Skip to main content

A thought about bad cycling

Cycling on the pavement ain't right. But even so, do ask yourself when was the last time that you heard of a cyclist causing serious injury or death to someone? Whereas speeding and irresponsible and drunk etc drivers cause serious injuries or death roughly twice a week, in Norwich, for example.
Cyclists should ride legally. But they should not be demonised when they do not do so -- because often they do not do so because of terrible road design, of feeling / being unsafe from cars, etc.; and because even when they do not do so they still pose very little risk of causing serious injury or death, compared to cars.
Once again: I don't in the least condone anti-social cycling. But whenever I hear someone demonising cyclists, I have the sneaking suspicion that maybe, just maybe, they are thereby making themselves feel better about doing something more dangerous, themselves: namely, driving a car...

Comments

peter said…
Rupert,

although you're more or less right about the relative threats from cyclists and motorists, it's seriously the wrong time to be asking when people last heard of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.

Tragically, there have been a couple of such cases in the past couple of weeks.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22762655-2761,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

A friend of somebody I worked with was killed by a cyclist on the pavement a few years ago.

Dangerous driving is more of a threat but - let there be no doubt - dangerous cycling can and does kill people.
Rupert said…
Yes, you're right Peter;
but the numbers are still scales of magnitude smaller.
I have only ever heard of one serious accident in Norwich caused by a cyclist (who in fact killed another cyclist) -- whereas month after month, and sometimes week after week, such accidents occur on or near my patch in Norwich, caused by cars.
orbital said…
rupert,

I think your post is a bit muddled.

I cycle and drive and I'm always 'demonising' cyclists on the pavement.

I always cycle on the road - it's safer!!

My two eldest are new cyclists and I am 'teaching' both how to cycle on the road by taking them on quiet residential roads. I sometimes go out with the younger of the two onto main roads but she cycles on the pavement and I cycle on the road. I would never dream of letting the eldest cycle on the pavement - she gets off and pushes her bike.

P.

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...