Myths about cycling, busted

In or out of the saddle?

^^ Exactly. Just because you can doesn't mean it's safe. It should be rephrased to:

1. It's impossible to fart while pedalling without signifcant risk of a follow-through.
   
   

Fits in with the slogan too as it prevents blown o-rings

Sorted.

On a more serious note:
Cycling is one of the most benign activities that can think of. It has a low overall carbon imprint (including embedded carbon), it does not damage roads, makes little pollution(bar the occasional puff of methane), it does not create traffic congestion, it is healthy with proven long term cardio vascular benefits, its (relatively) cheap, its quiet, it is sustainable without raping the environment.
Yet a large sections of motoring society see cyclists as an enemy, sometimes the enemy.
Whilst this is not the only reason cyclists get hurt, the underlyng attitude which ranks us as below concern, and sometimes as legitimate targets, does contribute significantly to the dreadful toll exacted upon us.

I am not sure that it is possible to change this attitude. Legislation will only make drivers feel that we are the source of more woes being heaped upon them.

Maybe we just have to wait for the oil to run out.
Then all will be cyclists.

The occasional puff of methane is more likely to be emitted once we have become pedestrians, so don't try and stick that one on cyclists

I was told that the oil would run out during a fuel crisis in the 70s, I am still waiting.

Cars will always exist in our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our offspring. Maybe powered by something else. What really needs to change is the view of people who cycle especially by people who don't

This thread might help a teeny bit, by debunking myths, but have you read the non cyclist reaction to the Times campaign?
That is the real downside, all the frothing anti cyclists have vented their spleen. A lot of people in power and influence will read that as popular opinion.

Hang back, pass wide I agree with very much, pass slow however doesn't seem like it's the best advise. The less time you are alongside a cyclist in a car, the less the chance of an accident surely. When I taught people to drive, I would teach them to hang back, leave a lot of room but also, when safe, take the opportunity to pass quickly to avoid spending too long on the opposite side of the road and too long next to the cyclist you are attempting to pass.

Drive slowly**, hang back, pass wide.
**

Around people on bikes

Drive slowly**, hang back, pass wide.
**

Sorted

Around people on bikes

Sorted

Drive slowly**, hang back, pass wide.
**

pass wide and slow

Hang back, pass wide I agree with very much, pass slow however doesn't seem like it's the best advise. The less time you are alongside a cyclist in a car, the less the chance of an accident surely. When I taught people to drive, I would teach them to hang back, leave a lot of room but also, when safe, take the opportunity to pass quickly to avoid spending too long on the opposite side of the road and too long next to the cyclist you are attempting to pass.

Indeed. reduce your time exposed to danger.

With drive slowly, hang back, pass wide - any one of the three helps us out.
With drive fast, hang back, pass wide - two of the three are good and one not so good, particularly if the "pass wide" bit is ignored.
Also "drive fast" and "hang back" are nearly a contradiction and which do you think drivers would go for, given a choice?

Back of the envelope if you consider the length of space around which you are in danger say 10 metres long then someone going 20kph exposes you to danger for 1.8 seconds and someone at 30kph 1.2 seconds.
Minor difference in time but a VERY major difference in impact danger (kinetic energy is proportional to velocity SQUARED).

^^ Exactly. Just because you can doesn't mean it's safe. It should be rephrased to:

1. It's impossible to fart while pedalling without signifcant risk of a follow-through.
   
   

Fits in with the slogan too as it prevents blown o-rings
A rarely mentioned drawback of riding fixed; geared or ss rider can stop pedalling and fart at will

Number 10 should be:

1. Cyclists are highly evolved überdüders and are above and beyond fart jokes.
   
   
   

:]

Generally the problem would be you are hanging back at a cyclists speed, say 12mph if your thinking about overtaking. If you then slowly accelerate to overtake you could be alongside for a while, if something then happens like a cat runs out or a car comes the other way, some peoples gut response would be to swerve back in, possibly where the cyclist is. Just like when you overtake a slower car or milkfloat you should hang back, move out early to aid vision and let others know what you are doing (also stops some of the audi 3 car and a cyclist overtakes) then, when a safe gap appears, stick your foot down (up to the speed limit of course) get a decent distance ahead of the hazzard then recheck mirrors and move in. The only thing you should be overtaking slowly is a horse really, and that's just to avoid startling them.
If you do the hang back and plenty of space, the speed of impact should be irrelevant, as you're not hitting them.

In that case what's the problem? Walkers and bus passengers don't seem to have any campaigns or concerns over drivers, or do they?

Riders are getting killed out there, by no fault of their own. It will continue unless people either grow a conscience or are punished appropriately for abusing the law (blatantly and flagrantly, as the epidemic of mobile phone use displays) The police can't and won't bother to enforce most traffic law, and courts rarely impose sufficient penalties. In any case by then it's too late. A remorseful driver sobbing in the dock won't bring back the countless people who've perished under the wheels of a vehicle.

How are you sure about the bold statement? I'm very frustrated by the lack of info regarding the causes of RTAs and deaths involving cyclists.
I know there was case of a woman in front of a HGV where the driver forgot she was there. Aside from that can we assume that cyclists were at least alongside the HGV when the mishaps occured? If so, then surely cycle training could/should have helped on at least some of the situations? If you as a cyclist turn your nose up and refuse cycle training for what ever reason then surely you must take some responsibility, no?

Are there any stats on the number of people that have done Bikeability to level 3 and have been involved in SRAs or fatalities? (I'm not suggesting that it makes you immune to the actions of others but it'd be good to know.)

Check this out Multi Grooves for casualty data:

Main reasons as far as I recall are
Cut up turning left and car doors*.

*Re stats for the effect of cycle training on casualties, there aren't any yet. Its a hard one to research.

I'm editing the op with the latest Myth-list and will tweak when I get time.

About 9. -- it is acceptable and legal, under certain circumstances, and for motorcycles in any. No?

Motorists, incl. motorbikes, should aim to never stop in an ASL.

For clarity:

Rule 178 of the Highway code.
Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)]

Myth? Contador won the 2010 TdF clean.

This one (yes I know it need a lot of work.)

1. Cyclist don't pay road tax ----- Road Tax doesn't exist roads paid for by all kinds of general taxation
   
2. Riding a bike is dangerous ---- Everything carries a risk, accidents per cyclist km are very low
   
3. All cyclists jump red lights ---- Some cyclists break the law, some drivers break the law
   
4. Pavement cycling is dangerous and evil ---- it might not be but it is illegal
   
5. Cyclists must use cycle lanes where they're safer ---- Recent CTC campaign stopped this becoming law
   
6. The best way to be safe is to wear a helmet ---- lots of other acts to minimise risk
   
7. Cycle training is only for n00bs ;) ---- Actually can be enlightening, i'm sure someone has some stats on this too
   
8. Cyclists should keep to the left out of the path of cars ----- no, take the primary position when you need to.
   
9. It's OK for motorists to stop in a cyclist ASL -----
   
10. Cyclists should get registration plates, insurance and licenses ---- No (cost and lost health benefit outweigh gain)
    
11. Cyclists should be made to wear lycra and day glo jackets ---- drivers should look where they are going
    
12. Most bike accidents are the cyclists' fault ----
    
13. Badly ridden bicycles present the same threat as badly driven cars ---- Force = mass x acceleration
    
14. Cyclists should be segregated from traffic ----
    
15. red light jumping on a bike is really dangerous ----
    
16. Speed limits apply to cyclists ---- they don't but there are offences such as cycling furiously etc
    17 Cyclists should obey all rules that pertain to car drivers (e.g. one way streets) ----
    18 bikes should have a bell ---- only need a audible alert and most of us can shout
    
17. you can be arrested for being drunk in charge of a bike ----
    
18. On a bike it's best to filter to the front of the queue at lights down the left ---- filtering can be dangerous / legally overtaking is done on the right in most situations.
    

Motor vehicles have higher priority than cyclists on the road --- No they have equal priority.

It's still perfectly lawful, and acceptable, under many circumstances though.

Know what you mean. I think the rule is poorly worded. MUST stop then OK you don't really have to.

read what PC James has to say:
"Booking cars which enter the zone is tricky, [PC James] Aveling says, as it's not illegal if they stop in one if a light turns red as they're part-way in. Officers thus have to watch a driver creep in on an already red light. There are also rumours that some officers see the penalty for the infringement – six points on the licence the same as you'd get for sailing all the way through the red light – as somewhat disproportionate."
here is the full article in the Guardian of 07/2010 where James Randerson tried to go deeper into this matter by contacting the DfT among other thing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/29/cycling-advance-stop-line

^^ Exactly. Just because you can doesn't mean it's safe. It should be rephrased to:

1. It's impossible to fart while pedalling without signifcant risk of a follow-through.
   
   

geared or ss rider can stop pedalling and fart at will

Can do but its the drafter I feel sorry for ..

I have had my entrance to ASLs blocked by police cars who have entered them after the light has turned red. If they are not able to comply with the rule, they can hardly be expected to enforce it.

I have had my entrance to ASLs blocked.

Not more fart refs clive?

David, you of anyone on here should appreciate that I do not break wind.