Underwhelming Surrey cycle safety campaign has more tips for cyclists than drivers, including wear a helmet

BikeBud wrote:

All this advice and PR may be of no value, but remember that it is keeping some people in their jobs...

If there were less pointless jobs, products would be cheaper, taxes would be less and we could all work a few less hours.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Shock, Horror!

Suggestion that cycling is done with a basic regard for personal safety and some consideration of other road users / pedestrians is greeted by howls of protest about victim blaming. Who'd have though it?

Granted it appears to be more of the bleedin' obvious advice for the muppets that we all see every day and who will continue to be muppets, oblivious of all the bland advice dished out by well meaning but ultimately powerless quangoes and as ever the cash could probably have been better spent on another poorly designed cycle path that doesn't really meet anyone's needs.

Damn but I'm grumpy this morning.

Putting rather obvious (and also questionable, i.e. the helmetology) advice to cyclists about their own safety on a par with advice to motorists about not endangering other people - yup, I'd say that was a bit tiresome.

Particularly given the facts seem pretty clear that the latter is a far more significant problem than the former, in terms of actually causing deaths and injuries.

Its a subtle attempt to mislead, and so, yeah, in a roundabout way its encouraging victim-blaming. Par for the course, really though, its the way of the world, and not just limited to road safety.

Hmm, you aren't the only grumpy one. I don't really care though - I really don't think this sort of 'advice' has much effect at all either way, good or bad. Enforcement and infrastructure are the only things that work.

ibike wrote:

Completely ignores the root cause of the problem which is the lack of safe cycling infrastructure in this country. Cycling is not dangerous. Cycling in busy fast-moving traffic is.

I would suggest that it isn't that dangerous, very unpleasant, but not really that dangerous. But if you want more people to cycle, telling them that something that is very unpleasant is good for you isn't really very convincing!

mrmo wrote:

out of interest who paid for this gibberish?

We all did.

ChairRDRF wrote:

BTW, C-S are the re-branded BHIT, and not actually a helmet industry organisation.

There is understandable confusion here.

Cycle Smart was/is a Surrey CC safety initiative, now appears to be incorporated into Drive Smart. It is not to be confused with the Stoke on Trent CC bike safety drive, Cycle Smart, the Department of Transport/Disney's Cycle Smart, or the US-based bike coaching company, Cycle Smart. Got you confused yet? Excellent! I ain't stopping now!

Also not to be confused with the charity formerly known as the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, now the Cycle Smart Foundation. They said they would change their name in November last year, which hasn't happened yet, maybe incorporate elements of both names, so maybe... to the Smart Helmet Intitiative Trust? Just a thought.

hampstead_bandit wrote:

Can she ask that pedestrians also have insurance in case of damage they cause to cyclists? There is a real problem at the moment with smartphone obsessed pedestrians walking into the road without looking, because they don't hear an engine noise.

I would certainly like to have a put in a claim against the idiot who ran into the road outside Kings Cross station in January, causing me to crash hard and£800 worth of damage to my bike and clothing

Left me lying in the road with cuts and bruises whilst he cowardly ran off into the crowd after realizing what he had just done

Some dozy plonker stepped off the pavement into the road (Waterloo Bridge) in front of me and a group of about 30 others on Saturday afternoon. During Ride London. It's all right though, there weren't any cars coming.

kie7077 wrote:

She said the Cycle-Smart Foundation wanted cyclists to have insurance in case of any damage they cause to vehicles or pedestrians.

Should we have magic armour too for all of those times we get attacked by unicorns? What planet are these people on? Damage to pedestrians is fixed by the NHS not insurance, idiots.

The NHS fixes damage to cyclists as well. What the NHS won't do is protect you from financial loss in the event of a civil personal injury claim from a pedestrian if you hit them, or a property damage claim from a car driver if you accidentally scratch their car. I think advising cyclists to have public liability insurance is a bloody good idea and I wouldn't ride anywhere without it.

davenportmb wrote:

What the NHS won't do is protect you from financial loss in the event of a civil personal injury claim from a pedestrian if you hit them, or a property damage claim from a car driver if you accidentally scratch their car.

Neither will insurance protect you from financial loss. It costs money to be insured, a regular payment every year, whether you claim or not.
In the long run insurance companies make a profit by ensuring that the premiums they get exceed the payouts.

felixcat wrote:

davenportmb wrote:

What the NHS won't do is protect you from financial loss in the event of a civil personal injury claim from a pedestrian if you hit them, or a property damage claim from a car driver if you accidentally scratch their car.

Neither will insurance protect you from financial loss. It costs money to be insured, a regular payment every year, whether you claim or not.
In the long run insurance companies make a profit by ensuring that the premiums they get exceed the payouts.

But that's what insurance is, you pay a premium in order to protect yourself from the risk of financial loss in the event of an accident that the civil courts decided you were the cause of. A premium isn't "financial loss", it's the purchase of peace of mind.

davenportmb wrote:

kie7077 wrote:

She said the Cycle-Smart Foundation wanted cyclists to have insurance in case of any damage they cause to vehicles or pedestrians.

Should we have magic armour too for all of those times we get attacked by unicorns? What planet are these people on? Damage to pedestrians is fixed by the NHS not insurance, idiots.

The NHS fixes damage to cyclists as well. What the NHS won't do is protect you from financial loss in the event of a civil personal injury claim from a pedestrian if you hit them, or a property damage claim from a car driver if you accidentally scratch their car. I think advising cyclists to have public liability insurance is a bloody good idea and I wouldn't ride anywhere without it.

I cycle carefully, if I hit a pedestrian it will be because they suddenly ran in front of my bike, even that's unlikely because I slow down ready to stop when near pedestrians on shared use paths. When on the road I don't kerb-hug especially on busy roads like Oxford Street where I take primary.

In the highly unlikely event that I scratch a car, I can afford to pay for that, it's certainly not worth paying insurance for - like felixcat said.

kie7077 wrote:

I cycle carefully, if I hit a pedestrian it will be because they suddenly ran in front of my bike, even that's unlikely because I slow down ready to stop when near pedestrians on shared use paths.

In the highly unlikely event that I scratch a car, I can afford to pay for that, it's certainly not worth paying insurance for - like felixcat said.

Glad that you can be so confident that you will never make a mistake.

Have you considered the possibility that rather than scratching a car, you make a mistake that causes a driver to write off their car trying to avoid you? Or you hit a pedestrian who falls and injures themselves in such a way that they can't work for months?

The chances of it happening are tiny, but the cost is potentially very high. This is what insurance is good for.

Fortunately, the insurance industry recognises that these are tiny risks, which is why cycling is not excluded from the standard 3rd party liability cover included in every home contents policy I've ever seen, and even cycle-specific cover is very cheap.

pdw wrote:

kie7077 wrote:

I cycle carefully, if I hit a pedestrian it will be because they suddenly ran in front of my bike, even that's unlikely because I slow down ready to stop when near pedestrians on shared use paths.

In the highly unlikely event that I scratch a car, I can afford to pay for that, it's certainly not worth paying insurance for - like felixcat said.

Glad that you can be so confident that you will never make a mistake.

Have you considered the possibility that rather than scratching a car, you make a mistake that causes a driver to write off their car trying to avoid you? Or you hit a pedestrian who falls and injures themselves in such a way that they can't work for months?

The chances of it happening are tiny, but the cost is potentially very high. This is what insurance is good for.

Fortunately, the insurance industry recognises that these are tiny risks, which is why cycling is not excluded from the standard 3rd party liability cover included in every home contents policy I've ever seen, and even cycle-specific cover is very cheap.

If a driver writes off their car, their insurance can pay for it.

Like I said about the pedestrian, their fault, their liability, not mine, I have cameras front and rear.

If I get free insurance with CTC or British Cycling etc then fine but I'm not going to pay specifically for cycling insurance.

Have you ever heard of cycling insurance paying out due to situations you mention? I haven't.

Here's a quote:
" Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) will deal with the claim in lieu of an insurer. However, the MIB only deals with claims involving motor vehicles. They will not deal with claims against pedestrians or cyclists."

Quote:

Like I said about the pedestrian, their fault, their liability, not mine, I have cameras front and rear.

So you're completely infallible? There's no chance that you could be at fault in a collision with a pedestrian? If only we had more infallible people on our roads, the world would be a much better place.

Quote:

Have you ever heard of cycling insurance paying out due to situations you mention? I haven't.

No, but I wouldn't expect to either.

Quote:

Here's a quote:
" Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) will deal with the claim in lieu of an insurer. However, the MIB only deals with claims involving motor vehicles. They will not deal with claims against pedestrians or cyclists."

Quite so. The MIB exists to "Significantly reduce the level and impact of uninsured driving in the UK". Not uninsured walking or cycling or anything else.

Personally I accept that I do make mistakes, and that there is a very small chance that I will be responsible for an accident that causes substantial damage to another person or their property, and I prefer to be in a position to take financial responsibility for that possibility. That doesn't just relate to cycling. Fortunately, my home insurance gives me that through general purpose 3rd party liability cover.

I do also have cycling-specific insurance, but that's mostly a side effect of wanting the legal protection that comes with it.

@ pdw

These aren't things that I worry about.

If one takes up cycle insurance, mostly what you are paying for is the paper-work to be done because the risk is so small. It's like licenses for cyclists - a waste of time. It's poor value.

davenportmb wrote:

The NHS fixes damage to cyclists as well. What the NHS won't do is protect you from financial loss in the event of a civil personal injury claim from a pedestrian if you hit them, or a property damage claim from a car driver if you accidentally scratch their car. I think advising cyclists to have public liability insurance is a bloody good idea and I wouldn't ride anywhere without it.

You have a bit of a point regarding pedestrians, but how likely is that to actually happen, really? I mean, do joggers get insurance just in case they run into a frail person?

And how much is a scratched car going to cost, compared to years of insurance premiums? (And how much do motorist's pay via their insurance for all the pavements they destroy by driving over and parking on them?)