Only In America!

[phaedrus]

Ride Of Silence - hard to believe this isn't a wind-up. No mention of the fact that cycling is safer than walking or driving, just fear and more fear.

http://www.rideofsilence.org/main.php

 

[Eat MY Dust]

What's wrong with remembering the dead?

 

[Tynan]

'in honor of'

wha?

 

[GrahamG]

That's because cycling (and walking, and public transport for that matter) is just considered such a minority activity that those who do become part of this weird 'underground' movement/culture (by simple virtue of riding a bicycle on the road) feel like they're fighting for survival or something - not that they should be promoting the virtues of it as a viable mode of transport (this would be wildly ambitious if you don't live in NY/Portland/SF).

It is just crazy.

 

[CotterPin]

Can't see a problem myself. Yes, cycling is generally safe. However it does not hurt to have a reminder that one of the greatest killers in the world are traffic-related incidents. 3500 people die each year in the UK on our roads. Somehow we seem to have become comfortable with that level of death. If events like this make people aware of this death rate, then that is surely all to the good?

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

I feel mixed about things like this - cotterpin, I do agree with you that the human cost of driving is way too high, and that no-one seems to care. But at the same time I am wary of making cycling seem dangerous to those on the fringe, by that I mean those people who might cycle intermittantly or over short distances, we don't want to scare them off.

Tough call, but I think I might fall in favour of it.

 

[yello]

I see no problem with it personally. I think in 'honoring the dead' (or whatever the byline is) they do raise the public consciousness of cyclists on the road.

Yes, there is a risk that it emphasises the idea that cycling is dangerous (btw, are we saying cycling is NOT dangerous?? Or just not AS dangerous as x??) but I think it's a risk worth taking.

 

[Wolf04]

Can't see a problem myself. Yes, cycling is generally safe. However it does not hurt to have a reminder that one of the greatest killers in the world are traffic-related incidents. 3500 people die each year in the UK on our roads. Somehow we seem to have become comfortable with that level of death. If events like this make people aware of this death rate, then that is surely all to the good?

According to this www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/07/03/cycling_myths.doc
It would suggest that cycling is reasonably safe mode of transport. My problem with the Ride of Silence is that it's message is unclear. Is it campaigning for safer roads? If it is solely to "honor" the dead then why limit it to cyclists rather than all those killed on roads?
Pete

 

[BentMikey]

I see no problem with it personally. I think in 'honoring the dead' (or whatever the byline is) they do raise the public consciousness of cyclists on the road.

Yes, there is a risk that it emphasises the idea that cycling is dangerous (btw, are we saying cycling is NOT dangerous?? Or just not AS dangerous as x??) but I think it's a risk worth taking.

Yes, we're saying cycling isn't dangerous, at least by comparison with many other common daily activities. Given that the benefits outweigh the risks so heavily, it's probably more dangerous not to cycle. No denying it is intimidating to many though.

 

[sheddy]

This is how it should be

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExnRr9VAJw

Warning - film takes a while to load and is 10mins long

 

[yello]

Yes, we're saying cycling isn't dangerous, at least by comparison with many other common daily activities.

It's at least equally as dangerous as some common daily activities then.

I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. I actually don't think it serves any purpose to say 'cycling is not dangerous' when there clearly is an element of risk involved. It seems like spin doctoring. No, I reckon you acknowledge that there is risk involved and one of the risks is beyond your control, i.e. the lack of care shown to you by other road users. I think campaigns that highlight cyclists' deaths on the road serve a purpose by reminding other road users of the consequences of their lack of care. Or am I being naive?

 

[historyman]

Cycling is as dangerous as sitting on the sofa and eating chips.
Some councillors & people in positions of authority always bang on constantly about the danger element. I had this when I campaigned against closure of some swimming ponds. Nobody had died there. Council had read no studies. But they were convinced it was dangerous. They would have been better off closing booze shops and fast food outlets, which killed a lot more people.

 

[Norv]

Jesus, I swear some people have lost their own personal common ****ing sense. Cycling isn't a dangerous sport, but there is always going to be an element of risk, that's out of your control. What's the alternative to taking on some risk in life?

My advice to people who are scared of going for a bike ride, is to just get out there and do it! Providing you don't spend the whole time on 70MPH trunk roads (which is a pointless and depressing thing to do anyway), you'll soon find that it really isn't that bad.

 

[yello]

Jesus, I swear some people have lost they're own personal common ****ing sense.

Is that remark aimed at anyone by chance?

To accept and manage risk (and you quite rightly point out there is risk in all walks of life), you have to be aware of it. Riding defensively, primary position, etc etc etc is all about reducing your exposure to risk.

I guess a lot depends on your definition of 'dangerous' but, for me, I say cycling is dangerous in that I am at risk of death and serious injury. That it thankfully hasn't killed me doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. That the stats say it's not as dangerous as, say, walking (because there are fewer deaths) doesn't mean cycling itself isn't dangerous.

Risk doesn't stop me from cycling but it does make we aware of the dangers. Isn't that a wiser approach than taking a no risk approach?

 

[Wolf04]

Is that remark aimed at anyone by chance?

To accept and manage risk (and you quite rightly point out there is risk in all walks of life), you have to be aware of it. Riding defensively, primary position, etc etc etc is all about reducing your exposure to risk.

I guess a lot depends on your definition of 'dangerous' but, for me, I say cycling is dangerous in that I am at risk of death and serious injury. That it thankfully hasn't killed me doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. That the stats say it's not as dangerous as, say, walking (because there are fewer deaths) doesn't mean cycling itself isn't dangerous.

Risk doesn't stop me from cycling but it does make we aware of the dangers. Isn't that a wiser approach than taking a no risk approach?

So if you ignore the statistics, consider the activity dangerous and yet still do it, doesn't that mean you are taking unnecessary and dangerous risks?