"I hear them saying 'buy a fully enclosed carbon body streamliner recumbent'..."
You sure it was the melons? Not your bank manager looking forward to the interest on a loan?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Chief Inspector LBP favours mandatory h****t law
(53 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Nah, he's moved out of the fruit and is currently dancing around our new boiler/plumbing setup.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"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.
A few issues here:
- first, as people always have to point out, helmets are only designed for single vehicle impacts, so it's hardly possible to claim European countries aren't "in the same league" (unless you're saying something profound about how hard their ground is). Most crashes in the UK and in the Netherlands are single vehicle and seem to me to be directly comparable.
- second, more cyclists are injured in vehicle collisions in the Netherlands than in the UK. Not per-km-cycled, but certainly per-capita (this has been all over the cycling press recently, I think?). Why can't we compare a country with far more crashes with our own situation? Their crashes are different just because they're spread across a larger number of people?
- third, even if we were to accept that the UK is just like the US, Canada and Australia/NZ, those countries have all been hammered where they took helmet promotion to the ultimate degree. In Australia one territory revoked legislation and saw the drop in participation reverse, while across the pond, you can tell whether a territory has a helmet law by looking at participation rates.
In my opinion we shouldn't aim for the lowest common denominator and do what other failed cycling countries do, but do whatever other successful cycling countries do, some of which, for instance, have an active policy against helmet promotion because they'd rather everyone cycled and was healthy than a few do and have a a small reduction in trauma cases (but 60%+ obesity).
At the end of the day my views on this can be boiled down to: cycling anywhere in the world with a bare head *increases your life expectancy*. Hello!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Fair enough, so we compare the UK to the Netherlands what we learn is that segregation and 50 years of enlightened transport policy leads to lower injury rates per km due to massively increased cycle use, it doesn't really comment towards how effective a helmet would be in an impact which is where this stemmed.
Interestingly Australians cycle more miles per person than the UK apparently. NZ is there or there abouts. So even failed cycle countries with nasty helmet legislation are doing better than we are...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes, we are failing pretty hard.
To be fair, the gross statistics may not be that fair on the UK (for instance, the rate of women cycle commuters in one Australian city is still back in the 80's and the only increase they've had is in thrusting young gents. I can look out the reference if necessary).
Fair enough, so we compare the UK to the Netherlands what we learn is that segregation and 50 years of enlightened transport policy leads to lower injury rates per km due to massively increased cycle use, it doesn't really comment towards how effective a helmet would be in an impact which is where this stemmed.
It depends on the argument you're trying to make. Although I like to play with the individual facets as much as anyone, the bottom line for me is that bareheaded cycling increases life expectency and an increase in helmet use in a comparable population (such as before and after legislation) doesn't lead to reduced injury rates, strengthened by the observation that they also don't rise in the few cases where such legislation has been revoked either (ruling out many mere correlations).
I don't much care why, and believing this to be true doesn't stop me wearing a helmet sometimes regardless (rank hypocrisy?), it just makes me totally against their promotion in the way that we see currently in the UK.
The melon video, for instance, is interesting because for all it should matter to the rational observer, the fate of the helmeted melon is completely irrelevant - it might as well survive a fall out of an aeroplane for all the use of it. It's obvious that if you put a helmet on and hit your head with a hammer, it will hurt less. Unfortunately for whatever reason, that doesn't translate to the mean streets.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Interestingly Australians cycle more miles per person than the UK apparently.
Maybe the distances are greater in the towns and cities. Or maybe, the people who do cycle do it a lot more and further than the people who cycle here.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Putting yet another point into the mix...NZ has only a 2.5 possibly 3 million population in a country the size of the whole of the UK, that means a whole lot fewer motorised vehicles, and lower numbers of cyclists and a whole lot more road/space where you are less likely to encounter any traffic. Same with Oz, huge country, massive, where conurbations probably see the most cycling casualties. So yes Australians may cycle many more miles than we do, but I bet they don't have to contend with as much traffic as we do, overall.
We have to remember the UK is a very small and very overpopulated place, which is where the difficulty lies in building segregated cycle ways and designated areas for cyclists. We probably have one of the highest car ownership levels, despite the facilities and amenities like shops being so accessible (or at least they were before they started moving them out the superparks/shopping malls).
Posted 11 years ago # -
I don't disagree with you Dave, my earlier comments were based on this
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. And Crowrivers response.My helmet hypocrisy generally stems from my understanding of statistics... Its great to look at them but its horrible being one!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Crowriver I'm not sure what point your trying to make. Yes people in more spread out cities have to ride further to get to where they need to go fairly straight forward. In the UK the percentage of commutes by bicycle drop with distance over 2 miles. I'd imagine there are fewer commutes under 2 miles in Aus/NZ than in the UK. The UK isn't better it's just more compact.
Claggy, car ownership is much higher,distances driven are higher and cities are more car friendly so I'd doubt you'd notice much difference in city centres. Out side the cities both lack the UK's sub network of minor roads going places and NZ only has about 50 miles of motorway so out side the city you are playing with all the traffic not just the farmers like you do here on minor roads.
Posted 11 years ago # -
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/cyclist-injured-in-car-crash-1-2266812 Another "expert" opinion from a non cyclist, Motorcylist thinks he knows best
Posted 11 years ago # -
Not sure I understood, "In the UK the percentage of commutes by bicycle drop with distance over 2 miles".
How much does it drop off over 2 miles ? To me, 2 miles seems a very short commute indeed. However, I have never really thought about it in those terms. I, and I am only guessing here, would have thought that the average commute would be 5 -10 miles ,one way. I of course could be very much mistaken.Posted 11 years ago # -
Those minutes are very interesting, I'm part way through, but I will need to reread them to take it all in. Some of my thoughts are:
1. What a lot of people at the meeting - any meeting I've been to with that many people has never been very productive.
2. Somebody from IAM is in the group, but the cyclists have to be invited - maybe I misunderstood this, or there is a good reason for this?
3. why didn't they just start a thread on this forum and have sensible solutions provided for them ;)
4. With regard to the chief inspector advocating mandatory helmet use, when did it become part of a police officers remit to make/suggest the laws?
5. Am I the only one who finds the suggestion of cycle training irritating? I'd rather see extra training for drivers on how to drive with respect for more vulnerable road users. Not how to cycle to compensate for aggressive and dangerous drivers.
6. Helmets (scroll down if you have had your fill of this subject). I generally do not wear one. I will if it is icy or if I'm going mountain biking, I might even wear one on the 19th as I may have to go a tad faster than usual to keep up with everyone else ;) However, despite being fairly certain I would be better off wearing one if I do come off and not really noticing it's there when I do wear it - I am tired of being told to wear one by people who do not cycle, but openly admit to frequentlty breaking the speed limit in their car! It seems to me, they want me to wear a helmet so that they can drive faster and closer to me. My immediate reaction to the idea of compulsory helmets is: I won't wear one and I won't pay the fine and we'll see where that gets me.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 11 years ago #
-
@ExcitableBoy - I don't think it was a very productive meeting, each person only getting about 2 minutes worth...more like a beauty pageant to be honest. Shows that Keith Brown was willing to listen...but not sure that is the case, just political manoeuvring.
You're right about it not being the decision of the polis to make the laws but as he is heid honcho around here his opinion will be seen to count. Politicians always want to keep the law onside.
Bike training - it is important to teach young and returning cyclists good road practice, and there is an element of drivers have to do training so why not cyclists. However, I do agree that driver training about cyclists is more to the point. I made that exact point to the man who is hoping to get elected as councillor here, that I did not want part of the transport budget allocated to cycling to be used for teaching motorists, but that should be funded separately. Still waiting for a response.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Anyone old enough to remember when non-smokers were in the minority?
Imagine if, instead of putting place curbs on tobacco advertising, sales, and eventually banning smoking in public places, governments had taken a different approach.
Non-smoking areas in public places (oh they did that, didn't they).
Training for non-smokers to enable them to hold their breath for longer in the presence of smokers. Starting with primary school children.
Regulations making it mandatory for non-smokers to wear gas masks in enclosed public places.For the smokers, they put up tobacco tax. the so-called tobacco tax escalator (oh they kinda did that).
They required mandatory wearing of fire retardent clothing for all smokers while smoking.See, that's all nice and safe now. The smokers are happy, fewer deaths from fire. The non-smokers are safe from the smoke. Case solved!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Crowriver I'm not sure what point your trying to make.
You said:
Interestingly Australians cycle more miles per person than the UK apparently. NZ is there or there abouts. So even failed cycle countries with nasty helmet legislation are doing better than we are...
Yet if the modal share of cycling in Australia is half that of the UK's, then that means (on average) half as many cyclists travelling four times longer distances in Australia. How is that 'better'? Different, certainly.
That was my point.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@freewheelin, not sure I disagree with the motorcyclist, as I read it he says that smidsy's are more often actually "sorry mate I didn't look" and that the guilty drivers should be prosecuted more often and more harshly than they currently are.
Sounds fair to me...Posted 11 years ago # -
MMhh having re read it, you may have the rights of it. I must admit when I first read it, I thought he was "preaching" to us, and assumed that helmets for cyclists should be mandatory or compulsory.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Freewhwwheelin
Not sure I understood, "In the UK the percentage of commutes by bicycle drop with distance over 2 miles".According to the DFT stats a higher percentage of cycle commuters commute less than 2 miles (7%) than 2-5 (5%) or 5-10 (3%).
@crowriver Modal share is one metric, distance per capita is another. Modal share could be difficult to compare though. Just because less people cycle doesn't mean they take their car. So if the goal is overall greater cycle use than other modes then the UK is "better" if the goal is generally higher cycle use then Australia is "better".
As above if we assume the number of commutes in a more dispersed city such as Sydney that are under 2 miles are greatly reduced then using the UK's model I'd expect the actual number cyclists to drop off but each go further.
Source: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/national-travel-survey/commuting.xls
Posted 11 years ago # -
Or to put it another way, of all the commuting trips made by bicycle in 2009, an estimated 41% of them were less than 2 miles, 36% between 2 to 5 miles, 20% between 5 to 10 miles and the remaining 3% were 10 miles or more. (steveo's link, table 7, recalculated, can't be more precise because the percentages are weighted but the trip base is unweighted).
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Insto, steveo, which shows that in distance and usage, the UK cyclist has more in common with the Netherlands equivalent, despite not having the nice infrastructure. Overcrowded, dense cities, shortish distances covered by the majority of cyclists, etc. (See stats in threads passim, forget which one/exact link).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yep i'd agree with that, though it stands to reason given the age and size of the cities and relative geographies being very similar.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
