"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
"mileburner" wrote:

I would suggest that you keep an eye on the traffic and be prepared
to get out of it's way if it is coming at you and looking like it
is not going to stop. The roads are dangerous donchaknow?

While I agree they are dangerous, the question is whether it is
tolerable in a civilised society to allow them to be this dangerous?
It seems to me that either the people who drive have got to get a
lot better at driving (I include myself), or slow down drastically,
or be prevented from driving. Current standards of driving skill in
this country are not acceptable.

How do you legislate for a driver suffering a heart attack whilst in
motion?

Outlaw driving altogether?

But someone cycling might suffer the same fate and collide with pedestrians.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:36:30 +0100, Brimstone wrote:



How do you legislate for a driver suffering a heart attack whilst in
motion?

You can't. Life is dangerous.
However there is, I think, an obligation on those who do dangerous things
to reduce the danger to innocent third parties.

Peter

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:36:30 +0100, Brimstone wrote:



How do you legislate for a driver suffering a heart attack whilst in
motion?

You can't. Life is dangerous.
However there is, I think, an obligation on those who do dangerous
things to reduce the danger to innocent third parties.

Exactly.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

BrianW wrote:
On 11 Sep, 00:56, Martin wrote:
Doug wrote:
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.

I don't think that is a new idea, various other research shows the
same.

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. That is roughly the distance that your pedals stick out
from your cog. Do bear in mind that you also have elbows...

This is not well written. He is writing one thing, but implying
another. 18cm closer than (e.g.) 118cm is 100cm, not 18 cm.

....And yet, throughout our cities, provision for cyclists remains
perfunctory at best, and lunatic at worst..."

What is lunatic is after reading research that shows "cyclists are at
significantly more risk of being hit by cars on roads that include
cycle lanes." He then goes on to suggest that we need more lanes and
facilities.

We need proper, segregated lanes and facilities within towns and
cities. Like they have in Holland. Most of the urban cycle lanes we
have in the UK are worse than useless, as the article points out.

Where within the towns are you going to put them?

The problem is that it is like MattB and his motorway utopian dream, there
just isn't the land availabilty in urban areas to do a proper job of it.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

In article , Adam Lea wrote:
BrianW wrote:

We need proper, segregated lanes and facilities within towns and
cities. Like they have in Holland. Most of the urban cycle lanes we
have in the UK are worse than useless, as the article points out.

Where within the towns are you going to put them?

The problem is that it is like MattB and his motorway utopian dream, there
just isn't the land availabilty in urban areas to do a proper job of it.

Plenty of room if you ban cars. Somehow I suspect that's the answer
MattB is looking for....

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Alan Braggins wrote on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:31:00 +0100:

Plenty of room if you ban cars. Somehow I suspect that's the answer
MattB is looking for....

When it takes me (unfit, 62 year old) 3 times as long to travel from the
city centre to my home by bus than it does by bike (I live just outside
Birmingham's "Outer Circle" on one of Brum's radial roads), I suspect
that the time for banning cars in most cities is long overdue.

--
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:40:48 GMT, Alex Potter
wrote:

Alan Braggins wrote on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:31:00 +0100:

Plenty of room if you ban cars. Somehow I suspect that's the answer
MattB is looking for....

When it takes me (unfit, 62 year old) 3 times as long to travel from the
city centre to my home by bus than it does by bike (I live just outside
Birmingham's "Outer Circle" on one of Brum's radial roads), I suspect
that the time for banning cars in most cities is long overdue.

You'd be much better off if you could just ban large cities instead.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Ace wrote on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:10:26 +0200:

You'd be much better off if you could just ban large cities instead.

I'd tend to agree, but what to do with all the people?

--
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Alex Potter wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:31:00 +0100:

Plenty of room if you ban cars. Somehow I suspect that's the answer
MattB is looking for....

When it takes me (unfit, 62 year old) 3 times as long to travel from the
city centre to my home by bus than it does by bike (I live just outside
Birmingham's "Outer Circle" on one of Brum's radial roads), I suspect
that the time for banning cars in most cities is long overdue.

Banning buses, surely?

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

JNugent wrote on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:26:33 +0100:

Banning buses, surely?

Wrong. Try again.

--
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/