Essex police: If cyclists were more safety-conscious they wouldn’t get killed

Crackdown continues on cyclists legally riding without helmets and high-visibility clothing

by John Stevenson   February 24, 2014  

Essex police logo

An Essex police officer has claimed that cyclists need to be more safety-conscious to spare families the heartbreak of a visit from an officer bearing bad news.

Speaking to the Essex Chronicle’s Joe Sturdy, PC Deborah Gray said: “If families have to see a white-hatted officer at their door, then it’s horrible because they just know why they are there.

“If cyclists were more safety-conscious then families would not have to see that.”

Police in Chelmsford are currently engaged in an exercise to improve safety and reduce casualties among cyclists. Operation Bluenose is claimed to be targeting both cyclists and motorists, but the force’s statements and press reports make scant mention of drivers.

“Operation Bluenose aims to identify at risk riders and urge them to use more safety equipment such as lights, helmets and high visibility clothing,” the police said when the exercise was announced.

PC Gray said she had spoken to a rider who was dressed entirely in black.

She said: “He said ‘If a car cannot see me he should not be driving’.

“He only wears his helmet when he is going on long cycle rides because he is stop-start, stop-start [in the town].”

As well as telling riders not to wear perfectly normal clothes, police are also encouraging them to wear helmets.

Sergeant Graham Freeman, who is running the operation, said: “The most common response we get is that it’s a man thing [not to wear a helmet]. We think helmets reduce the number of injuries.

“Men do generally not like to wear helmets. I have been to many accidents where cyclists have got head injuries. They can be pretty serious injuries.”

Around 90 cyclists were stopped in Chelmsford on Friday and police had previously stopped around 120 in Basildon.

Sgt Freeman said: “About 50 per cent had no lights and were given verbal warnings. About 50 per cent had no reflective clothing and 75 per cent had no cycle helmet.”

Commenters on the Essex Chronicle’s story are not impressed. PaulM132 said: “Someone should tell Essex Police that there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet, or any particular type of clothing, while cycling. There is no requirement to carry lights - only where cycling in hours of legal darkness.

"And there is certainly no basis for telling cyclist that they are responsible for their own safety. That is like saying that they should wear a bullet proof vest in case a gunman is on the loose.”

One commenter, 04smallmj doubts the crackdown is even necessary: “I used to cycle in Chelmsford a lot and it was probably the best place that I've cycled and lived in, so it's a shame and a bit embarrasing to see this.

"I actually ditched my helmet and hi viz while living there so I would definitely be one of the ‘naughty cyclists’ who have been given victim blaming advice. I also think that the quote ‘we *think* helmets reduce the number of injuries’ says a lot too.”

Izzy_G added: “The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the dangers, whether one wears a helmet or not, so we should be doing as much as we can to get more people on their bikes.

"Campaigns like this, which stress the dangers of cycling do just the opposite by discouraging the very people we want to get on their bikes.”

96 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

Quote:
I saw 3 ninja cyclists riding home tonight wearing stealth black and with no lights.

Does anyone else's irony detector go off when they read comments like this? Just me?

posted by Mr Agreeable [161 posts]
25th February 2014 - 10:51

19 Likes

usual police nonsense, blame it on not being able to see the cyclist, of course ....

posted by Karbon Kev [683 posts]
25th February 2014 - 11:20

17 Likes

In the past I was a regular cyclist in Bristol, on ordinary roads. (I now need a van to transport my tools & equipment)

I have had a number of accidents where I have fallen at high speeds over the years, but never once hit my head. Yes, I received minor cuts & bruises, scraped elbows, etc, but never any serious injuries, despite most of these occurring in the presence of motor vehicles.

I was knocked off my bike by a tanker within weeks of arriving in the city to start work, and all that was damaged was my bike. He thought he could get past me before the road narrowed - he underestimated my speed!

I have been knocked off my bike by a car driver who was distracted at a roundabout, all I suffered was a dislocation of my colarbone. (I was wearing brightly-coloured lycra at the time, but he still didn't see me, even though I know he was looking in my direction!)

I rode into the side of a car that appeared from nowhere at a difficult junction - and received a bruised a finger & friction burn, whilst causing over £1000 damage to the car!

It isn't about making cyclists more responsible for their own safety, it's about making drivers more aware. And until the penalties they face are more realistic they really don't need to do so. The CPS is reluctant to prosecute for "Dangerous Driving", preferring the easier-to-prove "Careless Driving" charge - which unfortunately has a much lower tariff, one which really isn't much of a deterrent to your average driver.

Only when the penalties for causing death by driving in any form are made high enough to provide a true deterrent will we see drivers taking the care they should when in the presence of cyclists. (It's a bit like the suggestion that all cars shold be fitted with a spike in the middle of the steering wheel. If they were all drivers would be far more careful to avoid accidents!) Apparently we all drive to "a perceived level of danger" - there is no real danger to car drivers from cyclists, either from the accident itself or the consequences, so they can, in effect, ignore them.

posted by BarefootBrian [17 posts]
25th February 2014 - 12:29

15 Likes

condor_rider_1988 wrote:
a.jumper wrote:
No, I'm not sure it could. There seems to be almost no reliable evidence for that. Surveys showing a strong benefit to helmets like Thompson, Rivera and Thompson are pretty discredited. Hi-vis doesn't even have that detailed yet. Like so many times, common sense misleads people.

Yeah, but all I'm saying is anything I can do to make myself safer on the road I will do. If everyone (drivers included, but in terms of protecting cyclists) had the same mentality there'd be fewer deaths on the roads in my opinion.

But contrary to common sense, donning hard hat and hi-vis doesn't make you safer (how would it? The main source of danger are large lumps of metal that they won't stop driven by people who didn't look or failed to see) and it probably deters other people from cycling, which seems to put all remaining riders at greater risk.

As if by magic, an article appeared in the Guardian to explain this counter-intuitive effect and much more besides. Anyone able to post a copy in Essex Police's staff room?

posted by a.jumper [828 posts]
25th February 2014 - 12:30

15 Likes

northstar wrote:
Oh look, bike snobbery is even prevalent among bike riders it seems.

Call me pedantic, but why the 'even'? Where else would you find bike-snobbery but amongst bike-riders? Smile

Every activity, interest, or community generates its own form of snobbery, and the most notable feature of it is usually that it involves distinctions that mystify outsiders.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [997 posts]
25th February 2014 - 12:42

19 Likes

Legin wrote:
In the area I live I regularly see teenagers and people of all ages riding bikes, in the dark on the road, with no lights, no bright clothing and of course they have chosen not to wear a helmet (although remarkably many of the adults do!). This is a problem of education that needs to be addressed with police enforcement backing it up.

Your comment is very odd, as you conflate together very different issues.

What 'police enforcement' is needed to deal with the (non) issue of 'not wearing bright clothing' or 'not wearing a helmet'? How do the police 'enforce' something that is not a law or even backed by evidence?

If its wrong for them to not wear a helmet (when the chances of the helmet making any difference to outcomes is very small) why is it OK for you to drive a car (a choice which creates a far greater risk than their choice not to wear a helmet)?

And 'education' would surely just make people aware of how problematic helmet-pushing actually is?
Police enforcing the law on having lights, and possibly some education on the usefulness of reflective material after dark, fair enough.

One thing that bemuses me is how occasionally I see cyclists in full yellow high-viz gear, after dark, but with no lights. I don't quite get that one at all - going above-and-beyond in one dubious respect while breaking the law in another!

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [997 posts]
25th February 2014 - 12:43

9 Likes

Isn't it the job of the police to catch criminals and prevent crime?

How many of those cyclists stopped were criminal, or were likely to cause a crime to happen?

How many reports of dangerous driving (which is a crime under the RTA) do the police follow up or investigate?

Does someone see a disjoint here?

Imagine if there was an increase in sexual attacks on women in Essex. Instead of investigating the attacks the police response is to stop women and offer them advice on what to wear.

posted by qwerky [184 posts]
25th February 2014 - 12:51

22 Likes

Police are currently part of the problem not the solution.

Airzound

posted by Airzound [929 posts]
25th February 2014 - 13:03

24 Likes

a.jumper wrote:
condor_rider_1988 wrote:
a.jumper wrote:
No, I'm not sure it could. There seems to be almost no reliable evidence for that. Surveys showing a strong benefit to helmets like Thompson, Rivera and Thompson are pretty discredited. Hi-vis doesn't even have that detailed yet. Like so many times, common sense misleads people.

Yeah, but all I'm saying is anything I can do to make myself safer on the road I will do. If everyone (drivers included, but in terms of protecting cyclists) had the same mentality there'd be fewer deaths on the roads in my opinion.

But contrary to common sense, donning hard hat and hi-vis doesn't make you safer (how would it? The main source of danger are large lumps of metal that they won't stop driven by people who didn't look or failed to see) and it probably deters other people from cycling, which seems to put all remaining riders at greater risk.

As if by magic, an article appeared in the Guardian to explain this counter-intuitive effect and much more besides. Anyone able to post a copy in Essex Police's staff room?

A styrofoam hat will not make you safer if hit by a car. It's not designed to. It will be massively overwhelmed by the impact and make no difference at all. Helmets are as effective as a rabbits foot in your saddle bag or wearing a St Christopher. Emphasis on Helmet use is voodoo for the easily led and people that failed O Level Physics like the spokesperson for Essex Police and BBC Interviewers.

Being visible though might make a difference. Not because drivers shouldn't have to pay attention, they should. But because higher visibility adds to the distance from which they notice your presence. I will separate the helmets from enhanced visibility as a concept (by lights, by positioning and by attire.)

The mantra of advanced driving (and I would say advanced cycling) is TtR = Time to React. The more you give yourself and others the safer roads become. So, for motorists that means slowing down, keeping your distance, not tailgating, signalling properly, giving cyclists and other road users enough space. For cyclists it means riding where you can see and be seen and be seen as early as possible.

OK it depends on what sort of cycling you are doing. Some people are pootling to the shops on well lit urban roads in the middle of the day. I don't think high vis is very useful there. I commute on a mixture of rural lanes and busy A roads on gloomy mornings and dark evenings in the winter and in low and bright sun in other seasons. I want motorists to see me from as far away as possible and have as much time to plan their approach to me as I can help to give them. I hope they are doing their part and slowing down and looking for cyclists. I am not prepared to bet my safety on it. I can control what I do though. I can help them to see me from further away using lights, my road position by considering what I wear. And High viz doesn't mean you have to wear a day glo jacket or tabard just don't go out there dressed as the man from Milk Tray.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [891 posts]
25th February 2014 - 13:14

15 Likes

My initial reaction was WTF, but I assume what the police are saying is use common sense. The problem is I fail to see what this will achieve as if you had common sense you would not be in this category anyway. For instance, the idiot this morning riding at 7.30, poor light, rush hour on the a30, a fast single lane, no lights and his 'hi vis' jacket obscured by his low vis rucksack.

Wearing black is fine, but add some reflective elements and decent lights.

There there is the road safety aspect. Fellow cyclists, stop jumping or riding through red lights, no need what so ever.

'It's the closest you can get to flying'
Robin Williams response when asked why he enjoyed riding so much

posted by Simmo72 [523 posts]
25th February 2014 - 13:35

12 Likes

I do wonder whether this attitude had anything to do with the failure to prosecute the driver who knocked me off at a roundabout in Essex (just...) last June.

We all hate the cycling ninjas. Because they give us a bad name. But, as said, cycling without a helmet is not illegal. Cycling without hi-vis is not illegal. How about the police actually follow up on things that actually are illegal?

Boardman CX Team '14 | Cannondale CAAD8 '12 (written off, SMIDSY) | Scott Sportster '08

Gizmo_'s picture

posted by Gizmo_ [1221 posts]
25th February 2014 - 14:20

17 Likes

oozaveared wrote:
I want motorists to see me from as far away as possible and have as much time to plan their approach to me as I can help to give them. I hope they are doing their part and slowing down and looking for cyclists. I am not prepared to bet my safety on it. I can control what I do though. I can help them to see me from further away using lights, my road position by considering what I wear. And High viz doesn't mean you have to wear a day glo jacket or tabard just don't go out there dressed as the man from Milk Tray.

+1000000

Expecting motorists' attitudes towards cyclists to collectively change for the better in any of our lifetimes is massively wishful thinking.

Doing what you can to ensure you are seen is, to me, just common sense.

posted by parksey [362 posts]
25th February 2014 - 14:55

14 Likes

Simmo72 wrote:

There there is the road safety aspect. Fellow cyclists, stop jumping or riding through red lights, no need what so ever.

I don't see why you only address that to cyclists. Why not to all road users?
I find the widespread myth that motorists don't regularly jump red lights to be quite baffling. Do people not use their own eyes?
The only difference is when in the phase they do it - motorists do it overwhelmingly during the period shortly after a light change, though I often see them doing it well into the phase if its a ped-crossing only and there's no-one crossing.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [997 posts]
25th February 2014 - 16:31

18 Likes

“Men do generally not like to wear helmets. I have been to many accidents where cyclists have got head injuries. They can be pretty serious injuries.”

I'm sure he's also been to plenty of accidents where drivers have got pretty serious head injuries, not sure why cyclists should be a special case here.

posted by Chuck [482 posts]
25th February 2014 - 16:35

13 Likes

parksey wrote:
oozaveared wrote:
I want motorists to see me from as far away as possible and have as much time to plan their approach to me as I can help to give them. I hope they are doing their part and slowing down and looking for cyclists. I am not prepared to bet my safety on it. I can control what I do though. I can help them to see me from further away using lights, my road position by considering what I wear. And High viz doesn't mean you have to wear a day glo jacket or tabard just don't go out there dressed as the man from Milk Tray.

+1000000

Expecting motorists' attitudes towards cyclists to collectively change for the better in any of our lifetimes is massively wishful thinking.

Doing what you can to ensure you are seen is, to me, just common sense.

I fear though that in the end it will make no difference. To the extent that cyclists wear high-viz, motorists will just risk-compensate and pay less attention. The end result will be no change in risk for the cyclist but still more time to chat to their passenger or check their mobile for the motorist.
Of course for any individual cyclist it may seem to make sense to take to the lurid colours, its just that collectively we'll likely all end up no better off.

Also, I agree motorists won't change their attitudes, but I would hope that one day road-planners might.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [997 posts]
25th February 2014 - 16:36

10 Likes

Fair point, it does seem to be something of a losing battle.

Much like oozaveared who I quoted, I'm a daily rush-hour commuter across a town that doesn't have a massive cycling population (i.e. drivers don't necessarily expect to see cyclists about), so I do what I can to stay visible purely in the interests of self-preservation!

My rather fetching day-glow tabard does at least offer my employer a bit of free advertising when I'm out and about, so at least somebody wins...

posted by parksey [362 posts]
25th February 2014 - 16:43

14 Likes

oozaveared wrote:
The mantra of advanced driving (and I would say advanced cycling) is TtR = Time to React. The more you give yourself and others the safer roads become. So, for motorists that means slowing down, keeping your distance, not tailgating, signalling properly, giving cyclists and other road users enough space. For cyclists it means riding where you can see and be seen and be seen as early as possible.

In general I agree, but the biggest problems with that in this situation are:

Firstly, a tiny but still dangerous minority of motorists simply don't care because they believe cyclists should never be on the road. Allowing them to identify you are a cyclist earlier (rather than a pedestrian (daytime) or moped (night, thanks to modern bright lights) or whatever) simply allows them time to decide to pass you without giving any room. The ones who are going to slow down and pass well will probably see you in time enough anyway without hi-vis.

Secondly, there's little evidence that hi-vis (rather than reflectors) in normal road use offers any benefit. Most studies of it have been on things like railway or motorway workers and even then results weren't that strong, largely opinion. In bicycle use, Wood et al http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47281/1/ failed to find significant benefit while Miller http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/2855/ found no change (a insignificant increase, actually!).

I use lights and reflectors at night (I need lights to see where I'm going on dark roads anyway, so might as well) but I'm not a fan of hi-vis except in construction zones. They're another thing that make cycling look more dangerous than it is, which is holding cycling back and stops us unlocking the biggest safety improvement: having relatives of every driver cycling regularly, so they'll always subconsciously think "that could be my mother/brother/cousin/..." when driving near them.

posted by a.jumper [828 posts]
25th February 2014 - 17:16

15 Likes

UK police stop all black cars which do not have headlights turned on in crackdown on drivers who are not safety conscious! Imagine? No me either

Harry Middleton CC

Beefy's picture

posted by Beefy [345 posts]
25th February 2014 - 19:28

20 Likes

Beefy wrote:
UK police stop all black cars which do not have headlights turned on in crackdown on drivers who are not safety conscious! Imagine? No me either

Wish they would do something about all the silver cars in fog!!!

mrmo's picture

posted by mrmo [1861 posts]
25th February 2014 - 19:42

7 Likes

a.jumper wrote:
Secondly, there's little evidence that hi-vis (rather than reflectors) in normal road use offers any benefit. Most studies of it have been on things like railway or motorway workers and even then results weren't that strong, largely opinion. In bicycle use, Wood et al http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47281/1/ failed to find significant benefit while Miller http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/2855/ found no change (a insignificant increase, actually!).

I use lights and reflectors at night (I need lights to see where I'm going on dark roads anyway, so might as well) but I'm not a fan of hi-vis except in construction zones. They're another thing that make cycling look more dangerous than it is, which is holding cycling back and stops us unlocking the biggest safety improvement: having relatives of every driver cycling regularly, so they'll always subconsciously think "that could be my mother/brother/cousin/..." when driving near them.

Yep, on a hi-vis jacket/tabard/vest the fluorescent colours are for daytime and the reflective bits for nighttime. I don't bother with fluorescent hi-vis during the depths of winter because there is zero effect. I will use reflective clothing though, particularly on the moving parts, as these will catch someone's attention.

Generally, I would rather be seen, than not seen. That doesn't mean that drivers shouldn't pay more attention or drive more carefully. It just means that I've done my risk assessment, thought, "Hey, it's foggy, I'll pop my lights and hi-vis on, then there's an outside chance that I'll be seen out of the corner of that driver's eye and they'll make a vague attempt to avoid me." In the middle of summer, why wear hi-vis?

Oh, and I wear a helmet, because a) my head gets cold (I'm bald) and b) it hurts slightly less when my head hits the ground.

Someone further up the comments was talking about PPE. PPE is the last resort, if you read your H&S manuals. First remove the risk. So, in this case, take the cars away. Taking them away completely is, perhaps, a step too far. But, taking them away from the vulnerable would do the trick just fine.

posted by Jimbonic [136 posts]
25th February 2014 - 21:43

9 Likes

Oh, and the TdF is riding through Chelmsford. Police road block checking for hi-vis and lights in the middle of summer?!

posted by Jimbonic [136 posts]
25th February 2014 - 21:46

8 Likes

Airzound wrote:
The Filth at their finest. Bunch of losers. They did absolutely nothing when I was knocked off and left for dead. Most of them are thick arrogant over weight slobs who could do with riding a bike themselves at rush hour on a busy road when it's peeing with rain.

Hear, hear - couldn't agree more!

gb901's picture

posted by gb901 [172 posts]
25th February 2014 - 23:09

7 Likes

Having watched the programme Horizon on BBC2 on Monday its become evident that the driving test as they stand are wholly inadequate.
They need to take into account the ability or inability of human beings to function during multiple tasks, some of us are biologically unable to see whats right in front of us whilst we concentrate on other tasks ie cant see cyclists/pedestrians whilst driving, surely that needs to be addressed?

posted by McDuff73 [78 posts]
26th February 2014 - 12:25

9 Likes

McDuff73 wrote:
Having watched the programme Horizon on BBC2 on Monday its become evident that the driving test as they stand are wholly inadequate.
They need to take into account the ability or inability of human beings to function during multiple tasks, some of us are biologically unable to see whats right in front of us whilst we concentrate on other tasks ie cant see cyclists/pedestrians whilst driving, surely that needs to be addressed?

My son passed his test last year aged 17. It was a lot harder than the one I took in 1979 aged 17.

In my opinion the whole idea of a Driving Test is not the right way to do things. We don't let doctors or airline pilots have a single pass/fail test and then issue them with full credentials.

Learning to drive should be an extended course covering all aspects and conditions. When you have enough hours clocked in the various parts of the course and if the instructor is satisfied then that part of the course is deemed complete. You need to complete the whole course.

Many drivers of my age will have had a very simple driving test that almost anyone could have passed. I booked six lessons and a test. I never drove in the rain, at night, on a dual carriageway, down country lanes or in heavy traffic such as the rush hour before I had a licence. The test was driving round Bournemouth on roads I knew. Starting on a hill, reversing round a corner, a 3 point turn and by virtue of not hitting anything and answering 3 questions on road signs and markings I earned a licence at age 17 to drive all kinds of vehicles, in all kinds of conditions and on some kinds of roads I had never driven before.

We need rigorous extended courses not one off tests.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [891 posts]
26th February 2014 - 12:43

10 Likes

Agree entirely oozaveared
I passed mine after 6 lessons, it seems driving has become a right rather than a privelege, with no thought to the inherent danger in allowing a mass of untrained people to swan about as they please at the controls of large metal boxes on wheels.

posted by McDuff73 [78 posts]
26th February 2014 - 13:32

6 Likes

What the police are saying here is simple common sense, lessen the odds of being a statistic. But they do need to state / recognise that nothing can protect a rider from the more idiotic drivers out there and that the Police are in a better position than most to help cyclist's safety (issues with funding, courts aside).
Start with the most serious threat and work down from there, and stop giving the moron drivers (and defence lawyers, insurance companies etc) more fuel for their own blame-avoidance.

posted by james-o [226 posts]
26th February 2014 - 15:02

6 Likes

don't see how it can be common sense to blame victims for an incident, we wouldn't accept the police saying women should dress in a manner which wouldn't attract rapists, and how on earth do you dress so as not to be stabbed should we all be issued with stab vests?

posted by McDuff73 [78 posts]
26th February 2014 - 15:31

9 Likes

james-o wrote:
What the police are saying here is simple common sense

Henry Louis Mencken: "For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."

And this was definitely a wrong use of police time and PR machine.

posted by a.jumper [828 posts]
26th February 2014 - 15:59

9 Likes

james-o wrote:
What the police are saying here is simple common sense, lessen the odds of being a statistic. But they do need to state / recognise that nothing can protect a rider from the more idiotic drivers out there

I take your general point but I have to take issue with this. There is quite a lot that could be done to protect everyone (cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders, motorcyclists and indeed other motorists) from the more idiotic drivers out there.

1 Top of the list would be to change the attitude of the police to road safety.
2 Markedly increase the chances of being caught speeding.
(this equated to the "broken windows" theory in criminology. ie if you allow seemingly minor offences or behaviours to be seen as normal then you just lower the bar for other more serious crimes.
3 Once you have increased the chances of being caught and such that drivers think it is likely they will be caught not unlikely, then increase points penalties to a realistic level. Points work because they effect drivers equally whatever their income.
4 Get the CPS to use the laws properly. Careless is careless. Dangerous is dangerous. Don't prosecute for careless driving when the driving was in fact dangerous.
5 Stop giving persistent offenders their licence back each time or if you do, then not so damn quickly. And on a returned licence affix permanent points so they know that one more even minor offence and they could lose it again. Three strikes and you are out (banned permenantly) for major offences. ie where 6 or more points are given on a single offence. Lifetime points. A ban not just on offences on a rolling 4 year period but a total lifetime number acquired. I suggest 24.
6 Allow the Police Force / Local Safety Camera orgs to keep a good proportion of the fines to invest in more detection and enforcement. Speeding and offending drivers are then paying for enforcement. Enforcement technology and extra traffic officers are therefore self financeing and an investment.

I could go on but you get my drift.

There is actually plenty that can be done about idiot drivers.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [891 posts]
26th February 2014 - 16:01

9 Likes

james-o wrote:
What the police are saying here is simple common sense, lessen the odds of being a statistic.

You give them too much credit. That's not 'what the police are saying here'. What the police woman said was “If cyclists were more safety-conscious then families would not have to see that.” Nothing about lessening odds, just a categorical statement that is simply and obviously false and which carries a nasty whiff of victim blaming for those previous cases of dead cyclists she claims to be talking about.

Given that the fatal error is most frequently on the part of the motorist, if cyclists were more safety-conscious there would be at best a small reduction in how often families saw that. Assuming the effort of being so safety conscious didn't just deter people from cycling in the first place, in which case families would more often see family members having heart attacks instead.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [997 posts]
26th February 2014 - 17:44

7 Likes