A Rant At Cyclists...

Marco_Panettone

dotdash79 wrote: »

I like the fact people are comparing the UK and Holland for cycling, it's like comparing the UK and Sierra Leone for child mortality.

A good point. Is Sierra Leone's infant mortality rate something you'd like this country to aspire to? Should we be following in their footsteps to improve things for children here?

Prothet_of_Doom

I wear a helmet, but am increasing aware that it isn't going to change the outcome of an accident, unless the accident is low speed, and involves me falling off on in a soft play area.

I continue to wear it as I have 2 torches tie wrapped to it, added to my high vis, 2 front lights, 2 front reflectors, 3 rear reflectors, 2 rear lights, and high vis tyres (yes they have a 5 mm band of reflection around the side wall so that from the side I am visible). My occasional commute (3 times a week in summer, 1 time a week in winter), involves 3 miles of pitch black B road where the locals attempt Macc 3, but despite my visibility, I see nobody slowing down to overtake or giving me room.

The helmet arguement is pointless, because what is needed is driver behaviour to change.

I drive 18,000 miles a year too, and I'm yet to see one person indicate before overtaking a cyclist.

dotdash79

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

A good point. Is Sierra Leone's infant mortality rate something you'd like this country to aspire to? Should we be following in their footsteps to improve things for children here?

No, is the UK's cycling injury rate something that Holland should aspire to?

andrewf75

Of course it makes sense to wear a helmet, but since its for the individuals protection I don't see why it winds anyone up so much. Its not law to wear one, maybe it should be, but it isn't.

Far more of an issue for other people is reflective clothing, lights etc.

And of course the fact that our cycling infrastructure is non-existant

WiggyDiggyPoo

Wrong forum, Praise, Vents and Warning is that way >>>>>>

Johno100

theEnd wrote: »

I've smashed 3, so I'll always wear one, but it should be people's choice and I don't really care if others do or not.

The dark clothes and no lights at night (ninja cyclists) are become everyone's problem and should be fined/banned.

No, why should cyclists have to have lights and wear reflective gear? They are vulnerable road users and it is everybody else's responsibility to avoid them. God forbid they take responsibility for themselves.

hugheskevi

In an accident, it is close to certain there will be some damage to hands as they come into contact with the road. Even the most basic of gloves will mitigate this - should cyclists always wear gloves?

It is highly likely that cyclists will suffer damage to knees in an accident. Should they wear knee pads?

Their elbows are likely to take damage too. Should they also wear elbow pads?

A full head and face crash helmet will give much better protection against serious injuries should an accident occur.

Full body armour, commonly worn by motorcyclists, would provide far better protection in serious incidents too.

600kg of metal around you will give the best protection of all. Why not drive and forget cycling altogether?

There's a line somewhere reflecting 'common sense', different lines for different folks. TfL's line seems to be at wearing hi-viz and helmets. I don't have a problem with whatever folk are comfortable with, it doesn't affect anyone else...although I will snigger if I ever see a cyclist riding a pedal cycle in full body armour and crash helmet

AndyBSG

andrewf75 wrote: »

since its for the individuals protection I don't see why it winds anyone up so much.

Because there has been a long and subtle propganda campaign to con the general public into believing that the reason cyclists die is because they don't wear helmets.

Why has there been this campaign? Because while the majority of the voting public believe this they're not questioning the real reasons behind it and demanding the huge investment it would require to fix the real problems which are poor infrastructure, ridiculously lenient penalties for drivers who do murder cyclists, along with outdated and ill enforced highway code rules.

In Holland for example they have a strict liability law which rules the driver of the car is responsible for any accident unless they can prove otherwise(over here it seems the law is the cyclist is always responsible even if evidence shows otherwise!).

That alone makes Dutch drivers take much more reposnsibility but it will never come in over here because cyclist deaths are seen as acceptable collateral damage...

Si_Clist

I no longer have a motor car, so nowadays I ride my bike as a form of transport, in all weathers, and nearly always on the road.

I wear a high-viz jacket, I have two front lights and two rears, and I use them whenever appropriate. I cycle assertively but with due consideration to other road users - but I don't wear a Magic Hat, for many of the reasons put forward by other respondents to this thread.

One thing I find interesting, though, is that whenever I see a cyclist riding on the pavement, wearing dark clothing and/or riding without lights at night, jumping a red light or passing a line of parked cars closely enough to get doored, odds-on they're wearing a helmet ...

GwylimT

I wear a helmet, although I know realistically if I'm in a life threatening accident a helmet really wont make a significant difference. My helmet is fitted, most of the cyclists I see (including children) are wearing ill fitting helmets, so they will be even more useless in an accident.

If someone wants to take a risk they are more than welcome to.