Another anti-cycling letter in a local newspaper



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:34:40 +0100, "<-- Wide Load -->" <apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> in
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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?

Read it again. 184 peds were killed on the footpath by motor vehicles.

The remaining ONE ped was killed by something else.

Have you read it such that you think 184 peds were killed on footpaths by cyclists?

Love and confusion from Rich x

--
If ingnorance is bliss then I am the erm er luckiest thingy in the whatchamacallit. To mail me,
change the obvious bit to richard
 
D

| >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?
|
| Read it again. 184 peds were killed on the footpath by motor vehicles.
|
| The remaining ONE ped was killed by something else.
|
| Have you read it such that you think 184 peds were killed on footpaths by cyclists?
|
| Love and confusion from Rich x
|
|
| --
| If ingnorance is bliss then I am the erm er luckiest thingy in the whatchamacallit. To mail me,
| change the obvious bit to richard
 
After much searching it became apparent that On Tue, 9 Sep 2003
12:58:41 +0100, "<-- Wide Load -->" <apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> in
<[email protected]> had top-posted the following

>:D

Not sure what you mean by that. Does that mean <smile> Richard you daft sod, of course I realised
that. Or does it mean <smile> Oh yeah, I see what you mean.

Love and more confusion from Rich x

--
If ingnorance is bliss then I am the erm er luckiest thingy in the whatchamacallit. To mail me,
change the obvious bit to richard
 
"<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.

On my daily commute along the A38 I usually pass a few cyclists who cycle *between* the white edge
line and the curb (a gap of only 6 inches) and vehicles pass only inches from these cyclists,
actually painful to watch! I usually cycle 1-2 foot to the *right* of the edge line and I seem to
get far more space from traffic, and many actually are indicating right as they pass me, and some
even indicate left to move back once they are past!
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[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."

Contradiction of one sweeping generalisation with another is not a good idea. (Unless 'yoofs' are a
subset of youths -- i.e. those with a bad attitude.) Many youths are nice people suffering from an
excess of hormones.

The original letter contained elements of truth with sweeping generalisations.

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

> No way! You can't tell me that me running into a pedestrian with my bike will kill them.

There is at least one recorded instance, and numerous instances of injury caused by cyclists
hitting peds.

--
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]...
> | 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!."

Heartless maybe -- but the point is sound.

Cycling is generally a very safe activity. Some studies have suggested that you are safer on your
bike than at home (in terms of deaths per unit time).

Many of us know people who have been killed or seriously hurt in road 'accidents'. That does not
mean that, statistically, they are particularly 'common' or that anyone cycling on the road should
be counselled by the Samaritans.

Most people cycle a life time without a serious accident.

T
 
It means, Oh yea, DOH! ..

"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| After much searching it became apparent that On Tue, 9 Sep 2003
| 12:58:41 +0100, "<-- Wide Load -->" <apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> in
| <[email protected]> had top-posted the following
|
| >:D
|
| Not sure what you mean by that. Does that mean <smile> Richard you daft sod, of course I realised
| that. Or does it mean <smile> Oh yeah, I see what you mean.
|
| Love and more confusion from Rich x
|
| --
| If ingnorance is bliss then I am the erm er luckiest thingy in the whatchamacallit. To mail me,
| change the obvious bit to richard
 
"<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

I appreciate that it is hard to put asside intuition, belief and misunderstanding but this is the
kernal of the truth. Road accident statistics bear it out -- cycling on the road is generally safe
-- safer than, for example, cycling on a pavement or road side cycle track.

There are very good reasons for this -- largely to do with the reduced number of intersections and
your location where other road users are looking for a vehicle.

There is the counter arguement -- that cyclists who ride on the road tend to be the more confident
and more experienced so less likely to have accidents -- but a lot of inexperience and bad luch can
be compensated for by the reduction in risk of 3 to 5 times (some suggest up to 7 times) of riding
on the road.

Try it. You will enjoy it and I can pretty much gaurentee that you will not get a bus up the jacksey
on your first outing :)

T
 
"<-- Wide Load -->" <apsw07048<nospam>@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.
> |
> | 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.

Well, for heaven's sakes, why not? There is no minimum speed limit on most of Britains's roads. If
they were stuck behind a funeral procession, or a horse-drawn vehicle, or a farm tractor, would you
be saying these things shouldn't be on the roads?

We're all legitimate users of the public roads and if we can't treat each other with respect it's a
pretty sad thing.

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

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of the electorate in Scotland
than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.
 
"<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Slow down approaching pedestrians.

Become less stable and less able to react to a pedestrian you moves into your path. No thanks --
I'll use the road. Its safer.
>
>
> This is a good point,

Not just good -- also suppored by a mass of statistical evidence.

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

Pfharp -- WRONG. See comment above about statistical proof that cycling in the road is safer.

> from experience,

No -- you feel safer -- but you are, in fact, at greater risk.

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

Then get Cyclecraft -- read it and apply its lessons. Though, in truth, you probably just 'feel' you
have had close calls because you lack confidence and get scared by vehicles passing a little closer
than you would like. Of course, if you also believe red light jumping is acceptable behjaviour you
may be putting yourself at unnecessary risk -- but its hard to blame either the motorist or the road
for those problems.

> You can hear people reversing out of drives and can see above hedges and fences, also.

Usually, but not always.

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

They are not listening. They do not believe experienced and competent cyclists such as yourself and
Peter Clinch.

Their minds are made up and no application of logic or evidence is going to sway them.

Sad.

T
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> "<-- Wide Load -->" <apsw07048<nospam>@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.
>>|
>>| 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.
>
>
> Well, for heaven's sakes, why not? There is no minimum speed limit on most of Britains's roads. If
> they were stuck behind a funeral procession, or a horse-drawn vehicle, or a farm tractor, would
> you be saying these things shouldn't be on the roads?
>
> We're all legitimate users of the public roads and if we can't treat each other with respect it's
> a pretty sad thing.
>

And, in any case, what does "stuck behind" actually mean?. On almost all of the occasions that I
can recall a motor vehicle pausing behind me before passing, they have rejoined the main stream of
traffic before they are even out of my sight. They may _feel_ held up but their journey time is
actually completely unaffected.

Peter
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>"<-- 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?

There are (rare) shared use paths which have long distances between junctions and very few
pedestrians. On such a path the average speed of a cyclist is much faster than a pedestrian even if
the cyclist does sometimes slow for a pedestrian.
 
<-- Wide Load -->
> ok, ok, I wil get the book. :)

I don't think you'll regret it.

> 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.

The point about riding further out is it forces traffic to use more road to overtake you, so you get
*more* room if you take it. I've found this out through practical experience, before I read it in
the Good Book, and it really is true.

If you act/are scared then you'll have trouble riding assertively where it helps you to, and this
really does make a difference. If you take what's yours, it is yielded to you. That's not an
absolute guarantee of safety, I obviously can't give you that, but I think I can say it's highly
likely to make your cycling life safer (as well as quicker and less scary).

It's a big step, getting out and mixing it with one tonne steel boxes at speed, but they don't want
to hit you any more than if you were in another car. If you can be squeezed past without crossing
the middle line, you will be. Fact, and probably the reason for many of your close calls. When I get
overtaken my position means cars have to do a proper job of it. They generally do, everybody's safe,
if they're a bit too close I've got room to move left. There's the occasional ****** sits behind and
hoots his horn, but he won't drive over you.

> Lots of people are quoting stats, but I think stats vary, certainly from country to country

I think the pertinent ones are from the UK.

> 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.

West od Scotland is a big place... where are you? I don't cycle round Glasgow very often, but when I
do (usually from QS Station out to Bearsden to visit the Kinetics cycle shop, so taking in city
centre, general urban/suburban and trunk road including dual carriageway) it's not a problem (aside
from the Short Sharp Shock hills, of course, but they're only a danger to my cardiovascular
system...). I can't think Ben Cooper would like rolling around the place on lowracer recumbents if
it were really Doom made geographically real.

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/
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message

| There are (rare) shared use paths which have long distances between
junctions
| and very few pedestrians. On such a path the average speed of a cyclist is much faster than a
| pedestrian even if the cyclist does sometimes slow for
a
| pedestrian.

And anyway, I'm doing it for enjoyment, not speed. The slowest gear on my bike is still faster
than walking.
 
"Tony W" <[email protected]> writes:

>They are not listening. They do not believe experienced and competent cyclists such as yourself and
>Peter Clinch.

>Their minds are made up and no application of logic or evidence is going to sway them.

I can't speak for the offenders (and I certainly don't mean any disrespect to Guy or Pete) but I do
know why I may be inclined to ignore statistical evidence.

One reason is that statistics by definition apply to large groups and not to individuals. I can
accept that statistics show that in the NL separate bike lanes have more accidents than cycling on
the road, but these numbers are averaged over all types of cyclists and all sorts of roads. If I
apply it to me and my situation the odds may be somewhat different (probably not hugely different,
but then we're not talking an enormous difference). Being less concentrated between intersections,
and slowing down and being extra alert at intersections fits my type of cycling better than staying
continuously alert on the road. Or, more recently: I may be riding a 'bent which I don't have fully
under control yet, so I may feel safer staying away from traffic on a separate lane, and walking
intersections. (and I agree that perceived safety isn't always the same as objective safety)

And there is the non-rational element of enjoyment. If the odds are not hugely different (like it is
very safe to do one thing and very dangerous to do another) I make choices based on all sorts of
reasons. I like cycling on separate lanes better. I like the view from the Riverside bikepath. I may
not be in a hurry. Safety is just one of the factors. For my previous commute I chose the longer
route because it was so much more scenic and enjoyable, and safety didn't play a large role. I
probably was less safe on those dark narrow country lanes than I would have been on the little
bikepath next to the dual carriageway (and possibly on the dual carriageway itself?).

And tonight I will have a drink though statistics tell me that it's safer not to :)

Roos
 
Tony W wrote:

> Unless 'yoofs' are a subset of youths -- i.e. those with a bad attitude.

Yes, they are.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
<-- Wide Load --> <apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Sorry Dad, will adapt. New to newsgroups. Please keep me right.

No problem. We all start somewhere, and we all make mistakes.

Did you notice the bit where I said your reply should go underneath the bit you quoted from the
previous message?

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
Status
Not open for further replies.