Share the Road

1131416181921

Comments

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    [citation needed]

    I'm not sure how to pull up all his comments and sift out the highlights. I think it's fair to say from his most recent entry that his concern is chiefly with the ways in which he is personally affected, and that he does not care to be barred from a sidewalk nor otherwise compelled to obey laws he personally regards as impositions on his ability to travel quickly to his next destination.

    On the subject of idiot cyclists: A friend was taking me to an appointment yesterday when a cyclist came straight at us as we entered a right-turn lane, riding the wrong way. He'd been riding the wrong way on a major roadway, on which vehicles often drive as fast as 50 mph. It was not atypical behavior, unfortunately. (I wasn't going to say anything about this one - what's the point? - but one wearies of the hostility of the likes of Rocinante, so I'll just put it out there. Can we at least agree that such behavior is stupid?)

  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    For the last fucking time:

    I do not ride on the sidewalk. Ever.

    There is one busy junction where I regularly make use of a shared-use crossing.

    I am no hostile to pedestrians. I frequently am one.

    The problem with idiots like the one in your last post is not that he ( And they are almost exclusively male) is a on a bike, but that he is an idiot.

    As for "2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad", well I don't know if you've read the news recently, but the North pole is melting and the planet is being cooked. We need more people to do as I have: stop climbing inside 2 tons of metal and plastic, consuming huge amounts of resources, blocking the roads and destroying the environment, just to move your fat lazy ass around the surface of the globe.

    This last is a general request not directed at anyone in particular.
  • Landlubber wrote: »
    Fast cyclists round here do use the (30mph speed limit) carriageway but mostly in single file.
    If there's a group of cyclists travelling together, riding 2 or 3 abreast is better as it causes less delay to motor traffic. Though, the delays caused by serious cyclists on a 30mph road are minimal - as said several times speeds of 20mph are not unusual, so they're only a little below the speed the cars would travel at if they weren't there.

    Interesting. Doesn't the Highway Code still say:

    'Don't ride more than two abreast. On busy or narrow roads ride in single file'?
    Yes, that's still what the Highway Code says. But, as I said, I've also seen proposals for revision to the Highway Code in relation to cycling that includes advise to ride 2/3 abreast to shorten the distance needed to pass a group of cyclists. And, I still haven't found that link (it's not from a cyclists advocacy group - this was something being reported from somewhere closer to government, I think it might have been a police force or similar issuing advice to cyclists in their area.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    It's not just my "neck of the woods." I've been traveling a lot in the last several years (while I still can), and I have had these problems (as previously noted) in various parts of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Japan. In fact, the only times I encountered rude Japanese was when having to dodge kamikaze cyclists on the wrong side of sidewalks. They don't change their course for anyone.
    Interesting. In recent years I've travelled too, not as much as I did 15-20 years ago but a fair bit. I've walked through London parks with shared pedestrian/cycle paths at 5.30-6.30pm with lots of cyclists heading home from work and never felt at risk, with all those cyclists riding at a sensible speed and in a sensible position on the path. I lived in Japan for two years, and the Japanese cycle a lot - far more cyclists than I've known anywhere else. My route into work included an extensive shared cycle/pedestrian sidewalk, with a clear line painted on the pavement to divide the two and the cyclists never strayed outside their area (there was one point where the logic of the cycle area passing between the pedestrian section and the bus stop could be questioned ... but there never seemed to be a problem with people walking across the cycle section of the path), with of course typical Japanese adherence to the rules and courtesy. I was sometimes worried a bit about cyclists carrying umbrellas in the rain, even with slower speeds when they did that it never seemed all that safe.

    On the other hand, it's car drivers on my normal walk along pavements to work back in Scotland (and other places) that cause most problems. I've never had the pavement blocked by parked bikes. I don't encounter cyclists pulling into or out of driveways without appearing to check that there's no one on the pavement.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I think it's fair to say from his most recent entry that his concern is chiefly with the ways in which he is personally affected, and that he does not care to be barred from a sidewalk nor otherwise compelled to obey laws he personally regards as impositions on his ability to travel quickly to his next destination.

    It's also fair to say (since I have to read all this shit) that you're suffering from massive confirmation bias, and your view of how cyclists behave and the risk they pose to pedestrians is entirely at odds with the objective, verified facts.
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    I had thought I wouldn't post any more on this thread, but, Alan Cresswell, I don't think you're allowed to cycle in (many?) London parks.

    It is not all cyclists, by any means, but a good number - enough so that I am never sure - break red lights, including when I am trying to cross the road on a green-lighted pedestrian crossing or on a zebra crossing. It is not that unusual for cyclists to cycle on the wrong side of the road when it is more convenient for them (I see this even on the narrow, twisty, hilly country roads near where I live, which must be incredibly dangerous for them and alarming for anyone for anyone coming the other way).

    I am frequently a pedestrian around central London and I see these things a lot. As a pedestrian in London, at least in the part I mainly walk around, I have to say, cars are not such a problem, as they stop at red lights and zebra crossings or the traffic is stationary anyway.

    I think I have noticed, very recently - say, in the last two/three weeks - some cyclists mouthing particularly pronounced and deliberate 'thank you's when I step back to let them pass. I like to think this is to distinguish themselves from their boorish colleagues but perhaps I have started noticing more in the light of this thread.

    MMM

  • Royal Parks site on cycling
    Cycling is allowed on all roads and some specially designated cycle routes within the parks - the only exception is Primrose Hill. Many of the routes link in with the wider London Cycle Network.
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    That's interesting, CK. The park I know best, St James's, just says no cycling, and I think Green Park is the same.

    But I wasn't sure overall, hence the expression of doubt.

    MMM
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Undoubtedly many cyclists are dickheads. They cause problems for other cyclists too: they cut us up and swear at us if we have the temerity to stop at a pedestrian crossing, thus impeding their forward progress.

    Ther are also dickhead pedestrians, who consider any cyclist (especially a female one) to be a legitimate target for abuse and/or physical intimidation.

    However these are mere nuisances compared to dickhead motorists, who endanger my life on a regular basis. Red light running by motorists is becoming a thing in my city: it is not enough to watch the light go green before setting off, you must also check for huge SUV' s coming at you at 45 mph.
  • [Trying to remember London geography], the park in question was (I think) Kensington Gardens - we'd spent the day at the Science Museum and were walking to Paddington Station (my daughter likes stories about a particular bear). The wider paths were clearly labelled as cycle routes, shared with pedestrians, and well used.

    I can't actually recall the last time I saw an adult riding on a path or pavement which was not explicitly signed as a cycle path.

    Though I admit to passing a red light at the weekend. I could have stopped but it was obvious that the larger vehicle in my boot wasn't going to and clearing the junction in the hope that traffic coming across wasn't going to move like a race car when the lights changed seemed better than the certainty of being rear ended and pushed into the middle of the junction. I've never seen a cyclist force anyone through red lights.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It has to be admitted I see a lot of pavement cycling around here. For pure ubiquity it doesn't compare with speeding, but it does occur quite a bit. Interestingly we've got bugger all cycling infrastructure and notoriously terrible impatient drivers who haven't a clue, so there's probably a link there.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    It has to be admitted I see a lot of pavement cycling around here. For pure ubiquity it doesn't compare with speeding, but it does occur quite a bit. Interestingly we've got bugger all cycling infrastructure and notoriously terrible impatient drivers who haven't a clue, so there's probably a link there.

    I sometimes wonder just who the worst cyclists are. Here is one possibilty.

    There are hundreds* of disqualified drivers in my town and while a fair few carrying on driving (despite Mr Plod keeping an eye out for such things and the Bench having no mercy for them whatsoever), many get on a bike. Let's just say they don't want to be on a bike and any faults they may have had while driving a motor vehicle are still there wheen on two wheels, with added rancour, and you can pronounce that any way you please.

    *Our town has a population of about 135,000 so I guess there are about 50,000 drivers. On a conservative basis I'd hazard that they average one ban per driving lifetime, so if each has a driving life of c 50 years there will be about 250 banned drivers at any time, if bans average 6 months. If they all ride like they drive, no wonder cyclists get a bad press.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    It's also fair to say (since I have to read all this shit) that you're suffering from massive confirmation bias, and your view of how cyclists behave and the risk they pose to pedestrians is entirely at odds with the objective, verified facts.

    Really? I'm seeing a lot of confirmation from others on this thread, including other dedicated cyclists. (And I would still be one if I were able.) And I'm not sure which "objective, verified facts" you're talking about.

    No, cyclists rarely kill pedestrians; I never suggested it, and I didn't need to see statistical tables to realize that. They do cause a lot of close calls, though. As @Ruth posted here, she gave up walking to work in favor of driving because of the ubiquity of cyclists who choose to ride recklessly on the sidewalk in her area.

    Again, obviously, bad motorists are the far greater problem (and, again, I would never suggest otherwise) - but jerks come in all varieties. When I was a bicycling as my primary means of transport, I worked hard not to be a jerk or violate the traffic laws. As a motorist I do the same. And as a pedestrian, my greatest fault is that it's sometimes difficult to get across the street in the time allotted by the walk light.

    On a thread entitled "Share the Road," why do you seem to have such a problem with the idea that cyclists, too, should do unto others as they would be done by?




  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    On a thread entitled "Share the Road," why do you seem to have such a problem with the idea that cyclists, too, should do unto others as they would be done by?

    Literally not one cyclist has a problem with Sharing the Road. Not one. We've had 16 pages of cyclist hate. Go figure.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    I don't hate cyclists. Are you always so prone to overstatement? (Once again, I was a dedicated cyclist for many years.) But we've seen plenty of people defending bad cycling habits, including riding on sidewalks rather than walking their bikes. A few people may need to rethink those habits.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Literally not one cyclist has a problem with Sharing the Road. Not one. We've had 16 pages of cyclist hate. Go figure.

    Not at all. Just innocent, not-at-all-offensive shit like:
    Rocinante wrote: »
    We need more people to do as I have: stop climbing inside 2 tons of metal and plastic, consuming huge amounts of resources, blocking the roads and destroying the environment, just to move your fat lazy ass around the surface of the globe.

    The holier/more liberal/more whateverer-than-thou bullshit is a bit much, no?

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Those habits are (sometimes) the only way a cyclist can stay alive. Have I hopped a kerb in order to avoid imminent death? Hell yes. But you'd rather wag your finger at the cyclist than point it at the car or lorry driver.

    For the umpteenth time, it's not the cyclists that are really the problem. It's that we're forced by law and custom to be in the same space as hurtley wheeled metal death machines, just to get from A to B, and that there are two solutions to this problem. The first is to provide cyclists with an entirely separate infrastructure so they don't die horribly. The second is to redesign existing roads and laws to allow cycles and cars to safely share the same space.

    That's it. Either of those will do just fine. It'll solve most of your problems, and mine, in one fell swoop.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    jbohn wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Literally not one cyclist has a problem with Sharing the Road. Not one. We've had 16 pages of cyclist hate. Go figure.

    Not at all. Just innocent, not-at-all-offensive shit like:
    Rocinante wrote: »
    We need more people to do as I have: stop climbing inside 2 tons of metal and plastic, consuming huge amounts of resources, blocking the roads and destroying the environment, just to move your fat lazy ass around the surface of the globe.

    The holier/more liberal/more whateverer-than-thou bullshit is a bit much, no?

    So being factually correct is now a crime. Snowflake.


  • As for "2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad", well I don't know if you've read the news recently, but the North pole is melting and the planet is being cooked. We need more people to do as I have: stop climbing inside 2 tons of metal and plastic, consuming huge amounts of resources, blocking the roads and destroying the environment, just to move your fat lazy ass around the surface of the globe.

    This last is a general request not directed at anyone in particular.[/quote]

    Just as well really. Some of us have to move our fat lazy arses around in cars because we like to pay our bills, eat and have a roof over our heads and, strange to say, work isn't always accessible via Shanks's pony or a bicycle; and additionally for most of us who drive, driving isn't an option but a necessity. But, hey! Don't let common sense get in the way of you feeling smug about your unreasonable prejudices.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    So being factually correct is now a crime.
    So glad to know that you know the "factually correct" state of my ass - fat, lazy, or otherwise.

    Feel free to kiss it.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Snowflake.

    How Trumpian of you. Do try harder, there's a good little shithead.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Don't let common sense get in the way of you feeling smug about your unreasonable prejudices.
    Facts are not prejudices, unreasonable or otherwise. If we do not find systemic ways to change our environmental impact - including not making it functionally necessary to have so many people commute long distances in cars - we are probably on track for a global catastrophe.

    Mind you, neither are facts necessarily fair, or convenient, or even particularly entertaining.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Facts are not prejudices, unreasonable or otherwise. If we do not find systemic ways to change our environmental impact - including not making it functionally necessary to have so many people commute long distances in cars - we are probably on track for a global catastrophe.

    I'm not seeing a lot of argument about that. Most of what I'm seeing is people (myself included) being a bit annoyed by the dickish attitudes of a few cyclists in the discussion. (And yes, I know it's Hell.)
  • Yes indeedy. Stupidity sometimes is a species of intellectual stubbornness. A stupid person has all the info so as to come a reasonable conclusion, to come up with a set of reasonable and justified beliefs and yet fails to do so. The evidence is in front of them but it makes no difference whatsoever. They believe what they want to believe. Not only do they have no good reasons for thinking that what they believe is true, there are good reasons for thinking that what they believe is false.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    But we've seen plenty of people defending bad cycling habits, including riding on sidewalks rather than walking their bikes.
    The question is, are things like riding on sidewalks or not stopping at a Stop sign, inherently bad cycling habits? There will clearly be times when that's inappropriate (when it interferes with the use of others of the sidewalk or road), but at other times does no harm.

    We've had several people say that it is more efficient and safer to slow at a Stop so that it can be confirmed that it is safe to proceed and only stop if it isn't safe - more efficient because of the extra effort involved in starting from a stop, safer because starting from a stop leaves the cyclist in the junction longer and at a lower speed when we have less control. Thus, "bad cycling habits" covers both stopping at every junction and racing through every junction without looking - though racing through without looking is the worst option.

    When I cycled more often there were a couple of locations where I routinely rode on the pavement for short distances. Places which provided a short cut avoiding extended riding on busy roads; both cases where the pavement gave access to a side road that didn't open onto the main road. I slowed to walking pace, or not much faster, and would go slower if there were pedestrians present (unmounting and walking if there were small children or elderly people who might not be comfortable with someone on a bike there). But, without any pedestrians on the pavement, what harm is done? And, when there are ride remembering I'm a guest on that place and they have priority.

    It's not as simple as cycle on pavement = bad, or cycle not stopping at junction = bad. What is bad is cycling without consideration of the other people using that space, and that's not fundamentally all that different from drivers not considering other road users, or pedestrians walking without consideration of others. Everyone needs to share the public spaces we all travel through, whoever they are and wherever those spaces are.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    Everyone needs to share the public spaces we all travel through, whoever they are and wherever those spaces are.

    This.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    As for "2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad", well I don't know if you've read the news recently, but the North pole is melting and the planet is being cooked. We need more people to do as I have: stop climbing inside 2 tons of metal and plastic, consuming huge amounts of resources, blocking the roads and destroying the environment, just to move your fat lazy ass around the surface of the globe.

    This last is a general request not directed at anyone in particular.

    Just as well really. Some of us have to move our fat lazy arses around in cars because we like to pay our bills, eat and have a roof over our heads and, strange to say, work isn't always accessible via Shanks's pony or a bicycle; and additionally for most of us who drive, driving isn't an option but a necessity. But, hey! Don't let common sense get in the way of you feeling smug about your unreasonable prejudices.

    I don't feel in the least smug, I am in fact in a near-constant state of shame and terror about the catastrophic mess in which we are leaving the world for our children and grandchildren. I'm trying, in my small way, to do something about it.

    The above post is, more or less, a quote from a conversation I had with myself about ten years ago.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    edited August 2018
    The question is, are things like riding on sidewalks or not stopping at a Stop sign, inherently bad cycling habits? There will clearly be times when that's inappropriate (when it interferes with the use of others of the sidewalk or road), but at other times does no harm. ...

    In most (leaving room for exceptions) of the United States, both those actions are generally against the law. For the former, it's not that hard to dismount and walk the bicycle until it's safe to return to the road. In the case of the latter, if there's no other traffic around, it's not a biggie to slow down and coast through. When there is other traffic, the cyclist should stop even though it's a little bit inconvenient.
    Everyone needs to share the public spaces we all travel through, whoever they are and wherever those spaces are.

    Amen.

    Most of us are well aware of global warming and other environmental crises. Because I can't cycle, I now drive a hybrid, and try to keep it in as economical a range as possible. (Hills are a problem.) I do not drive more than I have to. I share rides with friends whenever possible. But sometimes, as @Anselmina points out, it really is necessary to drive.


  • Though, we're not talking about the law per se, but what's the best balance between utility of roads for all users and safety ... and, it's possible that the law isn't that best balance. A law which works for people in metal boxes on four wheels may not be the optimum for people on pedal cycles - including whether you should always stop at a Stop sign or if it's sufficient to slow down to confirm that it's safe to cross without actually stopping.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Alan, I think that's basically what I said. But if there are motor vehicles on the road, it's best to inconvenience oneself and obey the stop sign. (It was always my custom, as a cyclist, to yield the right of way, because physics.)


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Alan, I think that's basically what I said. But if there are motor vehicles on the road, it's best to inconvenience oneself and obey the stop sign. (It was always my custom, as a cyclist, to yield the right of way, because physics
    That's absolutely right.

    Here's an example of a cyclist who should be charged and sued. But how to identify? Seeing eye dog disabled by impatient cyclist[/dog]
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Oh, that's terrible. And the jerk couldn't be bothered to stop and make sure everything was okay.

    I wonder what happened to Rick?
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Oh, that's terrible. And the jerk couldn't be bothered to stop and make sure everything was okay.

    I wonder what happened to Rick?

    Rick would be rehomed as a pet. His original puppy walker would be offered him first.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    It's just heartbreaking all around.
  • Another pedestrian killed by a cyclist, on an electric-assisted mountain bike. This asshole did a runner too. I see the spokesmaan for Cycling UK says that "the statistics showed people who use electric and conventional bikes "present a minimal danger to others". Er, no. If you use them carefully, they present minimal danger. If you don't keep a look out and give way when necessary, they do present a more than minimal danger.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    The new plague of electric scooters is posing dangers to both riders (who typically don't wear helmets) and pedestrians. The mix on sidewalks is becoming ever riskier.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    The new plague of electric scooters is posing dangers to both riders (who typically don't wear helmets) and pedestrians. The mix on sidewalks is becoming ever riskier.

    Electric scooters/cycles on the pavement are one thing but I have experienced go-peds, which are scooters with a small petrol engine and off-road motorbikes on pavements too. Come to think of it I have also seen a motor car use a combined cycleway/footpath to get ahead of a stream of traffic. All this within half a miile of my office. I used to wonder if poor driving was a local thing but then I spent a weekend in Bristol where they are exceptionally impatient.
  • Around here, electric scooters are considered bicycles, so people don't need a motorcycle license to operate them, but they can still park on the sidewalk. We hates them, we does.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    Another pedestrian killed by a cyclist, on an electric-assisted mountain bike. This asshole did a runner too. I see the spokesmaan for Cycling UK says that "the statistics showed people who use electric and conventional bikes "present a minimal danger to others". Er, no. If you use them carefully, they present minimal danger. If you don't keep a look out and give way when necessary, they do present a more than minimal danger.

    I think that cyclists cause only 0.6% of casualties shows that the vast majority of us are using our vehicles carefully - more so than many motorists.

    I would consider a bicycle with a motor to be a motor vehicle. Neither I nor any cyclist I know would be seen dead using one. In fact I know of someone who was seen dead using one- they are not safe things.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Rocinante wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Another pedestrian killed by a cyclist, on an electric-assisted mountain bike. This asshole did a runner too. I see the spokesmaan for Cycling UK says that "the statistics showed people who use electric and conventional bikes "present a minimal danger to others". Er, no. If you use them carefully, they present minimal danger. If you don't keep a look out and give way when necessary, they do present a more than minimal danger.

    I think that cyclists cause only 0.6% of casualties shows that the vast majority of us are using our vehicles carefully - more so than many motorists.

    Like I said, they aren't a danger if they are used carefully. The low speed and mass means they are less likely to cause serious injury, but if they are used carelessly they can cause injury and death. Do read for comprehension, please.
  • I am struggling to comprehend your point, I'm afraid. You use an incident about which we know very little (the unfortunate pedestrian may have been crossing against the lights without looking, for example) to have a dig at cyclists being careless and not "keeping a look out".

    Cyclists generally take great pains to avoid colliding with people. If a motorist hits a pedestrian they may have slight scratch on their car. A cyclist may well end up on the ground and therefore dead.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    We do know, from the Evening Standard coverage that this latest woman stepped out into the road in front of the bicycle. The cyclist fell off the bike - that's in the BBC news coverage - and suffered a head injury - that's in the Evening Standard coverage from 31 August. She was crossing at the traffic lights with a pedestrian crossing. What's not clear from the coverage is if she was covering with the pedestrian lights for her or against her - The Sun coverage is ambiguous and the CCTV isn't loading for me.

    eta - the CCTV loaded and she ran out into the road, into the path of the cyclist.
  • It won't load for me, but if she ran into the road, even on a pedestrian crossing, that's really not a good idea. You would have hoped a 56 year-old had more sense.
  • Rocinante wrote: »
    I would consider a bicycle with a motor to be a motor vehicle. Neither I nor any cyclist I know would be seen dead using one. In fact I know of someone who was seen dead using one- they are not safe things.
    That leaves limited options. I must not be a pedestrian, in case I wander out in front of a cyclist. I must not drive, in case a cyclist wanders out in front of me. I must not ride my electric bike, because no cyclist would be seen dead using one. What about a pony and trap?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    We have a number of power assisted bikes in our area. They enable some people to continue in two wheels even when their strength/stamina is no longer sufficient for our hills.
  • An electrically assisted bicycle is legally a bicycle in most of North America. It can't a motor generating more than 500 watts in some jurisdictions and 250 in others. At 28 km/hr (about 18 mph) the electric assist must disengage.

    A gasoline or alcohol motor, or any fuel is automatically considered a motorcycle, as is any form of moped.

    I had an electrical assisted bicycle for 7 years after being injured (fractured vertebrae, broken ribs). Car chappie did a "I didn't see you", and "sorry", neither of which cut it. I still relive this in slow motion 16 years later. Did not hit my head, ironically was on the way to brain injury rounds.
  • Landlubber wrote: »
    Rocinante wrote: »
    I would consider a bicycle with a motor to be a motor vehicle. Neither I nor any cyclist I know would be seen dead using one. In fact I know of someone who was seen dead using one- they are not safe things.
    That leaves limited options. I must not be a pedestrian, in case I wander out in front of a cyclist. I must not drive, in case a cyclist wanders out in front of me. I must not ride my electric bike, because no cyclist would be seen dead using one. What about a pony and trap?

    Good idea. This thread has had a decidedly equine feel to it for a while.
  • You disappoint me. Surely the horses would frighten the bicycles?
  • Rocinante wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Another pedestrian killed by a cyclist, on an electric-assisted mountain bike. This asshole did a runner too. I see the spokesmaan for Cycling UK says that "the statistics showed people who use electric and conventional bikes "present a minimal danger to others". Er, no. If you use them carefully, they present minimal danger. If you don't keep a look out and give way when necessary, they do present a more than minimal danger.

    I think that cyclists cause only 0.6% of casualties shows that the vast majority of us are using our vehicles carefully - more so than many motorists.
    I think that might be the point that the Cycling UK spokesperson was trying to make. If you put a lot of money and time into reducing the number of people injured/killed by bikes by half then you wouldn't reduce the number of people injured/killed by much. If the same money and time was put into addressing bad driving then even a 10% reduction in accidents would save far more lives. Yet, one incident of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian who steps into the road gets lots of media attention and the dozens (at least) of incidents where motorists killed pedestrians, cyclists and other road users that day are ignored - even the hit and run. So we get calls for tougher laws to crack down on dangerous cyclists (even when in this case there's no evidence that he was a dangerous cyclist - indeed the CCTV seems to show he was at no fault before the accident, though at fault in leaving the scene), but where is the outrage on the pages of the Sun about motorists? Where are the public call for 20mph speed limits (strictly enforced) in residential areas? Or more traffic cameras and fines/points for motorists jumping lights?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Something Mr. A. P. Herbert MP, and his alter ego Mr Albert Haddock were complaining about nearly a century ago. Take the famous (mis)leading case of Haddock v. Thwale 1930
  • Rocinante wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Another pedestrian killed by a cyclist, on an electric-assisted mountain bike. This asshole did a runner too. I see the spokesmaan for Cycling UK says that "the statistics showed people who use electric and conventional bikes "present a minimal danger to others". Er, no. If you use them carefully, they present minimal danger. If you don't keep a look out and give way when necessary, they do present a more than minimal danger.

    I think that cyclists cause only 0.6% of casualties shows that the vast majority of us are using our vehicles carefully - more so than many motorists.
    I think that might be the point that the Cycling UK spokesperson was trying to make. If you put a lot of money and time into reducing the number of people injured/killed by bikes by half then you wouldn't reduce the number of people injured/killed by much. If the same money and time was put into addressing bad driving then even a 10% reduction in accidents would save far more lives. Yet, one incident of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian who steps into the road gets lots of media attention and the dozens (at least) of incidents where motorists killed pedestrians, cyclists and other road users that day are ignored - even the hit and run. So we get calls for tougher laws to crack down on dangerous cyclists (even when in this case there's no evidence that he was a dangerous cyclist - indeed the CCTV seems to show he was at no fault before the accident, though at fault in leaving the scene), but where is the outrage on the pages of the Sun about motorists? Where are the public call for 20mph speed limits (strictly enforced) in residential areas? Or more traffic cameras and fines/points for motorists jumping lights?

    A good deal of this is because no politician dare upset motorists becausse there are so many votes to be had there, and it would also annoy the road construction lobby which is a substantial political for a mojor political party and posibly the car manufacturers too. The "cyclists lobby" isn't anything like as influential: indeed cyclists are regarded as a bit eccentric by many, even though some do take absurd risks and show no road sense whatsoever.

    btw, there are plenty of calls for 20mph limits and better enforcement of road traffic offences, but we would need a substqntially larger police force, or at least many more civilian support staff and magistrates, to handle anything beyond a simple request to pay a penalty.
Sign In or Register to comment.