Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Vehicular Cycling (VC) (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/)
-   -   Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/309954-tactical-analysis-thread-cycling-related-fatalities-serious-injury-incidents.html)

hagen2456 12-03-12 06:58 AM

All your examples only show one thing: that removing cyclists from the car lanes will give more accidents. However, and that is the important thing: There will be fewer serious accidents. And that is why Danish and Dutch cyclists fare so much better than cyclists in the rest of the world.

Get over it. After all, admitting that VC speculations about risks are dead wrong is not the end of the world, is it?

hagen2456 12-03-12 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper (Post 15009711)
What 'shoulder'? One would think, from your response, that shoulders were ubiquitous. They are not. Besides, the shoulder is not a safe place to cycle.

As an answer to this "Take the shoulder, if it's of any use at all."? Rather illogical, don't you think?

John Forester 02-14-15 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagen2456 (Post 15009769)
All your examples only show one thing: that removing cyclists from the car lanes will give more accidents. However, and that is the important thing: There will be fewer serious accidents. And that is why Danish and Dutch cyclists fare so much better than cyclists in the rest of the world.

Get over it. After all, admitting that VC speculations about risks are dead wrong is not the end of the world, is it?

Vehicular Cycling practice, in contrast to the standard American cyclist-inferiority cycling method, arose before there was any scientific data concerning car-bike collisions. However, both of the first two statistical studies (Cross I and II) completely disproved the cyclist-inferiority method and demonstrated that the vehicular cycling method was safer because it avoided by far the greater proportion of such collisions. This is not speculation; it is based on statistical facts. Furthermore, as other studies have been made, many of them, where comparison can be made, tend to support the VC conclusions that crossing and turning movements are far more hazardous than are overtaking movements.

genec 03-14-15 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 17554265)
Vehicular Cycling practice, in contrast to the standard American cyclist-inferiority cycling method, arose before there was any scientific data concerning car-bike collisions. However, both of the first two statistical studies (Cross I and II) completely disproved the cyclist-inferiority method and demonstrated that the vehicular cycling method was safer because it avoided by far the greater proportion of such collisions. This is not speculation; it is based on statistical facts. Furthermore, as other studies have been made, many of them, where comparison can be made, tend to support the VC conclusions that crossing and turning movements are far more hazardous than are overtaking movements.

Hmmmm "far more hazardous" is something of a dubious term in this situation, as while indeed crossing and turning movements tend to have a higher frequency of collision, overtaking incidents tend to be more deadly.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:23 PM.