Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

[mjr]

Assuming the rear brake can lock the rear wheel or approach locking the rear wheel then that will suffice because a greater braking effort cannot be achieved. You have the maximum.

I thought locking the back wheel was a bad idea because a skid is a lower braking effort on tarmac?

[gplhl]

“Series of high profile incidents”, I recall one that was high profile!


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[PDQ Mobile]

Assuming the rear brake can lock the rear wheel or approach locking the rear wheel then that will suffice because a greater braking effort cannot be achieved. You have the maximum.

I thought locking the back wheel was a bad idea because a skid is a lower braking effort on tarmac?

Exactly right. And exactly what I wrote.
Though control of it all on the back wheel is a test of skill for sure.
Front wheel's much easier! To achieve efficient braking!

Are you dodging doing the test? Or...?

[meic]

“Series of high profile incidents”, I recall one that was high profile!


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

There have been a few. This incident actually happened over 18 months ago, so they stay "valid" for quite a while. Unlike the 1800 or so who were killed by motorists they are few enough that you can remember each individual one. Also if you sum them all up, they dont even equal one crash on the M5.

There was a pedestrian killed by a cyclist on the London Sportive
There was a pedestrian killed by a cyclist on Oxford Street London very recently.
Dianna Walker was killed by a cyclist and it raised attention because the Police didnt investigate very thoroughly.

Not so easy to find because (apart from a deluge about the one super high profile case) if you search on death and cyclist you get loads killed by motors and if you search on death and pedestrian you get even more killed by motorvehicles. If you search on dead pedestrian and cyclist, you just get all of the previous results together.
Just to put things into perspective.

[The utility cyclist]

'Series' implies frequent, often reoccuring which you could absolutely attribute to motorists driving criminally, it most definitely does not describe that of people on bicycles.

[Fenix]

Sorry - new to this forum - but wonder if anyone can help with this query :

I've seen a few newspapers use the same quotes that is based on a cyclinguk report :

This is the gist of it - Between 2005 and 2015, some 32 pedestrians died and 820 suffered serious injuries after colliding with cyclists, according to a report by charity Cycling UK.

I think it comes from the FAQ about cycling - http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ionsrv.pdf

"Most collisions between cycles and pedestrians don’t happen on the pavement/verge, but in the
roadway, where it’s legal to cycle. From 2005-15, less than a fifth of the 32 pedestrian fatalities
and just over a quarter of the reported 820 serious pedestrian injuries that involved a cycle
happened on the pavement/verge. (Note: it isn’t possible to tell from these figures, which come
from the Department for Transport, who was at fault or, for those on the pavement, whether it
had been converted to ‘shared use’)"

But there's also this on the site : http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... rvvbrf.pdf

2011-2015 - 3 pedestrians killed by cyclists.

So 2005 to 2010 - 29 pedestrians killed ?

Something is wrong surely ?

[LollyKat]

If you read the first chart in the CyclingUK chart it is headed: "Pedestrians killed/seriously injured annual average 2011-15" .

So an average of 3 deaths per year adds up to 15 in that 5-year period, slightly down on the (32-15=) 17 killed in 2005-10.

[Fenix]

Ah thanks. That'll teach me to skim read !

That is much higher than the figures I've always seen - its been a fraction of 1 person killed by a bike for as long as I've been looking. I wonder whats changed.