The BBC get it wrong, AGAIN!!!

[Mugshot]

Cut and pasted from todays BBC cycling write up, not sure if this bits been posted already,

Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.


So it would appear to make sense for cyclists to be as visible as possible. Hordes of lycra-clad cyclists in hi-vis colours indicate that many agree.

Words cannot describe how livid this crap makes me feel, the continual drip, drip, drip of victim blaming is nauseating.

 

[MisterStan]

To be fair, you could link to the article; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590

And you could have quoted this bit too;

But research by Dr Ian Garrard, of Brunel University, casts doubt on assumptions about hi-vis. Dressed in various outfits - from casual clothes to professional high-vis gear - Garrard measured how much space 6,000 motorists gave him as they passed his bike.

Clothing made almost no statistically significant difference - 1-2% of drivers always drove dangerously close. Only two outfits altered driver behaviour - one which said "police", and another with "polite". The latter is an intentional imitation popular with cyclists and horse riders.

 

[Mugshot]

I could have done, however that does not detract from the fact that the journo should have written that it would appear to make sense for drivers to look properly, it makes no difference how visible you are if people dont look.
The article is written with, in my opinion, a negative slant and the portion I have posted will be sufficient evidence for many that the responsibilty of avoiding collisions lies not with the people that aren't looking but with the people that aren't being looked for and that is bollocks.

 

[MisterStan]

Most personal protective equipment - like helmets or high-vis - places the burden and cost of protection on the rider, they say. There's an ethical incongruence there, Walker says, as riders are effectively paying not to be killed by others.
'SNIP'
"If we really are serious about trying to make cycling part of our culture, either the cars have to be tamed, or the cyclists have to be segregated," Franklin says.

More balance for you...

 

[Tin Pot]

"Person disagrees with journalist's article national shocker" - Cyclechat

 

[Tin Pot]

"Reader misquotes journalist who misquoted scientific research debacle" - Cyclechat

"Forum poster antagonises reader who misquoted an article that misrepresented scientific research" - Cyclechat

-----

I'll stop now.

 

[Mugshot]

Most personal protective equipment - like helmets or high-vis - places the burden and cost of protection on the rider, they say. There's an ethical incongruence there, Walker says, as riders are effectively paying not to be killed by others.
'SNIP'
"If we really are serious about trying to make cycling part of our culture, either the cars have to be tamed, or the cyclists have to be segregated," Franklin says.

More balance for you...

Do you think that the onus of looking properly lies with the person doing the looking or the person that is being looked for? Could you perhaps post the section which says that less cyclists would be run over, in this instance killed, if drivers looked properly?
What the comment I posted says is that it is the cyclists responsibilty to ensure they are seen, it does not say it is the motorists responsibilty to look properly, and no matter what steps you take if you are not looked for you will not be seen. If I were a non cyclist reading that then it presents me with all the ammuntion I need to continue with impunity, the rest I can ignore as guff particulalry when we also have the following,

But it's important to note that this research was carried out in daytime conditions. Even though 80% of accidents occur in daylight, at night it's a different matter - anything that makes you visible is highly recommended.

 

[PK99]

Cut and pasted from todays BBC cycling write up, not sure if this bits been posted already,

Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.


So it would appear to make sense for cyclists to be as visible as possible. Hordes of lycra-clad cyclists in hi-vis colours indicate that many agree.

Words cannot describe how livid this crap makes me feel, the continual drip, drip, drip of victim blaming is nauseating.

interesting point made in the NHS Choices article you link to, just below the 44% point you refer to:

"On average, there were 1.82 contributory factors associated with cyclists involved in a fatal collision and 1.60 contributory factors for drivers.

This suggests that cyclists are slightly more to blame for fatal collisions. However, this is just one set of figures.
Whatever the true extent of “blame” (if any can or should be laid), it is important to note that cyclists are likely to come off worse from a collision.
Even the safest cyclist cannot avoid all possibility of an accident, and these figures would suggest that greater vigilance on the part of all road users would reduce the chances of a collision."

My point: Selective quoting and knee jerk reactions to individual bits of a report do not advance the argument or understanding

I'd recommend the whole article to all.
Cycling safety – a special report
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02february/pages/cycling-safety-a-special-report.aspx#risk


Conclusion
While there is a great deal that could be done to make our roads safer for cyclists, the risks to your safety should not put you off taking up cycling.

It is cheap and convenient in terms of transport, and has numerous health benefits.

To reduce your risk of being involved in a serious accident:

• Never cycle drunk and always pay attention to your road position and that of other road users
• Wear appropriate clothing and make sure your bike is kitted out with lights. This ensures you are seen at all times of the day and night
• If you are an inexperienced cyclist, practice in a park or a similar place of safety before venturing out on the roads
• Read and learn the Highway Code – it applies to all road users, not just motorists
• Get trained – those cycling proficiency classes you had back in school are probably not going to cut it for urban cycling

The DfT offers Bikeability training schemes – described as “cycling proficiency for the 21st century”!

Read more cycling tips for beginners and we hope you have many happy and safe cycle journeys.

 

[KneesUp]

Cut and pasted from todays BBC cycling write up, not sure if this bits been posted already,

Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly, according to independent research firm the Transport Research Laboratory.


So it would appear to make sense for cyclists to be as visible as possible. Hordes of lycra-clad cyclists in hi-vis colours indicate that many agree.

Words cannot describe how livid this crap makes me feel, the continual drip, drip, drip of victim blaming is nauseating.

There is a prima facie case that this is correct.

Obviously the research shows that the general instinct that wearing high visibility clothing makes a difference is incorrect, but I think most people would assume it would. As the journalist is aware of that research, it's pretty poor journalism.

That said, if it were correct that high visibility clothing makes a difference, then of course it makes sense for cyclists to wear it. That's not saying it's their fault, anymore than saying it's my fault if I cut my foot on broken glass on the beach because I wasn't wearing flip-flops.

 

[MisterStan]

Do you think that the onus of looking properly lies with the person doing the looking or the person that is being looked for? Could you perhaps post the section which says that less cyclists would be run over, in this instance killed, if drivers looked properly?
What the comment I posted says is that it is the cyclists responsibilty to ensure they are seen, it does not say it is the motorists responsibilty to look properly, and no matter what steps you take if you are not looked for you will not be seen. If I were a non cyclist reading that then it presents me with all the ammuntion I need to continue with impunity, the rest I can ignore as guff particulalry when we also have the following,

But it's important to note that this research was carried out in daytime conditions. Even though 80% of accidents occur in daylight, at night it's a different matter - anything that makes you visible is highly recommended.

If you say so.

 

[glenn forger]

The Beeb today devoted the entire bike segment to riding with earphones in. A practice not implicated in a single death. Why? It's not even in the top twenty ways of making cycling safer.

 

[Dan B]

Conclusion
[...]
To reduce your risk of being involved in a serious accident:

This does not seem to include the obvious recommendation: "Stop driving your motor vehicle into cyclists"

 

[Mugshot]

My point: Selective quoting and knee jerk reactions to individual bits of a report do not advance the argument or understanding

I don't disagree with this, nor am I (I hope) misunderstanding @MisterStan. My point, which I may be making very badly, is that as is pointed out in the quote from NHS choices article greater vigilance is needed, but you and I have read that article, if I were only to read the BBC journos bit, as I suspect most people will, then it doesn't say that and it would be supremely easy to have incuded just that as a quote at the start of the section on hi-viz to have totally changed the way it reads, whilst still providing a link to the whole report. As @KneesUp has said it's poor journalism. The section on helmets mentions the compulsion in other countries, one additional sentence would have told us the basic impact that compulsion has had there.
At the outset the article states that

Many cyclists believe improving culture among drivers and boosting infrastructure are the only meaningful ways to save lives.

Perfect, lets have an article outlining some of those, the things which Boardman was actually trying to talk about, instead we get straight into helmets, hi-viz and headphones. It may be impossibly naive of me, but it would be nice if the whole issue could be broadened rather than continually getting bogged down by the three Hs which does nothing to challenge but merely supports the attitude of drivers.

 

[benb]

interesting point made in the NHS Choices article you link to, just below the 44% point you refer to:

"On average, there were 1.82 contributory factors associated with cyclists involved in a fatal collision and 1.60 contributory factors for drivers.

This suggests that cyclists are slightly more to blame for fatal collisions.

The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.
It could well be that as the cyclist has been killed, the driver is simply free to make up whatever story he likes about the circumstances.

We already know that overall drivers are solely responsible for 70% of driver/cyclist collisions (with cyclists solely responsible for 15% and 15% shared or unclear) and I cannot see a plausible mechanism where that ration would so drastically change for fatals.

 

[benb]

The Beeb today devoted the entire bike segment to riding with earphones in. A practice not implicated in a single death. Why? It's not even in the top twenty ways of making cycling safer.

Because they are doing the broadcast version of clickbaiting.