Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] "We're cracking down on dangerous cycling".



Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,646
West west west Sussex
Bold Seagull said:
Just 'hit' his wing mirror :lolol:. Obviously never parked in Tesco's where hitting a wing mirror and driving off is a requirement of exiting the car park.
Click to expand...

No he must has snapped it off, or else the post would be completely at odds with the 'crime'.
 




Bold Seagull

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,778
Hove
Stat Brother said:
No he must has snapped it off, or else the post would be completely at odds with the 'crime'.
Click to expand...

No one hits his wing mirror and gets away with it. Had he not been stuck in traffic unable to give chase because there are too many cars on the road, he would have given the cyclist what for. As it happened cyclist went off on their merry way while angry driver plotted revenge on message board.
 


Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,646
West west west Sussex
Bold Seagull said:
No one hits his wing mirror and gets away with it. Had he not been stuck in traffic unable to give chase because there are too many cars on the road, he would have given the cyclist what for. As it happened cyclist went off on their merry way while angry driver plotted revenge on message board.
Click to expand...
Looking at his phone while driving?

But but but every single driver that does that gets caught and is instantly prosecution (or should be persecuted) to the full extent of the law.
 










Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,646
West west west Sussex
Justice said:
Slander alert
Click to expand...

Good I'm pleased that's not the case, I'm sure you like every other motorist on this thread has never used your phone (or had a sneaky peak) at it while driving.
 






Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,646
West west west Sussex
Justice said:
What’s this got to do with cyclists who have little respect for drivers property?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it was an accident, no harm done.
 




Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,646
West west west Sussex




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,155
Goldstone
TimWatt said:
I don't think that comparison daft at all. Your extreme example would also hold water - except it's not realistic and other factors would made it not comparable. Trying to prove a point using absurdity shows an attempt to distract from reality.
Click to expand...
No, your method of calculation is daft. A heavy vehicle travelling at speed is indeed dangerous, but you can't simply multiply the two figures and get a measure of how dangerous, as I've shown by my example. You can use a lorry at 2 mph if you like. It's not going to do much damage if the pedestrian simply walks off.

My estimation cannot be accurate as it's a comparison of potential for harm in one hypothetical but common scenario. I'd amend the number looking again considering the assumption I put in brackets (assuming drivers and cyclists are equally likely to collide with you as a pedestrian). That assumption can't be right as car is larger than a cyclist so, perhaps, since it's about 4 times wider it may be four times likely to collide (very rough) guess - so maybe the propensity for harm should be modified to a factor of 6000, which puts things in some type of representative perspective.
Click to expand...
Everything about your calculation makes it pointless.

I'm a driver and cyclist, and consider the care I owe to those around me with to level of responsibility, whereas for a bike the care taken is mostly a matter of self-interest as you are so much more vulnerable.
Click to expand...
True, but if you're jumping lights near a school at drop-off and pick-up time, you are putting the lives of small children in danger. People do do that, regularly.

Cyclists that act irresponsibly (judged reasonably) might verge on suicidal, so could do with a ticking off or be reasonably expected to take training of some sort (or that be re-instrodcued to the school curriculum).
Click to expand...
You are suggesting they're not dangerous to others at all, but they are.

Irresponsible drivers where they endanger others really are the issue to be addressed here, while this government is trying the worst type of cheap populism by picking on the wrong end of reality here.
Click to expand...
No, there isn't just one issue to be addressed. They are separate issues, and many issues can be addressed, you don't just address the one that's the biggest problem.
 


1066familyman

1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
McTavish said:
This is a very contentious issue and is not as simple as it first seems.

70-80% of cyclist fatalities involve serious head injuries so it would seem fairly obvious that compulsory helmets would save lives.

However...

There is evidence that at a population level compulsory cycling helmets actually reduce life expectancy - if helmets are compulsory, fewer people cycle, some people get less exercise as a result and so die earlier due to this. In addition a couple of studies have shown that motorists tend to give un-helmeted cyclists more room when passing so there is a possibility that wearing a helmet increases your chance of being hit by a vehicle. Also, a study has shown that cyclists wearing helmets tend to take more risks and so put themselves in more danger.

Also, why just cyclists? If it seems reasonable to force cyclists to wear helmets, wouldn't pedestrians benefit as well after all more than 4 times as many pedestrians are killed each year than cyclists? People in cars are the people most at risk from dying from head injuries despite their seatbelts... should they wear helmets?

I can't find any evidence at all to show how many of the 100 or so cyclists killed each year weren't wearing helmets and how many of those might have been saved by wearing a helmet but as most cyclists wear helmets and as cycle helmets are not really designed to prevent major trauma, I suspect that the number will be very small. Bearing in mind the potential risk to overall public health, compulsory helmets would seem to be a huge over-reaction to a realtively insignificant problem and possibly a counter-productive one as well.

Despite all that, when I ride a bike I almost always wear a helmet but I recognise that it is unlikely to save my life.
Click to expand...

Good post.

This is an interesting talk:




Btw, I always wear a helmet when cycling. Mainly because it's just become second nature.
 


T

TimWatt

Active member
Feb 13, 2011
166
Richmond
Triggaaar said:
You are suggesting they're not dangerous to others at all, but they are.

No, there isn't just one issue to be addressed. They are separate issues, and many issues can be addressed, you don't just address the one that's the biggest problem.
Click to expand...

You're deliberately distorting, for why I don't know why because you seem smart enough. Yes, they're different issues (and there's many more) but a reasonable approach would be to take actions based on the relative potential for harm, which for motor vehicles is to others and for cyclists it's to themselves and at a much much lower level (yes, the physics are as I described).

You are wrong to say the biggest issue here is danger form cyclists. Absurdly wrong. My point was to quantify that the reality is massively the other way round.

To put things in perspective, considering the potential for danger, British driving behaviour is among the best in the world and most driver behaviour is impeccably polite and considerate. However, improvements to accidents statistics have stalled maybe due to more distracted driving, bigger and heavier vehicles on the road (and the psychology behind their popularity) and perhaps diminishing returns on previous campaigns and measures.

There's much still to improve but targeting cyclists is crass distraction from the real cause of road dangers out there.
 




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,155
Goldstone
TimWatt said:
You're deliberately distorting
Click to expand...
No I'm not. I think your method of calculating danger is very flawed, that's all.
for why I don't know why because you seem smart enough.
Click to expand...
Oh thanks hun.
but a reasonable approach would be to take actions based on the relative potential for harm
Click to expand...
You posted that before, and I replied 'Sounds like a reasonable start'.

which for motor vehicles is to others and for cyclists it's to themselves and at a much much lower level (yes, the physics are as I described).
Click to expand...
No, for cyclists it may be mostly to themselves, but there is also the potential for harming others too.

You are wrong to say the biggest issue here is danger form cyclists. Absurdly wrong.
Click to expand...
Eh? What's absurd is that you think I said that. Show me where I said that? No, thought not.

There's much still to improve but targeting cyclists is crass distraction from the real cause of road dangers out there.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. There are many campaigns and initiatives to try and help improve people's driving. They will continue. Suggesting that cyclists should take care doesn't detract from that. That would be like saying only tell people to either stop smoking or lose weight, because one is worse than the other. We don't have to choose between these options, improvements can be made in several areas.
 


A

Arthritic Toe

Well-known member
Nov 25, 2005
2,392
Swindon
nicko31 said:
Slightly off topic why does the government not would make cycle helmets compulsory by law? How many deaths could be prevented?

Instead death by dangerous cycling? How many deaths could be prevented?

Sums up this government, have they achieved anything in office?
Click to expand...

We don't need laws for everything! For goodness sake, brushing your teeth is good for you but we don't have to make it the law. The vast majority of cyclists now wear helmets because most decide that its in their interests to do so. What on earth good would new laws do except waste money and police time enforcing it.
 


T

TimWatt

Active member
Feb 13, 2011
166
Richmond
Lovely Trigaar, so it seems we're agreeing to agree! I also never said their isn't a problem with bad cyclist behaviour, just that it is hugely insignificant to the real dangers out on your streets. The issue is how much attention by placing the blame on the victims is fair. My point, again, was to very roughly quantity the relative significance in terms of potential for harm, and then suggest that suggests cyclists in the scenario I suggest endanger others to only about 1/4000 that motor vehicles on city streets.

So I think the current attention to prosecution of cycling undeserved (I've suggested more training might be a suitable measure), and the minority, but actually murderously, bad drivers out on the streets should be the ones targeted for prosecution.

When you said "you don't just address the one that's the biggest problem" that suggested to me you think cyclists are the biggest problem. I don't know how else that could be interpreted... but I'm glad that's not what you meant to write.
 


S

sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,727
McTavish said:
This is a very contentious issue and is not as simple as it first seems.

70-80% of cyclist fatalities involve serious head injuries so it would seem fairly obvious that compulsory helmets would save lives.

However...

There is evidence that at a population level compulsory cycling helmets actually reduce life expectancy - if helmets are compulsory, fewer people cycle, some people get less exercise as a result and so die earlier due to this. In addition a couple of studies have shown that motorists tend to give un-helmeted cyclists more room when passing so there is a possibility that wearing a helmet increases your chance of being hit by a vehicle. Also, a study has shown that cyclists wearing helmets tend to take more risks and so put themselves in more danger.

Also, why just cyclists? If it seems reasonable to force cyclists to wear helmets, wouldn't pedestrians benefit as well after all more than 4 times as many pedestrians are killed each year than cyclists? People in cars are the people most at risk from dying from head injuries despite their seatbelts... should they wear helmets?

I can't find any evidence at all to show how many of the 100 or so cyclists killed each year weren't wearing helmets and how many of those might have been saved by wearing a helmet but as most cyclists wear helmets and as cycle helmets are not really designed to prevent major trauma, I suspect that the number will be very small. Bearing in mind the potential risk to overall public health, compulsory helmets would seem to be a huge over-reaction to a realtively insignificant problem and possibly a counter-productive one as well.

Despite all that, when I ride a bike I almost always wear a helmet but I recognise that it is unlikely to save my life.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely awful logic and you seem to have backed it up by saying 'and I have no evidence to back up my awful point but...'. In fact, the only time you've used any evidence was in reference to an unnamed "study", where anyone with half a brain cell can clearly conclude from your own points that the helmets aren't the issue, but the helmets wearing the helmets who get even cockier than the usual cycling crowd and take additional risks on the road...

But seriously, if as a cyclist you can't see the benefit of wearing a hat when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road, then I really can't help you. This stuff should be pretty damned self explanatory. Next you'll be telling horse riders not to wear helmets on the road or skiers not to wear helmets because they might get a bit too excited on the slopes...
 




1066familyman

1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
sussex_guy2k2 said:
This is absolutely awful logic and you seem to have backed it up by saying 'and I have no evidence to back up my awful point but...'. In fact, the only time you've used any evidence was in reference to an unnamed "study", where anyone with half a brain cell can clearly conclude from your own points that the helmets aren't the issue, but the helmets wearing the helmets who get even cockier than the usual cycling crowd and take additional risks on the road...

But seriously, if as a cyclist you can't see the benefit of wearing a hat when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road, then I really can't help you. This stuff should be pretty damned self explanatory. Next you'll be telling horse riders not to wear helmets on the road or skiers not to wear helmets because they might get a bit too excited on the slopes...
Click to expand...

So do you think a helmet will protect you...when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road?
 


Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,646
West west west Sussex
1066familyman said:
So do you think a helmet will protect you...when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road?
Click to expand...

From the Evening Standard article quoted this morning:-

Note is also made of whether cyclists are wearing helmets or high-visibility clothing, as advised by the Highway Code. However, in many cases, a helmet would not have prevented the cyclist from suffering fatal crush injuries under lorries.

Mr Porter said: “The criminal justice system continues to have a motor-centric bias. Too often there is far more focus on whether or not the victim was wearing a helmet or hi-viz tabard rather than on whether greater care from the motorist could have avoided the collision.”

All fairly academic as like many many cyclists I also wear a helmet, as second nature.
I insist my kids wear a helmet, although I don't when riding with them.


I don't expect it to save my life, I could just do without the headache added to the abrasions should I come off due to a mechanical or a pothole, etc.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here