What should I do when I get to this part of the helmet discussion?

[ctrlindustries]

moderator note: this topic has been split from viewtopic.php?f=7&t=114101
I have tried calling TFL on this matter but they are not very helpful.

On Brighton road (A235) in Croydon, there is a cycle lane heading North.... and at the junction of Kingsdown Avenue and Brighton Road where the Toby Carvery is and the Golf Shop and Laithwaites wine.... if checking on google steet view..

The cycle lane comes to an end and zig zag lines commence for a pedestrian crossing....

Do I have to stop at the end of the advisory cycle lane and wait in case any vehicles are coming into the side roads from the main road or can I just keep cycling? An angry guy in a white van as i cycle through beeped at me and when he started to accelerate said to me that I can't keep cycling down the zig zags and have to wait on the cycle lane until it is clear as there is no under taking or over taking on the zig zags.... Google says motorized vehicles and non don't have to play this game and can undertake.. but the cycle lane does come to an end temporarily because of the zig zags...

What do i do in this cirucmstance because it now freaks me out that a car will just hit me while im cycling across a junction and if i should have stopped my insurance won't cover my bike or worse, my medical. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Vorpal]

I believe that the OP means https://www.google.no/maps/@51.349002,- ... 312!8i6656

Unless there are some significant details left out, WVM is full of cattle poo.

That said, if I were using that route, I would move out into the middle of the lane somewhat before the cycle lane ends, unless traffic is stopped, in which case I might (carefully) filter.

[ctrlindustries]

Thank you to all for your help. I am very gratfeul for the level of attention and detail you have given me for my question.

My concern is that i have already almost been hit on that road in the mornings when there is stand still traffic and cars coming up that way. But who is at fault? I drive and cycle dependant on how far I go. I'm one of the rare few on both sides of the coin so I don't jump red lights and obey the highway code. It really annoys me when cyclists ride around with no helmet or visibility clothing because they don't feel cool and just jump the lights. If i could horn on my bike I would but then they are surprised when they are injured or under a lorry and we hear more tragic stories because people didn't take the proper precautions.

If I am cycling down that path and I am hit by a car coming into a junction and visibility of me is not 100% I take caution but in that area there are a lot of fast drivers who unfortunately don't have the same level of due care and attention. Same in London....

[Bez]

My concern is that i have already almost been hit on that road in the mornings when there is stand still traffic and cars coming up that way.

Traffic is at a standstill and cars are coming? Not sure I follow.

But who is at fault?

Hmm.

I'm one of the rare few on both sides of the coin so I don't jump red lights and obey the highway code.

This reads as an insinuation that people who don't drive disobey the Highway Code and that those who do, do. That's quite a factually inaccurate view.

It really annoys me when cyclists ride around with no helmet or visibility clothing

It annoys some people when people think that not wearing these things is a big deal.

they just jump the lights…then they are surprised when they are injured or under a lorry and we hear more tragic stories because people didn't take the proper precautions.

Have you analysed the recorded data to find out how many casualties involve a cyclist jumping a light and ending up under a lorry? I think you might be surprised. And have you thought about how effective a bit of polystyrene is when you're under a lorry?

Cyclists are legally free to pass motor vehicles in the zig zags. Drivers are advised to look out for them doing it. Cyclists are advised not to do it at junctions. Regardless of fault the cyclist will come off worse. I would simply decide my own behaviour based on those facts and then let other people get on with riding in whatever clothes they see fit.

[AlaninWales]

Thank you to all for your help. I am very gratfeul for the level of attention and detail you have given me for my question.

My concern is that i have already almost been hit on that road in the mornings when there is stand still traffic and cars coming up that way. But who is at fault? I drive and cycle dependant on how far I go. I'm one of the rare few on both sides of the coin so I don't jump red lights and obey the highway code. It really annoys me when cyclists ride around with no helmet or visibility clothing because they don't feel cool and just jump the lights. If i could horn on my bike I would but then they are surprised when they are injured or under a lorry and we hear more tragic stories because people didn't take the proper precautions.

If I am cycling down that path and I am hit by a car coming into a junction and visibility of me is not 100% I take caution but in that area there are a lot of fast drivers who unfortunately don't have the same level of due care and attention. Same in London....

Most adult cyclists are also drivers, so you are not "one of the rare few" but one of the majority.

Neither helmets nor "visibility clothing" are required to cycle on the road, nor is there any reliable evidence to show that they contribute to a safe road environment. If blaming the victims crushed by lorries, please provide evidence that they (the victims, not other cyclists you have seen) were at fault. None of the reports I have seen have given any such evidence and suggesting that "they are surprised when they are injured or under a lorry and we hear more tragic stories because people didn't take the proper precautions" is insulting victim-blaming.

[Vorpal]

It really annoys me when cyclists ride around with no helmet or visibility clothing because they don't feel cool and just jump the lights.

There's no evidence that those things make anyone safer, even if it seems common sense, but if you want more information about that, there are numerous discussions on the forum.

[thirdcrank]

BTW, I hope this isn't a thinly disguised attempt to spark a hi-viz/helmet/RLJ controversy.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Thank you to all for your help. I am very gratfeul for the level of attention and detail you have given me for my question.

My concern is that i have already almost been hit on that road in the mornings when there is stand still traffic and cars coming up that way. But who is at fault? I drive and cycle dependant on how far I go. I'm one of the rare few on both sides of the coin so I don't jump red lights and obey the highway code. It really annoys me when cyclists ride around with no helmet or visibility clothing because they don't feel cool and just jump the lights. If i could horn on my bike I would but then they are surprised when they are injured or under a lorry and we hear more tragic stories because people didn't take the proper precautions.

If I am cycling down that path and I am hit by a car coming into a junction and visibility of me is not 100% I take caution but in that area there are a lot of fast drivers who unfortunately don't have the same level of due care and attention. Same in London....

it realy annoys me when people can't go about their daily business without sticking their nose into other people's.

[ctrlindustries]

I wish to clarify my statements from earlier.

1. It is more likely to be seen with higher visibility clothing than not
2. Ones skull is softer than concrete therefore wearing a helmet is more likely to preserve it
3. Many cyclists ride past me in London and jump the lights and are do simply have less protection than being surrounded by metal on all sides.
4. Most adult drivers are NOT cyclists also. They can cycle but the majority of drivers do not also cycle to work otherwise we would look more like Amsterdam.
5. There is no 100% way to stay safe but anything that decreases risk is great.


That is all I wanted to communicate. I just like to do things properly.

Thank you to those who clarified that I don't HAVE to stop but of course I would rather stay injury free.

[amediasatex]

1. It is more likely to be seen with higher visibility clothing than not

Actually, despite how 'common sense' it might seem there is a lot of conflicting evidence on that, not to mention that 'likely to be seen' does not also equate to 'likely not to be hit'. You should also question why you feel the responsibility should lie on the vulnerable user not to get hit rather than the operator of the large vehicle to properly observe. Do you also think all cars should be hi-vis so that cyclists can more easily spot them so as to not get in the way?

2. Ones skull is softer than concrete therefore wearing a helmet is more likely to preserve it

You are conflating likelyhood of incident with severity of outcome. wearing a helmet or not has little impact on the chances of a collision occurring. It is also only effective in a very specific set of circumstances (WRT impact speed, location, etc.). I'm not going to go into helmets any more than that on here, if you want to broaden your understanding of the issue then there is a plethora of information available on the internet, and a good deal of it on this very forum.

I'd also take issue with your assumption that people choose not to wear hi-vis and helmets to try and be cool, I think you'd find you're actually very wide of the mark there in most cases and it reflects more on your judgements of others than it does on them.

3. Many cyclists ride past me in London and jump the lights and are do simply have less protection than being surrounded by metal on all sides.

Many drivers jump red lights in London too, and elsewhere, and there are nuances at play here regarding risk and specific actions, regardless it is neither here nor there to your discussion. "I see other people doing other things" is no justification for anything, their activity is their own and if not posing a risk to you then I suggest you let them get on with it and find something better to get all riled up about.

4. Most adult drivers are NOT cyclists also. They can cycle but the majority of drivers do not also cycle to work otherwise we would look more like Amsterdam.

But most cyclists are also drivers, your original comment came across as thinking you were in a minority of cyclists who also drive, and that those people don't adhere to the highway code, as Bez pointed out, that is patently false. And you are certainly not the minority on this forum where you came asking for advice. However I think this was a case of simple mis-communication.

5. There is no 100% way to stay safe but anything that decreases risk is great.

Anything, anything at all? Perhaps a full body-armour suit, or go the whole hog and stay at home instead. Or perhaps shades of grey and a little evaluation of risk and circumstance are required. More to the point you appear to have fallen into the trap of putting the burden of 'staying safe' and protection on the vulnerable user. If as much effort were expended suggesting to people driving vehicles that they think more carefully about how they pilot their hard metal box around squishy people you might not feel the need for a plastic hat and day-glo.

You hit upon the point yourself with reference to Amsterdam, how many helmets and hi-viz do you see there?

I'm sorry if this thread seems as if it has turned against you somewhat but you (intentionally or otherwise) have ruffled a few feathers on here by displaying a lot of the opinions that CUK and other campaigners try very hard to fight on a daily basis. I hope you take the time to research and reflect on some of the responses raised with an open mind, you may not change your views either way and they are actually remarkable complex topics to get your head round involving psychology, statistics, behavioural patterns, economics and a good old dose of preconception.

Your original question has been well answered already, but if I were to ride that section I'd probably give that entire 'cycle lane' a miss and just use the road as normal in an appropriate position for the conditions. If there was stationary or slow moving traffic I might filter too, but with caution as that whole area looks like a disaster! Please stay safe out there everyone

Regards

[eileithyia]

I'm just glad I virtually never use that bit of Lee Lane when cycling in Horwich

As for the other discussions.
I would say the cycle lane has no give way sign and you are on the road continuing straight on, so why would you give way.
If you do have stationary traffic between you and the crossing then commonsense says you watch out for driver who is letting other traffic turn either out of into the side road.....
The onus is on the turning driver to ensure the way is clear and not take the say so of the other driver that it is clear.... but that is of no use if it is you sprawled on the deck so it always worth being cautious.

We/I are willing to engage in dialogue regarding such junctions and what we perceive as correct proceedure, but insulting comments regarding clothing choices are not helpful to sensible discourse. I have commuted for many years (and in places where traffic average speeds are faster than those in London), keeping my wits about me, watching for the stupidity of other road users etc., has saved me from accidents and injury far more than a helmet or hiviz.

[drossall]

Thank you to all for your help. I am very gratfeul for the level of attention and detail you have given me for my question.

My concern is that i have already almost been hit on that road in the mornings when there is stand still traffic and cars coming up that way. But who is at fault? I drive and cycle dependant on how far I go. I'm one of the rare few on both sides of the coin so I don't jump red lights and obey the highway code. It really annoys me when cyclists ride around with no helmet or visibility clothing because they don't feel cool and just jump the lights. If i could horn on my bike I would but then they are surprised when they are injured or under a lorry and we hear more tragic stories because people didn't take the proper precautions.

If I am cycling down that path and I am hit by a car coming into a junction and visibility of me is not 100% I take caution but in that area there are a lot of fast drivers who unfortunately don't have the same level of due care and attention. Same in London....

I'm really sorry this thread has gone in an unhelpful direction - even though I'd have to agree with those who have pointed out that your assumptions, that most cyclists don't drive and that helmets have a major contribution to make, aren't easy to support with evidence (which tends to suggest the opposite).

[pjclinch]

I wish to clarify my statements from earlier.

1. It is more likely to be seen with higher visibility clothing than not

On the one hand this is pretty obvious, but "being seen" is not the end point of the conversation, that is being/not being in a collision. What typically gets people hit is not being seen because the other party didn't/couldn't look, and if someone doesn't look or can't because you're in a blind spot then it doesn't matter if you're wearing the Blackpool Illuminations, you're effectively invisible.

What matters is that you're conspicuous enough to be seen in the reaction distance of the other party. This does not require special clothing, and that you are in a good road position where you can see and be seen is actually more important than Magic Coats. That I can see someone in hi-viz a mile away when I'm driving but only a quarter a mile away if they're in "normal" clothes is a bit of a moot point.

2. Ones skull is softer than concrete therefore wearing a helmet is more likely to preserve it

A cycle helmet is designed with a spec to mitigate minor injuries like abrasions and headaches, and it's built down to that. The bottom line of their protection against serious injury is, as the Winton Prof. of Public Understanding of Risk put it in a British Medical Journal editorial, "too modest to capture". Wear a helmet to avoid bumps and grazes by all means, but there's no realistic expectation it will save you hospital time.

5. There is no 100% way to stay safe but anything that decreases risk is great.

It turns out it's a bit more complicated than that... Lower speeds are often safer (less energy, more reaction time), so is it "great" to go as slowly as possible? And then we get in to the minefield of risk compensation, so hydraulic disc brakes work better than V brakes, so they make the bike safer so that's good... but there again you can say the same about ABS brakes in cars and studies have demonstrated that once used to the better brakes drivers brake later and more sharply, thus removing the safety benefit. And so on.

That is all I wanted to communicate. I just like to do things properly.

There's a lot of "just doing things properly" behind the pressure for helmets and hi-viz, but really doing things properly means looking at the evidence, and that tells you they don't stack up as safety interventions for cyclists wanting to stay out of A&E.

Pete.