It's all our fault we are being killed...
Discussion
Looks like a pretty good idea, they should do more of that. Little bit of education is never a bad thing, especially if it prevents an accident. Don't see what the issue is with people taking responsibility for their own safety. Not much point trying to prove it was someone else's fault after you've been run over- people should realise it's avoidability rather than blame that's important.
Seems sensible to me. There's a reason I wear hi-viz, multiple lights and a helmet.
Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
oyster said:
Seems sensible to me. There's a reason I wear hi-viz, multiple lights and a helmet.
Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
+1Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
Some idiots won't take advice, they get the arse over it
y2blade said:
oyster said:
Seems sensible to me. There's a reason I wear hi-viz, multiple lights and a helmet.
Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
+1Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
Some idiots won't take advice, they get the arse over it
Ditto here, by all means educate cyclists with passive safety option but also try and tackle the root cause of injuries, bad use of the roads (by both drivers and cyclists) causing the collision in the first place. It's the lack of balance that gets peoples' backs up
oyster said:
Seems sensible to me. There's a reason I wear hi-viz, multiple lights and a helmet.
Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
This is more the equivalent of standing outside a club and telling all of the girls in short dresses, "I strongly suggest you don't dress like that."Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
I'm not one to blame drivers for everything, far from it, but I think that targeting people cycling* like knob-ends would be a far better use of police time than targeting people happily going about their business in an entirely legal manner.
- edit: and driving!
Usget said:
oyster said:
Seems sensible to me. There's a reason I wear hi-viz, multiple lights and a helmet.
Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
This is more the equivalent of standing outside a club and telling all of the girls in short dresses, "I strongly suggest you don't dress like that."Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
I'm not one to blame drivers for everything, far from it, but I think that targeting people cycling* like knob-ends would be a far better use of police time than targeting people happily going about their business in an entirely legal manner.
- edit: and driving!
Riding in poor visibility with low viz clothing might be legal but doesn't mean it shouldn't be targetted for change.
As someone else said, it's about balance.
I'll wear lots of lights, lots of hi-viz and my crash hat. And I'll ride sensibly and within the law.
y2blade said:
oyster said:
Seems sensible to me. There's a reason I wear hi-viz, multiple lights and a helmet.
Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
+1Why are the police wrong to encourage others to do the same?
If the police tell lone women not to walk down dark alleys at night, are they also in the wrong?
Or if they advise homeowners to lock their front doors?
Some idiots won't take advice, they get the arse over it
PC Deborah Gray said:
“If cyclists were more safety-conscious then families would not have to see that.”
It's quite simply a load of old arse.I sometimes cycle around Chelmsford, and have often been passed extremely closely, on blind corners where drivers swerve back in to avoid a head on, all manner of stupidity.
How about they send their officers out in regular cycling clothes on a bike and see exactly what it's like to cycle in the real world, helmet & hi-vis or not, a lot of drivers are
s who would risk your life to save a second.http://www.freight-online.co.uk/road/freight_best_...
"With the debate concerning the dangers faced by cyclists riding on our busy road network continuing, a new study from the University of Bath and Brunel University offers the view that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2% of drivers will still pass dangerously close when overtaking."
"With the debate concerning the dangers faced by cyclists riding on our busy road network continuing, a new study from the University of Bath and Brunel University offers the view that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2% of drivers will still pass dangerously close when overtaking."
oyster said:
No it's entirely different from that.
Riding in poor visibility with low viz clothing might be legal but doesn't mean it shouldn't be targetted for change.
As someone else said, it's about balance.
I'll wear lots of lights, lots of hi-viz and my crash hat. And I'll ride sensibly and within the law.
And when you get hit, it will likely still be your fault, because the predominate attitude toward cyclists in car-centric cultures like the US and UK is negative. I (an American) now live in Germany, where the officer's statement in the headline of this article would be considered absurd.Riding in poor visibility with low viz clothing might be legal but doesn't mean it shouldn't be targetted for change.
As someone else said, it's about balance.
I'll wear lots of lights, lots of hi-viz and my crash hat. And I'll ride sensibly and within the law.
budgie smuggler said:
It's quite simply a load of old arse.
I sometimes cycle around Chelmsford, and have often been passed extremely closely, on blind corners where drivers swerve back in to avoid a head on, all manner of stupidity.
How about they send their officers out in regular cycling clothes on a bike and see exactly what it's like to cycle in the real world, helmet & hi-vis or not, a lot of drivers ares who would risk your life to save a second.
Spot on, its the way the blame is immediately laid on the cyclist that gets everyone annoyed. Its the way the Police and the motorists can claim that the only reason the cyclist who was struck by a car at 50 mph died was because he didnt have the plastic lid on his head, the speed and internal injuries are irrelevant. They seem to apply life preserving qualities to these things and when the cyclist does have a lid on its easier to blame the cyclist for not wearing hi vis and lights and then, even if the cyclists was wearing hi-vis, lights and a helemt, well, its dangerous riding a bicycle on the road so close to cars and trucks isnt it.... I sometimes cycle around Chelmsford, and have often been passed extremely closely, on blind corners where drivers swerve back in to avoid a head on, all manner of stupidity.
How about they send their officers out in regular cycling clothes on a bike and see exactly what it's like to cycle in the real world, helmet & hi-vis or not, a lot of drivers are
s who would risk your life to save a second.oyster said:
Riding in poor visibility with low viz clothing might be legal but doesn't mean it shouldn't be targeted for change.
Yes it does - at least as far as the police is concerned. Why should someone who has met their legal responsibility have to endure "advice" when the people creating the danger do not? If danger exists after you have met your responsibility by cycling legally, then yes, you bloody well are entitled to ask the authorities to do more, and to call them irreponsible
s if they try to shift their reponsibility - of managing the danger posed by poor driving - on to you. Bad driving is not an act of god.Individual citizens is a different matter. Though I'd personally want anyone saying how brilliant an idea all this stuff is to please cite one country where a)PPE is present to a large degree, b)cycling is popular OR safe. Then I'd like them to demonstrate even a basic familiarity with risk engineering and risk perception. Then I'd like them to explain why they still think trying to make everyone wear dorky clothes for an activity that should be, and elsewhere is, safe is anything but a terrible idea, and why I should believe that they're anything but idiotic judgemental t
ts who really just want the problem to go anyway without them having to do anything serious, like consider their own attitudes and roadcraft.Then I'll listen.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 25th February 23:31
paranoid airbag said:
oyster said:
Riding in poor visibility with low viz clothing might be legal but doesn't mean it shouldn't be targeted for change.
Yes it does - at least as far as the police is concerned. Why should someone who has met their legal responsibility have to endure "advice" when the people creating the danger do not? If danger exists after you have met your responsibility by cycling legally, then yes, you bloody well are entitled to ask the authorities to do more, and to call them irreponsible
s if they try to shift their reponsibility - of managing the danger posed by poor driving - on to you. Bad driving is not an act of god.Individual citizens is a different matter. Though I'd personally want anyone saying how brilliant an idea all this stuff is to please cite one country where a)PPE is present to a large degree, b)cycling is popular OR safe. Then I'd like them to demonstrate even a basic familiarity with risk engineering and risk perception. Then I'd like them to explain why they still think trying to make everyone wear dorky clothes for an activity that should be, and elsewhere is, safe is anything but a terrible idea, and why I should believe that they're anything but idiotic judgemental t
ts who really just want the problem to go anyway without them having to do anything serious, like consider their own attitudes and roadcraft.Then I'll listen.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 25th February 23:31
I take my safety more important than that and hence will go further.
I see no reason for the police not to carry out this advice, so long as it's done in conjunction with advice to drivers too. And there's no evidence to suggest the latter is not happening.
oyster said:
If you're prepared to entrust your safety to people in 1.5+ ton lumps of metal, having only done the basics to meet legal requirements then that's up to you.
I take my safety more important than that and hence will go further.
I see no reason for the police not to carry out this advice, so long as it's done in conjunction with advice to drivers too. And there's no evidence to suggest the latter is not happening.
I don't have any fI take my safety more important than that and hence will go further.
I see no reason for the police not to carry out this advice, so long as it's done in conjunction with advice to drivers too. And there's no evidence to suggest the latter is not happening.
king choice but to entrust my safety to people in 1.5+ tonnes of metal at some point, regardless of what I've done. If they want me dead, I'm dead no matter what I fking do. If they want to look at their phone or satnav, I'm dead, no matter what I fking do. So get off the high horse: if you're riding a bike instead of driving a car you're not taking your safety seriously at all unless you're doing something to make sure that trust is not misplaced. You're just practising security theatre so that the coroners can tick some different boxes when someone crushes your torso at 60mph on an arrow-straight road in broad daylight because they were texting, or drunk, or just a t
t. paranoid airbag said:
oyster said:
If you're prepared to entrust your safety to people in 1.5+ ton lumps of metal, having only done the basics to meet legal requirements then that's up to you.
I take my safety more important than that and hence will go further.
I see no reason for the police not to carry out this advice, so long as it's done in conjunction with advice to drivers too. And there's no evidence to suggest the latter is not happening.
I don't have any fI take my safety more important than that and hence will go further.
I see no reason for the police not to carry out this advice, so long as it's done in conjunction with advice to drivers too. And there's no evidence to suggest the latter is not happening.
king choice but to entrust my safety to people in 1.5+ tonnes of metal at some point, regardless of what I've done. If they want me dead, I'm dead no matter what I fking do. If they want to look at their phone or satnav, I'm dead, no matter what I fking do. So get off the high horse: if you're riding a bike instead of driving a car you're not taking your safety seriously at all unless you're doing something to make sure that trust is not misplaced. You're just practising security theatre so that the coroners can tick some different boxes when someone crushes your torso at 60mph on an arrow-straight road in broad daylight because they were texting, or drunk, or just a t
t. paranoid airbag said:
oyster said:
If you're prepared to entrust your safety to people in 1.5+ ton lumps of metal, having only done the basics to meet legal requirements then that's up to you.
I take my safety more important than that and hence will go further.
I see no reason for the police not to carry out this advice, so long as it's done in conjunction with advice to drivers too. And there's no evidence to suggest the latter is not happening.
I don't have any fI take my safety more important than that and hence will go further.
I see no reason for the police not to carry out this advice, so long as it's done in conjunction with advice to drivers too. And there's no evidence to suggest the latter is not happening.
king choice but to entrust my safety to people in 1.5+ tonnes of metal at some point, regardless of what I've done. If they want me dead, I'm dead no matter what I fking do. If they want to look at their phone or satnav, I'm dead, no matter what I fking do. So get off the high horse: if you're riding a bike instead of driving a car you're not taking your safety seriously at all unless you're doing something to make sure that trust is not misplaced. You're just practising security theatre so that the coroners can tick some different boxes when someone crushes your torso at 60mph on an arrow-straight road in broad daylight because they were texting, or drunk, or just a t
t. He thought it was sensible to ride on a NSL dual carriageway at night in a dirty, non-reflective high viz tabard with a £2.99 rear light with nearly dead batteries.
The car in front of me didn't see him until the last second, swerved out the way just as I was looking over my shoulder checking my blind spot, leaving me with a split second to react before he would have been under my wheels at 60 mph.
I should have spotted this idiot from way back if he was well lit but by the time he was within sight he was hidden by the car in front of me.
I did nearly 6000 miles by bike last year, over 3000 commuting mainly in the dark dressed in high viz clothes with extremely bright lights and when I drive I'm very much aware of cyclists.
I wasn't speeding, tailgating, texting or fannying on with my satnav and yet I was very nearly a killer driver.
I understand your point but I have to agree with oyster. Some people clearly need saving from themselves.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff