Thinking of doing a stats video

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby Tonyf33 » 30 Dec 2010, 6:37pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
Tonyf33 wrote:Hubbers, I think your 99%(or 95 whichever figure you choose) is way off the mark, not all car drivers are twonks and i'd say the majority pass safely


you get 95% passing as they should? frankly i'm amazed, :shock: but also delighted for you. (if you're not delusional that is :wink: )

Image

I'd have to say yes 95% of drivers seem to pass me by okay, it's always the odd one that sticks in your craw :twisted:
However I wouldn't say that the majority pass with as much space as in the photo which is closer to 4.5ft, I'd probably want that much space at much higher speeds rather than 30/40 zones.
If I get plenty of space I'll always give a wave where possible.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby hubgearfreak » 30 Dec 2010, 6:51pm

Tonyf33 wrote:However I wouldn't say that the majority pass with as much space as in the photo


so as i say - the majority don't pass as the HC say they should. that you're accepting about this is because you've been conditioned to poor driving and close passes. if you were a luxenbourger (however it's spelt) cars passing closer than 2m would be a shock. given that it's only going to take a really, really slight effort and a tiny delay for the motorist, why can't we have that high standard?

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby Tonyf33 » 31 Dec 2010, 3:29pm

No, it's that I'm happy with 3 feet, it doesn't make me feel uncomfortable in the slightest nor has it ever done so I wouldn't say I''m 'conditioned', in fact closer passes at lower speeds don't bother me either. It's the 45 and upwards that annoy me when they get to within a couple of feet and as I said that is pretty rare. I have more issues with drivers pulling out at roundabouts/junctions for the most part.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby hubgearfreak » 31 Dec 2010, 4:19pm

so what you're saying then is that the majority pass safely enough for you or that the majority pass safely in your opinion.

what i'm saying is that almost all ignore the highway code. why do they think this acceptable? it's most certainly not in other countries and doesn't leave much room for a good gust of wind, pothole dodging, or instinctive swerving out for dog or child avoidance.
the cost/benefit analysis is quite easy to do on this.
cost = wait a second or even half a minute till it's safe (by the HC definition, not tony's) and put the effort in to turn that steering wheel
benifit = don't scare, kill or injure vulnerable people, damage your car, seriously delay your journey, up your premiums & etc.

Steady rider
Posts: 2188
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby Steady rider » 1 Jan 2011, 9:37pm

On the helmet topic I think I could contribute to a video in a few ways.

The possible CTC motion posting for 2011 includes the following

--------------------
Minimum passing clearance for cyclists of 1.2m in 30 mph (or lower speed zones) and 1.5m for zones above 30 mph.

Reason

Prevents motorist from legally passing too close to cyclists and provides a guide for a minimum passing distance, improving safety and conditions for cycling. At higher speeds a wider clearance would be advisable. A small car width is near to 1.5m as a guide. These requiremnets would encourage motorist to give more clearance than at present an d prescribe a minimum limit.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 091106.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUKGOwEddL0
------------
scaling the photo of the young chap and the car, roughly car width 35mm, clearance 30mm, scaling based on car width 1.6m, clearance 1.6 x 30/35 = 1.37m - close to the minimum suggested as a legal requirement of 1.2m and more than in the Au U-tube of 1.0m.

The figuress from Dr Ian Walkers I think are giving an avaerage clearance of just over 1.2m.

--------

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby Tonyf33 » 2 Jan 2011, 1:52pm

hubgearfreak wrote: so what you're saying then is that the majority pass safely enough for you or that the majority pass safely in your opinion. .

Correct, as I said 95% maybe even higher.

hubgearfreak wrote:what i'm saying is that almost all ignore the highway code. why do they think this acceptable? it's most certainly not in other countries and doesn't leave much room for a good gust of wind, pothole dodging, or instinctive swerving out for dog or child avoidance.
the cost/benefit analysis is quite easy to do on this.


The HC also says give as much space when overtaking a car when you do a bicycle which muddies the water given how close cars overtake one another, It will be impossible to police a set distance for overtaking motor vehicles to adhere to when we can't even get proper policing/protection for more serious incidents. It has to be back to better learner training, retraining for ALL drivers and harsher penalties. It is acceptable because nothing gets done against drivers and never will without real evidence of threat.

Unless a pothole is very very wide or you react too slowly 3 feet is more than enough space to manouevre in, don't forget you'll also be in either primary or secondary so can nip to the left as well as right. I've yet to be blown off course by winds by very much so I've not really had to worry about that. It might be appropriate in open country (or hilly areas) but then the roads are less busy right, so easier for cars to overtake with plenty of space anyhow which IMO do so.

hubgearfreak wrote:cost = wait a second or even half a minute till it's safe (by the HC definition, not tony's) and put the effort in to turn that steering wheel.
benifit = don't scare, kill or injure vulnerable people, damage your car, seriously delay your journey, up your premiums & etc.


There is no need for your snide comment, I am in no way saying that it woudn't be nice to have more space, sure I'll take that every time and as a driver I advance prepare what i'm going to do before I make the move so that everyone is safe, sadly some don't and are very reactionary and endanger themselves even more so than the cyclist. At the end of the day, I'm a realist and I know that even IF a law was passed it would be futile trying to uphold it and just make the anti cycling brigade even more against us.

Steady rider
Posts: 2188
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby Steady rider » 2 Jan 2011, 6:03pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUKGOwEddL0

A metre matters. Leave at least a metre may be better than just a metre.

In 2009 pedal cyclist casualties were 17084.

The ad takes about 15 seconds.

If cyclists take the back seat option, then motorist will continue to squeeze past at narrow sections and some will do it on purpose. Road designers install narrow sections and cyclists are most affected.

A legal requirement sets a bench mark, 1.0m or 1.2m, either would give a similar message, you have to leave a safe passing clearance and cannot pass too close if you want to avoid possible police action.

Could the minimum passing clearance apply to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists?
A short video showing a clearance of 1.2m and other clearances could be of interest.

helmets - see how cycling faired in NZ
http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/Do ... nginNZ.pdf

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby hubgearfreak » 2 Jan 2011, 6:14pm

Tonyf33 wrote:Unless a pothole is very very wide or you react too slowly 3 feet is more than enough space to manouevre in, don't forget you'll also be in either primary or secondary so can nip to the left as well as right.


you're right, but for those cyclists that react too slowly, aren't in primary and come across a very, very large pothole? what then - fair punishment for their ineptitide is death is it?

i'm sorry that you think i'm snide. i just think that being certain of not being killed comes higher up the list of priorities than even annoying the readers of the daily mail, clarkson

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby Tonyf33 » 2 Jan 2011, 9:54pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
i'm sorry that you think i'm snide. i just think that being certain of not being killed comes higher up the list of priorities than even annoying the readers of the daily mail, clarkson

It had nothing to do with the subject matter but the fact you included my name in your comment that annoyed me, you made a point of the fact that my comment is not that of the HC "cost = wait a second or even half a minute till it's safe (by the HC definition, not tony's)" Forum members aren't stupid they can read and take in what has being said & make their own judgments. Absolutely no need to make that point when it was very obvious.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby hubgearfreak » 2 Jan 2011, 10:21pm

hubgearfreak wrote:you're right, but for those cyclists that react too slowly, aren't in primary and come across a very, very large pothole? what then - fair punishment for their ineptitide is death is it?


you haven't addressed this point tony. i suspect that this is why the HC gives direction of 5 or 6 feet space. whilst for a competant and confident cyclist like you, 3 feet's enough, it isn't for everyone, all the time.

my driving instructor told me to allow for them (the cyclist) falling off into your (the motorist's) path, ie. 6 feet or more. whilst it's not likely, the consequences are fatal. you perceive me as being snide, my purpose in raising the point as i did is to distinguish between the stupid & nervous cyclists not just those that are competant & confident. unless you trust drivers to be able to tell the difference?
anyway, the point remains that whilst you feel that 3 feet's enough, some cyclists may not.

i don't think you're stupid, but i do think you're being oversensitive

Steady rider
Posts: 2188
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby Steady rider » 2 Jan 2011, 10:33pm

Its also a matter fo feeling safe, eg 30 ton HGV 3 feet away at 30-40 mph, too close for enjoyment perhaps, ask anybody.

downfader
Posts: 1074
Joined: 8 Feb 2009, 10:09pm
Contact:

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby downfader » 3 Jan 2011, 2:55pm

ANYWAYYYYYY...

The issue here is helmets. :wink: So if we could keep on track.

Cheers Steady for the NZ report pdf. Just scan read some of it and its pretty informative. It echoes what the Vixatious Litigiant on youtube told me - drops in cyclist numbers since the early 2000s, steady but shocking increase in cyclist deathrates. If what he has told me in the past, then it may be too late (imo, not his) to bring cycling back without some kind of massive investment, and even then the average NZ commuter is dead against cycling. :(

EDIT: I suppose I should say.. I'm at a loss to where to start with this video. There is so much to take on board that I may have to scale it down to short 30 second info clips. I'll be honest, the time of year has been in the way too. :oops:

Steady rider
Posts: 2188
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Thinking of doing a stats video

Postby Steady rider » 3 Jan 2011, 6:34pm

There is a lot to consider, 400+ reports I think the figure is

helmets or helmet laws - a choice or both

helmets - trying to weigh up the pro and cons - limited interest - some basics helpful,
design, fit, impacts, risk level, helmets could protect but increase impacts or accidents,
Clarke CF, Health and safety assessment of state bicycle helmet laws in the USA, http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/US ... t_laws.pdf for info

choice people make in head gear when walking, hats, caps, beanies, bare headed, what makes them choose - temp, sun, religious connections, conventions, message/image, safety, show, changes people make eg helmet on a bike but not in a car,

helmet laws - discouaging effect,
eg NZ 2.3km Fig 7, before legislation, 1.15km in 2003/04.
eg In Victoria, Australia, helmet use increased from approximately 32% to 65% Robinson 1996. However, cycling reduced by approximately 36%. In effect helmet use increased from 32% of 100 to 65% of 64, or from 32 to 42, an extra 10 wearing from 68 not wearing prior to the law. In comparison to the extra 10 wearing helmets, 36 fewer were cycling and 22 choose not to wear them, in spite of the legal requirement.

Eg, New South Wales the largest of the Australian states. In 1991 the surveys counted 6072 child cyclists, by 1992, 3857 and by 1993, 3414. By 1993 an extra 569 were helmeted compared with a drop of 2658.

Video exploring why people make their choice and why helmet laws discourage cycling, benefits of cycling. Risk of head injury v benefits of cycling