|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Riding a bike in London is risky business
On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, wrote: On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony wrote: Chris wrote: In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left, equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down one way streets the wrong way. Not a lot actually. Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180 million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. And easily avoided by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect. Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by being very careful around lorries: - don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it takes to get past. - if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to make sure he HAS seen you. - if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready to stop until you know the driver's seen you. If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars. My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a bit. No clothing, no rights. So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the cycling proficiency test still exist? -- Chris I don't know, but I know that... It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists to wear something bright to have full protection. Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal out there. Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better target -- Chris |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Riding a bike in London is risky business
On Aug 5, 10:32*am, Chris wrote:
On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, *wrote: On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin * *wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony wrote: Chris wrote: In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left, equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down one way streets the wrong way. Not a lot actually. *Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180 million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. *And easily avoided by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect. Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by being very careful around lorries: - don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it takes to get past. - if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to make sure he HAS seen you. - if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready to stop until you know the driver's seen you. If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars. My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a bit. No clothing, no rights. So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the cycling proficiency test still exist? -- Chris I don't know, but I know that... It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists to wear something bright to have full protection. Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal out there. Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better target -- Chris It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is important if you survive. It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Riding a bike in London is risky business
On 05/08/2010 19:20, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Aug 5, 10:32 am, wrote: On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, wrote: On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony wrote: Chris wrote: In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left, equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down one way streets the wrong way. Not a lot actually. Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180 million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. And easily avoided by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect. Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by being very careful around lorries: - don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it takes to get past. - if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to make sure he HAS seen you. - if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready to stop until you know the driver's seen you. If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars. My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a bit. No clothing, no rights. So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the cycling proficiency test still exist? -- Chris I don't know, but I know that... It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists to wear something bright to have full protection. Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal out there. Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better target -- Chris It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is important if you survive. It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too. Fair enough but I was just making the point that it needs more than HV clothing to improve safety. -- Chris |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Riding a bike in London is risky business
On Aug 6, 9:10*am, Chris wrote:
On 05/08/2010 19:20, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Aug 5, 10:32 am, *wrote: On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, * *wrote: On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote: On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin * * *wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony wrote: Chris wrote: In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left, equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down one way streets the wrong way. Not a lot actually. *Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180 million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. *And easily avoided by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect. Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by being very careful around lorries: - don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it takes to get past. - if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to make sure he HAS seen you. - if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready to stop until you know the driver's seen you. If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars. My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a bit. No clothing, no rights. So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the cycling proficiency test still exist? -- Chris I don't know, but I know that... It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists to wear something bright to have full protection. Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal out there. Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better target -- Chris It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is important if you survive. It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too. Fair enough but I was just making the point that it needs more than HV clothing to improve safety. -- Chris You gotta do your best and hope it's good enough. Sometimes a cyclist could become camouflaged in plain sight, like coming from a side street. Whenever I buy something small I don't want to misplace, I go bright. Even tools for the bike can "disappear" in your bag when black. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I agree, it's so hard out on the road. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Risky Business: The redneck, the SIF hop and the bouncer. (mild profanity) | mcnuggets300 | Unicycling | 1 | September 7th 07 09:59 AM |
Risky Business: The redneck, the SIF hop and the bouncer. (mild profanity) | zfreak220 | Unicycling | 7 | May 23rd 07 12:03 AM |
Risky Business: The redneck, the SIF hop and the bouncer. (mild profanity) | Matt_V | Unicycling | 1 | May 11th 07 03:40 AM |
How does Tiso Bike stay in business ?? | Donald Gillies | Techniques | 87 | December 29th 06 07:15 PM |
London Marathon - anyone interested in riding? | kington99 | Unicycling | 7 | April 25th 06 06:09 PM |