Road Casualties 2009

On 21 Jul 2010 10:28:49 GMT, Adrian wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

In London more cyclists are killed on green by drivers running a red
light than the other way round. But even then they make up a tiny
proportion of the cyclist deaths most of which are caused by lorries
turning across cyclists and either crushing them under the back wheels
or crushing them against the railings. None of those would be helped
one iota by a helmet.

Very true. They would, however, be helped massively by those same
cyclists pausing to think - even briefly - about what the hell they're
doing going down the left of an HGV at lights.

Probably cycling along a feeder lane to an ASL box that some cretin in
the council failed to realise would be a death trap.

Possibly. But that doesn't make it anything but thoroughly stupid and
suicidal to use it, does it?

You're preaching to the choir here.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

wrote:
In article ,
Tony Raven wrote:

So you're suggesting that when deaths decrease its an effect of helmets
and when they increase its a random statistical fluctuation?

Of course. Why are you surprised?


Not surprised, unconvinced. Are you not surprised/unconvinced by the
asymmetry of Derek's explanation. That any decrease in deaths is due to
increased helmet wearing but any increase in deaths is just statistical
noise? Personally I think both are statistical noise.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

"Just zis Guy, you know?" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

In London more cyclists are killed on green by drivers running a red
light than the other way round. But even then they make up a tiny
proportion of the cyclist deaths most of which are caused by lorries
turning across cyclists and either crushing them under the back
wheels or crushing them against the railings. None of those would
be helped one iota by a helmet.

Very true. They would, however, be helped massively by those same
cyclists pausing to think - even briefly - about what the hell they're
doing going down the left of an HGV at lights.

Probably cycling along a feeder lane to an ASL box that some cretin in
the council failed to realise would be a death trap.

Possibly. But that doesn't make it anything but thoroughly stupid and
suicidal to use it, does it?

You're preaching to the choir here.

Am I? It doesn't seem like it. Quite the opposite, in fact, with the
usual strong hints of "They're a cyclist, and came off far worse,
therefore they must be the innocent party".

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Tony Raven gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Very true. They would, however, be helped massively by those same
cyclists pausing to think - even briefly - about what the hell they're
doing going down the left of an HGV at lights.

In a few cases that is the problem, often encouraged by the provision of
a cycle lane into an ASL on the left of the road. But it's more often
the lorry pulling up alongside the cyclist.

Did I say "who was there first"? I did not.

If you're sat on your bike at a stop light, and a wagon pulls up next to
you, it would seem to me to be a rather wise move to move forward and
across a bit so that he can't squish you. And to get the **** out of the
way as soon as the lights change, rather than waiting for the wagon to
pull off around you.

Nine times out of ten, if that happens, it's because they have stopped
in the gutter rather than in the primary position. That's stupid and
dangerous - cyclists should almost always maintain a distance of 1-2
metres from the kerb, for many reasons.

As has been pointed out, you can reduce the incidence of accidents and
incidents that are almost accidents almost to zero by following the
rules in Cyclecraft, and NOT those perpetrated by the Highways
Authorities, almost all "pro-cycling" pressure groups and, regrettably,
even some of the Highway Code.

What that doesn't do is to protect you from assault by people who
are using their vehicle as a weapon :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

If you're sat on your bike at a stop light, and a wagon pulls up next to
you, it would seem to me to be a rather wise move to move forward and
across a bit so that he can't squish you. And to get the **** out of the
way as soon as the lights change, rather than waiting for the wagon to
pull off around you.

Nine times out of ten, if that happens, it's because they have stopped
in the gutter rather than in the primary position. That's stupid and
dangerous - cyclists should almost always maintain a distance of 1-2
metres from the kerb, for many reasons.

As has been pointed out, you can reduce the incidence of accidents and
incidents that are almost accidents almost to zero by following the
rules in Cyclecraft, and NOT those perpetrated by the Highways
Authorities, almost all "pro-cycling" pressure groups and, regrettably,
even some of the Highway Code.

What that doesn't do is to protect you from assault by people who are
using their vehicle as a weapon :-(

Fortunately, the usual maxim of "Never ascribe to malice that which can
easily be explained by incompetence" applies here, too, in 99% of
instances.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:

As has been pointed out, you can reduce the incidence of accidents and
incidents that are almost accidents almost to zero by following the
rules in Cyclecraft, and NOT those perpetrated by the Highways
Authorities, almost all "pro-cycling" pressure groups and, regrettably,
even some of the Highway Code.

What that doesn't do is to protect you from assault by people who are
using their vehicle as a weapon :-(

Fortunately, the usual maxim of "Never ascribe to malice that which can
easily be explained by incompetence" applies here, too, in 99% of
instances.

That is true, but what most people miss is that 99% is not enough.

Let us assume that 99% of drivers are never aggressive to cyclists,
and the ones that are, drive reasonably even in cases of driver/
cyclist conflict 90% of the time. Those figures are plausible, in
my experience, and mean that 99.9% of conflicting interactions are
little or no problem.

If a cyclist is inflicted with a road layout where ALL interactions
are conflicts, a fairly typical commuter will have 100 driver/cyclist
conflicts a day. That means one aggressive incident a fortnight.
Now, let's say that 90% of them are merely intimidating, and 99%
involve at most only minor injury or damage. Again, plausible in
my experience. That means that such an unfortunate cyclist can
expect to have one not-minor incident every two years.

That ain't funny.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Adrian wrote:

Did I say "who was there first"? I did not.

If you're sat on your bike at a stop light, and a wagon pulls up next to
you, it would seem to me to be a rather wise move to move forward and
across a bit so that he can't squish you. And to get the **** out of the
way as soon as the lights change, rather than waiting for the wagon to
pull off around you.

That does happen, although it walks straight into the RLJ accusation if
you do it. Its considered to be one of the reasons why most cyclist
deaths in London are women even though they are a minority of cyclists.
Its suggested that men tend to be more open to disobeying a red light
to get out of the way than women.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1695668.ece


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

wrote:


Nine times out of ten, if that happens, it's because they have stopped
in the gutter rather than in the primary position. That's stupid and
dangerous - cyclists should almost always maintain a distance of 1-2
metres from the kerb, for many reasons.



In front of the cab is a dangerous place to be too. More than a few
cyclists have been run over by a driver who pulled up behind a cyclist
who then became out of sight, out of mind for the driver. Visibility
directly in front of the cab is not good unless you stand out of the
seat and lean forward.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Did I say "who was there first"? I did not.

If you're sat on your bike at a stop light, and a wagon pulls up next
to you, it would seem to me to be a rather wise move to move forward
and across a bit so that he can't squish you. And to get the **** out
of the way as soon as the lights change, rather than waiting for the
wagon to pull off around you.

That does happen, although it walks straight into the RLJ accusation if
you do it.

No, not really. I'm suggesting merely moving forward into the field of
vision of the windscreen, not heading straight through the junction on
red.

Equally, I'm suggesting watching the opposing lights, and being ready to
go as soon as they start to change, not heading through the junction on
red.

A bicycle is considerably quicker off the mark than an HGV.

In article , Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

So you're suggesting that when deaths decrease its an effect of helmets
and when they increase its a random statistical fluctuation?

Of course. Why are you surprised?

Not surprised, unconvinced. Are you not surprised/unconvinced by the
asymmetry of Derek's explanation.

I can't speak for Nick, but I'd be surprised if Derek managed a convincing
explanation of anything.