Chris Boardman

rockmonkeysc

Can someone please help this tool chill out a bit? If he's not ranting about how bad British roads are on social network sites then he's on TV moaning about it while also saying drivers should be blamed for all accidents and cyclists shouldn't wear helmets.
Today he's saying that the UK government should spend billions making our cycle network as good as Hollands. Not sure who's going to pay for that but I would gladly pay for a one way ticket to Holland for the annoying ****. With him as British cycling's spokesman it's no wonder drivers want to kill cyclists.

Peace.

thekickingmule

He sells his bikes via Halfords. That should be enough to earn him a banishment.

rockmonkeysc

He doesn't even do that. He sold the rights to use his name, he has nothing to do with Boardman bikes, who do make some excellent bicycles.

nicklouse

thekickingmule wrote:

He sells his bikes via Halfords. That should be enough to earn him a banishment.

No he does not. He has nothing to do with the brand now.

njee20

His point about helmets is valid IMO. The solution to stabbings isn't to make stab vests compulsory. The solution to cyclists getting run over isn't compulsory helmet laws... Take the burden away from the cyclists to avoid themselves being killed.

In fact, I don't mind him at all. He'd be a shit advocate for cycling if he went on record saying "actually our facilities are pretty good, and drivers should kill with impunity".

Rigga

nicklouse wrote:

thekickingmule wrote:

He sells his bikes via Halfords. That should be enough to earn him a banishment.

No he does not. He has nothing to do with the brand now.

Yes he does, he's still chief exec and still has a say in the design and development of the bikes. He just sold the business to halfords.

rockmonkeysc

Suggesting that in ALL accidents between a bicycle and a car the driver should take the blame, no matter what the circumstances is retarded.
I agree that if drivers didn't hit us off we would be less likely to bash our heads but there will always be incompetent idiots and dangerous fools in cars. Sometimes drivers make mistakes (we all make mistakes and always will) Sometimes we just fall off for no good reason and drag our skulls along the tarmac until our brains fall out.
The stab vest comparison doesn't really work. I'm guessing you have fallen off a bicycle and bashed your protected head. Have you ever fallen on to a knife in an unfortunate accident?

njee20

Suggesting that in ALL accidents between a bicycle and a car the driver should take the blame, no matter what the circumstances is retarded.

Of course it is. But that's not what he's saying. He's saying that as in Europe the burden of proof should be on the driver to prove their innocence. Ie the 'default' is guilty until proven innocent.

That's not the same as saying drivers are at fault in all accidents with cyclists.

But Daily Mail type headlines and frothing at the mouth are far more interesting eh?

The stab vest comparison doesn't really work. I'm guessing you have fallen off a bicycle and bashed your protected head. Have you ever fallen on to a knife in an unfortunate accident?

You're taking it far too literally. I think it's a sound example myself. It is suggested that compulsory helmets should be implemented to stop cyclists dying. The overwhelming majority of those are hit by cars. Compulsory stab vests would stop the odd freak accident where you impale yourself falling over.

arthur_scrimshaw

It's all totally achedemic and not worth getting in a bate about. Figures released today showed an 11% drop in prosecutions for drivers causing death by dangerous or careless driving. CPS are just not following up on cases.

rockmonkeysc

Isn't our legal system based on innocent until proven guilty? Once one exception to that is made then it's a slippery slope where everyone wants the same to suit their interest.
If a cyclist goes up the inside of a lorry turning left, thats entirely the cyclists fault, he's dead but it's his fault. The lorry driver is traumatised by having squat another human, seen a mangled body under his wheels through no fault of his own and then has to go through the long, slow process of proving his innocence. Is that really a good idea? How long before that pushes some poor, innocent driver over the edge? It's a stupid idea.

veronese68

Got to say I agree with Njee on this one.
I see your point about cyclists that go up the side of a left turning lorry though. The problem is the pisspoor infrastructure we do have tells the timid cyclist to go up the left.

Where is that road design telling the cyclists to go?
Whilst I'm happy to cycle on our roads I'm not so happy about my daughter cycling to school. I'd be a lot happier if there were some decent cycle lanes and not just some paint telling her to go in the most dangerous part of the road.

rockmonkeysc

It's slowly improvin. I ride through Bath and even in five years it's got a lot safer in the city. It's going to be a long process at a time when even the emergency services can't get any money and the NHS is falling apart due to cut backs. They just aren't going to spend the billions needed to catch up to where thing should be.

paul.skibum

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Isn't our legal system based on innocent until proven guilty? Once one exception to that is made then it's a slippery slope where everyone wants the same to suit their interest.
If a cyclist goes up the inside of a lorry turning left, thats entirely the cyclists fault, he's dead but it's his fault. The lorry driver is traumatised by having squat another human, seen a mangled body under his wheels through no fault of his own and then has to go through the long, slow process of proving his innocence. Is that really a good idea? How long before that pushes some poor, innocent driver over the edge? It's a stupid idea.

But how many cyclists have to die by a lorry passing them and then blithly turning left and squashing them and the only punishment to the driver is the trauma of seeing the guy he didn't give enough of a sh*t about to spot them on the road as he passed lying under his wheels.

Too many drivers get away with effectively murdering cyclists for the current system to be viable. Drivers need to be made responsible for their actions and punished for the appropriate failures of their skills/ability/ADHD. Cyclists already pay the ultimate price whether they or the driver is at fault.

thekickingmule

nicklouse wrote:

No he does not. He has nothing to do with the brand now.

RockmonkeySC wrote:

He doesn't even do that. He sold the rights to use his name, he has nothing to do with Boardman bikes, who do make some excellent bicycles.

Fair enough. Still.... Halfords!

rockmonkeysc

paul.skibum wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Isn't our legal system based on innocent until proven guilty? Once one exception to that is made then it's a slippery slope where everyone wants the same to suit their interest.
If a cyclist goes up the inside of a lorry turning left, thats entirely the cyclists fault, he's dead but it's his fault. The lorry driver is traumatised by having squat another human, seen a mangled body under his wheels through no fault of his own and then has to go through the long, slow process of proving his innocence. Is that really a good idea? How long before that pushes some poor, innocent driver over the edge? It's a stupid idea.

But how many cyclists have to die by a lorry passing them and then blithly turning left and squashing them and the only punishment to the driver is the trauma of seeing the guy he didn't give enough of a sh*t about to spot them on the road as he passed lying under his wheels.

Too many drivers get away with effectively murdering cyclists for the current system to be viable. Drivers need to be made responsible for their actions and punished for the appropriate failures of their skills/ability/ADHD. Cyclists already pay the ultimate price whether they or the driver is at fault.

In this case it's the cyclist who is at fault, the driver can't see them which is why this happens. You can't punish someone for an accident they couldn't have prevented. Cyclists need to be educated no to pass lorries on the left at junctions.
Cyclists need to take some of the responsibility and learn to ride safely and avoid accidents. Part of learning to ride a motorbike in this country is learning to avoid collisions, whether they would be your fault or not because drivers will make mistakes or do stupid things and it's you who will get hurt or killed.

Chunkers1980

He said the lorry passing them. It is the lorries fault if that happens. Cars do it too. Cane it passed and take a quick left rather than waiting behind you.

rockmonkeysc

Chunkers1980 wrote:

He said the lorry passing them. It is the lorries fault if that happens. Cars do it too. Cane it passed and take a quick left rather than waiting behind you.

In that case it is the driver but it's often the cyclist riding up the inside of a lorry waiting at lights. I see it all the time on my commute through Bath.

njee20

Yes, we know, you've already said that as part of your Daily Mail frothing.

The trouble is that, as said, the infrastructure encourages cyclists to end up in a stupid place. There is a degree of education required, and infrastructure improvements (as Chris Boardman is championing, to your disgust) but I'd have no issues with the onus being on drivers to prove their innocence in these instances. Other problems arise where a cyclist arrives at some traffic lights in a cycle lane, the lorry subsequently arrives and stops. When the light goes green the lorry turns left and squashes the cyclist. Whose fault? The cyclist was there first, occupying the space provided for them, and yet they're entirely out of sight of the driver. You're suggesting cyclist is at fault RMSC?

Thewaylander

I still think bikes and cars on the same system is relatively incompatible really. Anything where you have something capable of accelerating to speed in seconds and weighs 1ton is going to be bad to mix with a person on a 10kg bike.

Even if everyone used it well and sensible accidents would occur and people die, Sad truth is half of drivers and half the cyclists as they are idiots and this just makes it worse..

dodgy

I think that it's sad, that even on a cycling forum, there are people who don't understand what strict liability is.

As for Chris Boardman, he's just about the only public figure who talks sense about utility cycling.

veronese68

Thewaylander wrote:

Even if everyone used it well and sensible accidents would occur and people die, Sad truth is half of drivers and half the cyclists as they are idiots and this just makes it worse..

Very true. The words of caution I often use with my kids are a variation of "Think how stupid the average person is, half the people you meet will be stupider than that." This can be adapted to suit the particular occasion warning them about drivers if they are out on their bikes is one. Seems to make them think more than "assume all drivers are out to get you."

rockmonkeysc

njee20 wrote:

Yes, we know, you've already said that as part of your Daily Mail frothing.

The trouble is that, as said, the infrastructure encourages cyclists to end up in a stupid place. There is a degree of education required, and infrastructure improvements (as Chris Boardman is championing, to your disgust) but I'd have no issues with the onus being on drivers to prove their innocence in these instances. Other problems arise where a cyclist arrives at some traffic lights in a cycle lane, the lorry subsequently arrives and stops. When the light goes green the lorry turns left and squashes the cyclist. Whose fault? The cyclist was there first, occupying the space provided for them, and yet they're entirely out of sight of the driver. You're suggesting cyclist is at fault RMSC?

The driver would have seen the cyclist there when he pulled up so should have let the cyclist move away first. That's obviously the driver at fault.
What I'm saying is there are faults on both sides. Drivers and cyclists need education. Maybe it should be compulsory as part of the driving test, a day cycling on the road for all able bodied drivers. And maybe education at schools, we were taken out for cycling proficiency lessons when I was at school but it seems rare now.
I don't believe anyone should be assumed to be guilty in an accident without any reasonable case against them, such as witnesses or evidence at the scene otherwise with no evidence either way the driver will be prosecuted automatically.
The improved infrastructure is very slowly being built but it's going to take decades on our overcrowded roads which lack space for cycle lanes. It's quite good around North Somerset, where I live. I can ride the 17 miles to work with only 4 miles on roads, most of it is converted railway tracks. When I get in to the city it all dissappears but I can't see where they could fit in cycle lanes without completely changing Road layouts.
My disagreement with Mr Boardman is that it is all up to drivers to change and less for cyclists. Do British Cycling offer any road safety training?

veronese68

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Do British Cycling offer any road safety training?

I don't think they offer training as such, but they certainly have organised rides for beginners to help get them going and give a bit of confidence. There is also a lot of instruction on their website. I think most local councils offer free bike training, certainly around here they do.
I suspect uptake is very low because people think they know how to ride a bike. Instruction has changed enormously from the old Cycling Proficiency.

rockmonkeysc

If they do it around here they don't advertise it.
Maybe British Cycling should do something about cycle safety by promoting training and try to get it back in schools and maybe cycling experience as part of the driving test.
If they can help prevent accidents then that has to be better than worrying about who is liable when they do happen.

Antm81

There is some stuff in schools up here still, or at my daughters school. She did her cycling proficiency last month.

I don't think motorists should automatically get the blame, and to add a bit of balance, whilst there are bad drivers, there are also bad cyclists.

rockmonkeysc

I see a lot of dangerous cyclists in the city, usually on carbon bikes in full replica pro kit or on fixes in skinny jeans and a well waxed moustache.

angry_bird

Introducing the Dutch style infrastructure over here would be fairly pointless IMO without a serious change in the way cyclists are regarded in general. Having spent time working over there at a uni, and cycling there, it's not just that they have cycle lanes almost everywhere and the most amazing roundabouts in the world. The biggest thing is that every driver there cycles too, it's their way of life.

In Utrecht where I was staying maybe 5% of people wore helmets, that was it, and it wasn't just people pootling around slowly on shopping bikes. When I was talking to my co-workers there about it they didn't see the need- they felt perfectly safe riding along listening to their music or whatever because motorists treat them with respect and while they said freak accidents happen- wet manhole covers etc. they weren't bothered because they're so uncommon.

Out riding I don't think I ever had a single incident with a motorist- even on shared roads, not a single close pass, right hook, nothing. Narrow road? Cars would pull over to give bikes plenty of room every single time- no trying to squeeze past however slowly.

Here we have such a car dominated culture it's unreal- my neighbours had a family run business and employed the guy next door (until late last year I think). Anyway they felt the need to drive to work each day- the old man, his wife and their son, plus their next-door neighbour. All four of them, separately, and they worked 400m down the road from their houses. I wish I was exaggerating but I'm not. I know that was an extreme example but I know plenty of other people who drive less than about five miles to work each day. Whereas in The Netherlands, it's completely normal for people to commute 20-30km daily on the bike.

It's a competely different way of life they have in this regard and completely different attitude towards bikes- they're "normal people" not "just cyclists". That said I think there are portions of the cycling population here who's attitude need to change- riding like dicks just pisses motorists off and does nothing to help our general perception by other road users.


TLDR: people need to stop being dicks and show eachother some respect. Also, we need to stop being so dependent on cars in general.

dodgy

All very well Angry Bird, well put together post. But, it hasn't always been this way in the Netherlands. Up until the 1970s it was just like elsewhere, even the UK. But they come to the conclusion they were sick of kids being killed by cars and did something about it, first came the infrastructure, then the attitude change as motorists moved to cycling as the infrastructure was there.

So, do we wait for attitudes to change, or 'build it and they will come'?

veronese68

Well said Angry Bird, completely agree about attitudes and people not being dicks.

bikes`n`guns

So the guy banging on about cyclists rights and safety the loudest, gets called a tool by the folk he wants to champion.


Brilliant. Maybe you should do it instead ?. Maybe you should use your influence gained after years of pro cycling and involvement in the industry to try and make cycling in Britain better.

That way he can piss of to Holland like you said.

rockmonkeysc

dodgy wrote:

All very well Angry Bird, well put together post. But, it hasn't always been this way in the Netherlands. Up until the 1970s it was just like elsewhere, even the UK. But they come to the conclusion they were sick of kids being killed by cars and did something about it, first came the infrastructure, then the attitude change as motorists moved to cycling as the infrastructure was there.

So, do we wait for attitudes to change, or 'build it and they will come'?

It would have been a lot easier to change things two or three decades back when roads were much less overcrowded. It's going to take a very, very long time and a lot of effort from a government who at the moment have no interest in anything other than helping the rich.