BBC Inside Out tomorrow - reminder

[Crankarm]

bomb dodgers. They've brought their lousy attitudes with them when they got off public transport and onto their bikes. Same lousy 'super-men/women' attitudes they have behind the wheels of their cars. "Get out of my way plebs, I am on the road, I am considerably more important than you, and the petty rules of the road only apply to proles like you."

Probably not the most considerate and tasteful comment you could have used as many lost their lives in the London bombings as I am sure you realise. Maybe on reflection you decide it is a little too insensitive and post a more appropriate and less offensive analogy to convey your obvious annoyance and anger toward cyclists who do not obey the Highway Code or inconvenience you. I'm with you on the feral cyclists but using the analogy you did is a step too far I feel.

Have you been able to carry out a proper survey of cyclists who obey and those who don't obey the HC as to why they took up cycling? How about those careful and law abiding people that did turn to cycling following the London bombings who have become prudent cyclists who observe the HC?

 

[Lizban]

Re: Bomb Dodgers;

Is this unacceptable or just an example of the gallows type humour that is very common in the UK and therefore accpetable within our social norms?

 

[BentMikey]

I think it was a fairly innocuous and tongue in cheek reference to the risk-aversion by these cyclists, and in common use on forums all over the place back in 2005. Cycling is rather a lot more risky than taking the tube, although both are still very safe.

 

[Cab]

Re: Bomb Dodgers;

Is this unacceptable or just an example of the gallows type humour that is very common in the UK and therefore accpetable within our social norms?

You have to think back to the day of the bombings. People were, quite simply, trapped in London that day. They couldn't get home from work, you couldn't get a taxi, public transport had stopped, and quite literally many of the bike shops sold out that day as people sought a different way to get home. Overnight the number of cyclists you saw on the road increased, there were way more cyclists there than previously. And it isn't like public transport got back to normal straight away, nor did that look like a fun option for commuting!

The existing cyclists in and out of London coined the term 'bomb dodgers'; its the kind of bleak humour you get out of a crisis. It doesn't denigrate those who died in the bombings, it isn't even about them, its just a term used by those who saw this phenomenon and talked about it.

I don't get why there is the slightest bit of fuss about it.

 

[Crankarm]

Just because a tasteless phrase is used by some one who is thoughtless and ignorant and that phrase is then repeated numerous times by other similar people so that phrase passes into regular usage with in a particular group does not make it acceptable. It's not a phrase I have come across hence flagging it up. I thought cyclists, and in particular cyclists on here, were a little more mature, tolerant and judicious in their use of language and respectful of others. Quite apart from the fact that cyclists aren't immune from the affects of bombings if for instance you had been cycling in close proximity to the bus in Tavistock Square that was torn to pieces by a bomb that many passengers lost their lives and were seriously injured, you would likely be as dead as them or those passengers who lost their lives down on the Tube.

To equate people who have taken up cycling as they are fearful to use the Tube with the numerous cycling misdemeanours you see is frankly absurd. I find the phrase and use of it in this context very distasteful. If you lot can't see this then there's no hope. What do you know of the cyclists that don't obey the highway code or inconvenience you as they selfishly push you out the way or cause you to swerve? Calling them bomb dodgers is as ignorant as the sloppy journalism we reguarly see painting a negative image of cycling.

 

[BentMikey]

I really don't see what's distasteful about it, or even why you are fussing so much. I don't think it's the tiniest bit disrespectful to anyone either. I'd also dodge a bomb location if I knew in advance one was there.

As posted above I'm happy for them to cycle, and I'm happy to make allowances for poor riders' actions.

 

[stowie]

I found this excellent link on a cycling blog. It is a response to a parliamentary question concerning the number of pedestrians killed and seriously injured by cars, all motor vehicles and cycles. Link is http://www.publications.parliament....d/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041

The summary is that in the last 10 years :

Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists : 29
Number of pedestrians killed by cars : 5,305
Number of pedestrians killed by all motor vehicles : 7,629

Number of pedestrians injured by cyclists : 2,153
Number of pedestrians injured by cars : 304,269
Number of pedestrians injured by all motor vehicles : 364,082

Serious injuries in all cases were about 20% - 25% of total injuries (give or take a bit)

As I understand these are road accidents. It would appear that one pedestrian every four years is killed by pavement cycling in the UK.

Clearly, 1 extra death is utterly unacceptable, but it puts it all into perspective. I think pedestrians view some cyclists, like we view some car drivers - the perceived danger is greater than the actual, and their behaviour is intimidatory, whereas with cars and pedestrians the separation is greater, as is the acceptance of risk.

 

[Lizban]

I found this excellent link on a cycling blog. It is a response to a parliamentary question concerning the number of pedestrians killed and seriously injured by cars, all motor vehicles and cycles. Link is http://www.publications.parliament....d/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041

The summary is that in the last 10 years :

Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists : 29
Number of pedestrians killed by cars : 5,305
Number of pedestrians killed by all motor vehicles : 7,629

Number of pedestrians injured by cyclists : 2,153
Number of pedestrians injured by cars : 304,269
Number of pedestrians injured by all motor vehicles : 364,082

Serious injuries in all cases were about 20% - 25% of total injuries (give or take a bit)

As I understand these are road accidents. It would appear that one pedestrian every four years is killed by pavement cycling in the UK.

Clearly, 1 extra death is utterly unacceptable, but it puts it all into perspective. I think pedestrians view some cyclists, like we view some car drivers - the perceived danger is greater than the actual, and their behaviour is intimidatory, whereas with cars and pedestrians the separation is greater, as is the acceptance of risk.

Interesting - any one surprised that 3 peds. a year are killed by cyclists and that c500 are seriously hurt?

 

[BentMikey]

I'm surprised by that. I'd thought that 1 per year was killed on average across the whole of the UK. I suspect these stats might be wrong.

 

[Origamist]

I'm surprised by that. I'd thought that 1 per year was killed on average across the whole of the UK. I suspect these stats might be wrong.

The above figures relate to pedestrians being killed on the pavement and the road by cyclists. Pedestrians killed by cyclists riding on the pavement are less common than those who are killed on the roads.

 

[BentMikey]

No sh1t Sherlock, I was referring to totals killed, not just on the pavement.

 

[Lizban]

Are there any stats about total miles traveled to get a death/injury per mile traveled by each form of transport.

Guessing it would be too hard to collate

 

[gouldina]

You have to think back to the day of the bombings. People were, quite simply, trapped in London that day. They couldn't get home from work, you couldn't get a taxi, public transport had stopped, and quite literally many of the bike shops sold out that day as people sought a different way to get home. Overnight the number of cyclists you saw on the road increased, there were way more cyclists there than previously. And it isn't like public transport got back to normal straight away, nor did that look like a fun option for commuting!

The existing cyclists in and out of London coined the term 'bomb dodgers'; its the kind of bleak humour you get out of a crisis. It doesn't denigrate those who died in the bombings, it isn't even about them, its just a term used by those who saw this phenomenon and talked about it.

I don't get why there is the slightest bit of fuss about it.

+1

 

[stowie]

Interesting - any one surprised that 3 peds. a year are killed by cyclists and that c500 are seriously hurt?

I think it is around 50, not 500 seriously hurt per annum.

I was a little surprised as I thought 3 per year killed by cyclists was high, but it was a parliamentary response, so one has to assume it comes from national statistics.

But taking the 3 a year, which seems high to us, the numbers killed by cars is orders of magnitude higher.

I also was interested in the fact that the total vehicles wasn't much higher than the car total, even though cars are smaller, and more "pedestrian friendly" in an accident than the others, which I assume are lorries, buses etc.

I assumed that pavement cyclists were separate, but I am willing to be corrected. Certainly the number of pedestrians killed by cars on the pavement is so much higher than those killed by cyclists on the pavement, that the latter stat doesn't even seem to be counted separately.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Probably not the most considerate and tasteful comment you could have used as many lost their lives in the London bombings as I am sure you realise. Maybe on reflection you decide it is a little too insensitive and post a more appropriate and less offensive analogy to convey your obvious annoyance and anger lack of empathy, sympathy, or tolerance toward cyclists who do not obey the Highway Code break the law or inconvenience you endanger me or mine or anyone at all. I'm with you on the feral cyclists but using the analogy you did is a step too far I feel.

Crankers, a fair comment I guess. But if you find it offensive report it. Let the moderators moderate it if it crosses a boundary. Of course there are several other pre-existing threads in here they will have to mod as well as a simple search would reveal.

As to the rest I've ftfy.

Have you been able to carry out a proper survey of cyclists who obey and those who don't obey the HC as to why they took up cycling? How about those careful and law abiding people that did turn to cycling following the London bombings who have become prudent cyclists who observe the HC?

Do I need to conduct a proper survey in order to have an opinion? Opinions can be formed in a whole variety of ways and still be a) valid and correct. YMMV.

EDIT

I thought cyclists, and in particular cyclists on here, were a little more mature, tolerant and judicious in their use of language and respectful of others.

You what? Sorry I have just snorted coffee over my keyboard.