Because in Health and Safety/Risk Analysis you develop an hierarchy of responses with the primary response being to deal with the biggest source of danger. And that's drivers, not cyclists.
SMIDSY is an admission of guilt
- Thread starter Red Light
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Because in Health and Safety/Risk Analysis you develop an hierarchy of responses with the primary response being to deal with the biggest source of danger. And that's drivers, not cyclists.
ferret fur
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Roseburn
Or you identify risky behaviors and seek to mitigate. The danger is in the attitude to safety on the roads. It depends how far back you want to push the analysis: People in general don't seem to recognise the risks involved with road use. Why not start there?
Its quite interesting to see how the main focus of blame shifts with age, according to UK police reports with under riders under 24 its the cyclists actions that are deemed to be to blame for the majority of accidents, with older riders it is the motorists. 16% of serious cycling injuries are also received without aid of a 3rd party so obviously there is some plenty of room for some rider to reduce their risks.
Citation.
Knowles, J. et al: “Collisions Involving Cyclists on Britain's Roads: Establishing the Causes", TRL Report PPR 445, 2009
Also according to RoSPA, 4 out of 5 injured cyclists are male, which suggests that either us men are more reckless or we outnumber women rides by a factor of 4 which I don't think we do.
Citation.
Knowles, J. et al: “Collisions Involving Cyclists on Britain's Roads: Establishing the Causes", TRL Report PPR 445, 2009
Also according to RoSPA, 4 out of 5 injured cyclists are male, which suggests that either us men are more reckless or we outnumber women rides by a factor of 4 which I don't think we do.
In London one in four cyclists is female but females are about 80% of cycling fatalities. This has been attributed to them being less assertive on the road.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
It's not just the total number of people riding. My impression is there are a lot of women doing short rides where as men travel far further, this results is the male cycling population traveling substantially further than the female cycling population. From statistics I've got for work women travel on average 1.3 miles to work by bike, men the average was closer to 4.8 miles & there were 42% more men cycling to work than women. That means men are accounting for 8.4 miles in every 10 miles traveled by bike.
Good point, there certainly seem to be a lot more men doing things things like long distance commuting and audaxing, and once you start to add some rural riding into the mix the chances of being involved in a life threatening accident increase quite dramatically.
Mad at urage
New Member
- Location
- Just N of Cardiff
Which is why a driver should be concentrating on looking beyond the periphery of the lit zone. The driver should also use full beam appropriately, so that driving on dipped beam with no other lighting to assist, should be very rare. Always the driver should drive at a speed where the vehicle can be stopped in the space that can be seen to be clear.
fossyant
Ride It Like You Stole It!
- Location
- South Manchester
Got myself a smidsy this morning and nearly ended up as a bonnet ornament. I let it go and carried on.
Same as yesterday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
Including child stats in cycling accidents skews the figures, not many 5 year olds commute by bike, these are falls in back gardens.
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
One car I owned, possibly my Cinqucento, had the head light flashers & main beam control the opposite way round to other cars I've driven (main beam pull towards you, flashers pushed away from you). This car was very good for driving on main beam as the stalk was right in front of your fingers when in the 'quarter to 3' to '10 to 2' position, resulting in a quick flick of the fingers knocking the lights into dipped beam. This feature is one I've wished for on every car since as it takes much longer to reach forward to pull the stalk towards me. This feature made me more comfortable driving with main beams on.
That is not a citation its a link to a newspaper report. If you go to the original source (which appears to be the same one I quoted in 2 previous posts) then you will see the newspaper has been highly selective in the information it has extracted. I have looked at the actual report and do not draw the same conclusions that the reporter has.
The full report can be downloaded from here
The report alerts readers to the pitfall you've missed.
Including child casualties changes the figures, you're quite correct, but they don't tell us anything worthwhile about allocation of blame in RTCs since most child accidents don't involve another vehicle.
Not many 5 year olds commute by bike.
You're tampering with the figures to get the result you want.
Including child casualties changes the figures, you're quite correct, but they don't tell us anything worthwhile about allocation of blame in RTCs since most child accidents don't involve another vehicle.
Not many 5 year olds commute by bike.
You're tampering with the figures to get the result you want.
cd365
Guru
- Location
- Coventry, uk
I have hit one cyclist in all the miles I have driven, if I had not been completely aware of him he could have been under my front wheels, he apologised and admitted it was all his fault and offered to pay the damage he had caused. The reason he wasn't paying attention was because he had headphones on and decided that he wanted to go to the shop on the other side of the road so just turned in front of me.
So yes, I firmly believe that it is ALL road users' behaviour that needs looking at.
