Jump to content

No more Mr Blobbys?!


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Dismayed:

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

I didn't say you were an idiotic parent. I said that the advice you gave was idiotic by telling your child to ride on the pavement.

My advice is not idiotic I just care about my childs safety.

If you care about your child's safety then advising them to ride in the most unsafe position is idiotic.

 

As I pointed out last week, all the research evidence finds that cyclists are between 3 and 10 times more likely to get run over if they ride on the pavement than if they ride on the carriageway.

 

This is why it is illegal to ride on the pavement.

 

This is why cycle training courses teach cyclists to ride on the road.

 

This is why you will have been taught to ride on the road during your cycle proficiency test.

 

This is why competent cyclists, such as your mother, ride on the carriageway.

 

Yet for some obscure reason you seem determined to ignore the law, all expert opinion, all the empirical evidence, your own training and even your mother and insist that your child rides illegally, incompetently and in a manner that maximises their risk of injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

If you care about your child's safety then advising them to ride in the most unsafe position is idiotic.

You are still calling me idiotic..... however I will ignore it as you obviously do not understand the point I am making ! Do you have children by the way ?

 

As I pointed out last week, all the research evidence finds that cyclists are between 3 and 10 times more likely to get run over if they ride on the pavement than if they ride on the carriageway.
Research twaddle... bit like statistics twaddle.. results are merely construed to say what you want them to say ! How on earth are you between 3 and 10 times more likely to get run over on the pavement :P

 

May I politely suggest you borrow my sons BMX bike (they are quite low you know and most youngsters ride them) and YOU ride it on the roads round here ie London Road, Wilderspool Causeway, Chester Road, Grappenhall Road, Ellesmere Road, Fairfield Road etc etc and see how safe you feel having to weave in and out of parked cars, having 30 mph traffic and huge lorries wizzing past you ... Then imagine yourself as a kid (half the size that you are)... It would scare the living daylight out of you I bet !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Eagle:

When you see the phrase "research evidence" the evidence usually comes out in favour of the body that asked for the evidence. I usually subtract the percentage quoted by the research from one hundred to give a truer picture.

Actually, most of the evidence has come from places keen to promote the use of segregated cycle facilities - usually to the surprise of the author concerned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dismayed:

:D:wink: Don't worry obs I'm not going to let the so called 'statistics' and 'idiotic research' put my sons (or my own) life at risk.

Indeed - it would be a shame to let the facts inform your opinions.

 

Do you have any valid critiscm of the wide body of research, other than it shows your pre-conceived ideas to be incorrect?

Take a look at:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

 

Are you aware of any serious research that suggests that you improve your safety by reducing your conspicuity and by approching junctions from directions that other drivers are not anticipating crossing traffic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks as though you should stop promoting the building and use of cycle paths from those "stats".

 

The "evidence" from the USA is just not relevant to our environment. The road junctions are laid out totally differently from those in the UK.

 

You have no basis to call Dismayed's advice to her child "idiotic", although again from those "stats" promoting the use of cycle lanes would be idiotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

Originally posted by observer:

Errrm "cyclist are between 3 and 10 times likely to be run over, if they ride on the pavement" - what by?! :

As I must have explained to you 15 times or so - by vehicles turning at junctions.

 

Have you read Cyclecraft yet?

so logically the point when they get hit is as they wrecklessly go onto the road at these junctions...therefore idiotic advice would be to suggest they use the roads. and the statement about them being more likely to be hit on the pavement false.

 

do you have the figures for how many have been hit by cars/lorries while on the pavement ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions...

 

1 How many children / adults have been injured by cars whilst riding a bike on a pavement in Warrington is the past 5 years?

 

2 How many children / adults have been injured by cars whilst riding a bike on a road (regardless of wether on a cycle lane or not) in Warrington is the past 5 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gunga Din:

It looks as though you should stop promoting the building and use of cycle paths from those "stats".

And what makes you think I ever started?

 

The cycle campaign has spent much effort over the past 10 years trying to dissuade the council from converting pavements into shared-use cycle paths - precisely because they have such a poor safety record compared to riding in the carriageway.

 

The "evidence" from the USA is just not relevant to our environment. The road junctions are laid out totally differently from those in the UK.

Not that different; they drive on the right and tend to use more traffic lights. They also tend to observe the rule (theoretically in our highway code) that drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing a road they are turning into - which should make pavement cycling a bit less risky there than it is here.

 

Anyway, most of the evidence is from continental Europe - places such as Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany - where there has in the past been widespread segregation of cyclists - although they are now rethinking their approach in the light of the evidence.

 

And even if you discount all the research from abroad, there is plenty evidence from the UK including new towns such as Stevenage and Milton Keynes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Legion:

so logically the point when they get hit is as they wrecklessly go onto the road at these junctions...therefore idiotic advice would be to suggest they use the roads.

The only way they are being reckless is by approaching the junction from the pavement rather than on the road - where they would be more conspicous and more predictable, thius giving the drivers a much better chance of avoiding them.

 

and the statement about them being more likely to be hit on the pavement false.

In the same way of the schoolboy 'logic' that jumping off high buildings is perfectly safe. Falling through air never hurt anyone - it is hitting the ground that kills them.

 

Yes Legion, if your journey involved riding to the next junction or driveway - then turning round and going home again then the risk would not occur.

 

However, If you want to travel from A to B then this involves crossing junctions. If you approach these junctions from the pavement the you maximise your chances of getting squashed. If you ride on the road you are more likely to arrive at B unscathed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

If you want to travel from A to B then this involves crossing junctions. If you approach these junctions from the pavement the you maximise your chances of getting squashed. If you ride on the road you are more likely to arrive at B unscathed.

Does that mean that pedestrians would also be safer walking on the roads rather than pavements thus avoiding crossing the dangerous junctions you refer too incase they too get squashed :wink::o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I have a mental block when it comes to riding on pavements and so don't do it.

 

It shouldn't be allowed, as it is unfair to pedestrians, especially the elderly and inform. WHY should they have to move out of the way to allow someone on a bike to charge past them.

 

I do think that drivers should be more aware of the cyclists and drive accordingly, then people might consider the roads to be safe to ride on.

 

The other problem I have is the number of people riding on the pavement because:

1. They can.

and 2. Their parents do the same or tell their children to.

How many of the parents (Dismayed?) have actually been in contact with a vehicle whilst cycling on the road?

I had my leg smashed by a motorbike many years ago as I was cycling to work, but I still say that cyclists should ride on the road (AND should have proficiency lessons).

It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

Drivers don't like cyclists and parent/cyclists don't like cars.

There is room for both. LIVE with it.

:x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by observer:

This is another example of how, current "professionals" are creating a triumph of stats over common sense! :wink:

No, just that your common sense is at variance with the facts. Common sense can be a useful first approximation to understanding the world if you are approaching an unfamiliar situation from a position of total ignorance.

 

However, it is wise to adjust your world view

as you gain more experience, or take acount of the experience of others, or gain knowledge of the facts.

 

You seem determined to maintain your ignorance and refuse to learn anything that might contradict your initial prejudices, just like the Pope confronted with the evidence from Gallileo's telescope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...