Third Cyclist killed in London this week

[subaqua]

And yet the roads are covered in mud... I've had to complain on a number of occasions.

PM me next time.I have a direct line.

the newest smallest project there is the main culprit but they will be educated in the error of their ways

 

[simon walsh]

Very sad news rip

 

[ozboz]

You might be educated a bit, and enjoy your next bike ride more. Which I think would be a good thing.

It always strikes me that this sort of discussion is more about fear of danger - a false perception - than about actual danger. It would be stupid to claim that there is no danger, so I don't. But it's also not terribly clever to claim that there is a lot or overwhelming or material danger.

I always enjoy my riding ,so reading a load of stats will have no affect whatsoever ,
Take the dicussion how you will, I have no fear of danger ,
but do consider the possibility encountering it , so by taking appropriate action that could eliminate and or minimise
risk beforehand is ok in my book, and many others it would seem,
Maybe its a trait I had drummed into whilst serving in the Army at a young age , in a situations where lack of real perception can and did end with catastrophic results .
The fact that last week three persons were tragically lost whilst riding does confirm that cycling is hazardous , so how can it be claimed that it is safe , safe ish,
at best ,
Not very clever to dismiss
the fact that the stats do reveal the number of cyclist KSi's regardless of percentage ,
None is better than one ,

 

[Wobblers]

I always enjoy my riding ,so reading a load of stats will have no affect whatsoever ,
Take the dicussion how you will, I have no fear of danger ,
but do consider the possibility encountering it , so by taking appropriate action that could eliminate and or minimise
risk beforehand is ok in my book, and many others it would seem,
Maybe its a trait I had drummed into whilst serving in the Army at a young age , in a situations where lack of real perception can and did end with catastrophic results .
The fact that last week three persons were tragically lost whilst riding does confirm that cycling is hazardous , so how can it be claimed that it is safe , safe ish,
at best ,
Not very clever to dismiss
the fact that the stats do reveal the number of cyclist KSi's regardless of percentage ,
None is better than one ,

Personal Protective Equipment has a very specific meaning. It is protective equipment which may offer some protection in an unforeseen event. It is by no means a guarantee of safety. It is also not a replacement for adhering to safe procedures and adopting the correct practices. It is a last resort: if you are relying on it for your safety you're doing it wrong. Where I work, that'd get you fired.

From your photo, it was quite plain that many - the majority, in fact - were not wearing PPE. Your risk assessment should take into account that there is surprisingly little evidence to support the idea that helmets and hi-vis decrease the risks for cyclists. In fact, I'd argue that hi-vis runs the danger of training drivers - those who bring the majority of the risk - into expecting and therefore relying on this "PPE", which is exactly the opposite to the safe behaviour necessary.

 

[lazybloke]

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]
I very much doubt the masks have any significant filtering effect on the most dangerous particulates, but that's not the point is it?

 

[srw]

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]
No, not really. To both halves of that post.

 

[ozboz]

Personal Protective Equipment has a very specific meaning. It is protective equipment which may offer some protection in an unforeseen event. It is by no means a guarantee of safety. It is also not a replacement for adhering to safe procedures and adopting the correct practices. It is a last resort: if you are relying on it for your safety you're doing it wrong. Where I work, that'd get you fired.

From your photo, it was quite plain that many - the majority, in fact - were not wearing PPE. Your risk assessment should take into account that there is surprisingly little evidence to support the idea that helmets and hi-vis decrease the risks for cyclists. In fact, I'd argue that hi-vis runs the danger of training drivers - those who bring the majority of the risk - into expecting and therefore relying on this "PPE", which is exactly the opposite to the safe behaviour necessary.

Not saying PPE makes you bullet proof , just helps divert or possibly protect and or reduce any injury ,

I am now in the Construction Industry , I am not sure how PPE could circumvent safe practise and procedure other than not wearing it ,
In London , Hi Viz and Helmets could never be mandatory as long as there are Boris Bikes on the road , but if you have never seen a Boris bike , they are lit up ,
as an individual I choose to don articles / items on myself and bike that in my opinion alert others to my presence , therefore decreasing possible risk factors ,
I also wear items to protect me from the elements in winter and summer , mainly for comfort , severe discomfort could lead to distraction , which in turn could lead to a problem ,
Vehicle drivers should only depend on themselves and roadworthy-ness of their vehicles whilst driving to avert collisions with any others regardless,

 

[lazybloke]

looks likely that tax/duty/congestion charging/polution charging and even public opinion will reduce the number if diesel engines in future, and the so-called clean diesels are not without their problems (inc potentially high maintenance costs).
if DPFs really can work effectively then maybe all those charges I mentioned above could be used to subsidise the maintenance, it would be if benefit to all. Ultimately though, makes sense to transition away from diesel, and masks and protests might help bring that day nearer.
but which energy source? I think it has ti be electricity, clean at point of use at least. I've heard it said that the national grid would fall apart, but I suppose economy 7 type tariffs and a more distributed generating capacity (micro generation) would be part of the solution.

 

[Drago]

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]I doubt that's possible, such is the tiny scale of them.

 

[ozboz]

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]

Not to sure if they work to well , is there a "does it all filter ?
Keep your face warm maybe ?
Look cool maybe ?

 

[growingvegetables]

Not saying PPE makes you bullet proof , just helps divert or possibly protect and or reduce any injury ,

I am now in the Construction Industry , I am not sure how PPE could circumvent safe practise and procedure other than not wearing it ,
In London , Hi Viz and Helmets could never be mandatory as long as there are Boris Bikes on the road , but if you have never seen a Boris bike , they are lit up ,
as an individual I choose to don articles / items on myself and bike that in my opinion alert others to my presence , therefore decreasing possible risk factors ,
I also wear items to protect me from the elements in winter and summer , mainly for comfort , severe discomfort could lead to distraction , which in turn could lead to a problem ,
Vehicle drivers should only depend on themselves and roadworthy-ness of their vehicles whilst driving to avert collisions with any others regardless,

Lordy - you're overthinking it. I get on my bike and go for a ride! And intend to enjoy!

 

[ozboz]

Lordy - you're overthinking it. I get on my bike and go for a ride! And intend to enjoy!

I agree , but others reply and be picky ,
So I reply back ,

 

[srw]

The fact that last week three persons were tragically lost whilst riding does confirm that cycling is hazardous , so how can it be claimed that it is safe , safe ish,

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]

I am now in the Construction Industry , I am not sure how PPE could circumvent safe practise and procedure other than not wearing it ,

Not to sure if they work to well , is there a "does it all filter ?
Keep your face warm maybe ?
Look cool maybe ?

I'm going to take the easy option and simply say "no!" to all of this lot. If I'm more with-it tomorrow or later in the week I may give a more subtle response.

 

[RRCC]

Trying to give some clarity on the legal issues.
The full title of the PPE regs is: The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, they are made under the HSW Act 1974, so this, as indicated in the title, means that they only apply to people involved in work activity.

PPE is defined in Reg 2:

2 Interpretation
(1) In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, “personal protective equipment” means all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects him against one or more risks to his health or safety, and any addition or accessory designed to meet that objective.

This could be construed to include cycle helmets and high vis if worn when at work, however:

Regulation 3
(1) ....
(2) Regulations 4 to 12 shall not apply in respect of personal protective equipment which is —
(a) ordinary working clothes and uniforms which do not specifically protect the health and safety of the wearer;
(b) an offensive weapon within the meaning of section 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 used as self-defence or as deterrent equipment;
(c) portable devices for detecting and signalling risks and nuisances;
(d) personal protective equipment used for protection while travelling on a road within the meaning (in England and Wales) of section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988(3), and (in Scotland) of section 151 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;
(e) equipment used during the playing of competitive sports.

All the regulations that impose duties do not apply when travelling on a road.

Therefore the PPE regs do not apply to any cyclist on a public road (they may apply to people riding bikes around industrial sites for work purposes).
Of course, careful reading of reg 2 means that helmets can only be ppe if they protect "against one or more risks to his health or safety," helmet debate thread is that way.