Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

RichardD1970

Heycock wrote: »

Someone answer me this please. A cyclist goes through a red light causing a car going through green to slam on their brakes and getting hit from behind by the following car. Cyclist turns round, gives the finger and unidentified rides off into the sunset. Do the police attending the incident register it as an incident involving a bike? Or just another tailender for the insurance companies to argue about.

The following car was travelling too close for the speed, you should leave enough room between you and the car in front to be able to stop safely.

As to whether the police would take note of there being a cyclist, I don't know.

Heycock

RichardD1970 wrote: »

The following car was travelling too close for the speed, you should leave enough room between you and the car in front to be able to stop safely.

As to whether the police would take note of there being a cyclist, I don't know.

C'mon. If traffic going through green lights did that, there'd be nationwide gridlock within seconds.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

AndyBSG

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Did I say it was?

Are you denying that such things do not happen anywhere else in the country then?

No one on here is condoning red light jumpers but what we are saying is that red light jumpers and cyclists not wearing helmets and lights are irrelevant with regards to cycling deaths.

As Wiggy's post shows red light jumping and lack of lights are a contributing factor in a negligible amount of accidents.

- We know that some drivers use mobile phones while driving.

- In 2008 there were a total of 2,538 driving related fatalities

- Conclusion? All motorists use mobile phones while driving and deserve to be hounded off the roads

Of course, that conclusion sounds silly because we all know only a small number of drivers use mobile phones and not all 2,538 deaths were caused by mobile phone use.

So, coming to that conclusion would be almost as silly, for example, as saying all the recent cycling deaths are caused by cyclists who refuse to wear lights and helmets and jump red lights... :cool:

silverwhistle

Tilt wrote: »

We're not. But you simply seem to want to ignore the issues with bad cycling which (possibly) is contributing to the sudden surge of deaths in London.

You posted that immediately after AndyBSG had pointed out that bad cycling/helmets/lights had nothing to do with the deaths, and then you make the above statement. The "(possibly)" does NOT give you a get out clause, or give any impression that you are being reasonable in this matter, even if you think all the weasel words do. You continue to blame and have a go at people who cycle.

As I pointed out earlier, or elsewhere on MSE perhaps, it's only cyclists who get this constant and continuous sniping.

This Tilting at windmills really is wierd.

skiptalker

as a car driver and motorcyclist i can see the points raised from both sides, since riding motorcycles since 1976 and being still alive must give me a bit of credence here i have also being blocked off while filtering by arrogant car drivers even had a car pull over to the left and stop when i came up behind him then when i went past..i looked in my mirror and he started off

when he pulled into the garage where i was i said "why did you pull over" reply "you did not get past me did you" geez i thought how bizarre the main problem is identification i do a bad hazardous manuover on bike or in car reg number tells anybody who i am i am held responsible hence you see bike vids shouting out reg numbers but if a reckless cyclists actions incur an accident which does not affect him directly cycles off into the sunset

if cyclists want the same highway laws as powered vehicles they need to be identifiable for the careless movements on the highway..ie reg plates

hugheskevi

On the reg. plates issue, I've read plenty of reports showing that countries who have tried some form of registration have found it far too expensive to justify (I think Switzerland introduced registration a few years ago and then stopped it, but may be wrong). That cost can be passed to cyclists of course, but the amount is sufficicently large to discourage cycling, which then leads to further costs via extra congestion and additional health expenditure costs (as the long-term benefits of cycling are reduced through lower numbers).

More interestingly, I've also read a number of arguments that number plates would also be dangerous on today's bikes, as unlike cars or the back of motorbikes, there is very little framework to attach a plate to. The plate needs to be reasonably solid to stand up to the elements, and also large enough to be read. It would also need to be rigid and fixed so it didn't move in wind and remained readable.

As such, there would inevitably be exposed edges which in the event of an accident could be dangerous. Even if the edges are blunted, they would still be dangerous to fall on at speed.

I'd have thought that today's material could deliver something rigid but flexible, so I'm dubious about this. On the other hand, fixing would be extremely problematic on many sportier bikes, which minimise framework and it would inevitably interrupt aero-dynamics. One report claimed that the reason motorbikes don't have a plate at the front is that it would pose a big risk to any pedestrian hit by a motorbike, as the numberplate could easily slice into them as there is no obvious place to mount a numberplate on many motorbikes.

Anyone know of any robust research on this point?

andrewf75

skiptalker wrote: »

as a car driver and motorcyclist i can see the points raised from both sides

same here

it seems those who only drive or only cycle are incapable of balanced opinion.

skiptalker

hugheskevi wrote: »

On the reg. plates issue, I've read plenty of reports showing that countries who have tried some form of registration have found it far too expensive to justify (I think Switzerland introduced registration a few years ago and then stopped it, but may be wrong). That cost can be passed to cyclists of course, but the amount is sufficicently large to discourage cycling, which then leads to further costs via extra congestion and additional health expenditure costs (as the long-term benefits of cycling are reduced through lower numbers).

More interestingly, I've also read a number of arguments that number plates would also be dangerous on today's bikes, as unlike cars or the back of motorbikes, there is very little framework to attach a plate to. The plate needs to be reasonably solid to stand up to the elements, and also large enough to be read. It would also need to be rigid and fixed so it didn't move in wind and remained readable.

As such, there would inevitably be exposed edges which in the event of an accident could be dangerous. Even if the edges are blunted, they would still be dangerous to fall on at speed.

I'd have thought that today's material could deliver something rigid but flexible, so I'm dubious about this. On the other hand, fixing would be extremely problematic on many sportier bikes, which minimise framework and it would inevitably interrupt aero-dynamics. One report claimed that the reason motorbikes don't have a plate at the front is that it would pose a big risk to any pedestrian hit by a motorbike, as the numberplate could easily slice into them as there is no obvious place to mount a numberplate on many motorbikes.

Anyone know of any robust research on this point?

i agree with the front number issue i had one on a 1963 moped parralel with the front mudguard looked bloody lethal however i think some way of identifying cyclists needs to be done as a matter of urgency not just for the breaking of highway laws but also in the event of a serious accident if the cyclist has no means on his person to who he is or to contact family or he may have a medical condition that needs treating lots of cyclists i see must have no way of being identified as they are lycrered up that tight i could count there pubes.

brat

Heycock wrote: »

Someone answer me this please. A cyclist goes through a red light causing a car going through green to slam on their brakes and getting hit from behind by the following car. Cyclist turns round, gives the finger and unidentified rides off into the sunset. Do the police attending the incident register it as an incident involving a bike? Or just another tailender for the insurance companies to argue about.

This sums up the stereotypical misconception that people have over red light jumpers. They incorrectly assume that the cyclist blindly trundles over the junction causing all others to take evasive action.

I've seen many cyclists go through red lights, but those who do so and put themselves at the mercy of motorists are extremely few and far between. Research exists to show that it may actually be safer for cyclists to jump red lights. It's certainly not dangerous to do it carefully at certain junctions.

The danger for all cyclists is created because cyclists who jump red lights annoy and frustrate other road users to such a degree that they retaliate by driving too close. They get a sense that, if the cyclist won't look after himself why should I? It's a bad attitude, but some people are easily wound up.

armyknife

brat wrote: »

This sums up the stereotypical misconception that people have over red light jumpers. They incorrectly assume that the cyclist blindly trundles over the junction causing all others to take evasive action.

I've seen many cyclists go through red lights, but those who do so and put themselves at the mercy of motorists are extremely few and far between. Research exists to show that it may actually be safer for cyclists to jump red lights. It's certainly not dangerous to do it carefully at certain junctions.

The danger for all cyclists is created because cyclists who jump red lights annoy and frustrate other road users to such a degree that they retaliate by driving too close. They get a sense that, if the cyclist won't look after himself why should I? It's a bad attitude, but some people are easily wound up.

What about the possible pedestrians who'll be needing those red lights to safely cross the junction/road?