Car -vs- Cycle Lane incident 😲

[roubaixtuesday]

I could be wrong but that looks like car driver casualties. It would be expected unfortunately that more older drivers are the victim of their own mistake and more vulnerable in a collision. But more younger drivers manage to walk away from a collision which takes others lives (that may also involve hitting an elderly driver, yet adding more to that graph to mislead).

We could all speculate about statistics we don't fully understand all the detail of.

I think the effect is so large, however, that it clearly shows there is a real issue with older drivers causing disproportionate hazard.

 

[Alex321]

This is bad news for those of us who have been trying to get the council to stop putting posts at each end of shared paths

Why would you try to do that?

Posts are put there precisely to stop cars being driven onto the paths. So long as they are sensible, they shouldn't impede cyclists significantly at all.

If they are putting posts up too close together to easily cycle through, that is certainly an issue, but that is installying them wrongly, not an inherent issue with posts.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

not an inherent issue with posts.

Would disagree. Putting posts in the middle of cycle paths is dangerous to cyclists (my mum hit one and fell off, just for instance).

 

[Alex321]

Would disagree. Putting posts in the middle of cycle paths is dangerous to cyclists (my mum hit one and fell off, just for instance).

Not if done properly, only at the entrances to the path, with good visibility. Less dangerous than sharing the path with pedestrian, who arec likely to move in unpredic table ways, while the post stays put.

 

[Evil_Breakfast]

Why, is it more likely that he would have been driving a tank? 😂

Tank? Goes without saying, I would have thought.
Giant anime style mech-walker? Outside the mind of Hideo Kojima, these things don't exist.

 

[HLaB]

We could all speculate about statistics we don't fully understand all the detail of.

I think the effect is so large, however, that it clearly shows there is a real issue with older drivers causing disproportionate hazard.

To themselves maybe. Personally I have had 1 run in with an older driver in the past 3 years (stupid but at low speed) but Ive had dozens of reckless encounters with young drivers that nearly killed me. If the older driver hit me, they might have banged their head had a heart attack etc and died, where as if a younger person had hit me, they'd likely walked away. Those stats are labelled car driver casualties rates. Its not rocket science to see how it shows more elderly drivers dieing as a result of a collision, especially those over 85. You need to look at the stats of externalities to see who is the actual disproportionate hazard to other people in general and not just those that are a disproportionate hazard to themselves.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

To themselves maybe. Personally I have had 1 run in with an older driver in the past 3 years (stupid but at low speed) but Ive had dozens of reckless encounters with young drivers that nearly killed me. If the older driver hit me, they might have banged their head had a heart attack etc and died, where as if a younger person had hit me, they'd likely walked away. Those stats are labelled car driver casualties rates. Its not rocket science to see how it shows more elderly drivers dieing as a result of a collision, especially those over 85. You need to look at the stats of externalities to see who is the actual disproportionate hazard to other people in general and not just those that are a disproportionate hazard to themselves.

It's possible that this says more about your perception of risk than it does about accident stats. And there are many other speculations we could make.

The linked report provides a lot of data which helps to guide such speculation, and I don't think it suggests at all that others are not much affected, eg

 

[Ming the Merciless]

"a vulnerable man"

OK, I know what they meant by this, but given the context it seems a bit out of place. Would he still be a vulnerable man if he was driving a tank? How about a giant anime style mech-walker?

Indeed, the vulnerable people here were the legitimate users of the cycleway, the children. It should have said vulnerable children. The man in the two tonne metal cage wasn’t vulnerable in this circumstance.

 

[HLaB]

It's possible that this says more about your perception of risk than it does about accident stats. And there are many other speculations we could make.

The linked report provides a lot of data which helps to guide such speculation, and I don't think it suggests at all that others are not much affected, eg

View attachment 790131

Unfortunately, I work with collision stats and its very easy for someone to pick out one table/graph that shows what they want and put a narrative to it. Whilst no one is saying old drivers aren't a problem and dont make stupid mistakes due to senialty, bad eye sight etc; sometimes you need to step back and look at the bigger problem, younger drivers unfortunately harm more people than theirself and they often walk away from things which will bias that one graph of car driver casualties.

 

[wiggydiggy]

https://www.somersetcountygazette.c...students-hit-suzuki-vitara-driven-cycle-path/

“At around 8:10am on Monday, 13 October, we received a report that a car, being driven by a vulnerable man in his 80s along a cycle path off South Road in Taunton, collided with two children and a wall at low speed, said an Avon and Somerset Police spokesperson."

Incidents like this only underline/justify the need for the following changes :-

From Oct 2025, the DVLA plans to bring in stricter rules for drivers aged 70 and above. Although full details haven’t been released yet, here are some expected changes:

• Stricter medical reporting: You may need to provide medical documents from your doctor.
• Vision and memory checks: These could be required to ensure you’re safe to drive.
• Extra checks for certain health conditions: Especially for issues like dementia or eyesight problems.

These steps are being introduced to improve safety for all road users. As people age, problems like poor eyesight, memory loss, and slower reflexes can make driving more risky.

https://www.governsmarter.org/new-uk-driving-license-rule-for-seniors-begins-oct-2025/

I think the change in legislation has been coming for a while, Channel 5 has an excellent series call "Cause of Death" which shows the coroners investigation into deaths. They did a special where the coroner decided to combine 4 cases of people being hit by elderly drivers, its a very good programme and IIRC all the drivers have sight issues, and at least 2 had been told not to drive but there is no obligation (then or now) for them to inform the DVLA. In one case its particularly heartbreaking as the victim had also been told not to drive, and wasn't, but the person who hit him had conitnued driving (with very limited vision) after being told not to.

I think I am going to watch this again as just skimming it I've remembered how good it was.

https://www.channel5.com/show/cause-of-death-special-a-licence-to-kill

 

[markemark]

Indeed, the vulnerable people here were the legitimate users of the cycleway, the children. It should have said vulnerable children. The man in the two tonne metal cage wasn’t vulnerable in this circumstance.

In terms of the individual's safety then yes, he was much less vulnerable. But he could be vulnerable in other ways. A system could be vulnerable to failure. The driver, it would seem, was vulnerable to poor decision making, risk assessment, cognition etc.

But in terms of safety, at this moment, pedestrians were vulrneable. However it is also likely when back on the road, he became vulnerable again to a collision with other cars.

 

[T4tomo]

lets not lose sight of:

Neither of the children involved, who are of secondary school age, were seriously injured and both continued to school.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Unfortunately, I work with collision stats and its very easy for someone to pick out one table/graph that shows what they want and put a narrative to it. Whilst no one is saying old drivers aren't a problem and dont make stupid mistakes due to senialty, bad eye sight etc; sometimes you need to step back and look at the bigger problem, younger drivers unfortunately harm more people than theirself and they often walk away from things which will bias that one graph of car driver casualties.

I don't "want" any conclusion, I've just looked at the evidence I have, which, unless I've totally misread it, clearly shows there are far more non-driver KSIs than driver KSIs for older drivers.

I've also not at all said that there isn't a problem with younger drivers; you'll see me upthread agreeing with that.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

In terms of the individual's safety then yes, he was much less vulnerable. But he could be vulnerable in other ways. A system could be vulnerable to failure. The driver, it would seem, was vulnerable to poor decision making, risk assessment, cognition etc.

But in terms of safety, at this moment, pedestrians were vulrneable. However it is also likely when back on the road, he became vulnerable again to a collision with other cars.

Now you’ve jumped into the realms of speculation just as paper has. They should not have described him as vulnerable in the article. You can describe him as a danger to others when behind the wheel, which would be more appropriate

One child ended up needing to go to hospital.

 

[markemark]

Now you’ve jumped into the realms of speculation just as paper has. They should not have described him as vulnerable in the article. You can describe him as a danger to others when behind the wheel, which would be more appropriate

One child ended up needing to go to hospital.

Absolutely. I have no idea. But there’s lots of reasons why he might be vulnerable other than safety but none are mentioned here.