That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

[L500]

funkyrobot said:

L500 said:

Where do we stand on these things? I regularly follow a gentleman on the A4 at 7am holding up traffic whilst peddling in the middle of the road. He's well lit, and going as quick as possible, but ignores laybys/bus stops where he could easily let the early morning commuters go by....

You don't stand on them. You sit in the seat.

Yes, this is the closest picture I could find. Gentleman I see sits lower than this and doesn't have these handle bars (appears to steer via mechanism at the sides). It might be a homemade creation but you get the gist. He still rides in the middle of the road because it's wider than a conventional bike and you can't overtake unless nothing else is oncoming. He also does have a flag...

[anonymous-user]

swisstoni said:

The 'cycling lobby' seem threatened by any chances of the number of cyclists dwindling and are clearly happy so sow seeds of doubt about head protection for cyclists so that they are not dissuaded from cycling. That is vaguely sinister frankly.

Also if people didn't cycle its very likely that those would do some other physical activity like walking. So claiming to be doing the country a massive favour is a spurious stat too.

You’d walk 5 miles to work?

I doubt it.

[Harpoon]

swisstoni said:

The 'cycling lobby' seem threatened by any chances of the number of cyclists dwindling and are clearly happy so sow seeds of doubt about head protection for cyclists so that they are not dissuaded from cycling. That is vaguely sinister frankly.

Also if people didn't cycle its very likely that those would do some other physical activity like walking. So claiming to be doing the country a massive favour is a spurious stat too.

For the second point, I wonder how many who commute by bike would walk instead?

I sometimes cycle to work and the route I take for the least traffic is around 30km. That is just not a feasible walk, so the other option is drive and lose the health & environmental benefits. The more people who can cycle to work, the better.

Edited by Harpoon on Tuesday 8th January 17:16

[julian64]

DonkeyApple said:

I agree, militants are militants, they are found everywhere and arguably the ones who use their cars as extentionsnof their militancy are much more dangerous to all of us but that doesn’t mean we should tolerate or excuse any of them.

I don’t see any difference between the chap who thinks he’s superior because he is in an Audi and the chap who thinks he’s superior because he is on a bike. To me they are just the opposing sides of the same coin and a menace to the majority of road users who all get along fine.

As for generalisations, you only need to wander along Embankment on a morning to see that cycling is very much the preserve of a specific demographic and to me that forms an integral part of why some car/van drivers find themselves dangerously venting at cyclists’ expense.

Outside of the clueless chump who, for example, just turns left without checking to see if a cyclist is there the majority of incidents I witness are when a driver has very deliberately sought completely avoidable confrontation with a cyclist such as passing deliberately closely, or pulling away at the lights to catch a cyclist etc. At the same time I see cyclists deliberately move themselves into confrontation with other road users. Forget infrastructure differences on the continent, it is this typical British aggressive and confrontational behaviour that is the big cultural difference.

And to me, when I see posters alluding to fat people, stupid people or unhealthy people what I see is a that typical Little Briton who thinks he is superior to others and is part of the problem.

Problem with militants though is that they have no insight. To further complicate, the word militant is seen as a negative so even the most militant wouldn't identify. They'd probably even consider themselves 'normal'. I know I do.

[Graveworm]

heebeegeetee said:

As the health professional in the video says, "There's an overwhelming body of evidence that the health benefits of cycling vastly, vastly outweigh the health risks."

It's also very well known that cyclists are safer in numbers (as I guess everyone else is) and so by reducing the numbers of cyclists the accident rate is raised.

I really don't know why there is such an obsession of saving few "individual cyclists" from themselves given that 85,000 die from inactivity each year.

The other enormous mystery for me is, as you say: "acknowledges that wearing a helmet is beneficial to the individual in the event of a fall." - why would this only apply to cyclists? Answer: It doesn't. *Everybody* would benefit from a helmet when having a fall or accident. I have read that there is a person with an ABI (Acquired brain injury) admitted to hospital every 90 seconds. That's 'admitted' mind, not just visiting A&E, every 90 seconds.

Every single one of those would have benefited from a helmet, and vehicle occupants make up 44% of road casualties (even with all the air bags and seat belts etc), as opposed to 6% being cyclists, so why aren't we making sure the 44% are wearing helmets and not some piddling 6%?

I am staying out of the cycling - non cycling because it has become pointless. It appears either cyclists are perfect and everything is the fault of the other 99% or the 99% are perfect and the 1% cause all the problems. Any attempt to see the other side means that you are a militant cyclist or part of the "Anti cycling brigade".
But helmets in road cars with air bags make matters worse as the reduction in head trauma is less than the increase in whiplash injuries even without the lack of headroom in many cars.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 8th January 16:51

[Killboy]

swisstoni said:

The 'cycling lobby' seem threatened by any chances of the number of cyclists dwindling and are clearly happy so sow seeds of doubt about head protection for cyclists so that they are not dissuaded from cycling. That is vaguely sinister frankly.

Also if people didn't cycle its very likely that those would do some other physical activity like walking. So claiming to be doing the country a massive favour is a spurious stat too.

As said before, I'd cycle less if helmets were mandatory. As mentions a couple pages back I think the KSI stats on Santander bikes speak for themselves. I'm not anti helmet, and ALWAYS wear one when riding my road bike, but when scooting to the train station after work on a share scheme bike I dont, because I'm not going to carry it around everywhere.

[Graveworm]

Killboy said:

As said before, I'd cycle less if helmets were mandatory. As mentions a couple pages back I think the KSI stats on Santander bikes speak for themselves. I'm not anti helmet, and ALWAYS wear one when riding my road bike, but when scooting to the train station after work on a share scheme bike I dont, because I'm not going to carry it around everywhere.

I am in the helmets yes compulsion no camp, for adults, due to most of the reasons given. Hungary have speed limits for cyclists and lower speed limits if they don't wear a helmet (They do have more and safer cycling along with mandatory use of cycle paths/lanes and single file only). Might become a halfway house if we just had a limit for no helmet?

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 8th January 17:22

[hyphen]

Killboy said:

As said before, I'd cycle less if helmets were mandatory. As mentions a couple pages back I think the KSI stats on Santander bikes speak for themselves. I'm not anti helmet, and ALWAYS wear one when riding my road bike, but when scooting to the train station after work on a share scheme bike I dont, because I'm not going to carry it around everywhere.

I'm the same with seatbelts. I mean yes long rural journeys are high risk so I should wear them.

But round town collisions are minor and rare, and motorways are pretty safe... Why bother

[NDA]

L500 said:

Yes, this is the closest picture I could find. Gentleman I see sits lower than this and doesn't have these handle bars (appears to steer via mechanism at the sides). It might be a homemade creation but you get the gist. He still rides in the middle of the road because it's wider than a conventional bike and you can't overtake unless nothing else is oncoming. He also does have a flag...

There's bloke who's got the sort of bike you describe near me in Surrey. He is a regular rush hour hold up - dozens of cars have to crawl along behind him. I don't think he's terribly popular.

[walm]

hyphen said:

I'm the same with seatbelts. I mean yes long rural journeys are high risk so I should wear them.

But round town collisions are minor and rare, and motorways are pretty safe... Why bother

I leave my seatbelt in the car so I don't need to carry one around with me.

[Master Bean]

The recumbent bicycle.

[wst]

L500 said:

Yes, this is the closest picture I could find. Gentleman I see sits lower than this and doesn't have these handle bars (appears to steer via mechanism at the sides). It might be a homemade creation but you get the gist. He still rides in the middle of the road because it's wider than a conventional bike and you can't overtake unless nothing else is oncoming. He also does have a flag...

You can't overtake unless nothing is oncoming anyway, even if they're tucked into the kerb, because you are supposed to leave 1.5m of clearance and there's few roads that have lanes that would allow you to do that without encroaching on the space of people going the other way. Non-issue.

Recumbents are faster than conventional bikes except up hills, as a curious aside.

[Killboy]

hyphen said:

I'm the same with seatbelts. I mean yes long rural journeys are high risk so I should wear them.

But round town collisions are minor and rare, and motorways are pretty safe... Why bother

Thats the killer isnt it.

[Mort7]

I think that it's inevitable that cycle helmets will become law at some time. It is, after all, necessary to wear a crash helmet when riding a moped - which is limited to 31 mph - so what logical reason is there to exempt cycles which can, under some circumstances, attain faster speeds?

I was a biker when crash helmet legislation was introduced in 1973. I didn't like it, but soon got used to it, and eventually wouldn't consider riding without one. Those who protested at the time, and refused to wear a helmet, were prosecuted. Everyone soon got the message. A helmet saved my life a couple of years later, when I rather foolishly rode my bike into a telegraph pole at 60 mph.

I was a motorist when seat belt legislation was introduced in 1983. I didn't like that either, particularly as I had previously survived a RTA as a result of NOT wearing a seat belt. I soon got used to that too, and would now feel naked without one.

When cycle helmet legislation is introduced there will be protests, but everyone will eventually fall into line - particularly when prosecutions become routine - and the introduction will be helped by the fact that the younger generation will have been made to wear helmets by their parents (who may not wear them themselves - hypocritical, or what?).

Resistance is futile!

[funkyrobot]

wst said:

L500 said:

Yes, this is the closest picture I could find. Gentleman I see sits lower than this and doesn't have these handle bars (appears to steer via mechanism at the sides). It might be a homemade creation but you get the gist. He still rides in the middle of the road because it's wider than a conventional bike and you can't overtake unless nothing else is oncoming. He also does have a flag...

You can't overtake unless nothing is oncoming anyway, even if they're tucked into the kerb, because you are supposed to leave 1.5m of clearance and there's few roads that have lanes that would allow you to do that without encroaching on the space of people going the other way. Non-issue.

Recumbents are faster than conventional bikes except up hills, as a curious aside.

Leaving 1.5 metres? You are having a laugh.

So many drivers don't bother.

Wasn't it passed as a law recently?

[Graveworm]

funkyrobot said:

Leaving 1.5 metres? You are having a laugh.

So many drivers don't bother.

Wasn't it passed as a law recently?

Nope it probably should be except at very slow speeds. Some countries have exactly that 1.5m at above speed x and 1m below. it's not even in the highway code yet (as should), in those terms. It could be inconsiderate, driving without due care or dangerous depending on the circumstances. There is some hypocrisy that cycling groups, on the one hand, want the highway code to change in areas like this expecting car drivers to comply but they are not huge fans of complying in ways they don't agree with.

[swisstoni]

Graveworm said:

Killboy said:

As said before, I'd cycle less if helmets were mandatory. As mentions a couple pages back I think the KSI stats on Santander bikes speak for themselves. I'm not anti helmet, and ALWAYS wear one when riding my road bike, but when scooting to the train station after work on a share scheme bike I dont, because I'm not going to carry it around everywhere.

I am in the helmets yes compulsion no camp, for adults, due to most of the reasons given. Hungary have speed limits for cyclists and lower speed limits if they don't wear a helmet (They do have more and safer cycling along with mandatory use of cycle paths/lanes and single file only). Might become a halfway house if we just had a limit for no helmet?

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 8th January 17:22

I’m not that happy with compulsory helmet wearing (but I certainly am for children).
Adult cyclists need to make their own mind up.

But they shouldn’t be fed claptrap by lobbyists with a wider agenda when they are making that decision.

It is physically safer to wear a helmet. If you don’t want to bother, good luck.

[ThorB]

swisstoni said:

But they shouldn’t be fed claptrap by lobbyists with a wider agenda when they are making that decision.

Australia introduced compulsory helmet wearing, plenty of research has been done as a result :

"One study carried out for New South Wales transport authorities in 1993, a year after mandatory helmet use for adults in the state was extended to children, was mainly intended to check whether the new law was increasing helmet uptake. This it had, but the researchers also found a 30% reduction in the number of children riding to school. Similar data showed even bigger reductions in bike use in other parts of Australia when helmet laws came in. In New Zealand, where helmet compulsion was introduced in 1994, the number of overall bike trips fell 51% between 1989–90 and 2003–6, according to one research paper. The reasons are mixed. It can be in part because some people simply don’t want to bother with a helmet, a factor arguably less important now than 20-plus years ago, when bike helmets were more expensive and not nearly as comfortable. More pressing, however, appears to be the fact that obligatory helmet use reinforces the notion that cycling isn’t an everyday way to get about, but a specialist pursuit needing safety equipment, which makes it less appealing.

Professor Chris Rissel, a public health expert at the University of Sydney, carried out a 2011 study that asked people in the Australian city about the effect of the helmet-use law. Almost a quarter of respondents said they would cycle more if they did not have to always think about a helmet, with the greatest increase in bike use among younger or occasional cyclists. A repeal of the law would, Rissel said, have a significant positive impact on improved public health. Another Australian academic once tried to quantify this effect.

Piet de Jong, a professor of actuarial science at Macquarie University, crunched figures for the estimated reduction in bike use if helmets are made compulsory against any fall in head injuries. “For most countries, under assumptions favourable to the helmet legislation case, the unintended health costs cancel out the direct health benefit,” he found. For the UK, de Jong calculated that an overall net cost to public health of a helmet law would be about £500m a year. Critics have questioned some of De Jong’s calculations. However, there are other potential health drawbacks to helmet compulsion. For a start, if a law does mean fewer cyclists, you have the possibility of a reverse “safety in numbers” effect – fewer riders on the road could place those remaining at more individual risk."

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/...

[Graveworm]

ThorB said:

Australia introduced compulsory helmet wearing, plenty of research has been done as a result :

"One study carried out for New South Wales transport authorities in 1993, a year after mandatory helmet use for adults in the state was extended to children, was mainly intended to check whether the new law was increasing helmet uptake. This it had, but the researchers also found a 30% reduction in the number of children riding to school. Similar data showed even bigger reductions in bike use in other parts of Australia when helmet laws came in. In New Zealand, where helmet compulsion was introduced in 1994, the number of overall bike trips fell 51% between 1989–90 and 2003–6, according to one research paper. The reasons are mixed. It can be in part because some people simply don’t want to bother with a helmet, a factor arguably less important now than 20-plus years ago, when bike helmets were more expensive and not nearly as comfortable. More pressing, however, appears to be the fact that obligatory helmet use reinforces the notion that cycling isn’t an everyday way to get about, but a specialist pursuit needing safety equipment, which makes it less appealing.

Professor Chris Rissel, a public health expert at the University of Sydney, carried out a 2011 study that asked people in the Australian city about the effect of the helmet-use law. Almost a quarter of respondents said they would cycle more if they did not have to always think about a helmet, with the greatest increase in bike use among younger or occasional cyclists. A repeal of the law would, Rissel said, have a significant positive impact on improved public health. Another Australian academic once tried to quantify this effect.

Piet de Jong, a professor of actuarial science at Macquarie University, crunched figures for the estimated reduction in bike use if helmets are made compulsory against any fall in head injuries. “For most countries, under assumptions favourable to the helmet legislation case, the unintended health costs cancel out the direct health benefit,” he found. For the UK, de Jong calculated that an overall net cost to public health of a helmet law would be about £500m a year. Critics have questioned some of De Jong’s calculations. However, there are other potential health drawbacks to helmet compulsion. For a start, if a law does mean fewer cyclists, you have the possibility of a reverse “safety in numbers” effect – fewer riders on the road could place those remaining at more individual risk."

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/...

Except right or wrong this is all straw man. The criticism in the article referred to, voiced by Cycling UK - that started this and that is being defended is against the ongoing ADVICE to wear a helmet and high viz because it's safer.- has nothing to do with compulsion. They claim, saying wear a helmet because it's safer blames the victims. This is despite even ROSPA data showing the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 8th January 22:42

[nickfrog]

julian64 said:

I made the mistake of posting about a single episode of unreasonable cycling in my neck of the woods and the same old faces who I subsequently found are on every thread on PH came to roundly accuse me of cyclist hating.

I think people mainly accused you of lying as you claimed to have been stuck behind a "lycra lout" as you call them for 45 minutes (from memory).