Suggestions sought.

[classic33]

Suggestion wanted on how to prove how much protection a car gives to its driver compared to that offerred by a pedal cycle to the cyclist. The catch is neither driver nor cyclist will be near their vehicles when the test is to be carried out.

Reason for this demonstration is to prove to the local council that both offer the same level of protection. When you are away from them, whilst using a council owned site, which the council maintains is unsafe in use, for anyone who doesn't arrive by motor vehicle. Movement once on the sites is on foot

I have already said that the council can hold the demonstration to prove their point, about the sites being unsafe for those on foot. And I have said that I'm willing to take part in it.

So suggestions on what to include in this demonstration of site unsafety please.

 

[mattobrien]

Drop a 10 tonne weight on an empty car and an unridden bike. Neither the car or bicycle owner, who presumably are a distance away will be harmed.

 

[benb]

How odd. Can you elaborate at all?

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

So they're saying that you cannot leave your bike/car one you've arrived?

 

[Herzog]

Reason for this demonstration is to prove to the local council that both offer the same level of protection.

It's not 1st April just yet...

 

[steveindenmark]

But they are both at home in their houses and their house are on fire.

What a weird topic.

Steve

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Council policies. This could get interesting!

 

[classic33]

Pedal cycles give less protection than a car would when the people using them are not actually using them is how the council sees things.

Reason for asking was I got an e-mail, on an address I never gave to the council, with a response to a letter that was sent 3 1/2 years ago. The response given was that a pedal cycle offers less protection than a motor vehicle. Due to the lack of a steel shell.
This however doesn't include motorbikes.

We're still in March by the way.

 

[benb]

Pedal cycles give less protection than a car would when the people using them are not actually using them is how the council sees things.

Reason for asking was I got an e-mail, on an address I never gave to the council, with a response to a letter that was sent 3 1/2 years ago. The response given was that a pedal cycle offers less protection than a motor vehicle. Due to the lack of a steel shell.
This however doesn't include motorbikes.

We're still in March by the way.

WTF?

 

[redcard]

Is the answer Reykjavik?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?4svis3

 

[Herzog]

Is the answer Reykjavik?

Crop rotation was considerably more widespread after...?

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

I have already said that the council can hold the demonstration to prove their point, about the sites being unsafe for those on foot.

This, I think, is the key sentence. If I've got my head round it correctly the council is indirectly saying that getting hit by a bicycle while walking on site is more of a risk than being hit by a car. Hmmm, not sure I support their logic there.

 

[chewy]

Surely everyone involved is wearing Hi-Vis jackets though....so no problems?!

 

[heppy]

Easy this one......42

 

[classic33]

This, I think, is the key sentence. If I've got my head round it correctly the council is indirectly saying that getting hit by a bicycle while walking on site is more of a risk than being hit by a car. Hmmm, not sure I support their logic there.

The council are simply saying that not being by your pedal cycle whilst on site makes you more vunerable than not being near your motor vehicle, including motorbikes, whilst on site. Therefore the pedal cyclist is exposed to more danger whilst on site.

Those operating the site by the way, do so without insurance. Covered by the council insurance, as they own the site.