Why would anyone cycle to work?
Options
Comments
-
gonedownthepub wrote: »Few tips from someone who has been cycling to work since 1980 and selected jobs in the past on whether they are within a safe cycling distance.
Always use the cycle path.
Ride defensively.
Don't rush.
Enjoy the fresh air.
Alternatively, if you want to be assertive yet safe,
Only use the cycle path if it benefits you
Ride assertively
Don't slouch
Enjoy the fresh air.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
Are we really comparing walking with falling off a bike at 15 mph???0
-
PasturesNew wrote: »People cycle to work for a few, limited, reasons:
- Alpha males.
- People whose route is pleasant/enjoyable and they might have safe bike parking spaces and work and some, I believe, even have showers!
- People who are just going 1-2 miles and have very good outer clothing available to them ... and the route's nice
For all others it's an arduous and torturous concept, where they're battling with filth, the weather, other traffic, huge/dodgy junctions and mayhem.
I used to cycle 6 miles to work when I started work nearly 40 years ago - it was quite a pleasant "amble" of a ride, with safe roads and no nutter drivers to contend with. All I had to contend with was getting wet when it rained, cold when it snowed... and I was in a job where it was acceptable to turn up looking like a drowned rat and sitting at my desk shivering or damp for 2 hours upon arrival.
I did get a moped within 8 months though
Alpha male
0 -
I've always considered cycling to work, but nah, it's too risky tbh.
In central London it is the fastest way to travel.
My route is 80% cycle superhighway which means NO motor traffic.
The rest is back route or very slowly highly controlled (traffic lights).
So depends entirely on where you live and what the route and alternatives are like. I agree it's very poor in some areas but in London we have superior routes which are physically seperated from traffic (not just a painted line).0 -
I find it hard to believe people drive more recklessly around cyclists with helmets, that just seems mad.
So people don't behave more carefully when they perceive more risk then?drivers give you more room when you have a child on the back
...or perhaps they do.0 -
RichardD1970 wrote: »Whilst I agree that in quite a lot of accidents a helmet may not prevent significant injury, in the small amount that they do they are invaluable.
So how did you establish that the people whose lives are saved by wearing a helmet outnumber those who die because they are wearing a helmet?0 -
you're relatively unlikely to have a serious fall onto your head while walking. On a bike you're MUCH more likely to fall on your head and at a speed which can cause serious damage.
This is irrelevant. The number of pedestrians dying on the roads is three times the number of cyclist deaths, so if the objective is to save as many lives as possible, there are more to be saved by making pedestrians wear helmets (and even more still by making motorists wear them).0 -
This is irrelevant. The number of pedestrians dying on the roads is three times the number of cyclist deaths, so if the objective is to save as many lives as possible, there are more to be saved by making pedestrians wear helmets (and even more still by making motorists wear them).
I don't follow that logic. There are many more than 3 times as many pedestrians as cyclists. You're more likely to fall on your head cycling than walking so more risk. The objective is purely a personal one based on your personal risk, overall numbers are irrelevant.0 -
So people don't behave more carefully when they perceive more risk then?
...or perhaps they do.
seeing a child and thinking you'll give extra space is understandable. I can imagine that thought process.
seeing a cyclist and then making a judgment how close to pass by him on the basis of whether he is wearing a helmet I can't!0 -
I don't follow that logic. There are many more than 3 times as many pedestrians as cyclists. You're more likely to fall on your head cycling than walking so more risk.
The objective of wearing helmets purports to be saving lives, therefore it's the number of deaths we're counting, not the number of pedestrians.
Last time I checked there were about 100 cyclist deaths and 300 pedestrian deaths PA, so if you make pedestrians wear helmets there are three times as many lives to save. The reason this is never suggested is prejudice of course, everyone is a pedestrian but only a minority are cyclists. A minority that are seen as eccentric, stupid for indulging in such a dangerous activity, lower socioeconomic class, and a nuisance to other road users.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards