# Boardman on BBC Breakfast...



## GrumpyGregry (3 Nov 2014)

With Louise Minchin... 

Talking sense...

Wearing normal clothes...

And no helmet...

The guy is still my hero!

Sounds like the Beeb are running a whole series all week.


----------



## Fubar (3 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> With Louise Minchin...
> 
> Talking sense...
> 
> ...



Yeah just watched it - there is a Minister for Cycling?!? Never heard of him.


----------



## Lilliburlero (3 Nov 2014)

He missed the opportunity to advertise one of his own brand helmets


----------



## summerdays (3 Nov 2014)

I've just seen this on Facebook - let's just say any message they are trying to impart has been lost in the numbers talking about helmets and high vis. And talking about removing cyclists from the road for their own safety.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Nov 2014)

summerdays said:


> I've just seen this on Facebook - let's just say any message they are trying to impart has been lost in the numbers talking about helmets and high vis. And talking about removing cyclists from the road for their own safety.


haters gonna hate, sure as night follows day.


----------



## Berk on a Bike (3 Nov 2014)

Who was that clip aimed at? Seemed a bit "cycling safety 101".


----------



## mick1836 (3 Nov 2014)

They say they are spending ££££££££'s in relation to cycling but NEVER say exactly on what?


----------



## ianrauk (3 Nov 2014)

I didn't get to see it as I left for work before it was showed, but did catch a small preview clip. What I noticed that Boardman was helmetless and all in black and whom I guess was the reporter riding with him with helmet and disguised as a bag of hi-viz custard.


----------



## martint235 (3 Nov 2014)

Boardman was quoted as saying helmets are no use or something similar. Finally.


----------



## Rykard (3 Nov 2014)

Loiuse Michin was the reporter, and it said she cycles regularly, she was in 'normal' commuting attire. 

CB does say a lot of sensible stuff, the problem his comments don't make good sound bites. while it's political no real headway will be made towards cyclists.


----------



## Rooster1 (3 Nov 2014)

The facebook only video explanation of Chris telling us why no helmet has opened my eyes alot. I hope you can all see the clip
Its on a BBC Breakfast facebook page https://www.facebook.com/bbcbreakfast


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> With Louise Minchin...
> 
> Talking sense...
> 
> ...





Rooster1 said:


> The facebook only video explanation of Chris telling us why no helmet has opened my eyes alot. I hope you can all see the clip
> Its on a BBC Breakfast facebook page https://www.facebook.com/bbcbreakfast


For a bit of context, another part of that recording, with cycling tips is here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29853789.

And yes, he does say ''With big vehicles - buses, lorries - their visibility is impaired - the vehicle is, it's effectively not fit for purpose, give them plenty of space [plus the standard left turn danger advice].''


----------



## screenman (3 Nov 2014)

mick1836 said:


> They say they are spending ££££££££'s in relation to cycling but NEVER say exactly on what?



Wages and pensions, what is left gets spent on cycle tracks or should that be cycle tra, lets face it they often do not seem finished.


----------



## BigAl68 (3 Nov 2014)

Numerous Facebook feeds of people screaming about helmets and high viz including people saying it saved my life as normal, even the usual ambulance drivers saying the same. Seems they don't believe anyone but each unto their own


----------



## ianrauk (3 Nov 2014)

I can't believe the amount of bile that is being spouted by the compulsion twits on the FB site.


----------



## summerdays (3 Nov 2014)

I can't even be bothered to read it, but it does show that something is seriously wrong in this country if they think that wearing a helmet and hi-vis is going to stop accidents. They would rather push for that than look at what the actual problems are.


----------



## fossyant (3 Nov 2014)

His twitter post has tonnes of anti cycling posters too


----------



## fimm (3 Nov 2014)

BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29848778
I assume saying roughly the same thing as the TV thing which I did not see.


----------



## Beebo (3 Nov 2014)

here is a related article on BBC, Chris Boardman makes some good points, but the main headline is "I wont let my 8 y/o daughter ride on the roads"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29848778


----------



## fimm (3 Nov 2014)

TMN to me?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3360545, member: 45"]..which as a headline suggests that he's doing that because of the risk. When he's not.[/QUOTE]

This link tries even harder to connect the two: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29853789

_Olympic medallist Chris Boardman has told the BBC that he would not feel safe letting his children cycle in a city. 
This comes as figures from the Department of Transport show that for every hour cycled in England you are 16 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on a bike than driving a car._​ 
In fact I'd say the BBC is deliberately misleading readers with that.

GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Nov 2014)

As to 8-year-olds...

I won't let my 28* year old daughter ride alone on the roads locally and I won't pretend I didn't worry when #1 son used to do it in London.

*actually she's 24


----------



## Mugshot (3 Nov 2014)

Rooster1 said:


> The facebook only video explanation of Chris telling us why no helmet has opened my eyes alot. I hope you can all see the clip
> Its on a BBC Breakfast facebook page https://www.facebook.com/bbcbreakfast


I shared the link to my Facebook page, I've had one person from my friend list comment so far, and the comment was......

"Nutter"


----------



## mjr (3 Nov 2014)

mick1836 said:


> They say they are spending ££££££££'s in relation to cycling but NEVER say exactly on what?


Never mind the quality, feel the wad! We need to get interviewers asking your question, @mick1836.

So many of those "cycling" pounds have actually been spent on things that benefit motorists more than cyclists and I'm not even talking about things that are controversial on this site (protected cycle lanes and off-road routes) but basic stuff like rebuilding junctions, where the safest-for-cycling options are rejected in favour of increased motor vehicle capacity.

The most notorious ones so far have probably been the Bedford Turbogate and Cambridge Perne Road "If this is Dutch then I'm a Dutchman" roundabouts, but I read on Twitter today that there may be another scandal brewing in cycling city Bristol with £400k of "cycling" money being used to fill a shortfall in the Metro Bus project budget.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (3 Nov 2014)

Can't see interview on Iplayer, apparently not available because of 'rights issues'. Saw his general comments, anyone know how/where I can see studio footage? Amazed at the amount of abuse he has received on Facebook, for talking complete sense, bit of a hero of mine, doesn't deserve this


----------



## mjr (3 Nov 2014)

Studio bits were negligible, introducing the film you can watch on facebook. CB wasn't there. His post on BC's website today says he's in Scotland.


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2014)

Later this PM when BBC News 're ran the piece it panned back to the presenters. The male presenter nodded sagely and mentioned Mr Boardmans decision not to wear a helmet, to which the female presenter responded "not advisable."

Words fail me.


----------



## BigAl68 (3 Nov 2014)

This is based on my experiences this early evening on high viz and helmets. 

The majority were riding poorly or just plain stupidly, this was coupled with the fact the majority had such poor lights they are an accident waiting to happen. I have also just noticed CB has issued a statement on choice. Good to hear this over the madness that seems to have filled the internet and twitter all day.


----------



## srw (3 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> As to 8-year-olds...
> 
> I won't let my 28* year old daughter ride alone on the roads locally and I won't pretend I didn't worry when #1 son used to do it in London.
> 
> *actually she's 24


If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem...

And yes, I know I'm pontificating from a position of ignorance. Would be better if Boardman practised what he preaches.


----------



## potsy (3 Nov 2014)

I suppose he'll be taking all those Boardman helmets off the shelves of Halfords now then?


----------



## mjr (3 Nov 2014)

BigAl68 said:


> The majority were riding poorly or just plain stupidly, this was coupled with the fact the majority had such poor lights they are an accident waiting to happen.


Common sense misleads again: unlit riders are accidents waiting to happen, yet poor/no lights was a factor in just 2% of cyclist collisions when it was checked a few years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Riding poorly/stupidly accounts for more (how much depends on how you define poor/stupid), but it's still dwarfed by the majority of collisions being the fault of motorists. http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

But hey, it's much easier to blame the dead riders because they don't answer back, unlike all those who see driving as some sort of right and refuse to acknowledge they're not perfect at it.


----------



## summerdays (3 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> Common sense misleads again: unlit riders are accidents waiting to happen, yet poor/no lights was a factor in just 2% of cyclist collisions when it was checked a few years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
> 
> Riding poorly/stupidly accounts for more (how much depends on how you define poor/stupid), but it's still dwarfed by the majority of collisions being the fault of motorists. http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists
> 
> But hey, it's much easier to blame the dead riders because they don't answer back, unlike all those who see driving as some sort of right and refuse to acknowledge they're not perfect at it.



I think his point was that the ones he saw were using hi-vis and helmets as a substitute for better cycling, and they should rethink their priorities.


----------



## fatboy123cycling (3 Nov 2014)

Until we in this country copy Holland with its attitude to cycling we will always be arguing between ourselves. In Holland if a motorist is involved in an accident with a child up to about 16 - they are to blame whoever is at fault. With adults the driver has to prove they are innocent. We need to all campaign together not argue between ourselves.


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2014)

Presumption of guilt is against European law. Our Drunk in Charge laws had to change about 10 years ago to accommodate that, so that's either mis reported or the crazy Dutch are defying Europe in a way our Government has yet to do.


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Nov 2014)

Drago said:


> Later this PM when BBC News 're ran the piece it panned back to the presenters. The male presenter nodded sagely and mentioned Mr Boardmans decision not to wear a helmet, to which the female presenter responded "not advisable."
> 
> Words fail me.


... unbelievable ....


----------



## Profpointy (3 Nov 2014)

Drago said:


> Presumption of guilt is against European law. Our Drunk in Charge laws had to change about 10 years ago to accommodate that, so that's either mis reported or the crazy Dutch are defying Europe in a way our Government has yet to do.



There's a big big difference between "presumption of guilt" and "strict liability / presumption of liability".


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2014)

Indeed. Liability is a concept in civil law. Guilt is criminal law.


----------



## Doc333 (3 Nov 2014)

Did anyone else the piece on tv this morning, which turned out to be a bit controversial and the main point of the piece got lost because of it. Chris and Louise Minchin recorded a bike ride through Manchester using bike lanes etc. The short version showed them almost getting hit by cars, almost crashing into obstacles in the bike lanes and cycle paths. Trying to enter roundabouts and maneuvering through traffic lights. There was also an interview with the minister responsible for cycling and he admitted things were bad ......... Glad it wasn't just me who's scared of doing city cycling especially when we are 12 times more likely to die than car passengers around town.

Chris wasn't wearing a helmet and the phones were ringing off the hook, so the main reason for the piece was lost in the furor.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem...
> 
> And yes, I know I'm pontificating from a position of ignorance. Would be better if Boardman practised what he preaches.


I choose to be part of the solution by not owning a car and I don't preach that inexperienced untrained cyclists should ride on the roads hereabouts.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Nov 2014)

potsy said:


> I suppose he'll be taking all those Boardman helmets off the shelves of Halfords now then?


There are mountain bikes with his name on in Halfords. Are you suggesting they should only be ridden on real mountains?


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2014)

I choose to be part of the solution by remembering that im a cyclist and thus piloting my truck with courtesy and respect for my fellow 2 wheel road users.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Nov 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uses-wear-helmet-BBC-clip-cycling-safety.html


----------



## Trickedem (3 Nov 2014)

I won't post the link here. But if you can face it head over to the Mail online website. In a shocking development the readership agreed with Boardman!


----------



## glenn forger (3 Nov 2014)

Goddammit.


----------



## Dave 123 (3 Nov 2014)

What are his views on waving at other cyclists?


----------



## summerdays (3 Nov 2014)

Trickedem said:


> I won't post the link here. But if you can face it head over to the Mail online website. In a shocking development the readership agreed with Boardman!


I've just been and added my clicks! It's worth being ad fodder just to add to the balance (the lessor of two evils).


----------



## subaqua (3 Nov 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> What are his views on waving at other cyclists?


well if he is on a roadbike ( aren't all bikes road bikes ? ) he won't wave and will look down at others with arrogant disdain. oh no thats the sunday nobbers , not CB


----------



## psmiffy (3 Nov 2014)

Having read all the various web thingies - I suspect the BBC (and CB) knew exactly what they were doing when putting CB and the young lady alongside each other


----------



## summerdays (3 Nov 2014)

I'm still waiting for friends and family to pick up on the other element of the piece the statistic they used about 16 x more dangerous in an hour than on a bike, so in some ways at least Boardman-gate seems to have distracted the attention from that which will be far more off putting to some. I wonder how dangerous the bathroom is per hour? Or the garden?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Nov 2014)

subaqua said:


> well if he is on a roadbike ( aren't all bikes road bikes ? ) he won't wave and will look down at others with arrogant disdain. oh no thats the sunday nobbers , not CB


He actually looks strangely uncyclist-like on that road bike with elbows akimbo on flat bars. I reckon he'd be happier on drops but he's being 'everyman' for the video.


----------



## psmiffy (3 Nov 2014)

Reading the full text of CB rebuttal on the British Cycling Website - particularly the last but one sentence 



> We're at a crucial moment for cycling and the run up to the 2015 general election presents us with an unmissable opportunity to try to get some substantial commitments on cycling



I await tomorrows spilling of outrage

I have always been a fan of Mr Boardman - even more so now he has put his head above the parapet (again)


----------



## Pete Owens (4 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> The most notorious ones so far have probably been the Bedford Turbogate and Cambridge Perne Road "If this is Dutch then I'm a Dutchman" roundabouts,



Only notorious from the POV of segregationist zealots who get angry when cyclists campaign for measures at the top of hierarchy of provision to improve the safety of the roads rather than marginalise us to off road farcilities. (remember, both these supposedly notorious schemes had the active support of the local campaign groups).

In this respect they are really no different from the helmet taliban giving Boardman a kicking at the moment. Both put the case that cycling is so dangerous that we need the protection of their particular measure - whether that is kerbs or hats. Both really hate cycle campaigners for understanding the issues and proposing measures that are actually helpful. Both are actively discouraging cycling by using fear mongering to propose their own particular solutiuons. Both claim to be protecting the children in order to dismiss any rational argument presented by adults as irresponsible. Both ignore the views of cyclists and pandering to the prejudices of the "normal" non-cycling population.

If anything the hatists are less harmful to cycling than the pathists. If you are going to promote irrational fear (as Boardman admits) as a basis of policy, then at least a helmet is within the power of any parent to equip their child with tomorrow. If you are going to ban your children from cycling until the government builds a segregated cycle network then you are in for a long wait.


----------



## srw (4 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I choose to be part of the solution by not owning a car and I don't preach that inexperienced untrained cyclists should ride on the roads hereabouts.


_Very _unfair of me - sorry.

But surely the solution to inexperienced untrained cyclists is training, then experience - in the same way that we give untrained inexperience drivers training, then experience? That can start at age 8, 18 or even 48. My observation is that if you're reasonably intelligent about it it takes very little time to give someone some training, and then experience ramps up very quickly indeed, especially if that person already has the benefit of training and experience as a driver.


----------



## summerdays (4 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> _Very _unfair of me - sorry.
> 
> But surely the solution to inexperienced untrained cyclists is training, then experience - in the same way that we give untrained inexperience drivers training, then experience? That can start at age 8, 18 or even 48. My observation is that if you're reasonably intelligent about it it takes very little time to give someone some training, and then experience ramps up very quickly indeed, especially if that person already has the benefit of training and experience as a driver.


Problem is that like learning to drive, it takes differing amounts of time to pass your driving test, and even then you do wonder how some did pass. Training would help but as part of the solution. Speaking as a parent who is dreading one of my children learning to drive based on a guess of what their general skills are like (could be proved wrong of course).


----------



## srw (4 Nov 2014)

psmiffy said:


> I have always been a fan of Mr Boardman - even more so now he has put his head above the parapet (again)


If only we could somehow combine the passion and communication skills of Boardman with the intellectual rigour of Geffen we'd be on to a winner.


----------



## Spinney (4 Nov 2014)

summerdays said:


> I've just been and added my clicks! It's worth being ad fodder just to add to the balance (the lessor of two evils).


me too

(I wonder how many of the 'good' comments are actual daily mail readers, and how many are from annoyed cyclists who've just popped in to click ?)


----------



## subaqua (4 Nov 2014)

dunno but I tweeted headway and asked how a helmet stops torso crushing injuries when a lorry wheel goes over me.


----------



## david k (4 Nov 2014)

i thought the report this morning was good, i like lorry drivers cycling, seemed fair and balanced to me


----------



## Kbrook (4 Nov 2014)

Just watched BBC this morning, who is that £)&@ head called Sherry. If he is our best representative God help us. " no ifs, no buts no coconuts " was one of his quotes, very impressive.

He also hit a van that he thought was was too close to his bike, didn't actually look that close, driver gets out and floors the clown.

Who is this idiot?


----------



## Mugshot (4 Nov 2014)

Kbrook said:


> Just watched BBC this morning, who is that £)&@ head called Sherry. If he is our best representative God help us. " no ifs, no buts no coconuts " was one of his quotes, very impressive.
> 
> He also hit a van that he thought was was too close to his bike, didn't actually look that close, driver gets out and floors the clown.
> 
> Who is this idiot?


I just watched the clip on Facebook, that idiot used to be on here, maybe he still is, he also posted that particular video here and claimed that the van had hit him not that he had hit the van, it was very quickly pointed out by the CC massive that he was lying through his teeth and he skulked off. The man's an idiot but unfortunately it looks like he's getting his 15 minutes.


----------



## Mugshot (4 Nov 2014)

Kbrook said:


> Just watched BBC this morning, who is that £)&@ head called Sherry. If he is our best representative God help us. " no ifs, no buts no coconuts " was one of his quotes, very impressive.
> 
> He also hit a van that he thought was was too close to his bike, didn't actually look that close, driver gets out and floors the clown.
> 
> Who is this idiot?


HERE's the original thread from CC


----------



## Kbrook (4 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Just using his hand? Not with a long stick or anything?


I get your point, but hitting the van was a massive overreaction. Just watched the clip again, the van wasn't that close so maybe he did have along stick.


----------



## Kbrook (4 Nov 2014)

Didn't realise there was a 13 page thread on this so no need to discuss it anymore. I actually thought it had happened during the BBC filming didn't realise it was historic


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

I saw that this morning. While I don't think he deserved to get poked in the face, I can kinda see how he brought it upon himself. I always urge people to remember Kenneth Noye before getting into a confrontation.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Nov 2014)

subaqua said:


> dunno but I tweeted headway and asked how a helmet stops torso crushing injuries when a lorry wheel goes over me.


Did you see Headway's response to Boardman? (https://www.headway.org.uk/news/former-olympic-cyclist-setting-poor-example.aspx)

I quote:
''Mr Boardman, a former Olympic cyclist and currently a policy advisor for British Cycling, was cycling with BBC reporter Louise Minchin, who was appropriately dressed and was wearing a helmet in compliance with the Highway Code and BBC editorial policy.''

And the final paragraph in bold in their text:
''*"It is vital that cyclists are given education and encouragement to ensure they comply with the Highway Code and increase their safety by wearing helmets."''*

Blatant attempts to make it seem like riding helmetless is not observing the Highway Code. It reminds me of Matthew, formerly of this parish (Rhyll division) who got cut up by a bus driver who justified his bad driving with reference to the Highway Code, whereupon Matthew got out a copy of the Highway Code from his pannier and disproved the bus driver. Defending bad (or vindictive) driving and blaming the irresponsibility of the cyclist whilst erroneously quoting the HC. Headway are not far from drivers shouting at cyclists from their cars.


----------



## Profpointy (4 Nov 2014)

User said:


> There may possibly be an overlap between those groupings.



no, wouldn't have thought so


----------



## benb (4 Nov 2014)

Headway are a bunch of dishonest zealots.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/headways-brick-wall/


----------



## Mugshot (4 Nov 2014)

Kbrook said:


> Didn't realise there was a 13 page thread on this so no need to discuss it anymore. I actually thought it had happened during the BBC filming didn't realise it was historic


Understandable, I'll pop @Cubist s well measured post from the thread below which sums the incident up quite nicely,



Cubist said:


> Don't hold your breath!
> 
> Would you like a "sympathetic police force" to ignore half of the facts in a case in order to pursue a particular agenda?
> 
> ...


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Only notorious from the POV of segregationist zealots who get angry when cyclists campaign for measures at the top of hierarchy of provision to improve the safety of the roads rather than marginalise us to off road farcilities. (remember, both these supposedly notorious schemes had the active support of the local campaign groups).


I'd be quite happy if either the Bedford or Cambridge schemes had measures at the top of the hierarchy of provision, which is traffic volume reduction. The Bedford bid rejected an arguably-better design (option 2 for on-road) partly because it allowed only 25000 vehicles/day whereas the Turbogate allows traffic volumes to increase; and it rejected a better off-road design (option 3) partly because regulations don't yet allow Zoucans/cycle-zebras. However, the local campaign group supported the Turbogate (option 7) http://www.ccnb.org.uk/responsesb.html on the basis that Zoucans will be installed, even though the council hasn't promised/funded that as far as I can tell. There's also a strange claim from CCNB that adjacent roads aren't wide enough for cycle lanes, which I'm pretty sure is only true if there's two motor vehicle approach lanes like the Turbogate requires.

In Cambridge, the local cycle campaign offered to support it IF some simple conditions were met, such as the road/path junctions being well-designed, the crossing islands being wide enough and flush kerbs being properly flush. http://www.camcycle.org.uk/blog/2013/11/11/perne-radegund-road-roundabout/ I won't visit it until Saturday at soonest, but I understand that those conditions have not been met, therefore there isn't support.



> In this respect they are really no different from the helmet taliban giving Boardman a kicking at the moment. Both put the case that cycling is so dangerous that we need the protection of their particular measure - whether that is kerbs or hats.


Wow, it makes for a really good argument if one invents imaginary demons, doesn't it?  Cycling is generally safe but could be safer. The case in Bedford, Cambridge, Bristol and elsewhere is: if cycling funding is used, then the project should put cycling first, not third or second after traffic volume.


> Both really hate cycle campaigners for understanding the issues and proposing measures that are actually helpful. Both are actively discouraging cycling by using fear mongering to propose their own particular solutiuons. Both claim to be protecting the children in order to dismiss any rational argument presented by adults as irresponsible. Both ignore the views of cyclists and pandering to the prejudices of the "normal" non-cycling population.


As far as I can tell, neither Bedford nor Cambridge are the measures proposed by cycle campaigners. The first mention of the Bedford design is a 2012 council document - CCNB's website doesn't seem to have much history about their wishes for that location (they've had a website since 2000, so has there been some retconning?). Cambridge Cycle Campaign proposed off-road cycle tracks and crossings along Radegund Road as long ago as 2001 http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/threads/radegundroad.html although then some anti-measurists replies, then the dual network advocates, then the hierarchists... and it's almost a minature study of all cycle campaigns got wrong around the turn of the century.

The fearmongers are the anti-measure zealots who kibo'ize the internet looking for the merest mention of their pet crap-path schemes to defend, who portray compilations of crap-path anecdotes as if they are the only paths, who act as if novice riders should be given no choice except between long back lane detours and mixing it on the main lanes of roads like the A5, who don't seem to accept a need to encourage any new riders. There are stunning similarities with the hat-pushers who search the internet looking for the merest mention of riding without hard hats, who portray compilations of head injury anecdotes as if that's the biggest risk of riding, who act as if novice riders should not be given the choice, who don't seem to accept that we need to encourage new riders.


----------



## martint235 (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3361735, member: 45"]Anyone up for contacting Headway?[/QUOTE]
Oh go on then why not.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3361735, member: 45"]Anyone up for contacting Headway?[/QUOTE]
If I thought they had the remotest interest in improving road safety for cyclists, I would. That, however, is the chief thing that they _don't_ do.


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> Headway are a bunch of dishonest zealots.
> http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/headways-brick-wall/



Christ, dishonest doesn't even begin to describe that work of fiction.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3361790, member: 45"]Let's not completely dismiss Headway. On this issue they may have it completely wrong, but they do some essential and fantastic work in other areas.[/QUOTE]
How can anyone support their other work without lending credibility to their bike-bashing hat-pushing?


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

Just had a quick nosey at their website. Talk about selective cherrypicking of data.


----------



## subaqua (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3361735, member: 45"]Anyone up for contacting Headway?[/QUOTE]
I did. they haven't responded yet


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> _Very _unfair of me - sorry.
> 
> But surely the solution to inexperienced untrained cyclists is training, then experience - in the same way that we give untrained inexperience drivers training, then experience? That can start at age 8, 18 or even 48. My observation is that if you're reasonably intelligent about it it takes very little time to give someone some training, and then experience ramps up very quickly indeed, especially if that person already has the benefit of training and experience as a driver.


Thankfully neither of my progeny have learned to drive, but you're absolutely right this then means they have a lack of 'roadcraft' and plain old 'street nous' as a result. My own teaching style is, lamentably, not one that works well with S & B, and this, combined with the local levels of driver aggression and knobjockery towards cyclists, which are an objective reality rather than my personal judgement, doesn't make for a happy parent when the sprogs wobble off down North Street.


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

I've just taught my 3rd daughter to drive (she passed first go) and at the sight of a bicycle she's been psychologically programmed to shout "roadies!", slow down, and wait for a safe opportunity to pass.


----------



## Crankarm (4 Nov 2014)

I used to like Chris Boardman, a lot. But now he does seem to come across as a self publicist. They say all publicity is good publicity - good and bad. While he does occasionally make good points I find he is increasingly becoming a diversion whether he realises it or not. Maybe a little more consideration of how he presents himself and what he is going to say before he goes in front of cameras or a microphone might not go amiss. Perhaps he doesn't ride as much as he used to and needs to get back in his saddle on a regular basis to fully understand the conditions cyclists who ride everyday have to put up with. He promised so much a few years ago - a good spokesperson to improve the perceptions of everyday cycling, maybe even improving cycling infrastructure, but to me he increasingly looks like some one who creates controversy. Why didn't he make it clear that black is the new hi-viz?


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

TBH I never though his bikes were all that either.


----------



## Mugshot (4 Nov 2014)

Crankarm said:


> I used to like Chris Boardman, a lot. But now he does seem to come across as a self publicist. They say all publicity is good publicity - good and bad. While he does occasionally make good points I find he is increasingly becoming a diversion whether he realises it or not. Maybe a little more consideration of how he presents himself and what he is going to say before he goes in front of cameras or a microphone might not go amiss. Perhaps he doesn't ride as much as he used to and needs to get back in his saddle on a regular basis to fully understand the conditions cyclists who ride everyday have to put up with. He promised so much a few years ago - a good spokesperson to improve the perceptions of everyday cycling, maybe even improving cycling infrastructure, but to me he increasingly looks like some one who creates controversy. Why didn't he make it clear that black is the new hi-viz?


I'm not sure he is looking to create controversy, I've cut and pasted part of his response to the furore his BBC appearance created,

_So I understand exactly why people feel so passionately about helmets or high vis. I understand why people wish to use them. But these actions seek to deal with an effect. I want to focus the debate on the cause and campaign for things that will really make cycling safe. 


That is why I won’t promote high vis and helmets; I won’t let the debate be drawn onto a topic that isn’t even in the top 10 things that will really keep people who want to cycle safe. I want cycling in the UK to be like it is in Utrecht or Copenhagen and more recently New York City - an everyday thing that people can do in everyday clothes whether you are eight or 80 years old. I want cycling to be a normal thing that normal people do in normal clothes. Is that wrong? _

If he is being honest here then he probably feels that he is banging his head against a brick wall every time he opens his mouth. How much attention has been given to what he actually did and said with regards to his top ten list of safety tips on the BBC as opposed to what he was wearing? Maybe the BBC should never have asked the question about helmets, is it any of their or anybody elses business if he wears one or not? The problem is that it would probably make no difference who they shoved in front of the camera the debate would be dragged back to helmets and hi-viz.


----------



## Profpointy (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3361917, member: 45"]Let's hope noone you know ever sustains a head injury and needs support and expertise that won't come from anywhere else.[/QUOTE]


well given they make up statistics, lie and mislead, I'd need some convincing that any support & expertise they offered was of value


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

The flip side of that is people might blindly follow their advice re cycle helmets, feel a false sense of invulnerability, and end up with a brain injury as a consequence.


----------



## Rooster1 (4 Nov 2014)

Yesterday, I forgot my helmet which I bring to work, so I can go out at lunch time for an hour on my road bike along country lanes. So, for the first time ever, I just put a cap on (for the rain), and went anyway. It was peeing down, I was with another rider, and I just went for it. Chris B got me thinking... and I felt that the overall risk to me was not dramatically decreased by me not having my helmet. Generally, as a rule, I prefer to wear a helmet and I will, my choice - but my previous instant outrage at non helmet wearing and wearers has now gone. I was wrong.


----------



## benb (4 Nov 2014)

Rooster1 said:


> Yesterday, I forgot my helmet which I bring to work, so I can go out at lunch time for an hour on my road bike along country lanes. So, for the first time ever, I just put a cap on (for the rain), and went anyway. It was peeing down, I was with another rider, and I just went for it. Chris B got me thinking... and I felt that the overall risk to me was not dramatically decreased by me not having my helmet. Generally, as a rule, I prefer to wear a helmet and I will, my choice - but my previous instant outrage at non helmet wearing and wearers has now gone. I was wrong.



A very mature attitude, wish more people were as willing to admit when they are wrong.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3361917, member: 45"]Let's hope noone you know ever sustains a head injury and needs support and expertise that won't come from anywhere else.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, I do hope that because - even ignoring the fast-and-loose approach to truth they exhibit towards cycling - if the only place that support and expertise can come from is Headway, then we're screwed because Norfolk Headway House is about a hundred miles away, right at the other end of the county!

Health services should come from the NHS. It's shameful that anyone has to rely on charities and friendly societies, even when they are better than Headway.

The question remains: even if the Headway House services are good (and probably because they're not here, I simply have heard nothing about them locally), how can one support services without supporting bike-bashing?


----------



## Venod (4 Nov 2014)

Rooster1 said:


> Yesterday, I forgot my helmet which I bring to work, so I can go out at lunch time for an hour on my road bike along country lanes. So, for the first time ever, I just put a cap on (for the rain), and went anyway. It was peeing down, I was with another rider, and I just went for it. Chris B got me thinking... and I felt that the overall risk to me was not dramatically decreased by me not having my helmet. Generally, as a rule, I prefer to wear a helmet and I will, my choice - but my previous instant outrage at non helmet wearing and wearers has now gone. I was wrong.



This is the most sensible post in the whole thread.


----------



## Scoosh (4 Nov 2014)

MOD NOTE:
While appreciating that much of the talk/tweeting etc concerning CB's comments on the BBC programme, please can all Members avoid using this thread as a helmet-debating place.

You all know where _that_ subject is to be discussed ! 

Thank you.


----------



## PK99 (4 Nov 2014)

User said:


> *No it's not. *
> 
> 'Presumption of liability' is common in Europe and the concept has been upheld by the ECHR.



Wrong!

Guilt = criminal law = prosecution

liability = civil law = costs/damages


----------



## Mugshot (4 Nov 2014)

Scoosh said:


> MOD NOTE:
> While appreciating that much of the talk/tweeting etc concerning CB's comments on the BBC programme, please can all Members avoid using this thread as a helmet-debating place.
> 
> You all know where _that_ subject is to be discussed !
> ...


I am reminded of Nik Wallenda the gentleman that recently traversed Chicago.


----------



## Scoosh (4 Nov 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I am reminded of Nik Wallenda the gentleman that recently traversed Chicago.


All part of being a Mod !


----------



## benb (4 Nov 2014)

Scoosh said:


> MOD NOTE:
> While appreciating that much of the talk/tweeting etc concerning CB's comments on the BBC programme, please can all Members avoid using this thread as a helmet-debating place.
> 
> You all know where _that_ subject is to be discussed !



The pub?


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3362006, member: 45"]It might help you if you understood a bit about how things work. Headway are one of the providers who work very closely with the NHS to provide support. They're not the only one. The NHS, and local authorities, use agencies with expertise to provide specific support to those who need it.[/QUOTE]
And do you feel that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand? I'm chronically ill, have been for a long time and I use NHS services frequently. I know these organisations (and far worse) are involved in delivering services, but that doesn't mean that I agree it should be that way.

Key phrase: they're not the only one. So if we stop this dysfunctional organisation, another way for its current experts to provide that expertise would appear - I'm talking about stopping an organisation, not killing all its workers.


> Your only interest in and knowledge of Headway is around cycle helmets. That's everything to you, but a tiny tiny element in the much bigger picture. So your question really isn't a valuable one.


Asking if we can stop the tiny tiny element and let the bigger picture remain is not valuable??? I feel that there would be value in stopping Headway harming the health of far more people than it helps, which is what its bike-bashing campaign could do. If the only way to stop that campaign is to stop Headway, that's a bit sad, but so be it.


----------



## summerdays (4 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> And do you feel that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand? I'm chronically ill, have been for a long time and I use NHS services frequently. I know these organisations (and far worse) are involved in delivering services, but that doesn't mean that I agree it should be that way.
> 
> Key phrase: they're not the only one. So if we stop this dysfunctional organisation, another way for its current experts to provide that expertise would appear - I'm talking about stopping an organisation, not killing all its workers.
> 
> Asking if we can stop the tiny tiny element and let the bigger picture remain is not valuable??? I feel that there would be value in stopping Headway harming the health of far more people than it helps, which is what its bike-bashing campaign could do. If the only way to stop that campaign is to stop Headway, that's a bit sad, but so be it.


Now if they employees all moved, do you not think they might take their views with them?

And I think that the good they do in hospitals far outweighs what their opinion on helmets. Even without them there would still be others spouting the same. We live in a real world where nothing is all good or all bad.


----------



## subaqua (4 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> The pub?


 

but which one. because some are easy for access to LBG and some are not


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Nov 2014)

Good response by Boardman I thought:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/ca...Why-I-didn-t-wear-a-helmet-on-BBC-Breakfast-0


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3362057, member: 45"]That's not the question you asked. You've asked how anyone can trust an organisation's hands-on services if they have a questionable view on helmet use. [/QUOTE]
No I haven't. I asked a practical question on HOW one can SUPPORT its other work without helping their dodgy helmet view get a wider audience. Here it is, in its original wording:


mjray said:


> How can anyone support their other work without lending credibility to their bike-bashing hat-pushing?


I'm sorry if that was unclear to anyone, but it's nothing to do with trust, just if it's possible to support bits of Headway.
[QUOTE 3362057, member: 45"]The bit I've put in red highlights your ignorance. This is demonstrably not the case. [/QUOTE]
I consider it is demonstrably the case, but I'm not going to pursue that further else because we're not in the helmet forum, so let's just agree to disagree on the numbers that are helped and would be harmed.
[QUOTE 3362057, member: 45"]If you want to challenge them about their stance on helmets then please, go ahead. But either learn about the other aspects of the organisation that you're ignorantly bashing or listen to those with first-hand experience of the services that Headway provides.[/QUOTE]
I've no interest in merely challenging their stance - I want to stop it.

I've done no bashing about Headway's other aspects because they're simply nowhere near me, as far as I can tell, so that request is a bit disingenuous.


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

Don't you think advising people to do something to prevent a brain injury, which has never been proven to reduce brain injury levels, somewhat negates the good work they do?


----------



## subaqua (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3362116, member: 45"] 
But you are. You're suggesting that the organisation could be doing more harm than good. That's ridiculously wrong. You're questioning an organisation you know very little about, while not being interested in educating yourself.[/QUOTE]
segregationist . sounds similar to creationist


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

Just that. Somewhat, a small amount.

Not everyone who dons a lid on their advice will come a cropper. But inevitably, statistically, some will. If even one person wears a bonce potty on their advice and and finds out the hard way that the helmet won't prevent a brain jury then they have failed... somewhat.

Deary me, you're trying to defend what you claim to be a valid argument and the best you can do when asked a polite question is descend to semantics?


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2014)

To put a figure on it you'd need to know the number of helmet wearers, and the number of those then injured, and one can then do some maths and get a firm figure.

In the absence of those numbers we do not have a firm figure. The word 'somewhat' illustrates the point well enough for general chit chat and I find it hard to believe that a person of reasonable intelligence, as you would otherwise appear to be, does not know that to which the term pertains. You simply chose to be obstructive and petty instead of responding to a reasonable question with a reasonable answer.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Nov 2014)

Drago said:


> Don't you think advising people to do something to prevent a brain injury, which has never been proven to reduce brain injury levels, somewhat negates the good work they do?


I think advising people to do something to prevent a brain injury, which has never been proven to reduce brain injury levels, is somewhat ill-advised, but has only the most minimal impact on the other good work they do.

I like to think that my advice to other cyclists when descending hills, "Don't touch the brakes and give it some beans", is good advice even though some who have followed it have found themselves, ultimately, ill-advised to do so. Does my giving this advice somewhat negate the good work I do when I, say, stop and repair a puncture for someone?


----------



## PK99 (4 Nov 2014)

User said:


> The post that Drago was responding to was talking about the *presumption of liability*... The presumption of liability is accepted in European law.
> 
> As to the presumption of guilt, or as it sometimes referred to the principle of inference, it does apply in certain limited cases in English and Welsh law, and has been held as consistent with Article 6 obligations.



Eh?

Drago said...."*Presumption of guilt* is against European law....."

You said "No it not"



plus:
I was under the impression that "adverse inference" related to the right to silence, not in any way to presumption/inference of guilt by nature of the putative crime
(Section 34 allows an inference to be drawn when a suspect is silent when questioned under caution prior to charge (section 34(1)(a))


----------



## srw (4 Nov 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Good response by Boardman I thought:
> http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/ca...Why-I-didn-t-wear-a-helmet-on-BBC-Breakfast-0


Really? I thought it was a bit rubbish - it was reading that that prompted me to fantasise about the bastard offspring of Boardman and Geffen


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> Really? I thought it was a bit rubbish - it was reading that that prompted me to fantasise about the bastard offspring of Boardman and Geffen


I read it from the standpoint of the joe public for which it was probably intended and thought it covered some main points that never get pointed out: normalising cycling, body armour, effect of compulsion, safety in numbers, relative risk, potential impact/benefit for wider society/obesity etc.
Not perfect, but a good start. At least he's putting his head above the parapet.


----------



## Scoosh (4 Nov 2014)

*MOD NOTE 2:*
Somehow, we seem to have moved the discussion on from what CB said (and is saying) on BBC Breakfast, to discussing the pros and cons of private/charitable bodies providing health care !

Please keep it on track, discussing CB and the BBC Breakfast programmes's daily topic of cycling and the infrastructure - which is what we all want to see being improved and made safer.

There is no objection to anyone having a thread about NHS/charity/private etc health care/support etc - just not here ! SC&P is the best place for that.

Thank you.


----------



## Scoosh (4 Nov 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Good response by Boardman I thought:
> http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/ca...Why-I-didn-t-wear-a-helmet-on-BBC-Breakfast-0


I agree - at least he is making the points we all want made -though no doubt not a forcefully as some would like ...


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Nov 2014)

While i find some of Chris Boardman's ideas interesting, I often worry about the urban-centric view of cycle safety. Constantly banging on about Holland, segregated cycle paths, choosing safer routes etc is simply not addressing the issues in the area I live and cycle in.

When I go for a spin around the lanes of Herefordshire & Worcestershire, box junctions, huge roundabouts, traffic light jumpers and all the other issues associated with urban cycling don't affect me. We have other issues like inch deep road mud by the exits of fields, sheep on the road, suicidal pheasants and squirrels and hedges on narrow lanes that mean cyclists are often seen at the last minute. Nothing CB has said addresses those risks.

But the main danger I feel is that some drivers feel that we cyclists should simply not be on their roads and treat us accordingly, and when they tune into breakfast TV they hear CB arguing that the way forward is segregated cycle paths..the Dutch modal..keeping clear of busy routes, this is reinforced. While segregation is (one day) hopefully achievable in urban areas, it is not desirable or achievable in countryside settings.

In future I would like Chris Boardman to make that distinction, just to make it clear to some of the idiots I talk to down the pub.


----------



## Scoosh (4 Nov 2014)

*MOD NOTE 3:*
The 'presumption of guilt/ burden of proof/ liability' laws are probably better in another thread too - can you guess where ?


----------



## benb (4 Nov 2014)

Scoosh said:


> *MOD NOTE 3:*
> The 'presumption of guilt/ burden of proof/ liability' laws are probably better in another thread too - can you guess where ?



The pub again?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> The pub again?


 
I bloody hope not - I've already moved table once!

GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> When I go for a spin around the lanes of Herefordshire & Worcestershire, box junctions, huge roundabouts, traffic light jumpers and all the other issues associated with urban cycling don't affect me. We have other issues like inch deep road mud by the exits of fields, sheep on the road, suicidal pheasants and squirrels and hedges on narrow lanes that mean cyclists are often seen at the last minute. Nothing CB has said addresses those risks.
> 
> But the main danger I feel is that some drivers feel that we cyclists should simply not be on their roads and treat us accordingly, and when they tune into breakfast TV they hear CB arguing that the way forward is segregated cycle paths..the Dutch modal..keeping clear of busy routes, this is reinforced. While segregation is (one day) hopefully achievable in urban areas, it is not desirable or achievable in countryside settings.


Standard for Sussex. but the reality is urban cyclists probably outnumber us rural idyll-ists what? 50:1

I'd quite happily accept decent so-called "Dutch-style" segregated facilities on the A22, A23, A24, A27, A29, A264, A272 and A281 to name but a few no-go countryside roads off the top of my head....


----------



## Scoosh (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3362428, member: 45"]*NON-MOD NOTE 1:*

This thread now has more mod notes than posts on the subject of Boardman on Breakfast. Can you start another thread for admonishing please so that we can stay on track?[/QUOTE]
Nah - you'll just get the posts Deleted for being OT !


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> We have other issues like inch deep road mud by the exits of fields, sheep on the road, suicidal pheasants and squirrels and hedges on narrow lanes that mean cyclists are often seen at the last minute. Nothing CB has said addresses those risks.


West Norfolk is something like 2/3rds rural, so I know what you mean, especially about mud left on roads by bad users who don't clean up after themselves, and about bad/no hedge cutting that could have someone's eye out.

But if you scroll around http://hereford.cyclestreets.net/collisions/ a bit, the dots are clustered around urban areas. Those are where most cyclists need the most help, which is why national campaigners focus on them.


> But the main danger I feel is that some drivers feel that we cyclists should simply not be on their roads and treat us accordingly, and when they tune into breakfast TV they hear CB arguing that the way forward is segregated cycle paths..the Dutch modal..keeping clear of busy routes, this is reinforced. While segregation is (one day) hopefully achievable in urban areas, it is not desirable or achievable in countryside settings.


It depends on the countryside setting: on remote country lanes, probably not; rat runs would be best dealt with by access restrictions and possibly gating; but major barrier roads would benefit from protected space for cycling (not segregation) and it's often achievable because there are unused verges within the highway corridor. Other than that, green walking/cycle-only routes such as along river bank tops are well worthwhile. Personally, I don't call for segregation because of exactly the reasons given - I call for protected space instead.

Ultimately, I agree with you that rural cycling safety has different solutions, but - partly because most rural areas haven't been rebuilt to benefit motorists and kill cyclists quite as much as urban ones - it seems a less urgent problem.


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Standard for Sussex. but the reality is urban cyclists probably outnumber us rural idyll-ists what? 50:1
> 
> I'd quite happily accept decent so-called "Dutch-style" segregated facilities on the A22, A23, A24, A27, A29, A264, A272 and A281 to name but a few no-go countryside roads off the top of my head....



From my limited experience "Dutch-style" segregation leads to roads without paths often becoming prohibited for cyclists. If a wonderful cycle path is provided up one of the Malvern Hill roads, it would inevitably lead to the presumption that that would be the only safe road to use.

As for cyclist number ratios, I agree. I would just be happier if the distinction is made between urban and rural cycling when argued about in the media.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> From my limited experience "Dutch-style" segregation leads to roads without paths often becoming prohibited for cyclists.


Can you name one in this country? I can think of a few non-motorway roads where cycling is prohibited, but they had no cycleway nearby at the time of the ban.

I think there are far more rural roads which most riders have been effectively bullied off of, which could be reopened to riders by providing a proper guidance-exceeding cycleway alongside. I think this in part because of how many riders appear from apparently nowhere to use absolute crap "white paint and blue signs only" paths in preference to ill-designed roads used by underpoliced motorists.


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> West Norfolk is something like 2/3rds rural, so I know what you mean, especially about mud left on roads by bad users who don't clean up after themselves, and about bad/no hedge cutting that could have someone's eye out.
> 
> But if you scroll around http://hereford.cyclestreets.net/collisions/ a bit, the dots are clustered around urban areas. Those are where most cyclists need the most help, which is why national campaigners focus on them.
> 
> ...



Again, if you provide "protected space for cycling (not segregation)" on some roads does that mean that there should be a compulsion for cyclists to use them over non pathed roads? My only concern is that if the message is that some roads are protected and some are not, a portion of blame will be attached to cyclists involved in accidents who choose the "unprotected" one.

I absolutely agree that urban environments carry more risks, and the solutions are specific. I only wish that destination was made by people such as Chris Boardman and the media.


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> Can you name one in this country?



That's my point, I have never come across such a road in the UK but have in some European countries that have the argued for 'Dutch system'. 

If we establish one do we get the other....and to what extent?


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Nov 2014)

User said:


> And as for that lot on the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire machine.


In that case we should all move to a better quality of Pub ...


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3362522, member: 45"]Can I ask what experience?[/QUOTE]

A bit of cycling around Europe, but I mainly head to the hills so dont do much in the Netherlands. There were some roads around Bruges that were motorised vehicles only. I also got extremely frustrated trying to get out of Lourdes last year as the main road to Argles Gazost is cyclist prohibited. I did find the (admittedly amazing) parallel cycle path in the end. Spain (around Pamplona IIRC) had one road that just changed to no bikes after about a mile. I and a few others did cycle quite a way down a french motorway once...but thats a different matter!


----------



## glenn forger (4 Nov 2014)

I found it very easy, and couldn't wait, to get out of Lourdes, I was going south.


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Nov 2014)

glenn forger said:


> I found it very easy, and couldn't wait, to get out of Lourdes, I was going south.



So was I, to Argelez Gasost. Did you end up on the old disused railway line?


----------



## glenn forger (4 Nov 2014)

Nope, don't remember that, I've still got the map somewhere. 

Lourdes was bloody awful, unless your idea of shopping paradise is buying a Madonna snow globe. I mean Mary, the Mother of God, not THE Madonna.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Nov 2014)

Found the map, forget what I said, I swung east to Bagneres, I see the railway line - I met up with it again at Argeles-Gazost.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2014)

bianchi1 said:


> That's my point, I have never come across such a road in the UK but have in some European countries that have the argued for 'Dutch system'.
> 
> If we establish one do we get the other....and to what extent?


I've visited quite a few countries and feel that the tendency to ban cycling on roads isn't very strongly linked to whether there's a cycleway nearby. Also, I have heard councillors here call for such bans already, even today, with the narrow/discontinuous utter rubbish built to date.

It's daft to think preventing cycleways being built will prevent the calls to ban cycles from roads. If there is a shared path nearby, it does change the question from "can we ban cycles from ..." to "can we make cycles use the path..." but Councillor Mr Toad will still ask the question anyway. Really our top solution is to get cycle-friendly politicians that will both provide decent cycleways and defend our right to the road, by asking relevant cycling/road-safety questions when they stand for election and/or inviting them out on bike rides, by joining cycle clubs or groups and coordinating our actions so that we have maximum effect. Being careful with words to try to avoid putting ideas into the minds of dafter politicians is not a great plan but it's better than carelessly sloshing the S-word around.

Oh and I will always call to develop a cycle-friendly English system. Even if we tried a revolution of importing someone else's system, I'm sure we'd screw it up in translation somehow. ;-)


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Nov 2014)

Today's BBC contribution to cycling was centred on wearing headphones (Thanks a lot, Boris) and, would you guess it, helmets, and featured Roger Geffen riding a tandem. Tomorrow, they'll be off to New York to look at the cycling turnaround over there. For a change, they'll also be discussing helmets.

@Scoosh I'm no longer sure how this series of news features can be discussed on here without getting into the helmet mire. That's where the programme is fixated. As a forum, we've been through all of this in tedious detail but this is where the programme is leading the public debate. Apart from saying that the emphasis has been clearly on what cyclists ought to do to cope with road safety and not what ought to be done about road safety itself, what else is there to say?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Nov 2014)

my first post mentioned helmets and applauded CB for wearing street and not having a lid.

This thread is intrinsically about helmets amongst other things. If we stay focused on the BBC coverage, CB, and what the public actors that chip in to the debate have to say I'd be a happy OP-er.


----------



## mjr (5 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3362731, member: 45"]Yeah and remember Daniel Cadden.[/QUOTE]
The Cadden case ended up as a good ruling establishing that cyclists do not have to use cycle tracks just because they exist. It does not prevent councils imposing Traffic Orders that ban cycling or MPs from trying to change the law... so be careful who you vote for.


----------



## Inertia (5 Nov 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Today's BBC contribution to cycling was centred on wearing headphones



Very poor reporting though, all they seemed to prove was that listening to music takes up 10% of your attention.


----------



## Dan B (5 Nov 2014)

Inertia said:


> Very poor reporting though, all they seemed to prove was that listening to music takes up 10% of your attention.


I suppose that listening to BBC Breakfast imposes no such cognitive load


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> The Cadden case ended up as *a good ruling establishing that cyclists do not have to use cycle tracks* just because they exist. It does not prevent councils imposing Traffic Orders that ban cycling or MPs from trying to change the law... so be careful who you vote for.


[QUOTE 3363360, member: 45"]The Cadden case showed that it's not difficult for a bunch of cyclists to get together, do something (rather than wittering endlessly on an internet forum) and *get a precedent set*. If we've done it once, we can do it again.

To be honest, these threads are full of fake-fear threats of what we have to do because if we don't then that's wot'll 'appen. It's wasted energy. [/QUOTE]
As I understood it nothing about the Cadden case set a precedent in law or established a ruling that can be cited in other cases. It was simply a particular response to a piece of very heavy-handed policing by some plod who took exception to their advice (orders) being disregarded by a member of the public (on a bike). Goodness only knows how the prosecution ever got past first base.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Nov 2014)

Inertia said:


> Very poor reporting though, all they seemed to prove was that listening to music takes up 10% of your attention.


Yeah. In car radios and CD/mp3 players should be forcibly ripped out forthwith. Folk have an antipathy to people who wear headphones in the public space and it is a widespread one.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Nov 2014)

Inertia said:


> Very poor reporting though, all they seemed to prove was that listening to music takes up 10% of your attention.



It was breathtakingly stupid. If they wanted to "prove" that listening to music is distracting, then why did they not once mention drivers who listen to music? The drivers that kill two thousand people a year. It was a crappy segment, reinforcing the myth that road safety is down to cyclists and nobody else, implying cyclists are at fault in accidents, nasty victim-blaming crap. Rubbish. Dreadful reporting.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (5 Nov 2014)

glenn forger said:


> It was breathtakingly stupid. If they wanted to "prove" that listening to music is distracting, then why did they not once mention drivers who listen to music? The drivers that kill two thousand people a year. It was a crappy segment, reinforcing the myth that road safety is down to cyclists and nobody else, implying cyclists are at fault in accidents, nasty victim-blaming crap. Rubbish. Dreadful reporting.



That's hardly surprising. This is the program that used to be called Breakfast News until they decided to forget about reporting the news and instead fill the space with fluff like what's happening on the X Factor. The only reason i have it on in the mornings is to catch the local news and make sure my train is running. Any item that mentions cycling is generally a waste of time, even when it has someone like Chris Boardman being interviewed by a keen cyclist such as Louise Minchin.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Nov 2014)

User said:


> It wasn't a binding precedent, as it wasn't a decision of a court of record. It could, however, be used as a persuasive precedent (and has been IIRC).


My understanding is that the arguments used, which are long-established in case law, have been re-used successfully in a couple of broadly similar subsequent cases of equal idiocy (I suspect plod reads the Daily Heil who never ever print the fail story) - but that doesn't establish it as a precedent does it? ianal.


----------



## growingvegetables (6 Nov 2014)

Made me smile

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/15532400338/

OK - it was a smile crooked with resignation


----------



## Danny (7 Nov 2014)

I find the CTC response to the interview somewhat curious. They complain the the good points got drowned out by the furore over whether Boardman should have worn a helmet, and then seem to be doing everything possible to open up that particular can of worms. 

it seems to me that it is cycling activists who are most obsessed - one way or the other - by the helmet debate. I think most ordinary cyclists, and members of the public, don't really care that much one way or the other and are going to be bemused that the CTC seems to just trying to fan that particular aspect of the discussion.

As an aside I notice that there is also a link from the page on the Boardman interview to the CTC's latest guidance on helmet use. Whether or not you agree with their stance, I was more than a little surprised to find that they have devoted their scarce resources to creating two documents covering 36 dense pages on the issue.


----------



## subaqua (7 Nov 2014)

ABikeCam said:


> That's hardly surprising. This is the program that used to be called Breakfast News until they decided to forget about reporting the news and instead fill the space with fluff like what's happening on the X Factor. The only reason i have it on in the mornings is to catch the local news and make sure my train is running. Any item that mentions cycling is generally a waste of time, even when it has someone like Chris Boardman being interviewed by a keen cyclist such as Louise Minchin.



rose tinted glasses . 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Breakfast

only a small portion of time as Breakfast news.

and the definition of news is

news
n(y)o͞oz/
_noun_
noun: *news*
newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events. 

so having fluff about chezzas cat or whatever is still news even if it is " dumbing down"


----------



## mjr (7 Nov 2014)

Danny said:


> As an aside I notice that there is also a link from the page on the Boardman interview to the CTC's latest guidance on helmet use. Whether or not you agree with their stance, I was more than a little surprised to find that they have devoted their scarce resources to creating two documents covering 36 dense pages on the issue.


Those 36 pages won't have been created recently. Might have been updated, but 130+-year-old CTC will have been looking at this almost since the first helmets were introduced.

There were a hell of a lot of people claiming to be non-cyclists droning on about helmets on the various feedback web pages for the show. They do seem to care and many seem to think cyclists are to blame for most cycle collisions - which the police stats don't support, not that the BBC bothered to mention it and provide any balance all week.


----------



## Danny (8 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> Those 36 pages won't have been created recently. Might have been updated, but 130+-year-old CTC will have been looking at this almost since the first helmets were introduced.
> 
> There were a hell of a lot of people claiming to be non-cyclists droning on about helmets on the various feedback web pages for the show. They do seem to care and many seem to think cyclists are to blame for most cycle collisions - which the police stats don't support, not that the BBC bothered to mention it and provide any balance all week.


I know that they have always published stuff on helmets, but I don't remember it being so extensive last time I looked (which may not have been for 5 years or more). Anyway my point is that all the CTC are going to do by directing people to 36 pages of briefing notes on helmets is fan the sort of unproductive debates you can see on any cycling forum about helmet use. 

In its response to the Boardman interview the CTC sound more like it was a bastion of anti-helmet obsessives than a body that is seriously trying to represent the views of cyclists as a whole - many of who choose to wear helmets despite the CTC's advice to the contrary.


----------



## snorri (8 Nov 2014)

Danny said:


> In its response to the Boardman interview the CTC sound more like it was a bastion of anti-helmet obsessives than a body that is seriously trying to represent the views of cyclists as a whole - many of who choose to wear helmets despite the CTC's advice to the contrary.


I didn't get the same impression from the response.
I haven't found cycle activists to be in anyway obsessed by helmets. In my experience it's non cyclists who are more likely to raise the issue and who refuse to be diverted to other actions which could improve cyclist safety.


----------



## Danny (8 Nov 2014)

snorri said:


> I didn't get the same impression from the response.
> I haven't found cycle activists to be in anyway obsessed by helmets. In my experience it's non cyclists who are more likely to raise the issue and who refuse to be diverted to other actions which could improve cyclist safety.


Obsessed may have been a bit strong, but I don't think it would be unfair to say that many cycling activists are very sensitive about the issue and find it easy to be drawn into unproductive debates (as can be seen from the 240+ separate threads we have on the issue on CC).


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Nov 2014)

User said:


> CTC's media team aren't the best... they should keep Roger Geffen out of the media - he's a lobbyist and not a spokesperson.


What about the CTC is "the best" thobut? I'd settle for fit-for-purpose in most things but they don't seem to deliver. I fear they've become more about serving themselves and their own agenda and less about their beneficiaries - a danger for all charitable enterprises.


----------



## srw (11 Nov 2014)

User said:


> CTC's media team aren't the best... they should keep Roger Geffen out of the media - he's a lobbyist and not a spokesperson.


Can I claim a TMN? 

Geffen's a lovely person with a great taste in music, but I'd like to see him and Boardman work together to make the most of both their skills.


----------

