4 ms·

> cyclists tend to be more of a menace than cars That must be why bikes injure 60,000 people per annum in the UK, and kill ~2,000. Then there's the ~40,000 dea

by m0nty 10y ago

> cyclists tend to be more of a menace than cars That must be why bikes injure 60,000 people per annum in the UK, and kill ~2,000. Then there's the ~40,000 deaths from pollution. Oh wait, that's the cars. Maybe you need to rethink what you mean by "menace"? Annoying and inconvenient (even threatening) is not the same as deadly.

oarsinsync 10y ago
> That must be why bikes injure 60,000 people per annum in the UK, and kill ~2,000. Then there's the ~40,000 deaths from pollution. Oh wait, that's the cars. 40k deaths from impact from car, or 40k deaths from pollution? The two are not the same. Cars produce a lot of pollution. So do offices. So do busses. So does the underground tube network. Impact from car I'm sure is cause for a lot of injuries and deaths, use the real numbers to make your point if you want it to be taken more seriously. Here's an anecdote, since this already isn't an argument based on numbers and facts. I've never been hit by a car in London. In the space of a year, I've been hit by two cyclists and lost my takeaway dinner on account of a third. Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. Skipping through red lights, or worse, jumping onto the pavements at red lights to be able to bypass 'legally', all the while ringing their bells, is incredibly antisocial and does nothing to help build any sympathy to the many cyclists who get hurt and/or killed by drivers every week.
- m0nty 10y ago
  > Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. If you'd been hit by cars this year, you would have suffered far more serious injuries and possibly death. That hardly ever happens with bikes. My figures for KSI are possibly a little out of date, there are actually 180,000 of them each year in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#Annual_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great... > 40k deaths from impact from car, or 40k deaths from pollution? I think it's clear I was talking about pollution there. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-kills-40000-a-year-in-the-UK-says-report.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-k... > 'There had previously been a focus on pollution from solid fuel burning, such as coal – which, as a result, fell dramatically. However, this has been replaced by concerns about exposure to pollutants from transport sources, especially cars. Even the "cleanest" of engines can produce nitrogen oxides, ozone and particulates – small specks of matter, such as soot. All three may have a potentially harmful effect on health.'
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    > As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. Hell, I've seen buses run red lights and once almost kill somebody in my city. Nobody complains, nobody does fuck-all about it. Deaths from road vehicles are seen as normal, having a bruise for a couple of days on the very rare occasion a bicycle runs into you is the end of the world.
  - manarth 10y ago
    > > Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. > As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time I'd suggest an experiment: find a central location in a city, and sit down next to a traffic light. Ideally during a commuter period. Watch for an hour, recording the number of cyclists who jump a red light, and the number of motorised vehicles which jump a red light. Which would you expect to have the most? Would you expect one to significantly outnumber the other, and by what proportion?
    - m0nty 10y ago
      > Which would you expect to have the most? Cars, by a significant proportion - because there are far more of them than bikes. But what I would "expect" is neither here nor there. (You can find examples of both kinds of law-breaking if you look on youtube, for example.) The main point is: when bikes do this, it is obnoxious but far less dangerous than when motor vehicles do it. This is reflected in KSI statistics. It has been pointed out that the way cyclists and motorists jump red lights is different: some motorists tend to be "amber gamblers" or last-second red-light jumpers, whereas some cyclists tend to go right through regardless of the light phase. This looks worse and leads to confirmation bias when discussing this subject. The thing where motorists jump red lights is so commonplace we simply edit it out of our daily experience. If you look, you will see all kinds of motor vehicles going through red lights at just about every opportunity. Another point is that cars get fewer opportunities to run red lights when there is a car in front, since if the guy at the front stops, usually everyone behind him has to as well. Bikes can move along the line of traffic and go through the red light at just about every time. So a very small number of law-breakers on bikes gives the impression that everyone is doing it. Another experiment for you: wait at an intersection and see how many cyclists obey the law all the time. One of them might be me, which is one reason I get annoyed at being tarred with the same brush as a minority of cyclists. We usually don't do this for motorists, and it's not the result of "experiment" but bias and prejudice.
- Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
  Real numbers on actual collisions (UK urban areas, 2012): Pedestrians killed by motorists: 253 Pedestrians killed by cyclists: 1 Pedestrians seriously injured by motorists: 4,426 Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists: 78
  - pif 10y ago
    These numbers won't change the feeling. You know, you'll get soaked under rain, but a lighting can kill a person. Still, if you ask people what is more annoying between rain and lightings, what do expect as a result? On the other hand, if a lot of drunk people cross the street with no caution, statistically many more will be hit by a car rather than by a bike (many more cars than bike, larger volume, reduced possibility of lateral movement), and an accident with a car is statistically more dangerous than with a bike due to the mass. So, to sum up, number of people killed has hardly any correlation with annoyance. If I risk one accident per year with a car and ten with bikes, I'll be "against" bikers.
- pyb 10y ago
  > Here's an anecdote, since this already isn't an argument based on numbers and facts. I've never been hit by a car in London. In the space of a year, I've been hit by two cyclists and lost my takeaway dinner on account of a third. That's pretty much my experience too. However, my comment was downvoted to the death, as it doesn't make sense in statistical terms. Anyway, one very real issue here is that the average London cyclist doesn't know when it's safe to pass a red light, and when it's not. There is a lack of road-reading skills.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Can I counter your anecdote with my sister's friend, who was killed by a car on an urban, residential road? He's not able to post on HN. Arguments on anecdotes are pointless, when there are statistics available.
- gjm11 10y ago
  > I've never been hit by a car in London. In the space of a year, I've been hit by two cyclists The thing is, the people who were hit by cars instead of by cyclists are dead and therefore not posting about it on HN. (Compare the story about WW2 bombers in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald .)
pyb 10y ago
Perhaps I should have said : more of a menace to me.

by m0nty 10y ago

oarsinsync 10y ago

> That must be why bikes injure 60,000 people per annum in the UK, and kill ~2,000. Then there's the ~40,000 deaths from pollution. Oh wait, that's the cars. 40k deaths from impact from car, or 40k deaths from pollution? The two are not the same. Cars produce a lot of pollution. So do offices. So do busses. So does the underground tube network. Impact from car I'm sure is cause for a lot of injuries and deaths, use the real numbers to make your point if you want it to be taken more seriously. Here's an anecdote, since this already isn't an argument based on numbers and facts. I've never been hit by a car in London. In the space of a year, I've been hit by two cyclists and lost my takeaway dinner on account of a third. Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. Skipping through red lights, or worse, jumping onto the pavements at red lights to be able to bypass 'legally', all the while ringing their bells, is incredibly antisocial and does nothing to help build any sympathy to the many cyclists who get hurt and/or killed by drivers every week.

m0nty 10y ago
> Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. If you'd been hit by cars this year, you would have suffered far more serious injuries and possibly death. That hardly ever happens with bikes. My figures for KSI are possibly a little out of date, there are actually 180,000 of them each year in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#Annual_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great... > 40k deaths from impact from car, or 40k deaths from pollution? I think it's clear I was talking about pollution there. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-kills-40000-a-year-in-the-UK-says-report.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-k... > 'There had previously been a focus on pollution from solid fuel burning, such as coal – which, as a result, fell dramatically. However, this has been replaced by concerns about exposure to pollutants from transport sources, especially cars. Even the "cleanest" of engines can produce nitrogen oxides, ozone and particulates – small specks of matter, such as soot. All three may have a potentially harmful effect on health.'
- vertex-four 10y ago
  > As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. Hell, I've seen buses run red lights and once almost kill somebody in my city. Nobody complains, nobody does fuck-all about it. Deaths from road vehicles are seen as normal, having a bruise for a couple of days on the very rare occasion a bicycle runs into you is the end of the world.
- manarth 10y ago
  > > Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. > As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time I'd suggest an experiment: find a central location in a city, and sit down next to a traffic light. Ideally during a commuter period. Watch for an hour, recording the number of cyclists who jump a red light, and the number of motorised vehicles which jump a red light. Which would you expect to have the most? Would you expect one to significantly outnumber the other, and by what proportion?
  - m0nty 10y ago
    > Which would you expect to have the most? Cars, by a significant proportion - because there are far more of them than bikes. But what I would "expect" is neither here nor there. (You can find examples of both kinds of law-breaking if you look on youtube, for example.) The main point is: when bikes do this, it is obnoxious but far less dangerous than when motor vehicles do it. This is reflected in KSI statistics. It has been pointed out that the way cyclists and motorists jump red lights is different: some motorists tend to be "amber gamblers" or last-second red-light jumpers, whereas some cyclists tend to go right through regardless of the light phase. This looks worse and leads to confirmation bias when discussing this subject. The thing where motorists jump red lights is so commonplace we simply edit it out of our daily experience. If you look, you will see all kinds of motor vehicles going through red lights at just about every opportunity. Another point is that cars get fewer opportunities to run red lights when there is a car in front, since if the guy at the front stops, usually everyone behind him has to as well. Bikes can move along the line of traffic and go through the red light at just about every time. So a very small number of law-breakers on bikes gives the impression that everyone is doing it. Another experiment for you: wait at an intersection and see how many cyclists obey the law all the time. One of them might be me, which is one reason I get annoyed at being tarred with the same brush as a minority of cyclists. We usually don't do this for motorists, and it's not the result of "experiment" but bias and prejudice.
Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
Real numbers on actual collisions (UK urban areas, 2012): Pedestrians killed by motorists: 253 Pedestrians killed by cyclists: 1 Pedestrians seriously injured by motorists: 4,426 Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists: 78
- pif 10y ago
  These numbers won't change the feeling. You know, you'll get soaked under rain, but a lighting can kill a person. Still, if you ask people what is more annoying between rain and lightings, what do expect as a result? On the other hand, if a lot of drunk people cross the street with no caution, statistically many more will be hit by a car rather than by a bike (many more cars than bike, larger volume, reduced possibility of lateral movement), and an accident with a car is statistically more dangerous than with a bike due to the mass. So, to sum up, number of people killed has hardly any correlation with annoyance. If I risk one accident per year with a car and ten with bikes, I'll be "against" bikers.
pyb 10y ago
> Here's an anecdote, since this already isn't an argument based on numbers and facts. I've never been hit by a car in London. In the space of a year, I've been hit by two cyclists and lost my takeaway dinner on account of a third. That's pretty much my experience too. However, my comment was downvoted to the death, as it doesn't make sense in statistical terms. Anyway, one very real issue here is that the average London cyclist doesn't know when it's safe to pass a red light, and when it's not. There is a lack of road-reading skills.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Can I counter your anecdote with my sister's friend, who was killed by a car on an urban, residential road? He's not able to post on HN. Arguments on anecdotes are pointless, when there are statistics available.
gjm11 10y ago
> I've never been hit by a car in London. In the space of a year, I've been hit by two cyclists The thing is, the people who were hit by cars instead of by cyclists are dead and therefore not posting about it on HN. (Compare the story about WW2 bombers in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald .)

pyb 10y ago

Perhaps I should have said : more of a menace to me.