Kim Briggs widower calls for courier firms to check staff aren't using illegal bikes

burtthebike wrote:

ooldbaker wrote:

True and if you were interested in saving lives you would ignore road safety and campaign for a cure for heart disease and cancer. Just because there are bigger issues does not mean there is not something to gain in his campaign.

There is a cure, or even better, prevention of heart disease and cancer; cycling.  His campaign is not helping anyone, and it is actually making things worse.

I feel quite strongly about this as someone who spends a lot of time trying to encourage exercise, but of course as soon as I tweeted this on Briggs' feed he blocked me - clearly disagreement is not to be permitted.

franta wrote:

I can only immagine how we all would be equally appalled if it had been a car without front brakes that killed a wandering cyclist. 

How about if it was a car that was traveling in excess of the speed limit. just as illegal as a bike without a front brake and effects the brake distance in the same way.

I wonder how many cyclists have been killed by motorists breaking the speed limit, I bet it more than one, and I bet it wasnt front page news in daily mail for weeks.  

Housecathst wrote:

franta wrote:

I can only immagine how we all would be equally appalled if it had been a car without front brakes that killed a wandering cyclist. 

How about if it was a car that was traveling in excess of the speed limit. just as illegal as a bike without a front brake and effects the brake distance in the same way.

I wonder how many cyclists have been killed by motorists breaking the speed limit, I bet it more than one, and I bet it wasnt front page news in daily mail for weeks.  

Here's one

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/15319412.No_jail_for_cab_driver_who_kn...

And, to be fair to the Mail, and ironically enough, the above and the Daily Mail seem to be the only places the case was reported at all!

Another

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/engineering-student-who-killed-man...

No jail time served in either case of course.

Housecathst wrote:

franta wrote:

I can only immagine how we all would be equally appalled if it had been a car without front brakes that killed a wandering cyclist. 

How about if it was a car that was traveling in excess of the speed limit. just as illegal as a bike without a front brake and effects the brake distance in the same way.

I wonder how many cyclists have been killed by motorists breaking the speed limit, I bet it more than one, and I bet it wasnt front page news in daily mail for weeks.  

There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits. Immagine there was a movement amongst mototrists to drive unroadworthy cars because that is how they like it. Would you be OK with a campaign to prevent that ?

franta wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

franta wrote:

I can only immagine how we all would be equally appalled if it had been a car without front brakes that killed a wandering cyclist. 

How about if it was a car that was traveling in excess of the speed limit. just as illegal as a bike without a front brake and effects the brake distance in the same way.

I wonder how many cyclists have been killed by motorists breaking the speed limit, I bet it more than one, and I bet it wasnt front page news in daily mail for weeks.  

There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits. Immagine there was a movement amongst mototrists to drive unroadworthy cars because that is how they like it. Would you be OK with a campaign to prevent that ?

 

and how successful have they been ? 

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-10/over-half-of-uk-drivers-admit-to-brea...

There already a movement of motorists driving unroadworthy vehicles. I don’t see any campaign which is getting as much news as Mr Briggs.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3275472/Some-1-2-million...

do you think there are 1.2 million brakeless fixies on the road ? 

franta wrote:

<

There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Have you actually _seen_ any roads?

There's no enforcement of speed limits - ergo nobody pays much attention to them. Just yesterday I stopped to watch a 'check your speed' readout sign on a road with a 20mph limit, for a few minutes during the morning. The lowest speed displayed was 27mph, the highest was 37. To be fair, the sign did make a frowny face at all the speeders though (that is, at every single vehicle that went past). The frowning didn't seem to be having much effect.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

franta wrote:

<

There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Have you actually _seen_ any roads? There's no enforcement of speed limits - ergo nobody pays much attention to them. Just yesterday I stopped to watch a 'check your speed' readout sign on a road with a 20mph limit, for a few minutes during the morning. The lowest speed displayed was 27mph, the highest was 37. To be fair, the sign did make a frowny face at all the speeders though (that is, at every single vehicle that went past). The frowning didn't seem to be having much effect.

I live opposite one. It's a badge of honour. Buses are massive offenders. Double decker fucking buses, doing 30+ in a 20.

Good job there's not a school down the road. Oh, hang on...

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

franta wrote:

<

There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Have you actually _seen_ any roads? There's no enforcement of speed limits - ergo nobody pays much attention to them. Just yesterday I stopped to watch a 'check your speed' readout sign on a road with a 20mph limit, for a few minutes during the morning. The lowest speed displayed was 27mph, the highest was 37. To be fair, the sign did make a frowny face at all the speeders though (that is, at every single vehicle that went past). The frowning didn't seem to be having much effect.

Thinking about this... I was a young man when those little illuminating signs started appearing on the road.

And they were effective. Suddenly our speed was being made real, and excessive speed pointed out.

On reflection, there was probably a bit of fear too that someone was watching me and can see my excessiveness.

Fast forward the best part of 20 years and for me, they are still effective. I see a sign flash up, I look at my speed and slow it down.

I have been programmed... that initial surprise back in the day, adn that initial 'big brother' fear lasts on, and it contains me. 

I am sure if does for other people my age or older who lived through the introduction of this technology.

However, those learning to drive / growing up with this technology in place will have far less of an affiliation with the tech. To these people its just a totally pointless sign to be ignored. 

Sad times. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

franta wrote:

<

There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Have you actually _seen_ any roads? There's no enforcement of speed limits - ergo nobody pays much attention to them. Just yesterday I stopped to watch a 'check your speed' readout sign on a road with a 20mph limit, for a few minutes during the morning. The lowest speed displayed was 27mph, the highest was 37. To be fair, the sign did make a frowny face at all the speeders though (that is, at every single vehicle that went past). The frowning didn't seem to be having much effect.

 

Thinking about this... I was a young man when those little illuminating signs started appearing on the road.

And they were effective. Suddenly our speed was being made real, and excessive speed pointed out.

On reflection, there was probably a bit of fear too that someone was watching me and can see my excessiveness.

Fast forward the best part of 20 years and for me, they are still effective. I see a sign flash up, I look at my speed and slow it down.

I have been programmed... that initial surprise back in the day, adn that initial 'big brother' fear lasts on, and it contains me. 

I am sure if does for other people my age or older who lived through the introduction of this technology.

However, those learning to drive / growing up with this technology in place will have far less of an affiliation with the tech. To these people its just a totally pointless sign to be ignored. 

Sad times. 

Not sure the frowny face works - suspect it just reduces speeding to an emoji. Should call them nasty insults.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Thinking about this... I was a young man when those little illuminating signs started appearing on the road.

And they were effective. Suddenly our speed was being made real, and excessive speed pointed out.

On reflection, there was probably a bit of fear too that someone was watching me and can see my excessiveness.

Fast forward the best part of 20 years and for me, they are still effective. I see a sign flash up, I look at my speed and slow it down.

I have been programmed... that initial surprise back in the day, adn that initial 'big brother' fear lasts on, and it contains me. 

I am sure if does for other people my age or older who lived through the introduction of this technology.

However, those learning to drive / growing up with this technology in place will have far less of an affiliation with the tech. To these people its just a totally pointless sign to be ignored. 

Sad times. 

The signs might work for you, but that makes you unusual.  The evidence shows that initially, they have an effect, but when the drivers realise there is no penalty or punishment, they just ignore them.

franta wrote:

...

Immagine there was a movement amongst mototrists to drive unroadworthy cars because that is how they like it. Would you be OK with a campaign to prevent that ?

if there were such a "movement" then it's certainly not being perpetrated by the targets mentioned here - neither retailers nor courier companies are part of any movement to encourage this practice

the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find even 20 cyclists riding a brakeless track bike on the road suggests this perception of a "movement" is due to looking at this issue through a microsope and so lacks all perspective

equally, a quick google on avoiding speed cameras links me to comercially available radar detectors and sprays to avoid cameras identifying number plates - one might even argue that any car capable of exceeding the national speed limit is also unsuitable for retail in this country

beezus fufoon wrote:

franta wrote:

...

Immagine there was a movement amongst mototrists to drive unroadworthy cars because that is how they like it. Would you be OK with a campaign to prevent that ?

if there were such a "movement" then it's certainly not being perpetrated by the targets mentioned here - neither retailers nor courier companies are part of any movement to encourage this practice

the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find even 20 cyclists riding a brakeless track bike on the road suggests this perception of a "movement" is due to looking at this issue through a microsope and so lacks all perspective

equally, a quick google on avoiding speed cameras links me to comercially available radar detectors and sprays to avoid cameras identifying number plates - one might even argue that any car capable of exceeding the national speed limit is also unsuitable for retail in this country

This last point. If the fastest you can legally drive on the public roads is 70mph then any car that can go faster than that is clearly intended for race use on closed tracks and should be illegal.

franta wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

franta wrote:

I can only immagine how we all would be equally appalled if it had been a car without front brakes that killed a wandering cyclist. 

How about if it was a car that was traveling in excess of the speed limit. just as illegal as a bike without a front brake and effects the brake distance in the same way.

I wonder how many cyclists have been killed by motorists breaking the speed limit, I bet it more than one, and I bet it wasnt front page news in daily mail for weeks.  

There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits. Immagine there was a movement amongst mototrists to drive unroadworthy cars because that is how they like it. Would you be OK with a campaign to prevent that ?

 

I missed the extended media campaign and questions in parliament about the movement amongst motorists to have illegally tinted windows after the death of this cyclist. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

franta wrote:

There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits. Immagine there was a movement amongst mototrists to drive unroadworthy cars because that is how they like it. Would you be OK with a campaign to prevent that ?

But every single person knows: THEY DON'T WORK.

In my local paper this week four of the eight advertorial features were about high performance cars. No-one needs to drive that fast, whether on the motorway or winding country lanes with tall hedges, but the manufacturers and dealers know that speed sells.

Do you and Mr Briggs really think that if Evans et al remove track bikes from their websites then no-one will buy them to ride on the road? Just like cigarette adverts on TV were banned decades ago so no-one smokes fags any more.

There are far too many unroadworthy cars out there, and let's not forget the more than 1 million uninsured drivers on the roads now (source).

Meanwhile at the top of today's news is a headline:

"Up to 9m drivers using mobile phones at wheel"

Choosing to indulge in a dangerous and unnecessary activity while driving. What about them?

ConcordeCX wrote:

He seems to be saying that people who employ cyclists (presumably even freelance ones working under disguised employment so that the employers can evade their other responsibilities) should take responsibility for the condition of their bikes, just as road hauliers should take responsibility for the condition of their drivers' trucks.

Seems reasonable to me, an idea I'm very much for, along with other ideas for making employers take their responsibilities seriously and not dodge them with legalistic tricks.

 Where does the money for enforcing this come from? Is someone going to pluck it this fine autumn day from the magic money tree that should be in fruit by now, or is it going to come from the budget for checking that lorries are safe?

If the latter, who is going to explain to the families of the people killed by illegal lorries that the police were busy checking bike brakes rather than lorry brakes?

He's not saying that track bikes shouldn't be sold, he's saying they shouldn't use them in advertising - presumably where they're shown being used illegally, rather than in say a track racing magazine.

Here's one - years ago I worked for the NHS, and was required to have my own vehicle to use for work to get to and from various locations in Essex as part of my role. I had to sign a form stating that I had the required insurance to cover me for business use (as I could be carrying a large value in IT equipment at times) but at NO time in 5 years did anyone ask to see any documentation for my vehicle, nor check it over to see if it was in fact roadworthy...

ooldbaker wrote:

I've heard Mr Briggs give many interviews. Never has he even suggested that he has anything against legal cyclists.

He says, and I fully believe him, that he regularly cycles with his children. 

He is not drawn on even commenting on Charlie Alliston let alone criticising other cyclists at all.

He merely wants steps taken to get illegal bikes off the road.

Plenty of people are using this case to vent their fellings about bikes but I am sure he is not one of them.

There have, after all, been numerous cases of families who have been bereaved as a result of motorist actions, campaigning for various changes or reforms in road laws. E.g. changing when driving bans start.

You can't really blame any of them for the very selective way the media choose who to give attention to.

I don't see a problem in the police doing a bit more to actually enforce the existing law regarding bicycle front brakes. It might save some future Aliston from their own mistakes, for one thing. Though the police seem to believe they lack the resources to do anything much about road policing.

I am, in the absence of stats to show otherwise, a bit doubtful as to how common this is, or how far this is a problem specific to cycle couriers.

ooldbaker wrote:

I've heard Mr Briggs give many interviews. Never has he even suggested that he has anything against legal cyclists.

He says, and I fully believe him, that he regularly cycles with his children. 

He is not drawn on even commenting on Charlie Alliston let alone criticising other cyclists at all.

He merely wants steps taken to get illegal bikes off the road.

Plenty of people are using this case to vent their fellings about bikes but I am sure he is not one of them.

Maybe he should also be campaigning for pedestrians to look before crossing the road reither than looking on their phone. Track bikes represent a minority of bikes sold anyway.

ooldbaker wrote:

I've heard Mr Briggs give many interviews. Never has he even suggested that he has anything against legal cyclists.

He says, and I fully believe him, that he regularly cycles with his children. 

He is not drawn on even commenting on Charlie Alliston let alone criticising other cyclists at all.

He merely wants steps taken to get illegal bikes off the road.

Plenty of people are using this case to vent their feelings about bikes but I am sure he is not one of them.

He may well see it that way, but given the relative risk posed by a fixie without a front brake compared to any motor vehicle, his zeal is misplaced.  If he was really interested in preventing pedestrians dying, he'd be campaigning about motors, not cyclists. 

We all understand his grief and pain, but he needs to understand that his campaign is misplaced and is just making things more dangerous for the other vulnerable road users, cyclists, which I hope is not his intention; it is however, the effect.

ooldbaker wrote:

I've heard Mr Briggs give many interviews. Never has he even suggested that he has anything against legal cyclists.

He says, and I fully believe him, that he regularly cycles with his children. 

He is not drawn on even commenting on Charlie Alliston let alone criticising other cyclists at all.

He merely wants steps taken to get illegal bikes off the road.

Plenty of people are using this case to vent their feelings about bikes but I am sure he is not one of them.

I guess if he says this we have to believe him, but I wish he would apply his brain for long enough to realise what effect his campaign is actually having. Yesterday I was accused of being a killer because I was riding a fixed wheel bike, despite the presence of brakes both front and rear. I struggle to believe Briggs is not bright enough to see this, and worse, is a likely consequence of his campaign. As a cynic, I suspect he wants it.

Housecathst wrote:

Im really bored of this chap now.

Me too.

Grahamd wrote:

I think British Cycling et all have been too quiet on this matter and are doing the cycling community a disservice. The sceptic in me wonders if this is due to BC expecting an uplift in membership for their insurance cover.

The cycling organisations can't win on this one.  If they point out that he's being stupid, they will be criticised for failing to understand the grief-stricken widower.  Pointing out the facts will just be ignored by the media and saying that she contributed to the collision will enrage them.  They can't even point out that motor vehicles pose a thousand times the risk on pedestrians, because it will be seen as trying to distract from the killer cyclists hysteria.  They don't have much option other than to keep quiet.

Next week it'll be something else.