The Hard Shoulder.

[Chippy_Tea]

We all need to remember that nice shiny (not in my case) car you are driving weighs 1000kg - 1400kg and if it can do this to a house imagine what it can do to a motorcyclist, cyclist, pedestrian if driven dangerously.


A driver who careered off the road and into a family’s front room has today been jailed for five years https://is.gd/vuh29N

 

[Wouter]

This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. As far as the law is concerned it is literally the same offence. And while in a car the consequences are more likely to be fatal, hitting someone on a bike can still seriously injure people. Imagine a cyclist hitting some little old lady tottering across the pedestrian crossing?

Again, I'm not trying to turn this into a competition or pretend cyclists are "worse" than motorists, or even trying to defend motorists by some tortured and circuitous route. Dangerous driving is indefensible, as we all seem to agree. But I don't see how you can say that people have no right to take chances with other people's safety (and I agree that they don't), and fail to apply that same logic to cyclists. You have no more right to break my leg than you do to kill me.

Alright let me put this simply as why I think it is a bit different.
Cars causing accidents with serious are a common problem.
Bicycles causing accidents are not.

Examples of a bicycle hitting a pedestrian causing serious harm are extremely rare.
Cars hitting people causing serious harm happens every day.

The reason that logic doesn't apply to cyclist is because the risk is so extremely much lower.
Let me put it like this, I couldn't even find statistics of cyclists seriously harming other people. I've really tried delving into the statistics of causes of accidents per vehicle type of both the UK and the Netherlands, and even in the Netherlands the amount of cyclists harming others is so extremely insignificant that they are not even present in these statistics.

P.S. Interestingly enough, the UK is the only country in Europe (including east European countries) in which cyclists are not protected by law. Every other country has some form of "In case of an accident the dude sitting in the moving 2 tons of unstoppable force has to prove its not his fault".

 

[Thumper]

I already acknowledged that the consequences of being hit by a car are far more likely to be serious. You'd have to be an ***** to pretend otherwise.

But if you are making the argument that people don't have the right to place others in danger then you have to at least be consistent. You can't badmouth dangerous driving in one sbreath and then act as if cyclists ignoring red lights and riding through pedestrian crossings is ok.

My initial point was simply that saying cyclists don't kill as many people as motorists doesn't mean they don't hit as many. I didn't mean that statement to cause some sort of ludicrous disagreement about whether its morally equivalent to put someone at risk of death or at risk of a broken leg. It obviously isn't, but neither are ok.

 

[Spoon]

Imagine a cyclist hitting some little old lady tottering across the pedestrian crossing?

I can imagine it, but to re-iterate it simply isn't bore out by reality. Cars kill on average 9 pedestrians a day, bikes about 2 a year in the UK, and that includes the recent high profile case. If you can find a statistic that shows significantly more victims of bike/pedestrian collisions then, by all means, share it, but then you'd have to compare it to all the car related serious injuries too. Like the advert says at 30mph the pedestrian has an 80% chance of surviving (Vs 20% at 40) , it doesn't say in what state they're in afterward though.

I admit to running red lights, particularly at busy junctions. Cycling infrastructure in this country is at best an afterthought and at worst a joke, so as a cyclist approaching a busy junction you have several choices.

1) not filter, sit there breathing in the fumes and miss out on the hole point of being on your bike (that it's quicker than a car at commuting times).

2) Filter and sit at the front, you then have to compete with the first few drivers, who are focusing on working out which other streams of traffic are on green, accelerating, and with alarming regularity; eating their toast! I've watched one driver set off and drive straight into the back of the bike in front (thankfully at walking pace so no one was hurt).

3) Filter, cross the white line and wait 10m up the road at the actual junction. Avoid the traffic (I'm usually well across the junction and back into a cycle lane if there is one by the time the car behind catches up). It's by far the safest way to deal with most town center junctions at rush hour on a bike and lets more cars through because the junction is free of bikes. It's just like an imaginary ASL* box at every junction).

*the big green/red box at the lights, usually with a bike painted on it and a car in it, not because the car has decided that on balance crossing it's white line (i.e. it's run the lights already) was good for it's own safety, just because they're completely selfish.

P.S. Interestingly enough, the UK is the only country in Europe (including east European countries) in which cyclists are not protected by law. Every other country has some form of "In case of an accident the dude sitting in the moving 2 tons of unstoppable force has to prove its not his fault".

Only applies to civil cases though, i.e. in a bike + car collision the car drivers insurance has to pay out unless they can prove the cyclist was at fault. In criminal cases (death by dangerous driving etc) it's still innocent until proven guilty.

Although some countries (Norway I'm fairly sure for one) have an absolute right of way for pedestrians (the opposite of jaywalking laws in America), it's the driver's responsibility to look out for people crossing the road.

 

[MmmBeer]

The laws of the road apply equally to all, whether trucker, cyclist, motorist or pedestrian. If anyone flagrantly flouts the laws, then above anything else, they are showing scant disregard for their own safety. When I cycle, I take personal responsibility for my own safety. The idea of causing an accident, getting injured and then claiming the moral high ground is idiotic.

And I have been hit by a cyclist, not an a pedestrian crossing, but on a pedestrian only shopping street. Fortunately it didn't cause a major injury, just a bruise on my arm. The cyclist sped off, but I saw him twenty minutes later and was able to clothes line him and pull him off his bike. After giving him a rollocking, he walked off wheeling his bike and pride behind him and over a dozen fellow shoppers cheered me.

 

[Gunge]

Why can't you just soil yourself? Race car drivers and bicycle racers do it all the time.

They get paid for that sort of nonsense. Talking of inconvenience and 'selfishness', the bloody Tour de Yorkshire crapola passes thru' this neck of the woods on Friday, and the route I take to work is affected. Who's gonna recompense me for allowing these ****tards their moment in the spotlight?

 

[Thumper]

Cars kill on average 9 pedestrians a day, bikes about 2 a year in the UK, and that includes the recent high profile case.

We return to my original point: this isn't a good metric for determining the relative number of bike/pedestrian collisions, because a bike is obviously far less likely to kill or seriously injure a pedestrian. That doesn't make it ok to run lights and peddle merrily over pedestrian crossings. This displays a complete lack of respect for your fellow citizens.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

the bloody Tour de Yorkshire crapola passes thru' this neck of the woods on Friday,

While i wouldn't go so far as calling all those Lycra clad 40 pluses ****tards i do cringe when i hear the words "Tour de Yorkshire"

 

[Ajhutch]

While i wouldn't go so far as calling all those Lycra clad 40 pluses ****tards i do cringe when i hear the words "Tour de Yorkshire"

I think adding the word ‘Bloody’ to the official title as Gunge did is the way forward!

 

[Derekmr]

They get paid for that sort of nonsense. Talking of inconvenience and 'selfishness', the bloody Tour de Yorkshire crapola passes thru' this neck of the woods on Friday, and the route I take to work is affected. Who's gonna recompense me for allowing these ****tards their moment in the spotlight?

Nobody

 

[Spoon]

This displays a complete lack of respect for your fellow citizens.

Apart from not killing them by either blunt force, particulates, NOx, hydrocarbons, other carcinogens, obesity, the manufacturing process, the expense and tax required to cater for them, and all the other ways cars do their best to mess things up for my fellow citizens?

So far we've got a hypothetical assertion that cyclists are out to break old ladies legs* like a gangster in a Guy Ritchie film. And that Gunge is offended by my Lycra and a one off sporting even (god know what happens to his blood pressure when football traffic gridlocks towns every weekend).

Just for completeness I googled those stats for you, 108 serious injuries in 2016. In the same year cars drivers seriously injured 24,000.

In fact car drivers KILLED almost as many (102) cyclists in 2016 than cyclists seriously injured anyone. That's how one sided it it.

There is a further 'slightly injured' category (155,000 in 2016) but I can't find a breakdown of those, but I'm going to stick a Lycra clad neck out and say of follows the broad trend with cyclists contributing not many and about 155,000 by cars.

 

[MrRook]

In the USA there are enough people killed in car accidents to fill a jumbo jet; every day. I don't know how many are killed in bike accidents, probably a lot less.
Can you imagine the outrage if a jumbo jet crashed every day killing everyone on board?

Speaking of statistics: drunk driving is safer than drunk walking. More people are killed walking home from a bar than driving home per million miles driven as opposed to a million miles walking.

 

[Derekmr]

This thread has turned into a cyclists v motorists slagging match,
Boring

 

[Gunge]

While i wouldn't go so far as calling all those Lycra clad 40 pluses ****tards i do cringe when i hear the words "Tour de Yorkshire"

There's few sights more repulsive than a man in skin-tight lycra. And I will use my car on the day. I can see it now - 'Tour de A&E'. Some of us have useful and productive stuff to do.

 

[Ken L]

I'd be far more interested in knowing how many times cyclists collide with pedestrians over an average year, as opposed to car drivers.

Impossible to know because most will never be reported but I've hit three so far.
Two on phones who just stepped into the road without looking - neither was hurt because I swerved and slammed the brakes on.
The other was a drunk who thought it would be funny to hide behind a bridge support on the canal towpath and jump out in front of me. He slightly mistimed his prank. I got the metalwork out of the way by throwing the bike to one side but hit him with my shoulder. It was 7m before he hit the ground and he wasn't a happy bunny. I got loosened teeth from a clash of heads.

 

[Ajhutch]

Impossible to know because most will never be reported but I've hit three so far.
Two on phones who just stepped into the road without looking - neither was hurt because I swerved and slammed the brakes on.
The other was a drunk who thought it would be funny to hide behind a bridge support on the canal towpath and jump out in front of me. He slightly mistimed his prank. I got the metalwork out of the way by throwing the bike to one side but hit him with my shoulder. It was 7m before he hit the ground and he wasn't a happy bunny. I got loosened teeth from a clash of heads.

You’re being rather generous in saying you hit them, sounds pretty clear that they hit you. Idiocy punches up and well as down, the only accident I’ve ever had on my bike was the fault of a pedestrian and of the three genuinely near misses I’ve had with cars, two of them were my fault.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

This thread has turned into a cyclists v motorists slagging match,
Boring

This is the Snug did you expect it to end any other way?

 

[Spoon]

This is the Snug did you expect it to end any other way?

The problem is, that if attitudes like Gunge's, and Thumpers belief that cyclists are regularly hospitalising pedestrians aren't challenged then you end up in a situation where people genuinely believe that 'cyclists' are a problem and that something must be done about it. You then end up with some people actually doing something about it, believing that they're morally in the right because everyone on the internet (or the pub bore) says so.

From the relatively annoying but mostly harmless (chemicals and legionaires risk aside) squirting cyclists with screenwash whilst overtaking.

To the incredibly scary 60mph close 'punishment' passes.

To the really dangerous and violent https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/973449634940104704

Statistically 'cyclists' are actually more likely to be drivers than the general population! (83% of cycle commuters Vs 82% of the general population).

 

[Chippy_Tea]

The problem is, that if attitudes like Gunge's, and Thumpers belief that cyclists are regularly hospitalising pedestrians aren't challenged then you end up in a situation where people genuinely believe that 'cyclists' are a problem and that something must be done about it.

Everyone here knows members views posted in the Snug are not to be taken too seriously and if you genuinely believe your statement above then you have challenged their views so no harm done.

 

[dad_of_jon]

going back to the original thread title and deftly taking into account the cars vs bikes debate I can confirm there have been no deaths of people on the hard shoulder that were caused by a pushbike...

that the problem with stats, they dont always tell you the whole picture.