Transport minister Grant Shapps hospitalised (and thanks his helmet) after cycling crash; Giro d'Italia stages revealed; Homemade e-bike; Bernal denies Ineos rift; Insane climbing; Dear Deidre: Strava edition; Sagan looks to future + more on the live blog

shoko wrote:

Love it, raised by Mr Loophole himself! No doubt he's decided there's a market for getting celebrity cyclists off with speeding and jumping red lights

HOLY CRAP! I didn't even clock that! This makes it even better then: Come december it will either be ignored because it doesn't have enough signatures, or ignored by the Government for the obvious reasons we've all heard before.

While the epetitions can be useful for direct Democracy there really should be a barrier to allowing the same petitions to keep going up over and over. Maybe don't allow another epetition to go live on something the Government has already debated in their term.

Jenova20 wrote:

Call me sadistic if you like, but i've been hoping this epetition reaches 10,000 over the last month, just so MPs can debate licencing bikes again (For like the 50th time) and then the Government can respond with "No".

The epetition in question: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/585474

8558 signatures to this peition from "top lawyer" Nick Freeman, wonder if our resident autophile has signed it?

In all seven of their usernames, no doubt!

brooksby wrote:

In all seven of their usernames, no doubt!

Even if it does reach 10,000 they'll debate it, and the Government will just say "No", as they have every other time this has been asked for by idiot motorists. That's what I thought was so amusing about this.

Jenova20 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

In all seven of their usernames, no doubt!

Even if it does reach 10,000 they'll debate it, and the Government will just say "No", as they have every other time this has been asked for by idiot motorists. That's what I thought was so amusing about this.

10,000 just gets you a response from government (which you could get just by writing a letter); you need 100,000 for a debate.  But in any case, I'd be interested if any petition on the Parliamentary petition site (on any subject) has actually led to a change of policy.

Steve K wrote:

Jenova20 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

In all seven of their usernames, no doubt!

Even if it does reach 10,000 they'll debate it, and the Government will just say "No", as they have every other time this has been asked for by idiot motorists. That's what I thought was so amusing about this.

10,000 just gets you a response from government (which you could get just by writing a letter); you need 100,000 for a debate.  But in any case, I'd be interested if any petition on the Parliamentary petition site (on any subject) has actually led to a change of policy.

and the response will be "No this is a really stupid idea, that provides no benefit for a large administrative cost."

Do you happen to have a link to or a title for that study? I'd be interested to read it.

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10053381/

sean1 wrote:

Always weird that any accident involving a cyclist immediately turns to helmet advocacy. 

Pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants have a much higher incidence of head injury yet helmets are never discussed as an option for these transport modes.

That's because people like Angela Lee and other helmet zealots, have spent forty years deliberately, consciously lying about the risks of cycling, so that they can sell helmets.  All the while claiming to be acting in the best interests of cyclists and society; the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Looking at those graphs, cyclists have the highest percentage of cause of death by head injury. Pedestrians aren't far behind, but it's much lower for driving.

What you'd actually need to look at the incidence of head injuries of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers by time spent doing each activity.

Yes you can do analysis based on distance or time travelled.

The report covers this:

"The fatal head injury rate is highest for cyclists by time travelled and for pedestrians using distance travelled."

However in absolute terms there is more potential to save lives by encouraging drivers and pedestrians to wear helmets than cyclists.

So to summarise, ignore cyclists because they are in the minority?

No.  The reverse.  Consider drivers and pedestrians because they are the majority of fatalities.

AidanR wrote:

Looking at those graphs, cyclists have the highest percentage of cause of death by head injury. Pedestrians aren't far behind, but it's much lower for driving.

What you'd actually need to look at the incidence of head injuries of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers by time spent doing each activity.

But if you want to save the maximum number of lives, helmets for cyclists comes third on the list. "If it saves one live, it's worth it" how about the 1300 pedestrian lives?

AidanR wrote:

Looking at those graphs, cyclists have the highest percentage of cause of death by head injury. Pedestrians aren't far behind, but it's much lower for driving.

What you'd actually need to look at the incidence of head injuries of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers by time spent doing each activity.

Why by time? If my choice is walk to work, or cycle to work, it doesn't matter that walking takes longer, only that I have greater risk of fatal head injury
If course of my purpose is getting 2 hours exercise, then time is relevant

wycombewheeler wrote:

Why by time? If my choice is walk to work, or cycle to work, it doesn't matter that walking takes longer, only that I have greater risk of fatal head injury If course of my purpose is getting 2 hours exercise, then time is relevant

Neither time or distance is perfect, but I think most people would choose their method of commuting by time. I could walk my commute, but it'd take 2.5 hours each way so I cycle it instead.

wycombewheeler wrote:

But if you want to save the maximum number of lives, helmets for cyclists comes third on the list. "If it saves one live, it's worth it" how about the 1300 pedestrian lives?

I agree. Now there's a link to the report, I can see that cycling and walking have a comparable number number of head injuries (more for pedestrians by distance, more for cyclists by time). Therefore it's quite legitimate to argue that if cyclists would have to wear helmets then pedestrians should too. I suspect the main reason this isn't contemplated is because walking is (reasonably) seen as a normal activity which everyone has the right to do, whereas cycling is (unreasonably) seen as a choice people make that puts them in harm's way.

AidanR wrote:

I agree. Now there's a link to the report, I can see that cycling and walking have a comparable number number of head injuries (more for pedestrians by distance, more for cyclists by time). Therefore it's quite legitimate to argue that if cyclists would have to wear helmets then pedestrians should too. I suspect the main reason this isn't contemplated is because walking is (reasonably) seen as a normal activity which everyone has the right to do, whereas cycling is (unreasonably) seen as a choice people make that puts them in harm's way.

Fair points, but they all fall when you look at the whole population data for cycle helmets; they don't save lives, so it is pointless to argue that anyone should wear them, let alone make it a law.

eburtthebike wrote:

Fair points, but they all fall when you look at the whole population data for cycle helmets; they dont' save lives, so it is pointless to argue that anyone should wear them, let alone make it a law.

Interesting. Do you have a link to that data?

A good overview of health issues associated with helmet use. 

https://theconversation.com/ditching-bike-helmets-laws-better-for-health-42

It has some some useful links into relevant studies.

AidanR wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Fair points, but they all fall when you look at the whole population data for cycle helmets; they dont' save lives, so it is pointless to argue that anyone should wear them, let alone make it a law.

Interesting. Do you have a link to that data?

Sorry, I'm sick of posting, reposting, and re-re-posting this stuff.  Do some research; google is your friend; maybe.

wycombewheeler wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Looking at those graphs, cyclists have the highest percentage of cause of death by head injury. Pedestrians aren't far behind, but it's much lower for driving. What you'd actually need to look at the incidence of head injuries of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers by time spent doing each activity.

Why by time? If my choice is walk to work, or cycle to work, it doesn't matter that walking takes longer, only that I have greater risk of fatal head injury If course of my purpose is getting 2 hours exercise, then time is relevant

Another useful way to measure risk is by trip.

eburtthebike wrote:

Another useful way to measure risk is by trip.

I think plastic helmets are quite good for the injuries caused by trips, whether of the badly laid paving slab or the one too many pills variety.

TheBillder wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Another useful way to measure risk is by trip.

I think plastic helmets are quite good for the injuries caused by trips, whether of the badly laid paving slab or the one too many pills variety.

No; clearly, according to all the helmet zealots, they only work for cyclists.

sean1 wrote:

Always weird that any accident involving a cyclist immediately turns to helmet advocacy. 

And there's always an anecdote along the lines of "a part of my body which would never be protected by a helmet was injured; I am so glad I was wearing a helmet"

What you might be saying is - if only Kim Briggs had been wearing a helmet?

Also not stepping out into the road looking at your mobile phone can help.

sean1 wrote:

Also not stepping out into the road looking at your mobile phone can help.

She wasn't; Alliston invented that.

I didn't realise that.  I often hear this mentioned in relation to the Briggs/Alliston case but I wasn't aware it was disputed and possibly made up by Alliston.  There was CCTV footage of the incident although in this article is doesn't mention if the CCTV confirms the use (or not) of the mobile phone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40927791
 

She did have a phone on her. I thought allison claimed she was using it but then backed down. No evidence that she was using it at the time.