Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

aleph_0

andydiysaver wrote: »

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.

You're describing how a good driver overtakes a cyclist. But, many drivers will pass going too close, and will try to maintain their line, rather than correctly overtake.

Edited to Add: The other autopilot-y issue is the mindset "there's a cyclist, I must overtake immediately". Even in situations when the manoeuvre is pointless and/or dangerous (e.g. approaching queuing traffic, the driver is turning left soon, there isn't enough room to overtake)

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.

I've got a very good grasp of mathematics, but you're rather missing the point. Almost all cyclists are perfectly aware of the risk heavy vehicles pose to them. In fact, you defined 'militant' ones as those that made overtaking difficult. Only swapping to secondary position when it is safe to do so seems like a rider well aware of the risks.

I agree, being aware of the risks from drivers making mistakes. I try to mitigate them as much as possible - that will include riding in the centre of narrow lanes or in situations when I feel (and if your judgement is different, you should just go along with my judgement, even if you disagree, or it holds up progress). Similarly, I accept that I'll often be held up by heavy traffic. That sounds quite rational. Does that make me militant? I do hope so, I haven't been called militant before (full disclosure: I don't wear lycra, if that makes a difference).


What is annoying is your "have the basic laws of physics on my side mate" claim. Maybe it's a misunderstanding. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean? To me, it implies "I have more right to this road space because I'm bigger". Which I disagree with. Your car has more kinetic energy. But, as a wise man once said, "with great kinetic energy comes great responsibility". I would argue that you have more responsibility to not endanger others (including anticipating and allowing for the mistakes of others).

Cyclists are well aware of the risk from motor vehicles - and try to mitigate the risks - but the risk they pose doesn't give a driver more rights.

Retrogamer

andydiysaver wrote: »

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.

Fair enough. I use a dictionary for word definitions myself, as Wiki can be edited by pretty much anyone so isn't always an accurate source for info.

andydiysaver wrote: »

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.

Who is "we"?
I drive cars as well as ride motorcycles and bicycles.
When i pass a cyclist most of the time it's over in a few seconds or at most 20-30 seconds. Once i've passed them though i don't think anymore of it.

If a cyclist done something dangerous though and i thought they were an idiot for it, then i'd probably think about that a lot longer due to emotions taking part and depending on what they done adrenaline in the mix. That's not unique to cyclists though, that can apply to cars as well. It's just more often than not cyclists in the UK aren't as common as cars so we target them more.

andydiysaver wrote: »

In the Netherlands and Italy when i was there, in most towns cyclists outnumber the motorists by quite a bite. No one mentions bad cyclists in those countries, but a lot of the time bad driving from dangerous motorists is the topic for road related banter.


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.

I'm confused to the last part.
Where did i imply cars weren't heavier than bikes, or trucks weren't heavier than most cars?
I don't disagree with any of these points but you're responding like i have.
It doesn't need to be a fast car to be dangerous or even a heavy one. My first car weighed under 900kg and could do about 80 flat
out so it was very light and slow by today's standards but i'm quite sure if i hit a cyclist, another car or pedestrian at that speed it would have been fatal for someone.
You're going on about something i haven't disagreed with there i'm afraid.

What has been mentioned a few times though but you seem to ignore is sweeping statements don't work for any group. This "we" and "you cyclists" type of stuff doesn't always work. A lot of cyclists drive cars as well so it's not like the 2 groups are completely ignorant towards how one another operate on the roads.
I maybe meet 1 bad cyclist a week on the roads but rarely a day goes by where i don't see a bad motorist. Is it fair to say all motorists are bad because of this? Of course not. If only motorists would apply this same method of reasoning to cyclists perhaps we would get along a bit better.

Marco_Panettone

Nobody has questioned the damage fast-moving, heavy vehicles can do to pedestrians and cyclists (physics).


People ARE (rightly) questioning what the responses to this should be. Many drivers seem to be in the "get out of my way" camp. I'm more in the "strict liability" camp where the person carrying the most force has a greater responsibility to more vulnerable road users.


Legally, cyclists and pedestrians have every right to be on the road. Motorists are there by licence.


As always, much of the danger comes from being forced into a space that isn't suitable for the vehicles using it. Better protected infrastructure for cyclists and fewer journeys made by motor vehicles would have a huge impact on road safety.

andydiysaver

custardy wrote: »

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

no I'm not driving while posting, only a nutter would do that


the question is not relevant to the thread is it, it's about as relevant as the one I asked you


do you regularly come up with the Socrates stuff while on two wheels? <<case in point - irrelevant!

andydiysaver

Retrogamer wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of these points but you're responding like i have.
It doesn't need to be a fast car to be dangerous or even a heavy one. My first car weighed under 900kg and could do about 80 flat
out so it was very light and slow by today's standards but i'm quite sure if i hit a cyclist, another car or pedestrian at that speed it would have been fatal for someone.
You're going on about something i haven't disagreed with there i'm afraid.

it's amazing isn't it, you find out something new every day and today I found out that I lived in the Netherlands! don't take offence I'm a mickey taker by nature, I'm not meaning bad by it


on a more serious note - the disagreement factor, If I replied to every counter post I'd be here all day cause there are more cyclists on this thread than motorists just like in 5 years time there will be more cyclists on these roads than motorists at which point I up and move to somewhere where the speed limit isn't 2 miles an hour (possibly not Netherlands!)


so I'm replying to more than you, if we have some common ground then good afterall we're from the two sides of the great divide and while I welcome such talks I fear the next time I'm on the road and I see yet another two wheeled idiot jump a red light and risk their lives doing it( and the mental health of the guy on the other side that might hit him and kill him) I may again become more jaded......

andydiysaver

aleph_0 wrote: »

I agree, being aware of the risks from drivers making mistakes. I try to mitigate them as much as possible - that will include riding in the centre of narrow lanes or in situations when I feel (and if your judgement is different, you should just go along with my judgement, even if you disagree, or it holds up progress). .

that my friend epitomises the jumped up militant cyclist, I could not have put it better myself had I done a market research exercise and consulted 2000 of the lycra clad zealots in the middle of France!


what you are saying there is you are laying down the law to us, and if we don't like it tough


and you can't say that when most of you you weigh comfortably under 100 kilograms - to put it bluntly - you have a death wish if you persist with such an attitude problem - before you say it - NO NOT because we're all merciless bloodthirsty cyclist killers waiting for the opportunity, but because we make mistakes like all human beings, and we can't account for your egocentric narcissim every second of every day because you've got a flawed personality trait and think you know better than all else! one day whether you think you are right or wrong, you'll force a mistake.

PintAndAPie

andydiysaver wrote: »

that my friend epitomises the jumped up militant cyclist, I could not have put it better myself had I done a market research exercise and consulted 2000 of the lycra clad zealots in the middle of France!


what you are saying there is you are laying down the law to us, and if we don't like it tough


and you can't say that when most of you you weigh comfortably under 100 kilograms - to put it bluntly - you have a death wish if you persist with such an attitude problem - before you say it - NO NOT because we're all merciless bloodthirsty cyclist killers waiting for the opportunity, but because we make mistakes like all human beings, and we can't account for your egocentric narcissim every second of every day because you've got a flawed personality trait and think you know better than all else! one day whether you think you are right or wrong, you'll force a mistake.

Riding in the centre of the lane where appropriate is not laying down the law, it is riding to the law. Why shouldn't a road user put themself in a position that minimises the risk to themselves? That isn't narcisism, that is just common sense.

bitmadmax

Interesting panorama documentary tonight (8.30PM BBC1) looking into drivers who kill. It claims 5 people a day are killed on Britain's roads by careless/negligent motorists.

andydiysaver

PintAndAPie wrote: »

Riding in the centre of the lane where appropriate is not laying down the law, it is riding to the law. Why shouldn't a road user put themself in a position that minimises the risk to themselves? That isn't narcisism, that is just common sense.

because I've never seen it done appropriately and I drive every day -they're as light as a feather, wind can blow them 5 feet off course and yet they act like they're the rule makers - they do not learn and sadly more of them will die. personal choice will play a part in this every bit as mistakes motorists make. if you are in the way of a heavy vehicle capable of speeds 20 times the speed you can do driven by someone who may be a good driver but may not be a good driver, then being right in front of them while being blown all over the shop by the slightest gust of wind is anything but the safest place.


are a lot of cyclists gamblers? I'd be interested in the study if they do one - afterall - they can't reckon on who is coming yet they take the same risks anyway - sounds like playing the odds to me.

Johno100

bitmadmax wrote: »

Interesting panorama documentary tonight (8.30PM BBC1) looking into drivers who kill. It claims 5 people a day are killed on Britain's roads by careless/negligent motorists.

It will be interesting to see how they come up with that figure.

5 x 365 = 1,825 deaths per year due to "careless/negligent motorists"

All road deaths in 2013 = 1,713

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671608/Number-road-deaths-falls-lowest-level-1926-despite-14-increase-number-motorway-fatalities.html