cournioni wrote: » You're very clever altogether. If you put as much time into educating fellow cyclists how to conduct themselves on our roads as you did into thinking up that post then we might not have as many cyclists creamed out of it after breaking red lights.
Endangering pedestrians Aside from a potential fine, there’s a question of endangering pedestrians. According to statistics provided by TfL, between 1998 to 2007, 4% of pedestrian injuries were the result of red light jumping by cyclists. With the remaining 96% involving motor vehicles.
Endangering themselves What about endangering themselves? Between 2001 and 2005, two cyclists were killed by red light jumping. In the same period, seven motorcyclists were killed in the same way. More recently, there is only one case recorded where a cyclist “most likely” jumped a red light, though this wasn’t given as the cause of death.
steamengine wrote: » There seems to be quite a cavalier attitude to the consequences of breaking red lights by some cyclists on this thread. This from a cycling publication,speaks for itself.http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/jump-red-light/
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » Can you point out the 'cavalier' components of that article?
rubadub wrote: » Wow, apt smiley, you certainly are very one confused individual. Alcohol IS a recreational drug. Keep that head firmly buried in the sand Mr. Cop-out
MadDog76 wrote: » Really? So dropping E is the same as having a pint of Guinness!?!!
RainyDay wrote: » Were you worried that he was going to kill you or your car in the collision?
cournioni wrote: » You're very clever altogether.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » I commute to work by bicycle, and the amount of other people I see cycling on the roads with neither a hi-vis nor a helmet confounds me. What is going on in these peoples' minds? Protect yourself, if not for your own benefit, then for the benefit of your loved ones who'll have to take care of you when you become a vegetable.
papu wrote: » You can be easily vegetablised wearing those two pieces of optional "safety" equipment, and just because you wear them doesn't make you immune from accidents or better than any other cyclist. Cycling in an alert and assertive manner is much more safe than a high viz or a helmet.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » I don't recall suggesting that they make you invulnerable. But if you're suggesting that they don't decrease your chances of being involved in an accident, or improve the outcome, you're having a laugh. You know what's much better than the bolded part? Doing both.
Boom_Bap wrote: » I don't wear hi-Viz either, but I wear clothes/bag that are bright and have relective strips on them, and always have blinking lights.
cournioni wrote: » No, I was worried about knocking him into the pedestrians walking on the footpath. Then, I was worried about the damage his idiocy would do to him and his family. Then, I was worried about the damage he would cause to the car.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » I don't recall suggesting that they make you invulnerable. But if you're suggesting that they don't decrease your chances of being involved in an accident, or improve the outcome, you're having a laugh.
CramCycle wrote: » reflective strips are useful, more so on lower extremities (catches dimmed lights, brain recognises human motion etc.) but lights are the key there, if you have lights on, at night and the motorists doesn't see you, he excuse that they were not wearing hi vis holds as much water as a sieve.
steamengine wrote: » Like the proud mother who was watching her son marching in the St. Patrick's day parade:- "There goes my Johnny, doesn't he look great." "But he's marching out of step." - says another "Not so, everyone else is out of step" - says the mother.
steamengine wrote: » And so it is with the high viz and helmets, but feel free - carry on - either way it's your head and body at the end of the day. I'll be wearing mine, just like the many millions of workers at road and rail locations, construction sites, engineering plants and elsewhere.
CramCycle wrote: » You really should do some research into what your saying before you say it, not anecdotes, or feelings, but actual research, they have two megathreads in the cycling forum on the two topics, I think you may be surprised about what affect both items have on relative safety levels to the population.
RainyDay wrote: » Did Johnny's mammy have peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals confirming that everyone was out of step? You seem to be making an assumption that those who query issues around hi-vis and helmets don't wear hi-vis and helmets. In my case, your assumption is 50% wrong in summer-time anyway. Less assumptions, more evidence please.
steamengine wrote: » Do you need a Masters in experimental Physics and read a thesis on whether Light consists of waves or particles before you switch on your lights at home at night ? Everyone is out of step - really ?
just like the many millions of workers at road and rail locations, construction sites, engineering plants and elsewhere.
papu wrote: » Light is both a wave and a particle but that is neither here nor there. Helmets worn on these locations are quite different to cyclists helmets as they are worn to protect from objects falling from the sky. These helmets aren't to protect against impacts with cars and trains on road and rail locations. Why wear a bicycle helmet and not a fully faced helmet? Wouldn't that be much safer?
Boom_Bap wrote: » I'd never really cycle after dark because personally I think I am putting myself in way too much danger. If I was, I'd always be lit up like a Christmas Tree.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » I commute to work by bicycle, and the amount of other people I see cycling on the roads with neither a hi-vis nor a helmet confounds me. What is going on in these peoples' minds?
Boom_Bap wrote: » I'm guilty of not wearing a helmet. I know I am stupid for not wearing one.
steamengine wrote: » What happens if the subject rather than the object is falling from above, headfirst, off a bicycle ? Motion is relative - clearly different helmets are designed for different purposes.
