Study shows cyclists at greater risk of accident than car drivers

[jonesy]

CTC has helped defend our right to use the road. That's worth every penny of my subscription and more!

 

[summerdays]

Ho hum boring BM . Just critical of their "safety in numbers" campaign when quite clearly they have a financial interest in recruiting new comers to cycling promoting themselves as the mainstream face of cycling when they are errr.... not. Of course you are a member or official of the said organisation no doubt so you would be supportive of them which your posts indicate very strongly . They have never done anything for me on the cycling front either as a member or not. But this thread is not about the CTC, so I finish here.

What about fighting the case to allow us to cycle on the road and not have to use cycle paths, or changes in the highway code. They have done that for cyclists in general rather than just their membership.

I also believe in the Safety in Numbers theory. I think car drivers around here are expecting to see cyclists - its the norm (they don't necessarily look for them or are that pleased to see them but we aren't an alien species). Other places in the country it sounds as if cyclists can go for days without seeing another cyclist.

 

[MartinC]

Crank, you can see the "safety in numbers effect" if you compare accident figures in places where the amount of cycling's changed over time or by comparing places with low and high cycling rates.

Recently the CTC successfuly lobbied to stop the recent revision of the Highway Code making the use of cycle paths compulsory. I think this was good for cyclists in general.

 

[Crankarm]

Crank, you can see the "safety in numbers effect" if you compare accident figures in places where the amount of cycling's changed over time or by comparing places with low and high cycling rates.

Recently the CTC successfuly lobbied to stop the recent revision of the Highway Code making the use of cycle paths compulsory. I think this was good for cyclists in general.

Ha! Laugh out loud! Since some of the cycle lanes I have seen aren't fit for purpose I think there is a strong likelihood they could be challenged on health and safety grounds and would certainly breach any duty of care a public authority had to a cyclist who was injured using them instead of a much safer adjacent road. There was a thread not long ago with pics of crap cycle lanes. Lots of them there were absolutely loads. So that tells you something. They would soon change the HC back if local authorities started being frequently sued as primary or co-defendents in accidents where cyclists were injured because of their unsuitability. I'm sure the CTC weren't the only ones lobbying. I think BC and LCC must have had an input although I'm not sure. TBH I don't think the police would enforce it. They can't even enforce all the other laws such as drivers using mobile phones whilst driving or prosecute drivers who run us down so they ain't going to prosecute us for not using the cycle paths if they are clearly dangerous IMHO. Anyway whilst the HC is authoritative of many aspects on behaviour on the Highway on others it is merely advisory and is not a statement of the law.

The majority of my cycling is on rural roads where there are no cycle paths or tracks. I'm lucky if I see another cyclist in a week let alone in a day excluding the chavs I see in the scummy area I cycle through. I saw 2 chavs at the last minute as they came out of the darkness toward me on one BSO yesterday evening. Both dressed in black no lights .

Back to the CTC. Am I the only one who can see that they have a rather large financial incentive to their "safety in numbers" campaign?

I don't encounter any cycling infrastructure that the CTC has had a hand in AFAIK. Maybe stuff in Cambridge but that's probably down to consultation with the local Cambridge Cycling Campaign and a cycling aware Cambs Council simply because of the volume of cyclists?

Sorry I just don't share this stary eyed view that everyone seems to have of the CTC. I don't think they do anything special. If they started taking on private prosecutions of drivers who the police and CPS let off and lobby strongly to change the law on the burden of proof regarding drivers who collide with cyclists then I might be a bit more supportive. Anyway I don't really want to rehash this tired old debate as it was visited quite recently. You can search for it if you want.

I'm a member of the LCC and local cycling club. That's enough for me. Anway of the CTC members I have since met most are old, male, somewhat narrow minded. I would like to join BCF sometine but can't afford it at the mo. I don't like the undercurrent of those implying that because you are not a member of CTC or disagree with their policies then you are some how wrong or not a proper cyclist. I am not and I am respectively. Having said that there is one excellent thing about the CTC and that is Chris Juden whose articles I do miss from time to time. But hey I'll get over it. So should you lot. Each to their own. It's a free country, just .

 

[summerdays]

I'm not a member - but considering it. I honestly believe that the more people you see cycling the more normal it appears to be, and that someone might consider getting on their bike and joining in. The more that cycle (and quite often drive), the more considerate they might be around cyclists. And that it becomes normal to expect to see cyclists even if you don't cycle.

I don't think you have to be in bed with the CTC to think that.

 

[Crankarm]

I'm not a member - but considering it. I honestly believe that the more people you see cycling the more normal it appears to be, and that someone might consider getting on their bike and joining in. The more that cycle (and quite often drive), the more considerate they might be around cyclists. And that it becomes normal to expect to see cyclists even if you don't cycle.

I don't think you have to be in bed with the CTC to think that.

Sounds sensible what you have writ SD. But they go on to imply that because of this cycling has got safer. Wrong. Sorry I got drawn into this a few weeks ago and it really p***d me off as cyclists are still being abused, intimidated, forced off the roads and run down. Some prat on here finally admitted it was an acceptable inevitable loss if say another 100, 500 cyclists were killed each year in the grand push to get another 50,000, 150,00 people cycling as percentage wise cycling would be becoming safer.

I cycle everyday do 10,000 miles a year and not one day goes by where I have one or two near death experiences. I have just got a lot better at dealing with it. F**k all is done about drivers who bully, intimidate, injure and kill us and some police and local CPS are a pathetic case in point. This is where the lobbying should be done. Shock TV adverts and people being prosecuted, convicted and punished severely. But it just ain't happening AFAIAC. I'm going to have to stop as I am getting upset again. Enjoy the thread everyone. Stay safe on the roads.

 

[Arch]

I'm not a member - but considering it. I honestly believe that the more people you see cycling the more normal it appears to be, and that someone might consider getting on their bike and joining in. The more that cycle (and quite often drive), the more considerate they might be around cyclists. And that it becomes normal to expect to see cyclists even if you don't cycle.

I don't think you have to be in bed with the CTC to think that.

Of course not, but Crankie has a bee in his bonnet and generally likes to rain on other people's parades. Maybe he was scared by a pair of plus fours as a child.

If he doesn't want to be a member of the CTC he doesn't have to, any more than I have to be a member of the LCC or Sustrans or anything else, I don't go whining about people who are.

And now, he has the cheek to be using my remark as his sig. I'd rather be quoted by someone whose opinions I respect, but hey ho.

Ok, just seen his next post. So, how much lobbying are YOU doing Crankarm? If it's all being done so wrongly, what are you doing about it apart from whining?

 

[downfader]

Just fired off an email to bbc breakfast over their article this morning (saw it at work and so havent had a chance to email the show until tonight):

I'm just curious why you felt you needed to round the peice off with some bad cyclists? I mean if you report of driver's accidents do you then finish the peice off with footage of drivers speeding and parking on pavements?

You don't. I feel you acted a little underhand here and may well have turned a few good minded people away from cycling as a result, and damaged the incentive to make our roads safer places.

I would have sent this complaint this morning but I've been away from the computer until now.

I wish they'd do a damn separate peice on bad cyclists. Lumping it on the end makes it look like people deserve to get hit and that bad motorists are some kind of knight in shining armour (could be my perspective after a long day)

 

[marinyork]

Sounds sensible what you have writ SD. But they go on to imply that because of this cycling has got safer. Wrong. Sorry I got drawn into this a few weeks ago and it really p***d me off as cyclists are still being abused, intimidated, forced off the roads and run down. Some prat on here finally admitted it was an acceptable inevitable loss if say another 100, 500 cyclists were killed each year in the grand push to get another 50,000, 150,00 people cycling as percentage wise cycling would be becoming safer.

I think you're mixing up two different things crankarm. Some places where cycling is very popular there becomes an even more ingrained hatred of cycling. That's not really the same thing as safety although there are always nutcases who will deliberately try and do nasty things. It's perfectly possible to believe in both, I believe in safety in numbers, I also believe that in some places where it is popular there is a visceral hatred of cyclists.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Ha! Laugh out loud! Since some of the cycle lanes I have seen aren't fit for purpose I think there is a strong likelihood they could be challenged on health and safety grounds and would certainly breach any duty of care a public authority had to a cyclist who was injured using them instead of a much safer adjacent road.

I see. And you believe that if a national body representing cyclists' interests (such as might be, oooh, the CTC) didn't exist, that would be more likely to happen? Riiight ...

There was a thread not long ago with pics of crap cycle lanes. Lots of them there were absolutely loads. So that tells you something. They would soon change the HC back if local authorities started being frequently sued as primary or co-defendents in accidents where cyclists were injured because of their unsuitability. I'm sure the CTC weren't the only ones lobbying. I think BC and LCC must have had an input although I'm not sure. TBH I don't think the police would enforce it. They can't even enforce all the other laws such as drivers using mobile phones whilst driving or prosecute drivers who run us down so they ain't going to prosecute us for not using the cycle paths if they are clearly dangerous IMHO. Anyway whilst the HC is authoritative of many aspects on behaviour on the Highway on others it is merely advisory and is not a statement of the law.

Well, ignoring all the irrelevant flannel you've posted in the latter half of this frothy snippet, the same point that I've made above applies. Why is it a bad thing that we have three large cyclists' organisations instead of two? And who are the "BC and LCC"? And why are you so ready to sing their praises if you're "not sure" they were even involved in lobbying for your right to ride on the road?

The majority of my cycling is on rural roads where there are no cycle paths or tracks.

Well, atren't you lucky. me too, as it happens. If only every other cyclist had the foresight to be like us, there might be no need for the CTC.

Back to the CTC. Am I the only one who can see that they have a rather large financial incentive to their "safety in numbers" campaign?

I don't encounter any cycling infrastructure that the CTC has had a hand in AFAIK. Maybe stuff in Cambridge but that's probably down to consultation with the local Cambridge Cycling Campaign and a cycling aware Cambs Council simply because of the volume of cyclists?

Sorry I just don't share this stary eyed view that everyone seems to have of the CTC. I don't think they do anything special. If they started taking on private prosecutions of drivers who the police and CPS let off and lobby strongly to change the law on the burden of proof regarding drivers who collide with cyclists then I might be a bit more supportive. Anyway I don't really want to rehash this tired old debate as it was visited quite recently. You can search for it if you want.

I'm a member of the LCC and local cycling club. That's enough for me. Anway of the CTC members I have since met most are old, male, somewhat narrow minded. I would like to join BCF sometine but can't afford it at the mo. I don't like the undercurrent of those implying that because you are not a member of CTC or disagree with their policies then you are some how wrong or not a proper cyclist. I am not and I am respectively. Having said that there is one excellent thing about the CTC and that is Chris Juden whose articles I do miss from time to time. But hey I'll get over it. So should you lot. Each to their own. It's a free country, just .

I don't think anyone is arguing that you're not a proper cyclist because you happen to believe the CTC have never done anything for you. But you are a spectacularly ill - informed one.

 

[Bromptonaut]

If cycling is so safe why oh why is this forum peppered with endless accounts of cyclists endangered by car, van, bus, coach, truck drivers, pedestrians and dogs? .

Much the same story on motoring forums. Stories of tailgaters, close passers, dodgy overtakes, LHD lorries etc.

Like Arch says, nobody posts about standard ride today no troubles.