Cyclist leaves homemade parking tickets on cars in the bike lane...gets told to f*&! off; Rower wins men's cycling esports champs; Kid drops roadies on steep climb; Doctor responds to councillor; Cyclist survives 100ft fall + more on the live blog

If she'd been wearing a helmet, the cliff wouldn't have given her as much space or something. 

In the hierarchy of risk controls, let's go for number one - eliminate the risk and don't cycle next the cliff edge !

...or remove the cliff.

hirsute wrote:

In the hierarchy of risk controls, let's go for number one - eliminate the risk and don't cycle next the cliff edge !

Now you're just being silly....

Assuming she landed head first then the extra 30mm's of helmet thickness would have reduced her fall by the same amount. It would probably make all the difference.

Oh! 30meters, 30 millimeters...perhaps that is what she meant.

Or

former government and BHIT advise,

"wearing a helmet reduces your chance of having an accident by 80%"

It is all bollocks anyhow. If someone does a risk assessment and decides PPE is the solution and then decides the type of PPE is a cycle helmet, then I fear for them.

I made a mistake and wrote down centimeters not millimeters...corrected now..but perhaps I am not wearing it right?

I can't imagine a circumstance in which wearing a helmet would result in a worse outcome. While I agree with Chris Boardman, I wear a helmet every time as I'd rather not gamble with my life!

I already gave 3 examples.

MattieKempy wrote:

I can't imagine a circumstance in which wearing a helmet would result in a worse outcome. While I agree with Chris Boardman, I wear a helmet every time as I'd rather not gamble with my life!

I do too, but I understand that there is an increased risk of spinal injuries. This is potentially explained by the lid increasing the chances of cranial contact, and when it does it acts as a lever, twisting the neck.

MattieKempy wrote:

I can't imagine a circumstance in which wearing a helmet would result in a worse outcome. While I agree with Chris Boardman, I wear a helmet every time as I'd rather not gamble with my life!

Rotational injuries are the most serious type of head injury, and by increasing the radius of the head and therefore the turning moment, helmets make rotational injuries more likely, a fact denied by helmet zealots for thirty years, right up until the manufacturers invented MIPS.

Not to mention risk compensation, making collisions more likely.

eburtthebike wrote:

Not to mention risk compensation, making collisions more likely.

To be fair, though, I can't see wearing a helmet affecting the behaviour of nearby cliffs.

eburtthebike wrote:

It's beginning to look as if there is a concerted campaign against cycling facilities, despite the government, local government and the NHS all saying it's brilliant.  I trust all  the keyboard warriors on this and other cycling sites are responding whenever they see such misinformed, ignorant propaganda.

I'm currently engaged in fighting the good fight on a Crystal Palace FC message board, if that helps. 

Steve K wrote:

I'm currently engaged in fighting the good fight on a Crystal Palace FC message board, if that helps. 

How are all three fans reacting?

There is a concerted campaign against facilities including fair fuel UK who have sentout this survey to everybody on their mail list https://s.surveyplanet.com/NzD3nRZR3 .

What I can say is do not do the fair fule survey....you would never guess but the questions are not "open" and force you to select inappropriate answers.

e.g.

DO YOU SUPPORT NEW CYCLE LANES BEING BUILT ONTO EXISTING ROADS

Yes/No/Not sure  (So far so good....YES)

DO YOU SUPPORT NEW CYCLE LANES BEING BUILT AWAY FROM EXISTING ROADS LEAVING THE ROADS AS THEY ARE

Yes/No/Not Sure

errr....what about YES and put more cycle lanes on existing roads?  So I am unable to answer the question how I would like.

And you just know answer yes to both and they will only highligh the second answer, as I am sure they will deam that more "important" than my first answer.

So once I got that far, I stopped doing the survey.....whatever you answer, they get the results they want....bunch of...... 

Ok....I did a few more questions, which seem ok....but then this!

SHOULD ROAD CYCLISTS BE MADE TO ADHERE TO THE SAME ROAD USER RULES THAT DRIVERS LEGALLY MUST FOLLOW, SUCH AS:

1. MOTORING LAWS & PENALTIES

2. ROAD USER TESTS

3. ROAD TAXES

Yes/No/Not sure

The answer is Yes to 1 but not really...but of course they will read that as meaning I get points on my licence, which means a yes to 2 by default.....it should be, "Follow the High Code" ...YES  (So scrap may answer to this one)

I want to answer No to 2....that would mean that a kid say 6 years old should pass a test to ride a bike.  So equally the kid should be able to drive a car, because that would be a really good idea!

As for 3....well where do you start...send the 6 year old kid out to work so they can pay....wonderful. 

So I am closing the survey and heading out on by bike to clear my head

I was about to have a look at the "survey" but it's obvious from just those 3 options that it's got really poorly thought out questions.

1. Why should cyclists have to abide by the speed limits for motorised vehicles? Also, it's ridicuous to even suggest that bicycles should not be allowed to use mandatory cycle lanes.
2. Why should cyclists be forced to pass a test when you don't need a license to ride a bike? Sounds like a scheme to discourage cycling.
3. What road taxes? Are they referring to income tax?

What's next, a question such as "Should cyclists stop deliberately crashing into pedestrians?" Yes/No

"Should cyclists be banned from the roads?"

hirsute wrote:

"Should cyclists be banned from the roads or are you happy to sit in traffic queues caused by them?"

There, FTFY

I was about to have a look at the "survey" but it's obvious from just those 3 options that it's got really poorly thought out questions.

1. Why should cyclists have to abide by the speed limits for motorised vehicles? Also, it's ridicuous to even suggest that bicycles should not be allowed to use mandatory cycle lanes.
2. Why should cyclists be forced to pass a test when you don't need a license to ride a bike? Sounds like a scheme to discourage cycling.
3. What road taxes? Are they referring to income tax?

What's next, a question such as "Should cyclists stop deliberately crashing into pedestrians?" Yes/No

 

None of those questions were in the survey that I just did!
One that was poorly worded so I had to answer 'don't know', was: 

FROM RECENT MEDIA REPORTS, UNELECTED SPECIAL ADVISORS IN NO 10 ARE INFLUENCING THE ROLL OUT OF CYCLE LANES. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?
I don't know what unelected advisors are advising!  Cycle lanes good, or cycle lanes bad?  Whether or not they're elected is irrelevant if they're pushing for more cycle infrastructure, whoever they are.

I agree though, it was a crap survey, but all cyclists need to fill it in to give the Fair Fuel lobby a run for their money.

Done, although I answered "don't know" to the cyclists obeying the law question. Partly because it was literally nonsensical, but partly because I suspect they're itching to do some (ahem) "statistical analysis" to show that 102% of cyclists believe they're above the law. 

I agree the loaded questions make it difficult, but I would still argue for filling it in as well as you can to help balance their outrageous views.

ChasP wrote:

I agree the loaded questions make it difficult, but I would still argue for filling it in as well as you can to help balance their outrageous views.

Or does a greater number of respondents give it more credibility?

I remember when Richard Dawkins was asked why he wouldn't debate with Ken Hamm (Loony creation believing fundamentalist) he responded "It would look good on his CV, not so much on mine"

Possibly, though didn't they take down a survey a few months ago because they were getting so many negative responces?

ChasP wrote:

Possibly, though didn't they take down a survey a few months ago because they were getting so many negative responces?

dunno

I have just completed the survey having taken the view it would be interesting once the results and comments are known how they change those results. Then hopefully they will be dis-credited further for being shown to pre-determine their outcome (shock) so even if it is for one year they are shown to be as fraudulent, irresponsible and dis-honest as we all know they are.   

nikkispoke wrote:

I have just completed the survey having taken the view it would be interesting once the results and comments are known how they change those results. Then hopefully they will be dis-credited further for being shown to pre-determine their outcome (shock) so even if it is for one year they are shown to be as fraudulent, irresponsible and dis-honest as we all know they are.   

Fair enough, I've been convinced and just had a bit f fun doing it. this was my parting comment on teh last page

"I'm really pleased that you are keen to make fuel duty fair. It's about time we drivers were made to meet the staggering costs that we inflict on society through road violence, damage to quality of life and environmental degradation. Charging fair fuel duty by removing the tax freeze and index linking it to damage to society is a major tool in encouraging people to make the right decision and only use their vehicles when absolutely necessary."