"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."

On 11 Sep, 16:43, 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?

Of course. As I've told you several times, I myself was nearly killed
back in the summer whilst cycling. The prosecution of the driver is
ongoing.