[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

[andystow]

ChuckSneed wrote:

ChuckSneed wrote:

I won’t lie, you seem like you’re frothing at the mouth the way that you went out of your way to open loads of reviews. Relax, it’s just a helmet. It won’t hurt you. It will actually do the opposite.

Got it. It seems the root cause of the problem is that you’re projecting.

I am literally wearing a helmet and smiling in my profile picture.

[hawkinspeter]

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

It gives cyclists the option to get away from the motor traffic early when they think that it’s safe to do so. The idea isn’t to charge through a red and hit anything as that’s stupid and will likely hurt a lot. There’s quite a few junctions where e.g. turning left through a red is not going to bring you into conflict with traffic.

Have a look at the Idaho Stop law in various states and they’ve reduced collisions. Paris has also introduced laws and different lights to take advantage of the idea too, but don’t know if there’s stats on whether that helps.

[hawkinspeter]

ChuckSneed wrote:

Then why would you wear a helmet if you don’t believe that they work. Weird choice.

Mrs HawkinsPeter used to get anxious about me not wearing one. They’re useful for low speed incidents, or at least that’s what they’re tested for and I’ve found them especially good for low hanging branches. Luckily, I’ve never banged my head/helmet in a collision as I don’t think they’re that effective.

[Anonymous]

According to some other guy

According to some other guy in this thread, going through a red light should be allowed for when you’re on a bike, so I’m not sure we can argue against people driving through them if that’s the stance we’re taking.

[Anonymous]

Not sure how allowing us to

Not sure how allowing us to cycle through red lights makes it safer for us. That sounds like the exact opposite of safer. You realise the light is red because other traffic is using the road? 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?

[Anonymous]

Then why would you wear a

Then why would you wear a helmet if you don’t believe that they work. Weird choice.

[chrisonabike]

Why not have a listen to the

Why not have a listen to the man himself?

That isn’t his top 10 and starts with a couple of minutes of history – but you get a feel for what he thinks is important.  (Minor nitpick – the “strict liability” law applies to *financial* matters I believe and the “give way to bikes left or right” is again I think part of more general traffic flow rules).

When he was involved with in Greater Manchester – his previous “posting” – they came up with this.

https://beeactive.tfgm.com/bee-network-vision/

Again it’s a more “general vision” piece and about more than just cycling.  That’s the point – it’s all just choices about what we prioritise.  You can poke about their site for some detail of designs / principles though.  Sadly it seems that the mayor isn’t necessarily keeping up the good work now Chris has moved on.

[wtjs]

Police powers to remove
Police powers to remove driving licences from dangerous drivers
The police already have sufficient powers to prosecute a large range of driving offences, from RLJs to No MOT to handheld mobile use while driving. Many forces can’t be bothered/ choose not to use them. Those forces will do nothing with new powers either

[hawkinspeter]

ChuckSneed wrote:

ChuckSneed wrote:

I do wonder what his top 10 are.

Me too.

I’d suggest things like segregated infrastructure (not that you like it), improved road policing, safety analysis of roads after fatal incidents. Staggered traffic lights, rule changes to allow cyclists to treat red lights as STOP signs and maybe allow contra-cycling on one way roads. Police powers to remove driving licences from dangerous drivers, driver education, increased numbers of people cycling.

[hawkinspeter]

ChuckSneed wrote:

ChuckSneed wrote:

What do you mean about it being theatre?

It usually means that it something designed to give the appearance of something whilst not actually being effective.

When airports started scanning travellers’ shoes, it was an example of security theatre as a response to a terrorist attempting to hide explosives in their shoes. It wasn’t effective because terrorists would simply hide explosives elsewhere as they’d know that their shoes would be scanned. It caused minor inconvenience to all the tourists to give the appearance of security, but added nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

[Anonymous]

What do you mean about it
What do you mean about it being theatre?

[Anonymous]

I do wonder what his top 10
I do wonder what his top 10 are.

[Anonymous]

I won’t lie, you seem like
I won’t lie, you seem like you’re frothing at the mouth the way that you went out of your way to open loads of reviews. Relax, it’s just a helmet. It won’t hurt you. It will actually do the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Just trying to have a
Just trying to have a discussion mate!

[Sniffer]

Disc breaks yesterday,
Disc brakes yesterday, helmets today.

Looks like Chuck needs some attention.

[Author]

Replies