"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Matt B said:
LSMike said:
Hi All,
Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.
A report prepared for the Scottish Executive in 2005[1] is quite interesting. The main finding relevant to your question is that 7% of cyclist 'accidents', resulting in the cyclist requiring a visit to hospital, were (according to the injured cyclist) the fault of a motorist.
The report covers off-road cycling, 72% of the accidents cited didn't even involve another vehicle let alone apportion blame.
Quoting a report on mountain biking accidents as evidence that vehicles are rarely to blame in collisions is a bit silly.
Matt B is a long established troll who, thankfully, has been absent from this group for a while. His new guise has been killfiled by me again today on an earlier string
Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
spindrift said:
The causes of cycle crashes.
Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
Excellent, thank you very much! That's the one I remember, only I couldn't find it even with much digging.
Does anyone know of similar stats for pedestrian/vehicle accidents? I'm having a bit of a battle with some pro-car folks who seem to think that accidents between motorists and cyclists/pedestrians are nearly always the fault of the cyclists/pedestrians. It's quite funny really, their sense of outrage at the merest suggestion that car driving requires a certain amount of responsibility is amazing. The shocking thing to me is that they are skaters, and really should know better given the similarities between skating and cycling.
I wonder if there are any figures from the army regarding military vehicles driven on public roads. I'm wondering how many cars have overtaken, cut in on and braked hard in front of a tank. My guess is, the answer is pretty low. -- nospam for graham
I wonder if there are any figures from the army regarding military vehicles driven on public roads. I'm wondering how many cars have overtaken, cut in on and braked hard in front of a tank. My guess is, the answer is pretty low. -- nospam for graham
I wonder if there are any figures from the army regarding military vehicles driven on public roads. I'm wondering how many cars have overtaken, cut in on and braked hard in front of a tank. My guess is, the answer is pretty low.
??? I don't get what you mean.
Nobody would be stupid enough to brake test a tank? -- Chris
The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it.
"Another Graham" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
spindrift said:
The causes of cycle crashes.
Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
If cyclists represented 17% of the risk on the roads that would be entirely equitable.
But: Cycle journeys tend to be much shorter than motor vehicle journeys;
And: Cycles are fewer than 17% of the vehicles on the road
Which demonstrates that cyclists are disproportionately more likely to be the cause of an accident.
"Another Graham" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
spindrift wrote:
> > The causes of cycle crashes. > > Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle > crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or > substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research > Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in > only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
If cyclists represented 17% of the risk on the roads that would be entirely equitable.
But: Cycle journeys tend to be much shorter than motor vehicle journeys;
And: Cycles are fewer than 17% of the vehicles on the road
Which demonstrates that cyclists are disproportionately more likely to be the cause of an accident.
E-
I would suggest that you go back and read that again. The proportion of cyclists on the road has absolutely diddly squat to do with the assignment of blame in cyclist/other vehicle collisions.
Note that that is not assignment of blame in all vehicle collisions, which is where your error stems from.
"Another Graham" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
spindrift wrote:
> The causes of cycle crashes. > > Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle > crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or > substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research > Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in > only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
If cyclists represented 17% of the risk on the roads that would be entirely equitable.
But: Cycle journeys tend to be much shorter than motor vehicle journeys;
And: Cycles are fewer than 17% of the vehicles on the road
Which demonstrates that cyclists are disproportionately more likely to be the cause of an accident.
You need a course in basic statistics. If cyclists were the cause of 17% of all road accidents you would have a point. But they aren't. They are the cause of 17% of accidents between a motor vehicle and a cyclist so their prevalence on the roads is irrelevant to that figure.
But never let facts get in the way of the Militant Hendency.
-- Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
"Another Graham" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
spindrift wrote:
>The causes of cycle crashes. > >Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle >crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or >substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research >Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in >only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
If cyclists represented 17% of the risk on the roads that would be entirely equitable.
But: Cycle journeys tend to be much shorter than motor vehicle journeys;
And: Cycles are fewer than 17% of the vehicles on the road
Which demonstrates that... (snip)
....innumercay is alive and well and living in Hampshire.
"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
ian henden said:
"Another Graham" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > spindrift wrote: > > > > > The causes of cycle crashes. > > > > Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle > > crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or > > substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research > > Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in > > only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions. >
If cyclists represented 17% of the risk on the roads that would be entirely equitable.
But: Cycle journeys tend to be much shorter than motor vehicle journeys;
And: Cycles are fewer than 17% of the vehicles on the road
Which demonstrates that cyclists are disproportionately more likely to be the cause of an accident.
E-
I would suggest that you go back and read that again. The proportion of cyclists on the road has absolutely diddly squat to do with the assignment of blame in cyclist/other vehicle collisions.
Note that that is not assignment of blame in all vehicle collisions, which is where your error stems from.
..d
Of course, I would expect the cycling fraternity to argue along those lines, Fact remains that less than 17% of the total (cycle+motorised) traffic is to blame for 17% of cycle/vehicle collisions
Of course, I would expect the cycling fraternity to argue along those lines, Fact remains that less than 17% of the total (cycle+motorised) traffic is to blame for 17% of cycle/vehicle collisions
And it is just as true that less than 17% of the total (cycle+motorised) traffic are responsible for killing other road users. Your point is still species.
Of course, I would expect the cycling fraternity to argue along those lines
That only goes to show that the cycling fraternity has some grasp of basic statistics. ;-)
Quoted message said:
Fact remains that less than 17% of the total (cycle+motorised) traffic is to blame for 17% of cycle/vehicle collisions
LOL! But it gets even worse if you drive a Volkswagen, for instance - VW drivers make up a *tiny* percentage of total traffic, but may turn out to be responsible for a shocking 50% of collisions between VWs and other cars!
-- Mark, UK "Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous things can be justified and established."
Of course, I would expect the cycling fraternity to argue along those lines, Fact remains that less than 17% of the total (cycle+motorised) traffic is to blame for 17% of cycle/vehicle collisions
Please, please go and read a basic book on statistics - there is no point in continuing when you can't even grasp the basics.
-- Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
LOL! But it gets even worse if you drive a Volkswagen, for instance - VW drivers make up a *tiny* percentage of total traffic, but may turn out to be responsible for a shocking 50% of collisions between VWs and other cars!
Even worse they are involved in 100% of such collisions. They should be legislated off the roads immediately!!
-- Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
>> > Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in >> > only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
And: Cycles are fewer than 17% of the vehicles on the road
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I would suggest that you go back and read that again. The proportion of cyclists on the road has absolutely diddly squat to do with the assignment of blame in cyclist/other vehicle collisions.
Note that that is not assignment of blame in all vehicle collisions, which is where your error stems from.
Quoted message said:
Of course, I would expect the cycling fraternity to argue along those lines,
If you knew that "the cycling fraternity" were going to correct your obvious mistake, why bother with your faulty argument in the first place?
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
spindrift said:
The causes of cycle crashes.
Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
Excellent, thank you very much! That's the one I remember, only I couldn't find it even with much digging.
Does anyone know of similar stats for pedestrian/vehicle accidents? I'm having a bit of a battle with some pro-car folks who seem to think that accidents between motorists and cyclists/pedestrians are nearly always the fault of the cyclists/pedestrians. It's quite funny really, their sense of outrage at the merest suggestion that car driving requires a certain amount of responsibility is amazing. The shocking thing to me is that they are skaters, and really should know better given the similarities between skating and cycling.
I wonder if there are any figures from the army regarding military vehicles driven on public roads. I'm wondering how many cars have overtaken, cut in on and braked hard in front of a tank. My guess is, the answer is pretty low.
I was once riding a Harley Davidson down the A1 near Catterick when I was overtaken by a tank. Yes, I know Harleys aren't all that fast, but I was doing 70... It was a rather startling experience. This was a Scorpion, not a main battle tank, but even so I had no idea they were so fast. Certainly faster than the published information says they can go!
I wonder if there are any figures from the army regarding military vehicles driven on public roads. I'm wondering how many cars have overtaken, cut in on and braked hard in front of a tank. My guess is, the answer is pretty low.
??? I don't get what you mean.
Fairly obvious. Drivers are good at not carving up vehicles which could kill them, very bad at not carving up vehicles whose users they could kill.
In article <[email hidden]> Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip>
Quoted message said:
I was once riding a Harley Davidson down the A1 near Catterick when I was overtaken by a tank. Yes, I know Harleys aren't all that fast, but I was doing 70... It was a rather startling experience. This was a Scorpion, not a main battle tank, but even so I had no idea they were so fast. Certainly faster than the published information says they can go!
Remember that recruitment ad on the telly, where a chap was cruising along a moorland road in his MGB and was overtaken by a Scorpion on the rough stuff? I don't think they were supposed to do much more than 50 though - the vibration was probably affecting your speedo :-)
"Alan Braggins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article said:
"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:
ian henden wrote: > >> > Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame > >> > in > >> > only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> And: Cycles are fewer than 17% of the vehicles on the road
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I would suggest that you go back and read that again. The proportion of cyclists on the road has absolutely diddly squat to do with the assignment of blame in cyclist/other vehicle collisions.
Note that that is not assignment of blame in all vehicle collisions, which is where your error stems from.
Quoted message said:
Of course, I would expect the cycling fraternity to argue along those lines,
If you knew that "the cycling fraternity" were going to correct your obvious mistake, why bother with your faulty argument in the first place?
