+1 on shifting responsibility to drivers a la Holland
In truth, it's a jungle out there - I can only speak from my experience of commuting through the crazy streets of north Bristol, but in my daily journey I see cars and bikes regularly jumping red lights and people regularly doing things on both 4 and 2 wheels that they shouldn't be.
I don't want to die riding into and home from work, so I wear hi-viz, a lid, lights, don't jump red lights and assume no-one on the road has seen me.
Well said Graham S couldn't agree more - sadly any lawyer is likely to argue for contributory negligence given any opportunity to do so.
sadly any lawyer is likely to argue for contributory negligence given any opportunity to do so.
Sadly so.
Perhaps we should campaign for all cars to be painted flouro yellow so we can see them coming? I mean if they can take simple steps to be seen and they choose not to for silly fashion reasons, then that is contributory negligence surely? 
I'd love to see a test case of that 
Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?
Yeah, no-one ever tars (for example) all BMW drivers with the same brush, do they? 
Even on a bike forum, I still see plenty of posts up there referring to "road tax". That seems to be one of the main causes of resentment amongst motorists, so it's worth reposting this link http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311131.ece
To sum up:
1) It's "vehicle Excise Duty"- it's a tax on your vehicle, not on your use of the roads.
2) It's based on carbon emissions.
3) It does not pay for the roads, it goes into the general taxation pool.
There is a considerably more detailed explanation of "road tax" at the ironically named ipayroadtax.com
Carlton Reid fighting the good fight as ever.
jim - if you read all the incidences of the use of "road tax" again properly you will see that all the posters are using it in quotations to indicate that they know perfectly well all the points you list.
On the one hand, being seen is obviously a good thing, on the other it reinforces the idea that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity that requires specialist safety equipment usually associated with building sites or railways...
Fair enough - the thing is we're not Copenhagen, and wearing hi-viz can help with safety. I just don't think it's that big a deal to have a little hidden recommendation like this in the context of a campaign which might do a lot to help with road safety. I should point out that I often enough cycle without and hi-viz, and I don't make my son put any on for riding his bike to school (admittedly mostly using off-road paths).
And no doubt there are some occasions where it is safe for cyclists to run a red light.
The problem is with that quote is it's your (humble) opinion on what is/isn't safe. My opinion might be completely different. Waynes opinion on his Raleigh Arena may be all red lights are safe as I am a god-like cyclist and have magical powers.
The problem is with that quote is it's your (humble) opinion on what is/isn't safe. My opinion might be completely different. Waynes opinion on his Raleigh Arena may be all red lights are safe as I am a god-like cyclist and have magical powers.
And I used to have a Raleigh Arena. A gold '10 Speed' one, none of that blue 5 speed crap for me.
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".
double post
jim - everyone here knows it's not car tax. The use of the phrase is deliberately ironic.
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".
There are probably (fewer) occasions when technically it's perfectly safe for me to drive through a red light.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"But I suspect this would enrage cyclists as being dangerous and illegal.
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.
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.
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
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.
nnnnnnnooooooo not the helmet argument again!?
I think all cyclists that flout red light laws should be forced to wear a purple-headed bulbous helmet.
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.
It's odd isn't it?he also after being hit by a lorries wing mirror blamed himself for not wearing a helmetCracknell likens not wearing a helmet to football hooliganism.
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.
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.
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
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
cycling is less dangerous that walking
I smell abuse of stats.
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.
"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.
Much better to prevent the accidents in the first place.
Ohh, hang on...
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.
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?
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
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.
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 deathsthis is why its unhelpful to keep on about it
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
,%20Q3%202002%20-%20Q32011.jpg)
