Care to cite any evidence to support your claim about it being “more likely” that people on bikes cause deaths by forcing people in cars (who are, by apparent implication, driving responsibly rather than swerving as a result of failing to observe things properly)? In theory these should be recorded in STATS19 so I can check later if you like.
It's anecdotal but it's not more likely... depending how you define more likely.... and driving responsibly equally open to interpretation. The cyclist can have a very good reason for suddenly swerving into the road as the wheel swallowing grate appears but is someone driving irresponsibly not expecting that? (Again crap infreastucure ultimately to blame)
kept a close eye on pretty much every media-covered cycling incident for two or three years and, as I said above, I can only recall one that matches your hypothesis.
Again debatable depending on bias.
There are those who would claim that the car/bus etc. is always to blame and who says what the media choose to report...if the car hits the pram then the reason the car swerved is less sensational than the dead baby...
I can think of two serious injuries off the top of my head (both DH cyclists on the road - perhaps a pattern) OK Rachel was in the US at the time but The Don clearly accepted his liability yet I don't remember any media "cyclist hits car"... reportage.
As for the theories about voting habits, I’d seriously question the psychology which you must think is at work there. Audacious analogy klaxon, but Rosa Parks wouldn’t have converted a white person to vote for integrated transport by giving up her seat. That’s not how social hegemony works.
It's a fair point and you could equally site the Kinderscout mass trespass or even getting to the root of democracy the suffragette movement... (though lets avoid horse incidents) but both of these whilst true are more fundamental... (and two of them a North-South divide if separated by the Atlantic) and supported by major political parties.
Other US examples (if opposing) are the continued success of the US Gun lobby...or the "pro-life .. pro-death penalty" lobby... the point being you have to vote for a package.
Anyway, the point is going back to cycle lane legislation... and local implementations ....
For most of the voting population this is at most an also-ran issue if that.... way behind pensions, tax and the price of food or access to free medicine (or not).. if a major party was to put this in a manifesto how many would view this as more important than their pension/tax/NHS?
it’s not more likely
Oh. It's just that you said it was more likely 😉
yet I don’t remember any media “cyclist hits car”… reportage.
That sounds like a different type of incident to what you were initially referring to, though. (I know of several incidents where people have ridden into motor vehicles and injured or killed themselves.) Got links? I don't know who you're referring to (sorry).
For most of the voting population this is at most an also-ran issue if that
Right. Which confirms what many people know from experience: that whether you ride in strict compliance with the rules regardless of safety or convenience, or you pragmatically disobey some in certain circumstances, or you just behave like a dick, it won't affect the politics of changing transport infrastructure. So the whole "cyclists are bad therefore people vote against cycling" theory is bogus.
Got links? I don’t know who you’re referring to (sorry).
You can just google Neil Donahue ... but the average voter won't know who he is anyway... so
Right. Which confirms what many people know from experience: that whether you ride in strict compliance with the rules regardless of safety or convenience, or you pragmatically disobey some in certain circumstances, or you just behave like a dick, it won’t affect the politics of changing transport infrastructure. So the whole “cyclists are bad therefore people vote against cycling” theory is bogus.
I don't the argument is "cyclists are bad therefore...." from my perspective this is about the pro-cycling/anti-car sentiment...
The way to get better infrastructure (IMHO) is to do something that doesn't impact the major issues people do vote for and to do so in a way that doesn't threaten, inconvenience them greatly or even enhances their lifestyle.
The pro-cycling lobbies seem to be mainly to varying degrees anti-car... something that is threatening to car users... lots of whom vote. Consistent messaging is important... but I see so many anti-car / pro-cycling posts and replies etc. it's depressing... instead publicise the benefits to everyone of a better cycling infrastructure... far more people use pavements and cars than bikes.
A sucessful pro-infrastructure argument should IMHO concentrate on the positives ... address why cyclists have to use the pavements, take the one-way the wrong way etc. and by putting in a proper cycling infrastructure that inconvenience to their lifestyle is reduced.
Even before that you are changing their experience.... instead of classing every cyclist on the pavement a dick they might appreciate it's simple pragmatism...
Mostly the problem I perceive is not even that any injury occurs.... perhaps they are just given a fright once by a cyclist being a dick and after that every cyclist they see being pragmatic is classed in the same mould.
What seems to be missing is a consistent and balanced middle ground.... an argument about how a better infrastructure for cycling benefits everyone, not just cyclists because most people will support what makes their life better first and what makes oner people's life better second.
What seems to be missing is a consistent and balanced middle ground…. an argument about how a better infrastructure for cycling benefits everyone, not just cyclists because most people will support what makes their life better first and what makes oner people’s life better second.
You can't have been checking the front page today 🙂
You can just google Neil Donahue
Hmm. Can't find anything relevant (despite changing the spelling). Anything useful I can add to the search?
<h2>Bio</h2>
Prof. Neil Donahue received a B.A. in Physics from Brown University in 1984 and a PhD in Meteorology and Atmospheric Chemistry from MIT in 1991. His thesis was "Non-methane Hydrocarbon Chemistry in the Remote Marine Atmosphere" and his advisor was Ronald G. Prinn. Prof. Donahue was a Postdoc and Research Scientist at Harvard from 1991 - 2000 with James G. Anderson and thereupon joined Carnegie Mellon University. He is currently Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering and the Director of the Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research.
He sounds cool tho.
Most injuries caused by cyclists are not reported as such and fatalities the cause of death may well not be physical contact with the bike itself… more likely the car/bus that had to swerve.
How do you know all about these injuries that weren't reported?
I'd like to see any evidence that there are significant numbers of unreported pedestrian fatalities caused by cars swerving to avoid bicycles!
I assume the Rachel you mentioned was Rachel Atherton. So that incident seems to be her on the wrong side of the road and piling into an oncoming vehicle, resulting in only her being injured, which isn't the type of incident I thought you were referring to (ie someone on a pedal cycle causing a reaction which then injures someone other than themselves).
Still can't find anything for Neil Donoghue (other than a priest of the same name in relation to a car driver being on the wrong side of the road and hitting another head on; except that unlike Atherton he was obviously packing more than 10kg of machinery, so he killed the other driver as well… still, cyclists huh).
You can always see for your own personal interest his but as I said, unless the general public are aware then it's not going to change any hearts and minds.
You can’t have been checking the front page today
That's great ... just the sort of approach we need.. the problem being who is going to read it. (Well hopefully some people who can do some advocacy)
The problem is the lack of this sort of thing in mainstream press and social media responses.
Mainstream press just seems to usually want a biased article one way or another... and I think this has gotten worse (in general) due to social media. Some are worse than others but regardless of subject it seems a successful article nowadays is one that will have strong opinions arguing on their forum.
A thousand people slagging each other off seems a "successful" article... way more than 100 people saying "what a fabulously balanced article"...
What seems way more prevalent on cycling is some accident and 90/100 responses being either "F**ing drivers" or "F**ing cyclists" ... with the 10% lost in the background ... It might be that it's more than 10% of actual people but the point being it's not more than 90% of responses....
Either way ... I didn't just go and compile statistics on this 90% and 10% are just my impression... and my point is that's not relevant because what matters is perception over fact. It's the impression people come away with even if the facts are incorrect.
Gah, a half hour video that broke Safari—you like giving me an uphill task, don't you 😉
