|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
Hi,
Can anyone please explain how the 'safety in numbers effect' is supposed to enhance cycling safety? I can understand how it works for shoals of fish or herds of wilderbeest, where an individual can hide himself in a pack, and where it confuses predators. It might even work in a large peloton of cyclists where only the guys at the front and the back, and on the offside are at risk, unless a large HGV wipes out the lot of them. However I can't see that say 30 individual cyclists an hour riding along a particular stretch of road are any safer than 60 individual cyclists per hour. If there are a lot of cyclists they will start riding two or more abreast, which is even more dangerous. Motorists see plenty of cyclists (assuming they carry lights and wear high viz bibs at night), so they know what to expect. Derek C |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
"delboy" wrote in message
... If there are a lot of cyclists they will start riding two or more abreast, which is even more dangerous. Surely riding two abreat is safer than riding alone? Other road users then are forced to obey the highway code and overtake when it is safe to do so. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
delboy wrote:
Hi, Can anyone please explain how the 'safety in numbers effect' is supposed to enhance cycling safety? Derek C More cyclists on the road overall means that drivers are more used to seeing cyclists and accepting them as a normal part of traffic. Also, the more people that cycle, the better chance that any one particular motorist is also a cyclist and will drive with more respect for other cyclists. That's the idea that appears to work in countries with a greater number of cyclists. Colin -- Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will. Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
On 15 Mar, 16:55, "David" wrote:
"delboy" wrote in message ... *If there are a lot of cyclists they will start riding two or more abreast, which is even more dangerous. Surely riding two abreat is safer than riding alone? Other road users then are forced to obey the highway code and overtake when it is safe to do so. On the other hand, they may develop road range! Derek C |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
On 15 Mar, 16:55, "David" wrote:
"delboy" wrote in message ... *If there are a lot of cyclists they will start riding two or more abreast, which is even more dangerous. Surely riding two abreat is safer than riding alone? Other road users then are forced to obey the highway code and overtake when it is safe to do so. Only if they don't develop road rage as a result of being held up! Derek C |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
"delboy" wrote in message ... On 15 Mar, 16:55, "David" wrote: "delboy" wrote in message ... If there are a lot of cyclists they will start riding two or more abreast, which is even more dangerous. Surely riding two abreat is safer than riding alone? Other road users then are forced to obey the highway code and overtake when it is safe to do so. On the other hand, they may develop road range! Derek C ================== If they're going to develop road rage I'm not sure if abreast or one behind the other is more likely to create a problem. With just 2 cyclists I doubt if it makes much difference but more that 4 I can't help thinking that 2 by 2 is actually better. A 2 abreast group takes up less road space in total. When I see what I'll call "leisure cyclists" (often one or more families by the look of it) they quite often seem to ride single file and on country roads they become very difficult to pass safely in a car. Furthermore, in 2 x 2 the adults can provide some protection to the children by riding outside them. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
"delboy" wrote in message ... Hi, Can anyone please explain how the 'safety in numbers effect' is supposed to enhance cycling safety? Not really, any more than people can explain Smeed's Law, the analagous law for cars [Smeed, RJ, 1968 "Variations in the pattern of accident rates in different countries and their causes" Traffic Engineering and Control 10(7) pp 364-71, or see the discussion in "Risk", by John Adams, UCL Press, 1995] All explanations are just guesses. No one has tried to see whether any of the guesses are true. The famous cycling author, John Forester. claims it's just a statistical artifact. If so, this presumably would hold for Smeed's law, too, although Forester hasn't discussed that. [snip] However I can't see that say 30 individual cyclists an hour riding along a particular stretch of road are any safer than 60 individual cyclists per hour. If there are a lot of cyclists they will start riding two or more abreast, which is even more dangerous. Motorists see plenty of cyclists (assuming they carry lights and wear high viz bibs at night), so they know what to expect. Well, your argument isn't that applicable in detail, because, like most non cyclists today, and a good many cyclists too, you are both too frightened about cycling, and not frightened enough. You are considering only the more unlikely kinds of accidents, and failing to consider the kinds of accidents that are most likely to get you , if you ride a bike. And if you fail to consider them, how will you avoid them? Come to that, how will you avoid them if you are the car driver? Jeremy Parker |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
On 15 Mar, 16:49, delboy wrote:
Hi, Can anyone please explain how the 'safety in numbers effect' is supposed to enhance cycling *safety? I can understand how it works for shoals of fish or herds of wilderbeest, where an individual can hide himself in a pack, and where it confuses predators. It might even work in a large peloton of cyclists where only the guys at the front and the back, and on the offside are at risk, unless a large HGV wipes out the lot of them. However I can't see that say 30 individual cyclists an hour riding along a particular stretch of road are any safer than 60 individual cyclists per hour. If there are a lot of cyclists they will start riding two or more abreast, which is even more dangerous. Motorists see plenty of cyclists (assuming they carry lights and wear high viz bibs at night), so they know what to expect. It can be achieved by a critical mass of cyclists riding together all at once and occupying one or more lanes while facilitated by corking. Apart from anything else they provide plenty of witnesses and mutual support in the event of a collision. -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "More bikes, fewer cars!". |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
"delboy" wrote in [snip] Surely riding two abreat is safer than riding alone? Other road users then are forced to obey the highway code and overtake when it is safe to do so. On the other hand, they may develop road range! -------------- Moral: it is better to ride a bike in rush hour traffic, where there will be enough witnesses to prevent any silly behaviour Jeremy Parker |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Safety in numbers effect?
On Mar 15, 6:43*pm, Doug wrote:
On 15 Mar, 16:49, delboy wrote: Hi, Can anyone please explain how the 'safety in numbers effect' is supposed to enhance cycling *safety? I can understand how it works for shoals of fish or herds of wilderbeest, where an individual can hide himself in a pack, and where it confuses predators. It might even work in a large peloton of cyclists where only the guys at the front and the back, and on the offside are at risk, unless a large HGV wipes out the lot of them. However I can't see that say 30 individual cyclists an hour riding along a particular stretch of road are any safer than 60 individual cyclists per hour. If there are a lot of cyclists they will start riding two or more abreast, which is even more dangerous. Motorists see plenty of cyclists (assuming they carry lights and wear high viz bibs at night), so they know what to expect. It can be achieved by a critical mass of cyclists riding together all at once and occupying one or more lanes while facilitated by corking. Apart from anything else they provide plenty of witnesses and mutual support in the event of a collision. -- Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "More bikes, fewer cars!". Once again, Doug advocates illegal & inconsiderate act to further his hatred in the hope that somebody will listen to he lies. Francis |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
safety in numbers | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 1 | June 25th 09 05:32 AM |
Safety in numbers? | Clive George | UK | 13 | March 31st 09 10:05 PM |
Safety in Numbers | Roos Eisma | UK | 249 | September 17th 08 09:20 AM |
Safety in Numbers. | Simon Mason | UK | 11 | April 23rd 05 09:34 PM |
bicycling - safety in numbers | Paul R | Social Issues | 7 | April 20th 05 03:51 PM |