|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 3:27:00 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
GB wrote: On 28/01/2019 22:05, Rob Morley wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:34:01 +0000 GB wrote: The car lights were dipped - it's urban driving round here - and my eyesight is not defective. The road has street lights but they are not that great. Even under the street lights, the cyclist was effectively invisible. Just the tail light showed up. He should have had a red rear reflector too, and amber reflectors on his pedals (or yellow reflective ankle bands - the law hasn't kept up with pedal technology). The "should wear light clothes" bit in the HC is just a bit too much like victim blaming for some people. 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? ** https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/...-factsheet.pdf "Around 80% of cycling accidents occur in daylight - which is when most cycling takes place. .... However, cycling accidents in the dark are more likely to be fatal." Cyclists and common sense does not compute. I am impressed you are able to access the internet using a ZX80. Maybe if you got a job you could afford a decent computer. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
On 29/01/2019 10:03, 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? https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/...-factsheet.pdf "Around 80% of cycling accidents occur in daylight - which is when most cycling takes place. .... However, cycling accidents in the dark are more likely to be fatal." I don't have a source for it but apparently the majority involve cyclists that take "all possible precautions". Which means one or a combination of two things:- those taking all possible precautions massively outnumber those that don't (which is impossible under whinger religion); or that the conventional ideas of visibility don't happen to be the best ways to get noticed. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
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? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
On 29/01/2019 22:37, 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? This? https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ppetite-danger |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 03:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Simon Jester wrote: '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. Indeed "common sense" says you're safer on a pavement cycle path, ignoring the higher risk at every road junction or crossing. But while that's often or perhaps mostly risk occurring at recognised conflict points, there is still a danger that a driver approaching from behind just doesn't "see" a cyclist (i.e. brain doesn't register presence of another road user, or perhaps "low sun") and they try to occupy the same space at the same time. It happened to a lad from a local club - he was riding along a dual carriageway on a sunny afternoon in "secondary" and moderate traffic when a car drove right over him. Luckily he survived but it made a right mess of his leg. That was back in the early nineties, before every tenth driver was looking at his phone. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:18:34 +0000
GB wrote: On 29/01/2019 22:37, Rob Morley wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000 GB wrote: [...] 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? This? https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ppetite-danger That's just one half of risk-compensation behaviour, being willing to take greater personal risk. There's similar evidence that drivers will put helmet wearers at greater risk by overtaking them closer and faster than non-helmet wearers. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
On 30/01/2019 14:24, Rob Morley wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:18:34 +0000 GB wrote: On 29/01/2019 22:37, Rob Morley wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000 GB wrote: [...] 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? This? https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ppetite-danger That's just one half of risk-compensation behaviour, being willing to take greater personal risk. There's similar evidence that drivers will put helmet wearers at greater risk by overtaking them closer and faster than non-helmet wearers. Glue a wig to the back of your helmet? Seriously, I thought that helmets reduce risk by 70%? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
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? It is safer to be a cyclist now than it was (say) 30 years ago, but only in the same ratio compared to pedestrians as it was 30 years ago. Basically, cars are safer now - brakes are better, they do less damage when they hit you at 30mph, fewer of the drivers are intoxicated, and congestion and enforcement have reduced built-up-area average traffic speeds. All these things benefit both pedestrians and cyclists, and both modes are safer now. But the pedestrians are not wearing helmets and the cyclists routinely are, so if helmets made a measurable difference, the improvement over the last 30 years for cyclists should be much greater than it is for pedestrians, and it simply isn't. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Is black clothing compulsory?
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:31:10 +0000
GB wrote: On 30/01/2019 14:24, Rob Morley wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:18:34 +0000 GB wrote: [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] That's just one half of risk-compensation behaviour, being willing to take greater personal risk. There's similar evidence that drivers will put helmet wearers at greater risk by overtaking them closer and faster than non-helmet wearers. Glue a wig to the back of your helmet? 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. Seriously, I thought that helmets reduce risk by 70%? According to one deeply flawed study, I think. I might wear a helmet if I was riding in extra hazardous conditions, like a stormy night down a dark country road (but that's mainly because a helmet provides a handy platform for additional lighting, and stops your cap blowing off) or on ice (because a helmet will probably provide protection in a low speed fall) but honestly in many years cycling I've never hit my head hard - I've broken various other bits, so I have hit the ground hard on more than one occasion. I recall a young lad in my club was riding head-down up a steep hill and rode straight into the back of a parked car - that's the only occasion I've thought that a helmet might have been incontrovertibly beneficial in providing a degree of impact protection without any negative implications. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Compulsory Hi-Vis | Terry Duckmanton[_2_] | UK | 23 | August 5th 08 10:48 AM |
follow up: black decal over black paint | tonyfranciozi | Techniques | 1 | May 14th 07 09:08 PM |
WTB: Cannondale Black Lightning Clothing | LR | Marketplace | 0 | September 16th 05 12:05 AM |
WTB: Black 105 Brakeset and Black 105 Front Der 31.8 for a double | Wasatch5k | Marketplace | 0 | November 23rd 04 09:38 AM |
FS: New Dura Ace, Black Mavic CXP33, Black DT Competiton wheels | David Ornee | Marketplace | 0 | August 5th 03 02:09 AM |