Cause of 'Accidents'

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

 

"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.

 

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

 

"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

 

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

 

> 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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/

 

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.

 

"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

 

"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

 

> 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

 

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.

 

John B 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?

http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/roundabouts.html

http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/irish_junctions.html

 

"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.

 

"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.

 

"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?

 

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.

 

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.