Cyclist warns of "constant stupidity" (From Essex County Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECS to 80360, or email »
Cyclist warns of "constant stupidity"
2:00pm Monday 8th October 2012 in News
A CYCLIST has warned the public is losing patience with bike users because of their “almost constant stupidity”.
Deborah Golby, who has been cycling for nearly 45 years, says instead of blaming motorists for collisions and near misses, cyclists should work on their own skills on the road.
“I’m a cyclist myself, and I would never discourage people from getting on their bike, but it is at the stage now where I am seeing almost constant stupidity,” said Mrs Golby, 52, of Bromley Road, in Greenstead.
“When accidents happen, the public perception is that it is the motorist’s fault, but I can tell you now, it usually isn’t.
“We are seeing no end to the stupidity of some cyclists and as responsible cyclists, we need to acknowledge this.”
Mrs Golby also said she had seen several close shaves near to the University of Essex Knowledge Gateway, where cyclists had ignored red lights and continued on, causing motorists to brake suddenly.
“At the very least they should respect the rules of the road,” she added.
“I think all cyclists need to make sure they are safer on the road.”
Comments(82)
Paul M
says...
3:26pm Mon 8 Oct 12
And my own anecdotal view is supported by statistics, at any rate for London which can't be entirely unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Our Mayor, Boris Johnson, has fnally been forced to retract his notorious claim that cyclists were at faul in 2/3rds of their own casualties, and issue the correct data as supplied by the Metropolitan Police - about 4% could be attributed to the cyclist and about 54% to the motorist, with the fault not being clear in the remainder.
Blaming the victim does not solve the problem, indeed it makes it harder to solve because the appropriate authorities will not address the problem until they recognise what it is - too many motorists forget that the tool they are using can also be a lethal weapon if used carelessly or without full concentration.
parentis
says...
3:37pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Say It As It Is OK?
says...
3:48pm Mon 8 Oct 12
parentis
says...
3:56pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Say It As It Is OK? wrote:Your correct of course,, one point I thought the council of each borough got a large grant to create safe cycle paths , because the fact is cars and bikes do not and will never mix well together.
The term "constant stupidity" can easily be attributed to both motorists and cyclists alike. There are those who demonstrate good and bad practice in both groups but still some people fail to accept this and they only look to blame those that suit their own, slanted, view on life.
AndrewRH
says...
4:19pm Mon 8 Oct 12
The police are giving out HiViz products to people on bicycles, along with a pamphlet which warns them of what charges and fines they face if they ride their bicycle improperly.
The pamphlet (backed up by signs on the roads) make no mention of the responsibilities of people who are driving a motor car.
http://wp.me/pQJTH-7
pj
http://whitchurch.or
g.uk/2012/10/police-
launch-steer-clear-c
ampaign/
irememberwhen
says...
4:23pm Mon 8 Oct 12
setbuilder
says...
5:41pm Mon 8 Oct 12
AndrewRH wrote:Why should the pamphlet have any mention of the responsibilities of car users?
The Hampshire Constabulary are currently running a "Steer Clear" campaign whose stated aim is to improve safety on the roads for the most vulnerable.
The police are giving out HiViz products to people on bicycles, along with a pamphlet which warns them of what charges and fines they face if they ride their bicycle improperly.
The pamphlet (backed up by signs on the roads) make no mention of the responsibilities of people who are driving a motor car.
http://wp.me/pQJTH-7
pj
http://whitchurch.or
g.uk/2012/10/police-
launch-steer-clear-c
ampaign/
To put it simply: Car drivers have to go through a theory test based on the Highway Code followed by a practical test before they are allowed to drive unsupervised - this does still allow some idiots to get through and drive atrociously and with disregard to other road users, but at least they have had the initial benefit of some form of training..
However, cyclists do NOT have to take any tests whatsoever. The Highway Code does have sections relating to cycling behaviour and rules for them but, unfortunately, the vast majority have probably never read it.
The truth is that there are idiots on all forms of transport although it wouldn't hurt if cyclists had to take their own form of test and therefore be shown what is expected of them on the roads.
meadowlady
says...
5:59pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Hucker
says...
6:26pm Mon 8 Oct 12
If more cyclists were on the pavements, they wouldn't get in the way of the motorists. Why inconvenience 50 cars instead of 5 pedestrians?
Sdapeze
says...
6:53pm Mon 8 Oct 12
jut1972
says...
6:56pm Mon 8 Oct 12
parentis
says...
7:01pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Sdapeze wrote:Supez if cyclists keep riding with no hands they wont have a life let alone get one I suggest you take your own advise.
The fact is that cyclists, horses and pedestrians use the roads by right. Motorists use roads by licence. Motorists are responsible for the deaths of thousands of cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians every year. It is never the other way around. They simply drive too fast or carelessly. So what if a cyclist rides no hands. Get a life!
Im_Like_HELLO
says...
7:02pm Mon 8 Oct 12
parentis
says...
7:12pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Im_Like_HELLO wrote:You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable, so should these crazy mobility buggy riders there getting bigger and bigger I saw one yesterday with one seat at the front and two at the back if that wasn't enough it had a flipping trailer thing to,"ridicule's "!!!!
Perhaps if we cyclists were made to pay road tax we would see magical improvements in the facilities for cyclists.
Hucker
says...
7:28pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Cars are made accountable as a tonne or two of steel does a LOT more damage.
orangesandlemons
says...
7:31pm Mon 8 Oct 12
I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path.
Hucker
says...
7:35pm Mon 8 Oct 12
parentis
says...
8:01pm Mon 8 Oct 12
orangesandlemons wrote:Simple it's illegal
I as a cyclist I do ride on the pavement.
I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path.
parentis
says...
8:08pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Hucker wrote:Cars are charged for many reasons not just because they ware the roads out, bikes should also be made accountable because the to cause a lot of damage if they hit a person, my statements still stands up,” You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable " and as I stated it is illegal to ride on a pedestrian only path . Fact obey the laws of this land as I do Simple, OK!!!!!
Road tax is paid by cars as they wear out the tarmac. Bikes are too light to do this.
Cars are made accountable as a tonne or two of steel does a LOT more damage.
Hucker
says...
8:27pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Hucker
says...
8:32pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Answer the question. Why do you assume that the law is right? Intelligent people can think for themselves, and decide when to obey the law.
parentis
says...
8:38pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Sdapeze
says...
9:47pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Feisty CBC
says...
9:54pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Welcome Hucker to our site and to our town BTW :)
meadowlady
says...
9:55pm Mon 8 Oct 12
orangesandlemons
says...
11:28pm Mon 8 Oct 12
8:01pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Simple it's illegal”
So is speeding, in a perfect world if drivers stuck to the speed limit I wouldn't feel the need to break the law.
parentis
says...
11:50pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Hucker wrote:OK !! bubby boy LOL !!!!!
I am the one intelligent enough to think for myself instead of following the law to the letter like a robot, I also don't write stupid childish comments like your search just now.
You've also not answered any of my questions, so obviously aren't bright enough to engage in a proper adult discussion. You are the weakest link, goodbye.
parentis
says...
11:57pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Smouldering Ewok
says...
1:36am Tue 9 Oct 12
Pedestrian vs cyclist vs car driver vs van vs lorry blah blah blah.
Try not to forget that we are all human, and instead of throwing insults day in day out try spreading a little bit of compassion around.
You all know how it feels when someone smiles or says something nice, it feels good right?
It feels even better when we manage to cheer someone up.
It really does have a big effect and helps us all feel human again; and besides life can be bad enough with all the financial bull and bad news everywhere.
So i say to you pedestrians,cyclists
,car drivers and the like "have a safe journey."
rhetoric
says...
5:10am Tue 9 Oct 12
.
Yes, that's quite ridiculous isn't it?
.
In general, laws are made to protect us and give a decent way of life. Before you all start screaming that is not so nowadays, please remember that the laws against cycling on footpaths go back a long way, and were made to protect pedestrians. The feud between motorists and cyclists that now seems to be growing and fermenting was not in the equation in those days. Actually, the penalties on the books were then very severe, including an enormous fine or a term of imprisonment.
.
As a lifelong cyclist, not as a hobby but as a way of getting around, pure and simple, I did not ever consider it my "right" to cycle on the footpath.
.
Now I am perforce a walker, it is no longer a pleasant, leisurely way to get around. It is necessary to keep looking round from time to time to ensure that I am not going to be startled into a heart attack by being buzzed by a speeding cyclist who enjoys brushing my arm and giving me a shock as they whiz past. Progress is slow - watch for dents, stones, mess on the path and then stop to turn round and look out for cyclists.
.
Spread a little compassion? Yes, right, start with those who use the original basic method of getting from one place to another - Shanks' Pony!
Cleggeron
says...
9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12
This makes it safer, obviously, but also encourages cycle use - good for health and good for the environment.
Just imagine if the billions earmarked for a new high-speed rail link for rich businessment were spent on a proper, joined up network of cycle paths around the UK. The benefits to health, environment, tourism and job creation would be immense.
It shouldn't be a case of car or bike, pro or anti. The Germans like their cars just as much as we do - just that they recognise that there is an alternative and are prepared to spend the money on it.
wormshero
says...
9:50am Tue 9 Oct 12
Oh and on cycling on the pavement - by all means if the pavement is empty then yes, do it, but people who fly past squeezing past pedestrians on the pavement or even moan at pedestrians for being in their way can get lost, to be honest :)
AndrewRH
says...
10:01am Tue 9 Oct 12
Trying to wrestle these comments back on topic...
In reply to setbuilder (scroll way back): over 80% of people who ride bicycles have a driver's license - so they have passed a test before being on the road. The remainder are children - whose parents have likely passed the test and *should* be responsible. On top of this, there are many who are training young and less-young alike on how to be a confident and safe person on bicycle.
Agree more can be done, and hope it is. Such as... wouldn't demanding that appropriate infrastructure (dependent on road capacity, speed, location, ...) be a better thing to spend our energies on? Make travel safer for everyone and remove/minimise the conflict situations in the first place.
jammin
says...
10:03am Tue 9 Oct 12
Goonerboy
says...
10:04am Tue 9 Oct 12
No amount of laws , cycleways, police enforcement or moaning will make any difference until people have care for others ..simple.
But I will have my tuppence worth ... shared use subways are a stupid idea especially when the markings have completly worn out . Try telling a someone with a pushchair and 2 other toddlers to keep them out of the way of a speeding cyclist in what should be a safe area !
leighnichol
says...
10:53am Tue 9 Oct 12
o.uk/blog/Road-Tax-D
oesnt-Exist
There's vehicle tax, which most cyclists pay as drivers too. I drive and cycle and I have to say both car users and cyclists can be incredibly stupid, drivers getting far too close etc, cyclists jumping lights, cycling two abreast on busy roads etc. All it takes is a bit of common sense and everyone would be happy. (well, nearly everyone!) Seriously, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions, whichever means of transport you use, it's really, really simple. Remember, taking silly risks to get to your destination a few seconds quicker or not paying attention is risking peoples lives, and no-one wants that on their conscience do they?
jacklumber1
says...
11:47am Tue 9 Oct 12
Sdapeze
says...
11:57am Tue 9 Oct 12
rationalThinker
says...
12:30pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Libetia
says...
1:42pm Tue 9 Oct 12
romantic
says...
2:06pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Regarding cycling on pavements, I will do it if the road option is dangerous and if there are no pedestrians. Motorists get impatient if stuck behind a cyclist and overtake too close for comfort. A slow cyclist going up a hill can create a tail of cars behind.
But it does drive me nuts if I see a cyclist tearing down the pavement next to doors, with no way of stopping if somebody steps out. I´ve seen people hit by cars doing it, and have seen people being hit by bikes.
Cyclists have to co-exist with others. People do walk on the cycle paths. You go around them and hope they will realise. I sometimes end up walking on the cycle bit because I´m so used to cycling that I sub-consciously end up there.
In an ideal world, we´d have cycle paths alongside every main road, but sometimes it´s just not practical, so cyclists have to co-exist with pedestrians and drivers. If you see a tail behind you, pull over and let it pass. Try to pre-empt possible risks such as cars pulling out of side roads. Being visible is important. If you are driving and come across a cyclist at night, they are not easy to see.
I don´t agree that most cyclists ride insanely, but quite a lot do. You have to remember that cars have bumpers, metal etc. As a cyclist, you´re a lot less protected, but still carry enough momentum to do damage if you hit somebody at speed.
The rising cost of fuel will mean more people on bikes, and I think that´s a good thing. Don´t agree that bikes should be taxed. Cyclists don´t damage the roads or create pollution. Each person on a bike means a bit less stuff going into the atmosphere.
jacklumber1
says...
2:22pm Tue 9 Oct 12
The cycle path you refer to is the piece that goes from the N Staion Bridge up to Petrolee Close / ASDA.
Under N Station Bridge and up to the Bus stops the cycle path is in the road but you never see a cyclist use it - they prefer the pavements!
jag99
says...
2:42pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Essentially there are plenty of idiots in all three groups, as well as plenty of responsible & thought members. So really this whole discussion is a little pointless - you can't legislate against stupidity (try as some might), so accidents will happen.
People should stick to the rules, cyclists should keep off the pavements and pedestrians should avoid walking down cycle paths, etc. There's no excuse for cyclists to jump red lights or cycle the wrong way down a one-way street. Car drivers in general should just pay more attention and stop thinking that they own the road (and NO vehicle excise duty does not pay for roads necessarily - this comes from central government or council tax)
As has been said before a little more thought and consideration from all road & path users wouldn't go amiss.
TheCaptain
says...
3:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12
orangesandlemons wrote:But it is illeagel
I as a cyclist I do ride on the pavement.
I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path.
jacklumber1
says...
4:18pm Tue 9 Oct 12
But CBC are completely ineffective - as usual!
col utd till i die
says...
5:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Sdapeze
says...
6:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Douglas Park
says...
7:35pm Tue 9 Oct 12
As a cyclist I've had a few close shaves with pedestrians - walking out into the street without looking - as well as cars or rather buses which often share our cycle lanes.
As a motorist I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - running red lights, going the wrong way up one-way streets etc.
In Colchester we do have a fairly comprehensive network of cycle lanes, but most of them are shared with pedestrians or buses. That's probably why so many cyclists in town feel they can use the pavements carte blanch.
There are just as many inconsiderate motorists as there are cyclists as there are pedestrians. No one group is to blame more than the other.
Grabber
says...
8:16pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Sdapeze wrote:Wrong if the lights have a movement sensor it will trigger the controller that something has approached the traffic head so long as its speed is over 5mph so stop for red lights and pedal faster !
As to cyclists jumping lights, a cyclist will not trigger lights to change so what are they supposed to do? In fact, as a motorcyclist, I often cannot get lights to change. So should I just sit there and wait for a car to come along? Wouldn't life be so much easier and quieter without cars?
ninja toughguy
says...
8:28pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Grabber wrote:They aren't sensitive enough for bicycles. As Sdapeze said motorbikes don't trigger some of them. Only a few will pick up a bicycle as it's smaller than a car. I've even known some not pick up a car, especially if you drive sensibly/economicall
Sdapeze wrote:Wrong if the lights have a movement sensor it will trigger the controller that something has approached the traffic head so long as its speed is over 5mph so stop for red lights and pedal faster !
As to cyclists jumping lights, a cyclist will not trigger lights to change so what are they supposed to do? In fact, as a motorcyclist, I often cannot get lights to change. So should I just sit there and wait for a car to come along? Wouldn't life be so much easier and quieter without cars?
y and drift to a halt at the red light so you're going under 5mph!
plastic100
says...
11:36pm Tue 9 Oct 12
om/ .
Just quickly, road tax was abolished in 1937. Roads are paid for out of common taxation, so we all pay, although some of us are driving on them more than others - motorists, you are being subsidised.
We do have something called vehicle excise duty (VED) which is an emissions based tax. Cyclists pay for all the polluting they do, which is none. Although a lot of cyclists also have cars and pay as much VED as anyone else, despite driving and polluting less.
And how one woman's bigoted and unqualified diatribe, helping to generalise about, and vilify, cyclists like herself is considered news I really don't know. I don't care how old she is.
At least someone has pointed out that in the overwhelming majority of cases where a cyclist is killed or injured, a driver is deemed solely at fault. That's no the "public perception", that's WHAT THE POLICE REPORTS SAY. Also, pedestrians are far more likely to be killed or injured by motor vehicles, even on the pavement.
Right. Rant over. As you were.
PROOFREADER
says...
11:38pm Tue 9 Oct 12
jacklumber1 wrote:There neeeds to be something done about vehicles being parked on or partially on pavements. This evening I saw a Ford KA parked on the pavement in King Harold Road completely blocking it so pedestrians had to walk in the road. Even the husband of Sue Lissimore one of the prettygate councillors parks his van partially on the pavement outside their house in King Harold Road and pedestrians have to squeeze past between the van and a hedge,
jag99 I understand that in Colchester there is a byelaw that allows a £70 fine for any cyclist riding on a pedestrian Pavement. However that is never enforced by CBC. If there were a few fines handed out to cyclists who ride on pedestrian pavements then moms with pushchairs, their children, the deaf and the elderley would be better protected.
But CBC are completely ineffective - as usual!
ninja toughguy
says...
8:13am Wed 10 Oct 12
Cliff
says...
8:24am Wed 10 Oct 12
rationalThinker
says...
8:24am Wed 10 Oct 12
Libetia
says...
1:49pm Wed 10 Oct 12
6:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12
You won't lose your licence for riding your bicycle on pavements or going through a red light, but you could lose your life as a result of a car driver killing you".
Especially, if you cycle through a red light and get hit by a car legally coming from another direction.
I don't doubt that in the vast majority of incidents the car is at fault, but not in every case. There is a lack of care on the part of motor vehicles in that they don't "see" anything that is smaller than a car, but the idea is to treat anyone & everyone that is using the roads as a potential idiot whether they are driving a car, a bus, or riding a bike or motorbike.
And as Sdapeze well knows, it's only cars, buses and lorries that pollute & burn fuel not his precious motorbike.
wardyt
says...
2:00pm Wed 10 Oct 12
meadowlady wrote:Agreed. I (a cyclist myself) constantly challenge cyclist about riding on the pavement and just get sworn at.
All cyclists should KEEP OFF THE PAVEMENTS.
wardyt
says...
2:06pm Wed 10 Oct 12
parentis wrote:Ridiculous statement. Next thing you'll want babies in prams to have road tax.
Im_Like_HELLO wrote: Perhaps if we cyclists were made to pay road tax we would see magical improvements in the facilities for cyclists.You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable, so should these crazy mobility buggy riders there getting bigger and bigger I saw one yesterday with one seat at the front and two at the back if that wasn't enough it had a flipping trailer thing to,"ridicule's "!!!!
wardyt
says...
2:09pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Douglas Park wrote:Couldn't agree more
As a pedestrian I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - being nearly run over on a zebra crossing where the cars stopped but the cyclist with his ear-buds in didn't! As a cyclist I've had a few close shaves with pedestrians - walking out into the street without looking - as well as cars or rather buses which often share our cycle lanes. As a motorist I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - running red lights, going the wrong way up one-way streets etc. In Colchester we do have a fairly comprehensive network of cycle lanes, but most of them are shared with pedestrians or buses. That's probably why so many cyclists in town feel they can use the pavements carte blanch. There are just as many inconsiderate motorists as there are cyclists as there are pedestrians. No one group is to blame more than the other.
wellnow
says...
3:03pm Wed 10 Oct 12
wardyt
says...
3:49pm Wed 10 Oct 12
wellnow wrote:The reason that Insurance premiums are increasing is more to do with uninsured drivers, not cyclists.
no win no fee.a motorists insurance will pay up every time,leaving the motorist with higher premiums next year for something not his fault.cyclists should have to insure themselves to ride on the high way.that would stop the foolish devil may cares.
Sdapeze
says...
3:51pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Libetia
says...
4:31pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Probably less chance of being caught of course.
Joker50
says...
5:22pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Paul M wrote:Blaming one another doesn't help anyone, we are all responsible for our own lives and those of others on the roads, Motorist's should be looking out for cyclist's and vice versa, cycle helmets should be compulsory as with lights at night time weather on the road or cycle paths and a bright cycling body band for cycling during the day.
Well, Mrs Golby, I have five years on you both in age and in years' cycling (a half-century, no less!) and I have to say your view is purely anecdotal. In my experience it "usually" IS the fault of the motorist, even allowing for some reckless behaviour by cyclists.
And my own anecdotal view is supported by statistics, at any rate for London which can't be entirely unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Our Mayor, Boris Johnson, has fnally been forced to retract his notorious claim that cyclists were at faul in 2/3rds of their own casualties, and issue the correct data as supplied by the Metropolitan Police - about 4% could be attributed to the cyclist and about 54% to the motorist, with the fault not being clear in the remainder.
Blaming the victim does not solve the problem, indeed it makes it harder to solve because the appropriate authorities will not address the problem until they recognise what it is - too many motorists forget that the tool they are using can also be a lethal weapon if used carelessly or without full concentration.
ninja toughguy
says...
6:13pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Joker50
says...
8:04pm Wed 10 Oct 12
ninja toughguy wrote:Maybe you should carry a card then saying on it that you refuse medical help if involved in an accident.
No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.
ninja toughguy
says...
9:46pm Wed 10 Oct 12
ninja toughguy
says...
9:47pm Wed 10 Oct 12
ninja toughguy
says...
8:58am Thu 11 Oct 12
jag99
says...
12:36pm Thu 11 Oct 12
ninja toughguy wrote:You make the gross assumption that whatever damage you cause; either to yourself, others or road furniture will just be paid for by the erst of us because you feel it's your right to take these risks. I for one would not be interested in wasting my hard earned tax on you.
No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.
Incidentally, Skydivers and the like generally wear appropriate equipment and do their best to avoid causing damage.
Joker50
says...
1:16pm Thu 11 Oct 12
ninja toughguy wrote:Just carry a card saying ninja toughguy, and if I am involved in an accident with you and you get hurt I wont feel at all guilty.
I don't refuse medical help, I only refuse to cover a very slight risk to myself. People who jump out of planes still get NHS treatment, people who skijump still get NHS treatment. Those are more dangerous than driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet.
romantic
says...
2:21pm Thu 11 Oct 12
jag99 wrote:I see your point, jag99. However, the jury is still out on whether cycle helmets should be compulsory. Yes, they will save your life if you do fall onto your head, but will not prevent injuries to other parts of the body. For seatbelts, the evidence is far more clear.
ninja toughguy wrote:You make the gross assumption that whatever damage you cause; either to yourself, others or road furniture will just be paid for by the erst of us because you feel it's your right to take these risks. I for one would not be interested in wasting my hard earned tax on you.
No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.
Incidentally, Skydivers and the like generally wear appropriate equipment and do their best to avoid causing damage.
The stats from the DFT (I just looked it all up) show that cyclists account for 19,000 out of 204,000 road casualties (meaning dead or injured) last year. Car occupants were 125,000. The damage to people and road furniture is more than 10 times higher for motorists. Should we stop treating injured motorists, as it seems to me they are the ones taking a bigger risk than cyclists?
It drives me as mad as anybody to see some cyclists doing stupid things, but far more of your (and my) hard-earned tax goes on treating motorists - and let´s not even start on the amount paid to look after those who have munched junk food all their lives, taken no exercise etc etc. Like it or not, the health system is based around treating people whether or not they would seem to deserve it or not.
Ninja toughguy is being deliberately provocative on this issue, I think, but overall, far more people are injured by cars than by cyclists.
ninja toughguy
says...
4:36pm Thu 11 Oct 12
irememberwhen
says...
5:14pm Thu 11 Oct 12
ninja toughguy
says...
5:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Sdapeze
says...
7:47pm Thu 11 Oct 12
ninja toughguy
says...
7:52pm Thu 11 Oct 12
wellnow
says...
8:58am Fri 12 Oct 12
ninja toughguy
says...
4:31pm Fri 12 Oct 12
ninja toughguy
says...
11:58pm Sun 14 Oct 12
ninja toughguy
says...
8:39am Mon 15 Oct 12
JBoswick says...
2:31pm Mon 8 Oct 12