***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 35 *****
==============================================================
More pedal power chat.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 26 Nov 17 at 19:31
|
I am not really a bicycle person, other than regularly complaining about lycra clad, wannabe peloton emulators on narrow roads.
But this may interest at least one regular here :)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41433668
German quality engineering again.
PS should there be a comma in that first line?
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Thu 28 Sep 17 at 17:26
|
|
Rückwärts durch Teknik.
|
|
My Brompton is in the recall, but considering I've done nearly 5,000 miles on it, I would expect the bottom bracket bearing to be worn a bit by now. A free replacement is a bonus!
|
Zippy doesn't read Cycling Corner ;-)
moved
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 30 Sep 17 at 17:41
|
I've actually got two but most recent is 2009 and older is 1999.
Don't like cartridge bottom brackets, prefer the fixed/adjustable cups plus 'axle' and ball bearings but world is where world is.
|
>>
>>
>> Don't like cartridge bottom brackets, prefer the fixed/adjustable cups plus 'axle' and ball bearings but world is where world is.
>>
I can't agree with you there, cup and cone BBs' were a massive pain in the butt. They didn't last any longer either.
|
Around here a lot of cyclists and I give them plenty of space and will never try to pass unless loads of room to do safely.
But so many will pass cyclists when not safe and cross over to the other side of local roads when there is oncoming traffic, e.g. me. They seem to think they have to pass straight away.
p***es me off.
|
>> Local police have been targeting drivers who fail to give sufficient room to cyclists.
>>
>> www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/three-norwich-drivers-educated-about-how-to-safely-pass-cycles-in-police-crackdown-which-also-results-in-one-arrest-1-5221452
>>
I wonder how many cyclists they also educated about jumping red lights and moving up on the inside of HGV's?
I agree that some car and lorry drivers do need to be spoken to, but so also do a lot of cyclists. The fact that the latter inevitably come off worse in the event of an accident does not absolve them from their responsibility to use the roads safely and with consideration for others.
|
"Local police have been targeting drivers who fail to give sufficient room to cyclists."
When I was learning to drive, some 45 years ago, I was taught to leave at least 6ft when overtaking a cyclist.
|
So was I Haywain, but at the same time when I was sitting waiting to take my HGV test in Leicester I was told that a cyclist can make me pass or fail without me actually doing anything wrong.
Pass too close, you fail.
Hesitate to pass too long, you fail.
Not much has changed since the early 80's!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 10 Oct 17 at 17:25
|
>> When I was learning to drive, some 45 years ago, I was taught to leave at least 6ft when overtaking a cyclist.
>>
I was not taught to leave a specific distance but " A cyclist is entitled to his wobble ! "
Many years the fiance of a close work mate was killed when she rode her bike into a a small pile or road sweepings and fell under a lorry.
It was an added warning to me, travelling the same route, to keep clear of lorries.
|
"I was not taught to leave a specific distance but " A cyclist is entitled to his wobble ! ""
Actually, Henry, those were the very words used by my instructor - "leave a cyclist 6ft - give him room to wobble.".
Anyone who has ridden a bike on Bury's cobbled bits will understand 'wobble-room'. :-(
|
I have now found the source of what I was taught about a wobble.
Don't hit us if we wobble give us plenty of room. ... court case involving a vehicle and a cyclist Lord Denning (1957) [1] said “A cyclist is entitled to his wobbleâ€
|
>> Many years the fiance of a close work mate was killed when she rode her
>> bike into a a small pile or road sweepings and fell under a lorry.
>> It was an added warning to me, travelling the same route, to keep clear of
>> lorries.
The other message from that is that piles of road sweepings are likely to be in the gutter or at extreme edge of carriageway. Ride out a bit and you both miss them and improve your visibility to others.
|
>>The cyclist appeared in the dock at Reading Crown Court where he admitted a charge of causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct.
He shouted 'f*** you' at the prosecutor and was later jailed for seven weeks on Tuesday. <<
Well, he failed the attitude test in style, didn't he?
Pat
|
You have to feel sorry for the guy, after all, he was brought up in care homes so that must be a contributory factor in his pavement pedalling........not ! Any excuse trotted out !
He already has a suspended sentence in the pot from an assault last year.
|
I read in HJ's test of the new BMW 640iGT that when driving the thing semi-autonomous, the steering wheel will fight back if you cross the central white line without indicating first. His concern was that if a driver drives past a cyclist without indicating the car will fightback. The inference was that if the driver is not prepared this could be dangerous.
Ignoring the cheap jibe "when did BMW drivers ever indicate?", how many other drivers indicate when pulling past a cyclist on an empty road? Not many is my observation.
So much for autonomous driving being safer. Cyclists and BMW drivers alike, you have been warned!
|
|
When my Lane departure warning is switched on (very rarely) it goes ballistic with a flashing warning and acoustic alarm when crossing any white line without indicating. I assume the BMW system can be switched off. Taking over the steering does not sound like a good idea.
|
My car has lane assist and I've not had much time to play with it yet - want an empty road not the busy motorway I tried earlier.
It has two modes of operation - alerting you if you stray from the centre of the lane or active lane assist whereby it will steer. Tried the later and you feel it correcting the steering... and if it was me steering I don't think I'd need to adjust so often.
|
Sounds like too much technology could be a bad thing.
Can just imagine the fight with the steering wheel as you suddenly spot that massive pot hole on a dark, wet night and try to steer round it.
|
....or the roadworks cones that force you over the white line whilst the car decides to bury it's nose in a parked JCB instead..
Madness....too much, I've only just mastered cupholders !
|
|
My old T5 had both. It was dreadfully irritating, especially when er...making progress, always turned off as a consequence. Most oddly, the MX5 has basic lane assist - in a car that's designed to modify bends !! Turned off from day one. I really can't see the point of it, unless one has such a major spacial awareness problem !
|
|
It needs some serious design effort on the requirements and the possible situations it has to understand and deal with if it's not to spend its time switched off IMHO
|
I can't see it ever being anything but something that is switched off other than in specific circumstances - hardly any of which I can think of at the moment.
I wilfully cross white lines all the time; if the road is clear I'll straighten out bends and roundabouts; on duals and motorways with speed-limited lorry traffic lane changes are frequent; and on the poxy roads in rural Hertfordshire with 90% of the many potholes at within a yard of the verge I drive up the middle most of the time.
A three-flash lane change signal would deal with most of the dual and motorway instances but not the rest.
|
|
I declined to pay for the autonomous driving features on the G31
|
G31???
Oh FFS he’s a bmw nerd already
|
>> G31???
>>
>> Oh FFS he’s a bmw nerd already
Well its shorter than typing "7th generation BMW 540i x-drive touring."
|
What does the G stand for?
Is it a colour code or something?
|
>> What does the G stand for?
>>
>> Is it a colour code or something?
No it means it two grades above E
|
|
Only a "G" my Jazz is a "GK". :-)
|
|
The other useless feature (although better than Volvo's system) on the BMW is the Auto-Dip. That's switched off as well.
|
>>Lane Assist (LKAS)
I have that feature on my car.
It's on most of the time and I think of it as an advanced power steering.
Hands off the wheel (tried on a private road), it keeps the car in the centre of the lane, as long as it can see a central painted line. After about 15 seconds it complains about a lack of hands on the wheel and cancels the feature until you switch it on again unless you use the steering wheel again.
The feedback through the steering wheel did take a little getting used to. It effectively tightens up if you head towards a line without indicting. The car will attempt to steer left again but it is so easy to defeat, it would never be a problem in an emergency.
|
I'm not convinced that all this sort of carp has any real benefit in what really has to be an intuitively usable appliance for simpletons, i.e. anybody who can pass a very basic driving test.
The last thing such an appliance needs is stuff going on that just has the driver thinking "what's it doing now?" or automation that encourages concentration to be reduced.
|
It's all part of the declared aim to eventually implement fully autonomous vehicles. It is being done incrementally and effectually mass trialled by car buyers.
We are currebtly at phase 2.
www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-levels-0-to-5-understanding-the-differences/
|
>> It's all part of the declared aim to eventually implement fully autonomous vehicles. It is
>> being done incrementally and effectually mass trialled by car buyers.
>>
>> We are currebtly at phase 2.
>>
>> www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-levels-0-to-5-understanding-the-differences/
How depressing. Nothing wrong with autonomous cars per se, they are all that some people should be allowed, but as with squirrels the new dominant species will make the old unsustainable.
Am I wasting my money rust-protecting my MX-5?
|
>>
>> Am I wasting my money rust-protecting my MX-5?
>>
Yes, though not for the above reasons. Rather it simply should not rust these days, it should have adequate protection and should be built of quality steel and if it's not (like some late 90's to early 00's) MB's it's not worth the effort anyway.
|
I think they are a slightly different case to a daily driver that most people will change after 3-5 years. Hobby cars like this tend to be kept. And frankly, the underbody protection isn't all it could be. Knowing that, and hoping to keep the car for some time, it seems foolish to ignore it.
A characteristic of such cars is that they tend to do moderate mileage, so providing the body stays good they can last a long time. My old one (1999) had had the rear sills repaired but is still on the road.
Another characteristic of them is that the hood drains through the body and if the drains block and the drain rail overflows then water gets where it shouldn't.
It may well outlive me anyway, but I shall be less concerned about using it in mucky weather if it has some more protection. It's getting clear wax underneath which I will be able to touch up every year or two, and wax in the box sections and subframes, using Dinitrol products. I still won't use it when there is salt on the roads.
|
>> It may well outlive me anyway, but I shall be less concerned about using it
>> in mucky weather if it has some more protection. It's getting clear wax underneath which
>> I will be able to touch up every year or two, and wax in the
>> box sections and subframes, using Dinitrol products. I still won't use it when there is
>> salt on the roads.
>>
I have no direct knowledge of this outfit but I have seen good write ups.
www.jrclassics.co.uk
|
>> The other useless feature (although better than Volvo's system) on the BMW is the Auto-Dip.
>> That's switched off as well.
>>
Do you mean high beam assist? I find it works brilliantly.
|
|
Lane assist can be rather like riding a horse it seems to me, two minds at work and sometimes in conflict.
|
>> Do you mean high beam assist? I find it works brilliantly.
>>
As does my cars auto main beam, the system is on by default it can differentiate between oncoming cars and any other lights, and will not go to main beam when under street lights unless manually switched. As for lane departure, I switch it on briefly every few months or so to check it is working. The auto lights are also linked to the wipers. Some owners complain about their lights coming on in daylight, I think the wiper link is a good thing.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 19 Oct 17 at 09:48
|
Missed the EDIT-
On the latest jazz there is no off switch for the lights, it defaults to auto, there is an off position but the switch is spring loaded to auto. Even if you switch to off the lights will not go off if the computer says no (unless the engine is off).
|
>> it can differentiate between oncoming cars and any other lights, and will not go to main beam
>> when under street lights unless manually switched.
>>
Out of interest what does it do for cyclists / pedestrians?
|
>> Out of interest what does it do for cyclists / pedestrians?
>>
Ignores them, but there is a manual override. It dips for motorbikes and one eyed cars. It reacts as fast as a human when it sees an oncming car but does not react to the loom of lights around a bend so does not predict.
|
|
I have not had a chance to try them yet but my new car has what Skoda calls Smart Light assist. Does the same as high beam assist (was also an option) but can shield some of the high beam when other cars in front or approaching so some of the high beam stays on.
|
>> I have not had a chance to try them yet but my new car has
>> what Skoda calls Smart Light assist. Does the same as high beam assist (was also
>> an option) but can shield some of the high beam when other cars in front
>> or approaching so some of the high beam stays on.
>>
My BMW has adaptive LED headlights with high beam assist that do that sort of stuff, I don't think the ones with Xenons do even with high beam assist.
How's the new car then, does it live up to its name?
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Thu 19 Oct 17 at 11:43
|
>> I don't think the ones with Xenons do even with high beam assist.
Mine has HID/Xenons and do the shielding of part of high beam. Not tried it yet.
So far I'd say it's a nice comfortable (big) car and it goes well enough. I think the previous Columbus infotainment system was better with physical buttons and some knobs rather than a totally touch interface.
|
|
My BMW has the adaptive LEDs - light years ahead of what was on the 320.
|
OFO bikes have come to Norwich. They are like Boris bikes but they don't have to be returned to a specific point. You access them with an App on your phone. Saw loads of them today all over the city although haven't seen anyone riding one yet. Seem quite cheap 50p for 30 minutes. Apparently they aim to have 350 in the city
Seems a good idea but I rather suspect vandalism will defeat them.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 6 Nov 17 at 20:01
|
Yes very similar.
www.ofo.com
|
We have them in Northampton too:
www.cycleconnect.co.uk/
|
Is this similar to the scheme that had to be abandoned in Milton Keynes due to theft and vandalism.
Says a lot about that place.
|
I think it says a lot about the British in general. Milton Keynes is probably no worse than most other places in the UK
I find it frustrating that anything provided for the public good such as bus shelters, benches, play areas etc invariably get targeted by vandals or at the very least covered in graffiti.
I rather expect to see some of the bikes I saw this afternoon parked by Bishops Bridge in the River Wensum tomorrow.
|
Oxford now has four separate bike schemes.
Mobike, Ofo, Pony Bikes, and Obike.
|
>> Oxford now has four separate bike schemes.
>> Mobike, Ofo, Pony Bikes, and Obike.
>>
Plus a fifth of course HYSB - Help Your Self Bikes as my son found out on a couple of occasions .
|
>> I think it says a lot about the British in general.
>>
I think it says a lot about a small minority of the British.
Don't include me in your generalisations.
|
>> Don't include me in your generalisations.
>>
Was not your comment about Milton Keynes not a generisation then? I was pointing out that vandalism and anti social behaviour was very much a problem throughout the UK, which it is.
|
>>
>> >> Don't include me in your generalisations.
>> >>
>> Was not your comment about Milton Keynes not a generisation then?
I never said nothing (sorry, nuffink) about no Milton Keynes.
So, it was neither a generisation, nor a generalisation.
|
>> >>
>>
>> I think it says a lot about a small minority of the British.
>>
>> Don't include me in your generalisations.
>>
Leave a bike unattended for ten minutes in any city in Britain and you'll find it is a significant minority.
|
>>>> I think it says a lot about a small minority of the British
I think when one is present all the time one doesn't see gradual change. Like my parents always say when they see one of my children "Hasn't she grown!!!" where to me they haven't.
The state of the UK, especially within cities, and the standard of behaviour in the street has deteriorated quite significantly in the UK, particularly over the last 15 years.
I find it depressing.
I am aware that one can pay to be insulated, or at least separated, from the idiots and the lowlifes and I guess that's what I do.
|
>> I rather expect to see some of the bikes I saw this afternoon parked by
>> Bishops Bridge in the River Wensum tomorrow.
>>
Sadly an all too accurate prediction.
www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/new-ofo-sharing-bikes-vandalised-and-thrown-in-river-wensum-1-5274176
I hate vandalism. It reduce the quality of life for everybody.
|
As even a shred of statistical evidence to prove helmets have had a beneficial impact on rider safety has never been shown I hope this idea gets booted into touch.
Far more lives would be saved each year if motorists and pedestrians had to wear helmets and none of us want that, do we?
|
As a cyclist, I would make it mandatory to wear helmets and hi vis.
Both my brother and I have had non fault cycling accidents which have resulted in smashed helmets but protected skulls.
As a cyclist, common sense says that I would want to make myself as visible as possible unlike the guys I see in club gear in head to toe black on a black tarmac road. Why not just try to improve your chances?
|
>> Why not just try to improve your chances?
>>
The militant camera carrying cyclists would rather be a martyr.
|
I've worn a helmet and hi-vis when cycling for nearly twenty years.
I noticed the improvement in other motorists respect for you as soon as I started wearing them. Perhaps it's because I don't use pavements and obey traffic lights?
Similar to when I fitted a white, full fairing and top box to a motorbike.
|
|
Unenforceable waste of time.
|
>> The militant camera carrying cyclists would rather be a martyr.
I'm not engaging with this sort of trolling.
|
>> a shred of statistical evidence to prove helmets have had a beneficial impact on rider safety has never been shown <<
..and just 6 minutes later on a limited platform such as this forum
>>Both my brother and I have had non fault cycling accidents which have resulted in smashed helmets but protected skulls.
<<
As with all things involving safety, if people are not prepared to minimise the risks to themselves then legislation will have to be put in place to do it for them.
Not before time either.
Pat
|
>> ..and just 6 minutes later on a limited platform such as this forum
With great respect to Bobby and his brother that's not evidence but anecdote. And that's the problem with the helmet debate generally.
Evidence would look at real world and in particular Australia where helmets have been compulsory for over a decade. The law has had little if any impact on head injury numbers while apparently acting as a massive disincentive to cycling.
|
If people are disincentivised from cycling because they need to wear a helmet, then perhaps fewer would cycle on pavements and ignore red traffic lights.
Let's face it, how many pavement cyclists do you see wearing a helmet?
|
>>Evidence would look at real world and in particular Australia where helmets have been compulsory for over a decade. The law has had little if any impact on head injury numbers<<
Since no-one can state categorically what the number of head injuries would have been, with the increase in traffic, pedestrians and speed, it would suggest that your evidence is also anecdotal.
Perhaps it just changes between evidence and anecdotal depending on the stance you take?
Pat
|
>> Since no-one can state categorically what the number of head injuries would have been, with
>> the increase in traffic, pedestrians and speed, it would suggest that your evidence is also
>> anecdotal.
>>
>> Perhaps it just changes between evidence and anecdotal depending on the stance you take?
Sometimes I think your response to any post is just 'what contrary point can I make?' It's why you often end up down a hole while digging furiously. :-)
I will repeat again. Australia and New Zealand, both broadly comparable to UK, have made helmets compulsory. So have some parts of Canada and some US states. A properly controlled comparison of trends in those countries with UK and Europe is evidence.
|
>> It's why you often end up down a hole while digging furiously. :-)<<
I'm always quite sure of my opinion before I post it here so that view is a perceived one of yours Bromp.
You know fine well my views on cyclists so trying to accuse me making a 'contraty' point is somewhat.....contrary on your behalf?
Pat
|
>> You know fine well my views on cyclists so trying to accuse me making a
>> 'contraty' point is somewhat.....contrary on your behalf?
I understand your pov on cyclists is different to mine. The contrariness I picked up on was you trying to say evidenced data using the Oz (or NZ) examples was anecdote. That's nonsense (on stilts!)
|
>>With great respect to Bobby and his brother that's not evidence but anecdote. And that's the problem with the helmet debate generally.
So my brother's neurosurgeon's opinion doesn't count?
I saw the shattered back of my helmet. That stopped my head hitting the tarmac. I'm glad it was there.
As I say, each to their own. Yes you are still going to get bad drivers, like what I encountered, where even if I had a flashing arrow above my head she still wouldnt have seen me as she hadnt looked.
What is problem with wearing helmets? Worried about your hair style? Its not like they are the ones I used to wear 25 years ago that were massive egg shells sitting on your head, they are very comfy now, very light and you very quickly forget you're wearing one.
And while cycling on a road, the chances are you are on hard tarmac, with a right angled solid stone to your left and various sizes and weights of metal passing you on your right.
Last edited by: Bobby on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 09:23
|
>> So my brother's neurosurgeon's opinion doesn't count?
Opinion of neurosurgeons, if properly backed up by evidence, is a highly relevant contribution to the debate. OTOH I don't think anecdotes about smashed helmets bring a great deal to the table. The helmet is meant to progressively deform; that's how it absorbs energy. It doesn't mean your brain would have been hanging out if you'd not worn one though you might have needed your scalp suturing and ended up with a banging headache. The one time I came off badly and banged my head I avoided the sutures but had the headache for a week!!.
I've fallen off dozens of other times and damaged knees, elbows and hands. The one time I broke anything that mattered it was my collarbone and hip. That at very low speed on a station car park.
My problem with helmets is I don't like wearing them. While they are comfier than they were they're still make my scalp itchy and are unbearably hot when stopped eg in traffic. Bits of the damn thing are in the periphery of my vision and at least subliminally they mess with my hearing too. Every time I put it on or take it off I have first to remove my glasses. And then put them on again!! I wear the frames more than enough taking them off to read or work.
Furthermore part of the joy of cycling is the wind in (whats left of) my hair. One of the most iconic pictures in cycling is of the great French rider Laurent Fignon on a fast descent with his pony tail streaming behind. He didn't die on a bike; it was bowel cancer what got him, long after he retired.
Returning to evidence you'd think professional road racers like Fignon would be the biggest gainers from having to wear helmets. There's a graph somewhere showing cumulative deaths in professional road cycling over several decades. There's not the slightest deviation on the line at point n years ago when UCI mandated helmets....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 13:12
|
Completely agree, when it first came in there was a transition period where helmets could be discarded at the bottom of mountain stages because riders felt they interfered with performance.
As a rider myself it should be down to choice.
|
Each to their own Brompt, but I totally disagree with you.
Would maybe suggest you try out a few helmets - I have done 120 mile cycles and they are vented and don't interfere with peripheral vision if you have the helmet set up properly (ie check before you buy)
I also wear glasses all the time and put a helmet on and off whilst wearing them.
If you dont want to wear them fair enough but at the risk of my head coming into contact with something very hard, and knowing that these absorb the impact, I'll be wearing mine. Really daft to not wear them.
Looks to me that you have formed your opinion and no evidence to the contrary is going to change it. Its as if you are saying "Yes the helmet was crushed and ultimately it took the brunt rather than your head but if you wouldn't mind , can we re-enact the accident without a helmet just to see exactly how critical the damage to your head might be? Because this is the only evidence that will be accepted.
I take it you drive cars that dont have any crumple zones? If they are there just to absorb impact they are pretty pointless arent they?
|
>> Looks to me that you have formed your opinion and no evidence to the contrary
>> is going to change it.
No one has provided any evidence that helmets have made any difference at all. In all the areas where it is statistically measurable by comparing before and after figures it shows as no gain.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 21:37
|
So the main point of a helmet is to protect the head.
Where someone has been in an accident and the helmet has shattered or whatever, how can they prove / disprove that it made a difference?
|
>> Each to their own Brompt, but I totally disagree with you.
Clearly were at opposite ends of a spectrum. In so far as whether you wear a helmet or not that's fine.
Where I object is you using your views and anecdotes to support folks like Robin, Runfer and me being forced to wear one.
|
"As with all things involving safety, if people are not prepared to minimise the risks to themselves then legislation will have to be put in place to do it for them"
Is that the sort of world you want to live in? Health wise one of the riskiest thing you do is smoke cigarettes. Far riskier than not wearing a cyclling helmet I suspect
You don't propose banning the sale of cigarettes do you? Would infringe your liberty wouldn't it and on top of that be completely unenforceable.
I neither smoke or cycle.
|
>> Is that the sort of world you want to live in?<<
I don't but nowhere did I say I approved, I simply stated a fact of how it works now.
>> Health wise one of
>> the riskiest thing you do is smoke cigarettes. Far riskier than not wearing a cyclling
>> helmet I suspect<<
I've been smoking cigarettes now for 57 years and have never yet been treated for a smoking related illness neither have I ever set myself on fire, so that blows that theory in terms of frequency, doesn't it?
>>
>> You don't propose banning the sale of cigarettes do you?
<<
I don't propose banning the sale of cycles either.
>>
>> I neither smoke or cycle.
>>
In that case why does either smoking or cycle helmets interest you......or are you doing what Bromp accused me of doing!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 09:32
|
>>
>> I've been smoking cigarettes now for 57 years and have never yet been treated for
>> a smoking related illness neither have I ever set myself on fire, so that blows
>> that theory in terms of frequency, doesn't it?
And I'm glad you haven't, but the statistical link between smoking and early death is beyond dispute, so all it demonstrates is that your experience is as irrelevant as Bobby's.
The correlation between helmet wearing and head injuries is much harder to find.
Personally, I feel safer with high vis and a helmet - but of the two, I think the high vis is more likely to save me, especially at night.
I'm shocked by the number of unlit, black clad cyclists in Cambridge recently when returning home in the dark - many are wearing helmets, they are just invisible.
|
>>And I'm glad you haven't, but the statistical link between smoking and early death is beyond dispute, so all it demonstrates is that your experience is as irrelevant as Bobby's.<<
Oh I agree, Manatee but it's CG who insists upon comparing the two, not me!
High Viz at night probably but I'm not convinced totally.
High Viz wearing has become so widespread and compulsory now that in any busy works or haulage yard, all you see is on huge sea of yellow.
Even harder to pick out the one who may just be in danger from you, or just take a quick glance and assume it's safe.
So daytime wearing in London and Cambridge may not be a good thing.
Pat
|
>> So daytime wearing in London and Cambridge may not be a good thing.
Hallelujah to that. In summer daytime a white or pale blue shirt is visible enough. Not much better at nigh in London either. Hi-viz just under sodium or mercury light isn't really all that viz. Most visible thing under sodium is a beige raincoat; it looks white.
OTOH round here, on the road into the village, it really shows up, particularly the retro-reflective tape. Miss B and I were commenting on this just the other day as we came up behind a homebound commuter. Was he on the road or the (utterly inadequate) shared use path? Good lights at rear but would have been much easier to see him and gauge his position if he had something reflective.
|
If you really believe that there is no evidence that smoking is not a risk filled activity activity in the face of all the evidence to the contrary then yours judgement is more. than a little flawed
.
If you can't see the conflict in supporting a ban interfering with one set of persons rights on the grounds that they might harm themselves despite very little statistical evidence in support of that claim but support the right to continue a far riskier activity for which the risk of early death is statistically proven without legal intervention then again your judgement is questionable.
This is not a cyclling or a smoking matter. It is about the right of the state to interfere with our lives so please don't tell me that I shouldn't have an opinion
|
>>If you really believe that there is no evidence that smoking is not a risk filled activity activity in the face of all the evidence to the contrary then yours judgement is more. than a little flawed
.<<
CG, show me where I stated that?
I didn't, so don't try and twist what I wrote quite clearly.
You do yourself an injustice because I know you are intelligent enough to understand why I worded my post exactly the way I did.
Once again to make matters perfectly clear for you.....
These days, in all walks of life, we are allowed the chance to moderate/care for ourselves (be it smoking,cycling, driving or anything else), if we don't appear to be doing it then H&S and legislation quickly steps in to do it for us and steer us in the required direction.
I don't approve of it, but it is a fact of life.
What I can't understand is cyclists wanting every other road user to take extra preventative measures to protect them, while flatly refusing to take any to protect themselves.Pat
|
So to summarise.
You agree that smoking is a statistically proven cause of early death. You would object to smoking being banned
There is no hard statistical evidence that cycling helmets would reduce the risk of head injuries only. There is only anecdotal evidence.
You would support the compulsory wearing of helmets however because cyclists campaign for other road safety measures.
|
I've cycled for years, I road raced in my teens, there is no doubt that cycle helmets are effective.
Though I wouldn't advocate making them compulsory as it would be another example of dumbing down, bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator. Indivudual responsibility needs to be encouraged.
|
I think it's all fine as it is, helmets are available and people can wear them if they choose to. I wear mine if I'm howling down the side of a mountain or down through a forest on a loose or rocky surface at speeds of up to 40mph and occasionally airborne. I don't if I'm popping to the corner shop on quiet roads or across the park using the cycle paths at 10mph.
A lifelong mountain biker, I've inadvertently parted company with my bike on countless occasions, sometimes at really quite high speed on rough terrain. I've had many injuries, but almost exclusively to my lower limbs, back and wrists/elbows. I have never yet managed to land on my head, it's just not usually the thing that makes first contact. However, like I said, in extreme conditions I do wear my helmet because it makes me "feel" safer maybe. That, in and of itself opens up a whole other debate about the psychology though. For example, if you found yourself driving a car with no seatbelts, might you find yourself taking even more care than usual? I think I might. Some believe that wearing a helmet on a bike confers a falsely heightened sense of security on the rider and that helmetless riders tend to ride more carefully due to their sense of vulnerability.
I do, perhaps vainly in this over regulated world, hope that common sense can be allowed to prevail a while longer. We have enough rules to be going on with don't we? Keeping a few choices would be nice.
|
|
Agree. Too many rules at the moment. The only area I think might be debateable would be the use of helmets for children. Children are not really in a position to make a free and informed choice so I think you could make an argument for their use.
|
I think you got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning CG.
I have tried my hardest to make my position clear and you seem to be the only one unable to understand it so in your eyes I'm happy to be castigated and misunderstood if you insist.
The sun is shining and I have better things to do than to keep repeating myself.
Pat
|
The vast majority of the price of a packet of fags is tax so a smoker can argue that they have heavily invested in their future health requirements.
A cyclist maybe pays a bit of VAT on their bikes and lycra.
Did I mention I have been quit the weed for 6 weeks now? :))
Which takes me to my next point which is that the bottom line of speeding campaigns is to reduce collisions and consequently reduce the burden on the tax payer. NHS short and long term care, benefits and the economy as well as the impact on families etc. The cost of a fatal coming in on average at £1.7M. Serious injury at £185,000 and slight injury at £14.600. (2011 figures)
With this in mind it would make sense to reduce the cost of injuries sustained by cyclists. As the head is particularly vulnerable then surely its protection is paramount and anything that can be done to increase protection for the vulnerable cyclist can only be a good thing.
|
>> With this in mind it would make sense to reduce the cost of injuries sustained
>> by cyclists. As the head is particularly vulnerable then surely its protection is paramount and
>> anything that can be done to increase protection for the vulnerable cyclist can only be
>> a good thing.
I don't think serious head injury, of the sort a helmet MIGHT mitigate, is significant in overall numbers of cyclists killed or seriously injured. They don't help if you're hit by a speeding car or squished by a tipper truck.
I'm 58 next month and have ridden pretty well all my life. Started with usual kids stuff round and round the estates where we lived. Later, in my teens, I used the bike to get the 7 miles from home to Leeds Bradford airport to further my plane spotting interest. Moving to London to work in my twenties I was out on the bike every other weekend doing 100-150 miles touring. Then cycling holidays with Mrs B. After an interregnum when the kids were young I started using the Brompton in my commute, 13 years of daily riding in Central London.
My one serious injury didn't involve my head at all.
|
>> Which takes me to my next point which is that the bottom line of speeding
>> campaigns is to reduce collisions and consequently reduce the burden on the tax payer. NHS
>> short and long term care, benefits and the economy as well as the impact on
>> families etc. The cost of a fatal coming in on average at £1.7M. Serious injury
>> at £185,000 and slight injury at £14.600. (2011 figures)
Excellent, when can I expect all fines raised through traffic enforcement to go directly to the NHS?
|
>> With this in mind it would make sense to reduce the cost of injuries sustained
>> by cyclists. As the head is particularly vulnerable then surely its protection is paramount and
>> anything that can be done to increase protection for the vulnerable cyclist can only be
>> a good thing.
So you'd support the wearing of helmets for motorists and pedestrians on the grounds that it would save the NHS even more money than the wearing of cycle helmets? And what about at home, where around 1000 people die every year after falling down stairs, that would save far more than the 100 cycle deaths a year, few or any because of a head injury.
Pat's been smoking for 57 years (50 for me) without any effects, but then I've been cycling for 55 years with no head injuries, why legislate for one and not the other? Then there's alcohol, responsible for death and misery not only to the drinker to to untold numbers of their victims too.
Prior to helmet use head injuries among cyclists were so low as to be statistically zero, yet since their introduction and widespread use about 25 years ago we seem to have about 100,000 people claiming "A helmet saved my life".
Wear one if you want to, but mind your own business when it comes to what others choose to do.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 21:38
|
|
Don't we get the same rubbish about helmets from some motorcyclists when helmets were made mandatory?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 14:29
|
Edit -
Autocorrect grrrr.. Didn't we get.
|
>> Don't we get the same rubbish about helmets from some motorcyclists when helmets were made
>> mandatory?
Nice try ON but....
M/c helmets are very different animals to the polystyrene hats we're talking about here. The science was therefore very different. We still got the freedom thing though. Compliance with head wear for powered two wheelers is pretty well 100%. Not so for protective clothing though; plemty riding asround in summer in T shirt and jeans.
Interesting how few riders, most of them on massive Harleys, wore helmets in Texas.
|
|
So headbutting a car or concrete at 30ish mph is ok. Don't complain if it hurts or puts you in a wheelchair for life.
|
>> So headbutting a car or concrete at 30ish mph is ok. Don't complain if it
>> hurts or puts you in a wheelchair for life.
At that speed a polystyrene hat is useless; you'd probably be dead or brain injured. The test speed (IIRC) is 12mph.
Tends to be spinal injury that puts people in wheelchair. I worked for the Court of Protection for 10 years and met A LOT of brain injured people. Lots of motorists, plenty falls from or onto in 'old' industry. And beingf a pi$$ed pedestrian is surprisingly dangerous.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 15:04
|
>> Interesting how few riders, most of them on massive Harleys, wore helmets in Texas.
>>
I have a recollection that American bikers who choose not to wear helmets have to have increased insurance
|
'Prior to helmet use head injuries among cyclists were so low as to be statistically zero, yet since their introduction and widespread use about 25 years ago we seem to have about 100,000 people claiming "A helmet saved my life".'
Love to know the source of those statistics.
And if they claim to come from the Police - Stats 21 (filled in after every recorded RTC) then in the early days injuries sustained by cyclists did not then go on to clarify whether 'protective headgear worn/not worn?'
' Wear one if you want to, but mind your own business when it comes to what others choose to do. '
When selfishness potentially impacts on my pocket I'm entitled not to mind my own business.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 17:33
|
>> When selfishness potentially impacts on my pocket I'm entitled not to mind my own business.
I've pointed out one myself - professional cycle racing, where riders crash more times in one season than most of us do in a lifetime. They are buried under a load of bodies when there is a pile up in the peloton, they hit street furniture and are ejected over the bars, they slide down the road at 35 or 40mph, they even come off at 60mph on mountain descents. Yet serious head injuries, let alone head impact induced deaths were practically unheard of during the 100 plus years before they wore helmets.
Brompt has given another, where compulsory legislation in Australia and New Zealand has had absolutely no effect. Deaths went down, but only in direct proportion to the reduction in the number of people cycling.
In answer to the impact on your pocket, I've already made the point that head injury deaths at home, on the street and in the car outnumber the total deaths from all cycling accidents. Perhaps as you are so concerned about the cost of all those you should wear a helmet at all times, or are you too selfish?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 21:38
|
>> >> Is that the sort of world you want to live in?<<
>>
>> I don't but nowhere did I say I approved, I simply stated a fact of
>> how it works now.
>>
You said As with all things involving safety, if people are not prepared to minimise the risks to themselves then legislation will have to be put in place to do it for them.
Not before time either.
I read that as a vote for compulsion. Are you denying the words have that meaning?
|
Some interesting info here, ( if anyone is interested)
;-)
www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
|
No, I'm expressing frustration that more cyclists haven't got to the point of wearing them themselves....and moreso that they haven't realised the way the world works these days and realised their defiance will only lead to even more compulsory action being taken.
Motorists, lorry drivers and motorcyclists have seen this happen over the years, surely cyclists can see the way the wind will blow?
For what it's worth, I don't want to see it made compulsory but I wasn't going to play CG's games this morning when I could be outside enjoying myself.
I do wish more of you would take more responsibility for your own safety and not expect other road users to do it all.
I do think you should expect legislation to moderate your freedom with *a lot* of current cyclists attitudes....see You Tube cyclist head cam clips.
I do understand the 'wind in the hair' feeling and love it and miss it...I rode motorbikes before wearing a crash helmet was made compulsory and loved it.
I came off a Vincent queueing to get into Silverstone when we ran into the back of the car in front of us which stopped! I wasn't wearing a crash helmet, I was wearing a bright yellow kaftan though:) How embarrassing was that picking ourselves up out of the ditch.
It opened my eyes though as the current boyfriend who was riding it was so worried about the Vincent, he never even worried how I was so he didn't last long:)
Still miss it, and as we are lucky to live down the road/track to no-where Ian & I still go on Bertha for a ride down the lane in shorts and no helmets. Our risk and our choice....I do firmly believe cyclists should have that choice too but current attitudes from *some* prominent cyclists are doing the case no favours and if it doesn't change sadly choice will no longer be an option.
Pat
|
>>I do wish more of you would take more responsibility for your own safety and not expect other road users to do it all.
Yes, stop smoking you stupid idiots and take more care of yourselves! [I'm not confused, am I?]
As it happens I cannot see any reason to use the law to protect anybody from themselves, only where it impacts others. Not motorcycle helmets either, nor smoking (away from others).
Out of interest, helmets for cyclists *are* compulsory here, though there is little legislation to say what is or is not a helmet.
|
>>Yes, stop smoking you stupid idiots and take more care of yourselves! [I'm not confused, am I?]<<
Yes:) But that's another argument for another day!
Pat
|
>> Yes:) But that's another argument for another day!
It is exactly the same argument.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 21:38
|
R O'R
It isn't actually.
It's not even comparable as has been pointed out very well by Fullchat further up in this thread.
I was actually making a joking reply to Mark if that is allowed?
Pat
|
Brompton users to note! - sherlock47
