A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What do you do?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 3rd 07, 10:31 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,692
Default What do you do?

I am in a discussion on a Cycling Campaign list at the moment and when I
said that cycling was not dangerous one of the members responded:

"This is the mistake of taking casualty figures as a measure of danger
(that Mayer Hillman is always criticising).

It's like the situation of the road crossing for pedestrians that is so
dangerous, no-one ever goes there, so there are no casualties. It is
apparently safe, because it is so dangerous. This is exactly the
situation with cycling for the social groups who are almost
unrepresented amongst cyclists. They make a correct judgement of the
high level of danger that cycling on the roads presents to them,
therefore they don't do it, therefore they don't add to the casualty
figures.

It's fairly safe for most of the people who do it, because people can
judge their own capabilities. But this situation limits cycling, like
skydiving or mountaineering, to a small subset of the population. This
is serious because cycling is so socially and economically useful,
unlike those other activities."

What do you do when shroud wavers like this are campaigning for cycling?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Ads
  #3  
Old February 3rd 07, 11:48 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Ewan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default What do you do?

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 09:31:12 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

I am in a discussion on a Cycling Campaign list at the moment and when I
said that cycling was not dangerous one of the members responded:

"This is the mistake of taking casualty figures as a measure of danger
(that Mayer Hillman is always criticising).

It's like the situation of the road crossing for pedestrians that is so
dangerous, no-one ever goes there, so there are no casualties. It is
apparently safe, because it is so dangerous. This is exactly the
situation with cycling for the social groups who are almost
unrepresented amongst cyclists. They make a correct judgement of the
high level of danger that cycling on the roads presents to them,
therefore they don't do it, therefore they don't add to the casualty
figures.

It's fairly safe for most of the people who do it, because people can
judge their own capabilities. But this situation limits cycling, like
skydiving or mountaineering, to a small subset of the population. This
is serious because cycling is so socially and economically useful,
unlike those other activities."

What do you do when shroud wavers like this are campaigning for cycling?


Well, you'd need to come up with a convincing counter-hypothesis.

To some degree he must be correct. There are some people who are so
unobservant/distracted/uncoordinated that they are not safe to cycle and realise
that (probably at some subconscious level)*. Thus they don't cycle and thus they
don't add to cycling casualties.

The important question is: Is the size of that group statistically significant?

I suspect not, but you can't just point to what he says and deny it without some
evidence.


*Just as there are a lot of car drivers similarly challenged that don't realise
it
  #4  
Old February 3rd 07, 03:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Helen Deborah Vecht
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 596
Default What do you do?

Tony Raven typed


What do you do when shroud wavers like this are campaigning for cycling?


Don't worry; I live with the bloke!

He doesn't go to cycle campaign meetings as they clash with something else!

My views are different...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.
  #5  
Old February 3rd 07, 03:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Helen Deborah Vecht
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 596
Default What do you do?

Rob Morley typed


Smother them in their sleep?


That would be my job...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.
  #7  
Old February 3rd 07, 04:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,692
Default What do you do?

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote on 03/02/2007 14:31 +0100:
Tony Raven typed


What do you do when shroud wavers like this are campaigning for cycling?


Don't worry; I live with the bloke!

He doesn't go to cycle campaign meetings as they clash with something else!

My views are different...


I'd better be careful not to interfere in domestic harmony by enquiring
further.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
  #8  
Old February 3rd 07, 04:09 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Jeremy Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default What do you do?


"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
I am in a discussion on a Cycling Campaign list at the moment and
when I said that cycling was not dangerous one of the members
responded:


[snip]

It's fairly safe for most of the people who do it, because people
can judge their own capabilities. But this situation limits
cycling, like skydiving or mountaineering, to a small subset of the
population. This is serious because cycling is so socially and
economically useful, unlike those other activities."

What do you do when shroud wavers like this are campaigning for
cycling?


Well Yiddish has a word for someone who is generically accident
prone - a klutz. Klutzes are probably at risk riding a bike, but
then, they leave a trail of accidents whatever they are doing

I don't think your dangerizers are thinking about the generic
klutzes, though. Let's invent a new acronym, SAK -specific activity
klutzes - which in this case means people who only become klutzes
when they get on a bike. It's the hypothesis of the dangerizers that
eh SAKs can recognize their SAKhood before they ever got on a bike.

I think the SAK hypothesis goes with believing that there is nothing
that can, or perhaps even should, be taught or learned about riding a
bike. If you don't actually fall off your bike too often, you "know
how to ride a bike". Demanding more knowledge, or more skill, is
"elitist" and therefore evil. We obviously need a word that's the
opposite of elitist here. I will use "stupidist", until somebody
coins a better word (There surely must be a better word)

People who teach bike courses think that makes their graduates safer.
I think that almost every eight year old should and could learn up to
level 2 of the new British standards, and every eleven year old could
and should learn up to level three. I think that would increase the
amount of cycling course graduates do, would greatly reduce the
likelihood of course graduates having accidents, and that this would
show up in accident rate statistics.

I think that those who disagree with me should be prepared to say
what proportion of the population can or can't learn the skills on
the list for each cycling standard, what effect on safety the
knowledge of each of the skills has, and whether other skills should
also be on the least, teachable or unreachable

John Forester thinks experience and training teach cyclists to avoid
accidents - at least four out of five accidents are avoidable, he
thinks. He discusses this in Effective Cycling (6th ed, p 271) and
Bicycle Transportation (1977 ed, p60)

Somewhere I've seen the statistic that for cyclists who ride over
1000 miles per year the annual risk of accidents is a bout the same,
no matter what their mileage. In other words, after the thousandth
mile, each extra mile carries no extra risk whatsoever. If anyone
can give me a reference for this I would appreciate it.

Jeremy parker


  #9  
Old February 3rd 07, 04:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Helen Deborah Vecht
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 596
Default What do you do?

Tony Raven typed

My views are different...


I'd better be careful not to interfere in domestic harmony by enquiring
further.


I am the one who edits the Camden Cyclist...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.
  #10  
Old February 3rd 07, 05:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,692
Default What do you do?

Jeremy Parker wrote on 03/02/2007 15:09 +0100:

John Forester thinks experience and training teach cyclists to avoid
accidents - at least four out of five accidents are avoidable, he
thinks. He discusses this in Effective Cycling (6th ed, p 271) and
Bicycle Transportation (1977 ed, p60)

Somewhere I've seen the statistic that for cyclists who ride over
1000 miles per year the annual risk of accidents is a bout the same,
no matter what their mileage. In other words, after the thousandth
mile, each extra mile carries no extra risk whatsoever. If anyone
can give me a reference for this I would appreciate it.


To support that Kaplan (and Moritz) found that CTC members had one
eighth the accident rate of the general college level adult population.

So perhaps the best thing the Government could do to cut cyclist
accidents is to give everyone CTC membership ;-^)


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.