Please don't wear helmets*!!

[benb]

I am a driver and a cyclist and if I see a cyclist I give them plenty of room regardless of a helmet or not. I really cannot imagine drivers going through the thought process of "He has a helmet, he must be experienced, I dont need to give him that much room". It really doesnt make much sense to me.

Just as an add on. I dont believe motorists are to blame for everything. I have seen some awful cycling. We are certainly not blameless.

Risk compensation is largely subconscious.
So it's not a "thought process" as such, but rather a driver sees a helmeted rider and subconsciously receives the message that they are "safer" than an unhelmeted one, and so take less care around them.

 

[david k]

Where's doog? He comes on here and posts then just stops?????

I expect you to defend your comments and respond to the replies that have been put to you

 

[steveindenmark]

Risk compensation is largely subconscious.
So it's not a "thought process" as such, but rather a driver sees a helmeted rider and subconsciously receives the message that they are "safer" than an unhelmeted one, and so take less care around them.

I think that is easy to say but very difficult to actually prove. It didnt happen with the OPS niece. :=)

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Well of course you could do all that, but without any control of the other side as well (drivers) the results wouldn't tell you anything very useful. It could be that wide passes were due to some random factor like being overtaken by an unusually good-natured cohort of drivers that day. To be able to say with any degree of certainty that they were due to wearing or not wearing a helmet would be nigh on impossible.

Well, you'd need a statistician on board and all that. And I agree it wouldn't be perfect but I'd imagine you'd get a reasonable trend at least. Especially if you got the same rider to do a regular route with and without helmet. At the end of the day you'd have a good measurement of the width of the passes and I'd imagine on my commute 20-30% of the cars that pass me do so with some regularity through the week. I'm always on that bit of road at that time because of when I leave work and it being my route. I find it hard to believe that a chunk of the cars on it aren't in the same position, I just don't know for sure because there are a lot of them and they aren't particularly obvious one from the other.

It doesn't feel as if it would be totally without value.

 

[Ian H]

It is though, just by taking to the road in a hard vehicle, a person has engaged in a behavior that is more likely to kill than a person who takes to the road as a cyclist or pedestrian. That increased danger to others needs to be recognized and accounted for.

Perhaps "...recognised and responsibility taken." might be better.

 

[theclaud]

Well, you'd need a statistician on board.

I reckon having a statistician on board might well cause drivers to behave differently around you.

 

[david k]

Where's doog? He comes on here and posts then just stops?????

I expect you to defend your comments and respond to the replies that have been put to you

I see you've liked my post, that's all well and good but you need to post.
If you have a different opinion to someone else you need to post so it's gives balance to the discussion. If only one side of like minded people post you will never get the alternative view heard.
I have seen in the past the people allowed to contribute are those you know agree with your view, that way you will always get the response you want, don't let that happen, please have your say.

 

[Ian H]

Seeing as the appetite for taking responsibility is clearly absent, I think I will reluctantly stick with what I wrote.

Although: will people ever accept responsibility if no-one mentions the word?

My feeling is that, within the normal infrastructure of this country, people should be allowed to make mistakes without being killed as a consequence.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 3824809, member: 9609"]Much of what we do (if not most of what we do) is instinctive semi autonomous, so even though I don't think I drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, it wouldn't surprise me if on a detailed study that I was going a touch closer.
(Some cyclists, particularly children (esp when they are on a path) I will give a considered and exaggerated wide berth).[/QUOTE]


There was a slightly different study by the DfT where motorist were given images of "Cyclists" and their reactions discussed.

They would give more room to a child on a BMX or a woman in normal clothing



However when it came to a lycra clad, helmeted male on a racing bike the position was different

It was felt that these cyclists were experienced, their behavior was predictable and that they could safely react to their environment

As a result there was no need to give additional room, or to slow down when interacting with this group

Although more qualitative than others, it does to a small extent validate Walker's findings that drivers react according to a perception of the cyclist and what they are wearing

 

[david k]

So do we agree with the OP, it's always the drivers fault?

 

[david k]

. They need to know it's their behaviour that kills, not ours.

.

Very clearly states it is the drivers behaviour that kills not cyclists. This is unambiguous and states cyclists are never to blame, therefore 100%.

 

[david k]

So a cyclist can never be at fault

 

[david k]

Claiming it's always the drivers behaviour that kills is the same as saying it's never the cyclist fault, butter it up as much as you all want that is what it is. You can all twist it as much as you want, the OP stated this and either clears up the confusion by rewording or backs that it's never the cyclists fault

 

[Tin Pot]

Sorry to change subject entirely but would anyone like to discuss reductionist and strawman fallacies, and fallacies of the excluded middle?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Well, I realise that would have absolutely nothing to do with this but feel free. :-)