"Including" / "Involving" cyclists. Why the focus on the victim (more often than not) and the passive voice?
While I think it's possible you're right that the cyclists are usually the victims, that's not a foregone conclusion for at least two reasons:
- cyclists can hit pedestrians who are even more vulnerable. Pedestrians are also included in this analysis.
- as much as cyclists hate to hear it, they're the most reckless users of the road on average (even worse than scooter drivers). Every time I walk around in London I see them cutting red lights to conserve momentum, changing from using car rules to pedestrian rules when it helps them, driving quickly across pedestrian crossings (too fast for cars to see them coming), and other "convenient" actions that are hard for cars/pedestrians to safely deal with.
Have had several incidents with dangerous cyclists ignoring zebra crossings (where pedestrians have right of way), even when I’ve been pushing a baby in the pushchair.
Seems to be getting worse now with the e-cycles and higher speeds.
Citation needed.
As an example, it's extremely rare for cars in London to cut red lights, pedestrians sometimes do but they're much slower and therefore easier to see coming. The behaviour of switching back and forth from car/pedestrian rules is not something other road users do here. But cyclists do that extremely frequently, to the point that it seems hard data isn't necessary to form a reasonably certain (but not scientific) conclusion. If cars drove like cyclists, it would be complete chaos.
Do you disagree?
Anecodtally, I see motorists driving whilst using their phone on a daily basis. I rarely see cycling jumping red lights. I also see motorists jumping red lights, but rarely. I frequently see motorists on the wrong side of the road trying to skip traffic queues.
But you claim was about recklessness.
Poor driving is much, much more reckless than poor cycling, given the kinetic energy involved.
Do you live in London? I find that surprising since I see it literally every time I go the centre (which is quite often).
Anecdotes aren't data.
>As an example, it's extremely rare for cars in London to cut red lights, pedestrians sometimes do but they're much slower and therefore easier to see coming.
On the other hand:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists...
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b...
According to the Department for Transport's report, there were 41 pedestrians and 7 cyclists killed in traffic collisions in Greater London in 2022. Pedal cyclists were listed as the "other vehicle" involved in fatal collisions 0 times, while cars were listed 39 times, and goods vehicles 23 times. As stated "other vehicles" does not directly describe who is to blame for a collision, but it's a proxy measure for it. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2022...
And why even bring this up? Does it follow that more risk taking behaviour (a claim which you did not substantiate) means that the infrastructure is safe enough and that this is not a real problem? Of course not.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/reported...
Document RAS0601 there describes "collisions and casualties by vehicle and road user type involved".
This is for the whole UK, not just London. I'll look at figures for 2022, which unsurprisingly is the most recent year in the data. Other recent years look broadly similar.
Sheet "Pedestrians": 385 pedestrians were killed in road accidents. None of them were by pedal cycles. 5908 were "killed or seriously injured"; 159, or about 2.7%, were by pedal cycles. 19327 were casualties of some kind; 462, or about 2.4%, were by pedal cycles.
Sheet "Casualties_vehicle_type": In collisions involving at least one pedal cycle, 94 people were killed. (None of those can have been pedestrians; see previous paragraph.) 4026 were "killed or seriously injured". (159 of those were pedestrians; see previous paragraph. That's about 4%.) 16520 were casualties of some kind. (462 of those were pedestrians; see previous paragraph. That's about 3%.)
So it seems as if collisions involving bikes kill no more than about 1% as many pedestrians as cyclists, and kill-or-seriously-injure about 4% as many pedestrians as cyclists, and injure-a-all about 3% as many pedestrians as cyclists.
So, yes, overwhelmingly cyclists are victims rather than causes of injury and death in collisions. (And overwhelmingly when pedestrians are injured or killed in collisions, those collisions do not involve bicycles.)
Again, that's for the UK as a whole. I suspect London is more dangerous for everyone, but it seems unlikely to me that cyclists in London are more dangerous by a much greater ratio than that by which they're more in danger. (My guess is that it's the other way around.)