Jeremy Vine collision "caused by a cyclist going through a red light"; Colnago's new bike is a hymn, a quest and a work of art (apparently); Would you let an eight-year-old cycle here?; Bike shop owner's £15,000 "kick in the teeth" + more on the live blog

I don't think the statistics are dodgy.

They're not showing how likely a vehicle is to jump a red light but how likely a vehicle is to injure someone whilst doing so.

Bicycles caused 0.6% of fatalities and 2% of total injuries whilst cycling made up 2% of trips and 1% of miles (2018).

So bicycles appear to be less likely to kill pedestrians than other RLJing vehicles but more likely to injure them.

Given the physics involved it stands to reason that cyclists are probably disproportionately involved in collisions with pedestrians due to RLJing.

The Accountant wrote:

Why is Road.cc publishing dodgy statistics pretending that red light jumping is as common amongst motorists as cyclists?

Just stand at any junction, anywhere in the country (especially London where Vine was filming), where there is any kind of volume of cycling and motoring traffic and you'll immediately see that red light jumping is far more prevalent and blatent amongst cyclists than any other mode of transport.

Pretending otherwise will undermine other serious issues, as people don't believe statistics once they've been presented with fabricated or spurious data.

It's simple geometry. If twenty cyclists get to a red light, and five want to run it, five will run it.

If twenty motorists get to a red light, and nineteen would run it but the first one in the queue stops, zero will run it. They're not law abiding, they're just stuck.

andystow wrote:

It's simple geometry. If twenty cyclists get to a red light, and five want to run it, five will run it. If twenty motorists get to a red light, and nineteen would run it but the first one in the queue stops, zero will run it. They're not law abiding, they're just stuck.

Very good point, I'm sure many readers ride out early on quiet Sunday mornings and have experience of the way in which many motorists approach red lights when the opportunity to jump them is available.

It would be interesting to find out how far some of them are driving over the speed limit too.

...

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

Jeremy Vine talking bollocks again. "If this had been three drivers coming together, there would have been a fist-fight, an insurance claim, and a jam at Marble Arch backing up to Victoria." Fist-fight? Why does he feel the need to talk utter crap? If he's such a clairvoyant I'd better ask him for tomorrow's Euromillions numbers. Do people really fall for this claptrap?

Because he is a gobshite

That's a classic of cyclist and pedestrian lobbies forced to scrabble over the scraps from the motor table.

Cycles, tricycles etc as mobility aids, which are far less disruptive than mobility scooters. and their appropriate use as mobility aids on pavements, and cycle tracks as suitable routes for mobility scooters if properly designed, need to be big themes in the current "accessible transport" select committee enquiry.

Well covered in the latest road.cc podcast.

You have until 20 March to submit evidence.

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6805/accessible-transport-legal-ob...

Should mobility scooter riders wear hi-viz, be insured, have registration plates and pay 'road tax'?

I saw this on my commute home a few weeks ago. 😳 https://youtu.be/XLFOIx4QAKA

Quote:

Miranda Moore KC, who said in mitigation for Grey that "she does not pose a risk or danger to the public", stated she would be making an appeal against the sentence.

Is that, "unless the public are riding a bike"? 

To be accurate the KC should have added the word 'anymore' at the end of her statement and even that would be an aspiration based on the evidence.

I do wonder how often, "My client does not pose a risk or danger to the public any more" is used in manslaughter cases where it's not Pedestrian vs Cyclist....

(edit) and if it ever works.

That looks to be a longer sentance than had she been driving a car, mounted the pavement and killed the cyclist.

I believe there are cases of people killing pedestrians by driving on the footway which have not resulted in a custodial sentence (someone else can fish out the links?)  So driving into a cyclists on the footway (or even what may be a "shared space") is even less likely to be an issue.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I believe there are cases of people killing pedestrians by driving on the footway which have not resulted in a custodial sentence (someone else can fish out the links?) 

Sadly there was one settled just yesterday in Scotland, killed a 60-year-old community worker and seriously injured three others from a family walking to their Boxing Day meal on the pavement. "Momentary lapse of attention". 100 hours community service and a 12 month ban.

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/scottish-news/23356565.range-rover-d...

"Momentary lapse of attention". 100 hours community service and a 12 month ban.

This confirms what we and all the shyster defence lawyers already know: be a toff and work on your presentation of remorse, and you're off! In this case she added 'does not intend to drive again', an undertaking she will obviously break after a while with 'at the time I didn't intend to drive again'.

There was one where a lorry driver was parking on the pavement and ran over a little girl wearing pink on a scooter in front of her mother.

Got off Scott free if I recall.

Quote:

The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway

What?

I wish we had more like this. Always look to the Netherlands! Cambridgeshire has some pretty good shared use paths (which rarely have walkers anyway) next to busy trunk roads but they're not quite as good as the above N204 example from my limited experience. Cyclists should absolutely be able to use the same direct routes as drivers, they just need to be well separated from traffic.

These cycle paths in the Netherlands are like small roads alongside the main road, they are great and work really well, catering to mopeds as well as farm traffic, tractors etc.

This makes the main road safer, because now that slower traffic has it's own road, there's less need for overtaking - so it's banned, with roads like this having a double white line down the centre.

Coupled with a low speed limit of 60kph (37mph), the chances of a collision are vastly reduced for all road users.

That isn't a cycle lane, it's a painted murder strip. 
I agree they shouldn't be there, on any road ideally. 

It isn't a murder strip, stop it with the ridiculous over-emotional meltdown. It's all ill-advised piece of infrastructure at worst.

As I've already said, councils should prioritise potholes over these silly virtue-signalling cycling projects. It's no surprise to see this one on Chris Boardman's (the ineffective and terminally wrong "cycling tzar") former stomping ground.

Nope. It's definately a murder strip. It's:

-a painted lane with no physical (bollards etc) or distance segregation

-exceedingly narrow (handlebar width or less

-on a busy and fast (50mph) road

Pretty much the definition of murderstrip there.

It is a murder strip. Its design will lead to deaths. Simple.

The Accountant wrote:

It isn't a murder strip, stop it with the ridiculous over-emotional meltdown. It's all ill-advised piece of infrastructure at worst. As I've already said, councils should prioritise potholes over these silly virtue-signalling cycling projects. It's no surprise to see this one on Chris Boardman's (the ineffective and terminally wrong "cycling tzar") former stomping ground.

it's mere preeence provably increases the risk of death and injury for cyclists by a material amount. 
 

your failure to give a shit about cyclists is noted.  Kindly fuck off