[Politics] "We're cracking down on dangerous cycling".

[sussex_guy2k2]

Blimey I thought that was never going to get a bite.

Oh no, I get it. This whole thread is a wind up for you. It’s just a typical cyclist’s, holier than thou attitude where your arrogance and the arrogance of your community comes before other people.

 

[nicko31]

Slightly off topic why does the government not would make cycle helmets compulsory by law? How many deaths could be prevented?

Instead death by dangerous cycling? How many deaths could be prevented?

Sums up this government, have they achieved anything in office?

 

[Stat Brother]

Below highlights my annoyance with the original tweet, that began this thread.
I believe a government should be prioritizing the 99.5% of dangerous behaviour.


40 cyclists killed, 4 drivers jailed: exclusive investigation reveals only one in 10 drivers are jailed after being involved in cyclist death***

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...veals-only-one-in-10-drivers-are-9034187.html


Police data obtained under freedom of information laws revealed the longest sentence imposed on a driver was four years. This was handed out last May to Barry Normah, 28, for killing 17-year-old Olatunji “TJ” Adeyanju in Deptford. Normah had sped through a red light and drove off soon after the collision before dumping the car.


***This is from an Evening Standard report, those numbers are only London.

 

[nicko31]

40 cyclists killed, 4 drivers jailed: exclusive investigation reveals only one in 10 drivers are jailed after being involved in cyclist death

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...veals-only-one-in-10-drivers-are-9034187.html

Are there any stats for the number of people killed by dangerous cyclists in recent years?

What about dangerous people on roller skates?

 

[GOM]

.......Now imagine if I had hit and killed a pedestrian now we are going to find any minor fault on your bike that doesnt require an MOT and then if it doesnt pass we will charge you under a trumped up victorian law because you are stupid and you are 18 years old. .

I think this is the sort of attitude that winds people up about some cyclists.

Never mind you have killed someone, you're upset about being prosecuted under some 'trumped up Victorian law'. Well perhaps we need a modern law you could be prosecuted under that isn't 'trumped up'

 

[Stat Brother]

Are there any stats for the number of people killed by dangerous cyclists in recent years?

What about dangerous people on roller skates?

It averages out at 2 to 3 people, nationwide, the numbers we are talking about above is only London.

 

[Justice]

A ****ing cyclist hit my wing mirror yesterday and just rode off the ****ing Bradley Wiggans wannabe **** should be banned from the road

 

[DamSeagull]

Slightly off topic why does the government not would make cycle helmets compulsory by law? How many deaths could be prevented?

Watch this video - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...r-helmets-will-not-save-lives-video-explainer

The idea is that making helmets compulsory makes cycling less appealing. Cycling has great health benefits and we don't want to discourage it.

How many deaths could be prevented?

The real question is how many instances of diseases caused by inactivity and obesity can be avoided? How much less of a strain can we place on the NHS if we manage to get more people cycling?

 

[Stat Brother]

A ****ing cyclist hit my wing mirror yesterday and just rode off the ****ing Bradley Wiggans wannabe **** should be banned from the road

Blimey he must have been going at some speed to snap off a wing mirror.
I'm surprised he didn't knock himself off his bike.

 

[Triggaaar]

We really don't help ourselves.



[tweet]1028937826719727616[/tweet]

This is a really really serious matter.

 

[nicko31]

It averages out at 2 to 3 people, nationwide, the numbers we are talking about above is only London.

Total pedestrian deaths 448, how do things get this far?

 

[Triggaaar]

Perhaps it might be sensible to aportion resources to preventing harm based on the degree of risk and exposure to the cause of that harm.

Sounds like a reasonable start.

The physics of the propensity of injury (assuming no braking before impact) would relate to the kinetic energy of each vehicle

Er, no. How about you skipper HMS Queen Elizabeth into me, at 1mph, and I shoot you with a gun. Maybe you can do the calculations for those.

But then that does not take account of actual risk since according to DfT car travel is about 61% of trips and bikes about 2% so you're about 30 times more exposed to the risk of a car hitting you in the scenario above (assuming drivers and cyclists are equally likely to collide with you as a pedestrian).

So 50 * 30 = 1500.

WTF? If you want to work out how much more likely you are to suffer harm from different vehicles, just look up the injury statistics (I think Stat Bro posted some at the start).

Meaning by very rough measure for exposure to risk you're around 1500 times more exposed to danger from cars than bikes which might be fair allocation of resources to mitigating those risks.

I agree that cyclists not following traffic rules are somewhat annoying but a fair judgement of how annoying compared to car drivers would I suggest be around 1/1500 as annoying.

Your method for calculating how much more exposed to danger you are is obviously daft, but going with it, you're saying that the police should spend 1/1500th of the resources used to keep motorists in line, on keeping cyclists in line. I'd guess they currently don't spend anything like that much.

 

[Triggaaar]

I see both cyclists and motorists jump lights every day on my commute. I don't have a problem with either so long as they don't cause an accident or block my way.

Blimey, that's quite a liberal outlook. I assume you're happy to jump lights too then if you don't think you'll cause an accident or get in anyone's way.

 

[Triggaaar]

I got run off of the road by a van last year and needed checking up in A&E. First question I was asked by the police. Were you wearing a helmet, not are you ok second question was were you wearing high vis clothes, third question was do you have lights on your bike and were they on (9am in august on a sunny day). Third question was are you hurt you should go to A&E.

That sounds pretty annoying. Where were you when they were asking these questions?

 

[SAC]

Blimey, that's quite a liberal outlook. I assume you're happy to jump lights too then if you don't think you'll cause an accident or get in anyone's way.

I don't often jump lights as most I go through are busy but if there is a pedestrian crossing with no one on it I would probably go through it if no one was around. Same as I would if I was a pedestrian crossing the road on a road if no one was there.

 

[McTavish]

Slightly off topic why does the government not would make cycle helmets compulsory by law? How many deaths could be prevented?

Instead death by dangerous cycling? How many deaths could be prevented?

Sums up this government, have they achieved anything in office?

This is a very contentious issue and is not as simple as it first seems.

70-80% of cyclist fatalities involve serious head injuries so it would seem fairly obvious that compulsory helmets would save lives.

However...

There is evidence that at a population level compulsory cycling helmets actually reduce life expectancy - if helmets are compulsory, fewer people cycle, some people get less exercise as a result and so die earlier due to this. In addition a couple of studies have shown that motorists tend to give un-helmeted cyclists more room when passing so there is a possibility that wearing a helmet increases your chance of being hit by a vehicle. Also, a study has shown that cyclists wearing helmets tend to take more risks and so put themselves in more danger.

Also, why just cyclists? If it seems reasonable to force cyclists to wear helmets, wouldn't pedestrians benefit as well after all more than 4 times as many pedestrians are killed each year than cyclists? People in cars are the people most at risk from dying from head injuries despite their seatbelts... should they wear helmets?

I can't find any evidence at all to show how many of the 100 or so cyclists killed each year weren't wearing helmets and how many of those might have been saved by wearing a helmet but as most cyclists wear helmets and as cycle helmets are not really designed to prevent major trauma, I suspect that the number will be very small. Bearing in mind the potential risk to overall public health, compulsory helmets would seem to be a huge over-reaction to a realtively insignificant problem and possibly a counter-productive one as well.

Despite all that, when I ride a bike I almost always wear a helmet but I recognise that it is unlikely to save my life.

 

[TimWatt]

Sounds like a reasonable start.

Er, no. How about you skipper HMS Queen Elizabeth into me, at 1mph, and I shoot you with a gun. Maybe you can do the calculations for those.

WTF? If you want to work out how much more likely you are to suffer harm from different vehicles, just look up the injury statistics (I think Stat Bro posted some at the start).

Your method for calculating how much more exposed to danger you are is obviously daft, but going with it, you're saying that the police should spend 1/1500th of the resources used to keep motorists in line, on keeping cyclists in line. I'd guess they currently don't spend anything like that much.

I don't think that comparison daft at all. Your extreme example would also hold water - except it's not realistic and other factors would made it not comparable. Trying to prove a point using absurdity shows an attempt to distract from reality.

I wouldn't disagree that statistics provide a rearward looking, perhaps accurate view, but while statistics may be more representative overall they almost always concern someone else, so can be (seemingly) safely ignored. Whereas a continuing danger - like a heavy car driving too fast on YOUR STREET - presents a more of a wake up call of continual and massive potential for harm to life and limb, to you and others - or when speeding or otherwise distracted to others.

My estimation cannot be accurate as it's a comparison of potential for harm in one hypothetical but common scenario. I'd amend the number looking again considering the assumption I put in brackets (assuming drivers and cyclists are equally likely to collide with you as a pedestrian). That assumption can't be right as car is larger than a cyclist so, perhaps, since it's about 4 times wider it may be four times likely to collide (very rough) guess - so maybe the propensity for harm should be modified to a factor of 6000, which puts things in some type of representative perspective.

I'm a driver and cyclist, and consider the care I owe to those around me with to level of responsibility, whereas for a bike the care taken is mostly a matter of self-interest as you are so much more vulnerable.

Cyclists that act irresponsibly (judged reasonably) might verge on suicidal, so could do with a ticking off or be reasonably expected to take training of some sort (or that be re-instrodcued to the school curriculum). Irresponsible drivers where they endanger others really are the issue to be addressed here, while this government is trying the worst type of cheap populism by picking on the wrong end of reality here.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Blimey he must have been going at some speed to snap off a wing mirror.
I'm surprised he didn't knock himself off his bike.

Just 'hit' his wing mirror . Obviously never parked in Tesco's where hitting a wing mirror and driving off is a requirement of exiting the car park.

 

[Honky Tonx]

Quite right too, long over due. I'm a keen cyclist and seeing what some stupid people do whilst riding their bicycles is breathtaking . If the police stop idiot cyclists, the bikes should be confiscated and not returned until a fine of £1,000 has been paid.

 

[Bold Seagull]

B]Irresponsible drivers where they endanger others really are the issue to be addressed here, while this government is trying the worst type of cheap populism by picking on the wrong end of reality here.[/B]

Exactly, Women yesterday turning right from Boundary Road in front of the Railway pub into Portland Road with traffic and pedestrians everywhere after being held up by the rail crossing has got her phone to her ear trying to turn the wheel one handed with her baby in baby seat in the back. I mean you are in a machine that can kill someone in an instant even at 20 mph. Didn't note whether she had 'keep your distance baby on board' sticker on the back or not...