Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

andydiysaver wrote: »

a If anyone had told me pulling out In front of a car was a good idea I'd suggest that they'd need sectioning, what's next? the new way of crossing roads? "controlling" cars by leaping out in front of them , then making it to the other side?!

Absolutely.

For a cyclist to try and "control" traffic by blocking or obstructing it is just as arrogant and foolhardy as it would be for a pedestrian to try and "control" traffic by jumping out in front of it and slowly walking down the middle of the street.

aleph_0

andydiysaver wrote: »

...we're dismissing outright the possibility that these things are capable of any harm to us whatsoever, and we're attempting to take moral high ground in doing so

wake up you idiots, roads are dangerous, stop trying to punch above your weight!

Lets be clear here - these machines don't just move themselves. They need humans to operate them.

The argument that you now appear to be giving is that we must get out of the way of these people, because otherwise these people might get angry, and attack you with their dangerous machines?

That's a truly depressing view of humanity.

In contrast, I'm saying that humans are generally ok. But some people are unaware of the safe distance they need to leave when overtaking. All people are bad at spotting things we're not looking for (because human beings are broken, I blame tarvu).

hugheskevi

It is a shame the 4 groups of cyclists which the initial homogeneous group developed into all seem to insist on cycling on narrow roads at slow speeds where the traffic is moving freely around them and (as we learnt earlier in the thread) most cyclists go straight through a red and often intermingle pavement and road where they see fit...they have a death wish.

I always thought that in the context of the total number of cyclists the proportion represented by these groups would be very small, but you live and learn.

Although I did experience a cyclist holding me up a few months back when I was driving up in the Peak District. Damned annoying it was, as it took about half a minute to find somewhere to safely overtake him as he slowly went along. I wouldn't have noticed it normally, but I was very late for an appointment as I'd been stuck in traffic for 3 hours on the M1 driving up from London :mad:

PintAndAPie

andydiysaver wrote: »

again pint and pie, it's not my fault nor my arrogance that you and your flimsy legs cannot go as fast as a car made 30 years ago! Mine can't either, tour de france champ to be can't either, it's not personal, and you cannot blame me for that, you cannot call me arrogant for that because I am just stating fact , or did I miss something there?


The petrol engine generates power at a rate we humans cannot - it's that simple, these are high energy hydrocarbons we do not stand a chance trying to reproduce that explosive cycle via means of biological muscle reaction - it's a fact of life, so try and be an adult about it, grow up, and don't start calling me arrogant when all I've done is point out the truth!

I'm not sure if you're a troll, a fool or a c*nt. I'll sleep on it. Goodnight all.

aleph_0

andydiysaver wrote: »

and my neck of the woods - the roads are clogged as it is, and I think in most places this is now the case, and you also get more cyclists at rush hour when everyone's trying to get to work on time, not next week- so what you don't want is sacrifices for the holy cause pulling stupid tricks in the centre of a road at 5mph!

Sounds like you're quite lucky. You travel on a clogged commuting route, but with a high speed. Normally as things get clogged, they slow down. Something to do with the laws of physics, I think.

Everywhere I've lived average rush hour speed is usually lower than comfortable cycling speed. I do hope in such situations you think drivers should get out of the way of cyclists.

For reference, 10mph is easily a comfortable cycling pace. If we want to consider your caricatured lycra-wearing cyclist, he's probably doing 15+mph.

andydiysaver

aleph_0 wrote: »

The argument that you now appear to be giving is that we must get out of the way of these people, because otherwise these people might get angry, and attack you with their dangerous machines?

no the argument I'm giving is that they're dangerous machines operated by people of varying ability who cannot at all times be expected to slam on the brakes on roads rated at high speed limits to account for your need to be in the middle of them to prove a point!


it's not a point worth dying for, I'm sure there are people out there who have through no fault of their own killed a cyclist doing primary position in the kneejerk no warning sort of way they tend to - and I bet these people are demonised by something which in all probability was not at all their fault


I didn't say we'd get angry did I?, what I meant was we cannot be called upon day and night to make excuses for your crazy behaviour and mind read when the next crazy would be Lance Armstrong makes an wild, unannounced move right in front of us at about a tenth of our speed! one day will be your unlucky day - but alas, I know from what I've read that when that day come other nutcases will just leap straight back onto the cause and say your suicidal antics are all our fault.

andydiysaver

aleph_0 wrote: »

Sounds like you're quite lucky. Everywhere I've lived average rush hour speed is usually lower than comfortable cycling speed.
.

no, it's stop start, 30 can kill a cyclist. What do you suggest?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

aleph_0 wrote: »

Sounds like you're quite lucky. Everywhere I've lived average rush hour speed is usually lower than comfortable cycling speed.

I live in a hilly medium sized city with good road networks.

Most of the time, it's quite significantly quicker to take the car around town than a bike.

For reference, 10mph is easily a comfortable cycling pace.

On level ground, or for the young and fit, yes.

For a middle aged tree hugger puffing his way up a long hill, 3mph to 5mph is more typical in my town.

Which makes their insistence on riding in the middle of the road blocking traffic all the more frustrating for other motorists.

And as we all know.....

Johno100

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wow...

So in your mind it's appropriate to impede the progress of other traffic through lane blocking because you think a driver might not give you enough room one day?

Holy arrogance on a stick, Batman.....

But that's the way many of the militants think. And god forbid that you in a motorised vehicle do the same by 'closing the gap' and move to the left of the lane to prevent a dangerous undertake by a cyclist in your blind spot.

aleph_0

andydiysaver wrote: »

no the argument I'm giving is that they're dangerous machines operated by people of varying ability who cannot at all times be expected to slam on the brakes on roads rated at high speed limits to account for your need to be in the middle of them to prove a point!

When I learned to drive, I was taught to drive so that I could comfortably stop within the distance you can see clear.

If someone hasn't done that when I'm in primary, they won't do it when I'm in secondary either, so will risk hitting me when overtaking.

andydiysaver wrote: »

it's not a point worth dying for, I'm sure there are people out there who have through no fault of their own killed a cyclist doing primary position in the kneejerk no warning sort of way they tend to

What do you mean by that? If someone swerves out in front of you, then clearly, as a driver you might not be at fault (but, you might have been able to anticipate, as a cyclist and driver I've anticipated stupid behaviour by other cyclists/drivers/pedestrians correctly before).

But a cyclist who's in primary before you approach shouldn't cause a risk of an accident any more than another car/tractor/horse/unicorn.