Cycling UK Forum

PJ O'Rourke made a similar calculation in one of his books. He worked out the calories needed to move a pedal powered rickshaw in Dhaka compared to using a Honda 50cc engine. The engine was way more efficient. He went on to suppose that if the cycle rickshaws were all converted to Honda power Bangladesh would have a food surplus and a useful forex-earning food export industry.

You forget that law-making is all about "sending a signal" nowadays.

Let's investigate the cause of the fall. Prevention is better than protection from the fall (if the hat is protection).

Was he cycling head down? On skinny tyres? Did those narrow rims follow a rut? Would a fatter tyre and a more upright position mean the accident would never have happened? Maybe! Hey, that could be why the Dutch commute on upright fat-tyred bikes... So let's ban his sort of bike in order to prevent injuries like his.

Let's start a campaign! Let legislate that bikes must have 30mm plus tyres! No drops! In fact, let's ban diamond framed bikes altogether and allow only recumbents! In fact, a recumbent trike would never allow an accident like this to happen.

It's so obvious, really. Can't think why we still allow people to make their own choices about things at all really, when we can't even be trusted to cycle everywhere on fat-tyred tadpole recumbents.

(And if cycling rates fall massively as a result, then injury rates will fall even further! Even more win!)

I've no problem with someone wearing an apron when there is a good chance they will get chip fat on their clothes when cooking. No problem with a gardener wearing gloves when pruning roses. And no problem with elbow and knee and head pads when someone rides down steps on a bike.

But when I go in my kitchen to make a sandwich I don't wear an apron. When I read a book in my garden I don't wear gloves. And when i cycle to work I don't wear a helmet.

CO2 levels have changed constantly, usually following (not leading) the globe's temperature changes. Whether we express it as temperature, or use CO2 as a proxy, we have agreed to fix the measure at the level it was at the time of the childhood of the average politician. Which could be the right thing to do - but curious and somewhat egocentric of the current version of the human race? I mean, why not aim for the higher CO2 levels of the time when the fauna and flora was most prolific (and laid the seams of coal and oil for us). Or more recently, the medieval temperature when we had bountiful fruit and vegetables and wine growing in Scotland?

What I found interesting about the Paris agreement was that we appeared happy with the idea that governments will decide the temperature of a planet according to a "that nice temperature that seemed OK when we were kids plus a little bit".

Well, that temperature was always changing and always will. It might be relevant that a human government should agree to its own maximum impact above the varying temperature of the planet. But that's not what has been agreed.

The reason? My guess is because despite the huge apparent confidence of climate scientists, they know full well that they simply can't separate the cyclical background signal from the human-caused noise.

My money is still on black soot and brown smog as being the main culprits, due to the change in albedo. Cutting black soot and smog emitters might help temperature issues, but more immediately and perhaps more importantly would improve the lung health of everyone, right now.

Those Scandinavian and Dutch studies are pretty convincing for me.

What would I like for me and my family? Yes, a totally separate cycling route, properly designed for two-way cycling traffic where speedsters and dwadlers mix in safety. From everywhere I want to leave from, to everywhere I want to go...

There is no chance of that nirvana.

The "compromise" of ridiculous painted roads are demeaning, dangerous, misleading, and allow those responsible for transport to think they have done something good.

So I would like the removal of all lines and signs and kerbs rom all roads with a speed limit of 40mph or lower.

And a totally separate cycle route parallel to any road with a limit above 40mph.

And if I have any wishes left - single carriageway roads should have a maximum speed of 40mph.

And average speed traps throughout.

My favourite. Concerns about fishing boats being hit by spent weather instrument rockets meant that the North Sea was scanned by pilots first. Obviously, the risk to the pilots was far higher than the risk to the fishing boats.

There are loads of other counter-intuitive examples of well meaning but dangerous safety measures. Boxing gloves is one. Head and brain injury in boxing has gone up since gloves were introduced, because bare knuckle fighters couldn't hit the head hard without breaking their hands. (Hands are like crumple zones!). There is some evidence that scrum-caps and shoulder pads are increasing rugby injury as players behave more recklessly. Any more?

There would still be healthcare if there was no NHS! Like there is still dentistry. With a safety net for those who need it, but dentists earn money, and pay tax, thanks to the majority who pay fees or insurance premiums to have great teeth. Ditto opticians. Eyes and teeth are all but out of the NHS. What next? Elective cosmetic surgery?

One of the things I hope they are talking about in Paris is how to give a geography to carbon emissions. Norway and other carbon exporters will not have their export of unburnt carbon as part of their own footprint. Europe as a whole is guilty of this and I am not surprised that India and others are furious with us.

We close our steel works, export our unburnt carbon to those countries still making steel, then import that steel. Then we point at the increasing carbon emissions of India and contrast that with our decreasing emissions!

Let's see how Sweden fares with its generous welfare once it starts having to cope with the sort of level and type of in-migration the UK and USA have supported for decades.

Denmark recently voted to remain opted-out of EU justice and home affairs, retaining national control over immigration and borders. No coincidence.

UK has made deliberate policy decisions to promote the wealth of the elderly over the wealth of younger households. The 65-74 year olds now have an average household wealth of £540,000. Households headed by under 44 year olds have an average wealth of £179,000. Many may not agree with this priority, but the last 4 governments at least have had this policy very visible in manifestos and electors all know how much this costs. So, less provision for child care, but never have we had such well cared-for retired people.

Let's not forget that Norway benefits from its massive export of carbon. Its profits from carbon and the wealth fund that created does make state-sponsored child care more affordable.

Think the case has been delayed to allow the police time to decide if they want to issue a caution.

Go back 40 years and floods in Bangladesh killed hundreds of thousands. George Harrison brought it to our attention. Today the floods are less frequent and thankfully far, far less lethal than they were. Bangladesh is in a far better place now. Richer, healthier, more populous, better educated, and with wonderfully lower infant mortality. The future is brighter now than it ever has been for more people than ever before. Rejoice!

I've had a reply from the Bolton councillor. It is a sad reply and deserves some sympathy and respect. It also shows how some policies get made despite and in full knowledge of the evidence :

"Paul, Thank you for the information. I understand the arguments but I really wanted to highlight the use of helmets, I would never go out without my helmet. After seeing my son in hospital with blood pouring from his head I had to do something.

John Byrne"

I thought carefully before posting this response here and I have expressed my sympathise to him about his son.

But in the end I decided to post here because I think this is a useful insight for us who wish to make the "no mandatory helmets" argument.