Audible Warning When Riding

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
> I don't use the
> bell, why should I expect everyone else to get out of my way?
>

Because you are a bigger vehicle and can go faster - which is the same
excuse cyclists object to when used by a motorist.

I agree with you totally just as I would object to a motorist blaring
its horn at a group of cyclists.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Ric]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Riding on the pavement just is measurably less safe, principally because
> at junctions you are emerging where traffic does not expect you.

I'd wholly agree that "riding off a pavement at a junction into traffic that
is unaware of your presence" is an extremely dangerous and stupid thing to
do. This is entirely different from "riding on the pavement". You and
everybody else here seem to have extrapolated some statistics based on very
precise circumstances into a wholly generalistic assumption that "riding on
pavements is dangerous".

 

[Tony Raven]

Ric wrote:

> I'd wholly agree that "riding off a pavement at a junction into traffic that
> is unaware of your presence" is an extremely dangerous and stupid thing to
> do. This is entirely different from "riding on the pavement". You and
> everybody else here seem to have extrapolated some statistics based on very
> precise circumstances into a wholly generalistic assumption that "riding on
> pavements is dangerous".
>

Come on Ric, put up or shut up. I have posted details of studies in
multiple countries all of which show significantly greater danger
statistically. John Franklin has had an unanswered request out for
years asking for any evidence anyone knows of that shows safety benefits
of cycle tracks and pavements. This is your opportunity to quote the
research and statistics that support your view. Its no use rubbishing
everyone else's evidence without coming up with a single shred of your own.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Mark Thompson]

> I'd wholly agree that "riding off a pavement at a junction into
> traffic that is unaware of your presence" is an extremely dangerous
> and stupid thing to do. This is entirely different from "riding on the
> pavement". You and everybody else here seem to have extrapolated some
> statistics based on very precise circumstances into a wholly
> generalistic assumption that "riding on pavements is dangerous".

2 things:

1. We're now using "less safe" because we're not talking about anything
remotely dangerous.

2. Negotiating junctions is an integral part of the pavement riding
experience, but do feel free to disagree and ride up and down the same
strip of pavement all day

 

[Mark Thompson]

> I think I feel that the bell is trying to reduce social interaction,
> perhaps even being ashamed to speak up to ask for what you want and
> using a tool instead - I would say 'excuse me' in the same situation.

Yebbut most the English have a dislike of starting up conversations with
strangers. That you have no such fear marks you out as either mad, bad or
a foreigner.

 

[Ric]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Come on Ric, put up or shut up. I have posted details of studies in
> multiple countries all of which show significantly greater danger
> statistically. John Franklin has had an unanswered request out for years
> asking for any evidence anyone knows of that shows safety benefits of
> cycle tracks and pavements. This is your opportunity to quote the
> research and statistics that support your view. Its no use rubbishing
> everyone else's evidence without coming up with a single shred of your
> own.

So you and others are now admitting that riding on the pavement is only
dangerous (or after a major retreat - "less safe") when you make the
transition from pavement to road. This is the same as saying that it is
dangerous to walk on the pavement, because you risk being run over when you
transition from pavement to road.

Please show some statistics that show that it is more dangerous to walk on
the pavement than it is to walk in a road, then I will believe you.

 

[Ric]

"Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 1. We're now using "less safe" because we're not talking about anything
> remotely dangerous.

Thank you for the admission of general retreat on that absurdly pompous
group dogma

>
> 2. Negotiating junctions is an integral part of the pavement riding
> experience, but do feel free to disagree and ride up and down the same
> strip of pavement all day

So pedestrians are better off walking in the road, because they are at "less
safe" every time they step off the pavement then

 

[Mark Thompson]

> So you and others are now admitting that riding on the pavement is
> only dangerous (or after a major retreat - "less safe") when you make
> the transition from pavement to road. This is the same as saying that
> it is dangerous to walk on the pavement, because you risk being run
> over when you transition from pavement to road.
>
> Please show some statistics that show that it is more dangerous to
> walk on the pavement than it is to walk in a road, then I will believe
> you.

s/major retreat/clarification

Is this your way of saying that, after some clarification, both sides are
now in agreement? Sheesh.

I'll suggest that we assume we're dealing with whole journeys made using
paths[1] Vs similar ones made using roads. My thinking being, who wants to
ride up and down the same frigging bit of path all their life. I mean,
you'd never arrive.


[1] The ones by the side of roads - footways?

 

[Mark Thompson]

> So pedestrians are better off walking in the road, because they are at
> "less safe" every time they step off the pavement then

Smiley noted, but you'll find that walking is significantly less safe than
cycling, per mile. You might be onto something here!

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ric
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> 1. We're now using "less safe" because we're not talking about
>> anything remotely dangerous.
>
> Thank you for the admission of general retreat on that absurdly pompous
> group dogma
>
>>
>> 2. Negotiating junctions is an integral part of the pavement riding
>> experience, but do feel free to disagree and ride up and down the same
>> strip of pavement all day
>
> So pedestrians are better off walking in the road, because they are at
> "less safe" every time they step off the pavement then

Cyclists on the road are safer than pedestrians on the pavement, see the
link I've just posted. Quite considerably safer.

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

;; killing [afghan|iraqi] civilians is not 'justice'

 

[Tony Raven]

Ric wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Come on Ric, put up or shut up. I have posted details of studies in
>> multiple countries all of which show significantly greater danger
>> statistically. John Franklin has had an unanswered request out for years
>> asking for any evidence anyone knows of that shows safety benefits of
>> cycle tracks and pavements. This is your opportunity to quote the
>> research and statistics that support your view. Its no use rubbishing
>> everyone else's evidence without coming up with a single shred of your
>> own.
>
> So you and others are now admitting that riding on the pavement is only
> dangerous (or after a major retreat - "less safe") when you make the
> transition from pavement to road. This is the same as saying that it is
> dangerous to walk on the pavement, because you risk being run over when you
> transition from pavement to road.

I challenge you to point to where I said any such thing.

>
> Please show some statistics that show that it is more dangerous to walk on
> the pavement than it is to walk in a road, then I will believe you.
>

Please show me any statistics at all. I've shown you plenty of
statistics for cycling on a wide variety of cycle facilities in a wide
variety of countries showing it to be more dangerous than the roads.
Now where are your statistics to counter that? You don't have them do
you?

I recognise the trademark of a well known Troll who never has a shred of
evidence for his views so persistently shifts ground in his attacks.
Begone nym shifting Troll.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> No-one has ever shown that riding on the pavement is safer than
> riding on the road, for any distance. I agree that, provided you
> never cross a road, riding on the pavement is may well be safer, but
> most people who ride on pavements do cross roads. There is no
> evidence that crossing on foot is any safer than crossing on the
> bicycle.
>

Its not just roads. Driveways, entrances to premises, house and shop
entrances, farm track, surface defects......

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Ric]

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

All the arguments and statistics that have been put forward to "show" that
cycling on pavements is "dangerous" (sorry - "less safe") apply to
pedestrians walking on pavements too - ie that the transition from pavement
to road is where the danger lies. So show me statistics or make any sensible
argument that walking on pavements is "less safe" than walking in the road,
and then I will believe yours and others sweeping generalisation that
cycling on the pavement is "dangerous".

As I have argued from the start - and as others are now admitting - there
are occasions where it is safer to take to the pavement than it is to ride
along the road. No amount of huffing and puffing with statistics can ever
prove this - it is just down to common sense and judgement. Take for example
a long stretch of high speed dual carriageway with a pavement alongside. The
controllable risk of mounting and dismounting the pavement in order to enjoy
the protected haven of a pavement is much less than the uncontrollable risk
of having high speed cars approaching you from behind on a dual carriageway.
But on the other hand, I would agree that riding through a heavily built up
area bumping up and down off the pavement onto the road and vice versa in
order to take short cuts and avoid road traffic signals is more risky than
riding on the road and obeying traffic laws. But this does not prove that
riding on pavements is dangerous, any more than the first example proves
that riding on the road is dangerous.

To make the blanket statement that "riding on the pavement is dangerous" is
simplistic and pompous.

 

[Peter Moss]

"chris harrison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Also my experience. In places where you're mixing with peds a bell is
>> generally considered polite by them, and it's a lot easier to sound a
>> bell than say "excuse me!" 23 times.
>
> Strangely, when I'm a ped rather than a cyclist and I'm on a mixed use
> path (the footpath beside the river quite near my home, for example), it
> irks me to hear the tinkle of a bell rather than a spoken 'excuse me'.
>
> I think I feel that the bell is trying to reduce social interaction,
> perhaps even being ashamed to speak up to ask for what you want and using
> a tool instead - I would say 'excuse me' in the same situation. Similar to
> sending an email rather than telephoning someone, for example.
>
> I'll grant you though that a tinkle is more pleasant to receive than the
> more normal, abrupt "oi" or "coming through" or less polite 'requests'.
>
Up to Christmas I've always relied on a bell or a polite "Excuse me".
However, reading a review on the AirZound where the reviewer described
watching a motorist trying to open his sunshine roof with his head (wasn't
one of you was it?) made me decide that that was the fellow for me, as Billy
Connelly might have said.

On the road it is great; excellent for making a bunch of chavs leap to one
side; for a couple of seconds they were really surprised.

I've kept the bell, and on shared cycle paths I tend to use the Zound at
long distance which gives walkers and dog owners time to get control of
their dogs/children. This afternoon a dog owner said "thanks" as I went by.

I use the bell when close to dogs and people, as often the owners have seen
me but the dogs are too busy sniffing each other to have noticed me.

At the weekend I got the two mixed up and accidentally gave a nearby
pedestrian the full works with the Air Zound. Quite funny really; we both
apologised to each other. I think that I was nearly as startled as he was.

It seems remarkably air-tight for such a flimsy-looking thing; I pump it up
less frequently than once per week.

Peter.

 

[Ric]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> No-one has ever shown that riding on the pavement is safer than
>> riding on the road, for any distance. I agree that, provided you
>> never cross a road, riding on the pavement is may well be safer, but
>> most people who ride on pavements do cross roads. There is no
>> evidence that crossing on foot is any safer than crossing on the
>> bicycle.
>>
>
> Its not just roads. Driveways, entrances to premises, house and shop
> entrances, farm track, surface defects......
>
But if you are a foot or so to the left in the road, you are suddenly much
safer of course...
And by this argument, pedestrians would also be safer walking in the road.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Ric wrote:
>"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Its not just roads. Driveways, entrances to premises, house and shop
>> entrances, farm track, surface defects......
>>
>But if you are a foot or so to the left in the road, you are suddenly much
>safer of course...

No, because in a uk group, if moving a foot to the left takes you into
the road, you are facing oncoming traffic.

To be where drivers are looking for vehicles, you have to be on the
right (i.e. left) side of the road. And out of the gutter, so more than
one foot to the right.

Or you can slow to walking pace and stop at every junction, which rather
loses the point of cycling in most cases (not all - I once met someone
with a spinal injury who found cycling at less than walking pace less
jarring than walking, and I think such people should be allowed on
pavements in general).

 

[Tony Raven]

Ric wrote:

>>>
>> Its not just roads. Driveways, entrances to premises, house and shop
>> entrances, farm track, surface defects......
>>
> But if you are a foot or so to the left in the road, you are suddenly much
> safer of course...
> And by this argument, pedestrians would also be safer walking in the road.
>

Apart from getting your lefts and rights mixed up, cars pull out from
driveways across pavements without looking but they stop and give way at
the boundary with the road. Similarly they pull into driveways without
looking for other than pedestrians on the driveway. They are not
looking for cyclists approaching at greater that walking pace.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Mark Thompson]

> As I have argued from the start

<snip pompous blather>

This is quite entertaining. You went into this saying riding on the
pavement was safer than riding on the road, others went into it saying that
the pavement is more dangerous.

We then established that we were talking about two slightly different
things (you'd modified it to particular types of pavement, others were
talking about journeys using pavements in preference to roads).

Once that was sorted out, you were the only one that went away having
learnt something new, but you can't quite bring yourself to admit it