Viewing 27 posts - 81 through 107 (of 107 total)
  • PSA: Bike Rant on BBC Radio Bristol NOW till 12:00
  • jimification
    Free Member

    Stoner – that’s exactly the problem. Every reference to it (albeit in quotes) simply perpetuates the concept. I don’t think the general population will get it until the name is changed to “car tax” or “emissions tax”.

    jimification
    Free Member

    double post

    Stoner
    Free Member

    jim – everyone here knows it’s not car tax. The use of the phrase is deliberately ironic.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    GrahamS
    Full Member

    I don’t think the general population will get it until the name is changed to “car tax” or “emissions tax”.

    They didn’t get it when the name was changed to “Vehicle Excise Duty”.

    But yeah I agree – people should be corrected on the “road tax” misnomer where possible. This is one of the things that Carlton Reid is always chasing folk about. I like following him on twitter just to see him hassle the AA, Times, BBC, Which? Car, Fiat etc to use the correct terminology or at least just “car tax”.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    There are probably (fewer) occasions when technically it’s perfectly safe for me to drive through a red light.

    But I suspect this would enrage cyclists as being dangerous and illegal.I’d probably be reasonably happy with a motorist edging slowly, safely, good look around, etc from behind a redlight, I see lot’s of motorists blasting straight through red lights “cause they are only just red”

    And yes cyclists do it too but they tend not to have the potential to kill several people if they do it, still annoying but not as much.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    oh and hi viz and number plate no thanks, I use hi viz when commuting in the dark but certainly not all the time. Pedestrians don’t have to wear hi viz and they use/cross the roads, I certainly wouldn’t try saying they should all wear hiviz. Number plate? where are you going to affix that then? On a hi viz tabbard no freaking way.

    I do wish James Cracknell would bugger off with his helmet preaching.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    I do wish James Cracknell would bugger off with his helmet preaching.

    It’s odd isn’t it?

    Cracknell likens not wearing a helmet to football hooliganism. Another article says we should always wear helmets because “60% of cyclist fatalities are due to head injury” (no source offered).

    Yet others articles acknowledge that the biggest cause of fatalities is being crushed by an HGV.

    Not sure that a polystyrene helmet helps that much when there is an HGV parked on your chest!

    I’m not against wearing a helmet – but “he wasn’t wearing a helmet” always seems to be an attempt to push blame onto the victims. Plus it again raises the idea that cycling is so very dangerous that it needs specialist safety equipment.

    In truth, many more head injuries would be prevented by forcing drivers to wear helmets 😀

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Not sure that a polystyrene helmet helps that much when there is an HGV parked on your chest!

    Fallacious argument. They don’t stop you being crushed by an HGV, but no-one thinks they do. They do however help stop hurting your head when it smacks against a wing or the tarmac. I can’t believe I have to make this point since it’s bleeding obvious.

    Stopping smoking won’t prevent you getting run over by a lorry either, so carry on. Neither will wearing a rope whilst rock climbing.

    Plus it again raises the idea that cycling is so very dangerous that it needs specialist safety equipment

    I don’t think so. Lots of everyday things have mandatory safety equipment requirements. Driving for one.

    HoratioHufnagel
    Free Member

    nnnnnnnooooooo not the helmet argument again!?

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    I think all cyclists that flout red light laws should be forced to wear a purple-headed bulbous helmet.

    ransos
    Free Member

    Fallacious argument. They don’t stop you being crushed by an HGV, but no-one thinks they do. They do however help stop hurting your head when it smacks against a wing or the tarmac. I can’t believe I have to make this point since it’s bleeding obvious.

    Yet it’s an argument one hears quite often…it might be obvious to you and me, but I wonder how much of the general public really understand the limitations of helmets.

    I don’t have any stats to hand, but I don’t think that cycling is more dangerous than walking, yet there are no calls for pedestrians to wear hi viz and helmets.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    It’s odd isn’t it?

    Cracknell likens not wearing a helmet to football hooliganism.he also after being hit by a lorries wing mirror blamed himself for not wearing a helmet 🙄 and is now on a crusade to make sure every last one of us wears one at all times and abuses those who don’t

    but you already knew that didn’t you 🙂

    FTR I wear a helmet 99% of the time – coz I choose to, I would hate for it to become legislation for all sorts of reasons.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    If anyone’s honest, the reason that cyclist jump red lights is because of the energy invested in their momentum that they dont want to give up for anything less than the physical risk of getting flattened, or financial threat of getting fined by the rozzers

    Hmm.. I think it’s the speed issue. It’s slow enough (compared to driving) to cycle places at 15-20mph – having to wait ages at traffic lights makes things even slower. Crossing London you could save a lot of time if you jumped all the lights – esp if you have to go through the City.

    I wonder how much of the general public really understand the limitations of helmets

    Scathing as I tend to be about the intelligence of the general public, I do believe that almost all of them realise that helmets are for protecting your head and will not stop you being run over.

    As for the pedestrian argument – I still think it’s rubbish. They are completely different scenarios. Peds usually have a segregated area, and the onus is on them (both from a practical and legal point of view I think) to look what they are doing and not step out infront of speeding vehicles from the safety of the pavement where they are pretty much safe.

    Cyclists on the other hand are already in the road where the cars are, and a cyclist could be alert and cycling perfectly and still be taken out by a car.

    I would seriously doubt that you are more likely to receive a head injury from a car when making a journey on foot than you are when making one by bike. If you do have an accident though, you may well be more likely to have receive a head injury as a ped.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Some junctions are so badly designed that its safer to rLJ.

    At these junctions I will do it

    some junctions are controlled by sensors that don’t pick up bikes – yo will sit and wait until a car comes up behind yo for a green light- these I RLJ

    I do not do it for my convenience or for speed – I do it at junctions I know, where I can see clearly its safe and where it is safer for me to do so that to wait and potentially get squished under a truck.

    I will video two of these junction so you guys can see this for yourself – I don’t always even do it at these junctions – it depends on the other vehicles around an the usual illegally parked cars that create a part of the danger

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    I don’t have any stats to hand, but I don’t think that cycling is more dangerous than walking, yet there are no calls for pedestrians to wear hi viz and helmets.

    cycling is less dangerous that walking 🙂 Walking helmets would save more lives that cycle helmets

    compulsory car drivers helmets would prevent more deaths than compulsory cycle helmets.

    A good an objective view of the issue with links to the data

    molgrips
    Free Member

    cycling is less dangerous that walking

    I smell abuse of stats.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    They do however help stop hurting your head when it smacks against a wing or the tarmac. I can’t believe I have to make this point since it’s bleeding obvious.

    Yes it is. But they are talking in terms of fatalities, not minor head injuries.

    They claim 60% of cyclist fatalities are caused by head injuries – but offer no source, no figure for how many of that 60% were actually wearing a helmet, and no indication if wearing a helmet may have prevented fatalities in any of those cases.

    The impetus for their campaign is apparently one of their own being very nearly killed just outside their office, but the facts that “the fire crews .. cut Mary and her mangled bike from beneath the wheels of the lorry” and that she suffered broken legs, arm and pelvis suggest that a helmet might not have been that much use.

    In the other fatality they highlighted in Bishopsgate on the 3rd the poor sod was hit by a coach and his bike snapped in two!

    Helmets are great. No one likes banging their head and no doubt it’s entirely possible that they do prevent the odd fatality. But focussing on them is rather missing the point in my view.

    Much better to prevent the accidents in the first place. That’s where the energy needs to be directed.

    ransos
    Free Member

    “I would seriously doubt that you are more likely to receive a head injury from a car when making a journey on foot than you are when making one by bike. If you do have an accident though, you may well be more likely to have receive a head injury as a ped.”

    In which case it makes sense for peds to wear helmets…and you do realise that peds get killed by RLJing motorists, right?

    As GrahamS says, the lack of a helmet is often mentioned when there has been a cyclist fatality. Yet, as you know, the chances of a helmet preventing a fatality are slim.

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    Much better to prevent the accidents in the first place.

    Yeah that’s a great idea – perhaps they should allow cyclists to run red lights to ride away from potential dangers.

    Ohh, hang on…

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    perhaps they should allow cyclists to run red lights to ride away from potential dangers.

    Apparently they are trailing this in York at the moment.

    cycling is less dangerous that walking

    I’m not sure that is still true TJ:


    — DfT via road.cc

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Much better to prevent the accidents in the first place. That’s where the energy needs to be directed

    They are not exclusive. Wearing a helmet is the easiest thing in the world – I don’t think about it any more than I think about wearing shoes. Re-educating the motoring public and making them pay much more attention is vastly more difficult.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    They are not exclusive. Wearing a helmet is the easiest thing in the world – I don’t think about it any more than I think about wearing shoes.

    Completely agree. But you’re already “a cyclist”.

    Joe Shmoe thinking about cycling to work is faced with the cost of buying a helmet and an overwhelming vocal opinion that if he doesn’t wear one then it will be his own silly fault when he is smeared across the bike lane by distracted bus driver.

    That is off-putting. And untrue.

    As I said earlier, very few people in Copenhagen wear helmets, high-viz, or lycra but they have much lower casualty figures than we do.

    If that is what we are aiming for then why are helmets always the number one answer?

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Molgrips – active safety is the key ie preventing accidents. Not passive safety – mitigating them

    Wearing helmets does not reduce injuries in any significant way across the population for reasons that are not clear. However active safety measures designed to stop accidents happening do. Road engineering, education for cyclist and riders.

    The focus on helmet wearing diverts attention and effort from the true reasons for cyclist deaths – poor driving and poor road design. this is where the focus should be if you want to reduce cyclist casualties. helmets are irrelevant.

    The obsession with helmets costs lives

    molgrips
    Free Member

    TJ, of course, I’m not saying helmet wearing is ‘the key’ or is in any way a substitute for all those other very valid points. Of course I’m not – that would be very stupid, and you know I’m not that.

    However – it’s a very easy thing to do, and it can be done IN ADDITION to all those other things like proper road planning and everything else which are of course critical, much more important than helmet wearing.

    Wearing helmets does not reduce injuries in any significant way across the population for reasons that are not clear

    This suggests to me that the statistics are incomplete or all factors have not been taken into consideration. Many cyclists receive head injuries when cycling – I refuse to accept that helmets do not help overall when a skull hits tarmac.

    I do not think that people are using the helmet issue as an excuse for proper planning. However I do think that perhaps some people are using that premise to excuse NOT wearing one.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Many cyclists receive head injuries when cycling

    Not true – its a small number

    TJ – The focus on helmet wearing diverts attention and effort from the true reasons for cyclist deaths

    this is why its unhelpful to keep on about it

    imnotverygood
    Full Member

    RLJ-ing annoys the hell out of me but I have to admit that the study which found that only 16% of cyclist jumped the lights was a teensy-weensy bit disingenuous. IIRC it chose various large junctions in London where if you were going to jump you’d end up getting splattered by the high volume of speedy traffic going across the junction. It’s a bit like saying ‘99.9% of pedestrians don’t jay walk’ (if that was an offence in this country) & choosing the M1 as your reference point.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    has this been done?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/07/cyclists-headstart-busy-junctions-london

    fwiw on my way home through 10 miles of london at about 6-30 tonight i reckon about 1 in 10 cyclists were rljers

    so the 16% figure sounds about right

Viewing 27 posts - 81 through 107 (of 107 total)

The topic ‘PSA: Bike Rant on BBC Radio Bristol NOW till 12:00’ is closed to new replies.