- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cycling Fallacies.png‘Cycling Fallacies’ website launches
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.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 2 sec ago
What's that? A mobile home for squirrels?
- PRSboy 14 min 2 sec ago
The advertising in Strava is in the feed, usually disguised as some low-grade challenge sponsored by Whoever. Every time one of your 'friends'...
- mark1a 21 min 50 sec ago
Brompton however....
- Backladder 32 min 42 sec ago
While original sash windows are nice they make it very hard to keep the house warm, we eventually went for upvc double glazed sash window...
- wtjs 51 min 26 sec ago
The UK's 'Active Travel' checklist seems to be:...
- Andrewbanshee 1 hour 55 min ago
As you said the pedals will be hidden anyway. My shoes, 3 pairs of them, have reflective strips on the heel and my winter trousers do too on the...
- Steve K 1 hour 56 min ago
Other drivers only care about disabled people when it gives them a way to object to cycling infrastructure.
- mark1a 10 hours 21 sec ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 15 hours 26 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
Add new comment
102 comments
Can someone hit the reset button on this topic, please?
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 billy goat gruff...
I'm sorry. You've missed my point entirely.
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.
Ahem...
Paint + Helmet = Imortality
Pain - Helmet = Your fault when a drunk dirver updating facebook mows you down!
Yay, someone dun a reanimator.
Weird reading since Willo was disappeared...
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.
Have you managed not to ride into any cars today?
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.
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.
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.
You guys all spell 'cunt' funny...
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 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.
Quite right. He should have said "if you're happy for your children to be crushed under the wheels of an errant truck".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
Pages