Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

brat

No-one believes that some cyclists are not fools by cycling unsafely. They increase the risk to themselves much like a drink driver increases risk to himself. Unlike drink drivers, they're not a significant third party risk.

I don't take risks on my bike, so I don't want to be tarred as an unsafe cyclist.
But when you get Altarf saying stuff like "If cyclists did everything they could do to stay safe, then that argument would work. They don't, so it doesn't."
it makes me wonder what he would say if I retorted

"If motorists would stop drink driving, then your argument would work, but they don't so it doesn't.
Drink drivers are a massive problem to themselves, other motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Why don't you motorists sort yourselves out!? Your drink driving is killing us!"

Like custardy, I don't want to be tarred with the same brush as those silly cyclists, in much the same way as a motorist wouldn't like to be called a drink driver. Unfortunately that does happen, we are all included in the anti cyclist generalisation from some sections of media, and even on this forum. What's worse is that it impacts on some motorists attitudes to cyclists on the road.

We are not our brother's keepers.

InkZ

Just seen this thread. I echo everything said by the OP.

I've had more close calls with pedestrians stepping in to the road and other cyclists hopping off the pavement in front of me without looking after they've run the light on the pavement than I have with motorists.

I get plenty of cars passing too close and that kind of thing, but not really any massive oh !!!! moments like with the lemming pedestrians.

The difference though is that a car can kill me.

WiggyDiggyPoo

After 30 pages I have decided that the biggest threat to cyclists are half wits who like to troll cycling threads online.... God knows what you are like towards cyclists when your on the roads.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

But when you get Altarf saying stuff like "If cyclists did everything they could do to stay safe, then that argument would work. They don't, so it doesn't."
it makes me wonder what he would say if I retorted

"If motorists would stop drink driving, then your argument would work, but they don't so it doesn't.
Drink drivers are a massive problem to themselves, other motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Why don't you motorists sort yourselves out!? Your drink driving is killing us!"

If you think that you can change *every single* motorist's attitude (99% isn't good enough, it only takes one to kill you) then good luck deluding yourself.

In the interim until you reach that state of impossibility, who do you think needs to make more care -

The car driver who has the result of hundreds of millions of pounds of road safety research encasing them in a safe cocoon of steel and airbags.

Or the cyclist with a polystyrene helmet.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

If you think that you can change *every single* motorist's attitude (99% isn't good enough, it only takes one to kill you) then good luck deluding yourself.

In the interim until you reach that state of impossibility, who do you think needs to make more care -

The car driver who has the result of hundreds of millions of pounds of road safety research encasing them in a safe cocoon of steel and airbags.

Or the cyclist with a polystyrene helmet.

So once again.We are back to its the cyclists fault :T
Im quite a big guy,generally fit,do some martial arts.
so anyone smaller than me or less skilled should take care around me,yes?

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

So once again.We are back to its the cyclists fault

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between fault and impact.

"It was their fault" doesn't make a very good epitaph.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between fault and impact.

"It was their fault" doesn't make a very good epitaph.

and yet I understand what threat means.

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

and yet I understand what threat means.

You may understand the word, but not the application to cycling.

Motorists are not threatening cyclists. That would imply that some motorists are deliberately out to kill and injure cyclists.

They are not. It is worse than that. For the majority of motorists, cyclists just don't feature in their thinking.

But cyclists carry on with the "its not fair" approach, instead of realising that if the person who is safe and sound in their steel cocoon is not going think, then the person in the polystyrene helmet is going to have to.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

You may understand the word, but not the application to cycling.

Motorists are not threatening cyclists. That would imply that some motorists are deliberately out to kill and injure cyclists.

They are not. It is worse than that. For the majority of motorists, cyclists just don't feature in their thinking.

But cyclists carry on with the "its not fair" approach, instead of realising that if the person who is safe and sound in their steel cocoon is not going think, then the person in the polystyrene helmet is going to have to.

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD5hWVbYwPk

You have your views. I have experience as do many other cyclists
I also see from my car the way other drivers can react around cyclists. Not intending to but by action hurting someone is fine?
Your response is one step from cyclists shouldn't be on the(my?) roads.
Sadly your view seems shared by the judicial system given by the lenient sentences and warped views displayed in many cases.

RichardD1970

custardy wrote: »

Your response is one step from cyclists shouldn't be on the(my?) roads.

Well, wasn't that his view on another thread, about cycle paths? Use them or face the consequences?