Day 3 of the Times Cities Fit for Cycling Campaign… a bit of a backlash

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.

@Phazon

First, just because something claims to be a pro-cyclist safety campaing doesn't mean that its effects will actually be to increase safety or improve cyclists image.

Skimming some of the Times coverage I suspect that its effects may be negative. Most of the stories that I read were promoting a fearful, victim mentality about cycling. James Cracknell, Jon Snow and Rebecca Romero are all saying that cycling is so dangerous that they either stop their family members doing it, or often even choose to stay off the road, or else are the brain-damaged victims of unavoidable cycling accidents.

I don't agree with their analysis of how dangerous it is to ride and I don't see why you think that any of that is positive.

It comes across as dishonest scaremongering from people that want to install bike paths.

Finally, as to the insults, I'm sure you're a nice enough person but you come across as someone with nothing but some ignorance and arrogance rattling around inside your polystyrene hat.

stumps wrote:

Firstly, Ush - the accident was 30 yrs ago and the standard of helmet was not as good as it is now,

Which helmet standard? The nice thing about them is that there are so many to choose from ... many of the earlier hard-shell helmets were actually more effective for the type of impact you describe and one complaint about current helmet pushing is that the move is towards lighter, cooler helmets which aren't certified to Snell B-95.

stumps wrote:

and more importantly you have no idea about where the accident happened, the speed or the point of impact to say the helmet wouldn't split up

If it split then it did not crush ... a helmet working to the best of its capacity is crushing. I'm not saying it wouldn't split up. I'm accepting your description of the accident and pointing out that according to your own testimony the helmet probably did not absorb much energy.

stumps wrote:

and who the Dr was, their qualifications or whether they were a consultant, specialist in head injuries or anything so dont make random stupid comments till you know the full facts

Medical doctors are not materials engineers, nor are they accident investigators, nor are they statisticians. Even specialists in head injuries and neurosurgeons would not necessarily have the expertise to make the ridiculously sweeping pronouncement that you blarted out in your original post.

As always, those accusing others of stupidity say more about themselves than anyone else. Keep it up.

stumps wrote:

I know exactly what the difference is but when was the last time you cycled a smooth road without any of the following, curbs, pot holes, lamposts, telephone boxes, post boxes, telegraph poles, metal railings, central refuge, traffic lights the list goes on and is a hell of a lot more extensive than off road obstacles.

Funny, that, I've managed to avoid all of them in the past 100,000km on the road. They tend to be at the edge of the lane, while I'm nearer the middle (except for the potholes, and I only hit one of them when I forgot to avoid a puddle).

stumps wrote:

Helmets do help prevent injuries and anyone who says they dont is talking complete crap BUT i would not make it compulsory as to regulate it would be ridiculous and it should be left to the conscience of the rider.

Rant over

Glad you're anti-compulsion, but what's with the "conscience"? It's a matter of informed choice and, sadly, the Times seems to think publishing Cracknell's misinformation is helpful.

Fred22,

In 2006 I was hit by a negligent motorist who overtook me and cut me up by turning left. I was thrown over the bonnet and landed on the road, injuring to my head. I'm glad I wasn't wearing a helmet, the way I landed means it would have only made it worse. True story. Get over yourself.

First of all: CrackPOTnell strikes again! And Jon "Dangerous" Snow reaffirms why I've joined a CCN group instead of CTC. Some of CTC's grass-roots volunteers do a great job, but they need to get rid of Jon Snow.

JohnS wrote:

making seatbelts compulsory resulted in an increase in cyclist and pedestrian injuries because seatbelts meant people were enabled to drive like tw@ts without getting killed.

Also, a surprising number of them do things like sitting on top of the seatbelts in order to stop the warning chimes, as I saw when doing an AA Streetwatch count near a school, which can't be good for their driving position (the shoulder fixing leans them forwards a bit) and control of the car.

Helmets would save a minority of cyclists in fatal collisions. Compulsion would deter some cyclists, so increase fatalities according the CTC Safety In Numbers study findings, plus there's the effect of some of the population getting less exercise. So I'm against compulsion, despite often wearing one.

The Times 12-point safety graphic is facile. Half the points are presented as a cyclist-only change and half of those are very debatable: 1. helmets/hi-vis/bike; 2. no-headphones; 4. use badly-maintained cycle tracks instead of roads; 7. don't overtake stopped buses; 11. stopping distances; 12. training. It has nothing about campaigning for better road design, keeping to routes popular with cyclists or using specialist route planners like cyclestreets.net - makes you wonder if the author cycles or not.

I think there are two big measures not mentioned in The Times list:

1. Bikeability (not some new undefined "cycle safety" idea) as a prerequisite of the driving test (both first and retest) unless there's a medical or similar reason to exempt someone;

2. More bobbies on bicycles, notifying nearby patrol cars of who's driving dangerously, and with some of them filming and popping round for a word later, with a fixed penalty notice if it was obvious like stopping in a bike-only box at lights.

stumps wrote:

andyp - I completely agree it's all speculation without facts to back it up but when a qualified Dr gives their opinion you cant just ignore it...

....Sorry if you think it's a stupid claim, i was just making a point based on personal experiences.

I would refer doubting AndyP to my ultimate helmet argument settler. Run at a brick wall head down with a helmet on - then repeat the test with no helmet. Then tell us which one hurt more and did the most damage..

joemmo wrote:

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.

i need to make some kind of 'like' button for times such as these

tobyrowsell wrote:

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.

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.

tobyrowsell wrote:

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.

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".

tobyrowsell wrote:

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 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.

MercuryOne wrote:

Run at a brick wall head down with a helmet on - then repeat the test with no helmet. Then tell us which one hurt more and did the most damage..

Try telling someone who has been crushed by a lorry or flattened by a speeding, texting motorist.

Carlton Reid wrote:

I believe the cyclesafe campaign was flawed from the start because it focussed on 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.

stumps wrote:

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.

giff77 wrote:

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.

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.

Manx Rider wrote:

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.