Idiot Cyclist

[Sue]

Blah Blah Wrote:

->

> Most people learn to cycle as young children, and

> they do learn in 5 minutes.

5 minutes? I think not!

Where is your evidence for that?!

[Sue]

wulfhound Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> would it not make far more sense to make

> Bikeability (the modern-day replacement for

> Cycling Proficiency) a compulsory part of the

> National Curriculum? It would also help make those

> who do later choose to get cars a lot more

> cycle-aware than some of those behind the wheel

> currently.

>

Excellent idea!

[Loz]

MissMadMoo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Motor vehicle and cycle involvement in pedestrian

> fatal and serious injuries, annual

> average 2009-13 in URBAN areas (excluding

> motorways:

>

> % of pedestrians killed

> By Car 99.2

> By Idiot cyclist 0.82

>

> Evil naughty cyclist, ban them all i say!

What percentage of traffic do 'cars' make up?

Did you know that between 2009-2013 zero pedestrians were killed on UK roads by Panzer tanks? They must be the safest form of transport, then.

[MissMadMoo]

On average each year from 2009-13:

- Cycles accounted for about 2% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic and were

involved in 0.82% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.6% of serious injuries to pedestrians.

- Mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were about 1.2 times more likely than a cycle to

seriously injure a pedestrian, and almost 2.5 times as likely to kill them.

Taken from CTC Jan 2015.

[yourmomma]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MissMadMoo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Motor vehicle and cycle involvement in

> pedestrian

> > fatal and serious injuries, annual

> > average 2009-13 in URBAN areas (excluding

> > motorways:

> >

> > % of pedestrians killed

> > By Car 99.2

> > By Idiot cyclist 0.82

> >

> > Evil naughty cyclist, ban them all i say!

>

> What percentage of traffic do 'cars' make up?

>

> Did you know that between 2009-2013 zero

> pedestrians were killed on UK roads by Panzer

> tanks? They must be the safest form of transport,

> then.

Not that safe..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31431596

http://news.sky.com/story/1494560/british-tank-flattens-learner-drivers-car

[Earl Aelfheah]

Who would have imagined where this thread would lead?

[Blah Blah]

lol rahrah.

Sue, it took just 5 mins for my own two children to go from stabilsers to no stabilisers at the ages of 6 and 7 respectively. I remember it taking me a similar amound of time and at a similar age. Kids tend to get that you just have to go for it, better than adults do. A bicycle, once it's going, is hard to fall off of. Adults find it harder to learn to ride a cycle because they worry more about fallling off than kids do. It's the same for many things, like skiing and swimming for example. All easier to pick up in childhood. And there's plenty of evidence to back that up in a fair few psychology manuals. We can even test that here. How many people who cycle can remember when they went from stabilisers to two wheels? How hard was it?

[Loz]

yourmomma Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not that safe..

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31431596

> http://news.sky.com/story/1494560/british-tank-flattens-learner-drivers-car

Ah, but they weren't *Panzer* tanks. It makes all the difference, you know.

[fizzmoll]

This is an interesting EU report looking at the benefits of people cycling rather than using cars:

http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF_Economic-benefits-of-cycling-in-EU-27.pdf

This report calculates an annual economic benefit of cycling in the EU-27 of at least ? 205 bn.

Also, when it comes to investment in cycle related infrastructure: (from the report above)

-----

A report for the UK Department of Health in 2010 concluded that

"...the economic justification for investments to facilitate cycling and walking has been undervalued or not even considered in public policy decision-making. Yet, almost all of the studies report economic benefits which are highly significant, with benefit to cost ratios averaging 13:1 (UK and nonUK)."

In comparison, UK government guidance on the evaluation of major projects says that a ?medium? value-for-money project will have a BCR of between 1.5 ? 2, and a ?high? value-for money project a BCR of at least 2.5.

-----

London also has a massive problem with pollution ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study ) and more people cycling could greatly contribute to a better urban environment in terms of NO2 levels for example.

These are also interesting reads about long term urban planning and analysis:

http://international.stockholm.se/globalassets/ovriga-bilder-och-filer/urban-mobility-strategy.pdf

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=3972511&fileOId=3972519

[Loz]

Those 'lets make up a figure to call a cost benefit' studies are always dubious, to say the least (not picking on cycling ones here, any of them).

For instance, how can you possibly say that "Reduced noise pollution" is worth EUR300m of benefit to the economy?? How? It's all a nonsense.

[mynamehere]

Great stuff fizzmoll. I've reposted on Stop Killing Cyclists FaceBook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/stopkillingcyclists/

[fizzmoll]

@Loz - I totally agree and I heard a programme on the radio today where they argued something like along these lines - which made sense at least to me:

Benefit to cost ratios are indeed extremely hard to measure and evaluate and is not a precise science in any way - HOWEVER what conclusion can be safely be drawn from ratios of 10:1 and above is that it identifies an area which is highly likely to be interesting for further research and investigations. It's time to take cycling seriously from an economic perspective. It is still being seen as some sort of sport/hobby/kids/leisure activity but in reality it is an extremely smart and cost effective means of urban transportation. European urban areas are growing very rapidly and this problem won't go away.

Cycling is here to stay. I am pretty sure that what we are seeing now is only the beginning.

[Sue]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Sue, it took just 5 mins for my own two children

> to go from stabilsers to no stabilisers at the

> ages of 6 and 7 respectively. I remember it taking

> me a similar amound of time and at a similar age.

> Kids tend to get that you just have to go for it,

> better than adults do. A bicycle, once it's going,

> is hard to fall off of. Adults find it harder to

> learn to ride a cycle because they worry more

> about fallling off than kids do. It's the same for

> many things, like skiing and swimming for example.

> All easier to pick up in childhood. And there's

> plenty of evidence to back that up in a fair few

> psychology manuals. We can even test that here.

> How many people who cycle can remember when they

> went from stabilisers to two wheels? How hard was

> it?

Well, you may be right but you are extrapolating from a rather small sample of three - your two children and yourself :)

I can't comment because my grandchildren never had stabilisers, they had balance bikes before their "proper" bikes.

They both learned to ride their proper bikes very quickly (their parents are both keen cyclists) but I'm pretty sure it was rather more than five minutes :)) However if memory serves they were younger than your children, as the little one has just moved on to her second (larger) "proper" bike, and she's not six and a half yet.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We can even test that here. How many people who cycle can remember when they

> went from stabilisers to two wheels? How hard was it?

Well, it was a very (very, very) long time ago, but IIRC it was over the course of a couple of weeks. Dad took the stabilisers up a notch every few days until I no longer used them at all, before removing them altogether. Mind you, I was only 4 or 5 (rather than your kid's 6/7) at the time, but I'd still be very surprised if a kid could go from first time on a bike to no stabilisers in 5 mins.

> It's the same for many things, like skiing and swimming for example. All easier to pick up in childhood.

I've taught many kids to ski, and it really depends on the kid in question. I've had some up and skiing blue level in a day or so and red by the end of the week. Others have had me beating my head on the magic carpet controls still on the nursery slope five days later. I imagine cycling is not dissimilar.

[Blah Blah]

I think we are splitting hairs here. Of course some kids will take longer or not get there at all but I was talking generally (and generally most children pick things up very quickly), to make the point to Penguin that to think cyclists need as much training and examination as car or motorcyle drivers is nonsense.

Really young children haven't quite developed perfect balance Sue (and again that depends on the child) but 5-7 years seems to be the age when they start to negotiate those things very well. Boys of course lose some of that during puberty as their legs and arms spurt out of proportion. But that's a whole other discussion :D

I also do think that cyclists are in an awkward place. They are not a fast as most other traffic, and some drivers DO get irritated by that (even if the cyclist is cyling perfectly) and at the same time, they are too quick to really be sharing space with pedestrians. Cycle lanes are good but they are not possible on every road. In the end, the responsibility has to lie with road users themselves, putting safety first.

[nunhead_man]

Some interesting pictures here ............

http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/southwark-cyclists-road-works-patrol-30-july-2015/

See cycle volumes at rush hour in e.g. item 12