Road Casualties 2009
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brian Watson on 21 Jul 2010 16:31 <nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:i26kk9$sk8$1(a)smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk... > If a cyclist is inflicted with a road layout where ALL interactions > are conflicts, a fairly typical commuter will have 100 driver/cyclist > conflicts a day. That means one aggressive incident a fortnight. > Now, let's say that 90% of them are merely intimidating, and 99% > involve at most only minor injury or damage. Again, plausible in > my experience. That means that such an unfortunate cyclist can > expect to have one not-minor incident every two years. > > That ain't funny. I recognise that is a major increase of threat since I last cycled regularly. However, even back then I would dismount and pull my bike onto the pavement and walk for a bit until I was past the hazard if I felt in danger. There is an attitude in SOME cyclists that legal Right Is Might, whereas Discretion Is The Better Part Of Valour in terms of avoiding getting hurt (or worse). Road use has ALWAYS required common sense, as well as the law, by ALL road users. -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." www.imagebus.co.uk/shop
From: nmm1 on 21 Jul 2010 16:40 In article <zOqdnSy_N5ilxNrRnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brian Watson <Brian(a)imagebus.co.uk> wrote: > >> If a cyclist is inflicted with a road layout where ALL interactions >> are conflicts, a fairly typical commuter will have 100 driver/cyclist >> conflicts a day. That means one aggressive incident a fortnight. >> Now, let's say that 90% of them are merely intimidating, and 99% >> involve at most only minor injury or damage. Again, plausible in >> my experience. That means that such an unfortunate cyclist can >> expect to have one not-minor incident every two years. >> >> That ain't funny. > >I recognise that is a major increase of threat since I last cycled >regularly. Few routes are quite as bad as the above. Unfortunately, some of them are. >However, even back then I would dismount and pull my bike onto the pavement >and walk for a bit until I was past the hazard if I felt in danger. That's not always a viable option. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Nick Finnigan on 21 Jul 2010 18:10 Tony Raven wrote: > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: >> On 20 Jul 2010 20:31:16 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Sadly, in 2009, there was the first child cyclist fatality in London >>>> since 2004. A young lad was killed by a policeman driving a fast moving >>>> police car, with lights but no siren, as the child was cycling across a >>>> pedestrian crossing. >>> It would probably be inappropriate to ask why somebody was cycling >>> across a pedestrian crossing, wouldn't it? >> >> I don't know if it was a toucan crossing, I do know that it was a >> child. > > Not exactly - well a 16 year old child. What we do know is it is > reported the police car that hit him was doing 60mph in a 30mph limit > and didn't stop at a red crossing light and had blues and not twos on. > It wasn't a toucan crossing but a normal pedestrian light crossing at > which it was said the victim had a green light. I would not say it was a 'normal' pedestrian crossing, in that it is exactly on the line of Wakefield Road. Whilst there appear to be measures to stop cars etc continuing along Wakefield Road towards Ron Leighton Way, there does not seem to be any legal prohibition, and certainly horses, pedal cycles and motorcycles can physically make their way to the junction, where there are no give way lines for traffic on Wakefield Road, and no sensible alternative but to cross Rod Leighton way at the pelicon.
From: Brian Watson on 22 Jul 2010 03:27 <nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:i27m0d$qc6$1(a)smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk... > In article <zOqdnSy_N5ilxNrRnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, > Brian Watson <Brian(a)imagebus.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> If a cyclist is inflicted with a road layout where ALL interactions >>> are conflicts, a fairly typical commuter will have 100 driver/cyclist >>> conflicts a day. That means one aggressive incident a fortnight. >>> Now, let's say that 90% of them are merely intimidating, and 99% >>> involve at most only minor injury or damage. Again, plausible in >>> my experience. That means that such an unfortunate cyclist can >>> expect to have one not-minor incident every two years. >>> >>> That ain't funny. >> >>I recognise that is a major increase of threat since I last cycled >>regularly. > > Few routes are quite as bad as the above. Unfortunately, some of > them are. > >>However, even back then I would dismount and pull my bike onto the >>pavement >>and walk for a bit until I was past the hazard if I felt in danger. > > That's not always a viable option. No, but it nearly always is, and anticipation helps where there are Pedestrian Protection Railings (tm) in place. -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." www.imagebus.co.uk/shop
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 22 Jul 2010 17:39
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:27:36 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >On 21 Jul 2010 09:41:32 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >>were saying: >> >>> In London more cyclists are killed on green by drivers running a red >>> light than the other way round. But even then they make up a tiny >>> proportion of the cyclist deaths most of which are caused by lorries >>> turning across cyclists and either crushing them under the back wheels >>> or crushing them against the railings. None of those would be helped >>> one iota by a helmet. >> >>Very true. They would, however, be helped massively by those same >>cyclists pausing to think - even briefly - about what the hell they're >>doing going down the left of an HGV at lights. > >Probably cycling along a feeder lane to an ASL box that some cretin in >the council failed to realise would be a death trap. > >Guy Hello Porky - there's a couple of questions for your to answer in unnm. Of course by answering them you will incriminate yourself; best not to. -- "I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets." Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page: "This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004. |