Why are Police now enforcing laws & advising cyclists?

[Mill Wheel]

Hol said:

Mill Wheel,

I cannot help but notice that your concern is that 'unfit' vehicles will not be identified 'when this all dies down'. (ignoring the annual MOT for now).



Are we to assume that you believe that there are no 'unfit' cyclists also? (I do not see this balance of opnion in your comments?)

It seems to me that while the police have managed to identify vehicles that were unfit (despite the 12 month MoT requirement) and ticket drivers for breaking the law, they don't seem to be able to nail the cyclists who put themselves at risk, OR break the law, merely offer them "advice".

Boris has threatened to ban headphones... I'm not sure how it would be enforced, but if he DOES have the power to ban them, he needs to get on and do it - and do something to ensure cyclists wear suitable HiVis clothing.
I wear a helmet from choice - but if it can be shown that not wearing one presents a risk, then I would be happy to see them made compulsory.

Perhaps if INSURANCE was made compulsory for cyclists, all necessary steps to preserve one's safety on a bike would follow without needing any new laws... lights, helmets, clothing... although they won't be able to adjust rider attitude!!

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Mill Wheel said:

... I wear a helmet from choice - but if it can be shown that not wearing one presents a risk, then I would be happy to see them made compulsory. ...

It's my understanding that compulsory helmet laws in other countries have been proved to reduce the number of people taking up cycling.

Weighing up the health benefits of regular cycling versus the slight risk of injury, lots of people think that a helmet law would produce worse outcomes overall.

[andy_s]

Are cyclist deaths more common in winter hours I wonder, perhaps why there is a spike of sorts.

[aizvara]

Mill Wheel said:

Perhaps if INSURANCE was made compulsory for cyclists, all necessary steps to preserve one's safety on a bike would follow without needing any new laws... lights, helmets, clothing...

How would that follow from compulsory insurance?

[Rude-boy]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

It's my understanding that compulsory helmet laws in other countries have been proved to reduce the number of people taking up cycling.

Weighing up the health benefits of regular cycling versus the slight risk of injury, lots of people think that a helmet law would produce worse outcomes overall.

And when you can blame the car and lorry drivers for the accidents it's a win win.

Sorry but i see cyclists without a helmet on the open road the same way I see motorbike riders in jeans and tees - Med student fodder.

[ewenm]

Mill Wheel said:

Perhaps if INSURANCE was made compulsory for cyclists, all necessary steps to preserve one's safety on a bike would follow without needing any new laws... lights, helmets, clothing... although they won't be able to adjust rider attitude!!

And pedestrians too of course, for their own safety. Perhaps if we had some sort of system of National Insurance to cover everyone third party, you could pay it through monthly earnings for example

[Devil2575]

Rude-boy said:

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

It's my understanding that compulsory helmet laws in other countries have been proved to reduce the number of people taking up cycling.

Weighing up the health benefits of regular cycling versus the slight risk of injury, lots of people think that a helmet law would produce worse outcomes overall.

And when you can blame the car and lorry drivers for the accidents it's a win win.

Sorry but i see cyclists without a helmet on the open road the same way I see motorbike riders in jeans and tees - Med student fodder.

I think the whole 'blaming cars and lorry drivers' is a red herring. Does anyone really think that people on bicycles take more risks because they believe that car drivers will be held legally responsible? If you're dead how much difference does it make whether you or the car driver are held responsible or not?
People take risks because they are either unaware of the how much risk they are taking or becuase they get a kick out of it. They don't do it because of any notions of who will be held responsible, IMHO.

[D4MJT]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

It's my understanding that compulsory helmet laws in other countries have been proved to reduce the number of people taking up cycling.

Weighing up the health benefits of regular cycling versus the slight risk of injury, lots of people think that a helmet law would produce worse outcomes overall.

By law I'm required to wear a seatbelt while I drive my car. If I went out in it without the seatbelt on, and drove into another vehicle, made a sharp exit through the windscreen and killed myself, it would be terrible and unfortunate, but also could potentially have been avoided by wearing the seatbelt like I should have been.

By law I'm not required to wear a cycle helmet. I could go out tomorrow, and cycle out in front of someone, get hit and killed. Potentially, like wearing a seatbelt I could have been saved wearing a helmet. The driver of the car I cycled out in front of would still have to get up everyday and deal with having being involved in a road traffic accident where a cyclist was killed. I guess where I'm coming from is that, assuming both accidents were entirely my own fault, in the situation where I wasn't wearing my seatbelt it could be of some comfort to the other driver that I hadn't taken the required lawful steps to ensure my own safety.

In all honesty, I don't really understand why anyone who cycles would choose not to wear a helmet, whether cycling on or indeed off road.

[Engineer1]

Rude-boy said:

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

It's my understanding that compulsory helmet laws in other countries have been proved to reduce the number of people taking up cycling.

Weighing up the health benefits of regular cycling versus the slight risk of injury, lots of people think that a helmet law would produce worse outcomes overall.

And when you can blame the car and lorry drivers for the accidents it's a win win.

Sorry but i see cyclists without a helmet on the open road the same way I see motorbike riders in jeans and tees - Med student fodder.

There is an argument that the more safety equipment that is put in place the more risks the user takes returning the risk to an acceptable level so someone who previously cycled without a helmet may take more risks if you force them to wear a helmet.

[Who me ?]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

Mill Wheel said:

... I wear a helmet from choice - but if it can be shown that not wearing one presents a risk, then I would be happy to see them made compulsory. ...

It's my understanding that compulsory helmet laws in other countries have been proved to reduce the number of people taking up cycling.

Weighing up the health benefits of regular cycling versus the slight risk of injury, lots of people think that a helmet law would produce worse outcomes overall.

I cycled a lot till I got my first car, without a helmut. but then ,I benefited from the childhood version of what MW will know of as C.O.A.S.T ( for cyclists), basicly see and recognise danger and take steps to get yourself out of the danger area .( Police take time to get out and teach Kids Road Safety. Cost Cutting kills) Teach kids at an early age the rules of the road, and it becomes second nature, thorough their cycling life. Same principles apply for drivers.

[Devil2575]

D4MJT said:

In all honesty, I don't really understand why anyone who cycles would choose not to wear a helmet, whether cycling on or indeed off road.

I agree.

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Engineer1 said:

There is an argument that the more safety equipment that is put in place the more risks the user takes returning the risk to an acceptable level so someone who previously cycled without a helmet may take more risks if you force them to wear a helmet.

It's called Risk Compensation, and is mentioned in this BBC article.

[Rude-boy]

Devil2575 said:

People take risks because they are either unaware of the how much risk they are taking or becuase they get a kick out of it. They don't do it because of any notions of who will be held responsible, IMHO.

They also take greater risks when they know that there is insurance in place to help them out. They will also tend to think that if they are not going to get caught.

Engineer1 said:

There is an argument that the more safety equipment that is put in place the more risks the user takes returning the risk to an acceptable level so someone who previously cycled without a helmet may take more risks if you force them to wear a helmet.

Padded suits are a bit too far. A helmet though - Even Tony Hawkes wanabe nutjobs wear them. There is a point at which you have to go 'Well we have done all we reasonably can, let's let nature take its course.' I know I didn't take anymore risks on my bike when I started wearing a helmet and it was nearly braining myself that gave me the push to buy one. Given that before i hung up my peddles i split two more in accidents I think it was a good call.

[3Dee]

Devil2575 said:

I agree.

OH!

...well, that the end of another thread then?

[Devil2575]

Rude-boy said:

Devil2575 said:

People take risks because they are either unaware of the how much risk they are taking or becuase they get a kick out of it. They don't do it because of any notions of who will be held responsible, IMHO.

They also take greater risks when they know that there is insurance in place to help them out. They will also tend to think that if they are not going to get caught.

Do they?

Is financial loss a major consideration for cyclists or if the primary concern not getting killed? Or do some people just not think at all?

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Devil2575 said:

D4MJT said:

In all honesty, I don't really understand why anyone who cycles would choose not to wear a helmet, whether cycling on or indeed off road.

I agree.

Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean other people will act the way you would. Just look at the popularity of The X-Factor.

Again, Wikipedia has the info.

[Rude-boy]

Devil2575 said:

Do they?

Is financial loss a major consideration for cyclists or if the primary concern not getting killed? Or do some people just not think at all?

Of course not getting killed is a major concern, but how many think they are going to get killed in a 'worst case' error of judgement. Cuts, brusies and perhaps a broken bone if they are unlucky is in their heads if they are thinking about the risk at all. I know that when I was bombing around on my bike I never thought about dying but often about crashing and breaking my wrists.

[Gribs]

Rude-boy said:

Sorry but i see cyclists without a helmet on the open road the same way I see motorbike riders in jeans and tees - Med student fodder.

Do you think the same when you see someone walking without a helmet on? The risk isn't all that different. More people suffer head injuries in cars than on bikes too, should helmets be compulsary then too or is the risk low enough for it to be not worth the inconvenience.

[BGarside]

Personally I'm in favour of freedom of choice. I cycle a lot and have been doing so for most of my life and take many precautions to maximise my chance of survival including avoiding busy roads, busy times of day, buying good lights and hi-vis gear, defensive cycling, etc. However, most of the near misses I experience are due to aggressive or oblivious drivers.

One thing I don't do is wear a helmet. Having worn one for 4 years while living in New Zealand I find them hot, sweaty and very uncomfortable while the medical evidence supporting their use is inconclusive, to say the least.

I find it ironic that cyclists are asked to cover up and protect themselves while drivers are allowed to continue driving like idiots, endangeriong our lives. It's just victim blaming...

I would be delighted if the police would continue their new-found enthusiasm for enforcing the law on the roads, as I would feel much safer riding my bike. Sadly, I don't live in London and so cannot benefit.

[Rude-boy]

Gribs said:

Do you think the same when you see someone walking without a helmet on? The risk isn't all that different. More people suffer head injuries in cars than on bikes too, should helmets be compulsary then too or is the risk low enough for it to be not worth the inconvenience.

Okay, you guys know best. It's a bit like the air travel Vs car travel which is more dangerous debate isn't it? Take hours and you'd never get on a plane, take miles and you'd never get in a car...

I'll stick to wearing a helmet when I ride a bike. If you disagree please, whilst it is still your choice, feel free not to.

As for the walking point - it isn't often that I hit 25mph+ walking, nor am I sitting astride 10-15kgs of metal that is ready to bounce off me in any crash.