What cyclists have to put up with..

[bumpyroads]

I would point out that the "primary" position described is used in certain situations where there is NO ROOM to safely overtake a cyclist should they be in a secondary position further to the left, to prevent the temptation of trying to squeeze past, and that this is not to ride in the centre of all lanes all the time. It's about adapting to the road conditions.

 

Sorry, I should have made that clear. The primary position is only used a fraction of the time (probably no more than 5% of the time on my commute, for example), and I always try to allow cars behind to pass at the earliest safe opportunity.

[perplexed]

Sorry, I should have made that clear. The primary position is only used a fraction of the time (probably no more than 5% of the time on my commute, for example), and I always try to allow cars behind to pass at the earliest safe opportunity.

 

True.

 

When I adopt primary, for example when there is a "pinch point" in the road, I do it positively and decisively, and give a little friendly wave as I've done it. Most motorists, I would like to think, even if they didn't quite fathom why I did it, will then realise. And remember for next time they see a bike approaching a similar road layout.

 

I very rarely get a negative reaction, as I then go back to secondary as the hazard is passed, again in a positive manner so the driver knows what I'm up to.

 

Only the genital head drivers who beep you don't tend to have the penny drop as to what you're up to, but you'll never educate them. They are the type who think the mobile phone laws in regard to driving don't apply to them because their call is "important".

[meshuga]

There's a great number of leaps of reasoning there. I agree that compulsory insurance isn't likely to happen, but the rest of it is fairly flawed. Why do you assume less people will cycle if they have to pay 27 quid a year? Do you think people cycle as they are too poor to afford 50p a week? None of the cyclists I know cite that as a reason.

 

The next jump - less cyclists = more death. You are assuming that every person who cycles would stop doing so at the *massive* 50p a week levy, and drive instead. That's a heck of an assumption. Could it be that people would walk instead? Get the bus? Car share?

 

By throwing in emotive statements like "I guess you support more death" you've made your argument look like nothing more than a rant I'm afraid.

 

Thankyou splodgeyAl for the link in posts above. Also heres another

 

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC_Safety_in_Numbers.pdf

 

Its not a case of money, its red tape and paperwork that puts people off. You have missed my point. There are many potential cyclists out there who may be toying with the idea of trying cycling to work one day a week, or on fair weather days or in the summer months, maybe on a bike they already own for receational or off road use. Any system that increases the hassle of just getting on your bike one morning and giving it a go will reduce uptake of cycling. Often just trying cycling for a few journeys makes many folk hooked on it and take it up more seriously and longer term. Nothing at all to do with money - cycle insurance is very cheap as I myself pointed out.

 

"I guess you support more death" aren't my words but I appreciate you could take my remarks as "emotive". Unintentional. Just trying to encourage dink to come back on my point, as I happen to think it was a valid one. The debate exists to either agree or disagree with it. An interesting debate by the way, and an important one.

[Squiggs]

Like many others my 3rd party insurance is through membership of CTC but a positive for those many cyclists who do drive would be if there could be some incentive such as motor insurance also including cover for the driver when riding a bicycle or something like that, say for an extra £15 on top. Hardly noticeable expecially if payng by direct debit etc.

 

Just a thought

[perplexed]

Like many others my 3rd party insurance is through membership of CTC but a positive for those many cyclists who do drive would be if there could be some incentive such as motor insurance also including cover for the driver when riding a bicycle or something like that, say for an extra £15 on top. Hardly noticeable expecially if payng by direct debit etc.

 

Just a thought

 

That's not a bad idea, but I'd go further and say they could offer it as a free incentive.

 

This is because in reality and the scheme of things, it wouldn't really cost them anything because cyclists on the whole are pretty low risk. The other positive is that it brings cycling more to driver's attention (for some reason, anti-cyclists seem to forget that the huge majority of cyclists also drive), and may even encourage them out onto a bike.

 

My insurance is also through CTC, and I like the legal assistance bit too...

[Cyclone]

True.

 

When I adopt primary, for example when there is a "pinch point" in the road, I do it positively and decisively, and give a little friendly wave as I've done it. Most motorists, I would like to think, even if they didn't quite fathom why I did it, will then realise. And remember for next time they see a bike approaching a similar road layout.

 

I very rarely get a negative reaction, as I then go back to secondary as the hazard is passed, again in a positive manner so the driver knows what I'm up to.

 

Only the genital head drivers who beep you don't tend to have the penny drop as to what you're up to, but you'll never educate them. They are the type who think the mobile phone laws in regard to driving don't apply to them because their call is "important".

 

I've had a number of drivers blow their horn at me for adopting the primary position when passing through the tram gates on Langsett road.

The few seconds delay and the fact that I've stopped them dangerously overtaking appear to be very important to them.

When I drive I never try to overtake a bike going through the same sections, even if they haven't moved to the centre.

[dink]

Here you go...

 

 

 

Quote:

Increased ridership rates may result in improved safety for cyclists: injury rates have been shown to decrease with increased cycling rates. This principle of "safety in numbers" is supported by studies of injury and ridership patterns in California, Australia, and Europe, as well as between cities and within cities over time [35-38]. There are a number of potential explanations. Motor vehicle drivers may not expect cyclists when there are few of them on the roads, and thus make so-called "looked-but-failed-to-see" errors that can result in collisions [39]. When motorists and cyclists are unaccustomed to sharing the road, both parties may hold incorrect assumptions about what the other party will do [40]. Increased cycling rates may mean that more motorists also use bicycles as a mode of transport, making motorists more attuned to cyclists and their movements, and encouraging them to drive in a way that accounts for potential interactions [36]. Finally, a larger cycling population means stronger lobbying power for cycling resources.

 

 

I was thrown the argument that increased cycling would improve road safety, and that if i didnt agree i was wanting more road deaths, but the artical above, states ''Increased ridership rates may result in improved safety for cyclists''

 

It says the most improtant word MAY, and it doesnt saw about a decrease in road deaths or injury for any other group than cyclists.

[Tony]

It says the most improtant word MAY, and it doesnt saw about a decrease in road deaths or injury for any other group than cyclists.

 

I assume that you're not suggesting that other groups death rates go up with increased cycling?

 

The annual 'death by cyclist' mortality rate of <1 would suggest it would be a bit of a stretch to say it.

[dink]

I assume that you're not suggesting that other groups death rates go up with increased cycling?

 

The annual 'death by cyclist' mortality rate of <1 would suggest it would be a bit of a stretch to say it.

 

No, im suggesting it increase road safety for cyclists!!!

 

Not like most would have you believe other road user's too, just cause more people cycle to work!!

[splodgeyAl]

Here you go...

 

 

 

Quote:

Increased ridership rates may result in improved safety for cyclists: injury rates have been shown to decrease with increased cycling rates. This principle of "safety in numbers" is supported by studies of injury and ridership patterns in California, Australia, and Europe, as well as between cities and within cities over time [35-38]. There are a number of potential explanations. Motor vehicle drivers may not expect cyclists when there are few of them on the roads, and thus make so-called "looked-but-failed-to-see" errors that can result in collisions [39]. When motorists and cyclists are unaccustomed to sharing the road, both parties may hold incorrect assumptions about what the other party will do [40]. Increased cycling rates may mean that more motorists also use bicycles as a mode of transport, making motorists more attuned to cyclists and their movements, and encouraging them to drive in a way that accounts for potential interactions [36]. Finally, a larger cycling population means stronger lobbying power for cycling resources.

 

I was thrown the argument that increased cycling would improve road safety, and that if i didnt agree i was wanting more road deaths, but the artical above, states ''Increased ridership rates may result in improved safety for cyclists''

 

It says the most improtant word MAY, and it doesnt saw about a decrease in road deaths or injury for any other group than cyclists.

I'd say that's mostly because scientists would never say "would" in that case. That would be impossible to say with any scientific credibility. On a public discussion forum, I think we can relax that a bit.

 

Anyway, it does also say that increased cycling rates *have* correlated with decreased cycling injury rates in multiple cities on multiple continents, but as would be expected, such studies can only realistically show correlation and not causation.