Educate and promote.
More Traffic Police.
Follow best practice elsewhere.
Invest in infrastructure.
And I believe cycling should be one of the aspects of life where 'Don't be a Dick' should be the whole of the law, wherever possible.
Cycling is about fun and simple childish pleasure for me.
And the tone of this in the media reporting makes me feel uneasy.
Educate and promote.More Traffic Police.
Follow best practice elsewhere.
Invest in infrastructure.
Yep, and in that order. Infrastructure is great but cannot be applied everywhere.
[quote=cookeaa ]Phase 1 is the more interesting bit IMO because that's the bit of scope directly triggered by Charlie Alliston's brakeless adventures, the part where they're potentially going to try and update/create new criminal offences for cyclists...
Phase 1 should take them about 10 minutes to work out that a change in the law isn't justified by one case every 5 or 10 years (I may be being generous there). Not when it takes time and effort to change the law and that time and effort could more usefully be spent updating laws relating to dangerous driving. That's if it is going to be evidence based...
Personally I can't see helmet and vest compulsion being a practical measure, not because of their efficacy, but because I don't believe there would be much if any actual enforcement, it would be yet another set of rules governing road users that the police lack the time, resources and/or inclination to enforce.
You're right, but I can't see that stopping them (and neither would it surprise me to see some police forces reallocate resources to that from enforcement of stuff which makes a real difference to road safety). The likely result will just be as discussed above that lack of a helmet or hi-viz is a valid excuse for drivers in both civil and criminal proceedings, thus effectively making the roads less safe even ignoring the population effects.
The thing is though as much as they might claim it is evidence based, ultimately this is a political exercise - otherwise it would take a different form, would have happened years ago and wouldn't include the first part. You also don't have to be a rocket surgeon to come up with some really simple things to improve road safety - things they aren't going to implement in a million years.
Nope, it's far easier to persuade "cyclists" and the general public that it's the cyclists fault for not wearing hi viz and helmets, by using piss poor anecdotes as evidence.things they aren't going to implement in a million years.
Aracer
Nope physics hasn't changed in the last 20 years..but safety features in vehicles have increased enormously ( that's a fact not a personal opinion if you are having trouble distinguishing between the two )..that isn't an ordinary car you posted ..if it's the one off top gear it's been stripped out to put a roll bar in with bucket seats which are closer to the floor ..and room for only two passengers ( thats another fact by the way )
For the sake of this exercise though I sat in my car with my helmet on and my head was touching the roof ..when I turned my head the helmet touched the side window ( thats another fact by the way ..not an opinion) ..does that take care of the height & width issue for you ?..Obviously the front and rear passengers would have the same problem .( another fact )
I've already provided all the evidence needed ..by listing some of the main increases in car safety which have occurred in the last 20 odd years which makes that report outdated as the main concerns have been addressed ( I won't list them again ) ..no personal opinion there ...just facts .
Obviously though your personal opinion as evidenced above carries far greater importance 😀
You do seem fairly selective in your approach in terms of what you wish to highlight ..Ive actually agreed that should such a helmet be developed then I would be prepared to give it a go..but what the authors were actually aiming for at the time was greater impact absorption material in the roof of the cars
..which surprise, surprise has actually been achieved ..hey another fact for you there ( boy am I on a roll here ) .
I'm also well aware that there was airbag, crumple zones and side impact protection available 20 years ago ..but that it was not fitted to the majority of cars ..something which has been addressed to make it almost common place on most new vehicles as well as the technology improving to make it safer when deployed ..(another fact ).
Please highlight anything which I have missed that might be constituted as a personal opinion...there simply can't be much left ..
I'm assuming that as you think that bicycle helmets are such a huge benefit in cars ..you must drive everywhere in yours ?.
Personal choice of course but as you are a huge supporter of this idea and because it was you who brought this up for discussion ..it would be disappointing to think that you did not.
Can't resist two quotes from the Mail that some it up well
A bike helmet is not a device to make cyclists safer. It is a device for making drivers feel safer while driving selfishly.
and
If this idea becomes law, the only result will be that, as happened in Australia, even fewer people will ride bicycles, especially the hire bikes that are now becoming increasingly common. Once again, we are planning to pass the law of unintended consequences.
Hmm interesting that last quote .
The wearing of helmets became compulsory in Australia in 1990/ 91...without checking prior to now I was under the impression that this was a recent thing and that people were turning away from cycling in their droves ..which made the last line of this link a little surprising ..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Australia.
Sweet jeebus give it up...
You're clearly not a graduate of the TJ school of helmet debating...
The 'car helmet' is a basic straw man argument, normally deployed when arguing with someone intent on compulsion over personal choice, used precisely because although there is some merit for the idea that more head injuries [i]could[/i] be prevented by car helmets the idea is generally impractical...
aracer it might be time to tactically concede defeat as you're just winding up someone too obtuse to realise you're taking the piss...
Best estimates are that if the UK went helmet compulsion half a dozen lives would be saved from death by head injury, 50+ extra dead of diseases of inactivity. That's the lesson from Australia. And thats using best case numbers for helmets
Yeah but wikipedia says it's all good... 😉
[url] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1193.html [/url]
[url] https://croakey.org/mandatory-bicycle-helmet-laws-in-australia-is-it-time-for-a-change/ [/url]
[url] http://www.icebike.org/bike-helmet-laws/ [/url]
Helmets mandatory in BC, here in Whistler I reckon most folk who aren't riding trails and just nipping into tow n don't wear a helmet. Never heard of the police here enforcing it either. Closest I've heard was. Crankworxs Enduro organisers telling participants that helmets must be worn during transitions or they'd be DQ'd and risk a police fine.
Cookeaa ..obtuse eh ?
Of course you are welcome to your personal opinion of me ..but I can assure you that I'm very definitely not too slow to understand and far from winding me up and taking the piss I'm having fun doing the same ...
I'm more than happy to end the nonsense as it is becoming a little boring ..but he just seems to want to come at it from a different angle... 😉
I'm not trolling though ..very interested in the subject and have had my eyes opened with some of the figures bandied about ..although it's fair to say that commuting by bike to and from cities is not a subject that I had given much thought to as my ONLY interest is in off road riding ..where my pro helmet stance is formed .
I organise quite a few of our local group rides and can say hand on heart that if anyone turned up to join us without a helmet he would be turned away by the group ..
I'm really not bothered one way or the other as to wether it's made compulsory ..I will always wear one..but have been surprised by some of the data published ..
If it ever came down to a public vote I would probably abstain ..
[quote=hodgynd ]safety features in vehicles have increased enormously ( that's a fact not a personal opinion if you are having trouble distinguishing between the two ).
You'll be able to post some evidence to support that then? Maybe a study which says that the other one is obsolete because of improvements in cars? No? Because these "enormous" improvements in vehicle safety don't appear to have stopped people dying of head injuries in cars - now unlike your "facts", that is supported by evidence.
.that isn't an ordinary car you posted ..if it's the one off top gear it's been stripped out to put a roll bar in with bucket seats which are closer to the floor ..and room for only two passengers ( thats another fact by the way )
I'm impressed at your eagerness to demonstrate how good your facts are. Because it's a very cleverly disguised roll bar there. Do you think TG fit those and remove the rear seats of all the cars they test? 😆
Plenty of pics of Stig driving other cars without rollbars etc. - do an image search on that, that was just the first I picked.
For the sake of this exercise though I sat in my car with my helmet on and my head was touching the roof ..when I turned my head the helmet touched the side window ( thats another fact by the way ..not an opinion) ..does that take care of the height & width issue for you ?..Obviously the front and rear passengers would have the same problem .( another fact )
What do you drive a bubble car? Or is your helmet some massive thing? Or are you just making it up now? Acres of space around my head in my perfectly ordinary car - I reckon at least a foot to the side even when I turn my head, and a bike helmet isn't that big. You do seem full of excuses not to wear a helmet in a car.
what the authors were actually aiming for at the time was greater impact absorption material in the roof of the cars
I suggest you try reading the report again...
..which surprise, surprise has actually been achieved
Even if they have provided the amount of padding suggested in that report (you'll presumably be able to provide the evidence for that, rather than just asserting it?) then they say "Protective headwear, similar to a soft shell pedal cycle helmet, is estimated to be much more effective than padding the car" - and if you check out the cost benefits then padding the interior provides less than 1/3 of the benefit of a helmet.
I'm also well aware that there was airbag, crumple zones and side impact protection available 20 years ago ..but that it was not fitted to the majority of cars
Another of your "facts"? I had airbags in my car 20 years ago (and it certainly had crumple zones - you seriously think that's a new thing? 😆 ), which was a 5yo car at the time - presumably you'll be able to furnish the evidence for your assertion to show that my bog ordinary car was an exception.
Though it's irrelevant anyway - they looked at the effect of airbags and I'm quoting the figures with - the benefit for a helmet is still more than 3 times the benefit of improved interior padding.
I'm assuming that as you think that bicycle helmets are such a huge benefit in cars ..you must drive everywhere in yours ?.
I'm not the one suggesting that people are extremely foolish for not wearing one to cycle. You presumably still haven't understood that if it's foolish not to wear one on a bike, then it's equally foolish not to wear one in a car. Personally I don't think the benefit of wearing one in a car is significantly higher enough compared to wearing one to cycle to make the decision to wear one anything other than personal choice either (and it's still irrelevant whether I wear one for either activity, because I'm not making any assertions).
Oh my sides ..stop it ! 😆
You are not making assertions ..?
Have you really got the memory span of a goldfish and can't actually remember what you have written ?
Unfortunately as mentioned when first coming on to the forum ..you were one of the folks I found as dull as dishwater and it's now becoming a bit boring ...so I'm out.( well in terms of direct communication with yourself )
Keep wearing that helmet though ..you know it makes sense 😉
[quote=hodgynd ]Have you really got the memory span of a goldfish and can't actually remember what you have written ?
No, that would be you, but then you can't even maintain a coherent argument for the whole of a single post.
Unfortunately as mentioned when first coming on to the forum ..you were one of the folks I found as dull as dishwater and it's now becoming a bit boring ...so I'm out.( well in terms of direct communication with yourself )
Nothing to do with being unable to defend your position then? Nothing so boring as a troll.
I'm still enjoying your assertion about the specially kitted TG car regarding a photo where there is clearly a 3 point seatbelt and no visible roll cage though 😆
Regarding head injuries in cars, I received a fairly large clout to the head from the B pillar when an Audi hit the back of a Fiesta I was driving. I was stationary and it was a classic rear end shunt. Bog standard rental car with seatbelt on, no aibags deplyoyed. It was a square on impact but you’d be surprised how much you move around in the seat.
[quote="Hodgynd"]I will just leave this here ..its a survey conducted by experts in 2016..for those of you who got their knickers in a twist earlier in the thread because I hadn't quoted any facts and figures ..its the first one I found online ..I don't read the Guardian ..
Chew on this and start frothing at the mouth ..
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds Isn't this the ropey report from last year which basically looks at reports and studies on hospital admissions and almost nothing else? A self selecting sample if you will.
Nothing so boring as a troll.
I would say you have spent far too much time on the troll. Remember this is someone who wishes a head injury on people who don't wear helmets yet doesn't want to say whether they think helmets should be compulsory.
😆
Now go and join hands and skip around the playground together ..
I'm not a "they" though ..
But wear a helmet in case you fall over.Now go and join hands and skip around the playground together ..
But wear a helmet in case you fall over
Yes, always wear a helmet when doing anything - helmets are awesome
So you are in the compulsory camp then Kerley...? 8)
hod, just out of curiosity, where do you live?
Just out of curiosity why would you want to know..?
However a little investigative work in my profile would answer that question ..not thinking of coming around for lunch are you ? 😆
Fair enough, "I'm going to stop engaging with this argument I'm losing because you're boring" is the Northumberland defence 😉
It's always worked in the past 😀
