Not helped by idiots like Clarkson who engender the opinion that driving your chav machine 'on the limit' is cool.
This Wiggins incident has brought the numpties out...
- Thread starter dodd82
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Not helped by idiots like Clarkson who engender the opinion that driving your chav machine 'on the limit' is cool.
400bhp
Guru
One thing that stuck me today whilst out and about and doing my usual deep (for me) thinking.
There's a real dichotomy between the relative safety of bikes and what we would like to see improved on our roads.
I see a lot of talk on here (rightly so) about cycling being a relatively risk free activity. Yet, on the other hand, we complain that the roads need to be safer for cyclists.
The 2 possibly don't add up do they, in particular whan we are trying to persuade/encourage others to either cycle more/take up cycling or to driver safer/improve road safety?
There's a real dichotomy between the relative safety of bikes and what we would like to see improved on our roads.
I see a lot of talk on here (rightly so) about cycling being a relatively risk free activity. Yet, on the other hand, we complain that the roads need to be safer for cyclists.
The 2 possibly don't add up do they, in particular whan we are trying to persuade/encourage others to either cycle more/take up cycling or to driver safer/improve road safety?
I think it is more those people do not think of a cyclist as operating a vehicle, but as a pedestrian with wheels, hence they behave like a pedestrian on the bike. Since pedestrians aren't required by law to obey traffic light signals or traffic-related signs, they shouldn't have to either.
benborp
Guru
- Location
- further from Penge
This dichotomy is common when comparing an individual exposure to risk and the exposure that an entire population faces over a period of time. Cycling can be termed relatively safe for each individual cyclist while at the same time recognising that improvements can be made to lower every cyclist's exposure to risk. Lowering the exposure to risk to every cyclist would result in fewer KSI.
I work in an industry where it is conceivable that I could kill through negligence. There are situations where it would be possible for me to kill a couple of dozen members of the public or more and a couple of high profile names. Even if I was negligent in the execution of my work the risk of this negligence actually killing someone would be tiny and would require a series of errors and omissions by several people. I could probably spend my entire career operating in an 'unsafe manner' without any misfortune. However, expand the risk that I would pose as an individual across an entire industry that has hundreds of millions of interactions with the public and people would die. That is why industries (often jogged by the force of government legislation) work on minimising the risk they pose to the public and their employees. Cutting the risk each individual poses from tiny to infinitesimal pays dividends.
If I didn't work to the appropriate standards I'd find myself in a rather uncomfortable situation. I don't want to be there so I don't cut corners - a bit like driving really.
The big dichotomy is in the general perception of road safety. In the wake of rail and air disasters,over time, countless millions will be spent upgrading equipment, procedures and training in an attempt to reduce the risk of such events being repeated. The reduction in the public's general exposure to risk will result in a handful fewer deaths. Any other response to a disaster would be condemned by public and politicians alike.
However, on the road thousands are killed and seriously injured each year and there are few demands to maintain operating standards, improve the function of the licencing system or for the government to intervene with improvements to infrastructure (some are happening but the government has made clear that this is only at a local level). Recently the biggest conversation in the public sphere about reducing risk revolved around the profitability of insurance companies (who are struggling to pay out for all the carnage). Government can for a modest outlay save thousands of lives and livelihoods - in France tougher enforcement (on the back of an impromptu Presidential announcement) has made a huge improvement to their accident figures. We are heading the other way.
400bhp
Guru
I may have mistronstrued your point, but the exposure to risk an individual faces when cycling is directly proportional to the overall exposure to risk a population faces (assuming we calculate it this way). 120 odd cycle deaths against so many miles ridden equals a very small risk exposure to death.
The powers that be have been tackling the KSI / death rate on Britain's roads and have done a reasonable job of reducing it. The deaths/ KSI on Britain's roads have, IIRC, come down almost year on year since the 90's. This is given an increasing traffic density.
I'm in no way being dismissive of what deaths there are out there (cycling/other) and I understand it's clearly not just about deaths, but it's difficult balance when we say on the one hand it's very safe to cycle, then on the other we bemoan the perceived lack of safety on the roads.
Just worth reminding ourselves that risk is the likelihood of an incident occuring coupled with the severity of the incident. For us cyclists, the severity is clearly much much higher relative to road vehicles and I think this is where the dichotomy comes in to some extent.
Apologies to the rambling nature.
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Got to love this one
"Tonight I saw a cyclist with no lights on"
"Well you saw him though didn't you, so ner
"What exactly are you suggesting or advocating, that since the cyclist was seen by the poster it therefore means they don't need lights?
ComedyPilot
Secret Lemonade Drinker
- Location
- The Kingdom of Yorkshire
Cycling in the Netherlands, I rode for about 1400km, and spent maybe 15% of that distance sharing a road with traffic. At no time did I feel in danger, and the other 85% was on dedicated off-road, or adjacent cycle paths.
In this 'great' country, we have complete idiots (that don't cycle) designing expensive infrastructure that at best is concilliatory, indirect, dangerous and ill-thought out. At worst lasts for mere metres, goes through impassable gating, is litter/debris/glass strewn, stops/starts like a stammerer's convention, and is meandered on by pedestrians who (bless them) have the spatial awareness of goldfish.
Cycling is relatively safe, and always will be.
It's the cretins in tin boxes killing pedestrians, cyclists, themselves and other motorists at an (unchallenged) rate of 2,000-3,000 per year that make the roads unsafe. I will not accept responsibility for the bad driving of a lot of motorists, and will not let it stop me getting one of the true free pleasures in life - a countryside ride on a bike.
People will not take up cycling in masses in this country till they are (rightly) protected by the system, and the (hallowed) motorist is made to grow the fark up and drive in a responsible manner.
In this 'great' country, we have complete idiots (that don't cycle) designing expensive infrastructure that at best is concilliatory, indirect, dangerous and ill-thought out. At worst lasts for mere metres, goes through impassable gating, is litter/debris/glass strewn, stops/starts like a stammerer's convention, and is meandered on by pedestrians who (bless them) have the spatial awareness of goldfish.
Cycling is relatively safe, and always will be.
It's the cretins in tin boxes killing pedestrians, cyclists, themselves and other motorists at an (unchallenged) rate of 2,000-3,000 per year that make the roads unsafe. I will not accept responsibility for the bad driving of a lot of motorists, and will not let it stop me getting one of the true free pleasures in life - a countryside ride on a bike.
People will not take up cycling in masses in this country till they are (rightly) protected by the system, and the (hallowed) motorist is made to grow the fark up and drive in a responsible manner.
trampyjoe
Senior Member
- Location
- South Shropshire
I'd hardly call supercars 'chav machines'. Clarkson et al. are entertainers, they are not really that extreme. Those that fail to realise this are, IMO, beyond help.
Re registration: please read http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc.PDF for a thorough (or even thoro) debunking of the idea.
- The admin costs of such a system would be much the same as that of the VED and/or driving licence system
- What size registration tag?
- Where would you put it?
- Would you register each bike separately?
- Would you only register the rider?
- At what age?
- How would you ban riders from the road?
- How would you know which riders have been banned without VNPR (on a very small plate)?
- How many police would put it on the priority to do list?
- What benefits would there be: Reduced number of collisions (majority between bikes/cars are drivers fault at between 60-70%)? Improved behaviour of riders (look how well it works with registered drivers - hoho), not to mention the number of drivers who have no licence/VED/insurance and see how many riders would behave in exactly the same way (see 8 above)?
- If you covered the admin costs in your fee, how many people would simply ignore it because of the cost (see 8 & 9 above)
benborp
Guru
- Location
- further from Penge
If you're rambling then I'm on quite a hike.
As you say the risk an individual faces may be proportional to the overall risk, the point I was trying to make is that any changes to the overall risk faced by the population are going to be imperceptible to the individual in terms of danger of death or injury. For example, with 120 cyclist deaths the risk to an individual going on a twenty mile bike ride would be accurately perceived by them as vanishingly small. But if there were 500 cyclist deaths a year the risk to an individual going on a twenty mile ride would still be vanishingly small and could still be accurately perceived as such. Yet if there were 500 cyclist deaths a year there would certainly be more demands made for improvements to cyclist safety.
In recent years we've usually outperformed our European neighbours at reducing our rate of KSI but amongst the overall rate we've often had poor figures by comparison for vulnerable road users. I know there are lots of variables in populations, road types and urban/rural split but I think this is another element in why people have felt there is more that could be done for cyclist and pedestrian safety.
One of the things that people want when they argue for safer roads is, like you said, a recognition that for cyclists it's not just about physical safety. Without a cage a near miss or aggressive behaviour feels far more threatening and dangerous and over time repeated incidents can severely impair someone's perception of cycling actually being safe without them coming to any physical harm. I think there's a hope that action to cut the KSI rate for vulnerable road users would make day to day riding more pleasant. That may or may not be the case - some of the most pleasant, relaxing, enjoyable riding amongst traffic I've done has been somewhere with an appalling road safety record, yet it felt far easier to maintain my own safety than it did in London at the time. I also appreciated the different road culture in France, even though they were killing 12,000 of themselves a year. Would a safer Britain be less pleasant to cycle in?
The issue of cycle safety is a strange thing to get your head round and it's odd seeing so many people around me that previously questioned my sanity taking to cycling around London. For all of them it's involved a rebalancing of their perception of risk and it's interesting seeing the variety of compromises they make. I get the impression that most think cycling is safe enough (some don't and have given up) but that it could be better.
As you say the risk an individual faces may be proportional to the overall risk, the point I was trying to make is that any changes to the overall risk faced by the population are going to be imperceptible to the individual in terms of danger of death or injury. For example, with 120 cyclist deaths the risk to an individual going on a twenty mile bike ride would be accurately perceived by them as vanishingly small. But if there were 500 cyclist deaths a year the risk to an individual going on a twenty mile ride would still be vanishingly small and could still be accurately perceived as such. Yet if there were 500 cyclist deaths a year there would certainly be more demands made for improvements to cyclist safety.
In recent years we've usually outperformed our European neighbours at reducing our rate of KSI but amongst the overall rate we've often had poor figures by comparison for vulnerable road users. I know there are lots of variables in populations, road types and urban/rural split but I think this is another element in why people have felt there is more that could be done for cyclist and pedestrian safety.
One of the things that people want when they argue for safer roads is, like you said, a recognition that for cyclists it's not just about physical safety. Without a cage a near miss or aggressive behaviour feels far more threatening and dangerous and over time repeated incidents can severely impair someone's perception of cycling actually being safe without them coming to any physical harm. I think there's a hope that action to cut the KSI rate for vulnerable road users would make day to day riding more pleasant. That may or may not be the case - some of the most pleasant, relaxing, enjoyable riding amongst traffic I've done has been somewhere with an appalling road safety record, yet it felt far easier to maintain my own safety than it did in London at the time. I also appreciated the different road culture in France, even though they were killing 12,000 of themselves a year. Would a safer Britain be less pleasant to cycle in?
The issue of cycle safety is a strange thing to get your head round and it's odd seeing so many people around me that previously questioned my sanity taking to cycling around London. For all of them it's involved a rebalancing of their perception of risk and it's interesting seeing the variety of compromises they make. I get the impression that most think cycling is safe enough (some don't and have given up) but that it could be better.
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
Thats a really good point. Its not just about real danger but with the potential danger - of people using mobile phones and such - of the thousands of near misses, punishment passes, thinly veiled aggression, revving engines, and the general lack of respect. Most of which doesn't result in a collision let alone a KSI statistic. But it creates a very hostile environment. And its the perception of danger which is always cited as the number one reason that people give when asked why they dont cycle.
Got to love this one
"Tonight I saw a cyclist with no lights on"
"Well you saw him though didn't you, so ner
What exactly are you suggesting or advocating, that since the cyclist was seen by the poster it therefore means they don't need lights?
He wasn't saying that - he was remarking the logically curious situation in which people complain that they have seen a lot of invisible people. You might think it silly, but it's important to note that when motorists claim they can't see people, it isn't literally true. What they usually mean is "I think you should signal your presence more emphatically." The difference is important because (except in total darkness) there is no universal criterion determining what is and isn't visible - it is about norms and choices. Some of us might argue that in conditions of low light the sensible thing to do is to radically reduce the speed of vehicles and to alter the balance of lighting so as to make their drivers look where they are going.
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
True dat. When i rode a recumbent in That London the stock response to 'I didn't see you down there'! was 'Can you hear me though? .... Good. fark off'.
Cycling Dan
Cycle Crazy
The cost is a boundary enough!
mixed in with a 20% VAT tax. I pay enough and do enough to cycle freely on the road.
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
Are you missing the point that we don't need to pay or do anything to be entitled to cycle freely on the road.
Similar threads
