[road]

Every time helmets get mentioned a crowd of people come out frothing at the mouth to declare that they’re a big boy who doesn’t want to wear a helmet. Why is it such a touchy subject?

Topic

[cyclisto]

Because they bought a pop

Because they bought a pop corn machine and they want to have it used.

[Steve K]

When I saw the title of this

When I saw the title of this thread (before I saw our newest troll had posted it) I thought it was going to be about why non-cyclists were so bothered about whether or not people riding bikes wore helmets.

[chrisonabike]

I always liked “thieves
I always liked “thieves operate in this area”. Great … why don’t you do something about that then? Or rather – that’s useful to know, could you give me something more helpful – like who they are, or when they operate? Or do you think I should just leave? Can you recommend an area where they don’t operate?

Helmets are designed for one type of incident *. I don’t think those noisiest about advocating their use have a good grasp of that limitation. What exactly are they trying to help with?

* excepting hawkinspeter’s excellent suggestion about protecting buildings from vehicles with them of course.

[David9694]

I think helmet advocacy is

I think helmet advocacy is from the same drawer as photo ID at polling stations.  A risk is cited, but the “solution” doesn’t address it; the system you’re in isn’t going to operate safely, you have to make yourself safe. 

“its just a precaution” 

“it’s no hassle”

“oh, you’ve decided not to bother?”

Thinking of the New Forest car parks I sometimes pas through, when does 

“Put your valuables out of sight” 

“take your valuables with you”

change from crime prevention advice to “you’re on your own, we can’t help you”?

[Welsh boy]

That reminds me of the fact

That reminds me of the fact that there are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand the binary system and those who don’t 

[IanMSpencer]

These debates perpetuate
These debates perpetuate because there are naive people who think the world can be divided into yes and no answers, and that apparent contradictions imply either hypocrisy or a fundamental failure. When people cannot cope with the idea that there are often no simple answers, or like to pretend that the lack of a simple answer is evidence of conspiracy or stupidity (especially when they claim to have simple answers) they are likely to give up on life and become a Tory cabinet minister or some other burden on society, like similarly useless Internet trolls.

[giff77]

Agreed. I’ve also noticed

Agreed. I’ve also noticed that the media when reporting fatalities of cyclists  in collisions are very quick to highlight that no PPE was being worn and are rather silent when it has been used. 

[Hirsute]

Should there be a united
Should there be a united Ireland?
Should we come out of the echr?
Was Brexit a success?
Was truss given a fair chance?

[David9694]

To answer the question,

To answer the question, drivers want to assuage their conscience: (I)  “well if I end up hitting him, it won’t be that bad” and (ii) “oh he wasn’t wearing a helmet, well clearly he’s at least half to blame, officer/m’lud.”  See also hi viz. 

HawkinsPeter is being very modest, because he has had the brainwave that we don’t need crash barriers – just string some bike helmets along where you want to protect from being damaged by cars. 
 

 

[giff77]

Unfortunately you’ve lobbed a

Unfortunately you’ve lobbed a few grenades to provoke an answer and you’ve now opted for one of the more contentious issues. 

[giff77]

The reality of it is that

The reality of it is that there are many other issues that need to be confronted and resolved. And the ‘helmet’ discussion is very much a distraction. 

When you look at nations with a high uptake of utility cycling they have invested heavily in infrastructure. They create laws that protect the more vulnerable when off this infra. When collisions occur. They investigate why and look for robust solutions. They will totally rebuild junctions to take cyclists out of conflict. They pretty much don’t address PPE as the way forward for road safety.

All the media and so called experts clamour for is HiViz, helmets, licensing etc. None of this is  conducive to promoting cycling. If anything it creates more barriers.  

No one on this forum is anti helmet. They are opposed to the fact that people seem to think it’s the be all and end all for road safety.

[giff77]

I’m much the same. Helmet

I’m much the same. Helmet will be used more in winter. Majority of my offs have resulted in bruised and scraped hips, knees, elbows, palms and sprained wrists. I can count on one hand these experiences. My most serious injuries were a T-boning from a car and the concussion from that would still have occurred helmet or not. 

[giff77]

Regarding the moving off on a

Regarding the moving off on a red I think this is only possible on turning left when clear. Some states in the U.S. practice this on a right turn. When I lived in Georgia it took a while getting used to. You could only do it with caution. It’s already been thrashed out on another thread. A law change would need to be heavily publicised and the govt has a poor track record in this area especially with changes the the HC made this time last year. Even if it became a possibility I reckon there would such a kickback fired up by our friends from the DM and the likes. 
 

A more acceptable measure would be advanced phasing for cyclists at junctions to allow them a thirty second jump. 

[chrisonabike]

Not smiling but foaming it

Not smiling but foaming it seems.  Still, don’t take it personally, the other feller’s literally a cartoon…

[andystow]

ChuckSneed wrote:

ChuckSneed wrote:

Not sure how allowing us to cycle through red lights makes it safer for us. That sounds like the exact opposite of safer.

If you’re not sure, did you try searching for why it might make us safer?

ChuckSneed wrote:

You realise the light is red because other traffic is using the road?

Not always. Sometimes there is no traffic for minutes at a time. The light is needed because at other times there’s enough traffic to require it. You may be amazed to learn that traffic is not spread out evenly throughout the day or week. When there are only cars every few minutes, one direction is red because the other choice would be to have the lights green for all directions, or turn them off and default to roundabout rules or something.

ChuckSneed wrote:

You know, traffic that if you go through a red light will either have to suddenly stop for you, or will just run you over. Is that a hill you want to die on?

The “Idaho Stop” laws allow a cyclist to proceed through a red light when it is safe to do so. They don’t legalize what you think they do.

[Author]

Replies