Cycling UK Forum

Which dictionary mentions "being prepared for the unforseen" in its definition of the word defensive?

One definition of defensive is
intended or appropriate for defending against or deterring aggression or attack

Are motorists really trying to attack cyclists? Does the belief that they are colour the behaviour of cyclists?

It's my belief that the vast majority of road traffic incidents are due to road users being careless or reckless. Hence I think cyclists and other road users should be aware of which scenarios are risky and take measures to avoid them. Which on occasion means riding assertively.

George Riches wrote:Which on occasion means riding assertively.

True.

George Riches wrote:Which dictionary mentions "being prepared for the unforseen" in its definition of the word defensive?

One definition of defensive is
intended or appropriate for defending against or deterring aggression or attack

Words take on new meanings, or shades of meanings in different contexts that go beyond the dictionary, which in any case always lags behind usage. From what I can gather it's use may have begun with teaching "advanced" driving skills. SeeWiki or ROSPA.

A reason that non-roads probably feel safer is that cyclists have more control over what they do-- they can stop at every cross-roads, look around, and only cross when they are satisfied it is safe to do so. And many accidents on non-roads at junctions probably would be solved if cyclists were observant, and took their time. There is no pressure for a nervous cyclist to get a move on, or to cross the entrance to a road when they are just not sure what another vehicle will do.

Where the non-roads fall down though, is that although you have great control over what you do, no one else is looking out for you at all. On the roads, you have the safeguard that you don't have to notice everything, as other vehicles are also trying to systematically avoid you and may be able to compensate for any errors you make. It feels less safe because you don't know what they are thinking or what they will do, but most of them are doing the same as you are, which collectively keeps everyone safer.

I think that's how, paradoxically, roads could feel less safe, yet actually be safer. From Danish stats it does appear that cycle facilities reduce safety but improve the attractiveness of the route. There, I would not expect the same divide between those who cycle on roads and on non-roads, because many people cycle for transport and whether there is a non-road or not depends on where they are trying to go.

Auchmill wrote:I don't know what evidence you have for these profiles?

I don't have scientific evidence, but am happy to back my experience and observations on this. I should perhaps have written: "I believe that you will find two distinctly different sets of characteristics. In my experience, road users are on average more experienced, more skillful, higher mileage, better equipped, more confident, more aware of hazards than non-road users." Were you disputing that there is a difference between the profiles, or just querying the basis of my statement?

Auchmill wrote:I think we need to look behind the statistics for the reasons why on-road appears safer than off-road.

Agreed! This is exactly what I was trying to do. I was emphasising the differences in safety between road and non-road cyclists, which seemed to be overlooked earlier in the thread. I accept that infrastructure is also a factor, but note that whatever infrastructure is thrown at us, there are safer and less safe ways for cyclists to handle it. It is the combination of injudicious cycling (more prevalent in the non-road group) and poor facility design that gives, in particular, junctions on cycle paths a poor safety record.

Auchmill wrote:Words take on new meanings, or shades of meanings in different contexts that go beyond the dictionary, which in any case always lags behind usage. From what I can gather it's use may have begun with teaching "advanced" driving skills. SeeWiki or ROSPA.

I stand corrected in the meaning given to the word defensive in the context of driving.

Nevertheless I understand that cycle trainers are trying to avoid giving people a long list of do's and don'ts (which students only forget or misunderstand) and try to focus on the skills of perceiving where dangerous road behaviour is taking place.

Take that recent case of a cyclist with learning difficulties ran into a pedestrian killing him. I wonder whether it had been drummed into the cyclist that cycling with cars was too dangerous and so he should always stick to the pavement?

davebax wrote:Were you disputing that there is a difference between the profiles, or just querying the basis of my statement?

Basis. I think it could be an interesting hypothesis. Certainly from a commonsense point of view cyclists who stick to off-road paths will get little experience of dealing with traffic.

George Riches wrote:Nevertheless I understand that cycle trainers are trying to avoid giving people a long list of do's and don'ts (which students only forget or misunderstand) and try to focus on the skills of perceiving where dangerous road behaviour is taking place.

That seems a sensible way forward. I've never had cycle training and know nothing about it.