Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

andydiysaver

Retrogamer wrote: »

Is your use of the word militant meant make these statements sound more dramatic, or try and make the cyclists point of view seem less justified? It's quite common for people using the world incorrectly for these reasons.

I only ask because as far as i'm aware of it's definition and usage it's usually used to describe people who use violent confrontations to push across an agenda. It doesn't seem an accurate description.

Also, rather than refute a lot of the statements here properly you seem to cherry pick select parts of what people are saying and respond to them only whilst ignoring the rest.

An interesting thing i've noticed is when a cyclist cycles normally and isn't being dangerous (i.e vast majority of them) drivers go into auto pilot mode and ignore them.
When one of them does something dangerous and the driver notices it sticks in their head a lot longer. They come out of auto pilot and take notice.
This leaves drivers unable to remember all the good cyclists because they forget about them or don't notice them, but they remember the bad ones and after a while they start to think most cycle like that.

I'm sure BMW, Audi and Range Rover drivers get the same negative stigma sometimes.

actually retrogamer I'm pretty thorough in my response to comments on here, which you'd see if you read my posts. I'll endeavour to be thorough here


from Wikipedia
Militant can mean "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause" as in 'militant reformers'


to clarify this is what I allude to when I refer to militant cyclists.


I disagree with your auto pilot statement, we can't not notice cyclists, it requires us to come out of auto pilot , significantly slow down and work out how to get past them without going too close to them, it's more of a thought process than cruising along a road without hindrance. don't pick on hindrance to make a cheap point. it's a word, and an accurate one, you go much slower, so you hinder us. deal with that fact because we have to.


in my experience a lot of BMW/Audi/range rover drivers are fit for the stereotype - , I would have thought a range rover would cause you cyclists particular problems due to the size of the things versus the already too narrow roads. I bet you don't like range rovers, and I bet you've had near misses because they're too big and you're too vulnerable. Their weight can flatten cars. This is the mass in the momentum equation. Meanwhile audis and BMW's have the capacity to go pretty fast , not all of them do but it's a reasonable expectation to suppose that several audi/BMW drivers utilise the speed capabilities of their vehicle. This is the velocity in your momentum equation. If they made fast range rovers they'd therefore be very dangerous indeed to the cyclist having the weight and speed to wipe out most things whilst frequently being driven in narrow urban settings as opposed to motorways where the lorries are.


p = mv


the equation that cyclists are in denial over. next to the rest of the traffic on that road, both m and v are orders of magnitude smaller if you are a cyclist. This is fact not emotion. I'm starting to get tired of trying to explain a fundamental law of physics to cyclists with far too much attitude and far too little grasp on mathematics.

I've addressed all your points, what part have I missed? I repeat, it comes back to physics, which is a little bigger than a bunch of cyclists and motorists arguing on a forum. you're subject to it, I'm subject to it, and 20 tonne lorry over there is subject to it.

custardy

Think blinkers are the biggest threat to cyclists.

RichardD1970

andydiysaver wrote: »

If they made fast range rovers they'd therefore be very dangerous indeed to the cyclist having the weight and speed to wipe out most things whilst frequently being driven in narrow urban settings as opposed to motorways where the lorries are.

Actually they do, a Range Rover (V8 Supercharged) weighing 2,330kg will do 155mph and 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, then there is the Range Rover Sports, which is a little bit quicker.

andydiysaver

that's a serious amount of momentum then if that was driven anywhere near full whack - notice I'm not denying that fact! it's a serious amount of momentum and any regular car driver needs to respect something that size with that much surface area to connect.


I do not think there are many of these out there yet, I've not seen any.

custardy

andydiysaver wrote: »

that's a serious amount of momentum then if that was driven anywhere near full whack - notice I'm not denying that fact! it's a serious amount of momentum and any regular car driver needs to respect something that size with that much surface area to connect.


I do not think there are many of these out there yet, I've not seen any.

been making them for years

http://www.topgear.com/uk/land-rover/range-rover/road-test/supercharged

andydiysaver

custardy wrote: »

been making them for years

http://www.topgear.com/uk/land-rover/range-rover/road-test/supercharged

I've been driving for years, I've hardly got the fastest motor in the world but I can always get past a range rover, I cannot think of one fast range rover I've met to date and I drive a lot and see a lot of range rovers. Perhaps I'm in the wrong part of the country?

custardy

andydiysaver wrote: »

I've been driving for years, I've hardly got the fastest motor in the world but I can always get past a range rover, I cannot think of one fast range rover I've met to date and I drive a lot and see a lot of range rovers. Perhaps I'm in the wrong part of the country?

I have owned many fast cars.
My box on wheels can do 100+. Does that mean every car that passes me is faster,or simply going faster than me?

andydiysaver

custardy wrote: »

I have owned many fast cars.
My box on wheels can do 100+. Does that mean every car that passes me is faster,or simply going faster than me?

I have driven many cars, what I tend to think about at the wheel is more immediate concerns like cyclists and hazards, not ponder over deep philosophical questions such as the above which may cause me to drive in less efficient manner!


if you want that sort of thing what if you're on a vehicle doing the speed of light and you shine a torch straight forward, do you double it and thereby go back in time? note , I did not have this thought at the wheel and it's not even my thought to take credit for!

custardy

andydiysaver wrote: »

I have driven many cars, what I tend to think about at the wheel is more immediate concerns like cyclists and hazards, not ponder over deep philosophical questions such as the above which may cause me to drive in less efficient manner!


if you want that sort of thing what if you're on a vehicle doing the speed of light and you shine a torch straight forward, do you double it and thereby go back in time? note , I did not have this thought at the wheel and it's not even my thought to take credit for!

Are you driving while posting?
If not,then your post has no bearing on answering the question.

geerex

It looks like we've found all of the blameless, holier - than - thou cyclists on one thread!

I would just like to say thanks for all of the organs that you will provide to sock people in the future.

You're all so blinkered that you can't see the truth - you're the easily broken sack of skin balancing on two wheels, you're the ones who should remember that instead of trying to argue with metal boxes.