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

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

Only as much as another vehicle... or the kerb... or a tree... or a lampost... or a dog... or a squirrel... or a bollard... or a pedestrian... or an aardvark... or...

Yes - you understand! Any of those things will present a hazard which most motorists will take in their stride. The difference between all those things and a cyclist hogging the lane is that the cyclist, for reasons which the motorist might not understand or accept, has deliberately created a hazard, and could easily remove it

frisbeej wrote: »

Are these children vampires or something? How the hell do they present a risk or threat to a car driver?

Because they are an obvious hazard - it is to the childrens’ own advantage to be an obvious threat to the motorist’s well-being.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

The difference between all those things and a cyclist hogging the lane is that the cyclist, for reasons which the motorist might not understand or accept, has deliberately created a hazard, and could easily remove it

What?! For existing?! :T

modsandmockers wrote: »

Because they are an obvious hazard - it is to the childrens’ own advantage to be an obvious threat to the motorist’s well-being.

So... you're saying that kerbs, trees, pedestrians and aardvarks are also "an obvious threat to the motorist's well-being"?! You know the biggest danger to motorists round here? My next-door neighbour's house. It's so big, it's an accident waiting to happen!

Seriously, though. These motorists need to get off the road and seek therapy.

silverwhistle

Is mods a motorist? If he is that is deeply worrying.

Mind you, wouldn't much fancy coming across him with a bike, or at the helm of a boat... can you imagine!..

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Yes - you understand! Any of those things will present a hazard which most motorists will take in their stride. The difference between all those things and a cyclist hogging the lane is that the cyclist, for reasons which the motorist might not understand or accept, has deliberately created a hazard, and could easily remove it

You really don't understand positioning for safety, do you?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

This is part of Brat’s reply - “Franklin makes an unsupported premise that drivers look in the area of greatest risk to them. This does seem reasonable on the face of it, but it doesn't support any suggestion that drivers will reduce their collision avoidance strategies in normal driving conditions if the risk is solely to a third party”

So even Franklin (the author of CycleCraft) is wrong, right?

Not necessarily, just that he hasn't supported his premise.

modsandmockers wrote: »

(There is no suggestion, either by me or by Franklin, that drivers will consciously reduce their collision avoidance strategies).

To quote me correctly, I said,
"it doesn't support any suggestion that drivers will reduce their collision avoidance strategies in normal driving conditions if the risk is solely to a third party."

You said at the start of that thread:-
"I have been saying... that road users mostly assess any perceived hazard in terms of the threat which they face themselves, rather than the threat which they pose to other road users. If I am correct, then it explains why car drivers etc routinely ‘edit out’ the presence of a cyclist in an otherwise clear path."

If that doesn't mean what I said, then you need to explain yourself better.

Marco_Panettone

modsandmockers wrote: »

I take a lot of flak on here because I am posting stuff on a cycling forum which cyclists simply don’t want to hear.

No, you get flak on here because you say things like:

modsandmockers wrote: »

I used to see groups of 10-12-year-olds being shepherded around some of the quieter roundabouts...[that] succeeded in presenting a serious threat to the well-being of any approaching motorist.

It's impossible to have a reasoned debate with you, and we ALL know it. You used to just troll to get a reaction, then changed your tack to what might appear to be a more reasonable position (something akin to mine, but without the understanding of cycling either here or abroad) and started with the Cyclecraft thing, again without the understanding of cycling in traffic.


Now, you appear to be someone who starts new threads based on something you read on your last new thread, out of context and again without any of the understanding behind what it actually means. You are tying yourself in knots because of it. Just stop - not for our sake, or that of the topic of cycling (you have absolutely NO effect on it), but for yours. Step away from the keyboard - there's a whole world out there to experience yourself, not through the words of strangers on the internet. Please.

Throbbe

modsandmockers wrote: »

Given that schools have to obtain permission to help a child to blow it’s own nose, I don’t understand how they are allowed to encourage 10-12-year-old children to compete for space on the highway with trucks, buses, white van men, and car drivers using a hand-held phone.

Oooh, me, me, I know this one sir!

Is it because the decisions on child safety are being taken by experienced professionals who understand the relative risks rather than some benny on an internet forum?

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

You really don't understand positioning for safety, do you?

Unlike many ‘newly-born’ cyclists, with no childhood training, I understand it very well indeed, and it doesn’t include lane-hogging.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

It's impossible to have a reasoned debate with you, and we ALL know it. You used to just troll to get a reaction, then changed your tack to what might appear to be a more reasonable position (something akin to mine, but without the understanding of cycling either here or abroad) and started with the Cyclecraft thing, again without the understanding of cycling in traffic.

So I’m still wrong, even when I agree with you? I have cycled in traffic, I have cycled abroad, and I have read CycleCraft. I have quoted several different sources in support of my statements, but, as you say, nobody has engaged with me in a reasoned debate.

I am proud to be a Dutch-style ‘wheelbarrow’ cyclist, but there is no longer room for me on the UK highway. More importantly, there is no room for my grandchildren.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

So I’m still wrong, even when I agree with you? I have cycled in traffic, I have cycled abroad, and I have read CycleCraft. I have quoted several different sources in support of my statements, but, as you say, nobody has engaged with me in a reasoned debate.

The problem is that you can't engage in a reasoned debate. No one else can engage you, if you are not willing to engage yourself.

The answer to your original question is so obvious that it hardly needs acknowledging as a genuine question. Let's make it simpler: if over-50s were required to pay for safety training before they were legally allowed in public libraries... would that put them off going to the library? Would you expect ALL over-50s to make the same decision? Would you expect library attendance by over-50s to go up, down or stay the same?

modsandmockers wrote: »

I am proud to be a Dutch-style ‘wheelbarrow’ cyclist, but there is no longer room for me on the UK highway. More importantly, there is no room for my grandchildren.

Maybe you've been squeezed into the gutter because of your fearfulness of cycling in a sensible position?

You say you don't drive any more. I wonder if your driving style meant that there wasn't room for you on the UK highway in a car, either?

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

nobody has engaged with me in a reasoned debate.

Funniest thing I've read all day. You've been presented with statistics, diagrams, photos and many personal anecdotes and examples.

Plenty of people have engaged with you in reasoned debate. I think your problem is that they don't agree with you.