Cyclists: You’re A Menace To Society
So there’s this case of Daniel Rosier that went to court in Oxford last week.
He cycled past a line of cars at a pedestrian crossing, but didn’t stop, and hit a pedestrian. THEN he stopped, and helped the child he’d hit, and looked after them ’till the boy’s parents arrived.
Anyway, he broke the law, and last week was given a Conditional Discharge at Oxford Magistrates Court. He was also ordered to pay £60 costs and £75 compensation. Fair enough, although Daniel did rather open himself up to the press by then complaining. As it was reported in the Times today, Daniel Rosier said:
“I felt awful when I hit him. I am pleased with the outcome today, but why was this taken to court in the first place?
“My problem was that I stopped and helped. If I had carried on, nothing would have happened. I am quite upset about the whole thing.
“I have a criminal record now. If I have to apply for a job, I would have to declare it. I think it is very unfair.”
I don’t have too much sympathy with this. But was he saying that it was unfair that out of all the cyclists in all the towns in all of England, he’s the only one that gets prosecuted? Or is it unfair that when a cyclists does this sort of thing it makes the national press, while if a driver hits a pedestrian, then stops to offer assistance, no-one thinks anything of it? Or is it unfair that every time you go out, you’ll see drivers behind the wheel with a phone clamped to their ear, yet nothing seems to be done about them?
As the article in The Times says,
There has been growing concern about cyclists causing injury to pedestrians.
Let’s put this into perspective, with some figures from London (the UK’s capital of menacing, law-breaking, red-light jumping two-wheeled anarchist terrors) for 2001-05 (figures from CTC):
- There were 101 times as many reported pedestrian injuries due to collisions with motor vehicles than with pedal cycles (there were 34,791 pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles, compared with 331 involving cycles).
- Motor vehicles were involved in 126 times as many fatal and serious pedestrian injuries as cycles (there were 7,447 fatal and serious injuries involving motor vehicles compared with 59 involving cycles).
- 534 pedestrians were killed in collisions with motor vehicles, compared with just one killed in collision with a cycle. That one fatal collision with a cycle occurred neither on a pavement nor a pedestrian crossing point.
- Even on the pavement, there were 2,197 reported pedestrian injuries arising from collisions with motor vehicles, including 17 fatalities. These injuries outnumbered those involving cycles by a factor of 42 to 1.
- The total number of reported pedestrian injuries in London due to collisions with cyclists on pavements was just 65 in the year 2001, and 69 in 2005. In the meantime, the figure went down, up and back down again, showing no clear overall trend. This was despite a 72% increase in cycle use over the period.
- On average just under 18% of cyclists ran red lights, whereas over a third of motorists encroached into cyclists’ “Advance Stop Lines” (cycle boxes at traffic lights).
Focusing on just that third point: 534 pedestrians were killed by drivers of motor vehicles, compared with one killed by someone riding a bike. Now, one is one too many, but FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR is a pretty big elephant in the room that the press does a great job of ignoring.
Is that an elephant in the room? Or is that an elephant with a really nice room?
As far as this incident goes… I think it’s clear that bicycles are “singled out”… we’re still considered the outliers in most “western” countries… (all countries?)… and human nature is to treat people who are different, differently.
Probably. It’s the old newspaper line - “Dog bites man” is not news. “Man bites dog” on the other hand . . .
Classic Bike-Phobic Britain. We have a case for a new word. If cyclists are indeed a “menace” then what word do we use for a road user who is 534 times worse than a “menace”.
It’s really sad that there are too many people who prefer not to think for themselves but have their “opinions” fed to them by the gutter tabloids.
Classic Bike-Phobic Britain. We have a case for a new word. If cyclists are indeed a “menace” then what word do we use for a road user who is 534 times worse than a “menace”.
It’s really sad that there are too many people who prefer not to think for themselves but have their “opinions” fed to them by the gutter tabloids.
Should add good post! Looking forward to reading your next one!
Add those pedestrains killed by cars to the # of cyclists killed by cars and we still don’t have “news” Are there ANY car drivers that were killed in an accident with a cyclist? Seems doubtful. Although I have very strong feelings about cyclists need to follow the rules of the road equally, it does seem a shame that he was singled out due to stopping to help.
Cars killing people is hardly newsworthy becasue it isn’t novel. A cyclist killing someone is far more interesting. That’s human mentality for you.
I strongley disagree that cyclists should stop at red lights in all circumstances. Cycles are NOT cars, and the rules do not need to be the same:
- What’s wrong with turning left on red (right on red in other countries), if road is clear?
- What’s wrong with progressing slowly over a cross-roads when the green man is on, providing pedestrians have finished crossing?
- What’s wrong with mounting the pavement to get past cars which are too close to the edge of the road, providing there are no pedestrians close by?
It is total madness that a cycle is considred a vehicle in the same way as a car.
I’ve nearly been hit by a red light jumper on a bicycle (I was on my bike too). His bike was a fairly heavy looking roadster, and if I’d not been more alert than him (he didn’t even look in my direction, I’m guessing that he heard no engine noise and so assumed nothing was coming) we would not have had a happy time out of the ensuing collision. My best guess is that he’d have t-boned me, so I’d have come out of things worse too.
The problem is exceptions are reported in the media, and then become perceived to be the norm. Happens with crime too.
Motor vehicles are pretty dangerous, for some age groups motor accidents are the largest cause of death. Modern cars protect their occupants so well, that motorists often kill other people, not themselves. The sense of security of being in car probably increases the amount of dangerous driving. Depending on how you do the stats, being a driver or passenger in a private car is more risky than being cyclists.
I’m cycling in China at the moment, and I observe that:
cycling on pavements
cycling the wrong way in a one way street
cycling on the wrong side of the road
cycling across a red light
cycling without a helmet
cycling without reflectors
cycling without lights
cycling whilst on a mobile phone
cycling carrying passengers on the luggage rack
etc
all seem to happen without society imploding. It is fair to say that deaths on the roads in China are considerably higher than the UK (UK apparently has some of the safest roads in the world). However the vast majority of fatal road accidents one hears of seem to be car on car/bus/truck, perhaps not surprising giving the speed most drive at. Cyclists are completely invisible to anyone in a car here, something in the heavily tinted windows I expect, so cyclists seem to develop a core skill of not getting in the way!
Jon, not only do those things not cause society to implode, they also don’t have to make cycling dangerous. I’ve seen every one of them here, where cyclists are the safest anywhere in the world.
A few examples: 1 2 3 4…
However, what cyclists don’t have to do here is act as if they are invisible.
Hmm - I don’t really want to see a cycling culture in which it’s “ok” to be out on the roads whilst texting, yakking on a mobile phone, or weaving in and out of pedestrians, personally.
John, not sure if I would either, but I think the point I was trying to make is that many of these practices are not really dangerous, provided the cyclists DOES have some empathy with the others around them, and do their best not to cause conflicts. In my UK coastal city we are going through a debate over allowing cyclists to ride of the promenade. There are a few days of the year (about 30) when I certainly wouldn’t use the prom for cycling because its so crowded, but I often still see other cyclists using the prom at these times, and weaving around people at speed, and its this that leads people to say that cycling on the prom is ‘too dangerous’. The situation in China appears to be that cyclists and pedestrians are aware of each other and can co-exist without too many problems. Its about acting safely in the context, even when doing potentially dangerous things. On the other hand Chinese motorists do not co-exist with anyone!
[...] Cyclists: You’re A Menace To Society: [...]