Author Topic: Cyclist down  (Read 18251 times)

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2012, 11:06:23 am »
just emailed BBC asking them to illustrate their 'Bradley call for helmet law' story with the image shown here:
http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2012/08/bradley-wiggins-wins-cycling-gold-for-britain.html
Here's another goodie :


(nicked from CTC forum)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Wascally Weasel

  • Slayer of Dragons and killer of threads.
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2012, 11:20:15 am »
Cycling *is* dangerous.  Walking down the street is dangerous.  Travelling on the Tube is dangerous.  Chopping wood is dangerous. Boiling a kettle is dangerous.

Face it, much of what we do everyday has huge potential for danger for ourselves or others but it is the processes and procedures around safely negotiating a dangerous environment/activity that reduces the risk to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP).  It’s that ALARP principle by which we do most normal things.  We will never make ourselves ‘completely safe’ and nor should we try.  Yes, you can wrap people up in cotton wool but all you are doing is making them more flammable.

What we need to do, as others have mentioned, is get all road users working within the procedures that keep us all safe rather than seeking a magic solution like helmets and hi-viz, which in reality is a poor excuse for failure by people to ride, drive or walk safely

I respect the choice around helmet debate (and hi-viz for that matter) and make my own personal decision depending on the riding I am doing at the time and think others should be free to do the same.  It is clear however from existing evidence that compulsion would do much to deter people from taking up cycling or in some cases continuing to cycle.  As well as increasing the entry cost of the activity, it emphasises the dangerous nature of cycling but gives reassurance that will be misplaced for many types of incident.  Of pretty much all of the fatal incidents in London involving cyclists that I have been made aware of the full details of a helmet would have been of no use.

Where I think they do come in handy are the many unreported small crashes and falls that for obvious reasons we don’t hear about; “Person falls over, minor head injuries averted, film at eleven” not being a major news item.  Great for avoiding minor injuries but ineffective for most situations threatening fatal or severe injury.

There’s a guy I see quite often in the Richmond Park/Roehampton area who always wears full safety gear.  He rides a touring bike, wears a boiler suit and has on full MTB body armour, hi-viz and a full-face helmet.  He wears this stuff all year round.  I asked him once why he wears all that stuff and he said “To be safe”.  He never looks round and is totally clueless about road position and he is an exaggerated but real example of reaction to misplaced safety messages.  Riding confidently and safely should be the message not victim-blaming ourselves out of existence.

If we should be seeking to make anything compulsory it should be free cycle training for children and adults, incorporating training for adults within the driving test.

AndyK

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2012, 11:30:12 am »
I rarely blog, but this time had to have a bit of a ramble.

urban_biker

  • " . . .we all ended up here and like lads in the back of a Nova we sort of egged each other on...."
  • Known in the real world as Dave
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2012, 11:46:07 am »
Cycling *is* dangerous.  Walking down the street is dangerous.  Travelling on the Tube is dangerous.  Chopping wood is dangerous. Boiling a kettle is dangerous.

Face it, much of what we do everyday has huge potential for danger for ourselves or others but it is the processes and procedures around safely negotiating a dangerous environment/activity that reduces the risk to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP).  It’s that ALARP principle by which we do most normal things.  We will never make ourselves ‘completely safe’ and nor should we try.  Yes, you can wrap people up in cotton wool but all you are doing is making them more flammable.

What we need to do, as others have mentioned, is get all road users working within the procedures that keep us all safe rather than seeking a magic solution like helmets and hi-viz, which in reality is a poor excuse for failure by people to ride, drive or walk safely

I respect the choice around helmet debate (and hi-viz for that matter) and make my own personal decision depending on the riding I am doing at the time and think others should be free to do the same.  It is clear however from existing evidence that compulsion would do much to deter people from taking up cycling or in some cases continuing to cycle.  As well as increasing the entry cost of the activity, it emphasises the dangerous nature of cycling but gives reassurance that will be misplaced for many types of incident.  Of pretty much all of the fatal incidents in London involving cyclists that I have been made aware of the full details of a helmet would have been of no use.

Where I think they do come in handy are the many unreported small crashes and falls that for obvious reasons we don’t hear about; “Person falls over, minor head injuries averted, film at eleven” not being a major news item.  Great for avoiding minor injuries but ineffective for most situations threatening fatal or severe injury.

There’s a guy I see quite often in the Richmond Park/Roehampton area who always wears full safety gear.  He rides a touring bike, wears a boiler suit and has on full MTB body armour, hi-viz and a full-face helmet.  He wears this stuff all year round.  I asked him once why he wears all that stuff and he said “To be safe”.  He never looks round and is totally clueless about road position and he is an exaggerated but real example of reaction to misplaced safety messages.  Riding confidently and safely should be the message not victim-blaming ourselves out of existence.

If we should be seeking to make anything compulsory it should be free cycle training for children and adults, incorporating training for adults within the driving test.

Agree 100% with everything you said. I personally wear a helmet 90% of the time. But I like the ability to choose not to for that 10%. In fact in the odd occasion I've forgotten to put my helmet on for the ride to work. I really wouldn't want to be pulled over by the police in that situation. Compulsion is simply wrong headed.

Owner of a languishing Langster

rower40

  • Not my boat. Now sold.
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #54 on: August 02, 2012, 12:06:37 pm »
Condolences and RIP respectively. (and respectfully)
Quote from: BBC
It has not been revealed whether the victim was wearing a helmet...
From the eye-witness account, a helmet would have been useless.  And we don't even know if the deceased was wearing one.
But improved cycle training might have had some effect; my Cycling Proficiency Test (showing my age :-[) was instrumental in my developing the road-sense to know not to undertake large vehicles.

So why o why is the be-sideburned one telling cyclists to wear helmets?  Why not campaign for Cycling to be part of the National Curriculum?  Or a pre-requisite of a Driving Licence?
Be Naughty; save Santa a trip

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #55 on: August 02, 2012, 12:16:38 pm »
So why o why is the be-sideburned one telling cyclists to wear helmets?  Why not campaign for Cycling to be part of the National Curriculum?  Or a pre-requisite of a Driving Licence?

Probably he was expecting questions about his time-trialling, was caught off guard, and ended up talking about something he'd not really thought through.

urban_biker

  • " . . .we all ended up here and like lads in the back of a Nova we sort of egged each other on...."
  • Known in the real world as Dave
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #56 on: August 02, 2012, 12:24:01 pm »
Too true - I suspect the helmet debate is not one that sporting cyclists have very much. Since helmets have been compulsory for sport for some time I suspect he just thought he was stating the bleeding obvious and being as uncontroversial as possible. Duh!
Owner of a languishing Langster

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #57 on: August 02, 2012, 12:31:48 pm »
Give the man a break, he's done more to popularise cycling over the last two weeks than any other individual you can name. He has raised the profile of cycling way up the news agenda and into public consciousness. If he isn't perfect, none of us are, and he'd just been through the most physically and emotionally charged experience of ANYBODY's life. And he was on the way to getting utterly bladdered:

Quote
Bradley Wiggins ‏@bradwiggins
Well what a day, blind drunk at the minute and overwhelmed with all the messages, Thank You everyone it's been emotional X

Get over it.

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #58 on: August 02, 2012, 12:35:43 pm »
Exactly.

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #59 on: August 02, 2012, 12:38:03 pm »
I hope Wiggins is going to backtrack on what he said, but maybe it's simply that he really does believe in compulsory helmets.

I see cyclists ride up the the left hand side of large vehicles all the time, even when it's at the front of the queue at lights and the gap is so small they can't pedal, then they'll go straight through the red light. 99.99% of the time they'll get away with it, but eventually one of them will be killed.

I don't know what the answer is, maybe free cycle training, but you would need to offer some sort of incentive otherwise people are not going to go.


Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #60 on: August 02, 2012, 12:38:23 pm »
Wiggins has said the same things before quite some time ago, so he's had time to think and listen.  I'm not going to be soft on anyone in the public eye calling for compulsary helmets.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

RJ

  • Droll rat
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #61 on: August 02, 2012, 12:40:21 pm »
Fortunately, we don't (yet) have law-making by soundbite or tweet.

(Now, if Brad had made similar comments to a HoC select committee, the implications would have been a bit different).

I blame the journos for raining  on his parade  :demon:


Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #62 on: August 02, 2012, 12:40:46 pm »
Boris has just been on the radio saying there's no plan to make helmets compulsory...

RIP the unfortunate cyclist.

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #63 on: August 02, 2012, 12:48:13 pm »
Give the man a break, he's done more to popularise cycling over the last two weeks than any other individual you can name. He has raised the profile of cycling way up the news agenda and into public consciousness.



Err...he's a racing cyclist and has recently won a couple of races. Most people don't give a toss about cycling, all they care about is Wiggins happens to be British and can wet themselves over the reflected glory.

Has he done anything to make the roads safer, or to make cycling a normal everyday way to get around and not just something weirdos (or pro cyclists in their cossetted bubble) do?

Cycle sport has been in the news, but that's a different world from the cyclists in real life out there on the streets.

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #64 on: August 02, 2012, 12:58:27 pm »
Boris has just been on the radio saying there's no plan to make helmets compulsory...

What Johnson says and what he plans are two entirely different things. The motoring lobby must be jumping up and down at another opportunity to push for compulsory helmets.

tonycollinet

  • No Longer a western province of Númenor
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #65 on: August 02, 2012, 01:02:05 pm »
The only reason I know not to go down the side of HGV's is because I read it on here. That message needs to go out to the general non forumming public - and it needs to go out LOUD.

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #66 on: August 02, 2012, 01:04:42 pm »
The only reason I know not to go down the side of HGV's is reading on here. That message needs to go out to the general non forumming public - and it needs to go out LOUD.

The only problem is that the message gets drowned out by the idiots calling for compulsory helmets, hi-viz, insurance, etc. for cyclists.  Rational solutions don't get the media interest...
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Tim Hall

  • I want to eat the fleeting shade of your lashes
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #67 on: August 02, 2012, 01:05:47 pm »
The motoring lobby must be jumping up and down at another opportunity to push for compulsory helmets.

Why? How would what cyclists are forced to do affect the motoring lobby?
There are two ways you can get exercise out of a bicycle: you can
"overhaul" it, or you can ride it.  (Jerome K Jerome)

nicknack

  • Hornblower
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #68 on: August 02, 2012, 01:09:00 pm »
The motoring lobby must be jumping up and down at another opportunity to push for compulsory helmets.

Why? How would what cyclists are forced to do affect the motoring lobby?

Because they know that will force a lot of cyclists off the road.
There's no vibrations, but wait.

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #69 on: August 02, 2012, 01:09:18 pm »
That's awful, so tragic, no words can express.  No helmet would have saved him.  Not riding up the inside would have.  I'm so sorry that this sounds like me blaming the cyclist.  This was the thing that I had to get over when I saw the guy under a  truck in Victoria Street, yes it was awful to see, but had he waited behind he'd have been safe.

The bus is a Wright Gemini, in what looks like Arriva livery.  This type of bus is in use on London bus routes and as such the driver should have had a much better view down the near side than an HGV.



Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #70 on: August 02, 2012, 01:29:13 pm »
I rarely blog, but this time had to have a bit of a ramble.
Thanks AndyK. I hope you don't mind, I've linked to that on Facebook.
Quote from: Kim
^ This woman knows what she's talking about.

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #71 on: August 02, 2012, 01:30:55 pm »

The bus is a Wright Gemini, in what looks like Arriva livery.  This type of bus is in use on London bus routes and as such the driver should have had a much better view down the near side than an HGV.

Thanks for the pointer but it looks to be Stagecoach, probably from outside London? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stagecoach_Group_bus,_new_corporate_livery,_Banbury,_2006.png

We are unlikely ever to know if it was a factor but it seemed almost inevitable to me that something like this would happen, with so many drivers not used to London roads and habits. Doesn't make it better in the slightest; the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #72 on: August 02, 2012, 01:41:14 pm »
The only reason I know not to go down the side of HGV's is reading on here. That message needs to go out to the general non forumming public - and it needs to go out LOUD.

The only problem is that the message gets drowned out by the idiots calling for compulsory helmets, hi-viz, insurance, etc. for cyclists.  Rational solutions don't get the media interest...

There's been a lot of work done on this by TfL, trying to put out the message that cyclists shouldn't go up the inside of large vehicles.  The research on the effectiveness of comms with these messages tended to show that it was experienced cyclists who were most likely to ride up the inside.  This resulted in a lot of heated exchanges between myself and the person responsible for the research, who was not at all sympathetic to cyclists or cycling and was of the "blame the cyclist" mindset.  My view was that, that couldn't possibly be true and what's the definition of experienced.  I'm not so sure now.



FWIW I was never allowed near any research to do with cycling apart from managing the boris bike customer satisfaction survey. 

mcshroom

  • Mushroom
Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #73 on: August 02, 2012, 01:43:02 pm »
It isn't red so it's probably not a London service bus, but the design will be the same as ones Stagecoach operate in London (other than not being red), and the driver is just as likely to be a local driver as one from outside of the area.

Lets not jump to conclusions
Climbs like a sprinter, sprints like a climber!

Re: Cyclist down
« Reply #74 on: August 02, 2012, 01:49:04 pm »

The bus is a Wright Gemini, in what looks like Arriva livery.  This type of bus is in use on London bus routes and as such the driver should have had a much better view down the near side than an HGV.

Thanks for the pointer but it looks to be Stagecoach, probably from outside London? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stagecoach_Group_bus,_new_corporate_livery,_Banbury,_2006.png

We are unlikely ever to know if it was a factor but it seemed almost inevitable to me that something like this would happen, with so many drivers not used to London roads and habits. Doesn't make it better in the slightest; the wrong place at the wrong time.

Thanks for pointing that out.  But as you say, clearly a London type bus from outside London, driving a non standard route.  Rail replacement buses tend to have a disproportionate amount of bridge hitting incidents.

Something must be done though.  Too many people have lost their lives or have been seriously injured.  There needs to be a shift in behaviour as great as that to do with smoking or drink driving.  How that is to be done is beyond me.