Demise of commuting cycling

[Tony Raven]

Terry wrote:
>
> Many but by no means all of the cyclists I see shooting the lights are
> wearing helmets and often have reflective coats, etc. Possibly they
> imagine the safety gear makes them invulnerable, or maybe they're just
> stupid or anti-social. It's a mystery.
>

Its nothing to do with their self perceived vulnerability but all to do
with how vulnerable the motorist perceives them. Who do you think they
give more room - an old lady wobbling along slowly or a full lycra clad
cyclist head down riding a straight line?

--
Tony

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

 

[wafflycat]

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

>
> I know, but a bent looks more vulnerable to a driver, whether it is or
> not, so they take more care (no I'm not trying to start a h****t thread).
> A fully lycra'd cyclist head down on a racing bike probably looks the
> least vulnerable.
>

One does not cycle with one's head down. One cycles with one's head up. As
one is constantly reminded of the possible problems with riding with one's
head down by the requisite poster on the wall of the HQ for a TT

Cheers, helen s

 

[David Martin]

wafflycat wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > I know, but a bent looks more vulnerable to a driver, whether it is or
> > not, so they take more care (no I'm not trying to start a h****t thread).
> > A fully lycra'd cyclist head down on a racing bike probably looks the
> > least vulnerable.
> >
>
> One does not cycle with one's head down. One cycles with one's head up. As
> one is constantly reminded of the possible problems with riding with one's
> head down by the requisite poster on the wall of the HQ for a TT

One was reminded of this as a teenager immediately upon leaving a dent
in the back door of an illegally parked van. Surprisingly enough the
chrome rim survived without too much of a buckle so after a brief walk
till my head stopped spinning I was able to resume my journey home.

...d

 

[David Martin]

Terry wrote:

> Yes, we all know that car drivers do stupid stuff too, but that doesn't
> mitigate stupid behaviour by cyclists. If I see a cyclist spitting in the
> street I don't immediately think, "well, pedestrians do that too".

> It's false justifications like that which car drivers use when they harass
> or otherwise threaten cyclists. They justify their unlawful behaviour by
> reference to unlawful behaviour by cyclists, and that, I'm sure we can
> agree, is nonsense.

It is the 'tu quoque' fallacy. Whilst it cannot be used to justify
behaviour, it can quite reasonably be used as part of a consideration
of the relative enforcement of breach of the offence.

...d

 

[Peter Clinch]

wafflycat wrote:

> One does not cycle with one's head down. One cycles with one's head up.
> As one is constantly reminded of the possible problems with riding with
> one's head down by the requisite poster on the wall of the HQ for a TT

But would that poster be there if "one" always rode with head up? I
rather doubt it...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Robin Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
>In cam.transport Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I live nearly opposite Scotsdales and work in the centre, and chose
>> to live there because I could cycle conveniently. Now, you have
>> all of the timetables, maps etc. at your disposal - YOU tell me a
>> decent way of getting into work, and returning when I often cannot
>> control the exact time and often have to do so after 6.15?
>
>I take it all forms of two-wheeler, powered or otherwise, are out of the
>question?

I looked into that, too. A small powered two-wheeler is nearly as
vulnerable as a cyclist. And, with the recent changes, I reckoned
that it would cost me more to get a full motorcycle licence than it
would to an HGV one. I was looking at the order of 1-2,000 to get
get the LICENCE, let alone the cost of the vehicle. Seriously.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>If things really are that bad, then I'd suggest the following:
>
>Get the recumbent trike. Install disguised video surveillance gear,
>with rear and rear-3/4 view cameras. Record everything. Once you have
>some serious evidence of wrong-doing, send copies of the tapes to the
>BBC, the Prime Minister's Office, your MP, the MD of Stagecoach, the
>local council, the local radio, TV and newspapers, the police, and just
>about anyone else you can think of.

Yes, I thought of that. In addition to costing more than getting
a full motorcycle licence, there would be a significant chance that
the first clear evidence would leave me dead or, worse, crippled.

A case that wasn't absolutely clear-cut would have everyone (probably
including the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, given what some people said
to me) claiming that I had provoked the incident.

There is also the 'minor' problem that I have nowhere to park a
recumbent tricycle at work.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>
>
>One does not cycle with one's head down. One cycles with one's head up. As
>one is constantly reminded of the possible problems with riding with one's
>head down by the requisite poster on the wall of the HQ for a TT

You may not. Many do. One of the reasons is that only a few
people can hold their head up with the standard racing bicycle
position and VERY few can if they go down on the drops. Most such
lower it at least halfway quite a lot of the time to reduce the
strain on their neck.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[wafflycat]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>One does not cycle with one's head down. One cycles with one's head up. As
>>one is constantly reminded of the possible problems with riding with one's
>>head down by the requisite poster on the wall of the HQ for a TT
>
> You may not. Many do. One of the reasons is that only a few
> people can hold their head up with the standard racing bicycle
> position and VERY few can if they go down on the drops. Most such
> lower it at least halfway quite a lot of the time to reduce the
> strain on their neck.

Sorry, but people do not, for the most part have necks with muscles so
feeble that riding a road bike renders them incapable of looking where they
are going instead of down on the ground. If the problem was as bad as you
suggest, there'd be roads littered with cyclists doing impressions of
chickens with ricked necks a la Jasper Carrott stylee.

Cheers, helen s

 

[wafflycat]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wafflycat wrote:
>
>> One does not cycle with one's head down. One cycles with one's head up.
>> As one is constantly reminded of the possible problems with riding with
>> one's head down by the requisite poster on the wall of the HQ for a TT
>>
>
> But would that poster be there if "one" always rode with head up? I
> rather doubt it...
>
>
I think that's called 'covering the ass of the organiser' Pete ;-)

Cheers, helen s

 

[Peter Clinch]

wafflycat wrote:

> I think that's called 'covering the ass of the organiser' Pete ;-)

I know from years of riding bikes that, 'bent excepted, I often find
myself with my head down, and that I often see other riders with their
heads down. This even on the Brompton, far more likely on drop bars
and/or a more stretched riding position. And more likely still riding
into a headwind and/or rain. That you're not supposed to is one thing,
but that people naturally do is quite another. If you never ride with
your head down I would suggest that's quite unusual.

Head down is natural to an extent even when standing up, to see where
you're putting your feet.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

wafflycat wrote:

> Sorry, but people do not, for the most part have necks with muscles so
> feeble that riding a road bike renders them incapable of looking where
> they are going instead of down on the ground.

You don't need to look well ahead for a surprisingly large amount of the
time. I often spend a lot of time looking around me when touring at the
nice scenery, but don't have a habit of crashing despite that. My
endurance limit on my old drop bar tourer was about 100 km, at which
point my neck, shoulders and elbows were what was giving out.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writes:
|>
|> Sorry, but people do not, for the most part have necks with muscles so
|> feeble that riding a road bike renders them incapable of looking where they
|> are going instead of down on the ground. If the problem was as bad as you
|> suggest, there'd be roads littered with cyclists doing impressions of
|> chickens with ricked necks a la Jasper Carrott stylee.

Your understanding of physiology and the known problems of cyclists,
and your observation, are all sadly lacking.

Humans have been upright bipeds for millions of years and our neck
joint is not adapted to holding our head upright while our back is
horizontal. Muscle strength is the least of the issues.

It is one of the reasons that a great many people give up cycling
after a couple of goes, others ride traditional roadsters (despite
the 50% increase in windage) and yet others turn drop handlebars
upside down. And, as others have pointed out, observation alone
would indicate that you are wrong.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On 15 Feb 2006 09:16:05 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>If things really are that bad, then I'd suggest the following:
>>
>>Get the recumbent trike. Install disguised video surveillance gear,
>>with rear and rear-3/4 view cameras. Record everything. Once you have
>>some serious evidence of wrong-doing, send copies of the tapes to the
>>BBC, the Prime Minister's Office, your MP, the MD of Stagecoach, the
>>local council, the local radio, TV and newspapers, the police, and just
>>about anyone else you can think of.
>
> Yes, I thought of that. In addition to costing more than getting
> a full motorcycle licence, there would be a significant chance that
> the first clear evidence would leave me dead or, worse, crippled.

If the bus drivers are that malicious and dangerous I would expect a
stream of regular fatal / major injury accidents involving bus/bike
interactions.

From all reports this is not the case in Cambridge.

This leaves one of two conclusions -
a) there is no large risk involved
b) you were being specifically targetted (as Nick Maclaren and not
a cyclist).

If Stagecoach have regular drivers for their routes in Cambridge there
might be the final possibility of one particular driver was malicious and
dangerous. However he may have left the company or even been moved to a
different route.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Alistair Gunn]

In uk.rec.cycling Richard twisted the electrons to say:
> ...although they're quite happy to park in the disabled parking bay
> because they're just "nipping into the shops for a minute, I won't be
> long".

Ah, but that merely inconveniences some hypothetical (which is say,
non-existent!) disabled person ... Whereas running one over is a
slightly different matter.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Mike Clark]

In message <[email protected]>
Andy Leighton <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 15 Feb 2006 09:16:05 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>If things really are that bad, then I'd suggest the following:
> >>
> >>Get the recumbent trike. Install disguised video surveillance gear,
> >>with rear and rear-3/4 view cameras. Record everything. Once you have
> >>some serious evidence of wrong-doing, send copies of the tapes to the
> >>BBC, the Prime Minister's Office, your MP, the MD of Stagecoach, the
> >>local council, the local radio, TV and newspapers, the police, and just
> >>about anyone else you can think of.
> >
> > Yes, I thought of that. In addition to costing more than getting
> > a full motorcycle licence, there would be a significant chance that
> > the first clear evidence would leave me dead or, worse, crippled.
>
> If the bus drivers are that malicious and dangerous I would expect a
> stream of regular fatal / major injury accidents involving bus/bike
> interactions.
>
> From all reports this is not the case in Cambridge.
>
> This leaves one of two conclusions -
> a) there is no large risk involved

Well I suppose it depends on your idea of large risk. The lack of
reports of death and major injury doesn't mean that there aren't
unreported examples of regular intimidation and minor injury.

> b) you were being specifically targetted (as Nick Maclaren and not
> a cyclist).

I have also had regular problems with stagecoach bus drivers in
Cambridge at another location Magdelene Street. That location was (is)
notorious for bus drivers (and delivery van drivers) forcing cyclists
off of the road in a single lane priority section. There were enough
independent reports of this problem, including reports from a City
Councillor who owned a shop overlooking the stretch of road, for the
City Mayor to take action by writing to the Bus Company concerning the
problem.

I also know of several other people who have told me that they have been
knocked off of their bikes by Stagecoach Buses and that they thought it
was deliberate, but these same people told me that they hadn't bothered
to report the incidents to the police or to the bus company because they
didn't think anything would be done.

> If Stagecoach have regular drivers for their routes in Cambridge
> there might be the final possibility of one particular driver was
> malicious and dangerous. However he may have left the company or even
> been moved to a different route.
>

They have a high turnover of staff by all accounts.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:20:27 GMT, Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Andy Leighton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Feb 2006 09:16:05 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Yes, I thought of that. In addition to costing more than getting
>> > a full motorcycle licence, there would be a significant chance that
>> > the first clear evidence would leave me dead or, worse, crippled.
>>
>> If the bus drivers are that malicious and dangerous I would expect a
>> stream of regular fatal / major injury accidents involving bus/bike
>> interactions.
>>
>> From all reports this is not the case in Cambridge.
>>
>> This leaves one of two conclusions -
>> a) there is no large risk involved
>
> Well I suppose it depends on your idea of large risk. The lack of
> reports of death and major injury doesn't mean that there aren't
> unreported examples of regular intimidation and minor injury.

But Nick was talking about the significant chance of a fatal / major
injury interaction.

>> b) you were being specifically targetted (as Nick Maclaren and not
>> a cyclist).
>
> I have also had regular problems with stagecoach bus drivers in
> Cambridge at another location Magdelene Street.

Yes, I know about Magdelene St. I've only walked along there (without
bike) and it looks a horrible situation. However it is not going to
lead to the kind of interactions Nick described - as I understand it
the interactions there are head to head and the bus (or other vehicle)
not letting the bike through - which forces the cyclist onto the pavement.

> I also know of several other people who have told me that they have been
> knocked off of their bikes by Stagecoach Buses and that they thought it
> was deliberate, but these same people told me that they hadn't bothered
> to report the incidents to the police or to the bus company because they
> didn't think anything would be done.

These incidents haven't been well publicised (or maybe they have in
the Cambridge). I would argue that if everyone who has suffered
such made a fuss more notice would be taken.

Strangely, the Stagecoach drivers in Peterborough are much better
behaved - I've even seen them crawling along behind an old biddy
(going pretty slowly) rather than overtake and immediately cut
back in at the bus stop 30 yards up the road.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Leighton <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> If the bus drivers are that malicious and dangerous I would expect a
|> stream of regular fatal / major injury accidents involving bus/bike
|> interactions.
|>
|> From all reports this is not the case in Cambridge.
|>
|> This leaves one of two conclusions -
|> a) there is no large risk involved
|> b) you were being specifically targetted (as Nick Maclaren and not
|> a cyclist).

Twaddle.

AS I SAID RIGHT AT THE START, I PHYSICALLY CANNOT RIDE IN THE GUTTER
WITHOUT A NEAR CERTAINTY OF COMING OFF. That applies to about a
fair number of the potential cycling population, incidentally, and
perhaps as much as 20%.

This means that I am a cyclist who CANNOT ride into the gutter when
a StageRoach driver wants to ride through - and the lanes on my
route are such that a bus cannot pass a bicycle unless the cyclist
rides in the gutter. OF COURSE, I WAS BEING TARGETTED, BUT NOT AS
NICK MACLAREN - I WAS BEING TARGETTED AS SOMEONE WHO RODE ON THE
ROAD, AND WELL OUT FROM THE KERB. THE DAMN BUS DRIVERS SAID THAT
EXPLICTLY WHEN JUSTIFYING THEIR ACTIONS.

The number of cyclists who rode on that route according to Cyclecraft
had been dropping for years, and I was one of the last - BECAUSE I
HAD NO ALTERNATIVE. However, until the new lanes were perpetrated,
50% of northbound cyclists used the road. The figure is now not
higher than 5% and may be 2%. By observation (because I recognised
quite a few of the regular commuters), MOST OF THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY
USED THE ROAD HAVE STOPPED CYCLING ON THAT ROUTE, AND ALMOST ALL OF
THE FEW WHO STILL RODE ACCORDING TO CYCLECRAFT HAVE.

|> If Stagecoach have regular drivers for their routes in Cambridge there
|> might be the final possibility of one particular driver was malicious and
|> dangerous. However he may have left the company or even been moved to a
|> different route.

There were three different ones.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[wafflycat]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Your understanding of physiology and the known problems of cyclists,
> and your observation, are all sadly lacking.
>
> Humans have been upright bipeds for millions of years and our neck
> joint is not adapted to holding our head upright while our back is
> horizontal. Muscle strength is the least of the issues.
>
> It is one of the reasons that a great many people give up cycling
> after a couple of goes, others ride traditional roadsters (despite
> the 50% increase in windage) and yet others turn drop handlebars
> upside down. And, as others have pointed out, observation alone
> would indicate that you are wrong.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

It is very clear that your aversion to cycling as a result of your sad
mishap has given you a serious problem. I suggest you require some therapy
to sort out your problem. I mean that in a polite way, as you now seem to
look to any possible excuse to try to justify not cycling that goes well
beyond a reasonable fear following being knocked off your bike. Either that
or you are trolling. In which case I respond no further to your irrational
fears.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Peter Clinch]

wafflycat wrote:

> It is very clear that your aversion to cycling as a result of your sad
> mishap has given you a serious problem. I suggest you require some
> therapy to sort out your problem.

I think you're rather leaping to unwarranted conclusions, coming as that
does from a point made purely about how one cannot guarantee a head is
held up 100% of the time. Whether Nick's problems re: cycling are in
his mind or not is not something you can reasonably assess from that
point alone IMHO.

There are cases where the Standard Answers genuinely don't fit,
especially where there are combinations of several impeding factors.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/