Forum menu
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.