Frying your brains in a steel ball would virtually kill off cycling (maybe that's the idea). There's a bit of a difference between travelling at 10 mph or 70 mph! In the Netherlands, even moped riders don't have to wear a helmet.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Cycling: How to make it safer?
- Thread starter 43074
- Start date
- Status
Frying your brains in a steel ball would virtually kill off cycling (maybe that's the idea). There's a bit of a difference between travelling at 10 mph or 70 mph! In the Netherlands, even moped riders don't have to wear a helmet.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Speed is not really the issue though is it? If you come off your bike at any speed and hit your head then the results can be quite significant I'm sure.
Well they're both too fast to be ridden completely safely, hence the idea of safety helmets for both.
Maybe you're underestimating the necessity for helmets.
Last edited:
If you travel faster, you are more likely to hit the ground faster.
Even if you assume that cycling is very dangerous, why shouldn't people be able to put their lives at risk if they want? You don't legislate against people drinking Toilet Duck, for example.
Why are we even discussing helmets? All we have to do is copy what works, and clearly that is the Netherlands. They built the infrastructure, they don't wear helmets, yet their cyclists are safe. That's how to do it. Doing anything else is just pointless.
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the small risk of having an accident, so it is actually safer to cycle than not.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
What on Earth makes you think that? Cycles are not remotely comparable to motorbikes. Sure, they have two wheels and usually carry one person, but that's about the only thing that's similar. Amongst the differences are: Motorbikes are less manoeuvrable, travel a lot faster, have engines and carry lots of highly inflammable petrol, make lots of noise, and can't be picked up and pulled out of the way, or carried, at a moment's notice.
Or are you suggesting that cycles should be allowed on motorways, and have to have annual MOTs, in which their emissions should be checked?
If you really want to find something to compare cyclists to, as a basis for saying 'cyclists should have the same laws as X', could I suggest the most appropriate comparison would be a person running. It's not perfect fit, but it's pretty good: A fast, runner is likely to go at a similar speed to many slower cyclists (obviously, not as fast as fast cyclists), the manoeuvrability is almost identical, the level of vulnerability is similar. So it would make far more sense to suggest cyclists should have the same laws as runners. OK, that's bit tongue and cheek, but it would make quite a bit more sense than comparing cycles with motorbikes.
What works in Netherlands works in Netherlands. It's your failure to see this rather fundamental point which makes your assertion about 'helmets being useless' rather pointless.
Beyond this superficial sticking point you have the much more complex argument concerning density of populated areas etc, in comparison to the UK.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
They're both road vehicles, despite many cyclists flouting this by 'riding' on the pavement.
Well for me a lot more likely since I don't ride a bike. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Lots of statistics don't seem to support people saying that helmets save cyclists.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hows about cars parked on the pavement. I'll pop out and get you a few dozen photos if you like?
I don't think its a matter of "don't legislate against people drinking Toilet Duck, for example." but rather that you can't. What people do in their own homes is down to them, but I would imagine that should they continually do it (in public or at home) requiring the assistance of the emergency services, then the authorities might take action.
Anyway, a precedent as already been set on legislating for personal and public safety by virtue of the seatbelt law for the majority of vehicle users.
There are always excuses why Britain can't do cycling well. That is why the UK infrastructure is so poor and why the cycle rate is one of the lowest in Europe. England has a similar population density to the Netherlands. The highest cycle rates in the Netherlands are in the most rural part of the country, the north-east. The province of Drenthe has a similar population density to Wales.
See
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html
for a comprehensive debunking of the myths.
Last edited:
'There are always excuses as to why xx nation can't do cycling well', that may include Britain but it doesn't make us unique in the world in this respect.
And even so, it highlights the point I was making. Society's attitude to cycling in this country is unquestionably poor, but that doesn't undermine the need for greater safety practices. In any case, I would've thought because we are so poor at cycling it would strengthen the case for improving safety, in which case I would understand why you think the need for helmets isn't necessary, as you're only looking to the Dutch example.
And even so, it highlights the point I was making. Society's attitude to cycling in this country is unquestionably poor, but that doesn't undermine the need for greater safety practices. In any case, I would've thought because we are so poor at cycling it would strengthen the case for improving safety, in which case I would understand why you think the need for helmets isn't necessary, as you're only looking to the Dutch example.
Last edited:
The seat belt law is mad anyway. I have to wear one in a car or on National Express but not in a taxi or a local bus.Well, in the UK (the "target market" for this forum), bicycles are outside the disqualification regime. They are classed as vehicles, but not 'motor vehicles' or 'mechanically propelled vehicles'. Given the fact that bicycles are much lighter (most of the weight is the rider) and generally slower, the risk posed is lower. In fact, even taking legalities out of the equation, it is still in a pedal cyclist's interest to avoid being in collision with a pedestrian as either or both can end up getting hurt.
ExRes
Established Member
I've seen this clip before, was it on here ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEGCixOvad0
Certainly shows why cyclists need protection from cyclists, oh sorry, I'm supposed to say from drivers, aren't I ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEGCixOvad0
Certainly shows why cyclists need protection from cyclists, oh sorry, I'm supposed to say from drivers, aren't I ?
Well for starters one of those clips was a cyclist nearly getting hit by a Saab turning left without indicating unless I'm much mistaken. There was a bit of filler film of cyclists on mobile phones. If any of the cyclists stupid stunts had gone wrong who do you think would have been hurt or killed?
ExRes
Established Member
The light in the film is a bit dodgy but no, I don't think the Saab was indicating, are you justifying the cyclists idiotic behaviour though ?
'A bit of filler film', are cyclists any more justified in the use of mobiles than drivers ?, pedestrians with mobiles are dangerous enough
If any of the cyclists stupid stunts had gone wrong then it's the cyclist who would've been hurt or killed, don't forget that any motorist and witnesses involved would have to live with that experience, again, does that justify the behaviour of the cyclists ?
My phone only has a 64GB memory card so if I filmed bad cycling in central London, it would be full in just a few hours!
Many pedestrians are now seeking to get even with those that ride on pavements or through crossings, so maybe all over body protection would be wise for some cyclists in the future!
I've seen cyclists hit and shoved by people, and what's more is the fact that the cyclists rarely stop or retaliate. One day I'm sure we'll hear about something nasty happening. The law of averages and all that.
Many pedestrians are now seeking to get even with those that ride on pavements or through crossings, so maybe all over body protection would be wise for some cyclists in the future!
I've seen cyclists hit and shoved by people, and what's more is the fact that the cyclists rarely stop or retaliate. One day I'm sure we'll hear about something nasty happening. The law of averages and all that.
Pedestrians? Mobility scooters?
Same for pedestrians?
If it's not practical for a cyclist to carry a helmet with them all day, it's not practical for a pedestrian either
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What, more annoying than car drivers doing that? Despite the latter being far more lethal? Really?
Only if you build adequate cycle paths that provide adequate speed and priority. If you make them slow down and give way all the time, they'll want to stick to the road, and rightly so. But make them worth using, and people will generally use them!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surely a cyclist has more in common with a pedestrian than a motorcyclist? So will you be having complete consistency by forcing pedestrians to wear helmets too? And what about mobility scooters?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And likewise if you're a pedestrian or mobility scooter rider and hit your head
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe you're overestimating the necessity for helmets
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And, logically, is therefore likely to work here too!
The film where the Saab turned in to the cyclist without indicating didn't really show the cyclist exhibiting any idiotic behaviour in my opinion. Looked like they were travelling straight on along a cycle lane.
As soon as the press is full of stories of people killed or maimed by cyclists or pedestrians colliding with each other I'll start worrying about it. For the time being I'll worry more about the cars which are driven by the same cyclists and pedestrians and cause more damage (Conveniently written off by the press as collateral damage I can only presume).
At the end of the day I could sit at the end of my road and film car after car after car speeding, not indicating, parking in dangerous places and making dangerous manouvres right by a primary school. Nothing is going to make me think someone on a bike is more of a risk no matter how long people bang on about how cyclists break the rules to.
That's one in a series, car drivers were featured in his second video. Is there a particular reason why you linked to the first video, and not the second one?
Yes, cyclists are in danger from other cyclists, though the dangers from a much heavier, faster vehicle are obviously far greater.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
The car driver was definitely in the wrong on at least two counts. The car turned left into the path of the oncoming cyclist - who had priority. AND the car entered a box junction when the exit wasn't clear - I believe that latter one is automatically an offence. And IF the car didn't indicate (I can't tell whether it did) then it's in the wrong on that third count too.
The only bit where you argue that the cyclist was careless is that he had several seconds to see the car ahead slowing down at the turning. While he did have right of way, I think an experienced/alert/sensible cyclist would have realized the potential problem coming up and slowed down, just in case. Personally I'd probably have stopped out of politeness, to let the car through anyway since it was fairly obvious what the car wanted to do (assuming the cyclist filming behind me wasn't too close
).
Last edited:
Therein lies the problem though: to you they have more in common with pedestrians but since when did you see a pedestrian walk at 10 mph?
As for 'overestimating safety'; well there's a complacent attitude for you.
I think on that note we should ship all future cars without seatbelts and see what happens.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Yorkie, you've got Malcolm Tucker levels of spin going on in that post.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Not walking, but I'm pretty sure someone reasonably fit could hit 10mph running short distances quite easily. I've probably done that myself quite a few times when I'm late for a train
. So in terms of speed, that seems quite a reasonable comparison to me.ExRes
Established Member
Yes there is yorkie, I was only aware of this particular video and not the second one, don't think for one moment that I'm on a pro lunatic motorists campaign, if I was in charge for a week I'd have motoring penalties multiplied a hundred times or more from their present levels, I'd reduce blood alcohol levels and raise alcohol and drug penalties to levels that would actually make people sit up and take notice for once, I'd hammer the mobile phone morons and make cars an offensive weapon
What makes me angry is that so often now cyclists appear to be held guiltless regardless of their levels of stupidity while the motorist is automatically the guilty party, that is rubbish as we all know, be we cyclists, pedestrians or drivers and in the end cyclists will find that they will lose public sympathy when it's actually deserved if they play the innocent card on every occasion
I'd impose far tougher penalties on motorists, of which I am one, because every year that goes by people take more and more of the **** because, well, they mostly can.
Jumping lights is now standard, but it seems that people are getting ever more confident. Jumping on amber was always common. One or maybe two jumping once a light has gone red was growing. Now I can see maybe three cars, vans or even lorries/buses (going at some considerable speed with NO way to stop if they find themselves facing something now coming from a side road) jump.
But that doesn't mean cyclists, of which I'm also one, should ever be let off on the basis that motorists also break laws and are in control of something far more dangerous.
While there's an obvious link in terms of offences, the two things are still not in any way connected. Cyclists, for one, will jump red lights at ANY time, so it's harder to judge what a cyclist will do than a motorist that you just accept will jump when they've just changed.
Traffic lights, and certainly pedestrian crossings, factor in a delay to try and cope with people jumping the lights. But no crossing can work out how to cope with the cyclist that sees all red lights as give ways, or ignores them completely depending on how cocky they are (i.e. pushing through people - which does happen - or weaving between traffic, which also happens and I have to sort of give credit to the balls that these people must have given the likely outcome of misjudging).
Jumping lights is now standard, but it seems that people are getting ever more confident. Jumping on amber was always common. One or maybe two jumping once a light has gone red was growing. Now I can see maybe three cars, vans or even lorries/buses (going at some considerable speed with NO way to stop if they find themselves facing something now coming from a side road) jump.
But that doesn't mean cyclists, of which I'm also one, should ever be let off on the basis that motorists also break laws and are in control of something far more dangerous.
While there's an obvious link in terms of offences, the two things are still not in any way connected. Cyclists, for one, will jump red lights at ANY time, so it's harder to judge what a cyclist will do than a motorist that you just accept will jump when they've just changed.
Traffic lights, and certainly pedestrian crossings, factor in a delay to try and cope with people jumping the lights. But no crossing can work out how to cope with the cyclist that sees all red lights as give ways, or ignores them completely depending on how cocky they are (i.e. pushing through people - which does happen - or weaving between traffic, which also happens and I have to sort of give credit to the balls that these people must have given the likely outcome of misjudging).
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Yes indeed. But if the motorist's stupid stunts had gone wrong then it's still the cyclist (or pedestrian) who would have been hurt or killed. The motorist and witnesses would have to live with that experience but it's probably better than being in the hospital or the morgue.
This is exactly the reason why motorists have a heavier responsibility for road safety.
- Status