‘Cycling Fallacies’ website launches

Mungecrundle wrote:

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.

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:

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.

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.

Jack Osbourne snr wrote:

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.

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. 

Jack Osbourne snr wrote:

I'll finish the sentence from my earlier post. You are a troll. I suggest you leave this discussion to the adults.

You are too lazy to respond with reasoned argument so you play the 'troll' card ... how immature.

L.Willo wrote:

Jack Osbourne snr wrote:

I'll finish the sentence from my earlier post. You are a troll. I suggest you leave this discussion to the adults.

You are too lazy to respond with reasoned argument so you play the 'troll' card ... how immature.

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:

] 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.

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.

Jack Osbourne snr wrote:

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...

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:

Jack Osbourne snr wrote:

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...

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.

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:

I also happen to be a cycling instructor.

You are a ?

If he doesn't answer, can I fill in the blank 

Jack Osbourne snr wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

Jack Osbourne snr wrote:

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...

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.

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 ....

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.

Quote:

I also happen to be a cycling instructor.

You could use a refresher course.

L.Willo wrote:

Jack Osbourne snr wrote:

I also happen to be a cycling instructor.

You could use a refresher course.

Remember folks, the correct answer is always more training.  Anyone that doesn't understand that, just needs....   more training!  

alansmurphy wrote:

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?

 

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?

PennineRider wrote:

Quote:

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.

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:

PennineRider wrote:

Quote:

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.

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.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but kindly don't accuse me of being an enemy of cycling.

L.Willo wrote:

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".

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:

L.Willo wrote:

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".

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?

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:

davel wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

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".

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?

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.

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:

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.

Yes. I have never seen a car with a bandage.

Quote:

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.

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. 

Quote:

Be considerate – Pedestrians have priority over all other users of pathways and shared pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes. You are asked to use these pathways considerately. Other users may not be aware of you, please remember this when passing.

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/41813/the_roya...

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:

davel 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.

Yes. I have never seen a car with a bandage.

 

Quote:

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.

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. 

Quote:

Be considerate – Pedestrians have priority over all other users of pathways and shared pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes. You are asked to use these pathways considerately. Other users may not be aware of you, please remember this when passing.

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/41813/the_roya...

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.

 

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:

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 ^.

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:

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".

Bollox.

I'm being polite.