Government opens dangerous and careless cycling law consultation

aegisdesign wrote:

The only place I've seen the figures for who was to fault in cyclist/pedestrian casualties split out is in a footnote in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-safety-review

To save everyone wading through a 37 page legaleze document here's the paragraph (15.5) and related footnote [30]:

15.5 STATS19 reported road casualty data between 2011-2016 confirms that during this period there were a total of 2,491 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians resulting in a pedestrian casualty (but not necessarily amounting to fault on the part of the cyclist): [30] 

15.5.1 20 resulted in a pedestrian fatality

15.5.2 546 resulted in a pedestrian serious injury

15.5.3 1,931 resulted in a pedestrian slight injury (6 of these cases were the same collision where there was a pedestrian serious injury)

15.5.4 44 had two pedestrian casualties and 1 had three pedestrian casualties

[30] For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error:“15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only.”

CygnusX1 wrote:

15.5 STATS19 reported road casualty data between 2011-2016 confirms that during this period there were a total of 2,491 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians resulting in a pedestrian casualty (but not necessarily amounting to fault on the part of the cyclist): [30] 

15.5.1 20 resulted in a pedestrian fatality

15.5.2 546 resulted in a pedestrian serious injury

15.5.3 1,931 resulted in a pedestrian slight injury (6 of these cases were the same collision where there was a pedestrian serious injury)

15.5.4 44 had two pedestrian casualties and 1 had three pedestrian casualties

 

I know it is not completely relevant here but does anybody know how many of these collisions resulted in a cyclist injury?

bobbypuk wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

15.5 STATS19 reported road casualty data between 2011-2016 confirms that during this period there were a total of 2,491 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians resulting in a pedestrian casualty (but not necessarily amounting to fault on the part of the cyclist): [30] 

15.5.1 20 resulted in a pedestrian fatality

15.5.2 546 resulted in a pedestrian serious injury

15.5.3 1,931 resulted in a pedestrian slight injury (6 of these cases were the same collision where there was a pedestrian serious injury)

15.5.4 44 had two pedestrian casualties and 1 had three pedestrian casualties

I know it is not completely relevant here but does anybody know how many of these collisions resulted in a cyclist injury?

Of course it's relevant. The whole consultation is apparently based on the position that there should be parity between offences for both cyclists and motorists. However, despite also being vulnerable road users, pedestrians are not included in that need for parity. 

Now obviously when they are careless, pedestrians put themselves at risk far more than they risk other road users. But the same thing pretty much applies to cyclists. The only time it might not apply involves collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, and it is this point that your question is highly relevant to. 

Unfortunately, the report and consultation does not comment on cyclist injuries. So it's impossible to say whether cyclists are fairing better, worse or the same as pedestrians when it comes to pedestrian/cyclist collisions (irrespective of fault). 

That in itself shows a certain bias in the consultation. 

CygnusX1 wrote:

aegisdesign wrote:

The only place I've seen the figures for who was to fault in cyclist/pedestrian casualties split out is in a footnote in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-safety-review

To save everyone wading through a 37 page legaleze document here's the paragraph (15.5) and related footnote [30]:

 

15.5 STATS19 reported road casualty data between 2011-2016 confirms that during this period there were a total of 2,491 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians resulting in a pedestrian casualty (but not necessarily amounting to fault on the part of the cyclist): [30] 

15.5.1 20 resulted in a pedestrian fatality

15.5.2 546 resulted in a pedestrian serious injury

15.5.3 1,931 resulted in a pedestrian slight injury (6 of these cases were the same collision where there was a pedestrian serious injury)

15.5.4 44 had two pedestrian casualties and 1 had three pedestrian casualties

 

[30] For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error:“15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only.”

Again why was it a footnote regarding pedestrians deemed to be at fault 50% more often for their deaths than the person on a bike and also why the person on a bike injuries were not mentioned nor indeed who was at fault as they seem to have the information to hand for the deaths.

FOUR deaths (including the Alliston case) where the law deemed the person riding a bike was at fault in SEVEN years. This is nowhere near the 25 given above and is not in the ball park of the 0.4/0.5% being incorrectly used by Boardman, Vine and others, it's actually closer to 0.03%, that's one in every 3000 road deaths that have been attributed to a person riding a bike being at fault for that death. 

don simon wrote:

Why do we keep going back to the Alliston case as a point of reference?

Because it was that incident that kicked it all off due to the amount of publicity and vitriol shown towards people on bikes thereafter. It was also a case were the person on a bike was judged by a different set of rules to those in motorvehicles when the same type of thing occured.

That was a watershed case, the MET police have absolutely stiched up everyone who rides a bike, they stitched up Alliston as did the CPS and the so called justice system. A trial by media in every sense of the phrase.

He was scapegoated and everything done to make sure he was done up like a kipper and from that justify the review into harsher laws for people riding bikes because apparently the old laws aren't current despite the fact they are used all the time.

The government were gutted the system couldn't/wouldn't find Alliston guilty of the manslaughter charge despite it being inappropriate anyway (as indeed was the wanton/furious cycling) so they want to crack down even more than already occurs and take the focus away from the poor old motorists.

if you can't see how important the Alliston case is with respect to what has happened since then I suggest you get someone to explain it to you in greater detail and you spend some time trying to understand the knock on effects from it because that one case is absolutely massive.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

don simon wrote:

Why do we keep going back to the Alliston case as a point of reference?

Because it was that incident that kicked it all off due to the amount of publicity and vitriol shown towards people on bikes thereafter. It was also a case were the person on a bike was judged by a different set of rules to those in motorvehicles when the same type of thing occured.

That was a watershed case, the MET police have absolutely stiched up everyone who rides a bike, they stitched up Alliston as did the CPS and the so called justice system. A trial by media in every sense of the phrase.

He was scapegoated and everything done to make sure he was done up like a kipper and from that justify the review into harsher laws for people riding bikes because apparently the old laws aren't current despite the fact they are used all the time.

The government were gutted the system couldn't/wouldn't find Alliston guilty of the manslaughter charge despite it being inappropriate anyway (as indeed was the wanton/furious cycling) so they want to crack down even more than already occurs and take the focus away from the poor old motorists.

if you can't see how important the Alliston case is with respect to what has happened since then I suggest you get someone to explain it to you in greater detail and you spend some time trying to understand the knock on effects from it because that one case is absolutely massive.

Mr Alliston must be out of prison by now: has he done any interviews or is he keeping his head down? I wonder if he still rides a bike... I wonder what his thoughts are on this (being a scapegoat and a poster boy at the same time).

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

don simon wrote:

Why do we keep going back to the Alliston case as a point of reference?

Because it was that incident that kicked it all off due to the amount of publicity and vitriol shown towards people on bikes thereafter. It was also a case were the person on a bike was judged by a different set of rules to those in motorvehicles when the same type of thing occured.

That was a watershed case, the MET police have absolutely stiched up everyone who rides a bike, they stitched up Alliston as did the CPS and the so called justice system. A trial by media in every sense of the phrase.

He was scapegoated and everything done to make sure he was done up like a kipper and from that justify the review into harsher laws for people riding bikes because apparently the old laws aren't current despite the fact they are used all the time.

The government were gutted the system couldn't/wouldn't find Alliston guilty of the manslaughter charge despite it being inappropriate anyway (as indeed was the wanton/furious cycling) so they want to crack down even more than already occurs and take the focus away from the poor old motorists.

if you can't see how important the Alliston case is with respect to what has happened since then I suggest you get someone to explain it to you in greater detail and you spend some time trying to understand the knock on effects from it because that one case is absolutely massive.

You're obviously smart enough to understand why I asked the question up until your last paragraph. Well done.

#ArroganceRocks

don simon wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

don simon wrote:

Why do we keep going back to the Alliston case as a point of reference?

Because it was that incident that kicked it all off due to the amount of publicity and vitriol shown towards people on bikes thereafter. It was also a case were the person on a bike was judged by a different set of rules to those in motorvehicles when the same type of thing occured.

That was a watershed case, the MET police have absolutely stiched up everyone who rides a bike, they stitched up Alliston as did the CPS and the so called justice system. A trial by media in every sense of the phrase.

He was scapegoated and everything done to make sure he was done up like a kipper and from that justify the review into harsher laws for people riding bikes because apparently the old laws aren't current despite the fact they are used all the time.

The government were gutted the system couldn't/wouldn't find Alliston guilty of the manslaughter charge despite it being inappropriate anyway (as indeed was the wanton/furious cycling) so they want to crack down even more than already occurs and take the focus away from the poor old motorists.

if you can't see how important the Alliston case is with respect to what has happened since then I suggest you get someone to explain it to you in greater detail and you spend some time trying to understand the knock on effects from it because that one case is absolutely massive.

You're obviously smart enough to understand why I asked the question up until your last paragraph. Well done.

#ArroganceRocks

I think you'll find that BTBS is a relative of Alliston. Totally and utterly blinkered to the realities of the case. 

Best comment I have read on the government's position on cycling in quite a while. You've very deftly explained how our sport/interest/mode of transport is politicised and the issues around it manipulated.  

dougie_c wrote:

This campaign so obviously ludicrously misses the point, that it's worth considering why a political party would launch it.

The creation of narratives to distract from the central problem is an essential part of the new politics. First masterminded by the Russian political adviser Vladislav Surkov in the 1990s, the essence of the strategy is to create guff in the public attentional space that distracts from any meaningful action that would harm the financial interests of the oligarchs invested in the status quo.

A review of cycling laws is ideal: cyclists are a vocal minority who can be guaranteed to rise to the bait, generating a false debate that avoids the central issues. Meanwhile the 25% or so of the public who have difficulty distinguishing between the numbers 2 (pedestrians killed by cyclists) and 1700 (p̶e̶d̶e̶s̶t̶r̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ people killed by motorists) are left with the hazy impression in their wobbling jelly-brains that cycling is dangerous, cyclists are lawless killers (because why else  would they be against this obviously sensible measure), and the party proposing action is protecting the public from a very real menace.

Genius!

Don't feed the troll. Or if you can't resist, make sure you attack their cynical media strategy as you do so.

Paul_C wrote:

merely knee-jerk legislation pandering to the readers of The Daily Mail...

 

doesn't help that this tit (transport minister Jesse Norman) doesn't believe that cycling is real transport...

You'd imagine even a politician could spot the contradiction between "we want to increase cycling" and " we plan to demonize cyclists*.

hirsute wrote:

I had a look here and here

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-....

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-...

 

To get pedestrians deaths caused by one or more vehicles

Year           All           Cyclists                   %

2010        403              4                            0.99

2011      450                2                            0.44

2012      424               2                              0.47

2013      398              6                               1.51

2014      443              6                               1.35

2015      404              2                               0.50

2016      438              3                               0.68

             2960            25                              0.84

 

I copied your homework ... this is the comment I left at the end of online cosultation:

This is a waste of time and effort - the number of KSIs resulting from a collision with a cyclist are low, and as shown in the Charlie Alliston case can be prosecuted under existing laws. Its worth noting he got a harsher penalty than many drivers who kill cyclists.  The real problem on our roads are the big metal boxes.

Based on the Government's own figures, the pedestrian deaths resulting from a collision involving one or more vehicles (doesn't attribute who is at fault):

Year        All           Cyclists                  %
2010      403           4                            0.99
2011      450           2                            0.44
2012      424           2                            0.47
2013      398           6                            1.51
2014      443           6                            1.35
2015      404           2                            0.50
2016      438           3                            0.68
Total    2960          25                   Avg. 0.84

We were promised an evidence based review - the evidence is there - whilst any death on our roads is tragic, the number caused by cyclists is tiny, and our efforts should be focused on the far bigger problem of poor driving.    

Make sure you all complete the consultation - the more people voice their opinion against it the better. It only took a few minutes, but hopefully its too long for the Daily Heil readers to actually bother to fill in. 

StoopidUserName wrote:

From what I understand twice as many cyclists are killed by at fault pedestrians walking into the road without looking etc than pads killed by at fault cyclists? Yet there is no law to address this, not even a Victorian one so why aren't cycling UK and the cycling media pushing for this to strike a balance?? It'll kill the current bs dead.

No, that's not true, it's that 50% more pedestrians are at fault for their death in person on a bike/pedestrian incidents than the person riding a bike. The report earlier this year did not say how many people on bikes had been killed by pedestrians though there was one recent incident were police said that the cyclist (who died) would have been charged with a traffic offence because they were the one negligent in the collision with the pedestrian.

But it seems all too easy to push the responsibility for collisions on people on bikes (see the  bullshitcharge/sentence on Alliston) yet this method/way of thinking conflicts with how police review cyclist moving into the path of a motorist incidents.

We can't win and this yet again pushes more onus on the one group to both pedestrians and with motors. It's been this way for years and we get screwed over time and time and time again with the law being applied differently.