walking more dangerous than cycling?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
FarOeuf
Posts: 441
Joined: 14 Jan 2014, 9:31pm

walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby FarOeuf » 6 Apr 2014, 12:50pm

The Observer article

he makes a good point about the characterisation of 'the motorist' as both demon and victim being somewhat 'not the point'.

a quote from the article:

"In 1947, JS Dean, then president of the Pedestrians' Association, produced a robust polemic...[snipped] When else in history has humanity lived with the "foul, strange and unnatural" belief that it should be "common custom to kill and maim people because they get in your way"?"

axel_knutt
Posts: 1222
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby axel_knutt » 6 Apr 2014, 1:13pm

"In aviation and every other perilous occupation, regulators take human error for granted. On the roads as in the air or in nuclear power stations, you cannot just blame people for making mistakes, but should design accidents out of the system"

I've been wondering how much longer we're going to keep blaming accidents on careless road users before someone asks whether the expectation we're placing on them is realistic. The SMIDSY label just presumes that someone isn't paying attention, with no thought to the possibility that their attention may already have been attracted by another hazard.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 5864
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby Cunobelin » 6 Apr 2014, 3:16pm

According to most of the literature cycling and walking come up at about the same risk, or with cycling being slightly less dangerous.

Bicycler
Posts: 3397
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby Bicycler » 6 Apr 2014, 3:27pm

axel_knutt wrote:I've been wondering how much longer we're going to keep blaming accidents on careless road users before someone asks whether the expectation we're placing on them is realistic. The SMIDSY label just presumes that someone isn't paying attention, with no thought to the possibility that their attention may already have been attracted by another hazard.


Fundamental rule: If they can't take in all the necessary information as they are travelling along they are either travelling too fast for the conditions or they are incapable of operating their machines to an acceptable standard. Accordingly they need to either slow down or stop driving dangerous machinery.

There are some bizarre underlying ideas of god given rights to drive and proceed at a given speed which need to be challenged. Improving road design is fair enough but all roads cannot be improved and situations would arise even on the straightest, widest, most well graded roads which required use of judgement and skill, to slow and to stop where necessary. We cannot blame the roads for the inadequacies of drivers.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 5864
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby Cunobelin » 6 Apr 2014, 3:32pm

FarOeuf wrote:The Observer article

he makes a good point about the characterisation of 'the motorist' as both demon and victim being somewhat 'not the point'.

a quote from the article:

"In 1947, JS Dean, then president of the Pedestrians' Association, produced a robust polemic...[snipped] When else in history has humanity lived with the "foul, strange and unnatural" belief that it should be "common custom to kill and maim people because they get in your way"?"


"Murder most foul" can be read in it's entirety here

.. and it a real indictment as to how little change there has been

FarOeuf
Posts: 441
Joined: 14 Jan 2014, 9:31pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby FarOeuf » 6 Apr 2014, 4:03pm

Bicycler wrote:Improving road design is fair enough but all roads cannot be improved and situations would arise even on the straightest, widest, most well graded roads which required use of judgement and skill, to slow and to stop where necessary. We cannot blame the roads for the inadequacies of drivers.


one of the problems with improving road design (as we do it), is that it nearly always leads to widenening the radius of bends, straightening out of roads with kinks or upgrading to dual carraige ways. the result of these things is simply to increase the speed of the traffic, to maintain the perceived level of risk (ie, I drive up to 'just before' the point I feel at risk). so you now have the inadequate drivers driving to the same perceived risk. but 20 mph faster (for example). and then the authorities try and artificially reduce traffic speed with cameras or speed limit signs, which many people ignore because the road itself has had the 'danger' designed out of it.

I think a situation which is an even bigger reflection of our collective failure when it comes to prioritisation of motoring is when you see people (particularly the old or the young) stuck in the middle of the road as cars drive by in both directions. sure, the pedestrian possibly shouldn't be jay-walking, but really..it's ok to maroon a genuinely vulnerable person inside a 2 metre gap between bi-directional 30mph traffic?

Bicycler
Posts: 3397
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby Bicycler » 6 Apr 2014, 4:35pm

I agree about the dubiousness of many improvements. The risk compensation you note just shows how ridiculous the assertion is that the existing roads are "dangerous". The danger is posed by the driver of the vehicle, not by the people he aims to avoid hitting. "Jaywalking" is a particularly vile phrase that has no place on this side of the Atlantic.

User avatar
jezer
Posts: 1490
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 5:16pm
Location: North Wiltshire

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby jezer » 6 Apr 2014, 5:00pm

Bicycler wrote:I agree about the dubiousness of many improvements. The risk compensation you note just shows how ridiculous the assertion is that the existing roads are "dangerous". The danger is posed by the driver of the vehicle, not by the people he aims to avoid hitting. "Jaywalking" is a particularly vile phrase that has no place on this side of the Atlantic.

Having spent a week in New York recently I can confirm the phrase is totally correct here in the UK. We must learn from the Netherlands, not the US, the latter being the past as far as transport is concerned. NY could wreck the planet all on its one by the way they use motor vehicles :shock:
Power to the pedals

mrjemm
Posts: 2917
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 4:33pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby mrjemm » 6 Apr 2014, 5:18pm

I've only skimmed the article, but it's an interesting topic.

The references to 'jay-walking' above bring to mind being in the US, and how it seems 'jay-walking' as I understand is not nation-wide, but essentially necessary if one is to get anywhere in many places I've been to; but... is perhaps low priority safety-wise, as car use is so endemic- watching someone getting in a pick-up to go over a deserted narrow lane in a rural community (admittedly including driving down a drive of about 10m and the rain having just passed, so perhaps a risk of recurrence) being an extreme case, but more often is the case of getting from a motel to the pharmacy/store over the road means negotiating at least 6 lanes with no pedestrian crossing, no sidewalk to wait on or aim for and central reservation/island.

I don't think we're anywhere near that bad, though I have a nagging niggle in my mind telling me that somewhere I've seen a sign on a motorway warning of pedestrians crossing, and indeed there being a point where they could get onto the carriageway to 'walk' (!) across. Perhaps it was in a nightmare though...

I do think Mr BSNYC makes a more entertaining read on this matter-

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... riday.html

Just now reading a quite entertaining book "Anarchy Archives" by Charles Stross, part of the Laundry Series, and in it, the main character struggled to cross a road a few pages back... in Amsterdam, having nearly been knocked off by a cyclist with no lights at dusk. Made me smile to myself, but I suspect Mr Stross is either taking the pee, or a bit differently minded to some of us...

FarOeuf
Posts: 441
Joined: 14 Jan 2014, 9:31pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby FarOeuf » 6 Apr 2014, 5:22pm

I didn't mean jaywalking in the US sense, not being from there :) I meant it in the sense of crossing anywhere in a sort of flimsy manner (is that the Scottish definition maybe..?). We've always called that jaywalking, and it's nothing to do with any notion of law.

TonyR
Posts: 5374
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby TonyR » 6 Apr 2014, 5:28pm

Cunobelin wrote:According to most of the literature cycling and walking come up at about the same risk, or with cycling being slightly less dangerous.


You need to be wary of those figures. The official statistics in the UK are limited to accidents involving a vehicle. So a cyclist or pedestrian hit by a car would both be included but a cyclist falling off their bike would while a pedestrian tripping over would not. If you look at what data there is on ksi from pedestrian trips and falls on the highway its about six times the ksi from being hit by a motor vehicle. So overall that makes cycling a lot safer per km than walking by about a factor six.

Bicycler
Posts: 3397
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby Bicycler » 6 Apr 2014, 5:57pm

Well it's an American term (and not a particularly old one). Obviously they have laws on the subject which we don't. It's not a phrase I like to hear, firstly because people then get the impression that we do have such a law restricting where people may cross roads but mainly because I think it encourages a dismissive/hostile attitude to the most vulnerable on our roads.

mrjemm wrote:I don't think we're anywhere near that bad, though I have a nagging niggle in my mind telling me that somewhere I've seen a sign on a motorway warning of pedestrians crossing, and indeed there being a point where they could get onto the carriageway to 'walk' (!) across. Perhaps it was in a nightmare though...

It was probably one of those motorway-in-all-but-name A-roads. The big benefit of proper motorways is the obligation to provide proper facilities such as overbridges or underpasses. It is not permitted to have a path crossing them like many dual carriageway A-roads have (http://goo.gl/maps/sLBAJ). The closest you get is where motorway conditions end early and part of a slip-road or motorway link road is technically an all purpose road egs. http://goo.gl/maps/ziLy4 and http://goo.gl/maps/zbMog

mrjemm
Posts: 2917
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 4:33pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby mrjemm » 6 Apr 2014, 6:21pm

You're quite probably right, Bicycler. I started to wonder that. I must say, your 2nd link there shows an area that is crazy for motorways and probably terrible access for pedestrians, or cyclists.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 5864
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby Cunobelin » 6 Apr 2014, 6:46pm

TonyR wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:According to most of the literature cycling and walking come up at about the same risk, or with cycling being slightly less dangerous.


You need to be wary of those figures. The official statistics in the UK are limited to accidents involving a vehicle. So a cyclist or pedestrian hit by a car would both be included but a cyclist falling off their bike would while a pedestrian tripping over would not. If you look at what data there is on ksi from pedestrian trips and falls on the highway its about six times the ksi from being hit by a motor vehicle. So overall that makes cycling a lot safer per km than walking by about a factor six.


That is why I used the word "most". If you measure by distance or by time then the figures can change dramatically by changing the parameter.

Bicycler
Posts: 3397
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: walking more dangerous than cycling?

Postby Bicycler » 6 Apr 2014, 6:55pm

mrjemm wrote:You're quite probably right, Bicycler. I started to wonder that. I must say, your 2nd link there shows an area that is crazy for motorways and probably terrible access for pedestrians, or cyclists.

Oh the big roundabout? Yeah as you can imagine that path is not likely to get much use. If the link road had been a motorway, it might have had a bridge or subway and could then have been a useful way onto the nearby retail area but hey it would have cost money. As the path there is just a footpath there's no real reason for cyclists to be up there but we have been considered. Should any cyclist or horse rider find himself on that road, he need only turn right cross two lanes of near-motorway speed traffic and go round that horrific roundabout http://goo.gl/maps/OHEeq. Thankfully there's no danger of those lycra louts pavement cycling either ;)


Return to “On the road”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: squeaker and 4 guests