Why do people care so much about other people wearing helmets?

ChuckSneed wrote:

I do wonder what his top 10 are.

Me too.

I'd suggest things like segregated infrastructure (not that you like it), improved road policing, safety analysis of roads after fatal incidents. Staggered traffic lights, rule changes to allow cyclists to treat red lights as STOP signs and maybe allow contra-cycling on one way roads. Police powers to remove driving licences from dangerous drivers, driver education, increased numbers of people cycling.

Police powers to remove driving licences from dangerous drivers
The police already have sufficient powers to prosecute a large range of driving offences, from RLJs to No MOT to handheld mobile use while driving. Many forces can't be bothered/ choose not to use them. Those forces will do nothing with new powers either

ChuckSneed wrote:

According to some other guy in this thread, going through a red light should be allowed for when you're on a bike, so I'm not sure we can argue against people driving through them if that's the stance we're taking.

The Idaho Stop laws have been demonstrably safer for cyclists FACT!

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

The U.S. (probably other places too) do already allow drivers to turn right on red when it's clear to do so. I'm not convinced that introducing a similar left-on-red law would work very well in the UK as there's a lot of aggressive drivers out there. Similarly, we can't trust the majority of drivers to sufficiently look and evaluate whether going through a red light can be performed safely and due to the nature of 2 tonnes of speeding metal, the victims are unlikely to be the drivers.

FACT!

ChuckSneed wrote:

Not sure how allowing us to cycle through red lights makes it safer for us. That sounds like the exact opposite of safer. You realise the light is red because other traffic is using the road? You know, traffic that if you go through a red light will either have to suddenly stop for you, or will just run you over. Is that a hill you want to die on?

It gives cyclists the option to get away from the motor traffic early when they think that it's safe to do so. The idea isn't to charge through a red and hit anything as that's stupid and will likely hurt a lot. There's quite a few junctions where e.g. turning left through a red is not going to bring you into conflict with traffic.

Have a look at the Idaho Stop law in various states and they've reduced collisions. Paris has also introduced laws and different lights to take advantage of the idea too, but don't know if there's stats on whether that helps.

ChuckSneed wrote:

Not sure how allowing us to cycle through red lights makes it safer for us. That sounds like the exact opposite of safer.

If you're not sure, did you try searching for why it might make us safer?

ChuckSneed wrote:

You realise the light is red because other traffic is using the road?

Not always. Sometimes there is no traffic for minutes at a time. The light is needed because at other times there's enough traffic to require it. You may be amazed to learn that traffic is not spread out evenly throughout the day or week. When there are only cars every few minutes, one direction is red because the other choice would be to have the lights green for all directions, or turn them off and default to roundabout rules or something.

ChuckSneed wrote:

You know, traffic that if you go through a red light will either have to suddenly stop for you, or will just run you over. Is that a hill you want to die on?

The "Idaho Stop" laws allow a cyclist to proceed through a red light when it is safe to do so. They don't legalize what you think they do.

Regarding the moving off on a red I think this is only possible on turning left when clear. Some states in the U.S. practice this on a right turn. When I lived in Georgia it took a while getting used to. You could only do it with caution. It's already been thrashed out on another thread. A law change would need to be heavily publicised and the govt has a poor track record in this area especially with changes the the HC made this time last year. Even if it became a possibility I reckon there would such a kickback fired up by our friends from the DM and the likes. 
 

A more acceptable measure would be advanced phasing for cyclists at junctions to allow them a thirty second jump. 

ChuckSneed wrote:

Not sure how allowing us to cycle through red lights makes it safer for us. 

because pulling away from lights at the same time as motor traffic is exactly how cyclists get killed by left turning HGVs.

I think cyclists ar able to give way to other road users when going through a red light, after all everyone manages to give way adequately at most other junctions.

Why not have a listen to the man himself?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq28fU2AuMU

That isn't his top 10 and starts with a couple of minutes of history - but you get a feel for what he thinks is important.  (Minor nitpick - the "strict liability" law applies to *financial* matters I believe and the "give way to bikes left or right" is again I think part of more general traffic flow rules).

When he was involved with in Greater Manchester - his previous "posting" - they came up with this.

https://beeactive.tfgm.com/bee-network-vision/

Again it's a more "general vision" piece and about more than just cycling.  That's the point - it's all just choices about what we prioritise.  You can poke about their site for some detail of designs / principles though.  Sadly it seems that the mayor isn't necessarily keeping up the good work now Chris has moved on.

Man with a red flag walking in front of drivists. If nothing else it'll create a ton of new jobs and make motoring even more expensive, hopefully making a few more motorists face up to the reality that cars aren't the answer.

Unfortunately you've lobbed a few grenades to provoke an answer and you've now opted for one of the more contentious issues. 

ChuckSneed wrote:

I won't lie, you seem like you're frothing at the mouth the way that you went out of your way to open loads of reviews. Relax, it's just a helmet. It won't hurt you. It will actually do the opposite.

Got it. It seems the root cause of the problem is that you're projecting.

I am literally wearing a helmet and smiling in my profile picture.

Not smiling but foaming it seems.  Still, don't take it personally, the other feller's literally a cartoon...

Ironic really that you seem ok with pushing your view that everyone should wear a helmet at every opportunity but anyone who holds a different point of view is apparently "frothing at the mouth". And before you ask, I wear a helmet every time I go out on my bike, road, gravel or mountain but I recognise that it remains a personal choice in 95% of the world. I am also able to look at the science in this and as far as I can see at the moment it is inconclusive on whether cycle helmets are a benefit overall which seems counterintuitive but sometimes that is science for you.

ChuckSneed wrote:

I won't lie, you seem like you're frothing at the mouth the way that you went out of your way to open loads of reviews. Relax, it's just a helmet. It won't hurt you. It will actually do the opposite.

which entirely explains why countries with mandatory helmet laws havefewer cycling casualties than countries where no one wears them..

oh, hold on the opposite is true.

and also

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/317

cost benefit of helmets is less than the cost of a helmet. This is why uk medical bodies stopped calling for mandatory helmets. Helmets just do not stack up as a safety precuation.

ChuckSneed wrote:

What do you mean about it being theatre?

It usually means that it something designed to give the appearance of something whilst not actually being effective.

When airports started scanning travellers' shoes, it was an example of security theatre as a response to a terrorist attempting to hide explosives in their shoes. It wasn't effective because terrorists would simply hide explosives elsewhere as they'd know that their shoes would be scanned. It caused minor inconvenience to all the tourists to give the appearance of security, but added nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

ChuckSneed wrote:

Then why would you wear a helmet if you don't believe that they work. Weird choice.

Mrs HawkinsPeter used to get anxious about me not wearing one. They're useful for low speed incidents, or at least that's what they're tested for and I've found them especially good for low hanging branches. Luckily, I've never banged my head/helmet in a collision as I don't think they're that effective.

I'm much the same. Helmet will be used more in winter. Majority of my offs have resulted in bruised and scraped hips, knees, elbows, palms and sprained wrists. I can count on one hand these experiences. My most serious injuries were a T-boning from a car and the concussion from that would still have occurred helmet or not. 

To answer the question, drivers want to assuage their conscience: (I)  "well if I end up hitting him, it won't be that bad" and (ii) "oh he wasn't wearing a helmet, well clearly he's at least half to blame, officer/m'lud."  See also hi viz. 

HawkinsPeter is being very modest, because he has had the brainwave that we don't need crash barriers - just string some bike helmets along where you want to protect from being damaged by cars.