Are bikes the solution?

On 25 May 2004 03:15:19 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] (Peter) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

Ditto motorists - and probably to a greater extent

Cyclists tend to be worse, many of them have never done any
form of test or training.

Testing and training makes motorists not be complete idiots
and understand (and apply) the Highway Code.

An interesting assertion.

--
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.

On 25 May 2004 03:26:14 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] (Peter) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Yeah, and reducing your speed by 1mph makes you 5% less
likely to have an accident. Total rubbish, you've even said
'cyclists or walkers'.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Despite the loud claims of the speeding lobby the Road
Research Laboratory's work in this area remains valid.

Quoted message said:

Cycling on the road's a lot more dangerous than walking on
the pavement!

Your evidence for this claim is?

--
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.

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:53:36 +0100 someone who may be
"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Plus all those bike chains will need oiling. Will there
be enough oil to go round if everyone cycles. I think
OPEC should be asked. ;-)

Gosh yes:-) Just how did they manage before lubricants
were produced from mineral oils:-)

That's why all us Grauniad-reading muesli munchers have been
saving all those whales...

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

John Hearns <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Peter said:

No, they just don't know how to use the roads because
they've never had any training/tests. I don't think
they're agressive (at least not non-motorised cycles).

I think you'll find that many cyclists hold car driving
licenses.

:-o

Quoted message said:

And driving tests were introduced well, well after people
'knew how to use the roads' on foot, horseback etc.

Roads were never this busy, as the roads got busier and
faster they got more dangerous. That's a reason for the
tests. A cyclist may not have a car but they are still
riding in the same busy and fast environment.

Quoted message said:

Driving tests are for users of motor vehicles - and
further there are different categories.

Also on this group you will find frequent discussions
about cycling training, both for schools and adults.

Yes, there probably are some good cyclists, but I can
honestly say that I can't remember seeing one. I have
absolutely nothing against them and I always give them
plenty of space. This post wasn't to get into an argument
about cycling standards, although we've got to take into
consideration that there are many cyclists on the roads
which don't follow the highway code.

Quoted message said:

"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No, they just don't know how to use the roads because
they've never had any training/tests.

As opposed to numpties who think they know all about
driving even though they've never been outside the town
they live in?

clive

I'm a troll not a numpty ;-)

I've had driving lessons and have passed a driving test,
which is more than many cyclists. Anyway, cyclists wouldn't
normal cycle out of their own town anyway (it's a long way
to cycle).

To be honest I don't think my 'town only' experience is
relavant because it's in towns where cyclists are the
problem. Non-motorised cyclists don't use the motorways etc.

Peter said:

Roads were never this busy, as the roads got busier and
faster they got more dangerous. That's a reason for the
tests. A cyclist may not have a car but they are still
riding in the same busy and fast environment.

No, the reason for the test is not that the roads were
"getting dangerous". A test is required because the driver
is in charge of a potentially lethal piece of machinery. As
the potential lethality increases, so does the standard
required by the test.

Quoted message said:

Yes, there probably are some good cyclists, but I can
honestly say that I can't remember seeing one.

It is extremely disturbing that you don't see them, because
they are undoubtly sharing the road with you.

Peter said:

Roads were never this busy, as the roads got busier and
faster they got more dangerous.

I imagine the ABD Thought Police will be out to get you for
even suggesting there may be a link between speed and
danger... ;-/

Quoted message said:

Yes, there probably are some good cyclists, but I can
honestly say that I can't remember seeing one.

How many good motorists did you count on your last drive?
How many bad ones? The bad ones are the exception rather
than the rule and they're the ones that get noticed, same
for cycles, and the ones that stick in your mind. Most good
cyclists don't register because they don't cause any
particular problems, same as good drivers. If a cyclist is
trundling along in a well defined space on the road and you
pass them, how can you tell they're good or bad when they're
only in your frame of reference for a few seconds?

Quoted message said:

them and I always give them plenty of space. This post
wasn't to get into an argument about cycling standards,
although we've got to take into consideration that there
are many cyclists on the roads which don't follow the
highway code.

Same goes for most forms of vehicles. For example, how many
motorists can say hand on heart they've never broken a speed
limit? (I certainly can't). Staying inside speed limits is
required to follow the Highway Code, so don't pretend it's
only cyclists that ever break it in large numbers.

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter said:

Roads were never this busy, as the roads got busier and
faster they got more dangerous. That's a reason for the
tests. A cyclist may not have a car but they are still
riding in the same busy and fast environment.

I might be wrong, but the reason for the tests is because
you are operating a motor vehicle which could be dangerous
to others.

Hence my remark about different categories. What I meant was
that you stil have to go get more tests and training to
operate a bus/coach or a large lorry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Driving tests are for users of motor vehicles - and
further there are different categories.

Peter said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

IIRC 20-ish % of car journeys are under a mile.[1] This
causes alot of congestion and pollution. These journeys
are often quicker by bike or foot. Additionally, cars are
damaged by such short journeys.

:-o that's terrible, I didn't know that. Something really
:should be
done about these short trips!

How many posts have you made in uk.rec.cars.* along the
lines of "I rarely do journeys of over 10 miles, why's my
car buggered?" and "My mum never drives more than 200
yards", and how many times have your posts said that your
family have run into the ground every car they've had?
You're a troll or astonishingly stupid. ISTR you're at
Reading uni, so it might just be astonishingly stupid...

Peter said:

I've had driving lessons and have passed a driving test,
which is more than many cyclists.

But by no means all of them.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, cyclists wouldn't normal cycle out of
their own town anyway (it's a long way to cycle).

That just shows you don't know that much about cycling, or
rural communities.

Quoted message said:

To be honest I don't think my 'town only' experience is
relavant because it's in towns where cyclists are the
problem.

Which problem is this, exactly? The more people on bikes the
more room there is for cars, buses, trucks etc. Certainly
there are eejits on bikes but there are eejits in or on
every other road vehicle.

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter said:

I'm a troll not a numpty ;-)

I've had driving lessons and have passed a driving test,
which is more than many cyclists.

Why should I have driving lessons or take a driving test to
ride my bike? Have you had cycle training to drive?

John B

Peter said:

Quoted message said:

"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No, they just don't know how to use the roads because
they've never had any training/tests.

As opposed to numpties who think they know all about
driving even though they've never been outside the town
they live in?

clive

I'm a troll not a numpty ;-)

I've had driving lessons and have passed a driving test,
which is more than many cyclists. Anyway, cyclists
wouldn't normal cycle out of their own town anyway (it's a
long way to cycle).

To be honest I don't think my 'town only' experience
is relavant because it's in towns where cyclists are
the problem. Non-motorised cyclists don't use the
motorways etc.

What's your definition of a long way to cycle? I cycle in
two places that are very far apart (and don't cycle between
them). Even so, I'd rather cycle out of town than in. Car
drivers can regard cyclists as 'a problem' wherever they are
- in town, out of town, on A roads, or rural lanes.

Oh, I've passed a test too. Previously (and shortly will be
again) drove anything from 20-30,000 miles a year (sometimes
more). I've seen it from both sides of the fence, as it
were, being a driver first, and a returnee to cycling
second. There are occasions when both have a total lack of
understanding of the limitations of the other. However, I
see (as a driver) far more instances of bad driving around
cyclists (even before I started cycling again) than I see
bad cycling around drivers.

I sometimes think as I'm pootling along the motorway that
it'd be ace if I could cycle down one of them. There's quite
a few that have some nice slight downhills with sweeping
curves back and forth, and all that smooth tarmac and lack
of junctions (and no cars/lorries) appeals. Which is odd,
given I'm scared of fast downhills, but that's exactly what
I want to do on a motorway stretch like that - cycle fast.

--

Velvet

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter said:

than many cyclists. Anyway, cyclists wouldn't normal cycle
out of their own town anyway (it's a long way to cycle).

Bollocks.

Quoted message said:

To be honest I don't think my 'town only' experience
is relavant because it's in towns where cyclists are
the problem. Non-motorised cyclists don't use the
motorways etc.

Really? I was on the M42 yesterday, and I was cycling today.

ian

John Hearns said:

Peter said:

I've had driving lessons and have passed a driving test,
which is more than many cyclists. Anyway, cyclists
wouldn't normal cycle out of their own town anyway (it's a
long way to cycle).

People cycle round the world, fer goodness sake.

A regular leisure run for many people in this group will
be anything from 30 miles upwards to 100 miles. You would
really, really be surprised how many people do this.

Yeah, I'd have to agree. I don't cycle regularly
(combination of laziness and dislike of both hills and [censored]
driver attitudes local to
me) but most of my rides have been at least 10 miles, and my
last was a couple of miles short of 50 (and I wish I'd
gone for a quick detour just so I *had* made the 50!).
If I cycled regularly, I'd be looking at doing at least
one 30-miler on a weekend (and hopefully that'll soon be
the case, since I'll be getting the bike to *nice*
cycling area on a regular basis again, yippee!) - and
probably ramping that up as I got fitter, too.

At some point I have a goal to get to 100 miles in a day.
That's in the far future. I'm not a really big enthusiast,
I'm unfit, overweight, and a scaredy-cat. I just happen to
enjoy it when I'm out there. I get a LOT more enjoyment out
of a 20+ mile ride than I do out of an under-10 mile ride -
more than the ratio of the miles would suggest.

I could get in a couple of 2-3 mile rides a week (tesco-ish
and back for groceries) but to be honest it's less hassle to
walk there and back with a rucksack (getting the bike out
and down the stairs and panniered up etc is time-consuming,
especially when it's kept at the other end of the flat for
space reasons). I get fed up with tripping over it in the
hall (very narrow). Very little enjoyment from cycling to
tesco. Hence why it rarely gets done - the effort outweighs
the reward.

--

Velvet

"AndyMorris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wild Wind said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 24 May 2004 12:08:31 -0700,
[email hidden] (Peter) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They say that accidents are increasing because more
> people are going onto two wheels.

"they" may say that, but they are essentially wrong.
The number of cyclist collisions per mile travelled
drops as the number of cyclists increases. This is the
experience everywhere, as far as I can tell.

Eh? This doesn't make any sense to me. Do you have a
reference, or can you explain why this might be so,
since there are more cyclists on the road for other
cyclists to collide with?

Most collisions that cyclists experiance are with cars,
usually caused by the driver not 'seeing' the cyclist.
When there are more cyclists, drivers learn to see them.

OK, I now understand. I thought Mr. Chapman was talking
about cyclist-on-cyclist collisions, not motorist-on-cyclist
collisions. The article that Mr. Raven kindly provided a
link to doesn't talk about c-on-c collisions which I suspect
would be on the up if more cyclists took to the road.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you'll find it's the cars that are bringing the
roads to a standstill...

That may be now, but I'm not entirely convinced that
life would be much better if hordes of cyclists were to
take to the road, given my experience doing the London
to Brighton ride.

An exceptional case, imagine that many people trying to
get from London to Brighton by car in one day.

I wasn't actually referring to the congestion aspect, even
though there would be some of that. I was referring to the
multiplier effect of more incompetent cyclists getting on to
the roads, as I saw during the L2B ride. Right now, the
numbers of cyclists are small enough for this not to be a
problem to other road users, but I think things would change
with a dramatic increase in numbers.

Wild Wind said:

OK, I now understand. I thought Mr. Chapman was talking
about cyclist-on-cyclist collisions, not motorist-on-
cyclist collisions. The article that Mr. Raven kindly
provided a link to doesn't talk about c-on-c collisions
which I suspect would be on the up if more cyclists took
to the road.

Cyclist v cyclist collisions are rare, and serious or fatal
ones rarer still, so they are unlikely to show up in the
stats to any extent.

Quoted message said:

there would be some of that. I was referring to the
multiplier effect of more incompetent cyclists getting on
to the roads, as I saw during the L2B ride. Right now, the
numbers of cyclists are small enough for this not to be a
problem to other road users, but I think things would
change with a dramatic increase in numbers.

Once again: imagine how much road space those cyclists would
have taken up at an average of 1.2 per car.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll bite...

"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was
basically about the road rage between cyclists. They
say that accidents are increasing because more people
are going onto two wheels. If the government want us
to go onto two wheels then there could be a lot of
accidents.

Because of stupid and/or inconsiderate road use. If
people engaged their brains these accidents wouldn't
happen.

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

Ditto motorists - and probably to a greater extent

Cyclists tend to be worse, many of them have never done
any form of test or training.

Whereas many (most?) motorists have forgotten all that
training.

I would disagree that cyclists are worse - but I don't think
it matters. The problem is that many road users (of all
flavours) are idiots.

Quoted message said:

I do agree that motorist are bad, but cyclists don't make
it easy for us.

Reasonable, reponsible and couteous cyclists make things as
easy as possible without compromising their safety.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will
pollution be effected? When I see a cyclist I quite
often slow up and then acclerate past them when it's
safe. When a whole stream of cars do this then the
pollution is going to increase a lot.

Learn accelerator sense. Slowing gently and accelerating
gently won't

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that much difference to maintaining a steady speed.

Accelerate gently to overtake! When there's going to be
something comming the other way in the near future you've
got to accelerate fairly quick.

In the case of a cyclist, you can't go too fast because its
dangerous.

Only overtake in gaps which are big enough for you to allow
you to do so safely.

Quoted message said:

If you don't then you'll get road rage from the person
behind. By the time you've slowed down to the cyclists
speed you'll already have the driver behind up your
bumper anyway.

Indeed. This is not the fault of cyclists, it is the fault
of the idiot driving the car behind.

You should consider which is more important - a human life
or your cars rear bumper.

Quoted message said:

I'm not talking about overtaking dangerously, but I'm
talking about taking oppourtunities.

If you're having to accelerate fairly quick, the opportunity
wasn't there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Additionally using bikes (or walking) for short journeys
would negate

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

effect (and some)

Maybe you're right. It will negate it a lot, but it is
causing this problem and I'm talking about extreme
situations. ie. in the future when there maybe almost as
many bikes as there are cars.

I think even in an extreme situation there wouldn't be a
problem. Maybe you would get stuck behind cyclists - but
less so that you may get stuck behind other cars today.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

If people used bikes (or walked) for short journeys then
congestion and pollution would be reduced.

IIRC 20-ish % of car journeys are under a mile.[1] This
causes alot of congestion and pollution. These journeys
are often quicker by bike or

foot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Additionally, cars are damaged by such short journeys.

:-o that's terrible, I didn't know that. Something really
:should be
done about these short trips!

In hindsight I think the figures are wrong - but too high a
%age of journeys are stupidly short.

Will somebody please think of the oil lines!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[1] I can't find a reference for this, so if anyone
could provide one or correct me I'd be grateful.

"Nick Finnigan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Brimstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter wrote:

> It seems to me that it would be better if we had a
> rule of through traffic having priority over cross
> traffic. That way turning traffic (cyclists and
> motor vehicles) would have to give way to through
> traffic (i.e. cyclists on a cycle path or
> pedestrians on the footpath).
>
> I think it would be alot safer, and wouldn't cause
> much inconvienience to anyone.

The rule already exists, it's just that most car
drivers are too

arrogant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

observe it.

Does it?

I don't believe you are obliged to give way to
pedestrians unless they

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the road [1] - and cyclists on segregated cycleways
are usually (but

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

always) made to give way (I don't think there is a
general rule for

this).

Quoted message said:

The general rule is to give way when crossing a (dashed)
white line. Generally this is when turning onto or off a
main (through) road.

Which is true in the logical sense - but in legal or HC
terms it isn't. People aren't bright enough to think about
road markings in that manner. Now you understand it, I
understand it [1]

As I say, the HC only requires vehicles to give way only to
people already in the road. It would be better IMHO if
vehicles were also expected to give way to anyone wishing to
cross the road.

Quoted message said:

Cycle paths along side roads usually have dashed white
lines across them at junctions, meaning the cyclists give
way; sometimes there are several white lines across the
sideroad.

Again, this is silly IMHO. Surely more time is saved by
turning traffic giving way to through traffic, and not
vice versa?

[1] But I, as a road sign geek, would understand things
like this. :-)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 15:51:09 +0100 someone who may be "Wild Wind"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I was referring to the multiplier effect of more
incompetent cyclists getting on to the roads, as I saw
during the L2B ride.

These are largely people who cycle irregularly, perhaps once
a year. If they were to become regular cyclists they would
probably be a danger (mostly to themselves) for a while,
before gaining the experience to cycle more safely.

--
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.

John Hearns <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 06:46:13 -0700, Peter wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've had driving lessons and have passed a driving test,
which is more than many cyclists. Anyway, cyclists
wouldn't normal cycle out of their own town anyway (it's
a long way to cycle).

People cycle round the world, fer goodness sake.

Quoted message said:

A regular leisure run for many people in this group will
be anything from 30 miles upwards to 100 miles. You would
really, really be surprised how many people do this.

Quite. Half of me says 'PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS' The
other half says 'I cycled an average of 10,000 miles per
year for three years.' It certainly wasn't all in towns and
the other DATC entrants came from all over the country.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.