State creates a Cycling Office

buffalo

cletus wrote: »

I had not really intended to post in this thread anymore, but I'll answer these questions.

First of all, however, it was not my contention that safety necessarily be mandated, but that, along with advocating for better and safer driving, cyclists should take personal responsibility to keep themselves as safe as possible. That those two ideas were not necessarily mutually exclusive.

As a pedestrian, I wear hi vis in the evenings or nights when I'm out, especially as I live in the countryside, and share the same space as cars on some of the roads (i.e. there is no path). Do I think everyone should do this? I think that pedestrians should take every precaution possible to be safe and seen when they could be potentially in contact with vehicles, which is basically how I feel about cyclists.

Do I think people in cars should wear helmets? No, and I'm not sure where this red herring has come from re this argument. Car occupants are legally obliged to wear safety equipment, and modern cars are fitted with a range of safety features, from crumple zones to airbags.

It's not a red herring, it's to show you how flawed your logic is that people "should take every precaution possible to be safe".

cletus wrote: »

Same with a helmet. If there's even a low percentage chance that it absorbs some impact if I'm unfortunate enough to be in a collision, then to me it makes sense, especially as it does me no harm to wear it, just like the hi vis stuff.

What about that above statement does not apply to you as a driver or a passenger in a car?

Lumen

cletus wrote: »

Pedantism much? I thought it was obvious I was using a turn of phrase

I wasn't being pedantic. There's an important point here.

I should be free to cycle around in whatever clothing I like and not be blamed for being run over, or have my clothing choices dissected in that event. It is not my responsibility to not run me over.

This is a peculiar to debates around cycling. Do people in 4 star NCAP cars get blamed when a distracted truck driver wipes them out, because they should have bought a 5 star NCAP car? Do people who get beaten up outside chippers after nightclub closing time get blamed for not eating at home?

Nobody takes every precaution in life. When people **** up, whether that's the truck driver or the chipper thug, the behaviour of their victims is irrelevant.

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

It's not a red herring, it's to show you how flawed your logic is that people "should take every precaution possible to be safe".

As with everything in life, doing nothing seems like the obvious solution, but this in and of itself carries risks including depression, obesity, possible financial issues etc.
In life you cannot remove all risks, to do so is impossible. The problem in the scenarios described here is the belief that wearing an appendage which has been shown to be ineffectual will somehow reduce your risk. This is simply not true. As any risk assessor will tell you here, the danger is caused in the majority by one factor. Therefore the aim must be to reduce the risk this factor causes, or in fact make it safer, not to wrap the thing that might be harmed in bubble wrap (ie PPE), which is in fact widely agreed on by experts as the very last line of defence to look at once all other avenues have been exhausted.

Long story short, the two main focuses of government should be to reduce number of motorists, via pushing public transport and other modes of transport, and secondly by reducing the risk they can cause.

Chips Lovell

What's a factor in more head injuries, alcohol or cycling?

And yet if anyone said it would be only common sense to wear a helmet to the pub, they'd be laughed out of it.

AndrewJRenko

Cycling Office? Will it look like this?

dense wrote: »

There's no sense of pro active safety being discussed,

The most pro-active safety thing that cyclists can do is to clearly identify and deal with the root cause of danger on the road - the motorists that kill 3 or 4 people each week and maim many more.

Roughly 75% of road deaths each year are motorists killing themselves, other motorists and passengers. Cyclists and pedestrians are not the common factor in road deaths.

AndrewJRenko

Tell me how wrote: »

Sitting here on fractured pelvis after a car knocked me off the bike when it drove on to the roundabout as I was riding straight through.

My consultant said cycling injuries are keeping him in business.

Unless he has some very unusual specialisation, the vast majority of orthopaedic injuries he sees will come from car/car collisions.

cletus wrote: »

I don't think it's so difficult to meld the opposing viewpoints here. Surely it's possible to campaign for better understanding from drivers regarding cyclists, while at the same time taking every precaution to keep yourself safe and seen, knowing that there's always a chance that some asshole will be driving behind you. I don't see why it's viewed as one or the other on this forum (granted I'm very new here, so maybe there's something I'm missing).

Why are the safety measures focused on the victims? If hi-vis is such a great idea, why don't all cars have to have hi-vis stripes? If helmets are such a great idea, why don't all motorists have to wear crash helmets? About 50% of head injuries occur in cars vs 2% on bikes in the last data I saw, even with airbags and seatbelts etc. So crash helmets for motorists would be an obvious starting point, right?


Nah, we'll just get cyclists to put some foam on their heads. It doesn't really help much, but it makes me feel better about knocking them off.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Where will this office be? Will it have bike parking outside? Will the manager have a company car and free parking? 😂

In fairness to the NTA, they do 'walk-the-talk' on this stuff. They have little (or possibly no) car parking in their office. They have bike parking outside. There used to be a cargo bike outside regularly when ever I passed.

07Lapierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In fairness to the NTA, they do 'walk-the-talk' on this stuff. They have little (or possibly no) car parking in their office. They have bike parking outside. There used to be a cargo bike outside regularly when ever I passed.

Ah Damn! I can't give out about them so!

FreudianSlippers

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think that's a gross mischaracterisation of a lot of the dicussion here. Most people care deeply about safe cycling. Just because they don't agree with you on what constitutes safe cycling, does not mean they have a "devil may care" attitude.

One of the most ridiculous and disingenuous statements of all time. Cyclists are absolutely responsible for their own misbehaviour to the same level that you, in this forum, tend to tar motorists and pedestrians with the same brush.

Just yesterday I had a cyclist run a light (purposely) as I was crossing the street - he had a go at me.
Cyclists CONSTANTLY cycle the wrong way down one-way roads.
Cyclists CONSTANTLY cycle on the footpath.

FreudianSlippers

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

What's a factor in more head injuries, alcohol or cycling?

And yet if anyone said it would be only common sense to wear a helmet to the pub, they'd be laughed out of it.

What point are you actually trying to make here? I'd like to see your statistics that show that alcohol consumption (alone) results in a greater chance of serious brain injuries.

07Lapierre

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think that's a gross mischaracterisation of a lot of the dicussion here. Most people care deeply about safe cycling. Just because they don't agree with you on what constitutes safe cycling, does not mean they have a "devil may care" attitude.

One of the most ridiculous and disingenuous statements of all time. Cyclists are absolutely responsible for their own misbehaviour to the same level that you, in this forum, tend to tar motorists and pedestrians with the same brush.

Just yesterday I had a cyclist run a light (purposely) as I was crossing the street - he had a go at me.
Cyclists CONSTANTLY cycle the wrong way down one-way roads.
Cyclists CONSTANTLY cycle on the footpath.

There’s a difference between “misbehavior” and “Safety” anyone who breaks a red light is being foolish.

FreudianSlippers

07Lapierre wrote: »

There’s a difference between “misbehavior” and “Safety” anyone who breaks a red light is being foolish.

No there isn't - the law is the law, the rules of the road apply evenly to cyclists. Misbehaviour is a contribution to issues of safety for both yourself and others.

Hurrache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Cyclists CONSTANTLY cycle the wrong way down one-way roads.
Cyclists CONSTANTLY cycle on the footpath.

It seems you missed the statistics which show that they actually don't?

07Lapierre

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

07Lapierre wrote: »

There’s a difference between “misbehavior” and “Safety” anyone who breaks a red light is being foolish.

No there isn't - the law is the law, the rules of the road apply evenly to cyclists. Misbehaviour is a contribution to issues of safety for both yourself and others.

Where did anyone say that the law does not apply to cyclists?

People choose to break the law, that’s true.

Are you saying only cyclists break the law?

I have no control over other cyclists.
When I’m driving, I have no control over other drivers.
When I walk, I have no control over other pedestrians.

And unlike you, I don’t tar anyone with the same brush.

FreudianSlippers

Hurrache wrote: »

It seems you missed the statistics which show that they actually don't?

Post em if you got em

FreudianSlippers

07Lapierre wrote: »

Where did anyone say that the law does not apply to cyclists?

People choose to break the law, that’s true.

Are you saying only cyclists break the law?

I have no control over other cyclists.
When I’m driving, I have no control over other drivers.
When I walk, I have no control over other pedestrians.

And unlike you, I don’t tar anyone with the same brush.

I just think the level of deflection and whatabouttery in this forum is hilarious; you attempted to justify the breaking of the rules as "misbehavior" (sic). I seriously doubt that you're the one cyclist that follows the rules of the road and isn't an annoyance to everyone. Congratulations if you aren't.

07Lapierre

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

07Lapierre wrote: »

Where did anyone say that the law does not apply to cyclists?

People choose to break the law, that’s true.

Are you saying only cyclists break the law?

I have no control over other cyclists.
When I’m driving, I have no control over other drivers.
When I walk, I have no control over other pedestrians.

And unlike you, I don’t tar anyone with the same brush.

I just think the level of deflection and whatabouttery in this forum is hilarious; you attempted to justify the breaking of the rules as "misbehavior" (sic). I seriously doubt that you're the one cyclist that follows the rules of the road and isn't an annoyance to everyone. Congratulations if you aren't.

I did not justify “misbehavior”? I simply pointed out that there is a difference between misbehavior and safety.

Post a link to some facts that state the ALL cyclists break the rules of the road?

There are lots of good drivers out there...most of them are probably cyclists too!

FreudianSlippers

07Lapierre wrote: »

I did not justify “misbehavior”? I simply pointed out that there is a difference between misbehavior and safety.

Post a link to some facts that state the ALL cyclists break the rules of the road?

There are lots of good drivers out there...most of them are probably cyclists too!

Yeah, but I didn't say that all cyclists break the rules of the road did I? I'm also capable of spelling misbehaviour.

07Lapierre

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

07Lapierre wrote: »

I did not justify “misbehavior”? I simply pointed out that there is a difference between misbehavior and safety.

Post a link to some facts that state the ALL cyclists break the rules of the road?

There are lots of good drivers out there...most of them are probably cyclists too!

Yeah, but I didn't say that all cyclists break the rules of the road did I? I'm also capable of spelling misbehaviour.

So what is your point then?

Miklos

07Lapierre wrote: »

So what is your point then?

I think the point they're trying to make is that they're very, very clever.

FreudianSlippers

Miklos wrote: »

I think the point they're trying to make is that they're very, very clever.

It's not, like, the main point. Tertiary perhaps - it's up there for sure - but not main.

Fighting Tao

I'm getting a serious sense of groundhog day with the way this thread is turning out.

fat bloke

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not, like, the main point. Tertiary perhaps - it's up there for sure - but not main.

Well there's no doubt but that you are a delightful addition to the cycling forum, fair play to you.

07Lapierre

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I seriously doubt that you're the one cyclist that follows the rules of the road and isn't an annoyance to everyone. Congratulations if you aren't.

If you don’t believe that I am “the one cyclist that follows the rules of the road”, then you are implying that all cyclists break the ROTR?

AndrewJRenko

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

07Lapierre wrote: »

There’s a difference between “misbehavior” and “Safety” anyone who breaks a red light is being foolish.

No there isn't - the law is the law, the rules of the road apply evenly to cyclists. Misbehaviour is a contribution to issues of safety for both yourself and others.

Do you ever break the speed limit?

AndrewJRenko

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

07Lapierre wrote: »

Where did anyone say that the law does not apply to cyclists?

People choose to break the law, that’s true.

Are you saying only cyclists break the law?

I have no control over other cyclists.
When I’m driving, I have no control over other drivers.
When I walk, I have no control over other pedestrians.

And unlike you, I don’t tar anyone with the same brush.

I seriously doubt that you're the one cyclist that follows the rules of the road and isn't an annoyance to everyone. Congratulations if you aren't.

Are the 60%-80% of motorists that break speed limits also an annoyance to everyone?

mrcheez

Visited this thread when it started a few days ago and knew it was going to invite these kind of posts as it was about government "giving more to cyclists"... when it reaches 8 pages you *know* there's gotta be some "they don't pay road tax / breaking all lights / blocking the road" style posts.

I think this happens when these kinds of threads reach 3 pages critical mass


I noticed it also happens in general conversation as well with randomers.

e.g. I'm sure I'll be discussing cycling to work with some relatives over Xmas and usually around the 10 minute mark the question will come up "..and do you go through red lights?!?"

I don't generally ask people driving if they go through red lights when discussing their driving commute to work, or ask people if they cross the road at a red man when walking around during xmas shopping

It's racism Ted

tomasrojo

"You drove here? Isn't it very dangerous for everyone else? I hope you don't park on the footpath."

P_1

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

One of the most ridiculous and disingenuous statements of all time. Cyclists are absolutely responsible for their own misbehaviour to the same level that you, in this forum, tend to tar motorists and pedestrians with the same brush.

Just yesterday I had a cyclist run a light (purposely) as I was crossing the street - he had a go at me.
Cyclists CONSTANTLY cycle the wrong way down one-way roads.
Cyclists CONSTANTLY cycle on the footpath.

Lawyers CONSTANTLY milk the system
Lawyers CONSTANTLY use internal loopholes to feather their nests.

See how idiotic a statement that was? Apply that test to your own statement regarding cyclists

eeeee

Mod Note: Back on topic please, FreudianSlippers cannot respond to posts