Passers-by lift car off injured Wirral cyclist; Ethan Hayter signs for Team Ineos; Argon 18 and Astana part ways; Velolife wins Cycling Café award; Goldsmith on Hammersmith Bridge closure; Stevenage cycling crackdown + more on the live blog

danhopgood wrote:

"It doesn't make much sense to allow perception of risk to guide decision making as people are notoriously bad at assessing different levels of risk. "

People are indeed bad at assessing risk, but perception does affect decision making .  Metormophosing again into a struggling shopkeeper in the centre of Hull, if my old lady customers say they're scared of coming into town because of cyclists on the pavement, sure as hell I'm going to tell the authorities to do something about it.  The authorities may just about still have enough resources left to action that request.

Being scared of young people , regardless of whether they're "foreign types"  (which should be irrelevant) can be an issue, especially when they congregate in numbers.  Resources to deal with anti-social behaviour that is what people are presumably concerned about are woefully inadequate and there have been deaths as a result - an incident with a chap trying to look after his car springs to mind.  Solutions to that I suggest are bigger than a cycling specific discussion like this should try and handle. 

Again, the answer is to answer the perceived risk with actual statistics.

e.g the little old lady who's scared of "foreign types " ("They're trying to steal my handbag!") should be either educated or ignored - banning sub-groups from an area due to made up reasons is jsut a ridiculous way of proceding. If there is a large incidence of mugging in that area, then more policing/CCTV is the logical way to deal with it - it's almost like we pay the police so that people can feel safer going about their business.

It's also short-sighted to think that cyclists (or indeed "foreign types") are never customers, so unless the scared old lady spends a LOT of money, it'd be better for the shop-keeper to put up some bike racks and start selling coffee.

danhopgood wrote:

But the danger does exist.  One or two people have been  killed and seriously injured.  If you're an old lady and a close passing cyclist makes you think you're at risk of falling - which sometimes results in hip fractures - the complications of which are often fatal - that's real.

One or two, well precisely FOUR in seven years, pedestrians are more at fault for their own deaths when colliding into a cyclist.(see the exceprt from the 2018 report into dangerous cycling) The danger comes more from at fault pedestrians AND indeed at fault mobility scooter operators than people on bikes.

Please can you quote the at fault injury numbers for the whole country, I think the last I saw there were 47 serious injuries in the year, how many of them were at fault cyclists the paper didn't reflect.

On the basis of actual harm done we should ban people on foot from town centres, ban people on foot attending soccer matches, or ban soccer fullstop would be better quite honestly.

Banning cycling and indeed heavy handed police actions is misplaced if we go on basic facts of where the harm in our society is coming from.

" pedestrians are more at fault for their own deaths when colliding into a cyclist"

That sounds like victim blaming to me and I don't think is a fair statement regarding the report you refer to.   

There are good reasons why cycling is not allowed in some areas.  One example :

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jun/11/police-hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham

I don't get your point about banning people on foot from town centres.  There are numerous sources of harm to pedestrians - one of which is being hit by a cyclist.  In managing risk it makes sense to ban cycling in the highest risk areas and carry out enforcement.  That includes areas of some town centres.

Rick_Rude wrote:

That GT.....TAKE MY MONEY!

GT needs to offer a 24 version.

carlosdsanchez wrote:

Mmmm, tractor drafting. It is dangerous, but it's also a lot of fun. The farm machinery drivers around here have wised up to it though, now they give you a massive berth when overtaking which doesn't give you the opertunity to tuck in behind them.

On a more serious note, the cyclist is taking all the risk by doing the drafting, they are the only ones that are going to be injured if something goes wrong. If the driver of the tractor behaves in reckless manor, it's everyone else that is put at risk and not themselves.

Except when it does all go horribly wrong, you have a road closed for several hours, a tractor driver who is most likely deeply traumatised as are any witnesses and the family of the victim. Front line emergency services personnel taken away from other incidents, cost to the NHS and society as a whole etc etc.

Really, isn't it one of those things that you so obviously shouldn't do? Even while wearing a helmet like the rider in the clip.

True story: I was a passenger in a car, the truck in front came to an emergency stop and we did likewise, stopping with inches to spare. The truck then reversed and my friend was too slow to react, the trailer scraped it's way up the bonnet, compressing the front suspension, one of which exploded before coming to a stop almost level with the windscreen. We weren't wearing cycle helmets so were lucky to escape unhurt. Truck driver at fault, but I'm pretty sure that only helps with an insurance claim, it doesn't stop injuries from maiming you or death from killing you.

Mungecrundle wrote:

carlosdsanchez wrote:

Mmmm, tractor drafting. It is dangerous, but it's also a lot of fun. The farm machinery drivers around here have wised up to it though, now they give you a massive berth when overtaking which doesn't give you the opertunity to tuck in behind them.

On a more serious note, the cyclist is taking all the risk by doing the drafting, they are the only ones that are going to be injured if something goes wrong. If the driver of the tractor behaves in reckless manor, it's everyone else that is put at risk and not themselves.

Except when it does all go horribly wrong, you have a road closed for several hours, a tractor driver who is most likely deeply traumatised as are any witnesses and the family of the victim. Front line emergency services personnel taken away from other incidents, cost to the NHS and society as a whole etc etc. Really, isn't it one of those things that you so obviously shouldn't do? Even while wearing a helmet like the rider in the clip. True story: I was a passenger in a car, the truck in front came to an emergency stop and we did likewise, stopping with inches to spare. The truck then reversed and my friend was too slow to react, the trailer scraped it's way up the bonnet, compressing the front suspension, one of which exploded before coming to a stop almost level with the windscreen. We weren't wearing cycle helmets so were lucky to escape unhurt. Truck driver at fault, but I'm pretty sure that only helps with an insurance claim, it doesn't stop injuries from maiming you or death from killing you.

Did you find out why the truck driver stopped and reversed?

carlosdsanchez wrote:

On a more serious note, the cyclist is taking all the risk by doing the drafting, they are the only ones that are going to be injured if something goes wrong. If the driver of the tractor behaves in reckless manor, it's everyone else that is put at risk and not themselves.

That's a rather narrow view which doesn't take account of the effect on the tractor driver who even though they would be blameless in any accident may nevertheless be pretty traumatized by the experience as well might any following traffic. There might even be knock on effects from the initial crash caused by the cyclist endangering other road users although I can't imagine what at the moment.
It's not always just about risk to the individual.

Wiltsrider wrote:

Wow, amazed they found anyone cycling in Stevenage to cause annoyance! On my numerous visits over the years to my home town to see the family I have literally seen a handful of people cycling on the fantastic cycling infrastructure. 'If you build it, they will still stay in their cars'. And yes, when I lived there I did cycle to school, on a Raleigh RSW16, which you would think would put me off cycling for life.

Likewise, an avid cross Stevenage commuter in the 90s and 00s.  No one else on the network allowing me to race across the town only emerging to road level to look at the signs (the cycle routes have minimal wayfinding). Currently teaching a mate to cycle and using the Stevenage inf as a resource.  Evidence of commuters using the cycle parking at the stn but otherwise - minimal use.

On the matter of tailgating - to help with my  speed training I used to tailgate the Pizza Hut moped riding delivery guys who use the Stevenage cycle routes.  30mph in the dark is thrilling - not all of the delivery guys were too happy but some say it as fun.

Samtheeagle wrote:

Wiltsrider wrote:

Wow, amazed they found anyone cycling in Stevenage to cause annoyance! On my numerous visits over the years to my home town to see the family I have literally seen a handful of people cycling on the fantastic cycling infrastructure. 'If you build it, they will still stay in their cars'. And yes, when I lived there I did cycle to school, on a Raleigh RSW16, which you would think would put me off cycling for life.

 

Likewise, an avid cross Stevenage commuter in the 90s and 00s.  No one else on the network allowing me to race across the town only emerging to road level to look at the signs (the cycle routes have minimal wayfinding). Currently teaching a mate to cycle and using the Stevenage inf as a resource.  Evidence of commuters using the cycle parking at the stn but otherwise - minimal use.

On the matter of tailgating - to help with my  speed training I used to tailgate the Pizza Hut moped riding delivery guys who use the Stevenage cycle routes.  30mph in the dark is thrilling - not all of the delivery guys were too happy but some say it as fun.

Presumably your response was 'well get off the f**king cycle routes then'?

Kendalred wrote:

Samtheeagle wrote:

Wiltsrider wrote:

Wow, amazed they found anyone cycling in Stevenage to cause annoyance! On my numerous visits over the years to my home town to see the family I have literally seen a handful of people cycling on the fantastic cycling infrastructure. 'If you build it, they will still stay in their cars'. And yes, when I lived there I did cycle to school, on a Raleigh RSW16, which you would think would put me off cycling for life.

 

Likewise, an avid cross Stevenage commuter in the 90s and 00s.  No one else on the network allowing me to race across the town only emerging to road level to look at the signs (the cycle routes have minimal wayfinding). Currently teaching a mate to cycle and using the Stevenage inf as a resource.  Evidence of commuters using the cycle parking at the stn but otherwise - minimal use.

On the matter of tailgating - to help with my  speed training I used to tailgate the Pizza Hut moped riding delivery guys who use the Stevenage cycle routes.  30mph in the dark is thrilling - not all of the delivery guys were too happy but some say it as fun.

Presumably your response was 'well get off the f**king cycle routes then'?

Unbelievably the Council changed the bye law and allowed mopeds to use the cycle ways, and put up signs to that effect too.

danhopgood wrote:

Sorry, but pedestrians have been seriously injured or killed after collisions with cyclists riding on footpaths.   Not many, but they have. 

Fining every cyclist cycling on any footpath would be out of balance in my view, but I don't have a problem with enforcement of dangerous cycling.   I don't want cyclists to be pigeonholed as a bunch of hypoctites.

Then you enforce that dangerous cycling, not ALL cycling, don't you?

(I haven't noticed any instances of "Dangerous motorists are a problem, therefore we will ban all motorists from this area" recently...)

brooksby wrote:

danhopgood wrote:

Sorry, but pedestrians have been seriously injured or killed after collisions with cyclists riding on footpaths.   Not many, but they have. 

Fining every cyclist cycling on any footpath would be out of balance in my view, but I don't have a problem with enforcement of dangerous cycling.   I don't want cyclists to be pigeonholed as a bunch of hypoctites.

Then you enforce that dangerous cycling, not ALL cycling, don't you?

(I haven't noticed any instances of "Dangerous motorists are a problem, therefore we will ban all motorists from this area" recently...)

Hmm. I struggle a bit with this. Ok, maybe it shouldn't be a police priority, but in principle I don't have a problem with enforcing a pedestrianised zone, even for considerate cyclists. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Can careful, considerate motorists use it too as long as they don't hit anyone?      

quiff wrote:

Hmm. I struggle a bit with this. Ok, maybe it shouldn't be a police priority, but in principle I don't have a problem with enforcing a pedestrianised zone, even for considerate cyclists. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Can careful, considerate motorists use it too as long as they don't hit anyone?      

I'm with you on this one quiff, should it be a police priority?  Probably not.  But should it be enforced?  Yes, otherwise people will start taking liberties with it.  Well if cyclists can cycle in a pedestrian zone where they are prohibited from cycling, then someone can ride their motorbike in a safe and curteous manner through the zone, because if they ride at 5mph through it I could easily avoid virtually any incident.  No?

I am a firm believer that where the law says something it should apply without favour or fear to all that it is designed to apply.  Just because we are classed as vulnerable road users doesn't mean we are exempt from laws.

brooksby wrote:

Then you enforce that dangerous cycling, not ALL cycling, don't you?

(I haven't noticed any instances of "Dangerous motorists are a problem, therefore we will ban all motorists from this area" recently...)

Interesting opinion brooksby.....

But am I not right in thinking the reason so many areas in towns are pedestrianised are largely to do with removing the risks posed by motor vehicles? 

So unless you live somewhere that there are absolutely no pedestrian only zones then I think you might be telling porky pies......

craigstitt wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Then you enforce that dangerous cycling, not ALL cycling, don't you?

(I haven't noticed any instances of "Dangerous motorists are a problem, therefore we will ban all motorists from this area" recently...)

Interesting opinion brooksby.....

But am I not right in thinking the reason so many areas in towns are pedestrianised are largely to do with removing the risks posed by motor vehicles? 

So unless you live somewhere that there are absolutely no pedestrian only zones then I think you might be telling porky pies......

I had always presumed that the pedestrianised areas were to make the shopping areas more amenable (not sure if that's the right word, but you know what I mean) rather than to remove the Dangerous Motor Vehicles.

I'd actually meant more that you don't see roads being closed to all motor traffic for ever and ever, after there's been a RTC there.

danhopgood wrote:

Sorry, but pedestrians have been seriously injured or killed after collisions with cyclists riding on footpaths.   Not many, but they have. 

Fining every cyclist cycling on any footpath would be out of balance in my view, but I don't have a problem with enforcement of dangerous cycling.   I don't want cyclists to be pigeonholed as a bunch of hypoctites.

Where I live - a town of 26,000 - there's an online blog run by a local bloke. He markets it as a local news site. He's very anti-bicycle and often runs alarmist 'articles' about people in the town being menaced by them. He really, really hates bicycles. His experience doesn't match mine ( I walk a lot and see a lot) so I challenged him to come up with hard facts and data to support his views. I gave him a lot of leeway - anything involving a bicycle, death, serious injury or injury and reports of dangerous or even mildly annoying riding - going back as long as he liked. He came up with one report from a newspaper. The article was over 100 years old (you can see how desperate he was to find something). And yet he maintains bicycles are a constant and serious threat to the well-being of the local population. Bonkers. Trouble is, too many people believe his rubbish.   

"Trouble is, too many people believe his rubbish."   

Dobbo996,

How pedestrians think of those cycling irresponsibly in pedestrianised areas is a bit like being close passed by traffic when on a bike.  I haven't been hit by a close passing car (yet) but feel threatened regularly..... how things are perceived matters.

danhopgood wrote:

 

"Trouble is, too many people believe his rubbish."   

Dobbo996,

How pedestrians think of those cycling irresponsibly in pedestrianised areas is a bit like being close passed by traffic when on a bike.  I haven't been hit by a close passing car (yet) but feel threatened regularly..... how things are perceived matters.

Exactly. You can argue that the risk of serious injury is lower when hit by a bike than car, but I'm not sure that's adequate justification for running the risk of incidence.