Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008 Change Date

Life & Style - inside your Evening News every Thursday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Six cyclists suffer head injuries each month in Lothians



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 April 2008
MORE than six cyclists a month need hospital treatment for head injuries as a result of road accidents in the Lothians.
Official figures show 165 cyclists ended up at hospital after accidents in 2006/07, with 77 of them suffering head injuries.

The casualties included 76 children, 42 of whom had head injuries.

The statistics show Lothians roads were the most dangerous in Scotland for cyclists, and the figures today prompted calls by cycling campaigners for more cycle paths and for cycle training to be incorporated into the school curriculum.

Ian Maxwell, spokesman for Edinburgh-based cycle campaign group Spokes, said today that the accident statistics were worrying

He said: "We would like to see more segregated cycle lanes so those who are not so confident riding in traffic will be given greater confidence when cycling from A to B.

"We would like to see cycle training being a core part of the curriculum, not just an add-on. That is the only way we are going to get the take-up that will almost certainly reduce the injury level among children and adults in the future."

Mr Maxwell acknowledged the Capital had provided some cycleways but said it could do a lot better.

"We are seeing quite a significant increase in cycling despite some of the gaps, but if we had more provision we would see more cyclists on the road," he said.

He said a growth in the number of cyclists would also help reduce accidents and injuries.

"Experience elsewhere is that as the number of cyclists grows the proportion of accidents drops. If there are more people on bikes, other road-users get more accustomed to them."

But Mr Maxwell said most cycling campaigners were opposed to making the wearing of helmets compulsory.

He said other countries which had introduced a law on helmets had seen a drop in cycling, with a consequent loss of the health benefits it brought.

He said: "It's one more factor that would stop people jumping on a bike – and it would be very difficult to enforce.

"If you are cycling on a busy main road among fast-moving traffic, a helmet is very desirable, but if you're off-road on a cycle path through pleasant surroundings, it is less so. Enforcement would have to cover both situations."

The city council said cycling promotion was an important feature in its transport agenda.

A spokeswoman said: "The number of cycle lanes is increasing and we are well on our way to meeting our target of creating a cycling network across the city."

She said cyclists could now use bus lanes on main roads and new off-road cycle paths recently opened from Ratho Station towards the city centre, between Gilmerton and Dalkeith and from Newcraighall station to the Queen Margaret University campus.

She added: "The active schools programme promotes safe and fun bike use to pupils through schemes such as Ready Steady Bike. By the end of the current academic year, 1600 P6 pupils will have received the Scottish cycle training scheme in Edinburgh."

Michael's still taking risks
DESPITE being dragged under a bus for 60 feet and having his skin torn off, 14-year-old Michael Meaney still refuses to wear a helmet when he rides his bike.

The Northfield Drive teen slipped under the seven-ton vehicle on Duddingston Road, but 18 months and several skin grafts later, his mum Angela still can't get him to wear a helmet.

She said: "I've tried taking his bike away but he just rides someone else's.

"I even tried to get him to campaign around schools to show other children the extent of his injuries, but he was having none of it."

Angela added: "He doesn't remember a thing about the accident, which is maybe why he doesn't worry about it."




The full article contains 646 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 April 2008 10:24 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Cycling
 
1

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 12:12:49
Not surprising at all, and as the stats show half are adults.

Been cycling to/from work. The number of times I've stopped at red lights, only for cyclists (adults please note) to pass through is shocking.

Even more dangerous when its a Pedestrian Crossing.

Challenge them and you get a mouthful of abuse.

Heres how they do it.

Red Light:

Cycle upon onto the pavement, pass red light and get back onto the road.

Pause briefly at red light, then go through.

At Pedestrian Crossings.

Cycle through, tough to the Pedestrian.

Wait until the pedestrian has crossed, then go
through the Red Light.

Like Seat belts in Cars, wearing a helmet shoud be compulsary. Confiscate the Bike if they don't comply.

Why should A&E deal with irresponsible cyclists.

Time to have Regsistration Plates and Insurance for Bikes
2

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 12:13:43
#1, excellent post. Thanks.
3

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 12:19:43
I presume, Pond Hall, that drivers who don't wear their seatbelt or use their mobile while driving should have their car confiscated?

Are we at war?
http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue13/issue13page17.html

Are drivers really that bad?
http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue26/issue26page7.html

Are cyclists saintly?
http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue27/issue27page15.html

Independent helmet info
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
4

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 12:20:21
p.s. a helmet wouldn't have stopped young Michael having his skin torn off while dragged.
5

Bob 2,

18/04/2008 12:21:36
re No1

Car Drivers should try the same thing, Lights at Red, get out your car and push it through the red lights.
Or Drive up onto the pavement to get past the red light.
6

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 12:28:12
#1 Pond Hall

Like #2 I agree completely.

It's a wonder that injuries to pedestrians as a result of the pavement-pedalling morons aren't being reported (and probably not even collected).

Must be something to do with cycling being the centre of the 'green' agenda.

On the other hand it must be said that whoever on the Town Council decided to put cyclists in the bus lanes must have had a slate missing, that can only be the source of some awful accidents.

Some cyclists in Edinburgh are badly out of cotrol and don't give a damn about anyone else.
7

eric-shaun,

Lothian 18/04/2008 12:28:35
4.
that post brought tears to my eyes.
8

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 12:29:49
Anth

good idea, they would soon get the message to wear a seat belt or stop using a mobile phone.
Impound the vehicle and let them come a collect it.

ps 47% needed attention for head injuries.

I was one of those didn't wear a helmet people, then seen a news item highlighting the results of hitting your head. Motorcyclist have to wear them, so why not cyclists

Mr Maxwell: doesn't matter were you are cycling, they should be made compulsary. Accidents can happen at anytime, On road or Off Road.
9

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 12:39:53
#8

"I was one of those didn't wear a helmet people, then seen a news item highlighting the results of hitting your head. Motorcyclist have to wear them, so why not cyclists"

There is a lot of nonsense talked about helmets and their effectiveness. Mostly you hear anecdotes like yours. Here's an anecdote for you: I came off my bike last year and if I had been wearing a helmet my injuries would have been a lot worse. Do a bit of research, don't just take one news item as data.

---

Now - to the news story. Could the reporter say how many head injuries there in the Lothians overall? How many there are down to drinking? Are there going to be silly newspaper articles like this one that advise drinkers to wear helmets when they are out at night?

No, probably not, because stories like this are great for getting people like #1 out of the woodwork to dribble anti-cycling nonsense all over the web page.
10

Bertie The Bat,

18/04/2008 12:41:36
My pet hate.
Cyclists in bus lanes. woefully peddling at 5 mph while a bus is waiting to approach a bus stop.
11

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 12:48:08
Well I am surprised by the Spokes ,spokesperson, NOT wanting everyone to wear a helmet. Motorcyclists were compelled to wear helmets in the 1970's, however most were already doing so. Is it the "compulsion" bit he objects to, or the wearing of helmets per se ?
As an everyday motorcyclist I would never consider riding without head protection, on or off road,to do so would exhibit gross negligence on my part, and I am sure I would get NO sympathy if I suffered injury,it would be considered "my own fault". I realise that cycling is not directly analogous to motorcycling, speeds etc, but we are all more vulnerable to the actions of other road users(usually on 4 wheels or more), and so consequently must protect ourselves more than the average. Cycling in "leathers" etc is not an option, but there are modern kevlar weave fabrics that significatly reduce abrasion injuries. And helmet design and construction has continued to improve as companies vie for customers and as a result of tougher and tougher safety regulations from the EU.
I think it is only common sense to wear head protection whilst cycling,and if it needs to be compulsory, well so what ?
12

Phil MaGlass,

Holland 18/04/2008 12:48:39
Been wearing a helmet for the last few years in Holland,landed on my head twice just a wee bit dazed,thanked my wife for getting me the helmet,also had a big smash on a scooter where the car turned right at lights and never looked for cyclists or scooters,I hit the side of the car flew over the bonnet and hit the kerb full on and the helmet split, all I got was a dislocated shoulder,I would have been dead hadf I not been wearing the helmet.I think it should be compulsary to wear helmets on scooters and bicycles.
13

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 12:57:20
no 9

And how many head injuries have been reduced due to people wearing helemets, do ROSPA tell us mistruths

and how dangerous is the CYCLISTs who listen to the MP3 players while they are cycling.
How can they hear cars approaching?

CycleStatman, the NEWS article is about cyclist Head Injuries, we could ask a million questions on stats.

No, probably not, because stories like this are great for getting people like #2 out of the woodwork to say that its alright to
Cycle through a red light endangering their lives and the poor pedestrian thats crossing the road
14

familymanwith2jobsandawifeworkingfulltime,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 12:57:43
As a former cyclist and motorcyclist, there is now no way I would take to the roads on two wheels. I've had accidents on both and each time it was because the car users didn't see me. With more cars on the roads now than ever - best stay well clear. From a motorists point of view, a bicycle can do a fair bit of damage to a car, if involved in an accident and of course the cyclist has no insurance.
15

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 12:58:49
great Post no12

real story, not stats.
16

Ron D,

Enybru 18/04/2008 13:13:14
I increasingly get the impression that many car drivers are deliberately aiming for bicycles and pedestrians. Certainly more than one driver has been charged in recent years with doing exactly that.
17

Hairy Biker,

Musselburgh 18/04/2008 13:17:49
Pond Hall - Why should A&E deal with irresponsible cyclists?

Are you for real? Are you really that moronic? Hospitals should not treat cyclists who have been hit by a car - is that what you are saying?

What a wonderful society you want to live in. Lets hope you never have an accident during your uninformed existence.

I have had three bad crashes on my bike - all car driver errors. In order to get medical treatment would I need to prove it was not my fault before or after I was scraped off the pavement? Idiot.



18

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

18/04/2008 13:27:36
Pond Hall , The man has a point.

Any chance we can all be adults here and accept that not all cyclists are bad, and not all drivers are bad ?

Nah ? Ok , carry on then.
19

Speedy Gonzales,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 13:29:37
polystyrene type helmets offer little or no potection above 12MPH.
Then again, if a cyclist has a collision with anything above 12MPH, their head won't be the only thing that needs protecting (limbs/neck/back/kidneys).
bicycle helmets can in no way be compared in the same way to motorcycle helmets. The standards used to test are like chalk and cheese!
There is also the issue that some models of cycle helmets, although kite marked, can impare the riders vision or hearing. Is that worth the trade off?
20

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 13:31:58
hairy biker

wasn't the intention - yes people should get treated, but by hopefully wearing a helmet, it as no 12 states

12 Phil MaGlass,Holland 18/04/2008 12:48:39
Been wearing a helmet for the last few years in Holland,landed on my head twice just a wee bit dazed,thanked my wife for getting me the helmet,also had a big smash on a scooter where the car turned right at lights and never looked for cyclists or scooters,I hit the side of the car flew over the bonnet and hit the kerb full on and the helmet split, all I got was a dislocated shoulder,I would have been dead hadf I not been wearing the helmet.I think it should be compulsary to wear helmets on scooters and bicycles.

it will hopefully reduce the injuries occured when someone has an accident.

What a wonderful society you want to live in were people don't take some personal resonsibilties for their own safety/health!!!!!!!!
21

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 13:39:33
Pond Hall "And how many head injuries have been reduced due to people wearing helemets, do ROSPA tell us mistruths"

You are asking the wrong question. You have chosen a question that suits your agenda. :)

What you need to do first is look at the wider picture.

You cannot compare cycling with motorcycling and car driving because cycling is exercise. Car driving make you fat (at least looking in through car windows at all the fat drivers in Edinburgh, that's what it seems!) Cycling reduces the pressure on the NHS from obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

Helmets are not a magic safety shield. In fact most cyclists killed are not killed by head injury but by injury to the body. Cycle helmets are tested to take an impact of 12mph. That's not very fast! The faster you go, the less useful a helmet is.

A helmet is deigned to crack/split. So I'd expect one to split in a crash.

Helmets make your head bigger and heavier - so you are more likely to hit it in a crash. Ever bumped into a scaffold pole or a doorway when wearing a hard hat?

Helmets may make you ride less safely. In much the same way that wearing a seat-belt can lead drivers to take more risks.

Helmets make other road users behave differently towards cyclists. They pass closer etc.

Helmets create wind noise - they make it harder to hear following traffic. (I see you don't want cyclists to use MP3 players. Presumably you would ban deaf people from cycling?)


Where helmets have been made compulsory cycling has fallen significantly. Over 25% less in states in Australia. That's a significant change in the health of the nation. Oh, and also the number of head injuries didn't change - yes - introducing helmets resulted in a higher rate of head injury amongst cyclists!

Anyway, I see enough prat drivers on mobile phones, speeding, not wearing seatbelts. I'd like to see the police actually enforce existing laws before more laws are considered.

What is not needed is a small network of c
22

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 13:40:03
Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. 'I would have died but for....' can't really be tested by reproducing the incident but without a helmet so actually we'll never know.

But if anecdotes are the name of the game: A colleague's brother was hit by a car and smashed his head on the windscreen. Apart for a few glass cuts from the slightly deformed windscreen and a concussion he was fine. He wasn't wearing a helmet. It was considered that had he been wearing a helmet the glass may have broken up more, causing more lacerations, and the protuberance of the helmet would have caused a contorsion of the neck causing whiplash, and at the speed the polystyrene would have done nothing to stop a concussion.

But as with the 'helmets saved my life' anecdotes it is always pure conjecture.

Counter-intuitive it may be, but for people who choose to wear a helmet is's generally not an abdication of responsibility, but rather a 'choice' based on a bit of research (rather than just reading the comments pages of a local paper).

Mandatory helmet laws in other countries have shown a reduction in cycling numbers, without a comparative reduction in head injuries amongst cyclists, and a pro rata increase in accidents as there are less cyclists on the road so drivers don't know how to deal with cyclists when they do come across them.

Oh, and on the MP3 player - I don't ride with one personally, but does a car from behind sound different when it's going to hit you than when it's going to go past?
23

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 13:41:10
What is not needed is a small network of cycle paths. Since you cannot build a cycle path to everyone's house all cyclists are going to have to ride on roads at some point and all drivers are going to have to take account of cyclists. The answer for cyclist safety is better behaviour from all road users, not apartheid and blame-the-victim helmet rubbish!
24

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 13:42:18
no18

I think we are all aware that not all road users are bad.

And that there are many good road users on the roads.

point taken
25

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 13:43:52
no 23

23 CycleStatMan,18/04/2008 13:41:10

totally aggree with your point
"The answer for cyclist safety is better behaviour from ALL road users",
26

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 13:45:35
NO22

the point is more general, that hearing vehicles helps road safety , including your own safety
27

PaulB,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 13:47:07
Next time a cyclist tries to whizz past me when I am on a pedestrian crossing, they will get by unbrella rammed through their spokes! They are unbelievable.
28

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 13:54:47
#19 Mhhh I have heard these arguments against helmet use before, back in the 70's when some M/cyclists wanted to carry on riding without helmets.
"Inneffective,restrict vision & hearing"
Well , the trade off IS worth it, if the trade off is between death or serious head injury, or some reduction in the potential harm done in an accident, give me a helmet please.
Early motorcycle helmets were,looking back on them, of dubious quality and efectiveness. BUT things improved rapidly, people tend to vote with their feet,or is it their heads, and go for the product that performs best.
You mentioned polystyrene, erm what is the liner in all motorcycle helmets ? Polystyrene.
Research has shown that it is NOT the hardness of the shell material that counts, it is the ability to absorb energy controllably, to stopp sudden deceleration or "swirling" of brain tissue that causes damage by shearing forces
29

tomi,

18/04/2008 13:57:04
Bicycle helmets cannot protect against all "head injuries". I know because I recently fell from a Bicycle and landed on my chin and breaking my jaw.
That was a "head injury" that would have required a large helmet with integrated chin guard to offer any protection.
I know that wearing a helmet does reduce the risk of injury but I am reluctant to do so because it is just something more to carry, and where to keep it when not riding/wearing it.
I am against compulsion.
30

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 13:58:36
raodstohell.

You cannot compare motorcycling with cycling. I wish people would read the posts earlier in the thread before posting.
31

,

18/04/2008 13:58:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 14:00:13
roadstohell:

""swirling" of brain tissue that causes damage by shearing forces"

Which helmets make more likely.
33

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 14:07:40
cyclestatman
I used to work for a major helmet manufacturer, and I was on the BSI committee drawing up helmet testing designs, I DO know what I am talking about, it was my work for 30years.
Your comments are ill informed and the product of blind bias.
What is your gripe about wearing protective clothing ?
Head injuries are ameliorated when wearing a properly designed form of head protection, whether you are cycling,motorcycling,mountaineering,kayaking,working on a building site OR even a medieval knight.
Listen to the evidence, don't shut your eyes and ears because of your preconceived ideas.
34

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 14:09:35
Oh and I have read ALL the posts, and there is NO need to repeat yourself,do NOT treat people as morons
35

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 14:17:12
And actually I was the first to raise the point, " I realise that cycling is not directly analogous to motorcycling, speeds etc," so perhaps you did not read the posts prior to your posting ?
36

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 14:19:16
roadstohell

"Your comments are ill informed and the product of blind bias.
What is your gripe about wearing protective clothing ?"

Helmets are not the answer. That is my gripe.

I'm pleased you state that you worked for a helmet manufacturer. No bias there!
37

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 14:22:02
roadstohell

Actually what you said is:

"I realise that cycling is not directly analogous to motorcycling, speeds etc, "

No mention of exercise there, only speeds, which gives a good indication as to where you were coming from
38

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 14:27:44
Roadstohell, you've given me an idea...

I run www.citycycling.co.uk (the links posted above might have given that away) and I'm willing to be convinced that the information at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is incorrect or flawed (I never assume that all of it is correct, but a lot seems to make sense when reading it).

I wonder if you'd be interested in helping out on a piece on helmets for the mag? We're pretty staunchly 'pro-choice' (anti-compulsion does not necessarily equate to anti-helmet and while I don't wear one to commute I do to go mountain biking, for reasons we could go into more detail on).

If you're interested drop me a line at anth@citycycling.co.uk
39

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 14:29:33
If helmets are not the answer, then what is ?
May I assure you that the cranial vault is insufficient.
I fail to see your point, why are cyclists a "special case" ?
All sorts of people in all sorts of sports/occupations where the risk of head injury is significant wear a form of head protection !!!!!
Are you insinuating that I spent almost my entire working life researching into head injuries and protective clothing, most of it for the BSI/EU and latterly Snell inst out of purely monetary considerations ? That is a very "low" comment and totally unwarranted. Motorcycle helmets were a very small part of our total operation. There are a very large number of situations that require some form of head protection.
OK as it stands at the moment you can ride without a helmet, and I presume that you do, good luck to you.

I wonder how you feel about compulsory seat belt wearing ? Or do you think it is all hogwash and is only there to make money for the harness producers ????

40

blackley,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 14:34:52
I've started fighting back against pavement cyclists and any cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet and bright jacket while on the road. You usually find they are thin guys with stubbly beards and knapsacks. A pushover!
41

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 14:35:16
Dear Anth, if all cyclists are as pig headed and combatitive as cyclestatman, then my answer must be no.
This compulsion arguement has been gone over time and time again, see MAG in the early days. I am afraid I see no problem with compulsion. I have seen the evidence, and the aftermath of people NOT wearing head protection, it is NOT pretty.
My wish is that people will invest in the best form of cycling/motorcycling or whatever helmet, they can.
Thanks for the offer though
42

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 14:42:15
"if all cyclists are as pig headed and combatitive as cyclestatman"

Little bit generalising, and given I was, as a cyclist, open to being persuaded....

Anyway, fair enough. Oh, and as to the answer to the problem. Respect on the road (from and to ALL road users), i.e. prevention rather than cure, but that's pie in the sky these days really.

I wonder how many drivers and pedestrians in the Lothians suffer head injuries a month? Not intended as a provocative statement, just out of interest. Is 6 a month high?
43

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 14:43:49
Oh, and....

The article doesn't actually link those 6 a month to helmet use (or more specifically non-use). They could actually all have been wearing helmets (theoretically).
44

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 14:45:40
apologies Anth, I was getting frustrated there.
45

Ronster,

edinburgh 18/04/2008 14:52:47
#1 you are a numpty.
You sound like one of these law abiding idiots who don't even bother to consider what the law is there for in the first place !!! If it's clear go !!! Get out of the way of traffic !!!
46

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 14:53:30
#27, > Next time a cyclist tries to whizz past me when I am on a pedestrian crossing, they will get by unbrella rammed through their spokes! They are unbelievable. <

Well done. That would wipe the supercilious, holier-than-thou grins off their smug faces as they carve up pedestrians. I think I'll go and buy an umbrella myself!
47

,

18/04/2008 15:06:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

BusOff,

West Linton 18/04/2008 15:06:31
These figures are absurd in this day and age.
I see riders out and about with no head protection whatsoever, dark clothing with no day-glo patches to make other road users aware of their presence.
It was mandatory whilst living in the USA that ALL CYCLISTS had to wear head protection and their bike be registered with the local police incorporating a special stamp on the frame of the bike and a registered number in case of theft.
All these measures reduced head injuries and made the theft of bikes about zero.
Easy things to put in place and a must as far as the medical services were concerned.
49

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:09:48
Actually, looking at this a different way. Given all cyclists run red lights, ride on pavements, wear dark clothing, don't use lights at night, and generally act as if they are smug self-satisfied pillocks with no respect for themselves or other people.... Six is a pretty small number.

I'd be fairly happy to suggest that more people suffer head injuries in the Lothians playing football each month.

(and the numbers of people cycling every day - whether for leisure or commuting - is pretty comparable to those playing football... Footballers should wear helmets?)
50

Pond Hall,

18/04/2008 15:14:50
No45 .
from your comments You sound like one of these idiots who doesn't bother to consider what the law is there for in the first place the Safety of all Road Users and Pedesterians

So hopefully you never get a call to say some Numpty on a bike or in Car has went through a RED light and killed someone you know, as you say "If it's clear go !!! Get out of the way of traffic !!!" tough to the old lady crossing on the pedestrian crossing
51

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:17:02
http://www.epsomguardian.co.uk/news/kingstonnews/display.var.2204909.0.pavement_cyclist_knocks_man_into_road.php

>A cyclist riding illegally on a pavement hit a pedestrian knocking him in on to a busy road. Richard Butcher, 55, narrowly escaped major injuries when he was hit in the chest by the cyclist near Clarence Street, Kingston, on Saturday evening. He reported the accident to the police but says he was outraged to be told officers would not be sent to the scene and did not have the powers to prosecute cyclists anyway. <

Above the law, and can't be prosecuted? And cyclists still wonder why they are hated?

52

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:20:34
Yep, we're hated because we cause the greatest amount of injuries and deaths on the road UG. Not cars. Not buses. Not trucks. But bikes. After all, over the last 5 years 3 people were killed by cyclists.

Good grief, the police make an incorrect assumption and that means cyclists should be hated.

I stop at red, use lights, never ride on the pavement, and still I am hated, but never mind eh, tarring with the same brush is the way ahead!
53

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:26:34
#52, you're hated because you're smug, arrogant, patronising, and above the law. You're hated because the rules of the road, which apply to everyone else - motorists and pedestrians - don't apply to you. You're hated because you don't give a damn about people on pavements or pedestrian crossings and seem to enjoy terrorising and carving them up. I've known motorists apologise and admit they were in the wrong. I've even known pedestrians to do so. But cyclists? They seem to think they're a master race and that the rest of us have to spend our time scampering out of their way.
54

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 15:27:11
I still dont get the concept that "Cyclists are a special case" !!!!
Why should a group of road users think that it is OK NOT to wear protective headgear/equipment ?
or is it a case of , " well of course motorcyclists should be compelled to wear helmets, cos they are different, AND they use an engine!!!"
Or is it a case of "green credentials" making whatever cyclist do a "special case" and give them carte blanche to do whatever they wish, because they are "green" ????
55

roadstohell,

18/04/2008 15:30:01
actually the more I look back at the comments the more I begin to firm up this idea.
It's "different" for cyclists is something that seems to permeate the comments, well if you are using the public highways, maybe it should NOT be different.
56

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:36:59
Er, UG #53, as stated at the end of my last comment. I stop at red, avoid pavements and so on...

Yet there's a constant 'you' are hated through your reply. Is it not just the tiniest bit possible that even 'some' cyclists might be alright, or are we all like that deep down, even if we don't act it, and so culpable by choice of transport?

(it's funny, when I'm driving I doubt I'd create half as much hatred were I to run a red light in the car)

Roadstohell (#55) I don't really think it's 'different' for cyclists. As stated earlier there is a lot of contracdictory evidence about and a lot comes down to which bits of that 'evidence' you want to believe, making it a choice. My personal view is that cycle helmets don't provide as much benefit as is claimed (after reading pro and anti-'evidence') in traffic situations.

If a pedestrian was to cross the road and get knocked down would there be a suggestion that they should be wearing a helmet?

I don't know, absolutely nothing around this area is set in stone and until what I've read and base my assertions on is disproved beyond doubt then should I be vilified for what I believe?

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what I say, I'm smug and believe I'm above the law simply because I'm a cyclist.
57

Moder8,

EDINBURGH 18/04/2008 15:41:03
I'm surprised the number of head injuries is as low as six per month!

1. A significant number of cyclists seem to have little road sense" and are unaware of anything outside their tunnel vision view of the road and traffic conditions.

2. Speed bumps, cushions, chicaines, pinch points, zigzags have made the motorist unaware of anything but that which is immediately in front of their vehicle.

Those two situation have created a dangerous game of Russian roulette on the road.
58

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:43:33
Erm, Moder8, you seem to be having a go at cyclists for only focussing on the road and traffic conditions, while excusing the actions of motirsts because they are being forced only to focus on road and traffic conditions...
59

gotalottosay,

18/04/2008 15:47:15
am afraid to say that no kid of mine would dictate to me that he is not wearing a helmet when he goes out on his bike ESPECIALLY as he had a bloody accident. obviously the mother has no control over the bairn.

helmets should be compulsory.

on a seperate note, peeps... can someone help me work it out...i want to comment on some articles but there is not the option, can i create the option or does the evening news control that option? most grateful for a reply.
60

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:48:14
#56, > it's funny, when I'm driving I doubt I'd create half as much hatred were I to run a red light in the car<

No you wouldn't. It's easier to see and hear a car running a red light - you can't mistake it, after all - than to have a silent cyclist suddenly whizzing past you when you think your way across the crossing is clear.
61

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:52:31
#57, your key point there is 'whizzing past', not 'hitting'.

Now as I said earlier, I don't do it, but a bike is more monoueverable (or however the hell you spell that), slower and smaller, so easier for the rider to move around people and easier for people to avoid (if necessary). Not really going to manage that as easily with a car. And if you are hit the car is going to cause more damage.

Been here before, but there are something like 10-15 times the number of pedestrians killed 'on the pavement' each year by cars than bikes, and yet we're lead to believe the pavements are swarming with bikes and cars stick to the roads.

Anyway, what do I know, I'm a smug cyclist who everyone hates (despite obeying all the rules of the road). Blind hatred can't be convinced.
62

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:52:39
#61, > I'm smug and believe I'm above the law simply because I'm a cyclist. <

The trouble is that cyclists don't just *believe* they're above the law - it seems that they actually *are* above the law. At least a bad driver is likely to be stopped by the police at some point. A cyclist never is, however deplorable their cycling may be.
63

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:53:53
#60, not #57, apologies Moder8.

Hang on. I'm a cyclist, why am I apologising? I was right. It's the site that's wrong.

Or as a recent Cyclepoet put it:

People scatter as I approach
Cars back off rather than encroach
And suffer reproach
In the form of a stare
That asks them to dare

For I am that evil known as the cyclist
Second only to Lucifer himself
Biggest danger on the road
Causing jams where once flowed
Striking fear to young and old

I am the cyclist
Responsible for all that is foul
From holy wars to Simon Cowell
My fault
Mine
The bloody cyclist

Arrogant and dangerous I should be banned
Bike stripped and canned
No bike paths planned
For I am the cause
The reason
For society's ills
And all the roadkills

I am the cyclist
64

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:55:02
#62, what proportion of drivers do you think break the law compared to those who are caught?

(and let's just say I'm thinking of a figure above 90% for the first bit of that question if we think about speeding and mobile phone use - offences in the car are socially acceptable).
65

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:55:05
#61, > your key point there is 'whizzing past', not 'hitting' <

Oh, I see. It's OK to scare me and make me jump or run, to say nothing of breaking the rules of the road, just because you don't actually hit me (thanks to my own nimbleness and preparedness to scamper out of your way)?

Why will cyclists never, ever admit that they can be in the wrong?
66

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:56:30
Argh!

Don't know why I bother.

'I' don't ever go through red lights. I was trying to explain why it's not necessarily right to say that cars jumping red lights are safer than bikes doing so at #60.
67

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:57:01
#64, I do know that the percentage of drivers who aren't caught for bad driving is higher than the percentage who are.

I also know that the percentage of cyclists caught for bad cycling is 0%.
68

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:58:54
#66, why can't you admit that some cyclists do run red lights and scare and inconvenience pedestrians in so doing? And, moreover, don't seem to care about it, or even give the impression of enjoying it?
69

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:01:42
I do and I have!

I posted a link to this article, which I wrote, at #3:

Are cyclists saintly?
http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue27/issue27page15.html

For ease the answer to the question is 'no'.

What I object to is it being insinuated that I also do these things 'You are hated because....', 'All cyclists....'
70

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:03:41
'If' you read the article you'll see I mention red light jumping (in the main) together with arrogance of certain cyclists, and those being the reasons people tend to hate us.

The article is 8 months old.
71

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 16:06:29
#67

Urban Guerilla

"I also know that the percentage of cyclists caught for bad cycling is 0%."

Which mortally holes your posts below the water. Unless you have access to all the police statistics across the UK?
72

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:08:02
#69, OK. Fair point. And I'm impressed by what you say in your article. It's refreshing to have an admission from a cyclist that they're not always in the right, and that the normal laws and normal need for good manners that apply to the rest of us, also apply to them.

It's also refreshing that you seem to recognise that there *is* a problem with the wider perception of cyclists, and that the answer to this isn't necessarily to go into denial or to launch an all-out frontal attack on motorists or (especially) pedestrians.
73

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:11:37
#71, if you know of an example of a cyclist being stopped for bad cycling, I'd love to hear of it. It would be as refreshing as Anth's article!
74

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:12:32
Cheers UG, trust me, I don't see this as black and white.
75

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 16:13:23
back to helmets.

The reason that helmets are not the answer is that there is a bigger picture than simply placing some polystyrene on a cyclist's head and then assuming he is safe.

The bigger picture looks at the health of the nation, it doesn't focus in on the health of the tiny minority of cyclists that hit their heads.

Cycling is not dangerous.

I'd say that probably 90 % of car drivers break the law. Maybe even all of them. Lets have a go at them, shall we?
76

AndrewS,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:13:42
Some of the cretins who write garbage about cyclists on these comment posts should try it themselves. Its quite an enjoyable recreational activity, with only a few stupidly ignoring traffic lights.
77

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:17:11
Hi Anth, hope you are doing OK.

We have communicated on the issue of pavement pedalling before and while I take your point about the manoueverability of bikes, I am still of the view that cyclists should not be riding bikes on pavements. As I have said before, it is surely not to much to ask that if cyclists insist on pavement cycling then they should dismount their bikes in the vicinty of pedestrians.

All these statistics regarding the numbers of pedestrians killed by bikes compared to those killed by cars are not really relevant, if you are dead, then you are dead regardless of the vehicle which strikes you. Apart from deaths there are injuries which result in loss of income/earnings and as cyclists do not have registration plates, there is usually no way of suing them in the aftermath of an accident and I am sure that many such accidents are not reported to the Police.

Like you I would be very much in favour of having a proper cycling network throughout the Town and frankly, to fund such an enterprise properly I would cancel Edinburgh's ridiculous and unwanted tram system.

Please don't think I am anti-cyclist, I just think that pedestrians need to be protected from some of you and as #62 Urban Guerrilla, suggests, L&B are doing nothing about it. It is therefore up to the rest of us to place a case in writing to the Chief Constable, MSps, MPs, etc.
78

john z,

edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:18:03
Cyclists would not have so many accidents if they actually observed the rules of the road. Like, stopping at red lights, not going through pedestrian crossing against a red light whilst pedestrians are actually crossing. Every morning I see selfish cyclists behaving in a completely irresponsible and cavalier way. If you toot your horn, they give you the finger. Cyclists it seems, are above the law.

To top it all, I actually saw a cyclist a few days ago, jump a red light at a very busy junction, and then almost get killed trying to merge amongst a stream of buses turning the corner. Now, if through his own stupidity, the cyclist had had an accident, the bus drivers would have immediately been blamed.

Incredibly, I recently saw another cyclist actually weave between a mother and her children on a pedestrian crossing whilst the green man was up, so he was in no doubt he SHOULD have stopped.

I think cyclists in cities who want more rights need to accept the responsibilities. Every cyclist in the city should be forced to wear a registration number on their back, and be fined and prosecuted in the same way other road users are.

Cyclists cannot have it all. With rights come responsibilities.
79

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 16:21:54
#73

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6245422.stm


80

john z,

edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:24:54
Oh, and by the way, what in god's name are those big huge swathes of green paint for on the road at traffic lights?? Has nobody told the town planners cyclists don't stop at traffic lights, they either

A: Get off the bike and walk across the junction, or,

B: Cycle on regardless, or

C: Mount the pavement and keep cycling.
81

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:26:24
Hey Peter, can't really argue with anything you've said (though I prefer using the road to cycle 'facilities' - there are apparently more accidents involving cyclists on shared use paths than there are on the roads, though it's another stat that's open to debate).

I wouldn't want to convey the impression that deaths caused by cyclists, while tiny, were in any way okay. Just hoping to create some proportion.

Unfortunately the type of cyclist described at #78, while in the minority (trust me, if you sit and watch every cyclist all day going by you'll see the majority obeying the rules) really give us a bad name and should be stopped, much the same as any illegal activity.

Though I have to argue the point on the bus driver getting the blame. If the cyclist went through a red light, with witnesses like john z watching, and cctv on both buses functioning, it would be pretty obvious, very quickly, that the cyclist had caused his own demise.
82

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:26:54
John z at #80 - not ALL of them.
83

john z,

edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:29:19
Number 81

Trust me, they are NOT in the minority. I sit in traffic for around forty minutes twice a day, and see lots of them.
84

Anth,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 16:32:38
#83 More than 50%

Whereabouts? Again for the website I run I'm planning on 'staking out' a couple of supposed hotspots in the city and looking at numbers of traffic offences (for all road users): jumping red lights, mobile phone use, speeding (doubtful in rush hour!), stopping in yellow hash markings etc.

It would be good to know where the worst places are thought to be which will either confirm or deny the commonly held beliefs.

p.s. which reminds me Peter, I did spend a while one morning at the Leith Links, and there were certainly more cyclists on the paths through the park than I thought there would be (still saw more on the road though.... ;) )
85

CycleStatMan,

18/04/2008 16:33:09
#83

"I sit in traffic for around forty minutes twice a day"

You need to get on a bike then!
86

Beaumont3232,

Port Dover 18/04/2008 16:38:56
Edinburgh used to be a nice place when I live there. Reading the vitriol in this thread I really don't want to go back there. Well done.
87

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 18/04/2008 17:51:17
The simple solution to all this is to take away the danger - BAN CARS !!!!

I find it really arrogant that motorists DEMAND that cyclists wear protective gear to protect them from the danger THEY create with a 1 ton mass of metal travelling at 30-mph (or more likely 40-mph).

Cars don't mix well with pedestrians and cyclists, so get rid of them !
88

Artemis,

Embra 18/04/2008 18:06:56
Thank god for Anth and his voice of reason.

The number of people who post on this site again and again with their inaccurate generalisations is depressing. In the words of Eustace "Gripper" Almonds - I'm disgusted. (Where is he these days anyway?)

Not all cyclists jump red lights, cycle on pavements or any other illegal activity, and it's unfair and inaccurate to say that they do. SOME do - just like SOME motorists speed, jump red lights, drive without tax, MOT or insurance, talk on their mobiles while driving, park illegally, drive when above the legal alcohol limit... There are selfish and inconsiderate cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, but really it's the motorists who create the most risk to other people. In the main (in the MAIN, not entirely), cyclists are only a danger to themselves.

#40 - which law or part of the highway code specifies that cyclists have to wear high-vis and a helmet? And which bit of the law gives you vigilante powers?

Anth, if you want a hand with your junction census, I'll help - as long as you promise not to film me throwing up when I swallow a fly.