Southampton's answer to fatal accident

[numbnuts]

MP calls for cyclists to think twice before using busy roads following fatal crash
This prat wants sacking
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/157...efore_using_busy_roads_following_fatal_crash/

 

[Deleted member 35268]

So the answer to road safety is to remove yourself from the road, but only applies to cyclists. ****head.

 

[Welsh wheels]

Strongly disagree with what he said, but I wouldn't call him a prat. He was awarded a George Medal after tackling a gunman onboard HMS Astute back in 2011, which is not very prat-like behaviour.
Donning my body armour in saying this, but just because someone doesn't have exactly the views about cycling that we would like doesn't make them a prat. Cycling isn't the be all and end all of life.

 

[I like Skol]

Someone must have voted for him?

He is obviously not a cyclist! I think it is a very non-cyclist view that think's cyclelanes are the answer. IME cycle lanes are not fit for purpose for someone who genuinely just wants to get from A to B (just like the drivers!) and their existence actually makes the situation for such cyclists worse as the motorists actually expect you to use these dire facilities.

 

[Tangoup51]

I think there is merit and some ignorance in his statement.

Some roads are actively avoided by us cyclists particularly ones that do not have proper cycling infrastructure. Typically busy roads though.
I personally only recommend this advice to people who both lack experience and "leg power"
Of course you do not have to do those things but for general safety I've found it works best when going for alternative routes. - Particularly if you're commuting to-and-from everyday.

The ignorance part is the assumption that a Cycle lane is the definitive reason that enables you to cycle the road. - In his context of Safety, it should make sense but in reality it doesn't.

A typical painted cycle lane will have just the same effect as being in the left-hand road position and having cars overtaking you. The only difference is
a white line.. A white line which means and does ultimately nothing. - All it does in reality is give ignorant drivers a reason to be angry at you if you're not nested in a cycle lane.


I can give his statement a benefit of a doubt to a degree but does feel like he needs to understand the very basic dynamics of what a cycle-lane does.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think there is merit and some ignorance in his statement.

Some roads are actively avoided by us cyclists particularly ones that do not have proper cycling infrastructure. Typically busy roads though.
I personally only recommend this advice to people who both lack experience and "leg power"
Of course you do not have to do those things but for general safety I've found it works best when going for alternative routes. - Particularly if you're commuting to-and-from everyday.

The ignorance part is the assumption that a Cycle lane is the definitive reason that enables you to cycle the road. - In his context of Safety, it should make sense but in reality it doesn't.

A typical painted cycle lane will have just the same effect as being in the left-hand road position and having cars overtaking you. The only difference is
a white line.. A white line which means and does ultimately nothing. - All it does in reality is give ignorant drivers a reason to be angry at you if you're not nested in a cycle lane.


I can give his statement a benefit of a doubt to a degree but does feel like he needs to understand the very basic dynamics of what a cycle-lane does.

Agree totally.

If you accept he is not (or may not be) an avid cyclist, then the advice to avoid certain roads has to be accepted as basically sound. After all, if one was giving advice to a child on avoiding "stranger danger", then, "do not talk to strangers" would be reasonable advice.

I am not saying that I am convinced by the hysteria over "stranger danger", and, I am not saying children (or anyone else) should not be able to speak to strangers, but, the reality, particularly in certain urban situations, may be that it is wise not to do so.

In short, we should all be able to go about our daily lives, without fear of being attacked, run over or otherwise molested, but, the reality is, this is, sadly, not always so. Equally sadly, I cannot see any indication that a speedy improvement in the situation is likely, no matter how much we all protest.

 

[MossCommuter]

Agree totally.

If you accept he is not (or may not be) an avid cyclist, then the advice to avoid certain roads has to be accepted as basically sound. After all, if one was giving advice to a child on avoiding "stranger danger", then, "do not talk to strangers" would be reasonable advice.

I am not saying that I am convinced by the hysteria over "stranger danger", and, I am not saying children (or anyone else) should not be able to speak to strangers, but, the reality, particularly in certain urban situations, may be that it is wise not to do so.

In short, we should all be able to go about our daily lives, without fear of being attacked, run over or otherwise molested, but, the reality is, this is, sadly, not always so. Equally sadly, I cannot see any indication that a speedy improvement in the situation is likely, no matter who much we all protest.

We don't tell pedestrians to protect themselves from reckless cyclists by not walking anywhere

 

[BoldonLad]

We don't tell pedestrians to protect themselves from reckless cyclists by not walking anywhere

Well, YOU may not, but, personally, I would definitely advise Pedestrians not to walk on shared paths, cycle tracks, roads, or, railways, without at the very least exercising extreme vigilance.

I would have to re-read the article, but, I was not aware the MP's advice was targeted at simply avoiding reckless/dangerous/inattentive drivers, I took it as advice at avoiding a potentially dangerous situation.

 

[Milkfloat]

In other news clueless MP tells women not to wear short skirts in case they are raped.

 

[Welsh wheels]

In other news clueless MP tells women not to wear short skirts in case they are raped.

The two situations cannot be compared at all

 

[Welsh wheels]

They are being. Why do you not agree?

Because saying that a women is asking to be raped is a much more serious thing to say than a well-meaning MP simply advising cyclists not to ride on roads that may be more a threat to their safety than others. Whilst cyclists should be allowed to ride on all roads without fear, we are also responsible for cycling in a safe manner and not taking unnecessary risks. A woman is never responsible for ensuring that she isn't raped.

 

[Tangoup51]

They are being. Why do you not agree?

The only similarity in that context you are discussing between Welsh wheels and Milkfloat is victim blaming.

To imply that the MP in this case is blaming the victim is wrong, the MP made no statement directly toward the victim who died in this case - or faulted him for the scenario.

He was simply summarizing the dangers that you will further incur in that scenario because of other people and their faults, not yours.
I,e, because no one invested enough money for proper cycling infrastructure and a band of negligent drivers.

I can't see how that is victim blaming.

 

[gavintc]

Because saying that a women is asking to be raped is a much more serious thing to say than a well-meaning MP simply advising cyclists not to ride on roads that may be more a threat to their safety than others. Whilst cyclists should be allowed to ride on all roads without fear, we are also responsible for cycling in a safe manner and not taking unnecessary risks. A woman is never responsible for ensuring that she isn't raped.

To me they are the same - pure victim blaming. In one, you don't adjust how women dress, you correct the male problem. In the other you don't correct where cyclists go, you correct the driver problem.

 

[BoldonLad]

To me they are the same - pure victim blaming. In one, you don't adjust how women dress, you correct the male problem. In the other you don't correct where cyclists go, you correct the driver problem.

I cannot speak for @Welsh wheels, but, my point was:

- it is NOT the victims fault
- in a potentially dangerous situation, it is wise to take precautions / avoiding action
- it may be HIGHLY desirable that certain activities can be carried out with impunity, but, REALISTICALLY, this not the case in practice

For example, I am a 70 year old male, past the first flush of youth, let us say. IMHO, I SHOULD be free to walk alone, at any time of day, without fear of being robbed etc, but, realistically, there are certain parts of my nearest city (Newcastle-upon-Tyne), or, indeed any other city in the UK, where I would avoid putting this particular "freedom" to the test, particularly if I had been over-indulging in the vino tinto (again).

 

[Tangoup51]

To me they are the same - pure victim blaming. In one, you don't adjust how women dress, you correct the male problem. In the other you don't correct where cyclists go, you correct the driver problem.

That's wrong. You can't correct the driver issue if road infrastructures are not adequate enough. Both where "cyclists go" and "driver problems" are related between Road Infrastructure.