Soldato
Only they are not, the only roads that are for cars and other motor vehicles are motorways.
In all seriousness, so sensible awnsers please...
- Thread starter Orionaut
- Start date
Only they are not, the only roads that are for cars and other motor vehicles are motorways.
Man of Honour
That is a fair point and one I agree with HOWEVER you are the one claiming all cyclists should be banned from the roads and roads are for cars.
That also proves my point that a lot of car drivers look down on the rest of the motoring fraternity believing they are top of the chain otherwise you would have said 'Roads are for motorists'.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 May 2018
- Posts
- 151
It sounds like people know motorists are the cause of death for some cyclists on the road. But instead of dealing with bad drivers, they want cyclists to pay the price by not being able to use the roads. Very strange stance to take.
Soldato
This thread... again.
out of here with your facts!
Soldato
It's just common sense. It's been a long time since the first bicycle traversed a designated road, and the road network was very different back then. You could even argue that roads were built for cyclists. But all that was 100 years ago; the roads are no longer sparsely populated with Model T Fords topping out at 40mph.
There were a lot of things considered normal 100 years ago that we wouldn't consider acceptable now. Cycling on a busy road is without doubt one of them. Kids cycling on a busy road unsupervised is unthinkable to most responsible parents, and that's the subject of this thread.
It's all very well quoting favourable statistics and making relevant points regarding the questionable competency of drivers, but it doesn't change the reality of what's out there. I actually enjoy cycling, but I wouldn't cycle on the road - there are 2 public areas near me where the speed limit on the road is 15mph specifically to safeguard cyclists and pedestrians. There's also a fantastic cross country route if I really want a workout.
Soldato
I get annoyed when a kid dies on the roads who didn't have too. I get annoyed when I see parents decide that their kids safety isn't the parents responsibility but everyone else's. I get annoyed that we have a very specific set of tests and exams to make sure everyone who uses the roads system knows the same info and can use the roads safely (even though accidents still happen) yet we then throw kids onto the road, risking their lives, and we expect everyone else to be flawless when we KNOW thats impossible.
So basically I get annoyed that this country thinks so little of our kids lives that we're happy to do all of the above without worrying. Again if it was an adult cyclist killed, I'd be less annoyed because an adult has made a choice regarding personal responsibility, a child however doesn't get to choose and depends on adults to make that choice for them.
Soldato
But the risk is substantially a mis-perception. 100 cycling deaths per year. Apparently, in England 2.6 million people cycle 3+ times per week.
The risk is vanishingly small.
Where I live, we quite possibly get more cyclists going past the house than cars at weekends (seems to be a popular route for enthusiasts) and I'm always seeing kids out there on bikes. Possibly, my perspective is skewed by having opted to bring up a family somewhere where cycling is commonplace and safe. Certainly, my wife wouldn't have taken our 5.5 year old out on the road where we used to live in Bristol. Here, it wasn't a big deal.
However,
Cycling is considerably more dangerous per-mile than Driving, probabally considerably more dangerous than driving drunk (Most drink driving fatalities actually only involve the drunk driver, Not third parties so as far as "Risk to self" is concerned, the comparison is not unreasonable)
Soldato
'Per mile' isn't really a useful basis. Car journeys are probably somewhat longer on average. Certainly, most cyclists, and all child cyclists, are not going to be hitting the 10k/year car mileage average.
Another way to look at is is this:
If a cycle journey is 15 times more likely, per mile, to result in death than car journeys**, taking your kids on a 150 mile car trip is just as dangerous as a 10 mile bike ride.
I wonder if you, or @ianh, is similarly excercised at driving kids to Alton Towers for a day out as seemingly so about my 5.5 year old taking a day out on the bike.
** source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eath-warning-against-witch-hunt-a7960291.html
Soldato
No, because it's only your life thats ruined if (worst case) your kid gets killed, not mine, but I'll still be annoyed that it happened. Also, just to answer the "drive to Alton Towers" portion - it's not even close to a "like for like" comparison when you compare pushbikes vs cars/trucks against the risk of cars vs cars/trucks - as your own post showed, 15 times more dangerous to be a cyclist on the road, and thats for adults, now imagine having a 15 times greater risk aimed at your kid, I couldn't justify that, you can.
At the end of the day it's your kids life, you do what you feel is right, it's your choice in the end. I know what I'd choose.
Soldato
What is it with the meaningless statistics, only the statistics that support your point of view, of course. 
This is classic risk/probability confusion, and there's no way of knowing if those numbers are accurate. In fact, one Google later and those stats are blown out of the water.
In 2017...
8 children killed, 94 adults killed.
Thousands of serious injuries.
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs...fety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf
That's just the accidents that get reported to the police; many don't. Cycling on the road is dangerous, it's undeniable. No responsible parent should encourage their child to cycle on the road, it's a complete no brainer.
This is classic risk/probability confusion, and there's no way of knowing if those numbers are accurate. In fact, one Google later and those stats are blown out of the water.
In 2017...
8 children killed, 94 adults killed.
Thousands of serious injuries.
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs...fety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf
That's just the accidents that get reported to the police; many don't. Cycling on the road is dangerous, it's undeniable. No responsible parent should encourage their child to cycle on the road, it's a complete no brainer.
If you are comparing transport risks, Per mile has to be the most important factor to consider
Most car journeys are less than 5 miles, just like most cycle journeys.
Relative risk when Deciding whether to make that trip to work in a car or on a bike is very much a relevant factor to consider
Most DUI journeys tend to be relatively short too, does that make them less dangerous?
Soldato
You seem to be misunderstanding the stat.
15 times more fatal per mile on the bike compared with car. So the risk of death is the same for a 15 mile car journey as for a 1 mile bike ride. On those stats driving to Alton towers would put my kids at more risk than their 10 mile bike ride (Alton towers is more like 250 miles round trip for me).
Soldato
None of this means much, though - you're missing a variable or two to give context. There are hundreds of thousands of injuries from motor vehicles on the roads every year, and thousands of deaths, but you're telling me that's safer.What is it with the meaningless statistics, only the statistics that support your point of view, of course.
This is classic risk/probability confusion, and there's no way of knowing if those numbers are accurate. In fact, one Google later and those stats are blown out of the water.
In 2017...
8 children killed, 94 adults killed.
Thousands of serious injuries.
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs...fety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf
That's just the accidents that get reported to the police; many don't. Cycling on the road is dangerous, it's undeniable. No responsible parent should encourage their child to cycle on the road, it's a complete no brainer.
What are the statistics that support your point of view that kids shouldn't be on the roads for their own safety? The deaths per mile one wasn't introduced by me - it was introduced to support your point of view (by @Orionaut ) - I just turned it around to illustrate that it doesn't really support what he thinks it supports.
Soldato
Not really - kids aren't cycling as an alternative to driving. Not usually.
I wouldn't take them on that 10 mile drive, as the whole point was the experience of cycling. Neither would I cycle them to Alton Towers. And I wouldn't drive my son to his friend's house - he'd have to walk on the pavement-less road instead.
I don't know why they don't just allow cyclists on pavements without needing a specific cycle lane to be drawn taking half of the footpath, I spent decades cycling as a youngster and I don't recall ever hitting a pedestrian and even you do it's not going to be fatal unlike cyclists on roads.
Who would want to cycle these days though anyway? you'd probably get fined by the police for not wearing a helmet, having a yellow vest or lights or something. Then again come to think of it it can't be long before the government release a 200 page instruction manual for how pedestrians are to use pavements.
Who would want to cycle these days though anyway? you'd probably get fined by the police for not wearing a helmet, having a yellow vest or lights or something. Then again come to think of it it can't be long before the government release a 200 page instruction manual for how pedestrians are to use pavements.
Soldato
Roads were developed for people to travel from A to B. 100 years ago this meant horses, bicycles and pedestrians.
With the advent of cheap motorised transport this now means that 95% of road users are now cars/vans/lorries.
This DOES NOT mean that other users should not use the roads. It means that the 90% should show consideration and patience.
In an ideal world there would be a decent network of "cycle" ways for non motorised traffic, but until there is sharing will need to take place.
Should a 9 year old be able to use a road cycling YES. But pragmatically there are idiots out there that make it unwise.
You shouldn't need to lock your door when you go out not because you reduce and manage risk, you do !
With the advent of cheap motorised transport this now means that 95% of road users are now cars/vans/lorries.
This DOES NOT mean that other users should not use the roads. It means that the 90% should show consideration and patience.
In an ideal world there would be a decent network of "cycle" ways for non motorised traffic, but until there is sharing will need to take place.
Should a 9 year old be able to use a road cycling YES. But pragmatically there are idiots out there that make it unwise.
You shouldn't need to lock your door when you go out not because you reduce and manage risk, you do !
Soldato
Forget statistics, they can mean whatever you want them to mean.
My point of view is based on the fact that I have 20 years experience as a parent, and I have 25 years experience as a driver. I don't need to be fed percentages or probability odds to know that a 5 year old should not be riding a bicycle on the public road.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Cycles should all have their own lane. In fact in order to reduce pollution where there were 3 lanes before make it 2 with 1 dedicated to bikes.
I don't agree with cyclists using pavements. Because a lot of junkies have bikes and tend to use the pavements because well they are junkies. Especially in cicty centers which have a lot of pedestrian traffic.
I also believe they need to limit the number of taxis and put harsher testing into emissions. The diesel car in front of me this morning was throwing out enough smoke to kill several people. I instantly turned the fans off as soon as i saw the smoke billowing out like a forest fire. The air quality is an issue which dedicated cycle lanes can help resolve.