| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Awww, you're gonna make me work for my Klinsmann 
CBA now, I'll have a google later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bolleaux, I just wrote a reply to this and lost it.
Suffice to say, it proved that I was 100% right and everyone who doesn't agree with me is going to hell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John McC
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 24510
Location: Leafy Barnet
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope to do a few events on the A1 next year. The F1 courses on a Sunday morning are so deserted of traffic, you would need to see it to believe it, and if the very small amount of traffic passes me in the outside lane and 60mph+, I really don't have an issue about it.
_________________
John McClelland's victory in the motor paced event with Derek Marloe on the derny was a thing of beauty (Oldmanof) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
| everyone who doesn't agree with me is going to hell. |
I've heard a lot of nasty things about hell, but the complete absence of Christians is a pretty good counter-argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robabank wrote: |
| Tucker wrote: |
In the UK, cycling collision data recorded by police indicates that at non-junction locations, where a cyclist was struck directly from behind there was an overall fatality rate of 17%. The rate of fatality increases with speed limit of the road:
* 5% on 30 mph (48 km/h),
* 13% on 40 mph (64 km/h),
* 21% on 60 mph (97 km/h) and
* 31% on 70 mph (110 km/h) roads.[50]
|
I don't think anyone is disputing that it's better to be hit slowly than quickly, however the above stats totally ignore the likelihood of being hit in the first place. |
Agreed - but since you provide no stats, and I can't find any with a 2 minute google, why would we assume they're any different to any other road? It is a well known phenomenon that humans underestimate the likelihood of rare but high-impact events.
| Robabank wrote: |
| And on boring wide straight roads you can be seen from a long distance, and the act of overtaking is straightforward and simple - on a dual carriageway, not even the possibility of a head-on collision to consider. Compare this to these wonderful slow safe rural roads, where motorists will still overtake, try and complete the manoeuvre before the next blind bend, just in case a car is coming the opposite way. |
Perhaps, but you could counter the "easily seen" argument with the "motorists not expecting to see cyclists on a dual carriageway" argument. As for overtaking cars, at least in this situation (if I understand you correctly) you can see it happening, and ride into the hedge if absolutely necessary. First thing you'd know about an impact from the rear is waking up in hospital, if you were lucky.
| Robabank wrote: |
| Leaving cyclists out of the equation, motorists manage to cope more successfully with the incredibly dangerous 60-80mph on major roads than they do with safer slower speeds on minor roads - something to do with better road engineering, longer sight lines, the absence of many of the features that contribute to accidents involving cyclists, such as side turnings. |
Yes, because dual carriageways were designed for cars. Dual carriageways (and motorways) are safe because (for one) everyone is doing the same speed. When some doddery OAP exercises his right to drive a car at 35mph on such a road, it becomes more dangerous, as drivers are forced slam on the anchors or choose to perform rash overtaking manoeuvres. Why wouldn't a cyclist at 25mph have the same effect, given that TTers like to ride in the middle of the lane?
| Robabank wrote: |
| It really is a fallacy to portray the risks of cycling on a dual carriageway as uniquely different or higher, maybe you weren't singling it out D/C TTing as uniquely stupid in the range of competitive cycling, just picking up on the argument used to support it. |
I don't see why, and you have failed to provide any compelling argument for this POV. In fact, you seem to have gone for the creationist method of argument - instead of saying what you think and why its right, you find fault in other's arguments as if proving that I don't have all the fact means that by default you're correct. Why not provide an argument for TTing on dual carriageways. Why is it a good idea, given that most cyclists seem to disagree, and (rightly or wrongly) it portrays cycling as a sport in a negative light with members of the public that come across it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary K
Div 1 Pro
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 7115
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland, in Sunny Australia!!!
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cycling on DCs is good because you can go really fast and you only need to look up every once in a while. FACTS. 
You cannot argue against those! Well, you can try but I'll just ignore you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
special guest star
Div 1 Pro
Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 6939
Location: waiting to jump/going down with pedals on fire
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wot if you have to get long 22's struggling round lanes with bumps but thens you can syas to yours mates i did a 19 cos youwent to a super fast and theys didnt no - - you're gonna look well solid...i mean lets face it you want to get good at time trials so you can go on the continent and whoop ass and they always do tt's on pan flat open dual carriageways |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a solution to this which will make TTing on DC's safe again, albeit with a small amount of pain initially. Basically every tester should strap a claymore mine under their saddle - any rear impact would then be fatal for driver as well as cyclist. A few scare stories on the BBC and no-one will ride within 10 feet of a cyclist ever again.
Lateral thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
| Robabank wrote: |
| I don't think anyone is disputing that it's better to be hit slowly than quickly, however the above stats totally ignore the likelihood of being hit in the first place. |
Agreed - but since you provide no stats, and I can't find any with a 2 minute google, why would we assume they're any different to any other road? It is a well known phenomenon that humans underestimate the likelihood of rare but high-impact events. |
The likelihood of being hit is the inverse of the ease of being passed, which is far easier when you have good forward view, no oncoming traffic (closing velocity in excess of 100mph) to consider, fewer other hazards e.g side turnings to consider, and a second or even third lane to make use of.
| Quote: |
| you could counter the "easily seen" argument with the "motorists not expecting to see cyclists on a dual carriageway" argument. |
And I'm not expecting to encounter a fluorescent elephant, but if I do, I won't drive straight at it just because it's unusual.
| Quote: |
| As for overtaking cars, at least in this situation (if I understand you correctly) you can see it happening, and ride into the hedge if absolutely necessary. First thing you'd know about an impact from the rear is waking up in hospital, if you were lucky. |
I actually meant the vehicle passing in your direction gives you less than zero space because of oncoming traffic (or the anticipation of it). FWIW, only time I've been hit from behind it was on a single carriageway (commuting, daylight). Split second warning from screeching tyres. Driver stated he had seen both me and the oncoming traffic, just thought there was room to get past. Skid marks on the road showed he had been straddling the double white lines before bailing out of a head-on collision.
| Quote: |
| dual carriageways were designed for cars. Dual carriageways (and motorways) are safe because (for one) everyone is doing the same speed. |
They were designed to eliminate the numerous risks arising from oncoming traffic. They are safe because there is ample opportunity for different vehicles to do different speeds. The road sign "Dual carriageway 2 miles" is shorthand for "Don't be a twunt and try a risky overtaking manoeuvre - you will have a safe opportunity to overtake soon" not "There's an incredibly dangerous road coming up - you have two minutes to prepare yourself".
| Quote: |
| When some doddery OAP exercises his right to drive a car at 35mph on such a road, it becomes more dangerous, as drivers are forced slam on the anchors or choose to perform rash overtaking manoeuvres. |
No - they can see said doddery OAP well in advance, identify a suitable opportunity to pull out and pass, or slow down gradually if there isn't one. And if they can't do that, they'll also wipe out any cyclist they might encounter on a single carriageway, as there will be less advance warning.
| Quote: |
| Why wouldn't a cyclist at 25mph have the same effect, given that TTers like to ride in the middle of the lane? |
Really? And where do they ride on single carriageway courses, or when training, commuting etc? I take it this is totally different to roadies?
| Quote: |
| In fact, you seem to have gone for the creationist method of argument - instead of saying what you think and why its right, you find fault in other's arguments as if proving that I don't have all the fact means that by default you're correct. |
Fundamentally we agree on the contributory factors and disagree only on the relative magnitude of the various pros and cons. I stated that the RTTC figures showed fewer accidents per rider mile than single carriageways, which suggests that my reasoning has some basis. You are entitled to your perceptions, lurkers can make their own mind up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robabank wrote: |
| Fundamentally we agree on the contributory factors and disagree only on the relative magnitude of the various pros and cons. I stated that the RTTC figures showed fewer accidents per rider mile than single carriageways, which suggests that my reasoning has some basis. You are entitled to your perceptions, lurkers can make their own mind up. |
I feel that to continue this discussion would rob us both of the will to live - we disagree, and there are no conclusive stats either way - RTTCs stats (which I still haven't seen, did you post a link) could hardly be said to be unbiased, given that they are issued by the body that promotes TTs.
Burger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Davey C
Div 2 Pro
Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 5745
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
| Robabank wrote: |
| Fundamentally we agree on the contributory factors and disagree only on the relative magnitude of the various pros and cons. I stated that the RTTC figures showed fewer accidents per rider mile than single carriageways, which suggests that my reasoning has some basis. You are entitled to your perceptions, lurkers can make their own mind up. |
I feel that to continue this discussion would rob us both of the will to live - we disagree, and there are no conclusive stats either way - RTTCs stats (which I still haven't seen, did you post a link) could hardly be said to be unbiased, given that they are issued by the body that promotes TTs.
Burger? |
_________________
Have you got any Triple Sod? Yellow Bentines? What about some Clarky Cat? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
I feel that to continue this discussion would rob us both of the will to live - we disagree, and there are no conclusive stats either way - RTTCs stats (which I still haven't seen, did you post a link) could hardly be said to be unbiased, given that they are issued by the body that promotes TTs. |
Agree (to disagree) - I was trying to wrap it up a post or three back. What I was reporting was in a Cycling Weekly of yesteryear - they took all their reported accidents and categorised them S/C vs D/C, alone vs collision, rider's fault or motorist's. The first two can't be biased without wilful fibbing, latter is a matter of judgement. If anything the figures were an embarrassment as they then went on to encourage sporting TTs as they were "supposed to be safer", to quote a National Committee member. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robabank wrote: |
| Tucker wrote: |
I feel that to continue this discussion would rob us both of the will to live - we disagree, and there are no conclusive stats either way - RTTCs stats (which I still haven't seen, did you post a link) could hardly be said to be unbiased, given that they are issued by the body that promotes TTs. |
Agree (to disagree) - I was trying to wrap it up a post or three back. What I was reporting was in a Cycling Weekly of yesteryear - they took all their reported accidents and categorised them S/C vs D/C, alone vs collision, rider's fault or motorist's. The first two can't be biased without wilful fibbing, latter is a matter of judgement. If anything the figures were an embarrassment as they then went on to encourage sporting TTs as they were "supposed to be safer", to quote a National Committee member. |
y'know, if you just posted a link to these stats it would save a lot of hassle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
y'know, if you just posted a link to these stats it would save a lot of hassle |
itsnotfromtheinterwebbutfromanarticleinanoldcopyof
CyclingWeaklythatIhaveanextremelylowprioritytowards
spendinghourslocatingoutofseveralhundredstrewnaround
nyhousethenscanningitthenfindingawebsitetoputitonthen
postingalinkhere/FACT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I see. Well, I have statistics that prove without a SHADOW of a doubt that those that choose the name "Robabank" for interspaz forums have regular sexual relations with goats. Unfortunately I can't post a link, but I'm sure you'll be willing to trust me, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zarate
E, Silver
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 1925
Location: Your guess is as good as mine, I dunno.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to qualify a thought - how many "struck from behind" incidents have happened at DC slip road junctions, where drivers are EXPECTED to gain speed a merge into the traffic. If anyone gives way at one of these on a DC instead of just barging in, incidents seem to be more likely, as others don't expect it now. Which leaves Fred Tester slogging through a junction at 28-35 mph, with traffic barrelling in from the left at 60-70 mph. Plus any thought of DC users actually staying at or below 70 is cloud cuckoo land thinking. More like 85-90 mph.
Taking the case of a "quiet" DC, as mentioned, then isn't driver attention likely to be even lower than the rubbish national average, as there is not much for him/her to think about.
Overall, I think that if the sport does not regulate itself and show a bit of thought and commonsense, and consider it's public image, some MP will start a move to close the lot down, never mind just DC events.
The pursuit of performance measured by time (at great personal risk) in a variable environment (even on the same course) is at best a crude measure, and at worst simple nonsense. Relative performance is what actually matters, and that can only be applied on a single day (see above).
_________________
Mexican underwater chili eating champion 1957
Now much nearer to Mexico than the old country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| observer wrote: |
Just to qualify a thought - how many "struck from behind" incidents have happened at DC slip road junctions, where drivers are EXPECTED to gain speed a merge into the traffic. If anyone gives way at one of these on a DC instead of just barging in, incidents seem to be more likely, as others don't expect it now. Which leaves Fred Tester slogging through a junction at 28-35 mph, with traffic barrelling in from the left at 60-70 mph. Plus any thought of DC users actually staying at or below 70 is cloud cuckoo land thinking. More like 85-90 mph.
Taking the case of a "quiet" DC, as mentioned, then isn't driver attention likely to be even lower than the rubbish national average, as there is not much for him/her to think about.
Overall, I think that if the sport does not regulate itself and show a bit of thought and commonsense, and consider it's public image, some MP will start a move to close the lot down, never mind just DC events.
The pursuit of performance measured by time (at great personal risk) in a variable environment (even on the same course) is at best a crude measure, and at worst simple nonsense. Relative performance is what actually matters, and that can only be applied on a single day (see above). |
Word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| observer wrote: |
| Just to qualify a thought - how many "struck from behind" incidents have happened at DC slip road junctions, where drivers are EXPECTED to gain speed a merge into the traffic. |
Very few, if you haven't made your mind up already.
http://www.ctt.org.uk/News/tabid/58/itemid/1640/Default.aspx
Out of ~120 reported TT accidents during 2008/9, of which roughly 70 involved motor vehicles, a mere 8 involved being hit from behind. Even of the subset of those eight that were on DCs, not all were at slip road merges. In comparison, 2009's accident tally included five collisions with stationary vehicles (including one fatality), a large proportion of the remainder were at islands and intersections, which you may have noted are relatively rare on dual carriageways.
| Quote: |
| Taking the case of a "quiet" DC, as mentioned, then isn't driver attention likely to be even lower than the rubbish national average, as there is not much for him/her to think about. |
So, if DCs are either fast and busy and therefore dangerous, or quiet and brain-numbing and therefore dangerous, how come the rate of car accidents on them is lower than for single carriageways? Does it involve bolx, talking, and you?
| Quote: |
Overall, I think that if the sport does not regulate itself and show a bit of thought and commonsense, and consider it's public image, some MP will start a move to close the lot down, never mind just DC events.
|
My definition of using thought and common sense is to consider the actual risks and look at the facts, rather than jumping to a false conclusion and sticking with it regardless. What's yours?
| Quote: |
| The pursuit of performance measured by time . . . . is at best a crude measure, and at worst simple nonsense. |
It's as crude as comparing the number of licence points for two riders and deciding which is the superior, as is often used to select the "best" entrants for road races. Why haven't BC come up with a "better system"?
| Quote: |
| Relative performance is what actually matters, and that can only be applied on a single day (see above). |
Time trials normally are on a single day. And they will tell you who performed best on that day, on that course, in that weather, and nothing else. With the exception of the BAR, no CTT trophies that I can think of are awarded on a speed comparison. And the vast majority of riders competing in 10s and 25s have absolutely sod all to do with BAR chasing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luigi vampa
Cat 2 Groupie
Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sunday 18 Apr 25 O25/2N 7.50 07:00 Team Swift
Is this on the A1? The old O2 used to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stubbsy
Cat 4 Groupie
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:54 am Post subject: Re: Vote to get the North Mid events back on the A1 |
|
|
| C Jay wrote: |
If you have ever ridden the fast A1 courses based around Ranby and would like to use them again please read the following
“As you may already know the Nth Mids CTT committee are considering removing the courses on the A1 from the handbook leaving only the courses at Hatfield Woodhouse and Cuckney, we would be pleased if you would present this to your members for their comments, good or bad, and convey them to Neil Howarth 142 Findon Street, Sheffield S6 4QP, ph 0114 2323538 email:- neil.howarth2008@googlemail.com
THE NORTH MIDS GROUP ON THE WAY OUT?
The need for the North Mids to get back on the A1 has never been greater, dwindling entries for the Hatfield courses due to our riders being fed up with riding on bad road surfaces, abuse from motorists and danger from farm tractors and such. Not only that, clubs cannot continue indefinitely to subsidise these events when they are only attracting 30 or so riders. The A1 from Nornay through to Markham Moor has never been safer, no cutting across fast moving traffic to get into the right lane or risking your life by riding around the outside of the island and having traffic cutting across at junctions. Are vehicles moving faster? Without using a speed check meter there is no way of checking, judging vehicle speeds by someone standing at the side of the road has been proven to be completely unreliable. Then we have traffic counts, Colin Keeton was killed on a very quiet Sunday morning as was a member of the Notts & East Mids group, only two cars were in the vicinity on that occasion. I would appreciate it if all the clubs would let the North Mids committee know your opinion in the hope it will be resolved for next year Would your members like to send a petition to the North Mids CTT committee on behalf of your club asking for a revival of the O25/10 and the O10/2 or alternatively, you may prefer to write to the North Mids Secretary yourself.” |
No replies to the original post then, just a bunch of mainly non testers talking rubbish. If you were a keen time triallist you would understand the original post and either attempt a rweasonable reply or simply move on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
