http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: *sigh* Helmet Logic en Sun, 31 May 2026 08:05:02 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9969 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:25:18 +0000 Arellcat 9969@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Often action is only taken after there has been a collision resulting in serious damage. Surely prevention is better than cure.</em></p> <p>Except that people feel that they have an incontrovertible right to drive, and generally the law agrees; whence "Ya cannae take ma car aff me! That's, like, aginst mah human rights, ya bam!" Yes, you bam, when you accidentally press the accelerator instead of the brake pedal as you fumble to put your mobile phone back into your bag. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9968 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:19:56 +0000 LaidBack 9968@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Mhairi McFocall in CityCycling 18 had something to say about that 'trend'. </p> <p><em>But link seems not to be available at moment...</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9966 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:37:06 +0000 Kim 9966@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It is an odd thing that you are required to under go a simple eyesight test as part of the driving test, but once you have a licence there is no requirement to have your eyesight checked to retain your licence. There is a requirement to inform the DVLA about your medical condition or disability which occurs once you have a licence, but no checks. Often action is only taken after there has been a collision resulting in serious damage. Surely prevention is better than cure. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9963 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:39:41 +0000 SRD 9963@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dunno, I certainly recall my family angsting quite a lot over the years about family members/neighbours etc needing to stop driving, and the difficulties this would cause them - not to mention concern at loss of independence. But certainly everyone very aware of dangers they might cause to others (and themselves, and relatives in the car) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9958 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:23:58 +0000 Min 9958@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"When I point out that while Grandma may be safe, other road users may be at serious risk, the most frequent response is anger, as if to say "of course, Grandma would never hurt a fly, how could you even *think* that?""</p> <p>I'll not forget my own mum smiling pityingly at me and explaining that of course her elderly friend has bad eyesight and can't possibly be expected to not come inches away from mowing me down in her car whilst I'm cycling. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9956 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:16:43 +0000 Kim 9956@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Aphid that is not a case for wear a magic hat, it is case for take out legal cover insurance and making sure you have a good lawyer should you ever need one.</p> <p>Insurance is a funny old business, it is a form of betting, you make a bet that something bad will happen to you, and the insurance providers bet that nothing bad will happen to you. To judge by the profits of the insurance providers, they are better at winning these bets then we are. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9950 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:46:40 +0000 TwoWheels 9950@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>On several occasions, I have talked with family members of elderly people with failing eyesight, cognition, etc., about how the impairments of age affect their driving. Invariably, the relatives focus only on Grandma's safety. When I point out that while Grandma may be safe, other road users may be at serious risk, the most frequent response is anger, as if to say "of course, Grandma would never hurt a fly, how could you even *think* that?"</p> <p>Which is true until Grandma guns it through the plate glass window at the supermarket, turning the deli counter into a drive-thru. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9513 Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:40:42 +0000 Aphid 9513@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Also, a story from a sister, a social worker with the elderly. </p> <p>She was contacted by the police when one of her elderly clients was involved in an RTA in daylight. The elderly lady had driven into the back of a parked car. When asked by the police why she had driven into the car, she answered "it doesn't normally park there". The police officer asked her if she could see the car, and she answered "no, I only have poor sight in one eye, and the other is blind". It turned out she had 20% vision in one eye and zero in the other. When the police officer asked her how she managed to drive into town, and this is the bit that makes me chilled to the bone... she answered...</p> <p>"I follow the curb" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9512 Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:31:26 +0000 Aphid 9512@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I know you have been round the houses with this one, but this makes sobering <a href="http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence/recent-cases">reading</a>... </p> <p>Article about cycling helmets, the law, and "contributory negligence". </p> <p>and.... <a href="http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/smith-v-finch-jorgensen-v-moore-reviews-cases-involving-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence">this one</a></p> <p>Which covers two cases where the judges made reference to cycling helmets. The case for wearing them isn't whether they work or not, but that they make your legal proceedings less open to attack from the other side (!). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9508 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:22:01 +0000 wee folding bike 9508@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The phone legislation only applies to motor vehicles.</p> <p>Cue the old joke, "No, I use my finger to dial". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9500 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:44:08 +0000 gembo 9500@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Didn't Jimmy Carr (you see) get away with it by claiming it was a dictaphone not a phone? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9411 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:13:19 +0000 wee folding bike 9411@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>And if I can see them driving while phoning you would think the cops could too.</p> <p>Harriet Harman got away with it... allegedly.</p> <p>Of course one of the reasons I don't have a flip phone is because they are hard to work when you're on a bike. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9392 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:52:04 +0000 gembo 9392@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>nice link</p> <p>You might also remember this: there is no scientific evidence to support the belief that driving while talking on a hands-free phone is safer than driving while holding a cell to your ear. Worse, both have about the same effect as driving under the influence of alcohol (Chabris and Simons: 2010, pp. 22-26).[/new] </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9375 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:10:17 +0000 wee folding bike 9375@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Inattentional Blindness?</p> <p><a href="http://www.skepdic.com/inattentionalblindness.html#new" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepdic.com/inattentionalblindness.html#new</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9368 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 11:58:47 +0000 gembo 9368@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>blind to the bike but also short sighted, visually impaired etc I thought that car for blind drivers was an april fool? but of course it isn't - it is part of the motor industry anti-bike, planet destroying conspiracy </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9362 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 11:16:05 +0000 chdot 9362@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"doesn't get you seen by blind drivers"</p> <p>You were exaggerating of course(?)</p> <p>"Scientists to present car for blind drivers next year"</p> <p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10497032.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10497032.stm</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9352 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:57:58 +0000 gembo 9352@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A very sad story. Maybe the mother in coming to terms with her grief was trying to make sense of it by linking to a wider issue? </p> <p>Again, avoiding specifics of the wider issue and moving well away from this personal tragedy for the family, I would like to raise the point about campaigning against the flow of general opinion. Having a rational argument isn't always going to help. So for example, having lurid clothing on doesn't get you seen by blind drivers. We get diverted into lurid versus non-lurid discussions when the issue is that there is nothing to stop you getting into a car when you have poor eyesight and bad co-ordination and then wreaking havoc. It is too easy. Maybe the price of fuel will rise prohibitively resulting in only necessary journeys being taken in motorised vehicles? Or more tax for people on their own in cars? As I type, I realise these are not vote winners. However, the point I am trying to make is that when pitching an argument it is more likely to succeed when it is for the general good (e.g. whole planet) than about a specific lobby (e,g, cycling) because the specific group gets picked off by the judges/politicians/car industry etc </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9304 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:21:19 +0000 Kim 9304@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I really don't understand why people insist on ignoring the Elephant in the room when discussing road safety, it is the drivers that <em>are</em> the problem. Get them to drive safely and worry about the other stuff later... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9233 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:33:19 +0000 chdot 9233@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Sadly, the mother is probably aware that she and all her neighbours are guilty of going faster than they ought."</p> <p>Yes.</p> <p>I seem to remember a village somewhere - perhaps West Linton - where there was a campaign for a reduced speed limit (or perhaps just enforcement).</p> <p>One of the first people a police strap caught was one of the campaigners... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9232 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:28:16 +0000 SRD 9232@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sadly, the mother is probably aware that she and all her neighbours are guilty of going faster than they ought. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9231 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:26:12 +0000 Arellcat 9231@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I remember well the occasion when a child on a bike came out of a driveway at speed and into the middle of the road in front of me. I was able to stop my car in time because I was doing 20mph in the 30mph limit. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9205 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:24:24 +0000 Smudge 9205@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"we attribute no blame", sorry but for 30-40mph in a street where children play I do :-&lt;</p> <p>People will blame 4x4's, helmets, hi-viz, children, the state of the moon ffs! Why wont they accept dangerous driving is often what kills people &gt;:-&lt; </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9200 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:08:12 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 9200@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I will add that even 53 weeks after losing her son emotions will be unbelievably raw, and I can't begin to imagine what she has gone through and will still be going through.</p> <p>But. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1002#post-9199 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:03:55 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 9199@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Now this is NOT about re-opening the helmet debate, I just want to focus on this very particular story.</p> <p>It's awful. A young kid hit by a car is killed. He dies of chest and abdominal injuries. At an inquest 53 weeks later his mother states that helmets should be compulsory for under-18s.</p> <p>Now I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be. Again, this is not the thread to argue that. But calling for compulsory use on the basis of a death in which a helmet would have had <em>no affect on the injuries</em>.</p> <p>The child's mother herself states, "<em>Even though wearing a helmet would have made no difference to Maurice’s life I cannot understand why it is not illegal for children under 18 to ride a bicycle without a helmet and I know that this would have saved other children in other places</em>."</p> <p>What is also interesting is that the driver is a neighbour. He was driving a Jeep at between 30 and 40mph (his own statement) in a residential area. The kid came out of a driveway on the bike '<em>at speed</em>' and there was '<em>nothing he could do</em>'. On this (remember, after saying that all children should wear helmets even though it wouldn't have saved her son) she said, "<em>We would like to make it clear that the other two families involved are our neighbours and our friends and we attribute no blame whatsoever to anybody and we hope our friendship will continue</em>."</p> <p>Admirable powers of forgiveness that we could all learn from really - although she then rails against the inquest having taken 53 weeks. </p>