Me too (since about 1972)... but how else do you interpret almost certainly detrimental to public health?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Indeed, whilst they aren't designed to cater for a major collision there's still the potential for them to provide adequate provision to ensure survival when not wearing one wouldn't have such a favourable outcome.
The point is that the risk of such an injury is low and that the risk of inactivity is much greater and so overall there's an advantage to not wearing a helmet if it results in you cycling.
However, in the same way that I always put my seatbelt on even if it's going around a car park at low speed, there's still a case for people who are going to be cycling anyway to wear them so as to protect them if they do come off. As their risk of being involved in an accident from which a cycle helmet would project them increases the more cycling that they do. Now whilst it continues to be low, so is the chance of winning the lottery, and like the lottery the more you participate the greater your chances especially over a prolonged period.
so what about almost certainly detrimental to public health?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The argument is that they (or more specifically the mandation of them) discourages cycling to some extent. It probably does. To use an example, I sometimes use a Boris bike in London on a whim, if I had to carry a helmet around for it I would probably not do so and take the Tube or a bus instead, which is removing exercise from my day.
But this is a bit niche, and if you own your own bike having a helmet kept in the same place as it is hardly difficult (and at your destination you just put the lock cable through one of the holes and leave it with the bike).
The main thing to me that discourages cycling is the lack of dedicated infrastructure like in the Netherlands. The CTC and the likes seem to like to encourage cycling on the road - but that suits assertive, young (by that I mean "not elderly", it does encompass the classic "middle aged man in lycra"), fit, mostly male cyclists riding fast road bikes. Old Granny Smith on her boneshaker (with or without a helmet) will never do that - but she will if segregated.
Which is why in the very next paragraph I state:
The point is that whilst to get people to do any cycling there's an advantage to not wearing a cycle helmet, for those doing a lot of cycling (say over 1,000 miles a year, or about 2.25 miles each way to get to work, potentially mostly along roads) they are certainly not at risk of inactivity but start to increase their risk of being involved in a collection. As such it can be argued that they should consider wearing a helmet as the risk of head injury is much more likely than someone who does 200 miles a year mostly along old railway lines.
It would be the same as someone arguing that they shouldn't wear a seatbelt as it's good for people's wellbeing to attend a social events, especially amongst the elderly and using case studies where those people only drive at 20mph for about a mile, whilst they drive along a lot of country lanes which are derestricted on a near daily basis.
Yes there's massive health benefits to people cycling, however once you are cycling anyway there are also advantages to wearing a helmet and so those who cycle regularly would likely to do well to consider wearing one. That is very different to "everyone should wear one" as that policy would clearly be a barrier to cycling.
However I would argue that what is a larger barrier to cycling is that there's not enough people cycling and therefore able to teach their children cycling skills. As most children are taught the mechanics of cycling at a young age, but few are taught how to cycle on roads. Even if that's showing them how to indicate and letting them practice so that they are proficient at doing so (my eldest learnt this aged 6, even though they didn't cycle on roads on their own).
So which cycling activists are demanding everyone wear helmets?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Most cycling clubs and similar require it as a condition of participation in rides (edited), though that's probably neither here nor there as every serious road cyclist I know wears a helmet by choice, I can't think of one that doesn't in that context, though some of them don't when doing low speed utility cycling on paths on a hybrid (which shows a good understanding of relative risk).
The other type of campaign you get is "my kid's life was saved by a helmet", which tend to be the ones who push for legislation.
Last edited:
even amongst Cycling UK there is much debate on helmet use.
But they put off a lot of people. It’s a bulky thing to store/carry, and many people like myself just don’t like wearing hats (and I am not one of the many who would be primarily worried about messing up their hair). And needing a helmet implies danger.
I am not even sure how effective they are. I wonder if they are talked up by all the times they sustain damage when a head wouldn’t have hit the ground without the big protruding hat on.
And you rarely see them in European cities.
The biggest increase in safety for cyclists is more cyclists - safety goes up the more cyclists there are on the roads.
But they put off a lot of people. It’s a bulky thing to store/carry, and many people like myself just don’t like wearing hats (and I am not one of the many who would be primarily worried about messing up their hair). And needing a helmet implies danger.
I am not even sure how effective they are. I wonder if they are talked up by all the times they sustain damage when a head wouldn’t have hit the ground without the big protruding hat on.
And you rarely see them in European cities.
The biggest increase in safety for cyclists is more cyclists - safety goes up the more cyclists there are on the roads.
So far as I can make out - wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing a helmet. But cycling has better health outcomes for you than not cycling, regardless of whether you wear a helmet.
All of which is a long way from HS2. How many cycle spaces will an HS2 train have? With trains 400m long, will the guard and driver be given bikes for when they need to get to the other end?
That one's only partly a joke - some container ship crews use bikes to get from one end to the other, and they're a similar length to an HS2 train...
squizzler
Established Member
I don't see the relevance of mandatory helmet use to HS2. Unless there are ones on the market that are protect your head against a 400kph train wreck...
Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,409
What the DfE expects is irrelevant as adults will decide for themselves which transport arrangements are most appropriate. Incidentally the DfE is well aware of the school run, school buses and normal public transport. It does not expect most children to be walking three miles to school.
No-one objects to people being given a choice as long as the cost to the public purse is within reason. What well-balanced people object to is an attempt to force people into a life style they don't want.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
Anyone who tries to argue that not wearing a cycle helmet is a good thing needs to give their head a wobble. Whether it should be made compulsory is another matter.
There is some research that suggests that cyclists without helmets tend to be given more room by drivers overtaking.
Pretty sure research suggested helmet wearers took more risks so weren’t necessarily safer.
Just a reminder this thread is to discuss Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
If anyone wants to discuss something unrelated to railways, please create a thread in the General Discussion section.
If anyone wants to discuss something unrelated to railways, please create a thread in the General Discussion section.
While not wishing to prolong this off topic diversion, it is certainly likely that those helmet wearers who took more risks (than they would without a helmet) would be less safe, but that doesn't demonstrate that all helmet wearers would take more risks. The precautionary principle suggests that a useful cost effective safeguard should always be promoted. If small numbers of idiots are then less careful as a result, then the consequences are down to them.
That assumes helmets are cost effective....
A good point, but I must stop now as we're in the wrong thread for this.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
You raise a good point whether personal transport will be supplied to crews.
I guess the new terminals could be designed with crew cycleways built-in under the platforms for fast turnrounds
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I guess the new terminals could be designed with crew cycleways built-in under the platforms for fast turnrounds
There's a station somewhere in the UK which used to have two signalboxes at opposite ends operated by one member of staff, he used to use a bicycle to get between them.
R G NOW.
Member
The building of HS2 will generate loads of dust and c02. Have the DFT worked out about the impact on the world this will add. Anyway I think it cannot be any worse than those fires in Austrailia and the volcano that's erupted. And the devastating loss of life. This is why I oppose it. I think the government should be sorting out what we have already and finishing off projects already costed, such as electrifying Swindon to Bristol and Bromsgrove to Yate. Putting wires from Cardiff to Swansea makes sense first and not building railways which the rich would probably use.
Last edited:
Was Bromsgrove to Yate costed or ever proposed ?
Last edited by a moderator:
R G NOW.
Member
I do not know yet about it, but it must be in waiting as the signalling in the area has not yet been immunised and replaced and still has an old PSB at Gloucester. It is over life expired and it seems NR are perhaps waiting to see if the DFT will cost it to be done as it would make sense. If the line to Bristol from Bristol parkway was also done it will allow xc to get new trains and replace their aging voyager fleet.
A member of staff at Gloucester says that he heard a rumor that they were thinking of doing it, due to the climate change thing.
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 894
The building of HS2 is estimated to produce ~1.2MT CO2e (I can't find a definitive source for that but it seems to be the number that people use). The carbon benefits once in use are very hard to accurately predict, but by the estimates made to date, they will be positive to neutral. It depends on so many hard-to-predict things. How much modal shift there will be from road and air, the makeup of the grid, the service and usage patterns...
We have the money and capability to do both HS2 and classic rail upgrades. The myth that HS2 is somehow preventing us from spending money or effort on the classic network is pernicious and wrong.
R G NOW.
Member
Will the route be electrified which I will assume?, and will the signalling be e.c.t.s. or conventional?. and lastly I assume that the trains used will be complete new ones and not class 800's. I would expect it to be a 140mph or even 200mph line speed.
krus_aragon
Established Member
Definitely electric: the fastest diesel trains in the world were built nearly half a century ago, and are in the process of being withdrawn from service (the Intercity 125). Every faster train since has been electric.
ERTMS / in-cab signalling is also a given, as current UK railway standards don't allow passenger trains faster than 125mph with lineside signalling. And yes, new-build (classic compatible) rolling stock.
Whilst the building of HS2 and 120 years of maintenance will add about 1.5 million tonnes of CO2e, this needs to be seen in the light of 0.33 million tonnes of CO2e each year on the maintenance and operation of the strategic road network.
The thing to consider is the emission savings from the potential air travel. London to Manchester (single) is 0.08 tonnes of carbon. HS2 are suggesting that 1 million passengers will switch from air to HS2 each year.
If we assume 0.02 tonnes (due to more efficient planes over time and the revisions from using trains) that's at least 240 million tonnes of emissions saved over a 120 year period.
The reason it's at least that amount (other than I've allowed it to be 1/4 the emissions currently) is that if you go London to Glasgow the emissions rise to 0.17 tonnes per leg.
If half the fights were to Glasgow/Edinburgh rather than Manchester then it would add another 120 million tonnes (again assuming 1/4 of the current rate of emissions).
That makes the construction emissions of HS2 seem tiny in comparison.
A story in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about scrapping HS2 south of Birmingham (which of course doesn't recognise that it would be quite difficult to do that).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877371/Top-adviser-Boris-Johnson-urges-axe-HS2-South.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877371/Top-adviser-Boris-Johnson-urges-axe-HS2-South.html
- Status