Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[Berberis]

OK, so that might explain animosity towards that cyclist. What connection does he/she have with every one though?

 

I suppose a stereotype only becomes so if a large proportion of the group act a certain way for a period of time.

 

What I disagree with is how cyclists highlight the fact of their general propensity towards injury should mean they are given special treatment on the roads (this is part I agree with) but to then in the same breath assume that as they pose a generally low risk to other road users, a cyclist going through a red light is somehow OK, ignoring the fact that the danger is to the cyclists not to other road users whom the cyclist may collide with.

[mattleonard]

I suppose a stereotype only becomes so if a large proportion of the group act a certain way for a period of time.

 

That logic is a bit like reading this and then going on an anti-motorist rampage.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 13:02 ----------

 

What I disagree with is how cyclists highlight the fact of their general propensity towards injury should mean they are given special treatment on the roads (this is part I agree with) but to then in the same breath assume that as they pose a generally low risk to other road users, a cyclist going through a red light is somehow OK, ignoring the fact that the danger is to the cyclists not to other road users whom the cyclist may collide with.

 

I largely agree with this - when some cyclists make such claims about going through red lights they are being idiots.

 

I'd quibble slightly with the special treatment bit though. I'd like less special treatment rather than more. Much of the bad behaviour from many motorists seems to stem from thinking that riskier manoeuvres are OK when they involve cyclists, that the bits in the Highway Code about giving cyclists at least as much room as motorists don't count, that it's OK to pull out in front of a cyclist when they have right of way etc.

[jezzyjj]

I suppose a stereotype only becomes so if a large proportion of the group act a certain way for a period of time.

Stereotypes often arise, such as in this case because people ignorantly extrapolate the behaviour of a few to all.

 

What I disagree with is how cyclists highlight the fact of their general propensity towards injury should mean they are given special treatment on the roads (this is part I agree with) but to then in the same breath assume that as they pose a generally low risk to other road users, a cyclist going through a red light is somehow OK, ignoring the fact that the danger is to the cyclists not to other road users whom the cyclist may collide with.

3000 odd people a year killed by motor vehicles and very rarely does anyone get killed by a bicycle and from personal experience and that of friends it's likely to be a pedestrian who walked out in front of a cyclist either without looking or looked and dismissed the cyclist as not being a danger before getting hit.

I've had to take evasive action numerous times because of idiot pedestrians like that whilst on the road and not always managed to avoid them.

 

Cyclists or pedestrians doing dumbs things tend to hurt themselves, drivers doing dumb things hurt other people - there is an enormous difference between the two types of behaviour. It should not have to be explained once, let alone again and again and again

As it happens cycling through red lights has been posited as it possibly safer for cyclists which sounds counter intuitive. However the real danger is the setting off from lights. So maybe why far more women cyclist get killed at lights than men. Men are more likely to jump lights in London, where these potential finding occurred. It should also be noted that cyclists going on red usually do it when all traffic is stationary which is actually very safe. As opposed to the far more dangerous jumping lights in front of other traffic that cars do all the time. At one junction I use I have to wait for all the cars to finish jumping lights before I can go forward, which can mean me struggling to then get through in time before lights change back.

[PeteM01]

The thing is the 'psychos' may actually drive quite well.

 

Until someone annoys them.

[jezzyjj]

Much of the bad behaviour from many motorists seems to stem from thinking that riskier manoeuvres are OK when they involve cyclists, that the bits in the Highway Code about giving cyclists at least as much room as motorists don't count, that it's OK to pull out in front of a cyclist when they have right of way etc.

If drivers behaved towards other cars the same way they do to cyclists, all hell would break loose.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 13:14 ----------

 

Until someone annoys them.

So completely ignoring the important points and concentrating on the irrelevant.

[Eater Sundae]

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 ----------

 

Sadly, it pretty much is.

 

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.

 

Re bib. At least with the cyclist having to give way, he/she can take responsibility for their own safety. It the motorist had to give way, the cyclist would never bee sure if the motorist would give way - especially where motorists are turning left off the main road.

[altus]

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."

 

Dying in an accident involving a head injury is not the same thing as dying of a head injury and it's notable that they don't claim 'died of a head injury'. e.g. If you fall off on slippery tram tracks and a lorry drives over your chest, you're likely to bang your head but that is unlikely to be significant in whether you survive or not.

 

Even 'died of a head injury' is not that simple. Rotational head injuries, the sort that cycle helmets don't protect against, are far more likely to result in death than direct ones, which cycle helmets do protect against.

 

Ultimately, anyone considering wearing a helmet needs to gather information from sites like http://www.cyclehelmets.org, weigh up both the pros and cons of helmet wearing and make their own informed decision.

[jezzyjj]

Re bib. At least with the cyclist having to give way, he/she can take responsibility for their own safety. It the motorist had to give way, the cyclist would never bee sure if the motorist would give way - especially where motorists are turning left off the main road.

Put the give way markings before crossing cycle path for emerging traffic and keep minor gives way to major priority and there will be no confusion. Inconsistency in priority is what is most dangerous.

Traffic turning in should take the same care as if cyclists were on the road.

 

Currently we have the same mess as the old French roundabout method where you give way to traffic coming onto roundabout, which is plain dumb. But not as dumb as some roundabouts being the old system and some the sensible new system, so if you miss the sign indicating 'priorité a droite' [easily done] you could come unstuck.

[Squiggs]

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.

 

^-- Goofy actually illustrates this quite well, even dating from 1950

[PeteM01]

Dying in an accident involving a head injury is not the same thing as dying of a head injury and it's notable that they don't claim 'died of a head injury'. e.g. If you fall off on slippery tram tracks and a lorry drives over your chest, you're likely to bang your head but that is unlikely to be significant in whether you survive or not.

 

Even 'died of a head injury' is not that simple. Rotational head injuries, the sort that cycle helmets don't protect against, are far more likely to result in death than direct ones, which cycle helmets do protect against.

 

Ultimately, anyone considering wearing a helmet needs to gather information from sites like www.cyclehelmets.org, weigh up both the pros and cons of helmet wearing and make their own informed decision.

 

Are you suggesting that Jezzyjj may lack understanding of statistics and correlation?