| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
Cyclist death toll is mainly due to drivers, so change the road laws and
culture 'THERE’S a glaring problem on our roads that is killing countless Australians. And it’s only getting worse'. cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Of the untimely road deaths the AAA reports, 1100 are due to how drivers were driving. In Australia, drivers are to blame for at least 79 per cent of accidents with cyclists. And roughly 85 per cent of reported cyclist casualty crashes involve another vehicle, not a bike or a pedestrian. Driver distraction accounts for roughly 25 per cent of accidents. These stats highlight a clear pattern of deadly harm: drivers hitting people, because of how they’re driving, is 90 per cent of the problem on our roads. https://www.news.com.au/national/cyc...301cfcb2a9e1ed -- Bod |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 9/18/18 7:46 PM, Bod wrote:
Cyclist death toll is mainly due to drivers, so change the road laws and culture 'THERE’S a glaring problem on our roads that is killing countless Australians. And it’s only getting worse'. cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Of the untimely road deaths the AAA reports, 1100 are due to how drivers were driving. In Australia, drivers are to blame for at least 79 per cent of accidents with cyclists. And roughly 85 per cent of reported cyclist casualty crashes involve another vehicle, not a bike or a pedestrian. Driver distraction accounts for roughly 25 per cent of accidents. These stats highlight a clear pattern of deadly harm: drivers hitting people, because of how they’re driving, is 90 per cent of the problem on our roads. https://www.news.com.au/national/cyc...301cfcb2a9e1ed Of course the Mandatory Bike Helmet Law has something to do with the fact that bicyclist deaths remain stubbornly high. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/2018 09:30, Peter Keller wrote:
On 9/18/18 7:46 PM, Bod wrote: Cyclist death toll is mainly due to drivers, so change the road laws and culture 'THERE’S a glaring problem on our roads that is killing countless Australians. And it’s only getting worse'. cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Of the untimely road deaths the AAA reports, 1100 are due to how drivers were driving. In Australia, drivers are to blame for at least 79 per cent of accidents with cyclists. And roughly 85 per cent of reported cyclist casualty crashes involve another vehicle, not a bike or a pedestrian. Driver distraction accounts for roughly 25 per cent of accidents. These stats highlight a clear pattern of deadly harm: drivers hitting people, because of how they’re driving, is 90 per cent of the problem on our roads. https://www.news.com.au/national/cyc...301cfcb2a9e1ed Of course the Mandatory Bike Helmet Law has something to do with the fact that bicyclist deaths remain stubbornly high. That's a strong possibility. -- Bod |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/18 08:46, Bod wrote:
cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Cars maybe safer for the occupants in a high speed crash but do they reduce the number of low speed crashes? Very likely not because cars are wider so reduce margins for error and all the stuff to protect the occupants has got in the way of the driver's view. The width has also taken away space for cyclists. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/2018 09:43, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/09/18 08:46, Bod wrote: cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Cars maybe safer for the occupants in a high speed crash but do they reduce the number of low speed crashes? Very likely not because cars are wider so reduce margins for error and all the stuff to protect the occupants has got in the way of the driver's view. The width has also taken away space for cyclists. I can't argue with that, but many drivers are careless when passing cyclists. I never have a problem with them when I'm in the car. Also, when cycling, I've had many drivers who just pull out from sideroads, seemingly oblivious to cyclists. -- Bod |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:14:32 +0100
Bod wrote: On 18/09/2018 09:43, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 08:46, Bod wrote: cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Cars maybe safer for the occupants in a high speed crash but do they reduce the number of low speed crashes? Very likely not because cars are wider so reduce margins for error and all the stuff to protect the occupants has got in the way of the driver's view. The width has also taken away space for cyclists. I can't argue with that, but many drivers are careless when passing cyclists. I never have a problem with them when I'm in the car. Also, when cycling, I've had many drivers who just pull out from sideroads, seemingly oblivious to cyclists. In the same way that many cyclists seem oblivious to traffic lights and any rules in the highway code. Lets be honest, there are idiots driving all forms of transport whether it be bikes, motorbikes, cars, buses or trucks and they're not going to change. The difference with cycling however is that you don't even need to pass a test which at least for motorised vehicles keeps the idiots down to a sane level. No so with pedal bikes. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
|
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
|
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
|
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:41:45 +0100
Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote: wrote: Lets be honest, there are idiots driving all forms of transport whether it be bikes, motorbikes, cars, buses or trucks and they're not going to change. The difference with cycling however is that ... they don't kill +- 1700 people every single year. Big deal. About 30 BILLION miles are driven each year on uk roads. I'd suggest that figure is pretty good, and don't forget a lot of it will be drivers and passengers themselves rather than someone outside the vehicle. I wonder how many miles are cycled each year? Also if someone managed to cycle at 60mph (oh wait, isn't that just a motorbike?) and hit a pedestrian they'd probably both be taken away in bag. The whole cycling is safer routine is just specious BS. Of course its safer, its slower. Mass is irrelevant when getting hit, its speed that matters. If all vehicles pootled along at 15mph there'd be almost no fatalities, but the economy would also grind to a halt and there'd be no food in the shops. If you really want to be safe - walk. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
|
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:28:21 +0100
Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote: wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:41:45 +0100 Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote: wrote: Lets be honest, there are idiots driving all forms of transport whether it be bikes, motorbikes, cars, buses or trucks and they're not going to change. The difference with cycling however is that ... they don't kill +- 1700 people every single year. Big deal. Nothing more needs to be added. Obviously not by you since you have no counter argument. More people die falling from a height than by vehicles. Perhaps we should ban ladders. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/18 10:14, Bod wrote:
On 18/09/2018 09:43, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 08:46, Bod wrote: cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Cars maybe safer for the occupants in a high speed crash but do they reduce the number of low speed crashes? Very likely not because cars are wider so reduce margins for error and all the stuff to protect the occupants has got in the way of the driver's view. The width has also taken away space for cyclists. I can't argue with that, but many drivers are careless when passing cyclists. I never have a problem with them when I'm in the car. It is difficult to say "never". Let's imagine you are caught out in 1 in million journeys by your modern safety kit, which is something you can't personally determine, but there are several million drivers milling around the roads. Many drivers unlike you that are tolerant of spending every day in queues behind other drivers but then complain that slowing down behind a cyclist for a few seconds has ruined their whole year. Also, when cycling, I've had many drivers who just pull out from sideroads, seemingly oblivious to cyclists. If you wear hi-viz, best not to. They may see you from further away but this just makes them hesitate at the moment it is safe to pull out. They then pull out anyway when you're closer and you have to take more hurried avoidance. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/2018 13:36, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/09/18 10:14, Bod wrote: On 18/09/2018 09:43, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 08:46, Bod wrote: cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Cars maybe safer for the occupants in a high speed crash but do they reduce the number of low speed crashes? Very likely not because cars are wider so reduce margins for error and all the stuff to protect the occupants has got in the way of the driver's view. The width has also taken away space for cyclists. I can't argue with that, but many drivers are careless when passing cyclists. I never have a problem with them when I'm in the car. It is difficult to say "never". Let's imagine you are caught out in 1 in million journeys by your modern safety kit, which is something you can't personally determine, but there are several million drivers milling around the roads. Many drivers unlike you that are tolerant of spending every day in queues behind other drivers but then complain that slowing down behind a cyclist for a few seconds has ruined their whole year. Also, when cycling, I've had many drivers who just pull out from sideroads, seemingly oblivious to cyclists. If you wear hi-viz, best not to. They may see you from further away but this just makes them hesitate at the moment it is safe to pull out. They then pull out anyway when you're closer and you have to take more hurried avoidance. .. The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. -- Bod |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote:
The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. I don't need to, I've learnt to always slow down a bit and can normally sense if they haven't seen me. Better to be late, than Dead On Arrival :-) -- Bod |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/2018 10:14, Bod wrote:
On 18/09/2018 09:43, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 08:46, Bod wrote: cyclist deaths in particular remain stubbornly high, even as average speeds, which affect road deaths, continue to decline. If cars are much safer than 25 years ago, why are cyclist deaths increasing, from 25 the previous year to 45 this past year? Cars maybe safer for the occupants in a high speed crash but do they reduce the number of low speed crashes? Very likely not because cars are wider so reduce margins for error and all the stuff to protect the occupants has got in the way of the driver's view. The width has also taken away space for cyclists. I can't argue with that, but many drivers are careless when passing cyclists. I never have a problem with them when I'm in the car. Also, when cycling, I've had many drivers who just pull out from sideroads, seemingly oblivious to cyclists. The answer is obvious: be more visible and less easy to be sub-consciously screened out. Wear shocking pink hi-viz, which should be adopted world-wide as the standard (and compulsory) outer-wear for cyclists. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? Does hi-viz not work? If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/09/18 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? I gave it in an earlier post. Does hi-viz not work? If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. Depends on what they hoped to achieve with it and on whether they have actually achieved it. I have no idea what the original reasoning was, other than that the culture of putting hi-viz on everything and fairy lights on vehicles has become indistinguishable from religion. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/09/2018 17:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/09/18 15:15, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? I gave it in an earlier post. Did you? Does hi-viz not work?Â* If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. Depends on what they hoped to achieve with it and on whether they have actually achieved it. Yes - that was the sort of "explanation" I was expecting. And who is to be the judge of those things? I have no idea what the original reasoning was, You won't admit it, at any rate. other than that the culture of putting hi-viz on everything and fairy lights on vehicles has become indistinguishable from religion. Whatever such "culture" you refer to is a figment of your imagination. There is no UK road traffic law requiring any road-user to wear hi-viz (though there is, in some continental jurisdictions, a requirement to have it available, which is why the items can be found in the glove compartments of hire-cars). But perhaps that ought to change. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/10/2018 18:08, JNugent wrote:
On 19/09/2018 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 15:15, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? I gave it in an earlier post. Did you? Does hi-viz not work?Â* If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. Depends on what they hoped to achieve with it and on whether they have actually achieved it. Yes - that was the sort of "explanation" I was expecting. And who is to be the judge of those things? I have no idea what the original reasoning was, You won't admit it, at any rate. Â* other than that the culture of putting hi-viz on everything and fairy lights on vehicles has become indistinguishable from religion. Whatever such "culture" you refer to is a figment of your imagination. There is no UK road traffic law requiring any road-user to wear hi-viz (though there is, in some continental jurisdictions, a requirement to have it available, which is why the items can be found in the glove compartments of hire-cars). But perhaps that ought to change. I think it's in France that you have to have the high viz jackets visible in the car. If I remember correctly from driving over there many moons ago. -- Bod |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 6:37:56 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:
I think it's in France that you have to have the high viz jackets visible in the car. If I remember correctly from driving over there many moons ago. I drove there in 2016 and you just have to have enough jackets in the car for the same number of people in it. You don't have to have 5 jackets visible or anything. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
|
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/10/18 18:08, JNugent wrote:
On 19/09/2018 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 15:15, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? I gave it in an earlier post. Did you? Does hi-viz not work?Â* If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. Depends on what they hoped to achieve with it and on whether they have actually achieved it. Yes - that was the sort of "explanation" I was expecting. And who is to be the judge of those things? Statistics. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/10/2018 18:37, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2018 18:08, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 15:15, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? I gave it in an earlier post. Did you? Does hi-viz not work?Â* If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. Depends on what they hoped to achieve with it and on whether they have actually achieved it. Yes - that was the sort of "explanation" I was expecting. And who is to be the judge of those things? I have no idea what the original reasoning was, You won't admit it, at any rate. Â*Â* other than that the culture of putting hi-viz on everything and fairy lights on vehicles has become indistinguishable from religion. Whatever such "culture" you refer to is a figment of your imagination. There is no UK road traffic law requiring any road-user to wear hi-viz (though there is, in some continental jurisdictions, a requirement to have it available, which is why the items can be found in the glove compartments of hire-cars). But perhaps that ought to change. I think it's in France that you have to have the high viz jackets visible in the car. If I remember correctly from driving over there many moons ago. Italy and Switzerland too (at least, they are supplied with a rental car in those countries). |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/10/2018 21:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/18 18:08, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 15:15, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? I gave it in an earlier post. Did you? Does hi-viz not work?Â* If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. Depends on what they hoped to achieve with it and on whether they have actually achieved it. Yes - that was the sort of "explanation" I was expecting. And who is to be the judge of those things? Statistics. Statistics on what? The proportion of cyclists who are fashion victims? |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 7:52:29 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2018 19:48, wrote: On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 6:37:56 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote: I think it's in France that you have to have the high viz jackets visible in the car. If I remember correctly from driving over there many moons ago. I drove there in 2016 and you just have to have enough jackets in the car for the same number of people in it. You don't have to have 5 jackets visible or anything. Ah, ok, thanks. -- Bod I think it was Germany that was the first to insist on hi vis for car occupants who exit a vehicle on the autobahn after a breakdown. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/10/2018 10:07, wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 7:52:29 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote: On 18/10/2018 19:48, wrote: On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 6:37:56 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote: I think it's in France that you have to have the high viz jackets visible in the car. If I remember correctly from driving over there many moons ago. I drove there in 2016 and you just have to have enough jackets in the car for the same number of people in it. You don't have to have 5 jackets visible or anything. Ah, ok, thanks. -- Bod I think it was Germany that was the first to insist on hi vis for car occupants who exit a vehicle on the autobahn after a breakdown. I still keep the two high viz in the car from when I went to France. Always a good idea to carry at least one, especially for breakdowns in the dark. -- Bod |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 18/10/18 23:58, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2018 21:28, TMS320 wrote: On 18/10/18 18:08, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 15:15, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? I gave it in an earlier post. Did you? I did. Does hi-viz not work?Â* If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. Depends on what they hoped to achieve with it and on whether they have actually achieved it. Yes - that was the sort of "explanation" I was expecting. And who is to be the judge of those things? Statistics. Statistics on what? What is the ultimate objective of using hi-vis? It is not "to be seen" - perhaps the authorities (your words) believe it is a means of casualty reduction? Do statistics show the objective (whatever it is) is met? The proportion of cyclists who are fashion victims? The authorities require hi-vis for many activities. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/10/18 10:23, Bod wrote:
I still keep the two high viz in the car from when I went to France. Always a good idea to carry at least one, especially for breakdowns in the dark. I put them in the car to go to France to pay lip service to the rules. Removed when back home again. I can't work out why they need to consume space and petrol. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/10/2018 10:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/18 10:23, Bod wrote: I still keep the two high viz in the car from when I went to France. Always a good idea to carry at least one, especially for breakdowns in the dark. I put them in the car to go to France to pay lip service to the rules. Removed when back home again. I can't work out why they need to consume space and petrol. ? Hmm! ours weigh next to nothing and are neatly tucked under the front seats. -- Bod |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/10/18 10:49, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2018 10:38, TMS320 wrote: On 19/10/18 10:23, Bod wrote: I still keep the two high viz in the car from when I went to France. Always a good idea to carry at least one, especially for breakdowns in the dark. I put them in the car to go to France to pay lip service to the rules. Removed when back home again. I can't work out why they need to consume space and petrol. ? Hmm!Â* ours weigh next to nothing and are neatly tucked under the front seats. It forms part of the clutter routinely carried around, which accumulates to something which is not next to nothing. Each kg of clutter consumes a litre of fuel over 80,000 miles. It is useless clutter in the car. Besides, if I go out on the bike in the dark (*), I want it immediately to hand amongst my bike stuff. (*) To the usual culprit: take note of the condition "in the dark". There's no need to reply. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/10/2018 10:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/18 23:58, JNugent wrote: On 18/10/2018 21:28, TMS320 wrote: On 18/10/18 18:08, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 15:15, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2018 14:50, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2018 16:42, TMS320 wrote: On 18/09/18 14:00, Bod wrote: The problem seems to be with some car drivers that are waiting to pull out from side roads, is they are only looking for vehicles. Anything smaller doesn't seem to be on their radar. Without knowing how you ride or where you ride it is difficult to offer advice but there might still be something you could do to help make yourself look bigger. Yes - pink hi-viz. Wrong. And not for aesthetic reasons. What is your reasoning? I gave it in an earlier post. Did you? I did. Does hi-viz not work?Â* If not, you'd better tell the authorities. And give them a better explanation than you're about to post here. Depends on what they hoped to achieve with it and on whether they have actually achieved it. Yes - that was the sort of "explanation" I was expecting. And who is to be the judge of those things? Statistics. Statistics on what? What is the ultimate objective of using hi-vis? It is not "to be seen" - perhaps the authorities (your words) believe it is a means of casualty reduction? Which "authorities" would that be? There is no legal requirement for the wearing of hi-viz on highways in the UK. Perhaps there ought to be. I keep the items in the car for journeys in France (for instance). Do statistics show the objective (whatever it is) is met? The proportion of cyclists who are fashion victims? The authorities require hi-vis for many activities. See above. Which "authorities"? Which activities? |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 19/10/18 22:34, JNugent wrote:
On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: Does hi-viz not work? If not, you'd better tell the authorities. Which "authorities" would that be? You're the best person to know what you had in mind when you first mentioned "the authorities" a month and 5 replies ago. To answer your other question, there are requirements covering places of work. Though I have no idea idea how much take up is mandatory and how much is individual businesses voluntarily following guidelines. If you've never noticed the number of people wandering about in hi-vis, either you never leave the house or it should serve as a strong hint that it serves no purpose. Since you use Thunderbird, it offers options that might assist you. Under Preferences - Account settings - [your newsgroup account] - Synchronisation & Storage, select 'Delete messages more than [**] days old' and 'Remove bodies from messages more than [**] days old'. [**] I have chosen 30 days. I also set View - Threads - Unread Hope this helps. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 20/10/2018 12:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/18 22:34, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: Does hi-viz not work? If not, you'd better tell the authorities. Which "authorities" would that be? You're the best person to know what you had in mind when you first mentioned "the authorities" a month and 5 replies ago. Easy. The authorities for the purposes of researching the benefits of easier visibility for cyclists are the Department of Transport (and the road research laboratory). To answer your other question, there are requirements covering places of work. Though I have no idea idea how much take up is mandatory and how much is individual businesses voluntarily following guidelines. If you've never noticed the number of people wandering about in hi-vis, either you never leave the house or it should serve as a strong hint that it serves no purpose. You have no idea at all? That's We all know about the number of people we see using hi-viz in public and semi-private locations, presumably for safety-related reasons. But you obviously believe that they are all misguided to do so, since wearing distinctive hi-viz would not, in your opinion (for what it's worth) make cyclists safer. And since cyclists are peculiarly vulnerable, that's quite a claim for you to make. Since you use Thunderbird, it offers options that might assist you. Under Preferences - Account settings - [your newsgroup account] - Synchronisation & Storage, select 'Delete messages more than [**] days old' and 'Remove bodies from messages more than [**] days old'. [**] I have chosen 30 days. Have you? That's nice. I also set View - Threads - Unread Do you? That's nice. Do you have any particular reason for not wanting threads or posts older than a fixed period unread or not replied to? Or do you perhaps purport to issue the above advice by way of a set of instructions? You know how much I value your opinion. BTW: There was a time when I used to travel with a Windows laptop with a news-reader app installed. I recall once posting from GMT-8 and being advised that my system clock was wrong (it wasn't). When I pointed out that the time was correct for where I was, someone asked whether I was on the USA west coast. When I confirmed that this was the case one particularly loony ukrc poster said I was a "****ing liar" (as we all know, that's how a lot of cyclists talk in normal discourse, especially to people they have never met). But now, the Windows machine has given way to a Macbook Pro (for various reasons which don't need to concern us here). And whilst that is excellent for emails and for certain other things, I still haven't found a suitable news-reader app for it. So things tend to be left until I get back. FWIW, on some NGs, especially the ones with hundreds of posts a day, I do adopt a "mark it all read" policy. There is no need to do that on uk.rec.cycling or on several other groups, where the number of posts in two or three weeks is manageable. |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 20/10/18 14:42, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2018 12:02, TMS320 wrote: On 19/10/18 22:34, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: Does hi-viz not work? If not, you'd better tell the authorities. Which "authorities" would that be? You're the best person to know what you had in mind when you first mentioned "the authorities" a month and 5 replies ago. Easy. The authorities for the purposes of researching the benefits of easier visibility for cyclists are the Department of Transport (and the road research laboratory). You're only replying to yourself. Though you made the classic mistake of mentioning "easier visibility". Is visibilty the objective or a means to something else? Even now, the Highway Code only suggests "light-coloured or fluorescent clothing". The picture shows a rider in jeans and dark t-shirt. To answer your other question, there are requirements covering places of work. Though I have no idea idea how much take up is mandatory and how much is individual businesses voluntarily following guidelines. If you've never noticed the number of people wandering about in hi-vis, either you never leave the house or it should serve as a strong hint that it serves no purpose. You have no idea at all? I don't care that I don't know how much is mandatory or voluntary. We all know about the number of people we see using hi-viz in public and semi-private locations, presumably for safety-related reasons. ....presumably... Then it's not certain. I suppose it has a use in a crowd to highlight people that can be asked to give directions to the nearest toilet. ---- Do you have any particular reason for not wanting threads or posts older than a fixed period unread or not replied to? It's a personal choice to not bother with stale threads. Why else? Or do you perhaps purport to issue the above advice by way of a set of instructions? It's usually useful to have step by step instructions when building a mechanical device or changing settings on computers. You know how much I value your opinion. You are free to carry on as you are so long as others are free to make derogatory comments about you. But now, the Windows machine has given way to a Macbook Pro... Odd... The properties in your post are given as "User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1" |
Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
On 20/10/2018 23:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/10/18 14:42, JNugent wrote: On 20/10/2018 12:02, TMS320 wrote: On 19/10/18 22:34, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote: Does hi-viz not work? If not, you'd better tell the authorities. Which "authorities" would that be? You're the best person to know what you had in mind when you first mentioned "the authorities" a month and 5 replies ago. Easy. The authorities for the purposes of researching the benefits of easier visibility for cyclists are the Department of Transport (and the road research laboratory). You're only replying to yourself. Though you made the classic mistake of mentioning "easier visibility". Is visibilty the objective or a means to something else? Even now, the Highway Code only suggests "light-coloured or fluorescent clothing". The picture shows a rider in jeans and dark t-shirt. To answer your other question, there are requirements covering places of work. Though I have no idea idea how much take up is mandatory and how much is individual businesses voluntarily following guidelines. If you've never noticed the number of people wandering about in hi-vis, either you never leave the house or it should serve as a strong hint that it serves no purpose. You have no idea at all? I don't care that I don't know how much is mandatory or voluntary. We all know about the number of people we see using hi-viz in public and semi-private locations, presumably for safety-related reasons. ...presumably... Then it's not certain. I suppose it has a use in a crowd to highlight people that can be asked to give directions to the nearest toilet. ---- Do you have any particular reason for not wanting threads or posts older than a fixed period unread or not replied to? It's a personal choice to not bother with stale threads. Why else? Whose "personal choice"? Or do you perhaps purport to issue the above advice by way of a set of instructions? It's usually useful to have step by step instructions when building a mechanical device or changing settings on computers. Is it? You know how much I value your opinion. You are free to carry on as you are so long as others are free to make derogatory comments about you. That's so magnanimous of you. But now, the Windows machine has given way to a Macbook Pro... Odd... The properties in your post are given as "User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1" That's because I also have a Windows PC running Thunderbird - but it's way too big and heavy to be carried within the 23kg weight limit on flights. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com