“Many may consider this to be a vote loser, but I think it’s a vote winner”: Insurance for cyclists debated by Lords, and quickly shut down as “utterly ridiculous”; Drivers told “leave the racing to Pogačar”; Crows attack cyclists + more on the live blog

I read it, didn't really have much of a point to the article. Basically, they went there, saw not a lot, quoted some facts that didn't back up the article's attempt at fuelling the hysteria:

"During 90 minutes in the park this week, The Times recorded a handful of cyclists travelling above the 20mph speed limit for cars, although many were below the limit."

"The Outer Circle is one of the most popular segments in the UK, but also the most controversial. The segment for one lap of the park, 2.7 miles, has now been taken down, or “flagged”, as hazardous. Some 42,284 Strava users have ridden two laps of the park 2,162,122 times."

Of course, he'd jumped the light too, but didn't seem to know that the stop box isn't for motorcyclists

These disputes about lesser points are hardly relevant when the police here excuse pretty much any red-light offences by motorists, just as these were determinedly not acted upon

https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/

bensynnock wrote:

when I arrived at the advanced stop box there was said motorcyclist stopped in it... Of course, he'd jumped the light too

IME, probably yes - but of course he could be stopped there legally if the lights changed after he crossed the first line.

quiff wrote:

bensynnock wrote:

when I arrived at the advanced stop box there was said motorcyclist stopped in it... Of course, he'd jumped the light too

IME, probably yes - but of course he could be stopped there legally if the lights changed after he crossed the first line.

However, if one anticipates lights changing in much the same way that many drivers don't seem to, stopping in the ASL is almost always avoidable.

They should be treated in very much the same way that yellow hatched boxes are: don't enter unless your way is clear. You can easily adjust the speed of approach so that if you could stop at the further line, you could stop at the first, or if you can go through the first as the lights start to change you can safely clear the second.

It's just that peope don't give a monkey's about that... because cyclists innit.

I've never been "forced" to stop in an ASL when driving. I use this one weird trick called "paying attention and planning my driving". It will never catch on with the majority of drivers but it works for me.

GMBasix wrote:

Baron Hogan-Howe, QPM wrote:

Many may consider this to be a vote loser, but I think it is a vote winner.

As a peer, and a cross-bench one at that, Crocodile Dunpolicing is two steps removed from any concern about vote-winning for his position.

He was, however, responsible for enforcing criminal law in the UK's largets police force; a role which one might assume tips its cap in the general direction of evidence from time to time.

So it remains a mystery why he should think that the key impetus for making draconian changes to affect a minority, vulnerable user group - ahead of any changes to protect them - is how it polls, rather than the evidence for its efficacy, equality or ethical validity.

What a chump!

Maybe he's received a nice gift from some interested party?

the little onion wrote:

What is this nonsense that cyclists are the only road users who don't have tax, insurance or a form of identification, as per the lords debate. What about horses, horse-drawn carriages. Or indeed, the most numerous category of road users: pedestrians.

You're applying logic, and this whole boondongle is just about being divisive and trying to prevent people from cycling or taking up cycling. Remember, Sunak did his best to kill people with his "Eat Out to Help Out" scheme and this attack on cycling is trying to ensure that more people will die from cardiovascular and inactivity related diseases.

the little onion wrote:

What is this nonsense that cyclists are the only road users who don't have tax, insurance or a form of identification, as per the lords debate. What about horses, horse-drawn carriages. Or indeed, the most numerous category of road users: pedestrians.

Quite so.

What about also the fact that many of us routinely have identification, do have insurance (far more than would be required under the RTA if we were driving motor vehicles). And that the penalty for killing another road user is disproportionately heavier for those who were cycling at the time than for those driving.

It would be interesting to drill in to this his claim "Over the last 20 years injuries of pedestrians hit by cyclists have drastically increased". If cycling increases incidents will inevitably increase. Has he conflated cyclists and scooter data? How many of these cyclists Did have insurance? When an incident occurs this rarely gets mentioned. Also how many would be uninsurable because they weren't Road legal (which is exactly your point)?
Also why does the question of insurance not apply to other groups. Eg if I'm cycling on a cycle path in a park and I get hit and knocked off by a rogue football should I be able to claim on that kids public liability insurance?
It's a red herring designed to attack cycling.

According to cycling uk 2% of Pedestrians casualties caused by cyclists compared to 98% by drivers. 

Which might actually suggest "wait a minute then - scale the numbers by trips / milage / time* and cyclists look quite dangerous, because there aren't many".

I think there are a couple of points to counter that.  First the actual numbers are really small (as well as when compared to the casualties from drivers).  Second there are some question marks about "involved in collision" in some of the data sets.

In addition I don't think you can just extrapolate from those numbers to e.g. say "but but if we have e.g. four times as many cyclists we'll have four times the casualties"!  That's because I don't think you can get that kind of significant increase in cycling without fundamentally changing our approach to road safety and indeed the infra.  And that is a significant enough change that other bets are off.

Of course I guess it's possible the UK could somehow design infra that encouraged more cycling but did nothing to make it safer for pedestrians OR reduce the volume of motor traffic ... but I doubt you can realistically have one without the other.  People cycling are generally not keen to cycle around or indeed into pedestrians either!

* Previously been debate about the fairest comparison method.  I think this always comes with a "pinch of salt" since "exposure" to cyclists and drivers is actually different e.g. in the UK due to (badly designed) "shared use" the amount of time potentially in conflict will differ etc.

I believe it is over a 4 or 5 year period so it equates to around 2,500 involving cyclists compared to 122,000 involving drivers. That said I did not drill deeper enough to determine how comparable the injuries were. I would hazard a guess that the severity of the injuries could be potentially less compared to the injuries caused by drivers. However as you alluded to proper infrastructure where cyclists and pedestrians are likely to interact this figure would likely reduce? 

Involving cyclists rather than caused by.

Sorry I stand corrected I was sitting in the barbers at the time of typing and trying to retrieve the numbers I had seen somewhere 😉. I think this was also based over a 4 or 5 year period? Also probably doesn't go into the details of what the incident or injury for example is compared to drivers.

I was stopped at the lights earlier and it was green for peds. The lady waiting was so engrossed in her phone, she failed to cross and had to wait for the next cycle. I did shout 'green' but she was too far away.

It should be noted that even the government report* showed of the 20 fatal incidents between cyclists and peds, 6/20 were down to the ped, 4/20 cyclist 5/20 equal and 5/20 no attribution.

* STATS19 reported road casualty data between 2011-2016 confirms that during this period there were a total of 2,491 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians
resulting in a pedestrian casualty (but not necessarily amounting to fault on the part of the cyclist).

Conclusion - registration, tabards and insurance are required for pedestrians.

Hirsute wrote:

I was stopped at the lights earlier and it was green for peds. The lady waiting was so engrossed in her phone, she failed to cross and had to wait for the next cycle. I did shout 'green' but she was too far away.

I can't out-accelerate a car when I'm cycling, but I usually beat them to at least the other side of the intersection when the light turns green. I believe that's because I'm looking at the light while waiting for it to change, instead of taking the red light as an opportunity to check Twitter.