Anyone get one of those free helmets in London this morning?

jonny_trousers

TGOTB wrote:

I think the conspiracy theorists on this forum are reading a lot into a perfectly harmless publicity stunt. Yes, the AA have their vested interests (much like LCC, CTC or almost any other organisation) but I don't believe they're being evil...

This ^^

But what about those callous, self-serving bastards at Sky? I regularly see London cyclists wearing their hi-viz Skyride gilets, thus promoting the evil Murdoch empire still further and reinforcing the impression among motorists that cycling is not a safe mode of transport as you clearly have to wear unflattering, fluorescent colours simply to be seen. By promoting cycling with their so-called 'events' Sky are clearly trying to get people to - um - stop cycling, because - um - look just because alright!

notsoblue

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

I think the conspiracy theorists on this forum are reading a lot into a perfectly harmless publicity stunt. Yes, the AA have their vested interests (much like LCC, CTC or almost any other organisation) but I don't believe they're being evil...

This ^^

But what about those callous, self-serving bastards at Sky? I regularly see London cyclists wearing their hi-viz Skyride gilets, thus promoting the evil Murdoch empire still further and reinforcing the impression among motorists that cycling is not a safe mode of transport as you clearly have to wear unflattering, fluorescent colours simply to be seen. By promoting cycling with their so-called 'events' Sky are clearly trying to get people to - um - stop cycling, because - um - look just because alright!

Completely different things in my opinion. Also, I don't think the AA have purposely gone out to sabotage cycling. Their intentions are good, its just misguided. They're reinforcing a negative perception of cycle safety and convenience. Maliciously or not, thats whats happening here.

meanredspider

notsoblue wrote:

Well the whole point is that it doesn't encourage more bikes on the road. The insinuation is that you *need* a helmet before you can get on a bike. There are thousands of people that use the Barclays Cycle Hire bikes because they're convenient and fast, and you don't need to have special equipment to ride it. This PR campaign by the AA entirely goes against this image of safe convenience.

Except that 97% of AA members already think it's a good idea to wear a lid.

The thousands already using BBs will continue. It's the people that AREN'T using them because they ALREADY think a lid is a good idea that now have the opportunity to acquire a lid and try the bikes. I'm really not convinced by the arguement about perceptions of the danger. As I said, people already see cyclists (the majority in my experience these days) wearing helmets, shops selling helmets etc etc. One extra source of free lids and hi-viz isn't going to sway many folk and takes away a (perceived) barrier to jumping on a bike. That has to be a Good Thing

thelawnet

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

I think the conspiracy theorists on this forum are reading a lot into a perfectly harmless publicity stunt. Yes, the AA have their vested interests (much like LCC, CTC or almost any other organisation) but I don't believe they're being evil...

This ^^

But what about those callous, self-serving bastards at Sky? I regularly see London cyclists wearing their hi-viz Skyride gilets, thus promoting the evil Murdoch empire still further and reinforcing the impression among motorists that cycling is not a safe mode of transport as you clearly have to wear unflattering, fluorescent colours simply to be seen. By promoting cycling with their so-called 'events' Sky are clearly trying to get people to - um - stop cycling, because - um - look just because alright!

Sky are getting continuing advertising for their product in return for handing out 50p hi-vis jackets. Makes sense.

The AA stuff isn't even branded. Why don't they hand out lights to the ninja cyclists instead, would be more useful than the absurd idea that you'd carry a helmet around London on the off chance you hire a bike. The helmets probably won't fit properly in any case.

thelawnet

meanredspider wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Well the whole point is that it doesn't encourage more bikes on the road. The insinuation is that you *need* a helmet before you can get on a bike. There are thousands of people that use the Barclays Cycle Hire bikes because they're convenient and fast, and you don't need to have special equipment to ride it. This PR campaign by the AA entirely goes against this image of safe convenience.

Except that 97% of AA members already think it's a good idea to wear a lid.

The thousands already using BBs will continue. It's the people that AREN'T using them because they ALREADY think a lid is a good idea that now have the opportunity to acquire a lid and try the bikes. I'm really not convinced by the arguement about perceptions of the danger. As I said, people already see cyclists (the majority in my experience these days) wearing helmets, shops selling helmets etc etc. One extra source of free lids and hi-viz isn't going to sway many folk and takes away a (perceived) barrier to jumping on a bike. That has to be a Good Thing

The idea that casual users are going to carry a helmet around London (don't exactly fit in your handbag do they) along with their shopping bags or whatever is utterly laughable

notsoblue

meanredspider wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Well the whole point is that it doesn't encourage more bikes on the road. The insinuation is that you *need* a helmet before you can get on a bike. There are thousands of people that use the Barclays Cycle Hire bikes because they're convenient and fast, and you don't need to have special equipment to ride it. This PR campaign by the AA entirely goes against this image of safe convenience.

Except that 97% of AA members already think it's a good idea to wear a lid.

The thousands already using BBs will continue. It's the people that AREN'T using them because they ALREADY think a lid is a good idea that now have the opportunity to acquire a lid and try the bikes. I'm really not convinced by the arguement about perceptions of the danger. As I said, people already see cyclists (the majority in my experience these days) wearing helmets, shops selling helmets etc etc. One extra source of free lids and hi-viz isn't going to sway many folk and takes away a (perceived) barrier to jumping on a bike. That has to be a Good Thing

Have you ever used the Barclays Hire scheme in London?

jonny_trousers

notsoblue wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

I think the conspiracy theorists on this forum are reading a lot into a perfectly harmless publicity stunt. Yes, the AA have their vested interests (much like LCC, CTC or almost any other organisation) but I don't believe they're being evil...

This ^^

But what about those callous, self-serving bastards at Sky? I regularly see London cyclists wearing their hi-viz Skyride gilets, thus promoting the evil Murdoch empire still further and reinforcing the impression among motorists that cycling is not a safe mode of transport as you clearly have to wear unflattering, fluorescent colours simply to be seen. By promoting cycling with their so-called 'events' Sky are clearly trying to get people to - um - stop cycling, because - um - look just because alright!

Completely different things in my opinion. Also, I don't think the AA have purposely gone out to sabotage cycling. Their intentions are good, its just misguided. They're reinforcing a negative perception of cycle safety and convenience. Maliciously or not, thats whats happening here.

Meh, people will interpret it in whatever way they please. Some, as a giant conspiracy by the motor industry to crush those pesky cyclists with their non-gas-guzzling ways, others as a public relations stunt by the AA to look as though they care about cyclists' welfare (whether they do or not is an entirely different matter). I just don't see it as worth getting our padded-pants in a twist about. If you want a free helmet then get one, if you don't...

notsoblue

thelawnet wrote:

The idea that casual users are going to carry a helmet around London (don't exactly fit in your handbag do they) along with their shopping bags or whatever is utterly laughable

This is basically it.

meanredspider

thelawnet wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Well the whole point is that it doesn't encourage more bikes on the road. The insinuation is that you *need* a helmet before you can get on a bike. There are thousands of people that use the Barclays Cycle Hire bikes because they're convenient and fast, and you don't need to have special equipment to ride it. This PR campaign by the AA entirely goes against this image of safe convenience.

Except that 97% of AA members already think it's a good idea to wear a lid.

The thousands already using BBs will continue. It's the people that AREN'T using them because they ALREADY think a lid is a good idea that now have the opportunity to acquire a lid and try the bikes. I'm really not convinced by the arguement about perceptions of the danger. As I said, people already see cyclists (the majority in my experience these days) wearing helmets, shops selling helmets etc etc. One extra source of free lids and hi-viz isn't going to sway many folk and takes away a (perceived) barrier to jumping on a bike. That has to be a Good Thing

The idea that casual users are going to carry a helmet around London (don't exactly fit in your handbag do they) along with their shopping bags or whatever is utterly laughable

The idea is that they keep them in the office (as per the article) for short trips. If the scheme fails, the AA will be left with lots of lids. Why is anyone worried?

meanredspider

notsoblue wrote:

Have you ever used the Barclays Hire scheme in London?

Your point being?

I wouldn't use one without a lid. A friend's son was killed hitting his head on a kerb on a similar bike scheme in Spain.

notsoblue

meanredspider wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Have you ever used the Barclays Hire scheme in London?

Your point being?

I wouldn't use one without a lid. A friend's son was killed hitting his head on a kerb on a similar bike scheme in Spain.

Here come the anecdotes. I'm tapping out...

thelawnet

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Meh, people will interpret it in whatever way they please. Some, as a giant conspiracy by the motor industry to crush those pesky cyclists with their non-gas-guzzling ways, others as a public relations stunt by the AA to look as though they care about cyclists' welfare (whether they do or not is an entirely different matter). I just don't see it as worth getting our padded-pants in a twist about. If you want a free helmet then get one, if you don't...

They use it as a hook to push their dubious research that 97% of their members want cyclists to wear helmets. Why do motorists want that? Because they will pass them closer - the geared-up hi-viz helmet-wearing cyclist will be passed closer than a bare-headed one wearing normal clothes, it's all about the convenience of motorists. Cycle helmets are very controversial, not something for a motoring organisation to be stirring up.

Pufftmw

One of our couriers has picked me one up

TommyEss

notsoblue wrote:

thelawnet wrote:

The idea that casual users are going to carry a helmet around London (don't exactly fit in your handbag do they) along with their shopping bags or whatever is utterly laughable

This is basically it.

And this is why Melbourne's bike hire scheme is doing so terribly. They've tried vending helmets at local shops in the CBD near the hire points, but it's not doing much to be honest.

meanredspider

notsoblue wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Have you ever used the Barclays Hire scheme in London?

Your point being?

I wouldn't use one without a lid. A friend's son was killed hitting his head on a kerb on a similar bike scheme in Spain.

Here come the anecdotes. I'm tapping out...

I'm still waiting on your point about the Boris Bikes. I've not ridden one. I wouldn't ride any bike anywhere without a lid. I'm not in favour of compulsion though. The anecdote is just one of the bits of personal experience I use to inform me to make my choice. If I were in London then I'd be happy to be given a lid. I think there's a fair few other "experienced" cyclists on here who also choose only to ride with a lid. I still don't get your point.

thelawnet

meanredspider wrote:

The idea is that they keep them in the office (as per the article) for short trips. If the scheme fails, the AA will be left with lots of lids. Why is anyone worried?

Because it's absurd.

I've done a bit of jogging around central London, along the pavements across roads, I'm sure it's not entirely safe, but no-one nags me to keep a helmet in the office, people would think I was a wally for running down the street with a helmet on.

You wouldn't say 'Alright lads I'm off down the pub, now where's my walking helmet/New Balance shoes'', sure if you were doing a marathon you'd get kitted up, but not for casual use.

Pedestrians in London are in a significant amount of danger, over 100 killed per year, you could get killed walking to the office, why are they so worried about cyclists?

It would be more effective to hand out copies of Cyclecraft, Boris bike users are likely to be particularly inexperienced and would benefit from some proper guidance.

I took my wife into London a while ago, train into Waterloo, I said 'why don't we get Boris bikes'. So we did, we made our way across Waterloo bridge in the cycle lane, it was ok, then we got the other side where it was giant buses and multiple lanes of traffic. She found it very intimidating and refused to continue so we crossed the road at the pedestrian crossing and looked for a docking station to get rid of them. Giving such people helmets and saying 'here you go, this is all you need to go play in the road with the buses and HGVs' is absurd and dangerous.

ndru

^ this!

meanredspider

thelawnet wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The idea is that they keep them in the office (as per the article) for short trips. If the scheme fails, the AA will be left with lots of lids. Why is anyone worried?

Because it's absurd.

I've done a bit of jogging around central London, along the pavements across roads, I'm sure it's not entirely safe, but no-one nags me to keep a helmet in the office, people would think I was a wally for running down the street with a helmet on.

You wouldn't say 'Alright lads I'm off down the pub, now where's my walking helmet/New Balance shoes'', sure if you were doing a marathon you'd get kitted up, but not for casual use.

Pedestrians in London are in a significant amount of danger, over 100 killed per year, you could get killed walking to the office, why are they so worried about cyclists?

It would be more effective to hand out copies of Cyclecraft, Boris bike users are likely to be particularly inexperienced and would benefit from some proper guidance.

I took my wife into London a while ago, train into Waterloo, I said 'why don't we get Boris bikes'. So we did, we made our way across Waterloo bridge in the cycle lane, it was ok, then we got the other side where it was giant buses and multiple lanes of traffic. She found it very intimidating and refused to continue so we crossed the road at the pedestrian crossing and looked for a docking station to get rid of them. Giving such people helmets and saying 'here you go, this is all you need to go play in the road with the buses and HGVs' is absurd and dangerous.

Well that's nothing to do with the AA - you clearly don't like helmets (and are a far faster and more unstable runner than me if your running is like riding a bike) and the BBs are already there - dishing out helmets makes them no less safe to "play in the road". In fact you are suggesting that cycling IS dangerous...

notsoblue

meanredspider wrote:

I'm still waiting on your point about the Boris Bikes. I've not ridden one. I wouldn't ride any bike anywhere without a lid. I'm not in favour of compulsion though. The anecdote is just one of the bits of personal experience I use to inform me to make my choice. If I were in London then I'd be happy to be given a lid. I think there's a fair few other "experienced" cyclists on here who also choose only to ride with a lid. I still don't get your point.

Ok, tapping in again. A fortnight ago when some friends were in town we were in central London, two of us decided on a whim to use Barclays bikes to cycle from Soho to Selfridges down a packed Oxford street. It only took 5-10 mins and was a brilliant alternative to getting on a packed tube. Car traffic in that bit of London barely reaches over 10mph and thats when its not stationery. We were pootling faster than the ambient traffic on big bombproof bikes. I felt that there was really no need to wear a helmet for a journey like that. It was as safe as going for a jog. And I'm saying that as someone who routinely wears a helmet for my commute to work on a road bike over 10 miles.

If you *really* think that you should be wearing a helmet for a short trip on a big chunky bike that pootles along at 10-12 mph through slow moving traffic, then theres nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.

tgotb

Picked up my helmet at lunchtime. Available in different sizes; very bright yellow, with a fairly discreet AA logo. Felt a bit like a belisha beacon riding back to the office, but if someone's going to give me a free helmet I don't really mind their deciding what colour it is. Not sure how effective the built-in light is going to be, but my bikes are well-lit anyway...

Loads of people there, on a whole variety of bikes (and some without), there was no obvious association with the Boris Bike scheme...

ndru

What I find a bit disturbing is AA treating people like idiots.
"People are stupid and unable to protect themselves well, so we are making sure they have the lid on, while they are involved in that dangerous activity called cycling. Let them keep the helmets in the offices so they remember that cycling is dangerous and requires a silly styrofoam hat". - this is my perception of this event.
How about stickers "Mind the cyclist!" for the dashboard of a car? How about free fresnel lenses and mirrors for lorries? Or hands free sets for mobile phones?
Or better still - big comfy cushions for the hood, to protect others from when the driver "looses control".

thelawnet

meanredspider wrote:

Well that's nothing to do with the AA - you clearly don't like helmets (and are a far faster and more unstable runner than me if your running is like riding a bike) and the BBs are already there - dishing out helmets makes them no less safe to "play in the road". In fact you are suggesting that cycling IS dangerous...

Well it is to do with the AA. This is being done under the auspices of the charity road safety offshoot of the AA, which I'm not sure has any business making safety decisions on the basis of opinion polls. Boris bike users are in some danger, but to look at inexperienced BB riders wobbling round in the gutter of busy London roads alongside lorries and taxi drivers and decide that what they need is a plastic hat is ridiculously misguided and a poor use of charitable funds. Why doesn't the 'road safety foundation' do some analysis of cyclist deaths and try and address the causes, rather than silly publicity stunts like this.

As for jogging, well the 1000 or so pedestrians killed in London in the last decade weren't going very fast either.... When I was jogging I was running across roads taking less care than a pedestrian would (lots of conflict with RLJing cyclists generally).

davmaggs

Just seems odd that a motoring organisation is involving themselves in something that isn't their remit.

I can only think that they wanted publicity and you can't really hand out anything to drivers that'll get news so cycling somehow fits, plus it is topical.

bails87

notsoblue wrote:

Ok, tapping in again. A fortnight ago when some friends were in town we were in central London, two of us decided on a whim to use Barclays bikes to cycle from Soho to Selfridges down a packed Oxford street. It only took 5-10 mins and was a brilliant alternative to getting on a packed tube

I used one in similar circumstances. I'm a non-londoner, but used my phone and the maps on the docking stations to look at my route (straight line). Near enough from Regents Park to Picadilly Circus. It would have involved getting at least two tube lines, so I thought "why not" and got a Boris Bike.

It was fine. I was in work clothes, I was riding slowly, the traffic was slow (a van went past me at the start of my journey and it was 20 yards ahead of me when I turned off to find the dock at the end). It just wasn't dangerous. Partly because most cycling is pretty safe, and partly because I knew what I was doing, as a regular (helmetted) rider on busy roads.

The worst thing was trying to pass queued traffic, especially in queues approaching lights. Peds seemed to assume that because one lane was stopped they could just walk across without looking. I wouldn't be suprised if the majority of "a cyclist came flying through the crossing" stories my London mates tell me are because of this, rather than RLJing.

But anyway, we don't need to create the illusion that cycling, especially the type of cycling done on a BB, is dangerous. If they want to make it safer, give out CylceCraft, or a shortened version of it.

And send out a leaflet reminding people how to drive around cyclists. Hmmm.....if only the AA had some big list of drivers, perhaps with their address too, then they'd be able to do something like this. Imagine if they were in a position where they were sending out annual letters to a big group of drivers, they'd be able to do it then, for pennies. Oh well, that'll have to be a pipedream for now.....

EDIT: If they were giving them away round here, I'd go and get one

jonny_trousers

tgotb

To all the posters suggesting that the AA are somehow "forcing" people to wear helmets or suggesting that cycling isn't safe without one: Do you make the same allegations about your local bike shop? They also provide bicycle helmets, high-vis vests and a bunch of other safety gear. Is your LBS also trying to put people off cycling?

The AA aren't forcing anyone to get a helmet, or to use one; all they're doing is making them available (for free) to people who want one.

Pufftmw

Plus a bit of advertising - it all helps oil the wheels (sorry about the pun...)

jonny_trousers

TGOTB wrote:

To all the posters suggesting that the AA are somehow "forcing" people to wear helmets or suggesting that cycling isn't safe without one: Do you make the same allegations about your local bike shop? They also provide bicycle helmets, high-vis vests and a bunch of other safety gear. Is your LBS also trying to put people off cycling?

The AA aren't forcing anyone to get a helmet, or to use one; all they're doing is making them available (for free) to people who want one.

And let's not forget those free bicycle safety check stalls they set up in London from time to time. Where do those evil bastards get off on suggesting our bikes are dangerous to begin with! It will only then encourage motorists to think that all cyclists ride round on unroadworthy bikes and make them assume they can overtake closer to us afterwards on account of their bikes being safer and less likely to fall apart in the wind. It makes my blood boil I tell ya!!!

thelawnet

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

To all the posters suggesting that the AA are somehow "forcing" people to wear helmets or suggesting that cycling isn't safe without one: Do you make the same allegations about your local bike shop? They also provide bicycle helmets, high-vis vests and a bunch of other safety gear. Is your LBS also trying to put people off cycling?

The AA aren't forcing anyone to get a helmet, or to use one; all they're doing is making them available (for free) to people who want one.

And let's not forget those free bicycle safety check stalls they set up in London from time to time.

The AA do that? Are you quite sure about that?

jonny_trousers

thelawnet wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

To all the posters suggesting that the AA are somehow "forcing" people to wear helmets or suggesting that cycling isn't safe without one: Do you make the same allegations about your local bike shop? They also provide bicycle helmets, high-vis vests and a bunch of other safety gear. Is your LBS also trying to put people off cycling?

The AA aren't forcing anyone to get a helmet, or to use one; all they're doing is making them available (for free) to people who want one.

And let's not forget those free bicycle safety check stalls they set up in London from time to time.

The AA do that? Are you quite sure about that?

By 'they' I was not referring to the AA.