Indeed, however the average number of road deaths per day is 5 whilst the average number of road deaths in which a cyclist was a factor in the death is about 1/2 that per year.
Well that would be because there are more motor vehicles on the road than bicycles. This can be proven by the fact that the deadliest cars also tend to be the most popular.
However, considering 7.5 million people cycle in the UK, you'd expect there to be 15 million cars licensed. There's actually over 30 million cars licensed, meaning, you're twice as likely to be involved in a fatal accident on a bike than in a car.
However fitness from cycling reduces deaths by more than this and from those cyclists who also die on the roads.
There are better ways to get fit, including cycling, that doesn't involve doing it on the public highway. For starters, the pollution you're breathing in.
As such, regardless of what any of us think the government had made it clear that they aren't going to impose any additional requirements on cyclists.
That's because they're a bunch of wet blankets who are more bothered with their egos and political careers than issues facing their country. See "smart" motorways and stupidly bright vehicle lights.
I've seen enough pedestrians not looking when crossing the road, ironically on a cycle path. Not looking isn't a property of the cycle itself, it is a property of the user. That applies to drivers as well.
Well then when do some people here seem to be putting that responsibility solely on car drivers? Once again, it's take take take and refusing to accept that cyclists can also screw up.
That's why you take precautions of course, but logically, you take more legal precautions with vehicles that are most unsafe to others. the law has the main goal to protect other people.
So make yourselves more visible then, or do you think that the law should only protect people under the circumstances you want it to? Seriously, why do you guys want the law to protect you, but are so averse it making you more visible?
That you see some cyclists ignoring traffic signals is probably also a consequence of bad infrastructure, which can easily be solved by giving cyclists their own phase at a junction.
So poor infrastructure gives me the excuse to ignore traffic laws? Duly noted, I guess.
It's quite difficult to kill somebody with a bicycle as the mass is so low. If you look long enough, you'll also find articles of pedestrians killing someone, for example by letting someone fragile trip over.
Well we all know this but some posters keep coming up with silly strawman arguments to try and prove cars bad, bikes good, when they should all be treated equally as forms of transport, as both, at the end of the day, are mostly personal forms of transport and inferior in that regard to rail and buses. So I wind up having to fight fire with fire and pull things out of my rear as well.
Also if I brought up that letting fragile people trip over thing, someone would've already tried to say that I was suggesting all vulnerable pedestrians have someone walk with them at all times, ready to catch them if they trip over. But I know you're just trying to point out that we could find evidence supporting our side of the argument if we look hard enough.
That will help other road users too as cyclists won't need to cycle on the main carriageway anymore if there is a good alternative. So the people who hate cyclists the most, should be the biggest proponent of good cycling infrastructure!
Keeps those lycra ones on the 5 grand plastic bikes off the road? Good.
If it would be true, so what? It hasn't anything to do with the topic. It is not correct by the way. Many parties wanted to stop the Grand Prix it because of the fact that many nitrogen-emitting activities close to nature reserves, such as construction of a house, are banned because of a court order. Only if something else reduces emissions, it is allowed to increase emissions. Why this is necessary is a long story relating to bad government decisions in the past and ignoring the problem while actively committing to reductions. The Green Party and many others found it ridiculous that the government tried hard to reduce nitrogen emissions by stopping the construction of houses, reducing speed limits on the roads and many other things, while permitting a Grand Prix next to a protected nature reserve.
"Our government is run by idiots, so lets sue the track hosting the race in an attempt to stop the government being idiots, whilst ruining everyone's fun". A stance even more stupid, when you find out that the racing itself produces just 1% of F1's total CO2 output. And remind me, didn't most of the fans arrive by public transport anyways?
As adult cyclists are on average higher earners, I think you will find that cyclists are giving quite a lot more than they are receiving.
Saying you want cyclists to cycle in a less safe way says a lot about you and your agenda
Another person doing a great job of taking what I said out of context. For those who want the context,
@Meerkat said that they thought that the suggestion in the highway code that tells cyclists to wear safety equipment should be removed because it gives insurance companies and drivers get out of jail free cards. So I disagreed with them and said that if they want that to be the case, the new rule allowing bikes to ride in the middle of the lane should also be removed. In fact, I believe it was made quite clear in my post, so anyone seeing it in any other way, must be wanting to take it out of context.
Also since high earners tend to drive BMWs and Range Rovers, 2 types of cars usually associated with by people who act like they own the show or can't drive, and high earners tend to be the people buying these 5 grand plastic racing bikes, a type of bike usually associated with people who act like they own the show or can't ride...
So do lower earners tend to drive, not cycle?
From personal experience, this is the case. Part of it is probably because low earners have other things to worry about than cycling. That however, doesn't mean it's the case everywhere.
But not reflective stripes, indeed they are allowed to be fog grey.
Bikes are also allowed to be fog grey.
It's very simple. An order of magnitude more people are killed walking on the pavement by drivers than by cyclists, let alone the even greater numbers killed in the road.
Well that would be because there are more people driving than cycling.
Therefore we need to protect pedestrians against cars by banning cars from being driven near pedestrians. Their drivers can get out and push if they need to pass them.
I much prefer walking to cycling, I do it all the time actually and I'm fine with cars driving near me. I mean, you can just look when you cross and wait for a large enough gap in traffic to cross.
As for head injuries, thousands more people suffer major head injuries when travelling in a car than when travelling on a bike, therefore all car occupants must be made to wear a helmet.
But there are millions more car users than bike users.
While pedestrians do occasionally suffer head injuries by themselves, it's almost always because of a motorist, like this case from this week.
Do you know this to be the case?
