A Cyclist’s Highway Code has been launched today by the AA, with backing from Chris Boardman and BikeBiz editor, Carlton Reid.
Last month the Road Safety Minister, Andrew Jones, told the House of Commons “There were no plans to publish a cycling specific excerpt of the Highway Code.”.
However, the AA believes a Code is necessary to help people stay safe cycling on Britain’s roads, and has aimed the book at parents and new cyclists.
AA warns of “zombie” pedestrians and cyclists
Edmund King, AA president, hopes the guide will encourage more people to cycle.
“Cyclists and drivers are often the same people and the Highway Code is important whether you are on two wheels or four,” he says.
“I am grateful to cycling expert Carlton Reid, executive editor of BikeBiz magazine, who has helped to check this publication in terms of good advice and accuracy. As a keen cyclist and father of three cycling children, I would urge you to check out this book. Today more than one fifth of AA members regularly cycle and this guide will encourage a new generation to join them.”
The book is designed as a companion guide to help cyclists, and parents whose children are learning to cycle. It includes sections on Your Bike, including choosing and maintaining a bike, and accessories, Safe Cycling, including all the Highway Code rules, and Learning to Ride, encompassing cycle training.
Carlton Reid said: “I welcome the AA’s Cyclist’s Highway Code. It is practical, timely and useful – and it’s also an indication that more and more people are taking up cycling, for transport, for leisure, and most definitely for pleasure.”
Although the Highway Code has a section titled “you and your bike”, covering rules for cycling on the road, the government says it has no plans to produce a cycle-specific Highway Code. Instead it is investing £50m over four years into Bikeability training for children in schools.
Chris Boardman says: “The bicycle is such a simple tool, but one which can improve your health, reduce congestion and make our towns and cities more liveable. British Cycling welcomes the AA Cyclist’s Highway Code as it should encourage new cyclists and help parents get their children into cycling.”
AA’s Cyclist’s Highway Code is priced £4.99, and available from bookshops and online
79 thoughts on “AA launches Cyclist’s Highway Code, backed by Boardman”
I think we ought to reserve
I think we ought to reserve the usual comments on this, until we’ve actually had a chance to read it. It might be OK.
brooksby wrote:
Agreed, I’d really like this to be good. As [another] father of three cycling children then I’m all in favour of anything that can contribute to educating cyclists on better ways to use the roads and stay safe.
brooksby wrote:
But surely it’s just copy pasted lifted shifted from THE highway code but just the cyclist bits. For what purpose who knows I look forward to the AA recommending to its motorist members they actually follow the advice for a change
Awavey wrote:
I think we ought to reserve the usual comments on this, until we’ve actually had a chance to read it. It might be OK.
— Awavey But surely it’s just copy pasted lifted shifted from THE highway code but just the cyclist bits. For what purpose who knows I look forward to the AA recommending to its motorist members they actually follow the advice for a change— brooksby
I’d recommend reading the article before asking questions that are answered there.
Would be nice if it was
Would be nice if it was available online for free like the official highway code. Then people might actually read it…
How on earth will a book that
How on earth will a book that costs a fiver actually encourage anyone whatsoever to take up cycling? Utter madness to belive that it could.
Al__S wrote:
The article doesnt say its to encourage people to take up cycling. It says its to encourage people to cycle safely.
willbn wrote:
“Edmund King, AA president, hopes the guide will encourage more people to cycle.” “British Cycling welcomes the AA Cyclist’s Highway Code as it should encourage new cyclists”
Carlton’s said similar things on Twitter. I think Al’s being a bit unfair on him though; he’s mostly tetchy with people who declare the book complete bollocks without reading it, even if it does spread a bit further.
(But without having read it, I do agree with much of the criticism of the way it’s been presented.)
The Guardian has a review from someone who has read it: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/jun/07/the-aas-cyclists-highway-code-isnt-bad-but-it-has-scope-for-amendments
“When the AA, the UK’s largest motoring organisation, published a Cyclist’s Highway Code on Monday, I thought it seemed like a bizarre but effective way to wind up passionate cyclists such as myself.” “But then I read a copy of the book and it made more sense.”
What this does do is give the
What this does do is give the impression that the AA are saying “Cyclists ignore the Highway Code”.
Al__S wrote:
To you, perhaps.
“AA” does still stand for
“AA” does still stand for Automobile Association, doesn’t it?
vonhelmet wrote:
at it’s inception the early AA employees used bicycles to get around to warn and assist the early motorist. By the advent of WW2 the AA operated a fleet of over 800 bicycles. Even back then even though they were an organisation geared up for the motorist they relied extensively on bicycles to get around as the more reliable mode of transport and the early motor vehicles were easily repaired roadside.
Paperback.. really. Bit
Paperback.. really. Bit oldschool. Will take a look when the ebook or online version is available.
Seems from the quagmire of a
Seems from the quagmire of a twitter discussion that Carlton has embroiled me in that there’s no online version to be produced, just the paperback book.
Which is twice the price (on their online shop) of the version of the HC that the AA produce that says it’s for Drivers, Cyclists and Motorcyclists (on the cover). It really is just the basic and cyclist rules repurposed with a bit of stuff on “how to cycle” and “bike maintainence” according to him.
He’s getting very tetchy at people who don’t think it’s the greatest thing ever
Al__S wrote:
If it was 5 to 10 years ago I’d maybe understand that some people are behind the curve. But no, it’s 2016 and even aging generations now understand that the internet and e-formats are the way to spread information.
Just seems so bizarre to me. Did he give any explanation for this oddness?
Al__S wrote:
He makes Donald Trump seem pluralist & thick skinned.Withdrawn.
Meant to be wryly amusing but could be misconstrued as an ad hominem attack.
Apols.
tarquin_foxglove wrote:
I am answering questions from people. Some of the questions are tetchy, I’ve stayed deliberately neutral. I didn’t write the book; I proof read it, and provided a foreword.
People are commenting without actually having seen the book in the flesh.
Carlton Reid wrote:
Yep, comment withdrawn.
Does it contradict the real
Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue … though not holding my breath.
L.Willo wrote:
out of interest, what *was* his ‘hugely irresponsible’ stance?
andyp wrote:
out of interest, what *was* his ‘hugely irresponsible’ stance?— L.Willo
http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe
… But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats ….
There’s a word for that, saying one thing and doing another…. starts with hypo and ends in crite…
L.Willo wrote:
out of interest, what *was* his ‘hugely irresponsible’ stance?
— andyp http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe … But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats …. There’s a word for that, saying one thing and doing another…. starts with hypo and ends in crite…— L.Willo
That’s not actually hypocrisy. Just lack of basic comprehension, on your part.
unconstituted wrote:
But I will sell you one anyway, says the man who with one side of his face would like to get more people cycling while at the same time happy to make a handsome profit from selling the same equipment that “scares people off” from cycling ….
What would you call that, if not hypocrisy?
L.Willo wrote:
out of interest, what *was* his ‘hugely irresponsible’ stance?
— unconstituted http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe … But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats …. There’s a word for that, saying one thing and doing another…. starts with hypo and ends in crite…— L.Willo
That’s not actually hypocrisy. Just lack of basic comprehension, on your part.
— andyp
But I will sell you one anyway, says the man who with one side of his face would like to get more people cycling while at the same time happy to make a handsome profit from selling the same equipment that “scares people off” from cycling …. What would you call that, if not hypocrisy?— L.Willo
Just a bunch of sentences which you’ve convoluted to try and make him look like a hypocrit.
Talking about the implications of widespread use of helmets yet selling helmets to people who want to use them if they feel safer with them on is still not hypocrisy. Cut it any way you like. Still not.
unconstituted wrote:
But I will sell you one anyway, says the man who with one side of his face would like to get more people cycling while at the same time happy to make a handsome profit from selling the same equipment that “scares people off” from cycling …. What would you call that, if not hypocrisy?— andyp
Just a bunch of sentences which you’ve convoluted to try and make him look like a hypocrit.
Talking about the implications of widespread use of helmets yet selling helmets to people who want to use them if they feel safer with them on is still not hypocrisy. Cut it any way you like. Still not.
— L.Willo
Convoluted? Try direct, uninterrupted quote.
Have you got a crush on this Boardman boy or something? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy in anyone’s dictionary.
Saying that helmet usage sends the wrong message and “scares people off” cycling and then selling helmets is fine, if your intention is to scare people off cycling.
However when you pose as a self-styled ambassador for cycling, seling stuff that puts people off of cycling is hypocritical.
Maybe Boardman should start selling a branded line of these: http://road.cc/content/news/191960-do-these-baseball-bat-van-stickers-incite-violence-against-cyclists
… just as long as people want them, I guess you don’t see a problem. Just business eh?!
L.Willo wrote:
Just a bunch of sentences which you’ve convoluted to try and make him look like a hypocrit.
Talking about the implications of widespread use of helmets yet selling helmets to people who want to use them if they feel safer with them on is still not hypocrisy. Cut it any way you like. Still not.
— andyp
Convoluted? Try direct, uninterrupted quote.
Have you got a crush on this Boardman boy or something? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy in anyone’s dictionary.
Saying that helmet usage sends the wrong message and “scares people off” cycling and then selling helmets is fine, if your intention is to scare people off cycling.
However when you pose as a self-styled ambassador for cycling, seling stuff that puts people off of cycling is hypocritical.
Maybe Boardman should start selling a branded line of these: http://road.cc/content/news/191960-do-these-baseball-bat-van-stickers-incite-violence-against-cyclists
… just as long as people want them, I guess you don’t see a problem. Just business eh?!— L.Willo
Convoluted, again. And still not hypocrisy.
He supports all cyclists, whether they wear helmets or not. He understands the limitations of helmet use in terms of safety and the nuanced perceptions surrounding their usage, as well as the negatives and even dangers of their use.
Boardman, and any rational person, knows that there are pros and cons to all things. It’s not a zero sum game where you either do or don’t.
Intellectual honesty, try it some time. Or don’t. Whatever, live in your angsty bubble.
Either way, it’s not hypocrisy.
L.Willo wrote:
Just a bunch of sentences which you’ve convoluted to try and make him look like a hypocrit.
Talking about the implications of widespread use of helmets yet selling helmets to people who want to use them if they feel safer with them on is still not hypocrisy. Cut it any way you like. Still not.
— andyp
Convoluted? Try direct, uninterrupted quote.
Have you got a crush on this Boardman boy or something? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy in anyone’s dictionary.
Saying that helmet usage sends the wrong message and “scares people off” cycling and then selling helmets is fine, if your intention is to scare people off cycling.
However when you pose as a self-styled ambassador for cycling, seling stuff that puts people off of cycling is hypocritical.
Maybe Boardman should start selling a branded line of these: http://road.cc/content/news/191960-do-these-baseball-bat-van-stickers-incite-violence-against-cyclists
… just as long as people want them, I guess you don’t see a problem. Just business eh?!— L.Willo
Because utility cycling is the only sort? Cycling is a broad church with room both for people popping to the shops in casual clothes and no helmets while others are racing on or off road.
I don’t think any makers of motorsport helmets have advocated their compulsion in normal driving.
You’re either a troll or a tool. I can’t tell which.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I am sure you think you have a point but I have no idea what on earth you are trying to say that has any relevance to anything I have written today.
L.Willo wrote:
quite simple, that providing helmets for those riders who want to partake in sport cycling, whilst arguing against compulsion for the masses who do not is not a contradiction at all. Therrefore your attack on Boardman as a hypocrite has no basis.
You seem to suggest that people must fall into one of two camps, one that advocates helmets for everyone and one that advocates helmets for no one.
Either you are unable to grasp this simple point, in which case there is no point discussing further, or you pretend to miss the point, in which case there is no point discussing further.
L.Willo wrote:
out of interest, what *was* his ‘hugely irresponsible’ stance?
— andyp http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe … But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats …. There’s a word for that, saying one thing and doing another…. starts with hypo and ends in crite…— L.Willo
OK. Thanks. And now for the answer to my question?
L.Willo wrote:
There is no contradiction of the Highway Code. They’ve taken the section for cyclists and combined it with other advice. There was a column about it in The i today.
As for Boardman’s “irresponsible stance”. As others have said. He’s not against helmets or their use. It’s the misguided approach by safety campaigners that helmet use is the way forward that he has issue with. The fact that people out there would rather you wear a helmet and wear hi viz to protect yourself rather than push for better infrastructure, speed limits, presumed liability, safe passing distances and the whole realm of road safety is sorted. And this is the red herring that Chris is against. There are many more important things to be achieved to protect the vulnerable on our roads than demand that they wear a helmet or castigate them for not.
The other day on a 20 mile loop I had more than enough instances that nearly had me considering hanging my bike up for good. It was horrific. I was overtaken by a tipper truck allowing literally a foot ‘wriggle’ room even though oncoming lane was empty and it was a long straight . Taxi passed giving inches on a blind bend. Squeezed out in a traffic calming measure by a Chelsea tractor. Nearly shunted at set of lights. Those are just a handful and you know what. There is absolutely nothing in place to protect me or my fragile body from the irresponsible behaviour of those motorists because I had the audacity to delay them by a few seconds.
giff77 wrote:
Agreed, giff, and if he stopped there I would have no beef, but he went further, a lot further …
People, like me, who always wear a cycling helmet are apparently sending the wrong message about cycling. It is clear as day, that is what is meant by that statement.
So what message are the people who manufacture and sell helmets like you, Chris Boardman, sending about cycling?
Can you really convince that your hands are clean while you are profiting from enabling people to send the wrong message about cycling? Especially while posing as an ambassador for cycling at any opportunity?
It is hypocrisy and it doesn’t wash.
L.Willo wrote:
I think it’s actually quite commendable that Boardman would publicly seek to reduce the use of bicycle helmets whilst simultaneously selling them.
It means he is actually losing money by convincing people to ride without helmets.
So he is prepared to put his beliefs ahead of monetary gain.
I also don’t think it’s at all hypocritical to suggest that helmets are not always necessary but be willing to supply them to those who want them.
If I were going for a simple walk along a footpath would I require full mountaineering gear? No. I would hope an honest shopkeeper would advise me of this.
Would said shopkeeper then be hypocritical for selling said mountaineering gear to someone who wanted to climb Everest?
We should allow people to make up their own minds about their own safety.
If you choose to wear a helmet that’s great, if I choose not to, equally great.
Live and let live.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think it’s actually quite commendable that Obama would publicly seek to reduce the use of private hand guns whilst simultaneously selling them.
Yes. Bollocks.
L.Willo wrote:
That is one hell of a tangent… I won’t waste my time with it.
Back to the original point.
Would Boardman be hypocritical if he stated that the majority of cyclists do not need a carbon framed top spec bike worth thousands?
He sells them so surely he should believe every single cyclist should buy one?
What about clipless pedals and cleats?
Would Mr Boardman recommend them for all cyclists?
If not why on earth does he sell those?
Boardman’s brand(s) cover the whole spectrum of cycling from serious racer to occasional leisure rider.
It is perfectly reasonable for him to point out that not all of his products are necessary for every cyclist.
It’s not hypocrisy, it’s honesty.
Rich_cb wrote:
Wow … and you have the nerve to accuse me of going off on a tangent. Your analogy is rubbish. I will correct it later.
For the hard of reading / thinking / comprehending I will go very slowly. Pay attention at the back.
The salient remarks (that means relevant to the matter at hand are):
Widespread usage of cycle helmets sends the wrong message (about cycling) … it scares people off – Boardman
I don’t have a problem with that statement. I totally disagree with that opinion but Boardman has the right to form and express an opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it might be. Ben Goldacre thinks pretty much the same thing. I don’t have a problem with him, he doesn’t sell helmets.
The problem is that Chris Boardman is a self-styled cycling ambassador who has the stated aim of getting many more people to consider cycling as a method of transport.
So what the fuck is he doing manufacturing, selling and profiting from equipment used en masse (that is the widespread usage part) that has the effect of dissuading people to take up cycling (that is the it scares people off part)?
That is called hypocrisy. It is stating support for a thing (getting more people cycling) and doing something that has a directly contrary effect, for personal profit. (making coin off of hats that scare people off cycling).
So to correct your epic fail of an analogy:
Would Boardman be hypocritical if he stated that he cares deeply about the environment and calls carbon framed bikes an environmental disaster as they are based on fossil fuels and highly polluting processes …… while selling an elite range of carbon fibre bikes to well-heeled customers …..
er … YES! Guilty as charged.
L.Willo wrote:
Obviously your analogy about the US constitution, President Obama and American weapons sales was far more appropriate than mine about Chris Boardman and cycling equipment…
I look forward to you correcting my incredibly tangential analogy, why the wait?
As my previous analogies should have made clear.
It is not hypocritical to sell equipment that some cyclists will want/require whilst simultaneously reassuring other cyclists that they do not require such equipment.
Helmets put people off cycling, acknowledging that whilst selling helmets doesn’t make you a hypocrite.
It just makes you an honest retailer.
You are telling your customers that not all the equipment you sell is needed for all riders. You are telling your customers that they can start riding without a helmet if they wish.
The (flawed) assumption that cycling is very expensive also deters some people from taking it up.
Is it hypocritical to sell expensive bikes whilst informing people that they can start cycling on a cheap bike?
The idea of wearing lycra puts some people off cycling.
Is it hypocritical to sell lycra cycling gear whilst informing people they can start cycling in normal clothes?
Rich_cb wrote:
Correct.
Now add the final piece of the puzzle and by jove, at last, you have got it!
Being a vocal advocate for getting more people cycling whilst selling helmets that put people off cycling makes you a hypocrite.
Job done. If you still don’t get it, you are beyond help.
L.Willo wrote:
Correct.
Now add the final piece of the puzzle and by jove, at last, you have got it!
Being a vocal advocate for getting more people cycling whilst selling helmets that put people off cycling makes you a hypocrite.
Job done. If you still don’t get it, you are beyond help.
— Rich_cb
Yawn.
You deliberately deleted the rest of my post which addressed your point clearly.
You have also avoided all my questions.
How come?
L.Willo wrote:
Agreed, giff, and if he stopped there I would have no beef, but he went further, a lot further …
People, like me, who always wear a cycling helmet are apparently sending the wrong message about cycling. It is clear as day, that is what is meant by that statement.
So what message are the people who manufacture and sell helmets like you, Chris Boardman, sending about cycling?
Can you really convince that your hands are clean while you are profiting from enabling people to send the wrong message about cycling? Especially while posing as an ambassador for cycling at any opportunity?
It is hypocrisy and it doesn’t wash.
— giff77
I’m going out on a limb here. So here goes. I actually don’t remember seeing apparel and helmets with Boardman’s name or branding on it until Halfords bought the company in 2014. All of a sudden there was a plethora of kit with the cboardman branding on it that was being sold in line with the bikes.
Meanwhile Boardman Elite (Chris’ new company) sells bikes and components while the only kit is shorts, jerseys and socks – not a helmet in sight. So I think you can absolve Chris of all hypocrisy.
**These various companies are relying on people’s fears of injury and those who want to look ‘cool’ and emulate the pro peleton to cash in on selling them something that is only designed for a 12mph impact. People need to learn how to ride their bikes without falling off. And if they are going to fall. Learn how to fall. in the 40 odd years I’ve been cycling I can count on one hand the amount of times I’ve fallen off my bike. Twice on black ice, once when a ped stepped out on me and I had no choice but drop the bike and once when I forgot to unclip and all occasions I lost skin on various parts of my body, bruised hips and twisted my shoulder.
Today I was talking to a colleague in work who is wanting to cycle into work. And one of his first questions was did he need a helmet. This was mainly due to family and peers saying he needed one because cycling was so ‘dangerous’. Also there’s a huge subtle pressure in the media to wear helmets when cycling. Just look yourself – photo shoots of officials on static bikes wear them, the Beeb ensures all presenters wear them as do the other channels. And this hugely influences people to follow suit. You don’t need legislation – the persuasion is there to do so. People who choose not to, are castigated for their decision and bombarded with anecdotes on how a helmet saved their life. That kind of language gives the impression that cycling is dangerous does it not? You yourself have said in another post about drooling as a result of head trauma caused my no helmet or words to that effect. Does that not give the impression that cycling is dangerous?
Meanwhile Westminster and the respective devolved governments can’t be arsed to protect pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians by creating environments where cycling is normal and an acceptable means of getting around.
** should have highlighted companies that sell helmets in that sentence.
giff77 wrote:
giff, it seems that you at least accept that selling helmets while simultaneously denouncing the people who wear them is hypocrisy. The only issue for you is the uncertainty about whether or not Boardman profits from their sales. That is a fair point.
He posts here from time to time. Maybe he will answer that question himself.
L.Willo wrote:
I’m going out on a limb here. So here goes. I actually don’t remember seeing apparel and helmets with Boardman’s name or branding on it until Halfords bought the company in 2014. All of a sudden there was a plethora of kit with the cboardman branding on it that was being sold in line with the bikes.
Meanwhile Boardman Elite (Chris’ new company) sells bikes and components while the only kit is shorts, jerseys and socks – not a helmet in sight. So I think you can absolve Chris of all hypocrisy.
**These various companies are relying on people’s fears of injury and those who want to look ‘cool’ and emulate the pro peleton to cash in on selling them something that is only designed for a 12mph impact. People need to learn how to ride their bikes without falling off. And if they are going to fall. Learn how to fall. in the 40 odd years I’ve been cycling I can count on one hand the amount of times I’ve fallen off my bike. Twice on black ice, once when a ped stepped out on me and I had no choice but drop the bike and once when I forgot to unclip and all occasions I lost skin on various parts of my body, bruised hips and twisted my shoulder.
Today I was talking to a colleague in work who is wanting to cycle into work. And one of his first questions was did he need a helmet. This was mainly due to family and peers saying he needed one because cycling was so ‘dangerous’. Also there’s a huge subtle pressure in the media to wear helmets when cycling. Just look yourself – photo shoots of officials on static bikes wear them, the Beeb ensures all presenters wear them as do the other channels. And this hugely influences people to follow suit. You don’t need legislation – the persuasion is there to do so. People who choose not to, are castigated for their decision and bombarded with anecdotes on how a helmet saved their life. That kind of language gives the impression that cycling is dangerous does it not? You yourself have said in another post about drooling as a result of head trauma caused my no helmet or words to that effect. Does that not give the impression that cycling is dangerous?
Meanwhile Westminster and the respective devolved governments can’t be arsed to protect pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians by creating environments where cycling is normal and an acceptable means of getting around.
** should have highlighted companies that sell helmets in that sentence.
— L.Willo giff, it seems that you at least accept that selling helmets while simultaneously denouncing the people who wear them is hypocrisy. The only issue for you is the uncertainty about whether or not Boardman profits from their sales. That is a fair point. He posts here from time to time. Maybe he will answer that question himself.— giff77
Are you putting words in my mouth here? Absolutely nowhere did I say or indicate acceptance of selling whilst denouncing the sale of was hypocrisy. Did you actually read the quote?
cboardman apparel and ‘safety wear’ didn’t appear in Halfords until 2014 when they bought Boardmanbikes for 20 million I think it was. Chris from what I can make out moved from his role of research and development to that of chairman. Here is where it gets interesting. The chairman does not have a veto on decisions that the board of directors make. He is only there to ensure jobs get done by the board and that board meetings function smoothly. He is also there to support the MD/CEO. if the board of directors unanimously decide to produce clothing, helmets, lights etc with the cboardman branding he can’t stop them. He can only persuade directors to his way of thinking. Shareholders will also influence what they want to see the company producing and the Board of Directors acts on that.
So in regards to the sale of helmets Chris’s hands are tied unless he can persuade the directors otherwise. As I and others have stated. Chris isn’t anti helmet. He is opposed to the concept that the helmet is the solution to road safety.
You and others present cycling as dangerous with comments of “wear a helmet and it will save your life”. You remove cycling from a viable means of transport by arriving all hot and sweaty in your Lycra from a five mile commute demanding showers and changing facilities while muttering about the near misses and how glad you wear a helmet. how on earth is that meant to be attracting others to cycling and upping the modal share.
It’s only a fiver.
It’s only a fiver.
But if you need some time to save up, I did notice that the Nigeria Highway Code is available for free download from Amazon.
Quote:
I am outraged – OUTRAGED I tell you – that they should consult with such puny minds as Boardman and Reid, and yet not get the input of the number one cycling expert of our times, L.Willo. Indeed, some enterprising publisher should collect together the many wise comments of that perspicacious cycling sage which have been posted on this very web site, and print them in one handy guide. Such a learned tome would immediately grace my bookshelf, alongside the works of other similarly equanimous and self-effacing personages as Donald Trump and Russell Brand.
Y’know, if this book is good,
Y’know, if this book is good, then it might do more of a job of educating drivers rather than cyclists. “You should be riding in the gutter!” could now be countered with “read the Highway Code” etc.
Likewise, it could avoid the stupid “cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet” rubbish comes up in court cases. “Cyclist was riding in accordance with the Cycling Highway Code” could go a long way to addressing ignorance.
I’m pretty sure I read
I’m pretty sure I read something about the percentage of injuries in car accidents, that were acute head injuries was 30%+.
Why is nobody calling for helmet use in cars? It probably actually would save lives. Mess up your hair though so probably not worth bothering.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
1. Airbags are rather more effective at impact speeds greater than 30mph.
2. Not in the Highway Code. If it was, I would be arguing that drivers should comply with the recommendation. I dont like a pick and choose approach to such an important safety code of conduct.
L.Willo wrote:
Really? So you follow every non-legally-binding recommendation in the code when driving?
You always give priority to pedestrians who have already stepped into the road you just turned into? Never park facing against the direction of traffic? Never spill over out of on-pavement parking bays? Never break the speed limit by even 1mph? Your passengers always get out on the kerbside when you are parked? You never park within 10 meters of a junction?
If so, that would make you unique among drivers, most of whom struggle to obey the MUST parts never mind the mere recomendations.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Been driving for nearly 30 years. No points on my licence. Never had any. Have never had a speeding ticket. Have never had a parking ticket. Have never had an accident. One near miss after passing my test when the car in front missed a gear pulling away from a roundabout. Just stopped in time before rear ending it. Learned my lesson and never assume the car in front has gone since.
Those are the facts.
L.Willo wrote:
Well done on answering a different question to the one that was asked.
L.Willo wrote:
https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2000/Protect_Head_3.aspx
“In 1997 McLean et al. (1997) demonstrated that energy absorbing headwear for car occupants might be effective in reducing the numbers of head injuries sustained by car occupants. The estimated benefits were greater than the estimated benefits of padding of the upper interior of vehicles to the requirements of the US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201. This report investigates the suitability of selected materials for head protection, in the form of a headband that could be worn by car occupants.”
http://www.monash.edu/muarc/research/reports/atsb160
“Abstract
[b]Head injuries to car occupants resulting from crashes on Australian roads are a major cause of death and permanent brain damage[/b]. This report evaluates the benefits that would be likely to accrue from the use of padding materials to reduce the severity of impacts to the head. A review of the international literature was conducted to examine the range of possible countermeasures, with particular reference to padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. Three sets of data analyses were then carried out: first, a summary of objects typically struck by the head in a representative sample of crashes; secondly, an examination of actual brain injuries sustained in a sample of crashes, and an assessment of likely outcomes had the objects struck by the head been padded; and finally, a HARM analysis to estimate the cost of head injuries and the likely financial benefits from various countermeasures. Results indicate that there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. The total annual benefit of this measure, in terms of reduced HARM, would be about $123 million, or $154 per car (with a 5% discount rate). [b]However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear. The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a soft shell bicycle helmet were estimated to be $380 million (assuming a fully airbag equipped fleet), or $476 per car ($626 for cars without airbags)[/b].”
my emphasis added…
They’ve not exactly gone out
They’ve not exactly gone out of their way to list it on their own website have they!
http://www.theaa.com/search?q=cyclist%27s+highway+code
LOL!
LOL!
Let me tell you that legalising marijuana send the wrong message about healthy living. Now excuse me while I go and sell some puff ….
Nah, not hypocritical at all ….
This has really brightened my
This has really brightened my journey home. Thanks peeple. Stay awesome.
I hope you are not riding
I hope you are not riding/driving and reading Road.CC on your commute 🙂
One issue is that much of the
One issue is that much of the Highway code is mince… especially the wooly stuff regarding cycling two abreast. It says not to it on narrow roads, but what is narrow? Is it it a 6m carriageway with a line down the middle? Or do they mean a 3.5m single track? Even then, out on the fens several miles clear visibility it’s fine riding two abreast- can see cars coming literally a mile off and don’t want people overtaking even if single file. But the same width road on a cornish lane needs much more thought when you’ve got high earth banks and blind corners.
Then there’s all the rountinely ignore stuff regarding parking that’s all down as “should not” when it really should be “MUST NOT”. And various MUST NOTs that are freuently ignored and rarely enforced (eg entering cycle lanes denoted by a solid line).
As well as a funademtnal rebuilding of most of our highways the HC and road traffic laws need ripped down and re-written. The roads, the rules and and official advice and the enforcement of the rules contribute to conflict and death.
Just as an aside on this
Just as an aside on this topic, which started in one place and then veered off somewhere else, I’m curious how many cyclists wear protection for their arms, legs and torso when out riding? Bear in mind please that the vast majority of injuries received by cyclists are to the limbs.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Depends on what I’m doing – technical offroad or downhill, I’ll happily wear helmet, arm and leg ‘protectors’ – they probably stop scrapes, but not bruising.’
oldstrath wrote:
Pretty much the same as me then – MX type helmet for BMX/off-road MTB riding plus leg and arm protection, and for racing I’ll have my MX type body armour too.
OldRidgeback wrote:
It’s a very good point. In addition, the only major head injury I have sustained happened to me whilst I was *lying down in a bed* (true story). I’ve seen evidence of Boardman lying down on a bed *without wearing a helmet*. What a hypocrite.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Body protection is often less practical because of bulk, movement restriction and plain WTF ugliness for non sports use, and hurting a limb usually won’t cause a life changing injury or kill you, but a helmet can stop skin injury and stop or attenuate worse injuries/impairment up to the effective protection of each helmet design. Limited, more practical body protection can be provided by slip/padding layers of ordinary or sports clothing, including outer clothing containing Kelvar.
People. Why do you interact
People. Why do you interact with the tiresome individual? If you want to know what a tosser thinks, then read the comments on a Daily Mail article.
Hmmm …. research from 1997
Hmmm …. research from 1997 is relevant to last year’s airbag packed Volvo …
Next.
Leg and arm protection, injuries generally not life threatening. Torso? Evidence isnt there that sufficient protection offered to unfortunate cyclist trapped under a vehicle in low speed accidents. The overwhelming cause of death in cycling fatalities is HEAD INJURY.
L.Wilo – Boardman has NEVER
L.Wilo – Boardman has NEVER denounced people for wearing helmets, he has questioned whether the constant media pressure suggesting that cycling is dangerous and helmets are a must is counterproductive, as it reduces the number of people who may take up cycling. I challenge you to post a direct attributable quote (not a para-phrase) where Chris Boardman has denounced/condemned individual cyclists for wearing a helmet.
Feck me! L.Willo rides a bike
Feck me! L.Willo rides a bike? Would never have believed it. What’s the bets he’s a politician, the way he just rubbishes others arguements with a statement that’s never qualified with a source, though can find sources to back whatever shite he’s trying to put across.
This place is far the worse for his input, don’t know why
halfany of you bite, maybe it’s time to petition the site for an ‘ignore user’ function………..Oh, and I’ve no points on my licence and never recieved a speeding ticket either, but that’s due to lack of enforcement (And luck if you believe in it.) rather than the dream I am an impeccable driver.
kwi wrote:
Maybe we do need an ‘ignore user’ function but when so many are already using the ‘bait user’ function to set him off a-seething and a-correcting all those people who are clearly wrong, and on his internet too.. damn, don’t they know just how right he is about everything?
Makes me cry with laughter to see all his pomp and rage and absolute inability to leave it or let it go, coupled with the mental picture of him smashing that keyboard in apoplectic abandon and hitting the send button like a rocket-launcher!
if ever I’ve had a shitty day I come on here and look, and it doesn’t take long, for his bleating and I feel better, happier, safer in the knowledge that I am not him and all my troubles wash away.
Right, I’m off for more popcorn…
Well, if this page is
Well, if this page is anything to go by, publishing it only in hard copy isn’t going to matter too much. Can’t see them selling something which looks a bit like the Ladybird Book of Bicycles from the sixties. It isn’t only the publication method which is fifty years out of date.
http://s32.postimg.org/j2jrq3ud1/AA_Book_of_Cycling.jpg
And, as suspected, blatant helmet promotion. Really, really, really surprised at Chris Boardman and Carlton Reid allowing their names to be associated with this. I thought they had standards.
Help me out, I’m an idiot who
Help me out, I’m an idiot who needs to sup from the altar of El Willy wisdom.
Wait
Ha, ha. No it really doesn’t, you plum.
Hat Hat Hat, Mr Clete.
At absolute worst, I’d say
At absolute worst, I’d say Boardman is guilty of opportunism. Helmets are a red herring in so much of the cycling safety debate. They’re useful in very specific circumstances, useless in others. They don’t do anything to reduce the risk of close passes (and arguably increase that risk) which is probably the scariest thing for most people trying out cycling, long before they come close to actually being involved in an accident. So no, helmets aren’t much use. But oh, you want to buy one? Well, here you go.
For what it’s worth, I wear a helmet when I’m cycling. I find it severely reduces the risk of getting moaned at, and I just want a quiet life, after all…
@superpython, you are the
@superpython, you are the exception that proves the rule. You are already on record stating that your brain takes at least one second to respond to a stimulus. In your specific case, a helmet won’t make any difference if you suffer a serious skull injury.
@wycombe, I cannot for the life of me understand roadies who wear a helmet for sport (high speed crashes – helmets not very effective at impact speeds > 30mph) but refuse to wear one for utility cycling (low speed crashes – helmets very effective at impact speeds < 30mph). No logic to that, whatsoever. Pose value? Looking the part? Aero? The mind boggles.
However, totally irrelevant to your average punter who pops into Halfords with a few hundred quid or a C2W voucher to buy a bike…..
Hmm … which brand? That Boardman bloke is on telly a lot promoting cycling. He is likeable. Seems as honest as the day is long. Not the type to try and sell me useless shit. I’ll get one of his bikes …. now accessories ….. do I need a cycle helmet? …. Yeah …. I’ll get one of these Boardman ones to match my bike, after all he is likeable, seems as honest as the day is long. Not the type to try and sell me useless shit that is irrelevant for utility cycling …..
Ding! One more user of cycle helmets scaring other people off. Well done, Boardman!
A few more users sending the wrong message and terrifying certain would be cyclists:
http://youtu.be/XRAat11mwjg
Recreational / sports cycling is the exclusive preserve of well-heeled, white men.
Right, let me go and send the original wrong scary message about cycling to thousands of people on my commute ….
I think we need to issue a
I think we need to issue a book of common sense before anyone reads the highway code. For the general safety, well being and simple consideration of ‘Human Beings’, an execution of common sense would be far more ‘Safe’ than the result of just reading the highway code. Regardless of the ‘vehicle’ you are using, bike, car, lorry, bus, shoes etc etc it should be on everyones mind to be safe for themselves and for everyone else around them. We have traffic signals, road markings, road traffic act which is designed to allow a controlled movement on the infrastructure we actually have. You will probably find that most of the people who read Road.CC will not be the general cyclist who use a bike for commuting but for fitness and as a way of life. The different mindset of the cyclists is equal to the different mindset of car drivers. There are a wide range of attitudes towards both users and there are the extremes within each types of transport user. We should focus more on tolerance at all levels and dropping the selfish attitude to take in the bigger picture. The book of common sense, available at all good bookstores or as part of good parenting.
@L.Willy waver – I’m still
@L.Willy waver – I’m still waiting for the attributable quote. When you have finished going off at ridiculous tangents and insulting people, how about you put up or shut up. Please let it be the latter.
@L.Willy waver – I’m still
@L.Willy waver – I’m still waiting for the attributable quote. When you have finished going off at ridiculous tangents and insulting people, how about you put up or shut up. Please let it be the latter.
Dropped wrote:
Listen up, fool, you get this piece of advice for free.
When you decide to join a debate, familiarise yourself with that which has already been discussed. Do not expect the participants to accommodate your unwillingness / inability to do your homework.
What you are asking for, including a link to the article where the quote was made, was supplied by me long before you made your lazy ill informed request.
L.Willo wrote:
@L.Willy waver – I’m still waiting for the attributable quote. When you have finished going off at ridiculous tangents and insulting people, how about you put up or shut up. Please let it be the latter.
— L.Willo Listen up, fool, you get this piece of advice for free. When you decide to join a debate, familiarise yourself with that which has already been discussed. Do not expect the participants to accommodate your unwillingness / inability to do your homework. What you are asking for, including a link to the article where the quote was made, was supplied by me long before you made your lazy ill informed request.— Dropped
In any debate if you make a claim you should back it up. Its not the responsibility of those that question the validity of your claim to either prove of disprove it.
And as I posted in another article haven’t you got a Daily Mail article you could be responding to?
Wookie wrote:
@ Wookie – you can’t debate with “zero fucks given” trolls. As for Daily Mail articles, I wouldn’t be suprised if Willo Wonker writes them.
It’s about time drivers (yes
It’s about time drivers (yes I’m one too) have to learn how to treat cyclists.
I’ve cycled plenty in Spain and in France, and they really do give me 1.5m when passing, and don’t pass on blind corners, unlike 95% of UK drivers.
The driving test needs a mandatory section on consideration for cyclists.
Further, and I’m not being facetious when I say it, I think the driving test should have the prerequisite of having to cycle for an hour in rush our traffic in your nearest large city.
It’s about time drivers (yes
It’s about time drivers (yes I’m one too) have to learn how to treat cyclists.
I’ve cycled plenty in Spain and in France, and they really do give me 1.5m when passing, and don’t pass on blind corners, unlike 95% of UK drivers.
The driving test needs a mandatory section on consideration for cyclists.
Further, and I’m not being facetious when I say it, I think the driving test should have the prerequisite of having to cycle for an hour in rush our traffic in your nearest large city.
@giff
@giff
You wrote:
Meanwhile Boardman Elite (Chris’ new company) sells bikes and components while the only kit is shorts, jerseys and socks – not a helmet in sight. So I think you can absolve Chris of all hypocrisy.
I think the implication is pretty clear that you have absolved Biardman of all hypocrisy because he does not sell helmets while denouncing the users.
The only question left is does Boardman profit from his branded helmets on sale in Halfords? If the answer is yes then the other answer is hypocrite.