Do you 'engage' with cyclists?
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
heebeegeetee said:
why on earth do we confine this discussion to cyclists - and please answer this question.
Liquid Knight said:
Cyclists, motor cyclists, horse riders, racing drivers, rally drivers......
...etc.
...etc.
I'll ask again, it's a reasonable question: What you say about headbutting walls is correct, so why don't you wear a helmet of some sort at all times to protect you from head injury? You say a helmet will either save you from all head injuries, or two-thirds of injuries, there is absolutely no hospital admissions evidence to support that, but leaving that aside, why don't you wear a helmet at all time to either protect you from all head injuries or the two thirds of injuries that you might have?
...basically if there is a risk of your head being subjected to an impact in the workplace there is Health and Safety legislation in place to protect employees.
Also the banging the head against a wall (literally as opposed to rhetorically by the unidirectional flow of this apparent argument) scenario mental patients are issued head protection if they are at undue risk of injuring themselves and a padded cell is not unavailable or a viable option.
I believe that my wearing a helmet whilst riding my bike the day I was hit saved my life and will continue to do so. Think of it like a condom it's better to have one and not need it.
Mr Will said:
Finlandia said:
Swedish statistics for 2012.
Deaths, 8 on moped and 28 on bicycle.
Severely injured, 126 on moped and 315 on bicycle.
Statistics Fail. Those numbers are utterly meaningless without modal share, miles travelled or some other context.Deaths, 8 on moped and 28 on bicycle.
Severely injured, 126 on moped and 315 on bicycle.
By your (faulty) logic, being a pedestrian is the most dangerous of all. At least 50 were killed in Sweden in 2012 alone. That's nearly twice as dangerous as being on a bicycle...
Just a little off topic.
Yes I do, on the way into work last night I caught up with a PoB (Pedestrian on Bike) with a hoody and flat batteries in his front light. My front light was working so I marked time until he was home safe.
This morning I approached a junction and instead of blindly pulling out a driver in a 4x4 looked twice and stopped at the give way line. There was nothing behind me and if he had gone for it I'd either be a fine pate' about now or swearing about it in the knob thread. I pulled out as far right as I could so he could see behind me nodded and he nodded back before setting off.
Little things we all do to make the day a little bit better all round.
Yes I do, on the way into work last night I caught up with a PoB (Pedestrian on Bike) with a hoody and flat batteries in his front light. My front light was working so I marked time until he was home safe.
This morning I approached a junction and instead of blindly pulling out a driver in a 4x4 looked twice and stopped at the give way line. There was nothing behind me and if he had gone for it I'd either be a fine pate' about now or swearing about it in the knob thread. I pulled out as far right as I could so he could see behind me nodded and he nodded back before setting off.
Little things we all do to make the day a little bit better all round.
carlove said:
I want some opinions on a cyclist I beeped this morning.
I was waiting to turn right, had missed a chance at the last light cycle so was past the white lines, it's a b
d of a junction. The light goes green and I start going right, as I'm doing so a cyclist undertakes me to go right so I have to brake, busy road now, hard to overtake so I beep him, he then turns around to make eye contact and does that thing you see on YouTube where he goes really slow in the very centre of the lane to prove a point, he cut me up, sadly I'm not immature so passed him as I would any other cyclist rather than passing too close to prove a point.
Now, I'm curious, was I the knob or was the cyclist the knob or a bit of both? I'll admit I didn't do a left blindspot check but was checking mirrors before turning right, I was fully over the line so the cyclist must have actually gone over the line before the light went green to do this, didn't move in front of me, just sat in my blindspot.
Hard to say conclusively without seeing the junction/road.I was waiting to turn right, had missed a chance at the last light cycle so was past the white lines, it's a b
d of a junction. The light goes green and I start going right, as I'm doing so a cyclist undertakes me to go right so I have to brake, busy road now, hard to overtake so I beep him, he then turns around to make eye contact and does that thing you see on YouTube where he goes really slow in the very centre of the lane to prove a point, he cut me up, sadly I'm not immature so passed him as I would any other cyclist rather than passing too close to prove a point. Now, I'm curious, was I the knob or was the cyclist the knob or a bit of both? I'll admit I didn't do a left blindspot check but was checking mirrors before turning right, I was fully over the line so the cyclist must have actually gone over the line before the light went green to do this, didn't move in front of me, just sat in my blindspot.
Edited by carlove on Wednesday 4th March 22:27
Undertaking is always a bit risky. Some roads are more suited than others. To do so when also turning right just looks daft. Better to wait behind the car that's presumably indicating to go right. Saying that did he def come from behind you? Or was he coming from the left? Did he def cross the white line? It's hard to say since you don't actually know for sure where he was until you could see him. (I don't expect any car drivers to have eyes in the back of the head checking all the blindspots all the time. He may have been badly positioned.
Beeping him no matter what you're intention is, always sounds like "get the f
k out of my way peasant, I'm in my car!" to 99% of cyclists. (And I include myself in that percentage) Better not to have beeped, and probably better for matey not have ridden daftly either.50/50 I suppose but don't beat yourself up over it. Learn not to beep other road users and you'd probably have not had any issues. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake, it's what happens afterwards that matters to me. If you'd said to yourself "well that was silly" then overtaken normally he also wouldn't have reacted. But conversely maybe he's now at home thinking "yeah I was a bit knobby today, no real need"
So everyone is bettering themselves. Which surely is the greater aim?
Liquid Knight said:
Just a little off topic.
Yes I do, on the way into work last night I caught up with a PoB (Pedestrian on Bike) with a hoody and flat batteries in his front light. My front light was working so I marked time until he was home safe.
Can you define a PoB more precisely please?Yes I do, on the way into work last night I caught up with a PoB (Pedestrian on Bike) with a hoody and flat batteries in his front light. My front light was working so I marked time until he was home safe.
Johnnytheboy said:
Liquid Knight said:
Just a little off topic.
Yes I do, on the way into work last night I caught up with a PoB (Pedestrian on Bike) with a hoody and flat batteries in his front light. My front light was working so I marked time until he was home safe.
Can you define a PoB more precisely please?Yes I do, on the way into work last night I caught up with a PoB (Pedestrian on Bike) with a hoody and flat batteries in his front light. My front light was working so I marked time until he was home safe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL0oMqAen5s
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/cyclis...
Rich_W said:
Hard to say conclusively without seeing the junction/road.
Undertaking is always a bit risky. Some roads are more suited than others. To do so when also turning right just looks daft. Better to wait behind the car that's presumably indicating to go right. Saying that did he def come from behind you? Or was he coming from the left? Did he def cross the white line? It's hard to say since you don't actually know for sure where he was until you could see him. (I don't expect any car drivers to have eyes in the back of the head checking all the blindspots all the time. He may have been badly positioned.
Beeping him no matter what you're intention is, always sounds like "get the fk out of my way peasant, I'm in my car!" to 99% of cyclists. (And I include myself in that percentage) Better not to have beeped, and probably better for matey not have ridden daftly either.
50/50 I suppose but don't beat yourself up over it. Learn not to beep other road users and you'd probably have not had any issues. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake, it's what happens afterwards that matters to me. If you'd said to yourself "well that was silly" then overtaken normally he also wouldn't have reacted. But conversely maybe he's now at home thinking "yeah I was a bit knobby today, no real need"
So everyone is bettering themselves. Which surely is the greater aim?
Was here. http://goo.gl/maps/aCPhh Not impossible that he was in the left lane that goes past the white lane for cars. and I didn't really notice him.Undertaking is always a bit risky. Some roads are more suited than others. To do so when also turning right just looks daft. Better to wait behind the car that's presumably indicating to go right. Saying that did he def come from behind you? Or was he coming from the left? Did he def cross the white line? It's hard to say since you don't actually know for sure where he was until you could see him. (I don't expect any car drivers to have eyes in the back of the head checking all the blindspots all the time. He may have been badly positioned.
Beeping him no matter what you're intention is, always sounds like "get the f
k out of my way peasant, I'm in my car!" to 99% of cyclists. (And I include myself in that percentage) Better not to have beeped, and probably better for matey not have ridden daftly either.50/50 I suppose but don't beat yourself up over it. Learn not to beep other road users and you'd probably have not had any issues. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake, it's what happens afterwards that matters to me. If you'd said to yourself "well that was silly" then overtaken normally he also wouldn't have reacted. But conversely maybe he's now at home thinking "yeah I was a bit knobby today, no real need"
So everyone is bettering themselves. Which surely is the greater aim?
I was indicating right, I didn't actaully see him until he was in front of me, took me by suprise, and I went for the horn(and brakes obviously), I was hoping he would take it as "be careful, that was a bit of silly cycling", rather than "get the f
k out of the way", I can see why he took it as such. Obviously when it happened I thought "bloody cyclist", then I thought was it the cyclists fault, conveniently this thread is ongoing so I asked.
I do try not to honk, as it's a bit pointless unless someone is about to actually drive into you.
Liquid Knight said:
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
heebeegeetee said:
why on earth do we confine this discussion to cyclists - and please answer this question.
Liquid Knight said:
Cyclists, motor cyclists, horse riders, racing drivers, rally drivers......
...etc.
...etc.
I'll ask again, it's a reasonable question: What you say about headbutting walls is correct, so why don't you wear a helmet of some sort at all times to protect you from head injury? You say a helmet will either save you from all head injuries, or two-thirds of injuries, there is absolutely no hospital admissions evidence to support that, but leaving that aside, why don't you wear a helmet at all time to either protect you from all head injuries or the two thirds of injuries that you might have?
...basically if there is a risk of your head being subjected to an impact in the workplace there is Health and Safety legislation in place to protect employees.
Also the banging the head against a wall (literally as opposed to rhetorically by the unidirectional flow of this apparent argument) scenario mental patients are issued head protection if they are at undue risk of injuring themselves and a padded cell is not unavailable or a viable option.
I believe that my wearing a helmet whilst riding my bike the day I was hit saved my life and will continue to do so. Think of it like a condom it's better to have one and not need it.
I'm not talking about the riskier forms of cycling, which involves speed, stunts and risk etc, those guys were pretty much always wearing helmets anyway. I'm only talking about the ordinary forms of cycling, where many (especially in Europe) don't wear a helmet and so are the only cyclists who can form the area of debate.
It is simply not true to equate this cycling with any form of risky activity such as ice hockey, rallying, motor biking, hazardous work environments or mental institutions. It is simply not true to do so.
There isn't a single scrap of evidence to suggest that ordinary cycling is any more dangerous than any other form of normal activity. There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that per hour cycling is safer than walking.
So if you guys are going to equate normal cycling with risky activities then you have to do so with walking, and we all know that walking to the shops is not as risky as ice hockey, rallying, motor biking, hazardous work environments or mental institutions.
The only point of debate to my mind is if you wear a helmet for ordinary cycling (which is fine) then why would you take it off when you park the bike and walk, because you *can not* show that you are now in safer environment having got off the bike.
I think this is why the cycling charity CTC will support neither mandatory helmets or any helmet campaign, because all these campaigns base themselves on the premise that ordinary cycling is dangerous which *simply isn't true*.
Oh dear, seem to have touched a nerve with the Master Race, holier than thou cyclists 
Still quoting me even though I have said I've done discussing it I see.
Well, while you are trolling me you are leaving others alone
ETA I didn't say I was leaving the thread, perhaps you had better re-read my post. I said I was done discussing the poor riding incident I originally posted.
Still quoting me even though I have said I've done discussing it I see.
Well, while you are trolling me you are leaving others alone
ETA I didn't say I was leaving the thread, perhaps you had better re-read my post. I said I was done discussing the poor riding incident I originally posted.
Edited by JagXJR on Friday 6th March 08:21
Nope, other people are. I said many times I was done discussing it.
It's really interesting to find out who the wind-up merchants are, so this thread is good for something
The most interesting thing is the cyclists always right attitude, hope that keeps you safe!
As for helmets, where there's no sense there's no feeling. I think children should be encouraged to wear them, adults should be able to assess the risk for themselves. Too many laws in this nanny state as it is
It's really interesting to find out who the wind-up merchants are, so this thread is good for something
The most interesting thing is the cyclists always right attitude, hope that keeps you safe!
As for helmets, where there's no sense there's no feeling. I think children should be encouraged to wear them, adults should be able to assess the risk for themselves. Too many laws in this nanny state as it is
heebeegeetee said:
Liquid Knight said:
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
heebeegeetee said:
why on earth do we confine this discussion to cyclists - and please answer this question.
Liquid Knight said:
Cyclists, motor cyclists, horse riders, racing drivers, rally drivers......
...etc.
...etc.
I'll ask again, it's a reasonable question: What you say about headbutting walls is correct, so why don't you wear a helmet of some sort at all times to protect you from head injury? You say a helmet will either save you from all head injuries, or two-thirds of injuries, there is absolutely no hospital admissions evidence to support that, but leaving that aside, why don't you wear a helmet at all time to either protect you from all head injuries or the two thirds of injuries that you might have?
...basically if there is a risk of your head being subjected to an impact in the workplace there is Health and Safety legislation in place to protect employees.
Also the banging the head against a wall (literally as opposed to rhetorically by the unidirectional flow of this apparent argument) scenario mental patients are issued head protection if they are at undue risk of injuring themselves and a padded cell is not unavailable or a viable option.
I believe that my wearing a helmet whilst riding my bike the day I was hit saved my life and will continue to do so. Think of it like a condom it's better to have one and not need it.
I'm not talking about the riskier forms of cycling, which involves speed, stunts and risk etc, those guys were pretty much always wearing helmets anyway. I'm only talking about the ordinary forms of cycling, where many (especially in Europe) don't wear a helmet and so are the only cyclists who can form the area of debate.
It is simply not true to equate this cycling with any form of risky activity such as ice hockey, rallying, motor biking, hazardous work environments or mental institutions. It is simply not true to do so.
There isn't a single scrap of evidence to suggest that ordinary cycling is any more dangerous than any other form of normal activity. There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that per hour cycling is safer than walking.
So if you guys are going to equate normal cycling with risky activities then you have to do so with walking, and we all know that walking to the shops is not as risky as ice hockey, rallying, motor biking, hazardous work environments or mental institutions.
The only point of debate to my mind is if you wear a helmet for ordinary cycling (which is fine) then why would you take it off when you park the bike and walk, because you *can not* show that you are now in safer environment having got off the bike.
I think this is why the cycling charity CTC will support neither mandatory helmets or any helmet campaign, because all these campaigns base themselves on the premise that ordinary cycling is dangerous which *simply isn't true*.
Abstract The objective of this project was to study single bicycle accidents, to see how these can be avoided and how the injuries due to these can be alleviated. The in-depth studies of fatal accidents by the Swedish Traffic Administration, and hospital reported accidents in the database Strada have been analysed. The focus was on the single bicycle accidents resulting in death or serious injury, and the data for 2007–2011 were included. In addition, 32 seriously injured cyclists were interviewed about the accident in which they had been involved. Of all the cyclists who need emergency treatment, eight out of ten had been injured in a single accident. In addition, on average five cyclists were killed every year in a single bicycle accident. In all, during the five-year period studied, 125 cyclists were killed. Of the 1,274 seriously injured in single bicycle accidents, 27 per cent can be related to operation and maintenance, 20 per cent to road design, 27 per cent to cyclist-bicycle interaction, 15 per cent to the behaviour and state of the cyclist, and 11 per cent to the interaction of the cyclist with other road users. Older age groups are involved to a greater extent than the young, in both the fatal accidents and the serious accidents – more than 40 per cent among those killed and seriously injured were 65 or older. The serious injuries among older people are characterised by injuries to the hips. In other respects, head injuries dominate among the seriously injured cyclists, and head injuries were the cause of death in 70 per cent of single bicycle accidents.
http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...
Antal huvudskador utan hjälm Antal huvudskador som kunnat förhindras med hjälm - Head injuries without a helmet Head injuries that could have been prevented with a helmet
Halland 142 78
Norrbotten 145 80
Skåne 730 401
Stockholm 485 267
Värmland 101 56
Västerbotten 341 187
Västmanland 164 90
Västra Götaland 316 174
Totalt i Sverige 3 329 1 830
http://media.folksam.se/sv/2011/06/27/stort-morker...
Cyklister ligger i topp bland alla trafikanter vad gäller trafikolyckor, med både stora och små skador. Det är ett dyrt problem för samhället, säger en cykelpolis.
Google translate: Cyclists are at the top among all road users regarding traffic accidents, with both large and small injuries. It is an expensive problem for society, says a bicycle police.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/bilar/...
We had the same backlash against seatbelts when they became compulsory, despite the statistics supporting their usefulness. You will always get the naysayers and pedants arguing the very few cases when they don't help rather than considering the vast majority that do.
Even the police have problems engaging with people about safety issues and poor driving, so don't think a member of the public would have better results.
Even the police have problems engaging with people about safety issues and poor driving, so don't think a member of the public would have better results.
SEE YA said:
I think it was never change, you get bad drivers and bad cyclist.
Its same in life with people, many people just do not care anymore?
People can change, we just need something to happen to effect it. Its same in life with people, many people just do not care anymore?
Look at smoking, it was very fashionable once but attitudes have changed.
Engaging with cyclists will not change their attitudes, and will lead to conflict, as shown by the many posts directed to me including the one above.
Even when you can show you did everything right and the cyclist did not they will not admit it. As shown on this thread.
People will just make things up or become abusive and violent rather than admit they were wrong. Sad really but perhaps it is human nature.
You are right, people do not seem to care anymore, there is not the respect there once was in this county.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff