Not a rant about cyclists - just a question

Nasqueron

NeilCr wrote: »

Couldn't agree more NBLondon. Well said.

Very much my experience of being a pedestrian in a London. My two nearest misses were cyclists going fast - one the wrong way down a one way street.

Just last week I had to avoid a van driving the wrong way up a one way street to avoid having to do a big detour to do a delivery. Do we want to continue with meaningless anecdotes? I have twice been hit by cars, one who turned right across the road into me and one who pulled out of a roundabout into me. I am wary of all road users when walking, cycling or driving but I am also rational enough to know that the 2 tonne lump of metal doing 30mph is more dangerous than a 100kg cyclist/bike doing 15mph who can easily swerve or stop in 2-3m

NeilCr wrote: »

Nor am I anti cyclist. I have plenty of friends who cycle and are considerate of cars, pedestrians and themselves. It does seem it may be a London thing - perhaps it's the faster pace of life there but there are a significant number of cyclists who only care about themselves.

In the UK with the "I pay road tax, it's my road" brigade who take pleasure in cyclist injury you absolutely must only care about yourself

NeilCr wrote: »

And while the TfL figures state that they aren't going to take account of the (very) narrow and scary misses. Which, in my experience, are much more weighted towards cyclists who can weave in and out at speed with little regard for those left behind.

Now you're just being silly. Do you honestly think that if 70-80% of KSI accidents are caused by cars, that the majority of near misses are somehow not going to be cars?

NBLondon

Nasqueron wrote: »

If the best you can do is personal anecdotes in the face of statistical research based on actual recorded data then I'm done.

It works for me. Statistics can only show what was reported and recorded - they do not provide magical unarguable proof.

Cars kill more than 1 pedestrian a day (450 or so a year on average) and as I said, 70-80% of KSI incidents involving red light jumping road users are car drivers.

And you have to use the right statistics for the argument. I'm not talking about KSI because I haven't been killed. Nor am I just talking about red lights - what about zebra crossings?

Fear bikes all you like, it will be a car that hits you.

I don't fear them - I'm wary of them - it was bikes that hit me.

I see far more cars jumping red lights (or speeding up on amber) and driving unsafely than bikes on my commute.

Would everybody else like my discussion on the different forms of "jumping" red lights again? I see plenty of cars speeding through on amber or just turned red - I don't see any overtaking already stopped traffic and speeding through unless they have blue lights and two-tone sirens on. Maybe austerity means the Sweeney are now all on Boris Bikes ?

Let's be honest that's the exception, not the norm, again single anecdotes

Observed repeatedly over a 3 year period on one particular hill. Multiple cyclists. Possibly the same individuals doing it repeatedly. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Nasqueron wrote: »

I am wary of all road users when walking, cycling or driving but I am also rational enough to know that the 2 tonne lump of metal doing 30mph is more dangerous than a 100kg cyclist/bike doing 15mph who can easily swerve or stop in 2-3m

Which is why when I'm driving a tonne and a half of metal and plastic, I'm aware of that too.

Now you're just being silly. Do you honestly think that if 70-80% of KSI accidents are caused by cars, that the majority of near misses are somehow not going to be cars?

Non sequitur.
Still not the right statistic for the argument I'm making and no conclusion could be drawn anyway. Near Misses are not reported or recorded. It's possible that cars cause the majority of KSI incidents because - as you correctly point out - the impact/effect of a collision is far greater and that cyclists cause the majority of Near Misses and Minor Unreported Injuries because the number (not actually known) of such incidents is an order of magnitude greater.

The fact that there are plenty of arrogant, careless, dangerous drivers out there does not give cyclists carte blanche to be arrogant, careless and dangerous in turn.

Nasqueron

NBLondon wrote: »

It works for me. Statistics can only show what was reported and recorded - they do not provide magical unarguable proof.

You haven't got any evidence. Just meaningless anecdotes. Argument is over, facts win over unproven opinions.

NBLondon wrote: »

I see plenty of cars speeding through on amber or just turned red - I don't see any overtaking already stopped traffic and speeding through unless they have blue lights and two-tone sirens on. Maybe austerity means the Sweeney are now all on Boris Bikes ?

Watch dash cam compilations on youtube, this happens so often it's not funny. That and driving on pavements to avoid queues etc

NBLondon wrote: »

Still not the right statistic for the argument I'm making and no conclusion could be drawn anyway. Near Misses are not reported or recorded. It's possible that cars cause the majority of KSI incidents because - as you correctly point out - the impact/effect of a collision is far greater and that cyclists cause the majority of Near Misses and Minor Unreported Injuries because the number (not actually known) of such incidents is an order of magnitude greater.

So you don't have any evidence to support your claims? So we can ignore them safely? Good.

NBLondon wrote: »

The fact that there are plenty of arrogant, careless, dangerous drivers out there does not give cyclists carte blanche to be arrogant, careless and dangerous in turn.

Didn't say it did. Just pointing out focusing your anger on a minority of issues which, as you admit, did not cause injury, rather than car drivers who kill and seriously injure daily is the wrong priority

NeilCr

Nasqueron.

To help us with going forward with this discussion please do tell us what your experience of cycling in London actually is. Both NBLondon and I have spent twenty years as pedestrians and have actually experienced these incidents. Not relying on stats which are, at the best, flawed.

And, yes, I do think that many of the unreported incidents of close shaves are down to cyclists. Can you prove otherwise?

Johnmcl7

NeilCr wrote: »

Nasqueron.

To help us with going forward with this discussion please do tell us what your experience of cycling in London actually is. Both NBLondon and I have spent twenty years as pedestrians and have actually experienced these incidents. Not relying on stats which are, at the best, flawed.

Wow, I don't actually know how to respond to that...stats can certainly be flawed but that doesn't mean personal anecdotes anything more than completely worthless in every way as at least with statistics a measured approach has been taken to gather and analyse the data.

I completely agree with Nasqueron that if you're going to take personal anecdotes and opinion over factual and statistical data then there's nothing to discuss as that's a completely nonsense approach. It's exactly the same approach that the anti-vaccination/anti-science/flat earth movements follow by believing what they see over actual factual evidence and data.

Incidentally while having this discussion, another cyclist was killed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45196376

At least they didn't have a near miss with a cyclist though, that could have been really bad for them!

John

NeilCr

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Wow, I don't actually know how to respond to that...stats can certainly be flawed but that doesn't mean personal anecdotes anything more than completely worthless in every way as at least with statistics a measured approach has been taken to gather and analyse the data.

I completely agree with Nasqueron that if you're going to take personal anecdotes and opinion over factual and statistical data then there's nothing to discuss as that's a completely nonsense approach. It's exactly the same approach that the anti-vaccination/anti-science/flat earth movements follow by believing what they see over actual factual evidence and data.

Incidentally while having this discussion, another cyclist was killed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45196376

At least they didn't have a near miss with a cyclist though, that could have been really bad for them!

John

Well, indeed.

Statistics can say lots of things but you need to look behind them

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/07/number-pedestrians-fatally-seriously-injured-cyclists-has-doubled/

No-one wants to see anyone killed or injured and your link is awful and very sad. Do we know whose fault it was?

Both NBLondon and I are posting from our own personal experience (which is all most of us can do). From that (some) Uber cyclists think they are above the law. Help me out- what is your experience of cycling in London and how do you see it from a cyclists point of view?

And, definitely, worth a read

https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf

NBLondon

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Wow, I don't actually know how to respond to that...stats can certainly be flawed but that doesn't mean personal anecdotes anything more than completely worthless in every way as at least with statistics a measured approach has been taken to gather and analyse the data.

I completely agree with Nasqueron that if you're going to take personal anecdotes and opinion over factual and statistical data then there's nothing to discuss as that's a completely nonsense approach.

And as said above - you have to collect the correct data to address the argument that you think you have to "win". Personal experience is factual. It is not disproven by other facts that suit your agenda better. It's the conclusion that you might be able to challenge - by offering alternative or more measured observations. Of the same raw data please. Notice also that I regularly use the words "seems" and "appears" rather than project assumptions onto other people's thought processes. Nor do I assert that things don't happen if I haven't seen them - merely that I haven't seen them. I don't dispute that other people see them but I focus my self-preservation on risks/hazards I have seen.

esuhl

NBLondon wrote: »

And as said above - you have to collect the correct data to address the argument that you think you have to "win". Personal experience is factual. It is not disproven by other facts that suit your agenda better.

But it is STILL anecdotal. One swallow does not a summer make.

As the popularity of cycling increases, many pedestrians simply aren't aware of cyclists. You see it in the way that people cross the road. Some wander across without looking for oncoming vehicles assuming that they'd be able to hear them. Or people "look but don't see".

If you've ever been to Amsterdam, perhaps you've experienced the "shock" that you need to look out for cyclists as well as motorists.

I've seen clips of insane cycling in London, so I sympathise if you've been unlucky. But there are so many more dangerous driver on the roads than cyclists... and they're likely to cause a lot more damage in a tonne of metal than on a 15kg bike.

NeilCr

esuhl wrote: »

I've seen clips of insane cycling in London, so I sympathise if you've been unlucky. But there are so many more dangerous driver on the roads than cyclists... and they're likely to cause a lot more damage in a tonne of metal than on a 15kg bike.

But it is still our experience (and, to be honest, those of my ex colleagues, too) that, in London, there are a significant number of Uber cyclists who think they are above the law. As I've said before, that is absolutely not the case where I live now - nor when I lived in Essex. Nor, as I stated in an earlier post, am I anti cyclist.

No-one is arguing that there aren't dangerous drivers, too. Worth pointing out, though, that at least (in the overwhelming number of cases, anyway!) from a pedestrian's pov they are on the road. In London there are a number of cyclists who will happily cut corners by riding on the pavement (and quickly). This isn't about trying to get out of the way of dangerous traffic (I do sympathise with this) but to avoid a red light or a one way system and to get from A to B as fast as they can.

Both NBLondon and I worked in London for quite a number of years so while this may be anecdotal (an anecdote is often about one incident) we are talking about a considerable period. As far as I can tell none of the "cyclist" respondents in this part of the discussion have spent time cycling in London.

ETA.

On the red light question. Yes cars do it a lot but it is at the point when the lights are changing/have just changed. I am in no way condoning that - most pedestrians are aware this happens, though, and give it a few seconds before crossing. Your London Uber cyclist will sometimes fly through a red light after it has been red for a while. Much harder to predict - and deal with - as a pedestrian!

reason2

statistics are grossly misleading lets not forget.
A lot of red light jumping by motorists is caught by camera.
These cameras do not catch cyclists.

Equally more cars may cause injury than cyclists but as with anything else, where there is a massive ratio difference, IE lets say 25,000 cyclists to every 250,000 cars, you will obviously get a higher percentage in favor of the more common type.

Additionally, more cyclists wear cameras than cars have dash cams.
They also cleverly edit their footage to show what they want to show.

But attacking people for their personal experiences is ridiculous.
I see, id say, 80% of cyclists on my journey to work jump lights, pull out in front of cars without looking, mount pavements and expect pedestrians to jump in to the roads to let them past.

But because this is my personal experience i have to dismiss it?

OP asked for this not to become Car vs Cyclist argument but yet (as usual might i add) a cyclist jumped in to defend all cyclists and express how motorists are always to blame and so it began.

Quite simply though, both are as dangerous as each other in various ways.
If you personally experience positive cyclists, great.. it doesnt mean they are all great ( in big cities they often arent)

and the common argument i hear is, if a car goes through a red light its more dangerous than a cyclist. Well, it isn't, a cyclist plowing through can cause significant damage if it causes a collision, or if a death from hitting a cyclists occurs causing mental damage for years to come, nor is being lesser of two evils a valid excuse to break to the law.

equally not all motorists are as portrayed on here.