An Important Message For Cyclists

Metal Biker said:
How does a cyclist not wearing a helmet affect you?

Seems an odd thing to be annoyed about
Click to expand...

Anything reasonable that can give them protection against others. You wouldn't be happy to let your children cycle without a helmet because you love them.
 
VOOMER said:
Anything reasonable that can give them protection against others. You wouldn't be happy to let your children cycle without a helmet because you love them.
Click to expand...
That's not something determined by "law" though is it, but common sense. If it's not your family member, what issue is it of yours, or do you 'just care that much' about others safety to want to make it law?
 
Cheer Up Peter Reid said:
At the Risk of getting into a VAR type discussion, I would call forming a 20 mph moving roadblock longer than an Artic on a country road obstruction. I accept the highway code might not view it that way but surely it is unnecessary and dangerous, or just plain inconsiderate. I have witnessed many near misses with people trying to overtake them in unsuitable locations. I haven't done so myself, I just make my feelings known by "alerting them to my presence", with the usual flip the bird responses.
Click to expand...
Simple, make 20mph the national speed limit.

You won't feel the need to overtake them then.
 
Metal Biker said:
That's not something determined by "law" though is it, but common sense. If it's not your family member, what issue is it of yours, or do you 'just care that much' about others safety to want to make it law?
Click to expand...

I do care that much, I would like to be able to have boot full of helmets and just hand them out to anyone who I see without one. The law can say they have to ring their parents, partner, or a family member and say I'm sorry I didn't' wear a helmet, on speaker option on their mobile in the presence of a PO, CO, FO, JUDGE, Court Clerk, or TW. If they don't, take a picture and have a wall of shame. Ultimate punishment (after being caught twice),, 10 hours helping the community.
 
VOOMER said:
I do care that much, I would like to be able to have boot full of helmets and just hand them out to anyone who I see without one. The law can say they have to ring their parents, partner, or a family member and say I'm sorry I didn't' wear a helmet, on speaker option on their mobile in the presence of a PO, CO, FO, JUDGE, Court Clerk, or TW. If they don't, take a picture and have a wall of shame. Ultimate punishment (after being caught twice),, 10 hours helping the community.
Click to expand...
See, I knew you weren't serious. :)

Helmets on bikes should always remain a personal choice for adults. It's one I personally endorse and follow, but i'd not feel comfortable forcing someone with the threat of legal action for not wearing one. Bit fascisty to me.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
Do wear a helmet, don’t wear lycra, and don’t go through red lights. Apparently if all cyclists did these things then all drivers would be calm and courteous.

I agree that cyclists should abide by the rules of the road but why does them risking only their own lives (when it IS only their own lives) make car drivers so angry? Seems like every driver has an inner Clarkson they need to channel.
Click to expand...

Red lights. It’s not just the cyclist their own lives. Not in the slightest. I’ve lost counts of the times I’ve nearly been hit by bikes going through red lights as I’m crossing a zebra crossing.

Ive seen people being hit/clipped by cyclists cutting through red lights.

I’ve seen cars have to swerve to miss cyclists cutting red lights.

Drivers who hit cyclists will 100% be affected. Especially if a life is lost.

So, When I see a cyclist cutting red light I will them to face plant into a lamp post so I can point and laugh.
 
Metal Biker said:
Helmets on bikes should always remain a personal choice for adults. It's one I personally endorse and follow, but i'd not feel comfortable forcing someone with the threat of legal action for not wearing one. Bit fascisty to me.
Click to expand...
Same with seat belts in cars?
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
Same with seat belts in cars?
Click to expand...
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. Also, the seat belts' main function is mostly for passengers. But it's like this, if helmets have to be compulsory for bike riders, same with car drivers.

Can you physically operate a car without a seat belt on? Yes you can. Can you ride a bike without a helmet? Yes you can. The only ? is surrounding the safety of the individuals using it, which is a personal choice thing. But most cars carry passengers, bicycles don't, so the only one harmed on a bike is the rider, unlike in a car, where someone not wearing a seatbelt in a collision sat behind the driver can ultimately lead to causing the driver an injury. That's them not taking responsibility for other people's safety.

Because if the issue is about the vehicle operators own personal safety... why aren't drivers also forced to wear a helmet to avoid head injuries that the seat belt cannot avoid (momentum of head hitting dashboard/window, unsecured objects flying around in the drivers' location)?
 
Last edited:
Metal Biker said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Metal Biker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just out of interest, are helmets compulsory for people who ride on motorbikes?
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
Just out of interest, are helmets compulsory for people who ride on motorbikes?
Click to expand...
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.

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, which means nothing if you've shattered your jaw or ripped your nose off kissing the tarmac. In other countries/states, just having eyegoggles are acceptable. So despite wearing a helmet being "law" there is no 'standard' of acceptable safety that has been agreed, just dome protection as a minimum. Almost as if "safety" isn't the laws primary concern and instead places responsiblity on the level of protection on the rider.

But again, a rider wearing or not wearing a helmet has zero impact on other people's safety, unlike seat belts do.
 
Metal Biker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
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).
Click to expand...
+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.
 
Last edited:
When I work and travel around Germany and Netherlands it is chalk and cheese the way cyclists are perceived and accepted in those mentioned countries, compared to the UK.
The hierarchy is Cylists over motor vehicles and it is accepted. When I am in Dutch or German collegues cars, there is no rage or anger towards the cyclists. Even if they make a small mistake.

That said, the road networks over in the above countries is far superior to what we have in the UK.
 
Metal Biker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes definitely, and on planes, trams and buses. Even doing the lawn, stand on a rake and boom you’ve lost an eye!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top