AIBU expecting cyclists to use the cycle tracks?

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 ???

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.

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.

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 ?

”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.

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.

Don't encourage them stb!

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Have you seen these Jing?

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

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.

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].

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.

Well said, crun.

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.

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.

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

Yes it does thanks. I am beginning to get it now.

Thanks crun but I shall keep to my whip. It is very flexible and also has a ribbon fastened to it which extends the length of the whip as the wind waves it about. Any vehicle hitting it must be VERY close and would knock me off anyway. The flag in your link does not look flexible and would be snapped (with bits flying off) if it was hit.

Hartog et al are comparing life expectancy, a grazed knee isn't really life threatening. Being unfit reduces your life expectancy seven times more than the risk of being run over whilst cycling.

Imagine 300 cycling accidents in which only the rider dies, compared with 100 car accidents in which the driver, the passenger and one other bystander die. At face value there are three times as many fatal bike crashes, but the total number of deaths are the same in each case. This is why Hartog et al are arguing that the death rate for motoring and cycling are similar.

Arguing that you are more likely to die if you cycle to work than drive to work may be true, but it ignores other casualties. That brings us back to the inegalitarian nature of motoring that I referred to above.

I think I would have to go into the statistics with a fine tooth comb. And I probably cant be bothered.

On face value though, I would have thought that when there is a car accident that results in death, that it is unusual for there to be the driver, the passenger and a bystander killed.

I sort of see your point.

Not sure how many people get run over by a cyclist.

Not sure how interesting my whittereings on this have become either!