***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 36 *****
==============================================================
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 Wed 22 Aug 18 at 20:09
|
As RO'R, Runfer and I have pointed out the question of why more street cyclists haven't got to point of wearing one themselves as an act of taking responsibility is because the supposed safety gains are, at best, moot.
And to say that because some cyclists, *prominent* or not, campaign on other issues of greater real world import is NO reason to move towards helmet compulsion.
Sounds like you favour such things as a 'punishment' for the outspoken.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 17:12
|
>>Sounds like you favour such things as a 'punishment' for the outspoken.<<
Careful Bromp, that chip on your shoulder as a cyclist is showing now.
You, and I presume you are representative of the type of cyclists I've met on the roads for many a year, are never prepared to budge an inch to meet in the middle.
You defend to the death any suggestion that you should be prepared to concede a point.
No matter how irrational it appears it seems it is the cyclists duty to defend his supposed 'rights'.
The sooner you realise that as a cyclist you have no more, and no less, rights than any other road user and learn to conform as we all have had to do, the better. But it won't happen.
I give up....you have just confirmed all I've said above about cyclists attitudes with no regard to where, as a road using group, it will end up taking you with regard to compulsory legislation.
God Forbid you have to budge an inch!
Defend your rights and you will all end up wearing helmets and high Viz, like it or not.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 17:24
|
>> Defend your rights and you will all end up wearing helmets and high Viz, like
>> it or not.
It's bizarre to suggest that the best way to retain rights is not to defend them.
But back to the point - would mandated helmets save lives? It seems illogical to suggest, on an epidemiological basis, that they wouldn't (a) because it must be better to get a bang on the head when wearing a helmet than when not, and (b) when seemingly countless cyclists, including Bobby and his brother, sincerley believe that a helmet save them from death or serious injury.
This link, found by following Runfer's, may shed some light on the first bit of reasoning (helmets could in some cases cause or exacerbate rotational injuries for example) and the second apparent paradox.
www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
|
Why do people care so much about something that someone else does that cannot conceivably impact upon them?
Why on earth should I want legislation to make someone wear a helmet? I'm not sure whether or not they should - I mostly don't unless I'm with the children on the roads, in which case I mostly do - because of the law and the Mother! [similar in many ways].
But, and I mean no insult, why on earth should I care whether Bromp wears a helmet in London or Humph as he goes dogging cycling in the woods? Never mind go so far as make a law *ordering* them to wear one?
Really, we should stop trying to make things we don't like illegal, just because we don;t like them.
|
>> Really, we should stop trying to make things we don't like illegal, just because we
>> don;t like them.
Best post here.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 21:39
|
>> >>
>> Best post here.
>>
Agree! I chose to wear a helmet, but I am dead against it being the law.
I had a fall earlier in the year which wrecked my helmet, so goodness knows what damage may have been caused were I not wearing it. But still, I don't want legislation!
|
I agree no legislation for cyclists.
No helmets, no hi viz, no cycle lanes, no extra visibility for lorries, no safety refuges at traffic lights.
|
By and large I don;t think there should be cycle lanes, they only encourage the wrong behaviours. Cyclists use them as Lords of the Universe, Motorists are mean to cyclists not in them. and cyclists don't restrict themselves to them..
Road users should cope with all the hazards of the road and be watchful of the behaviors of others, good or bad. I don;t know what a safety refuge at traffic lights is, but I probably don't think there should be one of those either.
Extra visibility for lorries, if I understand correctly, is not legislation upon a cyclist but is legislation upon a lorry to stop it affecting other road users? Seems fair enough to me.
|
|
To be honest, I couldn't care less whether there are cycle lanes or not. I've been cycling, walking and driving around busy city centres for decades and never had a problem with any of it. As with most things in life you just have to remember at all times that people will sometimes ( regularly ? ) do things which are stupid, thoughtless or deliberately confrontational, and remind yourself not to engage with them. It's their problem, not yours. Let them get on with their petty prejudices or brain fade, they are irrelevant if you stay out of their range of dimwittedness.
|
"As with most things in life you just have to remember at all times that people will sometimes ( regularly ? ) do things which are stupid, thoughtless or deliberately confrontational, and remind yourself not to engage with them. "
Very true and especially true as you get older. I suppose its a feature of ageing that we tend to get increasingly intolerant of such people. God it's difficult though, there seem to be more of more of them every day.
|
|
Ironically, I think anyway, that I grow more tolerant rather than less. It gradually occurs to you that the world isn't pink, fluffy and perfect. That every day you'll witness something that shouldn't happen, whether it be planned or not. While those who transgress the boundaries of useful behaviour are of course responsible for that, it also behoves those with the wisdom and experience to mitigate for their actions to do so when possible. Most conflicts, especially on the roads, require at least two participants and if one of them refuses to engage with the situation, or simply avoids any involvement with it by predicting it, it usually means that what could have been at least annoying and possibly dangerous doesn't become a problem.
|
Absolutely right Humph.
A lifetime of failed experiments has brought me to the same conclusion.
I couldn't remember who said 'Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience', I had to look it up. George Carlin, apparently.
|
Glad to hear it although I suspect Grumpy Old Man Syndrome could yet catch up with you. It's certainly fairly rampant on here. Seems to be contagious.
|
>> Glad to hear it although I suspect Grumpy Old Man Syndrome could yet catch up
>> with you. It's certainly fairly rampant on here. Seems to be contagious.
>>
It is surprising how quickly pavement cyclists stop when their rotating machinery becmes entangled with a Grumpy Old Man's walking stick. :-)
|
>>
>> But, and I mean no insult, why on earth should I care whether Bromp wears
>> a helmet in London or Humph as he goes dogging cycling in the woods?
>>
>>
....TBF, if/when Humph does go dogging, it would probably make sense to wear a helmet......
;-)
|
On a lighter note, the only time I've significantly banged my head on a mountain bike was when wearing a helmet ( which as I stated upthread I usually do on a fast descent ).
Bowling down a hillside more than fairly quickly, in a thickly forested area, I had to duck under a late seen low branch. Properly cracked my head on it because of course I forgot the couple of inches of extra height the helmet added to my head !
The helmet caught on the branch, was pulled back so far it ended up on the back of my head and the chin strap caught under my jaw pulling me off the bike backwards while trying to saw my head off.
All in all it spoiled that afternoon a bit.
Anyway, I'm off for a swim now and I confess that I'm going to be irresponsible enough to not even wear any hi viz armbands while that's still permitted...
;-)
|
>> You, and I presume you are representative of the type of cyclists I've met on
>> the roads for many a year, are never prepared to budge an inch to meet
>> in the middle.
The issue debated here is helmets. We either stick with the status quo where, like smoking, it's a matter of choice or we go down the route of compulsion. I don't see a middle between those two options.
>> The sooner you realise that as a cyclist you have no more, and no less,
>> rights than any other road user and learn to conform as we all have had
>> to do, the better. But it won't happen.
I've never had any problem with that. My issue is where my rights are being belittled and/or other people are not playing by the rules and threaten my safety. Action to mitigate risk of close passes and dodgy overtakes comes under that heading.
>> I give up....you have just confirmed all I've said above about cyclists attitudes with no
>> regard to where, as a road using group, it will end up taking you with
>> regard to compulsory legislation.
>>
>> God Forbid you have to budge an inch!
Basically all the above is just repetition. Have you anything new or constructive to bring to the table?
>> Defend your rights and you will all end up wearing helmets and high Viz, like
>> it or not.
This has already been dealt with above.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 26 Nov 17 at 10:38
|
I cycle occasionally don't wear a helmet.But I can't see anything wrong if it was compulsory.
Statistics in Holland came out it would save ten lives a year and plenty of serious head injuries.
Children should be a priority they rely on adults to make that decision for them.
|
It's nothing new. "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits" Mark Twain if I remember correctly.
;-)
|
The reports in ON's first post seen to have started in The Times and the DfT now says they're mistaken. There is no proposal for helmet laws but the wide inquiry into cycling survey will consider the issue:
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/24/no-plan-to-make-cycle-helmets-compulsory-in-safety-review-minister
Meanwhile, here's what Cycling UK (formerly the CTC) has to say:
www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets
|
Not sure about other European countries but France was a pleasure riding as they have (?had) a one metre passing rule/law, I would love to see that here,it would let me go out at busier times rather than very early Saturday or Sunday.
|
>> Not sure about other European countries but France was a pleasure riding as they have
>> (?had) a one metre passing rule/law, I would love to see that here,it would let
>> me go out at busier times rather than very early Saturday or Sunday.
>>
>>
>
I agree. A lot of motorists simply think they have to overtake cyclists even if they pass within a few inches of the handlebars. The idea of waiting for a minute to two until it is safe is not an option for them. I'm not a cyclist but do a lot of walking and find the same impatience with some drivers whilst walking narrow lanes.
|
>> The issue debated here is helmets. <<
Indeed, so there is no correlation with smoking I presume, but you insist upon using it.
>> My issue is where my rights are being belittled and/or other people are not playing by the rules and threaten my safety. Action to mitigate risk of close passes and dodgy overtakes comes under that heading.
>>
The single biggest thing to solve that one would be for cyclists to play by the rules and voluntarily use cycle lanes whenever, and wherever they are provided. An end to both dodgy overtakes and close passes. Simple and not belittling at all.
Instead, we always see reasons why they shouldn't be used or are not safe.
>> Have you anything new or constructive to bring
>> to the table? <<
It's very rude to patronise other people, I would have thought you would have known that.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sun 26 Nov 17 at 12:47
|
>> Indeed, so there is no correlation with smoking I presume, but you insist upon using
>> it.
I'm not suggesting correlation. I'm using an analogy* between two pleasurable activities with potential health risks.
* At least I think it's an analogy. NoFM2R is the expert and will no doubt tell me if I'm wrong :-P
>> Instead, we always see reasons why they shouldn't be used or are not safe.
Where they're safe, direct and expeditious they get get used. See the E-W route along the Embankment. Plenty or unsafe or downright dangerous.
There used to be one round the periphery of Russell Square when it was one way. Fine if you wanted to use the next exit but if you were going right round the square it put you at serious risk of a left hook.
This one goo.gl/maps/T8Vctmy2VHT2 is on my route if I cycle to work now. It's shared with pedestrians which is mostly fine but the surface is loose gravel with a top dressing of broken glass and dog sheet. It's OK on a Mountain Bike, passable with care on a Brompton but lethally unsafe on my 27*1 1/4 tourer or any road bike with sub 32 width 700Cs
>> >> Have you anything new or constructive to bring
>> >> to the table? <<
>>
>> It's very rude to patronise other people, I would have thought you would have known
>> that.
As others have pointed out your quick to dish it out but very thin skinned when criticised.
Two points:
(a) Don't you think accusing me of having a chip on my shoulder might be just the teeniest bit patronising:
(b) your post at 17:23 yesterday used at least four different formulations of 'Cyclists wont budge/compromise. Why is asking you if you have anything new not a reasonable response?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 26 Nov 17 at 14:03
|
>>Two points:
(a) Don't you think accusing me of having a chip on my shoulder might be just the teeniest bit patronising:<<
You are so quick to refute any points put by anyone against cyclists, to the point of refusing even to consider them seriously for discussion, so I'm afraid that's how you come across (in print).
>>(b) your post at 17:23 yesterday used at least four different formulations of 'Cyclists wont budge/compromise. Why is asking you if you have anything new not a reasonable response?<<
Simply because over the years, and in the old volumes of this thread I can find many more occasions than four of where you have flatly refused to budge....but I have never patronised you about it.
I'm afraid Bromp, in the real world of the road network we are all users of that road.
We all have to compromise, make modifications both to our modes of transport and the way we drive, to accommodate each other.
The expense and effort incurred now is getting beyond a joke for the haulage industry, and so many firms are actively looking at whether deliveries to London are indeed, a profitable proposition.
It is only fair that as road users, cyclists must also be prepared to concede a little as well.
I realise it is the minority who give cyclists that bad reputation of being stubborn, self important and provocative in their attitude....sadly I fear I may be unpopular for saying so, but you come across that way.
There are many other cyclists on this forum who all seem to have a balanced view, are at least open to discussion, and seem to be happy to go some way towards looking out for their own safety, without being confrontational.....this is exactly how it should be.
There is no one size fits all solution. Compulsory wearing of a high Viz wouldn't work in cities where there are a lot of cyclists. It certainly would work on a dark, unlit Fen road at 01.40 when a lot of hard up factory workers are cycling to start a 2am shift often without lights.....ask any lorry driver.
Compulsory wearing of a cycling helmet probably wouldn't help him in the event of an accident, but being prepared to go and try the different styles and fit of the modern helmets probably would help the city cyclist in the event of a close overtake.
Being prepared to is the sticking point. Being stubborn isn't very clever if your dead.
If it doesn't save your life then what have you lost? If it does then it's a major gain.
But of course, it's a matter of choice and so it should be. Sadly the endless legislation to modify HGV's isn't and it's costing the industry an awful lot of money.
....which of course doesn't sit well when those same lorries are crawling behind a cycle which has decided not to use the cycle lane on the left which is so often empty.
Dog poo, loose gravel and probably having to dismount to negotiate a junction is a minor detail when we all see the alternative fatalities that have occurred, surely?
That's the bit we all find hard to grasp.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sun 26 Nov 17 at 14:38
|
Frankly the whole tenor of the post above is patronising. It's all stuff you've said before and I'm not going to waste time deconstructing it.
Just one thing though. You miss the point about loose gravel etc, it's impossible to ride on it on bikes with narrow wheels, even at walking pace, without constantly being on the cusp of a tumble. I'm fine using the route on the MTB or Brommy although the broken glass and doggy doo can be a bummer!!
|
>> At least I think it's an analogy. NoFM2R is the expert and will no doubt tell me if I'm wrong
Why would you say that?
The last time you couldn't let a matter go, even when you'd made a fool of yourself, you'd tried to pretend you were making an analogy to avoid having to admit your own stupidity. Yet you choose to bring the matter up again? I'd have thought you'd have wanted it to fade into the past.
And you are arguing with Pat with *exactly* the approach that you whine about her using. Try a mirror, it'll help.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 26 Nov 17 at 18:14
|
>> Why would you say that?
You did note the smiley didn't you??
|
|
Why? Does it change something?
|
>> Why? Does it change something?
It implies an attempt at humour.
However if you want to be serious I maintain that:
(1) Tribe is analogous to race, nationality etc
(2) Reference to tribalism in Africa is a tactic used by racists - see Roger's post today. I do however accept that not all references to tribalism are racist.
And, accepting mistaken identity on my part re Harleyman/Haywain, I plead your engagement with latter today about travellers/do as you likeys in evidence of why I'm sceptical about anything he posts on subject of race/multiculturalism.
|
|
Sorry Brompt, you're sniffing up the wrong tree; this is a thread about cyclists. Are you drunk?
|
>> Frankly the whole tenor of the post above is patronising. It's all stuff you've said
>> before and I'm not going to waste time deconstructing it.
I've done something today I've never done before.
I read your reply Bromp at 2am and I have given it a full 12 hours to mull this over before deciding whether to reply.
The problem for me is that if I make no reply, you will probably be thinking that I have reconsidered what I wrote and thought that I may have been a bit patronising.
Well, that is certainly not the case. That post wasn't in any way patronising, at all.
The fact that you feel it to be a 'waste of your time' to defend your stance really points to you having no defence whatsoever.
Just as long as we clear about that, then after 12 hours consideration, I'm happy to leave it there.
Pat
|
Going back to mass pile ups and sporting cyclists being invincible I'm presuming RR you mean something like this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QMEgUnL2gI
So why do all competition cyclists wear helmets? To match their Lycra or keep their hair looking good?
I'm presuming its because there is a strong likelihood of a high speed tumble with the risk of the cranium sustaining a bang.Likewise on building sites where protective headgear is mandatory. Just because 'statistics' seem to indicate otherwise doesn't mean there is not a strong possibility.
To infer that pedestrians should wear helmets is a bit silly. Percentage wise cyclists spend more time closer to or in a more dangerous environment so the risk factor is higher.
|
Let's us assume that there was irrefutable proof of the value of helmets to cyclists.
I would STILL see no reason to make them compulsory.
|
>> To infer that pedestrians should wear helmets is a bit silly. Percentage wise cyclists spend
>> more time closer to or in a more dangerous environment so the risk factor is
>> higher.
As mass pile ups go that is pretty small beer. Fields are smaller now than they used to be, at one time the 188 mile Milan - San Remo classic used to have 450 starters, now 200 is about the max. Those types of crashes have been happening since cycle racing began and long before riders wore helmets, almost no serious head injuries occurring.
Why are helmets mandatory? Because the modern 'elf and safety mantra has invaded many things we do, whether it is justified or not. My point about pedestrians was in answer to either yours or another posters claim that he did not want to pay the medical fees of those who suffered head injuries while not wearing a helmet. On the cost basis the percentage of risk a certain group takes is not relevant, but the overall numbers involved and more peds and motorists suffer head injuries that cyclists.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 28 Nov 17 at 01:49
|
>> So why do all competition cyclists wear helmets? To match their Lycra or keep their
>> hair looking good?
As RR has pointed out the ruling body and organisers have chosen to follow the Elf and Safety Mantra. As was pointed out in the previous volume of this thread if you draw a graph of cumulative deaths on the professional racing circuit over 40 years there's not the slightest twitch in its gradient at time helmets became compulsory/
>> To infer that pedestrians should wear helmets is a bit silly. Percentage wise cyclists spend
>> more time closer to or in a more dangerous environment so the risk factor is
>> higher.
If you look at the stats the fatality rate per mile for cyclists and pedestrians are pretty close. Peds, particularly if they've been drinking, are very susceptible to the sort of RTA that involves a head injury.
As also stated earlier I spent about 9 years working as a case officer for the Court of Protection. I encountered dozens of people with head injuries. Lots of car accidents, falls at work, stuff falling onto them at work, and men or women walking home from the pub. Just one cyclist - and he was an an alcoholic cycling home from the pub!!
|
|
Yeah, but I've heard that anecdote is not evidence.
|
>> Yeah, but I've heard that anecdote is not evidence.
Yebbut nobbut!!
|
>> Yebbut nobbut!!
Or more seriously it's only anecdotal but it would be interesting to know haw many people in head injury rehab clinics are cyclists and whether they were wearing helmets at time.
TBH I took the car and industrial accidents at face value - to be expected. It was the number of pedestrians who's damages awards, already low 'cos they tended not to be high earners, were reduced for contributory negligence associated with drunkeness that surprised me.
|
All I will say Pat is that sections of it felt patronising to me. There's probably a bit of 'I give up' because you and I are like the property lawyers arguing from different premises.
At some point, however unlike habitual forum behaviour it is we have to agree to differ. I got to that point last night and remain there today.
As a humorous aside I took Mrs B's Berlingo in for service today then rode my Brompton to the office to catch up on some neglected admin. Returning to the garage at around 5pm I was in Northampton's rush hour traffic. Just by the General Hospital I encountered a cycle lane that was barely 2 feet wide from the kerb, half of it occupied with (very slippery) double yellow lines.
I was reminded of a something my Father used to say that might belong in the 'Phrases You Didn't Know' thread:
'Neither use nor ornament'
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 27 Nov 17 at 18:21
|
There are two points here:
Are cycle helmets effective in helping to reduce injury,?
To me that's irrefutable.
Should cycle helmets be made compulsory?
I would say no, society cannot legislate for every eventuality, cannot wrap us all in cotton wool and bubble wrap, individual responsibility needs to be encouraged, being empowered and making informed and educated decisions on how to proceed rather than being controlled and shepherded. Aside from which, how would it be enforced, where would it apply, on the highway only or also off road etc ...
|
>>Are cycle helmets effective in helping to reduce injury?
Technically they reduce the risk of skull fractures, do nothing for the risk of concussion and slightly increase the risk of neck injuries.
To my knowledge there are no solid studies to show helmets reduce injury and death overall, at least on roads, where deaths are often crush injuries or internal chest/abdominal bleeding due to large vessel rupture after rapid deceleration being whacked by a motor vehicle.
Kind of reminds me of Clarkson's comment that to improve road safety, don't fit airbags to cars - fit a big spike on the steering wheel boss pointing at the driver's face.
As far as children and cycle helmets? I think they are a definite especially for new cyclists - you are far more likely to die as a result of skull fracture from a low speed spill than any of the internal organ methods.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 28 Nov 17 at 02:59
|
|
What a sensible and balanced post Lygonos. Pretty much mirrors my far less informed opinion.
|
"Kind of reminds me of Clarkson's comment that to improve road safety, don't fit airbags to cars - fit a big spike on the steering wheel boss pointing at the driver's face."
In the days when wearing motorcycle helmets was optional, I took my uncle for a spin on the pillion of my Triumph. He refused my offer of a crash helmet because, he figured, it would compel me to ride with greater care.
|
The first question in the debate is not whether a helmet helped in specific cases but whether it will reduce KSI overall, a point that focussing on an individual case like this completely misses.
I think it should be mandated for children, who can't make an informed decision andare most likely to to benefit in low speed tumbles. Adults should be allowed to make up their own minds unless some meaningful benefit can convincingly be presented. As far as I know, it hasn't been.
|
>> I think it should be mandated for children, who can't make an informed decision andare
>> most likely to to benefit in low speed tumbles.>>
I agree.
>>Adults should be allowed to make up their own minds>>
I agree - though not because there is no evidence that their is a benefit, rather that we all need to be encouraged to make informed decisions rather than being controlled and dumbed down.
Also it's not clear how it would it be enforced or where would it apply.
|
>> because, he figured, it would compel me to ride with greater care.
The problem with that is the amount of accidents that still occur however careful the rider is.
And its more than none.
|
The ambulance makes an unconventional move approaching roundabout in outside line but then cutting across other vehicles to take first exit. Careless/dangerous if you or I did it but fine for an ambulance on blues and twos.
Cyclist should have heard siren but unclear how much opportunity he had to work out where ambulance actually was or to anticipate its driver's intentions. Stopping dead at first sight/sound of blues/twos is NOT sensible.
Not sure if it was accident or design but making progress and getting out of the way is reasonable given circs/speeds and risk of being tail-ended or side swiped if he stopped suddenly.
He's got nothing to complain about though.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 23 Jan 18 at 01:45
|
|
Quite, he was in no danger and if he had kept his gob shut nobody would have thought anything about it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 23 Jan 18 at 01:44
|
|
One of those you manage on the road, it's not ideal but not sure why he's all in a fluster about. Probably after some attention.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 23 Jan 18 at 01:44
|
I had a bit of a shock this morning as I was cycling in the cycle lane near Buckingham Palace. A secure (cordoned off) cycle path now runs all the way from Parliament Square, up Birdcage Walk, Spur Road, round the front of The Palace and up Constitution Hill. And very nice it is too.
Except this morning as I drive round from Birdcage Walk into Spur Road, I am greeted with a Toyota Pious coming straight at me! WTF! I'm guessing he turned into the path from The Mall, and once in couldn't get out because of the posts that cordon the cycle lane off. So he just carried on.
And this from one of TFLs finest licensed mini-cabers!
Last edited by: Boxsterboy on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 16:24
|
>> And this from one of TFLs finest licensed mini-cabers!
probably a self driving Uber car
|
>>
>> >> And this from one of TFLs finest licensed mini-cabers!
>>
>> probably a self driving Uber car
>>
...well, he doesn't say it hit him....so probably not.... ;-)
|
Give all cyclists road tests and make their bikes have a mandatory MoT to cut deaths, says lawyer Mr Loophole (Nick Freeman)
• Road cyclists should undergo bike MOT checks each year to cut accidents
• Cyclists should take a proficiency test
• Drivers should be taught how to overtake cyclists when learning
• He believes new measures will cut the number of crashes on our roads
• All bikes to have some kind of licence plate
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6011829/Give-cyclists-road-tests-says-lawyer-Mr-Loophole.html
|
|
I feel a cyclist bashing thread coming on. Can’t we talk winter tyres instead? :-)
|
To be fair to Nick Freeman his proposal about cyclists is part of a wider list of suggestions including lowered drink drive limits, 80 limit on motorways with lorries limited to lane 1, no hands free phones etc.
Some of his suggestions have merit but the ones about cyclists are not supported by any evidence they will actually improve matters.
|
>> Some of his suggestions have merit but the ones about cyclists are not supported by
>> any evidence they will actually improve matters.
>>
Maybe not but there is a minority of cyclists who, if not willing to find some self control, will bring about regulation for everybody, in just the same way as has happened to motorists over the years.
|
>> ...there is a minority of cyclists who, if not willing to find some self control, will bring about regulation for everybody, in just the same way as has happened to motorists over the years.
The difference is an irresponsible motorist will likely cause you or others harm, whereas an irresponsible cyclist often doesn't get to breed.
|
>> >> ...there is a minority of cyclists who, if not willing to find some self
>> control, will bring about regulation for everybody, in just the same way as has happened
>> to motorists over the years.
>>
>> The difference is an irresponsible motorist will likely cause you or others harm, whereas an
>> irresponsible cyclist often doesn't get to breed.
>>
absolutely but the statement still applies, any death on the roads is serious and the darwinesque tendencies of a minority of cyclists are no less important than the equally bad tendencies of a minority of motorists.
|
>>any death on the roads is serious
Indeed.
Despite the TIC response, the reality is there is no prospect of policing bicycle MOTs, registration, insurance, etc.
None at all.
|
>> Despite the TIC response, the reality is there is no prospect of policing bicycle MOTs,
>> registration, insurance, etc.
>>
>> None at all.
>>
Agree MOT & registration would be next to impossible, insurance, especially 3rd party, would not be very hard at all on individuals.
|
>> Agree MOT & registration would be next to impossible, insurance, especially 3rd party, would not
>> be very hard at all on individuals.
Obtaining 3rd party isn't difficult. I believe it's sometimes bundled with contents/buildings insurance. Or you can join one of the cycling clubs/charities that offer insurance. I've had it for 40 years via CTC/Cycling UK.
Policing it though would surely require registration.
|
|
Actually most cyclists do have liability cover automatically included under their household contents policy. They just don’t realise it
|
|
Would that include offspring, spouses, tenants of BTL etc etc. Maybe it's "some" rather than "most"...
|
|
As far as I am aware it’s fairly standard cover so I think “mostâ€is the right word. You should obviously check your own policy wording.
|
Must have a look at my policy I thought it only covers bike theft.
Does the 3rd part cover on house insurance cover you on a hire bike, Boris bike etc. Does it cover everyone in the family?
Don't need registration particularly to police it, just need personal cycle insurance to be a legal requirement and police the numpties who cycle on pavements or through red lights etc. properly. Stop offender, check insurance confiscate bike & prosecute if not on the system.
Responsible & reasonable majority would not be affected much it's the minority of idiaots who really need dealing with
Like motorists, in general
Last edited by: commerdriver on Thu 2 Aug 18 at 15:57
|
>>just need personal cycle insurance to be a legal requirement and police the numpties who cycle on pavements or through red lights etc. properly. Stop offender, check insurance confiscate bike & prosecute if not on the system
Oh, that's surely worth a LOL, even from NoFM2R
A bit like "Brexit will be the easiest thing in human history" from the eminent Dr Liam Fox.
|
>> Don't need registration particularly to police it, just need personal cycle insurance to be a
>> legal requirement and police the numpties who cycle on pavements or through red lights etc.
>> properly. Stop offender, check insurance confiscate bike & prosecute if not on the system.
Police don't have time now to investigate crimes - this isn't my opinion, they actually tell victims that their crimes will not be investigated when there is (in their opinion) little prospect of detection. So they literally have better things to do than check on cyclists for very little benefit.
The consequences of dangerous cycling, when there are any, are more often than not visited on the cyclist anyway.
|
|
Tbh when you see some of the stuff people call 999 about I am quite grateful they don't investigate everything!! But that would seem a sensible decision with finite resource, even though some may feel it unpalatable for their own incident.
|
>> the ones about cyclists are not supported by any evidence they will actually improve matters.
I don't know, but it seems rather more linked to a "we have to do it so should they" attitude from motorists.
My manifesto would be;
- Proficiency courses/tests should be available for those that want them.
- Tickets can be enforced by police and something like traffic wardens. Maybe even actually traffic wardens.
- Lighting and obeying the road law should be enforced with tickets which either cost money or enforce proficiency training.
That together with compulsory ID cards for the entire population should sort out most of the issues.
|
I think Nick Freeman has made an error in his 10 point plan.
Number 1 should be to close loopholes in the law which allow dangerous/drunken/speeding/ phone using drivers to stay on the road among us, and him to become very rich from it.
The man has no conscience whatsoever when he is more responsible in a negative way for the total lack of road safety he shows in his quest to put his own income first.
Other than that, he has no qualifications whatsoever to pontificate on the changes he'd like to see made to improve our roads.
When was the last time he rode a cycle in a city?
Pat
|
When was the last time me rode a cycle in the city?
road.cc/content/news/200126-video-cycling-vigilante-takes-mr-loophole-bike-ride-lawyers-views-havent-changed
27th June 2016?
How about you?
Are not your views on cyclist pretty similar to Mr Freeman’s? I thought you had advocated at least some the measures he recommends in the past.
|
CG, I don't have to ride a cycle in London to have an informed view of the situation. A lifetime of driving lorries in London and other major cities, sharing the roads safely with them has given me that.
I may well agree with *some* of his views but I'm not about to take seriously a load of PR speak from someone who admits to this
>>Freeman says his job is to “provide proper representation†for drivers, but admits the “net effect of certain cases†might be that dangerous drivers get off without prosecution. <<
Do you approve of his ethics?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 2 Aug 18 at 03:05
|
Wed 1 Aug 18 15:41
"When was the last time he rode a cycle in a city?"
Thu 2 Aug 18 03:05
"I don't have to ride a cycle in London to have an informed view of the situation."
|
Reference the selective quote above, here is the full quote as I'm sure the poster meant to point out.
> I don't have to ride a cycle in London to have an informed view of the situation. A lifetime of driving lorries in London and other major cities, sharing the roads safely with them has given me that.<
Pat
|
>>Reference the selective quote above, here is the full quote as I'm sure the poster meant to point out.
No, you are wrong again. I quoted exactly the two sentences I meant to and made exactly the quite obvious point I desired.
Here it is again to help with your confusion;
Wed 1 Aug 18 15:41
"When was the last time he rode a cycle in a city?"
Thu 2 Aug 18 03:05
"I don't have to ride a cycle in London to have an informed view of the situation."
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Aug 18 at 11:25
|
Mark,
CG also asked further down "How about you?"
Which I suspect is why Pat is replying, and not mistakenly replying to the "When was the last time he rode a cycle in a city?" part of the question.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 2 Aug 18 at 09:47
|
|
You are confused, Dave, but thank you so much for your attempt to help.
|
>> You are confused, Dave,
Glad I'm not the only one.
|
>> >> You are confused, Dave,
>>
>> Glad I'm not the only one.
>>
That's got the elements of a great song lyric
|
>>Do you approve of his ethics?
I am not sure.
If we want to enforce the letter of the law and convict every guilty person then we have to follow the letter of the law in all directions. We can't say that the law is absolute with regards to judging someone, but a bit wobbly about how we prove their guilt.
If the law is written correctly, and if everybody follows the rules, then there is no loophole. If someone fails to follow the process, then how can you convict them?
Ok, he takes a very literal view of the words in trying to get people acquitted, but conversely prosecution lawyers also take a very literal view of the words when pursuing a conviction. Which is probably how it should be. There is no room for discretion in the guilty / not guilty decision, or at least there shouldn't be. The discretion should be within the sentencing.
All in all, I don't think his ethics trouble me overly, though I don't think I'd like him very much.
|
"I don't have to ride a cycle in London to have an informed view of the situation. " Exactly although you somehow think it relevant to Mr Freeman's right to speak on the issue
I would think that his view, as someone acquainted with numerous offences and accidents, has as much or little validity as yours
"Do you approve of is ethics"
As a solicitor he is legally bound to do the best by his clients. If he is aware of technicality in the law that would mean his client can escape prosecution he is legally obliged to advise him of that defence whatever the outcome. It would be unethical for him to act in any way other than in the best interest rest of his client He is remarkably good at what he does hence his fame or notoriety but all solicitors are bound to work in the interest of their clients and that is not necessarily the same as the interest of the public.
The ethical decision really lies with the client not the solicitor.
Imagine that have committed an offence. Your lawyer tells you of a technicality in the police case as to how you may escape prosecution. The alternative is to plead guilty. You choose the technical defence as you don't want a driving ban and lose your job . Is that an ethical decision or should you have pleaded guilty?
If the solicitor didn't tell you of the watertight defence and you were banned how would you react when you found out?
|
CG this is addressed at you to avoid any misunderstanding!
I absolutely agree with everything you say about his duties to his clients and his right to do his best by them.
I accept it is his legal duty.
What I don't agree with is his credentials or double standards in proposing 10 points to improve road safety.
He lost the right to have any qualified opinion on road safety when he perpetuates the serial speeding drivers (most more than 30MPH over), the drink/drug drivers and the like to remain on our roads and potentially being a danger to us all.
What he is eminently qualified to do is to expose any loopholes in the law and challenge any legal wording.
The best course of action for him to address his concerns about road safety would be work towards advising how those loopholes could be closed quickly and efficiently.
Then, I may just listen to him.
Pat
|
>> I accept it is his legal duty.
>> He lost the right to have any qualified opinion on road safety when he perpetuates
>> the serial speeding drivers (most more than 30MPH over), the drink/drug drivers and the
>> like to remain on our roads and potentially being a danger to us all.
So he lost his right to an opinion for doing his duty?
snip. You know why.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 3 Aug 18 at 02:04
|
He's having a laugh - his career is all about helping people evade the consequences of breaking the law.
He's right about teaching drivers to overtake cyclists. The attitude of many seems to be that a cyclist requires no space at all and can happily be overtaken at 60mph without hesitation or deviation.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 1 Aug 18 at 17:08
|
As I was dawdling fifty feet from a red light this morning a cyclist came out from a side road immediately in front of me, stuck his hand in the air like a policeman to tell me to stop and went in front of me. I came to a sharpish stop, gave him a gentle toot by way of alerting him to my presence and a conversation followed.
[Aggressively]"you were going to have to stop anyway, what was it to you?"
[Very nicely]"Look, I cycle too; why would you pull out in front of a moving car? Why would you do that to yourself? I don't want you to end up squished."
[silenced cyclist]
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 2 Aug 18 at 12:25
|
I live near a busy road with a well-used pavement that varies between 4&5 feet wide. I regularly meet cyclists riding and expecting pedestrians to give way. Even worse is when they come from behind without any warning and squeeze by.
When challeged, one of them asked I read the f....ing papers because the police had now said cyclists were allowed on the pavement. And that was a woman.
I don't see how tests and MOTs would address the ignorant and selfish minority.
|
>> I don't see how tests and MOTs would address the ignorant and selfish minority.
My walk from car park to office is just under half a mile. One street is buses and taxis only. The other is bit of a lightly trafficked square round a church. A child, once off stabilisers, could ride there safely. But it doesn't stop teenage males riding on the pavement at speed and dodging round vulnerable pedestrians.
Less than sotto-voce comments about being big enough to ride on road have no impact whatsoever.
|
Just back from a couple of weeks in France, we always take our bikes when we go there. It's a much more integrated system, well, it certainly is in the region we visit regularly.
Pretty much all the pavements are dual usage with the roadside half dedicated to bikes and the other to pedestrians. Works really well. In a couple of hundred miles of bike touring using that system I never once encountered or observed any conflict. Motorised vehicles are unimpeded, pedestrians are safe and bikes are not just tolerated, but welcomed and catered for with plenty of bike parking areas, and even their own lanes on roundabouts etc on the odd stretches where it's not possible for them to be off road.
Not only is it about sensible street management but also about attitude. Everyone just seems to happily accept each other and respect their space. Pedestrians don't ( by and large ) walk in the bike lanes and cyclists don't ride on the pedestrian sections.
Felt very safe and enjoyable.
|
>> Just back from a couple of weeks in France, we always take our bikes when
>> we go there.
>>
Cycling in France is superb. We were in the Dordogne last month. I set my Garmin to guide me on a 40-mile round loop. After 1hrs and 9 mins of cycling, I was passed by the third car...
Mind you, this was the morning after their World Cup win!
|
Noting the question re e bike to Bromptonaut.
Son is now commuting from home to/from his office using a folding, front wheel drive, EAPC
( ebike.)
A Xiaomi Qicycle
www.techadvisor.co.uk/review/accessories/xiaomi-qicycle-3663884/
He paid a lot less than the discounted price by importing it himself.
He has a shelf on the front for his goodies and will add mudguards.
He is very tech savvy so no problems there and is pleased with it so far.
It even has an electronic sound generator that sounds a tradition bell to alert those phone engrossed pedestrians.
A couple of reviews
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIFyakn5P5k
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSkqgXV60RE
|
Noting the question re e bike to Bromptonaut......."
Prompted by Brompt's mention of a new Brompton (tongue-twister alert), I took a look at the Brompton website and noticed that they were now producing an e-bike - which is why I asked the question.
I first took an interest in e-bikes a bit over 6 years ago when my daughter bought a cheap Chinese job, a ladies step-through style from Prorider (£579 iirc) That particular design now appears to have been dropped
www.proriderleisure.com/bike/electric-bikes.html
We thought that the battery would last for 3 or 4 years, but it is still getting my daughter the couple of miles to work after the 6+ years.
A friend recently went cycling along the Dutch coast. Upon his return, I remarked that it must have been pretty easy cycling - but he said that, although the terrain was flat, the wind was awful. It took a while to dawn on him that all the oldies who were blasting past him were riding e-bikes. So, shortly after getting home, he bought a 'Bergamont' e-bike.
Mrs H and I got to try his e-bike - and we were very impressed by both the quality of the build and the joy of suddenly developing stronger leg-muscles. We did some research and a month ago settled for a brace of Cube e-bikes with Bosch motors and control systems. If anyone wants to know more about e-bikes, I now have some knowledge (but not expert).
|
Not sure if I haven't done all this some time ago?
I bought this bike - actually its immediate predecessor - so I got a couple of hundred off - some 2 and a half years ago.
tinyurl.com/yc6tbrmw
I am pleased with the bike and happy with ebikesdirect. not much more to say. I use it for rides, as opposed to shopping, or errands, 2 or 3 times a week. We have a bike mechanic in one of the groups, he says the battery should last five years. Fingers crossed.
I am happy to talk about it, either on here or in private, if anyone is thinking of starting with an e bike.
|
>> Noting the question re e bike to Bromptonaut.
>> Son is now commuting from home to/from his office using a folding, front wheel drive,
>> EAPC
>> ( ebike.)
>> A Xiaomi Qicycle
Looks like a good deal. It's not an E-Brompton rival as it's at a radically different price point but certainly sort of thing I'd look at if/when I want or need electric assistance.
The techadvisor review suggests mudguards are something you need for off road use. In fact you really need them and a bit more for riding on wet tarmac - without mud and spray flaps you'll get very wet and dirty very quickly. My original Brompton in 1999 had guards but no rear sprayflap. First time out after a heavy shower and I had a 'skunk stripe' all the way up my back and a wet bum too.
Shortly afterwards they added a spray flap as part of a revamp and like most B upgrades it will fit older models too:
www.evanscycles.com/brompton-mudflap-rear-00103001
Problem solved.
|
Agree -for use of bike on wet London streets mudguards are being obtained.
Will mention a spray flap. Front spray flap to divert spay from footwear ?
Bike has lugs for attaching a stand which he does not require.
|
New laws for cyclists? - Bromptonaut
