Freedom at last...

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

Not 'religious fervour' as you see it, it's fact.

Starting to cycle regularly has arguably the same health dividend as stopping smoking or controlling your diet. The fitness dividend has many other recorded benefits too.
And while it's recognised that there are many for whom reason will necessarily fall on deaf ears, it's right for the improving health and financial well being of the nation that we should have the conversation.

Strider590

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

An experienced cyclist doesn't ask for those things.

Cycle lanes cause more issues than they solve, most are badly designed, full of debris/glass/nails/leaves/potholes/drains. Which leads to agro when a cyclist doesn't use said cycle lane.
It's teaching drivers that the road belongs to them and cycle paths to the cyclists (except when driver needs somewhere to park). A very dangerous thing to do.......

It's the reason why Sir Winston Churchill had "road tax" abolished in 1936, drivers were starting to assume ownership of the roads, to the detriment of cyclists and horse riders. The continuation of that defunct term is responsible for the larger portion of poor attitudes toward cyclists from drivers.

As someone who drives 95% of the time, I find it shocking the risks that drivers will take to get ahead of a cyclist and straight into the next traffic jam 5 seconds sooner.
Some people here have said that it's normally competent drivers having a momentary lapse of concentration, well it's NOT, 90% of the time it's pure aggression and self righteousness.

"Must get in front of the inferior human on the bicycle, in order to prove how superior I am".

I'm not about to pretend it's all the drivers fault, I've come across some right pr1cks on two wheels, usually being deliberately obstructive, but even when there isn't even a cyclist around, I would say that most drivers are incompetent morons.

Nebulous2

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

I've spent most of my life working in health care. For quite a few years now I've been increasingly aware just how much of our health is about lifestyle choices, not just something that happens to us.

Cycling is good but it is only one answer. Basically people need to move more and eat less- or better. Walking the dog, walking to work, climbing the stairs, swimming or going to the gym are all other possibilities.

Cycling is particularly good, because it is so efficient, you can cover huge distances and you can use it to replace more costly forms of transport such as buses or cars. It doesn't need to be leisure cycling.

Nobody is offering you the fires of damnation, but they are offering you the prize of a longer and healthier life.

Nebulous2

agrinnall wrote: »

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).

Some pedestrian accidents will be down to risky behaviour by pedestrians, and some will be down to risky behaviour by others. Have you never seen a newspaper report of a car mounting a pavement and killing someone?

One of the indicators the government uses is deaths per billion miles. From 2001-2010 in the UK there were 28 deaths per billion miles travelled for cyclists and 35 deaths per billion miles for pedestrians. That means for a relatively short commute you have more chance of being killed walking it than cycling it. Both the risks are very small though.

Still on relative risk to put cycling in some kind of bigger picture.

Accidental deaths in England and Wales for 2011:-
All accidents 11,390
Transport accidents 1,815
Accidental poisoning 1,993
Accidental poisoning by alcohol 381
Falls on stairs 693
Pedestrian in traffic accident 365
Cyclist in traffic accident 98

So seven times more deaths falling down stairs than on a bike!

Strider590

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Some pedestrian accidents will be down to risky behaviour by pedestrians, and some will be down to risky behaviour by others. Have you never seen a newspaper report of a car mounting a pavement and killing someone?

One of the indicators the government uses is deaths per billion miles. From 2001-2010 in the UK there were 28 deaths per billion miles travelled for cyclists and 35 deaths per billion miles for pedestrians. That means for a relatively short commute you have more chance of being killed walking it than cycling it. Both the risks are very small though.

Still on relative risk to put cycling in some kind of bigger picture.

Accidental deaths in England and Wales for 2011:-
All accidents 11,390
Transport accidents 1,815
Accidental poisoning 1,993
Accidental poisoning by alcohol 381
Falls on stairs 693
Pedestrian in traffic accident 365
Cyclist in traffic accident 98

So seven times more deaths falling down stairs than on a bike!

I don't put much faith in statistics.

5% of all road deaths are caused by drink driving.

Therefore sober drivers are more dangerous.

lisyloo

there were 28 deaths per billion miles travelled for cyclists and 35 deaths per billion miles for pedestrians

This does of course ignore the fact that the average walking commute will be shorter than the average cycling commute.

A more extreme example would be comparing jet travel with walking which are two forms of transport that clearly don't cover the same distance.
ok, it's not SO extreme with cycling, but you get the point.........

Another thing worth pointing out is that the extra longevity provided by cycling outweighs the life lost through accidents.

modsandmockers

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

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?

I didn't 'complain' about others riding on the road - I said I don't do it much myself. And I never ride on the pavement.

As everybody agrees, a safe environment for cyclists might be a dedicated infrastructure, but it just ain't going to happen, and my grandchildren would probably still be at risk from those members of the cycling fraternity who would use such a network as their own private race-track.

Si_Clist wrote: »

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.



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?

I'm glad. and not at all surprised, that you never ride on the pavement. You obviously share my old-fashioned attitude about such things. What advice would you give to a class of 10-year-olds (and their parents) who might be interested in following your example?.

The difference between dangerous driving and dangerous cycling is that the dangerous cyclist is the most likely, and probably only, victim of his/her behaviour. Dangerous driving, as you say, is highly likely to damage the health of other road-users.

modsandmockers

lisyloo wrote: »

Another thing worth pointing out is that the extra longevity provided by cycling outweighs the life lost through accidents.

There are many accident-free ways to reduce the risks of heart failure, stroke, diabetes etc etc, and it is only cycling which requires you to immerse yourself in a cloud of exhaust emissions and run the gauntlet of competing for road space with road users who are using vehicles which are purpose-designed for use on modern roads.

It is just another cliche to say how much I hate statistics, but I have looked at some numbers about child cyclist fatalities, and there is a category for 10-15 year-olds and, surprise surprise, they are at the high end of the risk levels. Why is it regarded as acceptable for 10-15-year-old cyclists to try to mix on equal terms with cars, buses and trucks etc, and for their parents not to be held guilty of neglect when something goes wrong?

Why is it acceptable for somebody who has been banned from driving cars to be allowed to jump on a bike and continue with his/her previous approach to road safety?

brat

Strider590 wrote: »

Some people here have said that it's normally competent drivers having a momentary lapse of concentration, well it's NOT, 90% of the time it's pure aggression and self righteousness.

The majority of cycle fatalities are due to not being seen by the motorist or unthinkingly driving too close past them, rather than an aggressive or knowingly careless manoeuvre past them.

The point I was earlier trying to make is that simple carelessness or inattention is enough to kill a cyclist, whereas it usually takes much more than that to kill another motorist. The difference between the two types of driver attitude is generally quite marked.

Johno100

brat wrote: »

The majority of cycle fatalities are due to not being seen by the motorist or unthinkingly driving too close past them, rather than an aggressive or knowingly careless manoeuvre past them.

You mean like cycling up the inside of a left turning HGV?