Crash or 'accident'?



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:57:40 -0000 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>> Where did you see these "statistics"?
>
>Can't lay my hands on that particular one at the moment but this from the Camden Cycling Campaign
>Newsletter
>
>"As mentioned last time, the June CCC meeting was treated to a fascinating presentation by Chief
>Inspector Ian Brooks, one of the Metropolitan Police's five Traffic Area Commanders, and a cyclist
>himself. He had recently commissioned new research on cycle related collisions. 421 such collisions
>within the Metropolitan Police area during 2001 were analysed by a specialist police investigator.

I'm not convinced, for many reasons. Some of which are:

* a small geographical area

* are under 17s excluded from the cycle figures?

* was only transport cycling considered?

* did this take place on public roads/paths/pavements?

* the likely training and world view of a specialist police crash investigator

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced, for many reasons. Some of which are:
>
> * a small geographical area

620 sq miles, 7.2 million people? Bigger than the total urban area and population of Scotland!

>
> * are under 17s excluded from the cycle figures?

I doubt it. Is that relevant?

>
> * was only transport cycling considered?

I doubt it. Is that relevant? Ah I see you want to restrict it to experienced middle aged commuter
cyclists who don't cycle at 17:00

>
> * did this take place on public roads/paths/pavements?

I don't know but the fatality causes point to public roads unless the "riding off the pavement"
cases rode into the Regents Canal and drowned

>
> * the likely training and world view of a specialist police crash investigator

As opposed to the David Hansen world view? The work was commissioned by a policeman cyclist so I
would guess he would be interested from the cyclist perspective.

Cambridgeshire found similar results:

A study of pedal cycle crashes that occurred in Cambridgeshire between 1996 and 1998 found that:
Pedal cyclists were mainly at fault in 32 per cent of the crashes 75 per cent involved cars 10 per
cent involved no other person or vehicle 10 per cent occurred at roundabouts and 58 per cent at
other types of junction 5 per cent involved pedal cyclists hitting open doors of vehicles and doors
being opened into the path of cyclists (Source Peterborough City Council)

Tony

http://www.raven-family.com

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George
Bernard Shaw.
 
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:17:14 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> * a small geographical area
>620 sq miles, 7.2 million people? Bigger than the total urban area and population of Scotland!

I think if we've learned nothing else from the politics of the last twenty years we've learned that
the London experience is so completely different from the average that policies based on it are
invariably fatally flawed.

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 Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:46:37 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Errr we weren't discussing politics and policies, we were talking about the responsibility for
>accidents between cyclists and motorists.

Sure, but the figures quoted were based entirely on the Met police area - London. I don't know about
you, but I've never seen a cycle courier outside London.

Hence the point.

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 Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:25:24 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You must have been asleep during the Cambridgeshire figures

But Cambridge is hardly typical either, is it?

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 Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:14:42 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

You got me bang to rights, guv.

>Where would you consider typical?

The road outside my house - obviously :-D

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 Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:02:52 -0000 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>I suspect you just want to artificially remove young cyclists, who feature disproportionately in
>accident figures, to aid you argument.

The thing that is artificial is to compare the actions of a group containing many children with
those of a group formed of adults.

>> Extremely. I doubt if many motorists were performing stunt tricks with their cars. One needs to
>> compare people going shopping, to the cinema and to work with people going shopping, to the
>> cinema and to work.
>
>Err why? Surely what matters is the totality of accidents between people cycling and driving, not
>some randomly selected subgroup.

What matters is comparing apples with apples. I notice very few people doing wheelies in their cars
or driving them quickly down dirt tracks. A fair comparison is between those doing similar things
in/on their vehicles, such as shopping and so on.

>>> The work was commissioned by a policeman cyclist
>>
>> Who did not actually do the work.
>
>Ah the conspiracy theory

You would do better if you responded to what I type, not to your distortion of it. Had I wanted to
suggest a conspiracy then I would have done so.

What I typed was, "the likely training and world view of a specialist police crash investigator". To
use an example such a person may have the view that cyclists should ride as close to the gutter as
possible and should turn right from the left hand side of the road. Thus they may wrongly classify
crashes caused by motorist faults as being caused by the cyclist, due to them "riding too far out
from the kerb" or "not stopping on the left and waiting for a clear road to turn right". As a
minimum I would expect a police crash investigator to have a well thumbed copy of "Cyclecraft"
before their opinion on cycle crashes becomes of value.

No conspiracy at all, just poor training and a particular world view.

>> So, was the study of Peterborough or Cambridgeshire?
>
>Cambridgeshire (of which Peterborough is a part). Are they not allowed to issue data on the county
>they are part of?

The question I asked was where the data was for. Having got an answer my next question is why
Peterborough were issuing it and not Cambridgeshire?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sure, but the figures quoted were based entirely on the Met police area - London. I don't know
> about you, but I've never seen a cycle courier outside London.
>
> Hence the point.
>

You must have been asleep during the Cambridgeshire figures

Tony

http://www.raven-family.com

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George
Bernard Shaw.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:46:37 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Errr we weren't discussing politics and policies, we were talking about
the
> >responsibility for accidents between cyclists and motorists.
>
> Sure, but the figures quoted were based entirely on the Met police area - London. I don't know
> about you, but I've never seen a cycle courier outside London.
>
> Hence the point.

Saw one once in New York -- does that count :)
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:25:24 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You must have been asleep during the Cambridgeshire figures
>
> But Cambridge is hardly typical either, is it?
>

You missed the -shire bit. Its a bit bigger than just Cambridge. You know, like Reading and
Berkshire;-)

Where would you consider typical?

Tony

http://www.raven-family.com

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George
Bernard Shaw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.