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

"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.

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.

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

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

"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.

"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

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!".

"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

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