Anti cycling law

[ZeroBike]

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.

[Andybg]

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.

[jimmer]

"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

[JWestland]

"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

[bikerwaser]

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

[Matt2matt2002]

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.

[Andybg]

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

[JWestland]

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?