"It's not always the car's fault" - Laura Trott says reckless cyclists to blame if they get hurt & helmets should be compulsory

Double Olympic champion says riders breaking law shouldn't be surprised if they get hit

by Simon_MacMichael   August 30, 2013  

Laura Trott (copyright Britishcycling.org.uk)

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 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

bikeboy76 wrote:
hillboy wrote:
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 Wave


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 Wave

+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.

posted by Colin Peyresourde [1200 posts]
31st August 2013 - 20:09

13 Likes

@ColinP eloquently put.



I am stronger than Mensa, Miller and Mailer, I spat out Plath and Pinter.

bikeboy76's picture

posted by bikeboy76 [1434 posts]
31st August 2013 - 20:17

10 Likes

"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....

posted by arfa [542 posts]
31st August 2013 - 20:51

12 Likes

bikeboy76 wrote:
hillboy wrote:
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 Wave


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 Wave

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 4x4 who thinks bikes shouldn't be on the road

posted by hillboy [11 posts]
31st August 2013 - 21:25

15 Likes

Would you like some ketchup to go with that chip on your shoulder? Laughing



I am stronger than Mensa, Miller and Mailer, I spat out Plath and Pinter.

bikeboy76's picture

posted by bikeboy76 [1434 posts]
31st August 2013 - 22:33

10 Likes

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!!

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
31st August 2013 - 23:18

12 Likes

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.

PhilRuss

posted by PhilRuss [306 posts]
1st September 2013 - 0:16

15 Likes

stephen connor wrote:
"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.

PhilRuss

posted by PhilRuss [306 posts]
1st September 2013 - 1:32

11 Likes

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.

Not so much a six pack as a barrel!

posted by Bigfoz [76 posts]
1st September 2013 - 9:30

13 Likes

Quote:
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.

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).

posted by crazy-legs [567 posts]
1st September 2013 - 13:13

11 Likes

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.

posted by Ush [434 posts]
1st September 2013 - 21:33

11 Likes

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

posted by hampstead_bandit [220 posts]
2nd September 2013 - 13:15

10 Likes

hampstead_bandit wrote:
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


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

posted by PhilRuss [306 posts]
2nd September 2013 - 14:32

10 Likes

Bigfoz wrote:
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.

PhilRuss

posted by PhilRuss [306 posts]
2nd September 2013 - 14:50

11 Likes

PhilRuss wrote:
999 Absolutely spot-on, squire. When I see RLJ-er's, I holler, "Yeah, go on, give us all a bad name!"
P.R.

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?

posted by farrell [1580 posts]
2nd September 2013 - 15:08

10 Likes

Will LT cook me a McD?

posted by dogcc [124 posts]
3rd September 2013 - 19:08

11 Likes

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.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2846 posts]
4th September 2013 - 8:26

10 Likes

stumps wrote:
...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.

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.

Quote:
In 2010 her sister, Emma, 23, broke her collarbone and suffered concussion so bad that she “barely even knew who she was” when a car hit five British riders in Belgium.

Trott believes that Emma’s life was saved by the helmet she wore. She said: “When I was 11 I didn’t want to look uncool but my parents wouldn’t let me out unless I was wearing it.

“I think it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet. So many lives have been saved by them and it saved my sister’s life. She got hit by a car and cut her head open.

“When Emma called from hospital she barely even knew who she was, so if she wasn’t wearing a helmet now she wouldn’t be here today."

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.

posted by MartinH [18 posts]
4th September 2013 - 9:32

9 Likes

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.

posted by Matt eaton [490 posts]
4th September 2013 - 11:17

7 Likes

stumps wrote:
Feel free to lambast me with your own personal views just as Laura presented her own personal views.

I suppose if it was made law your lot would have a cracking time making boat loads of easy pulls.

posted by farrell [1580 posts]
4th September 2013 - 11:39

9 Likes

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.

posted by BigBear63 [72 posts]
4th September 2013 - 11:46

3 Likes

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.

posted by BigBear63 [72 posts]
4th September 2013 - 11:51

6 Likes

100% with you BigBear63, although pros don't necesarily choose to lid up, the rules of competitive cycling compel them to.

posted by Matt eaton [490 posts]
4th September 2013 - 12:01

10 Likes

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)

Feel the fear and do it anyway

hood's picture

posted by hood [117 posts]
4th September 2013 - 12:53

7 Likes

james-o wrote:
Quote:
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

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.

+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)

Feel the fear and do it anyway

hood's picture

posted by hood [117 posts]
4th September 2013 - 13:01

6 Likes

farrell wrote:
stumps wrote:
Feel free to lambast me with your own personal views just as Laura presented her own personal views.

I suppose if it was made law your lot would have a cracking time making boat loads of easy pulls.

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.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2846 posts]
4th September 2013 - 16:25

6 Likes

I believe we should wear a lid... Just makes good sense too.

But Boris your Barclay's Bike Scheme, none available... Plain Face

BCC

posted by BearstedCC [57 posts]
5th September 2013 - 6:09

8 Likes

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.

If cycling is indeed a sport of self-abuse why aren't more cyclists sectioned under the mental health act?

posted by hairyairey [292 posts]
5th September 2013 - 9:40

6 Likes

farrell wrote:
PhilRuss wrote:
999 Absolutely spot-on, squire. When I see RLJ-er's, I holler, "Yeah, go on, give us all a bad name!"
P.R.

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---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.

PhilRuss

posted by PhilRuss [306 posts]
6th September 2013 - 14:00

6 Likes

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.

posted by Stinkers [10 posts]
29th January 2014 - 11:38

7 Likes