Cycling 23 times more dangerous than driving, really?

[Mick F]

Of course my real gripe with the thread title is that cycling isn't dangerous, that's the motorists. We may suffer the consequences (because the danger motorists pose is externalised)

Yes, true.

If cycling is dangerous, it's because of the motor vehicles. If a cyclist and a car collide, the cyclist comes of worst of course.

If the car driver had spikes that flew out of the steering wheel and pierced his heart if he were to collide with something, it would make car driving "dangerous". Trouble is, car drivers are nigh-on immune to injury these days, so it makes them drive with a care-free attitude with no apparent danger to themselves.

Hence, all other forms of travel on the roads are more dangerous than car driving.

[Psamathe]

If the car driver had spikes that flew out of the steering wheel and pierced his heart if he were to collide with something, it would make car driving "dangerous". Trouble is, car drivers are nigh-on immune to injury these days, so it makes them drive with a care-free attitude with no apparent danger to themselves.

I remember many years ago somebody (a driver) commenting how roads would be much safer if lorry drivers had to drive their lorries suspended in a fragile glass egg in front of their lorry.

Ian

[reohn2]

If the car driver had spikes that flew out of the steering wheel and pierced his heart if he were to collide with something, it would make car driving "dangerous". Trouble is, car drivers are nigh-on immune to injury these days, so it makes them drive with a care-free attitude with no apparent danger to themselves.

I remember many years ago somebody (a driver) commenting how roads would be much safer if lorry drivers had to drive their lorries suspended in a fragile glass egg in front of their lorry.

Ian

Which is another pie in the sky forced vulnerability issue which it ain't going to happen.
Most people who cycle in the UK do so because they want to,I'd bet the overwhelming majority of those would like to see better driving and appreciation of cyclists vulnerability which,unless cycling is taken seriously as valid road users by the authorities(judicial system,politrickians,etc)not much will change.
So from the safety of their seats a significant number of motorists will treat cyclists as a second class road user,frightening off our roads people who,if they felt safer(irrespective of whether they are or not)would cycle more.
Harping back to the York video Saab cyclist left hook incident again,I see the same kind of chances being taken by cyclists on a regular basis,adults who IMO should know better but who for some unknown reason act as if they're completely invulnerable in the same way as motorists are.
Cyclists,motorcyclists,pedestrians and horseriders FTM are vulnerable road users not always given the respect they deserve by motorists,it's the problem we have in a motor centric society where,as has been said many times,if you want to kill or maim someone do it with a car,the chances are with a good lawyer you'll get off with it.

[[XAP]Bob]

If the car driver had spikes that flew out of the steering wheel and pierced his heart if he were to collide with something, it would make car driving "dangerous". Trouble is, car drivers are nigh-on immune to injury these days, so it makes them drive with a care-free attitude with no apparent danger to themselves.

I remember many years ago somebody (a driver) commenting how roads would be much safer if lorry drivers had to drive their lorries suspended in a fragile glass egg in front of their lorry.

Ian

Erm - I didn't say that (although I have said similar things in the past).

My current theory is that a lack of seatbelt or airbags for the drivers seat should be sufficient.
Rest of the car gets safety features, and must wear belts. Driver may not have them fitted...

[SA_SA_SA]

My current theory is that a lack of seatbelt or airbags for the drivers seat should be sufficient.
Rest of the car gets safety features, and must wear belts. Driver may not have them fitted...

Errr but I liked wearing a seatbelt when driving: it makes you one with the machine (not thrown around by bumps etc) just like toeclips...

Perhaps a non-functional driver seatbelt

[Mick F]

Erm - I didn't say that (although I have said similar things in the past).

'Twas me wot said it.
Just a problem with quoting quotes.
No probs!

[mrjemm]

My current theory is that a lack of seatbelt or airbags for the drivers seat should be sufficient.
Rest of the car gets safety features, and must wear belts. Driver may not have them fitted...

Errr but I liked wearing a seatbelt when driving: it makes you one with the machine (not thrown around by bumps etc) just like toeclips...

Perhaps a non-functional driver seatbelt

Me too. Feels somehow wrong sitting on a trike and not buckling up.

Folk are slow learning, removing airbags and belts would just make more work for the emergency services, and they're troubled enough already. I'd suggest something like removing windscreens, doors and comfy seats, intentionally unbalancing wheels and partitioning all passengers in soundproof boxes without windows. Replace the windows and doors with mesh to create a faraday cage so mobiles and sat navs don't work.

Hmmm, I kinda like that last idea. Perhaps it should be law that windows are overlaid with fine mesh (not attached, so a/c use doesn't increase) fine enough to block anything including fag butts being chucked out, and which'll block signals.

[[XAP]Bob]

My current theory is that a lack of seatbelt or airbags for the drivers seat should be sufficient.
Rest of the car gets safety features, and must wear belts. Driver may not have them fitted...

Errr but I liked wearing a seatbelt when driving: it makes you one with the machine (not thrown around by bumps etc) just like toeclips...

Perhaps a non-functional driver seatbelt

You might like it - but you'd drive within the capability of the vehicle if you were "getting thrown about", not a sensation I notice on our roads, but then I slow down for bumps that size.

[Tom Richardson]

I suggest that cyclists should be allowed to carry guns and use them against motorists who endanger them while they are cycling. That way cycling would become a lot safer and motoring would be 23 times more dangerous than cycling.

[Psamathe]

I do wonder if hi-vis vests with some graphic indicating video recording might make drivers more careful. If they were aware that some cyclists do record their ride and that Police have acted on recorded bad driving I think they would be much more careful around those cyclists they suspected were using a camera. So the hi-vis vest could be worn by everybody as the driver would never know where the camera might be, etc.

Ian

[SA_SA_SA]

Errr but I liked wearing a seatbelt when driving: it makes you one with the machine (not thrown around by bumps etc) just like toeclips...

Perhaps a non-functional driver seatbelt

You might like it - but you'd drive within the capability of the vehicle if you were "getting thrown about", not a sensation I notice on our roads, but then I slow down for bumps that size.

I was never relying on it when driving, I wasn't suggesting the kind of mad rally driving you seem to imply: I was a very conscientious driver, but found the idea reassuring, in that without it an unexpected deep pothole / bump, etc might jolt one and possibly cause the controls to be jolted too. The reassurance was theoretical.

Is no reasonable (CTC?) cyclist / driver ever surprised by a pothole / bump etc?