Licence or ban cycling in London
Discussion
idiotgap said:
Those paper helmets that won the Dyson award recently might fit the bill.
unless they give them away free with bike hire then it's still going to put people off.then there'll be other situations like you've popped over to a mates house and want to jump on the bikes to pop down to the shops but can't because you didn't bring your helmet with you and he doesn't have a stockpile of dodgy paper ones.
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.
When you talk in real life, do you find that people struggle to understand you because your speech is muffled by your trousers and underpants?I've just done some googling for results of surveys done in London of cyclists jumping red lights at busy junctions. Admittedly, the only such study I could find at all (I assume you are aware of many others from which you have open mindedly drawn your conclusions?) dates from 2007, but given that it was conducted by TfL with the specific aim of generating the sort of statistical evidence required for open minded people to draw conclusions from, I suppose we'll have to make do with it to the best of our abilities.
To help make things easy for you, the overall figure you're after is that 16% of 7,502 cyclists were observed jumping red lights.
In what world does 1 in 6 constitute a very large proportion of anything??
popeyewhite said:
Kermit power said:
In what world does 1 in 6 constitute a very large proportion of anything??
1200 observed red light jumpers seems quite a lot!Presumably there would have been 2,400 if they stayed there twice as long.
I have to admit though, 1 in 6 seems incredibly low.
Perhaps they chose a hard to jump light.
On the other hand, how many drivers would break 30mph as they traverse London?
walm said:
popeyewhite said:
Kermit power said:
In what world does 1 in 6 constitute a very large proportion of anything??
1200 observed red light jumpers seems quite a lot!Presumably there would have been 2,400 if they stayed there twice as long.
I have to admit though, 1 in 6 seems incredibly low.
Perhaps they chose a hard to jump light.
On the other hand, how many drivers would break 30mph as they traverse London?
There aren't many cyclists that go charging out into a junction in the middle of the phases. Most creep out, go early or late.
walm said:
People who hurt their heads in a crash with tonnes of steel are quite likely to die, aren't they?
Whether or not you wear a helmet makes no difference to the likelihood of dying, right?
Good post, just couple of comments.Whether or not you wear a helmet makes no difference to the likelihood of dying, right?
The first one. More than likely you will die depending on the accident.
Second one, some crashes I am sure end up with a cyclists being hit and falling off striking their head on something like the kerb, so it may make a difference to the outcome.
As I posted earlier, I fell off on ice, my helmet was shattered all along one side of the helmet, I had no injury what so ever, I am in no doubt if I had fell on the road hitting the side of my head I could have sustained an injury.
The only ones which seem to make the headlines are those where a cyclist is crushed by a truck in London, usually due to the idiot cyclist, if it had been a motorcyclist I doubt if his helmet would have done much either.
I only quoted a section of your post as that is what I am obviously referring to.
Vipers said:
The only ones which seem to make the headlines are those where a cyclist is crushed by a truck in London, usually due to the idiot cyclist, if it had been a motorcyclist I doubt if his helmet would have done much either.
Careful. You are about to undo a perfectly civil back-and-forth!That "usually" isn't backed up by the data. Citation VERY MUCH needed.
Here are the most recent examples where you are absolutely wrong:
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile.
The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.)
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing.
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.
The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him.
The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.
Vipers said:
Kell said:
Vipers said:
What do you base that on? Was there a survey. Just asking.
Massive drop off in cycling in Australia after it became law. Doesn't really improve safety. Can actually put the wearer in more danger through risk compensation. Less safety in numbers. It's surprising that Australia persists with it as it's been a disaster.
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-he...
Maybe it differs city to city even in U.K., who knows.
Edited by Vipers on Thursday 19th January 12:08
Surely we should be moving towards educating ALL road users to look out for each other more, rather than introducing even more legislation which will need enforcement (although enforcement will no doubt be easier than the mobile phone laws as transgression will be more visible.)
Vipers said:
walm said:
People who hurt their heads in a crash with tonnes of steel are quite likely to die, aren't they?
Whether or not you wear a helmet makes no difference to the likelihood of dying, right?
Good post, just couple of comments.Whether or not you wear a helmet makes no difference to the likelihood of dying, right?
The first one. More than likely you will die depending on the accident.
Second one, some crashes I am sure end up with a cyclists being hit and falling off striking their head on something like the kerb, so it may make a difference to the outcome.
I was saying that if 97% don't wear a helmet and 97% of fatalities involve people without helmets then the only possible conclusion is that the helmet made no difference.
Personally I think that sounds incredibly unlikely but you haven't posted enough data for us to be sure.
I know the numbers show otherwise in aggregate but I always wear a helmet and it has certainly saved me much pain in the past!!
Pothole said:
...very little research on whether they are actually as good at preventing KSIs due to head injury as the self-appointed experts would have us believe - they wouldn't accept the results of a drugs trial which was conducted with no control testing for instance, but are happy to trot out their assurances that people "would have died" had they not been wearing a helmet if the scenario fits their agenda.
The problem is that creating a control group is essentially impossible!!I certainly ski more aggressively with a lid on.
Probably true when I cycle.
So, you can't easily control for the shift in risk-taking of the individual.
Type R Tom said:
walm said:
popeyewhite said:
Kermit power said:
In what world does 1 in 6 constitute a very large proportion of anything??
1200 observed red light jumpers seems quite a lot!Presumably there would have been 2,400 if they stayed there twice as long.
I have to admit though, 1 in 6 seems incredibly low.
Perhaps they chose a hard to jump light.
On the other hand, how many drivers would break 30mph as they traverse London?
There aren't many cyclists that go charging out into a junction in the middle of the phases. Most creep out, go early or late.
As for how many motorists exceed thirty in London, very few, I would expect, simply because they can't! Motorbikes, on the other hand... they LOVE a bit of full throttle up the side of Clapham Common where it opens out to two lanes.
Kermit power said:
As for how many motorists exceed thirty in London, very few, I would expect, simply because they can't!
I see loads (usually they're doing a ridiculously dangerous overtake). Of course I usually pass them again a few seconds later when they reach the back of the queue that was visible to everyone except the muppet behind the wheel.walm said:
Vipers said:
walm said:
People who hurt their heads in a crash with tonnes of steel are quite likely to die, aren't they?
Whether or not you wear a helmet makes no difference to the likelihood of dying, right?
Good post, just couple of comments.Whether or not you wear a helmet makes no difference to the likelihood of dying, right?
The first one. More than likely you will die depending on the accident.
Second one, some crashes I am sure end up with a cyclists being hit and falling off striking their head on something like the kerb, so it may make a difference to the outcome.
I was saying that if 97% don't wear a helmet and 97% of fatalities involve people without helmets then the only possible conclusion is that the helmet made no difference.
Personally I think that sounds incredibly unlikely but you haven't posted enough data for us to be sure.
I know the numbers show otherwise in aggregate but I always wear a helmet and it has certainly saved me much pain in the past!!
Don't disagree about your comments on 97% point.
Pachydermus said:
idiotgap said:
Those paper helmets that won the Dyson award recently might fit the bill.
unless they give them away free with bike hire then it's still going to put people off.then there'll be other situations like you've popped over to a mates house and want to jump on the bikes to pop down to the shops but can't because you didn't bring your helmet with you and he doesn't have a stockpile of dodgy paper ones.
Quote from ROSPA in the Dyson helmet :-
The UK's Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said it was unable to comment as it did not know enough about the product and whether it would meet safety standards.
Edited by Vipers on Thursday 19th January 19:04
Kermit power 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.
When you talk in real life, do you find that people struggle to understand you because your speech is muffled by your trousers and underpants?I've just done some googling for results of surveys done in London of cyclists jumping red lights at busy junctions. Admittedly, the only such study I could find at all (I assume you are aware of many others from which you have open mindedly drawn your conclusions?) dates from 2007, but given that it was conducted by TfL with the specific aim of generating the sort of statistical evidence required for open minded people to draw conclusions from, I suppose we'll have to make do with it to the best of our abilities.
To help make things easy for you, the overall figure you're after is that 16% of 7,502 cyclists were observed jumping red lights.
In what world does 1 in 6 constitute a very large proportion of anything??
er tonight Chris 
Did a bug crawl up your inner tube or something? 
You have incorrectly interpreted my post to refer to traffic light jumping. I didn't mention this. What I said was bad cyclists - sit at some lights in London in your Green Monster and watch what happens. Cyclists arrive on the left and right, some touch your car, they park themselves way past the stop line - sometimes there are so many that they can't even stay upright. Then 5 seconds before the lights change some take off across a busy junction (I think this bit is called traffic light jumping). I'm not even getting into the one's who don't even stop or the wobbly Boris-Barclay bikers.
FYI, I do strongly feel there's a large proportion of car/van drivers AND cyclists AND motor cyclists all playing up on the road. I wasn't singling out cyclists, just suggesting one observes them.
Happy days, hope you have a jolly evening Chris
Edited by AMG Merc on Thursday 19th January 19:30
Pachydermus said:
idiotgap said:
Those paper helmets that won the Dyson award recently might fit the bill.
unless they give them away free with bike hire then it's still going to put people off.then there'll be other situations like you've popped over to a mates house and want to jump on the bikes to pop down to the shops but can't because you didn't bring your helmet with you and he doesn't have a stockpile of dodgy paper ones.
walm said:
Pothole said:
...very little research on whether they are actually as good at preventing KSIs due to head injury as the self-appointed experts would have us believe - they wouldn't accept the results of a drugs trial which was conducted with no control testing for instance, but are happy to trot out their assurances that people "would have died" had they not been wearing a helmet if the scenario fits their agenda.
The problem is that creating a control group is essentially impossible!!Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff