Save a cyclist

cipo

Hey all

Just a quick one.

Given the two deaths of cyclists this week (young promising rider Lewis Balyckyi in UK & Carla Swart in RSA) a new campaign; to promote road safety, adherence to the HW code by ALL and respect for all road users; has begun.

It's on FB, just search save a cyclist & like it. Its main aim to to promote safe road use by all and thus increasing respect for all road users ( trying to stop the "them against us" culture that goes both ways with some cyclists and some drivers )

Everyone ride safe, light yourself up like a Xmas tree, wear a lid!

Dave

Paul Kiernan

What and where is FB?

Lashed

I think this is what he means: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Save-a-cyclist-campaign/187240304636842

Paul Kiernan

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

What and where is FB?

Duh, FB=Facebook:o. I'm really showing my age here! I suppose a tweet is a sound a little yellow bird makes when he "thinks he thaw a puddycat".

monument

cipo wrote: »

It's on FB, just search save a cyclist & like it. Its main aim to to promote safe road use by all and thus increasing respect for all road users ( trying to stop the "them against us" culture that goes both ways with some cyclists and some drivers )

Everyone ride safe, light yourself up like a Xmas tree, wear a lid!

I know you might mean well, but it's next to imposable to do all the things you say here.

Helmets, high-viz and lighting "yourself up like a Xmas tree"* makes cyclists different and enforces the idea that cyclists are different in the mind of motorists.

The best way to improve things for cyclists is by getting more people to cycle. Forget about the helmet debate and think about this: Helmets and high-viz promotes the idea that cycling is dangerous. People thinking cycling is dangerous stops more people from taking up cycling. Thus helmets and high-viz stops more people from taking up cycling.

If you want to improve things for cyclists put most of your energy into convincing other to cycle or to promote cycling in ways which will help more people cycle.

Increasing the amount of people cycling increases safety, there's no other proven way at improving safety so effectively.

* For the record I use a strong front LED light and two rear LED lights, a different version of one of these and these. I always use them at night, but also use them at times with poor light, on dark days, in fog, in the rain etc. People without lights need to be policed, promoting helmets or high-vis is nonsense when the important legal requirement for lights takes a back seat.

monument

Just to back my self up on increasing cycling numbers increases safety.

Unlike other apparent safety measures this is not highly disputed. And the "safety in numbers" theory has been proven correct time and time again.

[URL="Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling"]Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling[/URL]

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling

And, note in the first link below, Ireland is shown to be very safe for cyclists, although because the numbers are so low (both numbers of those cycling and deaths) it's unclear if the stats mean anything. But very few die or get seriously injured from cycling, even fewer if you only include urban areas. Cycling is not risky!

Yes, you can tell of stories of drivers nearly knocking you down, but I have more of those stories from times when I'm walking than when cycling -- and that's saying something since I cycle almost everywhere. Just take the example that drivers often don't slow and sometimes speed up when people try to cross the road anywhere but at ped lights.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC_Safety_in_Numbers.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/more-proof-safety-in-numbers-cyclists.php
http://safetrec.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Spring04/JacobsenPaper.pdf

Get more people cycling and you get more drivers who are also cyclists and drivers who have daughters, sons, mother etc who cycle.

The funny thing about getting more people cycling is that it makes things safer, and what does that do? Gets more people cycling! And that makes things safer and so on... but for this to work you have to promote the idea that cycling is safe. What do you do about the danger? Target the main dangers -- provide cycling training, enforce the bicycle lights requirements and target poor driving and cycling.

dayshah

monument wrote: »

Forget about the helmet debate and think about this: Helmets and high-viz promotes the idea that cycling is dangerous. People thinking cycling is dangerous stops more people from taking up cycling. Thus helmets and high-viz stops more people from taking up cycling.

I think that sort of counter-intuitive thinking is at best odd. Cycling can be dangerous if people don't do it properly, and the absence of air bags and so on make bicycles fundamentally different to cars.
Hi-Vis vests hugely increase the visible surface area. I spot high vis vests from over 300 metres, a small red light far nearer. Also wearing a high vis vest can make you look a bit like the Gardaí, that makes drivers pay attention.

A better idea is to promote road education on television (and I spotted a few ads on television over Christmas). Lots of people (motorists and cyclists) have utterly crap road positioning, don't use lanes correctly, and can't use roundabouts. I think an ad showing motorists how to overtake bikes, and telling cyclists to hold their lane etc would be beneficial. A simple road education programme can help address this.

tomasrojo

This debate goes round and round, but when somebody points out that statistics show that cycling is not associated strongly with either serious injuries or fatalities, someone responds with a statement that is not far from "I know in my heart that cycling is dangerous, so the following measures are vital ...". But the statistics are actually pretty clear; cycling as a mode of transport (as distinct from its various manifestations in sport) is not a high-risk activity.

The issue is dealt with pretty decently in an episode of BBC Radio 4's statistics programme, More or Less.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20100903-1248a.mp3

About ten minutes in.

monument

dayshah wrote: »

I think that sort of counter-intuitive thinking is at best odd.

Counter-intuitive thinking is odd by its nature.

It does not mean it's wrong.

How many people don't believe that cycling away from the kerb increases safety even after you say that it's the key element of the UK's Bikeability standard and recommended by our Department of Transport? Or that bicycle helmets increase potential danger because some cars drive closer? How many don't believe safety in numbers? How many don't believe that the benefits of urban cycling outweighs the risks as much as much as 20:1 even if its the British Medical Association who says so?

Loads of things we do because they are 'right' or beyond approach or 'safe' are counter-productive.

If mandatory helmet laws have been proven to be linked to a declined in cycling, it's not a stretch to say that helmet promotion could make cycling look more dangerous. It's not rocket science, helmets and high-vis are associated with danger (building sites, road works, motorbiking etc). Added to this bicycle helmets are useless when it comes to the dominant cause of brain injury, angular acceleration. And guess what type of injury helmets can increase the severities of, even if only slightly? You guessed it, angular acceleration (which is in its self counter-intuitive that a safety device could cause more danger).

dayshah wrote: »

Cycling can be dangerous if people don't do it properly,

Indeed it can, but it's not as dangerous as may of us think and motorists seem to be at fault more so:

http://road.cc/node/27652
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Let's look at Dublin, as from The Irish Times, via here.

Irish Times reporting on Dublin City Council data wrote:

Almost 70 per cent off all cycle collisions involved cars. Although left-turning vehicles were involved the majority of fatalities, the most common collision involved right-turning cars. These accounted for just under 20 per cent of incidents. The next most common type is classified as “side swipes”, accounting for 15 per cent of collisions. These occur where a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or changing lanes hits the bicycle.

Ok, so you unless we could look at every case, the most deaths could be put down to shared blame -- cyclists being somewhere that's not safe, but motorists also don't pay enough attention and a lot of trucks don't have the mirrors they should have. To see foolish behaviour on both sides only have to look at cyclists going inside clearly left turning trucks and buses or look at drivers who speed up and pass cyclists an pull in directly afterwards.

With right-turning cars it is more likely to be the driver's fault (or the drivers to have the majority of the blame to a level that it does not matter) as the driver is crossing the cyclist's path.

And side swipes are caused by drivers passing cyclists too closely.

A fresher example, even if more anecdotal -- a good bit more than 1 million journeys and counting on Dublin Bikes with their apparently reckless cyclists but no serious injuries according to the city council.

dayshah wrote: »

and the absence of air bags and so on make bicycles fundamentally different to cars.

There's no airbags or seat belts on trains. Why not? Trains are safe and there'd be no really benefit.

Cycling is also safe, as said: the benefits outweighs the risks by a factor of 20:1. The benefits of cycle helmets are so low -- as above, taking into account that they are not designed for the dominant cause of brain injury and use of helmets has been linked with drivers passing closer.

The obsession with helmets is a distraction -- you get people asking "were you wearing a helmet" when you hurt your foot or when a dead cyclist is crushed by a truck.

dayshah wrote: »

Hi-Vis vests hugely increase the visible surface area. I spot high vis vests from over 300 metres, a small red light far nearer. Also wearing a high vis vest can make you look a bit like the Gardaí, that makes drivers pay attention

As described in other threads, there are more than a few people on here who have been hit by drivers when "lit up like a Christmas tree".

Half decent lights are a far better idea than high-vis -- high-vis is only really effective when lights are shined on it. So drivers won't see high-vis nearly as quick as lights at key times. Like when drivers are coming from a side road or when a cyclist is on the inside of a car or truck before it turns left. High-vis vests are more likely to make you look like a road worker or randomer than a garda and you always spot the high quality LED lights before high-vis. I regularly see cyclists at the end of my street in the dark, and importantly when its getting dark, with good lights over 400 meters away.

Just like helmets, high-vis is a distraction to the basics like lights and learning how to cycle and tackling actual causes of crashes (ie aggressive and neglectful driver behaviour).

A better idea is to promote road education on television (and I spotted a few ads on television over Christmas). Lots of people (motorists and cyclists) have utterly crap road positioning, don't use lanes correctly, and can't use roundabouts. I think an ad showing motorists how to overtake bikes, and telling cyclists to hold their lane etc would be beneficial. A simple road education programme can help address this.

To most people the idea of road positioning, including taking the lane and not kerb hugging, is highly counter-intuitive. Lots of motorists also get annoyed by it. Sadly unlike the Department of Transport, the RSA have yet to adopt the key message of road positioning. The RSA prefers simple and acceptable methods such as high-vis and helmets

Also their budget was slashed so TV adverts are unlikely, but on the up side the Department of Transport have included their instructions to drivers with motor tax renewal. So, that message is already being sent out.

Just forget about helmets and high-vis and speed that time and effort in promote cycling -- market cycling and make it easer for people to cycle. The benefits of more people cycling have to be stressed -- As above it makes things safer for cyclists, it also makes things safer for people walking. It's better for the would-be cyclists' health, and better for the health system and thus the tax payer. It improves our air quality, lowers noise in cities, lowers our dependence on oil, improves problems around congestion, it's way cheaper and cost effective than spending on public transport, and it also increases the range of public transport. Makes Ireland a more attract place to visit, do business in and live in.

Do helmets or high-vis do any of that?

cipo

Good to see a bit of debate on the subject!

Not really bringing a "helmet argument" or "must have lights" debate.

I ride with lots of lights and a lid at all times, feel safer personally. I'd rather have them on than not.

More the merrier on bikes I say!

Didn't get time to read all above but will later.

Ride safe, enjoy.

Off out on mtb now, yeeehaaaa!!!