Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Post Reply
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Post by mercalia »

Would these five changes actually help cyclists?
look at -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
The only way to reduce risk substantialy is not to cycle on roads.

A cyclist will remain a second class user..fact, until you change the way people think before they drive for the first time on the road :?:

Some peoples attitudes to other road users mean they should never drive.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Post by snibgo »

Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Should helmets be compulsory? No. Enough said. And why is this at the top of the list? Helmets can only ever be a measure of last resort.

Should high-vis gear be used in daytime? Flourescence increases visibility, especially on dull overcast days. But I'm not convinced that increasing visibility helps drivers to actually see cyclists, or avoid driving into them.

Banning headphones. No.

Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? Yes, of course, as required.

Flashing lights or steady lights? Where there is no street lighting, I hate using flashing front lamps. At the back I like one steady and one flashing.
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5834
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Post by RickH »

snibgo wrote:Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Should helmets be compulsory? No. Enough said. And why is this at the top of the list? Helmets can only ever be a measure of last resort.

Should high-vis gear be used in daytime? Flourescence increases visibility, especially on dull overcast days. But I'm not convinced that increasing visibility helps drivers to actually see cyclists, or avoid driving into them.

Banning headphones. No.

Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? Yes, of course, as required.

Flashing lights or steady lights? Where there is no street lighting, I hate using flashing front lamps. At the back I like one steady and one flashing.

It does start with
Issues surrounding cycle safety are often divisive. Here are five of them.
and helmets & Hi-vis have been being hotly debated (i.e. those suggesting anything other than helmet /Hi-vis use get shouted at & insulted! :roll: ) in the last few days so it isn't surprising they were first on the list.

I don't think they did too bad a job of looking at the issues in a brief article.

Rick.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
eileithyia
Posts: 8399
Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 6:46pm
Location: Horwich Which is Lancs :-)

Re: Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Post by eileithyia »

Back in the 80's when a friend had a nasty accident, and a few later so did i, I thought long and hard about increasing visibility and ultimately decided that no matter how visible you are, if they ain't looking they ain't gonna see you.....
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells
iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Post by iviehoff »

Many people will glance at this BBC article and think there are 5 useful things cyclists can do to make themselves a lot safer. But that is not what the article says at all. It asks about them, and pretty much comes to the answer "No". But that isn't very obvious. We have to read a long way down near the bottom to find the well-made points that they are discussing the wrong things.

Personal protective equipment is the very last step in creating a safe system, says Walker. Take aviation, maritime and rail, he says. "The starting point for every aspect of that system is the driver will make mistakes. It's insane that we utterly ignore human fallibility [for cars and cycling]."

"If we really are serious about trying to make cycling part of our culture, either the cars have to be tamed, or the cyclists have to be segregated," Franklin says.

"A sensible cyclist - and there are some fools out there - has pretty much done all he or she can do for their safety," Garrard adds.


Now, BBC, why don't you do something useful like have a discussion of the changes that might really be useful. These 5 things are all things cyclists themselves can do, our old enemy victim-blaming. An expert tells us that sensible cyclists are generally looking after themselves as best they can. A few fools aside, which is it is unfair to make the rest of us suffer for, they are largely being killed because of poor behaviour by others. So, BBC, can we instead have a sensible discussion of what would be the most proportionate and effective means of "taming the car" in appropriate fashion, at least when it comes to taking a reasonable level of care around the cyclist, so we can have a proportionate discussion of the various options?

As a little aside, I saw some new signs when I was in Spain last week (new in the sense that they weren't there when I was in the same part of Spain last year). They indicated that you should give a cyclist at least 1.5m when overtaking, and were placed on main country roads popular with cyclists. I wonder if this is a legal requirement in Spain?

(This post is adapted from one I made on another thread yesterday, in which I linked to the BBC article mentioned by OP.)
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Post by beardy »

I dont think the BBC have been too bad about cycling this week.

Their audience on the other hand have been showing some signs of worrying stupidity.
As Iviehoff says the article is quite clear if you read it carefully but we imagine that the readership are going to read it through heavily filtered glasses and just see what they expect to see.

I had a quick look at the bit on the breakfast show this morning and was delighted to see Andrew Gillingham riding without a helmet doing the piece in London. A bit less acquiescence to the helmet issue and we may be able to get past it to real issues. I think that after letting loose on Boardman the readership may be a bit worn out by today and hopefully defeated by the end.

Yes, I do know that as I watched the bit of breakfast show and read this piece that I am now part of the BBC readership. :oops:
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Would these five changes actually help cyclists?

Post by mjr »

beardy wrote:I dont think the BBC have been too bad about cycling this week.

Which just goes to show, if you keep feeding people poo, then they're be happy when offered stale bread for a change! :-(
I had a quick look at the bit on the breakfast show this morning and was delighted to see Andrew Gillingham riding without a helmet doing the piece in London. A bit less acquiescence to the helmet issue and we may be able to get past it to real issues. I think that after letting loose on Boardman the readership may be a bit worn out by today and hopefully defeated by the end.:

Nope, the loonies are still out in force :-(
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Post Reply