In an appearance on Absolute Radio, Richard Hammond admitted that he believes that some cyclists have the wrong attitude towards safety.
The former Top Gear presenter criticised “this idea that you can cycle around and then it’s everybody else’s job” to keep you safe. It’s your right to be safe… It’s not!”
He said that he “has been riding bikes for 40 years and I’m still alive because I look everywhere and I assume, they’re going to pull out of that junction.
“Yeah, they’re going to close that gap. Yeah, they’re going to turn left on me and squash me. I’m just surprised when they don’t”
He does clarify that “car drivers who don’t look, bad,” and that he is “bikes before cars, actually.”
“I’m going to have a horrible time,” he added, aware that what he is saying is controversial, and has since been met with criticism on Facebook.
“He’s right up to a point, but the safest, most responsible cyclist can still be wiped out by a bad driver. The safest, most responsible driver can’t really be harmed by a bad cyclist,” said Richard Gracie.
David Price said, “What so often gets overlooked in these discussions is the impact (which is rather what Richard is pointing out), and it’s really important.
“You get bad motorists, and you get bad cyclists, but the reason why it’s more important that motorists are careful is that …
“Bad cyclists annoy motorists. Bad motorists kill cyclists.”
123 thoughts on “Richard Hammond says it’s cyclists’ “responsibility to stay safe” on the roads”
Stop press…Top Gear
Stop press…Top Gear presenter talks shite.
Maybe some parts of his brain
Maybe some parts of his brain never recovered from that crash he had
You didn’t read it and you
You didn’t read it and you have no idea how much pedal, e, and motor bike riding those ex-TG presenters did and do
I understand his point of
I understand his point of view that cyclists should have experience and roadcraft skills and the prediction power of Mystic Meg in order to be safe on the roads.
However, he’s got it all back to front – it’s not our responsibility to be safe, although it’s definitely to our advantage. The problem is with him spouting off his opinion is that we shouldn’t be requiring elite levels of skill just to be able to cycle on the roads without being harmed.
What he should be focussing on is the dreadful state of driving and the complete inability of courts to properly punish the very worst drivers and instead bend over backwards to keep them driving on the roads even though they’re a liability.
I wonder what his next opinion piece will be – pedestrians should take responsibility to not be stabbed by muggers?
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s everyone’s responsibility to be safe on the roads, for themselves and others. Certainly some have added responsibility in view of their potential danger – but that doesn’t mean others have none.
Have you been stabbed by muggers because they weren’t paying attention? It’s not a relevant analogy.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
It’s everyone’s responsibility to be safe on the roads, for themselves and others. Certainly some have added responsibility in view of their potential danger – but that doesn’t mean others have none.
Have you been stabbed by muggers because they weren’t paying attention? It’s not a relevant analogy.— hawkinspeter
Whilst “it’s everyone’s responsibility to be safe on the roads” is a nice sound-bite, in reality it’s impractical as the people in most danger have the least control over their immediate environment. If a child is run over whilst on the pavement, would you consider victim blaming the child and declare that it was their responsibility to be safe? Personally, I would blame the driver for not taking responsibility to keep other safe. I think the better sound-bite would be “it’s everyone’s responsibility to not endanger others on the roads”.
My mugging example may not be the best analogy, but it highlights how victim blaming is a ridiculous strategy for reducing traffic incidents – I don’t know if Hammond is really this stupid or whether he’s been encouraged to spout this worthless opinion.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No – not least because pedestrians are taking reasonable responsibility for their own safety by being on the pavement.
Conversely, when crossing a road (where motor traffic is entitled to be, and perhaps at considerable speed), then an adult* pedestrian is responsible in significant part for their own safe passage. Likewise, cyclists on the road are responsible for that part of their safety that they control.
The share of responsibility varies according to the situation, and should fall disproportionately on those posing the greater harm – but that doesn’t mean those more at risk never bear any responsibility.
* young childen may be a more complicated issue, given they can’t be assumed capable of assuming responsibility in some cases.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
Well, the argument being put forward by Hammond et al is that taking responsibility for your safety involves predicting possible danger and if a pedestrian isn’t looking out for drivers about to hit them on the pavement, then they’re not taking sufficient responsibility for their own safety.
To highlight the contradiction – what do you think about a cyclist using a magic paint cycle lane on the road? Would you consider that the cyclist is taking reasonable responsibility for their safety or do they also need to be wearing hi-viz/reflectives (unlike most pedestrians on the pavement) etc.? Would they be negligent if they don’t look out for drivers attempting to left-hook them at junctions?
This is why I think Hammond is wrong – he’s wanting cyclists to take far more responsibility for things which are not their fault whilst not claiming that drivers should be taking responsibility for not actively hitting people.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I didn’t address Hammond’s argument – from what I see in the article, I don’t agree with that either.
I was addressing your assertion that
No-one is entirely responsible for their own safety, not least where The Other poses potentially lethal harm (which, I agree, is what Hammond seems to be too close to suggesting) – but no-one* has zero responsibility either.
*children and others lacking adequate capacity might be excused and should be supervised
Dnnnnnn wrote:
As minors, children cannot legally assume responsibility in road traffic matters, ever. Their adult carers are responsible.
lonpfrb wrote:
Going OT somewhat but I’d be interested to know whether this has been tested in law. After all, the criminal age of responsibility in England is 10, so they are considered to have some agency while still minors. And it would seem odd (to me, at least) if the law considered a parent responsible for the road behaviour of their 15 year old – but maybe it does, I dunno. I expect there’d be little appetite or point in practice for attaching legal blame to a child, so the question may be moot.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
I’ve heard of people wanting to claim damages (e.g. dented door) from children when it was clearly their fault such as riding into a parked car. As far as I know, they can claim damages from the parent(s) or their insurance.
In England and Wales parents
In England and Wales parents cannot be held responsible for damage caused by their children unless they were directly supervising the child at the time the damage occurred and it can be shown that negligence on their part caused the damage to occur. However most household insurance policies cover damage caused by any member of the household, including children, so you can claim against them.
Cyclists need to cover off
Cyclists need to cover off the aspects of road safety that they can control, such as obey the highway code, have good road positioning and have lights when required.
However, they are totally reliant on drivers seeing them and driving safely as well as not being drunk, not on drugs, not using their mobile phones, having regular eye tests etc..
If I go out and ride for 3 hours, I get passed by maybe 200 cars? All drivers have to look properly and see me and take appropriate overtaking action.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Yeah, cyclists can only control a small fraction of their interractions with drivers – there’s not much you can do if an idiot is driving behind you and hasn’t seen you as they’re using their phone. All the focus on hi-viz/reflectives ignores the fact that some drivers just don’t look.
And some look but don’t see.
And some look but don’t see. (Or perhaps they’re only looking for motor vehicles? )
Sight is a fascinating
Sight is a fascinating subject.
We dont really “see” anything; our visual world is created within the visual cortex and impacted by many factors which have some weird effects. We are generally much better at detecting moving objects than stationary ones.
We are prone to many optical illusions. And how many times have you been looking for something (say in the garage) only to realise its been in front of you all the time; although you must have looked at it, its presence didnt register.
Indeed – looks of
Indeed – many complexities to this sense, and I think new perspectives continue to come to light.
On seeing – it’s pretty dark inside the cranium! And indeed as soon as the photons do their bit interacting with your visual pigments, it’s “judgement all the way down” (there doesn’t seem to be an inner “movie theatre” – and indeed what would “watch” the projections there? Your inner homonunculus?)
OTOH I guess then we’re into philosophical semantics and “seeing as” in fact that *is* seeing * perhaps we should just keep the word, noting that “it’s complicated”?
* Unless the wall of a camera obscura, a chemical camera film or perhaps the face of a CCD can be said to be “seeing”…?
Jules59 wrote:
‘Looked but didn’t see’ motorists are one of my greatest cycling fears. In places where drivers aren’t used to cyclists, you do sometimes see them looking straight through you, not registering your presence because you aren’t a big metal box.
Ironically, I think the black-clad, unlit cycling ninjas may be helpful in this regard – it seemed in London that there were so many (as well as other cyclists) that drivers tended to look more effectively because they expected to see all sorts of people doing all sorts of things on the road.
Yes I try to make eye contact
Yes I try to make eye contact with drivers coming up to side junctions. If they dont then that sends alarms bells.
Jules59 wrote:
Again a good idea – but this should not be used to *confirm* awareness. I have a couple of vivid memories (fortunately avoided collision) to remind that “if they *do* appear to make eye contact don’t assume they’re aware of you or will remain so”. Or perhaps “…or care about you enough to alter their chosen course”.
Having riden down a hill in a
Having riden down a hill in a group, two abreast, and locked eyes with a motorist pointing uphill on the other lane, I was amazed that she attempted a three point turn in the road, requiring an emergency stop.
She expressed surprise that we were there but no remorse for her incompetence.
Despite my shouting STOP to the group, the rider behind me collided with me and sustained some small physical injuries. The psychological injury was greater.
Sadly the concensus was to continue the ride not make a police complaint, which was weak. Eyesight checks would have been appropriate IMHO. Hazard recognition too.
True. Maybe only half of the
True. Maybe only half of the pedal and ebike riders in SE London look for other bikes or pedestrians. As I walk on my own or push my small granddaughter, I do count patterns of riders and drivers behaviours
And some look, see and ignore
And some look, see and ignore because they are bullies in 2 tonne machines or have the attitude that vehicles always take priority (their very own Highway Code). These are the drivers who should have their licences cancelled.
As in a car – you can be the
As in a car – you can be the best driver in the world but if the driver behind is distracted by the social media on their phone then there isnt much you can do to stop them from driving into the back of you when you’re stopped in a queue.
Cyclists can control a huge
Cyclists can control a huge proportion of their movements on roads. A few drivers are sloppy, a few are deliberately reckless, a few are determinedly almost murderous. Only so much one cand do about them. But in 50 years riding, mostly in London, my main threats come from cyclists, even if the threat is less likely to be lethal than cars on country lanes
E6toSE3 wrote:
The point is that we shouldn’t be requiring cyclists to have 50 years of experience to be safe on the roads.
I can’t seriously believe that other cyclists post more danger to your health than drivers – is it because of the famed London infrastructure?
E6toSE3 wrote:
As one has to say to you so many times, repeating utter nonsense over and over doesn’t make it any less nonsense. If the main threat to pedestrians or other cyclists is cyclists, why aren’t they responsible, proportionately, for the most KSIs? They’re not even close to the numbers achieved by drivers. Your peculiar perceptions are a world away from reality.
This is always the case for
This is always the case for everyone who shares roadspace. It is an irrelevance compared to actively doing everything you can to protect yourself from others. There are some terrible road users out there. Use your intelligence and skills to mitigate them whatever we are on/in that day. The militant blame game is an angry hiding to nothing.
Non Tribal Peddler wrote:
By Hammond using the word “responsibility”, he’s the one blaming cyclists for getting hit.
Obviously defensive cycling skills are very useful, but it’s ridiculous to expect all cyclists to have the years of experience that it can sometimes require. Rather than castigating the new/inexperienced cyclists, it’d be better to focus on changes that could help them rather than just blame them for not having the experience.
100% a victim blaming
100% a victim blaming narrative consistent with the Clarkson cognitive dissonance. Best he stays down on the farm.
Since many farmers ride horses, I’ve never had any problems following the RHS guidelines and being happy to share the road with them.
I’m happy to ride in horse country because their steel shod hooves put SUV users on their best behaviour knowing how much repair would cost them. Lucky horseshoes indeed!
Yes. And cyclists looking at
Yes. And cyclists looking at phone in one hand, other hand on bar, sauntering through red lights and onto pavement, no lights, meandering as if no other bikes, pedestrians, or motorised metal boxes exist
E6toSE3 wrote:
And yet despite their complete contempt for rules and others, they are a vanishingly small source of KSIs.
And yet despite their
And yet despite their complete contempt for rules and others, they are a vanishingly small source of KSIs
And their contraventions are mostly made up by sad trolls
I agree. Cyclists should take
I agree. As I stated, cyclists should take responsibility and follow the highway code. I don’t do any of these things you mention and neither do any of my cycling colleagues – it would be inviting serious injury or even death to ourselves or others.
On the other hand, I have been rammed by a car at a roundabout, clipped by a car (car had no lights on, but I had flashing ones), while riding along a straight fenland road and been almost taken out several times by traffic entering roundabouts and traffic attempting idiotic overtakes.
E6toSE3 wrote:
I’m going to be charitable – I think Hammond is probably talking about the behaviour E6toSE3 describes (which is rife in that there London) while most of us here behave more like MrBlackbird. Telling the former group they have to take some responsibility for their own safety has some legitimacy, whereas the latter group will often have done everything they reasonably can to look after themselves and are at the mercy of the drivers they encounter.
quiff wrote:
Yes. But I wonder if the former group are listening / susceptible of persuasion. Some will perhaps learn by (bad) experience but others will just blame others if things go wrong.
I think it’s a bit like how most drivers don’t think about the possibility of crashing when they drive off.
The other point is that (as we all know) *both* groups (and pedestrians) are at the mercy of the drivers we encounter, and exactly how much difference all the experience, PPE and caution is not known. Only that it doesn’t always save you, nor does walking on the pavement, nor indeed just staying in a building!
What does what someone says in public actually do?
Is he merely stating “what you can do (micro scale)” – and is that more helpful than trying to phrase things in a way that counters the usual “cyclists have themselves to blame” narrative? Will either actually get heard by *anyone*? Will the latter approach simply immediately alienate the majority?
Is this just more “controversy gains attention” from someone who’s had something of a career doing that? (Perhaps not, maybe he’s just not a “woke” cyclist?)
I think there *are* more useful ways to take these public conversations forward – see Chris Boardman’s approach to dealing with “but helmets” / “but antisocial cyclists” etc.
Less Richard Hammond, more
Less Richard Hammond, more James May (or even Timmy Mallett who has spent significant time on a bike) please!
Hammond and May both spent
Hammond and May both spent huge amounts of time on pedal and motor bikes. Even Clarkson used pedal bike in London
I must admit I don’t know how
I must admit I don’t know how much riding Hammond has done (and what kind).
But as I know from my own experience greater understanding doesn’t necessarily come from repetition. I didn’t get it for a long time. I had been transport- and tour- cycling for years, in several countries. I’d noted the difference in road environments. I even cycled once in NL but didn’t really understand what makes for safer and more pleasant cycling. (I’d obviously figured out “less motor traffic / not waiting at traffic lights for ages” etc. but I thought those were a given, like the weather.)
That took people showing me (media online but also some in-person “cycle safaris”).
BBC Television Centre and
BBC Television Centre and other offices in West London have hundreds of C2W commuters, however institutional bias is not effected as the majority of license fee payers are motor vehicle operators. Motonormativity.
Well, its up to the
Well, its up to the individual but I like to maximise my safety whilst on my bicycle. So I wear bright attire and have front & rear lights. My bike is silver.
There is no doubt in my mind that a cyclist dressed all in black, on a black bike and no lights is harder to see compared to someone like myself.
Same for cars; my bicycle mirrors are convex which makes things very small in the distance. I can see vehicles with daylight running lights, approaching from behind, much sooner than those without. Dark cars, especially black ones, are the hardest to see, especially on dull days.
Do dark coloured cars have more accidents than light colured ones, I wonder ?
I was close to being wiped
I was close to being wiped out over Christmas when a driver in a grey car in the fog with no lights on performed an overtake.
I had 2 front lights as well !
I used to commute from
I used to commute from Leicester to Derby up the M1. The number of drivers who simply refused to slow down to sensible speeds in thick fog was amazing – I’ve even seen them attempt to overtake police cars who were trying to control the overall speed of traffic to keep people safe.
It’s a psychosomatic thing.
It’s a psychosomatic thing. Like cyclists in Woolwich and Greenwich Foot Tunnels. In such enclosure environments, the instinct is to go faster, maybe like hurrying though a darkened narrow lane for pedestrians. An instinct against predators pouncing on us in ambush. Long studied. When teaching my wife and son to drive, I hammered on about various scenarios that have nothing to do with sensible – they are deep internal battles that we have to decide to fight hard against core instincts rooted in millions of years of evolution. Eg, early days, wife had passed test but never driven when we married and had to get a car. On a motorway, in thick fog, she was going faster and faster, completely deaf to me till I shouted and swore to break her trance. First thing she said was, “Don’t shout”. Then realised her speed, then huge struggle to slow down vs instincts as I told her of the speed up instinct. To son, who liked hero type movies, I described such battles, eg drive of young males to show off to mates, as massive hero battles vs evolution to emerge from being controlled by guts to being a sort of higher level and human
Yeah, me too!
Yeah, me too!
Except in my case it was an Amazon delivery containing a 1L bottle of Jägermeister which insisted I drink half of it whilst watching The Wizard of Oz…..
Never again!
(I had nightmares for over a week)
Apparently they do,
Apparently they do,
https://gitnux.org/car-colour-accident-statistics/
Jules59 wrote:
This is the only comment on this thread that has interpreted Hammond’s comments in a balanced way. The rest is the usual hysteria/100% drivers’ fault/0% cyclists fault.
Hammond is actually right when he says that it’s not JUST everyone else’s responsibilty to keep cyclists on roads safe. It’s MOSTLY car drivers’ responsibility, since they’re in two ton high speed weapons, and cyclists are not, but there is still SOME safety responsibility on us as cyclists. This is the point I believe he was making.
He’s right when he obeserves that some cyclists do appear to make no effort whatsoever in their part of this process and ride around as if they’re in a world without motorised traffic or risk of consequence. Yes, we’re entitled to our share of the road but that doesn’t mean we all should ride like entitled tw#ts the whole time.
I’ve been a driver for over 40 years and a cyclist for over 50. I regularly see cyclists that put themselves in more danger than they need to be, by not taking ANY responsibility to be as safe as they can be, whether it be reading the road and traffic conditions, the weather, position of sun, or their own general visiblity. It makes me cringe not just for their own personal danger and what the worst outcome might have been,but because they give “good” cyclists a bad name and add fuel to the anti-cyclist narrative.
Ironically cyclists in the “it’s 100% drivers’ responsibility and 0% mine” group might do well do listen to his first commments where he was referring to his safety strategies as a (motor)biker, about assuming that he is invisible at all times and that every car driver is about to make a dangerous manoeuvre that is about to put his life in danger. I’ve applied the same things as a cyclist plus a few others specific to cycling.
Excellent comment. As cyclist
Excellent comment. As cyclist and pedestrian in SE London, my main fear and impacts felt is from pedal and ebike riders. The only people who seem aware Highway Code exists, let alone know it, are car drivers. Bikes in stealth mode are a risk to themselves and, with no or inadequate lights contravene HC, are risk to themselves from big metal box drivers and from other cyclists and they are a big threat to other cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrians can’t see them when looking to cross roads at pelican crossings let alone when rider is on pavement
That makes precious little
That makes precious little sense in the context of cars killing over 400 pedestrians a year in the UK. Why would you fear bicycles more?
As E6toSE3 alluded to –
As E6toSE3 alluded to – humans aren’t Vulcans. Fear is not the result of a careful risk calculation.
But as E6toSE3 also alluded to, humans can be trained (socialised). And through vast amounts of money, weapons-grade PR etc. initially and nowadays mostly by exposure the entire population has been trained / socialised to accept motor traffic pretty much everywhere (which objectively *is* more dangerous, even after decades of trying to add safety back in). And indeed to see it as a necessity, and as part of our status in society (drivers inherently at the top – “doesn’t have their own car” is not a positive statement).
Don’t underestimate the
Don’t underestimate the results of 100 years big oil and big auto propaganda.
They definitely don’t care about vulnerable road users unless it’s green washing time.
Humans perception of risk and
Humans perception of risk and the way we evaluate things is strange at times. You can buy a book for £10 or go across town and buy it for only £5. Would you go and buy the cheaper one? Probably.
You then can buy a car for £30,000 or save £5 and go across town to another dealership. Would you? Probably not.
Somehow the saving seems less with the car than with the book, yet the effect on your money is the same.
Up to July this year there
Up to July this year there have been 15 pedestrians including two parent with pushchairs killed on the footpath by motor vehicles, none by pushbike or legal ebike. So it is still motor vehicles I am more worried about.
I cannot be responsible for
I cannot be responsible for the position of the sun!
ktache wrote:
*Heavy sarcasm* Ah, but shurely you should be focusing on what you *can* do not complaining about the inevitable / random chance?
Have you considered checking the weather before you go out, or not riding in the morning / evening / at night? Perhaps you could plan your trips better to avoid roads with junctions, or poor sight lines, or long straight sections where a driver might go faster but also relax their observation?
Are you currently clad head-to-toe in reflectives with black and yellow stripes, like a wasp? Have you fitted radar front and rear to monitor other traffic or signed up to one of those apps to let drivers know of your presence?
Or … just don’t cycle – get a car / take a taxi / ride a static trainer – it’s your choice… ?
Have you considered checking
Have you considered checking the weather before you go out, or not riding in the morning / evening / at night?
Pfff! Already been tried by The Authorities: No cycling during Royal Funerals by British Cycling; No cycling during busy periods like public holidays by Northumbria Police, I think; No cycling in the dark by some rubbishy South Wales ‘Partnership’ etc etc
Groaster wrote:
I think the reason for the annoyance is a) the amplification of the “irresponsible cyclists” side by the majority and b) on “where is the danger coming from” and how much effort / responsibility is appropriate for what maybe marginal gains?
The focus then becomes similar to the messaging of “don’t wear a low cut dress or hang about in isolated areas”.
Who is the imagined audience? I don’t know – perhaps Absolute Radio targets youthful crims and food delivery riders? I suspect however since “top gear” it is most likely to be a particular driving-centric demographic nodding along, yes, those irresponsible cyclists…
I would imagine everyone on here (and probably most cyclists who are likely to pick up on Mr. Hammond’s comments) have a good grasp of all the fundamentals of position / being visible. But … that is certainly no guarantee of safety! When someone in a motor vehicle has a brain fart and we’re left with “I simply didn’t see you” (despite road positioning / reflectives and visible clothes / lit up like Christmas tree).
Or “they must have had a medical episode”.
Finally other countries have shown that the danger from motor vehicles is not in fact a given. Indeed the UK has made things much safer on the roads over time; albeit largely at the cost of convenience for vulnerable road users and driving most people away from cycling (obviously making it much more convenient for drivers is involved there too).
chrisonabike wrote:
Well, the danger doesn’t come from motor vehicles so much (except for that unattended scaffolding lorry hitting that house the other day) but from the drivers. There’s very little danger from all the vehicles parked except indirectly when peds are forced into the road to get around pavement parkers.
(Sorry – I know that you know this, but it is important to highlight that it is the drivers’ behaviour that produces the danger)
Alright Mitsky!
Alright Mitsky!
Cyclists should be responsible for their safety – so eg. don’t ride too fast into corners, watch out for low- hanging obstructions / things that can catch your wheel / slippery surfaces, bike function safety checks / what needs maintained. Then there comes the “dealing with others on the roads”. I think that’s where the debate is – the fine line between “it’s a lot of work and involves buying special kit to keep yourself *safer* around others” (plus your responsibilities to other vulnerable road users) and “the system is setting us up to fail”.
I’d say the “sensible precautions” part is not entirely divorced from the attitudes and road infra that have been created. Which (while certainly not simple / quick to change) is not immutable or a law of nature.
And the fact that we do allow for “human nature” in some ways (“forgiving” infra like rumble strips and energy-absorbing barriers, courts being “understanding”…) but choose not to do in others (cyclists are expected to pay at least as much attention as drivers to what they’re doing despite being zero danger to drivers and much less to pedestrians, and to cycle single file…)
EDIT I think Robert Weetman’s longish article below is good on the “big picture”. Of course that is beyond the power of an individual cyclist to change in an afternoon (or even with “x decades riding”…). So the conversation tends to revert to “PPE and situational awareness”. Which also suits those with the power here – status quo remains.
Following would probably sound hopelessly idealistic / dangerously radical to a few folks here – what about the cyclists’ *responsibilities*?
Bike Safe courses provided
Bike Safe courses provided free to Primary School children in UK cover the points about being visible and riding defensively.
So nobody in the UK has a good reason for not knowing that, yet here we are..
That is a great endeavour (it
That is a great endeavour (it was the RoSPA course when I were a lad).
But … what’s the coverage (nationally)? And children very much learn by copying others. Statistically most will do zero riding with adults outside of the course. More likely they’d be with their peers or the slightly older teens who may not be the best tutors for sensible and safe behaviour.
Groaster wrote:
I must be reading different comments to you as nowhere have I seen a 100% driver/0% cyclist blame used in a general fashion. It may well be true in some specific incidents and indeed the reverse is true for others. I don’t think your wild generalisation is accurate or even sensible.
Safety strategies are all well and good (they also bolster your own feeling of control of your situation), but they can only do so much to prevent collisions and are likely near the bottom of effective strategies to reduce KSIs. Much better would be separation of drivers/cyclists/pedestrians which has shown to be a successful strategy in many countries. Maybe next on the list would be effective law enforcement to ensure that driving standards are upheld.
By people focussing on the strategies that experienced cyclists use to enhance safety, Hammond and others are attempting to shift blame away from the largest cause of collisions and to be honest, it sounds very much like victim blaming to me.
If a young person (e.g. ten year old) is hit by a driver, would your first response be to chastise the kid for not anticipating that a driver was going to e.g. left-hook them? Or would it be better to examine the situation and determine the cause and possible methods to reduce the likelihood of it happening again?
nowhere have I seen a 100%
nowhere have I seen a 100% driver/0% cyclist blame used in a general fashion
Well, the ones I display are exactly that, and Lancashire Constabulary routinely operates a 0% driver blame, therefore ignore reports from cyclists policy
Nope. If you’ve opted for
Nope. If you’ve opted for the two tonnes of metal (out of all the travel choices available to you) it is your job to keep all other road users around you safe.
Anything else is just a slippery slope towards car culture’s denial of responsibility for anything.
With the “%0 my
With the “%0 my responsibility” idea we’re in “no Christmas lights in town this year because they might be offended” territory. You and Hammond are making an Aunt Sally to throw wet sponges at, chasing a phantom, a non-point that no-one is making.
The driver “reasoning” is often that whoever gets the consequences of a collision is the one that needs to take the avoiding action.
Here’s a thing though. Riding
Here’s a thing though. Riding in bright clothing and using day running lights or wearing average kit that is neutral and not employing day lights makes no difference to the number of close passes I endure.
Totally agree.
Totally agree.
Strong evidence that its not
Strong evidence that its not that they can’t see, rather that they don’t care.
More Than a Cyclist is one approach to changing behaviour but too Weak IMHO.
If this government were truly interested in change, and joined up government between
Department of Transport,
Department of Health,
Department of Culture Media and Sport,
They would change road users attitude and behaviour by changing mainstream and social media output by using the existing Equality legislation to make cyclists a protected characteristic. Thus the current media bias would become very expensive for the clicks they generate with rage bait.
Jules59 wrote:
But there are so many incidents reported where the cyclist had bright clothing, hi-vis and all necessary lights. Then the car driver claims he didn’t see them! So although riding defensively and doing everything you can to keep safe, you can still be taken out by an inattentive driver.
Yes absolutely. As an
Yes absolutely. As an individual you can only do so much to improve your safety, the action of others is outside your control unfortuantely.
Jules59 wrote:
Engagement with elected representatives including Police Commissioners is your right and so is funding the informed advocates like CTC and British Cycling who work for well considered change.
Pragmatic surviving realist
Pragmatic surviving realist – like me! Others’ attitudes may vary and may not be in their best Interests but they vent online over things that may not abd can not change in reality… SMIDSY applies but I saw him as I don’t trust fallible others with my life or think dual carriageways are great places to go for a ride…
Jules59 wrote:
I don’t entirely disagree, but you’re not immune:
Hi-vis jacket “blended in with the trees” says driver accused of causing the death of cyclist
It’s everybody’s right to be
It’s everybody’s right to be safe in the roads.
Defensive road craft can only take you so far as we saw from the video yesterday in Northamptonshire where the driver lost control out of nothing.
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-nearly-flattened-speeding-sideways-driver-316735#block-node-comment-block-node-comments
Richard Hammond can fuck away
Richard Hammond can fuck away off.
Useful comment to a long term
Useful comment to a long term cyclist! Assume you’re a GBN frothing at the mouth old fashioned golfing Jaguar driver
I agree with Stewart Lee
I agree with Stewart Lee
Excellent comment! That
Excellent comment! That Stewart Lee Top Gear sketch was brutal.
And I see our friend Joey
And I see our friend Joey Barton is using the same “can’t you take a joke?” bully refrain:
Joey Barton says social media post was ‘dark and stupid but it was a joke’
Asked what he intended to mean with his Fred and Rose West comparison, he said: “They were just murdering the broadcast in my opinion.
“I was trying to make a serious point in a provocative way.”
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-11-06/joey-barton-says-social-media-post-was-dark-and-stupid-but-it-was-a-joke?
Would recommend: https://www
Would recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L9Pc “it’s just a joke like on Top Gear”
(spoiler alert – the Richard Hammond school story turns out to be apocryphal)
I’ll not be taking advice
I’ll not be taking advice from a co presenter of a show that has done so much to promote larey attitudes to driving and make out cars to be some boy’s toy.
You’re missing a lot of
You’re missing a lot of wisdom and probably didn’t read what a very long term cyclist had to say. Hopefully, you’re nowhere near SE London while I’m on my bike or walking on my own (hit hard by large woman rider while on pavement with good bike lane next to pavement just last week), with less mobile wife (hit on zebra crossing by runaway motorbike), or pushing 20-month granddaughter. As cyclist and pedestrian, my main fear nowadays is from pedal and ebike riders, often in stealth mode with no lights
That I severely doubt. It is
That I severely doubt. It is very much my right to be safe.
He’s correct at least in practical terms to say he “has been riding bikes for 40 years and I’m still alive because I look everywhere and I assume, they’re going to pull out of that junction.” But for me there’s no excusing taking the Clarkson shilling for 13 years (might have been longer if Clarkson’s repeated poor behaviour, casual racism and the physical assault on Oisin Tyson that brought it all to an end.)
Your 2 wheelers might be irritating, but it’s two tonnes of car you need to mostly worry about.
I visited London recently
I visited London recently from Edinburgh. The cycling I saw is nuts/dangerous/irresponsible – not reflective of how other parts of the country ride.
You all agree with him, just
You all agree with him, just not the way he said it.
As a cyclist, you have to ride defensively. You have to take responsibility for your safety because many drivers won’t. That’s what he’s saying.
(My first sentence is a white lie – most people that think they disagree didn’t pay enough attention when reading the article, which is why he knows he should have said it differently ?)
Yes. But you can put it in a
Yes. But you can put it in a non-clickbaity way quite easily .
All road users have a responsibility for their own safety and the safety of every other user they are sharing the road with.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Did he put it in a clickbaity way or(and) was that Road CC?
I’m sure most regular cyclists already take the approach he suggests, and yes, he could have couched his language more, but a bit like cycling defensively, it doens’t matter what you say or do, it won’t protect you from bad driving/writers chasing clickbait.
The only thing I’d take issue with (but he may have said it and it isn’t mentioned) is that most cyclists already do this, but then I think (hope) that it’s only a minority of drivers we have to watch out for – albeit we can’t know whether they are going to be one of the good ones or bad ones in advance.
In other words, it’s the minority of cyclists/drivers who act like they don’t need to cycle/drive defensively, and the majority think they should.
Of course, none of that negates the need for proper cycling infrastructure, and for better education of the drivers who are likely to be the ones causing the harm.
That’s like saying, “You all
That’s like saying, “You all love sashimi, even if you do prefer it well-done.”
Where is the danger coming
Where is the danger coming from?
Benthic wrote:
Exactly!
On the 28 September 2025 I
On the 28 September 2025 I was cycling along a busy road near where I live I was 1/2 from the kerb. Next thing I know I was coming around after being knocked unconscious. The police and an ambulance were standing over me. Apparently I was hit from behind and I never knew a thing about it. My rear wheel was wreck and left hand crank bent inward. The front of my helmet, face, left forearm and knees and left ankle took the impact when I hit the ground. Glasses, watch handle bars twisted. I suffered so much pain for the following month. Badly sprained left ankle and the burning nerve pain from heavy grazes was awful. They exrayed my head and left arm at the hospital and my daughter picked up and brought me home. The police believed the van driver who said I hit his van, his mate verified it. The back end of my bike was damaged. The police woman didn’t care. They never checked his phone or breathalysed him. That was it!
they couldn’t care less about cyclists being hurt. The wife has banned be from ever riding a bike again. All my wounds have healed and I’ve joined the local gym. In my honest opinion, the police are useless and they really don’t care about cyclists.
That is shocking. Did you try
That is shocking. Did you try complaining about the ‘investigation’? I mean, how did the police think you managed to wreck the rear of of your bike by colliding with the van?
I can understand your wife’s reaction. Maybe try and do some track cycling or off-road MTB or BMX track riding.
That is appalling and is one
That is appalling and is one of the reasons I no longer cycle without a camera. Another choice I make. It may not keep me safe but I hope it will make it more difficult for the police to act in this way.
I hope it will make it more
I hope it will make it more difficult for the police to act in this way
It won’t if they benefit from a useless and compliant PCC who describes all policing matters as ‘operational decisions of the police with which I can’t interfere’. I admit I have failed to get myself KSI’d on the road so far, but I know that Lancashire Constabulary will accept any driver excuse, no matter how stupid, if it does happen and will have ‘insufficient evidence’ written on the form before they leave the office. The police can and do pretty much as they like where offences against cyclists are concerned, and it is impossible in Lancashire to pass a cyclist too closely when the police attitude is: if you don’t hit them, you weren’t close enough
https://upride.cc/incident/pe23zzl_interstar_uwlcrossclosepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/bd18kzt_transitlorry_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/fg25cbu_trafic_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/wk66uhc_transporter_closepass/
etc. etc. If only I’d paid more attention to Richard ‘Little Pillock’ Hammond’s advice!
I still use the camera so at
I still use the camera so at the inquest, the coroner can hold the police accountable.
Police service interest in
Police service interest in road traffic policing and vulnerable road users specifically depends on the Police Commissioner (objectives) and the Chief Constable (execution).
Fortunately Kent Police took my camera evidence and statement of harm to CPS and Court to get points, fines, and so increased insurance costs for a dangerous close passing driver.
Though it’s possible to evidence close passes with camera data, there is a better, less risky, less expletive provoking way.
That is Avoidance of spacial errors by providing visual support to the negligent motorist. Specifically by showing them the 1.5m width separation that is the minimum acceptable.
This is easily achieved with about £2 of plumbing spares; 1.5m of 15mm plastic pipe, four tube fasteners, and two nut&bolt sets to attach two pairs of tube fasteners back to back. Other permutations may suit your bike depending on tube diameters. Thus it’s easy to install the pipe perpendicular to the top tube on the rear A trame or seat post, on the offside.
This visual aid ensures that other road users are able to judge the minimum width and so make a safe pass. No need for personal risk, expensive cameras, time spent reviewing clips, reporting, or court appearance.
I’ve observed about equal positive or negative feedback, including positive feedback from my local police service.
I prefer a white plastic pipe, but it’s up to you..
Since the extraordinary incompetence and disregard for due care and attention required to collide with another vehicle in front is ridiculous you’re correct that a rear facing camera is still required for evidence. So that’s considerably more expensive but still worth it to hold such drivers to account.
As a long time satisfied customer of the Garmin Varia Radar, I would recommend the later product that’s both rear light, radar and camera. So everything you need in one device. Safe ride..
Fortunately Kent Police took
Fortunately Kent Police took my camera evidence and statement of harm to CPS and Court to get points, fines, and so increased insurance costs for a dangerous close passing driver
Well done! Can you show us the video and the notification of the court outcome?
It was a few years ago so
It was a few years ago so hard to find so give me some time for that…
Unfortunately, this would no
Unfortunately, this would no longer happen today. As lonpfrb notes, such a response was several years ago. For the last couple of years, Kent Police’s website for reporting incidents has had no provision for uploading video footage of the incident. They do their initial screening of reports based entirely on the written description. And if you select the box stating no collision occurred, they will not request the video. The dangerousness of the driving that was involved is an irrelevance. The only response I have had in the past two years is when incidents have involved other crimes (a pen thrown at me on one occasion, which they took far more seriously than the driver subsquently forcing me off the road, and verbal harrassment on another).
Exactly this, when I was
Exactly this, when I was knocked down (broken back, hip, needed fasciotomy to save my leg). Driver came out of side road on t junction and side swiped me.
Broad daylight, bright sunshine, multiple witnesses, police second question – what were you wearing? Do not gaf.
Sorry about your experience
Sorry about your experience and I know, you are correct. Sussex police are also a disgrace. Even with camera footage. I had an example where some yobs turned their car around, chased me, threw a half full can of coke at me whilst filming on their mobile phone. I had front and rear footage, starting from the point they passed me in the opposite direction. I even picked up the can for evidence. The police are not worth the money we pay them for sure, if I behaved like that in my job, I would be dismissed. On another occasion, an idiot deliberately soaked me on a wet day by driving through a puddle. It created a massive wave that almost knocked me off, I swallowed water, and was absolutely soaked despite wearing a goretex jacket because it came through my neck and arms. I was on a cycle path too. Again, I had footage front and back, it was obvious to everyone I showed that it was deliberate… almost everyone…. the police disagreed.
Honestly, I have zero respect for the police in Sussex, they are beyond useless and if I had more time, I’d run for the police commissioner, as I think that’s the only way we’ll ever get some positive change from our plod.
Oh, and Hammond is absolutely right. Steer clear of cars and vans altogether if you can, but when you can’t, I have found visibility is the best option. I would say that you have to have a degree of confidence when you are cycling or you’d become a nervous wreck. It’s worth remembering too that statistically, most car drivers are sensible human beings, so don’t fall into the trap of thinking they are all idiots. Oh, and if you have children with you, make them use the pavement in a respectful and dignified way. I’d rather break the law than have my (or any) children risk their lives on the road.
Hammond knows exactly what he
Hammond knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s asked about the worst behaved. He starts on Drivers and then decides to lean into cyclists. The one group that he’s not a member of. He doesn’t want to antagonise his fan base so goes for the out group. He’s not objective in any way. He doesn’t even mention motorbikes despite the facts we know about the proliferation of illegal motorbikes. If you’re going to take on loaded questions about road safety at least come armed with some facts or keep your f***ing mouth shut.
I’m no fan of Hammond (he is
I’m no fan of Hammond (he is after all not even a real hamster) but he does cycle and he did do a few of cycling videos e.g.
I do agree however that he and Clarkson have an extremely long history of mocking and victimising out-groups.
I wouldn’t usually watch any
I wouldn’t usually watch any video including anybody who has had anything to do with PillockFest Top Gear, but I thought it my duty before commenting. Yes he is one. I would have been long dead if I hadn’t always been cautious in the way he encourages cyclists to be- the idea that lack of cyclist caution is anything but a negligible cause of hazard to cyclists in comparison with Nutter Driver Behaviour is more than stupid, as is he.
I have put numerous videos on here – if ONLY I’d been more cautious, perhaps this wouldn’t have happened and the police wouldn’t have had to go to the trouble of ignoring it?!
My only responsibility when
My only responsibility when cycling is to obey the highway code, the same as drivers, apart from the hierachcy of road users which puts more onus on them to protect me.
Anything I do above and beyond is a choice, one which I choose to make.
There is a mixup here between
There is a mixup here between responsibility and accountability. It is the motorists responsibility to ensure the road is safe for cyclists, but reality is, it is the cyclist who will be accountable. Hence cyclists should always ride defensively.
neilmck wrote:
So perhaps we could consider (talk about) diminishing the accountability for vulnerable road users* and increasing accountability for motorists (too much sympathy for the poor motorists / immediate assumption that the pedestrian or cyclist did something wrong / “suddenly appeared”).
* By separating cyclists from fast / heavy motor traffic, and significant pedestrian and cyclist flows; also reducing speed differences and motor traffic volumes where modes do interact. Plus without cycling (or even walking) being made much more convenient (and convenient relative to driving) we just won’t get support for changes.
chrisonabike wrote:
Is that the spike on the steering wheel option?
Backladder wrote:
Is that the spike on the steering wheel option?— chrisonabike
Remote deactivation of your licence if you’ve eg. passed too many GATSOs speeding – that should be linked to the vehicle so it should just slowly coast to a stop on the left hand side while alerting the police so they can attend (just in case the driver was on a motorway / lone vulnerable driver).
Just to clarify, for those
Just to clarify, for those who don’t know…
A spike protruding from the steering wheel, aimed at the driver’s heart.
Zzzzzhhhh
Zzzzzhhhh
sadly , True
sadly , True
Dear Mr. Hammond,
Dear Mr. Hammond,
There are some things one cannot protect oneself from : BBC News – Cyclist, 21, dies in suspected hit-and-run crash
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgypvd7vj1o
Why are you banging such a
Why are you banging such a drum…. Your type are a massive problem…. Too much attitude
Hammond merely stated the obvious.. He wasnt slagging the technical rights of of cyclists…. Yet your type stick your negative oar in
I always welcome people with
I always welcome people with helpful ideas here. “Your type are a massive problem” – for who, one wonders? (I see I merely helped your nap).
Are the denizens of road.cc getting in the way of Mr. Hammond’s public campaign to make things better? (Apparently by emphasising the safety pennies while passing over the pounds – and presumably targeted at wayward yoof and delivery riders?)
You appear to have confused “that isn’t the whole story” with some kind of trolling.
Or do you see the vulnerable road users’ “…and please consider paying a tiny bit more attention out there / how about safer infra designs” as disrespect?
I look forward to your next
I look forward to your next post your lastest one had me convulsing with laughter, it’s been a tough year and you cheered me up no end; thank you.
He is right, as it is all
He is right, as it is all Road users responsibility to use the roads safely for the benefit of themselves and other road users.
However the Highway Code makes it quite clear that there is a hierarchy of responsibility which broadly speaking means the more damage you can do, the more responsibility you have.
As a cyclist in London for
As a cyclist in London for over 40 years I’ve seen some really stupid behaviour from other cyclists. Especially after the 2012 boom the amount of what I assume were “new” cyclists with no Road sense whatsoever was staggering.
But even now on a trip into Soho and back there’s usually a couple of people who barely seem to be paying attention to the road.
I maintain cycling in London is a “contact” sport and you’d better be wide awake and paying attention to your surroundings.
Aye Richard, plenty of stupid
Aye Richard, plenty of stupid cyclists out there. Where was that attitude of responsibility when you crashed a rocket car and sued the BBC? Is responsibility an on/off thing depending on the situation?
Barraob1 wrote:
He didn’t sue the BBC.
He’s aware He’s going to get
He’s aware He’s going to get comments on Social Media. Because Richard has made a career out of saying controversial stuff just to get comments on social media
Remember, kids the adults in
Remember, kids the adults in the 2 tonnes of motorised metal are counting on YOU!