Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Muppets Threads! (And Anything Else) => Topic started by: bikerwaser on March 23, 2013, 10:24:42 am
-
Hi All
Spain is on the verge of implementing new laws that will make cycling a much less attractive idea. one of which is the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets.
as we all know about studies that show that when you make helmets compulsory the number of cyclist drop significantly and as we all know cycling is a healthy and pleasant hobby and form of transport.
i thought i'd post this article below from CTC. there's also the link which allows you to write to the Spanish minister for tourism .
also there is a link to conbici , the organisation in Spain that is for cyclists and against these measures.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/spanish-cycling-organisations-protest-against-anti-cycling-proposals
https://oficinavirtual.mityc.es/crmformweb/formularios/infoSia.aspx
sign the petition on down on the left:
http://conbici.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1121:spanish-traffic-authority-proposes-compulsory-helmets-and-other-anti-cycling-measures&catid=18&Itemid=58
Bikerwaser
-
Petition signed.
-
What with all the flak flying about over Spanish debts, I think I may take to wearing my helmet when I cycle through.
:D
-
To be honest I dont think the measures are Anti Cycling as proposed by the various pressure groups.
Most of the measures seem like safety concerns and should be carried out by cyclist anyway.
The debate on compulsory wearing of helmets is different though, having said that if I had children, helmets would be compulsory for them as it is for myself when I go out cycling.
My personal view is that helmets should be a choice, but I dont see any other issues with the rest of the proposed regulations from the Spanish authorities.
-
Hmm... legal requirement to always ride to the far right edge of the road, and always to the right side of the lane ???.
This goes against what is very often good cycling practice. Sit at the far edge of the road and you generally encourage motorists to close-shave you. Often you need to claim the lane eg. when it is too narrow for a car to share the lane with a cyclist; when you are maneuvering in traffic. I have taught my kids to claim the road space they require for their safe cycling. Overtaking drivers have the simple obligation to keep clear and overtake safely.
Such a blanket rule as is being proposed in Spain gives the escape clause for motorists from prosecution in virtually every case. I would feel very wary cycling in such a climate.
Bicycle trailers to be banned on roads outside of urban areas ???. I think you were even considereing a bike trailer for your tour through Spain, ianshearin. Puts a bit of a dampener on that, and all for what reason ??
-
Thats an interesting view on keeping to the edge of the road, I have never felt the need to 'claim' the road, I think I would feel pressured if I did that with a vehicle waiting behind me. I always stay close to the edge anyway.
Do other riders cycle this way, by claiming the road to ensure drivers can only overtake when safe to do so?
-
Yes, it is a lot safer in my experience. This only works if traffic is reasonably slow though, since otherwise you would possibly provoke anger and dangerous maneuvers. Drivers tend to be understanding if you block the lane where it is narrow as long as you let them pass as soon as it is safe.
-
Hi All,
In New Zealand all is OK, You just put on your cycle helmet and go riding! I have had to replace Four helmets so far! that is 4x that my life was saved by having on a Helmet :o so why not wear one ???
Bicycle helmets have been mandatory in New Zealand since January 1994
As for not staying Left when your cycling out side of Town :o Well it was good to know you :'( we have too Share the Road come on some Cyclist drive Big Trucks all day at work (Me)
So Share the road and be happy....
Pete
;)
-
Thankfully the road rules in Victoria are pretty clear and allow for safety of all road users.
On keeping left (for all vehicles):
129 Keeping to the far left side of a road
(1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road....
......130 Keeping to the left on a multi-lane road
(1) This rule applies to a driver driving on a multilane road if—
(a) the speed-limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving is over 80 kilometres per hour; or
(b) a keep left unless overtaking sign applies to the length of road where the driver is driving.
"As near as practicable to the far left side" does not mean always on the left edge. All sorts of practicable reasons dictate this should not be the case at all times - turning right, moving around obstructions, potholed or dangerous left edge, insufficient room to share a lane..... even drivers driving too close/fast because they regard you as off the road.
There is no requirement for cyclists to keep left within a lane on a multi-lane road.
On ovetaking:
140 No overtaking unless safe to do so
A driver must not overtake a vehicle unless—
(a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and
(b) the driver can safely overtake the vehicle....
.....144 Keeping a safe distance when overtaking
A driver overtaking a vehicle—
(a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and
(b) must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the vehicle is travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past the vehicle to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle.
Safety is a strong theme you'll notice. A pity that more drivers don't take greater note of this. By riding wider I've found that this encourages drivers to overtake more safely by changing lanes fully to do so, rather than lane splitting/lane sharing with insufficient space.
If you have a look at the Yutube video "The Rights and Duties of Cyclists" (http://youtu.be/rU4nKKq02BU), or the Commute Orlando Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/CommuteOrlando), you'll see plenty of info on cycling and the pluses of claiming the lane. It is the US of course but still of great relevance.
I find this to be safer road positioning:
(http://smile.webshots.com/images/fd994010ef5a012fa98822000abc0db5/jpg/800x600)
than this:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3oGrAaFMHRw/T4O19S48vqI/AAAAAAAAAOA/0Qj3ddG2tLU/s1600/Miss+by++1m+pictures+22++Feb+2012+101.JPG)
In particular, here in Australia, even on many country roads the safest way to deal with large trucks is to show that you are on the road (where they should overtake safely by moving over) than to hug the road edge and risk them squeezing you off by overtaking at speed as if you were not there.
-
As for not staying Left when your cycling out side of Town :o Well it was good to know you :'( we have too Share the Road come on some Cyclist drive Big Trucks all day at work (Me)
So Share the road and be happy....
Recent tragedy at Taupo is a moot point. The cyclists were riding in single file on the left, truck driver still pulled one down and ran over her. Ride double and the driver is forced to chose whether safe to overtake wide, or else to slow down and wait a bit.
The driver was not "sharing the road" :-\
As road users, cyclists do have some strategies we can use to ensure drivers share the road more effectively (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/on-the-road/sharing-the-road/).
-
Two photos taken on New Zealand roads :
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3062/2670513093_59bce2e4ff_z.jpg)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3288/2674630838_fa0d07c48e_z.jpg)
-
The more cyclists there are on the road, the faster the culture changes, the sooner it becomes safe for cyclists, the better cyclists can afford to be generous about sharing the road. We have so few cyclists where I live that on a lane too narrow for a car to pass legally, with thorny hedges both sides, some drivers still use the horn.
-
I have to driver my work truck (Its a Big Kenworth 24+ ton's) along this road most days! it is not very wide I have only 300mm of room from side of road to the centre of the road. It is hard work to stay left of the centre line (with no cyclist or runner's about) I do not like cycling on this road because there is no room to pull over (if I would like too) Trucks can NOT just slow down when you come around a bent or over a hill :o with 18 gears to change down with engine brake on full it just takes time....
I've ridden plenty of country roads here in Australia in 35 years of cycle-touring. I've googled the Streetview of the road where this death occurred..... even the exact location (it was on double yellow lines, only one section of double yellows on the road as far as I can see). The road is a typical two-lane country road, not too much different to a lot of country roads here in Australia.
I've ridden with trucks passing, sometimes quite a lot. I've nearly always found them to be the most considerate drivers on the roads. They do not seem to have too much difficulty with slowing, changing down, timing their run and changing lanes to overtake. If they can't they are usually quite patient to wait until safe. I practice appropriate 'road presence' strategies and it all seems to work well for me.
This road for example (https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ll=-38.162125,141.285686&spn=0.06951,0.169086&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=-38.162125,141.285686&panoid=bVnZLIONt-DiyKBU2Jefzw&cbp=12,270,,0,0) had lots of trucks, truck-trailer pulp carriers, driving both ways. Not a huge amount of room and double-lines, but the truck drivers were superb to us.
Along that tour we usually rode in this sort of position on the roads (keeping left of course if vehicles were coming by and driving reasonably). I wonder how Spanish police would respond to this under the new rules?:
Great Ocean Road past Lavers Hill -100kmh road
(http://smile.webshots.com/images/7c116c2ba0aba6a645a97cd41329880f22ce954ae1ad8010fedb415fe722f34e/jpg/800x600)
Princes Hwy along the Coorong - 110kmh road
(http://smile.webshots.com/images/35b72efc9b9d69b25164ffecc28748ac241c121b80e9f20cf20cd678efe337ca/jpg/800x600)
On a different tour, but similar responsible safe riding, Tasman Hwy, St Helens east coast of Tasmania - 60kmh road
(http://smile.webshots.com/images/2fd30a04844c4fd44c93ae646318e9b425943ea3f8e1c9583fee3ba9ffbda711/jpg/800x600)
-
Yes, it is a lot safer in my experience. This only works if traffic is reasonably slow though, since otherwise you would possibly provoke anger and dangerous maneuvers. Drivers tend to be understanding if you block the lane where it is narrow as long as you let them pass as soon as it is safe.
This shows how lane claiming can work, even on relatively high speed roads, with cyclists riding at normal cycling speeds
http://vimeo.com/17502384
-
I used my helmet most of the last trip, but that said, if they pass mandatory helmet laws here ... I will be done with cycling. After the helmet laws pass, I expect another good idea from motorcycle life to be suggested next; the spine protector ... and perhaps full leathers as well ... I mean you can never be too prepared for when that truck hits ya. I wonder if mandatory risk insurance, as suggested in Canada may not be a good life saver too. Heck ... if dem cyclists don't get on the road in the first place we will save a lot of lives. Now that is a motto I can understand ... from the drivers side of maah Truck.
Slippery slopes.
-
Why do cyclists not pay road taxs?
I'm asked this most days from Car and Truck drivers?
Pete
:o
-
Hi All!
Bicycle licensing (for revenue generation, hopefully to be plowed back into bike-related things) and extending the Youth Helmet law from age 16 and below to 18 and below are currently under consideration by the Oregon legislature in the current session.
So far, the greatest opposition to extending the youth helmet law has come from organized bicycle groups in the state, who fear it will increase the perception that cycling is a "dangerous" sport and will have a cooling effect on participation, amounting to an anti-cycling law.
As it is, the current law here is not enforced with any sort of consistency if at all. I see little kids (really little!) riding around all the time without helmets, right past police officers who do nothing in response. At the same time, I'll see parents without helmets take great care to put on on their child. The (half-facetious) question begs: Who has the most to lose here? The adult with a head full of knowledge, parental responsibilities and a wage-earner and contributing member of society...or a little kid with a lifetime of experiences yet to go?
I hope this won't start the Great (and always unwinnable) Helmet Debate on the Forum (Please! As Forum member and Administrator, I beg you all on bended knee!).
However, such laws are symptomatic of efforts toward greater overall regulation of cycling. A good part of it (here in 'Merka) is related to our penchant for tort claims and monetary awards for damages. Part of it is related to insurance premiums and risk categories for "dangerous" pursuits. Part of it is...well, maybe we know more about the sad consequences of being Unsafe and the bankrupting personal medical costs that can now result. When I was a little kid, my father owned a 1949 Willys Jeep. It didn't have enough seating for all, and the preferred seat was an unsecured wooden house chair sliding around on the wood-slatted deck in the covered cargo area. Corners and panic stops were fun from my chair-skittering perspective and nothing Bad ever happened, thank goodness. Neither the Jeep or the other car (we kept them for decades, it was a 1957 Mercury Montclair...and this was in the early 1970s) had a single seatbelt and all interior contact surfaces were steel. Now, of course, I latch the seatbelt/shoulder harness before I turn the key and worry the '89 Honda doesn't have a single airbag. It is a jungle Out There on the road.
My fellow drivers (I drive too!) aren't as careful as they once were. Every day the evening news carries horrific stories of cars crossing the center line and taking out oncoming traffic and innocent trees and utility poles. Cyclists and pedestrians are being run over at alarming rates, and in-car distractions are growing by the day. Riding along in traffic and stopping at traffic lights allows me to see inside. People are watching televisions on flip-down sun visors or half-silvered rearview mirror monitors, texting or talking on cell phones (and submitting eBay bids!), eating, shaving, applying makeup, swatting kids in the back seat...everything, it seems, but driving or watching out for cyclists like myself and others. On several occasions in the last year, I've been forced to leave the road and take to the ditch when my rearview mirror showed a closing SUV approaching from the rear, two wheels over the fog line onto the shoulder where I was riding. If I hadn't done so, I wouldn't be writing this now.
And, some of the cyclists I've seen can hardly be held blameless for their behavior. Riding wrong-way against traffic, lane-splitting, darting unsignalled across cars' right of way, and blowing stop signs and traffic lights. behaviors like this tend to alarm and inflame and don't exactly help the cyclists' cause. It seems endemic among riders based near the local uni. Hurried cyclists carving through pedestrians on sidewalks aren't a happy mix either. There's enough blame to go 'round.
So, where does it end? Here, the daily newspaper carries frequent letters to the editor endorsing bicycle licensing as a means to Make Cyclists Pay Their Own Way...forgetting most American cyclists also own and operate cars and so fund road taxes via registration fees and gas (petrol) taxes. I think part of the problem here is bicycles are still viewed by many as (sometimes expensive) toys that belong on the sidewalk or in parks. A young Portland driver recently Tweeted this photo: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BArU7i2CIAAwqFa.jpg with the caption, "Bikers that bike in the middle of the street like this are so annoying. Like have you ever heard of a sidewalk?" Mmmno, the rider is following safe procedure, establishing his intent to proceed straight through the intersection and preventing a car from turning right over him. There's no bike lanes pictured, and his intent is in letter-perfect compliance with procedure listed in the Oregon State Cycle Operator's Manual. Still, it bothered her enough to photograph and post her complaint. A car driver recently rolled down her passenger-side window to upbraid me for riding in the curbside cycle lane. "Get off the road!", she screamed, "Would you play tennis in the middle of the street? Ride on the sidewalk where you belong!" and roared away when the light changed, giving me a single-fingered salute in parting.
A friend in the insurance business recently warned me to think twice about posting bike ride-related photos and material on my Facebook page, saying it is now standard procedure for some of the larger companies to do a Google search for Facebook and Twitter posts that could reveal "undue risk behaviors" among clients and use these as a means for setting rates and deductibles. Yikes. I'm a goner there if they ever find my Thorn Forum posts.
There's times I'd like to see more evidence of personal responsibility, as I saw in The Netherlands. I was touring a windmill and talking with the miller on an unfenced deck after climbing a very steep spiral staircase absent a handrail. Pretty soon, I heard children's voices and a couple very small kids raced up the stairs ahead of their parents. I voiced some concern to the miller and wondered about liability in the event of a fall or accident. His response? A shrug and "If they fall, perhaps they were't holding on tightly enough. They have parents". Brought me back to childhood.
Putting oneself in the other person's place and sharing -- really sharing -- (like we were taught in kindergarten) would go a long ways toward alleviating many bike-car conflicts.
Best,
Dan.
-
although comemly called road tax in the UK I believe the correct term is "Vehicle Excise Duty" this is aplicable only to motor vechles. Roads are funded through general taxation not Vehicle Excise Duty and currently there is no reason why cyclists should pay 'road tax' as road tax doesn't exist and Vehicle Excise Duty does not fund roads. :) :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/mar/18/cyclists-road-tax-drivers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty
Ewan
-
Why do cyclists not pay road taxs? I'm asked this most days from Car and Truck drivers?
Hi Pete!
The best answer I've found recently is contained in an editorial appearing in my local newspaper a week ago: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29643166-78/taxes-bicycles-bike-transportation-bicyclists.html.csp
The reader comments that follow the editorial (further down the page at the link above) are...surreal when taken in their entirely.
A nice followup from a reader is posted under the title, "Bicycling produces economic gains" on the Letters to the Editor page in a latwr edition of the same newspaper: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29661692-78/eugene-energy-forests-million-program.html.csp
Best,
Dan.
-
although comemly called road tax in the UK I believe the correct term is "Vehicle Excise Duty" this is aplicable only to motor vechles. Roads are funded through general taxation not Vehicle Excise Duty and currently there is no reason why cyclists should pay 'road tax' as road tax doesn't exist and Vehicle Excise Duty does not fund roads. :) :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/mar/18/cyclists-road-tax-drivers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty
Ewan
And what's more, cyclists ride the roads by unfetterered right, whereas motorists are clearly such dangerous and antisocial entities that they come on the roads only by conditional license for both the vehicle and the operator.
Andre Jute
-
...cyclists ride the roads by unfetterered right, whereas motorists are clearly such dangerous and antisocial entities that they come on the roads only by conditional license for both the vehicle and the operator
;D Love it! Beautifully stated, Andre.
Best,
Dan. (...whose whole day was made brighter by that well-phrased statement of our esteemed Mr. Jute)
-
You can now drive a car on UK roads without paying VED providing it had CO2 emissions <100g/km. A car kicking out 99g/km is still far more polluting than a bike so maybe we should be paid to go on the road 8).
Most drivers complaining about this are speaking from ignorance, and I bet most would have a fit if they realised that most motorbikes pay nothing either. I'm assuming they don't know this because I've never seen bikers being subject to the same accusation.
-
Most drivers complaining about this are speaking from ignorance, and I bet most would have a fit if they realised that most motorbikes pay nothing either. I'm assuming they don't know this because I've never seen bikers being subject to the same accusation.
But Motorcycles are Speed Limited ::) Bicycles are not ;)
OK, OK, Yes Motorcycles go fast but Max Speed is set to 320kph ;D
Just having fun with you all, We all just need to get out more and cycle. cycle....
Pete
;)
-
Yes, in the UK Winston Churchill abolished 'road tax' in 1937. Ever since roads have been paid for from general revenue and local taxes. As mentioned most cyclists are also vehicle owners too. There is a campaign to educate people on these facts in the UK ...
http://ipayroadtax.com/ (http://ipayroadtax.com/)
In fact, the rapid improvement of the road system in the UK in the late 19th and early 20th century was at the demands of cyclists wanting a better road surface to ride on. Cyclists should be honoured by car drivers for helping to improve the road system!
Cycle training organisations actually encourage you take up a positive road position too.
As for helmets, it is better to leave it to choice. I would certainly advocate that children wear helmets, and adults too in urban areas, however the choice should be up to the individual. Compulsory helmet rules have been shown to discourage cycling uptake. Spokes (the Edinburgh and Lothian cycle campaign) will not take advertising from organisations that make helmet wearing compulsory during an event!
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/documents/internal-documents/spokes-advertising-policy/ (http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/documents/internal-documents/spokes-advertising-policy/)
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/documents/advice/helmets/ (http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/documents/advice/helmets/)
(Edinburgh has just been voted the 'most sensible city' in the UK by the way!)
As well as discouraging cyclists by making helmet wearing compulsory, I read somewhere that in certain more minor accidents, the helmet can cause an increase in the rotational forces exerted on the brain leading to increased head trauma. Interesting thought!
Lots more here if you have time to spare ...
http://cyclehelmets.org/
PHEW!
-
as we know, the law brought in in Australia significantly reduced the number of cyclists whereas prior to the law cyclist numbers were on the increase:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html
less cyclists mean less funding for cyclists and bike infrastructure.
-
I'm no mathematician but did the decrease in numbers of cyclists also decrease the numbers of folk admitted to A & E with head injuries, on a pro rata basis?
Before I get flamed, can I say that I think helmets should be a free choice.
-
here's the figures on pre and post Ozzy helmet law. showing that the percentage of hospital admissions and head injuries rose after the helmet law was introduced.
it also shows that bringing in speed checks were a big factor in reducing serious injuries.
on the whole it would seem the helmet law had no effect or worse effect on percentage of cyclist fatalities.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html
what isn't mentioned is the fact that cycling keeps a person fit and therefore costs the country less in health support. if they bring in helmet laws, less people cycle and more people become unhealthy and more people die of heart disease etc.
-
The policy analyst in me always hopes data from such studies are at least considered in other areas when pondering new legislation. So often, it seems the wheel (sorry) has to be re-invented ever anon because "that's there and this is here".
Best,
Dan.
-
The policy analyst in me always hopes data from such studies are at least considered in other areas when pondering new legislation. So often, it seems the wheel (sorry) has to be re-invented ever anon because "that's there and this is here".
Best,
Dan.
Or , that was then and this is now.
Over here we have a type of person called a "jobsworth". Someone who goes by the book no matter what.
And of course, all this revision keeps someone in a job!
;)
-
Look All :o
Helmet Law's are here to Stay in OZ and NZ!
Get Over It
I have had My Life Saved by having a Helmet on My Head :o 2 X So Far, and been Saved from Brain Damage 3 more times :-[
So Why not wear one ?
(Would you all like some Wood to Build a Bridge and get over it?)
Pete
;)
Sorry to Say this But too Me You All are Anti to any Cycling Law's
-
Best ones here are kerb crawlers with a helmet on. Can't be too safe?
In cars/pedestrians people die of head injuries all that time too...should they wear a helmet too? Pedestrians go quite slow yet death of head injuries is not uncommon.
If these people were hit by cars, should they wear a helmet cos the driver wasn't paying attention? Should the car not have an external airbag instead?
Motorbikes/mopeds goes way faster than pushbikes which increases the impact as energy = mass*speed(squared) so it's not an direct comparison with a pushbike either (unless you are a road cyclist and going for it, but even so if you get hit by a car...it's curtains)
What gets me a bit is that here in NI people wear helmets for two things:
A Massive Potholes/bad roads. Good, fair enough, a helmet is designed for low speed falls (though whose fault is it the roads are so bad?)
B To protect against cars. That's where I get irritated as they are not designed for such impact speeds/energy and if a car gets you, it won't just get your head. There's no proof that it will reduce deaths that much, or at all, while it takes away perceived responsibility of car drivers (hey they didn't wear a helmet, like it's some magic tool) and makes cycling look more dangerous that walking/driving which per mile in the UK it isn't.
Didn't help somebody nearly sideswiped me and I ended up getting a cycling helmet "just in case" lecture of a concerned motorist. Not going to help against legally blind drivers is it?
GRRRRRRR where's my tablets lol
-
Hi Pete that's the issue with laws: They may help some, but hinder others.
So assuming the helmet helped you, say we MUST wear one: If on a country wide scale that reduces cycling and increases death rate due to lack of exercise, lack of critical mass of cyclists, or if it invites motorists to driving inconsiderately, and increases death rate the whole country may be worse of.
That's the snag, it's not just about you and me ;)
-
Hi Pete that's the issue with laws: They may help some, but hinder others.
So assuming the helmet helped you, say we MUST wear one: If on a country wide scale that reduces cycling and increases death rate due to lack of exercise, lack of critical mass of cyclists, or if it invites motorists to driving inconsiderately, and increases death rate the whole country may be worse of.
That's the snag, it's not just about you and me ;)
Well I meet a Lady last week,
That is lucky to be alive! She was in the back seat of a s car! a on coming car crossed the centre lineinto there lane (lady was txting and died)
So that Lady was saved by her Seatbelt! But it also almost cut her in half!
Do you wear a seatbelt or Not?
Yes some cyclist may stop cycling if you have too wear a Helmet (like when Motorcyclist had to start wearing Helmets but atfer time there started riding again)
Why have My tax's pay for help to a cyclist that would have been ok if He/or She had a Helmet on?
Pete
-
......
Why have My tax's pay for help to a cyclist that would have been ok if He/or She had a Helmet on?
Pete
Same reason your taxes pay for any number of things you might disagree with.
-
Seatbelts are known to be very, very, very effective in car crashes in reducing death rate, injury to both wearer and passengers.
Cycle helmets are not proven to be reduce death rate atm, or injuries in car crashes. They *may* but the jury is out. And it's better if there was no crash to begin with...
Just trying to point out that it's not as easy as saying one person saved so therefore they should be mandatory
...or one person is inconvenienced so they should not be mandatory, as motorbike helmets and seatbelts are mandatory.
The questions I guess can be: Do cycle helmets, in total, for the whole population, save lives/health?
Under what circumstances can these help?
What are the costs of these in monetary terms?
What are the costs in number of cycling terms?
-
The questions I guess can be: Do cycle helmets, in total, for the whole population, save lives/health?
Yes
Under what circumstances can these help?
When someone falls off and hits their head.
What are the costs of these in monetary terms?
Very little, if you can afford a bike, then you can afford a helmet.
What are the costs in number of cycling terms?
Who cares? It shouldn't be my responsibility to look after someone else's kids because they couldn't see the connection between wearing a helmet and being safer.
-
Who cares? It shouldn't be my responsibility to look after someone else's kids because they couldn't see the connection between wearing a helmet and being safer.
I find this a little insensitive TBH. While helmet threads always end up rather fierce (like Apple Macintosh VS PC, Should have a front brake on a fixed wheel, Tories VS Labour etc etc.) to blankly say about another human being "tough, not my problem" crosses the line a bit for me.
A society like that may not help you either, as it means if you make a mistake (didn't triplecheck coming out of a junction on your bike, a car hits you) the response of others may be in kind: Your fault, you pay.
Back on topic: http://cyclehelmets.org/1250.html:
Alberta's helmet law – children's cycling halved, injuries increased per cyclist
Anyhoo this is all on helmets, some members already posted tricks to prevent accidents from being considerate (always good advice, whether you cycle or drive) to road side position.
I tend to block a lane when not sure. This isn't always appreciated (some idiot woman driver nearly cutting into me and the kerb highway code anyone?) but I prefer this to being pushed into the "door zone" of parked cars, or the kerb which the result of trying to find my teeth.
I do try to be aware of car blind spots too and won't sit into cars on traffic lights etc. As there's no need to scare the heck out of people for a few seconds.
-
I find this a little insensitive TBH. While helmet threads always end up rather fierce (like Apple Macintosh VS PC, Should have a front brake on a fixed wheel, Tories VS Labour etc etc.) to blankly say about another human being "tough, not my problem" crosses the line a bit for me.
You cant have it both ways.
You cant ignore what is blatant common sense and then turn on the water works when people dont want to help because you caused your own predicament.
Your question was what is the effect of a cycling helmet law on the numbers of people cycling and the response is simply who cares, I certainly do not care if such a law reduced the number of people cycling. Lets face it, a helmet law only negatively effects those people who are too stubborn to wear one.
-
Well said and too the Point Zerobike.
As I said i'm Alive and with very little Brain Damage because of having on a Helmet!
Pete
-
[<ting-ting!> Goes the Admin's bell...<ting-ting!>]
Oh...crumb. The Great Helmet Debate has broken out.
Few topics are as divisive. I think the root of all Forum flame wars may be contained here.
Sigh.
A gentle reminder of ground rules to all, as we move inevitably forward:
• Spirited -- even passionate -- discussion and airing of opinions is fine, just don't descend to personal attacks.
• Before you press the "POST" button, think about how your words might be perceived without a realtime context. Emoticons may be your friend here.
• Don't be deliberately insulting. Remember, not everyone is as intelligent as you. Some of us need a patient explanation to get there. Patience helps when dealing with the ignorant (i.e. everyone with an opposing view).
• Play nicely. Don't run with scissors. It's all fun till someone gets hurt or loses an eye.
• Please keep any helmet discussions contained to the Muppets board.
If things stray too far from the original topic (Anti-Cycling Laws), I'll split the topic. Not to quell debate, but if a truly separate helmet topic breaks out, it deserves its own topic header so each topic can blossom and grow fully.
<ting-ting>
Things are going well at present and I have no desire to quell debate; just thought I'd offer some a priori cautions going forward since this topic often takes a sad turn in online discussions, leaving hurt feelings in its wake.
All the best,
Dan. (...a surviving veteran of the Great Listserv and USENET Helmet Wars of the Early '90s)
-
"You cant ignore what is blatant common sense and then turn on the water works when people dont want to help because you caused your own predicament."
Did you read the links I posted? You would, common sense, think a helmet law reduces injuries. The link I posted show it doesn't always work that way when you make it mandatory to wear one.
"Your question was what is the effect of a cycling helmet law on the numbers of people cycling and the response is simply who cares, I certainly do not care if such a law reduced the number of people cycling. Lets face it, a helmet law only negatively effects those people who are too stubborn to wear one."
Again read the links. Mandatory helmet laws may make it worse for all of us. If the rate of accidents goes UP you may still end up getting injured as the helmet may reduce the severity of the injury, but not getting hit by a car in the first place is better ;)
Just trying to point out that sometimes laws can have unintended consequences that's all. I am not talking about voluntary helmet use, I mean what you put on your head is your own choice :)
-
So your saying that having a protective layer on your head is less safe than not having one.
I can guarantee that if someone was about to drop a brick on your head and offered you the choice of wearing a helmet, you along with any right-thinking person would take that helmet.
The reason you dont think helmets are necessary is that you dont think you will ever have an accident. No matter how safely you ride, you cannot reduce the chances of having an accident to zero. At the point that you have an accident the only thing you can rely on is safety equipment such as helmets.
As for the links you provided, the internet is a big place, you can find a study to prove anything. There are millions of people using the internet and anyone is free to publish anything they like, and unlike traditional studies, they are not subject to peer review. You are anti-helmets, so obviously you are going to look for studies that support your point of view (I dare say the point of view came before the research began). So the fact that you are able to post links is in itself meaningless as the links themselves have not gone through a peer review process.
-
So your saying that having a protective layer on your head is less safe than not having one.
###In a whole population, yes.
Bear in mind I am talking about mandatory helmets for ALL. Not voluntary helmets.
I can guarantee that if someone was about to drop a brick on your head and offered you the choice of wearing a helmet, you along with any right-thinking person would take that helmet.
###But if it was a feather cushion would they? And do you wear one when walking? Cos they help too.
A cycle helmet is designed to absorb a certain amount of energy. This means they have a sweet spot in which these work. They will not work when the energy is too high, low or when you break your neck *to put it bluntly*
For a very low speed fall: A helmet won't hurt, but won't help either as injuries are minimal anyway.
For falls at a certain speed: A helmet will reduce injury and is recommended, see for example cycle racing, downhilling.
For falls at a very high speed: A helmet may not help anymore as the impact energy is so high that the amount absorbed by the helmet makes no difference.
Note how the speed makes a difference. If a helmet invites you to riskier behavior OVER what it can absorb there is no benefit.
Now the next big thing: Crashes with cars.
That is where it gets problematic.
As stated above the impact energy the helmet can absorb is quite low, and only on the head. If a car/bus/truck crushes you, there's no help If you don't hit your head, it's no help either.
So the window where the helmet *may* help is if you hit your head in such a manner that the impact energy is not too high. This is where the jury is out.
Now looking at the above examples you would think "ok, helps against pot holes generally, might not work against cars, so surely there will be some benefit in mandatory helmet laws?".
The data doesn't support this. Now, there can be many reasons.
For example: Car drivers may take more risks. Cyclists may take more risks. The reducing in cyclists may mean more risks. There is however some countries where cyclists reported MORE injuries per mile cycled. Which is exactly what you don't want, you want the helmet to keep you safe.
The reason you dont think helmets are necessary is that you dont think you will ever have an accident. No matter how safely you ride, you cannot reduce the chances of having an accident to zero.
###I agree that you can't reduce the odds of an accident to zero. However, in the style of cycle I do (commuting in town) the main risk is a car collision. There's no proof a helmet is going to do much at all there, there is some proof cars give helmet wearing cyclists less room, which increases the odds of an accident.
Would I do downhilling/road racing/snow cycling/cycling on really bad roads yes I'd wear a helmet as then the benefit is clear.
The internet is a big place, so is The Netherlands where accident/injury rates are much lower than the UK...and so is helmet wearing. In Australia accident rates also went UP after a mandatory helmet law.
Therein lies the snag.
-
I hope you never end up in a situation where you realize you were wrong about all of this!
-
Good point Zero
I am with you on this but my poor brain got lost on your logic.
Re the brick on the head / helmet issue. Shouldn't we all be wearing helmets all the time then?
Guess not - so perhaps silly of me to carry on with the analogy.
Whenever I ride without a helmet i feel I am being foolish.
So I don't often do it.
As for rules? I am generally agin 'em.
Matt
-
Good point Zero
I am with you on this but my poor brain got lost on your logic.
Re the brick on the head / helmet issue. Shouldn't we all be wearing helmets all the time then?
Guess not - so perhaps silly of me to carry on with the analogy.
Whenever I ride without a helmet i feel I am being foolish.
So I don't often do it.
As for rules? I am generally agin 'em.
Matt
The idea with the brick is simply this.
All things fall at the same rate. A brick weighs about the same as your head and therefore a brick dropped from around 2 metres hits your head with roughly the same force as your head would hit the floor.
Actually this isnt quite true as a rider will have significantly more kinetic energy than the brick as the brick isnt travelling at speeds up to 40 mph (an easy speed to achieve downhill) so actually the brick will more than likely hit your head with less force than your head will hit the floor when falling.
Now noone in their right mind would refuse to wear a helmet if they were told that someone was about to drop a brick on them yet people will happily put themselves in a similar situation by riding without a helmet.
Its also worth remembering that just as a judo expert practices falling correctly, as a human being you have a lifetimes experience of falling whilst walking or running and most people will instinctively put their hands out in front of them to break their fall. This experience does not translate well to falling off a bike. Anyone who has ever fallen off a chair will know that for some reason (lack of experience) its very hard to break your fall.
Falling from a bike is a lot different to falling whilst walking, even though the distance you fall is pretty similar. Again for example, a lot of the time you fall off a bike you will fall to the side yet your hands will be in front of you and you will not ba able to twist as easily as your legs are straddling the frame.
I cannot see any link between wearing a helmet and being less safe. At the same time I do realize that wearing a helmet is not a magic solution and there will be many situations where the helmet offers no additional protection. Helmets are , however, vary cheap and therefore additional safety is being achieved with a very low cost and it is this low cost that makes me think they should be mandatory. Why would any sensible person put their life at risk for $30? Most people have dependents, the law isnt really there to protect the wearer of the helmet (although it does) the law is there to protect the families of people too stubborn to do the sensible thing.
-
I must say i do find this topic a bit comical. To wear a helmet or not to wear a helmet. Being left to peoples own choice seems the most sensible solution. If they are going to make wearing helmets mandatory based on it may help and they are cheap why not make strapping pillows to your arms and legs while cycling mandatory as I am sure they would help and are also cheap.
As far as I am concerned the fewer things they make mandatory the more people are forced to think and make the right choices for the right situations.
-
"I hope you never end up in a situation where you realize you were wrong about all of this!"
If Jawine did, I hope you'd not be so crass as to deploy it as anecdotal evidence to support your position or say "I told you so". Hollow assertions of concern over another's safety may be taking rhetoric a bit far.
The cyclehelmet link refers to a peer reviewed paper. Peer review, however, is no guarantor against bias, poor logic or discord. Without the last understanding would stagnate.
Neither is the Internet entirely untrustworthy; presumably you think your own on line arguments have validity. Indeed, on line communities may be able to identify and challenge errors with reasonable efficiency (I won't allude a crowd's claimed wisdom, it can quickly become mob rule).
Jawine is to be commended for presenting her case in a reasonable, compellingly argued manner.
I choose to wear a helmet on all my commuting and leisure rides.
Yours, James
-
"Why would any sensible person put their life at risk for $30? Most people have dependents, the law isnt really there to protect the wearer of the helmet (although it does) the law is there to protect the families of people too stubborn to do the sensible thing."
Well that's the problem, for me. Judging by how accident injury rates went UP in some countries (which is completely counter intuitive, but may have to do with how people react to helmets, eg less room by car drivers etc.) the law may in the end NOT protect the stubborn.
As the issue is, as always, odds. The individual that hit a pothole may have been saved injury, but the mandatory laws may mean that for that individual somebody else got clipped by a car "cos the helmet protects them".
I agree bias etc. are a problem in studies, but to me the law should focus to PREVENT accidents. Eg make sure nobody drops that brick ;) There's quite a few countries where they manage to do just that, Germany, Netherlands, by enforcing driving standards properly and ensuring proper traffic flow.
I did have one fall in my whole adult life on a bike. Wet manhole cover...middle of the road...brand new mega hard kevlar tires...cornering hard. Not doing that again, no falls since. Slowest cornering cyclist on the road :P
-
nicely put J Westland.
you've probably all seen this story not so long ago :
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379627/Cyclist-dies-after-bike-hits-pothole
-
Jeezo, my head is going to burst on this one! :'(
Bare with me, please.
So we should work on the prevention....
I agree bias etc. are a problem in studies, but to me the law should focus to PREVENT accidents. Eg make sure nobody drops that brick Wink There's quite a few countries where they manage to do just that, Germany, Netherlands, by enforcing driving standards properly and ensuring proper traffic flow.
So we ban wet manwhole covers?
???
As I said before - I think it makes sense to wear one but I cannae get my head around any logical answer to whether or not it should be made compulsory. And I do try to have an open mind on this question, honest.
-
Not sure we can ban wet manhole covers but the specification of manhole covers can be changed to have a non slip surface. The majority of manhole covers (about 80%) in the UK are manufactured by Stanton Plc. We (I used to be the commercial director there in former life) offered products with non slip surface coating but as this was above and beyond what is required by government specification they were only bought in small numbers for specialist applications (apparently fork lift trucks dont like wet manhole covers either)
Andy
-
RE Bikerwaser link:
:(
Unfortunately only so much you can do, but it still feels so preventable to me.
http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/ is a good reporting site. Roads here aren't great, but luckily no falls for me yet just a bust rear rim. And that was pretty worn anyway...
As for wet manholes covers, anti-slip would be nice, it helps motorists too. It seems costs is the issue?