Roads you would not ride on.

[Jdsk]

There is at least one randomised controlled trial of the effects of people on bikes wearing high visibility clothing.

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

There is at least one randomised controlled trial of the effects of people on bikes wearing high visibility clothing.

Aye, but unless the environment it was done in (Denmark was the one I've seen) conforms to your own it's maybe not that relevant?

GCN did an interesting piece on Hi-Viz, see

yet another one to file under "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that"

Pete.

[Jdsk]

I didn't cite it it because I've learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum.

But I live in hope that it will improve.

Jonathan

[mattheus]

I didn't cite it it because I've learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum.

It can be tough at the top.

I apologise on behalf of my fellow forum idiots.

[Psamathe]

In terms of the OP's question, I think there isn't a straight answer as it becomes a balance. How long a detour would you make to avoid ½ mile section of a nasty road and how nasty a road does that ½ mile section have to be? I've ridden on roads "I wouldn't ride on" because to cross them the crossing is "offset" eg turn left at T-junction only nasty road, cycle 1 mile along nasty road and turn right back onto back roads.

So a trade off how nasty against what distance against detour length.

Also any past experiences eg There is one road I wont cycle on - it's not disastrous except on 2-wheels I once had a close very fast pass from a domestic oil tanker (and they really cause turbulence that seems to "suck you in") and there's a domestic heating oil company depot mid way along the road. Other cyclists use the road but for me it has a bad history so I don't (which is not limiting).

Ian

[pjclinch]

In terms of the OP's question, I think there isn't a straight answer as it becomes a balance. How long a detour would you make to avoid ½ mile section of a nasty road and how nasty a road does that ½ mile section have to be?

Though the original question also included training on roads, and that brings in the added dimension of someone else's safety to think about, and that's someone who is, pretty much by definition less experienced than the cycle trainer. The experience gap would be a factor for me when deciding.

Pete.

[sjs]

A350 from Chippenham to the M4 junction. Don't know what it's like now, but when I rode it years ago, having got a bit lost, it was horrible.

[mattheus]

A350 from Chippenham to the M4 junction. Don't know what it's like now, but when I rode it years ago, having got a bit lost, it was horrible.

A large number of my "worst roads" are the main A-road feeders onto a Motorway. in many cases I suspect riding on the actual motorway would be safer. :-/

[Bmblbzzz]

A350 from Chippenham to the M4 junction. Don't know what it's like now, but when I rode it years ago, having got a bit lost, it was horrible.

I rode that once, under the same circumstances! Similarly the A46 from Bath to the M4, whereas the same road north of the M4 is excellent.

[sjs]

And, A38 from Plymouth to Exeter, tempted to trade safety against speed on a cold, wet day, having been delayed by a mechanical. Not a good decision.

[pjclinch]

I didn't cite it it because I've learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum.

But I live in hope that it will improve.

People tend to want Answers, in black and white (or perhaps dayglo yellow...) rather than trying to get a handle on degrees of uncertainty and balancing the needs of different individuals and wider society. It's a shame that safety debate tends to get toxic here, but it's hardly limited to the CUK forum (check out rapid reactions to such work in peer reviewed journals and they're certainly not all civil, reasonable or Clueful)

Case/Control is hard to do well for something like this. Not only must the case and control cohorts be broadly interchangeable, but the environment you're conducting the study in and the one you want to use the results in must be broadly interchangeable too. That's not just the physical environment but the cultural one too, so if you do a study of, say, the safety implications of high gun ownership in a population in an affluent Swiss town or a down-at-heel one in the US you'll probably get very different results. And so on.

There's also a raft of other layers beyond cycling and cyclists, like would clamping down on driver distractions actually have a far bigger effect on safety than putting riders and pedestrians in loud coats? There's an increasing focus on Road Danger Reduction these days, actively focusing on the causes of harm, rather than "traditional road safety" of having more vulnerable parties try to defend themselves. Both in terms of practical harm reduction and moral high ground that's probably for the best at a policy/societal level, whatever the benefits or otherwise to individuals in their own particular contexts.

Pete.

[Cowsham]

I didn't cite it it because I've learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum.

But I live in hope that it will improve.

Jonathan

Have you learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum?

[pjclinch]

I didn't cite it it because I've learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum.

But I live in hope that it will improve.

Have you learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum?

That's self evident, as is the fact that this forum isn't really exceptional in that regard, e.g. Prof Jake Olivier publicly likening people who don't endorse his take in helmets to climate change deniers and anti vaccination groups.

Pete.

[Cowsham]

I didn't cite it it because I've learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum.

But I live in hope that it will improve.

Have you learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum?

That's self evident.

Pete.

No I don't think it is.

I find it quite an ambiguous statement from Jonathan who's nearly always very concise that's why I'm genuinely interested.

ie he hasn't learnt so didn't cite because of that. He cited because of something else.

or he has learnt but conveying the fact he didn't cite because of that.

I just want to know which.

No reflection on you Pete -- I know your views and don't need to be drawn into that argument I just want to hear from Jonathan as he knows what he meant and can maybe convey the message more concisely for me to understand better.

[pjclinch]

Have you learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum?

That's self evident.

No I don't think it is.

I find it quite an ambiguous statement from Jonathan who's nearly always very concise that's why I'm genuinely interested.

ie he hasn't learnt so didn't cite because of that. He cited because of something else.

or he has learnt but conveying the fact he didn't cite because of that.

I just want to know which.

No reflection on you Pete -- I know your views and don't need to be drawn into that argument I just want to hear from Jonathan as he knows what he meant and can maybe convey the message more concisely for me to understand better.

What I meant is it's self evident that there's no wholly sensible discourse on the twin cycle safety canards of hi-viz and helmets in lightly moderated or unmoderated public internet space, and I say that because I don't think I've ever seen such a thing in over 25 years of looking (including the online rapid reaction space of prestigious peer reviewed journals).

I'd be delighted to hear about an exception.

As to you knowing my views, I am less confident than you are that that is the case. My views on helmets and hi-viz strike me as being routinely misunderstood and mis-characterised here (and, as above, anywhere else I try to get them a across).

Pete.