Sheffield Cycling on the increase

[Scabbydog 10]

Just to even up the balance, in 15 years of driving I've never had an accident, whereas I've been run over by a stupid unthinking driver while riding my bike, fully legally, once. I've seen more dangerous driving from motorists while out on my bike than in 15 years of being a motorist. Many act like cyclists don't exist, or don't want them to.

 

It hasn't stopped me cycling, cycle commuting, or driving.

 

That's why I keep saying motorists need to have some human decency and treat cyclists with a bit of respect.

 

So cycling is far more dangerous than driving a car then?

 

By the way was the car driver that hit you badly hurt?

Edited March 27, 2014 by Scabbydog

[JFKvsNixon 11]

So cycling is far more dangerous than driving a car then?

 

No, when you look at the health benefits associated with being fit. Even when you consider the risks of an accident.

[alas_alas 10]

No it's no more unsafe than being a pedestrian or runner. In fact, it is safer overall.

[Squiggs 11]

We're living in difficult times and even students are now being asked to contribute towards their education, so why shouldn't cyclists be asked to contribute towards the use of a facility they currently get for free, especially if additional cycle lanes are provided to make life safer for them?

 

Regards

 

Doom

 

We DO contribute in EXACTLY the same way as car drivers

Roads are funded through general taxation, which one pays whether one owns a fleet of cars, a bicycle, or only ever uses public transport

[Doom 10]

Even though all the evidence suggests that the more barriers that you put in the way of cycling the more dangerous it becomes?

 

I keep seeing this comment and it comes across as an excuse for not having to commit to proper training.

 

I understand the point that if more people commit to bicycles than cars:

 

1. It may help to make car drivers more aware and

 

2. There will be fewer cars on the road.

 

However, I'd suggest if you put an additional 100 idiots who don't know how to ride a bicycle properly onto the roads, the roads won't become a safer place.

 

Now if you were to put 100 extra cyclists on the road who have had proper training and know how to ride a bike properly, then the roads certainly would be safer.

 

It's impossible to argue that proper training will make an individual cyclist safer, so the argument cyclists come up with is this barriers to entry.

 

Regards

 

Doom

[Scabbydog 10]

No, when you look at the health benefits associated with being fit. Even when you consider the risks of an accident.

 

Does driving a car disqualify you from driving to the gym? Will Hoy used his Jag to get him to the velodrome. I think the gold medals prove he was fit.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 12:37 ----------

 

No it's no more unsafe than being a pedestrian or runner. In fact, it is safer overall.

 

But is it as safe as traveling by car, train or bus.

[Cyclone 10]

Do you know a car driver is killed for every 4 billion miles driven in the UK?

 

No, I hadn't looked up that particular statistics.

 

So what?

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 12:42 ----------

 

I keep seeing this comment and it comes across as an excuse for not having to commit to proper training.

 

I understand the point that if more people commit to bicycles than cars:

 

1. It may help to make car drivers more aware and

 

2. There will be fewer cars on the road.

 

However, I'd suggest if you put an additional 100 idiots who don't know how to ride a bicycle properly onto the roads, the roads won't become a safer place.

 

Now if you were to put 100 extra cyclists on the road who have had proper training and know how to ride a bike properly, then the roads certainly would be safer.

 

It's impossible to argue that proper training will make an individual cyclist safer, so the argument cyclists come up with is this barriers to entry.

 

Regards

 

Doom

 

 

It's not an argument that we 'come up with', it's statistically proven. A fact if you like. Sorry if happens to conflict with your view, but that's the way it is. Barriers to cycling increase the danger of cycling.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 12:45 ----------

 

Does driving a car disqualify you from driving to the gym? Will Hoy used his Jag to get him to the velodrome. I think the gold medals prove he was fit.

Does this anecdote, or the possibly of other exercise alter the fact that those who commute by bike get more exercise than those who commute by car before other factors are even considered?

Obviously they also have the advantage of more free time, so I could spend the time I save by commuting on the bike in the gym. Or going for a run, or doing some weights.

A double win over the motorist.

 

I could even cycle to the gym if I were so inclined!

 

I don't have the proof, but I'd be very surprised if those who regularly cycle to work aren't on average fitter than those who don't.

 

But is it as safe as traveling by car, train or bus.

 

Does it matter?

 

Nobody has tried to argue that it's as safe or safer than driving.

If it isn't though, then it behoves us all to try to make it safer, that particularly includes car drivers who are the main source of danger to cyclists.

[alas_alas 10]

By the way was the car driver that hit you badly hurt?

 

That's hilarious. Very offensive indeed.

 

She was arrested and charged, thanks for asking.

[Scabbydog 10]

That's hilarious. Very offensive indeed.

 

She was arrested and charged, thanks for asking.

 

But not hurt. Were you?

[Doom 10]

It's not an argument that we 'come up with', it's statistically proven. A fact if you like. Sorry if happens to conflict with your view, but that's the way it is. Barriers to cycling increase the danger of cycling.

 

So let me get this right:

 

If I ride my bicycle to work tomorrow having not ridden a bicycle on main roads for 20 years, I'll be just as safe as I would if I'd been given 5 cycling proficiency lessons with a trained expert? - I think we both know that's rubbish.

 

As for the barriers to cycling increasing danger....How do you know if we've never had cycling licence scheme in this country?....You have nothing to benchmark it against.

 

Regards

 

Doom

[Cyclone 10]

No, nobody has made any claim about the safety of individuals or of you.

 

Statistically, the more cyclists there are, the safer they are.

 

Requiring some form of license is a barrier to cycling and will stop the increased number thus making it more dangerous for cyclists.

A license and/or training is clearly a barrier to cycling because you can't simply start cycling. Barriers reduce uptake, this is logic, it doesn't require a study to show that if people don't cycle then there are less cyclists. And the link between cycling numbers and safety is well established.

 

 

Also you continue to refuse to explain how this will apply to children and those learning to cycle.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Cyclone

[Scabbydog 10]

No, I hadn't looked up that particular statistics.

 

So what?

 

So don't know your subject then.

 

Did you know 41 cyclist are killed for the same number of miles covered. Those seriously injured is far higher.