A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Riding a bike in London is risky business



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 5th 10, 06:32 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers.frugal-living
Chris[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Riding a bike in London is risky business

On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony
wrote:


Chris wrote:


In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left,
equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass
the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does
not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down
one way streets the wrong way.


Not a lot actually. Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180
million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. And easily avoided
by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect.


Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other
vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by
being very careful around lorries:
- don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it
takes to get past.
- if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to
make sure he HAS seen you.
- if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready
to stop until you know the driver's seen you.


If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other
vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars.


My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a
bit. No clothing, no rights.


So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the
cycling proficiency test still exist?

--
Chris


I don't know, but I know that...

It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating
the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists
to wear something bright to have full protection.

Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal
out there.

Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on
the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down
by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level
crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and
are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half
barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the
cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better
target

--
Chris
Ads
  #2  
Old August 5th 10, 07:20 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers.frugal-living
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 535
Default Riding a bike in London is risky business

On Aug 5, 10:32*am, Chris wrote:
On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, *wrote:
On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the


Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin * *wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony
wrote:


Chris wrote:


In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left,
equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass
the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does
not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down
one way streets the wrong way.


Not a lot actually. *Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180
million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. *And easily avoided
by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect.


Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other
vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by
being very careful around lorries:
- don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it
takes to get past.
- if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to
make sure he HAS seen you.
- if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready
to stop until you know the driver's seen you.


If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other
vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars.


My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a
bit. No clothing, no rights.


So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the
cycling proficiency test still exist?


--
Chris


I don't know, but I know that...


It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating
the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists
to wear something bright to have full protection.


Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal
out there.


Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on
the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down
by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level
crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and
are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half
barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the
cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better
target

--
Chris


It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I
think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I
didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is
important if you survive.

It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of
a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But
often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too.
  #3  
Old August 6th 10, 05:10 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers.frugal-living
Chris[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Riding a bike in London is risky business

On 05/08/2010 19:20, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Aug 5, 10:32 am, wrote:
On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the


Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony
wrote:


Chris wrote:


In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left,
equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass
the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does
not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down
one way streets the wrong way.


Not a lot actually. Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180
million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. And easily avoided
by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect.


Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other
vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by
being very careful around lorries:
- don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it
takes to get past.
- if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to
make sure he HAS seen you.
- if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready
to stop until you know the driver's seen you.


If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other
vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars.


My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a
bit. No clothing, no rights.


So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the
cycling proficiency test still exist?


--
Chris


I don't know, but I know that...


It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating
the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists
to wear something bright to have full protection.


Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal
out there.


Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on
the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down
by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level
crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and
are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half
barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the
cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better
target

--
Chris


It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I
think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I
didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is
important if you survive.

It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of
a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But
often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too.

Fair enough but I was just making the point that it needs more than HV
clothing to improve safety.

--
Chris
  #4  
Old August 6th 10, 07:42 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers.frugal-living
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 535
Default Riding a bike in London is risky business

On Aug 6, 9:10*am, Chris wrote:
On 05/08/2010 19:20, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Aug 5, 10:32 am, *wrote:
On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the


Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, * *wrote:
On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the


Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin * * *wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony
wrote:


Chris wrote:


In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left,
equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass
the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does
not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down
one way streets the wrong way.


Not a lot actually. *Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180
million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. *And easily avoided
by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect.


Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other
vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by
being very careful around lorries:
- don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it
takes to get past.
- if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to
make sure he HAS seen you.
- if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready
to stop until you know the driver's seen you.


If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other
vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars.


My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a
bit. No clothing, no rights.


So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the
cycling proficiency test still exist?


--
Chris


I don't know, but I know that...


It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating
the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists
to wear something bright to have full protection.


Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal
out there.


Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on
the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down
by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level
crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and
are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half
barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the
cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better
target


--
Chris


It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I
think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I
didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is
important if you survive.


It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of
a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But
often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too.


Fair enough but I was just making the point that it needs more than HV
clothing to improve safety.

--
Chris


You gotta do your best and hope it's good enough. Sometimes a cyclist
could become camouflaged in plain sight, like coming from a side
street. Whenever I buy something small I don't want to misplace, I go
bright. Even tools for the bike can "disappear" in your bag when black.
  #5  
Old December 14th 10, 10:08 AM
mischastar mischastar is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by CycleBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock[_2_] View Post
On Aug 6, 9:10*am, Chris wrote:
On 05/08/2010 19:20, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Aug 5, 10:32 am, *wrote:
On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the


Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, * *wrote:
On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the


Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin * * *wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony
wrote:


Chris wrote:


In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left,
equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass
the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does
not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down
one way streets the wrong way.


Not a lot actually. *Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180
million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. *And easily avoided
by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect.


Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other
vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by
being very careful around lorries:
- don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it
takes to get past.
- if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to
make sure he HAS seen you.
- if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready
to stop until you know the driver's seen you.


If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other
vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars.


My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a
bit. No clothing, no rights.


So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the
cycling proficiency test still exist?


--
Chris


I don't know, but I know that...


It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating
the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists
to wear something bright to have full protection.


Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal
out there.


Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on
the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down
by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level
crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and
are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half
barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the
cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better
target


--
Chris


It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I
think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I
didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is
important if you survive.


It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of
a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But
often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too.


Fair enough but I was just making the point that it needs more than HV
clothing to improve safety.

--
Chris


You gotta do your best and hope it's good enough. Sometimes a cyclist
could become camouflaged in plain sight, like coming from a side
street. Whenever I buy something small I don't want to misplace, I go
bright. Even tools for the bike can "disappear" in your bag when black.

I agree, it's so hard out on the road.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Risky Business: The redneck, the SIF hop and the bouncer. (mild profanity) mcnuggets300 Unicycling 1 September 7th 07 09:59 AM
Risky Business: The redneck, the SIF hop and the bouncer. (mild profanity) zfreak220 Unicycling 7 May 23rd 07 12:03 AM
Risky Business: The redneck, the SIF hop and the bouncer. (mild profanity) Matt_V Unicycling 1 May 11th 07 03:40 AM
How does Tiso Bike stay in business ?? Donald Gillies Techniques 87 December 29th 06 07:15 PM
London Marathon - anyone interested in riding? kington99 Unicycling 7 April 25th 06 06:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.