Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

AA launches Cyclist's Highway Code, backed by Boardman

The book, which includes sections on bike maintenance, training and the Highway Code, is aimed at helping encourage more people to cycle safely

A Cyclist’s Highway Code has been launched today by the AA, with backing from Chris Boardman and BikeBiz editor, Carlton Reid.

Last month the Road Safety Minister, Andrew Jones, told the House of Commons “There were no plans to publish a cycling specific excerpt of the Highway Code.”.

However, the AA believes a Code is necessary to help people stay safe cycling on Britain’s roads, and has aimed the book at parents and new cyclists.

AA warns of "zombie" pedestrians and cyclists

Edmund King, AA president, hopes the guide will encourage more people to cycle.

“Cyclists and drivers are often the same people and the Highway Code is important whether you are on two wheels or four,” he says.

“I am grateful to cycling expert Carlton Reid, executive editor of BikeBiz magazine, who has helped to check this publication in terms of good advice and accuracy. As a keen cyclist and father of three cycling children, I would urge you to check out this book. Today more than one fifth of AA members regularly cycle and this guide will encourage a new generation to join them.”

The book is designed as a companion guide to help cyclists, and parents whose children are learning to cycle. It includes sections on Your Bike, including choosing and maintaining a bike, and accessories, Safe Cycling, including all the Highway Code rules, and Learning to Ride, encompassing cycle training.

Carlton Reid said: “I welcome the AA’s Cyclist’s Highway Code. It is practical, timely and useful – and it’s also an indication that more and more people are taking up cycling, for transport, for leisure, and most definitely for pleasure.”

Although the Highway Code has a section titled “you and your bike”, covering rules for cycling on the road, the government says it has no plans to produce a cycle-specific Highway Code. Instead it is investing £50m over four years into Bikeability training for children in schools.

Chris Boardman says: “The bicycle is such a simple tool, but one which can improve your health, reduce congestion and make our towns and cities more liveable. British Cycling welcomes the AA Cyclist’s Highway Code as it should encourage new cyclists and help parents get their children into cycling.”

AA’s Cyclist’s Highway Code is priced £4.99, and available from bookshops and online

Add new comment

79 comments

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
6 likes
L.Willo wrote:

2. Not in the Highway Code. If it was, I would be arguing that drivers should comply with the recommendation. I dont like a pick and choose approach to such an important safety code of conduct.

Really? So you follow every non-legally-binding recommendation in the code when driving?

You always give priority to pedestrians who have already stepped into the road you just turned into? Never park facing against the direction of traffic? Never spill over out of on-pavement parking bays? Never break the speed limit by even 1mph? Your passengers always get out on the kerbside when you are parked? You never park within 10 meters of a junction?

If so, that would make you unique among drivers, most of whom struggle to obey the MUST parts never mind the mere recomendations.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

2. Not in the Highway Code. If it was, I would be arguing that drivers should comply with the recommendation. I dont like a pick and choose approach to such an important safety code of conduct.

Really? So you follow every non-legally-binding recommendation in the code when driving?

You always give priority to pedestrians who have already stepped into the road you just turned into? Never park facing against the direction of traffic? Never spill over out of on-pavement parking bays? Never break the speed limit by even 1mph? Your passengers always get out on the kerbside when you are parked? You never park within 10 meters of a junction?

If so, that would make you unique among drivers, most of whom struggle to obey the MUST parts never mind the mere recomendations.

Been driving for nearly 30 years. No points on my licence. Never had any. Have never had a speeding ticket. Have never had a parking ticket. Have never had an accident. One near miss after passing my test when the car in front missed a gear pulling away from a roundabout. Just stopped in time before rear ending it. Learned my lesson and never assume the car in front has gone since.

Those are the facts.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes
L.Willo wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

2. Not in the Highway Code. If it was, I would be arguing that drivers should comply with the recommendation. I dont like a pick and choose approach to such an important safety code of conduct.

Really? So you follow every non-legally-binding recommendation in the code when driving? You always give priority to pedestrians who have already stepped into the road you just turned into? Never park facing against the direction of traffic? Never spill over out of on-pavement parking bays? Never break the speed limit by even 1mph? Your passengers always get out on the kerbside when you are parked? You never park within 10 meters of a junction? If so, that would make you unique among drivers, most of whom struggle to obey the MUST parts never mind the mere recomendations.

Been driving for nearly 30 years. No points on my licence. Never had any. Have never had a speeding ticket. Have never had a parking ticket. Have never had an accident. One near miss after passing my test when the car in front missed a gear pulling away from a roundabout. Just stopped in time before rear ending it. Learned my lesson and never assume the car in front has gone since. Those are the facts.

Well done on answering a different question to the one that was asked.

Avatar
Paul_C replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes
L.Willo wrote:
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Why is nobody calling for helmet use in cars? It probably actually would save lives. Mess up your hair though so probably not worth bothering.

1. Airbags are rather more effective at impact speeds greater than 30mph.
2. Not in the Highway Code. If it was, I would be arguing that drivers should comply with the recommendation. I dont like a pick and choose approach to such an important safety code of conduct.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2000/Protect_Hea...

"In 1997 McLean et al. (1997) demonstrated that energy absorbing headwear for car occupants might be effective in reducing the numbers of head injuries sustained by car occupants. The estimated benefits were greater than the estimated benefits of padding of the upper interior of vehicles to the requirements of the US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201. This report investigates the suitability of selected materials for head protection, in the form of a headband that could be worn by car occupants."

http://www.monash.edu/muarc/research/reports/atsb160

"Abstract

Head injuries to car occupants resulting from crashes on Australian roads are a major cause of death and permanent brain damage. This report evaluates the benefits that would be likely to accrue from the use of padding materials to reduce the severity of impacts to the head. A review of the international literature was conducted to examine the range of possible countermeasures, with particular reference to padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. Three sets of data analyses were then carried out: first, a summary of objects typically struck by the head in a representative sample of crashes; secondly, an examination of actual brain injuries sustained in a sample of crashes, and an assessment of likely outcomes had the objects struck by the head been padded; and finally, a HARM analysis to estimate the cost of head injuries and the likely financial benefits from various countermeasures. Results indicate that there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. The total annual benefit of this measure, in terms of reduced HARM, would be about $123 million, or $154 per car (with a 5% discount rate). However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear. The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a soft shell bicycle helmet were estimated to be $380 million (assuming a fully airbag equipped fleet), or $476 per car ($626 for cars without airbags)."

my emphasis added...

Avatar
PennineRider | 7 years ago
1 like

Y'know, if this book is good, then it might do more of a job of educating drivers rather than cyclists. "You should be riding in the gutter!" could now be countered with "read the Highway Code" etc.

Likewise, it could avoid the stupid "cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet" rubbish comes up in court cases. "Cyclist was riding in accordance with the Cycling Highway Code" could go a long way to addressing ignorance.

Avatar
handlebarcam | 7 years ago
14 likes
Quote:

A Cyclist’s Highway Code has been launched today by the AA, with backing from Chris Boardman and BikeBiz editor, Carlton Reid.

I am outraged - OUTRAGED I tell you - that they should consult with such puny minds as Boardman and Reid, and yet not get the input of the number one cycling expert of our times, L.Willo. Indeed, some enterprising publisher should collect together the many wise comments of that perspicacious cycling sage which have been posted on this very web site, and print them in one handy guide. Such a learned tome would immediately grace my bookshelf, alongside the works of other similarly equanimous and self-effacing personages as Donald Trump and Russell Brand.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
1 like

It's only a fiver.

But if you need some time to save up, I did notice that the Nigeria Highway Code is available for free download from Amazon.

 

Avatar
L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

Avatar
andyp replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
6 likes
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

Avatar
L.Willo replied to andyp | 7 years ago
0 likes
andyp wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

... But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats ....

There's a word for that, saying one thing and doing another.... starts with hypo and ends in crite...

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
3 likes
L.Willo wrote:
andyp wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1... ... But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats .... There's a word for that, saying one thing and doing another.... starts with hypo and ends in crite...

 

That's not actually hypocrisy. Just lack of basic comprehension, on your part.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes
unconstituted wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
andyp wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1... ... But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats .... There's a word for that, saying one thing and doing another.... starts with hypo and ends in crite...

 

That's not actually hypocrisy. Just lack of basic comprehension, on your part.

boardman wrote:

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message.

“Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.”
- See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

But I will sell you one anyway, says the man who with one side of his face would like to get more people cycling while at the same time happy to make a handsome profit from selling the same equipment that "scares people off" from cycling ....

What would you call that, if not hypocrisy?

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
3 likes
L.Willo wrote:
unconstituted wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
andyp wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1... ... But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats .... There's a word for that, saying one thing and doing another.... starts with hypo and ends in crite...

 

That's not actually hypocrisy. Just lack of basic comprehension, on your part.

boardman wrote:

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message. “Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.” - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

But I will sell you one anyway, says the man who with one side of his face would like to get more people cycling while at the same time happy to make a handsome profit from selling the same equipment that "scares people off" from cycling .... What would you call that, if not hypocrisy?

 

Just a bunch of sentences which you've convoluted to try and make him look like a hypocrit. 

 

Talking about the implications of widespread use of helmets yet selling helmets to people who want to use them if they feel safer with them on is still not hypocrisy. Cut it any way you like. Still not. 

 

Avatar
L.Willo replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes
unconstituted wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
unconstituted wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
andyp wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1... ... But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats .... There's a word for that, saying one thing and doing another.... starts with hypo and ends in crite...

 

That's not actually hypocrisy. Just lack of basic comprehension, on your part.

boardman wrote:

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message. “Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.” - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

But I will sell you one anyway, says the man who with one side of his face would like to get more people cycling while at the same time happy to make a handsome profit from selling the same equipment that "scares people off" from cycling .... What would you call that, if not hypocrisy?

 

Just a bunch of sentences which you've convoluted to try and make him look like a hypocrit. 

 

Talking about the implications of widespread use of helmets yet selling helmets to people who want to use them if they feel safer with them on is still not hypocrisy. Cut it any way you like. Still not. 

 

 

Convoluted? Try direct, uninterrupted quote.

 

Have you got a crush on this Boardman boy or something? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy in anyone's dictionary.

Saying that helmet usage sends the wrong message and "scares people off" cycling and then selling helmets is fine, if your intention is to scare people off cycling.

However when you pose as a self-styled ambassador for cycling, seling stuff that puts people off of cycling is hypocritical. 

Maybe Boardman should start selling a branded line of these: http://road.cc/content/news/191960-do-these-baseball-bat-van-stickers-in...

... just as long as people want them, I guess you don't see a problem. Just business eh?!

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
4 likes
L.Willo wrote:
unconstituted wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
unconstituted wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
andyp wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1... ... But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats .... There's a word for that, saying one thing and doing another.... starts with hypo and ends in crite...

 

That's not actually hypocrisy. Just lack of basic comprehension, on your part.

boardman wrote:

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message. “Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.” - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

But I will sell you one anyway, says the man who with one side of his face would like to get more people cycling while at the same time happy to make a handsome profit from selling the same equipment that "scares people off" from cycling .... What would you call that, if not hypocrisy?

 

Just a bunch of sentences which you've convoluted to try and make him look like a hypocrit. 

 

Talking about the implications of widespread use of helmets yet selling helmets to people who want to use them if they feel safer with them on is still not hypocrisy. Cut it any way you like. Still not. 

 

 

Convoluted? Try direct, uninterrupted quote.

 

Have you got a crush on this Boardman boy or something? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy in anyone's dictionary.

Saying that helmet usage sends the wrong message and "scares people off" cycling and then selling helmets is fine, if your intention is to scare people off cycling.

However when you pose as a self-styled ambassador for cycling, seling stuff that puts people off of cycling is hypocritical. 

Maybe Boardman should start selling a branded line of these: http://road.cc/content/news/191960-do-these-baseball-bat-van-stickers-in...

... just as long as people want them, I guess you don't see a problem. Just business eh?!

 

Convoluted, again. And still not hypocrisy. 

 

He supports all cyclists, whether they wear helmets or not. He understands the limitations of helmet use in terms of safety and the nuanced perceptions surrounding their usage, as well as the negatives and even dangers of their use.

 

Boardman, and any rational person, knows that there are pros and cons to all things. It's not a zero sum game where you either do or don't.

 

Intellectual honesty, try it some time. Or don't. Whatever, live in your angsty bubble.

 

Either way, it's not hypocrisy.

 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes
L.Willo wrote:
unconstituted wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
unconstituted wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
andyp wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1... ... But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats .... There's a word for that, saying one thing and doing another.... starts with hypo and ends in crite...

 

That's not actually hypocrisy. Just lack of basic comprehension, on your part.

boardman wrote:

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message. “Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.” - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

But I will sell you one anyway, says the man who with one side of his face would like to get more people cycling while at the same time happy to make a handsome profit from selling the same equipment that "scares people off" from cycling .... What would you call that, if not hypocrisy?

 

Just a bunch of sentences which you've convoluted to try and make him look like a hypocrit. 

 

Talking about the implications of widespread use of helmets yet selling helmets to people who want to use them if they feel safer with them on is still not hypocrisy. Cut it any way you like. Still not. 

 

 

Convoluted? Try direct, uninterrupted quote.

 

Have you got a crush on this Boardman boy or something? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy in anyone's dictionary.

Saying that helmet usage sends the wrong message and "scares people off" cycling and then selling helmets is fine, if your intention is to scare people off cycling.

However when you pose as a self-styled ambassador for cycling, seling stuff that puts people off of cycling is hypocritical. 

Maybe Boardman should start selling a branded line of these: http://road.cc/content/news/191960-do-these-baseball-bat-van-stickers-in...

... just as long as people want them, I guess you don't see a problem. Just business eh?!

Because utility cycling is the only sort? Cycling is a broad church with room both for people popping to the shops in casual clothes and no helmets while others are racing on or off road.

I don't think any makers of motorsport helmets have advocated their compulsion in normal driving.

You're either a troll or a tool. I can't tell which.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
0 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:

.....blah.....blah.....blether........ blah.......blah........

I am sure you think you have a point but I have no idea what on earth you are trying to say that has any relevance to anything I have written today.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
4 likes
L.Willo wrote:
wycombewheeler wrote:

.....blah.....blah.....blether........ blah.......blah........

I am sure you think you have a point but I have no idea what on earth you are trying to say that has any relevance to anything I have written today.

quite simple, that providing helmets for those riders who want to partake in sport cycling, whilst arguing against compulsion for the masses who do not is not a contradiction at all. Therrefore your attack on Boardman as a hypocrite has no basis.

You seem to suggest that people must fall into one of two camps, one that advocates helmets for everyone and one that advocates helmets for no one.

Either you are unable to grasp this simple point, in which case there is no point discussing further, or you pretend to miss the point, in which case there is no point discussing further.

 

 

Avatar
andyp replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
0 likes
L.Willo wrote:
andyp wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

 

out of interest, what *was* his 'hugely irresponsible' stance?

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1... ... But he will happily take your money for one of those completely irrelevant to safety hard hats .... There's a word for that, saying one thing and doing another.... starts with hypo and ends in crite...

 

OK. Thanks. And now for the answer to my question?

 

Avatar
giff77 replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
3 likes
L.Willo wrote:

Does it contradict the real Highway Code on cycle helmets? I hope Chris Boardman has abandoned his hugely irresponsible stance on this issue ... though not holding my breath.

There  is no contradiction of the Highway Code. They've taken the section for cyclists and combined it with other advice. There was a column about it in The i today. 

As for Boardman's "irresponsible stance". As others have said. He's not against helmets or their use. It's the misguided approach by safety campaigners that helmet use is the way forward that he has issue with. The fact that people out there would rather you wear a helmet and wear hi viz to protect yourself rather than push for better infrastructure, speed limits, presumed liability, safe passing distances and the whole realm of road safety is sorted. And this is the red herring that Chris is against.  There are many more important things to be achieved to protect the vulnerable on our roads than demand that they wear a helmet or castigate them for not.  

The other day on a 20 mile loop I had more than enough instances that nearly had me considering hanging my bike up for good.  It was horrific.  I was overtaken by a tipper truck allowing literally a foot 'wriggle' room even though oncoming lane was empty and it was a long straight . Taxi passed giving inches on a blind bend.  Squeezed out in a traffic calming measure by a Chelsea tractor.  Nearly shunted at set of lights. Those are just a handful and you know what. There is absolutely nothing in place to protect me or my fragile body from the irresponsible behaviour of those motorists because I had the audacity to delay them by a few seconds.

 

 

 

Avatar
L.Willo replied to giff77 | 7 years ago
0 likes
giff77 wrote:

As for Boardman's "irresponsible stance". As others have said. He's not against helmets or their use. It's the misguided approach by safety campaigners that helmet use is the way forward that he has issue with. The fact that people out there would rather you wear a helmet and wear hi viz to protect yourself rather than push for better infrastructure, speed limits, presumed liability, safe passing distances and the whole realm of road safety is sorted. And this is the red herring that Chris is against.

Agreed, giff, and if he stopped there I would have no beef, but he went further, a lot further ...

boardman wrote:

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message. “Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.” - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

People, like me, who always wear a cycling helmet are apparently sending the wrong message about cycling. It is clear as day, that is what is meant by that statement.

So what message are the people who manufacture and sell helmets like you, Chris Boardman, sending about cycling? 

Can you really convince that your hands are clean while you are profiting from enabling people to send the wrong message about cycling? Especially while posing as an ambassador for cycling at any opportunity?

It is hypocrisy and it doesn't wash.

 

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
5 likes
L.Willo wrote:

So what message are the people who manufacture and sell helmets like you, Chris Boardman, sending about cycling? 

Can you really convince that your hands are clean while you are profiting from enabling people to send the wrong message about cycling? Especially while posing as an ambassador for cycling at any opportunity?

It is hypocrisy and it doesn't wash.

 

I think it's actually quite commendable that Boardman would publicly seek to reduce the use of bicycle helmets whilst simultaneously selling them.

It means he is actually losing money by convincing people to ride without helmets.

So he is prepared to put his beliefs ahead of monetary gain.

I also don't think it's at all hypocritical to suggest that helmets are not always necessary but be willing to supply them to those who want them.

If I were going for a simple walk along a footpath would I require full mountaineering gear? No. I would hope an honest shopkeeper would advise me of this.

Would said shopkeeper then be hypocritical for selling said mountaineering gear to someone who wanted to climb Everest?

We should allow people to make up their own minds about their own safety.

If you choose to wear a helmet that's great, if I choose not to, equally great.

Live and let live.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

I think it's actually quite commendable that Boardman would publicly seek to reduce the use of bicycle helmets whilst simultaneously selling them.

I think it's actually quite commendable that Obama would publicly seek to reduce the use of private hand guns whilst simultaneously selling them.

Yes. Bollocks.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
4 likes
L.Willo wrote:

I think it's actually quite commendable that Obama would publicly seek to reduce the use of private hand guns whilst simultaneously selling them.

Yes. Bollocks.

That is one hell of a tangent... I won't waste my time with it.

Back to the original point.

Would Boardman be hypocritical if he stated that the majority of cyclists do not need a carbon framed top spec bike worth thousands?

He sells them so surely he should believe every single cyclist should buy one?

What about clipless pedals and cleats?

Would Mr Boardman recommend them for all cyclists?

If not why on earth does he sell those?

Boardman's brand(s) cover the whole spectrum of cycling from serious racer to occasional leisure rider.

It is perfectly reasonable for him to point out that not all of his products are necessary for every cyclist.

It's not hypocrisy, it's honesty.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

I think it's actually quite commendable that Obama would publicly seek to reduce the use of private hand guns whilst simultaneously selling them. Yes. Bollocks.

That is one hell of a tangent... I won't waste my time with it. Back to the original point. Would Boardman be hypocritical if he stated that the majority of cyclists do not need a carbon framed top spec bike worth thousands? He sells them so surely he should believe every single cyclist should buy one? What about clipless pedals and cleats? Would Mr Boardman recommend them for all cyclists? If not why on earth does he sell those? Boardman's brand(s) cover the whole spectrum of cycling from serious racer to occasional leisure rider. It is perfectly reasonable for him to point out that not all of his products are necessary for every cyclist. It's not hypocrisy, it's honesty.

 

Wow ... and you have the nerve to accuse me of going off on a tangent. Your analogy is rubbish. I will correct it later.

For the hard of reading / thinking / comprehending I will go very slowly. Pay attention at the back.

The salient remarks (that means relevant to the matter at hand are):

Widespread usage of cycle helmets sends the wrong message (about cycling) ... it scares people off - Boardman

I don't have a problem with that statement. I totally disagree with that opinion but Boardman has the right to form and express an opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it might be. Ben Goldacre thinks pretty much the same thing. I don't have a problem with him, he doesn't sell helmets.

The problem is that Chris Boardman is a self-styled cycling ambassador who has the stated aim of getting many more people to consider cycling as a method of transport.

So what the fuck is he doing manufacturing, selling and profiting from equipment used en masse (that is the widespread usage part) that has the effect of dissuading people to take up cycling (that is the it scares people off part)?

That is called hypocrisy. It is stating support for a thing (getting more people cycling) and doing something that has a directly contrary effect, for personal profit. (making coin off of hats that scare people off cycling).

So to correct your epic fail of an analogy:

Would Boardman be hypocritical if he stated that he cares deeply about the environment and calls carbon framed bikes an environmental disaster as they are based on fossil fuels and highly polluting processes ...... while selling an elite range of carbon fibre bikes to well-heeled customers ..... 

er ... YES! Guilty as charged.

 

 

 

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
5 likes
L.Willo wrote:

Wow ... and you have the nerve to accuse me of going off on a tangent. Your analogy is rubbish. I will correct it later.

For the hard of reading / thinking / comprehending I will go very slowly. Pay attention at the back.

The salient remarks (that means relevant to the matter at hand are):

Widespread usage of cycle helmets sends the wrong message (about cycling) ... it scares people off - Boardman

I don't have a problem with that statement. I totally disagree with that opinion but Boardman has the right to form and express an opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it might be. Ben Goldacre thinks pretty much the same thing. I don't have a problem with him, he doesn't sell helmets.

The problem is that Chris Boardman is a self-styled cycling ambassador who has the stated aim of getting many more people to consider cycling as a method of transport.

So what the fuck is he doing manufacturing, selling and profiting from equipment used en masse (that is the widespread usage part) that has the effect of dissuading people to take up cycling (that is the it scares people off part)?

That is called hypocrisy. It is stating support for a thing (getting more people cycling) and doing something that has a directly contrary effect, for personal profit. (making coin off of hats that scare people off cycling).

So to correct your epic fail of an analogy:

Would Boardman be hypocritical if he stated that he cares deeply about the environment and calls carbon framed bikes an environmental disaster as they are based on fossil fuels and highly polluting processes ...... while selling an elite range of carbon fibre bikes to well-heeled customers ..... 

er ... YES! Guilty as charged.

Obviously your analogy about the US constitution, President Obama and American weapons sales was far more appropriate than mine about Chris Boardman and cycling equipment...

I look forward to you correcting my incredibly tangential analogy, why the wait?

As my previous analogies should have made clear.

It is not hypocritical to sell equipment that some cyclists will want/require whilst simultaneously reassuring other cyclists that they do not require such equipment.

Helmets put people off cycling, acknowledging that whilst selling helmets doesn't make you a hypocrite.

It just makes you an honest retailer.

You are telling your customers that not all the equipment you sell is needed for all riders. You are telling your customers that they can start riding without a helmet if they wish.

The (flawed) assumption that cycling is very expensive also deters some people from taking it up.

Is it hypocritical to sell expensive bikes whilst informing people that they can start cycling on a cheap bike?

The idea of wearing lycra puts some people off cycling.

Is it hypocritical to sell lycra cycling gear whilst informing people they can start cycling in normal clothes?

Avatar
L.Willo replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

Helmets put people off cycling, acknowledging that whilst selling helmets doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Correct. 

Now add the final piece of the puzzle and by jove, at last, you have got it!

Being a vocal advocate for getting more people cycling whilst selling helmets that put people off cycling makes you a hypocrite.

Job done. If you still don't get it, you are beyond help.

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
4 likes
L.Willo wrote:
Rich_cb wrote:

Helmets put people off cycling, acknowledging that whilst selling helmets doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Correct. 

Now add the final piece of the puzzle and by jove, at last, you have got it!

Being a vocal advocate for getting more people cycling whilst selling helmets that put people off cycling makes you a hypocrite.

Job done. If you still don't get it, you are beyond help.

 

Yawn.

You deliberately deleted the rest of my post which addressed your point clearly.
You have also avoided all my questions.

How come?

Avatar
giff77 replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
5 likes
L.Willo wrote:
giff77 wrote:

As for Boardman's "irresponsible stance". As others have said. He's not against helmets or their use. It's the misguided approach by safety campaigners that helmet use is the way forward that he has issue with. The fact that people out there would rather you wear a helmet and wear hi viz to protect yourself rather than push for better infrastructure, speed limits, presumed liability, safe passing distances and the whole realm of road safety is sorted. And this is the red herring that Chris is against.

Agreed, giff, and if he stopped there I would have no beef, but he went further, a lot further ...

boardman wrote:

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message. “Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.” - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

People, like me, who always wear a cycling helmet are apparently sending the wrong message about cycling. It is clear as day, that is what is meant by that statement.

So what message are the people who manufacture and sell helmets like you, Chris Boardman, sending about cycling? 

Can you really convince that your hands are clean while you are profiting from enabling people to send the wrong message about cycling? Especially while posing as an ambassador for cycling at any opportunity?

It is hypocrisy and it doesn't wash.

 

I'm going out on a limb here. So here goes. I actually don't remember seeing apparel and helmets with Boardman's name or branding on it until Halfords bought the company in 2014. All of a sudden there was a plethora of kit with the cboardman branding on it that was being sold in line with the bikes.

Meanwhile Boardman Elite (Chris' new company) sells bikes and components while the only kit is shorts, jerseys and socks - not a helmet in sight. So I think you can absolve Chris of all hypocrisy. 

**These various companies are relying on people's fears of injury and those who want to look 'cool' and emulate the pro peleton to cash in on selling them something that is only designed for a 12mph impact. People need to learn how to ride their bikes without falling off. And if they are going to fall. Learn how to fall. in the 40 odd years I've been cycling I can count on one hand the amount of times I've fallen off my bike. Twice on black ice, once when a ped stepped out on me and I had no choice but drop the bike and once when I forgot to unclip and all occasions I lost skin on various parts of my body, bruised hips and twisted my shoulder. 

 

Today I was talking to a colleague in work who is wanting to cycle into work. And one of his first questions was did he need a helmet. This was mainly due to family and peers saying he needed one because cycling was so 'dangerous'.   Also there's a huge subtle pressure in the media to wear helmets when cycling. Just look yourself - photo shoots of officials on static bikes wear them, the Beeb ensures all presenters wear them as do the other channels. And this hugely influences people to follow suit. You don't need legislation - the persuasion is there to do so. People who choose not to, are castigated for their decision and bombarded with anecdotes on how a helmet saved their life. That kind of language  gives the impression that cycling is dangerous does it not?  You yourself have said in another post about drooling as a result of head trauma caused my no helmet or words to that effect. Does that not give the impression that cycling is dangerous? 

Meanwhile Westminster and the respective devolved governments can't be arsed to protect pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians by creating environments where cycling is normal and an acceptable means of getting around. 

 

** should have highlighted companies that sell helmets in that sentence. 

Avatar
L.Willo replied to giff77 | 7 years ago
0 likes
giff77 wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
giff77 wrote:

As for Boardman's "irresponsible stance". As others have said. He's not against helmets or their use. It's the misguided approach by safety campaigners that helmet use is the way forward that he has issue with. The fact that people out there would rather you wear a helmet and wear hi viz to protect yourself rather than push for better infrastructure, speed limits, presumed liability, safe passing distances and the whole realm of road safety is sorted. And this is the red herring that Chris is against.

Agreed, giff, and if he stopped there I would have no beef, but he went further, a lot further ...

boardman wrote:

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message. “Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.” - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

People, like me, who always wear a cycling helmet are apparently sending the wrong message about cycling. It is clear as day, that is what is meant by that statement.

So what message are the people who manufacture and sell helmets like you, Chris Boardman, sending about cycling? 

Can you really convince that your hands are clean while you are profiting from enabling people to send the wrong message about cycling? Especially while posing as an ambassador for cycling at any opportunity?

It is hypocrisy and it doesn't wash.

 

I'm going out on a limb here. So here goes. I actually don't remember seeing apparel and helmets with Boardman's name or branding on it until Halfords bought the company in 2014. All of a sudden there was a plethora of kit with the cboardman branding on it that was being sold in line with the bikes.

Meanwhile Boardman Elite (Chris' new company) sells bikes and components while the only kit is shorts, jerseys and socks - not a helmet in sight. So I think you can absolve Chris of all hypocrisy. 

**These various companies are relying on people's fears of injury and those who want to look 'cool' and emulate the pro peleton to cash in on selling them something that is only designed for a 12mph impact. People need to learn how to ride their bikes without falling off. And if they are going to fall. Learn how to fall. in the 40 odd years I've been cycling I can count on one hand the amount of times I've fallen off my bike. Twice on black ice, once when a ped stepped out on me and I had no choice but drop the bike and once when I forgot to unclip and all occasions I lost skin on various parts of my body, bruised hips and twisted my shoulder. 

 

Today I was talking to a colleague in work who is wanting to cycle into work. And one of his first questions was did he need a helmet. This was mainly due to family and peers saying he needed one because cycling was so 'dangerous'.   Also there's a huge subtle pressure in the media to wear helmets when cycling. Just look yourself - photo shoots of officials on static bikes wear them, the Beeb ensures all presenters wear them as do the other channels. And this hugely influences people to follow suit. You don't need legislation - the persuasion is there to do so. People who choose not to, are castigated for their decision and bombarded with anecdotes on how a helmet saved their life. That kind of language  gives the impression that cycling is dangerous does it not?  You yourself have said in another post about drooling as a result of head trauma caused my no helmet or words to that effect. Does that not give the impression that cycling is dangerous? 

Meanwhile Westminster and the respective devolved governments can't be arsed to protect pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians by creating environments where cycling is normal and an acceptable means of getting around. 

 

** should have highlighted companies that sell helmets in that sentence. 

giff, it seems that you at least accept that selling helmets while simultaneously denouncing the people who wear them is hypocrisy. The only issue for you is the uncertainty about whether or not Boardman profits from their sales. That is a fair point.

He posts here from time to time. Maybe he will answer that question himself.

Pages

Latest Comments