[Politics] "We're cracking down on dangerous cycling".

[Stat Brother]

Just 'hit' his wing mirror . Obviously never parked in Tesco's where hitting a wing mirror and driving off is a requirement of exiting the car park.

No he must has snapped it off, or else the post would be completely at odds with the 'crime'.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No he must has snapped it off, or else the post would be completely at odds with the 'crime'.

No one hits his wing mirror and gets away with it. Had he not been stuck in traffic unable to give chase because there are too many cars on the road, he would have given the cyclist what for. As it happened cyclist went off on their merry way while angry driver plotted revenge on message board.

 

[Stat Brother]

No one hits his wing mirror and gets away with it. Had he not been stuck in traffic unable to give chase because there are too many cars on the road, he would have given the cyclist what for. As it happened cyclist went off on their merry way while angry driver plotted revenge on message board.

Looking at his phone while driving?

But but but every single driver that does that gets caught and is instantly prosecution (or should be persecuted) to the full extent of the law.

 

[Justice]

Blimey he must have been going at some speed to snap off a wing mirror.
I'm surprised he didn't knock himself off his bike.

If he had snapped it off I would of chased after the Lycra clad bellend.

 

[Justice]

Looking at his phone while driving?

But but but every single driver that does that gets caught and is instantly prosecution (or should be persecuted) to the full extent of the law.

Slander alert

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

If he had snapped it off I would of chased after the Lycra clad bellend.

Are you Timmy's 2nd account ? [emoji38]ol:

 

[Stat Brother]

Slander alert

Good I'm pleased that's not the case, I'm sure you like every other motorist on this thread has never used your phone (or had a sneaky peak) at it while driving.

 

[Justice]

Good I'm pleased that's not the case, I'm sure you like every other motorist on this thread has never used your phone (or had a sneaky peak) at it while driving.

What’s this got to do with cyclists who have little respect for drivers property?

 

[Stat Brother]

What’s this got to do with cyclists who have little respect for drivers property?

I'm sure it was an accident, no harm done.

 

[Justice]

I'm sure it was an accident, no harm done.

An apology would of been the decent thing and an offer to pay for any damage.

 

[Stat Brother]

An apology would of been the decent thing and an offer to pay for any damage.

True, was there any damage?

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't think that comparison daft at all. Your extreme example would also hold water - except it's not realistic and other factors would made it not comparable. Trying to prove a point using absurdity shows an attempt to distract from reality.

No, your method of calculation is daft. A heavy vehicle travelling at speed is indeed dangerous, but you can't simply multiply the two figures and get a measure of how dangerous, as I've shown by my example. You can use a lorry at 2 mph if you like. It's not going to do much damage if the pedestrian simply walks off.

My estimation cannot be accurate as it's a comparison of potential for harm in one hypothetical but common scenario. I'd amend the number looking again considering the assumption I put in brackets (assuming drivers and cyclists are equally likely to collide with you as a pedestrian). That assumption can't be right as car is larger than a cyclist so, perhaps, since it's about 4 times wider it may be four times likely to collide (very rough) guess - so maybe the propensity for harm should be modified to a factor of 6000, which puts things in some type of representative perspective.

Everything about your calculation makes it pointless.

I'm a driver and cyclist, and consider the care I owe to those around me with to level of responsibility, whereas for a bike the care taken is mostly a matter of self-interest as you are so much more vulnerable.

True, but if you're jumping lights near a school at drop-off and pick-up time, you are putting the lives of small children in danger. People do do that, regularly.

Cyclists that act irresponsibly (judged reasonably) might verge on suicidal, so could do with a ticking off or be reasonably expected to take training of some sort (or that be re-instrodcued to the school curriculum).

You are suggesting they're not dangerous to others at all, but they are.

Irresponsible drivers where they endanger others really are the issue to be addressed here, while this government is trying the worst type of cheap populism by picking on the wrong end of reality here.

No, there isn't just one issue to be addressed. They are separate issues, and many issues can be addressed, you don't just address the one that's the biggest problem.

 

[1066familyman]

This is a very contentious issue and is not as simple as it first seems.

70-80% of cyclist fatalities involve serious head injuries so it would seem fairly obvious that compulsory helmets would save lives.

However...

There is evidence that at a population level compulsory cycling helmets actually reduce life expectancy - if helmets are compulsory, fewer people cycle, some people get less exercise as a result and so die earlier due to this. In addition a couple of studies have shown that motorists tend to give un-helmeted cyclists more room when passing so there is a possibility that wearing a helmet increases your chance of being hit by a vehicle. Also, a study has shown that cyclists wearing helmets tend to take more risks and so put themselves in more danger.

Also, why just cyclists? If it seems reasonable to force cyclists to wear helmets, wouldn't pedestrians benefit as well after all more than 4 times as many pedestrians are killed each year than cyclists? People in cars are the people most at risk from dying from head injuries despite their seatbelts... should they wear helmets?

I can't find any evidence at all to show how many of the 100 or so cyclists killed each year weren't wearing helmets and how many of those might have been saved by wearing a helmet but as most cyclists wear helmets and as cycle helmets are not really designed to prevent major trauma, I suspect that the number will be very small. Bearing in mind the potential risk to overall public health, compulsory helmets would seem to be a huge over-reaction to a realtively insignificant problem and possibly a counter-productive one as well.

Despite all that, when I ride a bike I almost always wear a helmet but I recognise that it is unlikely to save my life.

Good post.

This is an interesting talk:




Btw, I always wear a helmet when cycling. Mainly because it's just become second nature.

 

[TimWatt]

You are suggesting they're not dangerous to others at all, but they are.

No, there isn't just one issue to be addressed. They are separate issues, and many issues can be addressed, you don't just address the one that's the biggest problem.

You're deliberately distorting, for why I don't know why because you seem smart enough. Yes, they're different issues (and there's many more) but a reasonable approach would be to take actions based on the relative potential for harm, which for motor vehicles is to others and for cyclists it's to themselves and at a much much lower level (yes, the physics are as I described).

You are wrong to say the biggest issue here is danger form cyclists. Absurdly wrong. My point was to quantify that the reality is massively the other way round.

To put things in perspective, considering the potential for danger, British driving behaviour is among the best in the world and most driver behaviour is impeccably polite and considerate. However, improvements to accidents statistics have stalled maybe due to more distracted driving, bigger and heavier vehicles on the road (and the psychology behind their popularity) and perhaps diminishing returns on previous campaigns and measures.

There's much still to improve but targeting cyclists is crass distraction from the real cause of road dangers out there.

 

[Triggaaar]

You're deliberately distorting

No I'm not. I think your method of calculating danger is very flawed, that's all.

for why I don't know why because you seem smart enough.

Oh thanks hun.

but a reasonable approach would be to take actions based on the relative potential for harm

You posted that before, and I replied 'Sounds like a reasonable start'.

which for motor vehicles is to others and for cyclists it's to themselves and at a much much lower level (yes, the physics are as I described).

No, for cyclists it may be mostly to themselves, but there is also the potential for harming others too.

You are wrong to say the biggest issue here is danger form cyclists. Absurdly wrong.

Eh? What's absurd is that you think I said that. Show me where I said that? No, thought not.

There's much still to improve but targeting cyclists is crass distraction from the real cause of road dangers out there.

No it isn't. There are many campaigns and initiatives to try and help improve people's driving. They will continue. Suggesting that cyclists should take care doesn't detract from that. That would be like saying only tell people to either stop smoking or lose weight, because one is worse than the other. We don't have to choose between these options, improvements can be made in several areas.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Slightly off topic why does the government not would make cycle helmets compulsory by law? How many deaths could be prevented?

Instead death by dangerous cycling? How many deaths could be prevented?

Sums up this government, have they achieved anything in office?

We don't need laws for everything! For goodness sake, brushing your teeth is good for you but we don't have to make it the law. The vast majority of cyclists now wear helmets because most decide that its in their interests to do so. What on earth good would new laws do except waste money and police time enforcing it.

 

[TimWatt]

Lovely Trigaar, so it seems we're agreeing to agree! I also never said their isn't a problem with bad cyclist behaviour, just that it is hugely insignificant to the real dangers out on your streets. The issue is how much attention by placing the blame on the victims is fair. My point, again, was to very roughly quantity the relative significance in terms of potential for harm, and then suggest that suggests cyclists in the scenario I suggest endanger others to only about 1/4000 that motor vehicles on city streets.

So I think the current attention to prosecution of cycling undeserved (I've suggested more training might be a suitable measure), and the minority, but actually murderously, bad drivers out on the streets should be the ones targeted for prosecution.

When you said "you don't just address the one that's the biggest problem" that suggested to me you think cyclists are the biggest problem. I don't know how else that could be interpreted... but I'm glad that's not what you meant to write.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

This is a very contentious issue and is not as simple as it first seems.

70-80% of cyclist fatalities involve serious head injuries so it would seem fairly obvious that compulsory helmets would save lives.

However...

There is evidence that at a population level compulsory cycling helmets actually reduce life expectancy - if helmets are compulsory, fewer people cycle, some people get less exercise as a result and so die earlier due to this. In addition a couple of studies have shown that motorists tend to give un-helmeted cyclists more room when passing so there is a possibility that wearing a helmet increases your chance of being hit by a vehicle. Also, a study has shown that cyclists wearing helmets tend to take more risks and so put themselves in more danger.

Also, why just cyclists? If it seems reasonable to force cyclists to wear helmets, wouldn't pedestrians benefit as well after all more than 4 times as many pedestrians are killed each year than cyclists? People in cars are the people most at risk from dying from head injuries despite their seatbelts... should they wear helmets?

I can't find any evidence at all to show how many of the 100 or so cyclists killed each year weren't wearing helmets and how many of those might have been saved by wearing a helmet but as most cyclists wear helmets and as cycle helmets are not really designed to prevent major trauma, I suspect that the number will be very small. Bearing in mind the potential risk to overall public health, compulsory helmets would seem to be a huge over-reaction to a realtively insignificant problem and possibly a counter-productive one as well.

Despite all that, when I ride a bike I almost always wear a helmet but I recognise that it is unlikely to save my life.

This is absolutely awful logic and you seem to have backed it up by saying 'and I have no evidence to back up my awful point but...'. In fact, the only time you've used any evidence was in reference to an unnamed "study", where anyone with half a brain cell can clearly conclude from your own points that the helmets aren't the issue, but the helmets wearing the helmets who get even cockier than the usual cycling crowd and take additional risks on the road...

But seriously, if as a cyclist you can't see the benefit of wearing a hat when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road, then I really can't help you. This stuff should be pretty damned self explanatory. Next you'll be telling horse riders not to wear helmets on the road or skiers not to wear helmets because they might get a bit too excited on the slopes...

 

[1066familyman]

This is absolutely awful logic and you seem to have backed it up by saying 'and I have no evidence to back up my awful point but...'. In fact, the only time you've used any evidence was in reference to an unnamed "study", where anyone with half a brain cell can clearly conclude from your own points that the helmets aren't the issue, but the helmets wearing the helmets who get even cockier than the usual cycling crowd and take additional risks on the road...

But seriously, if as a cyclist you can't see the benefit of wearing a hat when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road, then I really can't help you. This stuff should be pretty damned self explanatory. Next you'll be telling horse riders not to wear helmets on the road or skiers not to wear helmets because they might get a bit too excited on the slopes...

So do you think a helmet will protect you...when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road?

 

[Stat Brother]

So do you think a helmet will protect you...when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road?

From the Evening Standard article quoted this morning:-

Note is also made of whether cyclists are wearing helmets or high-visibility clothing, as advised by the Highway Code. However, in many cases, a helmet would not have prevented the cyclist from suffering fatal crush injuries under lorries.

Mr Porter said: “The criminal justice system continues to have a motor-centric bias. Too often there is far more focus on whether or not the victim was wearing a helmet or hi-viz tabard rather than on whether greater care from the motorist could have avoided the collision.”

All fairly academic as like many many cyclists I also wear a helmet, as second nature.
I insist my kids wear a helmet, although I don't when riding with them.


I don't expect it to save my life, I could just do without the headache added to the abrasions should I come off due to a mechanical or a pothole, etc.