That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!
Discussion
Jagmanv12 said:
No there is no proven demand.
I believe central government gives the council funds as long as they are spent on cycling infrastructure. If councils don't spend it they probably lose it.
The problem is that government and councils work on the "build it and they will come" principle. Which any sensible person will tell you is a sure fire way to waste money. You should establish if there is a demand first.
Bucks council (presumably) have wasted a load of money putting a cycle track beside the A413 south from Buckingham. I have never seen cyclists use it or on the A413.
It would be far better if government/councils spent the money on filling in the potholes. This would benefit both cyclists and motorists.
Now ain't that the truth!I believe central government gives the council funds as long as they are spent on cycling infrastructure. If councils don't spend it they probably lose it.
The problem is that government and councils work on the "build it and they will come" principle. Which any sensible person will tell you is a sure fire way to waste money. You should establish if there is a demand first.
Bucks council (presumably) have wasted a load of money putting a cycle track beside the A413 south from Buckingham. I have never seen cyclists use it or on the A413.
It would be far better if government/councils spent the money on filling in the potholes. This would benefit both cyclists and motorists.
As someone who enjoys driving AND cycling it would be of a huge benefit to me. No more having to choose between swerving around gaping chasms or smashing ball joints to pieces in my car, and no more having to choose between swerving around gaping chasms and possibly getting shunted from behind, or smashing my wheels (and teeth) to pieces getting pitched off my bike by riding into them. Best idea on this thread yet. Maybe we could bring together cyclists, drivers interest groups, and even BRAKE, RoSPA, etc for a unified campaign to persuade councils and highways authorities to carry out their statutory duties and sort the feckin'roads out properly for once instead of hiding the potholes under some gravel what was lying about in the maintenance yard which they've glued onto the old knackered surface with an adhesive with all the staying power of a feckin' Pritt Stick...
austinsmirk said:
I spent 13 years cycling in/out of the city of Bradford and survived. Bare in mind its the focus of Police Interceptors each week and that's pretty much been the standard of driving there for decades. A totally lawless place. of course I don't live in the city, I live miles away in a lovely village- but I swear you'd get within a magic, invisible band, about 4 miles in diameter and then the standard of driving would just descend into a GTA game.
but do you know what- its a case of riding a bit slower, a bit more alert, don't have headphones on (so you can hear whats coming up behind you), make sure you've got decent lights and some kit that means you can be seen.
personally I think cyclists on black bikes, head to toe in black, with some joke of a micro LED light are on borrowed time (and bell ends TBH).
butI'll keep wearing my helmet- it keeps my hat on, my head warm, flies, branches and other junk from my eyes/head and probably means if I do have an accident, I'll come home to my wife and children.
But I do cycle a lot safer now (in my 40's) than when I was in my 20's. probably like my driving. I'm less of a dic head !!! But surely, aren't we all like that.
Wanna hear a cool story bro'?but do you know what- its a case of riding a bit slower, a bit more alert, don't have headphones on (so you can hear whats coming up behind you), make sure you've got decent lights and some kit that means you can be seen.
personally I think cyclists on black bikes, head to toe in black, with some joke of a micro LED light are on borrowed time (and bell ends TBH).
butI'll keep wearing my helmet- it keeps my hat on, my head warm, flies, branches and other junk from my eyes/head and probably means if I do have an accident, I'll come home to my wife and children.
But I do cycle a lot safer now (in my 40's) than when I was in my 20's. probably like my driving. I'm less of a dic head !!! But surely, aren't we all like that.
I once got a head injury BECAUSE I WORE A HELMET!
True. Really it was. I was riding around the Olympic rowing lake at Eton Dorney, and a bee got drawn into my bike helmet through one of the vents. It got stuck between the head-band and the outer shell of the helmet, and evidently felt threatened by being trapped because it stung me right in the centre of my forehead with a 30 mile ride home ahead of me...
...which, IMHO at least, is a "pretty cool story, bro..."
And to make matters worse, of course the poor wee bee ripped it's stinger out and died...
Does a bee sting count as a head injury, or is it just a bee sting?
A similar thing happened to me. A bee flew into my full-face crash helmet when I had the visor up, lodged behind my ear, and stung me when I took the helmet off to let it out. I never considered that to be a good reason to stop wearing a helmet - not that I had the choice as they were a legal requirement by then.
At the moment you have the choice. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. But everyone else should surely be allowed to make up their own minds too - until / unless it becomes law, that is.
A similar thing happened to me. A bee flew into my full-face crash helmet when I had the visor up, lodged behind my ear, and stung me when I took the helmet off to let it out. I never considered that to be a good reason to stop wearing a helmet - not that I had the choice as they were a legal requirement by then.
At the moment you have the choice. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. But everyone else should surely be allowed to make up their own minds too - until / unless it becomes law, that is.
Graveworm said:
Because an individual cyclist is far more likely to collide with you than an individual pedestrian. So when deciding which group benefits from helmets that's a key statistic that matters. It means that many many pedestrians would need to wear helmets (almost every journey includes some aspect on foot) to have possibly the same benefit as one cyclist wearing one. Hence why the number of journeys is not irrelevant.
You are making the simple and basic mistake of mixing rates with numbers. I don’t agree with any of the above that you’ve written, but nevertheless it’s about numbers not rates or likelihood. If all pedestrians were to helmets then more lives would be saved and considerably more cost would be saved, end of. And that’s all that matters.
However pedestrians don’t want to wear helmets and won’t wear helmets and I fully support that, but where it gets ridiculous is when people who won’t wear helmets criticise others who choose to do the same, even more so when it’s pedestrians who are greater risk than the people they criticise.
Far more pedestrians are killed than cyclists by any measure and more pedestrians die per distance travelled and more pedestrians die per measure of exposure.
Conversely with motorists, they are at a way safer rate than all other road users but they still make up nearly 50% of road casualties, so by making all car occupants wear helmets we’d have a really considerable saving of life and money.
And they don’t have to be full motorsport, full face helmets, it may well be that a light weight helmet that affords full visibility (beyond the thick roof pillars that cars have now) will make a considerable reductions of numbers.
Mort7 said:
At the moment you have the choice. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. But everyone else should surely be allowed to make up their own minds too - until / unless it becomes law, that is.
The same should also apply to motorcycling too imo, despite the very high casualty rates. Again I think it gets silly if motor cyclists start criticising cyclists who are taking part in a safe activity which has terrific known benefits, not just to the individual but to society as a whole. heebeegeetee said:
You are making the simple and basic mistake of mixing rates with numbers. I don’t agree with any of the above that you’ve written, but nevertheless it’s about numbers not rates or likelihood.
If all pedestrians were to helmets then more lives would be saved and considerably more cost would be saved, end of. And that’s all that matters.
However pedestrians don’t want to wear helmets and won’t wear helmets and I fully support that, but where it gets ridiculous is when people who won’t wear helmets criticise others who choose to do the same, even more so when it’s pedestrians who are greater risk than the people they criticise.
Far more pedestrians are killed than cyclists by any measure and more pedestrians die per distance travelled and more pedestrians die per measure of exposure.
Conversely with motorists, they are at a way safer rate than all other road users but they still make up nearly 50% of road casualties, so by making all car occupants wear helmets we’d have a really considerable saving of life and money.
And they don’t have to be full motorsport, full face helmets, it may well be that a light weight helmet that affords full visibility (beyond the thick roof pillars that cars have now) will make a considerable reductions of numbers.
You can't just ignore all the data that makes your arguments ridiculous. Injuries matter and the numbers who would need to wear a helmet to achieve the benefit matter. If all pedestrians were to helmets then more lives would be saved and considerably more cost would be saved, end of. And that’s all that matters.
However pedestrians don’t want to wear helmets and won’t wear helmets and I fully support that, but where it gets ridiculous is when people who won’t wear helmets criticise others who choose to do the same, even more so when it’s pedestrians who are greater risk than the people they criticise.
Far more pedestrians are killed than cyclists by any measure and more pedestrians die per distance travelled and more pedestrians die per measure of exposure.
Conversely with motorists, they are at a way safer rate than all other road users but they still make up nearly 50% of road casualties, so by making all car occupants wear helmets we’d have a really considerable saving of life and money.
And they don’t have to be full motorsport, full face helmets, it may well be that a light weight helmet that affords full visibility (beyond the thick roof pillars that cars have now) will make a considerable reductions of numbers.
Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous and it's a really good idea to not do it, it's a good idea to promote this even though it saves very few lives because the impact is very small. Cheerleading is hazardous, it would also be safer if no one did it, it would prevent many injuries and save way more lives. The numbers matter, the impact matters.
You are almost certainly not wrong, if every pedestrian wore helmets it would make a difference purely in terms of deaths and injuries.
In numbers terms only slightly more pedestrians are killed or injured than cyclists. In terms of distance travelled more cyclists are killed or injured per km. Far far more journeys include a portion on foot.
So to prevent death or injury it makes more sense to wear a helmet on a bicycle, by any measure. It also doesn't change that, to see the same benefits as one cyclist wearing a helmet many many pedestrians would have to.
There is no data on the overall benefits of your hypothetical in car helmet, but again even if it were of benefit it would not be as beneficial as wearing a helmet on a bicycle by any measure. In any event you wrote about the benefits of making them wear a helmet. At the risk of being a stuck record this is not about making anyone wear anything it's about you arguing that safety bodies shouldn't even advise the wearing of a helmet.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 16th January 11:48
heebeegeetee said:
Mort7 said:
At the moment you have the choice. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. But everyone else should surely be allowed to make up their own minds too - until / unless it becomes law, that is.
The same should also apply to motorcycling too imo, despite the very high casualty rates. Again I think it gets silly if motor cyclists start criticising cyclists who are taking part in a safe activity which has terrific known benefits, not just to the individual but to society as a whole. What’s the reason for that?
heebeegeetee said:
Mort7 said:
At the moment you have the choice. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. But everyone else should surely be allowed to make up their own minds too - until / unless it becomes law, that is.
The same should also apply to motorcycling too imo, despite the very high casualty rates. Again I think it gets silly if motor cyclists start criticising cyclists who are taking part in a safe activity which has terrific known benefits, not just to the individual but to society as a whole. As regards cycles, you currently have a choice. If you suffer an injury as a result of not wearing a helmet then that will be you fault. If you get away with it, then good for you.
You can complain as much as you like, but if a political party considers that there is an electoral advantage to including compulsory cycle helmets within their manifesto, then they will do that. There were huge protests when the crash helmet legislation was announced, and they made no difference at all.
swisstoni said:
heebeegeetee said:
Mort7 said:
At the moment you have the choice. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. But everyone else should surely be allowed to make up their own minds too - until / unless it becomes law, that is.
The same should also apply to motorcycling too imo, despite the very high casualty rates. Again I think it gets silly if motor cyclists start criticising cyclists who are taking part in a safe activity which has terrific known benefits, not just to the individual but to society as a whole. What’s the reason for that?
Motor cyclists with helmets and/or the safety gear they can wear still relatively suffer a very casualty rate indeed, yet this is hardly ever questioned, and quite rightly so in my opinion. It's their freedom to motor cycle and I support it.
In contrast, large amounts of energy and time, goes into commenting on other people making a lifestyle choice for themselves by carrying out some ordinary cycling in ordinary clothes, which not only is greatly safer than motor cycling but also has the very highly beneficial element of exercising whist travelling. For those people who think cyclists shouldn't cycle without a helmet, are you happy that motorcycling takes place, and if so, why?
heebeegeetee said:
Sorry, no, I didn't make myself clear.
Motor cyclists with helmets and/or the safety gear they can wear still relatively suffer a very casualty rate indeed, yet this is hardly ever questioned, and quite rightly so in my opinion. It's their freedom to motor cycle and I support it.
In contrast, large amounts of energy and time, goes into commenting on other people making a lifestyle choice for themselves by carrying out some ordinary cycling in ordinary clothes, which not only is greatly safer than motor cycling but also has the very highly beneficial element of exercising whist travelling. For those people who think cyclists shouldn't cycle without a helmet, are you happy that motorcycling takes place, and if so, why?
You keep turning this around - no one has said you shouldn't cycle without a helmet, just that it's safer to wear one. You defend those who object to bodies saying that.Motor cyclists with helmets and/or the safety gear they can wear still relatively suffer a very casualty rate indeed, yet this is hardly ever questioned, and quite rightly so in my opinion. It's their freedom to motor cycle and I support it.
In contrast, large amounts of energy and time, goes into commenting on other people making a lifestyle choice for themselves by carrying out some ordinary cycling in ordinary clothes, which not only is greatly safer than motor cycling but also has the very highly beneficial element of exercising whist travelling. For those people who think cyclists shouldn't cycle without a helmet, are you happy that motorcycling takes place, and if so, why?
Motorcyclists have to wear a helmet on the road, but they are advised to wear one off road, the same bodies also advise them to wear eye protectors ear, protection, strong boots, gloves and suitable clothing.
That is the correlation you should be drawing and saying it's wrong to advise this because -- sleeping on the floor would prevent accidents from falling out of bed so why aren't we forcing people to do that as well etc etc.
Graveworm said:
1. You can't just ignore all the data that makes your arguments ridiculous.
2. Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous
1. This is the data. It shows more pedestrians die than cyclists and they die at a higher rate. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...2. Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous
2. Ordinary utility cycling is a safe activity which has benefits outweighing the risks by many times. This factor varies from study to study, some say the benefits outweigh the risks by factors in the hundreds (though I prefer the more often used figure of 7).
To use terminology such as "Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous" is utterly, utterly ridiculous when used in connection with ordinary people partaking in ordinary cycling. Maybe the terminology fits with motorcycling (in helmet and leathers), I don't know, but to use it with cycling shows you have completely lost the plot in this regard.
heebeegeetee said:
1. This is the data. It shows more pedestrians die than cyclists and they die at a higher rate. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Yes but Data also shows injuries - helmets help with injuries and are promoted as doing so, you are also ignoring the numbers of people who would need to buy and wear a helmet in relation to the overall benefit. Which is why I said you are ignoring data. Let me help you:
So 5 times more likely per billion km
and
Walking is the main means of transport for 12.5 times as many journeys as cycling and over 45 times as many where it is undertaken as part of a journey yet the total casualties are only 1.3 time higher. So we have 10-35 pedestrians would have to wear a helmet to get the same benefit as a cyclist. Not to mention that of course walking or running is even better for the nations health than cycling.
heebeegeetee said:
2. Ordinary utility cycling is a safe activity which has benefits outweighing the risks by many times. This factor varies from study to study, some say the benefits outweigh the risks by factors in the hundreds (though I prefer the more often used figure of 7).
To use terminology such as "Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous" is utterly, utterly ridiculous when used in connection with ordinary people partaking in ordinary cycling. Maybe the terminology fits with motorcycling (in helmet and leathers), I don't know, but to use it with cycling shows you have completely lost the plot in this regard.
You really are grasping at straws. I used an extreme example, which you then said was extreme. I am struggling to see where I equated cycling with going over Niagara in a barrel.To use terminology such as "Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous" is utterly, utterly ridiculous when used in connection with ordinary people partaking in ordinary cycling. Maybe the terminology fits with motorcycling (in helmet and leathers), I don't know, but to use it with cycling shows you have completely lost the plot in this regard.
Please show me I am wrong in any of these statements.
1) It is safer for a cyclist to wear a helmet than not.
2) A cyclist benefits from wearing a helmet far more than a pedestrian.
3) You are defending those who say it is wrong for safety organisations to advise cyclists to wear a helmet.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 16th January 14:54
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 16th January 14:54
heebeegeetee said:
Graveworm said:
1. You can't just ignore all the data that makes your arguments ridiculous.
2. Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous
1. This is the data. It shows more pedestrians die than cyclists and they die at a higher rate. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...2. Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous
2. Ordinary utility cycling is a safe activity which has benefits outweighing the risks by many times. This factor varies from study to study, some say the benefits outweigh the risks by factors in the hundreds (though I prefer the more often used figure of 7).
To use terminology such as "Going over Niagara falls in a barrel is very dangerous" is utterly, utterly ridiculous when used in connection with ordinary people partaking in ordinary cycling. Maybe the terminology fits with motorcycling (in helmet and leathers), I don't know, but to use it with cycling shows you have completely lost the plot in this regard.
julian64 said:
Cycling with a helmet or without is still very safe in comparison with virtually everything out there. To argue the toss between the two so vociferously is to miss the much bigger questions around cycling. It is almost certainly safer to go get your newspaper on a bike than it is to wait indoors for the paperboy to bring it.
I completely agree and I apologise unreservedly if I gave the impression that I ever thought otherwise. My vociferousness (Is that a word) is about the suggestion that safety groups shouldn't advise wearing a cycling helmet and the spurious nonsense that gets put forward to justify this,
1) Why just cyclists why not everyone?
2) You can't it would be blaming the victim.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 16th January 15:02
Graveworm said:
There is no data on the overall benefits of your hypothetical in car helmet, but again even if it were of benefit it would not be as beneficial as wearing a helmet on a bicycle by any measure.
How do you work that out? There are nearly 8 times more car occupants killed than cyclists. If a suitable helmet saved 10% of both, that would be 10 cyclists and nearly 80 motorists.Graveworm said:
That is the correlation you should be drawing and saying it's wrong to advise this because -- sleeping on the floor would prevent accidents from falling out of bed so why aren't we forcing people to do that as well etc etc.
Correlate what? Utility cycling with motorcycling?heebeegeetee said:
Graveworm said:
There is no data on the overall benefits of your hypothetical in car helmet, but again even if it were of benefit it would not be as beneficial as wearing a helmet on a bicycle by any measure.
How do you work that out? There are nearly 8 times more car occupants killed than cyclists. If a suitable helmet saved 10% of both, that would be 10 cyclists and nearly 80 motorists.Secondly motorists are 20 times less likely to be a casualty so the wearing of a helmet by a motorists is 20 times less beneficial than the wearing of one by a cyclist QED.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 16th January 15:38
I seriously can't believe cyclists are arguing on here against wearing helmets.
Anybody I know who competes either off or on road wears a helmet. I just don't get why you wouldn't wear one, cycling is dangerous ; fall off even at 0 mph it's going to hurt. Anyone who argues against one must already be brain damaged.
Anybody I know who competes either off or on road wears a helmet. I just don't get why you wouldn't wear one, cycling is dangerous ; fall off even at 0 mph it's going to hurt. Anyone who argues against one must already be brain damaged.
swisstoni said:
This has got nothing to do with safety in any case.
It is about decrying anything that could effect the take-up of cycling.
Cycling is on the decline, it has been largely unchanged since the 70s. It is about decrying anything that could effect the take-up of cycling.
I want more cycling, I want safer cycling. I know more is better, even if the relative safety levels go unchanged. However I am fairly certain, reading about people dying, the majority of people wanting more restrictions on cycling along with the negative media coverage of poor cyclists does more harm than the Highway code advice to wear a helmet - which I know has been in there for at least 20 years probably longer.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 16th January 15:43
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff