Or, as the progressives would say, victim blaming.
Cycling campaigners have reacted angrily to a tweet from the Highway Code that said cyclists should wear helmets and protective clothing, saying the advice fuelled a culture of “victim blaming”.
And what was this egregious advice?
The official Twitter account’s post encouraging people to wear “appropriate clothes for cycling” was met with negative responses from those who believe the suggestion to be ineffective. The code is published by the Department for Transport.
Oh, for fuck’s sake! I ride a motorcycle. Irrespective of the legal requirement to wear a helmet, I would not only do so, but would actively encourage others to do so as well. I also advise new riders to wear protective clothing that will keep them warm and dry and provide some impact resistance. I will suggest that they consider bright colours to help counteract the SMIDSY problem. None of this is victim blaming, it is sound common sense. People can ignore it if they choose to do so. And if, having ignored it, they leave half their skin and flesh on the road following a spill, they will find little in the way of sympathy from me – in that instance, yes, I damned well will indulge in a bit of victim blaming – because it is your own damned fault. You made a choice, so accept the consequences. However, giving the advice is not victim blaming – and the Highway Code advice given here is not victim blaming either.
A spokesperson for Cycling UK said the recommendation led to a culture of “victim blaming” of cyclists and allowed careless drivers to evade responsibility.
Go fuck yourself with your bicycle pump you pompous jerk. The recommendation is merely common sense and good advice. Nor does it say anything about drivers evading responsibility. You know what? I’d rather wear something bright, ride defensively and avoid the accident than end up on the tarmac following a SMIDSY – you know, preferring not to get hurt by doing something proactive to avoid it. Jesus, we are dealing with cretins here. I don’t give a flying one about the driver’s responsibility here, I want to avoid the accident happening in the first place and if I can, I will. Fault is irrelevant when you are on the operating table or in the morgue. Fuckwit.
“Helmets are only really effective in low-impact collisions, we need better infrastructure for cyclists and education for drivers,” they said.
Fair point about the helmets of course. And I would not agree with there being no compulsion. However, the Highway Code isn’t saying this, is it? As for education, given the standard of cycling I see on our roads, it ain’t just drivers that could do with a dose of that. People in glass houses and all that.
“If you look at places like the Netherlands and Denmark, where there are more cyclists, it’s not helmets that contribute to low death rates for cyclists but roadscapes and townscapes that are designed to keep people safe.”
Sure. But all of our towns and cities would need a radical redesign. Oh, yeah, I see, that’s what you want here isn’t it? Not taking some personal responsibility, but that motor vehicles be driven out of the towns. Checks that it’s the Guardian. Yup, it is. So, yes, the usual anti-motorist bollocks then.
The Highway Code advises cyclists to wear a helmet that conforms to current regulations, to avoid clothing that may get tangled in wheels or obscure lights, and to wear light or fluorescent-coloured clothing, and reflective clothing or accessories in the dark. None of the guidelines are legal requirements.
And none of this is remotely controversial.
The former Olympic racing cyclist Chris Boardman quoted the Highway Code account’s tweet and said: “Like the 1950s healthy people smoke Marlborough messages – we will look back on in years to come and ask what were we thinking.”
Fuck me! They even managed to sneak smoking in. Jesus!
Ricky Carterna, a cyclist who responded to the tweet, said: “Hi-vis, helmetsand appropriate clothing have no effect when hit by a careless, inattentive driver in a one-tonne metal vehicle traveling at 30mph.
And those who did see the cyclist because they were wearing bright clothing and consequently avoided the cyclist will go unmeasured, of course. The whole point being made here is that it improves one’s likelihood of not being hit by that careless driver. Idiot.
“I have worn these recommended articles and still been wiped out. Focus your attention on the cause and stop victim blaming.”
Yes, sure. And you might have been wiped out even more had you not. We will never know. The Highway Code also has advice for drivers regarding cyclists and other vulnerable road users, so the point being made is nonsense. There will always be those who take to the roads without paying attention (including cyclists) – so those of us who are vulnerable have to pay extra care. Get over it and grow up.
Not everyone is opposed to the Highway Code’s advice, however. Last week, the sister of a cyclist who died after being hit by a tractor in Leicestershire launched a petition to make it compulsory for people to wear a helmet and display working lights while on the road.
No! No! No! No! No! Advice good. Compulsion bad! Those who point out the ineffectiveness of helmets when struck by another vehicle are right. It should be a choice people make having weighed up the risks. It should not be a matter for the state. As for lights, it is already a legal requirement for cyclists to display lights and reflectors after dark.
Last August, the 2018 Tour de France champion Geraint Thomas also said he felt helmets should be made compulsory for cyclists.
Then he’s a moron as well. Jesus! I am surrounded by idiots!
There’s a twerp on a bloody bike who uses a really busy rat run that skirts one town around here (it’s technically a B road), it’s also the route to the landfill site and an industrial estate so lorries about, not a street light anywhere to be seen.
This thick statistic dresses all in black, not a single light on his bike, not even a piggin reflector.
I already feel for the poor sap who’s going to clean him up, a helmet of any description won’t make a scrap of difference if a tip wagon runs him over.
When this guy gets knocked off his bike I would categorise him as the perpetrator rather than the victim.
Yep, take steps to reduce risks, manage likely dangers and personal responsibility for your own actions.
I drive and cycle, I enjoy both, I drive to work on Mondays with my uniform for the week in the car and cycle back and forth driving home on Friday. At the moment I wear a helmet and bright clothes and multiple lights because my route is unlit, slippery and often deserted. I intensely dislike bike helmets, I cycled back to the UK from Spain last summer without a helmet because I was on dry roads in day light. My life, my choice.
I’ve been hit by cars whilst cycling, I’ve hit a cyclist while driving (No major damage ever occurred). One of my pet hates is self righteous twats who make insisting people wear the mostly useless cycle helmets a moral issue. Another is the often appallingly bad cyclists who insist that motorists are to blame for accidents which are frequently the cyclists fault.
Ive just watched a video …daily dose of the internet.. and you can buy an airbag for your neck and head….https://hovding.com/
Bicycles and Helmets:
Advise is OK if done correctly, Gov’t agencies go OTT. What really annoys me, nay angers me, is PHE and other puritan do-gooders castigating those who don’t wear one.
BBCs Dr Mosley often writes about this in DM.
I only wear one when doing crazy off-road stuff and then it’s an MC full-face.
First it was Compulsory MC Hemets for your own good, then seatbelts, then smoking ban, then Min Alc price, then sugar tax….
https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/politics/is-the-state-nurse-ratched/
I was fifteen when the helmet law came in. Even then, I was sufficiently aware to be concerned. I was right – this was a slippery slope.
That said, I don’t believe the HC advice is particularly OTT – it is generally reasonable common sense. And I don’t always follow that advice, preferring to make a personal judgement, which is how it should be. Here’s the advice, use it or not as you see fit. But, yes, the obsessive puritans do latch onto such things for their own benefit.
What you have to remember here is that humans are not, as a rule, particularly observant. We have no evolutionary reason to be observant; the fastest humans throughout history have ever gone is about 15 MPH. Stick the MK-1 caveman in a car, and you should be bloody amazed that they don’t crash the damn car almost immediately, not that they don’t see some stuff.
Therefore if I’m riding a bike on a road in the midst of lots of MK-1 Cavemen all going two or three times faster than their senses ever evolved to cope with, then I’m going to do my damndest to stand out from the background. Hello railway workers’ orange jacket (cycle jackets are all sized as for anorexic dwarfs and cost a packet; workwear is much cheaper and actually fits), hello nice bright rear light, hello back-up flashy rear light.
If I’ve not got the orange jacket on, then I wear a designed-for-motorcycles reflective harness. This is my life, my body, and we only ever get one of each so I reckon I’m going to make myself nice and easy to see whilst out on the roads.
Besides, not being a near-invisible pillock helps all round. The further back car drivers see a bike from, the more time they have to react to the bike. If the bikers stay close to the side of the road and get out of the way of cars on single-track roads then all the better; be sensible, be seen and above all try not to be an annoying wanker.
+1 Spot on
Think of it as Evolution in Action.
I was taught that ‘right of way’ and ‘responsible for accident’ was to allow the lawyers to argue at the inquest over whose estate paid for the funerals.
All parties are, in law, required to take reasonable care and precautions to minimise the risk of an accident and the consequences of it occurring. That does not mean compulsion, but it does mean taking responsibility for your decisions: acting as a grown-up in fact. The latter is why PHE (an fellow travellers) are so opposed: children of all ages need looking after and aren’t trusted with a vote.
I taught my two a couple of (sick) jokes before letting them cycle:
1. Q: What does a pedal cyclist use as crumple zone?
A: Their head.
2. Q: What’s the last thing to cross a careless pedal cyclist’s mind?
A: The saddle.
After due disgust, giving them a form for a kidney donor card made them realise what they were doing.
I am staggered that the issue of lights, high-vis/bright coloured clothing and so on is even the slightest bit controversial. These people are evil.
No. The “controversial & evil” stems from the arrogant Hi-Vis brigade demanding they may do as they want by dint of wearing Hi-Vis and all other road/pavement users Must accept their superiority.
Whatever one wears, one is responsible for one’s own safety and accident avoidance. No, I am not absolving the “I didn’t see you” idiots, they should be punished.
About fifteen years ago, I was active on the Bikenet forum. I fell out big time with the Hi-Viz/Daytime lights brigade. The reason being, that I challenged them to demonstrate evidence to support their assertion that it makes any difference whatsoever. No one has yet. We instinctively accept that being bright makes us more visible and therefore will reduce the likelihood of an accident. If it does work, then providing evidence will always be difficult. That said, it does no harm. However, it does not negate the need for defensive riding/driving. And that was my point. By God, did they take a dislike to me for that.
Imo A bike with headlight On stands out, as does one or a few in Hi-Viz at “whatever”.
When all have DLR and/or Hi-Viz it no longer stands out and makes those “not” more vulnerable, but doesn’t reduce risk to the all now DLR/Hi-Viz
The DLR etc Laws are virtue signalling which imo increase risk.
And that was my point here. It’s opinion, not verifiable fact. It doesn’t mean that opinion is wrong, merely that it is not verified objectively. So while I will give the advice, I also point out that new riders may take or ignore that advice as they see fit. Indeed, I do myself at times.
I have no problem with the Highway Code advice, while choosing on occasion to go my own way. I do have a problem with the idiots who are claiming that it’s victim blaming because it isn’t.
Now that all new vehicles have daytime lights fitted, the whole thing is moot anyway.
OT
UK not alone in dislike of EU
USA News: Trump Embarrasses EU With Major Move on diplomatic status
:snigger
Good that we agree even though coming from different angels, but same objective.
With the number of people (including it would seem ‘distinguished Olympians’) who will need to be sent on a one-way trip to North Korea to indulge their fantasies of control there have to be some serious questions as to whether Kim Jong Un would even want them??
They would start telling him how to run things.