Life as a cycle commuter
Discussion
paranoid airbag said:
singlecoil said:
I daresay it does sound very simple to you. But it isn't going to happen, no government would dare to suggest it. And in any case, does absolutely nothing about the millions of people who already hold licences.
So we're back to "you don't want anything done about it". You can't expect me to believe that you do want something done when you have suggested no ideas of your own and merely shouted down ideas based solely on lack of political will - a will you yourself seem to be lacking.Should everyone interested in having the basic right of being able to cycle safely just up and move? Are we really that incapable?
Edited by paranoid airbag on Wednesday 17th July 17:43
As to what are my suggestions? If they were to be limited to practical ones, ones that might have a chance of actually happening, then my first suggestion is that cyclists should stop relying on drivers for their safety, and start taking their own steps to avoid being involved in accidents.
The above breaks down into quite a large number of small steps, I won't point them all out, but will mention the use of helmets, hi-vis clothing, lights, mirrors and avoiding confrontations and earphones as good starting points.
singlecoil said:
I haven't said I don't want anything done about it, nor have I shouted down your rather impractical suggestion, I've merely pointed out that it isn't going to happen. There's no point in picking on me, I'm not your enemy in this.
As to what are my suggestions? If they were to be limited to practical ones, ones that might have a chance of actually happening, then my first suggestion is that cyclists should stop relying on drivers for their safety, and start taking their own steps to avoid being involved in accidents.
The above breaks down into quite a large number of small steps, I won't point them all out, but will mention the use of helmets, hi-vis clothing, lights, mirrors and avoiding confrontations and earphones as good starting points.
The problem I asked to be solved was "how could any cyclist acting within the law and not taking risks superfluous to their journey be given a reasonable expectation of safety?". "Superfluous" here means "the only reason to do so is fun".As to what are my suggestions? If they were to be limited to practical ones, ones that might have a chance of actually happening, then my first suggestion is that cyclists should stop relying on drivers for their safety, and start taking their own steps to avoid being involved in accidents.
The above breaks down into quite a large number of small steps, I won't point them all out, but will mention the use of helmets, hi-vis clothing, lights, mirrors and avoiding confrontations and earphones as good starting points.
If your answer involves demanding cyclists take precautions above those demanded by law, then it does not cover the scope of the question I asked, since you cannot expect all cyclists acting within the law to take precautions not expected of them by law. So no, you have suggested nothing. If a cyclist acting within the law and no more cannot expect safety our road system has failed somewhere. And furthermore, begs the question: what is the point of expecting someone to obey the law if they cannot reasonably expect their basic rights to be protected in return?
It is worth noting that there is no country with a significantly better fatalities/mile cycled record than us AND a high rate of PPE use (see Australia: post helmet laws, a large reduction in cyclists, large increase in rates of helmet use, still regarded as one of the most hostile places in the world to cycle), but there are countries with a better record and low rates of PPE use. So not only is your suggestion unreasonable, it flat out contradicts studies of what actually works.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Wednesday 17th July 18:26
paranoid airbag said:
singlecoil said:
I haven't said I don't want anything done about it, nor have I shouted down your rather impractical suggestion, I've merely pointed out that it isn't going to happen. There's no point in picking on me, I'm not your enemy in this.
As to what are my suggestions? If they were to be limited to practical ones, ones that might have a chance of actually happening, then my first suggestion is that cyclists should stop relying on drivers for their safety, and start taking their own steps to avoid being involved in accidents.
The above breaks down into quite a large number of small steps, I won't point them all out, but will mention the use of helmets, hi-vis clothing, lights, mirrors and avoiding confrontations and earphones as good starting points.
The problem I asked to be solved was "how could any cyclist acting within the law and not taking risks superfluous to their journey be given a reasonable expectation of safety?". "Superfluous" here means "the only reason to do so is fun".As to what are my suggestions? If they were to be limited to practical ones, ones that might have a chance of actually happening, then my first suggestion is that cyclists should stop relying on drivers for their safety, and start taking their own steps to avoid being involved in accidents.
The above breaks down into quite a large number of small steps, I won't point them all out, but will mention the use of helmets, hi-vis clothing, lights, mirrors and avoiding confrontations and earphones as good starting points.
If your answer involves demanding cyclists take precautions above those demanded by law, then it does not cover the scope of the question I asked, since you cannot expect all cyclists acting within the law to take precautions not expected of them by law. So no, you have suggested nothing. If a cyclist acting within the law and no more cannot expect safety our road system has failed somewhere. And furthermore, begs the question: what is the point of expecting someone to obey the law if they cannot reasonably expect their basic rights to be protected in return?
It is worth noting that there is no country with a significantly better fatalities/mile cycled record than us AND a high rate of PPE use (see Australia: post helmet laws, a large reduction in cyclists, large increase in rates of helmet use, still regarded as one of the most hostile places in the world to cycle), but there are countries with a better record and low rates of PPE use. So not only is your suggestion unreasonable, it flat out contradicts studies of what actually works.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Wednesday 17th July 18:26
Video here of a guy who swaps his car for a bike for a week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXAUHJwRcg4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXAUHJwRcg4
singlecoil said:
I don't believe we are talking about quite the same thing. Please continue on your own.
So you are quite happy that those cycling within the law can only be given an expectation of safety by taking extra precautions - in other words, cannot be given a reasonable expectation that their basic rights are being upheld by following the law alone. Despite governments that show that this is far from an inevitable state of affairs.If you are not happy, show it: suggest a policy you would support that gives protection to all those cycling within the law, bearing in mind that countries that have used the law to shift a greater burden of responsibility onto the cyclist have not seen any credible improvement as a result.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Wednesday 17th July 19:46
paranoid airbag said:
singlecoil said:
I don't believe we are talking about quite the same thing. Please continue on your own.
So you are quite happy that those cycling within the law can only be given an expectation of safety by taking extra precautions - in other words, cannot be given a reasonable expectation that their basic rights are being upheld by following the law alone. Despite governments that show that this is far from an inevitable state of affairs.If you are not happy, show it: suggest a policy you would support that gives protection to all those cycling within the law, bearing in mind that countries that have used the law to shift a greater burden of responsibility onto the cyclist have not seen any credible improvement as a result.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Wednesday 17th July 19:46
That's the last words I have to say to you on this subject, find someone else to argue with.
singlecoil said:
Of course their rights are upheld by the law, but only after they have been run over. The law can't stop accidents from happening.
That's the last words I have to say to you on this subject, find someone else to argue with.
That seems sensible; you very obviously cannot understand what "a right to reasonably expect safety" means if you think it can in any meaningful sense be upheld after being run over. Regardless of whether the person who infringed that right is prevented from doing so to others, you have already been failed.That's the last words I have to say to you on this subject, find someone else to argue with.
And I'm not sure you quite understand what "road law" is for if you don't think it can stop (well, reduce) accidents. Accidents are often due to negligence, which is why negligent driving is an offence - so that it can be caught and the offender suitably deterred before someone is hurt. Unfortunately the police don't seem interested in this any more.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Wednesday 17th July 22:14
Todays leisure ride (its Sunday if this post gets buried)
I leave the house at 7AM under cover of darkness and ride into the country for 3h without incident
On returning to town the following happen within minutes:
a) a taxi pulls a u-turn in front of me after dropping a fare
b) an OAP pulls out from her parking space at church into my path whilst Im travelling at 20mph without seeing me (or actually looking)
c) a 20-something year old woman edges from a side road directly into my right of way
What scares me is that whilst I anticipated all of the above somebody with less road craft may easily have had a serious accident
I love cycling and so do my kids
For the above 3 reasons, and many more, I wont let them ride on the road yet
Lucas Ayde said:
I've seen people hit by bicycles (not always the cyclists fault of course) which could incur legal and additional medical care fees and in Switzerland it also contributes towards the medical costs of riders involved in accidents. Remember - you can cause an accident on a bicycle that results in motor vehicles crashing too.
Admin costs are rolled up into the cost of the Vignette. In the case of Switzerland there is little additional admin as you just buy the sticker - you don't have to register into a database or anything. Policing the sticker is just part of the day to day job of the police - generally only if a cyclist or parked bike draws their attention.
Apart from all that, it might serve to remind some cyclists that they actually have a responsibility to adhere to road rules and regulations like motorised traffic has to do. As it stands, the fact that bikes are exempt from tax and insurance seems to contribute for some riders towards a sense of being separate from the responsibilities of road users in general.
Good wouldn't bother paying it then, result Admin costs are rolled up into the cost of the Vignette. In the case of Switzerland there is little additional admin as you just buy the sticker - you don't have to register into a database or anything. Policing the sticker is just part of the day to day job of the police - generally only if a cyclist or parked bike draws their attention.
Apart from all that, it might serve to remind some cyclists that they actually have a responsibility to adhere to road rules and regulations like motorised traffic has to do. As it stands, the fact that bikes are exempt from tax and insurance seems to contribute for some riders towards a sense of being separate from the responsibilities of road users in general.
J4CKO said:
I would say I am more law abiding on the bike than in the car, I don't speed on the bike and I absolutely have never come out of a
junction sideways when on a bike.
I've actually done both. To say I was surprised when I spun the rear wheel up for the first time is a bit of an understatement! junction sideways when on a bike.
J4CKO said:
Which laws ?
It is basically going through red lights isnt it, there arent that many transgressions of traffic law you can
do on a bike.
Red lights.It is basically going through red lights isnt it, there arent that many transgressions of traffic law you can
do on a bike.
One way streets.
No lights.
On the pavement.
Not stopping at crossings.
I am not saying motorists don't do any of the above.
But, and theres always a but, 100 cars on the road and 100 bikes on the road, the majority of the bikes will break the law, ime.
rambo19 said:
J4CKO said:
Which laws ?
It is basically going through red lights isnt it, there arent that many transgressions of traffic law you can
do on a bike.
Red lights.It is basically going through red lights isnt it, there arent that many transgressions of traffic law you can
do on a bike.
One way streets.
No lights.
On the pavement.
Not stopping at crossings.
I am not saying motorists don't do any of the above.
But, and theres always a but, 100 cars on the road and 100 bikes on the road, the majority of the bikes will break the law, ime.
rambo19 said:
Red lights.
One way streets.
No lights.
On the pavement.
Not stopping at crossings.
I am not saying motorists don't do any of the above.
But, and theres always a but, 100 cars on the road and 100 bikes on the road, the majority of the bikes will break the law, ime.
I don't know how you can seperate one road user from another with that list. On my every single commute in my car I see cars doing almost all of that. The sheer numbers of cars driven and parked on pavements here in brum is incredible, and then factor in speeding (including me) as well, and there's barely a legal car on the roads or pavements.One way streets.
No lights.
On the pavement.
Not stopping at crossings.
I am not saying motorists don't do any of the above.
But, and theres always a but, 100 cars on the road and 100 bikes on the road, the majority of the bikes will break the law, ime.
It continues to astonish me that car drivers somehow think they are less likely to break lawas thsn others, and also that all 20 million+ drivers bringing the roads to a halt think that someone else is causing the congestion.
rambo19 said:
J4CKO said:
Which laws ?
It is basically going through red lights isnt it, there arent that many transgressions of traffic law you can
do on a bike.
Red lights.It is basically going through red lights isnt it, there arent that many transgressions of traffic law you can
do on a bike.
One way streets.
No lights.
On the pavement.
Not stopping at crossings.
I am not saying motorists don't do any of the above.
But, and theres always a but, 100 cars on the road and 100 bikes on the road, the majority of the bikes will break the law, ime.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff