Riding for a Fall

[CTC London]

Riding for a Fall
Britain’s cycling infrastructure falls fatally short of our enthusiasm and talent

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/l ... 496303.ece



Last updated at 12:01AM, August 3 2012
On Wednesday, on the same day that Bradley Wiggins, 32, became the most successful British Olympian in history, Dan Harris, 28, died after he was knocked from his bicycle by an Olympic shuttle bus in East London. As a nation cheered, tens of thousands watched Wiggins take a lap of honour at Hampton Court. Hours later, a stone’s throw from the Olympic Park, a young man lay dead on the road.
Wiggins’ victory is an historic one, and should be celebrated on its own merits. The family and friends of Mr Harris, meanwhile, deserve better than to have his death appropriated by campaigners of any stripe. The ludicrous contradictions inherent in the British approach to cycling, even so, could not be more starkly or harrowingly displayed.
The British, increasingly, are bicycle enthusiasts. Some of our greatest sporting heroes have ridden to both victory and household ubiquity on two wheels. British bicycle-makers — such as Brompton, Dawes, Ridgeback and Saracen — rival the best in the world. British enthusiasts and commuters are pedalling across British cities in ever greater, ever more enthusiastic numbers. This is a country crying out for a safe and sensible cycling infrastructure. And yet, too often, it has next to none.
Wiggins is quite right to have noted, when asked, that cyclists have some responsibility for their own safety. Cycling without a helmet is foolish, and cycling while plugged into headphones, as terrifying numbers still do, is something closer to imbecilic. But a debate on such behaviour — and on the linked tendency of some cyclists to flout the rules of the road — only arises because of the dangers posed by too many of Britain’s roads. In Denmark, in the Netherlands, in much of Germany, the precise habits of cyclists are nobody’s priority. They do not need to be.
Eight months ago, Mary Bowers, a reporter for this newspaper, was crushed by a lorry while cycling to work. Having narrowly avoided becoming another London cycling fatality, Miss Bowers is still in a rehabilitation ward and is not fully conscious. Shortly after her accident, The Times launched the Cities Fit for Cycling campaign. Since then, more than 35,000 supporters have signed up. Tens of thousands have joined cycling demonstrations, which The Timeswholeheartedly supports. Cycling has been debated by London mayoral candidates and by MPs in Westminster Hall.
Our manifesto for cycling is ambitious. Cycle safety and the improved awareness of other road users — particularly lorry drivers — are, of course, important, as is a significant reallocation of government transport spending . But The Times is arguing for a comprehensive rethink about how British cities ought to be.
A few daubs of blue paint in the middle of four-lane roads are not enough. Britain must put the bicycle at the centre of urban planning. At present, our road system too often puts cyclist and motorist in direct confrontation. This is frequently a harrowing experience for both, and far too often a fatal one for the former.The Times calculates that Mr Harris is the 61st cyclist to be killed on British roads in 2012.
In expertise as well as sheer participatory enthusiasm, cycling is becoming a major British national sport. It is also a cheap, healthy and enjoyable way of getting around. It must be safe, too

[meic]

Riding for a Fall
Britain’s cycling infrastructure falls fatally short of our enthusiasm and talent

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/l ... 496303.ece



Last updated at 12:01AM, August 3 2012
On Wednesday, on the same day that Bradley Wiggins, 32, became the most successful British Olympian in history, Dan Harris, 28, died after he was knocked from his bicycle by an Olympic shuttle bus in East London. As a nation cheered, tens of thousands watched Wiggins take a lap of honour at Hampton Court. Hours later, a stone’s throw from the Olympic Park, a young man lay dead on the road.
Wiggins’ victory is an historic one, and should be celebrated on its own merits. The family and friends of Mr Harris, meanwhile, deserve better than to have his death appropriated by campaigners of any stripe. The ludicrous contradictions inherent in the British approach to cycling, even so, could not be more starkly or harrowingly displayed.
The British, increasingly, are bicycle enthusiasts. Some of our greatest sporting heroes have ridden to both victory and household ubiquity on two wheels. British bicycle-makers — such as Brompton, Dawes, Ridgeback and Saracen — rival the best in the world. British enthusiasts and commuters are pedalling across British cities in ever greater, ever more enthusiastic numbers. This is a country crying out for a safe and sensible cycling infrastructure. And yet, too often, it has next to none.
Wiggins is quite right to have noted, when asked, that cyclists have some responsibility for their own safety. Cycling without a helmet is foolish, and cycling while plugged into headphones, as terrifying numbers still do, is something closer to imbecilic. But a debate on such behaviour — and on the linked tendency of some cyclists to flout the rules of the road — only arises because of the dangers posed by too many of Britain’s roads. In Denmark, in the Netherlands, in much of Germany, the precise habits of cyclists are nobody’s priority. They do not need to be.
Eight months ago, Mary Bowers, a reporter for this newspaper, was crushed by a lorry while cycling to work. Having narrowly avoided becoming another London cycling fatality, Miss Bowers is still in a rehabilitation ward and is not fully conscious. Shortly after her accident, The Times launched the Cities Fit for Cycling campaign. Since then, more than 35,000 supporters have signed up. Tens of thousands have joined cycling demonstrations, which The Timeswholeheartedly supports. Cycling has been debated by London mayoral candidates and by MPs in Westminster Hall.
Our manifesto for cycling is ambitious. Cycle safety and the improved awareness of other road users — particularly lorry drivers — are, of course, important, as is a significant reallocation of government transport spending . But The Times is arguing for a comprehensive rethink about how British cities ought to be.
A few daubs of blue paint in the middle of four-lane roads are not enough. Britain must put the bicycle at the centre of urban planning. At present, our road system too often puts cyclist and motorist in direct confrontation. This is frequently a harrowing experience for both, and far too often a fatal one for the former.The Times calculates that Mr Harris is the 61st cyclist to be killed on British roads in 2012.
In expertise as well as sheer participatory enthusiasm, cycling is becoming a major British national sport. It is also a cheap, healthy and enjoyable way of getting around. It must be safe, too

If any one starts off by throwing insults like that about they can just campaign on their own.

[[XAP]Bob]

Cycle helmets are not a panacea, and to not use one isn't foolish - that's a very unhelpful word to use.

A cycle helmet might protect in some incidents, but research shows that those incidents might be more likely when wearing a helmet...
It's not clear cut and should remain a matter for personal choice. Otherwise we need to mandate helmets for driving, walking, even getting out of bed!

[snibgo]

With friends like The Times, who needs enemies?

[Ellieb]

sorry guys. I can't help feeling that having The Times on board is going to be of more help to UK cyclists than cyclehelmets.org

[[XAP]Bob]

sorry guys. I can't help feeling that having The Times on board is going to be of more help to UK cyclists than cyclehelmets.org

Only if they promote road safety rather than safety theatre.

[meic]

sorry guys. I can't help feeling that having The Times on board is going to be of more help to UK cyclists than cyclehelmets.org

Only to those of the UK cyclists that want to wear a helmet every time they get on a bike.
For the rest of us they are not "on board", better to support the CTC who have a broader church.

[JOH]

sorry guys. I can't help feeling that having The Times on board is going to be of more help to UK cyclists than cyclehelmets.org

Only if they promote road safety rather than safety theatre.

So we should only support it if we 100% agree with everything?

Only to those of the UK cyclists that want to wear a helmet every time they get on a bike.
For the rest of us they are not "on board", better to support the CTC who have a broader church.

Why offend those that do not agree, surely you mean some of us, do you imply that your view is a majority view?

Views as expressed above will not be understood by the general public and be seen as reminiscent of the motor cycle helmets and seat belt debates of the past and would reinforce the negative views held by some. Helmet wearers are now as far as I can see the majority and no credible evidence has been able to persuade them otherwise let alone the public as a whole.

The Times in the general publics view has a higher profile than the CTC most of whom are unlikely to have heard of or understand the CTC. To reject the Times support openly on one issue whether you agree with it or not would be folly. The views of some on this issue could be toxic to cycling in general reinforcing negative stereo types.

The Times, given time has the potential to change the general publics view on cycling for the good while reversing stereotypes, the CTC may appear to be yet another pressure group (who gives much weight to the RAC/ AA views on speed Cameras). To have a national news paper running a pro cycling campaign is a first step IMO to a wider acceptance of cycling it is guaranteed that some of the developments that this will bring will not please all if you want the former you will have to accept the latter.

[meic]

I dont fully understand what you are saying there or even what you are trying to get across.

Cyclist are in themselves a minority, I am not implying mine is the majority view about helmets, I havent a clue on that issue and it isnt really relevant.

Why should we choose to support a cause just because it claims to be in our benefit, if in practice it offers no benefit and throws in insults.

Earlier I was called a fool for not wearing a helmet, now you call me a fool for not supporting a campaign which isnt in my interests just because it stands more chance of success than one that is.

Posts on this forum keep comparing cycle helmet compulsion to m/c helmet compulsion. The big difference is that m/c helmets were a real solution to a real problem.
It is more fitting to compare cycle helmet compulsion to the ill conceived attempt to have compulsory lower leg bars on m/cs.

[meic]

Cycling without a helmet is foolish, and cycling while plugged into headphones, as terrifying numbers still do, is something closer to imbecilic.

I still do have a car and I can drive that in my normal clothes with the music playing, with his interpretation of life I am an imbecile to ride a cycle instead.
Why do normal people prefer to take the car than a bike in the UK?

I would love a chance to put such statements and their spouters to the test.

[JOH]

I dont fully understand what you are saying there or even what you are trying to get across.

You do not look at the big picture and are self defeating.

Cyclist are in themselves a minority, I am not implying mine is the majority view about helmets, I havent a clue on that issue and it isnt really relevant.

Your original reply does not support that statement.

Why should we choose to support a cause just because it claims to be in our benefit, if in practice it offers no benefit and throws in insults.

You confuse their manifesto with the views of the columnist, which are not the same, there is nothing about compulsion I can see.

Here is the Times Manifesto, where do you see a mention of the issue that you have a problem with?

The Times is committed to achieving its eight point manifesto calling for cities to be made fit for cyclists.
1. Lorries entering a city centre should be required by law to fit sensors, audible turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
2. The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
3. A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.
4. Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
5. The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
6. 20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.
7. Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.
8. Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.

Which of these aims are you specifically in disagreement with?

Earlier I was called a fool for not wearing a helmet, now you call me a fool for not supporting a campaign which isnt in my interests just because it stands more chance of success than one that is.

I do not believe in offending others I have not called you a fool please do not put words into my mouth.

The Times manifesto hasn't even said anything about compulsion either ,you are putting words into their mouths as well, how can we expect to convince the public about cycling issues at large if we have fault lines on non issues.

To not support the campaign that raises the profile of cycling as a whole and has some merit because you perceive you do not agree with one particular element that is not even in the manifesto is self defeating. A flawed manifesto that is successful is far better than a perfect one that has very little chance of success.

Posts on this forum keep comparing cycle helmet compulsion to m/c helmet compulsion. The big difference is that m/c helmets were a real solution to a real problem.
It is more fitting to compare cycle helmet compulsion to the ill conceived attempt to have compulsory lower leg bars on m/cs.

You are a very long way from convincing cyclists as a whole and light years away from convincing the general public of that view. The fact that there is a seperate section to discuss this topic suggests you will never achieve that goal. The issue is that you allow a minority opinion adversly affect the interests of cycling and cyclists as a whole even though its not part of the proposal.

I think that the more this topic is raised needlessly in public the more likely there will be legislation.

by meic » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:21 pm

Cycling without a helmet is foolish, and cycling while plugged into headphones, as terrifying numbers still do, is something closer to imbecilic.


I still do have a car and I can drive that in my normal clothes with the music playing, with his interpretation of life I am an imbecile to ride a cycle instead.
Why do normal people prefer to take the car than a bike in the UK?

Because when you drive you wear a seat belt and your car may have air bags you dont need more saftey equipment, unless your vehicle is exempt you will be fined if caught not wearing the belt. When you play music in a car you can still hear some of the environment around you in a way you cannot with headphones I personally would not feel comfortable riding like that. You are still discussing the helmet issue this is not part of the Times Maniresto.

[meic]

To reject the Times support openly on one issue whether you agree with it or not would be folly.

meic wrote:

Earlier I was called a fool for not wearing a helmet, now you call me a fool for not supporting a campaign which isnt in my interests just because it stands more chance of success than one that is.

I do not believe in offending others I have not called you a fool please do not put words into my mouth.

The distinction is so fine that it escapes me, rather like the rest of your arguments.

But I do take on board that the quote is a comment piece from the Times, rather than part of their campaign. Though again the distinction between the two is lost on those out of the loop. As was the case when Jon Snow spoke out of order.

Finally I completely disagree that a successful campaign with a flawed outcome is better than a failed campaign for the right thing.

[meic]

When you play music in a car you can still hear some of the environment around you in a way you cannot with headphones

That is completely untrue as I prove every time that I hear things and all the motorists clearly havent and can not understand what I am trying to get through to them until the emergency vehicle comes into their sight.

Which is what I meant about wishing for a chance to put their mistaken opinions to a real life test.

[meic]

You are still discussing the helmet issue this is not part of the Times Manifesto.

Hardly surprising really as the thread is about the comment piece NOT the Manifesto (see I was paying attention to what you say) and I took exception to the helmet part of it .

[meic]

I still do have a car and I can drive that in my normal clothes with the music playing, with his interpretation of life I am an imbecile to ride a cycle instead.
Why do normal people prefer to take the car than a bike in the UK?

Because when you drive you wear a seat belt and your car may have air bags you dont need more saftey equipment, unless your vehicle is exempt you will be fined if caught not wearing the belt. When you play music in a car you can still hear some of the environment around you in a way you cannot with headphones I personally would not feel comfortable riding like that. You are still discussing the helmet issue this is not part of the Times Manifesto.

You have misunderstood my point here.
I am not arguing the case of why I should have to wear a helmet in a car, I dont WANT to wear a helmet in my car either.
I am a cyclist and a driver and the point I am making is why should I persist in doing the cycling if it is made much more onerous by having to dress up when I have a car that I can easily use in my ordinary clothes whilst listening to music instead.