Do you go on your bike when the roads are covered with thin snow ?

[Jameshow]

Nope not been out on the bike since cold snap began..

Won't until it's over too.

Don't feel too porky yet, Christmas eating coming so will have to get back on it.. !

Week in Devon coming up and possible new years tour!

 

[Alex321]

I'll ask you the same question. If things go wrong who are you going to call?

Why are you posting in this forum if you never ever go out on your bike?

Because it is NEVER risk-free, so if you really do "practice what you preach", you will never do any leisure cycling at all.

 

[rualexander]

This was a few years ago but a fine example of the superiority of a bike with studded tyres over motor vehicles with numpties at the wheel.

 

[matticus]

As with many issues, there is a sensible middle-ground here.

And then there are comments like this:

Same goes for people who dare to leave the safety of their homes for anything recreational - there's just no need for it and it creates unnecessary risk.

 

[Solocle]

As with many issues, there is a sensible middle-ground here.

And then there are comments like this:

Surely that's the point being made, though?
Different people's middle grounds are different.
In certain circumstances, I'll happily ride on trunk dual carriageways like the A303...

As opposed to the other route I could easily have taken, the A30. Which is a nice quiet road that I did use last time I rode the same general route...

In terms of risk, the A30 is surely substantially safer.

But the A303 was quiet enough that it didn't feel particularly dangerous, so I tossed up between the two routes. I decided that the convenience of roadside services that would actually be open at 3-5 am and higher quality road outweighed the slightly increased risk of sudden death. Passing Stonehenge was an added bonus.

Neither route is risk free, nothing is. So it then becomes a question of individual choice.

 

[T4tomo]

This was a few years ago but a fine example of the superiority of a bike with studded tyres over motor vehicles with numpties at the wheel.
View attachment 670926

Looks like you dazzled them off the road with your pink top🤣

 

[Alex321]

As with many issues, there is a sensible middle-ground here.

And then there are comments like this:

I think that post was made to make the point (as was mine in a more direct way) that you can't just make the sort of blanket statements PaulSB was making.

 

[freiston]

As with many issues, there is a sensible middle-ground here.

And then there are comments like this:

My intention was to parody a post further up and take it to that conclusion to make a point; I actually strongly disagree with the part you quoted. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[gavroche]

This was a few years ago but a fine example of the superiority of a bike with studded tyres over motor vehicles with numpties at the wheel.
View attachment 670926

Maybe they were just moving out of the way to let you through?

 

[matticus]

My intention was to parody a post further up and take it to that conclusion to make a point; I actually strongly disagree with the part you quoted. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Ah, jolly good!
(It was the bus bit that confused me - it might well be sensible to take the bus instead of cycle, for certain circs, etc etc ... )

 

[FishFright]

I have to disagree strongly on this. How many of those ambulances where called unnecessarily? How many of those 600 people have an actual need for an ambulance?
Of the necessary needs for ambulances, how many cases are the result of pure stupidity? Anger? Impatience? Drink? Other people's actions? Unrelated in any way to the weather conditions or travelling in it?
I know there are some pretty simple minded muppets out there putting themselves at risk but that doesn't mean we all are. Some of us have a clue as to the situations we put ourselves into and take the necessary precautions to minimise risk.
Just because Tim can't ride a bike in a straight line doesn't mean Tom can't.

No idea, do you ?

 

[Vantage]

No idea, do you ?

Surprisingly, I actually have no clue. Hence why I asked.

 

[PaulSB]

Why are you posting in this forum if you never ever go out on your bike?

Because it is NEVER risk-free, so if you really do "practice what you preach", you will never do any leisure cycling at all.

This is a rather silly remark. Generally I ride 120-150 miles a week. There is a very real difference to cycling under normal conditions when incidents can and do occur to riding in adverse conditions such as snow and ice when the likelihood of an incident is significantly increased.

Ignoring the increased potential puts oneself at greater risk and potentially increases the workload for emergency services and the NHS.

Ask yourself this. If the ambulance service is prioritising life threatening situations how long would you like to wait by the roadside with, say, a broken leg or fractured collarbone?

I'm 68 now and very aware a broken bone could put me off the bike for 3 months or so. Why risk that for an hour in the snow?

 

[Alex321]

This is a rather silly remark. Generally I ride 120-150 miles a week. There is a very real difference to cycling under normal conditions when incidents can and do occur to riding in adverse conditions such as snow and ice when the likelihood of an incident is significantly increased.

Ignoring the increased potential puts oneself at greater risk and potentially increases the workload for emergency services and the NHS.

Ask yourself this. If the ambulance service is prioritising life threatening situations how long would you like to wait by the roadside with, say, a broken leg or fractured collarbone?

I'm 68 now and very aware a broken bone could put me off the bike for 3 months or so. Why risk that for an hour in the snow?

Of course it was a silly remark. But it was just an extension of what you were saying.

All cycling carries some risk. Different conditions pose different levels of risk, but where each of us draws the line at the level we are prepared to accept is very much an individual decision.

And the presence of snow doesn't automatically make it riskier, though it often will, particularly on road.

But the point I was really making is that it isn't up to you to decide for others what they are prepared to risk. Nor is it any more "selfish" to accept any gioven level thgan a small amount less - and then how on earth do you decide at what point it is becoming selfish?

 

[freiston]

So there's a risk in nigh on any activity and there are conditions that can increase the risk. There are also activities that in good conditions might still have a higher risk than other activities in bad conditions - I certainly consider my risk of injury cycling on a busy urban road in good weather to be far greater than the risk on the country lanes I ride on with a little bit of snow. Then there are people who just aren't as "safe" as other people. Until something happens, it is just risk and nothing might happen at all.

What really gets my goat is when someone tells me that they have decided what the threshold of acceptable risk is for me and that they have then deemed me selfish for crossing that threshold - I'm an experienced cyclist with experience of cycling in pretty much any weather that we get where I live. This is not jumping red lights or playing chicken with motor vehicles kind of risk exacerbation - it is going about my usual life in ordinary weather. I make my own decisions vis-a-vis risk taking and I've pretty much done well by it by my reckoning. I avoid busy fast roads that other members of this forum might be quite happy to ride on but I wouldn't tell them they are guilty of putting themselves at greater risk and potentially increasing the workload for emergency services and the NHS. I certainly wouldn't be so much up my own derrière whilst on my high horse to call them selfish for doing so.