Keeping safe and being seen on the road

[roubaixtuesday]

I've just watched Jeremy Vine who articulated thoughts I have held for many years, the need for cyclists to wear safety helmets that are known to reduce the seriousness of head injury and the need to wear high-vis clothing to enhance perceptibility. Whilst we all have our own individual opinion and exercise freedom of choice, I have yet to be convinced that cyclists who do not make an effort to make themselves seen or do not make a effort to wear head protection are in a safer position on the roads than those who do.

[Redacted] off and wear a helmet in your car before you lecture cyclists, you [redacted] [redacted] [redacted].

Ah, that's better!

 

[roubaixtuesday]

[Redacted] off and wear a helmet in your car before you lecture cyclists, you [redacted] [redacted] [redacted].

Ah, that's better!

Moderation, don't change just love it!

 

[Drago]

I've just watched Jeremy Vine who articulated thoughts I have held for many years, the need for cyclists to wear safety helmets that are known to reduce the seriousness of head injury and the need to wear high-vis clothing to enhance perceptibility. Whilst we all have our own individual opinion and exercise freedom of choice, I have yet to be convinced that cyclists who do not make an effort to make themselves seen or do not make a effort to wear head protection are in a safer position on the roads than those who do.

55 years in and going well, lady luck hasn't let me down yet.

Conversely, in my policing career I scraped many a poor unfortunate off the tarmac who thought a bonce potty or a bright garment were a substitute for a safe riding technique.

Old timers on here know my thoughts on how mirrors become a substitute for actually looking properly in then first place, and indicators a subsitute for even using mirrors properly, and so it seems to be with lids and florries. People donning it expecting to be automatically safer while doing nothing to actually improve their road craft, awareness and control skills are addressing (arguably) one risk while doing nothing about the one that is far more likely to get them killed.

 

[Ajax Bay]

First minute of 'Please Use Other Door' on Radio 4 (just now @ 11pm). Concern that a child is not wearing a helmet getting to school (sketch).

 

[matticus]

First minute of 'Please Use Other Door' on Radio 4 (just now @ 11pm). Concern that a child is not wearing a helmet getting to school (sketch).

Ah yes, heard that last year, very good!

(I preferred the 2nd sketch; Planning Permission Committee discusses Squid Games proposals "... and have you considered the impact on parking?" ...

 

[DogmaStu]

I never wore a helmet or hi-viz as a kid cycling for countless miles. I only started when I was forced to wear a helmet when racing - rules.

Now I look back as someone for helmet use and hi-viz clothing plus lights.

I've had a cycling accident as recently as 2021 and my £300 helmet was split in half. My head unscathed. I wonder sometimes how my head would have coped had it felt the full brunt of the road that day in a 40mph+ crash.

I don't need convincing that helmets can reduce the risk of a head injury - I know this for a fact from personal experience with and without and so I will wear one. Should you? That's your risk assessment, I'll not tell you to copy me.

Hi-viz? Well, again, as a motorist, I do know that certain colours stand out more than others and so my peripheral vision is more likely to cause me to look properly if I notice a bright colour in an otherwise nondescript scene. So I wear bright colours.

That said, the wearing of bright colours is merely a risk reduction measure and by no means an absolute safety measure - I was hit my a car on a roundabout while I was wearing a bright orange jacket and riding a bright red bike on a very bright sunny day.

Lights? I prefer them because they reduce the risk of being unnoticed by another notch.

The combination of all the above does not guarantee safety, it merely reduces risk. We play the odds. I am very confident on the roads however I will still take risk-reducing measures - especially such easy ones as these that are no problem at all to adopt.

Sure, motorists should be driving with due diligence but the reality is that we, as very vulnerable road users, should weigh our personal risk assessments carefully given two tonnes is a tad heavier than our bikes are, regardless of who is at fault.

 

[boydj]

The single thing which improves the visibility of cyclists to drivers is the cyclist's road position. You have to ride where drivers are looking, particularly at junctions - which means you have to stay out of the gutter and take the lane when you have to, especially passing side roads.

The efectiveness of helmets and hi-viz is hugely overstated.

 

[DogmaStu]

The single thing which improves the visibility of cyclists to drivers is the cyclist's road position. You have to ride where drivers are looking, particularly at junctions - which means you have to stay out of the gutter and take the lane when you have to, especially passing side roads.

The efectiveness of helmets and hi-viz is hugely overstated.

Road position is just stating the obvious. Surely most of us do that already? I also seek out roads with less traffic where possible. Cycling in areas with good infrastructure for cyclists means using cycle lanes too, which can help reduce risk - another obvious one.

In addition to road position, I wear clothing that stands out from the blur - motorists often do not recognise anything else but what they are specifically looking for: other motor vehicles. I believe it helps to try to highlight myself and I do this from personal experience as a motorist who notices the difference when driving between a dark-attired cyclist and a brighter-attired one.

It's a personal risk assessment - you do what you believe works best for you, of course, however I disagree with your assertion that helmet's and hi-viz are overstated - happy to leave it at that since I'm not trying to convert, only state my own views for anyone else reading who may be seeking other's experiences.

I would likely have suffered brain damage without a helmet in my last racing accident but then I typically cycle at much greater speeds than most.

Cycling around Amsterdam when I lived there I never wore a helmet unless training; so slow commutes, leisurely rides around the city etc I didn't bother, admittedly. Most don't, actually, albeit you do see a lot of children wearing them. The speeds are much lower as is the risk of being involved in a car accident. Still, I've witnessed a tourist with a nasty gash to her forehead from simply falling over.

There is a notable perception amongst some cyclists, I have found in my travels, that some believe they are 'cycling God's' when it comes to "road craft" and smugly brush off the need for any other risk-reducing measures in favour of their enormous skill levels. I know cyclists who had better road craft and bike handling skills than any of them who sadly aren't with us today thanks to motorists who weren't paying attention. No amount of "road craft" will save you if the other party to the accident doesn't pay you any attention - even if you are nearly directly in front of them.

Anyway, happy cycling to all - one thing we can agree on is our joy for cycling!

 

[Ajax Bay]

You might want to read this
https://www.chrisboardman.com/content/if_you_think_helmets.php

For those who haven't time to read the thread: https://www.chrisboardman.com/content/if_you_think_helmets.php

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I never wore a helmet or hi-viz as a kid cycling for countless miles. I only started when I was forced to wear a helmet when racing - rules.

Now I look back as someone for helmet use and hi-viz clothing plus lights.

I've had a cycling accident as recently as 2021 and my £300 helmet was split in half. My head unscathed. I wonder sometimes how my head would have coped had it felt the full brunt of the road that day in a 40mph+ crash.

I don't need convincing that helmets can reduce the risk of a head injury - I know this for a fact from personal experience with and without and so I will wear one. Should you? That's your risk assessment, I'll not tell you to copy me.

Hi-viz? Well, again, as a motorist, I do know that certain colours stand out more than others and so my peripheral vision is more likely to cause me to look properly if I notice a bright colour in an otherwise nondescript scene. So I wear bright colours.

That said, the wearing of bright colours is merely a risk reduction measure and by no means an absolute safety measure - I was hit my a car on a roundabout while I was wearing a bright orange jacket and riding a bright red bike on a very bright sunny day.

Lights? I prefer them because they reduce the risk of being unnoticed by another notch.

The combination of all the above does not guarantee safety, it merely reduces risk. We play the odds. I am very confident on the roads however I will still take risk-reducing measures - especially such easy ones as these that are no problem at all to adopt.

Sure, motorists should be driving with due diligence but the reality is that we, as very vulnerable road users, should weigh our personal risk assessments carefully given two tonnes is a tad heavier than our bikes are, regardless of who is at fault.

Consider looking for evidence rather than anecdote in your decisionmaking.

Consider your personal risk assessment for other activities - for instance, why don't you wear a crash helmet in a car?

Consider *why* you feel the need to share your personal opinions on the risks of cycling - an activity which net improves health outcomes massively, regardless of any of your recommendations. Do you do this for any other activities? If not, why not?

etc.

 

[Profpointy]

What you are missing is that drivers are required to drive only so fast as they can stop in the distance they know to be clear. The onus is on the driver to look where they are going. If a driver cannot see a cyclist, in broad daylight, wearing whatever tone of camouflage they choose to wear, they shouldn't be on the road. I'm not making this up - it's the rules if the road.

Whilst that is true, it is also possible to look but not see. I rather suspect we'v all done this at some point, hopefully where we've merely been surprised rather than hitting someone. There are strategies to reduce this risk, in particular by being very systematic, like I was taught in my motorcycle training.

Now that said, using various means to reduce the risk of not being seen / not being noticed would seem sensible for cyclists or even pedestrians on unlit roads. By analogy, thieves shouldn't steal my bike, but it's prudent to lock it. None of this means the driver shouldn't look properly nor that the blame should be on the vulnerable for not having the right British Standard approved jumper on.

 

[matticus]

Still, I've witnessed a tourist with a nasty gash to her forehead from simply falling over.

Such injuries are far more common in bathrooms, or descending stairs (without a bicycle, I should stress!)
Stay safe off the bike everyone!

 

[Alex321]

What you are missing is that drivers are required to drive only so fast as they can stop in the distance they know to be clear. The onus is on the driver to look where they are going. If a driver cannot see a cyclist, in broad daylight, wearing whatever tone of camouflage they choose to wear, they shouldn't be on the road. I'm not making this up - it's the rules if the road.

All of this is very true, but also pretty well irrelevant.

Drivers are human, which means they make mistakes, they get distracted, they do things they shouldn't do.

Maybe some of them indeed shouldn't be on the road, but they are.

Yes, the onus is on the drivers, the blame is often theirs when there is an accident.

But frankly, I'd rather not be in the situation where blame has to be apportioned for me lying in a pile of blood and broken bones.

Regardless of what drivers should do, I prefer to reduce as much as I can, the chances of being seriously injured or killed by them not doing it.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I prefer to reduce as much as I can, the chances of being seriously injured or killed by them not doing it [vehicle drivers not making mistakes].

Amen to that, especially your blood and bones scenario.
But isn't the issue whether wearing a helmet or wearing a particular colour clothing or exhibiting flashing lights front and/or rear reduces those chances?
Please include evidence-based research in any response. I'm all in for 'new stuff', especially if not "irrelevant".

 

[roubaixtuesday]

All of this is very true, but also pretty well irrelevant.

Drivers are human, which means they make mistakes, they get distracted, they do things they shouldn't do.

Maybe some of them indeed shouldn't be on the road, but they are.

Yes, the onus is on the drivers, the blame is often theirs when there is an accident.

But frankly, I'd rather not be in the situation where blame has to be apportioned for me lying in a pile of blood and broken bones.

Regardless of what drivers should do, I prefer to reduce as much as I can, the chances of being seriously injured or killed by them not doing it.

The emboldened is patently not true, unless we undertake the same precautions for other activities.

Cycling is singled out as (1) requiring risk reduction even when risks are already low (actually negative) and (2) implementing risk reductions which are almost entirely ineffective (helmets, hi viz)

It defies logic.