does that same rule apply for motorcyclists? after all they fall about the same distance to the ground and around town are doing the same speeds as push bikes or is this just another example of one rule for cyclists and another for other road users
Im Going to throw my 2p worth in here for what its worth (strangely 2p) . Firstly The program whilst giving a fairly balanced view, included Knobs at the extreme end of the cyclist motorist scale. I would gladly have punched the bespecticled twat if he had tried to speak up for my rights on the road. I am, I suppose, classed as a MAMIL who rides 18 Miles a day through the urban West Midlands. The 18 miles are either end of a train journey. I started this activity because 1. I was becoming a Fat bastard pushing a desk, 2. paying a fortune in fuel costs 3. getting titsed off with sitting in traffic queues. I started off 31/2 years ago now and as far as possible do the journey on the bike where possible all weathers Sun rain snow. Enough background I started off riding how I thought would be appropriate but learnt very quickly that it doesn't matter what activity ANYONE is undertaking, walking, driving, sitting or standing on a train or riding a bike, Wo betide anything which interrupts said activity and prevents people doing what they are doing. Did you know despite active cycling policies being run by train operators, end service users of the railways treat cyclists, even those with the little fold up thingies, like something stuck to the bottom of their shoe? Pedestrians wander round listening to overly loud music, the latest podcast or actually using a phone as a phone, so it matters not how many times I sound a bell on approach there is no way they will hear. Why when a train is empty do people insist on sitting within the designated cycle / disabled / pushchair section? On this point I have witnessed one incident where a fairly busy train pulled into a station. A disabled ramp was placed onto the train and a badly disabled guy driving a motorised buggy was assisted on. The bike / disabled / pushchair section was occupied by my bike together with 4 other people. It was me who had to move my bike purely because not one of the other ignorant twats (who shouldnt really have been there) would give up their seat. in fact not one looked up from their paper or mobile phone completely ignoring this poor guys plight. Mind you having repositioned my bike the smear of mud on the suit trousers of on of the ignorami provided a little satisfaction. As far as motorists go there is blatant stupidity in all activities. the current favourite is the classic tiny hole scraped in the windscreen ice then driving off. Doesn't matter how many lights or flourescent jackets I wear, that activity is downright dangerous. Motorists don't like it when a cyclist passes them because it is obvious that the cyclist will get to the front of a traffic queue before them. Can anyone point out the paragraph in the Highway Code that says as a cyclist I should be consigned to 1 ft from the kerb. Invariably there is never room left on the inside of traffic so I am consigned to the only route left, down the outside adopting motorcycle tactics and commanding my road position. Its surprising how many motorists don't expect you to be there simply because, as with motorcycles, their observations are shyte! Some drivers will sound the horn just because they think it is an underused accessory! I could ramble on and bore you lot even more but what I am trying to say is that it is down to attitudes. How many of you would be writing in such tomes if the program had been about cars vs motorcyclists? Iv'e witnessed both extremely good and extremely bad attitudes but without tempting fate I can honestly say Iv'e not as yet had any close calls or other incidents. Conceited as it may be I trust nothing, assume nothing I trust nothing to luck and I ride fully aware of my surroundings. If I dont, Im dead! This is me on the way to work! epic bike riding | Facebook
+1. Youtube has more than enough cyclists getting head traumas, possibly because they didnt want to be "uncool" and wear a helmet? Personal choice or not, what other significant injury will you get on a slow-speed cycle crash? A grazed knee? Sore elbow? Fkn BRAINED yourself on the kerb/tarmac? I know what will heal first. :wink:
What evidence is there that cycle helmets save lives? Contains useful facts like child pedestrians are more at risk to head injury than child cyclists. Should children walking down the street be required to wear helmets ? Just think how many motorists would be saved each year if they wore helmets, why not make car drivers wear crash helmets ? The point I am making is that in a major colision with a car or lorry a helmet will not effect the outcome where major trauma occurs. So yes, making people wear helmets is seen as being uncool, it does reduce the numbers of people cycling and gaining those health advantages and results in greater mortality not less. I don't think Youtube is a good source for objective analysis and anyway individual experience is no way to base policy. The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks.
I will judge by your post that you too are a 14-year-old bmx rider who wants to be a "cool dude" :biggrin: "The point I am making is that in a major colision with a car or lorry a helmet will not effect the outcome where major trauma occurs." What a load of bollocks. So if somebody is hit off their bike onto the tarmac/concrete/windscreen then it makes noooooo difference at all if they are wearing a helmet? I think not. I havnt (touch wood) had to "use" my motorcycle helmet for many years (apart from the time I got smashed in the face by a pheasant at 60mph), but it is there if I do go down the road? I have wrote off two expensive full-face Downhill mountainbike helmets whilst cavorting down Welsh hillsides & Alpine passes, the second one saved me "from being killed". Yes - I will continue to view Youtube & see many skateboarders & cyclists faceplant/go over backwards & smack their nugget into the floor, I'm thinking at that precise moment in time that they too were thinking "mmm could really be wearing my lid right now!" as they go to Hospital with another concussion? Pedestrians wear helmets? Not needed. The human body is not designed to travel faster than running speed & if you ARE going to travel faster than that on wheels then be prepared to spend time being sewn back together if you dont have the right gear on? Heathy as cycling is, smashing your skull into the floor ISN'T, and never will be. You can continue with your banner-waving "you can't make me wear a helmet!" charade, the only person losing out is yourself.
errrr, this one does, thank you very much! But you are right and I believe one of the biggest risks are the Boris bikes. Any numpty can take on the roads of London with zero training, a very questionable cycling ability just by paying £1. IMHO, the real problem is people not seeing the issue of what they are doing from each others perspective, and the impact their actions can have. In my experience, pedestrians are a major hazard - they veer towards the road and actually speed up before stepping onto the road. It's only at this point they look over their shoulder. But I have seen plenty of frankly disgusting behaviour by cyclists.
My Ducati dealer and friend is a bit of a cycle nut too (scoots up mountain passes the whole time). One of his wealthy customers owned a Swiss watch brand and managed it (I don't think it's a good plan if I tell you which one), but apart from being a Ducatista, was also a keen cyclist. They used to go out on rides together with friends. The watch owner never used to wear a helmet and was berated by my dealer friend for not doing so. One day, they were out on a trip and he fell off and banged his bonce. He was never the same again. Stripped of many of his intellectual faculties, after months of rehabilitation, he had to abandon his position managing the family watch brand. He is now dead (some years later). [Strangely enough, I rode his girlfriend's 916 at Le Castellet in 1997. She wasn't there and I've never met her (nor did I meet him).] It seems clear that had he been wearing a cycling helmet, the final years of his life would have been a lot happier (and from what I gather, he'd still be with us now). I find it hard to believe that the many millions of people who wear a cycling helmet are all living in a fantasy land. I admit they look like shit and are hideously uncool - but then that goes for just about all cycling attire. Cooler than brain damage, though.
Oh, you're definitely right about it being down to attitudes. But just cos you're on a bicycle doesn't make your attitude any more valid than anyone else's. In all honesty what I've seen in your post, attitude-wise, is what I see from the more aggressive and dangerous cyclists I see in London. 'Commanding the road' my arse', getting in the way would be a better description...
It is true that most of the cylists who die, die from crush injuries and not blunt force trauma to the head. Which is a really grim statistic
Sorry Fig, but you go some way to proving my point. If the only argument is that cyclists shouldn't be there then its impossible to argue with. Where would you suggest cyclist go. (dont answer that). The traffic queues I encounter on a daily basis stretch for around a mile and a half travelling at around 3 mph so whilst traveling on a vehicle less than a third the width of an average car do you really expect me to sit in the queue? That is why I go down the outside of the traffic, which is, I would venture to suggest, exactly what you would do on your motorbike. I am usually back at home cooking my tea before the vehicles in the middle of the traffic get to the lights that cause the problem in the first place, and thats NOT because I jump them. I don't hold anyone up. If a cyclist is intending to turn right at an upcoming junction, why shouldn't they be in the outside lane, or do you expect them to pull over to the left and cross the road like a meek and mild pedestrian? Of course if a cyclist chooses to gamble with their life putting themselves in the way of fast moving traffic then so be it. Doesnt make it an offence being there. On the subject of observation. I stand by my statement, It is on the whole Shyte. Most motorists idea of observation is checking what is playing on their stereo, checking hair or make up in the mirror, updating their facebook status or taking a usually unimportant phone call about whats for tea. The vast majority of motorists learn to pass a test and progress no further. Very few go on to take advanced driving qualifications and just because someone has been driving for X years, doesn't make them a good driver, they could have been doing it badly for all that time. Advanced training teaches observation, anticipation and, wait for it....... patience. There are, as the program highlighted, cocks on both sides and just because it goes on in London, doesn,t mean its the same everywhere and more importantly surprisingly, all cyclists are not the same. My "attitude" is based solely on experience (as a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car, van and lorry driver,) training and observations. I am not as you suggest dangerous, and you misundertood my quote, I command the portion of the road I am in at any given time. Is that not correct? or would you drive over any cyclist positioned in front or either side of you if they were slowing you down from where you were going? , I position my bike appropriately. All I want is to know I have been seen so I can stay relatively safe. I do have to say though I most humbly apologise on behalf of all cyclists if you have been held up getting for point a to point b in the shortest time possible. But then again is this the intolerance I was talking about?
Slightly off topic but related to observation: I followed a Red Mondeo (Reg CK53 ***) this morning. He pulled out in front of me (instead of giving way) at a roundabout - marginal decision and I wasn't annoyed, it was "rush hour" after all. I then noticed that his rear window was completely frosted over and opaque. I checked his wing mirrors - something he clearly doesn't do - and sure enough, they were frosted over. This clown had zero rear visibility. Nada. Six miles later, on the dual carriageway, approaching a roundabout that bisects another dual carriageway, I could see that matey's rear window heating element was beginning to work and I could start to see the brake lights of people's cars in front of him. Clowny then pulls into the vacant right-hand lane on the approach to the roundabout and, sure enough, uses the exit of the roundabout at the 9 o'clock position (it would be the 1st exit but for a minor road exit immediately prior to it). A flawless, unblemished display of criminal behaviour on the public highway. Oh for a camera mounted on my dash, that would have been on YouTube faster than you could blink. Now, back to your regular programming.
Your page you linked has one major flaw that is ignored on the site and so I guess with you. Did you notice that they only talk about fatalities via head injury in cyclists? If you look only at that then well da helmets will not appear as appealing. The one's who did not die will not reflect in the statistics so 16% drop in deaths. What about those who would have serious or life changing injury to head if they were without a helmet and with lid had few bruises, possibly light concussion or cut? Remember helmet does not only protect from death it also protects from serious injury or disability.
Exactly. Nothing will help you from being crushed beneath a 7.5t lorry, all the leather, kevlar & expanded polystyrene aint going to do squat. Dead is dead - doesnt matter if you are squashed, bludgeoned or furiously nibbled by treefrogs, what will make a difference is if you have a spill through your fault or others (two of my more recent cycle injuries were due to an SPD incident (a pedal & shoe arrangement which allows you to clip your feet to the pedals themselves, allowing you to pull up as well as push down - arguably allowing you to crash faster :biggrin - your nugget gets whiplashed onto the floor (7 1/2" up allowing for pedal height?) & at best you get a headache, you wake up in a hospital bed - or you dont wake up at all? :frown: There are some good cycle - and motorcycle riders out there, unfortunately on two wheels we have to allow for the blindness and/or incompetence of other road users... I doubt I will be cyclebound anytime soon but will be wearing my helmet if I do.
And yet you are happy for someone to not wear a helmet, smack his head, loose half brain and live like veggy all his\her life because helmets do not help.
I think that would be a tragic outcome but it is a risk I am happy to take because I believe that risk is very small. People fall over on the pavement every day of the year and suffer serious injuries as a result, if they stayed at home it wouldn't happen, although they might be seriously scalded whilst making a cup of tea. Are you happy about this ? If not then maybe you ought to consider wearing a helmet walking down the street, if you fall over it could make the difference between a minor injury or spending the rest of your life as a vegie. Are you prepared to take the risk. Just think about the effect this would have on your friends and family, the loss to future generations of the child you might have that could discover a cure for the common cold, the cost to the taxpayer, the list is endless. How can you sleep at nights ?
Following same thinking motorcyclists do not have to wear a helmet or be in any protective gear. Car drivers do not have to put seat belts on and can switch off all extra safety features. They can remove mirrors from their cars and tint the fuck out of the windows. You know their choice and they are willing to take the risk. What you are saying is the biggest rubbish ever you are clearly advocating one rule for one and another for rest. Walking is not an argument as frankly most people that follower actually get no head damage at all as mentioned because our body was designed to take that punishment. Tolerances are they key and moving along in any other way then walking is not natural so you exceed your design tolerances.
An interesting question. You are both right. Risk is a continuum from zero or very slight to big. It would seem silly for everyone to wear a crash helmet all day in case they fell over, but equally silly for professional motorcycle racers not to wear one (they wouldn't last long if they didn't). Once you accept that, then you decide where you wish to draw the line on the risk continuum to make safety gear obligatory. At the moment, it's about right in my view: so compulsory seat belts and motorbike crash helmets, but cycle crash helmets are not compulsory, just advisable. if I'm cycling in central London, I wear the pixie hat. If I'm cycling in flat rural Oxfordshire, I might not (but I might). If I'm popping to the shops half a mile away, I won't bother You might be libertarian and think that everyone should make up his or her own mind and that's a view that can have its arguments, even if I don't subscribe to them. In this view, all narcotics should be made legal too, as people should make their own decisions about their health. The alternate view is that people are pretty dim and need a helping hand to end up making the right choices.
Glidd as in principal agree just not the part about cyclist helmets. Just like there are apparently good, considerate cyclists there are also good considerate bikers or car drivers. When those two meet and accident happens, genuine accident rather then someone being a twat, and cyclists dies for not wearing a lid then poor soul that survived has to live with it. If you had a helmet outcome might have been the same but it might have not and by your choice of fashion (no other reason) you might have ruined someone else life. I do not for example advocate high visibility materials as I believe drivers should be always able to see obstacle or stop driving but helmet is for those times when genuine accident happens. When both sides done everything they could right but still had a collision.
