This is a helmet debate

[ufkacbln]

Cyclists also create pollution by breathing out ( co2) faster than pedestrians. It may seem strange but it is true so forget the " save the planet" crap and enjoy living.

Am I missing something here?

I have no doubt that a racing cyclist would produce more CO2 than a strolling pedestrian, but I suspect that a fast walker and a pootling cyclist would have been similar.

What is indisputable is that both groups emit far less CO2 than any of the cars on the UK market

 

[TrevorM]

Cyclists also create pollution by breathing out ( co2) faster than pedestrians. It may seem strange but it is true so forget the " save the planet" crap and enjoy living.

Not quite.......
Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO[sub][size="-1"]2[/size][/sub]?

A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

 

[gavroche]

Cars maybe getting cleaner but they're still a significant cause of pollution in urban areas, especially considering most are used for relatively short journeys at their least efficient. Journeys that are readily replaced by the bike
There's also pollution in terms of noise as well.
It's not a case of 'save the planet' crap it's about creating a better local environment for everybody, what's so wrong with that?

dont get me wrong. I am all in favour of a better environment but I think today's environment is not bad at all compared to 100 years ago or even less. Lets stop blaming cars for everything. They have a very useful purpose in our society and for one, wouldn't like to go back to the horse and cart.
Rivers are cleaner nowadays, the air in our cities is also cleaner ( remember the "smog" in London 50 years ago?) and there are lots of green spaces. Of course, cycles should also play a big part as a means of transport over a short distance and cars over longer distances and carrying capacity. There is room for all means of transport and each to his own

 

[Dan B]

Cars maybe getting cleaner but they're still a significant cause of pollution in urban areas, especially considering most are used for relatively short journeys at their least efficient. Journeys that are readily replaced by the bike
There's also pollution in terms of noise as well.
It's not a case of 'save the planet' crap it's about creating a better local environment for everybody, what's so wrong with that?

And then there's congestion. And then there's the dehumanising effect of being walled inside a tin box which seems to encourage usually reasonable people to get pissy and selfish and territorial and start believing that the roads were put there for their use instead of as a general public good.


OK, so some cyclists get that way too. Maybe it's the momentum thing, not the tin box thing

 

[Jezston]

It's surprising how many people DON'T know of Graeme Obree?

I only know of him because I happened to be flicking channels one evening and "ooh a film about cycling", The Flying Scotsman. But then I don't have much interest in competition.

 

[Fab Foodie]

dont get me wrong. I am all in favour of a better environment but I think today's environment is not bad at all compared to 100 years ago or even less. Lets stop blaming cars for everything. They have a very useful purpose in our society and for one, wouldn't like to go back to the horse and cart.
Rivers are cleaner nowadays, the air in our cities is also cleaner ( remember the "smog" in London 50 years ago?) and there are lots of green spaces. Of course, cycles should also play a big part as a means of transport over a short distance and cars over longer distances and carrying capacity. There is room for all means of transport and each to his own

Of course, but there's few downsides and many plusses to reducing the number of cars on our streets.

 

[Fab Foodie]

And then there's congestion. And then there's the dehumanising effect of being walled inside a tin box which seems to encourage usually reasonable people to get pissy and selfish and territorial and start believing that the roads were put there for their use instead of as a general public good.


OK, so some cyclists get that way too. Maybe it's the momentum thing, not the tin box thing

It's definately the tin box thing.

 

[lukesdad]

Putting more cyclists on the roads makes them safer FF ? Not quite sure how that one works.

 

[the snail]

i haven't based my own views on actual evidence other than my own thoughts on the matter

that's the problem, without some evidence to back them up, opinions don't really count for much. If you search the forums, people have produced evidence, and having looked at it I came to the conclusion that cycling is not dangerous enough compared to driving/walking to warrant helmets/body armour etc, the helmets available are pretty ineffective, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that helmets reduce accident/injury rates. I don't like wearing a helmet, I find it uncomfortable and inconvenient, but if someone can produce evidence that it would significantly improve my safety, I'll start wearing one.

 

[the snail]

... Of course, cycles should also play a big part as a means of transport over a short distance and cars busses/trains over longer distances and carrying capacity. There is room for all means of transport and each to his own

ftfy

 

[david k]

that's the problem, without some evidence to back them up, opinions don't really count for much. If you search the forums, people have produced evidence, and having looked at it I came to the conclusion that cycling is not dangerous enough compared to driving/walking to warrant helmets/body armour etc, the helmets available are pretty ineffective, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that helmets reduce accident/injury rates. I don't like wearing a helmet, I find it uncomfortable and inconvenient, but if someone can produce evidence that it would significantly improve my safety, I'll start wearing one.

forums are full of opinions. If it were just a place to submit stats and evidence we may as well all just read british standards and the like

opinions make forums interesting, considering other peoples points of view. I respect other views shame there are some who do not

 

[Origamist]

Putting more cyclists on the roads makes them safer FF ? Not quite sure how that one works.

It's known as the "safety in numbers" effect. The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. However, the reasons underlying the correlation are open to debate.

http://www.safetrec.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Spring04/JacobsenPaper.pdf

 

[ufkacbln]

my point is, if wearing helmets is pointless or of little benefit, why do the experienced racing authorities insist on it?

Did you mean the UCI or the RAC/ACU?

 

[david k]

uci

 

[Smokin Joe]

uci

Panic.

They don't want to be fighting off the 'elf & safety nannies should one of the head injury deaths which almost never happened in over a century of pro and amateur racing actually occur.