> Bikes make everything about traffic better, and most bikers observe the traffic laws.
Anecdata time.
Practically every single day I'll see bikes casually going through red lights, usually moving between pedestrians crossing. Now, I'll freely grant that they're usually paying enough attention to be safe - but you can bet motorbikes (and even cars) could make those very same judgement calls - except they'd get done by cameras/police.
Bikes are not obviously safer than a car to me as a pedestrian. They're less predictable, less regulated, and typically less careful of pedestrians. Heck, they also probably travel faster than cars most of the time in central london since the speed limit is 20mph everywhere on the rare occasion there's no traffic.
Then of course there's the idiots riding along on the pavement because they can't easily filter through traffic and why should they have to wait in line to move on etc etc.
I'm actually pretty solidly pro properly segregated bike lanes, but if I had to rate drivers vs cyclists in a "most likely to have a collision with as a pedestrian" I would easily go with the cyclist.
> I'm actually pretty solidly pro properly segregated bike lanes, but if I had to rate drivers vs cyclists in a "most likely to have a collision with as a pedestrian" I would easily go with the cyclist.
> but if I had to rate drivers vs cyclists in a "most likely to have a collision with as a pedestrian" I would easily go with the cyclist.
I don't want to start an argument, but I bet we could look up driver -> pedestrian accidents, and see how many were reported vs cyclists -> pedestrian accidents.
Personally, I would much rather get hit by a cyclist as a pedestrian, than a car, and that's simply physics. I've been hit as a pedestrian multiple times by cars (thankfully, at low speed), but never by a bike. I've been hit by a car while riding a bike.
You do not want to get hit by a car, while riding a bike. The car always wins. Thankfully, I survived.
>> if I had to rate drivers vs cyclists in a "most likely to have a collision with as a pedestrian" I would easily go with the cyclist.
I'd weight it by, well, mass and associated likelihood of actual harm, personally.
I'm a fairly keen (but casual) cyclist. I wouldn't cyclce in London by preference, and I have seen some terrible behaviour by cyclists in London.
One day at 9am in the City, I saw a cyclist swearing loudly at everyone and pushing through the crush as people tried to cross Liverpool Street, at a pedestrian crossing, when the lights were red for traffic.
Total arsehole. I thought to myself "this is why people think cyclists are all bastards, people like you".
Anecdata time.
Practically every single day I'll see bikes casually going through red lights, usually moving between pedestrians crossing. Now, I'll freely grant that they're usually paying enough attention to be safe - but you can bet motorbikes (and even cars) could make those very same judgement calls - except they'd get done by cameras/police.
Bikes are not obviously safer than a car to me as a pedestrian. They're less predictable, less regulated, and typically less careful of pedestrians. Heck, they also probably travel faster than cars most of the time in central london since the speed limit is 20mph everywhere on the rare occasion there's no traffic.
Then of course there's the idiots riding along on the pavement because they can't easily filter through traffic and why should they have to wait in line to move on etc etc.
I'm actually pretty solidly pro properly segregated bike lanes, but if I had to rate drivers vs cyclists in a "most likely to have a collision with as a pedestrian" I would easily go with the cyclist.