-
In most cases the physical risk of being hit by a bike is relatively low, yes, whereas the perception of the risk is greater. So “perceived risk” is a fair description. I didn’t say that every incident involving a bike was absolutely fine, just that the perception of danger seems more important than the actual risk to life / injury, which is usually quite low on bikes. If you don’t agree with that last part, you can look for stats on how many people are injured / killed in collisions with bikes, which show the rates are very low.
feeling unsafe it's a reaction to danger - is it not obvious
I don’t know what this means. Are you saying that because people feel unsafe there is danger? You realise that isn’t true, right?
I’m not saying that cyclists shouldn’t be better at obeying the rules of the road - I absolutely think they should - I’m saying that any rules brought in to deal with this are based more on perception of danger and a feeling that Something Has To Be Done than on a sober assessment of the actual risks.
You are reading a single comment by @andyfallsoff and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
andyfallsoff
Hitting pedestrians while RLJ is a "perceived risk"? Didn't give a way to cars while RLJ is a just "visible" rule-breaking? Going 50kmh downhill in Greenwich park is not a big deal? Overtaking at full speed on CS in the wrong direction is just a minor annoying thing?
Also, feeling unsafe it's a reaction to danger - is it not obvious?
Anyway, I wouldn't blame cyclists only - it's a general lack of respect and kindness in society (the roads are just another public space), and of course, the plates and fines won't help here.