Getting fed up with abuse etc from some motorists.

[ndmbike]

< garbled quotation removed >

I am bewildered by this post and am planning on using it with my students, to explain how to communicate in a trustworthy manner (or not).

What does "actual exposure value to motor traffic to people on bikes" mean?

What do you mean by...
"massively lower"
I keep reminding my students to be specific and to use numbers, with a reputable source, and a reference.

"whilst I don't have any direct numbers this surely must completely offset the mltiple distance travelled per population head"
If you don't have evidence (direct numbers) then it is your opinion.
Don't pretend otherwise.

Have you been reading (or writing for) the Daily Wail?

Thanks so much for providing me with a real resource that young people can fact check and use to improve their critical skills.

[atlas_shrugged]

Of the countries that measure how many km cyclists travel this graphic is informative:

[img]

PPR796_cyclist_deaths.jpg

[/img]

The graph shows that cyclists in the UK are twice at risk as cyclists in the Netherlands, Denmark etc.

[The utility cyclist]

< garbled quotation removed>

I am bewildered by this post and am planning on using it with my students, to explain how to communicate in a trustworthy manner (or not).

What does "actual exposure value to motor traffic to people on bikes" mean?

What do you mean by...
"massively lower"
I keep reminding my students to be specific and to use numbers, with a reputable source, and a reference.

"whilst I don't have any direct numbers this surely must completely offset the mltiple distance travelled per population head"
If you don't have evidence (direct numbers) then it is your opinion.
Don't pretend otherwise.

Have you been reading (or writing for) the Daily Wail?


Thanks so much for providing me with a real resource that young people can fact check and use to improve their critical skills.

Thanks for the multiple personal insults, duly noted

Dutch cyclists have a MASSIVELY less exposure value to motorvehicles, massive means a lot, governments don't give this value but it is very easy to understand this basic concept of exposure to a physical (and mental) threat of harm to people on bikes.
A lower exposure value to motor traffic should make those cyclists safer, a lot safer and yet in NL there are over 200 cycling deaths and has been on the increase year on year with declining cycling numbers, static at best, we know this to be true, go look at the actual data!

Governments don't put up numbers regarding exposure time to motor traffic by people on bikes but we know that it's much less for Dutch cyclists than it is for UK cyclists, or do you deny that Dutch cyclists use their segregated infra and deny that in the UK people on bikes do expose themselves to motor traffic because there's virtually no segregated and there is a lot more motor traffic doing a lot more miles alongside those UK cyclists?

If you don't have the ability to ascertain what is patently obvious then you have ZERO business talking about cycle safety to others from an education POV!

[mikeymo]

< garbled quotation removed>

I am bewildered by this post and am planning on using it with my students, to explain how to communicate in a trustworthy manner (or not).

What does "actual exposure value to motor traffic to people on bikes" mean?

What do you mean by...
"massively lower"
I keep reminding my students to be specific and to use numbers, with a reputable source, and a reference.

"whilst I don't have any direct numbers this surely must completely offset the mltiple distance travelled per population head"
If you don't have evidence (direct numbers) then it is your opinion.
Don't pretend otherwise.

Have you been reading (or writing for) the Daily Wail?


Thanks so much for providing me with a real resource that young people can fact check and use to improve their critical skills.

Thanks for the multiple personal insults, duly noted

Dutch cyclists have a MASSIVELY less exposure value to motorvehicles, massive means a lot, governments don't give this value but it is very easy to understand this basic concept of exposure to a physical (and mental) threat of harm to people on bikes.
A lower exposure value to motor traffic should make those cyclists safer, a lot safer and yet in NL there are over 200 cycling deaths and has been on the increase year on year with declining cycling numbers, static at best, we know this to be true, go look at the actual data!

Governments don't put up numbers regarding exposure time to motor traffic by people on bikes but we know that it's much less for Dutch cyclists than it is for UK cyclists, or do you deny that Dutch cyclists use their segregated infra and deny that in the UK people on bikes do expose themselves to motor traffic because there's virtually no segregated and there is a lot more motor traffic doing a lot more miles alongside those UK cyclists?

If you don't have the ability to ascertain what is patently obvious then you have ZERO business talking about cycle safety to others from an education POV!

Just because you feel insulted, doesn't mean you were.

To be honest, I too was struggling to understand you.

These forums frequently feature a demand to "go look at the data", which is really nothing more than a posh version of "just google it!!". I know it must be tiresome having to repeat the same things over and over again, but that's just part of trying to change things. So if you have "data", present them. Numbers, or it didn't happen.

The only "exposure value" I know about is this, which probably isn't what you mean:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

[mikeymo]

Of the countries that measure how many km cyclists travel this graphic is informative:

[img]PPR796_cyclist_deaths.jpg[/img]

The graph shows that cyclists in the UK are twice at risk as cyclists in the Netherlands, Denmark etc.

Yes, terrible isn't it? 77% more than the Netherlands, to be accurate.

[PLodon]

After much reflection I've decided I'm not going to get another car, I'm going to carry on doing what I want to do and that involves riding a bicycle as part of my daily transport. I will also endeavour to remain calm and considerate of others whilst doing so, as that is also important to me. I do believe that this issue is not just about being able to cycle safely, it's about being a member of a "civilised" society and that's important to me too.

[Cyril Haearn]

+1
I do not have a motor vehicle either, I manage very well without

[Oldjohnw]

I must say i've never had abuse as a cyclist from a motorist. I've seen bad and/or discourteous, clueless and dangerous driving (also witnessed as a motorist) but I've not received abuse.

I've not sworn at, argued with or gestured to a driver either.

[Mike Sales]

I must say i've never had abuse as a cyclist from a motorist. I've seen bad and/or discourteous, clueless and dangerous driving (also witnessed as a motorist) but I've not received abuse.

I have heard unintelligible, doppler effected, shouts from the open windows of passing cars.

[tykeboy2003]

I had a conversation with a driver the other day, he'd close-passed me in the face of oncoming traffic on a not very wide road. He was stopped at the lights about 20 yards ahead and his passenger window was slightly open so I asked him politely if he would give more room to cyclists. He tried to convince me that he'd given me 2 metres and I pointed out to him that it was significantly less than 1 metre and I could easily have reached out and touched the car. He accepted this and apologised. A very pleasant end to what could have been quite nasty.

[rmurphy195]

If you do have a conversation with a driver, end up by saying something like "have a nice day" - makes you feel a whole lot better I've found!

[kwackers]

I must say i've never had abuse as a cyclist from a motorist. I've seen bad and/or discourteous, clueless and dangerous driving (also witnessed as a motorist) but I've not received abuse.

I've not sworn at, argued with or gestured to a driver either.

Do you ride around town during rush hour?

[Oldjohnw]

I must say i've never had abuse as a cyclist from a motorist. I've seen bad and/or discourteous, clueless and dangerous driving (also witnessed as a motorist) but I've not received abuse.

I've not sworn at, argued with or gestured to a driver either.

Do you ride around town during rush hour?

I do but rush hour barely exists here. I am not saying others don't experience abuse, just that I haven't.

[kwackers]

I do but rush hour barely exists here. I am not saying others don't experience abuse, just that I haven't.

Abuse is a bit of an odd thing - as in what constitutes it?

I've had inaudible stuff shouted occasionally - they could be shouting "nice buttocks", I don't know.

In terms of actual verbal abuse tbh it doesn't happen that often as a spontaneous thing - at least that I'm aware of. Possibly once every several thousand miles??
If you include driving that's deliberately aggressive and intended to intimidate then perhaps once every few weeks, I think I'd class those as abuse.
Throw in close passes that were entirely avoidable then abuse or ignorance? Who can say, but pretty much daily.

I don't include where I have a word with someone who tried to kill me with crap driving - because tbh with rare exceptions nobody ever responds well to that.

As context I was commuting around 40 miles a day along some pretty busy roads.

Also; I do wear earplugs when commuting so tbh anything could be happening around me. I find they reduce stress significantly.
And when not commuting I pick and choose my routes thus avoiding any potential conflict hot spots.

[Oldjohnw]

I have the good fortune of not commuting and not living within 60 miles of any city or even really large town.