Car hire firm Sixt slammed for Twitter post making fun out of hitting cyclists

andyzoo wrote:

But are these cycling accidents caused by cars, or just accidents? 

Motorists are pretty much the same the world over, around 3/4 of cycling incidents/injuries are considered to be motorists solely at fault. When you account for the fact that even the police have a slanted view as to responsibility you can bet that that figure is higher.

Take death of cyclist reported recently, motorist comes alongside cyclist, motorist strikes cyclist, investigstion decrees they cannot determine who was to blame despite the passenger stating they saw the cyclist ahead and then they were alongside so it's 'accidental' death. Same for Michael Mason, despite riding lawfully, he was mown down from behind at speed, police blamed him for not having hi-vis despite having legal lights in a well lit street so well lit that pedestrians at the side of the road saw him.

Are there cases were cyclists have been the sole cause of their own deaths/injuries through negligence, recklessness and/or dangerous riding solely, absolutely. These cases are a tiny number compared to the innocent being killed/maimed by motorists.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

German comedy has never really broken out into the mainstream....

Mein Hund jagte immer Leuten auf dem Fahrrad hinterher, bis ich ihm das Fahrrad wegnahm!

vonhelmet wrote:

Germany has 19,000km of segregated infrastructure? Blimey, that’s a lot.

I actually meant to correct my comment about how cycling injuries would scale with cycling numbers. I’d expect the two to increase up to a point, beyond which drivers would be so used to dealing with cyclists... 

... and more drivers would be cyclists themselves, and know regular cyclists, and there'd be more fit-for-purpose cycling infrastructure (as opposed to gutters guarded by white paint that cause punctures or punishment passes/abuse).

vonhelmet wrote:

Germany has 19,000km of segregated infrastructure? Blimey, that’s a lot.

I actually meant to correct my comment about how cycling injuries would scale with cycling numbers. I’d expect the two to increase up to a point, beyond which drivers would be so used to dealing with cyclists that the rate of increase would drop.

There might be 19000km of segregated infrastructure, but these are definitely not in the cities.  My guess is that these are tracks along roads connecting villages.

As far as I know there are currently no protected bike lanes in any cities in Germany except of two "experiments" in Cologne and Berlin, both started this year. The current state is just paint on the road and shared paths on the sidewalks. 

Drivers are also some of the worst of the countries that I cycled in (Germany, UK, Spain, France, Italy). The car is pretty much the king in Germany and once a German is in his car nobody else matters any more.

Berlin also has the same problem as London where three quarters of cyclists killed are run over by turning lorries.

I am German and living in Barcelona and used to complain about drivers and infrastructure here, but after checking out the other countries it now is my favourite place to ride.

I really don't understand what is going on in Germany, they have a very high cycling mode share and used to be fairly green, but now the focus is just on cars and protecting that local industry.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Here's another snapshot, injuries of cyclists over 30,000/year. Yes their modal share is higher than the UK but despite segregation, despite more people cycling than using cars compared to UK the supposed effect of cycling in numbers, segregation and indeed helmet wearing (which is massively high in Germany), added to the compulsary reflectives on tyres or spokes etc etc their cycling deaths/injuries are ridiculously high.

On the worst days of the year 1/3 to 2/5 of all personal injuries on the roads in Germany are cyclists.

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Service/Traffic/TrafficAccidents.html

You cannot make a direct proportional comparison to total miles cycled/modal share, not when those other important fators should be having a huge positive safety effect. 

You surely _have_ to account for the number of miles cycled or number of journeys or number of cyclists, or some such metric, when comparing injury rates, because otherwise you'd invariably conclude that the safest region or countries were those where there are no cyclists.

And I don't really believe, you of all posters, believe that 'helmet wearing' 'should be having a huge positive safety effect'!

Germany might be crap for cycling, I don't know.  It does appear to be German car firms that have been working hard to defeat efforts to control emissions levels, after all.   As far as I'm concerned only the Netherlands even comes close to a sensible road transport policy (and even they don't go far enough for my taste).

PS I'm surprised the cat-lovers haven't had anything to say about this advert.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 

 

PS I'm surprised the cat-lovers haven't had anything to say about this advert.

As someone who has lost a beloved cat in this manner, I have been biting my tongue.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Here's another snapshot, injuries of cyclists over 30,000/year. Yes their modal share is higher than the UK but despite segregation, despite more people cycling than using cars compared to UK the supposed effect of cycling in numbers, segregation and indeed helmet wearing (which is massively high in Germany), added to the compulsary reflectives on tyres or spokes etc etc their cycling deaths/injuries are ridiculously high.

On the worst days of the year 1/3 to 2/5 of all personal injuries on the roads in Germany are cyclists.

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Service/Traffic/TrafficAccidents.html

You cannot make a direct proportional comparison to total miles cycled/modal share, not when those other important fators should be having a huge positive safety effect. 

 

You surely _have_ to account for the number of miles cycled or number of journeys or number of cyclists, or some such metric, when comparing injury rates, because otherwise you'd invariably conclude that the safest region or countries were those where there are no cyclists.

Yes, anyone looking to compare KSIs by region should really make some attempt to account for differing levels of exposure to the source of risk, and that means lookign at things like modal share, journey numbers/miles etc. Methodology may vary here, but Dr Rachel Aldred at Westminster Uni recently did this: https://twitter.com/RachelAldred/status/1045950801708027904 

slow_going wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Here's another snapshot, injuries of cyclists over 30,000/year. Yes their modal share is higher than the UK but despite segregation, despite more people cycling than using cars compared to UK the supposed effect of cycling in numbers, segregation and indeed helmet wearing (which is massively high in Germany), added to the compulsary reflectives on tyres or spokes etc etc their cycling deaths/injuries are ridiculously high.

On the worst days of the year 1/3 to 2/5 of all personal injuries on the roads in Germany are cyclists.

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Service/Traffic/TrafficAccidents.html

You cannot make a direct proportional comparison to total miles cycled/modal share, not when those other important fators should be having a huge positive safety effect. 

 

You surely _have_ to account for the number of miles cycled or number of journeys or number of cyclists, or some such metric, when comparing injury rates, because otherwise you'd invariably conclude that the safest region or countries were those where there are no cyclists.

 

Yes, anyone looking to compare KSIs by region should really make some attempt to account for differing levels of exposure to the source of risk, and that means lookign at things like modal share, journey numbers/miles etc. Methodology may vary here, but Dr Rachel Aldred at Westminster Uni recently did this: https://twitter.com/RachelAldred/status/1045950801708027904 

 

 

That's really interesting actually. I would think her data would be pretty good. She's very highly respected in the road safety sector.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Here's another snapshot, injuries of cyclists over 30,000/year. Yes their modal share is higher than the UK but despite segregation, despite more people cycling than using cars compared to UK the supposed effect of cycling in numbers, segregation and indeed helmet wearing (which is massively high in Germany), added to the compulsary reflectives on tyres or spokes etc etc their cycling deaths/injuries are ridiculously high.

On the worst days of the year 1/3 to 2/5 of all personal injuries on the roads in Germany are cyclists.

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Service/Traffic/TrafficAccidents.html

You cannot make a direct proportional comparison to total miles cycled/modal share, not when those other important fators should be having a huge positive safety effect. 

 

You surely _have_ to account for the number of miles cycled or number of journeys or number of cyclists, or some such metric, when comparing injury rates, because otherwise you'd invariably conclude that the safest region or countries were those where there are no cyclists.

 

And I don't really believe, you of all posters, believe that 'helmet wearing' 'should be having a huge positive safety effect'!

 

Germany might be crap for cycling, I don't know.  It does appear to be German car firms that have been working hard to defeat efforts to control emissions levels, after all.   As far as I'm concerned only the Netherlands even comes close to a sensible road transport policy (and even they don't go far enough for my taste).

 

PS I'm surprised the cat-lovers haven't had anything to say about this advert.

Germany modal share 11%, UK modal share 2.8% Germany v UK deaths c3.5x

To the person saying there are no cycle lanes in the cities in germany, Berlin 10th, Munich 15, Hambourg 17th best cycling cities in the WORLD according to Copenhagenize https://drive.google.com/file/d/163u8UTKWve0pn_xd6Y637xqXK-AhSiI3/view

Cycle 'routes' are said to add up to 70,000km incl 200 'long distance' routes, whether this includes the 19,000km of segregated I don't know.

AllesGerma states "There is a vast number of dedicated cycle lanes in German cities, for which many German cyclists take the cycling laws/etiquette very seriously. If you are a pedestrian, walk in a cycle path at your peril – you run the risk of being bombarded with the noise of bells or getting yelled at"

In fact I was talking about German cycle infra only last month on the CUK forum, where someone had either visited Germany or they worked there, there was a huge and wide segregated lane next to a major road in the middle of one of the cities.

What we can conclude is that despite tens of thousands of cycle lanes of any sort which is a shit ton more than the UK and despite vastly more cycling (which should have a big positive effect according to Smeed's law) Germany has no better rate of cycling fatalities, overall according to the EU road safety commission, Germany is more dangerous on the roads than the UK (which I did state roads not just cycling)

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

They drive recklessly/dangerously with impunity in the UK.

Sad but true.

 

And yet Germany has a worse driving record with respect to road KSIs, as does pretty much every country in Europe and the rest of the world. Not that that makes UK drivers/driving that good but it also shows you that despite perceptions the reality is that people in motors, even in supposedly cycling havens like Netherlands are fucking dangerous and can and do take lives or impart life changing injuries.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

They drive recklessly/dangerously with impunity in the UK.

Sad but true.

 

And yet Germany has a worse driving record with respect to road KSIs, as does pretty much every country in Europe and the rest of the world. Not that that makes UK drivers/driving that good but it also shows you that despite perceptions the reality is that people in motors, even in supposedly cycling havens like Netherlands are fucking dangerous and can and do take lives or impart life changing injuries.

Bit like the saying about democracy.  British drivers are the worst in the world, apart from all the others.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

They drive recklessly/dangerously with impunity in the UK.

Sad but true.

 

And yet Germany has a worse driving record with respect to road KSIs, as does pretty much every country in Europe and the rest of the world. Not that that makes UK drivers/driving that good but it also shows you that despite perceptions the reality is that people in motors, even in supposedly cycling havens like Netherlands are fucking dangerous and can and do take lives or impart life changing injuries.

I was trying to find numbers for KSI per capita or per miles travelled in various countries, but couldn’t find it offhand. You’d expect countries with larger populations and higher rates of cycling to suffer more deaths, just by virtue of the numbers cycling.

vonhelmet wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

They drive recklessly/dangerously with impunity in the UK.

Sad but true.

 

And yet Germany has a worse driving record with respect to road KSIs, as does pretty much every country in Europe and the rest of the world. Not that that makes UK drivers/driving that good but it also shows you that despite perceptions the reality is that people in motors, even in supposedly cycling havens like Netherlands are fucking dangerous and can and do take lives or impart life changing injuries.

I was trying to find numbers for KSI per capita or per miles travelled in various countries, but couldn’t find it offhand. You’d expect countries with larger populations and higher rates of cycling to suffer more deaths, just by virtue of the numbers cycling.

2016 showed a huge 8.5% increase in cycling deaths and despite no increases in cycling deaths have remained unmoved over a longer period.

Overall road deaths (not just cyclists) is poor and 382 cycling deaths is terrible.

You would expect countries with more cycling and more segregated infra (19,000 km of it to be precise) to have far FEWER deaths, or do you not believe in the protection of cycling in numbers and that segregation of cyclists is a failure?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You would expect countries with more cycling and more segregated infra (19,000 km of it to be precise) to have far FEWER deaths, or do you not believe in the protection of cycling in numbers and that segregation of cyclists is a failure?

Without trying to claim that Germany's roads are very safe (although I live in Germany, and my experiences cycling are generally better than the UK), this is just wrong, because it confuses absolute numbers with rates. If you double the cycling rate, and the absolute numbers of KSI goes up by 1.5 times, then the rate of KSI has <i>fallen</i>. If you have a very high cycling modal share, you will expect high absolute KSI rates merely by virtue of the fact that lots of people are doing it and some of them will have accidents. This does not mean that the risk of injury to any individual cyclist has gone up and in fact it may have fallen dramatically.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

They drive recklessly/dangerously with impunity in the UK.

Sad but true.

 

And yet Germany has a worse driving record with respect to road KSIs, as does pretty much every country in Europe and the rest of the world. Not that that makes UK drivers/driving that good but it also shows you that despite perceptions the reality is that people in motors, even in supposedly cycling havens like Netherlands are fucking dangerous and can and do take lives or impart life changing injuries.

 This is the road fatality rate from 2013, with data compiled by the WHO. Things haven't changed so much in Germany or the UK;

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/road_safety/road_traff...

Germany had about 4.6 road deaths/100,000 of population compared with 2.9/100,000 of population for the UK.

Have a look at the figures for Thailand. They are shocking.  Italy's road death rate is about twice that of the UK and bear in mind that the two countries have similar population levels. A curiosity is why Belgium's road death rate is about twice that of the Netherlands just next door, and higher than either France or Germany too, which are also neighbours. Of note is the poor US record for road safety, with more than three times the risk of the UK at 10.6 fatalities/100,000 of population.

To give some context, the UK and German road fatality rates have been about the same for the last five or six years, with little improvement. But anyone who thinks there were 'good old days' when things were safer, well that wasa  very long time ago indeed. In 1979 for instance, the UK road fatality rate was about 6,300/year, compared with about 1,750 for the last five years. The peak was in the early 1970s. I don't have the German figures to hand but they also hit a peak in the early 70s. And the road fatality rate in the UK for the last five years has been better than when records began, in 1949.

OldRidgeback wrote:

A curiosity is why Belgium's road death rate is about twice that of the Netherlands just next door, and higher than either France or Germany too, which are also neighbours.

Having cycled through a chunk of Belgium on the way to Amsterdam this year, I'm not surprised. The Belgian drivers are worse, and there's less protected space for cyclists.

Both better than England though, I actually think the massive congestion here helps as speeds are lower. So fewer fatalities.