I just done one cos my driving stinks (or stunk, I’m all better now). It was ok – 2 hours online, re-organised and rescheduled as it was supposed to be during lockdown. Now they want feedback, and I just noticed this page in the post-course documentation… not sure I agree with all of it. Worth giving feedback?

Should I be wearing hi-viz and a helmet? Thought they were personal choices.

As for feedback – don’t bother. I tried getting into this at work with a company we use for online training. Self appointed driving god’s will not listen to anything you have to say. Even in my case having been a motorcycle instructor for over a decade.

As it says, they are rules and advice. The advice is to wear a helmet and hi viz. that’s what the Highway Code says too. Can’t think why you wouldn’t do that if you are coming into contact with cars.

One key bit of advice that’s missing is about about where to be on the road – not riding in the gutter and taking a more central position where appropriate.

Can’t think why you wouldn’t do that if you are coming into contact with cars.

Bit late for hi-viz if you’ve come into contact yeah?

Plus “Make sure…” makes it look like a rule to me.

Looks ok to me…

Regard the comment about hi-viz and helmet as advice – probably written by a non-cyclist.

Looks ok to me…

even the drink/drugs/medicine thing? Bollocks! The whole point of cycling is to visit the pub/crack dealer/dr without drink-driving & breaking the law!

At last, someone spotted it 😀

“you must” = law

everything else is friendly advice.

Oh no, just last night I drunkenly rode along a pavement carrying a passenger on the crossbar with no lights.

Definitely needs to clarify what are rules and what is advice.

It’s a nice little piece. Take some legally enforceable stuff to give it credibility, add some stuff that is pragmatic in a certain context but which in others just reinforces victim-blaming attitudes, and serve it up to an audience of people who in many cases have already demonstrated a problem with their attitudes to others on the roads. Same old same old.

The high-viz bit is nonsense. How many incidents are a result of someone simply not having seen the cyclist/car/pedestrian? If they ain’t looking, it don’t matter what you are wearing. Also, while I always wear a helmet, it isn’t a mandatory accessory, so that’s also nonsense.

You must not cross the stop line at traffic lights. Hmm, please pass this on to every taxi driver. It seems to be a thing of contempt for them. And how many motorists use the advanced stop areas for cyclists? Any I encounter, I simply ride around and stop in front of them in the centre of the lane.

Generally, it seems the best feedback on the cycling advice is ‘thanks for the victim blaming bingo card!’

*Edit*

Ha! Took too long to write my bit. Bez beat me to my punchline! But most of my arguments are based on Bez’s work anyway!

I take the point about the separation between rules and advice could be clearer, but other than that it looks OK to me…

@timbog160 yep it’s absolutely fine. I’m assuming of course that the advice for driving also includes stuff like not setting off without a FIA 8859-2015 approved helmet, always checking behind for cyclists before opening a door and never driving if you’re a little bit worried about anything which might affect your ability to concentrate fully.

“you must” = law

everything else is friendly advice.

+1

Most consumers of the highway code fail to recognise this – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction

“Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.”

So for the hi-viz-ness not wearing it may be used to apportion liability in the event of an accident related to visibility.

Take some legally enforceable stuff to give it credibility, add some stuff that is pragmatic in a certain context but which in others just reinforces victim-blaming attitudes, and serve it up to an audience of people who in many cases have already demonstrated a problem with their attitudes to others on the roads. Same old same old.

@Bez – mind if I reword that slightly (just to make it my own 😉 ) and send it to them? That was kind of my unwritten bugbear about it.

Do what you like, it’s none of my beeswax 🙂

Main point is it’s all about context and audience.

Those are mostly valid pieces of advice to give someone if they want to start riding a bike and feel less likely to get killed by dicks with cars.

They’re quite dangerous things to put in the hands of a subset of people with cars who have been identified as behaving like dicks*.

The “don’t do anything until you’ve had a good look over your shoulder” line is particularly toxic, IMO.

* No offence, like 😉

So for the hi-viz-ness not wearing it may be used to apportion liability in the event of an accident related to visibility.

Does anyone know if this has ever actually happened? Genuine question, not having a pop.

Does anyone know if this has ever actually happened? Genuine question, not having a pop.

It may be anecdotal but I’ve read newspaper summaries of coroner reports where they say ‘it was noted the victim wasn’t wearing a helmet / hi-vis’ and while there might be no legal requirement it’s the kind of thing that influences juries.

The “don’t do anything until you’ve had a good look over your shoulder” line is particularly toxic, IMO.

Toxic because of the concern it shifts blame to cyclist? In motorbiking it’s taught as a ‘life saver’ (what the instructor called it) for any kind of lane change or overtake inc parked cars, just to check for someone behind you doing something they shouldn’t. It’s one thing begin right, another staying safe. I do it automatically, if at least to make eye contact with a driver to check they know I’m there.

must not cycle on pavements

cough… must not, is that law then… we I do it frequently when it’s safer for me and would happily pay a fine as my life is worth more. There’s a short stretch that I use where there is a cycle lane opposite but using the lane means crossing two lanes of busy busy traffic, past a supermarket exit where drivers don’t want to stop for you, then negotiating a busy roundabout where a friend was knocked off by an inattentive driver.

The high-viz bit is nonsense.

I’d say it’s sensible to be in contrast to your surroundings. Ninja black is popular, and against dark green hedges in the shade of trees on an overcast day you are not going to be as visible. Your are right but blending in isn’t my aim on road.

I’d say it’s sensible to be in contrast to your surroundings.

Last time I cycled in a city, it felt like this:

it’s the kind of thing that influences juries.

There are no juries in civil cases though, which is where blame for accidents gets apportioned usually, as criminal prosecutions are a rarity

Toxic because of the concern it shifts blame to cyclist? In motorbiking it’s taught as a ‘life saver’

Like I said above, it’s pragmatic advice to give to someone cycling. But this is material that’s being handed out to people with questionable driving behaviour, very few of whom will cycle and—I suspect—an above average number of whom will already have an attitude problem towards certain other road users.

The problem is that in that context it can imply “if they didn’t look, they’ve only got themselves to blame”. There are some people who seem to think that when they’re approaching someone on a bike who in turn is approaching an obstacle, they in their car have priority because the person on the bike may have to move to the side, rather than realising that the person on the bike has priority because they’re in front. They seem to expect you to stop and wait for them to pass.

And occasionally a shoulder check can be tricky: if there’s someone sitting in the car you’re about to pass, someone the other side of it looking to cross the road, a car at a junction just after it, potholes in the road, and so on, you’ve got a lot of places to look; even if you can shoulder check, there’s always the very real possibility of not seeing something behind.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying looking over your shoulder is anything other than a good idea, but the way in which it’s expressed here, and the audience to which it’s delivered, are the things that make this specific message toxic.

And how many motorists use the advanced stop areas for cyclists?

Since returning to work outside the house I’ve noticed a new driving phenomenon of people stopping way back from the line at lights. Never noticed it previously and makes me think there are a lot of people who are monumentally shite at judging distances.

The “don’t do anything until you’ve had a good look over your shoulder” line is particularly toxic, IMO.

Thats very good advice IMO. Many cyclists hardly ever look over their shoulder IME and I do so every 10 – 15 seconds so I KNOW what is around me

Its also what is taught in cycle training IIRC

Do I have to say a third time that it’s good advice, but it’s the context and audience that makes it toxic?

🤦

Remember that this is information given to people who drive cars badly, not to people who ride bicycles.

In that context, the bicycle rider is the third person, not the first. So it effectively says “that person on a bike shouldn’t be doing anything if they haven’t had a good look over their shoulder”. Which, simplified, becomes “if they didn’t look, it’s their fault”. Which is toxic.