Another anti-cycling letter in a local newspaper

[Simon Brooke]

"<-- Wide Load -->" <apsw07048<removespam>@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> > I have seen plenty of queues of motorised traffic on the roads. Not once has the queue been
> > caused by a single cyclist. In every case it has been caused by motor traffic or roadworks.
>
> I can't believe that. I frequently drive with bike on back to the forests North of here (Queen
> Elizabeth forest park and such) to cycle (offroad), and almost every time I go, there are roadies
> cycling on the main road. These are busy A class roads which are the NSL, with loads of tight
> (blind) bends and not very many places to overtake safely (tall roadside hedges). What the hell
> are these guys thinking?

They're thinking that they are legitimate road users with a legitimate and proper right to use the
public road, and they're using it. That's what the public road is for.

> Cars, vans, trucks and huge German tourist coaches are travelling on these roads at 40-55 MPH, I
> cringe when I'm in my car and I see one of those things hurtling round the corner at me, what
> must the roadies be thinking?! And there is always a queue of a few vehicles waiting to get past
> the cyclist safely. I'm sorry but that just isn't safe, I would never tell them to get off the
> road, it's their choice, but it's just so stupid when they DO get splatted.

But they don't get splatted nearly as often as they would if they were off the road. All the
research shows this.

> > >Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used
> > >side roads and such.
> >
> > It has been tried. It is more dangerous than cycling on the roads.
>
> Are you trying to tell me that a cyclist only road is more dangerous than a standard road? EH?!

Yes, it is. Not just more accidents but more serious accidents and more fatalities. If you don't
believe us, read the research (which has already been pointed to further up the thread).

> I would much rather be in an accidental collision with another cyclist than a car/van/truck/bus.
> Where has it been tried?

Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the UK, Germany, France and Italy have all done research on real
schemes and all the research comes to the same conclusion. Between 3 and 11 times more accidents,
and more of them serious leading to serious injury or death.

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

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit ;; patch to an eight bit
operating system originally coded for a ;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company
that ;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

 

[W K]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:35:34 +0100 someone who may be "<-- Wide Load

> >almost every time I go, there are roadies cycling on the main road.
>
> In groups or on their own?

Ah well, the last time I was somewhere near QEFP I was held up by bikes. But its about the only time
I have been.

It was the Edinburgh->Fort William->edinburgh ride, so I supect even they don't do that every day.

Perhaps its the big victorian and early 20thC roads here, but I don't really hold anyone up for more
than a tiny amount of time.

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> This probably won't go down too well, but I personally don't think
cyclists
> should use main roads. They can cause quite a queue behind them of
traffic
> waiting to get past which understandably infuriates drivers.

Most of the "main" roads I use have plenty of room for motorists to pass even if I'm 2-3 foot
from the kerb. It's the narrower *non* main roads that you like so much where there is little
passing room!

 

[Stevie D]

PK wrote:

> No, the pillock cyclists give us all a bad name. I have some sympathy with the author of
> the letter

The author of the letter does not draw the distinction between sensible cyclists and irresponsible
POBs¹. I very much doubt that when he is driving around in his 1½ tons of steel, he makes that
distinction either. He has seen a number of pedalling pillocks and has concluded that all cyclists
fall into that category.

¹ One might also consider that one person's "sensible cyclist" is another person's "pillock on a
bike" is another person's "Lycra Lout".

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

[Please read posting guidelines at the end of the message]

<-- Wide Load --> wrote:

> I personally cycle on the pavement when going to work ( and a few side roads ), I wouldn't dare
> risk the main road.

Why not?

Did you, for example, know that the accident rate for people cycling on pavements is up to *seven
times* more than it is for people cycling on roads?

One of the most common causes of a collision for a cyclist is being hit by a vehicle turning into or
out of a side road. Rare, but more likely to happen if you have been cycling on the pavement,
because you are less visible to drivers; they will not expect to see you there. You have to stop and
check up to four directions before crossing the road; if you were on the main road in the first
place, you would have right of way over all of those.

Another common cause of accidents for pavement cyclists is drivers entering or leaving driveways,
where cyclists my be obscured by parked cars, hedges etc., much more so than if they were on the
road, where the driver has longer to see them.

> I really don't see the problem with cycling on the pavement, as long as you slow down when
> approaching others and respect other people.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of cyclists don't. And while your attitude may not cause anyone any
harm in relatively quiet suburbia, when you get to busier areas such as shopping precincts, it
almost invariably will not be safe for you to cycle on the pavement there at all. Do you always
dismount when you get the the high street?

> This probably won't go down too well, but I personally don't think cyclists should use main roads.
> They can cause quite a queue behind them of traffic waiting to get past which understandably
> infuriates drivers.

You're right, it won't go down too well.

Do you think that horse riders should be prohibited from using main roads? What about tractors?
Learner drivers? They all hold traffic up a lot more than a cyclist does.

Most main roads are perfectly wide enough for a motorist to overtake a cyclist most of the time.
Sure, they might from time to time have to wait momentarily before overtaking, but that is not
exactly a hardship. A reasonable cyclist, unless TTing, will usually pull over to let a long queue
of traffic past if it is waiting patiently but has no opportunity to overtake safely.

How do you define a main road? Very often, the more major the road, the better it will be for
cyclists. Example: if I want to cycle from here to York by road, I have three choices. • the A19, a
wide, fast primary route • the A19 but using the old roads through villages rather than new bypasses
• the winding, narrow B-roads.

Of those, the A19 direct has several advantages. It is straight, and provides the most direct route.
There is room for a cyclist to be overtaken by a lorry, and the same to happen in the other
direction, at the same place. Drivers have a long time to see cyclists, because the road is straight
or with only very gentle curves.

The A19+Villages is OK in one direction, but a PITA in the other, which involves several right turns
on/off the main road.

However, both of these use a "main road". I think that however you define it, it will encompass a
Highways Agency major A-road. So you would relegate me to using the B-roads. Which would add about
25-30% to the distance. Which would put me on roads with a poor surface and lots of pot holes -
great for the backside, that is. Which would put me on narrow roads, where there is not even room
for two cars and a bike. Which would put me on twisting lanes, where drivers have often very little
chance to see me because the hedges stop them seeing round the bends.

Cyclists have every right to use main roads (motorways excepted), and there is no good reason why
they should not, provided that they do so with due consideration for other road users. "Their own
safety" does not hold water, as main roads are not more dangerous for cyclists than any other
cycleable routes. "Holding up drivers" is equally colander-like, as main roads are precisely the
roads where cyclists are _least_ likely to hold up traffic.

> Cyclists should have their own roads, completely separate from all other traffic, lesser used side
> roads and such. Safe from private cab drivers and white van man. If this country's government
> really wants people to get out of their cars and onto bicycles (cos' public transport sucks) then
> the danger must be taken out of cycling.

It would be cripplingly expensive, impossibly impractical, and totally and utterly unnecessary to
provide a complete set of off-road routes for cyclists. How would this work in urban areas, where
there is no land spare? It couldn't. Do you expect cyclists to have to pay some form of VED, or will
it be funded from general taxation? Either way, it would be an incredibly unpopular move with 90+ %
of the public.

Danger? What danger? Roads have been shown in numerous studies to be the safest place to cycle.
Safer even than off-road paths such as Milton Keynes' Redways. What you are confusing is "actual
danger" and "perceived danger". The actual danger is very slight. The perceived danger is often much
higher, because people project their own incompetent driving onto others, and wonder how anyone can
feel safe without being strapped into a 1½ ton steel box with crumple zones. And people, cyclists
especially, who say that the roads are too dangerous for cyclists only serve to perpetuate and
propagate the myth.

[When posting to this newsgroup or almost any other, it is recommended that you do two things: •
Delete any of the previous message that is not relevant to your reply, to save space on the news
servers and people's computers, and to make it easy for us to see what you are replying to. • Put
your reply below the previous message. In normal conversation, you answer a question after it has
been asked, not before, and exactly the same holds true here. Thanks]

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Stephen (aka steford) wrote:

> Are you suggesting then that cycling is very safe, that we have full respect from all car users
> and that cycling is given the support and funding that is given to motor transport?

Cycling is safe. Not 100% safe, but safe enough that millions of people carry on doing it without
feeling sufficiently endangered to give it up. When I go out on my bike, my main worries are that I
might go too far and be too tired to get home, I might get lost or take a wrong turn, I might have
left the oven on, I might get home and find that some little git has broken the kitchen window
again. The risk of being mown down while on my bike is so small that that thought doesn't even get
a look in.

Look at an Ordnance Survey Landranger map from about 10 years ago, and then look at the same map
from the most recent set. Look at what has changed. What you are likely to see is:
- more tourist attractions marked
- a few new housing estates or shopping centres
- a couple of new roads •• lots of cycle routes ••

The National Cycle Network is probably the biggest transport initiative in the UK in the last decade
and will very likely hold that place for most of the next. Some of the routes may not be ideal, but
a great many of them are, and the extra provision that is being made for cyclists right now is huge,
whether it be in storage and parking, cycle lanes, contraflows, ASLs, off-road routes, signposting,
you name it, cyclists are getting it.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Stephen (aka steford) wrote:

<big snip>

> But why should someone behind me at a red say, when I go through it, be annoyed. OK if I went
> through and a car comes out from the side street and has to brake, swerve etc then fair enough ( I
> don't do this!!), but the only reason me going through a red would infuriate the car behind me is
> that he can't.

How do you know what the other drivers are thinking? I'll tell you now, you don't.

When I - as variously a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist - see someone doing something illegal and
potentially hazardous, such as passing a red traffic light, I get annoyed. And it doesn't have to be
anywhere near me. The reason it annoys me is that I can very often see that it is *not* perfectly
safe for the cyclist to do that. It may be reasonably safe, he will probably get away without
hitting anyone, but when you are breaking the law, that is simply not good enough. So my next
thought is inevitably "What if he *did* hit someone?", and then I get more angry.

Also, as a cyclist, I get particularly annoyed by any POB¹ I see breaking the law flagrantly and
with plenty of witnesses, because it does damage all cyclists in those witnesses' eyes. They see an
idiot cyclist or six, and conclude that all cyclists are idiots. Then they take it out on me next
time they pass me on my bike. Is that a good enough reason to be ****** off?

> The only thing infuruating to the cars behind in this case is that they didn't make it through -
> no blame of the car drivers themselves as going through reds in those circumstances seems to be
> standard.

I can't say that I have ever noticed that attitude. Sometimes car drivers are frustrated by drivers
ahead who are so slow off the mark that they are prevented from getting through the lights when they
could have done, but I've never seen anyone get batey because the driver in front jumped the lights
and they weren't able to.

> I don't think so as we know posts here have no effect. Writer's to local papers think they can
> change the world and that the world cares.

Some people think the same here.

> Not illegal to cycle on pavement I believe although there are various minor laws which could be
> brought into play although not specifically for that.

Unless it is explicitly allowed, it is illegal to cycle on a pavement other than to gain access
to property.

¹ Person On Bike² ² Is the plural POBs? PsOB? Or still just POB?

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Andy P]

"Stevie D" <[email protected]> wrote

> Danger? What danger? Roads have been shown in numerous studies to be the safest place to cycle.
> Safer even than off-road paths such as Milton Keynes' Redways. What you are confusing is "actual
> danger" and "perceived danger". The actual danger is very slight. The perceived danger is often
> much higher, because people project their own incompetent driving onto others, and wonder how
> anyone can feel safe without being strapped into a 1½ ton steel box with crumple zones. And
> people, cyclists especially, who say that the roads are too dangerous for cyclists only serve to
> perpetuate and propagate the myth.

I can't say I see the roads I use as overly dangerous from my own experiences but I think the number
of collisions between cyclists and vehicles or near misses that get posted on here tell a different
story. Seems like an awful lot to me.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> (a) The letter is true

No. It impies that this is the behaviour of cyclists in general, whereas it mainly describes the
behaviour of "yoofs."

It also implies that motorists are paragons of virtue, which we all know is not the case. Take all
the cyclists and pedestrians off the roads and you'd still have thousands dead and tens of thousands
seriously injured every year.

> (b) It's not anti-cycling in general.

No, just anti-cyclist. Can't see that the distinction is worht making, mind...

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[David Hansen]

On 9 Sep 2003 05:30:49 +0950 someone who may be Brunswick_kate <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>David -- where has a completely seperate system been tried? I'd like to read up on that.

Read the report referred to earlier in the thread.

There never has been and never will be a completely separate system. The closest that one will find
is in places like Milton Keynes, which is referred to in the report.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Brunswick_kate wrote:

> David -- where has a completely seperate system been tried? I'd like to read up on that.

Milton Keynes, designed in at the start. Google "redways" as well as M-K.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Stephen (aka steford) wrote:

> I can see that in most circumstances 15mph on the pavement could be deemed more dangerous than the
> road. I assume we are talking about "overall" danger - to pedestrians, self etc. But 5mph on the
> pavement has got to be safer than the same speed or greater than the road. No amount of studies or
> stats would convince me otherwise.

If you've decided you can't be confused with facts because your mind is made up then there's not
much room for debate, but I would implore you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
So might all the studies and evidence, but Occam's Razor suggests it's more likely to be you.

Yes, just above walking speed on X meters of continuous, otherwise deserted pavement may well be
safer, but don't forget that you'll have to cross roads where you'd otherwise have right of way and
now don't. Case in point, last night I was going shopping, and the route gave me the option of a
very nice cycleway (Dundee Riverside). I chose to use the 4 lane main road instead, and by sitting
in the middle of the slow lane almost everyone passing me used the whole available space and the
remainder used most of it. Nobody got held up AFAICT. There was someone else on a bike who went to
use the cycle path, but to get to it she had to *cross over* 4 lanes of busy traffic, and if she
went to the same destination as me she'd have to cross them back again, where I just turned left at
a roundabout. Do you *really* think that *must* be safer?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Gary Sinnott]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:23:10 +0100, "Peter Connolly" <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2F8324D5
>
>...tolerance to all road users, eh?
>
>I'm waiting to see what the local cycling groups response is.
>
>Regards,
>
>Pete.

"So come on you arrogant cyclists - obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

Oh, righto. I spose I must defer to quite a few arrogant motorists/bikers and one or two peds too.
Granted there are some right ****'eads on bikes these days but what is he saying - **** him off and
he'll run ya down, or what?

This guy is probably related to the drongo that reckons cycling isn't sport. If not in body, at
least in mentality.

Since this time last week, I've seen at least 5 twats driving with mobile phones in one hand and a
half-controlled vehicle in the other. One prawn was even negotiating a 3-way mini-roundabout (making
a right) at a busy time whilst yakking away on his phone using his left hand - and it was a manual
gearbox job so he had less than perfect control. Just missed making a mess of two cars and a cycle.

That's not counting all the other bad drivelling I see in my travels both on cycle and foot. I spend
as much time looking for bailout points as I do on the journey itself.

This is nothing like the good manners I commented on a month or two back - some of the Yanks in a
mad dash for work on Mildenhall base are starting to freak me out. Driving through mini-roundabouts
and either way around moving traffic already on them is becoming a regular thing. Good job I've got
Armadillo tyres on my bike as the glass can be quite thick some days. As can the drivers.

Laws of the road? Law of the jungle more like.

Gary (disgruntled & low on potassium, currently cycling like a sloth on Mogadon)

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------

 

[Peter Clinch]

Stephen (aka steford) wrote:

> Are you suggesting then that cycling is very safe

It is, in real terms. That is not "totally safe", but nothing is. Have a look at
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582 and note the source as British Medical Journal, not a
hotbed of misguided cycle activism AFAICT.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[<-- Wide Load -]

| >> I have seen plenty of queues of motorised traffic on the roads. Not once has the queue been
| >> caused by a single cyclist. In every case it has been caused by motor traffic or roadworks.
| >
| >I can't believe that.
|
| Believe what you like, but I don't make things up.

I'm not talking about a static queue at lights David, I'm talking about a rolling 15MPH queue of 5/6
vehicles on a 60MPH road stuck behind a cyclist. The queue builds as more and more vehicles approach
from behind and not enough vehicles can overtake, meanwhile blissfully ignorant of this is the
cyclist up ahead enjoying the countryside. A tractor on the other hand would pull over from time to
time to let traffic past.

| >almost every time I go, there are roadies cycling on the main road.
|
| In groups or on their own?

Both.

| >I'm sorry but that just isn't safe,
|
| So you claim.

I don't know what kind of roads you cycle on, but I'm sure if you cycled the roads I'm talking
about, YOUR digestion system would be working a little overtime.

| >what must the roadies be thinking?!
|
| They are probably enjoying riding along most of the time. Main roads are often reasonably safe to
| use if ridden along properly.

Reasonably safe isn't good enough. In any case, you can't guarantee reasonably safe.

| >Are you trying to tell me that a cyclist only road is more dangerous than
a
| >standard road? EH?!
|
| You have already been referred to some information in this thread. Please read, mark and inwardly
| digest the information and then come back to us with your thoughts on that information.

Don't get snotty lord snooty.

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:35:34 +0100 someone who may be "<-- Wide Load -->"
| <apsw07048<removespam>@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote this:-
|
| >> I have seen plenty of queues of motorised traffic on the roads. Not once has the queue been
| >> caused by a single cyclist. In every case it has been caused by motor traffic or roadworks.
| >
| >I can't believe that.
|
| Believe what you like, but I don't make things up.
|
| >almost every time I go, there are roadies cycling on the main road.
|
| In groups or on their own?
|
| >what must the roadies be thinking?!
|
| They are probably enjoying riding along most of the time. Main roads are often reasonably safe to
| use if ridden along properly.
|
| >And there is always a queue of a few vehicles waiting to get past the cyclist safely.
|
| Ah, so your definition of "quite a queue" is in fact "a few". That's not my definition.
|
| >I'm sorry but that just isn't safe,
|
| So you claim.
|
| >Are you trying to tell me that a cyclist only road is more dangerous than
a
| >standard road? EH?!
|
| You have already been referred to some information in this thread. Please read, mark and inwardly
| digest the information and then come back to us with your thoughts on that information.
|
| >Where has it been tried?
|
| That is in the information you have already been referred to.
|
|
| --
| David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
| keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[<-- Wide Load -]

All it takes is one dozy driver. One little mistake.

Which actually happened a couple of months ago to a cyclist on the Greenoch 'A' road, he got
completely wiped out by a lorry. Poor guy didn't know what hit him. He was an accomplished cycler
aged 45 and used the route regularly to go to work. He actually worked at the same place my g/f
worked so she knew him.

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| Stephen (aka steford) wrote:
|
| > I can see that in most circumstances 15mph on the pavement could be
deemed
| > more dangerous than the road. I assume we are talking about "overall" danger - to pedestrians,
| > self etc. But 5mph on the pavement has got to
be
| > safer than the same speed or greater than the road. No amount of studies
or
| > stats would convince me otherwise.
|
| If you've decided you can't be confused with facts because your mind is made up then there's not
| much room for debate, but I would implore you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
| So might all the studies and evidence, but Occam's Razor suggests it's more likely to be
you.
|
| Yes, just above walking speed on X meters of continuous, otherwise deserted pavement may well be
| safer, but don't forget that you'll have to cross roads where you'd otherwise have right of way
| and now don't. Case in point, last night I was going shopping, and the route gave me the option of
| a very nice cycleway (Dundee Riverside). I chose to use the 4 lane main road instead, and by
| sitting in the middle of the slow lane almost everyone passing me used the whole available space
| and the remainder used most of it. Nobody got held up AFAICT. There was someone else on a bike who
| went to use the cycle path, but to get to it she had to *cross over* 4 lanes of busy traffic, and
| if she went to the same destination as me she'd have to cross them back again, where I just turned
| left at a roundabout. Do you *really* think that *must* be safer?
|
| Pete.
| --
| Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells
| Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
| http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|

 

[<-- Wide Load -]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C376B7.86C36170 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

'The first case-control study of about 2000 injuries to pedestrians in = Britain (180 of whom had
worn helmets) concluded that the risk of = serious head injury was reduced by 75% when a good
walking helmet was = worn'

I forgot my walking helmet today. (

'cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of = vehicles'

That is the point right there. No matter how lawful and good your = cycling is, other drivers of
vehicles will never treat you as equal. If = they did we wouldn't be having this discussion and
every cyclist would = be on the road without question. Even then, you could still get wiped = out
by a lorry.

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message = news:[email protected]...
| Stephen (aka steford) wrote:
|=20
| > Are you suggesting then that cycling is very safe
|=20
| It is, in real terms. That is not "totally safe", but nothing is. =
Have=20
| a look at http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582 and note the=20 source as British Medical
| Journal, not a hotbed of misguided cycle=20 activism AFAICT.
|=20
| Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
| Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
| http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|=20

------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C376B7.86C36170 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML
6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>'The first case-control study of about = 2000 injuries=20 to
pedestrians in Britain (180 of whom had worn helmets) concluded=20 that<SUP> </SUP>the
risk of serious head injury was reduced by 75% when = a=20 good<SUP> </SUP>walking helmet was
worn'</FONT></DIV>
<DV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DVI><FONT face=3DArial>I forgot my walking helmet today. = (</FONT></DIV>
<DVII><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DVIII><FONT face=3DArial>'cyclists fare best when they act and are = treated as=20 drivers of
vehicles'</FONT></DIV>
<DIX><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DX><FONT face=3DArial>That is the point right there. No matter = how lawful=20 and good
your cycling is, other drivers of vehicles will never treat you = as=20 equal. If
they did we wouldn't be having this discussion and = every=20 cyclist would be on the
road without question. Even then, you = could still=20 get wiped out by a
lorry.</FONT></DIV>
<DXI><FONT face=3DArial></FONT><FONT color=3D#63ceff></FONT> </DIV>
<DXII><FONT face=3DArial>"Peter Clinch" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto[email protected]"><FONT=20
face=3DArial>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial>> = wrote in=20 message
</FONT><A href=3D"news:[email protected]"><FONT=20
face=3DArial>news:[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial>| Stephen (aka steford) = wrote:<BR>|=20
<BR>| > Are you suggesting then that cycling is very safe<BR>| <BR>| = It is,=20 in real
terms. That is not "totally safe", but nothing is. = Have=20 <BR>| a look at
</FONT><A=20 href=3D"http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582"><FONT=20
face=3DArial>http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582</FONT></A><FON= T=20 face=3DArial>
and note the <BR>| source as British Medical Journal, not = a hotbed=20 of misguided cycle
<BR>| activism AFAICT.<BR>| <BR>| Pete.<BR>| -- <BR>| = Peter=20 Clinch University of
Dundee<BR>| Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical = Physics,=20 Ninewells Hospital<BR>| Fax
44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland = UK<BR>| net=20 </FONT><A
href=3D"mailto[email protected]"><FONT=20
face=3DArial>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial> = </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/"><FONT=20
face=3DArial>http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/</FONT></A><BR><FONT = face=3DArial>|=20
</FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C376B7.86C36170--

 

[Peter Clinch]

<-- Wide Load -->

> I'm not talking about a static queue at lights David, I'm talking about a rolling 15MPH queue of
> 5/6 vehicles on a 60MPH road stuck behind a cyclist. The queue builds as more and more vehicles
> approach from behind and not enough vehicles can overtake, meanwhile blissfully ignorant of this
> is the cyclist up ahead enjoying the countryside. A tractor on the other hand would pull over from
> time to time to let traffic past.

Here you make the same sort of sweeping suggestion the thread started
with, and it's just as silly. A cyclist is just another road user, as
is a tractor driver. Either can choose to pull in or not, and it's much
easier for a cyclist to pull in than a tractor. *I* pull in to let cars
by me if I'm causing a queue, and I find if I'm driving then typical
cyclists make the effort for me. Consideration breeds consideration.

> I don't know what kind of roads you cycle on, but I'm sure if you cycled the roads I'm talking
> about, YOUR digestion system would be working a little overtime.

It would help if you told us what roads you *are* talking about. I cycle on lots of different roads,
from marginal private tracks to fast dual carriageway. I don't feel unduly threatened on them, any
more than I do in a car. I don't want to have an accident in either mode, and don't assume it's
inevitable that I will.

> Reasonably safe isn't good enough. In any case, you can't guarantee reasonably safe.

*Exactly* the same reasoning applies to cars, buses etc., planes and trains too, or being a
pedestrian. You can't *guarantee* "reasonably safe" in those modes of transport either, yet people
are happy to use them. Thus, it's an obvious conclusion that they're held to be "reasonably safe".

> | You have already been referred to some information in this thread. Please read, mark and
> | inwardly digest the information and then come back to us with your thoughts on that information.
>
> Don't get snotty lord snooty.

But the fact is you have been referred to serious studies that suggest very, very strongly that your
instincts are indeed wrong. It isn't "getting snotty" to point someone at a set of good reference
material when it's directly relevant to the discussion at hand. Where it might even improve their
personal safety if it's taken on board, I'd say it's *helpful*: that it's unwanted advice doesn't
make it bad advice.

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582 is good reading.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'm not talking about a static queue at lights David, I'm talking about a rolling 15MPH queue of
> 5/6 vehicles on a 60MPH road stuck behind a
cyclist.
> The queue builds as more and more vehicles approach from behind and not enough vehicles can
> overtake, meanwhile blissfully ignorant of this is the cyclist up ahead enjoying the countryside.
> A tractor on the other hand would pull over from time to time to let traffic past.

ROFLMAO! Having followed a convoy of three tractors on a road with no overtaking possibilities but
plenty of laybys for a distance of nearly forty miles on one occasion, I can safely say "your
tractors may vary."

It's also a damned sight easier to get past a bike than a tractor. Easier still if you adopt
standard practice and don't bother waiting for a safe place.

I pull over and let following vehicles pass if there is a queue, but I don't do it immediately, I
wait for a safe place. Some drivers think I am obliged to move out of the way immediately, and that
failure to do so negates their obligation to use reasonable care. Those are the ones who worry me.

Moving on,

>|>Are you trying to tell me that a cyclist only road is more dangerous than a standard road? EH?!

Assuming you mean a cycle track or lane, then yes. As others have said, the statistics are
conclusive.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[Marc]

" <-- Wide Load --> wrote:

> All it takes is one dozy driver. One little mistake.
>
> Which actually happened a couple of months ago to a cyclist on the Greenoch 'A' road, he got
> completely wiped out by a lorry. Poor guy didn't know what hit him. He was an accomplished cycler
> aged 45 and used the route regularly to go to work. He actually worked at the same place my g/f
> worked so she knew him.
>
>
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | Stephen (aka steford) wrote:
> |
> | > I can see that in most circumstances 15mph on the pavement could be
> deemed
> | > more dangerous than the road. I assume we are talking about "overall" danger - to pedestrians,
> | > self etc. But 5mph on the pavement has got to
> be
> | > safer than the same speed or greater than the road. No amount of studies
> or
> | > stats would convince me otherwise.
> |
> | If you've decided you can't be confused with facts because your mind is made up then there's not
> | much room for debate, but I would implore you to consider the possibility that you might be
> | wrong. So might all the studies and evidence, but Occam's Razor suggests it's more likely to be
> you.
> |
> | Yes, just above walking speed on X meters of continuous, otherwise deserted pavement may well be
> | safer, but don't forget that you'll have to cross roads where you'd otherwise have right of way
> | and now don't. Case in point, last night I was going shopping, and the route gave me the option
> | of a very nice cycleway (Dundee Riverside). I chose to use the 4 lane main road instead, and by
> | sitting in the middle of the slow lane almost everyone passing me used the whole available space
> | and the remainder used most of it. Nobody got held up AFAICT. There was someone else on a bike
> | who went to use the cycle path, but to get to it she had to *cross over* 4 lanes of busy
> | traffic, and if she went to the same destination as me she'd have to cross them back again,
> | where I just turned left at a roundabout. Do you *really* think that *must* be safer?
> |
> | Pete.
> | --
> | Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells
> | Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
> | http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Busy road means lots of trafic didn't hit him, accomplished cyclist means that he had doen it
often , safely, the only single factor in the equation seems to be your girlfriend knowing him, so
it must be her fault. Reasoning as logical as posting at the top.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/