Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wenger2015 posted:

Unfortunately bad cyclists give good cyclists a bad name and bad drivers give good drivers a bad name.

It's catch 22....

After very nearly being taken out by a cyclist as I was walking on the pavement yesterday... I was contemplating if it would be a good idea for pedestrians to wear helmets..... ...

Before anyone takes this comment seriously... I'm only joking.. about the helmets...

 

This raises an interesting point. You felt that you "were nearly taken out by a cyclist". I wonder if the cyclist felt that they had "nearly taken out a pedestrian" which would likely have a bad outcome for the cyclist as well as the for you. I doubt it. They perhaps felt that they gave you adequate room. (They should not have been on the pavement at all, of course - I'm not excusing that).

We tend to feel that undesirable things we can control are less likely than the same event and outcome in the hands of others. So the cyclist perhaps didn't think it was a "near miss" at all. Similarly, the drivers that "nearly hit me" (at least that's how it felt to me) yesterday probably didn't see a collision and the outcome of my death as very likely. I weighted it more heavily.

I know you're joking, and I wouldn't contemplate helmets for pedestrians, but am always concerned with victim blaming, and the notion that a cyclist without a helmet who is killed by a motorist somehow deserved their fate. The insistence/expectation that cyclists wear helmets paints the activity as inherently hazardous; that cycling is done "at your own risk"; and this, in the minds of many, seems to absolve motorists (who are creating the hazard) of much of their responsibility. It is certainly how the courts interpret motorists killing cyclists for the most part.

Innocent Bystander posted:

I heard somewhere that an air bag suit (my terminology) had been developed that a motorcyclist could wear for protection in an accident. Perhaps this should be extended to (and of course made compulsory for) cyclists and pedestrians.  

...I can just picure the Michelin-man appearance of everyone after a collision - or if rather more spherical, person-sized balloons bouncing down the street!

http://road.cc/content/news/17...loys-rider-puts-coat

They are (or were) a thing alright. Watch the video in the link....

Where I live the council has widened the pavements with the intent that they be shared by pedestrians and those on bicycles. This simply increases the risk for cyclists since they now pass side roads joining the main road on the pavement and have to stop at every side road. Obviously when you're riding on the flat at 20-25mph you're not going to feel inclined to stop. Consequently I can only assume the pavement is intended purely for children cycling to school and not competitive road cyclists.

BTW there is an interesting article on P3 of today's Guardian written by Chris Boardman which describes perfectly the dreadful lack of planning of cycle tracks in Britain.

Clive B posted:

Where I live the council has widened the pavements with the intent that they be shared by pedestrians and those on bicycles. This simply increases the risk for cyclists since they now pass side roads joining the main road on the pavement and have to stop at every side road. Obviously when you're riding on the flat at 20-25mph you're not going to feel inclined to stop. Consequently I can only assume the pavement is intended purely for children cycling to school and not competitive road cyclists.

BTW there is an interesting article on P3 of today's Guardian written by Chris Boardman which describes perfectly the dreadful lack of planning of cycle tracks in Britain.

They do a bit of that in North Vancouver, too. It is terrible for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists crossing the shared-use paths.

Wher I've come across cycle paths that stop and have to give way at every side turning I have chosen to ignore the path and cycle on the road.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Wher I've come across cycle paths that stop and have to give way at every side turning I have chosen to ignore the path and cycle on the road.

As do I. It is much more straightforward, and arguably safer for all concerned. It invites outbursts of toxic language from the occasional motorist, though.

winkyincanada posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Wher I've come across cycle paths that stop and have to give way at every side turning I have chosen to ignore the path and cycle on the road.

As do I. It is much more straightforward, and arguably safer for all concerned. It invites outbursts of toxic language from the occasional motorist, though.

That's what we do too. 

winkyincanada posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Unfortunately bad cyclists give good cyclists a bad name and bad drivers give good drivers a bad name.

It's catch 22....

After very nearly being taken out by a cyclist as I was walking on the pavement yesterday... I was contemplating if it would be a good idea for pedestrians to wear helmets..... ...

Before anyone takes this comment seriously... I'm only joking.. about the helmets...

 

This raises an interesting point. You felt that you "were nearly taken out by a cyclist". I wonder if the cyclist felt that they had "nearly taken out a pedestrian" which would likely have a bad outcome for the cyclist as well as the for you. I doubt it. They perhaps felt that they gave you adequate room. (They should not have been on the pavement at all, of course - I'm not excusing that).

We tend to feel that undesirable things we can control are less likely than the same event and outcome in the hands of others. So the cyclist perhaps didn't think it was a "near miss" at all. Similarly, the drivers that "nearly hit me" (at least that's how it felt to me) yesterday probably didn't see a collision and the outcome of my death as very likely. I weighted it more heavily.

I know you're joking, and I wouldn't contemplate helmets for pedestrians, but am always concerned with victim blaming, and the notion that a cyclist without a helmet who is killed by a motorist somehow deserved their fate. The insistence/expectation that cyclists wear helmets paints the activity as inherently hazardous; that cycling is done "at your own risk"; and this, in the minds of many, seems to absolve motorists (who are creating the hazard) of much of their responsibility. It is certainly how the courts interpret motorists killing cyclists for the most part.

I do think cycling is an extremely hazardous occupation......personally I would not even contemplate taking a bicycle out on the open road.......in my view the majority of motorists cannot be trusted... ..their are far to many opportunities to be distracted behind the wheel of a car, ie hands free phones, smoking, changing the cd....drinking ... general tiredness ect ect ect

So for a cyclist to make the decision not to wear a helmet is foolhardy in the extreme... 

wenger2015 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Unfortunately bad cyclists give good cyclists a bad name and bad drivers give good drivers a bad name.

It's catch 22....

After very nearly being taken out by a cyclist as I was walking on the pavement yesterday... I was contemplating if it would be a good idea for pedestrians to wear helmets..... ...

Before anyone takes this comment seriously... I'm only joking.. about the helmets...

 

This raises an interesting point. You felt that you "were nearly taken out by a cyclist". I wonder if the cyclist felt that they had "nearly taken out a pedestrian" which would likely have a bad outcome for the cyclist as well as the for you. I doubt it. They perhaps felt that they gave you adequate room. (They should not have been on the pavement at all, of course - I'm not excusing that).

We tend to feel that undesirable things we can control are less likely than the same event and outcome in the hands of others. So the cyclist perhaps didn't think it was a "near miss" at all. Similarly, the drivers that "nearly hit me" (at least that's how it felt to me) yesterday probably didn't see a collision and the outcome of my death as very likely. I weighted it more heavily.

I know you're joking, and I wouldn't contemplate helmets for pedestrians, but am always concerned with victim blaming, and the notion that a cyclist without a helmet who is killed by a motorist somehow deserved their fate. The insistence/expectation that cyclists wear helmets paints the activity as inherently hazardous; that cycling is done "at your own risk"; and this, in the minds of many, seems to absolve motorists (who are creating the hazard) of much of their responsibility. It is certainly how the courts interpret motorists killing cyclists for the most part.

I do think cycling is an extremely hazardous occupation......personally I would not even contemplate taking a bicycle out on the open road.......in my view the majority of motorists cannot be trusted... ..their are far to many opportunities to be distracted behind the wheel of a car, ie hands free phones, smoking, changing the cd....drinking ... general tiredness ect ect ect

So for a cyclist to make the decision not to wear a helmet is foolhardy in the extreme... 

 

 

It's actually not particularly hazardous, with about the same fatality rate per hour of participation as motoring.  When you factor in the health benefits cycling actually increases the average lifespan of its participants. Motorcycling (for example) is far, far more dangerous.

You level of risk aversion is well beyond mine. I'd find life quite dull without activities that involve some risk. But you have correctly identified the sources of risk to cyclists. Add impatience and incompetence to the distractions you've listed and it is little wonder that drivers can't seem to stop crashing into things, and into each other. Driving is the one thing that most of us do that places our family, friends, strangers and ourselves in significant danger; yet we (for the most part) simply fail to take the responsibility seriously.

To suggest that a helmet is essential is to ignore the limitations of the protection they offer. For the record, I always wear a helmet.

wenger2015 posted:

So for a cyclist to make the decision not to wear a helmet is foolhardy in the extreme... 

ABSOLUTELY AGREED. I was cycling uphill in Bristol (<10mph) passing vehicles parked wholly on the grass verge off the edge of the road when a van driver opened its door. I came to on a trolley in Frenchay hospital with a fractured skull.

That was when helmets were quite heavy, had no cooling holes etc. and looked most uncool, so I refused to wear one. However, this type of accident is one where a helmet would most likely have saved me and avoided all the consequences of a fractured skull.

Riding a bike without a helmet is IMO foolhardy in the extreme. I often see families out riding where the children are wearing helmets, but not the parents and it pains me to see it.

Not wearing a helmet on a bike these days is like driving a car without a seatbelt.

Indeed, but cycle helmets are not ideal and give no or little protection to many type of impacts and crashes. A family friend's son has just returned from hospital with a wired jaw .. no help from the crash helmet there from his cycle crash (no vehicles involved).. it makes you wonder if cycle helmets should be redesigned to give more protection around the face.

I must confess, if I ever see a cyclist not wearing a helmet, I tend to say a few words under my breath suggesting a lack of intelligence..... 

It doesn't matter how competent a cyclist one might be, one cannot underestimate the incompetence of often distracted  motorist ...

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Indeed, but cycle helmets are not ideal and give no or little protection to many type of impacts and crashes. A family friend's son has just returned from hospital with a wired jaw .. no help from the crash helmet there from his cycle crash (no vehicles involved).. it makes you wonder if cycle helmets should be redesigned to give more protection around the face.

Definitely room for improvement in the design of cycle helmets..... maybe some design features could be taken from the helmets cricketers wear? 

Their is a fine line between going OTT, and having more protection.

I often have to wear a hard hat in certain areas of my work, particularly when operating a boom, i find often they provide less visibility and therefore cause other related issues other then their intended purpose... 

Cycle helmets are intended purely to provide some protection against damage to the brain, which of course tend to be more catastrophic than other head injuries (and, though I have no factual evidence on which to base this, I think it is far more common for the crown of the head to hit, rather than lower parts). And most cycle helmets are a compromise between minimum weight and wind resistance vs degree of protection, only providing a minimum level of protection.

Going beyond that adds weight, and possibly wind resistance, both of which tend to be the enemy of bicyclists. If you want full head protection then buy a motorcycle helmet! (and they do special ones for off-road use with better chin-guards, that would lend themselves to mountain biking. But they are much heavier than cycle helmets (and I suspect most riders would consider that they would lookstupid). Also moment you start to think about facial injuries etc you also need to think about other bodily injuries that are actually more likely, and provide elbow protection and ensure outer clothing fabric covers all and is slide resistant.

My own cycle helmet was designed for mountain biking and skiing, being rather like a meatier cycle helmet, and weighs midway beteen an average cycle helmet and a motorcycle helmet. I use it for road cycling because it affords a bit better protection, and is also designed so that it withstands minor shocks without deterioration - and it doubles as a ski helmet when fitted with its removeable eat muffs. Although it seemed heavy when I originally first tried it on, I ceased to notice after a few minutes.

wenger2015 posted:

I must confess, if I ever see a cyclist not wearing a helmet, I tend to say a few words under my breath suggesting a lack of intelligence..... 

It doesn't matter how competent a cyclist one might be, one cannot underestimate the incompetence of often distracted  motorist ...

There are always two sides - research has shown that cars drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, as they perceive them to be less vulnerable. 

When I was knocked off my bike last year the doctors told me that wearing a helmet would have made no difference, though I wear one now as I'm paranoid! You really can't question their intelligence, which has nothing to do with it. 

I agree  Nigel, and I do wonder to what extent helmets make some cyclists feel a little too protected especially when in a group.. Suffolk is a hugely popular county for visiting cyclists and the National Cycle Route 1 goes right outside my house.. Mrs SinS is a community nurse out and about on the lanes of east Suffolk, and the number of times she tells me she has had to violently swerve to avoid hitting a troops of cyclists travelling at speed in the middle of a narrow road travelling around a corner... many townies whether they be cyclists or motorists just appear not to know how to treat country roads... 

Hungryhalibut posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I must confess, if I ever see a cyclist not wearing a helmet, I tend to say a few words under my breath suggesting a lack of intelligence..... 

It doesn't matter how competent a cyclist one might be, one cannot underestimate the incompetence of often distracted  motorist ...

There are always two sides - research has shown that cars drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, as they perceive them to be less vulnerable. 

When I was knocked off my bike last year the doctors told me that wearing a helmet would have made no difference, though I wear one now as I'm paranoid! You really can't question their intelligence, which has nothing to do with it. 

Why would you ride a bike without a helmet?  

You may not like them. It's not the law. Drivers should be more careful. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

You may not like them. It's not the law. Drivers should be more careful. 

I would take responsibility for my own welfare, I would not rely on drivers being careful.............. 

It wasn't until about 12 years ago that I started to wear one myself, and I didn't like the feel of doing so at first - now if I set off forgetting to put it on I feel naked, and I only get  few yards before turning back (even if the wind in my hair is nice on a hot day).

I find it surprising how many car drivers eschew seatbelts, and there's even a law against that...

Innocent Bystander posted:

It wasn't until about 12 years ago that I started to wear one myself, and I didn't like the feel of doing so at first - now if I set off forgetting to put it on I feel naked, and I only get  few yards before turning back (even if the wind in my hair is nice on a hot day).

I find it surprising how many car drivers eschew seatbelts, and there's even a law against that...

Extremely sensible 

And I think most cyclists wear helmets agaist the risk of banging their heads on the ground as a result of falling off (from any cause), and for some maybe considering perhaps that they don't ride fast don't think it a significant risk, maybe not even considering cars hitting them (not everyone is paranoid about cars - maybe it depends where you live and your experiences)

Just recently a friends daughter, ended up in intensive care after coming off a non moving  skateboard, slipped and head hit the curb...

Helmets should be compulsory 

wenger2015 posted:

Just recently a friends daughter, ended up in intensive care after coming off a non moving  skateboard, slipped and head hit the curb...

Helmets should be compulsory 

Wenger, I must entirely agree many years ago whilst travelling to work on the outskirts of Bristol I saw a lady knocked off her bike as a car cut in on a bend she hit her head on the kerb and died within minutes nothing we could do but the general consensus at the time was that a cycle helmet would have saved her.

I noticed earlier you posted about wearing head protection whilst operating a boom I luckily managed to retire early a couple of years ago after spending the last 30 plus years working for a Construction Supply Company.

During this time I was Group Transport and then Mechanical Handling Manager and I must admit that the wearing of Head protection when using a Lorry Loader did take some getting used to but the general introduction of PPE  ie correct footwear, gloves and head protection  in the depots resulted in a much lower rate of reportable injuries over the years so it proves that this type of protection work if worn.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

.... on the lanes of east Suffolk, and the number of times she tells me she has had to violently swerve to avoid hitting a troops of cyclists travelling at speed in the middle of a narrow road travelling around a corner... 

She might be driving too fast. Does she also have to "violently swerve" to avoid cars coming in the opposite direction on these narrow lanes? Cyclists don't travel faster than cars, as a rule, and cyclists would have to be riding more than 2 or 3 abreast to be wider than a car.