back to article 80-year-old cyclist killed in prang with Tesla Model S

An 80-year-old man has died in County Durham, England, after being struck by a Tesla Model S. He was cycling along the A177 near High Shincliffe, when the car collided with him. After being struck by the Tesla at around 9.20am on November 10, the unnamed man was taken to James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough where he …

re: unwarranted triumphalism

Totally agree, the road is no place for a Tesla (that pays none of the mythical "road tax").

16
50
Silver badge
FAIL

RE: unwanted infantilism

And when pedestrians are killed by out of control cars on the pavement is your response "shouldn't be on the pavement then?"

49
9
Silver badge
FAIL

Fail

unwarranted triumphalism

Shouldn't be on the road then.

Agreed. Stay indoors- away from the computer.

32
1
Bronze badge

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

I don't know, has that happened?

It seems to be the 2-wheeled criminal thug brigade you should be asking about pedestrian deaths anyway.

7
71

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

As recorded by the ONS on the number of pedestrian deaths caused by bicycles are between 2-3 a year, however the number of pedestrian deaths caused by cars are around 400 a year

51
3

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

Blame the victims.

https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/

2015 figures:

cyclists killed - 100

cyclists seriously injured - 3,239

29
2
Silver badge

Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism

There is no 'Road Tax', hasn't been since Winston Churchill axed it in 1947.

34
3
Silver badge

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

Ah; but beware the concept of "lies, damn lies, & statistics". The raw figures do tell a depressing tale but to demonstrate how misleading they can be I suggest you consider the following: In the event of a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist the cyclist is going to come off worse every time. However, the figures you quote could mean that there were 3,339 occasions when cyclists did something really stupid and as a result were either killed or seriously injured despite the vehicle driver doing everything they could to avoid it. Now that is obviously statistically improbable, but it does help show that raw data, without anything further by way of detail, presents a totally incomplete picture of the overall situation which in turn can mislead those reading it.

If you are trying to solve a problem then the likelihood of finding the correct solution is greatly reduced if you don't make sure that you analyse it properly first and garner all the relevant information about it.

22
11

Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism

Except courtesy of UK gov there's a £310 luxury vehicle tax from years 2 to 6 inclusive.

3
0

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

Ah; but beware the concept of "lies, damn lies, & statistics".

Indeed. As a cyclist I have been taken off my bike by a car who didn't check their blind spots. It informed my behaviour as a driver and I hope I am more diligent as a result.

However, some cyclists will not be helped. I have - more than once - nearly mown down a cyclist who thought it appropriate to weave along a 60mph stretch in black clothing, with no lights or reflectors (a legal requirement as important as having an MOT) on a moonless night. I suspect that someone with less than the 20/20 vision I am fortunate to be blessed with might not pick out the dim shadow moving at the edge of vision and brake too late to avoid the moron. Just last week I swung into a one-way street at 10pm to find a kid coming the wrong way down it without lights or helmet (quite what they were doing out at that time I do not know).

But inevitably it would be the driver who is at fault for hitting the criminal(1) cyclist, and the statistics will not reflect this nuance.

Most drivers are good, most cyclists are considerate. But churning out a scary-sounding, yet context-less number of cyclist accidents/fatalities tells you absolutely nothing because some of them are bordering on suicidal.

1. Yes. Criminal. Going out at night without lights or reflectors is a criminal act, just like driving without MOT or insurance.

44
2

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

Might be worth checking your stats, in UK 2 pedestrians die a year from cycles but 6 a day from cars.

Evidence based approach please!

9
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism

"There is no 'Road Tax', hasn't been since Winston Churchill axed it in 1947."

Ahem: " (that pays none of the mythical "road tax")."

9
0

Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism

A whoosh parrot for Grunty.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

"Might be worth checking your stats, in UK 2 pedestrians die a year from cycles but 6 a day from cars.

Evidence based approach please!"

On the pavement? Really?

3
0
Silver badge

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

"As recorded by the ONS on the number of pedestrian deaths caused by bicycles are between 2-3 a year, however the number of pedestrian deaths caused by cars are around 400 a year"

The comment related to on the pavement, which is where the vast majority of incidents involving cyclist killing pedestrians happen. The vast majority of pedestrians and cyclist killed by motor vehicles happen on the roads.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism

"that pays none of the mythical "road tax" "

Stop being silly. Road tax is a pretty good description of it. It isn't a car tax, as lorries and motorcycles pay it, and if you state SORN then you don't either In fact, you only pay it to drive on UK roads. Its official name was Road Fund Licence, later VED. Road Fund Licence is very similar to Road Tax. I still call the water rates even though they are a bill from a privatized utility company. People call it the dole instead of JSA.

I suppose you never referred to it as the 'bedroom tax' either, and solely as the 'under-occupancy penalty'.

5
1
Silver badge

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

"Might be worth checking your stats, in UK 2 pedestrians die a year from cycles but 6 a day from cars.

Evidence based approach please!"

Ooh, ooh, can I do that?

You've forgotten to divide by the number of passenger miles. Cars kill 2000/year, roughly, bikes 2/year, roughly. So if there are more than 1000 times as many passenger miles by car than bike, then cars are safer for pedestrians. Here is the data per billion passenger miles. It looks bad for Mr Cyclist, but terrible for Mr Motorcyclist.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647923/ras30018.ods

Pedestrians KSI per billion vehicle miles (not even passenger miles, which inflates the car death rate, as average occupancy rate is about 1.6, and of course massively inflates the bus death rate):

By cycle: K 0.9, SI 31

By motocycle: K 6.0, SI 66

By car: K 1.1, SI 16

By bus/coach: K 12, SI 81

By van: K 0.7, SI 6.4

By HGV: K 3.9, SI 5.3

(K = killed, SI = seriously injured)

So what can we learn from this?

1) Carpooling wouldn't change this data, but would reduce absolute numbers of casualties,

2) Two people in a car are safer than two bicycles for K, and one car much safer than one bicycle for KSI in total.

3) Motorcycles are a menace to society and maybe should be banned on safety grounds.

4) Get rid of all bus routes with an occupancy below 12 or so?

6
4
Silver badge

Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism

downvoted for gratuitous pedantry.

2
3

You should now have to demonstrate

that you are suitable to control a vehicle before being allowed to do so.

4
1

At 2 per year, what

does "the vast majority" mean please?

1
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: At 2 per year, what

AM1 asked, "...what does 'the vast majority' mean please?"

"The vast majority" = 40%

The Reverend Peter Leary told us so. And we believed him.

(Hi Pete!)

0
0

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

>however the number of pedestrian deaths caused by cars are around 400 a year

I take it that is the whole UK? Here is Los Angeles Country, a guy killed in Long Beach 5 days ago was the 25th this year in Los Angeles County.

1
0

Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism

A pedant writes...A neat trick, as WS wasn't in power in 1947

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: You should now have to demonstrate

I've already got a driving licence. Good enough for you?

1
2
Silver badge

Re: RE: unwanted infantilism

You've forgotten to divide by the number of passenger miles. Cars kill 2000/year, roughly, bikes 2/year, roughly. So if there are more than 1000 times as many passenger miles by car than bike, then cars are safer for pedestrians.

Think you missed a trick. Dead person is dead person, doesn't really matter if the vehicle that did it has done 1mile or 100 billion miles.

Someone hit by a bike also likely has a far higher chance of surviving than not.

And ooi how reliable are the stats on bike distances traveled? Not like they have a device on them that measures distances as a normal fitting.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism

And upvoted for being technically correct.

The BEST kind of correct.

2
0
TRT
Silver badge

Re: Evidence based approach please!

"On the pavement? Really?"

Concrete observations, mate.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

If this was a Ford it wouldn't even make the news.

35
1
Anonymous Coward

not on a tech site, no.

14
3
Anonymous Coward

Sort of agree.

Maybe if it was shown that "auto-pilot" AKA "sell a feature it isn't then blame the meat sack when it doesn't do as labelled" was engaged and it ploughed into the cyclist, then feel free to report.

It may equally be, cyclist on wrong side of road rides straight into path of oncoming car (seen it enough near misses to know this is a real possibility).

21
6
Anonymous Coward

Did a job cataloguing old court records a few years back (protip: if you ever have a warehouse full of paper records, for the love of all that is holy DO NOT LOSE THE CATALOGUE) and one of the cases was for a cyclist who ran a red light at a t-junction, hit the SIDE of a car who was travelling on the main carriageway, then tried to claim on the driver's insurance for their medical costs.

While commuting to said job, I had to slam the anchors on to avoid a head-on collision with a cyclist who was riding the wrong way around a roundabout.

And cycling groups wonder why drivers are resistant to the idea of "automatically assign fault to the driver in a collision" policies.

38
13

It will be interesting to see if a full investigation of this incident is carried out looking at the actions of the cyclist in relation to other road traffic and conditions, rather than the usual action of the Police which seems to be find a way to completely blame the driver, no matter how tenuous, and end the investigation there.

Frankly you need cameras to record what's happening on the road now, not to protect against uninsured drives, but so you actually have evidence to protect yourself, because if you're a motorist you can't rely on the Police to be thorough & impartial.

14
12
Bronze badge

And the hatred begins... because they're all like that, aren't they? Every single one.

6
17
TWB

...

As a level headed cyclist and a car driver (though not at the same time) - there are bad cyclists and bad car drivers. These are the ones you notice - that is human nature.

Good road users - cyclists and car drivers - you don't notice as they are unremarkable.

As a cyclist I actually believe most road users are OK - I have been cycling in London since 1990.

60
0
Anonymous Coward

seen a lot of shoddy cycling

seen a lot of shoddy driving/riding a motorcycle

cyclist+bicycle weight rarely exceeds 130kg, soft and mushy for most part, speed rarely exceeds 20 mph

car weight - circa 1500kg, made from solid metal, speeds often around 50 in 20 mph zones

delivery vans/drop side lorries - anywhere up to 3.5 tonnes, metal all round, speed - depending if they are late to go home after a job, pick a number anywhere from speed limit + 20 mph to maximum speed of said vehicle

which is most likely to kill or injure?

32
2
Silver badge

I once passed a cyclist, gave him a full lane width of space, he still turned right without looking or signalling and hit the back of my car.

In fact most car drivers drive in such a way as to yield their so called "right of way" (doesn't exist) in the interests of everybody. But I've noticed a prevalence among cyclists to assert their perceived "right of way" even if that means putting themselves in danger.

On days when I cycle to work (days when I'm not going to be either soaked in sweat or rain) I tend to try to help all the traffic along and I won't let a queue build up behind me. Observe the drivers, at least 19/20 will be looking after you. I observe the other cyclists, they tend not to want to give anything away, some of them even get aggressive toward each other and pedestrians.

It's should always be a co-operative effort, regardless of who has the largest and hardest mass.

Some motorcycle training would be a very good thing for cyclists and drivers.

27
4

This post has been deleted by its author

Go

Three things I've learned that have stood me well over the years.

1. Aim to hit the gap, not miss the object (this applies to stationary and moving objects). You will naturally gravitate to what you are looking at.

2. Accept at some point, you will get cut up. With this in mind, road rage dramatically reduces.

3. Treat as everyone on the road, including yourself, as an idiot. When your proven right, at least you are ready to take as much action to avoid the situation as possible.

24
1
Anonymous Coward

"cyclist+bicycle weight rarely exceeds 130kg,"

Blimey, for me to reach 130kg with my bike, I have to be riding my 45kg Bakfiets.nl Cargobike with the box full of shopping. Saying that, I wouldn't want to be run over by a cargobike at any speed...

4
0
Def
Silver badge

Lardarse+bicycle weight rarely exceeds 130kg

FTFY.

I weigh around six times as much as my bike, which gives us a combined weight of around 83kg on a slow* day.

* You know what I mean. ;)

2
2
FAIL

@Def

Of course your cycling prowess and svelte physique is only surpassed by your giant and overinflated feeling of self importance. Now go and kiss yourself in the mirror.

2
8

It isn't automatic...

It is default.

0
0
Silver badge

And cycling groups wonder why drivers are resistant to the idea of "automatically assign fault to the driver in a collision" policies.

Interesting. Maritime law basically says "smaller (and thus more maneuverable) gives way to bigger". This, and law of survival, should say "cyclist has most to lose so cyclist must take action to save themselves, and if they don't there's a good chance it was their fault".

When I was a kid a cager knocked me off my bike (she actually lost her license a short while later when putting another kid in hospital). Had I been taking more care of my safety, I would've dismounted before going through that particular intersection, and waited for a safe time to go through, not when I had the right-of-way but when I could get through unharmed. She was wrong, but I could've died.

Cagers, as a group, are idiots. Much like computer users. They do stupid and unpredictable things. Hell, they define stupid! So if you're on 2 wheels, keep an eye out for them and protect your safety. Don't worry about right, worry about life.

Oh. And remember. A large part of your cycling brethren are also computer users, and also rather stupid at times!

2
0
Silver badge
Trollface

because if you're a motorist you can't rely on the Police to be thorough & impartial.

FTFY

2
0
Silver badge

Premature?

Given the lack of information about whether auto-pilot and inattention or no autopilot and inattention, is the early reporting just to stop people asking why has the Tesla story not been reported?

If we want tenuous electric car related stories how about Dyson and his desire for no corporation tax, UK to become low wage slave style economy (only way he will move production from Malaysia is when we get as cheap as that!)

30
5

> It is unknown at this time if the Tesla driver was using any self-driving technology when the incident occurred.

It is also unknown as to what the cyclist was doing prior to being struck, even if driver aids were in use by the Tesla.

It will be interesting if there is information in the telematics of the Tesla regarding the movements of the cyclist in the few seconds leading up to the incident. Did it make a sudden movement - e.g. to avoid a pothole - or was the victim moving in a nice predictable straight line? Doesn't Tesla own the data for this and doesn't necessarily hand out the raw data?

A cyclist being killed in a collision with a car is a terrible thing, but blame *could* be on either party. But now we're into the murky uncharted waters of if the self-driving systems are active, how do you judge whether either the meatbag or the computer programs were capable of avoiding the incident, or even if avoidance was possible.

Certainly the driver has responsibility of keeping an eye on the road constantly and assuming control to attempt to prevent/avoid/minimise the collision.

17
3
Silver badge

RE: JetSetGim

If he made a sudden movement to avoid a pothole then that would put the Tesla driver at fault for being far too close. In the UK at least drivers should pass a cyclist with the same space they would give a car (mainly because cyclists need space to dodge potholes and crap).

11
1

Re: RE: JetSetGim

That may well be the case, but equally (or possibly less likely) it may well also be that the movement to avoid the pothole was excessive. Other possibilities include the cyclist undertaking in traffic and swerving, or some other irresponsible action.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pin blame on the cyclist, the driver or the Tesla autopilot, there are lots of ways either party could be at fault, but because it's a Tesla - with their claims that their driving software has a stellar safety record - it makes headlines before anyone knows any facts.

11
3

Re: RE: JetSetGim

Nope,

Cyclist made a sudden movement, either foot slipped of the peddle or moved to avoid a pothole, got run over by a bus that was behind the cyclist and the courts ruled that it was an unfortunate accident.

1
3

<q>Did it make a sudden movement - e.g. to avoid a pothole</q>

The "it" JetSetJim refers to had clocked up 80 years therefore simply on Darwinian grounds is likely to have been a careful and conscientious road user.

4
1

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018