binary_star

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had enough - cycling on the pavement is > illegal, whether the cyclist is being > 'considerate', is 'too frightened to ride on a > public road' and all the other blah blah blah > hand-wringing excuses..... It's illegal and > that's that.... I will no longer (ON A DAILY > BASIS) be complacent and be intimidated by, sworn > at, spat at, threatened with violence by pavement > cyclists - I will take your photograph and give it > to the police, I HAVE HAD ENOUGH.... Let us know how you get on...

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > really sorry to hear that fjd - the thing is that > the cyclist shouldn't have been going so fast as > the key word is shared. Must have been very > shocking. Hope you're ok. This is the problem with the Rye lane cycle path, it's actually not 'shared' at all it's a cycle path right next to a footpath. I have almost collided so many times with pedestrians on this stretch I avoid it. You can't really use it at all because it looks so much like the pavement a lot of pedestrians have no idea it's there. Even if you're cycling reaaaaally slowly you're still going about 2-3 times as fast as pedestrians (or else may as well get off and walk) so still a hazard. Total waste of money imo.

Hmm think the motorcycle lanes in Newham were a pilot from some time ago that never really took off weren't they? Certainly doesn't seem to have been adopted elsewhere so presumably they weren't much of a success. Also looks like Newham is getting completely segregated cycle lanes with the Boris bike extension: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/28035.aspx Do motorbikes need to be at the front rather than in with the rest of the traffic?

http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66517

Is anyone still in doubt that this is urine? It IS piss. Almost guaranteed... drivers (cabbies, lorries, bus and coach drivers) do it ALL THE TIME. Report it or get over it: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-12937483

'bout now Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fox is right. > > Richmond Park has a 20mph limit and at one stage > the police set up camera traps and ticketed a load > of cyclists of a Saturday morning, every week for > about a month. They've eased up now Sorry to keep on but I don't think Fox is right. As I said previously, some places are able to enforce speed restrictions with local bye-laws. The reason Richmond Park was able to do this was because it used to be the case that speed limits in ALL ROYAL PARKS applied to bicycles, because the The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 (amended by the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004) stated that speed limits in the parks applied to all vehicles (not restricted to motor vehicles). However, the reason the Police have 'eased up' is because since 2010 they have not been able to enforce that law because of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010. This amendment included a definition of 'vehicle' that applied ONLY to motor vehicles. So every restriction which applied to all vehicles in the royal parks now only applies to motor vehicles. Thus, speed limits do now not apply to bicycles in Royal Parks, just as they do not in general elsewhere.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cycles ARE restricted to the speed limit. Fox, they're not the limit only applies to motorised vehicles: http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html Was your mate prosecuted or fined by the Police?

Alright, I managed to open those data tables, so I'll take the bait. Normally I wouldn't bother but the constant 'cyclists are dangerous' mantra gets on my tits which was my point in the first place, so for Loz... The relatively small number of pedestrian deaths by cyclists means even minor differences will massively skew the data year on year if you're going to measure deaths per mile. However, I've voiced my opinion on the problems with 'deaths per estimated mile' enough so let's run with it for now... If you are going to compare two data sets you should try to pick the same year to do it (i.e. not compare my 2007 deaths with your 2010 estimated travel miles). The reason I used 2007 data for pedestrian deaths was because that year was a bit of an anomaly for cyclists in that they killed a record 6 pedestrians. If you look at most other years its actually more like 2 or 3, in fact in 2009 there were none, so that year cyclists weren't deadly at all to pedestrians using 'estimated death per mile' or any other parameter because they didn't kill any. If I use that year, I don't need to do any calculations...cyclists by your own definition were not dangerous at all. I think that's a poor 'win' for my argument, so let's continue... You were using 2010 data so I'll work out pedestrian deaths in 2010 (from the ONS stats you used here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdEZBNS1ETG8xT0JBSnR5N3Z6Q0hzNnc&f=true&noheader=false&gid=13) per estimated billion vehicle miles travelled in 2010 (from the dft stats you used here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/10424/tra0104.xls) PEDESTRIAN DEATHS 2010 -------------------------------- By car or van: 133 By pedal cycle: 2 Estimated billion miles travelled on ALL ROADS, EXCLUDING MOTORWAYS 2010 --------------------------- Cars, taxis (194.1) + vans (33.6) = 227.7 Pedal cycles: 3.1 Results in number of deaths per billion mile By cars + vans: 133/227.7 = 0.584 By pedal cycles: 2/3.1 = 0.645 Estimated billion miles travelled on MINOR URBAN RDS 2010 --------------------------- Cars, taxis (51.8) + vans (8.7) = 60.5 Pedal cycles: 1.8 Results in number of deaths per billion mile By cars + vans: 121/61.1 = 1.980 By pedal cycles: 2/1.8 = 1.111 If you look at the two calculations, it clearly shows that on roads where there are actually likely to be any pedestrians, cars are almost twice as dangerous. In general, things don't tend to pose a danger to you when they're nowhere near you... Even with your loophole allowance which allows cars to rack up almost 200billion miles worth of relatively pedestrian free roads (of which cyclists only used 0.6billion miles), cars are still not coming out much better than cyclists.

Well as speed restrictions don't normally apply to cyclists, there is no limit for them to break. However, I do agree that all road users should keep to a safe speed. This might even be slower than the limit in wet weather/reduced visibility. I personally don't have a speedometer but even though I'm not subject to speed restrictions I do modify my speed when there are safety concerns, i.e. on shared pedestrian/cycle paths. Some cycle routes would require me to be going far too slowly at a safe speed to be practical so I just avoid them entirely (Rye Lane is an example). You should report anything you think is dangerous to the Police obviously.

rgutsell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hiya > > Will the proposed 20mph limit for places like > Lordship Lane, result in cyclists being booked for > speeding? Unlikely as unfortunately speed limits do not normally apply to cyclists: http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html However, cyclists can be prosecuted for going too fast under the charge of 'cycling furiously' and can also be prosecuted for riding dangerously or carelessly. It is possible for locations to have local bye-laws that impose speed limits on bikes but I don't know how or if this could be applied to Lordship Lane. Perhaps ask the council, or if you see it becoming a problem when the new limit is in force then report it to the Police? They may take action from community complaints as they do when they set up operations to catch red light jumper cyclists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/16/police-cyclists-red-lights

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is my analysis. But not mine, I have drawn and wanted to share an alternative conclusion. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just sitting there sniping and trying to pick holes is lazy debating. See above. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- But, to answer one point: "You can't use traffic mile figures from traffic miles that don't include cyclists..?". Of course it is fair, as long as there are pedestrian casualties - I thought that would be obvious? Yep you're right, but there need to be pedestrians for there to be pedestrian casualties. What I should have said was: "You can't use traffic mile figures from traffic miles that don't include pedestrians. " I know you discounted motorways but there are many other roads with little or no pedestrians or cyclists (and not just because they're banned). The fact we're including them in the data means we're allowing motorists (but not cyclists) to clock up thousands and thousands of miles in places where there is little or no chance of seeing a pedestrian let alone hitting one. We're told by your data that cyclists aren't really using these roads but motorists can clock up a large number of pedestrian free (and therefore pedestrian death free) miles v quickly (like a-roads/national speed limit country roads with no footpaths). My analysis of the data would be that deaths per mile are lower for cars but we can't attribute that to them being less dangerous...it could simply be that they travel a lot more miles where there just aren't pedestrians to kill. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If you want to go into the mess of trying to separate different road types then back it with sourced, reputable stats. Your source separated the road by type which I was hoping to use but I can't see the raw data. I'm disappointed in your analysis because you've tried to use what you've identified as a flaw (which essentially amount to a loophole) in the original 'challenge' to try to win on a technicality, because the variable you've chosen to measure 'danger to pedestrians' doesn't really measure that at all. M'Lord!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But actually, it was a pretty interesting > conclusion anyway, and one I bet you didn't expect > - even given the parameters. I suspect that, even > if you do whittle it down, the best you could hope > for is something close to parity, given the > wideness of the 2:1 result I got originally. I am genuinely interested to find out but I can't open the data tables on my phone. I would be surprised if mile per mile on minor roads cyclists kill more peds but it could be true (and I'd be disappointed if it were no doubt about it!) I take my hat off to you though for your creativity, although to really be right even on that technicality you'd need to change your parameter to 'deaths of pedestrians per ESTIMATED mile travelled across all road types"

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I agree the drafting was imprecise, but it > clearly says that use your own parameters to prove > cycling > > (general) is more dangerous. It does not say, > use your own paraneters to prove cycling is more > dangerous > > within those parameters. > > Actually, the exact wording was "I've asked anyone > who asserts any different to pick any parameter > for danger they like". I chose relative deaths of > pedestrians per mile travelled across all road > types. > > QED, I believe. Challenge aced. We both know those stats do not indicate cyclists are more of a danger to pedestrians. It's your 'across all road types' that's the problem isn't it? Just because cars can travel thousands and thousands of miles without a pedestrian in sight and not hit one doesn't really mean they are less dangerous does it? It means you've chosen the wrong way to measure danger. You're arguing that you're right on a technicality because I let you choose anything to measure danger. So 'pick any parameter for danger' was badly worded....you could have picked 'number of hedgehogs decapitated' or some other such nonsense so I have to admit you got me on that one. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I agree the drafting was imprecise, but it > clearly says that use your own parameters to prove > cycling > > (general) is more dangerous. It does not say, > use your own paraneters to prove cycling is more > > dangerous within those parameters. Otherwise you > could rightly say, parked card cause zero deaths > > per mile compared to moving cyclists per mile. > > But that is exactly how stats work. No it's not. LadyD was right I'm afraid. You can have a statistically significant result but still draw the wrong conclusion from it (which is what you have done here). For instance I could conclude that cancer causes smoking because smoking and cancer are highly correlated. You have introduced bias because you're not measuring the right variable (miles and miles of unpedestrianised roads). You've already introduced bias before you've begun to analyse the data. Maybe I should have been explicit: "pick any parameter that measures danger" perhaps?

.

Loz come on you can't be serious? You have proved that mile for mile there are more pedestrian deaths. Yes I concede that. What I will not concede is that means cycling is more dangerous to pedestrians. Why? Because most of those car miles don't involve going anywhere near pedestrians. It's like saying mile for mile planes aren't a danger to pedestrians...so what does that prove? Nothing. I'm not weaselling out of anything I'm saying your data (which is estimated btw) does nothing to indicate what you are saying it does. I will if I can get to the data use the same study to make my own calculation.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LD, I'm not saying those stats prove conclusively > who or what is universally more dangerous, just > that binary_star set up a challenge and so I took > it up. And, I have to say, rather aced it. :)) > Aced it!? There were two parts to the 'challenge' as you put it. The first part was to choose a study with a data set, year, and parameter for danger etc. You did that part ok but not 100% (no study, just data). The second was to do exactly what you've admitted it doesn't...use it to prove cycling is more dangerous.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > binary_star, > > I repeat your challenge, with a little > highlighting... > > > I've asked anyone who asserts any different to > pick any parameter for danger > > they like, then choose any study, any data set, > from any date range > > I have chosen my parameters and reached my > conclusions. Your challenge was met and even the > indefatigable LadyD has (grudgingly) accepted it. > > > And all you have done is nit-pickingly throw in a > few desperate questions. If you want to challenge > my figures, then get out your pen, paper and start > googling. Until you have better, fully sourced, > reputable figures then suck it up. You lost. > Your challenge was taken up and beaten. Yeh I opened it up and I'm not challenging the stats, I'm challenging their validity in proving your argument that cyclists are more dangerous. You can't use traffic mile figures from traffic miles that don't include cyclists or pedestrians..? Well you can but I don't think any sensible person would accept that as 'proof'. Do you honestly think your analysis is fair? That is a serious question. ETA: added 'or pedestrians'

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think my little calculation meets the given > challenge, no? Well, kudos for a valiant effort but I don't think so, no. Firstly, the stats you provided on traffic type are estimates not actual figures. That's not too much of a problem but something to note. Secondly, if we are going to use 'pedestrian deaths per mile travelled', it was a bit naughty of you to only exempt the miles clocked up by motorway traffic. I can think of a dozen other journey types that aren't typically made by bicycle but that allow motorists to have a relatively pedestrian free (and speedy) journey. What about all those country roads that stretch on for miles without so much as a footpath, let alone a pedestrian crossing? Cars can rack up a massive amount of deathless miles on those pelting along at national speed limit! From the link you provided, those journeys make up another 45% of traffic ON TOP of the 20% from motorways. The types of journeys made by bicycle are typically much shorter, much slower and will have much more chance of the cyclist coming into contact with pedestrians because they are likely to be on minor roads and may even involve the use of a shared cycle/footpath. From the link you provided: "The distribution of traffic across road types varies considerably between vehicle types. At one extreme four-fifths of pedal cycle traffic is on minor roads." So, if we're going to persist with 'deaths per mile', I think that we should really only be counting minor roads and maybe even narrow that down to inner city or urban areas where cars and bike at least have the same chance of coming into contact with pedestrians! Otherwise you might as well say that trains kill less pedestrians than bikes per mile. It's not really fair if one vehicle type doesn't use the types of miles where there are no actual pedestrians to kill! So if we exempt A roads as well, we're not looking at discounting 20% but more like 65% of those car miles. Unfortunately, I can't get to the raw data for the miles on minor roads by vehicle type as the links in the study you provided don't work for me. But I have a hunch bikes aren't coming out so bad any more? Would you agree with that analysis?

.

Vehicle tax. That's why it's called Vehicle Excise Duty.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bloody hell that 3rd one looks really bad. I have > so many near misses with cars going straight into > the roundabout when I'm already on it. It's a > serious problem, lots of them don't want to give > way to a cyclist, or maybe they just don't see us > because they aren't looking for bikes. If you make eye contact they usually give way. Usually. But I'm sure you know that. It's the ones who actively avoid eye contact that you know are gonna pull out for sure.

http://youtu.be/tKaO9f8kaOc Whb this happens it's scary. Happened to me once when there were railings on the left. Still the scariest moment I've had as a cyclist. And I've been run over. A couple of times.

- This is exactly where those helpful bike lanes position cyclists...remember, keep left! - Silly cyclist is so invisible he causes two collisions! - Cyclist almost injures driver in head-on-collision. Luckily driver walks away unscathed. Phew! - Another dumb cyclist almost gets themselves killed by a left turning truck. - More cyclists not paying attention to a left turning HGV...tut tut!

numbers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And who do you think writes the Highway Code Dept for Transport and the Driving Standards Agency?? "The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders." From: Road users requiring extra care (204 to 225) https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/overview-204