- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Essex police logoEssex police: If cyclists were more safety-conscious they wouldn’t get killed
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.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Jimnm 1 sec ago
Perhaps they need to reduce prices dramatically and try to rely on turnover to make a profit. Bikes are more expensive than some motor vehicles...
- MichaelWinnerRIP 3 min 8 sec ago
Italian tourist and pussycat in Portugal.
- Mark Bickerton 7 min 23 sec ago
Ha... I think for us at Tern Bicycles it is normal protocol for the UK!
- Backladder 18 min 54 sec ago
Am I the only one who thinks the brake levers look awful too?
- David9694 50 min 53 sec ago
Yep, it's official - reds under the, er, bonnet...
- wtjs 1 hour 2 min ago
Stephen Aylen, a non-aligned councillor for Southend-on-Sea Borough Council who questioned why the "ugly and out of place" structures had been...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 29 min ago
Indeed, I was drawing from personal experience – I don't use it that often but it's such a nice bit of infrastructure that I sometimes go out of my...
- paulgardener@gmail.com 1 hour 34 min ago
Except socialism doesn't work like that in real life. It's the capitals countries that try to look after those in need, and the average person's...
- KDee 2 hours 31 min ago
It's the mass that's the issue. Two people on a petrol powered scooter can really mess up a cyclist. Also the fact so many of the petrol scooters...
- andystow 2 hours 58 min ago
The new RH tubes claim to solve that issue, but price and availability is a problem. I tried to get some to try out, but they went out of stock on...
Add new comment
100 comments
Because I was cycling just behind them. But a car pulling out might not have.
Wired post, and you got several likes as well.
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.
Far more pedestrians and motorists get fatal or life-changing head injuries per mile travelled in towns than cyclists do. Why aren't people up in arms about them choosing not to wear helmets? If it's a sensible suggestion that cyclists should be required to wear helmets then, given the huge quantity of evidence, it must be even more sensible that drivers and pedestrians should too?
In fact why stop there? If everyone not driving a motor vehicle was required to be cocooned in a three foot thick layer of bubble wrap then drivers could presumably just do away with the pesky "awareness" obligation that comes with piloting a few tons of metal around the place and instead just keep their eyes on more important stuff like their mobile phone/lunch/makeup/whatever.
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" ... translation: "Sorry mate, I wasn't looking".
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.”............................................................
Well Sergeant Freeman how were you ever promoted?
Police are supposed to work with facts and all your quotes above are, "Around" 90 cycles stopped "about" 50 % and so on.
Surely you are educated enough to give a factual report after all "around" 90 cycles is not a lot. Perhaps you did not have enough fingers and toes. Or are you rather over egging the pudding to make you operation look good for all those above you who are only interested in figures.
Facts please
As an Essex resident I am not happy with the quotes from these officers. One of the challenges we all face is that "cyclists" like "motorists" are treated as one homogeneous mob. The reality is that we are all different.
There is an issue in Essex with some cyclists (as there is with some motorists); but not one's like me! 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.
I dread the day that I fail to spot one of these idiots as they bunny hop off the pavement, across the road and my car sends them of to collect their Darwin award. If it does happen I'll be the one having to live with it.
It should be born in mind that (as with most of the UK) Essex hates spending money on children and youth services (they actually hate children basically; Southend is different). Therefore it is cheaper to let the police "educate" rather than running an extensive program of training courses.
Needs to be a difference made between 'cyclists' and 'people who happen to be on a bike'.
It's normally the latter who have no lights, no helmet etc. (hi-vi stuff is largely irrelevant if you're lit up enough anyway).
Oh look, bike snobbery is even prevalent among bike riders it seems.
Fair comment. I was of course assuming you were in a car. I was trying to make the point that if you are looking then you will see, ninja cyclists included. However I myself wouldn't dream of cycling without lights at night. Also with reflective but not necessarily high viz clothing.
I also despair of the ninjas, but still manage to see them - up till now anyway!
If Essex police actually bothered to stop dangerous driving in their county, fewer cyclists would get killed there.
Does anyone else's irony detector go off when they read comments like this? Just me?
usual police nonsense, blame it on not being able to see the cyclist, of course ....
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.
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.
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?
Call me pedantic, but why the 'even'? Where else would you find bike-snobbery but amongst bike-riders?
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.
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!
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.
Police are currently part of the problem not the solution.
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.
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.
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?
+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 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.
“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.
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.
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...
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.
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!!!
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.
Pages