DfT Stats - 2009

wrote:
In article ,
Tony Raven wrote:

Your evidence for this is? The figures I've quoted are emergency
admissions from pedestrian falls on the highway, not people going in and
out of buildings.

Well, you COULD look at the definitions they use. It may have
escaped your notice that the pavement is part of the highway,
including any steps on it. The HES data includes ALL injuries
on the highway, and classifies anyone not in or on a vehicle or
animal as a pedestrian. The travel survel considers only cases
where people walk from A to B and regard that as a significant
trip.

Yes, and the data is all coded under the Transport Accidents section and
only walks of less than 50 yards are excluded and noted to not make a
significant change to the total distance. But I suppose your thesis is
there are hordes of people out there on the highways who are just
milling around for no particular purpose rather than going somewhere.
And while they are milling around not going anywhere they suddenly
manage to trip over some uneven pavement. Can't say I've seen much
evidence of it to be honest. But if you have evidence of what you
claim, please feel free to share your data rather than attack the data
the ONS has produced.


The second is that it includes much more of the very vulnerable,
and is therefore not like-for-like. It would be easy enough to
balance for age, but a far more reliable comparison would be the
pedestrian injury rate for people who also cycle, and that can't
be done with the published data.
Easily done. The over 65's and under 15's make up 58% of the pedestrian
only accidents. Even if you assume they are all infirm or accident
prone and exclude all of them that still only reduces the factor five
increase to a factor three.

It clearly has escaped your notice that even people in the range 15-65
vary a lot in ability, and cyclists are self-selected from among the
less vulnerable.

Pedestrians are self selected too. Can't say I see a large percentage
of mobility impaired pedestrians around on the streets such that would
significantly affect the conclusions.


But there is also the case that you are so keen on making much of,
that the HES data seriously misclassifies incidents - you favour
the example of motorcyclists being misclassified as pedestrians,
but it is unclear how many 'pedestrian' accidents are actually
cyclists or motor vehicle users (especially ones who fall getting
in or out).

Actually cyclists and motorcyclists are the only categories where
significant misclassification has been found to occur. The rest map
pretty well within margins of error.


Enough is enough. You, JMS and other trolls deserve each other.


"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
Marcus Tullius Cicero.

Tony

In article , %steve%
@malloc.co.uk says...

Tony Raven wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Justin wrote:

The lorry in these events turn onto the cyclist.

The cyclists are ****wits who try to pass large vehicles on the wrong
side. Given the likely consequences "****wits" doesn't seem to be a
strong enough term.


Yes, they should make allowances for the driver in the cab being drunk
and on the phone when he pulls up behind them.

Or perhaps the cyclist could engage their bloody brain before they pass
vehicles on the left had side?

Revolutionary as a concept I know. But the three ****s who passed my
vehicle on Friday to the left, ignoring my left hand indicator, could
probably have benefitted from adopting it.

Still, don't let that get in the way of your testosterone-filled
ranting, you never have in the past.

Testosterone? Hardly, given the effect of a bicycle saddle on the
testes. Bile-filled ranting, now that's more like it.

--
Halmyre

Justin wrote:

On 28 nov, 12:10, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
A cyclist going straight on has priority.

That will be such a consolation in the morgue. However no vehicle has
"priority" to pass another vehicle to the left.

Pertinently incorrect.

No, it's correct and you seem to be sixpence short of an argument.

Look at the highway code and also at the road markings at certain traffic
lights at junctions in built up areas which invite cyclists to gather in
front of motorised traffic. The cycle lane is on the left but the bay for
waiting is in front of the traffic.

And anyone using the advance stop line is not, or should not, be to the
left of the vehicle that is moving left. Your interjection is pointless
and discusses something else other than the matter under discussion. The
correct use of advance stop lines was not in question. The sanity of
cycling to the left of a vehicle indicating a left turn was.


The lorry in these events turn onto the cyclist.

The cyclists are ****wits who try to pass large vehicles on the wrong
side. Given the likely consequences "****wits" doesn't seem to be a
strong enough term.

Nice.

sigh What do you call morons who put their own life in danger by
cycling in this manner? If anyone is so short of imagination that they
cannot imagine the consequences of a truck turning left on them then
Darwin awaits them.

I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety and the
ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to play lemming on
the roads.

On 28 nov, 12:34, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Justin wrote:
the sides of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc.
A cyclist going straight on has priority. The lorry in these events
turn onto the cyclist.

the cyclist rode off a pavement straight into the side of the trailer of an
artic, by what mechanism could the lorry driver have forseen that someone
would do such a thing? *It happened a few seconds after the lorry cab had
gone past the spot the cyclist left the pavement, it could *have been easily
prevented by the cyclist stopping at the kerb, looking and listening and
then proceeding (a procedure which is covered in the highway code)

The anti-cyclist lobby cannot resist stereotyping, can it? Nowhere in
the article is there even a suggestion that this young lady was
cycling on the pavement. Nowhere! She was in a cycle lane.

Any normal driver turning left across a cycle lane would look behind
in order to ensure that no cyclists were approaching. Unfortunately he
may well have done so whilst may have have been in the lorry's blind
spot,.
Indeed it was a tragedy: it is ill advised to not be able to hear the
traffic around you.

Justin wrote:
On 28 nov, 12:34, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Justin wrote:
the sides of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc.
A cyclist going straight on has priority. The lorry in these events
turn onto the cyclist.

the cyclist rode off a pavement straight into the side of the
trailer of an artic, by what mechanism could the lorry driver have
forseen that someone would do such a thing? It happened a few
seconds after the lorry cab had gone past the spot the cyclist left
the pavement, it could have been easily prevented by the cyclist
stopping at the kerb, looking and listening and then proceeding (a
procedure which is covered in the highway code)

The anti-cyclist lobby cannot resist stereotyping, can it? Nowhere in
the article is there even a suggestion that this young lady was
cycling on the pavement. Nowhere! She was in a cycle lane.

Any normal driver turning left across a cycle lane would look behind
in order to ensure that no cyclists were approaching. Unfortunately he
may well have done so whilst may have have been in the lorry's blind
spot,.
Indeed it was a tragedy: it is ill advised to not be able to hear the
traffic around you.

I think you would find that the cycle lane/pavement had ended, she just rode
straight off the end, there was no question of the lorry or any other
vehicle turning across the cycle lane. (if there was somewhere that
vehicles could turn across a cycle lane then it would be marked up as such
and the cyclist would have to give way (be expected to give way)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 14:56, Mrcheerful wrote:
I think you would find that the cycle lane/pavement had ended, she just rode
straight off the end,

That is indeed a massive flaw with many of the ill-judged farcilities
that councils erect.

Much better to keep to the road.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8nO+AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/MbEH/iHW71fn7/mmbP4HWqvtC8jJ
UyNpKIKCDMbRNQeNDS7IR0dbqcJllqnxPFju6S5dd9t3vcEy0l pwvSxN4zRw4pE7
x7XV8hi13bNVUPRNaVy6LuhQNyopX0cNZTih3CjTcl+fQvBMRv uY4Q1KaGm+KsHR
NwDwdsX9jrjeUyYoVVFAKFQGM0Kjl/BTUXDYVoxLbvx/gNI2+5F2pKh9H5uv8rng
lGtZpl4P4xIQkMKAFnEm7GuHMDAX/ZlrM9PoKSh+ZD41lM/1Uq4BysBHxHs/VV5U
cKPG7T5BkIrGx1+DwBdgjyw7BBlsrweTAy7ja2/L9efbkXv42CGSw/x/XtecRd4=
=ogXu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 28 nov, 14:57, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 28 nov, 12:10, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
A cyclist going straight on has priority.

That will be such a consolation in the morgue. However no vehicle has
"priority" to pass another vehicle to the left.
Pertinently incorrect.

No, it's correct and you seem to be sixpence short of an argument.

Look at the highway code and also at the road markings at certain traffic
lights at junctions in built up areas which invite cyclists to gather in
front of motorised traffic. The cycle lane is on the left but the bay for
waiting is in front of the traffic.

And anyone using the advance stop line is not, or should not, be to the
left of the vehicle that is moving left. Your interjection is pointless
and discusses something else other than the matter under discussion. The
correct use of advance stop lines was not in question. The sanity of
cycling to the left of a vehicle indicating a left turn was.

The lorry in these events turn onto the cyclist.

The cyclists are ****wits who try to pass large vehicles on the wrong
side. Given the likely consequences "****wits" doesn't seem to be a
strong enough term.
Nice.

sigh What do you call morons who put their own life in danger by
cycling in this manner? If anyone is so short of imagination that they
cannot imagine the consequences of a truck turning left on them then
Darwin awaits them.

I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety and the
ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to play lemming on
the roads.

But little knowledge of the highway code.

On 28 nov, 15:56, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 28 nov, 12:34, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Justin wrote:
the sides of lorries (that girl with the headphones on)etc. etc.
A cyclist going straight on has priority. The lorry in these events
turn onto the cyclist.

the cyclist rode off a pavement straight into the side of the
trailer of an artic, by what mechanism could the lorry driver have
forseen that someone would do such a thing? It happened a few
seconds after the lorry cab had gone past the spot the cyclist left
the pavement, it could have been easily prevented by the cyclist
stopping at the kerb, looking and listening and then proceeding (a
procedure which is covered in the highway code)

The anti-cyclist lobby cannot resist stereotyping, can it? Nowhere in
the article is there even a suggestion that this young lady was
cycling on the pavement. Nowhere! She was in a cycle lane.

Any normal driver turning left across a cycle lane would look behind
in order to ensure that no cyclists were approaching. Unfortunately he
may well have done so whilst may have have been in the lorry's blind
spot,.
Indeed it was a tragedy: it is ill advised to not be able to hear the
traffic around you.

I think you would find that the cycle lane/pavement had ended, she just rode
straight off the end, there was no question of the lorry or any other
vehicle turning across the cycle lane. *(if there was somewhere that
vehicles could turn across a cycle lane then it would be marked up as such
and the cyclist would have to give way (be expected to give way)
What is the basis for that assertion? I am more than prepared to
believe it, but do you know this?

Justin wrote:

I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety and the
ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to play lemming on
the roads.

But little knowledge of the highway code.

Also untrue, but I can see that you are now clutching at straws. The
Highway Code does not recommend passing vehicles on the left hand side,
other than in particular circumstances. You seem to be ignorant of Rule
72 and Rule 73.

Of course if you are getting sniffy about the Highway Code then perhaps
you can explain why cyclists habitually igno

Rules 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:44:06 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

snip


I was referring to this tragedy:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...-dies-in-crash



"Amber liked to ride her mountain bike singing to music by Britney
Spears, Kylie Minogue and Michael Jackson."


Sums things up nicely.


--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?