We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Suicidal Cyclist
Comments
-
RichardD1970 wrote: »Which is why they use the road.
Why should their commute take twice as long as it needs to be when there is a perfectly good road they can do 25mph on?
Because the road is more dangerous.
Their risk assessment is flawed, they are trading a few minutes time saving against living.
As demonstrated here -Retrogamer wrote: »The only time i've been close to having an accident on the road is when a motorist wasn't looking properly, or was looking properly and just didn't care.0 -
Missing the point that it was the cyclist speed that was making them unsafe on the cycle path.
I'd agree with that. Cycle paths are not an appropriate place to be doing those speeds (and without a hill or tailwind I'd struggle anyway!).
DfT advice is "Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."0 -
Because the road is more dangerous.
Their risk assessment is flawed, they are trading a few minutes time saving against living.
As demonstrated here -
Their reasons are really not your concern. If you are a motorist you have a duty to accommodate and avoid. It's really that simple.
Safety is a key issue, but it's not always the primary one.
Car drivers would be safer if they all drove at 10mph rather than 30mph, but they don't do that. Why not?Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
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.
Sorry, please point to where I've said it's safer?
Honestly, it's not something I give much thought to...I think there's more risk of *serious* accidents on the road, I think there's more risk of minor accidents on cycle paths...and I think the stupid stripes of coloured tarmac in the gutter are the worst of both worlds.
But, like I said, it's a risk assessment...I deem the risk of accident or injury on the roads to be worth the significant savings in time and effort of using them.0 -
Their reasons are really not your concern. If you are a motorist you have a duty to accommodate and avoid. It's really that simple.
So you are willing to place your safety in the hands of thousands of random motorists, and hope that they don't kill you.
Rather than use a cycle path, where you are in control of your destiny.Car drivers would be safer if they all drove at 10mph rather than 30mph, but they don't do that. Why not?
Crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts. You can drive into something at 70mph, and probably walk away.0 -
So you are willing to place your safety in the hands of thousands of random motorists, and hope that they don't kill you.
Rather than use a cycle path, where you are in control of your destiny.
Crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts. You can drive into something at 70mph, and probably walk away.
The number of motorists killed in RTAs is far higher than the number of pedestrians killed on the footpath. So I assume you walk everywhere?
Or are you happy putting your life in the hands of other motorists and driving on the road?
As a car driver, is someone coming the other way decides to swerve into you, you'll likely die. You trust that won't happen.
As a cyclist, if someone driving past you decides to swerve into you, you'll likely die. You trust that won't happen.
I don't really understand the difference, here.0 -
Crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts. You can drive into something at 70mph, and probably walk away.brat wrote:Car drivers would be safer if they all drove at 10mph rather than 30mph, but they don't do that. Why not?
I know from experience that's quite unlikely, but you sidestepped my point - something you don't like others doing...;)Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
-
So you are willing to place your safety in the hands of thousands of random motorists, and hope that they don't kill you.
Rather than use a cycle path, where you are in control of your destiny.
Ignoring the strawman phrasing, yes. Several people have explained why they make this judgement. Cycling on the road really isn't that dangerous, and on balance that is where I prefer to be. You can clearly read so I assume you are being deliberately obtuse, and I see little benefit in continuing.
You may not agree with our assessment, but that's because we all have different approaches to risk and convenience. Welcome to the human race.0 -
Idiophreak wrote: »The number of motorists killed in RTAs is far higher than the number of pedestrians killed on the footpath. So I assume you walk everywhere?
You are confusing deaths per journey, rather than deaths per mile.
Cyclists when presented with two similar options for distance, seem to choose to use the more dangerous option as they seem to want to blame others when they are killed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards