Who says cycling is dangerous?

[il padrone]

Helmets compulsory for beach cricket, I say

[Xplora]

It would be good if some could allow themselves the privilege of considering the opposing viewpoint. The delight that some have (like human909) is that our culture is defaulted to the car-centric approach, so they have already considered the default and found it wanting.

Why would anyone suggest "you're keen" to ride a bike on a public road?

Why should that even be suggested?

I believe it is an underlying assumption that "other" drivers cannot be trusted. There is a general pessimism about the quality of human who controls a motor vehicle in our country, and we elevate the car as being more important than the human being. The real reason we are afraid of hitting another car is the insurance excess, it's not the actual pain or damage it will cause. As cheap car repair has become less and less accessible to the public, as full body sprays have become the norm and replacement parts very hard to install, the idea that you might just live with a scratch has become impossible for many (edit: because any accident is so expensive that you might as well pay the 400-500 bucks to get it fixed). Crumple zones and the like similarly make "medium accidents" into pretty costly ones.

So we have a perverse notion that damaging a car is the worst thing that another person could do to you, rather than damaging you, or even breaking the law, because the fine for an accident is nothing compared to the insurance. Heck even the fine for drink driving, a genuine evil, is less the excess a 19 year old pays.

Every signal our society sends is that the car is more important than a person, or the law. I genuinely believe a large portion of Australia lacks the stones to consider the possibility that another person is more valuable than their convenience, or comfort, or even themselves. This group only needs to be 1 in 10 to seriously affect the behaviours and attitudes of the 9 in 10. (This is actually typical of most of the cultures across the planet as well).

So, after 1 in 10 believes their car is more important than other people, and society sends a price signal to everyone that a car is more important than road rules, and by association, the people that those road rules are supposed to protect, you eventually end up with a situation where human life starts to become less important unless legislators and courts make a stand against such attitudes. Sadly, human history is more noteworthy for its failings, than its successes. A lot more guys have caused death than saved life.

So of course, you'd need to be keen, in the eyes of the lazy few and those too weak to stand against their views. The only comfort is that evil will fail, every time, because evil doesn't create enough to replace what it destroys. The bad guys don't win.

I can only smile when people think I'm doing something special like riding a bike; I don't think they realise how sad it is that they don't realise they aren't doing something special by refusing to ride.

[yugyug]

Great post Xplora. It saddens me too that property is considered more important than human life and considered more of an incentive for motivating good behaviour than empathy or remorse. Your post makes the excellent point that there needs to be changes to the current system of liability, TINs and insurance. I think strict liability as per the Dutch model could make the first big difference to driving behaviour. Especially if coupled with much tougher fines and a lower threshold for criminal prosecution of driving offences.

[Xplora]

I think bringing the severity of the injury/damage in line with nontraffic offences would easily equalise the issue. If you hit someone with a sledgehammer accidently and they end up in hospital, you're in a world of problems because you will be called to account for that injury. You might be found not liable and not guilty, but the police will certainly chase you hard. A car hurts WAY more than a sledgehammer. I think the language of accident needs to be thrown away. There are very few car accidents. Blow a tyre, hit a roo, spider inside the drivers window, they are accidents. The majority of collisions are negligence, and you can expect very little support for negligent homicide from the DPP or the police.

The road rules are supposed to set a higher bar for interaction, not a lower one. Maybe get done for 30kmh over, 20K fine and permanent disqualification. You think you will see anyone street racing ever again? On the upside, I bet a lot of ambos and cops would be interested in the Fast and the Furious.

[diggler]

Great post Xplora. It saddens me too that property is considered more important than human life and considered more of an incentive for motivating good behaviour than empathy or remorse. Your post makes the excellent point that there needs to be changes to the current system of liability, TINs and insurance. I think strict liability as per the Dutch model could make the first big difference to driving behaviour. Especially if coupled with much tougher fines and a lower threshold for criminal prosecution of driving offences.

I don't know what is the Dutch model, but if I were drafting the laws I would make it a rebuttable presumption against the less vulnerable road user. I.e. motorists fault is presumed in collision with pedestrian or cyclist unless motorist can prove otherwise. Cyclist fault in collision with pedestrian unless cyclist can prove otherwise. Is that the Dutch model?

[diggler]

It would be good if some could allow themselves the privilege of considering the opposing viewpoint. The delight that some have (like human909) is that our culture is defaulted to the car-centric approach, so they have already considered the default and found it wanting.

Why would anyone suggest "you're keen" to ride a bike on a public road?

Why should that even be suggested?

I believe it is an underlying assumption that "other" drivers cannot be trusted. There is a general pessimism about the quality of human who controls a motor vehicle in our country, and we elevate the car as being more important than the human being. The real reason we are afraid of hitting another car is the insurance excess, it's not the actual pain or damage it will cause. As cheap car repair has become less and less accessible to the public, as full body sprays have become the norm and replacement parts very hard to install, the idea that you might just live with a scratch has become impossible for many (edit: because any accident is so expensive that you might as well pay the 400-500 bucks to get it fixed). Crumple zones and the like similarly make "medium accidents" into pretty costly ones.

So we have a perverse notion that damaging a car is the worst thing that another person could do to you, rather than damaging you, or even breaking the law, because the fine for an accident is nothing compared to the insurance. Heck even the fine for drink driving, a genuine evil, is less the excess a 19 year old pays.

Every signal our society sends is that the car is more important than a person, or the law. I genuinely believe a large portion of Australia lacks the stones to consider the possibility that another person is more valuable than their convenience, or comfort, or even themselves. This group only needs to be 1 in 10 to seriously affect the behaviours and attitudes of the 9 in 10. (This is actually typical of most of the cultures across the planet as well).

So, after 1 in 10 believes their car is more important than other people, and society sends a price signal to everyone that a car is more important than road rules, and by association, the people that those road rules are supposed to protect, you eventually end up with a situation where human life starts to become less important unless legislators and courts make a stand against such attitudes. Sadly, human history is more noteworthy for its failings, than its successes. A lot more guys have caused death than saved life.

So of course, you'd need to be keen, in the eyes of the lazy few and those too weak to stand against their views. The only comfort is that evil will fail, every time, because evil doesn't create enough to replace what it destroys. The bad guys don't win.

I can only smile when people think I'm doing something special like riding a bike; I don't think they realise how sad it is that they don't realise they aren't doing something special by refusing to ride.

I am a rider, but I do empathise with motorists. They are stuck in traffic for a couple of hours a day. Then that damn cyclist holds him up. I can sense the frustration growing. I understand their impatience.

[diggler]

I don't want to go down the mhl thread here. But to say people think cycling is dangerous because cyclists wear helmets is pretty idiotic. Whether or not a cricketer wears a helmet, I can work out pretty quickly that a 156 g hard projectile at 150 km/h from 22 yards at my head is pretty dangerous.

That's an idiotic analogy. That kind of cricket is high level sports - maybe it would be reasonable to compare that to road racing, but not many doubt the value of helmets for that. But the effect on perception mainly concerns utility cycling.

Would you wear a helmet playing french cricket with a tennis ball?

I guess I am different from you. If I saw somebody wearing a helmet playing French cricket with a tennis ball, I would assume they were an idiot whereas you would assume it is a dangerous sport. If I saw somebody running with the bulls, I would assume they were an idiot, but you would assume it is a safe activity. I make my evaluation of safety based on my own observations, not the stupidity of others.

[human909]

I make my evaluation of safety based on my own observations, not the stupidity of others.

Congratulations.

Most people however make evaluations based on those around them. They also make evaluations on what safety messages are being told. If nobody is wearing helmets in an activity then people will usually do the same. If everybody is wearing a helmet they will go get one for themselves. If the government is advertising that children should wear a helmet while riding, some mothers will get their kids a helmet. Others will have their safety concerns raised and stop their kids altogether. (This is what actually occurred in Denmark.)


The behaviour of other people towards a risk is something most people are observant to. Due to asthma I had to wear a respirator dust mask on a worksite. The immediate thought of many of the workers was "What does he know that I don't?". "What danger am I being exposed to that I am not aware about?" When they inquired why I was wearing the respirator there was notable concern in their voice.

[diggler]

I make my evaluation of safety based on my own observations, not the stupidity of others.

Congratulations.

Most people however make evaluations based on those around them. They also make evaluations on what safety messages are being told. If nobody is wearing helmets in an activity then people will usually do the same. If everybody is wearing a helmet they will go get one for themselves. If the government is advertising that children should wear a helmet while riding, some mothers will get their kids a helmet. Others will have their safety concerns raised and stop their kids altogether. (This is what actually occurred in Denmark.)

Ok. Fair point. In the past, nobody wore helmets at the snow, now lots of people do. Skiing hasn't become any more dangerous, however, the perception of danger has increased. Are they being overly cautious now or were they under cautious in the past?

However, irrespective of whether somebody else is wearing a helmet, people are aware there are cycling deaths and injuries. It is all over the news. People can also work out that if your smack your head on a hard surface at speed, then there is a great potential for death or serious injury. Even a 2 year old could work that out once he's hit his head on a hard surface once.

[silentC]

They also make evaluations on what safety messages are being told.

And yet there are still plenty of people who smoke, drink alcohol (guilty) and eat too much fatty food (also guilty). In fact I'd say that 'most people' indulge in all sorts of risky behaviour in spite of the safety messages.

I think it is a very complex subject and there's a tendency for people to over-simplify it in order to make a point. Cycling seems to be very popular around here, just about every kid in my street rides to school. And I am seeing increasing numbers of adults getting on bikes too. I've noticed a sharp increase in the last year. So despite having to wear a helmet it's going from strength to strength around here at least.

[human909]

Ok. Fair point. In the past, nobody wore helmets at the snow, now lots of people do. Skiing hasn't become any more dangerous, however, the perception of danger has increased. Are they being overly cautious now or were they under cautious in the past?

However, irrespective of whether somebody else is wearing a helmet, people are aware there are cycling deaths and injuries. It is all over the news. People can also work out that if your smack your head on a hard surface at speed, then there is a great potential for death or serious injury. Even a 2 year old could work that out once he's hit his head on a hard surface once.

They have just as many hard surfaces in Holland and for that matter most countries in the world. Yet the public's attitudes towards helmet wearing and the risk of cycling is starkly different. Yet despite this you think what others say and do has no effect on peoples perception of risk!???

If you want to argue about helmets lets take this outside (and next door).

[yugyug]

I don't know what is the Dutch model, but if I were drafting the laws I would make it a rebuttable presumption against the less vulnerable road user. I.e. motorists fault is presumed in collision with pedestrian or cyclist unless motorist can prove otherwise. Cyclist fault in collision with pedestrian unless cyclist can prove otherwise. Is that the Dutch model?

Pretty much, there are some subtleties to it though. Collisions with minors get extra tough liabilities even though kids are the most likely to doing something unexpected. This keeps drivers on their toes so to speak.

[yugyug]

I don't want to go down the mhl thread here. But to say people think cycling is dangerous because cyclists wear helmets is pretty idiotic. Whether or not a cricketer wears a helmet, I can work out pretty quickly that a 156 g hard projectile at 150 km/h from 22 yards at my head is pretty dangerous.

That's an idiotic analogy. That kind of cricket is high level sports - maybe it would be reasonable to compare that to road racing, but not many doubt the value of helmets for that. But the effect on perception mainly concerns utility cycling.

Would you wear a helmet playing french cricket with a tennis ball?

I guess I am different from you. If I saw somebody wearing a helmet playing French cricket with a tennis ball, I would assume they were an idiot whereas you would assume it is a dangerous sport. If I saw somebody running with the bulls, I would assume they were an idiot, but you would assume it is a safe activity. I make my evaluation of safety based on my own observations, not the stupidity of others.

Well if your observations about safety are as savvy as your observations about my assumptions - I'd be careful!!

[Xplora]

They are stuck in traffic for a couple of hours a day. Then that damn cyclist holds him up. I can sense the frustration growing. I understand their impatience.
If I saw somebody wearing a helmet playing French cricket with a tennis ball, I would assume they were an idiot

I think we're getting somewhere here. This is progress!

I 100% agree with both of these points you raised. Completely and utterly. However...

We form these opinions in a context We have assumptions, expectations, and these are NOT concrete and set in stone. We can actually choose to think differently about them.

Why does the motorist get stressed in their car? Guess what, "you are the traffic!" as the saying goes. They are delayed because thousands of other people made the same choice they did, and society can't make them happy with faster commutes. We have to share the road with others, and the car is a naturally inefficient mode if a human is controlling it, because people have delays in their reactions and cars don't accelerate instantly. There are imperfections with car travel. The driver needs to relax, chill out, enjoy the radio and the aircon, and accept that car travel takes time. At least it is comfortable and easy!

It is our decision to ignore the realities of car travel, and get annoyed at any reason we see for our delay. A bike didn't slow them down. If they rode a bike, the other bike isn't slowing them down at all. If they walked, the bike didn't slow them down. Need to share the road We have to completely step outside our socially conditioned responses and say "hey, the problem is my attitude, not the bike rider".

The french cricket is a similar issue. We are conditioned to believe that french cricket is safe and you're a goose if you need a full face helmet but I HAVE seen a kid get owned in the face playing french cricket. Injuries are possible, but highly unlikely. It is our assumptions and attitudes about danger that colour our views about helmets or bicycles or cars. I've been hit by cars twice on a bike. You don't want to make a habit of it, but it's not the end of the world. Far from it. Part of the reason I won't take crap from cars, because I know that they will struggle to defend against my court case because everyone believes that a car is tougher than a bike
Your attitude towards the danger of french cricket is your own, you could appreciate that someone else's opinion about using a helmet for french cricket might be different, yes? You think they are an idiot, but you won't fine them if they choose to wear a helmet, right? You won't tell your son to avoid Joe because he's a wimp who chooses to wear a helmet playing french cricket, right? What if the school told all the kids to wear a hat, or they couldn't go outside to play? This is a reality everywhere now. I didn't need a hat to play when I was a kid... why must society make all the decisions for us? Can't I just choose for myself? Can't you choose for yourself? I think we're smart enough to realise that we should be allowed to decide for ourselves
I accept someone might think I'm an idiot for wearing a helmet riding a bike, or NOT wearing one, but to make a law to force me to make a decision, when we have different assumptions about the danger and risk, well that's the entire MHL debate in a nutshell.

We're all entitled to our opinions, some are good or bad, but the key is that society doesn't get to decide to ban an otherwise acceptable activity, it betrays the notion of freedom which OUR society is based upon.

[diggler]

They are stuck in traffic for a couple of hours a day. Then that damn cyclist holds him up. I can sense the frustration growing. I understand their impatience.
If I saw somebody wearing a helmet playing French cricket with a tennis ball, I would assume they were an idiot

I think we're getting somewhere here. This is progress!

I 100% agree with both of these points you raised. Completely and utterly. However...

We form these opinions in a context We have assumptions, expectations, and these are NOT concrete and set in stone. We can actually choose to think differently about them.

Why does the motorist get stressed in their car? Guess what, "you are the traffic!" as the saying goes. They are delayed because thousands of other people made the same choice they did, and society can't make them happy with faster commutes. We have to share the road with others, and the car is a naturally inefficient mode if a human is controlling it, because people have delays in their reactions and cars don't accelerate instantly. There are imperfections with car travel. The driver needs to relax, chill out, enjoy the radio and the aircon, and accept that car travel takes time. At least it is comfortable and easy!

It is our decision to ignore the realities of car travel, and get annoyed at any reason we see for our delay. A bike didn't slow them down. If they rode a bike, the other bike isn't slowing them down at all. If they walked, the bike didn't slow them down. Need to share the road We have to completely step outside our socially conditioned responses and say "hey, the problem is my attitude, not the bike rider".

The french cricket is a similar issue. We are conditioned to believe that french cricket is safe and you're a goose if you need a full face helmet but I HAVE seen a kid get owned in the face playing french cricket. Injuries are possible, but highly unlikely. It is our assumptions and attitudes about danger that colour our views about helmets or bicycles or cars. I've been hit by cars twice on a bike. You don't want to make a habit of it, but it's not the end of the world. Far from it. Part of the reason I won't take crap from cars, because I know that they will struggle to defend against my court case because everyone believes that a car is tougher than a bike
Your attitude towards the danger of french cricket is your own, you could appreciate that someone else's opinion about using a helmet for french cricket might be different, yes? You think they are an idiot, but you won't fine them if they choose to wear a helmet, right? You won't tell your son to avoid Joe because he's a wimp who chooses to wear a helmet playing french cricket, right? What if the school told all the kids to wear a hat, or they couldn't go outside to play? This is a reality everywhere now. I didn't need a hat to play when I was a kid... why must society make all the decisions for us? Can't I just choose for myself? Can't you choose for yourself? I think we're smart enough to realise that we should be allowed to decide for ourselves
I accept someone might think I'm an idiot for wearing a helmet riding a bike, or NOT wearing one, but to make a law to force me to make a decision, when we have different assumptions about the danger and risk, well that's the entire MHL debate in a nutshell.

We're all entitled to our opinions, some are good or bad, but the key is that society doesn't get to decide to ban an otherwise acceptable activity, it betrays the notion of freedom which OUR society is based upon.

I don't want to go down the mhl path because there is another thread for that. I think is is simplistic to say the driver needs to relax. He's been working all day. He is stuck in traffic and needs to pick up the kids. He has financial issues, family issues etc. Life is stressful. I get it.

[diggler]

Ok. Fair point. In the past, nobody wore helmets at the snow, now lots of people do. Skiing hasn't become any more dangerous, however, the perception of danger has increased. Are they being overly cautious now or were they under cautious in the past?

However, irrespective of whether somebody else is wearing a helmet, people are aware there are cycling deaths and injuries. It is all over the news. People can also work out that if your smack your head on a hard surface at speed, then there is a great potential for death or serious injury. Even a 2 year old could work that out once he's hit his head on a hard surface once.

They have just as many hard surfaces in Holland and for that matter most countries in the world. Yet the public's attitudes towards helmet wearing and the risk of cycling is starkly different. Yet despite this you think what others say and do has no effect on peoples perception of risk!???

If you want to argue about helmets lets take this outside (and next door).

Yes I agree that what everybody else is doing does influence you. But how much? What everybody else is doing is just one factor. If I think running of the bulls is dangerous, I don't care what everybody else is doing.

[yugyug]

I didn't need a hat to play when I was a kid... why must society make all the decisions for us? Can't I just choose for myself? Can't you choose for yourself? I think we're smart enough to realise that we should be allowed to decide for ourselves
I accept someone might think I'm an idiot for wearing a helmet riding a bike, or NOT wearing one, but to make a law to force me to make a decision, when we have different assumptions about the danger and risk, well that's the entire MHL debate in a nutshell.
[/i]

I don't agree with that. The libertarian argument has some merit, but ultimately we live in a society which has hierarchal structures e.g laws, by which we decide whats at stake and whats best for everyone collectively. The hat analogy makes this perfectly clear - we don't let young kids play outside without hats anymore because we know more than before about skin cancer. The key argument about the MHL is not choice (though its a benefit of not having a MHL- you get choice) but rather the MHL works as a barrier to cycling uptake for several reasons and this increases the danger for all cyclists. The minor argument is that helmets don't work as well as commonly perceived - the libertarian argument comes after that IMO.

[Xplora]

I am delighted that you hold the opinion of others in a low rung of your ladder, diggler - getting involved in the MHL thread does rely on a certain level of "personal assuredness" but the research community has shown that some people are MUCH more easily influenced, and certain age groups are slaves to the herd mentality as well. The notion "how much" is precisely the reason for this thread, and it sums up the very reason why a lot of people will say "you're keen" if you ride on the road. I don't think you give herd mentality enough credence, if enough people want to do something it becomes normalised. Muslim countries require a very different attitude and behaviours from women than you would expect in Australia or the USA. There is nothing wrong with either approach, they both have their merits. Sadly, responsibility to treat women humanely becomes a secondary concern in both cultures, for different reasons, but the fact remains that the normative expectation of a woman is different in each culture. The normative expectation of a cyclist is totally different in the Netherlands, and Australia.

Thing is, the Dutch reacted to cyclist deaths very differently to Australia and it actually shaped their culture and expectations. They assume the issue is cars, we assume the issue is bikes, because of conscious historical choices.

The key, diggler, IMO, is that your personal opinions are fine until you go outside your own head and say something, or do something, based on that opinion. Even something as benign as thinking that riding a bike on the road has impacts when you tell your friend your opinion. They question their belief, maybe they respect you a lot or are just easily led, but then they change their opinion and stop considering riding. They talk to their friends, and eventually we have a normalised expectation that riding a bike on the road is a bad idea. You aren't an island, you make an impression with every action you take. You are building your nation just as much as any MP; your general "I don't care about their opinions, I form my own" approach is a stereotype of the Tough Aussie Male. That is fine, but your belief that you don't have to consider the ideas of others is actually creating the culture that ignores the needs and desires of others, because your mates also share your view that they don't need to care about the opinion of the law that cycling is OK on the road. It's a damning state of affairs. You are far more influential than you realise, even if its subtle most of the time in your eyes.

Yug, kids will suffer MUCH more from being forced to stay inside than potential skin cancer. Obesity kills more people than skin cancer ever has. So we'll have to disagree

[il padrone]

When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere.

It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision.

Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





I would suggest that since this article was written the distance has come down to 'as far as the front gate'. This is how personal decisions, often based on irrational, media-driven fears, can play out in the communtiy as a whole. When nobody lets their 8 yo travel unaccompanied beyond the front gate, suddenly you are a dangerously irresponsible parent for letting your 8 yo travel 300m to the nearby playground

[zero]

When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere.

It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision.

Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





I would suggest that since this article was written the distance has come down to 'as far as the front gate'. This is how personal decisions, often based on irrational, media-driven fears, can play out in the communtiy as a whole. When nobody lets their 8 yo travel unaccompanied beyond the front gate, suddenly you are a dangerously irresponsible parent for letting your 8 yo travel 300m to the nearby playground

Just worked it out for me, at 8 years old, was allowed to ride 2.5km from home in ~1980 on my 3 speed dragster to visit a friends house, including crossing a 6 lane section of the pacific highway (at a set of traffic lights which was there at the time and had a pedestrian crossing I could use at the time). I had a wrist watch, and I was told what time I had to leave there, since my parents didn't have a phone and checking up on me was thus impossible.

[diggler]

I am delighted that you hold the opinion of others in a low rung of your ladder, diggler - getting involved in the MHL thread does rely on a certain level of "personal assuredness" but the research community has shown that some people are MUCH more easily influenced, and certain age groups are slaves to the herd mentality as well. The notion "how much" is precisely the reason for this thread, and it sums up the very reason why a lot of people will say "you're keen" if you ride on the road. I don't think you give herd mentality enough credence, if enough people want to do something it becomes normalised. Muslim countries require a very different attitude and behaviours from women than you would expect in Australia or the USA. There is nothing wrong with either approach, they both have their merits. Sadly, responsibility to treat women humanely becomes a secondary concern in both cultures, for different reasons, but the fact remains that the normative expectation of a woman is different in each culture. The normative expectation of a cyclist is totally different in the Netherlands, and Australia.

Thing is, the Dutch reacted to cyclist deaths very differently to Australia and it actually shaped their culture and expectations. They assume the issue is cars, we assume the issue is bikes, because of conscious historical choices.

The key, diggler, IMO, is that your personal opinions are fine until you go outside your own head and say something, or do something, based on that opinion. Even something as benign as thinking that riding a bike on the road has impacts when you tell your friend your opinion. They question their belief, maybe they respect you a lot or are just easily led, but then they change their opinion and stop considering riding. They talk to their friends, and eventually we have a normalised expectation that riding a bike on the road is a bad idea. You aren't an island, you make an impression with every action you take. You are building your nation just as much as any MP; your general "I don't care about their opinions, I form my own" approach is a stereotype of the Tough Aussie Male. That is fine, but your belief that you don't have to consider the ideas of others is actually creating the culture that ignores the needs and desires of others, because your mates also share your view that they don't need to care about the opinion of the law that cycling is OK on the road. It's a damning state of affairs. You are far more influential than you realise, even if its subtle most of the time in your eyes.

Yug, kids will suffer MUCH more from being forced to stay inside than potential skin cancer. Obesity kills more people than skin cancer ever has. So we'll have to disagree

I agree that the behaviour of others is one of the influences on our behaviour.

Dave rides a bike to work - maybe it is not that dangerous.

Sally wears a helmet - maybe it is dangerous

Lots of people killed and injured cycling - maybe it is dangerous.

Lots of bike paths - maybe it is safe.

We all process all the available information and make a decision based on it. The MHL (not that this is the thread for that) is merely one of many pieces of information that we all evaluate.

[diggler]

They also make evaluations on what safety messages are being told.

And yet there are still plenty of people who smoke, drink alcohol (guilty) and eat too much fatty food (also guilty). In fact I'd say that 'most people' indulge in all sorts of risky behaviour in spite of the safety messages.

I think it is a very complex subject and there's a tendency for people to over-simplify it in order to make a point. Cycling seems to be very popular around here, just about every kid in my street rides to school. And I am seeing increasing numbers of adults getting on bikes too. I've noticed a sharp increase in the last year. So despite having to wear a helmet it's going from strength to strength around here at least.

I don't know where you live, but I want to move there. Where I am, nobody cycles, at least not on the road. We do have cycle paths that get used. Kids do not cycle to school in my part of Sydney and probably in no parts of Sydney is it mainstream.

I guess it is getting more popular in higher socio economic areas.

Are people not riding because it is dangerous? Partially. But a big reason is that they are lazy. Motorised bicycles have just been banned in NSW. Will these riders now resort to using safer normal bicycles? Fat chance.

[yugyug]

Yug, kids will suffer MUCH more from being forced to stay inside than potential skin cancer. Obesity kills more people than skin cancer ever has. So we'll have to disagree

Or they could just rise to the spirit of the analogy and wear hats.

[silentC]

I don't know where you live, but I want to move there.

Sorry we're full!

Yes it is one of the reasons we left Sydney. It's not quite as free-rein as it was when I was a kid here but excepting in tourist season the traffic is very light by comparison, and the area just lends itself more to it I guess.

[fat and old]

When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere.

It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision.

Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





I would suggest that since this article was written the distance has come down to 'as far as the front gate'. This is how personal decisions, often based on irrational, media-driven fears, can play out in the communtiy as a whole. When nobody lets their 8 yo travel unaccompanied beyond the front gate, suddenly you are a dangerously irresponsible parent for letting your 8 yo travel 300m to the nearby playground

I've seen this article trotted out a few times now....

"irrational, media-driven fears"?

See that place in the top right hand corner of that map? Rotherham?

I reckon there's more at work there than media driven fears