It is barking, but that is the current industrial accident paradigm and to challenge it is not advisable. Risk assessments are expected for the most trivial of tasks, woe betide anyone who has an accident and hasn't properly risk assessed the job and if you have had an accident by definition your risk assessment was substandard. Needless to say it is then obvious where the blame doesn't lie. Yet we also have a no blame culture, but people are held accountable for their actions or inactions when it comes to a poorly carried out or missing risk assessment.
Easy, weather was shit last year. Be 50% up on that number this year, then next they will call for a ban on all bike
You're right. I am. I'm just also curious, and I like to know what's going on and why it's going on. Stats can tell you this stuff if you get the right ones.
I don't accept that as an automatic assumption. If position and speed are appropriate to the prevailing conditions then it should be possible to stop within the distance you can see and know to be safe. A child on a bike should be identified as a hazard and appropriate allowances made. Having once seen the child hitting them should never occur almost irrespective of what they do. If there are obstructions or blind spots, out of which anything can emerge, they should be identified and position and speed adjusted accordingly. If this sounds a bit IAM then I am sorry but there are too many road users who are oblivious to the world around them. Being safe is not just about what you do.
Doesn't insist there must be blame either. The example you gave clearly does have an element of blame but the point I made is there are many that don't. So, lets re-cap on what we've learned :wink: An accident is unavoidable – Analytic proposition (Can be tested as fact) If it's avoidable, it isn't an accident – Synthetic proposition (as avoidance alone may not prevent an accident) For example, a deer jumps out in front of your motorbike causing you to swerve into an oncoming car. Is it your fault? Did you see the 'warning deer' sign? Could you have avoided this road and taken another route? Could you have taken the car instead of the bike that day?.... All of these things make it avoidable and therefore someone must be to blame?
As I previously said ... to recognise that all accidents could have been prevented doesn't mean that we can prevent all accidents. Sure, shit happens. But to take your example If there was a 'warning deer' sign and you either didn't see it or ignored it then you are to blame. Similarly if you knew the road contained that hazard and you chose to take the bike instead of the car, which would have provided greater protection, then again you are to blame. The ultimate accident is you are walking down a street and are hit by a meteorite falling from space. But it comes down to RISK = CONSEQUENCE x PROBABILITY What level of risk are you willing to accept or, and here is the rub, what level of risk you are prepared to subject those around you to ? If you subject those around you to a hazard that becomes a consequence then yes, you are to blame.
It's good to see that motorcycle accident numbers have fallen - although, as has been stated, there are many variables that may have had an effect on those numbers. Interesting though that the only two groups where the numbers have risen is cyclists and bus / coach passengers. Bus accidents tend to involve relatively large numbers of people, usually around 40, so one single accident can have a large impact on the statistics. Cyclists, on the other hand, tend to be involved in accidents in isolation. So, at the risk of inciting another tirade of abuse from the lycra-wearers out there, how is it that cycling is not getting safer when almost every other form of road transport is ?
That's simple. I'm prepared to bet that the number of bicycle accidents are a result of their being increasing numbers of cyclists. The only interesting stat here is the evolution of accidents per 1'000 cyclists. Then you might be able to draw some conclusions and have a prevention plan.
The numbers of people cycling is definitely on the rise. When cyclists come into contact with cars, vans and lorries it is rarely the driver of the car, van or lorry that is hurt. I wear leather and lycra, but rarely at the same time.
Tony is a very friendly, generous chap but that sounds above and beyond the call of gracious hospitality, surely. Glad you enjoyed it Steve.
Motor vehicles have over the years gained far better tyres, brakes, lights, and suspension, as well as electronics like ABS and traction control. Mechanical breakdowns are ever-rarer, and navigation is ever-easier. Air bags for cars and helmets/body armour for bikes have also improved a lot. Push-bikes are however just as dangerous as they ever were.
Johnv has discovered a great way to get full employment in the uk, coz if we take that point to its end we will all need someone walking in front of our vehicle with a flag and a loud horn
As cars have become safer has risk compensation kicked in and transferred accident statistics on to other road users ?
That is a good point bradders. One of the problems with the ever expanding safety culture is knowing when to stop and accept a particular level of risk as being worth the reward. There is the misguided belief that all risk is bad. With regard to road use the majority of people seem to take the belief that what they do is safe and accidents are caused by the actions other people. The Roadcraft philosophy is that we can observe what is around us, identify the hazards and modify our behavious to allow for the actions of others, and by doing so significantly swing the odds in our favour. It doesn't require a red flag.
