Radio panel discussion about road behaviour

[rfryer]

There should be a good second hand market in EVs. With no engines, there's less to go wrong, so they should last much longer than an ICE. Other than running gear, the main part to wear is the battery, but that can be replaced, and more importantly for the second hand buyer, the car can report exactly how degraded it is.

[Cyril Haearn]

Sadly, the market shall take care of it
..
There is an e-bike event near me next week, 300 e-bikes to try on a 1.2 km circuit (no hills), e-cars are promoted there too, nearby the same day there is a monster-truck event where perfectly good older cars are smashed up for fun and entertainment, all goes together, Minus One

[Pete Owens]

The difference between cyclists and motorists breaking the law is huge,whereas cyclists for the most part pose only damage to themselves,motorists pose danger to everyone outside their vehicle with little chance of danger to themselves.

Actually the difference isn't as huge as we'd like to think. Take a look at:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2019/03/12/who-kills-whom-and-the-measurement-of-danger/
and look at the risk of killing a pedestrian per billion vehicle km of different types of vehicle.
Bicycle 0.8
Motorcycle 4.9
Car 1.4
Bus/Coach 0.7
Van 0.6
HGV 13

[Mike Sales]

The difference between cyclists and motorists breaking the law is huge,whereas cyclists for the most part pose only damage to themselves,motorists pose danger to everyone outside their vehicle with little chance of danger to themselves.

Actually the difference isn't as huge as we'd like to think. Take a look at:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2019/03/12/who-kills-whom-and-the-measurement-of-danger/
and look at the risk of killing a pedestrian per billion vehicle km of different types of vehicle.
Bicycle 0.8
Motorcycle 4.9
Car 1.4
Bus/Coach 0.7
Van 0.6
HGV 13

With all statistics which purport to measure danger, it is vital to consider exposure. Cyclists spend many of their miles in proximity to pedestrians. Their journeys tend to be in urban areas, and they are often making the same trips, sometimes on the shared use facility.
Motorists do many miles on motorways and dual carriageways where there are few pedestrians. They move fast on such roads and the majority of mileage must be away from vulnerable targets.

[mjr]

The difference between cyclists and motorists breaking the law is huge,whereas cyclists for the most part pose only damage to themselves,motorists pose danger to everyone outside their vehicle with little chance of danger to themselves.

Actually the difference isn't as huge as we'd like to think. Take a look at:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2019/03/12/who-kills-whom-and-the-measurement-of-danger/
and look at the risk of killing a pedestrian per billion vehicle km of different types of vehicle.
Bicycle 0.8
Motorcycle 4.9
Car 1.4
Bus/Coach 0.7
Van 0.6
HGV 13

That calculation should always be accompanied by at least three huge warnings: first (and this is in the linked document), it's a small sample for bicycle because they kill so few and this analysis seems to be a single year (2017) with an unusually high level of cyclist-involved pedestrian deaths (3); secondly, the exclusion of 3+ collisions flatters the more deadly modes; and thirdly, the usage estimates for bicycles (the National Travel Survey here, I think) are much more rubbish than for all of the other listed modes (as discussed on this site often but primarily due again to a relatively small sample, but with a secondary trip attribution problem where a bike+anything trip is usually not counted as a bike trip) which makes the above rates unsafe for comparing cycling with other modes IMO - I feel they're only safe for comparing year-to-year changes.

I read with interest your comment on the other site saying that you think the front of a bicycle is sharp - the frontmost part of my bicycle is a tyre. Can we get sharp tyres now?

[Pete Owens]

But those figures DO account for exposure; they ARE counting urban deaths and vehicle mileage. And actually even then the figures flatter cycling - you should really divide by passenger km rather than vehicle km.

[Mike Sales]

But those figures DO account for exposure; they ARE counting urban deaths and vehicle mileage. And actually even then the figures flatter cycling - you should really divide by passenger km rather than vehicle km.

Urban areas too have faster roads and dual carriageways which are avoided by cyclists and pedestrians, but enable cars to cover greater distances. Road conditions force "vulnerable modes" into proximity.
Is allowance made for this?

[Wanlock Dod]

It is also relevant to consider how many journeys it takes for a billion kilometres to be reached. It would be many more journeys by bike, which are typically shorter and slower than car journeys. This is arguably another factor which tends to make journeys by bike seem relatively dangerous for pedestrians.

[The utility cyclist]

The difference between cyclists and motorists breaking the law is huge,whereas cyclists for the most part pose only damage to themselves,motorists pose danger to everyone outside their vehicle with little chance of danger to themselves.

Actually the difference isn't as huge as we'd like to think. Take a look at:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2019/03/12/who-kills-whom-and-the-measurement-of-danger/
and look at the risk of killing a pedestrian per billion vehicle km of different types of vehicle.
Bicycle 0.8
Motorcycle 4.9
Car 1.4
Bus/Coach 0.7
Van 0.6
HGV 13

Given the number of at fault deaths of pedestrians by people riding bikes are limited to four in the last 7 years (according to the gov report last year) I would say that those figures are not accurate, "killed by" suggests at fault, a pedestrian killing themselves through their own fault should not and never be put onto the head of others, particularly given how far more stringenet police/CPS are with regards to allaying blame on people on bikes as opposed to motorvehicle drivers were they deliberately pervert the course of justice and concoct bulldust after bullsdust to divert the blame, also failing to uphold law/responsibility far too often thus slanting the balme factor even more away from those that do kill and maim with such great regularity.

As the report from last year stated, peds actually at fault 50% more often for their own deaths when in collision with people on bikes when a party was found to be so. That's massively telling as to how little threat people riding bikes are!

[reohn2]

The difference between cyclists and motorists breaking the law is huge,whereas cyclists for the most part pose only damage to themselves,motorists pose danger to everyone outside their vehicle with little chance of danger to themselves.

Actually the difference isn't as huge as we'd like to think. Take a look at:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2019/03/12/who-kills-whom-and-the-measurement-of-danger/
and look at the risk of killing a pedestrian per billion vehicle km of different types of vehicle.
Bicycle 0.8
Motorcycle 4.9
Car 1.4
Bus/Coach 0.7
Van 0.6
HGV 13

I wonder what those figures would show if they were based on time travelling rather than mileage?