onewheeldave

Seishin Karate presents.

An open course with.

 

Kyoshi Derek Ridgway. 7th dan. Chief Instructor . Kazokukai International.

 

Date. Saturday 18th October.

Time. 1am till 2pm.

 

Well, it's a bit of an early start, but £20 for a 13 hour course sounds like a right bargain

It's a minority of drivers though, most drivers have no animosity towards cyclists and many drivers are also cyclists.

And whichever way you look at it, running a red light is likely to make that animosity worse. And despite what you say, you aren't omniscient, you will misjudge it one day and probably get hurt.

 

'Minority' is convenient, but, in this context, meaningless- it could be anything from 1%- 49%. Perhaps you could quantify it?

 

Any experienced cyclist knows that whatever size it is, it's big enough to manifest on a regular basis in terms of abuse and being put in unecessary danger.

 

You're right that there are too many cars on the roads, but that's not where the madness lies.

 

Yes it is- that's the root of it all. People spend large portions of their income on these machines which promise freedom, speed and style; then lose a significant portion of their life everyday, sat in slow moving rush hour jams, as cyclists whizz past them. Hence the road rage and the frequent attacks on cyclists, ranging from verbal to physical.

 

 

 

 

The supposed driver/cyclist rivalry is exaggerated - the real divide is between considerate road users and others.

We'll disagree on that one too- simply reading the cycling threads on sheffield forum indicates the level of hatred some drivers bear towards cyclists.

Yes, of course he did, I already told you that. His problem was that he assumed that because he couldn't see any cars, it was safe to continue (at speed) through the red light.

 

It's a bit confusing- it sounds like he wasn't looking properly doesn't it?

 

If you're a cyclist going through a red, it's very important that there's no cars coming, you really do need to be 100% sure it's totally clear.

 

TBH cyclists who don't put a lot of focus on looking are liable to come a cropper even when they're nowhere near a red light.

 

 

 

So because on average, over several journeys, there will be some hasty, unobservant drivers, it is safer to go through a red (a signal which is telling you to wait, for your own safety and that of others) ?

 

Yes. In some circumstances, it is safer to go through the red. And red lights aren't there just for safety reasons- their main purposes these days is regulating the grossly excessive numbers of motor vehicles that clog up the road system.

 

In particular, when there's a large build up of revving cars/taxis/vans/lorries, one/several of which have taken up the front position box which is supposed to be reserved for cyclists to enable them to take off from the front and enhance their survival prospects when the lights go green.

 

If that box is occupied by a motor vehicle, the cyclist ends up at the left, vulnerable to any motorist who turns left without noticing the cyclist.

 

Sometimes, there may be space for the cyclist to get in front of the offending vehicle, but, as the driver clearly has an attitude issue to be occupying the box in the first place, there's a danger that their fragile ego may be unable to handle the fact that the cyclist got in front anyway, with risk of road rage etc.

 

Also, it's generally difficult when in front of a car in the box to see the traffic lights- in fact it's probably in that very situation that, like me, a few cyclists have realised that, if there's no actual traffic coming the other way, that, rather than stay in this potentially dangerous situation, they can just nip across and not have to worry about 1. being abused by Mr/Mrs ego/attitude box stealer & 2, being mown down by Mr/Mrs non looking left turner.

 

So, for those motorists who get really angry at seeing a cyclist go through a red, bear in mind that when you occupy the box reserved for cyclists, it can well encourage them to start thinking for themselves and doing what's necessary for their own safey.

 

 

 

 

If you were to truly to maximise safety by riding as if motorists are blind/idiotic/hasty, then you wouldn't go through the red light, because there's just as much chance someone will be driving blindly/idiotically/hastily across your path, with their right of way.

If there is, I'll see them. And, in the unlikely event I'm either careless or unobservant enough to not spot them, then I'll get hit.

 

But, if I'm going to get hit, I'd prefer it to be due to my mistake, rather than be run over from behind by an idiot driver, or, wiped out by a left turner who can't be bothered to look before they go.

You really don't grasp the subtleties of statistics do you - that doesn't show that cycling through red lights is safe, it merely shows that driving through red lights is considerably more dangerous. No-one is disputing that. But the total number of injuries will be fairly large, so that 4% adds up to quite a lot of people, whom you seem completely unconcerned about.

 

Never said it did.

 

Fact is, that of all the maimings, carnage and killings that happen on the roads, the vast majority are down to motor vehicles, and it's time something serious was done to end the madness.

 

A big step forward would be a genuine large scale effort to encourage cycling, make roads safe for cyclists and have proper sentencing for motorists who run cyclists down through proven negligence or malice.

 

Until that day, it's down to us cyclists to do what's necessary, in our judgement, to maximise our own safety.

 

Obviously, some of us think that, in some circumstances, passing through a red is safer for us, others think the opposite.

 

I happen to be in the former camp i.e. due to my experiences on the roads over many years, I genuinely believe that, in some circumstances, passing through a red is safer for me, and, I will ride in the way that I believe maximises my safety.

 

Other experienced cyclists, have the opposite opinion, but, you know what, much as they're entitled to their opinion, it would be bizarre/perverse of me, to ride according to opinions I don't hold

 

As for the opinions of motorists who don't themselves cycle on our insane road system, but who insist on whining and attacking cyclists who go through reds- they've got no right to talk about what's safe or not safe. If they get their lazy asses out of their boxes, and, spend some serious time out on a bike, dealing with idiots in boxes with no accountability, then, it'll be time to listen to their opinions.

Being 100 yards further forward makes it more dangerous when they pass you, as they do so at higher speed and with a chip on their shoulder about your terrible road behaviour.

 

Not if I'm turning left after 50 yards. Given that you believe it's routine for some motorists to deliberately pull a dangerous manouver purely because a cyclist just passed through a red light, maybe you can start to see why I cycle with the focus on me being safe.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:05 ----------

 

He told me it was clear when he decided to continue through, which it was.

 

So he didn't get hit???

 

 

a) I think the highway code would disagree with you on that

I know. I just don't care

 

 

 

b) How will a cyclist know if the car(s) behind him/her are hasty and unobservant?

You can't know. But, averaged out over several journeys, there will be some. Any cyclist who wants to maximise safety, must ride as if motorists are blind/idiotic/hasty, cos it's inevitable you're going to encounter some.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:08 ----------

 

that is total crap. there are many occasion when as a cyclist at a red light, it has been SAFER to go through a red light WHEN you have eighteen wheel trucks, buses, AND aggressive drivers behind OR at the side of you.

Not to mention that the supposedly cyclist only red boxes are filled up with cars buses, ect.

i cannot keep stressesing this enough. You only go through a set of lights at red, WHEN there is NO OTHER TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, going through on their green light.

ITS SAFER FOR EVERYONE CONCERNED.

 

Well put sir :thumbsup:

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:16 ----------

 

Here's a very balanced article which might educate you.

 

Here's an excerpt-

 

Despite the potentially serious consequences, only 4% of all pedestrian injuries as a result of red light jumping have been caused by cyclists with the remaining 96% involving motor vehicles.

 

although I didn't realise we were talking about pedestrian crossings, which are totally different scenarios to road junction red lights.

The guy who hit me could have easily been killed though, the cyclist who went through a red.

 

And it would have been his fault. Going through a red when there's cars coming through way means he was either stupid or extremely unobservant.

 

The time for a cyclist to go through reds is when there's no traffic coming through the other way, and, to do so is safer than launching on green with a pack of hasty, unobservant motor vehicles.

It isn't many at all.

 

The majority of cyclists don't run lights.

 

A minority do. And of those, a further minority try to justify it by invoking "judgement".

 

IMO (from observation), all the cyclists that don't stop, do so for reasons of speed and effort. Ie they don't want to lose speed, they don't want to wait and they don't want to have to work harder to set off again.

 

No, it's often because it is safer. The arguments for that POV are well known and I've posted them elsewhere.

 

One reason it can seem that most cyclists don't ever go through reds, is that they tend to be really vocal and shout insistently that "no, no, no...there's never any justification for going through reds and any cyclist who just is just lazy, arrogant, evil etc, etc".

 

The vast majority of cyclist who die under cars, weren't running reds, they were killed by an ++shole in a metal box, and though drivers like that are in a minority, there are plenty out there.

 

If I can be 100 yards out of their way when they rev off in the impatient pack, then that's where I'll be, cos my safety is my priority when out riding

oh dear, the one statement I do not want to hear from a cyclist .. I should be able to disregard the law because ...

No wonder the majority of motorists see the cyclist as unlawful.

As cyclists fighting a tough battle in trying to gain love and respect from other road users, we need to be seen cleaner than clean.

 

Fact remains, that in the judgement of many cyclists, in some circumstances it is safer to go through reds than wait while a bunch of impatient motorists build up behind.

as I said in my comments, above, that particular school rule is a perfectly reasonable rule...

 

No it's not. Just as in most other physical activites, taping up the ear to prevent injuries is very reasonable- why are the school not allowing it?

Here's a scenario.

 

Child does PE, having been told to take piercings out. Child is involved in accident, where ear lobe is ripped, due to earring getting caught on something.

 

The school has a risk assessment in place, which makes clear the risk of wearing jewellery. They go against that as one child is stubborn.

 

School leaves itself open to being sued for not following its own risk assessments. Any claim would be guaranteed to succeed against them, whether the parents have become involved or not.

 

Stud holes don't heal up in 3 hours - I had piercings as a kid - she should just do the lesson.

Here's a scenario- school does a proper risk assessment and insists that participants with piercings tape them up to prevent injuries.

 

Paricipant doesn't have to cope with petty prejudices, school doesn't get sued- sorted.

 

---------- Post added 23-09-2014 at 15:01 ----------

 

Some of your answers sound so simplistic, before I had children I would have thought the same-if only it was that easy to parent a teenager! Her ear piercings are part of her self made identity which helps her cope with what life throws at her. She will not take them out and i understand why she chooses not to. i however choose which battles to fight.

 

 

Does anyone know if there is an 'I never heard anything so ridiculous in all my born days' Smiley, I can't find it

 

As a few people have had a go at that statement, I'd just like to assure Cat70 that not everyone 'thinks' like that

 

Makes perfect sense to me and I feel a bit sorry for those who can't understand it.

 

---------- Post added 23-09-2014 at 15:04 ----------

 

I think the school policy is fair it just hasn't been enforced, enabling daughter to have industrial ear piercing put in, as when challenged about what she would do in pe she believed she could tape it up. I work with many young people with mental health issues and I am careful about which issues I tackle, are you understanding me? Therefore the best solution is to do pe elsewhere and try and get through this year as stress free as possible! Constructive help really appreciated

 

---------- Post added 23-09-2014 at 13:23 ----------

 

I have to prove to school she is doing pe, so receipt would be useful.

 

What counts as PE? Would circus skills count? A lot of kids who aren't enjoying trad PE tend to get on well with circus skills, and, Sheffields got quite a lot of provision.

Ive already old you that doesnt happen except on the rare occasions he runs out of money.

 

 

Might be rare for you dude- clearly it's not rare for others travelling on different buses. But, don't answer the question if the fact that it relates to people who aren't you makes it difficult

 

 

 

Moaning? Just commening how pathetic and challeneged some of you are that you are unable to cope with having soem change for the bus and that your world falls apart becayse you camt deal with the prospect of getting a voucher. Poor you. You have a tough life.

 

Sounds like you've got a tougher one by the amount of malice you're putting out. Hope things improve for you.

You must be traveling on different buses to the ones I am, then. I accept that you find it a struggle to make sure you have a bit of change to pay your bus fare, some of us dont fidn that to be too much of a problem.

 

As I said I use the bus frequently and I always see the driver giving change, so its not the situation we are talking about. How many vouchers have you actually been issued with Dave compared to how many bus journeys you have taken?

 

A driver may issue a voucher if he has no change, but those occasions are few and far between in my experience. I know it seems to cause you anxiety, but on those rare occasions it happens ans he has no change , then you always have the option of just not getting on the bus. I am not surprised the people of Sheffield forum find something so petty to moan about. If I was given a bus voucher then id just use it on my next journey or cash it in if I needed to.

 

Are you aware that you're moaning about the moaners? You've done quite a lot of moaning on this thread yourself.

 

You didn't answer my question-

 

Just to clarify then, cos no-ones saying that drivers should have to deal with £50 notes (or £20/£10's for that matter)-

 

would you agree that it's reasonable to expect to get, for example, 50p change for a £1.50 fare when a person has only got pound coins to give to the driver? and that it's cash, not some type of voucher.

 

 

My 15 yr old daughter has been told that she can't do Pe at Tapton without taking her ear piercings out. This is the school policy which is fair enough however she was led to believe that as she was able to tape them up for the last 5 years they were not enforcing this policy.

This year they are and she cannot take them out and get them back in safely without them getting infected. After a meeting with school yesterday with us both battling our corner about health and safety we came to an impasse and I suggested that I take her out of school for her PE lesson. School seemed happy with this, and it should work well with her having double PE with break in the middle (10.15-12.30).

That's unreasonable, they should let her tape them up.

 

However, being practical, if the piercings are 5 years old, taking them out for a couple of hours and putting them back should be straightforward and I can't see why there'd be an infection risk?

It never ceases to amaze me how people on this forum like to make things difficult for themselves and are challenged over very small things.

 

I caught First buses this week and last week.

 

Sometimes I had the correct money and other times not. At the times I had roughly the correct money I got change just as many other people did on the bus.

 

When I am going soemwhere new, then I make sure I have enough money, but I tend not to be so inconsiderate to get the driver to change large denomination notes, because it causes the driver problems and im able to organise myself to try and have roughly the correct money.

 

Always worked for me perfectly fine. Shock horror ive even caught buses where I didnt know the fare and just asked the driver what the fare was. Sometimes ive had the exact money and other times ive had more or less the amount but been given change.

 

Very few of you have been issued with one of these vouchers. Have you alchemist, onewheeldave or nipplefish? How often do you catch the bus?

 

Just to clarify then, cos no-ones saying that drivers should have to deal with £50 notes (or £20/£10's for that matter)-

 

would you agree that it's reasonable to expect to get, for example, 50p change for a £1.50 fare when a person has only got pound coins to give to the driver? and that it's cash, not some type of voucher.

 

Cos that's the kind of situation we're talking about here, and, it's not uncommon for drivers to not be able to deal with that on Sheffield buses.

I think that the fundemental question surrounding this has still not been answered. At least one poster as well as myself have asked the question, how do you know what the exact change is for the journey you are about to undertake? Does it tell you on the bus stop? Unless you know that vital bit of information you are never going to know if you have the correct change.

 

That's a very good question.

 

1. You can ask the bus driver/ conductor.

2. Regulars are likely to know what their fare is.

3. You can contact the bus company.

4. You can look at their website where the prices are.

 

Drama Queen much.

 

Are Sheffield people so challenged they cant have the common sense to take a bit of change with them so they have there or thereabouts the corrct money for a bus fare? People managed in the past.

 

and that's a very bad answer

 

1. You can ask the bus driver/ conductor.

it's a bit late to find out what the fare is by the time you're on the bus if you're wanting to bring the correct change!

 

2. Regulars are likely to know what their fare is.

Unless, like many, memorising figures ain't a strong point. What about non-regulars?

 

3. You can contact the bus company.

Cos their customer service is so great and you're guaranteed not to be spending 10 minutes in an automated queue listening to 'music' and messages about their website. And the person you speak to will know the answer and not have to transfer you multiple times to different departments each with it's own user friendly queue system

 

4. You can look at their website where the prices are.

 

 

Then gooling with the terms, 'mainline sheffield buses fares' would surely take us quickly to a page with fares on then?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=mainline%20sheffield%20buses%20fares

 

http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/south_yorkshire/tickets/

 

No, not looking good

 

 

Are Sheffield people so challenged they cant have the common sense to take a bit of change with them so they have there or thereabouts the corrct money for a bus fare? People managed in the past.

No, in the past dude, we didn't have this b*llsh*t: sanity prevailed and buses carried change

I see what your saying Dutch, but if your trying to teach children to be safe then from the start they should wear a helmet. It's about being responsible for your own health and wellbeing.

 

It's like if your doing some grinding, you would wear safety glasses as its only one little piece of metal that can blind you.

 

Why expose your child to unnecessary risks by not putting a helmet on them? You make them wear a seatbelt...

 

If you make helmets compulsory at skate parks, then most of the kids will be skating elsewhere i.e. in the streets. Skaters tend to be very anti-helmet, it's a cultural thing.

 

Anyone got any stats/evidence that head injuries in skate parks actually occur with any frequency?

Thirdly, take it up with the appropriate Uni/college. i know for a fact that the Uni of Sheffield has very effective measures in place, but if people don't trigger those measures there is nothing the uni can do.

 

What are those measures? If people knew there existed measures that were of genuine use, they'd be far more likely to trigger them.

 

My background is that I work with children with brain injury, including those sustained in parks like this without helmets...

 

What proportion of the children you work with sustained their head injury in skateparks? (as compared to those who sustained their injury elsewhere e.g. car accidents etc).

 

I was under the impression that head injuries in skateparks were fairly rare.

Notice from yhe star that yhey are patyially blocking of toads and creating green space. Don"t they have enough with Weston Park, Crookes Valley Park, Crookesmoor Rec and the Ponderosa.

 

No, more green space is good. We certainly have way too much tarmac, roads and cars at the moment.

Ho hum...the favourite phrase of the "truth seekers" on the David Icke Forum...the ones that state the planes on 9/11 were holograms, that there wer no victims at Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon bombs were planted by the government etc

 

A phrase which, however, is coherent, well defined, and used by plenty of people who aren't 'David Icke truth seekers-:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

Ironically, you may be displaying signs of being afflicted with it yourself

 

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.

Not really because is the vast majority of cases they give change where possible. Theres only 2 examples of a voucher being issued here and that voucher can be redeemed.

 

How challenged are people if they cant go with a bit of change if they catch the bus rather than take £50 notes? It helps everyone if you have roughly the correct money.

 

It's not due to £50 notes. Often drivers can't deal with a £5 note. On a couple of occasions, I've had 2 £1 coins refused cos the fare was £1.50

 

I've got things to do with my life over than wander around hunting down, collecting and reading documentation showing fares for each bus I may need to get on in the future.

 

I do generally ensure I've got extra change if I'm planning to use a bus, it's not always practical or possible though.

Interesting

And there are too many dangerous pothole surprises specialy on side of the road.

True. But a lot of us UK cyclists like to use our eyes when out on the bikes, and, when we spot a pothole, simply steer around it

 

Interesting

 

If I would cycle here it be the most dangerous place I ever cycled, more dangerous than USA. At least there drivers respect pedestrians and cyclist as equal human beings.

You're right, Sheffield's not a safe place for cycling, and, in the main, it's due to the volume of cars, and the fact that many drivers hold cyclists in real contempt here.

 

I love getting out on the bike, but I try and stick to times/days when traffic is less, and, when I see youtube clips of countries that have a more sane view of cycling, like the Netherlands, I feel quite jealous.

There is conflicting evidence as to whether wearing a helmet is a benefit.

 

They provide limited protection in a limited number of situations. However, there is evidence that some motorists give helmeted cyclists less clearance than they do to helmetless cyclists, and may therefore be overcompensating for the perceived protection of a helmet by actually putting the cyclist in even more danger.

 

Also, the promotion of helmets gives the perception that cycling is particularly unsafe, so putting people off cycling. They then lose out on the greater benefits of the regular exercise that cycling provides.

 

Lots of links in here.

 

http://www.cyclehelmets.org

 

Plus- every country that has introduced compulsory helmet laws for cyclists, has seen a rise in cycling injuries proportionate to the number of cyclists.

 

Generally considered to be a result of the fact that where helmet laws exist, less people cycle, and, less cyclists on the roads leads to more accidents (proportionate to the numbers of cyclists on the roads).

 

Helmet wear is a personal choice, and not wearing one in no way means a cyclist is being irresponsible or lax about their safety.

You usually find with this sort of thing that the people who object to something shout it out very loud and they get heard above the vast majority who want the thing built but say nothing.

 

Who wants it built? Why would anyone, other than those associated with Tesco, want it built? It's not as if the area isn't full of mini-supermarkets and shops.