footpath riding

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:22:45 +1000

EuanB said:

Where are your references which demonstrate segregated cycling
facilities promote safety for cyclists?

or for other road users?

The crash at the start of this thread was about a ped. I have no idea
if ped stats are divided up by key vehicle or not, and of course
exposure would be very hard to determine.

Still, how many peds get hurt by cyclists? Anyone have any idea how
to find that info? (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have
it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good
old Harold Scruby ought to have it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his
tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have it,
but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old
Harold Scruby ought to have it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his
tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have it,
but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old
Harold Scruby ought to have it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his
tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have it,
but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old
Harold Scruby ought to have it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his
tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have it,
but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...)

Zebee

EuanB said:

John Henderson Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With some hard supporting evidence, I'd certainly concede that
more accidents happen on paths than on roads.

I'm concerned about which is more dangerous. I don't consider
minor low-speed bumps dangerous.

Perhaps we're just talking at cross-purposes.

In France it is safer to ride a bicycle on the road than it is to drive
a car on the road, yet in the same country the deadliest infrastructure
that cyclists use are two way bike paths.

There is a presumption that just because a car isn't involved a bicycle
accident need not be serious. That is not the case.

Yes, as I've mentioned elsewhere, one of the major causes of cycling
injuries is not so much the contact with another vehicle as the return to
earth. As a general rule being hit by another cyclist and hitting the deck
at 40kmh is not much less injurious than being hit by an overtaking car and
hitting the deck at 40kmh!
--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

On 2007-10-08, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:22:45 +1000

EuanB said:

Where are your references which demonstrate segregated cycling
facilities promote safety for cyclists?

or for other road users?

The crash at the start of this thread was about a ped. I have no idea
if ped stats are divided up by key vehicle or not, and of course
exposure would be very hard to determine.

Still, how many peds get hurt by cyclists? Anyone have any idea how
to find that info? (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have
it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good
old Harold Scruby ought to have it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his
tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have it,
but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old
Harold Scruby ought to have it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his
tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have it,
but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old
Harold Scruby ought to have it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his
tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have it,
but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old
Harold Scruby ought to have it, but I dunno if he keeps it in his
tinfoil hat...) (I suppose good old Harold Scruby ought to have it,
but I dunno if he keeps it in his tinfoil hat...)

I just had to check the reception in my tinfoil hat then.

--
TimC
You're trying to trick me into being intelligent. It won't work.
-- David P. Murphy in ASR

EuanB said:

Start with http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

With all due respect, "little evidence has been found to suggest
that cyclists are safer on paths than on roads" is a long way
from hard evidence that roads are safer.

Quoted message said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities

Quoted message said:

You'll find a large number of studies which have found
segregated cycling to be deficient.

And following that to the likes of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_path_debate clearly shows
that the jury is still out.

I also note the comment in your wikipedia reference that "There
is well-established historical precedent for the use of cycle
facilities as a means of promoting motoring at the expense of
cyclists’ access." I think we can agree on this point, and
also agree that this situation is lamentable.

Quoted message said:

Where are your references which demonstrate segregated cycling
facilities promote safety for cyclists?

I never claimed to be able to offer any.

As I've said before on this newsgroup, I've done my fair share
of riding on roads (including long-distance touring) in over 50
years of cycling.

I prefer riding off-road. I find it much more relaxing. I feel
much safer, and that might be because I'm more in control of my
destiny. I've seen too many cars crash into things like the
backs of stationary buses to trust drivers avoiding me. On a
path, my own judgement and reactions become much more effective
in guaranteeing my safety absolutely.

John

quote='John Henderson'EuanB said:

Start with cyclecraft.co.ukresearch.htmlOpen ↗

With all due respect, "little evidence has been found to suggest
that cyclists are safer on paths than on roads" is a long way
from hard evidence that roads are safer.[/quote]How about this one then?

Quoted post said:

Verkehrsunfälle mit Radfahrern

Der Polizeipräsident in Berlin. Berlin Police, Germany, 1987.

Berlin Police study 1981 to 1985.
Cyclists 4 times more likely to have accident on roads with cycle paths. Likelihood of serious or fatal injury similarly increased.

One of several such references.

John Henderson said:

I never claimed to be able to offer any.

As I've said before on this newsgroup, I've done my fair share
of riding on roads (including long-distance touring) in over 50
years of cycling.

OK, you've got the edge on me. I've only been riding 26 years. I had a ten year break when I was in the army.

What it boils down to is your perception being contray to the available evidence.

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:52:45 +1000

EuanB said:

What it boils down to is your perception being contray to the
available evidence.

And refusing to even acknowledge that when someone supplies evidence
to your yell of "cite" you should read and refute it with more
evidence, not your poorly controlled, badly run, study of one.

Or even talk about methodology, both your own and the studies
provided.

For example, consider the problem of footpath vs intersection.

Seems to me the bod doing 25mph down a village footpath was clearly
not dealing properly with gateway<->footpath intersections. Just as
drivers don't deal well with uncontrolled cyclepath<->roadway
intersections. So those who feel footpath cycling is safe just have
to say "the footpath is quite safe as long as there are no
intersections of any kind" and that's that.

So a footpath such as many cyclepaths in Canberra that have no
intersections of any kind is probably quite safe. As soon as there's a
driveway, or a gateway, or another path, or a road well all bets are off.

What's the average length of safe path under that definition? And
does it get you as far as the shops?

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

Seems to me the bod doing 25mph down a village footpath was
clearly not dealing properly with gateway<->footpath
intersections.

I don't think anyone claimed that 40 km/h is safe everywhere on
all footpaths.

Quoted message said:

Just as drivers don't deal well with uncontrolled
cyclepath<->roadway intersections. So those who feel footpath
cycling is safe just have to say "the footpath is quite safe
as long as there are no intersections of any kind" and that's
that.

A road is a road is a road. It's not a footpath.

Quoted message said:

So a footpath such as many cyclepaths in Canberra that have no
intersections of any kind is probably quite safe. As soon as
there's a driveway, or a gateway, or another path, or a road
well all bets are off.

Absolutely - I couldn't agree more.

Quoted message said:

What's the average length of safe path under that definition?

That's something experience teaches. Have you got steel or
aluminium rims for your rim brakes? Is it raining? Are you
making allowance for snapping one brake cable when you pull the
levers? It's just like riding in traffic actually.

Quoted message said:

And does it get you as far as the shops?

In some cases.

John