Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Vicious cycle of bike thefts

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: 08 January 2009
EDINBURGH'S worst areas for cycle thefts can be revealed today as new figures show thefts of bikes running at four a day.
The Southside/Newington area, with its high student population, tops the list with 225 cycles reported stolen in the last 12 months.

At the other end of the scale – and just like with thefts of cars – the safest area is officially Colinton/Fairmi
lehead where only 28 bikes went missing in 2008.

The cycle crime map was revealed as a new blitz named Operation Autobiography was launched in the south of the city yesterday to target thieves by profiling cyclists.

Officers will stop and check cyclists who arouse suspicion by appearing too big or small for their bike, or failing to wear a helmet in a bid to catch thieves red-handed.

Plain-clothes officers will be on patrol while a police team has been tasked to visit second-hand shops to try to recover stolen bikes.

Pc Carlyn McGhee, a crime prevention officer based at Howdenhall police station, said: "Uniformed and high-visibility patrols deter thieves from committing a theft but it will not catch them. Plain-clothed officers can catch them in the act.

"We carry out theft analysis to identify hotspots, and resources and patrols can be directed into that area to tackle the problem.

"Bikes are often recovered by officers stopping someone riding one. The rider may be the wrong size for the bike. Or they might be pulled over because they aren't wearing a safety helmet.

"Other bikes are recovered after being abandoned. Bikes are stolen, like cars, before being dumped."

Today's figures show that a total of 1474 bikes were stolen in the Capital last year – a number which has been steadily increasing in recent years and one which the police are determined to bring down.

Another initiative launched last month saw a hit-list of serial bike thieves drawn up. Officers are now issued with photographs of repeat offenders in a bid to identify them as they prowl the city streets.

The latest operations are focused on student areas such as Marchmont and Bruntsfield, as well as accommodation at Pollock Halls.

Pc McGhee added: "There are two distinct types of thieves – the opportunists who will see a bike unlocked and make off with it; then there is the type who know what they are looking for and come prepared.

"The areas where we see high numbers of thefts are often those with large student populations. That is why we try and work with students to encourage bike security. We visited Pollock Halls when the new student intake arrived to give out crime packs."

Professional gangs are among those cashing in on the city's cycling boom, taking bikes from streets, common stairways and sheds. They often steal bikes in the city before selling them in places like Glasgow.

Top-of-the-range models, costing up to £5000, are particularly attractive to criminals eager to turn a quick profit by selling them on.

And drug addicts are also believed to be contributing to the rise in stolen bikes reported to police as they try to fund their habits.

Ian Perry, Labour councillor for Southside/Newington, was not surprised that the ward had topped the list for thefts.

He said: "We've now reached the point where two bikes are being stolen every three days and that is a major worry.

"I've had previous discussions with the police about the problem and how we can tackle it. We need to look at different ways to secure bikes safely and that will require liasing with student associations to see if there is anything that can be done."

The city centre ward was the second hardest hit area.

Local Lib Dem councillor Charles Dundas said: "Having safe places to park a bike is about more than safety. It's about providing convenience for cyclists.

"Many people in the city centre have nowhere to chain up their bikes except railings, which many businesses can be unhappy about. Providing safe cycling facilities is something that the council are committed to.

"The numbers being stolen are perhaps in line with what you would expect with a big city. The city centre is where opportunist thieves will be attracted."

Between 60 and 70 stolen bikes are found discarded each month and they are left piled up in a police compound at Fettes HQ.

A police survey found that 63 per cent of bikes stolen from Morningside are taken from common stairs.

A spokesman for cycle group Spokes said tenement properties were an easy target for thieves.

"Many people don't have space in their flats to store a bike. We need better ways to provide secure cycle parking in common stairs, back greens or on streets, perhaps where car parking is currently available," he said.

"Using a good quality lock and parking in the right place are basic measures that need to be got across. If you take these precautions, it's perfectly possible to lower the risk of cycle theft."

12 WAYS OF IMPROVING SECURITY
1.When buying a bike , budget for security. Take out insurance either by extending your home contents insurance or through a separate policy. Cycling organisations and bike shops may offer specialist cover.

2. Register your bicycle model, make and frame number.

3. Take a clear, colour photograph of your bike and make a written record of its description.

4. Security mark the bicycle in at least two separate locations. At least one of these locations should not be clearly visible.

5. At home, keep your bike out of view and try to store it behind a locked door.

6. Avoid leaving your bike parked in isolated or dimly lit places.

7. If yours is a very expensive bike, don't lock it in the same place on a regular basis – so it won't be noticed and stolen to order.

8. Always lock your bike, whenever possible to an immovable object. Remember that thieves can remove drainpipes and lift bikes off signposts.

9. Secure removable parts. Lock both wheels and the frame together. Take with you smaller parts and accessories that can be removed without tools such as lights or panniers.

10. Make the lock (and chain, if used) and bike hard to manoeuvre when parked to stop thieves smashing the lock open.

There are many different locks on the market and price is not necessarily a reliable indicator of quality. The most important factor is how long the product can resist attack. The best ones resist for at least five minutes.

Hardened steel D-shaped locks are recommended as the minimum standard. It is worth spending proportionately more on a lock for a more expensive bike.

11. Inform the police if you have your bike stolen.

12. Find out about and take part in local cycling initiatives to raise awareness about security.







Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 January 2009 10:41 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

ignorant townie?,

Scotland 08/01/2009 11:01:59
Not before time....

Before some idiot goes on line with the usual "why are they wasting time on this?" line....may a remind everyone that this often happens to visitors to the City...not much of an ad for Edinburgh is it?

and....if you want clean air a better global environment and less traffic congestion this blight has to be removed.
2

Frobnitz,

EDINBURGH 08/01/2009 11:24:27
Quite often I don't wear a helmet, most of the time most of my friends don't wear helmets. About 50% of all cyclists don't wear helmets.

Not wearing a helmet is not a valid criterion for harassment.

Another bloody pointless exercise in institutional stupidity.
3

Brad,

Glasgow 08/01/2009 11:41:58
#2, not all helmetless cyclists are bike thieves but I suspect that almost all bike thieves are helmetless. It's still a pretty scattergun approach but have you a better idea?

I suspect the Plod aren't going to be stopping just anyone without a helmet but those who they think (but can't say in public) look a bit dodgy.
4

Davy,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 12:09:14
Yes I totally agree, if we could have a total ban of al cycles in the city. This would prevent theft and could also save some poor soul from having ma nasty accident.
5

council never win,

08/01/2009 12:09:58
guess the thieves will just wear bike helmets now.
Their swag bags will still give em away though
6

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 08/01/2009 12:14:01
Don't wear a cycle helmet and your relatives will understand why an anaesthetist on a heart unit, refers to them (and non helmet wearing motor cyclists) as "Donorcyles"!
7

Hector the Red,

08/01/2009 12:15:58
licence all bikes and then they would be easily traceable..not so hard is it!
8

Davy,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 12:23:02
Adults who ride cycles should pay some kind of road tax?
Maybe an MOT & some road Insurance also for good measure a strict road cycle test.

Money made could then be inserted in to the system and used to help reduce car owner’s road tax? (Maybe reduce the price of fuel if enough money collected)
Also parents who attach a seat to the bicycle then put a small kid into that seat need prosecuted.
Some so called loving parents also have trailer like buggies, that they then pull with the bicycle and put the kids in that. They should be in the jail.

Car drivers are surrounded by metal and are well lit up at night
Cyclists are a nightmare (in the cities) an accident waiting to happen







9

Burke,

Leith 08/01/2009 12:26:31
We really need to get better pun writers.
10

Artemis,

08/01/2009 12:30:33
#8 - I don't have the time or the energy to point out why you're wrong, wrong, wrong so I'll just say that the danger to cyclists and their children comes from motorists, so instead of jaling law-abiding cycling parents, why not jail all motorists?
11

brandy al,

embra 08/01/2009 12:31:58
And i am not giving them back,i hate cyclists.
12

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 08/01/2009 12:33:16
good point #11. Don't even bother to repond to this pr@t
13

Artemis,

08/01/2009 12:43:08
If it isn't ok in rush hour traffic - and I would dispute that - it's not ok because of the risk posed by selfish or careless motorists who think the fact they pay VED means they have more entitlement to the road than cyclists and put them at risk by their own behaviour. There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about cycling with a kiddie seat or trailer, and it is not against the law. What makes it dangerous is motorists. Restrict their behaviour, not that of cyclists.
14

Incandescent,

08/01/2009 13:06:56
#15 Artemis "There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about cycling with a kiddie seat or trailer,"

There is if the bicycle was specifically designed with a centre of balance and gravity to carry one person, which all single-saddle bicycles are. Adding a seat with a child in it has a detrimental effect on the handling properties of such a bike, making it "intrinsically unsafe", especially in traffic, where balance is more critical than usual.

Making a comparable addition to a car without declaring it would undoubtedly invalidate the insurance.

Towing a low-level "child trailer" in traffic is just sheer madness for reasons which should be obvious to any sane person.

"...it is not against the law"

Not yet. It'll take a fatal accident test case for them to be legislated out of existence. The nanny state will jump at the chance.



15

Bob1,

08/01/2009 13:07:44
I think all of these problems can be solved by taxing more things and slagging off other things......oh and violence...lots of violence towards things and people we don't agree with!! yes that should do it!
16

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:19:21
I wonder if the police will stop and 'interview' people who cycle on the pavements?
17

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:27:50
#16 "It'll take a fatal accident test case for them to be legislated out of existence. The nanny state will jump at the chance"

That's the point though isn't it Incandescent? There hasn't been a fatal accident involving them in all the time they've been around. If they really were such 'death-traps' wouldn't we have heard by now? Wouldn't there be something in the paper about it every week?

And 3000 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents last year, yet cars haven't been legislated out of existence. We accept it instead.

It's an odd sense of proportion. Something is too dangerous for anyone to do because one person might, at some point in the future, be 'possibly' killed. Yet something is acceptable despite 'actually' killing 3000 people a year...

And what's strange as well is you seem to be suggesting it's terrible because it's dangerous, but at the same time bemoaning a nanny state that would ban it. Which are worse? Cyclists or the nanny state?
18

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

08/01/2009 13:27:59
#8 Davy considers:

"Adults who ride cycles should pay some kind of road tax?"

Well, wear and tear on the roads is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. So if a cyclist paid a penny per annum road tax, a fair tax for a car would be between ten and twenty thousand Pounds and for a lorry or bus, it'd be in the millions.

I've game for this if everyone else is.
19

Bob 2,

08/01/2009 13:28:49
8 Davy,Edinburgh 08/01/2009 12:23:02
Adults who ride cycles should pay some kind of road tax?

so will car owners have to pay Road Tax

Drivers pay "Vehicle Excise Duty" to have their cars on the road,

And is based on Vehicle Emissions, ZERO emissions zero tax.
20

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:29:17
#17

Bob1, you're wring, therefore you are no better than a monkey in a dinner jacket and must give me £6000 and I'm allowed to hit you with this baseball bat.
21

Bob 2,

08/01/2009 13:35:53
15 Artemis,08/01/2009 12:43:08

There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about cycling with a kiddie seat or trailer

Correct UNTIL you put a child in the trailer.

Seen these trailers, I'd think even if a car ran into the back of a bike with a trailer at even a slow speed, the trailer and CHILD would be flattened.
22

Bob 2,

08/01/2009 13:37:34
18 Peter - very disappointed/concerned,Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:19:21

I wonder if the police will stop and 'interview' people who cycle on the pavements?

I wonder if the police will stop and 'interview' people who drive car on the pavements?
23

Incandescent,

08/01/2009 13:43:20
#19 Anth

No, it not "the point" and you infer too much, sir.

As to proportion: happily, the vast majority of parents are horrified by the ludicrously irresponsible concept of child-trailers on public roads, and most reserve the use of child seats to quiter roads or cycleways. It stands to reason then that there have been few (reported) accidents.

Cyclists who advocate the use of these things in heavy traffic as safe are championing their pet cause against the best interests of their own children.

"Suggesting"? "Bemoaning"? I stated facts: These things are dangerous and we live in a nanny state.
24

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:43:31
Fresian, I think it's slightly disingenuous to suggest that parents are more or less deliberately putting their child in danger to make an environmental point, if not potentially quite offensive.

I'd agree with proper training (such as the long forgotten Cycling Proficiency at school), but you also have to accept, surely, that there's a little bit of an onus on drivers not to go round hitting people with their cars/buses/vans as well? I can't say when driving I ever see someone with a trailer and think, hey, they're being dangerous so it doesn't matter if I hit them.

If everyone paid attention then a driver coming up behind such a contraption would 'know' that it might not be quite so stable, and drive accordingly.

Unfortunately our culture prefers to blame the potential victim because it's easier and they're in the minority.

But really, no matter what I say here will have the slightest effect... I should have made a coffee instead of twaddling on here. Why do I always let myself get sucked in? Thankfully (hopefully?) the hatred and bile that springs up here (and Fresian, I'm not actually including you in the bile here, your post was at least thought through!) isn't representative of the public at large.
25

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:46:34
#26, brilliant, thanks, best laugh I've had today.

Opinion=fact and the plural of anecdote is data.

You're right though, most cyclists would happily see their child killed because it would give them more free time to cycle.
26

Incandescent,

08/01/2009 13:47:10
#21 Bob. It's CURRENTLY based on vehicle emmissions to add weight to the latest tax-generation wheeze. Will it continue to be based on this when affordable zero CO2 emission cars become reality? I suspect not.
27

Souper Woman,

Portobello 08/01/2009 13:49:12
A few years ago I noticed some youngsters cycling away with a bike from our common stair,
I treid to report the theft but was told it had to be the bike's owner that reported it
I have since assumed that if I see a bank raid I should not take note or report it as none of the money will belong to me
28

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:50:13
#25 Bob 2

Brilliant observation Bob.

If the police do see someone driving on the pavement they will most certainly interview them and charge them if necessary.

Pavement cyclists are almost totally ignored.

Cycling on the pavement is illegal (over a ceratin age) as I am sure you well know. I hope it is not too much to ask cyclists to dismount and push bikes on pavements if they find road conditions dangerous/unsuitable.

29

,

08/01/2009 13:52:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:54:16
#32 Excellent!

I think it's optional now for schools rather than compulsory? Must do some research...

I wouldn't expect you to post your kid's school name on here, but any chance you could drop a note of it to anth@citycycling.co.uk so I can try and find out there who might be in charge of it?
31

Incandescent,

08/01/2009 13:55:50
#28 Now who's being "disingenuous"?

Fact 1: A two-wheeled, human-powered vehicle is designed for maximum stability with a rider position that places the centre of mass between the two wheels. Adding significant mass behind and above this point comprimises the already low margin of stability.

Fact 2: The UK has become a nanny state.
32

Foo,

08/01/2009 13:57:36
9 fresian - I'll have to pull you up on that one.

Helmets do save lives.

In 2004, 134 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads and 16,514 were injured, of whom 2,174 were seriously injured.

A 2002 study found that more than 100,000 cycling head injuries could have been prevented in 1997 in the USA if all cyclists had been wearing helmets.

If a cyclist is knocked off their bike, there is a good chance their head will hit the road.

Nearly 50% of cyclist admissions to hospital A&E departments are for head and face injuries, and the majority of cyclist deaths and injuries are a result of head injury.

No helmet can eliminate the risk of head injury entirely, but a helmet does dramatically reduce the risk of skull fracture when a cyclist’s head hits an object or the road. It also reduces their chances of concussion and protects their head from cuts and scrapes.

Sources:
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=489
Road Casualties Great Britain 2004: Annual Report (Department for Transport, 2005)
Injury Prevention Vol 8(1) ‘State Level Estimates of the Incidence and Economic Burden of Head Injuries Stemming from Non-Universal Use of Bicycle Helmets’ (J Schulman et al, 2002)
Mortality & Morbidity data (HMSO, 1998)
33

Incandescent,

08/01/2009 13:57:38
#33 anth@citycycling.co.uk? Hahahaha - no axe to grind then?
34

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:57:58
Well I'd argue about the 'already low margin of stability', and with one bike regularly loaded with panniers, and having ridden a tandem...

But please do go on. Do you have diagrams?
35

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:59:35
Have a read of citycycling.co.uk and you'll see that in no way are we 'anti-car'. In fact, I love my car, did a European rally in it, have plans for a classic car, etc etc etc.

There are articles in there talking about how cyclists going through red lights and riding on pavements are idiots, about how drivers aren't bad. Trust me, have a read.
36

Jeanseb,

edinburgh 08/01/2009 14:03:27
Cyclists are disliked by the others categories of "moving people":
-Walkers dislike people with cycle, to the point that simply walking with a bike next to you attracts bad glance and "rhaa" noises.
-Drivers dislike people with cycle for a few reasons including the fact that they are slower- eventhough on a city context you always find the car waiting to the next red light stop...

Walkers will never admit their mistake of crossing anywhere, the blame will always be on cyclist.
Drivers will never realise that in the city they will stop every 50 meters or so for the traffic light, and that accelerating fast won't make them reach their destination faster.

So basically the only one who likes bicycles here are the thiefs!


37

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 14:03:28
fr'instance:

Driver complaining about cyclist knocking his wing mirror off
http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue29/issue29page2.html

Realising not everyone's out to kill you
http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue26/issue26page7.html

Why I appreciate taking the bike
http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue32/issue32page36.html

Red light jumpers
http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue8/issue8page29.html
38

Witts,

Glasgow 08/01/2009 14:07:26
That comment about helmets not helping in any way just gave my monitor a lovely tea coloured hue as I involuntarily spat my post-lunch beveridge out in astonishment!

This discussion has kinda gone off-topic, so I don't mind posting this; Bike theft in Edinburgh might seem to be rising, but another problem currently suffered in Glasgow, certainly in the city centre, is bike vandalism. Meaningless attacks on locked up bikes, where the wheels are stamped through and the frame buckled. Does this ever happen in Edinburgh? Whether it does or not, it seems that both cities could benefit from central bike zones, where they can be securely parked!
39

Artemis,

08/01/2009 14:11:01
There are loads of chained bikes with pringled wheels around Edinburgh but I don't know if they were left because the wheel is buckled, or left intact and someone's stomped on them.

"Professional gangs are among those cashing in on the city's cycling boom, taking bikes from streets, common stairways and sheds. They often steal bikes in the city before selling them in places like Glasgow" - is the EN saying that our west coast cousins are a bunch of fences and petty criminals?
40

Incandescent,

08/01/2009 14:15:05
#37 Panniers are designed to place the weight on either side of the rear wheels as low as possible below the CoG for...stability, so unless there is a "twins" seat that carries the children in the same position this is irrelevant. Tandems are designed to place the centres of gravity of both riders between the axles for...stability, so also irrelevant.

I don't have diagrams but I'm sure you have the time to Google them.

#38 You assume that I'm strongly anti-cyclist: I'm not. The European Rally sounds like fun.
41

Anth,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 14:20:41
No diagrams yet, but interesting info:

From http://flakey.info/bicycletrailers/

Centre of Gravity

The other force of leverage to consider is center of gravity (c. of g.). The lower the c. of g., the lower the force trying to pull the bicycle from the upright position.

The bicycle alone starts with a c. of g. Because the cyclist is considerably heavier than the bicycle, when the cyclist sits on the bicycle the c. of g. is raised. Because the trailer load is considerably closer to the ground than the cyclist the addition of a cycle trailer can lower the c. of g. and add stability. The lower the trailer can carry its load, the greater the stability it can add.
42

Mr Regulator,

08/01/2009 14:22:01
Sorry Foo (#35) and Witts (#41) but Fresian is correct. Be careful what you read on web-sites like BRAKE - they're far from neutral commentators.

The evidence for the efficacy of cycle helmets is equivocal, to say the least, and there is clear research evidence to show that not only does helmet wearing increase risk taking by certain groups of cyclists (known as risk compensation effect) but also that motorists are more likely to drive less safely around cyclists wearing helmets.

Helmets may also increase the risk of certain types of neck and shoulder injuries, in particular rotational and displacement injuries. And they are only effective and rated for speeds of less than 12mph. The majority of commuting cyclists will exceed such speeds for all or part of their journeys.

However, that said, I personally always wear a helmet. In part because of my experience of working in A&E but also because of having been knocked off my bike (ironically by an ambulance), where the helmet helped save me from more severe injury (although it may have contributed to a permanent brachial nerve injury that I suffered).
43

TheFatCyclist,

Oop North 08/01/2009 14:27:13
Has Incandescent ever ridden a cycle with panniers and or a trailer or child seat?

A child seat (with moderate sized 3yo) is slightly less stable than a normal unladen bike. Nothing serious though and perfectly possible to use safely for a reasonably competent cyclist.

As for trailers, a heavy trailer massively increases the stability of the bike. Don't ask me why, but it does.

The argument sounds very much like "Ooo, I don't like the look of that, must make up some *facts* to justify my dislike in the absence of any real experience"

The best way to take kids to school by bike is on a tandem.
44

Incandescent,

08/01/2009 14:33:14
#46 Typical evangelist attitude, but fully agree with your last sentence, provided it isn't a purely adult tandem.
45

Davy,

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g 08/01/2009 14:36:33
Would you have a look at this video one word to describe it cool http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
46

daywalker,

west edinburgh 08/01/2009 14:42:08
too stop bikes getting stolen, have too be harder on crime. its all drugies stealing2orders nothings safe these dats ;/
47

TheFatCyclist,

08/01/2009 14:46:30
#49 regarding helmets, you seem to be unaware of the amount of protection they can provide. The impact absorption is quite small - equivalent to just your head at under 12mph - and there are well described mechanisms for them causing types of injuries such as whiplash types. In any kind of motor vehicle/cyclist crash, all bets are off as to whether they actually help or not.

As for small bumps - scratches and bruises - they are then very effective. But for major crashes? There is no non-anecdotal evidence that they have a positive effect at the population level.

Do I wear one? sometimes, depending on the context. Just like one would wear a helmet in a car on when walking - it depends on the context.
48

TheFatCyclist,

08/01/2009 15:01:56
As for visibility of cycle trailers - any driver who can't spot something that is higher than their bonnet in front of their car, needs to be handed a white stick and their driving license surgically removed. How on earth do they manage to see lane markings, kerbs, and traffic bollards?

It is, to be honest, a non issue inflated by unjustified fear and prejudice. Child trailers are excellent things - very practical and perfectly safe when used responsibly.

As for motor vehicles.. I do try, when I drive to be aware that I am driving a lethal weapon, and that I, as the driver, am responsible for the safety of those around me.

(still waiting for the 'cyclists don't pay road tax' nutters to kick out those sponging passengers and to charge pedestrians 'shoe leather tax' as well)
49

Mr Regulator,

08/01/2009 15:11:27
#53 (...to charge pedestrians 'shoe leather tax' as well)


Shhh! Don't give Gordon Brown any more ideas! :-)
50

Incandescent,

08/01/2009 15:36:37
#53 "perfectly safe when used responsibly." By which you hopefully mean, not in heavy traffic?
51

Bonzo,

08/01/2009 15:39:28
#51 'there are well described mechanisms for them causing types of injuries such as whiplash types'

That's interesting. Can you point me towards a reference please?
52

Mr Regulator,

08/01/2009 15:47:02
#56

You may find some of the research listed on the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation website (www.cyclehelmets.org) interesting. It lists the research available on both sides of the helmet argument.
53

Mr Regulator,

08/01/2009 15:51:02
Bonzo...

Try Curnow WJ. "The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury." Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2003,35:287-292
54

Niko Bellic,

08/01/2009 15:57:01
The Lycra Nazis
55

Foo,

08/01/2009 15:58:42
#45 - Funny how you disagree with me then go onto completely contradict yourself.

56

Foo,

08/01/2009 15:59:48
#45 - Plus, if you check my other sources

Road Casualties Great Britain 2004: Annual Report (Department for Transport, 2005)
Injury Prevention Vol 8(1) ‘State Level Estimates of the Incidence and Economic Burden of Head Injuries Stemming from Non-Universal Use of Bicycle Helmets’ (J Schulman et al, 2002)
Mortality & Morbidity data (HMSO, 1998)

They are hardly pressing an agenda
57

Foo,

08/01/2009 16:03:20
What'd I'd say is that those not wishing to wear a helmet, go ahead. As far as I see it, it's evolution in action, darwinism at its finest.
58

Mr Regulator,

08/01/2009 16:05:47
Foo

I don't contradict myself. I point out the limitations of cycle helmets and then explain that I personally wear one. It is my choice - not something that I think should be forced upon people.

With regard to the evidential basis for cycle helmets, BRAKE has a very clear pro-helmet agenda. This is something that they are explicit about (and I applaud then for being open about it). If you want a good source of the evidence on both sides of the argument then I'd suggest you look at the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation website (www.cyclehelmets.org).
59

Brad,

Glasgow 08/01/2009 16:06:53
what's this story about again...?
60

Brad,

Glasgow 08/01/2009 16:25:50
stopping anyone who isn't wearing a helmet is like a red rag to a bull... now I'm really confuddled ; )
61

Niko Bellic,

08/01/2009 16:40:34
Why do cyclists dress like they're doing the bobsleigh run at the winter olympics?

Why not man up and just wear jeans and a belstaff jacket, and get a bike with a 1000cc engine?
62

TheFatCyclist,

08/01/2009 18:09:20
#67 You watching me? That's more or less what I wore to ride to work this morning. Fabric hiking boots, jeans, Mountaineering jacket and bobble hat. (and good lights, legal reflectors etc. Didn't jump any red lights or break any traffic laws neither).

Tonight I'll put on the lycra and go out with the boys for a quick 25 miles.. The right gear for the journey.

tFc
63

Smackhead,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 19:03:54
Who actually cares? Stolen bikes? Stolen cars for that matter...if I witnessed either ocurring I would just keep on walking...after all, no cars or bikes, then no worries ;)
64

Smackhead,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 19:32:19
#69
So you dont go on pavements either?? Yeah that will be shining bright! If I had a tenner for every cyclist I saw speeding along the pedestrian ways I could retire tomorrow.
65

Smackhead,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 20:03:07
#72
Whats your point here? Cyclists stand out more as they break the law more often than car drivers. Sorry but its true. I am not a car driver but as a pedestrian you observe and judge on that basis. What difference is it what the article is about? I made a point. Live with it.
66

Smackhead,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 20:31:49
#73
Your point is a no point friend because its balls. I read what you put and its simply not true. I can only state again what I see every day. Cyclists are law breakers more oer day than car drivers. Do cars speed at top speed in the centre of a pavement towards pedestrians without care? Do car drivers speed though pedestrian crossings when the lights are red? I think not. Try and remember this is against the law. Fact! Just because its not acted on by a useless police force does not make it acceptable. As a pedestrian I am sick of it and not the only one either. So make sense here before you make nonsense eh? Your blinkered as your clearly a cyclist trying to put rubbish in front of truth -fact
67

Jeanseb,

edinburgh 08/01/2009 21:00:38
Stop dreaming smackhead!
Do cyclist speed at top speed in the centre of a pavement towards pedestrians without care???

Where have you seen that? Because if the cyclist hit a person, he/she probably falls as well... I've never seen such a stupid cyclist around!

Or you mean drive fast on the road when its green for the bicycle, and when the walkers cross the road at their RED lights, and still are being grumpy because the bike is coming fast?

So you are clearly not objective and trying to put rubbish in front of truth- reality.
68

Smackhead,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 21:06:32
SO let me get this right.....according to you, pedestrians who walk out onto the road without looking should be sublect to police action??! Strange I have seen no mention of this in any statutes. Maybe you should canvass your MSP for this new law to take effect? Or maybe you should just stop popping the pills!
Amber and Red Gamblers: This happens I grant you. Cyclists though just go straight through regardless! So what is worse? Easy one that.
Basic things like speed limits: This also happens with car drivers sure. You still miss the point though that it in no way is as bad as a speeding cyclist weaving through pedestrians on the pavement. They should not be there at all!!
Yes I have seen car drivers go through red lights at pedestrian crossings and zebra crossing: Sorry this is indeed a rarity. Also like I say, ALL cyclists will speed through regardless.
I think that should put you to bed now. Goodnight in that world of make believe.

69

darthpaul,

08/01/2009 21:10:20
i think its the taxi drivers pinching em so that the victims of the theft have to get a taxi!
70

Smackhead,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 21:11:39
#77
I can only assume you get around Edinburgh by spacecraft. You clearly dont see a thing around you! I have to deal with that DAILY!! As do others too. Do you ever get into the New Town area at all? That is where it is rife I can promise you.As for the cyclist falling off...hmm I think the pedestrian is going to be the one worse off!! What an imbecillic point! As for your point below..I have no idea what the hell your talking about do you??? I think not-reality

Or you mean drive fast on the road when its green for the bicycle, and when the walkers cross the road at their RED lights, and still are being grumpy because the bike is coming fast?
71

Robert Pilkington- Smythe,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 21:24:40
Let's dispense with the VED nyth first of all.....Cyclists are rated in VED band A and pay full VED for this band - nil.


Then lets get rid of the helmet myth.... According to Glasgow's head injury stats - 40 odd percentare falls, 60 odd percent are drink related so is walking down to the pub without a helmet "irresponsible Darwinism"

72

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 09/01/2009 05:50:32
In China, Beijing for instance, there are cycle parks which are much like car parks.Cyclists pay a nominal fee to have the bike parked in an enclosed area, with a cyclist type parking attendant. Their liveliehood depends on them taking care of bicyles left in their care.The bike is vandalized or stolen, word soon gets around and they will go elsewhere. Oh! I forgot in Scotland it is all moan and no action.
73

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 09/01/2009 05:56:39
Again in Beijing crossing the road is a pleasure. The busy ones are controlled by lights and have wardens on them.They ensure that no motorist or cyclists cross when pedestrians are crossing. A small city like Edinburgh can't control cyclists, who of course can't control themselves by some of the comments above.Yet in a city like Beijing with MILLIONS of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians seem to manage fine.Strange that. Could it be because it is your 'uman rights to be an absolute *s*h*l*, be you a driver,cyclist or pedestrian? I think so.
74

Brad,

Glasgow 09/01/2009 09:36:38
#81, "is walking down to the pub without a helmet "irresponsible Darwinism""? No, walking FROM the pub!
75

,

09/01/2009 10:40:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

Davie Lad,

Edinburgh 09/01/2009 18:01:29
#82
Dragonbrain. Who actually cares about your chineese experiences?? No one here thats for sure. I think your on the wrong forum friend. Is there not one more suited for you in that third world overpopulated hell hole your in? The Peking express? The noodle gazette? Try looking it up and stay off here please. Nothing you say makes any sense anyway.
77

A Leither,

09/01/2009 19:27:25
#86 His posts make sense to me. Try reading them again, and perhaps you could also learn how to spell "Chinese" whilst you're at it.
78

Davie Lad,

Edinburgh 09/01/2009 20:01:49
#87
If his posts make sense to you then p*i*s*s off over there? Spelling classes? If I had a few quid for every one of you boring dullwit forum spell checkers I could retire today. A wee hint laddie. Unless you have a contribution to make take your spell checker and stick it where the sun dont shine. Ok?
79

A Leither,

09/01/2009 21:41:58
#88 Or you could take the money and invest in some spelling lessons, eh ? And for the record, it's "don't" ;-)

Perhaps having a good grasp of language, spelling and grammar is the reason why I can understand Dragonhead perfectly well, whereas your poor grasp of language is the reason why you're a bit confused. You seem incapable of commenting without resorting to abuse or xenophobia.

Tell you what - next time you're at your local Chinese getting a takeaway, try telling them to 'micturate off' home to their "third world overpopulated hell hole" (sic) and see how they react.

I promise next time I'll make a contribution to the debate if you do. Pot / kettle / black and all that. Oh, the irony....
80

Mike The bike,

Edin 10/01/2009 10:56:50
89
Your a boring turd lets face it man. Spell checking on forums? I hate people like you, I have no time for either of you but if you check out that dragonhead guys stuff its riddled with spelling errors. So who cares? For the record Chinese food is filthy anyway and so is China. I have been there. Really awful.
81

Jeanseb,

edinburgh 12/01/2009 09:32:13
#78
I am affraid you got this completely wrong.
This is definitely not the case of pedestrians who walk out onto the road without looking to be subject to police action.
The cyclist have to cycle on the road by law, and they have to obey the driving regulations such as stoping to the red lights.
BUT at the traffic lights, even when it's green for them they have to stop because walkers are breaking the rules and passing.
This is a lack of respect for the cyclists and illegal.

Now the problem is not sanctioning the walkers, but showing that the cyclists are in a situation where they are discriminated compared to the cars.

And yet the blame is to the cyclist when they hit one on the traffic light, because the walker passed to the red?

The current situation is if there is no car and it's green for the "road side", the cyclist have to break not to hit people crossing. This makes more walkers crossing because apart the bike there is no one. Consequently, the cyclist has to stop when it's green for him/her.
As far as I know this is not normal, and also a lack of respect.

Now this is not about complaining and crying about the sad life of cyclists, but to admit we have all our roles on the road/pavements and this is unreal to put the blame to cyclists only.

But I guess you won't understand because you only react to law/outlaw!

Oh and this is not the case of who has the "bigger one" or has the "worst injury": a cyclist won't speed up towards walkers because he/she will fall, no matter if the walker will have the worst injury. And again its FAKE and unreal, what if the cyclist by breaking badly goes forward and hit the ground with his head? who will have the worst injury? How can you tell?
You always assume the cyclist is the badest, the one will create the harm and so on.
Tsss...
82

Mike The bike,

Edin 12/01/2009 21:25:38
#91 Wow you have totally lost the plot!

what if the cyclist by breaking badly goes forward and hit the ground with his head? who will have the worst injury?

As the cyclist is on wheels travelling fast and a pedestrian is walking who gives a damn about how the cyclist comes out? Idiots on wheels need to slow down. You fail to grasp even this one point...

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.