Mandatory hi-vis and helmets will be considered as part of government cycle safety review

kitsunegari wrote:

I've long thought it will be forced through, and I still think it will.

What a travesty this country is.

Not if I have anything to do with it.

I'm getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being 'evidence driven'

If that is the case, then this cannot possibly happen.

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

Chris B

Chris_boardman wrote:

kitsunegari wrote:

I've long thought it will be forced through, and I still think it will.

What a travesty this country is.

 

Not if I have anything to do with it.

I'm getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being 'evidence driven'

If that is the case, then this cannot possibly happen.

 

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

 

Chris B

I very much hope they listen to you, even as a 'topic for discussion' it's pretty ridiculous.

Chris_boardman wrote:

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

Chris B

The way things are going, probably won't be in power for too long.

Chris_boardman wrote:

Not if I have anything to do with it.

I'm getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being 'evidence driven'

Chris I do hope you are correct, I feel that the new 'Cycling Safety' has very little to do with cycling or safety, more to do with reducing variables for the forthcoming avalanche of autonomous vehicles....

I am certain we will see manadatory helmets, hi viz with some sort of RF tag and clear identifying numbers, as well as mandated use of cycle paths and crossing points for pedestrians..

This is more to do with the expected financial benefits of autonomous vehicles and nothing to do with safety of human beings on the road system...

Smooth the way of the driverless car by blaming the people that get in the way of it!

If the idea was for safety we allready know what the sensible approach is!

John

Chris_boardman wrote:

kitsunegari wrote:

I've long thought it will be forced through, and I still think it will.

What a travesty this country is.

 

Not if I have anything to do with it.

I'm getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being 'evidence driven'

If that is the case, then this cannot possibly happen.

 

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

 

Chris B

How can we help Chris? I'm sick of being passive while nothing is done to improve the roads. 

jasecd wrote:

How can we help Chris? I'm sick of being passive while nothing is done to improve the roads. 

As a life member, I have to declare an interest, but probably the best way to help is to join and support Cycling UK, the only organisation which has clearly and consistently fought for cyclists' rights, including helmets and hi-viz.  The other national cycling orgs are ambivalent at best, and ironically, since it is completely at odds with the views of their advisor Chris Boardman, British Cycling mandate helmets on all their events, which is used by many other organisers to justify their own helmet and other ludicrous rules.

Chris_boardman wrote:

Not if I have anything to do with it.

I'm getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being 'evidence driven'

If that is the case, then this cannot possibly happen.

 

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

Chris B

Bravo Chris, well said, and you are the right man for this job.

Let us know how we can help.

We are grateful for everything you are doing for cycling.

Chris_boardman wrote:

kitsunegari wrote:

I've long thought it will be forced through, and I still think it will.

What a travesty this country is.

 

Not if I have anything to do with it.

I'm getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being 'evidence driven'

If that is the case, then this cannot possibly happen.

 

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

 

Chris B

Is this THE Chris Boardman?

Welcome on board.   

Chris_boardman wrote:

kitsunegari wrote:

I've long thought it will be forced through, and I still think it will.

What a travesty this country is.

 

Not if I have anything to do with it.

I'm getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being 'evidence driven'

If that is the case, then this cannot possibly happen.

 

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

 

Chris B

If only they were mute!  Sadly, many of today's politicians make a noise and fuss (a moot hooting) to attract attention rather than to say anything cogent and of utility to the body politic at large (us).

However, they might really mean that any new policy will be "evidence based" as they claim it will. But there's the rub. The "evidence" concerning many of these things is often confused.

We have the helmet debate endlessly, with more cyclists for than against, quoting anecdotal "a helmet saved my life" events as "evidence".  (In fact they mostly have them because of fashion and peer pressure). There will be similar suspect "evidence" concerning high viz, cycling speed, dedicated cycling infrastructure and all the rest.

For example, high viz might work to make some motorists notice you - if they're looking - many aren't. If they do notice you, they may become more or less aggresive towards you. How do we count the respective proportions? Do those proportions of aggresive / non-aggressive vary with geographical area, time of day and what the Daily Hate mail printed this morning?

For example, much cycling infrastructure of the lane-on-the-left type is far more dangerous than plain old roads that used to be there (in towns and cities); whilst other kinds are very safe, such as the old-fashioned dedicated cycle paths next to major roads, with a large verge between the two and no pedestrians.

Safety matters and the wider subject or driving, cycling & walking in a modern transport environment are not just highly complex but often inchoate. "Evidence" is by no means simple, clear and uncontradictory.

Cugel, recommending the cyclist's 6th sense albeit unable to define it in words.

Cugel wrote:

 

If only they were mute!  Sadly, many of today's politicians make a noise and fuss (a moot hooting) to attract attention rather than to say anything cogent and of utility to the body politic at large (us).

However, they might really mean that any new policy will be "evidence based" as they claim it will. But there's the rub. The "evidence" concerning many of these things is often confused.

We have the helmet debate endlessly, with more cyclists for than against, quoting anecdotal "a helmet saved my life" events as "evidence".  (In fact they mostly have them because of fashion and peer pressure). There will be similar suspect "evidence" concerning high viz, cycling speed, dedicated cycling infrastructure and all the rest.

For example, high viz might work to make some motorists notice you - if they're looking - many aren't. If they do notice you, they may become more or less aggresive towards you. How do we count the respective proportions? Do those proportions of aggresive / non-aggressive vary with geographical area, time of day and what the Daily Hate mail printed this morning?

For example, much cycling infrastructure of the lane-on-the-left type is far more dangerous than plain old roads that used to be there (in towns and cities); whilst other kinds are very safe, such as the old-fashioned dedicated cycle paths next to major roads, with a large verge between the two and no pedestrians.

Safety matters and the wider subject or driving, cycling & walking in a modern transport environment are not just highly complex but often inchoate. "Evidence" is by no means simple, clear and uncontradictory.

Cugel, recommending the cyclist's 6th sense albeit unable to define it in words.

Lataxe, is that you?

Cugel wrote:

Chris_boardman wrote:

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

 

Chris B

If only they were mute!  Sadly, many of today's politicians make a noise and fuss (a moot hooting) to attract attention rather than to say anything cogent and of utility to the body politic at large (us).

However, they might really mean that any new policy will be "evidence based" as they claim it will. But there's the rub. The "evidence" concerning many of these things is often confused.

I noticed 'mute' vs. 'moot' too, but wasn't going to pick CB up on it. 

Whilst we can argue the evidence of whether or not a helmet or hi vis prevent injury or stop drivers crashing in to us all we like but its completely missing the point -  Its putting the emphasis on the victim not the perpetrator.  

Besides, evidence is quite clear that any mandatory requirement to have 'safety' equipment drives down cycling numbers (and presumably, by corrollary,  drives up motorised road traffic).

CygnusX1 wrote:

Cugel wrote:

Chris_boardman wrote:

Very sad it's even been muted by someone in power.

 

Chris B

If only they were mute!  Sadly, many of today's politicians make a noise and fuss (a moot hooting) to attract attention rather than to say anything cogent and of utility to the body politic at large (us).

However, they might really mean that any new policy will be "evidence based" as they claim it will. But there's the rub. The "evidence" concerning many of these things is often confused.

I noticed 'mute' vs. 'moot' too, but wasn't going to pick CB up on it. 

Whilst we can argue the evidence of whether or not a helmet or hi vis prevent injury or stop drivers crashing in to us all we like but its completely missing the point -  Its putting the emphasis on the victim not the perpetrator.  

Besides, evidence is quite clear that any mandatory requirement to have 'safety' equipment drives down cycling numbers (and presumably, by corrollary,  drives up motorised road traffic).

 

  

I agree that the root cause of horrible events on the road is the motor car and the large raft of idiots who are driving them at dangerous momentums but shouldn't be because they do it so badly, endangering everyone else. In my wee utopia, the motorised vehicle would never have been allowed and we'd all still be going to the factory & office on a bike or even a horse, if we couldn't walk that far.

Mind, in my utopia, there'd be no factory or office either. 

Since we live in this 'ere actual society, such as it is, it may be best to adopt a pragmatic stance. I try to do this as a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist. (I'd do it as a horsey rider too, if I rode one).

This pragmatism involves adopting devices and procedures that are known to increase safety (for all). Some such are fairly clear whilst others are marginal or perhaps contoversial.

For example, I rarely wear a cycling helmet as the risk is less than that of being a pedestrian in town, going fell-walking or getting on a step to cut the hedge - situations in which few if any wear a helmet. And the polystyrene construct is not known do deal well with serious head blows, even if it does make you look like Berty or Vroome. (I do wear one if riding in what I calculate to be a situation where a low-impact blow to the head is much more likely - e.g. on an MTB in the fells).

I do have always-on bright lights (flashing in the day) and high viz hat and booties (the noticeable bits).  It hopefully attracts the eye of Doris or Albert, despite the fact that they've forgotten to don their specs today, when going to (or, worse, from) the pub.

I also have a well-honed sixth sense, familiar to many long-time cyclists, concerning the mental states and probable antics that can be read from various twitches (or lack of them) of motorcars as they go about.

As a car driver I am careful to the point of paranoia; and inclined to apply the cyclists's 6th sense at an even faster processing rate.

The point is: when you're in a grave or a wheelchair because of a road traffic "accident", moaning about what the idiot in the car who ran you over should have done will not rewind time and your condition.

Reality bites, so keep yer teeth-blunters handy.

Cugel

Cugel wrote:

I agree that the root cause of horrible events on the road is the motor car and the large raft of idiots who are driving them at dangerous momentums but shouldn't be because they do it so badly, endangering everyone else. In my wee utopia, the motorised vehicle would never have been allowed and we'd all still be going to the factory & office on a bike or even a horse, if we couldn't walk that far.

Mind, in my utopia, there'd be no factory or office either. 

Since we live in this 'ere actual society, such as it is, it may be best to adopt a pragmatic stance. I try to do this as a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist. (I'd do it as a horsey rider too, if I rode one).

This pragmatism involves adopting devices and procedures that are known to increase safety (for all). Some such are fairly clear whilst others are marginal or perhaps contoversial.

For example, I rarely wear a cycling helmet as the risk is less than that of being a pedestrian in town, going fell-walking or getting on a step to cut the hedge - situations in which few if any wear a helmet. And the polystyrene construct is not known do deal well with serious head blows, even if it does make you look like Berty or Vroome. (I do wear one if riding in what I calculate to be a situation where a low-impact blow to the head is much more likely - e.g. on an MTB in the fells).

I do have always-on bright lights (flashing in the day) and high viz hat and booties (the noticeable bits).  It hopefully attracts the eye of Doris or Albert, despite the fact that they've forgotten to don their specs today, when going to (or, worse, from) the pub.

I also have a well-honed sixth sense, familiar to many long-time cyclists, concerning the mental states and probable antics that can be read from various twitches (or lack of them) of motorcars as they go about.

As a car driver I am careful to the point of paranoia; and inclined to apply the cyclists's 6th sense at an even faster processing rate.

The point is: when you're in a grave or a wheelchair because of a road traffic "accident", moaning about what the idiot in the car who ran you over should have done will not rewind time and your condition.

Reality bites, so keep yer teeth-blunters handy.

Cugel

But when you add up doing what you do with daytime flashing lights, hi-vis et al you drop the responsibility just a little bit more for those presenting the harm in the first instance, when you multiply that up so much to where we are now not only do those things you do to keep you safer not actually work on an individual basis they don't work on a societal/population basis either, yet all the whilst your and others actions to keep safer act to take away the responsibility and indeed culpibility of government/police to make things better, things that we know DO in fact make things better and can be proven to do so.

Yours and others aactions of wanting to 'feel' safer now pushes the onus of safety onto the vulnerable, it gives excuses for motorists and the police wag their finger/blame the victim for being killed/injured to the point that in court even judges are allaying blame on the victim when there's not a scrap of evidence that those 'safety' aids would have made a difference in any case.

The adoption of and promotion of helmets and hi-vis has markedly reduced our safety, the justice and indeed financial recompense that people on bikes should be offered in line with other people going about their business.

Would the police blame a rape victim for not wearing an anti rape device, even if that device was not proven to prevent such? Would the justice system put blame onto an innocent motorist for not having a side impact beam/ABS/Airbag or any other device to potentially reduce their injuries, would a pedestrian/someone out for a drink be blamed for not having a stab vest yet were stabbed in the neck, no, yet because of the culture we have, people on bikes are blamed and punished/criminal let off more lightly if they don't have hi-vis, helmet or in some cases lights that are simply 'not very bright' despite being legal in their use as some police have commented. 

As a group we have by far the greatest onus of safety pushed upon us and responsibility not to harm others i.e. pedestrians, yet adding all these aids doesn't do shit. Victoria road safety people still spouting 26% serious head injury reduction over 2 years post helmet laws, ignore that there was a 36% reduction in cycling and that there was already a downward decline in fatalities due to other interventions.

despite all the waffle about MTB/downhill/racing/competiton needing helmets, it's yet more BS, I never wore a helmet for downhill riding/fast trails, fast riding on alpine descents, why, because I never needed one, i liked going fast but i knew my limitations, people wearing hats take more risk, this is a simple fact and one seen in the pro ranks as more deaths, more injuries and more crashes sinc ethe helmet rules came in. Even if you do come off so feeble are helmets that when/if you do hit a rock/solid object at speed the helmet cannot by design save you in any case from a serious TBI

Chris_boardman wrote:

Not if I have anything to do with it.

I'm getting involved in this one and intend to hold Goverment to their promise of being 'evidence driven'

Good luck with that but trying to hold the government to its own "evidence based policy" cost Professor David Nutt his job.

According to Kenneth Clarke's anecdote thats doing the rounds today, the government is more swayed by influence from billionaire newspaper owners than evidence.