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

[Wolfshade]

Of course my reporting has bias! But then I am not a national newspaper presenting "news".

I have no idea how they figured the speed. But it is really irrelevant. Especially as it was found between 23:08 with no record of who she contacted.

If I pull out of a side road and you drive into the back of me, would you really blame yourself or me doing the manoeuvre?

How did the driver not spot the cyclist already on the road?

If the car finishes its move directly infornt of the cyclist they don't really have much choice other than to break and perhaps hit them.

The helmet wouldn't help with a shoulder injury, also, if you think that helmets work for cyclists then they are a must for pedestrians and car drivers!

[Denzark]

My massive swede is protected by a nice airbag if I prang my car, no need for a helmet. But soft fleshy cyclists are a different matter. The matter of him not wearing a helmet more points to his level of common sense.

I notice you did not deign to comment on the law breaking cyclist visible on google street view on the very stretch of road this incident happened on...

[Wildeybeast]

I'd challenge your assertion on helmets for pedestrians Wolfie. I don't have any statistics to hand, but I imagine they are far less likely to be hit by cars than cyclists and even when they are, they are travelling at a much slower speed than cyclists so the force of impact is less. It's all about levels of risk and appropriate responses. By your logic, everyone should wear a crash helmet all the time to avoid any possible head injury. We don't do this because it is a daft response. We do ask people to wear helmets where there is an increased risk of head injury, such as rock climbing, on a building site or on some sort of mechanical two wheeled device (or four wheeled as someone who has fallen off a quad bike can attest). As Denzark has mentioned, devices such as airbags and seatbelts vastly reduce the chances of head injury in a motor vehicle, meaning helmets are not necessary.

[Wolfshade]

My massive swede is protected by a nice airbag if I prang my car, no need for a helmet. But soft fleshy cyclists are a different matter. The matter of him not wearing a helmet more points to his level of common sense.

I notice you did not deign to comment on the law breaking cyclist visible on google street view on the very stretch of road this incident happened on...

Normal part of driving does not infact result in a collision. Helmets are ineffecitve in collisions at speed and most do little more than just transmit the full trauma through the helmet to the head. For what it is worth I wear one, mostly to avoid this convesation.

I do not deign to comment on the encroaching of the pedestrian crossing because there is no point. I am sure if you look on street view you will find many more cars breaking the law. Indeed, if I did a quick search I am sure I could find data showing that many tens of thousands of vehicles daily break the speed limit. But that apparently is no reason to treat them as second class citizens.

I'd challenge your assertion on helmets for pedestrians Wolfie. I don't have any statistics to hand, but I imagine they are far less likely to be hit by cars than cyclists and even when they are, they are travelling at a much slower speed than cyclists so the force of impact is less. It's all about levels of risk and appropriate responses. By your logic, everyone should wear a crash helmet all the time to avoid any possible head injury. We don't do this because it is a daft response. We do ask people to wear helmets where there is an increased risk of head injury, such as rock climbing, on a building site or on some sort of mechanical two wheeled device (or four wheeled as someone who has fallen off a quad bike can attest). As Denzark has mentioned, devices such as airbags and seatbelts vastly reduce the chances of head injury in a motor vehicle, meaning helmets are not necessary.

Unfortunately if you look at DfT stats you will find that pedestrains are invovled in more KSIs vs motorvehicles than cyclists, indeed car occupants die in even higher number (around 8 times more than cyclists)
Cycling is not an inherently dangerous activity, indeed, the injury rate is less than gardening for instance.

I think if people are doing an activity that has a probable outcome of them hitting their head they should wear a helmet. Otherwise it should be down to the individual.

It is an old argument, seat belts have a proven efficacy of reduction of KSI rates, worryingly though the introdcution of them coincided with an increase in accidents (though these were less fatal). The number of head injuries though suffered by drivers are higher than those suffered by cyclists, so if you argue cyclists should have them you then have to say well by that logic cars and pedestrains would have a greater reduction.

Let us look at Holland (it has been a while) they have by far the highest cycling population by % (China may have more bikes but Asian driving is not comparable with western driving). Helmet usage is low, very low. Indeed, it is almost only the tourists that wear helmets and yet the KSI rates for cyclists is very low.

Then take NZ, AUS, parts of the US and Canada and what do we see with mandatory helmet laws, 2 things:
i) Reduction in cyclists
ii) Increasing KSI rates

So by wearing a helmet you are at greater risk.

Indeed, a proffesor from the University of Bath did some research and by wearing different outfits (indeed dressing up like a woman at times) discovered that the more you look like you know what you are doing, hi-viz, helmet etc. the closer cars pass to you. This is risk mitigation, so the drivers see someone with a helmet and think, "Hmm, this person is responsible and knows what they are doing" and so pass closer and invariably someone will pass too close and hit the cyclist.


Some facts and figures: [url]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9280/rrcgb2011-complete.pdf[/url]

[Mr Mystery]

In terms of liability - Car doing the U-turn would be found at fault, as speed is not relevant, or provable.

Doesn't matter who was riding or driving what. One was correctly established (in this case, the cyclist). Once correctly established, you can ride or drive as badly as you wish. Anyone hitting you whilst you're on your side of the road is at fault.

[Wildeybeast]

Normal part of driving does not infact result in a collision. Helmets are ineffecitve in collisions at speed and most do little more than just transmit the full trauma through the helmet to the head. For what it is worth I wear one, mostly to avoid this convesation.

I do not deign to comment on the encroaching of the pedestrian crossing because there is no point. I am sure if you look on street view you will find many more cars breaking the law. Indeed, if I did a quick search I am sure I could find data showing that many tens of thousands of vehicles daily break the speed limit. But that apparently is no reason to treat them as second class citizens.



Unfortunately if you look at DfT stats you will find that pedestrains are invovled in more KSIs vs motorvehicles than cyclists, indeed car occupants die in even higher number (around 8 times more than cyclists)
Cycling is not an inherently dangerous activity, indeed, the injury rate is less than gardening for instance.

I think if people are doing an activity that has a probable outcome of them hitting their head they should wear a helmet. Otherwise it should be down to the individual.

It is an old argument, seat belts have a proven efficacy of reduction of KSI rates, worryingly though the introdcution of them coincided with an increase in accidents (though these were less fatal). The number of head injuries though suffered by drivers are higher than those suffered by cyclists, so if you argue cyclists should have them you then have to say well by that logic cars and pedestrains would have a greater reduction.

Let us look at Holland (it has been a while) they have by far the highest cycling population by % (China may have more bikes but Asian driving is not comparable with western driving). Helmet usage is low, very low. Indeed, it is almost only the tourists that wear helmets and yet the KSI rates for cyclists is very low.

Then take NZ, AUS, parts of the US and Canada and what do we see with mandatory helmet laws, 2 things:
i) Reduction in cyclists
ii) Increasing KSI rates

So by wearing a helmet you are at greater risk.

Indeed, a proffesor from the University of Bath did some research and by wearing different outfits (indeed dressing up like a woman at times) discovered that the more you look like you know what you are doing, hi-viz, helmet etc. the closer cars pass to you. This is risk mitigation, so the drivers see someone with a helmet and think, "Hmm, this person is responsible and knows what they are doing" and so pass closer and invariably someone will pass too close and hit the cyclist.


Some facts and figures: [url]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9280/rrcgb2011-complete.pdf[/url]

But you need to look at the reasons behind the statistics. Based on what I've seen of Amsterdam, bikes massively outnumber cars and they have a well established metro system. There aren't less KSI's simply because they don't wear helmets and drivers are more careful as a result. Significant proportions of their transport system are geared around cyclists, with plenty of dedicated cycle routes (that are on pavements rather than roads). Put simply, their risk of accidents with motor vehicles is much lower than somewhere like London. There is a different attitude amongst drivers towards cyclists there, but that is not because they don't wear helmets.

I'm not advocating compulsory helmet laws (except with children, but they shouldn't be cycling on roads anyway) as I believe it addresses the symptoms not the cause, in the same way I wouldn't advocate all women should have to carry rape alarms. That said, I think not taking easy and sensible precautions to minimise your risk of accident/damage from an accident is just daft.

In terms of liability - Car doing the U-turn would be found at fault, as speed is not relevant, or provable.

Doesn't matter who was riding or driving what. One was correctly established (in this case, the cyclist). Once correctly established, you can ride or drive as badly as you wish. Anyone hitting you whilst you're on your side of the road is at fault.

Mystery, that isn't strictly true. Whilst yes, any driver should be able to stop to avoid an accident with a vehicle in front of them, if it can be established that vehicle is doing something careless/dangerous the fault is on them. So if you are driving (or riding) erratically/suddenly braking etc. because you are putting your make-up on/drunk/stupid and I crash into you, the fault is most likely to be yours since I could not have been reasonably expected to predict your actions.

[Wolfshade]

. There is a different attitude amongst drivers towards cyclists there, but that is not because they don't wear helmets.

There is a different attitude because they decided in the 70s and 80s to plow millions into funding cycling. It is because of this and that cyclists are treated as fully integrated road users that they do not need to wear helmets. They are not considered an out group.

In the UK they are, they are seen as an obstacle to get around as quickly as possible and not a road user with equal rights and responsibilities.

It is this attitude that is worrying. You have cyclists killed in this country and the argument falls down to that they shouldn't be on the road as they don't pay "road tax" (despite it not existing since before WW2), or that they don't have insurance (which a number do) or that they aren't wearing a helmet. As if a peice of paper or polystyrene can prevent a collision (look hear! I have this magic rock that keeps away tigers! Want to buy it? I've never been eaten by a Tiger while carrying it!)

There is a public attitude that treats them as second class, because after all, they will just get knocked off.

What we need to do, if we want to keep cities moving is to heavily invest in proper cycling infrastrucutre. We need to see cycling as a normal everyday thing, not just a persuit by the poor and the middle-class eco-warrior. We need to teach people to cycle safely. We need to teach motorists to pass cyclists. We need mutual respect and application of law. We need to stop killing cyclists.

[Wildeybeast]

I agree entirely. I am also interested in how much you want for this magic anti-tiger rock.

[Wolfshade]

With regard to post [URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?35731-A-Crash-Course-in-Cycling-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-cyclist)&p=439339&viewfull=1#post439339"]#396[/URL]
[Right turning car hits cyclist on Daily Mail website and the venom that followed]

It turns out that the driver has now been caught and faces a couple of charges:

suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving,
driving while disqualified,
being the driver of a vehicle which failed to stop after a road accident,
being the driver of a vehicle involved in a road accident who failed to report that accident,
using a motor vehicle on a road/public place without third party insurance and
fraud by false representation.

Looks like the Daily Mail haters had the right idea, just the wrong person (He shouldn't be on the road without tax or insurance!).

- - - Updated - - -

I agree entirely. I am also interested in how much you want for this magic anti-tiger rock.

The trouble is that in the 60s we built cities and roads for cars and not for people and/or bikes.

It is a two way street and nothing irritates me more than seeing a red light jumper, ok maybe cars in the ASL (oh wait they are technically red light jumpers too!) Anyway, "fun fact" my 2nd collision involved a stunning start from red lights by myself only to get side swiped by another rider flying through a red light yay!

It would be nice if we could all get along, certainly it would help to make cycling less dangerous and therefore encourage others to take it up, which means less car driving and less congestion on those who have to use them.

I understand living in rural locations that car ownership is essential, but in large cities they start to become a bit optional. I know I only tend to drive my car if I am travelling with the other half, (I have suggested a tandem, I was told know. I suggested a cargo bike, I had a week of peace and quiet...) travelling with stuff, i.e. 40k, or going over 20 miles away. Most journeys are under 5 miles so, why not go by bike? It keeps you fit and healthy so you cost the NHS less money, means you can eat cake (I think I might be doing it wrong), takes cars off the road, so there is less congestion and better air quality, plus I look fabulous in lycra!

[Denzark]

In terms of liability - Car doing the U-turn would be found at fault, as speed is not relevant, or provable.

Doesn't matter who was riding or driving what. One was correctly established (in this case, the cyclist). Once correctly established, you can ride or drive as badly as you wish. Anyone hitting you whilst you're on your side of the road is at fault.

Don't be silly.

For a start, there is no blanket law banning all u-turns in the UK, it depends on the road markings and signage, having used street view on this road I didn't see any signs or markings prohibiting u-turns.

Secondly, speed is both relevant and provable (if you mean provable in general ie to a UK evidential standard - although this may not be achievable in this case - I note there is nothing evidential to deny the Mail's asserted 5mph any more than there is to confirm it evidentially). The relevancy is whether or not the injured party had time to see and react to whatever they crashed into.

Next, in UK law, there is never a case where 'you can ride or drive as badly as you wish' and legally you bear no liability for your actions.

Lastly, the comment 'anyone hitting you whilst you're on your side of the road is at fault' is to my opinion inaccurate - the vast majority of cases when one party going forward hits the rear of another party in front also going forward, in UK, tends to find responsibility sit with the party doing the rear-ending for failure to maintain enough distance.