To think cycling should be banned under lockdown?

[catsarelifetome]

I just had to drive to an essential medical appointment, and come across dozens of cyclists.

Why is cycling still allowed when driving is only allowed for essential travel? Surely the 1 hour exercise should be restricted to walking? If the cyclist falls off or is hit by a car, that puts pressure on emergency services.

And yes I know a very small minority will be cycling to an essential job... but I doubt all the people I saw were doing so. Surely the rules should be the same... essential travel only.

@Porcupineinwaiting could you link that research, it really doesn't sound feasible.

No it hasn't.

If the research had been published and peer-reviewed, it would suggest that if you follow another cyclist, 2 metres wouldn't be enough, and you should reposition yourself not to be consistently downstream of someone for a long bike ride.

However, none of us are doing group cycling with people outside our household anyway.

www.vice.com/en_us/article/v74az9/the-viral-study-about-runners-spreading-coronavirus-is-not-actually-a-study

Here are some quotes

Belgian researchers chose to bypass all standard science publishing protocols to publish research that has been overhyped and isn't well understood.

“People should read and not misread my tweets and texts,” Bert Blocken of Eindhoven University of Technology, the lead researcher on the simulation, wrote in an email to Motherboard. “I have never and nowhere discouraged people from walking, running, or cycling. Rather the opposite. Maybe people should read more, and react less.”

Blocken has yet to publish a peer-reviewed paper about the simulation. In fact, he hasn't even published a non-peer-reviewed study. Instead, he spoke to a reporter in Belgium about it, whowrote a news article, which has now been aggregated and shared widely by many publications. Given what Blocken has put into the world, taken at face value, some people are understandably concluding that it is impossible to run or cycle safely in many cities; he recommends a distance of 65 feet between bikers and other people, something that is impossible to do in cities. The issue with Blocken’s suggestion that we “read more, and react less” is that there is almost nothing to read, and there is no study to critique.

Blocken’s team took the extraordinary step of speaking to the media about his research before publishing anything about it. There is no written study to read or interpret. We do not know the specifics about how the study was done or how the simulation was run because the research team has not shared that information.

That "slipstream" simulation (Eindhoven) that I think Porcupine is referreing to, is some dodgy science gone viral. Probably a bit like the "spread by cats" rumour of a few days ago. this refers

I'll stick with the government guidelines rather that that scaremongering nonsense @PotholeParadise 🙄

if your struggling to see a cyclist wearing green, then get your eyes tested before you drive as you're a danger to everyone on the highway not just cyclists

Oh why do people always peddle this nonsense. If I am driving down the road and someone steps out in front of me all in black (in the depths of winter when it's dark) I will see them a lot later than I would have done if they'd been wearing hi-vis. Hi-vis is a GOOD idea and it's why it's compulsory to wear it when out on my running club runs in the winter. I'm not keen on pedestrians wearing lights as they are too bright and blind you.

And I wear it on my bike too. I'm on the fence about helmets, which only work at slow speeds AND if they are fitted correctly, which in 90% of cases they're not. But I can't see any problem with wearing hi vis.

@ivykaty44

My eyesight is fine. But if you're actually going to try and say that you can see someone wearing dark green with a dark green background at the same time as someone wearing hi vis, there's not much point in bothering with this conversation as all of the evidence is against you. They've done numerous studies to show that you do see hi vis quicker. I think that multi coloured hi vis shows up quicker too.

No you cant stop the inattentive drivers, but it does mean they have no excuse if you're wearing hi vis. It proves that they weren't paying attention. I can still see the dark colours, but I see them later than I do the hi vis ones, like everyone else. The more time you have, the safer the situation. But we can't prevent the inattentive ones going on the road sadly, although I would personally love to give those who hit vulnerable users a one year ban as mandatory, with a retaking of your test. If a second time, a 5 year ban and third time is life. Although an argument could be made for permanent ban on a second offence..

Not read full thread but YANBU. Bloody cyclists round here. We live on a farm and have NEVER seen as many as what we're seeing now. I'm not talking about on the roads, if you are a cyclist and want to risk your life on the road that's up to you, I'm talking about twat cyclists racing a hundred mph on bridle ways and effin footpaths. Fucking twats. Piss off back onto the roads so at least you're not nearly my killing us trying to go about our normal bloody lives trying to work or my kids just walking in the effin countryside near our house. These cyclists don't give a shit who they nearly wipe out, shouldn't even be allowed to ride a bike if you're that much of a twat. Rant over.

It personally makes sense to me (without having any evidence) that walking 2 metres apart with someone from another household for a sustained period of time could be enough cumulative exposure for transmission, and so on. I've said on here that people who want to walk together but apart with family members need to stay more than 2 metres away.

But there is no way that being briefly passed by a cyclist at such a massive distance is a risk. It just doesn't work.

It's not how any of this works!

Just seen the thread is already going in circles and the VICE article was linked on Friday!

I bookmarked it for later use back on Friday.

P.S. when I say "family members", I mean "people you miss very much whom you don't live with".

Do point to the research that shows hi biz is seen quicker

After all many have shown you the links to the opposite being the case

The fact you saw the cyclist would suggest your eye sight is indeed fine, but you’ve been conditioned to look to others to blame for crashes rather than look at the perpetrators of the crashes.

With £2.1 billion raised in speeding fines each year it’s no wonder drivers want to divert the blame

Once you’ve sorted out drivers illegal behaviour then come back and will talk about hi viz

Right, because the driver is the stupid one, not the cyclist dressed in dark green with no lights on, cycling in the dark. hmm Even during the day that's difficult to see.

yeah, because this is how cycle accidents usually happen

*With £2.1 billion raised in speeding fines each year it’s no wonder drivers want to divert the blame
*

Exactly!!!

Drivers are so keen to tell you what cyclists do wrong, but don't acknowledge their own wrong doings.... strange that!

One of the few good things about being stuck at home is I’ve shown ds in the last few days that he can easily get to the next village under his own steam, so will be less dependent on me when this is over.

And for cyclists on the thread a blinking light is a far better alter to attract attention

Well done @Mintjulia !

Carolejeffinbaskin, I feel the same way about cars. Loving the empty streets

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

I've never said either that drivers arent in the wrong if they hit a cyclist. They are completely in the wrong. But it's much easier for us to see a cyclist if they are actually visible rather than blending into the background. Same for pedestrians. I've seen people walking on the road at night, in black clothes and it's pitch black. You don't see them until the last second sometimes. It's irresponsible. Both drivers and other road users have parts to play in safety, if you don't use safety gear, then you're not taking your own safety responsibly. Same as if I drove a car with faulty brakes, I'm not driving responsibly.

A bus driver opened his door to tell dh how impressed he was with his front and back flashing lights and all over high viz “you’re like the Blackpool illuminations mate” 😁

And do you wear hi viz as a pedestrian every time you leave the house, I mean by your own words it would be irresponsible not to, do you wear a walking helmet? I mean you have a part to play in safety and where would it stop...
Start of the cause of the crashes and you will save many more lives, rather than constantly victim blaming

Blackpool driver didn’t apply handbrake

if you don't use safety gear, then you're not taking your own safety responsibly

I hope you take your own safety responsible and e.g. put a helmet on when you get behind the wheel (the majority of head injuries are sustained by people driving or being passenger in cars).

I use my bike as transport to go to the supermarket, it's on a shared use path not the road. We did take a bike ride last week, was quite busy, lots of pedestrians and horse riders too. It's good exercise, driving a car isn't exercise!

Well done OP. You've managed to attract all the arseholes to one thread

A young father out cycling yesterday in our area was pushed by a passenger in a Range Rover into a wall. Broken collar bone cuts and bruises. Be very careful when you demonise groups of people.