Even here in perth that is generally trying to help bike riders I just don't see how it's safe to ride around at 20-30km when the speed limit is 70km and there isn't enough room to overtake without going into the other lane.
I just don't see how you can be safe when people are trying to overtake you in giant utes going twice your speed trying to get home/to work.
I have never seen anyone fined for it. Our police/government just doesn't care, and attitudes like yours don't help. Cycling on the road is legal and until it isn't, just saying, "I don't see how it's safe" is irrelevant.
I also drive, but I'm capable of not losing my mind and putting other people's lives in danger to save a few seconds on my trip.
If another road user is going too slow for you, you need to suck it up and find a safe, legal place to overtake.
The attitude I was talking about is, "I don't see how it's safe because drivers can't get past".
The way I see it, the only ones in the wrong in that situation are the impatient drivers who are breaking the law by trying to pass when it is not legal or safe.
The main reason cycling isn't safe is because drivers are overtaking unsafely when they might be delayed by a cyclist.
People seem to think that it's acceptable for drivers to break road laws just because they are being inconvenienced.
This behaviour is not acceptable, and indeed is illegal (although unfortunately not enforced - thanks for protecting our safety NSWPolice!).
The post I was replying to made no mention of the fact that drivers are meant to exhibit some semblance of patience from time to time, and seemed to be saying that cyclists are unsafe on the road because they can't maintain a 70kph speed, when in reality cyclists are unsafe because drivers are breaking the law.
Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway?
It sucks that NSWPolice are more interested in fining cyclists and are ignoring people actually putting other people's lives in danger.
When I drive and I see people riding with no helmet, I can't help but think to myself, "well you obviously don't care about your own safety at all, why should I?"
As a cyclist, I cringe when I see other cyclists breaking road rules. There is already much too little respect for us on the road, and doing stuff like that will erode the little respect we do get.
Because a dinky bicycle helmet won't change anything if you are hit by a car. Even a motorcycle helmet won't help. The only time a helmet helps is in low speed accidents.
Edit: you are correct that at high speeds (over 50km/h) bike helmets become less effective when hit by a car. However, many car/bike accidents occur at speeds below 50km/h, in which case helmets can and do save lives. [1]
One could make a similar statement to yours regarding any safety device. A seatbelt probably won't save me if I hit a truck going 120km/h in my car. But it will help in a lot of other situations, so I'll still wear it.
[1] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-prove-cycle-hel...
What's the bottom end of that effectiveness curve look like?
It's 100% clear that helmets have zero effectiveness at 0km/h[1] - I bet the "effectiveness" of helmets is statistically the same a zero at 1km/h and 3km/h as well - where's the data that shows the shape of that curve? How does that compare with various categories of cycling?
I note that what the linked study/article "proves" is that if you have a crash in which you might die, a helmet will improve your outcome in some of those cases. To me that has (at least) two obvious responses: 1) wear a helmet, or 2) don't have those sorts of crashes. Me pedalling to the shops or the cafe at 10-15km/h on cycle paths or quiet backstreets is enormously safer than me riding at 25km/h on a busy or main road, or on a downhill mountain bike course - with or without a helmet. Why to "the helmet guys" get to choose which risk minimisation strategy I'm required to employ?
[1] to be more accurate, the benefits of having a helmet on while stationary on a bicycle are no different from the benefits of having a helmet on while standing still - something the safety-crats haven't (yet) suggested is necessary...)
Maybe best to try and find the original paper to clarify that one.
EDIT: http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/692/pdf/41_Than.p... looks relevant, but I can't see the claims repeated in e.g. the Mirror article.
A bike helmet is made to slide across the pavement in the event of a crash. This allows you to decelerate at a slower pace and minimize damage.
Think of a bike helmet more like a ski helmet. It protects you from the ground, and will do very little if you ski into a tower. http://www.bhsi.org/mips.htm
Yes, a helmet won't help if you have a full-frontal collision with a car going at 100km/h, but there are many situations (most situations?) where that isn't the case and a helmet will help.
Anyone just blindly downvoting snovv_crash should check out the video above and any number of other resources, such as this one:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cyc...
There are strong feelings on both sides, but many cyclists feel helmets are a distraction from the real issues which make cyclists unsafe: poor road design and unsafe driving. Cycling itself is (counter-intuitively) a very safe activity which looks dangerous; everyone assumes driving and walking are safe but often they are not. Yet nobody seriously proposes helmets for pedestrians or drivers, just cyclists.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... [XLS]
That's 8,643 pedestrians killed between 2000 and 2013 on UK roads. It's not even solely when people are crossing the road: cars frequently mount the pavement (sidewalk) and kill pedestrians.
In majority of bicycle deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, and the "dinky" helmet is what makes a difference.
A large majority of bicycle deaths are low speed accidents. (Over here (Finland) a majority of them actually does not even involve a motor vehicle; here we have a pretty good segregated bike/pedestrian route network.)
There's quite a few studies recently that've revealed quite glaring errors in the claims that bicycle helmets reduce injuries in any significant fashion for typical cyclists. Sure you'd be foolish doind a mountain stage of the Tour de France without a helmet - but for a typical non-heavily-trafficed-commute or a weekend ride-in-the-park - there's very few accidents where a helmet makes any statistcal difference.
I also recall recently reading a study that calculated the overall benefit of bicycle helmet laws were negative when the reduction in cyclists was taken into account, and it's resultant lower level of public health. Have stringent helmet laws, and fewer people ride bicycles; fewer people riding bicycles results in more overweight/unfit people. Nett cost to health system goes up, not down.
I will never question your choice to wear a helmet - either always or occasionally. I do question your motives for supporting the establishment to _require_ (with threats of punitive fines) me to wear one, without conclusive and in-controversial evidence that it is of statistically significant benefit _to the sort of riding I do_...
If you want to "lowest common denominator" the argument - explain to me why you don't wear a helmet with driving/riding in a car? Have a guess as to what the most serious injuries in cases of automotive deaths are…
When there's an accident, the helmet makes a difference.
"It seems intuitive that bicycle helmets would be an effective means of reducing head injury, and indeed helmet manufacturers and standards associations worldwide conduct rigorous tests to determine the impact absorption and other qualities of helmets. It is however, important to go beyond laboratory tests and understand whether helmets reduce injuries in the event of a crash in real‐life; hence the review by Thompson et al.1 This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries. The review authors concluded that bicycle helmets are an effective means of preventing head injury."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/
And then my personal anecdata: 25 years ago I went over the bar as I hit the brakes to stop before a child that ran to the cycle path from a bush. I broke my radix but not my head - I did not have a helmet. I realized how lucky I had been. I started to wear the helmet.
Last winter I fell when I didn't notice ice on my home road. Before I could unclip, I was falling sideways. I bruised my ribs and hit my head on the ground, but avoided cracking my skull because I did have on my helmet that I've been wearing the 25 years since the previous bone breaking fall.
Don't be stupid. Wear helmet when riding bike.
I now realise the helmet thing is mainly about cars and just the way one needs to ride in Sydney to survive. Lanes end abruptly, major pot holes in roads etc.
It's anecdotal but you get the feeling progress and freedom is not really Australia's strong point these days!
I can get from my place to the local shopping centre, a bunch of cafes or pubs, and the Cook's River bike path - all without needing to ride in "traffic" or on major (or even busy) roads. The chance of a helmet providing _any_ safety benefit for me riding to do my grocery shopping, is about as high as the benefit of me wearing a helmet while _driving_ a car to the shopping centre.
(And don't think I'm completely anti-helmet - I also ride motorcycles and wear a helmet 100% of the time on that, only _mostly_ because it's the law.)
When you drive - do you wear a helmet? Why not?
I do wear a helmet when I'm on a bike, not because of nanny-state laws, but because many drivers drive in the manner of someone with the luxury of being complacent because they are strapped inside a steel cage that does a very good job of protecting them in the case of a collision.
It's also quite easy to take a bike through a park or somewhere a car can't go and get away...
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906...
I'd like to see a more extensive study, although my own experience of using a helmet and hi-viz clothing seems to confirm, some motorists see the gear and think "experienced cyclist, I can pass closer".
Sure, if the cars are moving fast then I would like a wide space. But in heavier / slower traffic (which was the common case when I lived in London), then I only need a "lane" wide enough for me to ride through. And heck, usually I'm the one doing the overtaking.
It is possible on Sydney roads if drivers wait until there's an overtaking lane, which is actually the only legal solution.
Anyway, it's never enforced so what difference does it make? Drivers will continue to only care about themselves and cyclists will continue to be maimed and die.
Countries with governments that aren't crap have separate tracks for cyclists, which is really the only safe solution.
We have painted pictures of bikes in car lanes right in the door zones for parked cars. And that's in the good places. It's an absolute joke.
It's not about crap governments. It's about practical responses to the world as it is.
Now I live in Munich and enjoy riding on dedicated bike lanes. But these are built on seriously wide roads. In Sydney that space is used for other things.
Such land-use decisions were locked in during the early 20th century. Now it's perfectly reasonable to think the Nazis made better land-use decisions than Labor and the UAP. But it's no use crying over spilled milk.
Many don't have a bike lane. If there's no room to overtake safely, most drivers simply wait.
You do realise the lanes in Munich almost certainly weren't built by the Nazis? And the layout of roads, especially major ones, will have been altered since then, and can be altered in the future?
I'm not familiar with Munich, but the Netherlands got their bicycle lanes after lots of public campaigning in the 1970s [1].
In many European cities, the streets have been significantly remodelled within the 20th century. Just last month, a large road I use in Copenhagen was altered to increase the size of the bicycle lanes [3], reducing the width of the car lanes. Late last year, a road near the hospital was altered to block off parking close to a junction, which made visibility much better for everyone.
London is currently building a major east-west route [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands#Ove...
[2] http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-geography-travel-germany-mu...
[3] http://www.kk.dk/nyheder/bredere-cykelstier-i-gothersgade
[4] https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-proje...
It seems to me that continental european cities often have very wide roads once you get out of the old towns. Given the location, these must have been built around the mid-20th century. By all kinds of governments.
I've never visited Sydney, but it seems to have plenty of wide roads — I picked some central roads at random.
Oxford Street has a bus lane on either side, plus two car lanes in each direction. On StreetView, the bus lane is filled with parked cars, and appears to be also a cycle lane. Reducing the width of the car lanes, removing parking from one side, or removing one lane of traffic would provide ample space.
Palmer Street has two lines of parked cars, and enough space for three lanes of cars in between. Plenty of room for a dedicated cycle lane.
Germany has even stricter rules in practice: courts have regularly decided that a minimum of 1.5m ... 2m is necessary, depending on the situation. In special cases, even up to 2.8m have been deemed necessary.
BTW, even if cars don't actually touch a cyclist, but merely frighten them and cause them to react, it's already a traffic offense. Difficult to enforce in practice, of course.
Details for German-speakers: https://www.adfc-nrw.de/kreisverbaende/kv-bottrop/radverkehr...
I wonder if automated streetsweepers would be efficient enough that they could run much more regularly?
- You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound!
- Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users.
I don't own a car but sometimes have a ride with other people and it's scary to notice how aggressive some people are towards the other road users. And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just because they don't want to get in the way of the aggressive ones.
But luckily, there are also very cool drivers!
Sure that's fine but when 1 lane is going 70 and another 30 for whatever reason you have an objectively more dangerous situation. You can't just expect people to sit and in the 30 lane, be happy and not try and pull out in front of others to get into the fast lane.
> - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users.
I would say that most people see elderly/drunk/wtf drivers who drive around well under the speed limit as obstacles too. Have you ever tried driving home after work at half the speed limit? I haven't but from my limit experience seeing others do it you don't exactly get a nice reaction from people.
We can sit around saying how unfair, dehumanising and whatnot it is to people to see cyclists as an obstacle but I don't see how you can just stamp that out without real changes to how the system currently works, I just don't see how logically the culture can change without an complete overhaul in values.
> And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just because they don't want to get in the way of the aggressive ones.
To be honest, the aggressive drivers aren't the scariest, it's the clueless ones that are much more scarier. They sit in lanes daydreaming until the realize they need to move somewhere and just make it happen, merge now, blinker in a second then check my blind spot.
Fast drivers usually have much better awareness of who is around them and because of that do stupid things which can end up bad, most accidents though are caused through negligence rather than fast drivers.
Drivers as you (I suppose you are describing the way you're driving), are in my eyes the most dangerous on the street.
They probably won't be causing the most accidents directly, but they put other people under stress and push them not to respect their own limits.
We have more and more elderly people who need to be active in the society and also more and more people who only drive a car a few times a year.
And when you will get older (and it will happen! believe me!), you will still want to drive a car and you will have the same attitude my mother has: driving too fast, because she does not want to feel like an obstacle. But you will not be driving as well as in the good old times.
Anyway, statistics don't lie: 93% of the US drivers seem to consider themselves better than average... (says Wikipedia)
One ought to be able to describe shitty reality without others supposing that they support said shitty reality.
2) It doesn't help unless all drivers do this, which they don't, which is the problem and the point.
Nobody ever gets fined though, cyclists still just get killed.