Cycling UK ‘Make it Simple’ review

[stoatsngroats]

I wanted to share this, having completed a letter to Cycling UK adding my support. Feel free to do the same..
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclesafety
SnG

 

[Drago]

I switched off the moment they mentioned the Dutch Reach. I'm all for keeping it simple, but draw the line at the unproven and unscientific.

 

[stoatsngroats]

@Drago i understand that, but as a trainer for minibus driving, and having recently discussed this with a couple of people, had some feedback from a person who passed her test a few decades ago, was told that she found this easy to remember to do, and supported the comments about it.
I think that there is some benefit from discussing this technique, and have used it occasionally myself. What works for some may not for others, I suppose, but the rest of the review is interesting and could bring some improvements overall.

 

[raleighnut]

They want my name address and e-mail, S*d that fer a game of soldiers

 

[classic33]

They want my name address and e-mail, S*d that fer a game of soldiers

Phone book.

 

[raleighnut]

Phone book.

Ex-Directory and 'number withheld' when I ring out on my landline.

I'm also very careful about not bandying my name about on t'internet to all and sundry (No facefark,tinder or twatter for me)

 

[classic33]

Ex-Directory and 'number withheld' when I ring out on my landline.

I'm also very careful about not bandying my name about on t'internet to all and sundry (No facefark,tinder or twatter for me)

Well, I did mean use the phonebook to pick a name & address.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Wrong situation if you're lobbying for tougher rules you should not need funding from the ones making that rules.

 

[stoatsngroats]

This is the usual bland puff from Cycling UK. All worded very carefully so as not to upset their major funders (HM Government).

I don’t know if you fully read the piece and it’s detailed supporting pages, but one thing appears to be very intelligible, nd novel, in as much as it is a written goal. Indeed many threads here have often questioned much of what is within this review. Things like enforcement recognising severity of injury to cyclists, and changes to highways.
Whilst these may never be implemented, I found it refreshing!

 

[sheddy]

I think Dutch Reach is included in their driving test.

 

[Drago]

No, i'm afraid that's myth. It is not part of their test, and not part of their official driver training syllabus. It was actually named in America, given the name Dutch Reach purely because cycling is so popular in Holland. Having named it after the country, this entire pantheon of myth and rubbish has grown lately about how the dutch all do it, it's compulsory in the driver training, part of the test etc - it simply isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dooring

There is little evidence that it has any benefit. I'm all for CyclingUK keeping things simple, and thus having reasonably achievable goals to pursue, but their efforts should be concentrated on that which is indisputably proven to have a safety benefit.

 

[stoatsngroats]

Ok, I accept I may not be as widely read as you are, but bland regurgitation of popular desires, shouldn’t necessarily mean it’s a waste of time, surely?
And whilst those you mention may have been saying this for some time, I don’t care if CyclingUK is attempting to gain a wider audience for these things.... I read much, and have been involved a very little, in trying to change local cycling issues, and I applaud Cycling UK and all the other groups trying to raise these issues, and solutions, whichever methods might succeed.
It may be that the lack of success, could be overcome by CyclingUK reaching a wider audience, and it was this that I chose to consider my OP.

 

[Drago]

I don't think it's a waste of time. I think its misguided, which makes it an inefficient use of time and resources, but not a waste.

They should establish what has been proven to work in terms of cycling casualty reduction, and create a KISS strategy from there. There should be no room for anything that has not been reasonably proven to work. I'm sure Phillip Benstead has been having a continuous coronary since he first read it!

 

[mjr]

Ok, I accept I may not be as widely read as you are, but bland regurgitation of popular desires, shouldn’t necessarily mean it’s a waste of time, surely?
And whilst those you mention may have been saying this for some time, I don’t care if CyclingUK is attempting to gain a wider audience for these things.... I read much, and have been involved a very little, in trying to change local cycling issues, and I applaud Cycling UK and all the other groups trying to raise these issues, and solutions, whichever methods might succeed.
It may be that the lack of success, could be overcome by CyclingUK reaching a wider audience, and it was this that I chose to consider my OP.

If CyclingUK wanted to reach a wider audience, don't you think it could at least acknowledge those who have already been saying this for some time? Maybe work with them? Or at least let sympathetic groups know that this was coming, so there could be some sort of coordinated/agreed push of similar messages, but CUK seems to do its own thing more and more and we only hear about it after it's too late to do much. Since sidelining the "club" bit, CUK seems to be heading off down a path towards wishy-washy good-looking-at-first-but-muddled-and-ineffective as BC national office has.

 

[Drago]

I only remain with them because I qualify for half price membership, which makes the insurance and legal cover a bargain. Aside from that...