Another anti-cycling letter in a local newspaper



Status
Not open for further replies.
<-- Wide Load -->

> Slow down approaching pedestrians.

Well, that's fine, but sometimes I'm on the bike for speed. if I'm=20 forced to use a shared use
path where I have to slow down every=20 half-minute it defeats the point.

> This is a good point, junctions are dodgy but far less a risk than cycl=
ing
> 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.

It seems from what you type that you actually have very limited=20 experience cycling on the road.
So it's entirely possible that you=20 cycle as close in to the kerb as you can, because you're
worried about=20 moving out? Would that be a fair description? It *is* a fair=20 description of the
way a lot of people cycle, and the way I used to.=20 It's another case of what people of thinking is
"common sense" safety=20 being far more dangerous than actual best practice, which is riding=20
further out. Whether or not my conjecture about your road positioning is true, the=20 fact remains
that experience overall, as outlined in the studies=20 mentioned, is that pavement cycling really
*is* *more* of a risk. Don't =

forget you're not particularly taking issue with *me* on this, but with=20 a very heavy weight of
empirical, real-world data which doesn't do=20 "exchange of views".

I've been through the "it *must* be much safer wearing a helmet" and "it =

*must* be much safer on a cycle path" stages too. But I changed my mind =

when confronted with hard evidence to the contrary, and lots and lots of =
it.

Worth saying it again, you're strongly advised to read Cyclecraft (John=20 Franklin, The Stationery
Office Books; ISBN: 0117020516, =A310). It's a =

mine of info on how to cycle safely on roads.

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/
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> "<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
snip

I don't know how you ride/walk but I'm quite capable of looking both ways, listening and crossing at
junctions either on my bike, scooter or walking and I have been so probably since childhood. I slow
down if there are pedestrians out of courtesy, go faster when there is no-one about - that's why I
take the bike. I'm on the road most of the time but not when there's a safer/quicker option that
doesn't inconvenience pedestrians. No amounts of statistics will tell me that I personally can't
cross a road safely - if you believe them over your own self then you need to go on some sort of
self-awareness or character building exercise.
 
> Your venom would be better targeted at the inconsiderate cyclist.
>

Venom? There is no venom in my message. I was reporting the existence of a letter.

I think we all agree that the real problem is inconsiderate cyclists, and we get those just as often
as we get inconsiderate drivers. But the author of the original letter did not make that
distinction, and in effect threatened all cyclists.

Regards

Pete. Derby.
 
His threat certainly sounded ominous to me, but he'd have to mount the kerb to catch me!

"Peter Connolly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| >
| > Your venom would be better targeted at the inconsiderate cyclist.
| >
|
| Venom? There is no venom in my message. I was reporting the existence of a letter.
|
| I think we all agree that the real problem is inconsiderate cyclists, and
we
| get those just as often as we get inconsiderate drivers. But the author of the original letter did
| not make that distinction, and in effect
threatened
| all cyclists.
|
| Regards
|
| Pete. Derby.
|
|
 
"<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> A tractor on the other hand would pull over from time to time to let traffic past.

Which planet?
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Crashes are a rare event. It takes about 3,000 years of average cycling
for
> a road cyclist to suffer a serious injury

Nice statistic, but isn't "average cycling" mileage close to zero for the population of the UK.
 
<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk> must be edykated coz e writed:

> His threat certainly sounded ominous to me, but he'd have to mount the kerb to catch me!
>
>
I drive a nice big 4X4, I'll get you wherever you try to escape to.

--
Ian

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

> His threat certainly sounded ominous to me, but he'd have to mount the
kerb
> to catch me!

Less unlikely than you think. Of the 185 pedestrians killed by vehicles on the footway between 1998
and 2000, all but one were hit by motor vehicles.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
No way! You can't tell me that me running into a pedestrian with my bike will kill them.. I've heard
of cyclists being kicked by horses and dying, but cyclists killing peds?

"|
|
| Less unlikely than you think. Of the 185 pedestrians killed by vehicles
on
| the footway between 1998 and 2000, all but one were hit by motor vehicles.
|
| --
| Guy
| ===
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

Union jack cycling shorts. No top to expose large white belly. Filter past cars chanting "you only
sing when you're moving". Point at a few drivers and shout "aarr - you're ****"
 
Sorry Dad, will adapt. New to newsgroups. Please keep me right.

|
|
| [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" ___\\\\\\\'/
| \'///////_____________________________________________
 
Andy P wrote:

> 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.

It's human nature to report the bad stuff rather than the good stuff. How often does the Six O'Clock
News report "It was a nice day and 98% of people were very happy and had nothing bad happen to
them"? Most days it is true, but you never hear about it.

If everyone posted a message about every ride they did, the news servers of the world would collapse
in a matter of hours <g>. And the vast majority of messages would be along the lines of "I went for
a bike ride and nothing bad happened". Then you'd never even notice the handful that are about less
pleasant incidents.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
<-- Wide Load --> <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Could you please ask your tractor drivers to educate the North Yorkshire tractor drivers? It is
_very_ rare that a tractor driver will pull over, even with a queue of 20 or more cars behind
him for several miles. I have never seen a queue like that behind cyclists. Why? Because a
cyclist, being just a couple of feet wide, is very easy to get past, for any competent driver on
almost any road.

I don't know what world you live on, but it's not one that I am familiar with. Every time I'm out
on my bike, if there is a car or two waiting to pass me, I am painfully aware of it, and of the
fact that I am holding it up, and I would much rather slow and pull in than keep it behind me for a
long time.

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

But that's exactly what you do when you are breaking the law by cycling on the pavement and
advocating cycling past red traffic lights. The difference is that cyclists are allowed to ride on
main roads, so the onus is on following drivers to look out for them.

<50 lines deleted - please learn how to post properly>

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
<-- Wide Load --> <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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!."

Nothing of the sort. Accidents happen. They can happen if you are driving, cycling, walking,
climbing a ladder, doing pretty much anything. No-one is trying to make light of this man's death,
but the fact that he used the road for so long without incident shows that it was not as dangerous
as you seem to think.

Yes, all it takes is one driver who is not paying attention, but that can happen anywhere that you
come into contact with a road; a driver backing out of his driveway, turning into a side road, not
watching the road and mounting the kerb. It is many times safer to cycle on the road than the
pavement; this is a fact that has been established by many independent studies carried out across
the world.

Please learn to quote and post properly and to use a valid email address when contributing to this
newsgroup.

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

"Stevie D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| <-- Wide Load --> <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| > 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!."
|
| Nothing of the sort. Accidents happen. They can happen if you are driving, cycling, walking,
| climbing a ladder, doing pretty much anything. No-one is trying to make light of this man's death,
| but the fact that he used the road for so long without incident shows that it was not as dangerous
| as you seem to think.
|
| Yes, all it takes is one driver who is not paying attention, but that can happen anywhere that you
| come into contact with a road; a driver backing out of his driveway, turning into a side road, not
| watching the road and mounting the kerb. It is many times safer to cycle on the road than the
| pavement; this is a fact that has been established by many independent studies carried out across
| the world.
|
| Please learn to quote and post properly and to use a valid email address when contributing to this
| newsgroup.
|
| --
| Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
| common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
| \'///////_____________________________________________
 
ok, ok, I wil get the book. :)

And yes, I usually cycle as close to the kerb as possible when on the road as I've been side-swiped,
and it's not nice and makes me very wary and paranoid.

Lots of people are quoting stats, but I think stats vary, certainly from country to country, we
don't really hold a candle to NL and Germany who's cyclist numbers are much higher than ours here in
the UK, and also from region to region, people drive differently in different areas of the UK. In
the West of Scotland where I live drivers are particularly mental and have verly little respect for
the cyclist.

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... <--
Wide Load -->

> Slow down approaching pedestrians.

Well, that's fine, but sometimes I'm on the bike for speed. if I'm forced to use a shared use path
where I have to slow down every half-minute it defeats the point.

> 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.

It seems from what you type that you actually have very limited experience cycling on the road. So
it's entirely possible that you cycle as close in to the kerb as you can, because you're worried
about moving out? Would that be a fair description? It *is* a fair description of the way a lot of
people cycle, and the way I used to. It's another case of what people of thinking is "common sense"
safety being far more dangerous than actual best practice, which is riding further out. Whether or
not my conjecture about your road positioning is true, the fact remains that experience overall, as
outlined in the studies mentioned, is that pavement cycling really *is* *more* of a risk. Don't
forget you're not particularly taking issue with *me* on this, but with a very heavy weight of
empirical, real-world data which doesn't do "exchange of views".

I've been through the "it *must* be much safer wearing a helmet" and "it *must* be much safer on a
cycle path" stages too. But I changed my mind when confronted with hard evidence to the contrary,
and lots and lots of it.

Worth saying it again, you're strongly advised to read Cyclecraft (John Franklin, The Stationery
Office Books; ISBN: 0117020516, £10). It's a mine of info on how to cycle safely on roads.

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/
 
"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> > Crashes are a rare event. It takes about 3,000 years of average cycling
> for
> > a road cyclist to suffer a serious injury

> Nice statistic, but isn't "average cycling" mileage close to zero for the population of the UK.

ISTR that this is the average for those who do cycle. But I can't remember the precise details.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
"Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I don't know how you ride/walk but I'm quite capable of looking both ways, listening and crossing
> at junctions either on my bike, scooter or walking

I'm sure you are. And I am capable of riding past the end of a junction with just a quick glance
down it to make sure there is no SMIDSY waiting to pull out. And I can see how that might be less
risky than crossing as a pedestrian, especially given the substantially higher pedestrian injury
rates at junctions.

> No amounts of statistics will tell me that I personally can't cross a road safely

And will nay amount of statistics persuade you that in general crossing roads is less safe than
riding past them? Because that's the issue.

I have no doubt that given sufficient time and effort it is possible to come up with situations
where riding on the pavement is less risky for individual parts of individual journeys (especially
if we ignore the risk of rejoining the road at the other end), but the statistics are about
generalities, and in general it is safer to be on the road.

This criticism of roadside cycle paths was first levelled in 1934. They have had seventy years to
come up with a solution and they haven't managed yet.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
"Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't know how you ride/walk but I'm quite capable of looking both ways, listening and crossing
> at junctions either on my bike, scooter or walking and I have been so probably since childhood. I
> slow down if there are pedestrians out of courtesy, go faster when there is no-one about - that's
> why I take the bike. I'm on the road most of the time but not when there's
a
> safer/quicker option that doesn't inconvenience pedestrians. No amounts of statistics will tell me
> that I personally can't cross a road safely - if
you
> believe them over your own self then you need to go on some sort of self-awareness or character
> building exercise.
>
You are not a number etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.