Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:39:16 -0000, "pk" said
in :

Which does not actually change the documented fact that pedestrians
are far more likely to be injured on the footway by motorists than
cyclists.

I think the fact that is documented it the number of reported injuries not
the number of injuries per se, there is after all a legal duty to report
motor accident causing injury there will be close to 100% reporting of car
related injuries but a far lower proportion of the minor cycle/pedestrian
collisions will be reported.

Reporting of injuries does indeed vary according to severity and
cause. Nearly all fatalities, and most serious injuries, are
recorded. Trivial injuries are mostly unreported, we can only infer
things form the relative prevalence of those injuries which are
reported. For example, we know that half of all injury admissions
to hospital are due to simple trips and falls, and many of these are
on footways. My council says that the major cause of footway trips
is damage to the footways by motor vehicle encroachment.

probably better, though, to stick with the figures we do have rather
than suppositions. And also probably better to look to the causes
and how they might be fixed, rather than advocating draconian
responses to the symptoms. Especially since the symptom is, in many
cases, entirely legal now.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:59:16 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:33:16 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:-

Why not just "start" by arresting footway cyclists, fining them (heavily) and
crushing their bikes?

For the same reason that you don't treat a runny nose by nasal
amputation. It's a symptom, and not even a serious one as far as
the available evidence goes.

I wonder if the usual suspects would advocate that the driver of any
motor vehicle on the pavement was also arrested, heavily fined and
the motor vehicle crushed?


Any person who illegally drives/rides a vehicle (motor or bike) on the
footpath should be fined.

If they are intentionally driving the vehicle along the footpath
(perhaps to speed up their journey) - then yes the vehicle should be
taken and crushed.

There will be an awful lot of bikes being crushed .

Do you agree?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:27:09 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:59:16 +0000, David Hansen
said in
:

I wonder if the usual suspects would advocate that the driver of any
motor vehicle on the pavement was also arrested, heavily fined and
the motor vehicle crushed?

Or how about the vehicle is arrested and the driver crushed? ;-)

Guy


Ho, ho ho Guy - you are a laugh.

Any chance of answering a simple question:

Do you think that as a pedestrian you are more likely to be hit by a
bike being intentionally ridden along the path than you are by a car
being intentionally driven along the path.

I bet that is going to be too difficult for you.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:22:04 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

I have no idea if the hospital added the incident into the stats, do you?

I think you'll find that hospitals add *all* admission incidents to
the stats.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:48:28 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

You missed the word deliberately after ridden.

You missed the point. If large numbers of cycles are deliberately
ridden on the footway, legally or not, and vehicles are rarely
driven deliberately on the footway, then how much more stark is the
contrast between the injury figures, with motor vehicles accounting
for many times more reported injuries to pedestrians on the footway
than cycles.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:47 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

So you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have established that.

Nope.

As I said you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have
established that.

I agree with removing the prime incentive for them to do so,
which also as it turns out is the major source of risk to
pedestrians (on or off the footway) and cyclists alike. You
probably didn't notice but I did point out that in many places
cycling on the footway is now perfectly legal, due to the
application of Magic White Paint (TM).

They are now classed a duel use, not footways as yiu well know.
You also know that we are talking about pedestrian footways.

Note that in many places there are no footways, pedestrians are
forced to use the carriageway.

So


It is long past time that people stopped making excuses for motor
danger.

Guy

Who has done that
--
Tony the Dragon

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:41:56 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered Sun, 25
Jan 2009 08:33:16 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:02:05 +0000, JNugent
said in
:

Why not just "start" by arresting footway cyclists, fining them (heavily) and
crushing their bikes?

For the same reason that you don't treat a runny nose by nasal
amputation. It's a symptom, and not even a serious one as far as
the available evidence goes.

I think you're feeding the trolls


Good old ****** - the questions are now becoming much too difficult
and are showing cyclists up in a bad light - it's time to play the
"troll" card.

Here's a difficult one for you:

Do you think that as a pedestrian you are more likely to be hit by a
bike being intentionally ridden along the path than you are by a car
being intentionally driven along the path.

--

Example 5 from the definition of a psycholist :

5) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion

--
Some say that cycling is as safe as walking:
There is a 39% greater chance of being killed or seriously injured as
a cyclist compared to as a pedestrian (DfT)

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:39:16 -0000, "pk" said
in :

Which does not actually change the documented fact that pedestrians
are far more likely to be injured on the footway by motorists than
cyclists.

I think the fact that is documented it the number of reported injuries not
the number of injuries per se, there is after all a legal duty to report
motor accident causing injury there will be close to 100% reporting of car
related injuries but a far lower proportion of the minor cycle/pedestrian
collisions will be reported.

Reporting of injuries does indeed vary according to severity and
cause. Nearly all fatalities, and most serious injuries, are
recorded. Trivial injuries are mostly unreported, we can only infer
things form the relative prevalence of those injuries which are
reported. For example, we know that half of all injury admissions
to hospital are due to simple trips and falls, and many of these are
on footways. My council says that the major cause of footway trips
is damage to the footways by motor vehicle encroachment.

probably better, though, to stick with the figures we do have rather
than suppositions. And also probably better to look to the causes
and how they might be fixed, rather than advocating draconian
responses to the symptoms. Especially since the symptom is, in many
cases, entirely legal now.

Guy

If cyclist did not break the law by cycling on footways, the number of
incidents (both reported & unreported) would go down.

--
Tony the Dragon

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:22:04 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

I have no idea if the hospital added the incident into the stats, do you?

I think you'll find that hospitals add *all* admission incidents to
the stats.

Guy

If you say so, but this has nothing to do with the problem & don't
forget not ever incident would end with a hospital visit.

--
Tony the Dragon

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:48:28 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

You missed the word deliberately after ridden.

You missed the point. If large numbers of cycles are deliberately
ridden on the footway, legally or not, and vehicles are rarely
driven deliberately on the footway, then how much more stark is the
contrast between the injury figures, with motor vehicles accounting
for many times more reported injuries to pedestrians on the footway
than cycles.

Guy

Note the word 'reported'
It is obvious that a pedestrian collision with a motor vehicle would
usually be more serious than a cycle collision.

How often is it seen that a motor vehicle is deliberately driven on the
footway as opposed to the number of times a cycle is deliberately ridden
on the footway?

--
Tony the Dragon