Suicidal Cyclist

BillyMansell

hugheskevi wrote: »

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

I haven't looked at this website and their Facility of the Month in quite a while;

http://warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

I doubt our intellectually challenged motorist friend will be able to assimilate this wealth of evidence as it's not analogous with their simple anecdotal world view but we can live in hope.

custardy

What you need is a fully segregated bike route

brat

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.

*Really!? **Really!!??

I've been a forensic collision investigator for 10 of my 19 years on traffic, and I've investigated hundreds of injury collisions, including many fatal RTCs.

It is absolutely beyond doubt that there is a significant difference in injury potential between a 40mph head on impact and a 60mph head on impact.

Each year, many 10s of motorists and passengers, 100s probably, are killed because of their own vehicle's speed, despite not being at fault, whether it's a course deviation or a junction smidsy.

All I'm trying to establish is that you, Altarf, routinely make safety compromises when driving. You (should) know that the potential for injury is lower in a low speed impact, yet you drive at a higher (albeit legal) speed. You justify this to yourself in different ways, eg...

• it's the speed others would like me to travel
• I don't want to waste time by travelling more slowly
• The speed feels right for the road
• etc etc

I'd like to know why motorists such as yourself feel totally justified in compromising their safety and the safety of others for their own advantage, but when it comes to cyclists compromising their safety for an advantage, you label them as unthinking fools.

peter_the_piper

Get out the red flags.

Idiophreak

Altarf wrote: »

Not near me, they are the "best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world", and I am off to the station now, and guess how many cyclists dressed in black and with inadequate lights will be using the cycle path rather than the road (clue, the number will be zero).

Now, don't get me wrong, you *have* come across rather poorly throughout this thread, but your post does make me wonder. In the end...I think I start to come round to your way of thinking.

The thing is, cycling "enthusiasts", like myself, would be lit up like Christmas trees and most likely wearing high-viz, too, if cycling at night. "Enthusiasts" like me also have pretty good reasons for avoiding cycle lanes.

That said, the *idiots* I see out and about in black, no lights, weaving into the road... I honestly have no idea what's going on in their minds...And I conclude, they just do it *because they're idiots*. So, if there's a perfectly good cycle path (not that I believe you, but let's go with this) that some people who're already categorised as idiots aren't using...maybe they're just not using it *because they're idiots*, too.

The difference, between you and I, is that I see *some* cyclists being idiots and go "oh look, an idiot cyclist". Similarly, I see motorists every day blinding everyone with their foglights, driving massively below the speed limit, failing to indicate, driving recklessly fast, tailgating, undertaking, being overly hesitant, running red lights,cutting people up....Now, I could bleat "oh look...driver logic!", but I prefer to just say "oh look, an idiot motorist".

Not sure what's broken in your head that you can't make the same distinction.

andrewf75 wrote: »

As a cyclist and a motorist I find it strange how people label others based on what mode of transport they are using.

Who's to say the idiot cycling with no lights isn't the very same idiot driver who cuts someone up and the same pedestrian who steps out without looking?

Generally those who walk, run or cycle, have much more empathy for other road users than those who simply drive. You can generally tell motorists who've ever ridden a bike by the amount of space they give cyclists as they pass them.

As a runner, I get annoyed with other runners that don't move one way or another so we can pass easily. So I always do this.

As a runner, I get annoyed with cyclists who use the path when there's plenty of other good places for them to cycle. As a cyclist I make sure I don't do the same.

As a runner, I get annoyed with cars that turn across me even though they can clearly see I'm about to cross the side road. As a driver, I give runners time and space.

As a cyclist, I get annoyed with runners that come out of nowhere into my path. As a runner, I make sure I can see where I'm running before I run there.

As a cyclist, I get *annoyed* with cyclists being be idiots, undertaking buses and LGV as lights are about to change. As a cyclist, I make sure I'm visible and wait in line with everyone else at the lights.

As a cyclist, I get annoyed with motorists that overtake me as I'm cruising to the back of a queue, or a set of red lights, then stamp on their brakes. As a driver, I don't overtake a cyclist unless I'm going to be able to get out of their way.

As a driver, I get annoyed with runners that suddenly change direction. As a runner, I make sure my body language always clearly shows people where I'm headed.

As a driver, I get annoyed with cyclists that are hard to see at night or in poor visibility. As a cyclist, I ensure that I'm always easily seen.

As a driver, I get annoyed with other drivers for *so many reasons*...but I just do my best not to be like them.

That said, I think there are two reasons people behave poorly towards other road users - ignorance / lack of empathy and sheer idiocy. I have to believe (for my sanity) that most people are ignorant...but you're probably right that there are a fair few people out there that are just idiots, whatever mode of transport they're using.

brat

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Get out the red flags.

I don't think you're aware of it, but you're emphasising my point.

almillar

(boy this is a busy thread!)
Norman Castle:

The amount gathered from motoring taxes exceeds the amount spent on roads. The amount gathered from income tax, NIC and VAT massively exceeds highway spending. So what?. Its called taxation.

Yes - more tax is collected from motoring taxes than is spent on roads. My point exactly! That's all I'm saying! Roads aren't run at a loss by Gov, so no taxes are needed from anywhere else. I'll repeat yet again, I know that none of this money is allocated or ringfenced for certain things, but on a simple in/out basis, motorists pay for roads and more.

Many vehicles are not taxed, they are fully entitled to use the roads. VED is not a toll or fee or charge to use the roads. Its just a tax.

Sorry, I've said that some vehicles are exempt, and you've chosen the one quote where I didn't say it. You nitpicking. I'm not sure how taxing VED exempt vehicles works these days, without a disc, but they do still have to be 'taxed' is my understanding - whether they have to pay or not. Maybe this has changed, but it doesn't change my point - if you're required to pay VED, and you don't, you're not allowed to be on the road. It's EFFECTIVELY a toll or fee. And yes, it is a tax, never denied that!

brat:

How do you as a motorist pay for the costs of pollution, environmental damage, congestion, policing, collision and hospital costs not borne by insurers?
Do you see these as issues the motorist should have no responsibility for, as they don't seem to be a factor in your figures?

Agree - motorists should (and do) pay towards this. I hope the stats you quote are nice and up to date, and that it breaks down lorries, buses, cars - as cars are getting cleaner every year.

What is clear is that the direct taxes paid by the motorist doesn't cover all of the direct and external costs of motoring.

Not sure on that one, and I'll admit, I don't want to believe it.
Let's light another fire - how much tax do cyclists contribute to the collisions, and associated costs to the Gov, that they cause?!

Because the road is more dangerous.

Only if you have idiot drivers.

And of course, we do have idiot drivers, and cyclists in all forms of transport. And the road is dangerous. You're either controlling a powerful multi-tonne weapon, or sharinging the road with lots of them. The first stage is that you have to accept this fact, unfortunately. If I don't accept that fact, and drive defensively, I can end up with a dent or scrape to my car - so cyclists should be equally (I want to say more) cautious!

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

You can continue that arguement down to zero miles per hour, staying indoors, and hiding under the table in case of an earthquake. Like you intimate, you judge the risk. A massive big rule, though, would be that you should be driving at a speed where you can stop within the distance you can see. Lots of variables in there of course.

Norman_Castle

custardy wrote: »

What you need is a fully segregated bike route

I hope there's a bollard at the end.

Throbbe

almillar wrote: »

You can continue that arguement down to zero miles per hour, staying indoors, and hiding under the table in case of an earthquake. Like you intimate, you judge the risk. A massive big rule, though, would be that you should be driving at a speed where you can stop within the distance you can see. Lots of variables in there of course.

That's the point being made. We all make these judgements throughout the day, balancing risk against other factors, including convenience.

Altarf (I think) couldn't seem to draw the parallel between some cyclists choosing to use the road as their preferred option over a cycle path when the absolute risk was (in his view) higher, and drivers doing exactly the same thing with their chosen speed.

If everyone (and as I've said several times, this is only a small minority of drivers/cyclists) could appreciate that they are mixing with people making these decision based on a number of motives the roads would be a safer place. Judging people as groups (cyclists/drivers/BMW owners) is OK for comedy purposes, but on the road it leads to an increased risk of injury, and I'm certain no-one wants that.

Throbbe

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I hope there's a bollard at the end.

I can see a bell end if that helps.