Cyclist down

[ian]

Novice cyclists have been cultured to look for facilities and use them in preference to the wild-west of the road.

The sad thing is, you graduate from novice when you've plenty of road time, so they say greener for longer.  It's like those four-year-olds still on breast milk.  And yeah, if they're encouraged by paint into the DEATH ZONE and don't know it for what it is (mixing it at a stale red? stay one car back. who teaches that any more? who even teaches the concept of a stale light that's about to change?)....  ...where was I? 

Same old rant.  Same old body count.  Wiggo's not wrong there: it's horrid and it isn't changing.

I'm not sure it's just paint. Cyclists head for the front of any traffic queue with the same inevitability of bubbles rising to the surface of a liquid. It's the same primal urge that makes drivers have to overtake a cyclist, no matter what. They know they can, so they do. I stop behind any vehicle at the lights and cyclists will continue to effervesce by me. The other day, I stopped behind a bus, rather than sidle up a handlebar-wide gap by its side in the hope I'd pop out ahead of it before the light changed. Chap following me bumped his bike up over the pavement to get around, and back on the road to go up the side of the bus, wedging himself between it and the railings as it pulled away. The rear wheels of the bus brushed by his pannier bag and he wobbled off, unfazed, in its wake.

I don't know the answer. Publicity might make people think, but it seems commonsensical to me not to squeeze between tonnes of growling metal, but then I'm thinking about this differently. Most people seem to see an obstacle that they can surmount, so they do so. It is the same mindset that afflicts drivers when they must overtake me on the local blind corner. They can, they do. Most times nothing bad will happen. Feedback sets in. Risky behaviour that fails to lead to bad outcomes steadily becomes perceived as non-risky. Sure, on some elemental level, if you sat them down in the room of common sense and asked them to analyse their actions, they'd probably agree that they were doing something stupid. In practice, they'll still continue to bubble to the front.

[teethgrinder]

I used to habitualy ride up the inside of trucks and whizz along the door zone at 30mph in my many tens of thousands of miles covered as a teenage cyclist who rode on the local velodrome and was a regular at local club TTs as well as being a keen club rider and tourist. (luckily, I wore a helmet in those days  )
It took me a surprisingly long time to realise how stupid that was. Probably from my mid to late 20s. It was pure ignorance. I was very sharp at avoiding collisions with people pulling out from side roads etc, so I was never a risk taker and always had it in mind to be carefull. I did know that I should watch out for car doors opening, but it was reading the CTC magazine which educated me, especially about going up the inside of trucks.
So I think Andy's idea is a very good one. If a keen club cyclist doesn't know any better, then how would a newbie?
If I saw someone do what I used to do, I think I'd spoil my underpants!

[teethgrinder]

I would love to think so, but based on the link above, he's been a bit of a dick:

"Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.

"You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘well, I have done everything to be safe."

"It is dangerous and London is a busy city. There is a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes."

(I've copied the whole quote over, that's the best I can do  )

That wasn't the whole quote, at least as far as I remember from hearing it on Jeremy Vine* today.
Wiggo was a dick? I can see why some are saying that from what they've read. When I heard the quote, it sounded to me as if he was caught on the backfoot. I think that his claim that he wasn't in favour of helmet compulsion could very well be genuine and I won't go as far as to call him a liar. He did seem to stumble upon his words a bit.
Sure, he could have done better. Not commented. But he's an athlete first and foremost. He was being interviewed and talking about what must be the best moment of his life while he is on Cloud 9. I doubt that he is aware of how much clout he really does have with his words, but suspect that he is now becoming more aware.
Personally, I'll cut him some slack and I think that in time it'll die down quite quickly. His TDF victory and Olympic success will be his identity over and above anything else and his stumbled words are tomorrows fish and chip wrappers.





*and before you think that it was all anti cycling, you should "listen again" first. Generally, the pro helmeters were preaching anecdote while the anti compulsion; which was very strongly headed (tee hee) by Mail on Sunday journalist who could very well have been a spokeperson for the views of very many here on YACF; were basing their arguments on facts.

[T800]

I think some damage has been done. Now there will always be people who, having heard the clips of Wiggo that the BBC chose to air today, will throw the line at me "Wiggo says you should wear a helmet so it must be the sensible thing to do" and that cycling without one is reckless and it's your own fault if you get knocked off your bike (regardless of the nature of any injuries you may or may not sustain) if you were so foolish as to not wear a helmet. I've heard that a lot over the years, most recently with the name used/cited being James Cracknell, when I argue against compulsory helmet wearing for cyclists.

I wear a cycling helmet most if the time, and have done for over 20 years. I think I probably started out with the assumption that using them was the sensible thing to do and that they must have been designed to reliably prevent head injury. It may not have helped that when I was younger I'd seen the results (brain matter on the floor in A&E) of a car versus pedestrian head injury incident at a nearby pedestrian crossing. The same logic that sees riders use those horrible bits of green tarmac that guide you up the inside of large motor vehicles to get to an ASL, I suppose -- they're there so it must be right to use them. Indeed shortly after buying my first one I put a serious dent right in the top of it when I hit the road head first after going head over heels after hitting a pedestrian who'd stepped out in front of me (while for some weird unconscious in-the-moment reason attempting to throw the bike away from me to avoid hitting her with metal). That left me with some interesting facial injuries from the straps and a vague sense of either having avoided a nasty head injury or having missed the opportunity to tuck my head and avoid it hitting the road surface at all. After seeing Boardman crash and slide across the road head first into a stone wall on the 1998 Tour, I still thought that a good fitting helmet was potentially a bit of a life saver. I led my fianceé to the accessories section of the LBS on our return from Ireland and the guys there were happy to sell her a Giro. It wasn't until about 12 or 13 years ago that I started to read more about the topic, mostly thanks to a better Internet connection, and shifted to the belief that it was still probably worth wearing one, but largely in the expectation that it may be of some use in reducing the need for scalp sutures in the event if an off, not for preventing brain injury.

I do wonder, though, if by wearing a helmet I'm sustaining or increasing the belief among members if the public in general that use of a cycling helmet is a must and that they do prevent serious brain injuries.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

[teethgrinder]

I think some damage has been done. Now there will always be people who, having heard the clips of Wiggo that the BBC chose to air today, will throw the line at me "Wiggo says you should wear a helmet so it must be the sensible thing to do" and that cycling without one is reckless and it's your own fault if you get knocked off your bike (regardless of the nature of any injuries you may or may not sustain) if you were so foolish as to not wear a helmet. I've heard that a lot over the years, most recently with the name used/cited being James Cracknell, when I argue against compulsory helmet wearing for cyclists.

I think that people have allready made up their minds, one way or another and that Wiggo, at worst, will just be the new argument or "evidence" for helmet compusion, even if it wasn't what he was trying to say.

[clarion]

Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Better still: In the cabs.

[Zipperhead]

Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Better still: In the cabs.

I'm sure most of the drivers of them are aware of the blind spots - but if a cyclist goes up the inside of such a vehicle, into the blind spot, who is at fault? The driver or the cyclist?

[hellymedic]

Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Better still: In the cabs.

Maybe they should have a coloured light projection system that projects the footprint of the lorry's blind zones (even the worst acne never has spots that large!) onto the surrounding road or road user.

[clarion]

Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Better still: In the cabs.

I'm sure most of the drivers of them are aware of the blind spots - but if a cyclist goes up the inside of such a vehicle, into the blind spot, who is at fault? The driver or the cyclist?

I'm equally sure a lot of them don't bother looking where they can see without moving their head position, let alone check the blind spots. 

[Toady]

Maybe all long vehicles should have to have a huge diagram on the back showing their blind spots.

Many have a sign saying "if you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you" which enables you to work out the blind spots.  Or at least the blindest spots.

By the way BW has issued a clarification

Bradley Wiggins‏@bradwiggins

Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest
I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident
I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought #myopiniondoesntcountformuch

[Jaded]

It's not the going up the side per se, it is the rush to get one up on other road users without being aware of or thinking about the consequences. Going up to the front of a queue of traffic because you can is unlikely to be a logically thought through process. Much as speeding to get somewhere quicker is unlikely to be a logically thought thruogh process. The mixed messages don't help. "It's safer to be at the front!" Not if you are still a few cars back just before the lights change it isn't.

[Valiant]

Aswell as edumacating the cyclists, they should install those parking sensor things that go beep when you get too close.

[red marley]

I think it is somewhat over-generous to suggest that Wiggo was "caught out" by the media or had a soundbite quoted out of context.

He and all Team GB, especially the high profile members, will have had extensive media training. His current Olympic and TdF position, while fantastic, is not totally unexpected. I think there is a responsibility that comes with that, to know that what he says will have wider impact.

His more recent tweets that suggest he was not advocating a change in the law is misleading pedantry. Looking at his original interview at the beginning of July (see the 'Oi, Bradley! No!' thread), he says pretty much the same thing as he did yesterday:

Cycling is fantastic, it’s healthy and everything but people have to help themselves a little bit as well and they have to realise sometimes that they are on the road on a bike and there is a certain amount of responsibility they have to take like wearing a helmet, not wearing an iPod^* and all those things. I think certain laws may have to be passed as well, maybe having a rear light, wearing a helmet, once cyclists start helping themselves like that then they’ll have more protection and rights against drivers. If someone gets killed in a bus lane on a BoJo (Boris Bike) with no helmet and their iPod on then they haven’t really got a leg to stand on.

This is not just a statement about the technicalities of the law or insurance liability; he is clearly equating the irresponsibility of not having a rear light with that of not wearing a helmet. Of course he is entitled to believe that, but I think he has a responsibility to be more informed before sharing that view publicly, especially in response to a recent death where there is absolutely no evidence that helmet wearing or lack thereof had any relevance.

^* While personally, I would not feel safe in an urban environment with an iPod, there is an extra irony with this particular piece of advice coming from a man who has spent most of the last month cycling with race-radio earphones taped to his ear.

[Martin109]

  I seem to recall seeing public information films with characters like the Green Cross Code Man and Tufty the Squirrel when I was younger, but less so in recent years (but then again, I don't watch children's TV quite as much either!)

I believe that the film unit which used to make such excellent films has been wound up because of cuts.  I may be wrong, and stand to be corrected.

[clarion]

Everything good has been cut, so that's a safe bet.

[Rig of Jarkness]

May I be the first on this thread to call Mr Wiggins - to coin a phrase - a 'f*cking c*nt' 

[TimO]

Please consider that this is a thread inspired by an incident in which someone has just died.  Whilst it has produced some useful discussion, which has diverged somewhat from the original subject, I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate to make too light of things.

[Bledlow]

Mr C Boardman just said something about cycling & road safety on Newsnight - and it was about the risk to cyclists from motor vehicles, not helmets. 

[Domestique]

Chris Boardman deserves a lot of praise

[Wowbagger]

I was very impressed with Chris Boardman's good sense. He agreed that helmets have their place in cycling but that compulsion wasn't a good idea as evidence on their value was inconclusive. He talked about the finite space that exists on Britain's roads and that hitherto policy had been based upon getting cyclists safely out of the way of cars. What is now needed is to get cars out of the way of cyclists but that's something that politicians just don't know how to do. He specifically did not comment about last night's tragedy.

[RJ]

He and all Team GB, especially the high profile members, will have had extensive media training.

Yebbut - media savvy ain't  "essential" in the sporting champ job description; it's not a reason to get the gig.  "Desirable" - well, maybe.

"Essential"?  Very very good at your discipline(s).  Endosaurus.

I was very impressed with Chris Boardman's good sense. He agreed that helmets have their place in cycling but that compulsion wasn't a good idea as evidence on their value was inconclusive. He talked about the finite space that exists on Britain's roads and that hitherto policy had been based upon getting cyclists safely out of the way of cars. What is now needed is to get cars out of the way of cyclists but that's something that politicians just don't know how to do. He specifically did not comment about last night's tragedy.

Agreed.  (In terms of presentation, he is, of course, now a sports-media pro).

[Exit Stage Left]

Perceptions of cycling safety affect me in the sense that I've been making videos about the 24 hour TT for a number of years. It's difficult to film without it being obvious that there are trucks on the A41 and A49. Not surprising, as they are trunk roads. The most alarming interactions take place at a transport cafe where those two roads meet. I decided a few years ago that I'd include the trucks, as I didn't want to misrepresent the hazards that an individual rider might face, I wouldn't want anyone to be freaked out by the unexpected. There's a danger that the hazards are over-emphasised, I'm open to advice on whether I should raise or lower the amount of traffic content. US viewers often comment on the lack of helmets, I don't really see that as the significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh01K1cQ-0c&feature=g-upl

[Rig of Jarkness]

I was borderline about voting for Wiggins at SPOTY but he definitely won't be getting it now.  I hope he's rethinking his decision to refuse the media training that Sky were wanting him to do.

[Polar Bear]

Unfortunately Lizzie A has joined Wiggins.   How utterly stupid are these elites?

As I pointed out earlier, Lizzie has also said on live broadcast radio (radio five live yesterday morning) that helmets should be made compulsory.   Just because she hasn't grabbed gold doesn't make the collective voice less prominent.

I'm guessing that Team SKY / GB have had the 'magic hats are good' mantra well and truly forced down their collective throats rather than having the 'we must wear them because they are mandatory' line.   I think Brailsford should be challenged on the issue to see what the borg collective view is, then educated good and proper.

My thoughts by the way remain with the friends and family of the deceased.