No Lights !!

[Mr Pig]

Poor dears.

Yip, keep that attitude up. It's the reason why cyclists have got sod all chance of being taken seriously by anyone other than other cyclists ;0)

 

[Amanda P]

So what should we do, Mr Pig?

Give car drivers everything they want, including compulsory licensing, insurance and registration for bikes? Fuel at 30p a litre? Motorways to everywhere?

There has to be a limit to how much we set the world up for the convenience of car users (and yes, I'm one myself), and in my mind, we've already gone too far that way.

In the bigger picture, the harm cyclists do, even the POBs without lights, is pretty inconsequential compared to cars. The perception that cyclists are such a nuisance is all media hype.

 

[tdr1nka]

Unfortunately there are too many drivers who feel that car ownership and how they drive is an absolute human right that should never be challenged by anyone.
Until that bubble is burst a lot of motorists will continue to be a danger to themselves and others, no matter if every road user had passed a 'test'.

 

[CopperBrompton]

They are in charge of lethal weapons. Cyclists are not.

Actually, according to the CTC, the difference is much smaller than you might think:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15324

"Per mile travelled, drivers are about 50% more likely than
cyclists to be involved in injuring a pedestrian, and 3.5 times as likely to be involved in killing them."

So, actually, the lethal weapons cyclists are in charge of are only 3.5 times less lethal than the lethal weapons motorists are in charge of.

Ben

 

[marinyork]

Actually, according to the CTC, the difference is much smaller than you might think:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15324

"Per mile travelled, drivers are about 50% more likely than
cyclists to be involved in injuring a pedestrian, and 3.5 times as likely to be involved in killing them."

So, actually, the lethal weapons cyclists are in charge of are only 3.5 times less lethal than the lethal weapons motorists are in charge of.

Ben

That's on a statistical basis, interesting Ben how you manage to warp a press release from the probable intent. It already points out in there there are many roads cars go at high speeds where peds are excluded.

On the other hand some people learning some basic Physics wouldn't be a bad idea every time these arguments come up.

 

[CopperBrompton]

That's on a statistical basis

Um, yes, that's how we measure things objectively ...

interesting Ben how you manage to warp a press release from the probable intent

I have no idea what the intent of the release was, but there is no 'warping' of the fact, however much you may dislike it.

Ben

 

[marinyork]

Um, yes, that's how we measure things objectively ...


I have no idea what the intent of the release was, but there is no 'warping' of the fact, however much you may dislike it.

Ben

I measure thing in physical terms which is why I point out the laws of physics everytime these arguments come up. The Laws of physics say you're talking complete cobblers.

 

[Amanda P]

The point about this little sub-debate is the "per mile travelled" business.

Is that a reasonable way to compare? The CTC hint that they think not, because cars do so many more miles than bikes, much of them on motorways. Yes, it's an objective measure, but not, in my opinion, a very helpful one - and I accept that I may be biased (although I do a lot miles on bikes and in cars and vans).

Per minutes of travel time might be more sensible.

The earlier points in their press release are probably more helpful - a random person on the street is far more likely to be killed or injured by a car than by a bike - whatever the Daily Wail may say.

And if that's a biased viewpoint, well, it's probably better be biased against cars, which I think we agree are more dangerous than bikes (even if only 3.5 times more) than against bikes. That's a conservative bias that will save more lives than being biased in favour of the cars.

 

[tdr1nka]

Back to the OT,

IMO riding without lights is dangerous and foolhardy as it is road law to have them and they do increase your safety.

 

[Amanda P]

Quite right, tdr1nka.

It's just not the ohmygodtheworld'sabouttoend problem that some people think it is.

 

[tdr1nka]

Yip, keep that attitude up. It's the reason why cyclists have got sod all chance of being taken seriously by anyone other than other cyclists ;0)

This quote is equally true if you substitue 'Motorist' for 'Cyclist'.

You are giving the impression that Motorists somehow hold a moral high ground here?

 

[CopperBrompton]

The Laws of physics say you're talking complete cobblers.

Let me see ... on the one hand we have some stats from an organisation who certainly would not be expected to exaggerate this issue, and on the other hand we have your highly articulate and erudite argument ...

We'll get back to you on that.

Ben

 

[Mr Pig]

So what should we do, Mr Pig?

As far as cyclists are concerned, I'd make it legal for children up to the age of sixteen to cycle on the pavement, which seems to be accepted as common sense by everyone already.

At around sixteen they need to put 'L' stickers on their bikes and they have a year to make the transition from the payment to the road. At seventeen it becomes illegal to cycle on the pavement.

Between the age of sixteen and say eighteen they must pass a road proficiency test which should include a bike control test on quiet roads and a verbal question and answer test on the Highway Code and a new bike-specific cycling instruction book. The 'L' stickers need to stay on until the test is passed.

Something along those lines.

 

[Dayvo]

As far as cyclists are concerned, I'd make it legal for children up to the age of sixteen to cycle on the pavement, which seems to be accepted as common sense by everyone already.

At around sixteen they need to put 'L' stickers on their bikes and they have a year to make the transition from the payment to the road. At seventeen it becomes illegal to cycle on the pavement.

Between the age of sixteen and say eighteen they must pass a road proficiency test which should include a bike control test on quiet roads and a verbal question and answer test on the Highway Code and a new bike-specific cycling instruction book. The 'L' stickers need to stay on until the test is passed.

Something along those lines.

So once suitably qualified and able to take on the motorist on a level playing field, are cyclists to expect drivers to drive more considerately/carefully/responsibly? I don't think so!

It's like cleaning a pane of glass: one side can be immaculately clean, but if the other side is dirty, it doesn't look any cleaner!

 

[Mr Pig]

You are giving the impression that Motorists somehow hold a moral high ground here?

No. put the point is that neither do cyclists. I'm fed up hearing cyclists bleating on about how these terrible car drivers should be held to account whilst wanting to do nothing about the lamentable lack of instruction and education of cyclists.

I don't think that car drivers receive enough training, but at least they get some!