Freedom at last...

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

I haven't changed my cycling roadcraft in the last 20 years. But there are many reasons why there has been year on year trend reduction in cyclist deaths. There are better roads and off road cycle paths. Bikes are better and brakes are better. Helmets are better. Bike lights are far better. Emergency medical care has improved. I think cyclists' attitude to their own safety probably hasn't changed much. It may surprise you to know that we all desperately want to live to cycle the next day, and that desire will always have been high.

Where I live, there is a serious possibility that cyclist deaths have been reduced by the fact that an increasing number of cyclists have realised that riding on the pavement is safer (for cyclists) than riding on the road. Off road cycle paths are a great idea, but cyclists like Strider refuse to use them.


Children's bikes are not toys. And that hasn't changed. I don't know what planet you are on, but your reasoning is so inanely flawed that you just have to be trolling.

I think that most of today's parents regard their childrens bikes as toys - very few of them take the trouble to educate their children in roadcraft.

I think that 20mph zones should be paved over, and re-labelled as pedestrian-and-cyclist-friendly zones. I also think that major road systems should be clearly prioritised for motorists - including inner-city hotspots, and cyclist blackspots.

modsandmockers

modsandmockers wrote: »

I think that 20mph zones should be paved over, and re-labelled as pedestrian-and-cyclist-friendly zones. I also think that major road systems should be clearly prioritised for motorists - including inner-city hotspots, and cyclist blackspots.

ps - I also think that bike manufacturers should be required to provide, as standard, the essential bits of kit that motor manufacturers have been providing for years. eg - a decent set of tyres, a decent lighting system, an effective rear-view mirror, some kind of signalling system and some kind of security device.

[Deleted User]

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

Or perhaps it would suffice to educate ignorant motorists about the laws of physics they way they already are.

When a very heavy object collides with a much lighter object the lighter one adopts the speed of the heavy one. A car crashing into a huge lump of concrete will be brought to a standstill, but a cyclist will be accelerated to virtually the same speed as the car.

The force required to accelerate the cyclist (and hence the damage it causes) is determined by the speed of the car, and the weight of the cyclist, not the car. This is Newtons second law of motion, F=ma.

It's the speed of the vehicle that's the issue, the weight of it is irrelevant.

SW17

brat wrote: »

I don't actually know what the correct interpretation is, but I prefer to think that 1.0m gap at 30mph or less and 1.5m gap at speeds over 30 are minimum passing distances.

I tend to agree with Strider that you should use the opposing lane to pass. As a motorist I like to think that any other vehicle should consider himself liable for any incident caused by his encroachment on any part of the width of the lane that I am established in.

That's not the law though, and however desirable it might be for drivers to use the opposing lane to pass, it's not really practical in all circumstances, given our road infrastructure. Cars have to overtake cyclists many more times than they overtake other cars, and traffic needs to flow.

No doubt there are many inconsiderate drivers, and clearly a driver can do more damage to a cyclist than vice versa, but cyclists are not perfect either and I would hope (perhaps in vain) that both sides could take a balanced view on how perfect they are.

Johno100

jack_pott wrote: »

It's the speed of the vehicle that's the issue, the weight of it is irrelevant.

Speeds the issue? Remember that spate of cycling deaths in London last year, left turning HGV's and undertaking (rather apt word:)) cyclists, i'd be surprised if any of those HGV's were doing more than 10mph but that didn't help the cyclists.

brat

SW17 wrote: »

That's not the law though, and however desirable it might be for drivers to use the opposing lane to pass, it's not really practical in all circumstances, given our road infrastructure. Cars have to overtake cyclists many more times than they overtake other cars, and traffic needs to flow.

No doubt there are many inconsiderate drivers, and clearly a driver can do more damage to a cyclist than vice versa, but cyclists are not perfect either and I would hope (perhaps in vain) that both sides could take a balanced view on how perfect they are.

Careless driving and inconsiderate driving is law governing the inappropriateness of certain driving practices. Granted, in this context, they would only be likely to be considered in the event of an accident, but if the proximity of the car to a cyclist was the issue that caused it to collide with the cyclist because she had to move out to avoid a pot hole, then questions will be asked of the motorist.

I believe to overtake within those gaps I mentioned is inconsiderate. Whether a prosecution would succeed I don't know. I would like to see the 1 and 1.5 metre rule come into law in this country, as it has in others.

SW17

brat wrote: »

Careless driving and inconsiderate driving is law governing the inappropriateness of certain driving practices. Granted, in this context, they would only be likely to be considered in the event of an accident, but if the proximity of the car to a cyclist was the issue that caused it to collide with the cyclist because she had to move out to avoid a pot hole, then questions will be asked of the motorist.

I believe to overtake within those gaps I mentioned is inconsiderate. Whether a prosecution would succeed I don't know. I would like to see the 1 and 1.5 metre rule come into law in this country, as it has in others.

I'm certainly not saying it's ok for drivers to be within less than 1m of a cyclist when overtaking, I don't like that when I'm cycling and I hope I don't get that close as a driver. I just meant that you don't have to be all the way in the other side of the road to give reasonable space to a cyclist, and our roads, especially in big cities, make it difficult if traffic is going to flow.

I'm not sure about wanting the 1/1.5m rule as law, but even if it were, I suspect enforcement would be as pitiful as it is with drivers using mobiles without hands free and cyclists going through red lights (two of my pet peeves)...I'd also like to see mandatory helmets for cyclists, slightly hypocritical as I never wore one in my youth, but never get on a bike without one now.

fred246

The only thing proven to occur if you enforce helmet wearing on cyclists is that less people cycle.

Johno100

fred246 wrote: »

The only thing proven to occur if you enforce helmet wearing on cyclists is that less people cycle.

That's refreshing honesty from a cycling advocate, could do with more of that.:T

SW17

fred246 wrote: »

The only thing proven to occur if you enforce helmet wearing on cyclists is that less people cycle.

A debatable assertion at best, but even so, saying something is not proven is hardly a reason not to take safety measures. Like wearing seat belts and drink driving, it might take a generation for the naysaying dinosaurs to die out (sadly literally in some cases), but the next generation wouldn't know any different and would accept it.