Racing on Public Roads., Is it appropriate on todays busy roads ! Options

[CrackerJack]

I used to be a cyclist in my younger days and I remember a time when there was more bikes than cars. I am just glad that I am not cycling today as it seems so dangerous. I must say I've seen a few car-bike accidents on the road. My grandchildren cycle and it is very worrying. They, on the other hand don't see the danger. It maybe just my age. Dear lord!

Don

The letters page in the NWN gives fairly contradictory views on cycling. Not specifically cycle racing which is a very controlled and well managed sport when conducted on the public highway, but more about general cycling. Tony Vickers arguing for more facilities and Mr Green putting the point I'm in general agreement with about using footways for cycling provide you don't endanger pedestrians.

Then there's the letter from the local cycle nut Laurie Lockwood. All well and good him pointing out the legality when he pedals along our roads in his disabled trike thing. But the reality is that cyclist vs car has messy outcomes whereas cyclist vs pedestrians rarely escalates beyond angry swearing....

[Biker1]

My perception is that cycling in the district, within and between towns, is acceptably safe. Around 100 cyclists are killed each year on UK roads, most in towns. Compare that with the 330 or so motorcyclists killed annually. Not directly comparable I know, but cycling is not obviously unsafe.

You miss my point. I was not talking about cycling in general, just racing on public roads.

That begs the question. In point of fact cyclists have the same general right as any other road user to use the road.

Agreed. You miss my point. I was not talking about cycling in general, just racing on public roads.

PS. I knew the motorcycling comparison would come into it. Not valid is it? The debate is about organised racing on public roads. This is not done for motorcycling.
Please everybody don't perpetuate the motorcycling argument just because of my forum name.
Yes I know there are many kilted each year, Yes I know there are many nutters on motorbikes out there.
The debate is about organised cycling events on public roads.

[Andy Capp]

PS. I knew the motorcycling comparison would come into it. Not valid is it? The debate is about organised racing on public roads. This is not done for motorcycling.
Please everybody don't perpetuate the motorcycling argument just because of my forum name.
Yes I know there are many kilted each year, Yes I know there are many nutters on motorbikes out there.
The debate is about organised cycling events on public roads.

Bicycle racing is an activity. Riding a motorbike is an activity. Driving a car is an activity. Are the relative safety concerns of bicycle racing valid? What is the definition of safe?

Yes, there is a risk in using public roads, but is it an unacceptable risk?

[On the edge]

Biker makes a valid point. However, I'd argue that the formal bike races we see around and about are intrinsically safer than cycling generally. Simply because the risks are mitigated by supervision and rules; which make the riders far more visible and aware. The awareness comes as a consequence of them formally signing up to the race so by implication, willing to accept the disciplines and rules. None of that applies to the independent 'fast/racing' riders; who like their motorised peers in the same category have an apparent reckless disregard for anyone else. It's that behaviour that brings things to disrepute. I've often thought that it would be a good move to have an act that made being stupid a criminal offence.

[Nothing Much]

I would agree with OTE.
Most reports of fatal accidents in Norfolk involve nothing much( so to speak),
other than that a tree suffered life threatening injuries.

[blackdog]

None of that applies to the independent 'fast/racing' riders; who like their motorised peers in the same category have an apparent reckless disregard for anyone else.

The self same group that makes cycling on pavements so disliked by pedestrians - as ever the behaviour of the few spoil it for the many.

[Simon Kirby]

You miss my point. I was not talking about cycling in general, just racing on public roads.

Yes, sure, and you made an unsubstantiated assertion that road racing is not safe. I made a plausible argument that it was not so obviously unsafe, but it's your assertion, so substantiate it.

Agreed. You miss my point. I was not talking about cycling in general, just racing on public roads.

You're point implied that racing cyclists have no right to be on the road, but you're wrong.

PS. I knew the motorcycling comparison would come into it. Not valid is it? The debate is about organised racing on public roads. This is not done for motorcycling.
Please everybody don't perpetuate the motorcycling argument just because of my forum name.
Yes I know there are many kilted each year, Yes I know there are many nutters on motorbikes out there.
The debate is about organised cycling events on public roads.

As I said, the point that race cycling on a public road is unsafe was yours so it's yours to substantiate, but as it needs some objective standard to measure that safety I compared cycling (of all kinds) with motorcycling which, while being less safe than driving a car, is generally considered adequately safe. It's hardly a good comparison because we don't know the accident race for road racing as opposed to cycling of all kinds, and the comparison is also questionable because we really need to know how many motorcycle and bicycle journeys are made and then think about whether we measure the accident rate per mile or per journey, but like I said, the assertion that road racing is unsafe was yours, and it's certainly not my experience that road racing is recklessly dangerous, so the point is yours to defend rather than mine to knock down.

[Simon Kirby]

The self same group that makes cycling on pavements so disliked by pedestrians - as ever the behaviour of the few spoil it for the many.

I was nearly knocked down one time by a furious cyclist on the path from Victoria Park under the A339 who I thought I recognised as a member of Spokes.

[Biker1]

Like I said, other types of vehicle racing is banned on public roads. Why is that?
Large groups of cyclists racing along public roads also used by lorries, cars, motorcycles, horses etc.?
Are they concentrating on the road or the racing?
It's common sense it's not safe why do I need to elaborate more?

[On the edge]

Like I said, other types of vehicle racing is banned on public roads. Why is that?
Large groups of cyclists racing along public roads also used by lorries, cars, motorcycles, horses etc.?
Are they concentrating on the road or the racing?
It's common sense it's not safe why do I need to elaborate more?

I would have thought they'd be concentrating on both; road and race. Having a little experience in my misspent youth many many years ago, a key thing with bike racing was to anticipate exactly what was coming up; if only to adjust the gears / peddle rate in good time. Plus, with properly constituted races, there are stewards and othe officials policing what goes on. That doesn't happen with motorised speedsters does it? Yeah, now and again a big bike race will effectively be a rolling road block; waiting motorists guided through by a control car. A tad frustrating, but as said before, no more so than the Army convoys or excess loads. So, sorry Biker, common sense doesn't say it's not safe; arguably quite the reverse.

[Andy Capp]

Like I said, other types of vehicle racing is banned on public roads. Why is that?
Large groups of cyclists racing along public roads also used by lorries, cars, motorcycles, horses etc.?
Are they concentrating on the road or the racing?
It's common sense it's not safe why do I need to elaborate more?

You need to define safe. Bicycles, even racing ones, pose little danger to the public, a racing motor vehicle does.

[Biker1]

If it's safe why are there signs saying "Caution Cycle Race In Progress"?
Why do they need to warn people?
Is it because they might get hit?
Can't be.
It's safe!!

[On the edge]

If it's safe why are there signs saying "Caution Cycle Race In Progress"?
Why do they need to warn people?
Is it because they might get hit?
Can't be.
It's safe!!

You might be making a point for the 'elf and safeti' jobsworths we all suffer from. Using your argument, that anywhere with a 'Caution' sign is intrinsically unsafe and should be stopped, would close down most of the Country. Petrol filling stations, cricket matches, electricity substations, the Tube network included. Of course, as you've been saying Bike racing is 'dangerous', but so is walking, swimming, etc. it's all a matter of degree....and mitigation.

[HJD]

Yes, sure, and you made an unsubstantiated assertion that road racing is not safe. I made a plausible argument that it was not so obviously unsafe, but it's your assertion, so substantiate it.
You're point implied that racing cyclists have no right to be on the road, but you're wrong.
As I said, the point that race cycling on a public road is unsafe was yours so it's yours to substantiate, but as it needs some objective standard to measure that safety I compared cycling (of all kinds) with motorcycling which, while being less safe than driving a car, is generally considered adequately safe. It's hardly a good comparison because we don't know the accident race for road racing as opposed to cycling of all kinds, and the comparison is also questionable because we really need to know how many motorcycle and bicycle journeys are made and then think about whether we measure the accident rate per mile or per journey, but like I said, the assertion that road racing is unsafe was yours, and it's certainly not my experience that road racing is recklessly dangerous, so the point is yours to defend rather than mine to knock down.

Have you ever thought of becoming a politician !

[HJD]

Biker makes a valid point. However, I'd argue that the formal bike races we see around and about are intrinsically safer than cycling generally. Simply because the risks are mitigated by supervision and rules; which make the riders far more visible and aware.

OK. So we do not have to worry about the above.

None of that applies to the independent 'fast/racing' riders; who like their motorised peers in the same category have an apparent reckless disregard for anyone else.

Its these we have to watch out for !

[On the edge]

Its these we have to watch out for !

Quite so, I'd like to see cyclists properly Policed. Fining those riding without lights, or 'recklessly' or disobeying traffic signs etc. etc. indeed riding a bicycle that doesn't comply with construction regulations. A few high profile prosecutions would certainly bring in a bit more responsibility.

[Simon Kirby]

Its these we have to watch out for !

I'm guessing we'd all agree that some cyclists are inconsiderate, but that's not the proposition of the OP. I don't see any argument for banning road racing.

[Andy Capp]

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that bicycle races made roads safer by slowing down traffic and making drivers more alert.

[Biker1]

Have you ever thought of becoming a politician !

Actually I think he has!!

[Biker1]

You're point implied that racing cyclists have no right to be on the road, but you're wrong.

No, legally they do.
I still don't think they should be allowed to.
There will always be an impasse on many subjects this included.
Those who are supporters and those who are not.
The public roads are for getting from A to B, not for racing on.
The continued argument is pointless. You are a race cycling supporter and I am not.
No further debate will change that.