The government’s cycle safety review will not be based on ‘knee jerk reaction’ but on ‘solid evidence’ according to transport minister Jesse Norman. Promising a wide-reaching look at how safety can be improved “for cyclists and other road users in relation to cycling,” he said that a number of measures would be considered, including mandatory hi-vis and helmets.
Launched in response to “a series of high profile incidents involving cyclists” according to the official press release, the government’s cycle safety review will be in two parts.
The first phase will look at whether a new offence equivalent to causing death by careless or dangerous driving should be introduced for cyclists, while the second will take a broad look at cycling road safety issues.
BikeBiz reports that while speaking at the Department for Transport sponsored Cycling + Walking Innovations 2017 conference, Norman revealed the second phase would be launched with a consultation in the new year and would be, “a wider and more embracing look at how safety can be improved for cyclists and other road users in relation to cycling.
“That could be infrastructure, education, signage and other things which could contribute to a successful and effective transition to a world in which walking and cycling are enormous. It’s not going to be based on any knee jerk reaction; it will be based on solid evidence.”
Asked whether measures up for consideration might include mandatory hi-vis or helmets, Norman replied that he didn’t have a personal position on those issues, but that they would be up for debate.
“That is something in relation to the cycle safety review where we will see what the evidence and the submissions say,” he said.
“If you want to have a society where a 12-year-old can get on a bicycle it’s a serious issue as to whether you’re going to mandate hi-vis or helmets and there will be many arguments about whether the safety benefits outweigh or do not outweigh the deterrent effect that might have on people cycling. So we’re going to leave that to the review.”
Nationwide explains why it made cycle helmets compulsory under its travel insurance
Asked whether a national standard for cycle infrastructure might be adopted, he suggested that this “could be addressed in the review when it goes out for public discussion.”
Quite what the government hopes to achieve with this review remains up for debate, with Norman emphasising the importance of making cyclists feel safe, while simultaneously claiming that British roads are among the safest in the world.
“We very much believe cyclists have to feel safe,” he said. “There has to be harmonious interaction between all road users. We have to get over the perception that cycling is somehow unsafe around busy roads when the reality is that we have some of the very safest roads in the world.”
79 thoughts on “Mandatory hi-vis and helmets will be considered as part of government cycle safety review”
Quote:
Fuck off. Remove the whole “causing death by dangerous X” nonsense. If you kill someone, whether it be in a car, bike, lorry, pushchair or pogo stick, you should be tried for the appropriate charge of manslaugther.
People are killed because people behave like cunts. It’s attitudes and penalties that need changing. If you can’t see a 6ft lump of meat and metal, irrespective of what party hats and christmas lights it’s wearing, you shouldn’t be driving.
How about actuallyenforcing
How about actuallyenforcing all the curent laws that “should” protect all vulnerable road users. Speed limits, mobile phone use, safe passing distances, etc instead of going the Australian way of finding an easy target for ramping up numbers of cases solved… Look what happpened there when they added hefty fines to stupid rules, cyclist numbers plummeted. The fine for not having a bell was more than many serious driving offences.
Sounds like a knee-jerk
Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to me. They should be looking at road safety as a whole, not just targeting a minority group like cyclists. As the first poster said, if you kill someone you should be tried for manslaughter regardless of the means and method. As for compulsory hi-vis, that won’t change anything!! I used to work on the highways and drove a Toyota Hi-lux that was in garish yellow with lights and reflective strips galore but was constantly amazed as to how invisible it was on the roads!!!
Oh do p155 off….. sort out
Oh do p155 off….. sort out the speeding,red light jumping,mobile using, polluting,uninsured,taxed & MOT’d vehicle users first…. Cycling SHOULD be promoted as an eco friendly, Anti Pollution, Health Concious Means Of Transport……. Not legislated off of the road due to cost….. … the 46 bn tax relief in the budget could have provided 46,000 km of cycle infrastructure…not give oil barons who are feeding old technology and travel tax breaks…..
Helmets,hi-viz, then it will
Helmets,hi-viz, then it will be reg plates and licencing. Just a way of generating revenue for the powers that be, they tell us how to live and what to think and if we don’t agree or comply then we have to pay for it and they just get richer. “Feel Safer” is this guy real? my apprehension coupled with a healthy dose of sceptisism keeps me alert and alive. Put a 9 inch nail in the midle of the steering wheel and not an airbag and peoples driving habits would soon change for the better.
I hope pedestrians will have to go through the same clothing and PPE rules as we cyclists, oh forgot it just gives them more potential cash generators. Mark my words if all of us don’t stand together on this first it will be cyclists, then horse riders and so on until we have little of no freedom left.
The freedom fro riding a bike, soon to be a joke.
I’ve long thought it will be
I’ve long thought it will be forced through, and I still think it will.
What a travesty this country is.
kitsunegari wrote:
Not if I have anything to do with it.
I’m getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being ‘evidence driven’
If that is the case, then this cannot possibly happen.
Very sad it’s even been muted by someone in power.
Chris B
Chris_boardman wrote:
I very much hope they listen to you, even as a ‘topic for discussion’ it’s pretty ridiculous.
Chris_boardman wrote:
The way things are going, probably won’t be in power for too long.
Chris_boardman wrote:
Chris I do hope you are correct, I feel that the new ‘Cycling Safety’ has very little to do with cycling or safety, more to do with reducing variables for the forthcoming avalanche of autonomous vehicles….
I am certain we will see manadatory helmets, hi viz with some sort of RF tag and clear identifying numbers, as well as mandated use of cycle paths and crossing points for pedestrians..
This is more to do with the expected financial benefits of autonomous vehicles and nothing to do with safety of human beings on the road system…
Smooth the way of the driverless car by blaming the people that get in the way of it!
If the idea was for safety we allready know what the sensible approach is!
John
Chris_boardman wrote:
How can we help Chris? I’m sick of being passive while nothing is done to improve the roads.
jasecd wrote:
As a life member, I have to declare an interest, but probably the best way to help is to join and support Cycling UK, the only organisation which has clearly and consistently fought for cyclists’ rights, including helmets and hi-viz. The other national cycling orgs are ambivalent at best, and ironically, since it is completely at odds with the views of their advisor Chris Boardman, British Cycling mandate helmets on all their events, which is used by many other organisers to justify their own helmet and other ludicrous rules.
Chris_boardman wrote:
Bravo Chris, well said, and you are the right man for this job.
Let us know how we can help.
We are grateful for everything you are doing for cycling.
Chris_boardman wrote:
Is this THE Chris Boardman?
Welcome on board. 😀
Chris_boardman wrote:
I’ve long thought it will be forced through, and I still think it will.
What a travesty this country is.
— Chris_boardman
Not if I have anything to do with it.
I’m getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being ‘evidence driven’
If that is the case, then this cannot possibly happen.
Very sad it’s even been muted by someone in power.
Chris B
— kitsunegari
If only they were mute! 🙂 Sadly, many of today’s politicians make a noise and fuss (a moot hooting) to attract attention rather than to say anything cogent and of utility to the body politic at large (us).
However, they might really mean that any new policy will be “evidence based” as they claim it will. But there’s the rub. The “evidence” concerning many of these things is often confused.
We have the helmet debate endlessly, with more cyclists for than against, quoting anecdotal “a helmet saved my life” events as “evidence”. (In fact they mostly have them because of fashion and peer pressure). There will be similar suspect “evidence” concerning high viz, cycling speed, dedicated cycling infrastructure and all the rest.
For example, high viz might work to make some motorists notice you – if they’re looking – many aren’t. If they do notice you, they may become more or less aggresive towards you. How do we count the respective proportions? Do those proportions of aggresive / non-aggressive vary with geographical area, time of day and what the Daily Hate mail printed this morning?
For example, much cycling infrastructure of the lane-on-the-left type is far more dangerous than plain old roads that used to be there (in towns and cities); whilst other kinds are very safe, such as the old-fashioned dedicated cycle paths next to major roads, with a large verge between the two and no pedestrians.
Safety matters and the wider subject or driving, cycling & walking in a modern transport environment are not just highly complex but often inchoate. “Evidence” is by no means simple, clear and uncontradictory.
Cugel, recommending the cyclist’s 6th sense albeit unable to define it in words.
Cugel wrote:
Lataxe, is that you?
Cugel wrote:
If only they were mute! 🙂 Sadly, many of today’s politicians make a noise and fuss (a moot hooting) to attract attention rather than to say anything cogent and of utility to the body politic at large (us).
However, they might really mean that any new policy will be “evidence based” as they claim it will. But there’s the rub. The “evidence” concerning many of these things is often confused.
— Chris_boardman
I noticed ‘mute’ vs. ‘moot’ too, but wasn’t going to pick CB up on it.
Whilst we can argue the evidence of whether or not a helmet or hi vis prevent injury or stop drivers crashing in to us all we like but its completely missing the point – Its putting the emphasis on the victim not the perpetrator.
Besides, evidence is quite clear that any mandatory requirement to have ‘safety’ equipment drives down cycling numbers (and presumably, by corrollary, drives up motorised road traffic).
CygnusX1 wrote:
Very sad it’s even been muted by someone in power.
Chris B
— CygnusX1
If only they were mute! 🙂 Sadly, many of today’s politicians make a noise and fuss (a moot hooting) to attract attention rather than to say anything cogent and of utility to the body politic at large (us).
However, they might really mean that any new policy will be “evidence based” as they claim it will. But there’s the rub. The “evidence” concerning many of these things is often confused.
— Cugel
I noticed ‘mute’ vs. ‘moot’ too, but wasn’t going to pick CB up on it.
Whilst we can argue the evidence of whether or not a helmet or hi vis prevent injury or stop drivers crashing in to us all we like but its completely missing the point – Its putting the emphasis on the victim not the perpetrator.
Besides, evidence is quite clear that any mandatory requirement to have ‘safety’ equipment drives down cycling numbers (and presumably, by corrollary, drives up motorised road traffic).
— Chris_boardman
I agree that the root cause of horrible events on the road is the motor car and the large raft of idiots who are driving them at dangerous momentums but shouldn’t be because they do it so badly, endangering everyone else. In my wee utopia, the motorised vehicle would never have been allowed and we’d all still be going to the factory & office on a bike or even a horse, if we couldn’t walk that far.
Mind, in my utopia, there’d be no factory or office either. 🙂
Since we live in this ‘ere actual society, such as it is, it may be best to adopt a pragmatic stance. I try to do this as a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist. (I’d do it as a horsey rider too, if I rode one).
This pragmatism involves adopting devices and procedures that are known to increase safety (for all). Some such are fairly clear whilst others are marginal or perhaps contoversial.
For example, I rarely wear a cycling helmet as the risk is less than that of being a pedestrian in town, going fell-walking or getting on a step to cut the hedge – situations in which few if any wear a helmet. And the polystyrene construct is not known do deal well with serious head blows, even if it does make you look like Berty or Vroome. (I do wear one if riding in what I calculate to be a situation where a low-impact blow to the head is much more likely – e.g. on an MTB in the fells).
I do have always-on bright lights (flashing in the day) and high viz hat and booties (the noticeable bits). It hopefully attracts the eye of Doris or Albert, despite the fact that they’ve forgotten to don their specs today, when going to (or, worse, from) the pub.
I also have a well-honed sixth sense, familiar to many long-time cyclists, concerning the mental states and probable antics that can be read from various twitches (or lack of them) of motorcars as they go about.
As a car driver I am careful to the point of paranoia; and inclined to apply the cyclists’s 6th sense at an even faster processing rate.
The point is: when you’re in a grave or a wheelchair because of a road traffic “accident”, moaning about what the idiot in the car who ran you over should have done will not rewind time and your condition.
Reality bites, so keep yer teeth-blunters handy.
Cugel
Cugel wrote:
But when you add up doing what you do with daytime flashing lights, hi-vis et al you drop the responsibility just a little bit more for those presenting the harm in the first instance, when you multiply that up so much to where we are now not only do those things you do to keep you safer not actually work on an individual basis they don’t work on a societal/population basis either, yet all the whilst your and others actions to keep safer act to take away the responsibility and indeed culpibility of government/police to make things better, things that we know DO in fact make things better and can be proven to do so.
Yours and others aactions of wanting to ‘feel’ safer now pushes the onus of safety onto the vulnerable, it gives excuses for motorists and the police wag their finger/blame the victim for being killed/injured to the point that in court even judges are allaying blame on the victim when there’s not a scrap of evidence that those ‘safety’ aids would have made a difference in any case.
The adoption of and promotion of helmets and hi-vis has markedly reduced our safety, the justice and indeed financial recompense that people on bikes should be offered in line with other people going about their business.
Would the police blame a rape victim for not wearing an anti rape device, even if that device was not proven to prevent such? Would the justice system put blame onto an innocent motorist for not having a side impact beam/ABS/Airbag or any other device to potentially reduce their injuries, would a pedestrian/someone out for a drink be blamed for not having a stab vest yet were stabbed in the neck, no, yet because of the culture we have, people on bikes are blamed and punished/criminal let off more lightly if they don’t have hi-vis, helmet or in some cases lights that are simply ‘not very bright’ despite being legal in their use as some police have commented.
As a group we have by far the greatest onus of safety pushed upon us and responsibility not to harm others i.e. pedestrians, yet adding all these aids doesn’t do shit. Victoria road safety people still spouting 26% serious head injury reduction over 2 years post helmet laws, ignore that there was a 36% reduction in cycling and that there was already a downward decline in fatalities due to other interventions.
despite all the waffle about MTB/downhill/racing/competiton needing helmets, it’s yet more BS, I never wore a helmet for downhill riding/fast trails, fast riding on alpine descents, why, because I never needed one, i liked going fast but i knew my limitations, people wearing hats take more risk, this is a simple fact and one seen in the pro ranks as more deaths, more injuries and more crashes sinc ethe helmet rules came in. Even if you do come off so feeble are helmets that when/if you do hit a rock/solid object at speed the helmet cannot by design save you in any case from a serious TBI
Chris_boardman wrote:
Good luck with that but trying to hold the government to its own “evidence based policy” cost Professor David Nutt his job.
According to Kenneth Clarke’s anecdote thats doing the rounds today, the government is more swayed by influence from billionaire newspaper owners than evidence.
So the cycle safety review
So the cycle safety review will be in two parts, the first about cyclists killing pedestrians and the second about drivers killing cyclists. Pardon my cynicism, but i’m betting the first will report quickly and will reccommend that more laws apply to cyclists, and will be announced with a great fanfare, while the second will take years, won’t change anything and will be quietly forgotten.
Perhaps if Mr Norman had said they would be in the reverse order, since that makes sense from a casualty point of view, I might have a little more faith. It would definitely be that way around if it was evidence based, as Mr Norman claims, so this is nonsense from the very first words out of his mouth.
Who voted this shower of
Who voted this shower of shite into power?
“Evidence driven”
“Evidence driven” unfortunately depends upon which particular evidence you decide you’ll allow or are biased in favour of. I can’t help suspecting that only evidence will be presented which supports an already-intended course of action…
(PS – Is username ‘Chris_boardman’ the real St Chris or just an impostor?
)
brooksby wrote:
I did some Google stalking and tracked down a couple of Chris_Boardman’s earlier posts, I’m convinced he’s the real deal (and been a registerd user for for several years):
http://road.cc/content/news/132631-chris-boardman-calls-free-bikes-nhs
http://road.cc/content/news/133351-biggin-hill-resident-rails-against-lycra-louts%E2%80%99
http://road.cc/content/news/98554-boardman-launch-2014-elite-series
CygnusX1 wrote:
:O stalker 😉 Try not to scare him off!
We need more level-headed, reasonable, knowledgeable people like Chris engaged in the nation-wide cycling discussion.
Chris is one of the few people who makes comments based on evidence and rational thinking. Unlike the press (and dare I say it, politicians) who have knee-jerk reactions.
I just knew this was coming,
I just knew this was coming, thanks Chris for chirping in on here, we can only hope that your weight and that of others can stop this abhorrent push to force the vulnerable to armour themselves up against those posing the harm especially since we already know that niether hi-vis nor helmets work to improve safety, quite the reverse in fact.
As someone who has riden the best part of 200,000 mile since the mid 80s and not a mile with a lid I would rather go to prison than be forced to wear a helmet, as for hi-vis, no thanks, as with helmets it lowers the responsibility of those posing the harm, just in the same way as compulsary rear lights have done for cyclists since the 20s/30s which just allowed motorists to go faster and use excuse after excuse for killing and maiming, all the whilst police, CPS, government and judges suck it all in to the point where we have cases like Michael Mason being blamed by the Met police for his demise, not seeing that the killer did anything wrong and jury aquitting the killer in minutes and that only after a private prosecution.
I will fight this BS to my last breath!
I’m looking forward to them
I’m looking forward to them discussing the possibility of presumed liability for motorists being part of the options discussed, with ann evidence-based look into the impact its had on road safety in the Netherlands and Denmark.
I was at the conference where
I was at the conference where Jesse Norman discussed this-to be fair it was only in relation to a (probably mischievous) question from a Sunday Times reporter after the Minister had attempted to set the record straight after what he called misreporting of the Cycle Safety Review introduced after the
Chris Boardman also spoke at the conference later in the day and was characteristically excellent
I found Jesse Norman unconvincing and shallow-I had no confidence he actually “gets it” and every confidence he will be swayed by the “make them pay road tax and wear hi viz ” brigade
The only reassuring presence was Chris B who was full of his usual common sense and healthy scepticism but he has got a mammoth task ahead of him-most depressing really
tonylen wrote:
it’s long overdue for Chris Boardman to be appointed Lord of Everything and World President for Life and a Considerable Period Beyond.
I was at the conference where
I was at the conference where Jesse Norman discussed this-to be fair it was only in relation to a (probably mischievous) question from a Sunday Times reporter after the Minister had attempted to set the record straight after what he called misreporting of the Cycle Safety Review introduced after the
Chris Boardman also spoke at the conference later in the day and was characteristically excellent
I found Jesse Norman unconvincing and shallow-I had no confidence he actually “gets it” and every confidence he will be swayed by the “make them pay road tax and wear hi viz ” brigade
The only reassuring presence was Chris B who was full of his usual common sense and healthy scepticism but he has got a mammoth task ahead of him-most depressing really
tonylen wrote:
If Norman really understood the evidence he would simply have said that there’s no useful evidence mandatory fancy dress and hats does anything except reduce cycling rates.
If They did bring in
If They did bring in mandatory requirement for all cycling clothing to be hi-viz/fluoro, could cycling clothing manufacturers bring a class-action suit for loss of business?
If They did, would all motor vehicles also be required to be dayglo?
I’ve just had about enough of
I’ve just had about enough of this garbage.
I got knocked off my bike a few months ago by a driver who had no insurance and no driving licence. The Met hasn’t even got round to looking at the report (and video) yet.
Two people stepped out in front of me without even looking yesterday, and a car gave me six inches of space as it passed at about 40mph on an urban dual carriageway before stopping at the queue up ahead (which did give me the chance to have a word).
The difference between each one of those and a ‘high profile incident’ is measured in inches, except that two of them would be death by careless driving, wouldn’t they.
I have no faith in the
I have no faith in the current government at all and wouldn’t trust Jesse Norman as far as I could throw him but, to be fair, in this case the mention of compulsory high-vis and helmets has come from a question posed to him. When he’s just announced an evidence based review, he’s hardly going to stand there and say a definite yes or no to any measure he’s asked about, because to do so would be to pre-judge the review.
If you clink in to the
If you click in to the BikeBiz link in the article you’ll find this:
Transport correspondent for the Sunday Times Mark Hookham asked the minister “Do you wear hi-vis and a cycle helmet when cycling and do you think they should be compulsory?”
Norman replied: “I have made it perfectly clear in previous conversations that I don’t take a position on hi-via or helmets. That is something in relation to the Cycle Safety Review where we will see what the evidence and the submissions say.
“If you want to have a society where a 12-year-old can get on a bicycle it’s a serious issue as to whether you’re going to mandate hi-vis or helmets and there will be many arguments about whether the safety benefits outweigh or do not outweigh the deterrent effect that might have on people cycling. So we’re going to leave that to the review.”
That’s a transcript – the actual words can be heard on the Spokesmen podcast, where Chris Boardman’s speech is also included.
Carlton Reid wrote:
Thing is, people can have all the arguments they like, but the evidence suggests that the only unequivocal effect is to drive down cycling rates. If he plans to lusten to “arguments” he’s already ignoring the evidence, and is in danger of ( perhaps deliberately) being swayed by the “it’s obviously good, and anyway fairness, level playing field etc.” buffoons, such as we have some of even here.
If this really is to be
If this really is to be “evidence driven” then they have not got off to a very good start, surely the first thing to look at is where the most deaths and injurys occur and focus on that first. I think they will find it is cars vs cyclists.
I think this is instead going to be “pandering to the tabloids and public mood to gain political brownie points” driven.
Hopefully the analysis on
Hopefully the analysis on mandatory helmets and hi-viz will quickly reveal that any safety benefits will be minimal and that these measures will simply deter people from cycling, the opposite of what is required to help lower obesity levels, congestion and urban pollution. But I don’t hold out much hope for Jesse Norman. He seems like an utter twerp, with minimal common sense and/or intelligence. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong.
My opinion is that there
My opinion is that there should be double standards between cyclists, passenger vehicles motorists and professional motorists. The reason why cyclists should face lighter penalties is when somebody locks his car to cycle to work, everybody benefits. Air quality, healthcare costs, import-export balance, car traffic to name some. So the government has to promote cycling by all means, including making cycling as much as carefree as possible. Professional motorists use much more heavy and therefore dangerous vehicles and make many miles so they have to get used to really tranquil driving and in return they should receive better workhour protection to ensure that all of them is really fresh when behind the wheel.
This whole review is
This whole review is ridiculous and based on tabloid reader opinion. However, if the cyclist-hating Conservative party is looking for ideas on how to discourage cycling then the Western Australian model seems to be having some success.
Never mind track bikes with no front brake used on the road, how many times the national speed limit does a car have to be capable of doing before it is considered unsafe to use on the public highway? It would appear that we haven’t reached that limit yet despite the number of times reaching nearly 4.
The car lobby is in full
The car lobby is in full force with their political puppets; we are a nuisance and a threat to their business; just think of it, where are electric cars the more relevant ? precisely in the cities, where bikes are the more relevant too …
So just prepare to see more of this, a war against cycling .
By “a series of high profile
By “a series of high profile incidents” they mean Charlie Alliston rode into someone while being a tool, and I’m not sure how wearing high vis and a helmet would have changed the outcome of that mess.
I wonder what my chances would be of suing Jesse Norman when I get knocked off my bike while whearing high viz and a helmet? “your honour, I was lead to believe by Jesse Norman that by wearing this suff I was immune to dickhead drivers”.
DrG82 wrote:
Exactly. If this review is being driven by that single incident (and it certainly seems to be) surely Norman should be arguing for compulsory helmet-wearing by pedestrians.
DrG82 wrote:
The evidence in this case suggests that if anyone should be wearing helmets it’s pedestrians.
Looking more broadly at vehicle collisions stats, motorists should be wearing the headgear.
DrG82 wrote:
I think a helmet could have made a lot of difference to the outcome. Specifically, if the unfortunate pedestrian had been wearing a helmet, it might just have saved her life. Most helmets are designed to protect the head from low speed incidents – exactly the kind of bumps that pedestrians are susceptible to.
I think if anything is to be learned from the Charlie Alliston incident is that more pedestrians should wear helmets.
Whilst I agree with the
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of what is being said in these comments, I do hope it will not deter cyclists from wearing helmets and hi vis. The harsh reality is drivers do make mistakes, accidents happen and cyclists are vulnerable. Lights, hi vis and helmets all help to reduce the likelihood and seriousness of such accidents. As a survivor of such an accident ( I was wearing hi viz, a helmet,my lights were on), I was less concerned about the injustice of being hit by a driver who failed to see me and more about the damage to my body. I was knocked out and concussed amongst other injuries. I can only thank my helemt for preventing a more serious head injury.
Of course I support safer roads, harsher sentencing of drivers to act as a deterrent, a revised driving test etc, but I also urge any cyclist to wear helmet, hi vis and have good lights. Should this be mandatory? evidence would suggest not. Should it be encourgaed through public funding and policy. Absolutely.
philtregear wrote:
My understanding is that lights are mandatory for when they are needed and reflectors equally. The biggest factor for making cycling on the road safer is better driving.
END.
philtregear wrote:
I really think this is the wrong crowd for your anecdata… 😉
philtregear wrote:
philtregear wrote:
I do hope that helmets and hi-vis are banned completely, I actively deter and tell as many people as possible not to wear plastic hats and hi-vis, the harsh reality is that no matter if you wear a plastic hat it won’t save you from a serious TBI or death, in fact unless you wear one for walking or driving you’re a complete hypocrite.
lights, hi-vis, helmets DO NOT help to reduce the liklihood and seriousness of INCIDENTS (an accident is something totally unavoidable).
As a survivor of a high speed crash (single person) and being offed 3 or 4 times by motorists without wearing a plastic hat I am less convinced by the need to wear one than I already was going back to the mid 80s when i first started to ride the roads more regularly and not a single ride with a hat. Having being struck in a hit and run with a set of good lights, reflectives on my pannier, heels of my shoe and on my jacket in a well lit area and seen many other instances of motorists totally not seeing people/objects I’m even less convinced that hi-vis/reflectives/lights do any good whatsoever and that plod will follow the same old BS spouted by you and others.
Maybe if you had not being wearing your helmet your head might have missed being struck altogether, maybe if you understand the maximum design capability of a helmet you’d understand that it can’t reduce the forces enough to do much good over and above that if you tripped and banged your head whilst walking …
philtregear wrote:
Only if cold hard evidence shows that that would be beneficial. The effect of telling everyone that cycling is dangerous may be that more people die of inactivity related disease. And as a result of NHS sinking under the excesd weight of the population. And as cyclist miss out on safety in numbers.
I’d much rather that public funds and government policy were first focused on eliminating poor driving and vehicles with unacceptable blind spots, fixing drivers attitudes and rubbish infrastructure. I suspect there is much better evidence that all three would save far more lives.
Many cyclists seem to have internalised the idea that we’re “asking for it” by getting in the way of motor vehicles. (“it” being getting killed or seriously injured, presumably).
IMHO the most significant safety problems are bad driving, bad infrastructure and bad vehicle design. Not most cyclists’ clothing. Once the other stuff is fixed, sure, look at whether encouraging hi viz etc would help. They certainly don’t seem to need it in the Netherlands.
I’m yet to see evidence that
I’m yet to see evidence that Jesse Norman should be set loose with his own twitter account, never mind have any ministerial clout.
What a dire shower of shit this lot is.
my first thought of mandatory
my first thought of mandatory hi-vis is suck my nut, helmet wise kinda yeah and no, even though a helmet might have saved my head being stuffed with glue and steristrips, but just let people have the choice, and why put the blaim on cyclists for getting hit by cars, why not just put some responsability on drivers to be aware of other road users, instead of being self entitled a**ses who think the world revolves around them.
Wearing hiv-viz and having
Wearing hiv-viz and having lots of lights does not stop you being run over by arseholes.
I almost got wiped out on a roundabout by some *&%£. Another driver stopped and checked on my wellbeing and told me ‘they cut me up at the last roundabout’.
Not to mention the psychos who execute a left hook.
hirsute wrote:
Being in a car doesn’t stop twunts having a pop at you in their own metal box (unless you’re in an Audis obvs), the difference is that the result on a bike is likely to be more bloody. Twats are twats, and they don’t like it up ’em.
If there’s one ban that will
If there’s one ban that will save more lives than anything else on the road it would be to ban cars.
Municipal Waste wrote:
Too true, but Is suspect that it isn’t the kind of evidence Mr Norman will be seeking.
Interesting. Just as the
Interesting. Just as the campaign to remove helmet law as a failed policy ramps up where it began in the Australian state of Victoria. I thought brexit was actually about the UK removing itself from the nannying effects of the EU but the UK seems to be good enough at it on its own. Over regulatory policies such as this suggest our societies are in a state of decline. I thought the English really wanted to pick themselves up again, but alas.
Worth remembering that CTC
Worth remembering that CTC (CyclingUK) forcefully opposed the move to require rear lights for cycles just after the ’39-’45 war, as this was perhaps the first erosion of a principle that the person driving (or cycling) into the back of another road user at night should have been paying attention to what their headlights were illuminating (cycles were required to have a rear reflector). Deer don’t have hi-viz or lights and a few drivers every year will die or be seriously injured when they hit a deer.
I don’t wear a helmet having certainly survived one collision because I was not wearing one (I did write off the car though, with the main injuries a chipped vertebra, and a small scar on my backside). There have also been other crashes, where again the absence of a head enlarging limp of foam meant I was able to tuck and roll with my head and upper spine in the naturally protected position provided by a foetal ‘ball’, and a relaxed body state.
Worryingly I note around 50% of helmet wearers compromising the protection they assume a helmet might provide, by having the straps loose (potential for garrotting) or even unfastened, and at this time of year the helmets are perched atop of thick balaclavas, or woolly hats like a double size burger, vastly increasing the leverage of the crucial C1-C5 vertebra or the force with which the soft facial areas (nose, cheeks, mouth) will be rammed into the road as the peak hits first in a typical face plant crash (especially if the novice rider’s typical reaction of putting arms out stiffly in front – and breaking clavicles or bones in the hands or arms fails to stop the head hitting at an angle and moving forwards)
A further detail needs to be the ‘accessories’ worn. I learned a few year’s back of a couple on a tandem, both wearing helmets with ABS visors who face planted in a fall and were lucky not to suffer any loss of sight as the shattered visors had fragments embedding in their faces. The vertical drop test also bears no rational connection with a fall from a moving bike, and somewhere I believe there is a video showing the violent ‘kick’ to rotate the head backwards (and break the neck of the rider) as a head form connected to a body weighing around 90% more (unlike some standard drop tests?) hits a ‘road surface’ at an angle with the body then rotating around the head (a very basic mechanical linkage analysis).
Bear in mind too that research in the late 1940’s found that the cranium wth its shock absorbing structure of 7 fused plates, and sacrificial, self healing covering of skin and hair (to limit the ‘snatch effect’ of an oblique impact) displays the refinement of 2.3bn years of evolution to protect the brain in impacts at running speeds (15mph for a 4 minute mile – 20mph for a sprint). The test found that the skull was only at 30% of its impact capacity in a 20mph flat surface impact (such as tripping over when running or running into a tree). Tellingly a helmet us at 260% of its impact capacity (ie well smashed up) in a 20mph impact. Perhaps the best added protection being the traditional bunch of bananas close fitting padded leather racing helmets, or cycling caps in wool or cotton rather than the current offerings.
Chris B is right to press for evidence based objective investigation of crashes, and from this a range of learning points produced. Most fatalities happen when the victim goes under the 8-10Ton axle(s) of a typical bus or truck and 80% of those crashes are with the victim going under the FRONT of the truck or bus. Yet no coroner is noting, as a means to prevent future deaths (a prime outcome for every inquest) that had there been some means to push the victim clear from going under the wheels, perhaps 90% of the crashes where the death has as its primary cause a crush injury under the wheels, that fatality would have been avoided. Trams have lifeguards, fitted for this very purpose – so what stops the fitting of such devices to trucks and buses?
As others have said, I
As others have said, I suspect that this evidence based review is likely to be far less about making cyclists safer and far more about making the road environment easier for the other road users (and, specifically, for our new driverless overlords).
The Health & Safety Executive
The Health & Safety Executive’s own guidance on Personal Protective Equipment is (and I paraphrase) that you engineer the shit out of risky conditions first, and recognise that PPE is a last resort with serious limitations. Work for a major engineering or construction firm and this will be drilled into you. His non-answers on this simple topic thus far have shown zero understanding of this.
By targeting cyclists, Jesse Norman isn’t showing any inclination to understanding the risks involved with current road design and use. He talks about evidence but has completely eschewed evidence in selecting cyclists for his first study, especially as the wider roads study is continually being booted down the motorway. He has chosen to respond to tabloid headlines regarding Alliston rather than research the risks objectively, and he is abrogating his responsibilities as a minister.
If this study does anything other than (diplomatically) call him out for being a prick who plays to the cheap seats it will have been a whitewash. He is already showing himself up as incompetent and biased and I encourage anyone who cares about this to take every opportunity to tell him.
What kind of idiot in any position of authority over a system that directly results in 5 premature deaths daily, chooses the cause of less than 1% of those deaths (and 0% of the 40,000 annual pollution deaths) to investigate first, and even talks about PPE? Jesse fucking Norman. Except it isn’t idiocy – these stats will be known to him, and yet he has chosen to pursue resolving the noise around the edges to keep the Daily Heil on side, rather than do anything significant about risks, the spineless toad.
davel wrote:
Being cynical (probably appropriate for politicians, especially Tories) one might argue that both Norman and Hammond are simply doing as they’ve been told by the paymasters. Get cyclists off the roads and straighten the roads out, all to make life easier for driverless car makers, as an alternative to the probably impossible, certainly expensive, task of getting the driverless tech to work properly around cyclists. I suspect the only evidence this lot care about is the evidence provided by their bank managers.
oldstrath wrote:
Being cynical (probably appropriate for politicians, especially Tories) one might argue that both Norman and Hammond are simply doing as they’ve been told by the paymasters. Get cyclists off the roads and straighten the roads out, all to make life easier for driverless car makers, as an alternative to the probably impossible, certainly expensive, task of getting the driverless tech to work properly around cyclists. I suspect the only evidence this lot care about is the evidence provided by their bank managers.— davel
You could well be right.
And, you know what – it isn’t Jesse Norman doing what Jesse Norman was always going to do (ie. take the path of least resistance – and thought) that hugely offends me. The current chancellor wanted to end ‘the war on the motorist’, FFS. Grayling, Norman’s boss, doored a cyclist then tried to make out it could have been the cyclist’s fault. We know where we are with these twats – like dangerous dogs and kids pulling wheelies, we’re an inconvenience that they don’t understand but need to ‘manage’ somehow.
But what really boils my piss is that in using words like ‘evidence’ and by pretending that this report he’s kicked off is worthwhile he’s trying to give it a veneer of objective respectability. In reality it’s headline-grabbing political bullshit that won’t make the roads safer and could kick-start a move to get cyclists off the roads. In this single action he’s gone from a wobbly, ultimately harmless, gobshite, to being a dangerous bastard.
It’s odious doublespeak.
There’s pretty good evidence that cyclists are safer when more people cycle. It therefore follows that cyclists are less safe when the number of cyclists decreases. Norman should know this.
There’s pretty good evidence that pushing cyclist PPE reduces cyclist numbers. Norman should know this.
Therefore, pushing PPE reduces numbers which reduces everyone still cycling’s safety. Norman should know this. It’s his fucking job to. And yet, here he is, toying with the idea of pushing PPE; toying with the idea of reducing cyclist numbers; toying with the idea of making us less safe.
I know I can’t speak for others, but a government minister toying with ideas that could make it more likely that I don’t make it home one night, because I decided to take the less convenient, healthier, harder, sweatier, greener option of commuting on a bike, highly fucks me off.
This is just the wrong way
This is just the wrong way round.
These people seem intent on making people slightly more ‘car proof’, which is impossible, with the equivalent of a burkha ban for cyclists.
Think harder, invest more and make roads bike friendly or provide cycleways or both, they could put us all in clown suits over full body armour covered in flashing lights and there’d probably be just as many smidys.
The Cycling Silk offers the
The Cycling Silk offers the lawyer’s view of this one, and is the clearest explanation I’ve found of the status quo, and the arguments for and against the legal changes suggested in this proposal (“The first phase will look at whether a new offence equivalent to causing death by careless or dangerous driving should be introduced for cyclists”) :
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/a-note-on-law-manslaughter-dangerous.html
I hope he can be invited to comment as part of the review process – in fact perhaps he could submit his article, or even offer his expert opinion to the review? (I’m assuming, as Chris Boardman rightly suggests, there will be an evidence based approach).
PJ McNally wrote:
and if the rules on gross negligence manslaughter were actually applied then the charge against Charlie alliston should never have occured. his actions were to avoid collision, he braked (admitted by the prosecution), he swerved to avoid collision, he gave an audible warning (as recommended in the HC) and yet the police/CPS saw fit to ignore the rules regarding when it was appropriate (to charge for manslaughter) and fitted him up when it was anything but. In fact his riding did not even meet the wanton and/or Furious charge either.
The worst that Alliston was guilty of according to law and precedence was a Construction and Use breach for not having the correct number of brakes which even if he’d had the extra front brake given the timescale of the last movement back into his path he would not have being able to stop from even the (admitted by the prosecution) wanton and furious 10mph speed just before impact.
The system allowed ‘evidence’ that did not recreate what happened which swayed the jury to convict, breaching the rules/law yet again… and there is somehow the need to come up with a law which is ignored by police/CPS government by those doing the killing and maiming!
You aint getting me in High
You aint getting me in High Vis.
Personally, I hate the term
Personally, I hate the term ‘cyclists’. There are so many different types of cycling, banding them all into one to me is a huge mistake. Why should I, a British Cycling member with insurance, well-serviced bike, helmet, splash of Hi-Vis and lights be dubbed under the same moniker as some hooded tw4t swerving through traffic p1ssing drivers off.
Anyone else feel like they are being banded in with the idiots who happen to be riding a bike ??
Personally, I hate the term
Personally, I hate the term ‘cyclists’. There are so many different types of cycling, banding them all into one to me is a huge mistake. Why should I, a British Cycling member with insurance, well-serviced bike, helmet, splash of Hi-Vis and lights be dubbed under the same moniker as some hooded tw4t swerving through traffic p1ssing drivers off.
Anyone else feel like they are being banded in with the idiots who happen to be riding a bike ??
i.stuart wrote:
Is this like with drivers – everyone thinks that they are above average drivers?
Mind you, I’d probably be classed as a mamil swerving through traffic pissing drivers off. I’d much rather have drivers see me and get annoyed than not see me and be content.
You’re right about ‘cyclists’ being rubbish though – collective responsibility is complete tosh.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Don’t get me wrong I was not trying to say I was above average, just I don’t want to be tarred with the same brush as the idiots in bikes out there 😉
i.stuart wrote:
Too late! All the drivers I’ve wound up won’t be able to tell the difference between us as I wear a helmet and a reasonable amount of Hi-Vis too.
The way I see it is that I’d rather see an idiot riding a bike than an idiot driving a car. Simple damage limitation.
Test-send
Test-send
As much as we dislike the
As much as we dislike the Daily Fail I came across this column by Peter Hitchens while flicking through my mums Sunday read. He pretty much goes against the grain of the average reader
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5117751/Cycle-helmets-lives-risk.html
giff77 wrote:
I clicked on that and started reading, but it gave me eye cancer.
I think it was the start of the article:
That’s exactly the fallacy that cyclists should be addressing – it’s not statistically that dangerous. I cycle a lot and have never been killed.
Would it not be interesting
Would it not be interesting to see how many “dislikes”these irrational comments would attract, if disliking were enabled? Its the same old rubbish that was trotted out to oppose the wearing of seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Do the same pople oppose the legal requirement to have reflectors fitted, or use lights at night? If all cyclists wore helmets and enhanced their visibility voluntarily, there would be no need for a law.
I wear a cycle helmet and hiviz clothing all the time I am in the saddle. It’s called “protecting yourself”. The hazard could be a motorist, or it could be a pedestrian, or an unleashed dog, or a dog on a retractable lead, or gravel on the road etc. I have been cycling for 60 years and I have never been struck by a motorist. I have, however, fallen off my bike 4 times in the last year alone due to slippery surfaces, any one of which may have caused me serious head injury – so I wear a helmet. I have been overtaken by vehicles thousands of times. Any one of those may have struck me if I had not enhanced my visibility.
I have spent over 30years in the Royal Air Force responsible for explosives safety and bomb disposal. That line of business focuses your mind a damn sight more than cycling! You soon realise 2 things. The first thing to realise is that incidents happen. Most incidents (accidents if you like) are NOT caused by law breakers or irresponsible people – but they DO happen. The second thing is to do whatever is necessary to protect yourself against the consequences.
If you dont wear a helmet or make yourself as visible as possible on the public road then you are only one thing – STUPID? And if you dont make your children do like-wise, then you are plain ignorant.
pete1999 wrote:
I have fallen off my bike three times and been doored off once, riding for six years. On none of those occasions did my head come anywhere near contact with the ground. I have no faith that a helmet would protect me from being hit by a car. Helmets are warmer than caps, which is the only reason why I wear one at this time of year. Merry Christmas, fungus (is a bogeyman the same as a troll?)
Tough christmas?
Tough christmas?
Pete 1999,
Pete 1999,
I wear a helmet on my ‘proper’ bike rides, encourage my kids to do so, and have quite possibly avoided serious injury because of wearing one (crash at 50mph), however your logic is wrong.
It’s interesting that you put a dangerous career background to justify your comments, it really has no bearing though. If you were in Afghanistan and about to walk across a market Square (cos that’s what they do in the film’s) to disarm a bomb you’d probably have some kind of helmet, protection against explosion. But would you be sent to do so if the enemy were in situ, attacking from many angles with machine guns and assault rifles, the odd hand grenade. That’s what we are dealing with on the roads. The bomb may well be a big head impact, but every day there’s thousands of bullets in the form of close passes, left hooks, people jumping red lights, pulling out of junctions. In fact pushing mandatory attire is just going to make your army smaller and justify the actions of your enemy.
Or if that analogy is too much, why aren’t are painted hi viz?