You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So article on the Beeb with Grant Shaps saying that cyclists do not face tough enough sentences when killing pedestrians.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62444889
Am I missing something but doesn't manslaughter cover this off already? Also why aim for this particular scenario? Figure 3 on the page below shows a total of 0 pedestrians killed by cyclists and lots of cyclists killed.
In fact you'll note it states, in relation to chart 4...
Very few other road users are killed in collisions with pedal cyclists or pedestrians (5 and 0 respectively in 2020).
Now this is only for 2020 but does seem as though Grant is at best attempting to pass a pointless law, at worst vilify cyclists.
Tories have no doubt decided or discovered that most cyclists don't vote Tory.
And that a lot of tories (along with most other people) hate cyclists. Not many are going to be against the idea. They won't be interested in the data or how really, really insignificant it is they will still back the idea.
He said it will "impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care".
Expect laws regarding speed limits for bikes.
DM front page article opens with words 'killer cyclists..'
No, I don't read that excuse for a paper; daily front pages are part of my newsfeed.
It's clickbait; irresponsible drivel intended to appeal to those who are already prejudiced against cyclists and the hard of thinking.
On the very rare occasions cyclists kill pedestrians, they already tend to get far harsher penalties than drivers.
This is just more populist clickbait, the last desperate throes of the worst Government we've ever had.
Populist ****s.
Maybe an attempted distraction from
Rishi Sunak tells Tory members of his work diverting public funds from ‘deprived urban areas’
Tory leadership contender Rishi Sunak has told Conservative party members he had been working to divert funding from “deprived urban areas” towards more prosperous towns.
The former chancellor said he had started changing public funding formulas to ensure more prosperous towns receive “the funding they deserve”.
The New Statesman magazine, which obtained video revealing Mr Sunak’s remarks, said they were made to grassroots Tories in Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, on July 29, as part of his campaigning for the Tory leadership.
Tories have no doubt decided or discovered that most cyclists don’t vote Tory.
That about sums it up. Play to their core, sod everyone else.
On the very rare occasions cyclists kill pedestrians, they already tend to get far harsher penalties than drivers.
This. If you want to kill someone then doing it using a car in an 'accident' is the easiest and the most penalty-free way of doing it.
So long as car/lorry drivers who kill many cyclists every year with a weapon get equally suitable sentences -5-10 years in the jail. Prisons will soon be over loaded.
Have you read the FB comments on the recent highway code changes? The Karens/Tory voters are gonna love this.
That is a pathetically weak story and very poor journalism. Where was the challenge - how many cases in the last 10 years could Shapps cite a person (who was riding a bike at the time) who kills another person being given a sentence of 'only' two years where the judge would have prefered to give a longer one if possible?
This is presumably just a virtual reach around for your typical Daily Mail comment writer. Tory ****ing politicians and, even worse, tory ****ing voters that they are giving a leg trembler to.
From what I recall, pretty much every case of a cyclist causing a fatal accident thats come to trial has lead to them receiving a significant custodial sentence.
If the same level of judicial rigor was being applied to drivers I'd be fairly sanguine about it, but since so many of them get away with a slap on the wrist this does come across as pure red meat for the Daily Mail crowd and bugger all to do with any actual real world problems.
It's ok guys just tell them you need your bike for work and you'll be on your way home with just a fine in no time
desperate headline grab by man in fear of his job come September.
I'm quite happy to get equal punishment in order to get equal rights and respect.
The article maybe needed figures for the number of people killed by cyclists each year versus the number killed by drivers.
3 people killed by cyclists, 112 cyclists killed by drivers, last year alone. About 1850 drivers killed by other drivers every year.
So they are frustrated that cyclists 'only' get a max of 2 years in prison.
And yet, killing a cyclist while over the speed limit, on your phone, uninsured and stoned out of your tree only gets you 21 months.
https://road.cc/content/news/drug-driver-sentenced-21-months-killing-cyclist-295005
So yup, a terrible government delivering terrible policies to pander to the terrible misinformed prejudices of the most terrible people in the country in a desperate bid to distract from the fact they have no idea how to solve any actual problems facing us.
Great
That is a pathetically weak story and very poor journalism.
That depends whether you see journalism as:
(a) a process by which factual information is diligently discovered, impartially presented and rationally discussed; or
(b) a process by which media controllers push either their own political agenda or that of an invested party.
Anyway… Tory politicians being arseholes, the media dressing them up in sensational populism, and media consumers being bigoted bell ends? Plus ça change; I give it about 30 seconds until that state of affairs comes round again.
Or (c) a process in which a position is adopted which produces the best story.
It won't make any difference, It's just Shapps scrabbling for something that makes him look popular.
It's OK they're just in electioneering mode focused on the miserable fraction of the population that currently control their destiny's. Its merely a demonstration of aligned hatred, gesture politics "look we hate the same outlier groups that you do" (at least the ones they can still openly admit to)...
Considering the thread we had the other day an easy counterpoint to put to Grant would be; when will the government tackle phone use by drivers? Mobile use behind the wheel probably claims more lives and causes more injuries than bicycles ridden into Peds (?) and detection rates (anecdotally) are abysmal.
If transport safety is genuinely something they care about, there's some substantially bigger issues for them to tackle IMO, except of course my opinion isn't the one that matters currently...
Laura Laker wrote a well-researched article for The Guardian in 2018. It includes:
"Simply put, a 1,000kg car moving at 22mph will have 50kJ of energy; a 15kg bike with a 70kg rider at the same speed has less than one-tenth of that. Commuter cyclists tend to ride a lot slower, though, while most drivers travel faster. The likelihood of killing someone is far greater when driving a car than riding a bike."
Linky (may include a request for donation): Killer cyclists? Let’s not forget the real threat on our roads
I have checked the figures; they seem right to me.
Even if the cyclist was nailing it at 30mph, a 1000kg car at 22mph would still have seven times the energy. A 38 ton lorry at 22mph would have over two hundred.
1000kg is very light for a car these days. VW golfs are 1200 to 1600. Kia e-Niro is 1800 kg.
Harrison Jones wrote an article for the Guardian in 2018. It includes:
"In 2015, two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by bicycles. According to the Daily Telegraph, three pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2016, with its statistics suggesting such collisions were increasing.
More than 100 cyclists are killed and 3,000 seriously injured on British roads each year, according to government statistics."
Linky (may include a request for donation): Death by dangerous cycling offence to be introduced – reports
And yet, killing a cyclist while over the speed limit, on your phone, uninsured and stoned out of your tree only gets you 21 months.
Which will equate to 10.5 months lock up, still at least they hit him with a long driving ban before he’s allowed on the road.(not)
But still them hordes of death delivering cyclists hurtling around dispatching innocent pedestrians like ‘just eat’ for Death.
Does do my head in this shite attempted to be served up.
Ah I forgot to do my usual fun fact statistic that I like to do when we get into the threat of death by cyclist for perspective.
In 2021 there were 633 deaths due to choking not sure of the deaths caused by cyclist that year but your more likely to die due to that hobnob that you didn’t dunk enough at breakfast than by a furious cyclist.
But still them hordes of death delivering cyclists hurtling around dispatching innocent pedestrians like ‘just eat’ for Death.
Funny you should mention just eat, I reckon the most likely cause of 2 wheeled death round our way are the deliverooist on Heath Robinson "e-bikes"; a Chinese hub motor, all the laptop batteries you can possibly gaffa tape to a pannier and a thumb throttle, they do not pedal but they can easily top 30 uphill (in our 20 limit area).
Essentially it's the old unregistered/regulated motorbike thing again, except they're delivering vital transfats to suburbia so the rozzers ignore them, that and privately owned e-scooters are increasingly all over the place...
Its probably not bicycle collision with Peds that they need to worry about, the number of twist'n'go electrically propelled dickheads is definitely on the increase. And they've really not bothered to enforce/police the crap rules they put in place there either...
It's things like this make me wonder about emigrating to the Denmark or the Netherlands and taking my income tax payments with me.
It's fine. I'll just claim the sun was in my eyes, the pedestrian didn't pay tax or have a number plate and looked a bit foreign and the jury will let me off and probably buy me lunch.
Red meat to appease their voter base. Nothing of substance to see here.
So yup, a terrible government delivering terrible policies to pander to the terrible misinformed prejudices of the most terrible people in the country in a desperate bid to distract from the fact they have no idea how to solve any actual problems facing us.
That needs copying and pasting to all the political threads
Don't rise to the bait - agree with cyclists having equal consequences to drivers, and that's one less item for the bike bingo card.
Government by bear baiting, hurrah.
The elderly couple on our road asked me to pop into ASDA (a shop I don't like) and purchase a DM for them. On seeing the huge front page rant about cyclists going around murdering pedestrians, I was raging all the way back home.
A few of my relations detest people who cycle, this kind of written rubbish just fuels their fire and I'm nearer to having a heart attack.
The elderly couple on our road asked me to pop into ASDA (a shop I don’t like) and purchase a DM for them. On seeing the huge front page rant about cyclists going around murdering pedestrians, I was raging all the way back home.
A few of my relations detest people who cycle, this kind of written rubbish just fuels their fire and I’m nearer to having a heart attack.
It's hate speech and vitriol and really really needs to stop. When the great unwashed constantly read it they believe and emotionally attach to it
The elderly couple on our road asked me to pop into ASDA (a shop I don’t like) and purchase a DM for them.
I was asked to do that once, I had to stuff it into another paper to hide it in case anyone saw.
Don’t rise to the bait – agree with cyclists having equal consequences to drivers, and that’s one less item for the bike bingo card.
Yeah, that was my thinking, too. The quaint old 'cycling furiously' thing is stupid and in need of updating.
Shapps is a moron but this seems like a sensible change wrapped up in some populist anti-cycling propaganda that most of his gammon fans will lap up today and forget about tomorrow.
Obviously this is mostly just a bit of red meat to throw to conservative voters. However, there are plenty of spectacularly stupid cyclists who really do deserve to be prosecuted and e-bikes/electric motorbikes will only make that worse. I'm glad this guy wasn't killed, but he really does deserve to be prosecuted for his stupidity.
https://twitter.com/Instantregretes/status/1556149178593865728
... agree with cyclists having equal consequences to drivers, and that’s one less item for the bike bingo card.
It's not the same at all though. All the legislation around driving exists because it's an inherently dangerous activity requiring the highest of standards to prevent many thousands of deaths. The same does not apply to riding a bike.
The narrative that drivers and cyclists should be treated equally doesn't make any practical sense. It only exists as a means to vilify a group of people. Supporting that narrative by accepting it, is detrimental in itself.
After delivering the DM to the elderly neighbours (both know I cycle a lot), I made sure that they knew this was badly written. Journalism at its worst. They shyly said they only want the weekend edition because it contains The telly guide.
“Simply put, a 1,000kg car moving at 22mph will have 50kJ of energy; a 15kg bike with a 70kg rider at the same speed has less than one-tenth of that. Commuter cyclists tend to ride a lot slower, though, while most drivers travel faster. The likelihood of killing someone is far greater when driving a car than riding a bike.”
Except most vehicles (including passengers etc) weigh far more than 1000kg.
And cows, we need to ban cows as they kill upwards of 5x the number of people cyclists do.
This will give the Karens down the local woods another thing to screech at anyone daring to ride a bike there.
The same Karens that let their mutts run around of the lead shitting everywhere.
Tories appealing to intolerant arseholes. What’s new?
It’s hate speech and vitriol and really really needs to stop
I did a Teams presentation at work describing the abuse, threats and actual assaults I'd encountered while going about my normal daily activities and asked people what they thought it was for - they assumed it was racist or homophones. They were surprised it was because I was on a bike.
NB - in no way trying to claim that what we go through is on a par with racism and homophobia
I stopped bike commuting after 15years of the same route as i figured this government had failed to provide me with a safe environment to do so. The spite/bile and them Vs us culture war wore me down. The Facebook/Daily Mail cycle hate comments represent the average Brit I encountered daily.
I now sit in the same traffic I used to cycle past in an old polluting 2.0litre diesel and give a virtual shrug of the shoulders.
Reading about the 'new' highway code rules to help cyclists and pedestrians on face book is showing the worse of human nature
The hatred and vitriol spouted against people who cycle is astonishing.
Many years ago I used to cycle commute to work and the abuse I got from car drivers was outrageous, with threats on my life. I'm a small woman who weighs nothing. These were always from men and always when I wanted to turn right. Happy to work from home now.
I've always said that for 'one' day only, all cyclists should get off their bikes and drive, the roads would be solidly jammed.
Many years ago I used to cycle commute to work and the abuse I got from car drivers was outrageous, with threats on my life. I’m a small woman who weighs nothing. These were always from men and always when I wanted to turn right. Happy to work from home now.
TBH I got the same for a couple of decades commuting in/around London, but I was a on a 1000cc motorbike - and 6'2" in bare feet, never mind full leathers and a crash helmet.
Tin tops just hate the ability of 2-wheelers to not get stuck in the same queues as them, don't take it 'personally'.
Reading about the ‘new’ highway code rules to help cyclists and pedestrians on face book is showing the worse of human nature
The hatred and vitriol spouted against people who cycle is astonishing.
FB isn't all of humanity, just the worst bits distilled.
This time of year is always the same for an uptick in online bicycle hate and punishment passes. It's summer, more people ride bicycles, which pisses off of those still stuck in their tin boxes, then the sun comes out and those bastards on bikes are quite clearly having a better time on top of not sitting in a jam... You can at least understand why people sat on the edge of existential dread, who don't really want to acknowledge that their PCP'd Merc is destroying their finances/health/metal wellbeing might focus all their negative energies on the outliers who have chosen the clearly better mode of transport (that day at least)...
Everyone's "brave" from behind a keyboard, or a steering wheel.
The truth is it's going to get increasingly expensive to drive any sort of vehicle regularly, or indeed fast, and a good chunk of the vocal arseholes could well find themselves pulling the old Apollo out of the shed for an enforced change of perspective.
The combination of Covid, "Fuel crisis" and a Global economic downturn could well be the best thing for cycling (as transport) in a good long while. Shame about all the other side effects.
Bertrand Russell famously said that America was 'a land where law and custom alike are based on the dreams of spinsters'.
The UK is fast becoming a land where law and custom alike are based on the dreams of gammons.
Tories have no doubt decided or discovered that most cyclists don’t vote Tory.
I wonder if that is true (or at least the corollary - most Tory's don't ride bikes - is probably not true?). Given that cycling is the new golf - it seems unlikely. BUT 1. Most cyclists don't ride bikes in manners that are likely to kill pedestrians; 2. Many cyclists are just as frustrated with shite cycling as other road users are.
Of course, if they actually wanted to tackle "nuisance" cycling (pavements in busy areas, far too fast for the conditions, jumping red lights) they could do all that with some simple old-fashioned coppers enforcing existing laws - because just as with shite driving if you are very unlikely to get caught you keep doing it, others see you getting away with it and it becomes contagious.
HOWEVER, whilst I think this is pointless headline-seeking nonsense law-making, which does nothing to make our roads safer and likely is a small step backwards in getting better safety for bikes and less car use, IF such steps are needed to make e-bikes and e-scooters more widespread then it might not actually be such a waste of time. I'm still staggered no escooter maker has managed to get gov to approve them outside the specific trials. Surely one of them has a tory donor on their board?
This is all about playing to your audience and a popularity contest.
It has nothing do with road safety, facts and real world issues.
However, there are plenty of spectacularly stupid cyclists who really do deserve to be prosecuted and e-bikes/electric motorbikes will only make that worse. I’m glad this guy wasn’t killed, but he really does deserve to be prosecuted for his stupidity
Pressed play expecting to see a cyclist-pedestrian near miss. See a cyclist ride into a car -ie ABSOLUTELY **** ALL TO DO WITH THE THREAD! (ooh, I almost shouted then).
Go ahead, bang me up for life for killing a pedestrian! Cut my nuts off with a blunt kitchen knife, I really don't care what the punishment for it is, I don't need a deterrent!
BUT 1. Most cyclists don’t ride bikes in manners that are likely to kill pedestrians
Sorry, but what an utterly stupid statement.
No one rides a bicycle in a manner likely to kill IMO.
No one rides a bicycle in a manner likely to kill IMO.
It does happen. Not saying it's common but trying to say that it never happens is ridiculous.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41028321
Sorry, but what an utterly stupid statement.
No one rides a bicycle in a manner likely to kill IMO.
I am aware of at least two cases where someone has ridden a bike in a manner that did result in the death of a pedestrian AND it resulted in prosecution - i.e. people in the police / CPS with access to the evidence believed there was a case to answer to that the rider of that bike was doing it in a dangerous manner. Now I'm not sure if your opinion is that no matter how stupidly you ride a bike it is not likely to kill a pedestrian. I can just about accept a pedantic argument on likelihoods, but its entirely foreseeable that riding a bike recklessly in areas with pedestrians is likely to result in a collision. The chances of such a collision resulting in death are perhaps not high but its far from impossible - the reason most cyclists where helmets is because the collision of your skull with a solid object at typical cycling speeds can kill. It similarly follows that impact of the unprotected pedestrian's head with yours, your bike or body has enough energy to kill. Likewise internal injuries from being hit by a bike at high speed would hardly be unlikely and could be fatal. With the rise of ebikes - the likelihood of higher speeds and greater mass in those collisions increases. Hit a frail elderly person and break their hip and you may well be accountable for their death even if it is many months later from a secondary infection.
Perhaps Grant Shapps legislation is not headline grabbing nonsense after all if it forces some cyclists to think for a moment whether they are as low risk to pedestrians as they think.
at least two cases
You mean two cases don't you.
It does happen. Not saying it’s common but trying to say that it never happens is ridiculous.
I didn't say that deaths didn't happen, I said "No one rides a bicycle in a manner likely to kill IMO.".
Try reading what I said again.
I said “No one rides a bicycle in a manner likely to kill IMO.”
IMO, this guy is a menace to the public and disproves your IMO.
https://twitter.com/Instantregretes/status/1556149178593865728
Trying to work out what he was even trying to do in that video.
What a throbber!
IMO, this guy is a menace to the public and disproves your IMO.
This video popped up on my IG so I went to his profile, the fella is a tool and deliberately swerves at oncoming traffic. When, and it is a when, he gets flattened I shall await the usual screams for the driver to be hung.
do you think he could have killed that car?
Wow, I can't believe the taxi driver managed to survive that collision!
I read it again. Are you saying that:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56320121
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62153644
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spectator-killed-watching-downhill-mountain-12653866
None of those were likely to happen? I think the court decided differently in each case.
You mean two cases don’t you.
No I meant at least two cases - the ones I could name off the top of my head. The official stats say 5 in 2019. A quick google found me another two (including the MTB one at an event which might be worth people here pausing to think about - next time some ramblers are standing by your line admiring your skills or waving their poles shouting get a bell!).
Are you honestly saying these are just purely freak accidents, and there was nothing about the riding that made them more likely to collide with and kill a pedestrian? That's car driver mentality.
They are accidents that were not helped by the riding. The same riding in many other cases would not have resulted in an accident, so it is an accident by that measure.
What I don't understand is why it's so hard to convict drivers of death by dangerous driving. That seems a much more important issue to solve, otherwise whats the point in the new law if it faces similar problems?
In this case a driver was cleared, despite DRIVING ON THE PAVEMENT and running over a 4 year old on her scooter
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/road-four-year-old-esme-12787742
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet (I might have overlooked it) is that, in a collision involving a pedestrian and a cyclist, the odds are 50/50 on who is going to come off worse. This is from just a few days ago:
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/cyclist-fighting-life-after-crash-7419134
It's difficult to find the figures on this and I think the impression is heavily skewed given that a cyclist killing a pedestrian makes national news but a pedestrian killing a cyclist barely makes regional news.
I somehow doubt pedestrians who kill cyclist through carelessness will even be prosecuted, let alone to the same extent drivers are.
What I don’t understand is why it’s so hard to convict drivers of death by dangerous driving
Because presumably the jury couldn't determine that he met the criteria for a charge of Dangerous Driving. ( i think it's a 2 part question, was it dangerous? And would an average Joe recognise it as dangerous?)
In the particular case, it doesn't say he was driving on the pavement, and the article says that the road is now a one way, which suggests to me that he probably mounted the pavement to get out of the way of an oncoming car/vehicle and knocked over the girl killing her- but I'm guessing, I don't know either way. But a jury didn't think he was guilty and presumably they saw what actually went on?
What I don’t understand is why it’s so hard to convict drivers of death by dangerous driving.
Because most jury members will be drivers and unlike say murder are likely to think "I could have done that" and hence consider it not dangerous.
Another one from a few months ago. I'm sure there are a lot more that we just don't hear about.
No I meant at least two cases – the ones I could name off the top of my head. The official stats say 5 in 2019. A quick google found me another two
Do you memorise and investigate people killed by cars in the same manner? You should post a list of those too, once you've done your google investigations, like.
do you think he could have killed that car?
If his bike had hit a pedestrian, they could easily have been injured or killed. It's ridiculous to argue that no cyclist ever endangers other people, some cyclists are utter dicks.
If his bike had hit a pedestrian, they could easily have been injured or killed. It’s ridiculous to argue that no cyclist ever endangers other people, some cyclists are utter dicks.
You forget to mention that the taxi driver could have swerved into a bus stop full of OAPs, toddlers, and bunnies.
But yes, cyclists have killed pedestrians by acting like utter dicks (and also by just riding along and having a lapse in concentration).
But also, pedestrians have killed cyclists by acting like utter dicks (and also by just walking along and having a lapse in concentration).
In addition, cyclists have killed cyclists by acting like utter dicks (and also by just riding along and having a lapse in concentration).
And I can't be sure about this but I'm pretty sure that pedestrians must have killed pedestrians by acting like utter dicks (and also by just walking along and having a lapse in concentration).
I'm not sure why you're getting so hung up on one particular vulnerable group killing another vulnerable group here when the total number of all the scenarios listed above are pretty much insignificant compared to the multiple different road users killed and seriously injured every day by motorists.
You could try to ride your bike in a way that was likely to kill a pedestrian all day every day. The chances of you actually killing a pedestrian are pretty low unless you specifically target the elderly and there's still no guarantee you'll manage to do it.
The problem is that, like I said, in any collision between a bike and a pedestrian it's 50/50 who is going to come off worse.
So yeah, you could go out and try to kill or injure pedestrians but the fact is you'd be killed or injured yourself before you'd managed to bag more than 1 or 2.
You could literally run over pedestrians all day in your car and you would be absolutely fine.
I know which I would choose out of my car, motorbike or (one of many) bicycles I own if I was to go out and try and kill a ped so that statement whilst contrived is actually true I expect.
No one rides a bicycle in a manner likely to kill IMO.
The likelihood of killing someone, even whilst riding like a a complete knobber is low, compared to driving like a complete knobber which is higher
That kid crashing in to the taxi
- wouldn't call himself a cyclist
- is underage, so wouldn't be liable for the penalties talked about in the OP
- only endangered himself of getting some scabs on his hands and knees
- so posted twice and still totally irrelevant.
You could try to ride your bike in a way that was likely to kill a pedestrian all day every day. The chances of you actually killing a pedestrian are pretty low unless you specifically target the elderly and there’s still no guarantee you’ll manage to do it.
Most traffic accidents crashes are actually low probability events, but there are millions of cars on the road so that low probability turns into a fairly large number of deaths.
The problem is that, like I said, in any collision between a bike and a pedestrian it’s 50/50 who is going to come off worse.
In a head-on crash, the smaller vehicle or person comes off much worse because of conservation of momentum. If a 2000 kg vehicle and a 1000 kg vehicle collide at 100 km/h, the wreckage will be travelling at 33 km/h in the direction of the larger vehicle. The smaller vehicle will have changed velocity by 133 km/h, the larger vehicle by 67 km/h. The energy absorbed by the smaller car will be 4x the larger car. If a 100 kg bike and cyclist hit a child, the child will come off much worse than the cyclist.
If a 100 kg bike and cyclist hit a child, the child will come off much worse than the cyclist.
What if it was Geoff Capes instead of a child?
Most traffic accidents crashes are actually low probability events, but there are millions of cars on the road so that low probability turns into a fairly large number of deaths.
So what are you saying here?
That the reason there are so few pedestrians killed by people on bikes is because there aren't that many bikes on the road?
I think the Netherlands and Denmark would disagree.
If a 100 kg bike and cyclist hit a child, the child will come off much worse than the cyclist.
I'm sure the kid would*
So where are all the stories about kids being killed or injured by cyclists? Don't tell me it's a conspiracy and the papers are keeping it quiet because they're worried it'll make people on bikes look bad?
*On the other hand, a kid on a bike hitting a 100kg adult would come out of it worse so I'm not sure what your point is.
If a 100 kg bike and cyclist hit a child, the child will come off much worse than the cyclist.
Thats a pure head on crash rather than a glancing impact which is more probable assuming everyone tries a bit to dodge (unless you dodge the same way).
I had a crash with another cyclist who was going for his strava best round a blind corner and after I swerved just clipped the end of each others bars. He hit the ground hard after losing control whereas I didnt since my speed was slow enough I didnt really lose control. Would have been likely same outcome with even a pedestrian.
Glancing blow as the bars turn and then it going pearshaped for the rider.
Thats a pure head on crash rather than a glancing impact
It's the worst-case scenario. The point was that you can't assume that a cyclist and pedestrian come off equally in a crash. Bigger point is that cyclists should ride with consideration for pedestrians and other road users, deaths being rare isn't a licence to ride like a dick.
I was the ped in a ped/bike near miss the other day.
A town centre, walking along a pedestrianised high street. Lad on a bike with a deliveroo bag appeared about 2 yards in front of me at about 20 mph from a side alley. Alley was about a handlebar and a half wide steep set of a few dozen steps he'd taken full bore arriving spat out of the alley blind straight into a pedestrianused area. Then rode calmly away - clearly his standard MO to get around this bit of town. My initial thoughts in chronological order were.....1. that's some awesome skills there fella, 2. I really hope your bag is empty otherwise it's mashed, and 3. **** me if I'd be 3 steps further on it would be me mashed right now - he wasn't stopping even if he wanted to.
I'd call that riding in a manner likely to cause death/injury to a third party. Yes, he wasn't on a road, but (I think) same rules apply. To say no bike rider ever rides in a manner that might endanger another is quite frankly a deluded view with a very narrow mindset of what consistutes a cyclist. To be honest it would be bizarre if it was true - we (humans) occasionally **** up in pretty much every scenario - we're damned inventive!
To say no bike rider ever rides in a manner that might endanger another is quite frankly a deluded view with a very narrow mindset of what consistutes a cyclist.
Given its a delivery rider I would be suspicious that they werent a cyclist but were instead a motorcyclist.
Ultimately though I prefer idiots like that on a bike rather than a car. They are going to be a moron either way but on the bike its a lower risk factor.