Left for dead on a cycle track.

You are not even safe on a cycle track, it seems.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/...l/article.html

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason wrote:
You are not even safe on a cycle track, it seems.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/...l/article.html

could be worse:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/home...t-fingers.html
and a long time ago:
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...l/article.html

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
You are not even safe on a cycle track, it seems.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/...l/article.html

Looking at Google, it appears that the "cycle track" is actually an on road
cycle lane. However, from a reporter's point of view, reporting it as cycle
track is more dramatic.

http://tinyurl.com/264ocxy

While that cycle lane appears to be fairly generous in width, anyone riding
in the centre of it is likely to have vehicles passing too close, that is if
the passing vehicles are in the centre of the main lane (which most of them
would be).

But if they were riding on the right hand edge of it, they are still likely
to have vehicles squeezing by.

And if they are riding half a metre or so into the main traffic lane, it
would look as if they were taking the **** and are very likely to suffer
driver aggression.

The only other answer is to kerb-hug at slow speed and hope for the best.

It's cycle lanes like this that give the cyclist no safe option...

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:41:48 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

You are not even safe on a cycle track, it seems.



Yep spot on - cycling is dangerous.

keep up the good work.

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:41:48 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

You are not even safe on a cycle track, it seems.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/...l/article.html



A note a typical "Page 3" photo !!



--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 13:19:36 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
You are not even safe on a cycle track, it seems.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/...l/article.html

Looking at Google, it appears that the "cycle track" is actually an on road
cycle lane. However, from a reporter's point of view, reporting it as cycle
track is more dramatic.

http://tinyurl.com/264ocxy

While that cycle lane appears to be fairly generous in width, anyone riding
in the centre of it is likely to have vehicles passing too close, that is if
the passing vehicles are in the centre of the main lane (which most of them
would be).


I know that road - I was last down it a couple of weeks ago.

I have never felt threatened - but it is busy at certain times of the
day - unlike the Google street view - I am surprised no-one witnessed
it and got the number of the car - even at that time of day.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:51:04 +0100, JMS wrote:


Yep spot on - cycling is dangerous.

keep up the good work.

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

Your figures have no meaning. How many passengers go by bicycle?

Assuming you mean drivers, riders, etc, then 541 KSI per 1 000 000 000 km
(I assume you mean American billion, not European billion which is 10^12)
translates to 1 KSI per 1 848 428km and 835.49m which I would cover in
about 616 years.

From http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm :

quote
The Fatality Rate Per Hour

It would be nice if we could use the CPSC figures per hour, as that
survey estimated fifteen billion hours of bicycle use and thus just .067
fatalities per million hours, making bicycling over seven times as safe
as operating a motor vehicle per hour. Failure Associates, Inc. (now know
as Exponent, which performs accident and failure testing, came up with
the following figures (a more complete list can be found at the OCBC web
site):

Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71 Snowmobiling .88
General Flying 15.58 Motoring .47
Motorcycling 8.80 Water skiing .28
Scuba Diving 1.98 Bicycling .26
Living 1.53 Airline Flying .15
Swimming 1.07 Hunting .08
Data compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.
Based on these figures, bicycling is nearly six times as safe as living!
What does that mean? It means that the risk of dying from some other
cause (more about these other risks later) is six times as great as the
risk from bicycling on an hourly basis, even though we face these other
risks 24 hours a day, not just the one or two hours that a regular
cyclist would spend on a bicycle. We can also see from these figures that
cycling is only 55% as dangerous as traveling in an automobile per hour.
/quote


This gives a death rate of about 1 per 3 846 154 hours. Someone
bicycling 1 hour a day would take over 10 537 years therefore on average
to have a reasonable chance of dying from it. I can live with this.
Let's face it, life is dangerous! And I want to enjoy it! I am not
going to be put of by kill-joy nannies pointing out that bicycling is
more dangerous than walking when the danger from both anyway is very low!


--
67.4 percent of statistics are made up.

Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:51:04 +0100, JMS wrote:


Yep spot on - cycling is dangerous.

keep up the good work.

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

Your figures have no meaning. How many passengers go by bicycle?


Peter, you are making the mistake of thinking that the JMS is actually
interested in the figures and that the hagfish have not taken over her
cranial cavity.

For ages now she has been promoting these figures and totally ignoring
the fact that they only include pedestrians who have been hit by a
vehicle and do not include pedestrian only injuries on the road. She
has also ridiculed any attempts to estimate that figure which, if added
in would put them on an equal basis with the cycling figures where
cycling only accidents are included.

Now after a little bit of lobbying, the DfT has started to think about
including pedestrian only figures too and has for the first time
published them.

There were 5,545 pedestrians seriously injured by vehicles in the last
recorded year but 28,396 pedestrians seriously injured in pedestrian
only falls on the street.

That means the comparable serious injury rate for pedestrians is not 358
per bn km but 2001 per bn km, significantly higher than cycling and a
big enough difference to make it valid even allowing for the overall
dodginess of the numbers.

Of course hfb will never accept this and expect a torrent of slime and
bile to ensue in response. But for once I actually agree with Meds;
cycling is very very safe.

Tony

On Oct 10, 10:08*am, Tony Raven wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:51:04 +0100, JMS wrote:

Yep spot on - cycling is dangerous.

keep up the good work.

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car * *KSI * * 18
Cycle *KSI * * 541
Pedestrian * * 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

Your figures have no meaning. *How many passengers go by bicycle?

Peter, you are making the mistake of thinking that the JMS is actually
interested in the figures and that the hagfish have not taken over her
cranial cavity.

For ages now she has been promoting these figures and totally ignoring
the fact that they only include pedestrians who have been hit by a
vehicle and do not include pedestrian only injuries on the road. *She
has also ridiculed any attempts to estimate that figure which, if added
in would put them on an equal basis with the cycling figures where
cycling only accidents are included.

Now after a little bit of lobbying, the DfT has started to think about
including pedestrian only figures too and has for the first time
published them.

There were 5,545 pedestrians seriously injured by vehicles in the last
recorded year but 28,396 pedestrians seriously injured in pedestrian
only falls on the street.

That means the comparable serious injury rate for pedestrians is not 358
per bn km but 2001 per bn km, significantly higher than cycling and a
big enough difference to make it valid even allowing for the overall
dodginess of the numbers.

Of course hfb will never accept this and expect a torrent of slime and
bile to ensue in response. *But for once I actually agree with Meds;
cycling is very very safe.

Tony- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What an unholy alliance. The Medway Handyman and Tony Raving!

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:08:13 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:


Of course hfb will never accept this and expect a torrent of slime and
bile to ensue in response. But for once I actually agree with Meds;
cycling is very very safe.

Tony

yes I know.
Yes, I actually replied to one of TMH's posts agreeing with him that
bicycling is very safe and that road traffic is not a serious danger
provided everyone obeys the road rules an is courteous and nice to each
other. No reply.


--
67.4 percent of statistics are made up.