CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Chief Inspector LBP favours mandatory h****t law

(53 posts)

  1. crowriver
    Member

    ADMIN EDIT

    I assume below is a typo - he's normally known as Keith!

    -----------------------------

    Minutes of March's 'Cycle Safety Summit' with Leith Brown revealed:

    a. The minister left half way through the meeting
    b. Lothian & Borders Police rep called for a mandatory h****t law to be introduced in Scotland!
    "11.3 Alan Duncan informed the meeting that police do pro-active work with regard to cyclists and visibility he called for a national initiative in Scotland for the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets. He said moped drivers must wear helmets and cyclists frequently reach 30mph . Scotland could lead the way and host the debate. Jill Mulholland said that the Road Safety Framework contains a commitment to look at this issue."

    Full minutes couretsy CTC Scotland http://www.ctcscotland.org.uk/files/Cycling_&_Road_Safety.pdf

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. Smudge
    Member

    The Chief Constable is probably neither a regular cyclist nor interested in seeing cycling become a default transport option for the majority.
    Cycle helmet compulsion is imho a sign of a country where the car is seen as the only sensible transport choice and anyone on a bicycle is an inconvenience who must be protected from themselves.
    Would be nice if the gentleman could leave the 20th century and embrace the 21st where (fossil)fuel is not unlimited and the damage caused by a car-centric society is slowly being realised.
    I would also be pleased if he might instruct his officers to actually charge drivers when they fail to look where they are going and knock someone off their bike in broad daylight!!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. wee folding bike
    Member

    So is physics his strong point?

    If they work as claimed you would get, at best, the equivalent of an impact at 27.5 mph.

    That ignores the effect of increased mass and volume.

    I can't find an email address for Mr Duncan.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. chdot
    Admin

    Presume it's alan.duncan@lbp.pnn.police.uk

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    This is about Boris and London but I think it's relevant here as it shows that some people with an 'interest in cycling' have a different agenda or see a different context.

    'We' can believe/assume they are wrong, but need to be aware that they a) believe they represent some sort of normality/reality and b) - to some extent - are 'in power'

    "
    Boris Johnson is clearly passionate about using a bike. But I had the distinct sense today that he really only understood cycling in the context of himself. He didn't show that he understood why ten thousand people took to their bikes in the rain on Saturday to show support for safer cycling in London. I almost wondered if he realises that cyclists come in all shapes, sizes and political colours. And that they want a Mayor who better understands why they want to cycle instead of drive. They're not anti-car, they're just people who want the choice not to have to use their cars as much

    "

    http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/why-did-boris-johnson-define-cyclists.html

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    "
    1.2 He stressed the need for all partners to continue to work together, share ideas and expertise, and deliver road safety for all road users at both a national and a local level. The Minister also cautioned against apportioning blame to either motorists or cyclists saying that in his view that is neither helpful nor tenable.

    "

    I'm sure he didn't mean in relation to actual crashes, but it's slightly curious. Perhaps just a minute taker's shorthand for 'we are not here to point fingers at each other', which is probably a good point.

    My experience of the 'road safety establishment' - embodied by that group of people - is that can be very defensive when their views are questioned.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. kaputnik
    Member

    and cyclists frequently reach 30mph

    The man gives himself away as a non-cyclist by making that completely baseless statement.

    I like to consider myself a reasonably average-fast cyclist. Around town I spend most time just around 20mph. I rarely get over 25mph in a given day (wind and gradient dependent) and could probably count the chances I have to get over 30mph in a week on one hand.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. PS
    Member

    Yeah. That strikes me as a "cor, that's cyclist's moving fast and keeping up with the traffic - they must be doing 30mph" kind of comment, rather than anything with empirical evidence behind it. Unless he's come up through the National Escort Group and the only cyclists he sees are the pros racing...

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. crowriver
    Member

    Seems he is a Superintendent, and the head of Road Policing in LBP! He has a lot of views on motorcycle safety, perhaps because many of his officers are motorcyclists?

    Superintendent Alan Duncan who is the head of Road Policing for Lothian and Borders Police and the ACPOS lead for National Campaigns

    http://www.acpos.police.uk/News%20Items/News09_03_12.html

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. alibali
    Member

    It is with great trepidation, and with firm assurances that I would not like to see the headgear that dare not speak it's name made compulsory, I ask but....

    If they work as claimed you would get, at best, the equivalent of an impact at 27.5 mph.

    Could you show your working, please WFB?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. Claggy Cog
    Member

    Alan Duncan says:

    “Motorcyclists and their passengers are more vulnerable to injury than other vehicle users and I would urge all road users to be aware of motorcycles. Just remember that motorcycles can be less visible than other vehicles. Motorcyclists need to appreciate and be aware of changing road conditions at all times, and the fact that their personal skill level may have deteriorated over the winter months."
    This is a no s**t Sherlock moment and statement in my opinion.

    Indeed, all road users should be aware of motorcycles. Cyclists need to be the most aware of all road users, motorbikes can kill cyclists too in that they can attain incredible speeds and accelerate very, very fast. The onus is on the motorcyclist to be aware of changing road and weather conditions...they probably are due to the fact, like cyclists, exposed to the elements. Car drivers need to be MORE aware but aren't due to sitting in an enclosed warm, cosy space. Again less responsibility for the motorist cited...

    As for his views on helmets I cannot possibly comment but is probably due in part to the perceived number of lives of motorbikers saved since the introduction of compulsory helmet wearing. The fact is that nothing is actually going to save you from being killed if you are going extremely fast and come to a stop very suddenly by running into something or being hit by something. Take motorbike and transfer thoughts/stats to cyclists.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  12. Dave
    Member

    "Could you show your working, please WFB?"

    If I remember correctly, since I recognise the figure, it's the energy of a 30mph impact less the energy of a 10/12/whatever mph one, in the assumption a helmet will completely cushion you at the rated speed?

    No working though.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. steveo
    Member

    I'll once again remind folk that the m/s rating is the velocity attained by an object dropped from 2m under the mean gravity on earth. It has absolutely nothing to do with forward velocity.

    A cycle helmet is designed to protect you from the fall from an average bicycle not the deceleration of your horizontal velocity or a tall bike.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. Claggy Cog
    Member

    @steveo, most people do not randomly fall off bikes!! Unless you are, of course, clipped in and cannot free your foot. So are you saying that should you career head first into something having come off your bike that a helmet is less than useless :-P

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. steveo
    Member

    I suppose if the accident is not optimal your helmet will provide sub optimal protection :D

    Its like all safety equipment it has a point where it becomes less helpful.
    Paratroopers have two 'chutes their backup is only effective at slowing you to a level where you likely won't die but you'll still hit the ground with a mighty big thump!
    Crumple zones only work in absorbing in impact for the vector their designed etc.
    Climbing has a doozy in that the rope stretches and can stretch to the point where you'll still hit the ground with a fairly hefty thump.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. cc
    Member

    So say we achieved our aims and people could cycle anywhere in comfortable relaxed safety, most children cycled to and from school, chatting to each other all the way, most folk cycled to the shops, to the cinema, to parties, etc.
    How many of them would be going at 30mph? Very few I'd have thought, I mean why on earth would you, if you never had to compete with any fast motorised traffic?

    And if helmet compulsion is introduced I'll get rid of my bike.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. crowriver
    Member

    I think here we have the downside to banging on about cycling safety so loudly.

    An alternative scenario to the happy Amsterdamisation of Scotland. The reaction from motorists and road safety mafia may well be: "Well if it's so dangerous then get the cyclists off the roads completely or make helmets/body armour compulsory."

    Problem solved, motorists happy, cycling dwindles to an extreme sport hard core. Town planners say "We built the off-road paths/shared use obstacle courses, but they didn't come." Roll on the obesity epidemic!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. Min
    Member

    "Well if it's so dangerous then get the cyclists off the roads completely or make helmets/body armour compulsory."

    This is because they are ignorant and so motor orientated that they believe it is entirely up to us to protect ourselves if we are to be so foolish as to go out of doors on a bicycle as drivers have no responsibilities towards us (as confirmed by PC Russel in the Innertube interview. It is out job to educate them, not to pretend that there isn't a problem.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  19. alibali
    Member

    Before you watch this, I realise water melons are not heads!

    http://www.naden.de/blog/bbvideo-bbpress-video-plugin -->

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Player

    However, as a practical demonstration of the limited protection offered by a helmet at 30mph, this is interesting, I think.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  20. wee folding bike
    Member

    Alibali,

    Dave has it. Energy varies with the square of speed. If you take the square of 30 and subtract the square of 12 then take the root of the answer you get 27.5 ish.

    12 mph is the maximum speed plastic hats are reputed to deal with and sometimes people assume that at 30 mph a hat would reduce the impact to the equivalent of 18 mph.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  21. Darkerside
    Member

    However, the verticle speed of descent would not be so greatly affected by forward velocity, unless you manage to convert your forward momentum into a swan dive to gain height (or pivot about the front wheel, or hit something immovable, or...). You're generally still falling under the influence of gravity, so the plastic hat would probably be more useful than kinetic energy would suggest.

    I reckon there are far too many variables for maths to be of any use here (which I find unsettling!). My only assessment has been to compare casualty rates for countries where everyone wears a helmet to the UK, and base my decision on that.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  22. crowriver
    Member

    Or maybe compare casualty rates in a country where hardly anyone wears a helmet (eg. Netherlands) to the UK? Then you discover that collisions involving motor vehicles kill and maim most cyclists in the UK... Not sure how a helmet helps if you are trapped under a lorry.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  23. wee folding bike
    Member

    Darker,

    If people wear one because of the vertical velocity then there is a further corollary.

    Well there is for tall people.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  24. steveo
    Member

    Or maybe compare casualty rates in a country where hardly anyone wears a helmet (eg. Netherlands) to the UK?

    And when we are in the same league as the Netherlands that'll be valid comparison till then we have far more in common with Canada, the US and the Antipodes.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  25. Boff
    Member

    Minor off topic point on what Steveo said about parachutes:

    "Paratroopers have two 'chutes their backup is only effective at slowing you to a level where you likely won't die but you'll still hit the ground with a mighty big thump!"

    This isn't true with modern parachute systems. The reserve chute is exactly the same as the main chute and will provide exactly the same drag and manoeuvrability as the main chute. The difference is that the reserve is a single block colour (no pattern) to indicate to those on the ground that you have had to deploy the reserve and may be in trouble. This applies to modern RAPS design parachutes (rectangular ones). I've no idea if old dome chutes had the less effective reserve.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  26. crowriver
    Member

    And when we are in the Netherlands that'll be valid comparison till then we have far more in common with Canada, the US and the Antipodes.

    Including law enforcement officers calling for mandatory helmet wearing. Oz has had the law for years. Four Canadian provinces too. The result? A decrease in cycling and a higher rate of cycling injuries amongst the rump of cyclists still braving the roads.

    So, Scotland can take a lead and make cycling as difficult, hazardous, and unpopular as it is in Australia and bits of Canada. Hooray!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  27. steveo
    Member

    Boff you're probably right, it was a tale my dad regaled me with from his days in the para's. No way modern heath and saftey would let you away with that. In reality I suspect its just modern materials the 'chute system can be made light enough that its no longer worth risking a small reserve.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  28. steveo
    Member

    So, Scotland can take a lead and make cycling as difficult, hazardous, and unpopular as it is in Australia and bits of Canada. Hooray!

    Like it or not, Scotland's roads have more in common with Australian roads than they do with the Netherlands. If you want to compare accident statistics with mixed traffic then you can not use countries where, by what ever method, cyclists are largely separated from larger traffic.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  29. alibali
    Member

    OK WFB, I see. Trouble is, it's not a cliff edge function: total protection below 12mph, zero protection above.

    As I understand it, in tests a hard object is dropped onto a helmet from 2m. The impact velocity is (I think)then about 12mph but that is very different from a real head/helmet/surface impact and says very little about what would happen in a drop test from a greater height.

    The melons are trying to tell us something...

    Posted 1 year ago #
  30. Darkerside
    Member

    I hear them saying 'buy a fully enclosed carbon body streamliner recumbent'...

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin