Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[WiseOwl182]

Was it you that we had to explain hyperbole to a few weeks ago?

 

No, I think it must have been Cyclone, since he was using it.

 

Cyclists can and do kill pedestrians.

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 22:33 ----------

 

That's only because they've misread the original report they linked to in The Times which states:

 

But if you want to talk absolute numbers, it states:

 

So not quite 3,000 pedestrians killed a year by motorists either then. Only out by a factor of 12. More hyperbole.

[Cyclone]

Quite right, it's all people killed by cars I was thinking about, not just pedestrians.

 

In 2000 it was 3500 people, it's fallen every year and is now down to merely 1713.

 

Cyclists kill approximately 0.5 person a year, although to be the equivalent figure to above it would have to include cyclist deaths as well.

 

For 2013, that was 109. 16% do not involve another vehicle.

[altus]

No, I think it must have been Cyclone, since he was using it.

 

Cyclists can and do kill pedestrians.

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 22:33 ----------

 

 

So not quite 3,000 pedestrians killed a year by motorists either then. Only out by a factor of 12. More hyperbole.

 

Whereas you were a factor of 50 out. I see you're getting the hang of this hyperbole thing.

 

The article also states:

Just 2 per cent of pedestrian injuries on pavements involve cyclists, the other 98 per cent involve motor vehicles.

[Cyclone]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities

 

The data here shows that in the last 15 years car occupants have become much safer when involved in an accident.

Pedestrians are also much better off, with less than 50% of the 2000 figure now being killed every year.

Cyclists not much better off at all, although cycling numbers have increased, so there may be a masked increase in safety.

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 22:51 ----------

 

That's a good one though Altus

Just 2 per cent of pedestrian injuries on pavements involve cyclists, the other 98 per cent involve motor vehicles.

Repeated for effect.

[Guest sibon]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities

 

The data here shows that in the last 15 years car occupants have become much safer when involved in an accident.

Pedestrians are also much better off, with less than 50% of the 2000 figure now being killed every year.

Cyclists not much better off at all, although cycling numbers have increased, so there may be a masked increase in safety.

 

.

 

So, why would you want to increase the risk to pedestrians by forcing them to share pavements with cyclists?

 

That can only have one effect upon the pedestrian accident stats.

[jezzyjj]

There is no transfer of risk from road to pavement though is there.

 

Cars kill cyclists. Cyclists don't kill pedestrians.

 

So in reality the overall level of risk is massively reduced.

What, never?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070290/Cyclist-killed-pensioner-crashing-doing-25mph-narrow-country-lane-dark-rainy-night.html

 

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

I put cyclone's quote back in full as you trimmed it to completely change it's meaning which was talking about pavements not the road and the transfer of danger. Now in your first link the chap who sadly died was walking on a poorly lit road, not a pavement and the cyclist was cycling under the speed limit. He'd have probably been killed outright by a car.

 

The second link is very disingenuous with it's opening statements which twist things just like you did with your editing and using very misleading and non comparable statistics.

I've actually hit a pedestrian on my bike whilst cycling on the road and narrowly avoided countless others. Every time it was because they either did not look or saw me and thought 'it's only a bike' and walked out in front of me. Usually I manage to swerve around the attempted Darwin Award nominee, but sometimes they run back and fore like a headless chicken until 'splatt!' Not an unusual occurrence sadly.

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 23:54 ----------

 

First of all, you said cyclists don't kill pedestrians, but they do. So you were wrong.... Go on, just admit it.

 

Secondly, where is your source on 1 death every 2 years? The article I linked to stated there are 5 times more pedestrian deaths from cars than from cyclists. So if you're saying 3,000 for cars, then I'd make that around 600 for cyclists.

The article that twisted the stats until they meant anything the sensationalist and very misleading article was trying to say. Cyclists killing anyone is extremely unusual and that's why it makes the news. Cars deaths do not [make the news] as a rule because they happen, so very, very often.

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 23:59 ----------

 

So, why would you want to increase the risk to pedestrians by forcing them to share pavements with cyclists?

 

That can only have one effect upon the pedestrian accident stats.

Not necessarily. Maybe pedestrians would actually look where they were going and take more care.

If people drove or cycled with as little observation and care as pedestrians tend to take, then hundreds of people would be killed every day.

In countries such as The Netherlands, where such things were made the norm death rates plummeted.

Edited July 15, 2015 by jezzyjj

[Guest sibon]

I've actually hit a pedestrian on my bike whilst cycling on the road and narrowly avoided countless others. Every time it was because they either did not look or saw me and thought 'it's only a bike' and walked out in front of me. Usually I manage to swerve around the attempted Darwin Award nominee, but sometimes they run back and fore like a headless chicken until 'splatt!' Not an unusual occurrence sadly.

 

.

 

Countless others, how very fascinating.

 

I have to say that in 30 years of driving and cycling, I've never even come close to hitting a pedestrian. Perhaps I'm lucky. Or, perhaps your cycling style is as poorly controlled and angry as your posting style.

 

Maybe you should review how you ride, if you have so many near misses.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2015 at 00:04 ----------

 

 

Not necessarily. Maybe pedestrians would actually look where they were going and take more care.

If people drove or cycled with as little observation and care as pedestrians tend to take, then hundreds of people would be killed every day.

In countries such as The Netherlands, where such things were made the norm death rates plummeted.

 

The thing is, jezzy, I really don't want to share a pavement with people like you. Especially if you are piloting a machine of any kind. You've already told us that you run people over on the road. What damage could you do if you were allowed to ride on the pavement?

Edited July 15, 2015 by sibon

[jezzyjj]

Countless others, how very fascinating.

 

I have to say that in 30 years of driving and cycling, I've never even come close to hitting a pedestrian. Perhaps I'm lucky. Or, perhaps your cycling style is as poorly controlled and angry as your posting style.

Jusging by your oblivious posting, it is likely you simply didn't notice.

The pedestrian I hit would probably have been killed if I'd been driving. She walked straight out in front of me on a fast road, I was going about 30 in a 40 zone. She saw me clearly and still walked out before realising that I was going almost as fast as a car and panicked.

I'm as fast, if not faster around busy cities than most vehicles when I'm on a bike [no speed limits being broken either BTW], this is something pedestrians do not take into account and then walk out in front of me. I'd rather avoid being hit by a car/bus etc than than potentially hit an idiot pedestrian.

 

 

Maybe you should review how you ride, if you have so many near misses.

So I should not cycle safely, i.e keeping up with the flow of the traffic because some pedestrians are stupid?

Actually it is because I am quite skilled on a bike and have my wits about me when riding that they were near misses and not hits. The only person I have hit ran back and forwards in a blind panic as I tried to first swerve behind and then in front of her.

 

 

The thing is, jezzy, I really don't want to share a pavement with people like you. Especially if you are piloting a machine of any kind. You've already told us that you run people over on the road. What damage could you do if you were allowed to ride on the pavement?

I've never hit anyone on the pavement. Had numerous blind pedestrians walk into my stationary bike that is stood next to me though and the amount of pedestrians that aimlessly walk on the cycle path next to the empty footpath is unreal in Sheffield.

 

Here's a concept for you that you may really struggle to understand due to your insistence on assuming the worst of cyclists. Maintaining a high speed similar to the traffic is the best way to stay safe on the road. On the pavement, you match speed of the other users also, so again safety is maintained. Why on earth would a cyclist want to hit a pedestrian, as they are also likely to get injured too - unlike with a car driver hitting either of them.

Now this is the bit the idiots proclaiming armageddon on pavements do not seem to get - If one is in a hurry and need to go fast then a busy pavement is the last place you would cycle.

[gwhite78]

The REAL reason why so many Sheffielders hate cyclists is partly because of some of the worst urban planning in UK, but mostly because of all the bullies who live here and their hatred of 'others'

 

Cyclists are extremely vulnerable and therefore an easy target. All the nastiness towards cyclists is simple bullying. You never see car drivers pick fights with lorry drivers. Sheffield is such a shameful place.

[peakview]

You never see car drivers pick fights with lorry drivers.

 

Interesting point. Lorries are far more restricted in their 'bad behaviour' though.