Cycle Experience for Drivers

[Ming the Merciless]

I've been known to insist on all cars having red and white reflective stripes across front and rear before I'll wear High-Viz, especially as so many cars seem to be painted "fog grey" as standard.

Surely you mean all drivers having red and white reflective stripes across front and rear?

 

[Alex321]

Generally from this:



Because the statement is based on something we'll "never" know. If we mandate safety on the basis of something that "might" happen, the logical conclusion to that argument is that we shouldn't do anything risky.

But something "might" happen in any activity, in fact @Oldhippy 's suggestion we get experience from YouTube is a bit, well, risky; think of the danger of electricity, of cables as a trip hazard, sharp edges of tables, and the possibility of the flat screen monitor falling on you.

That may not be what you had in mind when you suggested it, but the logical conclusion of the argument is that we try to stop all risk, which means we stop people doing risky activities.

Any clues as to what you think I have "suggested", since I really have no idea what it is that I have said which you are arguing against here.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Any clues as to what you think I have "suggested", since I really have no idea what it is that I have said which you are arguing against here.

I'm not really arguing "against" you. My point is that if we are going to tell people they "should" or "shouldn't" do something, it needs to be based on the real risk, not on "you never know", because that is based on feelings and guesswork, not facts, and leads to the situation I described above.

In fact, if we did really treat risk on the basis of the facts, we'd quickly realise driving a car is one of the highest risk everyday activities in a western country for drivers and pedestrians: we wouldn't be making drivers take cycling experience; we'd be making it harder for people to drive and cause the risk in the first place

 

[Andy in Germany]

Surely you mean all drivers having red and white reflective stripes across front and rear?

You never know, it may help too...

 

[Alex321]

I'm not really arguing "against" you. My point is that if we are going to tell people they "should" or "shouldn't" do something, it needs to be based on the real risk, not on "you never know", because that is based on feelings and guesswork, not facts, and leads to the situation I described above.

Fair enough. I thought you were arguing against something you thought I'd suggested, when I hadn't really suggested anything.

And I agree with you there.

Personally, I choose to wear a helmet, but I certainly don't think they should be made compulsory, as there is far too much conflicting evidence about the overall benefits. Whether organisations such as Bikeablity and ROSPA should be recommending their use, I'm not quite so sure.

In fact, if we did really treat risk on the basis of the facts, we'd quickly realise driving a car is one of the highest risk everyday activities in a western country for drivers and pedestrians: we wouldn't be making drivers take cycling experience; we'd be making it harder for people to drive and cause the risk in the first place

Well again, as with my response to Oldhippy previously, those are not mutually exclusive. We should be doing both.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Many many years ago I went on a First Aid course - I was in Venture Scouts so it must have been late 1970s

Anyway - the person running the course was very anti risk

His view was that swimming pools should never be more that 3 ffot 6 deep - as that is a perfectly OK depth to swim in and anything deeper is more dangerous
If people INSIST on swimming in the sea then they should only swim in places with a proper lifeguard plus rescue available - and still - swim parallel to the beach in - yup you guessed - water no more than 3 foot 6 deep

Walking in mountains was wrong - people who want to go for a walk should do so on flat paths in the country - but not in places too far from easy access in case of problems

I'm pretty sure he would have said cycling was unnecessarily dangerous with or without helmets, hi-vis and probably body armour

 

[Andy in Germany]

Many many years ago I went on a First Aid course - I was in Venture Scouts so it must have been late 1970s

Anyway - the person running the course was very anti risk

His view was that swimming pools should never be more that 3 ffot 6 deep - as that is a perfectly OK depth to swim in and anything deeper is more dangerous
If people INSIST on swimming in the sea then they should only swim in places with a proper lifeguard plus rescue available - and still - swim parallel to the beach in - yup you guessed - water no more than 3 foot 6 deep

Walking in mountains was wrong - people who want to go for a walk should do so on flat paths in the country - but not in places too far from easy access in case of problems

I'm pretty sure he would have said cycling was unnecessarily dangerous with or without helmets, hi-vis and probably body armour

What was his view on driving, stairs, or showers, I wonder...

 

[Dogtrousers]

What was his view on driving, stairs, or showers, I wonder...

You have to have a special licence to drive stairs and showers I think.

Yes yes, I saw the comma. Lighten up.

 

[Milkfloat]

Many many years ago I went on a First Aid course - I was in Venture Scouts so it must have been late 1970s

Anyway - the person running the course was very anti risk

His view was that swimming pools should never be more that 3 ffot 6 deep - as that is a perfectly OK depth to swim in and anything deeper is more dangerous
If people INSIST on swimming in the sea then they should only swim in places with a proper lifeguard plus rescue available - and still - swim parallel to the beach in - yup you guessed - water no more than 3 foot 6 deep

Walking in mountains was wrong - people who want to go for a walk should do so on flat paths in the country - but not in places too far from easy access in case of problems

I'm pretty sure he would have said cycling was unnecessarily dangerous with or without helmets, hi-vis and probably body armour

Luckily in Scouts that attitude has gone away. However, over the last few years Risk Assessments have become mandatory for every activity no matter how benign they may seem. These do not stop activities from taking place, but they make people think how can we achieve the goals of the activity in a safe way. The kids are still sailing, kayaking, hiking, gliding, using knifes, climbing trees etc, just in a little safer way.

 

[mjr]

You have to have a special licence to drive stairs and showers I think.

Yes yes, I saw the comma. Lighten up.

This driver of stairs seems special. I'm not sure if her licence was special:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzTO0dBfD6A

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

What was his view on driving, stairs, or showers, I wonder...

I presume he lived in a bungalow

and had a lifebelt in the shower - clearly a bath would have been too risky

and he probably drove a Volvo

 

[Ming the Merciless]

What was his view on driving, stairs, or showers, I wonder...

Don't drive up the stairs into the shower?

 

[Andy in Germany]

You have to have a special licence to drive stairs and showers I think.

Yes yes, I saw the comma. Lighten up.

Don't drive up the stairs into the shower?

You even beat @classic33 this time...

 

[classic33]

I presume he lived in a bungalow

and had a lifebelt in the shower - clearly a bath would have been too risky

and he probably drove a Volvo

You can drown in an inch of water, lifebelt may not have saved him.