Powered pedal cycle in collision

[flecc]

Originally Posted by rooel

And, flecc, because of the dangers posed by the propaganda, I do not feel we can adopt a don't-care-either-way approach.

I was joking of course Rooel, trying to keep things "light".

I agree with your position on safety, the continentals already having shown the best way.
.

[Bikerbob]

Originally Posted by flecc

Can I turn it into a "don't care either way" crusade, the voice of apathy raised?
.

I second that. Make up your own mind and accept that others can do the same.

[john]

Originally Posted by rooel

Instead of politicians on bikes taking photo calls all piously wearing helmets for fear of what the tabloids will say if they don't, I would prefer to see them posing on the few segregated facilities we have, to send out a message to cyclists - and local and national highway authorities - that the only effective way to separate cyclists from motor vehicles lies not in the insertion of a few centimetres of glossy polystyrene between them, but by way of kerbs, bushes, fences, walls, etc, coupled with priority for cyclists at all junctions.

Many of the roads in our towns are not wide enough to add a cycle lane so we have to share with other traffic. I'm not sure what can be done with these other than reducing speed limits to 20 mph which I suspect would be rather unpopular with the masses if used extensively.

Where cycle lanes can be added, priority at junctions would be a very good idea. Most of these lanes I tend not to use as I find I have to stop at every side junction, slowing me down too much.

[rooel]

Actually, john, if you look around most UK cities and towns there is more than enough space on most streets for a wide cycle lane at each side protected by a high kerb on the motor side: you may not notice this space immediately but it is there, underneath the motor vehicles which line our streets, and I do not mean those parked for a few minutes, but those which are "garaged" by the side of the road because their owners cannot or do not wish to pay for off-road parking space.

Of course, it would take a revolution to rid the populace of the notion that they may keep one of their largest possessions out on the street, and there would be further opposition from those local authorities who rent out parts of their streets for an annual fee ("residents parking permits"). Here in Edinburgh we even have these parking places delineated on top of cycle lanes!

These parked cars, with or without a permit, obstruct the highway, but if there is no yellow line, no enforcement body will dare do anything about. Yet if some-one, in fine weather set out his sofa or dining room table and chairs by the side of the road all sorts of officials, backed by the police, would be round to deal with them.

The payment of Vehicle Excise Duty permits only the driving of a motor vehicle on the public highway, it does not permit the acquisition of any part of it for "garaging".

[flecc]

Absolutely right Rooel, the way that government and other authorities have allowed on street parking to develop, even to the extent of encouraging it by charging for the space, is incredibly stupid.

Action should really have been taken back in the 1920s when car ownership first spread beyond the landowning wealthy, but there have been other opportunities to take action since. At the end of world war 2 when huge numbers of cars had been requisitioned for the war effort and the streets left largely clear, private ownership was minimal and a perfect opportunity to act was lost.

Nonetheless, we should be acting even at this late hour to incorporate off street charged for space in each building and/or redevelopment scheme. Supermarkets and out of town stores and shopping centres already manage it, even without charging.
.

[bogmonster]

Originally Posted by flecc

Absolutely right Rooel, the way that government and other authorities have allowed on street parking to develop, even to the extent of encouraging it by charging for the space, is incredibly stupid.

Action should really have been taken back in the 1920s when car ownership first spread beyond the landowning wealthy, but there have been other opportunities to take action since. At the end of world war 2 when huge numbers of cars had been requisitioned for the war effort and the streets left largely clear, private ownership was minimal and a perfect opportunity to act was lost.

Nonetheless, we should be acting even at this late hour to incorporate off street charged for space in each building and/or redevelopment scheme. Supermarkets and out of town stores and shopping centres already manage it, even without charging.
.

Flecc,

While I share the bulk of sentiment and do indeed park my cars off road both at home and at work I would be hesitant at holding out of town supermarkets as a good model (I know that is not exactly what you did). I try my best to avoid the 'local' supermarket and shop at independents with local produce or grow my own when I can. In theory local shopping should be better for transport as people can easily walk and cycle to shops and maybe not need a car. Also, supermarkets kill local economies and ship food around the globe. They are the devil's work

The trouble is there are few options instead of cars and so much land is already being used for development. We should have started building three stories in our houses as a matter of course years ago with parking space underneath living space. I know some houses do this but not many. The other solution is to remove reliance on cars by bringing back local communities (yes, I would like local post offices back) and to greatly improve public transport that is woeful in the UK. Right, getting off soapbox now, rant over

BM.

[Intex]

I am just looking for a simple YES or NO answer!
If NO, then I may be able to rationalize that wearing will may save me in a similiar predicament. If YES, then I would like to know why and if the helmet did not save his head injuries.

This is not that difficult of a question.

[flecc]

Originally Posted by Intex

I am just looking for a simple YES or NO answer!
If NO, then I may be able to rationalize that wearing will may save me in a similiar predicament. If YES, then I would like to know why and if the helmet did not save his head injuries.

This is not that difficult of a question.

Unfortunately it wasn't reported Intex, so we don't know the answer. The fact that it wasn't reported tends to indicate the possibility that he was wearing one, since most opportunities to lecture on helmet wearing are seized by the media.

This is a sensitive subject in this forum due to entrenched positions on helmet wearing and several contentious threads resulting. Hence the reaction to your request for information, but I'm sure there was no rudeness intended.
.

[Intex]

Thank you for the response, I guess I was looking for some sort of reassurance that wearing one would help.

[Footie]

Unfortunately, the report only say 'the man sustained a head injury'. However such an injury could have been due to many different causes; collision with the van, road, wall, bike, etc. It could even mean he was under the van (in which case a helmet may have been virtually useless - it could even have made things worse, catching and dragging).
Regrettably, tensions run high on the subject of helmets and seldom are these things a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer.
It’s very much down to the individual’s choice
.