pwa wrote: When I use a chainsaw I wear a helmet with visor, gloves, kevlar padded trousers and special boots. PPE is worn for all sorts of ordinary, everyday things.
Using a chain saw isn't an everyday thing. Walking down the road may be, but children seem to have to wear HiViz jackets just to do that now.
One thing cyclists can be sure of is to be given advice by people who don't ride bikes. I had a reply from Surrey CC stating "... a cyclist would be able to cycle along there." I had actually cycled it and hence my complaint.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
"Even if you are being really careful, drivers of other vehicles might not be paying attention; they might be on the phone, eating or drinking or being distracted by passengers." Obviously happens in Yorkshire and what's being done about that? More victim blaming.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
pwa wrote: When I use a chainsaw I wear a helmet with visor, gloves, kevlar padded trousers and special boots. PPE is worn for all sorts of ordinary, everyday things.
Using a chain saw isn't an everyday thing. Walking down the road may be, but children seem to have to wear HiViz jackets just to do that now.
One thing cyclists can be sure of is to be given advice by people who don't ride bikes. I had a reply from Surrey CC stating "... a cyclist would be able to cycle along there." I had actually cycled it and hence my complaint.
My point was that PPE (including hi-viz) is much more common in normal activities than it once was, so an activity that often incorporates PPE is not necessarily labeling itself as high risk. What puts novices off cycling is the perception of danger they get from hearing about accidents and near misses including the many posted on Youtube. Any novice looking at this Forum would quickly get the impression that cycling is mainly about conflict and injuries on the roads.
I hope we don't lose sight of the issues here. In early 2014, in response to public concern about the high level of cycling fatalities, the Metropolitan Police launched Operation Safeway during which a substantial part of the police activity involved stopping riders and advising them about hi-viz and helmets. It's difficult to see this as anything other than more of the same. It's only been highlighted apparently, through the publicity surrounding the handover of a safe passing mat.
Why bother about drivers endangering cyclists if you can blame the cyclists?
It needs real police to deal with bad driving. Anybody can tell cyclists they should be wearing helmets, hi-viz, riding single file, whatever.
Maybe we should be asking for someone from Cycling UK to post on here with clarification of Cycling UK's position in support of 95 Alive . Is this a massive own goal or are CUK changing their position to support motorists above Cyclists? This may sound flippant, but allowing themselves to be allied to the aims of 95 Alive in the press is a whole new direction for a cycling organisation ...
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
thirdcrank wrote:I hope we don't lose sight of the issues here. In early 2014, in response to public concern about the high level of cycling fatalities, the Metropolitan Police launched Operation Safeway during which a substantial part of the police activity involved stopping riders and advising them about hi-viz and helmets. It's difficult to see this as anything other than more of the same. It's only been highlighted apparently, through the publicity surrounding the handover of a safe passing mat.
Why bother about drivers endangering cyclists if you can blame the cyclists?
It needs real police to deal with bad driving. Anybody can tell cyclists they should be wearing helmets, hi-viz, riding single file, whatever.
The police have powers to stop a road user where an offence is committed/suspect, to inspect their documents (which cyclists don't have), for ASB behaviour, or for census purposes. There is no power in PACE to stop a cyclist or any road user in order to deliver a lecture.
MIAS L5.1 instructor - advanded road and off road skills, FAST aid and casualty care, defensive tactics, SAR skills, nav, group riding, maintenance, ride and group leader qual'd. Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
pwa wrote:My point was that PPE (including hi-viz) is much more common in normal activities than it once was, so an activity that often incorporates PPE is not necessarily labeling itself as high risk.
I'm not sure that point is best made by way of an example involving the use of some machinery that is designed for cutting through trees and can easily and rapidly remove limbs, heads or internal organs if dropped. It's a little different to hopping on a bike to go and get a pint of milk.
Last edited by Bez on 18 May 2017, 1:27pm, edited 1 time in total.
Phil Fouracre wrote:Wish I'd read this earlier! Just been for a litre of milk! and only wore jeans and sweatshirt, hell, was I putting myself at risk?
The recommendation was to wear a long sleeved top to protect your arms (I hope your sleeves were rolled down). And as cloth evidently provides such good protection, you should have had the sweatshirt pulled over your head - so you can look out through the neck hole, obviously. Someone with a camera might like to model it and post the pic.
landsurfer wrote:And Cycling UK are supporting this bunch ????????
Not exactly.
Both "this bunch" (with or without multip[le question marks) and cycling UK are, independently of each other, supporting the Police in their campaign for drivers to give more space to cyclists.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
thirdcrank wrote:I hope we don't lose sight of the issues here. In early 2014, in response to public concern about the high level of cycling fatalities, the Metropolitan Police launched Operation Safeway during which a substantial part of the police activity involved stopping riders and advising them about hi-viz and helmets. It's difficult to see this as anything other than more of the same. It's only been highlighted apparently, through the publicity surrounding the handover of a safe passing mat.
Why bother about drivers endangering cyclists if you can blame the cyclists?
It needs real police to deal with bad driving. Anybody can tell cyclists they should be wearing helmets, hi-viz, riding single file, whatever.
The police have powers to stop a road user where an offence is committed/suspect, to inspect their documents (which cyclists don't have), for ASB behaviour, or for census purposes. There is no power in PACE to stop a cyclist or any road user in order to deliver a lecture.
You might want to research section 163 of the Road Traffic Act.
