Guardian: Nederland, more dead cyclists than motorists, e-bikes

[Psamathe]

Again, this is the same for both an e-bike and an ordinary bike, larger riders require longer to brake. However more importantly, there is the same flaw in that these people are NOT according to the evidence travelling faster, but at the same speed.

I'm confused, is it just fat old people we're trying to get off bikes or fat people in general?
.....

To me it's not about getting anybody off bikes. There are many ways to address a problem and just banning would certainly not be my choice.

I suspect there is a lot of ambiguity creeping in because people are repeatedly saying "same speed" but not saying same as what. Same as an F1 car, same as a pedestrian, same as a MAMIL training, etc.

This summer my legs have got quite strong (for me) and I was finding I could not hope to match an obese 70+ year old accelerating from traffic lights, and even up-to speed I would have to really push it to keep up with obese 70+ year old whilst I was amazed at how low cadence they were at (and achieving such speed).

Fat people ime can go extremely quickly particularly when assisted by gravity...
.....

This summer was the first time I have ridden fully loaded (i.e. previous riding <5Kg luggage, this summer >20Kg) and I was surprised at how fast I ended-up getting to even down quite slight inclines in NL and without pedalling.

Ian

[Psamathe]

This is the opinion of the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the annual Institute of Transport Policy Analysis report "Cycling facts"



All anyone who wishes to continue th myth of all the elderly riders dashing around at higher speeds needs to do now is provide evidence that disproves this

The interesting thing I see in those figures is that older riders are going further rather than faster on e-bikes (the highest average distance per trip of any group is for Ages 75+ on e-bikes with 65-74s on e-bikes in second place).

If their speed is more-or-less the same but they are going further, even if the risk of accident is the same there will be more accidents because of the increased exposure to that risk.

In looking at this issue the graphs don't actually illustrate anything useful as it depends on the individuals riding those bike. For example, the 75+ group without batteries might be fit capable cyclists who have been using bikes all their lives whilst the 75+ with batteries might be recent adoptees who can only manage riding because of the battery.

Also, a lot depends on where the data are collected. Large numbers of cyclists in cities and one would expect the comparable results where things like speed are constrained by having cyclists around you without overtaking space. In more rural areas with just a few people on the cycle paths there are not the same constraints and thus very different information would be found, although the numbers of cyclists would be dramatically lower than in cities. Given the average lengths of journey I suspect that the information is largely city based cycling.

There is also the question of numbers" which the graphs give no information on. How many 75+ cyclists without batteries and how many with. It presents a very different picture if the 75+ without batteries was 5 cyclists where the 75+ with batteries was 5000 (same question for the other age groups).

I wondered about going round Amsterdam or having a go in the mayhem and decided to give the city centre a go to see what it was like and I found it very different cycling from much of my other cycling n the country.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

Again, this is the same for both an e-bike and an ordinary bike, larger riders require longer to brake. However more importantly, there is the same flaw in that these people are NOT according to the evidence travelling faster, but at the same speed.

I'm confused, is it just fat old people we're trying to get off bikes or fat people in general?
.....

Neither, it is the unsupported claims that there is an issue that is the problem

To me it's not about getting anybody off bikes. There are many ways to address a problem and just banning would certainly not be my choice.

I suspect there is a lot of ambiguity creeping in because people are repeatedly saying "same speed" but not saying same as what. Same as an F1 car, same as a pedestrian, same as a MAMIL training, etc.

People are repeatedly saying "same speed" but not saying same as what" is untrue....... the previous evidence explains this unequivocally, I will present it yet again.....The graph posted previously explains this absolutely, unequivocally and clearly., even categorically stating the "same as what " if the graph was not being ignored as inconvenient

This summer my legs have got quite strong (for me) and I was finding I could not hope to match an obese 70+ year old accelerating from traffic lights, and even up-to speed I would have to really push it to keep up with obese 70+ year old whilst I was amazed at how low cadence they were at (and achieving such speed).nd erroneously being claimed to "ride after on e-bikes" and "as the same speeds as younger riders......... are in fact doing neither

Please see the graphs which unequivocally prove that elder riders er NOT travelling as fact as younger rider )Either on e-bikes or ordinary bikes) and not travelling faster on e-bikes than ordinary bikes

[Psamathe]

I'm confused, is it just fat old people we're trying to get off bikes or fat people in general?
.....

Neither, it is the unsupported claims that there is an issue that is the problem

To me it's not about getting anybody off bikes. There are many ways to address a problem and just banning would certainly not be my choice.

I suspect there is a lot of ambiguity creeping in because people are repeatedly saying "same speed" but not saying same as what. Same as an F1 car, same as a pedestrian, same as a MAMIL training, etc.

People are repeatedly saying "same speed" but not saying same as what" is untrue....... the previous evidence explains this unequivocally, I will present it yet again.....The graph posted previously explains this absolutely, unequivocally and clearly., even categorically stating the "same as what " if the graph was not being ignored as inconvenient

This summer my legs have got quite strong (for me) and I was finding I could not hope to match an obese 70+ year old accelerating from traffic lights, and even up-to speed I would have to really push it to keep up with obese 70+ year old whilst I was amazed at how low cadence they were at (and achieving such speed).nd erroneously being claimed to "ride after on e-bikes" and "as the same speeds as younger riders......... are in fact doing neither

Please see the graphs which unequivocally prove that elder riders er NOT travelling as fact as younger rider )Either on e-bikes or ordinary bikes) and not travelling faster on e-bikes than ordinary bikes

You need to start reading what I've written. Can't really discuss anything when you are rude and don't bother reading my responses.

Bye.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

Fine, lets agree that anecdote is not evidence, that the Netherlands Ministry of Transport feels that the problem is with elderly cyclists, not e- bikes.

Then that the claims that elderly e-bike riders are faster and at the same speeds as younger riders are unevidenced, and not supported by the present evidence

[Psamathe]

Fine, lets agree that anecdote is not evidence, that the Netherlands Ministry of Transport feels that the problem is with elderly cyclists, not e- bikes.....

No. Personal experience is evidence. I saw it happen, I experienced it happen. I was not dreaming nor fantasising so it represents evidence.

The graphs you have posted have significant omissions as to the nature of the data (as I posted already, but I've already asked you to read what I've written but ...). Data/information showing increased risk has been posted by others earlier in the thread but people are getting defensive and only looking at data and evidence that supports their view point.

Even your assertion above has ambiguity that avoids the issue being discussed.

I'm giving up on discussing with you now (don't know what I didn't when I said I would earlier).

Ian

[mjr]

Fine, lets agree that anecdote is not evidence, that the Netherlands Ministry of Transport feels that the problem is with elderly cyclists, not e- bikes.....

No. Personal experience is evidence. I saw it happen, I experienced it happen. I was not dreaming nor fantasising so it represents evidence.

Maybe but it's very weak evidence, like the Lords who use what they see to claim cyclists are the root of all London's motor traffic problems. It's not generally accepted among scientists that one anecdote is reliable evidence.

The graphs you have posted have significant omissions as to the nature of the data (as I posted already, but I've already asked you to read what I've written but ...). Data/information showing increased risk has been posted by others earlier in the thread but people are getting defensive and only looking at data and evidence that supports their view point.

Oh, the irony of posting that while dismissing the strong evidence that your personal experience of higher speeds is not representative - and I suspect even that was only a perception of higher speeds, rather than measuring their speeds in any way.

I'm giving up on discussing with you now (don't know what I didn't when I said I would earlier).

Please stop posting that sort of thing because it seems like a child sticking fingers in ears and going "la la la I can't hear you", especially when you don't stick to it! It feels like trolling.

[Psamathe]

.....

The graphs you have posted have significant omissions as to the nature of the data (as I posted already, but I've already asked you to read what I've written but ...). Data/information showing increased risk has been posted by others earlier in the thread but people are getting defensive and only looking at data and evidence that supports their view point.

Oh, the irony of posting that while dismissing the strong evidence that your personal experience of higher speeds is not representative - and I suspect even that was only a perception of higher speeds, rather than measuring their speeds in any way.

I was not dismissing the evidence as much a commenting on limitations as the poster was repeatedly refusing to listen to anything else and kept posting it as definitive proof they were right (no alternatives acceptable).

Actually I was watching their speed as I was shocked and could monitor my own speed using my cycle computer). I could not measure acceleration but could on steady speeds.

I'm giving up on discussing with you now (don't know what I didn't when I said I would earlier).

Please stop posting that sort of thing because it seems like a child sticking fingers in ears and going "la la la I can't hear you", especially when you don't stick to it! It feels like trolling.

After I've been told that my attitudes is "silly" (but that post seems to have been deleted/edited now) and having had responses where the responder has clearly not bothered to read what I'd written, it gets frustrating so it was not trolling, but informing as to why I would not be further responding, a response as a courtesy. But you are right in that I should have not bothered to further respond when I first posted that (but the responded replied and I did respond - daft of me).

Do we have a new moderator controlling the quality of posts?

Ian