Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Barclays/TFL cycle hire scheme in London

I think they didn't issue helemts as they are not compulsory, and they could not design one that would fit everyone. It's pretty easy to carry a helmet with you wherever you go, no?

Dread: do you mean two bikes at the same time? No, don't think so mate. Enjoy them it is well cool. I will be using one to get to Lpl Street before the schlep up to Ipswich
 
4998684772_c003ea23f3.jpg


Spotted in my lunchbreak just now
 
I know it's probably mentioned but this thread is 27 pages long.

Anyhoo, what about the helmets? Do you have to carry one around on the off chance you want to use one of these bikes?
 
editor said:
Then bring your own helmet along.
Click to expand...

This was my point.

Are you supposed to walk around all day with a helmet all day on the off chance you need use one of these bikes - or are us and tourists supposed to take our lives in our own hands helmetleness against HGV's and Bendy buses?
 
skyscraper101 said:
Used the bikes again, twice, at the weekend. Each time for a four and a half mile trip from Olympia to Haymarket. Managed each journey in under half an hour so saved over a quid on getting the bus.

The scariest part was negotiating hyde park corner. Battle with five lanes of traffic at the roundabout or brave the diana car crash-esque tunnel that runs underneath to Piccadilly? I went with the roundabout the first time and got the wrong lane so had to nip off to the side and re join it again when there was a break in the traffic. On the way back I braved the tunnel and it was shit scary hearing cars coming up behind you knowing that they could literally smash you into the wall and you'd be dead.

Fortunately I survived both times. Not sure I fancy cycling through the tunnel again though :(
Click to expand...

Went round that roundabout on a Boris bike today, got honked to fuck by a load of taxis. It's Sunday ffs
 
PacificOcean said:
This was my point.

Are you supposed to walk around all day with a helmet all day on the off chance you need use one of these bikes - or are us and tourists supposed to take our lives in our own hands helmetleness against HGV's and Bendy buses?
Click to expand...
Cycling without a helmet is not "taking your life in your own hand," but if you're that concerned, then you are perfectly at liberty to wear your own helmet, or not use the service.

I've got no interest in wearing a helmet for short cross town trips and forcing people to wear one would be hugely problematic.
 
It's a reasonable point, though. Someone else posted about the hairy experience of cycling around Hyde Park Corner. I've only cycled it once, and decided I would not do it again.

This is a great scheme, advertising a cunty bank notwithsanding, but it is not enough. London remains, generally, a poor city to cycle around.

Some of the cycle lanes are worse than useless. The really narrow ones on certain busy roads (around Catford, for instance, but there are lots of them) force cyclists right into the gutter and encourage motorists to think that they can drive past them without slowing down at all. I'd prefer no cycle lane at all to a lane that's too narrow – that way, I can cycle a bit further out into the road and make motorists take notice of me.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
It's a reasonable point, though. Someone else posted about the hairy experience of cycling around Hyde Park Corner. I've only cycled it once, and decided I would not do it again.
Click to expand...
Then the common sense answer is to only use the bikes for the routes you're comfortable to cycle along and walk/get public transport for the rest.
 
PacificOcean said:
And find a docking point and then get a bus?

Why not just get the bus in the first place?
Click to expand...
That's certainly your choice - no one's forcing you to use them and if you feel uncomfortable or unsafe without a helmet - and can't be arsed to carry one around, - then it's clearly not for you.

Seeing as there is no legal compulsion to wear a helmet when cycling, I see no reason why the bike hire scheme should be burdened with such a restriction too.
 
PacificOcean said:
Well then that is idiocy, you have to wear a seat belt in a car.
Click to expand...
How are the two linked?

Forcing cyclists to wear helmets would see a dramatic reduction in people using bikes, and most likely see an increase in traffic, congestion and pollution and - quite possibly - more accidents.

The bike hire scheme is all about encouraging people to ride more and about offering attractive alternatives to traffic-clogged inner cities. The more car drivers that ride the bikes, the more they'll become aware of cyclists when they're driving.

Besides, the case for wearing helmets isn't exactly clear cut:
By wearing helmets, cyclists are at best only marginally reducing their chances of being fatally or seriously injured in a collision with a motor vehicle which is the predominant cause of these injuries. Even the most expensive ones provide little protection in these circumstances. Moreover, the argument in favour of helmets would have validity if there were proof that behaviour does not change in response to perceived risk. But there is no such proof. Safety devices encourage higher levels of risk-taking. As a result, cyclists are likely to ride less cautiously when wearing a helmet owing to their feeling of increased security. After all, the message of the advocates of helmet wearing is that such a practice will protect the cyclist's head adequately in the event of any accident, not just a minor one when cyclists are hit by very slow-moving vehicles or fall off and hit their heads on the ground. Cyclists may be less likely to have an accident if they are not wearing a helmet, and are therefore riding with greater care owing to an enhanced sense of their vulnerability.

Furthermore, people are discouraged from cycling if their perception is heightened that it is a 'dangerous' form of travel and that it is only safe to do so if a helmet is worn. The result of this is that the considerable latent demand for cycling - an ideal mode for the majority of the population for most of their journeys - continues to be suppressed. As cycling is also a convenient and routine way of maintaining fitness, a significant route to public health is prejudiced.

There remain then three questions to be answered. First, should helmet wearing be made mandatory? The report on which this paper is based has revealed no case for such a law. In addition to the absence of proof that helmet wearing reduces the risk of head injury, such a law would represent an infringement of civil rights. Moreover, where it has been introduced, it has led to a significant reduction in cycling.

The second question to address is whether, whilst not making it mandatory, cyclists should nevertheless be encouraged to wear helmets -in effect, obliged to do so by 'moral' persuasion rather than by law. However, other than concern on the civil rights issue, the approach to helmet wearing by this means rather than by coercion through legislation would appear to be equally invalid.

This then leads to the third question concerned with alternative and effective ways of reducing the risk of accidents, and therefore of head injury, among cyclists. The primary means of reducing serious head injury among cyclists is to create an environment in which accidents are less likely to occur. Such a strategy based on tackling the source of accidents in which cyclists are involved has far greater scope for reducing head injuries than the questionable benefits of promoting helmet wearing among cyclists.

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/hillman1991
Click to expand...
 
And...
Legal evidence
Solicitors who specialise in cyclist injuries have written that, in their experience, the use of cycle helmets has not reduced the likelihood of serious injury [28] [29] [30]. In the UK, the courts have so far not supported claims that wearing a helmet would have made any difference to injuries suffered by cyclists in the cases they have considered. Senior neuro-surgeons have given evidence that cycle helmets afford very limited head protection that would make no significant difference in cases involving serious injury [28]. Experience suggests that doctors are much more cautious in their assessment of cycle helmets when they give evidence on oath and are subject to cross-examination and the high standards of evidence required by the courts.

Helmet mechanics
One of the world's most prominent helmet test experts has stated that most helmets are physically incapable of sustaining impacts of the type associated with serious crashes; helmets provide protection only in low impact crashes under favourable circumstances [31]. Consumer tests of cycle helmets have shown that many helmets do not meet the standards to which they are accredited and only a very few helmets meet the higher standards most relevant to real-life crashes [32].

Adverse effects of helmets
Helmeted cyclists have been shown to be more likely to hit their heads if they crash and may be more likely to crash in the first place [34]. The disproportionate number of helmet wearers who believe that a helmet has saved their life (see above) is further evidence that helmet use might adversely affect crash involvement or outcome.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
Click to expand...
 
The made them compulsory in Australia in 1990 and its done nothing but reduce the number of people that use bikes.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

Its 20 years now, the facts are in and its pretty much done and dusted that its done nothing for rider safety, actually making it less safe and reduces the number of people cycling.

Decent cycle lanes would make a difference, not making people ride with helmets.
 
Sunray said:
Decent cycle lanes would make a difference, not making people ride with helmets.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree.

What annoys me about the cycle lanes I've seen here compared to ones in Holland is that they're not physically separated from the traffic. There's just a marked line which motorists can easily impede on. I understand that we have space restrictions on roads which weren't originally designed with bicycle lanes in mind, however, I don't see it being a massive inconvenience to at least put a rumble strip as a separating marker. That way, it is more obvious that a motorist shouldn't cross into the lane unless absolutely necessary. And there is a bit of added protection for the cyclist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

friendofdorothy
TFL cyber attack 2024
2 3
Replies
87
Views
3K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
TopCat
Ceramic coatings for new cycle
Replies
3
Views
335
TopCat
TopCat
Silas Loom
Mobile dent and scrape removers covering North London
Replies
15
Views
389
WouldBe
WouldBe
Crispy
TfL bringing 20mph limit to many major London roads
2 3 4 5
Replies
128
Views
5K
T & P
T & P
D
Anyone used the ulez scrapping scheme?
Replies
1
Views
294
dshl
D
Back
Top Bottom