[Closed] Perhaps time to restart the "War On Motorists"?

Exactly how are we going to do that? When I am out on my bike, I am constantly reminded hat I am basically a sack of fragile organs on something that travels slowly. At worst, I would cause damage to a car that T-Cut would have trouble with if we came into contact at speed.

I also think that any aggressive actions on our part would be counterproductive. And dangerous.

Or

More people are walking as a result of cars becoming too expensive for people to own/run. more pedestrians = more accidents

Cycling has become more popular - more cyclists = more accidents.

I don't think any decision can be made based on these figures unless you know the total number of people walking/cycling has changed and how.

One year doesn't make a trend. Time to start the war on lazy journalism I reckon 🙂

Couple more years of fuel price rises, then we will be kings of the road!

I'm not suggesting we start attaching cars with sharpened track pumps.

When I say "we" I mean our lawmakers and elected officials, who engaged in the original "war" but then withdrew fairly promptly before it had too much effect (so at least it has something in common with most wars we fight).

Couple more years of fuel price rises, then we will be kings of the road!

MMmmm.. yes.. in other news: [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong ]"We were wrong on peak oil" (Guardian)[/url]

Cycling has become more popular - more cyclists = more accidents.

I don't think any decision can be made based on these figures unless you know the total number of people walking/cycling has changed and how.

From the stats document:

These [Pedestrian injury] increases are set against a generally downward trend in the number of pedestrian casualties and fatalities since the 1970s.
Pedal cyclist traffic levels are estimated to have risen by 2.2 per cent over the same [2011] period.

That help?

I'd like to see the results of this report in a chart. Possibly number of cyclists injured against total number of cyclist, year on year. Maybe a Boston Matrix. I don't think its relevent, but I like charts...

Please don't use "we" to mean lawmakers and elected officials. I'm not one of either and will probably never be one.

My personal opinion is that, whilst they would tout cycling as a nice green activity, they need the revenue from fuel and road duty too much to actively push people away from it. The same with smoking and alcohol really. Oil's just another addiction.

I'd like to see the results of this report in a chart. Possibly number of cyclists injured against total number of cyclist, year on year.

They have many many statistical tables for you to make all the charts you like from. Probably the easiest is to look at are the ones covering casualty rate (per billion miles) by road user type.

Please don't use "we" to mean lawmakers and elected officials. I'm not one of either and will probably never be one.

Sorry, thought the context was obvious given "we" (you and I) were not previously engaged in a war.

Perhaps I should rephrase it as, should "we" (concerned citizens) push "they" (lawmakers & politicians) to restart the semi-mythical "War On Motorists"

they need the revenue from fuel and road duty too much to actively push people away from it.

You mean "[b]we[/b] need the revenue"? 😉

Pedal cyclist traffic levels are estimated to have risen by 2.2 per cent over the same period.

Since 'the 1970's'...thats not vague or anything. And we're saying that even though the population of the UK has grown by 6% since 1970, the number of cyclists has only risen by 2.2%? A quick search on the web says that between 2009 and 2010 there were 1.3 million new cyclists on the roads (LSE numbers) giving a total of 13m. I make that slightly more than 2.2% for a 40 year period and I'm probably more likely to believe the LSE than some shoddy journalism to grab headlines.

Since 'the 1970's'...thats not vague or anything

No. Risen by 2.2% since 2010. You missed my [2011] annotation.

Why not read the actual document - it's quite short!

Or, (just as likely) more people are claiming they were hurt, for gain?

No. Risen by 2.2% since 2010. You missed my [2011] annotation.

I missed that because you stuck it in afterwards, cheeky 😉

Why not read the actual document - it's quite short!

A) I can't be arsed, I'd much rather be blindly pedantic
B) I'm off home. In my car. Trying not to kill anyone.

Probably the easiest is to look at are the ones covering casualty rate (per billion miles) by road user type.

I think that calculation would be more useful if it were Casualty rate (per hours spent travelling) by road user type.

Just sayin....

Or, (more likely) more people are claiming they were hurt, for gain?

🙄

Including the dead ones?

STATS19 data is recorded by attending police. [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/collisionreporting/Stats/stats20.pdf ]STATS20[/url] defines how to record it. It says:

Examples of 'Serious' injury are:
• Fracture
• Internal injury
• Severe cuts
• Crushing
• Burns (excluding friction burns)
• Concussion
• Severe general shock requiring hospital treatment
• Detention in hospital as an in-patient, either immediately or later
• Injuries to casualties who die 30 or more days after the accident from injuries sustained in that accident.

I'd be interested to know which of the accidents were solely as a result of speed, and which were as a result of the dire standard of driving (perhaps compounded by speed).

Speed cameras are not the answer.

Taking away the right to drive of those who deliberately ignore road safety laws (those who don't obey the 2 second gap, those who reverse out on to well used roads, those that consistently don't indicate, those that don't pull into lane 1 as soon as it is clear, those that overtake crossing solid white lines or hatched markings, etc.)

And why or why to we allow someone to take and pass their test on (e.g.) a 850 cc Mini, and then give them the right to drive a old 'widow-maker' Porches 911 Turbo at unlimited speeds (Germany and IOM). Madness.

OR MAYBE, cyclists are being more dangerous. Do we have a table of numbers to show who was actually at fault (and by 'actually' I mean what actually happened)?

Another headline could be 'CYCLISTS ARE 16% MORE LIKELY TO CRASH INTO A CAR THAN LAST YEAR'....or something

Anyway, I'm 10% more likely to be late for my tea if I don't bugger off home. In my car....OH THE HUMANITY....

Losing battle on here, Graham. I think we cyclists are outnumbered,
Maybe try pistonheads.com?

Speed cameras are not the answer.

You need the RAS50001 table, which covers Contributory Factors. That's not in this release, it comes later. But I can tell you that for RAS50001 for 2010 says [i]"Exceeding the speed limit"[/i] was a factor in 14% of fatal accidents, "[i]Travelling too fast for conditions"[/i] was a factor in 13% and [i]"Loss of control"[/i] factored in 34%

I'd be interested to know which of the accidents were solely as a result of speed

I don't think ANY accident happens [u]solely[/u] because someone is going too fast.

Taking away the right to drive of those who deliberately ignore road safety laws

Do those road safety laws include the ones about speeding?

I don't think we need a "war on..." anything(*). What we need is better education for motorists. How about retests every five years and mandatory eye tests?

I'm loathe to subscribe to any movement that by definition encourages an 'us and them' culture, not least because I'm a cyclist and a driver and therefore would have to declare war on myself. Motorists and cyclists should be working together to make things easier for all concerned, not declaring 'war' on each other.

(* - Except perhaps journalism.)

How about retests every five years and mandatory eye tests?

Totally agree. But you realise that would be a prime example of "war" to some motorists?

But I can tell you that for RAS50001 for 2010 says "Exceeding the speed limit" was a factor in 14% of fatal accidents and "Travelling too fast for conditions" was a factor in 13%.

As an aside,

When you / they say something is a "factor" in this context, does that imply a [i]causal[/i] factor or merely that a condition was present?

With regards to 'exceeding the posted limit', if it's the former then that's compelling evidence in favour of tighter speed enforcement to help reduce accidents. if it's the latter, it's as meaningless a statistic as "wearing a green jumper."

When you / they say something is a "factor" in this context, does that imply a causal factor or merely that a condition was present?

"Contributed". From the [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/ras50001/ ]RAS50001 (2010) table[/url]:

"It is important to note that it may be difficult for a police officer, attending the scene after an accident has occurred, to identify certain [b]factors that may have contributed to a cause of an accident[/b].

The contributory factors are therefore different in nature from the remainder of the STATS19 data which is based on the reporting of factual information. This should be kept in mind when interpreting the data.

For further details of the contributory factor system, please see article entitled Contributory factors to reported road accidents, which can be found using the following link:

ASSETS.DFT.GOV.UK "http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-04.pdf"

The form used by the police to report contributory factors includes a list of 77 contributory factors. These 77 factors fall into nine categories and these are: Road environment contributed, vehicle defects, Injudicious action, Driver/rider error or reaction, Impairment or distraction, Behaviour or inexperience, Vision affected by external factors, Pedestrian only factors (casualty or uninjured) and Special codes. A copy of the form can be found using the following link:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/road-accidents-and-safety/stats19-road-accident-injury-statistics-report-form.pdf

you realise that would be a prime example of "war" to some motorists?

Sorry, I now have a mental image of front-line Optometrists out in Iraq.

So that basically says it's difficult to ascertain, which we knew.

I'm still not clear here though, does "contributory" explicitly mean "causal"?

I'm still not clear here though, does "contributory" explicitly mean "causal"?

I'm not sure how you'd ever make that distinction?

You show up at an accident. Witnesses/cctv/whatever tells you that the car was going 35mph over the speed limit before the front tyre blew out, the car flipped and all four passengers died.

Speed [i]may or may not[/i] have caused the tyre to burst. Speed [i]may[/i] have meant the crash was far more severe. At a lower speed it [i]may[/i] not have been fatal.

All you can really say is four people are dead and excessive speed was "a factor". So was a nail on the road, worn tyres and loss of control.

(off to cycle home - avoiding the roads as best I can!)

I'm not sure how you'd ever make that distinction?

I'm not wholly sure you always can either.

Which is kinda what I'm getting at. The whole justification for speed cameras hinges on something presented as fact which, as you say, may or may not be the case. Sorry, I don't want to kick off another round of speeding arguments, I just like to be clear what is and isn't factual in a discussion.

I've nothing against controlling speed, I just believe that speed cameras are a cheap, lazy and ineffective way of doing improving road safety. Far better to have a decision-making human in the process, who can better make a judgement call regarding appropriate speed and a whole host of other factors. (Eg, which is more dangerous, a motorcycle momentarily breaking the speed limit to overtake more quickly, or someone driving at the speed limit a foot behind a large van?) Plus, if people are determined to speed they'll just surf camera; slamming on the brakes at the last second (cos that's a good idea in heavy traffic), behave for 20 yards, then boot it off towards the horizon again.

Until someone invents a not-paying-attention camera, I'd like to see more emphasis on traffic police coupled with a nationwide awareness campaign to help show cyclists what it's like to be a driver and drivers to understand what it's like to be a cyclist. Many motorists don't expect cyclists to be on the road so just don't look for them, and many cyclists don't do themselves any favours by squeezing erratically through small gaps, ignoring traffic lights and then cycling three abreast up big hills.

On motorcycle lessons, they teach you a thing they call a "lifesaver" - it's one last check over your shoulder to see if anyone is doing anything stupid behind you before you make a manoeuvre. To my knowledge they don't teach this in a car, and I think they should. It's still a lifesaver, just someone else's.

People in glass houses?

http://road.cc/content/news/60903-court-told-red-light-jumping-cyclist-left-pedestrian-fractured-skull

Not sure what you're getting at there?

From the sounds of things, the cyclist was at fault and charged accordingly. The case isn't representative of all cyclists and pedestrians, or indeed any other than the one in the report.

If you're going to fly through a red light almost at the speed limit, you're an idiot. It's just a shame a pedestrian got in his way rather than a truck.

I really don`t like this "them and us" mentality.And thats despite me seeing the worst of some motorists on Saturday night whilst riding the Dunwich Dynamo,seeing impatient motorists shouting unneccessay abuse at riders because they were being held up.

I do think that the militant cyclist types who try to say "all cars are bad" only serve to alienate us.

Most of us are both motorists and cyclists.Education and training are the only ways to improve the situtation,as will getting more people out on their bike.

Dead peds = smartphones, innit ?

hurt cyclists might well be increased overall numbers (maybe plus "new" cyclists ?)

Perhaps we can also wage a war on half-wit pedestrians who saunter along, headphones on, texting away, stepping straight off the path without bothering to even glance up to see if anything's coming, or wander along in pairs, pushing their prams, yakking to each other while texting, meanwhile their older offspring run ahead to the road junction and head straight across, followed by the gormless parents, also not bothering to look.
The latter regularly happens at the top of my road, the former on any given urban street, any given hour of the day. Perhaps that sort of ****less behaviour might be a significant contributor to pedestrian accidents, not the motorist.

Overall KSI's (Killed and Seriously Injured) have been at an all time low. Most of this has been through advances in car tech, engineering out the problem with certain roads and better education.

But probably overall down to the fact we are a recession and fuel costs are high, insurance etc.

A percentage of this increase in Cyclists & Pedestrian casualties will be down to people making the choice to not use the car. (plus also cycking is more pupular these days)

So, what says the panel, time to restart the war on motorists?

The so called "war" on motorists was and is a massive exaggeration. The government are far too dependent on motorists lovely taxes to force people off the roads.

The obsession with speed is an issue I have to express a certain amount of exasperation with. Sure excessive speed is very dangerous, but as a cause of accidents, excess speed accounts for some 7% according to the DoT's own statistics.

A far better way forward would be education - perhaps all able bodied learner drivers should be obliged to spend a certain amount of time on a bicycle as part of their qualification. It might also help bring motorcycle casualties down too.

Of course, had John Prescott's 1997 promise of providing "comprehensive and reasonably priced" public transport within reach of everyone not been quietly binned, we might not have so many cars on the road today.

but as a cause of accidents, excess speed accounts for some 7% according to the DoT's own statistics.

Ah, that old logical fallacy; correlation = causation.

How about just much much tougher convictions for people who kill through careless driving or dangerous driving.

Mandatory 10 year sentences for the latter etc, make people shit themselves at the idea of driving in a way that could land them in trouble.

excess speed accounts for some 7% according to the DoT's own statistics.

"Loss of control". If it's anything like motorbikes though, the majority of crashes that are caused by "loss of control" are caused by misjudging corner entry speed. Not speed or speeding in itself.

Ah, that old logical fallacy; correlation = causation.

So you want to argue against the laws of physics and physiology? The faster you go the greater the injury and the less time your body has to react.

If it's anything like motorbikes though, the majority of crashes that are caused by "loss of control" are caused by misjudging corner entry speed.

Can I see the figures you're using to make that statement please?

So you want to argue against the laws of physics and physiology? The faster you go the greater the injury and the less time your body has to react.

This may be well true, but it doesn't prove a causal link. High speed makes crashes worse, but that doesn't necessarily cause them to occur in and of itself (otherwise the F1 would be a bloodbath).

[i]Inappropriate [/i]speed, on the other hand, perhaps.

I agree with the idea of inappropriate speed. That is kind of what I was getting at.

However, formula 1 drivers have massively massively heightened reaction times. Fighter pilots are the same, certain parts of their brains adapt to deal with high speed situations.

Your everyday car driver doesn't.

I'll try and get those figures tomorrow.

High speed makes crashes worse, but that doesn't necessarily cause them to occur in and of itself (otherwise the F1 would be a bloodbath).

Er.. very poor comparison. F1 tracks are one-way for a start!

High speed can easily cause crashes. Inappropriate speed is of course a more accurate term, but there is a strong correlation between high speed and inappropriate speed.

I'm sick of having to take defensive action because some cock thinks he's perfectly safe at speed. In reality, it's the rest of us taking up his slack.

massively massively heightened reaction times

And cars that stick to the ground at high speed. And no pedestrians that will step out in front of them. And no traffic coming the other way. And no signals other than a few different colour flags to watch out for. And. And. And.

As a society we seem to have refused to tolerate legislating for inappropriate driving standards (other than eventually making drink driving socially unacceptable), so we can only legislate for speed and hope that accidents caused by inappropriate driving are less severe because they happen at lower speed. And let the speed apologists whinge till the cows come home.

In case it's not clear,

I wasn't comparing F1 to road driving in any practical sense other than to show (badly) that, all other factors aside, driving quickly does not always equate to causing accidents. Please don't get tied up dissecting light hearted but poor analogies, it's not important.

Please don't get tied up dissecting light hearted but poor analogies, it's not important