"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

That's what it says in this Times article;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6828120.ece

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. 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...

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

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

"Doug" wrote in message
...
That's what it says in this Times article;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6828120.ece

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!

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

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"?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Doug wrote:
That's what it says in this Times article;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6828120.ece

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.

Martin.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message


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"?

Yebbut, drivers are not that clever. You can't educate them. The only real
answer is for the cyclist to behave in such a way where they are at less
risk.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

On 11 Sep, 06:47, "mileburner" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

On 10 Sep, 15:37, "mileburner" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

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"?

Yebbut, drivers are not that clever. You can't educate them. The only real
answer is for the cyclist to behave in such a way where they are at less
risk.

You may not be able to educate them but the stick can be used instead
of the carrot. Stop treating drivers as victims of accidental
circumstance, instead of perpetrators when they kill or injure, and
stop blaming their vulnerable victims.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

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.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

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.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

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? Doesn't this
suggest that the punishment for the perpetrator is not enough of a
deterrent and that is why cyclists continue to be bullied and blamed
and treated as second-class road users?

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?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

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? Doesn't this
suggest that the punishment for the perpetrator is not enough of a
deterrent and that is why cyclists continue to be bullied and blamed
and treated as second-class road users?

As always Doug, it depends on who the perpetrator is, doesn't it?

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?

They know that already, but many of them have the same attitude as you do
Doug.
..

"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.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Doug 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.

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?

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?

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Doug wrote:
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?

Do you want to stay alive?

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?

Run.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

On 12 Sep, 08:03, "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.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

JNugent wrote:
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.

The steering wheel spike is frequently quoted by police as being the
only real item that would stop people riving like idiots.

PL is only repeating what I've seen on telly several times.

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Doug wrote:
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?

You maintain that a motorist should go around with the speculation of
killing someone, why should it be different for anybody else/

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.


I expect you as I would expect me & everybody else to be aware of there
surroundings and take precautions about possible danger.
--

Tony Dragon

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Doug wrote:
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.


Still spouting the usual rubbish.

--

Tony Dragon

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

On 12 Sep, 07:07, Doug wrote:
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?

Yes, because I was already on the road. The driver pulled out in
front of me.

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.

Gollum, you hypocritical old ****, I was cycling (and reliant on
cycles as my main form of transport) when you were still bmbing around
in your 14 mpg Land Rover. Just because you are no longer allowed to
drive does not give you the moral high ground.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Simon Brooke wrote:
On 12 Sep, 08:03, "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?

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

Keitht wrote:
JNugent wrote:
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.

The steering wheel spike is frequently quoted by police as being the
only real item that would stop people riving like idiots.

PL is only repeating what I've seen on telly several times.

Doug, Lee and KeithT interacting and egging each other on.

A better example of the social reinforcement of bullying would be hard to
find. Unless another name can be added to the list.

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
 

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?

"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/