Not a rant about cyclists - just a question

Nasqueron

reason2 wrote: »

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.

Recorded evidence from a public body like TfL is much more reliable than someone's (obviously biased and anti-cycling) recollection of events. I see drivers jump red lights daily let alone those who speed up on amber and other dangerous moves. Meaningless anecdotes are not evidence of anything. A driver will moan about being behind a bike for 30 seconds yet says nothing about a 10 minute queue of heavy traffic, which causes more delays?

Even if 1 in 1000 cars and 1 in 2 bikes jump red lights which is going to cause more injury - a cyclist of around 100kg on a small bike who can easily navigate and turn around people or a 1.5 tonne car that is huge and turns like a brick?

OP stated it wasn't a driver Vs cyclist post but immediately made it one.

Nobody is excusing cyclists jumping lights but rather pointing out the fallacy of ranting about cyclists who rarely cause injury while ignoring the massive problem of death and injury caused by cars.

A cyclist jumping a red light largely risks their own life, a car risks the lives of everyone around them, focusing on bikes just shows the ulterior motive of anti cyclist posts.

NeilCr

Nasqueron wrote: »

Recorded evidence from a public body like TfL is much more reliable than someone's (obviously biased and anti-cycling) recollection of events. I see drivers jump red lights daily let alone those who speed up on amber and other dangerous moves. Meaningless anecdotes are not evidence of anything. A driver will moan about being behind a bike for 30 seconds yet says nothing about a 10 minute queue of heavy traffic, which causes more delays?

Even if 1 in 1000 cars and 1 in 2 bikes jump red lights which is going to cause more injury - a cyclist of around 100kg on a small bike who can easily navigate and turn around people or a 1.5 tonne car that is huge and turns like a brick?

OP stated it wasn't a driver Vs cyclist post but immediately made it one.

Nobody is excusing cyclists jumping lights but rather pointing out the fallacy of ranting about cyclists who rarely cause injury while ignoring the massive problem of death and injury caused by cars.

A cyclist jumping a red light largely risks their own life, a car risks the lives of everyone around them, focusing on bikes just shows the ulterior motive of anti cyclist posts.

And there we have it.

None of us me, reason2 or NBLondon are "ranting" about cyclists. We are expressing our own experiences of some cyclists in certain situations (cities) over a long period of time. Hardly "meaningless anecdotes". We have been at pains to point out that we are not anti cyclist - we recognise that cars are a major danger - we have explained situations where, we as pedestrians have generally found that cyclists pose a a real problem.

And this is the response.

Again, please help us with your real experiences of being a cyclist in a major city like London over a considerable period of time. Which is what we are talking about - not googling statistics.

ETA.

I assume you are happy to dismiss as "meaningless anecdotes" my comments about having no such issues with cyclists where I live now - or, indeed, when I lived in Essex

Johno100

Nasqueron wrote: »

Recorded evidence from a public body like TfL is much more reliable than someone's (obviously biased and anti-cycling) recollection of events.

But if I remember correctly the TfL survey in question was deeply flawed as it counted amongst those complying with the signals those cyclists who reached a signal that was on green and rode through it. Such methodology is of course going to give a misleading figures for the percentage who jumped a red light.

NBLondon

Johno100 wrote: »

But if I remember correctly the TfL survey in question was deeply flawed as it counted amongst those complying with the signals those cyclists who reached a signal that was on green and rode through it. Such methodology is of course going to give a misleading figures for the percentage who jumped a red light.

Well - not as long as they also counted the number of motor vehicles that went through on green as complying - and both groups were given a percentage of comply/not comply. Though I bet it didn't discriminate between different forms of non-compliance.

Even if it was an amazingly accurate and professional survey - it doesn't actually address most of the issues I've raised and NeilCr has concurred. It just serves to deflect the debate in favour of other people's pre-conceptions and biases.

Johno100

NBLondon wrote: »

Well - not as long as they also counted the number of motor vehicles that went through on green as complying - and both groups were given a percentage of comply/not comply. Though I bet it didn't discriminate between different forms of non-compliance.

I believe it was only a survey of cyclists.

Nasqueron

Johno100 wrote: »

But if I remember correctly the TfL survey in question was deeply flawed as it counted amongst those complying with the signals those cyclists who reached a signal that was on green and rode through it. Such methodology is of course going to give a misleading figures for the percentage who jumped a red light.

The data I was referring to was TfL data on the number of people who were KSI as a result of any vehicle jumping a red light which showed bikes were extremely low, 9 or 11% I can't recall which and cars were upwards of 70% possibly 80% edit found it, cyclists were 4% drivers 71%. Various nonsense claims on this thread have tried to suggest that somehow despite the vast majority of accidents being caused by cars, somehow more cyclists are jumping red lights...

Regardless of numbers, no sane person would argue that we need more action against cyclists for causing such a tiny amount of injuries (and I suspect the number of deaths was 0 or 1 a year) when drivers kill hundreds of pedestrians a year and thousands in car accidents.

Nasqueron

NeilCr wrote: »

And there we have it.

None of us me, reason2 or NBLondon are "ranting" about cyclists. We are expressing our own experiences of some cyclists in certain situations (cities) over a long period of time. Hardly "meaningless anecdotes". We have been at pains to point out that we are not anti cyclist - we recognise that cars are a major danger - we have explained situations where, we as pedestrians have generally found that cyclists pose a a real problem.

And this is the response.

Again, please help us with your real experiences of being a cyclist in a major city like London over a considerable period of time. Which is what we are talking about - not googling statistics.

ETA.

I assume you are happy to dismiss as "meaningless anecdotes" my comments about having no such issues with cyclists where I live now - or, indeed, when I lived in Essex

Look I'm not going to bother responding any more as you clearly don't understand what evidence is. You stating you saw xyz is not meaningful data to determine anything, you could have made it all up for all we know, that is why it's a meaningless anecdote. Someone submitting a paper for publication in a journal would be laughed out of the office for using personal anecdotes as proof of their claims, it's such a common mistake it's even on the fallacy chart (anecdotal evidence fallacy) because it's so ridiculous.

2 people claiming they saw stuff without a shred of evidence is not the basis for making laws and if you can't see or understand why such an idea is so laughable then there's no helping you. Numerous posts on here are clearly anti cycling rants coupled with a throwaway line about not hating cyclists, on a par with the line "I'm not racist but..."

TfL have gathered lots of evidence from going out in the field and doing proper qualified research which is backed up by review and independent bodies, their evidence can be trusted (even though you don't like the fact it disproves your posts). You are trying to dismiss evidence based facts because they don't agree with your world view of cyclists being evil dangerous thugs, yet you cannot provide any evidence beyond some vague memories.

Many thousands of people claim they have been abducted by aliens or that we never went to the moon or George Bush planned 9/11, going by your argument we should accept their views as perfectly valid in spite of the actual evidence these ideas are false. Do you see how ludicrous such a stance is?

Here is actual data gathered by CTC from TfL. Actual data mind, facts, statistics etc

Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does. As an organisation representing those two road user groups, CTC suggests IAM ought to call for more road traffic policing to enforce traffic laws, rather than highlighting red light jumping by cyclists

I don't ride in London incidentally, but I gather plenty of cars on camera breaking the law both from my car dash cam and my bike helmet cam. Red light jumping is a daily occurrence on camera (ignoring the number who don't slow down for amber which adds up to a lot more). However if you have any evidence beyond meaningless anecdotes then please feel free to post it.

Johno100

Nasqueron wrote: »

Regardless of numbers, no sane person would argue that we need more action against cyclists for causing such a tiny amount of injuries (and I suspect the number of deaths was 0 or 1 a year) when drivers kill hundreds of pedestrians a year and thousands in car accidents.

It's not mutually exclusive you can take action in respect of both. I don't see how any sane person could object to simple changes to some sections of the Road Traffic Act to include cyclists.

Take the story in the news today re the electric bike collision in Dalston.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-fighting-for-her-life-after-cyclist-hit-and-run-in-east-london-a3921976.html

Surely you must agree that it is absurd that the cyclist broke no law by fleeing the scene of the collision whereas the driver or rider of a proper motorised vehicle would be guilty of an offence that could result in up to six months in jail?

[Deleted User]

Personally I cannot use the term "cyclist " to include those people who sit atop a very heavy cumbersome contraption who "assist " the forward motion by a vague pedaling action using very little energy from the rider.
The two machines are chalk and cheese. The electric bike is likely to do much more harm in a collision due to its speed and mass. Users of these vehicles are certainly NOT in the classification of cyclists.
The term "motorist " is more suitable because the vast majority of its energy is driven by a battery powered electric motor.
The rider can lazily spin the cranks using just a few watts of his own power which would only propel the vehicle at the legal minimum of 3.7 mph walking pace only.
if it was `nt for help of an electric motor a person on an electric bike would nt be going fast enough ..so the person in my view is a "motorist "definitely NOT a cyclist so IMO the motorist broke the law in fleeing the scene of an accident when he hit the lady on his two wheeled electric motor vehicle.. Many motorists do this every day of the week somewhere in the UK as they hit and run, but that is what they have been doing since the invention of the motor vehicle. Killing people and driving off
Motor vehicles have killed more people than died in world wars over the years

unholyangel

Houbara wrote: »

Personally I cannot use the term "cyclist " to include those people who sit atop a very heavy cumbersome contraption who "assist " the forward motion by a vague pedaling action using very little energy from the rider.
The two machines are chalk and cheese. The electric bike is likely to do much more harm in a collision due to its speed and mass. Users of these vehicles are certainly NOT in the classification of cyclists.
The term "motorist " is more suitable because the vast majority of its energy is driven by a battery powered electric motor.
The rider can lazily spin the cranks using just a few watts of his own power which would only propel the vehicle at the legal minimum of 3.7 mph walking pace only.
if it was `nt for help of an electric motor a person on an electric bike would nt be going fast enough ..so the person in my view is a "motorist "definitely NOT a cyclist so IMO the motorist broke the law in fleeing the scene of an accident when he hit the lady on his two wheeled electric motor vehicle.. Many motorists do this every day of the week somewhere in the UK as they hit and run, but that is what they have been doing since the invention of the motor vehicle. Killing people and driving off
Motor vehicles have killed more people than died in world wars over the years

To be classed as an electric bike (or EAPC - electrically assisted pedal cycle) rather than a motorbike, the motor cannot assist when you're travelling at speeds of 15.5mph and above. There are other requirements in addition to that and likewise, if not met then its classed as a motorbike.

People on pedal cycles (not EAPCs) can attain speeds in excess of 30mph. So not sure why you think they wouldn't be able to get to such speeds without the electric assistance.

As for the weight.....you get electric bikes ~15kg. You get those with detachable motors with the motor only weighing about 2-3kg. The weight of the rider can vary by much much more than 3kg.