to
    > more prosecutions.
    >
    > Can anyone point me towards any correct figures?

    Try http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/info/info.html

    http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/promotion/heresy.html

    > Additionally he quotes "a town" (unnamed) with off-road cycle routes where "cyclists who hit
    > cyclists that needed hospital treatment was almost 500 in one year".
    >
    > Any guesses, or again pointers?

    No, though he's sought of on the right track with this - evidence I've read suggests that cycle
    paths have more accident than cycling on the road. This suggests that either (a) cyclists ride
    relatively more recklessly on cycle paths or (b) the cycle paths are very badly designed. Probably
    something on the lesberries site about this.

    > He claims "the Government has neglected enforcement of the law regarding cyclists in its paranoic
    > drive to get us out of our cars". so you can see where he is coming from.

    So, no doubt he would endorse policing to ensure that all offenders were caught whether they be
    jumping lights, cutting up other users of roads, exceeding the speed limit, parking illegally
    (especially in high risk places such as near schools), etc...

    NC
     
  5. Peter Fox

    Peter Fox Guest

    Here is my analysis of cycling accidents in Witham. Figures are for most recent 3 years Figures in
    brackets for previous 3 year period

    One incident may be scored under more than one heading.

    * Total 31(28)
    * Bad driving 17(13) [Some bizarre things like car waiting at lights reverses]
    * Junction 11(14)
    * Bad cycling 8(6)
    * Car pulls out in front of bike without seeing bike coming 8 (not analysed)
    * Night 5 (6)
    * Door opening 2 (2)
    * LGV 2 (not analysed)
    * HGV 0 (0)
    * Peds stepping into road 1 (0)

    This shows a _pretty consistent_ pattern: Roughly speaking
    * 1/3rd at junctions
    * 1/2 are bad driving (1/4 pulling out into path of cyclist)
    * 1/4 are bad cycling

    Being not-seen on a bike happened in all but one cases in daylight.



    Don't forget these are only accidents where the police are called and there is an injury.

    The councillor is talking out of their bottom. By all means quote my stats based on 60 accidents
    which is a statistically meaningful sample (or quote the analysis) then ask him to quote his source.

    Get the county council to provide you with the "STATS20" data for cyclists in a defined area.
    Ask for the map as well as that may be quite useful. They will whinge but if so get onto your
    county councillor and ask why if road safety is so important won't they let you look at the
    figures for yourself.

    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded

    Witham Cycling Campaign www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm East Anglian Pub cycle rides
    www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides
     
  6. Johnny Klunk

    Johnny Klunk Guest

    > Additionally he quotes "a town" (unnamed) with off-road cycle routes where "cyclists who hit
    > cyclists that needed hospital treatment was almost 500 in one year".
    >
    > Any guesses, or again pointers?
    >
    > He claims "the Government has neglected enforcement of the law regarding cyclists in its paranoic
    > drive to get us out of our cars". so you can see where he is coming from.
    >
    > He also claims to be a cyclist!
    >
    > Naturally this type of letter needs response, particularly as it is the main featured letter in
    > the rag.
    >
    > Can anyone supply me with some websites with some accurate figures to quote back at this pr*t?
    >

    Write him/the paper a letter asking for his cycling credentials (not that he can actually prove it,
    but if hes prepared to say put in writing that he cycles to work x many days a week, that would be
    nice). It's pretty easy to say you're a cyclist. But a few laps of the park once every few years
    doesn't give you a feel for what the average cycle commuter faces. My guess is the guy owns two 4
    litre cars.
     
  7. John B

    John B Guest

    Johnny Klunk wrote:

    > >
    > > He claims "the Government has neglected enforcement of the law regarding cyclists in its
    > > paranoic drive to get us out of our cars". so you can see where he is coming from.
    > >
    > > He also claims to be a cyclist!
    > >
    > > Naturally this type of letter needs response, particularly as it is the main featured letter in
    > > the rag.
    > >
    >
    > Write him/the paper a letter asking for his cycling credentials (not that he can actually prove
    > it, but if hes prepared to say put in writing that he cycles to work x many days a week, that
    > would be nice). It's pretty easy to say you're a cyclist. But a few laps of the park once every
    > few years doesn't give you a feel for what the average cycle commuter faces. My guess is the guy
    > owns two 4 litre cars.

    His published words were: "As a cyclist as well as a motorist myself, I observe the highway code,
    have good lights on my bike and ensure the cycle is roadworthy - something that most bikes are not"

    So not only a cyclist, but a mechanic who can spot a dodgy bike at 100 paces too.

    It is my intention to ask him to accompany me on a couple of commuting rides.

    John B
     
  8. In news:[email protected], John B <[email protected]> typed:
    > An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
    > cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".

    (Get him to) Define common sense.

    Although that probably isn't a very good way to approach the argument on the letters page
    of a paper.
     
  9. Tim Woodall

    Tim Woodall Guest

    On Tue, 13 May 2003 20:18:06 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
    > An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
    > cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".
    >
    > As a result he does not want tougher actions on motorists but rather to see cyclists subject to
    > more prosecutions.
    >
    > Can anyone point me towards any correct figures?
    >
    > Additionally he quotes "a town" (unnamed) with off-road cycle routes where "cyclists who hit
    > cyclists that needed hospital treatment was almost 500 in one year".
    >
    > Any guesses, or again pointers?
    >
    > He claims "the Government has neglected enforcement of the law regarding cyclists in its paranoic
    > drive to get us out of our cars". so you can see where he is coming from.
    >
    > He also claims to be a cyclist!
    >
    > Naturally this type of letter needs response, particularly as it is the main featured letter in
    > the rag.
    >
    > Can anyone supply me with some websites with some accurate figures to quote back at this pr*t?
    >
    http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezoe/campaigning/roundabouts.html

    Layfield and Maycock (1986) showed that a full 50% of [collisions at roundabouts] are due to a
    driver entering a roundabout and hitting a cyclist who is already circulating and supposedly has
    'right of way'. A further 10% of collisions are due to drivers exiting a roundabout cutting across
    the path of a cyclist and another 10% are due to a cyclist being run down from behind.

    Lawson (1989) found that 22% of accidents involving a cyclist occurred at roundabouts. Watkins
    (1984) conducted a survey of 2000 CTC members involved in a collision and found 13.8% at normal
    roundabouts with a further 5.2% at mini roundabouts.

    (Reported accidents at roundabouts are about 10% of all reported accidents and 11% of fatailites
    for cyclists)

    From http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/BMLSS/Ccle-2.htm

    Driver error was responsible in 68% of cases (official). 98% of serious accidents involved cars.

    Regards,

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

    http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
     
  10. Whilst I think this counciller is taking the piss, I think it is true that bad cyclists aren't
    hauled up anywhere near like they should be.

    Both cyclists and motorists need stricter enforcement - but I think they're closer to the mark with
    motorists.
     
  11. "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
    > cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".

    Ask him how he arrived at this figure, and since he can't possibly have seen even 1% of the
    collisions himself, and the only figures I have seen show the motorist to be at fault in the
    majority of collisions, his figures must be pure speculation, or, in this case, a figure dreamed up
    by a driver. The figures I saw were so long ago that I can't remember the source, but I will repost
    if I can recall.
    >
    > As a result he does not want tougher actions on motorists but rather to see cyclists subject to
    > more prosecutions.
    >
    > Can anyone point me towards any correct figures?
    >
    > Additionally he quotes "a town" (unnamed) with off-road cycle routes where "cyclists who hit
    > cyclists that needed hospital treatment was almost 500 in one year".

    Again, challenge him on his statement. If he has figures for a "town" why doesn't he name it if it
    exists. The fact that the won't can only mean that his figures are suspect and probably in
    invention.
    >
    > Any guesses, or again pointers?
    >
    > He claims "the Government has neglected enforcement of the law regarding cyclists in its paranoic
    > drive to get us out of our cars". so you can see where he is coming from.
    >
    > He also claims to be a cyclist!
    >
    > Naturally this type of letter needs response, particularly as it is the main featured letter in
    > the rag.
    >
    > Can anyone supply me with some websites with some accurate figures to quote back at this pr*t?
    >
    > John B
     
  12. Albert Fish

    Albert Fish Guest

    "Chilly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > John B <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars
    > > and cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".
    > >
    > Statistics can be played with.
    >
    > I wonder what the ststistics would show if you removed everyone under 15 years of age from the
    > accidents figures. From my own experience, the youngsters round where I live are accidents waiting
    > to happen. Most of them don't display common sense,

    I think I remember reading in new scientist that statistically speaking, 'common' sense was wrong
    about 50% of the time.

    which would explain the reasoning behind the darwin awards, I suppose.


    Albert
     
  13. Johnny Klunk

    Johnny Klunk Guest

    > His published words were: "As a cyclist as well as a motorist myself, I observe the highway code,
    have
    > good lights on my bike and ensure the cycle is roadworthy - something that
    most
    > bikes are not"
    >
    > So not only a cyclist, but a mechanic who can spot a dodgy bike at 100
    paces
    > too.

    you make a good point. How does he know that "most" bikes are not "roadworthy". Standard whiney
    cager. Not sure I'd bother replying to him. Though if you can convince him to come on a few commutes
    with you - kudos. If you're anywhere near West London, let me know - I'll cycle along on my
    "roadworthy" cycle
     
  14. In news:[email protected], Nathaniel Porter
    <[email protected]> typed:
    > Whilst I think this counciller is taking the piss, I think it is true that bad cyclists aren't
    > hauled up anywhere near like they should be.
    >
    > Both cyclists and motorists need stricter enforcement - but I think they're closer to the mark
    > with motorists.

    Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they can't be
    bothered concentrating.
     
  15. Simon Proven

    Simon Proven Guest

  16. "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In news:[email protected], Nathaniel Porter
    > <[email protected]> typed:
    > > Whilst I think this counciller is taking the piss, I think it is true that bad cyclists aren't
    > > hauled up anywhere near like they should be.
    > >
    > > Both cyclists and motorists need stricter enforcement - but I think they're closer to the mark
    > > with motorists.
    >
    > Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they can't
    > be bothered concentrating.
    >

    Cyclists have a duty to obey traffic laws as well. No only that, many cyclists are or will become
    motorists. People should be required to obey traffic laws for the portection of themselves and
    others - those failing to do so should be punished, regardless of their mode of transport.

    Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many people, so I can ignore the law
    and get away with it". This isn't far removed from a possible Paul Smith-ism "I'm a speeder, I
    haven't killed anyone, so I can ignore the law and get away with it". That's bollocks.

    Obviously there must be priorities, but enforcement of traffic laws needs to increase for all road
    users, especially those road users where enforcement is near non-existant.
     
  17. Frank°

    Frank° Guest

    "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >> >
    > > Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they can't
    > > be bothered concentrating.
    > >
    >
    > Cyclists have a duty to obey traffic laws as well. No only that, many cyclists are or will become
    > motorists. People should be required to obey traffic laws for the portection of themselves and
    > others - those failing
    to
    > do so should be punished, regardless of their mode of transport.
    >
    > Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many
    people,
    > so I can ignore the law and get away with it". This isn't far removed from
    a
    > possible Paul Smith-ism "I'm a speeder, I haven't killed anyone, so I can ignore the law and get
    > away with it". That's bollocks.
    >
    > Obviously there must be priorities, but enforcement of traffic laws needs
    to
    > increase for all road users, especially those road users where enforcement is near non-existant.
    >

    Yep Amborse was agreeing with you. It is important to prioritise resources to stop cyclist killing
    3500 a year, Its always good to remember what laws are for.
     
  18. Frank°

    Frank° Guest

    "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Additionally he quotes "a town" (unnamed) with off-road cycle routes where "cyclists who hit
    > cyclists that needed hospital treatment was almost 500 in one year".
    >
    Of these 500 "cyclists hitting other cyclists incidents", What proportion do you think he was the
    one being hit?
     
  19. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Tue, 13 May 2003 20:18:06 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"over 90% of accidents involving cars and cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe
    >common sense".

    So they are equally wrong about everything, then? Admirable consistency.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Tue, 13 May 2003 21:52:31 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >(Get him to) Define common sense.

    Bad move - he's UKIP.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...