That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!
Discussion
SVS said:
Strange but true: “ ... any protection that [cycle] helmets give is cancelled out by other mechanisms, such as by riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists.”
It turns out car drivers drive closer to cyclists who wear a helmet, thereby increasing the risk to cyclists.
This was raised earlier. it was debunked by peer reviewed studies it was literally one guy riding around in 2007 and saying people were closer depending on what he wore including wearing a wig etc. It turns out car drivers drive closer to cyclists who wear a helmet, thereby increasing the risk to cyclists.
Olivier and Walter 2013 said:
One study found that drivers showed more risky behaviour towards a cyclist wearing a helmet. Instances
included the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins.
.
While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any support for this notion
Also similar method used on much larger scale with more controls in the UK 2013 foundincluded the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins.
.
While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any support for this notion
Walker Garrard Jowitt said:
Overtaking proximities were not related to a bicyclist's apparent experience level and bicyclists probably cannot prevent close overtakes by manipulating their appearance.
It's worrying that pressure groups will still put out debunked stuff, possibly putting people at increased risk, just to advance an agenda. 1) Cycling with a helmet is safer. 2) Compulsory helmets are not a good idea, 3) Cycling is a good idea. Denying or ignoring the message on 1, with the aim of preventing 2 and promoting 3 is questionable.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 10th January 19:59
Finlandia said:
Why is it that nearly every single one of the enthusiast, or so called "lycra" cyclists, wear a helmet, if wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous?
Who has said wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous?But leaving that aside, why does this woman have to wear a helmet because the lycra brigade do?
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
Why is it that nearly every single one of the enthusiast, or so called "lycra" cyclists, wear a helmet, if wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous?
Who has said wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous?.[/quoteA few posts above someone said:
Strange but true: “ ... any protection that [cycle] helmets give is cancelled out by other mechanisms, such as by riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists.”
It turns out car drivers drive closer to cyclists who wear a helmet, thereby increasing the risk to cyclists.
It turns out car drivers drive closer to cyclists who wear a helmet, thereby increasing the risk to cyclists.
heebeegeetee said:
But leaving that aside, why does this woman have to wear a helmet because the lycra brigade do?
Graveworm said:
SVS said:
Strange but true: “ ... any protection that [cycle] helmets give is cancelled out by other mechanisms, such as by riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists.”
It turns out car drivers drive closer to cyclists who wear a helmet, thereby increasing the risk to cyclists.
This was raised earlier. it was debunked by peer reviewed studies it was literally one guy riding around in 2007 and saying people were closer depending on what he wore including wearing a wig etc. It turns out car drivers drive closer to cyclists who wear a helmet, thereby increasing the risk to cyclists.
Olivier and Walter 2013 said:
One study found that drivers showed more risky behaviour towards a cyclist wearing a helmet. Instances
included the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins.
.
While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any support for this notion
Also similar method used on much larger scale with more controls in the UK 2013 foundincluded the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins.
.
While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any support for this notion
Walker Garrard Jowitt said:
Overtaking proximities were not related to a bicyclist's apparent experience level and bicyclists probably cannot prevent close overtakes by manipulating their appearance.
It's worrying that pressure groups will still put out debunked stuff, possibly putting people at increased risk, just to advance an agenda. 1) Cycling with a helmet is safer. 2) Compulsory helmets are not a good idea, 3) Cycling is a good idea. Denying or ignoring the message on 1, with the aim of preventing 2 and promoting 3 is questionable.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 10th January 19:59
heebeegeetee said:
Who has said wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous?
But leaving that aside, why does this woman have to wear a helmet because the lycra brigade do?
She doesn't. If she chose to wear a helmet she would decrease the risk of injury and the severity if she had one. If more cyclists did, when they could, it would be nothing but a good thing and any savings to the public purse would benefit everyone including her. But leaving that aside, why does this woman have to wear a helmet because the lycra brigade do?
Graveworm said:
She doesn't. If she chose to wear a helmet she would decrease the risk of injury and the severity if she had one. If more cyclists did, when they could, it would be nothing but a good thing and any savings to the public purse would benefit everyone including her.
Cool. I chose not to wear one today. frisbee said:
Most cyclists in Holland don't wear helmets.
Don't equate your personal lack of skill and coordination with that of normal people.
That's true but they cycle much slower and their rate of death in road accidents is higher than the UK and uniquely more cyclists are killed in accidents than motorists. Don't equate your personal lack of skill and coordination with that of normal people.
yellowjack said:
Call me old-fashioned, but the "carriageway" is for "carriages" (a legal definition applied to the humble bicycle decades before it applied to the motor car, btw), and the footway is for pedestrians. My "legally speaking, it's a carriage 
" bicycle will therefore be ridden on the carriageway unless there's a cycle path away......
I think you’ll find a carriage is a car. A bicycle is a thing that bounces off a car if they collide. " bicycle will therefore be ridden on the carriageway unless there's a cycle path away......These details save lives.
Graveworm said:
She doesn't. If she chose to wear a helmet she would decrease the risk of injury and the severity if she had one. If more cyclists did, when they could, it would be nothing but a good thing and any savings to the public purse would benefit everyone including her.
Ok. We make helmet wearing mandatory. She's now using up space on the road and filling your lungs with crap."Lycra" cyclists often wear helmets because that makes their selected activity safer, and because they are already committed to the concept of getting special kit to cycle. I don't wear a helmet when I drive to the shops, and I don't wear a full fireproof romper suit either... but I don't laugh at racing drivers (or Caterham owners...) for doing so. I understand that their requirements for their activity are different to mine.
wst said:
k. We make helmet wearing mandatory. She's now using up space on the road and filling your lungs with crap.
"Lycra" cyclists often wear helmets because that makes their selected activity safer, and because they are already committed to the concept of getting special kit to cycle. I don't wear a helmet when I drive to the shops, and I don't wear a full fireproof romper suit either... but I don't laugh at racing drivers (or Caterham owners...) for doing so. I understand that their requirements for their activity are different to mine.
Again the straw man, This has never been about mandatory helmets, why the paranoia. I said numerous times that mandatory helmets were a bad idea and that I occasionally cycle without them for convenience, I do it knowing I am at a higher risk and that I would be better off with one. What I was trying to address is the nonsense that cycling UK spout about advising people to wear helmets being a bad idea as it blames the victim, or those who try to say it isn't safer out of some kind of self delusion. "Lycra" cyclists often wear helmets because that makes their selected activity safer, and because they are already committed to the concept of getting special kit to cycle. I don't wear a helmet when I drive to the shops, and I don't wear a full fireproof romper suit either... but I don't laugh at racing drivers (or Caterham owners...) for doing so. I understand that their requirements for their activity are different to mine.
heebeegeetee said:
swisstoni said:
I could see quite a lot of benefits to the nation’s health if less people drove, frankly.
But I wouldn’t put my selfishness in front of preventing people flying through windscreens.
Come on, let's put this to bed.But I wouldn’t put my selfishness in front of preventing people flying through windscreens.
Despite your user name you seem to have completely forgotten that there is a world beyond our shores.
Helmets were made compulsory back in 1990, and so there is plenty of experience, research and results to be studied.
Not everywhere in the world opted for mandatory helmets - unlike with seat belts (afaiaa).
Many nations which did not mandate helmets have enjoyed higher levels of safety than those that did - unlike with seat belts.
Those that mandated helmets were able to record a significant drop in levels of cycling - unlike with seat belts and cars.
Those that mandated helmets were able to record an even more significant reduction of children cycling - unlike with seat belts and cars.
Some/most(?) nations that mandated helmets have experienced an explosion in obesity - unlike seat belts.
Nations that encourage cycling and have not mandated helmets are at the other end of the obesity scale - not the experience with seat belts.
Nations that mandated helmets have been unable to record a benefit to public health that could be attributed to helmets - completely the opposite experience with seat belts.
Nations or jurisdictions that have mandated helmets are now reconsidering - completely the opposite experience with seat belts.
I'm sorry, but those who correlate cycle helmets with seat belts are displaying exactly the same thinking, reasoning and intellect as the arguments of "road tax" and "they break the law".
>>Australia's largest cycling organisation, the Bicycle Network, has reversed its policy and from 31 October 2018 is recommending a five year trial permitting people older than 17 to choose whether they wear a helmet when riding on footpaths or off-road cycle paths (read recommendation and policy paper).<<
>>What's not reported in Australia: In January 2018 the government of Malta - the only European Union country with a mandatory all-age bike helmet law - announced it will repeal the law because it no longer wishes to discourage cycling.<<
>>In March 2017, Bosnia and Herzegovina repealed the all-age mandatory bicycle helmet law it had enforced for the previous six years.<<
>>On 10 June 2014, Dallas City Council in Texas repealed the jurisdiction's adult bicycle helmet law which was first enacted in 1996.<<
>>In August 2011, Israel repealed its adult bike helmet law on cycle paths to encourage healthy recreational transport, with Tel Aviv enjoying a consequent 54% increase in cycling participation from 2010 to 2012.<<
>>Surveys show Western Australia's mandatory helmet legislation reduced public cycling numbers by at least 30%, yet total hospitalised cyclist injuries did not decline at all. The reduction in head injury numbers was marginal. West Australian cyclist numbers recovered in the decade to 2000 but hospital admissions were at record levels from 1997, roughly 30% above pre-law levels by 2000.<<
>>As reported in March 2007 and based on data from Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria, the number of Australian children walking or riding a bicycle to school has plunged from about 80% in 1977 to the current level around 5%. The data on this website and on this page confirms that in Western Australia, the massive decline in cycling (and children's health and safety) began in 1991 when the helmet law was enacted. In June 2008, research at Melbourne's Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute found that Australia is now the fattest nation on earth.<<
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/index.html
>>Research published by Deakin University in October 2009 shows that Australian pre-school children spend 85% of their waking hours inactive.<<
>>Australia now challenges America in having the greatest proportion of obese citizens. About one in five children in Western Australia is considered obese and it's predicted that 75% of Australia's adult population will in some way be overweight by 2020. About 60% of all Australians are classified as overweight or obese.
A report published in 2007 by the Public Library of Science-Medicine (PDF 216kb) shows that just 15 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day reduces the odds of obesity in 12 year old boys by 50% and in girls by 40%.
According to the Heart Foundation, more than 54% of West Australian adults were overweight or obese in 2009 and the proportion almost doubled from one in 10 to one in five people from 1995 to 2008. Western Australia enforced mandatory bicycle helmet laws in 1992.<<
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet-health.html#
Let’s BAN helmets then. Imagine the benefits to the nation!
V6 Pushfit said:
yellowjack said:
Call me old-fashioned, but the "carriageway" is for "carriages" (a legal definition applied to the humble bicycle decades before it applied to the motor car, btw), and the footway is for pedestrians. My "legally speaking, it's a carriage " bicycle will therefore be ridden on the carriageway unless there's a cycle path away......
I think you’ll find a carriage is a car. A bicycle is a thing that bounces off a car if they collide. " bicycle will therefore be ridden on the carriageway unless there's a cycle path away......These details save lives.
Motor cars were classed as carriages in the 1903 Motor Car Act; bicycles were so classified in 1888. The operators of bicycles and cars have the same road rights, that is, being able to pass and repass over the public highway.
The origin of the defining of bicycles as "carriages" was the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879. Basically it was easier to define cycles so, and therefore bring them under the scope of the 1835 Highway Act than to write a whole new set of laws solely to apply to bicycles.
http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact...
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling...
So "we were here first". Nah nah nah nah nah!
springfan62 said:
Its perfectly possible for cars, cycles and pedestrians to co-exist on our roads.
Just needs everyone to be considerate and lets be honest we all come across lots of bad ones in each and every group its best not to stereotype and treat each interaction on its merits.
Then when you come across an inconsiderate one you breath deeply and avoid getting into a pointless rant.
Agreed., some people on here are well built and very important director types who think their journey and life is more. Important than a peasant on a pushbike, though. Just needs everyone to be considerate and lets be honest we all come across lots of bad ones in each and every group its best not to stereotype and treat each interaction on its merits.
Then when you come across an inconsiderate one you breath deeply and avoid getting into a pointless rant.
yellowjack said:
V6 Pushfit said:
yellowjack said:
Call me old-fashioned, but the "carriageway" is for "carriages" (a legal definition applied to the humble bicycle decades before it applied to the motor car, btw), and the footway is for pedestrians. My "legally speaking, it's a carriage " bicycle will therefore be ridden on the carriageway unless there's a cycle path away......
I think you’ll find a carriage is a car. A bicycle is a thing that bounces off a car if they collide. " bicycle will therefore be ridden on the carriageway unless there's a cycle path away......These details save lives.
Motor cars were classed as carriages in the 1903 Motor Car Act; bicycles were so classified in 1888. The operators of bicycles and cars have the same road rights, that is, being able to pass and repass over the public highway.
The origin of the defining of bicycles as "carriages" was the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879. Basically it was easier to define cycles so, and therefore bring them under the scope of the 1835 Highway Act than to write a whole new set of laws solely to apply to bicycles.
http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact...
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling...
So "we were here first". Nah nah nah nah nah!
Anyway I disagree,
Maybe an unpopular opinion but road priorities are Cars then bikes
Graveworm said:
She doesn't. If she chose to wear a helmet she would decrease the risk of injury and the severity if she had one. If more cyclists did, when they could, it would be nothing but a good thing and any savings to the public purse would benefit everyone including her.
And that applies to absolutely everyone, especially any pedestrians near her because they die at a higher rate and a higher number in the uk. If we’re going to tell people who are participating in a very safe and beneficial activity indeed, that they should wear a helmet, clearly logic dictates that it should apply to pretty much everyone.Incidentally, should that lady take on board all the frightening rhetoric surrounding her safe and beneficial activity, and she chooses to walk instead, what on earth has been achieved?
Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 11th January 08:29
V6 Pushfit said:
My goodness are you like this in real life? I bet you’re a right laugh down the pub.
Anyway I disagree,
Maybe an unpopular opinion but road priorities are Cars then bikes
Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to use the road (apart from where specifically excluded, such as motorways) but drivers and cars have to be licensed and registered. Anyway I disagree,
Maybe an unpopular opinion but road priorities are Cars then bikes
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff