AIBU expecting cyclists to use the cycle tracks?

Does this simplification of the second paragraph help, soon?

Cyclists are more likely to get hurt in a crash than drivers because they have little protection. Motorists have a heavy metal box around them, safety belts, and air bags, etc.

cyclists rarely cause the death of other road users like motorists do (i.e. motor vehicles cause deaths; cyclists don't, or only very rarely)

So the odds between cyclists and automobile drivers are unequal

There are plenty of country roads where, not only are there no cycle tracks but there is no pavement and you are forced to walk on the road. If you've ever tried this you'd be amazed at the attitude of some drivers who blast their horns and gesticulate and pass far too close.
Probably the same morons who treat cyclists as a nuisance.

My confusion, I think, is coming from "road accidents". I think first time around, I read it as road deaths.

Is a road death, in those statistics, measured the same as an accident where the cyclist has a grazed knee?

Sorry, I still dont get the middle paragraph. I had hoped with fresh eyes this morning, I would have understood. It is probably me.

Well said, crun.

If you average a large number of cyclists, the total number of years of life they gain from the health benefits of the exercise are seven times the total number of years of life lost through accidents. What's not good odds about that? Cycling is increasing your life expectancy, not reducing it.

Cyclists are more likely to get hurt in a crash than drivers because they don't have any metalwork around them for protection, but on the other hand, cyclists rarely cause the death of other road users like motorists do, so when you take that into account, the death rate for driving and cycling are about the same. The difference is that when somebody cycles, the risk is all borne by the rider, but when they drive a car a substantial proportion of the risk is imposed on others. Compared with cycling, driving a car is inegalitarian because it transfers the risk away from the person causing the risk and onto third parties who have no choice.

Exhorting cyclists to mitigate the risk by using measures such as cycle tracks, helmets, hi-viz clothing etc. is further exacerbating the inequality by increasing the cost to the cyclist, whilst the increased benefit to the motorist further incentivises more risk taking behaviour. Given the health, congestion, and pollution benefits of cycling, an increase in cost to the cyclist is also an increase in cost to society as a whole.

I think I still have a problem crun. A big one with the 2nd paragraph. That doesnt seem good odds at all. No way.

I didnt understand the 4th paragraph either. Never mind,. You dont have to reply if you dont want to.
[I tried reading the link, but too heavy going for me].

I'd recommend one for tiggypiro as well, instead of a riding whip stuck in the basket. If a passing vehicle catches the end of the whip it's liable to snatch at the steering.

That's what I was looking for! Been googling but wasn't quite sure what to put in search box. Thanks crun.

Have you seen these Jing?

What happened to those stick things with warning circles/triangles on them that you could fix on your bike. They at least gave motorists the idea of giving the bike enough space. Can't seem to buy them now.

The cycleway near us goes round a lot of sectioned off parking spaces, which takes the cyclist out into a very narrow road lane, facing fast oncoming traffic. At one point that same cycle way just peters out. Stops completely.

Our councillors are idiots.

"Shared pathways are crap."

If pedestrians are so worried about getting buzzed by cyclists, it makes you wonder why so many don't keep to the correct side of those paths. Never mind dropped kerbs, I've had to lift a fully laden touring bike over the Armco into the path of the oncoming traffic when a path suddenly veered away from the road I thought it was following.

Cycle ways sectioned off from the rest of the road are ok-ish. If the road is actually wide enough. Shared pathways are crap. (Prickles from hedges, no dropped kerbs at junctions, bad surfaces etc). A cyclist's lot is not always a happy one.

Soon, It's from Hartog et al at the University of Utrecht

It means that on average, the total number of life years lost among cyclists from road accidents and inhaling air pollution is just a seventh of the life years gained as a result of the health benefits of exercise. This is a figure for the UK, if we lived in the Netherlands where the roads are safer the benefits would be nine times greater.

That's just the benefit to the cyclist, the benefits to society are reduced mortality, healthcare costs, congestion, carbon emissions, and air pollution.

It is also interesting that when you take into account the deaths inflicted on other road users, cycling is no more dangerous than driving a car.

As I pointed out on another thread, when it comes to risk people worry about all the wrong ones, obsessing over the trivial and ignoring the major. Also, people who have no intention of cycling will say that it's too dangerous just because it's the first excuse that enters their head.

Don't encourage them stb!

In spite of it all, cyclists are gaining seven times as much on their life expectancy from the health benefits of exercise as they lose from the risk of accidents and pollution

Can you explain this further please. I dont understand it at all. Thanks.

”Apparently cycling clubs advise riding two abreast as it stops cars squeezing through.”

Cyclecraft advises that cyclists occupy the centre of the traffic lane at any time they need to prevent drivers from overtaking when it’s unsafe to do so.

”the cyclists are the most vulnerable and should be taking proper care”

So no responsibility on the motorists to take care then? This is victim blaming, just who the hell are motorists to decide what risks they take with a cyclist’s life? A motorist doesn’t have the right to run over a cyclist who doesn’t give way any more than a man has the right to have sex with a woman who wears a skimpy dress.

”riding in single file”

That can make it just as difficult pass if there’s a large group, for the reasons I’ve already explained.

”It is the cyclists' vulnerability that is so worrying”

In spite of it all, cyclists are gaining seven times as much on their life expectancy from the health benefits of exercise as they lose from the risk of accidents and pollution. By contrast a motorist is losing life expectancy from the risk of road accidents, and then losing more again from the health consequences of the lack of exercise.

”Q why don't cyclists use cycle tracks if available?
A apparently seems to be that cycle tracks are less than perfect surfaces on which to cycle and therefore could be a hazard to said cyclists causing themselves injury.”

No, cycle tracks are less safe because they put the cyclist outside the motorist’s zone of surveillance. READ CYCLECRAFT!

”some of the younger generations can be very selfish with a complete disregrard for others”

A complete disregard for others like putting cyclists lives in danger because it’s inconvenient to do otherwise. Just how much inconvenience does it take to justify killing a cyclist?

The issue has nothing to do with cyclists, and everything to do with impatience. Motorists get just as irate with pedestrians, learner drivers, speed cameras, double yellow lines, HGVs, caravans, other motorists, and anything else that holds them up for a few seconds by having the temerity to share the roads they think they own because they pay road tax.

To crown it all, when a plane crashes on a road they want airshows curbed as well, because they're more worried about 11 killed in 63 years than they are about the 2000 killed every year by their own decisions to get into their cars in the first place.

rosequartz I can't answer your valid question. I'll add my own..
Why is a pavement with uneven slabs and pesky pedestrians and prams preferable to a well surfaced cycle track on the opposite side of the road ?

After observing the local cycle tracks in my area over the weekend, I have come to the conclusion, that without a doubt, the tracks are in far better condition than most, if not all of the roads.

stb I don't think they ever found him, as far as I know, despite there being many witnesses.

Some of the answers just confirm my thoughts that some of the younger generations can be very selfish with a complete disregrard for others, jane10 and will argue the toss for their right to do as they please despite huge inconvenience to others.

There, I have confirmed my status as an old fuddy duddy.

Q why don't cyclists use cycle tracks if available?
A apparently seems to be that cycle tracks are less than perfect surfaces on which to cycle and therefore could be a hazard to said cyclists causing themselves injury.

Q why then is it preferable to cycle on the roads where there may be many potholes; said potholes may cause a cyclist to swerve, fall off or wobble out potentially cause an accident not to just themselves but to other road users, even to the extent of causing death to others.

A ???

It needs both drivers and cyclists to be sensible and considerate. Those impatient drivers who indulge in risky overtaking and cyclists who ride in packs, several riders abreast on narrow roads are both in the wrong.

Incorporating both cars and bikes on busy roads is fraught with hazard, especially round here, the pothole capital of the world.

I think the thrust of this thread is that many posters have witnessed dangerous activities from cyclists and drivers; but the cyclists are the most vulnerable and should be taking proper care: not having headphones on, so that they can hear the traffic coming; wearing visible clothing; riding in single file; pulling in if a long tailback is forming. It is the same as drivers needing to be considerate and safety conscious: having their sidelights on in poor visibility; letting people out of junctions; not getting impatient etc.

It is the cyclists' vulnerability that is so worrying; and to be honest, some do seem to be oblivious to this. I always worry when approaching a cyclist. I often find myself between a rock and a hard place: staying behind the cyclist as I cannot see a safe place to overtake and do not trust them to stay in the side of the road, whilst at the same time having cars up my backside itching to get by and likely to overtake dangerously.

Cars and bikes on the same stretch of road are a bad combination - the cyclists are just too vulnerable.

From the government website

The Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.

The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of The Highway Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders.

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

It looks like stopping at a zebra crossing and being a learner driver are offences now, too.

Apparently cycling clubs advise riding two abreast as it stops cars squeezing through.