Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
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!
Hard hats on construction sites? Really not designed for preventing crush injuries due to errant JCB drivers. We have training and qualifications for that, to try to ensure the JCB drivers don't crush their colleagues. Kevlar on the battlefield? Again, not designed for protection against HE direct hits. But great for protection from splinters, shrapnel, and some direct hits from small arms fire.
In much the same way that few of the deaths of cyclists in London have been down to head injuries alone, and lack of a helmet in particular. Helmets are not designed to protect the head from the significant forces involved in a collision with a vehicle. They were first envisaged as a device to protect riders in bicycle races from suffering unnecessary injuries when in collision with other cyclists and from simply coming off at speed. Much like your other two examples they do little or nothing to address injuries to the remainder of the body.
Figures show that in construction, and on the battlefield, a high proportion of injuries are head injuries. Due to having construction materiel or tools dropped from height, or from the fact that on a battlefield the part of your body most frequently exposed to the enemy is your head, as you look out from behind cover. Prior to WWI the army weren't routinely issued 'combat helmets', but immobile trench warfare changed things, and helmets went some way to preventing injuries to soldiers in trenches. In the same way, statistical analysis has shown that the danger of head injuries is high in the construction industry, so choice there has been taken away.
If statistics could really prove, beyond a doubt, that cycle helmets really would reduce injury rates for cyclists, you can be sure that the government would quickly knock up some legislation to require them. But so many studies have resulted in conflicting evidence, and so much of the debate is based on unreliable anecdotal evidence or biased opinion. As such there is no scientifically auditable data to prove the efficacy of the humble bicycle helmet one way or the other. For one thing, the way that accident/injury data is gathered and used by the NHS A&E units is known to not "ask the right questions" in order to get to a definitive answer.
Back to the construction industry and military angles? The reason why the uptake in helmet wearing is 100%, or very close to it is legislation AND lack of a choice. People who make their living building things or soldiering don't have a ready alternative to turn to where they don't have to wear helmets. It's a case of wear the helmet or completely re-train. Cyclists have options. Make helmets law, and many would stop cycling. Walking, driving, buses, and trains are all viable alternatives. More people off bikes usually means more people into cars and more congestion. Which is the exact opposite of what public health campaigns and road designers want. Experiences observed in Australia paint a bleak picture of what results from helmet legislation, which is one of the main reasons why I don't think any government in the near future is going to waste time on this relatively low priority issue.
The case for some form of compulsory bicycle training scheme (probably at senior school age) is far stronger than any case for the introduction of compulsory bicycle helmets legislation ever will be. All simply my opinion, of course, and not evidence based in any way...
swisstoni said:
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.
Absolutely spot on. You've got it to a tee, perhaps not in the way you intended though.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.
If we have more people cycling, *everybody* benefits. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/a...
I mean, who wouldn't benefit if we had fair use of the roads for all? If we had proper cycling infrastructure, with some segregation etc, we might get a few million cars off the road and make driving better for those of us who enjoy it.
Ordinary, utility cycling is not dangerous in any possible measurable way. It's very sad that cycling gets talked about in the same terms as say, the construction industry or the battlefield, because it gives the completely erroneous impression that cycling is dangerous, and it just is not.
This thread is misleading because it gives the impression that London's cyclists are in some particular form of danger; they're not, they suffer a lower casualty rate than pedestrians and motor cyclists. Somebody has posted a link showing that London is below the national average of cycling casualty, which would back up the 'safety in numbers' fact. There are millions of journeys made by bike per annum in London with fewer than 20 cyclists killed each year.
The issue is why are hgvs are disproportionately involved, that's all.
My solutions would be to greatly increase cycling numbers and safety by segregation etc, and ensure hgvs which are actually fit for purpose.
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
I don't see EVERYONE pushing for motorists to follow the rules, for sanctions when they don't - so no, it doesn't "happen with other road users".
Are you for real? Every year more and more laws and increased penalties are introduced for motorists at the behest of these stupid militant road safety groups while the country's infrastructure is made less and less motorised vehicle friendly. When was the last time the government passed any specific legislation for cyclists? Ever? Anyone can climb on a bike and ride anywhere they like with no fear of any reprisals should they choose to break the law over and over. It's absolutely stupid!The fact that you refer to them as "stupid militant road safety groups" implies that you don't agree with them.
If everyone pushed for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't then surely there would be no motorists breaking rules, and no complaints on pistonheads about the penalties, would there?
So yes, I'm for real, I don't see everyone pushing for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't.
heebeegeetee said:
This thread is misleading because it gives the impression that London's cyclists are in some particular form of danger; they're not, they suffer a lower casualty rate than pedestrians and motor cyclists. Somebody has posted a link showing that London is below the national average of cycling casualty, which would back up the 'safety in numbers' fact. There are millions of journeys made by bike per annum in London with fewer than 20 cyclists killed each year.
The issue is why are hgvs are disproportionately involved, that's all.
Maybe theyre not. Maybe theyre what youd expect given the numbers of each and the road layoutsThe issue is why are hgvs are disproportionately involved, that's all.
heebeegeetee said:
My solutions would be to greatly increase cycling numbers and safety by segregation etc, and ensure hgvs which are actually fit for purpose.
Who says theyre not?Mave said:
The people who pass the legislations, and increase the penalties aren't everyone are they?
The fact that you refer to them as "stupid militant road safety groups" implies that you don't agree with them.
If everyone pushed for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't then surely there would be no motorists breaking rules, and no complaints on pistonheads about the penalties, would there?
So yes, I'm for real, I don't see everyone pushing for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't.
No I don't agree with them. We have had two centuries of industrial and technological innovation that have enabled the human race to generally move forward and achieve things that once seemed impossible. The UK is a major player in the world economy and we have achieved that in part by having the ability to move about quickly and reliably due to those advances. Now in the early 21st century we are no longer interested in reducing journey times and being able to do more with our time, instead we are fixated by slowing everyone down in the name of health and safety and it's stupid.The fact that you refer to them as "stupid militant road safety groups" implies that you don't agree with them.
If everyone pushed for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't then surely there would be no motorists breaking rules, and no complaints on pistonheads about the penalties, would there?
So yes, I'm for real, I don't see everyone pushing for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't.
The real answer is to remove the thick and stupid from the gene pool so the rest of us can get on with it. We should be spending more money on building better faster safer electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy and developing a proper road infrastructure to support faster journey times and not investing in stupid cycle super highways and nonsense like that.
If cyclists want to share the roads with faster safer vehicles then they need to stop whining and take their chances!
telecat said:
cb1965 said:
SystemParanoia said:
The roads were created for horses...
We have moved on FFS! Or do you still want to burn witches??the motorist didn't arrive to the party until much much later
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
The people who pass the legislations, and increase the penalties aren't everyone are they?
The fact that you refer to them as "stupid militant road safety groups" implies that you don't agree with them.
If everyone pushed for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't then surely there would be no motorists breaking rules, and no complaints on pistonheads about the penalties, would there?
So yes, I'm for real, I don't see everyone pushing for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't.
No I don't agree with them. We have had two centuries of industrial and technological innovation that have enabled the human race to generally move forward and achieve things that once seemed impossible. The UK is a major player in the world economy and we have achieved that in part by having the ability to move about quickly and reliably due to those advances. Now in the early 21st century we are no longer interested in reducing journey times and being able to do more with our time, instead we are fixated by slowing everyone down in the name of health and safety and it's stupid.The fact that you refer to them as "stupid militant road safety groups" implies that you don't agree with them.
If everyone pushed for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't then surely there would be no motorists breaking rules, and no complaints on pistonheads about the penalties, would there?
So yes, I'm for real, I don't see everyone pushing for motorists to follow the rules, and for sanctions when they don't.
The real answer is to remove the thick and stupid from the gene pool so the rest of us can get on with it. We should be spending more money on building better faster safer electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy and developing a proper road infrastructure to support faster journey times and not investing in stupid cycle super highways and nonsense like that.
If cyclists want to share the roads with faster safer vehicles then they need to stop whining and take their chances!
What was it you said about being thought a fool...
cb1965 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Do you know the fastest way to get about in London?
What was it you said about being thought a fool...
Why don't you read the post instead of trying to be clever as you're not and it's tiresome.What was it you said about being thought a fool...
You want faster journey times in the city? On your bike Sonny...
WinstonWolf said:
You do know you *are* the traffic, not held up by it. That's why I sometimes leave the car at home, so the fatties can stew in their jams while I blast by them on my bike
You want faster journey times in the city? On your bike Sonny...
I assume you're being deliberately obtuse or can you genuinely not understand the post? You want faster journey times in the city? On your bike Sonny...
cb1965 said:
WinstonWolf said:
You do know you *are* the traffic, not held up by it. That's why I sometimes leave the car at home, so the fatties can stew in their jams while I blast by them on my bike
You want faster journey times in the city? On your bike Sonny...
I assume you're being deliberately obtuse or can you genuinely not understand the post? You want faster journey times in the city? On your bike Sonny...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff