Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Claymore  
#1 Posted : 30 July 2010 08:49:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Claymore

Ok guys, Ive got to put my head above the parapet here. I dont particularly agree with the allowing of cyclists using the roads these days - not because Iam anti - cyclist, but because any one who can pay, can buy a bike, and use them on a public road, without training, competence testing, insurance, or vehicle condition testing, or any input to the roads infrastucture. That having been said, Its a good healthy pursuit for those conciencious few. However, I have just witnessed the bold Boris on breakfast telly, waffling on about the new grab a bike system in London. Not only does he say (and I praphrase here) the doesn't really worry if people wear helmets or not, he says that cyclist should get in front of the traffic and "assert their position" . No mention of competency, insurance, or anything else about the London traffic. Put your credit card in the slot, and get a bike. Does anybody else worry about this?? The only thing they were worried about was the bikes possibly being stolen. I myself recently had a near miss with a young cyclist up here, by the Bonny Banks. I was about to pass "the fit family" on a rural road. It was ma, pa, and the 2 kids, and cycling 2 abreast. I reduced my speed to a crawl, and went completely over the other side of the road to pass them. As I was passing, the younger girl (around 10 years old or so) she veered over and although there was no real danger of a collision, the father had to grab her saddle, and pull her back up and straight beside himself. Let me paint you a picture......Suppose she hits me on the side of the car. She's injured or worse, I'm regarded as at fault, despite an unblemished record for around 35 years Licence endorsed, car repairs, and possible career issues. She is obviously untrained and would not be considered competent, they are not following the highway code, unlikely to have insurance and when was the last time someone had their cycle tested for mechanical fitness. You would have to challenge the parents common sense for letting the kids ride their bike on such a buy road - perhaps he should have kept her nearer the footpath, rather than to his right. I would certainly not ban cyclists that not the purpose of this particular rant, but what I would like to see is a standard competency test for cyclists ( and their machines) and a minimum requirement for third party insurance. Ok then ..... Its on the floor for a BALANCED debate, and I'd be interested on the viewpoints.
grim72  
#2 Posted : 30 July 2010 09:09:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
grim72

I have to agree, it does seem madness that you don't need to have any kind of trainign to ride a bike on a road. Bring back the good old cycling proficiency test (or a version of it). From memory we had these at school. Surely it wouldn't be that difficult/expensive to provide a training programme for kids at school?
Nick House  
#3 Posted : 30 July 2010 09:13:46(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Firstly, I am a keen cyclist, so am definitely not in the 'anti' brigade either. In my opinion, the Cycling Proficiency Test' that most of us probably did at Primary School should be compulsory. The system is fairly robust, and gives children sensible and safe training on how to behave on the road. I stand to be corrected, but is a cyclist were to be involved in an accident, I believe that a claim could be made against that person's household insurance (if they have any...). I do agree though that some kind of third party insurance should be in place for cyclists using the highway. With more and more cyclists on the roads these days, together with the increase on cars/ vans/ lorries on the roads, accidents are by their very nature likely to be on the increase. Therefore, having some kind of insurance in place would make perfect sense to me.
PhilBeale  
#4 Posted : 30 July 2010 09:18:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PhilBeale

Can't help but feel this will end in an argument rather than a debate but I'm willing to have a say. I've ridden mountain bikes for many years (all off road no pleasure in riding on the road in my opinion) i don't see there is a lot to maintain on a bike other than brakes anything else that needs attention or adjustment would mean that the bike would be un-ridable like gears or tyres for example. When you overtake the family on the road you did the right thing if the girl then swerves into you that wouldn't be your fault and an investigation would prove that from the road markings caused by the accident. As for Boris scheme the blokes a buffoon that Londoners where happy to vote in so all the best to them on that one they get what they deserve. There are enough drives out there with uninsured cars no MOT and banned from driving who are more likely to kill other road users or pedestrians with out the need to worry about cyclists having insurance if they damage your car then take them to court where they will be ordered to pay for the damage. Putting a scheme together that cyclist have to join for what ever benefit you might think of (insurance etc) would be uncontrollable and costly to set up it wouldn't be worth the hassle as how would you you enforce such a system especially when it comes to children riding bikes. i think there should be enforcement on wearing helmets as they are proven to save lives and the cost of them is so low. it could be an on the spot fine the same as not wearing a seatbelt and the fine should go to the parents if a child in not found wearing one. Other than that i think there are bigger problems on the roads other than cyclist to worry about as the uninsured driver or driver with no MOT or no license or tax is more likely to ruin your day rather than a cyclist if the police force are struggling to enforce what is required to drive a car then they will have no chance when it comes to cyclist. Also no political party would want to be seen to be picking on cyclists as they would be seen as not to encourage green means of transport. All the best Phil
sean  
#5 Posted : 30 July 2010 09:19:06(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

When i was 10 years old i took a bike proficency course run by my local council Islington in London, they made a special fuss over all those who passed, we went to a special presentation at the town hall, and the major gave us certificates, i still remember it now, and im almost 50, so 40 years ago!! However i hardly ever rode my bike on the roads even though i knew the highway code etc.... More investment needs to be put in to cycle lanes if more and more people are going to use this form of transport. I live in Liverpool now, as a cyclist it has to be one of the worse places to cycle in the country, the potholes are enormous, driving a car through them is bad, cycling would be on par with deep sea diving for the danger it poses!!
grim72  
#6 Posted : 30 July 2010 09:35:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
grim72

I don't see the suggestion of re-introducing a cycling proficency test as being 'having a go' at cyclists. Quite the opposite, surely it is giving the cyclist support and training and would do nothing more than improve their safety on the road (and subsequently that of others). Even if it was not a compulsory requirement but something that schools offered, I know I for one would enrol by son. I'm less concerned about the insurance side of things and agree that drivers without insurance etc are a greater curse, I simply can't see any negatives in offering cycling trainign to those that want it though.
Stedman  
#7 Posted : 30 July 2010 09:39:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman

Before this thread gets too out of shape, could I input some facts here? 1. The old cycling proficiency scheme has now moved on and there is now a competency base scheme which includes road use. See: http://www.ctc.org.uk/De...pDefault.aspx?TabID=4135 2. Many cyclists do have third party insurance through membership of organisation such as CTC, Audax UK or British Cycling. 3. Historically bicycles have used our roads longer cars and the modern motor can be traced back to the bicycle.
Clairel  
#8 Posted : 30 July 2010 09:41:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Well shouldn't the insurance comment also apply to horse riders and mobility scooter riders??? I agree with Phil that maintenance is not an issue. I'm open to debate about the whole insurnace thing though. I see both sides. Sadly Sean there is a growing group of people who counter claim that helmets actually worsen injuries (I don't believe that claim myself I hasten to add). Also cycle lanes have their own problems. There is growing evidence that if it is a cycle lane along the road it can increase the danger to cyclists. If it is a shared pedestrain/cycle lane then cyclists get over protective of their cycle lane and causes incidenst with pedestrians. Good and bad cyclists as with car drivers, horse riders, mobility scooters etc. Over crowded roads is the real issue. As for Boris, if he doesn't want to wear a cycle helmet then that is fine by me, he can take the consequences. Darwinism rules for me!!! Obviously I consider myself one of the 'good' cyclists!! ;-)
firesafety101  
#9 Posted : 30 July 2010 09:57:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

I ride a bike, but try never to ride on the road, I'd rather take my bike on the car rack to a safer place i.e. along the sea front. Much better views, fresh air etc. If I had to cycle to work however that would be a problem as I would ride on the pavement whenever possible, and that would annoy pedestrians, they hate cyclists. Vehicle drivers hate cyclists. Cyclists hate pedestrians and vehicle drivers. There is an excellent car free route on the Wirral called the Wirral Way, it has its own community of pedestrians and cyclists, you should see/hear the abuse passed between them. I think the grab a bike scheme is a good idea but the roads are not safe these days. An idea I have is cycle paths alongside all motorways, protection provided by a sturdy fence or similar. That could allow cyclists to ride long distances fairly uninterrupted by traffic.
Terry556  
#10 Posted : 30 July 2010 10:05:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Terry556

I agree that children in schools should learn the hazards and the risks associated with cycling on the public highways. I agree that they should bring back the cycling proficiency test in schools. To have insurance for cyclists I dont agree as Cyclists do not come under MOT guidelines. I think mobility scooters users should have some sort of training, as I had one come of the kerb and went straight out in front of me lucky I wasnt going more than 20mph and I was able to swerve and aviod a collision, I stopped and had a word with him to see if their was a problem with his scooter, he said now that their was to many people on the pavement so he decided to go onto the road, well GRRRRRRR
multuminparvo  
#11 Posted : 30 July 2010 10:13:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
multuminparvo

Having just seen a pool cycle scheme - riding for work introduced into my organisation (Local Council) and me asking about everything from PUWER, PPE, Insurance, Maintenance, Competence, Working alone, Use of vehicles at Work Policy etc etc. the Sustainable Transport lobby will have their way. Being a greeny and a bikey I'm OK in my private life but I'm waiting for the accident reports to come in and the HSE's response to accidents re vehicles at work. An employee accepting volenti non fit injuria may be alright in common law but what defence in the statutory world of HASWA?
PhilBeale  
#12 Posted : 30 July 2010 10:14:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PhilBeale

I do have an issue with cycle ways that are created as it's normally the motorist is footing the bill for these cycle ways or at least the cyclist is not directly paying for them. We have a few where I am and they are rely used by cyclist so it would seem the cost in creating these routes provides benefit to a tiny minority but the majority of use are funding these projects well i would rather see the money spent else where. i think there need to be some decision as are we talking about the cyclist that commute to work or cyclist that ride for pleasure. i used to ride for pleasure and never used the road preferring off road tracks which there are plenty off to enjoy away from traffic. Occasionally we did come across walkers but the vast majority would often hold gates open for use or you could stop and have a chat so it's only the minority that cause the problem. we always used to slow down when coming across walkers or pedestrians rather than blasting past them. But respecting other people is something that you either chose to do or not. Those that don't respect other road users you will find they treat people much the same when they are not in a car or on a bike or walking that's the way they are in life. Phil
firesafety101  
#13 Posted : 30 July 2010 10:31:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

I saw an excellent Disnel cartoon film many years ago about Mr Walker and Mr Driver. Goofy was both people and it was really interesting to see how his personality changed when alternating from driving the car to being a pedestrian. They didn't include Mr Mobility Scooter or Mr Biker however. For the cyclist a bell is essential and to use it when approaching pedestrians. Some may be hearing impaired or listening to the walkman so may not even hear the bell. I agree that slowing down when approaching pedestrians is also essential. There is another factor - the dog! They are so unpredictable that slower than walking speed is required when passing animals.
Helmsman  
#14 Posted : 30 July 2010 10:39:47(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Helmsman

The issue about whether helmets are effective in protecting against injury does not appear to be proven. One study I read said that they are beneficial for children and may reduce minor injuries in adults but have little effect on serious injury in adults. I don't wear one since iI read that drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing a helmet than those who aren't - so presenting a higher risk. Relatively balanced arguments presented at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html Considering relative risk... wouldn't it be better for cyclists to ride on pavements. In my view there is less chance of serious injury to the pedestrian from a cyclist than to a cyclist from a motor vehicle?
PhilBeale  
#15 Posted : 30 July 2010 10:59:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PhilBeale

I appreciate there is a debate around cycle helmets but i know a few people as we used to attend mountain bike events that wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the foam on their heads. If you don't wear a helmet then you must be mad any accident and you are putting your life at risk from head injury. I'm not saying they are going to be enough to save everybody depending on the seriousness of the crash but they have made enough difference they should be forced by law. Similar arguments are always around for any type of safety device like seatbelts or airbags and there are a very few rare occasions where they cause more harm than good but on balance they save more lives than they cost. Not sure about having bells or horns on bikes as you are then seen as being aggressive or impatient when you use them. Same as a car driver using there horn at people on a pedestrian crossing. We still have cyclists on the road at night riding with no lights on their bikes in the middle of winter sadly they are often kids so the parents must know they don't have lights but still let them go riding at night. I think whether you are a pedestrian cyclists or car driver you all have responsibilities for your action when out and about so ensuring you can be seen at night take care when crossing the road and able to hear for traffic is your responsibility not that of the motorist, cyclist or pedestrian to allow for your lack of consideration or ignorance. phil
firesafety101  
#16 Posted : 30 July 2010 11:08:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

A little politeness as you pass goes a long way, if a pedestrian gives way then say "Thank you".
PhilBeale  
#17 Posted : 30 July 2010 11:13:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PhilBeale

Helmsman wrote:
I don't wear one since iI read that drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing a helmet than those who aren't - so presenting a higher risk. Relatively balanced arguments presented at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
Possibly your reasoning might stand up if the only accidents involving cyclist where when cars are overtaking but i would imagine the vast amount of accidents are when cars pull out of junctions or onto roundabouts with out looking. In which case you would be going HEAD first over the bonnet or head first into the door. if you are knocked off your bike when been overtaken you would more than likely fall of to the side of the road rather than going head first into the car. i would rethink on the idea of not riding with a helmet. When I've come across riders on the road my consideration is the road, the road conditions and make a judgement on the rider ability and age and then give as much room as possible. It could be that rider wearing a helmet would be seen more competent than a rider not wearing a helmet? Phil
A Kurdziel  
#18 Posted : 30 July 2010 11:16:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

My issue with cyclists is that they seem to want it both ways, ie they want be able to use the same routes as drivers and pedestrians and to have priority on both. We have a large site and cycling to work is encouraged, the CEO is himself a keen cyclist. They also have a consultative forum on site to promote cycling-there is no drivers’ or pedestrians’ forum. Issues that have cropped up include, cyclists using the footpaths, cyclists refusing to go around our roundabout the correct way as the road surface is too "slippery" and cyclists tailgating cars through the exit barriers. We checked the road surface at the roundabout and it is fully in specification but somehow cyclists still think they should cut across the other traffic. Neither can they get off their bikes and operate a button to open the automatic barriers; instead they try to get out under the barriers often as the barrier is coming done. At least one has been bashed on the head by the barrier. The annoying thing is that they seem to think the world revolves around them and no cost is too great if it benefits bikes. The rest of us just get on with it. Does anybody else have to deal with any other similarly self righteous group of people?
jwk  
#19 Posted : 30 July 2010 11:34:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Firstly, we need to establish the legal position; cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders have a right to use the public road except where they are expressly forbidden. Motor vehicles have no right to use the roads, their drivers have a licence, which confers permission, this is not a right. In most western European countries cyclists are treated as rightful road users by motorists, even in coutries with considerably higher traffic densities than in the UK. Here they are treated as an obstacle. I believe the problem is the attitude of UK drivers, and not the cyclists. I have cycled in 9 European countries, and except (occasionally) in Germany & Italy I have been treated with respect in all of them. The idea of banning cyclists from public roads would be treated as an absurd idea throughout the EU, but here it's raised frequently by sensible and even moderate people, John
PhilBeale  
#20 Posted : 30 July 2010 11:40:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PhilBeale

possible what causes some of the issues is the cyclists are seen as being better than the motorist as they are using green transport which is politically popular so they feel superior as they are saving the environment. But what annoys the motorist is that it is him that is paying for the infrastructure of cycle ways and not the cyclist. also there is no enforcement action against the cyclist when they flout the high way code. basically it's not a level playing field as my old boss would say. Phil
Stedman  
#21 Posted : 30 July 2010 12:14:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman

Phil, Vehicles in Band A (up to 100g/km) pay £ zero rate of Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax) and if bicycles fell within the scope of VED, they would fall within this category! Is this not a level playing field without the additional bureaucratic cost?
jwk  
#22 Posted : 30 July 2010 12:16:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Do you know, I haven't done the sums, but I don't actually know what proportion of the total build for road construction and maintenance comes from fuel duty and the road fund licence. I suspect that general taxation supports motorists, but I am not sure and would hapily be corrected. Look at it this way; if drivers want cyclists off the roads why shouldn't they pay? It seems a bit dog in a manger to say 'we don't want cyclists on the roads' and then say 'why should we pay?'. I don't care about the olympics, but I'm paying for them, and not, as it happens, moaning or complaining about it. And Phil, it's not that cycling is just greener, healthier and much more fun than driving a car (I do both), there's also the quite useful point that every bike on the over-crowded roads in the UK is one less car. And finally, to bring this back to safety, I wear a helmet, but the evidence for and against is actually far from conclusive in both directions; there is good evience to support both arguments. What is aparently true is that from a point of view of whole life effects, cycling is much better for you than driving, and cyclists have on average more years of healthy life than non-cyclists. So for health & safety's sake, get on yer bike, John
Stedman  
#23 Posted : 30 July 2010 12:27:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman

Let’s try and open this helmet debate up with one basic fact. Whilst the majority of cyclists in the UK use helmets and in Holland these are hardly ever used, however the UK has a much higher incidence of cycling related head injuries! Cycle helmets have do have their benefits (as I can verify this having split one on Wrynose Pass earlier this year), however these are not designed for high impact collisions such as a motor cycle helmet. As for pavement use, as well as this being a greater risk to pedestrians, if you apply the Helsinki study into cycle paths, the risk of serious injury is likely to be considerably greater than road use. Competence and how we use our bike has a greater impact on cycle safety, however when you ride a bike it is much easier to see the mistakes that other road users make.
Twinklemel  
#24 Posted : 30 July 2010 12:31:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Twinklemel

jwk - a voice of reason! Agree with much of what you say, as a keen cyclist and a motorist. Which brings me to PhilBeale's numerous assertions that the motorists are paying for the roads and cycle paths, whilst the cyclist is not. Firstly, aren't motorists and cyclists generally the same people? There aren't actually that many people who cycle who don't also own a car. Secondly, it is a fallacy that "road tax" as it is commonly called actually goes directly towards the upkeep of the roads. The monies in fact go to the general treasury along with all other taxes and is then spent.
jwk  
#25 Posted : 30 July 2010 12:32:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Good points Arran. My experience with cycle helmets is actually that they shoud be worn at all times; my skull was saved when I was standing outside a pub and a sun-umbrella was picked up and spun by the wind to come cracking down on the top of my head with some force; fortunately I hadn't got round to taking my helmet off so no injury. I don't like 'multi-use' cycle/footpaths, they're OK for casual cyclists but not much use for people wanting to make any speed, and yes, they can be dangerous for all their users, John
PhilBeale  
#26 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:03:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PhilBeale

As motorists a hefty lump of tax is also on fuel which I'm sure the government love. I'm not against cycle ways but often as not they are lines painted on the side of the road which gives no extra protection to the cyclists than they had before. There should be long-term plans on the creation of Cyclist/ pedestrian routes which are totally seperate from cars. These can be easily implemented during the creation of new housing development or footpaths that are under used by pedestrians. I know locally we have several footpaths that are hardly used by pedestrians with careful though could be adapted for cycle and pedestrian use without the need for tarmacking grass verges tp create new routes. As i said above are we looking at creating routes and areas for pleasure riders or for commuters. if iti s for commuters then it would be difficult to create enough cycle ways to suit every cyclist place of work. if it is for pleasure cyclist then areas can be created for cyclist where they can ride in safety away from traffic and have a more enjoyable ride. around where i live we have a lot of canal routes and country parks that have created such areas so families and other keen cyclists can enjoy with out the fear of motorists. Not sure about the fear of pedestrians/ walkers Lol Phil
jwk  
#27 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:11:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Phil, I mentioned fule duty, still not sure it all adds up to the amount spent on roads and traffic management and so on. I agree about the white lines, but I have to utterly disagree with the contention that it would be too difficult to put cycle ways in everywhere. If they can manage it in Switzerland (and they have Alps to contend with) and crowded Holland, and in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg... they can manage it here, John
SimonL  
#28 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:20:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SimonL

I do find it quite amusing that people wish to categorise both themselves and others in discussions such as this. I drive a car, ride a bike and also walk, so which camp shall I put myself in or order to have the correct amount of righteous indignation? As someone who drives, should I defend all drivers and as a cyclist should I defend anyone who rides a bike? I get annoyed at anyone who rides their bikes through a red light but recognise that these people are not 'cyclists', just cretins who happen to be on a bike. They probably hog the middle lane on the motorway when driving and walk in front of me when I'm on the road.
jwk  
#29 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:24:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

I kind of agree Simon, I drive about 20K a year, but I do tend to think of myself as a cyclist and a pedestrian. I agree there's no excuse for cyclists breaking the highway code, except in life or death emergencies, same goes for motorists and pedestrians. I never run red lights, john
PhilBeale  
#30 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:27:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PhilBeale

i agree it can be implemented but there needs to be the demand for cycle ways from members of the public who will use them. i don't feel there is this want or need like there is in other EU countries. i guess there is a need to establish how many people currently use the cycle ways that are provided and the likelihood to move more people of the roads onto cycles on a permanent basis rather than just when the weather is nice and come winter everyone jumps back into their cars and leave the bikes in the shed. I used to ride to work which was about 5 miles i had two near accidents on the road so i found another route riding on quite roads, through parks and a cemetery and along a river pathway. probably some of it i shouldn't have been riding on but if i saw a pedestrian i always stopped for them and let them pass but often these routes where rarely used by pedestrians so it was very rare that i would have to stop at all and the dead in the cemetery didn't seem to mind. Certainly the parts that weren't on the road could have been turned in to a cycle route and where totally separate from the roads. Unfortunately i got a driving license so that was the end of that. Phil
jwk  
#31 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:36:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

I think it's a kind of chicken and egg really; if there were the paths there would be more demand, and as you say Phil, if there was demand there might well be more paths. It's partly to do with national culture, and I really would be interested to undrestand why cycling is viewed so differently here compared to, say, Germany. I mean, the Netherlands is flat and distances are small, but Germany is a big country, and believe me it's got big hills; some of them (such as the Zugspitze and Watzmann) are considerably bigger than anything we have got, and yet Germany has a huge number of cyclists of all descriptions, John
Steve Granger  
#32 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:48:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve Granger

I watched Boris this morning on the telly. Slate me if you will but I think he came across extremely well and explained risk in a sensible way. He balanced the enjoyment and freedom of the new scheme with the off putting of tourists who don’t have a helmet with them. London is a big place and there are parts to cycle where a helmet is (imho) not necessary. As I heard, the scheme development team took the question of compulsory wearing very seriously but balanced risks in favour of an optional wearing and personal responsibility of the user etc. We should remember this is NOT a work place or work equipment (if an employer allows people to use these bikes other than a commute, then they can impose self regulation on their staff). I do understand the campaign for compulsory wearing but at the moment it is not. I ride a bike on the road - I wear a helmet. I ride a bike taking the dog across the common, I don't wear a helmet. Neither of these are compulsory and I balance risk according to my values and the hazards I am to face. I ride a (slightly bigger and faster) bike around London and choose to wear a helmet - albeit compulsory anyway. There are all shapes and sizes of bikes and experience of riders. A gentle pedal along the Bank or back streets may be all that people want and since the Congestion Charge the traffic in London has eased considerably. Perhaps the natural progression will be to make hi viz tabards and helmets compulsory or perhaps a street wise vendor will seize a business opportunity to sell them next to the ranks. Remember people always have the choice to either walk or take alternative transport systems – cycles are not going to be the only means of getting around! And of course people will learn to take them with them over time – even on holiday. I say lets congratulate and welcome the scheme – perhaps it will save more lives from health related problems, get people exercising and certainly makes the place nicer and easier to visit.
Ciarán Delaney  
#33 Posted : 30 July 2010 13:51:34(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

There is a similar scheme in Dublin and haven't heard any issue regarding helmets.
L McCartney  
#34 Posted : 30 July 2010 14:05:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
L McCartney

I've just been reviewing our vehicles at work policy and as some of our employees cycle to work appointments we have included some basic requirements they have to fulfil e.g. wearing a suitable helmet, having at least third party insurance. Will now research the comptency 'test' mentioned in a previous post (thanks for website). Our employees can claim mileage for using their bicycle not same amount as for car though but enough for wear and tear and insurance. All the horse owners I know have some form of insurance which might have started to cover vet bills but is also for third party injury e.g. horse kicking, destroying crops etc. My expericne is that cyclists passing a horse do so much too close and if their wheels are making whirring noises then the horse can be easily spooked. Motorbike riders are much beter at passing horses. I don't walk too well and when there is a cylcist on the footpath I usually can't get out of the way quick enough or have enough mobility/stability to squash against a wall. However, I move as much as poss when its kids whether on bikes, scooters or the little plastic toys like dumper trucks - mainly becasue its young children and I think that they have to do to be a child wihtout always having to think ahead. A recent tv feature on cyclists said 'undertaking leads to the undertaker'. Have a good weekend - (I've got loads of kids at film club on Saturday, some who come on bikes!) Lilian
Stedman  
#35 Posted : 30 July 2010 14:35:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman

If we look at the statistics for hospital admissions in 2002/3, cycling represents 7.1% of all head injuries and 6.5% of all serious head injuries; however the based upon a study undertaken at that time, the statistics for pedestrians with serious head injuries was ten times greater. Based upon these statistics there is a hypothesis that pedestrians should also wear helmets.
David H  
#36 Posted : 30 July 2010 14:36:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

I would challenge the "green" bit about cycling. In my neck of the woods one cyclist will causer a large tail back because people cant get past - causing large amount of exhaust fumes and exasperated drivers!! Get them off the roads!! David
sean  
#37 Posted : 30 July 2010 14:42:47(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Dave, that was very brave! watch out mate! Friday or no Friday im glad im not in your shoes!! Watch the replies you get to that comment!!!
jwk  
#38 Posted : 30 July 2010 15:00:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Mm, yes, how predictably Top Gear. Like I say, the problem is the lack of respect from motorists in this country, John
David H  
#39 Posted : 30 July 2010 15:08:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

If the cyclist was to do the risk assessment - oils and grease that the camber will push towards the side of the road, dust and debris, pot holes to cycle over, then there are impatient drivers / bad drivers / people parking on corners etc. Add in the great British weather, and the fact that they will cycle in between 2 lanes of slow moving traffic? Sorry to the cycling fraternity - but I cant see any enjoyment in all that David
stephendclarke  
#40 Posted : 30 July 2010 15:12:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
stephendclarke

Hi, I attended a BALPE meeting a few years ago now the Association for Physical Education (afPE) and the topic of cycle helmets came up and the lecturer was of the opinion, based on Dutch research, that in general wearing cycle helmets or not had little impact on injury severity or outcome. It was such a counter intuitive statement but I have never followed it up – must read through Helmsman’s link. I think Chris Burns has a very valid point re. a little politeness goes a long way, my impression is that people are increasingly aggressive, impatient and impolite in both their driving and cycling. Regards Steve
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.