London cyclists warned to be careful... because of all the car fumes; Barrister asked if he was wearing a helmet - after being hit by a motorist; Viaduct reopens for cyclists and walkers; Is cycling linked to your education? + more on the live blog

hirsute wrote:

3 posts and

Great start to your posting career !

This should also be the first helmet one of the year too.

Pretty sure though if the forces are sufficient to cave your head in, then wearing a helmet will make 0 difference.

 

 

I seem to remember there is some evidence that at a population level there is a small but measurable correlation between wearing lids and fewer of certain kinds of maxilo facial and skull fractures.

The difficulty is parsing out the causation. You are far more likely to be killed or injured in poorer areas with high traffic levels and worse cycling infra than in more middle-class areas with lower traffic and better infra. 

In poorer areas people are less likely to wear lids as they can't afford them. So do we see fewer injuries cos lids, or cos higher environmental risk and use of lids is inversely correlated for socio-economic reasons only?

As the effects seem to be small anyway it is hard to regress the data.

I also remember reading that concussive brain injury (caused by the head being "given a shake") is not diminished by wearing a lid, and it is the most common and serious type of head injury (eg you don't have to be hit hard enough to break anything to get a nasty dose).

I'll still wear my lid - habit, low branches, somewhere to put the gopro, diminished risk of stupid questions from people who should know better, defense against cynical insurance companies.

And I will continue to roll my eyes at pious, hypocritical victim-blamers who haven't got the decency to wear a stabvest and a driving helmet for a trip down to the shops. If it just saves one life......

hirsute wrote:

3 posts and

Great start to your posting career !

This should also be the first helmet one of the year too.

Pretty sure though if the forces are sufficient to cave your head in, then wearing a helmet will make 0 difference.

 

 

Is this Boo's new account? I'm very much getting the same "shit troll" vibes here.

Craig Prosser wrote:

No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in. There is 0 valid reason not to wear one

Which is presumably why you wear one every time you have a shower or go downstairs or walk along a street or even drive?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Craig Prosser wrote:

No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in. There is 0 valid reason not to wear one

Which is presumably why you wear one every time you have a shower or go downstairs or walk along a street or even drive?

Or post controversial comments online? 

Craig Prosser wrote:

No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in. There is 0 valid reason not to wear one

No.  Do the research.  Start here cyclehelmets.org

Exactly.
Helmets provide the last 5% (maximum!) of security, IF, and only IF, the other 95% (through closures, speed limits, infrastructure, legal measures etc.) have been provided first.

marmotte27 wrote:

Exactly.
Helmets provide the last 5% (maximum!) of security, IF, and only IF, the other 95% (through closures, speed limits, infrastructure, legal measures etc.) have been provided first.

Exactly; do the things that work, not the things proved not to work.

If closures, speed limits, infrastructure, legal measures etc, are implemented, the evidence from Holland and Denmark shows that helmets aren't necessary or desirable.

Craig Prosser wrote:

No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in. There is 0 valid reason not to wear one

If it were true that "cycle helmets" prevented injury from vehicle impact (and you'd have to wonder that they are not tested against that eventuality), why are they imposed upon cyclists in particular rather that all those at risk from motor vehicle impact? It just makes no sense.

Craig Prosser wrote:

No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in.....

While you're looking up the other citation I asked you for, can you provide evidence for this too...

I'd advise you not to ask the helmet companies (they'll tell you they can't make that kind of promise, or any promise as to efficacy in quantitative terms, or which injuries can be avoided at all) but don't let me stop you

Many here do, they don't chelp at others about it. Now - where's that cartoon again?

I don't like wearing a helmet, that is a valid reason for me!

Awavey wrote:

Point of order, Dr Luke Evan's posed his written question to the DfT last week, you may then have also noted he asked a further question about what steps are being taken to ensure the hierarchy of road users outlined in the Highway Code is understood by road users, but I'll assume no one is interested in the answer to that question... Written questions by backbenchers are a perfectly acceptable form of determining government policy in areas that are less publicised than the froth that keeps the media interest at Westminster, whatever our own views of the opinions that drive those questions.

It may well be a perfectly acceptable method to get clarification on points, but I just find it frustrating that we're in the middle of a climate emergency and it continues to be kicked down the road and largely ignored by policy makers (and has been for decades).

Well of the near 60,000 written questions MPs/Lords have raised in just the last year to government depts, no one asked about pedestrian headphones specifically, but Lord Mawson, a cross bench Lord, did ask if the government had plans to make it an offence to wear headphones riding a bicycle or electric scooter.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Awavey wrote:

Point of order, Dr Luke Evan's posed his written question to the DfT last week, you may then have also noted he asked a further question about what steps are being taken to ensure the hierarchy of road users outlined in the Highway Code is understood by road users, but I'll assume no one is interested in the answer to that question... Written questions by backbenchers are a perfectly acceptable form of determining government policy in areas that are less publicised than the froth that keeps the media interest at Westminster, whatever our own views of the opinions that drive those questions.

It may well be a perfectly acceptable method to get clarification on points, but I just find it frustrating that we're in the middle of a climate emergency and it continues to be kicked down the road and largely ignored by policy makers (and has been for decades).

A considerable amount of policy gets processed and implemented, but under the radar of the public gaze. Some of that is environmentally positive.  The response to the question raised by Luke Evans received a reply from DfT PUS stating that the DfT has a plan to publicise the changes with an initial post-implementation fact awareness raising, followed by a behavioural campaign for the summer when active travel is predicted to increase.

This fits comments I've made previously: that the absence of messages so far should not be criticised too much, because the guidance it would highlight has not been approved yet and remains before Parliament.

What is less helpful is the random graphics conjured up my semi-informed grunts in the RW press, under-estimating the priority that people on foot, horse and cycle already have and over-estimating the priority that people in motor vehicles currently have.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I just find it frustrating that we're in the middle of a climate emergency and it continues to be kicked down the road and largely ignored by policy makers (and has been for decades).

It's only an emergency for people who care and those who will be / are being most violently affected by it.

The policy makers are not affected and therefore do not give a flying f*ck. They only care about the big money they can continue to make for themselves and their already obscenely wealthy friends.

And this problem isn't just at government level, councils like ours have declared a climate emergency but done absolutely NOTHING about it, continuing with their old ways, which includes pouring money we don't have into building new roads (while not maintaining the existing network); refusing to improve public & active transport provision; ignoring the ongoing pressure to divest their pension funds from fossil fuels into something more sustainable... the list is long.

Ooh - I know what's wrong there, I know! Is it that the Braille is written left-right so obviously it will be the wrong way round in the blind person's rear view mirror?

This van itself is a Braille version of "YPLAC" - indeed you don't even need to read Braille to read it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm so glad that our esteemed leaders in this country address the major issues of the day such as yesterday when Luke Evans (Conservative MP for Bosworth) asked the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to encourage cyclists to use (a) high visibility clothing in the dark, (b) cycle helmets, (c) bicycle bells and (d) other safety precautions when out on the road. (https://twitter.com/allpartycycling/status/1481601887547887616).

If all cyclists used bells, then surely the poisonous air will listen and realise it has to get out of the way? Anyhow, it's not as if people are dying from bad air quality, is it?

I know I always feel safer during a close pass if I can let the motorist know my exact feelings tinging my little bell

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm so glad that our esteemed leaders in this country address the major issues of the day such as yesterday when Luke Evans (Conservative MP for Bosworth) asked the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to encourage cyclists to use (c) bicycle bells and (d) other safety precautions when out on the road.

I use my bell when cycling on shared spaces, but 9 out of 10 peds seem to have headphones so can't hear anyway? Presumably the Hon gentleman will therefore ask the Sec State for Transort to make it illegal for peds to wear headphones when on shared spaces?

Jem PT wrote:

I use my bell when cycling on shared spaces, but 9 out of 10 peds seem to have headphones so can't hear anyway? Presumably the Hon gentleman will therefore ask the Sec State for Transort to make it illegal for peds to wear headphones when on shared spaces?

Could be discriminatory - some of them could be deaf.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm so glad that our esteemed leaders in this country address the major issues of the day such as yesterday when Luke Evans (Conservative MP for Bosworth) asked the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to encourage cyclists to use (a) high visibility clothing in the dark, (b) cycle helmets, (c) bicycle bells and (d) other safety precautions when out on the road. (https://twitter.com/allpartycycling/status/1481601887547887616).

If all cyclists used bells, then surely the poisonous air will listen and realise it has to get out of the way? Anyhow, it's not as if people are dying from bad air quality, is it?

Just require someone out in front with a high-vis flag - keeps pedestrians safe and saves cyclists from themselves. Obviously the flag should be made from organic seaweed sustainably harvested in UK waters. Maybe by former MPs - paid a fair living wage - after the next election?

brooksby wrote:

I read the pollution story in one of the papers and it was being presented as if it was purely an atmospheric phenomenon (like the weather).

For some reason, the source of the pollution was not being addressed... 

One of the big problems with having a billionaire dominated media is that much of it is fake news, or so heavily slanted that it ignores the cause and blames the victims.  We desperately need independent, authoritative, credible reporting, but that's pretty hard to find, and the BBC is just as bad as the DM.

This story is no different, with the implication being that pedestrians and cyclists are putting themselves at risk by taking exercise in polluted air, not that it is the fault of motorists for polluting the air and the authorities for allowing them to do it.

The sensible response of course would be to severely reduce car use, perhaps to those who really do need it by virtue of being disabled.  Our politics, yet again, have failed to analyse the problem, failed to take action, and failed us.

Exactly.  If the problem is that the weather system isn't dispersing the pollution caused by motor vehicles, then surely as well as telling non-motorists to avoid physical activity they should be telling motorists not to drive.

brooksby wrote:

Exactly.  If the problem is that the weather system isn't dispersing the pollution caused by motor vehicles, then surely as well as telling non-motorists to avoid physical activity they should be telling motorists not to drive.

We need a better more efficient weather system

Captain Badger wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Exactly.  If the problem is that the weather system isn't dispersing the pollution caused by motor vehicles, then surely as well as telling non-motorists to avoid physical activity they should be telling motorists not to drive.

We need a better more efficient weather system

We need to level up our weather! But we have already signed many great new deals to allow us to export it elsewhere.

brooksby wrote:

Exactly.  If the problem is that the weather system isn't dispersing the pollution caused by motor vehicles, then surely as well as telling non-motorists to avoid physical activity they should be telling motorists not to drive.

No No No. you've clearly misread the room. If the problem is the weather, then we need to change the weather. That way we can all drive more cars and not have to be bothered about a bit of smog hanging about.

Yours sincerley

Nigel's Garrage.