Safe Speed Forums

Here's a quote from him today:



Highly sensible IMO.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Forget the Sir Bradley go straight to Lord Wiggo of Wobbledom. Too sensible to be just a Sir.

Unfortunately wait for the bleating from both sides that he knows nothing and it's all the other guys fault.

As reported...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Games.html

And as suspected! Accident as a result of cyclist attempting to pass left turning large vechicle on the near side! Why do they do it??

Even if the Bus driver had failed to indicate (which I suspect is unlikley) It still makes no sence to deliberately place oneself in the blind spot of a vehicle that could squash you without noticing it at this sort of junction There is a reasonable liklyhood in a multi lane juction such as this one that the left most lane will contain left turning traffic. Much better to hang back untill you know that the vehicles ahead have done what they want to do and the vehicles behind (which CAN see you) can take account of your presence.

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I like the guy and congratulate him on his very hard work and dedication. But there's a big 'but' for me I'm afraidHow hasn't anyone picked up on this

Are we saying if some numpty pulls out on you, you can't argue if you weren't wearing a seat belt? Are we saying if you get 'rear-ended' because you happen to have a brake light out It's your fault? Is it the case, now, that if I pull out on a speeding driver I am absolved of all and any responsibility?

Sorry, but with all due respect to Wiggins I think his remark is at best hasty and at worst.. (bites tongue). Damn right I would argue, in answer to his remark!

Edit/add: Unless he means if you get killed as a result? (Not how it came across to me).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I may be incorrectly paraphrasing Bradley's point but IMO he is effectively saying that you should take all reasonable precautions to be safe otherwise your argument that it was another's fault is weakened. This includes helmet use, not using phones/ipods etc.

If we take one of your scenarios, if someone pulls out on you and you weren't wearing a seat belt you will suffer much worse injuries. I hope not being "at fault" comforts you while you are in hospital. Your other examples are much the same.

It is a basic tenet of safety that it is everyone's responsibility and that you should take all reasonable steps to mitigate injury. Why should this not apply to cyclists? I don't buy the argument that "if I had to wear a helmet then I wouldn't cycle". If you have such disregard for your own safety then what regard do you have for that of others?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Lots of evidence that helmet wearing makes cycling unsafer for individuals and for cyclists as a whole.

I don't wear a helmet when I cycle and feel safer for it.

Mandating helmet wearing for cyclists would be a massive retrograde step.

So please explain how I have "disregard for my own safety" by not wearing one.

You are riding along and a pothole catches you out and you are thrown off the bike. You hit your head on the ground.

A possible outcome is a fractured skull and death but a helmet would reduce the risk of such severe injury.

In industry, saying you felt safer not wearing protective equipment would be regarded as perverse.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Can't help on that one.

BUT, good few years ago I was asked if we could help save our firm some cash by doing security work on a gate.
Weeks later ,the HSE police arrived , and my boss was called in. I was not wearing the right sort of boots , neither was I wearing a hard hat. The site had security gates which had little securing features and moved in any breeze, and that day we had a high wind. I got great delight in warning the HSE POLICE off site ,as they were standing in the line of the gates as the wind moved them to take out the HSE POLICE. I loved it as our boss got them off site as a safety hazard.(I got a text from boss to compliment me on my actions. ).
I loved that.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Can you explain and show how please.

Yes, I would be interested in an explanation of this. Are we talking about risk compensation?

As you know, all the cyclists I see when driving in my area wear Lycra etc. and this was, indeed, the case tonight on my journey home. However, I observed that all these riders were also wearing helmets. They clearly don't know that it is less safe.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Show me the facts, give me the truth, I demand evidence and impartiality!

Since this is impossible, especially in these days of information overload and bull sh1te, I'll rely on empiricism over media hype...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The way I see the argument going is like this.

Obviously (I expect) Were I to propose to whack Weep over the head with my "Clicky-Ba" he would prefer that I did so after he had put a helmet on. So in absolute terms, wearing a helmet is safer.

However, we are not looking at a simple enviroment. Does the wearing of a helmet make it more likly that cyclists will be knocked off (Perhaps because drivers see helmet wearers as somehow more experianced and so give them less margin) to such an extent that the benefits of helmet wearing are offset by the greater risk of accident?

The analogy with the building site is not so daft. I imagine that before hard hat wearing became more or less compulsary builders were extremely careful about not dropping small items that might cause injury, perhaps now "everybody wears a helmet" they may be less careful about this, if only by a small margin.

Of course there is also the traditional "Risk compensation" effect, Previously non-helmet wearing Cyclists might feel invincible wearing a helmet and so take grerater risks and therefore suffer more accidents

Unfortunatly these are actually very difficult effects to objectivly measure because there are so many additional factors (New cyclists, especially middle aged "Born again" ones are more likly to wear helmets but are also, due to inexperiance, much more likey to be involved in accidents, how do you account for this??)

There is the other argument that, under certain circumstances, a helmet might exacerbate what might otherwise have been a minor injury. I am sure that this does happen. I am sure it happens with seat belts too. but I am also sure that (Like with bad vaccene reactions) individual cases of disadvantage are rare and that the overall "Herd" benefit is still substantially positive (Again, like with vaccenes)


There is of course the other argument that cycle helmets do little to help in major accidents (such as being dragged under a bus/lorry) and ususally make little diference in minor ones. But in intermediate accidents they allow people who would otherwise have been killed outright to survive though seriously disabled. Is this actually a good thing? (Either for the individual or wider socioty)

(The above also applies to motor vehicle safety devices too...!)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

This is the classic spike in the centre if the steering wheel analogy in many ways. If I'm wearing full race leathers on a motorcycle I'm going to ride faster on a track day than if I was in a Shell Suit and trainers.

Unlike Weepej, I concede that I would undoubtedly be safer wearing a helmet but I ought to be able to make an informed choice about whether to or not. Otherwise, the slippery slope, I'll end up with compulsory: -

Helmets
Hi Viz jackets
Carrying a first aid kit
Glove, knee & elbow pads
Lights on front and back during daylight, (like motorcycles)
Minimum tread depth
Enforced drink laws for cyclists

Well? Why not? It would make it safer and/or better for everyone wouldn't it?

At some point someone has to say enough is enough! Where's my right to stop others telling me how to run my life? If you argue in favour on the basis that it safer to have or do 'something' then you open the floodgates for a whole raft of measures.

Why is it that if X and Y would make things safer we'll only introduce Y as some kind of token gesture or lip service to Health & Safety?

The NHS's resources doesn't just attend to broken skulls bouncing off Tarmac or curbs I can tell you. We already have more than enough interference in our lives and freedoms IMO.

Be careful what you wish for; I wear a helmet because I choose to and It's a responsible thing to do. But depending on where I am and what I'm doing, on other occasions and places I choose not to. (Along my local canals and certain quiet roads and paths).

One of the tenets, well mine at least, is education and training over compulsion. I don't believe I'm alive, well and fit today because of laws. I would go as far as saying some laws have given me more grief and heartache than their intended benefits EVER have...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

[quote="Big Tone"



One of the tenets, well mine at least, is education and training over compulsion. I don't believe I'm alive, well and fit today because of laws. I would go as far as saying some laws have given me more grief and heartache than their intended benefits EVER have...[/quote]


Like it. Folks will not behave safely (100% of the time ) if ordered to do so.
But educate them why- and it's a different kettle of fish.(al right Tone, I cod have seen some fishy response )

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Thanks Botach, I won't carp on about it

I knows It's probably about a balance, doing what's in my best interest as a potentially stupid or unwise person, verses my free will. But this is not far removed from any celebrity in a position of notoriety to air their views without proper and full analysis, investigation and consultation.

The trouble and danger with emotive and passionate statements from 'stars' is they can sometimes get heard for all the wrong reasons. I wouldn't like Sting to come out saying speed kills just because he's also an experienced driver owning a dozen cars, for instance.

I know Wiggins has probably forgotten more about cycling than I'll ever know and therefore speaks with authority on a subject he knows all about. That's good and just what we want.

But this is on a matter of politics and freedoms IMO. Before the helmet law was introduced for motorcyclists the vast majority of riders wore helmets, so countless old bikers have always told me. Could we not have encouraged that minority to wear them using advertising, peer pressure, free helmet with every bike etc. etc.? I rarely see bikers without gloves, even on the hottest days, because we know what's the first thing we try to do if you fall off and what our hands would look like.

I'm not discounting it as a good law, but I'd rather it came from a more authoritive body which takes everything into account before a superstar wades in with a false statement.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I recently read an article by Christian Wolmar in which he advances all the arguments commonly used against helmet wearing by cyclists. Very interesting but he misses the point really being made in this thread. He basically asks for everyone EXCEPT cyclists to do something to improve safety.

However, wearing helmets would be a visible sign that cyclists at last acknowledge that they too have responsibility for road safety instead, as suggested many times on this site, everyone else should look out for them while they can do what they like on the road. Drivers automatically being at fault is one example which comes to mind.

My view is the opposite. The primary responsibility for cyclists' safety is their own and they need to grow up and act accordingly. All of what Wiggins says is basically correct.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I'm in agreement with him too, except for his one remark.

I'm not trying to be argumentative Malcolm and maybe he fumbled his words. (He's not a natural articulate orator from what I saw in the interview).

But I most certainly would argue if a driver is at fault though. I don't see the relevance or relationship between wearing a helmet or not regarding culpability i.e. The accident is my fault for not wearing a helmet

I say again, if I'm involved in an accident which is not my doing but I'm more hurt because I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, for example, the fact that I wasn't wearing it does not make the accident my fault and that's how the law stands AFAIK.

Maybe he was caught off guard with an unexpected question not regarding his incredible success, but it is a silly thing to have said.

I don't know why I'm on my own with this

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

[quote="Big Tone"]Thanks Botach, I won't carp on about it
BUT- ANY CYCLIST seeing a car indicating left Knows That it's Time for fish and chips s to mate up if they carry on ahead.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

The main one for me is that mandating helmet wearing whilst cycling positively discourages cycling in a way that mandating seatbelt wearing (Which I support) and motor cycle helmet wearing (which I'm more ambivalent to) does not discourage people using their cars or motorcycles.

And the one thing cyclists want on the road is more cyclists; it helps other road users get used to cyclists, and increases the chance that a road user in or on a motorised vehicle that has to deal with a cyclist on the carriageway is a cyclist themselves.

Here's a very eloquent Dutch Canadian on why mandating cycle helmet wearing is a bad idea (for general cycling).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

Well now I can die!

Didn't think I'd ever give weepej credit for a good argument, or rather link to one, but I really enjoyed that

A compelling argument well presented by an articulate man. I'd like to see references to all his claims but, on face value, It's difficult to find fault.

I personally would still wear a helmet because if it makes someone feel safe and that encourages someone to cycle or gives them the courage to use public roads that's all the better I think.

I know he says the opposite but for those who are worried about getting their head caved in, each to their own I say. This is why I prefer education over compulsion as much as possible, and by education I mean getting at the truth!

My biggest confusion is how you can see this matter so seemingly impartially, with all due regard for this as a safety and public interest matter, and not see dumb speed limits in exactly the same, public duping, light?

That guy could have been Paul or Claire speaking in the same manner with equal fervor on current speed enforcement, and as many or more facts and figures on mass hysteria regarding speed legislation and its enforcement!

I'm left more confused about you than ever weepej...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.