[Closed] Dave Brailsford on Cycle Safety - Petrol,Bonfire,Tea & Buscuits

vitally important for cyclists to wear bright colours and helmets.

Like in Copenhagen (not)?

Maybe it's all been a bit rushed for them today but they should be able to get over a consistent message by now.

The 2 statements do make some sense, we can't get to where Denmark are over night so while that happens best protect yourself and be visible.

"These incidents do remind you that we've got a long way to go we need to look to our cousins abroad and [Denmark capital] Copenhagen and see what they've done.

British Cycling performance director Dave Brailsford told BBC Radio 5 live it was "vitally important" for cyclists to wear bright colours and helmets.

Way to miss the point entirely. Cyclist shouldn't be having these collisions as people shouldn't be driving into them.
This can be achieved by:
1) improving cycling infrastructure to make it inherently safe
2) improving cyclist's legal protection to move onus onto car drivers
3) as a result of 1 and 2, change motorist's perception and attitude to cyclists on the road

This is where the focus of these discussions should be, not the red herrings that are helmets, road tax and all the other tosh.

Way to miss the point entirely. Cyclist shouldn't be having these collisions as people shouldn't be driving into them.
This can be achieved by:
1) improving cycling infrastructure to make it inherently safe
2) improving cyclist's legal protection to move onus onto car drivers
3) as a result of 1 and 2, change motorist's perception and attitude to cyclists on the road

This is where the focus of these discussions should be, not the red herrings that are helmets, road tax and all the other tosh.

In an ideal world we should not have to wear hi-viz,[u]we do not live in an ideal world[/u] Granted that if a car pulls out on you its their fault however having the high moral ground is not gonna help your injuries as lets be honest after a collision with a car and bike it will always be the guy on the bike that takes second prize.

Let people cycle in what they feel safe in. Someone talking like that from a "position of authority" (in Joe Blogg's eyes) only enforces the message that the onus should be on the cyclist to protect themeless from collision.

We all take our own steps that we think will get us from A - B in one piece, road positioning, high viz, lights, helmets, whatever it may be. It's a personal risk assessment,

A public figure like Dave Brailsford shouldn't be commenting on those aspects and should focus on drawing the publics attention to the underlying issue, which is motorist's flippant attitude to a vulnerable road user and ultimately lobbying MP's and other figures of authority to change this attitude by whatever means they can.

Infact, as cyclists on the road, we all have an obligation to lobby our MP's and police commissioners (make them work for their new position) to reduce the injury and death figures of cyclist, caused by motorised vehicles.

As a country, we have to think in a different way about cyclists. Attitudes need change and this change must start with us, the cyclists.

Anyone cycled in that there Europe?
Not every one over there>>>> wears bright clothing nor has lights on at night neithers like init.
Far from it.
It's just the culture of road use means drivers tend to take more care, unless you live in Naples, in which case it's a bit like riding in a bowling alley.

Anyone cycled in that there Europe?

Yes, cycled to work as usual this morning, jeans, black fleece, fleece hat and I didn't die once. I didn't have lights on either (on me road bike for a spin this afternoon) but then I didn't need to go on any roads. Sometimes it's great living in the Netherlands!

Granted that if a car pulls out on you its their fault

Not always in the eyes of insurance companies.
Hi-viz clothing is mandatory in many work places so makes sense when cycling on the road IMHO, sometimes I feel many cyclists are their own worst enemy, yes there are rubbish drivers but there are also many cyclists that are holier than thou and believe its up to everyone else to make sure they are not involved in an incident, I see as many cyclists with no road sense as I see drivers.

You're a spokesman for a major cycling organisation and you're asked to give a quote. Do you:
A. Repeat what's already been said countless times by non-cycling organisations (cyclists should wear high-vis and helmets)
OR
B. Make an insightful comment about how motoring attitudes need to be changed

The problem is with public attitude towards cyclists. Did anyone else pick up on the fact that there's been lots of mention that he was wearing a helmet yet no one feels the needto point out that the driver of the 206 was wearing a seat belt/wasnt on a mobile phone?

There is a broad acceptance that it's dangerous and that by using the road, we automatically accept these risks and more fool us if we don't mitigate them.

Helmets, lights and hi viz address the symptoms, not the cause.

^which is pretty much what Chris Boardman said on Radio 4 (PM show) yesterday afternoon. He also talked at length about Holland and Denmark, and expressed cyling safety in terms of kms travelled by bike vs injuries/deaths. Which is lower/'safer' than walking even in the UK apparently.

Of course on here we all know that despite people cycling in normal clothes and very low uptake of helmets amongst regular commuters in Denmark/Holland, their "deaths per km" is even lower than over here where no newspaper report on a cycling accident (including the last two biggies) is "complete" without mentioning whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet. 😕

I struggle with long sentences

Yes I should be able to ride on the road and not get ran over. I should be able to leave my front door unlocked and bike in the front garden. But I can't, and whilst I can't, I'm going to take precautions to ensure that I stay safe. If that means a helmet and bright colours, then so be it.

Never worn hi viz and never will, I dress head to toe in black ninja stylee. Only accident I've had was a pedestrian walking right into my path whilst she was reading a book.

focusing on the clothing/helmet is really not the issue, as fourbanger says-- the issue is driving culture, attitudes thereof, it is not going to change over night, but when you consider the change in attitude to drink- driving, it can be done if there is a concerted will.

starting with the legal onus on the motor vehicle would be a start, at sea all motor ships must give way to sail, it works on the continent without any big issue, what is so special about uk drivers ?

Personally I think Hi-Viz is a sensible bit of self preservation if you're sharing the road but almost irrelevant where you have segregated facilities. The same applies for pedestrians if they're walking in the road (country lanes?)

Helmets are an irrelevance

Neither should be a legal requirement nor a topic of discussion when a cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle.

Unfortunately for Shane Sutton and Wiggo (mend well and quick, guys) there needs to be the sacrificial lamb to raise the subject of cycle safety to a point where the powers that be will act. Also the "was wearing a helmet" is just lazy journalism.

Attitudes on British roads and its users needs to change to concentrate on the hierarchy of users, as used in that there Holland. The most vulnerable have the most "right" and the least useful have the most restrictions. But this involves everyone, not just the evil car driver.

FWIW I very nearly hit a bike ninja on Monday morning. Black clothes, black hat, black bike, no lights at 6am on an unlit road. I know it's easy to say, but he wasn't helping himself be safe.

On my daily cycle commute on the A24 into London I have seen 3 near misses this week alone.

1. Cyclist clipped by a bus as they tried to squeeze between it and traffic on the right of it
2. Cyclist filtered up the inside of a taxi as the taxi slowed to let an oncoming car turn right
3. Cyclist squeezing up the inside of a stationary bus as it was indicating left and the bus started moving

Alas to say one of the above incidents was me (and a reminder to excersise more patience) ! However, the point is these could all have been avoided with some basic road awareness from the cyclist regardless of who's fault it was and what colour cloths they were wearing)

just heard the arse end of interview with Boardman on R5live - he seemed to be making a lot of sense

Guess what "let's have a heated debate" is about (from 9) ?

Playing devils advocate a bit here.....

Isn't putting the onus entirely on the other road users a case of absolving cyclists from the need for any personal responsibility. Shouldn't the fault of any accident be down to whoevers actions contributed (most) to it occuring.

Take another vulnerable road use group, motorcyclists. There is a widely held philosophy in motorcycling that if you have an accident it is your own fault, irrespective of who'caused' it. The reasoning being that as a vulnerable road user you should be aware of situations around you and how they could develop (hazard perception) and ride in a defensive manner to manage and reduce those risks. That is the polar opposite of what is being suggested by some in regards to cyclists where the other road user should be held at fault irrespective.

Take the pedestrian reading a book example. Did you see the pedestrian before they stepped out? Did you see they where reading a book and therefore being inattentive to what is happening aruond them? Did you aniticipate what actions they might take without being aware of your presence? Did you use your bell to make there aware of your presence?

Now the difference between cyclists and motorcyclists is the speed factor. The speed differential between cyclists and other road users is (usually) much higher, and the ability to react and move quickly out of a potentailly dangerous situation is more limited. But on the oter hand you are generally moving slower and therefore have more time to take in the surrounding situations and threats and make judgements and take action if required.

There are good and bad in all road user groups, and we all (unfotunately) have to work to the lowest common demoninator (rather like the locking house/bike analogy above), but why shouldn't cyclists take some responsibility for their own safety rather than it being the sole responsibility of car drivers to avoid accidents with cyclists.

Like I said at the begining I'm just offering an alternative view for consideration.

F me, here we go again. Round & round & round.
Only person I've heard talk sense is Chris Boardman. Let's use him as a [i]consistent message[/i].

Typed more, but really can't be arsed

There is a widely held philosophy in motorcycling that if you have an accident it is your own fault, irrespective of who'caused' it. The reasoning being that as a vulnerable road user you should be aware of situations around you and how they could develop (hazard perception) and ride in a defensive manner to manage and reduce those risks.

Yep, that does wonders for the safety of motorcyclists. 🙄

Listening to Radio5 live now....a 'professional driver' has just been on & one of this main points was 'i pay to use the road through road tax...'

Oh god.....

Cars have lights and safety belts and air bags
Motocycles have lights and their users wear helmets and (usually) leathers
Why would you not take the same precautions? Without my lid i'd be dead when I got T boned by a motorist. Mostly their fault, little bit my fault, little bit circumstance but certainly not a reckless or willful act on the part of the driver.

As none of us are blameless and perfect road users accidents WILL occur, so why not just do a bit to help yourself. Even when the roads are built to accomodate cyclists, a cycling awareness module is part of the driving test, we all accept personal responsibility for everything we do etc....people will still have accidents, all it takes is a moments inattention and I challenge any of you to tell me that's never happened whilst you're in your car or on your bike. Like what Mark 90 said.

Hi-viz clothing is mandatory in many work places so makes sense when cycling on the road IMHO

Can we also have a manadatory hi-vis stripe down the side of every vehicle too then?

@mark90

to drive avan/bus/lorry/car or ride a motorcycle you also have a lot of (mandatory) training and have to pass a test to prove (lets not get into a discussion about how well it does this) that you are capable in charge of said vehicle on the roads.

no such training or test exists for cyclists, nor would I argue that there should be a test, my point is that as operators of those vehicles you have to be aware that you are the one in charge of the dangerous vehicle and that cyclist you see could have only learnt to ride their bike last week.

It's not about absolving vulnerable road users of responsibility, it's about recognising that they ARE VULNERABLE for a variety of different reasons and therefore there is a massive duty of care to them.

and likewise there is a responsibilty for the cyclist not to ride like a twunt

I think we should give Brailsford (and Wiggo) a break for these comments. They are put in a difficult position especially after two high profile incidents. Imagine it they had stood up and said, I/we think that wearing helmets and bright clothing is an act of folly. What would the reaction be? They are talking to the mass population not core cyclists, so they tailor the message appropriately.

I like riding in black, but feel a little stupid if on the road and caught by failing light. Just common sense, surely?

Why would you not take the same precautions?

Why would a pedestrian not take the same precautions? Why wasn't Wiggins wearing a chest guard?

Chris Boardman had it right: if someone gets shot, you don't blame them for not wearing a bullet proof vest.

[quote=ransos said]Why would you not take the same precautions?
Why would a pedestrian not take the same precautions? Why wasn't Wiggins wearing a chest guard?
Chris Boardman had it right: if someone gets shot, you don't blame them for not wearing a bullet proof vest.

But if you're in an environment where bullets are whizzing around then wearing one might be advisable 🙂

But if you're in an environment where bullets are whizzing around then wearing one might be advisable

We're not, and even if we were, we should be getting people to stop shooting.

But then you've got to remember your bullet proof vest every time you leave the house, get all sweaty when you're traveling to work in it, put up with awkward questions about it in the pub, etc. Plus there's always the thought of the one unlucky shot that it won't protect against.

After a while I'd probably start taking the APC instead.

@ransos, you're right. From now on I'm going to wear a blindfold and woe betide anyone that has the temerity to run me over - sorry bit petualnt but the truth is most people aren't hit by frothing cycle hating nut jobs, the woman who hit me was appalled and exteremly upset, replaqced my helmet and broken bits of bike etc. These people aren't shooting at us they are just occupying the same space where the mass, velocity, diversity and density of traffic all contribute to it being a relatively risky environment.

Pedestrians don't wear helmets cos they spend most of their time separated from the traffic - on the pavements and the majority of pedestrain casualties (ireckon - based on no evidence whatsoever) comes when either car or person ventures into the others environment.

Drivers could do more, we could do more, the infrastructure could be better, just mitigate the existing risks as best you can and recognise that going ninja stealth and riding like a loon increases your chance of being hit.

@ransos, you're right. From now on I'm going to wear a blindfold and woe betide anyone that has the temerity to run me over -

Are you always this daft, or do you reserve it for the internet?

These people aren't shooting at us they are just occupying the same space where the mass, velocity, diversity and density of traffic all contribute to it being a relatively risky environment

Yet the evidence is that cycling isn't particularly risky. Injuries in our urban environments aren't greatly different to Holland or Denmark.

Pedestrians don't wear helmets cos they spend most of their time separated from the traffic

Yet pedestrians keep getting run over, and sustaining head injuries. So why no helmet?

Drivers could do more, we could do more, the infrastructure could be better, just mitigate the existing risks as best you can and recognise that going ninja stealth and riding like a loon increases your chance of being hit.

Absolutely, use whatever PPE [u]you[/u] feel necessary to keep [u]you[/u] safe. Act like an ambassador for cyclists through your attitude and actions on the road and then put some pressure on our politicians to make some fundamental changes. We've got the opportunity right now. Lets make some good come of this.

[b]Chris Boardman[/b] speaks a great deal of sense on cycle safety (also on behalf of British Cycling). This video is from a BBC TV interview earlier in the year, but he said almost exactly the same thing on Radio 4 last night and on R5Live:

His bit starts at 2:10 if you want to skip the scaremongering doom news report.

Absolutely, use whatever PPE you feel necessary to keep you safe.

Agreed - but any Health and Safety type will tell you in [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_control ]The Hierarchy of Hazard Control[/url] personal protection is the very LAST measure, not the first.

What we need is political willingness to tackle the items further up the hierarchy:

[img] [/img]

Ransos - invariably on and off line

I'd be dead/a veg without one. It worked for me and if you (touch wood it won't happen) get knocked off your bike and land on your noggin it could do the same for you. Like Graham S says PPE is the last in the line but it's better than nowt, which is what you've got currently without one.

I imagine from some peoples point of view that pyramid works as -

Elimination: Ban bicycles.
Substitution: Use a car instead.
Engineering controls: Compulsory use of cycle paths
Administrative controls: Bicycle licence.
Personal protective equipment: Compulsory helmet and Hi-Viz tabbards.

I imagine from some peoples point of view that pyramid works as..

A blog post on that very subject that you may enjoy:
http://katsdekker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/its-assessment-of-risk.html

(author is one of the leaders in the [url= http://newcycling.org/ ]Newcastle Cycle Campaign[/url])

I've spent quite a lot of time in Copenhagen in recent years and the single biggest difference to the UK seems to be that the cyclist has the right of way over cars, partially due to the design of their cycle paths & partly due to their traffic laws.

For example, if a car is turning right at a junction (even if traffic lights are green) it is the car drivers responsibility to check that that there are no cyclists riding up the inside of their car before they make the turn, not the cyclists responsibility to get out of the way of the car.

Denmark seems to have recognised the inescapable fact that cyclists are the more vulnerable party and less capable of inflicting injury on others. Compare this to the UK where drivers are the dominant party & cyclists have to get out of their way, it's easy to see why cycling is less popular & safe in the UK.

If the UK were serious about adopting the Danish model, it would almost certainly have to involve legislation that would put greater liability on drivers and provide cyclists the right of way in more scenarios, as ultimately litigation would make drivers keenly aware of their responsibility towards the more vulnerable cyclist.

I don't particularly relish the prospect of legislation, but I'm not sure there are many other ways of instigating change in our car dominated society 😕

we need to do something, not sure for many cyclist though that the ducth or danish model is a good fit..

the speeds and distances for commuters seems a lot higher based on my experience of cycling in UK and Netherlands..

Best bit for me in netherland is not the city provision but the provision to do longer distances away from roads.

Other issue is that in Netherland they have the strict liability thing so driver tend be to be very cautious around cyclists.

Can we also have a manadatory hi-vis stripe down the side of every vehicle too then?

Or make it compulsory for every car to be canary yellow?

Ransos - invariably on and off line

I'd be dead/a veg without one. It worked for me and if you (touch wood it won't happen) get knocked off your bike and land on your noggin it could do the same for you. Like Graham S says PPE is the last in the line but it's better than nowt, which is what you've got currently without one.

I should point out that I usually wear a helmet, because I think that it is likely to reduce or prevent a minor injury in a low speed accident. For example, I recently smacked into a low tree branch when I was biking in the woods.

Oh, and I have landed on my noggin...some say it had an effect...

Anyone posted this yet?

http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen

Better off legalising the carrying and use of handguns by cyclists. It would even the odds up a bit and maybe make people think twice if there was more of a risk to there inconsiderate actions.

Helmet debates are a pathetic distraction - they derail us from the real issues, address a symptom not a cause, and place blame on the victims.

Helmet compulsion is the equivalent of making chastity belts compulsory to reduce rape.

It completely misses the point.

Isn't it about time all car occupants wore helmets? After all, 50% of serious brain injuries result from car accidents.

Have you seen the comments under the story in Yahoo! ? So many car drivers think they are 'paying for the roads' and that that has given them a right or privilege to behave exactly as they wish.

Scary.

I always wear a helmet, plus lights and reflective stuff at night. I try to ride like a 'vehicle' giving clear signals, looking, stopping at lights, crossings etc.

But why oh why do reports of bike accidents always say "the cyclist was/wasn't wearing a helmet"? WTF has that got to do with anything?

But why oh why do reports of bike accidents always say "the cyclist was/wasn't wearing a helmet"? WTF has that got to do with anything?

Exactly. Massive pet hate of mine. You don't hear "the motorist, who was not wearing a neck brace, suffered whiplash"

Or make it compulsory for every car to be canary yellow?

Maybe not canary yellow, but certainly need to ban silver cars. Its the uk, its grey most of the time, so what is the most popular colour car, grey,FFS!!!!

As for Helmets, they may help they may not, but would i rather not be hit by a car, or hit by a car whilst wearing a helmet, not really a hard choice to make is it!

As for stats most accidents are the fault of drivers.

As for pedestrians, DFT figures suggest walking on the pavement your more at risk from cars than cyclists.

Have you seen the comments under the story in Yahoo! ? So many car drivers think they are 'paying for the roads' and that that has given them a right or privilege to behave exactly as they wish.

Scary.

Horrifying isn't it?

That [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/belligerent-disco-bloke-in-portsmouth-mark-green-disco-bd08-xgl ]Mark Green Disco guy[/url] is a classic example First intelligible thing he says is [i]"Look mate, I pay for the road, you ****ing don't"[/i]

Just mental. Even if it were true, which it isn't, it doesn't mean you get to do what you like.

I pay income tax, lots of people don't, it doesn't mean I can go down the job centre and slap people about.

Sadly it is a very common theme: very similar comments surface on any popular youtube video about cycling. Or local news story. [url= https://twitter.com/CycleHatred ]Or twitter[/url].

I really think a national advertising campaign about what "road tax" is and how roads are [i]really[/i] paid for would be very beneficial.

Anyway, using their argument, I have a car which is taxed but which I'm not using (because I am riding my bike), so should I have more 'right' than them as I'm 'paying' for something I'm not using?

I really think a national advertising campaign about what "road tax" is and how roads are really paid for would be very beneficial.

Absolutely

£200ish to intimidate little insignificant cyclists....that's a bargain, why do they moan so much 🙄

£200ish to intimidate little insignificant cyclists....that's a bargain, why do they moan so much

More than 2 million cars on UK roads don't have to pay any [s]road[/s] [i]car[/i] tax.

Why don't Prius drivers get abused and run off the road?

Anyone posted this yet?

New to me - a good, entertaining, watch. All you helmet advocates - view.

"Look mate, I pay for the road, you ****ing don't"

..
Sadly it is a very common theme: very similar comments surface on any popular youtube video about cycling. Or local news story. Or twitter

Will always be an issue - there's a lot of underinformed/ignorant/stressed/plain stupid people around. Highlight the tax facts and there would be another justification dreamt up. Drivers often feel powerless against traffic congestion, fuel prices etc combined with their total relianace on the car. I think it produces attitudes that are simply a reaction to the base problem of stress levels, expense and general dissatisfaction. Cyclists cop it, other drivers, anyone.

That's a very enlightened viewpoint jameso- I'll have some of whatever you're on!
That vid up there about how the Dutch changed their infrastructure is very interesting viewing.
Unfortunately I suspect that nowadays governments are too scared of multinationals to do anything so radical