Cyclist Problem

[Royho1979]

Do you see cyclists cycling in circles in the middle of the road just like how some children run in circles in the middle of the pcn? Do you see cyclists stopping right in the middle of the road to chat? Don't think its the same as the situation on the PCN. Most cyclists only take up the left side of the road whereas pedestrians can be anywhere on the PCN.

 

Everyone understands the risk of cycling on the road. Who doesn't? Its just like a motorcycle. I don't think its anymore dangerous than riding a motorcycle on the road. When I was a teenager I remember my mum always telling me that if I want to save money then commute on the road by bicycle rather than motorcycle as its cheaper.

 

I get your points, but to you see mine?

 

Do you see any other vehicles moving so slowly and have blatant disregard for traffic rules (I know you follow rules but many many cyclist dun)? Cyclist cause unique problems to drives as well as do children in the middle of PCN.

 

Btw. I have seen leisure cyclist stopping at the roads to check their chains and yes, they apparently cant move into the pavement even after they dismounted.

 

 

[Royho1979]

Despite calling me stupid, i would still extend my invitation to u. I walk the talk.

 

I called your suggestion silly. I did not call you stupid. Didnt Mazaowner asked everyone to read then post?

 

Your acknowledgement is apt though. I have repeated several timed that your invitation serves no purpose for the point you are trying to make I already noted. Walk the talk? What post of mine has a theme that requires me to go have a ride to experience anything? Walk the talk? I think you meant walk your talk.

[Taipan49]

I called your suggestion silly. I did not call you stupid. Didnt Mazaowner asked everyone to read then post?

 

Your acknowledgement is apt though. I have repeated several timed that your invitation serves no purpose for the point you are trying to make I already noted. Walk the talk? What post of mine has a theme that requires me to go have a ride to experience anything? Walk the talk? I think you meant walk your talk.

 

He is trying to show you what it is like to be a cyclist on the roads. It will help you make a more informed opinion if you experience both sides of the coin. If you still think cyclists are silly after first-hand experience cycling on the roads, then we will respect that. But if you call cyclists silly without any experience except that they are an inconvenience for you driving your car, then we can say that your opinion isn't fully informed and that there is bias to your argument.

 

[Royho1979]

If you look at the stats, its actually far safer to be a cyclist than motorcyclist

 

There's actually a pdf analysis on Cycling in Singapore on the NUS website. It states explicitly not to share the information contained or document without permission (as such I am complying, you're free to do a google search though :P).

 

After extrapolating from the information it contains, and combining it with the census data, an extremely conservative estimate of the number of cyclists (excluding work permit and employment pass holders) would put the number at about 100000 cyclists. Throw in the stats from lightbringers post and mine, and it may actually be safer to cycle than to drive as well.

 

There is such a thing as getting the facts right but the point wrong.

 

If it already is the safest mode of transport no? Are you insist that more be done on a group that already enjoys the safest statistics? So the drivers that are not giving the cyclist their rights are so minor according to the report right? Then arent cyclist being prima donnas for further complaining

 

[Gnahp]

Bring back the bicycle plate, make those who intend to cycle on public road to have this on their bicycle.

 

I have no problem sharing public road with cyclists, what I hate are cyclists beating red lights, cycle against traffic flow, cycle along zebra crossings etc.

 

 

tour de france wannabes will swear at me, they spend thousands of dollar to shave 100g off their bicycle, this license plate is going to cost them thousands of dollar in weight penalty and the cool factor dropped to zero.

 

[Royho1979]

The pic I posted from Singstat already showed the ratio of cyclist accidents to vehicular accidents. Goods vans and pick-ups are involved in only slightly more accidents than cyclists year on year, and by your argument, that shouldn't happen because they do pay tax what.

 

If you think cylists would magically change their behaviour because they pay a small sum of money in tax, you're not very well-versed in the human condition, which is also blitheringly obvious.

 

Okay, next better player, please.

 

Anyone with brains would be able to see that the rate of accident per Km travelled is highest for cyclist. Cold hard stats gets ignored.

[Royho1979]

I find riding on the road is dangerous and stupid. I see no reason to put my life on the line. Dun take it personally, I just happen to be pragmatic and logical.

 

What is the title of the thread? Must we articulate the basis of discussion in every post or can we assume we can discuss like thinking adults who can infer with considerations of context?

 

You want to play this game? Are you prepared to be attacked for every word you used that is not suitably unambiguous even though you fulfilled the contextual reference?

 

"Singapore No. 1 Car Forum & Car Club - MyCarForum > Cars > General Car Discussion > Cyclist Problem"

[Trebuchet]

Anyone with brains would be able to see that the rate of accident per Km travelled is highest for cyclist. Cold hard stats gets ignored.

 

That is just one way to slice the data. Sure, cyclists have lower mileage, but they spend more time on the road overall after adjusting for scale. If you now count rate of accident per total hours on the roads instead, I am very sure the cyclists would still come out safer than drivers.

 

There are also many thousands more bikes than there are vehicles. Yet are there thousands of cyclist injured every year? That surely is a cold hard stat too that is clear to see.

 

Which stat has the more convincing argument? I don't think you will change your mind, but maybe someone will read this and realise that the road safety debate is full of misconceptions and logical pitfalls.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Trebuchet

[KaKiLang]

Hate those cyclists, when you are filtering out, lookout for traffic on the right and they appear on your left suddenly. Just few days ago, approaching pedestrian crossing, a kek leng kia kid riding those low bmx shot out of some bushes suddenly straight onto the road without stopping to lookout for oncoming traffic but hes just a kid, wheres the parents education and luckily I wasnt speeding.

[1fast1]

That is just one way to slice the data. Sure, cyclists have lower mileage, but they spend more time on the road overall after adjusting for scale. If you now count rate of accident per total hours on the roads instead, I am very sure the cyclists would still come out safer than drivers.

 

The time taken is completely irrelevant. First of all, there is no guarantee at all that cyclists spend more hours on the road than motorised vehicles, because a) they don't suffer equally from the effects of congestion and b) people planning long commutes, especially when it involves going over expressways, are far less likely to cycle there. Second, *even* if we're talking smooth traffic with the cyclists spending more time on the road, that's simply a consequence of this mode of transport being ridiculously slow compared to motorised vehicles. The accident statistics must be based on a sensible measure of "risk exposure". The roads are a conveyance meant for transporting people from their origin to their destination. The appropriate measure is distance travelled, because that's the whole point of going on the road. If one is simply hovering around the middle of the road for hours going nowhere fast, that's not a sensible measure of risk exposure.

 

 

There are also many thousands more bikes than there are vehicles.

 

Seriously? If you're including all the kiddies' bikes and the recreational casual, sports and mountain bikes that people purchase yet never bring out onto the public roads, then I might agree with you. But if you're talking about bikes plying the public roads on a regular basis (which is the sensible measure here), then your assertion is laughable. *Anyone* can see that there are far fewer bikes on the public roads than motorised vehicles on a day-to-day basis. And that includes weekends.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Turboflat4

[Tonyng]

The pic I posted from Singstat already showed the ratio of cyclist accidents to vehicular accidents. Goods vans and pick-ups are involved in only slightly more accidents than cyclists year on year, and by your argument, that shouldn't happen because they do pay tax what.

 

If you think cylists would magically change their behaviour because they pay a small sum of money in tax, you're not very well-versed in the human condition, which is also blitheringly obvious.

 

Okay, next better player, please.

 

When did I say pay tax would lead to less accidents?

 

Paying tax would regulate cyclist behaviour since now they have a unique number, a unique code. That would make many more responsible.

[Taipan49]

The time taken is completely irrelevant. First of all, there is no guarantee at all that cyclists spend more hours on the road than motorised vehicles, because a) they don't suffer equally from the effects of congestion and b) people planning long commutes, especially when it involves going over expressways, are far less likely to cycle there. Second, *even* if we're talking smooth traffic with the cyclists spending more time on the road, that's simply a consequence of this mode of transport being ridiculously slow compared to motorised vehicles. The accident statistics must be based on a sensible measure of "risk exposure". The roads are a conveyance meant for transporting people from their origin to their destination. The appropriate measure is distance travelled, because that's the whole point of going on the road. If one is simply hovering around the middle of the road for hours going nowhere fast, that's not a sensible measure of risk exposure.

 

 

There are also many thousands more bikes than there are vehicles.

 

Seriously? If you're including all the kiddies' bikes and the recreational casual, sports and mountain bikes that people purchase yet never bring out onto the public roads, then I might agree with you. But if you're talking about bikes plying the public roads on a regular basis (which is the sensible measure here), then your assertion is laughable. *Anyone* can see that there are far fewer bikes on the public roads than motorised vehicles on a day-to-day basis. And that includes weekends.

 

Are you sure? This article says that Singapore's average car speed on arterial (main) roads is 27km/h. That isn't fast.

 

http://citiscope.org/2010/singapores-transportation-secrets

 

I average on my 20km commute 25-27km/h. And i stop at traffic lights and obey the road rules. Hence giving up the car to the wife and using the bike and keeping more money in my wallet.

 

 

[Tonyng]

 

Let me consolidate this thread solutions so far for our cyclist problem.

 

Objective - To make Singapore roads safer for road cyclists and other road users and pedestrians.

 

1) Ban riding on pedestrian walkways and enforce the ban

2) Pay tax (can call it bicycle tax or whatever)

3) Number plates - I love this one.

4) Mandatory cycling lessons - esp for non-drivers, FT

5) Cyclist proficiency tests - for road users

 

Let's aim to build cycling lanes when cyclist mindsets are more mature and aligned with the predominantly driving and pedestrian population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[inlinesix]

Let me consolidate this thread solutions so far for our cyclist problem.

 

Objective - To make Singapore roads safer for road cyclists and other road users and pedestrians.

 

1) Ban riding on pedestrian walkways and enforce the ban

2) Pay tax (can call it bicycle tax or whatever)

3) Number plates - I love this one.

4) Mandatory cycling lessons - esp for non-drivers, FT

5) Cyclist proficiency tests - for road users

 

Let's aim to build cycling lanes when cyclist mindsets are more mature and aligned with the predominantly driving and pedestrian population.

 

Please sent it to LTA. I fully support your initiatives.

[Taipan49]

Let me consolidate this thread solutions so far for our cyclist problem.

 

Objective - To make Singapore roads safer for road cyclists and other road users and pedestrians.

 

1) Ban riding on pedestrian walkways and enforce the ban

2) Pay tax (can call it bicycle tax or whatever)

3) Number plates - I love this one.

4) Mandatory cycling lessons - esp for non-drivers, FT

5) Cyclist proficiency tests - for road users

 

Let's aim to build cycling lanes when cyclist mindsets are more mature and aligned with the predominantly driving and pedestrian population.

 

 

Point 1 - children up to 12 or similar age should be allowed to be on pedestrian walkways.

 

As for number plates, need to have something that could uniformly fit all bikes. Since there is no standard for plates like that in the car industry, then this can be problematic to implement.

 

[Trebuchet]

The time taken is completely irrelevant. First of all, there is no guarantee at all that cyclists spend more hours on the road than motorised vehicles, because a) they don't suffer equally from the effects of congestion and b) people planning long commutes, especially when it involves going over expressways, are far less likely to cycle there. Second, *even* if we're talking smooth traffic with the cyclists spending more time on the road, that's simply a consequence of this mode of transport being ridiculously slow compared to motorised vehicles. The accident statistics must be based on a sensible measure of "risk exposure". The roads are a conveyance meant for transporting people from their origin to their destination. The appropriate measure is distance travelled, because that's the whole point of going on the road. If one is simply hovering around the middle of the road for hours going nowhere fast, that's not a sensible measure of risk exposure.

 

 

For a cyclist, a "sensible measure of risk exposure" is more accurately defined by the time spent on roads rather than km travelled.

 

If I spend 3 hours to clock 50km on the road, is my risk exposure higher or lower than someone who only takes 15 minutes that same distance?

 

Your sensible measure of risk using km travelled in this scenario would mean a driver travelling at 200km/hr.

 

Is that still sensible?

 

By the way I average 15 km/hr on the roads. Someone earlier has said a car is only 27km/h average. Buses are even slower than that. So how ridiculously slow is cycling as a mode of transport actually?

 

There are also many thousands more bikes than there are vehicles.

 

Seriously? If you're including all the kiddies' bikes and the recreational casual, sports and mountain bikes that people purchase yet never bring out onto the public roads, then I might agree with you. But if you're talking about bikes plying the public roads on a regular basis (which is the sensible measure here), then your assertion is laughable. *Anyone* can see that there are far fewer bikes on the public roads than motorised vehicles on a day-to-day basis. And that includes weekends.

 

Yes, of course, you are right, but I found it was necessary to paint with a broad brush first, until someone sharp enough sees the point of slicing and dicing properly.

 

So okay, there are far fewer bikes than cars plying public roads regularly, but if you take your own stat seriously, why aren't there more cyclists in more accidents? There is a tipping point, but we have not reached there yet, because the bulk of those cyclists are seasoned, road veterans who respect road rules. And surely you don't mean to target these cyclists with your "cycling is unsafe" rhetoric?

 

It should already be apparent that there is no singular thing called "common sense". So how do you wanna slice it now, brutha?

 

[Quirky]

Could also consider:

1. Installing wide side mirrors for bicycles, so it's easier and safer for the cyclist to check traffic.

2. Providing cycling belts with signal lights, so cyclists are equipped with signalling capability (left, right, brake, hazard). Don't know whether such a belt exists yet.

3. Cyclists should also wear good quality helmets.

4. A cyclist should also make an effort to be easily spotted (e.g. blinking LEDs on shoes or handles or helmets).

 

Since our country is small, we should all come to accept the situation where cars/bicycles/motorcycles will share the roads. Each party should learn to give in a little.

e.g. Drivers slow down and not tail-gate a cyclist. Cyclists dismount, rather than cycling over zebra crossings.

 

 

Let me consolidate this thread solutions so far for our cyclist problem.

 

Objective - To make Singapore roads safer for road cyclists and other road users and pedestrians.

 

1) Ban riding on pedestrian walkways and enforce the ban

2) Pay tax (can call it bicycle tax or whatever)

3) Number plates - I love this one.

4) Mandatory cycling lessons - esp for non-drivers, FT

5) Cyclist proficiency tests - for road users

 

Let's aim to build cycling lanes when cyclist mindsets are more mature and aligned with the predominantly driving and pedestrian population.

 

 

[Arixlim]

they attend road safety park in east coast park before??, i enjoyed the lessons... bicycle no brake ramm into mini car which need mini air horns and very low riding...and use bicycle to wheel him over.... thats imaginary of course la...where got bicycle ram over car..cos now the car so big, but the attitude of the bicycle driver is a beggar...cos smaller and no cc.. no horsepower, horse also got balls la...thousands of them in your face..... but anywhay lets enjoy the road and pavements, pedestrians also dislike bicycle...spin mud also la..but they prefer pavements, but cyclists ....no space still want to squeeze, no queue still want to create queue and fake (create) problems.. this is hahaha..just i will luff it off...i think

 

singapore road are not made for bicycles, dun think will, cos the feeling is like putting cows on ,two thin wheels,balancing on the road...mayhem...la..u can call me a bull...no prob..its fine...cya..cos i see big shadows everytime i pass by...its not a cow, its not a plane... wow..not bad ..quite fast...maybe not so steady...

Edited July 24, 2012 by Arixlim