Bike2work scheme - a danger to cyclists

unionman

+1 what ROK ON said.

This thread reminds me of taxi drivers on the subject of post deregulation licencees.

Glitterangel76

tunney wrote: »

Your friends attitude is to be commended, she is refusing to run until she can walk. Once she feels confident she will ride into town and probably do so in a safe fashion, what is wrong with that? Why are you pushing your friend into situations she doesn't feel comfortable in?

I'm not pushing her any where...I just think the more she cycles the more confidence she'll gain and I can tell her this every time we go out..

I am in no means suggesting that she wakes up one day she cycles solo all the way to Phoenix Park or Inchicore on the road... but to cycle more so she gets used to it and the traffic, if she wants to stop and walk the bike..then we will stop and walk all the way home if needs be.

Its like driving lessons...you go on a regular basis and the more you learn and the greater your confidence becomes

If I didn't think she was able I wouldn't even suggest she did it.

seamus

What I'm really surprised is that no-one here has seen the business opportunity.

I gather there are a couple of people here out of work with a great deal of cycling skill and ability.

And there are thousands of companies inflicting wobbly newbies onto the roads.

So you set yourself up as an advisor to beginners. You charge companies €100 for a one-hour session where they get all their new C2W'ers, and you blab on at them for an hour (or maybe two?) about fundamental best practice and basics of bike maintenance.

Net result: €100 in your pocket for old rope, *and* you're helping to improve the standards of cycling on the road. Double win. Even in these times, €100 is nothing to companies, especially if you can sell the "Your employees won't crash so often and be out of work" line.

2 x 1 hour sessions every day (OK, optimistic) and you're laughing.

As an ordinary joe cyclist, all you can do is set a good example. If you cycle with due care and within the law, then nobody else's bad cycling can affect you.

blorg

lyders wrote: »

I think you hardcore cyclist commuters are only annoyed because more slower cyclists on the roads/cycletracks means a longer commute time for you!

If you read the thread carefully I think there is only one hardcore cyclist annoyed at these people, everyone else seems to think it is a great thing

DirkVoodoo

I think most people learn through experience. I know I did.

This will inevitably weed out the weaker members of the cycling fraternity and leave a race of supermen who we can mould into an Irish tour team to bring back the glory of the 80s.

Seriously though, I would like to see less RLJ-ing, which seems to have increased since the cycle to work. A lot of respectable looking (i.e. not scruffy students) people on new bikes have been sailing past me at junctions.

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

What I'm really surprised is that no-one here has seen the business opportunity.

tomasrojo

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

I didn't say Dublin has hordes of cyclists, i said Dublin is not equipped to deal with cyclists.

And I said that it had many more cyclists in the past, which it dealt with perfectly adequately.

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

I think i have grounds for saying what i said considering in the last year three of my mates have been knocked from bikes in Dublin city centre and one has lost a limb.

I'm very sorry to hear about your friends, but I have many friends who cycle, have been cycling for years and have sustained no serious injuries. They also have been cycling through town for years, and so have I, without serious injury. I suggest you direct your friends to reading Cyclecraft.

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

Oh and Only fatal accidents make up the proportion that you are talking about. Many many accidents involving cyclists happen every day in Dublin and are not reported.

There are no statistics available for these, so we don't know anything about them. There's no point in speculating about them, as we have no way of knowing. But you were arguing that it was a dead cert that a cyclist who travels through town everyday would end up prematurely dead. The statistics don't bear what you are saying out.

cosmic

tunney wrote: »

They lack the basic cop on of a cyclist, they lack any sort of bike fitness and as such put themselves, and lack the "punch" to get out of them

I disagree with you. While I do have very little tolerance for PoBs, we all started somewhere! I think it took me a good year or so to get the hang of my bike and even now, about 9 years on, I still have the odd scary moment (cycling in the snow only about 6 months ago I had a few!)

tunney

blorg wrote: »

If you read the thread carefully I think there is only one hardcore cyclist annoyed at these people, everyone else seems to think it is a great thing

Hey its Friday and my target was three pages. I'm happy with my days work.

blorg

tomasrojo wrote: »

There are no statistics available for these, so we don't know anything about them. There's no point in speculating about them, as we have no way of knowing. But you were arguing that it was a dead cert that a cyclist who travels through town everyday would end up prematurely dead. The statistics don't bear what you are saying out.

The statistics actually show that cycling has a significant net benefit in terms of life expectancy:

British Medical Association wrote:

"The gain of 'life years' through improved fitness among regular cyclists, and thus their increased longevity exceeds the loss of 'life years' in cycle fatalities. (British Medical Association, 1992) An analysis based on the life expectancy of each cyclist killed in road accidents using actuarial data, and the increased longevity of those engaging in exercise regimes several times a week compared with those leading relatively sedentary lives, has shown that, even in the current cycle hostile environment, the benefits in terms of life years gained, outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of around 20 to 1." -- Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute, and British Medical Association researcher

blorg

tunney wrote: »

Hey its Friday and my target was three pages. I'm happy with my days work.

Needs more TimAllen :pac:

webeida

I'm a member of that "club" that bought a bike as part of the "bike2work" scheme. I think it was a great idea. What's a cheap bike? It's all relative. It depends wholly on what your intended use is for the bike, isn't it?

For instance, one can buy a bike for 5K+ and that maybe necessary if you are into extreme mountain biking or serious racing. But, it would be a total waste of money if one only uses the bike to cycle to work once every 2 weeks. Furthermore, it would be a total waste of money if you are likely to lock that bike in or around town even for just a little while because you and I know that a bike of that value wouldn't last pissing time.

The cap of 1K on a bike is about right. You can get a decent bike that can be used to cycle to and from work. Remember, this scheme is designed simply to get people who commute to work to get out of their cars and onto a bike. I'm not sure what the statistics are but I would hazard a guess that the majority of cyclists would be cycling less that 5K one way. That should take no more than 45 minutes, even at a very slow rate. So the bike would be used a total of 90 minutes for its intended use. So, a bike and accessories totalling 1K is more than adequate for 450 minutes of bike use in a week.

If you think otherwise, you need to refer to the Bike 2 Work policy so that you fully read and understand the wording.

In relation to basic training on using a bike, one should read and understand the Rules of the Road as published by the Road Safety Authority. They can be found here: Rules of the Road for Cyclists
One should then ensure that they follow them.

The scheme SHOULD NOT be scrapped. Any scheme that encourages people to use alternative modes of transport that do not impact on our environment is a good scheme. Granted, the government still needs to address the road layouts so that they accommodate cyclists. I believe this will happen in time and the more cyclists that are seen on the road will help to address more forcefully.

If you are a cyclist and enjoy cycling and see the benefit of cycling, I would encourage you to infect your peers with your enthusiasm. If everyone had this "disease" there would be less car accidents, less emissions, less traffic, less chaos and less heart disease.

Now, I'm off to get on my bike. Have a good weekend people!

monument

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

I didn't say Dublin has hordes of cyclists, i said Dublin is not equipped to deal with cyclists.

It seems to be doing just fine with the increases in cycling recent years, an 8% increase in cyclists crossing the canals in 2008 alone.

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

I think i have grounds for saying what i said considering in the last year three of my mates have been knocked from bikes in Dublin city centre and one has lost a limb.

Your personal experience or that of your friends seems to be very high side of danger.

A person could have just as easily know the same amount of people who have, been in car crashes or ski accidents, but such experience can be on the high side and detached from actual level of danger.

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if 4 of 8 cyclists i know have been hit in town it won't take long for the same to happen to me, no matter how careful i am.

We do not know the deals of what happened to the people you know or who or what was at fault etc. One of them -- you said -- goes too fast and keeps coming off his bike.

("Another friend of mine is a cycling courier and is forever coming off his bike in town about once or twice a week. Although this may be because he goes too fast")

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

Oh and Only fatal accidents make up the proportion that you are talking about. Many many accidents involving cyclists happen every day in Dublin and are not reported.

Serious injures are are recorded. But, yeah, generally people don't report accidents where it's not serious. Same goes for hitting your head at home etc etc etc.

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

I still cycle most days just not in the city centre as its a deathtrap with virtually no cycle lanes.

A deathtrap?

Could you back that up in any reasonable way?

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

I disagree, Cycling in Dublin CC is not safe. While you can try to be as sensible as you can cycling in town you cant control what other idiot motorists, taxis and busses are going to do around you. And eventually some people (not all) pay the ultimate price for it.

That's nonsense.

I cycle in the city centre daily. [snip/] started a new thread on what you can do to improve your safety

rughdh

ROK ON wrote: »

Just in case folks think that you need studded tyres to cycle in icy weather - you dont.

I would not change my tyres to go out when icy - just be more careful and cycle at a slower pace. Use back brake rather than front brake a bit more.

Maybe I should use smilies more. I reckon that the majority of commuters would leave the bike at home if it's particularly icy anyway, and those determined to cycle regardless don't consider it worth it for 1 or 2 days usage a year, if that.

But hey, they're handy to have, even if you never use 'em.

Now, what was the original post about? Crunchies?

niceonetom

I've no problem with the wobbly noobs, and any minor inconvenience they cause will diminish with time as they either give up the bike (or have it robbed - forget about cycling, could someone tell these people how to lock a bike ff? - anto is certainly seeing the benefit of the B2W scheme, but I digress...) or get better at riding the damn things.

I think things will get hairy when the free bike scheme gets up and running.

At least the wobbly noob values their bike, and is probably sober - wait till a 25 strong stag from hudderfield decides that the velib is a great way to get from templebar to leeson street.

On the other hand, I also think that having a large and continually replenished cohort of drunken tourists on bikes is actually good for cyclists in the city as a whole. If drivers, over time, arrive at the idea that the CC is a place where they always need to be on the look out for cyclists doing crazy shit, they might get used to the idea, and stop trying to drive us, the good people, off the road. Maybe.

Certainly in Paris I thought that the velibs were given a wide and stoical berth by all the drivers.

Blowfish

I quite like all the wobbly newbies being around. It means I can beat a far higher proportion of people when commuter racing than if they weren't there

The increase in cycling since the scheme has been noticable on my route. I used to only ever see one or two other cyclists in the mornings, it's at least double that at this point.

I probably could have done with a bit more education when I first started commuting by bike. Granted I was 12 and might not have paid much attention to it, but it certainly would have done no harm.

Glitterangel76 wrote: »

Maybe someone needs to advertise Boards Cycling forum in the bike shops where us Newbies sneek into hoping that ye super cyclists will wait till we leave to laugh at us!

Interestingly enough, the scheme itself advertises this forum. If you check the resources page on the official site for the scheme, it links to the wiki and has an RSS feed for here.

*wonders which boardsie is to blame for that one*

Beasty

monument wrote: »

Serious injures are are recorded.

Who records them (Gardai were not interested in mine)?

Traumadoc

More cyclists the better, perhaps you will find that more resources are spent on cycle paths etc. as more people return to bikes and start to make noise about the lousy/dangerous state of cycle paths etc.

andun84

Does the evidence of a post 7/7 London where cycling numbers sharply increased yet cycling deaths decreased not at least highly suggest that the more cyclists there are the safer the roads are for all cyclists?

Many of those cyclists in London will undoubtably have been new cylists however the evidence doesn't seem to suggest that they have been a hazard, quite the opposite in fact.

Perhaps the wobbly cyclists make car drivers pay attention because they are less predictable and therefore the motorist has to pay more attention. It is also suggested that greater numbers create greater awareness ie cars come across cyclists much more therefore they are more prepared for the encounters.

There could of course be many reasons why more cyclists seem to make roads safer however whatever the reason we should just be grateful that our fellow citizens take the roads on their bikes as it may just be the reason why you are still here able to post here in 6 months time (it's just you will not know that's why you are here )

Dublinstiofán

monument wrote: »

A deathtrap?

Could you back that up in any reasonable way?

[/URL]

Sure can!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055653560

I've addressed the rest of my points i don't feel the need to repeat myself.
I won't be taking the risk anymore, its up to you what you do.

Gavin

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

Sure can!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055653560

I've addressed the rest of my points i don't feel the need to repeat myself.
I won't be taking the risk anymore, its up to you what you do.

Spreading FUD about the dangers of cycling in the city centre is fairly irresponsible. Although it does highlight that cycle training is not a bad idea. The particular instance you linked to is a simple case of of a beginner cyclist not taking defensive measures. Those would be

1 - Being aware of the proximity of the truck
2 - Either taking the lane to increase visibility to the truck driver and prevent him overtaking in a dangerous manner
or
3 - Accelerating/slowing to get away from the truck as quickly as possible, you should never allow yourself to be along side a HGV which is not stationary or moving very slowly.

tomasrojo

What you've done there is a bit like claiming that gas boilers are a deathtrap, and anyone who uses them will almost certainly end up prematurely dead. Then, when someone challenges you, you link to a thread that gives steps to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning from gas boilers.

It just shows there are hazards, which can be dealt with sanely and without fear-mongering. It doesn't mean that cycling in the city centre is a deathtrap.

Jawgap

On a different tack - what about all the people who've upgraded?

I used a hybrid for a few years but the C2W scheme was the perfect excuse to move a notch or two up in terms of my bike.

It's not all virginal cyclists or returning cyclists taking up the scheme.

tomasrojo

Jawgap wrote: »

On a different tack - what about all the people who've upgraded?

I used a hybrid for a few years but the C2W scheme was the perfect excuse to move a notch or two up in terms of my bike.

It's not all virginal cyclists or returning cyclists taking up the scheme.

Good point. I'm trying to get a Brompton through work. I wouldn't have bothered doing that without the scheme.