Home
Our regular feature highlighting close passes caught on camera from around the country – today it’s Nottinghamshire

A cyclist has posted footage to Twitter showing the moment a bus driver pulled onto the A6006 into his path, apparently without having seen the rider.

The incident happened at around 0930 this morning in the village of Normanton on Soar in the south of the county, very close to the border with Leicestershire.

Luckily the rider was alert to the bus driver pulling out on him and was able to slow doing to avoid being struck.

The vehicle, which was carrying no passengers, is operated by Soar Valley Community Bus, based in nearby Sutton Bonington.

The operator, which has charitable status, says on its website that it "is run by an unpaid, volunteer committee and operated by a pool of some 30 unpaid volunteer drivers, drawn from the residents of the villages of the Soar Valley."

Nottinghamshire Police, to whom the incident has been reported via Twitter, has not to our knowledge formally launched a close pass campaign similar to that rolled out to widespread acclaim by West Midlands Police last year and subsequently adopted by other forces throughout the UK.

Indeed, earlier this month we reported on an incident in which a cyclist was initially told by an operator on the 101 non-emergency number that the force had insufficient resources to investigate such instances, only taking action once the rider enlisted the help via Twitter of British Cycling policy adviser, Chris Boardman.

> Nottingham cyclist was initially told to 'go away' when he tried to report near-miss to police

Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country so many in fact that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon in to a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives Close Pass of the Day will keep rolling on.

If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it us at info [at] road.cc (subject: Near%20Miss%20of%20the%20Day)  or contact us via the road.cc Facebook page.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

32 comments

Avatar
CXR94Di2 [1858 posts] 5 months ago
5 likes

Usual jumping of junction because cyclists don't count.

Me and the Mrs experienced a plonker/taxi driver, who ran across to the other side of the road at speed on a sharp corner on a country lane. If we had been 30 yards down the road he could of hit us, that's how far he crossed the centre line. I don't often shout out expletives but he was called a self pleasure technique. He didn't take too kindly, stopping his car and getting out to mumble some drivel.  4

Avatar
Alessandro [157 posts] 5 months ago
6 likes

"...apparently without having seen the rider". Oh, that driver saw the cyclist, alright - he flashed his hazards shortly after as if to say "soz pal, but I'm driving a bus so any mistake I make can be rectified with these flashy lights". It'll be interesting to see what this moron's employer does armed with irrefutable evidence that the he is incapable of driving safely.

Avatar
Alessandro [157 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
Duncann wrote:
AST1986 wrote:

"driver saw the cyclist, alright - he flashed his hazards shortly after as if to say "soz pal, but I'm driving a bus so any mistake I make can be rectified with these flashy lights"

Looks like just his left indicator, presumably for the junction just up ahead.

Very true. Even more worrying then that he didn't see the cyclist at all. 

Avatar
MikeFromLFE [18 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes

I know that road, and I certainly know that bus 'company' - I've had issues with the standard of their driving both as a cyclist and a driver, although nothing as blatant as the horror in the video.
I suspect that as they are some sort of commuity organisation the drivers don't get the on-going training and support that the big companies (should) provide. In effect - the drivers are car drivers given minimal training to allow them to drive large minibuses.

As far as I understand it the bus service that this group provide is on that is franchised out by Nottinghamshire County Council - maybe the council ought to mandate continuous safety monitoring as part of the contracting process?

Avatar
simonmb [565 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes
AST1986 wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what this moron's employer does armed with irrefutable evidence that the he is incapable of driving safely.

Ask them. You can find their phone number / email address easily. Let us know what they say.

Avatar
Jem PT [150 posts] 5 months ago
1 like

"operated by pool of unpaid volunteer drivers drawn from residents of the villages". I do hope they are all appropriately qualified and trained. This driving would suggets they are not?

 

Avatar
Alessandro [157 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes
simonmb wrote:
AST1986 wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what this moron's employer does armed with irrefutable evidence that the he is incapable of driving safely.

Ask them. You can find their phone number / email address easily. Let us know what they say.

Email sent. Will let you know if/when I get a response from them. 

Avatar
RobD [539 posts] 5 months ago
7 likes

Having seen the aftermath of a less fortunate group of cyclists in Maldon yesterday who had a run in with a taxi (and subsequent 3 hour road closure and air ambulance) it really is getting ridiculous just how badly a few people are willing to drive on the roads. Yet according to the police and local council there's not a problem with driving standards in the county.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [1568 posts] 5 months ago
13 likes

Looks like a case of I'm not to get hurt so you slow down and let me out.

I know hitting the brakes for a second easily averts disaster but it's just annoying. Cyclists really are at the bottom of the pecking order , even pedestrians chance their hand crossing in front of you. Nobody gives a damn really.

Avatar
Zjtm231 [92 posts] 5 months ago
5 likes
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Looks like a case of I'm not to get hurt so you slow down and let me out. I know hitting the brakes for a second easily averts disaster but it's just annoying. Cyclists really are at the bottom of the pecking order , even pedestrians chance their hand crossing in front of you. Nobody gives a damn really.

 

Agreed although pedestrians arent chancing their arm infront of me: as they tell me - they have right of way.  The suggestion that they try doing the same with a lorry usualy meets with a confused look....

Avatar
Duncann [1158 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
AST1986 wrote:

"driver saw the cyclist, alright - he flashed his hazards shortly after as if to say "soz pal, but I'm driving a bus so any mistake I make can be rectified with these flashy lights"

Looks like just his left indicator, presumably for the junction up ahead.

Avatar
burtthebike [1219 posts] 5 months ago
7 likes

"is run by an unpaid, volunteer committee and operated by a pool of some 30 unpaid volunteer drivers, drawn from the residents of the villages of the Soar Valley."

Yes, but surely they should have selected someone other than the village idiot?

Avatar
ironmancole [355 posts] 5 months ago
9 likes

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Is it really the case that using a vehicle to kill and maim only officially becomes a terror attack if some other element inflames the driving such as that seen this morning with the driver stating he wanted to kill all muslims.  He has been arrested on suspicion of murder with his actions called a hate crime.

Is it true from a legal perspective that had that same driver simply got out and claimed something as lame as 'I didn't see them' that he would instead have been charged with causing death by careless driving?

I think the line between a 'terror' attack and plain outright dangerous driving is becoming incredibly close.  Surely a close pass resulting from a dangerous driver is also a hate crime against an individual choosing to use a different mode of transport?

In short, can such attacks help the cycling community to argue that the use of vehicles to cause death and injury (irrespective of any reason the driver gives) demands urgent judicial review?

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [1568 posts] 5 months ago
5 likes
ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Is it really the case that using a vehicle to kill and maim only officially becomes a terror attack if some other element inflames the driving such as that seen this morning with the driver stating he wanted to kill all muslims.  He has been arrested on suspicion of murder with his actions called a hate crime.

Is it true from a legal perspective that had that same driver simply got out and claimed something as lame as 'I didn't see them' that he would instead have been charged with causing death by careless driving?

I think the line between a 'terror' attack and plain outright dangerous driving is becoming incredibly close.  Surely a close pass resulting from a dangerous driver is also a hate crime against an individual choosing to use a different mode of transport?

In short, can such attacks help the cycling community to argue that the use of vehicles to cause death and injury (irrespective of any reason the driver gives) demands urgent judicial review?

I actually had to commute into York this morning and 'terrorised' isn't far from feeling I got at times. Bike lanes seemed to be there to driven in when it suited and I had a brown trousers movement when a lorry decided it wanted to wander in the bike lane. I'd truly had enough by the time I got the hospital. Thank god it was a one off and my usual commute is B-roads generally quiet enough for people to pass without being held up by me for too long. 

If you commute into a city every day, I can see why you do it given the traffic but the odds of an accident seem quite high. 

Avatar
Gourmet Shot [174 posts] 5 months ago
7 likes
ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to...........................

 

I suppose its intent...your average fanatic intends to maim and kill, whereas 'First Bus' buses here in Leeds are just driven by knuckle dragging, thick fcks who couldnt give a damn because cyclists shouldn't even be on the road anyway

Avatar
don simon [1536 posts] 5 months ago
7 likes

For me it is simple.

The cyclist was there, fact.

Didn't see the cyclist and it's due care and attention.

Did see the cyclist and it's then it's dangerous driving.

Either way it's more than a slap on the wrist.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [965 posts] 5 months ago
7 likes
Gourmet Shot wrote:
ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to...........................

 

I suppose its intent...your average fanatic intends to maim and kill, whereas 'First Bus' buses here in Leeds are just driven by knuckle dragging, thick fcks who couldnt give a damn because cyclists shouldn't even be on the road anyway

But these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that? IDK, stopping and searching motorists, interrogating them, barriers everywhere to slow them right down, armed police on every corner waiting to shoot them up as soon as they look like they're going to kill someone (as above), if not, why not as the risk is greater of that happening than these other so called terrorists!

I tried making a comment on the guardian, the article https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/18/britons-have-got-a-... was about the fear that people are feeling regarding 'terrorism' (read control of the plebs) the number in the link was my comment number and as can be seen it's now deleted.

I stated that as a person riding a bike that my life is threatened almost daily, the police aren't interested in protecting me, average punter on the street thinks I deserve all I get and has no sympathy for the attacks I and others in my 'out' group receive. That the 'justice' system is literally bias against any sort of justice for me and others like me, institutionally against me and my ilk. So I said I had no fear at all for the terrorism described in the piece (regarding Manchester/london et al) because I had more chance of being killed/harmed by a terrorist driving a motor pretending to be a normal UK citizen... clearly someone complained about it.

it's pretty clear and representitive of how people on bikes are treated, you can't even make a comment about how people on bikes are treated (just look at the reaction to CTC and people affected by the barriers that are supposedly to prevent attacks by driving terrorists (Which is BS in any case)

You don't even have freedom of speech on one of the broadsheets in which some of the comments are particularly vile, inaccurate and downright disgusting. I was just making a point that is clearly true and was comparable to the fear that some feel after the events described. Even worse in fact because it's there every single fucking day and no-one gives two fucks aside from people whom are relatively serious cyclists.

Avatar
severs1966 [415 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes

 

AST1986 wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what this moron's employer does armed with irrefutable evidence that the he is incapable of driving safely.

Nothing whatsoever, if they are like practically every other bus company in the country. Indeed, they will probably have a natter about "what fun it was to shit that cyclist up" and then agree over a cup of tea that all bike riders ought to be killed anyway.

Avatar
Duncann [1158 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that?

Firstly, they don't "kill and main 25,000+". I think you're equating "serious injury" with "maim" (i.e permanent damage). The vast majority of serious injuries don't maim. My other half's wrist fracture was an SI - but she isn't maimed. That injury was also her own fault, as are lots of other KSIs.  

There are innocent victims, of course, and cyclists are more vulnerable than most, but in the context of 500 billion miles travelled by road in Britain last year, they are very few.

The roads could and should be safer but let's keep some perspective.

Avatar
Mungecrundle [866 posts] 5 months ago
1 like

I found some figures from the Office for National Statistics and the NHS. For the UK in 2014...

There were almost 8700 alcohol related deaths, 78 thousand smoking related deaths and 1.7 million smoking related hospital admissions which could reasonably considered equivalent to the classification for a serious injury.

I don't see ISIS claiming those as terrorist acts and to try and make some sort of link between the everyday road traffic collisions involving death and injury with terrorism is equally absurd.

Avatar
Duncann [1158 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Clearly there is a difference in intent, which is clearly important in legal terms.

You might say that lack of intent isn't much consolation if you're killed on the roads. Which is true.

But what's also true is that lack of intent to kill or injure by virtually all road users means that there is only one fatality on the roads for 500 million kilometres travelled. Or 27 deaths per million population per annum. Indeed, England's roads are the safest in the world on that basis (Denmark is 32, the Netherlands 37, Germany 43, France 52, the USA 119) .

Clearly cyclists are more vulnerable than the average road user, and UK roads could certainly be better for cyclists but there really isn't any sensible comparison between the actions of regular drivers and terrorists.

I'd suggest that the comparison is ridiculous and distateful.

Avatar
don simon [1536 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes

A6006 eh? All I can see is " a boob".

Avatar
WillRod [250 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes

A community bus run by volunteers in the community.

 A bunch of recent retirees that shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a bus. People complain about jobs being taken, well what about the hundred of bus drivers we could employ if these volunteers stuck to something safer like gardening. 

I find that some of the most irritating people are retired do-gooders that drive empty minibuses as slow as possible on country roads, point their hairdryer at anyone that dares drive past their village. We need actual trained bus drivers for transport and police to catch speeders.

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [965 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
Duncann wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that?

Firstly, they don't "kill and main 25,000+". I think you're equating "serious injury" with "maim" (i.e permanent damage). The vast majority of serious injuries don't maim. My other half's wrist fracture was an SI - but she isn't maimed. That injury was also her own fault, as are lots of other KSIs.  

There are innocent victims, of course, and cyclists are more vulnerable than most, but in the context of 500 billion miles travelled by road in Britain last year, they are very few.

The roads could and should be safer but let's keep some perspective.

1,800 road deaths, circa 22,500 Serious injuries, okay it's a few shy of 25,000 but that's the numbers given out by the government, your interpretation of my understanding of the word maim is obviously incorrect, it means to injure, disable or disfigure, so my use with respect to the numbers is correct.

Maybe you're misunderstanding my point as I'm talking about, I'm talking about the over-reaction to the acts in Manchester and London and failure to do something about other acts that have greater impact on society and at a far greater cost of life and indeed financially too.

I as a person riding a bicycle, or indeed as a pedestrian/motorist have more chance of being killed or seriously injured on the roads than the same injuries/death by 'terrorism'.

That that chance of death as a person on a bike is so remote in itself proves my point about the fear being dragged up by 'terrorism' because we as people riding bikes are attacked on an almost daily basis yet no-one bats an eyelid, a few people are killed/maimed in a couple of attacks and the country goes into meltdown.

Avatar
Duncann [1158 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Duncann wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that?

Firstly, they don't "kill and main 25,000+". I think you're equating "serious injury" with "maim" (i.e permanent damage). The vast majority of serious injuries don't maim. My other half's wrist fracture was an SI - but she isn't maimed. That injury was also her own fault, as are lots of other KSIs.  

There are innocent victims, of course, and cyclists are more vulnerable than most, but in the context of 500 billion miles travelled by road in Britain last year, they are very few.

The roads could and should be safer but let's keep some perspective.

1,800 road deaths, circa 22,500 Serious injuries, okay it's a few shy of 25,000 but that's the numbers given out by the government, your interpretation of my understanding of the word maim is obviously incorrect, it means to injure, disable or disfigure, so my use with respect to the numbers is correct.

Maybe you're misunderstanding my point as I'm talking about, I'm talking about the over-reaction to the acts in Manchester and London and failure to do something about other acts that have greater impact on society and at a far greater cost of life and indeed financially too.

I as a person riding a bicycle, or indeed as a pedestrian/motorist have more chance of being killed or seriously injured on the roads than the same injuries/death by 'terrorism'.

That that chance of death as a person on a bike is so remote in itself proves my point about the fear being dragged up by 'terrorism' because we as people riding bikes are attacked on an almost daily basis yet no-one bats an eyelid, a few people are killed/maimed in a couple of attacks and the country goes into meltdown.

I took my understanding of "maim" from the Oxford definition: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/maim

And my understanding of "serious injuries" from the DfT (since it's their data we are discussing): "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".

Some of those would be injuries which "maim" - but I don't think the likes of most fractures, short-term concussion or shock can be classed as such. You are free to take a different view.

 

I agree that the small number of terrorist acts are overhyped.

Avatar
brooksby [2698 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Duncann wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

these thick fucks actually kill and maim 25,000+ people annually, why aren't joe public up in arms and protesting for something to be done about that?

Firstly, they don't "kill and main 25,000+". I think you're equating "serious injury" with "maim" (i.e permanent damage). The vast majority of serious injuries don't maim. My other half's wrist fracture was an SI - but she isn't maimed. That injury was also her own fault, as are lots of other KSIs.  

There are innocent victims, of course, and cyclists are more vulnerable than most, but in the context of 500 billion miles travelled by road in Britain last year, they are very few.

The roads could and should be safer but let's keep some perspective.

1,800 road deaths, circa 22,500 Serious injuries, okay it's a few shy of 25,000 but that's the numbers given out by the government, your interpretation of my understanding of the word maim is obviously incorrect, it means to injure, disable or disfigure, so my use with respect to the numbers is correct.

Maybe you're misunderstanding my point as I'm talking about, I'm talking about the over-reaction to the acts in Manchester and London and failure to do something about other acts that have greater impact on society and at a far greater cost of life and indeed financially too.

I as a person riding a bicycle, or indeed as a pedestrian/motorist have more chance of being killed or seriously injured on the roads than the same injuries/death by 'terrorism'.

That that chance of death as a person on a bike is so remote in itself proves my point about the fear being dragged up by 'terrorism' because we as people riding bikes are attacked on an almost daily basis yet no-one bats an eyelid, a few people are killed/maimed in a couple of attacks and the country goes into meltdown.

I guess that death by road traffic collision isn't as newsworthy as genuine terrorism, and it certainly doesn't help promote the crackdown on civil liberties espoused by our wonderful government...

Give it a few years, when everyone has to ride around in self driving pods for safety's sake and the route and passenger identity are routinely monitored for security's sake, and anyone riding a bike will be seen as some sort of "off the grid" unabomber type...

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1889 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
Duncann wrote:
ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Clearly there is a difference in intent, which is clearly important in legal terms.

You might say that lack of intent isn't much consolation if you're killed on the roads. Which is true.

But what's also true is that lack of intent to kill or injure by virtually all road users means that there is only one fatality on the roads for 500 million kilometres travelled. Or 27 deaths per million population per annum. Indeed, England's roads are the safest in the world on that basis (Denmark is 32, the Netherlands 37, Germany 43, France 52, the USA 119) .

Clearly cyclists are more vulnerable than the average road user, and UK roads could certainly be better for cyclists but there really isn't any sensible comparison between the actions of regular drivers and terrorists.

I'd suggest that the comparison is ridiculous and distateful.

I agree it's not a useful direct comparison.

Though I think 'intent' is sometimes over-rated as a legal and moral issue. In the end, I'm not sure I care if you cause me harm due to reckless habits you have spent years cultivating, or if you 'intended' it.

Plus, you aren't giving the full story. The numbers of deaths need to include those who die prematurely due to both air pollution and the suppression of physical activity caused by the dominance of motor vehicles on public streets.

The latter, I think, is important if you are comparing figures from the UK and the likes of the Netherlands (who live longer than we do and who are far less fat than we are).

Simply comparing pure casualty figures is like saying we are far better at dealing with shark-attacks than Australia is, or have greater expertise at ski-ing than do the Swiss.

Finally, I think there might be some responses to the use of motor vehicles in terror attacks that might also help for safety in general. Namely, doing more to keep motor vehicles away from crowded areas of pedestrians.

Avatar
A V Lowe [619 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes

Ah so a Community Bus operation - operating on a Section 19 or Section 22 permit rather than a full bus operator's licence, and drivers who have undergone the MIDAS training scheme.

Unlike the full licences which are managed through the Traffic Commissioner this licence can be issued by the Council, the Commissioner and the Community Transport Association. This effectively lets drivers who got their licence after 1997 drive vehicles above the limits of Category B.

Very likely will have prominent local people on governing board, and if the cyclust is also local there is a clear opportunity to engage them for improving their better driving standards, and perhaps (given the  local operation) get them to carry bikes on the bus - enabling those not wanting to tangle with traffic heading for the A6 or M1, or ride country lanes at night to hop on a bus - as many do in Scotland.

Avatar
Duncann [1158 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Duncann wrote:
ironmancole wrote:

This may be contentious but...given the recent use of vehicles in attacks labelled as 'terror attacks' I really am interested to know the difference between a terror attack using a vehicle and the sort of everyday violence and intimidation cyclists are subject to.

Clearly there is a difference in intent, which is clearly important in legal terms.

You might say that lack of intent isn't much consolation if you're killed on the roads. Which is true.

But what's also true is that lack of intent to kill or injure by virtually all road users means that there is only one fatality on the roads for 500 million kilometres travelled. Or 27 deaths per million population per annum. Indeed, England's roads are the safest in the world on that basis (Denmark is 32, the Netherlands 37, Germany 43, France 52, the USA 119) .

Clearly cyclists are more vulnerable than the average road user, and UK roads could certainly be better for cyclists but there really isn't any sensible comparison between the actions of regular drivers and terrorists.

I'd suggest that the comparison is ridiculous and distateful.

I agree it's not a useful direct comparison. Though I think 'intent' is sometimes over-rated as a legal and moral issue. In the end, I'm not sure I care if you cause me harm due to reckless habits you have spent years cultivating, or if you 'intended' it. Plus, you aren't giving the full story. The numbers of deaths need to include those who die prematurely due to both air pollution and the suppression of physical activity caused by the dominance of motor vehicles on public streets. The latter, I think, is important if you are comparing figures from the UK and the likes of the Netherlands (who live longer than we do and who are far less fat than we are). Simply comparing pure casualty figures is like saying we are far better at dealing with shark-attacks than Australia is, or have greater expertise at ski-ing than do the Swiss. Finally, I think there might be some responses to the use of motor vehicles in terror attacks that might also help for safety in general. Namely, doing more to keep motor vehicles away from crowded areas of pedestrians.

I already said that intent wasn't much consolation if you're hit by a truck. But the fact that the vast, vast majority of motorists have no intent to harm you means you are very unlikely to be hit. That's not over-rated - in fact, it's the most important point.

Premature death related to emissions and inactivity are important - but hardly comparable to terrorism. Otherwise you might as well say Tate & Lyle should be ranked alongside so-called ISIS.

I hope you'd concede that there are also benefits to motor vehicles - although that's also off-topic.

Dutch life expectancy is virtually identical to the UK's. They aren't as fat, that's true. But again nothing to do with terrorism. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Mortality_an...

Comparing road casualty figures is nothing like comparing shark attacks or ski injuries. We don't have those in/around the UK. Are you suggesting the Dutch or Danes don't have, or use, roads?

Certainly segregating pedestrians and cars is sometimes sensible.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1889 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
Duncann wrote:

I already said that intent wasn't much consolation if you're hit by a truck. But the fact that the vast, vast majority of motorists have no intent to harm you means you are very unlikely to be hit. That's not over-rated - in fact, it's the most important point.

Premature death related to emissions and inactivity are important - but hardly comparable to terrorism. Otherwise you might as well say Tate & Lyle should be ranked alongside so-called ISIS.

I hope you'd concede that there are also benefits to motor vehicles - although that's also off-topic.

Dutch life expectancy is virtually identical to the UK's. They aren't as fat, that's true. But again nothing to do with terrorism. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Mortality_an...

Comparing road casualty figures is nothing like comparing shark attacks or ski injuries. We don't have those in/around the UK. Are you suggesting the Dutch or Danes don't have, or use, roads?

Certainly segregating pedestrians and cars is sometimes sensible.

I didn't mention consolation, though, I was talking about the morality of it.

And, true, those issues are not comparable to terrorism, they are a significantly greater problem, especially globally.

And comparing raw road casualties is like comparing shark attacks or ski-injuries. The Dutch cycle on those roads a lot more. You can't just compare raw casualty figures, you have to consider exposure and the extent to which those at risk constrain their behaviour. If you just look at raw figures you end up with the situation such as the council who declared their shared-use scheme to be a success due to having no increase in accidents, even while local organisations for the blind pointed out that their members now entirely avoided the area. In general it's just a poor statistic to use.

Pages