I don't want to get 'holier than thou' about riding on the pavement. I think it can be done safely as can going through red lights especially at crossings with no pedestrians (no brainer) and left turns (in america all traffic is allowed to turn left at a red light if clear and its a lot easier on bike). The only problem I've had is one self righteous road rage driver who took exception. Riding on the pavement and going through red lights is equally against the highway code and we both do it for safety not because we are in a hurry. I find going through red lights allows me to stay away from traffic much as bombing away from red lights on my motorbike does.
Cycling safety v cars v motorcycles
- Thread starter The Maestro
- Start date
Speaking as someone who is currently being sued by a pedestrian, who ran across a dual carriageway in front of my car, when I was in the outside lane, I'm not so sure about this.
Although I feel the greatest sympathy for the pedestrian, particularly as he was severely injured, I can't accept that his running full pelt across a busy dual carriageway, without looking properly and whilst wearing headphones, is my fault.
I've been told that it's possible he will win, as cars are always supposed to be able to be driven in a way that ensures they can avoid collisions with idiotic pedestrians......................
On the main point about the accident statistics, I think it's misleading to draw conclusions from the death rates. The vast majority of cycle accidents are minor (but no less painful for being classified as such) and never get reported. My guess is that the cycle accident rate, in terms of total number of "falling off" incidents relative to the number of hours ridden, will be quite high.
Thankfully, due to our low speed, plus the inherent limiting factor from feeling vulnerable, we have less fatal accidents than faster forms of transport.
The reason cars are so safe is largely because of the inherent driver/passenger protection built in to them. I firmly believe that cars cause more accidents than the death rates would indicate, but perhaps that's just my biassed view as an ex-motorcyclist.
Jeremy
I totally agree with this.
One of the problems we face in my area is that all of the funds for cycleway investment are spent on off-road paths. These IMHO are totally pointless to commuters, but great if your only cycle is to take the family out for the day. I went to the new IKEA in Ashton on Sunday, its surrounded by 'cycle-friendly' pavements, you know, the ones where they stop at every possible junction, and it annoyed me no end to watch as a young girl was stood there at the juction whilst literally hundreds of cars refused to stop to let her cross
.We need investment so that most if not all roads in the UK have dedicated cycle facilities if we are taking this seriously, even at the expense of making congestion worse in the short term. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.
(near miss (<2") Friday night on way home overtaking parked car in heavy traffic - driver on phone - gave me the v when I yelled).
John
THIS IS INNACURATE AND IS MISLEADING! Challenge it wherever you hear it!
The actual stat says per million miles (or was it a billion)
Heres why its a silly stat:
1) The official government figures then go onto to give a %age of those miles that are carried out on the motorway. They then highlight how safe motorway driving is compared to A and B roads. This means that on A and B roads, cars and motorbikes are much more dangerous than this headline stat implies. Cycle journeys dont happen on motorways, and therefore we dont need to adjust our figures. If a cyclist needs to cover motorway distance they tend to use the train see point 2.
2) The actual stats also say train is the safest way to travel. Many cycle commuters do the bulk of their mileage on the train (i do 2/3s of my mileage), which again increases my safety per million mile figure.
3)The stats reflect vehicle occupant deaths. The bulk of cyclists killed are children. So if your not a child you've just got safer again.
4) Other aspects show that as a male under 30ish your most likely to die due to a traffic accident. Over 30 ish, ist cardiovascular disease (strokes and heart attacks). Guess how to reduce that risk? Yup cycle. (its cancer for women by the way).
5) Finally the stats dont reflect non passenger deaths ie innocent bystanders! BUT the same stats do show that being a pedestrian is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. Its the best reposte to anyone too scared to cycle.
Final notes: We're the safest place in europe to drive a car, but one of the most dangerous to cycle or walk. Two things Britain excels at!
I know there is quite a lot that can be done at junctions to help cyclists, but I struggle on many roads to see what can be done to improve things for us, other than reducing speed limits.
On wide roads you can add a useful cycle lanes but most of the roads I come across in town are too narrow for that.
These sort of cycle lanes are designed by drivers and with no thought as to how they will be used us and as such are generally a waste of money. The answer is very simple, give the cyclist the right of way on these lanes at junctions - this exactly what they do in Belgium where I was cycling a few weeks ago. It can be done.I totally agree with this.
One of the problems we face in my area is that all of the funds for cycleway investment are spent on off-road paths. These IMHO are totally pointless to commuters, but great if your only cycle is to take the family out for the day. I went to the new IKEA in Ashton on Sunday, its surrounded by 'cycle-friendly' pavements, you know, the ones where they stop at every possible junction, and it annoyed me no end to watch as a young girl was stood there at the juction whilst literally hundreds of cars refused to stop to let her cross
John
I am afraid this is true as I discovered myself 8 years ago. In truth the pedestrian always has the right of way but the judge will lower the award by a certain percentage depending on how stupid he has been (in this case quite a lot). i suppose he has to live with the injuries for the rest of his life and in a few years time you will have forgotten about your loss of no-claims and hopefully the horror of the accident.
PS it will probably be settled out of court anyway.
Sorry to hear that you've suffered the same way, Harry. Although I have the greatest sympathy for the pedestrian, it seems that the only reason I'm being sued is because I've paid for insurance.
As the pedestrian was, apparently, uninsured (which may seem obvious, but some household policies provide third party cover) I will have to pursue him personally for my uninsured loss (which was substantial, as I had already done a deal on a new car just before the accident, so all told I lost out to the tune of a few thousand pounds.
My simplistic view would be that all road users should be treated equally, whether they be driving cars, riding bikes or walking/running. I can't for the life of me see why any one category of road user should be treated differently to another, except, perhaps, with regard to "give way" rules at junctions or crossing places.
It seems that insurance companies pay out on the basis of it being cheaper than going to court, even if they know they would win. Unscrupulous personal injury claims lawyers take advantage of this and advise their clients to sue, even if their client is wholly in the wrong.
The most bizarre case I've heard of was that of a colleague. His car was parked, perfectly legally, on the road. A pedestrian walked into his parked car, fell over and broke his leg. Believe it or not his car insurance paid up to the chap. It's no wonder that car insurance premiums keep going up.
Jeremy
As the pedestrian was, apparently, uninsured (which may seem obvious, but some household policies provide third party cover) I will have to pursue him personally for my uninsured loss (which was substantial, as I had already done a deal on a new car just before the accident, so all told I lost out to the tune of a few thousand pounds.
My simplistic view would be that all road users should be treated equally, whether they be driving cars, riding bikes or walking/running. I can't for the life of me see why any one category of road user should be treated differently to another, except, perhaps, with regard to "give way" rules at junctions or crossing places.
It seems that insurance companies pay out on the basis of it being cheaper than going to court, even if they know they would win. Unscrupulous personal injury claims lawyers take advantage of this and advise their clients to sue, even if their client is wholly in the wrong.
The most bizarre case I've heard of was that of a colleague. His car was parked, perfectly legally, on the road. A pedestrian walked into his parked car, fell over and broke his leg. Believe it or not his car insurance paid up to the chap. It's no wonder that car insurance premiums keep going up.
Jeremy
I fully agree Jeremy, in principal anyway. Its just in practice where it gets a bit vague. For example in terms of highway infrastructure investment, do you think that cycles are getting their fair share....I dont, yet if an accident occurs its either the cyclists or the driver fault, not the road planners.
A further example is should I be hit by a driver who I cannot prove was driving dangerously, I receive nothing. The driver has a scratch on his car that costs him money, but I may never cycle again.
Is that fair? Personally I would happily pay a few thousands, or even more to keep my long term health, and if that means in law that the person driving the most dangerous vehicle has responsibility, then thats fine with me as a pedestrian, a cyclist, and a driver.
All parties have my sympathy in these situations.
John
Cycling in North East London
A the moment I cycle six miles each way though Waltham Forest and Hackney, the majority of the time either on cycle lanes or parks. I had a mirror but it vibrated too much. I agree that constant looking behind helps a) keep me aware and b) seems to keep drivers more aware of me as I often catch their eye as they are approaching.
I regard myself as an agressive cyclist in so much as I always imagine the worst and act to avoid it.
I am grateful for the cycle lanes but constently have to avoid vehicles cutting across them at corners. The lanes are varying widths from bus lanes to thin ribbons on an already narrow pavement sharing the lane with lamp posts, steep ramps and barriers. Often these are blocked with parked vehicles.
Like others I use the pavement as an automatic emergency escape but feel that I endanger the pedestrians far more than vehicles endanger me (definately a false sense of unvunerability!).
We have bendy buses on my route so I always move onto the pavement or into the middle of the road when these approach, or when I am overtaking them.
I also travel through red lights, in my case to avoid the quickly accellerating buses and to position my self safely through the ever present road works which narrow the roads to one vehicle widths
I love cycling through parks, especially where, as on my route, there are clear well maintained cycle paths. However even there I encounter pedestrians who for some strange reason prefer my red path to their (empty) gray one. And then there are the dogs!!!!! I like animals and have no instinctive fear of dogs but the owners in Hackney are a special breed; they belive that their dogs should not be controlled and have automatic right of way on the cycle lanes, unfortunately their dogs seem to share that view. My main fear on my route to and from work is that I will run over a dog (again). I find it impossible to apologise to a dog owner for colliding with a dog that I have made every attempt to avoid. I have found it best to say nothing and ride off.
I await my first legal wrangle. but, having said all that, would not swap my mode of transport for those twelve miles for anything else.
A the moment I cycle six miles each way though Waltham Forest and Hackney, the majority of the time either on cycle lanes or parks. I had a mirror but it vibrated too much. I agree that constant looking behind helps a) keep me aware and b) seems to keep drivers more aware of me as I often catch their eye as they are approaching.
I regard myself as an agressive cyclist in so much as I always imagine the worst and act to avoid it.
I am grateful for the cycle lanes but constently have to avoid vehicles cutting across them at corners. The lanes are varying widths from bus lanes to thin ribbons on an already narrow pavement sharing the lane with lamp posts, steep ramps and barriers. Often these are blocked with parked vehicles.
Like others I use the pavement as an automatic emergency escape but feel that I endanger the pedestrians far more than vehicles endanger me (definately a false sense of unvunerability!).
We have bendy buses on my route so I always move onto the pavement or into the middle of the road when these approach, or when I am overtaking them.
I also travel through red lights, in my case to avoid the quickly accellerating buses and to position my self safely through the ever present road works which narrow the roads to one vehicle widths
I love cycling through parks, especially where, as on my route, there are clear well maintained cycle paths. However even there I encounter pedestrians who for some strange reason prefer my red path to their (empty) gray one. And then there are the dogs!!!!! I like animals and have no instinctive fear of dogs but the owners in Hackney are a special breed; they belive that their dogs should not be controlled and have automatic right of way on the cycle lanes, unfortunately their dogs seem to share that view. My main fear on my route to and from work is that I will run over a dog (again). I find it impossible to apologise to a dog owner for colliding with a dog that I have made every attempt to avoid. I have found it best to say nothing and ride off.
I await my first legal wrangle. but, having said all that, would not swap my mode of transport for those twelve miles for anything else.
You might be reassured to note that car insurance seems to often pay out to pedestrians and cyclists even without any proof of blame. In my case the police have given me written assurance that I was complying with the law and was not in any way careless.
I don't think that you need to be able to prove a driver was behaving dangerously now. A no win, no fee, lawyer would probably convince an insurer to pay out, although that might well be little comfort.
Jeremy
yes! you are right: it's only your perception
Peter
That is quite the reverse of my experience: It is men, young folk and the idigenous population driving erractically, too quickly without reference to road conditions and without consideration for women, old folk and ethnic minorities.
Peter
It is not safe to cut a red light in/on any vehicle. By way of example I quote the case of the cyclist who did that and was killed by a car (woman driver I believe). It so happened that the car driver was on her mobile phone at the time and "took all the culpability". The cyclist was just as dead and would not have been if he'd paid attention to the law and the road.
OH! and it's turning to the RIGHT at a red traffic signal that is allowed in the USA if it does not pose a danger to anyone/anything.
Peter
I've noticed that some who commute in heavy traffic are now carrying these: Action Cam : Oregon Scientific fitted to their handlebars, and sometimes an additional one fitted looking backwards. The idea is to record each trip on video, so that they have some sort of evidence of wrongdoing by other road users in the event of an incident.
It seems a bit OTT to me, but I guess that one can get a bit obsessed with the poor behaviour of car drivers fairly readily. I certainly recall having a pretty dim view of the average car driver when I was a regular motorcyclist. I only once got my own back on a driver (a black cab in North London) after he'd chucked a cigarette butt out of the window, only for it to land between my legs and start to burn through my Belstaff trousers and the bike seat. Luckily there was a set of lights within a few yards, at red. I rode up beside the cab, retrieved the burning dog end and dextrously chucked it back through his still-open window, just as the lights changed.................
Having said that, there are a fair few cyclists that behave like absolute nutters. The suicide squad who insist on riding down country lanes at night, sans reflectors or lights spring to mind, as does a particularly aggressive local lycra who reminds me of the worst kind of women's libber in his insistence on cutting up other road users and refusing to stop at junctions.
Jeremy
It seems a bit OTT to me, but I guess that one can get a bit obsessed with the poor behaviour of car drivers fairly readily. I certainly recall having a pretty dim view of the average car driver when I was a regular motorcyclist. I only once got my own back on a driver (a black cab in North London) after he'd chucked a cigarette butt out of the window, only for it to land between my legs and start to burn through my Belstaff trousers and the bike seat. Luckily there was a set of lights within a few yards, at red. I rode up beside the cab, retrieved the burning dog end and dextrously chucked it back through his still-open window, just as the lights changed.................
Having said that, there are a fair few cyclists that behave like absolute nutters. The suicide squad who insist on riding down country lanes at night, sans reflectors or lights spring to mind, as does a particularly aggressive local lycra who reminds me of the worst kind of women's libber in his insistence on cutting up other road users and refusing to stop at junctions.
Jeremy
Bad drivers - I usually give them a visual indication that I think their tossers (not sure if this sort of language is allowed, if not let me know and I will star it out).
Did it to one the other day (blasted his horn as he passed - I think he was trying to frighten me, dah). He touched his brakes, as if to stop, but chickened out and kept going (decided he wanted to live I guess)
.
Last edited:
Yes sorry, I mean right but as in the equivalent of our left turn, i.e. not turning across on-coming traffic.
As for red lights, there will always be a tiny number of examples where its caused problems. Personally I feel much safer going through them in carefully considered situations. Not going through them is often more dangerous in my opinion especially because if you have filtered alongside the left of the traffic (as is almost always the case) to reach the red light, the traffic will often not be aware that you are even there. I've lost track of the number of times a car I've been alongside at the lights has turned left on-top of me without even signalling. Much better to be out in front of them so that they can see you ahead and alter their road position accordingly. Safest of all of course would be not to filter at all and wait behind the last stationary car queuing at the lights, however that is giving up most of the traffic busting ability of cycling.
Cycling on the pavement is also in my personal view acceptable but again only in carefully considered situations. There are stories in the paper every year about pedestrians killed by cycles on the pavement. I think the moral of the story is use your judgement and keep a sharp eye out for any hazards. Ediit - sorry, I mean follow the highway code to the letter and don't do either officer
Last edited:
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
