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

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

Author
Discussion

Killboy

1,392 posts

139 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
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.

Graveworm

942 posts

8 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
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.

V6 Pushfit

10,011 posts

47 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
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 wink " 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.

These details save lives.

wst

3,143 posts

98 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
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.

hyphen

8,609 posts

27 months

Advertisement

Graveworm

942 posts

8 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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.

swisstoni

7,292 posts

216 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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.

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#
I’m convinced by your google dump of guff from random countries.

Let’s BAN helmets then. Imagine the benefits to the nation!


yellowjack

11,090 posts

103 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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 wink " 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.

These details save lives.
I think you'll find that I'm correct, and you are just being an obtuse fool trying to invoke a flypast from a flock of parrots, or you are particularly thick. Although it's possibly both...

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! tongue out

PorkRind

2,569 posts

142 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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.

Huw Janus

394 posts

5 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
I’m convinced by your google dump of guff from random countries.

Let’s BAN helmets then. Imagine the benefits to the nation!
Presented with facts you seem only capable of offering a puerile response.
Maybe debating with adults isn’t for you ?

V6 Pushfit

10,011 posts

47 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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 wink " 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.

These details save lives.
I think you'll find that I'm correct, and you are just being an obtuse fool trying to invoke a flypast from a flock of parrots, or you are particularly thick. Although it's possibly both...

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! tongue out
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

heebeegeetee

26,367 posts

185 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
I’m convinced by your google dump of guff from random countries.

Let’s BAN helmets then. Imagine the benefits to the nation!
It’s one country, a country that made cycling helmets compulsory.

heebeegeetee

26,367 posts

185 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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

heebeegeetee

26,367 posts

185 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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.

yonex

12,781 posts

105 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
What exactly is the topic of arguement at this time, have we moved on from not being able to overtake cyclists, have we dealt with being able to not give a stuff about others choices which have a microscopic impact on ourselves?

Is this now about ego’s?

Seems that way to me smile

Huw Janus

394 posts

5 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
yonex said:
What exactly is the topic of arguement at this time, have we moved on from not being able to overtake cyclists, have we dealt with being able to not give a stuff about others choices which have a microscopic impact on ourselves?

Is this now about ego’s?

Seems that way to me smile
In the history of PH has anyone ever admitted they were wrong ?



Graveworm

942 posts

8 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
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?


A lot of repetition but again walking is safer per journey or overall, just slightly more fatalities per billion km, providing the cyclist is wearing a helmet.Way fewer injuries. No safety body or experts have advised wearing helmets to walk but they all advise wearing them to cycle. And just because X is good doesn't mean we should not talk about Y being good as well.

I don't accept your premise that advising to wear a helmet is frightening rhetoric. If she walked instead of cycling without a helmet she would better off not worse so that's a strange argument.


Edited by Graveworm on Friday 11th January 09:18

nickfrog

9,294 posts

154 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
hyphen said:
So how many calories an hour is it then? 5000 rolleyes Cycling isn't even a full body workout.
It really is IME. But then again I only mountain bike with a penchant for bike parks where upper body strength is quite crucial, but perhaps road cycling isn't as complete.

austinsmirk

3,218 posts

60 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
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.
its also a country that is flat, so I'd argue cycling road speeds are a lot lower than here, you also have a huge culture of cyclist awareness, proper lanes, traffic lights and so on: none of that exists here in the UK.

maybe motorists in London, Oxford and York are a bit more bike aware, but go elsewhere- to me it feels like sometimes I'm the only cyclist on the road anywhere. Motorists become unaccustomed to seeing you as a hazard. In about 6 hrs of road riding this week, I've only seen one kid on a mtb- with no helmet on !!!

yonex

12,781 posts

105 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Huw Janus said:
In the history of PH has anyone ever admitted they were wrong ?
Seems less about what’s right and work wrong and more about individuals moaning about sod all?

What impact does wearing a helmet have upon a non cyclist? It’s hilarious