Cycling UK has invited Richard Madeley for a nice calming bike ride after the Good Morning Britain (GMB) presenter had a full-on Alan Partridge-style exasperated rant at its spokesman. The exchange took place during a debate that was supposed to be about whether a ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law should be introduced, but which quickly descended into Madeley asking why all cyclists aren’t insured.
The segment came after fixed-gear cyclist Charlie Alliston was this week found guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving for causing the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs and Briggs’ husband’s subsequent call for the law to be updated.
Early in the interview, Cycling UK spokesman Duncan Dollimore was asked by Madeley’s fellow presenter Kate Garraway whether there should be more accountability for cyclists in collisions or traffic incidents.
Wary of the debate becoming a ‘cyclists v motorists’ thing, Dollimore attempted to make a point about a broader lack of accountability on the roads due to the reduction in road traffic police officers.
However, he was swiftly halted by Madeley, who wasn’t happy.
“Sir, you’re here to answer the questions,” said the presenter. “We didn’t ask you about policing on the roads.”
“You asked me about accountability,” countered Dollimore.
Madeley apparently disagreed and suggested that Dollimore was changing the subject.
After much talking over one another due to a slight delay on the line, Dollimore tried to reset the conversation. “I’m asking you which question you’re asking me to answer.”
“God! Stop playing games,” exclaimed Madeley, manfully suppressing 30 years of broadcasting experience by failing to appreciate that delay. “Would you listen to a question?”
And what was that question…?
It was: “Why aren’t cyclists insured?”
That hadn’t been the original question. But Dollimore answered it anyway.
“There are 25,000 people in this country with bikes [He meant 25 million]. That includes something like 70 per cent of people between five and 12. The logistics of making an insurance system that required children to have insurance would be completely unworkable.
“Bikes also change hands more readily than cars because you have an issue with the sale of bikes because they’re not the value of a car. If you required children as young as six, seven, eight to have insurance, you’d have a system where many people would be discouraged from cycling and it would not be something where the cost would be proportionate.
“The incident with Charlie Alliston and Kim Briggs, which was appalling, had nothing to do with the fact that he was or was not insured.”
Madeley responded: “I have to say your answer to cyclists not being insured seems to me close to suspicious because you’re basically not accepting the point that adult cyclists should carry insurance; of course they should if they’re using the road. You’re just saying it’s too complicated because kids use bikes.”
When asked about the interview by road.cc, Dollimore said: “I did fourteen interviews for TV and radio yesterday in relation to the Alliston case, but was surprised how quickly the GMB piece turned to insurance, licensing and other issues rather than Matt Bridges’ call for new legislation around cycling offences.
“Unfortunately, the time lag on the line also complicated matters, with Richard Madeley clearly thinking I was talking over him, whilst I thought he was interrupting me.
“The papers seem to suggest he was having a bad day yesterday. I don’t know about that, but I do know cycling is great for improving your mental wellbeing, so hope he’ll accept my offer of going for a bike ride sometime.
“We can discuss why Cycling UK isn’t keen to introduce measures which might be a barrier to or put people off cycling, and what needs to be done to actually get more people out cycling, such as space for cycling.”
























88 thoughts on “Cycling UK spokesman invites Richard Madeley on bike ride after being subjected to Partridgesque meltdown on live TV”
Some of the media and wider
Some of the media and wider public are letting out years of pent up anti cyclist sentiment based on this one case. The control freak tendencies of some of the British just never let’s go does it.
Richard playing the Piers
Richard playing the Piers Morgan role, badly.
Good to see Madeley
Good to see Madeley advocating insurance for pedestrians.
#Prick.
This further reinforces why I
This further reinforces why I only watch BBC News.
jhsmith87 wrote:
BBC news is just as biased as most of the media, and more so on some subjects. For instance, not once have I seen or heard in the BBC news any mention of Mrs Briggs walking out into the road whilst looking at her mobile phone. The BBC has had an incredibly successful 30 year campaign about cycle helmets which broke every rule they have. The BBC doesn’t have a regular programme about cycling, but it seems to have at least one about every other means of transport. The BBC hasn’t mentioned the recent report about cycling and health, but it is actively pushing walking. R4 You and Yours had an entire programme about women in sport, without once mentioning cycling. R4 PM had an entire week of items about transport, and it wasn’t until the last one it was mentioned, but only by a guest expert.
The BBC hates cycling and cyclists.
burtthebike wrote:
It definitely seems to have a bias on that topic. I recall the ‘You and Yours’ ‘should cyclists be licenced’ faux-debate, for example, hung on a hook of one single cyclist-ped collision.
I think partly it might just be that so many media types go everywhere by means of expense-account taxis. I tend to flick the radio back-and-forth between R4 and LBC (depending on the precise way I wish to be annoyed), and when it comes to being anti-cycling it’s hard to tell the difference. (The former has more faux-earnestness, the latter more foam-flecked ranting, but the general angle is the same).
burtthebike wrote:
I can personally attest to the quality of the bike sheds and showering/kit storage facilities, degree of magnitude better than anything else I’ve seen
but I think Madeley is less Partridge and more http://viz.co.uk/category/cartoons/strip-cartoons/roger-mellie/
riotgibbon wrote:
Sorry, I don’t think the quality of their cycle facilties excuses their blatant bias, especially when it contravenes every rule they’ve got.
The irony of the original
The irony of the original post clearly lost on you.
Richard, just pick up a
Richard, just pick up a couple of bottles of Champagne for Dunc and forget all about it, eh?
Because insured cars never
Because insured cars never collide….
JeevesBath wrote:
let’s not forget about the circa 1 million who aren’t insured at all, or same for VED, MOT.
Even the dopy Swiss knocked license plates on the head for bicycles because it was utterly unworkable.
Worryingly the CUK spokes says “We can discuss why Cycling UK isn’t keen to introduce measures which might be a barrier to or put people off cycling,”
Shouldn’t that be be we can discuss why CUK are flatly against ANY measure that might be a barrier/makes cycling less safe/less accessible/puts people of riding a bike.?
Are we forgetting that every
Are we forgetting that every member of British Cycling has 3rd party insurance and some house insurance policies cover you too?
mikepridmorewood wrote:
As do members of CyclingUK (the organisation being interviewed) IIRC
mikepridmorewood wrote:
Not some, ALL. At least all that I checked, and I checked a few of the major household insurance providers. The relevant wording was almost identical between all of the different policy documents which leads me to believe it is generic policy and generic wording and so applies to all household insurance policies.
Hence as the vast majority of cyclists have household insurance, the vast majority also have insurance when cycling. In fact there will be a lower proportion of uninsured drivers than uninsured drivers.
aracer wrote:
DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THIS DRIVEL.
Most home insurance liability cover only protects you against third party injury or death if it occurs within your household boundary. And only if it can be shown that you’ve been negligent.
If your home insurance liability cover extends to include PERSONAL liability then you will be covered away from the home. And only if it can be shown that you’ve been negligent.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
It’s not drivel at all – in fact your comments are the only drivel here, and suggest you haven’t checked your own insurance policy document.
All home insurance policies provide personal liability cover, it’s a standard part of the cover, and there is no neglience requirement, simply a requirement for liability.
Simply picking the first insurance company which appeared on a google search, this is from the Aviva policy document:
“Occupier’s, personal and employer’s liability (See the important note overleaf) We will cover your legal liability to pay damages and claimants’ costs and expenses for: ● accidental bodily injury or illness; ● accidental loss of or damage to property; happening during the period of insurance in: ● the British Isles; ● the rest of the world, for temporary visits; and arising: ● as occupier (not as owner) of the home and its land; ● in a personal capacity (not as occupier or owner of any building or land); ● as employer of a domestic employee.”
You’ll find that wording appears almost identically in all household insurance policies. Oh, and in case there is any doubt about who that covers, the following is in the definitions (again a standard definition in all policies):
“You, Your The person (or people) named on your schedule, their domestic partner and members of their family (or families) who are normally living with them and their foster children who live with them.”
Did you really think I would be making such claims without having checked?
Though your reply is an example of the level of ignorance over this – it appears that even the majority of cyclists are unaware that they have 3rd party insurance cover through their household insurance.
aracer wrote:
Do the majority of cyclists have household insurance? Perhaps the majority of middle class cyclists… Between one fifth and one quarter of all UK households don’t have house insurance.
sheridan wrote:
It appears that the vast majority of households have household insurance.
aracer wrote:
Are we forgetting that every member of British Cycling has 3rd party insurance and some house insurance policies cover you too?
— aracer
Not some, ALL. At least all that I checked, and I checked a few of the major household insurance providers. The relevant wording was almost identical between all of the different policy documents which leads me to believe it is generic policy and generic wording and so applies to all household insurance policies.
Hence as the vast majority of cyclists have household insurance, the vast majority also have insurance when cycling. In fact there will be a lower proportion of uninsured drivers than uninsured drivers.
— Rapha Nadal
DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THIS DRIVEL.
Most home insurance liability cover only protects you against third party injury or death if it occurs within your household boundary. And only if it can be shown that you’ve been negligent.
If your home insurance liability cover extends to include PERSONAL liability then you will be covered away from the home. And only if it can be shown that you’ve been negligent.
— aracer
It’s not drivel at all – in fact your comments are the only drivel here, and suggest you haven’t checked your own insurance policy document.
All home insurance policies provide personal liability cover, it’s a standard part of the cover, and there is no neglience requirement, simply a requirement for liability.
Simply picking the first insurance company which appeared on a google search, this is from the Aviva policy document:
“Occupier’s, personal and employer’s liability (See the important note overleaf) We will cover your legal liability to pay damages and claimants’ costs and expenses for: ● accidental bodily injury or illness; ● accidental loss of or damage to property; happening during the period of insurance in: ● the British Isles; ● the rest of the world, for temporary visits; and arising: ● as occupier (not as owner) of the home and its land; ● in a personal capacity (not as occupier or owner of any building or land); ● as employer of a domestic employee.”
You’ll find that wording appears almost identically in all household insurance policies. Oh, and in case there is any doubt about who that covers, the following is in the definitions (again a standard definition in all policies):
“You, Your The person (or people) named on your schedule, their domestic partner and members of their family (or families) who are normally living with them and their foster children who live with them.”
Did you really think I would be making such claims without having checked?
Though your reply is an example of the level of ignorance over this – it appears that even the majority of cyclists are unaware that they have 3rd party insurance cover through their household insurance.
— mikepridmorewood
Oh, OK, if we’re going down that route then please observe the wording of a bog standard Zurich home wording:
“We cover you or your family for any legal liability you have as occupiers of the home (or as private individuals) to compensate others if, following an accident during the period of insurance, someone dies, is injured, falls ill or has their property damaged.
The most we will pay for any claim (or claims) arising from one cause, including legal costs and expenses agreed by us, is:
• £10,000,000 for an accident to your domestic employees;
• £2,000,000 for an accident to any other person or property.
We will not pay if the liability arises from you or your family:
• owning your home;
• owning or occupying any other premises;
• owning or using vehicles and craft (other than hand- or foot-propelled boats that you or they do not own).”
Now, I’ll draw your attention to that last point which, roughly translated, means that if you hit somebody whilst using your vehicle then you ain’t covered. Now, weather a pedal cycle falls under the heading of “vehicle” is wholly insurer depandant. This liability extends only to the property boundaries. Which then goes on to reinforce my point that not ALL policies have a personal liability extension written into the wording. But you knew that already, right?
You can rely on Google but I’ll rely on 15 years of working in the insurance industry.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
On the contrary – I’m relying on my understanding of legal terminology, how legal documents are written and ability to read, whilst your experience of working in the insurance industry doesn’t appear to have enabled you to comprehend the wording of policy documents.
It isn’t at all insurer dependent, “vehicle” is a perfectly standard term with a standard definition across all insurers. Though like all well written legal documents (and every single insurance policy document I’ve ever read) it doesn’t rely on your knowledge of the terms used, but provides definitions of the terms used. Hence if you go to the top of the Zurich policy document you’ll find the following:
“• Vehicles and craft – any electrically or mechanically powered vehicles, caravans, trailers, watercraft including surfboards, land windsurfing vehicles, hovercraft, aircraft, all-terrain vehicles or quad bikes other than: – domestic gardening equipment; – battery operated golf trolleys; – wheelchairs or similar electric scooters, specifically designed for the disabled or infirm which are not legally required to be licensed for road use; – battery assisted cycles which are not legally required to be licensed for road use; and – models or toys which are battery operated and/or pedestrian controlled”
I note that mechanically propelled means using an engine, hence doesn’t include bicycles which are human propelled (and it specifically excludes e-bikes from the definition of “vehicles”). So the use bicycles isn’t excluded from that cover. This is also a totally standard exclusion which you will find in all policies, which means that you’re not covered under the policy for driving a car.
…
This liability extends only to the property boundaries. Which then goes on to reinforce my point that not ALL policies have a personal liability extension written into the wording. But you knew that already, right?
Note the “or as private individuals” bit. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that the cover is limited to the property boundaries – there is no mention at all of that in the policy wording, and “as private individuals” is the personal liability bit. Which is a standard part of all policies, as I already knew.
Congratulations on proving my point though – Zurich quite clearly provide 3rd party cover for cycling.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Not some, ALL. At least all that I checked, and I checked a few of the major household insurance providers. The relevant wording was almost identical between all of the different policy documents which leads me to believe it is generic policy and generic wording and so applies to all household insurance policies.
Hence as the vast majority of cyclists have household insurance, the vast majority also have insurance when cycling. In fact there will be a lower proportion of uninsured drivers than uninsured drivers.
— aracer
DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THIS DRIVEL.
Most home insurance liability cover only protects you against third party injury or death if it occurs within your household boundary. And only if it can be shown that you’ve been negligent.
If your home insurance liability cover extends to include PERSONAL liability then you will be covered away from the home. And only if it can be shown that you’ve been negligent.
— Rapha Nadal
It’s not drivel at all – in fact your comments are the only drivel here, and suggest you haven’t checked your own insurance policy document.
All home insurance policies provide personal liability cover, it’s a standard part of the cover, and there is no neglience requirement, simply a requirement for liability.
Simply picking the first insurance company which appeared on a google search, this is from the Aviva policy document:
“Occupier’s, personal and employer’s liability (See the important note overleaf) We will cover your legal liability to pay damages and claimants’ costs and expenses for: ● accidental bodily injury or illness; ● accidental loss of or damage to property; happening during the period of insurance in: ● the British Isles; ● the rest of the world, for temporary visits; and arising: ● as occupier (not as owner) of the home and its land; ● in a personal capacity (not as occupier or owner of any building or land); ● as employer of a domestic employee.”
You’ll find that wording appears almost identically in all household insurance policies. Oh, and in case there is any doubt about who that covers, the following is in the definitions (again a standard definition in all policies):
“You, Your The person (or people) named on your schedule, their domestic partner and members of their family (or families) who are normally living with them and their foster children who live with them.”
Did you really think I would be making such claims without having checked?
Though your reply is an example of the level of ignorance over this – it appears that even the majority of cyclists are unaware that they have 3rd party insurance cover through their household insurance.
— aracer
Oh, OK, if we’re going down that route then please observe the wording of a bog standard Zurich home wording:
“We cover you or your family for any legal liability you have as occupiers of the home (or as private individuals) to compensate others if, following an accident during the period of insurance, someone dies, is injured, falls ill or has their property damaged.
The most we will pay for any claim (or claims) arising from one cause, including legal costs and expenses agreed by us, is:
• £10,000,000 for an accident to your domestic employees;
• £2,000,000 for an accident to any other person or property.
We will not pay if the liability arises from you or your family:
• owning your home;
• owning or occupying any other premises;
• owning or using vehicles and craft (other than hand- or foot-propelled boats that you or they do not own).”
Now, I’ll draw your attention to that last point which, roughly translated, means that if you hit somebody whilst using your vehicle then you ain’t covered. Now, weather a pedal cycle falls under the heading of “vehicle” is wholly insurer depandant. This liability extends only to the property boundaries. Which then goes on to reinforce my point that not ALL policies have a personal liability extension written into the wording. But you knew that already, right?
You can rely on Google but I’ll rely on 15 years of working in the insurance industry.— mikepridmorewood
Yeah, but reading it the way you are, it is saying that they will cover you if you are shown to be liable whilst in control of a hand or foot propelled boat. Now that seems to be a fairly random thing to cover in my opinion, which suggests the interpretation you are presenting is not accurate.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Since you quote “a bog standard Zurich home insurance”, perhaps you should have looked to see whether a pedal cycle falls under Zurich’s definition of “vehicle”. (Hint: It doesn’t.)
ITV audicence, basically
ITV audicence, basically daily star with moving pictures.
Medley is a twat.
Over the course of this whole case, how many cyclists have been injured because of driver error or using a vehicle as a weapon.
Simmo72 wrote:
Woah, I think you’re giving ITV viewers a bit too much credit there. Most of them are akin to the hybrid offspring of an amoeba and a paperclip.
If Richard does fancy a bike
But seriously, if Richard does fancy a bike ride I can recommend a base in Bavaria…
If you can be bothered
If you can be bothered
http://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/news/should-new-cycling-laws
Madley proves himself again to be incapable of conducting an interview, maybe he’s just a bit too thick?
Wow! What a git.
Wow! What a git.
Blimey, Richard Madeley has
Blimey, Richard Madeley has let himself go. Either that or Judy Finnegan is looking better than ever.
Glass houses…https://www
Glass houses…https://www.standard.co.uk/news/richard-and-judys-daughter-charged-with-drink-driving-after-car-crash-6777289.html
(No subject)
Quote:
Lovely turn of phrase.
So speaks a man who forgot to
So speaks a man who forgot to pay for things from the shops. His word carries no value.
Always good to hear lessons
Always good to hear lessons on personal responsibility and road safety from someone who reportedly had ten affairs during his first marriage, was arrested on two counts of taking goods from a supermarket without paying, and whose daughter got a 20 month ban for drink driving.
Watched it live and implore
Watched it live and implore you to watch the link.
To provide balance, he did end the interview relatively well stating he’d seen many good cyclists on his trip in that morning. Garragob played the Ron Atkinson card and claimed to be cyclist and driver.
There was also a bit of an issue becaue of the few seconds delay both between the interviewee and studio and much longer delay between the presenters’ ears. He tries to answer the 2nd question and is talked over by Garragob, then Madeley gets all upset about being interrupted and goes full Partridge.
They blatantly failed to listen to the context he was trying to set, as most media outlets have. The question of identification and insurance is potentially a fair one, but you have to allow someone to answer it and open your tiny mind…
Let’s hope he doesn’t take
Let’s hope he doesn’t take them up on their offer, lest he turns into a second Jeremy Vine.
Well I’ve made a formal
Well I’ve made a formal complaint. That is some of the worst intervew technique I’ve ever seen. Particularly the mug banging in anger!
whobiggs wrote:
Good idea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint.html
My thoughts are that they didn’t want to listen to the responsible voice of cycling, as they had a witch hunt to get on with.
He should stick to nicking
He should stick to nicking champagne from his local Tesco! An utter twat! No wonder Judy turned to the booze.
If madely is so desperate for
If madely is so desperate for ratings why doesn’t he organise a wardrobe malfunction. Hopefully in his next desperate attempt he’ll grill the head of the hauliers association when a cyclist is crushed under a truck, 25 million cyclists might like to see that.
BBC news is just as biased as
BBC news is just as biased as most of the media, and more so on some subjects. For instance, not once have I seen or heard in the BBC news any mention of Mrs Briggs walking out into the road whilst looking at her mobile phone.
As far as I undertsand it , I may be wrong, Mr Alliston lied about Mrs Briggs being on the phone but it seems to have become something that people believe on a lot of postings.
timclarkih wrote:
Well, it has certainly been mentioned in other media, apparently without being challenged or refuted. Why do you think he lied? Given that this is a regular occurence in any British city, it appears to be likely to be true and certainly credible.
burtthebike wrote:
Or even: did he actively lie or was he just mistaken? Was she just carrying a phone but not using it? (the problem we have with this case, as I see it, is that Mr Alliston came across as a bit of an @rse and that makes it really hard to try and interpret/explain him or his actions or motivations).
brooksby wrote:
You’re probably right and he is a typical, arrogant teenager, but he’d still be that if he was riding a moped or driving a car or walking. As opposed to the upright appearing drivers who lie convincingly through their teeth and get off scot free.
Still haven’t seen any evidence that he was lying about the mobile phone, or that it has been disputed. Surely if he had claimed that she was looking at her phone, and used it in mitigation, the prosecution would have checked the phone records and disproved it?
This won’t be popular with
This won’t be popular with the militant cyclists but pedestrians have right of way… and that includes on the road, footpaths, and on open access land even if it is on a popular moutain bike run.
Just imagine the outcry on these pages if a car ran over a cyclist, or a bad driver drives too close to a cyclist, or beeps their horn excessively for a cyclist to move out of the way… now you’ve got an idea of how pedestrians and hikers feel about poor cyclists who don’t follow the rules.
Doesn’t matter about insurance, doesn’t matter about breaks, all that matters is that the pedestrian had right of way.
Nymeria wrote:
Um, but those things happen all the time, hundreds of times a day. And almost nothing is done about it. Also – are you assuming no-one who cycles has ever walked anywhere? I walk a lot (I suspect a lot more than you do), and experience that sort of thing from motorists a heck of a lot more than I do from cyclists.
Nymeria wrote:
You might be surprised.
What’s less popular is lazily posting a bit of a rant and not bothering to read the viewpoints and debate on the many threads devoted to a particular topic.
Much of the internet calls that ‘trolling’.
quote=davel]
Ironically enough, it could also be called ‘hit and run’ posting.
Nymeria wrote:
Don’t confuse right of way with priority. Cyclists also have right if way.
Nymeria wrote:
I was trying to find out the details of “right of way” laws – can you post a link to the actual law? The Highway Code only mentions priority and is somewhat vague about that.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think Nymeria just made it up to fit her emotional needs. People lose all touch with reality when the subject of cycling (and, in the reverse way, driving) comes up. It’s a fascinating insight into other topics, e.g. how people end up supporting Trump and insisting there are ‘fine people’ among demonstrators waving swastikas.
Human beings aren’t very good at thinking.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
When discussing the attitude of some drivers towards cyclists my wife can reel off the names of a number of friends – generally kind, generous and caring women, the majority of them mothers – who have this glaring blind spot about people riding bikes. It is shocking and unnerving to hear how deeply this attitude is ingrained in a lot of ordinary people who drive cars. But it is deeply disturbing to see Madeley losing the plot on national television. I can only hope that, as we have seen the mask slip, that the subject gets more attention and that this kind of behaviour is recognised as a form of bigotry that should not be tolerated.
FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote
Human beings aren’t very good at thinking.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I think you’re right.
burtthebike]
“There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.”
Joshua Reynolds 1723 – 1792
I suspect that this may apply to some women as well
hawkinspeter wrote:
As far as the HC code goes, it only specifically offers up priority when a vehicle is turning into a side road and a ped is already crossing.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I know you’re just being mischievous because she has confused right of way and priority, but just in case you really want to know, it’s easily found:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga?title=highways
ConcordeCX wrote:
Thanks, that’s really helpful. Any idea where in those documents?
hawkinspeter wrote:
The only mention of “right of way” in the HC is to warn you that none of the rules in the HC infer a right of way. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
You have to give way to another user who has priority in specific cases. Giving way does not infer upon them a right. A footpath or a bridleway is different as a right has been created by the granting of an easement by the private owner to others or that an easement has been created through 20 years use or “loss of modern grant” or some other quite peculiar bits of law.
Rights and having priority are quite different things with specific meanings in law. I don’t think the HC is at all vague about the subject once you understand this.
aegisdesign wrote:
The Highway Code only mentions priority in a few places and doesn’t specify that pedestrians have priority except when crossing a road when a car is trying to turn into it. What does it say about who has priority when a pedestrian crosses a road and would cause a vehicle to have to slow down? How about when a pedestrian crossing is nearby?
That seems a bit vague to me.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Fairly simple. If the HC doesn’t say you have to give way then they don’t have priority. That’s what I meant by there only being quite specific rules that mention priority.
On the other hand there is a general rule that anyone should give way to avoid an incedent. So if a pedestrian steps off a curb, even though they do not have priority, the general rule is you avoid a collision by giving way. Fairly common sense one would hope.
What “giving way” means seems to be open to debate recently.
aegisdesign wrote:
Exactly. Rule 0 as a road user: don’t kill or injure anyone.
aegisdesign wrote:
I think I understand the basic idea of not driving/cycling/walking into stuff and other people, but the vagueness doesn’t go away by invoking “common sense” (which these days seems more akin to being a super power).
If a pedestrian crosses a road in front of a vehicle, then ideally the vehicle should give way to the pedestrian, but also, the pedestrian should give way to the vehicle. Who has priority in that instance according to the Highway Code and how does the law interpret that?
Nymeria wrote:
But the Highway Code says “stop, look, listen” https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35
The term ‘right of way’ does
The term ‘right of way’ does not exist in the Highway Code. Pedestrians have priority but this does not infer ‘right of way’.
“Hence as the vast majority
“Hence as the vast majority of cyclists have household insurance…”
They do??
“In fact there will be a lower proportion of uninsured drivers than uninsured drivers.“
I would have said probably about equal…
but I think we need to nix
but I think we need to nix this idea which is why the likes of Madeley brings it up all the time, that a certificate of insurance is anyway a certificate to allow you to use the roads and by not having one means you are somehow a weird out group using the roads illicitly.
Because insurance is just about paying out to fix things,when things go wrong, and it became compulsory for motorised vehicles because the propensity for things going wrong is very high, and increasingly they were finding people unable to pay to fix things themselves. So we created an industry where we transfer the risk of paying to fix things,because some people need things fixing alot, some dont, to a second party for a fee, and called it insurance.
so it doesnt matter if I have insurance riding my bike or not, if my negligence has led to causing damage to a third partys property, then Im personally liable for the costs to fix it,and that third party has all the legal power behind them in the UK, to make me pay up for it, its that simple.
Awavey wrote:
Which is generally fine if we are talking about a bike hitting a car, the damage would be at a level where most of us can afford to fix it. But if you severely injure a pedestrian you could be liable for costs you can’t afford. Or if the actions of a cyclist cause a car to hit another car again repair costs will be higher.
wycombewheeler wrote:
But I don’t believe personal injury claims are limited by my ability to pay out or not,they maybe limited by other aspects but the value is determined and Id be expected to pay up or face,potentially more serious,legal consequences if I didn’t.
Awavey wrote:
The phrase “You can’t get blood out of a stone” comes to mind, not least because it was a judge I was talking to that said it last I heard it.
Ultimately, if the losing side has no money or assets, the “winning” side is stuck having to pay their own legal bill and has zero chance of getting anything they’ve been awarded. Before you start a claim you have to assess if you can afford to “win”.
This is where the calls for compulsory insurance come from as insurance companies have money.
Neither right of way or
Neither right of way or priority make crossing the road 6 feet in front of a moving object a good idea. Never underestimate stupidity!
“and how does the law
“and how does the law interpret that?”
Easy:
Car* hits pedestrian – pedestrians fault
Cyclist hits pedestrian** – cyclists fault
* Of course I mean driver but see footnote below. This rule still applies if car is unroadworthy, not taxed or insured, travelling too fast, on the wrong side of the road or the driver is pissed
** Especially if said cyclist isn’t wearing high viz, a helmet or dares to be doing half the speed limit.
Footnote:
“A cyclist has suffered serious leg injuries after a car crashed into a lorry then collided with the rider in Marble Arch”
These rogue cars eh, taking themselves on little trips out without their owners knowledge.
Helmets. They shouldn’t be
Helmets. They shouldn’t be compulsory. But perhaps they should be for kids. Up to age…hmmm, 16?
I started cycling (seriously) 45 years ago. No helmet, just a casquette. Joined a club. Started racing. Hairnet. Then expanded polystyrene came in, and compulsory. Many didn’t like it. But once you’d had it on for five minutes you’d forget it. I still didn’t wear one out training. Eventually I did.
An older guy in my club (he’s now 80, still very fit) would NEVER wear one because he was a “stylist”. Went out on his tandem with his missus, she secretly told me he wouldn’t ride with her unless she also didn’t wear one. That shocked me. Then one day he fell off and got a (luckily) minor head injury. He’s worn one ever since. I fell off a year ago, alone, I don’t know why, I was unconscious for 10 minutes. Found lying in the road. The back of my helmet was demolished. My concussion lasted (only) six weeks, lucky me. But without the helmet? Doesn’t bear thinking about.
I choose to wear one. I think YOU’D be stupid not to, but it’s your choice and should probably stay that way. And you can (hopefully) remember it was your choice, even though however careful your carer is, somehow the soup still goes out the side of your mouth and down your bib when it’s your feeding time.
Well, there is which
Well, there is which perspective you take and how you count.
Personal view: apparently simple! There’s only one of us – so head PPE is obviously vital because almost nothing is more important than ourself. And what does a helmet cost?
Salience: you had one on when the bad thing happens! Proved! Your your friend didn’t have when that one time came for them. Self-demonstrating.
But … there is also a statistical / probability view: how many times did you ride without a helmet (same with your friend) and nothing happened. And then … when riding with one, mostly nothing happened? And perhaps sometimes you did crash, and maybe even bump your head … and nothing terrible happened?
Stepping back further – when it’s not just “us and ours”. So eg. for public policy we need to collect the data and do the detailed analysis. How are cyclists injured? What are the injuries? How many of those *might* be moderated by a helmet (and to what degree)?
What are the other things we could do for safety? Is spending time on helmets and PPE a priority or … essentially a distraction?
Then – beyond the people who “just know it’s stupid not having one” – what about the general population? (In the UK – all those who don’t currently cycle!)
What are the health benefits of cycling a few journeys as opposed to driving / taking public transport? (I believe the consensus is there is an overall benefit to more cycling even when counting injuries from crashes and even though most people aren’t deliberately “exercising” when there is mass cycling). Does pushing helmets make them cycle more or less?
You wrote all those words,
You wrote all those words, more than I did, but really only said one thing: “Does pushing helmets make them cycle more or less?”
Depends what you mean by “pushing”. I specifically said they probably shouldn’t be made compulsory. Ergo, it’s a personal choice.
If you fall off your bike for whatever reason with or without a helmet, without a helmet you’re far more likely to sustain a head injury. Saying you can go out on your bike often without falling off is a non-argument, the one time you need a helmet, you don’t have it. It’s that simple.
Vo2Maxi wrote:
And I largely agree (I was thinking more of spending energy / money on campaigns than compulsion, and social pressures / cultural “shaming”).
But you had just argued from your anecdata / two salient events (in a lifetime). Just pointing out that this is fine for people as individuals, but for wider discussion more needs considered. For example:
Well – does it? You need eg. rates and severity of head injury with and without helmets – at least.
How many times does “the one time you need a helmet” happen – and eg. how often would it actually help then? Does that happen more than eg. when walking? (I believe there are *some* numbers that suggest this, though I can’t recall how much more).
Are there other ways of avoiding those incidents? Would eg. reminding people to wear gloves and elbow pads deliver greater public health benefits?
Public discussions would be better equipped with all the other information I’d suggested. Otherwise we’re back to “worked for me” and “stands to reason”.
Again people *can* make their own choices. There seems to be no shortage in the supply of PPE, and in the UK nobody is hiding this wisdom – quite the opposite!
I’m talking in basic facts
I’m talking in basic facts and using anecdotes to make my point. Not the other way round.
You can try and intellectualise it all you like, you can “yeah but, no but” all you like, but if you fall off your bike with no helmet you’re far more likely to sustain a serious head injury or die of one.
The only upside of not wearing a helmet I can think of is if your helmet meant you ended up severely brain-damaged instead of actually dead. That would be debatable, but probably not debatable for the brain-damaged cyclist who’d be unable to debate at all.
There are several reasons not
There are several reasons not wearing a helmet can be safer. You may take more risks wearing it, it dehumanises you in the eyes of motorists, it may catch or strike something that your head may have missed etc . I wear a helmet most of the time but am strongly against compulsion even for kids, how difficult would that be to enforce? The helmet debate cannot be won, it has to be personal choice.
ChasP wrote:
I dont accept either. When wearing a helmet is your norm, you cease to notice it and it certainly doesnt affect my risk taking. Motorists who dont care for cyclists dont judge their gear before endangering them.
There was a scientific study
There was a scientific study a few years ago measuring how close a cyclist was passed wearing different headgear. The safest thing to wear is a blonde wig…
Vo2Maxi wrote:
[citation [still] needed]
Again not “anti helmet”
Again not “anti helmet” particularly and I’m not challenging your personal choice. But you appear to be going beyond your personal risk evaluation, then conflating “basic facts” with “it sounds right to me”. (If we’re still in the domain of your own choices, that’s fine).
The point in contention is your “basic facts” and “*far* more likely to sustain a serious head injury or die”.
I did wade through some time ago, but don’t have them to hand. It sounds like you do – could you provide them?
Of course I guess “far” can stretch a long way. Even for an incident (cycle crash with serious injury or death) which is already very rare per time / miles cycled.
That is understandable where consequences are very salient (brain injury or *death*!).
Perhaps 5% more likely (with a rare occurrence) is “far more likely”? Perhaps “if it saves one life”?
That’s all fine when it’s just your personal choices, it’s just less helpful for bigger conversations.
Anyway, “helmet row”, so time to move on…
chrisonabike wrote:
That’s a stupid argument. It’s like a gambler thinking red must eventually come up. Each event stands alone and previous events have no bearing what so ever on subsequent events. It only takes one occasion to seriously injure you.
bikeman01 wrote:
Yes – but the point is, how likely is that one occasion to actually happen? It would only take one small asteroid strike to obliterate you, but I doubt you’re living in a bunker, just in case.
You’re correct, but wouldn’t
You’re correct, but wouldn’t it be more like a gambler wearing glasses in case the ball flew off the wheel and blinded them because it only had to happen once?
Of course that’s not a great comparison either as I’ve no idea that’s ever occurred… but some cyclists *are* killed and seriously injured every year *. But in how many of those cases would a helmet help? I think that information is quite important.
However we can see from stats in the UK and eg. NL that most people can effectively cycle for a lifetime without experiencing death or even serious injury anyway.
I think a much better start for the argument (again I think people should be left to make their own choice) might be that helmets can protect from minor knocks or potentially nasty skin abrasion. Helmets certainly can protect there. And those are much more likely than events where they’d potentially prevent serious injury or death.
Then: they can provide decent protection against “fell off at low speed” (but i suspect you’re most likely to injure your limbs) and can reduce the degree of harm above that (but at some point won’t).
But of course we are all have the most salient terrible events in mind. Again from a personal perspective that might be all *you* need to consider. But at eg. a policy level the figures and the effect of all kinds of potential interventions (even an “awareness campaign”) *do* need consideration.
* In 2024, 82 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 3,822 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 10,645 slightly injured (adjusted).
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2024/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2024
Glad someone dragged up an 8
Glad someone dragged up an 8 year thread to flog a dead horse.
If you reply to someone, don’t expect them to be still active on here.
Hadn’t noticed that, I saw a
Hadn’t noticed that, I saw a comment and assumed it was about the recent Richard Madeley bollocks…
A thread so old that
A thread so old that eburtthebike was still just burtthebike!
We never ‘ad that there
We never ‘ad that there electric in our day.