If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

One particular road, right? What does that tell us about roads in general?

Each road needs to be assessed dynamically for risk. Generalising doesn't help.

More to the point, do you agree or disagree with Esuhl's actions?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

In what way does an increase of speed around a bend contribute to road safety?

It generally doesn't, although if used appropriately, speed doesn't add risk.
But even the dimmest light on the Christmas tree would realise that maximising the radius of a bend through the safe use of the width of the lane (or road if appropriate) would mean that car sympathy and passenger comfort would be maximised for any given speed.
As others have said, taking the position to allow the maximum radius on entry to a bend has the significant added safety advantage of being able to see through the bend better. I'm often way over on the right hand side of a narrow rural road on my bike if the road tends to the left, because it lets me see much further than if I was stuck into the left side roadedge. It also gives approaching vehicles an early view of me to allow them to make early speed adjustment to pass safely.

On the highway, the correct procedure when approaching a bend is to adopt an appropriate position within your lane, and slow to an appropriate speed.

Correct (although you don't need to be in your lane)

Crossing to the wrong side of the road and/or spitting gravel out of the gutter is not conducive to road safety.

You allegedly rode a motorbike. Did you position yourself any differently when entering a left hand bend compared to a right hand bend? If so, why? If not, why not?

Did you ever plan to spit gravel out of the gutter? Why would anyone choose to do that? :think:

GwylimT

Late to the party.

For me it would depend on the quality of the instruction, when my son was going to start cycling to school I took him to a cycling proficency class, they didn't even cover the basics such as avoiding the blind spots of other vehicles, they also said a cyclist should always stay as close to the kerb as possible which is not only stupid but often dangerous due to drains etc.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

One particular road, right? What does that tell us about roads in general?

Duuuh... It means that your generalisation that it is always best to move out of the primary position once the driver behind has seen you is wrong, stupid, foolish, and as usual, you are oblivious to common-sense.

You really are hard of thinking...

modsandmockers

GwylimT wrote: »

Late to the party.

For me it would depend on the quality of the instruction, when my son was going to start cycling to school I took him to a cycling proficency class, they didn't even cover the basics such as avoiding the blind spots of other vehicles, they also said a cyclist should always stay as close to the kerb as possible which is not only stupid but often dangerous due to drains etc.

The problem is that an unaccompanied 12-year-old cyclist is no safer in the thick of things than in the gutter. On today’s roads,the very idea of unaccompanied child cyclists is mad, and if you are an experienced cyclist, then I am surprised that you are willing to consider the possibility for your own offspring.

However, it is just as mad to allow adults to take up cycling on the highway without any kind of scrutiny. If pedestrians started to zigzag around the traffic and jump on and off the pavements in the way that some adult cyclists do, then serious questions would be asked.

Where I live, there is a worrying proliferation in the numbers of mature cyclists who are routinely riding on the pavement. And quite a few of them are teaching their children to do the same.

Marco_Panettone

modsandmockers wrote: »

The problem is that an unaccompanied 12-year-old cyclist is no safer in the thick of things than in the gutter. On today’s roads,the very idea of unaccompanied child cyclists is mad, and if you are an experienced cyclist, then I am surprised that you are willing to consider the possibility for your own offspring.

However, it is just as mad to allow adults to take up cycling on the highway without any kind of scrutiny. If pedestrians started to zigzag around the traffic and jump on and off the pavements in the way that some adult cyclists do, then serious questions would be asked.

Where I live, there is a worrying proliferation in the numbers of mature cyclists who are routinely riding on the pavement. And quite a few of them are teaching their children to do the same.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. By whom? To whom? When?

GwylimT

modsandmockers wrote: »

The problem is that an unaccompanied 12-year-old cyclist is no safer in the thick of things than in the gutter. On today’s roads,the very idea of unaccompanied child cyclists is mad, and if you are an experienced cyclist, then I am surprised that you are willing to consider the possibility for your own offspring.

However, it is just as mad to allow adults to take up cycling on the highway without any kind of scrutiny. If pedestrians started to zigzag around the traffic and jump on and off the pavements in the way that some adult cyclists do, then serious questions would be asked.

Where I live, there is a worrying proliferation in the numbers of mature cyclists who are routinely riding on the pavement. And quite a few of them are teaching their children to do the same.

If a 16 year old isn't capable of riding on the road there has been something seriously wrong with their parenting.

modsandmockers

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. By whom? To whom? When?

When pedestrians occupy the the blacktop in a haphazard/indiscriminate manner it’s called JayWalking. For cyclists, I would like to coin the phrase GooseHonking. Or how about BratBiking? (Calm down, Brat, I’m only joking).

GwylimT wrote: »

If a 16 year old isn't capable of riding on the road there has been something seriously wrong with their parenting.

Yes - and it's very widespread - the idea that cycling is an essential life skill is no longer true in the UK. All we have left is this massive contradiction between the politically correct idea that cycling is good, and the obvious truth that cycle-commuting is, at best, not much fun and, at worst, downright dangerous.

frisbeej

modsandmockers wrote: »

The problem is that an unaccompanied 12-year-old cyclist is no safer in the thick of things than in the gutter. On today’s roads,the very idea of unaccompanied child cyclists is mad, and if you are an experienced cyclist, then I am surprised that you are willing to consider the possibility for your own offspring.

You are 60-ish?

When you grew up 7000 deaths/year on roads, now they are 1700 deaths/year.

"Yesterday's roads" were 5 times more dangerous.

Casting aspersions on the parenting skills of people who encourage their children to exercise, enjoy the outdoors and develop independence isn't supported by the statistics.

brat

frisbeej wrote: »

You are 60-ish?

When you grew up 7000 deaths/year on roads, now they are 1700 deaths/year.

"Yesterday's roads" were 5 times more dangerous.

Casting aspersions on the parenting skills of people who encourage their children to exercise, enjoy the outdoors and develop independence isn't supported by the statistics.

They were much more than 5 times more dangerous. In the 1950s approx 95 were killed every billion vehicle kilometres, now it's about 5 per bvkm, that's 19 times safer per unit distance.