Cycling slowly raises odds of an accident

[growingvegetables]

In my unscientific observational opinion, the slower riders I see and pass (by car and bike) tend to be the kerb huggers and gutter dwellers.

Guilty as charged, milud .........


... sort of. If I'm granny-gear climbing at 5-6mph, I do ride closer to the kerb than I would normally. A matter of choice, and aware of the potential consequences - and still pi$$ed off at the fools that try to pass too close.

 

[HLaB]

Touch wood I've not had a bad accident but when I'm trying to go slow and keep to a recovery pace I do feel that drivers get more frustrated and carry out more risky manoeuvres, fodgy pull outs and left hooks. My only damage accident was also when I was going slow but as it was a right hook through traffic I think the speed was irrelevant, in fact as I was going so slow I should have been more visible for longer, it was just bad driving :-/

 

[Tin Pot]

How would you have punctuated it to resolve the ambiguity?

Cycling slowly: Raises odds of an accident.

 

[Tin Pot]

I think this is typical lazy journalism, where they take the data at face value only.

I think that the underlying data of cycling slowly has masked the true cause: inexperience...

Although not always true, I think there is a strong positive link between speed and experience. That is to say: faster cyclists are usually more experienced cyclists, with several years of regular cycling on various types of roads under their belts (i.e. how they became fast), knowing how to assert and position themselves so as to be safer. (Although, Zwift may change this!)

Using this relationship, the headline could equally read: "Cycling inexperience raises odds of an accident", which makes sense.

I think that a better experiment would be to take the same cyclist (or even better, a large group of cyclists) and get that same cyclist to ride at different speeds over a period of time to see if there was a notable difference in how they were treated on the roads. This would give a feel for the change in the chance of an accident.

However, what hasn't been mentioned here is the other side of the coin, i.e. the severity of the accident given an accident occurs. I expect this would increase with the speed of the cyclist, e.g. when cars pull out on cyclists at junctions. It is the combination of the chance and the severity of an accident which defines the total risk to the cyclist.

Obviously, there are lots of other factors which are at play too, but these are the ones that seemed prominent to me.

True - but frankly, does it matter? I've given up on rational explanation.

The idiots writing it, the idiots reading it, until you have 60ft high neon lettering flashing into their forced open eyelids 24hrs a day, for several years, they don't get the message.

 

[RichardB]

I find the use of the word 'odds' a bit ... well, odd here. It's not a betting game. I would prefer 'Cycling slowly raises the risk of an accident', which may or may not be true, but at least reflects the content. I can't see a way of punctuating the headline to make it less ambiguous, though. You could use commas to indicate pauses ('Cycling, slowly raises the risk of an accident' vs 'Cycling slowly, raises the risk of an accident') but both look pretty illiterate to me. Much better to recast it as something like 'Accident risk increased by cycling slowly'.

 

[Tin Pot]

I find the use of the word 'odds' a bit ... well, odd here. It's not a betting game. I would prefer 'Cycling slowly raises the risk of an accident', which may or may not be true, but at least reflects the content. I can't see a way of punctuating the headline to make it less ambiguous, though. You could use commas to indicate pauses ('Cycling, slowly raises the risk of an accident' vs 'Cycling slowly, raises the risk of an accident') but both look pretty illiterate to me. Much better to recast it as something like 'Accident risk increased by cycling slowly'.

Look above: I've already done it

 

[Dogtrousers]

Cycling slowly: Raises odds of an accident.

That's horrible. It reads like an annoying American newspaper headline. I prefer the ambiguous version, sorry.

 

[RichardB]

Look above: I've already done it

Not 100% convinced by that one, sorry.

(Although "Look above: I've already done it" is perfect.)

 

[Tin Pot]

That's horrible. It reads like an annoying American newspaper headline. I prefer the ambiguous version, sorry.

Christ, I'm sorry it doesn't meet with your approval for style.

Luckily, the ask was for accuracy.

 

[Globalti]

Interesting article. As an experienced drver and cyclist my own interpretation of "hardy" is "threatening" in the sense that motorists view slow moving cyclists as incompetent and therefore an irritant, sometimes delaying them and fair game for a bit of brinksmanship with a nifty manouever to get ahead of them. On the other hand my belief is that motorists actually pay more respect to cyclists who are moving at a good speed, thus delaying them less and taking up a position that asserts their right to road space. If a motorist is blocked on a narrow road by a slow-moving cyclist they are more likely to try to squeeze past than if it's a fast-moving cyclist, especially when that cyclist shows signs of competence, confidence and also acknowledges the presence of the following vehicle. This is why I usually wave thanks to motorists who I've delayed for a few seconds but have taken care in passing me.

In other words I think the writer is trying to say that cyclists who bumble and hesitate can be their own worst enemies.

 

[Tin Pot]

Interesting article. As an experienced drver and cyclist my own interpretation of "hardy" is "threatening" in the sense that motorists view slow moving cyclists as incompetent and therefore an irritant, sometimes delaying them and fair game for a bit of brinksmanship with a nifty manouever to get ahead of them. On the other hand my belief is that motorists actually pay more respect to cyclists who are moving at a good speed, thus delaying them less and taking up a position that asserts their right to road space. If a motorist is blocked on a narrow road by a slow-moving cyclist they are more likely to try to squeeze past than if it's a fast-moving cyclist, especially when that cyclist shows signs of competence, confidence and also acknowledges the presence of the following vehicle. This is why I usually wave thanks to motorists who I've delayed for a few seconds but have taken care in passing me.

In other words I think the writer is trying to say that cyclists who bumble and hesitate can be their own worst enemies.

What a great message. Not.

 

[DaveReading]

Cycling slowly: Raises odds of an accident.

OK, I'll buy that. Gramatically correct and unambiguous.

Though it remains an assertion that's not supported by the bit of the article I can read, classic example of denominator neglect.

 

[Dogtrousers]

A simpler solution would be "Slower cycling raises the risk of an accident", or perhaps "Cycling more slowly raises the risk of an accident". I'm not convinced that just sticking a colon in the middle of the sentence is correct (although that's punctuation, not grammar). My copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage is in a box somewhere and I can't be fussed to find it.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Faster cyclists aren't given more respect, they're just harder to get past.

Can only read the first paragraph but it's enough to convince me this is another victim blamer.

If the daffodils didn't pass as close or take the risks then our speed would be irrelevant.

Trees and traffic islands are slower than us and they manage not to hit them.

 

[gbb]

What a great message. Not.

Morally you're right. I 'liked' Globals post because while the reality shouldnt be like his analysis....the truth is, i think it IS like that, thats the reality...bumbling along, perhaps (unwittingly) encourages drivers to do something silly, get impatient etc etc..
Its wrong, but its reality (IMHO)