Reflective Tips (Part 2)

[GrumpyGregry]

Yep, we accept the perception that cycling is such a high-risk activity*, because common sense says it must be, when it isn't, that we have to wear special safety equipment to do it, because common sense says we should, when we don't, and then we wonder why more non-cyclists don't do the common sense thing and ride bikes as an alternative to motors....

*and surely we wouldn't bother with all this common sense risk mitigation to mitigate what are tiny levels of risk now would we?

 

[Norm]

At the end of the day cycling IS more dangerous than driving.

I'm not sure about that, but that depends what is meant by "dangerous".

IMO, cycling is not inherently more dangerous. The presence of motorised vehicles makes it feel more dangerous and the secondary safety (the chance of getting hurt) is higher if something does go wrong but the activity itself makes us healthier, helps us to live longer, has smaller impact on the environment, has very little risk of danger to third parties... nope, I think that driving is more dangerous.

 

[BlackPanther]

I'm not sure about that, but that depends what is meant by "dangerous".

IMO, cycling is not inherently more dangerous.

I'd say that the way most cyclists ride, it is indeed a dangerous activity. I see RLJs and Ninja riders every day. I see people on their phones. I see people riding on the pavements and not looking at all when they cross junctions, so it's just a matter of time before they're 'offed'.

I personally am a very safe and aware rider and thus I don't see me being in any real danger from my own mistakes......but then you have drivers on their mobiles, partially blind drivers, drunk drivers, drivers turning around to shout at their kids etc etc. I think that the advantages of exercise, money saved, and the sheer joy of cycling offsets the risks.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I personally am a very safe and aware rider and thus I don't see me being in any real danger

I'm sure you are but...

every ninja, HGV undertaker, and RLJ'er I've interacted with says the same.

nearly all drivers think the same of their driving.

 

[Norm]

I'd say that the way most cyclists ride, it is indeed a dangerous activity.

I'm interpreting your post to say that cycling isn't dangerous, it is inherently less dangerous than driving (advantages... offsets the risks). But, you perceive that some cyclists put themselves in danger. So I think that we agree?

Also, to pick up on the point I think that Greg is making, sometimes, danger is at its greatest when we don't perceive it to be there at all.

 

[ferret fur]

Yep, we accept the perception that cycling is such a high-risk activity*, because common sense says it must be, when it isn't, that we have to wear special safety equipment to do it, because common sense says we should, when we don't, and then we wonder why more non-cyclists don't do the common sense thing and ride bikes as an alternative to motors....

*and surely we wouldn't bother with all this common sense risk mitigation to mitigate what are tiny levels of risk now would we?

In a society where significant numbers of people drive massive, tank-like 4x4s because they feel unsafe in 'normal' cars I can't help feeling that the whole 'hi-viz and other safety gear put people off cycling argument' is rather missing the context.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

In a society where significant numbers of people drive massive, tank-like 4x4s because they feel unsafe in 'normal' cars I can't help feeling that the whole 'hi-viz and other safety gear put people off cycling argument' is rather missing the context.

Common sense dictates a tank like car is bound to be safer for the occupants than, say, my Fiat Cinquecento.

As to missing the context, take it up with your local non-cyclists, not me. It's them who feel that if cycling is safe why do cyclists need to wear so much safety gear.... after all common sense says they wouldn't wear it if it wasn't necessary surely.

 

[ferret fur]

Yes... but if they feel a normal car isn't safe enough they are hardly likely to think a bike is 'safe' no matter what spin you put on it.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes... but if they feel a normal car isn't safe enough they are hardly likely to think a bike is 'safe' no matter what spin you put on it.

Perhaps the irredeemably stupid, prejudiced, biased, or bigoted, are not part of my target audience? Some will never convert. I'm after those people who would cycle if they felt it was safe. btw whilst an easy target, for me tank like 4x4's, and their drivers, are a pretty small niche in the scheme of things, as a wander around my local car parks confirms.

 

[Norm]

Common sense dictates a tank like car is bound to be safer for the occupants than, say, my Fiat Cinquecento.

Almost, but not quite, not without a small addendum.

Common sense dictates that a tank-like car is bound to be safer for the occupants in an "accident".

Smaller cars, with better manoeverability and more responsive handling, might be safer because they are not in the accident.

Primary safety (for instance, ABS to stop the car faster) over secondary safety (for instance, air bags to reduce the severity of the outcome).

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Almost, but not quite, not without a small addendum.

Common sense dictates that a tank-like car is bound to be safer for the occupants in an "accident".

Smaller cars, with better manoeverability and more responsive handling, might be safer because they are not in the accident.

Primary safety (for instance, ABS to stop the car faster) over secondary safety (for instance, air bags to reduce the severity of the outcome).

in an accident = taken as read tbh. Parked outside my house they are both equal.

 

[Norm]

Parked outside my house they are both equal.

Point missed there, Greg. Let me try again whilst avoiding externalities to try and help the focus.

The smaller car might not be in the accident so it doesn't need the perceived secondary safety features.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Almost, but not quite, not without a small addendum.

Common sense dictates that a tank-like car is bound to be safer for the occupants in an "accident".

Smaller cars, with better manoeverability and more responsive handling, might be safer because they are not in the accident.

Primary safety (for instance, ABS to stop the car faster)

Sighhhh!

How many times has this myth got to be slain?

ABS does NOT make a car stop quicker, It does however allow you to brake and steer ( at least, to the level of grip available) and does allow you to brake in a straight line on spilt Mu surfaces.

 

[Norm]

Which myth? The myth that says it doesn't stop the car quicker because it doesn't stop a car quicker when it is driven by professional testers?

I would contend that it does stop the car quicker if you drive like a twat in a 2.5 tonne vehicle and can't use the brakes properly or maybe you are just Mr or Mrs Normal and you crap yourself and panic-brake when you actually need to stop in an emergency.

But, whatever myth you are talking about is missing the point by an even greater margin than Greg.

 

[Bicycle]

Sighhhh!

How many times has this myth got to be slain?

ABS does NOT make a car stop quicker,

Yes and no, Bromptonite.

All you get on the tin from ABS is the releasing of brake pressure on any wheel which locks. Nominally, this simply allows you to retain control of the direction of the vehicle while slowing it (an option you lack while skidding).

However, many drivers have just one reaction to a perceived emergency: They stand on the middle pedal with every gramme of force their right leg can muster and tense every muscle in their body.

The notion that ABS simply allows the driver to retain control of direction under heavy braking is based on tests carried out with professional test drivers. Most of us who drive are not Juan Pablo Montoya.... Or, more to the point, we probably are.

Pre-ABS, cadence braking had to be taught. To almost every mortal who sits behind the wheel, it is hugely counter-intuitive.

Norm is not perpetuating a myth, he is noting a motoring reality.