Are bikes the solution?

Peter said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was
basically about the road rage between cyclists. They say
that accidents are increasing because more people are
going onto two wheels.

There are already a lot of accidents.

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

The same is true of many road users -- it is not just
limited to cyclists. But I agree, the lack of a suitable
proficiency test for cyclists needs to be addressed.
Remember, though, that cyclists in collision with
pedestrians are much less likely to kill or maim than motor
vehicle in collision with peds.

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution
be effected?

If cycling were taken up in signifcant numbers, the level of
pollution would most likely be reduced due to significantly
fewer motor vehicles on the roads.

Quoted message said:

When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then
acclerate past them when it's safe.

Try accellerating less hard, or ease up to create space as
you approach a cyclist and then pass safely without
increasing your speed differential so much.

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

No. Motor vehicles do this quite well enough.

ps, trying to apply the faults associated with motor
transport to cycle transport just doesn't work.

Peter said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution
be effected? When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up
and then acclerate past them when it's safe. When a whole
stream of cars do this then the pollution is going to
increase a lot.

More than the pollution saved by that person cycling rather
than driving?

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a
valid argument for building more dedicated cycle paths that
were separate from the road. And there would be fewer cars.

I'll bite...

"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was
basically about the road rage between cyclists. They say
that accidents are increasing because more people are
going onto two wheels. If the government want us to go
onto two wheels then there could be a lot of accidents.

Because of stupid and/or inconsiderate road use. If people
engaged their brains these accidents wouldn't happen.

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

Ditto motorists - and probably to a greater extent

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution
be effected? When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up
and then acclerate past them when it's safe. When a whole
stream of cars do this then the pollution is going to
increase a lot.

Learn accelerator sense. Slowing gently and accelerating
gently won't make that much difference to maintaining a
steady speed.

Additionally using bikes (or walking) for short journeys
would negate the effect (and some)

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

If people used bikes (or walked) for short journeys then
congestion and pollution would be reduced.

IIRC 20-ish % of car journeys are under a mile.[1] This
causes alot of congestion and pollution. These journeys are
often quicker by bike or foot. Additionally, cars are
damaged by such short journeys.

[1] I can't find a reference for this, so if anyone could
provide one or correct me I'd be grateful.

On 24 May 2004 12:08:31 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter)

wrote in message : said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was
basically about the road rage between cyclists.

In other words, some people are arses even when you take
away their metal boxes. No big surprise there. Me, I find it
hard to engage in traffic anger on my bike. If I throw a
tantrum I will probably get flattened. One cyclist was
deliberately run over and he and his toddler daughter
seriously injured simply because he shook his fist at some
git who carved him up. Life's too short.

Quoted message said:

They say that accidents are increasing because more people
are going onto two wheels.

"they" may say that, but they are essentially wrong. The
number of cyclist collisions per mile travelled drops as the
number of cyclists increases. This is the experience
everywhere, as far as I can tell. So...

Quoted message said:

If the government want us to go onto two wheels then there
could be a lot of accidents.

But actually every cyclist will, on average, be a bit safer
for every additional cyclist who starts. And since a
regular cyclist lives two years or more longer than
average, the risk of crashes can't be quite as bad as they
would like you to think.

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

Correct - a statement which also applies to many drivers,
of course.

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution
be effected?

Let me see. A typical car emits between 150 and 250g of CO2
per km travelled, and this comes from non-renewable sources.
A typical cyclist emits significantly less, and all comes
from renewable sources. Bicycle emission of particulates is
zero. Also bicycle emission of NOx is zero. No benzene is
released in fuelling the bicycle.

Nope, can't see what you're getting at ;-)

Quoted message said:

When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then
acclerate past them when it's safe. When a whole
stream of cars do this then the pollution is going to
increase a lot.

This effect is negligible by comparison with temissions due
to idling engines in traffic jams, and the reduced
efficiency of engines in urban cycle to start with.

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring them
to a stand still?

I think you'll find it's the cars that are bringing the
roads to a standstill...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Peter said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was
basically about the road rage between cyclists. They say
that accidents are increasing because more people are
going onto two wheels. If the government want us to go
onto two wheels then there could be a lot of accidents.
Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution
be effected? When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up
and then acclerate past them when it's safe. When a whole
stream of cars do this then the pollution is going to
increase a lot.

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

fix the ignition system on your car.

Peter said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was
basically about the road rage between cyclists. They say
that accidents are increasing because more people are
going onto two wheels. If the government want us to go
onto two wheels then there could be a lot of accidents.
Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

All the evidence points to more cyclists being safer - a
doubling of cyclists or walkers reduces the risk per
individual by 66%. I suggest you read Safety in numbers:
more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling,
Jacobsen PL. Injury Prevention, 2003;9:205-209
(ip.bmjjournals.com205Open ↗) which
concludes:

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a
person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle.
Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and
bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the
safety of people walking and bicycling.

This is a data based analysis, not theoretical so takes into
account that there are many different abilities of cyclists

Tony

"scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a
valid argument for building more dedicated cycle paths
that were separate from the road.

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a
right to use the road. Dedicated cycle paths are more
dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone can point you to a
reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

Just zis Guy said:

On 24 May 2004 12:08:31 -0700,
[email hidden] (Peter)

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will
pollution be effected?

Let me see. A typical car emits between 150 and 250g of
CO2 per km travelled, and this comes from non-renewable
sources. A typical cyclist emits significantly less, and
all comes from renewable sources. Bicycle emission of
particulates is zero. Also bicycle emission of NOx is
zero. No benzene is released in fuelling the bicycle.

I wonder if on average people eat more if they cycle rather
than drive?

If so and a significant proportion of people started
cycling the amount of food (+packaging, transportation
etc) would need to increase. This would increase pollution
... a bit :-)

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution
be effected?

Let me see. A typical car emits between 150 and 250g of
CO2 per km travelled, and this comes from non-renewable
sources. A typical cyclist emits significantly less, and
all comes from renewable sources. Bicycle emission of
particulates is zero. Also bicycle emission of NOx is
zero. No benzene is released in fuelling the bicycle.

I think you misread that. He said how will pollution be
_effected_ not how will it be _affected_. He clearly thinks
the missing pollution will need to be made up for in some
way or other ;-)

Tony

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 24 May 2004 12:08:31 -0700, [email hidden]
(Peter) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was
basically about the road rage between cyclists.

In other words, some people are arses even when you take
away their metal boxes. No big surprise there. Me, I find
it hard to engage in traffic anger on my bike. If I throw
a tantrum I will probably get flattened. One cyclist was
deliberately run over and he and his toddler daughter
seriously injured simply because he shook his fist at some
git who carved him up. Life's too short.

Hear, hear.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They say that accidents are increasing because more
people are going onto two wheels.

"they" may say that, but they are essentially wrong. The
number of cyclist collisions per mile travelled drops as
the number of cyclists increases. This is the experience
everywhere, as far as I can tell.

Eh? This doesn't make any sense to me. Do you have a
reference, or can you explain why this might be so, since
there are more cyclists on the road for other cyclists to
collide with?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the government want us to go onto two wheels then
there could be a lot of accidents.

But actually every cyclist will, on average, be a bit
safer for every additional cyclist who starts. And since a
regular cyclist lives two years or more longer than
average, the risk of crashes can't be quite as bad as they
would like you to think.

But the OP isn't saying that the accidents are fatal and
life span shortening - he is just saying that there will be
a lot of accidents.

<snippage>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

I think you'll find it's the cars that are bringing the
roads to a standstill...

That may be now, but I'm not entirely convinced that life
would be much better if hordes of cyclists were to take
to the road, given my experience doing the London to
Brighton ride.

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

scott said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a
valid argument for building more dedicated cycle paths that
were separate from the road. And there would be fewer cars.

which would, in turn, negate that reason.
--

Cheers,

Al

you know? said:

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

I think you'll find it's the cars that are bringing the
roads to a standstill...

When the roads (I assume that you mean the traffic on the
roads...) are at a standstill, it is hard to see how they
present a danger to a right-thinking cyclist.

CONGESTION IS GOOD.
--

Cheers,

Al

Just zis Guy said:

On 24 May 2004 12:08:31 -0700, [email hidden]
(Peter) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I just saw a road rage thing on TV, '2 v 4'. It was
basically about the road rage between cyclists.

In other words, some people are arses even when you take
away their metal boxes. No big surprise there. Me, I find
it hard to engage in traffic anger on my bike. If I throw
a tantrum I will probably get flattened. One cyclist was
deliberately run over and he and his toddler daughter
seriously injured simply because he shook his fist at some
git who carved him up. Life's too short.

That's certainly much easier to do on a motorbike, you can
easily give somebody 'the finger', and then leave them
behind ;-)

<Snipped Text>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists are complete idiots on the road and don't
understand the highway code at all.

Correct - a statement which also applies to many drivers,
of course.

Er, and pedestrians of course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution
be effected?

Let me see. A typical car emits between 150 and 250g of
CO2 per km travelled, and this comes from non-renewable
sources. A typical cyclist emits significantly less, and
all comes from renewable sources. Bicycle emission of
particulates is zero. Also bicycle emission of NOx is
zero. No benzene is released in fuelling the bicycle.

It's even worse than that for cars. Catalystic converters
are one of the biggest loads of [censored] there are for reducing
emissions. For a start CO2 is *increased* by the cat, as
it's one of the main byproducts in getting rid of the other
gasses (NOx is one of them). Oxygen is *consumed* by the cat
in order to create the CO2. Indeed the only good byproduct
of the cat is pure H2O. Although that only increases
corrosion in the exhaust, and therefore increased need for
replacements.

To cap it all, there is more pollution caused in simply
finding the precious metals used in the cat than it will
ever save in its entire life on the car, and that's even
before we go into the pollution caused during manufacture.

Quoted message said:

Nope, can't see what you're getting at ;-)

Indeed. Whatever you do, if you burn a fossil fuel,
something bad is going to be the result.

Mind you, enough cyclists on the road could produce a
methane problem ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then
acclerate past them when it's safe. When a whole stream
of cars do this then the pollution is going to increase
a lot.

This effect is negligible by comparison with temissions
due to idling engines in traffic jams, and the reduced
efficiency of engines in urban cycle to start with.

Actually, the worst offenders are speed humps. In most
places they are installed, both pollution *and*
accidents increase.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

I think you'll find it's the cars that are bringing the
roads to a standstill...

That and the lack of decent alternative transport.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda
Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
thehewitts.plus.comthehewitts.plus.comOpen ↗ - now online

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a
valid argument

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate
from the road.

Quoted message said:

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a
right to use the road. Dedicated cycle paths are more
dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone

can

Quoted message said:

point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated
cycle lanes?

I would rather see offroad cycle paths than "cycle lanes"
anyday as an on-road cycle lane offers 0% protection to a
cylist, who may think that a white painted line will protect
them from traffic. At least if the path is offroad then you
are not expected to use it if you don't want to. I saw a
particularly bad example on the outskirts of Exeter recently
which was a glass strewn kerbside lane with a metre wide
section of white hatching separating it from the main
traffic lane - there is no way i would cycle in the cycle
lane because of the debris, and there is no way i would
cycle on the hatchings due to both debis and bumpy white
lines, yet cycling on the traffic lane would probably get me
honked and shouted at (better than puntures but still
annoying).

Nathaniel Porter said:

"scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a
valid argument for building more dedicated cycle paths
that were separate from the road.

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a
right to use the road. Dedicated cycle paths are more
dangerous (I'm sure Guy or someone can point you to a
reference here). So why have dedicated cycle lanes?

I was just thinking about the pollution argument of cars
having to go around bikes on the road. If there were enough
bikes then the cars and bikes could be separated, hence
removing the need for cars to navigate their way around
bikes and vice-versa.

scott said:

I wonder if on average people eat more if they cycle
rather than drive?

If so and a significant proportion of people started
cycling the amount of food (+packaging, transportation
etc) would need to increase. This would increase pollution
... a bit :-)

Plus all those bike chains will need oiling. Will there be
enough oil to go round if everyone cycles. I think OPEC
should be asked. ;-)

Tony

Wild Wind said:

Eh? This doesn't make any sense to me. Do you have a
reference, or can you explain why this might be so, since
there are more cyclists on the road for other cyclists to
collide with?

ip.bmjjournals.com205Open ↗

Tony

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:38:17 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you

know? said:

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring
them to a stand still?

I think you'll find it's the cars that are bringing the
roads to a standstill...

When the roads (I assume that you mean the traffic on the
roads...) are at a standstill, it is hard to see how they
present a danger to a right-thinking cyclist.

CONGESTION IS GOOD.

Unless you're in an ambulance in need of urgent care...
(for example)

"scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder if on average people eat more if they cycle
rather than drive?

The amount eaten is probably quite similar - the
difference is that it is converted to propulsive energy
rather than flab.

Quoted message said:

If so and a significant proportion of people started
cycling the amount of food (+packaging, transportation
etc) would need to increase. This would increase pollution
... a bit :-)