[Closed] Bike safety review could result in compulsory helmets and hi -vis

Jesse Norman says he is a '.....keen cyclist himself'.
IF he is, he would not make such inane statements and promote such poorly thought through policies.
Is there any evidence that he.....owns a bike; uses it; dresses 'appropriately' (wears helmet & hi-vis); cycles on roads or on cycle paths adjacent to roads; is a member of any cycling organisation; talks with other cyclists - if he is, as he claims, a 'keen cyclist himself; knows who chris boardman is; shown any interest in meeting with boardman and discussing cycling infrastructure?
I could go on.
He is another political windbag.
Jesse - actions speak louder than words.

Or make some proper ****ing infrastructure and punish offending drivers for committing offences instead of making bullshit, ineffective victim blaming and half arsed gestures to the motoring crowd and pandering to the kinds of cretins who have no place behind the wheel of a PlayStation let alone an actual car.

Yesterday I saw (best guess) getting on for 50-60 cars, vans and lorries (yes flaming great artics) charging down the shoulder of the M27 while the main carriageway was jammed up due to an accident.

I saw someone with their kid in the front of the car with a phone in their hand,

A close pass from a UniLink bus on a cyclist,

Add in seeing half a dozen red light jumpers, the rampant speeding and aggressive driving on one of the main arterial routes in to Southampton city centre, the car in front trying to join the M27 at 40mph when the main carriageway was averaging 60+, dozens of middle lane drivers and some serious tailgaters and that just about sums up 40 miles in the car.

When I got home I saw a post and photo from two "celebrities" on Facebook moaning about the traffic they were sat in that was clearly taken from the driver's seat and the traffic wasn't even that bad from the pic.

Honestly wrapping cyclists up in day glow is not going to cure any of this inattentive selfish muppetry.

Sorry bit of a rant.

I got the train a couple of days last week - the break was an unpleasant reminder of how hateful our roads can be!

He said his ambition was to “make the transition to a world where a 12-year-old can cycle safely”.

Excellent news... I presume this means a sustained campaign to detect and prosecute phone using drivers?

But he said there was no guarantee of more money for segregated cycle paths, and that the government was also looking into making helmets and high-vis clothing compulsory.

So there is no money to upgrade infrastructure, but there's potential funding for drafting changes legislation that places more restrictions on cycling... Oh and to subsidise fatties buying e-bikes of course...

He assured cyclists that any decisions would be based on evidence.

Didn't the evidence from Australia already show that helmet compulsion reduced the number of people cycling?

Sort of flys against his initial statement of wanting every 12 year old out on a bike...

Seems odd to suggest that helmet and hi-viz compulsion might be the outcomes of this [i]evidence based[/i] "road safety review" before they've had it...

Feels more like that's what they've settled on to keep DM/Sun readers on side now some civil servant needs to fudge the report to suit the conclusions...

Well done Charlie Aliston you've basically ****ed up cycling for everyone else...

Didn't the evidence from Australia already show that helmet compulsion reduced the number of people cycling?

Job jobbed then. Less cyclists = less injured cyclists. As we all know statistics are the only way to know how much danger we're really in..

Oh and to subsidise fatties buying e-bikes of course...

i thought the context of the piece on providing tax incentives for ebikes was "last mile" stuff seemed to recall a quote about less large transit vans to deliver one small box - think it will end up as tax incentives for large corporations like Amazon, DHL to invest in cargo bikes that will be ridden by thin and poorly paid contract workers on roads still filled with inconsiderate and danger drivers - moves road capacity around a bit and taxpayers money to the least deserving whilst seen to be doing something

Jesse Norman says he is a '.....keen cyclist himself

The first problem to be overcome is accepting that more cycling is A Good Thing in terms of benefits to the economy, NHS, health and happiness of our cities (even for those not on bikes). Then you can move onto changing how we enable more people to use bikes for journeys. If the focus is on reducing cyclist injuries/deaths then it all goes wrong because the cheapest way to do that is to discourage cycling. Helmets and hi viz don't make cycling any more appealing or convenient. Safe, direct, segregated routes on main roads do.

As written by Bez.
http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/the-law-will-be-fixed/

This country is being run by Daily Mail readers. 🙁
I've never felt such a prolonged and openly public anti-cycling vibe before. Every opinion column and the bloody awful Briggs Campaign coupled with a certified moron in the DfT.

I've never felt such a prolonged and openly public anti-cycling vibe before. Every opinion column and the bloody awful Briggs Campaign coupled with a certified moron in the DfT.

This vibe seems to be carrying over from the media to the roads too. It’s been worse the past few months than i’ve ever experienced 🙁

Well done Charlie Aliston you've basically **** up cycling for everyone else...

A lot of this. Fed a media and public who were hungry for a good anti cycling story they could get stuck into 🙁

If you read what's actually saying in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/20/uk-may-consider-electric-vehicle-subsidy-to-increase-cycling

It seems pretty reasonable.

A review into cycling safety announced last month would be broad, possibly including whether cyclists should be forced to wear helmets and high-visibility clothing, Norman said. But he promised any conclusions would be led by evidence.

People buying electric or hybrid cars can receive up to £4,500 off the purchase price through a government subsidy scheme. However, there is no equivalent policy for e-bikes, where a small electric motor provides a boost when the rider pedals.

These are increasingly popular with novice or older cyclists or those facing a hilly or lengthy commute, but can often cost £1,500 or more.

Norman said an e-bike subsidy could happen: “We’ve done some work on that already, and I haven’t looked at the outcomes yet, and they might not be ready yet. There’s a case in principle.”

Norman said critics had “missed a wider point” that the safety review would also cover the danger posed to cyclists by drivers, including those “using cars in ways that are intentional and punitive”.

Asked if he had experienced dangerous driving while cycling, he replied: “I bike every day, so absolutely.”

On possible laws for helmets and high-visibility clothing, Norman said the review would “ask very general questions and if the feedback is that we should consider that stuff, then we’ll look at it”.

He added: “Obviously there will be some people who feel very strongly that there should be hi-vis, and there will be plenty of people who think very strongly the other way. It’ll be the same with helmets. The literature on risk is quite a well developed one, I don’t need to tell you.”

Whenever I wear a helmet, I tend to crash more/harder etc.....not saying it's right or wrong, but I'm not wearing one. They give me a (subconscious?) false sense of security......besides, they've got to catch me to b*****k me.

[quote=yourguitarhero ]It seems pretty reasonable.

If you assume that it actually will be evidence based. Using proper evidence rather than simply the subset of evidence which fits whatever conclusion they're wanting. If you think there won't be any bias in the "evidence" they rely on, then you're insufficiently cynical.

Because there shouldn't really even be any mention of helmets or hi-vis at this stage if the "honourable member" actually knew his brief and he was basing it on evidence.

Who's going to police it anyway? I seldom see coppers when I'm out on the bike, motorbike or car.

I like riding in black sometimes blue never dayglow
I like riding without a helmet from time to time
I expect my liberty to be upheld not constrained - FA to do with any politician

Reminds me of the 70/ when everyone was supposed to walk in the mountains in bloody orange cagoules. Bllx then, bllx now.

These proposals don’t fill me with excitement.

Personally, I’m a helmet fascist and won’t ride without one and won’t go out on a mtb with another rider without one. I accept they’re a choice though, and will happily pootle on gentle Touring rides with bare heads.

Hi vis annoys me. Firstly, there’s Work showing red to be a better colour for attracting notice anyway, secondly hi vis stuff tends to have no/poor breathing qualities which is bad for cycling and finally and most importantly, I don’t see why the victims should dress up like targets in the hope that the drivers who shouldn’t have passed their tests might notice them. In my view this is approaching the probl from the wrong end, and getting a number of drivers off the road coupled with a much stricter testing and education regime is the actual answer. Obviously that’s not gonna happen because we seem to have decided driving is a basic freedom... /rantoff

How about compulsory eye tests for all those getting points on their driving licence? Of course the Daily Hate will object and declare it to be a "war on motorists".

Something will come in, as its far too much free money for the exchequer lying on the table

It's fairly easy to be honest:
Look at what has been done in places like Netherlands, Copenhagen, Portland and even (to a certain extent) New York City.

Copy all the good bits of that with adaptations to the local environment.

Problem is that it won't win votes, it won't cover the "see to be doing something", especially not the Daily Mail version of what should be done.

I replaced my car-crash damaged helmet with a hi-vis yellow one (after the broken bones had healed). Two birds, one stone...

Every morning I'm barked at by a very large Rhodesian ridge back who according to his owner doesn't like hi viz. The fact that it's not hi viz but enduro lime makes me fear for my safety if forced to wear it.
I'm off road anyway so **** em.

[quoteWho's going to police it anyway?

The courts if it becomes mandatory to have helmet and Hi - viz. It will be a victim blaming opportunity for the drivers on the phone who hit cyclists.

" M'lud.... he / she wasn't wearing a helmet or Hi viz at the time of the accident therefore, driver..... you are free of any responsibility for the accident"

Rick +1 and there's already evidence of this in some reported civil liability cases where damages have been substantially reduced for the absence of a helmet. Apologies if memory is incorrect on this but fairly sure CTC / Cycling UK has fought and reported a number of these.

Norman said critics of the road safety review following the death of Kim Briggs, who was hit by an illegal cyclist, had “missed a wider point” that the safety review would also cover the danger posed to cyclists by drivers, including those “using cars in ways that are intentional and punitive”.

Whilst i get the frothing to some extent it does puzzle me the focus seems largely on "don't tell us we need helmets/high vis" rather than ensuring they actually do the above.

I too went down the helmet with some hi viz accents. I thought the article was a little more positive than the headlines. I'm a personal helmet zealot - always wear one, and would not be too bothered about compulsion, myself, but I think compulsory Hi viz would be unenforceable. I prefer daylight running lights.

Obviously there will be some people who [b]feel[/b] very strongly that there should be hi-vis, and there will be plenty of people who [b]think[/b] very strongly the other way. It’ll be the same with helmets. The literature on risk is quite a well developed one, I don’t need to tell you.”

I wonder how carefully he chose those two words?

I'm dubious about hi-vis making you more visible in all situations, but I can see the helmet argument to be honest.

I know it wouldn't make much difference if a lorry runs over you, but when you can easily travel fast enough to fall (even from a fall of your own makings) with enough force to crack your skull open, I don't think it's a bad thing to make it a requirement. Although as some one who's always worn one, even when I was a teenager, I don't get the desire to not wear one at all.

Either way though, this is victim blaming, and does nothing to address the problem - which is poor driving standards and lack of compassion and patience from some of the driving public.

I noticed the driving test has changed this year, but where's the new section where they tackle driving around or near vulnerable road users? Adding this would have made more of a difference IMO.

By the way, the other day I got overtaken (in slow-ish moving traffic) by a woman watching the news on her tablet, which was propped up on the dash, and doing her makeup! How does me wearing a helmet and hi-vis stop that from happening!?

Aren't wheel, pedal and bike reflectors already mandatory on bikes sold for use on the road? How many of us have them on our bikes...? If they're going to also add hi-viz wear to the list of things that people won't do, then it seems utterly pointless to me.

Less worried about helmets - I feel uncomfortable riding without one and my kids have been brought up to understand that bikes mean helmets, so this bit at least would make no practical change to how we ride.

Less worried about helmets - I feel uncomfortable riding without one and my kids have been brought up to understand that bikes mean helmets, so this bit at least would make no practical change to how we ride.

It would make very little practical difference to how [b]I[/b] ride either except that it needs to be loked at from the wider point of view.

Firstly it would completely kill off cycle hire schemes like Mobike, Santander Cycles etc. Secondly it portrays cycling as something dangerous, extreme, requiring protection. That puts people off. It may not impact on the people riding a Sportive or doing a race or an organised session at the local BMX track but it will very much impact on the areas where cycling really needs pushing - the 1-mile trip to the shops, the 2-mile ride to school, the 5-mile commute to work which are currently mostly done by car and which mostly leads to terrible traffic congestion.

Not sure how much good is going to come from this.
Personally I think helmets should be compulsory for road riding. I'd also go so far as to say on cycle paths too, HOWEVER, this will not fix the problems of getting more people on bikes. The [i]only[/i] way to do this, is to improve the roads and infrastructure, whether through investment in new segregated cycle lanes or improving motorised road user behaviour (or both!)
And I don't quite agree the use of helmets would show it up to be 'dangerous'.

What's the saying?

'If you want to become invisible/inconspicuous in public, wear Hi-Viz'

How many times have you heard 'I see dozens of cyclists, all dressed in black/dark clothes. They're a menace/will get run over.'

But you [i]did[/i] see them, though?

Helmet compulsion will just increase the size of the stick used to beat non wearing victims. 'you are absolved from driving into the victim and crushing his chest, as he wasn't wearing a helmet'

Agree that getting worked up about helmets and high vis is missing the point - unless they are all that is implemented because they’re cheap and only cost the Government in terms of enforcement.

If the stated aim is to reduce the load on the NHS and improve air quality by getting more people on bikes wherever possible then the reasons for not riding need to be addressed. Primary here is that the roads are seen as dangerous and alternative infrastructure in most places is wholly inadequate. Addressing either of these points is going to be extremely expensive and in the case of general road safety, politically perilous as it will mean altering driver behaviour in large part.

On the one hand I’m heartened the subject is even coming up at a high level, but cynical me doesn’t really expect much in the way of positive change until human drivers are largely out of the picture.

Just seen this [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-41696930/undercover-police-catch-drivers-passing-too-close-to-cyclists ]piece about giving cyclists room[/url] on the BBC site. Maybe Cambridgshire police might take note? 🙄

[quote=grenosteve ]I'm dubious about hi-vis making you more visible in all situations, but I can see the helmet argument to be honest.

The argument about making them compulsory? This also applies to everybody else not thinking it's a problem because they always wear one, so it won't make any difference to them.

The thing is, it will make a difference to you, because the one unequivocal fact about compulsory helmet laws is that it reduces the number of people cycling. Which is a bad thing not only for the general health of the population, but also for individual cyclists, because less cyclists on the road makes it less safe for those remaining.

This isn't an argument about whether helmets are useful or not - we've done that plenty of times and it's not particularly interesting to rehash it - but about the effects of compulsion

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandatory-bike-helmet-laws-do-more-harm-than-good-senate-hears

[quote=whitestone ]Just seen this piece about giving cyclists room on the BBC site. Maybe Cambridgshire police might take note?

I presume you saw the statement issued by Cambs Police on this? I don't live there any more, so not best placed to do anything, but if I was I'd be keeping up pressure on them over their stance on this, given they appear to be directly condoning dangerous driving (I'd be tempted to put in a direct complaint to the PCC about the officer who issued the statement). Hopefully the cycling organisations there aren't letting it rest.

because the one unequivocal fact about compulsory helmet laws is that it reduces the number of people cycling.

Not intending to troll here but, is this just a short term impact?

I'm guessing similar things could have been said about a lot of things a generation ago which now we all just do as par for the course. I can imagine it (in Aus. etc.) has had a notable impact on people in my generation who won't wear a helmet but I'd expect it'll have zero impact on numbers in people who just grow up with it.

All the people and their kids who don't cycle because they're put off by the safety faff, the stupid colour plastic vest, the plastic hat and the helmet hair, are going to continue not cycling.

You've impacted the numbers with the legislation, and they're going to stay impacted.

[quote=dangeourbrain ]I'm guessing similar things could have been said about a lot of things a generation ago which now we all just do as par for the course.

Like? You weren't going to suggest seatbelts were you? If only that had put people off driving...

All the people and their kids who don't cycle because they're put off by the safety faff, the stupid colour plastic vest, the plastic hat and the helmet hair, are going to continue not cycling.

You've impacted the numbers with the legislation, and they're going to stay impacted.

...

TBH I think the majority of non cyclists either see the whole thing as an unnecessary hassle when they can use a vehicle that doesn’t require significant personal effort to move or are persuaded that it’s dangerous to take to the road on a bike.

The first group are going to need a serious incentive that makes sense to them but the second group are the ones we’re mainly interested in here.

Altering a perception that the roads being a dangerous and scary place isn’t going to be done by making new laws about what riders need to wear. It’s going to take serious and concerted effort and risk upsetting the sort of people who believe cycles shouldn’t be on the road in the first place- because [b]they[/b] are exactly the source of the problem.

As i said earlier in the thread

The first problem to be overcome is accepting that more cycling is A Good Thing in terms of benefits to the economy, NHS, health and happiness of our cities (even for those not on bikes). Then you can move onto changing how we enable more people to use bikes for journeys. I[u]f the focus is on reducing cyclist injuries/deaths [/u]then it all goes wrong because the cheapest way to do that is to discourage cycling. Helmets and hi viz don't [b]make cycling any more appealing or convenient[/b]. Safe, direct, segregated routes on main roads do.

The people who should be all for more cycling are debating between ourselves whether doing X or Y will help with the underlined bit, not saying as one that we need to do something about the bit in bold.

has had a notable impact on people in my generation who won't wear a helmet but I'd expect it'll have zero impact on numbers in people who just [b]grow up with it.[/b]

The problem is that in this case "it" is probably "not cycling". So you're back to lowering injuries by lowering participation, which increases deaths from obesity, inactivity, air pollution, car crashes etc etc.

If we're going to be using scarce parliamentary time and public resources to make changes to make cycling safer and more appealing, mandatory helmets are a complete waste of time. Even if you ignore all of the evidence and assume that helmets work perfectly in preventing all head injuries and have no other disadvantages. If you say that the roads are too dangerous so you wouldn't cycle without a helmet then you're free to buy and wear a helmet. If wearing a helmet voluntarily wouldn't make you feel safe then being compelled to wear one won't help either. Making it mandatory won't encourage anybody to do more journeys by bike. At best, people already cycling will carry on, and more of them will wear a helmet. In reality, people will get in the car instead because it's less hassle than putting all your safety gear on to ride a mile to the corner shop for a pint of milk.

And again, do we want to keep cycling rates at 1 or 2% of all journeys and "make cyclists safer" by dressing them/us up in hi viz and helmets? Or do we want to do whatever we can to get more people riding bikes for more journeys? Every bit of effort spent doing the former is effort that could have gone into the latter, which is what we actually should be doing.

This is safe cycling:
[img] [/img]

Not this:
[img] [/img]

EDIT: Seatbelts......

Driving your car is A Bad Thing*. For the economy, for congestion, for your health, for your kids health, for your neighbours health. If seatbelt laws discouraged driving** then, frankly, that's a good thing.
As I said before, cycling is A Good Thing. Anything that discourages cycling hurts the economy, hurts public health, hurts the health of the individual who's been put off. That's why it matters if something discourages cycling and why it doesn't matter if it discourages driving.

*[url= http://grist.org/biking/one-mile-on-a-bike-is-a-42-economic-gain-to-society-one-mile-driving-is-a-20-loss/ ]on average[/url]

**I have no idea if they did. There's certainly less of a possible switch from all 'driveable' trips to being cycled. Whereas pretty much every 'cycleable' journey could be done by car instead.

The huge elephant in the room is that every time someone talks about helmet use or compulsion they are acknowledging that people are getting hit by vehicles, and that that is a bad thing, but not taking the logical step of thinking how to reduce the instances of that happening, rather than attempting to armour the victims in order to reduce the severity of injuries when it does. The only reason people (in general) think helmets are needed is due to the fear of being hit by a vehicle, people are mostly not worried about banging their heads through 'just falling off', they're worried about being hit by cars and trucks*.

IF (and its a big IF) the roads were safer through a combination of infrastructure and drive behaviour then helmets wouldn't even be being discussed as people wouldn't be getting hit by vehicles so frequently and they wouldn't seem 'necessary'.

*Not to mention the paradox of suggesting people wear helmets to improve their chances if hit by a vehicle when that is pretty much the exact situation in which a helmet is largely useless** except in fringe cases.

**not designed for that kind of impact and even less useless when you're crushed by a tipper lorry.

Not intending to troll here but, is this just a short term impact?

I'm guessing similar things could have been said about a lot of things a generation ago which now we all just do as par for the course. I can imagine it (in Aus. etc.) has had a notable impact on people in my generation who won't wear a helmet but I'd expect it'll have zero impact on numbers in people who just grow up with it.

One of the main benefits of cycling is it's ease, cost and accessibility.
The general health benefits of the general population and associated easing of burden on health services are pretty much a welcome side effect.

It's worth noting the vast majority of cycling is not carried out on 5 grand carbon wonder bikes, by tour designers France or downhill athletes.

If people have to get dressed up like power rangers to nip to the corner shop for some sausages of a Sunday morning, it makes it much less appealing on all counts, which the limited studies seem to bear out.

I know I'd sooner jump in the car rather than get changed into specific safety clothing for a short trip.

If this goes through, I am genuinely just going to say **** it and move to Bohol with the missus. Too much tech, laws driven by corporates (STW article on self driving cars worries me, although V2X seems like it won't happen) and a lack of humanity in daily life is starting to irritate me. The future in the UK is looking a bit dystopian right now and there are lots of lovely warm beaches I can just go and chill out on for the rest of my days.

If it becomes mandatory, I'll get one of those hi viz belts and sashes (about 1" wide) I've seen police wearing when they're on speed gun duty.

It's all getting a bit mental though isn't it - can you really imagine living in a grey, dreary, wet England that is slowly becoming more average economically - where your daily life includes following heavily subscribed pedestrian routes to discourage jaywalking, dodging robotic cars, wearing hi viz jackets, a future where the Daily Mail headlines will probably be beamed into your ****ing contact lenses - all whilst under the thumb of some bleak as **** Mrs May type Prime Minister, who's voice calm voice comes up on the radio to tell you about the next round of murky anti-terrorism legislation that she's going to use for extraordinary rendition.

Yup, no thanks.

If this goes through, I am genuinely just going to say **** it and move to Bohol

I agree with the sentiment but this is all just political posturing to placate the frothy mouthed masses.

I have to tell my girlfriend off constantly for checking texts whilst driving, yet she thinks I'm crazy because I dont have a helmet.

Never has the argument for mandatory automated cars been stronger.

They can't even catch mobile phone drivers and people with no insurance as it's a game of numbers, there are simply not enough police to enforce it because they are all busy with more dire crime investigations. And rightly so.

How the hell do they suppose they are going to corner and fine people on bikes to enforce this nonsense?

Fixed penalty for not wearing regulation high visibility vest? You'll never catch me alive copper!

Fixed penalty for not wearing regulation high visibility vest? You'll never catch me alive copper!

whether or not you could get away with it day to day isn't the issue, it's the effect it'll have on attitudes form other people if you're not complying, and the blame that you'll then get if you [i]are[/i] involved in an accident.

It's bad enough now with cyclists being blamed for not wearing a helmet when they get crushed by trucks etc. Imagine what it'd be like if it was [i]actually[/i] law, enforced or not 🙁

The huge elephant in the room is that every time someone talks about helmet use or compulsion they are acknowledging that people are getting hit by vehicles, and that that is a bad thing, but not taking the logical step of thinking how to reduce the instances of that happening, rather than attempting to armour the victims in order to reduce the severity of injuries when it does. The only reason people (in general) think helmets are needed is due to the fear of being hit by a vehicle, people are mostly not worried about banging their heads through 'just falling off', they're worried about being hit by cars and trucks*.

I can't really argue with that TBH...

It's a failure to address the actual causes and instead propose utterly inadequate sticking plaster measures...

The truth is that helmet compulsion wouldn't have much effect now (IMO), the stigma associated with them has mostly passed, if anything we've almost gone to the opposite end of the spectrum without ever actually needing compulsion; non-helmet-wearers are already being judged [i]reckless fools[/i] in many quarters and the absence of a lid is pretty much the first thing any news report on an RTI involving a cyclist mentions, the social conditioning is in place...

The Hi-Vis thing is again missing the point, lots of people already wear bright clothing when cycling, so the uptake is already mostly there but the dangers still manifest in low light conditions (like we're about to see during rush hour with the change of season), the combination of low light, non-functional or just plain unwashed headlights on cars and insufficient illumination on bikes is far more likely to cause an RTI than the lack of a bit of yellow fabric...

So yet again we already have laws mandating adequate measures for all parties on the roads allowing cyclists to make themselves seen, and drivers to see them, and as with almost every other bit of road traffic law actual enforcement is pretty much non-existent...

If you give the police the right to pull me over and charge me for not wearing a yellow tabbard that's fine, I still don't really believe they have either the resources or inclination to bother applying such a law for the most part...

I have to admit I read Bez's V2X article with a degree of skepticism, it's not that such a conspiracy doesn't make some logical sense, it's just I don't believe the degree of joined up thinking and strategy necessary for it is really present amongst the various media, business and government organisations necessary for the plan... They are mostly led by quite short-term thinking, reactionary types, we don't really live in the age of seeing the "big picture" it's just another management phrase...

But I take his other points, Do I want to be tagged so self driving cars can avoid killing me?

Maybe, but how much of my personal privacy and data will I be giving away to ward off the bumpers of google-cars?

Do I want self driving cars on the road?

Probably, on balance they can hardly be more dangerous than the ones currently being driven by stupid meat sacks...

And TBH once you can no longer be in control of a vehicle how many of the slavering petrol heads will really want to still own a car? That little thrill of being the one in control of a wheeled vehicle is all that really matters to many, take that away and they may as well just get about by uber... Or maybe even ride a bicycle 😉

Yeh let's paint all cars lime green whilst we are at it, it'll stop all the cars crashing into each other hundreds of times a day, because they'll all of a sudden be able to see each other...

The Hi-Vis thing is again missing the point, lots of people already wear bright clothing when cycling, so the uptake is already mostly there but the dangers still manifest in low light conditions (like we're about to see during rush hour with the change of season), the combination of low light, non-functional or just plain unwashed headlights on cars and insufficient illumination on bikes is far more likely to cause an RTI than the lack of a bit of yellow fabric...

Sadly, it's worse than that... it's pretty much a given that [b]if you are looking[/b] you will see a cyclist/pedestrian, even in low light, and dark clothing you [i]will[/i] spot* them, the scarier problem is inattentive drivers and those not looking, they will hit things no matter how brightly coloured they are because they're simply not looking where they're going.

I have no actual data to back it up but I'd wager that more cyclists and pedestrians that are adequately visible are hit, than collisions avoided in the borderline case where someone [b]only[/b] avoided them because of high-viz.

ie: the two scenarios below

1 > visible person hit due to driver not looking/distracted

vs

2 > visible person NOT hit because wearing hi-viz, otherwise [i]would[/i] have been hit.

I think 2 is a vanishingly small percentage of cases as it would imply that drivers who are looking can't see you unless you are wearing high-viz, which is patently not the case.

However, don't get me wrong, I still think being quite visible is a good idea! 🙂 Being visible is a tactic we have at our disposal to improve our chances of not being hit, helmets do not improve our chances of not being hit...either way you still have the original issue of '[i]look where you're f'ing driving that big metal box[/i]', I really really really really wish that would get some more attention.

*hence all the 'I saw a nutter in dark clothes with no lights the other night' frothing and the fact that normal people in normal clothes aren't automatically run over.

Do I want self driving cars on the road?

Probably, on balance they can hardly be more dangerous than the ones currently being driven by stupid meat sacks...

And TBH once you can no longer be in control of a vehicle how many of the slavering petrol heads will really want to still own a car? That little thrill of being the one in control of a wheeled vehicle is all that really matters to many, take that away and they may as well just get about by uber... Or maybe even ride a bicycle

Yeah they will probably be safer, it just feels like the humanity of life is getting hollowed out by tech in the UK. The idea of being tagged, to ensure your safety around machines on a daily basis is just dehumanising. I was reading an article about robotic teachers a few days ago - that ****ing depresses me as well.

I'd rather take my chances around the colourful and loud experience of the jeepneys and scooters you find in the east. I'm starting to become more comfortable with the idea of having less, but having more vibrancy in life.

The end scene in Battlestar Galactica is starting to make more sense with each passing day.