Submitted by Carlgroover on Wed, 17/03/2010 - 18:53.
I think if the police were to book drivers who passed cyclists unsafely and had some ads on TV about it, we would be a lot safer in a short time, every day I have dickhead drivers moving left when they see me just to pass me that much closer than they need to.
If they are the 3rd one to do it in an hour they really don't want to get a redlight.
Funny you mention ads. I guess then that you haven't seen the new ads about keeping a 1m gap when passing cyclists? It is the Amy gillets foundations work. Good to see someone getting the message out to drivers!
Submitted by Little-Ditty on Wed, 17/03/2010 - 22:23.
I think I agree with the study. If I ride off road, ride quite fast and on a surface that would hurt me considerably if my head came into contact with it, then it should be compulsory to wear a helmet in those circumstances.
If a bike was to be ridden on the road, then for the same reasons, a helmet should be compulsory.
HOWEVER... what if I was to cycle at, say, double walking pace up to the local video store, using the footpath or preferably clearly identifed, purpose built bicycle lanes? Why wear a helmet in those circumstances? The risk of injury to me, or even more narrowly focussed, my head, is surely not more than if I was instead walking on the footpath? Surely the risk is the same then?
Maybe it makes sense that a helmet should be required to be worn in certain designated places, like on or offroad where speeds are high?
Speaking from experience, no-one wears a helmet in Amsterdam. But there riding is the norm for transport and as you're not training and don't want to arrive sweaty most rides are at a very sedate pace. It's flat of course... no hills to pick up speed on either.
Submitted by LadyToast on Thu, 18/03/2010 - 07:39.
I very rarely wore a helmet on the road before I came to Australia. When I got here and started riding I got scolded repeatedly by fellow workers so soon learnt to wear one every time I got on the bike, now it feels normal. But as Rob says, in Europe daily riders in the street don't usually wear them, but then there are so many bikes you can be pretty much sure all car drivers either cycle as well, or have very good experience of doing so, they respect how vulnerable cyclists are. It's interesting to read that cars will give more space to riders without helmets because of that.
Over here all car drivers should be made to ride a bike down Cleveland Street at least once.
The issue is the authorities don't want to have to use judgement, and don't want us to exercise it. It's one rule, enforced on everybody in every situation.
It's a bit like speed limits. There are so many variables around vehicle dynamics that impact what is a safe speed to travel at (eg, weather conditions, traffic conditions, sight lines, car/truck/bus/motorbike/bicycle, road surface condition) yet we have this one-size-fits-all absolutist, almost moral judgement around speeding.
It used to be that you could demonstrate that your vehicle could travel safely above the speed limit on those roads in those conditions and you could get off (eg, Ferrari or Porsche in zero traffic with good sight lines), but not any more. Judgement no longer enters into the equation.
I'm not wanting to get into an argument about speeding here, I'm just using this as an example of how the government mindset works these days around setting laws.
Relaxing the helmet rule will definitely lift cyclist numbers over the long term
... but I'll be keeping my helmet on. I love the Darth Maul helmet hair look. Just needs some gel...
I think if the police were to book drivers who passed cyclists unsafely and had some ads on TV about it, we would be a lot safer in a short time, every day I have dickhead drivers moving left when they see me just to pass me that much closer than they need to.
If they are the 3rd one to do it in an hour they really don't want to get a redlight.
John.
Funny you mention ads. I guess then that you haven't seen the new ads about keeping a 1m gap when passing cyclists? It is the Amy gillets foundations work. Good to see someone getting the message out to drivers!
I think I agree with the study. If I ride off road, ride quite fast and on a surface that would hurt me considerably if my head came into contact with it, then it should be compulsory to wear a helmet in those circumstances.
If a bike was to be ridden on the road, then for the same reasons, a helmet should be compulsory.
HOWEVER... what if I was to cycle at, say, double walking pace up to the local video store, using the footpath or preferably clearly identifed, purpose built bicycle lanes? Why wear a helmet in those circumstances? The risk of injury to me, or even more narrowly focussed, my head, is surely not more than if I was instead walking on the footpath? Surely the risk is the same then?
Maybe it makes sense that a helmet should be required to be worn in certain designated places, like on or offroad where speeds are high?
Speaking from experience, no-one wears a helmet in Amsterdam. But there riding is the norm for transport and as you're not training and don't want to arrive sweaty most rides are at a very sedate pace. It's flat of course... no hills to pick up speed on either.
I very rarely wore a helmet on the road before I came to Australia. When I got here and started riding I got scolded repeatedly by fellow workers so soon learnt to wear one every time I got on the bike, now it feels normal. But as Rob says, in Europe daily riders in the street don't usually wear them, but then there are so many bikes you can be pretty much sure all car drivers either cycle as well, or have very good experience of doing so, they respect how vulnerable cyclists are. It's interesting to read that cars will give more space to riders without helmets because of that.
Over here all car drivers should be made to ride a bike down Cleveland Street at least once.
The issue is the authorities don't want to have to use judgement, and don't want us to exercise it. It's one rule, enforced on everybody in every situation.
It's a bit like speed limits. There are so many variables around vehicle dynamics that impact what is a safe speed to travel at (eg, weather conditions, traffic conditions, sight lines, car/truck/bus/motorbike/bicycle, road surface condition) yet we have this one-size-fits-all absolutist, almost moral judgement around speeding.
It used to be that you could demonstrate that your vehicle could travel safely above the speed limit on those roads in those conditions and you could get off (eg, Ferrari or Porsche in zero traffic with good sight lines), but not any more. Judgement no longer enters into the equation.
I'm not wanting to get into an argument about speeding here, I'm just using this as an example of how the government mindset works these days around setting laws.