Manchester police say helmetless cyclists are "asking for trouble"

Dear GMP,

Please can you explain how wearing a piece of polystyrene with a thin covering of plastic weighing 200-400 grams can stop a metal box powered by thousands of explosions a minute with upwards of 100 litres of flammable liquid, weighing upto 3000KG from running into me?

Also if the senerio described above is so successful, why haven't you made it law that every road user wears one?

Yours

Fed up with being bullied by other road users.

Prime example of ignorance to the facts and victim blaming and quite frankly however it may have been worded it is not ok.

Time and time again people are hit and killed by other members of society in cars and in any other scenario it's manslaughter or murder but somehow society and big business aided by successive weak governments have managed to ignore this killing as being 'acceptable and unavoidable' events.

Given the number of uninsured drivers and the other motoring issues GM area has I really think concentrating on the cause of the problem rather than berating the victims for their failure to control these reckless people should be their immediate priority.

Agree though, MP should definitely get involved and GMP asked to explain why victims appear to have more duty to safeguard themselves against reckless road users rather than joint agencies actually stopping these people from causing catastrophic harm in the first place.

It's something they well recognise given images they are using on their web pages about Taking Care Greater Manchester.

What would have happened if GMP Radcliffe had tweeted "women who go out at night in short skirts and low cut tops are asking for trouble"... I think the reaction would quite rightly have caused a sh*tstorm of monumental proportions.

The police really are useless feckers. They don't understand the law or how they are supposed to enforce. If this fat cat pig got off his backside and made his officers go out into and around Manchester enforcing speed limits on roads then this might actually be helpful as it might actually save some lives and improvde driving standards as well.

What an idiot.

They are addressing the wrong vulnerable group.

If you have a question about the law it's probably best not to trouble the constabulary.

Followers of The Cycling Silk, Martin Porter QC, were recently treated  to a run-down of his evidence to the Commons Select Committee on Road Traffic Safety in which he highlighted several errors, mistakes and omissions by the police.

For example he was informed by an officer, in writing, that no motorist could be charged with careless driving if the victim was a cyclist and was not using a provided cycle lane.   This is utterly untrue but it's a view that seems to be gaining traction in the police force.  Porter is convinced that such nonsense is trotted out by busy officers in the hope that the complainant will simply go away.

He also challenges the policy of some senior officers that careless driving cases will only be pursued if there was serious injury or severe damage.   Otherwise they will be quietly forgotten.

If you haven't read any of his stuff, you should.  He writes only occasionally but it's always worth  seeking out.

Are all police officers not wearing stab vests "asking for trouble" ? 

Edit, just saw the last tweet, great minds and all that! 

The Radcliffe GMP twitter account is operated by a twit. Check out this exchange;

https://twitter.com/GMPRadcliffe/status/677528834225389568?lang=en-gb

The comparison with pedestrians not using helmets and being hit by cars is not very good. Virtually all pedestrian/car collisions are the pedestrians fault. Seen some figures somewhere.  With cyclists and cars its a lot more loaded towards cara being at fault. 

Problem is not wearing a helmet isn't dangerous, being hit or falling off is. Bit like not wearing your seatbelt, that won't hurt you either. And it being compulsory is as wrong as compulsory cycle helmets are.

I hope Manchester cyclists are contacting their MPs to report this and ask for an investigation into this. I'm going to contact mine for comment. I have to ask what useful function police Twitter accounts serve. Maybe the cost of running them would be better used for the main function of the constabulary even if it was only enough to cover an extra few gallons of petrol for a patrol car.

The GMP tweet is irrational, and is either based on ignorance or prejudice.

The risk (as measured in micromorts)  of being injured whilst cycling or walking is about the same.  If you demand armour plating for cyclists but not for pedestrians you are by definition being irrational.

It is arguable that the risk of head injury  for pedestrians is higher than that for cyclists since being hit by a motor vehicle carries the highest risk of serious head injury. Collisions with motor vehicles accounts for damn nearly all pedestrian injuries, wheras many cycling injuries don't involve another vehicle (simple falls), and carry a lower risk of head injury.

http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts

I'll go for 195 comments if we're having a sweep.

I wonder what Amsterdam or Copenhagen's police forces think to this?

Quote:

Greater Manchester Police accused of victim blaming after comparing speeding with not wearing a helmet

Err - except that speeding is against the law and (as far as I can recall), not wearing a helmet isn't.