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

modsandmockers

frisbeej wrote: »

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.

It was not me who cast the aspersions - it was the previous poster. Most parents don't encourage their children to exercise, enjoy the outdoors and develop independence.

brat wrote: »

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.

There are many reasons why road fatalities continue to decrease. Better road design is one - in the early 1960s, one of the biggest issues on a driving test was how to deal with unmarked crossroads - when did you last have to deal with an unmarked crossroads? Better vehicle design is another - safety belts and crumple zones spring to mind. Gung-Ho driving techniques such as modifying the line through bends are also much less acceptable than in the halcyon days of the Monte Carlo Rally, and the Mille Miglia.

It is cyclists themselves who continue to complain about the perils of sharing the highway with motor vehicles, whilst simultaneously promoting the idea that cycling to work will solve many of the world's problems.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

It was not me who cast the aspersions - it was the previous poster. Most parents don't encourage their children to exercise, enjoy the outdoors and develop independence.

But we all must agree that they should. Sometimes it's a daunting task. As a parent of 14 and 12 year old girls, it's a constant battle to encourage them away from screens and onto their bikes or out for a game of badminton, or a short jog. But they enjoy themselves while they do it. They are both competent road cyclists, I'm happy for them to cycle short distances on their own.

modsandmockers wrote: »

There are many reasons why road fatalities continue to decrease. Better road design is one - in the early 1960s, one of the biggest issues on a driving test was how to deal with unmarked crossroads - when did you last have to deal with an unmarked crossroads? Better vehicle design is another - safety belts and crumple zones spring to mind.

The other big life saver is medical advancements and effective early medical care.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Gung-Ho driving techniques such as modifying the line through bends are also much less acceptable than in the halcyon days of the Monte Carlo Rally, and the Mille Miglia.

I don't know how long it is since you last drove a vehicle, but you appear to have forgotten that safely reducing the degree of steering, braking and sharp acceleration is the smoothest way to drive. Perhaps you didn't ever learn that. Perhaps you were just one of the many poor drivers who learned nothing from experience.

modsandmockers wrote: »

It is cyclists themselves who continue to complain about the perils of sharing the highway with motor vehicles, whilst simultaneously promoting the idea that cycling to work will solve many of the world's problems.

Those two issues are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be imbued with negative connotations.
Every person should agree that work should be done to improve cyclist safety. Everyone should also agree that regular exercise like cycling will solve many of the world's problems.

Johnmcl7

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.

Nonsense - I've been cycling on the road unaccompanied since I passed cycling proficiency in primary six and I cycled every day along with hundreds of others on the road to secondary school. It's no surprise that childhood obesity and lack of exercise is an increasing problem when people have your kind of attitude that cycling is too dangerous for children. I find it frustrating when I go by schools and see the large number of cars queued up to pick up their children when the school has a small catchment area (it's the same ones each day as well) as it's no surprise that when children are used to being shuttled around rather than getting about under their own power that they end up with a lack of exercise. In health terms that's a far higher risk than cycling on the road.

As for commuting not being fun and downright dangerous, that's just your own opinion - for someone who has wasted so much time in this forum section, you should be aware that your opinion is completely different to most cyclists. I enjoy commuting by bike and getting around under my own power and dislike using the car. Motorcyclists often refer to cars as cages which I understand now, it's a great sense of freedom on the bike particularly being able to go through town and not get stuck in traffic.

I would have said I was reasonably fit before I commuted by bike but since taking up just those short cycles I've now taken part in MTB endurance cycling, a charity duathlon, charity cycles and cyclocross racing. I'll be honest I only bought the bike as I thought my car's turbo was failing and I knew the DPF would suffer with short journeys, I didn't think I would come to enjoy cycling as much as I do now and I can see why people who haven't taken to cycling can't understand my enjoyment. But those same people don't preach to cyclists telling them how terrible cycling as you do is nor would I have done before I picked up cycling.

John

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

It is cyclists themselves who continue to complain about the perils of sharing the highway with motor vehicles...

It's mainly ignorant non-cyclists with nothing better to do who tediously moan about such perils on web forums.

modsandmockers wrote: »

... whilst simultaneously promoting the idea that cycling to work will solve many of the world's problems.

What's your obsession with solving the world's problem by cycling?! You object to the idea of riding a bike because it doesn't directly cause world peace and child poverty?! Keep taking the tablets.

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

It is cyclists themselves who continue to complain about the perils of sharing the highway with motor vehicles

I have no complaint of sharing the highway with motor vehicles and don't consider it to be inherently perilous in any way.

It's sharing the highway with impatient psychopaths that is the problem. The roads and protocols provide everything everyone needs to share them safely. It's attitudes that cause danger.

Marco_Panettone

modsandmockers wrote: »

When pedestrians occupy the the blacktop in a haphazard/indiscriminate manner it’s called JayWalking.

You've gone from something being a hypothetical act that would mean "serious questions" would be asked IF it existed to accepting that it does exist and is actually so common it has a name in 2 posts.


I'm still wondering when I'll be asked these "serious questions" and what they might be. Who is asking them?


Oh, how else are you supposed to cross on a zebra crossing WITHOUT stepping out into traffic - vehicles have no obligation to stop unless you are already on the crossing.

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

When pedestrians occupy the the blacktop in a haphazard/indiscriminate manner it’s called JayWalking.

Forgot to point this out earlier. There's no such thing as jaywalking in the UK. There's 'obstructing the public highway'; this is completely different to the American term, which in some states applies to anyone so much as putting a single foot on an empty road, not necessarily in a haphazard or indiscriminate manner.

modsandmockers

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Oh, how else are you supposed to cross on a zebra crossing WITHOUT stepping out into traffic - vehicles have no obligation to stop unless you are already on the crossing.

And I’ll wager that you apply that rule without mercy! A motorist would fail a driving test for failing to stop for a pedestrian whose obvious intention was to use the pedestrian crossing. In my experience, there is frequently an element of simple embarrassment when a cyclist and a pedestrian have to negotiate the question of priorities at a pedestrian crossing. Both parties are aware that the cyclist does not really have the status of a motor vehicle, and this can lead to an element of doubt and unpredictability. Doubt and unpredictability is not conducive to road safety.

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

And I’ll wager that you apply that rule without mercy! A motorist would fail a driving test for failing to stop for a pedestrian whose obvious intention was to use the pedestrian crossing. In my experience, there is frequently an element of simple embarrassment when a cyclist and a pedestrian have to negotiate the question of priorities at a pedestrian crossing. Both parties are aware that the cyclist does not really have the status of a motor vehicle, and this can lead to an element of doubt and unpredictability. Doubt and unpredictability is not conducive to road safety.

Is this a suitable opportunity to introduce the concept of whether a cyclist is actually a pedestrian when riding their bike across the road on a pedestrian crossing?

And madmocs, you have spelt warrior wrongly in your signature.

modsandmockers

wealdroam wrote: »

And madmocs, you have spelt warrior wrongly in your signature

No - I was given the name by one of my stalkers, and copied it precisely.