Why would anyone cycle to work?

jack_pott wrote: »

The objective of wearing helmets purports to be saving lives, therefore it's the number of deaths we're counting, not the number of pedestrians.

Last time I checked there were about 100 cyclist deaths and 300 pedestrian deaths PA, so if you make pedestrians wear helmets there are three times as many lives to save. The reason this is never suggested is prejudice of course, everyone is a pedestrian but only a minority are cyclists. A minority that are seen as eccentric, stupid for indulging in such a dangerous activity, lower socioeconomic class, and a nuisance to other road users.

but you're looking at it from some kind of overview, disregarding personal risk levels. From a government objective I think I see where you're coming from. From a personal perspective, I wouldn't dream of wearing a helmet as a pedestrian and I wouldn't dream of cycling without one.

also I'd say cyclists are mostly higher socioeconomic class - its a very middle class thing in the UK unlike elsewhere

I live in Gloucester, work in Bristol, so I cycle to Gloucester train station, get the train and then cycle from Temple Meads to my office, near the Hippodrome. Reasons I cycle as follows:

1. Road layout at Gloucester station is awful and getting home in the evening is rage inducing, because people drive so poorly and create jams by being selfish.
2. Car parking charges are £3.80 a pay (although APCOA don't make it obvious there's a discount code, so for less savvy commuters they probably pay £8+), which adds up to a far amount each month.
3. Cycle lanes in Bristol are actually pretty decent and my route is flat. So a 20 minute walk becomes an easy 7 minute cycle.

It is a bit of a problem getting my bike on the train because GWR frequently run services with only 2 carriages. Not much of an issue in the morning, as nobody is getting on at Gloucester; but the evening trip home can be a fight to get on, past the hordes of people.

I haven't had many close calls yet, but I do think more can be done. The cycle lanes in Gloucester are awful compared to the dutch style ones Bristol have begun to install. I also think more needs to be done to eradicate road rage aimed at cyclists. Yes, there are some cyclists out there - normally teenagers, but I have seen hardened commuters - acting like idiots and disregarding the rules of the road. But the same is true of drivers. Generally, people are too focused on themselves and consequently use the roads dangerously because they're worried about being a minute late.

jack_pott wrote: »

You are making the mistake of thinking that everything you do is the result of a conscious decision. (This and this should disabuse you of that idea.) Dr Ian Walker at Bath showed that motorists leave more room for cyclists without helmets. It's the same story with seatbelts, Wiel Janssen at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research showed 25 years ago that people drive faster when they're wearing a seatbelt. But then driving faster has no effect whatsoever on the risk of having an accident, does it.

I'm aware of this study and I'm sceptical of the findings, but even if true its not even about drivers going close to you. The people I know who have fallen onto their head have done so because their bike failed or they hit a pothole or other obstruction and gone over the handlebars. No-one pretends a helmet makes you invincible, it just offers protection from certain (common) falls.

jack_pott wrote: »

I think cycles are seen as transport for those who can't afford a car. As Thatcher said "anyone who's still using public transport when they're thirty is a failure". Bikes come in the same category.

it might be perceived that way by lower socio economic classes, but in reality cyclists are generally higher socioeconomic groups in the UK - as I'm sure you acknowedge