|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 May 2007 14:40:05 +0800 Theo Bekkers wrote: That is,a nd was, my understanding of your, an Euan's, position. 1. You think anyone should be allowed to ride a bike without training. 2. Anyone wanting to drive a car should have bicycle training as a compulsory part of obtaining a licence. So it follows that the only people properly, or formally, trained to ride a bicycle will be the people driving cars, very few of whom would ever ride a bicycle. And what is this training about? Is it in bicycle mechanics like starting and stopping and such, which either all need or none do, or is it roadcraft? And if it is roadcraft, is that how to read others, or is that how to behave? If it is how to behave, then will your trained riders know what the untrained ones are going to do? Considering that the problem is to solve drivers not knowing what cyclists are going to do, why train people who are not going to cycle, but not train those who are? Exactly. Would make more sense to insist bicycle riders have a driver's licence. At least that way they would get the bicycle training. :-) theo |
Ads |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
Theo Bekkers Wrote: EuanB wrote: You're mixing up two arguments. Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to ride a bike? No, because the benefits of an untrained rider outweigh the risks to society as a whole. Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is crucial in understanding how to co-exist with them. I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is not necessary and should not be a requirement for road use, Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking, driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are safer on the road than pedestrians. Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically. but bicycle training should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car? Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike. The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers. -- EuanB |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote: I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is not necessary and should not be a requirement for road use, Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking, driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are safer on the road than pedestrians. Cycling is more bening than walking? How many deaths occurred in Australia last year of pedestrian to pedestrian impacts? How many pedestrians destroyed cars, cyclists? Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically. Cycle training is only required for people who don't ride bicycles! but bicycle training should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car? Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike. The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers. You're mad! Cycling's gone to your head. Take some pills mate. By your reasoning anyone wanting to ride a bicycle should be required to take pedestrian training, something not needed for actual pedestrians. Theo |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
Theo Bekkers Wrote: EuanB wrote: Theo Bekkers Wrote: I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is not necessary and should not be a requirement for road use, Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking, driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are safer on the road than pedestrians. Cycling is more bening than walking? How many deaths occurred in Australia last year of pedestrian to pedestrian impacts? How many pedestrians destroyed cars, cyclists? How many muggings, murders commited by people riding bicycles? Not many. How many committed by people walking? A large number. Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically. Cycle training is only required for people who don't ride bicycles! How is that a coherent response to the above? but bicycle training should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car? Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike. The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers. You're mad! Cycling's gone to your head. Take some pills mate. By your reasoning anyone wanting to ride a bicycle should be required to take pedestrian training, something not needed for actual pedestrians. Incorrect. Cyclists don't pose a large threat to pedestrians, pedestrians pose a much larger threat to other pedestrians than other cyclists do. -- EuanB |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
In article ,
rooman wrote: t'was coming back from Anzac Day in the city along Beach Road and saw a nasty spill over on the path at Black Rock on the rise North of Ricketts Point. rooman: Was that the women who wrote the letter in this week's 'Bayside Leader'? -- Shane Stanley |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
Shane Stanley Wrote: In article , rooman wrote: t'was coming back from Anzac Day in the city along Beach Road and saw a nasty spill over on the path at Black Rock on the rise North of Ricketts Point. rooman: Was that the women who wrote the letter in this week's 'Bayside Leader'? -- Shane Stanley yep, Suzy... she wasnt well, but kept up good spirits in spite of her pain...good to see she is up and about.... and she is keen to get back on her bike..that's great. I was her 6'+ sunshade as she lay on the path... good to know I have some practical purposes left... what do you think of the other comment in Opinon from "Marcus" of Brighton? ...I felt when I read it, maybe _he_ should choose to go on the Nepean if he wants a less interrupted high speed run to the CBD, over Beach Rd...he reckons the path should be used by commuters as their only peak hour route along Beach Rd and let him "flow" in his cage ( till the next set of lights). -- rooman |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd
In article ,
rooman wrote: Suzy... she wasnt well, but kept up good spirits in spite of her pain...good to see she is up and about.... and she is keen to get back on her bike..that's great. Yep. It's hard to regard a broken femur as anything other than bad news, but it sounds like she was lucky not to do a lot worse. I was her 6'+ sunshade as she lay on the path... good to know I have some practical purposes left... It seems you were appreciated. (And I have an opening for a large windshade on wheels, if you're offering...) what do you think of the other comment in Opinon from "Marcus" of Brighton? ...I felt when I read it, maybe _he_ should choose to go on the Nepean if he wants a less interrupted high speed run to the CBD, over Beach Rd...he reckons the path should be used by commuters as their only peak hour route along Beach Rd and let him "flow" in his cage ( till the next set of lights). Didn't you know? Remove the bikes from Beach Road in peak hour and "a steady stream of traffic" will flow right into the CBD. And pollution is the cyclists' fault. Talk about delusional. Still, in one letter we're accused of bleating, malignant narcissism, failing to recognise responsibilities, and being kamikaze zealots, naive sacrificial pawns, luvvies (!), and of course red-light runners. I can almost handle that, but I think being compared to a parked car was below the belt. -- Shane Stanley |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long Island-Jones Beach Bike Path reopening anytime soon? | [email protected] | Rides | 7 | April 20th 06 02:19 AM |
Long Island-Jones Beach Bike Path reopening? | [email protected] | Rides | 0 | April 18th 06 05:38 PM |
Cross City Tunnel - Unsafe for cyclists | scotty72 | Australia | 2 | October 20th 05 02:08 AM |
Speed checking on Perth bike path | BruceA | Australia | 41 | April 15th 05 08:18 AM |
Unsafe At Any Speed | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 19 | November 9th 03 01:09 AM |