"Ignorant and grotesque" - CTC blasts article on cyclists by Road Haulage Association director
Cyclists without insurance and riders using iPods under attack - as are those using helmet cams
.jpg .jpg)
London Concrete lorry and bikes (copyright Simon MacMichael)
In an article that national cyclists’ organisation the CTC has described as “unbelievably ignorant and grotesque,” the head of the Road Haulage Association (RHA) in Scotland says cyclists should carry insurance and maintains that those using iPods and similar devices when cycling should be charged with an offence of “cycling without due care, etc.”
Phil Flanders, the RHA’s Scottish Director, also warns lorry drivers that police are acting upon helmet camera footage provided by cyclists, should a driver be “unfortunate to upset them on the roads.” The fact that police will only do so when they suspect the driver has committed an offence is not acknowledged, however.
Writing in issue 65 of transport industry magazine FACTS, ” Mr Flanders unleashes a broadside against bike riders that, coming from such a senior figure within the haulage industry, makes for depressing reading.
In his article, Mr Flanders displays some of the entrenched attitudes against bike riders that cycling campaigners and politicians in London and elsewhere are up against in trying to improve the safety of cyclists around lorries following a string of recent fatalities.
It’s a sad but inescapable fact that lorries are responsible for a disproportionate number of cycling fatalities – the CTC says HGVs make up 5 per cent of traffic, but are responsible for 19 per cent of the deaths of cyclists on Britain’s roads.
Indeed, Mr Flanders begins his piece by acknowledging, “There have been a spate of accidents involving cyclists and lorries recently,” but adds, “as usual the lorry is the big bad bogeyman.
“It reminded me of an article I read last year in New Zealand where they have a similar problem,” he continues.
The RHA director goes on to cite large parts of that article, headed Cyclists and Cars are a Fatal Mix and emphatically anti-cyclist in tone, which originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald in November 2010 and was written by the newspaper’s motoring correspondent, Eric Thompson.
“A public road with motor vehicles is no place for a cyclist, no matter how they bleat about having every right to be in the same place as a car. A cyclist will always come off second best in an accident with a motor vehicle,” wrote Mr Thompson.
“No matter whose fault it is, in any type of motor versus pushbike altercation it’s not going to take a rocket scientist to work out who’s going to end up in the back of an ambulance,” he added.
His article went on to set out a number of legal requirements that he believed bicycles and their riders should be subject to, “as other vehicles are required by law.”
Those included the fitting of rear-view mirrors, indicators, riding in single file unless overtaking, having front light on at all times [as he says other two-wheeled vehicles in New Zealand have to do, riders to pass a “road-license test,” and bikes to be registered and subject to “road tax.”
Since all those points in the New Zealand Herald article are repeated, verbatim, by Mr Flanders, without comment or qualification, it’s reasonable to assume that he’s in agreement with them.
Mr Flanders, however, does have some suggestions of his own.
“I would go further and add that all must have adequate insurance for any accidents they cause and maybe even liability insurance for those who knock people down,” he writes, although he seems to present as two different types of insurance what is essentially one and the same thing – third party liability cover, which many cyclists, such as CTC members, already carry.
“Those cyclists, and there are many, who play their iPods or other types of mobile music should also be charged for committing an offence of cycling without due care etc etc as they have no chance of hearing any vehicle approaching and are totally unaware of what is going on around them,” he adds.
Now, many cyclists agree that you shouldn’t listen to music while you ride, not least world champion Mark Cavendish, who last month said, “Don’t cycle with an iPod in, it’s dangerous!”
At present, it’s entirely legal to ride a bicycle while listening to music, just as it is legal for a lorry driver to listen to it in their cab. Of course, many riders choose not to do so on the grounds that they want to be as aware as they can of everything going on around them.
Finally, Mr Flanders warns lorry drivers: “Some [cyclists] have started to fit small video cameras to their helmets. If you are unfortunate to upset them on the roads they will report you to the authorities and will have evidence of whatever it was that you did. There are cases of this already where the police have taken action!”
That comment, presumably, isn’t aimed at those among the RHA’s membership who drive within the law and therefore have nothing to fear from the police.
In response to Mr Flanders’ comments, a spokeman for the CTC told road.cc: “This is an unbelievably ignorant and grotesque statement.
“The only accurate thing he says is that some cyclists are now recording illegal behaviour by lorry drivers using helmet cameras - implying that the incessant illegal behaviour by his members might, shock horror, actually lead to prosecution.
“We already warn cyclists to stay away from heavy vehicles - knowing that idiots like this could be behind the wheel is truly worrying."
Officially, the RHA highlights that cyclists need "to be careful around trucks," but it also states that cyclists need to be better educated about how lorries execute manoeuvres at junctions in particular. It expresses concerns about safety equipment such as sensors being the answer to improving the safety of bike riders where HGVs are concerned, and points out that "RHA Training includes cyclist awareness in its driver refresher courses."
In response to Mr Flanders' comments, the RHA said: "The article you refer to is part of a regular column and is a personal report of views from around the world on this important subject, including views from a senior safety engineer at the world's largest commercial
vehicle manufacturer. To call the article "ignorant and grotesque" does nothing to contribute to sensible debate on what is an important subject.
"The RHA is actively exploring ways to achieve greater safety of cyclists around HGVs and other freight vehicles, particularly with Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police. A longer RHA comment on this important subject, dated June 30 2011, is on our website."
This is too depressing. how many more cyclists need to die? How many HGV drivers have been crushed to death under the wheels of a bicycle?
Sadly comment is free - and there will always be total spanners like Mr Flanders around who would rather look to divert blame than accept any possibility they should set their own house in order.
There are a couple of things i agree with - Listening to music can be dangerous and until its illegal i'll continue you use it with one earphone in
The other part being "cyclists need to be better educated about how lorries execute manoeuvres at junctions in particular" I fully support that statement, I've been following something called "silly cyclists" on youtube for a while http://www.youtube.com/user/sillycyclists and its all video's taken from camera's used by cyclist's to highlight how cyclists can be in the wrong and so stupid sometimes
Doh! He's like Ned Flanders'nasty brother
After going to the silly cyclists to get the link
One of the first video's that came up was this
Thats the kind of thing that SOME cyclists need to be taught about 
Too comment is unfortunately to feed the fool. Perhaps he might reflect that not only do HGV's kill other road users (pedestrians and drivers (and passengers - sometimes by the car-load)), but a particular group of HGV's are the worst of the worst - namely construction site vehicles working on local drivers' rules. This detail can be further highlighted by the fact that the same companies, and even the same drivers and vehicles are involved in serious crashes, and a review of the link between driving and other offences and drivers involved in crashes shows HGV and van drivers well ahead of the general driving population in having such links.
Perhaps Mr Flanders would like a listing of the HGV-cycle crashes with causal factors - like defective vision, drunk and using mobile phone, etc and related detail such as third time this vehicle has killed or seriously injured a cyclist (actual case). Now if he can get that sorted out his critique on cyclists might have some credibility.
47 years of breaking bikes and still they offer me a 10 year frame warranty!
Yeah, I would agree with some comments - not listening to music, awareness of heavy vehicles. The rest - total mince!! Mr Flanders seems to be unaware that the police can charge a cyclist if they believe they are cycling in a manner that is dangerous to themselves and others. On an aside I wonder what Mr Flanders has to say on the issue of lorries consistantly breaking the speed limit...
My word. Just *how* uninformed is this man?? Not only does he prat on about 'road tax' and how he thinks cyclists should have to pay it, but he then goes on to admit that we should get a reduction for low emissions!! So presumably that means zero emission equals zero road tax. Er, that's where we are now, Mr Flanders.
And have you read the rest of the article where he blethers on -completely ill-informed- about volcanic eruptions cancelling out humanity's efforts to reduce our CO2 emissions? By his own admissions, he's not even bothered to validate his 'research' (why would he, it so neatly suits his agenda) but if he tried, he'd be looking a while, because it's utter nonsense. Volcanic eruptions are *natural* and taken care of by the carbon cycle. Everything we add overbalances the cycle. Duh.
Grade A moron. Unfortunately, someone gave him a lectern, a microphone and a magazine :\
All I can say is Beeching has a lot to answer for (because if it weren't for him a lot more freight would be going by rail now)! Once the Gotthard Base Tunnel is complete no freight will cross Switzerland by road. But I digress.
Getting back to the point, it isn't just cyclists that don't know about trucks and corners. Car drivers are just as ignorant of how much space they need, there are plenty of accidents (and fatalities) where cars are crushed by lorries.
The only good thing about this story is that it shows just how ridiculous his arguments are. Now if he had suggested that trucks counter-strike with their own cameras to see the idiocy of some cyclists, he would have had a good point.
If cycling is indeed a sport of self-abuse why aren't more cyclists sectioned under the mental health act?
I agree with the fact that we shouldn't be sharing the road with motor vehicles, we should have safe cycle lanes. A 12yr old boy came to visit us on his bike, he cycled on the road! he told us that only children up to the age of 10 can cycle on the pavement - it's absolutely disgusting that we don't have safe cycle lanes as they do in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Children battling with manic drivers in HGVs. 
“There have been a spate of accidents involving cyclists and lorries recently,” but adds, “as usual the lorry is the big bad bogeyman."
What a moron. Poor lorry drivers made to feel bad for killing an inconsiderate cyclist.
In my view it's not so much what he says, it's the way that he says it that's the problem. Comments like
no matter how much they bleat about having every right to be in the same place as a car
are clearly meant to incite a reaction rather than stimulate any sort of reasoned debate.
But, I have to admit that I have some sympathy with some of the comments that he makes (not all, but some!). For example, only yesterday I posted an article on my own blog about whether or not I should get myself some liability insurance. I'm conducting a poll on my blog if anyone wants to participate!
I also see, virtually on a daily basis, cyclists doing stupid things and putting themselves, and others, in danger. I also see car/bus/taxi/lorry drivers doing dangerous things on a regular basis as well.
So, neither side in this argument is entirely without fault. But this guy's attitude stinks!
Check out my blog at www.bikingadventures.co.uk
Just to clarify on a couple of the comments above, the reference to 'road tax' was from the NZ Herald article that he cited (and unusually, in NZ revenue raised from motorists does in fact specifically go to help pay for the roads), as were the bits about emissions, and cyclists wanting to share the road.
Mr Flanders didn't make it entirely clear in his article which bits were his opinion and which were from the NZ Herald article, so we went back to the source and did it for him in ours.
I'll go and check out his article and will then respond to him by letter. Given my job I'm in a position to put him straight on any points he makes that are factually incorrect. The RHA is in many respects a forward thinking organisation. I suspect that a few words from people with influence may well see this spanner forced to retract his words or resign.
Ok, so I've read the piece now. The RHA will be getting a communication from me. I'll let ya'll know the response.
OldRidgeback
Before anyone goes completely mental, according to this web page: http://www.nlphighland.co.uk/businessnlp.asp Phil Flanders of the RHA would love to talk to you...
“A public road with motor vehicles is no place for a cyclist, no matter how they bleat about having every right to be in the same place as a car. A cyclist will always come off second best in an accident with a motor vehicle,” wrote Mr Thompson.
Isn't this something we hear all the time from cycling advocates? Mr.Thompson is reflecting back cycling-fear as promulgated by people that presume to speak for all cyclists.
"The RHA is actively exploring ways to achieve greater safety of cyclists around HGVs and other freight vehicles, particularly with Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police. A longer RHA comment on this important subject, dated June 30 2011, is on our website."
Shame it's a member's only page and I can't get to read it.
Mr Slanders, oh! sorry! Mr Flanders, if there were such thing as "Road Tax" what would it be based upon? vehicle weight, or emissions? A bicycle is neither heavy enough to cause damage to road surfaces or polluting to the environment.
tommy2p
Shame it's a member's only page and I can't get to read it.
Sorry about that - I've changed it to the link to the same document that we already had in the story, that should let you in.
Call Phil on xxxxx xxxxxx
Edited, see comment by Nick below
Call Phil on xxxxx xxxxxx
Hi dream, I've taken a note of the number which I'll pass to Simon for the morning but in the meantime I hope you don't mind that I've taken Mr Flanders' mobile number off a public forum out of respect for his privacy.
I agree with the fact that we shouldn't be sharing the road with motor vehicles, we should have safe cycle lanes. A 12yr old boy came to visit us on his bike, he cycled on the road!
Yes and he lived. I don't see a problem with riding on the road, as I did from age 8 or so. Most cycle tracks are awful and I'd prefer a wider road instead. However, a few more like Mr Flanders and I may change my mind!
Some of the points that the writer from the RHA raises do have credence. Why not have a test that all road using cyclists have to pass before they can ride on the road? It would make the riders more aware of what they "should" be doing. You don't pass it, you can ride your bike...simples!
Why not tax?..pass your test you can apply for a tax disc - £10.00 - ride like you don't belong on the road, tax disc cancelled and you have to retake the test. If instead of bicycles we were talking "cars" or "motorbikes" there'd be no complaints, but because we're talking bicycles there's outrage.....why?
To be really controversial I think that this should also apply to horse riders who want to use the road...no test, no road use!
@ goldfish - I am going to assume that you are being ironic or are you playing devils advocate?? All these suggestions of cyclists doing tests, taking out insurance, paying VED ad nauseam are all well and good. The main issue is one that is never addressed by lobbyists - that of the behaviour and shit poor driving standards in this country. Until that happens our roads will never be safe and the media and lobbyists will continue to take ground by giving the impression that cycling is dangerous - helmets ,hi vis clothing, insurance, tests.
I am fed up seeing drivers treating vulnerable road users with total and utter contempt and believing that they own the road because the pay what they believe is road tax. At least the RHA is making inroads by teaching their members cycle awareness.
Oh and there is training provided for cyclists. It's called Bikeabilty, formally cycling proficiency. I still have my badge
There were some good point made.
Cycling with headphones/earbuds etc is really too dangerous for urban riding. But it shouldn't be made illegal outright.
Cyclists should have insurance, but this shouldn't be mandatory. It should be made cheap and widely available though (does a pedestrian need insurance in case they cause an accident resulting in injury or damages?).
There should be more education and training programs for cyclists, but like the insurance it should be optional, cheap, accessible for all to participate.
Lights on during the day, again is a solid suggestion, I do it myself! However should this be mandatory? No I don't think so, it should be encouraged though in the same way it is encouraged here in Aus for all vehicles "headlights save lives".
Etc.
@Goldfish - But then we are left in the same situation we currently have with motor vehicles. How many cars are on the roads without either the vehicle or the person behind the wheel passing the appropriate tests? Laws are only as good as the enforcement at the end of the day.
Also to implement a system would surely require some sort of registration scheme for cyclists, which I think has been covered before and both the costs to setup and the ongoing running costs FAR outweigh any money the scheme could hope to make!
A public road with motor vehicles is no place for a cyclist, no matter how they bleat about having every right to be in the same place as a car.Quote:I think you must have got this the wrong way around. Shouldn't it be:
'A public road is no place for a motor vehicle, no matter how (much)drivers bleat on about having every right to be in the same place as a bicycle'?As usual, the roads are assumed to belong to drivers, even that motor vehicles have the moral high ground. It's a class system, with cyclists at the bottom. The only justification for this idiocy can be money - cars are expensive, therefore must be superior to bicycles, and roads are paid for by motorists. The first is dumb and primitive, the second is not true - once again, it needs affirming that roads are paid for by taxpayers, including cyclists. Roads are not paid for by motorists. In addition, cyclists either do not use, or do not need, most of the features of roads which cost so much money - motorways, complex junctions, the width or quality of road surface etc etc.
Car drivers, and, especially lorry drivers are surrounded by tons of metal, heavy and secure compared to a bike, and are propelled by powerful engines. They seem to forget that a person on a bike is small and vulnerable and has little power in comparison. Yet they rage at and blame the cyclist for being dangerous.
'Ignorant and grotesque' seems like a pretty accurate assessment of this article to me, although I would maybe add arrogant, supercilious, blind, and one sided. And fuelling aggression. I used to be a lorry driver myself - most are not anti-cyclist in my experience, but articles like this might make more of them more hostile to cyclists.
What an awful man. I've been having a look at cameras for a while. If their use annoys that cretin I've just been given an additional reason to buy one in the sales.
There were some good point made.Cycling with headphones/earbuds etc is really too dangerous for urban riding. But it shouldn't be made illegal outright.
Cyclists should have insurance, but this shouldn't be mandatory. It should be made cheap and widely available though (does a pedestrian need insurance in case they cause an accident resulting in injury or damages?).
There should be more education and training programs for cyclists, but like the insurance it should be optional, cheap, accessible for all to participate.
Lights on during the day, again is a solid suggestion, I do it myself! However should this be mandatory? No I don't think so, it should be encouraged though in the same way it is encouraged here in Aus for all vehicles "headlights save lives".
Etc.
So people get used to looking out for motor vehicle headlights and ignore cyclists? I could leave my bike lights on during the day but I don't think they'd be any use.
We all know that cyclists have the same rights as other road users. Fact is "other road users" just dont all see it this way.
I for one wouldn't even consider riding in London, and avoid all busy roads when possible.
For me cycling is a sport/hobby it is only rarely a means of transport in terms of getting anywhere, I use my car as I like my body and don't really want to be almost killed or maimed every 30 seconds.
Shame but I cant see things changing anytime soon, cycling on busy roads just too dangerous in my eyes.
"It's a hard job. Change gear, change gear, change gear, check mirror, murder a prostitute, change gear, change gear, murder. That's a lot of effort in a day."
Erm, I was under the impression we have MORE rights. Pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists have a 'right' to use Her Majesty's highways and byeways. Lorry drivers etc. are required to hold a 'licence' and therefore it is a priveledge, not a right, for them to be on the road.
Road excise duty paid by HGV's is in no way proportionate to the human and environmental damage they cause.
Both the legal and moral implications written by this individual show him up for the kretin he is.
sloop
The odd things is that IMX most HGV drivers are courteous and respectful of cyclists. Granted, I work in a town where most HGV movement is by the big boys (DHL, Bibby etc.) rather than one-man bands (the 'Alf Robertson Haulage's of this world). But I never, ever, have a problem with HGVs. It's ordinary car drivers, and in particular, minicab drivers who cause the problems.
(I accept that the situation is clearly different in London.)
@Goldfish You only have to look at the piss-poor driving and appalling attitude towards cyclists exhibited by drivers who have, remarkably, passed the requisite tests to realise that any similar license requirement for cyclists will make little difference to actual behaviour. We have a major issue in the UK: Driver Attitude Problem. Until that is sorted out (don't hold your breath) then conditions on our roads for cyclists (and, arguably, all road users) will continue to deteriorate.
Err Goldfish, your suggestion will dissuade kids from cycling and add to the problem of obese children. It's that simple. This will increase their risk to health overall and boost the burden on the NHS. I don't think you've really thought about what you've suggested at all. Plus, the cost of the paperwork involved in taxing each bicycle will far exceed the £10 charge you've suggested, makign it a burden on the state. And this move will also dissuade people from cycling, result in more switching to motor vehciles and increasing congestion.
OldRidgeback
I wish the RHA could discuss the need for speed dictated by poor work schedules for most haulage and white van drivers. We had a boilerman around yesterday who described his schedule for the day devised by a call centre 200 miles away rather than knowledge from him and his neighbouring driver. They criss-cross all day everyday trying to meet deadlines that each could easily cover if they were allowed input. It's no wonder delivery drivers are ploughing through cyclists all the time.
Betjeman was right in 1966 with his sarcastically titled 'Inexpensive Progress'. I wish he was around to speak up for us now. A poet lauriete who cycled would be great for us. Maybe we could buy Ms Duffy a Brompton?
Let's say goodbye to hedges
And roads with grassy edges
And winding country lanes;
Let all things travel faster
Where motor car is master
Till only Speed remains.
MercuryOne
I for one wouldn't even consider riding in London, and avoid all busy roads when possible.
For me cycling is a sport/hobby it is only rarely a means of transport in terms of getting anywhere, I use my car as I like my body and don't really want to be almost killed or maimed every 30 seconds.
Shame but I cant see things changing anytime soon, cycling on busy roads just too dangerous in my eyes.
Wow. How do people like this get out of bed in the morning? Aren't they scared the sky might fall on their heads? After all, they ignore the evidence about how safe cycling is, so why not ignore it about the sky falling in?
The mass of Transport for London hire bikes and commuters riding west along Tavistock Place in the mornings is a sight to behold and I've not seen a crash yet. If only everywhere had that many bicycles, it would probably be pretty safe because they'd be very obvious to drivers.
'Cycling with headphones/earbuds etc is really too dangerous for urban riding.'
I've yet to hear a convincing argument to support this. If someone's going to drive into a cyclist, they'll do it whether the rider is listening to music or not (unless they're deliberately doing it *because* the rider, (probably like the driver) is listening to music.
If the rider decides to change lanes or otherwise ride into the path of a vehicle * without using their eyes and brain*, whether they're listening to music or not, they're an idiot.
'Cycling with headphones/earbuds etc is really too dangerous for urban riding.'I've yet to hear a convincing argument to support this. If someone's going to drive into a cyclist, they'll do it whether the rider is listening to music or not (unless they're deliberately doing it *because* the rider, (probably like the driver) is listening to music.
If the rider decides to change lanes or otherwise ride into the path of a vehicle * without using their eyes and brain*, whether they're listening to music or not, they're an idiot.
Completely disagree. When I'm on my bike I'm always creating a picture in my mind of the traffic around me. My ears play a big part in that because I can hear traffic behind me even when I'm looking forward. My ears can alert me of danger before I've seen it with my eyes.
To put it another way, if I was deaf I would feel a lot less safe on my bike. In my view people who cycle in urban areas while listening to music have got a death wish.
Check out my blog at www.bikingadventures.co.uk
So, this traffic behind you, that you can hear even when you are looking forward...what is it going to do to you, exactly? Just drive straight through you? Or does being able to hear also give you the ability to hover in the air and allow the truck that was about to hit you from behind to pass safely underneath?
I repeat. If they're going to hit you, they're going to hit you, and being able to hear that they're about to hit you won't make the slightest bit of difference, other than to give your chamois an extra pico-second of trauma. If one is putting ones self at risk by moving into the path of a vehicle without checking what's around first, *even if you can hear*, one is a numpty.
If they're going to hit me, they're going to hit me?
Wow, so I should just give up taking any responsiblility for my own safety and put my life in the hands of the drivers.
If I get a pico-second, or a few hundred milliseconds, or half a second or a second of extra warning, then that can be the difference between life and death. Fact.
Check out my blog at www.bikingadventures.co.uk
so I should just give up taking any responsiblility for my own safety and put my life in the hands of the drivers.
um, no. My point is exactly the opposite. Use your eyes (even if you can't read too well, you might be able to see cars) and take responsibility for your own safety, don't rely on your hearing. And given the pico-second warning about someone to go straight into the back of you, again, what would you do, exactly?
If I get a pico-second, or a few hundred milliseconds, or half a second or a second of extra warning, then that can be the difference between life and death. Fact.
Completely agree and this is backed up by my own experience. Tried headphones once, that was enough to convince me. You are far more vulnerable on a bike than in a car and, imho, need the availability of all your senses to aid survival.
Cyclists need to rely upon a range of senses together. Why voluntarily cut one of these out. I'd defend your right to wear earphones on your bike but I wont do it myself. Is it really worth the risk?
I do feel though that like shaved legs, some cyclists like to be seen with one earphone in for that 'pro' look. Only it's not the DS on the radio, its the missus with a Tesco order to collect on the way home from work. For the complete look you could add a strip of surgical tape over the earphone and pretend to talk to your chest from time to time.
arrieredupeleton
Without wishing to labour the point, in response to Andyp I will say that hearing is important in many scenarios. Not least when you are overtaken by a lorry on a country lane. You may yield to the verge a little to ease the passage of the lorry, but because its big, slow and difficult for other cars to overtake, it may have a one or more vehicles behind it. I guarantee you'll be relying on your hearing to detect these as your eyes are concentrating on the big thing that's passing you.
Mr Flanders' attitude is as sad as it is incorrect but to see fellow cyclists with earphones in worries me.
arrieredupeleton
@ AndyP - By all means listen to your iPod when out on the bike and use your eyes. But your ears are also important. I can hear cars accelerating, decelerating on the approach to pinch points and roundabouts. Drivers revving their engine behind me have earned a long over the shoulder and you know what they stop revving. My ears being unblocked from other distraction gives me extra time to re- position myself on the road it also allows me to hear a fellow cyclist approach from behind and allows me to warn of obstructions or pull over to let them safely pass me.
You have to wonder how Flanders - a complete prat can hold so much responsibility and stupidity at the same time.
I like my bike but it needs a hidden 25cc motor 
It is possible to have earphones in and still hear traffic.
a) Don't use the ones that seal the ear canal.
b) Have the music very quiet.
The only time I've worn them whilst cycling has been during the occasional solo century(+) training rides on my own, on some overly familiar or not especially interesting roads. It's akin to having a transistor radio playing in the next room, as far as volume levels go i.e. I can hear the music, but can also hear the nuances of engine noise around me, or the click of a shifter, or whatever.
I wouldn't like to think I was being unreasonably judged, just because I happened to want to subdue the boredom or stave off 'the voices'. I'm making a judgement call, in much the same way I wouldn't listen to music in a car at a volume level that would stop me from hearing the horn of another vehicle, or the shout of a pedestrian, for example.
One point with regards to people cycling whilst listening to music/speaking books etc, are you saying that deaf people are not allowed to cycle or drive on the roads. Lets face it when the moron in the car hits you it's not going to make an ounce of difference if your listening to the sound of his/her untaxed uninsured chave mobile or your favourite piece of music.
@fatbeggaronabike - no, that is not what is being said. Folk that are deaf are much more aware of what happens around them visually. An individual who has no issues hearing will not put greater emphasis on sight but be caught up on the playlist. If you watch a deaf cyclist you will see a lot more head movement. Same applies to blind cyclists being taken out on tandems - they will hear stuff quicker than the 'eyes' of the bike.
Mr Flanders has made an ill thought statement and quite possibly a personal viewpoint that is not in line with the RHA's approach to cyclists. Hopefuully Oldridgeback will get some sence from the horses mouth.
What an ignorant rant by Mr Flanders.
I did wonder if he had tried to fit every ill-informed anti cyclist rant in one article.
Finally, Mr Flanders warns lorry drivers: “Some [cyclists] have started to fit small video cameras to their helmets. If you are unfortunate to upset them on the roads they will report you to the authorities and will have evidence of whatever it was that you did. There are cases of this already where the police have taken action!”
So Mr Flanders doesn't like it when cyclists have evidence of poor driving. Oh dear 
I did like the way when he taled about liability insurance, he didn't mention how little it is for cyclists compared to motorvehicles. That more than anything else show the damage caused by each.
Mr Flanders is either unbelievably ignorant or has an agenda to drive cyclists off the road, or both. We should remember that the RHA is a trade body, and as such its overriding purpose is to further the interests of its members. The tactic he uses is to use trivial issues to distract from the key issue on road safety, which is? - that it is motor vehicles that kill and HGVs are the most dangerous motor vehicles. Getting drawn into discussing issues like cyclists wearing earphones and cycle insurance, is a complete red herring in the context of road safety. Unfortunately the "roads are made for cars and lorries" lobby is very succesful in getting their view across and this sort of distraction is one of their key methods. I think we have a long hard job to do in challenging this sort of nonsense. We should focus on the FACTS:
1. MOTOR VEHICLES cause virtually all the casualties on roads.
2. HGVs are the most dangerous motor vehicles.
3. Since cyclists rarely cause any injuries, changing legislation regarding cyclists, whether it is insurance or headphones or anything else to do with cyclists is largely irrelevant, and won't lead to any noticeable improvement in road safety.
4. For similar reasons to 3. above, increasing enforcement of cycling breaches won't have any significant effect on road safety.
5. Roads were NOT made for cars, cyclists came first, cyclists brought about the big improvements in road surfaces and cyclists have a right to be on the road.
6. If cyclists are at at too much risk as Mr Flanders suggests, the answer is to remove or reduce the risk, not the cyclists (what will be next? a ban on horses using roads?)
7. My personal view is that we need to introduce a rule that "moving motor vehicles are always at fault when in collision with a cyclist". This sounds extreme, but in practice it is just common sense.
I don't think legislation is the answer. We have a cultural problem in this country - go to continental Europe and there is a far more harmonious relationship between drivers and cyclists.
I think more legislation would just exacerbate the situation and create more animosity.
Check out my blog at www.bikingadventures.co.uk
Whilst Flanders' comments are not welcomed by any of us, let's not risk a backlash that involves falling out with the whole HGV community. I find that generally (there can be exceptions) they are professional, courteous and thoughtful drivers. I would prefer to keep it that way (we are too soft and squidy to start a fight). White van man is an entirely different kettle of fish...
Whilst I wouldn't recommend cycling with headphones of any sort, being deaf doesn't prevent anyone having a driving license, or for that matter, cycling. If anyone riding a motorcycle values their hearing, earplugs are a good idea. The man's an utter moron.
I always have headphones in while I'm riding. I can still hear the traffic. If I couldn't listen to music while cycling I'd never cycle again.
Andy
"Grumpyoldbiker" sums it up all very well. This is the type of ignorant comment that one hears in the dodgy sort of pub so it makes one wonder where RHA members spend their leisure time. I'll pick out just a couple of aspects. Firstly, how can a senior RHA figure believe that there is such a thing as "road tax"? The answer can only be total ignorance of the UK's fiscal arrangements. Secondly, why should he be so concerned about cameras? It is the very absence of camera evidence of incidents that prevents courts understanding just what did occur. One has to suspect that he knows that the behaviour of his members' drivers will be shown to be improper.
However, we should take heart. When an organisation states that an opinion is a personal one and then goes on to make conciliatory comments it is corporate-speak for: "We know that this man has made a prat of himself and embarrassed the organisation. We will make that clear to him but we cannot give him a public dressing down".
Excellent post by Grumpyoldbiker. Flanders is writing from a blinkered and polarised position, which is far from constructive.
The "roads are made for cars and lorries" lobby are not only influential but have the tacit support of a large proportion of people who drive (needless to say, none of whom cycle regularly on the road). Every impatient driver that pushes past or beeps the cyclist wants to drive home the message that the latter really shouldn't be there. That really gets my goat!
While HGVs make up 5% of London traffic they are involved in nearly half of all road deaths. That suggests to me that something needs to change! The driver that killed Eilidh Cairns killed a pedestrian in June yet his defective eyesight meant he shouldn't have been driving that vehicle on either occasion.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lorry-driver-that-killed-cyclist-in-2009-invo...
The idea of a 'tax on bicycles' has been beaten to death enough times but here's a good article by Carlton Reid:
http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/
Regarding 7. RoadPeace and others have been campaigning for Stricter Liability for some time. It's not a magic bullet, it's one of many things that would bring about change for the better. Another thing that might do it is if Mr Flanders was forced to cycle to work
Flanders is writing from a blinkered and polarised position, which is far from constructive.
Totally agree. But I think we cyclists are also guilty of promoting polarised positions which are far from constructive e.g. suggesting that there should be an automatic presumption of guilt placed on the driver. Personally, I don't see how this would improve cycling safety.
Presumably the argument goes something like this: if drivers know that they will be presumed guilty in the event of a collision with a cyclist, then they will drive more carefully when around cyclists.
I reckon that is just wishful thinking though. The vast majority of accidents are just that - accidents. I have never once thought to myself that I can drive in a dangerous way just because there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So I would have no reason to believe that a presumption of guilt would improve driving standards.
Check out my blog at www.bikingadventures.co.uk
Simon E wrote:Flanders is writing from a blinkered and polarised position, which is far from constructive.Totally agree. But I think we cyclists are also guilty of promoting polarised positions which are far from constructive e.g. suggesting that there should be an automatic presumption of guilt placed on the driver.
You forget that most cyclists are also drivers. There are very few cyclists with a witch-hunting mentality. If you are referring to Stricter Liability then you have misunderstood it.
The vast majority of accidents are just that - accidents.
Most collisions are not intentional but that's a long way from saying they are not preventable. Huge efforts are made to avoid accidents in the workplace but too many people are unwilling to apply the same conscientious behaviour when behind the wheel of a car/van/lorry. I'm sure the vast majority of the incidents, including those that cause death and injury, are preventable.
Each driver has a responsibility towards every other road user, whether cyclists, pedestrians or vehicle occupants. So why is speeding, talking on mobiles, cutting people up, overtaking on blind bends and double white lines etc etc so common?
Perhaps you'd like to consider the days when drink-driving was more common, and deaths caused by drunk drivers much higher. They were still 'accidents'. Do you think that driving under the influence is acceptable?
To call the article "ignorant and grotesque" does nothing to contribute to sensible debate on what is an important subject.
Utterly priceless comment from the spokesman, considering the buffoon at the the RHA who wrote the article sparked it off. No buffoon, no article, no criticism - this seems to have escaped the fool of a spokesman.
You forget that most cyclists are also drivers. There are very few cyclists with a witch-hunting mentality. If you are referring to Stricter Liability then you have misunderstood it.
I was referring to comments on here that drivers should automatically be blamed for any collision with a cyclist. In my opinion that is wrong, and far from constructive. As for Stricter Liability, I've not misunderstood it. I simply don't agree with it, and I don't believe it will make cycling safer in any meaningful way.
Perhaps you'd like to consider the days when drink-driving was more common, and deaths caused by drunk drivers much higher. They were still 'accidents'. Do you think that driving under the influence is acceptable?
Glad you brought that up, because it illustrates my point. Drink driving has been illegal in the UK since 1925. But the illegality of it did not stop people from driving under the influence in any significant numbers. The thing that has reduced drink driving more than anything else is the cultural shift that has taken place in the last couple of decades. Society itself now stigmatises drink drivers, and it is this cultural shift that has reduced the incidence of its occurrence.
We need a similar cultural shift for society to accept cyclists, and even to prioritise them over other road users. But such cultural shifts are rarely brought about by legislation. We need serious investment in education, creating awareness, building infrastructure and, more than anything else, actually getting far more people to cycle in this country.
Check out my blog at www.bikingadventures.co.uk
Do you silly cyclists realize how difficult it is for a RHA driver to concentrate on his newspaper when you insist on hogging your cycle lanes. It's hard enough to balance a tabloid on the steering wheel as it is.
Blimey, this has prompted some debate - and rightly so, some of the man's comments are ridiculous.
The worst has to be that there is no place on the road for cyclists.
Where then ? On the footpath ? (That's if there is one)
Is he advocating a total ban on cycling on the road ?
I have just pasted this from the RHA web-site !
"3. Cycling and their interaction with HGVs has taken much of our attention over the past year or more. We have been engaged in extensive discussions about the safety of cyclists with Transport for London and others, including the cycling lobby groups. We have also been in discussions with other regional authorities in the UK and with the Department for Transport.
4. We recognise the significance of the resurgence in cycling in recent years - which has been given such an added boost this summer by the country’s outstanding success at the Olympics. Improving the safety and enjoyment cycling by large numbers of people is an issue that will remain firmly on the agenda of policy makers and of road planners and designers. In the past year or so, the issue has also become more prominent in the minds of truck operators and drivers that it had been.
5. We welcome the increased attention that has been given to the consequences of HGVs and cyclists coming together in an accident. The increased profile given to the issue in the general media in London and to operators is surely one reason why Richmond councillor Katharine Harborne was able to tell the committee on July 12: “There have been six deaths in London this year from cycling. None of those have involved a lorry. By this time last year there had been 13 deaths involving 5 lorries, so things have certainly improved.”
This appears to be at odds with his comments above.
Eeejit
"... one reason why Richmond councillor Katharine Harborne was able to tell the committee on July 12: “There have been six deaths in London this year from cycling. None of those have involved a lorry..."
That's wrong for a start. According to The Times, there was a cyclist killed by a tipper lorry in Southall on 5 July.
And the danger certainly hasn't gone away - more recently, in the past month alone three London cyclists have been killed by lorries.
The RHA of course is a national organisation - more than 20 riders in the UK have now lost their lives to lorries so far in 2012, again sourced from The Times.
Tags |
Singletrack MTB mag
road.cc on YouTube
66 comments