I don't eschew hi-viz, I just don't go out lit up like a christmas tree; I wear cycling gear that has hi-viz strips and my bike has powerful lights that comply with the law. For what it's worth, I've never been in an accident or near-miss that hi-viz would have prevented but I have been in two, in broad daylight, that were caused by driver error.



My comments were more in agreement with the attitude that cyclists are seen as vulnerable and an inconvenience; it wouldn't do any harm to look at the number of us who are killed or injured every year and think about ways to educate drivers and improve attitudes, rather than simply defaulting to the position that responsibility for the welfare of cyclists is solely with them.



I had this discussion on another board recently and someone replied that cyclists deserve to be knocked off their bikes, because they are always jumping red lights; there's a long way to go!

If you are gormless enough to go through a red light, as I have observed many cyclists do, then you will inevitably suffer the consequences of your cretinous actions.



Plastic helmet versus a Leeds taxi driver, who as a breed appear to treat traffic lights as an inconvenience anyway, is not a fair contest!

or stop jumping lights, riding two abreast, and whilst you're at it, cycle at the speed limit.

Well argues - I am suitably chastened.

Fair enough - you comment agreeing with the OP made me think otherwise.



I don't disagree with much of that TBH, although there are a minority of cyclists that don't help themselves or the image of cyclists as a whole. While I drive as part of my job I like to walk as much as possible when at home. I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been mowed down on a crossing by a cyclist who doesn't think that red lights apply to bikes.

Just to p1ss on two of your chips...



[iHighway Code rule 66

You should



* never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

[/i



From[urlhttp://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837[/url



and have you ever tried to cycle at the speed limit ?



I'll take your comment both ways, you either mean that cyclists are too slow - have you ever tried to ride at 30mph - or cyclists ride at more than the speed limit - have you ever tried to ride at 30mph ???



I managed 38mph once coming down the 2 mile long hill into Helmsley, very nearly, or maybe even did, shat myself.

Funnily enough Direct Line did a survey of motorists and found that 5+ MILLION ran red lights EVERY MONTH....go figure who are the greater pest on the roads regarding safety.

As for helmets, waste of time except for very small children as they are only tested for prevention of cuts and bruising at best and can increase chances of an accident and even cause worse injuries at worst.

I'll refer you to my post above re red lights and has been pointed out cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast (still much less than the width of any car at any rate) and as for the speed limit comment, bicycles don't have them as they aren't legally required to be fitted with a speedometer though you can be done for cycling 'furiously' as it was (now dangerously)

I'll remind you that motor vehicles in the UK kill around 1700-1800 people yearly though this figure is coming down seriously injured in the tens of thousands

what utter shoite

Its a point of view that is well supported in the cycling community, not by myself, but a sizeable percentage of cyclists won't wear them for exactly the reasons stated, I'm of the opinion that it won't cause me to have an accident and [imay[/i stop a fatal or debilitating head injury, so I wear one.

I think there is a difference between sneaking through a late orange/red light which I would imagine what most people are talking about, compared to the complete disregard of traffic lights by many cyclists! There will be a greater number of motorist in all statistics, because there is a greater number on the road. You will never truly know the complete statistics because there is no way of monitoring how many cyclists on the road.



Show us some proof that helmets cause worse injuries.



As for riding two abreast - this is just arrogance.



What do you think about the lack of training that cyclists (and mopeds for that matter) have for riding on the road?

I don't think anyone is claiming there is a definitive one-size-fits-all answer, but have a skeg here:

[urlhttp://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html[/url

there is a huge and very well documented and extremely well informed debate and research. It isn't a crank POV.





Or not. If I and the missus are out on a few hours bike ride - as was, back in the day - why TF should we not ride two abreast, so we can talk just like you might talk to your missus sat in the passenger seat of your barrow? What IS arrogant is for you to just assume that YOU have the right to that piece of tarmac and everyone should just get out of your way. Cycling two abreast in most cases (and certainly there are plenty of narrow roads where you wouldn't sensibly choose to do it) is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable thing to do.



The question is more whether, from time to time, on occasion, as circumstances demand, it might be prudent or polite to return to single file, which is a fair line of argument. But your statement of general principle is what is arrogant. if you think about it.



For adults, its not rocket science.

I don't have time to read all of them, however the first one appeared to compare the number of helmets bought to head injuries suffered. This wouldn't prove anything. I wouldn't dream of cycling without mine.







When I go out cycling I would cycle next to the missus on a road that has no traffic only and we would resume single file should a car come. I think it's a case of consideration. Why would you make it more difficult for a car to pass you?



I am not an arrogant driver. I give cyclists plenty of room - I know what it is like. I realise some motorists are arrogant so when I get on a bike, I treat them all as such and make sure I don't become another statistic, just as I do when I drive.







It is quite an important factor of road use though. I can't see why you expect motorists to treat you with the respect, keep to the law, etc while you can just jump on a bike without a requirement to know any of the rules of the road. I have seen cyclists commit quite obvious, serious violations, nearly causing accidents as well as the opposite - what is the legal standing on that? What would happen if a cyclist without any training caused an accident?

Training would be irrelevant, the only question (for any road user) is whether you fell below the standard expected from your average reasonable Joe. That is, the question is not whether you had training, just whether you were negligent.

But if there isn't any necessary training, how can you be deemed to be negligent?



What I’m getting at is the responsibility - like in the construction industry, as a company, if we didn't train somebody to do a job and they were injured, it would be our responsibility. Also, does that not leave every motorist at the risk of being affected by an uninsured who is also potentially untrained?

Particularly since, as I understand it, motorists use roads only by right of statute, whereas cyclists and pedestrians use them by right of common law.



The arrogance and bile displayed by some motorists towards cyclists still genuinely shocks me; I just don't understand what the problem is - most of us are also motorists and for the time we're on our bikes, we represent one less car on the road, so reducing the congestion that dogs most car journeys nowadays.



It's totally baffling.

A bicyle isn't a dangerous vehicle ergo having a set test before being allowed on the road isn't required, A car is dangerous many thousands of times over, bigger vehicles even more so, you need to be licensed to operate dangerous machinery on the road, that's the law.

As Bren says, we have a right to be there, motor vehicles and their drivers don't, they are privileged by license.



As for helmets, I'm sure those that think the efficacy of a bit of plastic and polystyrene foam is anything like enough to stop more than minor cuts and bruises don't really know what they are talking about or don't want to understand how rubbish they are. Have you seen the drop test done to pass the standard?



People spout oh my helmet broke in two it saved my life...no it didn't, it actually failed by breaking.

And if you don't know about rotational injuries from studies done regarding car occupents and how helmets can cause such then read up and read some more about risk compensation as to why helmets are next to useless and worse.

I watched a crash involving Mark Cavendish a few years ago, the only reason the 6 cyclists heads came into contact with the ground was because of the extra circumference of the helmet, without the helmet their heads would have missed the ground completely. Many hits to the head would not even occur if it weren't for the increased circumference a helmet gives you.



Even in countries where helmets were made compulsary they have found that head injuries/accident rates DO NOT GO DOWN BUT UP!!!

In Australia since the introduction of the law almost 50% of people stopped cycling overnight in some states, this has a dramatic effect on long term population health problems, adding more traffic on the roads (more pollution chemical and noise), it has being proven without doubt what a stupid law it was. it is very likely that they will rescind the law in the future as have other countries.

Have a look at Denmark and the Netherlands where cycling rates are very high but helmet wearing is almost unheard of even by children

So if you think you're being protected by your magic hat and that it will save you from being crushed/maimed or worse that's up to you but in my personal opinion and of riding over 140,000 miles in my life and that of many other more qualified people I say it won't, nor will it protect you anything like to the extent you've being brainwashed into thinking it does.

See- I told you there was a sizeable % of cyclists who were adamantly against wearing helmets.



I think the main point is that in collisions at speed versus motor vehicles then a helmet is not going to make one iota of difference to your injuries, nor protect your head if it takes the impact, but for a fall from a bike not involving a collision with a motor vehicle, and for children, it has its place, when you're falling to the ground you don't have a lot of time to think about where you're going to put your head and if 20mm of foam padding comes between you and a kerb at 10mph then its better then your skull being the first point of impact, or at least thats where I'd place my money anyway.



I wouldn't dream of forcing anyone else to wear one though, or try and persuade them to do so.

Try telling that to a pedestrian mowed down by one.





And this is an archaic irrelevance.





Actually not necessarily true. Even in breaking some of the impact energy was absorbed.



And BTW, I don't expect a cycle helmet to be some kind of 'magic hat' that will protect me from all danger. I do, however, prefer to have something other than my scalp hit the tarmac if it comes to that.

It's a number of things - the equally arrogant and holier-than-thou attitude displayed by a fair number of cyclists, the perceived holdups, the ignoring of the rules of the road, etc. And yes I do realise it's a minority, but the same is true of motorists.



I have no problem whatsoever with cyclists BTW - unless one is being a dick. But that's the same for motorists and pedestrians as well.

You are correct of course there are some pretty stupid people out there most seem to drive cars but some ride bikes as well. the same incident with a bike isn't remotely anything like that from a motorised vehicle is it, the chances of a cyclist seriously injuring/killing another person is pretty rare indeed, with a car/van/lorry that cannot be said at all.

I wouldn't dream of stopping you from wearing your helmet but my response was mainly in for Standee who clearly seems to think that replying "what utter shiote" means he must be right about helmets and I (& the experts) are clearly wrong regarding the issues they present.

Personally I've been knocked off a fair few times, crashed at nearly 30mph due to a hidden pothole 6ft across a road and a few offs through my own fault but I've never banged my head once. The pothole incident anecdotally would have seen me damage my neck/head pretty severly if I had been wearing a helmet.

Sadly many cyclists (even those high up) seem to think helmets have magical properties and prevent anything from a snapped hip to a broken wrist and will ward off that 40 tonner from crushing you..understanding their real limitations and the false protection (& thus risk compensation becomes a factor) is very important IMO



As I said upthread I'm totally okay with young children wearing them but beyond that I see no reason to continue as any small benefit is skewed by the negatives. My own son never wore one in the 7 years he rode to school, others do what they feel is right for their kids but I'll always point out the actual facts not made up carp that comes from certain corners..

more myopia from cyclists, between them and kirkstaller we have some right crackpots on RLFans

Can you elaborate so I can understand why wearing a helmet is so dangerous?



I know my helmet has been designed to absorb impact. The only time it has been remotely tested is on low twigs which admitedly wouldn't have casued me a head injury other than a few scratches, but it did prevent them. If I fell off on a road, I can't imagine a scenario where I would prefer not to wear a helmet.



Other than statistics of helmets purchased to head injuries, without me spending time trawling the internet, what other evidence is there that helmets are dangerous?

The main arguments against (and I'm not a supporter of them) seem to always concern high speed impacts (high speed on a bike that is), collisions with motor vehicles (they have a point there), and a factor best described as the expectation that when you put a helmet you are automatically protected and will therefore be more reckless.



I'm not quite sure where the last theory came from but helmet or no helmet, five minutes cycling in commuter traffic will soon dash any such immortal theories from your head as you soon realise that you are often invisible to some motorists, or if not invisible they assume that giving you two inches of room when passing you is sufficient - I can imagine anyone still having invincible feelings after just one trip in commuter traffic.



Fact of the matter is that if you fall off a bike at any speed its going to hurt and I don't really see the argument against trying to mitigate some of that hurt.

Many years back we had exactly the same arguments about helmets on motorbikes. Helmets won, and many years have passed.



There are many other places in the world where helmets are not compulsory. Yet still nobody can produce compelling proof that overall compulsion was a definite benefit.



Of course there will always be individual cases where a helmet will definitively have saved a rider's life just as there will always be cases where had a helmet, or seatbelt, NOT been worn, a car occupant probably would not have died, but then the inevitability of rare exceptions was known even by those promoting the new laws.



In the case of seatbelts, I think the benefit of compulison is obvious. Even though a few will be injured or die because of it. In the case of helmets, I am not convinced. But at least a helmet does indisputably provide serious protection against - say- a substantial argument with a kerb edge.



In the case of cycle helmets, I'm sort of the other way, and it should certainly remain entirely optional, (for adults not children) in my opinion, given the widely conflicting research data and arguments.



Incidentally, why does every Tour de France rider wear one?