One would hope so, but (as ever) I'm going out of my way to be helpful.
Why are UK cyclists fixated on helmets
- Thread starter steveindenmark
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
Flags? One might think, being the USA, instead of putting flags in the bucket they would have filled them with guns, now that would bring a bit of order to the place.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
Just catching up on this after coming home from tour (Newcastle-Aberdeen, 374 miles, no incidents, wonderful scenery, two dolphins, no lid 
).
I think there is a deeper issue in the perceived responsibility for risks between the UK and mainland Europe. There is a mentality that we are personally responsible for preventing other people doing things to us here (and in places like the USA and Australia where we sent people). This is far more than just in cycling. Look, for example at far too many people's attitudes to rape victims (they should have stayed at home/worn less revealing clothing/got a taxi), or opinions I've seen on here that people who don't lock their possessions down 'deserved' to be robbed (I'm thinking of the man in Manchester who had a £2k+ bike nicked while popping into the shop to buy milk). In a different sphere look at the way people on benefits are regarded as scroungers by many. The mantra of 'personal responsibility' (I prefer the term 'victim blaming') means that we are more happy to blame victims for the ills of society.
Cycle helmets are a good example of victim blaming. There is a perceived risk to cyclists, mainly from motor vehicles. In most other European countries this is met by enforcing rules on the motorists (eg: presumed liability), and in many places providing a secure and joined up structure to allow the vulnerable users to travel ok. Those are societal responses. In the UK the answer seems to be to put an expanded polystyrene shell on your head and dress up like a banana.
Perhaps if we were more like social democratic europe and less like individualistic countries such as the USA then cycling wouldn't be seen as this dangerous activity on the fringe of society.
).I think there is a deeper issue in the perceived responsibility for risks between the UK and mainland Europe. There is a mentality that we are personally responsible for preventing other people doing things to us here (and in places like the USA and Australia where we sent people). This is far more than just in cycling. Look, for example at far too many people's attitudes to rape victims (they should have stayed at home/worn less revealing clothing/got a taxi), or opinions I've seen on here that people who don't lock their possessions down 'deserved' to be robbed (I'm thinking of the man in Manchester who had a £2k+ bike nicked while popping into the shop to buy milk). In a different sphere look at the way people on benefits are regarded as scroungers by many. The mantra of 'personal responsibility' (I prefer the term 'victim blaming') means that we are more happy to blame victims for the ills of society.
Cycle helmets are a good example of victim blaming. There is a perceived risk to cyclists, mainly from motor vehicles. In most other European countries this is met by enforcing rules on the motorists (eg: presumed liability), and in many places providing a secure and joined up structure to allow the vulnerable users to travel ok. Those are societal responses. In the UK the answer seems to be to put an expanded polystyrene shell on your head and dress up like a banana.
Perhaps if we were more like social democratic europe and less like individualistic countries such as the USA then cycling wouldn't be seen as this dangerous activity on the fringe of society.
Last edited:
I expected to see this pop up in the "Weird Habits" thread, TBH.
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Well, it suits me.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
SMIDSY that 
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Which brings us neatly to (yet) another issue: the readiness for people to blame anything - and anyone - other than themselves. Which, when it comes right down to it, is what is behind this drive to the radioactive lemon look (and not just for cyclists - have you seen the school parties all bedecked in luminous hi-vis?). "It isn't my fault, my (excess) speed had nothing to do with it, I didn't see her". "He came out of nowhere". "The sun was in my eyes". How many times have we heard all these same tired excuses trotted out? They're all wrong: you didn't see the cyclist/pedestrian because you WEREN'T LOOKING. Anything to avoid admitting culpability, or responsibility for one's own actions. So vulnerable road users are expected to don the banana look and polystyrene hat because motorists expect to be absolved of their responsibilities - yet still get the blame, as well as the consequences. The depressing thing is, the frequency with which these feeble cliched excuses are accepted in court. As I've said before, this fixation on PPE for the vulnerable party is to ignore the badly driven elephant in the room.It won't be polystyrene hats that change this. It'll be the courts treating those pathetic excuses with the contempt they deserve, and dishing out appropriate sentences. If only...
Last edited:
This is why the Thudguard is such an excellent illustration.
It is endorsed by the same groups and medical experts as cycle helmets, yet there is no public or medical outcry when child goes in with a head injury in fact RoSPA goes as far as to state they could make a similar contribution to child safety
Why the hysteria about one, but not the other?
I have never seen a Doctor or Nurse ask......"Was your child wearing a Thudguard?"
Would the ASA ever ban an advert because the children were not wearing Thudguards?
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
I beg to differ.
I've been reading up.
Voraciously.
1/3rd of team SMIDSY doesn't see the cyclist/pedestrian DESPITE looking. The illusion of attention all to often has tragic consequences. Until the courts and legislators start to realise that, as a species, too many of us are unfit to drive due to a biological inability to process the huge sensory overload that occurs behind the wheel meaning we are physically unable to see what we don't expect to see, nothing is going to change.
It's an uncertain world; I blame the invisible gorillas.
Last edited:
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Audi drivers?
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
I beg to differ over your begging to differ.
I believe it's called "looked, but failed to see". You referred to, obliquely, that video clip where you count the number of times a ball is passed between people - yet fail to see the gorilla walking across the screen. What you're forgetting is that the viewers are primed to watch the ball. It's the same with motorists: they're looking for other vehicles - not other vehicles and cyclists. This is a conscious, or at least subconscious, decision. They know that there is the possibility of there being a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter - yet give the junction a cursory glance before pulling out, because they just have to get stuck behind the next traffic queue a couple of seconds sooner. This in no way is a valid excuse: failing to observe properly is falling below the minimum standard of competence that all other road users have every right to expect.
You know what? Every time I see someone waiting to pull out in front of me, I have this in mind, that they haven't bothered to look properly. You know what else? I'm quite aware of how I may not see things I ought to the first time round - that's why I always look twice. Because making a mistake will hurt. A lot. I've got every reason to observe properly - or at least make the attempt. But the motorist, cocooned in their nice warm steel box feels safe and doesn't quite have the same motivation.
And there is still the other two thirds who do look properly - what about them?
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
No external priming is needed. None whatsoever. If anything our own minds prime themselves. Our minds prime themselves as to what to expect and look for, and thus then only see the expected. And fail, completely, to see the unexpected. http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/ is fascinating stuff, as was the recent documentary on the BEEB about Kahneman which reconstructed Chabris' unprimed "illusion of attention" experiment. I mean, you couldn't run right past people having a fight and not see them, could you?
the other 2/3rds aren't SMIDSY's btw.
If failing to observe properly is actually a hard wired problem for some then we need to start radically changing our transport infrastructure and training programmes to address, and police, that reality.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Yeap. That's my point. Motorists expect to see other cars, so don't look for anything else. But if they expect to see cyclists, they'll look for cyclists. A problem that can be fixed by a change of attitude or training, perhaps? Anyway, we're straying rather far from the OP. A major problem is that this fixation on helmets, and hi-vis merely serve as a distraction from issues such as this - and that is to the detriment of all road users, because genuine opporunitities to make the roads safer are being ignored for populist sticking plasters such as lids.
