Licence or ban cycling in London
Discussion
Kell... just watch.
Almost no one in the last decade has died doing it, for example.
Literally ZERO pedestrians have been killed by RLJing cylists.
Guess how many drivers were killed by cyclists...!!? - Also obviously zero! (Sadly not true vice-versa.)
I agree that huge numbers RLJ. But that isn't prima facie evidence of bad cycling. Unless you agree that huge numbers of speeding motorists show the percentage of bad driving is "very high".
AMG Merc said:
Ross, OK, not "EVERY" but sadly a very large proportion of cyclists do not obey either traffic law or common sense. A simple count (I said count!) sitting at numerous busy traffic light junctions across London wll show anyone with an open mind the percentage of bad cyclists is very high.
AMG - which bit of common sense don't they obey? Because jumping lights in London can be perfectly safe.Almost no one in the last decade has died doing it, for example.
Literally ZERO pedestrians have been killed by RLJing cylists.
Guess how many drivers were killed by cyclists...!!? - Also obviously zero! (Sadly not true vice-versa.)
I agree that huge numbers RLJ. But that isn't prima facie evidence of bad cycling. Unless you agree that huge numbers of speeding motorists show the percentage of bad driving is "very high".
Maxf said:
AMG Merc said:
Ross, OK, not "EVERY" but sadly a very large proportion of cyclists do not obey either traffic law or common sense. A simple count (I said count!) sitting at numerous busy traffic light junctions across London wll show anyone with an open mind the percentage of bad cyclists is very high.
Sit on a bike and see how many cars go through lights on red - its amazing. I never would have believed it until I started cycling to work. At almost every light I get to, cars seem to think amber means go and red means go if it hasn't been red long (definition of long seems to vary considerably). This isn't cars which aren't able to slow down, it's cars which are simply bored of waiting at lights.Try and ride around London - the number of cars and busses (busses are the worst) blocking junctions is incredible. A massive proportion of cabs seem to use indicators rather too sparingly, and love a surprise u-turn to demonstrate their 'turn on a penny' ability.
Poor roadmanship is utterly RIFE in London - to the point of it being almost third world. Bikes aren't the best, but nor are cars. It's all f
ked. The difference is, the bike rider ends up with a broken collarbone or worse, while the driver gets away with a(nother) dent. Vipers said:
walm said:
Compulsory helmets put people off cycling.
What do you base that on? Was there a survey. Just asking.t* load of research done globally about cycle helmets. I actually find it very interesting and when I take a look from time to time, I'm always surprised at the degree of new stuff that can be found.So yes, the reductions in cycling have indeed been recorded. They reckon in Australia it was like flicking a switch when the helmet law came in. I recall reading that the numbers of adolescent girls cycling reduced by 90% and stayed there.
It is said that even just the promotion of helmets creates a negative effect, because it means an excellent method of exercise is promoted as a dangerous activity, and thus all the normal, sensible, cautious people (who we might prefer to see on bikes instead of what we have now) stay in their cars instead, and contribute to congestion, poor air quality, increased danger to other road users and so on.
Head injuries are common, with apparently some one million people visiting a & e each year with a head injury. The vast majority of them are not cyclists. Cars, the home, the workplace, are all common sources of head injury but for some reason only one section of society is called upon to protect their heads.
As it is now I'd say those cyclists in the UK who should be wearing a helmet already are. Normal utility cycling has never been shown to be more risky than any other safe activity (but the benefits of such cycling are enormous) so there is no need for those to wear helmets (or no more need than anyone else).
Kell said:
It really is a pointless debate, because no one is going to change their mind on the strength of this thread.
Yes cyclists do some stupid things. But so do drivers. And motorcyclists. And bus drivers. And pedestrians. It's just human nature.
But there are no two ways about it, car drivers doing something wrong - either deliberately or accidentally - is far more dangerous than a cyclist doing it.
Last night I got overtaken (in my car) by a taxi doing about 60 in a 30 zone. That's infinitely more dangerous than a cyclist jumping a red light.
And every single day on my commute, I see far more cars stopped parked part-way into bike boxes (or even stopping at the ASL) than I do cyclists jumping lights. That's counted as driving through a red light and is punishable by three points and a £60 fine. I've never seen anyone done for that - even when there's a police car sat behind them.
As had been mentioned by a few people, when a cyclist does something wrong and it goes wrong, they're the ones who normally end up worse off. So you'll tend to find that most good riders don't put themselves in harm's way. A 20mph accident involving two cars probably won't involve the death of either of the drivers, but it could mean curtains for a cyclist.
Of the deaths in London in recent years, you'll tend to find that a disproportionately high percentage of them have been women. And not lycra clad TDF wannabes. They've been crushed by lorries turning left or by being on the left of a lorry as it drives through a narrow piece of road. This, ironically, is about them adhering to law rather than them being a 'nutter' cyclist.
http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/wh...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
Which is why I said earlier some sort of proficiency test should be offered before you decide to go cycling in towns. But making it compulsory is pointless as it would be prohibitively expensive to police.
Even if you ignore the greater benefits (to the NHS) of having more healthy people in the country, surely even the most blinkered driver can see that more cyclists on the road is better for drivers not worse.
Imagine if every London cycle commuter took their car into the centre of town. There'd be gridlock. Far from holding you up they're doing you a favour.
This sense of privilege and entitlement that most people seem to have that their journey is more important because they're in a car, or that bikes somehow don't 'deserve' to be there absolutely baffles me.
These are the same people that are so small-minded and petty that I bet they don't use 'Merge' signs properly and think that anyone using the outside lane is somehow pushing in. I bet they never let any poor fker out of a side-street and instead sit blocking the junction. I bet they'll happily do 35 in a 30 despite all the evidence pointing to how much more dangerous that is, and how much more likely you are to kill a pedestrian. I bet they'll barrel along the motorway at 85 and flash anyone in the outside lane that slows them down. I bet they won't move over in anyone doing 90 comes up behind them and flashes them. And I bet they go to the pub and shout at anyone who will listen (and even those that don't want to) about how they saw some crazed, selfish cyclist breaking the law by going through a red light.
It really isn't about cyclists v drivers it's about idiots - and you get those in all forms of transport.
An excellent post!Yes cyclists do some stupid things. But so do drivers. And motorcyclists. And bus drivers. And pedestrians. It's just human nature.
But there are no two ways about it, car drivers doing something wrong - either deliberately or accidentally - is far more dangerous than a cyclist doing it.
Last night I got overtaken (in my car) by a taxi doing about 60 in a 30 zone. That's infinitely more dangerous than a cyclist jumping a red light.
And every single day on my commute, I see far more cars stopped parked part-way into bike boxes (or even stopping at the ASL) than I do cyclists jumping lights. That's counted as driving through a red light and is punishable by three points and a £60 fine. I've never seen anyone done for that - even when there's a police car sat behind them.
As had been mentioned by a few people, when a cyclist does something wrong and it goes wrong, they're the ones who normally end up worse off. So you'll tend to find that most good riders don't put themselves in harm's way. A 20mph accident involving two cars probably won't involve the death of either of the drivers, but it could mean curtains for a cyclist.
Of the deaths in London in recent years, you'll tend to find that a disproportionately high percentage of them have been women. And not lycra clad TDF wannabes. They've been crushed by lorries turning left or by being on the left of a lorry as it drives through a narrow piece of road. This, ironically, is about them adhering to law rather than them being a 'nutter' cyclist.
http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/wh...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
Which is why I said earlier some sort of proficiency test should be offered before you decide to go cycling in towns. But making it compulsory is pointless as it would be prohibitively expensive to police.
Even if you ignore the greater benefits (to the NHS) of having more healthy people in the country, surely even the most blinkered driver can see that more cyclists on the road is better for drivers not worse.
Imagine if every London cycle commuter took their car into the centre of town. There'd be gridlock. Far from holding you up they're doing you a favour.
This sense of privilege and entitlement that most people seem to have that their journey is more important because they're in a car, or that bikes somehow don't 'deserve' to be there absolutely baffles me.
These are the same people that are so small-minded and petty that I bet they don't use 'Merge' signs properly and think that anyone using the outside lane is somehow pushing in. I bet they never let any poor f
ker out of a side-street and instead sit blocking the junction. I bet they'll happily do 35 in a 30 despite all the evidence pointing to how much more dangerous that is, and how much more likely you are to kill a pedestrian. I bet they'll barrel along the motorway at 85 and flash anyone in the outside lane that slows them down. I bet they won't move over in anyone doing 90 comes up behind them and flashes them. And I bet they go to the pub and shout at anyone who will listen (and even those that don't want to) about how they saw some crazed, selfish cyclist breaking the law by going through a red light.It really isn't about cyclists v drivers it's about idiots - and you get those in all forms of transport.
Ultimately this is a pointless debate anyway. Cyclists aren't going to be taxed, aren't going to have to hold licenses and aren't going away.
So all these overweight, overstressed angry car and van drivers are just going to have to deal with it!
So much aggression on the roads these days. In Aberdeen there are some ped lights just off the roundabout, and across the junction it clearly says KEEP CLEAR, so when a couple of cars stop at the lights, you are supposed to wait before that sign to allow vehicles to cross the roundabout.
Nine times out of ten when I stop there, cars behind start honking, FFS lights are red I can't go anywhere except to move onto the KEEP CLEAR section.
I visit London once year, and feel lucky I don't have to drive through it daily, once a year is enough.
Nine times out of ten when I stop there, cars behind start honking, FFS lights are red I can't go anywhere except to move onto the KEEP CLEAR section.
I visit London once year, and feel lucky I don't have to drive through it daily, once a year is enough.
Kell said:
walm said:
Kell said:
That's 14% too many.
It's not.Yanks turn right on red mostly without incident, and that's in a tonne+ of steel.
And if no one is there, who is being surprised?
Fine - you win on the legal point.
But don't you ever speed?
Don't you think the 10%+2 rule is relatively sensible?
Don't you think 80mph on an empty dry motorway is perfectly acceptable?
heebeegeetee said:
If you have a google of it, (and I'm serious btw, I'm not trolling or anything like that) there is a *st* load of research done globally about cycle helmets. I actually find it very interesting and when I take a look from time to time, I'm always surprised at the degree of new stuff that can be found.
So yes, the reductions in cycling have indeed been recorded. They reckon in Australia it was like flicking a switch when the helmet law came in. I recall reading that the numbers of adolescent girls cycling reduced by 90% and stayed there.
I know your not, think I know you better than that, from links so far including mine, seems different results from different parts. I would think it's difficult to compare cycling in Holland to cycling in London, and as it seems New York and Australia.t* load of research done globally about cycle helmets. I actually find it very interesting and when I take a look from time to time, I'm always surprised at the degree of new stuff that can be found.So yes, the reductions in cycling have indeed been recorded. They reckon in Australia it was like flicking a switch when the helmet law came in. I recall reading that the numbers of adolescent girls cycling reduced by 90% and stayed there.
Vipers said:
I know your not, think I know you better than that, from links so far including mine, seems different results from different parts. I would think it's difficult to compare cycling in Holland to cycling in London, and as it seems New York and Australia.
Not sure what you mean about "results". Aus is the only one you mention which implemented compulsory helmets.
walm said:
Vipers said:
I know your not, think I know you better than that, from links so far including mine, seems different results from different parts. I would think it's difficult to compare cycling in Holland to cycling in London, and as it seems New York and Australia.
Not sure what you mean about "results". Aus is the only one you mention which implemented compulsory helmets.Whereas the New York stats seem to show that there was a significant difference between wearing a helmet v not wearing one.
Vipers said:
What I was thinking when I said that was whilst the oz results said after 20 years and plenty of research, there is still no compelling evidence that Australia's compulsory helmet laws have reduced injury rates on a population-wide basis.
Whereas the New York stats seem to show that there was a significant difference between wearing a helmet v not wearing one.
I don't think the NY stats show that though do they?Whereas the New York stats seem to show that there was a significant difference between wearing a helmet v not wearing one.
Lots of people died without a helmet - maybe lots don't wear one.
Maybe those who choose not to wear one are inherently bigger risk takers.
Hence the "may reduce" part of the title, I guess...?
walm said:
Vipers said:
What I was thinking when I said that was whilst the oz results said after 20 years and plenty of research, there is still no compelling evidence that Australia's compulsory helmet laws have reduced injury rates on a population-wide basis.
Whereas the New York stats seem to show that there was a significant difference between wearing a helmet v not wearing one.
I don't think the NY stats show that though do they?Whereas the New York stats seem to show that there was a significant difference between wearing a helmet v not wearing one.
Lots of people died without a helmet - maybe lots don't wear one.
Maybe those who choose not to wear one are inherently bigger risk takers.
Hence the "may reduce" part of the title, I guess...?
Bicycle lanes and helmets may reduce the risk of death.
Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
I assume they have to say "may", if they say "will", and it doesn't happen, interpret it as you feel fit. Of course those who died could have been run over and their head wasn't involved, statistics are wonderful.
walm said:
Kell said:
walm said:
Kell said:
That's 14% too many.
It's not.Yanks turn right on red mostly without incident, and that's in a tonne+ of steel.
And if no one is there, who is being surprised?
Fine - you win on the legal point.
But don't you ever speed?
Don't you think the 10%+2 rule is relatively sensible?
Don't you think 80mph on an empty dry motorway is perfectly acceptable?
Yes - but not in town. I stick rigidly to the 30mph.
Yes.
Totally.
Vipers said:
Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
I am clearly being slow, honestly not trolling or being obtuse - I promise!!Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
I think you are mis-reading these numbers.
They just don't really tell us anything.
But - 74% of fatalities involving a head injury sounds perfectly normal to me. People who hurt their heads in a crash with tonnes of steel are quite likely to die, aren't they?
I would imagine a huge proportion of fatalities in the UK and Aus also involve head injuries, don't they?
So then we have 97% of fatalities not wearing a helmet.
If 97% of riders don't wear helmets then non-helmet wearers aren't over-indexing.
Whether or not you wear a helmet makes no difference to the likelihood of dying, right?
And further, you still need to show that it is THE HELMET that makes the difference rather than the type of rider likely to not wear a helmet.
There needs to be a control.
That's why data from countries where mandatory laws come in are helpful.
If you have a huge drop in injuries as more people wear helmets then it's fairly clear that the helmets are doing some good.
But IIRC that doesn't happen.
Pachydermus said:
Vipers said:
walm said:
Compulsory helmets put people off cycling.
What do you base that on? Was there a survey. Just asking.
design a collapsible helmet for commuters 
AMG Merc said:
Pachydermus said:
Vipers said:
walm said:
Compulsory helmets put people off cycling.
What do you base that on? Was there a survey. Just asking. design a collapsible helmet for commuters http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38004215
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff