https://neuroquiet-us.sites.kaltura.com/
Food & Drink12 mins 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, this report is a lot more extensive ...
http://
> Later he tweeted to point out he was not campaigning for a change in the law, and had only been responding to a question that was put to him.
> "Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest," Wiggins wrote.
> "I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought".
http://
> Later he tweeted to point out he was not campaigning for a change in the law, and had only been responding to a question that was put to him.
> "Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest," Wiggins wrote.
> "I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought".
..and it's true, he wasn't 'calling' for compulsory helmets. He was asked a question in a press conference as that guy had just been run over by the bus, and it was a sort of off the cuff response..'yes it is dangerous out there, maybe we could make it law to wear a helmet or something?' - that kind of thing.
Of course the Mail then turns it into a WIGGO DEMANDS HELMET LAW story.
Of course the Mail then turns it into a WIGGO DEMANDS HELMET LAW story.
Gromit, you are right there is little evidence that wearing a cycling helmet would reduce the fatalities. There is a rather poignant reminder of one girls death, a painted white bicycle attached to a lamp post near Kings Cross. It has rather faded flowers around it left by her friends. This is desperately sad, and no one wants more deaths on our roads.
As to cyclists using the cycle lanes, many don't, and one section of our road is a death trap for cyclist and pedestrian. No one has solved how to make it safe for all.
As to cars on the roads, our local newspaper has already mentioned the councils plans to reduce the traffic to 20mph, which quite frankly i am amazed they can go that fast, as our roads are almost always gridlocked.
As to cyclists using the cycle lanes, many don't, and one section of our road is a death trap for cyclist and pedestrian. No one has solved how to make it safe for all.
As to cars on the roads, our local newspaper has already mentioned the councils plans to reduce the traffic to 20mph, which quite frankly i am amazed they can go that fast, as our roads are almost always gridlocked.
// I drive in London – and the way many cyclists ride there is scary. It’s no surprise there are so many accidents. //
And it is no surprise that car drivers have nearly three times the number of accidents and twice as many die than cyclists.
http://
And it is no surprise that car drivers have nearly three times the number of accidents and twice as many die than cyclists.
http://
As in the rest of our lives health and safety is taking over. I noticed two men the other day, about 30 ft up, painting a roof. Logic would dictate they would be wearing a harness but they had on a hard hard and a yellow jacket. Now the only people needing to see them at that height would be low flying aircraft pilots, I didn't see too many of them and the hat might have prevented low flying bombing practice by the seagulls, but neither a lot of help if they fell off the roof. I was quite surprised they weren't wearing goggles to keep the paint out of their eyes, masks for the fumes and oxygen for, well, they were quite high up.
I just cannot understand those who say wearing a safety helmet won't prevents deaths.
It is just like the usual excuse that Capital punishment won't prevent murders.
One could also say that making it illegal for pedestrians to walk down motorways, hasn't prevented pedestrians being killed on our motorways.
There are always some who will continue to ignore laws and regulations no matter what measures are brought out.
It is just like the usual excuse that Capital punishment won't prevent murders.
One could also say that making it illegal for pedestrians to walk down motorways, hasn't prevented pedestrians being killed on our motorways.
There are always some who will continue to ignore laws and regulations no matter what measures are brought out.
Ludwig was right (several pages ago), a helmet is unlikely to stop a fatality but could make a non-fatality a lot less serious. Falling off and smacking your head on a kerb at 15mph would be a lot less damaging with a helmet on - nothing to do with being crushed under a bus.
By your logic, Gromit, the problem is that you'd be more likely to fall off and smack your head at 15mph in a helmet, because you behave differently. In that case, in order to make cycling even safer than it already is, we could remove the saddles, cut the brake cables and take the tread off the tyres, thus forcing people to ride even more carefully than they already do. I doubt it would breed many Olympic champions though, and that was maybe Wiggo's point - he wants cyclists to be able to ride quickly and safely, not just safely.
Still, if cyclists don't want to wear helmets I guess that's their choice. It's as I said earlier - do we have to legislate against people's own crass stupidity? In certain cases we do - seatbelt laws for example - but often we don't.
I agree that the issue is really how responsible motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are for their own actions towards other people, and the "safety equipment" is almost a separate, parallel issue. But a cyclist with a well maintained bike, decent lights, a helmet, a bell and not listening to headphones comes across as a lot more responsible - for themselves at least, if not for others - than one on a shoddy bike, no helmet, no bell and listening to headphones.
By your logic, Gromit, the problem is that you'd be more likely to fall off and smack your head at 15mph in a helmet, because you behave differently. In that case, in order to make cycling even safer than it already is, we could remove the saddles, cut the brake cables and take the tread off the tyres, thus forcing people to ride even more carefully than they already do. I doubt it would breed many Olympic champions though, and that was maybe Wiggo's point - he wants cyclists to be able to ride quickly and safely, not just safely.
Still, if cyclists don't want to wear helmets I guess that's their choice. It's as I said earlier - do we have to legislate against people's own crass stupidity? In certain cases we do - seatbelt laws for example - but often we don't.
I agree that the issue is really how responsible motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are for their own actions towards other people, and the "safety equipment" is almost a separate, parallel issue. But a cyclist with a well maintained bike, decent lights, a helmet, a bell and not listening to headphones comes across as a lot more responsible - for themselves at least, if not for others - than one on a shoddy bike, no helmet, no bell and listening to headphones.
<<I just cannot understand those who say wearing a safety helmet won't prevents deaths.
It is just like the usual excuse that Capital punishment won't prevent murders.
One could also say that making it illegal for pedestrians to walk down motorways, hasn't prevented pedestrians being killed on our motorways >>
One could. But only if one's brain didn't work logically.
Analysis of accidents involving cyclists provides statistical evidence because we have data of people trying it both ways.
The number of times helmets probably saved lives, number of times lack of helmet probably contributed to fatality and the number of times a helmet would have made no difference can all be accessed.
This particular incident is an example when a helmet would have made no difference.
Analysis of murder rates and capital punishment provides statistical evidence because we have data of people trying it both ways.
Analysis of murder rates in countries, states and times when capital punishment has been stopped, retained or reinstated clearly show it has no significant deterrent effect.
In contrast, analysis of pedestrian deaths on motorways has no 'control' for comparison because we have never allowed it.
So we don't know how many people would have been killed if we had, other than the reasonable assumption that it would probably have been much higher than the rate experienced to date.
It is just like the usual excuse that Capital punishment won't prevent murders.
One could also say that making it illegal for pedestrians to walk down motorways, hasn't prevented pedestrians being killed on our motorways >>
One could. But only if one's brain didn't work logically.
Analysis of accidents involving cyclists provides statistical evidence because we have data of people trying it both ways.
The number of times helmets probably saved lives, number of times lack of helmet probably contributed to fatality and the number of times a helmet would have made no difference can all be accessed.
This particular incident is an example when a helmet would have made no difference.
Analysis of murder rates and capital punishment provides statistical evidence because we have data of people trying it both ways.
Analysis of murder rates in countries, states and times when capital punishment has been stopped, retained or reinstated clearly show it has no significant deterrent effect.
In contrast, analysis of pedestrian deaths on motorways has no 'control' for comparison because we have never allowed it.
So we don't know how many people would have been killed if we had, other than the reasonable assumption that it would probably have been much higher than the rate experienced to date.
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.