www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29848778
I know how he feels, so it makes a depressing read.
|
|
He was on TV this morning and I wouldn't want my kids riding with him either. He was wearing dark clothing and no helmet in an urban environment (a contrast with the BBC reporter who was risk-assessed to the nines). Hardly sensible, unless he was planning to dazzle other road users with his gold medal?
|
Uk population 64m
Dutch population 16m (ie. 1/4 of UK)
2012 UK road deaths - 1754 including 118 cyclists
2012 Dutch road deaths - 650 inc 200 cyclists
|
|
Must be a helluva lot of lorries in Holland to kill 200 cyclists....just sayin', like.
|
|
You would have to take account of the fact that there are proportionately far more cyclists cycling far more miles in the Netherlands that there are in the UK to get a true comparison of the risk of death from cycling in both countries.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 02:06
|
I enjoy my cycling, but I must admit that there are times when I am nervous.
In that piece on the Beeb, someone said that for each hour on the road, you are 16 times more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car. Later on, someone had a different figure.
|
I used to run mile locally.. often on pavements.
I now walk miles ditto.
When I see drivers steering round roundabouts with one hand whilst talking on a hand held mobile, I am reminded why I don't cycle. Vans, cars, lorries - far too risky...
As for how some drive on narrow twisty roads....
|
Fair point CG. I'd still be interested to see the figures after that has been taken into account, as I'm willing to bet the two countries' figures won't be significantly different.
I'm not trying to put a negative spin on this because I do believe that progress has to be made in cutting deaths on two wheels, powered or not; but I do get a bit tired of the pro-cycling lobby pushing Holland as some kind of cycling Utopia when in fact it's simply a much smaller, much flatter country which is topographically better suited to bicycles.
|
"I'd still be interested to see the figures after that has been taken into account, as I'm willing to bet the two countries' figures won't be significantly different."
In 2009, the latest year available, the fatality rate for cyclists in the Netherlands was 9 per billion kilometres, less than half that in Britain (21 in 2009).
drawingrings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/no-cycling-is-not-safer-in-britain-than.html
|
I wonder if Holland/Belgium have many of the advantages of a cycling infrastructure - lanes, space, special roundabouts and so on - at least in part because their towns were flattened in the war. They were then rebuilt taking all that into consideration in the forties and fifties, when cycling was more popular anyway.
The UK, by and large, didn't have that "advantage" so we don't have space to do it unless we knock down our often medieval street patterns and start again.
I appreciate, of course, there's more to it than that otherwise Coventry and Plymouth and so on would have fantastic cycling facilities, and they don't, but perhaps it was an element.
|
|
The Netherlands developed its cycling infrastructure from the mid seventies. Until then provision was, as in UK and most of rest of Europe, dominated by the needs of the motor vehicle. The driver was the 'fuel crisis' following the 1973 Israeli/Arab war and a decision by the then Dutch government to encourage (today we'd use term 'mainstream') cycling for short journeys.
|
Nothing to do with the war Crankcase.It was peoples power blocking roads and demanding cycle paths.To many children where killed on bikes and the Dutch Government listened.
We have all the advantages in the UK there isn't the will.
|
Not sure Crankcase; Antwerp is a long way from being a totally modern metropolis (thank God!) yet cycling thrives there. In fact medieval towns and cities often lend themselves better to cycling than more modern designs.
I suspect that one reason may have been that cycling as a sport has always had a much higher profile in Europe than over here, resulting in a far greater public awareness which we in the UK have only cottoned on to in the last two decades. Close a road in Britain for a cycle race and there is chaos (see this year's "Tour de Yorkshire") yet in continental Europe it is pretty much the norm. The problems here arise from both sides (cyclists and motorists) being of the mindset that they have exclusive ownership of the roads.
Where Britain does have purpose-built cycle-ways (Stevenage being a classic example) they are rarely used to their full potential, and the underpasses frequently become no-go areas populated by drug takers, skateboarding kids and broken bottles. On the one hand I can appreciate the reluctance of cyclists to use such routes where they rightly perceive a risk, but on the other, it does grind somewhat when one sees gaggles of cyclists cluttering A roads where a perfectly good and useable cycle track runs parallel.
|
>> He was on TV this morning and I wouldn't want my kids riding with him
>> either. He was wearing dark clothing and no helmet in an urban environment (a contrast
>> with the BBC reporter who was risk-assessed to the nines).
He explained exactly why he doesn't wear a helmet. It's not even in top ten things you can do to improve your safety on the bike. Risk is about same as for a pedestrian. He also pointed out risk of bathroom falls but that number will be skewed by oldies.
|
|
Wearing a cycling helmet is almost unknown in Holland.
|
>> Wearing a cycling helmet is almost unknown in Holland.
>>
My observations, gathered over several trips to Holland and Belgium and including rural and urban areas, are that it seems more common for children to be wearing helmets than adults, and also that helmet usage is more prevalent amongst riders of off-road style machines than the more common sit-up-and-beg classic Dutch bicycles.
It would seem to me that parents are encouraged to make their children wear them, but adults are free to make their own choices.
I also note that most Dutch bikes are fitted with lights and a bell as standard, and that both are used.
|
Proves nothing statistically of course, but my friend who was hit square on by a car entering a roundabout a couple of weeks ago is grateful for his helmet. He had concussion from a bang on his head, probably from the windscreen, which he thinks the helmet considerably ameliorated.
Despite the fact that the police attended, and the driver admitted she hadn't seen him in his hi-vis and white helmet with his flashing light and there was at least one independent witness who made herself known at the scene, it looks as if no action will be taken. They seem to be treating it as a minor incident (broken pelvis, broken wrist, knocked out and concussed).
This seems to me consistent with the general climate of passive hostility to cyclists, almost as if they deserve what they get. I can't believe that an injury accident involving two cars would have been so carelessly dealt with, but maybe I'm wrong.
The police actually told him last week that as there was a general absence of witnesses they would probably have to let it go. When they were reminded that there was a witness, never mind that the facts spoke for themselves, it became obvious that they just hadn't taken it seriously.
That sort of attitude set against all the penalties for trivial victimless 'offences' such as doing 46 in a 40, or encroaching into a bus lane, says it all.
It isn't just a case of improving the infrastructure for cyclists and doing it properly, there is a real hearts and minds problem too IMO.
|
The only time I wear a cycle helmet is on my mountain bike if I'm attempting something high risk like a steep long descent on a rough or loose surface and there's an appreciablly increased risk of involuntarily parting company with the bike at speed. If I am climbing the same section often at less than walking pace I'll put the helmet in my backpack to cut down on heat exhaustion.
I never wear one when cycling on the road for a number of reasons. Mainly the restrictions to your sight lines and hearing. It's amazing how much a helmet cuts your hearing and that is one of the most important safety downsides. Heat build up is also a major concern, a cyclist who is uncomfortably hot with sweat in their eyes is not as safe as one who is not.
Finally, when you do fall off a bike, and believe me I've considerable experience in that ! ;-) your head is almost never the point of impact. Lower legs, knees, elbows, wrists and fingers are the most often injured. I must have fallen off my bike a thousand times in the most extreme circumstances but I've never yet managed to land on my head.
My view is that helmets are possibly, but not conclusively, proven to be useful in extreme circumstances such as high speed competitive cycling or in severe off road use but for normal pottering about they are more of a hindrance and can actually cause the wearer to be more inefficient and thus more endangered.
For an aside though I always wear some form of protective eyewear on my bike. Grit, insects, fag butts thrown out of cars, stones chucked up by tyres. Well, you see what I mean.
Just saying what I choose to do, not for one moment trying to convert anyone. If a helmet makes you feel safer then wear one.
|
|
I am less inclined to wear a helmet in warm weather for similar reasons. But I do know personally of two cyclists who have sustained serious head injuries from hitting their heads on kerbstones - was hit by a car, the other went down a big pothole. Whether either would have been better off with a helmet, I don't know - both were a long time ago so I wouldn't think either was wearing one.
|
>>
>> Finally, when you do fall off a bike, and believe me I've considerable experience in
>> that ! ;-) your head is almost never the point of impact. Lower legs, knees,
>> elbows, wrists and fingers are the most often injured. I must have fallen off my
>> bike a thousand times in the most extreme circumstances but I've never yet managed to
>> land on my head.
>>
>>
Exactly.
No one has ever been able to show a reduction in head injuries to cyclists since the use of helmets became the norm despite much research. In the branch of cycling where the stats are available - professional racing - there is no difference whatsoever, head injuries apart from superficial wounds have always been so rare they don't even make a statistic. And any pro cyclist who crashed less than ten times in a season could count himself remarkably lucky.
Anyone who wants to wear one is free to do so, but please stop lecturing those of us who don't.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 11:23
|
>> He was on TV this morning and I wouldn't want my kids riding with him
>> either. He was wearing dark clothing and no helmet in an urban environment (a contrast
>> with the BBC reporter who was risk-assessed to the nines).
>>
He was wearing no helmet because they are the biggest consumer con since bottled water.
|
|
Each to their own, etc. but I am surprised at the resistance to wearing helmets (both here and watching that video of Dutch cyclists). I don't have an vision or heat problem wearing them, but do know that head injuries can kill, even just after slip on a wet floor, so surely with no 'penalty' in wearing one, they have got to help?
|
I think in many cases it's a convenience thing. The same resistance was voiced by motorcyclists in the 1960's regarding short trips on small-capacity scooters and mopeds; there's no doubt that if you're just popping down to the shop or perhaps to your allotment then the faff of donning a helmet could be seen as a time-wasting nuisance.
There was also the theft aspect, which led many 1970's manufacturers to include helmet locks on motorcycles as standard although in practice they were rarely used. Bicycle helmets of course are much smaller and lighter but they still take up space. Probably why "serious" cyclists seem to keep them on regardless of where they are, much in the manner that old farmers do with flat caps.
|
>> Each to their own, etc. but I am surprised at the resistance to wearing helmets
>> (both here and watching that video of Dutch cyclists). I don't have an vision or
>> heat problem wearing them, but do know that head injuries can kill,
If you don't have a vision or heat problem wearing one I'm pleased for you. I've yet to find one that doesn't have bits, edges of helmet or straps, in my peripheral vision and doesn't affect my hearing barbecue of changes to airflow.
However well ventilated a helmet is on the move it soon gets hot when slowed and climbing. That's why professionals were allowed to dispense with them on mountain stages for several years after they were mandated by the UCI.
I spent ten years of my professional life working with the Court of Protection so I've met my more than my share of head injury victims. I'd rather be dead than like the worst of them. Causation though was dominated by industrial accidents and road transport as driver or passenger. Being inebriated and a pedestrian is pretty high risk too. Only saw one case involving a cyclist - and he was drunk too.
Having said that I knew one or two people in YHA groups whose personality had changed after head injury. There's a memorial at Jordans Youth Hostel for one of them - Reg Dean.
But it's a very low incidence for the miles they'd ridden - Reg had literally been all over the world.
|
That's a nicely written post, and I'm going to be cheeky and say that the spell checker has buried a novel title in there that needs writing.
Look out for a thriller coming soon called "Barbecue of Changes". I just need to think of the plot.
Sorry, skip this, sensible people.
|
>> That's a nicely written post, and I'm going to be cheeky and say that the
>> spell checker has buried a novel title in there that needs writing.
>>
>> Look out for a thriller coming soon called "Barbecue of Changes". I just need to
>> think of the plot.
The word intended was of course because - how it got to barbecue I've no idea.
|
|
He's just ribbing you about it.
|
|
I think that Non Motoring is the appropriate place for a "Recommendations for changing my barbecue" thread. :)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 13:25
|
>> You've got some sauce.
>>
and you're just fanning the flames.
|
|
Can we stop raking over old coals and get on with the thread?
|
>> Finally, when you do fall off a bike, and believe me I've considerable experience in that ! ;-) your head is almost never the point of impact. Lower legs, knees, elbows, wrists and fingers are the most often injured. I must have fallen off my bike a thousand times in the most extreme circumstances but I've never yet managed to land on my head
I can resonance with this comment. I do cycling but don't wear helmet. But I do mountain biking on easy trails or ride on footpaths (designated cycle lanes). I always avoid riding on road with cars.
I have fallen from bike many times and hit all my body parts except head.
I think helmet is for those who ride with cars and more likely to need it for impact.
|
We have seen all this before with seat belts, crash helmets for motor bikes and a dozen other little things, I give it 5 - 10 years maximum before cycle helmets are compulsory.
And for all those who have never had a head injury on a bike, how many of you can honestly say you don't know of anyone who hasn't either been saved by a cycle helmet or someone who has had head injuries after a cycle accident. It is very uncommon but far from unknown.
|
The point is a broken leg, hip, arm or shoulder wont kill you or leave you a vegetable.
A broken head can.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 16:11
|
When I was a kid , I rode a bike, fell off on ice and went head fist through a barbed wire fence...I was lucky - minor scratches and torn clothes.
I always think many cyclists leave their brains behind when they get onto a bike..this thread showing many don't use a helmet confirm that view..
|
>> I always think many cyclists leave their brains behind when they get onto a bike..this
>> thread showing many don't use a helmet confirm that view..
You do understand that their design effectiveness is limited to impacts at less than 12mph and that even then their efficacy is far from proven? They're actually quite fragile and whatever benefit they offer is largely a function of breaking up on impact.
The guy I mentioned upthread had his accident with a lorry. Doubtful if even a modern helmet would have helped, never mind those available in 1985/6.
|
>> When I was a kid , I rode a bike, fell off on ice and
>> went head fist through a barbed wire fence...I was lucky - minor scratches and torn
>> clothes.
>>
>> I always think many cyclists leave their brains behind when they get onto a bike..this
>> thread showing many don't use a helmet confirm that view..
>>
And if you'd been wearing a helmet you'd no doubt now be telling us how a helmet saved your life...
|
>>
>> And if you'd been wearing a helmet you'd no doubt now be telling us how
>> a helmet saved your life...
>>
As it was in 1962 I would have been a miracle worker to wear a helmet as they were not widely available....
|
>>
>> As it was in 1962 I would have been a miracle worker to wear a
>> helmet as they were not widely available....
>>
That's what I mean. I've cycled seriously since I was thirteen, crashed many times in and out of competition in pre helmet days and I'm still here. And it any of my cohorts suffered life threatening injuries that would have been prevented by a helmet they must have kept pretty quiet about it.
There was no thought given to the need for such a thing until Bell, in the face of falling sales of their motorcycling helmets hit on a new marketing strategy. When they introduced these new safety marvels they accompanied them with diagrams showing how fragile the human brain was and how even a slight impact to the skull could be fatal, managing to overnight convince people that they would have to be mad to ride without one.
Clever marketing, I'll admit. Just like others did with bottled water.
|
>> The point is a broken leg, hip, arm or shoulder wont kill you or leave
>> you a vegetable.
>>
>> A broken head can.
>>
You have been lucky, I have not had a car crash but used a seatbelt before it was mandatory, and still do. I knew a young lad who came off his bike and by pure bad luck hit his head on the only rock in the grass area he was riding in. He did not survive, which may be better than a vegetative state.
|
I genuinely don't and I've been around the MTB scene all my life. Broken wrists, ankles, ribs, even legs and arms aplenty among the serious riders but head injuries with or without helmets are not at all common. In fact the only injury I've heard of to anyone I know to that region of the body was actually caused by the leverage from the helmet resulting in a rotational neck injury.
But of course you're right it will almost certainly become compulsory because it's a handy enough thing for someone to campaign on and raise their public profile. It sounds sensible despite there being no conclusive evidence for or against.
And after all, we don't have nearly enough life rules yet do we...
;-)
|
>> We have seen all this before with seat belts, crash helmets for motor bikes and
>> a dozen other little things, I give it 5 - 10 years maximum before cycle
>> helmets are compulsory.
>>
I'm not so sure, for the plain and simple reason that it would be unenforceable.
Seat belts are now fitted in all modern vehicles as standard; where motorcycles are concerned wearing a helmet is, if you'll pardon the pun, a no-brainer and the smaller commuter machines have evolved to deal with the storage problem via the use of under-seat stowage and top boxes. It is also easy to enforce the legislation as all these vehicles are registered and the owner depends on his licence to use them on the road; if you're nicked often enough you lose said licence, end of.
Where bicycles are concerned, it is a different ball-game altogether, and should anyone be rash enough to try to enact legislation regarding helmets, it could only come about as part and parcel of a compulsory licensing and insurance system for bicycles. That is neither practical nor desirable whatever the haters might think.
|
I realise it won't be easy, if this forum still exists in 10 years I will either accept you were right or say "told you so".
we had loads of people saying seat belts were not necessary, it was better to be thrown clear. Also lots of motorcyclists making the sort of comments we have seen here about restricted vision or lack of awareness of other vehicles from wearing helmets. We still have compulsory wearing of belts and helmets.
Look around, no group of road users is good enough at self regulation not to need eventual legislation, cyclists are no different, despite the sensible majority, sooner or later we will get legislation on cycling to control the minority of nutters. Probably in specific areas or similar to start with.
|
>> Look around, no group of road users is good enough at self regulation not to
>> need eventual legislation, cyclists are no different, despite the sensible majority, sooner or later we
>> will get legislation on cycling to control the minority of nutters. Probably in specific areas
>> or similar to start with.
>>
The authorities don't have the manpower or willpower to enforce a lot of current legislation on motor vehicles never mind cyclists. I'm thinking faulty lights, misuse of fog lights, not stopping at junctions, the list is endless. You see examples of these sort of things on a daily basis and the plod never bat an eyelid unless it suits them to. How on earth are they going to enforce similar legislation on modes of transport which are neither registered nor traceable?
|
>> to. How on earth are they going to enforce similar legislation on modes of transport
>> which are neither registered nor traceable?
>>
For most purposes it would not be any better enforced than the other examples you quote.
However, helmets on cyclists would be very easy to enforce in many ways, far easier than cyclists going through red lights, in any journey you spend a lot of time stopped, especially in traffic, easy enough for police, traffic wardens, PCSO's etc to have a word.
I also reckon cycle registration will come in the next 10 years, probably imbedded chip in all new bikes or similar to start with.
Just to be clear, I don't think the compulsion, laws or whatever, is desirable, I just think it will come.
|
not wearing a helmet is one of the easiest offences to enforce. Its pretty obvious if you are breaking the law. Two coppers, row of cones, 50 victims an hour, £50 pound fine per victim,
Kerching......Lucrative stuff.
|
>> we had loads of people saying seat belts were not necessary, it was better to
>> be thrown clear. Also lots of motorcyclists making the sort of comments we have seen
>> here about restricted vision or lack of awareness of other vehicles from wearing helmets. We
>> still have compulsory wearing of belts and helmets.
But in both those cases the naysayers were demonstrably wrong. There was evidence from other countries where belts or lids were already compulsory as well as crash test dummy stuff.
There is no comparable evidence for cycle helmets.
Australians are the lab rats for such experimentation as has been done. The effect has been to reduce the number of cyclists on the road while having no measurable effect on death or serious injury rate for those who continue.
As Mr O'Reliant has pointed out above there is one group you'd expect to die like flies without helmets and to survive in far greater numbers if wearing them - professional road racers. In fact the mandating of helmets has not had slightest effect. A graph showing cumulative deaths in competition is utterly unaffected.
The one high profile casualty, Fabio Casartelli on the Col de Port d'Aspet in 1995, was pre helmets but all evidence is that it'd have made no difference if he'd worn one given his speed and area of his head that was impacted.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 17:48
|
|
Evidence has very little to do with road safety legislation. Look at the number of roads with speed limits far lower than any evidence would justify.
|
>> And for all those who have never had a head injury on a bike, how
>> many of you can honestly say you don't know of anyone who hasn't either been
>> saved by a cycle helmet or someone who has had head injuries after a cycle
>> accident. It is very uncommon but far from unknown.
I've heard lots of stories of people pointing to a wrecked helmet and having an unshakeable belief that it saved their life. Whether it really did is another story altogether. The impact required to destroy a BS compliant helmet is slight and collapse of the structure is part of the design function. It may have done nothing more than save them from an 'egg' or a mild scalp wound it may even have contacted the ground when their head would not have.
My last serious fall broke my collar bone and neck of femur. My head made light contact with ground but would probably have cracked a helmet.
I keep coming back to Boardman's point; a cyclist's risk of serious injury is similar to that of a pedestrian. When I see pedestrians in helmets.......
|
>> I keep coming back to Boardman's point; a cyclist's risk of serious injury is similar
>> to that of a pedestrian. When I see pedestrians in helmets.......
>>
.... which of course is the natural progression from the scenario envisaged in my post above, should it ever come about. For children, I think cycle helmets are desirable. Let adults make up their own minds.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 17:16
|
>> I've heard lots of stories of people pointing to a wrecked helmet and having an
>> unshakeable belief that it saved their life. Whether it really did is another story altogether.
>>
>>
Funny, I remember that argument about both seat belts and motorbike helmets at the time.
As for Boardman's argument that risk is the same as pedestrians, pedestrians don't walk on the road, certainly not in towns and cities.
|
>>
>> As for Boardman's argument that risk is the same as pedestrians, pedestrians don't walk on
>> the road, certainly not in towns and cities.
>>
Oh yes they do; and if we're going to start enforcing legislation to reduce accidents on our roads it might not be the worst idea in the world to make jaywalking an offence.
|
>> As for Boardman's argument that risk is the same as pedestrians, pedestrians don't walk on
>> the road, certainly not in towns and cities.
You've not been to London in a good few years then?
And whether pedestrians walk in the road or not is immaterial. The point is that, on the road or on the pavement, their risk of injury - across the piece - is same as cyclists.
|
|
The argument that pedestrians do not walk in the road is clearly absurd. Where on earth are these pedestrians killed if not whilst they are walking in the road or crossing the road?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 17:59
|
>> The argument that pedestrians do not walk in the road is clearly absurd. Where on
>> earth are these pedestrians killed if not whilst they are walking in the road or
>> crossing the road?
>>
Now who is being silly, see my other reply, the vast majority of injuries to pedestrians, certainly in town, happen crossing the road.
I would bet that more injuries to pedestrians happen when they are hit by cyclists on the pavement, than happen when they are walking on, rather than crossing, roads.
|
>> Now who is being silly, see my other reply, the vast majority of injuries to
>> pedestrians, certainly in town, happen crossing the road.
Hence my suggestion that it would be more productive to ban jay-walking than to enforce cycle helmets.
|
>> Hence my suggestion that it would be more productive to ban jay-walking than to enforce
>> cycle helmets.
>>
You really think in our society we are talking either/or? Anyway, which one is easier to enforce (ie raise revenue from)?
|
>> You really think in our society we are talking either/or? Anyway, which one is easier
>> to enforce (ie raise revenue from)?
>>
Pedestrians, naturally. They can't get away so quick. ;-)
|
>> I would bet that more injuries to pedestrians happen when they are hit by cyclists
>> on the pavement, than happen when they are walking on, rather than crossing, roads.
You'd certainly lose such a bet.......
|
You seem to be able to produce stat for lots of things, are there any figure for pedestrian accidents which happen when people are walking along roads rather than crossing them.
I have certainly seen more caused by cyclists on pavements than by pedestrians walking along roads. Naturally very few such accidents ever figure in statistics and to be fair neither are very common.
Unless you know different of course.
|
>> The argument that pedestrians do not walk in the road is clearly absurd. Where on
>> earth are these pedestrians killed if not whilst they are walking in the road or
>> crossing the road?
>>
I don't think in normal day to day many people spend a great deal of time walking in the road, I don't think crossing the road is the same as walking in it.
|
|
Pedestrians, even in London, may cross roads but very few actually walk any distance along the road as you probably have noticed.
|
That's not the point. Its just as logical to suggest pedestrians should wear crash helmets as it is cyclists. They are similarly exposed to the risk iif head injury in an accident involving a vehicle as are cyclists.
Here''s an interesting statistic. It is estimated that about 0.5% of cyclists in Holland wear crash helmets. 13.3% of Dutch cyclists admitted to hospital in Holland after an accident were wearing helmets.
|
>> That's not the point. Its just as logical to suggest pedestrians should wear crash helmets
>> as it is cyclists. They are similarly exposed to the risk of head injury in
>> an accident involving a vehicle as are cyclists.
So it's not logical to suggest that if you are riding along the same roads as cars you are more at risk than pedestrians walking along pavements?? Any argument that the risk is the same is, IMHO, spurious.
Like I said before I don't believe compulsory helmet wearing for cyclists is necessary, I just believe that it will come in the next 10 years.
Last edited by: commerdriver on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 18:25
|
Statistics
Lost of claims above, bigger all facts.
"When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers"
" Just 2 per cent of pedestrian injuries on pavements involve cyclists, the other 98 per cent involve motor vehicles."
"The data shows that drivers are five times more likely than a cyclist to kill a pedestrian. Cyclists killed 0.27 pedestrians per billion km pedalled, compared with 1.4 pedestrians killed per billion km driven in 2012, the latest year for which figures exist"
"One pedestrian was killed by a cyclist and 78 were seriously injured in 2012. At the same time, 253 pedestrians were killed by drivers in urban areas and 4,426 were seriously injured."
tinyurl.com/ola6oun
|
Good stats madf.
I am bound to wonder though how many actual collisions there were rather than injuries, it being a given that the vast majority of same twixt cyclists and pedestrians would not incur the need for hospital treatment?
|
|
interesting but nothing to do with my comment about the relative risk of cyclists on the road compared to pedestrians on the pavement, which I think is what Chris Boardman was on about.
|
>> interesting but nothing to do with my comment about the relative risk of cyclists on
>> the road compared to pedestrians on the pavement, which I think is what Chris Boardman
>> was on about.
The stat for pedestrians killed by pavement cyclists runs at about one every two to three years. Of those almost all are head injuries where the 'skittled' victim falls awkwardly. Numbers for seriously injured (a term which covers everything from kept in for observation to reduced to a vegetative state) need to be added for comparison.
On killed alone though it seems implausible though that they exceed pedestrians killed or seriously injured stepping into road other than to cross in cities plus those hit by motor vehicles on rural roads without pavements etc. Death in these cases is not a consequence of how you fall but rather massive trauma from being hit by a 1.5 tonnes of metal at 30+mph.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 4 Nov 14 at 19:27
|
I'd quite like to be left alone to ride my bike as I wish to. I've never harmed anyone while doing so and never deliberately inconvenienced anyone while doing so either. Any injuries I've suffered were involuntarily self inflicted and I've never sued anyone as a result of my own actions.
I don't want to be controlled by legislation aimed at lowest common denominators.
|
I have seen many bike racks like this in Denmark, these are small compared to some rail stations. Until we have bike use at this level cyclists are an irevelent minority.
www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/aarhus-train-station-bike-racks.html
|
>> www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/aarhus-train-station-bike-racks.html
>>
Reluctantly, I have to agree with you ON. I also agree with the comment by Amoeba on that page.
|
|
My local station (50 miles from London) have these cycle racks, as do several stations down the line and they've just installed a load more.
|
>> My local station (50 miles from London) have these cycle racks, as do several stations
>> down the line and they've just installed a load more.
They're at Milton Keynes and Euston too.
|
|
Are these cycle racks full to capacity every day, and roughly how many thousand bikes do they hold ?
|
|
The recently refurbished Ashtead (Surrey) station has these too, and they are well-used.
|
OK, so we have a split in opinion on helmets, but what about hi-viz clothing?
Boardman is against it because he thinks that wearing 'special' clothing for cycling will deter people. LBC (radio) have started a campaign giving out free hi-viz vests for kids to encourage cycling. At risk of hi-viz overload, I think that if people feel safer in that they are more visible, using them will encourage cycling, rather than deter it.
But then the Dutch eschew hi-viz as much as helmets ...
I remember as a kid in the late '60s being given a hi-viz bag at school for my swimming kit, motorcyclists are encouraged to be more visible by using lights and hi-viz, and all new cars have day-time front lights, etc. etc.
|
But then the Dutch eschew hi-viz as much as helmets ...
They do indeed and they don't have this category of "cyclists". It's just a normal way to travel in Holland. Nothing special and it doesn't demand dressing up and wearing a helmet.
Dutch are very hot on proper lighting and reflectors on bikes though. A missing reflector will get you an on the spot fine.
|
You need to think about visibility but as accident to Manatee's friend shows no amount of hi-viz will save you from a 'looked but did not see' scenario. Other things like riding out from kerb and door zone, constantly looking for eye contact, clear signals and decisive moves all probably rank higher for keeping safe than hi-viz. The sixth sense that comes with experience can see trouble before it starts.
Use your ears too - don't ever plug them with headphones. Even open back types and low volume remove cues from engine noise etc.
IMHO what's needed clothing wise depends where you're cycling, on season/time of day and on weather.
Central London in summer and broad daylight shirtsleeves or a pale coat are good enough. Even in winter something light coloured can show up better under street lighting than many dayglo colours. The orange favoured for rail use looks grey under sodium light and greens/yellow fare little better. In daylight even Boardman's black shows up well against cars, buses etc.
At risk of stuck record syndrome nobody expects city pedestrians to wear a day-glo gilet.
Out of town and/or at night is another kettle of fish. The retro-reflective strips on a hi-viz catch headlights at hundreds of yards. The dayglo itself is also effective in daylight to make a lone rider on a country lane stand out. Even in bright sunshine a cyclist in shade, say in the New Forest, can be difficult to see.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 5 Nov 14 at 10:47
|
>> I remember as a kid in the late '60s being given a hi-viz bag at
>> school for my swimming kit, motorcyclists are encouraged to be more visible by using lights
>> and hi-viz, and all new cars have day-time front lights, etc. etc.
>>
Everything's ruddy hi-viz these days; and sometimes the effect is much the same as the old question about where you hide a tree.
I do not dispute that the stuff is extremely useful in the right place at the right time; I cannot however help but wonder if in years to come our senses will become so attuned to it because its use is so ubiquitous, that we will become desensitized.
I do recall the 1960's TV campaign to "wear something white at night", to my everlasting shame I can even recall some of the lyrics;
"A handbag or a coat is swell
A shopping bag will do as well"
As a child at school in the late 1960's we were issued with reflective armbands; regrettably, as is ever the case with children, use of same was guaranteed to bring accusations of sissy-ness from ones classmates and they were quietly discarded or "lost".
Point to ponder; is it possible that nocturnal driving standards have unintentionally been made worse rather than better by the vastly improved lighting technology available today? In other words, given that we tend to drive as fast as our headlights will let us, were things actually safer years ago?
|
|
I am all for "See and be seen". Some years ago I was driving on a steeply undulating narrow road near a permanent Scout camp. I came across a group of teenagers walking in the same direction on the left of the road. They were all dressed in dark clothing and the thing I saw first was a white sock in my dipped halogen headlights. A potential disaster for both them and me. Although it is unusual to come across people walking on dark country roads these days, in this area they often carry or wear flashing bike lights.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 5 Nov 14 at 10:52
|
Motorists don't seen to know nowadays how to deal with pedestrians in the road.
Mrs B and I were in Broads last week and had to park car a few hundred yards out of village and walk back to a path. Did the right thing facing oncoming traffic etc but three cars from ten or so that passed failed either to slow and/or pull out sufficiently.
|
|
That's more or less typical. Losing a few second on a journey by slowing down to pass a pedestrian/cyclist/horse is unthinkable to a lot of drivers. When walking in a road I always keep a few feet from the edge to give me somewhere to go. Abuse from drivers is not unknown.
|
>> Are these cycle racks full to capacity every day, and roughly how many thousand bikes
>> do they hold ?
Euston has hundreds rather than thousands but that's a massive leap on what was there a handful of years ago. They're spread around the station exterior and well used with more being added as demand rises although they compete for space with lucrative retail.
www.networkrail.co.uk/london-euston-station/parking/
Whatever you think about cycling in your bit of Scotland it's mainstream transport in the capital.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 5 Nov 14 at 10:01
|
|
Re cyclists visibility, flashing rear lights on bikes at night are a pain in the butt for drivers and a hazard for the user. It can take a good few precious seconds before you work out that they are on a moving vehicle rather than a stationary obstruction and it is difficult to judge distance and closing speed. In poor daytime light they do seem better but at night a bright, steady light is far more effective.
|
>> Re cyclists visibility, flashing rear lights on bikes at night are a pain in the
>> butt for drivers and a hazard for the user. It can take a good few
>> precious seconds before you work out that they are on a moving vehicle rather than
>> a stationary obstruction and it is difficult to judge distance and closing speed. In poor
>> daytime light they do seem better but at night a bright, steady light is far
>> more effective.
>>
The thing is, though, a flashing red (or white) light is an instant giveaway that it's a cyclist, and only a cyclist.
What's a solid light? A parked car with one sidelight on? A torch? A car with a light out? A motorbike? I've never been dazzled by a bike light but it does mean I'm aware of them from a greater distance.
If I'm struggling to judge distance to a bike in front of me I just slow down until I'm confident I've got a grasp of the location and speeds. There's a newer rear light which uses radar to calculate the speed of approaching cars and changes it's rate and intensity if it judges that they're not aware of the bike. Probably the best compromise.
|
I walked 4 miles at 7am this morning. Up a hill with no pavements , and with a number of blind bends. The road is 2 meters below the surrounding fields so forward visibility going up is virtually nil near corners.
I wear hi-viz vests in winter. I wore them when running in similar conditions. It does not prevent the muppets who drive at 40mph from killing you - the safe speed is about 25mph - but then I always stop and stand into the hedges to be safe when a car passes.
I live on the basis that the world is full of idiots in cars who drive too fast, use their mobiles when driving or light fags. So far I am alive though I have twice had to jump into a hedge to avoid being hit by complete nutters who don't/cannot stow down.
Anyone who does not take precautions like that in my view is an idiot and for a well known figure to suggest it's not needed is in my view a grossly irresponsible viewpoint.
We live in a world where there are lots of vehicle related dangers and you need to take all reasonable precautions to keep alive.
Especially the young and inexperienced.
|
>> Whatever you think about cycling in your bit of Scotland it's mainstream transport in the
>> capital.
>>
I think that's a good point, hugely depends on where you live. In the village I live in, I couldn't even think of a person that has a bike and uses it. Cyclists virtually unheard of here. I few more on the way to work maybe 10 in all driving for the week. I guess that's not many compared to some on here.
|
>>
>>Whatever you think about cycling in your bit of Scotland it's mainstream transport in the capital.
Whether you mean Edinburgh or London cyclists are a tiny minority of road users.
|
>> Whether you mean Edinburgh or London cyclists are a tiny minority of road users.
In central London they're now a very significant proportion of traffic - well over half a million daily journeys. On busy routes like Theobalds road there are more bikes than cars.
Cannot speak for Edinburgh but I'd be surprised if commuter cycling isn't on the up there too.
|
|
Although there are a lot of cyclists in Edinburgh there is no way that they ever out number cars except on dedicated cycle paths. I must accept your knowledge of the London situation but still think that cyclists are a minority of road users except in rare specific locations.
|
Some more stats from c 2010
"The National Travel Survey also says that around 8% of the population (3 million people) cycle 3 times a week or more, in total 34% of the population (20 million people) say they cycle once a year or more.
- According to the 2011 Census, 741,000 people use a bicycle as the main form of transport for getting to work in England and Wales, up by 90,000 from 2001. In addition, another 50,000 or so use bikes as part of a longer journey.
he 2011 Census results show that the number of people who cycle to work has increased by 17% from 2001 to 2011, but the share of overall commuting is virtually unchanged. Cambridge has the highest level of cycling, at 30% of residents in employment or education travelling by cycle - all local authorities are mapped."
www.ctc.org.uk/resources/ctc-cycling-statistics
|
>> Some more stats from c 2010
>>
Hmmm, Stats from a narrow interest group.
How many driving licence holders are there, how many commute, how many are business drivers, how many are vocational drivers?
Have you used the M6 around Manchester recently. There are some non people powered vehicles there.
|
>> Hmmm, Stats from a narrow interest group.
>>
They're stats from the census and other independent sources. The CTC present them to counter people like you who think cyclists are irrelevant.
|
|
They are not doing a very good job. I stand by my statement, cyclists are a minority group of road users. OK there are more of them in some city centres but there are more tractors on farms, it means little in the grand scheme of transport.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 5 Nov 14 at 17:47
|
>> They are not doing a very good job. I stand by my statement, cyclists are
>> a minority group of road users. OK there are more of them in some city
>> centres but there are more tractors on farms, it means little in the grand scheme
>> of transport.
>>
I read the stats. Nowhere does it say they are not a minority group..
|
>> They are not doing a very good job. I stand by my statement, cyclists are
>> a minority group of road users. OK there are more of them in some city
>> centres but there are more tractors on farms, it means little in the grand scheme
>> of transport.
>>
I think ON makes a fair point, it's always difficult to use our own examples and thinking everywhere is the same. There are very few in my neck of the woods, but equally because there are quite a in London lets not think they are in a majority in the UK as a whole. And that might be a bad thing or good, but lets not pretend there are millions of people biking to work everyday.
|
|
What does it matter whether cyclists are a minority or not? Motorcyclists are also in that bracket but it does not mean they can just be disregarded in favour of the largest group of road users. Every two wheeler on the road means one less car taking up space or one less person trying to cram onto an already overcrowded transport system.
|
>> What does it matter whether cyclists are a minority or not?
Well in the grand scheme of things, nothing, but then we'd quickly end up talking about nothing ;-)
Motorcyclists are also in
>> that bracket but it does not mean they can just be disregarded in favour of
>> the largest group of road users. Every two wheeler on the road means one less
>> car
Oh I'm not disregarding anyone, personally speaking, just having a bit of a chat about numbers.
taking up space or one less person trying to cram onto an already overcrowded
>> transport system.
>>
hugely dependant on the area.
|
>> >> Whether you mean Edinburgh or London cyclists are a tiny minority of road users.
>>
>> In central London they're now a very significant proportion of traffic - well over half
>> a million daily journeys. On busy routes like Theobalds road there are more bikes than
>> cars.
Don't worry about that, the mayor will think of a way to tax them as he did with cars.
|
Chris Boardman on cycling in the UK - Boxsterboy
