Boardman on BBC Breakfast...

[GrumpyGregry]

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]

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]

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]

TBH I never though his bikes were all that either.

 

[Mugshot]

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]

[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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 35268]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Scoosh]

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

All part of being a Mod !