A Cycle Helmet saved this lady's life.

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:02:05 -0000, "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>a bit more thinking and a sensible conclusion.

What are you on about? Nobody ever suggested that the primary riding position should be used all the
time, merely that it is an effective tool for managing following traffic and ensuring our own
safety. We've read the book, you haven't. When you've read the book you'll see what we mean.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Andyp]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote

> most important point, which has been made more than once, is that if it's not safe for a motorist
> to overtake you in the primary riding position, then it's not actually safe for them to overtake
> at all - so moving to the left does nothing to improve safety, since it merely allows an impatient
> driver to overtake at less risk to hiomself but mopre risk to you.

Think about that a bit more next time you're riding down a narrow road with a car behind you and no
oncoming traffic. As I said before I've never noticed that cars leave me any more room wherever I am
in the road and I have experimented but it's obvious there's the potential for them to leave you
more room if you're further to the left.

Surely the use of the primary position to prevent overtaking only works if there's oncoming traffic,
parked cars, traffic calming pinch points etc. It's something I use only occasionally rather than as
a matter of course on the roads I use.

Oh and while we're at it I've always thought the notion that it makes you more visible is very
dubious as well except for maybe on narrow twisty roads where you would otherwise disappear from
view sooner as you round a bend. There, must have exhausted any relevant points I have to make on
the subject now I think.

 

[Andyp]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote

> >Think about that a bit more next time you're riding down a narrow road
with
> >a car behind you and no oncoming traffic.

> Why? What difference would that make? I ride along narrow country lanes all the time, and very
> often I adopt the primary riding position because it is unsafe to oevrtake, oncoming traffic or
> not. At some points it is safe to pass, and I use the secondary riding position. I never ride
> closer to the kerb than the secondary riding position, unless it is part of an evasive manoeuvre.

Think again...

> >As I said before I've never noticed that cars leave me any more room wherever I am in the road
> >and I have experimented but it's obvious there's the potential for them to
leave
> >you more room if you're further to the left.

> Riding along a two-lane road with no oncoming traffic is not one of the points where the primary
> riding position is necessary, though. On the approach to a bend, one might well move out to the
> primary position, but on the straight-and-level there's rarely any need.

See, a bit more thinking and a sensible conclusion.

 

[Pk]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:46:33 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK" <[email protected]>
> wrote this:-
>
>> Are you relying there on the "number of head injuries to pedestrians
>> > cyclists" idea?
>
> It is not an idea, it is a fact. The fact is true in both absolute terms (the total number) and in
> relative terms (number per some factor).
>
>> Try again in terms of probability per hour of exposure
>
> I think measuring per trip is the best way of comparing transport methods. How does one evaluate
> hours for walking and cycling?

ok Probabilty per trip.

Give me some numbers don't just waffle

pk

 

[Johnb]

AndyP wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > most important point, which has been made more than once, is that if it's not safe for a
> > motorist to overtake you in the primary riding position, then it's not actually safe for them to
> > overtake at all - so moving to the left does nothing to improve safety, since it merely allows
> > an impatient driver to overtake at less risk to hiomself but mopre risk to you.
>
> Think about that a bit more next time you're riding down a narrow road with a car behind you and
> no oncoming traffic. As I said before I've never noticed that cars leave me any more room wherever
> I am in the road and I have experimented but it's obvious there's the potential for them to leave
> you more room if you're further to the left.
>
> Surely the use of the primary position to prevent overtaking only works if there's oncoming
> traffic, parked cars, traffic calming pinch points etc. It's something I use only occasionally
> rather than as a matter of course on the roads I use.
>
> Oh and while we're at it I've always thought the notion that it makes you more visible is very
> dubious as well except for maybe on narrow twisty roads where you would otherwise disappear from
> view sooner as you round a bend. There, must have exhausted any relevant points I have to make on
> the subject now I think.

I bet you drive a lot more than you ride a bike.

John B

 

[Andyp]

"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote

> I bet you drive a lot more than you ride a bike.

No, I gave up my car about 18 months ago.

 

[Johnb]

AndyP wrote:

> "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > I bet you drive a lot more than you ride a bike.
>
> No, I gave up my car about 18 months ago.

Well done. I hope it was of your own choice.

We became car-free 17 years ago.

John B

 

[Andyp]

"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote

> Well done. I hope it was of your own choice.
>
> We became car-free 17 years ago.

Yes, and I'm glad I did but if someone had told me 2 years ago that I'd be riding 20 miles from my
girlfriend's back to my flat in the morning, then another 35 miles to my parents in the afternoon in
the depths of winter, partly in the dark, loaded up with a rucksack full of stuff, getting soaked in
the process and still feeling good about it at the end I'd have laughed at them.

So a quick message to anyone who might be thinking of driving less as a New Year's resolution...Go
for it...you'll be surprised how well you can manage.

 

[Peter B]

"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If risk compesation applies to helmets, all the same arguments re risk compensation apply
> elswehere no matter what the safty measure.

Although I suspect risk compensation is largely sub-conscious when applied as a general rule
there are those who are naturally so careless or clumsy as well as those lacking risk perception
that the rule doesn't apply at all to them. A classic example is young males and cars, some drive
the way they do not because of air-bags, abs etc but simply because they're immortal and or
brilliant drivers and to those the safety devices are of benefit, as they are to the people they
may collide with.

Pete

 

[Simon Brooke]

"PK" <[email protected]> writes:

> James Hodson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:58:27 +0000 (UTC), "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Transposing the risk compensation argument: Why not ban modern brake types and go back to old
> >> inefficient braking systems on bikes - after all efficient brakes only encourage risk
> >> compensation and cyclists go faster than is safe?
> >
> > If I'd had old-style brakes on 19/12/2003 I quite possibly would have hit the side of a car that
> > turned right (the direction) across in front of me. Instead, I was able to miss the car (just)
> > and slowed enough to miss the vehicle - I had a "interesting" moment balancing on my front
> > wheel. I put this down to having more effective brakes.
>
>
> the other argument is that if you had known that you only had poor brakes you would have riden
> more slowly - you risk compensated as you knew you had the stopping power,had you not been going
> so fast you would have had more obseravion and reation time.....

There is a difference here. Most brakes do actualy work as advertised, these days.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

 

[Patrick Herring]

"PK" <[email protected]> wrote: ...
| the other argument is that if you had known that you only had poor brakes you would have riden
| more slowly - you risk compensated as you knew you had the stopping power,had you not been going
| so fast you would have had more obseravion and reation time.....
|
| Try removing your brake blocks and see ho fast you are happy to travel.
|
| If risk compesation applies to helmets, all the same arguments re risk compensation apply
| elswehere no matter what the safty measure.

It's not the risk compensating by the helmetted cyclist that's the main perceived problem, it's the
risk compensating by the clueless driver.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

 

[Andyp]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote

> It makes you more visible because it puts you where cagers are looking, simple as that. John
> Franklin says it much better than I do, of course.

Sorry Guy, can't leave that unchallenged after all...no will power. I think I ought to point out the
other side of the coin in case it benefits anyone.

When I used to drive daily on fast roads with fairly constant traffic flow and good forward
visibility I used to find cyclists far more visible if they were riding to the left of the general
flow of traffic. You obviously can't see through cars very well and since one particular road I'm
thinking of was a dual carriageway the action of cars pulling out to overtake the very occasional
cyclist who rode out with the traffic didn't alert you to the fact that it was a cyclist rather than
just a slightly slower moving car until you got right up to them and anyone driving too close to the
car infront and not paying attention would have put said cyclist in considerable danger whereas the
cyclist "in the gutter" was in little danger as far as I could see.

I can't see how anyone could come to a different conclusion in those circumstances so it's not
"simple as that". It never is.

 

[Tony Raven]

AndyP wrote:
>
> When I used to drive daily on fast roads with fairly constant traffic flow and good forward
> visibility I used to find cyclists far more visible if they were riding to the left of the general
> flow of traffic. You obviously can't see through cars very well and since one particular road I'm
> thinking of was a dual carriageway the action of cars pulling out to overtake the very occasional
> cyclist who rode out with the traffic didn't alert you to the fact that it was a cyclist rather
> than just a slightly slower moving car until you got right up to them and anyone driving too close
> to the car infront and not paying attention would have put said cyclist in considerable danger
> whereas the cyclist "in the gutter" was in little danger as far as I could see.
>

Put another way, in one case you were aware there was something up ahead that warranted pulling out
so were aware there was something there even if you couldn't see it. In the other you would have had
no idea until the car in front passed the cyclist and by then it would probably be too late to give
some extra room or even avoid them if you really were driving that close and not paying attention.

The other factor is psychological. I find if I ride out in the road in general cars slow, overtake
me properly when it is safe to do so and give me decent room. If I try riding in the gutter they
drive past as if I wasn't there, coming past much faster and closer in the face of oncoming traffic.
I know which I prefer and which I think is safer, but feel free to ride how you want.

> I can't see how anyone could come to a different conclusion in those circumstances so it's not
> "simple as that".

Can you see now?

Tony

 

[Andymorris]

Peter B wrote:
> A classic example is young males and cars, some drive the way they do not because of air-bags, abs
> etc but simply because they're immortal and or brilliant drivers and to those the safety devices
> are of benefit, as they are to the people they may collide with.
>
> Pete

How exactly do air bags help a ped or cyclist when a car hits them.

ABS only helps if the driver has already decided to apply maximum breaking before he hits you.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Andyp]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote

> > When I used to drive daily on fast roads with fairly constant traffic
flow
> > and good forward visibility I used to find cyclists far more visible if
they
> > were riding to the left of the general flow of traffic. You obviously
can't
> > see through cars very well and since one particular road I'm thinking of
was
> > a dual carriageway the action of cars pulling out to overtake the very occasional cyclist who
> > rode out with the traffic didn't alert you to the fact that it was a cyclist rather than just a
> > slightly slower moving car until you got right up to them and anyone driving too close to the
> > car infront and not paying attention would have put said cyclist in
considerable
> > danger whereas the cyclist "in the gutter" was in little danger as far
as I
> > could see.

> Put another way, in one case you were aware there was something up ahead
that
> warranted pulling out so were aware there was something there even if you couldn't see it. In
> the other you would have had no idea until the car in front passed the cyclist and by then it
> would probably be too late to give some extra room or even avoid them if you really were driving
> that close
and
> not paying attention.

That bears no relation to what I actually wrote at all does it? Sorry if you have actually bothered
reading it and genuinely can't see it but I can't write it any differently. Clue: Pay particular
attention to the first sentence for a start.

 

[-Lsqnot Respond]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:45:38 -0000, "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>That bears no relation to what I actually wrote at all does it? Sorry if you have actually bothered
>reading it and genuinely can't see it but I can't write it any differently. Clue: Pay particular
>attention to the first sentence for a start.
>

Your experience is of 1 driver [yourself]. My experience as a cyclist is of 1000's of drivers. I had
far more close calls when cowering in the gutter.

 

[Tony Raven]

AndyP wrote:
>
> That bears no relation to what I actually wrote at all does it? Sorry if you have actually
> bothered reading it and genuinely can't see it but I can't write it any differently. Clue: Pay
> particular attention to the first sentence for a start.

Perhaps then I'm having difficulty reconciling your first sentence where you say visibility was good
and your second sentence where you say you couldn't see it was a cyclist until you were right up to
them. What is it that makes you able to see them through that car in front when the cyclist is in
the gutter but not when they are riding out because it certainly isn't the geometric change of
viewing angles?

Tony

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, AndyP <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > a dual carriageway the action of cars pulling out to overtake the very occasional cyclist who
> > > rode out with the traffic didn't alert you to the fact that it was a cyclist rather than just
> > > a slightly slower moving car until you got right up to them and anyone driving too close to
> > > the car infront and not paying attention would have put said cyclist in considerable danger
> > > whereas the cyclist "in the gutter" was in little danger as far as I could see.
>
> > Put another way, in one case you were aware there was something up ahead that warranted pulling
> > out so were aware there was something there even if you couldn't see it.
>
> That bears no relation to what I actually wrote at all does it? Sorry if you have actually
> bothered reading it and genuinely can't see it but I can't write it any differently. Clue: Pay
> particular attention to the first sentence for a start.

First sentence, let's see: "Sorry Guy, can't leave that unchallenged after all...no will power."

Right, how is that relevant? What you're saying is that your quest for self-gratification, self-
expression and so on completely over-rules any possible benefit from behaving in a sociable manner?
Is that it? I think I need another clue, unless you really are saying that cyclists should ride in
the gutter because you are a genuine psychopath.

Otherwise, what you're saying is that morons that drive dangerously are a danger to cyclists
irrespective of where the cyclist rides. Well, who'd have thought it. Gosh what a piercing insight.

I'm with Guy and Tony on this one. You are wrong.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Andyp]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote

> Perhaps then I'm having difficulty reconciling your first sentence where
you
> say visibility was good and your second sentence where you say you
couldn't
> see it was a cyclist until you were right up to them. What is it that
makes
> you able to see them through that car in front when the cyclist is in the gutter but not when they
> are riding out because it certainly isn't the geometric change of viewing angles?

The bit in the first sentence which you might be missing is "to the left of the general flow of
traffic"...draw pictures of cars, bikes and lines of sight on a bit of paper if you like. Everyone
rides on different roads and in different situations and will have ideas based on their own
experience so maybe it's just pointless me trying to get anyone to picture things the same way I
find them from where I ride and drive.

 

[Tony Raven]

AndyP wrote:
>
> The bit in the first sentence which you might be missing is "to the left of the general flow of
> traffic"...draw pictures of cars, bikes and lines of sight on a bit of paper if you like.

I can draw it in my head quite well thanks. Unless you drive a LHD car so you can see down the
inside, the car in front blocks your line of sight from roughly the straight ahead position to the
line drawn between you and the rear nearside corner of the cabin of the car in front. In the case of
the cyclist riding out in the road the first warning you get, before you see its a cyclist, is the
car in front slows and/or pulls out to pass. That happens when the cyclist is still in front of the
car in front and while you may not know what exactly it is - another car, a cyclist, a brick or lump
of wood on the road - you are alert that there is something there of which you need to be aware.
With the cyclist in the gutter the first glimpse you will get is roughly when they are alongside the
front passenger door of the car in front and are emerging out of the area blocked from view by the
car in front.

Anything wrong with the analysis so far?

Tony