[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS



Following up to Rooney

> I have my first swimming certificate (for a breadth)
>inscribed 'Terence Leahy', after the teacher got us mixed up. (He's
>now Sir Terence). I wonder what he drives now.

Merc or BMW would be my guess, maybe Lexus?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:02:58 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>This has nothing to do with which is safer. The only stats posted
>>suggest that on average, you are ten times more likely to be killed
>>per cycle mile than per car mile. You have to be a bit circumspect
>>about drawing conclusions for a particular journey, but the fact that
>>the stats are based on 'different miles' is a complete red herring.
>
>I would have thought that if you did do the longer journeys by
>bike, it would not reduce the 10x figure, rather increase it as
>cycling on major roads is only going to be more dangerous than a
>little trip down the shops.
>If you did the opposite and only measured against short car
>journeys I suspect few drivers are killed on typically 30 mph
>trips to the shops.


Of course - but sshhhhhhhhhhhhh, it's finally gone quiet!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:23:54 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>who are unusually dangerous
>>>on anything with wheels.
>>
>>If you're talikng percentages rather than absolute figures, that would
>>make sense. What proportion of motorists are dangerous young men? And
>>what proportion of cyclists? Any stats?
>
>I have no stats but would point to the habit of moving from cycle
>to motorbike to car. That used to be the pattern, less so now, I
>think.


Now the transition is between being driven everywhere by parents
and getting a car. If they can afford it, it's often straight into the
driving test at 17. Around where I live and travel I see some kids on
bikes around estates, but the riders that actually look like they are
going somewhere on main roads or country lanes tend to be middle-aged
men. My guess would be that cyclists are an ageing population, but
I've no figures.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
The Reids wrote:

> all forms of transport will be typically used in slightly
> different ways, so their miles will be "different". Unless you
> just give up on comparisons how do you suggest this issue is
> overcome?

But since the first thing you point out there is that they are used
differently, that tells you directly you can't do a direct comparison.
So there isn't an issue to overcome, especially as both are reasonably
safe anyway. The safety thing was brought up by Rooney apropos of
nothing in particular AFAICT, and frankly is a bit of a red herring as
to which sort of vehicle is more suitable for a given job.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
The Reids wrote:

> To say you drive 10 times the distance in your car than bike so
> risk is equal, is trying to avoid the real issue of the high risk
> of being knocked off a bike

But since there isn't a high risk of me being knocked off my bike, it's
hardly an issue I'm avoiding, is it? Pedestrians do considerably worse
than cyclists per unit mile, so do you think you're in mortal danger as
a pedestrian?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
The Reids wrote:

> I would have thought that if you did do the longer journeys by
> bike, it would not reduce the 10x figure, rather increase it as
> cycling on major roads is only going to be more dangerous than a
> little trip down the shops.

(a) Why do I have to use major roads if I'm on a bike?
(b) Why do you think I'm especially likely to get knocked off a bike on
major roads?

> If you did the opposite and only measured against short car
> journeys I suspect few drivers are killed on typically 30 mph
> trips to the shops.

But not many cyclists are killed doing that either...

Both are reasonably safe, and you can't directly compare the safety
because they're used for different journeys.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Following up to Rooney

>>I have no stats but would point to the habit of moving from cycle
>>to motorbike to car. That used to be the pattern, less so now, I
>>think.

>Now the transition is between being driven everywhere by parents
>and getting a car. If they can afford it, it's often straight into the
>driving test at 17. Around where I live and travel I see some kids on
>bikes around estates, but the riders that actually look like they are
>going somewhere on main roads or country lanes tend to be middle-aged
>men. My guess would be that cyclists are an ageing population, but
>I've no figures.

Yes, I think the modern cyclist is a post driving age
environmentalist. But I still see *lots* of paper boys and
youngsters on cycles and they often ride very badly with no
lights.
Bikers round here are often using them to beat the traffic rather
than a cheap car, I saw a stat somewhere that fatalities are
higher amongst women. I can only put this down to my theory that
the high risk taking of the male riders is more than offset by
the inadvisability of using a motorbike unless an enthusiast. If
true that tells us why the emphasis on speed in road safety is
not reducing accidents and that the emphasis should be on
teaching skills like anticipation, positioning and appropriate
speed and policing bad driving rather than just standing at the
roadside with a radar gun on the safest road you can find. (Our
local speed check spot is on a stretch of 40 dual with wide
grasss verges, our local blackspots are the village centre (20)
and a roundabout beyond the 40 spot they have the trap. They
don't seem to comprehend that the issue is slowing for the
roundabout[1] to a speed (below the limit) and the village, not
doing 50 on the wide dual with good sight lines where you only
need to slow if there is a hazard, like a horse rider or
pedestrian.

1] they built the kerb out on the roundabout approach to slow
people, now people clip it as they turn and capsise. One case
where white paint would have been better.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:08:59 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, I think the modern cyclist is a post driving age
>environmentalist. But I still see *lots* of paper boys and
>youngsters on cycles and they often ride very badly with no
>lights

If only their mothers knew the stats!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
theo <[email protected]> writes
>
>> This probably sounds like a really daft question, but (assuming a
>> frame is the little rectangular thing behind the saddle/on top of the
>> back wheel, that I had on my bike when I was a child)
>
>That's the *baggage-carrier*. The frame is the *steel-tube-system* that
>remains after you've removed every part that can be removed (wheels,
>paddles, steer, chain etc).
>
This, of course, is the essence of the real fun of cycling.
I do not refer to the endless slog up Long Hill into Buxton, or the
soul-destroying hill climb which used to take place on the Holme Moss
road......

No - I refer to the loving way which we used to remove every removable
part from the bike, take all the ball bearings out of wheel hubs, bottom
bracket, pedals and head stock, clean them, oil or grease them,
including the chain, and re-assemble it all ready for the 'summer'.

During the winter we had 'ratting' bikes, slightly heavier, and built
from superseded parts from the main machine.

In addition to the mudguards, and the essential mud flap on the front
wheel which someone mentioned, we also had a nylon cowl, hard to
describe, which fitted just above the mud flap and effectively closed
off the sides of the wheel for a segment of about 45°. It fitted over
the mudguard and was held by an elastic loop over the front wheel wing
nuts on both sides.
Keeping feet dry was a great aid to comfort. ;-)
--
Gordon Harris
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

>> To say you drive 10 times the distance in your car than bike so
>> risk is equal, is trying to avoid the real issue of the high risk
>> of being knocked off a bike
>
>But since there isn't a high risk of me being knocked off my bike, it's
>hardly an issue I'm avoiding, is it? Pedestrians do considerably worse
>than cyclists per unit mile, so do you think you're in mortal danger as
>a pedestrian?

I have no objection to not worrying about accidents, however, if
you debate safety, you debate safety and if the stats show its
slightly more dangerous walking than cycling, why should I not
accept it? In fact I act on it, having put visibility patches on
the back of my rucksack and if we have to walk a road section at
night on a LDP, the front walker has a white light and the rear a
red to have the visibility of other road users.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

>> all forms of transport will be typically used in slightly
>> different ways, so their miles will be "different". Unless you
>> just give up on comparisons how do you suggest this issue is
>> overcome?
>
>But since the first thing you point out there is that they are used
>differently, that tells you directly you can't do a direct comparison.

The comparison, as raw data, tells you the risk level for typical
uses of the means of transport. I don't see that untypical use
would sway things towards cycling being safer, rather the
opposite.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

>> I would have thought that if you did do the longer journeys by
>> bike, it would not reduce the 10x figure, rather increase it as
>> cycling on major roads is only going to be more dangerous than a
>> little trip down the shops.
>
>(a) Why do I have to use major roads if I'm on a bike?

often you don't, but the further you travel the more likely it
becomes.

>(b) Why do you think I'm especially likely to get knocked off a bike on
>major roads?

Major roads are faster, so an accident is more likely fatal and
major roads are used by that cycle friendly vehicle, the artic.

If you think my answers are invalid i'm quite happy to accept the
x10 figure holds valid for longer journeys :)

>> If you did the opposite and only measured against short car
>> journeys I suspect few drivers are killed on typically 30 mph
>> trips to the shops.
>
>But not many cyclists are killed doing that either...

I'm happy to take that view of road safety, but most cyclists are
not, in my experience, they usually want more controls over cars
to improve their safety.

>Both are reasonably safe, and you can't directly compare the safety
>because they're used for different journeys.

we have been here before.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Rooney

>But I still see *lots* of paper boys and
>>youngsters on cycles and they often ride very badly with no
>>lights
>
>If only their mothers knew the stats!

Thy should look at stats for being killed by a pedophile too,
might make some less hysterical.

I wonder what stats are for walkers getting run over crossing
roads while on the phone? Or for studying GPS display?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
The Reids wrote:

> Major roads are faster, so an accident is more likely fatal and
> major roads are used by that cycle friendly vehicle, the artic.

Being hit by an artic at 60 isn't really going to be that different to
being hit by a car at 60. Both will kill you quite easily. As long as
the driver overtakes properly (which they generally do if you have good
road positioning a la Cyclecraft) an artic isn't particularly more
likely to strike you, especially with free room to maneuver given by a
major road as compared to tight junctions in towns.
HGVs are driven, by proportion, by more highly skilled and professional
drivers than is the case with cars.

> I'm happy to take that view of road safety, but most cyclists are
> not, in my experience, they usually want more controls over cars
> to improve their safety.

Many (most?) cyclists are unaware of the reality of safety. Many think
they are safer on separate paths, but especially where these interact
with a road network to give additional junctions, this is actually not
the case. Cyclists typically fare best where they are treated like
other vehicles.
From http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

"It is widely thought that cyclists should be segregated from the
traffic for safety's sake. This appears logical, since most road cycling
injuries are due to motor traffic. It is a naive conclusion. Segregation
protects the cyclist from only a rare accident being hit from behind at
the expense of increasing other risks and reducing convenience.
International research shows that segregation multiplies the risks
threefold to fivefold even in countries such as the Netherlands, where
it is traditional. The promotion of danger has scared many cyclists out
of the traffic, merely to put them at greater risk on pavements and
"safe" cycle routes.

Experienced cyclists already know that the road system is by far the
safest national cycle network that will ever exist. Cyclists and drivers
are not enemies; each has something to offer the other in a civilised
road environment. Cyclists should tackle the risks just as in a car, by
acquiring a high standard of road craft."

> we have been here before.

We have, and it still remains the case that the comparisons sought here
are basically pointless and useless.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:59:10 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>But I still see *lots* of paper boys and
>>>youngsters on cycles and they often ride very badly with no
>>>lights
>>
>>If only their mothers knew the stats!
>
>Thy should look at stats for being killed by a pedophile too,
>might make some less hysterical.

That's largely down to the meejah, I think - whipping it up.

>
>I wonder what stats are for walkers getting run over crossing
>roads while on the phone? Or for studying GPS display?

Phones are definitely a distraction.
I prefer to use an A-Z in cities though.


--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:12:13 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Segregation
>protects the cyclist from only a rare accident being hit from behind

Why doesn't it protect against being hit in other ways - particularly
from the side?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:25:52 +0000, Gordon Harris
<[email protected]> wrote:

>No - I refer to the loving way which we used to remove every removable
>part from the bike, take all the ball bearings out of wheel hubs, bottom
>bracket, pedals and head stock, clean them, oil or grease them,
>including the chain, and re-assemble it all ready for the 'summer'.

You are a masochist! All that oily stuff was one of the things I hated
with cars I had years ago. In the last seven or eight years the only
time I've opened the bonnet was to fill the screenwash!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> Why doesn't it protect against being hit in other ways - particularly
> from the side?

How can it?
The classic "I'm sorry mate I didn't see you" side collision happens at
a right of way conflict and having a separate cycle lane doesn't do
anything to prevent right of way conflicts. In fact it tends to
multiply them, thus adding to the danger.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:12:13 +0000, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Segregation
> >protects the cyclist from only a rare accident being hit from behind
>
> Why doesn't it protect against being hit in other ways - particularly
> from the side?

It depends on your definition of "segregation". If the cycleways are truly
segregated (ie not involved with roads at all) then they are clearly much
safer (and protect from being hit at all angles). Unfortunately the majority
of segregation is alongside existing roads. This is fine on the cycleway
itself, but they have to cross junctions (where most side & front impacts
will occur). At the junctions there is a view that the cycleway users are
more at risk as drivers will be watching the road junctions not the cycleway
junctions and cyclists may not stop and use them properly (perish the
thought!). In these circumstances, the bit where the cyclist is on the
cycleway only (probably) protects them from rear end shunts as stated.

The situation gets quite complex as cycleways are added to roads that are
too narrow to take them. The cyclists are then in more danger at the
junctions (but less on the cycleway) but cyclists who choose to use the road
are now (a) very unpopular (b) more at risk and (c) contributing much more
to congestion and frustration, leading to more (b) as there is less room. I
believe in such cases (where the road isn't big enough) it's probably safer
not to segregate. Having done so though, and made the road narrower, the
increased risk on the road probably makes it slightly safer to use the
cycleway (under protest) as it has lessened safety overall (IYSWIM).

At the end of the day, you can't make things better without spending money.
Painting a cycleway on an existing road generally isn't good enough! The
Sustrans routes are far more effective (IMHO) as they use a combination of
cross country routes, optimal road sections and some cycleways. They mostly
don't allow you to cycle to work though.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
 
Rooney wrote:

> You are a masochist! All that oily stuff was one of the things I hated
> with cars I had years ago. In the last seven or eight years the only
> time I've opened the bonnet was to fill the screenwash!

I do check the oil and coolant occasionally to verify that basically we
haven't used any...
Though I like to do basic maintenance on the bike, I am very much of the
opinion that major jobs are often best avoided by the simple precaution
of throwing some money at them and having someone who is much better at
it do it instead...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back