CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   UK (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   "Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=208990)

Doug[_3_] September 10th 09 02:47 PM

"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.

mileburner September 10th 09 03:37 PM

"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!



Doug[_3_] September 10th 09 04:23 PM

"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.

Martin[_2_] September 11th 09 12:56 AM

"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.

mileburner September 11th 09 06:47 AM

"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.



Doug[_3_] September 11th 09 07:12 AM

"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.

BrianW[_2_] September 11th 09 09:34 AM

"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.

BrianW[_2_] September 11th 09 09:36 AM

"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.

Doug[_3_] September 11th 09 04:43 PM

"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.

Brimstone[_8_] September 11th 09 04:47 PM

"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.
..




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com