Freedom at last...

globalds

If I drove in my car with no lights on after sunset and chose when I wanted to obey road traffic rules in my car. I wouldn't be surprised if other road users gave me some stick ,even thought I was a hazard that shouldn't be on the road.

Yet so many cyclists seem shocked when the same reaction is the consequence of the way they behave.

An LED light can be bought from poundland ..There really is no excuse and yet I see it every morning and evening.

Marco_Panettone

modsandmockers wrote: »

The problem I have is that I have two grandchildren who have reached an age where I was looking forward to taking them out on the road with me. Twenty-odd years ago, I was an enthusiastic parent-helper with the school’s cycle training programme. Do these programmes still take place? If so, how do the schools rationalise their decision to teach today’s children that cycling on today’s roads is in any way a wise decision? It is cyclists themselves who complain about the danger levels which they face, and yet they continue to expose themselves to the risks, whilst simultaneously promoting cycling as a good way to go.

Earlier this year, I complained to my local council about the number of cyclists who routinely move onto the pavement at a particularly complicated set of roundabouts and pedestrian crossings. In reply, I was quoted a government document from around 2001 (I think) which stated that there are some situations in which it is reasonable for cyclists to ride on the pavement.

I think that cycling on today's roads is a bit like smoking tobacco - if somebody invented it today, it would be banned.

So, you complain that people ride on the road ("because it's too dangerous"), then you complain that people ride on the pavement? What exactly are you trying to say?


What is your solution? What would make the environment safe enough for you to cycle with the grandkids, as you'd like to?

Marco_Panettone

Johno100 wrote: »

Cycling advocates do seem to have a problem with cycling safety or rather perceived cycling safety. On one hand they stress how relatively safe cycling is because they want more people to take up their hobby and don't want them to be put off. But in the next breath they are campaigning for segregated cycle lanes, seeking more draconian restrictions on motor vehicles to 'keep cyclists safe' and shroud waving over every cycling fatality, regardless of circumstances. it must be a difficult path for them to tread.

You seem to be lumping sport and transport together somewhat. As a sport cycling is a hobby. As a mode of transport it's just getting from A to B in an efficient manner.


Cycling IS relatively safe, but it often doesn't feel safe enough (which is why more people don't ride bikes as a mode of transport). It can always be made safer through improved infrastructure, reduced volume and speed of motor vehicles, and improved behaviour.

Nebulous2

globalds wrote: »

If I drove in my car with no lights on after sunset and chose when I wanted to obey road traffic rules in my car. I wouldn't be surprised if other road users gave me some stick ,even thought I was a hazard that shouldn't be on the road.

Yet so many cyclists seem shocked when the same reaction is the consequence of the way they behave.

An LED light can be bought from poundland ..There really is no excuse and yet I see it every morning and evening.

The problem is that most cyclists don't do that yet people insist on treating them all the same. So people come on a cycling forum to deliberately bait cyclists that they know nothing about, because they have seen or see cyclists without lights. It's a lazy, casual discrimination that wouldn't be tolerated for many groups.

Nebulous2

Johno100 wrote: »

Cycling advocates do seem to have a problem with cycling safety or rather perceived cycling safety. On one hand they stress how relatively safe cycling is because they want more people to take up their hobby and don't want them to be put off. But in the next breath they are campaigning for segregated cycle lanes, seeking more draconian restrictions on motor vehicles to 'keep cyclists safe' and shroud waving over every cycling fatality, regardless of circumstances. it must be a difficult path for them to tread.

Cycling is safer by some measures than walking, with the main problem for both cyclists and pedestrians being sharing space with motorised vehicles. We have taken successful steps to improve safety for both groups. Yet safety hasn't improved as much as it has for people in cars.

The prize for getting more people cycling is absolutely enormous for society. It has the potential to increase health and wellbeing markedly, reducing pressures on health services while also reducing the pressures on the environment.

Si_Clist

modsandmockers wrote: »

Hi - I'm new on here, and I recently quit truck-driving, sold my car, and began cycling and riding the buses (it's called retirement).

Well, I'm in the same boat. I retired in 2011, we sold the car in August 2012, and since then both my wife and I go everywhere by bike unless it's icy or it's quicker by bus. I'm not a rabid cycling activist or anything, just an old git who uses his bike for everyday transport around and between towns

In the year to December 1st, I've done 2877 miles on one bike (electrically assisted) and probably another 5-600 on the other (unassisted). Not one of those miles was on a cycle path, cycle lane or anything other than normal roads, mixing it with cars and heavies.

We do all our shopping by bike, with trailer if necessary for stuff like sacks of chickenfeed, compost, cement or whatever. And incidentally, although we're often out on our (properly-lit) bikes at night, in pouring rain and so forth, neither of us has ever felt the need to wear a Magic Hat.

modsandmockers wrote: »

But I haven't yet worked out why so many cyclists are so willing to place themselves in mortal danger, and then blame anybody except themselves when they get hit.

So OK ... when you were driving your truck, did you ever work out why so many motorists are so willing to place themselves and/or often others in mortal danger, then blame anybody except themselves for the consequences?

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

Cycling advocates do seem to have a problem with cycling safety or rather perceived cycling safety. On one hand they stress how relatively safe cycling is because they want more people to take up their hobby and don't want them to be put off. But in the next breath they are campaigning for segregated cycle lanes, seeking more draconian restrictions on motor vehicles to 'keep cyclists safe' and shroud waving over every cycling fatality, regardless of circumstances. it must be a difficult path for them to tread.

Cyclist deaths are generally caused by a normally compliant motorist making a mistake.

Motorist deaths are generally caused by a massive error or injudicious action.

That is the crux of the problem. While cycling is overall a healthier more rewarding activity than motoring, it comes at an unacceptable price to all, namely a compliant driver whose momentary lapse of concentration may cause him to face prison and a cyclist whose family are devastated by their loss.

It's fair and reasonable to want to see a change in the current unacceptable equilibrium.

agrinnall

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Cycling is safer by some measures than walking, with the main problem for both cyclists and pedestrians being sharing space with motorised vehicles.

What are the ways in which pedestrians are at greater risk than cyclists? The only activity I can think of is that pedestrians may need to cross traffic streams more often than cyclists, but the opportunity to do so in pretty much complete safety should be available in most cases (although of course not always taken by many pedestrians - but that's a risk of their own making, not inherent in being a pedestrian).

DarkHorse

I have to agree that it is the compliant driver whose momentary lapse of concentration causes the majority of accidents that cyclists are involved in, and not the cyclist that causes the problem.

I speak from experience as 6 months ago I was cycling home from work, when a car that was obviously not paying any attention just pulled out of a give way junction, knocking me off. I broke my arm and leg (had to have surgery on my leg). And the police took no action against the driver.....his insurers however took full responsibility.

Johno100

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Cycling is safer by some measures than walking, with the main problem for both cyclists and pedestrians being sharing space with motorised vehicles. We have taken successful steps to improve safety for both groups. Yet safety hasn't improved as much as it has for people in cars.

And it never will unless either cyclists are segregated from motorised traffic (but they can and do fall off on their own:D) or the laws of physics are changed. Mixing >1 ton of metal travelling at any speed with a cyclist on a few kilos of bike is never going to end well for a cyclist if they meet.

Nebulous2 wrote: »

The prize for getting more people cycling is absolutely enormous for society. It has the potential to increase health and wellbeing markedly, reducing pressures on health services while also reducing the pressures on the environment.

Does it cure AIDS and world hunger as well? Do you realise that this almost religious fervour demonstrated by many cycling advocates who have 'seen the light' is almost as off putting as dicing with a 38 ton HGV. Not everybody wants to cycle, yes we might burn in the eternal fires of damnation but that is our choice.