Discussion:
What is the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK?
(too old to reply)
JNugent
2019-12-02 20:19:22 UTC
Permalink
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of
control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.

What does it have to do with cycling?
Bod
2019-12-02 20:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of
control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents.
--
Bod
JNugent
2019-12-02 20:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of
control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents.
You have no idea of the number of accidents in which cyclists are
involved (as cyclists).
NY
2019-12-03 09:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of
control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents.
You have no idea of the number of accidents in which cyclists are involved
(as cyclists).
There are far more powered vehicles on the road than bicycles on the road
(apart from in large towns, maybe) and they go faster so can cause more
damage if things go wrong. So it is hardly surprising that they will be the
cause of more accidents.

But cyclists are not *always* blameless. Consider a cyclist who rides
through a red traffic light into the path of other traffic, or who pulls out
of a side road. Other traffic brakes hard to avoid hitting him; maybe one of
them skids and hits other vehicles/pedestrians, or is rear-ended. The
cyclist is not hit, and continues unaffected. Is that cyclist blameless? Now
consider the same situation where it was a car, not a cyclist, who went
through a red light or pulled out of a side road; is that car driver
blameless? In my mind, both a blameworthy to the same extent, but there is a
philosophy that accidents are always "not the cyclist's fault".
TMS320
2019-12-03 11:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
There are far more powered vehicles on the road than bicycles on the
road (apart from in large towns, maybe)
School maths can adjust things by proportion.
Post by NY
and they go faster so can cause more damage if things go wrong. So it
is hardly surprising that they will be the cause of more accidents.
That's true. Is it supposed to be a get out of jail free card?

The problem we have is of finger pointing at cyclists by drivers that
have over inflated ideas about their driving ability.
NY
2019-12-03 12:36:12 UTC
Permalink
The problem we have is of finger pointing at cyclists by drivers that have
over inflated ideas about their driving ability.
I think the biggest problem is the impunity of cyclists: because they don't
have number-plates, they cannot easily be traced and reported for occasions
when they do break laws which would see a motorist prosecuted. in other
words, resentment rather than concern about safety. I may fume inwardly but
I refuse to get riled by bad cyclists when I'm driving; other people regard
inconsiderate cyclists as fair game.

I cycle - for pleasure rather than as means of getting from A to B - and I
try to cycle as if I were a human-powered car, obeying all the same rules as
a car driver: I don't go through red traffic lights or occupied zebra
crossings, and I don't overtake on the left at junction if I want to go
straight on and the car ahead of me is indicating to turn left. As a cyclist
and a car driver I have seen an alarmingly high number of cyclists who don't
obey the rules - and get away with it. On two occasions I've witnessed
pedestrians on a zebra crossing have to jump back to avoid being hit by
cyclists. (*). If a car driver did that he would be rightly prosecuted;
cyclists seem to get away with it as it is regarded as a venial offence.
Being hit by a cyclist at 20-30 mph is nowhere near as bad as being hit by a
car, but it can still be fatal.

It is the holier-than-thou "I'm a cyclist so the rules of the road are a
mere inconvenience - ignore them" cyclists that give the rest a bad name -
unfairly.

As a driver, I hope I make a better cyclist because I can sympathise with
the needs of cars to overtake a much slower vehicle. As a cyclist, I hope I
make a better driver - I know to pass them as wide as possible, not to
hassle them when they are struggling up a hill that is chickenfeed to a car.
I try to keep as far left as is safe (avoiding the kerb and drainholes), and
when my wife and I are cycling, we always move into single file when there
are cars wanting to get past, even though the law allows two abreast.
Incidentally, "two abreast" doesn't allow cyclists to ride one close to the
kerb and one almost over the white line, with a gap "that you could drive a
double-decker bus through" in between, purposefully making it as hard as
possible for anyone to get past.


(*) I was out cycling in the centre of Oxford, where tourists are to be
expected. As I was approaching a zebra crossing I saw a large group of
people, who I imagine were tourists, starting to cross. I slowed down, as
did the cars ahead and behind me. Another cyclist, on a racing bike, yelled
"out of my fucking way", overtook and swerved round the traffic and between
a car and bollard, and rode full-tilt at the crossing, causing a party of
tourists to leap out of the way. He deserved to be punished as severely as a
car or lorry driver that did the same - but of course he was untraceable. A
rare occasion, but one that sticks in the mind, with a danger that people
think "all cyclists" are like that.
TMS320
2019-12-03 20:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by TMS320
The problem we have is of finger pointing at cyclists by drivers that
have over inflated ideas about their driving ability.
I think the biggest problem is the impunity of cyclists: because they
don't have number-plates, they cannot easily be traced and reported for
occasions when they do break laws which would see a motorist prosecuted.
in other words, resentment rather than concern about safety.
Doubtful. Drivers get away with quite an amount.

Laws have more purpose than to make a place look pretty. If road law
can't be enforced 100%, it has to be applied to get most benefit.
Post by NY
As a driver, I hope I make a better cyclist because I can sympathise
with the needs of cars to overtake a much slower vehicle. As a cyclist,
I hope I make a better driver.
Good. A person with current road cycling experience almost certainly
makes a better all round driver.
JNugent
2019-12-03 12:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss
of control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents.
You have no idea of the number of accidents in which cyclists are
involved (as cyclists).
There are far more powered vehicles on the road than bicycles on the
road (apart from in large towns, maybe) and they go faster so can cause
more damage if things go wrong. So it is hardly surprising that they
will be the cause of more accidents.
The potential seriousness of the effects of an accident is one thing and
you are obviously correct in what you say about that.

But accidents befalling motor vehicles on the highway (and which cause
injury or damage( have to be reported to the police and so may be
accounted for in official statistics, to a nicety. Accidents befalling
cyclists do not have to be reported. There is thus no way of knowing how
many there are. I doubt that many cyclists who fall off their bikes - or
have other accidents short of injuring themselves so badly as to bneed
emergeny hospital treatment - report that to the police for official
purposes.
Post by NY
But cyclists are not *always* blameless. Consider a cyclist who rides
through a red traffic light into the path of other traffic, or who pulls
out of a side road. Other traffic brakes hard to avoid hitting him;
maybe one of them skids and hits other vehicles/pedestrians, or is
rear-ended. The cyclist is not hit, and continues unaffected. Is that
cyclist blameless? Now consider the same situation where it was a car,
not a cyclist, who went through a red light or pulled out of a side
road; is that car driver blameless? In my mind, both a blameworthy to
the same extent, but there is a philosophy that accidents are always
"not the cyclist's fault".
Quite so.
JNugent
2019-12-02 20:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss
of control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents.
It's to show to drivers that tell cyclists what to do that they should
shut up and mind their own business.
(I have deleted the x-posting that Nugent added.)
Why?

If you want to give advice to drivers, they're the places to do it.
JNugent
2019-12-03 00:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over
100,000 (108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly
braking, drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering
and/or loss of control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents.
It's to show to drivers that tell cyclists what to do that they
should shut up and mind their own business.
(I have deleted the x-posting that Nugent added.)
Why?
It's not relevant there.
Advice to drivers (by cyclists, of all people) is *highly* relevant
there, and not relevant at all in uk.rec.cycling.
Post by JNugent
If you want to give advice to drivers, they're the places to do it.
This is the place where drivers need to be told to mind their own business.
That's your view.
Peter Keller
2019-12-03 09:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of
control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents.
Bicyclists are also a fraction of the numbers of car drivers.
Sadly.
nightjar
2019-12-03 09:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Keller
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of
control.2 Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents.
Bicyclists are also a fraction of the numbers of car drivers.
Sadly.
In terms of casualties per billion miles travelled, at 5,604, they are
only second to motorcyclists at 6,043. Other figures are pedestrians
1,801, cars 238, buses 198, vans 62 and LGVs 61. (2017 figures)
--
Colin Bignell
TMS320
2019-12-03 12:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightjar
In terms of casualties per billion miles travelled, at 5,604, they are
only second to motorcyclists at 6,043. Other figures are pedestrians
1,801, cars 238, buses 198, vans 62 and LGVs 61. (2017 figures)
That would be deaths. In terms of serious injuries they rank a slightly
higher mileage than pedestrians.

However, the main argument (on u.r.c) is about certain drivers claiming
that cyclists are evil pedestrian killers. The main culprit x-posted this.
nightjar
2019-12-03 12:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS320
Post by nightjar
In terms of casualties per billion miles travelled, at 5,604, they are
only second to motorcyclists at 6,043. Other figures are pedestrians
1,801, cars 238, buses 198, vans 62 and LGVs 61. (2017 figures)
That would be deaths. In terms of serious injuries they rank a slightly
higher mileage than pedestrians.
It is the other way around. The figures I gave are for all casualties.
For deaths per billion passenger miles, it is 30.9 for cyclists and 35.6
for pedestrians.
Post by TMS320
However, the main argument (on u.r.c) is about certain drivers claiming
that cyclists are evil pedestrian killers. The main culprit x-posted this.
--
Colin Bignell
TMS320
2019-12-03 12:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by TMS320
Post by nightjar
In terms of casualties per billion miles travelled, at 5,604, they
are only second to motorcyclists at 6,043. Other figures are
pedestrians 1,801, cars 238, buses 198, vans 62 and LGVs 61. (2017
figures)
That would be deaths. In terms of serious injuries they rank a
slightly higher mileage than pedestrians.
It is the other way around. The figures I gave are for all casualties.
For deaths per billion passenger miles, it is 30.9 for cyclists and 35.6
for pedestrians.
Ah yes, you are correct. Injuries similar to motorcyclists, deaths
similar to pedestrians.

However, if fewer injuries convert to deaths, the typical injury must be
less severe. Something difficult to assess when only the fact of an
injury gets recorded.
JNugent
2019-12-03 12:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS320
Post by nightjar
In terms of casualties per billion miles travelled, at 5,604, they are
only second to motorcyclists at 6,043. Other figures are pedestrians
1,801, cars 238, buses 198, vans 62 and LGVs 61. (2017 figures)
That would be deaths. In terms of serious injuries they rank a slightly
higher mileage than pedestrians.
However, the main argument (on u.r.c) is about certain drivers claiming
that cyclists are evil pedestrian killers. The main culprit x-posted this.
Only *some* cyclists are "evil pedestrian killers".

"Evil pedestrian killers" is, of course, *your* phrase and certainly not
mine. But it is a very telling one and I am grateful for your coinage of it.
Nick Finnigan
2019-12-03 16:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of
control.2 Jul 2018
That total is not correct.
Post by JNugent
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents
The figure given probably includes about 3% which are cyclist error
rather than driver error.
nightjar
2019-12-03 19:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss
of control.2 Jul 2018
 That total is not correct.
Government figures show a total of 84,968 RTCs reported to the Police in
2018, of which driver/rider error accounted for 57.162. The overall
total, including minor non-reportable collisions, will be higher, but
any other figure can, at best, be an estimate.
Post by JNugent
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
 >
 > Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents
 The figure given probably includes about 3% which are cyclist error
rather than driver error.
There is only one category of contributory factor that specifically
mentions cyclist action, which is cyclist entering road from pavement.
That caused 684 RTCs, of which 8 were fatal (probably for the cyclist).
--
Colin Bignell
Nick Finnigan
2019-12-03 20:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking,
drivers failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of
control.2 Jul 2018
  That total is not correct.
Government figures show a total of 84,968 RTCs reported to the Police in
2018, of which driver/rider error accounted for 57.162. The overall total,
including minor non-reportable collisions, will be higher, but any other
figure can, at best, be an estimate.
Post by JNugent
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
 >
 > Cyclists cause a fraction of that amount of accidents
  The figure given probably includes about 3% which are cyclist error
rather than driver error.
There is only one category of contributory factor that specifically
mentions cyclist action, which is cyclist entering road from pavement. That
caused 684 RTCs, of which 8 were fatal (probably for the cyclist).
and there may be a split of other contributory factors by road user type.
nightjar
2019-12-04 09:16:27 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by nightjar
There is only one category of contributory factor that specifically
mentions cyclist action, which is cyclist entering road from pavement.
That caused 684 RTCs, of which 8 were fatal (probably for the cyclist).
 and there may be a split of other contributory factors by road user type.
There are several categories that say driver/rider, which will cover
just about everybody. I was simply pointing out that cyclists are not
specifically identified in the categories. However, as failure to look
properly is far and away the biggest single factor of all, there is a
fair chance that is the one they also commit most often.
--
Colin Bignell
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
2020-01-11 10:07:17 UTC
Permalink
So I am thinking could it be that when autonomous vehicles are allowed on
roads that accidents reduce? After all people are not tested anywhere near
as much as the software is going to be in an auto drive car and of course
you can tweak the car, but very unlikely to be able to do that with a
person.

Secondly one of the most common things is accidents with two wheeled
vehicles and pedestrians usually where there are misguided shared spaces or
where otherwise segregated streams have to mix at junctions etc.
Obviously on many higher speed roads its inexperience, on how to drive to
the conditions, ie fog, ice snow and heavy rain.
This is due to the cocoon effect, ie a person driving at speed feels safe
as the acceleration masks the speed and the time needed to stop a moving
mass.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by JNugent
The most common cause of accidents is to driver error. Over 100,000
(108,479) crashes occured in the UK due to cars suddenly braking, drivers
failing to look properly, poor car maneuvering and/or loss of control.2
Jul 2018
How interesting.
What does it have to do with cycling?
Bod
2020-01-11 10:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
So I am thinking could it be that when autonomous vehicles are allowed on
roads that accidents reduce? After all people are not tested anywhere near
as much as the software is going to be in an auto drive car and of course
you can tweak the car, but very unlikely to be able to do that with a
person.
Secondly one of the most common things is accidents with two wheeled
vehicles and pedestrians usually where there are misguided shared spaces or
where otherwise segregated streams have to mix at junctions etc.
Obviously on many higher speed roads its inexperience, on how to drive to
the conditions, ie fog, ice snow and heavy rain.
This is due to the cocoon effect, ie a person driving at speed feels safe
as the acceleration masks the speed and the time needed to stop a moving
mass.
Brian
Totally agree with all that you said, brian.
--
Bod
Bod
2020-01-11 10:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
So I am thinking could it be that when autonomous vehicles are allowed on
roads that accidents reduce? After all people are  not tested anywhere
near
as much as the software is going to be in an auto drive car and of course
you can tweak the car, but very unlikely to be able to do that with a
person.
Secondly one of the most common things is accidents with two wheeled
vehicles and pedestrians usually where there are misguided shared spaces or
where otherwise segregated streams have to mix at junctions etc.
  Obviously on many higher speed roads its inexperience, on how to
drive to
the conditions, ie fog, ice snow and heavy rain.
  This is due to the cocoon effect, ie a person driving at speed feels
safe
as the acceleration masks the speed and the time needed to stop a moving
mass.
  Brian
Totally agree with all that you said, brian.
Only thing I'd add is , innatention, like talking on a
phone(hopefully that at least is set on hands free), also looking at a
Sat Nav instaed of just listening etc.
--
Bod
Nick Finnigan
2020-01-11 10:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
So I am thinking could it be that when autonomous vehicles are allowed on
roads that accidents reduce? After all people are not tested anywhere near
as much as the software is going to be in an auto drive car and of course
Do you have much experience of software testing?
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
you can tweak the car, but very unlikely to be able to do that with a
person.
Secondly one of the most common things is accidents with two wheeled
vehicles and pedestrians usually where there are misguided shared spaces or
where otherwise segregated streams have to mix at junctions etc.
And it is impossible to predict what the cyclist or pedestrians will do.
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Obviously on many higher speed roads its inexperience, on how to drive to
the conditions, ie fog, ice snow and heavy rain.
And one of the 'benefits' of autonomous vehicles is smaller gaps.
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
This is due to the cocoon effect, ie a person driving at speed feels safe
as the acceleration masks the speed and the time needed to stop a moving
mass.
TMS320
2020-01-11 14:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
So I am thinking could it be that when autonomous vehicles are
allowed on roads that accidents reduce? After all people are not
tested anywhere near as much as the software is going to be in an
auto drive car and of course
Do you have much experience of software testing?
If it can do better than a 17 year old in the driving test, the job is
done...
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
you can tweak the car, but very unlikely to be able to do that with
a person.
Secondly one of the most common things is accidents with two
wheeled vehicles and pedestrians usually where there are misguided
shared spaces or where otherwise segregated streams have to mix at
junctions etc.
And it is impossible to predict what the cyclist or pedestrians will do.
Software has the same telepathic ability as a human. None. Response only
works from an ability to observe actions that are in the process of
being played out.
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Obviously on many higher speed roads its inexperience, on how to
drive to the conditions, ie fog, ice snow and heavy rain.
And one of the 'benefits' of autonomous vehicles is smaller gaps.
I expect designers have realised that suitable gaps change according to
conditions.
Nick Finnigan
2020-01-11 20:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS320
I expect designers have realised that suitable gaps change according to
conditions.
Do you have much experience of software designers?
TMS320
2020-01-11 23:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by TMS320
I expect designers have realised that suitable gaps change according
to conditions.
Do you have much experience of software designers?
Yes.

This is not a government project where the lowest bidder is given the
job but something several competing companies are working on; they can't
all make the same mistakes.

If something only shows up after many thousands of hours of testing, it
will much more obscure than a discussion on a newsgroup can have thought
about.
Nick Finnigan
2020-01-25 09:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS320
I expect designers have realised that suitable gaps change according to
conditions.
 Do you have much experience of software designers?
Yes.
This is not a government project where the lowest bidder is given the job
but something several competing companies are working on; they can't all
make the same mistakes.
If they are based in the US, yes they can.
If something only shows up after many thousands of hours of testing, it
will much more obscure than a discussion on a newsgroup can have thought
about.
No it isn't. Millions of hours of testing in a sparsely populated US
state will fail to show issues which are obvious to newsgroup posters in
other countries.
TMS320
2020-01-25 22:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by TMS320
Post by TMS320
I expect designers have realised that suitable gaps change according
to conditions.
 Do you have much experience of software designers?
Yes.
This is not a government project where the lowest bidder is given the
job but something several competing companies are working on; they
can't all make the same mistakes.
If they are based in the US, yes they can.
Post by TMS320
If something only shows up after many thousands of hours of testing,
it will much more obscure than a discussion on a newsgroup can have
thought about.
No it isn't. Millions of hours of testing in a sparsely populated US
state will fail to show issues which are obvious to newsgroup posters in
other countries.
If only ever tested in sparsely populated US states, flaws would show up
within 3 minutes when tried in Europe.

nightjar
2020-01-11 12:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
So I am thinking could it be that when autonomous vehicles are allowed on
roads that accidents reduce? After all people are not tested anywhere near
as much as the software is going to be in an auto drive car and of course
you can tweak the car, but very unlikely to be able to do that with a
person....
An autonomous car should be able to eliminate the errors of driver
failed to look properly (a contributory factor in 38% of reported
accidents in 2018) and, to a great extent, failed to judge other
person's path or speed (20%). It won't be careless, reckless or in a
hurry (15%). It won't drive aggressively (4%) or be nervous, uncertain
or in a panic (2%). It can't be impaired by alcohol (5%), drugs (2%) or
fatigue (2%). It won't fall ill (2%) or be distracted (3% in vehicle 1%
outside). It won't exceed the speed limit (5%) although it could
conceivably still drive too fast for the conditions (6%).

Note: these are not mutually exclusive. There can be up to six different
factors attributed to one accident, so the anticipated reduction won't
be the sum of the percentages, but it should still be fairly high.
--
Colin Bignell
Loading...