Poll: Are cyclists a menace on the road?



Patrick Turner said:
Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
> On 2007-08-13, Patrick Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > EuanB wrote:
> >>
> >> Patrick Turner Wrote:
> >> > I ride close to the gutter even when I'm in a bike lane.
> >> > It also leaves room for faster cysclists to pass without a swing out
> >> > into the car lane, something that really infuriates drivers no end.
> >>
> >> Missed this bit. You're riding in the most dangerous place of the
> >> road.

> >
> > Your'e plain wrong.

>
> No he isn't, you're just misunderstanding him.
>
> The *gutter* is the most dangerous part, because it's not consistent.
> You've got gravel, broken glass, and other assorted debris; it's liable
> to be broken, possibly (badly) patched, and you could find yourself
> running over the top of drains as well - always a fun time, especially
> when the bars run parallel to your direction of travel, and are spaced
> just that little bit bigger than your wheel's tyre ...


GeeZuss! Do you think I ride everywhere with my eyes closed.
Staying alive on a bike means you have to watch what your wheels are
just about to go over
ALL THE TIME. Riders in fantasyland don't watch out for glass and rocks
and all manner of ****
mototvehicles, and they come to grief.

Drains here are all constructed not to trap cyclists wheels.

By keeping left I did NOT mean riding right in the gutter; my feet would
hit the curb
if I did, so no need to be ridiculous about it.

I just try to KEEP LEFT to let others have a fair go.

And keep as far away from cars, and trucks, and what might fall off
them,
or away from when they may indeed swerve into the bike lane while I'm
there.

Bad luck happens just as often as **** happens, OK.


rIinab Suuss
>
> [...]
>
> >> The safest place to ride is where the nearside wheels of normal traffic
> >> run. Traffic has to move to get past you so traffic moves by a decent
> >> amount. All of a sudden you're no longer getting creamed.

> >
> > I disagree entirely, and you are advising cyclists
> > to lose their lives sooner rather than later.

>
> I have cycled in the gutter. I have cycled in the area Euan is
> advocating. My personal experience is that the latter is *far* safer;


Sure, now your'e being stubborn or you are denying your own true
feelings
about the impending danger of being hit.
Maybe you have a secret death wish.

Keep to the gutter side of the lane, and you'll definately last longer.

> I
> have not felt "at risk" from passing cars in a long time since I moved
> further out. If I'm in the gutter, I get passed with very little room to
> spare;


What utter ********!

if I'm further out, the margin between me and cars is much
> greater.


More buulshit!

> I ascribe this to cars trying not to move into the next lane
> over if they think they can squeeze past; if I make it so they have no
> choice, they will give me more room as a matter of course.


But they don't move further out for me or anyone else I've seen.
They'll often come deliberately close to frighten you back down to the
left.


>
> Euan's comments weren't just about the situation where a bike lane
> exists; he's talking about the general case, and habits learnt to
> protect yourself when you don't have a bike lane are not easily
> forgotten when the bike lane arrives - and nor should they be!


Where there is no bike lane it also pays to keep as left as possible.

Its utter baloney to say that riding high is any sort of protection
because it forces
motoorists to give way.

They get nervous, are forced to slow right down, can panic, and get
angry,
and damn well might run you right over.

So by riding high and thinking you own the road, you are inviting
catastrophe.

I hate riding two abreast anywhere unless I am in a bunch ride, and then
because of
numbers, I do own the road.

When I trained for racing I often went out with just one other friend on
a ride
on quiet country roads, and there riding two abreast isn't a menace.

But it sure is in town!

Here I often come across 2 riders going slow yabbering away about
whatever,
and hogging the road or the path. I will defend their rights, but
common sense tells me its stupidity to provoke motorists just because
you have the right
to do so. Sooner or later, you WILL be hit.

Everyone I knew in the racing club kept to the left as much as sensibly
possible,
everywhere they went, and in races on public roads.

Despite all precautions taken, and while I was a memeber of 2 clubs over
6 years
and 100,000 kms of ridden distance, I witnessed a constant
stream of guys recovering after hospitalisation due to bike accidents
often involving cars.
Several people got killed.

If everyone who isn't riding a bike got out on the roads, motor traffic
would be halved, but hospital accident admissions would rise 500%.

So motorists sure are a menace on the roads.

Patrick Turner.


>
> --
> My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
> the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".


I'll see your call of ********/Buulshit & raise it.

As StuartL & Euan have stated, take part of the left lane & cars give you more room. It may sound counter intuitive but my experience backs it up. There is a certain section of Plenty Rd (Northern suburbs, Melbourne) that bears this out perfectly.
Every time I ride out to Kinglake this happens. If I don't ride in the left wheel track, roughly 1/3 out into the left lane, I get cars, trucks etc squeezing past me by inches. It feels like the wrong thing to do but once in the lane there is less stress as you get given more space.
 
Andrew Priest <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:51:55 GMT, "Plodder"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Not
> >once, but TWICE I came close to being cleaned up by people dipping into the
> >bike lane to get around cars turning right off South St.

>
> "Dropping" into the bike lane to pass on the left, a right turning
> vehicle is legal. Of course the driver should ensure it is safe to do
> so which is you point I believe you are making.


And they have to indicate properly that they are doing it.
 
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>
> > We have just had a road upgraded in Mackay and part of it has bike
> > lanes 30cm wide (with lovely little bicycle symbols to match).

>
> You have very narrow bicycles, and people, in Mackay.
>
> Theo


That might make a great little protest action. Seeking Mackay's
skinniest cyclist to see if they can fit in the bicycle lane. Might send
off a media release tomorrow.

P
 
Patrick Turner <[email protected]> wrote:

> Neither myself or any government transport department cares a
> hoot about your prissy feelings!
>
> Get real, you ARE a second class user of the road
> if you are on a bike. Your'e ****, OK.
> This is exactly how many motorists know you when they see you, just
> vermin, garbage.
> So please get used to motorists hating you.
> And stop being a fool for insisting you get treated special.


Mate, that's the spirit! The would have made you a life member of "the
Germans won't harm us, so it's best we go quietly" club during the
Holocaust.

P
 
On 2007-08-14, Peter (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Patrick Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Neither myself or any government transport department cares a
>> hoot about your prissy feelings!
>>
>> Get real, you ARE a second class user of the road
>> if you are on a bike. Your'e ****, OK.
>> This is exactly how many motorists know you when they see you, just
>> vermin, garbage.
>> So please get used to motorists hating you.
>> And stop being a fool for insisting you get treated special.


Wow dude. You sure you didn't take too many "products" back when
racing? Hold on, your writing style is awfully similar to previous
people I had killfiled.

> Mate, that's the spirit! The would have made you a life member of "the
> Germans won't harm us, so it's best we go quietly" club during the
> Holocaust.


That's the problem with technology. Imagine if you killfiled the
Germans, and didn't even notice them coming after you?

--
TimC
Warning: No foo present. Your life may be in grave danger.
 
Patrick Turner said:
Where there is no bike lane it also pays to keep as left as possible.
No, it pays to keep as far left as is safe to do so. VicRoads agrees with me,

``. Ride so that you can be seen

To further assist motorists to see you, you should ride in a prominent position on the road. Riding in a prominent position involves riding at a distance of approximately 1 metre from parked cars. You should also obey traffic signals and stop signs.''

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/BicyclesPedestrians/CyclingSafety/CyclistVisibility.htm

Its utter baloney to say that riding high is any sort of protection because it forces motoorists to give way.
My experience says different.

Everyone I knew in the racing club kept to the left as much as sensibly possible, everywhere they went, and in races on public roads.

Despite all precautions taken, and while I was a memeber of 2 clubs over 6 years and 100,000 kms of ridden distance, I witnessed a constant tream of guys recovering after hospitalisation due to bike accidents often involving cars.
Several people got killed.
So everyone you knew rode like you did and you saw lots of people having accidents involving cars.

Not a great endorsement is it?


If everyone who isn't riding a bike got out on the roads, motor traffic
would be halved, but hospital accident admissions would rise 500%.
The facts contradict you. In countries which have higher per capita cycling the roads are safer, not just for cyclists but for all road users.

The Netherlands health bill is about a third of Australia's, I believe quite a few of them ride a bike.

Now if you're going to respond, do so nicely. Don't call me a liar, don't dismiss everything I say as bull excrement. it's quite OK to have a differing opinion, it's not OK to insult people.

If you can't back up your opinions with facts, it's OK to say that its your opinion, even if it flies in the face of established facts.
 
EuanB wrote:


> The Netherlands health bill is about a third of Australia's, I believe
> quite a few of them ride a bike.


Ride bikes surely. They have more than one bike in the Netherlands. :)
I got my first bike there when I was 4. That was before trainer-wheels were
invented.

Theo
 
>> I have not felt "at risk" from passing cars in a long time since I moved
>> further out. If I'm in the gutter, I get passed with very little room to
>> spare;

>
> What utter ********!
>
> if I'm further out, the margin between me and cars is much
>> greater.

>
> More buulshit!


Actually that reflects my experience over three years of commuting, mostly
on arterial roads. I can recall precisely two instances of being passed
closely enough that it made me reflexively swear from fright and on at least
one of those occasions I was hiding in the gutter for some reason. I
remember the place but not why I was in the gutter. Iwas very new to cycling
at the time though. It's been more than a year since I got a serious fright
from someone passing me too closely. Look at advice published on vehicular
cycling by anyone with a good amount of experience and they'll also tell you
not to hide in the gutter.

And here's some reading in case you feel the need to cry ******** again.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/book_reviews.html
http://www.nscycle.org.uk/help.html
http://www.bikenorthwoods.com/Extras/bike_safety/index.html
http://kingcommute.live.poptech.coop/viewall.htm

That was a *very* quick Google and I could provied more but it would have
simply been thumping the expired equine.
 
On Aug 14, 5:35 pm, [email protected] (Peter) wrote:
> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Peter wrote:

>
> > > We have just had a road upgraded in Mackay and part of it has bike
> > > lanes 30cm wide (with lovely little bicycle symbols to match).

>
> > You have very narrow bicycles, and people, in Mackay.

>
> > Theo

>
> That might make a great little protest action. Seeking Mackay's
> skinniest cyclist to see if they can fit in the bicycle lane. Might send
> off a media release tomorrow.
>
> P


Somewhere on the web, there's a funny pic of a guy lying on one of
these symbols as if he's riding it. The caption says something like:
"Gee Dad, thanks very much for the new bike for my birthday, but I
have grown a bit".
 
Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
> On 2007-08-14, Patrick Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stuart Lamble wrote:
> >> I
> >> have not felt "at risk" from passing cars in a long time since I moved
> >> further out. If I'm in the gutter, I get passed with very little room to
> >> spare;

> >
> > What utter ********!

>
> Now you're being an utter ******. I'm talking about my personal
> experience here, and this is what *HAS HAPPENED TO ME*.
>
> If you're not prepared to stop and engage your brain, I have no interest
> in what you have to say.
>
> *PLONK*



Please feel welcome to plonk me.

I never expect everyone to agree with me, and have many bullet holes
to prove that as a messenger, I have been shot many times.

I never bother to plonk anyone at all.
I never have, and I never will, and when I think someone
spouts BS, I will always say so giving reasons,
rather than just angrilly blocking offending posts.

I speak to the group, and not to just one individual.

Have fun on your bike while you can.

Watch out for the cars, they tend to run you down
if you ride along too close to them.

Patrick Turner.



a
>
> --
> My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
> the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
 
Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > Donga wrote:

>
> >> Patrick I agree with you about more infrastructure, but want to make
> >> one point: cyclists aren't the reason why some motorists hate
> >> cyclists, bigotry is.

>
> > Bigatory, or whatever you call it

>
> Patrick, Donga spelled it correctly for you.


Biggertary? whatever, who gives a huge profound R's A about spelingg?
>
> > Motorists all suffer the sin of impatience.
> > People are often supremely immature once behind a steering wheel.

>
> > Everyone likes to hate them, and think of them as
> > arholes and revenue raisers, and they are, but they slow traffic.

>
> What exactly is the advantage of slower traffic to anyone?


Slower traffic damages its self less.

Car drivers have MORE time to react to any given situation
if their speed is lower.

Kinetic Energy , KE is proportional to velocity squared,
so someone travelling at 28kph does twice the damage
to persons or vehicles in a prang as at 20kph.

I recall the bad old days when Police were at a loss to control
speeding in the ACT.
On Northbourne Ave, the busiest road near the town centre
ppl roared along up to 100kph regularly.
Not any more, the white vans suddenly lurk at random locations,
and I pass them daily, and nightly, and everyone HAS slowed down
to below 60kph, knowing well that if you speed, you WILL be caught
sooner rather than later.

The camera vans never stay longer than about 30minutes at the one place,
and ppl never know where they will be next, and for
speedy ppl, they are deadly. They all pay huge fines and get points.


> > Hooray!!!! cars are being slowed down, and us cyclists are safer.

>
> You'd sooner the cars drove slower and have more frustrated drivers in them?


My bloody oath I would.

Hat's off to the Police.

The slower driver can get as angry as he likes. I don't care.
If he is angry that he or she cannot break the law any more, and needs
to speed,
he/she deserves no mercy, and the recipe that is acceptable for
speedy types is to depart on journeys earlier to get their on time,
and with less risk to everyone.

I might add that 35 years ago when I was a silly young and often angry
young man, I probably paid enough traffic fines to
purchase a Police motorcycle they used to persue me.

Now I happily drive much slower, and the need for
exhilarating motoring speed has ZERO appeal.

I like cycling as fast as i can though, and
60kph down a hill on a pushie is about as exhilarating to me at age 60
as 100mph was back in 1968 on a Harley.


>
> > Give us more cycle lanes.

>
> Patrick, I'm still trying to figure out whether you're a semi-clever troll,
> or a complete idiot. The latter is winning.


Everyone who disagrees vehemently with me thinks
I am a troll, thinks negative, and plonks me, whatever, I don't care,
I have the right to say what I think to be true,
and in advance will say that I will agree to disagree with you
if you can't handle debate.

I had a nice long ride of 85k today, averaged about 25kph,
right across town and back, with only 10k
on roads without cycle lanes.
But these are relatively quite roads which were made 1.5 lanes wide to
begin with.
When they first built the city of Canberra, they designed in wide
streets.

Hooray for wide streets!

About 20k was done on roads with cycle lanes, and I felt quite safe.
Much safer than without them.

The rest of the trip was done on the separate cycle path system of
mainly tar sealed
2m wide path with a white centre line.

It was a good ride apart from the severe headwind and the 9C temp,
and there wasn't one single even slightly scary incident,
either because of any fault of anyone else, or any misjudgement of my
own.

If I rode close to the single white line dividing motorists
from the bikes, sooner or later I would be hit by a truck or trailer
etc.
I have OFTEN seen motorists go past with their vehicle
side right on the white line.
Trucks are the worst offenders.

It always was far more dangerous without the bike lanes.

I may not speak for all cyclists, but I want MORE CYCLE LANES.

I am greedy as buggery, and
I WANT MORE CYCLE PATHS WELL AWAY FROM ROADS.

Unfortunately, anyone capable of implementing
improvements I could dream about isn't reading this NG
and isn't talking to us.
And I have lived long enough to witness pollytishans
regularly ignore polls and petitions.

Hope you have a good ride tomorrow...

Patrick Turner


>
> Theo
 
Patrick Turner said:
I never expect everyone to agree with me, and have many bullet holes
to prove that as a messenger, I have been shot many times.

If that's a indeed a fact, you could be technically dead & haven't actually noticed it yet.

Sure you're not a zombie? Or just a troll on autopilot?
 
Peter wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Neither myself or any government transport department cares a
> > hoot about your prissy feelings!
> >
> > Get real, you ARE a second class user of the road
> > if you are on a bike. Your'e ****, OK.
> > This is exactly how many motorists know you when they see you, just
> > vermin, garbage.
> > So please get used to motorists hating you.
> > And stop being a fool for insisting you get treated special.

>
> Mate, that's the spirit! The would have made you a life member of "the
> Germans won't harm us, so it's best we go quietly" club during the
> Holocaust.


You don't know me well, but I try to take **** from nobody,
and I would have been a supremely surly partisan
fighting against ****** if I'd had to.

But as a cyclist whose life is constantly threatened daily
by road behaviours, and while living in a Democracy,
I'd be silly to try to shoot back.
I'd be jailed for starters.

I know my place on the bicycle, and
I am aware that best survival procedure is to
cause the least possible anxiety in minds of motorists,
so I keep away from them as far as possible.
After cycling maybe 105,000 kms I am still alive to tell my story.

Not even a scratch due some negative "interface" with a car, truck, bus,
etc.

I also rode about 200 races on public roads, and no dramas.

In Oz, about 1,700ppl get killed on roads each year.

Does anyone really worry about this as much as the silly
worry about terrorists?

I don't recommend cycling the roads of many foreign countries though.
For example, in Iran, some 50,000 people die anually,
and it proves Allah can be asked for guidance and protection,
but can never be relied upon to give either.

In Lance Armstrong's book about his fight with cancer
he tells of being knocked off his bike on Texas roads.

If ever you fell off in the US, you wanna make sure
you have medical insurance.

If the motorists don't getcha, the doctors will.

Patrick Turner.



>
> P
 
Patrick Turner wrote:
>
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Patrick Turner wrote:
>>> Donga wrote:
>>>> Patrick I agree with you about more infrastructure, but want to make
>>>> one point: cyclists aren't the reason why some motorists hate
>>>> cyclists, bigotry is.
>>> Bigatory, or whatever you call it

>> Patrick, Donga spelled it correctly for you.

>
> Biggertary? whatever, who gives a huge profound R's A about spelingg?
>>> Motorists all suffer the sin of impatience.
>>> People are often supremely immature once behind a steering wheel.
>>> Everyone likes to hate them, and think of them as
>>> arholes and revenue raisers, and they are, but they slow traffic.

>> What exactly is the advantage of slower traffic to anyone?

>
> Slower traffic damages its self less.
>
> Car drivers have MORE time to react to any given situation
> if their speed is lower.
>
> Kinetic Energy , KE is proportional to velocity squared,
> so someone travelling at 28kph does twice the damage
> to persons or vehicles in a prang as at 20kph.
>
> I recall the bad old days when Police were at a loss to control
> speeding in the ACT.
> On Northbourne Ave, the busiest road near the town centre
> ppl roared along up to 100kph regularly.
> Not any more, the white vans suddenly lurk at random locations,
> and I pass them daily, and nightly, and everyone HAS slowed down
> to below 60kph, knowing well that if you speed, you WILL be caught
> sooner rather than later.
>
> The camera vans never stay longer than about 30minutes at the one place,
> and ppl never know where they will be next, and for
> speedy ppl, they are deadly. They all pay huge fines and get points.
>
>
>>> Hooray!!!! cars are being slowed down, and us cyclists are safer.

>> You'd sooner the cars drove slower and have more frustrated drivers in them?

>
> My bloody oath I would.
>
> Hat's off to the Police.
>
> The slower driver can get as angry as he likes. I don't care.
> If he is angry that he or she cannot break the law any more, and needs
> to speed,
> he/she deserves no mercy, and the recipe that is acceptable for
> speedy types is to depart on journeys earlier to get their on time,
> and with less risk to everyone.
>
> I might add that 35 years ago when I was a silly young and often angry
> young man, I probably paid enough traffic fines to
> purchase a Police motorcycle they used to persue me.
>
> Now I happily drive much slower, and the need for
> exhilarating motoring speed has ZERO appeal.
>
> I like cycling as fast as i can though, and
> 60kph down a hill on a pushie is about as exhilarating to me at age 60
> as 100mph was back in 1968 on a Harley.
>
>
>>> Give us more cycle lanes.

>> Patrick, I'm still trying to figure out whether you're a semi-clever troll,
>> or a complete idiot. The latter is winning.

>
> Everyone who disagrees vehemently with me thinks
> I am a troll, thinks negative, and plonks me, whatever, I don't care,
> I have the right to say what I think to be true,
> and in advance will say that I will agree to disagree with you
> if you can't handle debate.
>
> I had a nice long ride of 85k today, averaged about 25kph,
> right across town and back, with only 10k
> on roads without cycle lanes.
> But these are relatively quite roads which were made 1.5 lanes wide to
> begin with.
> When they first built the city of Canberra, they designed in wide
> streets.
>
> Hooray for wide streets!
>
> About 20k was done on roads with cycle lanes, and I felt quite safe.
> Much safer than without them.
>
> The rest of the trip was done on the separate cycle path system of
> mainly tar sealed
> 2m wide path with a white centre line.
>
> It was a good ride apart from the severe headwind and the 9C temp,
> and there wasn't one single even slightly scary incident,
> either because of any fault of anyone else, or any misjudgement of my
> own.
>
> If I rode close to the single white line dividing motorists
> from the bikes, sooner or later I would be hit by a truck or trailer
> etc.
> I have OFTEN seen motorists go past with their vehicle
> side right on the white line.
> Trucks are the worst offenders.
>
> It always was far more dangerous without the bike lanes.
>
> I may not speak for all cyclists, but I want MORE CYCLE LANES.
>
> I am greedy as buggery, and
> I WANT MORE CYCLE PATHS WELL AWAY FROM ROADS.
>
> Unfortunately, anyone capable of implementing
> improvements I could dream about isn't reading this NG
> and isn't talking to us.
> And I have lived long enough to witness pollytishans
> regularly ignore polls and petitions.
>
> Hope you have a good ride tomorrow...
>
> Patrick Turner
>
>
>> Theo


Hi Patrick

I think your posts are OK but a bit too long. My eyes glaze over if a
post is longer than three or four paragraphs.
Keep up the good work and don't forget that we're all friends on here,
except for one or two kooks.

Dorfus
 
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:53:24 GMT, Patrick Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Plodder wrote:


>> Interesting. However I'm uncomfortable with the idea that separating
>> cyclists and motor vehicles is necessarily a good thing.

>
>Well perhaps you may not have experienced a before and after
>effect with cycle lanes.
>I have, and the change and I am 100% sure the lanes have made a vast
>improvement to my safety, and I now ain't part of the reason
>why so many motorists hate cyclists.


I agree. Before the lanes I got abused 3 times a month. Its gotten
less and less over the 2? years, now I can't remember the last time.
I generally ride near the right edge so staying far left isn't it.

In the ACT context of an off road shared path network, including all
footpaths, on road bike lanes are a statement that cyclists belong on
the roads. Inclusion, not segregation.

As for Northbourne Avenue, before the lanes were redone, the left lane
was only a few cm wider than a bus! Took me years of occasional riding
to twig to this unbelievable fact. Why? Its the National Capital's
entry road of ceremony, 3 lanes a side, with a massive grass median.
The central(2nd) lane was extra wide for matters of pomp and state.
Traffic engineering didn't come into it.
 
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:14:23 +1000, EuanB wrote:

> Road infrastructure is a small part of the big picture, attitude is
> much more important.


France has a serious network of motorways onm which cyclist don't ride.
On the rest cyclists are accorded respect, as they should be.

dewatf.
 
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:08:50 +1000, EuanB wrote:

> I can only speak for Melbourne, I wouldn't put much credence in that
> poll. Driver attitudes on the road have improved out of sight over the
> last two or three years here.
>
> It is an unusual event if I have a negative interaction with another
> road user these days, not the norm.


Most motorists in Sydney are pretty good, especially on local or secondary
roads. It, however, only takes one idiot in one to two tons of metal to
kill you.

dewatf.
 
dewatf said:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:14:23 +1000, EuanB wrote:

> Road infrastructure is a small part of the big picture, attitude is
> much more important.


France has a serious network of motorways onm which cyclist don't ride.
On the rest cyclists are accorded respect, as they should be.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Most countries don't permit cyclists on motorways and/or freeways, France is no different to Australia, the UK or any number of other countries I could mention.
 
dewatf said:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:08:50 +1000, EuanB wrote:

> I can only speak for Melbourne, I wouldn't put much credence in that
> poll. Driver attitudes on the road have improved out of sight over the
> last two or three years here.
>
> It is an unusual event if I have a negative interaction with another
> road user these days, not the norm.


Most motorists in Sydney are pretty good, especially on local or secondary
roads. It, however, only takes one idiot in one to two tons of metal to
kill you.


Agreed, however the overall risk on a bicycle is still pretty small in real terms. Less risky than being a pedestrian as it happens.
 
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> Agreed, however the overall risk on a bicycle is still pretty small in
> real terms. Less risky than being a pedestrian as it happens.


I don't believe this last point. While the raw figures might show a higher
rate of pedestrian deaths per '000 of population than for cyclists, they do
not show that a very large number of those dead pedestrians were drunk,
young children, or elderly and /or infirm. I don't (usually) fall into any
of those categories, and I feel safer as a pedestrian than on my bike.

That is not to say my perceptions of relative safety stop me riding. The
risk of death or injury is still pretty low, but the stats do not take into
account the different characteristics of the two populations. As in many
other situations, it can be a fallacy to base personal decisions purely on
aggregate statistics

JMO.

--
beerwolf