Ah. Apparently it's all our fault

Kieran_Burns

http://road.cc/content/news/111812-esse ... get-killed

An Essex police officer has claimed that cyclists need to be more safety-conscious to spare families the heartbreak of a visit from an officer bearing bad news.

Speaking to the Essex Chronicle’s Joe Sturdy, PC Deborah Gray said: “If families have to see a white-hatted officer at their door, then it’s horrible because they just know why they are there.

“If cyclists were more safety-conscious then families would not have to see that.”

Police in Chelmsford are currently engaged in an exercise to improve safety and reduce casualties among cyclists. Operation Bluenose is claimed to be targeting both cyclists and motorists, but the force’s statements and press reports make scant mention of drivers.

“Operation Bluenose aims to identify at risk riders and urge them to use more safety equipment such as lights, helmets and high visibility clothing,” the police said when the exercise was announced.

PC Gray said she had spoken to a rider who was dressed entirely in black.

She said: “He said ‘If a car cannot see me he should not be driving’.

“He only wears his helmet when he is going on long cycle rides because he is stop-start, stop-start [in the town].”

As well as telling riders not to wear perfectly normal clothes, police are also encouraging them to wear helmets.

Sergeant Graham Freeman, who is running the operation, said: “The most common response we get is that it’s a man thing [not to wear a helmet]. We think helmets reduce the number of injuries.

“Men do generally not like to wear helmets. I have been to many accidents where cyclists have got head injuries. They can be pretty serious injuries.”

Around 90 cyclists were stopped in Chelmsford on Friday and police had previously stopped around 120 in Basildon.

Sgt Freeman said: “About 50 per cent had no lights and were given verbal warnings. About 50 per cent had no reflective clothing and 75 per cent had no cycle helmet.”

Commenters on the Essex Chronicle’s story are not impressed. PaulM132 said: “Someone should tell Essex Police that there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet, or any particular type of clothing, while cycling. There is no requirement to carry lights - only where cycling in hours of legal darkness.

"And there is certainly no basis for telling cyclist that they are responsible for their own safety. That is like saying that they should wear a bullet proof vest in case a gunman is on the loose.”

One commenter, 04smallmj doubts the crackdown is even necessary: “I used to cycle in Chelmsford a lot and it was probably the best place that I've cycled and lived in, so it's a shame and a bit embarrasing to see this.

"I actually ditched my helmet and hi viz while living there so I would definitely be one of the ‘naughty cyclists’ who have been given victim blaming advice. I also think that the quote ‘we *think* helmets reduce the number of injuries’ says a lot too.”

Izzy_G added: “The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the dangers, whether one wears a helmet or not, so we should be doing as much as we can to get more people on their bikes.

"Campaigns like this, which stress the dangers of cycling do just the opposite by discouraging the very people we want to get on their bikes.”

Well there you are. Women stop wearing short skirts, you know the rapists are going to have a reason. Everyone: stop buying things, you're only encouraging theft.

slowbike

What else do you expect from Essex?!

(someone had to say it) ...

which nicely leads to a quote from one of my colleagues today ...

"What cyclists don't think of is that most car drivers just want the cyclists behind them" ....

Ah - so typical of the must-overtake-cyclist brigade....

pblakeney

What if someone bought a tank and drove over all dark coloured cars?
What if?......

rolf_f

Operation Bluenose

..... shortly to be followed by Operation Redface.......

PBlakeney wrote:

What if someone bought a tank and drove over all dark coloured cars?
What if?......

I'm pretty sure the police will also be stopping drivers of black, silver or silver grey cars (ie about 95% of cars) and telling them off and recommending they have them resprayed a more visible colour immediately.

Initialised

My [insert female realative here] got raped, the police told her she should have worn frumpy clothes not a mini-skirt.*

Same principle isn't it.

CyclistSlo

Everybody should wear helmet and high vis clothes. It is not obligatory (but it is a smart thing to do).

There is no logic in this:

She said: “He said ‘If a car cannot see me he should not be driving’.

She can re-tell this from hospital...

EKE_38BPM

CyclistSlo wrote:

Everybody should wear helmet and high vis clothes. It is not obligatory (but it is a smart thing to do).

There is no logic in this:

She said: “He said ‘If a car cannot see me he should not be driving’.

She can re-tell this from hospital...

What a great first post!


Great for making yourself look like an uninformed, reactionary idiot.

The Rookie

I agree we need to be seen, if it's a dark day then lights and hi-vis or bright coloured clothing helps a lot, it is entirely possible otherwise to blend into a gloomy background, that said, most accidents (collisions now sorry) involving cyclists involve ones that are readily visible if the driver actually looked!

notsoblue

Around 90 cyclists were stopped in Chelmsford on Friday and police had previously stopped around 120 in Basildon.

Sgt Freeman said: “About 50 per cent had no lights and were given verbal warnings. About 50 per cent had no reflective clothing and 75 per cent had no cycle helmet."

This bit is pretty misleading. What criteria were they using for stopping people? If they were things like "no lights" or "no hi-viz clownsuit" or even just "no helmet", then theres no surprise that the statistics would look the above. If they weren't stopping people who they deemed to be model cyclists, they wouldn't feature in their stats.

For the record, I've been waved over by community support officers twice as part of "educational" campaigns like this and both times I only slowed down enough to verify they were going to tell me off for not wearing a helmet.

asprilla

The Rookie wrote:

I agree we need to be seen, if it's a dark day then lights and hi-vis or bright coloured clothing helps a lot, it is entirely possible otherwise to blend into a gloomy background, that said, most accidents (collisions now sorry) involving cyclists involve ones that are readily visible if the driver actually looked!

Did you see the reports about the cyclist killed when he was struck by a minibus mirror in Dorset a few weeks ago? The fact his dark rucksack was covering his hi-viz tabard was given as mitigation, even though the reason the bus driver didn't see him was because the sun was in his eyes......

Hi-viz is the solution in all circumstances, no argument.

bigmat

Its pretty disappointing from the police. When I have spoken to them the suggestion seems to be that there is a wealth of statistical evidence suggesting that most accidents are actually the cyclists' fault and that adopting these measures (hi-viz, more lights, helmets) would make a real difference. It would be nice if they could publish some of that information. Until then they can bog off.

essex-commuter

As well as telling riders not to wear perfectly normal clothes

WTF!

markhewitt1978

It's not our fault it's your fault, I thought we'd established this

Kieran_Burns

CyclistSlo wrote:

Everybody should wear helmet and high vis clothes. It is not obligatory (but it is a smart thing to do).

There is no logic in this:

She said: “He said ‘If a car cannot see me he should not be driving’.

She can re-tell this from hospital...

but just for reference, it is a legal requirement for the driver to look and not a legal requirement for the cyclist to look like the bastard love-child of a minion and a knocking shop

timothyw

It's a tricky one isn't it, and I'm not entirely sure that the analogy of rape victim blaming works. After all, if a cyclist was literally invisible, then you would expect them to be hit by a car in short order, as traffic frequently moves faster than the average cyclist, and the driver can hardly be expected to avoid what they can't see. And the sad fact is that I am often surprised myself when I only see cyclists late because they are dressed head to toe in black on a dull morning with no lights on.

None of this is to excuse drivers that don't bother to check their mirrors, or overtake too close, SMIDSY etc, and nor does it excuse Judges that issue ridiculously lenient sentences to reckless drivers.

But what it does mean is that I will continue to wear bright jerseys, a reflective gilet, and even occasionally a hi vis bib, because if this buys me an extra second or two of reaction time from a careless driver then that could well be the difference between me finishing my journey in one piece or not. I also wear a helmet, although I'm not under any particular illusions that it will save me if I do get hit - the police really ought stop trying to enforce a law that isn't there for that one.

cookeeemonster

Kieran_Burns wrote:

CyclistSlo wrote:

Everybody should wear helmet and high vis clothes. It is not obligatory (but it is a smart thing to do).

There is no logic in this:

She said: “He said ‘If a car cannot see me he should not be driving’.

She can re-tell this from hospital...

but just for reference, it is a legal requirement for the driver to look and not a legal requirement for the cyclist to look like the bastard love-child of a minion and a knocking shop

+ 1 billion

The didnt see you excuse is the oldest trick in the book and will absolve blame in 99.9% of cases - what they mean is 'I didn't look' which would put the blame back on them.

The high viz argument is a diversion from the fact that people rush around in cars without looking properly or caring/considering if their actions are dangerous, and that's literally it.

Medders

slightly surprised at the reaction from you guys on this - it is hardly a new action or sentiment (in london for 2 months prior to christmas). I have no beef with someone giving me advice to help with my own safety. The amount of deathwish idiots (normally novices or tracksuit on BSO) I see everyday is staggering and they are ultimately relying on all drivers being competent - when clearly there is a minority that are not. This will always be the case - so why not help these novices/idiots in trying to mitigate the risk which will be for their own benefit. I only wish there was some way that road awareness/cycling proficiency courses could be made mandatory.

If this campaign ends up having the effect of a slight change in behaviour that saves just one life then it is worth it imho. Unfortunately we will never know.

notsoblue

TimothyW wrote:

It's a tricky one isn't it

I'm really not sure it is that tricky to be honest. If its dark, and you're not using lights, then you're endangering yourself and others. If its broad daylight, and you're not wearing hi-viz then you're just someone using a bike to go to work/the shops/running an errand/visiting friends.

If someone requires hi-viz to see me in the dark when I've got an 800 lumen light up front and a 75 lumen light on the rear, then they shouldn't be on the road.

The Rookie

Asprilla wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

I agree we need to be seen, if it's a dark day then lights and hi-vis or bright coloured clothing helps a lot, it is entirely possible otherwise to blend into a gloomy background, that said, most accidents (collisions now sorry) involving cyclists involve ones that are readily visible if the driver actually looked!

Did you see the reports about the cyclist killed when he was struck by a minibus mirror in Dorset a few weeks ago? The fact his dark rucksack was covering his hi-viz tabard was given as mitigation, even though the reason the bus driver didn't see him was because the sun was in his eyes......

Hi-viz is the solution in all circumstances, no argument.

It's all about playing the odds isn't it, whatever you do (in terms of clothing) you can't guarantee you wont be hit, but the more visible you are the less likely (over a period of time, not in any one scenario) it is to happen.

The defence can say anything they like in mitigation, it doesn't mean a judge/jury will take any head of it.

rolf_f

CookeeeMonster wrote:

The high viz argument is a diversion from the fact that people rush around in cars without looking properly or caring/considering if their actions are dangerous, and that's literally it.

It's not a diversion from the fact - it is a solution to it. It may not be right that it is but it clearly is. It's not the only solution obviously but you'll be waiting a long time for people in cars to pay attention to their surroundings and in the meantime you might end up off your bike because of them.

TBH, I don't understand the dislike a lot of folk have for high vis. There's really nice kit available in high vis now if you really must look cool and trendy on the commute and, to be fair, high vis looks much better than 90% of team or club kits out there and people don't seem to mind wearing those.

I agree it is up to the cyclist to decide what they think is appropriate but it seems to me that it really is a case of choosing to help yourself or not. There are better ways of increasing your risk than by not wearing high vis.

markhewitt1978

Personally I do wear yellow hi-vis for all my rides. My opinion is that I don't much care what colour I wear when I'm riding, so given that it can literally be any colour, it might as well be retina-burning yellow.

cyclingprop

Same logic, lots of cyclists are thin so they should be easier to miss. Why didn't the police tell them to put on weight to make them easier to see?

Kieran_Burns

Rolf F wrote:

It's not a diversion from the fact - it is a solution to it. <snip>

there are two paths we can take here:

1. Blame the victim of poor driving and focus on making them as safe as possible
2. Blame the cause of poor driving and focus on making them as safe as possible

To cure a disease you do not treat the symptoms, that just makes you feel better and does nothing for the infection. To focus on the victims makes you feel better and does nothing to cure the bad driving.

Personally I would rather the Police stop random drivers who display *some* aspect of poor driving and educate them. Oh but of course there would be a huge outcry at this imposition of innocent road users. Oh, wait.

notsoblue

Rolf F wrote:

TBH, I don't understand the dislike a lot of folk have for high vis. There's really nice kit available in high vis now if you really must look cool and trendy on the commute and, to be fair, high vis looks much better than 90% of team or club kits out there and people don't seem to mind wearing those.

About 75% of my riding is just for transport (commuting, shopping, going out). The suggestion that I need to dress like a lollipop lady to be a responsible cyclist is mental. It implies that if I choose to wear normal clothes (the clothes I expect to be wearing when I arrive at my destination) then I'm behaving negligently and this will absolve some of the blame due to a poor driver should they carelessly collide with me.

Why should the cyclist take the majority of the responsibility for preventing a collision?

veronese68

I nearly pulled out on a cyclist when driving the other night. I was trying to pull out onto a fairly busy road, it was dark and raining. The guy was wearing black and didn't have a light on. I only saw him because the cyclist that was further back moved out a bit and vanished for a moment so I realised there was something there, but couldn't see what. Had I pulled out on him I think he should have taken a fair chunk of responsibility. Had the same thing occurred in broad daylight, but everything else the same, of course I should have seen him because it's my responsibility to look. I hate this culture of victim blaming, it's an easy way for the authorities to avoid sorting out the real issues.

lancew

I'm assuming most of us here are drivers and cyclists so surely you've seen what a difference it makes if a cyclist doesn't have light/reflectors on?

I'm a helmet fan but I think its a personal thing so I'll ignore that for now, but lights in the dark will make it easier to see you. I don't understand whats wrong with what he's saying? You're comparing it to short skirts and rape but what about comparing it to not waving around a your cash on a night bus, you just be careful and then everyone gets along. I know its illegal for that chav to stab me and steal my £40 but he still might do it.

I agree that it is the responsibility of drivers to not kill us, but I also think that it makes sense to be defensive just in case one tries?

markhewitt1978

Same issue if you attempted to drive around a car at night without any lights on? But let's not confuse the issue, riding at night is a very different issue to riding in daylight conditions.

DJFish

Personally I would prefer the police to do everything possible to make the roads safer, if that means putting a few ninjas noses out of joint by stating the bleedin' obvious then so be it. It doesn't mean that they're not going to stop policing bad drivers, there is more than one policeman and they can multi-task.

We quite rightly moan when drivers don't see us but then moan even louder when someone suggests we can help them see us by making ourselves more visible? I fail to understand that logic.......

And as for: "And there is certainly no basis for telling cyclist that they are responsible for their own safety.", what an absolute cretin! of course you're responsible for your own safety, as well as the safety of everyone around you when you operate a vehicle, it doesn't matter what it is.

If you think high-vis looks stupid I would suggest you:
a. look in the mirror next time you get on a bike and
b. decide whether you're entering a fashion show or trying to get from A to B in one piece.

Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?

cookeeemonster

where the hell has the riding with no lights thing come from in this thread?

thought we were talking about high viz and the law - no one has said it's not the cyclists fault if they ride around at night with no lights - thats stupid, illiegal and does absolve responsibility from the driver.

if everyone rode in high viz and helmets then they'd still be pretty much the same level of so called 'accidents' - but they'd find something else to blame (never, ever the drivers fault...despite the actual stats, which put them at fault for around 70% of the time and the cyclist less than 10%)

anyway, time to chill...collisions are thankfully rare and we're all still far more healthy cycling than not cycling

DonDaddyD

You know what, I've struggled to see many a cyclist when driving especially in the winter. Most colour clothing becomes 'dark' or is darker at night especially when you are some distance away from the motorist.

If you are in dark clothing, and surrounded by a dark back drop then how do you expect sufficient light to travel from you into my eyes in such a way as distinguish you. Couple that to street lamps mostly casting shadows and the dazzling effect of the zenon lights of oncoming traffic, where most people refuse to dip their headlights and its bloody hard to see cyclists. Daytime brings other visibility issues as well.

The article in the OP is inflammatory, but the simple truth is its hard to see everything from behind a wheel and as a cyclist and a motorist, yes, I think people forget that.

Hi-viz does help IMO but it is not essential. And It is not just about having lights on our bike, it is about how your lights flash. Have a rear light on full psycho cylon or a simple intermittent flash and which one is more visible? Which one is likely to make the motorist aware of your presence?

And that's the issue, well the one I approach visibility from. That it isn't about how well he can see me, its about how best can I make him aware of my existance. Weird flashing cycles on my bike lights (as well as bright ones) have in my experience done more to improve things than wearing hi-viz.

That's all. Flame away.

slowbike

Mixed views on this ...

The obvious one - lack of lights - this does need to be addressed. Cyclists (anyone who rides a bike - just like a driver is anyone who drives a car) need to at least adhere to the highway code. I've seen a few cyclists without lights on - or even inadequate lights on and you wonder what their thought process is ..

Lack of helmet - well, I hope a police officer doesn't stop me just because I'm not wearing a helmet - if I happened to be stopped already then I'm happy to listen to advice - but don't stop me for not doing something that isn't a legal requirement anyway.

Lack of HiVis - HiVis isn't the answer to everything - we don't all need to ride around in bright yellow/orange clothing - that is ridiculous. However, we DO need to ensure we're not just blending into the background - so for me, along with the lights and reflective strip on the mudguard - it's a red jacket with a few reflective bits on - plus longs & overshoes which also have reflective bits on. Honestly, if a driver says he can't see me then he just isn't looking ...

There's a lot of parading around saying that cyclists should wear helmets and hi-vis - that is NOT the answer - it's not even AN answer. Riders should consider their equipment & clothing and how that may affect their visibility & vulnerability on the road or cyclepath or where-ever they will be riding. If police (small p) and/or politicians ever decide that cyclists MUST do this then I'm going to campaign for vehicles to be preceded by a person on foot carrying a red flag ...