A Worrying & Serious Near Incident!

[cd365]

So how many fatal cyclist pedestrian collisions do you think there are and how does that figure compare with the flawed official stats? How do you measure the difference?
Again, figures or a source for the 50:50 fault split?

I have no idea how many fatal cyclist pedestrian collisions there are, again try Google. Stats can be show to prove anything, it would be very easy to take the number of miles driven to fatalities then compare it with the number of miles ridden to fatalities and see what that stat proves. I have got neither figure and will not be trying to work it out, go ahead if you find the need.

A quick Google search found the webpage I read a long time ago http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

"The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time"

Or

So "just in case" a pedestrian runs out in front of me I should drive down a road in an urban environment at 10mph, even at 3am in the morning?"

Which is your opinion?

I do not drive or cycle with a "what if" mentality, if I did I would probably develop agoraphobia. I try to drive and cycle as safe as I can everytime I go out, I don't want to be responsible for killing someone nor do I want to be killed. It wasn't me that was having a go at G2EWS picking faults with his driving, saying his speed was inappropriate for the conditions, implying that he should have gone around that bend at little more than walking pace "just in case" there was something around the corner. From what I read he didn't cause an accident, he stopped in time so in my opinion his speed was appropriate for the conditions.

 

[cd365]

i don't ride on the pavement, I stop at red lights . I also drive and drove some large vehicles in the past. I was also taught to drive using the principle of being able to stop safely in the distance in can see clearly. . I can't see anywhere that i have said it is less of a crime. i beleive my post said that I can still stop in the distance i can cleartly see even when on my bike
I don't know what your problem is but you sir are this weeks cockwomble for that attitude

You said there is a difference "there is a huge difference between 20Kgs of metal with a 100Kg rider and 1000kg of metal coming towards you" in my opinion there is no difference, if you are an innocent party struck by a cyclist or a car it will hurt, the only difference will be the degree of pain and possibly the length of recovery. Neither waay will it be a nice experience.

My problem is the attitude that if you are hit by a bike it is OK you should be glad it wasn't a car!

Cockwomble, is that a 7 year olds insult? Should I take offence to that?

 

[subaqua]

You said there is a difference "there is a huge difference between 20Kgs of metal with a 100Kg rider and 1000kg of metal coming towards you" in my opinion there is no difference, if you are an innocent party struck by a cyclist or a car it will hurt, the only difference will be the degree of pain and possibly the length of recovery. Neither waay will it be a nice experience.

My problem is the attitude that if you are hit by a bike it is OK you should be glad it wasn't a car!

Cockwomble, is that a 7 year olds insult? Should I take offence to that?

you don't come here often i take it, if you have not read the word cockwomble on the forum before.

the difference between 1000Kg and 120Kg is that one will likely hurt somewhat whereas the other will likely cause serious injury or a fatality. it still doesn't change the statement that you should drive or ride at a Speed appropriate to the hazard being approached, attained via explicit braking or throttle control (engine braking/slowing pedalling on a fixie ), always being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road.

maybe we should experiment with me driving into you at 10mph in a range rover and then at 10mph on a bicycle. then you can tell me which was worse . we can increase the speed until you want to stop. although i do think that we may get more chances with the bicycle than with the range rover

 

[Boris Bajic]

Much sense has been written on this thread - and I think one or two good points have been made.

There would appear to be no logic in driving round a blind bend, finding a stationary object in one's path and putting any blame on anyone other than oneself.

Having been taught by the person who devised the Police Driving Course is fabulous. A rare privilege.

I could teach my cat to play the saxophone, but I still wouldn't pay money to see him put me tuition into practice.

(Actually, I might, but for the wrong reasons).

However, something I've noticced on narrow, twisty lanes in the Three Couties that makes simply no sense is the following: A cyclist (or small group of cyclists) stopped and inspecting some part of the bicycle of one of them on the outside verge right on the apex of a blind bend on a high-hedged, narrow lane.

I've only ever seen it 3 times (both is the past year), but it strikes me as odd. An approaching vehicle would have to move towards the centre at just the location where one might suppose the centre was the wrong place to be. Although fully visible to other road users coming from both directions (which is a good thing), the cyclists present any other road user with a potentially tricky situation.

I may be wroing about this being eccentric behaviour, as seeing it three times in a year suggests that it might be some sort of accepted best practice. Any thoughts?

 

[cd365]

So your even split is in fact less than 25 more than 75.

Did you only read the bit about adults? "The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall"

 

[cd365]

I've read cockwomble on the forums and always assumed it was made up by a 7 year old not allowed to swear. Just because it is on this forum does not make it funny or clever.

 

[subaqua]

I've read cockwomble on the forums and always assumed it was made up by a 7 year old not allowed to swear. Just because it is on this forum does not make it funny or clever.

GC is going to love that.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I've read cockwomble on the forums and always assumed it was made up by a 7 year old not allowed to swear. Just because it is on this forum does not make it funny or clever.

I love this. Apparently.


GC

 

[subaqua]

I love this. Apparently.


GC

GregCollins you CW

 

[glasgowcyclist]

GregCollins you CW

Doh!

GC

(I did wonder...)

 

[cd365]

Well yes and no. I read all of it and chose to point out to you that in collisions between adult cyclists and drivers the data don't support your assertion.

Well on that note I will bail out of this conversation.

 

[subaqua]

Well on that note I will bail out of this conversation.

I was just beginning to think you were Linf.

 

[cd365]

Probably best, if you have nothing of any substance to offer.

A good piece of advice I was given was "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."