Freedom at last...

brat

SW17 wrote: »

A debatable assertion at best, but even so, saying something is not proven is hardly a reason not to take safety measures.

There are a few factors that bite back at the seemingly obvious statement that wearing a helmet saves lives.

• The vast majority of cycle deaths involve multiple causes. Very few are only head injury.
• Cyclists wearing helmets are seen to be more compliant, more competent cyclists by motorists, so motorists tend to defer their own safety to them. A cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet is seen as less likely to think about compliance and personal safety, so they tend to be given a wider berth.
• A cyclist not wearing a helmet may take less risk, while a cyclist wearing a helmet may be subconsciously tempted to take a greater risk (more speed, especially on bends) because he thinks he's better protected - the concept of risk homeostasis.
• Helmet wearing may put off some riders who feel that the freedom of cycling is tarnished by the use of a helmet. This is believed to be true of many middle aged cyclists. This may impact on the overall health benefits that cycling as a fitness routine has to offer.

It's not so blindingly obvious as it may at first seem.

Si_Clist

Two things continue to amaze me. One is how many people hold the view that the roads today are so dangerous that anyone riding a bike on them but not wearing a Magic Hat is, at best, foolish. And the other is how few of those people ride a bike themselves.

I was once locking my bike up outside Waitrose when a yummy mummy came past with her daughter. I didn't hear what the girl said as they approached, but as they went past, mummy said "Yes, he's very naughty for not wearing his helmet".

This was the same woman who just a few minutes earlier had cut me up at a tee junction. She was driving a massive Audi 4x4 which had a "Child on board" sign on the back, and she was talking on a handheld phone whilst turning left with no signals ...

ETA - The last person to point out the error of my ways when it became apparent to her that I don't wear the miracle life-saver regaled me with the fact that her brother used to ride a bike to college but was knocked off it when a car door was opened in front of him. She said that his Magic Hat saved his life.

There would obviously have been no point in my saying to her that if I'm ever doored, AFAIC it'll be 90% my fault for not seeing it coming in time to take avoiding action.

Johno100

SW17 wrote: »

A debatable assertion at best, but even so, saying something is not proven is hardly a reason not to take safety measures. Like wearing seat belts and drink driving, it might take a generation for the naysaying dinosaurs to die out (sadly literally in some cases), but the next generation wouldn't know any different and would accept it.

You are failing to understand the mentality of the cycling activist.

ANYTHING that they think may discourage people from taking to a bike is BAD, be it helmets, any form of mandatory training etc.

While ANYTHING that they think will discourage people from using their motor vehicles is GOOD.

Retrogamer

I've been cycling on and off most of my life, most of it BMX-ing or cross country mountain biking.
Last night was the first time i'd ever cycled on the road at night. Wasn't as bad as i thought it would be.

The cheap reflective tape i bought from ebay seems to work a treat as well

modsandmockers

Si_Clist wrote: »

Two things continue to amaze me. One is how many people hold the view that the roads today are so dangerous that anyone riding a bike on them but not wearing a Magic Hat is, at best, foolish. And the other is how few of those people ride a bike themselves.

There would obviously have been no point in my saying to her that if I'm ever doored, AFAIC it'll be 90% my fault for not seeing it coming in time to take avoiding action.

Now that's what I call roadcraft! The thing that is foolish is to assume that because there are almost no legal pre-conditions to riding a bike on the road, then it must be safe to do so.

The statistic that few of the scare-mongers are currently bike riders themselves ignores the possibility that they have learned from their own experiences. I have never ever had a seriously bad experience whilst riding on the road, but I have nevertheless decided not to ride on the road unless there is no better alternative. And I am still undecided about the wisdom of taking my grandchildren onto the highway.

It's interesting that we all have our own particular issues - mine is cyclists riding on the pavement, yours is the irrelevance of magic hats, and somebody else's was cyclists running red lights.

There was also a comment about safe passing distances. I have frequently seen cyclists passing, sometimes at high speed, within an inch or two of a slower-moving motor vehicle in order to get to the front of the queue.

fred246

Does anyone know what this thread is about? Someone called modsandmockers who has given his car and HGV up to cycle. His biggest hate is cycling on the pavement but won't cycle on the road. Where does he cycle? I am really lost about what he is trying to say. Does he know?

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

There are a few factors that bite back at the seemingly obvious statement that wearing a helmet saves lives.

• The vast majority of cycle deaths involve multiple causes. Very few are only head injury.
• Cyclists wearing helmets are seen to be more compliant, more competent cyclists by motorists, so motorists tend to defer their own safety to them. A cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet is seen as less likely to think about compliance and personal safety, so they tend to be given a wider berth.
• A cyclist not wearing a helmet may take less risk, while a cyclist wearing a helmet may be subconsciously tempted to take a greater risk (more speed, especially on bends) because he thinks he's better protected - the concept of risk homeostasis.
• Helmet wearing may put off some riders who feel that the freedom of cycling is tarnished by the use of a helmet. This is believed to be true of many middle aged cyclists. This may impact on the overall health benefits that cycling as a fitness routine has to offer.

It's not so blindingly obvious as it may at first seem.

I think that cycle helmets are mostly a marketing success. After all these years, there is no consensus about the value of helmets. As a motorist, I used to regard cyclists with all the gear as the one's who were more likely to have no idea. I have always thought that an effective rear-view mirror would be the single most useful safety device for cyclists.

modsandmockers

fred246 wrote: »

Does anyone know what this thread is about? Someone called modsandmockers who has given his car and HGV up to cycle. His biggest hate is cycling on the pavement but won't cycle on the road. Where does he cycle? I am really lost about what he is trying to say. Does he know?

It's meant to be a discussion. I'm trying to decide whether or not I should take my grandchildren out of the play park and on to the road, and it is not an easy decision to make.

ps - I cycle on cycle paths, most of which are shared with pedestrians and dog-walkers. It works because the rules are clearly understood by all the users, and everybody makes way for everybody else. Confrontations are unheard of, mirrors and signals are not required, there are no lane markings, and people negotiate by voice or eye contact, the paths are never crowded and cycling becomes enjoyable again.

Johno100

modsandmockers wrote: »

There was also a comment about safe passing distances. I have frequently seen cyclists passing, sometimes at high speed, within an inch or two of a slower-moving motor vehicle in order to get to the front of the queue.

I think that must be that MGIF thing these cycling types are always banging on about. It is strange how all this talk of passing distances and 'dooring' goes out the window as they squeeze their way to the front of the traffic queue and into their magical painted box.

fred246

OK. You will be lucky in the UK to find cycle paths that go exactly from where you starting point to your destination. Would be normal in more advanced country like Denmark or Holland. It sounds like you have worked out that cyclists and pedestrians can happily share the same space. So why do you complain to the council when cyclists use the pavement round difficult junctions? They obviously feel safer doing that.