A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 09, 02:47 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default "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.
  #2  
Old September 10th 09, 03:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default "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!


  #3  
Old September 10th 09, 04:23 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default "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.
  #4  
Old September 11th 09, 06:47 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default "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.


  #5  
Old September 11th 09, 07:12 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default "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.
  #6  
Old September 11th 09, 09:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
BrianW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default "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.
  #7  
Old September 11th 09, 04:43 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default "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.
  #8  
Old September 11th 09, 04:47 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Brimstone[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,237
Default "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.
..


  #9  
Old September 11th 09, 07:23 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
BrianW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default "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.
  #10  
Old September 11th 09, 11:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default "Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."

Phil W Lee wrote:

Doug :


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?


I favour the spiked steering wheel boss myself, although for maximum
psychological impact the spike would ideally be mounted about 14"
lower.


Doug and Lee interacting and egging each other on.

A better example of the social reinforcement of bullying would be hard to find.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chapman: "Speed Cameras are Dangerous, Kids" Nuxx Bar UK 0 May 1st 09 07:33 PM
Cycling not particularly dangerous Zebee Johnstone Recumbent Biking 1 June 13th 08 03:12 PM
Cycling not particularly dangerous Jens Mller[_2_] Social Issues 0 June 13th 08 12:42 PM
Most Dangerous: Cars, Dogs, Kids on Wheels, Other Bikers, Pedestrians? Ziactrice General 16 April 22nd 06 02:48 PM
"Dangerous" Cantilers? Robin Hubert Techniques 12 July 28th 05 06:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.