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
    • 1,932Posts
    • 698Thanks
    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 8
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Oct 17, 4:07 PM
    • 448 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    It is not wrong, the agenda with the helmet lobby is compulsion.
    Originally posted by jack_pott

    Its wrong in my case I said!!
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 11th Oct 17, 4:13 PM
    • 1,602 Posts
    • 2,116 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    Not really sure what point you think you are making.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Funnily enough that's what I was thinking about you.

    Fair enough you think it's personal choice, jolly good and all that, and I share the blame in misunderstanding from where you are coming. My point was that your choice of words was associating the idea of non-helmet wearing with other specific behaviours, the rest was a rambling discourse to the effect I don't have a fixed view on helmets or risk assessment.

    I have absolutely no wish to silence you but your sheer volume of posts on this subject does suggest a greater than average interest, and I appear not to be the only one to query your language.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 11th Oct 17, 5:01 PM
    • 21,166 Posts
    • 10,148 Thanks
    lisyloo
    was associating the idea of non-helmet wearing with other specific behaviours
    I don't know who said this or meant it either, but I would like to say that this certainly does not apply to me.

    I would regard myself as generally risk averse and willing to put in effort to keep myself safe - for example advanced riding training.
    I just don't value a polystryrene helmet in my cycling environment.

    I'm just making the point that you cannot associate one decision with traits.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Oct 17, 6:19 PM
    • 448 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    Funnily enough that's what I was thinking about you.

    Fair enough you think it's personal choice, jolly good and all that, and I share the blame in misunderstanding from where you are coming. My point was that your choice of words was associating the idea of non-helmet wearing with other specific behaviours, the rest was a rambling discourse to the effect I don't have a fixed view on helmets or risk assessment.

    I have absolutely no wish to silence you but your sheer volume of posts on this subject does suggest a greater than average interest, and I appear not to be the only one to query your language.
    Originally posted by silverwhistle

    There is no need to worry about silencing anyone, that's not going to happen regardless. ;-]


    No, I told you what my personal experience and observation was over many years and miles. None helmet rides are more likely to have no lights. I never said it was a scientific study just my daily ride. I met another one tonight. Personal experience shapes how you see the world and if it is reinforced daily then I comment on it. With your permission of course. ;-]


    Wrong again. I don't have a fixed view because I don't care. How many times do you need to read it.
    I see no issue with commenting on what I do most days. You have ramblings for over 1500 posts. Jolly good and all. I don't worry to much what a couple of strangers on a open forum think or feel. That's why its a forum and why they are strangers.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 11-10-2017 at 6:41 PM.
    • Xbigman
    • By Xbigman 11th Oct 17, 8:19 PM
    • 2,923 Posts
    • 1,179 Thanks
    Xbigman
    But why only consider safety? Where as I might just be safer wearing a helmet I enjoy cycling without one more. That for me is the bigger factor and the law gives me the choice.



    Darren
    Xbigman's guide to a happy life.

    Eat properly
    Sleep properly
    Save some money
    • brat
    • By brat 12th Oct 17, 7:43 AM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,096 Thanks
    brat
    But why only consider safety? Where as I might just be safer wearing a helmet I enjoy cycling without one more. That for me is the bigger factor and the law gives me the choice.



    Darren
    Originally posted by Xbigman
    Which is precisely why we don't want legislation.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • brat
    • By brat 12th Oct 17, 8:08 AM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,096 Thanks
    brat
    There is no need to worry about silencing anyone, that's not going to happen regardless. ;-]


    No, I told you what my personal experience and observation was over many years and miles. None helmet rides are more likely to have no lights. I never said it was a scientific study just my daily ride. I met another one tonight. Personal experience shapes how you see the world and if it is reinforced daily then I comment on it. With your permission of course. ;-]


    Wrong again. I don't have a fixed view because I don't care. How many times do you need to read it.
    I see no issue with commenting on what I do most days. You have ramblings for over 1500 posts. Jolly good and all. I don't worry to much what a couple of strangers on a open forum think or feel. That's why its a forum and why they are strangers.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Usually if a person says "Wearing a helmet reduces risk as do lights and bright clothing." That is a statement expected to be taken as fact, and others should expect the statement maker to be able to back it up using something other than anecdote or personal opinion.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 12th Oct 17, 9:07 AM
    • 21,166 Posts
    • 10,148 Thanks
    lisyloo
    Usually if a person says "Wearing a helmet reduces risk as do lights and bright clothing." That is a statement expected to be taken as fact, and others should expect the statement maker to be able to back it up using something other than anecdote or personal opinion.
    Originally posted by brat
    Even if it were true, sitting at home wrapped in bubble wrap would reduce some risks but virtually none of us are prepared to do that.
    Take for example the millions of people who are prepared to travel by plane (or car). There is about a 1 in 16 million chance of dying in a plane crash which is a risk the vast majority of us are prepared to take for the benefits.

    I don't know if this reasearch has been posted yet on this thread but is an argument that public health would be enhanced through more cycling if helmet laws were repealed.

    http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/public-health/prevention-research/pdf/HPJA_2011_Rissel.pdf

    Again I would stress that I believe it's very scenario dependent. I don't wear a helmet but I encounter no motor vehicles or wildlife. I'd change my behaviour in a different scenario.
    • brat
    • By brat 12th Oct 17, 10:02 AM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,096 Thanks
    brat
    Again I would stress that I believe it's very scenario dependent. I don't wear a helmet but I encounter no motor vehicles or wildlife. I'd change my behaviour in a different scenario.
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    For me, this is key. I wear a helmet religiously when I'm out on a fitness ride, because I don't think that I'm negatively affected by driver attitudes while wearing it. I have had a couple of falls and one collision for which any added protection will have benefitted.

    That said, belief in my own ability, assertiveness on the road, awareness of road user attitudes, road conditions, and knowledge of the capability of my bike are all much more significant factors for me in risk homeostasis, and ultimately you'll always ride to the risk you are happy with in the circumstance.

    Incidentally, I cracked my head and bruised my back yesterday as a consequence of a 40 mile bike ride, and I didn't even leave the house! I was bringing my bike round the back of the house to stick it on the turbo trainer, and I slipped on the wet decking leading to the patio door, landing backwards onto a flower pot with the bike landing on top of me. Had I been wearing my helmet...

    I may get outside today, but our roads are horribly dirty.

    ETA, our bit of motorway is closed at the moment with a crane fire, so all the satnav inspired routes will be full of people not knowing where they are. Maybe another day on Watopia... Decisions...
    Last edited by brat; 12-10-2017 at 10:24 AM.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 12th Oct 17, 6:26 PM
    • 448 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    Usually if a person says "Wearing a helmet reduces risk as do lights and bright clothing." That is a statement expected to be taken as fact, and others should expect the statement maker to be able to back it up using something other than anecdote or personal opinion.
    Originally posted by brat

    I don't need to prove anything We are not playing Top Trumps. This is a forum not a court room.


    If you think its not true you do the proving. Personal experience is good enough for me. In fact it matters more than any study, as does my own well being. My judgement has served me well so far so I am happy to continue.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 12-10-2017 at 7:20 PM.
    • brat
    • By brat 12th Oct 17, 6:45 PM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,096 Thanks
    brat
    I don't need to prove anything We are not playing Top Trumps. This is a forum not a court room.


    If you think its not true you do the proving. Personal experience is good enough for me. In fact it matters more than an study, as does my own well being. My judgement has served me well so far so I am happy to continue.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    No?

    If you make factual statements that you cannot substantiate, you pay the price in lost credibility. That may not bother you, but it is reflected in the attitude of posters because they stop taking you seriously.

    As can be seen in this thread.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 12th Oct 17, 6:53 PM
    • 448 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    ]Even if it were true, sitting at home wrapped in bubble wrap would reduce some risks but virtually none of us are prepared to do that.[/COLOR]
    Take for example the millions of people who are prepared to travel by plane (or car). There is about a 1 in 16 million chance of dying in a plane crash which is a risk the vast majority of us are prepared to take for the benefits.

    I don't know if this reasearch has been posted yet on this thread but is an argument that public health would be enhanced through more cycling if helmet laws were repealed.

    http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/public-health/prevention-research/pdf/HPJA_2011_Rissel.pdf

    Again I would stress that I believe it's very scenario dependent. I don't wear a helmet but I encounter no motor vehicles or wildlife. I'd change my behaviour in a different scenario.
    by lisyloo;73250265[COLOR=red

    Not sure silly exaggerations help the debate but it probably makes the poster feel superior.


    If like I, you cycle for nearly two hours a day. Often in the dark and on footpaths. Unless you ride naked you have to wear something. So it makes sense to me to wear something bright. If that concept is hard to understand. Then no words will bring the debate on further.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 12-10-2017 at 7:17 PM.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 12th Oct 17, 7:20 PM
    • 448 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    No?

    If you make factual statements that you cannot substantiate, you pay the price in lost credibility. That may not bother you, but it is reflected in the attitude of posters because they stop taking you seriously.

    As can be seen in this thread.
    Originally posted by brat

    You got it.....No!

    Not important to me if a couple of strangers disagree but I care what works for me and my daily ride. The internet is full of the for and against. Its not conclusive. So asking me to substantiate it before I give my view is just silly.


    personal opinion Personal experience I said. Over years and thousands of miles.



    Like I said...........you do the proving lights and bright clothing have no effect on safety. I look forward to it.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 12-10-2017 at 9:23 PM.
    • brat
    • By brat 12th Oct 17, 9:23 PM
    • 2,442 Posts
    • 3,096 Thanks
    brat
    You got it.....No!.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Thanks for the clarification.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • David Aston
    • By David Aston 18th Oct 17, 5:06 PM
    • 642 Posts
    • 420 Thanks
    David Aston
    Does it not keep you awake in bed!
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 18th Oct 17, 5:54 PM
    • 4,184 Posts
    • 5,318 Thanks
    jack_pott
    I don't have a fixed view because I don't care.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    I don't care if people want to wear helmets either, but I do care if they're made compulsory, and arguments of the kind you make fuel that agenda even if you say you personally are not looking for compulsion.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 18th Oct 17, 6:19 PM
    • 448 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    I don't care if people want to wear helmets either, but I do care if they're made compulsory, and arguments of the kind you make fuel that agenda even if you say you personally are not looking for compulsion.
    Originally posted by jack_pott

    People's view and experience shared is welcome on an open forum debate. If anyones agenda is to stop that, I would be concerned as should they.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 18-10-2017 at 6:29 PM.
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 18th Oct 17, 11:10 PM
    • 4,184 Posts
    • 5,318 Thanks
    jack_pott
    If anyones agenda is to stop that, I would be concerned as should they.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    My agenda is to stop compulsion by challenging the arguments. I think if you cared as little as you pretend you wouldn't get tetchy and abusive when challenged, and then delete the post before too many others see it.

    Not sure silly exaggerations help the debate but it probably makes the poster feel superior.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Reductio ad Absurdum

    But why only consider safety? Where as I might just be safer wearing a helmet I enjoy cycling without one more.
    Originally posted by Xbigman
    You're the first on the thread to raise this angle to the debate.

    Risk debates invariably start from the premise that risk is undesirable, and that people don't want it, even though this is patently not the case. The examples of people willingly taking risk are as numerous as the motives for doing it, so much so that it would be fatuous to try to list them all, and yet people just carry on debating on a false premise regardless.

    It's also equally obvious that each individual has a different appetite for risk, some are timid milquetoasts, and others are cavalier daredevils, but the safety fanatics just carry on telling others how much risk they should want. It's as arrogant as telling people how much sex they should have. As I said upthread, they think they're on a moral crusade to save the world from themselves.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 19th Oct 17, 7:29 AM
    • 448 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    My agenda is to stop compulsion by challenging the arguments. I think if you cared as little as you pretend you wouldn't get tetchy and abusive when challenged, and then delete the post before too many others see it.



    Reductio ad Absurdum



    You're the first on the thread to raise this angle to the debate.

    Risk debates invariably start from the premise that risk is undesirable, and that people don't want it, even though this is patently not the case. The examples of people willingly taking risk are as numerous as the motives for doing it, so much so that it would be fatuous to try to list them all, and yet people just carry on debating on a false premise regardless.

    It's also equally obvious that each individual has a different appetite for risk, some are timid milquetoasts, and others are cavalier daredevils, but the safety fanatics just carry on telling others how much risk they should want. It's as arrogant as telling people how much sex they should have. As I said upthread, they think they're on a moral crusade to save the world from themselves.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    Straw man argument.


    Pleasseeeee.........no posts were abusive, the mods are welcome to have a look. Dont go to the depths of lying to somehow prove your arguments have merit.


    Like I have said and said and said I know you don't like the answer because it does not suit your agenda but it wont be changing soon. I challenge you to find one post in which I say I want it to be compulsive.

    I really dont care. I like riding because of the health aspect and the freedom it gives me from a car. Time in traffic, fresh air and the peace. I ride plenty but a bike is nothing more than a workhorse so I dont even care about the sport of others who ride. I wear one because of my own experience and route. Ohh and because it makes the wife feel better. Which matters to me. I share my view when asked. If others see risk different, good luck to them. I dont spend much time worrying if strangers wear seat belts, eat 5 a day or work mates ear protection. I do however get annoyed with some who dont have lights on the footpath.


    It stands to reason people see risk differently. After 20 years in the oil game I have a different respect for acids, caustics, solvents, pressure........and I could go on. You do know you not educating me, dont you??

    Dont you be so arrogant and think you know what a person thinks or feels. Who are you that I need to pretend too. You have an elevated view of yourself. Dont go getting all tetchy and abusive when challenged that others don't share your view.

    No moral crusade from me. Why would the average joe care what happens to strangers. I dont even see some of my own extended family!! lol How would it benefit me???................lights on a bike however is another matter.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; Yesterday at 2:59 PM.
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

494Posts Today

4,432Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I was surprised to see the three people in front of me in the newsagents were all shocked their old £1 coins were no longer taken.

  • RT @natdebtline: If you?ve been visited by a bailiff since April 2014 we want to hear your story for our #bailiffreform campaign https://t.?

  • Well so far it seems there's one thing remainers and leavers agree on - the EU is getting the better of the negotia? https://t.co/70z5ffpG8S

  • Follow Martin