Freedom at last...

modsandmockers

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.

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.

I think carelessness and inattention is in no way confined to motorists - whilst waiting for my bus, I rarely see a cyclist who looks behind whilst approaching the mini-roundabout - the motorist who is passing too close always seems to come as a complete surprise.

Johno100 wrote: »

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

As an ex-trucker, the question of HGV blindspots is, for me, a whole new can of worms, but since most cyclists seem to accept the unavoidability of HGV blindspots, it is indeed surprising that they repeatedly put themselves into such an easily-identified danger area.

Nebulous2

modsandmockers wrote: »

What advice would you give to a class of 10-year-olds (and their parents) who might be interested in following your example?

Okay I'm going to assume you are serious here and I'm going to respond in kind, because this is really important. I've been thinking about your post most of the day and I've decided to give it a go.

When I was young I lived near the seaside and I was hardly ever in the house. I climbed trees, climbed cliffs, rode a bike and ran about with my friends and had a great childhood. There's a pretty good chance you did the same.

Now over the past thirty or forty years most of that has slowly but surely disappeared. Children nowadays rarely go out on their own, aren't allowed to the park, aren't allowed to climb trees and aren't allowed to ride bikes.

So what do they do instead? They watch TV, eat junk and play computer games in their bedrooms with BMIs well into the 30s.

Why has this happened? It has happened because we value them and worry about them. We are terrified anything happens to them, and as a result we are smothering them. The sad thing is the risks haven't got worse and some things are actually safer than they were in our day. Is climbing a tree more dangerous than it used to be?

Some people are fighting against it. Some people let their children go to the park on their own, despite being criticised as bad parents. Some nurseries for pre-school children operate entirely outdoors with children learning outside as we did.

So bringing this back to cycling; I had to visit a primary school (5-11 year olds) about a year ago, which is rare occurence for me. I turned up on my bike and the first thing I saw was a huge banner saying something like "We're part of the cycle to school scheme." My first thought was- I'll bet that doesn't work.

I got in and there were rows of bikes, around 80 for a school of 400 children. I couldn't quite believe it and asked the teacher whether there was a cycling event on. He said no, we're always like this. We have more bike racks on order because we don't have enough at the moment.

You know the sad thing about that for me though? It was a prosperous suburb, with rich middle class people. Poorer children are still mainly missing out in this as in lots of other health and education related areas. It's a start but it hasn't spread very far and most people in my view still focus on the wrong risks. They worry about the immediate horrific risk from a stranger or an accident, without seeing the risks from furred arteries and stones of fat.

If you really want to cycle with your grandchildren and you are horrified by the thought of doing that on the road then I'd suggest getting them more robust bikes and looking for some decent cycle tracks. We have a couple of unused railway lines around here that have been converted. They have no traffic and are reasonably flat. Close to town there are a lot of pedestrians and dogs but these thin out quite quickly as you get further out.

Good luck to you and them whatever you do - like everybody else I'm sure you want the best for them.

modsandmockers

Nebulous2 wrote: »

They watch TV, eat junk and play computer games in their bedrooms with BMIs well into the 30s.

It has happened because we value them and worry about them. We are terrified anything happens to them, and as a result we are smothering them

Nebulous2 - I appreciate your carefully considered post, and I am in total agreement with your general 'drift'.

We are rapidly wandering off-topic, but I disagree with the second bit of the section of your post which I have quoted.

It is the adults who have taken to watching TV, eating junk, and playing computer games whilst becoming obese, and their children know no different. At least the middle classes pay some kind of lip service to the idea of cycling, but I wonder how many of them actually spend part of the weekend on a family bike ride. When my grandchildren turn out of school, the pavement is clogged with children on all sorts of devices from scooters to electric cars, and pedestrians have to step aside - it is not a middle-class area!

This is probably similar to the training which many of today's militant cyclists received during their recent school days.

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

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

The recent raised awareness by cyclists of the hgv industry's intransigence in dealing with their vehicles' shocking blind spots has led to a reduction in this cause of fatalities.
From my own cycling experience the biggest danger from hgvs is when they overtake, then forget how long their tail is and move back into your space. They almost always have the banal yellow sticker on the back that says something like "Cyclists beware, because I can't drive".

But in terms of causation, I only have my own experience in our own county. In recent years we've had

• A cyclist taken out while on a roundabout by a car entering the roundabout.
• A cyclist killed by being unable to brake on a 25% descent and colliding with a wall.
• A coach driver killing two cyclists that he didn't see ahead of him because of low sun
• An elderly cyclist overtaken too closely by an hgv causing the cyclist to be drawn under the rear wheels. Hgv failed to stop.
• A cyclist careered into by a young driver in a transit who lost control on a bend on a rural road due to highly inappropriate speed.
• A drunk almost unlit cyclist knocked off his bike in darkness in thick fog by a motorist who didn't see him until too late. He was using the centre line of a dual carriageway to navigate his route home. Once knocked to the ground, he was run over by another vehicle.
• A drunk cyclist who lost control on a steep downhill returning home from the pub. He collided with a wall killing himself.
• A commuter cyclist heading to work on a dual carriageway was cycling past an entry slip. The emerging motorist didn't see him despite his array of lights because he was checking his mirrors to ensure that the dual carriageway was clear for him to enter. He knocked the cyclist off and another motorist killed him.
• Two cyclists on a tandem overtaken too closely by an hgv causing them to be drawn under the wheels.

These won't be all the cycle fatalities in recent years, but they are all I can recall that are not still sub judice.

So in my experience about 60% of cyclists have been killed by the momentary inattention of motorists, 30% killed by the cyclists own error, and 10% by a motorist driving dangerously.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

This is probably similar to the training which many of today's militant cyclists received during their recent school days.

I'm keen to know your definition of "militant cyclist". Is it the cyclist who gets annoyed because a motorist has endangered him, or do you have an alternative definition?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

I think carelessness and inattention is in no way confined to motorists - whilst waiting for my bus, I rarely see a cyclist who looks behind whilst approaching the mini-roundabout - the motorist who is passing too close always seems to come as a complete surprise.

You probably don't fully appreciate just how aware the cyclist is. I often hear this kind of comment, yet it doesn't translate into collisions. There is only a limited range of actions that a cyclist can take to prevent being overtaken too closely. Looking behind when a vehicle is on the point of overtaking is not a clever choice.
A very close passing vehicle is usually not only a surprise, but it can shock too. Fortunately, while a good proportion of vehicles don't comply with the Highway Code advice on overtaking space, not many overtake so closely to cause you to get a fright.

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

I'm keen to know your definition of "militant cyclist". Is it the cyclist who gets annoyed because a motorist has endangered him, or do you have an alternative definition?

My definition of a militant cyclist is one who cannot recognise, and therefore cannot make allowances for, his/her own vulnerability. Militant cyclists also make an awful lot of noise, whereas defensive cyclists, like defensive drivers, just pass on by.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

My definition of a militant cyclist is one who cannot recognise, and therefore cannot make allowances for, his/her own vulnerability.

Ok, that's a new one on me. Do you know the dictionary definition of militant, because this description of a cyclist has nothing to do with 'militancy'?

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

Ok, that's a new one on me. Do you know the dictionary definition of militant, because this description of a cyclist has nothing to do with 'militancy'?

My dictionary, published in 1999, defines 'militant' as being 'very active or aggressive in the support of a cause'.

Nebulous2

brat wrote: »

You probably don't fully appreciate just how aware the cyclist is. I often hear this kind of comment, yet it doesn't translate into collisions.

I came to cycling relatively late, mainly to lose weight, but the bike became much more important than my weight. One of the great surprises for me has been how tuned into my environment I am.

My hearing isn't the best in the world. I manage to tune out a lot of people's conversation when the TV is on, yet I can tell a great deal about where a car is and what it's doing by sound.

We were in Cornwall on holiday and were out cycling as a family in narrow lanes with high hedges. I was taking up the rear and as we approached a gap I shouted, "pull in here, there's a car coming." After it passed my wife said "how did you know there was a car?" "I heard it" I said. She then said "I hardly think that's possible, you never hear anything!"