Suicidal Cyclist

Altarf

Tobster86 wrote: »

Assuming both (and this is by far and away the most likely scenario for both) don't die on the roads, which one of these '!!!!!! road users' is most likely to die as a great big middle-aged fatty?

The middle-aged fatty ex-cyclist who was injured in a road accident and can no longer exercise, and not the fit and trim motorist who drives themselves to the gym.

Tobster86

Altarf wrote: »

The middle-aged fatty ex-cyclist who was injured in a road accident and can no longer exercise, and not the fit and trim motorist who drives themselves to the gym.

But people that drive to a gym have personalities that get them punched outside a pub, which can sometimes prove fatal or disabling.

Altarf

Tobster86 wrote: »

But people that drive to a gym have personalities that get them punched outside a pub, which can sometimes prove fatal or disabling.

I defer to your experience of bar punch ups.

brat

brat wrote:

...you still haven't answered why motorists travel faster than 10mph, given that any increase in speed increases their first and third party risk?

Ok, so I've asked the question a couple of times now with no sensible answer from Altarf, Johno or the rest.

We're (mostly) all motorists, so the following question could be open to all, but I'm particularly keen to hear Altarf's reasoning.

A motorist who legally drives along a quiet A road at 60 miles per hour is doing so in the knowledge that if he collides with an oncoming vehicle that has deviated from path he and his vehicle occupants are likely to die or suffer very serious injuries.
A motorist who legally drives along a quiet A road at 40 miles per hour is doing so in the knowledge that if he collides with an oncoming vehicle that has deviated from path he and his vehicle occupants are more likely to suffer less life threatening injuries than at 60 miles per hour.

So why (specifically in relation to risk assessment) does the motorist drive at 60mph rather than 40mph?

BillyMansell

Tobster86 wrote: »

Assuming both (and this is by far and away the most likely scenario for both) don't die on the roads, which one of these '!!!!!! road users' is most likely to die as a great big middle-aged fatty?

You're right, it should be the !!!!!! road user and the evidence is clear that even with their equally diminished intellectual capacity it's more likely to be the fatty driver than the slim cyclist that will die first.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

So why (specifically in relation to risk assessment) does the motorist drive at 60mph rather than 40mph?

You underestimate the safety features on modern cars. 20 years ago it might have made a difference, today, with crumple zones, airbags, abs, stability control, etc, not really. You are equally likely to walk away from either.

Whereas safety features for cyclists have not changed, unless you consider a polystyrene hat a significant improvement.

The safety improvements for cyclists are moving them away from the dangerous lumps of metal.

Throbbe

Altarf wrote: »

You underestimate the safety features on modern cars. 20 years ago it might have made a difference, today, with crumple zones, airbags, abs, stability control, etc, not really. You are equally likely to walk away from either.

Arf. With such a poor grasp of rudimentary mechanics you'll have to excuse me if I take your advice on risk with a generous pinch of salt.

[Deleted User]

Johno100 wrote: »

What would the cycling activists have to campaign for then?

Safer roads and drivers. Fewer drivers and more cyclists. Healthier population.

hugheskevi

Coincidentally, there is a clip just uploaded to YouTube showing an excellent cycle lane - nice and wide, segregated from a main road. Doubtless drivers on the main road would wonder why any cyclist wouldn't use such a magnificent piece of cycling infrastructure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YDPFqkY4Hs

Link to the accident mentioned at the start of the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW6CfCpNE_M

Still, I'm sure we'll find out in due course that the cycle paths which are mysteriously unused by cyclists in the earlier discussion are meticulously maintained and swept by the local council every morning

RichardD1970

Altarf wrote: »

You underestimate the safety features on modern cars. 20 years ago it might have made a difference, today, with crumple zones, airbags, abs, stability control, etc, not really. You are equally likely to walk away from either.

I think you grossly overestimate the chances of "walking away" from a crash at 60 mph.

You do realise that the NCAP frontal tests are carried out at 40 mph, side impact at 31 mph (side impact pole even lower at 18 mph) into a stationary object?

This is the reality of a 60 mph head on collision.

Fancy your chances of walking away from that?