Cycling UK Forum

merseymouth wrote:<moderated> Motor Traffic does not own the road, Full Stop! If drivers or motor-cyclists think the presence of lawfully riding cyclists is dangerous then they have not been properly trained in road use. Share & share alike they're there for all of us to use. So if you get stuck in traffic congestion get wise, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem! TTFN MM

Where did I say they did?
(I think you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick... )

Back to the OP, the CYCLISTS ARE OWN BIGGEST DANGER claim has to be wrong because it lumps all of us in together, the good , the bad (and the ugly?). We are not all the same, so the claim is wrong through its overgeneralisation.

Some cyclists are not their own biggest danger. They ride intelligently, spotting potential danger and dealing with it before it becomes a real threat.

But other cyclists are an accident waiting to happen. They take unnecessary risks.

Both types (good and bad) can be mown down by another road user, but I think the more skilled cyclists keep their risk levels lower and are less likely to be hurt.

So the headline is wrong, but some of us could and should ride better.

pwa wrote:So the headline is wrong, but some of us could and should ride better.

Undoubtedly; but most of the poor cycling skills I see aren't illegal.
Ditto just because someone is cycling in an illegal manner that doesn't make it unsafe - just unpopular.

danhopgood wrote:........ Which is why, going back[to] the OP, the public's - and the decision maker's views on cyclists matters.

Even if they're blatantly wrong?
From a motorist's POV(12,000miles per annum) and a cyclist's POV(between 5,000 and 8,000miles per annum).
Yes I see cyclists riding on pavements occasionally, I see an occasional cyclist RLJ,but I see far more motorists breaking the law,including driving on pavements and RLJing, driving dangerously,endangering other road users lives than I've ever done cyclists.
I say again,what we're seeing in this country is prejudice,pure and simple.
I have my own opinions why that is but that doesn't matter.
What matters is that the thread's title ''CYCLISTS ARE OWN BIGGEST DANGER'' is wrong on so many levels as to be unbelievable,and would be laughable if it weren't so tragic!
Cyclists will always be demonised in the UK as long as the authorities allow it,and they are doing nothing to stop it!
It's exactly as Kwackers says:-

In a nutshell, here's the public and decision makers view on bicycles:-
Modern roads are too busy for bicycles. They're fine when they can be segregated from motorised traffic but otherwise they slow down traffic and cause accidents by getting in the way. They don't work well with current traffic infrastructure and the cost of improvements isn't justified by their numbers.

Someone once said,you can judge how civilised a country is by the way treats it's minorities.
Cyclists in the UK are treated abysmally by the government and the law,at all levels,and by a significant and large minority of other road users.

danhopgood wrote:when I'm driving I want respect from cyclists so that I can drive safely.

That's a pretty amazing statement. It basically says that you don't feel able to drive safely if you don't get "respect". If you aren't able to drive safely without "respect", it is solely because you choose not to do so. What you mean to say is "I want respect, otherwise I refuse to drive safely".

danhopgood wrote:If ignoring the Highway Code by cyclists is considered widely acceptable, it increases the prevalence of "victim blaming" of cyclists that are innocent when an incident occurs. If the majority of those contributing to the forums of a leading cycling charity can't agree that cyclists need to play by the rules then there's no hope.

Again, a pretty amazing statement given that ignorance of the Highway Code is so acceptable for drivers that people can't even see it happening. Take a look at some examples. 83% of drivers admit to breaking the law regularly, let alone the advice in the Highway Code. Even one simple rule is so routinely ignored that when people ignore it and this directly results in a fatality, there has been—to my knowledge—no-one found guilty by a jury of having caused that death. (If you want more discussion around the Highway Code's relationship to law, or rather it's lack thereof, you can read more on that same case here.) And that's just one rule. I could be here all week if we're to pick through the others.

Don't claim that lawbreaking, or ignorance of the Highway Code, on bicycles is "considered widely acceptable"; the problem is that it's only considered widely acceptable when in a car.

Just for once, I have to take a contrary view. "CYCLISTS ARE OWN BIGGEST DANGER": in my case, that is literally true.

The only serious injury I've had from cycling was entirely my own fault. I got on my bike, lost my balance, fall off, and broke my hip.

No motorist has ever injured me.

I suppose I'm a statistical outlier, but I guess many (most?) minor injuries are self-caused, or at least not caused by motorists.

However, I don't want to detract from the obvious (to us) message that heavy metal boxes hurtling around generally present a greater risk. The boss of a coach company wants to demonise us, to blame our problems on us, and probably wants us off the roads to make room for his coaches. Well, that's not surprising.

Most errors involving human beings are of their own creation. This is just as true when cycling or in a car.
All you can do is have a good risk management plan in place. Things will and do go wrong but usually accidents arent the result of just one thing but a chain of events leading to that eventuality. Recognising the risks and taking steps to deal with them appropriately helps to minimize their impact, and if your lucky prevent the accident.
A good example from myself is i was heading home from touring, thinking about home, and trying to crack the last 10 miles through from north to south london, and went through a red-light, i was lucky it was just a cyclist that swerved coming across the junction. ~I honestly thought the light was green.
So what was my mistake? Not checking the light was green properly? My mind on getting home? No, my mistake was fatigue, and pressing to do the last few miles.
I should have stopped had lunch,rested then continued my journey. Then the incident would never have happened. Now before heading into london, and home thats just what I do.
So human error is inevitable,but often accidents can be avoided by breaking the chain of events. So I would agree with the statement "cyclists are their own biggest danger" however this is not to say that motorists dont come a very close 2nd.

fluffybunnyuk wrote: So I would agree with the statement "cyclists are their own biggest danger" however this is not to say that motorists dont come a very close 2nd.

I completely disagree with that statement.
Motorised vehicles,mainly cars,are their own biggest danger.
They kill and maim more of themselves than any other road user in the UK.
What's worse is they seldom receive the punishment they deserve for doing so too!

fluffybunnyuk wrote:So I would agree with the statement "cyclists are their own biggest danger"

Based on one anecdote of your own error?

Jeez.

Ummm no I base it on what is known of risk management.
I'm sure you can find me a table of cycle incidents someplace that shows contact by a car on a cyclist as the biggest danger, even moreso than human error or equipment malfunction? I look forward to seeing it.

Im fairly sure human error would come out top, followed by equipment malfunction being significantly higher than cyclist hit by car events. So technically the statement is factually correct.

In the aeronautical industry its commonly accepted that 90% of incidents are caused by human error. I see no reason why this figure should be largely different with any other form of transportation.

fluffybunnyuk wrote:Ummm no I base it on what is known of risk management.
I'm sure you can find me a table of cycle incidents someplace that shows contact by a car on a cyclist as the biggest danger, even moreso than human error or equipment malfunction? I look forward to seeing it.

You first.
The biggest danger to cyclists on the roads in the UK today are motorists,motorists who take chances with other people's well being.

fluffybunnyuk wrote:Ummm no I base it on what is known of risk management.
I'm sure you can find me a table of cycle incidents someplace that shows contact by a car on a cyclist as the biggest danger, even moreso than human error or equipment malfunction? I look forward to seeing it.

That's a confusing statement. There's no doubt human error is the biggest factor, just that the human that makes the error is much more likely to be the one driving the car.
If you wanted to be obtuse you could claim that the error was in choosing to cycle on the roads in the first place!

fluffybunnyuk wrote:In the aeronautical industry its commonly accepted that 90% of incidents are caused by human error. I see no reason why this figure should be largely different with any other form of transportation.

A bit misleading. Unless it's a freak natural event it's hard to claim how any accident isn't a result of human error. Humans chose to fly/drive in the weather conditions, if they're unsuitable that's human error. Humans decide on servicing intervals and checking their vehicles are air/road worthy, if it subsequently fails that's a human error too. Ultimately there's not much that can't be shown to be human error even if the connection is a bit obscure you can usually find a point where a human made a decision that decides the final outcome and which in retrospect wasn't a good one.

What we're really talking about isn't a generalised version of human error - that a given imo. What we're talking about is where your life is endangered because of someone else's error.

stewartpratt wrote:

danhopgood wrote:when I'm driving I want respect from cyclists so that I can drive safely.

That's a pretty amazing statement. It basically says that you don't feel able to drive safely if you don't get "respect". If you aren't able to drive safely without "respect", it is solely because you choose not to do so. What you mean to say is "I want respect, otherwise I refuse to drive safely".

No it doesn't. It means that I don't have to want to have to compensate my driving for the failure of others - eg at the weekend when I had to stop on a green light due to red light jumping cyclists.

danhopgood wrote:If ignoring the Highway Code by cyclists is considered widely acceptable, it increases the prevalence of "victim blaming" of cyclists that are innocent when an incident occurs. If the majority of those contributing to the forums of a leading cycling charity can't agree that cyclists need to play by the rules then there's no hope

Again, a pretty amazing statement given that ignorance of the Highway Code is so acceptable for drivers that people can't even see it happening. Take a look at some examples. 83% of drivers admit to breaking the law regularly, let alone the advice in the Highway Code. Even one simple rule is so routinely ignored that when people ignore it and this directly results in a fatality, there has been—to my knowledge—no-one found guilty by a jury of having caused that death. (If you want more discussion around the Highway Code's relationship to law, or rather it's lack thereof, you can read more on that same case here.) And that's just one rule. I could be here all week if we're to pick through the others.

Don't claim that lawbreaking, or ignorance of the Highway Code, on bicycles is "considered widely acceptable"; the problem is that it's only considered widely acceptable when in a car.

Sorry, that's wrong. How about the study that showed 18% of cyclists in London jumping red lights? There's bad behaviour on all sides.

fluffybunnyuk wrote:I'm sure you can find me a table of cycle incidents someplace that shows contact by a car on a cyclist as the biggest danger, even moreso than human error or equipment malfunction? I look forward to seeing it.

Sure. A piece of TRL/DfT research showed that the primary fault in the majority of cases lies with drivers.
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-repor ... cent-cases

There are DfT RAS tables that show similar figures; I can't find the one I had in mind but I can dig it up if you really want (I thought it was RAS50005, but the one I recall is specifically related to pedal cycle vs car collisions). Research in Australia and New Zealand match the same pattern: the primary cause is drivers failing to look properly.

fluffybunnyuk wrote:Im fairly sure human error would come out top, followed by equipment malfunction being significantly higher than cyclist hit by car events. So technically the statement is factually correct.

I don't really understand what you're saying. Human error does indeed come out top, by some margin, but the point is that it's primarily driver error, not cyclist error. "Equipment malfunction" isn't even a blip on the radar, particularly if you appreciate that material failure is normally due to negligent levels of maintenance, which is again human error.

fluffybunnyuk wrote:In the aeronautical industry its commonly accepted that 90% of incidents are caused by human error. I see no reason why this figure should be largely different with any other form of transportation.

It's not largely different. But your assertion was that it was the human error on the part of the cyclist, specifically, which was the primary cause. And that's false.

danhopgood wrote:

stewartpratt wrote:

danhopgood wrote:when I'm driving I want respect from cyclists so that I can drive safely.

That's a pretty amazing statement. It basically says that you don't feel able to drive safely if you don't get "respect". If you aren't able to drive safely without "respect", it is solely because you choose not to do so. What you mean to say is "I want respect, otherwise I refuse to drive safely".

No it doesn't. It means that I don't have to want to have to compensate my driving for the failure of others - eg at the weekend when I had to stop on a green light due to red light jumping cyclists.

You're proving my point. "I don't want to" is absolutely not the same as "I can't", and the difference is the fact that it's your choice.

It's probably worth reminding yourself what a green light means. It means "proceed if your way is clear", not "floor it, screw anyone who's in the way".

You are choosing not to drive safely and you are quite explicit about that by saying that you don't want to drive safely.

danhopgood wrote:Sorry, that's wrong. How about the study that showed 18% of cyclists in London jumping red lights? There's bad behaviour on all sides.

Of course there's bad behaviour on all sides; that's kind of the point, it's just it's more socially normalised when it's undertaken in the vehicle type that's larger, heavier, faster and more protective of its operator.

If you read one of the pages I linked to, you'll see that the figure for drivers who jump red lights is very similar to the 18% you cite for cyclists. The difference is that drivers are more often prevented from exercising that choice than cyclists are: London cyclists get feeder lanes and ASLs, so the majority can reach the front of the queue, whereas it only takes one driver to obey a light and everyone behind them is forced to do likewise.

Furthermore, there are cases where cyclists violating reds are doing so through a rational desire to improve safety: either jumping a light turning red because they feel at risk from a vehicle behind that is particularly close, or moving off shortly before a red in order to increase their visibility or clear a junction ahead of the traffic. Read the details of the collision that crushed Mary Bowers for just one example of when violating a red light could have been a survival tactic to reduce the risk of a collision.