sheff71   10 #85 Posted September 6, 2013 I don't wear a helmet, that's a conscious decision after researching the subject. Why is it that you think I should? I also have no 3rd party insurance (AFAIK, I suppose it could be covered under my house insurance), but if I somehow manage to cause some damage I'll be happy to pay for it. It would be an incredibly high cost for practically no benefit. Can you imagine having to issue a plate to every bike currently in existence, any bike that could be used on the road, so that's from bikes for children right through to antiques. For what, so that you can identify a cyclist if they jump a red light... (Not that I condone that, I dislike it intensely). Not enforcing it doesn't mean it was 'deliberately' not enforced. A route they knew they shouldn't use, but used because they could get away with it. Those that drive responsibly will never have been intending to go through a bus gate.  For the headgear, I feel it should be made compulsory to wear some approved headgear - especially when we keep reading on here how terrifying it is for most cyclists in Sheffield... rather than it being an individual choice (just like in the past it wasn't compulsory to wear seat belts, now you'd have to be a moron not to!).  As far as insurance, if it's covered by house insurance then that's fine.  Having some kind of identifier for cyclists (practically, it'd probably be more like the identifier an athlete would have on their front and back), to be able to identify dangerous cyclists, or those not following the highway code - in the same way the police can now spot fine middle lane hoggers, for example. And without that identifier, you shouldn't be allowed on the road - so those responsible and serious cyclists are separated out from those who tar their reputation). All other road users are trackable, after all?  As for bus gates/lanes I avoid them like the plague, as you never knew which were being monitored, and that's before this thread - particularly if it's an area you don't normally go. There are occasions where traffic conditions may force you to partially enter a bus gate to be able to turn left, due to things in front of you in the correct lane (the only time I recall doing this was on Granville Rd, where a car had broken down in the correct lane near the bottom of the bus gate, so the only option for the cars was to pass over the end of the bus gate. I think this was before this bus gate was enforced, but I was worrying about the possibility of getting a ticket through the post for it!  It's more frustrating when you see a stream of cars driving through these bus lanes/gates during their hours of operation, and you're sat thinking 'what do they know that I don't, that means they can use that lane then?' and then they're not have to struggle to get across into the left lane after the bus gate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alchresearch   214 #86 Posted September 6, 2013 There was an article about cycle headgear in the Telegraph a couple of weeks back:  Cycle helmets are a life-saver and ought to be made compulsory http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10265186/Cycle-helmets-are-a-life-saver-and-ought-to-be-made-compulsory.html  I don't wear one either though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
dutch   68 #87 Posted September 6, 2013 I see more antisocial dangerous drivers than cyclist. I cannot drive or cycle and am certain drivers are worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
stifflersmom   11 #88 Posted September 6, 2013 When motorists bleat on about unworkable schemes like bicycle registration, or advocate compulsory helmet wear it is hardly ever done in the spirit of improving road safety or increasing tolerance of other road users. What they really want are legislative barriers to road used for "inconvenient" road users (including pedestrians, who have an annoying habit of crossing roads to get from one pavement to another) so that "their" roads have more space to squeeze more cars into. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
AlexAtkin   10 #89 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) I understand why people choose not to wear headgear. I myself have almost passed out while cycling before due to overheating from the helmet. I know at least one person who does not wear one precisely for this reason.  Personally, I always wear mine as I don't think its worth the risk as it IS a life saver if you get knocked off your bike. Then again I also have no hair and so have to wear a sun hat underneath to stop my head getting too cold, sun burnt, or sweat running in my eyes. Still, as it clearly CAN increase the chance of you coming off your bike in the first place, I can totally understand people making that choice.  None cyclists forget, its not like a motorbike, you are putting a lot of effort in and its easy to overheat ESPECIALLY with all those hills.  Also, some of the people I have seen WITH helmets, they are in such shoddy condition they likely wouldn't offer much protection anyway. Edited September 6, 2013 by AlexAtkin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eater Sundae   12 #90 Posted September 6, 2013 There was an article about cycle headgear in the Telegraph a couple of weeks back: Cycle helmets are a life-saver and ought to be made compulsory http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10265186/Cycle-helmets-are-a-life-saver-and-ought-to-be-made-compulsory.html  I don't wear one either though.  I wear a helmet when cycling. However, IMO it should not be compulsory.  There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not helmets are a good idea. Although they do offer some protection to the head, the protection offered is limited, and certainly not a panacea to all head injury risks. There is also evidence that drivers (not all, but statistically enough to measure) give less space when overtaking a helmeted rider than when overtaking a non-helmeted rider. Thus, the helmeted rider becomes more at risk of being hit than a non-helmeted rider. Does this extra risk outweigh the limited protection offered by a helmet?  Experience of compulsory helmet laws is that cycle use decreases, resulting in cycles being a less common sight on the roads, resulting in cycles not being in the mind set of other road users, resulting in relatively more cyclists being injured in accidents. Therefore, in terms of number of cyclists being killed or injured per cyclist on the road, compulsory helmets increase the risk.  Useful resource here... http://cyclehelmets.org/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Tara Misu   10 #91 Posted September 6, 2013 It appears that certain motorists have great knowledge of the bus gates, and feel free to use them anyway, as they are not all recording at the same time. How come, when there is an accident no camera was pointing in the right direction? Funny or what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #92 Posted September 6, 2013 For the headgear, I feel it should be made compulsory to wear some approved headgear - especially when we keep reading on here how terrifying it is for most cyclists in Sheffield... rather than it being an individual choice (just like in the past it wasn't compulsory to wear seat belts, now you'd have to be a moron not to!). Seat belts don't increase the risk of accidents. Helmets actually do.  As far as insurance, if it's covered by house insurance then that's fine.  Having some kind of identifier for cyclists (practically, it'd probably be more like the identifier an athlete would have on their front and back), to be able to identify dangerous cyclists, or those not following the highway code - in the same way the police can now spot fine middle lane hoggers, for example. And without that identifier, you shouldn't be allowed on the road - so those responsible and serious cyclists are separated out from those who tar their reputation). All other road users are trackable, after all? No, quite clearly they don't. Only motor vehicles do.  As for bus gates/lanes I avoid them like the plague, as you never knew which were being monitored, and that's before this thread - particularly if it's an area you don't normally go. There are occasions where traffic conditions may force you to partially enter a bus gate to be able to turn left, That would be a bus lane, not a bus gate. due to things in front of you in the correct lane (the only time I recall doing this was on Granville Rd, where a car had broken down in the correct lane near the bottom of the bus gate, so the only option for the cars was to pass over the end of the bus gate. I think this was before this bus gate was enforced, but I was worrying about the possibility of getting a ticket through the post for it!  It's more frustrating when you see a stream of cars driving through these bus lanes/gates during their hours of operation, and you're sat thinking 'what do they know that I don't, that means they can use that lane then?' and then they're not have to struggle to get across into the left lane after the bus gate. And this is why the council is enforcing more of them I suppose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
number27   10 #93 Posted September 6, 2013 I wear a helmet when cycling. However, IMO it should not be compulsory. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not helmets are a good idea. Although they do offer some protection to the head, the protection offered is limited, and certainly not a panacea to all head injury risks. There is also evidence that drivers (not all, but statistically enough to measure) give less space when overtaking a helmeted rider than when overtaking a non-helmeted rider. Thus, the helmeted rider becomes more at risk of being hit than a non-helmeted rider. Does this extra risk outweigh the limited protection offered by a helmet?  Experience of compulsory helmet laws is that cycle use decreases, resulting in cycles being a less common sight on the roads, resulting in cycles not being in the mind set of other road users, resulting in relatively more cyclists being injured in accidents. Therefore, in terms of number of cyclists being killed or injured per cyclist on the road, compulsory helmets increase the risk.  Useful resource here... http://cyclehelmets.org/  I always wear my helmet, but this suggestion that its safer not to wear one is quite frightening. As its title suggests, the "Safety Helmet" must be better on a rider than none at all. Even the slightest bump on the head could be fatal, yet less so with a helmet on. It just seems all a bit daft that statistics say its safer without. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
altus   540 #94 Posted September 6, 2013 I always wear my helmet, but this suggestion that its safer not to wear one is quite frightening. As its title suggests, the "Safety Helmet" must be better on a rider than none at all. Even the slightest bump on the head could be fatal, yet less so with a helmet on. It just seems all a bit daft that statistics say its safer without.  The statistics aren't conclusive one way or the other - that's why there is a controversy. Until it's settled one way other, the current policy of leaving it up to the user to choose is the appropriate one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #95 Posted September 6, 2013 I always wear my helmet, but this suggestion that its safer not to wear one is quite frightening. As its title suggests, the "Safety Helmet" must be better on a rider than none at all. Even the slightest bump on the head could be fatal, yet less so with a helmet on. It just seems all a bit daft that statistics say its safer without.  Calling it a safety helmet doesn't automatically mean that you become safer... It just describes the intention.  I prefer to have improved peripheral vision and the statistical chance of drivers giving me a wider birth. Yes a bump on the head can be very dangerous, but I've bumped it a few times, I don't have an underlying condition just waiting to be triggered. I prefer the idea of not being run down at all, as the alternative to being run down but surviving a bump on the head (only to be cut in half by a tram). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
number27   10 #96 Posted September 6, 2013 The statistics aren't conclusive one way or the other - that's why there is a controversy. Until it's settled one way other, the current policy of leaving it up to the user to choose is the appropriate one.  Absolutely, for a fair minded person, however there are some who are like sheep, and will do whatever statistics tell them. In that instance, would it be right for a "sheep" not to wear one, fall off and sustain a head injury or worse? I believe there should be clear advice.  ---------- Post added 06-09-2013 at 21:16 ----------  Calling it a safety helmet doesn't automatically mean that you become safer... It just describes the intention. I prefer to have improved peripheral vision and the statistical chance of drivers giving me a wider birth. Yes a bump on the head can be very dangerous, but I've bumped it a few times, I don't have an underlying condition just waiting to be triggered. I prefer the idea of not being run down at all, as the alternative to being run down but surviving a bump on the head (only to be cut in half by a tram).  The tram would possibly be held up in traffic, so you do stand a sporting chance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...