Another anti-cycling letter in a local newspaper



Status
Not open for further replies.
Stevie D <[email protected]> writes:

> 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".

Oooooh! Can I be a "Lycra Lout"? Can I can I can I? *Pretty* please?

--
[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
 
Toby Sleigh wrote:
> "Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Roger Barker wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going through a red as long as I'm
>> not putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which I see daily)
>>
> Why on earth can'tyou simply obey the rules of the road. If you want to be treated as a legitimate
> road user then act like one.
>
> Toby

Because I think it's pretty much OK to ride on the pavement in some circumstances, it's not enforced
(largely) and I don't consider it hazardous. For the same reason I cycle through Hyde Park on non
cycle paths as it's more pleasant and safer than the busy road nearby. If I thought I was dangerous
to others or presented any kind of hazard then I wouldn't do
it. Same for red lights, or crossing the road as a pedestrian or driving over 70mph on the motorway.
I don't want to put myself, my family or others at risk - and I don't believe I do.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> "Stephen \(aka steford\)" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> <-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I personally cycle on the pavement when going to work ( and a few side roads ), I wouldn't dare
>>>> risk the main road.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you are fooling yourself because all the evidence and research shows the pavement is far
>>> more dangerous a place to cycle than even main roads. Go to John Franklin's (author of
>>> Cyclecraft) site and peruse the research and studies he has listed there -
>>> http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html
>>
>> 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.
>
> Read the report. It's pretty conclusive and pretty damning. You are between 3.4 and 11 times
> _more_ likely to have an accident on a cyclepath than on a road, per mile travelled. And if you're
> using paths with pedestrians, the chances are that what you hit won't have handy steel armour
> round it, so you'll hurt someone.
>
> 'No amount of studies or stats would convince me otherwise'...!

Seems that everyone is talking about different things here. You're talking about "hurting others"
which of course is more likely on the pavement - but if I'm going slow I'm no more dangerous than a
wheelchair/pushchair and far less so than a kid on a scooter/bike. If, as the previous poster is,
are talking about danger to self then there is no way a pavement is more dangerous at slow speeds -
even at higher speeds you aren't going to face a collision with a fast moving, large metal object
and I am confident I can avoid stationary ones.
 
" <-- Wide Load --> wrote:

> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

FFS

Not content with being a top posting prat you now have to add HTML to your blatherings!

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

It is if it takes their argument apart!

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

Was it your intention to be a heartless pr*ck with that comment? Because you succeeded.

"Yes Mrs. *****, your husband is dead, he was hit by a lorry, but look on the bright side, there
were thousands of other lorry's and cars that didn't hit him!."

"marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1g10jhq.137jmvq1ynoyn5N%[email protected]...
| " <-- 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/
 
"Toby Sleigh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Why on earth can'tyou simply obey the rules of the road. If you want to be treated as a legitimate
> road user then act like one.

Given that in excess of 90% of drivers admit to speeding, breaking the rules would appear to be a
qualifying criterion for being a "legitimate" road user...

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
<-- Wide Load -->

> 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.

But they generally do. Every day. Really. Just being in a one tonne armoured box doesn't make
drivers assume it'll be no bother if they hit a cyclist. They might not like having to wait behind
for, oooh, up to as much as a minute before getting by me, but they will wait, and my road
positioning will make them wait if I choose to do that for my own safety. And in return I'll make
the effort to let them by as soon as it's safe and not especially inconvenient for me to do so.

And I'm the driver of another vehicle too. And in the car I treat cycles as equals.
Because they are.

> 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.

Do you think that cars are incapable of being wiped off the map by a 20 tonne truck? I'd call in at
your local A&E and ask how many serious RTA victims come through the door who were driving cars.
Cars are, of course, less manoeuvrable, generally travelling at speeds where the driver's reaction
times count for less, and easier to hit because they're bigger. Cars are not intrinsically safe, any
more than bikes: it's simply a public perception that riding on a road is dangerous and the actual
figures don't back that perception up.

You cycle off-road. You cycle on unpredictable trails that aren't subject to planning laws or
traffic regulations and are not maintained to any standards. Does that really strike you as
inherently safer than a road just because there aren't any lorries on it?

You say you never cycle on main roads so it would appear to be the case that your opinions are based
on perception rather than the direct experience of doing it. That's not a very sound basis for
concrete conclusions if you think about it. And nor is anecdotal evidence: you really do have to
look at the bigger picture and statistics have a track record of being the best way of doing that.

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/
 
Stephen (aka steford) wrote:

> Seems that everyone is talking about different things here. You're talking about "hurting others"
> which of course is more likely on the pavement - but if I'm going slow I'm no more dangerous than
> a wheelchair/pushchair and far less so than a kid on a scooter/bike. If, as the previous poster
> is, are talking about danger to self then there is no way a pavement is more dangerous at slow
> speeds - even at higher speeds you aren't going to face a collision with a fast moving, large
> metal object and I am confident I can avoid stationary ones.

On a pavement, unless you only ever visit locations on the same block, you'll have to stop and cross
roads at junctions. This is more dangerous than riding on the road to start with: accidents mostly
occur at junctions, and you're yielding right of way far more from the pavement than the road. You
effectively become a pedestrian every time you need to cross a street. A&E departments have people
who were crossing streets. So yes, there is certainly a way pavements are more dangerous, and that
is because you frequently have to leave them to get most places. Often a problem with dedicated
cycle paths too.

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/
 
"Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

* Danger to others:

You are more dangerous than a pedestrian, who can stop and turn immediately, and that's all that
matters. You also cause fear in the elderly, who don't hear you coming and see this blur passing by
(unless you are moving at walking pace, in which case why take the bike?)

* Danger to you:

You have to cross every side road as a pedestrian, which is several times more dangerous than just
riding past said side road on the main carriageway. You are out of the drivers' dight line and
moving faster than a pedestrian, also less able to stop. Someone reversing out of their drive can
easily fail to see you.

Cyclists emerging onto the road form the pavement are also likely to be involved in a crash. Form
memory, only roundabouts are more dangerous than emerging from the pavement.

Bottom line: as well as being illegal and widely disliked by pedestrians, riding on the pavement is
between threee and ten times more dangerous than riding on the road.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
"<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Was it your intention to be a heartless pr*ck with that comment? Because you succeeded. "Yes Mrs.
> *****, your husband is dead, he was hit by a lorry, but look on the bright side, there were
> thousands of other lorry's and cars that
didn't
> hit him!."

So much more heartless than "Yes, Mrs *****, your husband is dead and it's all his own fault for
having the temerity to exercise his right of way on a road with careless drivers on it."

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
" <-- Wide Load --> wrote:

> | 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/
>
> Was it your intention to be a heartless pr*ck with that comment? Because you succeeded.
>
> "Yes Mrs. *****, your husband is dead, he was hit by a lorry, but look on the bright side, there
> were thousands of other lorry's and cars that didn't hit him!."
>
>
> "marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1g10jhq.137jmvq1ynoyn5N%[email protected]...
> | " <-- 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/

I'm sorry , what exactly is a prack? If you cannot see further than the personalities involved
to consider the numbers, may I suggest that you don't get involved in arguments about
perceptions v reality?
--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
Personality?! You?! Are you sure? Because you ain't funny. And it's not an argument, more an
exchange of views.

"marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1g10l2p.1hr6jzj1kpcoyzN%[email protected]...
| " <-- Wide Load --> wrote:
|
| > | 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/
| >
| > Was it your intention to be a heartless pr*ck with that comment?
Because
| > you succeeded.
| >
| > "Yes Mrs. *****, your husband is dead, he was hit by a lorry, but look
on
| > the bright side, there were thousands of other lorry's and cars that
didn't
| > hit him!."
| >
| >
| > "marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:1g10jhq.137jmvq1ynoyn5N%[email protected]...
| > | " <-- 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/
|
| I'm sorry , what exactly is a prack? If you cannot see further than the personalities involved
| to consider the numbers, may I suggest that you don't get involved in arguments about
| perceptions v reality?
| --
| Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all
| types. http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
" <-- Wide Load --> wrote:

> Personality?! You?! Are you sure? Because you ain't funny. And it's not an argument, more an
> exchange of views.
>
>
> "marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1g10l2p.1hr6jzj1kpcoyzN%[email protected]...
> | " <-- Wide Load --> wrote:
> |
> | > | 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/
> | >
> | > Was it your intention to be a heartless pr*ck with that comment?
> Because
> | > you succeeded.
> | >
> | > "Yes Mrs. *****, your husband is dead, he was hit by a lorry, but look
> on
> | > the bright side, there were thousands of other lorry's and cars that
> didn't
> | > hit him!."
> | >
> | >
> | > "marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > news:1g10jhq.137jmvq1ynoyn5N%[email protected]...
> | > | " <-- 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/
> |
> | I'm sorry , what exactly is a prack? If you cannot see further than the personalities involved
> | to consider the numbers, may I suggest that you don't get involved in arguments about
> | perceptions v reality?
> | --
> | Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all
> | types. http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

Yes. No, your girlfriend's victim. Yes. I'm not trying to be.A rose by any other name.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
| * Danger to others:
|
| You are more dangerous than a pedestrian, who can stop and turn
immediately,
| and that's all that matters. You also cause fear in the elderly, who
don't
| hear you coming and see this blur passing by (unless you are moving at walking pace, in which case
| why take the bike?)

Slow down approaching pedestrians.

| * Danger to you:
|
| You have to cross every side road as a pedestrian, which is several times more dangerous than just
| riding past said side road on the main
carriageway.
| You are out of the drivers' dight line and moving faster than a
pedestrian,
| also less able to stop. Someone reversing out of their drive can easily fail to see you.

This is a good point, junctions are dodgy but far less a risk than cycling on the road from
experience, I have had so many close calls on the road, far less than when I'm on the pavement. You
can hear people reversing out of drives and can see above hedges and fences, also.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| "Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|
| * Danger to others:
|
| You are more dangerous than a pedestrian, who can stop and turn
immediately,
| and that's all that matters. You also cause fear in the elderly, who
don't
| hear you coming and see this blur passing by (unless you are moving at walking pace, in which case
| why take the bike?)
|
| * Danger to you:
|
| You have to cross every side road as a pedestrian, which is several times more dangerous than just
| riding past said side road on the main
carriageway.
| You are out of the drivers' dight line and moving faster than a
pedestrian,
| also less able to stop. Someone reversing out of their drive can easily fail to see you.
|
| Cyclists emerging onto the road form the pavement are also likely to be involved in a crash. Form
| memory, only roundabouts are more dangerous
than
| emerging from the pavement.
|
|
| Bottom line: as well as being illegal and widely disliked by pedestrians, riding on the pavement
| is between threee and ten times more dangerous than riding on the road.
|
| --
| Guy
| ===
|
| WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
| http://www.chapmancentral.com
|
|
 
<-- Wide Load -->
> Personality?! You?! Are you sure? Because you ain't funny. And it's not an argument, more an
> exchange of views.

In this case getting to be just throwing insults. But the point is still valid that you need to look
at the numbers to draw useful conclusions. Anecdotal evidence isn't really worth anything in the
broader picture, or flying is now likely (as opposed to remotely possibly) to have terrorists crash
you into a skyscraper.

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 <[email protected]> writes:

>The usual thing here is to say how wonderful cycle ways like they have in the NL would be. Fact is,
>if you look at the statistics for accidents in the NL then separate cycleways that have to coexist
>with a road network are *not* safer. Whatever "common sense" may say.

I would be hesitant to draw simplistic conclusions from statistics here...

After moving to Scotland a couple of years ago (after 30 years of cycling in the Netherlands) I am
realising more and more that there are a lot of differences between cycling here and cycling in the
NL. Not just in the way the roads are laid out, but also in traffic rules (both written and
unwritten), amount and types of people cycling, types and condition of cycles used, overall
attitudes of everybody involved, etcetera. I know that I had to change some of my habits after
moving, and I still have to change more. It took me a while to realise that my lifelong way of
cycling was not right here ("I'm Dutch, don't tell me how to ride a bike! :) "). Reading the
discussions (rants?) in this ng do help me to see things from the uk point of view. I would expect
that any of you coming over to the NL would have to make a similar sort of transition.

When I first moved I wouldn't even think of cycling on the Riverside Drive. I still don't but I can
see it being possible. In the NL I would be explicitly forbidden to ride on a road like that, and
there would be a decent bike path next to it, not the 'shared with pedestrians full of lamp posts
and bumps' thing that we have here. One reason I wouldn't use it is that in the NL a bike is a very
different road user than a car, it is in its own class. Roads are usually wide enough for cars to
pass me, and if I have to turn left (from riding on the right side of the road) I don't take up a
place in the line of traffic like a car, instead I wait on the side of the road until there is a gap
between cars and then cross. I am still confused here when cars behind me wait patiently for me to
cross before them :)

Roos
 
Roos Eisma wrote:

> I would be hesitant to draw simplistic conclusions from statistics here...
>
> After moving to Scotland a couple of years ago (after 30 years of cycling in the Netherlands) I am
> realising more and more that there are a lot of differences between cycling here and cycling in
> the NL. Not just in the way the roads are laid out, but also in traffic rules (both written and
> unwritten), amount and types of people cycling, types and condition of cycles used, overall
> attitudes of everybody involved, etcetera.

Good point, and quite so. Though probably the case that because of the basic cultural differences
with respect to cycles, suddenly magicking up a bike path system like the NL's in the UK would do
less for safety than the one already in the NL, and it isn't perfect there even where it's in
context. Yet bike paths continue to be waved around in public as a glorious panacea for all our
cycling safety woes. Cycling on the roads is far from perfect, but that doesn't mean any alternative
will necessarily be better.

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

> Slow down approaching pedestrians.

Again: if you are content to move at pedestrian speeds, why bring the bike?

> junctions are dodgy but far less a risk than cycling on the road from experience

The statistics are against you.

I'll say it again: as well as being illegal and widely disliked by pedestrians, riding on the
pavement is between three and ten times more dangerous than riding on the road.

> I have had so many close calls on the road, far less than when I'm on the pavement

In which case I suggest a trip to the library: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/ccraft/ccraft.htm

Crashes are a rare event. It takes about 3,000 years of average cycling for a road cyclist to
suffer a serious injury, so individual experience is a lousy indicator of the overall levels of
comparitive risk. John Franklin and others have analysed the data over a period of years, and
calculated that riding on the pavement is more dangerous. Similar analysis in other jurisdictions
yields similar results.

Shared use pavements are now officially deprecated and are considered a last resort when planning
cycle provision for exactly these reasons.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Another anti cycling rant.
Replies
8
Views
461
UK and Europe
wheelist
wheelist
U
Yet another anti-cycling rant...
Replies
14
Views
557
UK and Europe
John Blake
J
S
Another anti-cycling voice in The Sun.
Replies
58
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Mike Causer
M
M
Another new cycling/walking bridge open
Replies
8
Views
673
UK and Europe
Tim B
T
M
[OT] Yet another motorists caught on camera using a mobile phone.
Replies
2
Views
488
UK and Europe
Clive George
C
Top Bottom Back