https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9JGBLZWwAAKc3c?format=jpg&name=small

:-)

Simon Mason <swldxer1961@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9JGBLZWwAAKc3c?format=jpg&name=small

> :-)

Now you know why cycling casualties are so high in the Netherlands despite
all money squandered on cycling infra.

--
Spike

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:16:25 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9JGBLZWwAAKc3c?format=jpg&name=small
>
> :-)

They're about to ride through a NO ENTRY sign.

Legally.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:16:25 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:

>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9JGBLZWwAAKc3c?format=jpg&name=small

>> :-)

> They're about to ride through a NO ENTRY sign.

> Legally.

And?

--
Spike

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 1:04:29 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote

Why are the police wearing Hi-Viz? I'm guessing it's a nod to the dangers of being exposed to traffic whilst out of their vehicle. The same dangers the cyclists are exposed to. So why are the police not taking their own advice and wearing polystyrene helmets? Is it because they recognise that they offer negligible protection in collision with a vehicle, something well outside their design spec.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 1:04:29 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote

> Why are the police wearing Hi-Viz? I'm guessing it's a nod to the dangers
> of being exposed to traffic whilst out of their vehicle. The same dangers
> the cyclists are exposed to. So why are the police not taking their own
> advice and wearing polystyrene helmets? Is it because they recognise that
> they offer negligible protection in collision with a vehicle, something
> well outside their design spec.

Why not ask them?

If you are abroad:

Call us at: +31-343 57 8844

Social media

For non-urgent questions you can also reach us on social media.

Twitter: @Politie.

Facebook: Politie Nederland.

<https://www.politie.nl/en/contact>

HTH

--
Spike

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:16:25 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9JGBLZWwAAKc3c?format=jpg&name=small
>
> :-)

Good to see they have rear lights on their bikes - be safe - be seen.

On 24/10/2023 06:06 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 1:04:29 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote
>
>
> Why are the police wearing Hi-Viz? I'm guessing...

That's how most of your "arguments" are constructed.

Simon Mason <swldxer1964@gmail.com> wrote:

> QUOTE: Why are the police wearing Hi-Viz? I'm guessing it's a nod to the
> dangers of being exposed to traffic whilst out of their vehicle. The same
> dangers the cyclists are exposed to. So why are the police not taking
> their own advice and wearing polystyrene helmets? Is it because they
> recognise that they offer negligible protection in collision with a
> vehicle, something well outside their design spec. ENDS
>
> The Dutch cops on bikes have no plastic hats on - look again.

Unfortunately for what passes for your argument, the scenario of cyclist
head contacting motor vehicle is only one route to cycling injuries and
deaths.

Keep in mind that 20% of cyclist deaths don’t involve another vehicle,
suggesting that as such a fate probably is not a choice made by the
individual cyclist concerned, plastic hats could save deaths and reduce the
severity of injuries.

However, the cycling world seems remarkably reluctant to investigate this
form of cyclist carnage, concentrating as it does on the optics of other
causes of death and injury in its underlying programme of levering public
money for cycling ‘improvements’ largely aimed at supporting its
hardly-concealed agenda of eliminating private motor transport.

--
Spike

Avatar
polainm | 6 hours ago
2 likes

Policing like this, is all about misdirected 'danger".

The danger is drivers - too many, too fast, too heavy, too ignorant. The ones on bike camera footage that the police very very rarely obtain a prosecution for.

Following police rationale here, I should wear a stab-proof vest whenever I travel to London, because walking among violent criminals is dangerous.

Simon Mason <swldxer1961@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avatar
> polainm | 6 hours ago
> 2 likes

> Policing like this, is all about misdirected 'danger".

> The danger is drivers - too many, too fast, too heavy, too ignorant. The
> ones on bike camera footage that the police very very rarely obtain a prosecution for.

Probably because of a technicality related to not having broken the law.

> Following police rationale here, I should wear a stab-proof vest whenever
> I travel to London, because walking among violent criminals is dangerous.

The stab vest is a good idea, what with over a thousand ‘knife related
incidents’ a month in London - and that’s just the reported ones!

--
Spike

On 25/10/2023 04:44 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
> Avatar
> polainm | 6 hours ago
> 2 likes
>
> Policing like this, is all about misdirected 'danger".
>
> The danger is drivers - too many, too fast, too heavy, too ignorant. The ones on bike camera footage that the police very very rarely obtain a prosecution for.
>
> Following police rationale here, I should wear a stab-proof vest whenever I travel to London, because walking among violent criminals is dangerous.

Staying away from London is easier and cheaper.

You have not been charged for this advice.

A sudden loud noise behind you is startling at the very least. Anyone with noise anxiety is going to unhappy too.

As far as I can tell, the main reasons behind not wanting to wear a helmet are comfort issues or not wanting the extra hassle of carrying a helmet around. I think it's more common with casual or commuting cyclists that are only going a short distance and having to have, find and wear a helmet just seems unnecessary.

With some roadies, it could be recognising that a helmet does next to nothing if you get driven into by a driver and that they otherwise never fall off. MTBers are much more likely to wear a helmet AFAIK as it's not unusual to fall off and hit trees etc.

On 26/10/2023 08:33 am, Simon Mason wrote:

> A sudden loud noise behind you is startling at the very least. Anyone with noise anxiety is going to unhappy too.
>
> As far as I can tell, the main reasons behind not wanting to wear a helmet are comfort issues or not wanting the extra hassle of carrying a helmet around. I think it's more common with casual or commuting cyclists that are only going a short distance and having to have, find and wear a helmet just seems unnecessary.

Does it?

And of course, they don't want to look like a tit, do they?
>
> With some roadies, it could be recognising that a helmet does next to nothing if you get driven into by a driver and that they otherwise never fall off.

Despite that "witty" observation, something like 20% of fatal accidents
befalling the riders of chav-bikes involve no other vehicle. So any
self-assessment of never falling off the chav-bike seems to be an
over-optimistic self-appraisal.

> MTBers are much more likely to wear a helmet AFAIK as it's...

....illegal not to wear a crash helmet.

[snipped: not unusual to fall off and hit trees etc.]

No low hanging branches on my commute, so I don't bother with a helmet. Riding off road I wear a helmet, riding in a cycling group where there is a possibility of touching wheels, I wear a helmet. It's all about assessment of the risks, and I don't consider a 3 mile bike ride to be sufficiently risky to justify a helmet. Just as I do not don a helmet to cross the road or walk into town.

I honestly think more health expenditure would be saved by mandatory helmets for the over 70s than for cyclists. They are the group most prone to falling over and ending up in A&E.

Simon Mason <swldxer1961@gmail.com> wrote:

> I honestly think more health expenditure would be saved by mandatory
> helmets for the over 70s than for cyclists. They are the group most prone
> to falling over and ending up in A&E.

I honestly think that you should quote some data to back up what is
otherwise a hand-waving assertion.

--
Spike

"Can you pull over so we can have a word?"

The correct answer to this is 'No- cheerio', although I suppose you would have to wait through the first few words before it became obvious what it's about. The police are not the slightest bit interested in the safety of cyclists, although they are sometimes (as in this case) interested in pretending to be caring and sharing in a 'our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the deceased cyclist' kind of way. I was coming south down the A6 from the Lakes for a short distance yesterday and both lanes were packed with traffic travelling at about 40mph because of a serious roadworks bottleneck a couple of miles further south- nobody was paying any attention to any namby-pamby close passing 'advice', which is entirely non-enforced by Lancashire police. As far as FoI etc. is able to discover, LC has never prosecuted anybody for close passing a cyclist. These are my usual 2 examples, repeated for new readers:

https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/ (link is external)

https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/ (link is external)

The police claimed to be taking action for the first, but were almost certainly lying- to be continued...They refused to respond to the second, and now never reply to any reports. People proudly claim on here good results from their reports, but the police are probably lying about a lot of them and actually did nothing. They view themselves as 'too busy' to waste time on cyclist safety, or any other safety for that matter. I have been going on and on here, and at LC, about WU59 UMH for a long time. This is the latest, but 3 1/2 years of No MOT, No Insurance and No VED, and a recent failed MOT with several Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects) warnings has no effect on the driver, or the police who can't be bothered (even I don't think this is corruption- even the 80-or-less IQ police are not daft enough for that in a case like this. If only there was some way of tracing such drivers and vehicles from that mobile 07766 076612 (link is external) -even if he has gone bust?