Cycle Experience for Drivers

[Andy in Germany]

When daily drivers start wearing fire suits and crash helmets I will dress in day glo and have a polystyrene hat until then I will carry on like I've been doing for over 40 years in regular clothing travelling 1000's of miles yearly on my daily transport cycle.

I've been known to insist on all cars having red and white reflective stripes across front and rear before I'll wear High-Viz, especially as so many cars seem to be painted "fog grey" as standard.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

If NATO enforced a 1 mile no drive zone around schools that’d be great.

 

[Andy in Germany]

How many of us grew up charging about on bitsa bikes in the 70's no helmets or day glo? I fell off, crashed, folded wheels on home made jumps cut myself, bruises and just carried on. Forty years later still alive using a cycle as transport no special equipment needed! Teach road savvy and common sense, that will serve better than hundreds of 'safety' products.

We had to learn basic Risk Assessment methods at college. It very quickly became clear that no matter what I was planning with my clients, the most dangerous activity was driving to and from wherever I planned to take them. Even working on Scaffolding was safer.

 

[mjr]

If NATO enforced a 1 mile no drive zone around schools that’d be great.

I think NATO is reluctant to do things that are likely to start World War 3.

 

[Smokin Joe]

How many of us grew up charging about on bitsa bikes in the 70's no helmets or day glo? I fell off, crashed, folded wheels on home made jumps cut myself, bruises and just carried on. Forty years later still alive using a cycle as transport no special equipment needed! Teach road savvy and common sense, that will serve better than hundreds of 'safety' products.

^^This in spades^^

 

[Alex321]

How many of us grew up charging about on bitsa bikes in the 70's no helmets or day glo? I fell off, crashed, folded wheels on home made jumps cut myself, bruises and just carried on. Forty years later still alive using a cycle as transport no special equipment needed!

But we'll never know how many kids had life-changing injuries as a result of doing those things. Yes, many of us survived the experience with no serious injuries, and are probably better able to assess risk nowadays because of it, but the relevant statistics weren't kept in similar detail when we were kids to know how many didn't get through it.

Those of us talking about it now are, pretty well by definition, the ones who did.

Teach road savvy and common sense, that will serve better than hundreds of 'safety' products.

They aren't an either-or choice.

Of course road savvy and common sense is the most important thing. But that doesn't stop additional protection for the bonce also helping.

 

[Andy in Germany]

But we'll never know how many kids had life-changing injuries as a result of doing those things. Yes, many of us survived the experience with no serious injuries, and are probably better able to assess risk nowadays because of it, but the relevant statistics weren't kept in similar detail when we were kids to know how many didn't get through it.

Those of us talking about it now are, pretty well by definition, the ones who did.


They aren't an either-or choice.

Of course road savvy and common sense is the most important thing. But that doesn't stop additional protection for the bonce also helping.

That isn't how risk assessment works though; we can't demand people change their behaviour because "it might help", the logical conclusion of this would be to ban all vaguely risky activities because "who knows who may be hurt" and of course all alcohol, tobacco, and motor vehicles.

Germany has a more "robust " attitude to this, for example I used to work in a city farm where we had a 2m (6') high home made walkway, over open ground and with all manner of steps and corners, and no handrail anywhere. This is seen as a part of growing up, and yes one child fell off in the time I was there, but the argument is that of they can't handle that, how can they handle the other activities, like riding a horse, or using a saw?

 

[Oldhippy]

But we'll never know how many kids had life-changing injuries as a result of doing those things. Yes, many of us survived the experience with no serious injuries, and are probably better able to assess risk nowadays because of it, but the relevant statistics weren't kept in similar detail when we were kids to know how many didn't get through it.

Those of us talking about it now are, pretty well by definition, the ones who did.


They aren't an either-or choice.

Of course road savvy and common sense is the most important thing. But that doesn't stop additional protection for the bonce also helping.

The conclusion then is we all might as well stay in, work from home, order everything to our door, have all our experience on you tube just in case we get attacked/fall over/get lost/get run over! If we really to leave the building dress up in brightly coloured safety suits in case anyone not paying attention in their mobile lounge hits us! No thanks I will keep doing it the old fashioned way.

 

[Alex321]

That isn't how risk assessment works though;

I never suggested it might be.

 

[Alex321]

The conclusion then is we all might as well stay in, work from home, order everything to our door, have all our experience on you tube just in case we get attacked/fall over/get lost/get run over!

I have no idea where you get that ridiculous "conclusion" from.

If we really to leave the building dress up in brightly coloured safety suits in case anyone not paying attention in their mobile lounge hits us! No thanks I will keep doing it the old fashioned way.

Not something I suggested for one moment, and certainly not something I would do.

All I was ding was pointing out that your argument against wearing helmets and/or hi-vis was not actually an argument against them at all, because what you suggested instead was not mutually exclusive with them.

 

[mjr]

But we'll never know how many kids had life-changing injuries as a result of doing those things. Yes, many of us survived the experience with no serious injuries, and are probably better able to assess risk nowadays because of it, but the relevant statistics weren't kept in similar detail when we were kids to know how many didn't get through it.

I am pretty sure the Hospital Episode Statistics A&E database goes back long enough to cover my childhood. I worked with it over 20 years ago and it still exists in a similar form. I don't have access any more but I can see the notes and they don't even say what the first year is. I suspect it goes all the way back to creation of regional health authorities in 1974, if not further.

I expect if loads of children were being brained on bikes back then, we would have been told repeatedly. Similarly, if loads of Dutch children were now.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I tore a muscle in my leg and suffered a head wound that bled a lot - I imagine would probably have been stitched if I had gone to hospital - from separate youthful cycling incidents. From that database of one record I'm sure we can extrapolate ...

 

[Andy in Germany]

I have no idea where you get that ridiculous "conclusion" from.

Generally from this:

But we'll never know how many kids had life-changing injuries as a result of doing those things. Yes, many of us survived the experience with no serious injuries, and are probably better able to assess risk nowadays because of it, but the relevant statistics weren't kept in similar detail when we were kids to know how many didn't get through it.

Because the statement is based on something we'll "never" know. If we mandate safety on the basis of something that "might" happen, the logical conclusion to that argument is that we shouldn't do anything risky.

But something "might" happen in any activity, in fact @Oldhippy 's suggestion we get experience from YouTube is a bit, well, risky; think of the danger of electricity, of cables as a trip hazard, sharp edges of tables, and the possibility of the flat screen monitor falling on you.

That may not be what you had in mind when you suggested it, but the logical conclusion of the argument is that we try to stop all risk, which means we stop people doing risky activities.

This is why risk assessment doesn't work like that. A real world example: if I have a wheelchair bound client with medical condition spasticity and she wants to visit a forest, the immediate reaction of her family may be to dissuade her because of what "might" happen; She might be tipped out of the wheelchair, she might roll down a hill and get hurt. These are not unreasonable fears, and come from a position of caring for the client, but we can't tell her not to join an activity because of what "might" happen, so we do risk assessments to see what is a likely risk, what is a dangerous risk, and what we can do to mitigate it*.

The alternative, which sadly often happens, is that out of an overzealous, if understandable concern to protect someone with disabilities we prevent them from experiencing things they could otherwise be a part of.

In the same way, to try and protect cyclists by insisting they do things like wearing helmets or by stopping people cycling at all, can stop people experiencing the mental and physical health benefits of cycling. If we are going to do that, we have to have proper assessment of the risk; it's likelihood and level of danger, and then how to mitigate it, not insist people change their behaviour because "You never know."

*And the risk assessment showed that the most dangerous thing to do, by far was... drive to the forest.

 

[Andy in Germany]

The conclusion then is we all might as well stay in, work from home, order everything to our door, have all our experience on you tube just in case we get attacked/fall over/get lost/get run over! If we really to leave the building dress up in brightly coloured safety suits in case anyone not paying attention in their mobile lounge hits us! No thanks I will keep doing it the old fashioned way.

You always were a rebel...

 

[Oldhippy]

Exactly what Andy says!