Re: Are cyclists allowed to race on public roads?

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 25 May 2005 21:48:52 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>>>Not surprised. We'd hate to see you have to seriously consider a
>>>viewpoint other than your own, Guy.

>> I invite you to ask Tony Raven if I am open to persuasion based on
>> evidence presented. I think he may be able to call a specific
>> instance to mind.

>Ooooh, a whole instance? <g>

Ah, well, there was just a tiny bit of irony involved. I used to be
an ardent advocate of bicycle helmets. I think you will find that my
position has changed more than slightly.

And please, please, don't start a helmet war. It's an example of me
being amenable to persuasion, nothing more.

>> And all I said was that, given the choice to take or leave MattB's
>> views, I'll leave them. Where is the point in debating with someone
>> who apparently sincerely believes that car drivers are not a cause of
>> congestion, and that roads should be indefinitely expanded, funded by
>> general taxation, until all conceivable demand is satisfied?

>Mmm. If that's what Matt was saying, then - yep - he's quite obviously
>hatstand.

Quite.

>> Hooke and Wren couldn't achieve this in the zeal of post-fire London, and
>> it can't be done now - to believe otherwise is, in my view, absurd.

>As absurd as the diametrically opposite viewpoint of trying to get
>*everybody* onto bikes?

Where did I do that? Where someone says "I *must* use a car because
of X" I feel honour bound to point out examples where X has been
achieved without the use of a car, sometimes with a bike, sometimes
not. But I own a car.

>Or is there, p'raps, a happy mid-ground?

I live there, me.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[DavidR]

Ian wrote:
> "DavidR" wrote in message
>>Ian wrote:
>>
>>>Cyclists are more likely to kill a pedestrian than a light van for the
>>>same mileage. They are also only a third less likely to kill a pedestrian
>>>than a car. Cars and vans have to be insured and licensed, why not cycles
>>>as they are in the same league of danger to pedestrains. It is only
>>>because cycles don't travel further that they seem so much safer, it is
>>>an illusion.
>>
>>Getting back to the point. There need to be encounters with pedestrians
>>to have an opportunity to kill them. When I drive I can travel 100's of
>>miles without encountering a single one. When I cycle, I encounter a
>>lot more, ie, encounters per mile are significantly higher. On top of
>>that, pedestrians don't step out or linger in front of moving cars.
>
> It doesn't make cycles any less dangerous to pedestrians.

What doesn't? You seem to be trying to convince yourself that kill rate
per encounter is no higher for cars. If pedestrians are more likely to
step in front of bicycle, then I guess that is an additional risk factor.

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> Again, you have to acknowledge that they may drive 'different' miles.
>> You would expect someone that does a higher proportion of their
>> mileage on motorways or dual carriageways to have a lower risk of
>> hitting a pedestrian, per mile.
>
> That might apply to (some) vans.
>
> It might apply to (some) coaches.
>
> It can hardly apply at all to buses.

Quite. As you say, buses rarely have long stretches of motorway or dual
carriageway on their route, so if these roads 'flatter' the figures we
would expect buses to have one of the highest pedestrian fatality figures.

Pedestrian deaths per billion vehicle km (copied from earlier in this
thread)
0.83 for vans.
1.35 for cars.
10.55 for buses.

It would appear that all those miles of relatively safe motorways and dual
carriageways do have a huge impact on the figures.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:16:30 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>> There need to be encounters with pedestrians
>> to have an opportunity to kill them. When I drive I can travel 100's of
>> miles without encountering a single one. When I cycle, I encounter a
>> lot more, ie, encounters per mile are significantly higher. On top of
>> that, pedestrians don't step out or linger in front of moving cars.

>It doesn't make cycles any less dangerous to pedestrians.

Eh? In what way does showing that the risk per encounter is lower
than supposed not mean that bikes are less dangerous than supposed?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> Ah, well, there was just a tiny bit of irony involved. I used to be
> an ardent advocate of bicycle helmets.

<boggle>

> I think you will find that my position has changed more than slightly.

And 2005's "understatement of the year" award...

>>As absurd as the diametrically opposite viewpoint of trying to get
>>*everybody* onto bikes?

> Where did I do that? Where someone says "I *must* use a car because
> of X" I feel honour bound to point out examples where X has been
> achieved without the use of a car, sometimes with a bike, sometimes
> not. But I own a car.

Yes, I seem to recall a recent discussion involving me being seriously
advised that I was being narrow-minded for thinking a car provided much
benefit in shifting large amounts of furniture and books miles around hilly
countryside, and that a specialised bike & trailer (costing far more than
most of my cars) would be all I'd need.

>>Or is there, p'raps, a happy mid-ground?

> I live there, me.

In one corner of it, right on the borders of lycra-lunacy...

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>
>
> I invite you to ask Tony Raven if I am open to persuasion based on
> evidence presented. I think he may be able to call a specific
> instance to mind. And I dare say if you Google around here you will
> find several instances where I've acknowledged that I am wrong.
>

Yes I can confirm the champion of bikes from the dark side was recently
persuaded to purchase a Brompton, although by all accounts he has not
yet gotten round to riding it having kept himself amused with
fold...unfold...fold...unfold.... ;-)

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

 

[LSMike]

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

> Yes, I seem to recall a recent discussion involving me being seriously
> advised that I was being narrow-minded for thinking a car provided much
> benefit in shifting large amounts of furniture and books miles around
> hilly
> countryside, and that a specialised bike & trailer (costing far more than
> most of my cars) would be all I'd need.

Bit of rather wild exaggeration and misinterpretation there methinks. IIRC
the discussion was that cars are not necessary for such tasks, not that you
shouldn't use them.

 

[Ian]

"Mark Thompson" wrote in message
>> The KSI rate according to dft_transtats_031770.pdf
>
> <URL:http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/df
> t_transstats_031770.pdf>
>
>> is around 1200 per
>> year between 1995 and 2003.
>> Which means that around 21% of casualties
>> on motorways are pedestrians which is about the same as for all roads.
>
> 'k (guessing you also used stats previously mentioned in the thread - I'm
> a
> person of little brain and spent a few minutes wondering how you worked it
> out from the table above!).
>
>> Again showing that cycles are more dangerous than light vans and not
>> much less dangerous than cars. <snippity>
>
> Isn't it accidents with peds _per mile_ that matters rather than the
> proportional thingy of casualties. A much lower density of peds on the
> motorway would still flatter the figures when compared to cycles, and the
> proportion of ped casualties to other casualties would be irrelevent
> considering motorways are so much safer?

The total road network is 392,321 Km of which motorways account for 3476 Km.
So far we have managed to find the number of pedestrians KSI on all roads as
7933 and on motorways as about 250. This gives an overall rate of 1
pedestrian KSI per 49.45 Km on all roads and 1 per 13.9 Km on motorways. So
they are less safe than the average per kilometre for pedestrians. All
figures taken from Department of Transport documents and the Scottish Road
Safety newsletter (for motorway KSI).

So cyclists are not using the type of road most dangerous to pedestrians.
Motorways are considered the safest roads only because of the high volume of
traffic they take when compared to the network as a whole. About 19% of all
traffic in billion vehicle kilometres uses the relatively small motorway
network.

Any other excuses for considering that cyclists aren't as dangerous as they
really are?

Ian

 

[Adrian]

LSMike ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> Bit of rather wild exaggeration and misinterpretation there methinks.

How unusual on these cross-posted threads between
uk.rec.lycra.fetishists.but.not.helmets.god.no.not.helmets and
uk.rec.mr.toad.speedophile.murdering.polluting.bastards...

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:51:49 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>The total road network is 392,321 Km of which motorways account for 3476 Km.
>So far we have managed to find the number of pedestrians KSI on all roads as
>7933 and on motorways as about 250. This gives an overall rate of 1
>pedestrian KSI per 49.45 Km on all roads and 1 per 13.9 Km on motorways. So
>they are less safe than the average per kilometre for pedestrians. All
>figures taken from Department of Transport documents and the Scottish Road
>Safety newsletter (for motorway KSI).

There is a major problem with that: the severity ratio in pedestrians
struck at motorway speeds is going to be high by comparison with that
for urban roads.

>So cyclists are not using the type of road most dangerous to pedestrians.

True by that limited definition, but they are using the type of road
on which most pedestrians are likely to be.

I have hospital admissions figures over a number of years. Those
struck by a motor vehicle are much more likely to have serious
injuries. Motor traffic collisions account for 10% of child injuries
but 50% of fatalities.

>Motorways are considered the safest roads only because of the high volume of
>traffic they take when compared to the network as a whole. About 19% of all
>traffic in billion vehicle kilometres uses the relatively small motorway
>network.

Motorways are considered the safest roads primarily because there are
very limited opportunities for conflict - no right turns, few
junctions, segregated carriageways, wide lanes, long sightlines etc.
I always think it remarkable that so many people manage to crash on
them despite this!

>Any other excuses for considering that cyclists aren't as dangerous as they
>really are?

Hmmmm. Explain: why is it thought appropriate to mix cyclists and
pedestrians on some footways? How come the fatality rate for
pedestrians on footways is 185:1 car:bike? To what extent have you
accounted for the documented fact that cyclists are least likely to be
to blame in injury collisions? In what proportion of the cyclist
injuries you are counting was the cyclist to blame? What of the
documented fact that of all road users involved in fatal collisions,
cyclist are least likely to be over the alcohol limit and pedestrians
the most likely?

Still, it's a fascinating thesis: vehicles weighing of the order of
100kg loaded, travelling at speeds typically between 12mph and 20mph,
whose operators stand a chance of serious injury in any collision,
pose a bigger threat to pedestrians than vehicles weighing 1.5 tonnes
and more laden, generally travelling at or above 30mph, whose
operators are almost never injured when hitting a pedestrian. I'm
struggling a bit with the physics of it, but look forward to seeing
your argument develop.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 26 May 2005 07:15:26 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>I seem to recall a recent discussion involving me being seriously
>advised that I was being narrow-minded for thinking a car provided much
>benefit in shifting large amounts of furniture and books miles around hilly
>countryside, and that a specialised bike & trailer (costing far more than
>most of my cars) would be all I'd need.

No, what was being said was that a car was not *necessary* for that,
and that the occasional need for such journeys was not a good
justification for maintaining a car. That's all.

It's very simple, really - when someone is told that things they do
routinely are impossible, they tend to comment.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[LSMike]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LSMike ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
>> Bit of rather wild exaggeration and misinterpretation there methinks.
>
> How unusual on these cross-posted threads between
> uk.rec.lycra.fetishists.but.not.helmets.god.no.not.helmets and
> uk.rec.mr.toad.speedophile.murdering.polluting.bastards...

I'm glad you have an accurate self image.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Yes I can confirm the champion of bikes from the dark side was
> recently persuaded to purchase a Brompton

Has he really? He's kept /that/ very quiet...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Like Kant, it is my wish to create my own individual epistemology. But
I also wish to find out what is for pudding.

 

[Alan Braggins]

Adrian wrote:
>
>Yes, I seem to recall a recent discussion involving me being seriously
>advised that I was being narrow-minded for thinking a car provided much
>benefit in shifting large amounts of furniture and books miles around hilly
>countryside

By "_seem_ to recall", you mean it didn't _actually_ happen that way, but it
sounds better if you put it like that.

 

[Adrian]

Alan Braggins ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>>Yes, I seem to recall a recent discussion

> By "_seem_ to recall", you mean it didn't _actually_ happen that way,

No, I mean that's how I seem to recall it, and can't be arsed to Google
through the interminable bollocks.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 26 May 2005 10:46:27 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> By "_seem_ to recall", you mean it didn't _actually_ happen that way,

>No, I mean that's how I seem to recall it, and can't be arsed to Google
>through the interminable bollocks.

<obi_wan>
These are not the facts you're looking for. Move along...
</obi_wan>

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mark Thompson]

> So cyclists are not using the type of road most dangerous to
> pedestrians. Motorways are considered the safest roads only because of
> the high volume of traffic they take when compared to the network as a
> whole. About 19% of all traffic in billion vehicle kilometres uses the
> relatively small motorway network.

Pdestrians ksi per 100m km by motor vehicles on all roads 1.6
Pedestrians ksi per 100m km on motorways 0.27
Pedestrians ksi per 100m km by motor vehicles on all roads except motorways
1.91

See how even a relatively small motorway network flatters the figures?
Imagine what happens to 'em when you take into account the dual
carriageways. The 1.91 figure still includes a huge amount of safe dual
carriageway that flatters the figures, so the figure should be even higher
than that if you want to compare motor vehicles with cycles. Do you
understand now?

Disclaimer: I'm awful at this maths stuff so the above might be a load of
rubbish.

Figures used from this thread (KSIs) and:
<URL:http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/df
t_transstats_031298.pdf>

 

[Ian]

"Mark Thompson" wrote in message
>> So cyclists are not using the type of road most dangerous to
>> pedestrians. Motorways are considered the safest roads only because of
>> the high volume of traffic they take when compared to the network as a
>> whole. About 19% of all traffic in billion vehicle kilometres uses the
>> relatively small motorway network.
>
> Pdestrians ksi per 100m km by motor vehicles on all roads 1.6
> Pedestrians ksi per 100m km on motorways 0.27
> Pedestrians ksi per 100m km by motor vehicles on all roads except
> motorways
> 1.91

I don't understand what is '100m km' ? I am using billion vehicle
kilometres, which is used by the Department of Transport. What are you
using?

Ian

 

[Lum]

Vincent Wilcox wrote:

> Lum wrote:
>>
>> I think you'll find that most drivers are careful enough to not reverse
>> into a parked car in the first place. Those that do generally have a
>> complete disregard for others so of course they're going to bugger off. A
>> responsible person would, as you did, pay for the damage
>>
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10126840
> http://www.komotv.com/stories/36893.htm
> http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=39&sid=206635

[3 separate articles about stupid people reversing over their children as
they leave their driveway]
>
> At least they didn't drive off I suppose.

You can't claim those were malicious intent, surely!

 

[Lum]

James Annan wrote:

> that someone in your job should make at least a token effort to get
> acquainted with the laws concerning roads.

Whether it's illegal or not, people do it anyway, so as long as Conor is in
a position to respond should someone walk out in front of his truck, why do
I care whether he knows the legality of it? It is what Conor does
afterwards that determines if the guy ends up dead or not.