Cycling UK Forum

hubgearfreak wrote:

Ellieb wrote:C2W may not be perfect but I don't see why any cyclist should object to it*.

i don't object to it really. i simply recognise that everyone isn't going to be able to have it. the county council (LEA) that employ the OP are doing the right thing in not being extravagant with ratepayers money in terms of HR workload. if i was to get upset on behalf of those not able to have it, it'd be for those on min wage, not those on teacher's pay especially those that already have three bikes.

[XAP]Bob wrote:To appease the wife.

In cases where I feel that I am likely to hit a branch or come off (maybe on ice). Mostly I think I'm old enough and experience enough to not fall off...

irc wrote:

Ellieb wrote:

Overall the death rate for pedestrians per km is 50% higher than for cyclists despite the former spending most of their time on segregated walking facilities and most cyclists mixing with traffic

Just out of interest. How exactly do you think that happens?

I'm guessing here but I think a large number of ped deaths will be alcohol/lack of attention related.

Of the two ped deaths in my local area in the last few years - one was someone who got off a bus stopped in the nearside lane of a dual carriageway then while talking on a mobile walked in front of the bus and was hit by an overtaking vehicle. Not Alcohol related

The other was a person walking home on an unlit rural road with a 60mph speed limit in the centre of the lane facing away from the traffic wearing dark clothing. He had been at a late night function. I don't know if he had been drinking. The road concerned has low traffic volume at the time of the accident.

In contrast because they are mixing with traffic for all for most of their journeys road cyclists are mostly alert and sober.

LANDSURFER74 wrote:So whats the other 90% please.

kwackers wrote:

blackdog2107 wrote:How many instances are there of injuries made worse by wearing a helmet?

Given that no one would deny that some injuries must lessen if an helmet is worn.....

blackdog2107 wrote:

TonyR wrote:Except when they are crossing the road and get hit by the car/bus/HGV.

So why would the 500 pedestrians a year killed by motor vehicles not benefit from helmets but the 100 cyclists would?

Precisley. The risk level rises astronomically when you leave the pavement and and occupy the same space as the traffic.

If the 500/100 statistic is intended to suggest that being a pedestrian is more dangerous, it needs to take into account total pedstrian journeys compared to total bike journeys. If pedestrian journeys outnumber bike journeys by more than 5 to 1 (does anyone doubt that they do?) then it clearly confirms that you are more at risk on a bike.

MikewsMITH2 wrote:

I normally stand astride the bike or with one foot clipped in at the 6 O clock position (opposite side to the side you mount from). Stoker mounts and clips her foot into the pedal. I then lift my foot to about 2 O clock. She looks behind and says "OK", and then both press down and move off smoothly we pedal a couple of turns and then clip in the other side.

irc wrote:

blackdog2107 wrote:I never fail to be amazed by this argument. In case you hadn't noticed, pedestrians are usually on the pavement, physically segregated from moving vehicles by the curb.

Except when they are crossing the road and get hit by the car/bus/HGV.

downfader wrote:From the other side of the spectrum:
http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2 ... to-be.html

A very interesting essay on segregation and how surely something must be done along those lines in many urban areas to cut out the other risks caused by bad road planning, lane merging and rat running. It seems the cyclist in this case was simply run right over from behind.

blackdog2107 wrote:

snibgo wrote:I venture to suggest: for many of the same reasons that pedestrians don't.

I never fail to be amazed by this argument. In case you hadn't noticed, pedestrians are usually on the pavement, physically segregated from moving vehicles by the curb. When you are cycling, you are in amongst the traffic. Spot the difference?

As a pedsetrian, I don't wear hi-viz clothing. On the pavement, it isn't going to improve my safety. If I ever have to work in the middle of a road, I will do.

And anyone who is more worried about their appearance than their safety is better off not cycling.

SilverBadge wrote:

blackdog2107 wrote:

snibgo wrote:I venture to suggest: for many of the same reasons that pedestrians don't.

I never fail to be amazed by this argument. In case you hadn't noticed, pedestrians are usually on the pavement, physically segregated from moving vehicles by the curb. When you are cycling, you are in amongst the traffic. Spot the difference?

As a pedsetrian, I don't wear hi-viz clothing. On the pavement, it isn't going to improve my safety. If I ever have to work in the middle of a road, I will do.

And anyone who is more worried about their appearance than their safety is better off not cycling.

So just to confirm this, as a pedestrian, nearly 100% of substantial number of head injuries fall into the "no motor vehicle, <12mph vertical impact" category that EN1078 "cycle" helmets are designed to be effective for, whereas for cyclists, 90% of a smaller total number of head injuries involve collision with a motor vehicle and are thus likely to be outside the design spec of the EN1078 "cycle" helmet, and from this you deduce that helmets for pedestrians is a daft idea (not that you're worried about your appearance) but helmets for cyclists is so obviously a common sense measure?

Jonty wrote:Has anyone ever taken a cattle grid at speed on a Moulton?
jonty