Re: Are cyclists allowed to race on public roads?

[Alan Braggins]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:25:51 +0100, "JNugent"
>
>>>Try "sensible". I know a lot of people do choose to live so far from
>>>the shops that they can't get there without a car, but what happens if
>>>the car breaks down?
>
>>>> They use their other car....
>
>>> YA John Prescott & ICMFP ;-)
>
>>Actually, for all that it was a humorous response, it was correct.
>
>I know. Incredible overhead, isn't it? Running two cars to
>compensate for lifestyle choices which assume availability of a car.
>Baffling. I sold our second car years ago, it's saved us a packet.

It was a partly serious response based on how I coped with a car
blowing up an engine a while back. We managed with just one car,
but it was a nuisance. It's a few miles to the nearest station, where
trains run once an hour, and a cheap day return costs more than fuel
for the car (a season ticket costs fractionally less if you use it
every working day, more if you don't some days). My cars cost a lot
less in depreciation than John Prescott's Jags.

We are within cycling distance of shops, it's commuting to work by
bike that I wouldn't want to do every day. Still, we have broadband now,
so swapping the car for a Trice hasn't totally been ruled out.

(I can explain in detail why we live where we do if Guy really wants
to be unbaffled, but it's not as simple as a comparable house costing
far more in town (two or three million more, but we share the house).)

 

[Peter Clinch]

JNugent wrote:

> Sssh!
>
> Don't disillusion him!
>
> He really believes that "the poor" [WTMB] can afford bicycles

A poor student friend of mine rides a bike that cost her absolutely
nothing. She could afford that pretty easily.

> and that the
> elderly, the disabled and the very young [toddlers? babes in arms?] can ride
> bicycles.

My parents are both collecting their pensions. My mother is currently
recovering from fairly major chemotherapy and is awaiting a fairly major
operation on her shoulder. She not only can ride a bike, but very much
enjoys doing so as it helps her with her recovery.

One of uk.rec.cycling's regulars was a keen cyclist before he was
paralysed, removing all use of his legs. He's still a keen cyclist now,
using a handcycle.

Still, why let mere facts confuse you when your mind is made up? Though
there are certainly people who can't ride bikes, sweeping assertions
that the disabled and elderly can't are quite simply wrong, and
demonstrably so.

Toddlers and babes in arms, of course, are much better suited to driving
cars than they are riding bicycles.

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/

 

[dave]

Vincent Wilcox wrote:
> Lum wrote:
>
>> dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Astonishingly most cyclista and motorcyclists know to within a cm how
>>> wide the vehicle is.. THe average car driver in Oz can probably tell
>>> within about 2 metres. I thought the Brits were better.. say within a
>>> metre.
>>
>>
>>
>> I couldn't give you a numerical figure, but I could get it through a
>> small
>> gap[1] at reasonable speed without hitting anything. A skill picked up
>> from
>> living on a narrow road littered with badly parked vehicles on both
>> sides.
>> I usually ended up turning late so as to improve the angle of approach in
>> order to allow my wehicle to fit (the most optimal approach is
>> perpendicular to a line drawn between the two closest points of the gap)
>> and usually got it to within about 4-6 inches either side (I aimed for
>> 6 to
>> allow for some margin of error)
>
>
>
> Yeah, so can I dude, got rubber marks on both sides of the car once,

If at the same time.. impressive

If at different times.. it makes my point.


> plenty of room! Fancy riding a bike while I demonstrate how little
> margin I need, I can do it at high speed if it makes you feel more
> comfortable?
>
> Most of my driving is in London if it makes you feel better. I have
> numerous bikes two cars and a van.

YEah well I didnt say all were clueless. And I did say the standard
over there was better.. for exactly the reasons cited.
I drove cabs for years.. trucks for Oz post motorcycles for Darts and
Vic Pol. and sprites and go karts on race tracks.. Sometimes I can
figure out the width pretty close.

THen again the next door neighbour managed to back over my bright orange
motorcycle the other month. My VF got backed over years ago while
parked on a footpath UNDER A BUILDING. ( It was on the porch atrium
bit.. which by the way is legal here for motorcycles and very illegal
for cars) The general competence level aint that high.

And the last guy that came that close to me, got hurt. Have I done
anything to indicate to you that I have faith in others ability to pass
me very closely at high speed.

I had a accident once when a woman did exactly that to me on a
motorcyle. Misjudged it t by about 2 cm and took the right hand
handlebar out of my hand. I wouldnt have believed I could just bail
out of a crash like that. Talk about the Battle of Britain.

I was in the right hand land of a 4 lane road travelling at about 70 kph
in an 80 zone.. in moderate traffic.. She overtook on the right.

Dave




Dave

 

[Ian]

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

A car travelling a kilometre has the same probability of KSI to pedestrian
as a cycle travelling a mile on average. That is what the figures from the
Department of Transport show. You can argue about the chances of encounters
and motorways being safer and so on, but we don't know were the accidents
occur from the data provided.

You could argue that the cyclist is more likely to have a pedestrian walk
into the road in front of them because the cycle is smaller and so less easy
to see especially at night when it probably isn't displaying lights. The
cycle is also quieter so gives little audible warning of its approach,
especially if it isn't fitted with a bell.

Ian

 

[Simon Proven]

Ian wrote:

> You could argue that the cyclist is more likely to have a pedestrian walk
> into the road in front of them because the cycle is smaller and so less easy
> to see especially at night when it probably isn't displaying lights. The
> cycle is also quieter so gives little audible warning of its approach,
> especially if it isn't fitted with a bell.

Much of that applies to motorcycles, but they're about 5x more dangerous
to peds than pushbikes. Still no closer to an answer as far as blame
is concerned, though.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:18:01 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>A car travelling a kilometre has the same probability of KSI to pedestrian
>as a cycle travelling a mile on average. That is what the figures from the
>Department of Transport show.

And this despite the fact that many more of the cyclist miles are
likely to be around pedestrians.

Now, where were your figures for blame in those collisions, again?

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:02:54 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> ... far from excluding people on health grounds

>> Really? Any suggestions how, for example, my father could cycle? He's
>> currently waiting for two knee replacements, and can't walk very far.
>> He can, however, drive.

"Exercise is important, but needs to be carefully balanced. Very
painful joints should be rested, but once the pain eases, lifting
weights and stretching will build muscle and help prevent joints
becoming deformed. Gentle cycling and swimming can also help relieve
stiffness. A physiotherapists can design a personalised programme."

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/arthritis.html

You lose. Again.

>He really believes that "the poor" [WTMB] can afford bicycles and that the
>elderly, the disabled and the very young [toddlers? babes in arms?] can ride
>bicycles.

So cars are cheaper than bikes in NugentWorld are they? Well well.

There is an entire industry supplying trailers and bike seats for
transporting children, and another supplying adapted bikes for those
with differing mobility needs (and at vastly less expense than adapted
cars).

I venture to suggest that a greater proportion of the population is
physically and financially able to cycle than will ever be the case
for cars.

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

 

[Richard]

Ian wrote:
> The
> cycle is also quieter so gives little audible warning of its approach,
> especially if it isn't fitted with a bell.

My cycle isn't fitted with a bell. However, I can produce a sound
louder than 100 db by at least two different methods, should I require
it Is that "little audible warning"?

Incidentally, there is no legal requirement to have a bell fitted.

R.

 

[bossman jay]

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

> My cycle isn't fitted with a bell. However, I can produce a sound louder
> than 100 db by at least two different methods, should I require it Is
> that "little audible warning"?

I'm going to slap the next cyclist that shouts at me.

Out of interest what is the other method?

 

[Simon Proven]

bossman jay wrote:
> "Richard" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>My cycle isn't fitted with a bell. However, I can produce a sound louder
>>than 100 db by at least two different methods, should I require it Is
>>that "little audible warning"?
>
>
> I'm going to slap the next cyclist that shouts at me.
>
> Out of interest what is the other method?

Most likely, an Air Zound. IMV, far more effective than a shout
as it sounds like a horn. A shout isn't anything like as obviously
traffic-related.

 

[Richard]

Simon Proven wrote:
> bossman jay wrote:
>
>> "Richard"
>> <[email protected]> wrote
>> in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> My cycle isn't fitted with a bell. However, I can produce a sound
>>> louder than 100 db by at least two different methods, should I
>>> require it Is that "little audible warning"?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm going to slap the next cyclist that shouts at me.
>>
>> Out of interest what is the other method?
>
>
> Most likely, an Air Zound. IMV, far more effective than a shout
> as it sounds like a horn. A shout isn't anything like as obviously
> traffic-related.

That'd be the one (in fact, an AZ2).

Tell me, bossman jay, when I am cycling along and a large articulated
tanker is coming in fast from the left at ~30 mph, the driver obviously
not having seen me, would you prefer me to shout at the driver up in his
enclosed and soundproofed cab, or ping my bell, to point out he's about
to crush me?

R.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> A car travelling a kilometre has the same probability of KSI to
> pedestrian as a cycle travelling a mile on average. That is what the
> figures from the Department of Transport show. You can argue about the
> chances of encounters and motorways being safer and so on, but we
> don't know were the accidents occur from the data provided.

Could you have a look at <URL:http://qurl.com/eckj1k> [1] and tell me where
I was going wrong? Given the reduction motorways give to ped KSIs per
motor-vehicle-mile is it not reasonable to assume that the (almost as
sparsly walked) dual carriageway network would provide a still larger drop?

Thanks.

Mark.

[1]
<URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/3
cb66072cbf2797f/998f3258851b3cd2?q=%
22See+how+even+a+relatively+small+motorway+network+flatters+the+figures%3F%
22+group:uk.rec.cycling&rnum=1&hl=en#998f3258851b3cd2>

 

[Adrian]

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

>> My cycle isn't fitted with a bell. However, I can produce a sound
>> louder than 100 db by at least two different methods, should I
>> require it Is that "little audible warning"?

> I'm going to slap the next cyclist that shouts at me.
>
> Out of interest what is the other method?

A very ripe fart, brewed from the typical hippy veggie cycle-weenie's
preferred diet of lentils, chick-peas and tofu...

 

[Brendan Halpin]

Adrian <[email protected]> writes:

> >> My cycle isn't fitted with a bell. However, I can produce a sound
> >> louder than 100 db by at least two different methods, should I
> >> require it Is that "little audible warning"?

[...]

> > Out of interest what is the other method?
>
> A very ripe fart, brewed from the typical hippy veggie cycle-weenie's
> preferred diet of lentils, chick-peas and tofu...

If he can produce a 100db fart, I don't think weenie is quite the
appropriate word.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

 

[Adrian]

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

>> >> My cycle isn't fitted with a bell. However, I can produce a sound
>> >> louder than 100 db by at least two different methods, should I
>> >> require it Is that "little audible warning"?
>
> [...]
>
>> > Out of interest what is the other method?

>> A very ripe fart, brewed from the typical hippy veggie cycle-weenie's
>> preferred diet of lentils, chick-peas and tofu...

> If he can produce a 100db fart, I don't think weenie is quite the
> appropriate word.

I'd be concerned about follow-through, though - the combination of that,
lycra and a saddle doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[Ian]

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message
> Ian wrote:
>
>> Where that happens in my area the footway is either very wide and
>> separate lanes are painted to show where pedestrians and cyclists
>> should travel
>
> Yes, and how many times have you seen the peds paying attention to said
> white lines? After a day on which I was obliged to avoid a woman with a
> pram, a bloke with his nose buried in "Auto Trader", two coppers and a bus
> queue, I resolved never to use such a f+cking stupid farcility ever again.
> On the road everyone at least pays lip service to the notion of looking
> where they are going.
>
> Shared use facilities are a dangerous abomination and it is entirely
> logical
> to want to have nothing whatsoever to do with them.
>

But it is a very cheap way for the local authority to look politically
correct by encouraging cycles. However dangerous for both pedestrian and
cyclist.

Ian

 

[Ian]

"Richard" wrote in message
> Ian wrote:
>> The cycle is also quieter so gives little audible warning of its
>> approach, especially if it isn't fitted with a bell.
>
> My cycle isn't fitted with a bell. However, I can produce a sound louder
> than 100 db by at least two different methods, should I require it Is
> that "little audible warning"?
>
> Incidentally, there is no legal requirement to have a bell fitted.
>

You wouldn't pass a cycling proficeincy test without having a bell fitted.

Ian

 

[Ian]

"Mark Thompson" wrote in message
>> A car travelling a kilometre has the same probability of KSI to
>> pedestrian as a cycle travelling a mile on average. That is what the
>> figures from the Department of Transport show. You can argue about the
>> chances of encounters and motorways being safer and so on, but we
>> don't know were the accidents occur from the data provided.
>
> Could you have a look at <URL:http://qurl.com/eckj1k> [1] and tell me
> where
> I was going wrong? Given the reduction motorways give to ped KSIs per
> motor-vehicle-mile is it not reasonable to assume that the (almost as
> sparsly walked) dual carriageway network would provide a still larger
> drop?
>
> Thanks.
>

Unfortunately we don't know how many pedestrian KSI occurred on dual
carriageways. It was thanks to someone finding the information about
pedestrians KSI on motorways in a Scottish roadsafety document that we found
that figure. That was found because someone thought there weren't any
pedestrians KSI on motorways, the figure of 250 came as a surprise to me
too.

You can look at the motorway figures two ways. In terms of KSI per mile;
they are much higher than average. In terms of billion vehicle kilometres;
they are low as the small motorway network (less than 1% of all roads)
carries 19% of all traffic. Someone wanted to know the chance of them being
KSI per mile as a pedestrian, which is why I considered the first option in
my reply to them.

We also don't know from the statistics who was considered to be responsible
for the KSI accidents. Someone else blamed drunken pedestrians. They may be
right, but we don't know for sure. If it was the case we don't know if only
applied to accidents with cyclists or all vehicles.

One other thing from the statistics is that 10 KSI accidents occurred to
cyclists in collision with other cyclists. So they aren't totally blameless
in all circumstances.

Wonderful things statistics, they can be interpreted in different ways.

Ian

 

[Lum]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:21:32 +0100, Lum <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> And if you depend on cash, why live somewhere so far from a cashpoint?
>
>>I am pretty much completely independent of cash. This is why I do not shop
>>in town centres as I never have change for the various parking machines
>
> I could have sworn those goalposts were over there a minute ago...

Nope, wasn't this about how the introduction of parking charges killed a
city centre, at some point I brought up the additional inconvinience of
gettng cash and then change to visit such a car park.

Oh and today I went to a Maplin in Essex to buy a 19p part. I paid 60p in
parking charges (I didn't know there would be parking charges at a retail
park) which left me with 15p in change so I had to buy the part on credit
card. ****** me right off that you could only pay for 2 hours when I was
only stopping for 10 minutes. Hopefully the next person enjoyed the
ramining 110 minutes free after I stuck my ticket over the coin slot of the
bloody machine.

>>The brompton is a relatively recent invention and IIRC not exactly cheap.
>>I can barely afford to maintain the vechile I used for my job (field
>>engineer, no I am not going to cycle when some of my commutes are 8 hours
>>by car) let alone maintain a bike that is even easier to nick since it's
>>so portable!
>
> Recent? I don't know. The first ones were sold in about 1982, the
> company has been in mass production since the mid to late 80s, and won

They need better marketing then. I only first head of them a year or so ago,
thanks to this group.

> a Queen's Award in 1992. There were folding bikes before then.

Which were generally regarded as being bulky, clumsy and unreliable.

> Not cheap? It depends what you mean. Mine cost me about a third of
> the annual costs of the second car we used to run (a six-year-old
> Honda Civic).

1/3 of the cost of running a Civic? *********** that's more expensive than I
imagined!

I'm struggling to run one vehicle right now, certainly not taking on a
Brompton unless I get a desk-job close to where I live.

> Nickable? Don't make me laugh! It's under my desk right now. Folding
> bikes are the least nickable of all, you just take them with you!

In my last desk-job, expensive things left on or near a desk had a high
tendency to walk, this included personal property as well as company assets
(I hear from an ex-colleague who still works there that they recently lost
75 LCD flatscreens within a month of rolling out this particular upgrade)
>
>>I flatly refuse to shop during the week as we're both always too knackered
>>from work, we also seem to get through twice as much, by volume, that my
>>grandparents did.
>
> Excess packaging, which the market allows because it is more concerned
> about the French Fancies surviving the 25 mile car journey home...

Outside of my control.

> I know people who leave the outer packaging at the supermarket.

Nide idea, but I can never remember cooking instructions.

>>>>I am never going to carry a
>>>>hi fi component on a bike either, it's just too risky.
>
>>> You reckon? I've done it. They come very well packed as a rule. And
>>> I didn't do it to prove a point, it's just the quickest way to get
>>> about in Reading.
>
>>I wasn't taking about the packaging, I was talking about the mugging and
>>stealing. I did mention I'm from Liverpool?
>
> Speke for yourself.

 

[Al C-F]

On 27 May 2005 09:01:39 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tony Raven ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying :
>
>> How does he bend his knees far enough to get into a car?
>
>Slowly, painfully, loudly.
Have these knees suffered from under-use?