Would these five changes help cyclists?

[Cycleops]

There's another piece on cycling on the BBC news website. See if you agree that these things could actually help. I somehow doubt it!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590

 

[Drago]

I read that at lunchtime. I'm undecided if the BBC's coverage this week is a good thing , or whether their lopsided presentation is setting us back as a movement. I shall mull that one.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

• Should helmets be compulsory - No! Australia is a perfect case study of how a mandatory helmet use law has stifled cycling, and it has never really recovered. Furthermore, our bike-hire company in Melbourne is struggling and has been right from the start, because having to carry a helmet with you, or purchase one, just for a quick jaunt around the CBD, is too much hassle for many, and so the rate of use of our hire bikes is very, very low.
• Should hi-vis gear be used in the daytime? - No. Instead, motorists should just pay more attention. Forcing cyclists to wear hi-vis gear is just victim-blaming.
• Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? - the researchers mentioned in the article got it wrong, in my opinion. Generally when you ride further out from the kerb, motorists give you more room, and are more likely to completely change lanes to overtake you. Riding near the kerb tends to make some motorists think "I might try overtaking the cyclist while staying in the left lane", which of course means they overtake cyclists with very little clearance.

This bit is an example of one of my pet hates:

"If we really are serious about trying to make cycling part of our culture, either the cars have to be tamed, or the cyclists have to be segregated," Franklin says.

How exactly does one tame a car? They should have used the word "motorists" instead of "cars" .

 

[400bhp]

:sigh; another thread on this.

 

[RedRider]

I haven't seen any other coverage this week (apart from the reaction to Chris Boardman's appearance on the breakfast show as highlighted on CycleChat) but the piece linked in the OP at least gives 'our' side some prominence ie hi vis doesn't really make a difference, helmets are not magic and that cyclists should position themselves in the middle of the lane when necessary.
It's a rare thing to hear/see any of that stuff in the non-cycling media.
As an aside, I contacted British Cycling to voice support and thanks for Chris' campaigning and got an email back.....
"Many thanks for your kind email which we passed on to Chris Boardman. He was very happy to hear that you are supportive of his campaigning work and that you appreciate his arguments on how to grow cycling. It is certainly great to hear positive comments after the helmets debate on Monday."

 

[HLaB]

• Should helmets be compulsory - No! Australia is a perfect case study of how a mandatory helmet use law has stifled cycling, and it has never really recovered. Furthermore, our bike-hire company in Melbourne is struggling and has been right from the start, because having to carry a helmet with you, or purchase one, just for a quick jaunt around the CBD, is too much hassle for many, and so the rate of use of our hire bikes is very, very low.
• Should hi-vis gear be used in the daytime? - No. Instead, motorists should just pay more attention. Forcing cyclists to wear hi-vis gear is just victim-blaming.
• Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? - the researchers mentioned in the article got it wrong, fact in my opinion. Generally when you ride further out from the kerb, motorists give you more room, and are more likely to completely change lanes to overtake you. Riding near the kerb tends to make some motorists think "I might try overtaking the cyclist while staying in the left lane", which of course means they overtake cyclists with very little clearance.

This bit is an example of one of my pet hates:

How exactly does one tame a car? They should have used the word "motorists" instead of "cars" .

FIFY Walker's work was flawed, it didn't take account the width or busyness of the road, more critical factors in the overtake. The biggest and more variable/ unpredictable factor is the driver.

 

[Accy cyclist]

They show a helmet as a safety thing,then show the helmet being incorrectly worn on the back of the head. Tut tut!

 

[slowmotion]

I read the first couple of paragraphs with mounting despair and blood pressure. Fortunately I have a very large supply of medication to deal with the consequences.

 

[S.Giles]

The article seemed on the whole quite well balanced to me. Wearing headphones whilst cycling in traffic is lunacy IMO.

Steve

 

[Shut Up Legs]

That exemplifies the helmet debate perfectly. Those who advocate helmets don't appear to care whether or not the construction is effective, nor whether they are worn correctly, just that they are worn.

Agreed. There's no way my helmet would stay perched in front of my forehead, because they're both just the wrong shape. It doesn't work, but try telling that to our stubborn government who refuse to learn from other countries in this particular area.

 

[glenn forger]

The whole campaign is an exercise in barking up the wrong tree. They list five things that they think may "help"- ie keep safe, cyclists and every single one is aimed at what cyclists do. So the impression is given that if only cyclists sorted things out they'd stop getting killed. Therefore, because the entire premise is flawed, they devote an entire segment to earphones, blindly following Boris's nonsense. Earphones are irrelevant. They don't matter. The test yesterday was a case in point, it was devoted to earphones so they had a man from a university with a clipboard who said "10%" less concentration. That's a suspiciously round number for a start. Whatever. It's not important. Earphones are a triviality, and if there really is a problem with listening to music how come drivers weren't mentioned throughout the entire section? Blimey, it was surreal, it was as if drivers were in an alternative universe. Bizarre.

It's been a waste of time and a missed opportunity, they may as well have covered the role in making roads safer for cyclists of tea cosies, amaryllis and mustard. Pathetic.

 

[glenn forger]

"But many motorists - and even generally pro-cycling London Mayor Boris Johnson - claim there are more than just "some" cycling fools. Johnson has even blamed risk-taking cyclists for causing many fatalities. It's clearly not just a one-sided issue."

Now THAT'S scientifically rigorous.

 

[Big Nick]

In relation to hi-viz, whilst I don't think we should all dress like Neon signs I do think the trend for wearing all black kit is a bit worrying as you are harder to see which surely the cyclist themselves must realise, combine that with a dark coloured bike and it's even worse

I always tend to wear stuff with some bright yellow or red in it as I read somewhere these colours draw the motorists eye better

 

[Ganymede]

In relation to hi-viz, whilst I don't think we should all dress like Neon signs I do think the trend for wearing all black kit is a bit worrying as you are harder to see which surely the cyclist themselves must realise, combine that with a dark coloured bike and it's even worse

I always tend to wear stuff with some bright yellow or red in it as I read somewhere these colours draw the motorists eye better

I agree - although wearing dark colours can make you more visible in some situations, I think all-black or one dark uniform colour isn't helpful. I was cycling in bright low sun the other day, looked behind me and saw a red car, it passed me and a black car followed behind it to my surprise. It had been going through some dappled tree shade with the sun behind it and was completely invisible for the length of time I'd looked round. I always have a hi-viz baldrick to sling on and break up the uniformity.

 

[Profpointy]

I read the first couple of paragraphs with mounting despair and blood pressure. Fortunately I have a very large supply of medication to deal with the consequences.

Scottish medication I take it