Cheltenham cyclists respond to protests over proposals to endtown-centre bike ban

QUOTE:

Cycle campaigners in Cheltenham have replied to concerns by the town’s
mayor and a charity that works with the visually impaired that
allowing bikes to be ridden through pedestrianised zones in the town
centre may put disabled people at risk.

Last week, the Macular Disease Society held a demonstration outside
the town’s Municipal Offices against the proposals, which have been
put forward by Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucestershire County
Council.

But John Mallows, chairman of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Cycling
Campaign, told This Is Gloucestershire that the potential problem was
being exaggerated and that motorised traffic posed a greater danger to
safety.

"Very few serious pedestrian casualties arise from cycling,” he
explained. “When they do, they are usually on the road and as a
result, I suspect, of pedestrians stepping off the kerb without
checking.

"Without wanting to foster a cycling versus driving spat, pedestrians
are at far greater risk on the pavements from cars."

Mr Mallow also urged the relevant authorities, in considering whether
to lift the ban on cycling in sections of the High Street and the
Promenade, to take account of the larger picture in respect of safety,
including the fact that the proposed measures would reduce the risk of
injury to cyclists who currently have to use the ring road.

The newspaper added that Gloucestershire County Council’s Highways
department plans to undertake a trial, possibly including new cycle
lanes, ahead of any permanent changes being put in place, and that
police have said they have problems enforcing the existing ban.

http://road.cc/content/news/50139-ch...entre-bike-ban
--
Simon Mason

On 12/01/2012 03:29, Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
Cycle campaigners in Cheltenham have replied to concerns by the town’s
mayor and a charity that works with the visually impaired that
allowing bikes to be ridden through pedestrianised zones in the town
centre may put disabled people at risk.

Last week, the Macular Disease Society held a demonstration outside
the town’s Municipal Offices against the proposals, which have been
put forward by Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucestershire County
Council.
But John Mallows, chairman of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Cycling
Campaign, told This Is Gloucestershire that the potential problem was
being exaggerated and that motorised traffic posed a greater danger to
safety.
"Very few serious pedestrian casualties arise from cycling,” he
explained. “When they do, they are usually on the road and as a
result, I suspect, of pedestrians stepping off the kerb without
checking.
"Without wanting to foster a cycling versus driving spat, pedestrians
are at far greater risk on the pavements from cars."

He went on: "Even though that last bit was entirely made up out of
desperation, who cares about pedestrians at all, especially ones with sight
difficulties? Certainly not the Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Cycling Campaign.
We are only concerned with our own interests".

On Jan 12, 3:29*am, Simon Mason wrote:

"Very few serious pedestrian casualties arise from cycling,” he
explained. “When they do, they are usually on the road and as a
result, I suspect, of pedestrians stepping off the kerb without
checking.


These comments from a reader certainly ring true.

QUOTE:
It's surprisingly high. I can't find the stats offhand but I've seen
examples before including vehicles mounting the pavement and vehicles
driving too close and striking pedestrians with the wing mirror. It's
much higher than you'd think certainly.

There was an incident a year or so ago that made the papers for a day
or so where a woman had mounted the kerb and run into a group of
schoolchildren. Fortunately, no-one seriously injured but can you
imagine the outcry if it had been a cyclist running into them?! As it
was, it made a couple of column inches and everyone went about their
business as usual.


--
Simon Mason

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:29:32 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

QUOTE:
It's surprisingly high. I can't find the stats offhand

That's because there are no "stats". If a motorist is involved in an
accident which involves the police it is invariably recorded in
Stats19 (effectively the only source of accident data). If a cyclist
in a shopping arcade (or anywhere else not classed as a public road)
rides down a pedestrian it isn't recorded in Stats 19 even if the
victim dies or is seriously injured. A study by the Scottish
Executive showed over 40% of cycling accidents occurred in places
where they would not be recorded in Stats 19.

Pedal cyclists are the type of casualty most under-reported in the
Stats 19 returns. DfT's article in Road Casualties Great Britain 2006
compared the "Stats 19" and English Hospitals Episode Statistics (HES)
data for pedal cyclist casualties. In England, in the 2005-06
financial year, HES had 7,065 admissions of pedal cyclists, whereas
"Stats 19" recorded only 2,092 seriously injured pedal cyclists.

The DfT found that almost all the difference was due to HES having
4,268 pedal cyclists who had not been involved in a vehicular
collision (e.g. people who just fell off or were thrown from a bicycle
which had collided with a pedestrian or some fixed object), whereas
"Stats 19" had only 101 such casualties. There was little difference
between the number of casualties in HES and "Stats 19" for pedal
cyclist accidents which also involved cars, motorcycles, goods
vehicles or buses. The differences were proportionately much larger in
the case of pedal cyclists who had collided with an object or a
pedestrian.

On Jan 12, 10:29*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jan 12, 3:29*am, Simon Mason wrote:

"Very few serious pedestrian casualties arise from cycling,” he
explained. “When they do, they are usually on the road and as a
result, I suspect, of pedestrians stepping off the kerb without
checking.

These comments from a reader certainly ring true.

QUOTE:
It's surprisingly high. I can't find the stats offhand but I've seen
examples before including vehicles mounting the pavement and vehicles
driving too close and striking pedestrians with the wing mirror. It's
much higher than you'd think certainly.

Updated comment further along the piece.

QUOTE:

From the CTC: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/camp...vement_brf.pdf

In London between 2001-05 there were 17 pedestrians killed by motor
vehicles on pavements or verges, and not a single cyclist was to
blame.

--
Simon Mason

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:36:49 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:


In London between 2001-05 there were 17 pedestrians killed by motor
vehicles on pavements or verges, and not a single cyclist was to
blame.

How many were killed or injured in pedestrian areas and other places
where the accident would go unrecorded in Stats19? Last month for
example a colleague of mine assisted a young man who was struck by a
cyclist at Euston station and as a result fell and suffered an open
fracture to his forearm. The cyclist rode off and the incident will
not appear in Stats19.

Further info.
QUOTE:

Figures for 2006-2010 from the Office of National Statistics. Note the
"0" for 2009:

+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
| Deaths (persons) |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by pedal cycle | (b) Pedestrian hit by
car, pick-up or truck |
|------+------------------------------
+----------------------------------|
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
|------+------------------------------
+----------------------------------|
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
|------+------------------------------
+----------------------------------|
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
|------+------------------------------
+----------------------------------|
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
|------+------------------------------
+----------------------------------|
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+

I'm no great statistician but it looks like you're 72 times more
likely to be run over and killed on the pavement by a car than a bike.
--
Simon Mason

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:54:03 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:


I'm no great statistician but it looks like you're 72 times more
likely to be run over and killed on the pavement by a car than a bike.

That's because you are, as you say, no statistician. If you were you
would understand that from incomplete and distorted data you can only
get misleading results.

Further comments.

QUOTE:
"pedestrians are at far greater risk on the pavements from cars".

Pedestrian casualties in reported1 road accidents: 2008
Road Accident Statistics Factsheet No. 3 – January 2010

Single vehicle accidents with pedestrian casualties
Fatal pedestrian casualties
Pedal cycle 1
Motorcycle 15
Car 310
Bus or coach 35
LGV 27
HGV 62
Pedestrian location: ....• 10 per cent were on the pavement or verge.

------

Pedestrian casualties in road accidents: 2007
Road Accident Statistics Factsheet No. 3 – November 2008

Single vehicle accidents with pedestrian casualties
Fatal pedestrian casualties
Pedal cycle 3
Motorcycle 28
Car 336
Bus or coach 42
LGV 40
HGV 66

Pedestrian location: .... • 10 per cent were on the pavement or verge.

Source: DfT

--
Simon Mason

On 12/01/2012 03:29, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:

Cycle campaigners in Cheltenham have replied to concerns by the town’s
mayor and a charity that works with the visually impaired that
allowing bikes to be ridden through pedestrianised zones in the town
centre may put disabled people at risk.

Last week, the Macular Disease Society held a demonstration outside
the town’s Municipal Offices against the proposals, which have been
put forward by Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucestershire County
Council.

But John Mallows, chairman of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Cycling
Campaign, told This Is Gloucestershire that the potential problem was
being exaggerated and that motorised traffic posed a greater danger to
safety.

"Very few serious pedestrian casualties arise from cycling,” he
explained. “When they do, they are usually on the road and as a
result, I suspect, of pedestrians stepping off the kerb without
checking.

So nothing to do with pedestrian zones,


"Without wanting to foster a cycling versus driving spat, pedestrians
are at far greater risk on the pavements from cars."

I wonder how many cars drive in these pedestrian zones.


Mr Mallow also urged the relevant authorities, in considering whether
to lift the ban on cycling in sections of the High Street and the
Promenade, to take account of the larger picture in respect of safety,
including the fact that the proposed measures would reduce the risk of
injury to cyclists who currently have to use the ring road.


Oh I see, bugger the pedestrians.

The newspaper added that Gloucestershire County Council’s Highways
department plans to undertake a trial, possibly including new cycle
lanes, ahead of any permanent changes being put in place, and that
police have said they have problems enforcing the existing ban.

http://road.cc/content/news/50139-ch...entre-bike-ban
--
Simon Mason