- 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
The Times Cities Fit For Cycling logoDay 3 of the Times Cities Fit for Cycling Campaign… a bit of a backlash
Day 3 of The Times newspaper’s Cities Fit For Cycling Campaign sees the paper publishing a 12-page ‘Guide To Safe Cycling' and encountering something of a backlash from some cyclists in the process. Parts of today's guide have not been universally well received, and while there is undoubtedly huge support for the campaign amongst cyclists, The Times is also finding out that they can also be an independent and prickly bunch, who don’t like being lectured or told what to do.
Among criticisms levelled at the paper on social networking sites such as Twitter are its decision to include an article from James Cracknell, now a strong supporter of helmet compulsion, who amongst other things likens those who cycle without a helmet to football hooligans, plus the newspaper’s own advice that cyclists should wear a helmet as well as high visibility clothing.
Cracknell, the Olympic rower turned TV personality, almost lost his life in 2009 after he was struck in the head by a truck’s wing mirror while filming in the United States. He believes the fact he was wearing a helmet saved his life.
However, with helmet compulsion being a subject guaranteed to incite heated debate, Cracknell has come under criticism from some quarters for the pro-helmet stance he has adopted in pieces written for The Daily Telegraph.
As one blogger points out, Cracknell appear on Alpina’s UK website as a “sponsored athlete" despite insisting, after mentioning his Alpina Pheos helmet in The Telegraph that, “I don’t have a commercial relationship with the manufacturer, by the way".
Cracknell's piece in today's Times is accompanied by a picture of him holding the helmet, still stained with blood, that he was wearing when he was struck by that lorry, although there is no mention of his apparent sponsorship by the manufacturer.
Cracknell also likens those who choose to cycle without a helmet to football hooligans.
“If you are cycling without a helmet, you are being selfish to your family and friends,” he asserts. "It is like with football in the Eighties, when a violent 1 per cent minority of football fans meant the other 99 per cent were tarred as hooligans."
The Times itself suggests, in a two-page spread under the heading ’12 ways to cycle safely’ – there’s an interactive graphic here, under the ‘Graphic: 12 safety tips’ tab – wearing a helmet and high-visibility clothing; it cites a statistic, unsourced, that “60 per cent of cyclist fatalities are head injuries,” but fails to acknowledge arguments against them often outlined by opponents of compulsion or that in the case of cycling fatalities involving motor vehicles - which make up the majority - the outcome is unlikely to have been altered by the wearing of a helmet.
On a day when coverage in the main newspaper focused on the success of the municipal authorities in Copenhagen of getting people cycling, the focus on helmets and hi-viz strikes a dissonant note for many – seeming to miss the point that when a city is fit for cycling there should be no need for helmets or high viz cycling gear. In Copenhagen and in other cities with high levels of cycling such as Amsterdam, such equipment is noticeable more for its absence than anything else. Cycling is an everyday activity, carried out in everyday clothes something that was achieved by getting more people on bikes and changing the attitudes of drivers in particular about interact with other road users.
Among those interviewed for the newspaper’s supplement today are Rebecca Romero and Chris Boardman, as well as several everyday cyclists who have no ambitions of following that pair to Olympic success, but simply want to get around on their bike, safely.
There is also an article penned by Jon Snow, the Channel 4 broadcaster and CTC President, although he is writing in a personal capacity. A couple of his comments do give food for thought.“The Times Cycling Manifesto is good as far as it goes, but there is a serious dimension missing: human rights,” he says.
“The dominant creature on the urban road is the single-occupancy car. One person in a motorised 60 sq ft metal box.
And what are we cyclists — one person on a thin strip of tubing with two wheels.
“One has the power, the presence and the rights; the other is deprived of all three. Is that equality under the law?
“I would willingly pay a licence fee for my bike if it meant that separated cycle ways were provided as my right,” continues Snow.
“My children were deprived of the right to cycle to school, even of the right to cycle safely at university — it was, and is, quite simply too dangerous.”
Even in a private capacity, that’s a startling point of view to be expressed by someone who is the figurehead of one of Britain’s leading organisations for cyclists.
Meanwhile, the urgency of the overriding goal of campaign by The Times – to make Britain’s streets safer for cyclists – was underlined yesterday by news of the deaths of two cyclists in incidents that took place in very different parts of the country just minutes apart yesterday afternoon.
A 77-year-old man died in the rural village of Whaplode Drove, Lincolnshire, in a collision with a car driven by an 80-year-old male; in London’s Bishopsgate, a male cyclist said by police to be aged in his sixties died following a collision with a coach.
Broad support for the campaign continues to be strong, with more than 100,000 people now signed up to it. But reaction to the comments by Cracknell and advice to wear a helmet and hi-viz gear do show that while in some cases it’s appropriate to generalise those who choose to ride bikes as ‘cyclists,’ it does need to be remembered that cyclists are individuals too, with views as diverse as the machines they ride.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 1 sec ago
Maybe Simoninspalding can reassure them - being in a Holland is OK....
- brooksby 32 min 37 sec ago
Drivers are getting their knickers in a twist over the width of this new cycle path...
- Steve K 34 min 47 sec ago
Yeah, I'll give you that ...
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 42 min 45 sec ago
About 20 years ago I was delivering a work shop in a school in Islington (for those who fall for the media myth that Islington is some kind of...
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 1 hour 5 min ago
They still have all those brexit benefits they can brag about.
- timmyotool 1 hour 55 min ago
The only gilet I'd buy would be the ultra packable type, and I've not seen anything lighter (sub 40g) than the sportful ultralight. That's now...
- marmotte27 3 hours 31 min ago
Don't forget, each of these places is a life hazard.
- VeloUSA 6 hours 7 min ago
It seems what you're searching for is a USB Micro to USB Type-C.
- Owd Big 'Ead 8 hours 9 min ago
Shetland Islanders must be a right bunch of Jessie's these days. The total population of the islands is less than 23,000 and Lerwick where the...
Add new comment
104 comments
LID KITTEH GOT TEH WRONG IDEA WHEN HOOJ DAVE SUGGESTD PUTTIN TEH HELMET DEBATE 2 BED.
Helmet kitty.jpg
http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/01/25/205-pound-bicycle-purrs-like-a-kitten/ ?
Gaz recently dug out a stat, that in Paris last year there were a big fat zero fatalities despite Paris's population being much larger than London's, and it not having many cycle lanes,very little hiviz worn and few people wearing helmets. London had 17 fatalities last year???
QED
Tell the judge and the word twisting lawyers they will tear you apart and make you sound like a fool.
I have been thinking down the same lines on that one but i think the cops would think it a bit strange.I would say it would save more lives persay but women would not like the helmet hair.
answer to @raleigh
this one's set to run and run. maybe we should have a rule that we end the thread and post a nice picture of some kittens as soon as someone says 'my helmet broke in two' or 'in australia and new zealand'. something like that?
I am not claiming it will save your life but sure it will save legal problems in court
I'd love to see it try to lick it's fur!
its just the way it is brother.I think the powers that be are mixing motor CYCLE and cycle law.Like i say you can jump up and down all day long but the world isnt perfect.Now i am 300.000 pound down.boo hoo.That is not a problem the fits are.I would give it all back to be unbrain damaged,which is something money cant buy
^^^ THIS.
Oh.
How so? Since the only court case to find contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet was someone who inflicted the injuries on themselves by their reckless behaviour, not as the result of a road collision, your assumption is incorrect.
All other cases where the driver's insurance have tried to claim contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet have either been thrown out, or much more frequently, been withdrawn at the doors of the court. There is no instance in this country, or anywhere else as far as I am aware, of a finding of contributory negligence for not wearing a cycle helmet. Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, despite more than twenty years of experience, it seems unlikely that any such claim would succeed.
Surely someone's got their facts wrong here. Whilst big mick claims to have had his damages reduced by 33%, burtthebike states that there is only one case to have found contributory negligence - by which I assume he means the only one I'm aware of, the case of Simon Reynolds last year, where the negligence was not just choosing not to wear the offered protection but also causing the accident. It would be possible that big mick is Simon Reynolds, but the damages in that case were reduced by around two thirds, I believe, not a third.
What gives?
I know what you mean. I sometimes wear one, sometimes not and I've had some quite SPECTACULAR crashes (although not recently because I'm a more careful rider), but I've never hit my head in one of them.
The only times I've hurt my head in a bicycle-related accident have been hitting it on the door frame of the bike shed. If I don't wear a helmet, it hurts quite a bit. If I do wear a helmet, it hurts much less, but I'm slightly taller so I clonk it on the door frame far more often. So, here's another helmet debate: is a 500% increase in the risk of an accident that's 20% as bad worth wearing a helmet? As a tie-break, should I factor in the cost of replacing the helmet more often as a result of all the taps on the head?
Thank F--k for that.Someone gets it.
Manx rider:
"Seriously, I can't believe this has descended into a helmet argument." It hasn't. The problem is that the Times promised one thing, and then on Saturday did something completely different. Not only different, but something at complete odds with reality.
"In the Times 8 point manifesto it doesn't mention helmet wearing or fluro jackets at all." You're right it doesn't, so why was almost the entire supplement about helmets and fluoro, with dire warnings that riding a bike was incredibly dangerous?
"When reading the paper I didn't pick up on a helment/fluro agenda and wasn't surprised that Cracknell wrote pro helmet wearing opinion piece after his experience." Perhaps you haven't seen Saturday's paper. I was extremely surprised to read Cracknell's piece, as its only effects will be to convince many people that cycling is too dangerous for them, and to sell lots of Alpina helmets. If the Times is interested in increasing cycling and making it safer, why are they doing the exact opposite. Why didn't the article mention that Cracknell is sponsored by Alpina?
"We have an opportunity to get behind something that really can make a difference. They use the Dutch model as the ideal and if the Times Cycling Campaign can raise awareness and get us a step closer to that then I am 100% behind it." We had the opportunity, we were 100% behind it, we signed up, and then they moved the goalposts several hundred miles. From being a danger reduction campaign, it turned into an "armour the victims" campaign, totally counterproductive.
"So lets stop arguing between ourselves and start pulling in the same direction." We were. It isn't us that's changed their position. Have you written to the Times expressing your surprise at their change of attitude, and asked them to start pulling in the same direction they initially publicised?
Seriously, I can't believe this has descended into a helmet argument. In the Times 8 point manifesto it doesn't mention helmet wearing or fluro jackets at all. When reading the paper I didn't pick up on a helment/fluro agenda and wasn't surprised that Cracknell wrote pro helmet wearing opinion piece after his experience.
We have an opportunity to get behind something that really can make a difference. They use the Dutch model as the ideal and if the Times Cycling Campaign can raise awareness and get us a step closer to that then I am 100% behind it.
So lets stop arguing between ourselves and start pulling in the same direction.
Surely it matters what direction you pull in?
I'm not going to argue to be swept into a crappy ghetto at the side of the road, legislated out of my ability to look after myself better than a strip of paint ever could and forced to wear umpteen different bits of apparatus that may well not actually benefit anyone much, just because that's the direction a bunch of other people want to pull in.
Hell no. Raising awareness is, as you say, good. But that should bring on the debate, *not* kneejerk reactions or ill-considered legislation and regulation.
This is precisely the time we need to argue amongst ourselves.
Chapeau Bez.
It seems fairly obvious that; (a) helmets have the potential to reduce injury in some accidents and (b) wearing a fluorescent top makes you more visible in some circumstances.
Jumping from those conclusions to the statement that it is reckless to wear neither is just silly, and I shall persist in ignoring such ideas.
The AA advice is far better although could still be improved, as indeed today's launch of the "see me save me" campaign - too one-sided - seeing is a 2-way thing far better to tell the cyclists that seeing back is as important as demanding that the drivers see them.
The H&S at Work Act worked wonders when factory and site owners realised that they were in serious trouble when injuries and deaths could be directly linked to a failure in their duty of care to eliminate the hazards, and HSE notes that the road is the only workplace where they are at present unable to apply the same rigour in promoting with the big stick of enforcement (jail and big fines) good practice in planning and execution of tasks like driving.
Good H&S practice also bears application to the road situation. There is a hierarchy of interventions and that hierarchy begins with managing the hazard, in other words reducing the potential of damage through high impact speeds, and road layouts that invite conflicting movements - especially where these are at right angles rather than a merging move , where a small change in direction can avoid or mitigate impact. As the very last resort in H&S terms you provide equipment to mitigate the damage from an event you have not been able to eliminate or control (ie helmest and other protective gear (PPE)).
Thus helmets, airbags, and seatbelts are all actually the results of failure in delivery of genuine road safety and should be clearly described as such.
Cycle safety could be improved by better driving, the cause of over 80% of all accidents involving bicycles. The use of helmets would have little benefits for riders in most cycle accidents. Improving safety for cyclists will require improving driving standards. Any other measures to boost safety for vulnerable road users will have minimal effect.
I signed up to the cyclesafe campaign but I fear the campaign won't do much for our safety, especially with all the helmet and 'cyclists should pay road tax' stuff it's distilling down to.
Many folks seem to think getting such a high profile campaign from a national newspaper will result in Dutch-style infrastructure. Maybe. But I doubt it.
Far easier for politicians to take the easy and cheap solutions.
Watch out for bicycle licensing, helmet compulsion & mandatory use of crap cycle lanes.
I believe the cyclesafe campaign was flawed from the start because it focussed on cyclists. It should have focussed on all soft and squishy road users, not just cyclists.
The new Roadpeace 'see me, save me' campaign is for pedestrians *and* cyclists. The Times should have aimed its ire at dangerous motoring alone.
I don't fully agree with this. Safe sharing of roads requires responsible conduct from all users, and there are a lot of cyclists out there who discredit all of us -- and we all know how readily the media generalises the constant misdemeanors of London cyclists to evryone and everywhere else.
It is entirely fair that The Times should air constructive criticism of cyclists and make suggestions for better cycling.
The problem is that responsible and safe cycling is not a case of dressing up like a Christmas tree and wearing a polystyrene hat (although being visible is clearly a responsibility - but we must remember that SMIDSY is neither a defence nor a justification for vast quantities of reflective garb to try and shift the onus of responsibility away from the drivers of the vehicles which present the greatest physical danger).
It's a case of having road sense and the ability and confidence to employ it. That means training, but more importantly a culture of responsibility.
The calls for more protective gear, more segregation and more defensive action by cyclists are antithetical to this.
Phazon:
"Burtthebike - you're a genius - undermine the most significant, high-profile, national pro-cycling campaign we've ever seen, that could, just could, positively change the image of cyclists and the relationship with other road users for ever, because you and a few other morons can't be arsed to wear a helmet.
Well done."
Thanks for the compliment, not sure it's completely deserved though.
It isn't me that's undermining the previously excellent campaign, it's the helmet promoters. Nowhere with a helmet law or massive rise in helmet wearing due to propaganda campaigns can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, despite more than twenty years of hard evidence. All the predictions of huge reductions in the death rate of cyclists have been proved wrong, and the only demonatrable effect has been a reduction in the number of cyclists, not something I feel any responsible cyclist would be campaigning for.
Strangely enough, I was one of the first people where I live to use a helmet, but then I read the evidence, and I haven't worn a helmet for ten years. There are two kinds of opinion about helmets: those who've read the evidence and who don't believe they work, and those who refuse to read the evidence.
Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the Headway, BHIT and James Cracknell fairy tales.
Agree with numerous other posts - let's not hijack the positives, in terms of bringing the cycling debate to the fore, with entrenched views on whether helmets are a force for good, or not.
Ultimately, whether cyclists like it or not size, mass and BHP determine our position in the tarmac food-chain, and therefore some protection has to be better than none, particularly in areas cerebral.
I also think that as wider members of the tax-paying community there is an obligation to take responsibility for minimizing our risk of harm and subseqeuent burden on the NHS (a la smoking, seat-belt wearing, eating Big Macs all day etc.), whilst appreciating that this may well be more about perception than reality.
I speak as a commuting and weekend cyclist who has had broken bones and numerous bruises/grazes from road-bike accidents...and the helmet would have made zero difference in each case.
A campaign about cycling safety has been hijacked by the usual helmet blather. Anyone serious about cycling safety would not be dragging the tired-old chestnut of helmet wearing out onto the stage.
Unfortunately, in matters cerebral helmets have been shown to make no difference. They may protect against cuts and tears to the scalp, but if you're talking about getting hit by large motorvehicles then it's magical thinking to imagine that a bicycle helmet will make any difference to "matters cerebral".
I don't know what the above means. It seems that you're arguing that cyclists must don motley and play the fool for the pleasure of the overweight, unexercised motorists. I hope I've got you wrong. Meanwhile I'd like to see you drinking a homeopathic brain remedy that I'm selling -- just to make sure that you give the right appearance of looking after your health.
Like you say, this campaign is well and truly hijacked.
After going over some of my earlier comments i have to apologise if i was a bit rash with replies. The helmet situation / discussion is important to me. As a serving cop i see first hand the mess a car can make and even the wearing of a helmet, despite its drawbacks, is better than nothing at all.
Hopefully apology will be accepted.
Apology accepted mate
The Times appears to have subtely switched its emphasis to "this is what cyclists need to do to protect themselves". All well and good. Except it is the vunerable road user who is required to protect themselves. In reality compare the urban cycling cultures of the UK and the Netherlands. The commute here is a battle: hi viz, helmets, racing to get away from lights, glaring at drivers. Where, as in the Netherlands it appears to be more sedate. Granted there is an infrastructure there but where cyclist meets motorist there is a mutual respect and the cyclist is less likely to be forced off the road. There's even plans to do away with ASL's I heard.
The problem with the way the Times is now going, is that there is a danger of mandatory helmet, has to be flourescent yellow jacket and cycle in the gutter legislation as highlighted by Carlton. Your average Joe Bloggs really doesn't want to go through all of that to take a 10 minute cycle to work!
We can argue from now till eternity about helmets and get nowhere. The reality is that if I fall off my bike at 8mph I'm going to break my arm if I come off my bike at 40mph or get hit by a ton of metal some form of protection is afforded. What needs to be addressed is the driving standards of many motorists out there and better regulation of driving instructors.
Let's be clear: If you're vulnerable you need to protect yourself.
Let's also be clear: Protecting yourself is not about wearing things that may or may not help *when* you have an accident. Protecting youself is about *not having an accident*. (Sidenote: there is a small amount of real evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet can change the attitude of a passing driver, potentially making an accident more likely.)
Cyclists who think it's ok to shuffle slowly and inexorably towards compulsory usage of helmets, high-vis and cycle lanes are missing a fundamental point that these are all just running away from a problem that is genuinely solvable by responsible road use.
The problem is that helmets, high-vis and cycle lanes are all material things which you can just plonk on your head or paint on the ground, which is *really easy to do*. All you have to do is spend money and point to some paint and you've demonstrated that you've done something.
Actually solving the problem of mutual respect -- although it takes no money, no natural resource, no real estate -- is *hard*. How can you demonstrate, truly, that someone's attitude or ability has changed? Not easily.
Hard it may be, but the key step is for everyone involved to realise what irresponsible road use is -- even if, *especially* if, they're guilty of it -- and build a culture of educating people out of that behaviour.
But the step that comes before that is for cyclists to be less upset by the idea that a lot of cyclists are, to a greater or lesser extent, less than perfect road users.
In future maybe the site could add a banner to articles such as this, for example "Warning: This Article Carries A High Risk Of Developing Into The Helmet Debate"
Below that a button: "Have you had The Helmet Debate before? If not click here ->" The user could then be redirected to a typical example of The Helmet Debate wherein could be found an aggregated sample of the full spectrum of opinions, anecdotal evidence and facts - such as there are - usually found there, and wonderfully represented above.
If this proved popular, similar shortcuts could be introduced for electronic gearing, german-car drivers and Rapha products, thus freeing up valuable arguing time for less well trodden topics.
Pages