How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 13414
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby Vorpal » 28 Aug 2017, 12:51pm

There's an amateur, but reasonably thorough analysis here http://mattturner.blog/cyclists-terrori ... -the-data/ It's a few years old, but still largely relevant.

Also it agrees with http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/ ... rians-cars which ignores both the greater likelihood of death (rather the injury as discussed in the article) from motor vehicles and that many of the miles included in the distance travelled by motor vehicles are in an environment where pedestrians are not allowed (motorways and special roads).

road.cc responded to The Times article (referenced in the The Week article linked above). http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are- ... edestrians
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

cotswolds
Posts: 133
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 10:47am

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby cotswolds » 28 Aug 2017, 2:16pm

For completeness, shouldn't we also know how many cyclists are killed by pedestrians?

I don't ever remember seeing a report of such a (fatal) collision yet it seems likely to me that there must be some.

I do remember seeing a figure of 1/year a while back (which of course I can't find now).

thirdcrank
Posts: 24299
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby thirdcrank » 28 Aug 2017, 3:55pm

Cunobelin wrote:There are two levels to these discussions where the population levels show how unlikely you are to be killed or injured..... however if you are one of the ones affected then it is real and personal

The argument loses ground at this point

Many road users use this justification to support their speeding, drink driving, using a mobile phone or inconsiderate driving . As an individual case they are statistically unlikely to kil when you look at the statistics that support your case


I agree and I would add that it's dodgy moral ground to excuse killing somebody - or to appear to excuse it - on the basis that others have killed more.

It's true that prevention efforts such as enforcement should be targeted at the biggest problem, but it's not right to say that others should have free rein.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 39377
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby Mick F » 28 Aug 2017, 4:43pm

cotswolds wrote:For completeness, shouldn't we also know how many cyclists are killed by pedestrians?
Just say you're riding down the road and a pedestrian steps out without looking. You swerve to avoid the ped, and go straight under a No9 bus.

Who's to blame for your death?
What would be on the coroner's report?

I doubt the ped would be charged with anything at all.
Mick F. Cornwall

The utility cyclist
Posts: 703
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby The utility cyclist » 28 Aug 2017, 4:56pm

SilverBadge wrote:
Geoff.D wrote:
Postboxer wrote:..........
I'm never sure whether or not any road death figures are categorised by fault.



This is a very pertinent question (or at least categorised by cause). There often seems to be a tacit assumption in the press that the pedestrian is an innocent victim when hit by a vehicle (bike or otherwise).

I've had the experience of a pedestrian stepping straight out in front of me from in front of a parked bus. I couldn't avoid him. My pedal lacerated his shin and we ended up in a bundle on the road. A crack on the head could have been disastrous to him, but no fault of mine.

We can only take from the figures what they say....no more, no less. But, we have to be wary of the press reportage.


DfT and others commission research based on accident investigations.

Spread over 40 years, it has been consistent that in cyclist/motorist collisions, the motorist is at fault ~65% of the time - Met Police 1975, TRRL RR220 late 80s, TRL PPR445 2009, Westminister Council 2013
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 02166.html
Westminster report also split blame in pedestrian/cyclist collisions was 60/40 in "favour" of pedestrian blame.

I'd say that that figure is rather conservative in actual fact, given we know how poor the police are at judging who is wrong as they themselves fail to understand responsibility correctly,with respect to the amount of harm they can cause (and do), they fail to apply the rules the same way to people in motorvehicles as towards people on bikes or on foot. The vast majority of the police have their own inbuilt motorcentric viewpoint, this has being prevalent as far back as the 1970s when I was a child.
This is observed in the most recent highlighted case, where the whole responsibility was placed by the MET police onto the person riding a bike yet we see time and again the police blame people on bikes for their demise, the Michael Mason case being the most disgusting example in recent memory.

People riding bicycles are very much aware of their vulnerability not only on the roads with respect to motorvehicles but also with regards to coming into contact with those on foot/in a wheelchair etc

fastpedaller
Posts: 1168
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby fastpedaller » 28 Aug 2017, 6:07pm

Postboxer wrote:I'm never sure whether or not any road death figures are categorised by fault.

Then of course you could move into the abstract of how many lives are lost due to pollution etc.


Interesting you should say that - A while ago I saw a report that cited "the level of pollution generated by hybrid vehicles on city streets is far higher than other types of vehicles" It seems an unlikely statement? The extra weight of these vehicles c/f a 'regular vehicle' means that the tyre particle and brake lining material produces high pollution. That's aside from the overall pollution generated during the construction of these more complex vehicles - but hey we'll be electric soon, so no problem :roll: Sorry, completely off topic!

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 39377
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby Mick F » 28 Aug 2017, 6:32pm

Brake linings last longer on a hybrid vehicle or electric vehicle because they use regenerative braking.

Therefore not needing to brake so hard or as often .................... or so I'm told.
Mick F. Cornwall

fastpedaller
Posts: 1168
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby fastpedaller » 28 Aug 2017, 7:31pm

Mick F wrote:Brake linings last longer on a hybrid vehicle or electric vehicle because they use regenerative braking.

Therefore not needing to brake so hard or as often .................... or so I'm told.

That is sound logic...... without a doubt these matters are very complex and difficult to measure. Many years ago I was told 1 acre of land (usually supporting a forest) needs to be dug up to extract enough precious metals to make a catalyst for 1 car. Given that a lot of oxygen is produced by the forest, are we making things worse?

mattsccm
Posts: 2007
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby mattsccm » 28 Aug 2017, 9:28pm

I may be missing something of course but to me what is important is who is to blame. One party should not have any discrimination against it if accidents are the fault of another.
Eg It seemed unfair that a few years ago there was a uproar about bull bars being fitted to 4wds as they possibly added to injury or death when hitting a pedestrian. What puzzled me at the time was some figures suggesting that most car/pedestrian incidents were the fault of the pedestrian. Why should one group be penalised for the stupidity of another.?
If a million cyclist are hit by cars because of their own actions then we shouldn't be blaming car drivers. To my mind much of the problem is that all parties behave like complete idiots. Filtering to the left of a lorry at a junction is stupid. Passing a cyclist at a foot clearance in that lorry is equally stupid. Walking into the road in front of anything is stupid.
In the current high profile case I believe that the chap involved deserves all he gets. He broke the law. The relevance of that law has no bearing. Its the same as saying that speeding on an empty road is fine.
Do things by the book. You cannot be wrong.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 13414
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby Vorpal » 28 Aug 2017, 10:30pm

But things are seldom so clear cut that we can say cyclists X did something stupid and therefore deserved to die. Or take the blame.

Most of the time, there are many factors involved, and apportioning fault, even after experts have determined who did what and at what speed, may be largely down to judgement about where to draw a rather fine line.

Even if only two people are involved, there are usually multiple things that have to go wrong in order for a crash to occur. Sometimes, it's dozens of things.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

The utility cyclist
Posts: 703
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby The utility cyclist » 28 Aug 2017, 10:36pm

comparing slowing down (to circa 10mph) and veering to avoid a collision by a person on a bicycle when someone steps back into your path is really not the same as "speeding on an empty road", how preposterous!
No, he doesn't deserve all he gets because he's already gotten far more/worse than other groups get for much more horrible/worse actions :x

SilverBadge
Posts: 573
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby SilverBadge » 28 Aug 2017, 10:39pm

mattsccm wrote:I may be missing something of course but to me what is important is who is to blame. One party should not have any discrimination against it if accidents are the fault of another.
Eg It seemed unfair that a few years ago there was a uproar about bull bars being fitted to 4wds as they possibly added to injury or death when hitting a pedestrian. What puzzled me at the time was some figures suggesting that most car/pedestrian incidents were the fault of the pedestrian. Why should one group be penalised for the stupidity of another.?
If a million cyclist are hit by cars because of their own actions then we shouldn't be blaming car drivers. To my mind much of the problem is that all parties behave like complete idiots. Filtering to the left of a lorry at a junction is stupid. Passing a cyclist at a foot clearance in that lorry is equally stupid. Walking into the road in front of anything is stupid.
In the current high profile case I believe that the chap involved deserves all he gets. He broke the law. The relevance of that law has no bearing. Its the same as saying that speeding on an empty road is fine.
Do things by the book. You cannot be wrong.

Bull bars increase the injuries regardless of who is at fault. Daft law if they can't be fitted at point of sale because of the danger they add but can be retrofitted later.
As you've just stated, "Walking into the road in front of anything is stupid". So is Briggs blameless? If the outcome had been a broken bone each, how would the insurers have divided the bills? And maybe both of them in court? Would it have been the same public opinion if Alliston had walked out in front of a cycling mother?
Alliston was actually convicted of [causing bodily injury by] wanton or furious driving. As Detective Inspector Julie Trodden, of the Metropolitan Police's Roads and Transport Policing Command, commented: "This is a sad case where a bicycle that was illegal for road use has been used on London's streets. The lack of a front brake resulted in Alliston's inability to stop and avoid the collision resulting in the tragic death of Kim Briggs. Maybe it's just the wording, but that doesn't say killed, just unable to avoid the collision because of his previous (in)action.

SilverBadge
Posts: 573
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby SilverBadge » 9 Sep 2017, 1:14pm

cotswolds wrote:For completeness, shouldn't we also know how many cyclists are killed by pedestrians?

I don't ever remember seeing a report of such a (fatal) collision yet it seems likely to me that there must be some.

I do remember seeing a figure of 1/year a while back (which of course I can't find now).


Here's one example
http://road.cc/content/news/228969-read ... ds-inquest
Current MP Matt Rodda was only the Labour candidate at the time of the fatality, ousting Tory Rob Wilson in June. I doubt he'll stand up in PMQs and ask for "causing death by . . ." laws to be extended to pedestrians as Heidi Alexander did for cyclists as a result of Alliston.

bertgrower
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Jun 2017, 6:47pm

Re: How many pedestrians are killed by motorists?

Postby bertgrower » 9 Sep 2017, 1:30pm

fastpedaller wrote:
Mick F wrote:Brake linings last longer on a hybrid vehicle or electric vehicle because they use regenerative braking.

Therefore not needing to brake so hard or as often .................... or so I'm told.

That is sound logic...... without a doubt these matters are very complex and difficult to measure. Many years ago I was told 1 acre of land (usually supporting a forest) needs to be dug up to extract enough precious metals to make a catalyst for 1 car. Given that a lot of oxygen is produced by the forest, are we making things worse?


Off topic a growing forest eg young tree produce more o2 than a mature forest therefore cutting forest down is and replantting with new saplings is good for the environment. That is a simplist interpetation but the general point is true.


Return to “Does anyone know … ?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: simonhill, Vantage and 3 guests