Jump to content

No more Mr Blobbys?!


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Dismayed:

Nothing your have said so far has started to convince me that cycling on the road is safer for kids, sorry.

I have pointed you to a wide body of empirical research showing that riding on the pavement increases your risk of collision to a significant degree.

 

If you refuse to be persuaded by the facts it is difficult to see what will convince you as your argument is based on faith rather than reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you take out the surveys from overseas I cant see any empirical data that backs up your arguement that it is more dangerous to cycle on a pavement than on a road..

 

 

There is no survey that is from the UK that is remotely modern - traffic has increased since any of those surveys. I am sure there is empirical data to back that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Peter:

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

There is room for both. LIVE with it.

:D

 

Re your other comment, answer is probably not many as we are all in our cars :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

Originally posted by Dismayed:

Nothing your have said so far has started to convince me that cycling on the road is safer for kids, sorry.

I have pointed you to a wide body of empirical research showing that riding on the pavement increases your risk of collision to a significant degree.

 

If you refuse to be persuaded by the facts it is difficult to see what will convince you as your argument is based on faith rather than reason.

Sorry Peter but all you have pointed me too is statistics and information from various countries telling me that cycle lanes are are thought to be dangerous. You are not actually answering any real questions.

 

If for example you told me that 20 kids had been injured by cars whilst riding their bikes on on pavements in Stockton Heath in the last year.. then I might start to take what you say a little more seriously.

 

Remeber my point is all about the safety of children not adults !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gunga Din:

If you take out the surveys from overseas I cant see any empirical data that backs up your arguement that it is more dangerous to cycle on a pavement than on a road..

Apart from driving on the right rather than the left I don't see any significant differences between situations analysed abroad and in the UK.

The vehicles are the same roads are laid out pretty much the same way with a central carriageway flanked by pavements.

 

And however sniffy you might be about observations made by foriegners - you have not produced any evidence whatsover to support your theory.

 

In any case the list does include studies of UK new towns such as Stevenage and Milton Keynes carried out as little as 10 years ago which are certainly comparible to Warrington.

 

And if you want more recent research you could look at TRL report number 462. This looked at impact of different priority arrangements on the safety problems at side road crossings.

 

There is no survey that is from the UK that is remotely modern - traffic has increased since any of those surveys. I am sure there is empirical data to back that up.

The roads have also become much safer over the period - and 1999 is hardly ancient history.

 

... and remember if there are more cars on the roads, there are also more cars turning at the junctions so the effect of increased traffic is felt just as strongly by pavement cyclists as those riding legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dismayed:

Sorry Peter but all you have pointed me too is statistics and information from various countries telling me that cycle lanes are are thought to be dangerous.

Not thought to be dangerous -

observed to be less safe than riding on the carriageway. Measurement of risk is bound to be statistical in nature.

 

And if riding legally on properly designed cycle paths (such as those in Holland or Denmark) is less safe than riding on the road, you would expect that riding illegally on a pavement would be even more so - Indeed the research does show that cycle paths that are no more than converted pavements are the least safe.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to say it was "dangerous", as cycling on the road is a low risk activity - if you multiply a vary small risk by a factor of ten you are still left with a low risk. You will still be increasing your life expectency because the health benefits from the excercise far outweigh the risk of crashing. However, I don't see there being any reason to ride illegally and thus expose yourself to any more risk than nescessary.

 

You are not actually answering any real questions.

 

If for example you told me that 20 kids had been injured by cars whilst riding their bikes on on pavements in Stockton Heath in the last year.. then I might start to take what you say a little more seriously.

You dismiss large scale population studies looking at the number of hospital admissions normalised to the milage travelled.

 

You dismiss detailed observational studies explaining how and why these crashes occur.

 

Yet you would accept anecdotal evidence based on a cluster of crashes in a small part of Warrington. I think it highly unlikely that there would be that number of crashes in such a small area in one year - but even if it were to occur it would tell you absolutely nothing about the relative risk of riding on the road or the pavement because the sample size is much too small and you would need to measure the relative milage covered on roads and on pavements.

 

 

Remeber my point is all about the safety of children not adults !

If adults increase their risk of getting squashed by riding on the pavement then there is no reason to expect it to be any different for children.

 

Child cyclists were not excluded from any of the research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote PO.:If adults increase their risk of getting squashed by riding on the pavement then there is no reason to expect it to be any different for children.

 

Squashed by what?

And why wouldn't we be interested in the stats for Warrington that you haven't provided? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete you can speel all the facts and figures you like that you say support your argument.

 

common sense dictates.

 

simple, not covered in embelishment, omisions & twists of statistics.

 

how many cyclist have been impacted by motor vehicals while ON THE PAVEMENT.

 

and yes it is the floor that hurts people who stupidly jump off without precaution, however 1,000s a day, jump out of planes, base jump off tall buildings, off the side of mountains with ski's on,30 feet from diving platforms into water or trampoline 10 feet in the air in their own back garden.

 

they only get hurt when they hit the floor, just like these cyclist of which you speak only get hurt when they hit the car...which is apparently on the road...NOT THE PAVEMENT.

 

your the kind of person who would ban the internet because some weirdo uses it to stalk kids, why dont you focus on the cause of the accident instead of the medium in which it is approached.

 

and another hint, usualy when everyone else disagrees with you, its a hint that maybe it is you barking up the wrong tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

You dismiss large scale population studies looking at the number of hospital admissions normalised to the milage travelled.

 

You dismiss detailed observational studies explaining how and why these crashes occur.

 

Yet you would accept anecdotal evidence based on a cluster of crashes in a small part of Warrington. I think it highly unlikely that there would be that number of crashes in such a small area in one year - but even if it were to occur it would tell you absolutely nothing about the relative risk of riding on the road or the pavement because the sample size is much too small and you would need to measure the relative milage covered on roads and on pavements.

 

So from what you are now saying there appears to be NO increased risk of injury from cycling on the pavements in Warrington after all and definately no incidents of cyclists getting squashed on the pavements

 

Of course I would take note of 'anecdotal evidence based on a cluster of crashes in a small part of Warrington' as this is where I live and the very same place my son rides his bike :roll: I have no concerns about cycling dangers in Holland or other countries as he isn't allowed to go that far on his bike :roll:

 

What exactly IS the point you are trying to make by the way...as it seems there isn't a problem at all here. I'm getting confused now :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by observer:

[QB] :D Your right Lege; providing a cylist (or even pedestrian) take the normal precaution of looking to right, left and right rear prior to crossing THE ROAD, I fail to see any validity in PO's arguement. [QB]

Apart from being consistent with the facts in real world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dismayed:

 

So from what you are now saying there appears to be NO increased risk of injury from cycling on the pavements in Warrington after all and definately no incidents of cyclists getting squashed on the pavements

Not at all.

 

The relative risks of cycling on the pavement and the road have been long established by a large body of research from all over the world.

 

There is absolutely no reason the think that by some quirk of nature that the sorts of behaviour known to cause crashes everywhere else in the world should somehow not do so in Warrington.

 

We do not have a special Warrington only edition Highway code in which all the advice is reversed: "Stop at red lights - unless you live in Warrington, When driving through Warrington be sure to make extended calls on your mobile phone, In Warrington make sure to drink at least 3 pints of strong lager before setting off on your jouney ..."

 

Of course I would take note of 'anecdotal evidence based on a cluster of crashes in a small part of Warrington' as this is where I live and the very same place my son rides his bike :roll: I have no concerns about cycling dangers in Holland or other countries as he isn't allowed to go that far on his bike :roll:

Not just other countries; there are reports from places as exotic as Milton Keynes.

 

The evidence that drink driving, driving while using a mobile phone, speeding etc was collected in places other than Warrington. But, I could certainly point to examples where drivers have caused crashes in Warrington while not using a mobile phone, or not driving through a red light, or while obeying the speed limit, or while perfectly sober. Indeed this will be true of most crashes.

 

By your logic - that only anecdotes from Warrington are of any value and serious research elswhere is irrelevent - presumably you will be instructing your child when they reach 17 to always drive through red lights while texting their mates after having consumed two bottles of vodka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PO, I suggest that most of us live in the "real world", rather than your world of virtual statistics, hence most posters on this topic are applying common sense, and have failed to illicit an answer, from you, to the question: "How many cyclists have been impacted by road vehicles whilst actually riding ON THE PAVEMENT; NOT whilst crossing a road"?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

......presumably you will be instructing your child when they reach 17 to always drive through red lights while texting their mates after having consumed two bottles of vodka.

Now who's being idiotic?

 

You are just getting absolutely ridiculous and picking at anything and everything you can becasue you realise your arguement is failing and you do not have the sense or information to discuss it properly.

 

How dare you now say that just becasue of my views on kids cycling on the pavements that I will tell my son at the age of 17 to 'drive through red lights while texting his mates after having consumed two bottles of vodka'.

 

Everyone sees what the latter can do to destroy families and to compare that with a kid on a bike on a pavement is below the belt :thumbsdown:

 

On yer bike mate..

 

[ 03.04.2008, 09:02: Message edited by: Dismayed ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well Ive only seen two cyclist get hit by vehicles in my life,

 

one was in edinburgh, where a youth wobbled as a bus went passed and got his head squashed.

 

the other was my mate turning right into town, I was cycling behind him, he got threw 10 feet up, but was ok.

 

theres my statistics

 

road 2

pavement 0

 

shall we gather others ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 18 years I've been cycling I've been hit by a car once, it was at Junction 7 of the M62 roundabout; I was going around it on the road when a motorist who failed to indicate that she was going to turn off broadsided me. Fortunately I retained control of the bike and stayed on it, she stopped some distance up the St. Helens linkway so I biked over, saw that my brake lever had left an impressive groove all the way down the side of her car, decided that was a good enough lesson without me turning into Mr Angry, and called it quits. She looked very happy I didn't phone the police, but then I knew that the Police wouldn't be interested unless I had got really angry and assaulted her :roll:

 

[ 03.04.2008, 14:59: Message edited by: McBain ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dismayed:

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

......presumably you will be instructing your child when they reach 17 to always drive through red lights while texting their mates after having consumed two bottles of vodka.

Now who's being idiotic?

Anyone who gives advice to their children to break the law, ignore the advice of experts, and behave in a manner known to cause accidents - even if the research establishing that was carried out in places beyond the borough boundary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only read these "cyling on pavements" posts today and I absolutely agree with Dismayed. As for Mr Owens, it seems to me that that he puts all his faith in statistics and common sense isn't part of his life. Regardless of the amount of cyling training that kids and adults receive (and I am in complete agreement with this training), it is still far too dangerous to be on the main roads on a bike. Children should not need to ride their bikes on the pavement but until the there is a safe alternative then that is where they should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Victor:

I've only read these "cyling on pavements" posts today and I absolutely agree with Dismayed. As for Mr Owens, it seems to me that that he puts all his faith in statistics and common sense isn't part of his life.

As I pointed out before "common sense" can be a useful guide if you come to an unfamiliar situation. However if you coming from a position of total ignorance and no experience then it can be often be misleading.

 

As you become more experienced or gain knowledge of the facts then it is wise to ajust your opinions to coinside with reality rather than to ignore any information that does not agree with your initial prejudices.

 

For competent cyclists with years of experience riding, their common sense tells them that riding on the pavent is a daft idea. It comes as no surprise them that all serious research on the subject confirms that it is much less safe than riding on the carriageway.

 

This is why the law says cyclists should ride on the road.

This is why manuals on cycling say you should ride on the road.

This is why cycle training courses teach you to ride on the roads.

This is why an experienced cyclist will tell you to ridew on the road.

 

The only people whose "common sense" tells them anything different are those with little knowledge or experience of the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

Anyone who gives advice to their children to break the law, ignore the advice of experts, and behave in a manner known to cause accidents - even if the research establishing that was carried out in places beyond the borough boundary.

But that is just the point.... 'the advice by the experts' that you keep refering to doesn't actually answer any of the questions we keep asking. There no proof in it that riding on the normal pavements causes accidents.

 

PS I am not advising my son to break the law I am merely advising him on the dangers of riding on our busy roads. There is a difference.

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...