- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Laura Trott (copyright Britishcycling.org.uk)"It's not always the car's fault" - Laura Trott says reckless cyclists to blame if they get hurt & helmets should be compulsory
Laura Trott claims that cyclists riding recklessly have only themselves to blame should they get hit by a vehicle. “It’s not always the car’s fault” she said. She also echoed calls by Sir Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish in recent days for cycle helmets to be made compulsory.
Trott, winner of two gold medals at London 2012, was speaking in her role as one of Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s cycling ambassadors, says the Evening Standard.
While the mayor has expressed concerns about a minority of cyclists who disobey the rules of the road, Trott’s comments appear far more sweeping and, some may say, poorly thought through.
“Cyclists wonder why they get a bad name,” she told the newspaper. “I see cyclists jumping in and out of the buses and people wonder why they get hit.
“It’s not always the car’s fault,” she added, although of course substituting “motorist” for “car” would be more accurate.
“Cyclists need to help themselves and should not jump red lights.
“I would ride in London but I certainly wouldn’t ride like that, you just have to be careful.
“I can understand going down the outside of traffic but you should obey the rules of the road because we’re all road users.”
The Standard points out that 14 cyclists lost their lives on the city’s roads last year, and that six more have died so far in 2013.
What neither it – nor Trott – acknowledge is that in the vast majority of cases, the cyclist has done nothing wrong.
And far from cars, it is lorries that present the greatest danger to cyclists on London’s streets.
According to the London Cycling Campaign, HGVs account for just 5 per cent of the city’s traffic, but are responsible for around half of cyclist fatalities.
Many of those deaths occur at junctions, where the cyclist – all too often, a female in her 20s or 30s – is obeying the law, stopped at a traffic light, but on the inside of a lorry that then turns left and not seen by the driver.
Trott, aged 21, has also called for more segregated bike lanes, such as the one planned to run along the Embankment.
“It shows show we’re becoming a cycling nation and the scheme is needed now. If you don’t do it then London’s roads are going to be filled with cyclists. We need more bike lanes in central London.”
TfL’s video animations showing new infrastructure being out in place on the Stratford extension of Barclays Cycle Superhighway CS2 have been widely criticised, including here on road.cc, as over-complicated and counter-intuitive, however.
Trott added that helmets should be made compulsory for cyclists, something that the mayor’s own cycling commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, opposes.
Sir Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish have also supported calls for mandatory helmets for cyclists in recent days.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- jaymack 32 min 5 sec ago
Touring never died rather both bicycle manufactures and the cycling media rather lost interest in it.
- Oldfatgit 59 min 19 sec ago
Qidi ... was it just me, or did the guys with the system come over as right cocksockets?...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 30 min ago
Bit unfair on the chap in the headline photograph to use his image to illustrate an article on this issue, seeing as he is quite clearly safely at...
- Muddy Ford 1 hour 45 min ago
Police prioritising that which risks most harm to the public. Cyclists endangering pedestrians with minor injuries will get £50 fines from police...
- teckert 8 hours 2 min ago
You can see the effect of a 'way too late' opening of this comp, with my dismal results! Wrecked a good start to my season.
- IanMunro 9 hours 27 sec ago
It was off my list of helmets worth buying as soon as I saw someone had named it "Game Changer".
- mark1a 10 hours 28 min ago
Looks valid to me although on a black Mercedes C Class. Last V5 issued 25th April (2 days ago) so maybe plate was being transferred.
- Sam3 13 hours 52 min ago
Asked for comment, a representative of the biker community said: "We are realigning our expenditure better reflect our strategic priorities and...
- Sam3 13 hours 56 min ago
So highly overpriced items such as "premium bike clothing" and overpriced "premium" bikes that no one NEEDS....suffer a disproportionate...
Add new comment
144 comments
koko56. Would love to hear your views on gun control and women in mini-skirts.
I think it highlights the fact that some people keep suggesting that the poor behaviour of some people on bikes has a significantly negative impact on the ability to sensibly discuss cycling safety as if it is a fact.
The accident stats for 2004-2010 in Edinburgh found that in 72% of incidents where there was a serious pedal cycle injury, motorists were at fault.
In Scotland in 2011, for 95% of the incidents involving ignoring traffic signals, motor vehicles were responsible.
Time to challenge this lazy thinking about the behaviour of cyclists and point out that motorists aren't doing themselves any favours and should really sort themselves out...
to some degree I agree that there are cyclist out there - particularly in London - who are 'asking' to be involved in a collision. In the same token, there are cars, busses lorries etc, doing the same. I know which one scares me more... But then if the cyclist doesn't have the sense to think that riding the up the wrong side of the road dodgin through the geps to get across (seen this morning), or running through reds is dangerous, then i think they bring it on themself if they get flattened by whatever moving tonne of metal is hurtling toward them. GHowever, that's not to say that it isn't ever the car's fault, in the same way I don't think Trott was saying that its always the cyclists fault. Contributory factors if you run a red you are more likely to get hit.
Personally I always wear a lid, i have had a few offs over the years and believe that the lid stopped my head from being a mess of bits spread along the curb in at least one case. That alone is enough for me to always wear one.
I think the vehemence of the opposition to Laura's comments is a bit saddening - to so utterly deny that there's any value to what she says screams of heads plunged deeply in sand.
No - I would suggest you are either naively or deliberately missing the point
We can't allow the debate about cycling in this country to be framed in this way by poorly thought out comments, from those who should know better, without any reference to the facts
Otherwise we will continue to have people with a sense of entitlement because they drive a car attempting to force cyclists off the roads
Are we saying, then, that in order to progress cycling safety, we have to utterly deny that cyclists are ever at fault? That doesn't seem to me to be either healthy or realistic.
No, we're saying a cycling ambassador needs to have a well thought out strategy, speak with balance, use facts, and remember that the mainstream media currently has an anti-cycling bias.
Has Ms Trott been out on a regular day ride in London ?
The vast majority of cyclists I see on my daily London commute wear helmets so what marginal gain is there from a compulsory law ?
It would have been more perceptive to ask why so many cyclists in London already choose to do so whereas in Holland the vast majority choose not to.
Therein lies the danger in asking a 21 year old to step into the political arena.
She rides for the GB team - She will definitely have had media training there.
She's a brand ambassador for Adidas - She will definitely have had media training there.
She's a brand ambassador for Prudential - I am fairly sure there will have been media guidance there.
I wonder who's fault she would think it was if the driver of this car had been involved in an accident?
https://twitter.com/LauraTrott31/status/373113559422492672/photo/1
she may well have had copious amounts of media training but I am afraid it does not necessarily translate into political acumen as she has demonstrated.
I agree with you, I was pointing out that it's not like she has been thrown in blind to this to fend for herself.
She will have been given endless guidance and should really have the intelligence to give out a bland media friendly soundbite if she didn't want to antagonise anyone but she didn't. That makes her, in my opinion, either plain stupid or malicious.
There is also an outside chance that British Cycling actually prepped her to go down this route. Funding is tight and sponsors need to be pleased, if one was to be so cynical.
I should think British Cycling would have cycling safety at its heart wouldn't you? Perhaps they have a point then?
I wonder also how many pontificators on this article live in London and know what she is talking about? I get a lot of air from the regions on this sort of stuff, but cycling everyday in London the bad cycling (either naive or plan belligerent) goes on in inordinant amounts....and let's face it she is talking about London.
If any of you have followed any pro cyclists on twitter you will know they are not, on the whole, the sharpest tools in the box
(Apart from Chris Boardman and Emma Pooley of course.)
They ride bikes for a living, that should kind of tell you something about them.
Trott seems nice enough but i wouldnt really want to consult her on matters of great importance.
I dont care what she thinks about stuff - its just a shame the media give notable cyclists the platform to give their ill informed and tedious opinions.
Wrong, sorry. Blame the inside-left filter lanes and advance stop boxes, not the riders thinking they're following the guidance of the roads, and possibly not the drivers of ill-equipped lorries either. Filter lanes on the left are a potentially very dangerous place to be and have killed many riders imo.
+1 James-o
i think advance stop boxes are great, but you have to get far enough forward to be seen by the hgv driver. also, you need to position centre lane, TAKE THE LANE, otherwise you are just in the same position you started in - on the left, waiting for a left turning car/hgv to hit you!
filter lanes should be centred (ideally between lane 1 and 2) to encourage people on bikes to move slightly to the right (eg centre of lane 1) to obstruct silly close overtakes and left turns... of course, if you are turning right, go to the very right of lane 2....
today i was early for a meeting and watched a corner at parliament square for 5 minutes. its crazy how many unconfident cyclists would prefer to queue in the filter lane, rather than push forwards to fill up the bike box. its like they are scared of going in front of the cars..... (which is understandable actually)
Not at all Mark - you could understand the hurt and offence this sort of thing causes others and do some reading into the reality of the situation
Fact - most cycle helmets are safety tested as TOYS! - rated for single vehicle impacts up to 12 mph
Fact - police reports for traffic incidents in and around London show the vast majority involving cyclists are NOT the cyclists fault
That's why we're narked
When you're high-profile like these riders, think before commenting on topics like this, please. Everyone has an opinion but yours is no more or less informed than most and will be quoted out of proportion and often out of context.
(Denmark vs Australia anyone?)
I dont normally add comments to forums but the nature of the responses to both this story, and the same sentiment expressed on the recent piece on Bradley Wiggins have really surprised me.
I think Laura has hit the nail on the head. I have been commuting into the City of London for the past 15 years and have seen a number of incidents between cyclists and cars. In most, if not all, cases the cyclist was at fault. And yes, I have had the odd episode myself (I have the stitches to prove it) and hand on heart, I cant say the way I was riding at the time was not a contributing factor.
I always where a helmet, but if you think by not wearing one you are 'giving it to the man' then please carry on. Presumably the same cyclists who complain about the possability of a law making helmet wearing mandatory also refuse to take part in sportives or triathlons for the same reason?
My personal bottom line is that if you reguarly cycle into a big city then despite what some of the posters on this forum think, cycling IS a dangerous activity and you would be an idiot not to take as many precautions as possible.
Mark
Perhaps you should have kept it that way?
Mark, you know nothing of this topic. Do us all a favour and do some research before pontificating in public.
Hmm...this is why I dont post on forums. Obvously having a POV on this without reading loads of research papers on helmet wearing, accidents etc, is a bad thing. Of course, riding into London 3-4 days a week for the past decade plus doesnt count for anything.
I like to think that a bit of sensible debate is a good thing but being told I know nothing is a bit insulting. If it came across as pontificating then I sincerely apologise. All I can do is post what I see and I think!
Right - better get back to work! Enjoy the rest of the day everybody.
I can see why now.
I think it's because people don't want someone pissing on the back of their leg and then telling them it's raining.
Woah! Was the nail wearing a helmet? If not, would the nail have survived if it had have been wearing a helmet?
And that is relevant why exactly?
Well which is it? If you can't remember or cant figure it out, you'd hardly make a reliable witness would you?
Very vague this bit, are you saying that you have been hit by a car which resulted in requiring medical treatment but it was your fault? Or are you just referring to when you have had an 'off'? If it's the latter it is very misleading indeed, if its the former then I have had incidents where I have been hit by cars when on my bike and it's 100% not been my fault, nor has my riding been a contributory cause so does that negate your point?
Yeah, by not strapping on a glorified egg box in the hope that it will provide me with a force field that will withstand the impact of of several tonnes of fast moving metal if I just want to nip to the shop is really how I like to stick it to 'The Man'. What utter waffle.
Well, no, you utter whopper, because you don't just 'sportive' or 'triathlon' to the shop do you? Why would I or any right thinking person want to be made a criminal for not wearing a piece of polystyrene? What next? Compulsory gloves? Glasses? Knee pads?
Key word is personal, don't make me a criminal because of your stupid, misguided beliefs.
No, it's not.
So do you wear a kevlar vest at all times in case you get shot or stabbed?
do you *really* not understand the difference between racing a triathlon and nipping to the shops for an ice cream?
do you wear a fire-proof suit and full-face helmet when you drive your car to the seaside?
Dave,
if you thought about it, you would realise what bollocks that is. In a car, you already have airbags, a seat belt, crash bars, anti-lock brakes and all manner of safety devices to protect you. A cyclist has no protection whatsoever, so managing the risk by using a helmet is reasonable measure whatever the circumstances. Of course, perfect cyclists would never have a 'single vehicle accident' involving a pothole or lose drain cover where a helmet might prevent a head injury, would they?
believe me, i've thought about it a lot. mostly i think about why it's incumbent on cyclists to 'manage risk' – to the extent that people will advocate that managing said risk should be legally enforceable – when what they're doing is no more dangerous than walking, and a whole lot less dangerous than lots of other things where no-one *ever* wears a helmet, nor is asked to. why is that?
you can't claim that it's 'reasonable' for cyclists to wear a helmet in case they have an accident, unless you're prepared to advocate the same for every other comparably risky activity. such as doing DIY, and playing football.
also i think about how people are completely unable to see the bigger picture at all when they start talking about helmets. it's all about mitigating risk of a specific type of injury on a per-person level and ignoring all the other effects of helmet compulsion.
I do wear a helmet, by the way. but i wish people would wake up and see the bigger picture. Find me a country with high levels of cycling *and* high levels of helmet use. Just one. There aren't any. Why do you think that is?
If someone blames (or penalises) me for another person's arguably reckless behaviour just because we share a mode of transport, that's prejudice, pure and simple.
It's ugly and it needs to stop. Far too often cyclists are complicit in prejudice against themselves like this.
Trott is clearly just a naive young woman who happens to be good at riding a bicycle. You can't blame her for that but she certainly shouldn't be an ambassador for anything, and she doesn't represent me any more than some kid cutting up old ladies on the pavement does.
Having said that, yes please to the protected bike lanes.
Other than the comments on helmets - which are simply just an expression of her own views and experience - what has she said that can be disagreed with?
Some cyclists are morons and - on occasion - have no one to blame but themselves if they get hurt. Shock.
"Massive disservice.' Really?
"Massive disservice.' Really?
YES - a massive disservice. Because cycling needs to move forward in country. We need to start building infrastructure and focussing on the positives.
Instead all Laura has done is unnecessarily dragged up the shit. Which is counter productive.
What rubbish.
Denying the truth - that there are a lot of crap and law breaking riders around - is counter productive. It leaves the cycling fraternity open to the quite reasonable criticism that it's one eyed.
"What neither it – nor Trott – acknowledge is that in the vast majority of cases, the cyclist has done nothing wrong."
"Many of those deaths occur at junctions, where the cyclist – all too often, a female in her 20s or 30s – is obeying the law, stopped at a traffic light, but on the inside of a lorry that then turns left and not seen by the driver."
Getting real tired of this shit that oh HGVs are so bad and kill all the cyclists. If a cyclist is stopped on the inside of the lorry they have blame, no matter which way you look it - unless it's this view that cars and especially lorry drivers must have some 6th sense about cyclist all the time that can maneuver much quicker and are a lot smaller through traffic.
Helmets - sure debate all you want, but this villanasing of lorries in cases where cyclists position themselves in potential blind spots is plain wrong - what seems like a subconscious red herring from the fact that cyclists should be either far in front of a lorry/large vehicle or behind it at lights - if this is not common sense then you are a far greater danger to yourself than anyone else on the road.
That's what BW and LT are trying to get across I feel - that it's down to being smart and a having a pre-emptive approach. If you feel a car has not seen you on a RB - slow down, if you feel the road has a dodgy junction in it and see a car waiting to pull out slow down - because even cyclists might not spot cyclists when they are driving because you look out for car most of the time. So quit with this "oh I'm on a bike so need equal rights as a car". You are just being unrealistic because you are not a car - how is that so hard to understand?
I am not saying anything to provoke a reaction on purpose, just what is common sense that is all too overlooked.
Pages