Veteran BBC broadcaster John Humphrys has weighed into the cycle safety debate in the wake of the death of a London cyclists outside the Olympic Park.
In an article entitled Cycling: Do we take it seriously enough? the Today programme and Mastermind host lit the touchpaper with the question 'who's to blame?'
After mulling over the views of motorists vs. cyclists, he then threw caution to the wind and entered the helmet debate, saying:
"After all, motorcyclists have been compelled to wear helmets for the last forty years or so.
"There seems to be no logic behind forcing one group of road users to wear helmets and not the other.
"It’s true that motorcyclists are likely to be travelling much faster when they have an accident and so risk greater injury to their brains if they are not wearing a helmet.
"But cyclists, riding at slower speeds, can still suffer fatal brain damage."
It's not Humphry's first foray into cycle safety (click here to see him take on shoddy supermarket flat-pack bikes) but he may find himself surprised at the strength of feeling in the community about the issue.
Or maybe not. He writes:
"Cyclists complain that motorists drive too fast, that they are too careless and that they often simply fail to see cyclists before it is too late to avoid an accident.
"Motorists complain that some cyclists seem to think they own the road, ignoring traffic lights, swarming round slow-moving cars and recklessly cutting in on the inside of traffic.
"Too many of them seem to think they don’t need to have lights at night. Accidents seem inevitable."
Humphrys is not the first broadcast star to become involved in cycle safety talk either; Jon Snow, Channel 4 news anchor and CTC President addressed Parliament earlier this year about the lack of provision for cyclists in the UK.
59 thoughts on “John Humphrys asks: who’s to blame for cycle safety?”
I can’t even be bothered
I can’t even be bothered anymore. X(
The thing is though that
The thing is though that cycling needs well known and publicly liked people to enter the discussion and offer their personal assessment otherwise it will be forever argued over on forum sites and one day the Govt at the time will make a knee jerk reaction and come up with some stupid legislation.
As long as the discussion is helpful and shows facts rather than hearsay then it can only help in the long run.
Falling off a bike you cannot
Falling off a bike you cannot legislate for. Getting hit by a car travelling over 30mph in a 30 mph zone can be legislated. Helmets aren’t the real issue – speed is. According to one study there is a death rate for pedestrians of 5% when struck by a car travelling at 20mph versus 45% at 30mph. I would imagine the cyclist figures to be broadly concurrent.
Helmets are a side show. The real elephant in the room is speed. Slowing traffic makes sense but not to politicians or local councillors as it doesn’t boost votes. This island is too small and broke to engineer separate roads for bikes and cars but until speed is reduced sharing will not happen without more preventable fatalities – helmets or no helmets.
I wish cyclists would stop getting distracted by the side issues and back the ’20
Is Plenty’ campaign.
Smoking in pubs, seatbelts, drink driving. All delt with. Speed reduction is the key here.
Having been knocked off by a
Having been knocked off by a hit and run driver,change is needed too many motorists do not know the law when passing cyclist education and clarity is needed on the other hand group riding not alot of cosideration is given to drivers faults on both parties but clarity is needed
Kingy wrote:Having been
[[[[[[[ Huh? So is punctuation….
P.R.
Kingy wrote:Having been
I’m all for education. Let’s start with full stops.
When you bring up the speed
When you bring up the speed issue the claim is that speed doesn’t contribute to accidents. I have to say to a degree I agree. But as raised above it is survivability that speed affects. Even inside a metal box with seat belts, air bags etc as speed gets higher injury rates will increase. For pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists the effect of speed on their outcome from an accident that effect is multiplied massively. The helmet debate is a red herring imho.
The problem when high profile people get involved in the discussion is they either spout personal opinion, are ignorant or are asked the question out of context and often provide a poorly considered reply.
What MercuryOne said.
What MercuryOne said.
Sorry to split hairs, but
Sorry to split hairs, but it’s not speed that is the problem, per se. It’s too much speed at inappropriate times. I don’t want drivers to simply slow down; I want them to think about *why* they should slow down. Setting a lower speed limit simply takes away another decision for a driver. Even 20mph may well be too high in some circumstances. A good analogy is drivers giving a signal, whatever the circumstances, rather than checking whether there is actually someone around who will benefit from the signal. It’s about driver attitude towards other road users, especially cyclists, but it’s very difficult to tell someone that s/he is a bad driver.
It put it better here:
MercuryOne has identified the
MercuryOne has identified the real problem.
Why do Humphrys, Wiggins and others insist on ignoring this and concentrate on recommending an unproven, pseudo-safety device?
I look forward to seeing Mr. Humphrys in his motorcycle helmet and full leathers…
Anyone stupid enough to call
Anyone stupid enough to call a helmet an ‘unproven, pseudo-safety device’ should not be made to wear one… the real issue isn’t speeds or safe driving, it’s that there are people out there who are that stupid reproducing. I encourage everyone who doubts helmets to ride without them… ride quickly among traffic and on dangerous roads. Hopefully, natural selection will weed out some of you fools.
Except that a bike helmet,
Except that a bike helmet, unlike a motorcycle one, offers support only up to about 12mph. I wear one all the time, but I don’t think it will offer me any safety, unless I fall off, on my own, at low speed.
I completely support the right of people to make their own choices. And the obligation on drivers of motor vehicles not to hit us.
There is evidence that some drivers go closer to people on bikes wearing helmets.
There is no evidence that people with helmets are in fact safer. There is evidence that where helmets are compulsory, cycling becomes less safe.
Don’t let “common sense” trump evidence. And don’t let drivers think that they aren’t responsible when they hit us.
Quote:Why do Humphrys,
Because it appears to make sense. The problem is that, like a lot of things that make sense, the evidence just isn’t there for a safety benefit.
Having said this, I always wear a helmet on the bike, but I do feel it should be a personal choice.
Andy
I realise that 20mph is a
I realise that 20mph is a pain in the arse when driving. I don’t foresee making most residential areas 20mph zones actually slowing motorists to 20mph. Unfortunately after 50 years of social drift the 30mph limit actually means 35-40mph to over 60% of drivers. I hope 20mph limits will instead slow people to 25mph-30mph as the death rate at speeds below 30mph – for all concerned – is far less.
Once everyone is used to travelling more slowly more people will get back on bikes.
The funny thing is all local councils now have the power to set such limits without permission from the DoT. It’s within our grasp to pressure this change through town by town and get our kids back on bikes to school.
Brad Wiggins needs to push’ 20 is plenty’ and as his wife Cath is a member is our club I shall be putting it to the power behind the throne. 😀
Good, we can save hundred of
Good, we can save hundred of lives and make motorists and their passengers wear helmets.
Its simple to solve for the
Its simple to solve for the future…
Start laying dedicated roads for Bikes Today, just like we did when the Motor Car was invented, and the train, so why not Cycles..
People would flock to the cycle roads (Paying for it, well that’s another discussion)..
This would provide harmony safe and Pure common sense amongst this non stop divide between cyclist and Motorist..
+1 with MercuryOne on both
+1 with MercuryOne on both posts. The helmet debate is a red herring. Until central and local government legislate the protection of vulnerable road users and NOT by demanding that they dress in fluorescent colours and wear various types of body armour then our roads will continue to generate fatalities. We all know that the majority of collisions will have been caused by speed and commonsense tell us that slowing down will reduce the risk to all. The recent research in Scotland regards speed cameras proves this. In a nutshell SLOW DOWN!!
Thing is, when you do drive
Thing is, when you do drive at 20mph along a road with speedbumps (and that’s as fast as you want to) there’s always some numpty coming up behind tailgating because he/she wants to get past. My own street has speedbumps and it’s residential, so 20 is plenty. But the other week I had some loon tailgating and flashing his lights behind me because he clearly thought it was ok to go faster. As he was so close, I slowed down to reduce the potential impact damage in the event of an incident.
In his case, and in those of many others I’ve seen, education is the key.
Cycling into the centre of London this week I was struck by how empty of cars the streets are. These Olympics are really good for cycling across the city. That still didn’t stop me and my wife from having yet another loon zoom past with only cm to spare.
Does anyone have to be to
Does anyone have to be to blame? Sometimes shit happens.
20 is plenty in some places,
20 is plenty in some places, all road users need education, however on the British road system as it is if you haven’t got lights on your bike and your not wearing a helmet then you are stupid. I know it won’t stop every death but it gives you a fighting chance.
Now here come all the helmet haters. (|:
John Humphrys should stick to
John Humphrys should stick to what he’s good at – asking questions – to get some facts to support his assertions.
There have historically been high numbers of single vehicle motorcycle accidents where excessive speed has been the factor. In collisions involving cyclists it’s a mix of excessive speed, driver inattention and vehicle design (blind spots).
We could compensate for vehicle blind spots with better training/education, but the best way forward in countering the other two is lower speeds.
The one remaining issue will be collisions between motorised vehicles and cyclists on country roads.
Guy. Shit does not have to
Guy. Shit does not have to happen. As road users we all have a responsibility to drive/cycle within our abilities, keep our speed down, beaware of other road users and hazzards. As a driver I see other drivers charge along the motorway in poor visability and over surface water at excess speeds. These same drivers hurtle along narrow country roads withiut thought that there may be pedestrians, livestock or a cyclist round the next blind corner. Theey also race along our urban roads at speeds of 50mph instead of 30mph
As a cyclist I see other cyclists rlj’ing. Weaving along the road unconcerned about what’s behind them. Using pavements. Cycling without lights.
If a little common sence and road craft was applied by all then this shit will never need to happen
I’ve just ordered a helmet
I’ve just ordered a helmet cam. I’m thinking of painting a camera logo on my reflective jacket, it just might make the idiots and the careless think a little.
I drive also drive a camper van and I bet I infuriate some drivers on country roads because I always try to drive at a speed that would let me brake safely if I come across a cyclist on a bend. It’s a bit wide to be able to overtake a bike safely if there is something coming the other way. I also give cyclists a very wide berth when overtaking, I don’t know how much draught is created by my van but again I am amazed how many motorists only pull out a foot or so to overtake a bike even when there is nothing coming the other way.
If everyone who walked,
If everyone who walked, cycled, drove, or rode a horse on the public road did so in the manner in which the Highway Code suggests then we’d probably all be much safer.
Sorry but I disagree with
Sorry but I disagree with widespread 20mph speed limits. On the surface it sounds fine, but ultimately everyone is trying to get somewhere, and ever-lower blanket speed limits just serve to frustrate people, and they over-compensate by driving like maniacs once they think they can get away with it. Driver education and a cultural shift, although more difficult, are IMHO, a better way forward.
As for the helmet debate, ISTR there was a case in the US where a cyclist failed to claim ‘no fault’ because, while they couldn’t help being hit by a car, they were judged to have not taken reasonable precautions against injury due to not wearing a helmet; hence joint liability for the head injuries sustained. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think the same thing could happen here.
In dense urban areas, cars
In dense urban areas, cars already average 20mph or less anyway, because of junctions, street layout and regular traffic lights. Many road cyclists will already know this, from seeing the same cars at light after light – sometimes even leaving them behind.
E.g. I average about 25km/h commuting – including time stopped at lights – which is about the same speed as cars manage through Glasgow city. I’ve seen the same cars even after *10km* of cycling, on roads where traffic is flowing.
So, please tell me, what is the point of allowing cars to hit peak speeds of 48km/h (30 mph) when they’re only going average 20 to 30 km/h (12 to 18mph) anyway? Those high peak speeds only buy the car driver extra time sitting at lights – no significant effect on journey time. However, they significantly the risks to the pedestrians and cyclists who must share those roads. Why is that acceptable?
Can someone in a commonsense
Can someone in a commonsense way explain why it is NOT a good idea to wear a helmet without spouting facts and figures about their effectiveness.
In my humble opinion the wearing of a helmet is common sense. It wont stop you from getting hit or knocked off but it MAY save you getting your head bounced about, which seems a sensible thing.
You’ve rejigged a few things
You’ve rejigged a few things and are.asking the question in a loaded manner. I don’t think anyone is saying that you should not wear a helmet or that wearing a helmet is a bad thing, what people don’t want is to be told “you should be forced, by law and at risk of punishment, to wear a helmet. The arguments regarding their effectiveness only get brought in to counter the reasoning of “but you might get hit by a car”.
It’s like rationalising drive by shootings by saying you should be forced, by law and at risk of punishment, to be wear a bullet proof vest.
“i disagree with your
“i disagree with your viewpoint, however valid it may be, so I hope you are killed”.
What a marvellous way thinking, there should be more people like you in the world, spreading sunlight wherever you go.
It really is a shoddy article
It really is a shoddy article with driver behaviour glossed over.
I’m a pragmatist and will do
I’m a pragmatist and will do what’s necessary to ensure my own survival. I think the best self-defence against inattentive and foolish road behaviour is to be aware and anticipate hazards.
The barrier to be overcome is driver perception and attitude. Drivers don’t want to mow down cyclists, they just want to get from A to B quickly and act in their own self-interest. As we know, they are irrationally impatient in their haste to overtake cyclists, however, will sit in a trance at traffic signals whilst the cyclist catches them up (and maybe filters past to the white line at the front of the queue).
When you read the Highway Code, it refers to cyclists as vulnerable road users (rule 163). The challenge we face wearing helmets and high viz clothing, is that what we wear evokes images of elite athletes in the public’s perception, which contradicts the notion of vulnerability.
Likewise, John Franklin’s ‘Cyclecraft’ promotes a robust approach to ‘negotiating’ with motorised traffic – a logical consequence of our car-centric society, but one that only works for the most athletic minority of potential cyclists.
One of the best concepts I’ve come across in promoting active travel is the 8-80 principle – any road layout design should be equally effective for all road users between the ages of 8 and 80.
Why is it always the drivers
Why is it always the drivers fault?
Sensible precautions (helmets and hig-vis clothing) will help a cyclist be seen and be safe, there is no reason other than personal choice no to take these precautions. If you don’t want to wear high-vis clothing don’t, but don’t then blame a driver for not being able to see you if they legitimately can’t, not through inattentiveness or poor driving but through your own poor visibility.
Drivers aren’t evil, in fact some of them are even cyclists too :O Until we stop just knee-jerk blaming drivers for every problem and take some of the responsibility on ourselves for our own safety then no-body is going to listen. In fact, I don’t think I can be bothered to listen to the ‘it’s all the motorists fault that cyclists get knocked off/injured/killed’ anymore and I cycle, how do you think politician’s feel? Blaming motorists helps no-one, personal responsibility and co-operation will be what fixes the problems.
drheaton wrote:Why is it
It isn’t always the driver’s fault. But most of the time it is. The DfT has published data saying cyclists aren’t responsible for most of the accidents they’re involved in.
@giff77
Well said and great
@giff77
Well said and great constructive comments..
Problem is DrH. It doesn’t
Problem is DrH. It doesn’t matter how much we make ourselves visible. A significant percentage of drivers are either blissfully unaware or dont give a toss about other road users. They are a danger to themselves and others everytime they put that key in the ignition. Maybe I was fortunate when I was learning to drive my instructor drilled me in looking out for other road users and not just vehicles. This I hope has stood me in good stead over the years.
I totally agree with you that personal responsibility and co-operation is the way forward.
@uksportive -cheers!
Anyone stupid enough to call
Anyone stupid enough to call people who argue that helmets are unproven stupid, should be made to wear one, even in bed.
For the fact is that helmets ARE unproven, at least as regards normal road cycling conditions. The fact that they provide some measure of protection in no-other-involved falls at speeds of up to 20kph and from heights of up to 1.2m is in no way proof that they provide any protection whatever against collision with a 1.5 tonne metal box travelling at 30mph or more, or that they protect against limb or torso injuries.
It may be the case that wesring a helmet does no harm (although some would argue that certain types of njury are actually exarcebated by helmets) but there is really very little indeed to show that it does much good.
And comparisons such as John Humphries makes with motorcycle helmets (and some will no doubt make with car seat belts) are meaningless. BOTH have considerable, conclusive evidence to support the proposition that they have a substantial mitigating, even life-saving, effect. Perhaps a cycle helmet might rate up with a motorbike helmet – if it were built the same way, but that would make it unusable due to the weight and to the self-generated heat of exertion which would cause extreme discomfort.
As a cop i have to wear body
As a cop i have to wear body armour, not because i regularly get shot at or stabbed but because one day it might happen and the powers that be deem that wearing it, no matter how small the risk is, it is better than no protection at all.
It’s not comfortable or “looks good” and generally wont stop a bullet (the trauma would probably kill us) but it might one day stop me from getting hurt.
Sounds very similar to helmets if you ask me 😕
– and we’re back to helmets
– and we’re back to helmets again! See how easy it’s to be distracted by the side issue? 😀
I’m not suggesting drivers are at fault. Cyclists who ride dangerously and use iPods or phones when riding are at fault as well. Drivers are only at fault to the extent that they expect to drive over the speed limit and if their reduced reaction time causes intimidation, injury or death expect to debate who is to blame. Speed reduction is the quickest, cheapest and logical solution. It works already and should be expanded.
How did we get to the state where we want our kids to ride to school but we also want to continue driving in residential streets at speeds which intimidate those that take the risk? It’s just bizarre that we have allowed this to develop and still think separating others onto expensive alternate routes so cars can continue as they are is the solution. I imagine my grandparents coming back from the beyond for a day and being horrified at what we’ve sacrificed in safety, freedom and quality of life just to sit in a tin box and be carried around in convenience. It’s blinkered madness and long over due for complete reevaluation – not tinkering around the edges with bike lanes, Hi Vis and protective head wear.
I advocate 20mph for suburbs and all school areas, 50 mph for the lanes where we once could walk, and as a pacifier for those that need ‘make up time’ 80mph on motorways.
So Stumps. Whilst your body
So Stumps. Whilst your body armour may or may not protect you and your colleagues fro injury. Does it also help reduce the levels of crime on our streets? Same thing then for helmets – they may/may not protect from head trauma. But you know what. The wearing of them will most definately not reduce the ‘carnage’ on our roads. I am against helmet compulsion. It is up to the individual. I do though want speed limits that will allow me to interact with motorists without fear. For the police to actually be. Arsed when I report a motorist for dangerous driving. For the courts to actually come up with realistic penalties rather than the 8 hours community service and a 50 pound fine. Maybe if motorists realised that they were facing a 10 year driving ban or min 2 years imprisonment for killing a vunerable road user then we would see less grim statistics.
giff77, why twist something i
giff77, why twist something i said or did you not read it properly ?
So here it is again – body armour wont stop a bullet but it might help me from getting hurt – helmets wont stop a ton of metal from squashing me but it might stop other minor injuries.
At no time did i say they reduce crime or that helmets reduce driver errors.
Obviously you dont care about the “minor” injuries and just accept them as part and parcel of your desired sport / activity hence your inability to see that helmets MAY stop an injury.
Helmet wearing will always be down to personal choice and i hope that it remains that way.
How many people commenting on
How many people commenting on here are drivers?
How many of you have taken steps to improve your driving post-test? (eg. IAM or RoSPA)
Just curious, like, but I’d be willing to bet my house that it’s very, very few. The same will be true of the non-cycling masses.
Most people (including those who are also cyclists) think they are good drivers. Most will NEVER undertake advanced training. Most will not take kindly to suggestions that they are bad/not good/poor/below average/average drivers.
Helmets, are not the issue. Speed limits are not the issue. High-profile cyclists could work wonders in communicating a ‘give us room’-style message to the wider population. There has never been a better time to implement a co-ordinated campaign. Sky should fund it.
Hi, I am a driver and I
Hi, I am a driver and I passed my advanced driving test back in 2006, so that’s two of us here at least 🙂
I have to say I think it was one of the most worthwhile things I’ve ever done, I’d recommend it to anyone that is serious about improving their driving.
The IAM also actively promote better cycling through their cycle training and publications.
http://www.iam.org.uk
A better way to understand road speed and whether it’s appropriate for the conditions and area you are driving in is to use this simple formula:
MPH x 1.5 = Feet Per Second.
So 30mph is 45 feet per second. Can you justify driving in a narrow street lined with parked cars at that kind of speed ? 1 second reaction time = 45 feet along the road.
Remember, it’s a speed LIMIT, not a TARGET.
CoIT – very good point mate,
CoIT – very good point mate, i have taken an advanced driving course which does help but without going into the ins and outs of it all does not make you a better driver in the long run.
The Sky idea might work though 😕
Stumpy, did you do a Skills
Stumpy, did you do a Skills for Life course with the IAM or ROSPA equivalent ? If so, did you go on to pass the Advanced Driving test ? Every advanced driver I know makes a point of trying to improve their driving long after they have taken the test.
I love the notion of cyclists
I love the notion of cyclists not being visible enough. If your eyesight/attention is so poor that you cannot see a cyclist then what are the chances of seeing a child? If you don’t know what’s there what hope have we? The SMIDSY is no excuse at all. I drive and try to maintain a good mental picture of what it all around; if something suddenly disappears it has either been kidnapped by aliens or may well be in my blind spot! Let me think… 😕
Felix wrote:I love the notion
So, on a dark night in driving rain, when you’re backlit by car headlights so the bike front lamp is all but invisible, the car driver who hits you is still in the wrong? The law says so, but are you prepared to put your life on the line by trying the experiment?
Aliens – blame them for
Aliens – blame them for everything 👿 👿
Of course speed is a factor
Of course speed is a factor in every accident, including walking into a lamp post. It’s a silly proposition and is simply used to foster the notion that ‘speeding’ is a factor. It isn’t. Physics will not support the notion that to exceed a number on a pole, especially arbitrary and unscientific ones, often based on political parochialism and no expertise, can cause anything at all. Just as daft is the notion that not to ‘speed’ will be safe and cause nothing. Fact is most accidents are below the limits and in those above, ‘speeding’ is merely coincidental even if present. For example in dangerous driving. To explain. On a motorway speeding commences at 70+. So clearly 150 MPH, 80 mph above ‘speeding’ can’t be ‘speeding’; it is dangerous where ‘speeding’ is coincidental.
The helmet debate misses the point entirely in 2012. I am a cyclist but cyclists hate me pointing out that under any other circumstances to mingle with and among many large pieces of essential machinery on the move, operated by those with a tiny demanding qualification, is madness and would be banned under ElfnSafety if it were a fairground ride. No concidence then that since politicians have been promoting cycling so the attrition rate has increased. Don’t they get the connection? Don’t cyclist? Indignance is not much good when turned into a cabbage with right on one’s side is it? When St Peter says to the child cyclist at the Pearly Gates ‘come in child it was the driver’s fault’.
Keep slowing a major infrastructure at about £3 billion be annum per 1 MPH, (Say £30 billion a year) How many lives could we save in the NHS, Emergency Services, A & E with that kind of money? Slowing road transport & prosecuting perfectly safe drivers, whilst the Road Safety Industry fills its coffers as it does, is not addressing the problem but actually killing people in other sectors.
Wake up guys. It aint 1912 it’s 2012.
Did the Police advanced
Did the Police advanced driving course.
We got taught a multitude of skills but unless you use those skills on a daily basis then little habits start to creep back in and although you can say i’m an advanced driver you probably aren’t unless you keep up with what you were taught virtually every time you get into a car.
Ah, now I understand. I find
Ah, now I understand. I find it interesting that as you had to do the course as part of your job you take a different view on keeping up with the skills you were taught.
I paid for the IAM course myself and it was my decision to improve my driving ability; every day I get in the car I do a cockpit drill, set off in “advanced driving” mode and I’m always looking to improve what I’m doing.
I admit that on some days I’m more easily distracted, maybe not paying as much attention as I’d like to be, but overall I’d say doing the course has definitely improved my driving and I’ve improved more since I passed my test.
PLUG: Have you considered taking up observing with an IAM group close to you ? Most observers say that coaching others improves their own skills too, plus you’ll be helping to reduce the number of incidents you have to attend 🙂
Haven’t read all of this, but
Haven’t read all of this, but everyone rattles on about education. How worthy and PC. Many people are just plain thick and too nstupid to be educated. maybe if we had a decenst sytem of justice instead. 60 quid for speeding is just condoning it not saying it’s wrong. Why not stick a zero on the end? No, make it a round £1000. That would slow people down.
It’s all part of our desire and the precieved norm of getting some where fatser being important.
I do have mixed feelings when I see the idiots on a bike though. To go down the road f the car driver being presumed guilty isn’t fair. It’s a bit like the idea of bull bars being wrong. Somewhere, some time ago , I read a report that roughly said that most (90%+) car/pedestrian collisions were a result of the pedestrian doing something stupid. Why then does the car driver get the heat?
I might as well put my
I might as well put my penny’s worth in!
Firstly, there are no cyclists or motorists. Why? Well, most cyclists drive and anyway, all of us are road users. We all have a responsibility to use the road safely and courteously. Most of us do, most of the time. We’ve all seen motorists do stupid things and we’ve all seen cyclists do stupid things. The only difference is that the consequences for those not in a metal box tend to be worse. This does not make bad behaviour worse. If you jump the lights on a bike, are you being any less dangerous. I don’t think so.
Second,do you remember when seatbelts were made compulsory in the front of cars. Many people were outraged and used the same arguments. ‘Speed is the issue’; ‘They won’t prevent you being hurt in all conditions’ etc. etc. Now ask yourself, would you turn the clock back and repeal that law. I don’t think so.
There will be no knee-jerk reaction to this debate. There can’t be. The debate has been going on for too long.
Do I wish other road users would be more careful? Yes. Do I think I have a responsibility to myself and my family to wear a helmet? Yes. Does anyone have agood reason NOT to wear a helmet? NO. I have a brain-damaged but LIVING brother in law because he wore a helmet. I have a good friend who is well on his way to recovery because he wore a helmet.
Let’s just put them on and then we’ll be in a position to say ‘Look. We’re doing all we can. Now can the rest of the world take notice and help save our lives too.’
“There seems to be no logic
“There seems to be no logic behind forcing one group of road users to wear helmets and not the other.” Quite right, Mr Humphrys. FACT alert: the leading cause of death for car drivers is head injuries. They too must me made to wear helmets.
But hang on, obesity is a much more common cause of death than road accidents. So before we bring in a helmet law we really ought to protect fatties by reintroducing food rationing. Food coupons will be available from public weighstations, so long as you achieve the state sanctioned BMI. This would save infinitely more lives and NHS spending than a piddling reduction in cylists’ head injuries.
@thehairs1970, lots of
@thehairs1970, lots of well-made points. I’m a 100 – 150 mile a week cyclist, who for my sins also drives upwards of 40k miles a year, so I see a lot of poor driving and a lot of poor cycling, too. The key thing there is, it’s all poor road use.
I wear a helmet 99% of the time when cycling, though it’s mostly a matter of habit now – it just feels like something is missing when I go out without one on – but I do resent the idea of being *compelled* to wear what amounts to body armour – at least in part to protect myself from the inadequacy, inattention or ignorance of others.
I don’t think I am alone in that rationalisation. It’s not that wearing a helmet is or isn’t a bad idea per se – it’s the fact that one day we may be forced as a result of legislation to do something that were others in better control of what they were doing *some of the time* we might not have been forced to do.
There is a lot of worrying stuff in this argument here, too, about matters around “make yourself more visible” … Cyclists will probably loose out in the “how bright can we make our lights” wars (hence opposition from the CTC to DLR regulation for motor vehicles), and if we become educated at some deep, subliminal level into thinking that anything *not* wearing a dayglo jacket and showing a 350 lumen front light can’t be a vulnerable road user, then where are we? Parts of Europe are already part-way there, with a legal requirement to carry a high-viz in a motor vehicle …
Education really is the key, backed up with harsh penalties on both “sides” of the argument – cyclists and other road users – if the education doesn’t take root. It’s been done with drink driving (though it needs constant vigilance as the Simon Richardson case shows), it’s reasonably effective in other areas of life – but it isn’t a vote winner. Sadly until it is, we’ll have to put up with the circumstances we have now.
Driving faster means it takes
Driving faster means it takes longer and further to stop meaning that driving within the 30mph limit will enable a driver to stop short of actually hitting that pedestrian or cyclist.
As for helmets, they’re light, take a couple of seconds to put on and aren’t a problem. It will save your life in the event of a head injury. I suppose you don’t have to wear it all the time, you only need to put it on just before you have an accident.
You would be right in thinking they don’t protect from chest injury, but that’s OK;- again, just put some body armour on just before you’re about to have an accident involving fatal chest injury, you’ll be fine, as you can take the body armour home, leave it in your cupboard until you need it next time.
As I have said in the past
As I have said in the past and yet again if we all keep arguing amongst ourselves gutter journos are going to pick the ball up and run with it (in the wrong direction) please people stop! you opions are your own and you are entitled to them, but continually stating your views on various websites may not be the way forward. (I’m not claiming to know what the answer is) but I do wonder how much media attention Mr. Humphrys’ comments would receive if we didn’t go up in flames everytime.
Speed Kills? I’ve been
Speed Kills? I’ve been pondering this. Oh, and helmets:
Bike helmets do have an
Bike helmets do have an ‘upper speed limit’ but this is does not mean that beyond 12mph they stop being useful. It just means that they must provide a specific amount of protection at 12mph.
Being forced to do something rather than make the choice is sometimes necessary. Much of the debate here has been made about poor driving. If we didn’t have legislation that tried to remove bad driving, eg 60mph in a residential street, what would people decide it was OK to do.
Let’s put on our helmets, which it seems most of us already do, take the legislation if and when it arrives, and pressure the government to make sentences for poor road use, particularly that puts others at risk, much stiffer.
Safe cycling
20mph in residential areas
20mph in residential areas should be the norm. Some areas, around schools for example, already have them. Lower speed limits on designated cycle routes should also be standard. There’s already a proposal for a 50mph limit on rural roads and this would also benefit cyclists.