Wiggins engaging mouth before brain again

[Redlight]

Wiggins' latest lecture to people who ride their bikes for other reasons than making money...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sir-bradley-wiggins-warns-london-s-cyclists-stop-riding-dangerously-or-face-crackdown-a3202296.html

Includes this classic line:  "they’re not cyclists as such, they are not membership holders of British Cycling."

I know he won a big race once and has some medals for riding around in circles, but since when did that make him a road safety expert?

(I'm sure it's pure coincidence, by the way, that the piece was written by the paper's motoring correspondent)

[T42]

Wiggins... Wiggins... I'm sure I've heard that name before. "Ender's Game", perhaps?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Bit mixed I thought. He's reinforcing the cyclists vs bike riders (or whatever phrase) "divide" and at the same time talking approvingly of 'an Amsterdam or Copenhagen'.

[Tigerrr]

I have just read his book - thats 2 hours I won't get back. I suspect he masks his intelligence under a facade of dim shallowness. 

[Veloman]

Aside from the comments that have attracted criticism, he does some make some valid points IMO:

Sir Bradley Wiggins today called on London’s cyclists to obey the rules of the road and avoid jeopardising the capital’s two-wheeled revolution.

This might be the beginnings of an Amsterdam or Copenhagen but everyone abiding by the rules and co-existing is key. New cycle lanes are great but you always get cyclists who give a bad name to the rest; people who jump the kerbs, jump red lights and ride around with iPods so you can’t hear the rest of the traffic. You would not do that in a car so why would you on a bike?

I think the bigger message is made with good intent and the BC reference was probably not meant in the term that unless you are a member of BC you are not a cyclist.

Perhaps he does not contribute to this forum because he feels he is not sufficiently erudite.

And Chris Boardman also comments:

Nobody should run a red light in any vehicle, it’s the rule of the road,” said Mr Boardman who called for “less aggression” from cyclists and car drivers.

Having cycled in London, I am somewhat supportive of a "those riding cycles should obey the law" approach.

[Si S]

I take it Mr Wiggins' car has no stereo in it. Really gets on my wick this, even with my tunes on I can still hold a normal conversation with the rider next to me.

Apart from the fact that I can hear the traffic, most of the time I don't need hear it since its so ruddy close I can feel it.

[TimC]

I take it Mr Wiggins' car has no stereo in it. Really gets on my wick this, even with my tunes on I can still hold a normal conversation with the rider next to me.

Apart from the fact that I can hear the traffic, most of the time I don't need hear it since its so ruddy close I can feel it.

You may be able to, but I'd suggest that many listening to music via headphones, whether peds, POBS or MMs are doing so at a volume which deliberately masks all environmental noise, and thus is detrimental to situational awareness. Whether that should be outlawed is perhaps a controversy too far, but it's certainly not wise. And suggesting that road users, of any variety, should obey the law is hardly declaring a war on cyclists, or in any other way unreasonable!

[Si S]

I take it Mr Wiggins' car has no stereo in it. Really gets on my wick this, even with my tunes on I can still hold a normal conversation with the rider next to me.

Apart from the fact that I can hear the traffic, most of the time I don't need hear it since its so ruddy close I can feel it.

You may be able to, but I'd suggest that many listening to music via headphones, whether peds, POBS or MMs are doing so at a volume which deliberately masks all environmental noise, and thus is detrimental to situational awareness. Whether that should be outlawed is perhaps a controversy too far, but it's certainly not wise. And suggesting that road users, of any variety, should obey the law is hardly declaring a war on cyclists, or in any other way unreasonable!

I have no problem with CB's statements, the man talks sense. It's this that winds me up

You would not do that in a car so why would you on a bike?

What planet does he live on where cars don't drive on pavements, jump red lights and chug out banging choons?

[Cudzoziemiec]

He does say would not rather than do not.

[simonp]

It's the usual othering of cyclists.

[Oscar's dad]

I think Brad was talking sense.

I only bit I didn't like was where he inferred that only BC members could be considered cyclists. I'm confident that wasn't what he meant and I wouldn't be surprised if Brad clarified his comment if given the chance.

[ian]

I'm not responsible for what other cyclists do. The mere fact that we use the same method to get around doesn't somehow quantum entangle our fates. I don't control their behaviour at traffic lights or what they have for tea.

And yeah, yet again we're missing the ball. Drivers break the rules all the time, they speed, they jump lights, they drive on the pavement, and we have yet another discussion of what cyclists do. Yeah, a lot of cyclists are cunts, I can agree. But so are a lot of drivers, and only one set are doing in large, heavy, high powered vehicles that kill and maim thousands of people every year. Which one should we worry about. The cyclists apparently. They're a bit rude. Sometimes. Oh my giddy sense of proportion.

[De Sisti]

I'm not responsible for what other cyclists do. The mere fact that we use the same method to get around doesn't somehow quantum entangle our fates. I don't control their behaviour at traffic lights or what they have for tea.

And yeah, yet again we're missing the ball. Drivers break the rules all the time, they speed, they jump lights, they drive on the pavement, and we have yet another discussion of what cyclists do. Yeah, a lot of cyclists are cunts, I can agree. But so are a lot of drivers, and only one set are doing in large, heavy, high powered vehicles that kill and maim thousands of people every year. Which one should we worry about. The cyclists apparently. They're a bit rude. Sometimes. Oh my giddy sense of proportion.

^^^^Wot e sed^^^^

[Oscar's dad]

I think Brad's point was that we all need to behave. Drivers and cyclists. All of us.

[Jurek]

Not sure whether this should go in here or in 'Things too unimportant....'
Was shouted at this evening, by someone who had just got out of his van,  that my "Lights are way too bright, Mate. Really"

2 x Hope Vision 1, set to volume 2, pointing at the road approximately 1.5 car-lengths in front of me.
Too bright? 

[Basil]

I have a Hope 1.  I'm actually rather disappointed with it. In fact it's a cunt.
I have it focused about 5 feet in front. 
The spill is still stupid.

[Oscar's dad]

Not sure whether this should go in here or in 'Things too unimportant....'
Was shouted at this evening, by someone who had just got out of his van,  that my "Lights are way too bright, Mate. Really"

2 x Hope Vision 1, set to volume 2, pointing at the road approximately 1.5 car-lengths in front of me.
Too bright? 

We had a thing like that a year or so ago on one of our Wednesday evening jaunts whose sole aim (well one of many) is to keep the mid-Essex pub trade in fine fettle. A chap in a car pulled over to express similar sentiments. We told him (reasonably nicely) that we liked our bright lights as they allowed us to see the potholes - well some of them.

We didn't tell him, cos he was cross, that we also like the "What the fuck?!?" moments that a rapidly moving, brightly lit peloton causes incoming motorists to have quite frequently. So much so that many of them pull over to let us pass safely (to both parties).  In such situations we always dispense cheery waves.

[Kim]

I reckon the Hope Vision 1 is a triumph of build quality over optical design... but the cycle lighting arms race has been discussed to death elsewhere.

When's the last time you heard anyone shouting at a motorist for excessively bright lights, thobut?

[Jurek]

I hear you Basil and am sorry that you have Hope disappoint.
The general lean of my post was more towards that of bloody cyclists getting shouted at for not having lights.
And then likewise for having lights which are (apparently) too bright.

In reply to Kim, I find some of the HID headlights of cars a total pain in the eyes.

[Kim]

In reply to Kim, I find some of the HID headlights of cars a total pain in the eyes.

Agreed.  Also mis-aligned lamps, general abuse of fog lights, drivers of cars without clutches sitting with their foot on the brakes^[1] and motorcyclists driving around with full beams on (as per highway code).  At least as common as obnoxious bike lights, but barely worthy of comment when it's not a BloodyCyclist doing it.


_{[1] I've seen brake lights described as 'blinding' on various occasions, so I assume they must be.}

[SoreTween]

I think Brad's point was that we all need to behave. Drivers and cyclists. All of us.

I think Brad's point was that he needs a new revenue stream running by Aug 16th he'll be selling kids bikes soon.

I agree though, we do.

[Jurek]

In reply to Kim, I find some of the HID headlights of cars a total pain in the eyes.

Agreed.  Also mis-aligned lamps, general abuse of fog lights, drivers of cars without clutches sitting with their foot on the brakes^[1] and motorcyclists driving around with full beams on (as per highway code).  At least as common as obnoxious bike lights, but barely worthy of comment when it's not a BloodyCyclist doing it.


_{[1] I've seen brake lights described as 'blinding' on various occasions, so I assume they must be.}

I have in the last few minutes replenished the batteries in my Hopes with a consignment of freshly-charged ones 
New week. New batteries. As my Gran never used to say.

[ian]

I think Brad's point was that we all need to behave. Drivers and cyclists. All of us.

Well, erm, yes. Does that need to be stated? But again, we have that weird equivalence. Cyclists misbehaving have quantifiably far fewer consequences (effectively none) than drivers misbehaving. Police no longer have to crack down on the scourge of pavement cyclists because there's no pavement left for to cycle on. Because cars. Cars that drive on the pavements. All the fucking time. And occasionally they run over and injure or kill pedestrians. Not to mention they make pavements unusable for able-bodied people, and well, if you're blind or in a wheelchair, that's a big fuck-you from the driver. They have 'nowhere to park' of course, so it's obviously not their fault.

Go stand at any set of lights in London (and I'm sure it's not unique to London), you won't have to wait to count several cars going through a red light.

These are people doing things in vehicles that often weigh several tonnes and are grossly overpowered. But yet again, it's cyclists that have to somehow agree to behave? Or we have some 'everyone play nice'. Truth is, you don't have to play nice if you have three tonnes of high powered car.

[Jurek]

.......
Go stand at any set of lights in London (and I'm sure it's not unique to London), you won't have to wait to count several cars going through a red light.

.......

This.
I was following a white van (it didn't have to be a white van, but was) on my commute home this evening.
The driver ran no fewer than three red lights, three to four seconds after they'd changed to red.
Oh! did I mention that later I was shouted at for having lights that are "too bright"?

[ian]

Yeah, and on several times recently I've had to jump back from the road while crossing on a zebra or green man. Not because of a cyclist, but because of a large motor vehicle (on one recent occasion, an entire coach towing a luggage container). I'd hazard being hit by a coach doing 50+ mph would cause marginally more aches and pains than having to step to one side as a courier threads across a crossing. Yes, they're fuckwits, but people generally don't die from mild annoyance.