Re: New BMA briefing paper. WARNING: Long, contains H word.

[Mark T]

Just zis Guy, you know? writtificated

This is my favourite bit:

"Attitudinal factors shown to influence rates of helmet use include low
risk perception (with cycling not being viewed as a dangerous activity)"

Sorry, what was that again? "cycling not being viewed as a dangerous
activity". I wonder why people would think that of an activity that's up
there with walking in terms 'danger'.

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Mark T wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? writtificated
>
> This is my favourite bit:
>
> "Attitudinal factors shown to influence rates of helmet use include
> low risk perception (with cycling not being viewed as a dangerous
> activity)"
>
> Sorry, what was that again? "cycling not being viewed as a dangerous
> activity". I wonder why people would think that of an activity
> that's up there with walking in terms 'danger'.


And fundamentally, that's the problem with helmets, helmet promotion, and
those campaigning for compulsion.

I have numerous friends who don't cycle because "its far too dangerous".
They question why I expose myself to "high risks" by cycling, why I don't
wear a helmet for protection. These are intelligent people who genuinely
believe cycling is very dangerous, and are put off using bicycles. That
comes from seeing helmets and helmet promotion.





- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Mark T]

Nigel Cliffe writtificated

> These are intelligent people who genuinely
> believe cycling is very dangerous, and are put off using bicycles. That
> comes from seeing helmets and helmet promotion.

And from being overtaken too closely by motor vehicles.

When I could hold 25mph things were fine - cars might pass close, but they
passed 'slowly'. Now I'm capable of only 15-20mph being passed too close
feels more hairy.

Given that cycling is about as safe as walking it seems that improvements
will come mainly from making motor vehicles safer. 20mph limits will both
reduce KSI rates for peds and cyclists alike, as well as reducing the
perception of danger. IMO a massive increase in 20mph limits would do more
for cycling safety and cycling as a means of transport than anything else -
including training, safety campaigns, bike schemes etc.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 20 Mar 2008 12:33:12 GMT, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
said in <[email protected]>:

>Given that cycling is about as safe as walking it seems that improvements
>will come mainly from making motor vehicles safer.

Actually that's most of the problem: they are now so much safer (for
the occupant) that the driver has drastically reduced incentive to
take care.

Spikes in the steering columns. It's the only way to go.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mark T]

Just zis Guy, you know? writtificated

>>Given that cycling is about as safe as walking it seems that
>>improvements will come mainly from making motor vehicles safer.
>
> Actually that's most of the problem: they are now so much safer (for
> the occupant) that the driver has drastically reduced incentive to
> take care.

I didn't word that correctly. I meant something like make motor vehicles
less likely to hit people in the first place, and to cause less damage when
they do.

Rules making them more ped-friendly[1] in accidents has gone some way
towards this but limiting them to 20mph in areas where they will be
operating near to pedestrians seems sensible.


[1] Well, less ped-nasty IYNWIM

 

[Mark]

On 20 Mar 2008 12:33:12 GMT, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

>Nigel Cliffe writtificated
>
>> These are intelligent people who genuinely
>> believe cycling is very dangerous, and are put off using bicycles. That
>> comes from seeing helmets and helmet promotion.
>
>And from being overtaken too closely by motor vehicles.
>
>When I could hold 25mph things were fine - cars might pass close, but they
>passed 'slowly'. Now I'm capable of only 15-20mph being passed too close
>feels more hairy.
>
>Given that cycling is about as safe as walking it seems that improvements
>will come mainly from making motor vehicles safer. 20mph limits will both
>reduce KSI rates for peds and cyclists alike, as well as reducing the
>perception of danger. IMO a massive increase in 20mph limits would do more
>for cycling safety and cycling as a means of transport than anything else -
>including training, safety campaigns, bike schemes etc.

Assuming that drivers actually obey the speed limits. From my
experience drivers have difficultly keeping to the 30mph limit so
things don't look too hopeful.

The best "safety" measure for cyclists is a massive education campaign
for drivers IMHO.

M.

 

[Mark]

On 20 Mar 2008 15:48:29 GMT, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? writtificated
>
>>>Given that cycling is about as safe as walking it seems that
>>>improvements will come mainly from making motor vehicles safer.
>>
>> Actually that's most of the problem: they are now so much safer (for
>> the occupant) that the driver has drastically reduced incentive to
>> take care.
>
>I didn't word that correctly. I meant something like make motor vehicles
>less likely to hit people in the first place, and to cause less damage when
>they do.

Cover them in polystyrene? ;-)

M.

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Mark T wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe writtificated
>
>> These are intelligent people who genuinely
>> believe cycling is very dangerous, and are put off using bicycles.
>> That comes from seeing helmets and helmet promotion.
>
> And from being overtaken too closely by motor vehicles.

Difficult to be a causative factor; they never cycle.

They might, in common with some drivers, overtake cyclists too closely, and
thus think that drivers like them make cycling dangerous.



- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark T
pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid
says...
> Nigel Cliffe writtificated
>
> > These are intelligent people who genuinely
> > believe cycling is very dangerous, and are put off using bicycles. That
> > comes from seeing helmets and helmet promotion.
>
> And from being overtaken too closely by motor vehicles.
>
> When I could hold 25mph things were fine - cars might pass close, but they
> passed 'slowly'. Now I'm capable of only 15-20mph being passed too close
> feels more hairy.

Wobble - they'll give you much more room.
>
> Given that cycling is about as safe as walking it seems that improvements
> will come mainly from making motor vehicles safer.

More likely by raising driver awareness - it's the improved safety of
motor vehicles that's a major part of the problem.

> 20mph limits will both reduce KSI rates for peds and cyclists alike, as well
> as reducing the perception of danger.

Reducing the perception of danger could mean that everyone takes less
care - kill rates may well go down, but the general rate of incidents
including SI could rise.

> IMO a massive increase in 20mph limits would do more
> for cycling safety and cycling as a means of transport than anything else -
> including training, safety campaigns, bike schemes etc.
>
Perhaps blanket 20mph limits would be even more regularly flouted by
otherwise 'reaonable' drivers, because they're just /so/ low. It's not
as if there's a great success in policing 30mph limits ATM.

 

[Simon Brooke]

Mark T wrote:

> Nigel Cliffe writtificated
>
>> These are intelligent people who genuinely
>> believe cycling is very dangerous, and are put off using bicycles. That
>> comes from seeing helmets and helmet promotion.
>
> And from being overtaken too closely by motor vehicles.
>
> When I could hold 25mph things were fine - cars might pass close, but they
> passed 'slowly'. Now I'm capable of only 15-20mph being passed too close
> feels more hairy.
>
> Given that cycling is about as safe as walking it seems that improvements
> will come mainly from making motor vehicles safer. 20mph limits will both
> reduce KSI rates for peds and cyclists alike, as well as reducing the
> perception of danger. IMO a massive increase in 20mph limits would do
> more for cycling safety and cycling as a means of transport than anything
> else - including training, safety campaigns, bike schemes etc.

Strongly agree. If you're hit by a car doing 25mph you almost certainly
survive; if hit by a car doing 40mph you almost certainly die. 20mph should
be the default speed limit for urban roads, with 30 or 40 only on arterial
roads; and I'd like to see a default 30mph limit on rural unclassified
roads, too.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:55:57 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>Strongly agree. If you're hit by a car doing 25mph you almost certainly
>survive; if hit by a car doing 40mph you almost certainly die. 20mph should
>be the default speed limit for urban roads, with 30 or 40 only on arterial
>roads; and I'd like to see a default 30mph limit on rural unclassified
>roads, too.

There's a good deal of support for 20 limits round schools and the
like, I think it would be reasonably easy to quietly begin extending
that to minor urban roads which serve houses. Actually we have a de
facto 20 limit where I used to live - so many parked cars that you
could not go faster than that.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mark T]

Rob Morley writtificated

>> 20mph limits will both reduce KSI rates for peds and cyclists alike,
>> as well as reducing the perception of danger.
>
> Reducing the perception of danger could mean that everyone takes less
> care - kill rates may well go down, but the general rate of incidents
> including SI could rise.

I'd gladly trade bruises for peoples' lives. Twenty is so 'slow' that it'd
be hard to run someone over. I've tried and it just doens't work.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>Mark T wrote:
>> Nigel Cliffe writtificated
>>
>>> These are intelligent people who genuinely
>>> believe cycling is very dangerous, and are put off using bicycles.
>>> That comes from seeing helmets and helmet promotion.
>>
>> And from being overtaken too closely by motor vehicles.
>
>Difficult to be a causative factor; they never cycle.

Though being overtaken too closely by a motor vehicle while in another
motor vehicle might lead one to think "thank goodness I'm in a big
stable steel box so he only hit my wing mirror, not me". Unlikely to
be a major factor, I agree.