Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Beasty · 09-02-2013 01:34AM

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Beasty- it must be a sign that things are too quiet over in our own forum when we've ventured over here! :eek:

Unfortunately even the First Class Lounge has gone quiet tonight - starting to get the hang of AH mind ...

GeorgeBailey · 09-02-2013 01:35AM

srumball wrote: »

And how many times a day do you see cyclists breaking red lights/filters etc?? A HELL OF A LOT MORE THEN OTHER VEHICLES!!

Well that's because cyclists are allowed break red lights.

SparkySpitfire · 09-02-2013 01:35AM

Stark wrote: »

They're required by law in some places such as Australia. They only result of making them compulsory has been to decimate cyclist numbers.

Is this because of the risks associated with wearing them, that some cyclists don't want to, and therefore don't cycle as a result?

Beasty wrote: »

I take it you have not taken my advice. If you were to read some of the countless threads on the subject in the Cycling Forum you may start to appreciate there are risks associated with wearing helmets, and there is a serious debate as to whether on balance it is better to wear them or not (purely from a safety perspective). I choose to, others choose not to.

I went looking for some threads because it's really interesting that the general populace (I'd assume?) are under the impression that helmets = safety. I could only find threads from 3 or so years ago, but it's an interesting debate.

It's just a pity that there's no kind of safety gear available to cyclists without the aforementioned risks.

Roads are a scary place anyway, I'm too terrified to learn to drive or cycle

COYVB · 09-02-2013 01:36AM

imurdaddy wrote: »

Dont twist my words! i drive i cycle and i ride motocross but dont act like i own road!

jealous....no
God givin right to the road...yes

by your logic since you drive you think you have a god given right to the road

you just said it

blacklilly · 09-02-2013 01:40AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

Sir, yes, sir!

Sorry to hear about your friend. If that driver "couldn't avoid her" because of oncoming traffic the s/he was travelling too fast for the conditions. Regardless of whether it was within the speed limit, it was not safe driving.

The road this happened on has an 80km speed limit, he was traveling approx 50km, roads were dry, he literally met her on the bend. It's only one example and its probably not even a good idea to use examples tbh but from a personal perspective it just annoys me to see some cyclists not taking precautions.
I understand all the positive there are to cycling and its great to see so many people taking physical exercise.

Honestly my comments are not meant to be construed as rants and I find it patronising that anyone would interperate them as such. A difference of opinion does not automatically equate to one opinion being invalid or without reason.

Stark · 09-02-2013 01:42AM

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Is this because of the risks associated with wearing them, that some cyclists don't want to, and therefore don't cycle as a result?

Bit of both. There were several recorded deaths from children dying from suffocation after catching the helmet straps on things. Mostly it's probably an inconvenience thing for occasional cyclists. There's no way the Dublin Bikes scheme would be as popular if you had to carry a helmet into town to use one for example.

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

I went looking for some threads because it's really interesting that the general populace (I'd assume?) are under the impression that helmets = safety. I could only find threads from 3 or so years ago, but it's an interesting debate.

It's just a pity that there's no kind of safety gear available to cyclists without the aforementioned risks.

Roads are a scary place anyway, I'm too terrified to learn to drive or cycle

On balance, you're probably slightly safer with a properly worn and fitted helmet than without. But the same applies to walking and driving. The risk of cycling without a helmet is no greater than the risk of walking or driving without a helmet, a practice we take for granted. Yes, there isn't much in the way of effective safety gear (apart from lights) but at the same time, the risks of cycling aren't high enough that you need to worry. (No more so than when out walking anyway).

blacklilly wrote:

The road this happened on has an 80km speed limit, he was traveling approx 50km, roads were dry, he literally met her on the bend.

He should have slowed down for the bend. Simple as. What would the reaction have been if it was a pedestrian. Console himself that the pedestrian was partially to blame for not wearing suitable protection?

Wishbone Ash · 09-02-2013 01:54AM

Chairman Meow wrote: »

Crossing O'Connell st at the spire last week, lights go green for pedestrians to cross, so they start crossing. A cyclist who obviously didnt give even the briefest of sh!ts for the whole red/green light thing, just comes absolutely barreling down the street, right through the entire crowd of pedestrians,

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

stand at the corner of George's St / Dame St on a busy weekday morning and watch for about 10 minutes. I have literally never seen a cyclist stop at the red light on this junction, and it makes life a living hell for anyone trying to walk that way.

I utilise both of those crossing several times per week. I always stop for a red/amber light. However, I often have a green light but have to take evasive action to avoid pedestrians who seem to think they are invincible. It works both ways.

(And just to add, I agree that the amount of cyclists breaking the red at Dame Street/South Great Georges St is shocking but from personal experience, most of the culprits are on Dublin rental bikes so they're not proper cyclists but merely pedestrians on a bike! :P)

JRant · 09-02-2013 02:25AM

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Is this because of the risks associated with wearing them, that some cyclists don't want to, and therefore don't cycle as a result?

I went looking for some threads because it's really interesting that the general populace (I'd assume?) are under the impression that helmets = safety. I could only find threads from 3 or so years ago, but it's an interesting debate.

It's just a pity that there's no kind of safety gear available to cyclists without the aforementioned risks.

Roads are a scary place anyway, I'm too terrified to learn to drive or cycle

The best piece of safetly gear you can have on a bike is found between your ears. As has been stated already, whether your driving or cycling imagine the stupidest thing someone could do and then be prepared when they do it.

You should just get out and give it a go, lots of things seem scary or intimidating but once you get the hang of it you'll be grand.

MrCreosote · 09-02-2013 02:51AM

Helmets argument summary:

Small personal benefits in terms of absolute risk reduction of injury.
Compulsory helmets have large societal drawbacks due to reduced cycling which are larger than the marginal benefits.

The Dublin bike scheme has been a massive success. In Melbourne, the comparable scheme in a flat city with good roads and weather has been a disaster, solely because of compulsory helmets.

Jester252 · 09-02-2013 03:05AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

Helmets argument summary:

Small personal benefits in terms of absolute risk reduction of injury.
Compulsory helmets have large societal drawbacks due to reduced cycling which are larger than the marginal benefits.

The Dublin bike scheme has been a massive success. In Melbourne, the comparable scheme in a flat city with good roads and weather has been a disaster, solely because of compulsory helmets.

Cyclist require others to look after they safety because helmets don't look cool.
Jesus some posters have no sense of personal responsibility.

StinkyMunkey · 09-02-2013 03:38AM

Beasty wrote: »

I take it you have not taken my advice. If you were to read some of the countless threads on the subject in the Cycling Forum you may start to appreciate there are risks associated with wearing helmets, and there is a serious debate as to whether on balance it is better to wear them or not (purely from a safety perspective). I choose to, others choose not to.

Not being funny, but what risk does wearing a helmet have, i ask because i cant think of one

.

Scrub that just seen the summary.

StinkyMunkey · 09-02-2013 03:44AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

Helmets argument summary:

Small personal benefits in terms of absolute risk reduction of injury.
Compulsory helmets have large societal drawbacks due to reduced cycling which are larger than the marginal benefits.

The Dublin bike scheme has been a massive success. In Melbourne, the comparable scheme in a flat city with good roads and weather has been a disaster, solely because of compulsory helmets.

Im in a bit of shock at that tbh, why would protecting yourself by wearing a helmet be a bad thing? Is it about image?

First thing i did when i bought my new pushbike 2 years ago was buy a helmet (pretty cool with skulls on it, im so badass:D).

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 04:22AM

Helmets should be compulsary, after all they'll help hide your identity after you barrell into a pedestrian as you skip the red lights

UCDVet · 09-02-2013 04:36AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Im in a bit of shock at that tbh, why would protecting yourself by wearing a helmet be a bad thing? Is it about image?

First thing i did when i bought my new pushbike 2 years ago was buy a helmet (pretty cool with skulls on it, im so badass:D).

It's really not as cut and dry as that.

As it turns out, there is really only a small window of crashes where a bicycle helmet would actually make a difference.

Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare - exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems

There is always a risk of a head injury when you do ANYTHING. Walking down the footpath as a pedestrian is a risk. If everyone wore helmets all the time, presumably, some injuries would be avoided; but we don't bother because it's SO RARE.

But more than that, they've found other factors that are significantly more influential in safety for cyclists. Numbers. When lots of people cycle, motorists learn their traffic patterns and are more aware. Cycling is safer in places where lots of people cycle.

Between 1980 and 2005, the Netherlands experienced a 45% increase in cycling coupled with a 58% decrease in the number of cycling fatalities. Similarly, London has experienced a 90% increase in cycling since 1990 coupled with a 33% drop in casualties from 1994 to 1998.

So take something like the Dublin Bikes system....the easiest way to make it safer for people using the bikes is to get more people to use them. Anything that makes it harder for people to ride will mean less riders, which means more danger for those who do ride.

The hassle of buying a helmet and the upfront cost would have been enough for me to not ever bother with the Dublin Bikes. And I wouldn't have ended up purchasing a bicycle and cycling to work each day.

If the cycle-schemes included a helmet - I wouldn't touch it as I don't know what someone did to it before hand. The last thing I want is to stroll into work with head lice.

But wait - that's not even close to the whole story.

Bicyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles, new research suggests.

Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.

As it turns out, most people have a level of risk they feel is 'acceptable'. And when you add things to reduce that risk, instead of being safer, they just engage in more risky behavior. Give someone pads and instead of being safer, they'll hit harder. Put a helmet on a cyclist and the motorists passing him will subconsciously drive closer. After all, he has a helmet to protect him.

It might sound crazy - but it's true and there are lots of other examples where you can observe the same behaviour.

If you are going to go for a ride tomorrow; it's really anybody's guess if you are safer with or without your helmet.

StinkyMunkey · 09-02-2013 05:09AM

UCDVet wrote: »

It's really not as cut and dry as that.

As it turns out, there is really only a small window of crashes where a bicycle helmet would actually make a difference.

There is always a risk of a head injury when you do ANYTHING. Walking down the footpath as a pedestrian is a risk. If everyone wore helmets all the time, presumably, some injuries would be avoided; but we don't bother because it's SO RARE.

But more than that, they've found other factors that are significantly more influential in safety for cyclists. Numbers. When lots of people cycle, motorists learn their traffic patterns and are more aware. Cycling is safer in places where lots of people cycle.

So take something like the Dublin Bikes system....the easiest way to make it safer for people using the bikes is to get more people to use them. Anything that makes it harder for people to ride will mean less riders, which means more danger for those who do ride.

The hassle of buying a helmet and the upfront cost would have been enough for me to not ever bother with the Dublin Bikes. And I wouldn't have ended up purchasing a bicycle and cycling to work each day.

If the cycle-schemes included a helmet - I wouldn't touch it as I don't know what someone did to it before hand. The last thing I want is to stroll into work with head lice.

But wait - that's not even close to the whole story.

As it turns out, most people have a level of risk they feel is 'acceptable'. And when you add things to reduce that risk, instead of being safer, they just engage in more risky behavior. Give someone pads and instead of being safer, they'll hit harder. Put a helmet on a cyclist and the motorists passing him will subconsciously drive closer. After all, he has a helmet to protect him.

It might sound crazy - but it's true and there are lots of other examples where you can observe the same behaviour.

If you are going to go for a ride tomorrow; it's really anybody's guess if you are safer with or without your helmet.

I can only speak for myself, but i dont take any chances were cyclists are concerned. I always make it a point to give them enough room to manoeuvre (pot holes or drains can cause sudden changes in road position).

Anyone who thinks they wont cream a cyclist when they hit them because they are wearing a helmet is a muppet.

MrCreosote · 09-02-2013 08:17AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Im in a bit of shock at that tbh, why would protecting yourself by wearing a helmet be a bad thing? Is it about image?

Not so much an image thing, although some people don't like the helmet hair effect. It's more that compulsory helmet wearing reduces the number of cyclists on the road, which has a big knock-on effect on the safety of those who continue to cycle.

More cyclists means motorists are more used to them being there, look for them more, and are more likely to be cyclists themselves.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Anyone who thinks they wont cream a cyclist when they hit them because they are wearing a helmet is a muppet.

It's not a conscious thing, just something that people do without thinking. Called risk compensation I think. From what I've read the benefit a helmet does give you is enough that the closer passing (which has been shown to happen) doesn't outweigh it.

The way I'd put it is this:
Should YOU use a helmet? Yes- with a sliding scale of importance from downhill mountainbiking>competitive road cycling>pootling around town or to the shops.
Should kids wear a helmet? A more strong yes- they're more likely to get the crashes a helmet would benefit.
Should helmet wearing be compulsory? Definitely not.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

First thing i did when i bought my new pushbike 2 years ago was buy a helmet (pretty cool with skulls on it, im so badass).

Helmets ARE cool anyway. The modern ones are light, look good and not too hot on the head (the whole 30% heat loss through your head being a load of bull anyway).

How good are helmets? Well, Laurent Fignon would have won the Tour De France in 1988 if he'd put his ponytail in one for the last day time trial. That's how good.

Cabaal · 09-02-2013 10:16AM

Jester252 wrote: »

Cyclist require others to look after they safety because helmets don't look cool.
Jesus some posters have no sense of personal responsibility.

Nonsense,

Most cyclists in accidents are actually killed by HGV's, now unless a helmet protects the entire body its going to do nothing to stop a HGV crushing somebody.

Additionally given more people drive helmets would have more of a benefit if motorists used them when driving as it would save far more lives, but yet I don't see you arguing for helmets on motorists

End of the day we want more cyclists because cyclists are statistically healthier then non-cyclists, making helmets law has been proven to reduce the number of cyclists.....this is a bad thing,

More cyclists means less health issues, means less work for HSE, means they spend less, which benefits the tax payer.

Yes cyclists need to obey rules of the road but more importantly so do motorists, an awful lot of motorists don't see it as a big deal when they speed in their 1+ tonne metal box yet the extra speed has a massive different when it comes to hitting a human being.

Beasty · 09-02-2013 10:17AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Not being funny, but what risk does wearing a helmet have, i ask because i cant think of one.

Scrub that just seen the summary.

Well actually MrCreosote's summary does not include a couple of the most important issues

1. There are situations where wearing a helmet can actually cause more harm such as rotational head injuries if the helmet hits an object at force
2. The perception amongst some drivers that a cyclist wearing a helmet is more competent, resulting in them giving less clearance when passing (the minimum recommended clearance is 1.5m btw - how many of you were aware of that, and more importantly how many observe it?)

Then there are lesser arguments, such as because it make a cyclist feel safer they are more prepared to take risks. The vast majority of cycling accidents do not involve head injuries - some do. Helmets are only actually designed to deal with slow impact collisions

As I've said, I choose to wear a helmet. Some people choose not to. Removing that choice would be a disaster (and would result in a lot more motor vehicles on the road as people abandon their bikes and the Dublin Bike Scheme)

MrCreosote · 09-02-2013 10:36AM

Cabaal wrote: »

End of the day we want more cyclists because cyclists are statistically healthier then non-cyclists, making helmets law has been proven to reduce the number of cyclists.....this is a bad thing,

More cyclists means less health issues, means less work for HSE, means they spend less, which benefits the tax payer

That's the biggest problem of the compulsory helmet law right there. Far outweighing the minor benefit that wearing a helmet might give.

The health spending saving because of cycling is multiples of the expenditure on injuries and trauma because of it.

I'd see anything that makes cycling easier or more accessible as a benefit for ALL tax payers. Better cycle lanes and more intelligent laws regarding traffic lights and junctions would be in this category

hardCopy · 09-02-2013 11:23AM

Helmets aren't really necessary because cycling isn't really dangerous.

Motorists would benefit from wearing rally helmets at all times but people never seem to suggest it.

And don't forget kids, if you're going drinking tonight, wear your drinking helmet, because your more likely to hurt your head than that cyclist who just broke a red light.

On the taxing cyclists thing, I actually think cyclists should be paid to commute by bike, at the very least we should get a pro-rata refund on our motor tax every time we leave the car at home. Everyone should be entitled to at least one decent bike, completely free, once they can prove it's being used to commute.

Employers should be compelled to provide secure bike parking, shower and changing facilities, even if nobody in the office intends to cycle.

Ray Palmer · 09-02-2013 11:59AM

If a driver can only see a cyclist wearing a hi-vis jacket they shouldn't drive. I think drivers are actually becoming less observant as a result.

I will also say there was a cyclist caused death in the last few year. A cyclist hit an old man on a path as I recall. I am surprised nobody found the story. Even saying that there is no way cyclists are the danger some have said

galwaycyclist · 09-02-2013 02:12PM

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend.

I'm actually really surprised that helmets aren't required by law in the same way that seat belts are. Perhaps they should be.

This gets suggested sometimes. Among the other counter arguments it will also be pointed out that this country made seatbelts compulsory for front seat occupants in 1979. The effect on the seatbelt wearing rate was that it doubled so that about half of all drivers wore seatbelts.

If you look at the official Irish road death numbers for 1979 you will see an increase in deaths among car occupants. From memory deaths involving car occupants went up by 4%.

These death figures are available for anyone who wants to look them up.

The idea that compulsory self-protection is a good thing is an article of faith for the car lobby and those steeped in "car culture". There are other opposing points of view on that topic.

Grayson · 09-02-2013 02:20PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This gets suggested sometimes. Among the other counter arguments it will also be pointed out that this country made seatbelts compulsory for front seat occupants in 1979. The effect on the seatbelt wearing rate was that it doubled so that about half of all drivers wore seatbelts.

This is wht seatbelts are compulsary

http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2005-15.html

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 04:21PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense,

Most cyclists in accidents are actually killed by HGV's, now unless a helmet protects the entire body its going to do nothing to stop a HGV crushing somebody.

Yeah and what about life changing brain damage? You strike the floor head first you're not likely to walk away unscathed, so it's not just about protecting you from being killed it's protecting you from brain injury

Additionally given more people drive helmets would have more of a benefit if motorists used them when driving as it would save far more lives, but yet I don't see you arguing for helmets on motorists

Sublime to the ridiculous, cars already have seat belts and more modern ones airbags to prevent head injuries from windscreens and contact with other interior objects

End of the day we want more cyclists because cyclists are statistically healthier then non-cyclists, making helmets law has been proven to reduce the number of cyclists.....this is a bad thing,

No objection to as many cyclists as the world can take, as long as they stop thinking ( in the main ) that the rules of the road are something for other road users but not them

More cyclists means less health issues, means less work for HSE, means they spend less, which benefits the tax payer.

Yes cyclists need to obey rules of the road but more importantly so do motorists, an awful lot of motorists don't see it as a big deal when they speed in their 1+ tonne metal box yet the extra speed has a massive different when it comes to hitting a human being.

Don't think anyone has said that motorists need to ignore the road rules and percentage wise it would seem that (seeing as motorists are licensed ) they have more to lose when they don't obey the rules

Stark · 09-02-2013 04:23PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This gets suggested sometimes. Among the other counter arguments it will also be pointed out that this country made seatbelts compulsory for front seat occupants in 1979. The effect on the seatbelt wearing rate was that it doubled so that about half of all drivers wore seatbelts.

If you look at the official Irish road death numbers for 1979 you will see an increase in deaths among car occupants. From memory deaths involving car occupants went up by 4%.

These death figures are available for anyone who wants to look them up.

The idea that compulsory self-protection is a good thing is an article of faith for the car lobby and those steeped in "car culture". There are other opposing points of view on that topic.

Hmm, those figures could easily be an anomaly. Probably due to a risk compensation effect in the first year. As in you feel more confident being strapped in, so you take more risks when you're driving.

Thing about seatbelts though is having to wear a seatbelt never discouraged anyone from driving and having less cars on the road doesn't have knock-on safety effects for other drivers. On the other hand, compulsory helmet laws do have devastating effects on cyclist numbers and fewer numbers means more dangerous roads for the few die hards who persist. If blacklilly's friend was used to encountering cyclists on bends as a regular feature on his commute for example, he would have been driving to anticipate that. Instead we get people who "know the road" and pay less attention. You look at the likes of Amsterdam and Copenhagen and you'll never see a helmet yet they're the safest cities in the world to cycle in due to the numbers engaging in the activity.

Spook_ie wrote:

Yeah and what about life changing brain damage? You strike the floor head first you're not likely to walk away unscathed, so it's not just about protecting you from being killed it's protecting you from brain injury

From a personal point of view, I do wear a helmet when cycling. I'm just not in favour of compulsion. People can and do fall on ice, trip over kerbs etc. and suffer sometimes fatal injuries from hitting the ground head first when out walking. Yet we don't oblige pedestrians to wear helmets. Because the negative consequences from discouraging people from walking would far outweigh the very small risk of injury.

galwaycyclist · 09-02-2013 04:27PM

[PHP][/PHP]

Grayson wrote: »

This is wht seatbelts are compulsary

http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2005-15.html

The counter argument is that seatbelts are compulsory because that was seen as more politically acceptable than more productive interventions such as tackling innapropriate motorist speeds and speeding. Likely it was also seen as more "acceptable" than tackling other behaviours that cause crashes - such as entering a yellow box and turning accross the path of lawfully proceeding traffic.

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 04:35PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This gets suggested sometimes. Among the other counter arguments it will also be pointed out that this country made seatbelts compulsory for front seat occupants in 1979. The effect on the seatbelt wearing rate was that it doubled so that about half of all drivers wore seatbelts.

If you look at the official Irish road death numbers for 1979 you will see an increase in deaths among car occupants. From memory deaths involving car occupants went up by 4%.

These death figures are available for anyone who wants to look them up.

The idea that compulsory self-protection is a good thing is an article of faith for the car lobby and those steeped in "car culture". There are other opposing points of view on that topic.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Road_deaths_Ireland59_to_09.pdf
Road Deaths in Ireland 1959 to 2009 extract
Year No. Road Deaths

1978 628
1979 614
1980 564
1981 572
1982 533
1983 535

From fact the deaths declined from the 1978 figure of 628 and apart from the occasional blip have declined year on year since.

DieselPowered · 09-02-2013 04:36PM

Did the cyclist here break the lights? (it's not clear if they did or not)

In Dublin most cyclists are guilty of breaking red lights every day.
Why can't they follow the rules of the road like everryone else which they
Are obliged to do

StinkyMunkey · 09-02-2013 04:36PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]

The counter argument is that seatbelts are compulsory because that was seen as more politically acceptable than more productive interventions such as tackling innapropriate motorist speeds and speeding. Likely it was also seen as more "acceptable" than tackling other behaviours that cause crashes - such as entering a yellow box and turning accross the path of lawfully proceeding traffic.

Do you wear a seatbelt when in a car? If not, you get my vote for the Darwin Award. Seat belts save lives, anyone one who thinks they don't, is missing a few marbles.

Spook_ie · 09-02-2013 04:41PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People who don't cycle do not realise stopping and starting vastly increases energy expenditure. So it is tiring to stop and start so people avoid it. The traffic system should cater for this and not just cars.

Hmmm so seeing as fuel economy for buses etc. would be improved, therefore their emissions also, we should allow anything to proceed through a red light if the driver thinks it's safe? Traffic lights other than green are STOP

Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Comments