van v. cyclist: driver sacked

[Bigmallly]

I've only browsed through it but what an interesting site, if you get chance that is...........

Cycling safety : Directgov - Travel and transport

[northepaul]

Blimey!

The roads are pretty bad everywhere just now, but 'us' drivers still have to use them!

How would you feel if a ped walked along the cycle path if there were holes in the pavement?

err they do now....without the holes!!! Not that we have many cycle paths anyway..

[Alison]

I rode a bike as a kid in the 70s as did most of my friends and never worried about the traffic. I then didn't ride a bike much for about 20 years and discovered that the bit about never forgetting how to ride a bike was totally bobbins. Took me ages to get the hang of it again and I was terrified at the thought of the traffic. Note the terrified at the thought of it bit, as when I acutally got around to it (with the help of OH) I found that with a bit of thought on which way you were going the reality wasnt actually that bad. Yes some roads are worse than others but you can often avoid them - certainly I don't cycle the same way as I drive to work as different routes are better for each. I don't expect all roads to put cyclists first but I do expect people to treat me with respect. I use a bike as a healthy, cheap, quick and enviromentally friendly way to get about and am fully aware if more people who wanted to do likewise weren't scared of it then the roads would actually become nicer places as traffic would be less etc etc.

Re the comments about hiviz / specialist cycling gear, there are several studies that have showed that not only does the mental connection that you need special clothes to cycle mean that people see it as "not for them" (for God sake, you don't think you need special clothes to walk down the road!) but road users do, for some reason, give less space to fully kitted up riders. Don't fully understand why but apparently it's something to do with drivers subconsiously feeling that the casual cyclist is less competent and needs more consideration.

[HeyWayne]

Replace the airbags on all cars with a metal spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel and see how our roads change.

Just a thought

[organic]

About clothes - Utter claptrap, Organics. Cyclists are vulnerable and should do everything they can to help themselves stay safe. Drivers do not WANT to run down a rider. Have a little common sense before you type.In Holland, cyclists are treated as priorities. Cars are, in many places there, obliged to have their headlights on so that cyclists can see them better. It's not the same culture at all.

Thanks for the respectful response.
OK - claptrap? Not a jot of it.
Lack of hi-vis is a factor in only about 5% of all cyclist accidents - the vast majority happen in broad daylight and are down to driver error.
Wearing hi vis clothing, at very best, will have little or no impact on cyclist safety. At worse it serves both to have drivers passing closer and fewer cyclists on the road; both through lack of "gear" and through the perception given that it's a dangerous activity. Encouraging or mandating the use of safety gear (helmets, hi-vis and so on) has been conclusively shown to reduce the number of cyclists on the roads and increase the level of risk for all those who remain.
Cyclists don't need to be more visible as most of the crashes are drivers doing something wrong anyway. We're visible enough - the problem is (some) drivers not looking for them.

Cars are obliged to have their headlights on in some places and that makes things worse.
Have a scan of that page and see the tale told by the real world results of daylight running of lights. Terrible idea and it should be outlawed.

Er, I think you'll find that cyclists were on the road before cars, so that blows your theory

Motorcycles too (bicycles came before them though).
I should say, you and lindyloo are both right on this, but from different perspectives. Horse riders, cyclists and motorcyclists were all on the road before cars or any of the rest. That, of course, doesn't mean they have more of a right to use them, but it does demonstrate that cars joined them on the roads and as such should treat them with respect. Again, I know most do, but a significant number don't and that's the problem.

So the tax-paying cyclist is actually subsidising the motorist

And pedestrian. And horse-rider. If someone pays tax, they pay for the roads. Not that any of that confers right, of course. If it did, the wealthiest few (and highest taxpayers) would have more right than low- and no-tax payers. That's what congestion charging attempts to achieve, but in general no - payment doesn't bring entitlement.

It seems a legitimate defence in this country to say "sorry officer, I just didn't see them".

Exactly why it's a standard defence any time someone has caused injury or death by dangerous driving. If they "didn't see" them they can only be found guilty of careless driving which carries a much lower sentence. The defence doesn't always work (see the recent case of Katie Hart, found guilty of killing Maj. Gareth Rhys-Evans by dangerous driving - given a paltry sentence and a short ban - but at least the CPS showed some backbone on it) but it's frequently used.

I truly wish that every driver who is in a collision where a person gets injured, should have to resit their test.

Maybe a cheaper and more effective option would be to fit a couple of cameras in the car and film for a couple of weeks - people soon revert to usual habits when monitoring is discrete - if they demonstrate dangerous driving again - ban them. Anyone can pass a test by driving well for an hour. It's the driving over the weeks and months that matters.

taxes on cycles? well, it will probably happen, as they are planning on taxing horses, they are talking of taxing dogs; perhaps they will tax old ladies shopping trolleys, and pushchairs, especially the big ones- both annoying (why not poultry, cats and small pets too- they might as well squeeze every last penny out of us!)

I can't find it at the moment, but I'm almost certain that only last week I read something saying there's a tax on bicycles already. If I'm not mistaken it's a specific thing quite separate from VAT. Obviously it's a one-off but if I've not made this up, yes, already exists.

These statistics are all well and good, but where's the figure for the amount of cyclists who AREN'T killed or injured? And where's the statistic for the amount of PEDESTRIANS killed or injured by cars? And where's the statistic for the number of CAR and MOTORCYCLE accidents where someone is killed or injured?

Statistics for cyclists who aren't killed or injured? I don't follow.
Where would one find statistics about something that didn't happen?

The only other datasets I can imagine are relevant to the interaction between cars, bicycles and pedestrians are.
"collisions involving a bike and a car"
"collisions involving a bike and a pedestrian"
"collisions involving a car and a pedestrian"
the "at fault" status of all the above is highly relevant, and in the context of this discussion only the two involving bicycles are worth mentioning. Both have been.
"deaths per mile travelled"
"deaths per hour travelled"
are both related issues but don't really come into it in this context as they just compare the relative dangers of those means of travel, not fault or the interactions between them (though the interactions are frequently the cause of the deaths).

Statistics all have to be relevant to something else don't they? Otherwise you can just pick out the shocking numbers like that.

There was no cherry picking. Someone asked what proportion of injuries and deaths were caused by driver fault and I gave an answer based upon exactly that. There are far more shocking statistics out there but as they weren't directly relevant to the question I left them out.

Of those 16,000 killed or injured are we to assume that they were ALL due to wreckless driving and none due to dangerous cycling?

No - but somewhere in the region of 60 to 70% are caused by the driver (some studies have shown the rate to be as high as about 85%).

I totally agree with you TS that some drivers do need to be more considerate and that those caught driving in a way that would endanger anybody should be convicted,but likewise with cyclists.

I could not agree more with that.

I use a bike as a healthy, cheap, quick and enviromentally friendly way to get about and am fully aware if more people who wanted to do likewise weren't scared of it then the roads would actually become nicer places as traffic would be less etc etc.

There are many benefits coming from increased cyclist numbers.
Less damage to the roads (and so less cost to the taxpayer), increased public health, "safety in numbers", less congestion and more besides.

Re the comments about hiviz / specialist cycling gear, there are several studies that have showed that not only does the mental connection that you need special clothes to cycle mean that people see it as "not for them" (for God sake, you don't think you need special clothes to walk down the road!) but road users do, for some reason, give less space to fully kitted up riders. Don't fully understand why but apparently it's something to do with drivers subconsiously feeling that the casual cyclist is less competent and needs more consideration.

The apparent competence of the cyclist is a reason suggested by Dr. Ian Walker to explain the extra space given to un-helmeted cyclists and more still to female (impersonator ) cyclists.

Look less competent and you're generally much safer than if you look like you know what you're doing. "Gear" is the main variable in that. Gender and bicycle type can play a part too.

[Rhona]

No helmets = no big deal. At worst they only endanger themselves - but it's highly debatable what use a foam hat would be in a crash anyway.

Whilst I usually steer clear of this kind of thing (certainly of late), I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow when I read this.

I was secretary of a Headway group which dealt with aspects of traumatic brain injury. Through that, and also my job, I have heard and read eminent Neurologists and other experts in the field dealing with and debating to what degree a catastrophic head injury could have been rendered less so had a cycling helmet been worn. They also consider the different types available. Mr R has been a racing and mountain-bike cyclist, and still cycles every day. He also works with the CTC (National Cyclists Association).


No doubt you can find lengthy debate articles and goodness knows what else on google to support your comment, but I think I prefer to believe the expert evidence I have spent hours studying over the years, and said Neurologists' opinions on the matter.

Whilst the subject may be 'highly debatable' between two people in a pub, who ride a bike and have the ability to google, it is generally not so between the people who treat cyclists with head injuries, who did, or didn't wear a helmet.

The CTC include on their own website a number of articles on the helmet debate, and there are reports (Alison mentions this) on whether cyclists take more risks when wearing a helmet, whether motorists drive more carefully when they see a cyclist not wearing one etc. That's a different facet of debate to the one I'm referring to - I'm commenting on your specific point above; the helmets themselves - not driver or cyclist behaviour, and the value of 'what use a foam hat would be in a crash.' A helmet may not protect you from a truck travelling at 50 mph, but a relatively small impact, to an unprotected part of your head can have awful consequences.

Helmets don't prevent accidents, and general cycle safety is paramount. A helmet will not prevent a car swerving into you, or an injury to your leg. However, in my opinion, to willfully not wear one seems quite foolish.

You have your view, and I have offered mine. I am not seeking to change anyone's mind, just explaining why I disagree.

Wearing a helmet is not compulsory, so you are of course free to do as you wish.



P.s. I also apologise for the length of this post. I'll stick to my usual three or four lines in future.

[organic]

Replace the airbags on all cars with a metal spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel and see how our roads change.

Just a thought

I don't know whether Jeremy Clarkson thought that up or just popularised it... but it's a strange combination... a typically Clarkson thing to say (ie. bloody stupid) but actually WOULD work too! Haha.

What's the theory called? Something to do with acceptable or constant risk or something I think.

We'll accept a certain amount of personal risk and if the thing we do gets safer, we'll do it more recklessly until the same apparent risk (to ourselves) is in place.

Strange - but (apparently) true.

Any psych types in reading this that can illuminate it?

[SarzWix]

You're still not seeing what I'm saying. I'm saying "What is the proportion?" Ie. when someone quotes statistics about cars, we can compare that to the total number of cars on the road, via the amout paying road tax. So if you say that there are X number of cars involved in accidents, you can also say that there were Y numbers of cars who weren't involved in accidents.
But if you quote 14,000 cyclists are injured, blah de blah, how many cyclists are there who AREN't injured? Does anyone have any idea? It would appear not... So this might be 50% of all cyclists, which would be shocking. Or it might be 1% of all cyclists, which would be much less so.

A number is just a number until it is put in proportion/perspective.

[organic]

Rhona - I'll respond with as brief reply as I can manage, with citations, and still give a comprehensive answer. I'm not talking about highly debatable in a pub - or on google - but in the physics involved in head injuries and helmet design.

Cycle helmets simply aren't designed to be capable of preventing serious head injuries.
Rotational forces (which cause diffuse axonal injury and subdural hematoma - the majority causes of death and serious drain disablement in cyclists) are not mitigated by cycle helmets.

Direct impacts and linear forces cause cuts, bruises and concussions - helmets may mitigate some of those minor injuries, but they aren't designed for crashes involving a vehicle (stated explicitly in BS6863:1987)... just for hitting a flat surface... at no more than 15mph.

If we're talking about falling off a bicycle on a flat surface with no third party involvement - a helmet might be worth wearing. Otherwise you're wearing something that's been designed for a completely different scenario.

Some doctors have raised concerns that helmets may turn the relatively minor linear forces (which cause bumps, bruises, cuts and concussions) into rotational ones (which cause death and serious brain injury). There's a paper available but I don't have access to it - I'll get my girlfirend to log me into the site (student nurse - she'll more than likely have access through her university library) and post an extract when I can.

You're quite right that factors like risk, perception and so on play a large part - but even looking at helmets in isolation the evidence and design criteria quite simply do not point to an item that should be worn to protect cyclists from serious brain injury.

Some studies of real-world helmet use, they don't really affect the design and physics argument but they do give an idea of how they apply in the real world, complicated, of course, by several other factors:

Rodgers 1998 was the largest study of it's kind, looking into 8 million cyclist and pedestrian fatalities spread over 15 years in the USA. No evidence that helmets reduce brain injury or fatalities. On the contrary, he found that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.

Kunich (2008 - I think) confirmed there is no evidence that helmet use reduces fatalities.

US Consumer Product Safety Commission (2001) found that with no increase in cycle use over a decade but an increase from 18% to 50% helmet use saw a 10% increase in head injuries.

The following are summaries and I can't find the study names to reference:

In Canada between 1983 and 2005 helmet use grew from close to 0% to 50% with no detectable impact on rates of death in cyclists compared to pedestrians.

London helmet use is around 50% - the period of increasing use also saw increasing severity of injuries.

From 1995 to 2001 head injuries in children fell more than it did for adults. In the same period helmet use in children fell while in adults it rose to around 50%.



All of the above was things I read when deciding whether or not to wear a helmet. I concluded that if I was to wear one it would not offer me any worthwhile protection.
I still wear one though... for lawyers.

Even though I know wearing a helmet puts me more at risk of being in an accident (Walker 2005/6 ish) I wear one because I never want a the person defending someone who's killed or injured me to be able to say "...but he was not wearing a helmet."

[piskieinboots]

.... A helmet will not prevent a car swerving into you, or an injury to your leg. However, in my opinion, to willfully not wear one seems quite foolish.

Wot the three/four lines lady said

[SarzWix]

If the helmets are rubbish, why not just wear a motorcycle helmet?

[Rhona]

Organic, thank you for explaining all the things you read when deciding whether or not to wear a helmet.

I did not say that cycling helmets are designed to prevent serious head injuries. I think the points I made were quite clear. Your references to 'some papers' and 'some doctors' and the stats you use are obviously open to interpretation, and some aren't particularly relevant to my post. It isn't really clear which points you are attempting to disagree. Though please don't trouble yourself further on my account - I have enough knowledge in the area to cite my views and stand by them. Let's simply agree to respect the other's viewpoint.

I think I'll just leave it there.

[HeyWayne]

If the helmets are rubbish, why not just wear a motorcycle helmet?

Or drive a car.

YES I AM BEING FLIPPANT - I DON'T NEED/WANT A BLADDY ESSAY IN RETURN!!

Sheesus.

[organic]

Sarz - NOW I'm with you. Thanks for dumbing it down for me.

Right...
I've been searching for rates per 100,000 (most likely unit) as I believe that would answer your question. It's been very difficult to find something though. I've seen some before but it'll take time to find it.

In the mean time here's some rough numbers to give a general idea.
Per mile, cyclists are 14 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the roads than are car drivers.
These are deaths per billion km travelled using 2006 data...
Bus or coach: 0.3
Car: 2.5
Pedestrian: 36
Bicycle: 31
Motorcycle: 107

I've been looking even more after typing to this point and I simply can't find anything to say how many cyclists there are. One mentioned that around 28% of all commutes are done by bicycle which might give a rough idea - you'd need to know how many commuters there were though.

There is, however, still a very real need for all road users to consider others while they are out and about, and as the majority of cyclist, pedestiran and motorcyclist deaths on the roads are caused by bad driving - that has to be the main area of focus to make the roads safer for all vulnerable road users. (Of course, increasing safety for the most vulnerable will increase safety for all others by default.)


Thanks again for sticking with me and dumbing down what you were saying - I got there in the end.

[organic]

Or drive a car.

Or just stay at home.

YES I AM BEING FLIPPANT - I DON'T NEED/WANT A BLADDY ESSAY IN RETURN!!

Sheesus.

Nor shall you get one.