Suicidal Cyclist

Norman_Castle

JustinR1979 wrote: »

Along with all the other 100's of people while a cockmuncher refuses to use the safer smoother cycle path?
Yeah right.


Too daft to use cyclepath, too daft to get a decent paying job and buy a car - goes hand in hand really.

Pleased to see your gaydars working. You're assuming they don't have a decent job and either want or don't already own a car.
All because you had to slow down for a cyclist. Too daft to drive.

Throbbe

Altarf wrote: »

As I said, cyclist 'logic' perceiving that a road, where you are relying on others not to kill you, is safer than a cycle path.

No-one assesses their travel choice in terms of absolute safety. I suspect millions of us drove to work this morning, even though it would have been much safer to have stayed in bed, or taken a bus, or purchased a tank for the journey. We made a choice based on a number of factors, including safety.

Is there any evidence that using a cycle path is safer? I've seen others claim the opposite, but genuinely haven't researched it.

Altarf

Throbbe wrote: »

Is there any evidence that using a cycle path is safer? I've seen others claim the opposite, but genuinely haven't researched it.

I cannot recall seeing any report of a cyclist being killed whilst using a cycle path.

19,000 cyclists killed or injured on the road last year (109 killed, 3,143 seriously injured, 16,186 slightly injured).

Roads safer?

Hanky_Panky

Idiophreak wrote: »

I don't use cycle paths because
1) They often require you to give way to join and/or leave the cycle path.
2) They're often poorly maintained, overgrown and crumpled with tree roots. Dog mess is also an issue (as above)
3) They often require you to give way at roundabouts/side roads etc
4) More often than not, you have to cross roads or take different routes around roundabouts etc to stay on the cycle path. This is annoying and confuses the hell out of your sat nav.
5) They're often short, token paths.
6) You're often at risk of people stepping out, car doors opening, car's reversing out of driveways, etc etc

You'll note that all of these are "often" the case, rather than "necessarily" the case...which is the point. You see the start of a cycle track and *odds on* there's going to be something about it that makes it worse than just staying on the road...So I just ignore them.

I am fortunate to live in Milton Keynes which has miles of Redways so potentially I could cycle all round MK and hardly touch a road. I do use them when I'm out for a tootle with the family at the weekend. I used to commute along them when I worked in the City Centre - all great.

I'm now a 'lycra clad enthusiast', didn't think it would happen to me but it has and I love it. Plus I've lost two stone and am significantly fitter than most people my age. I do not however use the Redways for all the reasons above plus it would be downright dangerous, not just for me but mainly all the other users of the Redways. Significantly more dangerous than me riding carefully and considerately on the road.

In my experience and certainly here they are not 'cycle' paths but shared for pedestrians too. So I'm cracking along at say 22-27 mph, dog on extendable lead leaps across my path and I'm off immediately not to mention the injury to the dog. Replace dog with small child/adult/motability scooter and you can see it is a recipe for disaster. This is all before I even mention the constant stop/start where the paths cross roads and so on.

Personally I get out of the grid roads as quickly as possible and thoroughly enjoy the country lanes.

I will fully admit that before taking up cycling in 2012 I did have a pretty poor attitude towards cyclists and it used to frustrate me if I was trapped behind a large group. It still does actually, I enjoy riding in a group but find the consideration of some of the riders to other road users also poor. I'm not into the more militant 'I have every right to use the whole road' attitude. I am amazed at the attitude of many non-cyclists (or those that claim to be cyclists. They may have a bike in the shed but it's done 10 miles in 10 years:p), even people that have know me years who exhibit many of the anti cycling guff posted on here - their ignorance is staggering.

I have been gobbed at, had things thrown at me, been tooted just as the van drew level with me, been cut up.........and so on. I have also been thanked many times for clearly making an effort to let them past and generally being thoughtful towards my fellow road users.

Throbbe

Altarf wrote: »

I cannot recall seeing any report of a cyclist being killed whilst using a cycle path.

19,000 cyclists killed or injured on the road last year (109 killed, 3,143 seriously injured, 16,186 slightly injured).

Roads safer?

In a past life I used to deal with vehicle accident data. Those statistics wouldn't have differentiated between carriageway and cyclepath, and certainly wouldn't have identified those crossing a side road from a cyclepath to another cyclepath as opposed to those cycling on the main road.

However, as I've said previously that's not how I, or most people, assess risk. I feel safe riding on the road, and it's generally easier, so that's what I do.

Altarf

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

So I'm cracking along at say 22-27 mph, dog on extendable lead leaps across my path

So there I am cracking along at say 60 mph down this narrow country lane in my shiny red sports car, and this cyclist shoots across my path.

Deciding on the correct speed for the conditions?

Altarf

Throbbe wrote: »

In a past life I used to deal with vehicle accident data. Those statistics wouldn't have differentiated between carriageway and cyclepath

You can be damn sure that the press would have a field day with any cyclist death on a cycle path. And yet nothing reported?

andrewf75

Johno100 wrote: »

So we take the 'cycling enthusiasts' out of the equation, who I assume include commuting cyclists (which represent 1.9% of total commuters in my region) and that leaves the dedicated cycle infrastructure for the "ordinary people"? But aren't we putting the cart before the horse hear, where is the demand other than from cycling evangelists for this cycling infrastructure?

There you go 2% of commuters cycle! That is way out of line with more progressive countries. In Holland its about 50% and they put the infrastructure in place first, then the percentage increased.

It is for a tiny minority in this country, those who aren't your archetypal 'cycle enthusiast' who will always deem cycle paths / segregated cycle lanes not fit for purpose, but still cycle. If my local High Street is transformed from two lanes in either direction (or one lane and on street parking) to one lane and one cycle lane for these none existent cyclists, whose quality of life will be improved? The drivers stuck in the increased congestion being squeezed into one lane, the shop keepers who lose passing trade because of the removal of parking spaces and increased congestion or your imaginary cycling converts?

Look to the long term and more people will cycle so that means more people will be living more healthily and saving money, while there will be less congestion for those who do drive.

Its not imaginary, there are real world examples of similar countries with similar cultures and climates! If 50% (or whatever it is) of Dutch people cycle short journeys, why can't that happen here? Serious question: Have you been to Holland? I defy anyone to actually look at the infrastructure and say that it isn't a quality of life improvement.

I accept that in the short term, there may be some disadvantages, because people won't start cycling overnight, but surely we should be looking long term?

Throbbe

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I have also been thanked many times for clearly making an effort to let them past and generally being thoughtful towards my fellow road users.

That's a point worth making. While I'll take primary for my own safety when necessary, I will also make an effort to avoid impeding faster moving vehicles, such as pulling aside where it's safe, or easing off as people are overtaking, and when there is a narrow section where it's not possible to pass I'll usually try to speed up to get through it quickly.

I think most people recognise that courtesy, and it's a very rare occasion that I get a horn sounded at me or similar.

I think the militant road users are few and far between and only tend to stand out because of their behaviour.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Number of cyclist killed on the road is > Number of cyclist killed on cycle paths.

That's certainly the case where I live, probably only because we hardly have any cycle paths.

The failure in logic is choosing to ride in the most dangerous place, the road, rather than the "best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world".

The best logic is to use what is the most suitable and the most convenient route, taking all important factors into account.
The risks associated with the use of the road affect my wife's thoughts to the level that she will not cycle to work, she walks instead. I'm more confident on the bike, so I cycle on the road without worry, because I make the traffic behind me have to make conscious decisions around me.
The added risk to me of cycling to work is, in my view, more than offset by the benefits. I don't (and probably wouldn't) use a cyclepath at all on my commute, a) because there isn't one and b) those that have been built so far in town are crap.