A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[40kGamer]

The only US place I know of with significant infrastructure is New York and that has loads of problems

In order to ride around in the US you either have to have an adamantium spine or a severe lack of common sense... the roadways here are NOT friendly.

[Psychosplodge]

[40kGamer]

I can't believe they need a sign that says "sign in the way". These are the things where you either laugh or cry.

[Wolfshade]

I would love to do the Trans-Am race that would be awesome.

Love the sign

Apparently, there is a city in america, I was talking to a Canadian co-worker where all teh hippies migrated to and there has good infrastructure and recycling schemes and renewable systems

[Wolfshade]

The Jersey Compulsory Helmet Law

Earlier this month Jeresey made it a legal requirement for any under 14 year old to wear a helmet or risk their parents suffering a £50 fine.

So before we re-hash the old argument about the efficacy of helmets which is counter inntuative. Let us instead consider why Jersey made the move and why.

Firstly, the law only applies on public routes, so on the path through the park, you need a helmet, on the grass parallel to the path you don't.

Secondly it wil be enforced by the honorary police (an elected unpaid law enforces based in and from the local community). Those brought to court will face a parish hall enquiry, again an informal community based method of youth justices. The islands cheif civil servant for transport says that he assumes most children will appear before the parish and get told off and adivsed to wear them rather than being fined.

The man behind the law is a chap called Andrew Green a member of the States of Jersey (a combined legisture and executive), who wanted it originally for all.

Green, despite evidence from AUS, NZ, US, Canada believes that not only will it not curb cycling rates, but might improve them with is anecodotal "evidence":

Those figures [about helmet compulsion hampering cyclist numbers] don’t stack up, and I’m even more confident when we’re talking about children. I can only talk from Jersey experience, but I believe children participating in cycling will increase after the law, based on the number of phone calls I’ve had from parents saying, ‘I want little Johnny to wear a helmet. He won’t wear it because his friends won’t wear one. Therefore I won’t let him have a bike.'

So, hopefully, this will address the issue of 1-5 11 year olds being overweight or obese.

So once again we have the issue that someone thinks that their own anecodtoes are worth the same as research invovling thousands of cases, conducted scientifically.

This issue is further compounded by the research by Jersey's scrutiny office, they commisioned TRL to do a metadata analysis. Which fails to offer the views coined by Green. Throughout the report the authors stress that much of the evidence, particualary with regards to helmet laws is mixed and contradictory.

The strange part is, in Jeresey child helmet wearage (? if it wasn't a word it is now) is already 84% so increasing this by a mere 16% will not have a terribly large impact on the injury rates. Indeed in 2013 there was 1 cyclist injury, who was over 14, so it is seriously unclear how this can be improved.

The report also drops sentences in which seem to be unsupported or just bizarre like "[helmet laws] can be expected to have a beneficial effect on the injury rate" so what have negative injury rates!? or "[it] seems unlikely to have a major impact on cycling activity[rates] in Jeresey" and that is the start and end of the evidence.

The evidence of Australia is that in the 1990's helmet laws caused a plummet in those doing it, which is widely disregarded as a blip (and indeed with enough time it may well be re-normalised as people grow up believing it to be normal) however, Terry Mulder, minister for roads in Victoria states that bike usae fell between 1986-2010 which he states as a "social trend" rather than helmet laws, again despite offering no proof.

Green is also quoted as saying "If you just save one life, or save one life from being blighted it's worth it" and this is part of the problem, anecdotes are all given very emotively, it hard not to feel sorry for those who have lost loved ones because of head injuries while cycling and it is only someone who is socially inept (Hello!) would turn around and tell them that they are infact wrong and it is not the lack of helmet that was to blame but the person who caused the collision.

I am not entirely opposed to this law, and quite frankly, being over 14 and not living in Jersey it doesn't really affect me. The rationale behind it is fairly sound, young riders are mostly likely to fall off because of something they have done and therefore be doing slower speeds at which helmets might be useful. It is just given the 0 injury rate it seems a little strange as this is the first British territory that has passed helmet laws.

:Thin end of the wedge warning:

[Wolfshade]

The Daily Mail and what it tells us towards attitudes towards cyclists.
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714260/Billie-Piper-quizzed-police-pulls-crash-puts-cyclist-16-hospital.html[/url]

The background: 2nd August 2014, Billie Piper doing an u-turn hit a cyclsits causing injury to the cyclists shoulder and hospitalisation.

Title: Billie Piper quizzed by police and pulls out of show after crash puts cyclist, 16, in hospital

So we already notice that Ms Piper chosing not to perform in a show is more important than the hospitalisation of a person.

We actually have to get into the 6th paragraph before we learn that the issue is that Ms Piper was doing a uturn.

Ms Piper’s sons Winston, five, and Eugene, two, were in the back of her black Volkswagen Golf as she attempted a U-turn on a steep section of road behind King’s Cross station in the London borough of Camden.

She is understood to have been driving at under five miles per hour as she crossed Goods Way into the path of the teenage cyclist who was travelling downhill at a significant speed

Strangely, we now have a situation whebry the perp. is the one who is being painted as the innocent party, "she was driving at under 5 mph" comapred with the scoff law cyclist who was travelling "downhill at signficant speed". Seriously, what does any of this have to do with the simple fact that she drove into the cyclist.

The cyclist could have been doing any speed under the sun and it would still be the fault of the vehicle turning. (Ok, if the cyclist is doing like 50mph round a blind corner than fine fair enough but this is unlikely).

The bike slammed into the back of the car and the boy was thrown to the ground.

Notice how the bike is violently attacking the car...

The Mail on Sunday understands that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet.

Seriously, what place does this have in this peice? Is the inferance that had the cyclist been wearing a helmet it would have a) prevented the collision or b) caused the shoulder injury not to occur?

But there were also calls last night for cyclists to take greater responsibility for their actions and to ensure they wear helmets.

Again, there were two lines saying 8 cyclists have died in london and that the Mayor has pleged money for cyclists, but then back to this. Why would there be calls for cyclists to take greater responsibility for their actions on the basis of a car causing a collision?
What? Really? A car causes a collision and it is the cyclists fault? And again with the helmets.

Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign said: ‘When doing a U-turn you are expected to give way to everyone.

'Every crash highlights the need for all road users to take care. Wearing a cycle helmet is a personal choice – the evidence is mixed as to the protection they provide.’

A spokesman for Billie Piper declined to comment.

One sensible bit.

[Mr Mystery]

Speed isn't even negligence in a road traffic accident.

Mostly because 1) If you're established in the road you're established in the road 2) Nobody has speed capture devices attached to their vehicles. Nobody.

Doing the U-Turn would put Ms Piper at fault, 100%. Cyclist was seemingly on their side of the road, correctly proceeding.

Stupid Daily Mail. Did it mention what Ms Piper was wearing? Because if not, that's probably a first innit?

[Wolfshade]

I am used to reading biased journalism, but this was something else. The only thing it missed out on cycling bingo was road tax and insurance, the other boxes were ticked.

[Mr Mystery]

Even the wording - she crossed into the path. Who is at fault there? Kid minding their own, or the car attempt a hazardous manouvre?

[Denzark]

On the subject of bias, I notice you write that 'Seriously, what does any of this have to do with the simple fact that she drove into the cyclist.' He went into the back of her car. She was doing a U-turn. That is not her driving into him, that is him cycling into her. That is not to comment on who is at fault - it is just pointing out that bias works both ways. It is possible for the person in front to be at fault.

Next, a U-turn. We drive on the left here. Whatever lane he was in, if he was on the left hand side it would have been very hard for him to go into the back of her with her at fault. I base this on the following:

The report claims she was moving at 5mph - which works out at 2.2 recurring metres per second (60 mph =1600 metres in 60 seconds. 1600 divide by 60 = 26.6666667 divide by 12 (to get 5mph) = approx. 2.2 recurring).

So how the hell did lycra boy, not spot the object moving at a slow jogging speed, in his way, until such time as he went into the back of her? Which implies her turn was complete?

16 yo kid, travelling at 'considerable speed'. Not wearing helmet. Probably as attentive to life as all 16yos. If he had gone into the side of her car, I would probably have thought she was at fault 100%. But because he went into the back, implying her (possibly illegal, I don't know the road signage there) manoeuvre was complete, coupled with her slow speed, he probably has to accept some responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -

HA!

Would you believe it? I have just gone down Goods Way on Google Maps to see what the conditions are. At one point, if you start from the A5200 end and follow the road west, you can follow a cyclist. Follow the nice, responsible helmet and dayglo wearing cyclist.

Watch as he weaves all over the road.

Watch as he encroaches on a zebra crossing that people are already using.

Ha. No sympathy.

- - - Updated - - -