Laura Trott claims that cyclists riding recklessly have only themselves to blame should they get hit by a vehicle. “It’s not always the car’s fault” she said. She also echoed calls by Sir Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish in recent days for cycle helmets to be made compulsory.
Trott, winner of two gold medals at London 2012, was speaking in her role as one of Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s cycling ambassadors, says the Evening Standard.
While the mayor has expressed concerns about a minority of cyclists who disobey the rules of the road, Trott’s comments appear far more sweeping and, some may say, poorly thought through.
“Cyclists wonder why they get a bad name,” she told the newspaper. “I see cyclists jumping in and out of the buses and people wonder why they get hit.
“It’s not always the car’s fault,” she added, although of course substituting “motorist” for “car” would be more accurate.
“Cyclists need to help themselves and should not jump red lights.
“I would ride in London but I certainly wouldn’t ride like that, you just have to be careful.
“I can understand going down the outside of traffic but you should obey the rules of the road because we’re all road users.”
The Standard points out that 14 cyclists lost their lives on the city’s roads last year, and that six more have died so far in 2013.
What neither it – nor Trott – acknowledge is that in the vast majority of cases, the cyclist has done nothing wrong.
And far from cars, it is lorries that present the greatest danger to cyclists on London’s streets.
According to the London Cycling Campaign, HGVs account for just 5 per cent of the city’s traffic, but are responsible for around half of cyclist fatalities.
Many of those deaths occur at junctions, where the cyclist – all too often, a female in her 20s or 30s – is obeying the law, stopped at a traffic light, but on the inside of a lorry that then turns left and not seen by the driver.
Trott, aged 21, has also called for more segregated bike lanes, such as the one planned to run along the Embankment.
“It shows show we’re becoming a cycling nation and the scheme is needed now. If you don’t do it then London’s roads are going to be filled with cyclists. We need more bike lanes in central London.”
TfL’s video animations showing new infrastructure being out in place on the Stratford extension of Barclays Cycle Superhighway CS2 have been widely criticised, including here on road.cc, as over-complicated and counter-intuitive, however.
Trott added that helmets should be made compulsory for cyclists, something that the mayor’s own cycling commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, opposes.
Sir Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish have also supported calls for mandatory helmets for cyclists in recent days.




















144 thoughts on ““It’s not always the car’s fault” – Laura Trott says reckless cyclists to blame if they get hurt & helmets should be compulsory”
I think they must all be
I think they must all be getting paid by a helmet manufacturer to put out all this bullshit
You may well be right. Wiggo
You may well be right. Wiggo was singing a different tune until recently. So why the change of heart? Has he seen some statistics unseen by the rest of the world? If so lets see them.
Proof positive – winning at a
Proof positive – winning at a sport does *NOT* make you an expert in anything
I wonder if she has told
I wonder if she has told Boris her views on helmets? Because he can often be seen without one. Compulsory helmets = death of Boris bikes.
I’m starting to get annoyed with celebrity riders who don’t take the time to read scientific reports before making statements while in their official capacity.
the niavety of youth, yes she
the niavety of youth, yes she is right if you ride recklessly and get yourself killed then you are at fault. Then again, kids are stupid and run out in front of cars, are we to say that drivers never have any fault in such a scenario?
As for Helmets, if you are riding for sport, wear a helmet, if you are riding for transport, do you wear a helmet to drive? to walk? etc. Do you wear a helmet and install safety lines to go up and down stairs?
Somethings are better treated as normal, and enforcing helmet laws only suggests the activity is dangerous.
mrmo wrote:As for Helmets, if
Even helmets for sports cyclists is questionable as they did nothing for Wouter Weylandt.
Cycling helmets (as their current manufactured specifications), are worse than useless. They are built to withstand certain impacts (linear, not oblique or rotational) at low speeds (<12mph) and create an illusion of safety.
zanf wrote:
Even helmets for
Agree, but as all the governing bodies (i believe) require them, you might as well wear them in training as well.
A helmet will work wonders
A helmet will work wonders when an HGV runs you over.
What a massive, massive
What a massive, massive disservice she has just done to everyday cycling
I think what this highlights
I think what this highlights most is that the poor behaviour of some people on bikes has a significantly negative impact on the ability to sensibly discuss cycling safety. While people continue to ride poorly, it will always be used as an argument against improving road safety through other means.
To me that would be the major criticism of bad riding practices, rather than any dangers inherent within the practices themselves.
What Laura says about people doing stupid things being to blame isn’t actually wrong, but the inference that it represents a significant danger to cyclists is wrong.
I think what this highlights
What total rubbish – how another person cycles, drives, farts or whistles has nothing to do with me.
I demand streets that are safe enough for my partner and kids to cycle, and bollocks to anyone else who says some random fool going through a red light makes my demand for safe streets for my family somehow invalid.
It’s a pathetic argument used by moronic shock-jocks and politicians.
Now, please can we all stop validating this total idiocy…
+ 1
+ 1
+ 1 on Nelly Buck
+ 1 on Nelly Buck
The main disservice is making
The main disservice is making the same mistake as the media: We’re ‘cyclists’. No, we’re people who cycle. We’re mostly people who walk and drive too.
The principle of her point is correct. There are a lot of people who thoughtlessly put themselves in danger whilst cycling. Only this morning I overheard a conversation “I’ve been knocked off my bike 5 times in 9 years.”
Without wishing to tempt fate I’ve been cycling for 40 years and commuting through Bristol rush hour for 5 and never even had a near-miss.
Don’t get me started on helmet compulsion. I wear one 99.9% of the time and clearly they’re generally a good idea. There’s no need to legislate though.
Oh for god’s sake…
Would
Oh for god’s sake…
Would someone at British Cycling please sit down with their precious star athletes and tell them that the last thing we need is them spouting garbage like this? Yes, there are bad cyclists out there, Laura. We know that, because it’s pretty much the only thing we hear about from the mainstream press and non-cyclists on the matter. You don’t need to add your 2p on the subject. If you can’t say something positive about real people riding bikes out in the real world, just shut up. The same goes for you too, Bradley, and Mark, and the rest of you.
//
//
mintimperial wrote:Oh for
Well said!
==
==
mintimperial wrote:Oh for
I took serious offence with this. Until I remembered that my full name (Mark Bradley) doesn’t appear in my signature! :H
I’d much rather have an
I’d much rather have an athlete who speaks their own mind (no matter what that is) than one who is told what to say by their governing body.
I’m pretty sure King Jong-Un’s athletes only say what they’re allowed to say.
“What neither it – nor Trott
“What neither it – nor Trott – acknowledge is that in the vast majority of cases, the cyclist has done nothing wrong.”
“Many of those deaths occur at junctions, where the cyclist – all too often, a female in her 20s or 30s – is obeying the law, stopped at a traffic light, but on the inside of a lorry that then turns left and not seen by the driver.”
Getting real tired of this shit that oh HGVs are so bad and kill all the cyclists. If a cyclist is stopped on the inside of the lorry they have blame, no matter which way you look it – unless it’s this view that cars and especially lorry drivers must have some 6th sense about cyclist all the time that can maneuver much quicker and are a lot smaller through traffic.
Helmets – sure debate all you want, but this villanasing of lorries in cases where cyclists position themselves in potential blind spots is plain wrong – what seems like a subconscious red herring from the fact that cyclists should be either far in front of a lorry/large vehicle or behind it at lights – if this is not common sense then you are a far greater danger to yourself than anyone else on the road.
That’s what BW and LT are trying to get across I feel – that it’s down to being smart and a having a pre-emptive approach. If you feel a car has not seen you on a RB – slow down, if you feel the road has a dodgy junction in it and see a car waiting to pull out slow down – because even cyclists might not spot cyclists when they are driving because you look out for car most of the time. So quit with this “oh I’m on a bike so need equal rights as a car”. You are just being unrealistic because you are not a car – how is that so hard to understand?
I am not saying anything to provoke a reaction on purpose, just what is common sense that is all too overlooked.
koko56 wrote:
Getting real
Mary Bowers – will require round-the-clock care for the rest of her life (and will probably never regain consciousness) after being crushed by a lorry, the driver of which admitted being distracted by talking on a hands-free mobile and not checking mirrors properly. He was fined.
Catriona Patel – killed by a lorry driver still drunk from the night before who was talking on a handheld mobile. He had been disqualified 20 times and had three convictions for drink driving and three convictions for reckless driving; seven years imprisonment, lifetime ban.
Eilidh Cairns – killed by a lorry whose driver was never directly charged in connection with her death but whose eyesight was deemed to be below the required standard. He would go on to kill a pedestrian.
All experienced cyclists, and that is just three cases, there are many others I could cite.
But maybe we should lay off the drivers, eh?
koko56 wrote:this villanasing
what, even though that’s where all the ‘cycle superhighways’ and lanes to ASLs are? so if i’m cycling along a cycle superhighway, and a lorry overtakes me and then turns left and crushes me and i die, that’s somehow my fault? And if I’m filtering to the front of the ASL along the lane that TfL have provided for me, and the lights change, and the lorry doesn’t see me and crushes me and i die, that’s my fault too?
what isn’t in doubt is that a lot of the time lorry drivers *are* to blame: they get prosecuted. go and read the reports. other times it’s less clear, and sometimes the cyclist is found to be at fault. but those are very much the minority. and we should be designing our city transport so that a single mistake – from a lorry driver *or* a cyclist – doesn’t result in someone getting killed. what we *shouldn’t* be doing is making it about Red lights and riding on the pavement, and helmets. because none of those things really matter that much.
She’s right in that a lot of
She’s right in that a lot of people ride like idiots and if they got hurt it wouldn’t necessarily be a driver’s fault. But on the whole I agree that people in her position are likely to be viewed as spokespeople for all cyclists. Trott might not be looking for a platform to promote her views on cycling at the expense of a more measured view from somebody like, say, Chris Boardman, but that’s what effectively happens, same as with Wiggins and Cavendish. Wouldn’t be a bad idea for British Cycling to give them some pointers on how to avoid this sort of thing, as suggested above.
Absolutely right- and yet, at the same time, they do matter, because the vast majority of people aren’t cyclists and they seem to see these very things as very important.
Koko56 says:
“Getting real
Koko56 says:
“Getting real tired of this shit that oh HGVs are so bad and kill all the cyclists. If a cyclist is stopped on the inside of the lorry they have blame, no matter which way you look it – unless it’s this view that cars and especially lorry drivers must have some 6th sense about cyclist all the time….”
[[[[[ Curiously, buses don’t have “blind spots”, do they? And do bus-drivers need this “6th sense” you mention? No, they have sensible mirrors (especially on the near-side)and I assume they look in that mirror before turning left—otherwise we’d be constantly reading about all these cyclists “killed by left-turning buses”.
No, there are indeed a lot of crap cyclists about, but you’d think truckers would be aware of them by now. Get proper mirrors and use them!
P.R.
Other than the comments on
Other than the comments on helmets – which are simply just an expression of her own views and experience – what has she said that can be disagreed with?
Some cyclists are morons and – on occasion – have no one to blame but themselves if they get hurt. Shock.
“Massive disservice.’ Really?
“Massive disservice.’
“Massive disservice.’ Really?
YES – a massive disservice. Because cycling needs to move forward in country. We need to start building infrastructure and focussing on the positives.
Instead all Laura has done is unnecessarily dragged up the shit. Which is counter productive.
sfichele wrote:”Massive
What rubbish.
Denying the truth – that there are a lot of crap and law breaking riders around – is counter productive. It leaves the cycling fraternity open to the quite reasonable criticism that it’s one eyed.
If someone blames (or
If someone blames (or penalises) me for another person’s arguably reckless behaviour just because we share a mode of transport, that’s prejudice, pure and simple.
It’s ugly and it needs to stop. Far too often cyclists are complicit in prejudice against themselves like this.
Trott is clearly just a naive young woman who happens to be good at riding a bicycle. You can’t blame her for that but she certainly shouldn’t be an ambassador for anything, and she doesn’t represent me any more than some kid cutting up old ladies on the pavement does.
Having said that, yes please to the protected bike lanes.
I dont normally add comments
I dont normally add comments to forums but the nature of the responses to both this story, and the same sentiment expressed on the recent piece on Bradley Wiggins have really surprised me.
I think Laura has hit the nail on the head. I have been commuting into the City of London for the past 15 years and have seen a number of incidents between cyclists and cars. In most, if not all, cases the cyclist was at fault. And yes, I have had the odd episode myself (I have the stitches to prove it) and hand on heart, I cant say the way I was riding at the time was not a contributing factor.
I always where a helmet, but if you think by not wearing one you are ‘giving it to the man’ then please carry on. Presumably the same cyclists who complain about the possability of a law making helmet wearing mandatory also refuse to take part in sportives or triathlons for the same reason?
My personal bottom line is that if you reguarly cycle into a big city then despite what some of the posters on this forum think, cycling IS a dangerous activity and you would be an idiot not to take as many precautions as possible.
Mark
wombat1969 wrote:I dont
Perhaps you should have kept it that way?
Mark, you know nothing of
Mark, you know nothing of this topic. Do us all a favour and do some research before pontificating in public.
Hmm…this is why I dont post
Hmm…this is why I dont post on forums. Obvously having a POV on this without reading loads of research papers on helmet wearing, accidents etc, is a bad thing. Of course, riding into London 3-4 days a week for the past decade plus doesnt count for anything.
I like to think that a bit of sensible debate is a good thing but being told I know nothing is a bit insulting. If it came across as pontificating then I sincerely apologise. All I can do is post what I see and I think!
Right – better get back to work! Enjoy the rest of the day everybody.
wombat1969 wrote: Presumably
do you *really* not understand the difference between racing a triathlon and nipping to the shops for an ice cream?
do you wear a fire-proof suit and full-face helmet when you drive your car to the seaside?
Dave Atkinson
Dave,
if you thought about it, you would realise what bollocks that is. In a car, you already have airbags, a seat belt, crash bars, anti-lock brakes and all manner of safety devices to protect you. A cyclist has no protection whatsoever, so managing the risk by using a helmet is reasonable measure whatever the circumstances. Of course, perfect cyclists would never have a ‘single vehicle accident’ involving a pothole or lose drain cover where a helmet might prevent a head injury, would they? 😕
JeevesBath wrote:
if you
believe me, i’ve thought about it a lot. mostly i think about why it’s incumbent on cyclists to ‘manage risk’ – to the extent that people will advocate that managing said risk should be legally enforceable – when what they’re doing is no more dangerous than walking, and a whole lot less dangerous than lots of other things where no-one *ever* wears a helmet, nor is asked to. why is that?
you can’t claim that it’s ‘reasonable’ for cyclists to wear a helmet in case they have an accident, unless you’re prepared to advocate the same for every other comparably risky activity. such as doing DIY, and playing football.
also i think about how people are completely unable to see the bigger picture at all when they start talking about helmets. it’s all about mitigating risk of a specific type of injury on a per-person level and ignoring all the other effects of helmet compulsion.
I do wear a helmet, by the way. but i wish people would wake up and see the bigger picture. Find me a country with high levels of cycling *and* high levels of helmet use. Just one. There aren’t any. Why do you think that is?
wombat1969 wrote:I dont
I can see why now.
I think it’s because people don’t want someone pissing on the back of their leg and then telling them it’s raining.
Woah! Was the nail wearing a helmet? If not, would the nail have survived if it had have been wearing a helmet?
And that is relevant why exactly?
Well which is it? If you can’t remember or cant figure it out, you’d hardly make a reliable witness would you?
Very vague this bit, are you saying that you have been hit by a car which resulted in requiring medical treatment but it was your fault? Or are you just referring to when you have had an ‘off’? If it’s the latter it is very misleading indeed, if its the former then I have had incidents where I have been hit by cars when on my bike and it’s 100% not been my fault, nor has my riding been a contributory cause so does that negate your point?
Yeah, by not strapping on a glorified egg box in the hope that it will provide me with a force field that will withstand the impact of of several tonnes of fast moving metal if I just want to nip to the shop is really how I like to stick it to ‘The Man’. What utter waffle.
Well, no, you utter whopper, because you don’t just ‘sportive’ or ‘triathlon’ to the shop do you? Why would I or any right thinking person want to be made a criminal for not wearing a piece of polystyrene? What next? Compulsory gloves? Glasses? Knee pads?
Key word is personal, don’t make me a criminal because of your stupid, misguided beliefs.
No, it’s not.
So do you wear a kevlar vest at all times in case you get shot or stabbed?
Quote:She also echoed calls
When you’re high-profile like these riders, think before commenting on topics like this, please. Everyone has an opinion but yours is no more or less informed than most and will be quoted out of proportion and often out of context.
(Denmark vs Australia anyone?)
Quote:All I can do is post
Not at all Mark – you could understand the hurt and offence this sort of thing causes others and do some reading into the reality of the situation
Fact – most cycle helmets are safety tested as TOYS! – rated for single vehicle impacts up to 12 mph
Fact – police reports for traffic incidents in and around London show the vast majority involving cyclists are NOT the cyclists fault
That’s why we’re narked
Quote:Getting real tired of
Wrong, sorry. Blame the inside-left filter lanes and advance stop boxes, not the riders thinking they’re following the guidance of the roads, and possibly not the drivers of ill-equipped lorries either. Filter lanes on the left are a potentially very dangerous place to be and have killed many riders imo.
james-o wrote:Quote:Getting
+1 James-o
i think advance stop boxes are great, but you have to get far enough forward to be seen by the hgv driver. also, you need to position centre lane, TAKE THE LANE, otherwise you are just in the same position you started in – on the left, waiting for a left turning car/hgv to hit you!
filter lanes should be centred (ideally between lane 1 and 2) to encourage people on bikes to move slightly to the right (eg centre of lane 1) to obstruct silly close overtakes and left turns… of course, if you are turning right, go to the very right of lane 2….
today i was early for a meeting and watched a corner at parliament square for 5 minutes. its crazy how many unconfident cyclists would prefer to queue in the filter lane, rather than push forwards to fill up the bike box. its like they are scared of going in front of the cars….. (which is understandable actually)
If any of you have followed
If any of you have followed any pro cyclists on twitter you will know they are not, on the whole, the sharpest tools in the box
(Apart from Chris Boardman and Emma Pooley of course.)
They ride bikes for a living, that should kind of tell you something about them.
Trott seems nice enough but i wouldnt really want to consult her on matters of great importance.
I dont care what she thinks about stuff – its just a shame the media give notable cyclists the platform to give their ill informed and tedious opinions.
Has Ms Trott been out on a
Has Ms Trott been out on a regular day ride in London ?
The vast majority of cyclists I see on my daily London commute wear helmets so what marginal gain is there from a compulsory law ?
It would have been more perceptive to ask why so many cyclists in London already choose to do so whereas in Holland the vast majority choose not to.
Therein lies the danger in asking a 21 year old to step into the political arena.
arfa wrote:Therein lies the
She rides for the GB team – She will definitely have had media training there.
She’s a brand ambassador for Adidas – She will definitely have had media training there.
She’s a brand ambassador for Prudential – I am fairly sure there will have been media guidance there.
I wonder who’s fault she would think it was if the driver of this car had been involved in an accident?
https://twitter.com/LauraTrott31/status/373113559422492672/photo/1
farrell wrote:arfa
she may well have had copious amounts of media training but I am afraid it does not necessarily translate into political acumen as she has demonstrated.
arfa wrote:she may well have
I agree with you, I was pointing out that it’s not like she has been thrown in blind to this to fend for herself.
She will have been given endless guidance and should really have the intelligence to give out a bland media friendly soundbite if she didn’t want to antagonise anyone but she didn’t. That makes her, in my opinion, either plain stupid or malicious.
There is also an outside chance that British Cycling actually prepped her to go down this route. Funding is tight and sponsors need to be pleased, if one was to be so cynical.
farrell wrote:arfa wrote:she
I should think British Cycling would have cycling safety at its heart wouldn’t you? Perhaps they have a point then?
I wonder also how many pontificators on this article live in London and know what she is talking about? I get a lot of air from the regions on this sort of stuff, but cycling everyday in London the bad cycling (either naive or plan belligerent) goes on in inordinant amounts….and let’s face it she is talking about London.
I think the vehemence of the
I think the vehemence of the opposition to Laura’s comments is a bit saddening – to so utterly deny that there’s any value to what she says screams of heads plunged deeply in sand.
Pondo wrote:I think the
No – I would suggest you are either naively or deliberately missing the point
We can’t allow the debate about cycling in this country to be framed in this way by poorly thought out comments, from those who should know better, without any reference to the facts
Otherwise we will continue to have people with a sense of entitlement because they drive a car attempting to force cyclists off the roads
mad_scot_rider wrote:Pondo
Are we saying, then, that in order to progress cycling safety, we have to utterly deny that cyclists are ever at fault? That doesn’t seem to me to be either healthy or realistic.
Pondo wrote:
Are we saying,
No, we’re saying a cycling ambassador needs to have a well thought out strategy, speak with balance, use facts, and remember that the mainstream media currently has an anti-cycling bias.
to some degree I agree that
to some degree I agree that there are cyclist out there – particularly in London – who are ‘asking’ to be involved in a collision. In the same token, there are cars, busses lorries etc, doing the same. I know which one scares me more… But then if the cyclist doesn’t have the sense to think that riding the up the wrong side of the road dodgin through the geps to get across (seen this morning), or running through reds is dangerous, then i think they bring it on themself if they get flattened by whatever moving tonne of metal is hurtling toward them. GHowever, that’s not to say that it isn’t ever the car’s fault, in the same way I don’t think Trott was saying that its always the cyclists fault. Contributory factors if you run a red you are more likely to get hit.
Personally I always wear a lid, i have had a few offs over the years and believe that the lid stopped my head from being a mess of bits spread along the curb in at least one case. That alone is enough for me to always wear one.
Quote:I think what this
I think it highlights the fact that some people keep suggesting that the poor behaviour of some people on bikes has a significantly negative impact on the ability to sensibly discuss cycling safety as if it is a fact.
The accident stats for 2004-2010 in Edinburgh found that in 72% of incidents where there was a serious pedal cycle injury, motorists were at fault.
In Scotland in 2011, for 95% of the incidents involving ignoring traffic signals, motor vehicles were responsible.
Time to challenge this lazy thinking about the behaviour of cyclists and point out that motorists aren’t doing themselves any favours and should really sort themselves out…
koko56. Would love to hear
koko56. Would love to hear your views on gun control and women in mini-skirts.
.
.
It’s a pity she has chosen
It’s a pity she has chosen the minority behaviour (reckless cycling) to pander to the majority stereotype. If she genuinely cares about cycling safety she should not allow the focus to go anywhere near the helmet debate as it is the lazy change that politicians can easily make and say they are promoting cycling when it will make sweet FA difference as the vast majority are already wearing helmets and the benefits are highly questionable.
If, in the vast majority of
If, in the vast majority of cases the cyclist has absolutely no blame whatsoever, why is it typically females in their 20s or 30s involved in accidents?
A bit too much of a coincidence that all these dizzy round women are the ones that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, every time, if you ask me.
Nick T wrote:If, in the vast
Pretty sure that studies have shown that female cyclists are more likely to play by the rules and stay where they are “supposed to”, whereas males will push forward, past stop lines and put themselves in front of and in view of other traffic. Whilst this is breaking the rules, it is actually the safer place to be.
I’m pulling this from my addled memory so it may need checking for bad science.
You only have to compare what
You only have to compare what she’s said to what Chris Boardman said earlier last year for an illustration of her lacking:
http://youtu.be/T7Nc82kgpow
@Nick T What about the Doctor
@Nick T What about the Doctor who had cycled to India who got killed by an HGV in north London a few weeks ago? Or the fact that Sir Wiggo himself got smashed up by a car ?
We can take any number of anecdotes and data mine them into a conclusion but the facts are pretty simple, being that cars kill and seriously injure too many people.
There is some suggestion that young women are more vulnerable as they ride more cautiously/slowly and get caught by heavy traffic in particular. If this is true it is a pretty awful conclusion that the roads are safer for more aggressive mamils only ?!
The longer we allow dialogue to focus on the poor behaviour of a minority subset and the ridiculous helmet debate, the more people will die/be seriously injured.
that is why I am disappointed with Trott
There is no point being 100%
There is no point being 100% right and 100% dead.
Laura Trott is a great
Laura Trott is a great athlete, but she is still a worldly unwise 21 year old. She perhaps is not aware that compulsory helmet use will reduce the number of cyclists on our streets and the health benefits of cycling greatly outweighs the risks of head-injury or death from not wearing a cycle helmet.
Helmets are only tested to 12mph impacts. That does not mean at 13mph they are useless, but the effectiveness tapers off drastically the faster you go as a cyclist, or how fast the car is going before it hits you. I think helmets are good if you fall off your bike or get knocked off in a low speed collision. My father came off in the ice last year, fractured his pelvis and destroyed the back of helmet. His skull would of fractured had he not been wearing the helmet. But he was only cycling at about 16mph and was not hit, he slid on some black ice as a guy in front of him panic braked and caused him to try and swerve. So it saved him there. Had he been hit by a car at 40mph I reckon a helmet made out of chocolate would offer as much protection.
People like Laura and Brad should who are given public platforms to speak out should really take neutral advice before they make public comments. whether they like it or not they are in the public eye, they have the respect [or disrespect] of their peers and can influence minds, but their comments need to be balanced and fair. Not tripe.
As for being reckless – realising there is a risk in what you are doing but carrying on regardless of that risk – is something we all do whenever we take to the roads on our bikes! I wonder if Ms Trott is actually aware the Highway Code even says that we are vulnerable road users and we are due a higher duty of care from vehicle drivers than we to them. Makes sense. Reckless doesn’t always mean behaving like a complete idiot. RLJ’s and cyclists doing 26+mph on shared used paths are complete idiots and deserve all they get if they become injured. Most of the time it is the car drivers fault… Whats the opposite of SMIDSY?
I fell off my bike.
I banged
I fell off my bike.
I banged my head.
Hard.
I had a headache.
My helmet was smashed.
My headache went after a minute.
Apparently my helmet offered no protection.
I was picking the two
I was picking the two statements from the article and comparing them, no need for all the facts and anecdotes about wiggins and Indian doctors as I’m not concerned about the fine details.
It’s interesting though, that Trott has made these comments as an ambassador to the mayor of London, I’d imagine compulsory helmets would wipe out the Boris Bike network in one fell swoop.
Saw two young girls out today
Saw two young girls out today on there bikes, not cyclists per say just people on bikes. Neither wearing helmets. A simple piece of plastic that potentially could save your life, why not wear it?
Once had the pleasure of talking to a UK renowned neurosurgeon on the subject of helmets (Mother is a nurse) and he said
“I have seen many people who have sustained serious head injury while cycling that would have been prevented through the individual wearing a helmet”
but then again, he’s probably a fuckin’ moron, cus road.cc members always know best.
At work and uni I wear safety gear operating various machinery, that safety gear may never be needed. Sometimes it is, wouldn’t you rather be wearing it just in case?
Yes there are scenarios that helmets are going to be useless in. But some of those scenarios are preventable through the awareness of the cyclists… IE passing a lorry on the inside that is turning left, or generally passing a lorry on the inside.
I always think to myself when a car does something stupid “is it worth the risk in the extra 30 secs that you may have gained by doing that” and you know what the same goes for cyclists.
So, Laura Trott good on you.
Perhaps describing some of
Perhaps describing some of the victims as “dizzy women” “in the wrong place” is a touch presumptuous ?
Well this escalated… as
Well this escalated… as expected.
Simon – please believe it’s with sadness but I have to ask this – in all those cases, where were the cyclists – front or rear of the lorries? Or were they overtaken while lorry was doing a left turn?
I should really have pointed out that I only loosely follow those grim articles about lorries and cycles colliding here on road.cc and only on road.cc – I don’t actively research it. From what I’ve gathered it seems cyclists were to the side of a lorry, maybe I’m just making it up as I go along but that’s what came up. I am not saying it’s okay for lorries to run people over more that how many accidents could have been avoided if bikes were in front or behind instead of to either side of lorry?
Dave –
The daily mail might think so, I don’t.
As sad as I am to say this, yes – at the very least partially. This is exactly the same as going into a really rough neighborhood, getting beaten up, stabbed or dead and then blaming the council for letting it happen. I get that that comes across as purposely inflammatory, but that’s not the intention. What my main overall point is it seems like people are all too ready to embrace rules like “right of way” but IMHE it’s quite academic and it’s more about ensuring correct position on the road and looking around.
Some Fella – “They ride bikes for a living, that should kind of tell you something about them.” So you saying that working in an office job that you hate and destroy your soul day by day is so much better and makes you a better person because of that? Well, something new everyday.
There’s rather a lot of
There’s rather a lot of missed points here.
I choose to wear a helmet like the vast majority of London bike commuters for a reason.
The benefit in taking away individual choice is what’s questionable as
1 the vast majority already wear one so the marginal gain in safety is minimal.
2 the science behind benefits of helmets is also questionable
3 the benefit if a helmet in collision with an HGV is not questionable – the phrase as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike comes to mind
Trott has grandstanded and moved the focus on to the reckless minority and in doing so the debate is concluding “cyclists create danger and don’t do enough to protect themselves” so the simple political solution is to legislate for mandatory helmets and I refer back to my points above.
I don’t think I can add anything more sensible than was said in the Chris Boardman interview above. However that was 2 years ago and the progress made on cycle safety has gone backwards with rising KSI’s.
Even now we are getting bogged down in a near irrelevance and I am afraid Trott’s comments perpetuate the inertia.
Its not just the science or
Its not just the science or the difficulty of collecting stats around helmets but the safety standards are sub-standard and haven’t changed in yrs.
On the whole though i still wear one, especially after what the A&E doctor told us after my GF was hit by a car and she suffered a grade 3 concussion. ‘The helmet is difference to you walking out of here or me explaining to your boyfriend on how to feed you with apple sauce for the rest of your life…’
and here is another example..
http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/21/teenage-cyclist-who-didnt-wear-helmet-because-he-didnt-want-to-mess-up-his-hair-in-coma-after-collision-with-van-3932434/
How is being made to wear a seatbelt different?
More ammo to the anti-cycling
More ammo to the anti-cycling brigade who spout the default line ‘and he wasn’t even wearing a helmet’ whenever they tell their latest tale of being held up by a f#cking cyclist! Perhaps the government could also apply a special higher rate of VAT on cycle helmets too, to compensate for the ‘fact’ that we don’t pay any Road Tax – 2 birds with 1 stone – over night all car v cyclist woes will be cured!
Helmets do not incur VAT in
Helmets do not incur VAT in the first place…
Nzlucas wrote:Helmets do not
pss…I was being sarcastic
If cyclists stopped riding
If cyclists stopped riding through red lights, would the negative view of cyclists improve?
paulfg42 wrote:If cyclists
If car drivers stopped speeding, drinking alcohol, texting, phoning, driving through red lights, etc, etc, would the already positive view of drivers improve further?
paulfg42 wrote:If cyclists
After re-reading your comment with a different interpretation, my other response is to answer sensibly – I agree, no it wouldn’t improve, as the real gripe that car drivers have with cyclists is not jumping red lights, just like it is not the lack of helmet compulsion nor the non-road tax payment.
Please make it stop!
My head
Please make it stop!
My head hurts more from being surrounded by idiots that it ever has from falling of a bike.
I am glad to see that most
I am glad to see that most people posting have got it right.
She is just wrong. Racing cyclists generally know nothing about safety for ordinary cyclists – the exception being Chris Boardman.
Which is why the Government did not make him the UK Champion for Cycling.
ChairRDRF wrote:I am glad to
Oh yes, wonder where they spend their time training… must be some far far away land, planet even.
ChairRDRF wrote:I am glad to
Which world do you live in? Is your world one in which racing cyclists only ever get on a bike when they’ve a number on their back?
Mine isn’t. I race, live and and ride in London – and most racers I know around here do just the same.
I also know that there are a lot of shit riders around. Some of the these are consciously shit and the others are just incompetent.
Huw Watkins wrote:
I also
There are also lots of shit drivers around, and nearly every driver breaks the law (many do it every day) – yet we don’t have a constant stream of negative articles about drivers in the media!
Why is there a general media obsession with knocking cyclists?
Pro cyclists need to get wise if they want to make comments in the press – they need to be careful not to feed this obsession.
I wouldn’t be surprised BTW, if some of Laura’s quotes were taken out of context and if other things she said were left out completely.
Why are the press continually
Why are the press continually seeking racing cyclist’s views abot cycling? Is Lewis Hamilton considered to be an expert in the efficacy of seat belts in Ford Mondeo’s?
Laura Trott may be a fine sportswoman, but a cycling safety expert she is not, as her ill informed comments in this article demonstrate.
she made a simple mistake in
she made a simple mistake in confusing the issue of bad cycling on the highways, and wearing helmets
as others have commented, wearing a helmet makes no difference when an HGV runs you over
I commute every day through London, and am constantly surprised there are not more DEATHS from the sheer stupidity I witness from other cyclists, every day during my short (3 mile each way) commute: RLJ, ignoring one-way streets, dangerous undertaking, ignoring pedestrian crossings, riding on pavements, lack of hand signals, using mobile phones whilst riding, etc.
I have completely lost respect for cyclists in London because from my own casual observations during my commute, 3/4 of them simply do not pay any attention to the highway code or their own safety or that of other road users.
the highway code should be obeyed when using a pedal cycle on the highway, whether from a slavish attempt to the “obey the law”, or more importantly an attempt to maintain a competent aspect to riding a bicycle on the highway, regardless of what other vehicular road users may or may not be doing
but mixing up the helmet issue with dangerous cycling practises just blurs the key issues, which is that adult cycle training should be promoted alongside proper police enforcement of all road vehicles including cyclists
hampstead_bandit wrote:but
My worry here is who delivers the cycle training and what is actually taught – would there be a basic ‘national curriculum’ which trainers had to follow?
Would cyclists be taught to ride in cycle lanes whenever available, always stay to the left, never filter, never advance beyond stop lines at lights?
In my experience, being ‘assertive’ on the road is the best way to be seen and keep safe on a bike.
Hiding away on the left and between cars, and thoughtlessly following poorly ‘designed’ cycle lanes, whilst all legal, are some of the most dangerous examples of cycling that I see.
I’d rather take the lane (when necessary) and advance well beyond the stop line at certain lights where experience has taught me it is safer to do so (probably to the annoyance of the ‘road-tax payer’ behind me).
daddyELVIS
You know, I think the problem you have is with authority. I don’t have a problem with what you are saying about the rider making good decisions, but good cycle education will teach people to cycle safely – this doesn’t mean advance on the left in to cycle box at all costs. But why you think it will be subverted into some weird unsafe subservient cyclists killing training program is beyond me…..IT WILL BE ABOUT CYCLING SAFELY. If you want to argue about what is safe then fine.
But you show your own rigid thinking up with inane comments like that.
I’m not into legislating for helmets, but I think you are a tool if you don’t think they can help protect you. That doesn’t mean to say that it will, it doesn’t mean to say that it has to, but in the likelihood that you, or I come off our bikes at speed, we will likely be thankful of a lid on our noggin. So why not wear one?
BTW – you are right about your road positioning. The point is that a lot of people get it wrong. They need educating. If you get involved in a positive action to help others you can educate them in being road safe too, rather than getting upset at poor Ms Trott.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
You
All I said was, “my worry is” – I never once said I was against good cycling training – I was merely asking questions and explaining my worry.
I have no problem with authority, I do a problem with legislation as it is usually poorly thought out and carries an agenda (not to mention a cost, usually paid for by issuing fines).
Please quote where I have said a helmet won’t help protect, why would I bother wearing one myself for around 90% of the cycling I do if I didn’t think it would? But should I receive a fine for the times I choose not too? – oh, and thanks for inferring that I’m a tool.
The other point I was trying to make (poorly, I admit) is that truly safe cycling is exactly the type of cycling that lots of motorists have a problem with – “get to the left”, “get on the cycle path”, “wait in the queue”, “you’re too slow to be on the road”, etc, etc. If you stop red light jumping or increase helmet use, drivers would still be pissed-off with cyclists, and we would still have the same moronic driving that can kill cyclists.
BTW, does anyone have any stats on London cycling deaths and injuries? I’d like to know how many were due to a cyclist jumping a red light.
daddyELVIS
Someone may have commented on this already but I really don’t have the energy to go through the rest of the comments. I used to be a cycling instructor and the “national curriculum” (Bikeability) for cycle training does cover these issues.
It trains you where to ride on the road to make yourself visible (it’s not in the gutter); the importance of communicating your intentions to other road users. It shows you the best and safest way to filter through traffic (it does n’ t involve going beyond the stop line).
What feet disappoints me about Trott’s, Wiggins’ and Cavendish’s comments is what they could have said that could genuinely save lives. They could have talked about all the things I have mentioned above. They could have spoken about avoiding drivers’ blindspots. They could have told drivers to look out carefully before proceeding.
Instead they just spout a load of misinformed nonsense that will only make people feel the roads are too dangerous to cycle on which they are not.
Oh, and while I’m in rant mode, what’s this talk about “cars” being at fault or not. The car is an inanimate object. It is the driver of that vehicle who may or may not be at fault in a specific. One thing that Bikeability teaches you is that you are dealing with other human beings, not robots.
Personally I think all the money that gets wasted on pointless segregated bike lanes should be spent on training people how to ride bikes properly (including drivers).
CotterPin wrote:daddyELVIS
Someone may have commented on this already but I really don’t have the energy to go through the rest of the comments. I used to be a cycling instructor and the “national curriculum” (Bikeability) for cycle training does cover these issues.
It trains you where to ride on the road to make yourself visible (it’s not in the gutter); the importance of communicating your intentions to other road users. It shows you the best and safest way to filter through traffic (it does n’ t involve going beyond the stop line).
What feet disappoints me about Trott’s, Wiggins’ and Cavendish’s comments is what they could have said that could genuinely save lives. They could have talked about all the things I have mentioned above. They could have spoken about avoiding drivers’ blindspots. They could have told drivers to look out carefully before proceeding.
Instead they just spout a load of misinformed nonsense that will only make people feel the roads are too dangerous to cycle on which they are not.
Oh, and while I’m in rant mode, what’s this talk about “cars” being at fault or not. The car is an inanimate object. It is the driver of that vehicle who may or may not be at fault in a specific. One thing that Bikeability teaches you is that you are dealing with other human beings, not robots.
Personally I think all the money that gets wasted on pointless segregated bike lanes should be spent on training people how to ride bikes properly (including drivers).— hampstead_bandit
+1 for Bikeability – the type of cycle training I’d be happy with. However, it won’t educate drivers (which I think is a bigger problem). I also agree with the rest of your comments.
@hampstead are you seriously
@hampstead are you seriously suggesting 75% of the cyclists you see on your commute break the law ?
I commute 20 miles a day in London and on the days when I am bored I do count them and it is more like 10-12% of the cyclists I see who break the law (yes I know it’s anecdotal before anyone shoots me down but I have been doing this for over 15 years).
Funnily enough I usually encounter more driving breaches from cars (phone use is a corker closely followed by red light jumping) but I haven’t got around to counting cars yet so I can’t give you a percentage….
Oh dear, oh dear. Laura,
Oh dear, oh dear. Laura, Laura. And the rest of the ‘stars’ lining up to say similar, please think before you open your traps, and even if this isn’t reported exactly as you said it please remember journalists don’t ride bikes and whatever you say it will get twisted to meet their agenda.
Yes there is an ounce of truth in what you say but one ounce outweighed by a ton of evidence to show you’re wrong.
I had a nasty ‘off’ myself last year. No-ones fault. A freak mechanical. I was riding safely and, my first piece of ‘luck’ – the woman driving the car behind me was too (she managed to avoid me, just).
I whacked my head and broke most of the bones in my face as well as cracking my skull – I know some claim after any bang on the head that “it was my helmet that saved me” but in my case it really did. I’ve worn one ever since I started riding in London in the 1980s. I’d taken up mountain biking, Giro had brought out their first ‘Pro Lite’ (Remember them!) and I started wearing it for the limited protection I saw it could offer. I’ve worn one ever since, and my wife, and kids. I wouldn’t dream of not wearing one now. It feels unnatural to ride without it.
So you’d expect me to be fully behind Laura’s campaign for helmet compulsion?
No. Never. I’m vehemently anti-compulsion. For all the (to me anyway) obvious reasons that I hope most of us all see too plainly – it would legitimise the view cycling is ‘dangerous’, it would place the onus on cyclists not drivers, it would discourage people from cycling, it would negate the potential health benefits of getting more people to ride, it would do nothing to improve safety on the roads or even touch the numbers of killed or seriously injured.
Pro helmet. Anti compulsion. Pro choice. Pro cycling.
AnalogueAndy wrote:Oh dear,
=D>
An excellent comment, Andy.
An excellent comment, Andy.
Let’s just agree that
Let’s just agree that cyclists should push very hard for Chris Boardman to be appointed as cycling czar for the UK and then petty arguments might disappear and common sense prevail
Fuck Boardman being made
Fuck Boardman being made cycling czar.
Chris Boardman should be KING OF THE FREAKIN WORLD!
Some of the weasel words used
Some of the weasel words used against Laura Trott herself on this thread are terrible. She is a professional athlete who rides harder, faster and further than anyone here, yet you call her naive as a cheap way of dismissing her point.
Accusing anyone who disagrees with you as pontificating, or that they should ‘do some research’ is a classic argument from authority. There is plenty of pro-helmet research, yet you say the comments of a neurosurgeon are just anecdotes of course.
Cheapening the debate by trashing anyone who is pro-helmet law is a sure fire way to ensure it happens. And isn’t cool.
I am thinking of changing my signature to ‘Having said that, I am against compulsion.’ Sometimes I wear one sometimes not.
And remember road.cc stay classy.
bikeboy76 wrote:….yet you
exactly that – she fell into the latest media trap of using a pro cyclist to strengthen their anti-cycling agenda! What has been reported in Laura’s name will do zippo to make cycling on the road safer, however it will help strengthen the opinions of anti-cycling morons. Job done!
bikeboy76 wrote:Some of the
Right with you bikeboy76. Fed up of the propagandist nonsense spouted out here.
Trott is being used/using her high profile to get a point across. But each day I ride in London and see twats breaking red lights, poor positioning and generally bad behaviour I don’t think ‘bloody drivers, what a bunch of a-hole’, I’m much more of the mind that they set a poor example, give cyclists a bad name, are a menace to pedestrians, a menace to myself and piss off other road users.
If you can’t hear the words of others why would anyone bother listening to you?
+ a lot to what AndyAnalogue
+ a lot to what AndyAnalogue said so passionately and eloquently. Chapeau.
Well thanks for truncating my
Well thanks for truncating my quote to imply the opposite. You think she is being used, not that she could have a free mind and opinion that differs from your own. I know the internet has no shortage of sniveling armchair warriors; road.cc is clearly no exception.
But I always like to see my name quoted in the recent comments, thanks. :H
bikeboy76 wrote:You think she
I never said she didn’t have a free mind.
I don’t disagree with all her opinions.
Regarding falling into the media trap – if everything is being quoted in context, exactly as said, and without leaving out any positive statements she may have also made, then fair enough – but if that is the case, then I would suggest her best course of action in her role as a cycling ambassador is to keep her mouth shut.
However, some of the comments and phrasing sounds like she was commenting on clips of poor cycling being shown to her – e.g. “I would ride in London, but I certainly wouldn’t ride like that.”
(That quote also makes me think she has never ridden a bike in London traffic).
If she was asked to comment on clips of poor cycling, or if these quotes are merely answers to a line of questions on poor cycling, I wonder if there were any clips / questions on poor driving (I would guess not!)
BTW, I recently praised Laura Trott on twitter for her well thought-out comments on the proposal for a women’s Tour de France that exactly mirrored the Men’s Tour.
I just don’t see what
I just don’t see what compulsory helmet wearing does for cyclist safety and don’t consider Trott’s comments a useful contribution.
Helmets may mitigate the injury in a collision and poor cycling skills and law breaking may contribute to some collisions the end game of these arguments will be compulsory helmets not making cycling any safer and cyclists rights to be safe from bad drivers being further eroded and justified because some cyclists break laws and incidentally only endanger themselves
as to the editorial on dangerous HGV’s couldn’t agree too much with this comment
“Wrong, sorry. Blame the inside-left filter lanes and advance stop boxes, not the riders thinking they’re following the guidance of the roads, and possibly not the drivers of ill-equipped lorries either. Filter lanes on the left are a potentially very dangerous place to be and have killed many riders imo.”
One junction I regularly cross I don’t use the inside left cycle lane as too much traffic turns left and the forward box is too short when/if you get to it- I line up in middle of my lane to go straight ahead with the traffic and sometimes get a horn blast and a point to the cycle lane. A few days ago lights changed and I ended stopped in the forward box – truck came up behind and came well forward and put me in his blind spot below his cab – from his position but not indicators I knew would be turning left so I went forward and to the right into the other lane – years of driving and cycling experience helped me see the danger, road designs that create this danger need to be changed.
I don’t believe the bullshit
I don’t believe the bullshit on this site these days. I’m tired of the incessant nonsense that comes out from so many. If the roads are filled with so many murderous cars, maiming lorries, with a judicial system set up to blame cyclists, a police force set against cross bars and Lycra, existing within an infrastructure designed to kill I wonder why any of you cycle. You are nuts, highly prejudiced and ultimately part of the problem and not part of the solution.
If all you want to do is moan about how unfair the world around you is to cycling you EXIST ON ANOTHER PLANET. Go live somewhere where you think that cyclists are treated like kings, go where no car dares to roam. Go where there is no battle to commute each day. But here and now in the UK you will not get respect for making excuses about depth of bad cycling. An US and THEM attitude only serves to draw battle lines, not being people in to the debate.
In the same way that we can all agree that there are bad drivers, we also need to agree that there are bad cyclists. We need to agree that we want neither.
If you want precedence for political action look at how well respected Martin Luther King Jr was compared to Malcolm X. If you show yourself to rise up above the petty squabbles people will listen to what you have to say, but while you deny that blame CAN lie on both sides, while you insist that a cyclist can do no wrong then there is no room for negotiation. There is nothing wrong with what Trott said. If you believe otherwise you are deluded.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:I
And you’ve just added to it =D>
daddyELVIS wrote:Colin
Nice comeback dickhead.
Colin Peyresourde
Nice comeback dickhead.— Colin Peyresourde
Thanks
daddyELVIS wrote:Colin
Nice comeback dickhead.— daddyELVIS
Thanks— Colin Peyresourde
Anytime. I mean it.
Colin Peyresourde
Nice comeback dickhead.— Colin Peyresourde
Thanks— daddyELVIS
Anytime. I mean it.— Colin Peyresourde
I know, but to be fair it was a tap-in.
Colin & Bike boy,
You might
Colin & Bike boy,
You might want to re-read some of the comments above again.
I don’t think anyone is trashing Trott’s professional integrity but what is being questioned is her words as London cycling ambassador as they are naïve.
“If I cycled in London” is a bit of a knock out comment from someone who is Bojo’s cycling ambassador for London.
I personally do cycle in London, you can get a feeling for how qualified I am by multiplying the distance at the bottom of my signature by 15. I am sure there are lots of other commentators who do as well and are at least as well qualified to comment. What I disagree with is the idea that London is full of lawless cyclists (another media myth perpetuated to feed the view that cycling doesn’t deserve support, a trap that Trott has walked into). I have tried to give some statistical view of lawless cycling and it is way off the hyperbole spouted in the media and in some of the more fanciful contributions to this thread. Perhaps I have been cycling through the more law abiding boroughs of London over the last 15 years ?
She is absolutely entitled to her opinion (as we all are) and she has said nothing factually incorrect. However her views as quoted in the media do nothing to promote cycling which is generally what you’d expect from an ambassador.
jeez, calm down.
jeez, calm down.
As a cyclist, motorcyclist
As a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver, my piece of advice is when undertaking or overtaking vehicles at junctions slow down and try to get the driver’s attention (Look into the wing mirror, if you can see the driver’s eye, good chance that they’ve seen you). ]When approaching a queue of stationary traffic at a junction don’t filter (undertake or overtake) to the front on the queue if there is a HGV at the front of the queue. If you do this your putting yourself at risk, the fact is that all enclosed vehicles (cars, vans, trucks and HGV’s)have blind spots and its next to impossible to design them without blind spots.
Very little point putting the blame on someone after the accident as the damage has been done. Let the law take its course if any offence has taken place.
Making helmets compulsory is next to impossible to police. Cycling helmet are only effective up to a relatively small impact load anyway but I still wear one and I think people who don’t probably haven’t much precious matter to protect.
stephen connor wrote: “the
[quote=stephen connor] “the fact is that all enclosed vehicles (cars, vans, trucks and HGV’s)have blind spots and its next to impossible to design them without blind spots…”
[[[[[ Hmm…curiously, we don’t hear much about “cyclist killed by left-turning BUS”, do we? Safe to assume, then, that buses have adequate mirrors, and that bus-drivers are trained to use them properly. I think I’ve heard quite enough about “blind-spots”, thank you. And thanks also for telling me I haven’t enough brains to worry about. Nice.
P.R.
Quote:and remember that the
^^ This.
Any comment, no matter how well thought out, can be twisted or made to be more prevalent. I suspect Laura Trott didn’t set out to casue this much grief but the press release could well have been twisted a bit to emphasise the “reckless cyclists” and “helmets should be compulsory” bits.
All this compulsory helmet use and the “installation” of crap cycle paths are just another stick to beat cyclists with:
“use the cycle lane!”
“you should be wearing a helmet!”
I don’t want some 0.5m wide streak of paint weaving randomly down a pavement, I don’t want to be [b]forced[/b] to wear a helmet; I’d just like to ride my bike down the road to work without being regarded as weird/sub-human for doing so.
+1
And I’ve been commuting in
+1
And I’ve been commuting in London on two wheels for over 20 years.
No one is arguing that there
No one is arguing that there are idiots on two wheels among us. The problem is that it’s not them who kill other people on the road.
Just like coroners, politicians, doctors and sports people, she’s just another “celeb/authority” who lack balls to explain to a general public that most of cyclists die as a result of careless or dangerous driving not because they jump red lights or don’t wear a helmet.
Gutless!
I have no doubt there are
I have no doubt there are many bad, dangerous law breaking cyclists out there and maybe (to be fair) they should be lumped in with the 2 million uninsured drivers, the drivers who park illegally, those who speed and those who use their mobiles while driving – they are all road users who break the law. But hold on, the last time I looked, cyclists were responsible for about 1 death every 2 years so maybe Miss Trott should get her priorities sorted before opening her mouth.
And is she really suggesting that I need a plastic hat to ride my Dutch Bike along the NCN Route 4 (the Millennium Coastal Path)to go shopping?
with ‘cycling ambassadors’
with ‘cycling ambassadors’ like this who needs enemies? Who are the other cycling ambassadors by the way; Paul Dacre and Eric Pickles I presume, or that daft #bloody cyclists# individual on twitter, whatever her name was?
Still I suppose now she’s got the funding, got the OBE, got the medals she is free to turn around and s**t on the sport that gave her everything
Bye bye Trotty :H
hillboy wrote:with ‘cycling
More delusional thinking from faceless internet twerps.
You think because you don’t agree with her that she has ‘s**t on the sport’, what exactly have you done for the sport? You think she will somehow disappear because you put a comment on an internet forum? You are going to be very disappointed when you hear from the young, fit, attractive, celebrity, athlete again.
Bye, bye Hillboy :H
bikeboy76 wrote:hillboy
More delusional thinking from faceless internet twerps.
You think because you don’t agree with her that she has ‘s**t on the sport’, what exactly have you done for the sport? You think she will somehow disappear because you put a comment on an internet forum? You are going to be very disappointed when you hear from the young, fit, attractive, celebrity, athlete again.
Bye, bye Hillboy :H— hillboy
+1 – Some people seem to be confused about cycling as a sport and cycling as a mode of transport. But regardless you hardly start to get peoples respect and wider awareness if your reaction is effectively not recognising your common ground.
I don’t really get this idea that there is a natural anti-cycling bias in the media. After all doesn’t the TImes (someone has already mentioned the journalist that got injured that began their campaign) have a pro-cycling stance in order to get better transport routes.
If cycling was really this pariah of the roads, why is there more efforts now to create safer cycling routes? Why has the Major of London set up the Boris Bike scheme? Why have a cycling ambassador? Why set up schemes to help people learn to ride on the streets of London.
You know why Trott has come out with these comments? It’s because they are trying to get cycling to a middle ground, with other road users, so that other law abiding citizens sit together in a common position and understanding, with mutual respect. If you keep denying the problems within in a group the it looks like you are protecting/condoning their actions – it means that you alienate other ‘groups’. By Trott pointing out that there are idiots it helps people identify with the law abiding cyclists.
I actually think that when ever there is an incident in a newspaper (or online) reporting a cycle accident they are usually pretty favourable in that they don’t seek to determine who was in the right or wrong – which I infer is a reticence to point the blame if the cyclist has lost their life because they’ve already paid a high penalty if there were in the wrong – though I actually feel that we learn little from that. If we understand why people get killed we can take individual action to minimise our risks…..though you can never eliminate risk.
bikeboy76 wrote:hillboy
More delusional thinking from faceless internet twerps.
You think because you don’t agree with her that she has ‘s**t on the sport’, what exactly have you done for the sport? You think she will somehow disappear because you put a comment on an internet forum? You are going to be very disappointed when you hear from the young, fit, attractive, celebrity, athlete again.
Bye, bye Hillboy :H— hillboy
well, as one faceless twerp to another you’re right, I haven’t done what Trott has done: I haven’t milked cycling for public funding whilst harbouring contempt for the people whose taxes and lottery tickets are paying for it, I haven’t claimed to be an ambassador for cycling then told people I claim to represent they had it coming when they get run over, I haven’t flounced out of an air conditioned velodrome, never having had even to buy my own kit or bike and lectured real people in the real world who work for a living how they should ride their bikes on the roads, I haven’t abused my celebrity status and national jersey as a platform to vent my hatred of ordinary cyclists. I ride my bike for the love of it, not for cash and a political platform.
as for being fit an attractive, well, it is what’s inside that counts and inside she is just another fat bloke in a 4×4 who thinks bikes shouldn’t be on the road
So Hillboy, you are saying
So Hillboy, you are saying that it is NEVER the cyclist’s fault? Even the cyclists I see everyday in London cycling dangerously, jumping red lights, cycling the wrong way down one-way streets? It is NEVER their fault?
Saying that it is SOMETIMES the cyclist’s fault is not the same as saying it is ALWAYS the cyclist’s fault or even MOSTLY or OFTEN the cyclist’s fault.
It drives me mad watching cyclists ride so badly because the motorists and pedestrians don’t remember the 9 cyclists who waited at the red light, they only see the 1 who charged through and so fed the ill conceived view that ‘all cyclists are dangerous, law breakers.’
Laura Trott has been an integral part of the successful British Cycling scene that has encouraged more, and particularly younger, riders to get onto bikes. I applaud that. I can’t see anything that she has done that equates to ‘harbouring contempt for tax payers’. Perhaps you can explain in a rational way what you mean.
There is undoubtedly a growing level of animosity between motorists and cyclists caused by an entrenched and irrational minority from both types of road users. Your posts seem to put you in one of these groups.
Attempts to improve matters to the benefit of all, by rational debate is blocked by both of these parties because, to quote the excellent Ben Goldacre, ‘You can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into.’ The longer these attitudes exists the more people join each extreme faction and the worse the situation gets for all.
I was very impressed with her
I was very impressed with her assessment. She is true, certain people in certain road user groups. let’s say do not pay attention and do not anticipate.
Until Laura went to say how helmets should be compulsory. That’s when she lost all credibility.
Ah, helmets. Light the touch
Ah, helmets. Light the touch paper and stand back.
While I don’t necessarily agree they should be compulsory, pretty much everything else is Nail, hit, head.
It’s been my misfortune to see some real *rses riding into London and Glasgow over the years, who do nothing more than start problems that other people get enveloped in.
Yes, a significant minority of cyclists are idiots, have no road sense, and should be prosecuted enthusiastically. Part of it is some sort of machismo “guerilla” attitude that being on a bike is somehow “hard” and rebellious. No, it’s just a great way to travel.
Get over it, we share our roads, we should ALL share politely and accept our own blame, irrespective of mode of transport. And no, I don’t want totally segregated bike lanes – just everyone travelling properly would solve the damn problem.
@ColinP eloquently put.
@ColinP eloquently put.
“I actually think that when
“I actually think that when ever there is an incident in a newspaper (or online) reporting a cycle accident they are usually pretty favourable in that they don’t seek to determine who was in the right or wrong – which I infer is a reticence to point the blame if the cyclist has lost their life because they’ve already paid a high penalty if there were in the wrong”
Newspapers will rarely opine on blame as accidents are often “sub judice” and offering views can prejudice subsequent trials landing newspapers in the brown stuff. Hence the reason why they report simple facts like whether the victim was wearing a helmet….
Would you like some ketchup
Would you like some ketchup to go with that chip on your shoulder? :))
Read the article again and
Read the article again and was confused by her quote,”If you don’t do it then London’s roads will be filled with cyclists”.
That is a strange thing for a cycling ambassador to say – sounds like she’s backing a scheme to get cyclists off London’s roads??
Then I read further down that she was speaking after just being announced as the ambassador for the Lee Valley Velo Park (facilities include a road cycling circuit). Now I’m starting to put 2 and 2 together!
Perhaps her comments were planned and well-thought after all. If cyclists are on the road, then they’re not spending cash at the Velo Park! Respectable cyclists only cycle on shiny new cycling-highways and in velo parks. Roads were not designed for bikes and only an “aggressive lycra-clad minority” would dare to cycle on them!
I’ve read the article 3 times now, and find it more ludicrous each time. The caption under the first picture is brilliant – “No Helmet: man on Boris Bike”. Who said there is no anti-cycling bias in the mainstream media?
Wake up!!
Bus drivers sit lower, and
Bus drivers sit lower, and have 360deg glass / visibility. Bike riders show int he windows as well as mirrors. For an HGV, the height and high sided doors create massive blind spots.
It’s as much up to us as cyclists to take consideration of our own actions, think about whether we’re in blind spots etc. I’ve been dealing with this for 30+ years as I rode motorbikes only for many years. It’s as much a problem for bikers as cyclists. But at the end of the day, when you undertake an HGV / Van at a junction, run a red light, pavement hop etc – it’s your decision and your responsibility to ensure your safety.
Bigfoz wrote:Bus drivers sit
[quote=Bigfoz]Bus drivers sit lower, and have 360deg glass / visibility. Bike riders show int he windows as well as mirrors. For an HGV, the height and high sided doors create massive blind spots. I’ve been dealing with this for 30+ years….
[[[[ Only 30 years? Compared with me, you’re a beginner. I’ve never been side-swiped by a lorry, despite regularly riding through at junctions…but are you really suggesting that in 2013 it’s beyond the wit of man to design a decent near-side mirror for high-sided vehicles? Gimme a break!
P.R.
Quote:I actually think that
We must be reading different articles…
Most of the ones I read there’s something in there, usually a subtle insidious little dig along the lines of:
“The cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, …”
or
“The cyclist, who’s bike did not have any lights, was hit head on when the car left the road…”
Each time, a subtle little shifting of the blame, almost implying that because the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet/hi-vis or did not have lights that he somehow deserved to be hit or at least that the motorist is entirely innocent. Even the phrase “the car left the road” is the same – implying that the car somehow got bored of being on the tarmac and decided to take the scenic route of its own free will and not remotely connected to the poor innocent hard-working tax-paying driver behind the wheel.
You never get that with any other type of incident – when did you last read:
“The pedestrian, who was not wearing a helmet, tripped…”
or
The robbery victim, who was not wearing a stab vest, is in critical condition…”
??
(sorry, gone a bit off-topic there although I suppose I’m still on the media reporting side, even if not directly connected to the Laura Trott story).
Crazy-legs, the problem is
Crazy-legs, the problem is that you’re reading these articles without putting on the reality-distoring goggles featured by the foul-mouthed, anti-science, cyclist-blaming helmet pushers.
Try smearing your eyes with a mixture of equal parts of silliness, authoritarianism and ignorance and you’ll start to see The Fear.
to answer any posters who
to answer any posters who questioned my comments about “3/4 of cyclists not obeying the highway code on my daily commute” I am sorry to say its true
this morning at 8.15am. riding from NW1 to WC2. Numerous instances of RLJ by cyclists alongside me. If 10 cyclists come to a RL, only 2-3 will remain, the rest will jump the RL.
On foot this afternoon, saw numerous instances of RLJ, riding up 1-way streets, riding on pavement, etc.
its way too common to be ignored. Its something I have noticed in the 2 years especially as cyclist numbers have increased dramatically including the lawless “Boris Bikers” who seem to do what the hell they like / want
I have been commuting in London for 20 years+, and in many previous years the only cyclists on the London roads were responsible, experienced commuting cyclists, the couriers have always acted like dickheads and RLJ or ridden dangerously and I have seen more than a couple of those people end up in serious traffic collisions
hampstead_bandit wrote:to
999 Absolutely spot-on, squire. When I see RLJ-er’s, I holler, “Yeah, go on, give us all a bad name!”
P.R.
PhilRuss wrote:999 Absolutely
When you drive, do you pull up drivers going through red lights? Or breaking the speed limit? Or using mobiles? Do you hang around pub car parks to stop drink drivers?
farrell wrote:PhilRuss
FARRELL—do I what? “Pull up drivers”? No, and I don’t “pull up” cyclists. I’m not a cop. And I do give mobile-using drivers (and ASL-encroachers) the beady eye, and if they’re about my size I do sometimes give ’em a verbal or two. However, when I’m out of the car and on the bike, I try to set a good example….don’t you? People are watching, and they often judge the many by the deeds of the few.
P.R.
Will LT cook me a McD?
Will LT cook me a McD?
Because she is 21 years old
Because she is 21 years old and a British Olympic cyclist she cant have views on a subject ?
She has to follow the party line and not speak her mind ?
Half the comments on here are utter crap but you can speak your mind cant you ?
My personal opinion is that she is right, there are a minority who spoil it for the majority.
Yes we need better infrastructure and better driver training but can she not say what she thinks and at the tender age of 21 she has probably ridden more road miles than the majority of people on here so she probably is more experienced and knowledgable than most people on here.
Feel free to lambast me with your own personal views just as Laura presented her own personal views.
stumps wrote:…at the tender
Well, I don’t want to lambast you, I don’t think it’s helpful when these debates get too heated. I would like to offer another angle on your point there though.
At the tender age of 21, Laura Trott exists in an extremely rarified world of cycling at the highest levels of performance. Yes, she’s perfectly free to speak from her own experience, but the reality of cycling and the level of risk it involves is almost certainly quite different for her than it is for an average utility cyclist who rarely ventures above 12mph.
I agree with her on bad cyclists – they annoy me too, but they’re not representative of every cyclist on the road. And her reasoning on helmet legislation is flawed. It’s based anecdotal assumptions, with no scientific or statistical backing.
Let’s look at that another way. It’s well documented that cycle helmets are not designed or tested to cope with impacts as extreme as those likely to result from a collision with a car. So the fact that her sister suffered a serious concussion in such a collision in spite of wearing one could just as easily be argued as evidence that cycle helmets are not terribly effective in those circumstances. Of course, without being able to reconstruct the situation identically for both helmeted and unhelmeted riders, it can’t really be proved either way.
And that’s the problem with any proposed helmet law. There isn’t nearly enough proper evidence to support it. Ben Goldacre and David Spiegelhalter sum it up better than I can, here. Laws should never be passed without good reason – the absence of a bad reason isn’t enough (even assuming that there are none, which a lot of people would dispute).
Laura Trott is usually very impressive in her public presentation, but this a misstep. Yes, she’s entitled to her opinions, but she’s also in a privileged position where her views gain a disproportionately high level of attention. By all means, do her bit to lead by example and help make it cool for people to choose to wear a helmet, but when she’s speaking on matters of law that would affect every cyclist in the country, she does have a duty to make sure that her opinions are well informed.
stumps wrote:Feel free to
I suppose if it was made law your lot would have a cracking time making boat loads of easy pulls.
farrell wrote:stumps
No, not really. If you want to be stupid and not wear one and get caught, if they are compulsory, thats your own fault. However i have much more important things to deal with than stopping people on bikes.
Whilst I agree with Laura’s
Whilst I agree with Laura’s general view about the poor standards of cycling in the capital I think her comments are poorly thought through. The message should be that some road users of all types show a disregard for the law and the safety of themselves and others. Making specific reference to the behaviour of cyclists skews the issue.
On helmets, I’m inclined to take with a pinch of salt the advice of someone who has such affiliation with bodies such as British Cycling and the cycle industry on the whole. It’s probably also worth noting that no one in her position would get away with saying that you don’t need to wear a helmet. They are therefore are forced into a position of pro-compliance, whether this is their real view or not.
If helmets become compulsory
If helmets become compulsory does that mean they will have to be built to withstand a certain degree of impact and pass an approved standard, like motorcycle helmets?
If, Yes, it may well be counterproductive to those pro-cyclists supporting compulsory helmets as they will have to wear heavier more substantial helmets than at present. Why? Well that is what happened to motorcycle helmets.
If, No, then cycle helmets, when compared to motorcycle helmets, will continue be as ineffective at saving lives as they are at present.
Light weight helmets (needed for cyclists) are less effective at impact protection than heavier helmets. Indeed, it is the thick soft, spongy, foam padding in motorcycle helmets, that affords most protection, supported with a hard exterior and expanded polystyrene mid layer. Cycle helmets would need a significant upgrade to achieve the same protection and would certainly be heavier and hotter to wear in summer when most cycling is done – this would lead to a lower number of new cyclists, more people giving up and more law breakers. Also will compulsion only be required on public roads? I assume so.
I am in the free choice camp and still wear a helmet most of the time. I ride motorcycles too and know that my £500 kevlar reinforced full face helmet would not make any difference to my survival, if I was hit at normal urban road speeds by a car, van, bus, or lorry. My head would not likely be involved until I hit the deck and that is increasingly unlikely as my speed drops to walking or jogging pace. Most deaths on cycles result from impact with other vehicles not from falling off the bike. We understand this when we first learn to ride as a child. After 46 years of cycling I cannot remember one instance of falling off my bike and my head hitting anything with or without a helmet. Even falling off my motorcycle on 3 or 4 occasions at 30mph or so, did not result in any head impact.
I wear my cycle helmet to hedge my bets if I fall off at speed, much like Pro cyclists do, or during the hours of darkness to increase my visibility. If I am pottering about on my bicycle, at walking or jogging pace, I don’t wear my helmet and wear a baseball cap instead.
I want the right to choose and not be compelled, either by the State or by helmet manufacturer lobbyists.
100% with you BigBear63,
100% with you BigBear63, although pros don’t necesarily choose to lid up, the rules of competitive cycling compel them to.
im getting deja vu, im sure
im getting deja vu, im sure we all have this same debate every week…
i’d like to summarise my opinions on all these topics, in priority order –
1)
at th end of the day cyclists need to stop breaking the law (because we have no registration number some people seem to think rules dont apply to us?), especially jumping red lights… in reality, if they do RLJ then what is the consiquence? why is it so bad? – people rarely get hurt. but i think th problem is that the “cyclist reputation” gets damaged – this is why it must stop. with cyclists having “the bad name” that they do at the moment we can never get the majority of people, politicians and TFL behind us because the average joe just thinks we get hurt and its our own fault…. until we clean up our act how can we move forwards? it is a massive stumbling block….
2)
stronger sentencing must be passed down to drivers (of taxis, cars, motorbikes, hgvs – everyone) who endanger the lives of cyclists. whether this is red light jumping, left turnning and crushing cyclists, encroaching in ASL(bike boxes), overtaking extremely close and at speed…. this will give the message to respect other road users (eg cyclists), and because we (cyclists) have already cleaned up our act the other motorists will have no excuse to get angry at us and point their finger and say “but sir, he jumped the red light too”….. when cyclists are squeaky clean we can clean up the motorists act too and will have support and sympathy of the majority when someone in a car almost runs us over or a hgv crushes someone at a left turn….
3)
least importantly (out of these three) better road design is needed. (im not saying this ISNT important, im saying only after ticking the first two boxes can this truly move forward with speed) this cuts out the need for better training (for drivers AND cyclists) because better road design = no conflict between cyclists vehicles….. 9AND no conflict with cyclists and pedestrians too hopefully!).
when these three are done more people will be able to enjoy cycling on th road for recreation or transport and discussing helmets and other things will be a drop in the ocean (which at the moment just cloud the real issues)
I believe we should wear a
I believe we should wear a lid… Just makes good sense too.
But Boris your Barclay’s Bike Scheme, none available… 😐
Wow – I find myself agreeing
Wow – I find myself agreeing with Dave Atkinson for once!
He’s right – trucks should not be able to kill cyclists with a single mistake – there are proximity sensors that can be fitted to trucks they should be mandatory (I think it’s only a matter of time). Another issue is kerbs and barriers – these are lethal to cyclists who are trapped by a left turning overtaking truck. I think all barriers on road junctions should be removed (near where I live I think they’ve become magnetic judging by the number of dents from cars).
The other point I’d make is that the perception of cyclists matters – wearing a helmet gives a better impression like it or not. I think it’s just a matter of time before helmets are considered the same as seatbelts.
I am appalled at how many cyclists I see jumping the lights on Euston Road – one was almost hit by a coach (a split-second later they would not have been seen). I had him on video but lost him in the chase.