Coach firm involved in London cyclist's death has been subject of slew of complaints on social media from cyclists, pedestrians and motorists

[/quote] So its not 'why do female poeple get killed' its 'why do people in motorised vehicles kill'. (People can waste time on the first question if they like, but it just suggests to me they have the wrong priorities).[/quote]

 The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.

If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won't prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense  provides the answer.

Grumpy17 wrote:

 

 The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.

If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won't prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense  provides the answer.

I didn't say 'the urban tactics' I said the psychology and mentality. Which, assuming it's real, isn't something that could be, or should be, taught. It's just coincidental.

I don't think it would be a sensible solution to try and teach more people to have more of a 'fuck you' attitude to drivers, which, it seems to me, is what you need to ride on roads as they are - e.g. taking the lane when you know some drivers will be enraged by it, or breaking the rules by nipping onto pavements or jumping the lights at tricky junctions. I think the emphasis should be on changing the roads so as not to demand that attitude, because many people will never have it (and it would be better all-round if they didn't).

And, in fact, if those factors slightly increase survival-chances in conditions as they are that's a condemnation of conditions as they are and another reason why they need to be changed.

Also you went and mentioned the dread 'common sense'! Pet hate of mine, that term!

The difference between the numbers of male and female riders killled is small, so the effect of any alleged different behviour (even assuming it could or should be 'taught') is small compared to the huge effect of crap road design (and lack of enforcement of good driving).

And that's not getting started on the point that the main health effect from current conditions is not RTAs but increased morbidity due to the inactivity and pollution that is caused by most people not cycling at all (and not walking that much either).

Looking at the death rate among existing cyclists is thus only a small part of the story. So you are focussing on a very small issue within a small issue, and one that I suspect can't be changed anyway.

But I accept that its fine to wonder, in an abstract kind of way, about what the gender difference might mean...it's just I don't think it will lead to anything useful.

Grumpy17 wrote:

 

So its not 'why do female poeple get killed' its 'why do people in motorised vehicles kill'. (People can waste time on the first question if they like, but it just suggests to me they have the wrong priorities).[/quote]

 The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.

If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won't prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense  provides the answer.

[/quote]

Generalise as much as you like, but doesn't multiple repeat offending point the finger at the operator and their drivers in this particular case? To re-iterate the atricle:

https://storify.com/NotInventedHere/clarks-coaches-complaints

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

 

 The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.

If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won't prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense  provides the answer.

I didn't say 'the urban tactics' I said the psychology and mentality. Which, assuming it's real, isn't something that could be, or should be, taught. It's just coincidental. I don't think it would be a sensible solution to try and teach more people to have more of a 'fuck you' attitude to drivers, which, it seems to me, is what you need to ride on roads as they are - e.g. taking the lane when you know some drivers will be enraged by it, or breaking the rules by nipping onto pavements or jumping the lights at tricky junctions. I think the emphasis should be on changing the roads so as not to demand that attitude, because many people will never have it (and it would be better all-round if they didn't). And, in fact, if those factors slightly increase survival-chances in conditions as they are that's a condemnation of conditions as they are and another reason why they need to be changed. Also you went and mentioned the dread 'common sense'! Pet hate of mine, that term! The difference between the numbers of male and female riders killled is small, so the effect of any alleged different behviour (even assuming it could or should be 'taught') is small compared to the huge effect of crap road design (and lack of enforcement of good driving). And that's not getting started on the point that the main health effect from current conditions is not RTAs but increased morbidity due to the inactivity and pollution that is caused by most people not cycling at all (and not walking that much either). Looking at the death rate among existing cyclists is thus only a small part of the story. So you are focussing on a very small issue within a small issue, and one that I suspect can't be changed anyway. But I accept that its fine to wonder, in an abstract kind of way, about what the gender difference might mean...it's just I don't think it will lead to anything useful.

Very noble aspirations I'm sure in wanting to 'change the roads' -what a lovely idealised vision of the world! Think it will ever be achieved?

In the meantime, before that cycling utopia of yours becomes a reality, survival tactics are the order of the day,even if that means 'breaking the rules' as you put it.

But ,hey, each to their own. In a world of danger you ,the individual ,must feel free to die by your principles of saintly adherence to the  Highway code.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

I always enjoy the MOT/licence/tax comments when related to accidents.  Especially from motorists who all pay these and still cause accidents & fatalities.

They should all have identifying plates on them so you know who has broken the law and can prosecute them.

Oh, you mean they do.  Coaches I mean.  A white one on the front and a yellow one on the rear...

Grumpy17 wrote:

The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride 

As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) - yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) - the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.

JustCyclist wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride 

As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) - yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) - the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.

I agree with this, and it's not only women doing this...

one point though is that when you say, "usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them" - this is only a partial interpretation of the rules - iirc there is some "rule" in the highway code that overrides the "rules" - for example, if the traffic is moving at 35mph in a 30 zone, and you insist on doing 29mph, then you are the anal retentive - I can't remember the exact phrasing and cba to look it up

beezus fufoon wrote:

JustCyclist wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride 

As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) - yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) - the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.

I agree with this, and it's not only women doing this...

one point though is that when you say, "usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them" - this is only a partial interpretation of the rules - iirc there is some "rule" in the highway code that overrides the "rules" - for example, if the traffic is moving at 35mph in a 30 zone, and you insist on doing 29mph, then you are the anal retentive - I can't remember the exact phrasing and cba to look it up

Or maybe you're the hero who saves someone's life. On my road near the traffic lights there's a lamp post with a dozen bunches of flowers + cards etc attached to it due to someone being killed, it's a 30mph road but of course the cars are regularly speeding on it. Speed limits are there for good reason.

kie7077 wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

JustCyclist wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride 

As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) - yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) - the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.

I agree with this, and it's not only women doing this...

one point though is that when you say, "usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them" - this is only a partial interpretation of the rules - iirc there is some "rule" in the highway code that overrides the "rules" - for example, if the traffic is moving at 35mph in a 30 zone, and you insist on doing 29mph, then you are the anal retentive - I can't remember the exact phrasing and cba to look it up

Or maybe you're the hero who saves someone's life. On my road near the traffic lights there's a lamp post with a dozen bunches of flowers + cards etc attached to it due to someone being killed, it's a 30mph road but of course the cars are regularly speeding on it. Speed limits are there for good reason.

the point is - if you think there's an rule in the highway code that will put you into danger - you've misunderstood - even the most clear and well defined rules such as as speed limits are not absolute by the rules of the code itself, so there is no way that you could endanger yourself by following those rules.