BBC article on cycling accidents

Posted on
Page
of 4
/ 4
Last Next
  • No one posted this yet?

    Pretty interesting read.

  • Was just reading it.

  • Good image.

  • The quote from the woman who said she felt rude pushing to the front, and about trying not to get in the way could have come straight from my wife.

    And it makes a good point about the false security of cycle lanes.

  • Me too. I've always wondered why it seems to be women getting killed out there. From reading the many sad rider down threads it isn't all novice riders either - some experienced female cyclists are falling victim.

    The article doesn't really go into this, though the headline suggests it does.

    I've heard various theories about blokes being more aggresive and therefore less likely to sit in the blind spot. Not sure I believe that though when you hear some of the victims have been cycling for years...

  • I'd rather hang back and let the lorry do it's thing than go around on the 'hot' side.

  • Me too. I've always wondered why it seems to be women getting killed out there...

    That isn't true in general, just when HGV fatalities are separated out.

  • That isn't true in general, just when HGV fatalities are separated out.

    True - but it's HGV fatalities that are the huge majority. Getting a definitive answer to the question of why women seem more vulnerable might be able to inform everyone's city riding and make it safer.

  • presumably this is a universal problem where bikes and HGVs share the road - ie worldwide. Perhaps by aggregating statistics from different places enough data could put together to draw a proper conclusion?

  • I think the comment about cycling in a positive, traffic aware manner, ('aggressive' was the term used), versus the passive, 'less confident', approach, was particularly relevant.
    I can see how that might apply for both sexes.

  • It seems to me, from a purely statistical standpoint, that there haven't been enough (recorded) fatalities / accidents to infer any reasonable degree of significance.

    This is certainly true. Sample size far to small and slightly dishonest reporting:

    *"This year, seven of the eight people killed by lorries in London have been women. *
    Considering that women make only 28% of the UK's cycling journeys, this seems extremely high."

    Eight deaths in London, 28% women cyclists in UK. What is the proportion of women cyclists in London then?

    Never the less, interesting article particularly about the defensive cycling.

  • True - but it's HGV fatalities that are the huge majority. Getting a definitive answer to the question of why women seem more vulnerable might be able to inform everyone's city riding and make it safer.

    From the article:
    "Setting lorries aside, the bigger picture is that far more men are killed on their bikes. In 2008, 84% of the 115 fatalities were men and 81% of reported injuries were to men."

    HGVs are not the major killer of cyclists but do fatally injure a disproportionate amount of women cyclists.

  • It's interesting that when this first went up on the BBC News front page the tag link was "Are women cyclists in more danger than men?" A couple of hours later the link has changed to "Are NERVOUS cyclists in more danger than men?" Although the article and its headline remain the same.

  • From the article:
    "Setting lorries aside, the bigger picture is that far more men are killed on their bikes. In 2008, 84% of the 115 fatalities were men and 81% of reported injuries were to men."

    HGVs are not the major killer of cyclists but do fatally injure a disproportionate amount of women cyclists.

    You can't say that they fatally injure a large proportion of female cyclists. We do not know what the proportion of HGV related deaths are outside of London (we would expect the number to be 28% if it was proportionate).

    We only know that 7/8 deaths (far too small a sample) inside of london were women - but if the proportion of women cyclists in London was higher than 28% then may not look disproportionate.

    Anyway, thats nitpicking, I thought it was quite a good article.

  • I actually think that's a really good article. Although there are the usual moron comments.

  • It's interesting that when this first went up on the BBC News front page the tag link was "Are women cyclists in more danger than men?" A couple of hours later the link has changed to "Are NERVOUS cyclists in more danger than men?" Although the article and its headline remain the same.

    [confused] So men cannot be nervous cyclists then? [/confused]

  • We only know that 7/8 deaths (far too small a sample) inside of london were women - but if the proportion of women cyclists in London was higher than 28% then may not look disproportionate.

    If my maths is any good that makes female cyclists almost 30 times more at risk that males.......

  • The beeb article is victim-blaming crap.

    There is no evidence that the cyclists killed in London were undertaking.

    [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif][SIZE=2]Th­e beeb article seems like misdirection to me. There is evidence that a large number of HGV/cyclist accidents are where the lorry hits the back of the cyclist. The cyclist is not in a blind spot (which ought not to be an excuse anyway. Saying "I didn't see them" is an admission of bad driving) and the cyclist had done nothing wrong. [/SIZE][/FONT]

    Maybe a campaign telling HGV drivers not to drive illegal, uninsured vehicles, not to drive whilst drunk or drugged and not to drive whilst filling in their paperwork would be better.

  • The beeb article is victim-blaming crap.

    There is no evidence that the cyclists killed in London were undertaking.

    [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif][SIZE=2]Th­e beeb article seems like misdirection to me. There is evidence that a large number of HGV/cyclist accidents are where the lorry hits the back of the cyclist. The cyclist is not in a blind spot (which ought not to be an excuse anyway. Saying "I didn't see them" is an admission of bad driving) and the cyclist had done nothing wrong. [/SIZE][/FONT]

    Maybe a campaign telling HGV drivers not to drive illegal, uninsured vehicles, not to drive whilst drunk or drugged and not to drive whilst filling in their paperwork would be better.

    I don't think it's victim blaming. It's always hard to report on statistics that seem to suggest an unpalatable conclusion and I think the article trod the fine line very well.

    They are simply trying to find a theory to explain an observed pattern.

    As a side note: stats on HGV accidents - it's all the foreigners' fault!

  • If my maths is any good that makes female cyclists almost 30 times more at risk that males.......

    Not sure of the maths you've used - I'm sure what you've done is correct.

    But if I were trying to decide whether I could say if women were more at risk of HGVs, I'd have to first see whether I thought 7/8 was a useful stat (I don't think it is - though 70/80 or 700/800 would be), and then I'd have to see what the proportion of women cyclists was in the same area as that stat.

    If the proportion of London female cyclists was 90% for example, then that 7/8 stat doesn't look wrong. I know it's not 90%, but we don't know what it is, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more female cyclists in London as compared to some hilly part of Yorkshire for example.

    Anyway, I've no idea whether the actual sentiment of the article is correct (it probably is), I'm just being anal and saying that the reporting was a bit off kilter :)

    Anyway, no more, as I'm at risk of being shown to be totally wrong by some stats guru :)

  • I was "overtaken" by a hybrid rider this morning as he shot down a pavement before dashing onto the road and undertaking a lorry. I cruised past him when the road was clear.

    He was not killed or injured and so will continue to ride like a prick until he is or until he sees articles like the BBC one.

  • Blanket ban on "hybrids" is the only answer, cliveo. The only answer..

  • "They are simply trying to find a theory to explain an observed pattern."

    Their theory doesn't fit with what we know about HGVs involved in fatal RTAs with cyclists. Plus, there's the danger that a lorry driver is sometimes the only living witness. "The cyclist undertook" is offered as an excuse. Case closed. There was a roadside check of lorries in London fairly recently. Every single one of the lorries stopped were on the roads illegally, or were illegally faulty, the tacho was fiddled or the driver was uninsured or on a mobile.

  • "They are simply trying to find a theory to explain an observed pattern."

    Their theory doesn't fit with what we know about HGVs involved in fatal RTAs with cyclists. Plus, there's the danger that a lorry driver is sometimes the only living witness. "The cyclist undertook" is offered as an excuse. Case closed. There was a roadside check of lorries in London fairly recently. Every single one of the lorries stopped were on the roads illegally, or were illegally faulty, the tacho was fiddled or the driver was uninsured or on a mobile.

    That's easy to spin. If I stood on the side of the road and stopped drivers who were talking on their mobile then 100% of cars I stopped were talking on their mobile were driving. I then report it as every driver I stopped was talking on their mobile while driving. End of story.

  • They were random stops:

    City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
    September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which is
    intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
    relation to lorries.
    On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five
    of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
    Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
    one way

    Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
    HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
    overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
    hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
    driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).

    3 women have been killed by collisions with lorries so far this year.
    I doubt that being able to turn left on red would have enabled any of
    the 3 to avoid the collisions that killed them.

    Meryem Ozekman, killed at Elephant and Castle last week, was nowhere
    near a traffic light when she was run over. Rebecca Goosen, killed on
    Old Street, was almost certainly going straight on over the junction
    with Aldersgate Street, as her office was on Cowcross Street, so she
    is likely to have followed Clerkenwell Road at least to the St John
    Street junction.1 And Eilidh, killed at Notting Hill Gate, is known to
    have followed NHG all the way down to Shepherd’s Bush, and, in any
    case, is reported to have been on the right hand side of the lorry
    that killed her.

    http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/­boris-left-at-the-lights

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

BBC article on cycling accidents

Posted by Avatar for JimL @JimL

Actions