LADbible readers talk cycling...but only to moan about Highway Code changes; "The strongest message is a good bike trip!": Your thoughts on cycling advocacy; Desert Island Disc wheel; Wout van Aert potatogate; Zwift with Chris Hoy + more on the live blog

yup second that, restarted cycling after becoming pre-diabetic plus stage 1 kidney disease - WAKE UP CALL.

Newcastle diet, not as fun as it sounds, plus dropping salt in diet and a shedful of cycling sorted out the medical issues. 

'close to flying' when cycing feels transcendental, and something I would very much like to achieve - without a tailwind. 

Road.cc.  I find about 1 in 20 of my posts I can delete. WHy not permanent?

Edit - sorry Steve, replied to you in error

Yes - it's effective argument that's needed. Difficult to avoid the usual chicken-and-egg of "but I don't feel it's safe (or convenient) *now* because of all the other drivers so I'm not going to start" - from everyone.

Being able to actually show it ain't so via *decent* infrastructure can stop that one, but a) a network of good quality infra is not considered an option in most parts of UK and b) you can fall into another "but there are no cyclists so why should we build it?" circle.

Strangely when you actually engage with individuals, listen to their concerns and show them some small changes (walk with their child to school, do an occasional shopping trip on the bike) and the benefits they can get they're often very positive. But it's not simple to scale that up. This is doing culture change and that's hard (quoted this one before)!

SimoninSpalding wrote:

we are more vulnerable than motor vehicles but less vulnerable than pedestrians

I don't think so. When hit we have no more a crumple zone than pedestrians and fall from higher up. And we can't instantly change direction and jump back like a pedestrian.

marmotte27 wrote:

SimoninSpalding wrote:

we are more vulnerable than motor vehicles but less vulnerable than pedestrians

I don't think so. When hit we have no more a crumple zone than pedestrians and fall from higher up. And we can't instantly change direction and jump back like a pedestrian.

Depends on whether or not you wear a helmet I suppose. I have missed the campaigns for pedestrians to use helmets when crossing the road, obviously so have the pedestrians as they are steadfastly refusing to adopt this safety measure that can do no harm, and will be worth it if it saves one life....

"that can do no harm"

be very careful with that phrase

will be worth it if it saves one life...

and that one, the government will find a way to use them against you!

Backladder wrote:

"that can do no harm"

be very careful with that phrase

will be worth it if it saves one life...

and that one, the government will find a way to use them against you!

clearly missed the whole point, which was to show how ridiculous these phrases are (which are routinely used in the pro cycling helmet arguments), by applying them to pedestrians.

But we do have 10kg of metal and carbon that typically impacts a pedestrian first and at greater speeds than a pedestrian can achieve.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

But we do have 10kg of metal and carbon that typically impacts a pedestrian first and at greater speeds than a pedestrian can achieve.

This and (mainly) the speed at which we move our slightly larger weight is why we have greater responsibility. But the bike doesn't protect us from anything, rather the reverse. So we're not less vulnerable, but rather more.

marmotte27 wrote:

SimoninSpalding wrote:

we are more vulnerable than motor vehicles but less vulnerable than pedestrians

I don't think so. When hit we have no more a crumple zone than pedestrians and fall from higher up. And we can't instantly change direction and jump back like a pedestrian.

Depends how you define vunerability.  A good stab is on here by looking at Deaths: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-...

TL:DR. - Car occupants then Motor cyclists most likely to die followed Pedestrians then Cyclists in terms of absolute deaths.

Per mile travelled its Motorcyclists with a tie next for Peds vs Cyclista's.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

To avoid the possibility of this being divisive I would amend the message to "NOBODY deserves to die on the road through the actions of another." I am sure I am not the only one that has been told to my face by a motorist that I deserve to die, and there have been the rare but high profile incidents where pedestrians have died as a result of the actions of a cyclist.

I think the trick that was missed with the latest Highway Code proposals is the heirarchy has been couched in terms of responsibility, when actually it should be a vulnerability heirarchy (which should be self-evident anyway), then you could avoid representative groups such as RHA and AA campaigning against.

Most cyclists I know instinctively get this, we are more vulnerable than motor vehicles but less vulnerable than pedestrians and horse riders and behave accordingly. Most motorists get it when it comes to horses, they just need reminding (repeatedly) where cyclists sit in terms of vulnerability.

Did the AA actually campaign against? - I've slagged them off myself on this estimable organ many times, but I think their main gripe here was the (lack of) publicity campaign.

Cyclists are in an odd place in the vulnerability / responsibility map.  If they hit pedestrians that can certainly cause serious injury or even death, but as mentioned the cyclist may be falling from a greater height (especially on a more upright "transportation" bike). Also cyclists move at higher speeds and in many collisions (whether with pedestrian or other) this means they end up absorbing more energy than e.g. a pedestrian falling. In collision with a pedestrian the cyclist may come off the bike and keep moving until they hit something else.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Cyclists are in an odd place in the vulnerability / responsibility map.  If they hit pedestrians that can certainly cause serious injury or even death, but as mentioned the cyclist may be falling from a greater height (especially on a more upright "transportation" bike). Also cyclists move at higher speeds and in many collisions (whether with pedestrian or other) this means they end up absorbing more energy than e.g. a pedestrian falling. In collision with a pedestrian the cyclist may come off the bike and keep moving until they hit something else.

Did I read some where that annually whereas typically 1-2 peds are killed in collisions with cyclists, 6 cyclists closed their lives in this way?

Captain Badger wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

[bloody pedestrians]

Did I read some where that annually whereas typically 1-2 peds are killed in collisions with cyclists, 6 cyclists closed their lives in this way?

I'm not aware of that one but it could be true. Gotta be careful on these though because you pick a set of figures then have to unpick where the data was from, how that data was "coded" etc.

But it's true in my experience - pedestrians have killed me at least as many times as I've killed them. Bloody pedestrians. And their dogs / goats / pigs.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

"NOBODY deserves to die on the road through the actions of another."

The issue I have with this is that it becomes a little like the "All lives matter" response to Black Lives Matter, while not meaning in any way to diminish the BLM movement.

Cyclists are the ones mainly in danger so need highlighting as more vulnerable to those likely to cause more harm. i.e. drivers of motor vehicles 

I was thinking about this comparison when I posted. I am very definitely not someone who argues against BLM, but as cyclists are seen in some quarters as arrogant selfish entitled lycra louts I wanted to bring other vulnerable road users along with us.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

I wanted to bring other vulnerable road users along with us.

I hate it when that happens - slows you right down until you've unhooked them from your rack / fished them out of your wheel...

SimoninSpalding wrote:

I was thinking about this comparison when I posted. I am very definitely not someone who argues against BLM, but as cyclists are seen in some quarters as arrogant selfish entitled lycra louts I wanted to bring other vulnerable road users along with us.

Vicar of Dibley:

Quote:

of course all lives matter, but until all lives matter the same, black lives matter

therefore:

Quote:

"NOBODY deserves to die on the road through the actions of another."

But, until road users stop treating cyclists as though they were less entitled to be there or to live, 

Quote:

"cyclists don’t deserve to die riding their bikes".