Death By Dangerous Cycling - New Laws

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, MJG said:

A greenie Neil for completely understanding the point I was making.

 

Thankyou.

 

A helmet will not protect you in some accidents but it will in others.

You seem to misunderstand the policeman's point.  It's the difference between the outcome of an individual occurrence which is very easy to measure and a general trend across a population which is harder to measure and hard to grasp. 

 

Trying to put it simply:  If a cyclist tumbles off her bike and onto her head while wearing a helmet, she might be less injured.  She might even avoid dying.  Perhaps her risk of dying has gone from 1 in 3 to 1 in 4.  So helmets work!  However, if when people wear a helmet, they're twice as likely to tumble onto their head then, overall, more people will die from wearing the helmet.

 

Say, out of 1000 cyclists, 50 non helmeteers fall on their heads - around 16 die.  But 100 helmeteers fall on their heads - around 25 die.

 

So giving examples of people who wore a helmet and it saved them in a crash, misses the point.  The evidence is that a proportion of those people wouldn't of had the crash at all if they were helmetless.  Of course, nobody likes to admit that we're that suggestible that we will take more risks if we feel safer, but it's true!

 

Does that clear it up? Can I go back to my G&T now?

12 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Your pic says otherwise!

shut your mouth big nose

3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

the facetious comment about 'sending them to jail' was precisely that a facetious comment that wasn't even funny (if that was the intention).

It's known as Trolling, or so I hear.  Does this forum have a rule on trolling?

[Guest]

Go back to your g&t.....

[doratheexplorer]

[Guest]

Depends what it is?

I should just add, my grandaughter is a fan.

[rusty69]

3 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

A-Dorable! 

[doratheexplorer]

2 minutes ago, MJG said:

Depends what it is?

It's a drink, consisting of Gin, Tonic, ice and a squeeze of lime.  Deeeeeee-licious!

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

A-Dorable! 

Looking pretty good for my age, dontcha think?

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

It's a drink, consisting of Gin, Tonic, ice and a squeeze of lime.  Deeeeeee-licious!

That's a whole different debate, but yes I agree you can't beat a g & t.

[Neil2]

10 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

You seem to misunderstand the policeman's point.  It's the difference between the outcome of an individual occurrence which is very easy to measure and a general trend across a population which is harder to measure and hard to grasp. 

 

Trying to put it simply:  If a cyclist tumbles off her bike and onto her head while wearing a helmet, she might be less injured.  She might even avoid dying.  Perhaps her risk of dying has gone from 1 in 3 to 1 in 4.  So helmets work!  However, if when people wear a helmet, they're twice as likely to tumble onto their head then, overall, more people will die from wearing the helmet.

 

Say, out of 1000 cyclists, 50 non helmeteers fall on their heads - around 16 die.  But 100 helmeteers fall on their heads - around 25 die.

 

So giving examples of people who wore a helmet and it saved them in a crash, misses the point.  The evidence is that a proportion of those people wouldn't of had the crash at all if they were helmetless.  Of course, nobody likes to admit that we're that suggestible that we will take more risks if we feel safer, but it's true!

 

Does that clear it up? Can I go back to my G&T now?

shut your mouth big nose

It's known as Trolling, or so I hear.  Does this forum have a rule on trolling?

The unintended consequences of helmet wearing is a well worn argument but not backed up by any serious research.

 

It's a theory supported by those who, with the best intentions, are opposed to helmet wearing on the grounds that it suggests cycling is inherently dangerous.

 

I would contest the notion that as a rule we take more risks if we feel safer, it could even be the other way round.  It's a hugely complex issue, impossible to simplify or generalise about and it is irresponsible to portray these notions as "fact".  What is a fact is that if you protect your skull you have a better chance of avoiding serious injury.  It's up to the individual to decide whether the risk is worth the precaution, I've made my choice others can do the same.  

 

 

[Horace42]

14 hours ago, Neil2 said:

I am reluctantly persuaded that helmets are a good thing.

I am absolutely convinced helmets are a good thing.

 

I had a motor cycle accident back in 1957 when 'crash hats' were optional - except if you were doing National Service - where helmets were compulsory for motor cyclists when when on MoD property - RAF in my case.

 

I was on my way 'home' from the station for a weekend when I had a bump with a car at a road junction. Fortunately no serious physical injuries to others - but I was hospitalised for a week with bruising and suspected fracture in my foot.  Meanwhile my bike and luggage had been cleaned off the road by the police and put in a nearby garage (luckily adjacent to the site).

 

When collected, my crash-hat was seemingly undamaged except for a superficial 3 inch long scratch in the fabric across the top - that caused it to be rejected by the SWO as unfit for service (forcing me to buy a new one unless I wanted to 'walk' my bike when on the station) - when the big issue for me at the time was the cost of a new helmet when I had no money.

 

Only with hindsight did I begin to realise the 'scratch' in the fabric could instead have been a serious 'gash' in my head - if not ripped open.

 

To my mind the safety logic of helmets ranks alongside seat-belts. I have always worn them - long before they became law.

 

 

[rasputin]

Motor cycle helmets and bicycle helmets are 2 different things

[cereal tiller]

22 minutes ago, rasputin said:

Motor cycle helmets and bicycle helmets are 2 different things

I know which one I would choose in a Head Butting  Contest/Tournament!

Edited August 14, 2018 by cereal tiller

[Heartland]

I believe. this forum has constantly supported the vast bulk of responsible cyclists who use the towpaths, but this legislation is about those cyclists who have caused death or serious injury on our streets. There was no suitable laws in place, as I suspect the technology improvements to cycles had not been considered previously. What has brought this law about has been a growing concern by the public over the way certain cyclists behave and the injuries to pedestrians caused by them. The tipping point, if I recall correctly, was the sad death of a woman that resulted from being knocked down by a cyclist on a fixed wheel type of cycle. His prosecution was limited by the available laws and it was that factor that led to the present legislation.

 

It would be of interest what the CRT, and other canal owners, chose to do with the passing of this new law, if anything. Yesterday I noticed a Deliveroo Cyclist speed along the footbridge from the Sea Life Centre in Birmingham and across the Bridge to the Arena. People had to step aside to let this rogue cyclist past. Perhaps nothing will change on the towpaths until somebody is badly hurt!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, Neil2 said:

The unintended consequences of helmet wearing is a well worn argument but not backed up by any serious research.

 

It's a theory supported by those who, with the best intentions, are opposed to helmet wearing on the grounds that it suggests cycling is inherently dangerous.

 

I would contest the notion that as a rule we take more risks if we feel safer, it could even be the other way round.  It's a hugely complex issue, impossible to simplify or generalise about and it is irresponsible to portray these notions as "fact".  What is a fact is that if you protect your skull you have a better chance of avoiding serious injury.  It's up to the individual to decide whether the risk is worth the precaution, I've made my choice others can do the same.  

 

 

I feel that you would lose the 'contest' if you chose to argue the point. To take a simple example, would you go out on you bike without wearing a helmet? I suspect that the answer is probably no. Would you go out on your bike wearing a helmet? the answer is probably yes. The statistical chance of you being killed by a passing car/lorry remains the same in either example (we have agreed I think that a helmet isn't going to protect you much from a vehicle impact) but you are willing to go out and take that same risk because you now feel safer in a helmet. So by definition you are taking the risk because you now feel safer.

 

I should repeat that I'm not advising anyone to wear a helmet, I'm not advising anyone not to, the choice is up to an individual, I'm not even anti-helmet since for a number of years when riding a motor-cycle I was more that content to wear a full face helmet, my perception however is that the half a melon stuck on your head as a cycle helmet carries nothing like the same protection. There is no facial protection and they are designed to disintegrate on impact.

 

You are probably correct in that those who choose not to wear a helmet feel that it suggests that cycling is inherently dangerous, it is pretty much the same argument for why people don't want to wear a helmet whilst driving their car. If you were to join the 816 car drivers/passengers who died in car accidents in 2016 (latest figures) the likelihood is that the main cause of death is going to be a head injury (having been to a couple of fatal accidents, their heads were a bit of a mess, but that is just anecdotal).  We don't like to be told that something we are doing is dangerous, and for those who drive to work in their offices, the drive to work is the most dangerous thing they are going to do all day. It is reflected in the comfort given to people who are afraid of flying when they ask what is the most dangerous part of flying, the statistically correct answer is,"The drive to the airport".

[George and Dragon]

2 hours ago, Neil2 said:

The unintended consequences of helmet wearing is a well worn argument but not backed up by any serious research.

 

It's a theory supported by those who, with the best intentions, are opposed to helmet wearing on the grounds that it suggests cycling is inherently dangerous.

 

I would contest the notion that as a rule we take more risks if we feel safer, it could even be the other way round.  It's a hugely complex issue, impossible to simplify or generalise about and it is irresponsible to portray these notions as "fact".  What is a fact is that if you protect your skull you have a better chance of avoiding serious injury.  It's up to the individual to decide whether the risk is worth the precaution, I've made my choice others can do the same.  

It's not just the cyclist whose perception of risk is affected: there's also research that says motorists see the helmet and are therefore prepared to perform more dangerous overtaking manoeuvres than they would otherwise.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

7 minutes ago, Heartland said:

I believe. this forum has constantly supported the vast bulk of responsible cyclists who use the towpaths, but this legislation is about those cyclists who have caused death or serious injury on our streets. There was no suitable laws in place, as I suspect the technology improvements to cycles had not been considered previously. What has brought this law about has been a growing concern by the public over the way certain cyclists behave and the injuries to pedestrians caused by them. The tipping point, if I recall correctly, was the sad death of a woman that resulted from being knocked down by a cyclist on a fixed wheel type of cycle. His prosecution was limited by the available laws and it was that factor that led to the present legislation.

 

It would be of interest what the CRT, and other canal owners, chose to do with the passing of this new law, if anything. Yesterday I noticed a Deliveroo Cyclist speed along the footbridge from the Sea Life Centre in Birmingham and across the Bridge to the Arena. People had to step aside to let this rogue cyclist past. Perhaps nothing will change on the towpaths until somebody is badly hurt!

As I said earlier in the thread, legislation did exist beforehand, it's called Manslaughter, and carries a maximum sentence of Life Imprisonment. If you are doing something recklessly and kill someone you are open to the charge.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Heartland]

At the Cycle Show held at the NEC in September, there has been a facility to test ride various top of the range cycles. It is compulsory when on the track to wear a helmet at all the rides available at that show.

[George and Dragon]

10 minutes ago, Heartland said:

It would be of interest what the CRT, and other canal owners, chose to do with the passing of this new law, if anything.

There is, as yet, no new law. Nor likely to be since the gubbinment has both hands full with Brexit.

1 minute ago, Heartland said:

At the Cycle Show held at the NEC in September, there has been a facility to test ride various top of the range cycles. It is compulsory when on the track to wear a helmet at all the rides available at that show.

And?

[Heartland]

Oh Well as Fleetwood Mac once song

[Neil2]

46 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I feel that you would lose the 'contest' if you chose to argue the point. To take a simple example, would you go out on you bike without wearing a helmet? I suspect that the answer is probably no. Would you go out on your bike wearing a helmet? the answer is probably yes. The statistical chance of you being killed by a passing car/lorry remains the same in either example (we have agreed I think that a helmet isn't going to protect you much from a vehicle impact) but you are willing to go out and take that same risk because you now feel safer in a helmet. So by definition you are taking the risk because you now feel safer.

 

.

I don't have the same confidence as you in my "argument", and I wasn't trying to prove a point, merely suggesting that this whole issue is way more complex than some would like it to be. 

 

To take your example, frankly I don't feel safer wearing a helmet at all, I just accept that it will protect certain parts of me that are (increasingly) fragile.  It doesn't make the difference between me riding a bike or not riding a bike.  But then I have been an active cyclist for over 50 years, someone new to it in the modern day might very well derive some sense of security from a helmet.  That's my point - risk perception is a highly personal issue affected by all sorts of factors and to generalise about people's behaviour in a given set of circumstances is highly contentious.

 

Do helmets encourage more folk to take the "risk" of riding a bike than before helmets existed?  I don't know, neither do you.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, Neil2 said:

I don't have the same confidence as you in my "argument", and I wasn't trying to prove a point, merely suggesting that this whole issue is way more complex than some would like it to be. 

 

To take your example, frankly I don't feel safer wearing a helmet at all, I just accept that it will protect certain parts of me that are (increasingly) fragile.  It doesn't make the difference between me riding a bike or not riding a bike.  But then I have been an active cyclist for over 50 years, someone new to it in the modern day might very well derive some sense of security from a helmet.  That's my point - risk perception is a highly personal issue affected by all sorts of factors and to generalise about people's behaviour in a given set of circumstances is highly contentious.

 

Do helmets encourage more folk to take the "risk" of riding a bike than before helmets existed?  I don't know, neither do you.  

 

 

 

 

 

Judging by the Australian stats (  http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html  ) it would seem that the imposition of a helmet law discourages cyclists (which is probably what many on this thread actually want). Whether this had anything to do with actual risk, perceived risk or any other factor doesn't alter the fact that it is a deterrent.

[Ray T]

17 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Well if we follow the 'point you are making' through to it's logical conclusion, why are passengers and drivers in cars not compelled to wear helmets? Rally drivers use them, Formula 1 drivers use them and they are all travelling in the same direction. If you die in a car crash one of the most likely causes is going to be a head injury so if everyone wearing a helmet whilst in a motor vehicle saves just one life then it would all be worthwhile, wouldn't it?? In your view everyone wearing cycle helmets may save save a life so it is the same logic.

I wear a full face helmet when driving 

 

 

[Sir Nibble]

Wear a helmet or don't. I frankly am sick of rules removing the personal autonomy of adult people because someone in power decides they know best and sets themselves up as the universal mummy.

[Heartland]

I was curious to see if Hanzard has anything reported on the changing law for cyclists prosecutions and it appears the ministers and MP's are more concerned with promoting cycling and the worthy  task of preventing the deaths of cyclists on the highway.

 

It was Patrick Scott writing in the Telegraph October 7^th 2017 who noted that pedestrians seriously injured in bike accidents had doubled since 2006. Following the death of Kim Briggs in February 2017, Matt Briggs has steadfastly fought for change to the law. It is people like him that will bring the pressure on MP's in the future.

 

Meanwhile there are few lawyers and solicitors out there who seek to represent those unlucky enough to fall victim to the actions of a careless cyclist.  One website had the following statement:

 

"Hundreds of pedestrians are injured by cyclists in the UK every year, many of them seriously, and occasionally fatally. While local government continues to encourage cycling as an environmentally friendly means of reducing congestion, the anger felt by many at the number of serious injuries sustained by pedestrians involved in collisions with bicycles was illustrated by a private members’ bill introduced in Parliament in 2011, which aimed to create a crime of causing death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless cycling. Those who would like to see legislation in this area highlight the perceived arrogance of many cyclists, and their general disregard of pedestrian safety"

[George and Dragon]

The existence of text on an ambulance chasers' website shows only that ambulance chasers exist. 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

5 hours ago, Heartland said:

I was curious to see if Hanzard has anything reported on the changing law for cyclists prosecutions and it appears the ministers and MP's are more concerned with promoting cycling and the worthy  task of preventing the deaths of cyclists on the highway.

 

It was Patrick Scott writing in the Telegraph October 7^th 2017 who noted that pedestrians seriously injured in bike accidents had doubled since 2006. Following the death of Kim Briggs in February 2017, Matt Briggs has steadfastly fought for change to the law. It is people like him that will bring the pressure on MP's in the future.

 

Meanwhile there are few lawyers and solicitors out there who seek to represent those unlucky enough to fall victim to the actions of a careless cyclist.  One website had the following statement:

 

"Hundreds of pedestrians are injured by cyclists in the UK every year, many of them seriously, and occasionally fatally. While local government continues to encourage cycling as an environmentally friendly means of reducing congestion, the anger felt by many at the number of serious injuries sustained by pedestrians involved in collisions with bicycles was illustrated by a private members’ bill introduced in Parliament in 2011, which aimed to create a crime of causing death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless cycling. Those who would like to see legislation in this area highlight the perceived arrogance of many cyclists, and their general disregard of pedestrian safety"

I'd be interested to see the dataset that Patrick Scott has access to for his assertion that 'pedestrians seriously injured in bike accidents had doubled since 2006'.  From the  Government's own accident statistic site there is the rider,"....There is no obligation for people to report all personal-injury accidents to the police (although there is an obligation under certain conditions, as outlined in the RoadTraffic Act). These figures, therefore, do not represent the full range of all accidents or casualties in Great Britain....". The obligation under Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is limited to the 'presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road' and a cycle isn't one of those. So to begin with the data is unreliable.

 

A Freedom of Information request here ( https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes?unfold=1#incoming-195265 ) was able to give some (probably unreliable) stats as follows:-

 

2006 3 pedestrians killed (by cyclists) and 233 injured,

2007 6 killed and 267 injured

2008 3 killed and 247 injured

2009 0 killed and 141 injured

2010 2 killed and 123 injured

 

As an unsupported observation I would think that all cyclist/pedestrian fatalities are recorded but there is no certainty at all that injuries are.

The general trend in all accidents over the past decade has (thankfully) been downwards ( https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668504/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-2016-complete-report.pdf  ) in all fields and these stats seem to reflect that general trend.

 

If we take the latest statistics for pedestrian deaths (448 bearing in mind that pedestrian deaths have also been falling) and the worst of the years above (6 killed) it works out that about 1.33% of pedestrian deaths are caused by cyclists, meaning that 98.66% (442) of them are not. Any observation on injuries cannot really be based on very much since there is no reliability to the reporting process. It seems to me that Mr Scott may well have been making up his own statistics.

 

Is this such a tremendous problem that it warrants it's own special legislation? (bearing in mind that it by no means certain that all, or any of these deaths would lead to any form of conviction).