jezzyjj Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.39231,-1.485526,3a,75y,355.19h,76.46t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYBYeN7hxvKmLvYl5bvqgmQ!2e0!6m1!1e1 Pedestrians walking along this one are just idiots. They do have to cross it sometimes to take side paths, but there's no good reason to be walking along it, with the pedestrian section just a step away. Yup, I've used that one on occasion. Pedestrians can make it quite dangerous, particularly when they walk out from side straight across it without looking. Mind you the traffic coming from the side roads having priority is also a moronic design and is why most cycle paths parallel to roads are unsafe to use. ---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 11:43 ---------- Given the choice of footpath or cycle path, pedestrians will tend to use the cycle path, . Now you know full well that THAT isnt true. Sadly, it pretty much is. SOME pedestrians, for whatever reason may choose to walk in the cycle path but I doubt that they will tend to choose that over the footpath, after all why would they? Is the cycle path cleaner, clearer, better lit?Firstly pedestrians will always walk the shortest route and numerous bike paths in Sheffield have the shortest line whilst the footpath curves around in a pretty manner. Bad design that is so obviously going to cause conflict. Secondly, pedestrians because they are not driving, or riding switch off and don't pay much attention to what they are doing. If people drove/rode in the same manner as pedestrians walk, there would be even more carnage on the road. Edited June 5, 2015 by jezzyjj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Yeah, that's why I only use it going up the hill, I'm not so fast then, downhill I can keep up with the tram or the traffic on a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM01 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 ... Driver behaviour was monitored with cameras and a consistent 3% of drivers drove dangerously close regardless of what was worn. 3% doesn't sound like much but with hundreds of cars out on the same road as you..... The same 3% are probably just as selfish when walking, cycling or going about any other aspect of their lives... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Some people foolishly claim that riding with a helmet is more dangerous because cars will then drive closer to you. To test this odd assumption a researcher spent time cycling with a variety of clothing styles, with and without helmet. Driver behaviour was monitored with cameras and a consistent 3% of drivers drove dangerously close regardless of what was worn. 3% doesn't sound like much but with hundreds of cars out on the same road as you..... The research is quite clear that the effect is real. One experiment that didn't replicate it is hardly disproving it. There are other issues as well, such as increasing the load on the neck when you haven't hit your head and thus making neck injuries more likely. ---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 11:49 ---------- The same 3% are probably just as selfish when walking, cycling or going about any other aspect of their lives... But more dangerous when they're in a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 There are other issues as well, such as increasing the load on the neck when you haven't hit your head and thus making neck injuries more likely. Ooh, that's a point. I might attach some helium balloons to my helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squiggs Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Yeah, that's why I only use it going up the hill, I'm not so fast then, downhill I can keep up with the tram or the traffic on a good day. ^This Also, (I head up St Philips if I'm going that way) if I don't feel like keeping up with traffic / headwind or whatever, it's just as easy to turn right opposite Langsett Cycles, through Philadelphia Gardens and onto Albert Terrace Road via the short section of cycle path. It's preferable to trying to salmon the cycle lane with overgrown hedges - there's getting to be barely enough room for a single bike going uphill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezzyjj Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The same 3% are probably just as selfish when walking, cycling or going about any other aspect of their lives...Absolutely. Which is is why the bigoted anti-cycling nonsense being spouted by some is is just that, nonsense. A small percentage of all groups of people are idiots. However talking about an entire group by referencing the bad behaviour of discrete individuals is what stupid people do. However and this is the very, very, very important distinction, being dumb whilst on foot or riding a bike gets you hurt. Being dumb in motor vehicle gets others killed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 It's preferable to trying to salmon the cycle lane with overgrown hedges - there's getting to be barely enough room for a single bike going uphill Hanover Way used to be like that. If money were no object then keeping the hedges in good order would be ideal. But in the end they resurfaced the whole pavement and painted the lanes back but swapped over. Probably the most common-sensical thing the council have done in a long while. Obviously it's a bit more tricky on the Infirmary Road section where the lanes are separated out though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM01 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 However and this is the very, very, very important distinction, being dumb whilst on foot or riding a bike gets you hurt. Being dumb in motor vehicle gets others killed I doubt that they are being dumb in all cases. Approximately 3% of the population have a diagnosable personality disorder (used to be called a pyscho- or sociopathy) and are incapable of controlling their behaviour. I suspect much bad behaviour by drivers (or cyclists) is serial offending by this group of people. Short of pulling out a copy of DSM-V during driving tests, there is nothing that can be done to remove these people from the roads. No point ranting about it - it ain't gonna change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezzyjj Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The research is quite clear that the effect is real. If you mean this oft referenced and deeply flawed testing done by Ian Walker.That was as much a case of testing a male vs female rider than helmet use. Lots of flaws in that study which when later re-analysis showed to prove nothing. One experiment that didn't replicate it is hardly disproving it.One experiment later proved to be wrong shows what exactly? There are other issues as well, such as increasing the load on the neck when you haven't hit your head and thus making neck injuries more likely.How heavy do think bike helmets are? Not to mention the daft 'if you haven't hit you head' caveat. You of all people should know that avoiding hitting your head when falling is a skill, one that needs to be learnt and practised and is not something cyclists will do. I should point out although I always wear one, I'm dead against compulsory helmet wearing. Why? Because that decreases cycling numbers which also decreases bike safety, so in fact very counter productive. Plus you shouldn't need to wear a helmet as cycling in and of itself is pretty darn safe. Also if cyclist were forced to wear helmets, than surely pedestrians should wear body armour etc as far more of them get hit by vehicles. Also of note... Coincidentally, around the same time as Walker announced his results, New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on." ---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 12:43 ---------- I doubt that they are being dumb in all cases. Approximately 3% of the population have a diagnosable personality disorder (used to be called a pyscho- or sociopathy) and are incapable of controlling their behaviour. I suspect much bad behaviour by drivers (or cyclists) is serial offending by this group of people. Short of pulling out a copy of DSM-V during driving tests, there is nothing that can be done to remove these people from the roads. No point ranting about it - it ain't gonna change.Thinking that it's the same 3% is not understanding statistics or correlation. I know plenty of people who are nice, considerate and lovely humans, but when they get behind the wheel of a car they drive in ways that are dangerous. Not socio or psychopathic behaviour, just plain idiocy. Impatience + car=dead people. Stupidity + car=dead people. Ignorance + car=dead people. Selfishness + car=dead people. Phone + car=dead people. Drink/drugs + car=dead people. The thing is the 'psychos' may actually drive quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts