Jump to content

No more Mr Blobbys?!


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by pete owens:

 

 

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.

 

No the reason the law says they should ride on the road is because of some antiquated 50 year old law, that does not deal with present traffic management.

Children have not read this "manual" of what you speak.

Children have not yet taken training courses, and while they may teach you how to deal with roads, they do not teach you "you should ride on the road

Children are not experianced cyclists.

 

have you heard yourself, your arguments are rediculous.

 

no one is advocating experianced cyclists should all ride on the pavements.

experianced cyclist, such as myself up till the age of 25 and now with a driving licence, know how to deal with cars, traffic. kids do not, they are stupid, nieve and vulnerable.

these are the people we are advising to stay on pavements, until theyre world wise.

 

statistics will prove that the safest way to travel is by plane... shall we use your idiotic angle to suggest that these inexperianced children fly us to benidorm.

 

its frighnning that somone I asume being an adult should mis-interpret statistics (if they are true as despite your repeating them you have not as yet provided a source) so poorly.

 

the statistics you present, do not suggest that cyclist on the pavement are more in danger, logic dictates that (again if true) cyclist who use the pavement are more carless when they reach road junctions due to their unfamiliarity with the regulations of road use, and that this may contibute to an increase in accidents. [/qb]

 

[ 04.04.2008, 08:04: Message edited by: Legion ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by demelzadoe:

I was knocked flying off my bike by someone parked at the side of the road. Without warning the door flings open sending me sprawling, very nasty. It's not just the cyclist who need lessons, the drivers should do the cycling course too to make them aware.

we already have this problem covered in the UK, a driver who opens the door resulting in an accident by hitting a passing vehicle, or pedestrian or cyclist for that matter then it is always the driver of the car( no matter who opened the doors) fault.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Legion:

Originally posted by demelzadoe:

I was knocked flying off my bike by someone parked at the side of the road. Without warning the door flings open sending me sprawling, very nasty. It's not just the cyclist who need lessons, the drivers should do the cycling course too to make them aware.

we already have this problem covered in the UK, a driver who opens the door resulting in an accident by hitting a passing vehicle, or pedestrian or cyclist for that matter then it is always the driver of the car( no matter who opened the doors) fault.
One of the things that any cycle training course teaches is not to ride too close to parked cars. It may be the fault of the driver - or the passenger for not looking before flinging the door open, but it is better to avoid putting yourself in that situation in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bill:

Fifty years ago I might have agreed with Mr Owens but encouraging kids onto the roads these days should be made a criminal offence.

 

Bill :)

The main thing that has changed in the past 50 years is that the roads have become very much safer. In those days there were more than ten times as many road deaths each year as there are today.

 

Disobeying the normal rules of the road has always been a very bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Legion:

Originally posted by pete owens:

 

 

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.

 

No the reason the law says they should ride on the road is because of some antiquated 50 year old law, that does not deal with present traffic management.

 

The essentials of traffic management have not changed over 50 years - although there has been a vast improvement in road safety over that period.

 

Children have not read this "manual" of what you speak.

 

Unfortunately neither have their parents, who really ought to acquaint themselves with it before passing on bad advice to their children. Neither it appears have you.

 

 

Children have not yet taken training courses, and while they may teach you how to deal with roads, they do not teach you "you should ride on the road

 

They most certainly do teach that.

 

They will also teach you that if you come to a particular hazard that you do not feel comfortable with then you should get off and WALK on the pavent - but never ride there.

 

This whole debate started because I stated that there was desparate need for cycle training courses as most parents do not themselves know how to cycle safely so are passing on bad advice - such as riding on the pavement.

 

 

Children are not experianced cyclists.

No, but it is better that they learn from experienced cyclists, than take poor "advice" from people who have not been trained, have little practical experience, have not read up about the subject.

 

 

have you heard yourself, your arguments are rediculous.

Only to those who know nothing about cycling.

 

 

no one is advocating experianced cyclists should all ride on the pavements.

 

That would be less harmful.

Experience cyclists already know that the carriageway is the safest place to ride so would realise that the advice was stupid.

 

Children might think you knew what you were talking about.

 

experianced cyclist, such as myself up till the age of 25and now with a driving licence, know how to deal with cars, traffic.

So at some point you will have passed your driving test which will have required you to read a small book known as the highway code. Now remind us - if you can still remember - what that has to say about riding bikes on the pavement.

 

 

kids do not, they are stupid, nieve and vulnerable. these are the people we are advising to stay on pavements, until theyre world wise.

This is why it is so important that they are trained by competent people.

 

 

its frighnning that somone I asume being an adult should mis-interpret statistics (if they are true as despite your repeating them you have not as yet provided a source) so poorly.

Amazing - you have not read any of the research, which I did provided a link to, (see summary at:

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

) yet you presume to have a better grasp of the contents than someone who has.

 

I suppose that is consistent with not reading Cyclecraft yet presuming to lecture folk on how to cycle.

 

the statistics you present, do not suggest that cyclist on the pavement are more in danger,

 

Since you have not read the research you cannot possibly know.

 

 

 

logic dictates that (again if true) cyclist who use the pavement are more carless

Indeed, they are demonstrating that carelessness by riding on the pavement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that just goes to show how messed up your thinking is.

 

Fifty years ago my parents would tell me to go and play football in the street with the other kids and that was not negligent because back then there was hardly any cars on the road.

 

So using your logic, the roads are safer now than they were fifty years ago, the roads would seem to be a perfect playground for kids. I think not.

 

The sooner people like yourself wake up to the fact that today's busy roads are no place for young children the better.

 

Bill :)

 

[ 04.04.2008, 17:55: Message edited by: Bill ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this what you mean?

 

50 accidents (7%) on footways, 98% not reported. 18 accidents (2%) on footpaths, none reported.

594 accidents (81%) on roads, 64% not reported.

 

hardly empirical..

 

it would seem from the above that you are unable to read statisics.

 

I remember someone on this forum providing "statistics" that showed that the bus lane at Tescos couldn't possibly cause congestion... Yet it does..

 

Muppetry of the highest order comes to mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gunga Din:

Is this what you mean?

 

50 accidents (7%) on footways, 98% not reported. 18 accidents (2%) on footpaths, none reported.

594 accidents (81%) on roads, 64% not reported.

 

Indeed that was one (9th in the list) of the many - but for some strange reason you failed to quote the last line of the commentry on that particular paper, which reads:-

 

Comment: Cycle track accidents high relative to mileage and use of tracks in catchment area.

 

There is no way of telling from the numbers you quoted the safety of riding in different places as they do not include the relative usage. We only have the commentary to go on in that particular case - unless you are prepared to fork out ?20 to get the original from TRL.

 

Also - as has been pointed out in this thread - the main danger of riding on pavements is the risk of getting hit by turning vehicles as your route crosses side roads. This means that those accidents are included in the "on road" total.

 

... and before Observer points this out yet again - Yes I do know that means that these crashes do not occur while a pavement cyclist is actually occupying the pavement, but it is an integral part of the journey and an inevitable consequence of approching a junction from the footway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bill:

Fifty years ago my parents would tell me to go and play football in the street with the other kids and that was not negligent because back then there was hardly any cars on the road.

50 years ago parents had a much greater tolerance - and a better appreciation of risk. They had just been through a world war, so knew what was meant by danger - and on that scale of things road danger was seen as an acceptable price to pay for letting children get good healthy exercise - even though many more people were killed on the roads in those days.

 

Nowadays some children are insulated in cotton wool - many are not allowed outside unsupervised at all. They are ferried about everywhere by car and as a result we are seeing an epidemic of obesity (hence the title of the thread), meaning that todays children will be the first generation to suffer a shorter life expectancy than their parents. Effectively sent to an early grave by the overprotectiveness of their parents.

 

Over the 50 years great strides have been made to improve road safety. The biggest change is that drivers are now very much less likely to be drunk. Now, as a road safety campaigner, I do not think this has gone anywhere near far enough. Despite the great improvements, we are still a long way behind other European countries with respect to the safety of vulnerable road users. There is a lot we can do to improve the safety of our roads - but this means better enforcement and training, not encouraging road users to break the law.

 

Whatever the absolute level of risk, the same principles apply to safe cycling. Pavement cycling was a bad idea then just as it is now. The difference was that most adults (including policemen) rode bikes themselves, so understood the risks and would ensure children obeyed the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

One of the things that any cycle training course teaches is not to ride too close to parked cars. It may be the fault of the driver - or the passenger for not looking before flinging the door open, but it is better to avoid putting yourself in that situation in the first place.

Great :roll:

 

This is getting scarier by the minute :o

 

I do agree that cycle training and knowledge of the highway code is a great idea for kids (as it also teaches them how to cross roads safely on foot and to be aware of certain things).. but please do not tell them that just because they have passed their 'tests' that they are safe to ride on the real roads as they wont be.. they are only kids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by observer:

Not at all PO; I've seen pedestrian cross side streets without looking, and been nearly squashed by turning vehicles. :wink:

Yes, if you put yourself in any hazardous situation you can compensate for the increased risk to some extent by taking greater care. But remember, as a cyclist aproaching a junction this means being able to judge whether one of the cars in the stream of traffic behind you may be about to turn without indicating. Thus this requires a much greater level of skill a nd judgement on the part of the pavement cyclist than a road cyclist appraching the same junction.

 

It is better to avoid putting yourself in a dangerous situation in the first place by riding safely on the carriageway where other drivers can see you. This is the same reason we advise pedestrians to avoid crossing from between parked cars and we use lights at night.

 

Perhaps you might understand it better if I offered an analogy with driving, which I assume you do have some experience of:

Imagine you are about driving your car onto a busy motorway. You see their are lots of trucks using it - and I can assure you that your car will not protect you should you get shunted by one of them. You know that the law says you should join the main carriageway, you know that expert drivers drive along the main carriageway, some road safety campaigner has told you of reasearch that shows that is the safest way to procede. However, now your oft quoted common sense kicks in; who cares about so called "experts" and "proffessionals" and as for "statistics", will they all must be wrong (after all they have quotation marks)if they contradict your common sense - To you it is obviously safer to drive along the hard shoulder, rather than mixing it with those 38 tonners. you are not going to risk your life just because the law tells you to.

 

Now do you think that would be remotely sensible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not remotely sensible. Neither has a car diving along the hard shoulder got anything remotely sensible to do with a cyclist being slammed by a car door. I wasn't riding along a busy carriageway, and riding far enough away from the parked cars so as not to scratch them, but I wasn't about to ride in the middle of the road either, even though that is eventually where I ended up. If the car had pulled into the space in my view then I would have been alert to the fact that a door would be opening, you can train a child to also be alert, but when the training is done, they are still at the mercy of the driver, or in this case the parker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

Comment: Cycle track accidents high relative to mileage and use of tracks in catchment area.

maybe he didnt mention it because it addresses neither roads or pavements which is what we are discussing.

 

as has been pointed out in this thread - the main danger of riding on pavements is the risk of getting hit by turning vehicles as your route crosses side roads. This means that those accidents are included in the "on road" total.

 

... and before Observer points this out yet again - Yes I do know that means that these crashes do not occur while a pavement cyclist is actually occupying the pavement, but it is an integral part of the journey and an inevitable consequence of approching a junction from the footway.

Im glad you pointed out the flaw in your argument that we dont seem to be able to get you to understand.

however your flaw has a flaw or two

 

1. your journey on the footway, may NOT include going on to the road as integral ESPECIALY for youngsters (the main people we are talking about)who are not traveling out of their area.

 

2. an accident on the road is NOT (despite your best efforts to reinforce your rediculous notion) an "inevitable consequence of approching a junction from the footway. " as you could throw up any wild figure you like for the number of people ACTUALY having accidents as they come off the footpath and then onto the road resulting in an accident.

 

I would say the random figure that 1 in 30,000,000 of the events of riding off a pavement and getting involved in an acident is more accurate than your "an inevitable consequence of approching a junction from the footway." which suggest that it will happen to everyone, at some point in every journey they make of this nature.

 

finaly

 

I have just read through that boring report of which you linked, and you know what...IT DOES NOT MENTION THIS RISK YOU SPEAK, anyone can now go and look to see hit highlights the risks of CYCLE TRACKS....not footpaths, so everything you have said has been again your expert ability to misinterpret statistics...on a grand scale

 

I will bring you to the indepth report listed on that page you provided.

 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/4/2103492.pdf

 

which states something we have failed to get through to you, maybe now its in an official document you may beleive something the rest of us calls common sense.

 

page 151

Earlier evidence (such as sandels 1975) also supported this view that children were bilolicaly incapable of certain skills at very young ages therefore could not be taught them
I did also find this

#Pedestrians injured in London, in collision with cycles and pedestrians: 2001-05

Fatal Serious Slight Total

?in collision with a cycle: on foopath/verge 0 12 40 52

?in collision with a cycle: all locations 1 58 272 331

 

therefore showing that a cyclist is 5 times more likely to hit a pedestrian on the road than the pavement.so by your logic, it is safer for pedestrians to walk on the road too !!!

 

[ 06.04.2008, 10:11: Message edited by: Legion ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a random sample on my way to Evans house and back: 7 cyclist on the pavement and 2 on the road.

 

The seven were all young and without ctcle helmets, the two on the road wore flourescent gear and helmets.

 

On wednesday when I crossed the road I looked right and left to check the road was cleare and crossed over. I walked between two cars on the other side and mounted the pavement saw a shape to my roght but as it was far away ignored it. I rhen turned left to go to the co-op and almost go run down by a cyclist. The shape had been a fast approaching cyclist.

 

During this thread has anyone given any consideration to the poor pedestrian :x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

absolutely, a reasonable argument against the cyclist using the pavement.

and I dont want to seem like Im saying that all cyclist should, my argument is with POs logic that the pavements are more dangerous for the cyclist than the roads.

and the evidence he has been lamenting supporting this all relating to studies of cycle lanes as it happens.

I did say early on in the thread, that the age of the cyclist should determine, road use.

 

furthermore, there has only been one incident in the year of study of a fatality by collision of a cyclist and pedestrian on the pavemet, so while unfortunate for the individual, the stats would suggest that the use of pavements by cyclists carries far less risk to pedestrians, than the use of roads to cyclists, which resulted in 460 ish in london alone (this is from memory of all the rubish I read through this morning so sorry if not accurate, but they'll be close).

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...