Safety:- Cycling on the pavement v cycling on the road.

in message , Adrian Boliston
') wrote:

"Matt B" wrote in message
...

Surprisingly, the accident rate on pavements was no higher than on
cycleways. That's probably because pavement cyclists go so slowly: if
regular commuter cyclists like me were forced to use pavements the
accident rate would rocket.

Why would it?

An analogy would be closing motorways and "A" roads so that all commuter
traffic is forced onto narrow country lanes. The main problem would be
drastically increased journey times but I'd bet there would be a few more
accidents than usual.

Uh-huh. If you have people weaving through pedestrians at 25mph, someone is
going to get hurt. So either all cyclists have to slow down drastically,
or the accident rate goes up. Furthermore, as everyone who has used a
bidirectional cycle track knows, many people who would keep to the left on
the roads somehow think that it is correct to keep to the right on a cycle
track or pavement. So you'd get a lot of head-ons between cyclists, at
closing speeds up to 50mph.

NOT a good plan.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke

soup wrote:
soup wrote:
Would anyone have a link to this

He doesn't seem to be
listening/discussing/arguing at all he merely makes a statement then
when you try to engage him in discussion he ignores that and moves onto
another statement, ah well "the ignorant[1] are always among us".

He probably thinks you are a troll. ;-)

[1] not so much ignorant as won't think (even if he comes to a different
conclusion I wouldn't mind, it's this refusal to look into things that
gets me)

Yes, it can be infuriating attempting to engage those with closed minds.

but I couldn't think of a phrase with 'won't think' in it

See if "complacent", "narrow-minded", "prejudiced", or even "bigoted" work.

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Adrian Boliston
') wrote:

"Matt B" wrote in message
...

Surprisingly, the accident rate on pavements was no higher than on
cycleways. That's probably because pavement cyclists go so slowly: if
regular commuter cyclists like me were forced to use pavements the
accident rate would rocket.
Why would it?
An analogy would be closing motorways and "A" roads so that all commuter
traffic is forced onto narrow country lanes. The main problem would be
drastically increased journey times but I'd bet there would be a few more
accidents than usual.

Uh-huh. If you have people weaving through pedestrians at 25mph, someone is
going to get hurt. So either all cyclists have to slow down drastically,
or the accident rate goes up.

Ah, so cyclists /would/ have to slow down drastically then.

Furthermore, as everyone who has used a
bidirectional cycle track knows, many people who would keep to the left on
the roads somehow think that it is correct to keep to the right on a cycle
track or pavement.

Ah, so cyclists would have to take more care then.

So you'd get a lot of head-ons between cyclists, at
closing speeds up to 50mph.

Or cyclists would learn to take more care.

NOT a good plan.

It is though similar to the way motorists are expected to behave on
roads which too are currently shared by more vulnerable users.

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
| It is though similar to the way motorists are expected to behave on
| roads which too are currently shared by more vulnerable users.

I tell you what, let's make car drivers use the pavements and leave
the roads for a straight fight between heavy goods, public transport
and cyclists.

Geraint Jones wrote:
Matt B wrote:
| It is though similar to the way motorists are expected to behave on
| roads which too are currently shared by more vulnerable users.

I tell you what, let's make car drivers use the pavements and leave
the roads for a straight fight between heavy goods, public transport
and cyclists.

Or better still, turn all urban/village social road space into
"pavement", and let pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists share it
equally. Let's call it "Shared Space". Ah, it's already been thought
of, and, apparently, virtually eliminates serious road casualties /and/
reduces congestion.

Should we support it, even if it might mean that "commuter cyclists"
would have to tolerate and respect other road users?

--
Matt B

"soup" wrote in message
k...
Seem to remember a post/thread in here, over the last couple of days,
about safety in pavement cycling, in which it was stated that there were
statistics to back up the claim that cycling on the road was six times
safer than on the pavement. Would anyone have a link to this site ?
Having a bit of a discussion with a chap who wants to implement a pressure
group with the stated aim of banning cyclists from the road and
restricting them to the pavement. He seems to think the pavement is safer
to cycle on than the road.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages.

I would a lot more wary on the road.

Alan

soup wrote:
Seem to remember a post/thread in here, over the last couple of
days, about safety in pavement cycling, in which it was stated that
there were statistics to back up the claim that cycling on the road was
six times safer than on the pavement. Would anyone have a link to this
site ?

ISTR the Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling has some useful links:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/

Look up Aultman-Hall in the bibliography.

--
Danny Colyer URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

"Matt B" wrote

[snip]

Or better still, turn all urban/village social road space into
"pavement", and let pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists share it
equally. Let's call it "Shared Space". Ah, it's already been
thought of, and, apparently, virtually eliminates serious road
casualties /and/ reduces congestion.

Should we support it, even if it might mean that "commuter
cyclists" would have to tolerate and respect other road users?

I suggest that before suddenly modifying ***all*** road space, we
start by trying it on one road, to see if it really does work.
Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London, looks as if it is to be
the pilot scheme.

To my awestruck eye, the plan looks as if it is to include all the
road right down to South Kensington tube station. If it works where
Exhibition Road crosses Cromwell Road it ought to work anywhere,
Cromwell road being the main conduit for traffic out of London to all
points west. Whether it works or not, it should be pretty
interesting to see what happens the first day

Jeremy Parker

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:04:01 GMT, soup wrote:

but I couldn't think of a phrase with 'won't think' in it

"hard of thinking" often works nicely.

Seems particularly apt for your ... associate.

"Jeremy Parker" a écrit:

I suggest that before suddenly modifying ***all*** road space,
we start by trying it on one road, to see if it really does work.
Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London, looks as if it is
to be the pilot scheme.

To my awestruck eye, the plan looks as if it is to include all the road
right down to South Kensington tube station. If it works
where Exhibition Road crosses Cromwell Road it ought to
work anywhere, Cromwell road being the main conduit for
traffic out of London to all points west.

They're using the pedestrian tunnel that joins South Kensington station to
the museums to link the two separate zones. You can see the "travelators" on
most of the artists' impressions:

http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/environmental...ad_concept.asp

Cromwell Road

A new pair of inclined travelators will link the southern section
of the road into the renovated subway, allowing visitors to pass
underneath the busy and polluted Cromwell Road whilst still
enjoying the new above-ground environment on Exhibition Road.

http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/110

Still, it's a start.

James Thomson