One section of the Snake Pass tarmac has two metres, pretty much an
entire lane, hanging completely unsupported after the ground beneath it
crumbled away during the storm. Cyclists can't see the safety issues.

Read the fully-vomiting story at

<https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclists-taken-over-notorious-snake-23269144>

--
Spike

On Sunday, 6 March 2022 at 17:43:59 UTC, Spike wrote:
> One section of the Snake Pass tarmac has two metres, pretty much an
> entire lane, hanging completely unsupported after the ground beneath it
> crumbled away during the storm. Cyclists can't see the safety issues.
>
> Read the fully-vomiting story at
>
> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclists-taken-over-notorious-snake-23269144>
>
> --
> Spike

Road damage is the 4th power of axle loading. Just because it is unsafe for subsidised road users does not mean it cannot be used by paying road users.

On 06/03/2022 05:43 pm, Spike wrote:
>
> One section of the Snake Pass tarmac has two metres, pretty much an
> entire lane, hanging completely unsupported after the ground beneath it
> crumbled away during the storm. Cyclists can't see the safety issues.
>
> Read the fully-vomiting story at
>
> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclists-taken-over-notorious-snake-23269144>

Is there a downside to it?

On 07/03/2022 00:46, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/03/2022 05:43 pm, Spike wrote:

>> One section of the Snake Pass tarmac has two metres, pretty much an
>> entire lane, hanging completely unsupported after the ground beneath it
>> crumbled away during the storm. Cyclists can't see the safety issues.

>> Read the fully-vomiting story at

>> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclists-taken-over-notorious-snake-23269144>

> Is there a downside to it?

The Snake Pass, currently having an unsupported section of road
following recent storms, is now being used, probably illegally, as a
traffic-free route, showing that cyclists as a group remain silent on
the issue of a cyclist being killed every six days in incidents
involving no third party - a dreadful number almost equal to the
frequency at which cyclists are killed in collisions with vehicles,
about which they are, in complete contrast, so vocal, and which has
safety implications for all cyclists.

--
Spike

On 06/03/2022 18:15, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 6 March 2022 at 17:43:59 UTC, Spike wrote:

>> One section of the Snake Pass tarmac has two metres, pretty much an
>> entire lane, hanging completely unsupported after the ground beneath it
>> crumbled away during the storm. Cyclists can't see the safety issues.

>> Read the fully-vomiting story at

>> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclists-taken-over-notorious-snake-23269144>

> Road damage is the 4th power of axle loading. Just because it is unsafe for subsidised road users does not mean it cannot be used by paying road users.

Thanks for illustrating so well my point about cyclists being unable to
see the safety issues associated with a half-collapsed road.

--
Spike

On 07/03/2022 09:27, Spike wrote:
>
> cyclists as a group remain silent on
> the issue of a cyclist being killed every six days in incidents
> involving no third party -
>
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-motorcyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-motorcycle-factsheet-2020

2015-2020, out of 2008 motorcyclists killed, 445 died with no other
vehicles involved. 22%. One every five days.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020

2015-2020 out of 643 cyclists killed, 98 died with no other vehicle
involved. 15%. One every 3 weeks.

Where did you get your information from? And why have you suddenly
become so concerned about what people do to themselves?

On 07/03/2022 10:28 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 09:27, Spike wrote:
>>
>> cyclists as a group remain silent on
>> the issue of a cyclist being killed every six days in incidents
>> involving no third party -
> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-motorcyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-motorcycle-factsheet-2020
>
>
> 2015-2020, out of 2008 motorcyclists killed, 445 died with no other
> vehicles involved. 22%. One every five days.
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020
>
>
> 2015-2020 out of 643 cyclists killed, 98 died with no other vehicle
> involved. 15%. One every 3 weeks.
>
>
> Where did you get your information from? And why have you suddenly
> become so concerned about what people do to themselves?

Presumably, ever since, and for as long as, totally-self-inflicted
cyclist deaths and injuries are claimed to have been caused by other
parties.

You *must* agree, shirley?

On 07/03/2022 10:28, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 09:27, Spike wrote:

>> cyclists as a group remain silent on
>> the issue of a cyclist being killed every six days in incidents
>> involving no third party -

> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-motorcyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-motorcycle-factsheet-2020

> 2015-2020, out of 2008 motorcyclists killed, 445 died with no other
> vehicles involved. 22%. One every five days.

> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020

> 2015-2020 out of 643 cyclists killed, 98 died with no other vehicle
> involved. 15%. One every 3 weeks.

> Where did you get your information from? And why have you suddenly
> become so concerned about what people do to themselves?

<https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data>

[The document links to a data set, but my computer can't parse it; more
accurate data might be available from it]

The document on the gov.uk web site titled 'Reported road casualties
Great Britain: road user risk, 2020 data', states in Chart 1 that there
were 141 cyclist road deaths in that period, and Chart 3 has a
diagrammatic breakdown of those deaths.

Estimating from that chart, about 70 cyclists, were killed in collisions
with motor
vehicles; about 14 were killed in collisions involving 3 or more
vehicles; about 45 were killed in 'collision with other'; and about 20
were killed with no other involvement.
Almost half (~65 out of 141) of cycling deaths didn't involve another
vehicle.

These figures for the solo deaths of cycling are chilling. Eliminating
these solo deaths would cut cyclist deaths by almost half. So what is to
be done about them?

Clearly, more information is needed as to the causes of these solo
deaths - reporting on the circumstances of such fatalities might include
information on weather, time of day or night, mechanical condition of
the cycle and its lights, proficiency of the rider, state of health of
the rider, protective measures taken by the rider, etc etc. Reviewing
known data might suggest other causes that more comprehensive reporting
would cover.

But the quickest thing that could be done would be for cyclists to
undergo compulsory training and testing, have the cycles regularly
inspected as in an MoT, and introduce compulsory helmets as interim
measures. Closing the current lax drink-cycling loophole may also help.

These stop-gap measures could then be expanded in the light of the
survey's findings, to go on to include such things as defensive cycling
- where one avoids notorious accident blackspots rather than risk
traversing them, avoids going too fast for the conditions, understands
what red lights and zebra crossings are meant for. refrains from cycling
in pedestrian-only areas, performs basic daily cycle checks, etc.

--
Spike

On 07/03/2022 10:54 am, Spike wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 10:28, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/03/2022 09:27, Spike wrote:
>
>>> cyclists as a group remain silent on
>>> the issue of a cyclist being killed every six days in incidents
>>> involving no third party -
>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-motorcyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-motorcycle-factsheet-2020
>
>> 2015-2020, out of 2008 motorcyclists killed, 445 died with no other
>> vehicles involved. 22%. One every five days.
>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020
>
>> 2015-2020 out of 643 cyclists killed, 98 died with no other vehicle
>> involved. 15%. One every 3 weeks.
>
>> Where did you get your information from? And why have you suddenly
>> become so concerned about what people do to themselves?
>
> <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data>
>
> [The document links to a data set, but my computer can't parse it; more
> accurate data might be available from it]
>
> The document on the gov.uk web site titled 'Reported road casualties
> Great Britain: road user risk, 2020 data', states in Chart 1 that there
> were 141 cyclist road deaths in that period, and Chart 3 has a
> diagrammatic breakdown of those deaths.
>
> Estimating from that chart, about 70 cyclists, were killed in collisions
> with motor
> vehicles; about 14 were killed in collisions involving 3 or more
> vehicles; about 45 were killed in 'collision with other'; and about 20
> were killed with no other involvement.
> Almost half (~65 out of 141) of cycling deaths didn't involve another
> vehicle.
>
> These figures for the solo deaths of cycling are chilling. Eliminating
> these solo deaths would cut cyclist deaths by almost half. So what is to
> be done about them?
>
> Clearly, more information is needed as to the causes of these solo
> deaths - reporting on the circumstances of such fatalities might include
> information on weather, time of day or night, mechanical condition of
> the cycle and its lights, proficiency of the rider, state of health of
> the rider, protective measures taken by the rider, etc etc. Reviewing
> known data might suggest other causes that more comprehensive reporting
> would cover.
>
> But the quickest thing that could be done would be for cyclists to
> undergo compulsory training and testing, have the cycles regularly
> inspected as in an MoT, and introduce compulsory helmets as interim
> measures. Closing the current lax drink-cycling loophole may also help.
>
> These stop-gap measures could then be expanded in the light of the
> survey's findings, to go on to include such things as defensive cycling
> - where one avoids notorious accident blackspots rather than risk
> traversing them, avoids going too fast for the conditions, understands
> what red lights and zebra crossings are meant for. refrains from cycling
> in pedestrian-only areas, performs basic daily cycle checks, etc.

Oh come on... you're asking FAR too much of fairy-cyclists there.

You're almost asking them to behave responsibly.

On 07/03/2022 10:54, Spike wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 10:28, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/03/2022 09:27, Spike wrote:
>
>>> cyclists as a group remain silent on the issue of a cyclist being
>>> killed every six days in incidents involving no third party -
>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-motorcyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-motorcycle-factsheet-2020
>
>> 2015-2020, out of 2008 motorcyclists killed, 445 died with no
>> other vehicles involved. 22%. One every five days.
>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020
>
>> 2015-2020 out of 643 cyclists killed, 98 died with no other
>> vehicle involved. 15%. One every 3 weeks.
>
>> Where did you get your information from? And why have you suddenly
>> become so concerned about what people do to themselves?
>
> <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data>
>
> [The document links to a data set, but my computer can't parse it;
> more accurate data might be available from it]
>
> The document on the gov.uk web site titled 'Reported road casualties
> Great Britain: road user risk, 2020 data', states in Chart 1 that
> there were 141 cyclist road deaths in that period, and Chart 3 has a
> diagrammatic breakdown of those deaths.
>
> Estimating from that chart, about 70 cyclists, were killed in
> collisions with motor vehicles; about 14 were killed in collisions
> involving 3 or more vehicles; about 45 were killed in 'collision with
> other'; and about 20 were killed with no other involvement. Almost
> half (~65 out of 141) of cycling deaths didn't involve another
> vehicle.

The data set I linked was more specific. It's curious they don't agree.
It's also interesting to imagine what 1/3 of pedestrians have done to
get killed through "collision with other".

> These figures for the solo deaths of cycling are chilling.
> Eliminating these solo deaths would cut cyclist deaths by almost
> half. So what is to be done about them?

You didn't answer my second question. Why have you suddenly
become so concerned about what people do to themselves? Does this
concern go out to motorcyclists, base jumpers, potholers and so on?

> Clearly, more information is needed as to the causes of these solo
> deaths - reporting on the circumstances of such fatalities might
> include information on weather, time of day or night, mechanical
> condition of the cycle and its lights, proficiency of the rider,
> state of health of the rider, protective measures taken by the rider,
> etc etc. Reviewing known data might suggest other causes that more
> comprehensive reporting would cover.
>
> But the quickest thing that could be done would be for cyclists to
> undergo compulsory training and testing, have the cycles regularly
> inspected as in an MoT, and introduce compulsory helmets as interim
> measures. Closing the current lax drink-cycling loophole may also
> help.
>
> These stop-gap measures could then be expanded in the light of the
> survey's findings, to go on to include such things as defensive
> cycling - where one avoids notorious accident blackspots rather than
> risk traversing them,

A "notorious blackspot" is likely to be that because of lots of cycle
traffic. A road that sees a small number of cyclists because cyclists
avoid it due to perceived danger is never going to get blackspot status.

Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good example of
defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk is high but use it
now when risk is low. Yet you insult them for doing the latter.

The best thing is for authorities to stop trying to prevent people from
doing things that only harm themelves.

> avoids going too fast for the conditions,

When are drivers taught about this?

> understands what red lights and zebra crossings are meant for.
> refrains from cycling in pedestrian-only areas, performs basic daily
> cycle checks, etc.

On 07/03/2022 14:03, TMS320 wrote:

> A "notorious blackspot" is likely to be that because of lots of cycle
> traffic. A road that sees a small number of cyclists because cyclists
> avoid it due to perceived danger is never going to get blackspot status.

Every movement needs its martyrs? Wow...what a mindset. That remark is a
keeper.

> Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good example of
> defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk is high but use it
> now when risk is low. Yet you insult them for doing the latter.

The risk is different, not necessarily low,

> The best thing is for authorities to stop trying to prevent people from
> doing things that only harm themselves.

With an ongoing 'war on drugs', smoking all but forbidden, alcohol under
constant attack, meat-eating frowned on - to name but a few views held
by the authorities - why do you think unrestricted cycling should be
excused?

--
Spike

On 07/03/2022 02:03 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 07/03/2022 10:54, Spike wrote:
>> On 07/03/2022 10:28, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2022 09:27, Spike wrote:
>
>>>> cyclists as a group remain silent on the issue of a cyclist being
>>>> killed every six days in incidents involving no third party -
>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-motorcyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-motorcycle-factsheet-2020
>
>>>  2015-2020, out of 2008 motorcyclists killed, 445 died with no
>>> other vehicles involved. 22%. One every five days.
>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020
>
>>>  2015-2020 out of 643 cyclists killed, 98 died with no other
>>> vehicle involved. 15%. One every 3 weeks.
>
>>> Where did you get your information from? And why have you suddenly
>>> become so concerned about what people do to themselves?
>
>> <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data>
>
>>  [The document links to a data set, but my computer can't parse it;
>> more accurate data might be available from it]
>
>> The document on the gov.uk web site titled 'Reported road casualties
>> Great Britain: road user risk, 2020 data', states in Chart 1 that
>> there were 141 cyclist road deaths in that period, and Chart 3 has a
>> diagrammatic breakdown of those deaths.
>
>> Estimating from that chart, about 70 cyclists, were killed in
>> collisions with motor vehicles; about 14 were killed in collisions
>> involving 3 or more vehicles; about 45 were killed in 'collision with
>> other'; and about 20 were killed with no other involvement. Almost
>> half (~65 out of 141) of cycling deaths didn't involve another vehicle.
>
> The data set I linked was more specific. It's curious they don't agree.
> It's also interesting to imagine what 1/3 of pedestrians have done to
> get killed through "collision with other".
>
>> These figures for the solo deaths of cycling are chilling.
>> Eliminating these solo deaths would cut cyclist deaths by almost
>> half. So what is to be done about them?
>
> You didn't answer my second question. Why have you suddenly
> become so concerned about what people do to themselves? Does this
> concern go out to motorcyclists, base jumpers, potholers and so on?

It might, if the deaths of pot-holers, "base jumpers" (WTMB) and
motor-cyclists were being blamed on innocent third parties.

>> Clearly, more information is needed as to the causes of these solo
>> deaths - reporting on the circumstances of such fatalities might
>> include information on weather, time of day or night, mechanical
>> condition of the cycle and its lights, proficiency of the rider,
>> state of health of the rider, protective measures taken by the rider,
>> etc etc. Reviewing known data might suggest other causes that more
>> comprehensive reporting would cover.
>
>> But the quickest thing that could be done would be for cyclists to
>> undergo compulsory training and testing, have the cycles regularly
>> inspected as in an MoT, and introduce compulsory helmets as interim
>> measures. Closing the current lax drink-cycling loophole may also
>> help.
>
>> These stop-gap measures could then be expanded in the light of the
>> survey's findings, to go on to include such things as defensive
>> cycling - where one avoids notorious accident blackspots rather than
>> risk traversing them,
>
> A "notorious blackspot" is likely to be that because of lots of cycle
> traffic. A road that sees a small number of cyclists because cyclists
> avoid it due to perceived danger is never going to get blackspot status.
>
> Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good example of
> defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk is high but use it
> now when risk is low. Yet you insult them for doing the latter.

Remember those "one vehicle" incidents.

Falling into a sink-hole would count.
>
> The best thing is for authorities to stop trying to prevent people from
> doing things that only harm themelves.

Like jumping off bridges over expressways?

>> avoids going too fast for the conditions,
>
> When are drivers taught about this?
>
>> understands what red lights and zebra crossings are meant for.
>> refrains from cycling in pedestrian-only areas, performs basic daily
>> cycle checks, etc.

On 07/03/2022 14:46, Spike wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> A "notorious blackspot" is likely to be that because of lots of cycle
>> traffic. A road that sees a small number of cyclists because cyclists
>> avoid it due to perceived danger is never going to get blackspot status.
>
> Every movement needs its martyrs? Wow...what a mindset. That remark is a
> keeper.
>
>> Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good example of
>> defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk is high but use it
>> now when risk is low. Yet you insult them for doing the latter.
>
> The risk is different, not necessarily low,

The risk to the person that stays away from the unsupported section is zero.

>> The best thing is for authorities to stop trying to prevent people from
>> doing things that only harm themselves.
>
> With an ongoing 'war on drugs', smoking all but forbidden, alcohol under
> constant attack, meat-eating frowned on - to name but a few views held
> by the authorities - why do you think unrestricted cycling should be
> excused?

Cycling is a health benefit for the survivors.

On 07/03/2022 15:46, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 14:46, Spike wrote:
>> On 07/03/2022 14:03, TMS320 wrote:

>>> A "notorious blackspot" is likely to be that because of lots of cycle
>>> traffic. A road that sees a small number of cyclists because cyclists
>>> avoid it due to perceived danger is never going to get blackspot status.

>> Every movement needs its martyrs? Wow...what a mindset. That remark is a
>> keeper.

>>> Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good example of
>>> defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk is high but use it
>>> now when risk is low. Yet you insult them for doing the latter.

>> The risk is different, not necessarily low,

> The risk to the person that stays away from the unsupported section is zero.

As cyclists have a notorious reputation for having defective brakes on
their bicycles, one suspects that the risk of some moron 'gleefully'
tearing downhill and chewing the tarmac is not zero.

>>> The best thing is for authorities to stop trying to prevent people from
>>> doing things that only harm themselves.

>> With an ongoing 'war on drugs', smoking all but forbidden, alcohol under
>> constant attack, meat-eating frowned on - to name but a few views held
>> by the authorities - why do you think unrestricted cycling should be
>> excused?

> Cycling is a health benefit for the survivors.

Jesus wept.

--
Spike

On 07/03/2022 04:10 pm, Spike wrote:

> On 07/03/2022 15:46, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/03/2022 14:46, Spike wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2022 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>> A "notorious blackspot" is likely to be that because of lots of cycle
>>>> traffic. A road that sees a small number of cyclists because cyclists
>>>> avoid it due to perceived danger is never going to get blackspot status.
>
>>> Every movement needs its martyrs? Wow...what a mindset. That remark is a
>>> keeper.
>
>>>> Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good example of
>>>> defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk is high but use it
>>>> now when risk is low. Yet you insult them for doing the latter.
>
>>> The risk is different, not necessarily low,
>
>> The risk to the person that stays away from the unsupported section is zero.
>
> As cyclists have a notorious reputation for having defective brakes on
> their bicycles, one suspects that the risk of some moron 'gleefully'
> tearing downhill and chewing the tarmac is not zero.

Defective brakes or non-existent brakes.

You'll find enthusiastic support for the use of both sorts in uk.p.m.
>
>>>> The best thing is for authorities to stop trying to prevent people from
>>>> doing things that only harm themselves.
>
>>> With an ongoing 'war on drugs', smoking all but forbidden, alcohol under
>>> constant attack, meat-eating frowned on - to name but a few views held
>>> by the authorities - why do you think unrestricted cycling should be
>>> excused?
>
>> Cycling is a health benefit for the survivors.
>
> Jesus wept.

It's par for the course for "clever" answers here.

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 3:46:31 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Cycling is a health benefit for the survivors.

Between the ages of 40-55 I cycled the 24 miles to work and back every day and did club racing.
Best investment in my health I have ever made. :-)

On 07/03/2022 16:10, Spike wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 15:46, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/03/2022 14:46, Spike wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2022 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>> A "notorious blackspot" is likely to be that because of lots of cycle
>>>> traffic. A road that sees a small number of cyclists because cyclists
>>>> avoid it due to perceived danger is never going to get blackspot status.
>
>>> Every movement needs its martyrs? Wow...what a mindset. That remark is a
>>> keeper.

If you don't like my explanation, how about you give yours?

>>>> Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good example of
>>>> defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk is high but use it
>>>> now when risk is low. Yet you insult them for doing the latter.
>
>>> The risk is different, not necessarily low,
>
>> The risk to the person that stays away from the unsupported section is zero.
>
> As cyclists have a notorious reputation for having defective brakes on
> their bicycles, one suspects that the risk of some moron 'gleefully'
> tearing downhill and chewing the tarmac is not zero.

From claiming that you know best about using a section of road that has
a short section of damage, those are very agile goalposts.

>>>> The best thing is for authorities to stop trying to prevent people from
>>>> doing things that only harm themselves.
>
>>> With an ongoing 'war on drugs', smoking all but forbidden, alcohol under
>>> constant attack, meat-eating frowned on - to name but a few views held
>>> by the authorities - why do you think unrestricted cycling should be
>>> excused?
>
>> Cycling is a health benefit for the survivors.
>
> Jesus wept.

He probably did at some time. What about it?

On 07/03/2022 17:11, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 3:46:31 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

>> Cycling is a health benefit for the survivors.

> Between the ages of 40-55 I cycled the 24 miles to work and back every day and did club racing. Best investment in my health I have ever made. :-)

On my 16th birthday I threw away my bicycle. The second best investment
in my health I have ever made. :-)

--
Spike

On 07/03/2022 17:58, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 16:10, Spike wrote:
>> On 07/03/2022 15:46, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2022 14:46, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2022 14:03, TMS320 wrote:

>>>>> Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good example of
>>>>> defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk is high but use it
>>>>> now when risk is low. Yet you insult them for doing the latter.

>>>> The risk is different, not necessarily low,

>>> The risk to the person that stays away from the unsupported section is zero.

>> As cyclists have a notorious reputation for having defective brakes on
>> their bicycles, one suspects that the risk of some moron 'gleefully'
>> tearing downhill and chewing the tarmac is not zero.

> From claiming that you know best about using a section of road that has
> a short section of damage, those are very agile goalposts.

Keep in mind that in 2020, nearly 50% of cyclist deaths involved no
other vehicles.

So riding Snake Pass won't remove that risk, and 'thrill riding' a road
unsafe enough to close to all traffic will add to that.

--
Spike

On 08/03/2022 09:32, Spike wrote:
> On 07/03/2022 17:58, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/03/2022 16:10, Spike wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2022 15:46, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2022 14:46, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2022 14:03, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>>>> Since you mentioned it, Snake Pass seems to be a good
>>>>>> example of defensive cycling. Cyclists avoid it when risk
>>>>>> is high but use it now when risk is low. Yet you insult
>>>>>> them for doing the latter.
>
>>>>> The risk is different, not necessarily low,
>
>>>> The risk to the person that stays away from the unsupported
>>>> section is zero.
>
>>> As cyclists have a notorious reputation for having defective
>>> brakes on their bicycles, one suspects that the risk of some
>>> moron 'gleefully' tearing downhill and chewing the tarmac is not
>>> zero.
>
>> From claiming that you know best about using a section of road that
>> has a short section of damage, those are very agile goalposts.
>
> Keep in mind that in 2020, nearly 50% of cyclist deaths involved no
> other vehicles.

You still haven't explained why you're so concerned about it.

> So riding Snake Pass won't remove that risk, and 'thrill riding' a
> road unsafe enough to close to all traffic will add to that.

The road is clearly not unsafe for all traffic. Keep in mind that the
number you have come up with means that 50% involve other vehicles. That
risk is temporarily absent.

But the chart you found has the source data in ras40004.ods, which
explains "other". The raw data is.

sva 22 (16% - similar to 5 year average)
p'cycle 1
m'cycle 1
car 67
van 14
hgv 14
other 7
unknown 0
3 vehicle 15
total 141

It's a pity that cycle svas aren't closer to 100%.

On 08/03/2022 15:52, TMS320 wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 09:32, Spike wrote:

>> Keep in mind that in 2020, nearly 50% of cyclist deaths involved no
>> other vehicles.

> You still haven't explained why you're so concerned about it.

>> So riding Snake Pass won't remove that risk, and 'thrill riding' a
>> road unsafe enough to close to all traffic will add to that.

> The road is clearly not unsafe for all traffic. Keep in mind that the
> number you have come up with means that 50% involve other vehicles. That
> risk is temporarily absent.

> But the chart you found has the source data in ras40004.ods, which
> explains "other". The raw data is.

> sva 22 (16% - similar to 5 year average)
> p'cycle 1
> m'cycle 1
> car 67
> van 14
> hgv 14
> other 7
> unknown 0
> 3 vehicle 15
> total 141

Thanks for digging out the data from the file, I didn't have software
that could render it into intelligibility.

Interesting that they don't break down the 3-vehicle category, as some
of these may come from all-cycle collisions when groups of them are out
and about.

So the data means there's a cycle SVA death every 16 days. On average,
that's 8 weekends of the Snake Pass 'thrill rides', not including the
extra risks of traversing that closed-to-vehicles-and-cyclists road.

> It's a pity that cycle svas aren't closer to 100%.

Perhaps you meant 0%? It might take education and testing to get the
number down.

--
Spike

On 08/03/2022 16:57, Spike wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 15:52, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 09:32, Spike wrote:
>
>>> Keep in mind that in 2020, nearly 50% of cyclist deaths involved no
>>> other vehicles.
>
>> You still haven't explained why you're so concerned about it.
>
>>> So riding Snake Pass won't remove that risk, and 'thrill riding' a
>>> road unsafe enough to close to all traffic will add to that.
>
>> The road is clearly not unsafe for all traffic. Keep in mind that the
>> number you have come up with means that 50% involve other vehicles. That
>> risk is temporarily absent.
>
>> But the chart you found has the source data in ras40004.ods, which
>> explains "other". The raw data is.
>
>> sva 22 (16% - similar to 5 year average)
>> p'cycle 1
>> m'cycle 1
>> car 67
>> van 14
>> hgv 14
>> other 7
>> unknown 0
>> 3 vehicle 15
>> total 141
>
> Thanks for digging out the data from the file, I didn't have software
> that could render it into intelligibility.

*.ods files use Libre office

I have created a pdf at -
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxltrsugmy0blun/ras40004.pdf?dl=0

> Interesting that they don't break down the 3-vehicle category, as some
> of these may come from all-cycle collisions when groups of them are out
> and about.

Drivers spend a lot of time in herds (it makes no difference whether or
not members of these herds have organised to go on an outing). There is
a much higher proportion of vehicle occupant casualties in 3+ crashes.

> So the data means there's a cycle SVA death every 16 days. On average,
> that's 8 weekends of the Snake Pass 'thrill rides', not including the
> extra risks of traversing that closed-to-vehicles-and-cyclists road.
>
>> It's a pity that cycle svas aren't closer to 100%.
>
> Perhaps you meant 0%? It might take education and testing to get the
> number down.

I didn't mean 0%. Better to have self-inflicted casualties than
casualties caused by others.