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

All the people I know who have had bike accidents have not involved other vehicles/motorists... and the accidents have been on and off the road... from a protection point of view hitting a rock/tree or tarmac at 25 mph doesn't make much difference... but it should still be a personal choice.

Not sure why there is presumption that all cycle accidents are with motorists... might be in the town/suburbs where there are a lot more cars, but not necessarily so elsewhere....

So by that argument, Simon, would you prefer it if wearing a seatbelt in a motor vehicle were a matter of personal choice? The seatbelt adds to safety as does the cycle helmet. The argument that has been aired here that cyclists with helmets are more reckless could also be extended to motorists wearing a seatbelt. Perhaps it's just a case of insufficient statistical evidence to support making the wearing of helmets compulsory on a bicycle as it is on a motorcycle. Maybe we need more serious head injuries for the case to be taken seriously.

BTW You may not know me, but you do know of me through this forum and the accident which I refer to above most certainly did involve a  vehicle/motorist.

Pcd posted:

There was also a good chance the cyclist might have avoided her if he had not removed the front brake from his bicycle.

I think you'll find it was a track bike - these aren't fitted with brakes at all. The issue is that he shouldn't have been using a track bike on the public highway or should have actively fitted a front brake to have made it legally compliant.

Innocent Bystander posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Am I correct in concluding that cyclists feel if they wear a helmet the motorist treats them differently?

I can only answer for myself: I have no reason to think that, but at the same time I have no reason to think it is not the case. As A driver, I don't actualky notice whether a cyclist is wearing a helmet, as I am too busy working out the best way to pass safely.

I don't know if there is any academic research, but work done by the Police has shown that motorists treat different cyclists differently. They attached cameras to bikes and cycled around, noting how close cars passed them. If they wore full cycling gear the cars gave them less space than if they were in casual clothing. Then male police officers put on long wigs so that they looked like women and found that they were given a wider berth. There was a long article about it in the Guardian a few months back, but it was widely reported I believe. There is also evidence that cyclists take greater risks when wearing helmets, again according to articles I've read. How academic it is I don't know. 

If the law was changed then all cyclists would have to wear helmets and that would be that. But for now it's optional and the best way forward must surely be for everyone to me more careful and respectful to others, whether they be cyclists or drivers. 

Clive B posted:

Pcd posted:

There was also a good chance the cyclist might have avoided her if he had not removed the front brake from his bicycle.

I think you'll find it was a track bike - these aren't fitted with brakes at all. The issue is that he shouldn't have been using a track bike on the public highway or should have actively fitted a front brake to have made it legally compliant.

Clive B, correct he did in fact remove the brake from his previous bike which as also a fixed wheel device.

I would advocate helmets for cyclists as compulsory... 

To trust the motorist to be respectful and considerate is somewhat foolhardy.

Yes, cyclists have every right to expect a wide berth, consideration and respect  whilst riding...

But even where I live, in sleepy Somerset, motorists still drive while talking on their mobile phones, driving to fast is the norm, overtaking those driving in holiday mode is the norm, drinking whilst driving still happens....ect ect ect

Cyclists need to take every precaution against the distracted motorist....

Clive B posted:

So by that argument, Simon, would you prefer it if wearing a seatbelt in a motor vehicle were a matter of personal choice? The seatbelt adds to safety as does the cycle helmet. The argument that has been aired here that cyclists with helmets are more reckless could also be extended to motorists wearing a seatbelt. Perhaps it's just a case of insufficient statistical evidence to support making the wearing of helmets compulsory on a bicycle as it is on a motorcycle. Maybe we need more serious head injuries for the case to be taken seriously.

BTW You may not know me, but you do know of me through this forum and the accident which I refer to above most certainly did involve a  vehicle/motorist.

 

But where do you stop? pedestrians, joggers, mobility scooter operators. Surely it sensible to enforce sealtbets for powered devices say with a max speed above 20mph and for everyone else its optional - albeit the sensible recommended option. I also think as is the requirement for for horse riders - other public highway users other than pedestrians - under the age of 14 should wear helmets as you could argue they are not mature enough enough to make a conscious choice

With regards to motor vehicles, I’d like to see all driver personal safety devices, seat belts, air bags etc. disabled if the speed limit is exceeded. With current technologies, it’s definitely doable.

fatcat posted:

With regards to motor vehicles, I’d like to see all driver personal safety devices, seat belts, air bags etc. disabled if the speed limit is exceeded. With current technologies, it’s definitely doable.

Would be far better not to allow the vehicles to exceed the speed limits this could also be done using the technologies that exist.

Pcd posted:

fatcat posted:

With regards to motor vehicles, I’d like to see all driver personal safety devices, seat belts, air bags etc. disabled if the speed limit is exceeded. With current technologies, it’s definitely doable.

Would be far better not to allow the vehicles to exceed the speed limits this could also be done using the technologies that exist.

Move to Suffolk. Many people drive at 24mph wherever they are, maybe rocketing to 52mph on the dreaded A14.

Are helmets compulsory in cycle road racing?

Are helmets compulsory in fell running? Free climbing? Just wondering.

Cycle helmet prices should be halved with a 50% levy paid out from VED funds : )

Debs

Nice one Debs!

And a special tax on car tyres to fund cheaper tyres for cyclists. It's all for safety, you know

In some 45 years of cycling (55 years since I learnt, less about 10 'wilderness years when I first left home as a young adult), I have come off my bike 6 times. In none of them did my head/helmet contact the ground. Two were motor vehicle related:

The first, at the age of 16, was at least partly my fault : cycling down the outside of slow/stationary traffic on a busy town high street (unsafe on the inside due to pedestrians stepping in the road), I failed to maintain awareness of gaps in the cars and my they might be, didn't see the emerging right-turning vehicle  until too late and hit it. Damage to my front wheel, not to me, and no apparent damage to the car - a learning exercise for me.

the second was a year ago, when a box van pulled onto a mini roundabout in my path, my evasive action causing the wheels to slide out from under me and a slide along the road - torn clothing, cuts and bruises, and some damage to bike, but nothering very serious - I caught enough of the van's identity for the police to trace, but failed to get witness details from the other vehicle waiting to entrr the roundabout who checked I was OK - police took seriosly, and threatened van driver with prosecution, and would have followed through if I did have a witness.

the point of all this? car-bike related incidents are not actually very frequent in relation to the volume of car and bike traffic. Also, the serious ones tend to be serious bue to the speed and mass of the car, and whilst a helmet affords a certain amount of head protection in some instances, it will not be effective in all and will not protect against other injuries, which also can be life-changing or ending. In terms of motor vehicle-bicycle accidents what is needed is not helmets, but segregation, or some means of enforcing unfailing due care and attention by motorists.

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...

I'm exactly the same. I notice, and turn around within a few metres on the odd occasion I forget my foam hat.

The discussion about whether safety measures increase risk taking is very interesting. Cars are far safer than ever, and roads are better. However, I'd contend that we've traded much of the safety benefit for speed of travel (and distance travelled). Cars are more powerful and quieter (from the inside) than ever. It is much less "scary" to drive too fast, so everybody does it. The safety features of cars compensate to a large extent, meaning that fatality and injury rates have generally fallen for the occupants. But a driver's airbag isn't going to help the vulnerable road user that they run down.

Tony Lockhart posted:

Pcd posted:

fatcat posted:

With regards to motor vehicles, I’d like to see all driver personal safety devices, seat belts, air bags etc. disabled if the speed limit is exceeded. With current technologies, it’s definitely doable.

Would be far better not to allow the vehicles to exceed the speed limits this could also be done using the technologies that exist.

Move to Suffolk. Many people drive at 24mph wherever they are, maybe rocketing to 52mph on the dreaded A14.

 

Are helmets compulsory in cycle road racing?

Are helmets compulsory in fell running? Free climbing? Just wondering.

Of course, it would help, if speed limits were realistic and appropriate - the UK maximum of 70 is ridiculously slow on some roads, but the 'national speed limit' of 60 far too fast for others. Where I live the 'derestricted'  sign means just that: no speed limit, and you can leagally drive at, say, 150 mph - and a fair number of ferraris, lamborghinis, aston martins etc appear early on weekend mornings and do just that. Mind you, the derestricted roads are mostly single carriageway, so it is necessary to be selective (the same rules apply re dangerous driving etc), and good accelaration is needed to mmake best use for those who want to. The flip side is that there does appear to me to be a tendency then to adhere more closely to speed limits where they exist (with the possible exception of the youngest drivers), and this is my point:0people simply do not respect speed limits because a lot of their mileage is on roads where they perceive them to be unnecessarily slow, whereas that might not be the case if higer speeds were allowed where the road is suitable (sensibly, linked to traffic and weather, but that is not beyound today's technology).

May be of interest:

 https://www.gov.uk/government/...ain-results-2015.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview

winkyincanada posted:

Happy Listener posted:

audio1946 posted:

seems sensible for bikers that enter/town/cities should pay, may be a licience that lasts a few years. cycle lanes are expensive to install

Where I live there have been cycle lanes. Unfortunately these tended to appear and disappear alongside the normal carriageway and often collect all the nasties from the road e.g. grit, shards of glass and other detritus which no sane cyclist would wish to ride over. And when they needed to widen the road due to traffic volumes, the cycle lane was 'absorbed'. 

I'm a member of our local cycling advocacy group. It is a constant battle to have appropriate infrastructure installed. More voters drive than cycle, so the steps towards a more sustainable future are small ones. But one thing that we really are passionately against is the installation of inadequate and unsafe  infrastructure like shared-use paths. Better to install nothing at all than to install something that doesn't work. The common cry of the entitled, embattled and impatient motorist is "get on the bike path!" Well, here's news: We would get on the bike path if the bike path was actually suitable for use. That is, if it was free from numerous unsafe road crossings, unencumbered by bollards, free from pedestrians and off-leash dogs, free from broken glass, garbage, bits of metal that have fallen off cars and gravel; and if it actually went somewhere we wanted to go.

I would also add that a cycling has equal right as othe forms of transport,.

So, if it's  a licence you want, it should be for  a citizen to be qualified as 'capable using public spaces and means of transport' - not for life but tested frequently.

The  root of the problem is the decades of conitionung that motoring rules all

Jude2012 posted:

May be of interest:

 https://www.gov.uk/government/...ain-results-2015.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview

 

 

By my mathematics, at a fatality rate of about 32 per billion miles, if I cycle 10,000 miles (16,000km - about what I do) every year for 70 years I have a 2% chance of being killed by a motorist over my lifetime Not great odds, but if, at the age of 20 you offered me those odds against a choice to not be a cyclist, I'd still choose to cycle. Now, at the age of 56, I've only got about another 35 years of cycling in front of me, so I have a about a 1:100 chance of dying at the hands of a motorist. I'll take those odds, too.

I suppose to most it's not the chance of dying but the chance of ending up being fed through a tube while sat strapped in a wheelchair, Peeing into a bag.

Tony Lockhart posted:

I suppose to most it's not the chance of dying but the chance of ending up being fed through a tube while sat strapped in a wheelchair, Peeing into a bag.

According to 2015 figures, over 18000 cyclists were seriously injured in road accidents.

These are accidents that have been reported to the police, apparently many are not.

It will be interesting to compare the 2015 figures  with more up to date figures?

Tony Lockhart posted:

I suppose to most it's not the chance of dying but the chance of ending up being fed through a tube while sat strapped in a wheelchair, Peeing into a bag.

OK, at the other end is the causality statistic. This gives me about a 200% chance of having a serious injury during my remaining 35 years of cycling. The other way to interpret that is that I'll have two injuries requiring hospital treatment in that time, if I cycle 16,000 km per year. Sounds about right. I crash, on average, about once every 10 years. Only one has ever had me receive hospital treatment, although arguably one crash many years ago SHOULD have had me seek treatment. But I was young and "bulletproof".

Another interesting observation is that pedestrian fatality rates are higher than for cyclists. It's apparently more dangerous to walk 10km than it is to cycle the same distance. This is shocking to me. There are virtually no pedestrian deaths that are not caused by drivers.

winkyincanada posted:

By my mathematics, at a fatality rate of about 32 per billion miles, if I cycle 10,000 miles (16,000km - about what I do) every year for 70 years I have a 2% chance of being killed by a motorist over my lifetime Not great odds, but if, at the age of 20 you offered me those odds against a choice to not be a cyclist, I'd still choose to cycle. Now, at the age of 56, I've only got about another 35 years of cycling in front of me, so I have a about a 1:100 chance of dying at the hands of a motorist. I'll take those odds, too.

Interesting.. the lifetime odds of being killed in a car by another motorist in the U.K.  is 1:200; i.e. 0.5% chance... of those 0.5%, 77% of them are men, and approx 50% of all car deaths occur with speeds above 55mph...... perhaps we ought to reduce speed limits to 55mph or lower and even ban men from driving.. they can perhaps cycle instead.. wearing their crash helmets of course...

[Source: Autonet Insurance Group]

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

winkyincanada posted:

By my mathematics, at a fatality rate of about 32 per billion miles, if I cycle 10,000 miles (16,000km - about what I do) every year for 70 years I have a 2% chance of being killed by a motorist over my lifetime Not great odds, but if, at the age of 20 you offered me those odds against a choice to not be a cyclist, I'd still choose to cycle. Now, at the age of 56, I've only got about another 35 years of cycling in front of me, so I have a about a 1:100 chance of dying at the hands of a motorist. I'll take those odds, too.

Interesting.. the lifetime odds of being killed in a car by another motorist in the U.K.  is 1:200; i.e. 0.5% chance... of those 0.5%, 77% of them are men, and approx 50% of all car deaths occur with speeds above 55mph...... perhaps we ought to reduce speed limits to 55mph or lower and even ban men from driving.. they can perhaps cycle instead.. wearing their crash helmets of course...

[Source: Autonet Insurance Group]

Does "killed in a car by another motorist" include killing yourself? Car driving (like gun ownership) is statistically more likely to result in our own death (or the deaths of our loved ones) than it is to result in the death of a stranger. Cycling is worse in this regard, of course.

What those 2015 statistics don't say is how many deaths and casualty figures are reduced due to the many roads becoming so obviously dangerous they have become no-go places for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why those casualty figures report lower than previous years....  

naim_nymph posted:

What those 2015 statistics don't say is how many deaths and casualty figures are reduced due to the many roads becoming so obviously dangerous they have become no-go places for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why those casualty figures report lower than previous years....  

What roads are those? I'm not aware of any, other than those where cycling is prohibited by law, mostly motorways: how would I know to avoid If cycle touring anywhere unfamiliar? At present if I were to go cycle touring I'd just look at a map and plan a route.