Rental e-scooters to be made legal on roads in Great Britain from Saturday

[Owlswing]

But no eScooter is allowed to do so. So by allowing them on the road and saying why would they be any different grom bikes, then why would they be any different from cars?

Bikes are not allowed on ordinary pavements - it does not stop their riders doing so, up until a few days ago these eScooters were entirely illegal, but they were used openly and apparently without any action being taken against them.

The legalisation seems to be cop-out in order to remove any complaints that the riders were not being prosecuted for using them!

I really cannot see what your beef is - unless, of course, you use one of the damn things!

 

[Aruntraveller]

But no eScooter is allowed to do so. So by allowing them on the road and saying why would they be any different grom bikes, then why would they be any different from cars?

Because the intent of some bicycle riders is clearly different from the intent of the majority of car drivers.

As I said earlier it is a matter of enforcement, which currently is not a high priority for the authorities involved.

You can say no eScooter is allowed to do so as much as you like. But they are much more likely to use pavements than cars and could be more of a threat to pedestrians. Now I don't know whether they would be or not but I think it more likely given the ability of the UK population to disregard laws that they see as not applicable to them and the relative ease of getting an escooter onto a pavement as opposed to say a Ford Focus.

[Roses]

I don't object to helmets: if people want to wear them, I've got no objection. I object to their being made compulsory.
I take it you have some reliable statistics to back up your assertion that cycling head injuries are not rare. Please share them with us.

https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets/

This is just one of many articles I have found on the Net which suggest you are more likely to have a head injury if you don't wear a helmet. Surely at this time of crisis an the NHS is overstretched, it is sensible to wear one to protect yourself?  Besides which, logic suggests that if you fall off your bike and bash your head you are more likely to sustain a worse injury to it if you are not wearing head protection.

[Steve H]

https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets/

This is just one of many articles I have found on the Net which suggest you are more likely to have a head injury if you don't wear a helmet. Surely at this time of crisis an the NHS is overstretched, it is sensible to wear one to protect yourself?  Besides which, logic suggests that if you fall off your bike and bash your head you are more likely to sustain a worse injury to it if you are not wearing head protection.

If you fall off your bike and bash your head, but how often does that happen? There is also the (admittedly questioned) phenomenon of risk compensation, whereby people who think they are safer because of some specific measure, sch as a helmet, take more risks, and thus have more accidents.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets/

This is just one of many articles I have found on the Net which suggest you are more likely to have a head injury if you don't wear a helmet. Surely at this time of crisis an the NHS is overstretched, it is sensible to wear one to protect yourself?  Besides which, logic suggests that if you fall off your bike and bash your head you are more likely to sustain a worse injury to it if you are not wearing head protection.

For the record I'm a regular cyclist and always wear a helmet.

However it is much more complicated that than.

Not only is there the phenomenon of risk compensation on the part of the cyclist - potentially cycling in a more risky manner because they are wearing a helmet. There is also research indicating that drivers act in a more dangerous manner (e.g. passing much closer when overtaking) when a cyclist is wearing a helmet compared to a cyclist without a helmet.

I'm not sure how these behaviours and risks balance out but it is simplistic to simply suggest that wearing a helmet must confer greater safety - it may reduce the risk of head injury in an accident, but may also actually increase the risk of an accident in the first place through more risk behaviour by the cyclist (well you might argue that their own stupid fault) but critically by other road users, whose behaviour a cyclist cannot do anything about.

[Roses]

For the record I'm a regular cyclist and always wear a helmet.

However it is much more complicated that than.

Not only is there the phenomenon of risk compensation on the part of the cyclist - potentially cycling in a more risky manner because they are wearing a helmet. There is also research indicating that drivers act in a more dangerous manner (e.g. passing much closer when overtaking) when a cyclist is wearing a helmet compared to a cyclist without a helmet.

I'm not sure how these behaviours and risks balance out but it is simplistic to simply suggest that wearing a helmet must confer greater safety - it may reduce the risk of head injury in an accident, but may also actually increase the risk of an accident in the first place through more risk behaviour by the cyclist (well you might argue that their own stupid fault) but critically by other road users, whose behaviour a cyclist cannot do anything about.

I have heard that argument before and I am of the opinion that people who think like that are crazy.

[Steve H]

I have heard that argument before and I am of the opinion that people who think like that are crazy.

I am of the opinion that most of your opinions, ignoring as they do facts, figures and probabilities, are worthless.

[Robbie]

As in much ado about nothing perhaps?

[Aruntraveller]

Lr & Steve I know you two love each other.

In the absence of hotel rooms currently, may I suggest you find a bush in a park and go behind that to conduct your relationship.

[Robbie]

Dogberry would find a vacant lot at night time in Messina. He's generally a self satisfied character though.

[Steve H]

 

[Udayana]

Few people would make a decision on whether to wear a helmet or not based on a careful review of the available studies and statistics. Some men just won't wear helmets, masks or ... condoms if they can possibly avoid it!

I wear a cycling helmet when cycling as, after I eventually get killed, the wife and offspring won't then have to put up with endless "why wasn't he wearing a helmet" comments

- On the scooter thing: People ride bikes illegally on footpaths (ie. non shared) because they think it is safer than riding on the road (though it is not), and no-one is enforcing the law. The same will go for scooters. Car drivers know they will be traced and fined/get points. Anyway, it would be too much work to keep getting on and off footpaths and avoid lamposts, bins, etc without scratching your expensive status symbol.   

PS. in fact there are plenty of shared footpaths and cycling lanes in place that are more dangerous for cyclists than riding properly on the road.

[Enki]

Udayana,

As regards your last sentence above, I am sure they exist but I would just say that I haven't come across them, and I cycle every day. Perhaps it's just that in my area they have been carefully designated with safety in mind. All the close shaves that I've had have been on cycling on roads, with, for instance, vehicles either coming too close to me, not seeing me (in broad daylight)or turning across me giving me little time to brake. Incidentally I make sure my brakes are always in tip top condition.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have heard that argument before and I am of the opinion that people who think like that are crazy.

I doesn't matter whether they are crazy and I don't think this is conscious action, more a subconscious behaviour that if a cyclist is wearing a helmet they are somehow less vulnerable and can be passed much closer than if not.

Regardless of whether they are crazy or not, if cars tend to pass more closely cyclist wearing a helmet it increases the likelihood of an accident being caused by that driver.

[Roses]

I doesn't matter whether they are crazy and I don't think this is conscious action, more a subconscious behaviour that if a cyclist is wearing a helmet they are somehow less vulnerable and can be passed much closer than if not.

Regardless of whether they are crazy or not, if cars tend to pass more closely cyclist wearing a helmet it increases the likelihood of an accident being caused by that driver.

I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.

[Nearly Sane]

I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.

If it was a subconscious reaction, how do you know?

[Steve H]

I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.

Firstly, you may do so without realising it, and secondly, you are generalising from a single instance.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.

You might not (although if it is unconscious behaviour the only way you would know if by someone measuring how close you pass) but research suggests that in general drivers pass cyclists wearing helmets more closely than those not wearing helmets.

[Roses]

You might not (although if it is unconscious behaviour the only way you would know if by someone measuring how close you pass) but research suggests that in general drivers pass cyclists wearing helmets more closely than those not wearing helmets.

What research?

[jeremyp]

I suppose a concern is (for me at least) that it doesn't stop some cyclists riding on pavements without any repercussions as far as I can see.

But that's not relevant to a law making eScooters legal.

So why would escooters be any different?

I appreciate that is a matter of enforcement

Bingo!

[jeremyp]

And the young - even holding Mum or Dad's they can still take a clip from a scooter rider.

Or a cyclist or a car driver or a skateboarder or somebody just out for a run.

[jeremyp]

Bikes are not allowed on ordinary pavements - it does not stop their riders doing so, up until a few days ago these eScooters were entirely illegal, but they were used openly and apparently without any action being taken against them.

OK, so nothing has changed according to your argument. Quit whining.

The legalisation seems to be cop-out in order to remove any complaints that the riders were not being prosecuted for using them!

eScooters represent a clean convenient form of urban transport. Why would you ban them?

I really cannot see what your beef is - unless, of course, you use one of the damn things!

Would you ban the use of bicycles too?

[jeremyp]

https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets/

This is just one of many articles I have found on the Net which suggest you are more likely to have a head injury if you don't wear a helmet. Surely at this time of crisis an the NHS is overstretched, it is sensible to wear one to protect yourself?  Besides which, logic suggests that if you fall off your bike and bash your head you are more likely to sustain a worse injury to it if you are not wearing head protection.

You have to be really careful with studies like that because the sample is biased. It's only looking at people who had a serious enough head injury to be admitted to hospital and not at people whose head injuries were so serious they didn't make it to hospital. It's also not looking at other injuries.

So let's say you look at 100 hospital admissions and you see 22 cases where the cyclist was wearing a helmet and 78 cases where the cyclist was not. You also note that 29% of all cyclists wear helmets, which is a higher proportion than the number admitted to hospital, so you conclude that wearing a cycle helmet is safer than not.

What if you then go to the mortuary and find another 50 helmet wearing riders whose necks had been instantly snapped in the accident because they had been wearing a helmet. Then you go to the other hospital ward and discover another 50 helmet wearing cyclists with broken backs because they had taken a risk that led to an accident, but they wouldn't have taken that risk in the first place if they hadn't been wearing a helmet.

It's called survivorship bias, and it works both ways. There's a famous example from WW1: after the British introduced steel helmets for the soldiers in the trenches, the field hospitals saw an increase in head injuries. This seems counter intuitive, but the reason is simple: the extra head injuries were from soldiers who would have been dead had they not been wearing a helmet.

You need a lot more information than was presented in your study before you can start drawing conclusions about the efficacy of helmets.

[jeremyp]

I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.

If you were the only driver on the road, that would mean something. However, you are not, and it has, apparently, been found that people, as a rule, give more room to casual cyclists and ones that look like they don't know what they are doing than for cyclists who are dressed properly and with a helmet and who look like they are experienced.

[ProfessorDavey]

What research?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm