Denmark and Holland had very high levels of cycling well before they invested in comprehensive segregated paths.
Pretty sure that's not true.
Car culture, we've been sold a dream for the last fifty years that cars and personal mobility will give us ultimate freedom. That dream is being recognised as a nightmare by all the folk in traffic jams day-in day-out. They need someone to blame, a suitable "out group" that won't bite back. Cue the funny looking people who don't have to wait in the same queues as the "normals" and get to enjoy cheap, reliable, healthy transport for free (compared to cars anyway).It's an age old issue with human group behaviour, same as racism, sexism, ageism, but on a slightly smaller scale and a slightly shorter timescale.
+1000000
Our culture in the UK has shifted over time to where we are now, lots of cars, lots of speeding, plenty of traffic laws many frequently ignored and police not really able to fully enforce them on a meaningful scale...
Apparently the penalty for phone use behind the wheel (My own Pet hate) was increased a couple of weeks ago, and the police were given "New Powers" (Magical I'm sure) to enforce these rules with on the spot fines... Wow!
[url] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23713732 [/url]
Of course this was bundled up with measures to get "Lane Hoggers" and "Tailgaters" the kind of motorway-man crap that animates the readers of certain papers...
What was missing of course was any improved means of detection for these offences, especially phone use. this little nugget tells you all you need to know:
"...Officer numbers are at an all-time low, the number of traffic officers alone has reduced from 7,000 to approximately 3,500....
So being caught on the Phone when driving will cost you an extra £40 in fines, but you're half as likely to get caught doing it as when the law was passed?
clearly a compelling package of deterrents, hence I've seen no reduction in the number of dicks using their phone while driving... (anecdotal of course).
That's a pretty basic rule intended to actually prevent accidents, which isn't really enforced at present and directly reduces my safety as a cyclist on the road.
Once I believe they can apply that one in any meaningful sense, then perhaps I'd consider the value of helmet compulsion, but TBH both measures although well intended have no practical use IMO as the Rozzers will struggle to apply them.
IMO the Safety of cyclists is not the main driver, keeping the majority (in cars) happy is...
Helmet compulsion would not be about making cyclists safer it would be about making Drivers feel more secure when they get a "bit close".
If drivers are happier with cyclists forced into wearing EPS hats then that's probably what we'll get in the end. Of course once that's brought in the campaigning for bicycle VED, compulsory Hi-Viz, MOTs and all the rest of it will just increase, thin end of the wedge innit...
Craig I've heard criticisms of Dr Walkers study aswell, thing is if the choice is a driver giving me unsafe amount of passing room or or unsafe +8.5cm I'd still prefer the latter.
don't think anyone said that.Some interesting facts and figures on cycle crash come from ROSPA which amazingly doesn't say that the car is always at fault
The only people trying to deprive anyone of choice are the compulsionists.I'll not comment any further on here other than to say it's your head, your choice
Stilltortoise, ouch nasty, I hate descending on the road bike, when you lose it, it's gone, on mtb when it goes squirrelly your average mtber has atleast a [i]chance[/i] to recover. I get images of crashes everytime I hit a 30mph+ descent, usually imagining my forks snapping, *shudder*
> Denmark and Holland had very high levels of cycling well before they invested in comprehensive segregated paths.Pretty sure that's not true.
Seems to be a bit of both. Cycling [i]was[/i] popular (as it was here), then fell out of favour in boom times when everyone got cars (as it did here), then a big campaign led to fundamental changes in they way they design their roads (which didn't happen here!).
Does anyone really complain about life jackets when doing water sports?
No, but they don't all wear lifejackets either.
In our 3rd full year of the lifejacket campaign people that say they wear their lifejacket all the time has risen from 41% to 49%. Wearing a lifejacket was at number six in the safety priority list of the boat owners surveyed.
http://www.rosslareharbourlifeboat.com/sea-safety
D0NK - Member - Quote
Craig I've heard criticisms of Dr Walkers study aswell, thing is if the choice is a driver giving me unsafe amount of passing room or or unsafe +8.5cm I'd still prefer the latter.
Unsafe + 8.5 cm is still very likely to be unsafe. That is about the width of my hand, not that many drivers can maneuver within 8.5cm. It's suggesting that drivers who see cyclists and see they are wearing helmets move closer to them by a very small amount.
I'll take the helmet and ride in the lane properly.
Pretty sure that's not true.
It is absolutely true. In Copenhagen, mass construction of segregated facilities did not start until the mid 1980s. Cycling modal share had been increasing significantly for 10 years prior to this.
Unsafe + 8.5 cm is still very likely to be unsafe.
But 8.5 cm less turns a 7.5cm pass into a hit. Dr Walker was indeed wearing a helmet both times he was hit while carrying out his research.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
In any case the point is that his research proves that drivers alter behaviour around helmeted cyclists. Closer overtakes will not be the only change.
I said I'd prefer the letter didn't say I'd ditch the helmet for it, I was discussing 8.5cm in the grander scheme of things 🙂I'll take the helmet and ride in the lane properly.
As it happens when I used to take the eldest the short journey to nursery in a bike seat he had a helmet I didn't, I figured every little helps, so I did make that trade then.
bails 🙂 not looked a WOTM for a while cheers.
Unsafe + 8.5 cm is still very likely to be unsafe. That is about the width of my hand, not that many drivers can maneuver within 8.5cm.
Don't forget that was the [i]average[/i] difference over a couple of thousand overtakes. The outliers may be more significant!
Two of them gave him "less than zero cm".
But as irc (and I) said, that isn't really the point of the research.
It does help explain why non-cycling drivers are so keen for cyclists to be forced to wear helmets though!
It is absolutely true. In Copenhagen, mass construction of segregated facilities did not start until the mid 1980s. Cycling modal share had been increasing significantly for 10 years prior to this.
As I understand it, the increased cycling was due to the reduction of cars as a result of the oil crisis. One day a week was car free, so it could be argued that everything was segregated infrastructure at times.
[img] 
[/img]
This graph suggests that the real upswing happened from 1990 onwards?
This graph suggests that the real upswing happened from 1990 onwards?
The graph shows that cycling doubled from 1975-1985, which is before mass construction of segregated facilities. The "car free" day you refer to was a Sunday so I'm not sure it would've made a huge difference, considering there would be no commuter traffic.
I'm not suggesting that facilities haven't helped growth since, but I think to suggest they're the reason is false.
The graph shows that cycling doubled from 1975-1985, which is before mass construction of segregated facilities.
So, what was the cause in that time?
I commute roughly 7 miles each way through a busy central London everyday. I enjoy my commute but not sure I feel entirely safe on the roads, having said that the cycle lanes in London are often used by pedestrians or are littered with gravel/glass which isn't kind on 23C tyres, I much prefer to use the roads.
View on helmets being compulsory? Keep with the laissez faire approach, they'll only hurt themselves. It would put a real dent in Boris's Barclays bike scheme if helmets were compulsory...
The graph shows that cycling doubled from 1975-1985, which is before mass construction of segregated facilities.
In the Cycling Netherlands video above it mentions the 1973 oil crisis and the founding (in 1973) of the "Stop Kindermoord" movement as being the turning point with the introduction of car-free days and a public push towards safety and independence from oil.
So, what was the cause in that time?
The birth of the Danish environmental movement, resulting from the oil crisis pushing up fuel prices, led to much better urban planning, including removal of cars from city centre squares & spaces, pedestrianisation and no more urban motorways.
Having said all of that, I don't think modal share ever dropped much below 10%, which is better than most western cities.
In the Cycling Netherlands video above it mentions the 1973 oil crisis and the founding (in 1973) of the "Stop Kindermoord" movement as being the turning point with the introduction of car-free days and a public push towards safety and independence from oil.
Sounds pretty similar. I'm not too familiar with the Netherlands, but I do know that Denmark is a much smaller and more homogenous country than we are, with a strong national identity. The positive aspect of this is that there can be a collective will to make something happen in a way not really possible in the UK.
I was wondering on my ride today whether helmet wearing compulsion would impact on bike theft ? Chav lads don't like wearing helmets, so would they be disinclined to steal for themselves ? also It might be more noticeable to the Police who the bike thief's are. Has anyone done research on this in Australia ?
Last time this was debated someone made a comment about being put in a cage with a lion. Making cyclists wear helmets is like giving the guy in a cage a stick to protect himself when really you'd be more help doing something about the Lion!.
I find risk, statistics and peoples perception and behaviour absolutely fascinating. This debate is a classic example of many of the way we perceive danger and protect ourselves from it.
I prefer the "There's people with guns going around killing other people, we've got to do something about it. Lets make everyone wear bullet proof vests" analogy.
Making cyclists wear helmets is like giving the guy in a cage a stick to protect himself when really you'd be more help doing something about the Lion!
I don't even know where to begin in dismissing that analogy.
I've picked up on two very different angles to this. Some of us (me included) are recreational cyclists who encounter minimal risk from 3rd parties. We ride in relatively low-level traffic or even traffic-free environments. We perceive the risk from other road/trail users as smaller than that posed by ourselves to ourselves. If I'm hurtling downhill at 40mph I'm far more worried about what I might do to cause myself to crash than I am about others causing me to crash.
Clearly others are coming from the angle of cyclists having to share busy roads with many other road users, where the risk of a 3rd party being at fault for an incident is much greater than rider error. I hope I never have an incident that causes me to fall into this group.
Making cyclists wear helmets is like giving the guy in a cage a stick to protect himself when really you'd be more help doing something about the Lion!.
Misleading logic.
A helps a bit, but B would help a lot. A is easy, B is hard, so why should we not bother with A?
@KLUNK, imo, it wouldn't make any difference, bikes are stolen to order. It might cut down opportunist theft IF the police were there, which they're not...
A helps a bit, but B would help a lot. A is easy, B is hard, so why should we not bother with A?
Because then it looks like you've done something productive when you haven't.
Bit like if you're given the task of developing a cheap electric car with wifi connection to your phone.
Deciding you're going to concentrate on the wifi connection as it's easier isn't a useful outcome.
Because then it looks like you've done something productive when you haven't.Bit like if you're given the task of developing a cheap electric car with wifi connection to your phone.
Deciding you're going to concentrate on the wifi connection as it's easier isn't a useful outcome.
This is just defending a poor analogy with one that is even worse.
I ride on roads that have potholes and - recently - have been poorly surface-dressed. This increases the likelihood of me crashing my bike. Whilst it is commendable and desirable to lobby the council to fix the problems with the roads, that neither affects nor should preclude putting my helmet on to make me (feel) safer.
Because then it looks like you've done something productive when you haven't.
That's conjecture, and besides, if A helps a bit then by doing A you've helped a bit, which is better than nothing.
You're advocating turning the nation's motorists into careful considerate drivers. Now I'd love that, but really, it's a bit of a long shot isn't it?
I ride on roads that have potholes and - recently - have been poorly surface-dressed. This increases the likelihood of me crashing my bike. Whilst it is commendable and desirable to lobby the council to fix the problems with the roads, that neither affects nor should preclude putting my helmet on to make me (feel) safer.
And if i am in the situation where i think i might crash because for a better idea my actions then i will wear a helmet. But if i am going under the wheels of a 40' trailer why bother?
and there is nothing stopping you wearing a helmet, no one is saying don't wear one. But if your riding to the corner shop or to work on a smooth pothole free cycle path, you might decide you can't be bothered to grab your helmet, the hassle, helmet hair, hot day, etc etc.
You're advocating turning the nation's motorists into careful considerate drivers. Now I'd love that, but really, it's a bit of a long shot isn't it?
No just asking for the police to do their job....
This increases the likelihood of me crashing my bike. Whilst it is commendable and desirable to lobby the council to fix the problems with the roads, that neither affects nor should preclude putting my helmet on to make me (feel) safer.
However if the debate about pothole safety focused principally on the helmet wearing and not on the yawning chasms appearing in front of you you'd have the right to feel that someone, somewhere was missing the point.
Sorry, I was trying to point out the foolishness of the analogies above which took this whole thread off topic.
This is about whether helmets should be compulsory. I shall butt out. Apologies for the diversion. As you were everyone 🙂
No just asking for the police to do their job
For the police to do their job there would have to be three times as many. So, tripled council tax anyone?
You seem to be under the impression that forcing a nation to change their feelings on a particular subject is somehow really easy.
molgrips - MemberFor the police to do their job there would have to be three times as many. So, tripled council tax anyone?
Because every penny of council tax goes to police wages.
Is anyone else sensing this thread has run its course?
Because every penny of council tax goes to police wages.
That was hypothetical.. whatever the numbers end up being, the point is that to police the millions of drivers on the roads you'd need a huge number of extra officers, and that would cost an awful lot of money. Which would have to be found through taxation.
That's conjecture, and besides, if A helps a bit then by doing A you've helped a bit, which is better than nothing.
But your straw man is conjecture too. The 'A' option of helmet compulsion just doesn't have credible evidence to conclude that it adds to the sum of human years on the planet. All the evidence both for and against is just wallowing around in statistical noise. Also it's diversionary. If the aim is to increase lifespans then the 'C' option of helmet compulsion for car occupants pedestrians and cyclists would be just a simple to implement, but for some reason isn't on any agenda.
No just asking for the police to do their job....
Generally, really bad drivers get caught. The problem is, they don't get to court or they get pitiful sentences and then get back on the roads again. The issue's not the police, it the CPS and the courts.
That's conjecture, and besides, if A helps a bit then by doing A you've helped a bit, which is better than nothing.
There are lots of things that are relatively easy to do which would help [i]without[/i] risking a huge drop in cycling numbers though.
Presumed liability for instance.
But your straw man is conjecture too
I'm not setting up a straw man, I'm pointing out poor logic. I am tending towards the non-compulsion argument, but I'm not sure.
Too much arguing, not enough pedalling. Here is a picture of people on a bike having more fun than yous.
[img] 
[/img]
That man does not look like he's having fun.
Maybe the reason for the grimace is the same as the reason for the lads smile? 😆
Yes, i think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet. Just like it is to wear a seatbelt or a helmet on a moped.
It might also help support local bike shops too.
Yes, i think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet.
Well that's that settled then 😀
Does anyone know what BBC Breakfast finally decided?
I'm against compulsory helmets mostly because it's a bicycle for goodness sake. If you are for the idea of making me wear a helmet to the shops I'm afraid we have no common ground on this.
