A Cycle Helmet saved this lady's life.



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:45:23 -0000, "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> It makes you more visible because it puts you where cagers are looking, simple as that. John
>> Franklin says it much better than I do, of course.

>Sorry Guy, can't leave that unchallenged after all...no will power. I think I ought to point out
>the other side of the coin in case it benefits anyone.

Tcah! No willpower at all. Shocking ;-)

>When I used to drive daily on fast roads with fairly constant traffic flow and good forward
>visibility I used to find cyclists far more visible if they were riding to the left of the general
>flow of traffic.

I can't really visualise the situation you describe - nor can I see how it should make any
difference whether you are approaching a car or a bike, or a motorbike or a horse or whatever, as
long as you are looking ahead and maintaining a safety gap rather than driving 6" from the bumper of
the car in front.

In any case the Good Book doesn't preach the primary riding position as dogma, it describes it,
describes where you should use it, and (most important) gives the reasoning.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote

> I can draw it in my head quite well thanks. Unless you drive a LHD car so
you
> can see down the inside, the car in front blocks your line of sight from roughly the straight
> ahead position to the line drawn between you and the
rear
> nearside corner of the cabin of the car in front. In the case of the
cyclist
> riding out in the road the first warning you get, before you see its a cyclist, is the car in
> front slows and/or pulls out to pass. That happens when the cyclist is still in front of the car
> in front and while you may
not
> know what exactly it is - another car, a cyclist, a brick or lump of wood
on
> the road - you are alert that there is something there of which you need
to be
> aware. With the cyclist in the gutter the first glimpse you will get is roughly when they are
> alongside the front passenger door of the car in
front
> and are emerging out of the area blocked from view by the car in front.
>
> Anything wrong with the analysis so far?

Well, I'd certainly disagree that you can't see the cyclist keeping to the left until they are
alongside the front passenger door of the car infront but that depends on the width of the road (and
therefore the distance from the kerb of general traffic flow)and the distance you're driving behind
the car infront. As I said we're obviously picturing it differently. Even if the road is narrow and
the cyclist on the left isn't well separated from general traffic flow though I find you often get
to notice them from quite a way ahead as the road bends to the left. Or on the particular road I
used to drive on daily which has a long straight uphill section, as you come up to approach it any
cyclist to the left of the line of traffic stretching up the hill was visible from hundreds of
metres back because you were looking at it on a flatter angle.

But as someone else pointed out, I'm only going on my own driving experience and most people
certainly drive closer to the car infront as I do and might not be so observant.
 
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:45:23 -0000 someone who may be "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>When I used to drive daily on fast roads with fairly constant traffic flow [snip] whereas the
>cyclist "in the gutter" was in little danger as far as I could see.

The cyclist "in the gutter" was in danger from the suction effect of large motor vehicles, whose
drivers had not been alerted to the presence of the cyclist by drivers ahead pulling out to pass
them and so had not pulled out either.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:02:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Give me some numbers

If I remember I will try and look some up when I have access to my library.

>don't just waffle

A lack of figures does not mean that someone is waffling.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
"AndyP" <[email protected]> wrote

> But as someone else pointed out, I'm only going on my own driving
experience
> and most people certainly drive closer to the car infront as I do and
might
> not be so observant.

Should have said "than I do".
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > which on the surface looks comparable but with a few seconds basic analysis is shown to have
> > major inconsistencies. Don't feel bad about it though, us here on URC are more than happy to try
> > and help :)
>
> As we generally cycle next to a kerb it was quite a good example.
>
Who's this "we" paleface?
 
"AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter B wrote:
> > A classic example is young males and cars, some drive the way they do not because of air-bags,
> > abs etc but simply because they're immortal and or brilliant drivers and to those the safety
> > devices are of benefit, as they are to the people they may collide with.
> >
> > Pete
>
> How exactly do air bags help a ped or cyclist when a car hits them.

I don't believe I said they do, and certainly didn't mean to imply they do, I'm not that daft ;-)
They would help the innocent passengers of another car struck by the idiot if fitted to the car
they're in. The safety features may or may not make the innocent driver more or less dangerous but
will help him if struck by someone else. They are of no use to other people not in a car fitted
with them.

ABS may help a driver control his/her vehicle better in an emergency situation, the emergency
situation may not be of the drivers making, for instance when someone runs a red light as is the
norm where I live regardless of whether it's a bicycle, car or as seems quite common at the moment
Arriva buses (caught the second one doing it in as many weeks 2 days ago).

Pete

Pete
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ban ABS first. Research in taxi fleets in (?)Denmark and Germany showed that drivers with ABS-
> equipped cars drove faster and followed closer.

More sensible to ban advertising ABS as a safety feature (i.e. update advertising guideline), I'd
have thought. Hmm, I wonder if I will get round to writing to the ASA complaining that Renault
should stop advertising its new Megane as getting 5 stars for safety, when it actually only gets 5
stars for *occupant* safety. I still can't think of a way to complain about the missing word without
sounding unbelievably pedantic.

> Nobody argues that a helmet provides no protection, as far as I can tell. Many argue that the
> protection it gives is strictly limited, and that it is outweighed by risk compensation effects in
> populations, not least because of the vastly exaggerated claims of liddites.

Arguments are certainly made that helmets give negligible protection and can exacerbate certain
types of injury, but these kinds of things have never been studied because they give counter-
economic^W^W counter-intuitive results. After all, who's going to fund research that would stop the
cycle industry getting 30 quid every time someone falls off a bike?

Ambrose
 
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:06:07 -0000, "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In the copy of Cyclecraft I've just bought it actually says on page 58 "The primary riding position
>is in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you are travelling"
>which is what I'd always assumed it meant, slightly different to what you said above and quite a
>bit different to what I took Simon to mean when I originally queried it.

You are correct in that I ststed it was roughly where the driver would be in a car - actually I
thought about that, the position John draws in the book is between the MDG wheeltracks, the position
I ride is only a few inches ot the right of that but inside the right-hand MDG wheeltrack, which
tends to be freer of standing water and such. So I'm somewhat to the right of John Franklin ;-)

I did say that you should read the book, didn't I? Most of us I think found that the book more or
less confirmed what we'd learned by experience, but added one or two excellent points (like helping
me decide when the primary riding position was right, and - much more important - giving me absolute
confidence that in taking that line I was not doing anything wrong).

You will see form reading it, as I think I mentioned, that the primary position is recommended for
situations where either you are keeping up with the general flow of traffic or there is increased
risk (like pinch points, junctions, roundabouts, twisty narrow country lanes). At other times the
secondary position is just fine. And that's most of the time for some riders, depending on route.

I wish you joy with the book. I reiterate my belief that a thorough and considered reading of
Cyclecraft is more likely to save your life than any plastic hat.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:06:07 -0000 someone who may be "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>From what I've skimmed of the book so far it just confirms what I've always thought and some of the
>points I've made here.

You might like to read it and then let us know about this.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote

> No. The primary riding position puts you where the driver's seat would be in a car. That is
> unambiguous. There is not room to undertake a cyclist riding in the primary riding position.

In the copy of Cyclecraft I've just bought it actually says on page 58 "The primary riding position
is in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you are travelling"
which is what I'd always assumed it meant, slightly different to what you said above and quite a bit
different to what I took Simon to mean when I originally queried it.

From what I've skimmed of the book so far it just confirms what I've always thought and some of the
points I've made here.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote

> I wish you joy with the book. I reiterate my belief that a thorough and considered reading of
> Cyclecraft is more likely to save your life than any plastic hat.

Very true, and now that I've got the book and don't need to generate any more discussion to
either confirm or contradict my opinions I can get back to more useful stuff like tidying my
flat. (When your mates come by and say "Oh my god, you've been burgled", it's definitely time to
tidy your flat.)
 
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:49:23 -0000, "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>now that I've got the book and don't need to generate any more discussion to either confirm or
>contradict my opinions I can get back to more useful stuff like tidying my flat.

I don't bother. The kids only mess it up again, after all ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote

> >From what I've skimmed of the book so far it just confirms what I've
always
> >thought and some of the points I've made here.

> You might like to read it and then let us know about this.

As a wise person once said to me "You really need to see the whole thing presented in its entirety".
"Buy the book". But I'll quote you some relevant bits relating to my arguments if you're genuinely
interested and don't want to spend £10.

"No one should unnecessarily impede the passage of anyone else"

"On busy roads it will be necessary to keep to the secondary position most of the time"

When talking about riding further out to avoid bad road surface..."try not to allow sufficient room
on your left for anyone to pass"...same concerns as my original main point that started this
discussion.

"You can never tell whether a driver behind is becoming impatient and might take a chance when it is
least safe for you"

(Don't hold the primary position) "when there is increased risk of being hit from behind"...goes on
to mention pub closing time and bad weather poor visibility.

Haven't found anything much relating to the relative merits of visibility to motorists for different
road positions as yet.
 
"AndyP" <[email protected]> writes:

> "AndyP" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > But as someone else pointed out, I'm only going on my own driving
> experience
> > and most people certainly drive closer to the car infront as I do and
> might
> > not be so observant.
>
> Should have said "than I do".

Andy, I'm sure if you keep thinking up absurd and unrealistic situations for long enough, you will
invent one where riding in the gutter is safer than riding in the officially approved primary riding
position. But having said that, an awful lot of serious study and experience has gone into
developing the government's advice to cyclists, and that study and experience tends to show that the
overwhelming majority of the time, the primary riding position is safest.

Unless you can bring to bear a large corpus of previously unknown research data, this isn't worth
arguing about. Seriously. The work has been done, and the conclusions are inescapable. It isn't a
matter of opinion.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote

> Andy, I'm sure if you keep thinking up absurd and unrealistic situations for long enough, you will
> invent one where riding in the gutter is safer than riding in the officially approved primary
> riding position. But having said that, an awful lot of serious study and experience has gone into
> developing the government's advice to cyclists, and that study and experience tends to show that
> the overwhelming majority of the time, the primary riding position is safest.

I've now got a copy of Cyclecraft thanks...I'd suggest you read it again because, as I said in
another post, page 58 certainly doesn't define the primary position in the same way you do and it
agrees with several of the points I've made.
 
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote:

| "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > Ban ABS first. Research in taxi fleets in (?)Denmark and Germany showed that drivers with ABS-
| > equipped cars drove faster and followed closer.
|
| More sensible to ban advertising ABS as a safety feature (i.e. update advertising guideline), I'd
| have thought. Hmm, I wonder if I will get round to writing to the ASA complaining that Renault
| should stop advertising its new Megane as getting 5 stars for safety, when it actually only gets 5
| stars for *occupant* safety. I still can't think of a way to complain about the missing word
| without sounding unbelievably pedantic.

Why not write to the people who award the stars instead? Aren't they the same as those who test the
effects of bull-bars etc? The might be persuaded to tell Renault themselves.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk
 
"Patrick Herring" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> | "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
> | > Ban ABS first. Research in taxi fleets in (?)Denmark and Germany showed that drivers with ABS-
> | > equipped cars drove faster and followed closer.
> |
> | More sensible to ban advertising ABS as a safety feature (i.e. update advertising guideline),
> | I'd have thought. Hmm, I wonder if I will get
round
> | to writing to the ASA complaining that Renault should stop advertising
its
> | new Megane as getting 5 stars for safety, when it actually only gets 5
stars
> | for *occupant* safety. I still can't think of a way to complain about
the
> | missing word without sounding unbelievably pedantic.
>
> Why not write to the people who award the stars instead? Aren't they the same as those who test
> the effects of bull-bars etc? The might be persuaded to tell Renault themselves.

I may do, although they don't have any teeth whereas the ASA does.

There's a fairly comparable case with a motorbike (well, the C1) from BMW that they called the
safest thing on two wheels, which was upheld because a bicycle is safer.

see < http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=28
783 >

Ambrose
 
[snip]
> More sensible to ban advertising ABS as a safety feature (i.e. update advertising guideline), I'd
> have thought. Hmm, I wonder if I will get round to writing to the ASA complaining that Renault
> should stop advertising its new Megane as getting 5 stars for safety, when it actually only gets 5
> stars for *occupant* safety. I still can't think of a way to complain about the missing word
> without sounding unbelievably pedantic.
>

I complained to the ASA last year when Saab started advertising something or other as the "safest
car in its class". I pointed out that several other cars "in its class" scored better for pedestrian
safety so the claim was untrue. It didn't go to a formal adjudication but Saab agreed not to run the
advert again which was a sort of result (even though they probably weren't going to anyway).

Their next advert was all about how the computer controlled suspension and brakes meant that you
could make uninhibited use of all that turbo power in complete safety :-(

[snip]

Peter
 
In news:[email protected],
Peter Amey <[email protected]> typed:
> [snip]
>> More sensible to ban advertising ABS as a safety feature (i.e. update advertising guideline), I'd
>> have thought. Hmm, I wonder if I will get round to writing to the ASA complaining that Renault
>> should stop advertising its new Megane as getting 5 stars for safety, when it actually only gets
>> 5 stars for *occupant* safety. I still can't think of a way to complain about the missing word
>> without sounding unbelievably pedantic.
>>
>
> I complained to the ASA last year when Saab started advertising something or other as the "safest
> car in its class". I pointed out that several other cars "in its class" scored better for
> pedestrian safety so the claim was untrue. It didn't go to a formal adjudication but Saab agreed
> not to run the advert again which was a sort of result (even though they probably weren't going to
> anyway).

I put in a complaint yesterday on the online form, actually prioritising the fact that there were
children in the advert, yet the Ford Focus C-MAX was safer for child occupants in a crash, but I did
mention the pedestrian safety issue, which EuroNCAP said was disappointing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.