Paul Smith <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> >> but I wanted to point out that your original conclusion
> >> about "cyclists concentrating better" would require evidence;
> >It has evidence, the effects described are known physiological facts.
> So were the alternative cases I offered.
Clearly, then, your use of terms such as "might," "could" and "don't know" needs a little
brushing up.
> >And the conclusions are supported by other facts, such as drivers being responsible for the
> >majority of fatal car-bike crashes.
> I don't even know that that's a fact
It is.
> but even if it is, it could quite conceivably have more to do with opportunities for fatal error
> than proportions of inattention.
Assuming you mean the relative severity of consequences of inattention, that is possible - but that
doesn't mitigate the undoubted fact that very few drivers give uniformly high levels of attention to
their driving, and most drive with one or more sources of distraction running in their car (children
/ radio / phone / whatever). And even during manoeuvres which demand high levels of concentration,
like overtaking on a narrow road, many drivers do not apply the higher level of attention required;
staggering numbers fail even to take the elementary precaution of looking far enough ahead to see if
there is car approaching in the opposite direction. It's as if the sphere of attention extends about
far enough to match, say, the speed of a running human, and not much further.
If you ride a bike like that, you crash fairly soon. If you drive a car like that you become just
another SMIDSY, with cyclists and motorcyclists veering left and right to avoid you as you go your
merry way. Mr Magoo is alive and well and living in a Mondeo near you.
> >You don't ride a bike, do you?
> Yawn.
We'll take that as a "no" then
