[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS



On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:34:00 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> Why doesn't it protect against being hit in other ways - particularly
>> from the side?
>
>How can it?

I would have thought that was really obvious. While you're segregated,
you can't get hit by a car from the side (or the front or any other
way). While you're on the road you can easily get knocked off by a
passing vehicle that comes to close to your side.

>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.

You may well be right, but I'm not arguing about what's
classic/typical. The assertion that segregation *only* protects
against being hit from behind is obviously false, and demonstrably so
in my experience! What they should have said - if they have stats to
back them up, and not just theorising - is 'mainly' or 'mostly'. It
doesn't stop you being hit at points where you aren't segregated,
obviously, but it certainly offers more protection than being
rear-ended while you are segregated.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:36:54 -0000, "Bob Mannix"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

I've been involved in and seen several accidents where the cyclist was
knocked off by a car squeezing him off the road from the side by
pulling in too close. Once I was concussed, the other time uninjured.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> I would have thought that was really obvious. While you're segregated,
> you can't get hit by a car from the side (or the front or any other
> way). While you're on the road you can easily get knocked off by a
> passing vehicle that comes to close to your side.

So motor vehicles move directly from driveways by teleportation straight
onto the road, do they?

So no pedestrians are ever killed on their segregated pavements, are they?

> You may well be right, but I'm not arguing about what's
> classic/typical. The assertion that segregation *only* protects
> against being hit from behind is obviously false, and demonstrably so
> in my experience!

No: see above.

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 11:36:54 -0000, "Bob Mannix"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> I've been involved in and seen several accidents where the cyclist was
> knocked off by a car squeezing him off the road from the side by
> pulling in too close. Once I was concussed, the other time uninjured.

Splitting hairs perhaps (sorry, bad image!) but that's still a vehicle
"approaching from the rear". "Side impact" generally means the vehicle
approaches from the side. I would agree that *if the cyclist takes extreme
care at junctions* (ie stops and gives way to everything else), they are
safer on a cyleway. Of course they/we don't do that, we "give way" (maybe)
after a quick look round. The main danger is then and is exacerbated by
being in the process of dropping off a cycleway. Of course, as one lies on
the road concussed , one may have the comfort of knowing it was someone
else's fault...

We could continue the OT thread and get on to concussion and cycle helmets
now!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
 
In article <[email protected]>, Rooney
<[email protected]> writes
>While you're on the road you can easily get knocked off by a
>passing vehicle that comes to close to your side.

If the vehicle is passing then it will hit the cycle / cyclist from
behind. It may not hit the back wheel, it may hit the rider or the
handlebar but it will be hitting from the rear.

The only way to hit from the side is if the dominant relative speed is
from the side - that is at junctions where the vehicle is travelling at
an angle to the cycle or if the vehicle is going at about the same speed
as the cycle but moving sideways towards it.

The latter case is rather unusual in my experience and the former is
made worse by most of the cycle segregation schemes I have ridden on.

--

Dominic Sexton
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:04:41 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> I would have thought that was really obvious. While you're segregated,
>> you can't get hit by a car from the side (or the front or any other
>> way). While you're on the road you can easily get knocked off by a
>> passing vehicle that comes to close to your side.
>
>So motor vehicles move directly from driveways by teleportation straight
>onto the road, do they?
>
>So no pedestrians are ever killed on their segregated pavements, are they?

If they were, it wouldn't have any bearing on what I said, would it? I
didn't claim you were immune in segregated cycle ways. I claimed that
the assertion in your quote is plainly false, which it is.



>
>> You may well be right, but I'm not arguing about what's
>> classic/typical. The assertion that segregation *only* protects
>> against being hit from behind is obviously false, and demonstrably so
>> in my experience!
>
>No: see above.

Most definitely yes. It is plainly false that segregation 'only'
protects from behind. It offers protection against the sort of
accident I have had twice. The claim is a blatant falsehood.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Bob Mannix wrote:

> 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).

Actually, the completely segregated MK Redways have not borne this
assumption of much better safety out. See
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html

> 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).

But cycle lane use is not compulsory, despite what certain numpties like
to think, so if you feel you're safer using the road then you can use
the road. I do where I think it's in my interest.
I haven't seen any good evidence that cycles cause undue congestion by
using the roads like other vehicles.

> At the end of the day, you can't make things better without spending money.

But it helps if you've got a Clue as well. Quite often the
"farcilities" provided (allegedly) for cyclists' benefit cost a great
deal of money and slow them down for no benefit.

> Sustrans routes are far more effective (IMHO) as they use a combination of
> cross country routes, optimal road sections

They are sometimes effective and are sometimes a total PITA which any
cyclist who knows what they're doing is better off both in terms of time
and safety avoiding. Being told to get off my bike to cross a busy road
on foot twice rather than just cycle 100m with the flow of the traffic?
No thanks! (though that's what I was told I should do by the signs on
NCN1 in Aberdeen)

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 12:11:11 -0000, "Bob Mannix"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:36:54 -0000, "Bob Mannix"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> I've been involved in and seen several accidents where the cyclist was
>> knocked off by a car squeezing him off the road from the side by
>> pulling in too close. Once I was concussed, the other time uninjured.
>
>Splitting hairs perhaps (sorry, bad image!) but that's still a vehicle
>"approaching from the rear". "Side impact" generally means the vehicle
>approaches from the side.

Er, they did approach me from the side! And that sort of thing isn't
at all rare - happens all the time.
Maybe bad wording on the site quoted, but it's clearly false as it
stands.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:18:09 +0000, Dominic Sexton
<{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>r if the vehicle is going at about the same speed
>as the cycle but moving sideways towards it.

Which is precisely what happened to me both times.


--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Bob Mannix wrote:

> Splitting hairs perhaps (sorry, bad image!) but that's still a vehicle
> "approaching from the rear". "Side impact" generally means the vehicle
> approaches from the side. I would agree that *if the cyclist takes extreme
> care at junctions* (ie stops and gives way to everything else), they are
> safer on a cyleway.

Typically the problem is not people not giving way, it's an additional
right of way conflict that need not be there: an extra junction where
none is needed, and accidents tend to happen at junctions. In this
country cycle lanes very rarely have ROW, so you have to stop and give
way at them, and still there are accidents caused by the ROW conflicts.

Though much is made of the segregation of Dutch cycleways making things
safer, if you go over to NL and ride there you soon find that cycles
aren't as segregated as you may have believed (there are many, many
cases where cars and bikes share the same roads) and that the most
obvious difference is that cycles are *noticed* by motorists and given
due respect as vehicles. That's what makes the crucial safety
difference, and part of why cyclists are noticed is their volume,
certainly /not/ many of them being on a separate track.

Being separated reduces the competence of cyclists where conditions
dictate they must share the roads with other motor vehicles, so you
can't take the notional segregated track as an isolated issue.

> We could continue the OT thread and get on to concussion and cycle helmets
> now!

Or folk could have a look at the docs at
http://www.cyclingscotland.org/downloads.asp?DLsection=11 before they
start spouting "common sense" about helmets...

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 Peter Clinch

>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 can agree on that.
--
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

>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.

this is where a path goes off across a park or something then
suddenly emerges to cross a road?
--
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

>I've been involved in and seen several accidents where the cyclist was
>knocked off by a car squeezing him off the road from the side by
>pulling in too close.

That's how my colleague got killed by a lorry.

Isn't one of the classics car turning left knocks off cyclist
overtaking on the inside?
--
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
 
Rooney wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:04:41 +0000, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Rooney wrote:

>>>I would have thought that was really obvious. While you're segregated,
>>>you can't get hit by a car from the side

But you can.

>>So motor vehicles move directly from driveways by teleportation straight
>>onto the road, do they?

And that is an easy example of how you can, or rather the fact that cars
do /not/ magically teleport over tracks from their drives to the road
is. The fact that pedestrians, on segregated pavements, are killed in
collisions with motor vehicles from any angle you like, demonstrates
that segregation isn't really a big help in absolute terms.

> If they were, it wouldn't have any bearing on what I said, would it?

Yes, and precisely as described above.

A cycleway protects from being hit from behind by a motor vehicle
because a MV won't be driving up the cycle lane behind the cyclist. But
cars do /cross/ cycle lanes, which is why the segregation doesn't
protect you from side impacts.

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:
> Following up to Peter Clinch

>>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 can agree on that.

Indeed. One thing that bothers me is an "us and them" attitude that
many people seem to have. Fact is that a lot of drivers are cyclists
and vice versa so have both perspectives, and none of us has a vested
interest in running into the other whatever we're driving or riding.

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:

> this is where a path goes off across a park or something then
> suddenly emerges to cross a road?

It doesn't even have to do the big divergence bit. The most common ones
are at any side road along a roadside track. The users of the side
roads and main roads are looking for traffic on the /roads/ and are thus
less likely to notice someone on a nicely painted bit of track that
isn't part of the same network. If they were on the roads there's be no
need to stop and give way half a dozen times and they'd be where drivers
were looking out for them.

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

You should see some of the middle aged gents cycling thru town this last
week. Freewheeling uphill, hogging the middle of the road, leisurely
getaways from pedestrian crossings, High Street long queue of cars behind
them, no helmets, no lights and a nice sheen of rust on an old sit-up and
ride bike. Seems they haven't learnt since their paper round days!

I stopped cycling on my round after a pair of nasty accidents and walked it
instead, the time difference was only 15 minutes. Bit of a sod when doing
the Sunday papers, 3 copies of the Times and the bag was practically full!
Had to go back twice to finish off!

Nick
 
Nick Pedley wrote:

> You should see some of the middle aged gents cycling thru town this last
> week. Freewheeling uphill, hogging the middle of the road, leisurely
> getaways from pedestrian crossings, High Street long queue of cars behind
> them, no helmets, no lights and a nice sheen of rust on an old sit-up and
> ride bike. Seems they haven't learnt since their paper round days!

Holding up other traffic persistently and unnecessarily is inconsiderate
in or on any vehicle. No lights is only a problem if it's after dark,
but the "no helmets" is a big "so what?". Do you wear one as a
pedestrian? If not you should be aware that the same arguments hold
true, and I've already posted the figures pointing out that peds are
more liable to get pranged per mile than cyclists.

A rather under-appreciated fact about cycle helmets is that there is no
compelling evidence they have /any/ effect on serious head injuries for
utility road cycling. Really. See www.cyclehelmets.org for more.
Makes more sense to spend the money on something with an active safety
benefit, like a copy of Cyclecraft.

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/
 
In article <[email protected]>, Rooney
<[email protected]> writes
>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:18:09 +0000, Dominic Sexton
><{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>r if the vehicle is going at about the same speed
>>as the cycle but moving sideways towards it.
>
>Which is precisely what happened to me both times.
>
>
Well if the motor vehicle was going about the same speed as the cyclist
it would not be a passing vehicle like you said...

--

Dominic Sexton
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:53:35 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>A cycleway protects from being hit from behind by a motor vehicle
>because a MV won't be driving up the cycle lane behind the cyclist. But
>cars do /cross/ cycle lanes, which is why the segregation doesn't
>protect you from side impacts.

Except that most of the time it does. I can cycle for many miles
without there being a crossing point. All that time I'm being
protected from rear, side and frontal collisions with cars. The claim
is just nonsense.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back