Cycling UK Forum

[XAP]Bob wrote:...he was in charge of a lethal weapon...

Yes he was. I have a tin of beans in the cupboard at home which I could club someone with - so I have a lethal weapon too.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but so many things could be used as weapons. The real matter is how both the driver and cyclist acted. I expect that wil be explored in court and until such time as the outcome is known calls for life bans are probably premature. Remember that as cyclists we too have lethal weapons...

gilesjuk wrote:Solution to railings is make them easily crushable from the road side but strong from the pedestrian side.

If you can make it work, you are on to a winner. The goal with almost all street furnature is to make it only strong enough.

(For instance) Lamp posts used to be made of concrete because they were cheap and strong. The problem is they are too heavy to be accelerated quickly in the event of a vehicle impact so tended to cause much more damage than a "lightweight" steel post. Secondly after the impact, the damage caused would take its toll and down would come the post - about a tonne of concrete landing right on top of the victim...

Railings are approved by the Highways Authority and are manufatured to a standard design. There would be scope for improvement and a robust and effective plastic widget would easily be incorporated into the stadard design should it be proved to be effective.

Mythical wrote:Besides, isn't all this c*** there for the benefit of the drivers...

No - In what way do drivers benefit? By not having to bump over the corpses of the pedestrians?

Railings are provided in an attempt to make the interaction of vehicles and pedestrians safer. I have no doubt that in a lot of cases provision of railings makes many pedestrians safer than they would be without the railings.

A lot of cases is, of course, not all cases. Railings seem to be particularly poor when retro-fitted at junctions which are already of a poor standard of construction. I don't know the area where this accident happened but it would be quite likely to be old sub-standard junction. I'm guessing that the design of the road in this area is constrained and cannot readily be improved. I'm also guessing that a great many lorries use the junction every day and don't hit cyclists.

I note that the driver has been arrested and charged. If the same driver had gone through the junction in the same way and in the absence of railings, the cyclist would still have been hit, but would now have been sent into the pedestrians with possibly equal or worse outcome.

Littgull wrote:Broadly speaking I have to say I agree with the viewpoint that wearing high viz clothing and helmets negatively contributes to making cycling seem unsafe. I also feel that there is little credible evidence to suggest or prove that wearing this gear actually helps to save lives. Having said that I totally respect the right of cyclists to wear what they like (and I'm not suggesting anyone has posted otherwise).

Thank you for your posting. I have worked along side several health and safety professionals and can confirm that my experience does match the image given in your post, but I didn't see this thread as being particularly anti- H&S.

It is fact that the Highway code recommends both hi-vis and helmets. I see the two as entirely separate matters. We have covered helmets quite extensively elsewhere so no further comment here...

Hi viz is possibly easier to defend. Personally, I rarely wear proper hi viz when on the bike, but I do tend to wear a bright yellow wind-proof jacket and I think that is close enough. I do know many people who wear hi viz for other purposes, including pedestrians on the narrow footways in the minor roads around my area. These people will all have their own reasons and are, rightly or wrongly making a decision based on the perceived risk. I think it is entirely reasonable to give cyclists the same opportunity to assess their own personal risks.

I don't believe that the wearing hi viz is such a strong statement on the dangers of cycling as has been made out. There is the added factor that hi viz (if it works) is a preventative against accients whereas a helmet may (or may not) assist in lessening the effects of an accident only in the event of one occuring...

Going back to littgull's post, in order to effectively conduct a risk assessment it is neccessary to know both the probability and severity or hazard. This is not possible with hi viz (or indeed with helmets). This thread shows that to be the case.

EdinburghFixed wrote:I don't think there can be many crashes where the driver looked, but didn't see.

I think that is entirely correct. Hi Viz cannot help when the driver doesn't look. When the driver does look, we want them to be concious of what they have seen. It used to be that Hi Viz was rare and could compete well with the colours normally found in and around roadways. Now Hi Viz is quite common and there is all manner of bright (day-glo) colours to compete with. Hi Vis "must" be less effective now than it used to be.

Driver recognition requires more than simply being "seen", it is necessary for the driver to recognise that they have "seen" a cyclist and to be able to gauge what that cyclist is doing (i.e. riding towards them...). This is probably not improved by use of Hi viz.

johncharles wrote:Ther is a road near where I live which has had the limit reduced to 50mph and since then the accident rate has not changed at all. Strangely and it must be coincudence in the last 12 months there were exactly the same number of accidents as the previous 12 months.

For a road to have quantifiable and comparable accident rates over a 12 month period would require the road to be extremely dangrous! Accident rates are not usually high enough to get useful data over such short periods of time.

Having said that, I suspect that most 50 limits are not really intended to reduce accidents but are rather a convenient method of clarifying matters of blame when the accidents do happen... or maybe just good positions for speed traps.

I think it's fair to say that those people who wear hi-viz do so in the hope of being seen...

Those cyclists not wearing hi-viz: What are you wearing? I'm guessing that it is a matter of degrees and while you still want to be seen, you think Hi-viz is over the top? Is there anyone out there trying not to be seen?

ian burt wrote:I find myself overheating to such an extent that if wearing one were made compulsory I would not be able to ride in any weather warmer than about 15C.

I really don't know, but I suspect you get aclimatised to the helmet to some extent - As we do to hot weather in general. How much riding you'd need to do for this to be the case will obviously vary so there is scope for getting in some extra rides on that basis alone!

byegad wrote:The research done into passing distance with regard to the differently dressed cyclist confirned that the more 'road warrior' the look the closer on average the pass. This suggests that we should all ride in outwardly ordinary clothing.

Do you by chance have a link to that research? I'm aware of the research into passing distances with and without helmets but not clothes...

niggle wrote:Research suggests the colour that will be contrasting with the background of the normal road environment the majority of the time is pink, so how about a hi-viz pink vest for two wheel transport only

We have pink hi-viz for the fire wardens in our office...

I suspect that any colour will sub-conciously blend into the back ground with familiarity. The trick might be to find a really bright colour that no one else has!

Would (or should) cyclists comply with the reduced speed limits? With 30 mph I stand no chance of breaking the speed limit on my bike but with 20 mph I would regularly exceed it. Currently speed limits don't directly apply to cyclists, but in urban 20 mph zones - maybe thay should?

George Riches wrote:So you see it as a consumer/individual issue? In which case haven't you started the thread in the wrong forum?

My reason for starting the thread :- I reasearched on line about cycle helmets. I discovered that they were surrounded in a good deal of controversy and might not be of any actual benefit. I discovered CTC, who claimed to represent cyclists interests and hoped for a more definitive position in regard to helmet use. I didn't find one, instead i found out that CTC is opposed to compulsion but takes a less firm line on any potential benefit/disbenefit of the actual wearing of helmets. I found on the forum lots of earlier discussions, all of similar form in that one person would say how a helmet had saved their life only to be told that their view was nonsense... I thought it might be helpful for there to be more definitive investigations into helmet effectiveness, but couldn't think you such an investigation would be structured. I thought I'd post to see if there was any consensus as to what such investigation should involve, and as an after thought suggested that maybe CTC should be involved given their position representing cyclists...

The original purpose of the thread has not been answered - I don't mind - There has been some good exchange of views and I've found a lot of it thought provoking. I've done some more reading and think that the evidence indicates that cycle helmets are of no actual benefit to a commuting cyclist doing the type of cycling I do! Yet I still wear a helmet. Mainly because my wife, who doesn't cycle at all, thinks that I should. - Like CTC I pick my arguements!

As to which forum - I thought this was the right one - We are now ten pages in and it's not been moved so I guess that shows no one particularly minds it being here...

George Riches wrote:I think CTC has three fully paid campaigners and a load of volunteers (the Right to Ride Network). Work is focused on responding to threats and opportunities posed by the government. Helmet compulsion is not much of a threat at the moment; the thought of helmet inspectors on every street corner ready to fine naughty cyclists doesn't help with the monstrous issue of cutting billions from public spending.

My concern is primarily with me rather than the economy! I'm not unduly concerned over possible helmet legislation. With bikes, hemets etc being made in the far east, there is not much of a boost to the economy by having cyclists go on a compulsory spending spree either.

MartinC wrote:To me the biggest benefit would come from better driver behaviour.

Yes, we agree, CTC does better to put it's effort into these things rather than helmet research.

Actually, I don't totally agree!

I think CTC should hold an informed position wherever possible. I think the page on helmets is poor, in that while it leaves the choice to the individual it is not sufficiently sceptical of the possible benefits. As an alternative, I'd like CTC to spell out on the page that helmets are at best of trivial significance.

I believe the reason that this is not done is because there is insufficient reliable evidence for the matter to be non-controversial. CTC is therefore not unreasonably being non-controversial - better to wait for the bigger arguements...

I think this is misguided and counters some of CTC's own work - Safety in numbers being the latest.

It is the perception of risk that is the problem and the inability to be definite when discussing the matter. - We are now well into page 10 without any real advancement.

CTC has about 60,000 members. A yearly subscription is £36. Neglecting to allow for children, unwaged etc that is over 2 million. Even if CTC were unable to fund further research into helmet efficacy, they surely have the resources to assist in defining the questions and parameters which need to be studied.

jimmynoboat wrote:...I recently fell off and there is no doubt whatsoever that the helmet saved me from serious injury (only wish I'd been wearing knee pads too!)...

Carefull now - you'll start a riot...

I presume your helmet suffered severe damage? Could you describe the incident in more detail - We would like to know your speed, the cause of the accident, How you landed, what your injuries were and what state you helmet was in afterwards.

Then I'll probably let others tear your theory apart!

George Riches wrote:Better cyclist behaviour (via training), better motorist behaviour (better driving, lower speeds) better roads & paths. Take a look at CTC Campaigns And Policy Homepage

Um - So that is stuff CTC is already lobbying for...

MartinC wrote:I think there are many other factors which would have much greater benefit for cyclists if we applied effort and resources to them. So, yes, some answers would be good but it's low priority compared to many other things.

Go on then - What other things?

In anticipation, I expect that CTC and others will already be lobbying for them.