The campaign group The Cycling Embassy Of Great Britain has launched a new website aiming to be a ‘one stop shop’ to support campaigners for active travel and better towns and cities across the country.
Cycling Fallacies lists many of the arguments commonly given for not providing high quality, safe space for cycling, and debunks each one in plain and simple language – with links for further reading, and supporting images.
Chair of the Cycling Embassy Mark Treasure said: “We get regular enquiries about all sorts of well-known myths, misinterpretations and misunderstandings – not paying road tax, not being Dutch, and so on. We looked at the ‘Your Logical Fallacy Is’ site and really liked it, so thought a cycling equivalent would be a great idea.
“We hope the clear explanations of why such claims are mistaken will make this new website a great resource for people who come up against the same arguments time after time. We also hope it will enable people to engage in positive debates about cycling as a mode of transport for the future.”
New Cycling Chair Katja Leyendecker said “This tool will really free up our time for the important stuff! It’s so vital for campaigners to keep a good focus, be able to deal with distractions quickly and accurately, and debunk time-wasting spurious claims effectively. The Cycling Fallacies website will enable us to spend more of our volunteering time on positively campaigning for change.”
Common cycling fallacies include the complaint: “Our roads are too narrow to build cycle lanes on.”
The site answers:
It is true that some roads may be too narrow to accommodate cycling infrastructure, alongside other uses like parking and multiple lanes for motor traffic.
However, it may well be the case that cycling infrastructure is a more beneficial and productive use of road space than parking bays on both sides of the road, or multiple lanes of motor traffic. A road can be made one-way for motor traffic, for instance, or one of two rows of parking on both sides of a road could be changed.
Alternatively, the amount of motor traffic using these roads can be reduced (and their speed lowered) so it is safe and attractive to cycle on them. Or these roads could exclude motor traffic altogether.
In short, in practical terms, there isn’t any road – narrow or wide – that can’t be made safe and attractive for cycling.
Another is that: “Cycling facilities cost a lot of money and are a poor return on investment”.
The site says however:
Good cycling infrastructure does cost money, but it is incorrect to say it is a large amount in the scope of overall transport spending, or that it is a poor return on investment. Cycling infrastructure has been shown to pay back to society more than it costs – a 2014 Department for Transport report cited returns of between 2:1 and 35:1.
Other countries demonstrate returns of 10 times or higher, and Transport for London reports ratios of 20:1 for cycling investment. Whilst many of the UK figures are for ‘general’ investment in cycling (i.e. training, etc.) the higher cost of cycling infrastructure is still justified because of the additional numbers drawn to cycling by the provision of safe places to cycle. The Netherlands spends €500m per year on cycling infrastructure, which generates €31bn in health benefits alone – a 60:1 return on investment.
The site is also calling for suggestions for additional fallacies, links to add to existing fallacies, or corrections. Click here to get in touch.
102 thoughts on “‘Cycling Fallacies’ website launches”
Cyling isnt Safe
Cyling isnt Safe
I would agree with that one…on balance it isnt safe at all
Clearly biased towards a
Clearly biased towards a seperate infrastructure agenda.
APF
alexpalacefan wrote:
There is a growing case for separate infrastructure: less chance of being rear-ended by a bus, for a start.
(That said, I use the roads that I pay for when they’re more convenient, or the cycle paths when *they’re* more convenient).
alexpalacefan wrote:
It’s saddening that some people would rather cycling remained an exclusive minority activity for the fit and brave rather than face any compromise to their own speed for the wider benefit. It seems like the same impatience and ‘me-first’ attitude that manifests itself in driver aggression towards cyclists ‘slowing them down’.
I don’t think there’s a debate that most of the cycle infra in the UK is pretty shoddy but if it’s actually OK or even good then its worth using but there a definitely some riders who are always too pro for the bike lane. Case in point, there’s a 2Km stretch of dual carriageway near my home. It has kerb separated lanes on both sides of the rtoad, about 3m wide and well surfaced but there are plenty of riders who will still ride on the road, presumably just because they are Serious Cyclists.
joemmo wrote:
I don’t think there’s a debate that most of the cycle infra in the UK is pretty shoddy but if it’s actually OK or even good then its worth using but there a definitely some riders who are always too pro for the bike lane. Case in point, there’s a 2Km stretch of dual carriageway near my home. It has kerb separated lanes on both sides of the rtoad, about 3m wide and well surfaced but there are plenty of riders who will still ride on the road, presumably just because they are Serious Cyclists.— joemmo
OMG. The infrastructure debate is turning into the h****t debate before our very eyes…!
It would be saddening if there really were any people who would “rather cycling remained an exclusive minority activity for the fit and brave rather than face any compromise to their own speed for the wider benefit”, but I have seen literally no evidence of that on this thread, nor among *any* of the many cyclists I know. Could that, perhaps, be a total strawman argument, do you think?
Maybe, just maybe, there are some cyclists who refuse to use kerb-spearated lanes because they are “Serious Cyclists” – or maybe they don’t use them because they’re, you know, human beings who tend to choose to ride where it suits them most? Maybe they feel like they’re cycling fast enough that they would be a danger to children or inexperienced cyclists that are using the facility? Maybe the road goes where they want to go? What happens to the cycle path at either end of the 2km stretch (that’s not very long, really, is it)? Does it flow smootly into the next stretch or does it end at a lowest-priority-give-way-to-absolutely-everything junction? If the latter, perhaps that is why some folk choose not to use it – I wouldn’t, even though I’m pretty sure I’m not a Serious Cyclist.
This website is partisan and
This website is partisan and absolutely does not speak for me.
I’m concerned by the shift in culture in cycling advocacy towards separate infrastructure. I do not want to be expected to “get off the road” and onto a cycle path. I want my right to the road to be enforced.
PennineRider wrote:
Agreed.
PennineRider wrote:
Then you are the enemy of mass cycling
i want my young daughters to grow up in a nation where anyone can cycle safely away from fast cars
A ‘right’ to cycle in unsafe conditions no right at all
fluffy_mike wrote:
“There is no evedence that seperate facilities are safer that I’ve ever seen, on the other hand loads of studies showing they are more dangerous. Seperate facilities aren’t about safety, they are about the perception of safety.
Here is an extract from one:
A very common perception about cycling on off-road facilities is the relative safety of these routes compared with their on-road counterparts. New cyclists in particular have a strong fear of collisions with motor traffic, so the prospect of an off-road cycleway can be very attractive. However, the first thing to note is that by far most cycle crashes do NOT involve motor vehicles on the road. People fall off or hit objects for various reasons, and they also have many crashes on paths with pedestrians, dogs, and even other cyclists. In a recent New Zealand study (Munster et al 2001), it was estimated from hospital data that four times as many cyclists are injured from cycle-only crashes on the road or footpath than those involved in a motor vehicle collision (note that this doesn’t include off-road mountain-biking track accidents either). When looking specifically at children, Safekids (2003) concurred, with 90% of NZ hospitalisations for bicycle-related injuries to children during 1997-2001 not involving a motor vehicle. Similar findings have been found overseas (Moritz 1998, Carlin et al 1995). It is also worth observing that many crashes with motor vehicles will not be reduced by pathway riding. Cyclists will typically still have to cross side roads and driveways, where most conflicts occur. As Forester (2001) points out, a key assumption for advocating off-road paths is that same-direction motor traffic is the greatest danger to cyclists (e.g. being hit from behind). For American data, he showed that these types of crashes made up only 1% of all cycle crashes (on & off-road) – hardly a panacea for cycle safety. “
imaca wrote:
is all I have to say. I’m not concerned about falling over. I don’t believe you honestly thought anyone was. I and others are concerned about 2 tonnes of metal hitting me, something that common sense rightly tells me won’t be helped much by helmets, hi-vis or an honour pledge to give 3 feet.
Note: I am the more representative person in the UK.
Good news: so long as your hobby is the exclusive preserve of lycra-clad freaks you’ll be able to moan about lack of respect from motorists all you want. You will. Never. Get Any.
fluffy_mike wrote:
Then remove the fast cars. They’re the ones that don’t belong on urban roads, not the cyclists.
bobbypuk wrote:
And that is indeed the solution.
fluffy_mike wrote:
Point spectacularly missed: make the road safer for vulnerable users, not confirm its use only for motons.
PennineRider wrote:
Totally agree, roads were not “invented” for cars.
Quote:
Oh behave with the hyperbole.
There is no way that any but a small percentage of roads in Britain can be segregated. If your daughters want the freedom to cycle, they will have to take to the road more often than not.
Would you really prefer your daughters to cycle on this facility, expected to yield at side turnings and mix it with pedestrians, dogs and broken glass, or would you like them to have the choice to take the most convenient and direct route, like a user of any other mode of transport would?
Would you like your daughters to join a cycling club? To use cycling to train for fitness? To race? Because if so, cycle paths aren’t going to much use to them, are they?
PennineRider wrote:
Oh behave with the hyperbole.
There is no way that any but a small percentage of roads in Britain can be segregated. If your daughters want the freedom to cycle, they will have to take to the road more often than not.
Would you really prefer your daughters to cycle on this facility, expected to yield at side turnings and mix it with pedestrians, dogs and broken glass, or would you like them to have the choice to take the most convenient and direct route, like a user of any other mode of transport would?
Would you like your daughters to join a cycling club? To use cycling to train for fitness? To race? Because if so, cycle paths aren’t going to much use to them, are they?
Probably about the same percentage as are segregated in the Netherlands, which is about 20%. Good cycle infrastructure doesn’t always demand segregation, but a holistic view of what a road is FOR – is it a “street” or a “road”? Cycling countries like Netherlands and Denmark analyse the speeds and volumes of motor traffic on each road and work out the correct solution from that information. They also determine that certain types of road are primarily for mass movement of motors, makes it as easy as possible for them to do so, and then structures the rest to discourage their use as through roads – or “rat runs” as we would call them. If you have ever driven on a Dutch motorway you will know that they are generally of a far higher standard than our own. Meanwhile, at a local access level they make cars go all the way around via the main roads while pedestrians and cyclists can pass straight through filter systems.
Hackney, for all its faults and blind refusal to implement dedicated cycle lanes on major routes, has promoted the other element of the equation quite strongly – filtered permeability which allows residential streets to be accesssed throughout but not passed straight through by motorists who have no connection with the street. We need to see more of this as well as more segregation on major routes.
Paul M wrote:
I can largely get behind this sort of thinking. Was looking at this piece about Barcelona the other day which is apparently doing something similar: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-rescue-barcelona-spain-plan-give-streets-back-residents
The problem is that everywhere that I have cycled I am not seeing anything remotely approaching Dutch cycling: it’s all painted strips of paint leading up onto sidewalks, get off your bike and push a pedestrian button to cross, wait extra long at the intersection while the rest of the traffic procedes.
So there’s a vast gulf between what “cycle campaigns” dream of and what is delivered. And so far *I* am much better off when they don’t deliver and I’d argue so is my child.
PennineRider wrote:
No a Watt Bike, Velodrome or closed circuit is the sociable option. Anyone who still thinks it is appropriate in 2016 to use the open roads for ‘sport’ wants their head examining.
Anyone whether on two wheels or four whose primary consideration is getting from A to B as quickly as possible, not as safely as possible is an enemy of all decent road users.
L.Willo wrote:
This is my personal favourite. “In 2016”
Can people also stop jogging on pavements and rowing in rivers please!
Quote above is from
Quote above is from
http://www.academia.edu/3181723/The_On-again_Off-again_Debate_about_Cycle_Facilities
(Free but you have to register)
So the takeaway message I’m
So the takeaway message I’m getting from the last few comments is that we should fight to get this dangerous new cycling infrastructure removed from London ? This place gets stranger and stranger.. .
fukawitribe wrote:
Don’t know about London, where the infrastructure may be better than the standard Sustrans mud and ground glass crap the rest of us have inflicted on us, but in general:
i) cycle paths, at best, don’t remove all the conflict points with cars, and can introduce new conflicts with pedestrians and horsists
ii) Since cycle paths don’t go everywhere we might reasonably wish to go, using the road is still necessary for most cyclists
iii) even the best (non-London) infrastructure is ridiculously indirect compared to roads – generally less suited to commuting than to leisure riding
iv) the presence of badly designed, constructed, and maintained paths is seen by some motorists as giving them permission to demand our absence from ‘their road’.
So no, my ‘takeaway message’ is not to get rid of the infrastructure in London, but to recognise that , at least in the absence of very substantial investment and much better design, segregated infrastructure is not the panacea for most cyclists, and focussing on it at the expense of road maintenance, driver education and serious enforcement is unhelpful to most cyclists.
fukawitribe wrote:
no, we should fight to get the motor traffic traffic removed, so that separate infrastructure isn’t a consideration.
“road maintenance, driver
“road maintenance, driver education and serious enforcement” = sure, there are three things that are nice to have, but are also three things that have *never* alone created conditions for mass cycling anywhere in the world, and never will without serious infrastructure change.
True, ‘segregation’ doesn’t always mean kerbed cycle tracks – it can also mean filtering out heavy traffic from smaller roads. However, kerbed tracks are essential on main roads if ‘normal’ people are to be given the choice to cycle.
I would be delighted if my daughters chose sports cycling as a hobby, but this is a trivial concern compared to their being able to ride safely to school / work / visit friends / family. To do these normal things every day without risk of death or injury
Having ridden in Holland frequently, I have seen both thousands of young kids cycling to school in the morning, and numerous sports cyclists riding on the same segregated facilities at the weekend. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Instead of fighting new cycling infra from a position of ignorance – why not go to the NL and see what can be done, and then fight for it here?
fluffy_mike wrote:
I’m not sure anyone is ‘fighting’ infrastructure, providing it’s done properly. What I, at least, object to is the shambolic rubbish offered up as ‘infrastructure’ by the only available provider, at least outside of London. Infrastructure that is not fit for commuting, not fit for touring, and frequently only marginally ridable on anything other than a full suspension MTB.
We don’t have a ‘Dutch or Danish’ model here – arguably we should, but we don’t, and encouraging the continued provision of rubbish helps nothing.
Quote:
I would have been happy to debate the issues all day, but your needless belligerence is tiring. Let’s agree to differ.
“WEe’ve don’t have a ‘Dutch
“WEe’ve don’t have a ‘Dutch or Danish’ model here – arguably we should, but we don’t, and encouraging the continuesd provision of rubbish helps nothing.” And this is where people get things so wrong. There isn’t a single person campaigning for “the continuued provision of rubbish”, not one! Every campaigner campaigning for PROPER infrastructure is campaigning AGAINST the crap too – and that includes many of the Sustrans style paths with barriers, poor surfaces and so on. It took a trip to the Netherlands to make me realise how blinkered we are in the UK – and that was 20 years ago, we’re even further behind now.
Quote:
That’s a huge (and incorrect) mental leap to make from mine and others’ comments.
Your anecdote in which you sneer at some cyclists you saw, because they weren’t using the cycle path, hugely reinforces my point, that a shift in attitudes is underway (and you are part of that shift) that cyclists do not belong on the road.
Be careful what you wish for.
PennineRider wrote:
That’s a huge (and incorrect) mental leap to make from mine and others’ comments.
Your anecdote in which you sneer at some cyclists you saw, because they weren’t using the cycle path, hugely reinforces my point, that a shift in attitudes is underway (and you are part of that shift) that cyclists do not belong on the road.
Be careful what you wish for.
I’m with you 100% on this Pennine. There are a huge number of incorrect assumptions and assertions in this thread.
Supporting improved safety on road is crucial as there is no way that every cycle route in the country is ever getting segregated infrastructure.
Paths are fine, but when the mentality of many drivers remains that cyclists shouldn’t be on “their” roads they will become closer to being compulsory… if only by perception…and therefor make cycling on the road even more dangerous.
It must be therefore, a two proved approach – 1. improve cycling infrastructure. Even if this is solely making the current stuff fully useable.
2. Take action to modulate societal opinion towards cyclists.
Neither is cheap nor easy.
PennineRider wrote:
That’s a huge (and incorrect) mental leap to make from mine and others’ comments.
Your anecdote in which you sneer at some cyclists you saw, because they weren’t using the cycle path, hugely reinforces my point, that a shift in attitudes is underway (and you are part of that shift) that cyclists do not belong on the road.
Be careful what you wish for.
Note that I removed your quote from the post because it wasn’t intended to be directly aimed at you since I don’t think that’s the point you are trying to make. You have however shown that your view is based on an assertion – that there is a ‘shift’ in attitudes taking place. If anything I’d say it’s the opposite, that bikes are becoming more accepted on the road but there is resistance to segregated infra and some of it comes from cyclists who are happy with the status quo and fearful of what compromise would mean to them.
I never said that cyclists don’t belong on the road – that’s a straw man of your making, the anecdote I provided is an illustration of a certain attitude that no matter how good the bike infra is, some people will not use it, even if its as fast and safer. There is a potential problem there because – let’s imagine a utopian future where the government actually starts providing decent segregated bike infra – can you reasonably expect to have a bike route from which cars are excluded but still expect to be able to use the accompanying road as well?
If we really want transport cycling to be a safe and normal activity then it’s going to take some compromise from all sides.
joemmo wrote:
Well, at present we have routes from which all but motorised vehicles are excluded, with no provision at all for other forms of vehicle (in some cases, with no provision for pedestrians either).
Some of that space urgently needs to be reappropriated for less space-hungry modes of transport, because there just isn’t enough room for cars (which are a hugely inefficient use of space) on our congested city streets.
Where there is good segregated bike infra, few cyclists with any sense will choose to use the accompanying road anyway, so the problem is kind of moot (how many choose to cycle on dual-carriageways and fast A-roads, now, even in the current situation where the alternatives are often much longer routes? Most people just choose not to cycle at all rather than cycle on those roads [or they cycle on the pavement, if they are anti-social enough], so why would it be different if there was decent infrastructure?).
Where there isn’t such infrastructure, the road will need to be traffic-reduced to a point where its safe to cycle on and where ‘sharing’ actually means sharing.
Yes it requires compromise – from those who currently have almost all the road-space.
Compromise doesn’t always have to be ‘from all sides’, not if the starting point is a position where one side has almost everything.
You have a point about the difficulty in getting there, but starting off by compromising when you are already getting a bad deal is, in many situations, tantamount to surrender.
(Edit – I have to say pretty much all my opinions on the topic relate entirely to cities, I don’t feel entitled to say what should happen outside such areas).
joemmo wrote:
Yes.
joemmo wrote:
No you cannot. Quite reasonably tax payers will say what is the point of spending millions of pounds building segregated pathways, because we have been repeatedly told that this is what cyclists want, only for some of them to ignore the provision.
It is unsustainable. It will take a handful of cyclists to get killed riding outside of the provision before it becomes compulsory to use the infrastructure wherever it has been provided.
Book it.
The whole point about
The whole point about building infrastructure (good quality stuff, like the new routes in London) is that you do it to remove (some) road space from cars and give it to other modes of transport. Some drivers will then be inspired or feel able to travel by bike – the same people who are currently using a car because the roads are so dangerous!
The two work together to simultaneously reduce motor traffic use and increase cycling (and walking) much like pedestrianising a town centre.
That’s the ONLY way of educating drivers. The more drivers that cycle sometimes, the more they will be aware of what it means to ride a bike, the more people they will know who cycle. All of these countless “education” and “respect” and “share the road” campaigns have achieved absolutely nothing.
And the ONLY way of achieving anything like mass acceptance of cycling as a mode of transport is to provide dedicated infrastructure for it. That doesn’t mean that all cyclists everywhere will be expected to use all provided infrastructure at all times but it goes a long way towards redressing the balance of number of people who cycle vs number of people who drive.
Quote:
The most polite thing I can say to this is that you are extremely misguided.
PennineRider wrote:
The most polite thing I can say to this is that you are extremely misguided.
Or you could give your answer.
Quote:
I have.
I’ve banned myself from having long arguments with people on the internet. We have each made our points. Have a good one.
PennineRider wrote:
I have.
I’ve banned myself from having long arguments with people on the internet. We have each made our points. Have a good one.
Well not really in the context it was asked but fair enough. Have a good day yourself.
Where there is good
It would be fine if there were ‘decent infrastructure’. But, certainly where I ride, there isn’t. There are joke paths: badly surfaced, badly maintained, indirect, gate and barrier strewn rubbish, bummed up by Sustrans and the Central Belt Nationalist Party as some sort of fantastic provision for cycling. They are not noticeably ‘safe’, in part because they give way at every side road, and generally involve crossing and recrossing main roads, often in completely unexpected places. Their main function, apart from giving the arses who run Sustrans something to crow about, but not ride on, is to get me out of the way of the precious motorists.
Frankly, I hear and read a lot from ‘cycling campaigners’ about infrastructure, with lots of dreamland stuff about how wonderful it will be. Fine, when they’ve persuaded someone to build a usable path paralleling the A9, properly surfaced, not stupidly indirect, and without vast numbers of obstructions, I’ll believe in the dream and use it. Until then, I’d rather take my chances, and encourage other people to learn to ride properly in traffic as well, without the polycyclists making riding on the best surfaces even bloody harder.
oldstrath wrote:
One of the reasons that there isn’t decent infrastructure in your area is probably linked to lack of campaigning, lack of political will, and lack of asking. The goal of the cycling fallacies site was not to tell you not to ride on the road, it is to support those who want to campaign for somehwhere nice and safe to cycle, that might appeal to more people than cycling appeals to, today.
If there’s something specific you don’t like about the site, please let us know – all constructive feedback is welcome.
timlennon wrote:
No, it’s linked to the ‘facilities’ so far provided being completely and utterly useless for commuting or training. There’s a 2 km stretch of path that I might use on my commute home. To do so would involve crossing the road twice, giving way to seven minor roads or entrances, negotiating 2 wiggle barriers and enduring two climbs and a stretch of hairpins that are absent from the road. On most summer days I have to go slowly to avoid the walkers, cycling kids and dogs. On winter days it’s unrideable because of ice or mud.
Or, I could ride in a sensible position on the road, with good sightlines, clearly visible and in the place drivers are actually looking, and ride at whatever speed my legs will deliver. No serious choice really.
Yes, the path I despise may feel safer to families. I’m not convinced that it it is actually safer, and when its existence encourages drivers to expect me not to be on the road, that is beyond annoying.
Yes, I know you will claim that you aren’t campaigning for rubbish such as this, but that is what the campaigns actually deliver, so why should I want to support them, especially since the actual effect is to push cyclists off the roads and onto the ‘facilities’?
oldstrath wrote:
So how’s that going? I’d say that approach has had at least forty years, must be making good progress by now, yes?
The worst fallacy about
The worst fallacy about cycling is that there is this thing called “bad infrastructure” to blame for many accidents.
The reality is there is this thing called “bad decision making” and “not riding in a manner appropriate to the conditions”.
L.Willo wrote:
And ‘drivers not paying attention’ and ‘drivers being on phones’ and ‘drivers not giving enough room’ etc etc.
Whether you like it or not, Willo, the stats at least show that the majority of accidents involving motorised vehicles, including those with peds/cyclists, are caused by driver (note, not rider) error.
How exactly do you ride in a manner appropriate to a tidy proportion of drivers being liable to knock you off your bike?
davel wrote:
I accept that all of those things contribute to accidents, 100%.
Poor infrastructure? No. What I said, “bad decision making” and “not riding in a manner appropriate to the conditions”. Blaming road layout after the event is a copout.
L.Willo wrote:
OK – so you advocate defensive riding, riding to the conditions, deferring to the vehicles that are faster and do more damage, while sharing roads with them.
Do you also advocate pedestrians walking defensively, to the conditions, deferring to the bikes that are faster and do more damage, when sharing paths and parks with them? That didn’t seem to be your position at all on another recent thread where a cyclist had hit a pedestrian in a park.
Your stance seems to be that it’s cyclists’ fault when things involving bikes go wrong on the road. And it’s cyclists’ fault when things go wrong on shared-use paths and parks too.
davel wrote:
Yes. I have never seen a car with a bandage.
No. At least in the UK, the rules in Royal Parks are clear, pedestrians have right of way at all times even in areas where other users (cyclists) are permitted.
https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/41813/the_royal_parks_cycling_policy_july_2008.pdf
You see, parks and towpaths are leisure spaces and leisure users quite rightly have priority. Moving as God / Evolution intended, you shouldn’t have to defer to contraption users.
On the road however, we all have the same rights and responsibilities, but that does not mean that exercising caution is not a wise thing to do when you are the one most likely to come off worse in an accident… be you a pedestrian, cyclists or motorcyclist … when in doubt, deferring to faster heavier traffic is not the dumb decision.
Now, you must excuse me, I have a difficult cycle home with the Blackwall Tunnel closed and very heavy traffic … will need to keep my wits about me ….
L.Willo wrote:
You see, parks and towpaths are leisure spaces and leisure users quite rightly have priority. Moving as God / Evolution intended, you shouldn’t have to defer to contraption users.
On the road however, we all have the same rights and responsibilities, but that does not mean that exercising caution is not a wise thing to do when you are the one most likely to come off worse in an accident… be you a pedestrian, cyclists or motorcyclist … when in doubt, deferring to faster heavier traffic is not the dumb decision.
— davel
This doesn’t really tally with you being a knee-jerk pedestrian and/or moton apologist whenever commenting on situations you have no knowledge of, even up there ^.
davel wrote:
You asked me some specific questions. I answered them. I take it you do not disagree with my answers or you would have responded with counter-arguments. So why bother posting such meaningless drivel instead?
Look, I get it. You don’t like me / my opinions / both. That doesn’t mean that you have to follow me around the board posting replies to my every post, especially when you have nothing to say. It’s a bit desperate.
L.Willo wrote:
Bollox.
I’m being polite.
Quote:
Nailed it.
Quote:
Well, I was out on the roads for a training ride earlier. Tomorrow night I’m doing a time trial. Club ride at the weekend.
You’re not suggesting these types of cycling shouldn’t exist, are you?
PennineRider wrote:
Well, I was out on the roads for a training ride earlier. Tomorrow night I’m doing a time trial. Club ride at the weekend.
You’re not suggesting these types of cycling shouldn’t exist, are you?
Time-trials in traffic? Yes I am. How irresponsible! How can you possibly be concentrating on using the road safely (which ought to be your primary consideration) while pushing your fitness capabilities to the limit trying to chase a time?
Don’t be a dick! Use a Watt bike for training and compete on closed circuits and/or closed roads.
L.Willo wrote:
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but kindly don’t accuse me of being an enemy of cycling.
Ahh but you miss the point
Ahh but you miss the point Willo, probably due to not living in the real world.
Near my house there is a lovely, almost new, straight and wide piece of road, about a mile long; great to cycle down, clear visibility, speed limit of around 40mph.
They added a cycle lane to the path which involves crossing 5 roads – supermarket entrance, doctors surgery, pub, leisure complex – all moved out of town for increased convenience (to car owners). The path is also home to all the shite thrown up from the road, broken glass from a residential block of flats (presumably the same flat most weeks), dog walkers with ridiculous extending leads and on and on and on.
The safest choice for me is to do as I always did and ride on the spacious road – unfortunately having seen the wonderful signs for our wonderful cycle path most drivers conduct punishment passes in excess of the speed limit to show thier frustration.
I assume you consider this my fault?
alansmurphy wrote:
What has anything that you have just written got to do with the point I made about the fallacy of blaming ‘bad infrastructure’ for accidents?
This morning on the way to
This morning on the way to work I ended up going over the bonnet of a car thanks to the guy that pulled out of a side road without looking sufficiently well.
Had I been on a painted/segregated or other roadside path, I’d probably still have gone over the bonnet of his car because he wasn’t looking.
Oh no that’s not right… I’d have been the one giving way…
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
Is that really the whole story? In restrospect, could your anticipation have been better? Was your speed really appropriate travelling down a street in rush hour with side roads on your left and (possibly impatient) traffic trying to enter the mainstream?
Is that the first time you have had an incident like this? How many years have you been cycling?
Me 20+. Never happened. Nothing like it. Not even close.
L.Willo wrote:
Is that really the whole story? In restrospect, could your anticipation have been better? Was your speed really appropriate travelling down a street in rush hour with side roads on your left and (possibly impatient) traffic trying to enter the mainstream?
Is that the first time you have had an incident like this? How many years have you been cycling?
Me 20+. Never happened. Nothing like it. Not even close.— Jack Osbourne snr
In 27 years of racing, commuting, Audax and general leisure riding on the road, today was the first time I have ever ridden into a car.
My anticipation and speed were fine, however the interaction between two drivers (one suddenly stopping and flashing another out of a side road) with me less than 10 yards away didn’t leave many options but to brake and turn hard.
I also happen to be a cycling instructor.
You are a ?
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
If he doesn’t answer, can I fill in the blank
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
No they were not. You rode into a car!
You failed to anticipate an unfortunately all too common occurence (drivers pulling out without looking from side streets) and/or were travelling too fast to stop safely. That isn’t smart cycling.
You could use a refresher course.
L.Willo wrote:
Remember folks, the correct answer is always more training. Anyone that doesn’t understand that, just needs…. more training!
I once heard a lady who had
I once heard a lady who had just driven her car down a normal country lane complain that It “just wasn’t wide enough for cyclists”.
What she meant, of course, was that she had insufficient room for her 6 foot wide car to overtake a 2 foot wide cyclist.
I was so lost for words that she had such a distorted view of the fact that it wasn’t her car that was too wide. I really don’t know what she does when she meets a tractor.
I’ll finish the sentence from
I’ll finish the sentence from my earlier post.
You are a troll.
I suggest you leave this discussion to the adults.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
You are too lazy to respond with reasoned argument so you play the ‘troll’ card … how immature.
L.Willo wrote:
You are too lazy to respond with reasoned argument so you play the ‘troll’ card … how immature.— Jack Osbourne snr
And you selectively quoted my post taking it out of context before adding your own interpretation of the new “reality” of your creation.
That, is trolling.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
OK, you are annoyed that you betrayed yourself with your choice of words but try to make that my problem.
I would hope you would be teaching your students to be aware of dangers when approaching junctions side streets and that they should expect the unexpected e.g. cover your brakes, stop pedalling when in doubt and be prepared to stop. For 27 years you have taken your own advice. Today you were not on the ball.
It is OK to be fallible. We all are but don’t try to make your problem my problem. Learn from the incident, count yourself lucky it wasn’t more serious and move on.
I am done here.
Willo: you have no knowledge
Willo: you have no knowledge of the incident. Stop being a judgemental berk… Or at least allow me to speculate that you’ve only just got in from your commute where you deferred to absolutely everything because cyclists are all arseholes who don’t deserve any right of way and if any incidents happen it’s all their fault.
I’m not 100% convinced you’re a troll. But if you’re not, you’ve got some masochistic or cyclist-hating issues, and I can’t help thinking you’d be better off getting your therapy elsewhere.
Edit: and in response to your other post – because you’re inconsistent. You’re tying yourself in knots. It’s boring, and you’re coming across as a troll.
Truly admirable… Truly.
Truly admirable… Truly.
I am impressed by your persistence. Sadly, the decent debate earlier in this thread has now been dragged so spectacularly off topic that it isn’t worth returning to. Certainly not tonight.
By the way, the driver that put his car in my path leaving me nowhere to go admitted liability on the spot. First timed he’d caused an accident in 30 years of driving apparently…
But you’re right, it must have been my shit riding skills.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
I’ll wager a slice of carrot cake that he’s never had a bike lesson in his life, beyond riding round some cones in a school playground. Anyone that puts that much misplaced faith in training, got all their knowledge from a book.
Not wanting to be seen
Not wanting to be seen holding hands with the unpopular kid but Willo does have a consistent principal and one which I know other posters on this forum have repeated themselves using different words though usually in connection with driving. For some reason when cycling there appears to be a more genuine expectation and reliance on other road users not making mistakes.
The principal can be summed up in a nugget of wise advice that I picked up from a vastly experienced Police driving / motorcycle instructor. It trumps all other rules especially those of priority and who technically has right of way.
“If you are involved in a collision and your vehicle was moving at the time then there was definitely something you could have done to avoid it. If your vehicle was stationary at the time of the incident, then there was probably something you could have done to avoid it.”
I’m not saying for one second that we should ‘ride timid’, quite the opposite. We can use our height over most other traffic to make better observation and anticipate unfolding events. We should not be afraid to take a lane, ride in primary or any of the other things we do to build a margin of safety, and occasionally we may have to be prudent about diving into that margin of safety when another road user transgresses into ‘our’ space. As Willo states, “cars don’t wear bandages”.
Anyone who rides away from an incident be it a close miss or hitting a car emerging from a side road regardless of who was at fault or technically liable, and who genuinely thinks “There was nothing I could have done to avoid that”, well my prediction is that they may well have the same accident again.
A game I like to play is: Try to have an accident. The rules of the game are that absolutely no blame can be apportioned to yourself and with the exception of a direct strike from behind (but only on a bicycle because you don’t have mirrors) you are not allowed to be hit by a vehicle you did not see. I realise that other people will have their own idea of ‘no blame’ but as of today I have never won.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Some fair points in there: but Willo’s ‘you’re sharing an area with more dangerous contraptions – educate yourselves, be aware and get some skills!’ line isn’t consistent.
His comments on the ped-hit-by-cyclist thread (again, with no information to hand) didn’t blame the more vulnerable user for not having their wits about them. No: this time, the more dangerous cyclist had a duty of care not to ride into the poor ped.
He’s a preachy cyclist-blamer – there he is consistent. On a cycling site it appears as trolling.
davel wrote:
What part of “it happened in a park!” are you having difficulty comprehending?!
You hit a pedestrian in a park on a bike? It is your fault 100%.
You hit a pedestrian on a pavement? Ditto.
You hit a pedestrian on a crossing? Ditto.
You hit a pedestrian on a shared use path? Ditto.
You hit a pedestrian on the highway? It might be your fault, it might be the pedestrian’s, it might be both. Leave that one to the accident investigators / magistrate / jury.
I had a long conversation
I had a long conversation with a Police Officer years ago after being stopped on my motorbike. He advised that the speed I was travelling at, although within the speed limit (40 mph), was inappropriate as if a car pulled out in front of me I wouldn’t have been able to stop. The point I was trying to make was I could be hit in the same scenario at any speed. 3 mph or 30 mph, if that car goes at the wrong time, I am hit. Ok so the impact would be less at lower speed, but the principle remains the same. If you are on the road, you are reliant on other people doing their bit. It is totally unavoidable and out of your control. All you can do is mitigate. Or stay indoors.
As a final comment on the
As a final comment on the incident I was involved in yesterday, before hopefully this thread is re-hijacked and gets back on topic:
I was on the receiving end of an interaction between two other road users just a few yards in front of me. I was doing less than 15 mph when it developed in front of me and probably less than 5 when the impact occurred.
Without going into the minutae of the incident, I am satisfied that under the circumstances there was little I could have done to avoid the collision.
Have I said I was entirely blameless? No.
I once got left hooked on my
I once got left hooked on my way into work. No real harm done, fortunately – I turned into it and went in sideways, shoulder first, into the side of the van in question. I popped two spokes on the rear wheel where I slid in. Now what exactly was I supposed to avoid that? I was moving at the time, so apparently there was “definitely” something I could have done to avoid it. Anyone care to say what? Am I supposed to slow down every time someone passes me so I’m never on the inside of someone? Because that’ll get old real fast.
If someone gives no intention as to their actions and then does something stupid, how are you supposed to mitigate for that?
vonhelmet wrote:
This is classic. You have done all the right things. You have analysed the incident, arrived at the correct solution but refuse to do it “because that will get old”. No doubt when it happens again, and it will with that attitude, you will still think you were powerless.
L.Willo wrote:
I once got left hooked on my way into work. No real harm done, fortunately – I turned into it and went in sideways, shoulder first, into the side of the van in question. I popped two spokes on the rear wheel where I slid in. Now what exactly was I supposed to avoid that? I was moving at the time, so apparently there was “definitely” something I could have done to avoid it. Anyone care to say what? Am I supposed to slow down every time someone passes me so I’m never on the inside of someone? Because that’ll get old real fast.
— L.Willo This is classic. You have done all the right things. You have analysed the incident, arrived at the correct solution but refuse to do it “because that will get old”. No doubt when it happens again, and it will with that attitude, you will still think you were powerless.— vonhelmet
Don’t be ridiculous. If I slow down every time a car passes me, I will soon be travelling at 0mph. We don’t expect cars on the left lane of multi-lane roads to slow down every time someone is passing them, just in case that car dives across the lane in front of them, so why would we expect cyclists to do the same?
And to steer this back to the
And to steer this back to the topic, can anyone name a single country that has achieved a significant level of cycling through training?
That’s why it’s a fallacy.
Mustn’t feed the… – ah fuck
Mustn’t feed the… – ah fuck it.
What part of ‘it wasn’t a royal park as it was in ireland and you have no idea of the circumstances’ and ‘you derail every thread you post on with your black-and-white, textbook approach to a life lived in your own bedroom’ are you not getting?
FTFY
davel wrote:
Don’t mistake this guy for a troll. A troll is someone who takes a position just to antagonise.
I have no doubt he believes what he’s writing, and that no argument or data will sway him from his absolute faith in his solution.
Quote:
In the specific context of an advanced driving lesson on defensive driving, this is extremely suspect at best. In the context of deciding who is to blame when someone fails to give way at a side turning, it is the very opposite of “wise advice”, and propagates the toxic notion that, on the roads, “might is right”.
Can I point you to the DfT’s own figures that show that in the majority of cyclist KSIs, it is the driver of a motor vehicle that is at fault, and not the cyclist.
If you are travelling along a road, by any means of transport, and a driver fails to give way and pulls out across your path, then the resulting collision is not your fault.
PennineRider wrote:
In the specific context of an advanced driving lesson on defensive driving, this is extremely suspect at best. In the context of deciding who is to blame when someone fails to give way at a side turning, it is the very opposite of “wise advice”, and propagates the toxic notion that, on the roads, “might is right”.
Yep, I’m with PennineRider on this one.
Recently, a road race (fully authorised, insured, compliant with CFcle Racing on the Highways regs) was proceeding along a road with one of those offset width restrictions. The bunch had right of way.
Lead Car and advance motos went through. The oncoming car which had stopped then ignored the oncoming bunch, pulled out round the traffic island, clipped several cyclists causing a big crash and then drove off.
The police officer who attended the scene immediately started asking about permissions, event insurance and doing everything possible to blame the cyclists. His opening statement was “I’ve been a road traffic officer for 12 years”. To which one of the event officials turned to him and said “I’ve been a lawyer specialising in road traffic accidents for 20 years and the issue you have here is that a vehicle failed to obey existing road signage (in giving way to oncoming traffic), casued a collision and left the scene of the incident”.
The police officer shut up then but it’s depressing that even at law enforcement level, the prevailing opinion is that the cyclists must be at fault.
PennineRider wrote:
In the specific context of an advanced driving lesson on defensive driving, this is extremely suspect at best. In the context of deciding who is to blame when someone fails to give way at a side turning, it is the very opposite of “wise advice”, and propagates the toxic notion that, on the roads, “might is right”.
Can I point you to the DfT’s own figures that show that in the majority of cyclist KSIs, it is the driver of a motor vehicle that is at fault, and not the cyclist.
If you are travelling along a road, by any means of transport, and a driver fails to give way and pulls out across your path, then the resulting collision is not your fault.
I thought I made it explicitly clear that this principle is not about who is at ‘fault’. But for the avoidance of any doubt.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO IS AT FAULT.
If you are happy under the wheels of an errant truck whilst claiming it wasn’t your fault then carry on. Personally I’d rather be both not at fault and also avoid becoming a victim by being a little bit pragmatic. This does not make me crash proof but shrugging your shoulders and getting caught out the same way again is not an option for me.
Mungecrundle wrote:
To make progress, fault is a key topic – unless you’re suggesting that every collision scenario can be avoided by riding for it?
Rear-endings by distracted drivers happen. How do you ride to avoid those? Maybe Willo’s book covers it?
Do we give up on the road altogether, or try to make the roads safer, while trying to put distracted, incompetent and risky driving in the same antisocial bracket as drink driving?
Mungecrundle wrote:
All very true. If you are riding a bicycle and have an accident then there is always something you could have done to avoid the accident: stay indoors, drive a car, grow wings and soar above the traffic. But in an absolutely strict logical sense There Is Always Something You Could Have Done. And although the level of accidents in cycling is actually low and there are risks in everything in life and this is a reasonable one we must start making everyone pass through body scanners before they get out on the road: OTHERWISE THE TERRORISTS WILL WIN! AND NO ONE IS THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!
Quote:
You see, emotive hyperbole like this doesn’t help. To claim that we must either bear some responsibility for a collision not of our making, or else we’re “happy under the wheels of a truck” is not logical or reasonable.
Of course we all have to dive out of the way of an idiot sometimes. But there isn’t always anything we could have done about it.
PennineRider wrote:
You see, emotive hyperbole like this doesn’t help. To claim that we must either bear some responsibility for a collision not of our making, or else we’re “happy under the wheels of a truck” is not logical or reasonable.
Quite right. He should have said “if you’re happy for your children to be crushed under the wheels of an errant truck”.
I’ve been trying to come up
I’ve been trying to come up with an example from my own experiences which make the point.
I do most of my riding in the countryside (the clue is in my username). On one of my favourite roads, there is a quarry. This means that I have to share this road with large wagons carrying heavy loads of stone. The road isn’t very wide, and it’s hilly and has some twisty bends.
I have had the thought that maybe I shouldn’t ride there. There will never be any cycle path there, segregated or not. But no. I have a legal and moral right to ride on that road, and truck drivers have a responsibility not to crush me to death.
In practice, the quarry truck drivers are excellent. When they have to, they sit behind me, giving me plenty of space, then pass me safely when they can. I always wave thanks for their consideration and patience. I am aware that it’s difficult for a heavy truck to pick up momentum, especially on a hill, so when safe and convenient, I will pull in and wave a truck through. The drivers often toot their thanks.
But on the twisty descent, I take primary in my lane, and any trucks will just have to wait. I’ll be doing between 35 and 45 mph anyway (depending on wind, road conditions and how knackered I am) and when the road straightens out and flattens out, I will wave through anyone who has been sitting behind me. Sometimes it will be me following a slow truck down the hill. I don’t attempt risky overtakes and I maintain a safe stopping distance.
TL;DR: I share a narrow, technical road with large wagons. But when every road user exercises patience and consideration, a potentially dangerous conflict is negotiated safely and respectfully. This is the ideal, in my opinion.
You guys all spell ‘cunt’
You guys all spell ‘cunt’ funny…
Can someone hit the reset
Can someone hit the reset button on this topic, please?
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
No, you may certainly not have this thread put back on topic. But I promise this to be my last post. After enough collisions I’m prepared to take my own advice and learn from experience.
M
My argument and I suspect R Willo’s has absolutely nothing to do with; victim blaming, fault, who has broken the rules or liability. It has nothing to do with ‘might is right’, who should or shouldn’t be on the road and it certainly has nothing to do with being somehow held accountable or responsible over things we have no control of, such as another road user’s poor judgement, aggression or negligence.
It is a very simple truth. There is always another course of action.
To put this into a personal context:
I have a mini roundabout on my regular commute. Twice over the years drivers overtook and left hooked without indication. The first time resulted in a nasty scratch to the nearside rear door, the second time I was more aware and saw it coming. I have since modified my behaviour to checking behind sooner and taking a far more primary position outside of the bike lane. The problem appears to be solved.
This is not to say that my next run in at this particular roundabout won’t be an aggressive driver aggravated that I’m in his way, or being rear ended by someone not looking and if those things become a greater threat then I may have to modify my plan again. I shouldn’t have to, I shouldn’t have to put up with poor / aggressive driving that puts me in danger. Neither am I prepared to leave my bike at home, but in the interests of keeping my beautiful skin and exquisite bone structure intact, I am prepared to modify my behaviour even though it’s not me who is at fault.
Even in the instances quoted by others saying “There was nothing I could have done”. This may indeed be true, but I suspect that every one of those people are now more aware of similar patterns leading up to a similar incident, and at some sub conscious level have a better contingency plan squirelled away based on that previous experience.
Mungecrundle wrote:
No, you may certainly not have this thread put back on topic. But I promise this to be my last post. After enough collisions I’m prepared to take my own advice and learn from experience.— Jack Osbourne snr
I’m going to resist taking this as yet another slight on my character for having been involved in an incident yesterday.
The post I made which mentioned the incident is now so far back that it’s original intention has long since disappeared under a mud slinging extravaganza.
I now can’t be fucked bothering to explain what that original intention sought to highlight.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
No, you may certainly not have this thread put back on topic. But I promise this to be my last post. After enough collisions I’m prepared to take my own advice and learn from experience.
— Mungecrundle I’m going to resist taking this as yet another slight on my character for having been involved in an incident yesterday. The post I made which mentioned the incident is now so far back that it’s original intention has long since disappeared under a mud slinging extravaganza. I now can’t be fucked bothering to explain what that original intention sought to highlight.— Jack Osbourne snr
Right. I’ve been following. I think. Like House of Cards.
1. The thread was moving in the direction of blaming cyclists because there are some dangerously stupid people in charge of motor vehicles.
2. You made the point that some spunktrumpet in a car pulled out of a side road across you and you went over the bonnet, and what were you supposed to do about that?
3. One rather rigid-minded correspondent blamed you for “riding into a car”. Someone else made the point that “there’s always something you can do” to avoid a collision because a policeman told them that once, and if a policeman says it, it must be The Word of God.
4. Then we all had a good scrap.
Mungle, I agree to a great
Mungle, I agree to a great extent. This is where you and the Troll differ a great deal though, you advocate looking out for oneself as opposed to all blame must lie with the cyclist.
I was clipped and came off earlier this year be holding the correct line at a roundabout whilst suspecting the car between lanes behind me was going to make a dick move. He did, my moral highground was maintained but as I bit concrete I had to ponder whether the pain was worth the ‘victory’. Maybe it was, maybe this potential killer has changed his driving style. Given that he checked his Mondeo before me I suspect not though and try a bit more to anticipate these dick moves and realise that me versus more than a ton of metal isn’t going to end well.
I have ridden for 30 years without incident and hit 3 times in the last 12 months, my riding hasn’t suddenly got worse. Similar commute for the last 4 years too involving a few railway bridges, roundabout and lights. Cars seem to be getting bigger and a lot of drivers less patient*, maybe I should moderate my cycling for my own safety but in all reality all of these incidents have involved cars that have seen me and not cared enough for my safety!
* Maybe it’s the divide that is greater, people seem to either be excellent and get a friendly wave of appreciation or complete and utter pillocks!
I believe you were the third
I believe you were the third billy goat gruff…
I’m sorry. You’ve missed my
I’m sorry. You’ve missed my point entirely.
😛
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
Have you managed not to ride into any cars today? 😉
Ah well… so far.
Ah well… so far.
I did however manage to anticipate a potential collision today and as such left the bike collection untouched. Hopefully, that will avoid any repair bills arising from any drivers not anticipating that I would struggle not to cycle into them from close range.
Not only this but I have also found a radically safer, traffic free commute to work today. It simply involved packing a bag and jumping on a train for a 250 mile trip in the opposite direction to my normal commute.
So… hopefully… by the time I get home tomorrow night, I will have gone two whole days where my awareness, anticipation, reactions, speed, position, route, training, timing, degree of “pro”-ness, lighting, clothing, ESP and choice of deodorant have actively prevented me from colliding with any large chunks of motorised metal.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
Just ride on the blue paint, lad. Then everything will be OK. But stray into the Proper People’s lane, and you deserve to get wound like twine round the axle of a tipper truck.
Ahem…
Ahem…
Paint + Helmet = Imortality
Pain – Helmet = Your fault when a drunk dirver updating facebook mows you down!
Yay, someone dun a reanimator
Yay, someone dun a reanimator.
Weird reading since Willo was disappeared…