"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
On 11 Sep, 16:43, Doug wrote:
On 11 Sep, 09:36, BrianW wrote: On 10 Sep, 16:23, Doug wrote: On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... That's what it says in this Times article; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...e/article68281... And it also says: "...According to their research, cyclists are at significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include cycle lanes. Gee! No kidding. That's because cycle lanes encourage cyclists to ride in the gutter and drivers to pass when it is not safe. On average, an overtaking car will pass 18cm closer to a bike in a cycle lane than it would to a bike with which it was merely sharing a road. Sure! So long as the bike is in the cycle lane and the car is in the main lane, everything is fine. No safety distance is required. That's why cars may come as close as they like. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows... Keep the elbows within the cycle lane then! ...And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..." We know. Stay out of cycle lanes. They are dangerous places to ride! Hang on! Doesn't that place the onus on the cyclist instead of on the source of danger? Shouldn't it be, "Drivers stay well clear of cyclists because they are much more vulnerable than you and don't become impatient while waiting to overtake cyclists"? Of course we should say that to drivers. �Regrettably, though, not all will do so. �Given that the outcome of a collision between a bike and a car is so much worse for the cyclist, unfortunately cyclists do have to look after themselves as well. So you admit it is worse for the vulnerable victim? Of course. As I've told you several times, I myself was nearly killed back in the summer whilst cycling. The prosecution of the driver is ongoing. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
BrianW wrote:
On 11 Sep, 16:43, Doug wrote: On 11 Sep, 09:36, BrianW wrote: On 10 Sep, 16:23, Doug wrote: On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... That's what it says in this Times article; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...e/article68281... And it also says: "...According to their research, cyclists are at significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include cycle lanes. Gee! No kidding. That's because cycle lanes encourage cyclists to ride in the gutter and drivers to pass when it is not safe. On average, an overtaking car will pass 18cm closer to a bike in a cycle lane than it would to a bike with which it was merely sharing a road. Sure! So long as the bike is in the cycle lane and the car is in the main lane, everything is fine. No safety distance is required. That's why cars may come as close as they like. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows... Keep the elbows within the cycle lane then! ...And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..." We know. Stay out of cycle lanes. They are dangerous places to ride! Hang on! Doesn't that place the onus on the cyclist instead of on the source of danger? Shouldn't it be, "Drivers stay well clear of cyclists because they are much more vulnerable than you and don't become impatient while waiting to overtake cyclists"? Of course we should say that to drivers. ?Regrettably, though, not all will do so. ?Given that the outcome of a collision between a bike and a car is so much worse for the cyclist, unfortunately cyclists do have to look after themselves as well. So you admit it is worse for the vulnerable victim? Of course. As I've told you several times, I myself was nearly killed back in the summer whilst cycling. The prosecution of the driver is ongoing. I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further. You can't trust drivers :-( |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
mileburner wrote:
BrianW wrote: On 11 Sep, 16:43, Doug wrote: On 11 Sep, 09:36, BrianW wrote: On 10 Sep, 16:23, Doug wrote: On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... That's what it says in this Times article; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...e/article68281... And it also says: "...According to their research, cyclists are at significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include cycle lanes. Gee! No kidding. That's because cycle lanes encourage cyclists to ride in the gutter and drivers to pass when it is not safe. On average, an overtaking car will pass 18cm closer to a bike in a cycle lane than it would to a bike with which it was merely sharing a road. Sure! So long as the bike is in the cycle lane and the car is in the main lane, everything is fine. No safety distance is required. That's why cars may come as close as they like. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows... Keep the elbows within the cycle lane then! ...And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..." We know. Stay out of cycle lanes. They are dangerous places to ride! Hang on! Doesn't that place the onus on the cyclist instead of on the source of danger? Shouldn't it be, "Drivers stay well clear of cyclists because they are much more vulnerable than you and don't become impatient while waiting to overtake cyclists"? Of course we should say that to drivers. ?Regrettably, though, not all will do so. ?Given that the outcome of a collision between a bike and a car is so much worse for the cyclist, unfortunately cyclists do have to look after themselves as well. So you admit it is worse for the vulnerable victim? Of course. As I've told you several times, I myself was nearly killed back in the summer whilst cycling. The prosecution of the driver is ongoing. I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further. You can't trust drivers :-( Nor anyone else with your own safety. Sadly, some people try to and then cry about it when they come unstuck. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
Number of self-caused injury-causing bike accidents: literally dozens
Number of injury-causing bike accidents involving cars: 0 Daniele |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
On 11 Sep, 19:55, "Brimstone" wrote:
mileburner wrote: BrianW wrote: On 11 Sep, 16:43, Doug wrote: On 11 Sep, 09:36, BrianW wrote: On 10 Sep, 16:23, Doug wrote: On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... That's what it says in this Times article; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...e/article68281... And it also says: "...According to their research, cyclists are at significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include cycle lanes. Gee! No kidding. That's because cycle lanes encourage cyclists to ride in the gutter and drivers to pass when it is not safe. On average, an overtaking car will pass 18cm closer to a bike in a cycle lane than it would to a bike with which it was merely sharing a road. Sure! So long as the bike is in the cycle lane and the car is in the main lane, everything is fine. No safety distance is required. That's why cars may come as close as they like. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows... Keep the elbows within the cycle lane then! ...And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..." We know. Stay out of cycle lanes. They are dangerous places to ride! Hang on! Doesn't that place the onus on the cyclist instead of on the source of danger? Shouldn't it be, "Drivers stay well clear of cyclists because they are much more vulnerable than you and don't become impatient while waiting to overtake cyclists"? Of course we should say that to drivers. ?Regrettably, though, not all will do so. ?Given that the outcome of a collision between a bike and a car is so much worse for the cyclist, unfortunately cyclists do have to look after themselves as well. So you admit it is worse for the vulnerable victim? Of course. �As I've told you several times, I myself was nearly killed back in the summer whilst cycling. �The prosecution of the driver is ongoing. I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further. You can't trust drivers :-( Nor anyone else with your own safety. Sadly, some people try to and then cry about it when they come unstuck.- I don't see it as a case of trusting anyone else. Unless you mean "trusting that no-one pulls out in front of me from a side road whilst I'm cycling down a hill". That would mean cycling everywhere at 0 mph. In which case you begin to live in GollumWorld. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
On 11 Sep, 19:52, "mileburner" wrote:
BrianW wrote: On 11 Sep, 16:43, Doug wrote: On 11 Sep, 09:36, BrianW wrote: On 10 Sep, 16:23, Doug wrote: On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... That's what it says in this Times article; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...e/article68281... And it also says: "...According to their research, cyclists are at significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include cycle lanes. Gee! No kidding. That's because cycle lanes encourage cyclists to ride in the gutter and drivers to pass when it is not safe. On average, an overtaking car will pass 18cm closer to a bike in a cycle lane than it would to a bike with which it was merely sharing a road. Sure! So long as the bike is in the cycle lane and the car is in the main lane, everything is fine. No safety distance is required. That's why cars may come as close as they like. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows... Keep the elbows within the cycle lane then! ...And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..." We know. Stay out of cycle lanes. They are dangerous places to ride! Hang on! Doesn't that place the onus on the cyclist instead of on the source of danger? Shouldn't it be, "Drivers stay well clear of cyclists because they are much more vulnerable than you and don't become impatient while waiting to overtake cyclists"? Of course we should say that to drivers. ?Regrettably, though, not all will do so. ?Given that the outcome of a collision between a bike and a car is so much worse for the cyclist, unfortunately cyclists do have to look after themselves as well. So you admit it is worse for the vulnerable victim? Of course. �As I've told you several times, I myself was nearly killed back in the summer whilst cycling. �The prosecution of the driver is ongoing. I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further. You can't trust drivers I got hit (or rather, I hit the car that pulled out in front of me). Both lungs collapsed, jaw broken in three places, artery severed in my neck. Not pretty. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
Phil W Lee wrote:
Doug : Surely if every time a driver set off on a journey they knew they could be facing a long prison sentence for killing or seriously injuring someone they would drive much more carefully and have more respect for the safety of vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians? I favour the spiked steering wheel boss myself, although for maximum psychological impact the spike would ideally be mounted about 14" lower. Doug and Lee interacting and egging each other on. A better example of the social reinforcement of bullying would be hard to find. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
BrianW wrote:
On 11 Sep, 19:55, "Brimstone" wrote: mileburner wrote: I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further. You can't trust drivers :-( Nor anyone else with your own safety. Sadly, some people try to and then cry about it when they come unstuck.- I don't see it as a case of trusting anyone else. Unless you mean "trusting that no-one pulls out in front of me from a side road whilst I'm cycling down a hill". That would mean cycling everywhere at 0 mph. In which case you begin to live in GollumWorld. I disagree. At traffic junctions it is imperative to acknowledge that a car *may* pull out if you want to maximise your own safety. That means staying well clear of the gutter and if something does start to move out be able to stop or take avoiding action. The other option is to trust that every driver *will* give way and hope for the best. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
On 11 Sep, 19:55, "Brimstone" wrote:
mileburner wrote: BrianW wrote: On 11 Sep, 16:43, Doug wrote: On 11 Sep, 09:36, BrianW wrote: On 10 Sep, 16:23, Doug wrote: On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... That's what it says in this Times article; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...e/article68281... And it also says: "...According to their research, cyclists are at significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include cycle lanes. Gee! No kidding. That's because cycle lanes encourage cyclists to ride in the gutter and drivers to pass when it is not safe. On average, an overtaking car will pass 18cm closer to a bike in a cycle lane than it would to a bike with which it was merely sharing a road. Sure! So long as the bike is in the cycle lane and the car is in the main lane, everything is fine. No safety distance is required. That's why cars may come as close as they like. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows... Keep the elbows within the cycle lane then! ...And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..." We know. Stay out of cycle lanes. They are dangerous places to ride! Hang on! Doesn't that place the onus on the cyclist instead of on the source of danger? Shouldn't it be, "Drivers stay well clear of cyclists because they are much more vulnerable than you and don't become impatient while waiting to overtake cyclists"? Of course we should say that to drivers. ?Regrettably, though, not all will do so. ?Given that the outcome of a collision between a bike and a car is so much worse for the cyclist, unfortunately cyclists do have to look after themselves as well. So you admit it is worse for the vulnerable victim? Of course. *As I've told you several times, I myself was nearly killed back in the summer whilst cycling. *The prosecution of the driver is ongoing. I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further. You can't trust drivers :-( Nor anyone else with your own safety. Sadly, some people try to and then cry about it when they come unstuck. So we should go around daily in the expectation of being killed by drivers in what purports to be a civilised country? Question. Suppose I am walking along a pavement and a driver loses control and mounts the pavement where I am. What action should I take to avoid this and protect myself? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net One man's democracy is another man's regime. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
On 11 Sep, 20:56, BrianW wrote:
On 11 Sep, 19:52, "mileburner" wrote: BrianW wrote: On 11 Sep, 16:43, Doug wrote: On 11 Sep, 09:36, BrianW wrote: On 10 Sep, 16:23, Doug wrote: On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... That's what it says in this Times article; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...e/article68281... And it also says: "...According to their research, cyclists are at significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include cycle lanes.. Gee! No kidding. That's because cycle lanes encourage cyclists to ride in the gutter and drivers to pass when it is not safe. On average, an overtaking car will pass 18cm closer to a bike in a cycle lane than it would to a bike with which it was merely sharing a road. Sure! So long as the bike is in the cycle lane and the car is in the main lane, everything is fine. No safety distance is required. That's why cars may come as close as they like. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows... Keep the elbows within the cycle lane then! ...And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..." We know. Stay out of cycle lanes. They are dangerous places to ride! Hang on! Doesn't that place the onus on the cyclist instead of on the source of danger? Shouldn't it be, "Drivers stay well clear of cyclists because they are much more vulnerable than you and don't become impatient while waiting to overtake cyclists"? Of course we should say that to drivers. ?Regrettably, though, not all will do so. ?Given that the outcome of a collision between a bike and a car is so much worse for the cyclist, unfortunately cyclists do have to look after themselves as well. So you admit it is worse for the vulnerable victim? Of course. As I've told you several times, I myself was nearly killed back in the summer whilst cycling. The prosecution of the driver is ongoing. I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further. You can't trust drivers I got hit (or rather, I hit the car that pulled out in front of me). Both lungs collapsed, jaw broken in three places, artery severed in my neck. *Not pretty. So you hit the car not the car hit you? Also, being a cyclist you must have been customarily to blame for putting yourself in danger. The term 'boot is on the other foot' springs to mind. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com