"Ignorant and grotesque" - CTC blasts article on cyclists by Road Haulage Association director

Cyclists need to rely upon a range of senses together. Why voluntarily cut one of these out. I'd defend your right to wear earphones on your bike but I wont do it myself. Is it really worth the risk?

I do feel though that like shaved legs, some cyclists like to be seen with one earphone in for that 'pro' look. Only it's not the DS on the radio, its the missus with a Tesco order to collect on the way home from work. For the complete look you could add a strip of surgical tape over the earphone and pretend to talk to your chest from time to time.

Without wishing to labour the point, in response to Andyp I will say that hearing is important in many scenarios. Not least when you are overtaken by a lorry on a country lane. You may yield to the verge a little to ease the passage of the lorry, but because its big, slow and difficult for other cars to overtake, it may have a one or more vehicles behind it. I guarantee you'll be relying on your hearing to detect these as your eyes are concentrating on the big thing that's passing you.

Mr Flanders' attitude is as sad as it is incorrect but to see fellow cyclists with earphones in worries me.

@ AndyP - By all means listen to your iPod when out on the bike and use your eyes. But your ears are also important. I can hear cars accelerating, decelerating on the approach to pinch points and roundabouts. Drivers revving their engine behind me have earned a long over the shoulder and you know what they stop revving. My ears being unblocked from other distraction gives me extra time to re- position myself on the road it also allows me to hear a fellow cyclist approach from behind and allows me to warn of obstructions or pull over to let them safely pass me.

You have to wonder how Flanders - a complete prat can hold so much responsibility and stupidity at the same time.

It is possible to have earphones in and still hear traffic.

a) Don't use the ones that seal the ear canal.
b) Have the music very quiet.

The only time I've worn them whilst cycling has been during the occasional solo century(+) training rides on my own, on some overly familiar or not especially interesting roads. It's akin to having a transistor radio playing in the next room, as far as volume levels go i.e. I can hear the music, but can also hear the nuances of engine noise around me, or the click of a shifter, or whatever.

I wouldn't like to think I was being unreasonably judged, just because I happened to want to subdue the boredom or stave off 'the voices'. I'm making a judgement call, in much the same way I wouldn't listen to music in a car at a volume level that would stop me from hearing the horn of another vehicle, or the shout of a pedestrian, for example.

One point with regards to people cycling whilst listening to music/speaking books etc, are you saying that deaf people are not allowed to cycle or drive on the roads. Lets face it when the moron in the car hits you it's not going to make an ounce of difference if your listening to the sound of his/her untaxed uninsured chave mobile or your favourite piece of music.

@fatbeggaronabike - no, that is not what is being said. Folk that are deaf are much more aware of what happens around them visually. An individual who has no issues hearing will not put greater emphasis on sight but be caught up on the playlist. If you watch a deaf cyclist you will see a lot more head movement. Same applies to blind cyclists being taken out on tandems - they will hear stuff quicker than the 'eyes' of the bike.

Mr Flanders has made an ill thought statement and quite possibly a personal viewpoint that is not in line with the RHA's approach to cyclists. Hopefuully Oldridgeback will get some sence from the horses mouth.

What an ignorant rant by Mr Flanders.
I did wonder if he had tried to fit every ill-informed anti cyclist rant in one article.

Finally, Mr Flanders warns lorry drivers: “Some [cyclists] have started to fit small video cameras to their helmets. If you are unfortunate to upset them on the roads they will report you to the authorities and will have evidence of whatever it was that you did. There are cases of this already where the police have taken action!”

So Mr Flanders doesn't like it when cyclists have evidence of poor driving. Oh dear

I did like the way when he taled about liability insurance, he didn't mention how little it is for cyclists compared to motorvehicles. That more than anything else show the damage caused by each.

Mr Flanders is either unbelievably ignorant or has an agenda to drive cyclists off the road, or both. We should remember that the RHA is a trade body, and as such its overriding purpose is to further the interests of its members. The tactic he uses is to use trivial issues to distract from the key issue on road safety, which is? - that it is motor vehicles that kill and HGVs are the most dangerous motor vehicles. Getting drawn into discussing issues like cyclists wearing earphones and cycle insurance, is a complete red herring in the context of road safety. Unfortunately the "roads are made for cars and lorries" lobby is very succesful in getting their view across and this sort of distraction is one of their key methods. I think we have a long hard job to do in challenging this sort of nonsense. We should focus on the FACTS:
1. MOTOR VEHICLES cause virtually all the casualties on roads.
2. HGVs are the most dangerous motor vehicles.
3. Since cyclists rarely cause any injuries, changing legislation regarding cyclists, whether it is insurance or headphones or anything else to do with cyclists is largely irrelevant, and won't lead to any noticeable improvement in road safety.
4. For similar reasons to 3. above, increasing enforcement of cycling breaches won't have any significant effect on road safety.
5. Roads were NOT made for cars, cyclists came first, cyclists brought about the big improvements in road surfaces and cyclists have a right to be on the road.
6. If cyclists are at at too much risk as Mr Flanders suggests, the answer is to remove or reduce the risk, not the cyclists (what will be next? a ban on horses using roads?)
7. My personal view is that we need to introduce a rule that "moving motor vehicles are always at fault when in collision with a cyclist". This sounds extreme, but in practice it is just common sense.

I don't think legislation is the answer. We have a cultural problem in this country - go to continental Europe and there is a far more harmonious relationship between drivers and cyclists.

I think more legislation would just exacerbate the situation and create more animosity.

Whilst Flanders' comments are not welcomed by any of us, let's not risk a backlash that involves falling out with the whole HGV community. I find that generally (there can be exceptions) they are professional, courteous and thoughtful drivers. I would prefer to keep it that way (we are too soft and squidy to start a fight). White van man is an entirely different kettle of fish...

Whilst I wouldn't recommend cycling with headphones of any sort, being deaf doesn't prevent anyone having a driving license, or for that matter, cycling. If anyone riding a motorcycle values their hearing, earplugs are a good idea. The man's an utter moron.

I always have headphones in while I'm riding. I can still hear the traffic. If I couldn't listen to music while cycling I'd never cycle again.

"Grumpyoldbiker" sums it up all very well. This is the type of ignorant comment that one hears in the dodgy sort of pub so it makes one wonder where RHA members spend their leisure time. I'll pick out just a couple of aspects. Firstly, how can a senior RHA figure believe that there is such a thing as "road tax"? The answer can only be total ignorance of the UK's fiscal arrangements. Secondly, why should he be so concerned about cameras? It is the very absence of camera evidence of incidents that prevents courts understanding just what did occur. One has to suspect that he knows that the behaviour of his members' drivers will be shown to be improper.

However, we should take heart. When an organisation states that an opinion is a personal one and then goes on to make conciliatory comments it is corporate-speak for: "We know that this man has made a prat of himself and embarrassed the organisation. We will make that clear to him but we cannot give him a public dressing down".

Quote:

To call the article "ignorant and grotesque" does nothing to contribute to sensible debate on what is an important subject.

Utterly priceless comment from the spokesman, considering the buffoon at the the RHA who wrote the article sparked it off. No buffoon, no article, no criticism - this seems to have escaped the fool of a spokesman.

Simon E wrote:

You forget that most cyclists are also drivers. There are very few cyclists with a witch-hunting mentality. If you are referring to Stricter Liability then you have misunderstood it.

I was referring to comments on here that drivers should automatically be blamed for any collision with a cyclist. In my opinion that is wrong, and far from constructive. As for Stricter Liability, I've not misunderstood it. I simply don't agree with it, and I don't believe it will make cycling safer in any meaningful way.

Quote:

Perhaps you'd like to consider the days when drink-driving was more common, and deaths caused by drunk drivers much higher. They were still 'accidents'. Do you think that driving under the influence is acceptable?

Glad you brought that up, because it illustrates my point. Drink driving has been illegal in the UK since 1925. But the illegality of it did not stop people from driving under the influence in any significant numbers. The thing that has reduced drink driving more than anything else is the cultural shift that has taken place in the last couple of decades. Society itself now stigmatises drink drivers, and it is this cultural shift that has reduced the incidence of its occurrence.

We need a similar cultural shift for society to accept cyclists, and even to prioritise them over other road users. But such cultural shifts are rarely brought about by legislation. We need serious investment in education, creating awareness, building infrastructure and, more than anything else, actually getting far more people to cycle in this country.

Do you silly cyclists realize how difficult it is for a RHA driver to concentrate on his newspaper when you insist on hogging your cycle lanes. It's hard enough to balance a tabloid on the steering wheel as it is.

Blimey, this has prompted some debate - and rightly so, some of the man's comments are ridiculous.

The worst has to be that there is no place on the road for cyclists.

Where then ? On the footpath ? (That's if there is one)

Is he advocating a total ban on cycling on the road ?

I have just pasted this from the RHA web-site !

"3. Cycling and their interaction with HGVs has taken much of our attention over the past year or more. We have been engaged in extensive discussions about the safety of cyclists with Transport for London and others, including the cycling lobby groups. We have also been in discussions with other regional authorities in the UK and with the Department for Transport.

4. We recognise the significance of the resurgence in cycling in recent years - which has been given such an added boost this summer by the country’s outstanding success at the Olympics. Improving the safety and enjoyment cycling by large numbers of people is an issue that will remain firmly on the agenda of policy makers and of road planners and designers. In the past year or so, the issue has also become more prominent in the minds of truck operators and drivers that it had been.

5. We welcome the increased attention that has been given to the consequences of HGVs and cyclists coming together in an accident. The increased profile given to the issue in the general media in London and to operators is surely one reason why Richmond councillor Katharine Harborne was able to tell the committee on July 12: “There have been six deaths in London this year from cycling. None of those have involved a lorry. By this time last year there had been 13 deaths involving 5 lorries, so things have certainly improved.”

This appears to be at odds with his comments above.

Eeejit

so I should just give up taking any responsiblility for my own safety and put my life in the hands of the drivers.
um, no. My point is exactly the opposite. Use your eyes (even if you can't read too well, you might be able to see cars) and take responsibility for your own safety, don't rely on your hearing. And given the pico-second warning about someone to go straight into the back of you, again, what would you do, exactly?

So, this traffic behind you, that you can hear even when you are looking forward...what is it going to do to you, exactly? Just drive straight through you? Or does being able to hear also give you the ability to hover in the air and allow the truck that was about to hit you from behind to pass safely underneath?

I repeat. If they're going to hit you, they're going to hit you, and being able to hear that they're about to hit you won't make the slightest bit of difference, other than to give your chamois an extra pico-second of trauma. If one is putting ones self at risk by moving into the path of a vehicle without checking what's around first, *even if you can hear*, one is a numpty.

'Cycling with headphones/earbuds etc is really too dangerous for urban riding.'

I've yet to hear a convincing argument to support this. If someone's going to drive into a cyclist, they'll do it whether the rider is listening to music or not (unless they're deliberately doing it *because* the rider, (probably like the driver) is listening to music.
If the rider decides to change lanes or otherwise ride into the path of a vehicle * without using their eyes and brain*, whether they're listening to music or not, they're an idiot.

I wish the RHA could discuss the need for speed dictated by poor work schedules for most haulage and white van drivers. We had a boilerman around yesterday who described his schedule for the day devised by a call centre 200 miles away rather than knowledge from him and his neighbouring driver. They criss-cross all day everyday trying to meet deadlines that each could easily cover if they were allowed input. It's no wonder delivery drivers are ploughing through cyclists all the time.

Betjeman was right in 1966 with his sarcastically titled 'Inexpensive Progress'. I wish he was around to speak up for us now. A poet lauriete who cycled would be great for us. Maybe we could buy Ms Duffy a Brompton?

Let's say goodbye to hedges
And roads with grassy edges
And winding country lanes;
Let all things travel faster
Where motor car is master
Till only Speed remains.

Err Goldfish, your suggestion will dissuade kids from cycling and add to the problem of obese children. It's that simple. This will increase their risk to health overall and boost the burden on the NHS. I don't think you've really thought about what you've suggested at all. Plus, the cost of the paperwork involved in taxing each bicycle will far exceed the £10 charge you've suggested, makign it a burden on the state. And this move will also dissuade people from cycling, result in more switching to motor vehciles and increasing congestion.