Cyclist Problem

[Elfenstar]

The 1/1000 is a rough estimate. I'll lower it to 1/500 or 1/200, but would it matter to the point I am making?

 

I'll use your average number 10000km as a reference. Given that there are at least 100 times more cars than bicycle ON THE ROAD at any time (do a visual scan how many cars you see on the roads vs bicycle) the mileage diff between, the average cyclist would have to cycle 10 x 100 = 1000km a year. Do you and all the cyclist on the roads average 1000km a year? Do not that the 100 is a very broad number too... I am certain there are more cars on the road than bicycles by more than 1:100.

 

It's about a tenth of all vehicles on the roads are bicycles. On average, I do about 600km's a month excluding commuting. My average distance by car was 800kms a month last year.

[Nzy]

Wasn't my point obvious? Look at the number or accidents. The total km travelled by cyclist on the road in one year is easily 1/1000 that of the total km travelled by vehicles on the roads. Proven!.

 

So where's your?

 

What do you mean by proven? You have proof that total km by cyclists is 1/1000 that of vehicles on the roads? Where is it? My mileage every week averages about 200-300km. Last year my bicycle did more than 20000km. My car only did alittle more than 10000km.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Nzy

[Royho1979]

Really? How do you know that its 1/1000 of the total km travelled by vehicles on the roads? My figures are all gleaned from Singstat and TP. Where are yours from?

 

Oh your figures, they gave you bicycle population or km/h travelled? I only see absolute number of accidents and population of cars. Unless you missed posting 1, you too have zero figures on rate of accident.

 

If you disagree with my 1/1000, why dun you let me know how you would estimate the total time or distance travelled by bicycle on the roads versus cars?

 

 

[Elfenstar]

Found it, http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/fac/paul-ba...June%202008.pdf

 

Page 9. Net imports of bikes in 2007 was 134,977

 

At the end of 2007 the number of cars in total in Singapore had just crossed the 500,000 mark.

 

Compare apples to apples. What was the nett import of cars in 2007? And read what the writer requested. Unless you have explicit permission,please remove your link.

 

P.S. Just so you know, according to Singstat the number of cars on the roads increased by less than 27K from 07 to 08.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Elfenstar

[Elfenstar]

Goodness, you guys have no sense of context.

 

1) We are talking about Singapore

2) There are many bicycle in Singapore doesn't not mean there are many bicycle on the ROADS. In my post I said "ROADS" We are quoting number of accidents for cyclist on the roads. Why would I care if your son rides a elmo bicycle at your void deck?

3) Use you eyes and take a look at any roads in Singapore, do a scan, do you see more vehicles or bicycles? The proportion of vehicles to bicycle at any one point is easily 1:100.

 

You read the paper. Do the math via our current census. See how many are on the roads , then tell me that my figure for the number of cyclists on the road is not very low in comparison

Edited July 24, 2012 by Elfenstar

[Royho1979]

What do you mean by proven? You have proof that total km by cyclists is 1/1000 that of vehicles on the roads? Where is it? My mileage every week averages about 200-300km. Last year my bicycle did more than 20000km. My car only did alittle more than 10000km.

 

 

WTH. How many cars are there on the road at any one time and how many bicycles do you see are on the road? You guys dun see that there are less bicycle on the roads than there are cars? by at least a factor of 100?

[Nzy]

That is not my point. I am trying to tell you the same issues you have with pedestrian, are the issues drivers have with cyclist period. Those who asks for tolerance and patience are intolerant and impatient.

 

Anyway, enough has been said by me. Since you are one of those cyclist who tries to make sense, I have an advice for you. As you can see, even though most drivers dun like you, yet we continue to give way, rather than spending efforts here to make a case to people who already are giving you the 1.5m ...etc, why dun you sort yourself out and go to cycling forum or watever and get the more of your kind to be responsible users?

 

That is my point. I am trying to tell you the same issues we have with pedestrians are the same issues drivers have with cyclists period. Those who aren't intolerant and patient shouldn't ask others to be tolerant and patient.

 

Anyway, enough has been said by me. Since you are one of those drivers who don't make sense, I have some advice for you. As you can see, since you like to ask people to be patient and cycle on the PCN, just slow down and avoid the pedestrians, why not you try and be tolerant and patient and ask yourself to overtake safely and stop asking cyclists to get off the road where they are legally allowed to. The road is supposed to be shared by all vehicles. You'll realize that just encountering some cyclists on the roads won't make your journey significantly longer at all.

 

How do you know cyclists do not try to get other cyclists to be more responsible and follow the laws? As I mentioned in my previous post. Most cycling groups I encountered won't invite a dangerous and reckless cyclists to cycle with their group a second time if the rider doesn't want to follow the laws and be responsible.

[Nzy]

That is not my point. I am trying to tell you the same issues you have with pedestrian, are the issues drivers have with cyclist period. Those who asks for tolerance and patience are intolerant and impatient.

 

Anyway, enough has been said by me. Since you are one of those cyclist who tries to make sense, I have an advice for you. As you can see, even though most drivers dun like you, yet we continue to give way, rather than spending efforts here to make a case to people who already are giving you the 1.5m ...etc, why dun you sort yourself out and go to cycling forum or watever and get the more of your kind to be responsible users?

 

That is my point. I am trying to tell you the same issues we have with pedestrians are the same issues drivers have with cyclists period. Those who aren't intolerant and patient shouldn't ask others to be tolerant and patient.

 

Anyway, enough has been said by me. Since you are one of those drivers who don't make sense, I have some advice for you. As you can see, since you like to ask people to be patient and cycle on the PCN, just slow down and avoid the pedestrians, why not you try and be tolerant and patient and ask yourself to overtake safely and stop asking cyclists to get off the road where they are legally allowed to. The road is supposed to be shared by all vehicles. You'll realize that just encountering some cyclists on the roads won't make your journey significantly longer at all.

 

How do you know cyclists do not try to get other cyclists to be more responsible and follow the laws? As I mentioned in my previous post. Most cycling groups I encountered won't invite a dangerous and reckless cyclists to cycle with their group a second time if the rider doesn't want to follow the laws and be responsible.

[Royho1979]

You read the paper. Do the math via our current census. See how many are on the roads , then tell me that my figure for the number of cyclists on the road is not very low in comparison

 

Ya your census is rubbish. You drive and you cycle. Now please lie to me and tell me that when you drive on the roads, there are more bicycles than cars on the road. Esp when bicycles cannot be on expressways. And after that, lie to me and tell me on AVERAGE a cyclist travels more km on his bike than a car. I know some of you guys are really avid cyclist, but for everyone of you I will use a taxi driver to balance, and I am sure we have more taxis on the road than cyclist at any roads and at anytime of the day and a paid trip from Jurong to Changi airport would be how many Km you thing a cab travels everyday? Lance Armstrong at his prime will have prob matching that.

 

We are talking about ROAD accidents. Many bicycles are bought by people who do not cycle on the roads. The absolute population does not matter. The population of bicycles on the road is more relevant.

 

Why are we talking about this? I dun think you can win this factually, so lets move on shall we?

Edited July 24, 2012 by Royho1979

[Elfenstar]

WTH. How many cars are there on the road at any one time and how many bicycles do you see are on the road? You guys dun see that there are less bicycle on the roads than there are cars? by at least a factor of 100?

 

So you're on the road, and on all roads 24/7 365 days a year to be able to see that? Even I don't dare generalise on the km's travelled by any particular group based on my vision as there are too many variables to consider.

[Taipan49]

Compare apples to apples. What was the nett import of cars in 2007? And read what the writer requested. Unless you have explicit permission,please remove your link.

 

P.S. Just so you know, according to Singstat the number of cars on the roads increased by less than 27K from 07 to 08.

 

The edit function won't work for me. But found this via a google search...

 

If the mods can remove the link, then happy for them to do so.

[Nzy]

WTH. How many cars are there on the road at any one time and how many bicycles do you see are on the road? You guys dun see that there are less bicycle on the roads than there are cars? by at least a factor of 100?

 

Where is the proof? How do you know there are 100 times less cars than bicycles on the roads? If that is the case, then why are drivers complaining that there are many cyclists on the roads? Since you insist that there are so few cyclists on the roads, how hard is it to be patient and tolerant towards them? You'll hardly encounter them since there are so much less cyclists on the roads than cars. Why not complain against reckless drivers instead. You are more likely to get into an accident with a reckless driver/motorcyclist than a cyclist anyway.

[Elfenstar]

Ya your census is rubbish. You drive and you cycle. Now please lie to me and tell me that when you drive on the roads, there are more bicycles than cars on the road. Esp when bicycles cannot be on expressways.

 

We are talking about ROAD accidents. Many bicycles are bought by people who do not cycle on the roads. The absolute population does not matter. The population of bicycles on the road is more relevant.

 

The census doesn't talk about bicycle ownership. It talks about commuting Which also excludes my spandex/lycra clad brothers and sisters who don't commute. I also did mention it doesn't include non-PR's and non-citizens right

Edited July 24, 2012 by Elfenstar

[Elfenstar]

The edit function won't work for me. But found this via a google search...

 

If the mods can remove the link, then happy for them to do so.

 

Oops. Sorry. Thought I was replying to Roy (which was why I had a hostile tone- my bad. Sorry).

 

Btw, between your nett imports and the increase number of cars, at 20% sold, it would mean the increase in bicycles would be the same as the number of cars. Judging by the bicycle turnover rate at the shops, it's far more. Also you're probably right, even though I estimate about 10% of the vehicles on the roads are bicycles, there are probably more bicycles than all other motor-vehicles combined.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Elfenstar

[Royho1979]

How do you know cyclists do not try to get other cyclists to be more responsible and follow the laws? As I mentioned in my previous post. Most cycling groups I encountered won't invite a dangerous and reckless cyclists to cycle with their group a second time if the rider doesn't want to follow the laws and be responsible.

 

 

Fair enough. Dun take it my replies the wrong way its nothing personal. I still dun like cyclists on roads, but from posts like yours that tries to make sense without being irrational I can at least see your thoughts. At the very least, I know some are trying to be responsible road users.

[inlinesix]

Fair enough. Dun take it my replies the wrong way its nothing personal. I still dun like cyclists on roads, but from posts like yours that tries to make sense without being irrational I can at least see your thoughts. At the very least, I know some are trying to be responsible road users.

My silly invitation to you still open hor [laugh]

[1fast1]

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.

 

The average speed for cars is calculated after taking into account traffic stops, etc. The average speed is computed by dividing total distance by total time. The usual cruising speed is, of course, much higher.

 

I'm curious about your figure of 25-27 km/h for your cycling - is that derived from total distance/total time? That would be a true measure of average speed.

 

Stopping at every traffic light means you don't have that illicit advantage against cars (and you're a responsible cyclist, so good on you). Which means that cars are being severely disadvantaged by congestion, which is why their average speed is brought down to a comparable level to yours. As a matter of fact, this has not been my experience, and my average speed is usually upward of 35 km/h. Perhaps it's because I'm lucky or smart in my choice of routes and timing.

 

But the fact that the average speed for cars for the whole of Singapore is not significantly higher than that for cyclists means that we are way too congested. And the gahmen's measures to curb congestion are simply not doing the job.

[1fast1]

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?

 

Actually, you may have proven my point with your example. Remember that the measure of exposure is the denominator here.

 

Let's say you have two accidents in your journey, while the speed demon has just one.

 

The time-specific rate for you is 2/3 = 0.67 accidents per hour. The time-specific rate for the speed demon is far higher at 4 accidents per hour.

 

Think about it - you both completed the same journey - same origin, same destination. You drove like a slow poke, yet had more accidents than the speed demon. That strongly suggests you're the worse driver. Yet, your statistics would seem to suggest otherwise. To a fair-minded person, your statistic is obviously biased.

 

The distance specific rate does not suffer from this bias. Your rate is 2/50 = 0.04 accidents per km. The speed demon's rate is 1/50 = 0.02 accidents per km. This intuitively seems a fairer measure, don't you think?

 

This may be a very simplistic example, but I hope it illustrates the point I'm making. The choice of denominator (as a measure of risk) matters, and it's exactly the opposite of the way you reckoned.

 

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's quite a big difference between 15 (cyclists) and 27 (cars), actually. And I never brought up buses - I don't buy the supposed advantage of public transport either.

 

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?

 

Well, that was kinda my point - there are fewer cyclists, so (as expected), the absolute number of accidents sustained by cyclists is lower. (There are other confounders here - for example, I believe many minor skirmishes between slow-moving cars and cyclists go unreported). What matters is the specific accident rate, as we've been discussing. Without better statistics (the distance specific accident rate for both classes of vehicles), noone can say for sure which is the safer mode of transportation. However, it's quite clear that in an accident between a cyclist and a car, the former will fare much worse. And that alone is enough to convince me of the intrinsic danger of cycling on public roads.

 

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?

 

I'm not following your point here. But I think you're presuming too much by asserting that the bulk of cyclists "respect road rules". If they did, there wouldn't be so many complaints levelled against them. Many of those "seasoned veterans" have a sense of self-entitlement that causes them to take liberties on the road - including riding two abreast or even in a peloton, a behaviour guaranteed to piss off even the most patient driver.

 

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

 

Apparently, "common sense" is not all that common.