Do you 'engage' with cyclists?
Discussion
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Personally, I always wear a helmet for cycling, but I don't see how that's anyone's business but my own. Some real nanny staters round here.
I just find it odd that moped riders must wear a helmet and cyclists do not, same speed and not far off weight.
k all 
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Personally, I always wear a helmet for cycling, but I don't see how that's anyone's business but my own. Some real nanny staters round here.
I just find it odd that moped riders must wear a helmet and cyclists do not, same speed and not far off weight.otolith said:
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Personally, I always wear a helmet for cycling, but I don't see how that's anyone's business but my own. Some real nanny staters round here.
I just find it odd that moped riders must wear a helmet and cyclists do not, same speed and not far off weight.Deaths, 8 on moped and 28 on bicycle.
Severely injured, 126 on moped and 315 on bicycle.
The tax payer should care, it costs money for them/us.
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Personally, I always wear a helmet for cycling, but I don't see how that's anyone's business but my own. Some real nanny staters round here.
I just find it odd that moped riders must wear a helmet and cyclists do not, same speed and not far off weight.http://www.hondamotorbikes.co.nz/motorcycles/scoot...
My entry level road bike only weights about 10kg.
So once you include the rider you're probably talking about a road bike being half the weight. You can get heavier bicycles but you won't get up to 30 mph on them, at least not on anything other than a hill or with a very strong tail wind.
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Personally, I always wear a helmet for cycling, but I don't see how that's anyone's business but my own. Some real nanny staters round here.
I just find it odd that moped riders must wear a helmet and cyclists do not, same speed and not far off weight.Deaths, 8 on moped and 28 on bicycle.
Severely injured, 126 on moped and 315 on bicycle.
The tax payer should care, it costs money for them/us.
k your mum?Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Personally, I always wear a helmet for cycling, but I don't see how that's anyone's business but my own. Some real nanny staters round here.
I just find it odd that moped riders must wear a helmet and cyclists do not, same speed and not far off weight.
Nearly as fast as a cyclist, significantly heavier and often driven by elderly or infirm drivers. Shouldn't they wear helmets too?
Devil2575 said:
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Personally, I always wear a helmet for cycling, but I don't see how that's anyone's business but my own. Some real nanny staters round here.
I just find it odd that moped riders must wear a helmet and cyclists do not, same speed and not far off weight.http://www.hondamotorbikes.co.nz/motorcycles/scoot...
My entry level road bike only weights about 10kg.
So once you include the rider you're probably talking about a road bike being half the weight. You can get heavier bicycles but you won't get up to 30 mph on them, at least not on anything other than a hill or with a very strong tail wind.
Or then a class 2 moped (max speed 25kph), say 60kg with the same driver, gives 100kg and a limited top speed of 15mph, not difficult to achieve on a bicycle, oh and a helmet is a must on the class 2.
Finlandia said:
Swedish statistics for 2012.
Deaths, 8 on moped and 28 on bicycle.
Severely injured, 126 on moped and 315 on bicycle.
The tax payer should care, it costs money for them/us.
If it discourages cycling (and the evidence suggests it does) there will be more fat biffers making demands on the NHS. And ultimately, a socialised health system does not grant ownership of risky personal choices to the state. So no, I don't care. I don't really care whether other people wear motorcycle helmets or seatbelts either. It wouldn't be my choice not to, but it's not my head. Deaths, 8 on moped and 28 on bicycle.
Severely injured, 126 on moped and 315 on bicycle.
The tax payer should care, it costs money for them/us.
otolith said:
Finlandia said:
Swedish statistics for 2012.
Deaths, 8 on moped and 28 on bicycle.
Severely injured, 126 on moped and 315 on bicycle.
The tax payer should care, it costs money for them/us.
If it discourages cycling (and the evidence suggests it does) there will be more fat biffers making demands on the NHS. And ultimately, a socialised health system does not grant ownership of risky personal choices to the state. So no, I don't care. I don't really care whether other people wear motorcycle helmets or seatbelts either. It wouldn't be my choice not to, but it's not my head. Deaths, 8 on moped and 28 on bicycle.
Severely injured, 126 on moped and 315 on bicycle.
The tax payer should care, it costs money for them/us.
Finlandia said:
thelawnet said:
The seatbelt analogy isn't a good one. There is lots of compelling evidence about the efficacy of seatbelts. There isn't for helmets.
According to Folksam in Sweden: Each year, about 2,000 cyclists are injured, as expected, the most dangerous injury is a head injury. Statistics from real accidents shows in black and white that bicycle helmets are of utmost importance. Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet.http://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken...
1: Lots of cyclists suffer head injuries - this is true, BUT, pedestrians, old people, and car drivers and passengers also suffer large numbers of head injuries. It would be more useful therefore to equip car occupants with helmets, than bicyclists, since there are far more head injuries sustained by people in cars than on bicycles
2: Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet - They assert this but provide no evidence for it. My understanding of the literature is that one or two flawed studies have shown things like this, e.g., they compared injuries with children wearing helmets to those not, but the problem with these studies is that the samples are not comparable. Typically the children wearing helmets were living in nicer areas with slower traffic, riding better quality bikes, whereas the children without helmets were in the ghetto, by and large, so the environment and accidents were not comparable.
There has been a lot of marketing of bicycle helmets to the extent that in some countries (the US in particular) you might get abused if you do not wear one (although in other countries, namely any where cycling is an everyday normal activity, very few people wear them), however the decision that cycling = helmet is essentially an arbitrary one, and almost never based on any proper assessment of risk. I suspect it is because it is normal to wear safety equipment (a seatbelt) in a car, so people analogise to a bicycle that you must wear some piece of equipment as well. The more logical analogy IMO would be 'cyclists wear helmets, why don't car drivers wear them'.
Finlandia said:
There are other forms of keeping fit than cracking your skull open when flying off a bike
If you discourage people from cycling they are going to be LESS likely to pursue other ways of keeping fit, because if you perform no physical activity at all (quite common for many people), then it's hardly inviting to go and start going to the gym, whereas someone who cycles to work everyday is not going to be deterred. Also on a national and international level inactivity is a far bigger killer than cycling injuries.thelawnet said:
Finlandia said:
thelawnet said:
The seatbelt analogy isn't a good one. There is lots of compelling evidence about the efficacy of seatbelts. There isn't for helmets.
According to Folksam in Sweden: Each year, about 2,000 cyclists are injured, as expected, the most dangerous injury is a head injury. Statistics from real accidents shows in black and white that bicycle helmets are of utmost importance. Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet.http://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken...
1: Lots of cyclists suffer head injuries - this is true, BUT, pedestrians, old people, and car drivers and passengers also suffer large numbers of head injuries. It would be more useful therefore to equip car occupants with helmets, than bicyclists, since there are far more head injuries sustained by people in cars than on bicycles
2: Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet - They assert this but provide no evidence for it. My understanding of the literature is that one or two flawed studies have shown things like this, e.g., they compared injuries with children wearing helmets to those not, but the problem with these studies is that the samples are not comparable. Typically the children wearing helmets were living in nicer areas with slower traffic, riding better quality bikes, whereas the children without helmets were in the ghetto, by and large, so the environment and accidents were not comparable.
There has been a lot of marketing of bicycle helmets to the extent that in some countries (the US in particular) you might get abused if you do not wear one (although in other countries, namely any where cycling is an everyday normal activity, very few people wear them), however the decision that cycling = helmet is essentially an arbitrary one, and almost never based on any proper assessment of risk. I suspect it is because it is normal to wear safety equipment (a seatbelt) in a car, so people analogise to a bicycle that you must wear some piece of equipment as well. The more logical analogy IMO would be 'cyclists wear helmets, why don't car drivers wear them'.
Cyclists in the UK do not require any additional deterrents, legal, financial or otherwise.
We are already faced with heavy, speeding traffic; aggressive, hostile drivers, disintegrating road surfaces, lousy weather, half-assed cycle 'facilities', pinch points created by traffic calming and streets lined with parked cars, lack of secure parking and bike-thieving scallies just to ride our bikes in the UK.
Although I have been cycling for around 35 years now, cycling conditions in this country just keep getting worse as time passes. Many people would not even consider getting on a bike for even short trips of a mile or two just because of the dreadful traffic conditions and dangerous drivers which abound almost everywhere.
I moved to Somerset hoping to live somewhere with decent cycling conditions but the traffic is worse than ever down here and I will be quitting my job in a few months' time to get away from here, whether or not that involves becoming unemployed.
Cyclists are gradually being driven off the roads of the UK without additional legislative deterrents being required, which no doubt suits the government and the majority of the car-obsessed public.
We are already faced with heavy, speeding traffic; aggressive, hostile drivers, disintegrating road surfaces, lousy weather, half-assed cycle 'facilities', pinch points created by traffic calming and streets lined with parked cars, lack of secure parking and bike-thieving scallies just to ride our bikes in the UK.
Although I have been cycling for around 35 years now, cycling conditions in this country just keep getting worse as time passes. Many people would not even consider getting on a bike for even short trips of a mile or two just because of the dreadful traffic conditions and dangerous drivers which abound almost everywhere.
I moved to Somerset hoping to live somewhere with decent cycling conditions but the traffic is worse than ever down here and I will be quitting my job in a few months' time to get away from here, whether or not that involves becoming unemployed.
Cyclists are gradually being driven off the roads of the UK without additional legislative deterrents being required, which no doubt suits the government and the majority of the car-obsessed public.
thelawnet said:
Finlandia said:
There are other forms of keeping fit than cracking your skull open when flying off a bike
If you discourage people from cycling they are going to be LESS likely to pursue other ways of keeping fit, because if you perform no physical activity at all (quite common for many people), then it's hardly inviting to go and start going to the gym, whereas someone who cycles to work everyday is not going to be deterred. Also on a national and international level inactivity is a far bigger killer than cycling injuries.Finlandia said:
Nobody is discouraging anything, cycle all you like, but wear a helmet. How can the need to use a helmet when cycling discourage people from walking, cross country skiing or any other form of exercise?
That is what happened when it was tried.http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff