A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[Morgrim]

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/councillor-attacks-23m-birmingham-bikes-7754949

Birmingham counciller says that cycle lanes are discriminatory because "only white young men" cycle and “women of any ethnic group who wish to wear modest clothing, and I count myself in that category, are not going to cycle. It is a discriminatory form of transport”.

So basically she's saying that you cannot act modestly while on a bike, which is enraging and discriminatory and looks like she's trying to find justification to villify cyclists AND people she believes are dressing 'inappropriately'.

[Wolfshade]

She is the representative for a consituency near me.

Because something has barriers to people's entry it must be descriminatory and spending time/effort/monies to combat it must be bad.

It does amuse me to see you quoting my local newspaper being ont he otherside of the world.

[Denzark]

Her argument that this disproportionately affects one demographic is probably correct. But in terms of it being 'the evil discrimination' I am not convinced this is so - there are no bars to those groups she mentioned cycling - even the modest clothing thing is bollocks because I'm convinced Victorian ladies cycled and their clothing is far more modest than today's.

It is an example of people erroneously hijacking the concept of discrimination to add weight to their argument.

[Wolfshade]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7262/7458872484_465e487b65_z.jpg

[Wolfshade]

A man in Bradford has to what I think is a landmark case, won a victory vs Bradford City Council.

Mr Armstrong (no, not that one) was riding in Bradford, hit a rut/pothole came off his bike shattered his pelvis, had a collapsed lung, broke his back, three ribs and his collarbone.

He later learned that the hazard had been reported to Bradford Metropolitan District Council 12 months before his crash on September 7, 2013, by another rider, via the CTC’s “Fill that Hole” system that notifies councils of potholes.

In the report that rider noted: “This is potentially lethal and needs very urgent attention”.

The council admitted liability for failure to repair the damaged surface. And huzzah the pothole is filled!

- - - Updated - - -

Signs like this irk me:
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/preview_500/images/News/Roadworks%20sign%20-%20cycists%20dismount.JPG

Why at this point are cyclists forced to dismount? Well, certainly I am not the only one to think so. Indeed a London cyclist e-mailed Westminster Council to complain about the sign as it implies that cyclists do not have a right to ride on the road. Then, if they were hit in the narrow section the hitter would point to the sign and say "it's your own fault you shouldn't have been there".

As it happens these signs are not recommended by the Department for Transport either and within 48 hours he had a reply

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/preview_500/images/News/Roadworks%20sign%20-%20narrow%20lanes.JPG

- - - Updated - - -

You may remember me being annoyed at the TfL stickers (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?35731-A-Crash-Course-in-Cycling-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-cyclist)&p=427328&viewfull=1#post427328)that seemed to have migrated to the rest of the uk

Well, here is mkII
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/preview_500/images/News/Lorry_BlindSpot_TakeCare_.png

- - - Updated - - -

And finally,

A study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457514002528) funded by the national cyclists’ charity, CTC, suggests that the absence of central road markings and a speed limit of 20 miles an hour cause motorists to take more care when overtaking cyclists. However, the presence of a bike lane was found to make no difference, which CTC says reinforces the need for segregated space for bike riders.

They found that where there was no centre line on the road, motorists gave cyclists more space when overtaking them, and suggested that where one is present, it gives drivers a “visual clue” of where they should “drive up to.”

They added that the absence of a centre line, on the other hand, “may cause the driver to consider his or her road position and speed more carefully.” A lower speed limit of 20mph also resulted in a reduced speed when overtaking.

All of which is quite strange given that CTC is quite vocal for cycle lanes, which this report doesn't support

[Denzark]

Narrow lane do not pass cyclists? Great so we inconvenience the motorist to give convenience to the cyclist. Instead of driving at 30mph I will sit at 13.5mph behind the sweating gurning lycra clad individual.

[Psychosplodge]

I will never support a 20mph limit.

[Wolfshade]

Narrow lane do not pass cyclists? Great so we inconvenience the motorist to give convenience to the cyclist. Instead of driving at 30mph I will sit at 13.5mph behind the sweating gurning lycra clad individual.

The point is that it should be only through roadworks which you would be expected to drive more slowly through anyway, because the lanes are narrower. The bigger issue is that there was an illegal expectation that the cyclist should dismount and how that passes onto the other road users, like you suggest that you have some kind of "right" to do the speed limit, which really isn't the case, you only have the duty not to exceed it. In the same way if I were driving a milkfloat at 10mph you would have no possibility of overtaking me.


I will never support a 20mph limit.

If it gets cars from residential streets and onto main roads, then why not?

[Psychosplodge]

Because it'd be used inappropriately like every other anti car measure the council use.

[Path Walker]

Inappropriatly for who?

[Psychosplodge]

The majority of road users of course.

[Wolfshade]

The majority of road users of course.

Ah pedestrians!

[Psychosplodge]

Aren't they on the pavement?

[Wolfshade]

They count as road users and are invariably higher by number.

[Psychosplodge]

:p

[Denzark]

The point is that it should be only through roadworks which you would be expected to drive more slowly through anyway, because the lanes are narrower. The bigger issue is that there was an illegal expectation that the cyclist should dismount and how that passes onto the other road users, like you suggest that you have some kind of "right" to do the speed limit, which really isn't the case, you only have the duty not to exceed it. In the same way if I were driving a milkfloat at 10mph you would have no possibility of overtaking me.

I would find that equally as selfish although milk is at least useful. It might not be a 'right' to drive to the speed limit. You would probably consider it pretty crap as a cyclist if I chose to stay 30 cm from the kerb and you couldn't undertake me - but I'd be within the suggested limits of my duty to obey all road signs. The thing is that if I go to work by my choice of transport, my doing the top legal speed does not hold anyone up. Whereas a cyclist very rarely cycles at the top legal speed for any length of time. So of 2 peoples individual choices, 1 impacts selfishly on others and one doesn't.






They count as road users and are invariably higher by number.

Ha by that argument a pig having escaped from a farmer's field is also a road user, as is a poxy muntjack dear bounding out of thetford forest and smashing up cars. I think seeing how silly that is we can call road users as people who purposely transit via roads and whilst pedestrian's may do this accidently from time to time, they are not road users.

That is the exact inverse of calling me a pedestrian if I lose control and mount the pavement.

Pshaw.

[Wolfshade]

Ok, firstly cyclists very rarely travel at the legal speed, because, like horses, there is no top legal speed. So that is bunkem.

Also, cyclists don't undertake, they filter, this is legally enshrined in UK law, also, if you were going slowly enough for me to pass and there was not sufficient room on the one side, I would pick the other. I've done it before and will do again.

Of course you should obey all the rules of the road, as cyclists should. Unless you suggest cyclists are all law breakers, which if you are, then I suggest you observe that more cars on the road without tax, insurance, valid MOT, or being driven by those without a licence than there are commuters

Secondly, how by cycling am I selfishly impacting on others?
+ Is my method costing more money than it raises, causing unfair taxation of those who choose not to use it?
+ Does my method contribute to air pollution that impacts millions?
+ Does my method contribute to general obesity and massive costs to the NHS for obsce related illnesses?
+ Does my method contribute to global warming and climate change?


You seem completely persuaded that you have some right to do the speed limit. If I drove my car at 20mph you would be held up. As it is when I travel to work I do not hold anyone up, and even if I did, that isn't illegal or shelfish.

Non-humans do not count as road users. Pedestrians generally, walk in the direction that the road goes and flow and ebb just as traffic do. Indeed, it is quite often traffic engineers forget totally that pedestrians exist and the ease of pedestrians movement is vitally important. Getting people walking or cycling would massively decrease the amount of cars on the road which will massively decrease:
+ Congestion
+ Cost of road maintenance
+ Pollution
+ Obesity costs

Let us have a look at some figures from the NTS:
+18% car journeys are under 1 mile
+67% car journeys are under 5 miles

Heck, imagine what would if one in five cars weren't on the roads. I imagine the next traffic queue is 20% shorter.

You know that whole issue is that during road works cyclists were being told to dismount when there is no legal justification for doing so and the signage once again reinforces the notion that they are some kind of second class road user. If there isn't room to over take someone, don't do it. The white line is not some force field that you must keep within when overtaking a bike.

[Denzark]

They are second class road users.

[Mr Mystery]

The 20% thing can be observed during School Holidays.

And for an extreme example, weekends. I worked yesterday, and drove in (have free parking in Nodnol, which is nice!). Need to be in by 8:30, so left at 7:00, as thats the same sort of time the coach takes during the week.

Yeah, I was in the office by 7:54.....

[Wolfshade]

They are second class road users.

No, and this is the problem, it is people who believe this are the sorts of people that kill cyclists.

[Denzark]

No, and this is the problem, it is people who believe this are the sorts of people that kill cyclists.

I have a 100% record in not killing cyclists.

[Wolfshade]

Unfortunately not everyone who consider them to be 2nd class citizens do.

The fact of the matter is that 2 wheels or 4 every one is equal,

[Wolfshade]

A brilliant example for you, happened this morning.

So I am cycling down a residential road, there is sufficient room for two cars to pass each other in opposite directions under normal circumstances. However there are all cars parked on the opposite side of the road to that which I am on, so already passing them a car pulls out from behind them and drives straight at me. I obviously have no where to go, so as he squeezes passes me calls me a "dickhead".

But he thinks that he has a right of way over me because I am a "second class road users", whereas, he should have waited for me.



163.
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should:
...
+ give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road

...


Fortunately, the whole incident is captured in glorious HD so when I talk to the coppers I can show them what happened.

[Psychosplodge]

*cough* youtube *cough*

[Wolfshade]

Maybe.

[Denzark]

If you want the footage to be evidence of alleged criminality, not youtube...

[Wolfshade]

I would rather take it to the authorities tehn let mob justice prevail. Maybe because that is fairest.

[Wildeybeast]

Are the coppers likely to do anything with it? Given that recent reports seem to indicate they are asking the public to solve their own burglaries, are they likely to give a stuff about minor road traffic offences?

[Wolfshade]

It varies widely force from force from what I understand.

There are some that would speak with the driver and others that would "take a note of it" in case of further complaints and others would go as far as issuing points (depending on the nature of the issue)

That being said, if you do not try, then you cannot really complain about it.

Yes, I completely, accept that it was a minor issue, however, the next time it might not be minor that same attitude might lead him to driving head long at a less experianced cyclist or in a narrower gap where they have no space to go.

I follow the rules of the road, I expect everyone else to. Despite knowing that there are loads of people that don't, regardless of what mode they use.

[Wildeybeast]

I wasn't trying to trivialise it by saying it is a minor issue, just that the police would probably view it as such. I quite agree that bad drivers need picking up before they do something much worse. You are right to purse it, just seems sad that it probably won't result in anything.

[Wolfshade]

Oh no, don't worry I get that. In the grand scheme of things "nothing happened" so should be a low priority. And to be honest my expectiation is that nothing will happen.

It is like when I complain to a certain bus company, nothing seems to happen, or at least given the size of their fleet it does not appear that way.

[Denzark]

I wasn't trying to trivialise it by saying it is a minor issue, just that the police would probably view it as such. I quite agree that bad drivers need picking up before they do something much worse. You are right to purse it, just seems sad that it probably won't result in anything.

Coppers need to have their feet held to the fire. Insist it is recorded as a criminal complaint, insists it is dealt with. It helps if you know which particular offence you think was committed - driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving, using language that causes harassment, alarm and distress (dickhead). Then, if they refuse to give you a crime number and take it seriously, take it to the IPCC. Because everything is stats based, they don't want a crime stat, but they even less want a complaint stat.

[Wolfshade]

Research from King's shows that an estimated 28,416 deaths in GB are attributed to particulate air pollution (2010) (largely diesel exhaust) including 3,389 in London.

To put that into context there were 1,713 road deaths in GB during the 2013.

Pollution kills more than crashes.

But it gets worse. Pollution isn't highest on the pavement where the monitoring kit is, it isn't on the side/middle of the road where the bicycles are. It is in the vehicle itself.

That is while walking around London there was around 6-7 million particles per breath inhaled, while inside a vehicle it rose to 50 million.

Last year 10 cities had days where the pollution levels exceeded EU safety limits.

[Psychosplodge]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8342760704/h276F2071/

[Wolfshade]

I saw that, he was demonstrating the amount of space saved by cycling than with car driving.

[Psychosplodge]

Ah, so it's not the way to keep a safe space?

[Wolfshade]

No, though if it were it is a little churlish.

I have spent the last week cycling in and out of the city centre in rush hour, I have deduced that in the time it takes me to drive a mile, I can be home on my bike. I cannot fathom why anyone would drive into/out of a city centre during these times.

I enjoy filtering passed row upon row of parked cars.

[Wildeybeast]

So they don't get run over? Because they don't have showers at their work?

[Wolfshade]

The shower thing is a good point, but then how many of the work places have parking yet people find a different place to park. Though this is a cultural thing and if I am totally honest if I didn't have teh ability to shower I wouldn't cycle.

Not getting run over, in pure accident numbers 8x the number of driver fatalities than cyclists....

It is a chicken and egg situation, if they don't have cycling facilities then you won't get cyclists. If you don't have cyclists then there is no point in spending money on facilties and I can not see a way around that problem.

Certainly in terms of absenteeism, increased productivity etc medium to large companies would recoup the costs of the facilities within a year . For small firms the cost is more problematic.

[Wolfshade]

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_900_nocrop/images/News/British%20Cycling%20Infographic%20October%202014.j pg

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/campaigning/BENEFITS_OF_INVESTING_IN_CYCLING_DIGI_FINAL.pdf

[Denzark]

This is what I saw on the way to work this morning. This was northwest up the A17, a sh*t road at the best of times, between 0539 and 0659 when I arrived.

Cyclist 1. No rear light, dark clothing, on main road.

Cyclist 2. Flashy red rear light, dark clothing, glaring halogen/LED light on front. Proper dazzling.

Cyclist 3. Back road, dark clothes, luminous helmet. No rear light, massive glaring LED light on front again.

Cyclist 4. On pavement in village. Dark clothes, no lights, helmet.


Of particular concern to me in my current hairdressers car is the glaring LED lights. Properly offputting in your rear view mirror (I am quite low down), and just as bad to the front. Idiots on pavements, par for the course of the lycra entitled clan. No rear lights, asking to become pavement jam.

I noticed in the press the other day that there is to be a clamp down on mobility scooters because some of them pass the threshold for when they should be licensed as a vehicle.

It occurs to me that until cyclists have some form of road mandatory standards that they are held to and enforced, they will not be taken seriously by other road users - particularly where they are quick to berate the government for cycle friendly roads and other considerations, but oh-so-slow to make their own cycling world act as responsible, sensible and considerate road users.

My car lights have to be set to a certain standard so as not to dazzle anyone, but bike lights don't?

Pshaw.

[Wolfshade]

One week after a “continental geometry roundabout” designed to protect cyclists opened in Cambridge, a 12-year-old boy was injured last Wednesday evening when he was knocked off his bike there in a hit-and-run incident.

Despite claiming to be "dutch" the roundabout fails to have a single dedicated cycle lane, or indeed look anything like a mixed modal roundabout used in holland. Local users have expressed dismay as the layout is confusing for pedestrians and cyclists, who are now forced to share the same peice of tarmac, and the width reduction on the roadabout restricts the flow rate of motorised vehicles around it.

[Psychosplodge]

I agree with the lights issue. They seem to be non existent or over bright

[Wolfshade]

I noticed in the press the other day that there is to be a clamp down on mobility scooters because some of them pass the threshold for when they should be licensed as a vehicle.

It occurs to me that until cyclists have some form of road mandatory standards that they are held to and enforced, they will not be taken seriously by other road users - particularly where they are quick to berate the government for cycle friendly roads and other considerations, but oh-so-slow to make their own cycling world act as responsible, sensible and considerate road users.

My car lights have to be set to a certain standard so as not to dazzle anyone, but bike lights don't?

Pshaw.

Mobility scooters are treated as vehicles above a certain speed, I forget which, at which point they may not use pavements.
Similiarly, electric bikes, are legal, up to 12mph, above that they count as a motorcycle and fail the road worthy tests for motorbikes/scooters.

In terms of lights there are legal requirements.

Firstly, anyone cycling in the hours of darkness [Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise).] They require as a minimum:

Front Lamp

One is required, showing a white light, positioned centrally or offside, up to 1500mm from the ground, aligned towards and visible from the front. If capable of emitting a steady light, it must be marked as conforming to BS6102/3 or an equivalent EC standard.

If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.

Rear Lamp

One is required, to show a red light, positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind. If capable of emitting a steady light it must be marked as conforming to BS3648, or BS6102/3, or an equivalent EC standard.

If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.

Rear Reflector

One is required, coloured red, marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned centrally or offside, between 250mm and 900mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind.

Pedal Reflectors

Four are required, coloured amber and marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of each pedal.

So there we have it. Now the front lamp requirements change given the age of the bike. Also, strangely, there is no requirements for lights in poor visibility, unlike cars etc.

The law only defines a legal minimum standard, so unfortunately you can have anything as long as it is red on the back and white on the front.

You can have flashes as long as they are between 1 and 4 Hz, quicker or slower is prohibited.

Indeed, it is one of the most common cause of being pulled over on a bike, though police schemes that I have seen is that you get a fine, and if you prove you have brought lights within a week (reciept) then you get it commuted.

Lights are a particular concern, too bright and it dazzles, like motorbikes on high beam, too dim and you can be seen (or see).

But the issue of lights are not just a uniquely bicycle issue, the number of cars with mis-aligned headlights, or bulbs that are broken. Then even if they are working the jerks who don't drop the high beam when coming in the opposite direction.

[Denzark]

Wow I never knew that. Now we need decent enforcement - on cars as well. This links to the earlier incident you described above when I said the Police who must be held to account.

[Mr Mystery]

But the issue of lights are not just a uniquely bicycle issue, the number of cars with mis-aligned headlights, or bulbs that are broken. Then even if they are working the jerks who don't drop the high beam when coming in the opposite direction.

And don't forget the thoughtful individuals pulling up on the right hand side of the road, who then leave their lights. Because that doesn't dazzle anyone

[Wolfshade]

I think the issues that gripe people about cyclists are issues that aren't just cyclist related, they occur across a wide spectra of motorists. It isn't the mode of transport that makes the idiot.

- - - Updated - - -

I still can't understand why people would cycle at night without lights. Pedal reflectors, on the other hand...

[Wolfshade]

Chief Superintendent Colin Kennedy said police would take a zero-tolerance approach to those driving or riding through red lights.

"We are not anti-cycling or anti-motorist,” he explained. “However, safety must always come first.

"Officers will have discretion in assessing pavement* cycling but there will be zero tolerance of anyone, including motorists, who chooses to ignore a red light.

“An offence will result in a £100 fine and three points on a driving licence or a £50 fine for cyclists," he added.

*Pavement cycling is not a clear cut black and white offence as some like to portray,

[Morgrim]

There are calls here for new laws stating cars must leave at least 1m clearance when overtaking cyclists, after several have been killed in hit and run accidents. Unsurprisingly there are a lot of motorists vehemently protesting the idea of having to share roads with bikes and saying it must be the cyclists at fault. Because according to them a cyclist with decades of experience who has represented his country internationally is more likely to have caused the car to run him over than the bad driving from the motorist.

[Wolfshade]

Well there is also the case of the NYC woman who drives over a cyclist making them a paralysed for life is now suing the cyclist for damage to her bike.

[Wolfshade]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29796039

A stretch of glow-in-the-dark road markings has been installed in the Netherlands after being proposed as one of several "smart highway" features that could be put to wide use.

Route 66 of the Future uses special green paint, charged by daylight.

It is designed to be clearer than existing cat's eye reflective spheres.

Its creators are also due to test glow-in-the-dark cycle lanes, which they said had already attracted the interest of UK planners.

"The glowing lines are a little ... Daft Punk look-alike but they are to do with safety," said artist Daan Roosegaarde, one of the road markings' designers.

[Wolfshade]

Going back to the topic of lights.

Oxford’s latest annual blitz on people riding bikes without lights has resulted in nearly 100 more riders being fined than was the case 12 months ago. In all, 267 cyclists given £50 fixed penalty notices in the space of three hours on Monday evening – a rate of one every 40 seconds or so.
The operation took place on the High Street and on Abingdon Road, reports The Oxford Times, and riders can avoid having to pay the fine if they produce a receipt to police within seven days showing that they have purchased a set of lights for their bike after being fined.

Blimey!

I must say that I am quite in favour of this, after all it is a legal requirement and it might just save their life. I do not understand why anyone would cycle without a light in the dark.

[Wolfshade]

New figures from the Metropolitan Police show that 896 cyclists were victims of hit-and-run collisions in London last year.
The total number of people injured in hit-and-run collisions went up in 2013, the fourth consecutive year of increases since 2009. While fatalities and serious injuries declined in line with the general decline in London KSIs last year, road danger reduction campaigners have cautioned it's too early to tell if that reduction is the beginning of a downturn or just a blip.
Pedestrian hit-and-runs have also increased, with 1,043 people on foot falling victim to what Green Party member of the London Assembly Jenny Jones describes as London's "lawless roads".
Jones pointed out that hit-and-run collisions are linked to other driving offences such as drunk driving, speeding, being disqualified or simply having no insurance.
Almost a fifth of collisions leading to injuries in London now involve a driver leaving the scene. The proportion has risen every year since 2009, when it was 13 percent.

[Psychosplodge]

Nearly got my first cyclist last night. Dickhead possibly came through a red light against a right turn filter in the dark with no lights on. Or shot the amber, but the lack of lights meant I only saw him at last minute either way.

[Wolfshade]

I don't understand the light issue. fr £5 you can get a cheap and cheerful light pack that would enable you to be seen. But then having said that look about and see those fools driving around without lights on cars.

So, I have been considering my first month cycling into and out of the city centre I have made certain observations.

1. I am using the shared footpath much more than I thought I would.
2. Where the shared footpath stops at a mjaor road junction, these are wholly poor design. The only way to safely join is wait for a red light then pop into the cycle box.
3. Surface of the pavement is crap to cycle on, its all undulating in a way that would be intolerable to motorists
4. Street furniture is placed without consideration to where dedicated on pavement cycle facilites are situated. The worst are where pedestrian crossings dump pedestrains into the cycle lane. Does the pedestrian cross the lane forcing the cyclist to avoid or does the pedestrian wait in the road forcing the motorise to avoid.
5. The amount of free parking for cycles is very good.
6. Vehciles blocking box junctions seems to be a far bigger issue than red light jumping.
7. Motorbikes think they are pedal cycles.

[Wolfshade]

Also in the news a couply from Aunty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590 Cycling Myths v Realtiy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29853789 Chris Boardman: Cycling in the city (which prompted outrage as he woukld die without his helmet, which prompted:


http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20141103-campaigning-news-Boardman--Why-I-didn-t-wear-a-helmet-on-BBC-Breakfast-0 Boardman: Why I didn't wear a helmet on TV as it is ineffective and largely irrelevant in the safety argument.

[Wolfshade]

Gareth Johnson, the Conservative MP for Dartford, has called for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to more frequently consider charging with manslaughter rather than death by dangerous driving. He argues that this would allow life sentences to be handed out, rather than a maximum of 14 years.


CTC, the national cycling charity, have been one of the groups campaigning for a sentencing review. Roger Geffen, Campaigns and Policy Director, said:
“Driving is unique among day-to-day activities, in that a momentary lapse of attention can lead to another person being killed or maimed. CTC’s Road Justice campaign believes the legal system needs to reinforce the responsibilities of drivers for the safety of other road users – particularly pedestrians and cyclists – while recognising that jurors will sometimes be reluctant to convict drivers for crimes they know they could easily have committed themselves.
“The courts need to be much more willing to use long driving bans as a sentencing option, with long custodial sentences being reserved for really serious cases – like that of Alexander Farrar Walter – where there is a significant risk of the driver reoffending. This approach ensures public protection, as well as providing a strong deterrent to prevent bad driving occurring in the first place.”

[Wolfshade]

Following Oxford's light clamp down, the number of cyclists without lights has dropped by 40%

Utah have devloped traffic light singals that sense cyclists:
Matt Luker from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) said that modern bikes were rarely picked up by the old system.
"The old detection system we had relied on detecting metal. Bikes don't have a lot of metal these days so a cyclist can pull up to an intersection and never get a green light. They'd either have to get off and push a button or they would have to wait until a car pulled up to get a green light."

Boardman: 'Get your kids on bikes now or they will die younger than you are'

Boardman said: “For the first time there is now a danger that the next generation’s lifespan will be shorter than ours. Obesity in children is a ticking timebomb across Britain and until we start prioritising cycling as a form of transport and building exercise into young people’s daily lives this problem will only get worse.
“Cycling is a vital life skill that all children should have and is something that children carry with them throughout their adult lives. Bikeability training shouldn’t just be the preserve of children whose schools or local authorities happen to promote cycling - it should be for everyone.
"We’ve taught thousands of young people how to ride bikes but there are still millions of children who are missing out on cycling. Our partnership with Modeshift to encourage positive action at local level will strive to turn this situation around. Positive action at a local level, however small, can have a powerful ripple effect if those actions are replicated widely.”

[Wolfshade]

So a newspaper wrote to the Met for a FOI request to understand the amount of revenue generated by "operation safeway", which saw 2,500 police officers at 170 junctions for a six week period.

During that time 14,000 fixed penalty notices or reports for summons to drivers and cyclists in six weeks.

In that period, 4,085 FPNs or reports for summons were handed to cyclists, over 90% for three offences: riding without lights, contravening traffic signals and riding on the pavement.
The most common driver offences were failing to wear a seatbelt, using a phone and contravening traffic signals.

Operation Safeway, after it was extended into 2014 aeem to raise over £1m for the government.

However, the Met concedes that as it was focused on cycle safety they were fined more frequently than drivers as the met had other means to catch drivers.

The whole purpose was to make cyclists safer in the capital, unfortunately, the TfL stats show that this just isn't happening.

[Deadlift]

http://youtu.be/xQ_IQS3VKjA

Breath taking video, amazing scenery.

[Wolfshade]

And still a smoother ride than on most roads ;)

[Wolfshade]

Huzzah! (Kind-of)

As you will know, lorries are invovled in a disproportionate number of collisions (both lorries, cars, pedestrians, bikes etc.) one reason for these professional drivers causing so much carnage is poor lorry design. Often with massive blind spots and fronts that push pedestrains under rather than away when hit etc.

The EU has now moved that lorries with improved visiability/cutrved frontages will be legal from 2019, despite France (home of Renault) and Sweeden (Volvo & Scania) objecting and wanting it to be delay till 2025.

It is not just pedestrains and cyclists that will see a benefit, the rounded frontages will allow the lorries themselves to be more aerodynamic which would reduce fuel consumption and ultimately lead to cheaper transport costs.

[Wolfshade]

Police in New Zealand have fined a man who was riding his bike in the nude – because he wasn’t wearing a cycle helmet

Also:

The speed limit should be 20mph across London according to the transport consultancy firm Steer Davies Gleave (SDG).
I've not heard of SDG before so I have no idea what their political motivations are.

Having carried out research into the impact of 20mph speed limits and zones” for the London Borough of Merton on behalf of the London Environment Directors’ Network (LEDNet), SDG produced a 92 page document that concluded that driver education was as essential as new stricter rules.
It said: “Enforcement is only a partial solution, with changed driver attitudes so that 20mph is seen as the appropriate speed in urban areas being the key to achieving sustained reductions in vehicle speeds.”
Rod King MBE, founder of 20‘s Plenty for Us said: “Transport consultants SDG are clearly in favour of adoption of wide area 20mph limits.
“We know that it’s popular with residents too. Explaining the benefits to drivers is key to lasting cultural change where 20mph makes places better places to be. Local and national politicians can be confident that 20mph is a clear win-win for their residents, communities and the country.
“It’s time for 20 to be the default limit for not only London but all our urban, village and community streets.”
Other findings of the SDG report were that:
The evidence is clear that reducing vehicle speeds results in fewer and less severe collisions, particularly for vulnerable road users
Applying an area-wide approach has the benefit of providing greater consistency for drivers, improving awareness and supporting cultural change
There is already a nucleus of existing 20mph boroughs in central London, and this could be used as a starting point for outwards expansion
20mph limits supported primarily by signage and roadmarkings are more cost
effective; however, a budget should be retained to implement targeted measures where high vehicle speeds persist
Whether borough main roads and TLRN roads are included in 20mph schemes should be decided based on the local context
At least 10% of the implementation budget should be set aside for a package of complementary ‘soft’ measures to foster cultural change.

[Wolfshade]

That's the ticket. Nothing like cross-platform promotion. Shall we go divert some rant about Space Marines with a quick plug?

"Female" spacemarines?

[DarkLink]

Fortunately no. However, it often comes up in various topics of conversations regarding murder by car in cycling groups.

It's actually pretty awesome over here. You'd like how easy it is to bike around in downtown Sac.

[Psychosplodge]

Fortunately no. However, it often comes up in various topics of conversations regarding murder by car in cycling groups.

I'm pretty sure if you actually murdered someone with a car they'd charge you with murder.

[Wolfshade]

I'm pretty sure if you actually murdered someone with a car they'd charge you with murder.

Nope, just death by dangerous driving. Even if it were pre-planned. And DbDD is not as bad as mansalughter. It is a joke, not a very funny one

[Psychosplodge]

I think yuo're probably wrong on that, but I'm unwilling to try and prove it experimentally.

[Wolfshade]

Of the 7 killed on the roads this year, no one has been arrested for murder...

[Psychosplodge]

Because murder involves intent.

[Wolfshade]

No that is true.

But many drivers aren't even prosecuted. Heck you have 1 in 10 chance of going to jail (http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/drivers-have-1-in-10-chance-of-going-to-jail-for-killing-cyclist) for killing a cyclist with a vehicle.

[Psychosplodge]

Is that the stat for when the driver is found at fault/negligent or the stat for all cyclist deaths? Because if its the first it seems low, if its the latter we know in any accident whoever is at fault a cyclist will come off worse.

[Wolfshade]

The newspaper analysed police data on the 40 cyclists killed in the capital between 2010 and 2012 and found that only 4 of the drivers involved had been sent to prison.

More worryingly, only 15 of the cases were even prosecuted, the remaining cases were either discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or there was no charge brought.

[Psychosplodge]

So it's more like a 30% rate then? as the ones never charged were obviously never considered at fault.
The dropped ones were possibly 50/50?

[Wolfshade]

No when you look at it, there are mutliple issues. Like police failing to collect evidence and the CPS deciding not to presecute because reasons. It isn't because there was no fault, after all someone has to be to blame for a hgv driving into a cyclist.

[Psychosplodge]

who's at fault if it was down to the blindspots inherent in current lorry design?

[Wolfshade]

The driver.

[Wolfshade]

Cyclists *can't* undertake.

Regardless of the technicalities, the issue comes that the driver still drives the vehicle into the cyclist. A patially sighted guy wouldn't expect to get mitigation for shooting someone in his blindspot.

But we aren't talking here of every occasion there is a fatalitiy it is because a vehcile is filtering. We are talking about moving in free flow conditions, on bright days. Where mitigations for murder are things like "low sun", where driving at 125% of the speed limit is not seen as a contributory factor.

[Psychosplodge]

That sun can take you by surprise, and it'd be dangerous to slam the anchors on if the car behind can't see...

idk its difficult.

[Wolfshade]

It is difficult I agree, especially when you see people put themselves in dangerous positions, both on the road, or without lights.

Through infrastructure and bullying cyclists are pushed to the left and that makes the squeeze past more inevitable.

[Psychosplodge]

And what's it called? "confirmation bias"? Where you only remember the idiots you encounter?

[Wolfshade]

Yeah something like that. That is a problem, like I am currently convinced that there are hores of mopeds using "bike boxes" but I kniow that it is the same two I keep meeting.

[Wolfshade]

National cycling charity CTC says England’s economy could benefit to the tune of £248 billion over the next three and a half decades if the recommendations of the 2013 Get Britain Cycling report of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) were implemented in full.

[Report here (http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/1501_fcrawford-rlovelace_economic-cycle-reformatted.pdf)]

[Psychosplodge]

https://38.media.tumblr.com/7bacbc6742a097bc53d4ed4446b85722/tumblr_n5sj2zuRap1rc7zl1o1_400.gif
https://38.media.tumblr.com/7a76fe9926fd8e40b9c1489d9c8231d4/tumblr_n5sj2zuRap1rc7zl1o2_400.gif
https://33.media.tumblr.com/afb111e10f16c7e38d2744fd8c1d59da/tumblr_n5sj2zuRap1rc7zl1o3_400.gif
https://31.media.tumblr.com/2ed6afb27d2246fad7298412ea8a9d85/tumblr_n5sj2zuRap1rc7zl1o4_400.gif
https://38.media.tumblr.com/1e73925a6613efa6eba28959152106e3/tumblr_n5sj2zuRap1rc7zl1o5_400.gif
https://33.media.tumblr.com/34ecfd6a5a1ac63e59fa16b189ecec35/tumblr_n5sj2zuRap1rc7zl1o6_400.gif
https://38.media.tumblr.com/5b56f98e2e0bc2fd1ed39adc264f287d/tumblr_n5sj2zuRap1rc7zl1o8_400.gif

[Wolfshade]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgCqz3l33kU

[Kirsten]

excellent

[Wolfshade]

Bike balls

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/preview_500/images/News/Bike%20Balls%20%20-%202.jpg

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bikeballs/bike-balls-bike-light?ref=nav_search


https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/projects/1750279/video-534304-h264_high.mp4

[Psychosplodge]

That's just silly.

[Wolfshade]

I would suggest what I think it was, a visual pun if you will, but language filters prevent it.

Though I am very tempted to get some..

[Denzark]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11620983/Toddler-knocked-by-hit-and-run-cyclist-is-dragged-along-pavement.html

Another responsible cyclist...

[Wildeybeast]

He seems like an utter knob head and shouldn't have been on the pavement. However, I hardly think he can be considered representative of all cyclists.

[Denzark]

They all think its OK to go on the pavement.

[Wolfshade]

They all think its OK to go on the pavement.

Yes they all do. Wait, no they don't, fun fact it is legal to do so under certain circumstances.

If it involved a car, it would have been pointed out that the child ran out without looking either way, but ho-hum.

Though it is interesting that a cyclist knocks one person over not killing them and it makes the news, London buses hit on average 2 people a day yet that doesn't make the news.

It points out the need for dedicated segregated infrastructure.

[Kirsten]

cyclist apartheid? :eek:

[Wildeybeast]

Yes they all do. Wait, no they don't, fun fact it is legal to do so under certain circumstances.

If it involved a car, it would have been pointed out that the child ran out without looking either way, but ho-hum.

Though it is interesting that a cyclist knocks one person over not killing them and it makes the news, London buses hit on average 2 people a day yet that doesn't make the news.

It points out the need for dedicated segregated infrastructure.

I don't think the child running out defence works. When cycling on the pavement, you know full well it is used by a variety of pedestrians, including unpredictable children, not to mention animals. He was clearly travelling too fast.

I agree on your point about the bus thing, though it is probably the rarity of this indecent that made it news. That and the fact the family had a handy security camera; shocking video footage makes something much more reportable.

[Denzark]

Yes they all do. Wait, no they don't, fun fact it is legal to do so under certain circumstances.



Is it? You might have told me this before, do tell me again?

Are you referring to children up to age 10 being allowed to do so?

Or is it the London classic 'Mmm red light at junction, I'll whip onto pavement and back onto road at other side' - aka section 666 of the RTA88?

[Psychosplodge]

I don't think anyone would try and defend a car driver driving in the same manner down the pavement.

[Wolfshade]

I don't think the child running out defence works. When cycling on the pavement, you know full well it is used by a variety of pedestrians, including unpredictable children, not to mention animals. He was clearly travelling too fast.

I agree on your point about the bus thing, though it is probably the rarity of this indecent that made it news. That and the fact the family had a handy security camera; shocking video footage makes something much more reportable.

Its not a good defence at all given that the bloke shouldn't have been there in the first place. But we are working with a justice system that accepts low sun to be a perfectly acceptable mitigating factor after all no one can predict the movement of the sun...

Well this is my issue really, we have become immune to the fact that each year thousands will lose their life by car and we hear nothing.


cyclist apartheid? :eek:

No a car apartheid, since they KDM. ;)


Is it? You might have told me this before, do tell me again?

Are you referring to children up to age 10 being allowed to do so?

Or is it the London classic 'Mmm red light at junction, I'll whip onto pavement and back onto road at other side' - aka section 666 of the RTA88?

No, you obviously weren't listening. Firstly, there is no exception for those under 10, however it might be difficult to charge them as they may not be aware of their actions. Also, pavement has no definition, you must be meaning a footway or footpath. But of course local provision can be made to make them a shared usage path, which are just horrendous.

Footpaths which don't run adjacent to roads are exempt from the legislation so that is ok, unless covered by other local act.

And finally a quote from the Home Office: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

Oh the london classic isn't just a london classic. I do it regularly, you can take the piss further by filtering up to the white give way line, dismount, step over it, remount and ride on. Though it should be noted on those locations where I would do such a legal thing there is a parallel shared cycle path so that I am not committing a crime, and only at pelican/toucan crossings, not junctions.

2 KSIs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/29/cyclist-killed-lorry-collision-london-denmark-hill yet me don't have radio 4 doing a radio show on why lorries kill people...

[Haighus]

They all think its OK to go on the pavement.

I don't, am I one of them?

I very rarely cycle on the pavement, even on the pavements that are designated shared cycle/pedestrian lanes. Very rarely use cycle lanes too tbh, seeing as most of them are pretty dangerous at ~20mph and often deposit you into the traffic at odd points. Roundabout cycle lanes can be particularly idiotic. When I do use a pavement that isn't intended for bikes, I either ride very slowly, usually with one foot loose (I often wear cleats) or dismount and walk.

In general, I find it is safest in urban areas to just pretend I am a slower moving car and ride in the middle of the lane. Had waaay to many near misses with people squeezing overtakes past road furniture or with oncoming traffic to feel like riding on the edge is a good idea in busy, but flowing traffic. I know my general principle when driving is to overtake bikes like they are a car, as bikes are more unpredictable by their nature than a car, but most drivers on the road don't seem to follow this even when the opposite lane is completely clear of traffic, something which baffles me.

Having only just found this thread, will read when I get chance tomorrow :) Looks interesting.

[Alaric]

Good read. I come from a place where cycling is virtually non existent. I don't envy the bs you gotta go thru.

[Psychosplodge]

oops

https://www.facebook.com/edward.barlow.5/videos/10153415728858586/

[Alaric]

Ooooops. Alaric needs to read better.

[Haighus]

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/entertainment/music/2015/05/30/action-bronson-to-be-pulled-from-nxnes-yonge-dundas-square-show.html

Bit of progress.
Good to read :) Although I think you may have put it in the wrong Crash course Alaric :) There are loads of them now though.

[Alaric]

Dammit I just realized it. Too many "crash course threads" moving now

[Wolfshade]

This one is the important one ;)

[Psychosplodge]

Bloody potholes

http://i.imgur.com/WHVLbll.gif

[Kirsten]

14556

[Alaric]

14556

Thanks for that. Needed a good laugh to start the day.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes the drivers a dickhead, but is this the appropriate reaction (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11680712/Cyclist-confronts-woman-eating-bowl-of-cereal-while-driving.html)? Would he necessarily have dared do it to white van man?

I suggest he should have just recorded the reg, the ofence and forwarded the data to the appropriate authorities if he felt that strongly about it.

[Denzark]

What the way the cyclist veers across the road, cutting through the traffic in the opposite lane? totally legit.

[Psychosplodge]

That combined with borderline roadrage behaviour in confronting someone in an aggressive manner.

[Alaric]

http://m.torontosun.com/2015/06/19/toronto-cyclists-stage-die-in

Figured you would like to see this. I put it in the proper thread this tine Houghten ;)

[Wolfshade]

I would never confront someone, you never know what they might be on...

Or just beat you up for wearing Hi-Viz... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-visibility-safe-fluorescent

But let's honest someone driving a several tonne vehicle can kill through in attention.

Or try and garot you, stringing a wire across a cycle path.

But that is ok, after all cycling is really bad isn't it.

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/15/1413390458004/831c8d04-a03d-4725-9fdf-619be196c527-508x720.png

[Psychosplodge]

But let's honest someone driving a several tonne vehicle can kill through in attention.

Or try and garot you, stringing a wire across a cycle path.


I never denied that.

I reserve the feeling of wanting to do that for the illegal off road bikers that race around the footpaths in our estate.

[Houghten]

I put it in the proper thread this tine Houghten ;)

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=14786&d=1435133963

Do you mean Haighus?

[Kirsten]

device projects symbols on to cyclist's back

http://www.earthporm.com/signals-on-cyclists-back/

[Alaric]

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=14786&d=1435133963

Do you mean Haighus?

FFS...yes. one outta 2 aint bad i guess lol.

well played nerf herder :P

[Wolfshade]

http://inactivity-time-bomb.nowwemove.com/download-press/English_Local.jpg

[Wolfshade]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-refuse-to-release-cctv-footage-of-mod-chief-cycle-crash-because-he-did-not-die-10436969.html

Tfl 'refuse to release CCTV footage' of MoD chief cycle crash because he did not die


Rear Admiral Mark Beverstock, 51, was catapulted through the air and fractured his shoulder as he tried to negotiate Vauxhall Cross, one of the capital’s most dangerous junctions. He was dragged to safety by another cyclist.

He reported the incident to the Met police but was “staggered” to be told a week later that it had closed the case as he had been unable to provide the van’s registration number.

When he tried to obtain CCTV footage of the collision, just after 7am on July 3, he found Transport for London only released footage to the police if a cyclist had been killed.

So, there we have it TfL's view that there isn't any point in doing anything unless someone dies...

[Wildeybeast]

device projects symbols on to cyclist's back

http://www.earthporm.com/signals-on-cyclists-back/

Not for me, it would just serve to highlight the big sweat patch in the middle of my back.

[Wolfshade]

Not for me, it would just serve to highlight the big sweat patch in the middle of my back.

:D

[Wolfshade]

My afternoon...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6tPnQeaFdA&feature=youtu.be

[Alaric]

Ouch. Walked it off like a champ tho. Get an apology at least?

Question: do the squiggly lines mean anything, never seen road edged like that before.

[Kirsten]

did they not stop?

[Mr Mystery]

Get their reg if you can - you can then find out who their insurers are, and pursue it.

Squiggly lines indicate a crossing, and a 'points on your license' fine for parking on it.

[Denzark]

2 things there - failure to give way and also failure to stop after an accident. I hope you got their number. A rare occasion in which it is clear cut the cyclist is not culpable so I think you should pursue it to the death.

[Mr Mystery]

Remarkably un-sweary as well.

I'm almost disappoint!

[Alaric]

Get their reg if you can - you can then find out who their insurers are, and pursue it.

Squiggly lines indicate a crossing, and a 'points on your license' fine for parking on it.

Thanks :)

[Wolfshade]

They did stop, its not on the video as when I look across she is out of the car already.

Hospital says my shoulder is broken, which is good, just have to manage the pain with drugs :)

Bike is ok unfortunately, I wanted a new one :(

[Mr Mystery]

Broken bones are worth a decent bit of injury compensation ;)

[Morgrim]

I want to cycle more, but I'm not a confident cyclist and cars are SCARY. :(

[Aegwymourn]

I would like to cycle more but they are completely inadequate in a rural environment (I drive 64km to work doing 100ish kph and 107km to get to the closest *city* that I play 40k/infinity and shop at). So really is not much of point to get one.

[Wolfshade]

I want to cycle more, but I'm not a confident cyclist and cars are SCARY. :(

I'm a little shaken up by this so I'm not oging on my club run on Sunday, which is a shame, but my forearm is purple so it's probably for the best.

[Psychosplodge]

My afternoon...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6tPnQeaFdA&feature=youtu.be

I can't believe you didn't give way to that larger item of traffic, that's how it works right?


Seriously though they clearly weren't looking. I hope you're not too badly injured?

[Wolfshade]

http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/e7/c4/e7c487_5484826.jpg

[Psychosplodge]

Slight over reaction (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051926) to someone sticking their finger up?

[Alaric]

Slight over reaction (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051926) to someone sticking their finger up?

Yes and no. If you are gonna flip the bird be prepared for the consequences. As for how he handled it, total Bs, ya dont push people on a bike by a street, she coulda fell into traffic.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't think a gesture really calls for more than the same or some verbal back.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean don't get me wrong, this dickhead (https://www.youtube.com/user/uphillfreewheeler) off the front page of youtube is clearly out to get a reaction and looking for conflict.

[Kirsten]

the guy is at fault in the first place. that is why he was flipped off. it's not as though she instigated it.

[Alaric]

I don't think a gesture really calls for more than the same or some verbal back.

Totally agree, but some people take it very personal (obviously in thia case) so be prepared for what comes next.

My old shop was on a highway. I was unlocking the gate and a truck flew by at way more than the 50km/hr in my little town. So I looked at him, flipped the bird and mouthed the words to be sure he understood.
Buddy parked his truck half a click away and hoofed it back and wanted to fight me. Right up until he got 10' away and saw I was not backing down. Then he just turned around and ran back to his truck.
Learned a valuable lesson I always kinda knew but seeing in action reinforced it: people are f###ing crazy so keep to yourself.

[Wildeybeast]

Other people's craziness should not be a reason to limit your behaviour. He was crossing the road despite there being oncoming traffic, she warned him not to knock her off, then he clearly tells her to shut up to which she responds with the finger. He created the situation by doing something wrong, he escalated it when called out on it and then goes absolutely nuts when she dares to respond. He is clearly a nutter with massive entitlement issues.

[Psychosplodge]

Doesn't a pedestrian technically have right of way once they've started crossing though? Obviously you're less likely to just step out in front of a car for obvious reasons.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't believe so. They are required to wait until the road is clear according to the highway code. The only exception I could find covers when you are turning into a junction. In this situation you do give way to them as they may have started crossing before it was clear you were turning. Zebra crossings are the only other situation where you give way to them that I am aware of.

Edit: That said, failing to slow down for a chump who steps out into the road would probably still be classed as your fault in court.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah sorry I'm probably mis applying the junction one.

[Haighus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34056844
Continuation of the story Psychosplodge linked yesterday. Apparently the man in question has not been arrested for pushing a cyclist off their bike. Isn't that assault?

[Psychosplodge]

I was surprised at that as well.

[Wolfshade]

The worrying thing is that the MET release this from 01-May, seriously this is a quarter of a year later.

Warning parody


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYgF9E2-Fqs

[Alaric]

Other people's craziness should not be a reason to limit your behaviour. He was crossing the road despite there being oncoming traffic, she warned him not to knock her off, then he clearly tells her to shut up to which she responds with the finger. He created the situation by doing something wrong, he escalated it when called out on it and then goes absolutely nuts when she dares to respond. He is clearly a nutter with massive entitlement issues.

He created it but SHE escalated it by flipping the bird she, could have let it go, secure in the knowledge that she wasn't at fault. Instead pride took over and sadly she paid the price.
. I admire the moxy of cyclists but cars beat bikes and theres no shame in letting things like that go.

[Wolfshade]

Because swearing at someone is equivalent to assault?

[Wolfshade]

Latest proposed rule changes in Australia to allow cyclists to not remain seated at all times

http://m.mynrma.com.au/get-involved/advocacy/news/proposed-road-rules-changes-raise-eyebrows.htm

(And some other strange rules)

They don't have the monopoly on weird rules

California - You can't cycle in a swimming pool
Germany - You can lose the right to operate any non-licensed mode of transport (including a skateboard) if found drunk in charge of a bicycle
Yangon - cycling is banned altogether, since 2003 when police announced certain "busy roads" were closed to bicycles. As such, most of the city centre is out of bounds for bike travel
Saudi Arabia - women aren't allowed to ride bikes or operate vehicles on the road. A woman can only legally cycle in a park, wearing a burka, with a male chaperone.

[Wolfshade]

heheheh

http://carinsurance4cyclists.com/


As a member of one of the UK's road cycling clubs you may not realise that we think you're hot stuff - when you're not in your lycra of course!

Your on-road cycling experience has made you more alert and road aware than the average car driver and that deserves special attention. Let us source you the best car insurance deal via our scheme that rewards you for your improved driving skills.

Carinsurance4cyclists.com says it has been able to demonstrate that a cyclist presents a better car insurance risk than the average driver and has consequently been able to negotiate discounts with a panel of major UK insurance underwriters.

[Psychosplodge]

https://41.media.tumblr.com/4f78b8ec4df7bb1e61b6c8fcf4f316db/tumblr_msgeuq9xNh1qzab0no1_500.jpg

[Wolfshade]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWStnNGWoAA6mAJ.jpg

When suggested that this was victim blaming, and that cycling without one wasn't asking for trouble.
GMP response?

I think personally they are. As a motorist not wearing a seatbelt is doing the same.#dicingwithdeath

So, there we have it, if you are the victim of crime make sure you weren't asking for it by doing things like not breaking the law.

Got stabbed? We unless you were wearing your stab jacket, you must have been asking for trouble.
Got robbed? We you shouldn't have had the stuff to be robbed in the first place.

Then making the false comparison to seat belt wearing. It is pitiful.

[Wolfshade]

Urgh.

http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/local-news/1832240/humberside-police-christmas-cycling-warning/


As a cyclist wear a helmet, Hi-Viz clothing and at night have both front and rear lights on. Signal clearly and check that motorists have seen you before you manoeuvre. Use cycle paths where available and observe the Highway Code.

Helmet usage again by the police, even though there is no statistical link between their use and safety...

Hi Viz is useless at night observe

https://www.esafetysupplies.com/images/D/ml-kishigo-rwj108-night_1.jpg

What you can see is the reflective strips which aren't strictly hi-viz. Then for them to work you need lights shone on them.

Front & Rear lights yes if it's dark. You'd be mad not too. Similarly and check before manoeuvring.

Use cycle paths where available - sigh again not really a legal requirement and if you aren't using the cycle path that says more about the inappropriateness of the infrastructure provided. Indeed, the Highway Code tells you not to use it if it isn't safe to do so.

Then there is an anecdote about a guy who has hit from behind whose helmet "saved his life". /sigh.

- - - Updated - - -

Sonoma County introduces new cycling laws.

1. Minimum pass distance 3' (How effectively this will be enforced is anyone's business)

2. Cyclists classed as "slow moving vehicle" so when 5 or move vehicles are queueing behind it they have to pull over.

Kinda codifies sharing the road, though obviously there will need to appropriate places for them to do so.

[Morgrim]

Helmets are annoying and not wearing them may make more people cycle - I may - but they DO help significantly in any accident that involves the head. The issue here is that excludes most car-bike collisions. I know a couple of people who've been saved from serious injury by their helmet, but those were all times they've gone over the handlebars due to pothole/lost control on wet road and hit a rock/had his front tyre fall off.

[Wolfshade]

There is no *may* in the reduction mandatory helmet laws make.

Take New Zealand, New Zealand has the most rigorously enforced and successful all-age mandatory bicycle helmet law in the world with a helmet wearing rate consistently around 93% since enactment in 1994.

The graph below shows the cycle usage and total injury rates from 1988 to 2012.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/nz-injuries-participation2.gif

18 Years after the law and the usage is still bhasn't recovered, possibly worse is that injury rates have increased in recent years too. So that is less people on bikes getting injured more frequently. Which is more obvious when we change the injury numbers to an injury rate:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/nz-injuries-participation-per-cyclist.gif

Helmet usage is a very emotional one as there are many stories some of which are people whom are personally known to us that swear that they were saved by their helmet. Unfortunately, cold hard stats don't really engage as much as an emotional response.

Another graph from New Zealand, helmet usage (as a % of cyclists) and head injury (as a % of injuries)
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/head-helmet-new-zealand.jpg

Now, it might be me being cynical but I can't really tell the impact on head injury rate as a result of helmet introduction.

I might be tended to agree with you in regards to non-3rd party accidents, ones where the person on a bike comes off owing to surface defects etc. But I would wager that those incidents make up a very small proportion of incidents and given that wearing helmets increases the probability of being hit by a vehicle I think that that isn't really a good enough reason to push them.

Australia is quite interesting as they also have mandatory helmet laws (which I am sure you are aware of ;) ) but the increase in numbers of cyclists has risen back to pre-law levels, though because of population growth it is still a lower proportion of the population than pre-law.

[grimmas]

Because wearing a helmet doesn't eliminate injury it lessens it. It's the difference from being dead or in a vegetative state and making a full recovery.

Interestingly the two people who I know who died from head injuries did so falling of of their bikes without third party involvment and in both cases the coroner ruled a helmet would have prevented it.

Yay anecdotal evidence. But you know what I'd trust my own experience over incomplete statistics on the Internet any day.

Of course I'm begin to feel that every thread In the Oubliette is in fact a bizarre in joke I don't get so hey ho.

[Wolfshade]

I think the NZ ministry of transport's official stats releases are a good source of stats on NZ transport, but ho hum :)

Your own experiance will tell you then that if you punch a wall and miss by 50mm, you don't get injured and do the same punch with a 75mm styrofoam protection the the impact of the punch is felt.

I am not anti-helmet you must understand, just the thought that they should be mandatory. It is a choice everyone should make for themselves. In the one time I was hit by a car my helmet made no difference as the impact was sustained through my right shoulder and forearm.

I would say that people who die in helmets aren't around to say that the helmet didn't save their life.

One has to be careful to understand what studies are out there http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145750200012X

My favourite piece of research was company called TRL who did a lovely meta analysis to show injury rates could be lowered by mandatory helmet law for children, despite the current injury rate being 0.

I would also contend that wearing helmet doesn't necessary lessen the injury, for the "shadow punch" argument and also wearing them causes higher collision rates as born out by the ministry of transport new zealand, and Ian Walker of Bath University has published a couple of interesting papers one that shows that the more "competent" a cyclist is perceived the greater risk they are put at by other road users from close passes (a "competent cyclist" in this study was one that wears hi-viz and helmet) and another one that the cyclist themselves also do risk mitigation so are likely to behave more riskily because they over compensate for the security of an helmet.

Consider, a street where a sniper shoots people. Imagine the outcry if people are told to keep themselves safe by wearing combat armour by the police/government rather than dealing with the problem which is the sniper. This is a crude analogy, but the helmet is fine but it isn't the solution, proper infrastructure is the solution.

[Psychosplodge]

Unless they start making bike helmets to the same standards as Motorbike helmets it's kinda pointless making them compulsory?

But don't you want a negative injury rate wolfie?

[Alaric]

We have had mandatory helmet laws for a while. Not sure if it impacted the amount of riders.
I would consider it more important to make atv helmets law then pedal bikes tho.
Really tho, not wearing a helmet, like not wearing a seatbelt is unfathomable to meself. Why take an unnecessary risk, but theres always one, like my buddy, that got in one accident 10 years ago not wearing a seatbelt and walked away so now he figures seatbelts aren't as important. The human capacity for justification is unmatched.

[Wolfshade]

Unless they start making bike helmets to the same standards as Motorbike helmets it's kinda pointless making them compulsory?

But don't you want a negative injury rate wolfie?

Exactly, there is a massive difference between a cycle and motorcycle helmet.

Unless I was going a stupid speed I wouldn't wear one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFpex_V3O_I)


We have had mandatory helmet laws for a while. Not sure if it impacted the amount of riders.
I would consider it more important to make atv helmets law then pedal bikes tho.
Really tho, not wearing a helmet, like not wearing a seatbelt is unfathomable to meself. Why take an unnecessary risk, but theres always one, like my buddy, that got in one accident 10 years ago not wearing a seatbelt and walked away so now he figures seatbelts aren't as important. The human capacity for justification is unmatched.

I cannot stress this enough, wearing a helmet is not like wearing a seatbelt. The efficacy of the seatbelt is unequivocal, all the research points to it doing more harm than good (there are some studies which show that those suffering restraint have shoulder brusing, but largely conclude that that injury would be less worse than the impact that would have happened without one). Helmet usage the picture is much more murky with very contradictory evidence. There are very few countries with mandatory laws, Canada, Australia and NZ all show decreased cycle usage.

I suppose my biggest issue is that it "dangerizes" the activity which puts people off from partaking and the benefits are outstanding. It is less dangerous than gardening, and the health benefits are massive, it reduces pre-mature death for the user, lower absentism, better physical and mental health. Then if more people did it, it would reduce pollution (bad air quality is already killing people), reduce the cost to health services of being over weight and reduced heart problems. In fact the BCR is so high for cycling that a Coppenhagen study showed that the country actually profits from each mile cycled rather than being a cost.

[Alaric]

Your passion is apparent :)

There are more factors as well though, in my own area for instance, 3 feet of snow tends to hamper bike riding ;) but this year is qüite mild.

Had no idea it wasnt law to wear seatbelts, neat. The motto around here is "seatbelts save lives" so im not sure who is right truthfully. I will wear mine because id rather have it on then not, but thats my choice to make.
My first question I ask whenever I see any study is "who paid for this study" and often its the company thats trying to push its own agendas. Not saying yours is but its always worth looking up. If a bike helmet company sponsors the study its safe to say "helmets are important " will be the outcome lol

[Wolfshade]

I don't know where you are (I'm guessing Canada) so I can't say what the seat belt laws are. But seat belts aren't helmets. Seatbelts work, there is no argument against.

The agenda for some of the research is really noticeable, you can almost smell the brief, "we want to introduce this, so find evidence to support my view and I give you money :) "

[Alaric]

I don't know where you are (I'm guessing Canada) so I can't say what the seat belt laws are. But seat belts aren't helmets. Seatbelts work, there is no argument against.

The agenda for some of the research is really noticeable, you can almost smell the brief, "we want to introduce this, so find evidence to support my view and I give you money :) "

Exactly lol. Exactly.

My bad there, I misread (as usual) and thought you were saying that there was evidence they DIDN'T save lives, which I found interesting if unbelievable :P.

Yerp, I am Canuck. My accent isn't carrying over obviously :D ill have to say eh and sorry more often.

[Alaric]

Had to laugh, omw to work this morning I actually saw a biker! Its -21C with the wind too, hard core. Damn near smoked him, no high vis, on a back road with no lights...if his bike didn't have a reflector...

also

no helmet.

Just thought it was funny due to our convo the other day....eh ;)

[Wolfshade]

The worst collision I had on my bike wasn't being knocked off my a car, it was when I rode into the back of another chap, it was before dawn with thick fog, he had no lights, no reflectors and was helpfully wearing all black.
I mean you have to wonder about some people...

[Alaric]

Ill roll with "common sense aint so common" ;)

[Haighus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35539830
All good, but most importantly, if the artists impression is in any way accurate, then this is actually a segregated, dedicated cycle highway! :o Wow. Not just some blue paint on the edge of the road.

[Psychosplodge]

One I know Wolfie will love


http://i.imgur.com/OvcVXWs.png

[Denzark]

I wonder if all the follow on economic benefits that fall out from the health benefits include the following factors:

1. OAPs who have cycled throughout their lives needing new hips or knees earlier.

2. Motorists dying earlier because lycra clad idiots doing things like stopping them driving at the speed limit or hopping onto the pavement to get through red lights, stress the living sh*t out of them.

3. The time and cost to the economy when a road is closed as a crime scene when an idiot cyclist undertakes a lorry in London and is wiped out.

Some how I expect that these 3rd and 4th order effects are ignored in favour of the narrative 'A cyclist isn't a fatty so he costs the NHS less'.

[Haighus]

I wonder if all the follow on economic benefits that fall out from the health benefits include the following factors:

1. OAPs who have cycled throughout their lives needing new hips or knees earlier.

2. Motorists dying earlier because lycra clad idiots doing things like stopping them driving at the speed limit or hopping onto the pavement to get through red lights, stress the living sh*t out of them.

3. The time and cost to the economy when a road is closed as a crime scene when an idiot cyclist undertakes a lorry in London and is wiped out.

Some how I expect that these 3rd and 4th order effects are ignored in favour of the narrative 'A cyclist isn't a fatty so he costs the NHS less'.
1. Cycling isn't a weight bearing activity on your knees and hips, so tends not to wear out these joints unless the individual is predisposed. Activities like running have a much higher risk of causing arthritis. This isn't to say there are no long term health issues to cycling- 'cyclist's palsy' is a thing for example (compression and eventually damage to the ulnar nerve in the hand from leaning on handlebars). However they are fairly minor and easily compensated for on the whole (modern, proper cycling mitts/gloves have padding that lies above the hypothenar eminence on your hand, to prevent damage to the nerve). On the other hand, being overweight comes with a huge health burden:
An evaluation of the economic costs of chronic disease for the years 2006-2007 showed that overweight and obesity cost the NHS £5.1 billion compared to £3.3 billion for smoking.[9] The cost of people being overweight or obese to society and the economy was estimated in 2007 to be almost £16 billion.[4] The forecast of this cost increasing to almost £50 billion by 2050 prompted the 2011 Department of Health policy "A call to action on obesity in England".[10]
A knee replacement costs about £4000 per operation, and usually lasts for ~20years. A heart attack costs £5-6000 for the stay in hospital, and most survivors will have future heart attacks. There are also long-term medication costs to heart attacks, joint replacements usually require no ongoing therapy with a successful operation. Basically, the off-chance that someone needs a knee replacement due to their cycling is far cheaper than someone getting obese and having a heart attack, along with the many other co-morbidities that are likely to happen with obesity.

2. I don't really see why this stresses people so much? Unless they get stressed at lots of things, at which point a cyclist in the road is unlikely to make much difference in the overall stress situation. I drive, and I don't find myself stressed at all by cyclists, unless they do something stupid that nearly causes an accident. But then it stresses me when any road user nearly causes an accident.

3. Probably less overall than the effects of motor accidents.

Also, the latter two points are somewhat negated by more people cycling. When you reach Netherlands-levels of cycling, then 2. basically doesn't exist, and 3. is very unlikely.

In short, they are probably not counted because they probably don't have much effect overall...

[grimmas]

There's annually about 100 fatalities in the UK of cycle riders, 10-15% of which don't involve the action of another person (falling off or riding into parked vehicles etc). Not great it you are one of them but as things go not very dangerous really. I've ridden to work for the last 20 odd years including 5 riding through North and central London and have never been involved in an accident. To be honest I don't think the problem with cycling in the UK is the danger it's the weather, it's bloody cold and rains all the time.

I still wear a helmet though just in case I fall off it won't save me from a car hitting my head but will protect my head from hitting the ground.

[Haighus]

I still where a helmet though just in case I fall off it won't save me from a car hitting my head but will protect my head from hitting the ground.Likewise.

To be honest I don't think the problem with cycling in the UK is the danger it's the weather, it's bloody cold and rains all the time. Most definitely agree!!!

[Wolfshade]

I wonder if all the follow on economic benefits that fall out from the health benefits include the following factors:

1. OAPs who have cycled throughout their lives needing new hips or knees earlier.

2. Motorists dying earlier because lycra clad idiots doing things like stopping them driving at the speed limit or hopping onto the pavement to get through red lights, stress the living sh*t out of them.

3. The time and cost to the economy when a road is closed as a crime scene when an idiot cyclist undertakes a lorry in London and is wiped out.

Some how I expect that these 3rd and 4th order effects are ignored in favour of the narrative 'A cyclist isn't a fatty so he costs the NHS less'.


WebTAG unit A5-1 sets out the current economic case for all active modes. The fatality rate of cyclists through cycling is low, very low, so low in fact that the cost of a cyclist death is minimal when compared against the reduction of risk of premature death.

Research has shown that the red light jumping rate is about 10% regardless of mode. Now, the actual numbers of cyclists and incidentally motorcyclists is much more uncertain, both in terms of much less numbers and harder to understand the actual numbers engaged. This being true, given that there are much higher numbers of non-cyclists than cyclists.

How does not driving at the speed limit kill people? Also, I know of 0 deaths of motorists because of cyclists, which seems a bit seems abit low when compared with the thousands killed on our roads by motorists.

The cost to the economy of a life is about £1.6m a standard police investigation is between 6-8hrs. Now, given that motorists are killing many more pedestrians than cyclists, and more other motorists this closure time is quite small in comparison. Now there are plans to speed this up to about 1-2hrs using laser scanning technology.

"Undertaking" is quite illegal, I think you mean filtering, which is legal and described in the highway code. It is something that I do very frequently, almost every commute I do it to save me being stuck in queues. I've never once been hit, nor killed. But the highway code does make it abundantly clear that the onus is on the stationary vehicle pulling off to check. If they fail to look, fail to see, fail to indicate then it is clear where any blame lies. That is not to say that every cyclist is blameless, but the official road stats (STATS-19) show that most commonly the cause is the person who is struck, especially at junctions.

But even if all of this is ignored we have one undeniable truth as Corbyn spoke of this, air pollution. It was the “sad truth” that 500,000 people will die “because of this country’s failure to comply with international law on air pollution”, citing a recent Royal College of Physicians report that this costs economy £20 billion a year. How do you get people moving without pollution? Electric cars are a start, but then you are pushing the carbon from a city to a power station. So re-newables/nuclear both are very expensive. Indeed, public transport seems not to be the solution as the days that the bus strike occured were days of the lowest pollution levels. But let us bury our heads behind myth and half-truth to ignore these basic truths and that the relationship between GDP increase and MPH decrease and hope that people driving more, putting more emissions into the atmosphere getting more inactive will somehow be fine.

[Denzark]

The whole thing of air pollution makes massive sense to city dwellers who do cycle to work, but starts to peter out for those of us that live in the sticks - the economy is predicated on people driving to work who have absolutely no other choice to do so.

As to 'filtering/undertaking' I have never heard of filtering. Suffice to say (not sure if linking to FB works) this video shows what your average conscientious lorry driver sees - anybody going on their inside at lights is asking for a Darwin award. After all, if I am expected to be patient and give cyclists adequate space as a car user, why would a bike go up to the junction on the left of a HGV - rather than stay in a safe 6 o'clock position?

https://www.facebook.com/649160495150394/videos/839409616125480/?pnref=story

[grimmas]

Well like living in Ankh-Morpock there's many ways of commiting suicide on a Cycle and filtering in the blind spot of a HGV turning left is one of them. It doesn't happen as often as people would have you believe though. Having proper separate cycle lanes rather than painted things helps. As does proper instruction to all involved.

[Psychosplodge]

Did these "heart shaped" cycle lights make it on here?

https://67.media.tumblr.com/153873d10b6d1b61f27827fc909e5fab/tumblr_ocxrh51l0l1r2kn3co1_540.jpg

[Wolfshade]

Yup, and also my FB several times... going to get some :) THough the blue ones ;)

[Al Shut]

Aren't blue balls something you would want to avoid?

[Psychosplodge]

I thought it was an integral part of the cycling experience?

[Wolfshade]

Never happened to me. Apparently the British female olympics team were advisied to stop shaving / waxing 6 months before the competition to minimise sores... (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/aug/15/team-gb-cycling-saddle-sore-medals)

[Psychosplodge]

Makes sense I suppose if you think about it.