It was more to do with your point about helmets not being compulsory as they only protect the wearer and therefore it should be his/her business. Seemed to me the same argument could be made for people in cars and seat belts.Pretty much, but then seat belts don't have the same function as a helmet does.
A helmet doesn't stop you from careering off a bike when you're stationary, but it can dig into the ground, causing your spine to snap due to the momentum of your body. Seat belts hold you in place in case of a collision. But it's like this, if helmets have to be compulsory for bike riders, same with car drivers.
They serve the same function, unless you're advocating that cyclists/motorcyclists have to wear a harness that physically attaches people to the framework of the vehicle?
I'm making the same one, the only difference is regarding passengers because they must take responsibility for other people's lives, which the driver is responsible for.It was more to do with your point about helmets not being compulsory as they only protect the wearer and therefore it should be his/her business. Seemed to me the same argument could be made for people in cars and seat belts.
Just out of interest, are helmets compulsory for people who ride on motorbikes?I'm making the same one, the only difference is regarding passengers because they must take responsibility for other people's lives, which the driver is responsible for.
Without a seat belt, in a crash YOU become a projectile that can harm others.
In a bike crash, YOU become a projectile that can harm others... while wearing a helmet.
See, the two don't correlate. A rider not wearing a helmet doesn't do anything to anyone else in the event of an accident or collision. Seat belts being worn are for OTHER people's safety, not just your own.
In this country, yes they are, but it's not something I agree with (by that I mean compulsory wearing, not the wearing of helmets themselves), it still comes down to personal choice.Just out of interest, are helmets compulsory for people who ride on motorbikes?
Fair enough, I wasn't sure. Personally think it should be the same for both cyclists and motorcyclists, though obviously the motorcyclist is likely to be at greater risk due to the speed. Also think both should have some kind of licence that demonstrates basic road awareness etc. As most are also likely to be drivers, then they would already have this. Some kind of insurance wold probably be a good idea too.In this country, yes they are, but it's not something I agree with, it should be personal choice.
Example; you have full face, flip-up, open face and half. Each one 'lowering' the degree of safety to the rider. The only real constant (in the UK) is dome protection. In other countries/states, just having eyegoggles are acceptible. So despite wearing a helmet being "law" there is no 'standard' of acceptible safety that has been agreed, just dome protection as a minimum.
But again, a rider wearing or not wearing a helmet has zero impact on other people's safety, unlike seat belts do.
Average speed of a cyclist in the UK is around 9mph (we're excluding experienced/long term riders who can go much faster, here). Walking speed is 3mph, for reference.Fair enough, I wasn't sure. Personally think it should be the same for both cyclists and motorcyclists though obviously the motorcyclist is likely to be at greater risk due to the speed. Also think both should have some kind of licence that demonstrates basic road awareness etc. As most are also likely to be drivers, then they would already have this.
+1, we’re not Saints but I don’t and have never cycled through a red light, I wouldn’t ever take a chance, it’s bad enough thinking about what other drivers are doing when you’re shielded inside a car.I cycle and drive, and I can't abide law breaking any mode of transport.
That said, any cyclist running a red light is likely to come off worst compared to motorists. It's just simple physics (K.E. = 1/2 m v2).
Statistically you are more likely to sustain life changing head injuries as an occupant of a motor vehicle in a crash compared to being on a bycycle.Average speed of a cyclist in the UK is around 9mph (we're excluding experienced/long term riders who can go much faster, here). Walking speed is 3mph, for reference.
Most cyclist deaths/head injuries are caused by collisions with cars hitting them, not the cyclist falling off and hitting something. If the car doesn't hit the cyclist, there's little to no risk to a rider that a pedestrian wouldn't be affected by as well.
As per licences, most cyclists have some form of experience/licence already and riding a bicycle really requires little skill to do. CPT's are encouraged in school, besides, most cycle and motorcycle training is learned by the rider themselves. Would 3 year olds need a licence to ride on pavements to ensure they don't hit other pedestrians? Is there a cut off age, but then what suggests a mature 13 year old is less capable than an ignorant 23 year old (or average deliveroo rider). You want MORE people on bikes not less. Creating barriers to what is an effective, cheap, healthy mode of transport means most wouldn't bother. The convenience and low cost of cycling is what attracts people to do it. We need a better infrastructure like Netherlands or Germany, not demonising cyclists because of poor driving habits that cause the incidents and bring it into question in the first place.
Yes definitely, and on planes, trams and buses. Even doing the lawn, stand on a rake and boom you’ve lost an eye!Statistically you are more likely to sustain life changing head injuries as an occupant of a motor vehicle in a crash compared to being on a bycycle.
Should we make car helmets compulsory?