Interesting article from the BBC

navrig2

but with nothing too surprising:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590

"The benefits of helmets are hugely exaggerated," says John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft and an expert in cycle safety and accidents. "To put emphasis on them as a major safety aid is considerably overstating the evidence." Helmets are designed for low-speed accidents, explains Walker. They're typically only tested up to 14mph.

"They shatter if you hit them too hard," adds Roger Geffen, from the CTC cycling charity. "People get very impressed when they see a shattered helmet and think 'My goodness, that could have been my skull' - but what it's showing is that helmets are actually quite flimsy."

Clothing made almost no statistically significant difference - 1-2% of drivers always drove dangerously close. Only two outfits altered driver behaviour - one which said "police", and another with "polite". The latter is an intentional imitation popular with cyclists and horse riders.

To stand out, what matters most is the contrast with your background, says Geffen. And since your background constantly changes, there's no "best" colour to wear.

But it's important to note that this research was carried out in daytime conditions. Even though 80% of accidents occur in daylight, at night it's a different matter - anything that makes you visible is highly recommended.

"Positioning is by the far the biggest influence a cyclist can have on his or her own safety," says Franklin. "If I had to teach somebody one thing about cycling it would be that." The optimal position depends on the situation, although never hugging the kerb, he says. The absolute minimum is half a metre, says Franklin.

Geffen suggests a metre from the kerb or line of parked cars is ideal.

cougie

Interesting that he didn't test ninja black cycling kit.

That said - I guess motorists saw him every time so saw no need to pass any nearer/further than normal.

I still reckon black is a crap idea as its just harder to see and you dont want to reduce your visibility.

diy

Unlike the authors of RoadCraft, John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft doesn't appear to have any real expertise on the subject. I think he tried too hard to make a bicycle derivative of roadcraft without considering the obvious limitations. I think he got it very wrong.

Odd also that he thinks positioning is the most important. All the other roadcraft books talk about attitude and observation. I really don't go for the Cyclecraft dominate your lane. I wouldn't defend my position on a motorcycle where I had the power to get out of the way let alone on a bike.

With a bike helmet and high vis, its simply what are possible benefits vs. the possible limitations. Are you likely to compensate for the additional perceived safety. Personally I'll wear helmet and gloves and if I'm riding at night I light with a couple of lights and a bit of high vis.

Jahmoo

I hit a PotHole which was under water, I was moving for a car, so only doing 5/10mph, my front wheel was snatched from under me, it happened so quick, I remember my head, Helmet hitting the ground at some force, I know if not wearing it I would have had more than a head ache.

I wear the helmet for safety, if I do come off my bike my chances are better than not wearing one.

Manc33

I remember some article that said drivers think "Oh, he has got a helmet on" and are more careless around cyclists with helmets, whereas without a helmet on the driver thinks "Look at that idiot with no helmet" but then the driver is more careful.

I think what they mean is if a car is going to hit you, it will hit you whether you're wearing a helmet or not.

I got a Giro Aeon (the 190g one) so I don't even know I have a helmet on.

(I wanna swap it for the Livestrong one) :oops:

Colinthecop

Is this (another) helmet thread...?

Just want to clarify before I comment. :?

rolf_f

Trouble is, most of this article seems to be just peoples opinion. Perhaps more than averagely knowledgeable people but still just their opinion.

Dr Walker is the only one with any real credibility. Which is irritating as one thing he says clashes with my personal experience -

And Walker's research discovered that the further one ventures into the middle of the road, the less space will be given to the cyclist by an overtaking vehicle.

So if you come out by 10cm, cars will compensate about 8cm, and increasingly get closer the further out, explains Garrard.

Every so often, riding in the normal position, I get fed up of cars cutting me up (this is usually on a specific piece of road near where I live) so I move a fair bit further out. Probably to where the inside of the cars left wheels would normally go. I find that probably generates at least twice as much room as cars overtake me properly rather than squeezing through.

But good effort Navrig2 at getting another ever so necessary helmet thread going. Maybe there should be a badge for such achievements.

Bordersroadie

Of course, bike helmets are useless if you get hit by a car, but that's kind of missing a massive point.

Another perspective on the well-worn helmet debate:

Most of it seems to me to be very city/town/suburb based ie in areas where cars are a significant factor. None of this is relevant to me so the fact that a helmet will not protect me in the event of being in a car/bike collision is not a consideration for me.

100% of my riding is rural with almost no traffic, so the only likely accident for me (and others like me) will not involve a car.

Like my accident a couple of years ago, the common front wheel slip where in a split second you're sliding on the tarmac and maybe (or maybe not) your head takes a glancing blow.

Like someone said on this thread, weighing the inconvenience factor (wearing a 250g helmet) vs the risk (getting a nasty crack on the head) vs the benefit (making a probable painful injury into a non injury not to mention keeping your wife and kids happy), it's a no brainer.

Initialised

Rolf F wrote:

Trouble is, most of this article seems to be just peoples opinion. Perhaps more than averagely knowledgeable people but still just their opinion.

Dr Walker is the only one with any real credibility. Which is irritating as one thing he says clashes with my personal experience -

And Walker's research discovered that the further one ventures into the middle of the road, the less space will be given to the cyclist by an overtaking vehicle.

So if you come out by 10cm, cars will compensate about 8cm, and increasingly get closer the further out, explains Garrard.

Every so often, riding in the normal position, I get fed up of cars cutting me up (this is usually on a specific piece of road near where I live) so I move a fair bit further out. Probably to where the inside of the cars left wheels would normally go. I find that probably generates at least twice as much room as cars overtake me properly rather than squeezing through.

But good effort Navrig2 at getting another ever so necessary helmet thread going. Maybe there should be a badge for such achievements.

I find that until you get to the middle of the lane (primary) drivers usually give you as much space as you take. The principle is that they see you need a metre from the kerb so they give you a metre spare, you are exploiting a neurological shortcut, much like a cat's whiskers, that (probably) stopped our ancestors from getting flattened, kicked by stampeding buffalo, bison, mammoth or whatever was on the menu during the hunt. People generally don't bother thinking about things, so do it for them by riding in the left hand tyre line (Secondary) or moving out to primary when needed. Drivers will see you and automatically give you sufficient room when passing. The other benefit is that even for the ones that override the instinct you have given your self plenty of room if you need to escape.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

"Clothing made no statistical difference... in daytime conditions."
No kidding, Sherlock! The main premise of wearing hi-vis/reflective gear on a bike is to increase the chance of being seen in the dark.

The back of my helmet was obliterated in my front-on accident last Xmas, when I regained consciousness ~20mins after an impact of ~15-20mph (thanks to rim brakes doing close to bugger all in an emergency stop situation in the wet), the back of my head ached like hell. But it was still in one piece, unlike my upper jaw, lower nose and my teeth!
For the first time in ~35 years of cycling, I seriously considered a full bike helmet for commuting on the road, as a replacement. I didn't, but still wonder to this day if I should have tried one, I feel so much more vulnerable on a bike than I used to.

Must admit I cringe at how many cyclists I see with their wheels riding <15cm from the kerb, I try to give myself ~50cm and sometimes a little more if approaching a road pinching traffic island, to try and prevent the temptation of motor users squeezing past me to gain two seconds.

Pross

NitrousOxide wrote:

"Clothing made no statistical difference... in daytime conditions."
No kidding, Sherlock! The main premise of wearing hi-vis/reflective gear on a bike is to increase the chance of being seen in the dark.

No it's not hi-vis is intended for daylight conditions. Reflective is intended for use in the dark. The two are different things it's just that in most cases 'hi vis' clothing combines both to try to ensure it works in both daylight and dark conditions. Arguably, at night on unlit roads a highly reflective material on a dark background is most effective.

By the way, do we really need this thread descending into a debate on Boardman not wearing a helmet / the merits or otherwise of wearing a helmet given that this is already happening in the 'Boardman' thread?

bendertherobot

To echo the take the lane comment. I did just the same last night. Normally I ride quite far out. On a certain stretch I get closer to the kerb but pick a line 6 inches or so outside the drain line.

Last night, increasingly fed up with close passing, I moved to about a foot outside the drain line. Instantly I was given far more than the extra space I'd given myself.

whoof

If this article was about reducing the number of sexual assault on women the suggestions would probably be.
1. All women must carry personal attack alarms.
2. No women to drink alcohol in public in order to stop drinks being spiked.
3. Women to be covered from head to toe so as to discourage men from assulting them
4. Women to be accompanied by a male member of thier family when outside.
5. No woman to talk to a man outside of their family without a chaperone.

Puts all the responsibily on those being assaulted not the attackers.
If you ride at night without lights and are hit you're dumb and your penlty will be injury or death. If you riding in daylight or at night with lights and are hit be some not paying attention you will be killed or injured and the drive will probably be fined and receive some points.

Pross

It's not saying that at all. It's giving safety tips to help prevent you getting hit by a car and querying often held beliefs on the effectiveness of other measures.

craigus89

Not another one.

Why do we have so many threads on this? Can't a moderator merge them or something?

navrig2

Initialised wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Trouble is, most of this article seems to be just peoples opinion. Perhaps more than averagely knowledgeable people but still just their opinion.

Dr Walker is the only one with any real credibility. Which is irritating as one thing he says clashes with my personal experience -

And Walker's research discovered that the further one ventures into the middle of the road, the less space will be given to the cyclist by an overtaking vehicle.

So if you come out by 10cm, cars will compensate about 8cm, and increasingly get closer the further out, explains Garrard.

Every so often, riding in the normal position, I get fed up of cars cutting me up (this is usually on a specific piece of road near where I live) so I move a fair bit further out. Probably to where the inside of the cars left wheels would normally go. I find that probably generates at least twice as much room as cars overtake me properly rather than squeezing through.

But good effort Navrig2 at getting another ever so necessary helmet thread going. Maybe there should be a badge for such achievements.

I find that until you get to the middle of the lane (primary) drivers usually give you as much space as you take. The principle is that they see you need a metre from the kerb so they give you a metre spare, you are exploiting a neurological shortcut, much like a cat's whiskers, that (probably) stopped our ancestors from getting flattened, kicked by stampeding buffalo, bison, mammoth or whatever was on the menu during the hunt. People generally don't bother thinking about things, so do it for them by riding in the left hand tyre line (Secondary) or moving out to primary when needed. Drivers will see you and automatically give you sufficient room when passing. The other benefit is that even for the ones that override the instinct you have given your self plenty of room if you need to escape.

Absolutely. Well put.

I regard the space between me and the pavement or verge as MY space and not the driver's space.

This wasn't intended to a helmet thread as it covers other factors too

bobmcstuff

Craigus89 wrote:

Not another one.

Why do we have so many threads on this? Can't a moderator merge them or something?

I had previously quoted this article in the Boardman thread itself... Don't know why it needed it's own thread...

diy

So much of the basics from motorcycle safety haven't even been considered by the cycle safety experts. Its a bit of a shame really - simple things like angling the bike when stationary at lights and junctions which reinforce the stationary image to the driver. You never hear that stuff get a mention. Makes a huge difference - loads of research on this.

Manc33

We can't crash into hedgehogs or porcupines with these newer helmets, but other than that they do make you safer.

^^^ they also never mention how flashing red lights are illegal, even seen adverts on TV with cyclists where two had solid red lights on the back and one was flashing. "That's illegal" I said, no one cared. I mean it wasn't cyclists being filmed, they were actors etc.

Its illegal to reverse onto a main road but I see it nearly every time I am out.

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

We can't crash into hedgehogs or porcupines with these newer helmets, but other than that they do make you safer.

^^^ they also never mention how flashing red lights are illegal, even seen adverts on TV with cyclists where two had solid red lights on the back and one was flashing. "That's illegal" I said, no one cared. I mean it wasn't cyclists being filmed, they were actors etc.

Its illegal to reverse onto a main road but I see it nearly every time I am out.

Flashing red lights are not illegal.

craigus89

Manc33 wrote:

^^^ they also never mention how flashing red lights are illegal, even seen adverts on TV with cyclists where two had solid red lights on the back and one was flashing. "That's illegal" I said, no one cared. I mean it wasn't cyclists being filmed, they were actors etc.

It isn't illegal.

Manc33

bendertherobot wrote:

Flashing red lights are not illegal...

... if you happen to be driving an emergency vehicle.



Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

Lamps to show a steady light.

13.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which automatically emits a flashing light.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in respect of-

(a) a direction indicator;
(b) a headlamp fitted to an emergency vehicle;
(C) a warning beacon or special warning lamp;
(d) a lamp or illuminated sign fitted to a vehicle used for police purposes;
(e) a green warning lamp used as an anti-lock brake indicator; or
(f) lamps forming part of a traffic sign.

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Flashing red lights are not illegal...

... if you happen to be driving an emergency vehicle.



Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

Lamps to show a steady light.

13.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which automatically emits a flashing light.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in respect of-

(a) a direction indicator;
(b) a headlamp fitted to an emergency vehicle;
(C) a warning beacon or special warning lamp;
(d) a lamp or illuminated sign fitted to a vehicle used for police purposes;
(e) a green warning lamp used as an anti-lock brake indicator; or
(f) lamps forming part of a traffic sign.

You may want to do some more research.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005 ... tents/made

and

Rule 60

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-5 ... w-59-to-71

Manc33

Tsk, I'm not a lawyer. Time is finite. I just stick to Common Law - don't cause anyone else any harm or loss.

Everything else is an act, a statute, not "law". So they moved the goalposts since 1989. Who cares anymore, you can't follow it, but you don't really have to consent to statutes, its a sales pitch, just a very aggressive one.

For example in legalese, the word "MUST" means "may". You must pay this fine = you may pay this fine, you can opt out, but how many people know that? Everyone just does as they are told lol.

People have even de-registered their vehicle with the DVLA and re-registered it in their own name. Although I think that guy did get "made" to put normal plates back on somehow (courts found some loophole). The law is an ass that's for certain. Here's another fifty thousand statutes, make sure to memorize them all!

I think a crime can only be possible if someone else goes to the police and complains about you. The police "fining" you off their own back... not so much. You can just opt out and say "no contract" to it. If you dare and can be bothered with the months of letters back and forth, cops pulling you in your car all the time and all the other harassment they do when someone ever stands up to them in any capacity whatsoever. I am talking only about cases where the accused has done nothing unlawful. Illegal yes, but not unlawful. There's a massive difference. Doing something "illegal" means you broke a policy is all. You're absolutely not a criminal, unless you willingly go along with it - which everyone does because of the aggressive "sales pitch" they do to get your money and how "you must" this and "you must" that - using legalese to trick you.

I think the Romans came up with it - which also explains why the guys running that scam still use ancient symbols everywhere, its like a tribute, a homage.

craigus89

Manc33 wrote:

Tsk, I'm not a lawyer. Time is finite. I just stick to Common Law - don't cause anyone else any harm or loss.

Everything else is an act, a statute, not "law". So they moved the goalposts since 1989. Who cares anymore, you can't follow it, but you don't really have to consent to statutes, its a sales pitch, just a very aggressive one.

For example in legalese, the word "MUST" means "may". You must pay this fine = you may pay this fine, you can opt out, but how many people know that? Everyone just does as they are told lol.

People have even de-registered their vehicle with the DVLA and re-registered it in their own name. Although I think that guy did get "made" to put normal plates back on somehow (courts found some loophole). The law is an ass that's for certain. Here's another fifty thousand statutes, make sure to memorize them all!

I think a crime can only be possible if someone else goes to the police and complains about you. The police "fining" you off their own back... not so much. You can just opt out and say "no contract" to it. If you dare and can be bothered with the months of letters back and forth, cops pulling you in your car all the time and all the other harassment they do when someone ever stands up to them in any capacity whatsoever. I am talking only about cases where the accused has done nothing unlawful. Illegal yes, but not unlawful. There's a massive difference. Doing something "illegal" means you broke a policy is all. You're absolutely not a criminal, unless you willingly go along with it - which everyone does because of the aggressive "sales pitch" they do to get your money and how "you must" this and "you must" that - using legalese to trick you.

I think the Romans came up with it - which also explains why the guys running that scam still use ancient symbols everywhere, its like a tribute, a homage.

debeli

Manc33 wrote:

Tsk, I'm not a lawyer. Time is finite. I just stick to Common Law - don't cause anyone else any harm or loss.

Everything else is an act, a statute, not "law". So they moved the goalposts since 1989. Who cares anymore, you can't follow it, but you don't really have to consent to statutes, its a sales pitch, just a very aggressive one.

For example in legalese, the word "MUST" means "may". You must pay this fine = you may pay this fine, you can opt out, but how many people know that? Everyone just does as they are told lol.

People have even de-registered their vehicle with the DVLA and re-registered it in their own name. Although I think that guy did get "made" to put normal plates back on somehow (courts found some loophole). The law is an ass that's for certain. Here's another fifty thousand statutes, make sure to memorize them all!

I think a crime can only be possible if someone else goes to the police and complains about you. The police "fining" you off their own back... not so much. You can just opt out and say "no contract" to it. If you dare and can be bothered with the months of letters back and forth, cops pulling you in your car all the time and all the other harassment they do when someone ever stands up to them in any capacity whatsoever. I am talking only about cases where the accused has done nothing unlawful. Illegal yes, but not unlawful. There's a massive difference. Doing something "illegal" means you broke a policy is all. You're absolutely not a criminal, unless you willingly go along with it - which everyone does because of the aggressive "sales pitch" they do to get your money and how "you must" this and "you must" that - using legalese to trick you.

I think the Romans came up with it - which also explains why the guys running that scam still use ancient symbols everywhere, its like a tribute, a homage.

Barn Owl Salad Indefatigable Wizzlebope Indicator Notoriously Scissor Edge Beverage Monkey Bask. Or not, as the case may be. If this is a competition, I make more sense and I claim my free baguette. Twice.