-
• #102
people who drive Triumph motorbikes are the worst offenders, mental cycle-haters the lot of them…
-
• #103
Yep, total cunts.
-
• #104
people who drive Triumph motorbikes are the worst offenders, mental cycle-haters the lot of them…
(Thanks god I sold mine and bought a kawasaki....)
-
• #105
Basically the bald figures speak for themselves. It is exceedingly rare for a cyclist to be in collision with a motorcyclist, and almost unheard of for one to be killed in that collision.
So can we stop the scaremongering and the hate now please?
Not trying to start a flame war, this is a genuine question. But I'm not quite sure why the CTC is wrong to extrapolate from the percentage of miles travelled by motorbikes in the way you say they are. Here is why,
So, lets say that HGVs and cars both kill 1000 people a year, but 50% of vehicles miles are done by cars and 10% of vehicle miles done by HGVs.
As the number of people killed are the same, without considering the data relative to vehicle miles, we would draw the false conclusion that hgvs and cars are equally safe.
But when we consider that for each mile travelled in an hgv, 5 times as many people are killed, we would reach (what I take to be) the true conclusion that HGV's are five times as dangerous as cars. (if HGV use increased to 50% of vehicle miles - we would see 5000 casualties from them in a year).
And this is what I took to be the point of the ctc figures. Now I don't know crap about statistics, and there may well be something shady going on in the maths. But I am not sure it is disingenuous for the ctc to present the figures as they do.
but I invite correction.
-
• #106
Survey done. Along with a lengthy set of comments.
-
• #107
Yay, some sense. That CTC website gives me the shits, I agree with the general ideas, but like every other special interest lobby group all the statistics are twisted to support their cause. Don't even get me started on their helmet stats arguments.
Right, why the CTC claim is wrong. Actually, that's too charitable. Why it is a blatant lie.
I already posted some of this in the ancient bus lanes thread.
The official statistics are all here. The ones quoted below are from the 2006 report because a) I have not yet read the 2007 report , and b)neither had the CTC when they made up their claim:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/
the 2007 cyclist data is here
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/pedalcyclistfsheet07.pdfProof that Motorcyclists are 3 times more likely to be killed on the road than cyclists.
Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres:
coach 0.3
Car 2.5
Pedestrian 36
Pedal cycle 31
Motorcycle 107It's staggering just how much more risk motorcyclists face. And in the city there is a much higher concentration of motorcycles than elsewhere.
(I include the other figures for comparison, and also to back up my oft-stated claim that cycling is less dangerous than walking, and so doesn't need hi vis and helmets.)Motorcycles are by some considerable margin the safest vehicle to cyclists.
Based on hospital admissions:
Out of a total of 7065 cyclists admitted to hospital in 2006No collision at all (i.e. cyclist just fell off their bike or hit pot hole etc): 4,268
Collision with car: 1,592
Collision with a static object - tree, lamp post etc: 242
Collision with or bus: 102
Collision with another cyclist: 89 (one would assume both cyclists contribute to this stat, however?)
Other vehicle (not bus, car, motorbike bicycle or HGV) - so van, tractor etc: 77
Motorcycle: 50
Pedestrian or animal: 34.A separate set of figures are also in the document based on police reporting, and these make up the official "Killed or seriously injured" stats. Killed is obviously absolute. "Seriously injured" is defined as injuries requiring inpatient hospital treatment. Where other vehicles were involved they tally very closely with the hospital figures. The exception is the figures for no other vehicle accidents are naturally smaller, because who calls the police because they fell off their bike?
Now as you can see motorcycles are nearly half as dangerous to bicycles as other bicycles are, and over half as dangerous as buses, and 1/32 the danger of cars.
If we focus just on deaths, here are some figures:
in 2002, 2003 and 2005 no cyclists at all were killed in motorcycle collisions.
In 2004 and 2006 two cyclists were killed in motorcycle collisions.
A quick skim of the 2007 figures shows that in 2007 one cyclist was killed.for comparison in 2007 two cyclists were killed in collisions with other cyclists
So where do the CTC get their figure from? Well, nationally, in 2005-2006 motorcycles are used for just 1% of miles travelled. By taking this figure and extrapolating the data you can get the CTC's "per mile travelled motorcyclists kill 3 times as many cyclist as cars". I hope, now, with the figures available to you, you can see just how disingenuous that is. It requires such a massive distortion of the statistics as to be a bare-faced lie.
That's nationally. But no cyclists have been killed in collisions with motorcycles on rural roads. Only urban areas. The figure for urban areas is closer to 2%. That would make the CTC figure impossible. I can't find figures for central London, but I'd imagine it's closer to 10%, which would just add to the bullshit factor. Why would they do this? Perhaps because like all lobby groups the CTC's primary aim is to increase the influence, power, and income of the CTC. A shame, because once upon a time they were a lovely organisation that organised special bicycle trains to the countryside, for chaps in tweed.
Basically the bald figures speak for themselves. It is exceedingly rare for a cyclist to be in collision with a motorcyclist, and almost unheard of for one to be killed in that collision.
So can we stop the scaremongering and the hate now please?
-
• #108
"Basically the bald figures speak for themselves"
do they?
"Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres:
coach 0.3
Car 2.5
Pedestrian 36
Pedal cycle 31
Motorcycle 107"but those figures are not weighted to the average mileage. a pedestrian is only going to do a few miles a day, a cyclist 7-15 a coach car or motorcycle will do a lot more.
Collision with car: 1,592
Collision with a static object - tree, lamp post etc: 242
Collision with or bus: 102
Collision with another cyclist: 89 (one would assume both cyclists contribute to this stat, however?)
Other vehicle (not bus, car, motorbike bicycle or HGV) - so van, tractor etc: 77
Motorcycle: 50
Pedestrian or animal: 34.considering how many pedestrians there are in london (i guess there are more peds than motorcycles) it would seem that motorbikes are much more dangerous than peds.
-
• #109
Accident stats aside - Motor Cycles are aggressively loud smelly polluters and attract unsavoury characters but thats a gross generalisation and some of my best friends are Motorbikers.
-
• #110
bluequinn, thanks for those figures, are you aware of figures dealing with death rates per journey?? Civil aviation is the safest mode of transport per passenger mile, it seems, but trains are safest per journey. Does that make sense? In a plane, I'm only concerned if it's going to have an accident on one particular occasion -- when I'm on board!!
-
• #111
Accident stats aside - Motor Cycles are aggressively loud smelly polluters and attract unsavoury characters but thats a gross generalisation and some of my best friends are Motorbikers.
fixed gear bikes attract smelly workshy spongers and unsavory characters but that's a gross generalisation and some of my best friends are fixed gear riders.
-
• #112
Bluequin really can't make any comment on statistics when he presents a whole list of data which doesn't come from the web references he gives and without relating to 'exposure' ie. distance travelled by each mode. At least the CTC try to make a rational comparison. Originally this issue arose 20 years ago based on a study of casualties in London over a ten year period which found that two wheeled motor vehicles, per mile driven, were five times more likely than cars to cause the death or serious injury of a pedestrian and several times more casualties to cyclists. (Plowden S, Hillman, M, Danger on the road: the needless scourge. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1984 (No 627, table II.3, p 78). A follow up analysis in 2003 by one of the authors found similar results.
I agree that the problem is far greater for pedestrians than for cyclists. It is the cyclists' lobby that has taken on the battle because the pedestrians lack organised support and allowing motorbikes in bus lanes takes roadspace away from cyclists. The motorcycle lobby has chosen to ignore the pedestrian safety case and set out to attack cycling organisations instead; as BQ does in the first line of his post.
-
• #113
eastendpete, has you read the topic? the general consoluation that motorcyclists are usually safe, every mode of transport will always have a bad apple.
my apologies, i didnt read it all, thought i got the idea of where it was heading though, true, theres always bad apples.
-
• #114
Bluequin really can't make any comment on statistics when he presents a whole list of data which doesn't come from the web references he gives and without relating to 'exposure' ie. distance travelled by each mode. At least the CTC try to make a rational comparison. Originally this issue arose 20 years ago based on a study of casualties in London over a ten year period which found that two wheeled motor vehicles, per mile driven, were five times more likely than cars to cause the death or serious injury of a pedestrian and several times more casualties to cyclists. (Plowden S, Hillman, M, Danger on the road: the needless scourge. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1984 (No 627, table II.3, p 78). A follow up analysis in 2003 by one of the authors found similar results.
I agree that the problem is far greater for pedestrians than for cyclists. It is the cyclists' lobby that has taken on the battle because the pedestrians lack organised support and allowing motorbikes in bus lanes takes roadspace away from cyclists. The motorcycle lobby has chosen to ignore the pedestrian safety case and set out to attack cycling organisations instead; as BQ does in the first line of his post.
Charlie, every official stat that has been published is available to download on the link I provided, and that is my only source. Of course I missed some data out - there are pages and pages and pages of it, so if there is stuff you would like to know, you may well find it in there. You'll certainly find stats on distance travelled. The majority come from Road Casualties in Great Britain 2006. Some come from the 2007 version, but as I said I have not read all of it. Others come from some of the extra downloadable tables.
I have even done the CTC a favour by trying to work out how they reached their conclusion. The fact remains that only 5 cyclists have been killed by motorcycles in great Britain in the 5 years between 2002 and 2007. an average of one a year. To try and take that figure and claim that motorcycles are three times more likely to kill cyclists than cars are is insulting and wrong-headed.
Per mile driven is meaningless. What does it matter if it would be higher if motorcycles did as many miles as cars? They don't. They only do 1% of the mileage of cars, so the figures remain virtually nil. In London they do a lot more than 1%, and yet the figures still remain minimal. I would be interested to find the actual figures for central and greater London.
And yes, it may come across that I attack the CTC. That's probably because it angers me that they hold the lives of motorcyclists in such scant regard, and will happily see them continue to be killed daily, for no discernable reason other than their own political ambition.
-
• #115
Per mile driven is meaningless. What does it matter if it would be higher if motorcycles did as many miles as cars? They don't. They only do 1% of the mileage of cars, so the figures remain virtually nil.
It matters because without adjusting for it, the figures are misleading. Suppose I had a mode of transport which killed 1 person per mile it traveled, but I only drove it one mile per year. The fact that I only kill one person a year with it does not mean that it as safe as a motorbike.
-
• #116
I've been hit by two taxi's, a motorcycle courier and a police armoured response van.
Of them all the motorcycle was the worst- i.e. led to injury, but that was because he was going fastest of all the vehicles that have hit me.
-
• #117
hmmm,
My reading of the Road Casualty stats, table 23/23c gives 10 fatalities for the 5 years 2003-2007 and 15 for the seven years 2001-2007, about twice the number you found. The importance of measuring against distance travelled is that it gives a measure of relative risk from different vehicles. Of course you would expect more casualties from cars, becuase there are more of them about.As you say motorcycles only do about 1% of the mileage of cars but even the casualty data you put up before shows motorcycles are involved in well over 2% of the cyclist serious casualties, which is line with the CTC's estimate of being "twice as likely to be involved in causing them serious injuries". However the risk to pedestrians is the real safety issue. In the current trial of motorcycles in bus lanes TfL don't seem to be monitoring pedestrian risk in a realistic way. Neither are they considering the noise and air pollution effects which have significant health impacts.
......
And yes, it may come across that I attack the CTC. That's probably because it angers me that they hold the lives of motorcyclists in such scant regard, and will happily see them continue to be killed daily, for no discernable reason other than their own political ambition.
I can't see how you make that judgement. The cycling lobby have pointed out that the claims that allowing motorcycles in bus lanes give a massive safety benefit to motorcyclists have yet to be proven, if it turns out that the increased risk to pedestrians outweighs any benefit to motorcyclists then the our scepticism will be justified. Other areas of campaigning we do are of great benefit to motorcyclists, for example reducing the risk from HGVs and working towards 20mph speed limits.
-
• #118
I had a little fun with a superbike a while back... as I approached the ASL (with solid lines), there was no traffic in sight and he was sitting right in the middle twiddling his throttle, so I thought it would be funny to cycle up to him & lightly place a finger on the back of his bike to assist my track stand..... causing him to wobble a bit on his v heavy pride & joy
Well he didnt see the funny side of this, but bless him..he did try to take me out, after he'd waited for me to pull away... we then exchanged a few roadside (un)pleasantries and both went on out way.... possibly quicker to cycle without enraging others
what I do is pull up alongside them, shout VROOM, VROOM! at the top of my voice. when they look over, I challenge them to a drag race off the lights.
-
• #119
What risk to pedestrians? How many pedestrians use the bus lane? What on earth are they doing there?
If anything the risk to pedestrians is reduced, because they can hear motorbikes, but can't hear bikes. I'd say it's probably reduced about 50%, which is what the initial trials seemed to indicate. Must be because of those awful loud exhaust pipes drowning out their iPods.My reading of table 23c says 2 cyclists were killed in collisions with motorbikes in 2006. Where are you finding the others?
If motorcycles are involved in 2% of cyclist casualties then something else is involved in the other 98%. Ergo that other thing is more dangerous than motorcycles. I know why you're insisting that per mile figures are so important. It's because they are the only figures that support your claims. Everything else demolishes them. It's there in black and white: motorcycles hardly ever hit cyclists, and almost never kill them. It's astonishingly rare. In London, where surely the miles travelled by motorcycles are much higher than 1% of the total there is no corresponding rise in cyclist casualties. But three times as many motorcyclists as cyclists are killed or seriously injured, whether that be by miles travelled or just the bald totals (around 6000 a year).
It's interesting that you raise the issue of noise and air pollution. You do know of course what motorcycles were doing before they were allowed in the bus lanes on the A40 and Whitechapel Rd, to take two examples? They were zipping down all the back streets and rat runs, past people's homes, past schools, lots of stopping and starting, braking and accelerating. Not exactly a recipe for good fuel consumption, low emissions, low noise or low risk. Now they are deserting the back streets and doing a nice steady speed down a major carriageway, away from residential streets and schools. Good for safety, emissions, fuel consumption and noise. So if there is any impact in terms of noise and air pollution effects, and their impact on health, I'd expect it to be positive.
"yet to be proven" is no grounds for campaigning against any attempt to find out.
It is "yet to be proven" that bicycles are safer in the bus lanes, so why not campaign to have them thrown out and made to mix with the other traffic?
What is yet to be proven is that allowing motorcycles in bus lanes is of any disbenefit to cyclists whatsoever.I do not disapprove of your scepticism. I welcome it. Each side of the argument must be presented. But I disapprove wholeheartedly of the dishonesty and sophistry with which the CTC's argument has been made. It is shameful.
-
• #120
"What is yet to be proven is that allowing motorcycles in bus lanes is of any disbenefit to cyclists whatsoever."
Surely the "disbenefit" (is that a word) is sharing the bus lane with vehicles other than buses = more risk to cyclists. It doesn't matter how little the risk is to cyclists, the risk to them is increased with motos in bus lanes.
There may be decreased risk to motorbikers that outweighs this but that doesn't remove the fact that adding traffic to bike/bus lanes increases the risk of injury to cyclists.
You don't need figures to back it up. It's a logical outcome.
-
• #121
If anything the risk to pedestrians is reduced, because they can hear motorbikes, but can't hear bikes. I'd say it's probably reduced about 50%, which is what the initial trials seemed to indicate. Must be because of those awful loud exhaust pipes drowning out their iPods.
Peds need to be taught to fucking look before they cross the road, the exhaust sound of the motorcyclists shouldn't need to help them to guide their way without using their eyes.
-
• #122
Yeah.. what happened to Sesame Street and the whole "look both ways before crossing" shit?
Motherfuckers need to be educated! AK47s to the ready. -
• #123
It fucking anger me so much, that one day I'll end up having a Falling Down moment and write a letter, that's right, a motherfucking letter to the local mp to voice my anger, with first class stamp about this issue, none of your shitty slow 2nd class, but first class.
first class stamp FTW, how can Britain function without it I cannot imagine.
-
• #124
I find my extremely loud human air horn meep meep, or OI! usually works quite well in waking the stupid fucking pedestrians up that look in the opposite direction of the traffic flow on the side of the road that they are crossing, fucking retarded fucktard cunts.
-
• #125
holy shit am I pissed
Right, why the CTC claim is wrong. Actually, that's too charitable. Why it is a blatant lie.
I already posted some of this in the ancient bus lanes thread.
The official statistics are all here. The ones quoted below are from the 2006 report because a) I have not yet read the 2007 report , and b)neither had the CTC when they made up their claim:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/
the 2007 cyclist data is here
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/pedalcyclistfsheet07.pdf
Proof that Motorcyclists are 3 times more likely to be killed on the road than cyclists.
Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres:
coach 0.3
Car 2.5
Pedestrian 36
Pedal cycle 31
Motorcycle 107
It's staggering just how much more risk motorcyclists face. And in the city there is a much higher concentration of motorcycles than elsewhere.
(I include the other figures for comparison, and also to back up my oft-stated claim that cycling is less dangerous than walking, and so doesn't need hi vis and helmets.)
Motorcycles are by some considerable margin the safest vehicle to cyclists.
Based on hospital admissions:
Out of a total of 7065 cyclists admitted to hospital in 2006
No collision at all (i.e. cyclist just fell off their bike or hit pot hole etc): 4,268
Collision with car: 1,592
Collision with a static object - tree, lamp post etc: 242
Collision with or bus: 102
Collision with another cyclist: 89 (one would assume both cyclists contribute to this stat, however?)
Other vehicle (not bus, car, motorbike bicycle or HGV) - so van, tractor etc: 77
Motorcycle: 50
Pedestrian or animal: 34.
A separate set of figures are also in the document based on police reporting, and these make up the official "Killed or seriously injured" stats. Killed is obviously absolute. "Seriously injured" is defined as injuries requiring inpatient hospital treatment. Where other vehicles were involved they tally very closely with the hospital figures. The exception is the figures for no other vehicle accidents are naturally smaller, because who calls the police because they fell off their bike?
Now as you can see motorcycles are nearly half as dangerous to bicycles as other bicycles are, and over half as dangerous as buses, and 1/32 the danger of cars.
If we focus just on deaths, here are some figures:
in 2002, 2003 and 2005 no cyclists at all were killed in motorcycle collisions.
In 2004 and 2006 two cyclists were killed in motorcycle collisions.
A quick skim of the 2007 figures shows that in 2007 one cyclist was killed.
for comparison in 2007 two cyclists were killed in collisions with other cyclists
So where do the CTC get their figure from? Well, nationally, in 2005-2006 motorcycles are used for just 1% of miles travelled. By taking this figure and extrapolating the data you can get the CTC's "per mile travelled motorcyclists kill 3 times as many cyclist as cars". I hope, now, with the figures available to you, you can see just how disingenuous that is. It requires such a massive distortion of the statistics as to be a bare-faced lie.
That's nationally. But no cyclists have been killed in collisions with motorcycles on rural roads. Only urban areas. The figure for urban areas is closer to 2%. That would make the CTC figure impossible. I can't find figures for central London, but I'd imagine it's closer to 10%, which would just add to the bullshit factor. Why would they do this? Perhaps because like all lobby groups the CTC's primary aim is to increase the influence, power, and income of the CTC. A shame, because once upon a time they were a lovely organisation that organised special bicycle trains to the countryside, for chaps in tweed.
Basically the bald figures speak for themselves. It is exceedingly rare for a cyclist to be in collision with a motorcyclist, and almost unheard of for one to be killed in that collision.
So can we stop the scaremongering and the hate now please?