Motorists are at fault in nearly three-quarters of all collisions between cyclists and drivers, according to new analysis of road safety figures in Scotland – analysis which has also suggested that common tropes about ‘dangerous’ cyclists, such as
riders “wearing dark clothing”, are responsible for comparatively few crashes.

The data, collated by Cycling Scotland, shows that 54 cyclists were killed and a further 1,836 seriously injured in road collisions throughout Scotland between 2015 and 2021, the Herald reports (link is external).

Analysing the “contributory factors” assigned by Police Scotland to all collisions, Cycling Scotland found that over 70 percent of crashes involving motorists and cyclists were the fault of the driver. For both drivers and cyclists, the most common
cause of a collision is a failure to look – though of the 512 “failure to look” incidents, 374 were assigned to the motorist.

“Aggressive driving” and “vehicle door opened or closed negligently” were also in the top 10 reasons for collisions, Cycling Scotland found.

However, in the incidents where the cyclist was deemed to be at fault, “wearing dark clothing at night” was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021, the ninth most common cause of crashes where the cyclist was at fault.

The relative paucity of incidents related to dark cycling clothing stands in stark contrast to Police Scotland’s stance on the issue. In February, we reported that a Scottish chief inspector found herself at the centre of a “victim blaming” row
when she urged pedestrians to wear “reflective or fluorescent” clothing, after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.

“Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing,” Ch Insp Lorraine Napier said at the time.

“I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk.”

This mindset – that vulnerable road users are putting themselves at risk in certain situations, and are therefore responsible for collisions – was criticised by Simon Bradshaw, the Cycling Road Safety Manager at Cycling Scotland, who collated this
recent data.

“There is sometimes animosity between a minority of people who drive cars and other vehicles and people on pedal cycles, which can sometimes result in conflict,” Bradshaw said.

“This clearly is unsafe, but it also perpetuates some of the myths that surround people on bikes as well: that people on cycles are unsafe, and they are the cause of collisions by going through a red light, or through junctions and not obeying the
rules of the road. And obviously, there is a small minority of cyclists who do that, just as there is of people who drive vehicles.”

He continued: “But what the data tells us is that cyclist behaviour isn’t a major factor which is causing people on bikes to be seriously injured or even killed. The biggest risk is from the presence of vehicles.

“What we’re trying to demonstrate by highlighting this data is that on most occasions, where you have a collision between a person on a bike and a vehicle, it tends to be the fault of the person driving the vehicle.

Bradshaw believes that cyclists have been dehumanised by some motorists, creating a narrative in which they are blamed for causing collisions and increasing the danger on the roads.

“A minority of people get behind the wheel of a vehicle but then tend to see people on bikes as sort of not human,” he said.

“Language is very important in these in these discussions, because there’s a lot of emotive language being used in certain quarters.

“We’re trying to make the point that it’s generally not people on bikes who are causing the problem or the greatest risk. It’s people in vehicles and that’s where we’re wanting to focus our efforts, on preventing collisions in the first place.
”

The Cycling Scotland representative also called on Police Scotland to introduce a dedicated reporting mechanism for close passes – with the force coming in for criticism in recent months due to the continued absence of an online portal, causing near
misses for cyclists to be underreported – and argued that it was difficult to make progress concerning road safety in Scotland due to the a lack of a “consistent overall approach” from the various groups involved, such as the police and local and
national authorities.

He added: “We’re trying very hard to do that and Transport Scotland’s road safety framework provides a good structure for everybody to try and work together but it takes actually drawing out the data.

“Because it’s all about being evidence-led. There is no point investing money on road safety interventions that aren’t supported by the evidence and are therefore likely to be ineffective.

“So somebody highlighting the fact that wearing dark clothing at night is not supported in the data as being the cause of people on bikes being killed or seriously injured. And that’s really important, because you would hope then that puts it to bed.

“And you can focus on the real issue, which is actually the people in vehicles posing the biggest risks. But it’s likely to be an issue which never goes away. It’ll consistently pop up and raise its head. And we just have to keep addressing it, I
think.”

https://road.cc/content/news/drivers-fault-almost-three-quarters-all-collisions-302565

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Motorists are at fault in nearly three-quarters of all collisions between cyclists and drivers, according to new analysis of road safety figures in Scotland – analysis which has also suggested that common tropes about ‘dangerous’ cyclists, such as riders “wearing dark clothing”, are responsible for comparatively few crashes.

Ah, the “it’s only a few” morally-bankrupt argument that highlights the general sociopathy of the cycling world.

The data, collated by Cycling Scotland, shows that 54 cyclists were
killed and a further 1,836 seriously injured in road collisions
throughout Scotland between 2015 and 2021, the Herald reports (link is external).

Dare one say “it’s only a handful, why bother to do anything’?

Analysing the “contributory factors” assigned by Police Scotland to all collisions, Cycling Scotland found that over 70 percent of crashes
involving motorists and cyclists were the fault of the driver. For both drivers and cyclists, the most common cause of a collision is a failure
to look – though of the 512 “failure to look” incidents, 374 were assigned to the motorist.

Ah, the “it’s only a handful” morally-bankrupt argument, this time it’s 138
cyclists that couldn’t be bothered to look where they are going.

But how many cyclists and drivers are there in Scotland? If the ratio is
less than 138 to 374 (almost 1 in 3), then cyclists are over-represented in these incidents.

Come on, Cycling Scotland, get your data together and let us know.

Unfortunately, the 20-odd pages of Cycling Scotland’s Annual Report 2022 doesn’t seem to mention how many cyclists there are in Scotland!

Well, well…

“Aggressive driving” and “vehicle door opened or closed negligently” were
also in the top 10 reasons for collisions, Cycling Scotland found.

However, in the incidents where the cyclist was deemed to be at fault, “wearing dark clothing at night” was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021, the ninth most common cause of crashes where the cyclist was at fault.

The relative paucity of incidents related to dark cycling clothing stands
in stark contrast to Police Scotland’s stance on the issue. In February,
we reported that a Scottish chief inspector found herself at the centre
of a “victim blaming” row when she urged pedestrians to wear “reflective
or fluorescent” clothing, after six people walking were killed after
being hit by other road users in just 13 days.

“Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing,” Ch Insp Lorraine Napier said at the time.

“I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk.”

This mindset – that vulnerable road users are putting themselves at risk
in certain situations, and are therefore responsible for collisions – was criticised by Simon Bradshaw, the Cycling Road Safety Manager at Cycling Scotland, who collated this recent data.

“There is sometimes animosity between a minority of people who drive cars and other vehicles and people on pedal cycles, which can sometimes result
in conflict,” Bradshaw said.

“This clearly is unsafe, but it also perpetuates some of the myths that surround people on bikes as well: that people on cycles are unsafe, and
they are the cause of collisions by going through a red light, or through junctions and not obeying the rules of the road. And obviously, there is
a small minority of cyclists who do that, just as there is of people who drive vehicles.”

He continued: “But what the data tells us is that cyclist behaviour isn’t a major factor which is causing people on bikes to be seriously injured
or even killed. The biggest risk is from the presence of vehicles.

“What we’re trying to demonstrate by highlighting this data is that on most occasions, where you have a collision between a person on a bike and
a vehicle, it tends to be the fault of the person driving the vehicle.

Bradshaw believes that cyclists have been dehumanised by some motorists, creating a narrative in which they are blamed for causing collisions and increasing the danger on the roads.

“A minority of people get behind the wheel of a vehicle but then tend to see people on bikes as sort of not human,” he said.

“Language is very important in these in these discussions, because there’s a lot of emotive language being used in certain quarters.

“We’re trying to make the point that it’s generally not people on bikes who are causing the problem or the greatest risk. It’s people in vehicles and that’s where we’re wanting to focus our efforts, on preventing collisions in the first place.”

The Cycling Scotland representative also called on Police Scotland to introduce a dedicated reporting mechanism for close passes – with the
force coming in for criticism in recent months due to the continued
absence of an online portal, causing near misses for cyclists to be underreported – and argued that it was difficult to make progress concerning road safety in Scotland due to the a lack of a “consistent overall approach” from the various groups involved, such as the police
and local and national authorities.

He added: “We’re trying very hard to do that and Transport Scotland’s road safety framework provides a good structure for everybody to try and
work together but it takes actually drawing out the data.

“Because it’s all about being evidence-led. There is no point investing money on road safety interventions that aren’t supported by the evidence and are therefore likely to be ineffective.

“So somebody highlighting the fact that wearing dark clothing at night is not supported in the data as being the cause of people on bikes being
killed or seriously injured. And that’s really important, because you
would hope then that puts it to bed.

That doesn’t ’put it to bed’. It raises the question of why motor-vehicles
need lights at all, enforced by law and rigorous yearly testing. Why have lights at all if the results of not having any can be ‘put to bed’ as insignificant?

Cycling Scotland seems to be playing the morally-bankrupt “it’s only a handful” argument that gets regularly trotted out when it comes to walkers slaughtered by pavement cyclists.

“And you can focus on the real issue, which is actually the people in vehicles posing the biggest risks. But it’s likely to be an issue which never goes away. It’ll consistently pop up and raise its head. And we
just have to keep addressing it, I think.”

https://road.cc/content/news/drivers-fault-almost-three-quarters-all-collisions-302565

This whole thing is laughable.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Seems to tally with the ONS/DfT stats from a few years ago that showed that drivers were to blame 2-3 times more often than cyclists in car vs bike KSIs for every age group except children. The DfT report also pointed out that the "partial blame" stats
were somewhat dubious, as they contained a lot of Police anti-cyclist bias - cyclists being attributed partial blame for not wearing light/hi-vis on bright, clear days with good visibility, for example.

Of course, the press took this story and spun it in the the most anti-cyclist way they could, combining "partial" fault and "full" fault to get "cyclists to blame in 55% of crashes", but not doing the same for drivers (to blame in ~87% of crashes or
whatever it would have been).

Funnily enough, Ashley Neal did a video on this, but because he didn't bother to read any more than the editorialised headline, he marked the release of a report that essentially showed that cyclists aren't to blame in most KSIs with a video shitting all
over cyclists, telling us to be better (and he wonders why he isn't particularly popular on here) - let's see if he does anything with this data...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Seems to tally with the ONS/DfT stats from a few years ago that showed
that drivers were to blame 2-3 times more often than cyclists in car vs
bike KSIs for every age group except children. The DfT report also
pointed out that the "partial blame" stats were somewhat dubious, as they contained a lot of Police anti-cyclist bias - cyclists being attributed partial blame for not wearing light/hi-vis on bright, clear days with
good visibility, for example.

Of course, the press took this story and spun it in the the most
anti-cyclist way they could, combining "partial" fault and "full" fault
to get "cyclists to blame in 55% of crashes", but not doing the same for drivers (to blame in ~87% of crashes or whatever it would have been).

Funnily enough, Ashley Neal did a video on this, but because he didn't
bother to read any more than the editorialised headline, he marked the release of a report that essentially showed that cyclists aren't to blame
in most KSIs with a video shitting all over cyclists, telling us to be
better (and he wonders why he isn't particularly popular on here) - let's
see if he does anything with this data...

ROFL at the paucity of those ‘arguments’!

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Given that this was taken from police reports of who was at fault and police Scotland don't have a great reputation (not as bad as Lancashire obviously!) this is pretty damning and probably underestimates slightly, after all no accidents are attributed
to 'driving a black car at night'.

In other news the Pope is Catholic and bears s**t in the woods.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Given that this was taken from police reports of who was at fault and
police Scotland don't have a great reputation (not as bad as Lancashire obviously!) this is pretty damning and probably underestimates slightly, after all no accidents are attributed to 'driving a black car at night'.

I think you missed the fact the car would have hundreds of watts of
lighting in operation…🙄

In other news the Pope is Catholic and bears s**t in the woods.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I'm intrigued by the 19 cases where the cyclists was deemed to be at fault due to their clothes being dark.

If these cyclists had no lights or reflectors after sunset then I would have thought that would be the cited cause.

But if they were in compliance with lights and reflectors regs, then what they were wearing should be irrelevant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16/07/2023 04:19 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm intrigued by the 19 cases where the cyclists was [sic] deemed to be at fault due to their clothes being dark.

If these chavs had no lights or reflectors after sunset then I would have thought that would be the cited cause.

But if they were in compliance with lights and reflectors regs, then what they were wearing should be irrelevant.

Have you "thought" of asking the people whose stats they were?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I was recently t-boned by a driver on a bright sunny day while I was wearing a fluoro orange shirt and a fluoro yellow gilet and a 320 lumen bright light flashing forward on my helmet and a similar red one on the back. I've always thought that wearing
dark clothing wasn't a good idea, but it seems like they're just dumb shits behind the wheel and colour means SFA to some.

In my correspondence with the driver to recover the AUD$3K repairs to the bike, he's crying because he has been fined ~AUD$500. In AUS you'll be fined >$350 for not wearing a helmet. How's that fair. What really annoyed me is that plod spoke of fines >
AUD$3k and probably loss of licence, but he backed off. He spoke of charges for negligent driving causing GBH; failure to report the incident; failure to render assistance (he remained on-site but didn't bother to see whether I was OK); and then there
was failure to obey the give way sign; failure to give way to a vehicle on his right; etc; you get the picture!

In the meantime I experience the joy of recovering from a fractured collarbone. Fortunately it was a sedan, not a 4WD/SUV which are becoming too prevalent on AUS roads, or it could have been catastrophic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

I was recently t-boned by a driver on a bright sunny day while I was
wearing a fluoro orange shirt and a fluoro yellow gilet and a 320 lumen bright light flashing forward on my helmet and a similar red one on the
back. I've always thought that wearing dark clothing wasn't a good idea,
but it seems like they're just dumb shits behind the wheel and colour means SFA to some.

And that’s the complete account of the incident, is it?

In my correspondence with the driver to recover the AUD$3K repairs to the bike, he's crying because he has been fined ~AUD$500. In AUS you'll be
fined >$350 for not wearing a helmet. How's that fair. What really
annoyed me is that plod spoke of fines >AUD$3k and probably loss of
licence, but he backed off. He spoke of charges for negligent driving
causing GBH; failure to report the incident; failure to render assistance
(he remained on-site but didn't bother to see whether I was OK); and then there was failure to obey the give way sign; failure to give way to a
vehicle on his right; etc; you get the picture!

In the meantime I experience the joy of recovering from a fractured collarbone. Fortunately it was a sedan, not a 4WD/SUV which are becoming
too prevalent on AUS roads, or it could have been catastrophic.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Apparently according to a FOI request I dug up, Polis Scotland have put the portal on hold (kicked into the long grass) due to lack of cash. Even with the grant from the govt there is insufficient funds to make it happen.

Even without the portal there seems to be a general reticence amongst a lot of constables to deal with complaints as a 'victim' of road crime and it feels that they're thinking "here we go again, another whinging cyclist". So unless you wind up with a
motivated constable you're pretty much stuffed.

On one occasion when chatting with TB about the lack of close pass operations in the area they seemed more concerned about the lack of helmet. I witheringly replied that if I'm hit at 50mph plus by a vehicle they're dealing with a KSI regardless to
receive a grudging suppose so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Apparently according to a FOI request I dug up, Polis Scotland have put
the portal on hold (kicked into the long grass) due to lack of cash. Even with the grant from the govt there is insufficient funds to make it happen.

Even without the portal there seems to be a general reticence amongst a
lot of constables to deal with complaints as a 'victim' of road crime and
it feels that they're thinking "here we go again, another whinging
cyclist". So unless you wind up with a motivated constable you're pretty much stuffed.

On one occasion when chatting with TB about the lack of close pass
operations in the area they seemed more concerned about the lack of
helmet. I witheringly replied that if I'm hit at 50mph plus by a vehicle they're dealing with a KSI regardless to receive a grudging suppose so.

The usual pathetic anti-helmet claptrap.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

QUOTE: I've been mulling over todays incident - overtook by an Audi on approach to a mini-roundabout who turned left immediately in front of me.

But ... its Police Scotland, and the driver won't be able to remember it happening (as its probably so common for them as a driver, they'll struggle to isolate the single incident amongst the many) ... so I've decided against it.
What's the fecking point ... nothing will happen (fuck, the guy who changed my life only got 6 points and a 250 quid fine - dealt with by fixed penalty points at the scene); all a visit from the Polis is gonna do, is make the cunt turn up the aggression
against cyclists.

So ... instead, I'll just email it over to NMOTD instead, put it on my socials and that'll be that ... might even send it in to all Britain's Got Shit driving...
ENDS

Some forces are very good - it's a postcode lottery. Humberside crushed several illegal motorbike and fined a few drivers on the evidence of my videos.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

QUOTE: I've been mulling over todays incident - overtook by an Audi on approach to a mini-roundabout who turned left immediately in front of me.

But ... its Police Scotland, and the driver won't be able to remember it happening (as its probably so common for them as a driver, they'll
struggle to isolate the single incident amongst the many) ... so I've decided against it.
What's the fecking point ... nothing will happen (fuck, the guy who
changed my life only got 6 points and a 250 quid fine - dealt with by
fixed penalty points at the scene); all a visit from the Polis is gonna
do, is make the cunt turn up the aggression against cyclists.

While you’re sounding off, don’t forget that Rhiannon Bennett’s cyclist killer only got fined £2k…and no points…

So ... instead, I'll just email it over to NMOTD instead, put it on my socials and that'll be that ... might even send it in to all Britain's Got Shit driving...
ENDS

Some forces are very good - it's a postcode lottery. Humberside crushed several illegal motorbike and fined a few drivers on the evidence of my videos.

Who’s a big boy, then?

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

wycombewheeler | 3996 posts | 1 hour ago
2 likes

“wearing dark clothing at night” was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021"

no surprise really, because every driver I know is quick to regale me with tales of all the cyclists they have seen wearing dark clothes at night.
===============

OOF - TAKE THAT!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

wycombewheeler | 3996 posts | 1 hour ago
2 likes

wearing dark clothing at night was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021"

no surprise really, because every driver I know is quick to regale me
with tales of all the cyclists they have seen wearing dark clothes at night. ==============
OOF - TAKE THAT!

No mention of lights…take that!

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

QUOTE: Hirsute replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 7774 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes

Not very convinced competent drivers make up much of the population of drivers. ENDS

You've noticed as well? That's why they make up the majority at fault. QED

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

QUOTE: Hirsute replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 7774 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes

Not very convinced competent drivers make up much of the population of drivers. ENDS

You've noticed as well? That's why they make up the majority at fault. QED

Supposition.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I’ve always argued that it’s “easier” to emergency brake or swerve in a car than a bike because four wheels are more stable so you can turn the wheel really hard or stamp the brake and leave things up to the computer instead of needing to worry
about counterbalancing, shifting weight, feathering brakes, etc. So if a pedestrian steps into your path at a reasonably low speed, a driver can probably avoid them easier than a cyclist.

That being said, I doubt that this is evidence of drivers being better at avoiding incidents than cyclists. I’d say its more likely that, despite the media constantly telling us that cyclists are all lunatics, most people who only have a t-shirt and a
Styrofoam hat to protect themselves, will be a LOT more cautious, risk-adverse and observant. Whereas a two-tonne mobile fortress loaded to the brim with personal safety features and a plethora of distractions will breed a certain degree of complacency.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/07/2023 04:20 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

I’ve always argued that it’s “easier” to emergency brake or swerve in a car than a bike because four wheels are more stable so you can turn the wheel really hard or stamp the brake and leave things up to the computer instead of needing to worry

about counterbalancing, shifting weight, feathering brakes, etc. So if a pedestrian steps into your path at a reasonably low speed, a driver can probably avoid them easier than a cyclist.

So when you're riding your chav-bike, be far more careful than you would
if driving a motor-vehicle?

That being said, I doubt that this is evidence of drivers being better at avoiding incidents than cyclists. I’d say its more likely that, despite the media constantly telling us that cyclists are all lunatics, most people who only have a t-shirt and

a Styrofoam hat to protect themselves, will be a LOT more cautious, risk-adverse and observant. Whereas a two-tonne mobile fortress loaded to the brim with personal safety features and a plethora of distractions will breed a certain degree of complacency.

Crystal ball or tarot?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Carior replied to BalladOfStruth | 122 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

Of course the flip side to this is that if I am on a collision course to bullseye a pedestrian, I only to alter my course by about the width of a human body to ensure we miss each other completely, so maybe a foot, foot and a half (I'm pretty small)
whilst a car needs to alter its path by somewhere between 1 and 1.5m.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Carior replied to BalladOfStruth | 122 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

Of course the flip side to this is that if I am on a collision course to bullseye a pedestrian, I only to alter my course by about the width of a human body to ensure we miss each other completely, so maybe a foot, foot
and a half (I'm pretty small) whilst a car needs to alter its path by somewhere between 1 and 1.5m.

And there you have the cyclist mentality laid bare for all to see.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 4:45:14 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Carior replied to BalladOfStruth | 122 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

Of course the flip side to this is that if I am on a collision course to bullseye a pedestrian, I only to alter my course by about the width of a human body to ensure we miss each other completely, so maybe a foot, foot and a half (I'm pretty small)

whilst a car needs to alter its path by somewhere between 1 and 1.5m.

BalladOfStruth replied to Carior | 388 posts | 6 days ago
0 likes

Depends how far into your path the ped has gotten, but fair point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/07/2023 06:37 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

[pretending not to answer other posters, said:]

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 4:45:14 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Carior replied to BalladOfStruth | 122 posts | 6 days ago

Of course the flip side to this is that if I am on a collision course to bullseye a pedestrian, I only to alter my course by about the width of a human body to ensure we miss each other completely, so maybe a foot, foot and a half (I'm pretty small)

whilst a car needs to alter its path by somewhere between 1 and 1.5m.

BalladOfStruth replied to Carior | 388 posts | 6 days ago
0 likes

Depends how far into your path the ped has gotten, but fair point.

And that is the worst offence in the "mind" of a chav on a bike: getting
into his "path".

Especially on a pedestrian crossing. Or on the footway.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Yes - drivers are a sub-set of the population (e.g. no children, some medical conditions disallowed etc). Also a fraction of them have undergone training and passed a test within a decade. (Many of them - it was multiple decades, and we know that some
out there have never trained or passed a test...)

OR

Yes - because "better abled" - we have spent a LOT of money and political energy on making driving "safe enough" for drivers while still allowing the majority of the population to carry out this activity ad-lib. Our one exception - you shouldn't be
intoxicated. There is reasonable social acceptance of this rule although it's not complete and much less so for some drugs.

So the car "user interface" has seen a ton of work, our car designs, street designs and culture ("don't walk in the road! Always wait for the green man") all work to facilitate mass motoring by indifferent human drivers.

OR

No - because as above we've enabled fairly incompetent driving by ensuring there are few consequences. Some of this is of course to be commended (rumble strips, curves in motorways, traffic lights, speed limits, cats' eyes, energy absorbing crash
barriers, air bags etc.) After all humans are fallible, more or less. However we are still overly reliant on drivers doing the right things - and there is very little feedback for those not doing so. (e.g. police.)

So distracted, long-untrained, tired driving is pretty much considered "standard" along with a bit of phone / device use and speeding. We've almost completely trivialised the safety critical tasks of "paying attention" and "driving to conditions" -
never mind "driving according to the law".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Does anyone know what the posting below is trying to say?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes - drivers are a sub-set of the population (e.g. no children, some
medical conditions disallowed etc). Also a fraction of them have
undergone training and passed a test within a decade. (Many of them - it
was multiple decades, and we know that some out there have never trained
or passed a test...)

OR

Yes - because "better abled" - we have spent a LOT of money and political energy on making driving "safe enough" for drivers while still allowing
the majority of the population to carry out this activity ad-lib. Our
one exception - you shouldn't be intoxicated. There is reasonable social acceptance of this rule although it's not complete and much less so for some drugs.

So the car "user interface" has seen a ton of work, our car designs,
street designs and culture ("don't walk in the road! Always wait for the green man") all work to facilitate mass motoring by indifferent human drivers.

OR

No - because as above we've enabled fairly incompetent driving by
ensuring there are few consequences. Some of this is of course to be commended (rumble strips, curves in motorways, traffic lights, speed
limits, cats' eyes, energy absorbing crash barriers, air bags etc.)
After all humans are fallible, more or less. However we are still overly reliant on drivers doing the right things - and there is very little
feedback for those not doing so. (e.g. police.)

So distracted, long-untrained, tired driving is pretty much considered "standard" along with a bit of phone / device use and speeding. We've almost completely trivialised the safety critical tasks of "paying
attention" and "driving to conditions" - never mind "driving according to the law".

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

“wearing dark clothing at night” was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021"

no surprise really, because every driver I know is quick to regale me with tales of all the cyclists they have seen wearing dark clothes at night.

Funny thing about this 'dark clothing at night' thing - keep an eye open for how many black, grey and silver cars there are out there. If you wanted to design vehicles which were relatively inconsopicuous against the asphalt, you could do worse than
pick those three colours - yet we never see reports of cars being hit due to the colour of their paint.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/07/2023 09:56 pm, Spike wrote:

Does anyone know what the posting below is trying to say?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes - drivers are a sub-set of the population (e.g. no children, some
medical conditions disallowed etc). Also a fraction of them have
undergone training and passed a test within a decade. (Many of them - it
was multiple decades, and we know that some out there have never trained
or passed a test...)

OR

Yes - because "better abled" - we have spent a LOT of money and political
energy on making driving "safe enough" for drivers while still allowing
the majority of the population to carry out this activity ad-lib. Our
one exception - you shouldn't be intoxicated. There is reasonable social
acceptance of this rule although it's not complete and much less so for some drugs.

So the car "user interface" has seen a ton of work, our car designs,
street designs and culture ("don't walk in the road! Always wait for the
green man") all work to facilitate mass motoring by indifferent human drivers.

OR

No - because as above we've enabled fairly incompetent driving by
ensuring there are few consequences. Some of this is of course to be
commended (rumble strips, curves in motorways, traffic lights, speed
limits, cats' eyes, energy absorbing crash barriers, air bags etc.)
After all humans are fallible, more or less. However we are still overly
reliant on drivers doing the right things - and there is very little
feedback for those not doing so. (e.g. police.)

So distracted, long-untrained, tired driving is pretty much considered
"standard" along with a bit of phone / device use and speeding. We've
almost completely trivialised the safety critical tasks of "paying
attention" and "driving to conditions" - never mind "driving according to the law".

Even May Sun doesn't.

So what chance...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The problem is that this analysis was done by Cycling Scotland, rendering it useless as a reliable data source.

If anyone has a link to the underlying data set, I'll take a look at it and produce a real, unbiased analysis.

One can just imagine: cyclist not making a meaningful journey from A to B, cyclist at fault; cyclist did not immediately pull over to allow a car to pass, cyclist at fault; cyclists riding two abreast, cyclists at fault; cyclist not wearing high
visibility tabard with identification number, cyclist at fault…

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

The problem is that this analysis was done by Cycling Scotland,
rendering it useless as a reliable data source.

If anyone has a link to the underlying data set, I'll take a look at
it and produce a real, unbiased analysis.

I doubt it.

One can just imagine: cyclist not making a meaningful journey from A to
B, cyclist at fault; cyclist did not immediately pull over to allow a car
to pass, cyclist at fault; cyclists riding two abreast, cyclists at
fault; cyclist not wearing high visibility tabard with identification
number, cyclist at fault…

That’s why one doubts that you could produce an unbiased report.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

in reply to Wilson Paton
John Rankin 16th July 10:49 am
User ID: 1066207
I use bike to get from A to B. Drop handbars allow you to cycle slowly into a headwind with much less effort. Nothing to do with pretending you are in a road race.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

IanMSpencer replied to HoldingOn | 1862 posts | 1 week ago
4 likes

QUOTE: I don't think he does - from the same experience myself. As in "Look at that cyclist, you can't see him dressed all in black. ENDS

The invisible cyclist was wearing dark green trousers, a dark blue jacket, dark red socks, dark brown shoes, a dark grey hat and he had Sennheiser earpieces in, but I was blinded by the low Sun".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

IanMSpencer replied to HoldingOn | 1862 posts | 1 week ago
4 likes

QUOTE: I don't think he does - from the same experience myself. As in
"Look at that cyclist, you can't see him dressed all in black. ENDS

The invisible cyclist was wearing dark green trousers, a dark blue
jacket, dark red socks, dark brown shoes, a dark grey hat and he had Sennheiser earpieces in, but I was blinded by the low Sun".

In the hot summer of 1940, our fighter pilots were well aware of the saying learned at such a cost by their forbears in WWI, which ran “Beware of the
Hun in the Sun”.

When you hide in the glare of the sun, it doesn’t matter what colour you show.

HTH

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

no surprise really, because every driver I know is quick to regale me with tales of all the cyclists they have seen wearing dark clothes at night.

I assume you mean haven't seen....

if they hadn't seen them, they wouldn't be commenting about it.

Like I've never seen a UFO, but I don't know if that's because they don't exist, or just because they are all painted black.

:-0

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

no surprise really, because every driver I know is quick to
regale me with tales of all the cyclists they have seen wearing dark clothes at night.

I assume you mean haven't seen....

if they hadn't seen them, they wouldn't be commenting about it.

Like I've never seen a UFO, but I don't know if that's because they don't exist, or just because they are all painted black.

:-0

Q: in WWII, what was the worst possible colour you could paint a night
fighter or night bomber?

A: Black

Q: Do you know why?

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

QUOTE: This mindset – that vulnerable road users are putting themselves at risk in certain situations, and are therefore responsible for collisions – was criticised by Simon Bradshaw, the Cycling Road Safety Manager at Cycling Scotland, who collated
this recent data. ENDS

Cyclist victim blaming starter pack:

Follow enough bike news, and it won’t take long for you to notice a few concerning patterns in headlines about bike crashes. The word “accident” appears even when the driver is clearly at fault. A cyclist’s clothing or helmet choice is mentioned�
�though the driver’s DUI only appears in paragraph three. And then there’s the constant “car hits cyclist” refrain, which cloaks the fact that a human being was even at the wheel.

It’s an issue of victim-blaming that frustrates advocacy groups, who say that this kind of messaging from mainstream media scares people who want to ride bikes—and makes cycling less safe as a whole. Martha Roskowski at People for Bikes says there
are several issues at play when it comes to cyclist-blaming headlines. Chief among them is the fact that so many bike crashes are featured in the news at all.

“When there’s a crash that involves a bike, it seems to be more newsworthy than a crash involving two cars or even a car and a pedestrian,” Roskowski says. “There’s more attention paid to them.”

And then there’s the victim-blaming that happens almost immediately.

“You see it in the comments, but it also happens more subtly in the coverage of the crash when the writers immediately go to, ‘Were they wearing a helmet, were they wearing reflective clothing?’” Roskowski says. “On the one hand, it’s
ingrained to ask those questions, but it’s also insidious because it shifts the thinking to what could the cyclist have been done to prevent the crash. Helmets have some potential role in the severity of the injury, but often the force is so immense
that the helmet is not going to change the outcome.”

It’s all part of this idea of shifting the responsibility to the person on the bike before the facts are known, Roskowski says. And where better to do this than immediately—in the article’s headline? We’ve written about this before in our support
of the #CrashNotAccident petition.

“The use of the word 'accident' implies no one meant to do anything,” Roskowski says. “We use accident in just three places: car crashes, workplace accidents, and little kids getting potty-trained. We don’t use it with plane crashes, train
crashes—but for some reason we jump to absolving the driver of blame with language from the beginning, and then the line of thinking goes right to, ‘that person on the bike shouldn’t have been there.’”

So how can we start better framing bicycle crash media reports to be less cyclist-blaming? Let’s start with the headlines. Here are some typical ones—and how we would fix them.

From CBS San Francisco: “Bicyclist Struck, Killed By Car Near Palo Alto.”

‌•Why it’s bad: This is a typical headline about a bike crash, from this week alone. But where’s the motorist in this headline? Was the car driving itself?‌
•A better headline for this news story: “Driver Kills Cyclist Near Palo Alto.”

From the CBC News: “Patricia Keenan, Kelowna cyclist, mourned after fatal crash into car door.”

‌•Why it’s bad: If you read the text of the article, it’s clear Keenan was actually killed when a car driver opened his or her car door into the cyclist’s path, which is illegal in most places and puts the driver at fault. But to read the
headline, you would think she rode her bike directly into a parked car and there was no second party involved at all. It’s a tragedy—and an unintentional one, for sure—but if we expect to raise awareness about the dangers of opening a car door
without checking for cyclists, absolving drivers of any guilt in Keenan’s death is not the way to do it.
‌•A better headline for this news story: “Patricia Keenan, Kelowna cyclist, mourned after being fatally struck by driver’s car door.”

From the Newtown, PA Patch: “Cyclist 'Lucky To Be Alive' After River Road Accident: Police.”

‌•Why it’s bad: Here’s an interesting one. The headline makes it seem like if anyone is at fault in this incident, it’s likely the cyclist. But midway through the article, this sentence appears: “The cyclist was not at fault, and the driver,
who has not been identified, was solely responsible for the accident, police said." If the driver was solely responsible (and in this case, driving with a suspended license), how was this an accident? Just another reason we support the use of #
CrashNotAccident in headlines.
‌•A better headline for this news story: “Cyclist Seriously Injured in River Road Crash; Driver Will Face Charges.”

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Bicyclist fatally run over was new to Minneapolis, careful about bike safety.”

‌•Why it’s bad: The focus on the cyclist’s safety in the headline and throughout the article makes it clear “this was one of the good ones.” Another piece on this same incident chose the same tack, using the headline, “Bicyclist Killed On
Franklin Ave. Wore Helmet, Lights, Just Moved To Mpls.” But why can’t we start from the understanding that cyclists don’t deserve to be hit by drunk drivers—even if they’re not wearing helmets or carrying lights?
‌•A better headline for this news story: “Drunk Driver Arrested After Striking and Killing Cyclist.”

From the Chicago Tribune: “Des Plaines woman, 66, dies when bicycle collides with car in Aurora.”

‌•Why it’s bad: The headline implies her bicycle struck an immobile vehicle by the use of “bicycle” before “car.” But the cyclist was riding with a group of cyclists on a trail when a driver hit her with a car at a street crossing. The use
of “collision” is common in headlines about crashes between two cars—but if a motorist hit a pedestrian, would you ever frame that as a pedestrian “colliding” with a moving car? The forces are too dissimilar. In this case, “hit by a car”
seems far more accurate and less cyclist-blaming.
•A better headline for this news story: “Des Plaines cyclist, 66, struck and killed by car driver in Aurora.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

QUOTE: This mindset – that vulnerable road users are putting themselves
at risk in certain situations, and are therefore responsible for
collisions – was criticised by Simon Bradshaw, the Cycling Road Safety Manager at Cycling Scotland, who collated this recent data. ENDS

Totally even-handedly, of course.

Cyclist victim blaming starter pack:

Follow enough bike news, and it won’t take long for you to notice a few concerning patterns in headlines about bike crashes. The word “accident” appears even when the driver is clearly at fault.

“Accident” is the legal term. Didn’t Simon Bradshaw, the Cycling Road Safety Manager at Cycling Scotland, know that?

A cyclist’s clothing or helmet choice is mentioned—though the driver’s DUI only appears in paragraph three. And then there’s the constant “car hits cyclist” refrain, which cloaks the fact that a human being was even at the wheel.

“Driver hits cyclist” has the wrong connotation to it…🙄

It’s an issue of victim-blaming that frustrates advocacy groups…

Who do exact the same thing: “The shop-assistant driver was 37-year-old mother-of-three…” etc.

who say that this kind of messaging from mainstream media scares people
who want to ride bikes—and makes cycling less safe as a whole.

If they are that ‘scared’ then perhaps it’s better for everyone that they don’t take up cycling - they could wind up cycling on the pavement for ‘safety reasons’, meaning their own, of course, while putting walkers at risk,

Martha Roskowski at People for Bikes says there are several issues at play
when it comes to cyclist-blaming headlines. Chief among them is the fact
that so many bike crashes are featured in the news at all.

But ‘every movement needs its martyrs’, and bicycle crashes keep cycling on the front page.

“When there’s a crash that involves a bike, it seems to be more newsworthy than a crash involving two cars or even a car and a
pedestrian,” Roskowski says. “There’s more attention paid to them.”

That’s what I just said…

And then there’s the victim-blaming that happens almost immediately.

“You see it in the comments, but it also happens more subtly in the coverage of the crash when the writers immediately go to, ‘Were they wearing a helmet, were they wearing reflective clothing?’” Roskowski says.

It’s that ‘shop-assistant driver was 37-year-old mother-of-three…’ thing
again, only this time it’s the cyclist on the receiving end, and cycling vigilantes don’t like it.

“On the one hand, it’s ingrained to ask those questions, but it’s also insidious because it shifts the thinking to what could the cyclist have
been done to prevent the crash.

And thinking ‘what the cyclist could have done to mitigate the accident’ is a perfectly acceptable question to pose.

Helmets have some potential role in the severity of the injury, but often
the force is so immense that the helmet is not going to change the outcome.”

Then you need either better helmets, or soft-rubber roads.

It’s all part of this idea of shifting the responsibility to the person
on the bike before the facts are known, Roskowski says.

It’s all part of determining all the facts of the accident, in order to
draw the right conclusions from it.

And where better to do this than immediately—in the article’s headline? We’ve written about this before in our support of the #CrashNotAccident petition.

So where should one write the information that ‘Cyclist punched pensioner
to the ground for daring to suggest he cycles in the road’?

“The use of the word 'accident' implies no one meant to do anything,” Roskowski says. “We use accident in just three places: car crashes, workplace accidents, and little kids getting potty-trained.

Road Traffic law defines the term ’accident’, and is the correct term to use.

We don’t use it with plane crashes, train crashes—but for some reason we jump to absolving the driver of blame with language from the beginning,
and then the line of thinking goes right to, ‘that person on the bike shouldn’t have been there.’”

And that is a totally manufactured line of thinking.

So how can we start better framing bicycle crash media reports to be less cyclist-blaming? Let’s start with the headlines. Here are some typical ones—and how we would fix them.

From CBS San Francisco: “Bicyclist Struck, Killed By Car Near Palo Alto.”

‌•Why it’s bad: This is a typical headline about a bike crash, from this week alone. But where’s the motorist in this headline? Was the car driving itself?‌

•A better headline for this news story: “Driver Kills Cyclist Near Palo Alto.”

A far less accurate description.

From the CBC News: “Patricia Keenan, Kelowna cyclist, mourned after fatal crash into car door.”

Which is an accurate description of the incident.

‌•Why it’s bad: If you read the text of the article, it’s clear Keenan was
actually killed when a car driver opened his or her car door into the cyclist’s path, which is illegal in most places and puts the driver at
fault. But to read the headline, you would think she rode her bike directly into a parked car and there was no second party involved at all.

That is so peurile as an argument.

It’s a tragedy—and an unintentional one, for sure—but if we expect to raise awareness about the dangers of opening a car door without checking
for cyclists, absolving drivers of any guilt in Keenan’s death is not the way to do it.

That is a different argument.

‌•A better headline for this news story: “Patricia Keenan, Kelowna cyclist,
mourned after being fatally struck by driver’s car door.”

Is it a better headline?

From the Newtown, PA Patch: “Cyclist 'Lucky To Be Alive' After River Road Accident: Police.”

Which in all probability is true.

‌•Why it’s bad: Here’s an interesting one. The headline makes it seem like
if anyone is at fault in this incident, it’s likely the cyclist.

Does it?

But midway through the article, this sentence appears: “The cyclist was
not at fault, and the driver, who has not been identified, was solely responsible for the accident, police said." If the driver was solely responsible (and in this case, driving with a suspended license), how was this an accident? Just another reason we support the use of
#CrashNotAccident in headlines.

‌•A better headline for this news story:

“Cyclist Seriously Injured in River Road Crash; Driver Will Face Charges.”

It’s certainly different, but not necessarily better.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Bicyclist fatally run over was new to Minneapolis, careful about bike safety.”

‌•Why it’s bad: The focus on the cyclist’s safety in the headline and throughout the article makes it clear “this was one of the good ones.” Another piece on this same incident chose the same tack, using the
headline, “Bicyclist Killed On Franklin Ave. Wore Helmet, Lights, Just
Moved To Mpls.” But why can’t we start from the understanding that cyclists don’t deserve to be hit by drunk drivers—even if they’re not wearing helmets or carrying lights?
‌•A better headline for this news story: “Drunk Driver Arrested After Striking and Killing Cyclist.”

From the Chicago Tribune: “Des Plaines woman, 66, dies when bicycle collides with car in Aurora.”

‌•Why it’s bad: The headline implies her bicycle struck an immobile vehicle
by the use of “bicycle” before “car.” But the cyclist was riding with a group of cyclists on a trail when a driver hit her with a car at a street crossing. The use of “collision” is common in headlines about crashes between two cars—but if a motorist hit a pedestrian, would you ever frame that as a pedestrian “colliding” with a moving car? The forces are too dissimilar. In this case, “hit by a car” seems far more accurate and less cyclist-blaming.

•A better headline for this news story: “Des Plaines cyclist, 66, struck and killed by car driver in Aurora.”

See comments above.


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/07/2023 08:12 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

QUOTE: This mindset – that vulnerable road users are putting themselves at risk in certain situations, and are therefore responsible for collisions – was criticised by Simon Bradshaw, the Cycling Road Safety Manager at Cycling Scotland, who

collated this recent data. ENDS

Cyclist victim blaming starter pack:

Follow enough bike news, and it won’t take long for you to notice a few concerning patterns in headlines about bike crashes. The word “accident” appears even when the driver is clearly at fault. A cyclist’s clothing or helmet choice is

mentioned—though the driver’s DUI only appears in paragraph three. And then there’s the constant “car hits cyclist” refrain, which cloaks the fact that a human being was even at the wheel.

It’s an issue of victim-blaming that frustrates advocacy groups, who say that this kind of messaging from mainstream media scares people who want to ride bikes—and makes cycling less safe as a whole. Martha Roskowski at People for Bikes says there

are several issues at play when it comes to cyclist-blaming headlines. Chief among them is the fact that so many bike crashes are featured in the news at all.

“When there’s a crash that involves a bike, it seems to be more newsworthy than a crash involving two cars or even a car and a pedestrian,” Roskowski says. “There’s more attention paid to them.”

And then there’s the victim-blaming that happens almost immediately.

“You see it in the comments, but it also happens more subtly in the coverage of the crash when the writers immediately go to, ‘Were they wearing a helmet, were they wearing reflective clothing?’” Roskowski says. “On the one hand, it’s

ingrained to ask those questions, but it’s also insidious because it shifts the thinking to what could the cyclist have been done to prevent the crash. Helmets have some potential role in the severity of the injury, but often the force is so immense
that the helmet is not going to change the outcome.”

It’s all part of this idea of shifting the responsibility to the person on the bike before the facts are known, Roskowski says. And where better to do this than immediately—in the article’s headline? We’ve written about this before in our

support of the #CrashNotAccident petition.

“The use of the word 'accident' implies no one meant to do anything,” Roskowski says. “We use accident in just three places: car crashes, workplace accidents, and little kids getting potty-trained. We don’t use it with plane crashes, train

crashes—but for some reason we jump to absolving the driver of blame with language from the beginning, and then the line of thinking goes right to, ‘that person on the bike shouldn’t have been there.’”

So how can we start better framing bicycle crash media reports to be less cyclist-blaming? Let’s start with the headlines. Here are some typical ones—and how we would fix them.

From CBS San Francisco: “Bicyclist Struck, Killed By Car Near Palo Alto.”

‌•Why it’s bad: This is a typical headline about a bike crash, from this week alone. But where’s the motorist in this headline? Was the car driving itself?‌
•A better headline for this news story: “Driver Kills Cyclist Near Palo Alto.”

From the CBC News: “Patricia Keenan, Kelowna cyclist, mourned after fatal crash into car door.”

‌•Why it’s bad: If you read the text of the article, it’s clear Keenan was actually killed when a car driver opened his or her car door into the cyclist’s path, which is illegal in most places and puts the driver at fault. But to read the

headline, you would think she rode her bike directly into a parked car and there was no second party involved at all. It’s a tragedy—and an unintentional one, for sure—but if we expect to raise awareness about the dangers of opening a car door
without checking for cyclists, absolving drivers of any guilt in Keenan’s death is not the way to do it.

‌•A better headline for this news story: “Patricia Keenan, Kelowna cyclist, mourned after being fatally struck by driver’s car door.”

From the Newtown, PA Patch: “Cyclist 'Lucky To Be Alive' After River Road Accident: Police.”

‌•Why it’s bad: Here’s an interesting one. The headline makes it seem like if anyone is at fault in this incident, it’s likely the cyclist. But midway through the article, this sentence appears: “The cyclist was not at fault, and the driver,

who has not been identified, was solely responsible for the accident, police said." If the driver was solely responsible (and in this case, driving with a suspended license), how was this an accident? Just another reason we support the use of #
CrashNotAccident in headlines.

‌•A better headline for this news story: “Cyclist Seriously Injured in River Road Crash; Driver Will Face Charges.”

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Bicyclist fatally run over was new to Minneapolis, careful about bike safety.”

‌•Why it’s bad: The focus on the cyclist’s safety in the headline and throughout the article makes it clear “this was one of the good ones.” Another piece on this same incident chose the same tack, using the headline, “Bicyclist Killed On

Franklin Ave. Wore Helmet, Lights, Just Moved To Mpls.” But why can’t we start from the understanding that cyclists don’t deserve to be hit by drunk drivers—even if they’re not wearing helmets or carrying lights?

‌•A better headline for this news story: “Drunk Driver Arrested After Striking and Killing Cyclist.”

From the Chicago Tribune: “Des Plaines woman, 66, dies when bicycle collides with car in Aurora.”

‌•Why it’s bad: The headline implies her bicycle struck an immobile vehicle by the use of “bicycle” before “car.” But the cyclist was riding with a group of cyclists on a trail when a driver hit her with a car at a street crossing. The

use of “collision” is common in headlines about crashes between two cars—but if a motorist hit a pedestrian, would you ever frame that as a pedestrian “colliding” with a moving car? The forces are too dissimilar. In this case, “hit by a car”
seems far more accurate and less cyclist-blaming.

•A better headline for this news story: “Des Plaines cyclist, 66, struck and killed by car driver in Aurora.”

You'd better sit down.

I have some really bad news for you.

You see... this ship in Boston harbour had a cargo of tea, on which tax
was due to be paid by the colonists. But...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Greater Manchester Police have been slammed for 'victim blaming' after they posted a video about road safety which suggested a cyclist hit by a drink driver should have worn a high visibility jacket.

The video, which was posted on the force's Twitter account and features a Family Liaison Officer within the Serious Collision Unit, references a case where a female cyclist was left with life-changing injuries after being knocked off her bike whilst
cycling on the pavement.

During the clip, which has since been deleted, the officer issues a message that cyclists and motorcyclists should wear protective clothing such as a high visibility jacket and make themselves as visible as possible on the road.

The messaging has been heavily criticised, with scores of people on the social media site weighing in on the force for 'victim blaming' the cyclist, and for failing to acknowledge the fault of the drink driver.

One person wrote: "This is unbelievable messaging. Drunk driver hits cyclist who is on a pavement (because the roads are so unsafe and lawless), and the takeaway message you’ve gone with is wear high vis?!!"

Another said: "Somebody suffers serious injuries being hit by a driver on the PAVEMENT & your take is that vulnerable people should have hi vis? Where is your campaign to stop the danger? The danger is the driver if you are not able to work that out."

The force have since deleted the original video and issued a statement saying the film 'did not adequately describe the action that GMP takes to keep people safe.'

During the video, the liaison officer talks of how dangerous the roads can be for those 'on two wheels.' "Being a cyclist or motorcyclist can be even more dangerous because you've got less presence on the road so there's less for people to see," she said.

She continued: "We went to a collision of a cyclist who was cycling on the pavement because they felt it was safer. Unfortunately they were hit by a drunk driver and they suffered life-threatening injuries at the time and now suffering with injuries that
are going to stay with them and impact their lives.

"It was complete devastation. It was awful the carnage we were met with. And then the victim's partner arrived on scene and trying to keep them calm so the paramedics are able to do their job. Just the look of devastation and just feeling useless at that
time. So for cyclists and motorcyclists basically to wear the protective clothing, wear the high vis, make yourself as visible as possible to everyone on the road.

"And to other road users obviously to show some patience and make sure that you give these riders enough space when overtaking or when you're driving alongside them."

The video was met with outrage, with some people demanding the force to remove the clip - which they now have. One Twitter user even said he had reported the footage to the IOPC.

"For goodness sake @GMPolice, take this awful rubbish down! Blaming someone hit on the footway by a drunk driver for not wearing hi-viz and a helmet? Does that apply to people walking on the footway as well," one person said.

Another wrote: "Very poor. You put the emphasis on the victim rather than on the perpetrators. Prevention is better than PPE. Better to educate motorists to drive legally and safely."

"Why isn't the message here don't drink and drive? That feels like the actual cause. The woman was on the pavement. If she'd been a pedestrian, what would you have been saying here," one person wrote.

Another user posted: "It’s not the drunk drivers I’m worried about, it’s the attitude where @gmpolice think it’s appropriate to blame cyclists for bringing harm on ourselves. The message should be for all road users to respect the road and each
other, irrespective of how many wheels we have."

"My sister's husband was killed, while stationary on a motorcycle, by a dangerous driver (since convicted) doing 70mph. I'm so relieved that excellent staff from Thames Valley Police were involved in the immediate response and family liaison, not this
victim-blaming nonsense," another said.

A spokesperson for GMP said: "The film was part of a national campaign called #2wheeloperation aimed at helping cyclists and motorcyclists stay safe by encouraging people to take the steps they can to reduce road risk. However, the film does not
adequately describe the action that GMP takes to keep people safe including the pursuit and prosecution of drink and drug drivers and all those who choose to use our roads illegally.

"There is much more that we can and will be doing to improve road safety and for this reason we are currently recruiting an additional 60 dedicated road safety police officers. We thank those who have provided feedback."

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gmp-slammed-victim-blaming-after-23677011

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

GMP are silent here on the risk to pedestrians from either party involved, although if the victim had been a pedestrian one suspects nothing would
have been heard of the case. Amazing what the rentamob can do these days on social media.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Greater Manchester Police have been slammed for 'victim blaming' after
they posted a video about road safety which suggested a cyclist hit by a drink driver should have worn a high visibility jacket.

The video, which was posted on the force's Twitter account and features a Family Liaison Officer within the Serious Collision Unit, references a
case where a female cyclist was left with life-changing injuries after
being knocked off her bike whilst cycling on the pavement.

During the clip, which has since been deleted, the officer issues a
message that cyclists and motorcyclists should wear protective clothing
such as a high visibility jacket and make themselves as visible as possible on the road.

The messaging has been heavily criticised, with scores of people on the social media site weighing in on the force for 'victim blaming' the
cyclist, and for failing to acknowledge the fault of the drink driver.

One person wrote: "This is unbelievable messaging. Drunk driver hits
cyclist who is on a pavement (because the roads are so unsafe and
lawless), and the takeaway message you’ve gone with is wear high vis?!!"

Another said: "Somebody suffers serious injuries being hit by a driver on
the PAVEMENT & your take is that vulnerable people should have hi vis?
Where is your campaign to stop the danger? The danger is the driver if
you are not able to work that out."

The force have since deleted the original video and issued a statement
saying the film 'did not adequately describe the action that GMP takes to keep people safe.'

During the video, the liaison officer talks of how dangerous the roads
can be for those 'on two wheels.' "Being a cyclist or motorcyclist can be even more dangerous because you've got less presence on the road so
there's less for people to see," she said.

She continued: "We went to a collision of a cyclist who was cycling on
the pavement because they felt it was safer. Unfortunately they were hit
by a drunk driver and they suffered life-threatening injuries at the time
and now suffering with injuries that are going to stay with them and impact their lives.

"It was complete devastation. It was awful the carnage we were met with.
And then the victim's partner arrived on scene and trying to keep them
calm so the paramedics are able to do their job. Just the look of
devastation and just feeling useless at that time. So for cyclists and motorcyclists basically to wear the protective clothing, wear the high
vis, make yourself as visible as possible to everyone on the road.

"And to other road users obviously to show some patience and make sure
that you give these riders enough space when overtaking or when you're driving alongside them."

The video was met with outrage, with some people demanding the force to remove the clip - which they now have. One Twitter user even said he had reported the footage to the IOPC.

"For goodness sake @GMPolice, take this awful rubbish down! Blaming
someone hit on the footway by a drunk driver for not wearing hi-viz and a helmet? Does that apply to people walking on the footway as well," one person said.

Another wrote: "Very poor. You put the emphasis on the victim rather than
on the perpetrators. Prevention is better than PPE. Better to educate motorists to drive legally and safely."

"Why isn't the message here don't drink and drive? That feels like the
actual cause. The woman was on the pavement. If she'd been a pedestrian,
what would you have been saying here," one person wrote.

Another user posted: "It’s not the drunk drivers I’m worried about, it’s
the attitude where @gmpolice think it’s appropriate to blame cyclists for bringing harm on ourselves. The message should be for all road users to respect the road and each other, irrespective of how many wheels we have."

"My sister's husband was killed, while stationary on a motorcycle, by a dangerous driver (since convicted) doing 70mph. I'm so relieved that excellent staff from Thames Valley Police were involved in the immediate response and family liaison, not this victim-blaming nonsense," another said.

A spokesperson for GMP said: "The film was part of a national campaign
called #2wheeloperation aimed at helping cyclists and motorcyclists stay
safe by encouraging people to take the steps they can to reduce road
risk. However, the film does not adequately describe the action that GMP takes to keep people safe including the pursuit and prosecution of drink
and drug drivers and all those who choose to use our roads illegally.

"There is much more that we can and will be doing to improve road safety
and for this reason we are currently recruiting an additional 60
dedicated road safety police officers. We thank those who have provided feedback."

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gmp-slammed-victim-blaming-after-23677011

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Transport for London has halted an ad campaign promoting road safety that featured a driver and cyclist making up after the latter was almost hit, following a backlash accusing the ad of “victim blaming”.

The TfL campaign, called See Their Side, was launched during Road Safety Week last month as part of the London mayor Sadiq Khan’s long-term goal of having no deaths and serious injuries on the capital’s roads by 2041.

TfL had planned that the campaign, which includes a 60-second television ad that has already been showing on channels including ITV, would run for “a number of years”, but a backlash has prompted the mayor’s cycling and walking commissioner to
pause it.

In the film, a driver is seen slamming on her brakes after almost knocking a cyclist off his bike. At first the pair begin an altercation blaming each other for the incident, before the road rage subsides into a moment of reflection where both parties
express concern for each other and ask if they are OK.

The campaign ran with the strapline: “See their side. See safer roads.” It was created by the ad agency VCCP London, which has since taken down a webpage about its work.

While VCCP’s original press release said the campaign aimed to “directly tackle the tribal culture which currently dominates London’s roads” and “targets all road users”, it seems to have instead intensified the divide between cyclists and
drivers.

Cyclists and road safety groups have criticised the campaign for “victim blaming” and promoting “false equivalence”, the idea that road users should share equal responsibility for incidents, arguing that the car driver is clearly in the wrong in
the ad.

On Wednesday, Will Norman, the mayor’s cycling and walking commissioner, tweeted that the campaign would be “paused to consider the feedback that has been received”.

“I know there has been a lot of concern raised about the ‘See their side’ advert,” he said. “The campaign has been paused to consider the feedback … City Hall and TfL remain committed to improving the road culture in London and reducing road
danger.”

The Advertising Standards Authority, which assesses whether campaigns have broken the UK advertising code, has so far received 70 complaints about the ad. Complainants argue that it unfairly places equal blame on cyclists and drivers and shows a car
making an illegally close pass on the rider.

A spokesperson for the ASA said the complaints had not yet been assessed to determine if there were grounds to launch an investigation into whether the campaign broke any rules.

A spokesman for TfL said the organisation recognised that those walking and cycling were much more vulnerable than drivers.

“The aim of this campaign is to challenge the sometimes divergent nature of London’s road culture and to encourage all road users to be more empathetic when travelling,” said the spokesman. “We know that people walking and cycling are much more
vulnerable on the roads than other groups of road users, and this campaign is not designed to suggest otherwise.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Transport for London has halted an ad campaign promoting road safety that featured a driver and cyclist making up after the latter was almost hit, following a backlash accusing the ad of “victim blaming”.

Sounds like the rentamob has been busy again.

The TfL campaign, called See Their Side, was launched during Road Safety
Week last month as part of the London mayor Sadiq Khan’s long-term goal
of having no deaths and serious injuries on the capital’s roads by 2041.

With 1 in 6 of bicyclist deaths arising from Single Vehicle Accidents,
combined with a huge drive to de-car London in favour of bicyclists, how
does he think that is going to work?

Note that do-gooders always have remote target dates, learned the hard way after claiming the Maldives would be under water by 2015.

TfL had planned that the campaign, which includes a 60-second television
ad that has already been showing on channels including ITV, would run for “a number of years”, but a backlash has prompted the mayor’s cycling and
walking commissioner to pause it.

In the film, a driver is seen slamming on her brakes after almost
knocking a cyclist off his bike. At first the pair begin an altercation blaming each other for the incident, before the road rage subsides into a moment of reflection where both parties express concern for each other
and ask if they are OK.

The campaign ran with the strapline: “See their side. See safer roads.” It was created by the ad agency VCCP London, which has since taken down a webpage about its work.

While VCCP’s original press release said the campaign aimed to “directly tackle the tribal culture which currently dominates London’s roads” and “targets all road users”, it seems to have instead intensified the divide between cyclists and drivers.

Cyclists and road safety groups have criticised the campaign for “victim blaming” and promoting “false equivalence”, the idea that road users should share equal responsibility for incidents, arguing that the car
driver is clearly in the wrong in the ad.

On Wednesday, Will Norman, the mayor’s cycling and walking commissioner, tweeted that the campaign would be “paused to consider the feedback that has been received”.

“I know there has been a lot of concern raised about the ‘See their side’
advert,” he said. “The campaign has been paused to consider the feedback … City Hall and TfL remain committed to improving the road culture in London and reducing road danger.”

The Advertising Standards Authority, which assesses whether campaigns
have broken the UK advertising code, has so far received 70 complaints
about the ad. Complainants argue that it unfairly places equal blame on cyclists and drivers and shows a car making an illegally close pass on the rider.

A spokesperson for the ASA said the complaints had not yet been assessed
to determine if there were grounds to launch an investigation into
whether the campaign broke any rules.

A spokesman for TfL said the organisation recognised that those walking
and cycling were much more vulnerable than drivers.

“The aim of this campaign is to challenge the sometimes divergent nature
of London’s road culture and to encourage all road users to be more empathetic when travelling,” said the spokesman. “We know that people walking and cycling are much more vulnerable on the roads than other
groups of road users, and this campaign is not designed to suggest otherwise.”

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Cycling campaigners have reacted angrily to a tweet from the Highway Code that said cyclists should wear helmets and protective clothing, saying the advice fuelled a culture of “victim blaming”.

The official Twitter account’s post encouraging people to wear “appropriate clothes for cycling” was met with negative responses from those who believe the suggestion to be ineffective. The code is published by the Department for Transport.

A spokesperson for Cycling UK said the recommendation led to a culture of “victim blaming” of cyclists and allowed careless drivers to evade responsibility.

“Helmets are only really effective in low-impact collisions, we need better infrastructure for cyclists and education for drivers,” they said.

“If you look at places like the Netherlands and Denmark, where there are more cyclists, it’s not helmets that contribute to low death rates for cyclists but roadscapes and townscapes that are designed to keep people safe.”

The Highway Code advises cyclists to wear a helmet that conforms to current regulations, to avoid clothing that may get tangled in wheels or obscure lights, and to wear light or fluorescent-coloured clothing, and reflective clothing or accessories in the
dark. None of the guidelines are legal requirements.

The former Olympic racing cyclist Chris Boardman quoted the Highway Code account’s tweet and said: “Like the 1950s healthy people smoke Marlborough messages – we will look back on in years to come and ask what were we thinking.”

Ricky Carterna, a cyclist who responded to the tweet, said: “Hi-vis, helmets and appropriate clothing have no effect when hit by a careless, inattentive driver in a one-tonne metal vehicle traveling at 30mph.

“I have worn these recommended articles and still been wiped out. Focus your attention on the cause and stop victim blaming.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Cycling campaigners have reacted angrily to a tweet from the Highway Code that said cyclists should wear helmets and protective clothing, saying
the advice fuelled a culture of “victim blaming”.

Rentamob been busy again,,,

The official Twitter account’s post encouraging people to wear “appropriate clothes for cycling” was met with negative responses from those who believe the suggestion to be ineffective. The code is published
by the Department for Transport.

A spokesperson for Cycling UK said the recommendation led to a culture of “victim blaming” of cyclists and allowed careless drivers to evade responsibility.

How?

“Helmets are only really effective in low-impact collisions, we need
better infrastructure for cyclists and education for drivers,” they said.

Then you need better helmets.

“If you look at places like the Netherlands and Denmark, where there are more cyclists, it’s not helmets that contribute to low death rates for cyclists but roadscapes and townscapes that are designed to keep people safe.”

The bicyclist death rate in the Netherlands is either the same as the UK on
a per-mile basis, or eight times the UK figure on a per-head basis. So where’s this ‘low death rate’ then?

The Highway Code advises cyclists to wear a helmet that conforms to
current regulations, to avoid clothing that may get tangled in wheels or obscure lights, and to wear light or fluorescent-coloured clothing, and reflective clothing or accessories in the dark. None of the guidelines
are legal requirements.

The former Olympic racing cyclist Chris Boardman quoted the Highway Code account’s tweet and said: “Like the 1950s healthy people smoke Marlborough messages – we will look back on in years to come and ask what were we thinking.”

Possibly not in the way that Boardman thinks.

Ricky Carterna, a cyclist who responded to the tweet, said: “Hi-vis, helmets and appropriate clothing have no effect when hit by a careless, inattentive driver in a one-tonne metal vehicle traveling at 30mph.

“We can point to those that are killed; we cannot point to a single one we have saved”

(The perverted logic of the anti-helmet brigade, here adapted to include
hi-viz etc).

“I have worn these recommended articles and still been wiped out. Focus your attention on the cause and stop victim blaming.”

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Picture this: A pedestrian is standing on the curb, waiting for the light to change. The light changes, and the pedestrian steps out into the crosswalk and begins crossing the street. Before the pedestrian can reach he other side, a motorist runs the red
light and hits the pedestrian. The pedestrian survives, but has sustained some injuries, and is transported to the hospital.

Police report that the pedestrian had been walking “too fast,” and hit the car.

The media dutifully reports this fact. Outraged by this incident, an op-ed column suggests that “the only solution” to this problem is to require pedestrians to be licensed and insured.

Does that sound far-fetched? Of course it does. That would never happen.

But suppose that, instead of a pedestrian, we are talking about a collision between a motorist and a cyclist. Does that sound so far-fetched now?

Unfortunately, no—and it does happen.

For examples, consider two recent collisions. On August 8, a news storyreported on a collision in Kelowna, BC. According to police, a cyclist traveling in the bicycle lane “hit” an SUV as the driver was making a turn. The media dutifully reported
that the cyclist suffered “non-life threatening injuries after riding her bicycle into an SUV.”

It was a classic right hook—the cyclist was riding lawfully, and the driver turned across the cyclist’s path. Eyewitnesses reported that the cyclist was “traveling too fast in the bike lane and almost hit another car before she struck the Black SUV
that was turning right.” In other words, another driver nearly struck a lawfully riding cyclist, before she was right-hooked.

Oh, but wait—she was “traveling too fast.” Or not. Unless the witnesses are saying that she was violating the speed limit—a circumstance that is highly unlikely—she wasn’t “traveling too fast.” She has a lawful right to travel on the road
at the lawful speed of other traffic. But that reference to speed does tell us something—if the SUV driver who right hooked her even noticed the cyclist, then “traveling too fast” probably means that the driver underestimated the cyclist’s speed
and turned across her path.

That wasn’t the only recent incident in which lawfully-riding cyclists were blamed for collisions with drivers who break the law. In Portland, Oregon, former NFL quarterback Joey Harrington was hit from behind while riding his bike. The driver was
cited for “following too close.”

And then an outraged reader wrote a Guest Op-Ed for the local paper. “In light of Joey Harrington’s recent accident, I think the time has come to resolve a worsening problem in the Portland metro area,” the op-ed began. Ah, a call for safety. And
yes, the concerned reader was calling for more safety on the road—by requiring cyclists to be licensed and insured.

Get it? A driver breaks the law, injuring a law-abiding cyclist, and the “worsening problem”—as evidenced by the collision that injured Joey Harrington—that needs to be addressed is “that many Portland cyclists take no responsibility.” And
according to this writer’s analysis, “There is only one solution”—crack down on cyclists. Round up the usual suspects.

That skewed perception of reality—a reality that is apparent right in front of their unseeing eyes—is the underlying basis for how too many people process information. No matter how egregious the driver’s actions, observers are sure that the law-
abiding cyclist was in the wrong. Regardless of the facts, observers can be counted on to remember that some other cyclist somewhere broke a law.

And thus, by this skewed perception of reality under girding faulty logic, the motorist is always right, the cyclist is always wrong, and the victim always gets the blame.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

At CTC we're constantly being asked to go on TV or radio to be the punch bag for someone's anti-cycling rant.

One of the recurring issues in amongst the you-don't-pay-road-tax type drivel is the suggestion that cyclists are themselves to blame for crashes. Happily, we now have some data which we can use to refute such wild speculation.

These figures come from a major research project into cycle safety, which examined which road user was deemed by the police to be at fault in the crash. In many cases, the police don't have a perfect understanding of what happened. Nonetheless, they
often give an opinion as to whom they feel is to blame.

The graph above shows that in the majority of all incidents where cyclists were killed, the driver was held to be solely to blame. This is not the case amongst cyclists under the age of 25 - particularly with regard to children. However, for adults aged
25-39 52% of deaths were deemed to be solely the fault of the driver, while in a further 17%, both the cyclist and the driver had faults attributed to them.

In the case of deaths of cyclists between 40-54, the drivers' share is even higher: 70% drivers alone, 8% jointly at fault and only 23% the sole fault of the cyclist.

When it comes to injuries, rather than deaths, the relationship is even more skewed, with responsibility for the vast majority of crashes laid at the drivers' door.

So next time you hear someone blaming cyclists for their own injuries, you can respond that 80% of all injuries to 25+ cyclists are, according to the police officer recording the incident, either solely or partly the responsibility of the driver.

Put another way, only one in five injuries to a 25-year-old (or older) cyclist is deemed to be his or her fault alone.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Picture this: A pedestrian is standing on the curb, waiting for the light
to change. The light changes, and the pedestrian steps out into the
crosswalk and begins crossing the street. Before the pedestrian can reach
he other side, a motorist runs the red light and hits the pedestrian. The pedestrian survives, but has sustained some injuries, and is transported to the hospital.

Police report that the pedestrian had been walking “too fast,” and hit the car.

The media dutifully reports this fact. Outraged by this incident, an
op-ed column suggests that “the only solution” to this problem is to require pedestrians to be licensed and insured.

Does that sound far-fetched? Of course it does. That would never happen.

But suppose that, instead of a pedestrian, we are talking about a
collision between a motorist and a cyclist. Does that sound so far-fetched now?

Unfortunately, no—and it does happen.

For examples, consider two recent collisions. On August 8, a news storyreported on a collision in Kelowna, BC. According to police, a
cyclist traveling in the bicycle lane “hit” an SUV as the driver was making a turn. The media dutifully reported that the cyclist suffered “non-life threatening injuries after riding her bicycle into an SUV.”

It was a classic right hook—the cyclist was riding lawfully, and the
driver turned across the cyclist’s path. Eyewitnesses reported that the cyclist was “traveling too fast in the bike lane and almost hit another
car before she struck the Black SUV that was turning right.” In other words, another driver nearly struck a lawfully riding cyclist, before she was right-hooked.

Oh, but wait—she was “traveling too fast.” Or not. Unless the witnesses are saying that she was violating the speed limit—a circumstance that is highly unlikely—she wasn’t “traveling too fast.” She has a lawful right
to travel on the road at the lawful speed of other traffic. But that reference to speed does tell us something—if the SUV driver who right hooked her even noticed the cyclist, then “traveling too fast” probably means that the driver underestimated the cyclist’s speed and turned across her path.

That wasn’t the only recent incident in which lawfully-riding cyclists
were blamed for collisions with drivers who break the law. In Portland, Oregon, former NFL quarterback Joey Harrington was hit from behind while riding his bike. The driver was cited for “following too close.”

And then an outraged reader wrote a Guest Op-Ed for the local paper. “In light of Joey Harrington’s recent accident, I think the time has come to resolve a worsening problem in the Portland metro area,” the op-ed began. Ah, a call for safety. And yes, the concerned reader was calling for more safety on the road—by requiring cyclists to be licensed and insured.

Get it? A driver breaks the law, injuring a law-abiding cyclist, and the “worsening problem”—as evidenced by the collision that injured Joey Harrington—that needs to be addressed is “that many Portland cyclists take no responsibility.” And according to this writer’s analysis, “There
is only one solution”—crack down on cyclists. Round up the usual suspects.

That skewed perception of reality—a reality that is apparent right in
front of their unseeing eyes—is the underlying basis for how too many people process information. No matter how egregious the driver’s actions, observers are sure that the law-abiding cyclist was in the wrong.
Regardless of the facts, observers can be counted on to remember that
some other cyclist somewhere broke a law.

And thus, by this skewed perception of reality under girding faulty
logic, the motorist is always right, the cyclist is always wrong, and the victim always gets the blame.

Talking of skewed perception, try being a pedestrian, like the 70-year-old
who was punched to the ground by a bicyclist for having the temerity to
suggest he rode his machine on the road rather than the pavement.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Someone can’t do sums - however did they arrive at this figure?

QUOTE
So next time you hear someone blaming cyclists for their own injuries, you
can respond that 80% of all injuries to 25+ cyclists are, according to the police officer recording the incident, either solely or partly the responsibility of the driver.
ENDQUOTE

Take 100 cases in each group

Age group 25-39:
Driver 52 Both 17 Cyclist 31

Age group 40-54:
Driver 70 Both 8 Cyclist 23

In 200 accidents, cyclists are at fault 31+23=54 times

54/200=27%

100%-27%=73%

73% is not 80%, which is out by 14%!

(Work that one out)

Or…

Cyclists are fully or partly to blame in 31+48=79 accidents

79/200=40% of cases!

That’s getting close to even-stevens…

Of course, if the number of people cycling is greater in the lower age
group, the overall percentage of cyclists at fault rises. (Work that one
out)


swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

At CTC we're constantly being asked to go on TV or radio to be the punch
bag for someone's anti-cycling rant.

One of the recurring issues in amongst the you-don't-pay-road-tax type
drivel is the suggestion that cyclists are themselves to blame for
crashes. Happily, we now have some data which we can use to refute such wild speculation.

These figures come from a major research project into cycle safety, which examined which road user was deemed by the police to be at fault in the crash. In many cases, the police don't have a perfect understanding of
what happened. Nonetheless, they often give an opinion as to whom they feel is to blame.

The graph above shows that in the majority of all incidents where
cyclists were killed, the driver was held to be solely to blame. This is
not the case amongst cyclists under the age of 25 - particularly with
regard to children. However, for adults aged 25-39 52% of deaths were
deemed to be solely the fault of the driver, while in a further 17%, both
the cyclist and the driver had faults attributed to them.

In the case of deaths of cyclists between 40-54, the drivers' share is
even higher: 70% drivers alone, 8% jointly at fault and only 23% the sole fault of the cyclist.

When it comes to injuries, rather than deaths, the relationship is even
more skewed, with responsibility for the vast majority of crashes laid at
the drivers' door.

So next time you hear someone blaming cyclists for their own injuries,
you can respond that 80% of all injuries to 25+ cyclists are, according
to the police officer recording the incident, either solely or partly the responsibility of the driver.

Put another way, only one in five injuries to a 25-year-old (or older) cyclist is deemed to be his or her fault alone.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

WHAT ABOUT DEAF PEOPLE?

A council has been accused of victim blaming after officers released a safety poster relating to cyclists wearing headphones.

The Brighton and Hove City Council poster is one a series of road safety notices that have been put up in the east of the city.

The poster aims to highlight the dangers of wearing headphones while cycling.

It features an image of man riding with headphones in his ears with the message “Headphones can prevent you from hearing traffic. Share the road, share the responsibility.”

However, some cyclists have taken offence at the poster campaign and have accused the local authority of victim blaming.

Yesterday, a mock up of the poster with an alternative message was circulated on Twitter.

It features the same image with the message “There’s no evidence wearing headphones is hazardous but we’re blaming cyclists anyway. Share the roads, take all the blame”

Mark Strong, a city cyclist and transport consultant with the Transport Initiatives, said he was unsure who was behind the mock poster.

He added: “There is a huge imbalance in the level of responsibility which is not shown in the original poster.

“It looks great but whether it would make any difference to the actual numbers of people getting hurt is debatable.

“All accidents have more than one cause and a poster essentially saying ‘don’t be stupid’ won’t get very far.

“There needs to be forgiveness in the road environment. The system should be able to cope with that and should not be so on the edge that any mistake can lead to an accident.”

There is no law against cyclists wearing headphones but many believe there should be.

London Mayor Boris Johnson and Britain’s first Tour De France winner, Sir Bradley Wiggins, have both spoken in favour of a change in the law.

Councillor Gill Mitchell, chair of the environment, transport and sustainability committee, said the campaign had been welcomed by the families of those involved in accidents.

She said: “The council’s road safety awareness campaign is aimed at motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, with six different posters carrying messages about the dangers of distraction from headphones, mobile phones and other devices.

“The campaign was launched following road traffic collision statistics for Brighton and Hove over the last three years which show that failing to look properly is by far the biggest contributory factor.

“As a new administration, we are committed to improving road safety in the city for all road users and will be looking at new and innovative ways to refresh our road safety campaigns and messages.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

WHAT ABOUT DEAF PEOPLE?

Eh? What?

A council has been accused of victim blaming after officers released a safety poster relating to cyclists wearing headphones.

The Brighton and Hove City Council poster is one a series of road safety notices that have been put up in the east of the city.

The poster aims to highlight the dangers of wearing headphones while cycling.

It features an image of man riding with headphones in his ears with the message “Headphones can prevent you from hearing traffic. Share the road, share the responsibility.”

However, some cyclists have taken offence at the poster campaign and
have accused the local authority of victim blaming.

Yesterday, a mock up of the poster with an alternative message was circulated on Twitter.

It features the same image with the message “There’s no evidence wearing headphones is hazardous but we’re blaming cyclists anyway. Share the
roads, take all the blame”

Mark Strong, a city cyclist and transport consultant with the Transport Initiatives, said he was unsure who was behind the mock poster.

He added: “There is a huge imbalance in the level of responsibility which is not shown in the original poster.

“It looks great but whether it would make any difference to the actual numbers of people getting hurt is debatable.

“All accidents have more than one cause and a poster essentially saying ‘don’t be stupid’ won’t get very far.

“There needs to be forgiveness in the road environment. The system should be able to cope with that and should not be so on the edge that any
mistake can lead to an accident.”

There is no law against cyclists wearing headphones but many believe there should be.

London Mayor Boris Johnson and Britain’s first Tour De France winner, Sir Bradley Wiggins, have both spoken in favour of a change in the law.

Councillor Gill Mitchell, chair of the environment, transport and sustainability committee, said the campaign had been welcomed by the
families of those involved in accidents.

She said: “The council’s road safety awareness campaign is aimed at motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, with six different posters carrying messages about the dangers of distraction from headphones, mobile phones and other devices.

“The campaign was launched following road traffic collision statistics
for Brighton and Hove over the last three years which show that failing
to look properly is by far the biggest contributory factor.

“As a new administration, we are committed to improving road safety in
the city for all road users and will be looking at new and innovative
ways to refresh our road safety campaigns and messages.”

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

What you need to do to avoid someone killing you

This morning the Department for Transport (DfT) launched its Autumn THINK! Cycle Safety Campaign focussing on the risks to cyclists from left turning lorries (left hooks). Regrettably the campaign focuses purely on what cyclists should do to avoid being
killed, rather than looking at the root cause of the problem and the measures that should be taken to solve it.
Don't get caught between - a strap line and a mixed message

The strap line for the DfT's campaign is 'Don't get caught between', with a film and posters depicting examples of things to avoid being trapped between, including two boxers in a ring, two head-butting rams, and for cyclists, a left turning lorry and
the pavement. The message appears to be that you wouldn't intentionally put yourself in the middle of two colliding objects, so why would you put yourself on a bicycle between a turning lorry and a kerb?

There are a number of problems with that message including that:

1. You might not have chosen to put yourself in that position (the lorry might have overtaken you);

2. The DfT message at least implies that if you do, then it is your fault if something awful happens;

3. It ignores the fact that unsafe lorry designs are still being used, when safer direct vision lorries which virtually eliminate vehicle blind spots can be purchased now;

4. It suggests that it is the cyclists who must make sure they are seen, and not the driver's responsibility to make every effort not to undertake manoeuvres which endanger others, including cyclists when turning left;

5. Without going into detail concerning infrastructure, whether lorries and cyclists should share space or be segregated, when and which lorries should be permitted within city centres and with what safety requirements, these are all issues that impact
on cyclists safety around lorries and which should concern the DfT, but which are ignored by a message to cyclists just to 'Hang Back'.
Victim blaming

This morning's social media response to the DfT's video has been overwhelmingly critical, with many people concluding that a video which is supposed to convey the message to cyclists not to undertake a left-turning lorry, actually shows a lorry
overtaking a cyclist before turning left rather than waiting behind the cyclist before doing so.

Opinions will differ following numerous freeze frame views, but being charitable to the DfT, if they wanted to display a scene where a cyclist clearly undertakes a lorry, putting themselves at avoidable risk, this video does not do that. It therefore
erroneously permits the conclusion that if a cyclist finds themselves at the side of a lorry at a left turn that it is their fault, they were in the blind spot, they should have known better and the blame belongs to the victim.
What were the DfT THINKING?

The DfT THINK campaigns should be designed to make people think about their behaviour and actions, in a manner which promotes and improves road safety.

This video shows a lorry with a particularly high seating cab, small windscreen and restricted cab vision. In London the Mayor Sadiq Khan has accepted that measures need to be put in place to promote safer direct vision lorries. In the scene depicted in
this video the cyclist would have been visible throughout with a Dennis Eagle Elite or Mercedes Econic direct vision lorry. The clip also demonstrates a lorry left turn, at speed, with a driver failing to make continuous checks in his mirrors. If the
message is THINK, what were the DfT thinking?

Earlier this year Cycling UK wrote to the DfT suggesting that a great THINK campaign would be one concentrating on the dangers of close overtakes of cyclists (near misses). That was rejected because we were told that their campaigns were informed by
casualty statistics, which had not revealed that near misses lead to significant casualties (that is the point, it was a near miss so there was no collision, but there could have been). We were then informed that this year's campaign would be an
educational campaign for cyclists to 'Hang Back' from left turning lorries.

Our concerns that the issue was a little more nuanced, and that there were questions regarding cab design, infrastructure, and driver behaviour, as well as education for cyclists, were not taken on board. The result is a campaign which, in looking at one
part of a bigger picture, and even then through tinted windows, risks being remembered as an ill thought through victim blaming campaign.
Listen before you THINK

The tragedy with this campaign is that even its most ardent critic should accept that warning cyclists to be careful when they are on the near-side of a lorry, and that the lorry driver's vision might be restricted, are sensible messages to include
within a road safety campaign. These, however, are lost when the focus is solely upon victim responsibility, with a video which begs more questions than it answers.

The DfT might be best served to acknowledge that this one has not worked, pull the campaign and start again. Cycling UK would be more than willing to work with them should they chose to do so, but before they ask cyclists to THINK, they need to listen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Earlier this year Cycling UK wrote to the DfT suggesting that a great
THINK campaign would be one concentrating on the dangers of close
overtakes of cyclists (near misses). That was rejected because we were
told that their campaigns were informed by casualty statistics, which had
not revealed that near misses lead to significant casualties (that is the point, it was a near miss so there was no collision, but there could have been).

ROFL.

Was this piece written by an ArtStudent?


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

And Garda Síochána also have a crucial role, and yet the Traffic Corps appear to focus unduly on keeping cars moving rather than on the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. They need to focus more on cars illegally parking in bike lanes and on footpaths,
driving over the speed limit, and breaking traffic signals.

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/fourteen-cyclist-deaths-in-2017-we-are-all-complicit-3722306-Dec2017/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/07/2023 08:38 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Picture this: A pedestrian is standing on the curb, waiting for the light to change. The light changes, and the pedestrian steps out into the crosswalk and begins crossing the street. Before the pedestrian can reach he other side, a motorist runs the

red light and hits the pedestrian. The pedestrian survives, but has sustained some injuries, and is transported to the hospital.

Police report that the pedestrian had been walking “too fast,” and hit the car.

The media dutifully reports this fact. Outraged by this incident, an op-ed column suggests that “the only solution” to this problem is to require pedestrians to be licensed and insured.

Does that sound far-fetched? Of course it does. That would never happen.

But suppose that, instead of a pedestrian, we are talking about a collision between a motorist and a cyclist. Does that sound so far-fetched now?

Yes. A chav-cyclist has no business riding his chav-cycle on the footway.

Unfortunately, no—and it does happen.

Because chav-bike riders insist on breaking the law and abusing the
rights of other road-users, not least, those pof pedestrians.

For examples, consider two recent collisions. On August 8, a news storyreported on a collision in Kelowna, BC.

Did you not know that Canada is idependent of the UK?

Of course you didn't.

You think that Ireland is still a Crown possession as well.

[ ... ]

[The] motorist is always right, the cyclist is always wrong

It's good of you to say so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26/07/2023 11:33 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

WHAT ABOUT DEAF PEOPLE?

A council has been accused of victim blaming after officers released a safety poster relating to cyclists wearing headphones.

Deaf people don't usually *wear* headphones (there'd be little point).

But you're too thick to have worked that bit out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26/07/2023 02:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

What you need to do to avoid someone killing you

This morning the Department for Transport (DfT) launched its Autumn THINK! Cycle Safety Campaign focussing on the risks to cyclists from left turning lorries (left hooks). Regrettably the campaign focuses purely on what cyclists should do to avoid

being killed, rather than looking at the root cause of the problem and the measures that should be taken to solve it.

Don't get caught between - a strap line and a mixed message

Don't overtake on the left.

A basic rule. For everyone. Especially for chavs on chav-bikes.

The strap line for the DfT's campaign is 'Don't get caught between', with a film and posters depicting examples of things to avoid being trapped between, including two boxers in a ring, two head-butting rams, and for cyclists, a left turning lorry and

the pavement. The message appears to be that you wouldn't intentionally put yourself in the middle of two colliding objects, so why would you put yourself on a bicycle between a turning lorry and a kerb?

There are a number of problems with that message including that:

1. You might not have chosen to put yourself in that position (the lorry might have overtaken you);

But if it has, HANG BACK when its left indicator flashes.

You know that makes sense, but you aren't interested in sense.

2. The DfT message at least implies that if you do, then it is your fault if something awful happens;

Undertake a vehicle in front which is turning left - it cannot end well
for you.

Don't do it.

3. It ignores the fact that unsafe lorry designs are still being used, when safer direct vision lorries which virtually eliminate vehicle blind spots can be purchased now;

So-called "blind spots" are nothing to do with it.

DON'T undertake. It's so simple. Just like you and so many other
chav-cyclists.

4. It suggests that it is the cyclists who must make sure they are seen, and not the driver's responsibility to make every effort not to undertake manoeuvres which endanger others, including cyclists when turning left;

Why does the chav on the bike need to be seen?

Just hang back and don't undertake and you won't be in any danger from
the vehicle in front which is turning left and it doesn't matter at all
whether the driver can see you.

It's so simple. Just like you and so many other chav-cyclists.

5. Without going into detail concerning infrastructure, whether lorries and cyclists should share space or be segregated, when and which lorries should be permitted within city centres and with what safety requirements, these are all issues that impact

on cyclists safety around lorries and which should concern the DfT, but which are ignored by a message to cyclists just to 'Hang Back'.

Victim blaming

Don't undertake.

When you do so, you are putting yourself in danger. So simple. Just like
you and so many other chav-cyclists.

This morning's social media response to the DfT's video has been overwhelmingly critical, with many people concluding that a video which is supposed to convey the message to cyclists not to undertake a left-turning lorry, actually shows a lorry

overtaking a cyclist before turning left rather than waiting behind the cyclist before doing so.

One thing happens before the other.

The idea, when one has been overtaken, is not to immediately gain
"revenge" by undertaking. Just hang back - STOP if you have to (and you
may well have to) and STAY OUT OF DANGER.

Gawd, you're thick.

Opinions will differ following numerous freeze frame views, but being charitable to the DfT, if they wanted to display a scene where a cyclist clearly undertakes a lorry, putting themselves at avoidable risk, this video does not do that. It therefore

erroneously permits the conclusion that if a cyclist finds themselves at the side of a lorry at a left turn that it is their fault, they were in the blind spot, they should have known better and the blame belongs to the victim.

What were the DfT THINKING?

Thinking of getting chavs on chav-bikes to protect themselves?

Oh yes... hang on...

The DfT THINK campaigns should be designed to make people think about their behaviour and actions, in a manner which promotes and improves road safety.

By George...

This video shows a lorry with a particularly high seating cab, small windscreen and restricted cab vision. In London the Mayor Sadiq Khan has accepted that measures need to be put in place to promote safer direct vision lorries. In the scene depicted

in this video the cyclist would have been visible throughout with a Dennis Eagle Elite or Mercedes Econic direct vision lorry. The clip also demonstrates a lorry left turn, at speed, with a driver failing to make continuous checks in his mirrors. If the
message is THINK, what were the DfT thinking?

The message "THINK" seems to be aimed at chavs on chav-bikes.

But some of them are too thick to want to learn.

Earlier this year Cycling UK wrote to the DfT suggesting that a great THINK campaign would be one concentrating on the dangers of close overtakes of cyclists (near misses). That was rejected because we were told that their campaigns were informed by

casualty statistics, which had not revealed that near misses lead to significant casualties (that is the point, it was a near miss so there was no collision, but there could have been). We were then informed that this year's campaign would be an
educational campaign for cyclists to 'Hang Back' from left turning lorries.

Good. They're cleverer than you, of course.

Our concerns that the issue was a little more nuanced, and that there were questions regarding cab design, infrastructure, and driver behaviour, as well as education for cyclists, were not taken on board. The result is a campaign which, in looking at

one part of a bigger picture, and even then through tinted windows, risks being remembered as an ill thought through victim blaming campaign.

Listen before you THINK
The tragedy with this campaign is that even its most ardent critic should accept that warning cyclists to be careful when they are on the near-side of a lorry,

But not you, it seems.

and that the lorry driver's vision might be restricted, are sensible messages to include within a road safety campaign. These, however, are lost when the focus is solely upon victim responsibility, with a video which begs more questions than it answers.
The DfT might be best served to acknowledge that this one has not worked, pull the campaign and start again. Cycling UK would be more than willing to work with them should they chose to do so, but before they ask cyclists to THINK, they need to listen.

Hang back when the vehicle in front is turning left. It's your
responsibility not to put yourself in unnecessary danger. Travelling is
neither a contact sport nor a battle.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

At the weekend the Sunday Times reported how Department for Transport officials had to warn the Road Safety Authority about a report it compiled on cycling deaths. The department said the report would be viewed as victim blaming because it focused only
on cyclists — lacking references to the basic of collision details, for example, to the speed the motorists were traveling at or the age profile of drivers.

In its editorial, the Examiner claimed: “…especially as the darkening winter evenings draw in, we all know that by following pretty basic rules we can dramatically reduce the risk of being involved in a crash or worse again, causing one.”

But regardless of what we all think “we know”, there’s a lack of clear-cut Irish evidence around the causes of collisions.

When it comes to cycling, international evidence points to overwhelming drivers being at fault. Over two thirds one report from London and over 70% in another.

The perception is that cyclists are a danger to themselves. But as The Guardian reported in 2009: “A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and
use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.”

The perception is that because some cyclists act dangerously, that it’s the same people who end up getting hit by motorists, when often that’s not the case.

Of course people should stay safe when on our roads, and light up when in the dark etc. But the suggestion that the victims can “dramatically reduce the risk of being involved” seems to have little bases in fact. For example, the Examiner referenced
collisions where people in cars were killed in the last few days — but the two cases at junctions media reports outlined locals complaing about on-going issues at these junctions and excessive speed on the main road — that points to engineering
issues and possibly enforcement.

Cycling deaths are also up this year. People cycling bicycles have little defence against motorists who can’t wait a few seconds or a minute until there’s a safe space to overtake. In fact, the recommendation to stay safe in this situation is to keep
out from the kerb and, on rural roads, cycling two abreast is viewed as safer than groups making a long single file — but these are both methods which is not widely understood and often criticised in the media.

Equally, people walking have no defence against motorists mounting footpaths (which is not as rare as people think) or motorists running red lights (which happens frequently), except running at the last minute if they are lucky enough to be able to.

But motoring hit and runs pass the Irish media by with little comment, while they were exercised recently about a rare UK case where a cyclist killed a pedestrian. George Hook is one of the cheerleaders in conflating cycling misbehavor and collisions
which kill all sorts of people who cycle bicycles, even those who obay the law, but he is by far not alone.

Regardless of if the victim is on foot, on a bicycle or in a car, some of the main contributing factors in collisions in Ireland are well known. These include speeding, distracted driving (including using a phone) and drink driving.

Speed detection and display signs (of a non-enforcement type) installed by councils in recent years have shown just how wide-spread speeding is. There are average speed cameras in the Dublin Port Tunnel, however, that doesn’t change the fact that
Ireland remains one of the few countries in the development world not to have widespread use of automated fixed speed detection.

Speed detection is billed as “shooting fish in a barrel” while victim blaming is rife and “solutions” like high-vis vests are easy.

When “personal responsibility”, including victims, is billed as the best solution, the proven effective solutions of enforcement and engineering get pushed aside and road safety suffers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

At the weekend the Sunday Times reported how Department for Transport officials had to warn the Road Safety Authority about a report it
compiled on cycling deaths. The department said the report would be
viewed as victim blaming because it focused only on cyclists — lacking references to the basic of collision details, for example, to the speed
the motorists were traveling at or the age profile of drivers.

In its editorial, the Examiner claimed: “…especially as the darkening winter evenings draw in, we all know that by following pretty basic rules
we can dramatically reduce the risk of being involved in a crash or worse again, causing one.”

But regardless of what we all think “we know”, there’s a lack of clear-cut Irish evidence around the causes of collisions.

When it comes to cycling, international evidence points to overwhelming drivers being at fault. Over two thirds one report from London and over 70% in another.

Here’s some misleading figures, suitably corrected:

QUOTE
So next time you hear someone blaming cyclists for their own injuries, you
can respond that 80% of all injuries to 25+ cyclists are, according to the police officer recording the incident, either solely or partly the responsibility of the driver. ENDQUOTE

Take 100 cases in each group

Age group 25-39:
Driver 52 Both 17 Cyclist 31

Age group 40-54:
Driver 70 Both 8 Cyclist 23

In 200 accidents, cyclists are at fault 31+23=54 times

54/200=27%

100%-27%=73%

73% is not 80%, which is out by 14%!

(Work that one out)

Or…

Cyclists are fully or partly to blame in 31+48=79 accidents

79/200=40% of cases!

That’s getting close to even-stevens…

Of course, if the number of people cycling is greater in the lower age
group, the overall percentage of cyclists at fault rises. (Work that one
out)

The perception is that cyclists are a danger to themselves. But as The Guardian reported in 2009: “A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or
failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.”

Ah, the morally-corrupt “It’s only a handful” argument.

Why was Auriol Grey pursued with such vigour? Only a handful of pavement cyclists die because they fall in road after being shoo’ed out of the pedestrian’s way.

The perception is that because some cyclists act dangerously, that it’s
the same people who end up getting hit by motorists, when often that’s not the case.

Of course people should stay safe when on our roads, and light up when in
the dark etc. But the suggestion that the victims can “dramatically
reduce the risk of being involved” seems to have little bases in fact.
For example, the Examiner referenced collisions where people in cars were killed in the last few days — but the two cases at junctions media
reports outlined locals complaing about on-going issues at these
junctions and excessive speed on the main road — that points to
engineering issues and possibly enforcement.

Apples and oranges again.

Cycling deaths are also up this year. People cycling bicycles have little defence against motorists who can’t wait a few seconds or a minute until there’s a safe space to overtake. In fact, the recommendation to stay
safe in this situation is to keep out from the kerb and, on rural roads, cycling two abreast is viewed as safer than groups making a long single
file — but these are both methods which is not widely understood and
often criticised in the media.

“…cycling two abreast is viewed as safer…”

Where are the statistics?

Equally, people walking have no defence against motorists mounting
footpaths (which is not as rare as people think) or motorists running red lights (which happens frequently), except running at the last minute if
they are lucky enough to be able to.

Apples and oranges.

But motoring hit and runs pass the Irish media by with little comment,
while they were exercised recently about a rare UK case where a cyclist killed a pedestrian. George Hook is one of the cheerleaders in conflating cycling misbehavor and collisions which kill all sorts of people who
cycle bicycles, even those who obay the law, but he is by far not alone.

So someone else is using ‘apples and oranges’? Who’da thunk it!

Regardless of if the victim is on foot, on a bicycle or in a car, some of
the main contributing factors in collisions in Ireland are well known.
These include speeding, distracted driving (including using a phone) and drink driving.

Ireland is not the UK…

[…]



--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jenny Jones (AM): Six percent of when cyclists are involved in collisions is it the cyclists fault. 56% of the time it is the car, taxi, bus or lorry driver's fault.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/cycling-apology

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Jenny Jones (AM): Six percent of when cyclists are involved in collisions
is it the cyclists fault. 56% of the time it is the car, taxi, bus or lorry driver's fault.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/cycling-apology

QUOTE
So next time you hear someone blaming cyclists for their own injuries, you
can respond that 80% of all injuries to 25+ cyclists are, according to the police officer recording the incident, either solely or partly the responsibility of the driver. ENDQUOTE

Take 100 cases in each group

Age group 25-39:
Driver 52 Both 17 Cyclist 31

Age group 40-54:
Driver 70 Both 8 Cyclist 23

In 200 accidents, cyclists are at fault 31+23=54 times

54/200=27%

100%-27%=73%

73% is not 80%

Or…

Cyclists are fully or partly to blame in 31+48=79 accidents

79/200=40% of cases!

That’s getting close to even-stevens…

Of course, if the number of people cycling is greater in the lower age
group, the overall percentage of cyclists at fault rises. (Work that one
out)

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It is a hobby of mine to follow my hometown newspaper in order to stay in touch with those local affairs. However, to my great repugnance, I have read about one cyclist fatality after another. In the past month alone, there have been three human beings
struck and killed by vehicles, the most recent of whom was killed by a woman with a suspended license. Yet no sooner does the ink dry on the reports of these tragedies than do apologists begin to hurl blame around to everyone but the one behind the wheel.
And while it is true that tragic accidents do occasionally happen, what we see most often are not freak occurrences but deaths that were entirely preventable by the driver. But until we begin to hold drivers accountable for their manslaughter, I expect
that we will continue to see article after article trying to make sense of why our neighbors’ lives have been cut tragically short. Here are some of the excuses that perpetuate the mindset that the driver can do no wrong.

“Cyclists are reckless, and therefore at fault for their own deaths”

The ‘victim blaming’ card is one that will require a little bit of nuance in order to understand it the way that I do. Every action that we take has consequences: some of which we can reasonably anticipate and others that we can not. All actions,
however seemingly insignificant, carry risk. Although some risk may be negligible, everything we do undergoes some sort of internal cost-benefit analysis. However, even though some choices we make can lead us in greater or lesser danger, if an incident
was to occur, it is never the fault of the passive party. For example, if I have two possible routes to walk home, and one is longer, but on a well-lit thoroughfare while another is shorter, but through a dark alley, the latter may carry a higher risk
than the former. Yet however irresponsible my decision may have been and however much I could have potentially done to prevent it, if I were to get mugged, the fault would lie solely with the mugger. For it is he who perpetrated the crime even if there
was conceivably something I could have done to lessen my risk. It is he who actualized my risk into consequence, and without him, my action, however risky, would have passed without incident.

The point is, that since all actions carry some risk, there will always be an action that carries less risk than the one we choose to undertake. To look upon an incident with omniscient retrospection is futile because for every alternate potential course
of action one proposes, there will be an even safer one that could have had its risk actualized, or a more dangerous one that may not have had its risk actualized. Obviously it is in one’s best interest to make informed cost-benefit decisions, but it
is only the ones who convert the potential risk into actual harm that are at fault.

Hopefully that explanation is clear enough, and you may agree or disagree with it, however that is the philosophy behind my frustration with the attitudes expressed that fail to place blame on the perpetrators of manslaughter.

Of course I am not advocating for cyclists, or anyone else, to engage in excessively risky behavior. Of course I would very much like to see everyone on the road operate their respective vehicles safely and with consideration for all others. But let us
take a look at some of the generalizations that people use to excuse vehicular homicide.

Cyclists don’t obey traffic signals. Cyclists wear headphones. Cyclists do not signal their intentions. Cyclists ride two abreast. Cyclists don’t wear helmets. These are all risky behaviors that some cyclists engage in, yet not a single one warrants
a death sentence. Let us now look at some risky behaviors that some motorists engage in. Motorists drive with excessive speed. Motorists talk on their cell phones. Motorists text while driving. Motorists don’t wear seat belts. Motorists drive while
tired. Motorists drive while drunk or otherwise inebriated.

It is part of the human condition to rationalize our own actions while easily condemning the actions of others. We wish to see ourselves in the best possible light and therefore excuse our own dangerous behavior while criticizing others’. Yet however
dangerous our behavior is to ourselves, it becomes criminal when it inflicts harm upon another. If a cyclist were to engage in the aforementioned risky behavior and subsequently strike and kill or injure a pedestrian, he or she is guilty of the same
crime as a motorist who strikes and kills or injures a cyclist.

Most upsetting though is that in the context of these three homicides, these points are notwithstanding. The cyclists were obeying all traffic laws and they took every reasonable measure to stay safe. Yet the knee-jerk reaction of motorists is to first
generalize their personal bias against cyclists and blame the law-abiding victims for the drivers’ own negligence. This leads to their next point…

“Cyclists shouldn’t have been on these roads”

By definition, the public owns the public rights-of-way. Each right-of-way is unique in its context and some of these contexts prohibit certain modes of transportation. Train tracks, bus rapid transit lanes, freeways, cycle tracks, and pedestrian streets
are all examples of rights-of-way that exclude one mode of transit or another. Yet by far, the most common rights-of way are just ‘regular roads,’ although each is still very much sensitive to its own context. Unfortunately though, in the past 60
years or so, roads have been built or modified to accommodate the personal automobile in lieu of the human being, thus limiting the options for people who choose safer, cleaner, healthier, and cheaper modes of transportation. It is no wonder then that
motorized and active modes of transportation are forced to share the existing road network in less than ideal circumstances.

Despite this, drivers were offended at the gall of these cyclists who chose to travel on a direct route rather than navigate the curvilinear labyrinth of suburban streets. They are aghast that they must temporarily reduce their speeds in order to safely
pass the cyclists; as if the 30 seconds that would be added to one’s travel time are even remotely close in scale to the value of a cyclists’ life! Many believe that automobile traffic should be given preference because the drivers are making trips
to and from work while cycling is just a leisurely activity- this despite the fact that one of the cyclists killed was on his way home from work and it is abundantly obvious that many car trips are also recreational, rather than utilitarian in nature.
Ultimately, there are only two primary reasons why drivers hit cyclists: either they are driving faster than visibility would safely allow or they are distracted from the road.

In a perfect world, transportation planners would prioritize people over vehicles. Cyclists would be given bike lanes or wide shoulders, and pedestrians would be given sidewalks so that all can pass safely. Fortunately, this seems to be the trend in the
industry. But until that time we must share the road and be mindful of all users. Furthermore, it is long overdue that municipalities began prosecuting drivers who selfishly place their own convenience over the lives of others. At least in New York such
laws are already in place, including Merrill’s Law, which mandates that vehicles respect a safe passing distance from cyclists, after its namesake was killed by a bus while cycling on the side of the road. We often forget the inherent danger of
operating two tons of glass and steel at speeds that defy our evolutionary instincts, all while within the vicinity of vulnerable users of the streets.

The optimist in me wants to believe that these tragedies will lead to greater awareness for cyclist and pedestrian safety, but the realist in me expects that police and district attorneys will fail to arrest and prosecute offenders, and drivers will
continue their destructive habits in the wake of ever-increasing casualties.

https://transpophile.com/2012/08/04/the-perfect-crime-kill-cyclist-blame-victim/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27/07/2023 04:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

May Sun is presumably quoting when he cuts and pastes thus:

It is a hobby of mine to follow my hometown newspaper in order to stay in touch with those local affairs. However, to my great repugnance, I have read about one cyclist fatality after another. In the past month alone, there have been three human beings

struck and killed by vehicles, the most recent of whom was killed by a woman with a suspended license. Yet no sooner does the ink dry on the reports of these tragedies than do apologists begin to hurl blame around to everyone but the one behind the wheel.
And while it is true that tragic accidents do occasionally happen, what we see most often are not freak occurrences but deaths that were entirely preventable by the driver. But until we begin to hold drivers accountable for their manslaughter, I expect
that we will continue to see article after article trying to make sense of why our neighbors’ lives have been cut tragically short. Here are some of the excuses that perpetuate the mindset that the driver can do no wrong.

“Cyclists are reckless, and therefore at fault for their own deaths”

Subject to the missing word "sometimes" (valorise that any way you
like), what's wrong with that?

Who ELSE can be blamed for the death of some bloke on a chav-bike when
he rides full pelt into a dry stone wall early in the morning with not a
single other soul anywhere nearby?

The farmer who built the wall, 200 years ago?

The local council, for not having built barriers on the footway (if
there is one) all along the length of the wall?

[ ... ]

Of course I am not advocating for cyclists, or anyone else, to engage in excessively risky behavior.

Good.

So stop blaming others for the excessive risks taken by blokes on
chav-bikes (whether to themselves or to the persons or property of others).

[ ... ]

Of course I would very much like to see everyone on the road operate their respective vehicles safely and with consideration for all others. But let us take a look at some of the generalizations that people use to excuse vehicular homicide.

Cyclists don’t obey traffic signals. Cyclists wear headphones.

We know.

Cyclists do not signal their intentions.

They don't have to. No-one does, even though it's part of the driving
test (in the UK).

Cyclists ride two abreast. Cyclists don’t wear helmets. These are all risky behaviors that some cyclists engage in, yet not a single one warrants a death sentence.

They can do those as much as they like.

Let us now look at some risky behaviors that some motorists engage in. Motorists drive with excessive speed.

That's illegal, as I understand it.

If 10mph limits applied to chav-bikes, chavs on those chav-bikes would
break it.

Motorists talk on their cell phones.

NOT illegal.

Got that? NOT illegal!

And certainly not either "risky" or "excessively risky".

Motorists text while driving. Motorists don’t wear seat belts.

IF they fail to wear seat belts, that endangers no-one else (spare us
the endless imaginary scenarii in which the driver retains control for a
few extra milliseconds after a collision because his head has not yet
hit the fascia).

And in fact, it isn't even illegal in many cases. Some people have seat
belt exemptions full stop. We *all* have *some* exceptions such as
during any move which involves reversing (bet you May Sun didn't even
know that!).

Motorists drive while tired. Motorists drive while drunk or otherwise inebriated.

The second of those is illegal. And just as illegal on a chav-bike.

It is part of the human condition to rationalize our own actions while easily condemning the actions of others.

So why are you doing it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Drivers at fault in almost three-quarters of all collisions between cyclists and motorists, new data shows The figures also show that cyclists “wearing dark clothing at night” were at fault for only 19 collisions in Scotland between 2015 and 2021
cycling.

70% of collisions involving cyclists are caused by driver error or fault, and not indicating is one of the biggest errors that drivers can make. If you can make other road users aware of your intentions as early as is possible then the everyone's risk
level is lowered.

Therefore make sure that you appropriately use your indicators, hazard warning lights and try to physically brake using the pedal to slow down as this alerts road users behind you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

On 27/07/2023 04:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

It is part of the human condition to rationalize our own actions while
easily condemning the actions of others.

So why are you doing it?

:-)

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27/07/2023 05:42 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Drivers at fault in almost three-quarters of all collisions between cyclists and motorists, new data shows The figures also show that cyclists “wearing dark clothing at night” were at fault for only 19 collisions in Scotland between 2015 and 2021

cycling.

70% of collisions involving cyclists are caused by driver error or fault, and not indicating is one of the biggest errors that drivers can make. If you can make other road users aware of your intentions as early as is possible then the everyone's

risk level is lowered.

Therefore make sure that you appropriately use your indicators, hazard warning lights and try to physically brake using the pedal to slow down as this alerts road users behind you.

"brakes"... "slow down"... These are words and phrases that
chav-cyclists simply do not wish to hear.

And as for "stop"...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Delays to the introduction of an online road safety reporting portal are putting cyclists in Scotland "at risk", says Cycling UK - after Police Scotland took over a year to report an alleged hit-and-incident which left a rider "unable to sit down for a
week", leading to the case being dismissed.

Police Scotland and the Scottish Government announced funding for a national safety portal last year, but it hasn’t been implemented yet.

Scottish cyclists currently have to use the Police Scotland Online Reporting Form, which is time-consuming and inconsistent, with how an incident is handled often depending on the attitudes of different police forces and officers.

As we reported earlier this week, Alan Myles contacted Police Scotland 30 times after he was the victim of a hit-and-run in November 2021. Police Scotland took a year to report the incident (with one officer taking over six months to open an email
containing footage of the alleged collision) to the Procurator Fiscal, Scotland's public prosecutor, who dismissed the case because it was time-barred.

“Ever since I was knocked off my bike, every time I head out for a ride to work or with friends and family, I have that nagging thought that maybe I’ll be hit again – maybe that same person who drove into me will be out on the road again,” Mr
Myles said.

“Not only have the police failed to deliver justice in my case, they are failing to ensure our roads are kept safe from those who pose the greatest danger to others.”

Police Scotland and the Scottish Government have promised to introduce a third-party National Dashcam Safety Portal, but the project has seen delays and in October 2022, Police Scotland said that the portal was ‘under review’ due to budget
constraints.

Cycling UK have been campaigning to introduce the portal since 2021. The campaign has received support from 33 road user organisations including the AA and the RAC.

Keir Gallagher, Cycling UK campaigns manager said the portal would save time and money, is widely supported by the public, is used successfully elsewhere in the UK and will help deliver road safety and justice consistently across Scotland.

“It’s not just Mr Myles who has been let down by Police Scotland’s failure to investigate and report this collision to the Procurator Fiscal within the necessary 12-month timeframe but responsible drivers, cyclists and pedestrians across Scotland,"
he said.

“Had the force and the Government made good on their commitment to introduce a National Dashcam Safety Portal, as is in operation across most of the UK, arguably the investigation could have been concluded in a timely and cost-effective manner that
would have delivered justice and safer roads.

“There is a clear lack of consistency in investigating road crimes at branch level which the portal would help to address.”

He continued: “Responsible drivers, cyclists and pedestrians in Scotland shouldn’t be put at risk because of delays to the National Dashcam Safety Portal.

“Police Scotland and the Government must urgently get together and find a solution to get this vital road safety tool up and running as a matter of the highest priority.”

Mr Myles said the portal needs to be introduced urgently, "so that no one else has to go through what I have".

This has been echoed in recent weeks by Scottish camera cyclist Deacon Thurston, who told road.cc in an interview that the current method is time-consuming and complicated, resulting in not enough victims reporting offences, and that Police Scotland aren'
t capable of acting on video reports as effectively as elsewhere in the UK.

He said that allowing third-party reporting for traffic offences would "massively improve" the system.

Responding to road.cc’s request for a comment concerning the delays to the investigation of Mr Myles’ hit-and-run allegations, a Police Scotland spokesperson said: “Around 9.25am on Tuesday, 30 November, 2021, we received a report of a hit and run
on Glen Road, between Lennoxtown and Milton of Campsie.

“Enquiries were carried out and a 55-year-old man was charged in connection with the incident.

“A report was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal on December 11, 2022.

“Any member of the public who has any complaints about Police Scotland can contact us by visiting our website - www.scotland.police.uk (link is external), or calling 101.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Drivers at fault in almost three-quarters of all collisions between
cyclists and motorists, new data shows The figures also show that
cyclists “wearing dark clothing at night” were at fault for only 19 collisions in Scotland between 2015 and 2021 cycling.

70% of collisions involving cyclists are caused by driver error or
fault, and not indicating is one of the biggest errors that drivers can
make. If you can make other road users aware of your intentions as early
as is possible then the everyone's risk level is lowered.

QUOTE
So next time you hear someone blaming cyclists for their own injuries, you
can respond that 80% of all injuries to 25+ cyclists are, according to the police officer recording the incident, either solely or partly the responsibility of the driver. ENDQUOTE

Take 100 cases in each group

Age group 25-39:
Driver 52 Both 17 Cyclist 31

Age group 40-54:
Driver 70 Both 8 Cyclist 23

In 200 accidents, bicyclists are fully or partly to blame in 31+48=79
accidents

79/200=40% of cases!

That’s getting close to even-stevens…

Of course, if the number of people cycling is greater in the lower age
group, the overall percentage of cyclists at fault rises. (Work that one
out)

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A study of cyclists' injuries has found that, in 65% of cases, the driver was at fault, whereas blame attached to the cyclist in just 33% of injuries (this dropped still further if child cyclists' injuries were excluded) 5. This is all the more
remarkable when one considers that the average cyclist is much younger, less experienced and less well trained than the average driver (there is, after all, no minimum age or training requirement for cycling).

2.7. Speeding is prominent among the ways in which drivers kill, and endanger the lives of, other road users. Police records suggest that speed is a factor in at least one-third of all road deaths6, ie more than three a day on average. It is all the
more alarming, therefore, that the offence of speeding is so common, and so often regarded as nothing more than a trivial misdemeanour, to the extent that speed limit enforcement is frequently described as "persecution of motorists." A major reversal of
attitudes is needed—comparable to that which has been achieved for drink driving—towards all forms of driver behaviour which endanger other road users' lives, but especially towards speeding. Further measures to limit speeding are discussed in
paragraphs 2.11 and 5.3.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

A study of cyclists' injuries has found that, in 65% of cases, the driver
was at fault, whereas blame attached to the cyclist in just 33% of
injuries (this dropped still further if child cyclists' injuries were excluded) 5.

What does that even mean? It’s all but gibberish.

This is all the more remarkable when one considers that the average
cyclist is much younger, less experienced and less well trained than the average driver (there is, after all, no minimum age or training requirement for cycling).

Seriously, did someone think that this made sense?

2.7. Speeding is prominent among the ways in which drivers kill, and endanger the lives of, other road users. Police records suggest that
speed is a factor in at least one-third of all road deaths6

So two thirds of fatal accidents don’t involve speeding!

Thanks for sharing.

ie more than three a day on average. It is all the more alarming,
therefore, that the offence of speeding is so common, and so often
regarded as nothing more than a trivial misdemeanour, to the extent that speed limit enforcement is frequently described as "persecution of motorists." A major reversal of attitudes is needed—comparable to that which has been achieved for drink driving—towards all forms of driver behaviour which endanger other road users' lives, but especially towards speeding. Further measures to limit speeding are discussed in paragraphs 2.11 and 5.3.

What a load of tripe.


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing
factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in
collisions that took place away from junctions.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

Cycling UK published figures that showed that bicyclists were fully or
partly to blame in 40% of vehicle accidents involving a bicyclist.


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

QUOTE: The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. ENDS

It regularly features at or near the top of polls about the worst habits of fellow drivers, and an AA survey last year found that most thought it was getting worse.

Such arrogant and aggressive driving is enough to raise stress levels among even the calmest motorists. It is taking to the extreme the attitude that possesses some drivers who want to reach their destination as fast as possible as soon as they get
behind the wheel.

Pressure on deliveries, combined with increased van traffic that has accompanied the internet shopping boom has probably just made the situation worse.

In many situations, victims can escape the irritation and danger by pulling over or allowing the tailgater to pass.

However, there is a nightmare scenario that some will have experienced, and which threatens to become more common.

Average speed camera zones are now a familiar sight, both on main roads such as the A9 and A77, and through many major roadworks to enforce reduced speed limits.

Such technology in itself should not increase tailgating, as those determined to ignore the speed limit are also likely to be desperate to overtake, and will find an opportunity, however risky the manoeuvre proves to be.

But in some roadworks, such as on the A9, there is the additional restriction of a ban on overtaking.

That means the driver and tailgater are both trapped - the victim unable to speed up without risking a fine, penalty points and potentially higher vehicle insurance, and the tormentor deterred from passing them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

QUOTE: The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. ENDS

Cycling UK published figures that showed that bicyclists were fully or
partly to blame in 40% of vehicle accidents involving a bicyclist.

It regularly features at or near the top of polls about the worst habits
of fellow drivers, and an AA survey last year found that most thought it was getting worse.

Such arrogant and aggressive driving is enough to raise stress levels
among even the calmest motorists. It is taking to the extreme the
attitude that possesses some drivers who want to reach their destination
as fast as possible as soon as they get behind the wheel.

Pressure on deliveries, combined with increased van traffic that has accompanied the internet shopping boom has probably just made the situation worse.

In many situations, victims can escape the irritation and danger by
pulling over or allowing the tailgater to pass.

However, there is a nightmare scenario that some will have experienced,
and which threatens to become more common.

Average speed camera zones are now a familiar sight, both on main roads
such as the A9 and A77, and through many major roadworks to enforce reduced speed limits.

Such technology in itself should not increase tailgating, as those
determined to ignore the speed limit are also likely to be desperate to overtake, and will find an opportunity, however risky the manoeuvre proves to be.

But in some roadworks, such as on the A9, there is the additional
restriction of a ban on overtaking.

That means the driver and tailgater are both trapped - the victim unable
to speed up without risking a fine, penalty points and potentially higher vehicle insurance, and the tormentor deterred from passing them.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

QUOTE--: The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. --ENDS

Have you ever been out in your car and noticed someone driving too close to your rear bumper? Have you ever driven very close to the car in front?

If you answered ‘yes’ to either of these questions, then you probably know what tailgating is. For the benefit of everyone else, tailgating occurs when the gap between your car and the vehicle in front (if you are driving) or behind (if another
driver is too close to you) is too small. It only takes the vehicle in front to brake hard and the chances are there’ll be a collision.

Nobody wants that kind of thing to happen – least of all the friends and families of those affected and the emergency responders arriving at the scene.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

QUOTE--: The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research
Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths
in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. --ENDS

By way of comparison, Official data shows that 1 in 6 (16%) of bicyclist
deaths arise from Single Vehicle Accidents.

Have you ever been out in your car and noticed someone driving too close
to your rear bumper? Have you ever driven very close to the car in front?

If you answered ‘yes’ to either of these questions, then you probably know what tailgating is. For the benefit of everyone else, tailgating
occurs when the gap between your car and the vehicle in front (if you are driving) or behind (if another driver is too close to you) is too small.
It only takes the vehicle in front to brake hard and the chances are there’ll be a collision.

Nobody wants that kind of thing to happen – least of all the friends and families of those affected and the emergency responders arriving at the scene.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Why do some drivers tailgate?

There are various circumstances in which certain drivers may feel they need to drive too close to you. You could encounter:
The bully

These drivers will try and use tailgating as a tactic to force motorists to allow them to pass or move out of the outside lane on the motorway, regardless of whether they are travelling at the correct speed limit.
The inexperienced driver

They could be unaware of the correct distance to keep and the danger they are causing by driving too close to you. They may also be unaware of the correct way to use motorway lanes and move over safely on A-roads.

The auto-pilot

Is usually not paying full attention to the road and is simply following you through the traffic. They’re often unaware of what is going on around them so pose a serious danger to other drivers and themselves.

The impatient driver

They will appear to be in a hurry and will often travel above the speed limit to nudge you along and encourage you to go faster to suit their needs.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/images/uploads/panel-images/Tailgating_driver.jpg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)