# Police Acknowledge Drivers at Fault - So Hand Out Hi-Viz!



## simon.r (16 May 2012)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A quote from a BBC News article talking about the increase in 'serious cycle crashes':

"_Officers said in two-thirds of cases, vehicle drivers were at fault and have begun a series of events to hand out high-visibility equipment to cyclists._"

So, we have an acknowledgement that in the majority of cases vehicle drivers were at fault. And the response is obviously not to address that issue, but to 'educate' cyclists.

Oh dear...


----------



## 400bhp (16 May 2012)

It's acknowledgement so it's start.


----------



## oldfatfool (16 May 2012)

Would be interesting to know how many of the cyclists involved where already wearing Hi-viz.


----------



## Red Light (16 May 2012)

Next week they're handing out chasity belts to women in their drive to cut rapes in Nottingham


----------



## Boris Bajic (16 May 2012)

I see no reason to mock the action of the police in this article.

They note the KSI figures and note some of the causes.

They are not in a position to eliminate human error or momentary inattention.

Why not, then, address what they are in a position to address while also raising the issue of looking out for cyclists.

This isn't the perfect solution that will end all death and misery at a stroke, but it is (as 400bhp says) an acknowledgement and it is something rather than nothing.

The questionable taste of the chastity-belt comment is in keeping with its inapplicability in this instance. Drivers who wallop cyclists (as quite a few have walloped me) tend not to have violent assault as a motive. Every time I've been hit or forced off the road through the fault of another, it's been because the driver was unaware of my presence or had misjudged my speed.


----------



## redcard (16 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> It's acknowledgement so it's start.



It's a start? Is that the stage we're at?


----------



## Scoosh (16 May 2012)

I believe what they should be doing is starting a national media awareness campaign to re-educate drivers of all vehicles to be prepared for, watch out for, give room to and be courteous towards all cyclists - pedal and motor. 

It's only when a national campaign (in the manner of drink driving) is pursued will we see a change in drivers' attitudes. It's the attitudes which are the key in almost all incidents reported here and on vids etc. 

Oh - and anyone causing death/injury while in charge of a car or other vehicle should be charged with using an offensive weapon. 

<Rant mode over> 

<almost>


----------



## derrick (16 May 2012)

You wil never educate bad drivers, you may be able to make some more aware, but at the end of the day the goverment will never spend enough to make it safe for cyclist,


----------



## MontyVeda (16 May 2012)

'it's a start' is one way of looking at it, but 'a start' of what?

"I didn't see the cyclist because he wasn't wearing hi-viz officer."

the start of shifting the blame?


----------



## ufkacbln (16 May 2012)

The problem is not whether the rider is wearing HiViz or not!

All the research shows that he problems are due to:

The driver failed to look at all
The driver looked but did not actually "see"
Th driver looked, saw and then failed to drive appropriately


----------



## Recycler (16 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem is not whether the rider is wearing HiViz or not!
> 
> All the research shows that he problems are due to:
> 
> ...


 
Do you have a link for that research? I would be interested to see it.


----------



## Recycler (16 May 2012)

Scoosh said:


> I believe what they should be doing is starting a national media awareness campaign to re-educate drivers of all vehicles to be prepared for, watch out for, give room to and be courteous towards all cyclists - pedal and motor.


 
The "Think bike" campaign has been running for some time now.


----------



## Linford (16 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem is not whether the rider is wearing HiViz or not!
> 
> All the research shows that he problems are due to:
> 
> ...


 

I would tend to agree on this point, but I would say that when drivers do have their eyes open, the high viz does put that person up on the radar a smidge earlier.


----------



## Poacher (16 May 2012)

The problem won't be solved by hi-vis, and it isn't always due to the driver being unaware of the cyclist's presence or misjudging their speed. Some incidents are caused by active aggression on the part of the driver, such as the one who took great exception to my riding on the road (at ~22 mph) in preference to the parallel cycle farcility last Friday, and tried to run me into the kerb. I'll try to attend one of the Notts police's events and ask a few pointed questions. If I can get some sort of commitment from them to take the problem seriously, I'll probably invest in a camera and try to get some of these prats banned from driving (not that being banned actually stops them, but it might just lead to a more realistic penalty). Just think, if we can get the idiots off the road, it'll end congestion!


----------



## roadracerash1 (16 May 2012)

We need a complete overhaul on the driving theory and test on the "vulnerable road users" section in my opinion. I think too many people have misconceptions of cyclists and they have issues with... should they be on the road? If i cycle on the road motorists ridicule you. If you cycle on the pavement you are braking the law. We just have to put up with morons on the road basically. I have bike lights, pedal reflectors (unfortunately ) , pay road tax on my vehicles, have 3rd party insurance for bicycles and follow the highway code. Don't we have every right to be on the road as well?


----------



## ufkacbln (16 May 2012)

[url=http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/rsrr-theme1-motorcyclists/]Road Safety Research Report No. 121
Car Drivers’ Attitudes and Visual
Skills in Relation to Motorcyclists
[/url]
 Car Drivers’ Skills and Attitudes
to Motorcycle Safety: A Review


----------



## Poacher (16 May 2012)

Damn right we do! Unlike the million plus drivers with no insurance whatsoever. (I have £10 million 3rd party insurance thanks to the CTC).


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (16 May 2012)

I have implied this before but I think it is worth saying again; The fundamental problem is that motorists think they are the only ones entitled to use the roads and that anyone else should get out of their way. We need a complete change in attitude so that they are aware that they are just _one_ of the road users sharing the space. For some reason, Government does not want to give out this message and I don't know why.

The fact that the Police are finally acknowledging there is a problem seems to me a step in the right direction. (Even if they are a bit bucolic about it. )


----------



## Recycler (16 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Road Safety Research Report No. 121
> Car Drivers’ Attitudes and Visual
> Skills in Relation to Motorcyclists
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for posting those links. I'll have a good read through tomorrow, but I've had a quick look and noticed this


> 3.1.2 Colour and luminance
> 
> 
> It is generally assumed that more colourful objects are more likely to attract
> ...


 
It's interesting as I've never seen any figures for the effect of hi viz gear before, but this does seem to suggest a 37% reduction in accidents....albeit on motorbikes.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (16 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Do you have a link for that research? I would be interested to see it.


 
All I can give you is evidence from my collision, driver turned right across me..
"I saw you but then I thought you'd gone"

Says to me, "I saw you but I went anyway because...I forgot I saw you or failed to interpret what I saw"

I never thought to ask "gone WHERE??"


----------



## Boris Bajic (16 May 2012)

I hate it when the clever riposte only comes to me when I'm in the ambulance....


----------



## Matthew_T (16 May 2012)

I went out twice today for leisure, and both times I was only wearing my club kit and not my hi-viz jacket as it was nice and warm. On both occassions, I didnt encounter more or less bad driving than I usually do (driving has seemed to have improved in my area dramatically recently for some reason).

If drivers look, then they are aware and it is just their misjudgements which cause problems. If they dont look, then there is an obvious answer if something happens.
The only time when hi-viz would help is at night. Unless you are wearing some kind of urban camouflage, drivers will see you if they look in the day.

Police and road safety teams should be looking to improve driver awareness. That is the real cause of problems on the roads. The majority of drivers do have the skills to drive properly, but cannot understand the need for having a good look around themselves at junctions in case something might be coming.

Our money can be spent on better things other than giving out free hi-viz.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 May 2012)

Hi-viz doth offend mine eye.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Thanks for posting those links. I'll have a good read through tomorrow, but I've had a quick look and noticed this
> 
> 
> It's interesting as I've never seen any figures for the effect of hi viz gear before, but this does seem to suggest a 37% reduction in accidents....albeit on motorbikes.


 
Motorcyclists and cyclist research is different, but there are common issues and problems


----------



## ufkacbln (17 May 2012)

I can't reference this, but in Cycling Today (that shows my age) there was a write-up by a guy who had travelled the same route with and without high visibility gear with similar results.

However there was a massive improvement in driver behaviour when he wore a black suit, silver buttons on the epaulettes and a Policeman's helmet.

The conclusion was that the best way to become visible was to look like a Police Officer!


----------



## Dan B (17 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The conclusion was that the best way to become visible was to look like a Police Officer!


Motorcyclists have observed similarly inexplicable effects when riding white Pan Europeans and come to the same conclusion


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> [/I]
> 
> The conclusion was that the best way to become visible was to look like a Police Officer!


 
I ought to ration my 'when I was a courier' anecdotes... but I cannot.

When I was a courier I'd often pop into the 24-Hr Bagel Bake on Brick Lane in the early hours to fuel up.

Hi-Viz padded jacket with official-looking epaulettes, black boots and leathers, white full-face.

Not infrequently, the staff would refuse payment. I'd get a wink and a knowing smile and "You lads are doing a good job."

How could they possibly know? 

I don't know about being more visible, but looking like a police officer helped me to stay fed.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (17 May 2012)

<rantmode>
Why should I wear hi-viz while some one-handed driving asswipe in a lowered Corsa or £100k Merc is left alone to continue saying "Screw you, I've got a car" because no-one bothered to assess him properly in his attitude to being a driver?

They either don't look, can't be bothered to look, don't know how to cope, or look and decide you don't matter. Lets have proper education, then draconian enforcement.

</rantmode>


----------



## ianrauk (17 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Hi-viz doth offend mine eye.


 

to me it looks shoot.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 May 2012)

On this chap, I think it can look quite good.


----------



## Red Light (17 May 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> <rantmode>
> Why should I wear hi-viz while some one-handed driving asswipe in a lowered Corsa or £100k Merc is left alone to continue saying "Screw you, I've got a car" because no-one bothered to assess him properly in his attitude to being a driver?
> </rantmode>


 
You need the hi-viz so they can see you out of their blacked out tinted windows


----------



## Recycler (17 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Motorcyclists and cyclist research is different, but there are common issues and problems


 
Of course there are differences between motorbikes and bikes but a 37% reduction in motorbike accidents is surely big enough to make us think? Whether the reduction for us would be 27% or 47%, I don't know, but I think it is most unlikely that there will be no effect for bikes.


----------



## Red Light (17 May 2012)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> . For some reason, Government does not want to give out this message and I don't know why.


 
Its because motorists not only pay a lot of money to the Government. They are also one of the few groups that seem to want to pay much more than is necessary by buying bigger less fuel efficient cars.


----------



## atbman (17 May 2012)

Corrected story (aka rational response by police):

"_Officers said in two-thirds of cases, vehicle drivers were at fault and have begun a series of events to hand out new glasses to drivers._"


----------



## steveindenmark (18 May 2012)

I ride bikes and motorbikes.

A few years ago there was huge resentment to wearing vis vests when it came to motorcycling but that attitude has taken a huge U turn, on mainland europe anyway. We are not being forced to wear them but we realise that it does give us a better chance to be seen.

I can only speak from my own experience but the difference when I ride with and without one is massive. Drivers actually seem to see me and give me more room. It is like taking and invisibility cloak off. It does appear that we are pasting ourselves into a corner though, and that vis vests will be forced upon motorcycle riders by some MEP. We have done half the work ourselves.

The vis vest I wear on my bike and motorbike is designed for motorcycling and is fitted and has a zip. It doesn`t flap around like those velcro fastening, flappy things that the police hand out out.

I find it odd that grown men are quite happy to wear a red polka dotted man of the mountain shirt but won`t wear a vis vest.

This is always going to be a personal choice, unless a law is passed. I think it is best just to accept that other people are free to make their own choices.

Steve


----------



## ufkacbln (18 May 2012)

It is about utility

I want to grab my Brompton from the front door get on it, nip round to the shop.

I do no want to have to put on a helmet, hi viz, Sam Brown belt knee and elbow pads (as one government site suggested was a requirement) and a protective suit.

I want to wear normal clothes and shoes.


----------



## Red Light (18 May 2012)

France has introduced a law in 2008 requiring cyclists to wear hi-viz at night and in poor visibility when cycling outside built up areas. Around 50% of cycle mileage in France is done outside built up areas. There has been no reduction in the French cyclist ksi as a result of the law.

And contrary to Steveindenmarks comments, motorcyclists are being made to wear hi-viz from next year in France and it has kicked up quite stink in the motorcycle community.


----------



## jdtate101 (18 May 2012)

If they MUST hand out Hi-Viz, then perhaps some free farnese vini kit?:


----------



## PK99 (18 May 2012)

simon.r said:


> I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A quote from a BBC News article talking about the increase in 'serious cycle crashes':
> 
> "_Officers said in two-thirds of cases, vehicle drivers were at fault and have begun a series of events to hand out high-visibility equipment to cyclists._"
> 
> ...


 
Would you have a similar view if police were pointing out the risk of bike theft and handing out vouchers for locks? 


> So, we have an acknowledgement that thieves were to blame. And the response is obviously not to address that issue, but to 'educate' cyclists


----------



## redcard (18 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> Would you have a similar view if police were pointing out the risk of bike theft and handing out vouchers for locks?



Don't be silly. 

Do you think rape victims should be given longer skirts?


----------



## simon.r (18 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> Would you have a similar view if police were pointing out the risk of bike theft and handing out vouchers for locks?


 
Yes, I think I would. We seem to be moving towards a culture of blaming the innocent.

Had your bike stolen? - that's your fault for not locking it up.
Had your car window smashed? - that's your fault for leaving your ipod on your car seat.
Been assaulted? - that's your fault for going into town on a Friday night.
Been mugged? - that's your fault for walking home alone at 3am.

I'm pragmatic enough to realise that it makes sense for me to lock my bike up, not leave my ipod on my car seat etc etc and I nearly always wear hi-viz when riding (my decision, for whatever reason). These things are all my personal choice, but if I choose not to do them I object strongly to being made to feel guilty if someone else steals my bike, smashes my window or knocks me off my bike.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that too much efort is put into coercing the innocent and not enough effort put into catching the guilty.

In the case of the OP there will be a number of police officers handing out the hi-viz gear. What I'd like these police officers to do instead would be to accompany a commuting cyclist, note the inevitable left-hooks, SMIDSYs, close passes etc then 'have a word' with the offending drivers. I think this would be more effective and importantly it would target the guilty, not the innocent.


----------



## PK99 (18 May 2012)

simon.r said:


> Yes, I think I would. We seem to be moving towards a culture of blaming the innocent.
> 
> Had your bike stolen? - that's your fault for not locking it up.
> Had your car window smashed? - that's your fault for leaving your ipod on your car seat.
> ...


 
You are confusing "blame" for past events with sensible advice regarding future safety.

When I was training as a Supporter for Victim Support the approach was that the crime always remains the responsibility of the criminal but that it was part of the Victim Support role to offer guidance to avoid folks becoming repeat victims. And it was sad just how many were repeat victims, not learning the harsh fact that there will always be some nasty people out there and it is wise to take sensible precautions - eg don't go to the cash machine and count your money on the street, do check the credentials of anyone arriving at the door "from the gas". don't walk through through the gang of yoofs in the park talking on your iphone etc etc

What guidance should i give to my 18 year old daughter?
"It is your right to walk a mile and a half home half cut from the train station along london streetsat 1am. Do it!"
or
"Get a taxi" ?


----------



## Silver Fox (18 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> You are confusing "blame" for past events with sensible advice regarding future safety.
> 
> When I was training as a Supporter for Victim Support the approach was that the crime always remains the responsibility of the criminal but that it was part of the Victim Support role to offer guidance to avoid folks becoming repeat victims. And it was sad just how many were repeat victims, not learning the harsh fact that there will always be some nasty people out there and it is wise to take sensible precautions - eg don't go to the cash machine and count your money on the street, do check the credentials of anyone arriving at the door "from the gas". don't walk through through the gang of yoofs in the park talking on your iphone etc etc


 
My thoughts exactly.

Ignorance can be bliss when it comes to crime prevention because bad things only happen to other people. We all have a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of ourselves and property because if we don't, sooner or later the criminal fraternity will take advantage.

My advice, get a taxi.


----------



## fossyant (18 May 2012)

When are the police going to hand out a few Exposure 6 packs then ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 May 2012)

redcard said:


> Don't be silly.
> 
> Do you think rape victims should be given longer skirts?


 
This is the second time this slightly disturbing analogy has been used in this thread.

If it has any merit, it lies only in shock value. In this context, the comparison seems as inappropriate as it is ill-considered.


----------



## Red Light (18 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is the second time this slightly disturbing analogy has been used in this thread.
> 
> If it has any merit, it lies only in shock value. In this context, the comparison seems as inappropriate as it is ill-considered.


 
I think your views are over-sensitive and in the minority. When I posted the analogy earlier in the thread I got 13 likes for it. The analogy is in any case relevant. In both cases the potential victims of serious assault are being blamed rather than the perpetrators.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> I think your views are over-sensitive and in the minority. When I posted the analogy earlier in the thread I got 13 likes for it. The analogy is in any case relevant. In both cases the potential victims of serious assault are being blamed rather than the perpetrators.


 
I'm happy to be in the minority on this one. I'm in a minority in my distaste for capital punishment, my admiration for David Byrne and my habit of putting apple in vegetable soups. 

Bike theft, RTCs and serious assault are all things that I've had more to do with than I should like. I see no appropriate comparison, but do not want to stand against thirteen 'likes' on a web forum; surely to do so would be the 21st-century mark of Cain.

I am clearly being oversensitive, but I will try to live with it.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I can't reference this, but in Cycling Today (that shows my age) there was a write-up by a guy who had travelled the same route with and without high visibility gear with similar results.
> 
> However there was a massive improvement in driver behaviour when he wore a black suit, silver buttons on the epaulettes and a Policeman's helmet.
> 
> The conclusion was that the best way to become visible was to look like a Police Officer!


 
Have'nt we been there with the hi-vis "polite" vests. Always got given more room when wearing that.


----------



## Grizzly (18 May 2012)

Like Boris I too have experience of being mistaken for the Police whilst ridding a motorbike, the only difference was what was written on the back of my jacket and the green and yellow squares on my vehicle opposed to blue and yellow that the Police have. The difference in driver attitudes towards me was unbelievable, polite manners, indicators and respectful driving all round. But most Police are aware of this as they don't drive marked vehicles 24/7. I would try and argue that surely this difference in attitudes towards bikers in different gear shows that drivers are aware of road users on two wheels, its their attitude that is different. The only thing that sticks in my head is that when ridding with blue lights and sirens going it is unbelievable how many road users were unaware of my presence. Then when they did eventually yield (sometimes after several miles) they would never look at you or attempt any sort of apology, they seemed to just grip their steering wheel tighter and stair straight ahead like a mad man, almost as if in denial of their stupidity. 
On the point of handing out Hi Viz, is there evidence to suggest that wearing it reduces the chance of being involved in an accident caused by a driver not seeing you? I can see someone suing the Police after they are hit by someone whilst wearing the Hi Viz they have been given. You know, "the Police mislead me into thinking I would be safer if I wore the Hi Viz they gave me".


----------



## redcard (18 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is the second time this slightly disturbing analogy has been used in this thread.
> 
> If it has any merit, it lies only in shock value. In this context, the comparison seems as inappropriate as it is ill-considered.



I'm sorry if my facetious comment caused you some disturbance.


----------



## steveindenmark (18 May 2012)

Red Light..I didn`t know about that in France, but I am not surprised.

I think motorcyclists fall into 2 groups on the whole. Sports bikes riders and touring riders. Most of the shouting will be coming from the sports bikes riders.

If Rossi comes out next season to race in a vis vest, all the sports bike riders will be wearing them 

Steve


----------



## dawesome (18 May 2012)

> Slutwalks
> This year Guardian readers and others have been debating the Slutwalk phenomenon. I won’t go into these debates here (personally, I don’t quite see how a word like “slut” can be “reclaimed”) except to note two key messages that Slutwalk supporters have been making. These are that:
> 1. There is no evidence to link the nature of a woman’s clothes with the chances of being assaulted.
> 2. Insofar as there *is* any connection between women’s clothing and the excuses made by rapists it is just that: excuses. Furthermore, if a belief system contains the idea that womens’ clothing is a key factor in generating rape, then that belief facilitates rape, is dangerous, and suggests that the belief system needs some critical evaluation.
> ...


 
The most basic rule of safe driving, in the Highway Code and elsewhere, is to “_*Never drive in such a way that you can not stop within visible distance*_“. But this is eroded, not just by failure to have proper speed limits and their compliance, but by the assumption that if motorists don’t “see” their victims, it is the victim’s fault. Whether by lengthening sight lines or other measures, the underlying belief system thrusts the onus of risk on to motorists actual or potential victims. It is not just a lack of speed control, or the failure to weed out motorists who can’t see where they are going. It is a general culture – promoted by the “road safety” lobby – that you don’t have to fulfil a responsibility to properly watch out for those you may hurt or kill. 

http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/06/of-slutwalks-and-hi-viz-the-politics-of-victim-blaming/


​


----------



## ufkacbln (18 May 2012)

I still feel uncomfortable with the responsibility of the individual to "avoid" crime.

If something is unsafe, should we look at making it safe, or avoiding it?

The end result are a series of ghettos and "No-Go" areas where the criminals rule and the innocent simply are not allowed. Then as the victims dry up, the crimonals move on to the next area, and the innocent are again advised "don't go to ******", again the criminal wins.

Surely the answer is to deal with the criminals?


----------



## ufkacbln (18 May 2012)

But, I digress.... back ti HiViz

Go to Tesco/Asda/Morrisons/Safeways and they will have risk assessments stating that HiViz is necessary in the car park for their employees.

How can they justify exposing members of the public to the same risks without such protection?

Surely the risk should dictate that they should make HiViz compulsory for shoppers negotiating the car park as well?


----------



## Recycler (18 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I still feel uncomfortable with the responsibility of the individual to "avoid" crime.
> 
> If something is unsafe, should we look at making it safe, or avoiding it?
> 
> ...


 
On that basis, do you not bother to lock your front door when you leave home?


----------



## Recycler (18 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> But, I digress.... back ti HiViz
> 
> Go to Tesco/Asda/Morrisons/Safeways and they will have risk assessments stating that HiViz is necessary in the car park for their employees.
> 
> ...


 
A company has different obligations (HASAW legislation) to its employees from those which it has towards customers.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> On that basis, do you not bother to lock your front door when you leave home?


 
Yes, but I do not hire armed security guards.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> A company has different obligations (HASAW legislation) to its employees from those which it has towards customers.


 
Exactly, but they still have a "Duty of Care" to the public.


----------



## Recycler (19 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Exactly, but they still have a "Duty of Care" to the public.


 
We're in danger of going round in circles here.......

You also have a "duty of care" to yourself. It seems to me that taking simple precautions to protect yourself from the known foolishness of others is a sensible thing to do. However, I also respect your decision to do nothing.

If you don't want to wear Hi viz or a helemt on your Brompton, that is fine by me. I don't think it wise, but it is your decision.

FWIW I don't think it is wise when I forget to use a helmet or to don Hi-Viz either.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> We're in danger of going round in circles here.......
> 
> You also have a "duty of care" to yourself. It seems to me that taking simple precautions to protect yourself from the known foolishness of others is a sensible thing to do. However, I also respect your decision to do nothing.
> 
> ...


 
The Duty of Care to oneself is integral to any safety system.

Which brings us back to the Supermarket Car Park.

Is there a failure to exercise that duty to protect yourself if you do not wear HiViz when negotiating the car park?


----------



## Recycler (19 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The Duty of Care to oneself is integral to any safety system.
> 
> Which brings us back to the Supermarket Car Park.
> 
> Is there a failure to exercise that duty to protect yourself if you do not wear HiViz when negotiating the car park?


 
We really have gone the full circle now!
If you've read my other postings you'll see that I do favour the use of Hi Viz even though I don't always wear it. I do think that it is sensible to use it so, in that sense, I suppose I would have to say that I think we have a duty to wear it.
On the other hand, that is only my thinking, I don't know if it has been tested in court, and I wouldn't really want to see its use being made compulsory though I wouldn't lose any sleep if it was.


----------



## Grizzly (20 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The Duty of Care to oneself is integral to any safety system.
> 
> Which brings us back to the Supermarket Car Park.
> 
> Is there a failure to exercise that duty to protect yourself if you do not wear HiViz when negotiating the car park?


 
I do hope that this point is being made to stimulate discussion and that you don't actually think we should have to wear Hi-Viz in a carpark. It's a simple case of the worker being exposed to the risk more often than the shopper so their is more risk to the worker. I have to wear PPE at work that the public don't need to wear in the same circumstances, purely because I am exposed to the risks far more often and therefore more likely to be involved in an incident.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 May 2012)

Grizzly said:


> I do hope that this point is being made to stimulate discussion and that you don't actually think we should have to wear Hi-Viz in a carpark. It's a simple case of the worker being exposed to the risk more often than the shopper so their is more risk to the worker. I have to wear PPE at work that the public don't need to wear in the same circumstances, purely because I am exposed to the risks far more often and therefore more likely to be involved in an incident.


 
It is a point for discussion.

It is also the fact that schools now promote HiViz for kids walking to school, but not for those walking often on the same road from a car.


----------



## Grizzly (21 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> It is a point for discussion.
> 
> It is also the fact that schools now promote HiViz for kids walking to school, but not for those walking often on the same road from a car.


 
We live in a society of people who want rights but without the responsibility. You know the type, "I have the right to drive but I'm not responsible for any accident". How many people have an accident and actually stand up and say "it was my fault"? So society tells the victims they should have done something different so as to prevent a re-occurrence, wear a Hi-Viz, don't walk down that alley. I fully support the argument that no one goes out in a car with the intention of killing, but that does not mean that person should not be held responsible for their actions, or more often lack of actions. To finish my point, cars aren't Hi-Viz so why should I have to be?


----------



## Recycler (21 May 2012)

Grizzly said:


> , cars aren't Hi-Viz so why should I have to be?


 
Nobody is saying that you have to wear Hi-Viz. However, it could be argued that, as we have to take responsibility for ourselves, it may be advisable to use Hi-Viz.


----------



## Dan B (21 May 2012)

Taking responsibility for oneself and taking responsibility for every other motorized idiot out there could be considered two quite different things.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> Taking responsibility for oneself and taking responsibility for every other motorized idiot out there could be considered two quite different things.


 

Which is the real point

The culture is unfortunately the opposite.

If only the same money, effort and evangelistic zeal was given to driver training that is given to campaigning for cyclists to "protect themselves" from the drivers who desperately need that training then the benefit would be far greater.


----------



## Sara_H (22 May 2012)

Seems to me that HiViz is going to be have to be added to the "Helmet and Headphones Debates" section.

For my two pennorth' we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists. I think we're in danger of getting into the same situation with the hiViz.


----------



## jdtate101 (22 May 2012)

I'll never wear Hi-Viz. I just find it really ugly, irrespective of the safety arguments, I just plain don't like the colour!!

I think the danger of this "blaming the victim" stance is that we will have a slow creep to Hi-Viz being a legal requirement for cycling on the road. I really hope this can be avoided, as it's just another nanny state approach to accident prevention, rather than addressing the real issue, which is the slipping standards in driving, and the increase in anger and rage on the roads.


----------



## Red Light (22 May 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> I'll never wear Hi-Viz. I just find it really ugly, irrespective of the safety arguments, I just plain don't like the colour!!
> 
> I think the danger of this "blaming the victim" stance is that we will have a slow creep to Hi-Viz being a legal requirement for cycling on the road. I really hope this can be avoided, as it's just another nanny state approach to accident prevention, rather than addressing the real issue, which is the slipping standards in driving, and the increase in anger and rage on the roads.


 
And anyway the evidence from France where it is a legal requirement for cyclists, is that it hasn't prevented any accidents.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

Sara_H said:


> Seems to me that HiViz is going to be have to be added to the "Helmet and Headphones Debates" section.
> 
> For my two pennorth' we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists. I think we're in danger of getting into the same situation with the hiViz.


 
I'm a cyclist who usually rides in a cotton cap. I've been knocked off while hatless and emergency services have been called.

I've had polite and well-meant advice from ambulance crews, the Police and the staff in A&E about wearing a helmet. I don't enjoy being advised to do things I don't want to do and see little need for, but we are all adults and worse things can be said.

Never having died, I haven't had a coroner's report written about me, but I have to say I do not feel this growing culture of 'victim blaming' that gets frequent mention.

Has there been a case in the UK where blame has been shifted in part or in whole onto the cycling party in a collision on the bsais that he/she was not wearing a helmet?

I ask in ignorance, not to prove a point. I shall be very happy to read of several cases where this has happened. I have never heard of one.


----------



## Sara_H (22 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm a cyclist who usually rides in a cotton cap. I've been knocked off while hatless and emergency services have been called.
> 
> I've had polite and well-meant advice from ambulance crews, the Police and the staff in A&E about wearing a helmet. I don't enjoy being advised to do things I don't want to do and see little need for, but we are all adults and worse things can be said.
> 
> ...


Yes, there was a link on here recently of a case of a gentleman who died after three seperate drivers all ran him over - they were all absolved of blame and the coroner commented that the gentleman may not have died had he been wearing a helmet. in fact it seems fairly clear that they were all driving too close and too fast for the conditions, otherwise they should have been able to avoid him.
I also read in fairly regularly in news reports of accidents detailed description of what the cyclist was wearing, no outright blam attatched, but the subliminal message is there. It shouldn't be an issue, so long as the cyclist is legally lit.
Whilst I agree that it's wise that cyclists should take sensible precautions, the starting point needs to be a massive re education/shift in focus whereby drivers should expect a cyclist or pedestrian to be using the road and drive accordingly - and I don't see that happening. At the moment as a society we drive as though roads are the sole preserve of those in motorised vehicles.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> I'll never wear Hi-Viz. I just find it really ugly, irrespective of the safety arguments, I just plain don't like the colour!!
> 
> I think the danger of this "blaming the victim" stance is that we will have a slow creep to Hi-Viz being a legal requirement for cycling on the road. I really hope this can be avoided, as it's just another nanny state approach to accident prevention, rather than addressing the real issue, which is the slipping standards in driving, *and the increase in anger and rage on the roads*.


 
Tee Hee.... Aren't you the person who posted about ripping an aerial off a car and throwing it across the bonnet.

I imagine that was done in something not unlike anger and rage. It also demonstrated (if true) alarmingly poor standards of conduct on the road... 

If my memory has let me down here and you did not post that tale, please forgive me for this terrible slander.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

Sara_H said:


> Yes, there was a link on here recently of a case of a gentleman who died after three seperate drivers all ran him over - they were all absolved of blame and the coroner commented that the gentleman may not have died had he been wearing a helmet. in fact it seems fairly clear that they were all driving too close and too fast for the conditions, otherwise they should have been able to avoid him.
> Whilst I agree that it's wise that cyclists should take sensible precautions, the starting point needs to be a massive re education/shift in focus whereby drivers should expect a cyclist or pedestrian to be using the road and drive accordingly - and I don't see that happening. At the moment as a society we drive as though roads are the sole preserve of those in motorised vehicles.


 
A link to the thread would be helpful, but from my reading of your post, the blame (or otherwise) for the collisions and the helmet issue seem unconnected.

A coroner cannot make a judgement about the cause of an accident on the basis of protective clothing. Saying the poor chap might have suffered different injuries had he been differently dressed has no connection with the apportioning (or otherwise) of culpability. 

You mentioned coroners and others using the 'he wasn't wearing a helmet' argument to shift the blame. This does not appear to be what happened here. Is there a case in the UK where culpability/blame for a collision was altered on the basis of protective clothing not being worn by a cyclist? 

I'm not one of the helmet crazies... I usually ride without one and I have no Hi-Viz although I like to wear bright colours.


----------



## Sara_H (22 May 2012)

http://road.cc/content/news/34847-c...ree-cars-should-have-worn-helmet-says-coroner


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

Sara_H said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/34847-c...ree-cars-should-have-worn-helmet-says-coroner


 
Thanks. That was illuminating. 

In this case (as far as one can tell through the unusual jounalistic style of the writer) the coroner made no link between the absence of a helmet and the causes of the collisions or his decision on same. He noted that the rider was helmetless and made some comments on the topic. This was not linked to his decision on the causes of the collisions.

The deceased appears not to have been blamed and his not wearing a helmet appears in no way to have affected the coroner's decision on culpability.

In that sense, the link you provided doesn't match your earlier statement: "...we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists"

I'd be very happy (in my ignorance) to read of a case in the UK where what I quote in red is shown to be the case. I suspect there is no such case, but I am wrong about most things.


----------



## Sara_H (22 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Thanks. That was illuminating.
> 
> In this case (as far as one can tell through the unusual jounalistic style of the writer) the coroner made no link between the absence of a helmet and the causes of the collisions or his decision on same. He noted that the rider was helmetless and made some comments on the topic. This was not linked to his decision on the causes of the collisions.
> 
> ...


 I read it very differently to you - but probably because I'm reading between the lines - I personally think that whats insinuated is as important a\s what is actually said.


----------



## dawesome (22 May 2012)

Unless you think a helmet offers protection from a car running you over at 40mph the comments about helmets are completely irrelevant. The coroner said:



> ​I do feel wearing a helmet would have increased Mr Honour’s chances of survival.​


 
Which is a load of old trousers. I think you're trolling boris.


----------



## Dan B (22 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Has there been a case in the UK where blame has been shifted in part or in whole onto the cycling party in a collision on the bsais that he/she was not wearing a helmet?


Not to my knowledge, but we're getting there:


> This High Court case concerned the liability for the serious injuries suffered by Robert Smith, a cyclist, following a collision with a motorbike ridden by Michael Finch.
> 
> The judge ruled that Finch was liable for the injuries sustained by Smith. He also ruled against an award of “contributory negligence” against Smith, as claimed by Finch, (which could have lead to a reduction in the compensation award to Smith by up to 15%) on the grounds that Smith had not been wearing a cycle helmet acknowledging that a helmet worn by Smith could not have been expected to prevent the particular injuries he suffered.
> 
> However in making this ruling, Mr Justice Griffith also commented that cyclists who are not wearing helmets when they suffer head injuries should in principle be held liable for those injuries if it can be shown (on the balance of probabilities) that a helmet would have prevented them.


http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence

It should be noted that far more cases are settled out of court than ever get there, and "you weren't wearing a helmet" is a pretty standard gambit for insurance companies to knock a significant percentage off their offer.


----------



## benb (22 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> Not to my knowledge, but we're getting there:
> 
> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence
> 
> It should be noted that far more cases are settled out of court than ever get there, and "you weren't wearing a helmet" is a pretty standard gambit for insurance companies to knock a significant percentage off their offer.


 
That makes me so angry. If someone was shot in a robbery, would they be liable for contributory negligence because they weren't wearing a bulletproof vest?


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> Which is a load of old trousers. I think you're trolling boris.


 
I'm not. I was querying a post that said "...we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists".

The coroner made that comment you offer, but it was not connected with the decision of the coroner in terms of blame or culpability for the collisions. It was an additional comment.

I do not defend the coroner or attempt to validate his comments. I simply separate them (as he did) from any attempt to shift the blame.

Dan B has understood the essence of my query and said he believes there is no such case. His argument that we are 'getting there' is well made.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> Not to my knowledge, but we're getting there:
> 
> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence
> 
> It should be noted that far more cases are settled out of court than ever get there, and "you weren't wearing a helmet" is a pretty standard gambit for insurance companies to knock a significant percentage off their offer.


 
This was an interesting read. I note that in both Smith/Finch and Jorgensen/Moor, the issue of helmets did not affect the verdict.

In the latter case, the absence of a helmet was offered and accepted in mitigation, which I find puzzling and up to a point wrong-headed.

I can well see why the comment (I paraphrase) in Smith/Finch was made by the judge that failure to wear a helmet may be seen as a contributary factor where injuries can be shown on balancce of probability to result from same. I disagree with it, but I disagree with most major decisions made by most UK Governments for most of my adult life.

What is significant to me is that in neither case is there an argument made that the absence of a helmet affected the decision on blame. I've said too much on this topic now (meaning I'll try to restrict myself to no more than seven further posts and only four mentions of my time as a motorcycle courier).


----------



## dawesome (22 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> The coroner made that comment you offer, but it was not connected with the decision of the coroner in terms of blame or culpability for the collisions. It was an additional comment.


 

Read it again. Where does the coroner lay the emphasis?

This is a steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users, shiny hi vis or helmets or ipods or age or youth or anything you can think of can be attributed a mythical status in discussing deaths on the roads so that a wistful "if only" scenario can be imagined where everyone's swaddled in cushions like a sumo wrestler every time they venture near the roads. It's a misplaced emphasis, the single most important factor in making roads safer is addressing driver behaviour,not peds or cyclists. Suppose you were cycling to work with a box in your front pannier and you hit an elderly person, killing them. In court, you say "They were in my blind spot!" Do you think the coroner would waffle on a load of old squit about how the pedestrian should have been wearing a plastic hat? After all, quite a large number of pedestrians' lives could be saved!


----------



## Dan B (22 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I can well see why the comment (I paraphrase) in Smith/Finch was made by the judge that failure to wear a helmet may be seen as a contributary factor where injuries can be shown on balancce of probability to result from same.


OK, I'll bite. If I were carrying a ladder down the pavement and, on turning round when a friend called my name, accidentally smacked you in the mouth with it causing you to lose a tooth, should your failure to wear a gum shield be regarded as a contributory factor? I would wager (although I would not wager very much) that you - and the judge - would regard this as an unusual event which you could not reasonably have mitigated against and find entirely in your favour.

Given that the risk of head injury in normal everyday cycling is roughly comparable to walking - i.e. basically negligible - why should the situation be any different for protective headwear than protective dental wear? The cyclist is not doing anything inherently risky, it's the idiot with the ladder analogy that brings the danger


----------



## benb (22 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> OK, I'll bite. If I were carrying a ladder down the pavement and, on turning round when a friend called my name, accidentally smacked you in the mouth with it causing you to lose a tooth, should your failure to wear a gum shield be regarded as a contributory factor? I would wager (although I would not wager very much) that you - and the judge - would regard this as an unusual event which you could not reasonably have mitigated against and find entirely in your favour.
> 
> Given that the risk of head injury in normal everyday cycling is roughly comparable to walking - i.e. basically negligible - why should the situation be any different for protective headwear than protective dental wear? The cyclist is not doing anything inherently risky, it's the idiot with the ladder analogy that brings the danger


True dat (as the kids say)


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> OK, I'll bite. If I were carrying a ladder down the pavement and, on turning round when a friend called my name, accidentally smacked you in the mouth with it causing you to lose a tooth, should your failure to wear a gum shield be regarded as a contributory factor? I would wager (although I would not wager very much) that you - and the judge - would regard this as an unusual event which you could not reasonably have mitigated against and find entirely in your favour.
> 
> Given that the risk of head injury in normal everyday cycling is roughly comparable to walking - i.e. basically negligible - why should the situation be any different for protective headwear than protective dental wear? The cyclist is not doing anything inherently risky, it's the idiot with the ladder analogy that brings the danger


 
I cannot advisie you on placing bets. 

Strangely, you cut from my post the sentence immediately following the passage you quoted. 

The whole paragraph reads: 

_ I can well see why the comment (I paraphrase) in Smith/Finch was made by the judge that failure to wear a helmet may be seen as a contributary factor where injuries can be shown on balancce of probability to result from same. I disagree with it, but I disagree with most major decisions made by most UK Governments for most of my adult life._

I highlighted in red my disagreement with the comment. I said only that I could see why the judge made it. 

What I do see is a tendency in some quarters for some establishment figures to make unusual and occasionally inappropriate mention of the absence of protective headgear following an RTC.

What I do not see is dawesome's "steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users" or Sarah-H's  "motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists".

I realise that I may be in a tiny minority on this, but I write as a keen (usually helmetless) cyclist and the father of three keen teenage cyclists. I find some of the language and arguments offered in this debate slightly melodramatic.

I've been cycling for forty years (London and rural Herefordshire) and have suffered no steady erosion of my rights. Nor, when I or anyone I know has been walloped by a car when helmetless, has any authority or insurer tried to shift the blame in my direction.

I do find the judge's comments unusual and I do disagree with them. Nonetheless, I can see why he spoke as he did.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> Read it again. Where does the coroner lay the emphasis?


 
I've read it again. It is not the coroner's report; it is the report of an inquest as published on an online cyclists' website.

It is not clear where the coroner lay the emphasis.

I accept that I may be wrong in my blindness to the steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users that you detect. I find the notion risible, but I may be wrong and can live with that if I am.

I have been wrong many times.


----------



## Dan B (22 May 2012)

For the avoidance of doubt, is "I can see why he spoke as he did" being used here to mean "he is holding a defensible position but not one that I agree with" or "I can see that he must be ill-informed on this subject"? I interpreted your comment to mean the former, but it now occurs to me that you might simply be assuming that the judge was an idiot and that his comment was entirely explicable in that light - in which case we are much closer to agreement


----------



## dawesome (22 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I find the notion risible


 

Why don't you forget the whimsy and stupid smileys and say why. Otherwise there's not much point. Just saying "That's risible" is trolling. What would you think of a coroner who made the comments I posted?


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> For the avoidance of doubt, is "I can see why he spoke as he did" being used here to mean "he is holding a defensible position but not one that I agree with" or "I can see that he must be ill-informed on this subject"? I interpreted your comment to mean the former, but it now occurs to me that you might simply be assuming that the judge was an idiot and that his comment was entirely explicable in that light - in which case we are much closer to agreement


 
Gosh. I disagree with his comments. I was explicit in saying so more than once.

Nonetheless, I accept that he may have made them as a result of drawing on sources that I may not weight as he weights them. I cannot say what his thinking is; I can only comment on what is quoted of what he said.

I do not find him an idiot. In my estimation, he is wrong on this point. 

He may not be ill-informed; he may simply think in a way that differs from our thinking or he may choose his sources as selectively as many of us do.


----------



## Red Light (22 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Has there been a case in the UK where blame has been shifted in part or in whole onto the cycling party in a collision on the bsais that he/she was not wearing a helmet?
> 
> I ask in ignorance, not to prove a point. I shall be very happy to read of several cases where this has happened. I have never heard of one.


 
In all the cases involving riding on the road the Courts have not found a cyclist to blame for not wearing a helmet although the precedent is set that they could be if the defendant could prove it would have made a difference. There has been one case where damages were reduced because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet but that was in a competitive race at a company away-day, not riding on the road with traffic.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> Why don't you forget the whimsy and stupid smileys and say why. Otherwise there's not much point. Just saying "That's risible" is trolling. What would you think of a coroner who made the comments I posted?


 
OK. I'll try to say why. I might add that a coroner wouldn't have posted as you did.

The notion I find risible is the one that there is a steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users. I will try to explain why.

First, I find the language slightly melodramatic and (in this contecxt) unhelpful. I have some knowledge of areas where rights have been eroded. I do not find this to be one of them. It's a pretty serious thing to write and I find it a little over-egged. You may disagree.

Secondly, I find it inaccurate. I am a frequently-helmetless and always-enthusiastic cyclist. I am what you might refer to as a vulnerable road user, but by choice. I do not feel that I have any fewer rights as a cyclist than I did ten, twenty, thirty or forty years ago. Nor do I find that those rights I enjoy have been narrowed in scope or somehow lessened.

If I'd felt (or observed) that there had been any diminution in the rights of cyclists over the decades, I would not have encouraged my three children to ride. They ride both in Central London and the sticks. I would be a cruel man if I encouraged that behaviour against a background of diminishing rights.

I find most other road users to be courteous, skilled and thoughtful. I have no more 'close passes' or 'near things' now than I did in any of the earlier decades when I was riding. It is not ideal, but it has not changed.

I've been hit many times by other road users and on occasion the emergency services have attended. The last one was a couple of years ago. A little old lady caught me as she came out of a supermarket. I thought she's seen me but she swept out behind me as I passed and took my rear wheel. I was hurt and was at the scene for a long time. Both the police officer and the ambulance crew who attended noted that I was helmetless. Nonetheless, they could see that the collision was not my fault in any way. My rights were not being eroded. My health and wellbeing were being addressed and comment I disagreed with was offered.

I do not know a single cyclist (and I know many) who has told me that his or her rights as a vulnerable road user are being eroded.

That's why I find the notion risible. I may be wrong. Most poster ask me for less comment and explanation, not more.


----------



## Sara_H (22 May 2012)

The point is - it the fact that you were helmetless shouldn't even be comment worthy - the fact that it is, by coroners, police, press and the public at large indicates an undercurrent that in some way a helmetless rider has contributed to their own msfortune - when of course they haven't.
I see us going the same way with hiviz.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

Sara_H said:


> The point is - it the fact that you were helmetless shouldn't even be comment worthy - the fact that it is, by coroners, police, press and the public at large indicates an undercurrent that in some way a helmetless rider has contributed to their own msfortune - when of course they haven't.
> I see us going the same way with hiviz.


 
I see that you and others think that way and I find it a very reasonable notion as you put it. I disagree, but I may be wrong.

I have little doubt that in tenty years (if I get that far) I'll be riding quite legally along the same roads, similarly helmetless and Hi-Viz-less and attracting no more or fewer wry comments than I do today, or than I have for the past several years.

I think that by then there will be fewer cars and more cyclists, but that as a function of our failing economy and the rising cost of fuel.


----------



## Dan B (22 May 2012)

Sara_H said:


> The point is - it the fact that you were helmetless shouldn't even be comment worthy


Absolutely. You don't expect "you should have had your sidelights on" or "you weren't wearing a nomex suit" comments when you get hit in a car.


----------



## dawesome (22 May 2012)

I'm confused, you've still ignored my question about the coroner's comments? What would your opinion of the coroner's comments be, especially as they could have implications for your insurance payout were you to suffer injuries on a helmetless ride? In other words, why is the onus placed on cyclists in accidents to take measures that would protect car occupants just as much?

How much was your insurance payout in the incident you described, by the way? Are you saying your lack of a helmet wasn't cited? Did you have a head injury?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (22 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> Not to my knowledge, but we're getting there:
> 
> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence


 
_"However in making this ruling, Mr Justice Griffith also commented that cyclists who are not wearing helmets when they suffer head injuries should in principle be held liable for those injuries if it can be shown (on the balance of probabilities) that a helmet would have prevented them."_

Good grief. By that logic, if I were walking along and a car mounted the pavement and hit me, I could be considered negligent if I weren't wearing one of these:





It would likely (on the balance of probabilities) have prevented my injuries!


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> I'm confused, you've still ignored my question about the coroner's comments? What would your opinion of the coroner's comments be, especially as they could have implications for your insurance payout were you to suffer injuries on a helmetless ride? In other words, why is the onus placed on cyclists in accidents to take measures that would protect car occupants just as much?
> 
> How much was your insurance payout in the incident you described, by the way? Are you saying your lack of a helmet wasn't cited? Did you have a head injury?


 
1. I didn't intentionally ignore your questions. I thought I'd addressed them. I do not know the full version of the coroner's comments. I do not know where the emphasis lay in his comments. The point about the blind spot on a bicycle caused by a box or similar seemed rhetorical and out of context.

2. As I cycle without a helmet, I dare say a coroner would question that at an inquest if I were to be severely or terminally bashed up in an RTC. One of the reasons I rarely wear a helmet is that I've never suffered a serious head injury while performing an unplanned dismount from a bicycle. I've had a few facial bashes and still have scars from over a decade ago, but nothing that a helmet would have helped with. I'm not sure why you ask this.

3. Thje onus isn't placed on cyclists to take measures that would protect car occupants just as much. Some judges and coroners have commented on the absence or presence of a helmet in a collision.

4. I didn't seek a pay-out for medical care. I had my bicycle fixed and got a new face for my watch and new sunglasses. I still have a weak right shoulder and some discomfort when lifting above my head, but for me that's all part of getting middle aged. I had no head injury. It didn't go to court. I was sent a form by the constabulary asking whether I'd support a prosecution and I said I wouldn't. She wasn't prosecuted, although I imagine mine was not the decicive opinion.

If you want a fuller answer to your question about the coroner's comments, I'll be happy to oblige if you repeat for me. This is a long thread and I've slightly lost the plot.


----------



## Recycler (22 May 2012)

I'd be curious to know what rights have really been reduced for cyclists.

As far as I can see, if anything, we have more rights than a few years ago. We certainly have more access with the growth of off-highway cycle paths, we have greater provision of cycle lanes, we have protected areas at traffic lights. We even have tax savings thought the CTW scheme. None of this was available not so many years ago. We now even have a political will to encourage cycling and many companies actively support it too. During that time we have had no compulsory licencing, training, insurance or even compulsory crash helmets and high-viz despite the increases in road traffic. 

The only thing that I can think has changed, and some people seem to think is a retrograde step, is that crash helmets and high viz are now available (30 years ago they hardly existed) and the Highway Code now recommends their use.


----------



## dawesome (25 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> 1. I didn't intentionally ignore your questions. I thought I'd addressed them. . The point about the blind spot on a bicycle caused by a box or similar seemed rhetorical and out of context.
> .


 
What would you think if you collided with and killed a pedestrian whilst cycling a cargo bike with a blind spot. You claimed the notion that cyclists' rights were eroded was "risible", so I'm asking what response you'd expect if you offered the "blind spot" excuse. Do you think this would be the result?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...ead-cyclist-svitlana-tereschenko-7711231.html

We both you your excuse would not be accepted. Unless you are claiming you would be let off without a single charge in the incident described I can't see how you think there isnothing wrong with how the justice system treats deaths on the roads.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> What would you think if you collided with and killed a pedestrian whilst cycling a cargo bike with a blind spot. You claimed the notion that cyclists' rights were eroded was "risible", so I'm asking what response you'd expect if you offered the "blind spot" excuse. Do you think this would be the result?
> 
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...ead-cyclist-svitlana-tereschenko-7711231.html
> 
> We both you your excuse would not be accepted. Unless you are claiming you would be let off without a single charge in the incident described I can't see how you think there isnothing wrong with how the justice system treats deaths on the roads.


 
Sir ,

You've twice suggested in this thread that I'm a troll. I have no idea why. 

I continue to find risible the notion that the rights of vulnerable road users have been (and are being) eroded.

I find the hypothetical cargo-bike scenario you present unusual. 

I do not for a moment suggest that there is nothing wrong with how the justice system treats deaths on the roads (this with no reference to the case you cite). Far from it. I doubt whether there is a road user alive who finds it perfect in all respects. What I suggest is that your assertion about the erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users is risible.

In order for an erosion of rights to have occured, those rights must have started at a certain level and dropped to a lower level over time. I find that they have not. I think my position as a vulnerable road user is rather stronger than it was forty, thirty, twenty and even ten years ago. Things could be better, but there has been no erosion.

You appear to believe that there has been. I wish you well.


----------



## dawesome (25 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Sir ,
> 
> You've twice suggested in this thread that I'm a troll. I have no idea why.
> 
> ...


 

What's your view on the coroner's remarks in my hypothecation please?

Fourth time, I know you think my contention is risible so presumably you accept that there should have been no charges in Svitlana's tragic death. Ignoring points is what trolls do, why do you keep ignoring this point?

How come? Isn't the fact that a driver can be chatting on a mobile and fail to see someone nine feet in front of them and run them over and kill them and face no charges anomalous?

Twenty years ago mobile phones were uncommon, they're a recent development and the law hasn't caught up with their use, I see drivers who are as distracted and dangerous as if they were drunk every day, chatting on mobiles whilst driving. You didn't see that twenty years ago. And judging from the comparison of the number of drivers who admit using a mobile whilst driving with the number of convictions and we seem to be barely responding to the problem, only around 4% of these criminals are detected.

So, what you'll have to do is explain why drivers on mobiles do not pose a risk and do not make the roads more dangerous. Good luck with that.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 May 2012)

What I'll have to do is not a matter for you. 

You and I might both need to get out a little more.


----------



## dawesome (25 May 2012)

Ok, that's the fifth time you've dodged the question, but you're not a troll, mmmkay.

Cycling is more popular, more people are doing it, it's been pushed up the political agenda, but pretending there isn't a powerful lobby group working against cycling is naive. We have a few beardies from the CTC or Cycle England or whatever, they have the motoring lobby group, insurers and politicians like the fat idiot Mike Penning and his highly dodgy ant-cycling views. They also have the IAM, I'm sure you saw their recent dodgy survey that demonises cyclists.



> The 'Head of Road Safety' at the IAM is Kevin Delaney, an ex senior police officer who also has a very car-centric view of the rights and responsibilities of road users. Previously Delaney was Road Safety Manager for the RAC Foundation for Motoring, yet another group lobbying for a car-centric view of 'road safety'.
> 
> (When he was with the RAC Foundation Delaney was one of those orchestrating the barrage of outrage ten years ago when it looked like the UK would be forced to adopt the European-wide policy of allowing cyclists injured in collisions involving a motor vehicle to claim against a driver's insurance without having to prove fault. This was proposed in response to the fact that in approaching 70% of collisions between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, the driver is at fault, the huge amount of resistance insurance companies show to paying out to injured cyclists even when their client was clearly at fault and so forth.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> Read it again. Where does the coroner lay the emphasis?
> 
> This is a steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users, shiny hi vis or helmets or ipods or age or youth or anything you can think of can be attributed a mythical status in discussing deaths on the roads so that a wistful "if only" scenario can be imagined where everyone's swaddled in cushions like a sumo wrestler every time they venture near the roads. It's a misplaced emphasis, the single most important factor in making roads safer is addressing driver behaviour,not peds or cyclists. Suppose you were cycling to work with a box in your front pannier and you hit an elderly person, killing them. In court, you say "They were in my blind spot!" *Do you think the coroner would waffle on a load of old squit about how the pedestrian should have been wearing a plastic hat?* After all, quite a large number of pedestrians' lives could be saved!


 
OK. Answer on the way. I don't want to get sucked into discussions about articles you've mentioned since asking the question. Each case is different. 

It is hard to guess what a hypothetical coroner might have to say about a hypothetical and highly unlikely situation the like of which I've never witnessed. I'll have a go:

1. If I could demonstrate that the pedestrian was in a blind spot while I was riding with a safe load and the visibility I could expect to have if riding within the safe-loading parameters set by the manufacturer, I would expect a coroner to include that in his decision. 

2. I do not think the fictional coroner would speak as you ask in his fictional comment. I'd already said in the thread that I found some comments from judges or coroners about cycle helmets unhelpful and inappropriate. 

I fully accept that some road users put other road users at risk. I'm a cyclist; I frequently see drivers in traffic tapping away at an SMS on their lap. What I do not accept is that the rights of vulerable road users are being eroded.


----------



## dawesome (25 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I fully accept that some road users put other road users at risk. I'm a cyclist; I frequently see drivers in traffic tapping away at an SMS on their lap. What I do not accept is that the rights of vulerable road users are being eroded.


 
As I said, mobile phones are a recent phenomenon, they didn't exist twenty years ago, they are a distraction and the practise is relatively unpoliced. That's an example of how things have got worse for cyclists. Take the explosion in traffic use in the last twenty years, way over and above any increase in cycling rates. In London policies are being pursued at the expense of cyclists, that's a fact, a situation you denied existed and claimed the suggestion was "risible". 

The prioritising of motor traffic over all other considerations like facilities for pedestrians or cyclists, the stated aim of the mayor of our capital is to make things smoother (read faster) for motor vehicles. That's an erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> As I said, mobile phones are a recent phenomenon, they didn't exist twenty years ago, they are a distraction and the practise is relatively unpoliced. That's an example of how things have got worse for cyclists. Take the explosion in traffic use in the last twenty years, way over and above any increase in cycling rates. In London policies are being pursued at the expense of cyclists, that's a fact, a situation you denied existed and claimed the suggestion was "risible".
> 
> The prioritising of motor traffic over all other considerations like facilities for pedestrians or cyclists, the stated aim of the mayor of our capital is to make things smoother (read faster) for motor vehicles. That's an erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users.


 
I was cycling to school along Stamford Street in the mid-70s. There were no mobile phones in the 70s*, but there were drivers looking for cassettes, looking for their ciggies, tuning their radios, looking at their A-Z, tidying their make-up. There were plenty of distractions even then. 

I'm not sure what your 'explosion in traffic use' is. What is an explosion in traffic use? Does it hurt? We may never know.

I made no mention of policies being pursued in London at the expense of cyclists. You did that. What I said I found risible was your assertion that the rights of vulnerable road users are being eroded. I explained why when you asked me to and nothing has changed my mind since. I base this on forty years of cycling in and around London.

I rode up to Camden Town and Canonbury and out into Leyton, Ilford and Stratford to visit friends as a teenager. There was no Congestion Charge. It was more crowded on Kingsway and S'oton Row than it is now. Essex Road was a racetrack. It is safer riding in the CC zone now.

There were far fewer concessions to cyclists from UK urban planners in the 1970s and 1980s than there are now. I do not for one moment contest that the current situation is ideal. It is clearly not. What is clear to me is that the rights of vulneable road users are not being eroded and have not been in the time I've been cycling.

I fear we have to leave it there. I rather like things as they are and find that my rights are better protected and my interests better served as a cyclist than they were ten, twenty, thirty or forty years ago.

You think otherwise. 

* (Although I'm not sure what gives you the idea they didn't exist twenty years ago).


----------



## dawesome (25 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I made no mention of policies being pursued in London at the expense of cyclists. You did that. What I said I found risible was your assertion that the rights of vulnerable road users are being eroded.


 
The stated aims of the policies pursued by Boris in London is prioritise motor traffic over cyclists and pedestrians. Warnings about dangerous junctions were ignored and cyclists have been killed. In what way is this erosion of cyclists' rights convincing you that it is nothing of the kind? You asked why I feel this erosion has taken place, I've provided examples. Do you think marginalising cyclists is NOT an erosion of their rights?


----------



## dawesome (25 May 2012)

> A spokesperson told me that in the past three years City Police issued 12 fixed penalties to motorists for entering ASZs unlawfully.
> 
> 
> Yet in the same period it handed out just over 6,000 fixed penalties to cyclists for jumping red lights.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/24/safety-red-lights-cyclists

Once you allow for the different numbers of motor vehicles and cyclists on the roads, that policing makes no sense at all. The cops spend their time policing the road users least likely to hurt anyone. How can you claim that's not a backward step? It's regressive and silly, a complete waste of resources.

Is there an antipathy within the police to cyclists? Remember the chap who was strangled to the point of black-out by a taxi driver, and when the cops got there they arrested the cyclist?


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> The stated aims of the policies pursued by Boris in London is prioritise motor traffic over cyclists and pedestrians. Warnings about dangerous junctions were ignored and cyclists have been killed. In what way is this erosion of cyclists' rights convincing you that it is nothing of the kind? You asked why I feel this erosion has taken place, I've provided examples. Do you think marginalising cyclists is NOT an erosion of their rights?


 
You win. A few tragic deaths prove everything you've been saying. How can I have been so blind?

I continue to disagree with you about this erosion of rights that you see. But I am wrong.

Luckily for me, in my ignorance I do not associate the tragic and too-fequent sqidging of cyclists with an erosion of rights.

That way I can keep riding happily as I have been for forty years, in city and countryside alike.

I'll leave it to you and others who think as you do to get jolly cross about the erosion of my rights.

If I'm *very* lucky, your melodramatic Internet cant about eroded rights will bring about a massive step change in urban planning and traffic will suddenly become as lovely as it was before this alleged erosion began. I can hardly wait. How will I know when it's happened?

Sadly, as a myopic fool who is unable to see the erosion in the first place, I'll have no idea how much you've done for me.

I lose. Badly. As always.

In the meantime, I'l keep pootling around in blithe ignorance and continue to encorage my children to do so too. My daughter (working abroad) just skyped and suggested a bicycle tour of Serbia when she gets home. Should we look out for erosion there, too? 

What will it look like? And will it be in Cyrillic?


----------



## dawesome (25 May 2012)

school


Boris Bajic said:


> You win. A few tragic deaths prove everything you've been saying. How can I have been so blind?


 

Errr, that's not what I'm saying at all, and lay off the sarcasm. I'm attacking your idea, not you personally.

I'm saying that with traf pol numbers slashed and ever more elaborate hand held devices on the market cyclists are more at risk.



> *The number of young drivers checking social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter while on the roads has increased by 50 per cent in the last year, according to the RAC.*


 
This is a recent distraction, nobody checked Facebook whilst they drove twenty years ago.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 May 2012)

But you win. I lose. It's over.

I know you're not attacking me; nor were you when you called me a troll. Twice. It's just the idea you were attacking.

And may I say you attacked it very well. I quite understand. I disagreed with you and I was wrong to do so. 

I made the inexcusable error of calling a notion of yours risible and I see now that it was sage, brilliant and full of clarity and truth.

I was naughty to take the tone I did. I realise now that it sounded mocking. It was childish of me.

Everything you've written on this thread has been right. I am the one who should be mocked. 

And I should stop using stupid smileys.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> My daughter (working abroad) just skyped and suggested a bicycle tour of Serbia when she gets home. Should we look out for erosion there, too?


 
sounds like a great idea.

I've only cycled in slovenia and in a tiny bit of Croatia (where the border post was in the middle of a car park I was lost in, very odd)

What's the cycling like in serbia?


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 May 2012)

I think it sounds slightly barking as an idea, but I like to encourage a sense of adventure in my loved ones.

I've lived and worked in Serbia but never cycled there. If we go, it will be a new thing to me. 

I used to cycle to my office in the RS entity of Bosnia, which in many ways is 'Serbia outside Serbia' (but don't say I said that).

My general impression of cycling in the western Balkans is that motorists may not be expecting to find a cyclist in their path and may react unusually.

How was the cycling in Slovenia?


----------



## Recycler (25 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> The prioritising of motor traffic over all other considerations like facilities for pedestrians or cyclists, the stated aim of the mayor of our capital is to make things smoother (read faster) for motor vehicles. That's an erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users.


 
I'm not sure where you get this idea of the erosion of rights for cyclists from.

There are far more cyclists on the roads than there were 20 or 30 years ago and there is far more provison of cycle paths and cycle lanes. Traffic levels everywhere have increased but, to be honest, I can't think of one right that has been removed.

It would help your case if you were to provide evidence to support it.


----------



## dawesome (25 May 2012)

How high was the percentage of drivers checking their facebook status twenty years ago?


----------



## Recycler (25 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> How high was the percentage of drivers checking their facebook status twenty years ago?


 
????? Ugh?
For that matter, and equally irrelevant, what percentage of cyclists RLJ'd 20 years ago?

More relevant, what cyclist rights have been eroded?


----------



## dawesome (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> ????? Ugh?
> For that matter, and equally irrelevant, what percentage of cyclists RLJ'd 20 years ago?


 
It's not "equally irrelevant" because rljing by cyclists has NEVER featured as a significant factor in rtcs. Drivers on mobiles killed 11 people last year.


----------



## dawesome (26 May 2012)

Who are the two politicians with the most influence over cycling in the UK? Bozza and Mike Penning, the Transport Sec:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment...governed-dimwits?cat=environment&type=article




> *Peter Walker*
> guardian.co.uk, Fri 25 May 2012 16.10 BST
> Blogpost
> That's it. I give up. It's the final straw. I spent years hoping, in the face of the evidence, that one day cyclists in Britain would get a fair hearing by government. I was deluded.
> ...


 

The two most influential politicians with regard to cycling come out with an absolute load of old bilgewater that demonises cyclists and says if they get killed it's their fault.

But there's nothing wrong with cyclists' rights, nothing to see, move along.


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

Dawesome,

You still haven't said what cyclists rights have been eroded.

Nobody wants to see cyclists, or any other road user killed or injured, but you seem to think that if somebody is harmed then some "right" has been infringed. Nobody has conferred a right to injure cyclists on drivers, or anyone else.


----------



## Red Light (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Dawesome,
> 
> You still haven't said what cyclists rights have been eroded.
> 
> Nobody wants to see cyclists, or any other road user killed or injured, but you seem to think that if somebody is harmed then some "right" has been infringed. Nobody has conferred a right to injure cyclists on drivers, or anyone else.


 
The most basic of the Human Rights, the right to life? The lack of enforcement of a person's right to be protected if their life is at risk is an infringement of their Human Rights.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I think it sounds slightly barking as an idea, but I like to encourage a sense of adventure in my loved ones.
> 
> I've lived and worked in Serbia but never cycled there. If we go, it will be a new thing to me.
> 
> ...


rather lovely. I wasn't on a cycling holiday per se, rather we were staying for two weeks in someone's winter skiing retreat just west of Bled. so long as I stayed off the main MAIN roads all was good. Lubjana was quite a cycling friendly city iirc.


----------



## dawesome (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Dawesome,
> 
> You still haven't said what cyclists rights have been eroded.


 
It doesn't trouble you when two of the most prominent politicians with influence over cycling are exposed as not having a frigging clue about the dangers or safety of cycling? Traf pol numbers slashed, police admitting they do not enforce ASLs or 20 mph speed limits, whilst targeting cyclists for the exact same breach?
Think about your average day, maybe you see someone throw litter, spray graffiti, shoplift, whatever.
I bet you any money you like the most flagrant breaches of the law that you see are on the roads. Speeding, chatting on a mobile, side swiping, tail gating, checking facetube whilst at the wheel, whatever.

It sounds like I'm on a massive downer about cycling, I'm not, it's relatively safe, you're as likely to win the lottery as get killed on a bike, but anyone who thinks things have got better for cyclists is barmy, in thirty years of doing at least 3000 miles a year the roads have got far more unpleasant and drivers have a whole new range of in-car distractions. Meanwhile the cops ignore drivers who break the law.


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> The most basic of the Human Rights, the right to life? The lack of enforcement of a person's right to be protected if their life is at risk is an infringement of their Human Rights.


 
So every car driver who dies on the roads has had his Human Rights removed? Every accident at work is a Human Rights matter?

You clearly don't understand what Human Rights Legislation is all about. It has nothing to do with the safety of cyclists, motorists or pedestrians or even workers.


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> in thirty years of doing at least 3000 miles a year the roads have got far more unpleasant and drivers have a whole new range of in-car distractions. Meanwhile the cops ignore drivers who break the law.


 
The thing that has really changed in that time is that traffic volumes and the size of the vehicle population have increased. That is why the roads are arguably more unpleasant....for cyclists, car drivers and goods vehicle drivers.

At the same time the authorities have, for environmental and PC reasons, attempted to improve things for cyclists. Arguably not enough, but I can honestly say that, in my view, there is far more provision for bikes than there was thirty years ago.

On your other point, yes, I see drivers flouting the law all the time. I also see cyclists doing the same. RLJ, riding on pavements, riding the wrong way on one way streets, no lights, sometimes speeding (!), ...........I've been guilty of it all myself.


----------



## dawesome (26 May 2012)

> Who protects the human rights of cyclists? Writing here and in The Times following the serious injury of journalist Mary Bowers, Channel 4 News Presenter Jon Snow calls for urgent action.
> 
> Cyclists are in a fine position to observe what's going on our roads. The dominant creature on the urban road is the single-occupancy car. One person in motorised 60 square foot metal box.
> And what are we? One person on a thin strip of mineral with two wheels. One has the power, the presence, and the rights; the other is deprived of all three. Is that equality under the law?
> ...


 

http://www.channel4.com/news/jon-snows-manifesto-for-safer-cycling

I oppose segregation, but Snow is right about the imbalance on the roads. The media (and the politicians cited above) take on a "cyclists are asking for it" attitude, hence we get stupid remarks about helmets in newspapers covering the death of a cyclist hit by a lorry, where a helmet wouldn't make an iota of difference. Forty years ago people would say a woman was "asking" to be raped if she wore a short skirt, we see similar attitudes towards cyclists today. 



> The press and public opinion go hand in hand. The media can influence public opinion, but at the same time, they pander to popular opinion. Newspaper columnists know if they write an anti-cyclist piece it will get the support of the anti-cyclist public, and sell newspapers.​
> When ​Matthew Parris wrote in the London Times,​ advocating decapitation of cyclists with piano wire, there was an outcry from the cycling community, but little support from the general public. ​
> Mr. Parris is not the only one to have written such inflammatory anti-cyclist articles. If these journalists used the words, Black, Jew, or Moslem in the place of “Cyclist” they would have been hauled off to jail. ​Just read any online rant by someone on a blog or forum concerning cyclists, and they inevitably start talking about the skin tight shorts, those ridiculous shoes, and of Lance Armstrong wanna-bes. Totally irrelevant to the original complaint, but showing that all too human trait, to hate those perceived a little different.​​
> Viewed in this light, isn’t the whole issue of people riding bikes on public roads a human rights issue? Cyclists are human, and they have a definite right to be on the road. Yet I have never heard of a cycling advocate pursuing it in this light, or a lawyer arguing that a cyclist’s civil rights were violated.​​


 
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/human-rights.html

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement [...]"
"Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Is Urban Mobility a basic human right?

Do we not have the right to move about the urban landscape as we see fit? It has been so for most of human history, after all.


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> clip, clip clip
> Is Urban Mobility a basic human right?
> 
> Do we not have the right to move about the urban landscape as we see fit? It has been so for most of human history, after all.


 
Other than to say that everyone has an equal right, within reason, to move around as they see fit we'll have to agree to differ.


----------



## dawesome (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Other than to say that everyone has an equal right, within reason, to move around as they see fit we'll have to agree to differ.


 
On which point are we differing? I'd say it's obvious that we have a right to move around urban centres in whatever way we feel is best, but if the police, legal system and administration of the country have a bias toward one method of transport over another then it's not a level playing field. And so long as the media carry articles like Parris's that call for cyclists to be decapitated or James Martin boasts of using his vehicle as a weapon against cyclists then we've a long way to go.


----------



## Red Light (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> So every car driver who dies on the roads has had his Human Rights removed? Every accident at work is a Human Rights matter?
> 
> You clearly don't understand what Human Rights Legislation is all about. It has nothing to do with the safety of cyclists, motorists or pedestrians or even workers.


 
Neither apparently do the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

_This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means that you have the right to be protected if your life is at risk._​​_Similarly, public authorities should consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or which affect your life expectancy._​_http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...an-rights/the-human-rights-act/right-to-life/_​


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> On which point are we differing? .


 
That this is anything to do with Human Rights.


----------



## dawesome (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> That this is anything to do with Human Rights.


 
Pretty fundamental human right, isn't it recycler? To travel to work and not get squished?


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Neither apparently do the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
> 
> _This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means that you have the right to be protected if your life is at risk._​​_Similarly, public authorities should consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or which affect your life expectancy._​_http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...an-rights/the-human-rights-act/right-to-life/_​


 
If you really believe that your interpretaion of EHRC means that cyclists are having their human rights eroded then I suggest that you take the Authorities, or whoever you think is doing this, to court.

My only concern is that cyclists, moaning about Human Rights in this way, is likely to put peoples backs up. The very people we need to influence will simply roll their eyes and start complaining about their right to be able to move around on the roads.
The next thing we'll have is car drivers complaining that their human rights are being eroded because other motorists, who may crash into them, are allowed on the road when they want to travel.


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

dawesome said:


> Pretty fundamental human right, isn't it recycler? To travel to work and not get squished?


 
Fine. If you believe that you have a case, just take them to Court. Till then, as you don't want to agree to differ, we'll just have to disagree and differ.


----------



## Red Light (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> If you really believe that your interpretaion of EHRC means that cyclists are having their human rights eroded then I suggest that you take the Authorities, or whoever you think is doing this, to court.



Already in progress



> My only concern is that cyclists, moaning about Human Rights in this way, is likely to put peoples backs up. The very people we need to influence will simply roll their eyes and start complaining about their right to be able to move around on the roads.
> The next thing we'll have is car drivers complaining that their human rights are being eroded because other motorists, who may crash into them, are allowed on the road when they want to travel.



It seems like its you that doesn't understands Human Rights.


----------



## dawesome (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Fine. If you believe that you have a case, just take them to Court. Till then, as you don't want to agree to differ, we'll just have to disagree and differ.


 
Take who to court? 

What about the example of London, Boris pursues a policy to "Smooth traffic flow"- ie motor traffic. He also comes out with that bullshit upthread about cyclists being at fault in accidents. So in London, have cyclists' rights been enhanced or eroded? I'd say eroded, who do I sue? You can think a situation exists and also accept you have no legal remedy.


----------



## dawesome (26 May 2012)

Oh, redlight's post proves me wrong, bugger.


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Already in progress.


 
That has nothing to do with EHRC and there is not even a mention of Human Rights in that article.. A corporate manslaughter charge based on non compliance with design standards is not a Human Rights issue.

Sorry, but you have got it completely wrong.


----------



## Red Light (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> That has nothing to do with EHRC and there is not even a mention of Human Rights in that article.. A corporate manslaughter charge based on non compliance with design standards is not a Human Rights issue.
> 
> Sorry, but you have got it completely wrong.


​_ 1.12 The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the first sentence of Article 2(1) ECHR as laying down a positive obligation on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. _​_ 1.13 This positive obligation to protect life includes a duty to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. This positive obligation includes an obligation to put such effective measures in place to protect individuals against threats to their life not just from activities of the State but also from other private parties._​_<.....>_​_Where it is established that the negligence attributable to State officials or bodies … goes beyond an error of judgment or carelessness, in that the authorities in question, fully realising the likely consequences and disregarding the powers vested in them, failed to take measures that were necessary and sufficient to avert the risks inherent in a dangerous activity …, the fact that those responsible for endangering life have not been charged with a criminal offence or prosecuted may amount to a violation of Article 2, irrespective of any other types of remedy which individuals may exercise on their own initiative. _​ 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/246/24604.htm


----------



## Recycler (26 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Clip, clip, clip
> ​


Fine. You think you have a case.​Why not put your money where your mouth is and take it to court?​Let us know how you get on.​


----------



## Red Light (26 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Fine. You think you have a case.​Why not put your money where your mouth is and take it to court?​Let us know how you get on.​


 
No need, as I have already pointed out, as its currently in progress. HRA only comes into play if its not backed up by the legal processes.


----------



## Electric_Andy (29 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> The "Think bike" campaign has been running for some time now.



Wasn't "Think Bike" for Motorcyclists? The big difference here is the speed. I can't quote any research in this, but in my view it is often that the driver sees the cyclist but underestimates the speed he/she is doing. Some also assume that the cyclist will be meek and "hold-off" from making any major manoeuvres in case we are hit. Obviously not the case, but many (dare I say older drivers) still assume that we will take our bicycle clips off and go onto the pavement at every roundabout to avoid the traffic.


----------



## Recycler (29 May 2012)

Electric_Andy said:


> Wasn't "Think Bike" for Motorcyclists? .


 
You're right; "Think Bike" has primarily been aimed at motorcyclists. I only raised it in reply to the earlier post which was calling for publicity for both pedal cyclists and motor cyclists.

I agree on the other point. Some car drivers do seem to try to "bully" their way through. "I'm a lump of steel, he'll have to get out of my way". Unfortunately traffic volumes are so great that sometimes we have no choice but to tackle a manoeuvre the "assertive" way rather than the "meek and mild" way.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 May 2012)

Talking to a Police Constable today, he was describing how his brightly coloured Police car compete with a resplendent aray of flashing blue and red lights and loud sirens had not been seen by a driver!


----------

