Cabbie asks Jeremy Vine to condemn ‘speeding cyclists’… doesn’t get the response he wanted; Daftest idea of the year awards, featuring proposed Cambridge ‘Tesla Lanes’; Cycle lane with built-in kitchen; National Pothole Day + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
'Just two weeks into 2021 and the award for the daftest idea of the year has already been decided': Your thoughts on 'Tesla lanes' trial
This is an utter disaster in the making. You can now buy your way out of queueing while degrading public transport. https://t.co/ObG9mfh0bo
— Adam Reynolds (@awjre) January 15, 2021
Cambridgeshire County Council may be getting a lot of feedback on their ‘Tesla lanes’ trial based off the response to our story yesterday… Many of you pointed out the dangers of allowing cars into bus lanes and argued that electric cars still have the same ability to harm vulnerable road users as non-electric vehicles. Other concerns included that electric vehicles are quieter than normal cars, which makes it harder for cyclists to hear them, and that allowing vehicles into bus lanes sets a dangerous precedent for future policy…
Just 2 weeks into 2021 and the Award for the daftest idea of the year has already been decided.
— David Barker (@cocobarker1) January 14, 2021
This is a great answer to the question ‘how do you make a bus lane less efficient, more dangerous and disproportionately benefit rich people?’
— Jordan (@jordanbhx) January 14, 2021
Tom Pidcock to ride Vuelta a España in debut WorldTour season
Tom Pidcock’s debut season with Ineos Grenadiers in the WorldTour is starting to take shape. The 21-year-old is currently training with the team out in Gran Canaria and has posted some impressive rides on Strava in the past week. Speaking on the Lanterne Rouge Cycling Podcast, Pidcock explained that once he finishes his cyclo-cross season at the end of January he will be fully focused on the road calendar.
Strade Bianche, the UCI Road World Championships in Belgium and a first Grand Tour at the Vuelta a España are the main goals for 2021. Pidcock also plans to spend June competing in mountain bike races before the Olympics in August.
Consultation to improve cycling and walking routes in Windsor, Maidenhead and Ascot
A four week consultation is being conducted to decide which of the five schemes drawn up by the council to improve active travel routes should be implemented. The scheme will be paid for by a grant of £335,000 from the government’s active travel fund and the Windsor Observer reports the council is particularly keen for responses to plans for a segregated cycle route linking north-east and south Maidenhead.
LTNs and school streets are also being considered in parts of the three towns. Councillor Gerry Clark said: “This new funding from central Government is very welcome, and we’re keen to give residents a voice on how it’s spent through the consultation.The funding isn’t enough to deliver all five of the originally proposed schemes, so feedback from residents is particularly important.”
Cycling UK calls for clarity on exercise rules
Cycling UK has called for greater clarity on English exercise rules in a joint letter with British Cycling and British Triathlon to Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Oliver Dowden. The letter says: “Our strong belief, which is backed up by evidence from the scientific community, is that exercise which begins and ends at an individual’s front door, and where appropriate social distancing protocols are observed throughout, presents an incredibly small risk of transmission, and the government should consider making this the basis of its guidance for outdoor exercise.
“There will of course be a need to allow people to travel short distances to access safe places such as parks and green spaces to exercise – such as families and those living around busy and fast-moving roads – and additional clarity on this would be welcomed also.”
On Wednesday, former Home Secretary Lord Blunkett dismissed a Sky News question asking whether police should be stopping cyclists.
Why don't you use the cycle path, is it because it's dark and a bit slushy? No mate someone left a kitchen on it...
Why don’t you use the cycle path, is it because its dark and a bit slushy? No mate someone left a kitchen on it. pic.twitter.com/KruSWSACrJ
— Christopher Lang (@langoo) January 14, 2021
Santander Cycles hire prices frozen
Revealed: full details of fare hikes from March 1.
🚍bus fares up 5p to £1.55
🚲Boris bike hire frozen at £2
🚠cable car up 11% to £5 pic.twitter.com/4qXmvvDhnO— Ross Lydall (@RossLydall) January 15, 2021
The Evening Standard reports that Transport for London (TfL) is drawing up radical plans to restore its finances, with Santander Cycles one of the few transport options that will not currently see price rises. The £2 daily access charge for a Santander bike is to be frozen as other modes of transport’s fares increase today in line with national rail’s 2.6% rise. Bus fares will go up by 5p to £1.55 and a trip on the cable car is up 50p to £5. Some Tube fares are also increasing.
It comes as the Standard reports a 112-page document submitted to ministers earlier in the week shows that drivers could be charged £5.50 a day to enter Greater London and Canary Wharf could be moved into zone one of the Tube map. TfL commissioner Andy Byford said that they would need a further £3bn bailout before savings and new income could make the body responsible for the capital’s public transport self-sufficient by 2023.
National Pothole Day
On @NPDay2021 survey results show just had dangerous our roads are for road users. 88% of Cyclists have had to preform a dangerous manoeuvre due to Potholes! 72% of Motorists having to do the same! #NoMorePotholesUK #NationalPotholeDay#UnitedAgainstPotholes pic.twitter.com/5mItlt5gt5
— Mr Pothole (@mrpotholeuk) January 15, 2021
UK's second CYCLOPS junction opens in Bolton
How to make a left turn on a CYCLOPS junction when the light for cars is on red.
Simple as that. pic.twitter.com/rmxm2aheS7
— Sam 🚴🌱🍻Ⓥ (@MCRCycleSam) January 15, 2021
The UK’s second CYCLOPS (Cycle Optimised Protected Signals) has opened following the successful launch of the first one in Manchetser in July. The junctions seperate people on foot or bike from traffic, giving them priority. Four more junctions of this type are to be built in the UK in 2021 with three more in Manchetser and one in Cambridge.
Greater Manchester’s Walking and Cycling Commissioner, Chris Boardman, said: “The CYCLOPS design is going to fundamentally change the way we do junctions. The experience for people travelling on foot and by bike is so vastly improved. Junctions are traditionally the most intimidating place for people not travelling in a car but this design turns that on its head, making once-scary local trips now an absolute joy.”
Egan Bernal says Giro d'Italia is 'number one goal' in 2021
Ineos Grenadiers’ first non-British rider to win the Tour de France, Egan Bernal, wants to race the Giro d’Italia in 2021 as he recovers from the back pain that scuppered his 2020 defence of the Yellow Jersey. In an interview with Gazzetta Dello Sport, Bernal said the Italian Grand Tour would be his number one goal for the upcoming season.
“I would like to compete in the Giro in 2021,” he said. “That would be the number one goal for me, even if I had said before that I would prepare for the Tour. However, we still have to get together with the team, I don’t know if I could go there as a leader, it will depend on my recovery.
“I feel good and I am very motivated. I have not raced for four months, so I will be at my peak when I restart in February. I had all kinds of exams, with different results. It was difficult, but the problem was solved, I feel like a new cyclist.”
Motorists to be charged to enter Bristol clean air zone
Bristol’s mayor Marvin Rees has announced a new charging scheme that will affect drivers entering a clean air zone (CAZ) in the centre of the city. The move comes after the government told Bristol City Council it needed to reduce air pollution levels to within legal limits. It has not yet been decided how much drivers will have to pay but the hope is that the scheme will encourage active travel and bring pollution levels within the limits in the quickest possible time.
Cabbie tweets Jeremy Vine...doesn't get the response he wanted
Your priorities are utterly bizarre. Get campaigning on this ⏬ and then come back to me. People on bicycles kill roughly two people per year. pic.twitter.com/wcPiMyMlAC
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) January 15, 2021
Tom the cabbie pops up on Twitter quite often, usually with a video of an empty cycle lane…Tweeting Jeremy Vine one of his videos probably didn’t go the way he was expecting… The broadcaster and cycling advocate threw the question right back at him saying: “Your priorities are utterly bizarre. Get campaigning on this
and then come back to me. People on bicycles kill roughly two people per year.”
Vine knows more than most about the Royal Parks’ speed limits. In 2014, he was stopped by police for riding at 16mph in Hyde Park where the speed limit was 5mph. However, Royal Parks said that he didn’t break the speed limit as they do not legally apply to cyclists, although they did ask that bike riders comply.
Velo Wales' new film: Bikepacking 450 miles around Wales
A day in the life in Gran Canaria with Tao Geoghegan Hart and Ineos Grenadiers
📍 Gran Canaria
🎥 @TaoGeoghegan takes control of Grenadier cam for the day pic.twitter.com/1vk9Neeklc— INEOS Grenadiers (@INEOSGrenadiers) January 15, 2021
15 January 2021, 09:02
15 January 2021, 09:02
15 January 2021, 09:02
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
99 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Your wording on this needs to be clear, you've mixed up two different parts of the race. The vehicle was from the publicity caravan (Out in front of the race), similar to what you get at the Tour de France, they throw out merchandise to roadside fans, but later in the article, you say "Tour du Rwanda’s official convoy". The convoy on a UCI race is the vehicles which travel behind the race "in convoy" which include the team cars, officals cars, neutral service...etc. You need to have clear distinction between the two. This was not a convoy vehicle, it was a caravan vehicle.
“when the government confirmed that Nottinghamshire County Council will receive £6.7 million for active travel over the next four years, with part of this funding to be used to repair the greenway” Wow - 6.7 million for the WHOLE council for a WHOLE four years for active travel. And once this one shared route has been repaired and the barriers paid for, there could be a WHOLE five million left for the rest of the county. For four years! Astonishingly generous. Imagine how much excellent infrastructure they will build.
Standard journalist protection against any possible action for libel or defamation when mentioning any accusation that hasn't been proven in court. Obviously it's pretty unlikely that an unidentified person (it doesn't even say in which country the incident occurred) would be taking legal action over this but it's good practice always to include it. While there is no reason to believe Swenson has made up the story there are always different perspectives: the driver or passenger might well claim that the door was already open before he arrived and he wasn't paying attention. Unless/until a case is proved in court or by admission it remains an allegation and so it's safest to add the "allegedly" proviso.
Swenson was hit by "a motorist’s car door, which was 'allegedly' swung open into his path." Allegedly swung open? Is there some reason to believe Swenson is making up this story?
And to show the sleeves with the dummy in the riding position.
The people who would listen to them aren't much of the problem. What're needed are for [insert high profile sportsball people of your choice] to do this.
Get some help you tedious fool.
No, now everybody can see the space after your opening bracket!
What he means is there's nowhere to park all day for free! Morrisons has a 2 hour limit and the shopping centre is pay and display.
villages not villagers. Am I not allowed to edit my crap spelling and grammar anymore?
99 thoughts on “Cabbie asks Jeremy Vine to condemn ‘speeding cyclists’… doesn’t get the response he wanted; Daftest idea of the year awards, featuring proposed Cambridge ‘Tesla Lanes’; Cycle lane with built-in kitchen; National Pothole Day + more on the live blog”
To be fair, this idea does
To be fair, this idea does make sense; if you’re a councillor who has an electric vehicle.
Norway do a similar scheme
Norway do a similar scheme and have large sales of EEV (Although they do lots of others as well to make them desirable). But as they won’t produce fumes when in traffic, is there a reason to for them to skip it altogether?
On the positive side, more
On the positive side, more road space designated for cycles, even if shared, can only lead to a more integrated, connected and widespread cycle friendly infrastructure.
On the negative side, the EVs are currently still piloted by humans and there’s no evidence I am aware of that EV drivers are any more tolerant or skilled than ICE drivers. Frankly I’d be less concerned if the EVs were only allowed into the cycle / bus lane in self driving mode and with a software imposed limit of 20mph.
I can only tell you about my
I can only tell you about my driving style in that when I am in a car park, I am many times more alert in my ev than I was when I drove an ICE for the simple reason people don’t look when closing the road relying upon their ears…. as my car is very quiet I have had a couple of people walk out on me when I have only been a few feet away.
Of course, I am not all drivers so others will not take as much care as I do. I mean, hitting someone with my car is so much of a hassle with all that paperwork…… 😉
essexian wrote:
Not just EVs – we’ve all had close calls when pedestrians don’t hear a bike coming so just step out.
Hate me if you wish but I own
Hate me if you wish but I own a BMW i3 ev so of course am rich and anti scoial in the way I drive and “indicators”…. never use them. So, these lanes are designed just for people like me: get out of the way poor person on your Halford special…..
Actually….. what a stupid idea. My 1500kg ev is still more damaging to the planet than my 100kg (who am I kidding) self and bike so steps should be taken to reduce the use of all vehicles such as road pricing, massive increases in parking charges and a tax on work car parking spaces.
Remind me: what did they call
Remind me: what did they call those special lanes in Moscow, for the Top People?
Not just in Moscow, I recall
Not just in Moscow, I recall they introduced ‘Zil’ lanes for the London Olympics VIPs as well.
I really don’t see the
I really don’t see the problem with EVs using a bus lane, it’s not a cycle lane. The numbers of EVs are still small so the increase in vehicle use is likely to be small and the footway adjacent is clearly marked as shared use so if you don;t want to share with drivers share with pedestrians!
I have enough issue with bus
I have enough issue with bus drivers doing close passes, possibly slight punishment passes when they overtake me and return back into the bus lane. To the point where I’m considering a radar back light so I can be ready for them. Taxis also mostly grumpy about me being in the bus lane. Vehicles operated by a local haulage company have permission to use the bus lane as part of a consilidation scheme. I don’t want to have to additionally get stressed by increased traffic of silent electric cars, radar really would be useful then. At that point it would not be a bus lane and would be much less safe. In 10 years petrol car sales cease and the number will drastically increase.
But they don’t produce the
But they don’t produce the pollution anyway so why speed them along rather them letting them sit in the same traffic. The ZEV’s is the main story point here but surprisingly they have only just opened it up to Motorbikes etc as well which I alsmost thought was a given on most Bus Lanes.
Except lots of bus lanes are
Except lots of bus lanes are (rubbish) cycle lanes. This is the first step to them being full of cars.
There won’t be much need to incentivise EVs soon. Once 300 mile real range at £250 on a monthly wallet extraction scheme is available, every monoblock covered bungalow front garden will have one.
It seems a very silly idea I
It seems a very silly idea I read that EV’s made up 10 percent of all motor vehicles sold last year in the UK and that figure is likley to increase. It will not be long before a EV is a ‘normal’ vehicle and that lane will be a normal car lane.
Althoug the overall number of
Althoug the overall number of cars sold is tiny this year, so 10% of not a lot !
You change behaviours by
You change behaviours by offering incentives, and this is a way to encourage more people to drive EVs. In the US they have car sharing lanes for similar reasons.
The argument that my Tesla Model S P100D is more dangerous because it is silent is incorrect. From a very low speed the tyre noise takes over and there is little difference to a decent petrol engine.
It is also not correct to state that this only benefits wealthy people. My chauffeur is on minumum wage but will get to benefit from using these lanes too.
Expatpat wrote:
Folk driving EVs is not a benefit in itself. It’s just not quite as bad as ICEVs. It’s still not behaviour to encourage.
What needs to be encouraged is for folk where possible to switch from cars of any stripe to public or active transport, particularly the latter in time of pandemic.
Love your last paragraph though
There’s an image out there
There’s an image out there somewhere on t’interweb, with a road full of ICE cars and a road full of EV cars. Funny thing is, they look exactly the same…
(OK, maybe the EVs look shinier, IIRC).
EV help emissions at point of use, but they don’t help congestion.
And I’m not sure what the Big Picture looks like when you factor in the additional emissions from power stations as all those EVs charge overnight…
brooksby wrote:
Some interesting data here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change
TL;DR – about 29 g/km in the UK for the process of generating the electricity, which is approx a tenth of the equivalent ICE vehicle emissions from ‘making’ the fuel and then the tailpipe emissions.
Personally I would love to
Personally I would love to see far greater promotion by government of affordable street legal e-bikes, perhaps very low interest, very long term loan scheme. I work 13.5 miles from home, and had access to my brothers e-bike for 8 weeks of the first lockdown – my car (EV) got rested over 50% of the time, i could see many people reducing their car + public transport use if they had a decent e-bike. I cycle a road bike myself but the extra time taken per journey ( 10-15 mins each way ) , and the fatigue are factors in me using it less than i would like Mon-Fri .
Expatpat wrote:
By the same token it is a disincentive for people to ride bikes (or take the bus). I’m pretty sure that every one e-car in the bus lane disincentives more than one cyclist, so I’m not sure the maths will stack up.
People switching to EVs isn’t
People switching to EVs isn’t addressing the problem; we’ll still have far too many vehicles on the road.
People need to use reliable public transport, walk, cycle, and motorcycle, which shouldn’t be lumped in with cars.
Quote:
Don’t ask questions to which you don’t really want an answer. If we put the Govt into a corner, they’ll make some insanely stupid decision…
“You can exercise as much as you want on alternate days having an X in the name, so long as your house has a 2 in the address and you don’t leave the what three words square in which you started”
brooksby wrote:
If we put the Govt into a corner, they’ll make some insanely stupid decision…
While I couldn’t possibly disagree, I might just point out that they haven’t demonstrated any need for corners yet.
soctwati wet dream this topic
soctwati wet dream this topic. If only they were with us …
hirsute wrote:
Gone, but not forgotten….
Careful what you wish for…
Careful what you wish for…
It’s nice to be missed. I’ve
It’s nice to be missed. I’ve f***ed off to the Mail & Express for the time being but I’m not getting much out of it – it’s like all the comments are written by me.
Obviously I just want attention so I’ve started leaving pro cycling comments and now they all hate me – I’m like a pig in s***!
Amazing!
Amazing!
I’ve f***ed off to the Mail & Express for the time being but I’m not getting much out of it – it’s like all the comments are written by me.
Obviously I just want attention so I’ve started leaving pro cycling comments and now they all hate me – I’m like a pig in s***!
Is this true? Has the idiot gone, like the other one with the even more stupid name
Personally, I can’t think of
Personally, I can’t think of an occasion when I’ve had to perform a dangerous manoeuvre due to a pothole. I’ve have had a fair few where I’ve performed a manoeuvre due to a pothole that has then been made dangerous by other vehicles not giving me sufficient road space.
Well, yes. Unless the pothole
Well, yes. Unless the pothole is at least approaching 1.5m width, there should be no danger in suddenly avoiding it, unless…
Although I’ve had that moment
Although I’ve had that moment at night where you think “Oh, sheet!” and bump across a hole that you hadn’t noticed…
Does that count as a
Does that count as a manoeuvre? 😉
I suppose at a stretch you
I suppose at a stretch you could call it a failed bunny-hop…
Quote:
Cycling UK’s belief is entirely compatible with the English law as it stands, which in any case trumps the guidance.
As to the matter of travelling with a view to taking exercise elsewhere, the law is somewhat opaque, since it does not explicitly acknowledge or mention such travel, leaving the idea of travel distance undefined.
I wish they would make the law clear and unambiguous. The Scottish formula seems much better, although still problematic because many will not know the boundaries of their district.
I think it would be simpler if travel distance were given as a fixed radius from your address – easy for individuals to know and police to check.
Distance cycled (or walked etc) should remain unrestricted. My fear is that if they simply add a “travel distance limit” clause to the law it will become confused in practice and “guidance” with distance cycled.
Got called a ‘bikewanker’ at
Got called a ‘bikewanker’ at lunchtime. I think because I had the temerity to avoid the doorzone.
They had to hang around at 2 traffic lights and wind down the passenger window to shout this at me. Judging by the look of them, they forgot their medication for the day.
Loads of cars around despite ‘stay at home’ .
I later saw an electric, small framed, narrow wheels, 2 wheeled vehicle. The rider was going quite quick and not pedalling. No numberplate.
Any ideas of what it might have been?
My chauffeur (the good lady
My chauffeur (the good lady as I don’t drive) is looking at a new car; we need an estate so the Volvo V60 or XC variant were considered. Looked at the Electric version at around £10k more and doing the calculations on mileage how long it would take to get this back – well it’s a good job there’s room for my coffin in the back!
alansmurphy wrote:
Have you considered the Dacia Logan 900cc turbo petrol? 50mpg easily. I’ve had mine for a few years with no problems at all.
I was going to suggest an
I was going to suggest an ecargo bike !
hirsute wrote:
I used to have one, but you couldn’t fit two bikes and all their kit in it and go 100 miles to the start of a ride. I spent a lot of time looking at the alternatives, and the Logan was far and away the best choice.
Vine’s defence of cyclists
Vine’s defence of cyclists (only causing 2 deaths per year) is disingenuous. I don’t suppose purple cars are very high on the numbers either – should we give them a pass?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes
Looking at Table 1: Number of deaths where a pedestrian was injured in collision with
(a) a pedal cycle, or (b) a car, pick-up truck or van, England and Wales, 2006-2010
it shows that over those years 14 pedestrians were killed in collision with a bicycle, compared to 1011 with a car etc. So a factor of 72.
Pick your reference base; number of vehicles, miles travelled, urban trips, whatever, I’m not sure the factor of 72 shows cyclists in a very good light.
Can’t say I’m aware of any
Can’t say I’m aware of any campaigns to raise awareness of the dangers of purple cars.
mdavidford wrote:
How about green 1.2l 3-door cars 23 months old?
Sriracha wrote:
I suppose if the colour of the car made a significant difference to their lethality you may have a point.
I would have thought that the relevant factors would be weight, speed, acceleration and driver behaviour though….
Captain Badger wrote:
I suppose if the colour of the car made a significant difference to their lethality you may have a point.
I would have thought that the relevant factors would be weight, speed, acceleration and driver behaviour though….
— Sriracha
I’m not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point? Of course the colour makes no difference to the lethality. But there being relatively few purple cars on the road does reduce the number of pedestrians killed on account of them. Likewise bicycles, there’s not many of them, compared to cars, so comparing raw fatality numbers is disingenuous. What counts is deaths per urban mile or some such rate.
Sriracha wrote:
Now now….
The point is that the statistic that Vine produced, imperfect as it is, illustrates well the fact that vehicles pose a far greater risk to pedestrians than bikes in absolute terms at the very least. The factors (relevant to lethality) that distinguish them from cars is not colour, but things like size weight speed power/acceleration and operator behaviour.
Is it maybe you who are deliberately (?) missing the point?
Captain Badger wrote:
Clearly using colour confused the point I was trying to make – rate not number.
I believe I made the same point on another thread by using V8 cars. Maybe that makes the point better. I’m assuming large powerful cars such as V8s are if anything more lethal. But if you just followed Vine’s logic I’m equally sure V8s could be exonerated on account of the low numbers they killed. It’s just that there are not many of them. And there aren’t many bicycles either.
Sriracha wrote:
Vine’s response is holding a mirror to the cabby’s “logic”. That is to pick out cyclists as a problem (because they overtook him). It would be equally illogical for the cabby to say “bloody V8s”
The cabby was making out that the riders were a danger to the public. Against the backdrop of the staggering disparity between vehicular and non-vehiclular road deaths, the cabby was utterly missing the point.
In fact, I agree that as a stat for policymaking, it is not good enough without taking into account vehicle miles, and where those miles are. However to point out the ludicrousness of the cabby’s argument, and to indicate the staggering scale of the road violence death toll involving vehicles, it is perfectly adequate.
I just think it is difficult
I just think it is difficult to make the case for more cyclists when the only defence against these charges rests on how few cyclists there are.
Sriracha wrote:
I don’t think that is what is happening here though. And the case for cycling certainly does not rest on how few (although the case for more would by definition rest on that)
I would love however to see a better break down of stats to fatalities by mile. I can’t believe that the analysis hasn’t been done (although I’m not currently aware of where to find it)
Of course, as cyclists ride predominantly in areas of high pedestrian concentration, and cars drive significantly in areas where there are no pedestrians (to all intents and purposes) you’d have to take into account motorway mileage by cars – about 20%. You’d also want to decide whether A roads were a significant factor in the statistic – about 40% of vehicle miles. So potentially 60% of vehicle milage may favourably skew apparent vehicle/pedestrian safety.
I haven’t seen such an analysis, but I’d be really keen to.
Captain Badger wrote:
I see what you did there, but I never said that! Having just got rid of socratism, let’s not introduce sophistry.
Me too. But aware that the base reference is disputable (by miles? trips? urban only? etc), I showed only pedestrian deaths (rules out motorways anyway) by bicycle and by car/van.
On that basis motor vehicles are present at the death of pedestrians 72 times more than are bicycles. I can’t think that the choice of base reference will flatter that number much.
Sriracha]…I see what you
Fie, I’m sure I don’t know what you mean…
Like Rendel, I’m not sure that I accept that number, it looks like that figure compares deaths by type on pavements.
Yes, how you base it is debatable. Miles seems a fair base to me to start, but whatever you use it must reference the environment that the vehicle is operating in.
It is true that pedestrian deaths rarely happen on motorways, that is indeed why the milage by type must necessarily be discounted when comparing risk to peds from cyclists versus cars – cars are ~zero risk to peds when on motorways due to peds (or cyclists for that matter) rarely being there. It would be disingenuous indeed to include it.
Mate, of the two of you, only
Mate, of the two of you, only one is reminding me of Socrates the Cyclist.
Sriracha wrote:
Don’t think that really works, more relevant is that cyclists account for just over 1% of total vehicle mileage in the UK, with motorised traffic 99%; cycle collisions kill two people and motor vehicles around 1750. So with 99x the mileage, motors kill nearly 900x the number of people. So it’s a fair point to say they’re what needs focus.
Incidentally it’s incorrect to say cyclists “cause” two deaths each year. Two deaths a year result from cyclists colliding with pedestrians, that doesn’t show how many were a result of pedestrian error, e.g. running out from behind a parked van straight into the path of a cyclist.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Don’t think that really works, more relevant is that cyclists account for just over 1% of total vehicle mileage in the UK, with motorised traffic 99%; cycle collisions kill two people and motor vehicles around 1750. So with 99x the mileage, motors kill nearly 900x the number of people. So it’s a fair point to say they’re what needs focus.
Incidentally it’s incorrect to say cyclists “cause” two deaths each year. Two deaths a year result from cyclists colliding with pedestrians, that doesn’t show how many were a result of pedestrian error, e.g. running out from behind a parked van straight into the path of a cyclist. — Sriracha
My apologies, I only added the relevant data after some delay. 72 times more pedestrian deaths from cars than bicycles. The argument about apportioning blame applies equally to cars and bicycles. Let us assume they are no more likely to throw themselves under one than the other.
Edit – and thank you, at least one person understands that it is some measure of rate, not number, that is at issue. The deaths by car that you show are total deaths (including car occupants etc). I was showing specifically pedestrian deaths. But the basic argument is as you say.
Sriracha wrote:
I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption – being smaller and quieter than the average car, it’s much easier to fail to notice a bicycle if you’re not properly paying attention.
mdavidford wrote:
I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption – being smaller and quieter than the average car, it’s much easier to fail to notice a bicycle if you’re not properly paying attention.— Sriracha
Well, that’s a bit harsh. Why are low beams generally padded? Surely nobody should walk into them? Just consider that the stealth of an approaching bicycle contributes to the hazard it presents.
Sriracha wrote:
I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption – being smaller and quieter than the average car, it’s much easier to fail to notice a bicycle if you’re not properly paying attention.
— mdavidford Well, that’s a bit harsh. Why are low beams generally padded? Surely nobody should walk into them? Just consider that the stealth of an approaching bicycle contributes to the hazard it presents.— Sriracha
Eh? I’m not sure what point you’re making here? That bicycles should be padded because they’re harder to spot?
We’re talking about pedestrians being a cause of a collision with a vehicle by suddenly and unexpectedly walking in front of it without having paid adequate attention to whether the road is clear (at least that’s how I would understand ‘throw themselves under’). I’m suggesting that if it’s a motor vehicle it may be more likely to have registered even if they’re only half paying attention, and so they’re less likely to do this than if it’s a bicycle. So it’s conceivable that a higher proportion of collisions with bicycles were caused by the pedestrian.
Regardless of stealthiness, neither a sensibly ridden bicycle nor a sensibly driven car should pose a hazard if you’re paying proper attention to your surroundings and don’t throw yourself under it in the first place.
mdavidford wrote:
Aah, that’s why BMXs used to be sold with pads!
Sriracha wrote:
With respect, think you’ve got your figures muddled somewhere: for 2019 there were 470 pedestrian deaths in the UK (Source, RAC Foundation). I can’t find the figures for those caused by cycle incidents that year but assuming the usual average of two that means motor vehicles were involved in 234x more pedestrian deaths than bicycles.
Rendel Harris wrote:
With respect, think you’ve got your figures muddled somewhere: for 2019 there were 470 pedestrian deaths in the UK (Source, RAC Foundation). I can’t find the figures for those caused by cycle incidents that year but assuming the usual average of two that means motor vehicles were involved in 234x more pedestrian deaths than bicycles.— Sriracha
I did give a source link. Here are the numbers as I found them (better in landscape!):
Table 1: Number of deaths where a pedestrian was injured in collision with
(a) a pedal cycle, or (b) a car, pick-up truck or van, England and Wales,
2006-2010
+————————————————————————+
| Deaths (persons) |
|————————————————————————|
| Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by |
| | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck |
|——+——————————+———————————-|
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
|——+——————————+———————————-|
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
|——+——————————+———————————-|
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
|——+——————————+———————————-|
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
|——+——————————+———————————-|
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
+————————————————————————+
^1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of
Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes V01.1, V01.9 (Pedestrian injured
in collision with pedal cycle) and V03.1, V03.9 (Pedestrian injured in
collision with car, pick-up truck or van).
^2 Deaths include accidents in traffic and where the place of death was
unspecified whether the accident was in traffic or in nontraffic.
^3 Includes deaths of non-residents, based on boundaries as of May 2011.
^4 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year. ^
You have the right to have this response to your freedom of information
request reviewed internally by an internal review process and, if you
remain unhappy with the decision, by the Information Commissioner. If you
would like to have the decision reviewed please write to Frank Nolan,
Office for National Statistics, Room 1127, Government Buildings, Cardiff
Road, Newport, Gwent, NP10 8XG.
If you have any queries about this email, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Kind regards,
Paul Wearn LLB (Hons)
Legal Services
Office for National Statistics
Source: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes
Well you’ve got there the
Well you’ve got there the figures up to 2010 (125 pedestrian deaths), the government’s own publications contradict this (see top of page 3, 2010 405 pedestrian deaths): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448036/pedestrian-casualties-2013-data.pdf
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well If we are only debating the data sources, I’m happy to rest with the ONS. The substantive point remains that rates, not absolute numbers, are what matter, and they paint a very different picture to that suggested by Vine (for whom I have a lot of respect – I just don’t think he helped himself here).
This appears to be the
This appears to be the Regents Park circuit, on of the few places in central London it is possible to go remotely fast on a bike, yet the cabbie complains about being overtaken by a cyclist speeding at a whopping 5mph faster. Somehow I think might be you who is being disingenous
[purple cars are you effing kidding, strawman what a prick.]ahum.Organon wrote:
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that your rudeness is due to your misunderstanding of the point being made about needing to compare rates and not totals.
Sriracha wrote:
Not that that’s really any excuse.
It isn’t disingenuous, it is
It isn’t disingenuous, it is simply making the point that there are far more important issues in road safety than slowing down “speeding” bicycles, and perhaps we should attempt to address the more important issues as a higher priority.
And that is without getting into the debate about how you enforce anything against a “speeding” cyclist since there is no legal obligation for a bicycle to have a speedometer of any description, and speed given through a GPS device is not as reliable as that given through a properly calibrated speedometer, such as you find on a motor vehicle.
Riding at a speed appropriate to the conditions is always the watchword … especially where the video used as an appeal against said “speeding” cyclists shows them riding perfectly safely and threatening/inconveincing no one.
Supposing it was shown that
Well it was Vine who introduced the pedestrian death figures as the defence. Supposing it was shown that proportionately more pedestrians were killed by cyclists than by cars. Do you think that would be relevant?
Judging by the replies you’re
Judging by the replies you’re recieving it appears the hard of thinking are out in force today.
As you’ve said the rate of injury is crucial when comparing risk.
IF the rate of pedestrian injury were the same for bicycles and cars then there would be no reduction in pedestrian injuries if all car drivers switched to cycling.
There would also be no validity in criticising car drivers for the number of pedestrian injuries as that would simply be a product of the number of cars rather than their inherent dangerousness.
When comparing the two though it is important to exclude motorway miles as there is almost no mixing with vulnerable road users on the motorway so motorway miles will skew the results and make cars seem less dangerous to pedestrians than they really are.
Judging by the replies you’re
Judging by the replies you’re recieving it appears the hard of thinking are out in force today.
<sarcasm>Thank god you turned up to inject some class into the debate. </sarcasm>
Sriracha wrote:
Well it would be, wouldn’t it? But that is clearly not the case. In any case, one does have to look at absolute numbers as well as proportionate ones.Pedestrian deaths as a result of cycle involvement (not necessarily cyclist at fault) are almost exactly equivalent to deaths by lightning strike per annum (58 in last thirty years UK) so it’s a vanishingly small number, whereas yearly pedestrian deaths from motor vehicle involvement (again, admittedly, not always motor driver at fault) are approaching 500, overall deaths from motor vehicles are 1700+, and premature deaths from air pollution are 40,000+, equivalent to a pandemic every two years. That’s before we even begin to think about the deaths related to obesity and other diseases caused by our car-dependent culture. So someone asking Vine to turn his attention away from car damage towards the supposed terrible danger to children playing of cyclists riding at 22 mph on the road that runs around the perimeter of a park is about the biggest pile of steaming red herrings imaginable.
If 40,000+ people a year died directly or indirectly as a result of people playing soccer, and two as a result of people playing lacrosse, would we spend all our time trying to figure out the relative numbers of lacrosse players comparative to soccer players to try to establish some form of equivalence, or would we say 40,000 against 2, we’d better try and do something about the soccer deaths? It wouldn’t matter if, proportionately, lacrosse caused more deaths than soccer, it would still be the soccer figures that would require attention.
I like your soccer/lacrosse
I like your soccer/lacrosse analogy. Let’s run with that – obviously the numbers here are made up, but it’s the logic that matters.
So consider deaths amongst the spectators (spectators are analogous to the pedestrians, with me so far?) at these sporting events.
Precious few lacrosse spectator deaths, but then next to no lacrosse matches either (lacrosse is cycling, do keep up) compared to soccer. Rather more deaths amongst soccer spectators, but not pro rata the overwhelmingly greater number of soccer matches (you guessed it, soccer is motoring). Perhaps you can see where this is going now, no?
The regulators need to maintain the total number of sports matches played (that’s analogous to passenger journeys, stay with me). So how do they bear down on deaths among spectators? Encourage more lacrosse matches, reasoning there have been fewer spectator deaths amongst them?
But why are you focussing
But why are you focussing only on moving people from one sport/mode of transport to the other?
The original tweet was about addressing the supposed danger from ‘speeding cyclists’. So for the analogy to work you would have to look at the relative merits of regulating lacrosse players’ vs soccer players’ dangerous behaviour, to stop them hitting the ball into the crowd or whatever it is they’re doing that’s killing spectators.
In that case, whatever the relative rates, any reduction you make in the rate at soccer matches, even if it’s a smaller reduction than you might make in the rate at lacrosse matches, is almost certainly going to have a greater gross benefit.
The point of the analogy is
The point of the analogy is that you can’t use an absolute number of harmful events in isolation to establish whether any activity is safe.
You also need to know how frequently an activity occurs.
If activity A occurs twice a year and kills one person a year it is clearly dangerous despite the low absolute number of fatalities.
If activity B occurs a million times per year and kills 2 people it’s obviously far safer than activity A in relative terms (deaths per activity) but twice as dangerous in absolute terms (actual number of deaths).
Would it be a sensible policy to encourage people to abandon activity B and take up activity A based solely on the absolute number of deaths?
For that reason comparing the absolute number of deaths from cars and bicycles is disingenuous because it isn’t an accurate comparison.
If all car journeys under 3km were replaced with cycling the number of deaths caused by cyclists would increase massively whilst the number of deaths caused by cars would fall.
This wouldn’t change the relative safety of either form of transport.
Rich_cb wrote:
[…]
Would it be a sensible policy to encourage people to abandon activity B and take up activity A based solely on the absolute number of deaths?— Rich_cb
But that’s the flaw. We’re not talking about whether an activity is safe per se, or whether people should switch from one activity to another. We’re talking about whether it’s worth putting effort into tackling those people who are performing each activity dangerously.
mdavidford wrote:
It goes to the heart of the argument that the government should discourage car use whilst encouraging cycle use in its place, for example by transferring road space from one to the other. It also challenges the cyclists’ favourite argument – ‘start with the most dangerous vehicle’ – if figures show that for every car that is replaced by a bicycle the pedestrian death rate remains comparable. So I think it’s important to be aware of the numbers, and their proportion.
If cyclists continue to take refuge in arguments whose validity rests on there be so few bicycles relative to cars, don’t be surprised when others say, “then let’s keep it that way”.
Sriracha wrote:
Maybe so, but that’s besides the point of the current discussion. That started with an assertion that we needed to raise awareness of the dangers posed by speeding cyclists and a response that we should first tackle those posed by dangerous drivers. Modal shift was never mentioned.
FWIW, more generally, I’m with SimonE. I think both you/rich_cb and Vine/his defenders here are right and wrong and the same time – relative rates do matter, but absolute rates matter as well. If you only look at one or the other you’re missing half the story. Which matters more all depends what question you’re trying to ask, or what response you’re considering.
The rate of harm is
The rate of harm is absolutely fundamental to the decision about tackling the people performing the activity.
IF cycling were as dangerous to pedestrians per urban mile travelled as driving a car then dangerous urban cyclists should be pursued with equal vigour to dangerous urban drivers.
IF unicyclists killed pedestrians at 10 times the rate of any other vehicle would it not be worth tackling the danger even if the absolute numbers of unicyclists was low?
Within the cycling/driving debate the idea of modal shift is central to many policies, the rate of harm caused by each modality is therefore crucial to an informed debate.
For clarity: a capitalised IF indicates that this is a hypothetical proposition.
Rich_cb wrote:
Maybe. It depends.
If your method of tackling them is a public awareness campaign, the return of impact to effort is likely to be so low as to make it pointless.
Let’s say you run a campaign that influences 1% of dangerous drivers to modify their behaviour to drive more appropriately. Then you run a campaign targeting cyclists that is much more successful – if influences 10% of dangerous cyclists to modify their behaviour. Even though the first campaign was prima facie much less effective, it would probably have a lower impact in terms of reducing deaths and injuries, simply because there’s a bigger target population.
Public information campaigns
Public information campaigns will obviously be more effective with a larger target population (although targeted advertising may change that) but they are by no means the only form of intervention.
I think the crux of the matter is that when selecting evidence to use in promoting cycling we should do so carefully.
Choose evidence that is easily dismissed, as Vine has done, and your promotion is far less likely to be effective.
Far more effective to say that if car drivers switched to bicycles for X percentage of their journeys we would save Y children’s lives per year.
That is the sort of argument that resonates as we saw in the ‘Kindermoord’ campaign.
Rich_cb wrote:
Agreed. But they are the form of intervention that was in debate here.
Sriracha wrote:
But again, old chap (or madam), you’re ignoring the point that motor vehicles drive 99 times the miles (even if we include motorway miles, which as you yourself have sensibly said skew the figure in favour of the motorist) but kill 200 times the pedestrians, or 800+ times the total deaths. If you simply scaled up so nobody drove and everyone cycled, cycling would kill 200 people a year compared to 1700 and that’s before we even begin to think about deaths from pollution, obesity etc. However we’re clearly not going to agree on this and you have thought reasonably about your arguments (that’s not meant to be patronising, just saying you’re not a Socrati hates cyclist merchant), I just don’t agree with them, so all the best and have a good safe weekend.
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisThis is a worthwhile discussion. Both Rendel and Sriracha have important perspectives on interpreting the statistics. It is still important to have open discussion but knee-jerk reactions and accusations of trolling are not helpful.
For me one of the issues is the obvious discrepancy in lethality of the vehicle, a combination of velocity and mass. If I’m crossing a road I would be far more concerned with the cars, vans and lorries than cyclists, even if their numbers were equal.
And all the motorised vehicles will be travelling faster than the vast majority of cyclists. We also know that speed limit compliance among drivers is terrible so some will be travelling a good deal faster. Let’s be honest, we cyclists only go faster than cars when the latter are physically forced to slow down e.g. traffic lights, junctions, queues. I’ve ridden in traffic since I was 12 and despite trying hard enough on occasions I cannot keep up with a car unless they’ve been obliged to slow or stop by something in their path.
Well thank you for your kind
Well thank you for your kind words – I don’t see myself as a socrati replacement either! And I agree with what you say, except one number. You wrote:
The actual figure I took, from the ONS data, was 72 times. That’s the problem! That turns it on its head.
Anyway I did find another discussion, which seems to be connected to Vine’s comment:
https://fullfact.org/health/cyclist-deaths/
In particular they say:
So again they are comparing pedestrian deaths involving bicycles as against cars. This gives a factor of 83 (66/0.8). Similar to the factor of 72 I found previously.
I can think of a valid argument against this number, but so far no one has raised it. Why not include cyclist (and even motorcyclist) fatalities involving a car, together with the pedestrian fatalities? In other words, compare fatalities of all vulnerable road users (not just pedestrians) by car and by bicycle. Within the sort of journeys that can be substituted by bicycles that would make sense. I’ll leave that to others.
Another factor that seems to
Another factor that seems to have been missed is the “blame” factor. I recall from somewhere that the pedestrian/cyclist fatalities were approximately 60% blamed on the pedestrian (e.g. pedestrian suddenly steps in front of a cyclist). I don’t know how the blame sits with pedestrian/driver fatalities but I suspect that the figures will be far more towards the driver being at fault.
Sriracha wrote:
I’m sure those 997 pedestrians were glad they were killed by a driver not a cyclist. Is that a forest I see in your eye, while you complain about the speck in mine?
On the ‘rate’ point – the
On the ‘rate’ point – the victim does not care one jot how far someone has travelled to hit them or whether it’s their third journey of the day.
Travelling by rail or air is much safer than travelling by motor vehicle – but, unsurprisingly, few travel by air to the supermarket, similarly, there’s no point in using a bicycle to transport cars. The point I’m trying to make is that some divisors (like distance travelled) are spurious – most sensible people don’t think all motor vehicle miles can be replaced by bicycle miles so the divisior is meaningless, in effect what the calculation suggests is that “If bicycles travelled as many miles as motor traffic then….” but that isn’t going to happen if, for no other reason than if there were no motor vehicles our lives would be organised very differently.
If you seek to reduce the total number of pedestrians killed by vehicles per annum by 10%, you cannot achieve that by concentrating on cyclists – the “rate per” really is irrelevant.
There is plenty of research that shows darker coloured cars have more accidents – yellow or white cars have the least accidents. It’s a petty point I raise whenever car drivers complain of cyclists not wearing lurid yellow – I suggest it would be great if the concerned motorist would first set a safety example and have their car painted dayglo pink. Gets me nowehere.
Doctor Darabuka wrote:
All good points, but sense and logic rarely get you anywhere when people have fixed views; but keep trying.
I do somewhat enjoy replying
I do somewhat enjoy replying to the patronising “at least we can see you”, by pointing out that they as sometimes pedestrians have as much responsibility as cyclists to be visable and that the Highway Code has very similar wording reguarding to cyclist and pedestrain advice to wear bright and visable clothing. Between front door and car or car and place of work and “essential” shopping.
I have noticed that when riding off road at night, most of my commute is on the rough stuff, that my relatively powerful lights pick out the reflective patches on the back of their dogs eyes long before the walkers are visable in their dark walking clothing. Not that they are in any way required to be very noticable in the woods and on the heath, but they might be walking near and across roads at some point…
As well as peds/cyclists
As well as peds/cyclists bearing some responsibility to make themselves easy to spot, the bulk of the responsibility should be with the faster moving (e.g. cyclists/motorists) to ensure that they can see far enough ahead for the speed that they’re doing.
VELO WALES 10/10
VELO WALES 10/10
I saw that comment before I
I saw that comment before I saw what it was about and I thought the Velo Wales closed road ride was back on.
That cabby’s video is taken
That cabby’s video is taken on the Outer Circle of Regent’s Park, where the speed limit is 30mph. Clearly none of those cyclists is doing anything like 30mph, it’s a flat road and none of them is a pro on a TT bike or even looks to be trying particularly hard, 20-22 mph tops I’d say. So we must assume that the cabby deliberately slowed down in order to get film of the cyclists overtaking him, which could be classified as dangerous driving, one would assume, trying to obstruct others and force them to overtake.
EDIT: My bad, it has been reduced to 20 apparently. I’d still say those cyclists aren’t breaking it though, cabby clearly deliberately driving slowly to force overtakes.
If you zooooom right in you
If you zooooom right in you can see down the bottom – the cab is going 19-20mph.
On an uncalibrated device the
On an uncalibrated device the same as the cyclists. GPS speed measurements would not be admissable in court but they are not doing more the 23 or so even then. The first car just before the corner is probably doing the same speeds if not more then the cyclists.
mdavidford wrote:
Good spot! So assuming he’s correctly calibrated the cyclists are doing about 22…
The speed limit is now 20mph
The speed limit is now 20mph on the Outer CIrcle
lukei1 wrote:
Which would be why I edited my comment and said my bad hours ago, but thanks x
The spped limit [doesn’t
The speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists apparently. They would like cyclists to stick to it, but ultimately it’s a judgement of “reckless cycling” that will been enforced.