| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wheezer!
E, Bronze
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 482
Location: Nottingham
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mattr wrote: |
| Wheezer! wrote: |
| Then fight your corner and stand up for your rights. The wider non cycling general public has no bloody idea what it's like out there. |
sounds like you missed the point...... |
Perhaps, but are we not 'marginalised' enough as it is, without uninformed and inexperienced public opinion. We seem to suffer prejudice (for want of a better word) within our own ranks so what chance do we stand with the world at large, little it would appear. So educate them when we get the chance.
_________________
I RIDE, THEREFORE I AM!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
colinpeerman
E, Gold
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 3082
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wheezer! wrote: |
| mattr wrote: |
| Wheezer! wrote: |
| Then fight your corner and stand up for your rights. The wider non cycling general public has no bloody idea what it's like out there. |
sounds like you missed the point...... |
Perhaps, but are we not 'marginalised' enough as it is, without uninformed and inexperienced public opinion. We seem to suffer prejudice (for want of a better word) within our own ranks so what chance do we stand with the world at large, little it would appear. So educate them when we get the chance. |
prejudice or sense from within our own ranks?
if we can't self-manage our own safety and events, sooner or later people (govt/rozzers/public opinion) will do it for us.
I love riding my bike, but threads such as this make me very, very ashamed to be called a cyclist
_________________
wishing my bike fitted as badly as Rich Hill's ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
| Do you have any reason to suspect I believe that single carriageways are safer than dual carriageways? |
1) You take issue with someone who suggests that dual carriageway courses aren't as dangerous as is often portrayed.
2) You appear to prefer a single carriagway accident scenario to a dual carriageway accident scenario
3) You avoid providing evidence by disputing you even have a preference.
| Quote: |
I'd prefer to plough into a tractor, cos I think I'd be more likely to live. No stats I'm afraid, I'm not sure anyones done a study. |
Number (and severity) of accidents normalised to miles ridden in different circumstances. Dead easy (pardon the pun) to do.
Or we could just surf on the tide of prejudice and ignorance.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/5291791/spectator-debate-cyclists-are-a-menace.thtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robabank wrote: |
| Tucker wrote: |
| Do you have any reason to suspect I believe that single carriageways are safer than dual carriageways? |
1) You take issue with someone who suggests that dual carriageway courses aren't as dangerous as is often portrayed.
2) You appear to prefer a single carriagway accident scenario to a dual carriageway accident scenario
3) You avoid providing evidence by disputing you even have a preference.
| Quote: |
I'd prefer to plough into a tractor, cos I think I'd be more likely to live. No stats I'm afraid, I'm not sure anyones done a study. |
Number (and severity) of accidents normalised to miles ridden in different circumstances. Dead easy (pardon the pun) to do.
Or we could just surf on the tide of prejudice and ignorance.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/5291791/spectator-debate-cyclists-are-a-menace.thtml |
My feeling is that cycling on any road where traffic is likely to be doing 60mph when it overtakes you is a bit silly. Furthermore, regardless of which is actually safer (I notice that you berate me for not providing evdience, yet provide none yourself) the public perception of people cycling on dual carriageways is not positive (certainly, the perception of cyclists on here is not positive, and we're likely to be biased) and this is something that needs to be managed for obvious reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wheezer!
E, Bronze
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 482
Location: Nottingham
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
My feeling is that cycling on any road where traffic is likely to be doing 60mph when it overtakes you is a bit silly. Furthermore, regardless of which is actually safer (I notice that you berate me for not providing evdience, yet provide none yourself) the public perception of people cycling on dual carriageways is not positive (certainly, the perception of cyclists on here is not positive, and we're likely to be biased) and this is something that needs to be managed for obvious reasons. |
You'll be telling us that cycle lanes and paths are a good idea next  
_________________
I RIDE, THEREFORE I AM!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wheezer! wrote: |
| Tucker wrote: |
My feeling is that cycling on any road where traffic is likely to be doing 60mph when it overtakes you is a bit silly. Furthermore, regardless of which is actually safer (I notice that you berate me for not providing evdience, yet provide none yourself) the public perception of people cycling on dual carriageways is not positive (certainly, the perception of cyclists on here is not positive, and we're likely to be biased) and this is something that needs to be managed for obvious reasons. |
You'll be telling us that cycle lanes and paths are a good idea next |
Well they're safer, but often frustratingly slow and covered in glass and other crap. Do you disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PNuT
Moderator
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 18512
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
when you say safer do you mean less likely to have a serious accident?
i would imagine the frequency of a minor accident on a cyclepath would increase somewhat for a given speed....
_________________
PNuT, who could forget PNuT
http://www.pedalrevolution.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PNuT wrote: |
when you say safer do you mean less likely to have a serious accident?
i would imagine the frequency of a minor accident on a cyclepath would increase somewhat for a given speed.... |
Indeed. But then I wouldn't propose TTing on a cycle path either. But yes, I think we are mostly concerned with injuries that require a trip to the hospital/mortuary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mattr
World Champ
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 12647
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wheezer! wrote: |
| mattr wrote: |
| Wheezer! wrote: |
| Then fight your corner and stand up for your rights. The wider non cycling general public has no bloody idea what it's like out there. |
sounds like you missed the point...... |
Perhaps, but are we not 'marginalised' enough as it is, without uninformed and inexperienced public opinion. We seem to suffer prejudice (for want of a better word) within our own ranks so what chance do we stand with the world at large, little it would appear. So educate them when we get the chance. |
Dual carriage ways are supposedly designed and optimised for high speed transport of people and goods, in motor vehicles. Trying to then mooch along them at less than half the speed that they are designed for, whilst riding a bike that is not particularly easy to control unless the road is blemish free, and pushing yourself to 99% of your physical limit (with all the additional personal risks that entails) hardly rocket science to work out what is either likely to happen, or how cyclists are likely to be branded. (as pillocks) I mean, even i think you are pillocks for TTing on what are (effectively) motorways.
The fact that the roads aren't particularly well designed or maintained adds even more risk.
I mean, i know we are perfectly entitled to use these roads, but to deliberately put yourself in a situation where cars will overtake you with a 30mph (minimum) speed differential, while you are weaving around suffering from tunnel vision is hardly the brightest of things to do.
Standing up for your rights is all very well, until you have to do it lying down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mattr wrote: |
| Wheezer! wrote: |
| mattr wrote: |
| Wheezer! wrote: |
| Then fight your corner and stand up for your rights. The wider non cycling general public has no bloody idea what it's like out there. |
sounds like you missed the point...... |
Perhaps, but are we not 'marginalised' enough as it is, without uninformed and inexperienced public opinion. We seem to suffer prejudice (for want of a better word) within our own ranks so what chance do we stand with the world at large, little it would appear. So educate them when we get the chance. |
Dual carriage ways are supposedly designed and optimised for high speed transport of people and goods, in motor vehicles. Trying to then mooch along them at less than half the speed that they are designed for, whilst riding a bike that is not particularly easy to control unless the road is blemish free, and pushing yourself to 99% of your physical limit (with all the additional personal risks that entails) hardly rocket science to work out what is either likely to happen, or how cyclists are likely to be branded. (as pillocks) I mean, even i think you are pillocks for TTing on what are (effectively) motorways.
The fact that the roads aren't particularly well designed or maintained adds even more risk.
I mean, i know we are perfectly entitled to use these roads, but to deliberately put yourself in a situation where cars will overtake you with a 30mph (minimum) speed differential, while you are weaving around suffering from tunnel vision is hardly the brightest of things to do.
Standing up for your rights is all very well, until you have to do it lying down. |
+1 - Well put. Especially liked the soundbite at the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Datdodishes
T de F Winner
Joined: 28 Feb 2002
Posts: 28370
Location: On the Superior Forum with the cool kids
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't remember the last time a tester was killed racing on a single carriageway country road. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wheezer!
E, Bronze
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 482
Location: Nottingham
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
Well they're safer, but often frustratingly slow and covered in glass and other crap. Do you disagree? |
Yes I agree but not that they are necessarily safer. When they are mostly just a pedestrian path with a painted white line and a bike symbol. Happening upon mums walking with loose toddlers and dogs I don't think is safe either for me or for them.
They are unlit at night and rely on residual street lighting, they are untreated in winter, often poorly maintained (tree roots gowing thru etc) You also lose all right of way and have to stop/GW at every junction. Sometimes go directly in front of residential gates/entrances, safe when when flashing past at 20+mph??.....I don't think so
Oh and they don't actually take you where you bloody well want to go
None of the above applies to riding on the road.
Which is where we should be
_________________
I RIDE, THEREFORE I AM!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
| My feeling is that cycling on any road where traffic is likely to be doing 60mph when it overtakes you is a bit silly. |
So that's virtually all time trial and road race courses out of the window then. Just those fantastically safe urban roads for us to use.
| Quote: |
| I notice that you berate me for not providing evdience [of which is actually safer], yet provide none yourself |
I gave the answer earlier in the thread (not the actual numbers, granted), they are RTTC stats. How dreadful either the single or dual carriagway figures are compared to national general cycling was your homework.
| Quote: |
| . . . .the public perception of people cycling on dual carriageways is not positive (certainly, the perception of cyclists on here is not positive, and we're likely to be biased) and this is something that needs to be managed for obvious reasons. |
So if cyclists criticise motorists, they do nothing even if it's fair comment, whereas if motorists criticise cyclists, we do what they say even if it's utter bolx?
[cycle lanes and paths are a good idea next ]
| Quote: |
| Well they're safer, but often frustratingly slow and covered in glass and other crap. Do you disagree? |
The crap, the poor layouts and other elements of tokenism lead to a surprisingly poor safety record. More homework. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mattr
World Champ
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 12647
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
This whole thing is pretty pointless isn't it.
You are arguing about using busy main roads (motorways) to artificially improve your performance, in a pretty marginalised part of a pretty marginalised sport, at risk of death or serious injury. And whats more, outside of the group doing it, no-one gives a töss.
You do realise that cyclists the world over, look at Britains apparent fascination with TTing with wonder, and usually complete incomprehension. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robabank wrote: |
| Tucker wrote: |
| My feeling is that cycling on any road where traffic is likely to be doing 60mph when it overtakes you is a bit silly. |
So that's virtually all time trial and road race courses out of the window then. Just those fantastically safe urban roads for us to use. |
Er, no - just because the speed limit on a road is 60 mph doesn't mean a car is likely to be doing 60mph when it overtakes you. I would imagine this accounts for the vast majority of "country" roads in the UK.
| Robabank wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I notice that you berate me for not providing evdience [of which is actually safer], yet provide none yourself |
I gave the answer earlier in the thread (not the actual numbers, granted), they are RTTC stats. How dreadful either the single or dual carriagway figures are compared to national general cycling was your homework. |
Thanks, but the way it usually works it you provide backup for your own arguments. I'd have said that cycling on dual carriageways where cars are doing 60-80mph as they overtake is so patently more dangerous than cycling elsewhere the burden of proof lies with you to prove otherwise. I notice you persist with comparing dual carriageways to single carriageways - if this is your argument, then you are arguing with the wrong person.
| Robabank wrote: |
| Quote: |
| . . . .the public perception of people cycling on dual carriageways is not positive (certainly, the perception of cyclists on here is not positive, and we're likely to be biased) and this is something that needs to be managed for obvious reasons. |
So if cyclists criticise motorists, they do nothing even if it's fair comment, whereas if motorists criticise cyclists, we do what they say even if it's utter bolx? |
Newsflash - life isn't fair. Whilst Ideally everyone would respect everyone else and hold hands and sing "Imagine" every night, in reality, motorists vastly outnumber cyclists and if the number of deaths is perceived as an issue by the powers that be, then I can assure you that it's cycling that will be on the receiving end of any legislation.
| Robabank wrote: |
[ [cycle lanes and paths are a good idea next ]
| Quote: |
| Well they're safer, but often frustratingly slow and covered in glass and other crap. Do you disagree? |
The crap, the poor layouts and other elements of tokenism lead to a surprisingly poor safety record. More homework. |
Again, do your own research. If you can prove that there are a higher number of fatalities on cycle paths per km vs dual carriageways per km (between comparably experienced cyclists) I would be very surprised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tucker wrote: |
| Thanks, but the way it usually works it you provide backup for your own arguments. |
And whose argument was it? To portray one scenario as dangerous because, on guesswork/perception, it is more dangerous than a second scenario, is nigh on pointless unless it has some context such as an activity regarded as adequately safe. Bit like saying trains are dangerous because flying has a better safety record whilst keeping schtum on accident rates in cars.
| Quote: |
| if the number of deaths is perceived as an issue by the powers that be, then I can assure you that it's cycling that will be on the receiving end of any legislation. |
So the best hope is if at least one side of the argument isn't ignorant then.
| Quote: |
| Well they're safer, but often frustratingly slow and covered in glass and other crap. Do you disagree? |
I've done your homework for you.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough - I accept I was mistaken about cycle paths.
RE TTing on dual carriageways then:
| wiki, with ref to original source wrote: |
Direct rear impacts with cyclists are a more prominent collision type in arterial/rural road type situations. When they occur in such circumstances they are also associated with significantly increased risk of fatality. Data collated by the OECD indicates that rural locations account for 35% or more of cycling fatalities in Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands and Spain.[49]
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]
The use of appropriately designed segregated space on arterial or interurban routes appears to be associated with reductions in overall risk. In Ireland, the provision of hard shoulders on interurban routes in the 1970s reportedly resulted in a 50% decrease in accidents.[51] It is reported that the Danes have also found that separate cycle tracks lead to a reduction in rural collisions.[52] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tucker
Tour Winner
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 15722
Location: Swindon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ridley
E, Silver
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1342
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
What... and take a running jump.... okay you win  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robabank
E, Bronze
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. 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. 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. 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
