CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"Cyclists need a greater share of the roads to be safe"
(17 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Good luck with that
Posted 13 years ago # -
Spin fail.
"Cycling would be even safer than it already is if road space was allocated more fairly".
Posted 13 years ago # -
Don't cyclists already have almost 100% share of the roads? In Edinburgh, it's only really the Bypass they're excluded from.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@druidh, try taking 100% share of the lane width on a busy 'A' road during rush hour and see what happens!
Posted 13 years ago # -
druidh - I don't go on the Western Approach Road on my bike.
For cyclists to get a greater share., I guess some other road users would need to get a lesser share?
Also in that article, not the main thrust but some mention of number of fatalities. Some suggestion again in my reading of the article that this is increasing in London [not sure if this is accurate]. If this is the case that would buck the trend of increased numbers leading to fewer fatalities.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Is George Street not the proposed cycle route through the centre of town now that Princes Street is a complete nightmare for cyclists due to the tramlines. Have you cycled GS recently? Although I am aware that most of the traffic not using PS is currently using it I feel excluded, as I do from using a great many of the roads due to the extremely poor road surfaces and the sheer volume of traffic all vying for space, and all a great deal bigger than me. I feel often I have a choice - swerve to avoid some sort of obstacle be it a large hole, sunken manhole/utilities/drain cover, and best of all the large tarmac wave created by buses and oversized vehicles by the side of many roads or be taken out by a vehicle. I think you have to be brave to cycle in towns today, and very many who do not cycle consider you mad and foolhardy.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Edit-in reply to Gembo
I thought that it wasn't actually increasing as much as the number of cyclists is increasing? So the number of deaths is actually greater but proportionally smaller. This is what it seems to suggest.
"Friday's fatality brought the total so far this year to 16, yet proportionate to the growing numbers of Londoners on two wheels, cycling is actually getting safer. "
Posted 13 years ago # -
some mention of number of fatalities. Some suggestion again in my reading of the article that this is increasing in London [not sure if this is accurate]. If this is the case that would buck the trend of increased numbers leading to fewer fatalities.
Spokes count has cycling up by 12% this year. Even if the casualty rate rose by 11%, that would still represent an increase in safety.
The papers love to pick up on any increase in the numbers injured without performing the essential division by the rate of exposure to see whether that actually means that the streets are safer.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I know it's arithmetically correct but this view of "safety" is a little like saying that if I empty a revolver in a busy street, killing 6 people out of 1000, rather than empty it in a quiet street, killing only one person out of 100, that somehow the decision to rampage in a busy street was safer because arithmetically the odds of someone dying was lower.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Happily for this odd analogy, 60% of the people in the street are heading for an early death from obesity and sedentary disease, which can be avoided by accepting the 0.6% chance of getting shot.
Even if the latter number wasn't about a million times too high, it's still the steal of the century.
PS. surely slashing the casualty rate for the victims of random shootings can hardly be attacked on the basis that the decision to rampage in the street is indefensible either way...
Posted 13 years ago # -
For some reason I thought that the overall rate of fatalities actually fell when more people cycled [or remained the same but with more people cycling = real drop rather than the proportion [though even the second finding is good]. I thought the argument was that the critical mass led to a change in the drivers' behaviours.
Alas, anecdotally we are not finding this change on this forum. UK looks to USA - competition and winning being at times a predominant ethos. European culture can be more laidback and consider the advantages to the community rather than the individual. Clearly, massive generalisations. BUt still one of the hurdles to copenhagenising Edinburgh/London. That an the vested interests of car manufacturers/oil companies being supported by our politicians.
Posted 13 years ago # -
thought the argument was that the critical mass led to a change in the drivers' behaviours.
Alas, anecdotally we are not finding this change on this forum.
I don't agree, I think in comparison with when I first started cycling in Edinburgh ten years ago, there's been a sea-change in the riding experience. Of course I can't tell how much of that is just that I am a better / more aggressive / more resigned rider, I suppose.
Half a dozen cyclists die in Scotland each year (none of them at night) - on average. So if you imagine that we expected the casualty rate to fall each year that cycling increased due to 'safety in numbers', it would mean after only five years, nobody would ever die.
Posted 13 years ago # -
There are two perspectives in looking at safety. If we take collisions to be more or less random then from the perspective of the individual cyclist, the more cyclists there are the safer you are. The odds of you being the random cyclist run over by the maniac driver go down as the number of cyclists increases, even if the number of maniacs stays the same and the number of runnings over stay the same. This is still true if the number of maniacs increases because of the increased volume of cyclists so long as the rate of increase is less than the rate of increase of cyclists.
From the perspective of cyclists in general or any cyclist, no decline in the number of runnings over means that cycling is just as dangerous. Someone is getting killed. The only constraint on the number of runnings over is the number of maniacs. Increasing the number of cyclists only spreads the risk of death across a greater number of people. It doesn't reduce the likelihood of someone being killed but it increases the likelihood of it being someone else.
Dave's right, of course. He said (with a tweak from me) "surely slashing the casualty rate for the victims of random
shootingsdriving can hardly be attacked on the basis that the decision to rampage in the street is indefensible either way..."My point is we should focus on the numbers being killed and the continuing rampage rather than be comforted by an arithmetic illusion that somehow the increasing numbers dying means its getting safer.
Posted 13 years ago # -
My point is we should focus on the numbers being killed and the continuing rampage rather than be comforted by an arithmetic illusion that somehow the increasing numbers dying means its getting safer.
The lessons from history, particularly from the Netherlands, would seem to suggest that focussing on this can lead to much improved conditions for cycling, and better attitudes from drivers.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm won over by the expanded argument... good work :)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Liz is right. Perhaps tonight at the Spokes meeting we should ask Gordon MacKenzie to cycle along George Street at rush hour and then back along Princes St, to get some perspective on how dangerous their 'dedicated cycle route' is?
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
