Forum menu
I can't be arsed any more, I shall just cycle through London tonight on my way home, on my Brompton, wearing jeans!!!! with a nice rapha cap keeping the rain out of my eyes, and I'm fairly sure that I'll be fine.
The stats are correct, but not meaningful, because cyclists travel further per journey.
My journey from home to work is the same length, regardless of how I get there 🙂
Yes, but if I work 5 miles from my house I don't tend to walk it very often...
have we had
"Women, for goodness sakes, dont cycle"
yet?
Or drive?
Yes, but if I work 5 miles from my house I don't tend to walk it very often...
But, if the only thing putting you off cycling was perceived danger, finding out that it was no more dangerous than walking might encourage you to cycle.
If I could give one bit of advice to London cyclists it would be cars will hurt you but HGVs will kill you
My journey from home to work is the same length, regardless of how I get there
The stats are correct, but not meaningful, because cyclists travel further per journey.
Yes, but if I work 5 miles from my house I don't tend to walk it very often...
In London (and I know that's not the only place to live but it's what the stats relate to) the alternative is unlikely to be walking or driving, it's a mixed mode journey.
You could also ask the question as to whether risk relates to distance travelled or time spent. I spend the same time to walk 4 miles as I do to cycle 10. How do you account for that?
Look - [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100246626/boris-dont-ban-cycling-with-headphones-youll-make-people-die-younger/ ]some science m'kay[/url] - from the Telegraph of all places
Cycling's good for you and the health benefits outweigh the dangers.
Helmets and headphones are an irrelevance.
Lights are a legal requirement, and stuff that gets you seen (which might be as simple as ankle bands on jeans) is a really good idea.
Wearing black head to toe is probably more dangerous for a pedestrian than it is for a cyclist with decent lights. (anecdote I know but I get surprised by more peds than bikes when I'm in the car)
Overly bright lights that dazzle are counter-productive - point them down and don't be a dick. They blind other cyclists as well as drivers.
You could spend millions each year on safety films and change nothing. They'd have no long term impact - whereas that money spent on infrastructure goes on being useful. If you MUST then the focus should be on drivers - there's been masses of 'take care of yourself' crap for years.
Has everyone taken [url= http://toys.usvsth3m.com/boris-johnsons-cycle-safety-test/ ]Boris Johnson's Cycle Safety Test[/url]?
I would love to see a big public awareness campaign around helping road users understand each other and not leap to anger and physical reaction. A real push to change attitutes. Tricky, but attitudes are at the core of questions like "Why can't we be more like Copenhagen?"
Top of the head ideas:
"Is it worth it?" Show 20mph zone - cyclist doing 15-20mph, traffic and parked cars ahead - Is is worth overtaking? Cyclist pulls past to front of queue at lights - they're gone straight afterwards or maybe you have to overtake - is it worth getting angry?
"Don't worry - be happy" (or something slightly less trite "chill the **** out you moody shit" perhaps). A series of quick burst montage of tiny clips (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz style) of the reactions and decisions of a happy, aware, considerate person commuting (different versions for car truck/van taxi, bike, foot) and another person getting angry and aggressive in reaction to the same events - show that the only difference is in everyone's mood (and those they affect - scowls on other's faces), not on journey time - or show it's negligible - unhappy person shows up at 8:55 fuming; happy person shows up at 8:56.
And something along the same lines as the binge drinking ads showing awful, drunk behaviour - "You wouldn't [i]start[/i] a night like this..." Take bad road behaviour seen every day and show people on foot in supermarkets (airports, pubs, post offices etc) barging past to get one person ahead, people getting angry and acting aggressively in reaction to the slightest inconsequential things, threatening behaviour, swearing in people's faces - "You wouldn't do this in a pub..." Show it to be ridiculous and shameful.
I think ned's winning the bid to make these films.
There was an advert with people behaving like road raging drivers whilst on foot, but it was only for an insurance company which was a shame.
It's still basically the NiceWayCode though isn't it? The sort of twunts who speed at 40mph on residential streets, who use their cars to force you out of the way, the stony faced school run mums who only care about getting little johnny to school, the 2m uninsured drivers, the Emma Ways, the kind of idiot who drives on the motorway by driving full pelt up to the car in front then slamming on the brakes.
None of them are going to pay the slightest bit of attention. The one and only thing that will get those people driving differently is fines large enough to matter and the thought that someone is going to take their licence away.
While we're on NiceWayCode type interventions, a sign of how far we have to go.
Yesterday two different, sensible, experienced female riders told me of abuse they'd had. Both riding in normal clothes, with a smattering of hi-viz, and helmets on sensible bikes (possibly both bromptons). The antithesis of the "Lycra Lout" stereotype.
Rider 1, Katie, got a blast of the horn and v-sign from a female driver for daring to take the lane on a narrow residential street that's used as a rat run.
Rider 2, quietly spoken female, had a driver who called her a **** from his open window and said something about her ****ing stupid helmet for having the temerity to cause him to slow down by turning right.
Nice.
For motorists:
"If you jump red lights, use mobiles, drive dangerously, or threaten other road users by driving aggressively, we will prosecute, and prosecute hard."
[i] Yes, I'm immensely sure, I got those figures directly from the TfL document here
The stats are correct, but not meaningful, because cyclists travel further per journey. [/i]
Also, presumably pretty much everyone who drives and cycles, does a bit of walking too.
If I were to include a single piece of advice in a cycling safety video for cyclists it would be to assume everyone in a vehicle is a ****nut.
if I were to provide advice for drivers it would be pretty much the same thing.
Something I try to do, although I'll admit that I don't always is:
[i]Act and treat others how you'd like them to act towards and treat you[/i]
[edit] I'm amused that you don't term Katie a "quietly spoken female" 😉
[img] 
[/img]
One for drivers pulling out of side streets. At least make eye contact with the cyclist approaching on the main road. It's [b]very[/b] reassuring to know that you know that I'm there.
Rule 1 surely is still the most important
If we could sort out people being dicks, that would be an excellent start
Needs editing to make it a bit more punchy
jumps to 2.30 to get to the meat and potatoes
On my commute I generally see equal bad practices from drivers and cyclists. I see a lot of cyclists who glare into the car even when they have been passed very safely. Some cyclists look for confrontation.
I'm amused that you don't term Katie a "quietly spoken female"
You know her well enough to know that description wouldn't stand up in court. Those incidents were both on the same day this week. Pretty awful really. Woman at work was really quite shaken up.
Earlier in the week I was thinking that people drivers were being a bit more careful round cyclists, but after the commute in this morning, I might not be quite so hopeful.
As regards different types of drivers I reckon that the worst, in terms of aggression, are mid 20s to mid40s women, followed by minicab and construction lorry drivers.
It is quite clear though, that there is no effective policing of road use in London in any shape or form, and when it does happen it is overwhelmingly biased towards motorists.