Cyclists are just as dangerous to pedestrians as drivers. That’s the claim made by an article on The Times website today.
According to transport correspondent Phillip Pank, analysis of the 2012 road accident figures published by the Department for Transport reveals: “When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.”
To steal a phrase from debunker of Bad Science Ben Goldacre, we think you’ll find it’s more complicated than that.
What you really want to know here is how much of a risk different road users pose to pedestrians. It could be therefore misleading to take as your starting point the distances travelled by the those road users. You want the distances travelled by pedestrians.
road.cc doesn’t have an in-house statistician (applications are open, but be warned: the pay is lousy), so no doubt there are serious flaws in what follows and we expect smarter people than us to point them out in the comments.
The national travel survey says the average person travelled 6,691 miles in 2012. There 60 million people in the UK, so that's just over 400 billion miles.
Of that distance, 3 percent is walked so that's 12 billion miles of walking. For the sake of argument, let’s say that half of that is in the kind of urban environments The Times is talking about.
That’s 6 billion miles of walking which would get you out to Pluto’s orbit, if the frigid outer reaches of the solar system are your thing.
There were 79 pedestrians killed or seriously injured (KSI) by bikes in urban areas in 2012, so that’s one KSI per 75 million miles walked.
By contrast, there were 4,679 pedestrian KSIs involving motor vehicles – one KSI per 1.25 million miles walked.
That means for every mile you walk, you are 60 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a driver than a cyclist.
Another criticism of The Times’ analysis, and one that the paper touches on, is that the injuries sustained by pedestrians who are hit by cyclists are likely to be less severe than injuries to those who are hit by drivers.
The DfT’s classification of serious injury is:
Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident.
An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.
So a broken collarbone or mild concussion comes under the same heading as multiple broken bones and severe brain damage.
On the basis of its pedestrian-injuries-per-billion-vehicle-miles analysis, The Times concedes that “drivers are five times more likely than cyclists to kill a pedestrian.” It doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect that they are also far more likely to inflict the most severe injuries.
After all, what would you rather be hit by, a Mondeo doing 30mph, or a skinny cyclist doing 20mph?
59 thoughts on “Are drivers and cyclists just as dangerous to pedestrians?”
> After all, what would you
> After all, what would you rather be hit by, a Mondeo doing 30mph, or a skinny cyclist doing 20mph?
In itself that’s a pretty misleading question. IIRC most car accidents occur well below 30mph, many below 20mph, as the motorist involved had his/her foot on the brake pedal before the collision.
It’s worth mentioning that some of the newest cars have given much thought to pedestrian collisions. Bonnets are designed not to intrude into the engine bay (no nasty pokey things hitting your head through the bonnet), bumpers are soft and deformable; Volvo even has an external airbag for just such a collision.
Which would I rather be hit by? Neither. Both are going to be very painful.
“After all, what would you
“After all, what would you rather be hit by, a Mondeo doing 30mph, or a skinny cyclist doing 20mph?”
neither personnally… I would hope the infrastructure kept the lemmings out of the road and off cyclepaths.
It would help themselves immensely if the lemmings stopped wandering out into the road with their head immersed in their mobile phone display and their ears blocked by their ear-buds blasting mindless pap into their ears to drone out the traffic noises… Also some idiots are out there wearing noise-cancelling headphones!!!! so they’ll never hear your warning.
As far as damage from cars
As far as damage from cars and bikes, oozaveared of this parish did a cracking job http://road.cc/users/oozaveared
http://road.cc/comment/reply/108884/224309
Also, regarding mode of travel versus miles versus KSI rates. The space shuttle was considered very dangerous per ‘commute’ but exceptionally safe by KSI per billion miles travelled 🙂
Just an example of using
Just an example of using numbers to deliberately confuse the reader and make the headline only stand out. Where anyone mixes statistical format (mixing percentages and fractions) I tend to dismiss the whole article as its clearly not written with any expertise
And then the last 3 paragraphs are added in for click back purposes
We are truly doomed
pedestrians should pay road
pedestrians should pay road tax and stop walking red lights
Sigh. So how many people were
Sigh. So how many people were killed by cyclists in 2013? And how many by cars in the same year? I don’t think the figures are even comparable (but cba to look them up – i’m sure soneone else will).
And this is a newspaper that
And this is a newspaper that was once supportive of cycling or they have moved on to the next bandwagon?
northstar wrote:And this is a
Yep. Is that poor girl still in a coma? Last year’s news it seems.
MercuryOne wrote:northstar
Not a clue tbh, last I read about her was she is : (
I hope she comes around.
“After all, what would you
“After all, what would you rather be hit by, a Mondeo doing 30mph, or a skinny cyclist doing 20mph?”
I recently posted the basic physics on this. And it’s at a scale that is staggering.
The calculation is this (Mass X Velocity Squared) over 2.
Let’s take a 13 odd stone cyclist on commuter bike. (Not a skinny one.) That’s roughly 100kg of mass. Let’s say he/she is going at a decent clip I’ll use 22mph because that equates to a nice round 10 metres per second.
100 x 10 squared /2 = 5000 joules of energy impact.
Remember 5000.
Ok let’s take a little car A smart car say weighing 750kg and a passenger (small one) let’s call that 800kg. Now let’s do that equation again.
800 x 10 squared / 2 = 40,000 joules of energy impact.
8 times more impact energy. If the car is doing 44mph you can make that 160,000 joules or 32 times the impact.
and that’s a small car at the same speed as a cyclist. Make it a range rover with 4 passengers in and you have 500,000 joules or 100 times the impact energy.
We don’t even consider the fact that a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is soft tissue and bone hitting soft tissue and bone thereby mitigating the force of impact (cos the cyclist gets half).
And then consider the fact that a cyclist 100kg travelling at 22mph will stop much quicker and avoid impact more easily than 800kg or 2500kg at the same speed (or double in some cases).
The Times could have done these calculation. If they had they would realise that they were talking tosh.
Or they could just have looked at the road casualty statistics and seen that it’s not cyclist doing the killing and injuring out there.
Whatever happened to common sense and O Level physics anyway?
I’m willing to bet a fair
I’m willing to bet a fair portion of pedistrians injured by cyclists was either from cyclists braking the law, or pedestrians walking accross the road without looking.
The classic ‘I can’t hear anything so nobody is there’.
65% of traffic volume was on
65% of traffic volume was on motorways. Assuming pedestrians were not injured in these roads, the figure of 24 becomes 37
sfichele wrote:65% of traffic
I think this point deserves more attention, because, as you essentially say, _if_ that 65% figure is correct then the stats as presented by the Times are badly flawed, to the point of being dishonest.
You can’t compare the two if 2/3 of the distance travelled by one group is on a highway where pedestrian collisions are impossible due to there being no pedestrians to collide with due to them being barred by law.
Its nonsense-on-stilts to compare the raw figures like that, you have to at least start with confining it to travel on roads where pedestrians are legally allowed.
In fact the underlying issue goes beyond motorways – doing it by ‘distance travelled’ across the whole country gives hugely inflated weighting to long inter-city journeys along roads where there _are_ no pedestrians – and those journeys are precisely the ones far more likely to be taken by car.
Seems like the usual poor journalism we get in this country whenever any story involves statistics, science, or logical thinking. Why do professional journalists (at least any of them not called Ben Goldacre or Tim Harford) have such trouble with these topics? No wonder we do badly in those international tests.
(This is all assuming the data is as the Times describes, simple ‘KSI per billion miles travelled’ and have not in fact only about urban areas or something)
I guess what you need is some sort of ‘proportion of all close interactions with pedestrians that end badly for the vulnerable party’. Per billion miles travelled is the wrong metric to use.
65% of traffic volume was on
65% of traffic volume was on motorways. Assuming pedestrians were not injured in these roads, the figure of 24 becomes 37
Serious injuries as a
Serious injuries as a proportion of distance travelled is not a relevant safety statistic.
Lets look at another irrelevant safety statistic. Lets compare number of pedestrian casualties in urban areas vs motorways, which would show you that statistically the safest place to walk is on the motorway.
Exactly who cares how far the
Exactly who cares how far the car/bike has travelled before it hits them?
It’s weight, speed & required pedestrian safety features are more important!
Most days I have to take
Most days I have to take evasive action around 3-5 pedestrians when cycling, at weekends maybe 1 pedestrian for every other journey by car. It’s mainly a case of pedestrians taking the threat of a car more seriously. If pedestrians paid the same attention to me when driving at 30MPH as they do me to when I am cycling I would probably kill at least one pedestrian per week and on occasion a large group at Vauxhall Cross.
Quote:”After all, what would
That sounds a lot like drivers who says bikes shouldn’t get in their way and shouldn’t be on the roads.
Forget KSI’s, what about
Forget KSI’s, what about straight deaths?
About one ped is killed by a cyclist every two years. In comparrison 8 are killed by Bees and 12 by their own bedding.
So you’re 24 times more likeley to be killed by your pillow than a cyclist. I suggest all wear hi-viz and a helmet to bed from now on.
In the north east the
In the north east the difference in the figures would be massive as we get very few reported collisions between cyclists and pedestrians whereas there seems to be a lot more numptie cyclists and car drivers in London who all seem to be in a hurry.
Is that a sign of a capital city where everything seems to be at a greater pace or is it that people in the north east are more careful ?????? I honestly dont know.
I wonder if someone had the figures in London to hand ?
stumps wrote:In the north
I think many statistics presented as national would be much more useful broken down between London and everywhere else, the disparity between the two in so many things you might want to measure and cook up stats for being so great as to make lumping the two sets of data together as good as meaningless.
Northernbike wrote:stumps
I think many statistics presented as national would be much more useful broken down between London and everywhere else, the disparity between the two in so many things you might want to measure and cook up stats for being so great as to make lumping the two sets of data together as good as meaningless.— stumps
Stumps – pretty sure it’s to do with concentration of people and traffic density , there’s no shortage of numpties – as you well know – but maybe there’s more space and less likelihood of numpties conflict. Newcastle, for example, does not even come close to London or some other medium / big cities by for the number of riders on the road. This kind of data is almost certainly skewed by big clusters like that so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to present it averaged out nationally.
What about the difference in
What about the difference in the number of pedestrian miles covered on shared used cyclist/pedestrian paths compared to the number of miles covered on shared car/pedestrian road (eg road with no pavement). I think there is a big difference?
As others have said, the choice of an exceptionally broad category of “serious injuries” grossly misrepresents the facts. Deaths would at least be a clearer-cut issue but perhaps that doesn’t suit the journalist’s agenda.
Abuse of statistics to sell papers isn’t really anything new though. 🙁 Don’t believe what you read without thinking about it carefully. The classic is “doing x doubles your chance of dying from y”. When actually whether or not you do x, you are extraordinarly unlikely to die of y. In fact doing x could even drastically reduce your risk of dying of z.
I have been hit by a skinny
I have been hit by a skinny cyclists most likely doing more than 20mph, in Richmond Park a few years ago, I was standing by my bike putting my coat away, and some one from a well known club inspite of clear visibility and rode into my leg.
I’m reasonably tall and athletic build he was somewhat shorter and slight, so I got moved along by the impact but remained standing, he went over the bars landing hard on his back cracking the rim of the front wheel (dura ace) in a few places and taking a few chunks out of the frame.
I did have a bruise and limp for a few weeks, I suspect he took rather longer to recover!
Point of the tale being cyclists often come off worse vs if they collide with someone.
Another nail in the coffin of
Another nail in the coffin of the pro-cycling Times, whose pro-cycling stance pretty much withered on the vine almost as soon as new editor John Witherow took over from James Harding last year.
Further evidence of institutional anti-cyclist bias (as if any was really needed) is in the following two sentences:
“Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously injured 585. In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 46,081 were seriously injured.”
Here, ‘cyclists’ are active killers and ‘motor vehicles’ – and not their drivers – somehow managed to kill 144 times as many pedestrians as the ‘bikes’ did.
Same lazy thinking, same lazy journalism as we’re used to. :W
FridgeARCC wrote:
Further
I think that’s an excellent point.
The way drivers are erased from the picture and cars treated as if they are some sort of force of nature (like hurricanes, say), while cyclists are treated as moral agents with responsibility, seems very revealing of the way bias can be so deep that the biased party isn’t even consciously aware of it.
Lies, damned lies, and
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, etc.
How about we stop blaming others and start taking responsibility for ourselves and for others, when we’re driving, when we’re cycling, when we’re walking.
F= MxA
Motor vehicle always
F= MxA
Motor vehicle always has more M and will often be travelling faster thus creating more A when it strikes the walker.
As Scottie says……..
Another old chestnut. Having
Another old chestnut. Having dragged myself through the statistics on this over a number of years, I have to say:
1. A tiny proportion of pedestrian KSIs involve cyclists. When walking you are far, far, far more likely to be hospitalised (let alone killed) in a collision involving a cyclist than a motorist.
2. When you bear in mind that there are far more motorists than cyclists and try to compare the chances of a pedestrian being hit by a cyclist per cyclist mile as compared to being hit by a motorist per motorist mile. (Of course , as one of the posters above points out, maybe as a pedestrian you are not really interested in that, but let’s proceed anyway.) Even here as a cyclist you are much less likely to be involved in a collision where a pedestrian becomes a KSI statistic than you are if you are a motorist.
3. One of the reasons why the differential in 2 above is only 2 – 6 times (depending on annual variations in figures etc., etc.) is because pedestrians tend to be far less careful re-cyclist traffic than motor traffic, as pedestrians are less careful of cars/lorries etc. than cyclists – if you drive and cycle compare pedestrian behaviour to yourself. So the threat posed to pedestrians by cyclists compared to motorists goes down again.
4. Unlike Germany, Japan, and the USA, pedestrians cannot be prosecuted under the criminal law for careless behaviour – yet the can endanger cyclists (often just as much as cyclists can endanger pedestrians).
5. I am against this, but the Highway Code does recommend that pedestrians wear hi-viz. But not helmets. Yet.
The most obvious problem with
The most obvious problem with this statistic is that there are no accurate figures for the number of cyclists or the number of miles they travel! Also, given the title of the piece, this, from near the end seems a bit at odds with intent of the article
“Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes were caused by the pedestrian. ”
Perhaps it should have been “Pedestrians create army of cycling wounded”
Pedestrians don’t see & hear
Pedestrians don’t see & hear cyclists, or under-estimate their speed. That’s the issue we face, honestly.
In the beautiful place that is Canary Wharf last week, a private plod there decided that me yelling at a “not-looking-before-crossing-the-road-and-reading-my-smartphone-with-headphones-in” pedestrian that I was in danger of hitting was “startling” for him and uncalled for (he actually chased me in his converted golf cart).
My response was surprisingly docile – “go and shout at a motorist that hoots, then come back and I will agree with you”.
I see so much hysteria since November, and more tension between motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Enough with stupid articles – let’s all just be courteous and aware.
I totally agree with goggy’s
I totally agree with goggy’s last statement. I try to give as much warning to pedestrian as they walk out onto my path without looking and the worst case is when they walk 2 to 3 abreast on the path in the park on won’t budge!
On the other side, I see some cyclist who still thinks they can cycle across red lights or won’t stop for pedestrains when it’s the pedestrains right of way!
Let’s ALL just be courteous and aware of other road users!
I have yet to collide with a
I have yet to collide with a pedestrian but boy do some of them try in London. Everyone makes mistakes but it is the ones who see you and make no effort to clear off the road and usually have a shitty remark to make as you swerve/jam on the brakes.
Sad that the Times has gone down this route but it does employ Clarkson.
Strange fact. I have a very
Strange fact. I have a very fast car that my wife normally drives. Yet the more I cycle – 4x as much as last year, at least so far this year 😉 – the less I care about Top Gear and Clarkson.
Bring on my Tacx trainer and Strava goals!
To be fair, if the pedestrian
To be fair, if the pedestrian is already crossing the road, they may well have right of way over you. This is certainly the case if you turned onto the road they were crossing. When a pedestrian has right of way, it is incumbent on you to not impede them (e.g. stop, or go behind them).
Paul J wrote:To be fair, if
[[[[[ Really? And do road-crossing pedestrians also have right of way over cars, buses, trucks, etc? If so, it must be in the Highway Code, and every time a pedestrian is KSI’d by a motor vehicle it must be the driver’s fault. N’est pas?
P.R.
Couple of references to daft
Couple of references to daft pedestrian behaviour – long may it last, I say, in urban areas, as it helps to slow cars and enforce the correct priority of feet, then bikes mingling in with care, then motorised vehicles going at a crawl to limit the danger the vehicles introduce. Blame-shifting talk of lemmings is misjudged, I think. Anyone going too quick in town needs to swap their long drop cantis for some disc brakes – an excuse for a new Croix de Fer maybe? <:P
vbvb wrote:Couple of
bring back the “red flag” for motorised vehicles? Make it compulsorary for all motorised vehicles to be dayglo yellow? After all they keep trying to get high-viz mandated for cyclists…
from the Times
from the Times article
“Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously injured 585.
In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 46,081 were seriously injured. ”
ok so simple maths assuming a linear relationship to kms travelled (not proper stats 😉 )
so if you doubled the number of cycle-kms ridden
then the number of people killed per year by pedal bikes could be as many as 5 give or take with around 120 people seriously injured
if you halved the vehicle-kms driven then that would be 150 pedestrians killed per year by vehicles and 2300 seriously injured per year
that seems a pretty big gap to me think I know where effort to improve skills and change attitudes needs focussing
Saw the Times today which had
Saw the Times today which had half a page celebrating Top Gear’s 21st birthday and the fact that Clarkson has no plans to “grow up”. Go figure as the Americans say.
No one is impressed by data
No one is impressed by data analysis alone. The question is “what can be done?”, The answer is “improve the design of streets so that the most vulnerable get the most help”.
Cycling will do very well from such a plan, and so will walking. Driving will have to take quite a lot of restriction, but can continue to be useful and convenient where necessary.
The problem of bad behaviour will have to wait for Judgement Day.
Per minute spent travelling
Per minute spent travelling should be used as the measure rather than per unit distance.
Typically motor vehicles travel much faster than bicycles. If, for example you assume a steady rate of pedestrians crossing the road, a cyclist will be exposed to more pedestrians per km than a driver.
Additionally, as mentioned already, shared use foot/cycle paths increase exposure for cyclists.
Let’s put this in
Let’s put this in perspective.
In the 10 years to 1997, guess how many people were killed on London’s pavements by cars? = 37.
By bikes? = Zero.
Clearly there’s infinitely much more danger of being killed by a car on the pavement than on the road.
Data source:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/goodwill-reiterates-footway-cycling-guidance
I’m a pedestrian, a cyclist,
I’m a pedestrian, a cyclist, a passenger on public transport and a motorist.
Fortunately, I have appropriate insurance and have written a will. Sounds like I could be needing one or other soon!
Whoops: I wrote:
1. A tiny
Whoops: I wrote:
1. A tiny proportion of pedestrian KSIs involve cyclists. When walking you are far, far, far more likely to be hospitalised (let alone killed) in a collision involving a cyclist than a motorist.
One of you spotted that ti shoudl read “less” rather than “more”.
I was just testing you.
Honest.
Over the last few years I’ve
Over the last few years I’ve had exactly the same problems as (it seems) everyone else with pedestrians not looking before stepping out, but over this winter (mainly for a laugh) I’ve been running the bike with Schwalbe ice spikers. It sounds like a half track and I’ve never failed to attract the attention of all pedestrians (even with headphones). Everyone gets out of my way and I’m thinking of running them into the summer as well.
I love finding a technology solution to problems.
I hope you guys realise that
I hope you guys realise that the prevalence of hybrid vehicles is only going to increase the number of accidents. >10 tonnes of metal going down the road silently is very scary. Pedestrians in London don’t look when they cross the road already (is this some kind of Islamic fatalism at work?) – it won’t be long until deaths and serious injuries from hybrids exceed those from ‘cycles
hairyairey wrote:I hope you
[[[[[ Yup, silently-approaching hybrid motors may well cause more collisions in the short term, but perhaps other road-users will therefore begin to use their eyes instead of their ears…..surely a plus for them, and a boon to us cyclists?
P.R.
PhilRuss wrote:hairyairey
or this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13416020
exceed? maybe you should
exceed? maybe you should check the stats first, hilarious.
Has RoadCC approached The
Has RoadCC approached The Times for a comment having had its science discredited?
I find it incredible that
I find it incredible that anything in a News International paper is taken seriously. We know that often their stories are simply a means of self promotion, write something outrageous and watch the interest grow. Treat them with the contempt they deserve, just ignore them, they don’t deserve serious debate.
stevengoodfellow wrote:I find
So we should dismiss the entire Cities Fit For Cycling campaign from The Times, which raised the profile of cycling on the political agenda, secured a parliamentary debate, and helped pay for the Get Britain Cycling inquiry, then?
“What you really want to know
“What you really want to know here is how much of a risk different road users pose to pedestrians.”
Why?
I don’t think that’s what you want. At least I don’t want that. I’d be much more interested in whether encouraging cycling is likely to make roads safer, whereas your question is about what’s likely to have happened if I find myself lying in the middle of the road with a broken bone. I want to know whether a given trip is more dangerous to some group of people (e.g. pedestrians) depending on whether it’s made by car or by bike, because the answer leads to a difference in policy–either individual (“I want to kill someone today. Should I drive or bike?”) or societal (“Should we subsidise parking and petrol as they do in the USA?”). So the article you criticise is asking the important question: What’s Pr(hurt | hit by bike), whereas the question you’re asking is What’s Pr(hit by bike | hurt)?, which is only interesting for storytelling purposes.
Since far more miles are driven by cars than by bikes, obviously cars will kill more people. That’s not interesting because it doesn’t answer the question “Would encouraging cycling lead to safer roads?”
On the other hand, your criticism of “serious injury” is correct and important–even if hospitalisable injuries are similar, Pr(death | hit by car) > Pr(death | hit by bike).
Another way of looking at it is this: what you really want to know is which form of transportation kills more _people_, regardless of how they choose to transport themselves on any given trip. (You could maybe argue that people driving cars are knowingly choosing to put the lives of others at high risk and thus deserve to die, and so we don’t care if people in cars kill people in cars, but actually let’s not do that.) Bikes are more dangerous to other people than pedestrians are, but nobody on a bike ever kills anyone in a car (AFAIK), and people in cars kill people in cars all the time.
(And then there are the personal health benefits of cycling and the personal and societal health drawbacks of driving…)
If the original article shows something that you wish it didn’t show (and who likes to hear that cycling hurts others?), perhaps we should be arguing for better integration of cycling infrastructure and better civic planning, rather than trying to ask misleading questions.
If you must question the statistics, perhaps you could argue that “per distance” is flawed, since cycling trips tend to be much shorter than driving trips, and more urban, resulting in higher exposure of pedestrians. The analysis in the Times may merely show that long-distance highways are efficient, pedestrian-death-wise: cars can rack up many billions of kilometers without coming anywhere near pedestrians (no kinetic endangerment, at least, although endangering them through toxins and political instability and climate change still occurs). Normalising _per_trip_ rather than _per_distance_ would arguably make more sense. This would also take into account the behaviour change caused by cycling: cyclists presumably tend to travel less distance per year, but to go out at roughly as often.
Cheers!
I am delighted that cyclists
I am delighted that cyclists agree with me that stats are crap after all :))
But you miss two vital points. Accident records show that with drivers involved 75% are the pedestrians fault.
And of course,because drivers keep us all alive and provide basic essentials, they save far more people than they kill or injure. Yes it can’t all be perfect.
ronyrash
+1
Jjkuvbgd36788&£
Jjkuvbgd36788&£
“(he actually chased me in
“(he actually chased me in his converted golf cart).”
Lol, so you cycled slow and waited for him too catch up right? :))
Hi it’s me again using the
Hi it’s me again using the word Save is a code word for Send (previous post) must remember that.
23 pedis killed by cyclist? If you believe that you’ll. believe anything.when I returned from a 2 year cycle tour abroad a few year ago I was shocked to learn of 20,000 cycle accidents,3000 fatally,in the previous year.
It turned out that these figures were entirely fictitious.theres a good few loonies round cycling but these will be eventually sorted out in the fullness of time by the shear weight of of numbers in the coming flood of cyclist who are going to bring this planet back to its senses.
You lucky young people, enjoy the ride!