Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has repeated a pledge to introduce a causing death by dangerous cycling law that would see bike riders found guilty of the offence face the same punishment as drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
The Daily Mail reports that the new legislation would be included in the Transport Bill which will begin its passage through Parliament later this year.
Currently, cyclists involved in crashes in which a pedestrian is killed or injured can face prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for causing bodily harm through wanton or furious driving, which has a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. They can also be charged with manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
In the past five years there have been roughly one prosecution per year of a cyclist under the 1861 Act, the most recently concluded case resulting in 29-year-old Stewart McGinn jailed for 12 months after he crashed into pedestrian Elizabeth Jayne Stone, aged 79, in Monmouth in June last year, fatally injuring her.
> Jail for pavement cyclist who rode off after fatally injuring pensioner
Shapps described the relevant section of the 1861 Act as an “archaic law,” telling the newspaper that it was “a legal relic of the horse-drawn era,” and that charging a cyclist with manslaughter was “a draconian option.”
He insisted that the law needed to be overhauled to crack down on reckless cyclists who harm others.
“We need the cycling equivalent of death by dangerous driving to close a gap in the law and impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care,” he said.
“For example, traffic lights are there to regulate all traffic. But a selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights.
“We need to crack down on this disregard for road safety. Relatives of victims have waited too long for this straightforward measure.
“As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing, we must bring home to cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring – that the obligation to put safety first applies equally to every road user. There can be no exceptions,” he added.
Calls for an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling to be put on the statute books intensified in 2017 after cyclist Charlie Alliston was sentenced under the 1861 Act to 18 months in a young offenders’ institution following a crash in London’s Old Street that resulted in pedestrian Kim Briggs losing her life. Her widower, Matthew Briggs, has campaigned since then for the law to be reformed.
Alliston, who had been riding a fixed wheel bike with no front brake at the time of the fatal crash, was also charged with manslaughter, but was found not guilty of that offence by a jury at the Old Bailey.
Until recently, the maximum jail term for causing death by dangerous driving stood at 14 years but for offences committed on or after 28 June this year a life sentence can be imposed.
However, even in the most egregious cases, the sentences handed down to drivers convicted of the offence are far less.
By contrast, cyclist Emir Loka, who crashed into pedestrian Peter McCombie in east London in July 2020, causing fatal injuries, was jailed last year for the maximum two year term stipulated in the 1861 Act. Like Alliston, he was cleared of manslaughter.
> Cyclist who killed London pedestrian jailed for two years
Shapps’ latest comments on the subject follow confirmation he planned to bring in an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling when he appeared on Nick Ferrari’s show on LBC earlier this year.
At the time, Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “Changes to the Highway Code are beneficial to all road users, and it is unhelpful of the Transport Secretary to try and explain or justify them on a quid pro quo basis by linking them to the potential introduction of new cycling offences. The two issues are entirely separate.
“As the Transport Secretary’s own minister Andrew Stephenson confirmed in December, the DfT is already working on the terms and remit of a call for evidence into road traffic offences. While that is long overdue, with a full review first promised over seven years ago after prolonged campaigning from Cycling UK, there’s little more than we can say on this issue, other than that we’ve never opposed cycling offences being be part of that review.
“Introducing new cycling offences in isolation however would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system, because our current careless and dangerous driving offences aren’t fit for purpose – replicating them for cycling makes no sense at all,” he added.
In 2020, 346 pedestrians were killed in road traffic collisions in Great Britain, but cyclists were only involved in four of those fatal crashes.
It should also be underlined those figures, compiled by the Department for Transport from police reports, do not seek to apportion blame.
126 thoughts on “Government to crack down on “reckless” riders with causing death by dangerous cycling law”
Typical politician cycling
Typical politician cycling bingo. What exactly does red light jumping have to do with causing death by dangerous cycling? I’d bet there is no statistical link between the two whatsoever but yet again a politician uses it to score a cheap point.
I imagine that it is due to
I imagine that it is due to the handful of incidents that received high media attention in recent years. Yet you don’t get the media frothing at its mouth when motorists kill 400+ pedestrians each year
It’s a culture war out there
It’s a culture war out there folks, and we are the enemy
Also, given that cyclists are
Also, given that cyclists are actually more likely to come off worse than pedestrians when there is a collision (dft stats), will Mr Shapps be announcing a “death by dangerous pedestrianing” offence in the front page of the Daily Mail any time soon?
It’s a pointless new law that
It’s a pointless new law that isn’t required.
I recall in an interview
I recall in an interview years ago on eating beef and global warming a Tory MP stated that ‘a conservative government would never tell people not to eat beef every day. The interviewer replied that they already did. The MP was horrified: never was her reply. The interviewer pointed out that the chief medical officer had given a recommendation not to eat red meat every day and that they were employed by the government.
This is the problem with neo-lib Tories. They want to appear to be neutral and not tell people what to do whilst DfT produces Gear Chage and CWIS2, they updated the Highway Code and they employed Chris Boardman to head up ATE. They need to get off the fence and actually support their own policies in public, but that would require a modicum of leadership.
I’m not averse to the law
I’m not averse to the law because the only people it will affect are the people who cause death, which is virtually nobody, including most of the worst cyclists out there.
On the other hand, could a politician step up and solve the dangerous driving is impossible to prosecute in most cases loophole? It probably only needs half a dozen words inserted into the legislation.
I do think there’s an
I do think there’s an argument the cycling law should be rolled together with the rest of the road law. Don’t think that’s a priority – not like e.g. a comprehensive review of road danger – but hey, sounds logical.
As you’ve alluded to though it’s just political theatre. Can the government be seen to do something but not have it cost anything in votes or cash? That something better not be to disabuse the majority of their beliefs. Especially if it’s saying that some of them are the problem. Putting more people into the legal system or into our failing prisons for longer would be spendy – and not just while they’re there either.
Where are the benefits? If the government can give a nod to the
prejudicesstrongly held beliefs of many people for the cost of a bit of law which will almost never come into play – that’s a political win.On “priorities” – yes, we
On “priorities” – yes, we should look at *all* unnecessary deaths and injuries but governance is about addressing the main issues – ideally efficiently. For those who want a visual representation of the scale of things (posted before but bears repetition):
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/just-one-year/
IanMSpencer wrote:
It does matter, as the wholesale coverage of it demonises all cyclists, and gives the impression that this is a big problem, when it is so small, that you’d need an electron microscope to see it in the mess of motor caused deaths. It’s just that it gives the media, especially the BBC, so dedicated to balance and truth, an opportunity to bash the only out group they still can.
eburtthebike wrote:
So where are the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport in all this?
Yes, that’s “The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) helps to drive growth, enrich lives and promote Britain abroad.”
In practice doing nothing to promote Sport or Active Travel in the Digital, Culture, Media by supporting reporting best practice or regulation of hate speech and ignorance against people cycling on the public highway.
Minister Nadine Dories should act, at least because this is a feminist issue of under-representation too..
lonpfrb wrote:
Well if the behaviour of its leader is anything to go by at the minute, curled up in a corner with the gin bottle with its tears bedewing a signed fan photo of Mr Johnson…
lonpfrb wrote:
Im pretty sure that she hates cyclists too.
lonpfrb]
There’s no cure for Absurd Optimism Syndrome (AOS). I bet you do the lottery.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s not optimistic to expect Ministers to do what they are responsible for doing.
Because cyclists are not a protected group in Equality law, yet, there’s no expectation generally, but since Women (Protected) are under-represented as cyclists the Minister is expected to address that.
Since I have a STEM education I can tell that Lottery is a futile exercise. In fact there is a greater probability that I might kill a pedestrian with a bicycle.
I would rather fund sport directly.
eburtthebike wrote:
It does matter, as the wholesale coverage of it demonises all cyclists, and gives the impression that this is a big problem, when it is so small, that you’d need an electron microscope to see it in the mess of motor caused deaths. It’s just that it gives the media, especially the BBC, so dedicated to balance and truth, an opportunity to bash the only out group they still can.— IanMSpencer
Precisely. I was nearly taken out by a drive last week, deciding to overtake on a narrow road 50m from a red traffic light. When I caught up with him a few seconds later (the light was still red) his response was “fuck off, you don’t pay any road tax!” That is a response only learned from MSM bile-pits.
I guess my take is that it
I guess my take is that it just feeds the MSM to be a cyclist arguing against justice, even if it is for a vanishly rare case. However, every single argument raised needs to be reflected back against all other road users, and used against all the arguments that will no doubt be used to avoid the implementation of a similar zero tolerance policy for deadly driving.
Richard D wrote:
So the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport should be promoting Sport or Active Travel in the Digital, Culture, Media by regulation of hate speech and ignorance against people cycling on the public highway in mainstream media and social media.
Minister Nadine Dories should act, and we must call her out for not acting. Lives depend on this.
‘For example, traffic lights
‘For example, traffic lights are there to regulate all traffic. But a selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights.’
I recently submitted footage of a driver that rolled through a Stop sign. He had actually overtaken me and was on his phone but my camera didn’t catch that. I was told that it was below the threshold for action. I’m not sure I really see the difference. Other road users are already doing their own risk assessment on which rules apply to them and the police are then confirming that’s okay by refusing to enforce those rules.
Meanwhile, a drugged texting
Meanwhile, a drugged texting uninsured driver gets 21 months for killing a cyclist.
Just fuck off Shapps, and tackle the real issues rather than playing to the gallery of Daily Mail readers.
PRSboy wrote:
I think it’s more than that. I think the Conservative Party have decided that they only need to play to the gallery of Conservative voters now and the rest of the population can go screw themselves… That story recently about Sunak saying it was unfair that so much Govt money gets spent on poor urban areas so why can’t more be spent on wealthier rural or suburban communities instead, for example (FFS). Shapps wants to seem tough/borderline psycho so that Truss will give him a job when she founds the New Regime…
brooksby wrote:
I’m no particular apologist for Sunak, but that’s a bit of a misrepresentation. What he said was more along the lines that it was unfair that poor areas in otherwise wealthy regions weren’t given the same funding as more generally poor regions.
(And that he’d ‘solved’ this problem by taking money away from the latter to give to the former – rather than, y’know, giving them all adequate funding…)
I watched the clip and heard
I watched the clip and heard what he said. It was not as you suggest.
“For example, traffic lights
“For example, traffic lights are there to regulate all traffic. But a selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights
Black Mazda 2 PE62 ZZG went straight on through these lights 1.2 seconds after they turned red and right across the junction. This was reported to OpSnapLancs as APL105914 on 10th July with stills and video and you will all know by now that there was no response and no action from Lancashire Constabulary. In Lancashire, pretty much any driver is ‘immune to red lights’, if LC chooses to ‘let them off’. They do have a combined speed/red light camera in Blackburn, but that gives them the choice of who to let off and who to penalise- that’s what they like: complete control of the law given to Lancashire Constabulary
Quote:
Would that they were. Unfortunately many traffic lights are designed without any consideration for the needs of cyclists, who are often obliged to choose between compromising their own safety to fit themselves around a system designed with only the needs of motorists in mind, or bend the rules.
Also, can Mr Shapps tell us
Also, can Mr Shapps tell us how many pedestrians are killed each decade by cyclists who go through red lights? Hint – there is only one on record! (Ermir Loka, who killed Peter McCombie). Was jailed for 2 years.
“We need to crack down on
“We need to crack down on this disregard for road safety.”
This from the guy who wants to allow regular car licence holders to be allowed to drive 7.5t trucks?
This is the Grant Shapps who
This is the Grant Shapps who is so concerned with keeping people safe that he has put a proposal out for consultation that would address the shortage of HGV drivers by allowing anyone with a standard licence to drive a 7.5 tonne lorry with no extra training, so one could pass one’s test in a Nissan Micra and drive something like the vehicle pictured the next day. If this passes I think it would almost certainly kill more people in a year than the number killed by cyclists in two decades.
Anyone who passed their test
Anyone who passed their test before 1997 can drive one of these already with no extra training; you can even pull a trailer! Just checked my licence and I’m legally allowed to drive class C1E…
https://www.hgvtrainingcentre.co.uk/hgv-training-cat-c1e-licence/
HoarseMann wrote:
I found that out today, Herself pointed it out to me earlier when I was telling her about it – what next, anyone with a driving licence allowed to fly light aircraft!? Bonkers.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You don’t even need a driving licence for that! https://www.intotheblue.co.uk/experiences/biplanes-bicester-heritage/
I have driven a 7.5t lorry on a few occasions and it wasn’t difficult. Most are not much harder than driving a car, although an old one had an odd gearbox and crawler gear, plus airbrakes that needed a minute to charge up before you moved off. But that’s more about reading the manual of a particular vehicle.
It was an odd decision to allow existing licence holders to hold onto those rights indefinately when they changed the rules. It’s effectively age discrimination.
HoarseMann wrote:
I certainly take your word it wasn’t difficult for you (I mean that sincerely, not taking the piss!)…but day in day out riding in London has shown me that many people don’t have the spatial awareness to drive large SUVs safely and people driving rented Transit vans are positively scary; if I see a Transit with an Enterprise or other rental logo I stay as far away as possible. The idea that people could be allowed to drive vehicles twice the current legal size permitted on their licence with no additional training scares the shit out of me, quite frankly.
Yep, I agree that some
Yep, I agree that some additional check of competency for a larger vehicle like that is a good idea. There must have been a reason they brought in the additional tests back in ’97.
But as there’s a whole raft of the population who have an entitlement to drive these vehicles through gaining a licence prior to ’97, I would hope any prospective employer would put a new employee through some sort of basic competency check prior to letting them loose on a company vehicle. They can’t just rely on the C1/E stamp on the driving licence.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well, if we are happy with the probability of self harm being much higher than harming others, it makes sense. I had flying lessons on an RAF scholarship at 17, and soloed an aeroplane long before I soloed a car. I never did get a pilot’s licence because the RAF didn’t pay for enough training.
If I’d got into difficulties, it’s almost certain I’d not have hit anything except trees and the ground. Training is done on fully dual control aircraft, so during lessons, the instructor can take complete control. That’s safer than driving lessons, I’d say.
HoarseMann wrote:
Amazing! Just checked mine and C1, C1E, from 1982. So not convinced about ‘before 1997’, but your point is well made: city car experience is no preparation for a 7.5 tonne lorry, with or without a trailer.
Greetings from Rally Finland: Forrest and Gravel, what could go wrong with 380bhp..
Under present rules you are
Under present rules you are allowed to drive a 7.5T vehicle privately. The law change will end the requirement for further qualifications to drive these vans professionally.
Law loves a loophole…
Law loves a loophole…
Having moved countries
Having moved countries several times, and converted my drivers license each time, I was allowed to drive a small tank for a while (despite doing my test in a small hatchback car). Sadly in my last conversion I lost that without ever having the opportunity to give it a go.
(I can’t recall how small the tank had to be and if they actually made tanks that size…)
If you’ve got the permission,
If you’ve got the permission, there is a tank for you.
You can, it’s known as
You can, it’s known as Grandfather rights.
I’m no fan of most
I’m no fan of most politicians but some of what Grant Shapps says seems pretty even handed (I was surprised too). Of course the headline is designed to appeal to car driving voters but that doesn’t mean the new legislation is not just, even if the risk of being killed by a cyclist is negligible when compared to motor vehicles.
“As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing, we must bring home to cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring – that the obligation to put safety first applies equally to every road user. There can be no exceptions,” he added.
When a cyclist is killed by a dangerous driver I always hope the punishment is suitably severe although we all know it usually isn’t. I can’t justify thinking I should be treated differently if my dangerous cycling killed someone.
Of course it remains to be seen if causing death by dangerous cycling sentences are fair when compaired to causing death by dangerous driving. I think we all suspect they will be more severe but only time will tell.
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “Changes to the Highway Code are beneficial to all road users, and it is unhelpful of the Transport Secretary to try and explain or justify them on a quid pro quo basis by linking them to the potential introduction of new cycling offences. The two issues are entirely separate.
“Introducing new cycling offences in isolation however would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system, because our current careless and dangerous driving offences aren’t fit for purpose – replicating them for cycling makes no sense at all,” he added.
This is also true of course so maybe we should just bin the whole lot and come up with something fair and proportional that would punish whoever kills through their dangerous and selfish actions on the road and provide justice for the bereaved.
I’m no fan of politicians
I’m no fan of politicians either – especially the brexthick variety; the liars, the ignorant, the deceivers, the parochial, stupid kind. These kind also seem to have it against people who ride cycles. It’s a general sort of equation: gammon = hate cycles = ignorance of the EU = brexthick.
Nice bit of pointless
Nice bit of pointless trolling.
I’m sure our resident gatekeepers will be along any second to tell you off…
NOtotheEU wrote:
That sounds like a good idea. I think maybe some kind of … comprehensive review of road safety might be where to start. Of course those things don’t just happen overnight!
Unlike the tack taken by Martin73 (unsurprisingly) I don’t think this should solely look at outcomes. We should take account of the degree of danger your choices present and aggravating circumstances. Like we have now for death by dangerous / careless driving. Not just intoxication / other criminal acts but also e.g. if you’re driving a massive truck that would have higher weighting than if you were rollerskating, or on a bike. Lawmakers being all over the science (!) obviously we’d review the data on this to set the scale. Maybe rollerskaters are much less likely to be able to prevent a collision than a cyclist but pose as much danger?
Don’t forget – no-one has taken away the charges of GBH / manslaughter / murder – if those would be more appropriate they can still be applied.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I think your analysis is far too well thought out and nuanced for our overlords to grasp, but you’ve got my vote for leading the comprehensive review of road safety.
Grant Shapps wrote:
I actually read that too positively the first time. It’s not a open-faced shit sandwich (maybe Danish?) It’s pie-in-the-sky with a shit topping, with some chocolate sprinkles on.
“As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling …” – really? What are the current figures on that? What is your government – or what are you, Mr. Shapps – doing to bring that about?
Being charitable, he’s been spending time near a cycle superhypeway in London or he’s started listening to Chris Boardman (which would be good!).
The sprinkles (“too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring”) are being slathered with another layer of unpleasant coating e.g. reminding everyone of these dangerous scofflaws.
I’m not outraged about this. I already have low expectations of Shapps on cycling and indeed transport in general. Plus the statement appears to be political theatre when people are playing for a very particular minority audience (Conservative Party members). I’ll go with Duncan on this one.
It is political theatre but I
It is political theatre but I was still happy to hear a politician say;
“an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing” and “cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring.”
even if he didn’t mean it.
Maybe if brexshit wasn’t
Maybe if brexshit wasn’t costing every family £4200 a year compared to £350 for being in the eh, the govt would have the funding for any real cycling infra?
Can’t really see cyclists
Can’t really see cyclists getting away with a momentary lack of concentration claim.
They will be hung out to dry due to the constant vilification of cyclists and punished for not paying road tax or not having insurance.
I’m opposed to it because cyclists will not be treated in the same manner as drivers.
Or can they employ “it’s not my fault they fell over” , ” I thought it was a sack of potatoes” defences?
Well that’s just more happy
Well that’s just more happy hunting grounds for “top lawyer and road safety expert”s.
The proof will be when one of those dangerous TT scorchers kills someone and it goes to trial *. Or maybe an OAP on a e-cycle. Or better a mum with some kids on a mamafiets. Then we’ll see whether any of the following work (like they do for drivers) or actually count against them, as they should: “no visor or shades and the sun was very low”, “unfortunately due to age / bike geometry my client was unable to turn to look in that direction”, “because of the speed I was travelling I was unable to stop in time” or just “I have no recollection of that”.
* Was going to say “you might have to wait a several decades for this to occur” but it sounds like there will be less TTing rather than more. Or maybe it’ll resume but in areas with more pedestrians?
Sweat was in your eyes!
Sweat was in your eyes!
Difficult to argue against that; I can’t be the only one who gets a bit sweaty when cycling furiously.
HoarseMann wrote:
— HoarseMannA confession! Hang him.
Damn it! Nearly the perfect
Damn it! Nearly the perfect crime.
Momentary lapse in
Momentary lapse in concentration due to fear of life from vehicles behind.
“There can be no exceptions,”
“There can be no exceptions,” he added
Shapps is a buffoon, so him being in a Cabinet led by Johnson is no surprise. Traffic law, as [not] enforced by the police is jam-packed with so many exceptions that the laws have effectively ceased to exist. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for close-passing in Lancashire; I have numerous examples of no action being taken over blatant RLJs at high speed and/or by heavy lorries; absence of MOT, insurance and VED has been normalised in Lancashire because people carry on evading all of them for years even after they’re reported with indisputable evidence. P19 JTW here was first reported following detection on 16th July. 3 years freedom from tiresome unnecessary VED and, by definition, insurance and 7 months evasion of MOT on a vehicle with a 3500 kg limit: Lancashire Constabulary is certainly working to keep the economy moving and free of red tape!
There’s someone living
There’s someone living locally who has a car which ran out of tax in December 2020, his work vehicle ran out of tax in May this year. Despite reporting this to the police and DVLA, nothing has been done. they are still both untaxed.
Grant Shapps said “
Grant Shapps said “
We need the cycling equivalent of death by dangerous driving to close a gap in the law and impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care, For example, traffic lights are there to regulate all traffic. But a selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights.”
Whereas the evidence says something different. Between 2005 and 2014 fifty one pedestrians were killed at a red traffic light by someone in or on a vehicle that ignored the red. And absolutely none of those were cyclists; ALL of the deaths were as a result of someone driving a motorised vehicle. My source? Department of Transport statistics.
I wonder if his own team can tell him he’s letting MSM prejudices and misinformation drive policy?
How many pedestrians were
How many pedestrians were seriously injured by cyclists running red lights though?
I seem to remember from a previous thread that the number was worryingly high, and actually higher than cyclists’ modal share of traffic.
Rich_cb wrote:
According to The Little Onion’s post it was one death (don’t know about serious injury, though):
It was the serious injuries I
It was the serious injuries I was after. Happy to take the death figures on trust.
This would be good to have –
This would be good to have – if it exists. I remember this coming up also – was it sriracha or alsosomniloquism who mentioned that?
EDIT – while searching something else I came across this – is it the original or useful?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/collisions_involving_pedestrians#incoming-1077541
Thanks Chris.
Thanks Chris.
Yes that seems to back up the previous discussion.
2015-16 Cyclists caused 7.5% of pedestrian KSIs due to RLJ. Modal share about 2% at that time IIRC.
Rich_cb wrote:
Are you the person who was claiming the other day that figures on the number of black people stopped and searched were meaningless unless supported by data regarding crime levels in different areas, age, time of day etc? Exactly the same applies: obviously the vast majority of pedestrian KSIs due to RLJ are going to occur in urban areas, where cycling’s modal share will be far higher than the national average, e.g. in London up to 25% at rush hour in some areas. Funny how you’re so quick to dismiss stats that don’t support your argument yet present ones that make cyclists look bad without questioning.
I wouldn’t shoot at this
I wouldn’t shoot at this point. I think finer detail is certainly needed. The figures would be more informative even if only split by e.g. city / town.
Without it I’d suggest this is just saying (like hawkinspeter earlier) we need much better junction design! The existing signalised ones are almost solely designed to keep drivers safe while maximising motor vehicle flow.
After all some of those red light junctions in busy areas of e.g. London may have cycle lanes / ASLs added! Many of these will be “bolt-on” designs to retrofit cycling. Designs are invariably not standard – it’s a “whatever we can” at each retrofit. (We do have “standards” but they are all “guidance” and seem to be widely ignored). This makes it more confusing and possibly dangerous for vulnerable road users (on wheels and not) than it should be. Possibly more dangerous than before the changes when “you’re fine if you’re not on the road” mostly worked.
I’m slightly confused Rendel.
I’m slightly confused Rendel.
Should we adjust raw statistics to ensure they are accurate or not?
Last time I suggested that would be a good idea you accused me of racism…
FWIW I’d be more than happy to see any additional information on this topic and adjust the statistics accordingly.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes, you do appear to be. The last time you said that quoting statistics without your suggested adjustments showed I knew nothing about statistics, and yet here you are doing exactly the same thing because the raw statistics appear to support your argument. You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.
That’s not quite true is it
That’s not quite true is it Rendel.
I’ve already stated that I’m happy for these statistics to be adjusted as more information becomes available so my position is entirely consistent.
Statistics need to be appropriately adjusted in order to be reliable.
During our last discussion you went on this little rant about adjusting statistics
Thus making it perfectly clear you knew nothing about statistics.
It was only at this point that I said you knew nothing about statistics.
Maybe you could clarify your position Rendel? Should government statistics be adjusted to improve their accuracy or not?
Rich_cb wrote:
So why were you quoting that cyclists are responsible for 7.5% of KSIs through red light jumping when they only have a 2% modal share and calling it “worryingly high” when the slightest analysis of the statistics would show a far more nuanced picture? Either you missed the blindingly obvious or you chose to quote the raw data because it confirms your prejudices in a way that properly adjusted data wouldn’t. Which, I wonder?
Now you’re just being
Now you’re just being disingenuous.
Anybody reading this thread can see that I used the phrase ‘worryingly high’ about my recollection of the statistics discussed in a previous thread.
On the previous thread I recall that attempts were made to adjust for modal share and the KSI % was still above modal share.
That is worrying in my opinion.
I’m happy to have another go at the adjustment as neither Chris not I have been able to track down the fabled previous thread.
Do you have any useful data to add?
Or perhaps you could answer my previous question:
Maybe you could clarify your position Rendel? Should government statistics be adjusted to improve their accuracy or not?
I had an eye opening
I had an eye opening experience journeying along motorways on the upper deck of a double-decker coach. One gets a privileged view into the cabs of HGVs. I genuinely was shocked at seeing HGV drivers happily texting on their mobiles. Obviously this is far from uncommon, but I guess few voters (and even fewer police?) see this happening around them.
Sriracha wrote:
A young friend of mine had a summer vacation cleaning job in an HGV depot last year, apparently it was common chat amongst the drivers as to which movies or box sets to watch on their iPads to while away the long hours on the road. Purely anecdotal I know, but on the rare occasions I’m in a car on the motorway there seem to be an awful lot of HGV drivers who aren’t fixed on looking ahead.
earlier this year the local
earlier this year the local police borrowed a HGV cab for 5 days, and drove up and down the A14,A12 and A11 specifically to get that elevated view into other HGV cabs.
In total they stopped 123 HGVs, 86 smaller goods vehicles and recorded 339 separate offences. 46% of the drivers stopped were not wearing a seatbelt and 22% were using a mobile phone.
I keep thinking of this case
I keep thinking of this case in which a lorry driver who was scrolling through his phone – based on in-cab CCTV it’s estimated he drove for around 1km without looking at the road ahead – killed a woman and three kids on the A34.
He got 10 years (guilty plea means he would never have got the full 14 but even so … )
https://news.sky.com/story/a34-crash-lorry-driver-jailed-for-killing-family-while-on-phone-10639721
As I’ll be back in the UK for
As I’ll be back in the UK for a visit in a few weeks I’m personally delighted to see that the country in now so on top of the more common causes of road KSI that the politicians are now able to devote some of their precious parliamentary time to dealing with the outlier of cycling-related deaths. I now have far fewer concerns about driving down the M4 at rush hour on a Friday afternoon.
I recognise that the numerous contrary evidence presented on road.cc would suggest that my assumption may be incorrect, but such is my faith in the bipartisan and apolitical approach to road safety issues in the UK that I now realise the contributors to this website are clearly exagerating the current state of road danger for their own distorted political objectives.
I mean, in all the years I was commuting by bike in the UK I was never knocked off or otherwise endangered (well, only a few times anyway 🙂 ).
Looking for a silver lining
Looking for a silver lining in this misdirected waste of legislative effort:
1. I am actually pretty shocked that 1 in 100 pedestrian deaths involves a cyclist. I guess that this may be down to a number of factors but mostly around infrastructure decisions that force people walking and people riding bicycles into the same space. Regardless, it cannot be a bad thing if there is a better understanding that cycling in proximity with pedestrians needs to be done with utmost care. What may be a simple bruise to a younger person can be a broken hip and fatality to someone more frail.
2. With the legislation in place, and once past the initial media frothing giving the impression that the UK road system is under attack from lycra clad barbarian hordes intent on flattening unwary pedestrians at every opportunity. It will be illuminating to see just how many times it is used and provide a truer representation of cyclist culpability in such incidents.
Interesting comment from Richard D about collisions at red lights. Does this research also cover zebra crossings?
Mungecrundle wrote:
That is surprising. Where does that stat come from – I couldn’t see it in the article?
The more I hear about RLJers, the more convinced I’m becoming that traffic lights are a really poor choice for use on cycling infrastructure as they create a stop-start flow which is the opposite of what cyclists want. What cyclists need are things like roundabouts that can merge flows of traffic in a smoother flow (as long as there aren’t cars left-hooking) or in the case of pedestrian crossings, the use of zebras instead of pelicans.
page 22 here: https://www
page 22 here: https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PACTS-What-kills-most-on-the-roads-Report-15.0.pdf
I think these come from here
I think these come from here
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data
2020 4, 346 (cyclist, all)
2019 4, 470
2018 1, 456
2017 3, 470
2016 3, 448
2015 2, 408
2014 5, 446
2013 6, 398
Do cyclists and peds have more interactions?
Thank you! I’d seen a
Thank you! I’d seen a version of that but not this one. An excellent read. Particularly good on tackling the appropriate use of rate calculations, the importance of remembering absolute numbers also and the fallacy of “since lots of pedestrians and cyclists are dying active travel modal shift is a bad idea for safety”. Also a good note on details of the data e.g. noting pedestrian falls and things like e-scooters aren’t (identifiably) recorded.
I am a little surprised by the numbers for cyclist – pedestrian fatalities. However the actual numbers are very small, there are over twice as many “other” pedestrian deaths and also there was only 1 motor scooter incident – might have expected more? In addition no “pedestrian-pedestrian” fatalities (jogger runs into child / vulnerable adult) or pedestrian-cyclist ones. So I suspect there may be some issues with “coding” of the data and also maybe a “rare event” effect (maybe next year there were none).
However the UK’s two choices of prioritising space for driving (leading to a dearth of pedestrian infrastructure or “subjectively safe” space) AND the more recent tendency to “create” cycling infrastructure through declaring the same space to be cycling space almost certainly increases the risk of collisions. It’d be interesting to know where these collisions occurred e.g. junctions? If so, road crossings or e.g. pavement / cycle track ones?
I was also very suprised by
I was also very suprised by the data, which show that per billion miles travelled motorists only KSI slightly more pedestrians than cyclists do. That does need to be borne against many (most?) of car miles being driven on roads/motorways that avoid any sort of pedestrian interaction, whereas those cyclist miles are almost entirely in the same areas or riding immediately parallel to pedestrian areas.
Road traffic statistics
Road traffic statistics
TRA0102
2020 Major Roads
Mway 52.7 Bn vehicle miles
A rural 76.6 Bn
A urban 38.8 Bn
Minor
rural 43.7 Bn
urban 68.7 Bn
Cycles TRA0402
Major
Rural A
Mways 2 deliveroo riders doing about 10km
Trunk 0.01 Bn
Principal 0.02 Bn
Urban A
Trunk 0.0 Bn
Principal 0.55 Bn
Minor
rutal 1.51 Bn
Urban 2.75 Bn
So, if I’ve interpreted this
So, if I’ve interpreted this correctly…
Motorists complete: 68.7 + 38.8 = 107.5bn urban miles.
Cyclists complete: 2.75 + 0.55 = 3.3bn urban miles.
Assuming other vehicles make negligible contributions that gives us an urban modal share of:
3.3/(107.5+3.3) x100 = 3%
Still less than half the RLJ KSI % figures from 2015/16.
It’s going to be more complex
It’s going to be more complex as there will be segregation of peds and motors on some roads or hardly any peds at all. Where peds are segrated by infrastructure, they are more likely to have a shared path with cyclists.
But these specific statistics
But these specific statistics relate to RLJing.
Unlikely to happen on a shared path and unlikely to be affected by segregation as this would be the point that the segregated paths actually cross.
I was replying to David W’s
I was replying to David W’s question.
Anyway you need the relevant roads that peds use as the denominator not all roads that I used to reply to David W.
I don’t think that
I don’t think that information is available though.
Using all urban roads as a proxy isn’t ideal but it’s probably the closest we can get.
Rich_cb wrote:
Quoting percentages like that makes it look terrible, doesn’t it? Why not quote the actual numbers, which are 0 pedestrian deaths and 7 pedestrians seriously injured across 2015 and 2016 (see screenshot below) by RLJ cyclists, so an average of 3.5 serious injuries per year (it’s worth noting here that the government definition of a serious injury in an RTA can be as minor as a fractured finger). Thus a pedestrian is seriously injured by a red light jumping cyclist once in every 942,857,142 miles cycled. That’s nearly a billion miles cycled for each serious (with the previous caveat about definition of serious) injury. It is a vanishingly small problem.
(for the avoidance of any doubt I abhor red light jumping and never do it myself)
The RLJ KSI figure is even
The RLJ KSI figure is even lower per mile for motorists.
The only reason the raw numbers are low for cyclists is because we constitute such a low percentage of road users.
When you consider the relative masses involved a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian is far less likely to cause an injury than a motorist so the actual collision numbers are likely even more skewed towards cyclists.
We shouldn’t therefore be surprised that RLJing cyclists are so often cited by pedestrians as a major concern.
I also abhor RLJing hence my keenness to correctly measure its effects.
Rich_cb wrote:
It is slightly lower, but when you’re talking about the difference between about one KSI every 1.1 billion miles or every .95 billion miles, it’s fairly academic. In both cases it’s a very small number, but I can’t recall anyone ever ranting and raving in the national press or elsewhere about the terrible danger posed by red light jumping motorists, can you?
You’ve lost me there, are you suggesting that if cyclist numbers increase then the KSI numbers would increase exponentially? One would presume that if cycling numbers doubled, RLJ KSIs involving cyclists would also double, no?
We shouldn’t therefore be surprised that RLJing cyclists are so often cited by pedestrians as a major concern.— Rich_cb
Well I am quite surprised, to be honest, because it’s quite clear from the figures that the concern is far greater than the actual reality. Any time you see a discussion on social media or a newspaper website about cycling, literally hundreds of people will be telling their stories of how their friend/granny/child was seriously injured by a RLJ cyclist and yet as we can see from the official figures, a tiny handful of people are actually seriously injured each year, an average of 3.5 per annum in the years we are looking at, and that is using a definition of seriously injured which includes any minor fracture, any cut that requires stitches, etc. I abhor RLJ because it’s plain bad manners, it frightens people, it gives cyclists a bad reputation and I won’t do anything that might injure a pedestrian, however low the risk, but the figures do show with that the public perception of cyclist RLJ and the actual risk are very far apart.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Personally, I’d expect it to grow slower than that, as pedestrians adapt their behaviour to the increased number of cycles – much the same way that many people already work on the assumption that drivers are quite likely to ignore the signals, and so won’t step into the road until they’ve confirmed to a good degree of certainty that they are actually stopping.
In any case, I’d say that 7 cases across two years is pretty much useless as a basis for saying anything meaningful – too much potential for distortion by statistical noise.
mdavidford wrote:
Something in that I would say, yes, although in my experience the problem with red light jumping cyclists is not the ones who just run a red that has just changed as cars do; as you say, regrettably, pedestrians have got pretty used to having to wait five seconds or more after the red to ensure that no car is going to drive through. The ones who really cause fear are the idiots who come shooting up the inside once all the cars have stopped and the pedestrians have started to cross and zoom through the gaps. I generally try to prevent this when I can by blocking the channel when I get to the front of the queue, it’s surprising how often one will get abuse for that!
Yes if cycling numbers
Yes if cycling numbers doubled, you would expect, all else being equal, that KSIs related to cycling would double.
The disconcerting part is that if cycling replaced driving entirely and cyclists continued to behave exactly as they do now then the number of pedestrian KSIs due to RLJ would increase. When you consider that cyclists make up 25% of traffic at certain times of the day in London it’s not surprising that there are also a lot of pedestrians with negative experiences. Given the London-centric nature of the media, it’s not surprising such voices get amplified.
As I explained in my previous post, collisions with pedestrians by RLJing cyclists are likely far higher than the injury statistics as the relative low weight and speed of cyclists almost certainly produce fewer injuries per collision than other vehicles.
I’m sure there is an element of exaggeration etc but I do genuinely think that RLJing by cyclists is a real concern for pedestrians.
Rich_cb wrote:
“If” and “all things being equal” almost certainly do not apply here. That is because without some changes which will affect everything else I think it’s extremely unlikely we will see a step change in the number of cyclists *. On the other side flip side we can look at the countries with the safest pedestrian figures in Europe. The top one (by some distance) also appears to be one well-known for lots of cycling. Those above the UK are also ones that have moved further in the direction of proper active travel infrastructure than the UK. I believe the UK has achieved a lot of its “safety” by excluding people from spaces (by design or simply because of traffic volumes) or otherwise reducing pedestrian travel.
* If it were possible to get more cyclists without “changing the landscape” I’d expect the UK would already have done it. After all our governments have been talking about “prioritising active travel” (or whatever phrase was current) for decades. So it seems that it takes more than tinkering, exhortation and wishes. Basically massive changes to infra which is very likely to change the impact (no pun intended) of cycling on pedestrians.
I could see the kind of change you envisage if there was a step change in the ability to drive. Or something leading to a drastic reduction in traffic volume. But even then most people are wary of cycling with *fast* traffic. Maybe if there was a sudden extremely drastic economic shift (far more than currently) or we had another Covid-style lockdown (but more severe)? I guess if the tube network closed for a month or so in London that might do it. But that would also change the driving!
Rich_cb wrote:
I would agree it is a real concern for some. However cycling safety is a real concern for most people. So much so that they don’t cycle at all. Or only under very limited circumstances. Yet cycling is a very safe activity.
Equally I suspect most people outside this forum would give wildly inaccurate assessments for the KSIs from cycling. So the “concern” doesn’t have much to do with the numbers.
I’d guess this is “subjective safety” and the “startle” effect. That’s my own anecdata. Bicycles are fairly rare most places, they’re very quiet, even when observed people misjudge their speed. Bikes “appear from nowhere” (even when I’ve been ringing a bell sometimes)… They appear where people on foot aren’t expecting them (e.g. they’ve relaxed), they appear suddenly. They may be closer than cars – we’ve learned to give cars a wide berth.
This is not pleasant. I notice I don’t enjoy walking along a moderately busy cycling route myself. (It’s much better in the very few which aren’t “shared space” though). Pedestrians are keen to find spaces where they can relax – away from the noise and threat of vehicles. As are cyclists. But we gave the lion’s share to motoring.
In one sense surprising but
In one sense surprising but it’s comparing apples and tennis balls. Lots of circumstances differ – the infrastructure, regulation, who’s riding and why etc. On the last I suspect people spending much time on bikes in the UK – never mind those colliding with pedestrians – are a statistically different demographic than drivers. For one I suspect that they’re more likely to be male and younger. Sorry, no actual data to hand to back that up!
Since I’m speculating already – the main culprit is the UK’s forcing pedestrians and cyclists effectively to compete for rather limited space. Add to that deliberate mixing of pedestrians and cyclists and some bad design.
Cyclists are still uncommon in most places so pedestrians aren’t expecting them. Where people feel safe to walk (and indeed people feel safe to cycle) they may be more likely to be relaxed / distracted. So they may be looking at phones, in conversation, wearing headphones etc. Bikes are pretty quiet and I think pedestrians rely on hearing for cues about the environment to a degree we maybe don’t acknowledge enough.
After that? The “rare and unusual” effect may mean that the perception of cyclists as impatient / risk-taking / anti-social or criminal / bad youth may have some truth, right now in the UK. I’d actually suggest that’s a positive – think what damage they could do in vans / cars / scrambler bikes…
chrisonatrike wrote:
My statistically insignificant experience of three years C2W in central London was two scenarios; weak and fearful cyclists who didn’t want to stop due to the effort/risk of starting again, or fit anti-social cyclists who thought they would escape responsibility. The latter usually profane when called out. Complete lack of care for the cyclists correctly stopped in the ASL, too, which made me quite angry.
I’m with you – fix it so
I’m with you – fix it so people have less incentive to jump red lights! For motorists deterring this via much more consistent enforcement would probably be the way. Enforcement for motorists would be certainly easier to implement than for cyclists. At least until we bring in compulsory branding / tagging and registration! For cyclists (as has been explored before on road.cc) there are some different motivations for jumping lights. That suggests lower-cost solutions of which there are several (many on display at bicycledutch’s channel / the Ranty Highwayman etc). Examples – proper protected cycle tracks at junctions, roundabouts (not cargo cult designs), all-ways green cycle signals, grade separation at large junctions…
Bonus – found this 5 minute view of a busy Dutch roundabout. Chaos, I tell you. A lorry is help up for almost 2 minutes! Impossible…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5l48_h5Eo
Mungecrundle wrote:
The report makes no finding of responsibility in those collisions, so it would be unwise to assume that the cyclist is always at fault. Having been knocked off three times by pedestrians, all of which were their fault, it seems likely to me that the pedestrians are just as much, if not more, responsible for these collisions.
Which isn’t an acceptance that mixed spaces are a good idea, I am opposed to them.
And I bet none of those
I bet none of those pedestrians were wearing helmets either. And probably wearing black.
Time to bring in a new “dangerous walking” law?
At this stage scrapping death
At this stage scrapping death by dangerous/careless driving and using the “wanton and furious” offence seems like the fairest thing to do. From seeing what happens when people are prosecuted for “wanton and furious” you seem to have a much better chance of conviction and an even better than that chance of getting a custodial sentence. This would also be “fairer”. What do you think Mr Shapps?
Call me cycical, but..
Call me cycical, but..
Grant Schapps is one of Boris’s vacuous posh boys.
While Truss and Sunak are fighting it out to be the next PM tory MPs are positioning themselves to get a good job in the next government.
Everything they say is directed at Tory Party Members. A typical member is a White, Male, marketing magager who lives in Tunbridge Wells.
His logic must be “They all drive SUVs in Tunbridge Wells. They must hate cyclists. What can I do to get them on side?”
Cycloid wrote:
— CycloidFlattery will get you nowhere.
eburtthebike wrote:
Not as posh as most of them… Watford Grammar School rather than Eton, and then Cassio College, where he studied digital watches and calculators that can play tunes.
I’ll get my own coat, it’s the one with a VL-Tone in the pocket.
Cycloid wrote:
Whilst SUVs (What Sport, What Utility?) are over-represented in Tunbridge Wells they are not the majority of vehicles I’m glad to attest.
Since I’m in Finland now, which has some gravel roads, snow, ice, -25°c in a normal winter, so good reason for a four wheel drive vehicle, it’s noticeable that there are very few SUVs at all.
Mandatory winter tyres but 4WD seems un-popular.
I suppose that the Finnish people have a high bulls++t resistance as well as some grasp of climate emergency that is missing in Tunbridge Wells.
Regardless of any political affiliation, there are just too many motor vehicles as shown by the egregious pavement parking around council housing estates and driveways crammed in the affluent country mansions. Four cars per mansion not uncommon!
100 years of automotive industry propaganda will take some shifting…
Finland seems interesting –
Nobody anywhere likes change – unless it’s getting them a ton of money or an increase in status. The UK is not alone in a “but that’s not how it works now so we can’t be any other way” mindset. It does seem to come up very frequently though.
Finland seems interesting. The climate seems to have wider variation than the UK and there are some pretty rural places. So “but the weather” and “but we can’t build cycle infra everywhere” / “too far” excuses would seem to apply. Do you have hills as well? However at least in some places the weather is shown not to be a biggie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
chrisonatrike wrote:
Yes, Finland has quite a climate range +25°c summer and -25°c winter so a 50°c swing.
What I find more remarkable is that 25 years ago they looked at their health data and decided to change planning law so that all new build roads must have an active travel lane so that Finns can ski, skate, sled, walk, run, cycle, scoot wherever they want to go. These are even landscaped for minimum gradient so everyone is included however strong or not.
Of course new build is not rebuild of existing roads but much has changed in those 25 years and it’s understood that active travel is good generally.
Finland is relatively flat, though not NL flat. The Tunturi (hills) that support downhill skiing are Mid to North above the Arctic circle so that cross country skiing is more usual. You could enjoy a great bicycle tour on compact gearing with respect from motor vehicles where country roads have no separate lane. Few people and little traffic is usual up country though insects must be repelled with ‘Off!’ spay or roller..
In my book SUV stands for
In my book SUV stands for Socially Unacceptable Vehicle.
What about motorists? Since
What about motorists? Since lockdown eased the standard of driving is abysmal and there are far more bad driver than cyclists.
My concern is not so much
My concern is not so much that we should be any more scared of killing pedestrians than now, after all your chances against you being involved in a fatal accident with a pedestrian in any one year are about 1million to 1. Probably a lot more if you are careful. The problem is that any cyclist who is will find the police under a lot of pressure from the worst sections of our media to bring the case to trial whether the case merits it or not and for the sentence to be way in excess of what a motorist would normally expect to receive for a similar accident.
RoryLydiate wrote:
Exactly!
I would bet a sizable bag of acorns that no-one who’s ever read road.cc will be on the wrong side of this law and I feel sorry for the person that eventually does (and obviously the victim).
The problem isn’t so much with this law, but the circumstances in which it was brought in. There’s a lot of legislation and work that the government needs to do and this law was WAY down the list. It’s just pandering to certain people’s limited understanding of road danger whilst actual serious issues are being ignored.
Just think how much better it would have been if they’d brought in a law to increase the penalties for leaving the scene of a collision without attempting to render assistance (e.g. phone for an ambulance) – that could also apply to cyclists so would help placate the Murdoch news sites (and BBC).
Indeed.
Indeed.
But when a pedestrian kills a cyclist… nothing!
https://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest
Shapps appears to have
Shapps appears to have decided that the HC changes to improve safety were actually conditional upon cracking down on ‘wanton and furious riding’. So, we will give you something nice with this hand, but quid pro quo something tough with the other hand.
Remind me – how do they tighten things up for motorists every year when they decide to continue to freeze fuel duty?
Ah but “cyclists” are a (tiny
Ah but “cyclists” are a (tiny) minority. Remember – with rights come responsibilities!
Alternatively: active travel is nice to have but we have to consider the adult business of keeping the economy going first ([1] [2]). That’s clearly about motor transport. That’s what pays the bills after all ([3] [4] – oh, those bills? [5]).
“Thanks to Brexit cutting
“Thanks to Brexit cutting ridiculous health and safety laws I’m going to buy a massive HGV and set myself up as a mobile dentist practice, solving two problems at once.”
Every cloud has a sliver lining !
I don’t know whether I’ve
I don’t know whether I’ve missed this but does any one know how “dangerous cycling” will be defined?
Cycling on the public highway
Cycling on the public highway.
Bicycles being used by
Bicycles being used by “cyclists”.
Hopefully it will paraphrase
Hopefully it will paraphrase the driving definition. As everyone is convinced that all cyclists are demented loons, far below the standard of that must be stunningly bad, such as mounting a dozen sharpened spears around your bike.
IanMSpencer wrote:
So we’d get away with only eleven? Asking for friend.
Good to the Tory government
Good to the Tory government really getting on with the things that are massively effecting millions of people at the moment.
Anyone seen our Prime Minister or Chancellor doing anything useful lately?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I thought the Prime Minister resigning was pretty useful.
Not doing anything is far
Not doing anything is far more useful than anything they’ve done.
Grant Shapps, a man with
Grant Shapps, a man with almost as many pseudonyms as our recently departed troll. Apparently normal in business. Not fraudulent, in any way…
Have we as humans got that more powerful than in the days of the horse? Our bicycles have become better, lighter (though my newish ultimate commuter is double that lightweight hardtail on offroad.cc) and with more gears, but we haven’t increased that much with power, incrementally maybe, not by orders of magnitude. Unlike motor vehicles. And an horse, let alone an horse and carriage are much heavier.
After doing a bit of looking up, after some confusion, because it’s not unknown for an average cyclist to put out a third of an horsepower, 750W being one HP, and WvA being able to produce 2, it would seem that an horse can put out fifteen HP. Obviously not an SI unit…
A horse.
A horse.
Unless you mean an ‘orse.
The odd one when I looked at
The odd one when I looked at this a while back was A history and AN historic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-62493165
Ms Staunton said: “Collision investigators state that Dunnachie failed to look properly.
“He entered the roundabout when it was unsafe to do so directly into the path of the motorbike.
“The inattention of Dunnachie has resulted in the death of Mr Wyatt.”
Brian Cooney, defending, told the sentencing that it was an “extremely tragic accident.”
The lawyer added: “It has been extremely unfortunate to where the motorbike is struck as to what then happened.
I don’t believe a cyclist would get off with:
banned from (driving) cycling for two years and three months.
He was also ordered to carry out 210 hours of unpaid work and will be tagged for six months, keeping him indoors overnight.