Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
This is a topic of 'debate' on this mornings show. I think I'll give it a watch. It should be entertaining if the comments on their fb page are anything to go by.
Perhaps they can also tackle the following:-
People using phones on bikes
Pedestrians using phones and not looking where they are going - including junctions
Skateboarders using roads
Cyclists actually using lights at night - bet they would whinge if a car hit them because they didn't see them
Cyclists wearing helmets - it's up to you. Why do they need to legislate?
Only if all pedestrians have to wear a sumo 'fat suit' when they leave the house
It's much safer for them if they get hit
I expect the answer to be a 'yes'.
Always amazes me how the general public are so concerned for a cyclists safety except when trying squeeze past them to gain a couple of car lengths.
Sadly I think that is probably a big part of the motivation mattrgee
[i]"Cyclists are very vulnerable. I worry about squishing one. Let's force them to wear armour so I can squeeze past them without worrying."[/i]
They should make everyone looking to get a driving licence take a cycling proficiency test (including some town centre road miles before hand. Perhaps then when they got behind the wheel they might have a better idea of the consequences.
They should make everyone looking to get a driving licence take a cycling proficiency test (including some town centre road miles before hand. Perhaps then when they got behind the wheel they might have a better idea of the consequences.
That's the catch22 situation that the UK is now in, it's seen as too dangerous to cycle because of traffic so nobody (or very few)does, because there is so few cyclists there is no proper infrastructure.
Cycle racks have gone from most schools a long time ago, so a lot of kids are now growing up and becoming drivers without ever ridden a bike.
That's the thing about country's like the Netherlands and here in Germany, lots of people cycle at least occasionally, kids ride bikes to schools, lots of people cycle to work in summer. So even if someone doesn't cycle themselves, there is a very good chance there children or other family members or friends do. So it makes a lot of people far more aware of cyclists, still get the odd nobhead, but generally most drivers are far more respectful of cyclists.
That's the catch22 situation that the UK is now in, it's seen as too dangerous to cycle because of traffic so nobody (or very few)does, because there is so few cyclists there is no proper infrastructure.
which is why there has to be a legal requirement that all new developments and all new roads are built with full consideration of cyclists and pedestrians. I agree sorting out what exists isn't always easy, but if you are starting from scratch there are no excuses*.
* well i guess the fact developers won't make as much money is one....
See when you're trying to win a battle it's always better to have an elevated position. Make helmets compulsory, take the high ground, THEN go after the muppets in tin boxes. VED stickers for bikes would be a good start too.
The debate about compulsory helmet wearing is a stupid one, there's no way it would be enforceable.
I'm not in favour of compulsion, but I'd see some merit in a compromise - compulsory helmets on roads with higher speed limits (maybe kicking in above 40?) With the flip side being more 20mph limits (ie reducing the limit on the roads where helmets aren't required). No helmets required onoff road cycle paths/bridleways/anywhere with no cars.
Make helmets compulsory, take the high ground
no, make helmets compulsary and then see the debate move to forced use of cycle paths.
Ask yourself why there is talk about compulsary helmets, who really benefits? why do the Dutch and Danes not have compulsary helmet laws?
The debate about compulsory helmet wearing is a stupid one, there's no way it would be enforceable.
The debate about seatbelt wearing is a stupid one, there's no way it would be enforceable....
Remember that?
Somewhere in Edinburgh....
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I'm watching susanna Reid right now.
Mmmmmmm
Despite a potential war in Syria and this helmet nonsense, they seem to be focussing on a non-story about an idiot who drove into a flooded road. Not once have they suggested the driver is to blame. He couldn't possibly be at fault, he was in a car. Maybe there was a cyclist around who caused the incident, or a faulty sat mac.
But definitely not the ****wit behind the wheel.
Oh, hang on, they've hinted that it was the crap driving but no, it was an appropriate vehicle.
It would seem not, eh?
[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7423/9136661513_75fbf5feab.jp g" target="_blank">
Am I the only one who thought it already was the law? Anyway I'm not convinced it would make any difference either way. People who are daft enough to disregard their own safety while cycling will continue to do so. It's illegal to ride without lights in the dark, doesn't stop people though.
The one thing that always strikes me is how helmets are always portrayed in the media as a miracle life saver. I don't know the details, but if the guy who was hit head-on by a van was wearing a helmet it could very well have made no difference at all. Granted at least his chances would have been better, but still.
People who are daft enough to disregard their own safety while [s]cycling[/s] driving will continue to do so.
FTFY
See when you're trying to win a battle it's always better to have an elevated position. Make helmets compulsory, take the high ground, THEN go after the muppets in tin boxes. VED stickers for bikes would be a good start too.
😀
People who are daft enough to disregard their own safety [s]while cycling driving will[/s] continue to do so
I missed the main debate because I’d already left for work, by bike, without a helmet as it happens. I’ll just go along with whatever Suzanne Reid agrees with.
why do the Dutch and Danes not have compulsary helmet laws?
This morning I was talking to a Dutch guy who has just come back from holiday the UK. One of the things he mentioned was how crazy it seemed that cars and bikes had to share a road where the cars can be going over 100kph – it doesn’t make a lot of sense does it?
Helmets for car drivers could save $380 million in Australia.
[url] http://www.copenhagenize.com/search/label/helmets%20for%20motorists?m=1 [/url]
Seems like helmets for drivers should be made mandatory immediately.
Ian Munro - would you be happy to put a VED sticker on your bike? Free sticker, small enough to wrap around the seat post.
Am I the only one who thought it already was the law?
Yes, quite possibly.
People who are daft enough to disregard their own safety while cycling will continue to do so.
Here we go!
CaptainFlashheart - Member
People who are daft enough to disregard their own safety [s]while cycling driving[/s] will continue to do so
Fair point.
[img] 
[/img]
would you be happy to put a VED sticker on your bike? Free sticker, small enough to wrap around the seat post.
Nothing is ever free, so who is paying for it? Are you suggesting raising taxes to pay for a sticker?
Ian Munro - would you be happy to put a VED sticker on your bike? Free sticker, small enough to wrap around the seat post.
Depends on how nice it looked. Would it have important stuff on it like a series of crowns round the outside showing all the KOMs I own?
Am I the only one who thought it already was the law?
I would have thought so yes.
I'm not in favour of compulsion, but I'd see some merit in a compromise - compulsory helmets on roads with higher speed limits (maybe kicking in above 40?) With the flip side being more 20mph limits (ie reducing the limit on the roads where helmets aren't required). No helmets required onoff road cycle paths/bridleways/anywhere with no cars.
Where's the evidence that more accidents happen on 40+ roads versus 20s? Any evidence that you could survive being hit at 40mph better if you're wearing a helmet? New signs to remind you as you leave/join 20/40 roads that you can remove your helmet? Picking arbitrary numbers out of the air helps nobody! 😉
I always wear a helmet, but I'd like the option to not wear one as well. If helmets become compulsory then the very first time a helmet wearing cyclist is killed the news will declare cycling a lethal pastime. Ignoring the multiple car passenger deaths the same day.
that, bencooper, is getting stolen. love it.
the Beeb really have a bee in their bonnet about lids at the minute - cant understand why. Its usually from some f****d up personal agenda or plain greed driven.
[i]Nothing is ever free, so who is paying for it? Are you suggesting raising taxes to pay for a sticker?[/i]
We can just put an extra quid on everyone's car tax to pay for it.
That way bikes have a tax disk and everyone is happy.
that, bencooper, is getting stolen. love it.
I just stole it off Twitter 😉
Cycling is already seen as a second-rate form of transport - if you call for compulsory cycle helmets but not compulsory car helmets, you're contributing to that.
I just stole it off Twitter
It would be better if the cyclist wasn't a smug, brakeless fixieridingasshat, but otherwise a valid message! 😉
Yeah, the sideburns don't help 🙂
Nothing is ever free, so who is paying for it? Are you suggesting raising taxes to pay for a sticker?
What he said.^
Or indeed a penny onto the price of a litre of fuel.
I'd do the opposite.
Put an 18inch spike sticking out of the steering wheel, dashboard and back of the front seats, and ban seatbelts. Motorised vehicle drivers will drive a darn sight more carefully then, and kids in the back will sit still 😉
Tail-gaters will become extinct due to natural selection.
why do the Dutch and Danes not have compulsary helmet laws?
I actually saw someone wearing a helmet in Holland once. Probably a tourist.
Certainly makes more sense to spend a bit on actual place to lock bikes up. A few bits of bent steel can't cost all that much compared to a shed load of hours in Parliament for the discussion of laws that nobody really wants, apart from a politician or 3 trying to show they actually did something.
Take my street for example. I probably have more installed bike parking within 200metres of my apartment than a decent sized town centre pedestrian zone in the UK. And probably have more at my actual home address than Tesco's provide at one store.
Like! 🙂We can just put an extra quid on everyone's car tax to pay for it.
That way bikes have a tax disk and everyone is happy.
so in cases where the forces involved are waaaaaaay over what a helmet is rated for? cool can't see anything wrong with that.I'd see some merit in a compromise - compulsory helmets on roads with higher speed limits (maybe kicking in above 40?)
and his watch is too bigYeah, the sideburns don't help
Or indeed a penny onto the price of a litre of fuel.
that's fine then, I guess if the drivers want cyclists to have a tax disc then they should pay for it. But can we put a couple of quid on each litre and then we can have showers in every workplace, miles of purpose made cyclepaths, and if they are so insistant on cycle helmets i guess they can pay for them as well, and finally can i have a set of troutlights, 'cause cyclists never have lights and it is only fair that the rich important drivers help out the poor unfortunate cyclist who can't afford lights?
The debate about compulsory helmet wearing is a stupid one, there's no way it would be enforceable.
The same was said about motorcycle helmets in the 1960s, but how many motorcyclists do you see not wearing a helmet? Very, very few - and they're usually pikeys, so don't count.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm going to take part in a potentially hazardous activity then I'm going to make damned sure that I come out the other side if not completely intact then at least 95% of the way there - so anything that improves my chances of surviving is a good thing.
Mind you, having said that the sooner that all the brain-deads have got what little grey matter they aleady possess smeared all over someone's windscreen and the better. At least that way I won't have to share my oxygen supply with them.
Hmm, I'm now considering making dummy tax disc stickers to stick on the bikes I sell...
See when you're trying to win a battle it's always better to have an elevated position. Make helmets compulsory, take the high ground, THEN go after the muppets in tin boxes.
We already have the high ground. We don't kill thousands of people a year with our vehicles!
VED stickers for bikes would be a good start too.
They really really wouldn't.
VED would mean you need to have some kind of registration plate to identify the bike it applies to. Which means ownership documents and a registered keeper. How does that work for hire bikes or people who swap frames around?
Pointless bureaucracy which would cost millions to the tax payer and ultimately discourage people from cycling.
Mind you, having said that the sooner that all the brain-deads have got what little grey matter they aleady possess smeared all over someone's windscreen and the better. At least that way I won't have to share my oxygen supply with them.
My you're a charming chap.
Lolz
VED would mean you need to have some kind of registration plate to identify the bike it applies to. Which means ownership documents and a registered keeper. How does that work for hire bikes or people who swap frames around?
Frame number? Or just put "bike" in the reg number place.
Pointless bureaucracy which would cost millions to the tax payer and ultimately discourage people from cycling.
Away and shite.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm going to take part in a potentially hazardous activity then [b]I'm going to make damned sure[/b] that I come out the other side if not completely intact
Damned sure eh? So you always wear a full-face motorcycle helmet, neck brace, spine protector, leathers, knee and elbow pads, high viz vest, fluoro helmet cover, helmet mirrors, ...?
Mind you, having said that the sooner that all the brain-deads have got what little grey matter they aleady possess smeared all over someone's windscreen and the better. At least that way I won't have to share my oxygen supply with them.
That's just lovely.
I too look forward to watching your intestines being forced through your nose by an HGV despite the fact you are wearing a helmet.
Oh no, wait, no I don't, because that's a horrible thing to say!
I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm going to take part in a potentially hazardous activity then I'm going to make damned sure that I come out the other side if not completely intact then at least 95% of the way there - so anything that improves my chances of surviving is a good thing.
Now that you've seen the image on page 1 will you be wearing a helmet in the car? Cycling isn't a dangerous activity, it's just perceived as such.
Frame number? Or just put "bike" in the reg number place.
Right so just free stickers, paid for by drivers, that mean nothing and are not traceable to an owner and possible not even specific to the bike? Like this kind of thing:
[img] 
[/img]
Yeah I'd have one of those if it was a legal requirement. Can't say I really see the point though.
> Pointless bureaucracy which would cost millions to the tax payer and ultimately discourage people from cycling.Away and shite.
One of the beauties of cycling is simplicity.
That shouldn't be underestimated.
Meanwhile, in my local paper:
* [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/10636558.Girl__12__remains_critical_after_two_car_smash/ ]12-year-old girl with head injuries after a car crash[/url]
* [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/10637021.Man_claimed_to_have_boxed_for_England_when_stopped_on_suspicion_of_drink_driving/ ]Drunk driver challenges police to a fight[/url]
* [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10636753.Judge_blames_sat_nav_for_cyclist_s_death/?ref=mr ]Cyclist killed by sat nav[/url]
But, yeah, bloody cyclists and their not wearing helmets.
One of the beauties of cycling is simplicity.
That shouldn't be underestimated.
Indeed.
At the moment my wife's bike is being used by her mum; would we need to register this with anyone? What about when we get the bike back to use it ourselves?
(Incidentally, her mum rides the bike on off-road cycle routes only. My mum also ride her bike, but only on off-road cycle routes.
I wonder what we could do to encourage cycling?)
I'll give it 4.. no, 5 pages.
I see we've had the 'wishing violent death' from a helmet advocate, has anyone done 'Darwinism' yet?
hjghg5 - Membercompulsory helmets on roads with higher speed limits (maybe kicking in above 40?)
If you get hit by a car doing 40, your helmet is unlikely to make any difference.
johnellison - MemberThe same was said about motorcycle helmets in the 1960s, but how many motorcyclists do you see not wearing a helmet? Very, very few
It's not really the same, though. Higher speeds obviously, much higher costs of entry (the price of getting on the road on a pushbike is less than the cost of a decent motorbike helmet!), side benefits (enclosed helmets just make more sense to ride in, full visors etc- bee protection!), and the helmets are a [i]lot [/i]more protective.
Informed vibrant debate via the telebox, is there nothing it can't resolve?
You're more likely to suffer head damage during a discussion about compulsory cycle helmeting than you are by riding without a lid. Probably.
Sat in Melbourne today watching people ride bikes with helmets on, all of them from hipsters to girls on dutch bikes to racer types and a TT's racing down brinswick. All of them wearing helmets and way more riding that you would ever see in a british city.
Though as every one above will have said BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH most of the big objectors would wear one if the law said it was illegal just to stick it to the man.
Sat in Melbourne today watching people ride bikes with helmets on, all of them from hipsters to girls on dutch bikes to racer types and a TT's racing down brinswick. All of them wearing helmets and way more riding that you would ever see in a british city.
What happened to overall cycling figures after the law was introduced?
What happened to cycling-related head injury numbers after the law was introduced?
How many can you see compared to, say, a German or Dutch city? How do overall cycling rates compare? How do head injury rates compare?
I'd quite like evidence-based policies, rather than law-making by anecdote.
one thing to think about, Motorbike and car, you need a licence, there are rules already in place. You have to be a certain age, you accept speed limits, etc etc.
Bikes, horses and walkers, no age limits, no licence, basically no framework rules.
So how do you enforce helmet rules on kids?
has anyone done 'Darwinism' yet?
yep, up there^^, but for car drivers/passengers, not cyclists.
Actually, bring back Morris 1100's and cars of that constructional quality. The fact that the floor might fall out due to rust at any time ought to make drivers think twice about driving kids to school. Or going too fast. And old school skinny tyres would mean driving in snow would be much easier again.
So kids on bikes or walking to school would be much safer.
It's not really the same, though
Agreed. And of course [url= http://road.cc/content/news/68212-dft-casualty-statistics-rank-driving-cycling-walking-and-motorcycling-risk ]the casualty rate on a motorcycle[/url] (despite helmets) is 122 deaths per billion miles, whereas cycling is about a quarter of that (35 per billion miles) and more like walking (42 deaths per billion miles).
anticompulsion isn't about the efficacy or otherwise of helmet during a crash it's all the other shit that goes with it. I wear a helmet >90% of the time but I'm anticompulsion coz there's just too many negative effects.so anything that improves my chances of surviving is a good thing.
Aswell as being bloody stupid of course, see driver head injuries, see armouring up the victims when it's shite driving to blame in many cases, see marginalising cycling even more, see complicating a simple effective means of transport.
But then I'm assuming its nice and sunny there mike. 😉
The problems with helmets are:
[list][*]They're designed to protect you in low energy falls, ie. they're not much use being hit by a car at 40mph[/*]
[*]There is some evidence to suggest that drivers drive less cautiously round cyclists who are wearing helmets[/*]
[*]The actual incidence of head injuries from cycling is much, much smaller than that from driving/walking/DIY etc, and no-one is suggesting helmets should be made compulsory for these activities[/*]
[*]As the incidence of head injuries is small, the health benefits of making helmets compulsory are far outweighed by the health implications of the resultant decrease in people cycling[/*]
[/list]
Having said all this, I wear mine every time, but it should remain the right of the individual to decide, not the law.
[i]Agreed. And of course the casualty rate on a motorcycle (despite helmets) is 122 deaths per billion miles, whereas cycling is about a quarter of that (35 per billion miles) and more like walking (42 deaths per billion miles).[/i]
So walking is more dangerous than cycling?
Why is this debate even happening?
It would be better if the cyclist wasn't a smug, brakeless fixieridingasshat
dont think my colleagues will notice that level of detail
Why is this debate even happening?
Because some ill-informed editor at the BBC has decided to stir it up again?
What happened to overall cycling figures after the law was introduced?
From my friend in Vic Roads Safety (he should really know) there is a small dip before it returns to normal levels
What happened to cycling-related head injury numbers after the law was introduced?
Not sure but incredibly hard to measure as there is no like for like around - hot head helmet saves head people move on?
How many can you see compared to, say, a German or Dutch city? How do overall cycling rates compare? How do head injury rates compare?
Again how do you compare? There is so much more cycling culture in Holland compared to the UK/Oz the road design is completely different and the provisions for cycling is different. From the same friend above who has visited the leading cycling nations, their road safety people would love to put a mandatory helmet law in place but public opinion is against them.
In the end of the day the main part of the body that doesn't heal is the brain, I'll put a helmet on while dicing with cars and other moving objects. Not my choice over here but it doesn't dissuade me from cycling it just means I have a helmet.
Sat in Melbourne today watching people ride bikes with helmets on
And has there been a dramatic drop in cycling deaths from this new law?
No.
Has there been a dramatic drop in cycling numbers?
Yes.
Wow, that sounds great, let's do that.
As Chris Boardman said (on BBC Breakfast) you don't wear a bullet proof vest on the off-chance someone decides to shoot you.
(Is it just me or has the forum just gone a bit mental??)
(Is it just me or has the forum just gone a bit mental??)
I think ratherbeintobago tried to make a bullet point list 🙂
Again how do you compare?
Injury rates and modal share. Not particularly difficult to do.
Hopefully a new page will fix the broken page...
I've "reported post" - hopefully a mod will fix it
smug, brakeless fixieridingasshat
Bit harsh, I feel...
but it should remain the right of the individual to decide, not the law.
Following a Spring/Summer of far too many (off-road) crashes, I'm nursing a variety of minor injuries, most of which would have been prevented by elbow and knee pads. I own elbow and knew pads, but my right to decide to wear them usually results in me not wearing them. I think I need some laws to make me wear them before I have one crash too many 😆
^True story, but tongue firmly in cheek. On a not tongue in cheek note, I have had a few offs where I've been very thankful for a helmet, so compulsory or not I will continue to wear one.
The only problem I have with wearing a helmet every day is....
[img] 
[/img]
(Not me in the picture...)
I hurt my hip in a crash* last night can we have compulsory hip pads too please?Following a Spring/Summer of far too many (off-road) crashes, I'm nursing a variety of minor injuries, most of which would have been prevented by elbow and knee pads.
*and yes my helmet did hit the ground and yes I was glad I had it on.
^Naughty
Talking of which (and OT), whatever happened with the fiasco regarding the hot-linked image of the Winnat's Pass avalanche that caused all sorts of legal bother between STW and the image owner earlier this year?
I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm going to take part in a potentially hazardous activity then I'm going to make damned sure that I come out the other side if not completely intact then at least 95% of the way there - so anything that improves my chances of surviving is a good thing.
So 20mph speed limits on every urban road in the country, enforced by camera. Compulsory driving re-tests, every 10 years. 3 month ban for using a hand held mobile. 3 month ban for speeding. Oh Wait! That's dealing with the danger rather than getting the victims to try and compensate. Can't have that can we. Even though it would make sure cyclists come out the other side if not completely intact.
Or maybe there is a debate about what is effective and proportionate. The evidence from places where there is a helmet law shows that it isn't effective art saving lives.
Brain dead? You might be.
So 20mph speed limits on every urban road in the country, enforced by camera
and drivers staring at the speedo for fear of getting a ticket
I hurt my hip in a crash* last night can we have compulsory hip pads too please?
Despite it being tongue-in-cheek, this is kind of my point. If, for example, elbow and knee pads were compulsory, I'd wear them all the time. This would have prevented some of my recent injuries, or at least made them less serious. I'm still happy to take the risk and decide myself and I'm not advocating compulsory all-over body armour or helmets for that matter. Merely an observation that interested me