Is black clothing compulsory?

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 8:19:21 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000
GB wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016 3500 **
cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle occasionally, and
I take all possible precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply
common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very common, and
sometimes not as sensible as it seems. Did you know, for example, that
cyclists who wear helmets can be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather than the bypass.
This is because most people think the biggest danger to cyclists is being hit from behind by a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict points' that kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise when
the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The danger then
disappears.

It works, and not just for cyclists.

There are only 3 sets of lights on the road I am thinking of but numerous side roads, private driveways, business entrances, bus stops, parking laybys, pedestrian refuges, all of which cause conflicts between traffic.

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 10:34:04 PM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 9:38:42 PM UTC, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:20:43 +0000, Rob Morley wrote:

ISTR someone (I think as part of one of the studies but I forget) tried
wearing a long blonde wig and found he was given more room.

It wasn't blonde (though the accounts normally report it as so).

It wasn't a rigorous study, so it has various flaws, but yes it did
show that in this particulr set of cases having long hair flying in
the wind resulted in drivers passing slightly wider on average.


Similar to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABRlWybBqM

White kid stealing a bike, do nothing.
Black kid stealing a bike, call the cops.
Pretty girl stealing a bike, help her.

Something else occurred to me.

A light controlled T junction I frequently use has a right turn filter arrow lit for a few seconds before oncoming traffic gets the green light. About 1 in 3 times an oncoming motorist will jump the red light as I start to turn into the side turning but only when I am on me bicycle, never when I am in my car.

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 9:10:46 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000
GB wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016 3500 **
cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle occasionally, and
I take all possible precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply
common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very common, and
sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did you know, for example, that
cyclists who wear helmets can be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather than the
bypass.
This is because most people think the biggest danger to cyclists is
being hit from behind by a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict
points' that kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise when
the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The danger then
disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the 10%.

This means Nugent was wrong.
Will Nugent admit to this or will we have to beware of low flying goalposts..

On 30/01/2019 21:51, GB wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:05, TMS320 wrote:

Perhaps there is some similarity to DRLs on cars. These are claimed by
some to reduce road casualties by 3%. But there is also evidence to
suggest that they increase casualties - across the board, not just to
pedestrians and cyclists.

Given that businesses gain out of it and most car buyers readily
accept them - others see me more easily, innit? - heretics clearly
have an impossible task.

Out of interest, what do businesses gain from DRLs? All new cars have
them, and there's no discernible cost.

Of course the supplier gets something out of it. Car manufacturers don't
care about rules that apply to all because they pass the cost the
customer with no competetive disadvantage. If told to they would fit a
large pink fluffy bunny on the bonnet.

On 30/01/2019 22:39, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 8:19:21 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000 GB
wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016
3500 ** cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle
occasionally, and I take all possible precautions. Is that
victim blaming or simply common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very
common, and sometimes not as sensible as it seems. Did you
know, for example, that cyclists who wear helmets can be at
greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather
than the bypass. This is because most people think the biggest
danger to cyclists is being hit from behind by a large vehicle.
In reality it is 'conflict points' that kill cyclists where motor
vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise
when the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The
danger then disappears.

It works, and not just for cyclists.

There are only 3 sets of lights on the road I am thinking of but
numerous side roads, private driveways, business entrances, bus
stops, parking laybys, pedestrian refuges, all of which cause
conflicts between traffic.
Don't forget that on planet Nugent, cyclists must give way at a give way
line even when they are travelling parallel to the line.

On 31/01/2019 00:00, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 9:10:46 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000
GB wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016 3500 **
cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle occasionally, and
I take all possible precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply
common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very common, and
sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did you know, for example, that
cyclists who wear helmets can be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather than the
bypass.
This is because most people think the biggest danger to cyclists is
being hit from behind by a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict
points' that kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise when
the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The danger then
disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the 10%.

This means Nugent was wrong.
Will Nugent admit to this or will we have to beware of low flying goalposts.

Nugent is from Liverpool. They've been brought up to never admit to
anything.

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 12:18:41 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 00:00, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 9:10:46 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000
GB wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016 3500 **
cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle occasionally, and
I take all possible precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply
common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very common, and
sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did you know, for example, that
cyclists who wear helmets can be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather than the
bypass.
This is because most people think the biggest danger to cyclists is
being hit from behind by a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict
points' that kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise when
the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The danger then
disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the 10%.

This means Nugent was wrong.
Will Nugent admit to this or will we have to beware of low flying goalposts.

Nugent is from Liverpool. They've been brought up to never admit to
anything.

Not fair. Nugent admits he was raised to believe stealing was right.

On 30/01/2019 21:42, GB wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:21, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 15:37, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:31:10 +0000, GB
wrote:

Seriously, I thought that helmets reduce risk by 70%?

Even the authors of that study don't make the claim any more (they
admitted they cocked up the maths), though they still think helmets
make a significant benefit.

However, if helmets reduced risk by some high proportion, why hasn't
cycling become much safer now so many cyclists wear them?

If helmets reduced risk by some clear high proportion there would be
no need to argue about it.

Perhaps there is some similarity to DRLs on cars. These are claimed
by some to reduce road casualties by 3%. But there is also evidence
to suggest that they increase casualties - across the board, not just
to pedestrians and cyclists.

Given that businesses gain out of it and most car buyers readily
accept them - others see me more easily, innit? - heretics clearly
have an impossible task.

DRLs?

I'm *guessing* it's something like daytime running lights.

OK, thanks.

My car has those. I do have the facility for switching it off, but why
bother?

On 30/01/2019 21:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000
GB wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016 3500 **
cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle occasionally, and
I take all possible precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply
common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very common, and
sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did you know, for example, that
cyclists who wear helmets can be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather than
the bypass.
This is because most people think the biggest danger to cyclists is
being hit from behind by a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict
points' that kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross
paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise
when the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The danger
then disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

Now come on... which bit of "...and otherwise when the signage says or
*means* either "Stop" or "Give Way"..." was at all unclear? [ my
emphasis this time]

Junctions not controlled by traffic lights are still provided with
markings which make it clear which traffic on which part of the road,
travelling in which direction(s), has priority.

Obey traffic lights and thpse signs and the "danger" of collision due to
traffic conflict all but disappears.

It works for me and has done so for nearly fifty years (and even before
tht when I was cycling regularly, including journeys to work).
It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the 10%.

I assume you are trying to say that it isn't necessary for cyclists to
stop at red lights.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously, especially not when you have
just whinged about all the danger arising at "conflict points".

On 30/01/2019 22:39, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 8:19:21 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000
GB wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016 3500 **
cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle occasionally, and
I take all possible precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply
common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very common, and
sometimes not as sensible as it seems. Did you know, for example, that
cyclists who wear helmets can be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather than the bypass.
This is because most people think the biggest danger to cyclists is being hit from behind by a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict points' that kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise when
the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The danger then
disappears.

It works, and not just for cyclists.

There are only 3 sets of lights on the road I am thinking of but numerous side roads, private driveways, business entrances, bus stops, parking laybys, pedestrian refuges, all of which cause conflicts between traffic.

Follow the rules.

Then there will be no conflicts which you cause.