I trust it is a sign you have recovered from your excema, Anniet. The condition was considered a contributing factor in my late sister-in-law's accident - please do take care.
The cycling chapter wasn't as detailed as the zipper injury one,
A professional interest your source takes in such matters? ;-)
Nothing hazardous about riding a bicycle at low speed on a cycling lane in Holland.
Indeed. I have done so myself on several occasions.
There is no need to justify your country to anyone, I don't justify mine, I just report how it is.
"You won't get a man on a bike without a crossbar in the UK."
;-))
Is it normal for British people to come to (wrong) conclusions so fast?
Some do better reporting in, than reporting on, Sir. :-)
It would be socially unacceptable here for people to allow their kids to be trundled around like so many legs of lamb. But in a country where all the coffee shops openly sell cannabis legally, I suppose that passes as normal.
In view of the incredulity with which you regard Guardian quotes other than your own, Mr S, a somewhat older yet still relevant article will, I hope suffice:-
There are some 3 million more cannabis users in the UK than in the Netherlands, and wiki has some enlightening pages on Cannabis tolerance by the authorities in the Netherlands that you may find helpful, Sir.
If you researched your own remarks with the same attention to detail you do other's posts, Sir - we could avoid repeat encounters of this nature could we not? ;-)
Interesting story about those helmets. It is true, when cycling at low speed I don't wear my helmet, but when I ride fast in the dark while it's raining/storming/snowing I would not go without.
However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008), 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?
The answer is probably related to another statistic. Of the injured cyclists wearing helmets, 50 percent were riding mountain bikes and 46 percent were riding racing bikes (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008). In other words, most helmeted cyclists in the Netherlands are engaged in a competitive activity, with very few making utility trips on the traditional style of Dutch bicycle.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008), 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?
The answer is probably related to another statistic. Of the injured cyclists wearing helmets, 50 percent were riding mountain bikes and 46 percent were riding racing bikes (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008). In other words, most helmeted cyclists in the Netherlands are engaged in a competitive activity, with very few making utility trips on the traditional style of Dutch bicycle.
That makes sense wear a helmet when needed and don't when you don't, I don't wear a helmet walking down the street but lots of people fall down just walking down the street. My neighbor fell down and cracked a rib just walking up a driveway, my m-i-l was walking along the the road one day and stepped on the edge, her ankle rolled and she laid there for over an hour until someone drove by and saw her. After she got better she did start taking her cell phone on her walks and she stayed on more traditional walking paths with less drop offs on the edges as well. No helmets were involved in any of the walking injuries either. From these experiences one can conclude that wearing a helmet when needed is a good thing, but when it's not needed don't wear one.
*contemplate the horizons where the sighted people went* ...ask them... they'll tell you.
But thank you for being polite
THERE WAS QUITE A LOT FROM HERE TO DOWN THERE WHERE THE WRITING STARTS AGAIN BUT YOU WILL NOTICE THERE ISN'T ANY NOW. IT WENT REALLY OFF-TOPIC. I THOUGHT IT BEST IF IT WENT AWAY INSTEAD, SO IT HAS
There is no need to justify your country to anyone, I don't justify mine,
I'm not sure anyone can... you know... anymore...
There are always good counter arguments and awkward facts these days aren't there? It was much easier when only one side had a voice that was heard and information was more - controlled - I think ... I just bored myself.
At least in the UK as Annie correctly says, they all wear helmets and knee and elbow protection.
I did say that, but I meant all the ones I've seen in London. Sorry :/ I should have made that clearer. I don't know if it's true of everyone everywhere else. I'm not even sure anyone has thought it necessary to make it a law either. Perhaps I should find out for us... hold on...
Okay - cycle helmet laws in the UK I've not read it all yet - but I will if it doesn't get all hairy with legalese and stuff.
But have any of you ever driven behind a parent wobbling along the road with a young kiddie on a bike?
It helps if you're not revving your engine and blasting your horn, it really does ;) It's socially unacceptable to get bad tempered behind the wheel with other road users too I think. Everyone is trying to get somewhere - often by a certain time. Until we do - there seems little point wasting energy on getting angry with each other. Next time you're behind a parent having such difficulties - maybe you could put your hazard lights on until you can safely pass (at a sedate, non-aggressive speed preferably) and keep yourself between them and any angry tailgaiters behind you in the meantime? You might even find it soothes your mood :) like good deeds often do. Also hills can get difficult for any cyclist. Certainly harder than putting a bit of extra pressure on an accelerator. You may both be travelling the same road - but your experiences of it will be very different.
It is downright damn dangerous.
An angry/impatient motorist is too...
don't you think? :)
If I had kids, no wife or partner of mine would be allowed to do that with my child,
It's probably just as well as you didn't then. That "my child" thing - that's rly a minefield. Y-e-e-e-e-e-s ... good luck with that ;) Of course, repressively ruling a kingdom in the Dark Ages is a parenting method - but mucking-in in a forward-thinking zoo and discovering all that is rewarding, tiring, fun and educational about it, is too :) but to get a little bit more on-topic... Wind-up technology with respect to personal transportation vehicles.
Has it been properly explored...?
I think not people.
edit: It took me so long to type all that up there, I missed your post coming in in the meantime, Mikey.
From these experiences one can conclude that wearing a helmet when needed is a good thing, but when it's not needed don't wear one
It seems to be the consensus behind our lack of legislation on the matter of cycle helmets too. It is illegal to cycle without a helmet in Spain I think. What effect that's had on accident rates I don't know.
Cycle helmets have been compulsory in Spain on non-urban roads since 2004, whereas they are not compulsory in urban areas. We analyse trends for the number of killed and seriously injured cyclists during the period 1993-2010. Our analysis shows that there are no significant differences in these trends before and after 2004, nor inside and outside urban areas. We also analyse the probabilities of helmeted and non-helmeted cyclist being killed or seriously injured inside and outside urban areas. We find that these probabilities became very similar inside urban areas in recent years, probably as a consequence of the increase in urban cycling that has resulted from the cycling-friendly policies developed in many Spanish cities. We conclude that the improvement in cycling safety introduced by the use of cycle helmets strongly depends on environmental factors: such as urban or non-urban surroundings, cycle friendly infrastructure or simply the number of cyclists commonly found in the roads.
It's an interesting report that avid legislation proposers might find helpful before they petition parliament and stuff ;)
Please wait here. Further instructions could pile up at any time. Thank you.
On the matter of a high speed e-bike the legislation in Holland almost killed the entire phenomenon, requiring the same helmets as for moped's. Fortunately the branche industry pressed for a softer legislation, as the lack of ventilation to the head would be disastrous.
There is no British law to compel cyclists, of any age, to wear helmets when cycling, even though the Highway Code suggests that cyclists should wear a cycle helmet “which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened.”
The Pedal Cycles (and Use) Regulations 1983 only stipulate that every pedal cycle (the rules are slightly different for electrically-assisted bikes) should have two braking systems (one can be a back pedal-operated rear brake). The Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (amended several times) stipulate that bikes ridden at night must be fitted with white front and red rear lights, flashing or steady, as well as a red rear reflector.
All bicycles made after October 1st 1985 must also be fitted with amber pedal reflectors (on each pedal) when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise, although fitting such reflectors is almost impossible with many ‘clipless’ pedal styles.
All the above to me is namby pamby. We all know that cars/buses and cyclists, with or without kids, do not mix well. It seems there isn't a law to wear cycle safety helmets, and there damn well should be. There isn't seemingly also a law that can fine motorists for harassing cyclists by driving or passing too close for safety, that should be introduced as well.
I also think that carrying kids on pedal cycles should be banned as well for general child safety. I would fully support the NSPCC if they petitioned for a law that covered that.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Or you could follow dutch example and create safe cycling lanes that are septated from other traffic. Banning the green alternative because it does not fit in the current infrastructure is not a way forward but rather backward.
It's like saying railroads don't mix with cars we should ban the railroads. While on some locations rail based traffic does mix with other traffic, even with a far less strict speration of traffic lanes.
There isn't seemingly also a law that can fine motorists for harassing cyclists by driving or passing too close for safety, that should be introduced as well.
Nope I would NOT support that as you wrote it, WAAAAY too much left open to interpretation!! For instance Policeman A thinks 0.5 of a meter distance is okay between cars and bikes as he doesn't ride a bike and thinks bike riders get too many benefits already, while Policeman B thinks 1 meter distance between them is not enough as he rides bikes and has almost been hit before! THEN if you decide that 1.5 meters is the minimum distance, for example, how on Earth do you expect someone to measure that 'on the fly' while driving their own vehicle and trying not to hit something or get hit by someone. Then is it measured by the widest part of the bike, do bikes then add little extensions to make their bikes 'wider' then they normally would be? Or is it by the shoulder, knee, elbow whatever? I see lots of niggly rules with nothing but problems ahead for this, which could be why it's written as it is, not at all.
I agree that the best way is to have bicycle only lanes, whether that be new concrete barriers that take away existing lanes or by adding new bicycle lanes is up to local jurisdictions to decide for themselves. As we talked about earlier the Dutch designed roads around bikes being a main mode of commuting while the UK and US did not, they are afterthoughts in the big scheme of traffic flow patterns.
There isn't seemingly also a law that can fine motorists for harassing cyclists by driving or passing too close for safety, that should be introduced as well.
Nope I would NOT support that as you wrote it, WAAAAY too much left open to interpretation!! For instance Policeman A thinks 0.5 of a meter distance is okay between cars and bikes as he doesn't ride a bike and thinks bike riders get too many benefits already, while Policeman B thinks 1 meter distance between them is not enough as he rides bikes and has almost been hit before! THEN if you decide that 1.5 meters is the minimum distance, for example, how on Earth do you expect someone to measure that 'on the fly' while driving their own vehicle and trying not to hit something or get hit by someone. Then is it measured by the widest part of the bike, do bikes then add little extensions to make their bikes 'wider' then they normally would be? Or is it by the shoulder, knee, elbow whatever? I see lots of niggly rules with nothing but problems ahead for this, which could be why it's written as it is, not at all.
I agree that the best way is to have bicycle only lanes, whether that be new concrete barriers that take away existing lanes or by adding new bicycle lanes is up to local jurisdictions to decide for themselves. As we talked about earlier the Dutch designed roads around bikes being a main mode of commuting while the UK and US did not, they are afterthoughts in the big scheme of traffic flow patterns.
Without taking away any space from regular vehicle lanes.
Annie, lovely to see you
+ 1 :-)
I trust it is a sign you have recovered from your excema, Anniet. The condition was considered a contributing factor in my late sister-in-law's accident - please do take care.
A professional interest your source takes in such matters? ;-)
Indeed. I have done so myself on several occasions.
;-))
Some do better reporting in, than reporting on, Sir. :-)
In view of the incredulity with which you regard Guardian quotes other than your own, Mr S, a somewhat older yet still relevant article will, I hope suffice:-
cannabis use in the Netherlands
There are some 3 million more cannabis users in the UK than in the Netherlands, and wiki has some enlightening pages on Cannabis tolerance by the authorities in the Netherlands that you may find helpful, Sir.
Then there is this:
cycle helmets
If you researched your own remarks with the same attention to detail you do other's posts, Sir - we could avoid repeat encounters of this nature could we not? ;-)
Interesting story about those
Interesting story about those helmets. It is true, when cycling at low speed I don't wear my helmet, but when I ride fast in the dark while it's raining/storming/snowing I would not go without.
However, according to Dutch
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Chris S_2 wrote: However,
That makes sense wear a helmet when needed and don't when you don't, I don't wear a helmet walking down the street but lots of people fall down just walking down the street. My neighbor fell down and cracked a rib just walking up a driveway, my m-i-l was walking along the the road one day and stepped on the edge, her ankle rolled and she laid there for over an hour until someone drove by and saw her. After she got better she did start taking her cell phone on her walks and she stayed on more traditional walking paths with less drop offs on the edges as well. No helmets were involved in any of the walking injuries either. From these experiences one can conclude that wearing a helmet when needed is a good thing, but when it's not needed don't wear one.
lovely to see you again
It's not.
*contemplate the horizons where the sighted people went* ...ask them... they'll tell you.
But thank you for being polite
THERE WAS QUITE A LOT FROM HERE TO DOWN THERE WHERE THE WRITING STARTS AGAIN BUT YOU WILL NOTICE THERE ISN'T ANY NOW. IT WENT REALLY OFF-TOPIC. I THOUGHT IT BEST IF IT WENT AWAY INSTEAD, SO IT HAS
I'm not sure anyone can... you know... anymore...
There are always good counter arguments and awkward facts these days aren't there? It was much easier when only one side had a voice that was heard and information was more - controlled - I think ... I just bored myself.
I did say that, but I meant all the ones I've seen in London. Sorry :/ I should have made that clearer. I don't know if it's true of everyone everywhere else. I'm not even sure anyone has thought it necessary to make it a law either. Perhaps I should find out for us... hold on...
Okay - cycle helmet laws in the UK I've not read it all yet - but I will if it doesn't get all hairy with legalese and stuff.
It helps if you're not revving your engine and blasting your horn, it really does ;) It's socially unacceptable to get bad tempered behind the wheel with other road users too I think. Everyone is trying to get somewhere - often by a certain time. Until we do - there seems little point wasting energy on getting angry with each other. Next time you're behind a parent having such difficulties - maybe you could put your hazard lights on until you can safely pass (at a sedate, non-aggressive speed preferably) and keep yourself between them and any angry tailgaiters behind you in the meantime? You might even find it soothes your mood :) like good deeds often do. Also hills can get difficult for any cyclist. Certainly harder than putting a bit of extra pressure on an accelerator. You may both be travelling the same road - but your experiences of it will be very different.
An angry/impatient motorist is too...
don't you think? :)
It's probably just as well as you didn't then. That "my child" thing - that's rly a minefield. Y-e-e-e-e-e-s ... good luck with that ;) Of course, repressively ruling a kingdom in the Dark Ages is a parenting method - but mucking-in in a forward-thinking zoo and discovering all that is rewarding, tiring, fun and educational about it, is too :) but to get a little bit more on-topic... Wind-up technology with respect to personal transportation vehicles.
Has it been properly explored...?
I think not people.
edit: It took me so long to type all that up there, I missed your post coming in in the meantime, Mikey.
It seems to be the consensus behind our lack of legislation on the matter of cycle helmets too. It is illegal to cycle without a helmet in Spain I think. What effect that's had on accident rates I don't know.
expanded knowledge edit: Abstract from CYCLE HELMETS AND CYCLE TRAFFIC SAFETY IN URBAN AND NON-URBAN SPANISH ROADS bicicletas.us.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Helmet_in_spain.pdf
It's an interesting report that avid legislation proposers might find helpful before they petition parliament and stuff ;)
Please wait here. Further instructions could pile up at any time. Thank you.
On the matter of a high speed
On the matter of a high speed e-bike the legislation in Holland almost killed the entire phenomenon, requiring the same helmets as for moped's. Fortunately the branche industry pressed for a softer legislation, as the lack of ventilation to the head would be disastrous.
There is no British law to
All the above to me is namby pamby. We all know that cars/buses and cyclists, with or without kids, do not mix well. It seems there isn't a law to wear cycle safety helmets, and there damn well should be. There isn't seemingly also a law that can fine motorists for harassing cyclists by driving or passing too close for safety, that should be introduced as well.
I also think that carrying kids on pedal cycles should be banned as well for general child safety. I would fully support the NSPCC if they petitioned for a law that covered that.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Or you could follow dutch
Or you could follow dutch example and create safe cycling lanes that are septated from other traffic. Banning the green alternative because it does not fit in the current infrastructure is not a way forward but rather backward.
It's like saying railroads don't mix with cars we should ban the railroads. While on some locations rail based traffic does mix with other traffic, even with a far less strict speration of traffic lanes.
Chris S_2 wrote: There
Nope I would NOT support that as you wrote it, WAAAAY too much left open to interpretation!! For instance Policeman A thinks 0.5 of a meter distance is okay between cars and bikes as he doesn't ride a bike and thinks bike riders get too many benefits already, while Policeman B thinks 1 meter distance between them is not enough as he rides bikes and has almost been hit before! THEN if you decide that 1.5 meters is the minimum distance, for example, how on Earth do you expect someone to measure that 'on the fly' while driving their own vehicle and trying not to hit something or get hit by someone. Then is it measured by the widest part of the bike, do bikes then add little extensions to make their bikes 'wider' then they normally would be? Or is it by the shoulder, knee, elbow whatever? I see lots of niggly rules with nothing but problems ahead for this, which could be why it's written as it is, not at all.
I agree that the best way is to have bicycle only lanes, whether that be new concrete barriers that take away existing lanes or by adding new bicycle lanes is up to local jurisdictions to decide for themselves. As we talked about earlier the Dutch designed roads around bikes being a main mode of commuting while the UK and US did not, they are afterthoughts in the big scheme of traffic flow patterns.
mikey wrote:Chris S_2
Too late. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1371
Without taking away any space from regular vehicle lanes.