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
  #11  
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.
Ads
  #12  
Old September 11th 09, 07:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default "Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."

BrianW wrote:
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.


I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from
a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see
me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull
out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me
were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2)
there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further.

You can't trust drivers :-(


  #13  
Old September 11th 09, 07:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Brimstone[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,237
Default "Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."

mileburner wrote:
BrianW wrote:
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.


I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled
out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did
not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and
realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the
tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre
of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming
ahead so I could pull across even further.
You can't trust drivers :-(


Nor anyone else with your own safety. Sadly, some people try to and then cry
about it when they come unstuck.


  #14  
Old September 11th 09, 08:01 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
D.M. Procida
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default "Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."

Number of self-caused injury-causing bike accidents: literally dozens
Number of injury-causing bike accidents involving cars: 0

Daniele
  #15  
Old September 11th 09, 08:55 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, 19:55, "Brimstone" wrote:
mileburner wrote:
BrianW wrote:
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.


I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled
out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did
not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and
realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the
tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre
of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming
ahead so I could pull across even further.
You can't trust drivers :-(


Nor anyone else with your own safety. Sadly, some people try to and then cry
about it when they come unstuck.-


I don't see it as a case of trusting anyone else. Unless you mean
"trusting that no-one pulls out in front of me from a side road whilst
I'm cycling down a hill". That would mean cycling everywhere at 0
mph. In which case you begin to live in GollumWorld.
  #16  
Old September 11th 09, 08:56 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, 19:52, "mileburner" wrote:
BrianW wrote:
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.


I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from
a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see
me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull
out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me
were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2)
there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further.

You can't trust drivers


I got hit (or rather, I hit the car that pulled out in front of me).
Both lungs collapsed, jaw broken in three places, artery severed in my
neck. Not pretty.
  #17  
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.
  #18  
Old September 12th 09, 01:45 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default "Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."

BrianW wrote:
On 11 Sep, 19:55, "Brimstone" wrote:
mileburner wrote:


I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled
out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did
not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and
realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the
tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide
(centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing
coming ahead so I could pull across even further.
You can't trust drivers :-(


Nor anyone else with your own safety. Sadly, some people try to and
then cry about it when they come unstuck.-


I don't see it as a case of trusting anyone else. Unless you mean
"trusting that no-one pulls out in front of me from a side road whilst
I'm cycling down a hill". That would mean cycling everywhere at 0
mph. In which case you begin to live in GollumWorld.


I disagree.

At traffic junctions it is imperative to acknowledge that a car *may* pull
out if you want to maximise your own safety. That means staying well clear
of the gutter and if something does start to move out be able to stop or
take avoiding action.

The other option is to trust that every driver *will* give way and hope for
the best.


  #19  
Old September 12th 09, 07:01 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, 19:55, "Brimstone" wrote:
mileburner wrote:
BrianW wrote:
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.


I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled
out from a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did
not really see me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and
realised that he could pull out without needing to give way to the
tractor. The things which saved me were 1) I was passing wide (centre
of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2) there was nothing coming
ahead so I could pull across even further.
You can't trust drivers :-(


Nor anyone else with your own safety. Sadly, some people try to and then cry
about it when they come unstuck.

So we should go around daily in the expectation of being killed by
drivers in what purports to be a civilised country?

Question. Suppose I am walking along a pavement and a driver loses
control and mounts the pavement where I am. What action should I take
to avoid this and protect myself?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.
  #20  
Old September 12th 09, 07:07 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, 20:56, BrianW wrote:
On 11 Sep, 19:52, "mileburner" wrote:



BrianW wrote:
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.


I was almost wiped out by a van a few weeks back. The driver pulled out from
a farmyard on the left. He was looking toward me but he did not really see
me; he was looking at the tractor behind me and realised that he could pull
out without needing to give way to the tractor. The things which saved me
were 1) I was passing wide (centre of lane) and I saw him moving out and 2)
there was nothing coming ahead so I could pull across even further.


You can't trust drivers


I got hit (or rather, I hit the car that pulled out in front of me).
Both lungs collapsed, jaw broken in three places, artery severed in my
neck. *Not pretty.

So you hit the car not the car hit you? Also, being a cyclist you must
have been customarily to blame for putting yourself in danger. The
term 'boot is on the other foot' springs to mind.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
 




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 11:56 PM.


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.