BBC report on womens cycling & fatalities

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Origamist

Legendary Member
garrilla said:
My point, ill made as usual, was that it was impossible for the journo to make a correct statistical appraisal in under 500 words. However, because the significance between the two metrics was huge, it was OK to make this kind of simple statistical conflation - those in the know should see that, those who don't wont care.

There is a major problem with peices like this. SHould the journo write the story without the evidence or, for the sake of getting issues raised, do we allow a bit of technical slippage?

Trust me, if it was an academic paper or government report I would already have fired off a letter. It was a small journalistic item that made a fair point badly, so I'm far less concerned.

Quoting the London gender breakdown would have been more logical as the 7/8 female fatality figure was London based and it was this has brought the issue to the BBC's attention.

The article focussed on 2009. It did not examine the gender/fatality/ HGV breakdown in previous years in London. This would have provided a more robust framework to understand the issue. It could be that 2009 was a blip as the BBC article mentions in a throw-away comment at the beginning of the piece, but equally it could be part of a wider trend in the last 15 years or so.

I know criticising journos/copy is easy, but I do think we should examine the article in more detail and highlight methodological flaws (amongst others).
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
Lazy-Commuter said:
A point that bothers me somewhat about all this and I'd be interested to hear what the statistical heavyweights have to say ..

Isn't 8 rather a small sample size? Couldn't we just be seeing one of those strange quirky runs? I'd be interested to know what the figures for say last year were (though not interested enough to actually look it up :smile:) .. surely if there (for example) 15 fatalities in 2008 and 14 of them were male, over the two years you'd have 15 males and 8 females out of a total of 23 total fatalities, which would be closer to the ratio of male:female commuters.

I suppose the question I'm asking is: when does a "run" like this become signficant?

Quote from Moving Target:


"Thanks for your message. You may know that the London Road Safety Unit report was originally quoted in the Islington Tribune states in its preface that the study was carried out under pressure from LBMA.
Unfortunately the statistics have suffered from the usual Chinese Whispers.

Email from: Emily Thornberry, who is on the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group,

"The real statistics are:
from 1999 - May 2004:
87 deaths of cyclists of which 21 were female, 66 male.
Of those 21 females an astonishing 18 (85%) were killed by HGV drivers.
Another 28 of the males (around 50%) were also killed "

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/art...yclists-killed-by-hgvlgvs-in-london-1999-2004
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
Lorry1.jpg


Revised recommendation for dealing with an 'Artic' at traffic signals.

STOP! And wait.
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
jimboalee said:
Lorry1.jpg


Revised recommendation for dealing with an 'Artic' at traffic signals.

STOP! And wait.

Take no notice of the BBC's advised route around a stationary truck.

If the truck driver throws his door open, you'll get the corner of it slap-bang in your kisser, so don't go up the outside of a truck when its stood still.
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
jimboalee said:
If the truck driver throws his door open, you'll get the corner of it slap-bang in your kisser, so don't go up the outside of a truck when its stood still.

This, of course, is what a 'Serious cyclist' would say. :birthday:
 

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
Location
South London
And that second image is still bollocks. I wouldn't want to wait next to the edge of the road there, I'd want to own the lane and would probably be a little closer to the offside of the truck in left-right alignment (rather than the middle in pure primary), plus a little further back than the yellow cyclist.
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
BentMikey said:
And that second image is still bollocks. I wouldn't want to wait next to the edge of the road there, I'd want to own the lane and would probably be a little closer to the offside of the truck in left-right alignment (rather than the middle in pure primary), plus a little further back than the yellow cyclist.

+1. The problem with the position of the cyclist in JB's diagram is that whilst the HGV driver at the lights can see him (if he checks his mirror) another HGV or large vehicle could pull along side and hem you in.
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
BentMikey said:
And that second image is still bollocks. I wouldn't want to wait next to the edge of the road there, I'd want to own the lane and would probably be a little closer to the offside of the truck in left-right alignment (rather than the middle in pure primary), plus a little further back than the yellow cyclist.

That's where, to the perception of following vehicles, you would be "In the bloody way".
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
BentMikey said:
And that second image is still bollocks. I wouldn't want to wait next to the edge of the road there, I'd want to own the lane and would probably be a little closer to the offside of the truck in left-right alignment (rather than the middle in pure primary), plus a little further back than the yellow cyclist.

I agree with you

jimboalee said:
That's where, to the perception of following vehicles, you would be "In the bloody way".

Does it matter if you are in the way if you are in a sensible safe place - motorists think primary is in their way... its not going to stop me using it when I consider I need to for my safety.
 

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
Location
South London
jimboalee said:
That's where, to the perception of following vehicles, you would be "In the bloody way".

ITYM in the perception of only a very few of the worst drivers, the tiniest fraction of road users. The vast majority of drivers are quite happy with a cyclist in the queue ahead of them because the vehicle in front of the cyclist takes all the pressure off them to have to accelerate and obey rule number one.

This is why it's recommended best practice to sit in the queue in the lane. A little to the offside is a modification to allow the HGV driver to see you in his offside mirror.
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
If I have a stationary vehicle ahead AND I cannot see what is ahead of it, I'll stop kerbside and behind.

If the stationary vehicle lingers longer than expected, like it's exit from the junction is conjested, I can dismount and walk my bike along the pavement to a position ahead and continue my journey.

You BentMikey on your recumbent might decide to wait, and wait, and wait.

Us on diamonds, can hop off and take to the sidewalk.
 

Crankarm

Guru
Location
Nr Cambridge
Christ is this post still being debated! I said right at the start that by far the safest course of action was to wait until the HGV had moved off rather than trying to pass it on any side. Obviously passing down the nearside is dangerous but equally so is the offside. Most HGVs take up the whole width of a lane which this poor diagram does not show. So passing along the offside of the HGV may mean one is crossing over into the oncoming lane putting one at risk of being hit by a vehicle turning into the road as you will be very vulnerable in the middle of the carriageway or on the opposite side of the carriageway in the wrong place at the wrong time. Another large vehicle turning into the road would certainly wipe you out as well as any car or van travelling too quickly.
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
Threads are often like echo chambers, CA...That said, discussing where to best to position yourself behind a HGV is not straightforward as it seems as there are benefits and disbenefits depending on your placement.

Ideally, you want to be seen by the driver, so you need to be able to see his mirrors and let him know you are there. If you choose the nearside, you leave open the possibility of a vehicle coming along side. On the plus side, you also partially block the corridor on the left side of the vehicle, thereby discouraging other cyclists who might have nipped through. If you plonk yourself down centre right it's less likely you will get a vehicle come along on the inside. If you do plan on overtaking from this position, remember that HGVs will often turn right beofre they turn left (in order to negotiate the corner), so be careful you do not get pushed into oncoming traffic.

I like to be 3 metres back from a HGV as it provides better sight lines. When it pulls off keep a close eye on it's wheels/indicators and give it a lot of room - slow moving HGVs are still lethal and try to keep out of its blindspots.
 

HJ

Cycling in Scotland
Location
Auld Reekie
BentMikey said:
ITYM in the perception of only a very few of the worst drivers, the tiniest fraction of road users. The vast majority of drivers are quite happy with a cyclist in the queue ahead of them because the vehicle in front of the cyclist takes all the pressure off them to have to accelerate and obey rule number one.

This is why it's recommended best practice to sit in the queue in the lane. A little to the offside is a modification to allow the HGV driver to see you in his offside mirror.

+1
 
Top Bottom