"Dangerization" and cycling

Qualitymark

gadetra wrote: »

But seriously, I have taken things out of my pockets, eaten, fiddled around looking for stuff in the back of my jersey one handed (no handed only on my own!), or in and out of my bag when commuting and maintained the ability to look around me, see and hear. It can be done.

I've taken ganseys off over my head, eaten ice creams…

Somehow I've lost this skill, though it may be that my current bike is too heavy and unbalanced for it.

smacl

Qualitymark wrote: »

I've taken ganseys off over my head, eaten ice creams…

Somehow I've lost this skill, though it may be that my current bike is too heavy and unbalanced for it.

Never really had the skill. Getting back into cycling as an adult, using the water bottle and eating on the go to some time to get the hang of. When I see someone cycling around with no hands, my first reaction is 'Poser', but tinged with a small amount of envy.

KingBrian2

gadetra wrote: »

I disagree. I think it's a useful, nay vital bike handling skill. It's something I practiced for that reason. It's good for your balance and core too. I really don't think it gives out a bad image at all, I think it takes skill, balance, and good handling skills to do so. I ride with people who are rock solid hands free. I wholeheartedly disagree with it being a bad image. They most definitely take notice of what's around them! I genuinely don't understand how it can be construed as being a bad image? Texting on you phone and not looking around you or such like but cycling no handed? I don't see how that can be seen badly?

Even strangers I don't know, I think 'skills' :pac: But seriously, I have taken things out of my pockets, eaten, fiddled around looking for stuff in the back of my jersey one handed (no handed only on my own!), or in and out of my bag when commuting and maintained the ability to look around me, see and hear. It can be done.

Why have a system that demands one group of people to be able to use two hands and another to use no hands if they don't want too? Your hypocritical. We expect motorists to use two hands when driving and they are fined if they break the law. For us cyclists you want it optional. That's no way to operate on the road. Sure the motorists will claim they can drive while checking their phone or maybe having a sandwich in their hand.

Carawaystick

I saw a lad on a unicycle
He had no hands and no brakes
Wont somebody think of the children?

Cycling handsfree, was something I learned shortly after donkey kicks and bunny hops. Maybe aged 7 or so.

We used to do handsfree figure 8 competitions....
happy days

Jawgap

FFS.........

At last, cyclists and motorists agree: cycling is dangerous

The vast majority of motorists (80 per cent) and cyclists (74 per cent) consider cycling to be “dangerous”, according to the latest Road Safety Authority report, Driver Attitudes and Behaviour 2014.

According to the responses, however, 38 per cent of cyclists say they do not always wear a helmet, while 31 per cent do not always wear reflective gear.

Tenzor07

There ya go from an RSA survey, 27% regard cycling as very dangerous, 51% "fairly" dangerous..

13% don't wear helmets for fear of ruining there hair....




http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/breaches-of-speed-limits-and-rules-of-road-revealed-in-survey-1.2421914

buffalo

I think that survey needs its own thread... http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Surveys--Consultations/A-Survey-of-Driver-Attitudes-and-Behaviour-2014/

According to the RSA, safety gear is a helmet and hi-viz. No mention of lights... big surprise there.

Tenzor07

buffalo wrote: »

I think that survey needs its own thread... http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Surveys--Consultations/A-Survey-of-Driver-Attitudes-and-Behaviour-2014/

Yes, for sure, more suited to the Commuting&transport forum perhaps, though I just looked at the percentages who regarded cycling as dangerous, only 22% regard it as not dangerous...

tomasrojo

According to the responses, however, 38 per cent of cyclists say they do not always wear a helmet, while 31 per cent do not always wear reflective gear.

I suspect the order of the questionnaire was something like:
1) Do you consider cycling dangerous (1-10, 1 being very safe, 10 being very dangerous)
2) Do you always wear a helmet and hi-viz?

If you answer a high number to 1, you'll tend to answer yes to 2, so as not to look foolish.

The 38% doesn't tally with what I see on the road, and what the last survey into helmet wearing showed: about half of cyclists wear a helmet (more at rush hour though). This latest survey, if the respondents are being truthful, suggests that 62% always wear a helmet, and some proportion of the remaining 38% sometimes do, which means the road count should be around 75+%. Doesn't really square.

I haven't noticed 69% of cyclists wearing "reflective" gear either (what is it with the RSA and describing fluorescent clothing with reflective stripes as "reflective"?).

tomasrojo

It's also possible (though unthinkable for the RSA and Gardaí) to simultaneously regard cycling as dangerous, but helmets and hi-viz as ineffective. The implicit assumption here, as always in RSAland, is that helmets and hi-viz are very effective, so it's strange that people who regard it as dangerous don't wear them. In fact, they're the only game in town.

CramCycle

Tenzor07 wrote: »

13% don't wear helmets for fear of ruining there hair....

Depends on the mood I am in, if I want people to leave me alone, I wear no cap. The manic blowdried look makes me look like I am working intensely and am not to be interrupted.

The rest of the time I wear a deerstalker, flattens the hair and for some reason gives me the air of a man with psychotic tendancies, like in the movies, a man who constantly combs his hair back with his hands, coupled with the expanding bald patch, only people who have to talk to me come near me.

Maybe I should wear a helmet to make me look more sociable.

CramCycle

I wonder do they include cyclists with lights as having reflective gear? makes the numbers more believable.

Why don't they ask about lights? Suppose its not very useful to their Hi Vis budget if they go around telling people, that not only are there alternatives, but there are more effective alternatives, that are legally required.

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suspect the order of the questionnaire was something like:
1) Do you consider cycling dangerous (1-10, 1 being very safe, 10 being very dangerous)
2) Do you always wear a helmet and hi-viz?

If you answer a high number to 1, you'll tend to answer yes to 2, so as not to look foolish.

The 38% doesn't tally with what I see on the road, and what the last survey into helmet wearing showed: about half of cyclists wear a helmet (more at rush hour though). This latest survey, if the respondents are being truthful, suggests that 62% always wear a helmet, and some proportion of the remaining 38% sometimes do, which means the road count should be around 75+%. Doesn't really square.

I haven't noticed 69% of cyclists wearing "reflective" gear either (what is it with the RSA and describing fluorescent clothing with reflective stripes as "reflective"?).

Yep, the question posed was

When thinking generally about potential involvement in road collisions, how dangerous do you consider ...?

the answer options were

• Very dangerous
• Fairly dangerous
• Not very dangerous
• Not at all dangerous

....no bias there then :rolleyes:

Hard to believe the survey was carried out by a professional polling body and not a bunch of TY kids.

buffalo

Even the name of the survey annoys me - Driver Attitudes and Behaviour Survey 2014.

"oh yeah, we asked some cyclists some things as well. Pedestrians? They're in there too somewhere. Probably."

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I wonder do they include cyclists with lights as having reflective gear? makes the numbers more believable.

Why don't they ask about lights? Suppose its not very useful to their Hi Vis budget if they go around telling people, that not only are there alternatives, but there are more effective alternatives, that are legally required.

I'm pretty sure that they're not including lights, given how little emphasis they put on them. Well-functioning brakes and bikes being road-worthy in general don't get a mention much either.

I assume there is a complex of reasons for the emphasis on hi-viz, which isn't shared by all countries where cycling is a niche activity. bikesnobnyc, for example, was very taken by how much hi-viz was worn in London, even though he's coming from a devoutly helmet-wearing country.

In the case of Ireland, I suspect it's because:
* the UK does it too
* hi-viz is cheap, good lights are not (hence the RSA give-away of lights that cost €2 in Aldi)
* hi-viz "works" during the day too
* hi-viz "reflects" (so to speak) how dangerous cycling is, putting it into a class of other hazardous activities, such as working on building sites, or roadworks.
* there is a large supplier of hi-viz near the RSA in Mayo

buffalo

No mention of the 30kph limit in the speeding section.

I love how in 58% of collisions, the other driver was at fault... is that mathematically possible if the survey captured an accurate sampling?

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

I think that survey needs its own thread... http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Surveys--Consultations/A-Survey-of-Driver-Attitudes-and-Behaviour-2014/

According to the RSA, safety gear is a helmet and hi-viz. No mention of lights... big surprise there.

May be it is because hiviz and helmet are worn on the person and lights are on your bicycle

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

No mention of the 30kph limit in the speeding section.

I love how in 58% of collisions, the other driver was at fault... is that mathematically possible if the survey captured an accurate sampling?

Well they did include the responses from 116% of the 111 people asked

I do wonder how this happens, my stats level is basic, but there are glaring issues in terms of competencies of those compiling these reports, let alone those who are developing them.

It is shocking.

CramCycle

They are given a list of options but two of them are:

"None of the above" and "Other"

It has to be a rejected entry for the young scientist award from one of the staff members kids because to think that out of the people who designed the study, the people who asked the questions, the staff who compiled the data and the statistician who reviewed it, not one noticed anything wrong is a horrifying insult to our supposed "smart" economy.

The first question for these surveyings should be

How likely are you to tell the truth?

RainyDay

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suspect the order of the questionnaire was something like:
1) Do you consider cycling dangerous (1-10, 1 being very safe, 10 being very dangerous)
2) Do you always wear a helmet and hi-viz?

If you answer a high number to 1, you'll tend to answer yes to 2, so as not to look foolish.

The 38% doesn't tally with what I see on the road, and what the last survey into helmet wearing showed: about half of cyclists wear a helmet (more at rush hour though). This latest survey, if the respondents are being truthful, suggests that 62% always wear a helmet, and some proportion of the remaining 38% sometimes do, which means the road count should be around 75+%. Doesn't really square.

I haven't noticed 69% of cyclists wearing "reflective" gear either (what is it with the RSA and describing fluorescent clothing with reflective stripes as "reflective"?).

Jawgap wrote: »

Yep, the question posed was



the answer options were

• Very dangerous
• Fairly dangerous
• Not very dangerous
• Not at all dangerous

....no bias there then :rolleyes:

Hard to believe the survey was carried out by a professional polling body and not a bunch of TY kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

rollingscone

tomasrojo wrote: »

* there is a large supplier of hi-viz near the RSA in Mayo

Seriously?
https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/662444224755990528?s=09

tomasrojo

I really don't think that that's a prime reason. I probably shouldn't have included it. I just suspect that the company is making a product the RSA already approve of, and the fact that it contributes to local jobs probably gives the RSA a warm feeling, enforcing the notion that they're in a virtuous circle.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I do wonder how this happens, my stats level is basic, but there are glaring issues in terms of competencies of those compiling these reports, let alone those who are developing them.

I've said it before, but the analysis part of the "road safety" remit has to be separated from the campaigning part. The same body shouldn't be doing both.

tomasrojo

Trends in local newspaper reporting of London cyclist fatalities 1992-2012: the role of the media in shaping the systems dynamics of cycling

Highlights

• Cycling trips doubled in London between 1992 and 2012.
• The proportion of cyclist fatalities covered by media rose 13-fold over this period.
• The increased coverage was specific to cyclists, and not seen for motorcyclists.
• Such coverage may create complex feedback loops, inhibiting cycling growth.
• The relative strength of such feedback loops is likely to vary between cities.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515300981

Basically, the more popular cycling gets, the more media obsesses about how "dangerous" it is. At the same time time, motorcycling fatalities go, in comparison, unreported.

Across the period when cycling trips doubled in London, the proportion of fatalities covered in the local media increased from 6% in 1992–1994 to 75% in 2010–2012. By contrast, the coverage of motorcyclist fatalities remained low (4% in 1992–1994 versus 5% in 2010–2012; p = 0.007 for interaction between mode and time period).

HivemindXX

Article wrote:

Across the study period, the annual number of cyclist fatalities in London remained relatively stable, at around 15 per year (Table 1). Given that the estimated daily number of cycle trips almost doubled (Fig. 2), this implies a reduced injury rate per cyclist over the time period.

They kind of buried a pretty important bit of information, which is how much change there was in the number of fatalities. After all if number of cycle trips doubled but fatalities quadrupled that would be news worthy. However the quote above from the results section, and the subsequent table, shows that fatalities remained stable so in relative terms getting on your bike is actually twice as safe as ten years ago.

Next time someone tells me they wouldn't cycle in the city because it's just too dangerous (which won't take long) I'll try to remember to ask them whether they think it is more or less dangerous to cycle than 10 years ago and see what they say.

HivemindXX

HivemindXX wrote: »

They kind of buried a pretty important bit of information, which is how much change there was in the number of fatalities. After all if number of cycle trips doubled but fatalities quadrupled that would be news worthy. However the quote above from the results section, and the subsequent table, shows that fatalities remained stable so in relative terms getting on your bike is actually twice as safe as ten years ago.

Next time someone tells me they wouldn't cycle in the city because it's just too dangerous (which won't take long) I'll try to remember to ask them whether they think it is more or less dangerous to cycle than 10 years ago and see what they say.

What is a cycle trip?

Is the number of kilometres cycled doubled?

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

They kind of buried a pretty important bit of information, which is how much change there was in the number of fatalities. After all if number of cycle trips doubled but fatalities quadrupled that would be news worthy. However the quote above from the results section, and the subsequent table, shows that fatalities remained stable so in relative terms getting on your bike is actually twice as safe as ten years ago.

Next time someone tells me they wouldn't cycle in the city because it's just too dangerous (which won't take long) I'll try to remember to ask them whether they think it is more or less dangerous to cycle than 10 years ago and see what they say.

I thought that the fatality/serious injury rate had disimproved for cyclists in the last few years in London; that the increase in the injury rate matched or exceeded the rise in cycling. I could be wrong. I remember there being some concern among people who weren't the usual bunch cherry-picking for trends to make cycling look dangerous.

Civilian_Target

tomasrojo wrote: »

I thought that the fatality/serious injury rate had disimproved for cyclists in the last few years in London; that the increase in the injury rate matched or exceeded the rise in cycling. I could be wrong. I remember there being some concern among people who weren't the usual bunch cherry-picking for trends to make cycling look dangerous.

Personally, I think that increased awareness of the fact that most cycling accidents are easily preventable is a large driving factor in the coverage. I remember 10 years ago, they were much more widely considered to be a 'fact of life'

Here in Boston, for example, we now see bike accidents driving immediate rethinks of junctions where they happen.

That's a personal hypothesis though, I'd love to know if research bears it out!

Qualitymark

I also think the emphasis on high-visibility gilets is foolish. But I also think that wearing them on dark days and nights is a good thing. There are two times on my most usual cycles that I value them, both when I'm turning right across a cycle lane. My big fear is the cyclist coming the other way at speed, dressed in dark clothing; even when s/he has lights, it's hard to see the figure speeding towards me.

In unrelated matters, I saw what looked like the aftermath of a nasty accident yesterday. Outside Christ Church, there was a car with both front doors thrown wide open like wings. Beside it lying across the kerb was a Dublin Bike. As I passed, I glanced inside. The passenger seat had been laid flat, and two people were working, seemingly laying out an unconscious person, with a pink outfit or a pink blanket, on that passenger seat.