Jeremy Vine hits back at senior cop "appalled" by behaviour of cyclists without helmets; Lucky cyclists narrowly avoid being struck by lightning; Alaphilippe to skip Olympics; Women's Tour de France; Help a community bike project + more on the live blog

First paragraph would have been ok if second paragraph had detailed the behaviour in question.

second paragraph "especially shocked..." stated that missing helmets was the worst misdemeanor  

You could always ask the Southport Councillor who campaigned by saying cycle lanes 'introduce a new level of danger for both pedestrians and car users.'

the infamous grouse wrote:

whiplash is one of the most common injuries recieved during a collision, isn't it?

lets start a trend of shaming all motor vehicle occupants for not wearing a neck brace to proactively defend against it.

Don't, I've suffered whiplash on more than one occasion coming off my bike. They'll start telling us that we need to wear them, otherwise the insurance won't pay out....

Captain Badger wrote:

Don't, I've suffered whiplash on more than one occasion coming off my bike. They'll start telling us that we need to wear them, otherwise the insurance won't pay out....

nope too late. besides, poppy & penelope will look fabulously safe driving around in their fiat500 soft-top with summer dresses and accent-matched carbon fibre neck brace.

HANS devices, which would work well with their 5 point safety harnesses and driving helmets.

And Nomex suits, I mean if it were to save just one life...

Deal with this, Nigel, cycle helmets are a distraction, yet another a way for drivers to blame others for their incompetence.  I wear one - for my own mishaps, the occasional overhanging branch, and somewhere to mount my camera. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If the superintendent saw dangerous, law breaking cycling he has every right to tweet about it. Instead of whinging about it and trying to create division, Vine and the other Pro-EU virtue-signalling blowhards should acknowledge that dangerous cycling is an issue - but one that is dwarfed by road casualties caused by motorists... an issue which I'm sure the superintendent is already more than aware of and trying to tackle to the fullest of his capacity.

Possibly, except of all the "dangerous" road behaviour, his biggest problems were not wearing a helmet, and (clutches pearls) clipping helmet to backpack.

The guy is clearly a tool, playing to the gallery, with no real grasp or care for road safety issues.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Don't forget the medium he is using - he can't write War and Peace on Twitter about everything he'd like to do on road safety - and simply noted some quick takeaways from his observations as part of the operation they undertook. If someone is riding round without a helmet on but clipped to their backpack, it does strike me as illogical and noteworthy - and contrary to road safety.

No he can't, so it would seem that he would be best using his limited characters to highlight the major causes of risk on the road. Even if you ignore the obvious (*cough* cars) and just look at cycling, not wearing a helmet, or clipping it to your rucksack, does not increase danger to anyone (other than the rider themselves, and even that is tenuous as not wearing a lid doesn't increase your chance of being hit)

His shrill whine of a tweet did nothing more than

1. irritate cyclists who are rightly fed up of being victim-blamed for the violence that is inflicted on them,
2. act as a rallying call for those gammons that would further marginalise an already marginalised group.

This idiot is supposedly in charge of the police response to road violence in the City. He is demonstrating his prejudice and cluelessness  - that's fine for the usual twitter gammon, but this guy is in charge of policies whose outputs will directly affect people's lives. And all he can blather on about is polystyrene hats......

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Don't forget the medium he is using - he can't write War and Peace on Twitter about everything he'd like to do on road safety - and simply noted some quick takeaways from his observations as part of the operation they undertook. If someone is riding round without a helmet on but clipped to their backpack, it does strike me as illogical and noteworthy - and contrary to road safety.

Given he's a limited number of characters (and his is questionable); would it not make more sense to point out red light jumpers, illegal behaviours and not be 'especially shocked' by the attire?

Come on Nigel, you can do it!

"and simply noted some quick takeaways from his observations as part of the operation they undertook."

You mention later on about an operation as well. Yet his tweet is:-
Appalled by the behaviour of some cyclists on my way in this morning: endangering themselves, other road users and pedestrians. 

TBH anyone know if he posts regular "on my way into work this morning I saw....." insert moan about taxis, buses, cars, electric scooters and all manner of items which is probably more dangerous then anything the cyclists have done? But as others have pointed out, the helmet comment is the main thing he has been called out on. Points out supposedly illegal behaviour and then adds and it is worse because of non helmets does seem to legitimise the non-cyclists moans. I'm surprised he didn't mention Road tax as it did come across as that type of moan. 

Captain Badger wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If the superintendent saw dangerous, law breaking cycling he has every right to tweet about it. Instead of whinging about it and trying to create division, Vine and the other Pro-EU virtue-signalling blowhards should acknowledge that dangerous cycling is an issue - but one that is dwarfed by road casualties caused by motorists... an issue which I'm sure the superintendent is already more than aware of and trying to tackle to the fullest of his capacity.

Possibly, except of all the "dangerous" road behaviour, his biggest problems were not wearing a helmet, and (clutches pearls) clipping helmet to backpack.

The guy is clearly a tool, playing to the gallery, with no real grasp or care for road safety issues.

You wear pearls?

(Will they protect you in a traffic collision??)

You don't?

brooksby wrote:

.....

You wear pearls?

Only at weekends darling.

brooksby wrote:

(Will they protect you in a traffic collision??)

People certainly seem to give me a wide berth....

Didn't do much for Ying Tao though.

What evidence do you have that the superintendent is tackling vehicle related issues to the 'fullest of his capacity' ?

There is a 50+ post thread from yesterday on safety clothing where someone wants PPE as the main risk control. Are they your Dad ?

Helmets are just a distraction from the road problems and give limited protection anyway for low speed impacts.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

As for the troll post on visibility/ppe yesterday, I've no idea why you guys fell for it - clocked it straight away (as you'll see in my post on that thread)

TBH until that person got deeper into it, I genuinely thought they were one of the marketing researchers that turn up on here from time to time because its cheaper than paying for 'actual' research...

brooksby wrote:

I genuinely thought they were one of the marketing researchers 

I thought it was one of those 'ad posts'. Fully expecting an immediate response from a one post account along the lines "Me too concerned about cyclist visible safety. Got good deal on fluro clothing here ..."

Nigel Garrage wrote:

...

He already confirmed his commitment to road safety in his follow up tweet - "Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users in my Force area, and we'll do everything we can to reduce the risk to them. That includes seeking to change this sort of behaviour, as well as dangerous behaviour of other road users."

That's the problem. His view is that danger to cyclists comes primarily from "this sort of behaviour". It doesn't, unless of course you are a victim blamer

Nigel Garrage wrote:

As for the troll post on visibility/ppe yesterday, I've no idea why you guys fell for it - clocked it straight away (as you'll see in my post on that thread)

Yeah fair cop, guilty as charged.....

Him making a claim which may or may not give rise to any action isn't evidence that according to you "the superintendent is tackling vehicle related issues to the 'fullest of his capacity'"

Please consider that the 'fullest of his capacity' may not be very much capacity at all. The super clearly made the best decision he was capable of making when he tweeted. The fact that it was a poor decision doesn't mean it wasn't his best.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If the superintendent saw dangerous, law breaking cycling he has every right to tweet about it.

Yes he does. The problem is that what comes across most from his tweet is how appalling it is that cyclists choose not to wear helmets, which is in no way law-breaking. 

As a society, we don't deal with knife crime by shaming pedestrians for not wearing stab vests, and we don't deal with inept customer service by just telling customers to be more careful who they buy from. 

That is why many cyclist react the way they do in cases like this. It isn't the calling out of law-breaking than rankles, it is the calling out of things that have no business being called out, while many police forces (City of London included) give the distinct impression that they have no interest in prosecuting law-breaking drivers even when they actively hurt someone. 

And what the  H E double hockey sticks does anyone being Pro-EU have to do with it?

"Grossly negligent."
Good grief

So glad to see you took up my suggestions of getting troll training or looking up Socrapicyclists posts for inspiration; you've come on leaps and bounds.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

....is grossly negligent. I don't see anything wrong with expressing this.

I do, cos it's untrue. My understanding is that gross negligence is a criminal matter, and as we have established, not wearing a lid is not a criminal matter

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I think the underlying problem for police here is that they have automated methods for catching bad/ law breaking drivers due to cars being easily identifiable and traceable

I think we can all be grateful for that. It helps Essex police find armed passengers who shoot from vans, Lancashire police respond instantly whenever wtjs films miscreants, and oh, about 570 other issues as we see from NMOTD. The automation is doing a swell job, and we are all seeing the benefit as dangerous driving has plummeted to almost zero.

Meanwhile, back in yer actual real life, the lack of anything other than automated policing, is a real problem.

And culture war? Who declared that? Is it those not in favour of more pollution, more inequality, less international cooperation, less decency? Or the other lot, who stress their freedom to pollute, their "I'm alright Jack", their "England is an island without need of friends and neighbours" attitudes?

What did you do in the war, grandad? Oh, I carried on as usual, driving everywhere in my SUV, running over anything in my way, so I can have my British rights of pretend foreign lager without needing to see anyone not like me. Vote Conservative!

 Essex police find armed passengers who shoot from vans, Lancashire police respond instantly whenever wtjs films miscreants

I should point out that he's deploying irony, and I am pleased to see that LC is gaining in infamy. There are important points in this topic about non-apology apologies where the original sentiment was the one truly held by the apologiser before he realised he ought to try some weaselling. We saw the same from Northumbria Police, who clearly really believe that cyclists should stay off the roads when they might inconvenience respectable motorists, and be restricted to early Sunday mornings in winter- but not in the month before Christmas.

It is clear that in this case the unworthy Superintendent (see, it's not always irony!) really thinks that the greatest sin is cyclists not wearing helmets. Fortunately, we have Boardman and the excellent Cycling Mikey (how does he convince the traffic police to get up off their backsides and actually do something?) to attempt to correct him- sadly, I feel the attempt to convince this member of the Filth that he is wrong in his conviction that injuries to cyclists are 'all their own fault' is doomed to failure. You just have to hope that the Police Dinosaurs will eventually retire and better officers will appear. I live, so far, in hope.

PS I should have noted that Jeremy Vine is still doing a good job, but I have not taken to listening to Radio 2