62% say cycling on roads is “too dangerous” – Cycling UK calls on Government to take immediate action

ktache wrote:

There are large sections of the highway code relating to walking, and what we may in the past have called "the green cross code".

Though I have yet to see multi level training programs.

Hi viz is often seen on "crocodiles" of young children walking.

Lie supplicant before our motoring overlords.

Of course for every person not cycling, that's probably one more driving and making it more dangerous for those that do cycle.

Some of them of course knowing how unsafely they do drive around cyclists.

Theres a primary school opposite my office; I see classes all trooping out (I think to go to an off site swimming pool, going by their sports bags), with four or five teachers or CAs and everyone clad in hi viz tabard. To walk on a footpath in broad daylight. Of course, I believe there are stats on pedestrians on footpaths being ksi by motor vehicles, but it still seems like overkill.

brooksby wrote:

ktache wrote:

There are large sections of the highway code relating to walking, and what we may in the past have called "the green cross code".

Though I have yet to see multi level training programs.

Hi viz is often seen on "crocodiles" of young children walking.

Lie supplicant before our motoring overlords.

Of course for every person not cycling, that's probably one more driving and making it more dangerous for those that do cycle.

Some of them of course knowing how unsafely they do drive around cyclists.

Theres a primary school opposite my office; I see classes all trooping out (I think to go to an off site swimming pool, going by their sports bags), with four or five teachers or CAs and everyone clad in hi viz tabard. To walk on a footpath in broad daylight. Of course, I believe there are stats on pedestrians on footpaths being ksi by motor vehicles, but it still seems like overkill.

But it mut be good instilling in our future how dangerous living actually is. How one should do as much as possible for our own safety for fear of being both the victim and at fault. Next stage will be carrying weaponry in order to eliminate the threat before it happens.

don simon wrote:

brooksby wrote:

ktache wrote:

There are large sections of the highway code relating to walking, and what we may in the past have called "the green cross code".

Though I have yet to see multi level training programs.

Hi viz is often seen on "crocodiles" of young children walking.

Lie supplicant before our motoring overlords.

Of course for every person not cycling, that's probably one more driving and making it more dangerous for those that do cycle.

Some of them of course knowing how unsafely they do drive around cyclists.

Theres a primary school opposite my office; I see classes all trooping out (I think to go to an off site swimming pool, going by their sports bags), with four or five teachers or CAs and everyone clad in hi viz tabard. To walk on a footpath in broad daylight. Of course, I believe there are stats on pedestrians on footpaths being ksi by motor vehicles, but it still seems like overkill.

But it mut be good instilling in our future how dangerous living actually is. How one should do as much as possible for our own safety for fear of being both the victim and at fault. Next stage will be carrying weaponry in order to eliminate the threat before it happens.

So, becoming an American then? 

Rich_cb wrote:

Maybe prominent cycling websites should stop running clickbait 'near miss' articles every day? Any non-cyclist reading this website would find plenty of evidence for the idea that cycling is 'too dangerous'.

I agree with this point. I'm not sure that 'near miss of the day' etc on this site does anything but make people even more angry and stressed than they are already.

Rich_cb wrote:

Maybe prominent cycling websites should stop running clickbait 'near miss' articles every day? Any non-cyclist reading this website would find plenty of evidence for the idea that cycling is 'too dangerous'.

Yeah, pretend these things don't happen, that'll work.

I just think that's completely delusional.  People think it's dangerous because they can see those roads for themselves, right next to them when walking or outside the vehicle when driving.  Not because they visit this website (which very few non-cyclists do).

Danger might be 'an excuse' for some, but even if the idea is that the real reason is laziness (which I suppose is what is being implied is what the excuse is supposed to be concealing?), what makes cycling hard work is the burden of keeping safe, not the pedalling.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Yeah, pretend these things don't happen, that'll work.

I just think that's completely delusional.  People think it's dangerous because they can see those roads for themselves, right next to them when walking or outside the vehicle when driving.  Not because they visit this website (which very few non-cyclists do).

 

Danger might be 'an excuse' for some, but even if the idea is that the real reason is laziness (which I suppose is what is being implied is what the excuse is supposed to be concealing?), what makes cycling hard work is the burden of keeping safe, not the pedalling.

Did I say we should ignore it?

Balanced reporting is what we actually need.

Every single day this website runs articles about the dangers of cycling.

How often do they run articles about the benefits?

I used to subscribe to a cycling magazine that ran a monthly feature about how cycling had improved somebody's life.

That sort of article may inspire people to take up cycling rather than scaring them off before they even start.

Rich_cb wrote:

Maybe prominent cycling websites should stop running clickbait 'near miss' articles every day? Any non-cyclist reading this website would find plenty of evidence for the idea that cycling is 'too dangerous'.

And woe betide any non cyclist stumbling upon our regular helmet debates.

Unless they appreciate pictures featuring relevant squirrels.

londoncommute wrote:

Do you not think though that a lot of people just use safety as an excuse?

As someone who used to work in cycle promotion, you're right.  If you point out that it is as dangerous as walking, that free training is available to make it even safer and there are lots of segregated routes so they don't have to share with motors, they find some other excuse.  We took some advice from an marketing company, who said not to mention the perceived dangers, only the benefits to the individual; weight control, more reliable journey times, health, money saving.  They also told us not to bother mentioning societal benefits, as not many people care about pollution, congestion or climate change, or at least, not as many as care about benefits to them personally.

burtthebike wrote:

londoncommute wrote:

Do you not think though that a lot of people just use safety as an excuse?

As someone who used to work in cycle promotion, you're right.  If you point out that it is as dangerous as walking, that free training is available to make it even safer and there are lots of segregated routes so they don't have to share with motors, they find some other excuse.  We took some advice from an marketing company, who said not to mention the perceived dangers, only the benefits to the individual; weight control, more reliable journey times, health, money saving.  They also told us not to bother mentioning societal benefits, as not many people care about pollution, congestion or climate change, or at least, not as many as care about benefits to them personally.

that might be true its a perceived danger, but when Im walking, I dont find myself inches away from a likely  serious impact injury on a regular basis, just because some muppet driving a car feels they need to reach their destination 2 seconds quicker and has no concept or thought in their head for my safety.

so it feels <sweary word> dangerous on the roads thesedays, even if the stats show a completely different picture.

in some ways I dont care Ive not used all my luck up and been hit yet, psychologically the persistent near misses, have as much impact on you, and there are no stats covering those.

I had to ride home on my commute yesterday on a shared path, and than glued to the gutter on the road, as this past week Id just reached my limit for coping with it riding on the roads normally, Id just had as much as I can take of it.

Awavey wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

londoncommute wrote:

Do you not think though that a lot of people just use safety as an excuse?

As someone who used to work in cycle promotion, you're right.  If you point out that it is as dangerous as walking, that free training is available to make it even safer and there are lots of segregated routes so they don't have to share with motors, they find some other excuse.  We took some advice from an marketing company, who said not to mention the perceived dangers, only the benefits to the individual; weight control, more reliable journey times, health, money saving.  They also told us not to bother mentioning societal benefits, as not many people care about pollution, congestion or climate change, or at least, not as many as care about benefits to them personally.

that might be true its a perceived danger, but when Im walking, I dont find myself inches away from a likely  serious impact injury on a regular basis, just because some muppet driving a car feels they need to reach their destination 2 seconds quicker and has no concept or thought in their head for my safety.

so it feels <sweary word> dangerous on the roads thesedays, even if the stats show a completely different picture.

in some ways I dont care Ive not used all my luck up and been hit yet, psychologically the persistent near misses, have as much impact on you, and there are no stats covering those.

I had to ride home on my commute yesterday on a shared path, and than glued to the gutter on the road, as this past week Id just reached my limit for coping with it riding on the roads normally, Id just had as much as I can take of it.

Absolutely.  The 'stats' are irrelevant.  Like quoting stats to say that fewer people are killed parachuting to work than driving.  Misses the point.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Absolutely.  The 'stats' are irrelevant.  Like quoting stats to say that fewer people are killed parachuting to work than driving.  Misses the point.

Perceived danger is not the same as actual risk, and most people are extremely poor at estimating real risk, and also, we've had thirty years of helmet propaganda based on telling people that they'll die on every trip if they don't wear a helmet.  Your comparison of parachuting and driving is absurd.

Per mile travelled, the risks of cycling and walking are almost identical, but most people think that cycling is many times riskier.  Perhaps if we stopped lying to them, they might actually appreciate the facts.

burtthebike wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Absolutely.  The 'stats' are irrelevant.  Like quoting stats to say that fewer people are killed parachuting to work than driving.  Misses the point.

Perceived danger is not the same as actual risk, and most people are extremely poor at estimating real risk, and also, we've had thirty years of helmet propaganda based on telling people that they'll die on every trip if they don't wear a helmet.  Your comparison of parachuting and driving is absurd.

Per mile travelled, the risks of cycling and walking are almost identical, but most people think that cycling is many times riskier.  Perhaps if we stopped lying to them, they might actually appreciate the facts.

Is perceived risk the one where one suffers numerous close passes without being hit, but enough to make one's ride significantly less enjoyable? And actual risk where one is splattered across a bonnet?

burtthebike wrote:

londoncommute wrote:

Do you not think though that a lot of people just use safety as an excuse?

As someone who used to work in cycle promotion, you're right.  If you point out that it is as dangerous as walking, that free training is available to make it even safer and there are lots of segregated routes so they don't have to share with motors, they find some other excuse.  We took some advice from an marketing company, who said not to mention the perceived dangers, only the benefits to the individual; weight control, more reliable journey times, health, money saving.  They also told us not to bother mentioning societal benefits, as not many people care about pollution, congestion or climate change, or at least, not as many as care about benefits to them personally.

I’ve just finished reading the COpenhagenize book by MIkael Colville-Anderson. He says forget everything, focus on “its quicker (usually)” and how reliable that timing is: no worrying about whether the bus will be late or heavy traffic will hold you up, or finding a parking space... IF you know the journey is 45 minutes then it’ll always be 45 minutes.

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

londoncommute wrote:

Do you not think though that a lot of people just use safety as an excuse?

As someone who used to work in cycle promotion, you're right.  If you point out that it is as dangerous as walking, that free training is available to make it even safer and there are lots of segregated routes so they don't have to share with motors, they find some other excuse.  We took some advice from an marketing company, who said not to mention the perceived dangers, only the benefits to the individual; weight control, more reliable journey times, health, money saving.  They also told us not to bother mentioning societal benefits, as not many people care about pollution, congestion or climate change, or at least, not as many as care about benefits to them personally.

I’ve just finished reading the COpenhagenize book by MIkael Colville-Anderson. He says forget everything, focus on “its quicker (usually)” and how reliable that timing is: no worrying about whether the bus will be late or heavy traffic will hold you up, or finding a parking space... IF you know the journey is 45 minutes then it’ll always be 45 minutes.

That's what I was going to say.  If you solve the danger issue, then people will graviate to it when they find its faster than the bus (and driving, much of the time).

Saying 'its as dangerous as walking' is just a ridiculous approach, because people know from experience that isn't true.  They know what happens if one walks while not paying much attention vs what happens if one cycles the same way.  People don't find walking requires constant vigilence and stress.  I can only assume you are using statistics to make that argument, but those stats don't include the real issue, which means they are, in effect, bogus.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Saying 'its as dangerous as walking' is just a ridiculous approach, because people know from experience that isn't true.  They know what happens if one walks while not paying much attention vs what happens if one cycles the same way.  People don't find walking requires constant vigilence and stress.  I can only assume you are using statistics to make that argument, but those stats don't include the real issue, which means they are, in effect, bogus.

Perceived danger is not the same as actual risk, and most people are extremely poor at estimating real risk, and also, we've had thirty years of helmet propaganda based on telling people that they'll die on every trip if they don't wear a helmet.

Per mile travelled, the risks of cycling and walking are almost identical, but most people think that cycling is many times riskier.

burtthebike wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Saying 'its as dangerous as walking' is just a ridiculous approach, because people know from experience that isn't true.  They know what happens if one walks while not paying much attention vs what happens if one cycles the same way.  People don't find walking requires constant vigilence and stress.  I can only assume you are using statistics to make that argument, but those stats don't include the real issue, which means they are, in effect, bogus.

Perceived danger is not the same as actual risk, and most people are extremely poor at estimating real risk, and also, we've had thirty years of helmet propaganda based on telling people that they'll die on every trip if they don't wear a helmet.

Per mile travelled, the risks of cycling and walking are almost identical, but most people think that cycling is many times riskier.

Nah.

  "Percieved danger" translates to "stress and work required to keep safe because the responsibility for it is largely placed on you".    The 'risks' you refer to are based on misused statistics.  They ignore the different amount of psychological work done by the two groups in order to make the 'risks' appear identical.

Edit - I mean, which group gets the pressure to use safety equipment?  Which one has special  'training' programs set up?  Where's "walkability" training people to walk along pavements?  If they are both equally safe, why does one need special training?

Further edit - come to think of it, comparing it to walking isn't much of a recomendation anyway - loads of parents consider even walking too dangerous so won't let their children walk to school.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Perceived danger is not the same as actual risk, and most people are extremely poor at estimating real risk, and also, we've had thirty years of helmet propaganda based on telling people that they'll die on every trip if they don't wear a helmet.

Per mile travelled, the risks of cycling and walking are almost identical, but most people think that cycling is many times riskier.

Nah.

  "Percieved danger" translates to "stress and work required to keep safe because the responsibility for it is largely placed on you".    The 'risks' you refer to are based on misused statistics.  They ignore the different amount of psychological work done by the two groups in order to make the 'risks' appear identical.

Edit - I mean, which group gets the pressure to use safety equipment?  Which one has special  'training' programs set up?  Where's "walkability" training people to walk along pavements?  If they are both equally safe, why does one need special training?

[/quote]

I'd love to know your definition of properly used statistics if you think that the stats about walking and cycling are misused.

There is lots of advice and admonitions to pedestrians to use safety equipment, the Highway Code and hi-viz spring immediately to mind, and I regularly see crocodiles of schoolchildren being shepherded by parents.  If cycling is treated as more dangerous and therefore more deserving of the attention of safety-obsessed people, it's because there has been a thirty year campaign dangerising it to sell helmets.

The fact remains that per mile travelled, cycling is as dangerous, or safe as walking, but most people think it is much more dangerous.  My MSc dissertation was partly about perceived risk in cyclists and very few of them correctly identified the level of risk.

burtthebike wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Perceived danger is not the same as actual risk, and most people are extremely poor at estimating real risk, and also, we've had thirty years of helmet propaganda based on telling people that they'll die on every trip if they don't wear a helmet.

Per mile travelled, the risks of cycling and walking are almost identical, but most people think that cycling is many times riskier.

Nah.

  "Percieved danger" translates to "stress and work required to keep safe because the responsibility for it is largely placed on you".    The 'risks' you refer to are based on misused statistics.  They ignore the different amount of psychological work done by the two groups in order to make the 'risks' appear identical.

Edit - I mean, which group gets the pressure to use safety equipment?  Which one has special  'training' programs set up?  Where's "walkability" training people to walk along pavements?  If they are both equally safe, why does one need special training?

I'd love to know your definition of properly used statistics if you think that the stats about walking and cycling are misused.

There is lots of advice and admonitions to pedestrians to use safety equipment, the Highway Code and hi-viz spring immediately to mind, and I regularly see crocodiles of schoolchildren being shepherded by parents.  If cycling is treated as more dangerous and therefore more deserving of the attention of safety-obsessed people, it's because there has been a thirty year campaign dangerising it to sell helmets.

The fact remains that per mile travelled, cycling is as dangerous, or safe as walking, but most people think it is much more dangerous.  My MSc dissertation was partly about perceived risk in cyclists and very few of them correctly identified the level of risk.

It's clear they are misused, becuase the figure quoted is just 'ksi per mile travelled' which entirely fails to account for (a) that cyclists are an entirely self-selected group and not a scientificly selected random representation of the population and (b) that the cyclists are doing more work to maintain that level of ksi compared to the pedestrians.

Anyone who was had walking and cycling as their main mode of travel at different times is going to be aware of the fact that the latter, with roads as they currently are, requires more work to keep safe.  I know that from my own direct experience.  When I'm not feeling up to it, I walk rather than cycle.

(There's also a more subtle psychological factor, in that if I'm hit by a car as a cyclist vs as a ped, I know I'll get way more victim-blaming from the media and the general populace - the newspaper report won't say "the pedestrian, who wasn't wearing a helmet...")

  You can go on telling people they are mistaken in that, but people will, on the whole, tend to trust their own direct experience over flawed statistics that fail to account for the two factors I mentioned.

On helmet-promotion (and the gradual increase in pressure for high-viz for pedestrians) we are in agreement, though I don't think the profit from selling the things is the main thing driving it.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I'd love to know your definition of properly used statistics if you think that the stats about walking and cycling are misused.

There is lots of advice and admonitions to pedestrians to use safety equipment, the Highway Code and hi-viz spring immediately to mind, and I regularly see crocodiles of schoolchildren being shepherded by parents.  If cycling is treated as more dangerous and therefore more deserving of the attention of safety-obsessed people, it's because there has been a thirty year campaign dangerising it to sell helmets.

The fact remains that per mile travelled, cycling is as dangerous, or safe as walking, but most people think it is much more dangerous.  My MSc dissertation was partly about perceived risk in cyclists and very few of them correctly identified the level of risk.

It's clear they are misused, becuase the figure quoted is just 'ksi per mile travelled' which entirely fails to account for (a) that cyclists are an entirely self-selected group and not a scientificly selected random representation of the population and (b) that the cyclists are doing more work to maintain that level of ksi compared to the pedestrians.

[/quote]

As I suspected, your definition of misused is frankly risible.

burtthebike wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I'd love to know your definition of properly used statistics if you think that the stats about walking and cycling are misused.

There is lots of advice and admonitions to pedestrians to use safety equipment, the Highway Code and hi-viz spring immediately to mind, and I regularly see crocodiles of schoolchildren being shepherded by parents.  If cycling is treated as more dangerous and therefore more deserving of the attention of safety-obsessed people, it's because there has been a thirty year campaign dangerising it to sell helmets.

The fact remains that per mile travelled, cycling is as dangerous, or safe as walking, but most people think it is much more dangerous.  My MSc dissertation was partly about perceived risk in cyclists and very few of them correctly identified the level of risk.

It's clear they are misused, becuase the figure quoted is just 'ksi per mile travelled' which entirely fails to account for (a) that cyclists are an entirely self-selected group and not a scientificly selected random representation of the population and (b) that the cyclists are doing more work to maintain that level of ksi compared to the pedestrians.

As I suspected, your definition of misused is frankly risible.

[/quote]

So no actual argument to offer then?  I guess that means you concede the point.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I'd love to know your definition of properly used statistics if you think that the stats about walking and cycling are misused.

There is lots of advice and admonitions to pedestrians to use safety equipment, the Highway Code and hi-viz spring immediately to mind, and I regularly see crocodiles of schoolchildren being shepherded by parents.  If cycling is treated as more dangerous and therefore more deserving of the attention of safety-obsessed people, it's because there has been a thirty year campaign dangerising it to sell helmets.

The fact remains that per mile travelled, cycling is as dangerous, or safe as walking, but most people think it is much more dangerous.  My MSc dissertation was partly about perceived risk in cyclists and very few of them correctly identified the level of risk.

It's clear they are misused, becuase the figure quoted is just 'ksi per mile travelled' which entirely fails to account for (a) that cyclists are an entirely self-selected group and not a scientificly selected random representation of the population and (b) that the cyclists are doing more work to maintain that level of ksi compared to the pedestrians.

As I suspected, your definition of misused is frankly risible.

So no actual argument to offer then?  I guess that means you concede the point.

[/quote]

TBH, your proposition is so full of holes it's self evident, and life's too short to argue with idiots.

burtthebike wrote:

TBH, your proposition is so full of holes it's self evident, and life's too short to argue with idiots.

 Pointing out that stats that use a self-selected sample and that don't address the real issue are flawed, is 'full of holes'?  But you can't actually list any of those 'holes'?  Er, OK.

You have no argument and can only throw insults.  Clearly you aren't  capable of a rational discussion on the topic.

Edit - shame because I'm sure on other topics you can be perfectly sensible.

burtthebike wrote:

londoncommute wrote:

Do you not think though that a lot of people just use safety as an excuse?

If you point out that it is as dangerous as walking

It's slightly LESS dangerous than walking in London, according to an analysis of the data I saw earlier in the year.

spragger wrote:

This is very sad but predictable

I have tried a large number of cycleways up & down the country and apart from the Tarka Way in the SouthWest, they have all been found wanting. One near Redcar was downright dangerous.

As a bit of a challenge, after riding up in the Wessex Downs, I thought I would try the Cycleway 45 for the first time through Swindon, on my way heading North.

I have a good sense of direction but got 'misplaced' a number of times, due to inadequate signing.  I then ended up on gravel, with my one inch tyres. Swindon is very self congratulatory about its cycling network.

More to do .. . 

 

Route 45 has some gravel sections. I ride them on my road bike with 25mm tyres. It's not difficult. I agree with you about the signage in West Swindon, it's crap.