tinyurl.com/bqbjfkb
Some interesting views from an expert cyclist at the bottom of this report.
Pat
|
Everything he says is spot on except the call for helmet compulsion. I'd be prepared to wager a largish sum that yesterday's victim would be just as dead if he had been wearing one. My hip and clavicle would be just as broken if I'd worn one four weeks ago.
There's no evidence from places where helmets have been made compulsory that they reduce casualties. Even in TdF type road racing there were only a tiny number of deaths attributable to head injury and compulsory helmets have made no difference.
I'm not sure whether being a professional track/road sportsman makes Brad an expert on commuting. His comments will have kicked up a stir on cycling forums where helmet compulsion is the equivalent of politics and/or religion. He will also have lost a lot of respect.
|
>>will have kicked up a stir on cycling forums where helmet compulsion is the equivalent of >>politics and/or religion. He will also have lost a lot of respect.
Just goes to show how bloodyminded, militant, reactionary and stupid these cyclists are then doesn't it. And you wonder why we dont take them seriously?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 10:12
|
Thanks for that rational response oh great one.
There's a serious debate to be had on helmets. Unfortunately it's invariably befuddled by people who put anecdote before evidence - my helmet saved my life etc...
|
|
I'm with Zero, any cyclist that doesn't know that headbutting concrete, a tree, car, etc. hurts, should not be on a bike. Brain damage is not good or easily fixed.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 10:09
|
>> There's a serious debate to be had on helmets. Unfortunately it's invariably befuddled by people
>> who put anecdote before evidence - my helmet saved my life etc...
Personally I prefer to wear a cycling helmet as do the majority of my cycling acquaintances with a few notable exceptions, however I view the debate as being similar to that around compulsory seatbelt wearing (or perhaps the smoking ban in public places) - many argued at the time these were introduced that these were somehow an imposition, perhaps they were ? I'd suggest that the real issue is that common sense somehow needs to be legislated for....
|
>> Thanks for that rational response oh great one.
There you see, typical militant cyclist response to my RATIONAL comment about cyclists. Ypu guys want all the rights, all the road access without accepting any of the risks or regulations that go with it.
Alas my old son people like you are part of the problem. How can anyone not have respect for a guy like Wiggins just because he has views on cycling helmets. .
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 10:14
|
|
On his cycling he will retain respect. On his powers of analysis: he'd better stick to what he knows.
|
>> There you see, typical militant cyclist response to my RATIONAL comment about cyclists. Ypu guys
>> want all the rights, all the road access without accepting any of the risks or
>> regulations that go with it.
>>
>> Alas my old son people like you are part of the problem. How can anyone
>> not have respect for a guy like Wiggins just because he has views on cycling
>> helmets. .
If you think I'm militant you should meet some of my mates!!
There's no proven case that regulation, in the form of helmet compulsion will affect cycling casualty rates. Australian compulsion reduced numbers riding while head injury rates stayed steady. Somewhere on the net is a graph of cumulative deaths in professional racing since the sixties. No change at all since compulsion in the nineties. Casartelli died wearing one.
Wiggins should know this is a touchy subject amongst road/utility cyclists and not give ammunition to the media and politicians who see bashing cyclists as popular.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 14:06
|
So Wiggins is wrong for having an opinion which differs from the very vocal cyclists we hear from on a weekly basis?
His opinion is valid, as is the one from the RHA, and on the JV programme at lunch time most callers backed wearing a helmet.
Why are cyclist so closed to any other viewpoint?
It has to be remembered, as I said earlier, that in every accident involving a cyclist, no matter what percentages you come up with, 100% of them did involved a cyclist, so surely the education/and or remedies would have more effect if that huge majority was targeted.
But no, those 100% want everyone else to change to accomodate them.
Pat
|
Pat,
I don't know who the vocal cyclists are. On here I speak for myself. There's no more homogeneous '!00%' in cycling than there is in truck driving.
What Brad said about obeying traffic rules and not riding with i-pods etc was spot on. There's a huge amount that could be done by education, particularly, in London, focussing on 'freshers' at universities and colleges. Good old fashioned public information films would help too. As well as educating riders those can also cover the give room/look once look twice/bikes move faster than you think advice
On helmets there is no real evidence of their efficacy in reducing real world casualties. I'm not saying Brad's wrong for having an opinion but given there's not much evidential back up and given he ought to know it's a minefield I rather wish he'd not said it.
|
>>I'm not saying Brad's wrong for having an opinion but given there's not much evidential back up and given he ought to know it's a minefield I rather wish he'd not said it.
>>
Just to add
Sky have just interviewed Cav and he endorses - always wear a helmet, - so the topic is not going away in the near future.
|
|
It wasn't that long ago just as helmets became the norm in the TdF that riders would throw their helmets to the side of the road before starting a climb, even in this years race many of the top riders undo their helmet straps as they ride, many tests have shown helmets only to be effective only 12mph and since the removal of the Snell test and use of the CE mark they are not classified as safety devices. I've never got on with them, I've tried many times but I find I can ride safer without one, and I don't want that choice taken away from me.
|
>> but I find I can ride safer without one
Rudeog, on what basis does wearing a helmet prevent you from riding safe?
|
>> Rudeog, on what basis does wearing a helmet prevent you from riding safe?
>>
RD will no doubt reply for himself but I hold same POV.
I've never found one that's comfortable. A helmet weighs around 200g. Ventilation is good on the move but as soon as you're in stop start traffic or climbing you know you have a plastic hat on and sweat under it.
Bits of it, straps and edges, are in peripheral vision and even if only subliminally it also affects my hearing. The strap under the chin soon gets an itch and I'm constantly fiddling with it to detriment of control.
I'd rather have full vision and hearing and take my chances with banging my head on the road, I've done that once in forty years of utility and leisure biking. The worst part of the injury was my neck being twisted; something a helmet won't help and can make worse.
Convenience wise I have to take my specs off to don or remove the helmet. It's something else to carry and, given the nature of my ride I'd manage to leave it on the train at least twice a year.
|
Sorry just got in from work.
You must have read my mind! I've tried several types, and even the most expensive one that was light as a feather just stopped me from being totally aware of my surrounding, unless I had it done up so tight I nearly passed out the helmet would move independently of my head! also unfortunately I sweat a lot (really a lot) from my head and it was like riding with a plastic bag of water stuck to my head.
All riders should be treated equally wether you are wearing a helmet or not, and I should have the choice to decide to wear or not to wear.
|
>> Wiggins should know this is a touchy subject amongst road/utility cyclists and not give ammunition
>> to the media and politicians who see bashing cyclists as popular.
>>
Why? Is he not an experienced cyclist and entitled to his view.
What happens if the media and politicians think a significant number of cyclists have their head in the sand and need educating, if necessary by using the law?
|
Actually I think that Bromp has a point here.
The bloke was flattened by a bus, so a brightly coloured confection of plastic and polystyrene on his bonce would have made no difference.
Bringing it up in the context of that accident is a helmet rant for the sake of it and no more.
Likewise, as it was in broad daylight, the lighting comment is equally irrelevant and we also have no evidence that the poor beggar was talking on the phone or using an MP3 player at the time.
The cast-iron stupidity in there was the comment on helmets and "Boris bikes". I can't see ad-hoc bike rental systems being anywhere near as popular if you were obliged to carry a bike helmet around all the time, on the off-chance you might feel the need to use one.
I reckon that Mr Wiggins has made himself look a bit of a plonker by using the opportunity to comment on this incident to trot out his pet rants.
|
'Contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of cycle helmets'
www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html (Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation)
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 10:13
|
|
When it has been shown many times that the cycle helmets available are very limited in their value, why is it that that apparent non-cyclists clamour for compulsion? It might even be a cause of injuries through rotation. Cutting cycle use, which is what will happen if Australia is anything to go by, by making helmet wearing compulsory, might just suit the agenda of the car-centric.
|
Cycling in London is becoming almost as hazardous as being a rear gunner in the war.
I believe yesterday's death is the tenth this year.
Lorries and coaches make up the majority of death and injury accidents in the linked table.
Seems London cyclists would be wise to steer clear of large vehicles.
tinyurl.com/cuta43p
|
>> Seems London cyclists would be wise to steer clear of large vehicles.
>>
I keep clear of them when I am in my car, don't people realise they have blind spots and need room to manouver?
Riding a bike obviously needs more leg than brain power.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 10:31
|
>> Cycling in London is becoming almost as hazardous as being a rear gunner in the
>> war.
>> Seems London cyclists would be wise to steer clear of large vehicles.
There's quite a bit you can do as a cyclist to improve your own safety and that's certainly one of them. The classic bus / lorry accident is when the large vehicle makes a left turn across or simply moves over on a cyclist who is riding near the kerb. Sometimes the cyclist has actually gone up the inside of the lorry which further increases the chance of the driver not knowing they are there.
In the lanes here it's the near passes that are scary. I try to leave three feet of space on my left and as the vehicle reaches me I move left slightly to increase the clearance. Van mirrors scare me after I was knocked over by one while walking on a pavement!
|
We should remember that in that list Iffy, that 100% of those accidents involve cyclists.
Pat
|
>> The bloke was flattened by a bus, so a brightly coloured confection of plastic and
>> polystyrene on his bonce would have made no difference.
>>
Pure speculation.
>> it was in broad daylight,
>>
" .... was struck by an official Olympic bus in Hackney at around 7.40pm on Wednesday night "
|
@John H
The guy was pronounced dead at the scene after being run over by a bus. We'll have to wait for an inquest but I'd be 99% certain cause was multiple traumatic injury.
19:40 is approx one hour before sunset. Low sun may be an issue but would certainly not be anywhere near twilight never mind dark.
|
>> The guy was pronounced dead at the scene after being run over by a bus.
>> We'll have to wait for an inquest but I'd be 99% certain cause was multiple
>> traumatic injury.
>>
"run over", "flattened" - where do you guys get that from?
The report linked in the OP says "hit", "struck", "collision".
>> 19:40 is approx one hour before sunset. Low sun may be an issue but would
>> certainly not be anywhere near twilight never mind dark.
>>
1. so it was "broad daylight", was it?
2. what was the cloud cover and/or weather at the time at that spot?
3. is the location in a shaded area?
4. what was the state of artificial lighting at the time?
5. what was the state of any Games related displays and/or decorative lighting at the time?
Plenty of other questions and speculation in the meantime. I shall wait until the inquest to draw any conclusions apart from as you say "guy was pronounced dead at the scene".
|
Run over or flattened:
www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/xiud7/just_sat_down_with_some_poor_bloke_for_his_last/
Eye witness account and not for the faint hearted. Suggests victim went n/s of large vehicle which should be a No No unless you're absolutely confident of it's immobility.
|
...Eye witness account...
This saddens me, it used to need journalistic nous to get an eye witness account, now you just sit in front of a screen and wait for it to be posted somewhere or other.
I would still be concerned to establish the bona fides of the writer, but many of my colleagues wouldn't.
|
If that report is correct then once again we have a driver arrested and it being widely reported, when in fact, he should have been invited to help the Police with their enquiries.
Will it be reported as widely if he's not charged? No, of course not.
Would he have been likely to have done a runner? No.
Would he have been devastated at what had just happened? Yes, undoubtedly.
But all of this isn't taken into consideration, let's just arrest him and tell the world. The vast majority of course will think that means it was his fault.
Pat
|
>> If that report is correct then once again we have a driver arrested....
Ah, that would be the work of Richard "Motorist-hating Nazi" Brunstrom.
Road fatality = crime scene. Any possibility of a driver being responsible, however slight = arrest.
The majority result in release without charge. Presumably Mr Brunstrom gets a percentage from the firms that make the forms for the paperwork.
"Guilty until proven innocent" via the back door.
|
...Ah, that would be the work of Richard "Motorist-hating Nazi" Brunstrom.
Road fatality = crime scene. Any possibility of a driver being responsible, however slight = arrest...
The policy of treating a road accident as a crime scene began long before Brunstrom made himself busy with motorists.
...The majority result in release without charge...
The reverse is true in my experience, particularly as we now have five specific offences of causing a death while driving, plus the old standbys of manslaughter and murder.
An almost no fault death by driving case is one of the few times I have any sympathy with a defendant - this bus driver might be just such a case.
The courts are beginning to think the same way as we are now seeing the occasional suspended sentence for a killer driver who might have done next to nothing wrong.
|
>> >> ...The majority result in release without charge...
>> >>
>> The reverse is true in my experience,
>>
Do you have any stats to back your claim?
AFAIK, every fatal collision results in an automatic arrest. The process seems to be arrest first, think later.
|
>> AFAIK, every fatal collision results in an automatic arrest. The process seems to be arrest
>> first, think later.
>>
>>
>>
To be fair it's not limited to motoring offences. Most if not all of the suspects in phone hacking and related misdemeanours have been arrested and bailed while investigations continue. Same with Damian Green MP when, in opposition, he came under suspicion in a leak inquiry.
Presumably there's some statute or case law that's pushed things that way. Can one of our BiB or lawyer members throw any light?
|
>> Ah, that would be the work of Richard "Motorist-hating Nazi" Brunstrom.
Is he really a Nazi?
|
>> 1. so it was "broad daylight", was it?
Well, the footage on the telly, showing the bus and the cordoned off area was shot in broad daylight so, unless they'd left it 'til the following day before taking him away, it was.
Slight shading from surrounding trees and buildings, but nothing to write home about.
I'd have said excellent visibility myself.
|
>> >> 1. so it was "broad daylight", was it?
>>
>> Well, the footage on the telly, showing the bus and the cordoned off area was
>> shot in broad daylight so, unless they'd left it 'til the following day before taking
>> him away, it was.
>> Slight shading from surrounding trees and buildings, but nothing to write home about.
>>
>> I'd have said excellent visibility myself.
>>
IMO you cannot judge the light level from the images generated modern cameras.
How often has the clear bright image on the TV been supplemented with a commentator saying how poor the visibility is?
|
@all:
Cyclists, Trucks, Horses - I give them all extra special attention when they are near me on the road.
@TeeCee:
>> Well, the footage on the telly, showing the bus and the cordoned off area was
>> shot in broad daylight so,
>>
= relying on footage on the telly to guess light levels.
>> I'd have said excellent visibility myself.
>>
= relying on footage on the telly to guess light levels.
|
I hope he doesn't lose respect just for having an opinion and stating it. Sounds more worthy of respect to me.
I'm not generally in favour of compulsion, in this case it might be a good idea. You don't need to be a road racer to fall off, and even a pothole accident at walking pace can be fatal if something gets in the way of a rider's unprotected head.
I don't wear one of course because I don't think it will happen to me - and it turns the simple matter of tucking my trousers into my sock and jumping on the bike to go to the paper shop from a pleasure into an irritation. I suppose I should look for a comfortable helmet if such a thing exists.
|
If you look at the statistics, don't think casualty rates for cyclists is too high.
It is always a risk to ride a two wheeler (not just pedal bikes) in London traffic. No legislation can reduce accident rate to zero.
Some incidents are just accidents. Cyclists in London have a choice to use public transport. But they calculate how many milliseconds (and few quids) they could save riding a bike instead. Sometimes the gamble doesn't pay off.
RIP poor chap.
|
This has also appeared in all the industry press during the last couple of weeks but I can't find a direct link to it.
>>
RHA warns against "mentally overloading" drivers
26 July 2012
By Chris Tindall
The Road Haulage Association is warning against “mentally overloading” drivers after an influential group of MPs said hauliers should be encouraged to fit sensors to their fleet.
The Transport Select Committee (TSC) describes a 15% rise in cyclist deaths as “unacceptable” and that the government needs to step in and find ways for HGV drivers and operators to adopt sensors.
It cites figures suggesting that lorries are involved in 20% of collisions where cyclists are killed.
Giving evidence to the TSC’s Inquiry earlier this year the RHA warned that the technology could be counterproductive.
Head of international affairs Peter Cullum says: “We have no objection to sensors, but they have to do the job they are required to do. An alert system purely for the driver runs the risk that it overloads mentally the driver and that isn’t fair. Is it a sensor for the use of the cyclist, lorry driver or both? A little more thought is needed. It’s fine, but what exactly is it supposed to do?”
He adds: “The argument often used is that trucks are involved in a disproportionate number of accidents and fatalities. But as far as I know it’s not the majority; that is still vans and cars, and so if trucks are to be fitted with sensors then arguably they should be fitted to vans and cars too.”
<<
It's a very valid point and to be backed by the Road Haulage Association will be taken seriously.
Pat
|
Or cyclists should not ride up the inside of large vehicles. No sensors needed. If you're going to come off worse in tangling with something you make yourself safe first!
What isn't mentioned is the risk per million driven miles. If you are hit by a truck then you're more likely to die as it is bigger and heavier than you are. It doesn't necessarily follow that you are more likely to be hit by a truck.
15% rise in cyclist deaths could just mean a rise in cycled miles so the risk has remained the same.
For some reason the roads around London are far more dangerous than just about any other area of the country. Why is this? Accident rates per head of population are significantly bigger compared to most other places. Either there are a lot of miles done or London drivers are dangerous idiots.
|
I never got on my bike without my helmet - even to the paper shop. Helmet loops over the handlebars when not in use so is first thing picked up before I wheel my bike out.
Years ago, my first helmet was a huge eggshell that sat on top of my head, my current one is snug and fits very comfortably and you quickly forget you are wearing it.
Several years ago, my brother was knocked off his bike whilst cycling on a cycle path in Harlow or Bishops Stortford (can't remember where he stayed at that point). Surgeons said that without his helmet, he would either have been dead or seriously brain injured. Thats good enough reason for me to wear one.
My main fear when cycling is not so much getting knocked off my bike as such, it is what I will hit when I fall. And the vast majority of time I am cycling beside a solid 90 degree kerb which I am sure would be the winner with my skull.
I have to agree with some of Zero's comments above, as a cyclist I always wear hi vis top. I have a T shirt, a long sleeved top and a waterproof that are all fluorescent yellow. No matter what the weather is I will be wearing that colour. Agree its not a pretty sight but its a s sight and thats what matters. I regularly see two types of road cyclists, the enthusiast and the commuter, and very rarely do they have hi vis on. Why do they not wear it? Especially in Scotland where you get 4 seasons in one hour, why do they set off for a long run wearing black from head to toe?
Its like motorbikes, if I rode one, especially on the motorway, I would always have my headlight on. But you see many bikers without.
|
I used to cycle 4 miles to school and still have the scars of falling off on ice and going through a wire fence...
I see far too many cyclists who have no idea of defensive cycling. As a runner on roads, I always wear hi vis jackets/vests and run in the sides of roads where it is most unlikely I will be hit by oncoming traffic which may only see me at the last minute. If there are two cars approaching each other on a narrow road and I am in the middle I run onto the walls or the hedges just to be safe.
I see many cyclists weaving in and out of traffic and going round roundabouts with large lorries or buses beside them: a no no.
The only people worse are motorcyclists many of whom appear to be brain dead .. they often end that way as well round here..
Barely a week goes by without news of fatal accidents on either category...in our local press...
|
>> I see far too many cyclists who have no idea of defensive cycling.
Absolutely.
In my cycling days all cyclists rode defensively. We turned our head round to the right and looked behind us (a) before signalling to turn right, (b) before turning right, (c) before signalling to pass a parked vehicle, (d) before pulling out to pass a parked vehicle, and (e) routinely periodically to check for traffic behind. We also signalled to turn left. I see very little of any of that happening today. In addition we listened for traffic behind ~ we wouldn't have dreamt of blocking our hearing by having something inserted into our ears like a large number of today's cyclists seem to have. We also had a rear reflector, front and rear lights during the hours of darkness, and a bell.
|
I've noticed a tendency for cyclists to display a flashing rear light in daylight. It certainly helped in spotting them earlier when they were having some sort of race on the A1 the other day. Why anyone would want to do that, with the massive difference in vehicle speeds, I don't know.
Perhaps I might leave mine on.
|
A surprisingly balanced article from a usually unbalanced organ:
tinyurl.com/cjv2uor
(Daily MAil)
|
>> A surprisingly balanced article from a usually unbalanced organ:
>>
>> tinyurl.com/cjv2uor
>>
>> (Daily MAil)
>>
It's absolute rubbish..
"l. I don’t think I have ever seen a Dutchman or woman wearing head protection, and the Netherlands’ road safety record is excellent, (matching ours, in fact, as the best in the world, although it is a better place to ride a bike)."
I have not seen a Dutchman wearing a helmet either.
Which proves nothing.
It's full of assertions and opinions and no facts: so typical Daily Mail.
|
Much more sensible article in the torygraph which sums up what most rational people think ie everyone has to do more - cyclists, car drivers and large vehicle drivers alike.
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9446765/Cycle-safety-time-for-talking-has-stopped.html
|
I don't find the Telegraph article very illuminating. Blind spot mirrors aside, he seems mainly to be having a go at cyclists -
"Far tougher action has to be taken against cyclists who jump red lights, ride on the pavements and put other road users at risk.
Fines are just a start, serial offenders should be taken off the road which can be done by a cycling equivalent of an ASBO."
There was controversy ISTR about an idea that in any collision between motor vehicle and bike, the driver should be deemed responsible unless proved otherwise.
That goes a bit too far (a cyclist in Cambridge actually rode at speed off a pavement into my wife's car as she pulled away in a queue would you believe, the dent is still there) but too many drivers are in my opinion downright dangerous around cyclists - a driver ahead of me pulled out to pass one just before a blind right hander today, a manoeuvre that's all too typical,had oncoming traffic appeared it would have been the cyclist at risk for sure.
Criminalising cyclists won't save any lives. It's probably the less militant and assertive ones who are most at risk.
|
|
Good and balanced article I thought. The author is not peddling an anti helmet message so much as describing why it's complicated. Certainly I would have no confidence that compulsory wearing would have any material effect on safety vs. large vehicles.
|
I place anti helmet messages in the same category as anti seatbelt wearing ones.
|
>> I place anti helmet messages in the same category as anti seatbelt wearing ones.
There was evidence for seatbelt compulsion. There's no evidence for helmet compulsion.
Not that it makes any difference if politicians decide it will be popular.
|
I really do think that it's cyclists own attitude which makes them the author of their own fate.
If they were prepared to give a bit and meet in the middle they would receive far more consideration from other road users.
We all recognise there is a problem, no-one can pinpoint just what causes that problem, but with some effort from all sides it could be solved.
Don't forget, we're talking people's lives here.
Pat
|
I've no objection or argument with anyone who chooses to wear a cycle helmet. For the record, I choose not to. Most of my cycling is though offroad but can be fairly extreme on occasion. I have fallen off more times than I could possibly count but never sustained so much as a bang to the head luckily, so maybe my judgement is biased. However, many reasonably serious mountain bikers either don't wear them at all or undo the strap when on more challenging sections as there is a, perhaps apochryphal, fear of rotational neck injury caused by the twisting force of a fastened helmet in the event of an unplanned high speed dismount.
I see it as a choice to be made in the way some choose to wear body armour and others don't. I choose not to wear that either. The additional heat build up and restriction of movement are also downsides and mild dangers in their own right.
Many modern skiers also choose to wear helmets but again they're not for me. Anything which restricts hearing is a risk also. Without a ski helmet you can hear out of line of sight or overtaking others slope users, with one you may not.
I don't mock or regret the existance or use of helmets. I'm sure many people at least feel safer wearing them on their bikes and that's fine. I don't want to see them made compulsary though.
It's bit like making standing on one leg illegal because it might be unstable and lead to injury. Of course it is and it might but the one legged stander sort of knows that and at least they are allowed to make that choice...
:-)
|
and at least they are allowed to make that choice...
Well summarised, that's the emotive issue here really, the compulsion aspect. I also choose not to wear a helmet, it's my risk decision and I consider the risk event low where I ride. In London I may feel different and wear one.
|
|
And I dont wear one either, but I wouldnt vilify someone who suggests it shouldbe legal, like the miltant cycle faction does. Its these aggresive reactionary cyclists who give all the rest a bad name.
|
I didn't think I was vilifying anyone. Just a counter point of view was all. That's still allowed isn't it?
:-)
|
I wasnt pointing that remark to you, moreso to reinforce my post some hours ago while you were still asleep. I dont think you count as the militant biking faction.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 19:18
|
|
Asleep my harris ! Been in the smoke today. It was great driving around. There was almost no one else there ! A few cyclists mind...
|
>> A few cyclists mind...
One less today. One wonders how many pedestrians get killed every day.
|
Just for the record, Wiggins did not call for helmets to be made compulsory. He said cyclists should wear them, which is rather different.
I never wear one as I don't think they are any benefit. I've cycled for 45 years, racing for many of those and been off countless times. You don't fall from a bicycle in the same manner you do from a motorbike. A motorbike will be several times heavier than it's rider and it's momentum will launch the rider into the air after a collision (watch when a GP rider highsides). A bicycle is too light to do that and the rider will fall under his own weight, almost always taking the force of impact with the shoulder. Many helmets will look a complete mess after that sort of accident, they are more likely to make contact with the ground as they have added two inches to the riders head diameter and they are made to crumple on impact.
As Brompt alluded to earlier, head injuries among pro race cyclists have always been very rare, and deaths from such injuries so insignificant they would not make a statistic. Pro cyclists who crash less than a dozen times a season are remarkably lucky (the average for a Tour de France rider is three during the event) and they come off at much higher speeds that the rest of us. Yet before helmets were compulsory the event ran for 90 years with one single head injury fatality and that was when the rider hit his head on the edge of a concrete block at 90kph. A polystyrene helmet would have been useless to him.
Helmets for cyclists are one of those things that would seen a sensible safety aid at first glance, but when you look into it it is much more complicated than that. No statistics have ever managed to prove that helmet wearing makes any difference at all and all we are left with are the "I landed on my head(yeah right, how's the broken neck and spine?) stories". Cycle helmets join bottled water as two of the most useless ideas of the last century.
|
Re "I really do think that it's cyclists own attitude which makes them the author of their own fate."
I can see why, for the sake of polemics, you might want to consider cyclists as a deviant group, but surely it cannot be just one sort of road user to blame, Pat? Other posters keep pointing out the fact that cyclists are not a separate race, nor have they they taken some sort of vow or pledge. They are usually (the adults at least) car owners and drivers themselves. However, when they ride, they may come across an environment hostile to non-motorised traffic. Influenced by an element of industry-sponsored aggression. By this I mean car design intended to intimidate, used as a marketing tool. Obviously this does not extend to those cars, held in contempt by the motoring press, which are so meek and mild as not to appeal to thrusting and impatient young males, kings in their own environment. The road, which they believe they own. A link to this fascinating subject of aggression as a marketing tool: tinyurl.com/d55kkvj Audi face? These faces? tinyurl.com/c8zumvo This propaganda is assimilated by some at least of the "lucky" users and their less successful accolytes who yearn for the empty, swooping roads illustrated on the telly ads. Of course, present company are repelled by such overt displays and wouldn't dream of buying such naked expressions of anger and stupidity. Maybe. On another aspect. I well remember a meeting with town planners in Newcastle under Lyme in about 1971 where they were genuinely taken aback, when asked why they ONLY considered the needs of motorised traffic in designing a new road layout. Pedestrians and cyclists were not on their radar. Of course, it made no difference to the plans. Where there is no money to be made, there is no recognition of needs or indeed pre-existing rights to road use, in peace.
|
>>
>> If they were prepared to give a bit and meet in the middle they would
>> receive far more consideration from other road users.
>>
Absolutely.
I encountered a good example yesterday. I was driving along a long rural road with occasional passing places, and came up behind a cyclist. As soon as he became aware I was there he pulled out into the middle of the road.
I hung back, expecting him to pull over at the next passing place. Instead he swung out even more, deliberately baulking my intention to get past.
So just before the next passing place I gave him a gentle toot, which made him hesitate and slow, and move into the side briefly. I took the opportunity to pull past him using the wider space on the other side of the road.
Looking back I could see him waving his arms in anger and shaking his fists, obviously annoyed at being tricked and overtaken.
But how stupid. I was perfectly willing to wait until an appropriate passing place, but he seemed to think he was on a mission to delay all cars.
The car following me got the same treatment.
Militant type in a cycle club T-shirt, and Martian helmet. An ordinary local cyclist on a plod bike will pull over and give a cheery wave of thanks. Who is more likely to get killed - the bare-headed local or the idiot in the helmet?
|
>> Absolutely.
>> I encountered a good example yesterday. I was driving along a long rural road with
>> occasional passing places, and came up behind a cyclist. As soon as he became aware
>> I was there he pulled out into the middle of the road.
>> I hung back, expecting him to pull over at the next passing place. Instead he
>> swung out even more, deliberately baulking my intention to get past.
So how long were you held up for?
|
>> So how long were you held up for?
It isn't the length of the delay that really matters. It's the affront of being baulked for no good reason.
What I was wondering was why CP didn't just pass the bike when he first came up with it. It's a narrow lane indeed that doesn't have room for that, although they do exist.
|
>> It's the affront of being baulked for no good reason.
It would take more than that to affront me. I must be getting mellow in my old age.
|
>> So how long were you held up for?
>>
Therein lies the rub. A sure short cut for the bad-ass-attitute-cyclist to his/her injury or death.
|
My personal opinion is that if you are legislating to protect people from themselves you have got it wrong.
I'm aware of the risks. If I choose not to wear a helmet when cycling or, for that matter, a seatbelt when driving, it's my problem not anyone else's.
As it happens I am quite happy to "belt up". I'm also quite happy to have a flashing light on the dash that tells me when I haven't done so. A beeping noise that cannot be disabled is a deal breaker on car purchase, as I do not bother with refastening the belt while parking (having removed it to reach for a ticket on entry) or while shuffling the fleet around at home. On the odd occasion I do forget I regard a beeping noise forcing me to fasten the ruddy thing while simultaneously attempting to drive the car, rather than being able to pick a safer moment, as an inherently unsafe system.
|
>> odd occasion I do forget I regard a beeping noise forcing me to fasten the
>> ruddy thing while simultaneously attempting to drive the car, rather than being able to pick
>> a safer moment, as an inherently unsafe system.
You don't have to choose the unsafe moment to buckle up the belt do you. Its only a buzz. Do you have a brain or are you just Pavlov's dog?
|
>> You don't have to choose the unsafe moment to buckle up the belt do you.
>> Its only a buzz. Do you have a brain or are you just Pavlov's dog?
>>
>>
>>
A bit lke people who "have" to answer a phone and don't know when to give it a good ignoring.
|
youtu.be/wzL0Kyk4m-8
A short video that says a lot....
And another.... youtu.be/12fMTAQyXTI
Last edited by: swiss tony on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 20:21
|
It doesn't really matter how you are propelling yourself on or near a road. Whether at the time you're on foot, on a bike, riding a motorbike, in a car or van or a thumping great big truck or bus.
As long as you remember, or at least remember to suspect, that everyone else who's using it or even near it at the time is probably stupid, blind, distracted, tired, drunk and/or quite possibly homicidal.
Of course most are none of those but like when they say you're never very far from a rat, someone with a minimum of one of the above characteristics or failings is almost certainly in your vicinity at all times.
|
If you are in a vulnerable situation e.g. cycling or riding a motorcycle...then you need to take steps to protect yourself, even if that is losing your right of way or having to slow the journey down somewhat.
Riding up the inside of a large vehicle turning left, one with limited vision...is not doing that, is it? It is not at all sensible.
Many cyclists seem wholly unwilling to slow down. i.e. lose momentum and seem to think that their 'right' overrides anything else, including common sense.
Until this attitude changes, more will die. Simple as that. Sadly.
|
>> Many cyclists seem wholly unwilling to slow down. i.e. lose momentum and seem to think
>> that their 'right' overrides anything else, including common sense.
You could substitute lorry drivers for cyclists in that sentence and it would still make sense ;-)
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 2 Aug 12 at 22:50
|
>>
>> You could substitute lorry drivers for cyclists in that sentence and it would still make
>> sense ;-)
>>
Nastiest moment I ever had on a bicycle was down the inside of a truck. Stupid, idiotic moron overtook me (aged about 13 on a Chopper) on Tuckton bridge in Christchuch. Something came the other way and the ${extremely_rude_word} pulled in, even though only halfway past me. Fortunately I managed to get the thing up the kerb and onto the pavement before the trailer wheels arrived(!)
I still wish to this day that I'd had the presence of mind to get his number and report him for dangerous driving.
|
>> I still wish to this day that I'd had the presence of mind to get
>> his number and report him for dangerous driving.
>>
Cycles ought to have number plates as well, and have insurance, and have MOTs ........
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 3 Aug 12 at 09:37
|
>> Nastiest moment I ever had on a bicycle was down the inside of a truck.
>> Stupid, idiotic moron overtook me (aged about 13 on a Chopper) on Tuckton bridge in
>> Christchuch. Something came the other way and the ${extremely_rude_word} pulled in, even though only halfway
>> past me. Fortunately I managed to get the thing up the kerb and onto the
>> pavement before the trailer wheels arrived(!)
That still happens today; exactly the scenario for a good proportion of the London fatalities.
Less likely to be fatal but also hazardous are the latest generation of ultra long wheelbase panel vans. Work colleague was clipped by one of these who overtook her while she turned into a side road. Driver claimed he'd left plenty of room. Just enough perhaps at the front but utterly failed to account for tighter path of his rear axle.
Presumably the young men driving these do so with no more than a car license.
|
I don't know if you can compare skiing to cycling, but I wouldn't dream of not wearing a helmet.
some out of control numpty slams into you from behind and broken bones are the least of your worries.
Wearing a helmet might only save a head injury in a tiny percentage of cases, but I prefer to take all precautions. Apart from not skiing.
|
>> Wearing a helmet might only save a head injury in a tiny percentage of cases,
>> but I prefer to take all precautions. Apart from not skiing.
>>
That's the whole point though, how far do you go to prevent risks that are statistically insignificant? Do you wear a back protector, body armour on elbows and knees or thick leather clothes to prevent breaks and skin loss? More people suffer serious head injuries in the kitchen every year than they do riding a bike yet we never hear calls for helmets to be worn about the house.
Though it will probably come...
|
For what it's worth, I don''t think the wearing of helmets should be made compulsory.
I'm surprised more don't choose to wear them but that's as far as it goes.
I do think that in the quest for finding answers to this problem, the onus should be put far more on the cyclist and the way they ride than on compusorily fitted sensors and mirrors on other vehicles.
It seems to most road users, car, lorry and bus that we have to make expensive and unecessary changes to accomodate a small minority of riders who are not prepared to help themselves stay safe.
Pat
|
>>small minority of riders who are not prepared
>> to help themselves stay safe.
Trouble is, its not that small.
|
It certainly is a growing number Z, along with the number of deaths of cyclists.
Could the two be linked?
Is attitude at the root of the problem?
Pat
|
Human nature being what it is, I sometimes think that if more cyclists acknowledged consideration (like Cliff being happy to follow slowly until a wide bit of road enabled a slow pass) then they'd get more in return. When somebody crawls round a bend behind me on my bike, I always raise a hand as they pass.
Horses are a plague round here, but give them time and a wide berth and you'll always get a wave (from the rider, not the horse).
|
I remember the same arguments being made by Motorcyclists when wearing helmets became compulsary, I also remember Car Drivers arguing against the compulsay wearing of seatbelts. I cycle, motorcycle and drive as required, I have crashed on all three and on all three have had lessened injusries as a result of wearing the appropriate safety equipment. No all are as comfortable to wear as not wearing would be, but having attended various crash scenes both before and after the various laws were passed have seen non-survivable injuries being replace with survivable ones.
You might argue that in some cases helmets might add to injuries ( a friends brother was killed when his motorcycle helmet caused a broken neck ) but the ones where the result was favourable far exceeds the the non-safety equipment wearing variety. There have been numerous accidents where wearing a seatbelt would have been worse but these are far out-weighed.
As far as comfort goes, my bike helmet is like my seatbelt, it fades into the background and once on becomes 'invisible'.
a lot of us as just bolshie and don't like the idea of being pressured, but weighing things up means that your are safer with than without.
|
>> a lot of us as just bolshie and don't like the idea of being pressured,
>> but weighing things up means that your are safer with than without.
>>
Yes, bolshie and with the common sense of the average table leg.
|
>> >> a lot of us as just bolshie and don't like the idea of being
>> pressured,
>> >> but weighing things up means that your are safer with than without.
>> >>
>>
>> Yes, bolshie and with the common sense of the average table leg.
>>
These conform to the little known law which states that
"unwillingness to accept change which will result in better outcomes in event of an accident/mishap/illness is inversely proportional to the individual's ability to adopt long term survival practises".
As seen in smokers, alcoholics, and the obese.
|
>> As far as comfort goes, my bike helmet is like my seatbelt, it fades into
>> the background and once on becomes 'invisible'.
>>
>> a lot of us as just bolshie and don't like the idea of being pressured,
>> but weighing things up means that your are safer with than without.
>>
You do of course have the statistical evidence to show that cycling related head injuries have reduced in the twenty years since helmets became commonplace?
Be nice to see it as no-one else has ever produced any.
|
|
I think more cyclists would wear helmets if they were more stylish ~ shaped like the hood of a hoodie for young chavs, shaped like a baseball cap (reversible) for older chavs, shaped like a bowler hat for city gents, shaped like a WWII army helmet for WWII veterans, etc etc.
|
Who would have the Noddy hat and the one with the big D on it?
Ooooo....off to work now:)
Pat
|
By George, I think he's got it!
A schoolmate with far more indulgent (and richer) parents than mine appeared at school on his 16th birthday on a brand new Lambretta, and wearing a tweedy deerstalker crash helmet. I think it was only seen once!
|
>>a tweedy deerstalker crash helmet
I remember them!
I've got an old, well worn version of this in the loft: tinyurl.com/dy3b9ln
|
That's exactly the helmet we were issued with in the 1960 for use both on the ' noddy ' bikes and the road patrol Triumphs and , later, Nortons..
The Velocette patrolmen were issued with a long coat which you could button up between the legs while the road patrol wore jodhpurs, black cavalry boots and a uniform tunic. I looked for a decent black ' Corker ' helmet to complement my Velocette, which is still in police livery. I had two....... one with a badge on the front and the other with ' police ' on it. Long since gone.
Ted
|
>> one with a badge on the front and the other with ' police ' on it. Long since gone.
Knocked off by Bertie Wooster and Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Boat Race night perhaps?
|
>> >>a tweedy deerstalker crash helmet
>>
>> I remember them!
>>
>> I've got an old, well worn version of this in the loft: tinyurl.com/dy3b9ln
>>
"Helmet doesn't meet any safety standards"
I think my schoolmate's was pukka as regards construction, at least by the standards of the day. But it had front and rear peaks, was clad in houndstooth fabric, with earflaps. Extraordinary.
|
IIRC by the time helmets became compulsory (mid '60s?) they had to meet a certain criteria.
I certainly remember the first helmet I bought complied to a standard for competition use that exceeded minimum criteria.
|
|
Devil's advocate question I'll admit but why would any of you ardent helmet supporters care a jot if I fell off my bike and banged my head while not wearing one? That's sort of my choice isn't it? I don't criticise anyone for choosing to wear one but I prefer not to. What exactly is it that causes anyone a problem with that? And for what it's worth could we cut the sneery comments please? There is still an allowable counterpoint thank goodness. Until such time as the wearing of cycle helmets is encouraged by evidence of research rather than that of opinion, I shall carry on believing in my own choice. I've seen mountain bikers with neck rotation injuries which may or may not have been exacerbated by helmet wearing but let's put it this way, I've never seen anyone with that injury who wasn't wearing one.
|
>> Devil's advocate question I'll admit but why would any of you ardent helmet supporters care
>> a jot if I fell off my bike and banged my head while not wearing
>> one? That's sort of my choice isn't it?
I'd rather not pay taxes to get the NHS put your scrambled head together again.
|
>> I'd rather not pay taxes to get the NHS put your scrambled head together again.
>>
That's an interesting one.
As the NHS publish figures to show more head injuries occur in the home, in car accidents and among pedestrians than from cycle accidents I take it that you wear a helmet from when you get up to when you go to bed?
After all, you don't want the rest of us paying to put your scrambled head back together again, do you?
|
>>
>> >> I'd rather not pay taxes to get the NHS put your scrambled head together
>> After all, you don't want the rest of us paying to put your scrambled head
>> back together again, do you?
All the kings horses and all the kings men,
couldn't put madf together again.
|
>> I'd rather not pay taxes to get the NHS put your scrambled head together again.
>>
>>
>>
What about other sporting injuries or for that matter my hip that was fractured falling from a bike? Should I have worn body armour?
|
>>
>> What about other sporting injuries or for that matter my hip that was fractured falling
>> from a bike? Should I have worn body armour?
Cycling lessons maybe?
|
>>I'd rather not pay taxes to get the NHS put your scrambled head together again.
And that's it is it? Very good. Well argued.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Fri 3 Aug 12 at 20:34
|
I have very little time this morning before going off to work Humph, but I'll have a go at arguing the point.
( Pedants please don't read!)
If you look at the start of this thread you will see it was about a number of measures that BW felt needed addressing for cyclists.
Immediately cyclists took the helmet issue up and ignored any others.
No matter that a couple of us have tried to steer the conversation into a sensible discussion about attitudes and try to get cyclists to take responsibility for their own actions and safety.
It always happens this way.
Mention compulsion and the original suggestions, all of which are entirely sensible get lost in the following diatribe of outrage.
Of course you shouls have a choice as to weather you wear your cycling helmet, but cycling aroun fells and fields is vastly different to cycling in the rush hour in London.
Again, it's something you do for pleasure, on the other side most are trying to get a faster commute.
If as you say, it's your head and therefore your choice, surely the faster commute cyclists are sensible enough to think about the satistics of the amount of cyclist deaths in London?
They must be capable of that, they can throw the opposite statistics quick enough which (apparently) say helmets don't reduce deaths.
In these circumstances why not reduce the chances of head injury and CHOOSE to wear one when appropriate?
Well, that will never happen because what they actually choose to do is rebel against authority (never mind the risk to themselves).
It is this attitude we see reflected in the riding as well.
Cyclists are just another road user, not special or different.
We pretty much all rub along together sharing the roads, and don't feel the need to make demands on others to accomodate us whatever our size or shape.
Until cyclists are prepared to do the same, the problem will not go away.
Every time a cyclists complains loudly about wanting changes made to make their journey safer, it breeds and feeds that resentment from other road users.
That's when the danger starts, as the 'attitude' rubs off on to others who use the roads.
Pat
|
PAt,
It's simply not fair (OK, not true) to say Wiggo's other suggestions were ignored by 'the cyclists'. My first post says I agree with him about obeying traffic rules/signals and the lunacy of riding ears blocked off. Agreement needs no further explanation.
I've also explicitly stated that training, particularly aimed at newcomers to cycling in London and a public information campaign would be good.
Why he's wrong about helmets, and he's since 'clarified' his view, needs explanation. Others jumped in to back that up.
I'll try and put some more detail in later.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 09:22
|
>> the following diatribe of outrage.
Where?
|
|
This morning I gave way to a Lycra clad cyclist (with a helmet) on a mini roundabout, when I overtook him a few hundred yards along the road I was given a cheery wave of thanks. Yes all his fingers were extended. :-) Live and let live and it all runs smoothly.
|
There's a major point being missed so far. Those who die in the London LGV/bus accidents have been largely young women riding to and from work.
They're not the lycra clad loudmouths of whom Pat writes.
|
|
The few cyclist who have been killed in this area have been killed by lorry drivers.Container fell off woman dead.The one before that lorry turns left cyclist squashed also young woman.Cyclist get killed not drivers.
|
>> Cyclist get killed not drivers.
People in vulnerable situations get killed...IF...they don't take measures to protect themselves.
How I've taken Pat's post, is that rather than concentrating on one element of an arguement, the bigger picture needs looking at....and I wholeheartedly agree with her.
Whether you are a lycra clad cycling lout...or a timid occasional cyclist...or all the people in between...it is not at all sensible to be sneaking up the inside of a large vehicle.
It is not just the large vehicle driver who has responsibilities...it is all road users and ESPECIALLY those who are vulnerable.
When I ride my motorcycle, down a straight road, with the right of way, white helmet, head light on...I am expecting someone to pull out on me. I do not ride thinking, 'It's my right of way so everyone should comply with that'... they don't.. and I don't want to be tipped off...or worse. Presumably, that is why with over 30 years of motorcycle riding, most of them in our capital city, I have not been tipped off my bike (although a mini-cab driver did his best to outside Brent Town Hall one morning).
Same principle with riding a bicycle.
If you make lorries/coaches etc have extra mirrors/cameras/whatever... you are still not addressing the real problem..and that is what's going on in the head of someone who thinks it is o.k. to go up the inside of a turning, large vehicle, when they themselves are most vulnerable.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 11:09
|
>> www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2012/08/03/more-cyclists-die-in-north-wales-than-any-region-outside-london-55578-31537928/
>>
>> This was a story run in the local rag yesterday.
>>
Why do you think that is RP?
Smallish 'A' roads?......tourists?.......mountain bikers? Scotland has all of them too.
|
>> Why do you think that is RP?
>>
>> Smallish 'A' roads?......tourists?.......mountain bikers? Scotland has all of them too.
Rural A/B roads are far more dangerous than Central London.
Has there been a multiple accident in N Wales? The report suggests not but would be interesting to have that confirmed.
Of the 22 deaths in the area over the past decade half are accounted for by last year and the four killed in a single accident at Abergele in 2006.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 13:40
|
>> Rural A/B roads are far more dangerous than Central London.
>>
You're not kidding.
In the eleven years I've lived down here 5 people all under the age of 25 who I have either known personally or know members of the immediate family have died in road accidents. The latest was on the Jubilee weekend, a young girl hit head on by an overtaking car while riding her moped.
|
>>
>> >> Rural A/B roads are far more dangerous than Central London.
>> >>
>> You're not kidding.
>>
>> In the eleven years I've lived down here 5 people all under the age of
>> 25 who I have either known personally or know members of the immediate family have
>> died in road accidents. The latest was on the Jubilee weekend, a young girl hit
>> head on by an overtaking car while riding her moped.
Having seen the standard of driving in wales by the locals, I am not surprised. It veers from the pathetically slow and pedestrian, to sheer lunacy and risk taking.
I blame the driving instructors out that way.
|
I think the similarities in vulnerability between motorcyclists and cyclists is pertinent to this discussion.
I am a motorcyclist rather than a cyclist (although I do own a mountain bike and have occasionally been seen out on it)...and acknowledge that some motorcyclists ride like total clowns, are fairly likely to have an accident and/or kill themselves, have to take responsibility for their own actions and bring the rest of us in to disrepute.
I don't often hear the same sentiment from committed cyclists, for some reason.
|
|
I agree Westpig - pedal bikes scare me ! I ride to live (generally) I try not to ride like a clown..... (difficult to change gear with those shoes I would think !:-D )
|
>> I try not to ride like a clown..... (difficult to change gear with those shoes I
>> would think !:-D )
>>
I now have this vision. A BMW GS, being ridden into a quiet, staid, North Wales town, the rider wearing garish checked trousers, a pair of Humph's size 13 stilettos...and pressing a button on the handlebars that lets out a very loud HONK, HONK....;-)
|
I do so hate the propensity to tribalise and compartmentalise people. Cyclists, generally speaking, are just people who happen to be on a bike at that moment. Quite a lot of them, often on the very same day, will be pedestrians and drivers too. Some of them will even be truck drivers, bus drivers and motorcyclists. Ultimately they are just human beings sharing a public space. Some humans, regretably, don't always respect the needs and rights of others and behave selfishly. Their chosen method of propulsion is almost certainly secondary to those inherent personality traits.
Those who hold extreme views or behave in extreme manners are the problem whether they are on a bike, in a truck or on a ruddy pogo stick. The rest of us just sort of get on with it without too much bother most of the time.
I have no empathy with a cyclist who hates me because I'm driving my car any more than I have any with a driver who hates me just because I'm on my bike. In both cases it's their problem in their tiny mind.
|
>> I do so hate the propensity to tribalise and compartmentalise people. Cyclists, generally speaking, are
>> just people who happen to be on a bike at that moment.
Far too simplistic. There are sensible cyclists and there are less than sensible cyclists. Just like car drivers and lorry drivers. The choice of which type you want to be has far more dramatic consequences if you are a cyclist compared to the others.
|
|
I thought that's what I said. Never mind.
|
>> In your opinion.
no, your failure to communicate....
|
Or your's to interpret properly. Still, don't beat yourself up too much. You'll find things start to slow down a bit now the years are racking up and you're not really using the grey matter as much. You'd quite like the last word on this wouldn't you? Go on then, be my guest...
;-)
|
>> I do so hate the propensity to tribalise and compartmentalise people. Cyclists, generally speaking, are
>> just people who happen to be on a bike at that moment.
I can see your point Humph...but...the circumstances you are in can dictate your mood or the angle you come from.
No different to horse riders thinking an off road track is there exclusively for them ..or..walkers thinking it should only be them up a remote path.
So some cyclists think the roads should revolve around them. They don't.
Then they all get in a car.
|
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!
Or for those who prefer,
And would some Power the small gift give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait would leave us,
And even devotion!
|
This may not be the place for this, but it will do.
Did anyone else notice, during Wiggo's triumphant road time trial the other day, that the heavily-laden BMW carrying his spare bits and pieces got a bit, well, out of shape on a bend he had managed quite normally?
|
>> the heavily-laden BMW carrying his spare bits and pieces got a bit, well, out of shape on a bend he had managed quite normally?
>>
No. Didn't see that. Any chance of a link?
|
Sorry Duncan, I don't do links - too old and stupid. But it was a sharpish right-hand bend between dense, busy crowds of spectators.
It doesn't seem all that likely that the BMW really lost it in any way, but something - perhaps the need to dodge an out-of-sight pedestrian - made it look as if it was understeering clumsily for a moment.
|
Pat,
Unsurprisingly I'm going to come back again!!
As I’ve already said I accept much of BW’s prescription except for helmet compulsion. I’ve also made clear here, and in your last thread on the subject, that training is absolutely desirable. It needs to be focussed on bike users, the annual influx of students, interns, junior office staff and foreigners in service industries. The lycra guys and urban cyclo-terrorists like me with leathery limbs under our suits can probably look after ourselves and are certainly a different audience
On other compulsions mentioned in the past – testing/registration/insurance – at least until there’s evidence they’re practicable and effective I’m instinctively opposed. I might choose to wear a helmet if there was proof it would reduce injury in the type of accident I’m going to have in the real world. Downhill MTB riding I’d wear one. It’s shoulders rather than skulls that take most urban impacts. I know that from experience and so does the transport minister Theresa Villiers.
Cycling in London, at least in the Zone 1 area inside the Circle Line is actually pretty safe. There are plenty of quiet side streets and both Mayors have supported route maps to help us use them. Over the last fifteen years cyclist numbers have reached a critical mass and vehicular traffic is as slow as it ever was. In plenty places I’m passing cars rather than vice-versa.
The dead in recent years’ LGV and bus accidents have been disproportionately young women not fast 'aggressive' male commuters. They may go down the side of trucks out of ignorance. It’s obvious to me not to go there but if it’s a nice green cycle lane and you’re new to cycling in the UK who knows what looks right? And if you’re not assertive and out from the kerb trucks will pass close. I’m sure most of the drivers are knights of the road but there are cowboys out there. The man whose driving killed Eilidh Cairns is now starting a jail sentence after a pedestrian fatality and tacho offences.
As somebody (NIL) pointed out upthread for many years our roads were designed purely for motorised transport. There’s been some improvement of late but there’s still a way to go on junction design, urban rat runs and sensible bike lanes. Your own trade has a well funded lobby via the RHA and it customers in retail and distribution. It’s very well practised indeed at making demands for bigger and heavier lorries and having them met. There’s also a strong car lobby via the RAC foundation and its AA counterpart as well as the ABD and the press/broadcast media (who are happy to fuel anti cylist feeling to sell more of tomorrow’s chip paper). So please don’t try and lecture cycling for wanting some of the gravy as well.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 17:57
|
So please don’t try and lecture cycling for wanting some of the gravy as well.
The "gravy" as you so eloquently describe it (!) , is of course paid for out of motoring taxes. I need hardly remind you motorists cyclists pay no motoring taxes.
Until they do, they are entitled to zip.
Last edited by: madf on Sat 4 Aug 12 at 19:01
|
>> So please don’t try and lecture cycling for wanting some of the gravy as
>> well.
>>
>> The "gravy" as you so eloquently describe it (!) , is of course paid for
>> out of motoring taxes. I need hardly remind you motorists cyclists pay no
>> motoring taxes.
>>
>> Until they do, they are entitled to zip.
The gravy comes from taxes, some of which might be MVL or fuel duty. In spite of recent ministerial confusion no UK taxes are hypothecated.
|
>> out of motoring taxes. I need hardly remind you motorists cyclists pay no
>> motoring taxes.
>>
>> Until they do, they are entitled to zip.
>>
There are no motoring taxes. Tax is a duty applied to nearly everything from income to goods you buy in the shop and services you hire. If you don't pay them you go to jail, they entitle you to nothing.
End of.
|
Piece here from the London Cycling Campaign showing a plan of accident site and allegation that safety audits were inneffective.
lcc.org.uk/articles/tfl-safety-audits-ignored-danger-warnings-at-location-where-cyclist-killed-during-olympics
Not had time to digest yet.
|
I've just had this brought to my attention on our forums
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3598019.ece#.UKIculki_20.twitter
Since the vast majority of cycling/lorry accidents happen in heavy traffic at junctions it seems cyclists just want to inconvenience everyone else.
We have been campaigning for years to get the speed raised to 50MPH on the basis that once a lorry can get to 48/50MPH it reduces the amount of overtaking by impatient drivers and would reduce caualties dramatically.
At last we've managed to get a consultation and lo and behold, the cyclists speak out against it.
We expected it from Brake....
Pat
|
>> would reduce caualties dramatically.
I think that is highly debateable , in fact unlikely, but its still a good idea to increase the limit from 40 on single carriage roads, as in many places its clearly far too slow and seems to be universally ignored both by truckers and most sensible thinking old bill.
Bikers will get knocked off bikes by trucks just as easily at 40 as opposed to 50.
|
Exactly Z, but it will reduce the hassle caused by lorries forced to keep to 40MPH on long straight road to the car drivers trapped behind them because of oncoming traffic.
Most firms have trackers these days and that will tell the traffic office what type of road your on and what the speed limit is...if you go over that it's flagged up and you get an infringement against you.
None of us want to be doing 40MPH where it's safe to do 50MPH, we don't like holding cars up, but really don't have any choice if we want to keep a job.
Pat
|
|
I must say I haven't noticed many trucks doing 40mph on NSL single carriageways round here. Most seem to travel at 50 plus ignoring the limit. Increase the limit to 45 or 50 by all means if that's going to be enforced but I suspect it will be seen as a licence to drive even faster.
|
>>I must say I haven't noticed many trucks doing 40mph on NSL single carriageways round here<<
We try our best not to hold you up CG;)
Pat
|
"We try our best not to hold you up CG;)"
No need to raise the limit then.
|
Have you read the article.....examined the statistics?
Or are you just following Brakes lead that any speed is bad and kills?
Pat
|
|
No simply making the observation that the limit is mainly ignored at present and not enforced. Would you be calling for strict enforcement if it were to be raised?
|
Despite how it may appear to you CG, there is strict enforcement now.
Not only by GFP's issued by speed camera's but also by firms like Tesco who have no hesitation in sacking a driver who exceds the 40MPH speed limit after a warning, as recorded by the tracker.
Pat
|
There plainly isn't strict enforcement now. Tescos may have their own agenda but most truck ignore the current speed limit where there are no speed cameras. Take a trip down the single carriageway portions of the A47 as I do regularly and most of the truck are travelling at around 50mph. Now I don't have a problem with that but if the law were to endorse the status quo I would like to see that limit strictly enforced and not not be allowed to rise even further by lack of enforcement. I trust you agree.
|
>>I would like to see that limit strictly enforced and not not be allowed to rise even further by lack of enforcement. I trust you agree. <<
How would you propose that is enforced CG?
More speed cameras?
More Police vehicles on the road?
Neither are selective and will of course, impact cars speeding too.
Pat
|
Currently the usual practice of the police is to turn a blind eye to trucks breaking the 40mph limit unless other offences are involved. If it were to be increased to 50 I would expect that discretion to be removed and any truck breaking that limit to receive a ticket.
I expect no more or less for cars.
Do you agree?
|
I do agree,but it will never happen.
The Police do not turn a blind eye to lorries exceeding 40MPH, we never see a Police car these days and if we do it's on blues and two's.
The only policing of any speed limit is simply speed cameras which will have the same effect whatever the speed limit so your question is ammaterial in the real world.
I would far rather see the police on patrol on the roads just as we used to, but my priority for enforcing one single law would be prosecution for talking, texting or taking photo's while driving, on a mobile phone.
It really matters not how much a point is laboured if the resources arn't there to provide the answer.
Pat
|
|
The tracker must be broken at the Brooklands Tesco depot then.
|
I don't mind if someone overtakes me on my bike at 150mph as long as they don't do it 6" from my elbow. There's a heck of a suction from a large vehicle when it's too close and that does increase with speed.
By and large though I'd support the increased speed limit for trucks. I'd also like them to be allowed to do 70 mph in lane 2 of motorways...
Edit- or restricted to lane 1. whatever...
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Tue 13 Nov 12 at 17:15
|
Pat,
There's really no need to get so aerated. A proposal has been made and the usual 3 month consultation on it commenced.
There are a few comments in the article, presumably all prompted by a call from the times. One is from a cyling body, another from a charity concerned with tracks and sustainable transport. Others are from Brake and road related bodies.
The comment from British Cycling is pretty measured. I think he has a point The impact assessment it should certainly have mentioned vulnerable road users, even if only to say they were unlikley to be affected. I suspect the CTC will be opposed as well and that's what consultations are for.
The fact that current cyle/lorry accidents are mostly at city turninigs doesn't remove the possibilty that greater speed and turbulence on A roads won't create a risk. It's about how we manage it.
Personally I'm broadly in favour. Even on the A5, a road on Roman lines, passing a 40mph LGV can be a pain, particulalry in an asthmatic Berlingo.
|
I'm not aerated Brompt, that's what a pepermint Aero is.
I'm annoyed that after many years and a lot of hard work by the RHA, FTA and evey other body associated with road haulage, it takes only a moment for cyling bodies and Brake to dismiss it without any thought to the benefits to OTHER road users.
That benefit has to be balanced by the remote risk they speak of, but that would mean looking at it sensibly instead of objectively, wouldn't it?
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Tue 13 Nov 12 at 17:54
|
Pat,
Interestingly, 'The Cyclists' are not as furious as The Times thought.
www.cyclechat.net/threads/hgv-speed-limits.117676/#post-2151266
|
I don't see a lot of support for it Bromp, apart from one post, I do however see a bit of ammunition for CG to use;)
Stirring, perhaps?:)
This was posted on a lorry drivers forum this morning.
>>A cracking piece of selective reporting.
It starts by using an image of a lorry on a motorway or dual carriageway to illustrate news of a change affecting single carriageway roads.
And goes on to mention Bradley Wiggins, Shane Sutton and Mary Bowers.
Wiggins was knocked off his bike by a VAN and Mr Sutton was apparently struck by a small blue Peugeot. While Ms Bowers accident involved a lorry, it was at low speed in a built up area.
None of the above have any relevance to the subject under consultation, yet they are all being brought out as reasons for not allowing higher speeds in appropriate places.
Its tiresome listening to statistics being mis quoted to suit a particular point of view, which is all that ever happens when speed is discussed.
I comply with the forty limit, as I can't afford the fines for going faster. My reward for being legal is eyes the size of dinner plates as car drivers ignore speed limits, road traffic laws and the safety of themselves and others to get past me.
>>
Very valid points and is the Times as bad as the Daily Mail?
Pat
|
I posted it in campaigns as a piece of news. As i said yesterday I'm broadly in favour and while I'd have expected CC's usual suspects to jump in they have yet to do so.
|
>> Even on the A5, a road on Roman lines, passing
>> a 40mph LGV can be a pain, particulalry in an asthmatic Berlingo.
>>
Good lord, you overtake! Sorry Bromptonaut, i've had you all wrong..;-)
|
>> Good lord, you overtake! Sorry Bromptonaut, i've had you all wrong..;-)
Sure you're not confusing me with Rattle?
|
The consultation is here:
www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-34/
I've not read in detail but a quick scan suggests no mention at all of effects on cyclists, pedestrians or horse riders. It's not just A roads either. Lorries to the local mill would be able to do 50 on the lane between here and the A4500 M1 link.
I'm not instinctively in favour of that!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 13 Nov 12 at 20:00
|
|
The main safety measure that cyclists need to take isn't wearing a helmet, it's glancing over the shoulder before passing a parked vehicle or turning right or left etc. And having a bell to warn pedestrians wouldn't go amiss either. In my cycling days we all used to glance over our shoulder but now the practice seems to have been completely abandoned.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 14 Nov 12 at 06:52
|
>> The main safety measure that cyclists need to take isn't wearing a helmet, it's glancing
>> over the shoulder......................
And using the brakes as and when necessary...
I understand some bicycles are used in public, that don't even have brakes fitted, surely that's like using a Speedway bike to go to work?
|
>> I understand some bicycles are used in public, that don't even have brakes fitted, ............
Yep. In our nearest town BMX bikes without brakes are a regular sight ~ and often being ridden on the pavement!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 14 Nov 12 at 07:06
|
Some of them just need to be taught a few words.
Few know the meaning of the words GIVE WAY, and little comprehension of the words "SHARED SPACE"
|
>> I understand some bicycles are used in public, that don't even have brakes fitted, surely
>> that's like using a Speedway bike to go to work?
There's a craze at the moment for 'fixies'; bikes without a freewheel. There's some speed control via the pedlas, sufficient for riding on the level. They should have on brake though oneither wheel or the chainwheel.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 14 Nov 12 at 10:02
|
Fixies and single speeders are very popular in Melbourne - it's probably the flattest place I've ever lived so I can see some logic to this (supposed simplified maintenance). Furthermore, when out with the kids (under 12) the children and the accompanying adults can legally ride on the pavement in Victoria. Almost all roads have cycle lanes on them - unfortunately the 4x4 behemoths taking little Tarquin and Tara to school seem to ignore these when 'undertaking' cars turning right.
The trendy fixies have a front brake on them and many on closer inspection appear to have a rear brake and probably a freewheel. Personally I like gears and racks and a randonneur style of bike but I'm SO untrendy.....
I think that the general standard of driving is poor by the UK standards that I recall (lots of undertaking) but certain rules/conventions like giving way to pedestrians when turning left, stopping for trams and letting people out into traffic seem to be well observed. Cars, trucks and bikes seem to share the road space much better here and (at least in the city environs) it is pretty crowded.
|
London cyclists again - Bromptonaut
