Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:18 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:20 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
Broady wrote:
An inch of polystyrene might not be much but I've completely smashed 3 helmets in my years riding and am pretty confident if I wasn't wearing them I'd be a bit worse for wear to this day.

Admittedly a bus running over your head there's not a lot you can do about but you've gotta do something.

Let's be clear, I've no issue with campaigns about helmets, so long as as much, if not considerably more resources goes to addressing the behavourial issues with cyclists and motorists cohabiting on roads.

And let's have no nonsense about segregation, it doesn't help, it hinders, because it will never be everywhere, and just fosters the perspective that cyclists should be anywhere but in the way of motorists.

In previous times, cyclists and motorists have been able to share the roads, without necessarily outright prejudice, the only thing stopping that being addressed is motivation and quick, demonstrable wins with statistics.

Addressing attitudes and behaviour is addressing the root cause, but it's largely an unpalatable proposition because people would actually have to consider their own attitudes, behaviour and prejudices, and when you've got horse's-arses like Clarkson, being retarded-for-pay, emboldering his pantomime-persona attitudes in mouth-breathers, you've got a significant proportion of the motoring public given encouragement for a position they're already predisposed to.

Problem being the opposing argument isn't really trendy, and Kev in his blinged out Corsa has glazed over anyways.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:29 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:22 pm
Posts: 5946
Location: busy forgetting how to edge flip on a 11x11 monster cube///...
not only do i teach cycling i also teach road safety and traffic aware ness to all primary schools.as well as this i will be doing seat bely stuff in class too.when ii do the road stuff each group get nearly 45 mimn of talk using a car as a model..ie i go out to the car and we all talk about propblems regarding them.this includes lights ,indicaters ,drivers and types,why the behave the way they do ...i could make the lesson last 2 hours just on driver behaviour but if i did that id never get finished.i tell them its not the car but the person that causes trouble and if you could understand how they think then thats some way to preventing colisions.i also bang on about cars and bikes too...its tiring but the best job in the world when you get told how they remember every thing years later ...so there is some hope ... :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:31 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:47 pm
Posts: 1413
Location: North East
Neil wrote:
NAILTRAIL96 wrote:
Neil wrote:
NAILTRAIL96 wrote:
greenstiles wrote:
Helmets......reflectors front and rear and on wheels, riding fast on pavements (on the increase)........i think there needs to be a review on both sides of the coin on cycle rules as the number of cyclists is growing.

A helmet saved my life off road, and i knew a man with a badly cracked scull who wasn't wearing one and hit his head on a curb on road.

I don't wear one on-road......but i know head injuries are difficult to treat due to having a brain inside compared to a broken leg.


And there in lies the real problem, a lot of drivers see cyclists as aggressive, selfish and showing little regard for the law of the land.

You don't have to drive for long before you see cyclists taking up a whole lane, jumping red lights, almost never indicating and riding on and off pavements with out warning.

There's a real them and us divide between drivers and cyclists and it goes both ways.

'cos drivers never speed, amber-gamble (or just plain bet on red), tailgate, drive aggressively or without consideration...

Most drivers I see spout that argument are either NIMBYs, hypocrites, or both - and just really have might-is-right on their side.


On a site for cyclists I didn't feel the need to put our side across as I suspect most already knew it.

The point is niether group can claim to be whiter that white, both groups need to change and blindly and niavely pointing the finger and crying innocence will achive nothing.

Wonderful.

Complete non sequitur, though, because I'm not trying to foist innocence on cyclists, I'm pointing out the emphasis is always in the wrong place.

It's always somebody else's problem or issue, isn't it. <deity>-forbid a bit of introspection and self-realisation, 'cos it's easier and more convenient. Let's just focus on the victims and postulate about whether they were wearing a bit of polystyrene on their noggin, rather than question why they're in increasing risk.

And that's the thing that always gets missed. Motorists bang on about things that if they were really honest, they do much the same themselves, and the only real risk they tend to face from cyclists is to their ego or a bit of paintwork - whereas cyclists are often at the mercy from fragile egos, but face disproportionate risks to life because of the divide. And that's really the problem that nobody seems prepared to take on, largely because there's nothing in it for them.


Do you really believe most drivers are concerned about paintwork when they come across a cyclist riding erratically?, do you really believe there would be no lasting impact on any body if took a human life, through their own fault or not?.
And yet you talk of misplaced emphasis and biased opinions.

@Greenstiles, Sounds like a nasty incident, you did well to come out of it feeling safe enough to get back on a bike. Not sure I would.

The bottom line is the road is a dangerous place regardless of who you are or your mode of transport,
Using the road irresponsibly will only increase the risk of incident. Riding with a resentment and contmept of other users is hardly an attitude to inspire co-operation and consideration.

Safe road use starts at home, it is not the responsibility of other road users to prove to you that they are worthy of your consideration and respect, that is something you leave the house with.

As for the helmet debate I'm not getting involved except to say I hope the incident that makes you realise it might be a good idea to protect yourself is not the incident that makes your family relaise it would have been a good idea to protect yourself.

Ride safe kids, and don't do drugs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:43 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
NAILTRAIL96 wrote:
Neil wrote:
NAILTRAIL96 wrote:
Neil wrote:
NAILTRAIL96 wrote:
greenstiles wrote:
Helmets......reflectors front and rear and on wheels, riding fast on pavements (on the increase)........i think there needs to be a review on both sides of the coin on cycle rules as the number of cyclists is growing.

A helmet saved my life off road, and i knew a man with a badly cracked scull who wasn't wearing one and hit his head on a curb on road.

I don't wear one on-road......but i know head injuries are difficult to treat due to having a brain inside compared to a broken leg.


And there in lies the real problem, a lot of drivers see cyclists as aggressive, selfish and showing little regard for the law of the land.

You don't have to drive for long before you see cyclists taking up a whole lane, jumping red lights, almost never indicating and riding on and off pavements with out warning.

There's a real them and us divide between drivers and cyclists and it goes both ways.

'cos drivers never speed, amber-gamble (or just plain bet on red), tailgate, drive aggressively or without consideration...

Most drivers I see spout that argument are either NIMBYs, hypocrites, or both - and just really have might-is-right on their side.


On a site for cyclists I didn't feel the need to put our side across as I suspect most already knew it.

The point is niether group can claim to be whiter that white, both groups need to change and blindly and niavely pointing the finger and crying innocence will achive nothing.

Wonderful.

Complete non sequitur, though, because I'm not trying to foist innocence on cyclists, I'm pointing out the emphasis is always in the wrong place.

It's always somebody else's problem or issue, isn't it. <deity>-forbid a bit of introspection and self-realisation, 'cos it's easier and more convenient. Let's just focus on the victims and postulate about whether they were wearing a bit of polystyrene on their noggin, rather than question why they're in increasing risk.

And that's the thing that always gets missed. Motorists bang on about things that if they were really honest, they do much the same themselves, and the only real risk they tend to face from cyclists is to their ego or a bit of paintwork - whereas cyclists are often at the mercy from fragile egos, but face disproportionate risks to life because of the divide. And that's really the problem that nobody seems prepared to take on, largely because there's nothing in it for them.


Do you really believe most drivers are concerned about paintwork when they come across a cyclist riding erratically?, do you really believe there would be no lasting impact on any body if took a human life, through their own fault or not?.
And yet you talk of misplaced emphasis and biased opinions.

I'm convinced that a large proportion of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, rarely consider the consequences of their actions at the time.

Any video footage I've seen of road-raging between cyclists and motorists, I don't recall ever being left with the feeling of well-being after seeing blatant consideration for human life by the drivers - and over time, there's been several such videos posted here. What I have seen videos of, is drivers driving erratically and threateningly, because of affront to their ego, or paintwork, or door mirrors - because they didn't like being shouted at, because they'd done something dangerouse, or they didn't like the side of their van being banged with a cyclists hand because the driver had done something dangerous, or disagreed with the amount of road space a cyclist wanted, in order to try and ensure overtaking drivers only did so at a point where sufficient space could be given. And like I've said, that all highlights the disparity in risk.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:50 pm 
MacModerator
MacModerator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 20771
Location: Sol Kitts
Enough with the quoting!!!!! Sheesh! :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:03 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:41 am
Posts: 816
quote:It has not been revealed whether the victim was wearing a helmet, but Wiggins said forcing cyclists to take precautions would make the roads safer.-quote

:shock:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:40 pm 
BoTM Winner / Gold Trader
BoTM Winner / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:36 am
Posts: 4715
Location: Burlington, ON Canada
rider wrote:
Image


The recipe for hobo B52s?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:18 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
Frankly I don't know why a debate is needed. Everyone should wear a helmet. I've broken a few, and know it would have been my head otherwise. I witnessed my sister killed when she was knocked off her bike when we were kids. A helmet probably wouldn't have saved her, but it's saved me in less serious accidents. I'm not wearing one at the moment, as I left it in UK, but I am much more nervous riding without one, and will be getting it as soon as possible. At the end of the day, if you don't wear one, you probably don't need one, as the sense isn't there that needs protecting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:57 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:41 am
Posts: 816
FMJ wrote:
rider wrote:
Image


The recipe for hobo B52s?


No it was meant for someone saying that cyclists should be FORCED to do something that is not necessity!

It should be on free will, to wear helmet or not wear one! (even on motorbike anyway)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:02 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 4007
Location: uk
I like to wear one on a motorbike thanks :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: My_Teenage_Self and 46 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group