I like his comment about different road users needing to understand each other. I'd like to see several months of compulsory road cycling made a part of the driving test. I'd also like to see cyclists who act as though the traffic signals don't apply to them hit with sticks.
I wish I could say I was surprised by this, but I've been dubious about helmets on bicycles (for many reasons) for some time, and this is yet another indicator of the complexity of the risk equations here.
The biggest improvement in road manners from other vehicles I've ever experienced while cycling was when I went to riding something *much* more unusual looking than a regular bicycle (a recumbent trike). I get much better treatment from vehicles, who actually have to *think* about passing me as a vehicle.
And for the record, I don't wear a helmet on the trike mostly - you couldn't fall off and bump your head unless things had gone *so* badly wrong that a helmet wouldn't help.
Giolla says pretty much the same about the trike, and having been out cycling with him just the other day (me on bike, him on trike) I have to agree that it's definitely noticeable.
Personally, I don't wear a helmet on the bike for safety reasons. I'm gearing up to the big one-off lj post about it, after which I'm not going to talk about it any more, ever, because it's one of those arguments that gets very boring, very quickly ;)
I read this stuff primarily from the motorcycling angle, where the argument has been going around since (literally) the year I was born... no sign of any resolution yet :)
*groan* - those points'd be deserved it it was intentional ;)
If I rode a motorbike, I'd wear a helmet. No question. As a pushbike rider, I don't. No question. I keep starting with my reasons, then deleting - it can wait for the big post on the subject. Also, for a level of coherency that I just don't have at this time in the morning ;)
I'd be interested to read it, when you get the chance - this is one of those things where there seems to be a massive disconnect in perspective between Aus and here, so I'm curious to hear how other people look at it...
Yeah, I read about the attitude in Aus when I was researching before I made my decision - comparative accident statistics between Aus and here make for interesting reading, and form part of my big "why I don't wear a helmet" speech ;)
Seems like another reason to put off getting myself a lid - I need one to ride organised parks like Chicksands or Aston Hill - but as I havent been there yet I havent got a lid yet. Even then I am only gonna get a pisspot!
I am guilty of giving serious looking cyclists less room when driving than the wobbly paperboy on his BMX - but I strongly believe that cyclists should be on the pavement anyway. I always ride on the pavement unless there is a genuine reason not too. I figure if the cop wants to fine me £30 he has to catch me first - its not like I have a numberplate to trace.
I'm curious where pedestrians fit into this, knowing several people who have suffered injuries as a result of idiots cycling on the pavement...
In the Netherlands (at least the couple of places I visited), it was pretty normal to see a separate section of the road reserved for cyclists - which strikes me as the best of both worlds. I'm not sure whether London could justify a similar strategy (much bigger area, comparatively fewer cyclists) but I imagine the lack of space would nix the idea before it could get off the ground!
I give way to pedestrians. I will ride on the road when the pavement is full - round schools at kicking out time for example.
TBH there are so few pedestrians on the pavement most of the time and so many cars on the road it is the only sensible thing to do.
if I am driving I want the cycles on the pavement (they are a hazard - and with cars parked on the road ilegal to overtake) and I haven't met a car driver yet who hasn't agreed that bikes are better off on the paths.
Giving way to pedestrians is all well and good, but they are significantly less predictable than cars - in my time as a motorcyclist in Australia, I never once saw a car sidestep or wheel around on the spot and continue back the way they came (ie, not a U-turn).
If foot traffic is sparse enough to allow giving pedestrians a very wide birth, I'm comfortable riding on the pavement - but for even moderate amounts of traffic, I feel far safer on the roads.
NB: in the UK, I neither cycle nor ride a motorbike, so take my opinion with a grain of salt :)
I'd prefer cyclists to be on the path too - speaking as a pedestrian and driver. They're a lot closer in size, speed and potential for being injured to a pedestrian than they are to a car.
Obviously cycle paths are the ideal solution, but most areas don't have them.
Hmmm. I think cycle paths can seem like a bit of a panacea to people who aren't cyclists (possibly because of the attractive idea that you could limit cyclists to their own "ghetto" and stop us being an irritant to other road users), but in actual fact most of them are a bit useless, so it always gets my hackles up a bit when people say things like "obviously cycle paths are the ideal solution".
Most cycle paths are one of the following: a) shared with pedestrians, many of whom don't have a very good awareness of the fact that cyclists have a right to be there too. b) non-separated paths painted on at the side of the road, where cars park and broken glass is habitually swept into. (The so-called "door zone" will be an issue for motorcyclists too, I would imagine.) c) at the side and separated: good in some ways but rather narrow, which can be a problem if, say, large delivery trucks park in them because it's the only way they can unload (you can't swerve as you're hemmed in by the paving separating you from the road) and can be dangerous at either end, where you sometimes have to cross diagonally at a junction. Also, you'd be amazed how many pedestrians treat them as an extention of the pavement, and don't check before stepping out right in front of you.
The truth is, I don't know what would make a good cycle path in our current road climate. It seems to me the whole system is outdated and needs an overhaul, and that includes clearing up ambiguities in the Highway Code that leave everyone not quite knowing where we stand as different types of road user. There's nothing more irritating than being called a stupid cow by a car driver or a motorcyclist for some imagined infraction of which I am not guilty (this has happened), simply because the other did not realise that what I was doing was valid and legal. I fully appreciate that cyclists are seen by drivers (and probably motorcyclists) as kind of the mosquitoes of the roads, if you will: irritants that get in your way but you have to look out for nevertheless, and so impede your progress. But I don't think that compelling cyclists to use cycle paths is the answer.
And I certainly don't think moving us onto the pavements is either. Have you seen how many people are cycling on road in London now? Can you imagine what it would be like if we were all forced onto the pavements? It would be a ped killing field. :o)
And one last thing FWIW: cyclists who break the rules annoy the hell out of me too.
I don't think bikers have any objections to cyclists - plenty of room for us both in any normal road situation. It's pizza mopeds I objected to when I was riding a motorbike in London :)
I lived in Milton Keynes from age 16 through 29, which has a rather nice cycle-path system - they're well clear of the road, and pedestrians were allowed to use them, but very aware that it was a cycle path network. So yeah, proper cycle paths are an ideal solution, as far as I can see.
Of course, there's nowhere to put them in London - they were designed in from day one in MK. "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here..."
Of course, there's nowhere to put them in London - they were designed in from day one in MK. "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here..."
Agreed.
Incidentally, on the cycle helmets point (dragging myself back on topic); it's only after I took up cycle commuting that I really started to question their usefulness. I used to worry that stefanc never wore one. Now I don't give two hoots as I think it's unlikely to help. So that's an interesting article, thanks.
Have you read cyclehelmets.org? Tons of stuff about why they're really not a lot of use at all - and, to be unbiased, a bit of pro-helmet stuff as well. Mostly anti though, as it seems most of the findings *are* anti.
Helmets are good for serious cyclists - in races and when out and about doing much higher average speeds. I think in towns it doesn't really matter either way. Having said that when I was hit by a car in London, if I hadn't have had concussion I could have had decent pain killers for my broken collar bone.
As for Cambridge, when you are 7 1/2 months pregnant, having cyclists wizzing round you on the pavement is terrifying. I'd rather cyclist had separate bits of path or segregated bits of road. When I first moved to Cambridge I found all the shared pavements wierd and dangerous - this is someone used to cycling in London and before that Holland.
Don't know - I would imagine, similar to a motorbike, that at higher speeds it may make all the difference. Helmets are mandatory for Cycle races like the London Triathlon etc. I'm not sure anyone has done research from this angle.
Actually motorcycle helmets are less effective at speed. In some states in the USA they're even labelled "Not effective for collisions over 15 km/h".
The whole area of helmets and safety is a bit contentious - I'd be wary of making guesses about the subject. There is a lot of research out there, and the findings are very mixed.
The belief that "it's a law/rule so it must be a good idea" makes me grin :)
Actually motorcycle helmets are less effective at speed. In some states in the USA they're even labelled "Not effective for collisions over 15 km/h".
Oooh, that's very interesting to know. Any links to evidence? (Not that I disbelieve you at all, I just like having evidence ;) )
As for mixed findings - I'm having great trouble finding *sound* pro-helmet (pushbike) research. I understand there are difficulties in researching the subject, but there must be *some* out there... surely...
There's something called the Hurt Report, but I can only find indirect references to it. This page has quite a lot of analysis of various accident stats before and after helmet laws were introduced in various areas: http://www.msabate.com/facts.html
We are having the same conversation about child seats - they are tested up to no more than 30mph for the most part, Which? do tests up to 45mph and come up with very different results. They are required by law, how much use it will be if we crash at 60-70mph on the A10 or more on the motorway is anyone's guess. It's a mine field, we have just spent £150 on an isofix seat that will last 9 months if we are lucky and as they advise not to buy second hand we will have a job selling it when baby grows out of it.
Darn - I'm always on the hunt for sound pro-helmet research, but it's very thin on the ground. Thing is, the difference in standards between a motorbike helmet and a cycle helmet (especially when you get to the cheap end of the market, but let's just assume we're talking about the really expensive ones, worn properly - definitely not the majority, but still ;) ) makes a huge difference to their usefulness. Also, bear in mind that cycle helmets are only tested for speeds up to 10mph - the speed you hit the ground from *standing*, basically. Also, from here (http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1052) - "One of the world's most prominent helmet test experts has stated that most helmets are physically incapable of sustaining impacts of the type associated with serious crashes; helmets provide protection only in low impact crashes under favourable circumstances" (they then credit Get a head start. Which? Consumers Association, October 1998. which I haven't personally read yet, but might be worth hunting down). So, I'm coming from the viewpoint of - the research I can find suggests that the higher the speed, the more useless the helmet.
Also, the races thing - that was something I wondered about myself. Apparently they could be effective for highly bunched stuff (can't find any research to back this up, mind) and basically - there have been some accidents and fatalities and no-one wants to be sued. Most of the race ones are designed to be so light and aerodynamic as possible, so only just keep within guidelines, and are next to useless anyway. The governing bodies just like to be *seen* as tough on safety (most people seem to think that wearing a helmet's safer than not wearing one, without researching the matter at all).
It's very true, people would get very funny if they weren't manditory in the Tour de France, Triathlons etc and as we know sports people and their sponsors only worry about winning anyway. It was a theory I had based on what 'felt right' to me but who knows. I still wonder if that bit of plastic might be slightly useful has my head hits the tarmac even if in some cases I'd be a gonner whatever.
From what I've read, it depends how you hit the tarmac. Directional impact is what they're designed for, and they can be useful. Rotational impact, they can exacerbate injury. Also, bear in mind the size of them - in some instances where your head wouldn't impact itself, having that extra couple of inches sticking out causes impact in that area. I had a crash a few months ago myself - my headphones were broken, but my head didn't make contact with the concrete. If I'd been wearing a helmet, it would have been impacted, and I'm thinking, judging by how I hit, that my neck would have been twisted rather badly indeed. Mind, that's all anecdotal, so not evidence as such, just an illustration.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org has lots of research on it that *isn't* anecdotal if you're interested. :)
Thanks, definately worth a read. It made me think, I had a crash at high speed on a road bike when I was a teenager, with walkman, late at night, with no lights - I lost the road! I was fine as was the walkman and the bike. So much must be down to how you land. Thanks for that link :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-11 06:41 pm (UTC)I'd also like to see cyclists who act as though the traffic signals don't apply to them hit with sticks.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-11 10:28 pm (UTC)The biggest improvement in road manners from other vehicles I've ever experienced while cycling was when I went to riding something *much* more unusual looking than a regular bicycle (a recumbent trike). I get much better treatment from vehicles, who actually have to *think* about passing me as a vehicle.
And for the record, I don't wear a helmet on the trike mostly - you couldn't fall off and bump your head unless things had gone *so* badly wrong that a helmet wouldn't help.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-11 11:18 pm (UTC)Personally, I don't wear a helmet on the bike for safety reasons. I'm gearing up to the big one-off lj post about it, after which I'm not going to talk about it any more, ever, because it's one of those arguments that gets very boring, very quickly ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-11 11:27 pm (UTC)I read this stuff primarily from the motorcycling angle, where the argument has been going around since (literally) the year I was born... no sign of any resolution yet :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-11 11:38 pm (UTC)If I rode a motorbike, I'd wear a helmet. No question. As a pushbike rider, I don't. No question. I keep starting with my reasons, then deleting - it can wait for the big post on the subject. Also, for a level of coherency that I just don't have at this time in the morning ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 12:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-11 11:48 pm (UTC)I am guilty of giving serious looking cyclists less room when driving than the wobbly paperboy on his BMX - but I strongly believe that cyclists should be on the pavement anyway. I always ride on the pavement unless there is a genuine reason not too. I figure if the cop wants to fine me £30 he has to catch me first - its not like I have a numberplate to trace.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:03 am (UTC)In the Netherlands (at least the couple of places I visited), it was pretty normal to see a separate section of the road reserved for cyclists - which strikes me as the best of both worlds. I'm not sure whether London could justify a similar strategy (much bigger area, comparatively fewer cyclists) but I imagine the lack of space would nix the idea before it could get off the ground!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:11 am (UTC)TBH there are so few pedestrians on the pavement most of the time and so many cars on the road it is the only sensible thing to do.
if I am driving I want the cycles on the pavement (they are a hazard - and with cars parked on the road ilegal to overtake) and I haven't met a car driver yet who hasn't agreed that bikes are better off on the paths.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 05:25 am (UTC)Giving way to pedestrians is all well and good, but they are significantly less predictable than cars - in my time as a motorcyclist in Australia, I never once saw a car sidestep or wheel around on the spot and continue back the way they came (ie, not a U-turn).
If foot traffic is sparse enough to allow giving pedestrians a very wide birth, I'm comfortable riding on the pavement - but for even moderate amounts of traffic, I feel far safer on the roads.
NB: in the UK, I neither cycle nor ride a motorbike, so take my opinion with a grain of salt :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 08:27 am (UTC)Obviously cycle paths are the ideal solution, but most areas don't have them.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 09:52 am (UTC)Most cycle paths are one of the following:
a) shared with pedestrians, many of whom don't have a very good awareness of the fact that cyclists have a right to be there too.
b) non-separated paths painted on at the side of the road, where cars park and broken glass is habitually swept into. (The so-called "door zone" will be an issue for motorcyclists too, I would imagine.)
c) at the side and separated: good in some ways but rather narrow, which can be a problem if, say, large delivery trucks park in them because it's the only way they can unload (you can't swerve as you're hemmed in by the paving separating you from the road) and can be dangerous at either end, where you sometimes have to cross diagonally at a junction. Also, you'd be amazed how many pedestrians treat them as an extention of the pavement, and don't check before stepping out right in front of you.
The truth is, I don't know what would make a good cycle path in our current road climate. It seems to me the whole system is outdated and needs an overhaul, and that includes clearing up ambiguities in the Highway Code that leave everyone not quite knowing where we stand as different types of road user. There's nothing more irritating than being called a stupid cow by a car driver or a motorcyclist for some imagined infraction of which I am not guilty (this has happened), simply because the other did not realise that what I was doing was valid and legal. I fully appreciate that cyclists are seen by drivers (and probably motorcyclists) as kind of the mosquitoes of the roads, if you will: irritants that get in your way but you have to look out for nevertheless, and so impede your progress. But I don't think that compelling cyclists to use cycle paths is the answer.
And I certainly don't think moving us onto the pavements is either. Have you seen how many people are cycling on road in London now? Can you imagine what it would be like if we were all forced onto the pavements? It would be a ped killing field. :o)
And one last thing FWIW: cyclists who break the rules annoy the hell out of me too.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 09:58 am (UTC)I lived in Milton Keynes from age 16 through 29, which has a rather nice cycle-path system - they're well clear of the road, and pedestrians were allowed to use them, but very aware that it was a cycle path network. So yeah, proper cycle paths are an ideal solution, as far as I can see.
Of course, there's nowhere to put them in London - they were designed in from day one in MK. "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here..."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 10:09 am (UTC)Agreed.
Incidentally, on the cycle helmets point (dragging myself back on topic); it's only after I took up cycle commuting that I really started to question their usefulness. I used to worry that
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 11:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 11:21 am (UTC)To the word!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 11:17 am (UTC)Pedestrians are also far more likely to be injured than cyclists. They should wear helmets ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 11:29 am (UTC)Pedestrians are also far more likely to be injured than cyclists. They should wear helmets ;)
*grin*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 12:50 pm (UTC)As for Cambridge, when you are 7 1/2 months pregnant, having cyclists wizzing round you on the pavement is terrifying. I'd rather cyclist had separate bits of path or segregated bits of road. When I first moved to Cambridge I found all the shared pavements wierd and dangerous - this is someone used to cycling in London and before that Holland.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:21 pm (UTC)I'm not sure anyone has done research from this angle.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:27 pm (UTC)The whole area of helmets and safety is a bit contentious - I'd be wary of making guesses about the subject. There is a lot of research out there, and the findings are very mixed.
The belief that "it's a law/rule so it must be a good idea" makes me grin :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:35 pm (UTC)Oooh, that's very interesting to know. Any links to evidence? (Not that I disbelieve you at all, I just like having evidence ;) )
As for mixed findings - I'm having great trouble finding *sound* pro-helmet (pushbike) research. I understand there are difficulties in researching the subject, but there must be *some* out there... surely...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 02:01 pm (UTC)http://www.msabate.com/facts.html
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 02:06 pm (UTC)Thanks :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 04:24 pm (UTC)We are having the same conversation about child seats - they are tested up to no more than 30mph for the most part, Which? do tests up to 45mph and come up with very different results. They are required by law, how much use it will be if we crash at 60-70mph on the A10 or more on the motorway is anyone's guess.
It's a mine field, we have just spent £150 on an isofix seat that will last 9 months if we are lucky and as they advise not to buy second hand we will have a job selling it when baby grows out of it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 01:31 pm (UTC)Also, the races thing - that was something I wondered about myself. Apparently they could be effective for highly bunched stuff (can't find any research to back this up, mind) and basically - there have been some accidents and fatalities and no-one wants to be sued. Most of the race ones are designed to be so light and aerodynamic as possible, so only just keep within guidelines, and are next to useless anyway. The governing bodies just like to be *seen* as tough on safety (most people seem to think that wearing a helmet's safer than not wearing one, without researching the matter at all).
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 04:30 pm (UTC)It was a theory I had based on what 'felt right' to me but who knows. I still wonder if that bit of plastic might be slightly useful has my head hits the tarmac even if in some cases I'd be a gonner whatever.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 04:42 pm (UTC)http://www.cyclehelmets.org has lots of research on it that *isn't* anecdotal if you're interested. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-12 06:57 pm (UTC)Thanks for that link :)