"Risky cycling rarely to blame..."

[661-Pete]

for cycling accidents, so it seems, according to a DoT study reported here.

Not sure whether this is a vindication of the cyclist's viewpoint, or a worry. I must admit to feeling a little bit smug, knowing that I don't do the transgressions so often cited (RLJing, no lights, etc. etc.). Perhaps it's wrong to feel complacent. Even the most experienced and skilled cyclist in the country can be hit from behind.

What do you think?

 

[HJ]

I have seen detailed analysis of crashes involving cyclists and motor vehicles, it was found that in 90% of the incidents where due to driver error. It is no great surprise if you think about it. Driver are protected by steel cages and cyclist are not. Most cyclist will try to avoid collisions, although there are some who will engage in risky behaviour, most cyclist see motor vehicles as a potential danger to themselves. Drivers on the other hand do not see cyclist as a potential danger to themselves, as in the event of collisions they are unlikely to be directly harmed, so they are more likely to engage in risky behaviour. Sadly it is socially acceptable to kill or maim people whilst driving a motor vehicle, most drivers find it acceptable to blame the victim.

As for being hit from behind while moving, this is actually the least dangerous form of collision as the combined impact speed is reduced by the speed of the slower vehicle (normally the cyclist), it is also less common, that other collisions.

 

[Origamist]

Thanks for the link, Pete.

You can download the full report here:

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r..._britain_s_roads_establishing_the_causes_.htm

 

[Origamist]

As for being hit from behind while moving, this is actually the least dangerous form of collision as the combined impact speed is reduced by the speed of the slower vehicle (normally the cyclist), it is also less common, that other collisions.

Have you read the report? See pages: 31 and 32. Look at the fatality table - getting hit from behind might be rare, but the consequences can be very serious.

 

[HJ]

Have you read the report? See pages: 31 and 32. Look at the fatality table - getting hit from behind might be rare, but the consequences can be very serious.

I hadn't read PPR445 when I posted that comment above, I was going my memory of earlier reports. I am reading it now. I stand corrected.

 

[hackbike 666]

Im not really surprised.All they seem to do at times is foot to the floor.Had that yesterday.

 

[661-Pete]

I haven't downloaded the full article, only the digested report in the Grauniad - but I'm guessing this. I reckon the problem with being hit from behind is the speed that the vehicle may be doing. If a car is following up at 60mph, the fact that you the cyclist are doing 15mph in the same direction makes no odds. The closing impact will still be 45mph which is lethal for a cyclist.

Collisions at a junction are likely to be at far lower speeds and the real danger to the cyclist, here, is probably not the impact itself but the risk of crushing.

 

[Origamist]

I haven't downloaded the full article, only the digested report in the Grauniad - but I'm guessing this. I reckon the problem with being hit from behind is the speed that the vehicle may be doing. If a car is following up at 60mph, the fact that you the cyclist are doing 15mph in the same direction makes no odds. The closing impact will still be 45mph which is lethal for a cyclist.

Indeed. At higher speeds, on twisty rural roads cyclists will often have very little time to react to danger from behind.

If people don't want to register on the TRL site, pm later today and I can email you a copy of the TRL pdf. It makes for interesting reading.

 

[HJ]

Having had a wee bit of time to read the TRL stuff in PPR445 Technical annex, I found that almost all instances of cyclist being hit from behind are on rural A roads, which supports what 661-Pete says above.

 

[GrasB]

Having had a wee bit of time to read the TRL stuff in PPR445 Technical annex, I found that almost all instances of cyclist being hit from behind are on rural A roads, which supports what 661-Pete says above.

Slightly off topic but maybe it's time to be suggesting cyclist have brighter rear lights always on? Since I've been using my red-eye during the day, almost 2 months now, I've not had a single high speed close overtake on the rural roads.

 

[TheDoctor]

Yeah, but no, but yeah...
If they're looking they'll see you whether you've got a light on or not.
If they're not looking, a light won't save your bacon.

 

[PpPete]

I guess it's just one extra chance of attracting the attention of the motons...

 

[HJ]

Yeah, but no, but yeah...
If they're looking they'll see you whether you've got a light on or not.
If they're not looking, a light won't save your bacon.

If there is one thing they are generally looking for it is a bright red light, as that is usually a brake light, so yes it does have an effect...

 

[GrasB]

If there is one thing they are generally looking for it is a bright red light, as that is usually a brake light, so yes it does have an effect...

This is a double blow, firstly motorist are tuned to bright red lights, secondly a bright red light usually means that they're approaching something which is slower than them so take more care

 

[snorri]

Slightly off topic but maybe it's time to be suggesting cyclist have brighter rear lights always on?

Cyclists are already encouraged to wear hi viz, reflectives and h*****s, and cycle on segregated paths.
Is it not long past time to curb the excesses of the motor vehicle driver?