ChatterBank1 min ago
London cycle fatality
105 Answers
http://
This is not the first cycle fatality and it certainly won't be the last, but should the authorties now take this opportunity to tighten up on cyclists?
Perhaps they should take on board some of Bradley Wiggins suggestions ie the compulsory wearing of crash helmets, the fitting of lights, and making it illegal to listen to iPods and phones etc while riding?
This is not the first cycle fatality and it certainly won't be the last, but should the authorties now take this opportunity to tighten up on cyclists?
Perhaps they should take on board some of Bradley Wiggins suggestions ie the compulsory wearing of crash helmets, the fitting of lights, and making it illegal to listen to iPods and phones etc while riding?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit
/// There is no evidence that helmets work. ///
Of cause they must work, would it not be safer to land on one's head wearing a helmet than without one?
Perhaps it should also be up to the individule to choose not to wear a helmet on a motor bike, on a building site or down the mines?
/// I have never heard of one fatality attributed to the listening of headphones. ///
That is no reason not to believe that listening via headphones whist in traffic is a very dangerous practice.
You also stated that listening on headphones is quite safe providing they are set on a low volume, and that it is no more dangerous than listerning to the car radio.
That may well be correct but how on earth can anyione know what volume they are set at, unlike car radios which can be heard if they are played at an unreasonable high volume, and I am also a big believer in that car radios played at an unreasonable volume should also be a chargable offence.
/// Anyone cycling at night without lights is an idiot. ///
And there are plenty of idiots about, so perhaps a zero tollerence stance should be introduced to protect these idiots from themselves?
/// There is no evidence that helmets work. ///
Of cause they must work, would it not be safer to land on one's head wearing a helmet than without one?
Perhaps it should also be up to the individule to choose not to wear a helmet on a motor bike, on a building site or down the mines?
/// I have never heard of one fatality attributed to the listening of headphones. ///
That is no reason not to believe that listening via headphones whist in traffic is a very dangerous practice.
You also stated that listening on headphones is quite safe providing they are set on a low volume, and that it is no more dangerous than listerning to the car radio.
That may well be correct but how on earth can anyione know what volume they are set at, unlike car radios which can be heard if they are played at an unreasonable high volume, and I am also a big believer in that car radios played at an unreasonable volume should also be a chargable offence.
/// Anyone cycling at night without lights is an idiot. ///
And there are plenty of idiots about, so perhaps a zero tollerence stance should be introduced to protect these idiots from themselves?
"and I am also a big believer in that car radios played at an unreasonable volume should also be a chargable offence."
It already is.
http://
It already is.
http://
AFAIK statistically 70% of accidents involving adult cyclists and motorists are *wholly* the motorists' fault. Typical black spots are: pulling out of a side road in front of an oncoming cyclist, turning into a side road in front of a cyclist, cutting them off at roundabouts and the suddenly opened car door. (I have had personal experience of all of the above).
I firmly believe the onus should be on the motorist where safety is concerned.
I have read much extremist anti-cyclist rubbish over the years and let's face it, most non-cycling motorists hate the very presence of cyclists, trotting out the same old arguments against them eg. cycling on the pavement, lights, they don't pay road tax etc etc.
Cyclists have to put up with a lot - being cut up, sworn at, the weather, pollution etc. They should be respected as operators of non-environmentally damaging non-congesting transport IMO.
I am both a cyclist and a motorist so I feel I am fairly qualified to express what I've said.
I firmly believe the onus should be on the motorist where safety is concerned.
I have read much extremist anti-cyclist rubbish over the years and let's face it, most non-cycling motorists hate the very presence of cyclists, trotting out the same old arguments against them eg. cycling on the pavement, lights, they don't pay road tax etc etc.
Cyclists have to put up with a lot - being cut up, sworn at, the weather, pollution etc. They should be respected as operators of non-environmentally damaging non-congesting transport IMO.
I am both a cyclist and a motorist so I feel I am fairly qualified to express what I've said.
// Typical black spots are: pulling out of a side road in front of an oncoming cyclist, turning into a side road in front of a cyclist, cutting them off at roundabouts and the suddenly opened car door. (I have had personal experience of all of the above). //
You need to drive more carefully then AP - think about the poor sod on the bike.
I don't have too strong a view as I'm not a cyclist, but I don't really understand the objection to compulsory helmets. If you need them on motorbikes why not pushbikes? You're just as exposed, and you'd have to be daft not to wear one anyway.
You need to drive more carefully then AP - think about the poor sod on the bike.
I don't have too strong a view as I'm not a cyclist, but I don't really understand the objection to compulsory helmets. If you need them on motorbikes why not pushbikes? You're just as exposed, and you'd have to be daft not to wear one anyway.
Ludwig
Far more motorists than cyclists suffer head injuries. Would you object to compulsary wearing of helmets by motorists?
Helmets offer little protection. They encourage worse cycling because the cyclist fears safer. And motorist do the same, they drive closer to an helmeted cyclists than one without. In reality compulsary wearing of helmets would not significantly reduce cycling fatalities, a large number of which are crushing injuries which an helmet would be of no use.
The incident outside the olympic park show his bicycle mangled by the buses wheels going over it and the man was reportedly under the bus. It has not been reported if he was or wasn't wearing an helmet.
Far more motorists than cyclists suffer head injuries. Would you object to compulsary wearing of helmets by motorists?
Helmets offer little protection. They encourage worse cycling because the cyclist fears safer. And motorist do the same, they drive closer to an helmeted cyclists than one without. In reality compulsary wearing of helmets would not significantly reduce cycling fatalities, a large number of which are crushing injuries which an helmet would be of no use.
The incident outside the olympic park show his bicycle mangled by the buses wheels going over it and the man was reportedly under the bus. It has not been reported if he was or wasn't wearing an helmet.
AP, the reasonmost 'fault' is the motorist is because the motorist is insured so easy for compo.
I think alot of the problem is 50:50. I see many cyclist every day being stupid, ignoring the highway code and genrally behaving unsociably. When I was in London it was even worse. The lorry pushes the car, the car pushes the cyclist and the cyclist puses the pedestrian.
And, just for the record. I own and drive/ride a car, motorcycle and pushbikeandat present use the push bik ethe most. so I alos feel qualified.
I think alot of the problem is 50:50. I see many cyclist every day being stupid, ignoring the highway code and genrally behaving unsociably. When I was in London it was even worse. The lorry pushes the car, the car pushes the cyclist and the cyclist puses the pedestrian.
And, just for the record. I own and drive/ride a car, motorcycle and pushbikeandat present use the push bik ethe most. so I alos feel qualified.
gromit
// In reality compulsary wearing of helmets would not significantly reduce cycling fatalities, a large number of which are crushing injuries which an helmet would be of no use. //
Probably true about fatalities, but we're not just talking about people being run over by buses or steamrollers.
I'm sure that in the majority of accidents - which are I bet are relatively minor; people coming off after going over a pothole, or skidding on ice - I'm sure that a helmet will make a crucial difference between something you can get up and cycle away from, and a very nasty head injury.
I can remember all sorts of arguments against compulsory car seat belts, and motorbike helmets - probably some similar to what you've said above 'they make you drive less carefully' etc. but really, the decision to wear these things is a no brainer (excuse the expression).
As I said though, not being a cyclist, I'm not too bothered. If I ever do get on a bike though I'll be wearing a helmet.
// In reality compulsary wearing of helmets would not significantly reduce cycling fatalities, a large number of which are crushing injuries which an helmet would be of no use. //
Probably true about fatalities, but we're not just talking about people being run over by buses or steamrollers.
I'm sure that in the majority of accidents - which are I bet are relatively minor; people coming off after going over a pothole, or skidding on ice - I'm sure that a helmet will make a crucial difference between something you can get up and cycle away from, and a very nasty head injury.
I can remember all sorts of arguments against compulsory car seat belts, and motorbike helmets - probably some similar to what you've said above 'they make you drive less carefully' etc. but really, the decision to wear these things is a no brainer (excuse the expression).
As I said though, not being a cyclist, I'm not too bothered. If I ever do get on a bike though I'll be wearing a helmet.
flip_flop
/// If the suggestion that cyclists are taxed and (as has happened in the past) insured were to happen, would the people who suggest it be happy if I, as a cyclist, would feel entitled to take up a position in the middle of my half of the road? ///
A cyclist not being taxed or insured is now still entillted to take up a position in the middle of the road, if it is safe to do so.
Being taxed and insured does not give anyone (motorist or cyclist) absolute right to take up any position on the road, they can however only if their selected position is safe to take up.
/// If the suggestion that cyclists are taxed and (as has happened in the past) insured were to happen, would the people who suggest it be happy if I, as a cyclist, would feel entitled to take up a position in the middle of my half of the road? ///
A cyclist not being taxed or insured is now still entillted to take up a position in the middle of the road, if it is safe to do so.
Being taxed and insured does not give anyone (motorist or cyclist) absolute right to take up any position on the road, they can however only if their selected position is safe to take up.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.