An Essex police officer has claimed that cyclists need to be more safety-conscious to spare families the heartbreak of a visit from an officer bearing bad news.
Speaking to the Essex Chronicle’s Joe Sturdy, PC Deborah Gray said: “If families have to see a white-hatted officer at their door, then it’s horrible because they just know why they are there.
“If cyclists were more safety-conscious then families would not have to see that.”
Police in Chelmsford are currently engaged in an exercise to improve safety and reduce casualties among cyclists. Operation Bluenose is claimed to be targeting both cyclists and motorists, but the force’s statements and press reports make scant mention of drivers.
“Operation Bluenose aims to identify at risk riders and urge them to use more safety equipment such as lights, helmets and high visibility clothing,” the police said when the exercise was announced.
PC Gray said she had spoken to a rider who was dressed entirely in black.
She said: “He said ‘If a car cannot see me he should not be driving’.
“He only wears his helmet when he is going on long cycle rides because he is stop-start, stop-start [in the town].”
As well as telling riders not to wear perfectly normal clothes, police are also encouraging them to wear helmets.
Sergeant Graham Freeman, who is running the operation, said: “The most common response we get is that it’s a man thing [not to wear a helmet]. We think helmets reduce the number of injuries.
“Men do generally not like to wear helmets. I have been to many accidents where cyclists have got head injuries. They can be pretty serious injuries.”
Around 90 cyclists were stopped in Chelmsford on Friday and police had previously stopped around 120 in Basildon.
Sgt Freeman said: “About 50 per cent had no lights and were given verbal warnings. About 50 per cent had no reflective clothing and 75 per cent had no cycle helmet.”
Commenters on the Essex Chronicle’s story are not impressed. PaulM132 said: “Someone should tell Essex Police that there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet, or any particular type of clothing, while cycling. There is no requirement to carry lights – only where cycling in hours of legal darkness.
"And there is certainly no basis for telling cyclist that they are responsible for their own safety. That is like saying that they should wear a bullet proof vest in case a gunman is on the loose.”
One commenter, 04smallmj doubts the crackdown is even necessary: “I used to cycle in Chelmsford a lot and it was probably the best place that I've cycled and lived in, so it's a shame and a bit embarrasing to see this.
"I actually ditched my helmet and hi viz while living there so I would definitely be one of the ‘naughty cyclists’ who have been given victim blaming advice. I also think that the quote ‘we *think* helmets reduce the number of injuries’ says a lot too.”
Izzy_G added: “The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the dangers, whether one wears a helmet or not, so we should be doing as much as we can to get more people on their bikes.
"Campaigns like this, which stress the dangers of cycling do just the opposite by discouraging the very people we want to get on their bikes.”
100 thoughts on “Essex police: If cyclists were more safety-conscious they wouldn’t get killed”
Ah Mr Stevenson another story
Ah Mr Stevenson another story by yourself about helmet use ???
To be honest the cop and Essex need to take a long hard look at themselves for spouting such crap.
Maybe Essex police should
Maybe Essex police should start ensuring drivers keep to the limits and/or drive according to the circumstances. Then they can, you know, patrol and cite dangerous / careless drivers?
Victim blaming… and they really should know better.
Maybe ask a few cycling colleagues before being interviewed/ designing a road traffic safety initiative?
Would be quite helpful if they monitored those that kill/maim when they cause issues? A helmet doesn’t help much being left-hooked by a minivan!
Oh, and if people are riding their bikes like knobs, give them a talking to as well.
Quote:”And there is certainly
This.
Goldfever4 wrote:Quote:”And
Or if your working on a building site, wear PPE.
Scoob_84 wrote:Goldfever4
Or if your working on a building site, wear PPE.
your point, on a building site you would have a site risk assessment, or should have done! the HSE will be interested if you haven’t!!!! The scaffolding with scaftag’s, site demarkation, permits, etc etc. Once all that is in place then you start worrying about hardhats, steel toecaps etc etc.
Helmets don’t solve anything, if i clip the kerb and fall whilst wearing a helmet, it may help, if i am hit by a truck it will make f-all difference.
mrmo wrote:Scoob_84
Or if your working on a building site, wear PPE.— Goldfever4
your point, on a building site you would have a site risk assessment, or should have done! the HSE will be interested if you haven’t!!!! The scaffolding with scaftag’s, site demarkation, permits, etc etc. Once all that is in place then you start worrying about hardhats, steel toecaps etc etc.
Helmets don’t solve anything, if i clip the kerb and fall whilst wearing a helmet, it may help, if i am hit by a truck it will make f-all difference.
Your first paragraph sounds like your advocating some sort of cycling proficiency test before we are allowed on the road. That’s a bit controversial and i’m not sure i agree to that!
As for your second point, no ones claiming a polystyrene lid will stop a truck crushing your skull. But you’d be insane to suggest that it wouldn’t increased your chances of survival if you were clipped by a car and landed on your head.
But a main point you missed is visibility. I don’t agree with how Essex police have gone about this, but their point is still valid, cyclists need to take more responsibility for themselves. I saw 3 ninja cyclists riding home tonight wearing stealth black and with no lights. They’re almost inviting an accident there.
Like it or not, the road is a hazardous environment and always will be no matter how safety measures are put in place.
Scoob_84 wrote:
But a main
well no-one is advocating riding without lights at night,the highway code is quite clear you must use lights after dusk,so Im not sure the point you are making there. A “safety” campaign that tackled cyclists riding without lights at night, would be far more likely to achieve the success Essex police are looking for, and it would likely get alot more cyclist community support for it too.
but they arent doing that…
But a main point you missed
But a main point you missed is visibility. I don’t agree with how Essex police have gone about this, but their point is still valid, cyclists need to take more responsibility for themselves. I saw 3 ninja cyclists riding home tonight wearing stealth black and with no lights.
Note the above comment “I saw 3 ninja cyclists”.
Wow. Amazing – no lights, dressed in black at night- and you still saw them!!!!!!
Don’t tell me, it waa the carrot juice what done it.
Hensteeth wrote:But a main
Because I was cycling just behind them. But a car pulling out might not have.
Wired post, and you got several likes as well.
Scoob_84 wrote:Hensteeth
Because I was cycling just behind them. But a car pulling out might not have.
Wired post, and you got several likes as well.— Hensteeth
Fair comment. I was of course assuming you were in a car. I was trying to make the point that if you are looking then you will see, ninja cyclists included. However I myself wouldn’t dream of cycling without lights at night. Also with reflective but not necessarily high viz clothing.
I also despair of the ninjas, but still manage to see them – up till now anyway!
Scoob_84 wrote:Goldfever4
Or if your working on a building site, wear PPE.
Not really, no. Why do you think that makes any sense as an analogy? Who are the motorists in your building site analogy? You seem to have erased them from the picture.
Scoob_84 wrote:Goldfever4
Or if your working on a building site, wear PPE.
Except the wearing of a hard hat on a building site is a totally different scenario. These hats are not worn to protect you in a fall. They exist to protect your head from falling objects and from penetration of said objects. A much more dangerous outcome of head injury.
All the Essex Constabulary are achieving is alienating the cycling community. By all means target those cycling without lights during the hours of darkness, jumping lights, weaving in traffic etc. but do not target cyclists who are not wearing perceived PPE. If they really wish to save lives maybe they should be targeting motorists in a more regular and obvious manner. But then again, that would be waging war on the motorist and we can’t be having that then, can we.
Goldfever4 wrote:Quote:”And
Or, given this is the UK and not the US, just a stab-proof vest in case of being knifed! Lets not go over the top!
Anyway, the comment from the police woman that opens the article is quite outrageous.
After years of scandal about their treatment of rape victims and of course the whole Stephen Lawrence farrago, its pretty obvious the police are not exactly at the ‘cutting edge’ when it comes to thinking through social and moral issues properly. I guess this is just in the nature of a police force (to be fair, I don’t think you could find one country anywhere in the world at any historical era where this wasn’t the case).
The statement the officer makes is simply demonstrably false. No matter how ‘safety conscious’ cyclists become, they will still be at risk. The recent cases reported here of cyclists in high-viz with helmets doing nothing wrong yet being killed or injured by motorists who ‘had the sun in their eyes’ or ‘were distracted by a kicking unborn baby’, surely illustrate that beyond doubt?
OMFG…its not a million
OMFG…its not a million miles away from the old tosh of “If girls were more dressed more appropriately they wouldn’t get sexually assualted”
How about target the source of a danger and not the victims
mrchrispy wrote:OMFG…its
I’m looking forward to their next anti-rape campaign. Let’s see how many times short skirts and chastity belts get a mention…
Even more excellent use of
Even more excellent use of tax payers money, When Essex has the lowest crime rates in the country I will take operation bullsh!t seriously ( sorry Blue nose)
Mickey mouse police
Mickey mouse police bolox.
Splendid.
=D>
Best use of resources for
Best use of resources for Essex Police – investigate a few more crashes and publish the results to show what caused the crashes and how we might prevent a repeat – Woodford in Essex? Well maybe look at why 6 fatal crashes at same junction, as that suggests something fundamentally amiss with the way the road is designed and operated there.
Once again: the Netherlands
Once again: the Netherlands has no Helmet law and probably the lowest head-injury count for cyclist. For Day to day travel a helmet isn’t needed as it’s usually too slow to inflict seriuous damage. High visibility gear during the day isn’t that helpful either.
As some indicate the problem isn’t with cyclist but with overspeeding cars: Great Britain’s car drivers aren’t used to cyclists yet, and need to be held accountable first to get accustomed to sharing the road.
Cyclist responsibilities can also be addressed, but that needs to be put in accordance with the law. Controlling cyclist in wintertime for carrying lights in dusk was hugely effective in Amsterdam like 10 years ago and has had a long lasting effect.
(now way day’s controlling locations get tweeted rapidly making check less effective.)
The Only Way Is Essex.
The Only Way Is Essex. Classy.
I especially liked this
I especially liked this quote.
“Men do generally not like to wear helmets. I have been to many accidents where cyclists have got head injuries. They can be pretty serious injuries.”
Yeah, particularly when they’ve been run over by a 2 tonne car or worse.
jova54 wrote:I especially
Just try asking the guy who got hit in the back of the head by a minibus how well his helmet worked… oh wait, you can’t, he’s dead. 🙁
you could ask James Cracknell
you could ask James Cracknell the same question – he’s not dead.
I wonder if it would be
I wonder if it would be possible to have the police officers, who were standing round stopping people and telling them that they should be wearing high vis or helmets when it’s perfectly legal not to, charged with wasting police time. :))
I was riding in a large
I was riding in a large tightly-formed group in Essex on Sunday. Everyone was wearing helmets, and most had some sort of hiviz in their kit. This didn’t stop one driver, coming from the opposite direction, on a straight and wide country road, buzzing us at around 60mph. I braced myself as I thought he was going to clip me with his wing mirror. He passed me with a couple of inches to spare. Utterly terrifying and absolutely baffling behaviour. I wonder how Essex police would have expected our helmets and hiviz to protect us if the driver had misjudged his line? Numpties. If this is the calibre of officer “protecting” me as I ride round Essex I should take my rides and my money elsewhere.
In response to post above
In response to post above about fast car pass…another scary story of deliberate terrorism on the roads. Of course if the driver cocks the horror pass up he then leans back on the chaise longue extended by the present judiciary who will water the actions down to ‘an accident’ and claim ‘hardship’ the second any whiff of a two week driving ban is raised.
Government has clearly decided our lives are worthless (just look at sentencing and argue otherwise) and that motoring is a monster that should be fed at all and any cost.
With that in mind is it not time that the police offered an escort service to vulnerable users out on the roads so that lives are not to be continually taken completely unchecked? They do it for football matches and celebrity cycling fund raisers…yes, too embarrassing to report that Davina has been killed by 26 year old Derek who claims he was distracted by his dangling boxing gloves on the mirror, hence not his fault and £50 fine.
Yes, I know the practicality and logistics are horrendous but actually, take a look at the cost of ‘road accidents’, particularly KSI’s in the UK and factor in the myriad of contributory costs such as obesity, diabetes, general poor health, air quality, destroyed roads, reduced house values, road building blah blah blah (endless list basically) and suddenly a subsidised police escort service is not that crazy.
The police should protect the vulnerable, at present along with the total apathy of your local minister (few rare but shining exemptions) coupled with a PM that loves cycling but refuses to lift a finger to change anything we are actually being targeted for all intensive purposes. Government sees it like this in essence:
Couple hundred deaths a year to keep the precious status quo of motoring? Done.
email pcc@essex.pnn.police.uk
email pcc@essex.pnn.police.uk and let the local commissioner what you think about this bollox.
workhard wrote:email
Thanks, emailed them my views on operation brownnose.
Tw*ts
I have addressed this with
I have addressed this with the PCC & Essex Police as I have tried to report dangerous drivers incl. ones that have hit me or knocked me off & Police wont do a thing or even make a report despite me having it on video for them.
Their usual response I have gotten by email & Twitter is total silence…
They dont give a damn! Far easier to pick on & belittle cyclists than deal with the real issues of dangerous drivers.
I was riding in a large
I was riding in a large tightly-formed group in Essex on Sunday. Everyone was wearing helmets, and most had some sort of hiviz in their kit. This didn’t stop one driver, coming from the opposite direction, on a straight and wide country road, buzzing us at around 60mph. I braced myself as I thought he was going to clip me with his wing mirror. He passed me with a couple of inches to spare. Utterly terrifying and absolutely baffling behaviour. I wonder how Essex police would have expected our helmets and hiviz to protect us if the driver had misjudged his line? Numpties. If this is the calibre of officer “protecting” me as I ride round Essex I should take my rides and my money elsewhere.
I was riding in a large
I was riding in a large tightly-formed group in Essex on Sunday. Everyone was wearing helmets, and most had some sort of hiviz in their kit. This didn’t stop one driver, coming from the opposite direction, on a straight and wide country road, buzzing us at around 60mph. I braced myself as I thought he was going to clip me with his wing mirror. He passed me with a couple of inches to spare. Utterly terrifying and absolutely baffling behaviour. I wonder how Essex police would have expected our helmets and hiviz to protect us if the driver had misjudged his line? Numpties. If this is the calibre of officer “protecting” me as I ride round Essex I should take my rides and my money elsewhere.
Idiots as usual.
If as part
Idiots as usual.
If as part of their training they’d spend a few hours riding round town and the country lanes, they’d realise where the problems lie.
Almost every other car doesn’t give the room the highway code stipulates yet they are still on at cyclists, beggars belief.
Were the policemen wearing
Were the policemen wearing [i]their[/i] helmets? They’ve got them, why aren’t they wearing them?
What they are doing is
What they are doing is effectively harassment and illegal.
what I want to say on this
what I want to say on this topic is completely unprintable… (C)omplete (U)tter (N)umpty (T)wonks…
meh…
It’s outrageous enough for
It’s outrageous enough for them to be tweeted and sshown ones displeasure
how the fing hell is a bike
how the fing hell is a bike helmet going to help you when some
moron in over ton of metal ploughs into you …. gah … same old
boloxs
X( ~X(
Compare and contrast with
Compare and contrast with police attitude in this video
Okay, so from recent news…
Okay, so from recent news… Joseph Reed, hit from behind and killed, whilst wearing helmet and hi viz. Or David Irving, again, hit from behind and killed whilst wearing hi viz and helmet.
Tell me, Essex Police, in such instances, what are you doing to “spare families the heartbreak of a visit from an officer bearing bad news”. Maybe, just maybe, addressing driver behaviour? Just a thought.
Found them. PPE would indeed be useful.
Unbelievable ignorance…yet
Unbelievable ignorance…yet strangely unexpected. Like the Jimmy Savile victims, some of whom were supposedly told to be grateful for his attention, we too find ourselves victims in this shadowy age that thankfully, sexual abuse seems to be emerging from.
Most of us have experienced or heard of accounts of police taking no interest in aggressive road behaviour from those like Savile in a greater position of responsibility and effectively discouraged from seeking justice.
Perhaps as vulnerable road users we too should be grateful for the interest some motorists give us as they fly past at 80 with barely a foot of seperation and just be content with being road fodder? Not good Essex police, not good at all.
I would ask the Essex cops if
I would ask the Essex cops if they are going around stopping motorists and asking them if their car journey is really necessary.
Because choosing to drive a car creates far more danger than choosing to ride a bike without a helmet. If you are going to stop cyclists for the latter, then you should also be flagging down motorists for the former, and checking if they really couldn’t have used some other, safer, form of transport, or just stayed at home.
As both cycling-sans-helmet and non-essential-driving are legal, I see no logical reason to question people about one and not the other, especially as the evidence that driving a car causes risk is far more solid than that about helmetless cycling.
As on other occasions, I’d say telling ninja cyclists to get lights is a different matter, as (a) there’s a law about that and (b) motorists have to have lights as well.
Their attitude doesn’t
Their attitude doesn’t surprise me at all. Whilst on the Burnham and Baddow sportive a few weeks ago a 4×4 driver pulled across our path coming straight for us and cutting some horse riders up. He then turned around, drove past us and pulled into a lay-by whilst jutting out on the road and had a go at us. I captured all this on my go-pro and reported it. The copper that then come round, saw the video and said he’d go and talk to him but when I said it was 20 miles away he said ‘oh thats a bit far away’!! And rather than him pass it on to the local station I should deal with it.
Education is needed on both sides but it only seems like they want to target cyclists.
Unbelievable from the Essex
Unbelievable from the Essex Police when they have had so man YouTube Videos sent to them on Close Pass of Drivers!
One I do know came off his Bike when the car cut the junction and nearly hit him!
You want evidence, then just look here at some of theses Videos!
https://www.facebook.com/BadDriverClosePass
They have been submitted that
They have been submitted that video unedited & straight from the camera & their response is NOTHING! Over a dozen such videos have been offered by me & all been ignored or told its NOT evidence despite the good quality footage. They dont want to know!
Quote:how the fing hell is a
To be honest, and a bit more serious, this sound like something the Spanish introduced a few years ago. All cyclists had to wear helmets, which is fair enough in itself, except that if you weren’t wearing a helmet you were more likely to be seen as having to carry more of the blame if involved in an accident.
Is this the more sinister side? In that Essex, as non-friendly to cyclist county, will assume the cyclist has to carry the greater weight of culpability if invovled in an accident and NOT lit up like Blackpool. God forbid drivers actually have to look where they’re going.
So yet again the Police
So yet again the Police response to the Bull in the China Shop is…
1) Wrap the china in bubble-wrap.
2) Put the china on a higher shelf away from the bull.
3) Blame the china for getting smashed.
Why don’t they tether the bull and get it out of the shop?
levermonkey wrote:So yet
Because that involves actual and quite boring work, like using a car to patrol actual traffic?
Apparently this is just
Apparently this is just publicity for Essex Police’s new TV show starting soon called ‘Not-a-Crimewatch’ in which they ask the public to help them find people who haven’t done anything illegal. The first episode will ask viewers to phone in to report cyclists perfectly legally riding without helmets then subsequent shows will deal with tracking down other groups of law abiding citizens such as people who wear brown shoes with black trousers, also not a crime but obviously needing advice from the police. Let’s just hope if they run a show asking the public to grass on white stilletos and mullet haircuts in the Essex Police area they’ve got enough phone lines to deal with the response…
How about getting some police
How about getting some police onto saddles. They could then get an idea about what it is really like out there And put their focus on bad driving and bad cycling rather then concentrating on a pr stunt that only infuriates cyclists and does do nothing to educate drivers.
oh do piss off and do
oh do piss off and do something constructive like stopping drivers who are using their telephones.
I really do believe that in order to qualify to say anything about cycling safety, people should be obliged to commute by bicycle for a month before they open their mouths.
I don’t think that cyclists
I don’t think that cyclists should be told what to wear. However, I think there are a lot of cyclists who could help themselves to be more visible to other road users (not just drivers) by wearing clothing that stands out more. It doesn’t have to be high vis, but even during the daytime, wearing contrasting clothing may mean that you are seen sooner than if you are wearing all black.
When driving my car in the rain, I was very close to colliding with a cyclists dressed in black, on a black bike with no lights. The lights from the car coming over the hill meant that I did not see the cyclist until the last minute, and luckily for them the traffic lights ahead had turned red so I was slowing down to stop anyway.
While there are cyclists out there who do not wear a helmet or hi-vis, but do have sufficient lights on their bikes, there are also a lot who do not have any of these things (and never do even when out in the dark). They should be advised that they will only help themselves if they make themselves visible to other road users.
Whilst the authorities are
Whilst the authorities are idiots and constantly going about this in the wrong way, you can’t deny the obvious benefits of a wee smidgen of common sense.
Whenever I go out on the road I assume everyone in a vehicle larger than my bike wants to brutally murder me. Therefore I make myself as visible as possible, as predictable as possible and as protected as possible (whilst obviously making sure I can still accomplish my objectives as a cyclist). I wear my helmet, it could save my life; I use my lights and I wear bright clothing, which could also save my life.
Why say “there should be no crap drivers on the road, therefore I’ll do whatever the f*** I want and if I die it’s all their fault”, which seems to be what some people on here are advocating. It’s a three fronted battle in the end; safer, more user friendly roads; better, more cyclist aware drivers; and better, more safety conscious cyclist.
Common sense.
condor_rider_1988 wrote:I
Nope. You get hit by tonnes of metal and your 12mph freefall hat and banana costume won’t help one bit. Start campaigning for http://www.roadJustice.org.UK now – it’s far more likely to save your life.
Slightly missed my point. I
Slightly missed my point. I know that if a massive HGV decides to pick a fight with you it probably won’t end well. My point was not that if WILL save my life, it COULD, and you’re certainly more likely to survive wearing high-vis and a helmet than not wearing them.
condor_rider_1988
No, I’m not sure it could. There seems to be almost no reliable evidence for that. Surveys showing a strong benefit to helmets like Thompson, Rivera and Thompson are pretty discredited. Hi-vis doesn’t even have that detailed yet. Like so many times, common sense misleads people.
Thanks for signing the petition. Those who take it further and lobby police commissioners will appreciate it.
a.jumper wrote:No, I’m not
Yeah, but all I’m saying is anything I can do to make myself safer on the road I will do. If everyone (drivers included, but in terms of protecting cyclists) had the same mentality there’d be fewer deaths on the roads in my opinion.
condor_rider_1988
But contrary to common sense, donning hard hat and hi-vis doesn’t make you safer (how would it? The main source of danger are large lumps of metal that they won’t stop driven by people who didn’t look or failed to see) and it probably deters other people from cycling, which seems to put all remaining riders at greater risk.
As if by magic, an article appeared in the Guardian to explain this counter-intuitive effect and much more besides. Anyone able to post a copy in Essex Police’s staff room?
a.jumper
But contrary to common sense, donning hard hat and hi-vis doesn’t make you safer (how would it? The main source of danger are large lumps of metal that they won’t stop driven by people who didn’t look or failed to see) and it probably deters other people from cycling, which seems to put all remaining riders at greater risk.
As if by magic, an article appeared in the Guardian to explain this counter-intuitive effect and much more besides. Anyone able to post a copy in Essex Police’s staff room?— a.jumper
A styrofoam hat will not make you safer if hit by a car. It’s not designed to. It will be massively overwhelmed by the impact and make no difference at all. Helmets are as effective as a rabbits foot in your saddle bag or wearing a St Christopher. Emphasis on Helmet use is voodoo for the easily led and people that failed O Level Physics like the spokesperson for Essex Police and BBC Interviewers.
Being visible though might make a difference. Not because drivers shouldn’t have to pay attention, they should. But because higher visibility adds to the distance from which they notice your presence. I will separate the helmets from enhanced visibility as a concept (by lights, by positioning and by attire.)
The mantra of advanced driving (and I would say advanced cycling) is TtR = Time to React. The more you give yourself and others the safer roads become. So, for motorists that means slowing down, keeping your distance, not tailgating, signalling properly, giving cyclists and other road users enough space. For cyclists it means riding where you can see and be seen and be seen as early as possible.
OK it depends on what sort of cycling you are doing. Some people are pootling to the shops on well lit urban roads in the middle of the day. I don’t think high vis is very useful there. I commute on a mixture of rural lanes and busy A roads on gloomy mornings and dark evenings in the winter and in low and bright sun in other seasons. I want motorists to see me from as far away as possible and have as much time to plan their approach to me as I can help to give them. I hope they are doing their part and slowing down and looking for cyclists. I am not prepared to bet my safety on it. I can control what I do though. I can help them to see me from further away using lights, my road position by considering what I wear. And High viz doesn’t mean you have to wear a day glo jacket or tabard just don’t go out there dressed as the man from Milk Tray.
oozaveared wrote:I want
+1000000
Expecting motorists’ attitudes towards cyclists to collectively change for the better in any of our lifetimes is massively wishful thinking.
Doing what you can to ensure you are seen is, to me, just common sense.
parksey wrote:oozaveared
I fear though that in the end it will make no difference. To the extent that cyclists wear high-viz, motorists will just risk-compensate and pay less attention. The end result will be no change in risk for the cyclist but still more time to chat to their passenger or check their mobile for the motorist.
Of course for any individual cyclist it may seem to make sense to take to the lurid colours, its just that collectively we’ll likely all end up no better off.
Also, I agree motorists won’t change their attitudes, but I would hope that one day road-planners might.
oozaveared wrote:The mantra
In general I agree, but the biggest problems with that in this situation are:
Firstly, a tiny but still dangerous minority of motorists simply don’t care because they believe cyclists should never be on the road. Allowing them to identify you are a cyclist earlier (rather than a pedestrian (daytime) or moped (night, thanks to modern bright lights) or whatever) simply allows them time to decide to pass you without giving any room. The ones who are going to slow down and pass well will probably see you in time enough anyway without hi-vis.
Secondly, there’s little evidence that hi-vis (rather than reflectors) in normal road use offers any benefit. Most studies of it have been on things like railway or motorway workers and even then results weren’t that strong, largely opinion. In bicycle use, Wood et al http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47281/1/ failed to find significant benefit while Miller http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/2855/ found no change (a insignificant increase, actually!).
I use lights and reflectors at night (I need lights to see where I’m going on dark roads anyway, so might as well) but I’m not a fan of hi-vis except in construction zones. They’re another thing that make cycling look more dangerous than it is, which is holding cycling back and stops us unlocking the biggest safety improvement: having relatives of every driver cycling regularly, so they’ll always subconsciously think “that could be my mother/brother/cousin/…” when driving near them.
a.jumper wrote:Secondly,
Yep, on a hi-vis jacket/tabard/vest the fluorescent colours are for daytime and the reflective bits for nighttime. I don’t bother with fluorescent hi-vis during the depths of winter because there is zero effect. I will use reflective clothing though, particularly on the moving parts, as these will catch someone’s attention.
Generally, I would rather be seen, than not seen. That doesn’t mean that drivers shouldn’t pay more attention or drive more carefully. It just means that I’ve done my risk assessment, thought, “Hey, it’s foggy, I’ll pop my lights and hi-vis on, then there’s an outside chance that I’ll be seen out of the corner of that driver’s eye and they’ll make a vague attempt to avoid me.” In the middle of summer, why wear hi-vis?
Oh, and I wear a helmet, because a) my head gets cold (I’m bald) and b) it hurts slightly less when my head hits the ground.
Someone further up the comments was talking about PPE. PPE is the last resort, if you read your H&S manuals. First remove the risk. So, in this case, take the cars away. Taking them away completely is, perhaps, a step too far. But, taking them away from the vulnerable would do the trick just fine.
a.jumper
Also, signed the petition 🙂
“Stopping Distances. Drive at
“Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. ”
Highway Code paragraph 126.
This is very clear. It does not mean carry on driving unless you see something in the way. It means, unless you can see that there is nothing in the way, slow down.
I think that this paragraph is ignored by nearly all drivers. I find that if I slow down at night when I try to obey this advice, other cars sit on my back wheel and overtake as soon as possible.
There are sometimes unlit obstructions on the road which offer more resistance than a cyclist.
Are Essex Police doing anything about this dangerous behaviour?
Over 80% of incidents
Over 80% of incidents involving cyclsits are not the fault of the rider. Those are the DfT’s own statistics. It sounds like the Essex police haven’t bothered to read any recent crash data analysis and have stuck with the Daily Mail approach instead.
Dear commissioner,
I am
Dear commissioner,
I am dismayed and infuriated by the ill informed comments of PC Deborah Gray and utter waste of precious police resources by Essex Police to penalize cyclists in Chelsmford conducting Operation Blue nose. The current government is spending millions of pounds encouraging people to be more active and reduce emissions which have a beneficial effect on the environment and the economy and positively promote the use of the cycle to commute to work, so why oh why are Essex police targeting the cyclist? A cynic would say they are an easy target as opposed to targeting the increasingly aggressive driving manner of many motorists.
I have a few basic questions for you to consider?
How many times has a cyclist killed a motorist or pedestrian in the last 12 months in Essex?
now reverse the question;
How many times has a motorist killed a cyclist or pedestrian in the last 12 months in Essex?
The ignorance surrounding the road safety advice regarding helmets is astounding, are you aware of the 2006 study by Dr Ian Walker from the University of Bath found that drivers passed closer to cyclists wearing a helmet when overtaking than they did to those without them. The driver’s subconscious sees them as less vulnerable and therefore less worthy of a wide berth.
I’m sure someone some where had good intentions but this smacks as a victim blaming culture, akin to telling people to not smoke or drink. The police should stick to enforcing the law and not nannying the community they serve. Put simply it isn’t there job. There may be a perceived risk but people are not breaking the law by not wearing a helmet, the benefits to the nation and the individual massively out weigh the risks, I could quote a ton of statistics at you to support this but I’m sure you are already aware. The police are on very dodgy ground. To the community it feels like a form of harassment, whatever next advising fat people to lose weight?
Dear commissioner,
I am
Dear commissioner,
I am dismayed and infuriated by the ill informed comments of PC Deborah Gray and utter waste of precious police resources by Essex Police to penalize cyclists in Chelsmford conducting Operation Blue nose. The current government is spending millions of pounds encouraging people to be more active and reduce emissions which have a beneficial effect on the environment and the economy and positively promote the use of the cycle to commute to work, so why oh why are Essex police targeting the cyclist? A cynic would say they are an easy target as opposed to targeting the increasingly aggressive driving manner of many motorists.
I have a few basic questions for you to consider?
How many times has a cyclist killed a motorist or pedestrian in the last 12 months in Essex?
now reverse the question;
How many times has a motorist killed a cyclist or pedestrian in the last 12 months in Essex?
The ignorance surrounding the road safety advice regarding helmets is astounding, are you aware of the 2006 study by Dr Ian Walker from the University of Bath found that drivers passed closer to cyclists wearing a helmet when overtaking than they did to those without them. The driver’s subconscious sees them as less vulnerable and therefore less worthy of a wide berth.
I’m sure someone some where had good intentions but this smacks as a victim blaming culture, akin to telling people to not smoke or drink. The police should stick to enforcing the law and not nannying the community they serve. Put simply it isn’t there job. There may be a perceived risk but people are not breaking the law by not wearing a helmet, the benefits to the nation and the individual massively out weigh the risks, I could quote a ton of statistics at you to support this but I’m sure you are already aware. The police are on very dodgy ground. To the community it feels like a form of harassment, whatever next advising fat people to lose weight?
I like the building site
I like the building site analogy. But they should take it seriously.
* Dangerous machinery would be properly risk assessed.
* Lorries couldn’t move without a banksman checking the blindspot.
* If there’s an injury or death, it gets properly investigated, those responsible are at least fined, and recommendations on avoiding the accident feed back into best practice.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what happens on the roads.
So, yes, treat roads like building sites for a while.
The Filth at their finest.
The Filth at their finest. Bunch of losers. They did absolutely nothing when I was knocked off and left for dead. Most of them are thick arrogant over weight slobs who could do with riding a bike themselves at rush hour on a busy road when it’s peeing with rain.
Airzound wrote:The Filth at
Hear, hear – couldn’t agree more!
Far more pedestrians and
Far more pedestrians and motorists get fatal or life-changing head injuries per mile travelled in towns than cyclists do. Why aren’t people up in arms about them choosing not to wear helmets? If it’s a sensible suggestion that cyclists should be required to wear helmets then, given the huge quantity of evidence, it must be even more sensible that drivers and pedestrians should too?
In fact why stop there? If everyone not driving a motor vehicle was required to be cocooned in a three foot thick layer of bubble wrap then drivers could presumably just do away with the pesky “awareness” obligation that comes with piloting a few tons of metal around the place and instead just keep their eyes on more important stuff like their mobile phone/lunch/makeup/whatever.
“Sorry mate, I didn’t see you” … translation: “Sorry mate, I wasn’t looking”.
Around 90 cyclists were
Around 90 cyclists were stopped in Chelmsford on Friday and police had previously stopped around 120 in Basildon.
Sgt Freeman said: “About 50 per cent had no lights and were given verbal warnings. About 50 per cent had no reflective clothing and 75 per cent had no cycle helmet.”……………………………………………………
Well Sergeant Freeman how were you ever promoted?
Police are supposed to work with facts and all your quotes above are, “Around” 90 cycles stopped “about” 50 % and so on.
Surely you are educated enough to give a factual report after all “around” 90 cycles is not a lot. Perhaps you did not have enough fingers and toes. Or are you rather over egging the pudding to make you operation look good for all those above you who are only interested in figures.
Facts please
As an Essex resident I am not
As an Essex resident I am not happy with the quotes from these officers. One of the challenges we all face is that “cyclists” like “motorists” are treated as one homogeneous mob. The reality is that we are all different.
There is an issue in Essex with some cyclists (as there is with some motorists); but not one’s like me! In the area I live I regularly see teenagers and people of all ages riding bikes, in the dark on the road, with no lights, no bright clothing and of course they have chosen not to wear a helmet (although remarkably many of the adults do!). This is a problem of education that needs to be addressed with police enforcement backing it up.
I dread the day that I fail to spot one of these idiots as they bunny hop off the pavement, across the road and my car sends them of to collect their Darwin award. If it does happen I’ll be the one having to live with it.
It should be born in mind that (as with most of the UK) Essex hates spending money on children and youth services (they actually hate children basically; Southend is different). Therefore it is cheaper to let the police “educate” rather than running an extensive program of training courses.
Legin wrote: In the area I
Your comment is very odd, as you conflate together very different issues.
What ‘police enforcement’ is needed to deal with the (non) issue of ‘not wearing bright clothing’ or ‘not wearing a helmet’? How do the police ‘enforce’ something that is not a law or even backed by evidence?
If its wrong for them to not wear a helmet (when the chances of the helmet making any difference to outcomes is very small) why is it OK for you to drive a car (a choice which creates a far greater risk than their choice not to wear a helmet)?
And ‘education’ would surely just make people aware of how problematic helmet-pushing actually is?
Police enforcing the law on having lights, and possibly some education on the usefulness of reflective material after dark, fair enough.
One thing that bemuses me is how occasionally I see cyclists in full yellow high-viz gear, after dark, but with no lights. I don’t quite get that one at all – going above-and-beyond in one dubious respect while breaking the law in another!
Needs to be a difference made
Needs to be a difference made between ‘cyclists’ and ‘people who happen to be on a bike’.
It’s normally the latter who have no lights, no helmet etc. (hi-vi stuff is largely irrelevant if you’re lit up enough anyway).
Oh look, bike snobbery is
Oh look, bike snobbery is even prevalent among bike riders it seems.
northstar wrote:Oh look, bike
Call me pedantic, but why the ‘even’? Where else would you find bike-snobbery but amongst bike-riders? 🙂
Every activity, interest, or community generates its own form of snobbery, and the most notable feature of it is usually that it involves distinctions that mystify outsiders.
If Essex police actually
If Essex police actually bothered to stop dangerous driving in their county, fewer cyclists would get killed there.
Quote:I saw 3 ninja cyclists
Does anyone else’s irony detector go off when they read comments like this? Just me?
usual police nonsense, blame
usual police nonsense, blame it on not being able to see the cyclist, of course ….
In the past I was a regular
In the past I was a regular cyclist in Bristol, on ordinary roads. (I now need a van to transport my tools & equipment)
I have had a number of accidents where I have fallen at high speeds over the years, but never once hit my head. Yes, I received minor cuts & bruises, scraped elbows, etc, but never any serious injuries, despite most of these occurring in the presence of motor vehicles.
I was knocked off my bike by a tanker within weeks of arriving in the city to start work, and all that was damaged was my bike. He thought he could get past me before the road narrowed – he underestimated my speed!
I have been knocked off my bike by a car driver who was distracted at a roundabout, all I suffered was a dislocation of my colarbone. (I was wearing brightly-coloured lycra at the time, but he still didn’t see me, even though I know he was looking in my direction!)
I rode into the side of a car that appeared from nowhere at a difficult junction – and received a bruised a finger & friction burn, whilst causing over £1000 damage to the car!
It isn’t about making cyclists more responsible for their own safety, it’s about making drivers more aware. And until the penalties they face are more realistic they really don’t need to do so. The CPS is reluctant to prosecute for “Dangerous Driving”, preferring the easier-to-prove “Careless Driving” charge – which unfortunately has a much lower tariff, one which really isn’t much of a deterrent to your average driver.
Only when the penalties for causing death by driving in any form are made high enough to provide a true deterrent will we see drivers taking the care they should when in the presence of cyclists. (It’s a bit like the suggestion that all cars shold be fitted with a spike in the middle of the steering wheel. If they were all drivers would be far more careful to avoid accidents!) Apparently we all drive to “a perceived level of danger” – there is no real danger to car drivers from cyclists, either from the accident itself or the consequences, so they can, in effect, ignore them.
In the past I was a regular
In the past I was a regular cyclist in Bristol, on ordinary roads. (I now need a van to transport my tools & equipment)
I have had a number of accidents where I have fallen at high speeds over the years, but never once hit my head. Yes, I received minor cuts & bruises, scraped elbows, etc, but never any serious injuries, despite most of these occurring in the presence of motor vehicles.
I was knocked off my bike by a tanker within weeks of arriving in the city to start work, and all that was damaged was my bike. He thought he could get past me before the road narrowed – he underestimated my speed!
I have been knocked off my bike by a car driver who was distracted at a roundabout, all I suffered was a dislocation of my colarbone. (I was wearing brightly-coloured lycra at the time, but he still didn’t see me, even though I know he was looking in my direction!)
I rode into the side of a car that appeared from nowhere at a difficult junction – and received a bruised a finger & friction burn, whilst causing over £1000 damage to the car!
It isn’t about making cyclists more responsible for their own safety, it’s about making drivers more aware. And until the penalties they face are more realistic they really don’t need to do so. The CPS is reluctant to prosecute for “Dangerous Driving”, preferring the easier-to-prove “Careless Driving” charge – which unfortunately has a much lower tariff, one which really isn’t much of a deterrent to your average driver.
Only when the penalties for causing death by driving in any form are made high enough to provide a true deterrent will we see drivers taking the care they should when in the presence of cyclists. (It’s a bit like the suggestion that all cars shold be fitted with a spike in the middle of the steering wheel. If they were all drivers would be far more careful to avoid accidents!) Apparently we all drive to “a perceived level of danger” – there is no real danger to car drivers from cyclists, either from the accident itself or the consequences, so they can, in effect, ignore them.
Isn’t it the job of the
Isn’t it the job of the police to catch criminals and prevent crime?
How many of those cyclists stopped were criminal, or were likely to cause a crime to happen?
How many reports of dangerous driving (which is a crime under the RTA) do the police follow up or investigate?
Does someone see a disjoint here?
Imagine if there was an increase in sexual attacks on women in Essex. Instead of investigating the attacks the police response is to stop women and offer them advice on what to wear.
Police are currently part of
Police are currently part of the problem not the solution.
My initial reaction was WTF,
My initial reaction was WTF, but I assume what the police are saying is use common sense. The problem is I fail to see what this will achieve as if you had common sense you would not be in this category anyway. For instance, the idiot this morning riding at 7.30, poor light, rush hour on the a30, a fast single lane, no lights and his ‘hi vis’ jacket obscured by his low vis rucksack.
Wearing black is fine, but add some reflective elements and decent lights.
There there is the road safety aspect. Fellow cyclists, stop jumping or riding through red lights, no need what so ever.
Simmo72 wrote:
There there is
I don’t see why you only address that to cyclists. Why not to all road users?
I find the widespread myth that motorists don’t regularly jump red lights to be quite baffling. Do people not use their own eyes?
The only difference is when in the phase they do it – motorists do it overwhelmingly during the period shortly after a light change, though I often see them doing it well into the phase if its a ped-crossing only and there’s no-one crossing.
I do wonder whether this
I do wonder whether this attitude had anything to do with the failure to prosecute the driver who knocked me off at a roundabout in Essex (just…) last June.
We all hate the cycling ninjas. Because they give us a bad name. But, as said, cycling without a helmet is not illegal. Cycling without hi-vis is not illegal. How about the police actually follow up on things that actually are illegal?
“Men do generally not like to
“Men do generally not like to wear helmets. I have been to many accidents where cyclists have got head injuries. They can be pretty serious injuries.”
I’m sure he’s also been to plenty of accidents where drivers have got pretty serious head injuries, not sure why cyclists should be a special case here.
Fair point, it does seem to
Fair point, it does seem to be something of a losing battle.
Much like oozaveared who I quoted, I’m a daily rush-hour commuter across a town that doesn’t have a massive cycling population (i.e. drivers don’t necessarily expect to see cyclists about), so I do what I can to stay visible purely in the interests of self-preservation!
My rather fetching day-glow tabard does at least offer my employer a bit of free advertising when I’m out and about, so at least somebody wins…
UK police stop all black cars
UK police stop all black cars which do not have headlights turned on in crackdown on drivers who are not safety conscious! Imagine? No me either
Beefy wrote:UK police stop
Wish they would do something about all the silver cars in fog!!!
Oh, and the TdF is riding
Oh, and the TdF is riding through Chelmsford. Police road block checking for hi-vis and lights in the middle of summer?!
Having watched the programme
Having watched the programme Horizon on BBC2 on Monday its become evident that the driving test as they stand are wholly inadequate.
They need to take into account the ability or inability of human beings to function during multiple tasks, some of us are biologically unable to see whats right in front of us whilst we concentrate on other tasks ie cant see cyclists/pedestrians whilst driving, surely that needs to be addressed?
McDuff73 wrote:Having watched
My son passed his test last year aged 17. It was a lot harder than the one I took in 1979 aged 17.
In my opinion the whole idea of a Driving Test is not the right way to do things. We don’t let doctors or airline pilots have a single pass/fail test and then issue them with full credentials.
Learning to drive should be an extended course covering all aspects and conditions. When you have enough hours clocked in the various parts of the course and if the instructor is satisfied then that part of the course is deemed complete. You need to complete the whole course.
Many drivers of my age will have had a very simple driving test that almost anyone could have passed. I booked six lessons and a test. I never drove in the rain, at night, on a dual carriageway, down country lanes or in heavy traffic such as the rush hour before I had a licence. The test was driving round Bournemouth on roads I knew. Starting on a hill, reversing round a corner, a 3 point turn and by virtue of not hitting anything and answering 3 questions on road signs and markings I earned a licence at age 17 to drive all kinds of vehicles, in all kinds of conditions and on some kinds of roads I had never driven before.
We need rigorous extended courses not one off tests.
Agree entirely oozaveared
I
Agree entirely oozaveared
I passed mine after 6 lessons, it seems driving has become a right rather than a privelege, with no thought to the inherent danger in allowing a mass of untrained people to swan about as they please at the controls of large metal boxes on wheels.
What the police are saying
What the police are saying here is simple common sense, lessen the odds of being a statistic. But they do need to state / recognise that nothing can protect a rider from the more idiotic drivers out there and that the Police are in a better position than most to help cyclist’s safety (issues with funding, courts aside).
Start with the most serious threat and work down from there, and stop giving the moron drivers (and defence lawyers, insurance companies etc) more fuel for their own blame-avoidance.
james-o wrote:What the police
Henry Louis Mencken: “For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.”
And this was definitely a wrong use of police time and PR machine.
james-o wrote:What the police
I take your general point but I have to take issue with this. There is quite a lot that could be done to protect everyone (cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders, motorcyclists and indeed other motorists) from the more idiotic drivers out there.
1 Top of the list would be to change the attitude of the police to road safety.
2 Markedly increase the chances of being caught speeding.
(this equated to the “broken windows” theory in criminology. ie if you allow seemingly minor offences or behaviours to be seen as normal then you just lower the bar for other more serious crimes.
3 Once you have increased the chances of being caught and such that drivers think it is likely they will be caught not unlikely, then increase points penalties to a realistic level. Points work because they effect drivers equally whatever their income.
4 Get the CPS to use the laws properly. Careless is careless. Dangerous is dangerous. Don’t prosecute for careless driving when the driving was in fact dangerous.
5 Stop giving persistent offenders their licence back each time or if you do, then not so damn quickly. And on a returned licence affix permanent points so they know that one more even minor offence and they could lose it again. Three strikes and you are out (banned permenantly) for major offences. ie where 6 or more points are given on a single offence. Lifetime points. A ban not just on offences on a rolling 4 year period but a total lifetime number acquired. I suggest 24.
6 Allow the Police Force / Local Safety Camera orgs to keep a good proportion of the fines to invest in more detection and enforcement. Speeding and offending drivers are then paying for enforcement. Enforcement technology and extra traffic officers are therefore self financeing and an investment.
I could go on but you get my drift.
There is actually plenty that can be done about idiot drivers.
james-o wrote:What the police
You give them too much credit. That’s not ‘what the police are saying here’. What the police woman said was “If cyclists were more safety-conscious then families would not have to see that.” Nothing about lessening odds, just a categorical statement that is simply and obviously false and which carries a nasty whiff of victim blaming for those previous cases of dead cyclists she claims to be talking about.
Given that the fatal error is most frequently on the part of the motorist, if cyclists were more safety-conscious there would be at best a small reduction in how often families saw that. Assuming the effort of being so safety conscious didn’t just deter people from cycling in the first place, in which case families would more often see family members having heart attacks instead.
don’t see how it can be
don’t see how it can be common sense to blame victims for an incident, we wouldn’t accept the police saying women should dress in a manner which wouldn’t attract rapists, and how on earth do you dress so as not to be stabbed should we all be issued with stab vests?