UKC

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546709/Moment-Audi-passenger-got-c...

Amazed the cyclist didn't press charges. Pretty clear.

Got to say I don't like the boxes being all across the road and the guy is confrontational deliberately cycling in front.. by law you can do that but its clearly slowing down drivers, when a proper cycle lane and box just on that side would be better.

Not defending the audi driver, but also not a great response from the other cyclists.

I don't think we have them here.

In reply to IainRUK:
Bit of handbags on both sides, really. I would rather motorists didn't sit in the cyclists' advance position, but when I'm cycling in London, any stationary car is typically not top of my priority list of "things to worry about". I would keep my powder dry for something *really* bad, myself.

In reply to IainRUK:

Pretty shocked that the driver hasn't got a hefty bill for stoved in panels on his ugly white car

E

In reply to Enty:
Cyclist probably couldn't kick it after the driver had run over his foot.


edit: just read it again, *nearly ran over his foot*, should have kicked the door in then

In reply to Guy:

Oh I missed that bit - there'd be a few broken windows too if that was the case.

E

In reply to IainRUK:

This just goes to show how these things can escalate.

They've both been a bit of a knob here, but the driver more so.

If only people could learn to share the small road space we have the better for everyone.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

The cyclist was a dick and got what he deserved.

In reply to awwritetroops:

For what?

In reply to Tony the Blade:

The comments are funny.. cyclists and audi driver.. people don't know which side to join.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Being a dick.

In reply to awwritetroops:


Agreed in this instance

In reply to Trangia:

Driver was a proper knob, clearly just got annoyed that cyclists where using the box (properly). Why the hurry? He put his foot down, got 200m and had to wait again at another red. Muppet.

In reply to awwritetroops:

What about the driver? Was he not also being a dick?

Since when did being a dick warrant a slap?

In reply to IainRUK:

hmmm... first impression, the motorist was guilty of a lack of road-sense and selfish driving. The cyclist appeared to chase the driver, act aggressively and maybe appear to be asking for a fight (notice, he was in the company of several other cyclists to possibly back him up)?

If I'd been the cyclist on the receiving end however, I'm not sure I could have prevented my bike from damaging the car's paintwork in my taking evasive action.

In reply to JMGLondon:
Two wrongs don't make a right. The Audi broke the law, but didn't actually do any harm. The cyclist was a dick to go chasing after the Audi and invite further confrontation. What did he expect to achieve given that he had already had words with the Audi driver?

In reply to Trangia:


Yeah I agree, have a go once, but don't escalate it at the next red. But to be fair the audi driver did speed off with the cyclist inches away, pretty dangerous stuff.

However, had the cyclist opened the door of the car and start beating the driver, would we have said: the driver got what he deserved? It seems a little wrong the other way round doesn't it?

In reply to Trangia:

The cyclist got angry because illegal driving put his life a risk

The driver got angry because a cyclist got in his way and said nasty words.

The cyclist's anger led him to shout at the driver

The driver's anger led him to assault the cyclist

Anyone who thinks this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other is misguided

In reply to Trangia:

No, other than punch a cyclist, I suppose the occupants of the car didn't do any harm.

In reply to IainRUK:

As with most of the "cycle rage in london" videos, neither of them covered themselves with glory. If you go up to someone and shout in their face that they are a f##ing pr#ck then there is a reasonable chance of you getting punched. I think that is the case irrespective of the mode of transport you are on/in. The driver is in the wrong of course, both with his driving and his reaction to the cyclist's abuse, but I'm not sure what the cyclist was hoping for.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Totally agree.

In reply to IainRUK:

Pretty poor behaviour from all involved, but its not the driver that punched the cyclist its his passenger.

Fair enough for cyclist to point out drivers error in advancing in to the asl box

Just bloody stupid to chase the driver down and scream at him at the next lights.

Totally inexcusable for the passenger to assault the cyclist.

Slightly surprised the taxi driver didnt get involved after having a cyclist knocked over onto his cab

In reply to IainRUK:
Top rated comments:

Probably the same cyclist who runs red lights and cycles on footpaths.

The cyclist was provoking him. They think they own the roads.

personally i blame the cyclist, he was the one shouting his mouth off and seems a bit too big for his boots, fair play to the audi bloke for showing him the floor.

Good stuff daily mail, good stuff.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

No but the cyclist could queue up with the other cyclists.. there's a few there and none of them have felt the need to sit right in front of the audi..

I dont think its 6 of one.. but think the cyclist went out of his way to get a reaction in both incidences.

And yeah it was the passenger.. wonder who the driver was. As someone said if it was his 17 year old daughter then maybe you can understand the wish to throw a punch.. again not saying its right.

No doubt we'll find out soon..

In reply to IainRUK:

Can't condone violence of any sort for any reason but having seen the video on youtube the cyclist did hit/punch/thump? the car with his fist and was highly abusive before the attack.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm not excusing the Audi, he was clearly in the wrong

However the cyclist had ALREADY had words with the Audi, yet he chose to CHASE the Audi and confront it again. What do you imagine this going to achieve? I suggest he was being a dick for continuing to escalate the situation.

In reply to IainRUK:

Both of them idiots. Cylcist was super agressive, went looking for a fight and he got one. I don't condone violence but if you go looking for a scrap and then get put on your arse...well I'm afraid it's your own fault.

In reply to IainRUK:

The ASL line is there to allow cyclists to start ahead of the traffic - why should they queue alongside and put themselves at risk ? The driver didn't enter the ASL box by accident, they did it deliberately to impede the cyclists.

Why do cyclists get angry in situations like this ?

Well imagine you were climbing and someone was kicking rocks down on you from above. I've seen climbers get angry if its "accidental" i.e. careless, but if it was deliberate....

And then if someone said it your own fault if you get injured and your not wearing a helmet .....

In reply to Chris the Tall:




Silly example.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

No but the other cyclist didnt feel the need to start there.

As said its fine by law, but its why I dislike them. They are in the UK because of the 'us against them' attitude which now dominates.. from both sides.. I move my car once every 2-3 weeks here, everyone bikes everywhere but people would never deliberately get in the way of a car like he did.

He saw the car marginally in the box, there's plenty of space, he then rides across and pulls right in front of it. He did go looking for trouble.

I'm not a fan of drivers.. have many more issues here running than biking, but cars squeezing between the bike lane and the trams are a death risk.. I almost go clipped by one the other night.. accelerated between me and the tram.. his wing mirror was so close to striking my arm.. and yeah I chased him down and had words.. so much so he drove off through a red light..

But there's a difference between that, almost being struck at speed and the above.

In reply to IainRUK:

Front middle is a pretty good place to start - better than being wedged up against the side. In central London (as per this video), you're not really holding anyone up because the next set of lights are only 200m down the road. You can set off at your speed, then allow traffic to pass if you feel there is enough space to do so safely.

In reply to IainRUK:

I agree the cyclist was asking for it. Not an excuse, but he was looking for trouble and cycling aggressively. You see another cyclist run a red in the footage too. The roads are for all of us, but you definitely see a lot of city cyclists flaunting laws, but then getting all defensive over cycle boxes and the like. He chose the wrong car to mess with.

In reply to IainRUK:

The (cycling) Road Warrior skulked off pretty sheepishly; as if he wasn't used to someone standing up to him.

In reply to IainRUK:

"In a perfect world we'd all sing in tune, but this reality so give me some room"

Like them or not ASLs do give cyclists a vital head start at a vulnerable time. That motorist, by squeezing in like that, is saying "your life isn't worth 5 seconds of my time".

And you can be pretty sure the motorist isn't a 17 year old girl who's just past her test, though maybe a 21 year-old who'll brag about in on twitter

In reply to IainRUK:


Somewhat weakened by the fact they also exist in parts of the USA, Denmark, Ireland, Germany etc.



Or perhaps he might have been using the ASL fully?
It would render it somewhat pointless if it was only one bike thick.

In reply to Kipper:


Interesting definition of standing up.

In reply to IainRUK:
I think the cyclist provoked the incident. The driver possibly saw his exit from the lights blocked by the cyclist, so , wrongly entered the box to ensure quick passage. The other cyclists showed good road awareness by staying kerbside.
The passenger was wrong to hit him, but the cyclist provoked it. If you're going to mouth off, then you should be prepared for the consequences. He now looks foolish on the internet for not backing up his actions.
I'm glad I don't have to ever go there, let alone cycle.

In reply to Skol:

So if a legal action provokes an illegal response, the person who acted legally deserves a second illegal response for good measure.

Have you ever considered a career in law ?

In reply to Tony the Blade:

The driver didn't behave as well as he/she could have. The cyclist behaved over aggressively given the triviality of the situation. If you seek out confrontation then you have to be prepared for all the consequences.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

No, I find that law in these cases to be retrospective. Yes, the car acted illegally in the first instance, but the cyclist showed both poor road awareness, and poor 'life awareness' in his reaction. He would have been better taking the plate and reporting it. Simple. Both would have got where they were going, and he wouldn't have had a punch in the face. It could have been a knife, gun or a proper kicking. Lucky bloke in my opinion.

In reply to Enty:



That's next week

In reply to IainRUK:

I'm a cyclist, but this video bugs me intensely:
(i) It's London - why would you react like that to a driver who is being a muppet;
(ii) Look at the cyclist go - he chases the car, overtaking all of the other cyclist in (presumably) an attempt to have another go at the driver. This is confirmed in my mind when he turns around at the (red) light and heads off back in the direction he came from; and
(iii)I may have missed it, but we cannot see or hear what the cyclist says or does before the camera pans around at the 2nd set of lights - he could have threatened the driver, kicked his car, gone to open the car door making the driver fear for his safety...in other words we only see part of the story.

Driver was still a tosser at the start though...

In reply to IainRUK:

Two dickheads having a go at each other.

Car driver is an arrogant tw*t. Not remotely surprising judging by his car.

I can understand the cyclist getting mad but the way he chased the guy down without paying heed to any of the other cyclists was not remotely clever.

In reply to dissonance:

Never seen them in Germany but only really know Hamburg, Rostock, Berlin.. but only cycle in Rostock so maybe I just miss them.

In reply to Trevers:


What a bloody sweeping statement! So ALL Audi drivers are tw*ts are they.

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

He's driving a car that's a 'look at me' status symbol (white sporty Audi) around central London (a pointless exercise unless you want to be seen). Sorry but sometimes it's completely valid to judge by the cover.

I never said 'ALL' either. But there is a higher probability of certain cars containing tw*ts.

In reply to Trevers:

Just watched some more clips of other incidents.. my god I'd never ride in London.. I'd be done for criminal damage on a daily basis..

In reply to Trevers:


My thoughts about London climbers too. I mean, why be a climber in London.

In reply to Skol:
His exit wasn't "blocked" - the chap was using the ASL in exactly how it should be used - to get the cyclists away ahead of the traffic. If everyone lined up next to the kerb that rather negates the point of the box, doesn't it?

In reply to Chris the Tall:



A 17 year old girl with an white audi who aggressively speeds off to the next set of lights. Unlikely.

In reply to IainRUK:

I've done the commute twice (20 miles each way for me). First time left me a shivering wreck after 2 very close shaves. Second time I just didn't mess around and took the lane the whole way, and apart from some beeping didn't have any problems.

If those experiences are representative then I can see why so many cyclists become aggressive. Actually, riding in packs with other cyclists whose road sense you can't gauge and who you don't know if they're going to stop for the lights was pretty disconcerting too.

In reply to Adam Lincoln:


Good point. I'm leaving this dump in the next year. It doesn't need me or I it.

In reply to IainRUK:



Kind of like the man almost got clipped when the audi sped off? Did someone get out and hit you. Of course it's different when you're the one escalating the situation though .

In reply to IainRUK:

He's angry because he wanted a proper A5 but his wife made him buy that 5 door fugly conjoined malformed thing with a poverty spec engine instead.

In reply to John Rushby:



His reaction was as a result of getting outbid by a cyclist on the lovely 1981 Bronze coloured UR Quattro with 91,000 gen miles that went for 8k on Ebay the week before

In reply to FreshSlate:

This guy was flying.. I've had a few incidences where people have driven in to me on crossings, at least 2 were deliberate.

In reply to woolsack:

haha - indeed.

That nodder on the bike was flying though. If he put that much effort into a 25m TT he'd teach Dr Hutch a thing or two.

In reply to IainRUK:

im normally on the side of the cyclist, but this cyclist acted aggressively and clearly bit off more than he could chew, shout at someone like that, what did he expect, dick.

In reply to IainRUK:

Am curious about some of the views on ASLs expressed here. They are provided to offer some modicum of enhanced safety. Whilst maybe not the ideal solution it is what we have, so cyclists should certainly be entitled to make full use of them without any criticism or anger from motorists, whatever they feel about the road laws.

If a car has pulled right up into one, I'll generally go round and plonk my bike in front of them. Mildly provocative I guess, but intended to make it obvious I want to clear the junction before they start overtaking. If not you can often find yourself not being left room at the far side of the junction, particularly if on a curve etc.

That's not to say you should get so worked up as to chase after somebody and shout at them though...

In reply to niallk:



I understand that.. but if you watch the clip, the guy doesn't.. he stops before the box.. only pulls up once the bike pulls in front.

In reply to niallk:

Yeah I usually use front middle of the box. IMO it's the safest method on a congested urban road because you're visible to whatever's behind you (see cyclists killed by trucks turning left at junctions). Hundreds of thousands of cyclists commute during rush hrs in London and the boxes are usually full, so it's very common practice.

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Advanced-Stop-Lines/1400018009433/1400...

In reply to JMGLondon:

understand that, I just don't see why its not just the front half of the lane. From their a truck would see them anyway. But also here the cycle light changes first.. so you get 5 seconds or so

In reply to IainRUK:


So, as soon as a cyclist actually uses the box as it is intended he overtakes?

In reply to IainRUK:

And he stopped before the next box when the cyclist has a second go at him. He made a mistake once the didn't do it again, shame the cyclist couldn't see that as he was so determined to have another go.

In reply to IainRUK:

Well on the roads I use there are a lot of cyclists so the boxes are full. Half a box would just force more cyclists down the side, which doesn't solve the problem.

In reply to ColdWill:


Sounds like you're trying to justify the driver's actions here. He didn't 'make a mistake' first time round. He was being arrogant and knew what he was doing. He took the 'get out of my way cyclist don't you know I'm The Man' attitude.

In reply to IainRUK:

When bellends clash, there can only be 2 losers.

In reply to IainRUK:
That's one very aggressive cyclist - live by the sword die by sword as they say. Car driver was a bit of an idiot for pulling into the cyclist box - obviously trying to get the jump on the cyclists at the junction and possibly speeding when they shot off (to escape harassment from the cyclist who had reversed his cycle and lent over to car to have a pop). This seems a bit 50/50 - what we don't know is what happened prior to the box infraction. The reaction from both seems a bit extreme for the starting point we see.

A clear cut assault from the car person but the cyclist may have indulged in behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, which also an offence.

Also regardless of what happened previously if the car person felt threatened/feared for their safety their property was about to be damaged then are they not legally entitled to defend that property/themselves?

They had already sped off to avoid confrontation but were chased and hounded by a very aggressive cyclist. This could be counted as reasonable force as they did not carry on the attack once the threat was countered.

In reply to PanzerHanzler:

Agreed. I am a cyclist and you get idiots like the Audi driver all the time. It is totally pointless trying to get them to change their ways. I just let them get on with it and pass them at the next lights. It really isn't worth the agro. Cyclist simply made a tit of himself in this instance regardless of the moral high ground.

In reply to ByEek:

Yup - when I'm out on my bike I always allow for stupidity and avoid situations like this 99 times out of a hundred, a bit of give and take but then I am 45 and have ridden bikes on the roads since I was about 8-10 ten years old.

However, one cyclist I have ridden with seems to get into grief at almost every junction. But then again they go to multiple swimming pools and get involved in lane rage there as well so perhaps it is them and not everyone else.

In reply to IainRUK:

As someone who doesn't drive , but cycles to work and cycles for work (document delivery ) I am becoming more and more inclined towards militant-ism .
I pedal along on my little metal frame protected by 2 inches of foam helmet and some twit in a 2 tonne metal box wants to overtake ? Well , they can learn the virtue of waiting their turn and stay behind me for a while . I haven't smashed any wing mirrors yet but have been tempted on many occasions .
It may be regrettable that I have developed 'the cyclist is never wrong'' mindset - but at the end of the day , driving to work in a comfortable ,air conditioned , status symbol vehicle with music blaring and carbon dioxide pouring from the exhaust is a western world luxury which we are going to have to get over if we want a planet worth living on .
Yes , some cyclists are twits , but at least they are doing some exercise , not burning fuel and are not a danger to almost anyone but themselves .

In reply to PanzerHanzler: I read it differently (and of course we've only seen a segment):

Bloke on bike rides into the box and positions himself absolutely correctly. Audi driver decides that cyclist should hug the kerb and therefore moves forward into the box, almost alongside the bike. Cyclist then shouts through the window something like "there's the stop line" - didn't sound terribly aggressive. Audi then overtakes very close and fast when the lights change.

Cyclist then get a paddy on and chases him, starts shouting and banging, gets tw*tted.

But the initial confrontation was absolutely the result of the car deciding that the bike shouldn't be in front of him - he apparently (like a few people on here) doesn't know what the ASL is for, and thinks the bike is doing it to wind him up. Given how fast the bloke seems to be on his bike, he could well be getting himself in a position to overtake the other cyclists - I don't cycle a lot in London, and when I do it's on a hire bike, but you do get some people farting along and overtaking them's not always easy apart from at a junction like that.

In reply to SethChili:




This just isn't true. Its the one thing that annoys me. You jump a light, lorry skids, wipes out a bus stop..

It's a reason you insure dogs, so if a dog runs out and causes a major incident you are covered. The dog is 15-20 kilos of flesh, they can still cause very serious accidents.

Regardless people can be, and are, killed by cyclists jumping lights going through pedestrian crossings.

I'm not saying they are as dangerous as cars, but they just are not only a danger to themselves.

In reply to IainRUK:

The irony is that in urban traffic cyclists don't actually delay drivers - allowing for traffic flow and stops at lights they're usually going at about the same speed. The fact that a guy on a bike could chase and catch an Audi demonstrates this.

In reply to IainRUK:
Advanced stop lines go fully across a lane because where there are more than two or so cyclists it gives space for other cyclists to position themselves safely in front of cars, visable and (edit) NOT squashed in a queue of bikes in the gutter. Thats exactly the position you dont want to be in if theres a left turn and thats exactly where cyclists are usually killed. up front and visible is the safe place. Car drivers you need to understand this.

As for the cyclist, he did over react, he was a bit of a knob chasing, but then it escalated as it might. there's as many idiots riding bikes as driving cars. after all we are all just humans.

The sad thing is that a cyclist might scratch a car but a car driver can easily kill a cyclist. There is no comparison and drivers get little sympathy from me, they are the ones who can kill, they are responsible for looking out for vunerable road users.

In reply to IainRUK:

They are only a danger to themselves as long as cars don't get involved . If we had car free cities , then there would be far fewer traumatic injuries : With the exception of the occasional racer , most urban cyclists simply don't have the speed to produce a catastrophic impact on anything else .

I've cycled day in day out for the past 2 years and had one near miss with a pedestrian . In comparison , when I've travelled in cars on far fewer occasions the number of close ones both with pedestrians , cyclists and other cars been proportionately much higher .
If I hit another cyclist or pedestrian , they may end up in A&E . If a car hits anyone , the chances are they will end up dead .

In reply to SethChili:


That's a remarkable statistic, just because of the sheer volume of pedestrians around, most of whom are thinking about something else. Whenever I cycle in London, you can hear me coming from miles away because I've had to develop a special noise to stop pedestrians from walking under my wheels. "Wo, wo, wo" I go. Or in more alarming situations, "Ike!" Better than a bell, and with more volume control. Other cyclists do it too.

In reply to IainRUK:

Well, yes, but the stats are hardly comparable...

Peds killed by cyclists 01-09: 18
Peds killed by cars 01-09: 3,495

The cyclist should have let the thing go. Yes, the driver was a tw*t but that was far from the worst transgression I have seen from a motorist and I have cycled around London for years. If you're going to act like that every time someone wrongs you then you need professional help. Nobody is ever going to react well to being screamed at in the street even if they are at fault. Sadly I have seen cyclists confront people like that several times now, throwing obscenities at them once, then chasing after them to do it again, banging on windows and acting aggressively, then act all surprised when the bloke in the car gets out and takes a swing at them.


There's an interesting development here in terms of the use of GoPro cameras. At some point they're going to become ubiquitous and behaviour all round is going to improve. Acting like a tw*t is going to get you somewhere between a shaming on social networks (that your mates, colleagues, and bosses are going to get to see) through to well-deserved prosecutions because at the moment you get nil interest from plod because complaints are pretty much he said / she said.

Personally, it's one form of surveillance that I'm looking forward to.

In reply to JMGLondon:

Relatively they are...

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedest...

TBH though any defence of that is poor regardless but read the article. You are condoning poor riding which leads to the 'us against them' which is the major obstacle in the UK right now.

"While cars kill five times more pedestrians than bicycles, a rather different picture emerges when "serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled", the paper says. Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers."

Obviously cars are more dangerous, far more likely to kill, but you are still travelling at 20-30k per hour weighing the best part of 100 kilos adding everything together.. of course serious injury would result from reckless riding.

Pointing the finger and saying 'they are worse'.. is just a poor defence.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

As an aging pedestrian with hearing that is not as sharp as it used to be I am very much in favour of cycle bells. They are clear and more friendly than a shout when a bike is coming up behind you. Cyclist should also slow right down when approaching pedestrians from behind in mixed cycle and pedestrian areas, until the pedestrian has become aware of them, otherwise there is a risk of the pedestrian being startled and stepping into their path. The same applies to cyclists overtaking other cyclists.

In reply to SethChili:


This is just an incredible statement. The risk is to pedestrians.. to say well remove the cars.. well remove the pedestrians? remove the bikes? everyone travels on trams?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I find that incredible too. I cycled every day for most of this year. I was far more likely to hit a pedestrian than a car or a car hit me. Noone jumps lights here.. but people will cross between lights and will step out blindly having not heard a car.. plus we have tram/bus/car/bike/pedestrian areas and you have to really slow down, especially around tram stops.. people leave the trams and walk to the shops straight across the bike lanes.. you just have to slow down in those spots.

I've had one collision.. luckily I saw her and braked and skidded into her, luckily I'd just about stopped when we hit. She was hammered, it was 7-8pm on a Friday night, maybe a 16 year old girl. But I've had a few similar incidents.

In reply to IainRUK:



I love the way that someone calculates that bikes are still a bit less dangerous than cars per kilometre travelled[1] and people jump on it to say "hah, I told you bikes were the real menace!"

[1] would be interesting to adjust that to remove distance travelled on motorways and dual carriageways where you don't have the opportunity to hit many pedestrians, but never mind

In reply to Ramblin dave:

When did I say they were a real menace.. come on we're doing that taking it to the nth degree thing again. I never said they were as dangerous as cars.

I just think we should refute the myth that cylists are only a danger to themselves. The statistics support that. For every km biked the relative risk of a serious injury to a pedestrian is similar to driving. Less are killed. It just shows that cyclists are not just a danger to themselves.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Never mind bikes. Someone walked right out in front of my car[1] last week. Fortunately he then stumbled back and I didn't hit him, and he then walked into my rear passenger door. He was probably drunk by the looks of it.

[1] He walked out behind a lorry, I was doing 20-25mph ish and slammed on the brakes as soon as I saw him, but had he not stumbled I definitely would have hit him.

Neil

In reply to IainRUK:

Sorry - I was commenting on some of the views in the article itself and its comments, not on what you said.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Good job he was drunk, then.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

ah Ok.. yeah the report has glaring holes.. but it does mention that also many bike/pedestrian collisions come from the lack of sound.. so in a way bikes are more likely to have collisions.

I almost got hit by an electric tram the other night.. I still shudder thinking about it, wearing a wooly hat over my ears, ran out and hadn't looked properly and with no sound assumed it was Ok.. he rung his bell and I just jumped out of the way.. terrifying and 100% my fault.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

That's one way to see it

Neil

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

Most of them, yes.

In reply to IainRUK:


Did you read the article?
Most collisions occur "when pedestrians step out into the road without seeing or hearing a cyclist"

So until you get the to blame figures the comparison is pointless. Thats leaving aside its unclear what the billion km actually is eg does it take into account the chances of coming across a pedestrian. A quick glance indicates 33% of car traffic is on trunk roads where interaction with pedestrians would be minimal which makes the figures somewhat different.

In reply to IainRUK:

Just posted on Singletrack, where the thread is even longer than this

http://s242.photobucket.com/user/sputnik_photos/media/ScreenShot2014-01-28a...

In reply to IainRUK:

I've not condoned poor cycling at all, where did you get that from?

In reply to Trevers:
No, I'm just pointing out what happened. After the incident the cyclist then heads back down the road in the direction he came as his only reason to go that way was to have a confrontation.
If it had been a young woman in a Fiesta, would he have acted the same?

In reply to dissonance:

Did you deliberately ignore what I posted and cherry picked?

In reply to JMGLondon:

Sorry just saying the stats were incomparable.. they are due to the numbers on the road.. but bikes are still a risk..

In reply to ColdWill:

Hopefully she would have told him that he wasn't even dressed like a cyclist.

In reply to IainRUK:

Your entire case was flawed but if you want line by line.


The article you are trying to use to prove your case doesnt reference poor riding. Indeed considering it comments on most accidents are caused by pedestrians stepping onto the road it would hint that poor riding isnt involved.


Completely pointless and flawed comparison. No use of at fault (which is rather important when talking about poor riding) and no attempt to deal with the different environments eg removing all trunk roads and A roads from the equation.


and yet the evidence shows its extremely low.


and yet that is effectively what is dribbled out on every cycle thread normally with comments about red light jumping.

In reply to dissonance:

Eh?

What s my case...

I said quite clearly the study had flaws...

Don't get your back up.. there is still a credible risk from cyclists.. anyone who thinks a cyclist only poses a risk to themselves is a huge part of this problem and the us against them attitude.

No the evidence doesn't. People get killed by cyclists.

In reply to dissonance:

" yeah the report has glaring holes.. "

FFS.. try and read responses before ranting away.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Godwinned on a cycling thread, not bad!

In reply to Tim Chappell

So I can't defy the norm and cycle safely ? It is indeed remarkable ,but I have eyes , a bell and lights which could illuminate a small village ...
Obviously if someone chose to ride a black bike on a dark pavement without lights their chances of hitting someone are slightly higher .

In reply to SethChili:

But just the chance of a pedestrian stepping out.. even running I must have a few near misses a year with dogs, kids, adults.. its why I run on cycle ways much to the annoyance of car drivers. The speed difference me to a walker is much greater than that between me and the average city commuter.

In reply to woolsack:

I'm a bit disappointed to see that wasn't a genuine war-time poster, although it seems this was

http://www.andsuchandsuch.com/media/hitler.jpg

In reply to IainRUK:


I will even go as far as to say that cyclists have far more vested interest in using the roads safely as whatever they hit will end up hurting them . A driver in a HGV or 4x4 is almost immune to personal risk if they hit a cyclist , motorcycle or pedestrian .
It is interesting to note that cities like Amsterdam are not in the midst of cyclist induced carnage - despite most journeys being made by bike .

In reply to SethChili:

I agree with that. Of course not, but in Rostock, similar city, we still get accidents. I've seen a few.

What amazes me though is people still bike now, its been -12 all week, now -2.. snow on the roads.. and people are fine.. I've been all over the show on mine so have gone to walking everywhere

In reply to IainRUK:

My statement is almost perfectly logical . If a cyclist with an idiot complex decides to skip red lights and a car swerves and hits something ,whilst the cyclist is the root cause (and carries criminal responsibility ) , if the car had no been there the accident would not have happened.
Banning private cars from city centers would just remove 90% of the risk to everyone - with the free space on the roads cyclists could be properly separated from pedestrians .
Everyone walking would be nice , but the need for speed in our society has made it an unviable option for longer distance commuting .

In reply to IainRUK:

The new cycle boxes are a very good idea.

Before the cycle boxes appeared, experienced cyclists with their heads screwed on would not park up by the passenger side of a car at traffic lights, but instead would ride slightly ahead of the lights and stop in front of the vehicle waiting at the line. The point of this is that the cyclist makes themselves as visible as possible to the car, which is in the interests of both the cyclist and the motorist. Even if there is a cycle lane, if you stop on the passenger side of a vehicle you are just making it difficult for a driver to see you, which could be catastrophic if they decide to turn left across you.

The down-side before cycle boxes was that to increase your safety you had to break the law, and motorists who didn't understand what you were doing and why would just get wound up and scream about cyclists jumping red lights.

The cycle boxes make it possible for cyclists to do the same thing legally. A bike can accelerate much quicker than a car initially, so will be away from the lights and back on the side of the road well before the car has moved very far. I guess it will take time to educate non-cyclist motorists about the reason why they are a good idea.

In reply to SethChili:




Look banning aircraft reduces aircraft deaths... banning cookers reduces fires in kitchens.. banning electricity reduces the risk of electrocution.. banning knives reduces the risk of being stabbed...

In reply to Chris Sansum:
that's why I like the system we have here. Two tiered lights, lower ones for cyclists (which change earlier), upper for cars.. so we get the jump on cars.

In reply to IainRUK:

Exactly . We don't want things banned , but we don't want the consequences of of business as usual . We can't have it both ways .
We either have to take the approach where people are at liberty to merrily going on accidentally killing each other . Or we have to take real steps to prevent these people coming into conflict with each other .

In reply to IainRUK:


FFS dont post drivel then which needs correcting.
I missed your response although that doesnt really deal with how badly wrong it was.

In reply to dissonance:
Thank you.. by that I take it you mean you were wrong..

So I showed a report that said the relative risk of serious injury was similar...

There were flaws, but their will be for cars. We weren't talking about blame. We just said risk.

I believe, which you obviously think is wrong, that a person travelling at speed can cause serious injury. I think I can, I run 4000+ miles a year, 13 miles a day, the chance of colliding with an OAP.. you'd hurt them break their pelvis probably.. which as we know has a huge death rate.

So yes I think a bike going faster, with a higher cumulative risk is even more dangerous.

Not as dangerous as a car for sure.

The report did have flaws, as I pointed out, as I highlighted the points you did.. yet I was wrong? So far you've just ranted and been rude with showing no argument to support your view.

Its interesting looking at YT clips.. obviously cyclists don't upload pics of them riding like idiots.. well some do, but the most its cars V bikes or peds at fault.. yet there still some of cyclists piling into pedestrians whilst cycling the wrong way up one way streets, or cycling at speed down the sides of stopped buses..

You'd never do that in a car because you'd suspect a kid could come out, yet cyclists (not all) will. I honestly think part of the issue is many cyclists do believe this myth that they are only a risk to themselves.

In reply to IainRUK:


That I did check whether or not you had admitted you were wrong?


No you didnt. You quoted from an article, not a report. Which was fundamentally flawed in that the figure it was based on was non comparable. Without adjustment for likelihood of encountering a pedestrian the per billion km is useless. Its not worth quoting from without it being corrected.


Do I? Where did I say that?


i wouldnt but then I wouldnt on a bike either. However you seem to be implying that no car driver, at all, would. Which frankly is delusional.

Of course some cyclists are idiots, it would be a revolution in psychology if somehow cycling cured people of being idiots, but when you look at the actual figures which have some vague notion of accuracy the chances of the cyclist being at fault is minimal.
Lets just take those evil cyclists jumping redlights/ignoring stop lines. The last study which looked at these found of serious injuries to cyclists 5% were caused by them jumping redlights but 17% were from drivers hitting them whilst doing the same.

http://beta.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/cycle-safe...

In reply to dissonance:

so you pick again... so one group are idiots... one group representative.....



I never implied anything about drivers.. i'm a road runner... whilst you sat doing this i ran 30k on the roads.. if anything i know how good how bad drivers are...

so your last study supports my view... drivers worse... riders also a risk...

In reply to IainRUK:

The driver was an idiot thug for lumping the cyclist but what a moron the cyclist was! Why did he have to inflame the situation? This really annoys me, its just so pointless.