Another cyclist dies in London

[Moonhawk]

cb1965 said:

When was the last time the government passed any specific legislation for cyclists? Ever?

Yep this. Why aren't cycle helmets and high vis now a mandatory requirement.

There is no reason this couldn't be introduced with on the spot fines or even points for those in possession of a driving licence for non compliance.

[Type R Tom]

Moonhawk said:

Yep this. Why aren't cycle helmets and high vis now a mandatory requirement.

There is no reason this couldn't be introduced with on the spot fines or even points for those in possession of a driving licence for non compliance.

Part off this issue is you'd restrict use. Imagine the Boris bikes, usage would drop and those short journeys would put people back on to public transport defeating the whole point of the scheme.

[blugnu]

Moonhawk said:

Yep this. Why aren't cycle helmets and high vis now a mandatory requirement.

Perhaps because the evidence that helmets are beneficial is somewhat disputed, and for the huge majority of accidents are irrelevant? If a 30 tonne tipper rides over you because the road layout means that if you get even slightly distracted you're likely to get squashed against the kerb, a few hundred grammes of foam isn't much help.

Or look at it the other way - motorists would be safer in four point harnesses, wearing crash helmets and nomex suits. Why isn't that mandatory?

[Stickyfinger]

Type R Tom said:

Part off this issue is you'd restrict use. Imagine the Boris bikes, usage would drop and those short journeys would put people back on to public transport defeating the whole point of the scheme.

Why, a helmet and a high-vis jacket is the size of a large sandwich....

[Moonhawk]

Type R Tom said:

Part off this issue is you'd restrict use. Imagine the Boris bikes, usage would drop and those short journeys would put people back on to public transport defeating the whole point of the scheme.

It's not insurmountable - and if it came to it, exceptions could be made for those relatively rare instances.

Private cycle use is by far the largest contributor - there is no reason why it couldn't be mandatory for all of the people using their own bikes

[skyrover]

Mave said:

skyrover said:

The only solution is separation.

Bicycles are incompatible with normal road going vehicles.

Until complete separation occurs, deaths will be disproportionate to other traffic

Bikes are normal road going traffic. The incompatibility is stupidity, ignorance, carelessness, recklessness, intolerance...

Stupidity and carelessness are always going to be a factor. They can not be legislated away, hence the fact despite the UK having statistically some of the safest roads in the world... there will always be a percentage of incompetence.

Neither the law, nor education can prevent this much more than we have gone. Essentially we are at the end of the road... so where do we go from here?

Car's and trucks must be crash tested. They travel much faster, weigh much more and must meet strict requirements to be allowed onto roads safely.

Bicycles are not crash tested, nor to they protect their driver.

The difference in weight and performance is vast.

You simply can not legislate against the laws of physics, or the physical reality that vehicles are piloted by humans.

If you want to reduce cycling fatalities, the only thing that can be done is remove the incompatibility... hence separation.

[heebeegeetee]

Moonhawk said:

Yep this. Why aren't cycle helmets and high vis now a mandatory requirement.

There is no reason this couldn't be introduced with on the spot fines or even points for those in possession of a driving licence for non compliance.

The reasons they're not mandatory are good and clear - they achieve nothing positive.

The only measurable difference such laws have ever made, anywhere around the world, is to reduce the numbers of cyclists and it is proven that cyclists are safer in numbers. The direct consequences of mandatory helmet laws is fewer cyclists, higher accident rate for cyclists, more cars, more congestion, worse air quality, higher recorded levels of obesity, and so on.

I know you won't agree with any of this, but honestly, there is like a million tons of evidence on the internet, the results of which are pretty overwhelming - all of the above is true.

They reckon in Australia it was like flicking a switch, such was the reductions in numbers of cyclists. The figure has now recovered but the population has also grown considerably so the rate is still depressed.

It was said that once adolescent girls were told they had to wear a helmet, 90% of them stopped cycling and that figure hasn't changed in the 20 years or so. I don't have a link right now but the casualty rates for cyclists in Australia is really high, at the other end of the scale from the Netherlands, of course.

[Moonhawk]

skyrover said:

.....the fact despite the UK having statistically some of the safest roads in the world...

This fact often gets overlooked IMO.

According to 2015 WHO statistics - the only major country in the world that has a lower death rate per capita on the roads is Sweden who just pip us by 0.1 fatality per 100,000 inhabitants. We currently lie 4th in the world - behind Monaco, The Federated state of Micronesia and Sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

We comfortably beat the Netherlands - despite them being held by some as a shining beacon of road safety.

Why do we not champion the fact that we have pretty much the best road safety record on the planet. Surely it's something to be proud of?

[swisstoni]

So in fact you are not in favour of any common-sense measures for safety that might also endanger the amount of people cycling.
I think this is quite telling; nothing must stand in the way of more people cycling.
These deaths are just collateral damage on the way forward to some cycling nirvana.

[Moonhawk]

heebeegeetee said:

The reasons they're not mandatory are good and clear - they achieve nothing positive.

The only measurable difference such laws have ever made, anywhere around the world, is to reduce the numbers of cyclists and it is proven that cyclists are safer in numbers. The direct consequences of mandatory helmet laws is fewer cyclists, higher accident rate for cyclists, more cars, more congestion, worse air quality, higher recorded levels of obesity, and so on.

I know you won't agree with any of this, but honestly, there is like a million tons of evidence on the internet, the results of which are pretty overwhelming - all of the above is true.

They reckon in Australia it was like flicking a switch, such was the reductions in numbers of cyclists. The figure has now recovered but the population has also grown considerably so the rate is still depressed.

It was said that once adolescent girls were told they had to wear a helmet, 90% of them stopped cycling and that figure hasn't changed in the 20 years or so. I don't have a link right now but the casualty rates for cyclists in Australia is really high, at the other end of the scale from the Netherlands, of course.

You cant win.

Try to mandate something to help keep cyclists safe - and they throw their toys out of their pram.

Is fashion and 'looking good' on a bike worth so much more than not being killed - clearly for many cyclists that would appear to be the case.

[yellowjack]

Moonhawk said:

skyrover said:

.....the fact despite the UK having statistically some of the safest roads in the world...

This fact often gets overlooked IMO.

According to 2015 WHO statistics - the only major country in the world that has a lower death rate per capita on the roads is Sweden who just pip us by 0.1 fatality per 100,000 inhabitants. We currently lie 4th in the world - behind Monaco, The Federated state of Micronesia and Sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

We comfortably beat the Netherlands - despite them being held by some as a shining beacon of road safety.

Why do we not champion the fact that we have pretty much the best road safety record on the planet. Surely it's something to be proud of?

If what you have stated is true (and I've no cause to doubt that it is) then why do "caring" drivers who are "just looking out for the interests of vulnerable cyclists" seem to bellyache so damned much about hi-vis and helmets, and make out that riding bicycles in traffic is dangerous in and of itself? Clearly, either the safety record is great, and there's no pressing need for compulsory helmet/hi-vis legislation, or the statistics are lying, anecdotal evidence from biased sources is far more reliable, and every citizen of the UK ought to be wrapped in bubble-wrap, and topped with a polystyrene 'safety' helmet every single time they step outside their own front door?

[skyrover]

Hi-vis jackets and helmets are essential indeed.

Cycling among busy traffic is inherently more dangerous than cycling away from traffic.

What's your point?

[Zigster]

Moonhawk said:

You cant win.

Try to mandate something to help keep cyclists safe - and they throw their toys out of their pram.

Is fashion and 'looking good' on a bike worth so much more than not being killed - clearly for many cyclists that would appear to be the case.

heebeegeetee's point is that helmets and high-viz aren't the safety panacea many people (using "common sense") assume they are. There's a wealth of research out there on this - cycle helmets in particular.

If they did provide a large safety benefit, there wouldn't be such a debate about their use.

[saaby93]

Moonhawk said:

You cant win.

Try to mandate something to help keep cyclists safe - and they throw their toys out of their pram.

Is fashion and 'looking good' on a bike worth so much more than not being killed - clearly for many cyclists that would appear to be the case.

The helmet argument has been done ( many times) before
It's not showing up as a benefit in the safety figures and it can prevent people cycling - something which generally improves health
You wouldnt want to stop anyone who wears one from wearing it
but you wouldnt want to mandate everyone else has to wear one too

It's also not shown to be relevant to the title of this thread

[Moonhawk]

yellowjack said:

If what you have stated is true (and I've no cause to doubt that it is) then why do "caring" drivers who are "just looking out for the interests of vulnerable cyclists" seem to bellyache so damned much about hi-vis and helmets, and make out that riding bicycles in traffic is dangerous in and of itself? Clearly, either the safety record is great, and there's no pressing need for compulsory helmet/hi-vis legislation, or the statistics are lying, anecdotal evidence from biased sources is far more reliable, and every citizen of the UK ought to be wrapped in bubble-wrap, and topped with a polystyrene 'safety' helmet every single time they step outside their own front door?

Cyclists are calling for something to be done to reduce the fatality rate - mandatory hi-viz and helmets are a simple measure that could be implemented which may go some way to helping achieve this.

Although we have a good safety record and I suspect we are very much into the realms of diminishing returns - I reckon there are still gains that could be made by implementing such legislation and increasing awareness amongst vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists via compulsory education/training - along with continued revision of legislation for drivers.

[heebeegeetee]

Moonhawk said:

You cant win.

Try to mandate something to help keep cyclists safe - and they throw their toys out of their pram.

Is fashion and 'looking good' on a bike worth so much more than not being killed - clearly for many cyclists that would appear to be the case.

I'm not a cyclist. I am just somebody who can read, that's all.

As you raise the subject of fashion, this is a fashion guru's view.

It is very interesting, please have a read. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/...

Incidentally, helmets for car occupants. As things stand right now, with all the inbuilt safety in cars, if all car occupants were forced to wear full face helmets, we would achieve: Fewer cars on the road, less congestion, better air quality, better public health, but possibly most importantly, more lives actually saved and reduction costs to the NHS (especially if people choose to walk or cycle for short journeys).

So f you can give me any valid reason why car occupants shouldn't be made to wear helmets, I'm all ears.

In fact, the real main point about cycle helmets is that having put one on, there really isn't a valid reason for taking it off when you've stopped cycling, because head injuries are common and most of the million people going to A&E each year with a head injury are not cyclists.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 2nd March 11:01

[Mr Snrub]

Having to wear a hard hat on a construction site is uncomfortable and wouldn't protect me from being run over by a JCB. Wearing a helmet on a battlefield restricts my view and wouldn't stop me being blown up by a shell. It ought to be my choice!

[saaby93]

Mr Snrub said:

Having to wear a hard hat on a construction site is uncomfortable and wouldn't protect me from being run over by a JCB. Wearing a helmet on a battlefield restricts my view and wouldn't stop me being blown up by a shell.

It's worse than that
Once you've put a helmet on you're more likely to go places that are more risky
If we're talking about cyclists, other road users give you less space as you look more professional and must know what you're doing.

Has anyone shown that the accidents in London have led to more deaths because someone isnt wearing a helmet, or more because theyve adopted more risky practices?

[Zigster]

Mr Snrub said:

Having to wear a hard hat on a construction site is uncomfortable and wouldn't protect me from being run over by a JCB. Wearing a helmet on a battlefield restricts my view and wouldn't stop me being blown up by a shell. It ought to be my choice!

I'm assuming by that comment that you find it easier to make flaky analogies than actually look at the research on the safety benefit provided by cycle helmets?

If you think your analogies work, why just apply them to cyclists? Why not apply them to pedestrians, car drivers, bus passengers, train passengers, ... ?

[swisstoni]

heebeegeetee said:

I'm not a cyclist. ]

What ???