To the two lads cycling out the Dublin Rd, in the am, 7.30ish

Cookiemunster

Chiparus wrote: »

Im a motorists and a cyclists , mostly a motorist I drive 40,000 km per year, I see motorists drive through red lights every day, mostly as the lights turn orange , they acclerate, not stop.
I also see motorists drive on footpaths everyday, mostly outside schools where they park to pick up children.
I see motorists kill pedestrians nearly every week.

No you don't.

davo2001

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Have you seen the state of the bike lanes on the Condell Road over the last two weeks? They're both under several inches of mulch and debris since the two storms hit. You'd need a dirt-bike to make any use of them at the moment.

OK, yeah fair enough comment about the last 2 weeks, but what's the excuse for not using it over the last several years?

zulutango

Cyclists should definitely be well lit at night with lights, because lights are very effective. The hi-vis argument is a red herring because hi-vis doesn't further enhance the visibility of cyclists if they already have lights.

It's also important that traffic speeds are reduced. This is also proven to reduce cycling injuries and fatalities.

granturismo

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Have you seen the state of the bike lanes on the Condell Road over the last two weeks? They're both under several inches of mulch and debris since the two storms hit. You'd need a dirt-bike to make any use of them at the moment.

Then walk the bike on the pedestrian footpaths.

Insect Overlord

granturismo wrote: »

Then walk the bike on the pedestrian footpaths.

Or, you know, cycle in traffic...

davo2001 wrote: »

OK, yeah enough comment about the last 2 weeks, but what's the excuse for not using it over the last several years?

I would imagine the excuses are likely to be youth, inexperience, fear of traffic, and/or not having lights/helmet and feeling safer on the quiet stretches of the path.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Cyclists should definitely be well lit at night with lights, because lights are very effective. The hi-vis argument is a red herring because hi-vis doesn't further enhance the visibility of cyclists if they already have lights.

It's also important that traffic speeds are reduced. This is also proven to reduce cycling injuries and fatalities.

Better segregation is needed. Childers Rd. from the Parkway to Bengal Terrace is the way to do it, rather than painting lines on the edges of busy roads never designed for anything other than cars.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Better segregation is needed.

It really depends on the situation. Segregration is definitely needed if there is fast traffic. But in situations where there isn't space for segregration (which is most urban streets and rural roads), then cyclists and traffic must share the space and that means slowing traffic down.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Childers Rd. from the Parkway to Bengal Terrace is the way to do it, rather than painting lines on the edges of busy roads never designed for anything other than cars.

This is a suitable solution where there is space available, but as I said above, it is not possible in many instances.

carbonceiling

zulutango wrote: »

The hi-vis argument is a red herring because hi-vis doesn't further enhance the visibility of cyclists if they already have lights.
.

That's just not true.

See the attached picture of a cyclist with lights and high-vis.

Can you spot his vest?

Can you spot his light?

thesimpsons

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Have you seen the state of the bike lanes on the Condell Road over the last two weeks? They're both under several inches of mulch and debris since the two storms hit. You'd need a dirt-bike to make any use of them at the moment.

Condell Road has been cleaned I use it virtually every day. so do other commuters. I find its generally kids or people on city bikes who wouldn't be confident on the road who cycle on the pathway there. Yesterday afternoon there was a runner on the bike lane heading into town with me fast approaching from behind at 30km - bloody idiot she was. I knew if I shouted at her, she'd probably turn around straight into my path. thankfully the bus lane was free so I used that to pass her out. Theres a lovely running path beside the river

Chiparus

Cookiemunster wrote: »

No you don't.

Yes I do,

In my work, and its in the media
about 35 killed every year.

kilburn

You must be fairly unlucky to see all 35 incidents throughout the country regardless of your job unless your the deputy state pathologist i drove 100k a year for 7 years and never saw anyone get killed

Chiparus

I see it in my work and in the media.

Of course I don't see all 35,

carbonceiling

Cookiemunster

Chiparus wrote: »

I see it in my work and in the media.

Of course I don't see all 35,

You said that YOU see a pedestrian being killed by a motorist nearly every week. That's clearly billsh1t. Reading a report in the media is not seeing someone being killed. Also nearly every week is a lot more than 35. Which you now admit that you don't see. Please dig up.

jjpep

carbonceiling wrote: »

What happens when someone isn't shining a light on the person?

Lights are always better than reflective clothing.

cursai

Tefral wrote: »

If they get hit by a car travelling the speed limit along there they will also die.

Yes its up to the cyclist to mitigate their risk on the road, they are vulnerable.

That's what George Hook was saying...

LeinsterDub

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

I don't see any good reason why hi-viz vests are not made compulsory to be honest. I hate wearing one, but I would feel like less of an outcast cycling into college if everyone else was wearing them as well.

Because they are of dubious benefit and in certain circumstances may actually hinder visibility?

LeinsterDub

carbonceiling wrote: »

.
If a cyclist is unfortunate enough to be hit by a driver with poor night vision and finds themselves hurtling towards the ground / ditch / oncoming bus, they will find little consolation in the notion that the other guy is to blame. Plenty of thoughts will flash through their mind, but not that one.

So in this analogy it's the cyclists who should be lit up more and wear high vis? Dispite the fact that they were hit by someone who shouldn't have been driving in the first place and no amount of high visibility would make any difference as this motorists is a danger to themselves and others?

Chiparus

Cookiemunster wrote: »

You said that YOU see a pedestrian being killed by a motorist nearly every week. That's clearly billsh1t. Reading a report in the media is not seeing someone being killed. Also nearly every week is a lot more than 35. Which you now admit that you don't see. Please dig up.

Clearly you don't understand the way I was saying it.
No I did not see every single pedestrian who was killed.
"I saw someone was killed in the paper" does not mean I actually saw the physical act.
"I see someone was killed last week"
In my job I see people killed or seriously injured by drivers regularly. I treat them . thats my job.

If a pedestrian is hit at 50kmph thy have a 50% mortality. Nearly every week another pedestrian killed .

AndrewJRenko

Tefral wrote: »

I spot these fellas too.. disaster waiting to happen. No one obeys the speed limit along that road!

And your problem is with the cyclists? Just in case you weren't aware, speeding motorists are one of the top three causes of road deaths. Cycling without lights is fairly dumb, but does not feature in causes of road deaths.

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

I don't see any good reason why hi-viz vests are not made compulsory to be honest. I hate wearing one, but I would feel like less of an outcast cycling into college if everyone else was wearing them as well.

I don't see any good reason why hi-vis stripes for all cars are not made compulsory to be honest. I hate driving a car with hi-vis stripes but I would feel like less of an outcast driving into college if everyone else was driving one too.

Your kind of thinking is one of the main reasons why we have so few female cyclists, particularly teenage girls. We have more secondary school girls driving themselves to school than cycling, because we have positioned cycling as a hazardous activity, despite all the data to the contrary.

carbonceiling wrote: »

You can order Hi-Vis vests, rucksack covers, armbands, sam browne belts etc for free on the RSA website. There really is no excuse for cycling around in the dark without these.

http://rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Orders-online/Orders-online/

They are all a distraction. You need lights, and not the free pinpoint LED lights given out by the RSA. Get lights.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

It goes both ways. Cyclists shouldn't be out in the dark without lights or high vis, shouldn't be breaking red lights, shouldn't be cycling the wrong way down 1 way streets, etc.

You do notice the motorists with one headlight, or one or two broken brake lights, or no back lights at all because they haven't yet worked out how their DRLs work, right? And you do notice the 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 motorists who push through a red light at every change of lights? And you do notice the motorists driving the wrong way down the one-way street when it will save them five minutes, right?

Let's not pretend that cyclists have any monopoly on breaking traffic laws. By contrast, it is motorists that have the monopoly on killing other people on the roads, for the past 15 years in Ireland at least.

carbonceiling wrote: »

That may be true, but the reality is that those problem motorists are out there and there's no shortage of them.

If a cyclist is unfortunate enough to be hit by a driver with poor night vision and finds themselves hurtling towards the ground / ditch / oncoming bus, they will find little consolation in the notion that the other guy is to blame. Plenty of thoughts will flash through their mind, but not that one.

I'm not saying it's right, or it's the way it should be, but it is the reality that we live in. Until we have a world of perfect bike lanes and problem free motorists, then, as a cyclist who has suffered tremendously from a serious racing crash, I know how your life can turn in just a few seconds, so why not give yourself every chance you can to avoid that miserable experience.

debating the relative merits of hi-vis versus lights is non productive. Both will increase your chances of being seen by motorists, they are widely available, cheap and sometimes even free, so wear both and maximise your safety.

And by the same logic, all cars should be hi-vis too, right? If it saves one life?

Tefral wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't buy it. If you're lit up like an Xmas tree you're going to be seen.
If you have no lights on your bike then the next best thing is bright coloured clothing, I don't care what links you post here.

Cycling around in the dark with dark clothing on a carriage way where there are other vehicles and where there are bike lanes you could use and don't is reckless. It doesn't matter if the person driving the car is a dope and crashes into them.

The bottom line is the cyclist is a vulnerable road user, they should be doing everything in their power to mitigate their risk of dying, there's no ifs or buts about it and I say that as someone who cycles and drives around twisty tight country roads.

You choosing to buy it or not doesn't change the facts. Hi-vis does not save lives. The motorist is not going to see your hi-vis when he's reading the latest WhatsApp update. You can choose to live in denial of the facts, and that is indeed your right. But you don't get your own facts.

davo2001 wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and a car user, but to be honest, the attitude of cyclists in general is astonishing, a lot seem to think it is there God given right to act whatever way they like on the open road.

I see it everyday around Limerick, jumping lights / stop signed, riding on paths, using pedestrian crossings nearly running over people on the path. Look at the Condell Road as an example, there is a prefectly good bike lane but you never see people using it and they always cycle on the footpath.

"It's the motorists fault if they cannot see me", while this is generally true, the motorist will walk away but you will be pounded into the road and left seriously injured or killed outright.

It should be in the cyclists own interest to light themseleves up like a ****ing Christmas tree if it prevents them being in an accident. Weither people like it or not, Irish road were not designed for both car and bike traffic but as it's generally the cyclists whom ends up worse off they should do everything to reduce the risk.

Actually, it is generally other motorists that get killed on the road. About 3/4 of those killed are drivers or passengers. About 1/5 are pedestrians and about 1/20 are cyclists. So your priority should be around getting motorists to stop killing other motorists by slowing down, putting the phones down, and putting the pints down.

mgbgt1978

Chiparus wrote: »

Clearly you don't understand the way I was saying it.
No I did not see every single pedestrian who was killed.
"I saw someone was killed in the paper" does not mean I actually saw the physical act.
"I see someone was killed last week"
In my job I see people killed or seriously injured by drivers regularly. I treat them . thats my job.

If a pedestrian is hit at 50kmph thy have a 50% mortality. Nearly every week another pedestrian killed .

Does that mean they are only half dead ????:eek:

Seriously, if you are genuinely involved with any of the emergency services (which I doubt BTW) you really need to improve your grasp of the English language.....for everyone's sake.

ps;

Chiparus wrote: »

I see motorists kill pedestrians nearly every week.

Chiparus wrote: »

I see it in my work and in the media.

Of course I don't see all 35,

Chiparus wrote: »

Clearly you don't understand the way I was saying it.
No I did not see every single pedestrian who was killed

In fairness, I think very few people understand the way you were saying it

dubrov

mgbgt1978 wrote:

In fairness, I think very few people understand the way you were saying it

It seemed pretty clear to me.

mgbgt1978

He starts off literally witnessing 35 deaths per annum (his words)....then goes down to possibly seeing the results of a few fatal incidents.

And that's pretty clear to you. :rolleyes:

Phoenix Wright

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I don't see any good reason why hi-vis stripes for all cars are not made compulsory to be honest. I hate driving a car with hi-vis stripes but I would feel like less of an outcast driving into college if everyone else was driving one too.

Your kind of thinking is one of the main reasons why we have so few female cyclists, particularly teenage girls. We have more secondary school girls driving themselves to school than cycling, because we have positioned cycling as a hazardous activity, despite all the data to the contrary.

I think your complete disregard of the benefits of all hi-viz clothing is careless and sets a dangerous precedent. Whether it is down to irresponsible drivers looking at their phones, or cyclists not fully respecting the rules of the road, there's no getting around the fact that cyclists are vulnerable road users. Cyclists should take precautions to ensure their safety, while drivers should also reduce the myriad of behaviours you mentioned to prevent accidents involving cyclists, themselves and other road users.

AndrewJRenko

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Does that mean they are only half dead ????:eek:

It means that half of those hit by a car at 50 kmph will be killed. It seemed pretty clear to me.

dubrov wrote: »

It seemed pretty clear to me.

Me too.

LeinsterDub

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

while drivers should also reduce the myriad of behaviours you mentioned to prevent accidents involving cyclists, themselves and other road users.

High visibility on cars it is so! Clearly to not do so would be reckless.

appledrop

On Friday the fog around where I work was the worst I have ever seen. I mean you couldn't see 3ft in front of you. Can the cyclists out there please explain to me why a group of cyclists decided this would be a great day to go out for a cycle. Not need to be out but just for the fun of it. Absolutelyy mornic+ of course the motorist would be blamed if they hit them even though they had no lights or reflectors on.

zulutango

appledrop wrote:

On Friday the fog around where I work was the worst I have ever seen. I mean you couldn't see 3ft in front of you. Can the cyclists out there please explain to me why a group of cyclists decided this would be a great day to go out for a cycle. Not need to be out but just for the fun of it.

Are you seriously asking other cyclists to explain why the particular group of cyclists you saw decided to go cycling that day? How the **** are they supposed to know more than you do?

Phoenix Wright

I don't understand how your comment is relevant to what you quoted. I suppose the next thing you'll suggest is that hi-viz clothing is of no benefit to pedestrians at night time either.

Cyclists should 100% have lights yes, but I don't think the benefits of hi-viz clothing should be dismissed completely. It certainly doesn't hinder safety in the event that a person respects the rules of the road and has lights also, so I really don't see what the issue is.

mgbgt1978

"If a pedestrian is hit at 50kmph they have a 50% mortality"

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It means that half of those hit by a car at 50 kmph will be killed. It seemed pretty clear to me.

It doesn't mean that at all. Perhaps with a few more words such as 'chance of' or 'rate' it might . Regardless, I'm out now....I've had enough of the 'Walter Mitty' nonsense.

Chiparus

I am very sorry , you all seem very upset I said
that I see pedestrians being killed on a near weekly basis, clearly I do not, I should have said there are pedestrians killed on a near weekly basis.

I hope this clarifies things and apologies for any confusion that people thought that I actually saw each and every fatality.

Chiparus

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

"If a pedestrian is hit at 50kmph they have a 50% mortality"

It doesn't mean that at all. Perhaps with a few more words such as 'chance of' or 'rate' it might . Regardless, I'm out now....I've had enough of the 'Walter Mitty' nonsense.

Sorry we often say an accident or a procedure has a % mortality , we should say "mortality rate". But it is accepted parlance. Most scientific papers will use "mortality" as meaning mortality rate.


Increased pedestrian mortality among the elderly.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2735985


Mortality from road crashes in 193 countries: a comparison with other leading causes of death

http://www.umtri.umich.edu/our-results/publications/mortality-road-crashes-193-countries-comparison-other-leading-causes-death


So pedestrians who are hit by a car at 50 kmph have a 50% mortality rate. it that have a 50% chance of death or 50%mortality.

AndrewJRenko

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

I think your complete disregard of the benefits of all hi-viz clothing is careless and sets a dangerous precedent. Whether it is down to irresponsible drivers looking at their phones, or cyclists not fully respecting the rules of the road, there's no getting around the fact that cyclists are vulnerable road users. Cyclists should take precautions to ensure their safety, while drivers should also reduce the myriad of behaviours you mentioned to prevent accidents involving cyclists, themselves and other road users.

The best precaution that cyclists can take is the strategic precaution of ensuring that motorists won't get away with killing people because of their clothing by avoiding a victim-blaming culture of mandatory hi-vis. Seriously, this is what got George Hook fired - by suggesting that victims are to blame for being assaulted because of their behaviour.

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

I don't understand how your comment is relevant to what you quoted. I suppose the next thing you'll suggest is that hi-viz clothing is of no benefit to pedestrians at night time either.

Cyclists should 100% have lights yes, but I don't think the benefits of hi-viz clothing should be dismissed completely. It certainly doesn't hinder safety in the event that a person respects the rules of the road and has lights also, so I really don't see what the issue is.

This is from the UK, but it will give you some idea of the protective value of fluorescent yellow coverings.

https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2017/10/28/new-road-safety-campaign-calls-for-greater-visibility-on-the-roads/

One issue is the strategic one - the 'dangerisation' of cycling as a hazardous activity, which it is not. It is just a mode of transport. Drivers need to be able to see pedestrians crossing the road without requiring them to wear specialised industrial clothing.

This dangerisation puts many people off cycling, particularly females, particularly younger females. This reduced number of cyclists actually makes cycling more dangerous for the remainder by eliminating the 'safety in numbers' effect. What really keeps cyclists safe is having more cyclists on the road, not wearing builders' vests.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

"If a pedestrian is hit at 50kmph they have a 50% mortality"

It doesn't mean that at all. Perhaps with a few more words such as 'chance of' or 'rate' it might .

That's exactly what it means. It means they have a 50% chance of death. Which means that half of the people hit at 50 kpmh will die, and half will survive.

zulutango wrote: »

Are you seriously asking other cyclists to explain why the particular group of cyclists you saw decided to go cycling that day? How the **** are they supposed to know more than you do?

Can't you just bring it up at the next meeting of all cyclists? It would be very inconsiderate of you not to.

Then you can report back the response to the next meeting of all motorists, just so that they'll get the answer.

RustyNut

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Actually, it is generally other motorists that get killed on the road. About 3/4 of those killed are drivers or passengers. About 1/5 are pedestrians and about 1/20 are cyclists. So your priority should be around getting motorists to stop killing other motorists by slowing down, putting the phones down, and putting the pints down.

Indeed if the powers that be were to mandate the wearing of safety apparel to reduce road deaths and injuries they should start by making the occupants of cars wear helmets. It would save far more lives and serious injuries than making cyclists wear hiviz vests.

dr.fuzzenstein

RustyNut wrote: »

Indeed if the powers that be were to mandate the wearing of safety apparel to reduce road deaths and injuries they should start by making the occupants of cars wear helmets. It would save far more lives and serious injuries than making cyclists wear hiviz vests.

That is complete Horsesh*t. The occupant if a car is encased in a metal box with airbags and seat belts. A cyclist has zero protection which means that upon impact with the road your head will split open like a water melon and leave a Jackson Pollock painting.
On high viz, I think cyclists should have lights. It's an absolute no brainer. But maybe making high viz compulsory is going too far. It's a useful safety feature, out the country if you go for a walk on a dark winter evening, you'll be taking your life in your hands if you did so without lights and high viz.
So far cyclist logic has been "but I'm a vulnerable road user, that means everyone has to look out for me". Yes, but you should also take precautions.
Comparing yourself to rape victims because of that? You should get a slap in the face for that. Disgusting.

AndrewJRenko

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That is complete Horsesh*t. The occupant if a car is encased in a metal box with airbags and seat belts. A cyclist has zero protection which means that upon impact with the road your head will split open like a water melon and leave a Jackson Pollock painting.

It's not quite that straightforward a comparison. The cyclist probably won't be going at somewhere between 40 kmph to 140 kmph, with all the momentum that goes with it. They probably won't be hitting another couple of tonnes of metal coming in the opposite direction at similar speed.

I guess that's why about 50% of head injuries occur in cars vs 2% on bikes.

Motoring helmets for all would be the obvious top priority for reducing head injuries. Why is it such a bizarre idea that motorists should take some responsibility for their own safety?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Comparing yourself to rape victims because of that? You should get a slap in the face for that. Disgusting.

I guess George might try slapping some sense into the silly woman, but most others can just have discussion about it. What's the difference - blaming the victim of an assault for the clothing that they wear? The only difference is that one is a sexual assault and the other is a non-sexual assault carried out with a motor vehicle.

zulutango

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

Comparing yourself to rape victims because of that?

The point is that it's victim blaming, which it is.

RustyNut

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That is complete Horsesh*t. The occupant if a car is encased in a metal box with airbags and seat belts. A cyclist has zero protection which means that upon impact with the road your head will split open like a water melon and leave a Jackson Pollock painting.
On high viz, I think cyclists should have lights. It's an absolute no brainer. But maybe making high viz compulsory is going too far. It's a useful safety feature, out the country if you go for a walk on a dark winter evening, you'll be taking your life in your hands if you did so without lights and high viz.
So far cyclist logic has been "but I'm a vulnerable road user, that means everyone has to look out for me". Yes, but you should also take precautions.
Comparing yourself to rape victims because of that? You should get a slap in the face for that. Disgusting.

It's a numbers game.

If hiviz vests prevent 10% of cyclist fatalities that would have been 1 life last year. If helmets had the same effect for car occupants that would have been 12 lives saved.

Chiparus

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That is complete Horsesh*t. The occupant if a car is encased in a metal box with airbags and seat belts. A cyclist has zero protection which means that upon impact with the road your head will split open like a water melon and leave a Jackson Pollock painting.
On high viz, I think cyclists should have lights. It's an absolute no brainer. But maybe making high viz compulsory is going too far. It's a useful safety feature, out the country if you go for a walk on a dark winter evening, you'll be taking your life in your hands if you did so without lights and high viz.
So far cyclist logic has been "but I'm a vulnerable road user, that means everyone has to look out for me". Yes, but you should also take precautions.
Comparing yourself to rape victims because of that? You should get a slap in the face for that. Disgusting.

I don't think you get it.

I love Sean nos

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Try reading the post I was replying to........

This one?

shootermacg wrote: »

I think all cars should be day-glow orange and trucks should be day-glow orange. This would help the cyclist easily see parked cars in cycle lanes and then avoid them, although god forbid they avoid them AND get in the way of another very important driver who is is a big rush to get to an invisible point, twenty yards up the road.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Cyclists...shouldn't be breaking red lights, shouldn't be cycling the wrong way down 1 way streets, etc.

Still not seeing any mentions of those items. Your post is still irrelevant.

phog

appledrop wrote: »

On Friday the fog around where I work was the worst I have ever seen. I mean you couldn't see 3ft in front of you. Can the cyclists out there please explain to me why a group of cyclists decided this would be a great day to go out for a cycle. Not need to be out but just for the fun of it. Absolutelyy mornic+ of course the motorist would be blamed if they hit them even though they had no lights or reflectors on.

Lunatics

phog

Researchers in New Zealand, compared the amount of time cyclists spent off work as a result of crashes involving a motor vehicle. They found that riders who never wore fluorescent cycling kit spent eight times as much time away from work as riders who always wore such clothing.

liam7831

Muppets

dubrov

phog wrote:

Researchers in New Zealand, compared the amount of time cyclists spent off work as a result of crashes involving a motor vehicle. They found that riders who never wore fluorescent cycling kit spent eight times as much time away from work as riders who always wore such clothing.

Link?

Chiparus

phog wrote: »

Researchers in New Zealand, compared the amount of time cyclists spent off work as a result of crashes involving a motor vehicle. They found that riders who never wore fluorescent cycling kit spent eight times as much time away from work as riders who always wore such clothing.

Interesting another study from Canada showed increased collisions with fluorescent clothing.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/18/Suppl_1/A36.4

Chiparus

appledrop wrote: »

On Friday the fog around where I work was the worst I have ever seen. I mean you couldn't see 3ft in front of you. Can the cyclists out there please explain to me why a group of cyclists decided this would be a great day to go out for a cycle. Not need to be out but just for the fun of it. Absolutelyy mornic+ of course the motorist would be blamed if they hit them even though they had no lights or reflectors on.

If you were driving so fast for the conditions so that you could not stop in time, yes.

phog

dubrov wrote: »

Link?

Here

The mean number of days absent from work attributable to bicycle crashes was 0.39 per cyclist/year. After adjustment for potential confounders and exposure (kilometers cycled per year), the rate of days off work from bicycle crash injury was substantially lower among riders who reported always wearing fluorescent colors (multivariate incidence rate ratio 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.59).

Chiparus

phog wrote: »

Here

The problem with this study is that it does not tell us that fluorescence protects against being hit by another vehicle .

It maybe that the people who wear fluorescence cycle slower, and when they fall off they are less injured.

panda100

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Your kind of thinking is one of the main reasons why we have so few female cyclists, particularly teenage girls. We have more secondary school girls driving themselves to school than cycling, because we have positioned cycling as a hazardous activity, despite all the data to the contrary.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This dangerisation puts many people off cycling, particularly females, particularly younger females. This reduced number of cyclists actually makes cycling more dangerous for the remainder by eliminating the 'safety in numbers' effect.

You seem to know a lot about women but I presume, like most cycling advocates, you're not one yourself. I say that there are a multitude of reasons why young women choose not to cycle and most of them have to do with harassment on the bike, male domination of cycling clubs/events and appearance. There is a reason why Women on Wheels, a female cycling groups run by Limerick Sports Partnership, is oversubscribed and massively popular in Limerick!

AndrewJRenko

phog wrote: »

Here

Another problem with this study is that it selects cyclists who are willing/able to take part in a 40km-160km charity event, which will exclude the majority of commuting cyclists.

panda100 wrote: »

You seem to know a lot about women but I presume, like most cycling advocates, you're not one yourself. I say that there are a multitude of reasons why young women choose not to cycle and most of them have to do with harassment on the bike, male domination of cycling clubs/events and appearance. There is a reason why Women on Wheels, a female cycling groups run by Limerick Sports Partnership, is oversubscribed and massively popular in Limerick!

No, I'm not a woman myself, and I'm not sure that I claim to 'know a lot about women' at all. The data on low numbers of female cyclists is absolutely clear, especially at secondary school level. You're right to say that there are a multitude of reasons, and 'appearance issues' features up top of that multitude.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/women-cycling

And actually, I'd disagree about the lack of female cycling advocates. The two cycling advocacy groups that I know well would have strong female numbers (maybe 40% female, or maybe 30% on a bad day) and strong female voices.