Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Stoke
    • By Stoke 2nd Oct 17, 6:07 PM
    • 1,997Posts
    • 835Thanks
    Stoke
    Why would anyone cycle to work?
    • #1
    • 2nd Oct 17, 6:07 PM
    Why would anyone cycle to work? 2nd Oct 17 at 6:07 PM
    This morning, on the way into work, I saw a cyclist nearly get knocked off by two different cars in the space of 20 seconds.

    Then, half an hour later, I saw another cyclist nearly get knocked off, again we're talking inches.

    It's an absolute bloody minefield out there with all the crap drivers. It's a shame as cyclists do other road users and the world a favour in reality, but they aren't half treated with contempt.

    I've always considered cycling to work, but nah, it's too risky tbh.
    Last edited by Stoke; 02-10-2017 at 6:12 PM.
Page 5
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 9th Oct 17, 4:32 PM
    • 541 Posts
    • 430 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    Here's a good example that's enshrined in law:

    If you use dynamo lights with no standlight it's illegal to stop on the crest of the road whilst waiting to turn right. Fit a standlight or battery lights on the other hand, and you're now permitted to risk stopping in the centre of the road at night, just for the convenience of making an easier right turn.
    Originally posted by jack_pott

    Half of the people I see day in day out have not read that and don't care when they nearly ride into me............funny but the same type of people who don't have lights, don't wear a helmet for some reason.
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 9th Oct 17, 4:39 PM
    • 4,288 Posts
    • 5,505 Thanks
    jack_pott
    Thats great. I knew an old lady who lived till 80 plus while smoking 60 a day all her life. I suppose that puts an end to the cancer scare all them Drs talk about.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    The statistics show that smoking causes lung cancer, and the statistics so far seem to show that populations that don't wear helmets have a lower head injury rate. The old lady is just irrelevant anecdata, and so is your fall off the bike.

    Of course not wearing a helmet stops others actions and human error. Its like a Mutant special power.
    Wearing a helmet will stop some injuries and cause others, not wearing a helmet will also stop some injuries and cause others. The only meaningful comparison is to compare the total number of injuries in both cases, which is what the American experiment did, and the result was that non-helmet was safer.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • Rotor
    • By Rotor 9th Oct 17, 4:59 PM
    • 906 Posts
    • 1,016 Thanks
    Rotor
    What is all the talk about death. High impact to the head may not kill but I don't recommend it.

    Just the other night I rode home in the dark. Yes with lights, on the Thames footpath. I hit my head on a low branch. I was grateful I had a helmet on.

    Wearing a helmet reduces risk as do lights and bright clothing.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Anecdotes about how a helmet saved someone are not just pointless but positively misleading ( there'll be loads of 'helmet saved a bad head' tales)

    Misleading because they will all go the same way - you won't , because you can't, hear the tales of how the cars came slightly closer because the cyclist had a helmet or the cyclist took (say)2 % more risks.

    It can only be shown statistically
    Finding an exception is NOT the same as disproving the rule.
    • andrewf75
    • By andrewf75 9th Oct 17, 5:00 PM
    • 7,851 Posts
    • 13,172 Thanks
    andrewf75
    which is what the American experiment did, and the result was that non-helmet was safer.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    are we talking about this 1970s one about motorbikes? or is there another more relevant study?
    • andrewf75
    • By andrewf75 9th Oct 17, 5:14 PM
    • 7,851 Posts
    • 13,172 Thanks
    andrewf75
    Anecdotes about how a helmet saved someone are not just pointless but positively misleading ( there'll be loads of 'helmet saved a bad head' tales)

    Misleading because they will all go the same way - you won't , because you can't, hear the tales of how the cars came slightly closer because the cyclist had a helmet or the cyclist took (say)2 % more risks.

    It can only be shown statistically
    Originally posted by Rotor
    misleading to even take seriously a 1970s study on motorbikes in the US and apply it to cycling in the UK and then give it equal weight to common sense! From a quick google it seems that a more recent and more relevant study has disproved it anyway
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/
    • brat
    • By brat 9th Oct 17, 5:27 PM
    • 2,446 Posts
    • 3,103 Thanks
    brat
    I've never been able to make my mind up on whether it's safer to wear a helmet - taking EVERYTHING into account. I don't think the Walker research is conclusive.

    My own view for my own personal riding style is this.

    I ride ~7,000 miles a year outdoors excluding commuting miles. Those miles are exercise miles, therefore fairly intense - tempo/threshold miles.
    My style of cycling is unlikely to cause anyone to question my ability and assertiveness on the bike, and I don't believe motorists would change their attitude to me if I wasn't wearing a helmet. I don't think whether I'm wearing a helmet or not would even register. So I don't believe that, in my circumstances, with the style of cycling I do and the rural nature of the roads I cycle on, the presence of a helmet is going to make any difference to motorists' behaviour around me.

    I buy the risk homeostasis argument, but the only effect that is likely to have on me is to make me a little faster. If the helmet accommodates that extra risk, I'd rather have it on, and have an extra mile an hour.

    Of all the cycle fatalities I've attended or been involved in the investigation of, they've all been road cyclists wearing helmets, bar one who was a drunk, cycling in the middle of a 70mph dual carriageway in the dark and in fog.
    That is not a ringing endorsement for helmet safety, but it's perhaps more indicative of the proportion of road cyclists who now wear helmets.

    What I don't see are road traffic collisions involving the town centre feral cyclists who ride rusty chained, flat tyred, brakeless bikes without helmets, lights etc, on the pavement and through red lights. It's a non-statistic. I think those are the type of cyclists that motorists will give a much wider berth to, primarily because they don't want their car damaged.
    Last edited by brat; 09-10-2017 at 5:29 PM.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • Rotor
    • By Rotor 9th Oct 17, 5:45 PM
    • 906 Posts
    • 1,016 Thanks
    Rotor
    misleading to even take seriously a 1970s study on motorbikes in the US and apply it to cycling in the UK and then give it equal weight to common sense! From a quick google it seems that a more recent and more relevant study has disproved it anyway
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/
    Originally posted by andrewf75
    Not all from the '70s

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/11979540/Bike-helmet-laws-do-not-prevent-head-injuries.html#disqus_thread
    Finding an exception is NOT the same as disproving the rule.
    • esuhl
    • By esuhl 9th Oct 17, 7:02 PM
    • 7,772 Posts
    • 5,577 Thanks
    esuhl
    you're relatively unlikely to have a serious fall onto your head while walking. On a bike you're MUCH more likely to fall on your head and at a speed which can cause serious damage. The "going over the handlebars" crash, we all know it or have experienced it!

    There are risks in everything we do, but when a risk can so easily be reduced then yes its silly!
    I do respect your right to be silly though and as it doesn't endanger anyone other than yourself don't think I favour them being compulsory.
    Originally posted by andrewf75
    Lots of risks can be reduced incredibly easily, but do people take heed? The risk of killing someone reduces when motorists obey the speed limit. But are there any car drivers who can obey the speed limit for even ONE DAY a year?!

    Risks can be reduced by using flashing orange lights to indicate when you wish to turn or change lane. How many people use those reliably?

    Everyone who drives a car does silly, reckless things that increase the risks of injury. Why should cyclists be held to a much higher standard when cyclists are INCREDIBLY unlikely to injuries anyone else, unlike motorists.

    I think motorists just hate to take responsibility for the danger and risks they cause, and want to project the responsibility for their desire to be reckless onto cyclists. By getting angry with cyclists who don't wear helmets, they can project the blame onto them, rather than recognising that THEY are the root of the problem.

    The most ridiculous thing I see these days is four-year-olds on a bike with stabilisers, cycling round their gardens with a helmet on. People are crazy.
    Last edited by esuhl; 09-10-2017 at 7:06 PM.
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 9th Oct 17, 7:12 PM
    • 2,133 Posts
    • 1,246 Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    Are we really comparing walking with falling off a bike at 15 mph???
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    What about car passengers and drivers? Surely they should wear helmets as well? People often die from head injuries in car accidents. Princess di for one.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 9th Oct 17, 7:33 PM
    • 9,332 Posts
    • 13,998 Thanks
    chucknorris
    This morning, on the way into work, I saw a cyclist nearly get knocked off by two different cars in the space of 20 seconds.

    Then, half an hour later, I saw another cyclist nearly get knocked off, again we're talking inches.

    It's an absolute bloody minefield out there with all the crap drivers. It's a shame as cyclists do other road users and the world a favour in reality, but they aren't half treated with contempt.

    I've always considered cycling to work, but nah, it's too risky tbh.
    Originally posted by Stoke
    What are you going to do if you see some pedestrians knocked down, retire early?

    When I cycled to work I was knocked off 3 times, it didn't stop me, it was far better than using public transport:

    - It was 30 mins quicker (return journey)
    - 50 mins daily exercise for free + 30 mins gain in time
    - £70 cheaper per month (far less important than 1 and 2 above)
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 10th Oct 17, 8:41 AM
    • 541 Posts
    • 430 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    The statistics show that smoking causes lung cancer, and the statistics so far seem to show that populations that don't wear helmets have a lower head injury rate. The old lady is just irrelevant anecdata, and so is your fall off the bike.


    Wearing a helmet will stop some injuries and cause others, not wearing a helmet will also stop some injuries and cause others. The only meaningful comparison is to compare the total number of injuries in both cases, which is what the American experiment did, and the result was that non-helmet was safer.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    And I have made a judgement for me on my route, time I travel, likely and probably issues I encounter and based on lots of experience and will continue to wear one. I dont care what others do or their reason for doing it. The same idiots will talk about why they don't wear helmets and at the same time have no lights, dressed all in black.

    I read the same research from both sides including Drs in A&E who believe different things.

    Lets see some modern UK research from a big city like London.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 10-10-2017 at 10:20 AM.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 10th Oct 17, 8:47 AM
    • 541 Posts
    • 430 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    Anecdotes about how a helmet saved someone are not just pointless but positively misleading ( there'll be loads of 'helmet saved a bad head' tales)

    Misleading because they will all go the same way - you won't , because you can't, hear the tales of how the cars came slightly closer because the cyclist had a helmet or the cyclist took (say)2 % more risks.

    It can only be shown statistically
    Originally posted by Rotor
    No. It's about how I evaluate risk based on my own experience and daily ride. It matters to me and it's how I will continue. I am an adult and I will decide.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 10-10-2017 at 10:32 AM.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 10th Oct 17, 8:50 AM
    • 541 Posts
    • 430 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    What about car passengers and drivers? Surely they should wear helmets as well? People often die from head injuries in car accidents. Princess di for one.
    Originally posted by qwert yuiop

    Then wear one, if you want. Why do you care if people do or dont. I know why I wear one on my bike.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 10-10-2017 at 8:56 AM.
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 10th Oct 17, 10:31 AM
    • 2,133 Posts
    • 1,246 Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    Then wear one, if you want. Why do you care if people do or dont. I know why I wear one on my bike.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Wear it if you want to. You ought to care as there is a public interest aspect to this, as there is with seat belts - hospitals have to pay for care for those who suffer head injuries, which can be life long.
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 10th Oct 17, 10:56 AM
    • 7,897 Posts
    • 8,009 Thanks
    pogofish
    I'd love to be able to cycle to and from work - It would save a fortune and help considerably with regular exercise/stamina etc. I'd still like the car option for really grotty/freezing days though.

    If I lived just a little nearer work and could work a route that didn't involve full-on and highly cycle-unfriendly traffic, plus several hellish traffic blackspot where you would be taking your life in your hands, I'd happily be back on two wheels again.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 10th Oct 17, 11:23 AM
    • 21,305 Posts
    • 10,230 Thanks
    lisyloo
    Wear it if you want to. You ought to care as there is a public interest aspect to this, as there is with seat belts - hospitals have to pay for care for those who suffer head injuries, which can be life long.
    Originally posted by qwert yuiop
    I agree there is a public interest element, but there is a trade-off between the risk, consequences and simply what people are prepared to do.
    For example I've always thought underwired bras are a security risk on planes, however the vast majority of people would not consider it reasonable to have their underwear checked.

    Princess Di is a bad example of someone choosing not to wear a seatbelt and also choosing a drunk driver (when sober trained chaffeurs were available) and also driving at very high speed.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 10th Oct 17, 11:23 AM
    • 541 Posts
    • 430 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    Wear it if you want to. You ought to care as there is a public interest aspect to this, as there is with seat belts - hospitals have to pay for care for those who suffer head injuries, which can be life long.
    Originally posted by qwert yuiop
    I am not sitting here worrying what happens to strangers who do or who dont. Anymore than I worry if strangers smoke, drink too much, don't exercise or eat health.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 10-10-2017 at 11:35 AM.
    • andrewf75
    • By andrewf75 10th Oct 17, 11:32 AM
    • 7,851 Posts
    • 13,172 Thanks
    andrewf75
    Having thought about this a bit more, given the considerable anti-cyclist feeling in the UK you'd have thought anything you can do to look like a sensible cyclist rather than a reckless one is likely to gain you respect from car drivers. So if anything I think by wearing a helmet drivers are likely to give you more room rather than less. I can't seriously believe people read too much into some obviously dubious research from America in the 70s.
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 10th Oct 17, 11:45 AM
    • 2,133 Posts
    • 1,246 Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    I am not sitting here worrying what happens to strangers who do or who dont. Anymore than I worry if strangers smoke, drink too much, don't exercise or eat health.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Those strangers who smoke and drink pay colossal amounts of tax voluntarily, then shuffle off this mortal coil before getting to draw their pension. They're paying for yours. Respect.

    Raise your glass (of water) and salute them.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 10th Oct 17, 11:46 AM
    • 32,759 Posts
    • 27,480 Thanks
    custardy
    Having thought about this a bit more, given the considerable anti-cyclist feeling in the UK you'd have thought anything you can do to look like a sensible cyclist rather than a reckless one is likely to gain you respect from car drivers. So if anything I think by wearing a helmet drivers are likely to give you more room rather than less. I can't seriously believe people read too much into some obviously dubious research from America in the 70s.
    Originally posted by andrewf75
    Wouldnt the term 'lycra lout' go against that mindset?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

64Posts Today

3,459Users online

Martin's Twitter