Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 6:04pm

beauf wrote: »

We know why.

However most people (especially anti cyclists) don't want to hear why, they want to re-enforce their preconceived bias. One of which is the dogma about Hi-Viz. Hi-Viz has its place but its entirely over stated.

This thread a good example. The thread is about social distancing and cycling, face masks. Even about cycling on footpaths. But its another thread completely over run and derailed with Hi-Viz.

That every cycling thread is derailed with Hi-Viz (or helmet) spam, usually by the same handful of people clearly indicates its abnormal posting behavior.

It was over run when the title was changed. It was over run when the whataboutery started .

You may say not but I wasn't even bothered about the thread about cycling on footpaths other than a cursory read of if now and again, until someone decided that it was more about the people killed so far this year than cyclists on footpaths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why is there so much hype about this lately? Is it not a great thing that people are out on bikes in any capacity? Has anyone been injured by cyclists on footpaths?
Why don't people go nuts ringing radio shows about illegally parked cars absolutely everywhere? There are 7 outside my house right now illegally parked, just strewn around the place.
There have been 18 pedestrians KILLED, yes KILLED, by people driving cars this year - but this doesn't seem to bother anyone?
Why isn't Pat Kenny going nuts about this?
Seriously, get your priorities right, bikes are not a danger to anyone.

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 6:06pm

beauf wrote: »

We know why.

However most people (especially anti cyclists) don't want to hear why, they want to re-enforce their preconceived bias. One of which is the dogma about Hi-Viz. Hi-Viz has its place but its entirely over stated.
This thread a good example. The thread is about social distancing and cycling, face masks. Even about cycling on footpaths. But its another thread completely over run and derailed with Hi-Viz.
That every cycling thread is derailed with Hi-Viz (or helmet) spam, usually by the same handful of people clearly indicates its abnormal posting behavior.

But aren't the very people arguing against Hi Viz guilty of their own pre conceived bias?

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 6:14pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I never said that hi-vis doesn't make you more visible. I simply pointed out that if you reckon it does make you more visible, surely you would slap a load of it on your car.

And once again I compare the visibility of a cyclist/pedestrian with no visibility PPE to cars with their built in PPE for visibility such as headlights, glass that reflects street lights, etc.

If you were as visible as a car without the PPE then I might agree with you, until then keep digging.

I do, however, have a suggestion for you, maybe wrap yourself in tin foil, it would likely have the same effect as the shiny bits on car, maybe add two red reflectors on your back and two white ones on your chest for real comparability.

magicbastarder · 05-06-2020 6:46pm

the funny thing is, a dutch person reading this debate would be scratching their head wondering what in holy hell the argument is about.

again, cycling safety has boiled down to an argument about hi vis. i gotta hand it to spook_ie, well played.

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 6:55pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

the funny thing is, a dutch person reading this debate would be scratching their head wondering what in holy hell the argument is about.

again, cycling safety has boiled down to an argument about hi vis. i gotta hand it to spook_ie, well played.

Sorry I didn't drag it into a discussion on HI Viz, it was already there and yes the usual suspects are among them.

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1266129897078087681

neither hi-vis nor helmets are mandatory. the government has repeatedly made clear that they're not going to be made mandatory, as doing so would have a *negative* impact on public health.

anyway, that's two more ticks on the bingo card.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Should we apply these restrictions to cars too - no stereos or radios blaring, no black/blue/burgandy cars - nice hi-vis stripes on the sides of all cars, hi-vis for drivers walking to/from cars - because otherwise - Putting yourself in harms way is contributing to the problem - why would anyone do this ?

What's your source for this please?

Hurrache wrote: »

With all the absence of high vis you still managed to see all these people. I've always found this very strange.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Glad to hear people are not falling for this nonsense! Hi-Viz? in Summer? on what have been some of the brightest/warmest days we've had so far.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm impressed the amount of attention people give to cyclists - I had no idea people were so interested in what we are wearing.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually, the day glow portion of a HI viz garment works better in sunlight

magicbastarder · 05-06-2020 7:00pm

*doffs cap*

magicbastarder · 05-06-2020 7:09pm

To be fair, you did run from the argument like a scalded cat.

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 7:30pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Were these houses not big enough to be seen?

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/

You don't have your key in the ignition, so surely hi-vis stripes would help protect your car when parked. Isn't it better that the 80% or whatever are reacting earlier to the HI Viz than a 100% reacting later to no Hi Viz?

I forgot I wanted to respond to this dig a hole post of yours Andrew.

Let's look briefly at the sources of the photos and see what caused the collision with the offending buildings.

1 handbrake not set or faulty
2 Drunk driver, taken without consent
3 no information 're investigation found
4 excessive speed possibly involving drink as he returned to the scene after leaving
5 3x drink limit, no seatbelt
6 driver charged with drink driving

You can research the rest yourself it would seem that not one of the incidents was down to visibility but more to do with criminal And negligent behaviour.

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 7:32pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

To be fair, you did run from the argument like a scalded cat.

I only pointed out that day glow in Hi Viz clothing reacts better to sunlight, but I won't shy away from an argument when people decide to have a pop at my posts.

07Lapierre · 05-06-2020 7:33pm

Bloody kids cycling on the footpath! Geez! Call the cops!

https://twitter.com/edwardlamb/status/1268883410950467584?s=21

beauf · 05-06-2020 7:48pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

But aren't the very people arguing against Hi Viz guilty of their own pre conceived bias?

I don't see them spamming every other motoring thread. The majority aren't saying hi viz had no value either.

Charles Babbage · 05-06-2020 7:56pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

the funny thing is, a dutch person reading this debate would be scratching their head wondering what in holy hell the argument is about.

again, cycling safety has boiled down to an argument about hi vis. i gotta hand it to spook_ie, well played.

The is a certain hypocrisy in complaining that a thread about cycling on paths which was derailed by cycling apologists spouting all sorts of things about motorists was subsequently in derailed in a direction that didn't suit you as well.

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 8:06pm

beauf wrote: »

I don't see them spamming every other motoring thread. The majority aren't saying hi viz had no value either.

Hardly surprising as cyclist threads seem to be confined to the cycling forum and on the commuting and transport threads, perhaps you should ask for all future cycling threads to be moved to the cycling forum where you can bask in the Thank You posts from fellow cyclists.

Or of course cyclists could venture into the real world where people don't always agree with them and debate the points rather than throwing in the usual "what about" posts.

beauf · 05-06-2020 8:14pm

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The is a certain hypocrisy in complaining that a thread about cycling on paths which was derailed by cycling apologists spouting all sorts of things about motorists was subsequently in derailed in a direction that didn't suit you as well.

It started because it was claimed it was dangerous but there were no stats to back it up.

AndrewJRenko · 05-06-2020 8:16pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

And once again I compare the visibility of a cyclist/pedestrian with no visibility PPE to cars with their built in PPE for visibility such as headlights, glass that reflects street lights, etc.

If you were as visible as a car without the PPE then I might agree with you, until then keep digging.

I do, however, have a suggestion for you, maybe wrap yourself in tin foil, it would likely have the same effect as the shiny bits on car, maybe add two red reflectors on your back and two white ones on your chest for real comparability.

But you did agree that hi-vis stripes would make a dark car more visible in dark environments, such as nighttime, didn't you?

beauf · 05-06-2020 8:17pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Hardly surprising as cyclist threads seem to be confined to the cycling forum and on the commuting and transport threads, perhaps you should ask for all future cycling threads to be moved to the cycling forum where you can bask in the Thank You posts from fellow cyclists.

Or of course cyclists could venture into the real world where people don't always agree with them and debate the points rather than throwing in the usual "what about" posts.

Most cyclists are motorists. Keen drivers even. You see them on other threads discussing cars.

It's only these cycling threads that are spammed by anti cyclists. Same issues over and over.

beauf · 05-06-2020 8:19pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Sorry I didn't drag it into a discussion on HI Viz, it was already there and yes the usual suspects are among them.

No you didn't.

But the topic was was dragged into this thread by a motorist.

AndrewJRenko · 05-06-2020 8:20pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I forgot I wanted to respond to this dig a hole post of yours Andrew.

Let's look briefly at the sources of the photos and see what caused the collision with the offending buildings.

1 handbrake not set or faulty
2 Drunk driver, taken without consent
3 no information 're investigation found
4 excessive speed possibly involving drink as he returned to the scene after leaving
5 3x drink limit, no seatbelt
6 driver charged with drink driving

You can research the rest yourself it would seem that not one of the incidents was down to visibility but more to do with criminal And negligent behaviour.

Isn't it funny though, how you never thought of doing the same kind of analysis on the causes of incidents involving cyclists, instead of rushing to the lazy hi-vis option?

magicbastarder · 05-06-2020 8:22pm

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The is a certain hypocrisy in complaining that a thread about cycling on paths which was derailed by cycling apologists spouting all sorts of things about motorists was subsequently in derailed in a direction that didn't suit you as well.

you gotta roll with the punches, true. people will argue what they want to argue, this is boards after all. we all knew where this thread was headed after the car crash of the original post.

but funny still that cyclists (generally speaking, we're not as homogenous a bunch as you like to think) want to talk about safe infrastructure and enforcement of laws to make life safer and more pleasant for them, and many non-cyclists want to focus on the things which leave cyclists wondering '*that's* what you think safe cycling boils down to?'

FWIW, getting back to the original post, i stopped dead in the footpath earlier to force a twonk on a bike to go around me. i think he'd expected me to make way for him.

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 8:29pm

beauf wrote: »

It started because it was claimed it was dangerous but there were no stats to back it up.

Difficult because very few stats, especially for Ireland are taken or published, however, the figures provided by the ONS in the UK for deaths caused by cyclists are availiable. Apparently the figures for injuries are subject to another department.

+

+
| Deaths (persons) |
|

+

|
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
|

+

|
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
|

+

|
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
|

+

|
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
|

+

|
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
+

+

So though undoubtedly motorised vehicles cause more deaths, to say that cyclists on footpaths aren't dangerous is disingenuous to say the least.

AndrewJRenko · 05-06-2020 8:31pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Difficult because very few stats, especially for Ireland are taken or published, however, the figures provided by the ONS in the UK for deaths caused by cyclists are availiable. Apparently the figures for injuries are subject to another department.

+
+
| Deaths (persons) |
|
|
| Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by |
| | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck |
|
+
+
|
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
|
+
+
|
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
|
+
+
|
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
|
+
+
|
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
|
+
+
|
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
+
+

So though undoubtedly motorised vehicles cause more deaths, to say that cyclists on footpaths aren't dangerous is disingenuous to say the least.

How did you work out that these UK incidents happened on footpaths?

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 8:34pm

beauf wrote: »

Most cyclists are motorists. Keen drivers even. You see them on other threads discussing cars.

It's only these cycling threads that are spammed by anti cyclists. Same issues over and over.

You would think then that if most cyclists are drivers perhaps they should be more aware of the need for cyclists to follow the traffic regulations and to even use hand signals!

07Lapierre · 05-06-2020 8:38pm

Cycling on the pavement is illegal. Problem is, our roads are also very cyclist unfriendly. People simply don't feel safe on the road, so they cycle on the footpath. Cycling takes effort, so people will also take the most direct route to their destination. If that means cycling on the pavement and thereby avoiding a longer, more dangerous route by road, they'll do it. The new cycle lanes that Dublin City council have built should result in less pavement cycling. Time will tell.

magicbastarder · 05-06-2020 8:38pm

Cyclists Are Better Drivers Than Motorists, Finds Study

13% of the firm’s insured drivers make at least one claim per year, found Day, but this fell to 6% for cyclists who were insured on the firm’s cyclist-driver policy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/10/09/cyclists-are-better-drivers-than-motorists-finds-study/#267d98996f6c

07Lapierre · 05-06-2020 8:42pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

You would think then that if most cyclists are drivers perhaps they should be more aware of the need for cyclists to follow the traffic regulations and to even use hand signals!

I use hand signals, I use lights, I obey the ROTR. I have no control over what other road users do.

Spook_ie · 05-06-2020 9:05pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

I use hand signals, I use lights, I obey the ROTR. I have no control over what other road users do.

And good for you, but of course logically, if a large percentage of cyclists also drive, then surely a large percentage of Andrews speeding drivers and non hands free phone users must be cyclists too, go figure!

Hurrache · 05-06-2020 9:08pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I did, from profiz web site

You didn't delve very deeply, but sure you've always had a narrow focus.

07Lapierre · 05-06-2020 9:08pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

And good for you, but of course logically, if a large percentage of cyclists also drive, then surely a large percentage of Andrews speeding drivers and non hands free phone users must be cyclists too, go figure!

Unless you know all these "Andrews"... no it's not surely. Your good for posting facts/figures...post a link that backs up your "logic".

magicbastarder · 05-06-2020 9:12pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

And good for you, but of course logically, if a large percentage of cyclists also drive, then surely a large percentage of Andrews speeding drivers and non hands free phone users must be cyclists too, go figure!

not sure if serious.

Hurrache · 05-06-2020 9:16pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Difficult because very few stats, especially for Ireland are taken or published, however, the figures provided by the ONS in the UK for deaths caused by cyclists are availiable. Apparently the figures for injuries are subject to another department.

+
+
| Deaths (persons) |
|
|
| Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by |
| | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck |
|
+
+
|
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
|
+
+
|
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
|
+
+
|
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
|
+
+
|
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
|
+
+
|
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
+
+

So though undoubtedly motorised vehicles cause more deaths, to say that cyclists on footpaths aren't dangerous is disingenuous to say the least.

You're happy to accept UK stats in this instance, but completely ignore UK police forces telling people that high vis is pointless.

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Comments