Licence or ban cycling in London

[okgo]

Ok.

I fell off last Thursday with no helmet and my head didn't touch the ground, 22mph, lost it on a wet corner.

That's cancelled that out then

I don't always not wear one, and I get arguments for either side, but making it law is pointless, and as per everything else mentioned in this utterly retarded thread - unenforceable.

[idiotgap]

The thing with helmets is...

You are only risking your own head if you choose not to bother. If you get a brain injury or killed, it might impact those who depend on you, but compared with with other behaviours so far mentioned on this sorry thread it's not really threatening others.

[Usget]

Here's my helmet:



Given that it took the force of the blow right over the temple, I'm pretty sure it's the difference between me being a bit bashed up and me being a dribbling vegetable.

On this basis, would I recommend strongly that people wear them? Yep.
Would I campaign for them to be made a legal requirement? No, absolutely not.

[popeyewhite]

okgo said:

You've questioned that people use their car as a weapon,

No. And I have no idea why you would think that. I pointed out how much more vulnerable cyclists were to personal injury than car drivers were and so questioned some cyclists behaviour on the road.

okgo said:

I think you must have some kind of issue with cognitive thought?

What kind of issue?

[okgo]

popeyewhite said:

What kind of issue?

You posted 'hmmmmmmmmmmmm' under my quote saying they do - you write in a very bizarre way - hence my second comment.

[popeyewhite]

okgo said:

popeyewhite said:

What kind of issue?

You posted 'hmmmmmmmmmmmm' under my quote saying they do - you write in a very bizarre way - hence my second comment.

I wrote

popeyewhite said:

Hmmm

What kind of issue do you think this suggests?

[g7orge]

battered said:

g7orge said:

I was crossing the road after work tonight - green walk sign was still displayed, when 3 cyclists and 1 moped rider waited for people to get half way across and just continued through. I see this daily in London by cyclists and moped riders. You can't ban cycling because of a few idiots - however there should be a crackdown to stop this behaviour - on the spot fine or removal of cycle...

I saw 2 cars do the same in London earlier this week. I didn't see the cars get crushed. Where's the crackdown on this sort of behaviour?

If you read my post correctly you would see I am saying its not just bicycles that are going through red lights- There will always be the odd idiot in a car/bike/scooter etc who feel the road is theirs and nothing will stop them getting to their destination.

[Pothole]

g7orge said:

I was crossing the road after work tonight - green walk sign was still displayed, when 3 cyclists and 1 moped rider waited for people to get half way across and just continued through. I see this daily in London by cyclists and moped riders. You can't ban cycling because of a few idiots - however there should be a crackdown to stop this behaviour - on the spot fine or removal of cycle...

If they're in front of you, push them off. If they're behind you, keep walking.

[battered]

g7orge said:

battered said:

g7orge said:

I was crossing the road after work tonight - green walk sign was still displayed, when 3 cyclists and 1 moped rider waited for people to get half way across and just continued through. I see this daily in London by cyclists and moped riders. You can't ban cycling because of a few idiots - however there should be a crackdown to stop this behaviour - on the spot fine or removal of cycle...

I saw 2 cars do the same in London earlier this week. I didn't see the cars get crushed. Where's the crackdown on this sort of behaviour?

If you read my post correctly you would see I am saying its not just bicycles that are going through red lights- There will always be the odd idiot in a car/bike/scooter etc who feel the road is theirs and nothing will stop them getting to their destination.

I did, now try reading mine again.

[battered]

okgo said:

Nope. Waste of time, makes no odds to fatalities.

There are many stats out there on this.

I put my helmeted head through the windscreen of a Toyota Starlet. The driver was given a driving ban, I was given hospital treatment. Both I and the policeman who scraped me off the road are convinced that I wouldn't be alive without a lid. I still have it, with multiple splits in it.

[g7orge]

battered said:

g7orge said:

battered said:

g7orge said:

I was crossing the road after work tonight - green walk sign was still displayed, when 3 cyclists and 1 moped rider waited for people to get half way across and just continued through. I see this daily in London by cyclists and moped riders. You can't ban cycling because of a few idiots - however there should be a crackdown to stop this behaviour - on the spot fine or removal of cycle...

I saw 2 cars do the same in London earlier this week. I didn't see the cars get crushed. Where's the crackdown on this sort of behaviour?

If you read my post correctly you would see I am saying its not just bicycles that are going through red lights- There will always be the odd idiot in a car/bike/scooter etc who feel the road is theirs and nothing will stop them getting to their destination.

I did, now try reading mine again.

I did, hence why I wrote my reply.

[walm]

popeyewhite said:

Cyclists are more likely to pay for their stupidity on the road in a more physical way than car drivers though. Certainly cyclists' lack of self-preservation has been noted many times.

They will indeed pay for their stupidity.
They will also pay for the stupidity of drivers.
That's what being a "vulnerable road user" means, doesn't it?

Cyclists' lack of self-preservation has been noted many times, for sure, however, what is surprising is how:
1. In accidents the motorist is more often at fault than the cyclist.
2. The number of fatalities is astonishingly low, even in London.

Roughly 10 a year appears almost miraculous to me.
So my conclusion is that the vitriol behind all the people noting any "lack of self-preservation" is hyperbole.
Or more likely, the well known effect of only remembering bad stuff.
You simply don't get people posting incessantly in General Gassing about the huge number of journeys where cyclists didn't attempt to kill themselves in front of them!

[popeyewhite]

walm said:

They will indeed pay for their stupidity.

Which was my point. Not who is more guilty than the other. If you open your mind a bit it actually explains a little why car drivers might be more dangerous. I would comment further but I'm awaiting diagnosis of my 'issue' from okgo, Pedal Powered's self-appointed and clearly self-taught therapist.

[walm]

popeyewhite said:

walm said:

They will indeed pay for their stupidity.

Which was my point. Not who is more guilty than the other. If you open your mind a bit it actually explains a little why car drivers might be more dangerous. I would comment further but I'm awaiting diagnosis of my 'issue' from okgo, Pedal Powered's self-appointed and clearly self-taught therapist.

I think perhaps the strong reaction was just because following up a perfectly valid point about the vulnerability of cyclists with "noted lack of self-preservation" might lead people to infer that the blame is predominantly with suicidal nutters on two wheels!

[popeyewhite]

walm said:

I think perhaps the strong reaction was just because following up a perfectly valid point about the vulnerability of cyclists with "noted lack of self-preservation" might lead people to infer that the blame is predominantly with suicidal nutters on two wheels!

Some on here seem particularly defensive, that's for sure. Hey ho!

[Vipers]

stuttgartmetal said:

I really don't see cycling to work in central London viable
We are spending millions changing the road for cyclist
How is it then that they feel free to ignore the Highway Code
I ride a GS1200A to work and it's a freeforall riding from Vauxhall to Streatham
Mainly men completely taking the bus lane shabbily cycling home
The WestEnd is similar with several shouty types on bikes

First of, the cost
Why are we spending millions promoting cycling in London?
Like NewYork, London is too busy and dangerous

Secondly. How is it cyclists can do what they like?

Discuss

I think you have as much chance of educating cyclists as educating pedestrians, strange how cycling in Holland seems to work as far as I know. We seem to have too many kamakarzi cyclists in London.

Don't see an answer.

[walm]

popeyewhite said:

walm said:

I think perhaps the strong reaction was just because following up a perfectly valid point about the vulnerability of cyclists with "noted lack of self-preservation" might lead people to infer that the blame is predominantly with suicidal nutters on two wheels!

Some on here seem particularly defensive, that's for sure. Hey ho!

If only they applied it to their cycling!

(Just kidding, I am rabidly pro-cyclist, I know we are way more defensive than those cagers could possibly fathom!!)

[popeyewhite]

walm said:

If only they applied it to their cycling!

(Just kidding, I am rabidly pro-cyclist, I know we are way more defensive than those cagers could possibly fathom!!)

I'm so defensive on both cycle and motorbike I'll often take the car instead on balance of safety. What I have noticed is sometimes my defensiveness actually gets me in more hot water. I was once knocked off a motorbike when, whilst in a defensive position waiting to turn right (not so far over to encourage undertaking as the road was quite narrow) a car going straight on undertook and clipped me. His excuse? "Well you didn't leave me enough room"

[yellowjack]

battered said:

okgo said:

Nope. Waste of time, makes no odds to fatalities.

There are many stats out there on this.

I put my helmeted head through the windscreen of a Toyota Starlet. The driver was given a driving ban, I was given hospital treatment. Both I and the policeman who scraped me off the road are convinced that I wouldn't be alive without a lid. I still have it, with multiple splits in it.

I broke my shoulder blade on the windscreen pillar of a Mercedes Sprinter van, before doing a 14mph 'superman' 20ft across a roundabout when the twunt driving it finally hit the brakes. My helmet has barely a scratch on it. I didn't skip off happily singing songs about how I'd never need to wear a helmet again, though. But I WILL continue to reserve my right to choose to wear a helmet or not, and would never berate another adult for making a different choice.

Purely anecdotal, maybe, but I have a friend in Australia, where they have compulsory helmet laws. Not only is it now MORE dangerous to ride because many less committed cyclists have been deterred from riding (reduced 'safety in numbers' effect), but if you simply forget to put your hat on one morning you can't simply think "whoops!" and rectify things tomorrow. No, you have a stressful ride to work, worrying about whether or not you'll be spotted and fined $150AUD, then you have to either scrabble round for a lid to borrow for the ride home, buy another one, get a lift home, or double your risk to being on the receiving end of a fine if you chance your arm and ride home bare-headed.

[Vipers]

Now we bring up helmets, what's the big deal if wearing one was compulsory, bit like wearing a seat belt, we didn't used to, now its second nature.

I wonder how many minor incidents where a rider kisses the windscreen of the plonker who hit them and the helmet took the impact, result, nothing reported or entered into stats.

Each to their own though. Isn't there a chance if you did sustain a head injury which "may" have been reduced if you had worn a helmet, result in a lower compensation pay out.

As a motorist and cyclist, one thing I would like to be compulsory is a bell/horn on bikes. Often I go for a walk on a path shared by pedestrians and bikes with clear concise signs telling cyclists to sound the bell, they still zip past with no audio indication of their approach.