"It's not always the car's fault" - Laura Trott says reckless cyclists to blame if they get hurt & helmets should be compulsory

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

You know, I think the problem you have is with authority. I don't have a problem with what you are saying about the rider making good decisions, but good cycle education will teach people to cycle safely - this doesn't mean advance on the left in to cycle box at all costs. But why you think it will be subverted into some weird unsafe subservient cyclists killing training program is beyond me.....IT WILL BE ABOUT CYCLING SAFELY. If you want to argue about what is safe then fine.
But you show your own rigid thinking up with inane comments like that.
I'm not into legislating for helmets, but I think you are a tool if you don't think they can help protect you. That doesn't mean to say that it will, it doesn't mean to say that it has to, but in the likelihood that you, or I come off our bikes at speed, we will likely be thankful of a lid on our noggin. So why not wear one?
BTW - you are right about your road positioning. The point is that a lot of people get it wrong. They need educating. If you get involved in a positive action to help others you can educate them in being road safe too, rather than getting upset at poor Ms Trott.

All I said was, "my worry is" - I never once said I was against good cycling training - I was merely asking questions and explaining my worry.

I have no problem with authority, I do a problem with legislation as it is usually poorly thought out and carries an agenda (not to mention a cost, usually paid for by issuing fines).

Please quote where I have said a helmet won't help protect, why would I bother wearing one myself for around 90% of the cycling I do if I didn't think it would? But should I receive a fine for the times I choose not too? - oh, and thanks for inferring that I'm a tool.

The other point I was trying to make (poorly, I admit) is that truly safe cycling is exactly the type of cycling that lots of motorists have a problem with - "get to the left", "get on the cycle path", "wait in the queue", "you're too slow to be on the road", etc, etc. If you stop red light jumping or increase helmet use, drivers would still be pissed-off with cyclists, and we would still have the same moronic driving that can kill cyclists.

BTW, does anyone have any stats on London cycling deaths and injuries? I'd like to know how many were due to a cyclist jumping a red light.

farrell wrote:

PhilRuss wrote:

999 Absolutely spot-on, squire. When I see RLJ-er's, I holler, "Yeah, go on, give us all a bad name!"
P.R.

When you drive, do you pull up drivers going through red lights? Or breaking the speed limit? Or using mobiles? Do you hang around pub car parks to stop drink drivers?

FARRELL---do I what? "Pull up drivers"? No, and I don't "pull up" cyclists. I'm not a cop. And I do give mobile-using drivers (and ASL-encroachers) the beady eye, and if they're about my size I do sometimes give 'em a verbal or two. However, when I'm out of the car and on the bike, I try to set a good example....don't you? People are watching, and they often judge the many by the deeds of the few.
P.R.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don't believe the bullshit on this site these days. I'm tired of the incessant nonsense that comes out from so many.

And you've just added to it

Nice comeback dickhead.

Thanks

Anytime. I mean it.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don't believe the bullshit on this site these days. I'm tired of the incessant nonsense that comes out from so many.

And you've just added to it

Nice comeback dickhead.

Thanks

Anytime. I mean it.

I know, but to be fair it was a tap-in.

daddyELVIS wrote:

hampstead_bandit wrote:

but mixing up the helmet issue with dangerous cycling practises just blurs the key issues, which is that adult cycle training should be promoted

My worry here is who delivers the cycle training and what is actually taught - would there be a basic 'national curriculum' which trainers had to follow?

Would cyclists be taught to ride in cycle lanes whenever available, always stay to the left, never filter, never advance beyond stop lines at lights?

In my experience, being 'assertive' on the road is the best way to be seen and keep safe on a bike.

Hiding away on the left and between cars, and thoughtlessly following poorly 'designed' cycle lanes, whilst all legal, are some of the most dangerous examples of cycling that I see.

I'd rather take the lane (when necessary) and advance well beyond the stop line at certain lights where experience has taught me it is safer to do so (probably to the annoyance of the 'road-tax payer' behind me).

Someone may have commented on this already but I really don't have the energy to go through the rest of the comments. I used to be a cycling instructor and the "national curriculum" (Bikeability) for cycle training does cover these issues.

It trains you where to ride on the road to make yourself visible (it's not in the gutter); the importance of communicating your intentions to other road users. It shows you the best and safest way to filter through traffic (it does n' t involve going beyond the stop line).

What feet disappoints me about Trott's, Wiggins' and Cavendish's comments is what they could have said that could genuinely save lives. They could have talked about all the things I have mentioned above. They could have spoken about avoiding drivers' blindspots. They could have told drivers to look out carefully before proceeding.

Instead they just spout a load of misinformed nonsense that will only make people feel the roads are too dangerous to cycle on which they are not.

Oh, and while I'm in rant mode, what's this talk about "cars" being at fault or not. The car is an inanimate object. It is the driver of that vehicle who may or may not be at fault in a specific. One thing that Bikeability teaches you is that you are dealing with other human beings, not robots.

Personally I think all the money that gets wasted on pointless segregated bike lanes should be spent on training people how to ride bikes properly (including drivers).

bikeboy76 wrote:

hillboy wrote:

with 'cycling ambassadors' like this who needs enemies? Who are the other cycling ambassadors by the way; Paul Dacre and Eric Pickles I presume, or that daft #bloody cyclists# individual on twitter, whatever her name was?

Still I suppose now she's got the funding, got the OBE, got the medals she is free to turn around and s**t on the sport that gave her everything

Bye bye Trotty

More delusional thinking from faceless internet twerps.
You think because you don't agree with her that she has 's**t on the sport', what exactly have you done for the sport? You think she will somehow disappear because you put a comment on an internet forum? You are going to be very disappointed when you hear from the young, fit, attractive, celebrity, athlete again.
Bye, bye Hillboy

well, as one faceless twerp to another you're right, I haven't done what Trott has done: I haven't milked cycling for public funding whilst harbouring contempt for the people whose taxes and lottery tickets are paying for it, I haven't claimed to be an ambassador for cycling then told people I claim to represent they had it coming when they get run over, I haven't flounced out of an air conditioned velodrome, never having had even to buy my own kit or bike and lectured real people in the real world who work for a living how they should ride their bikes on the roads, I haven't abused my celebrity status and national jersey as a platform to vent my hatred of ordinary cyclists. I ride my bike for the love of it, not for cash and a political platform.

as for being fit an attractive, well, it is what's inside that counts and inside she is just another fat bloke in a 4x4 who thinks bikes shouldn't be on the road

CotterPin wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

hampstead_bandit wrote:

but mixing up the helmet issue with dangerous cycling practises just blurs the key issues, which is that adult cycle training should be promoted

My worry here is who delivers the cycle training and what is actually taught - would there be a basic 'national curriculum' which trainers had to follow?

Would cyclists be taught to ride in cycle lanes whenever available, always stay to the left, never filter, never advance beyond stop lines at lights?

In my experience, being 'assertive' on the road is the best way to be seen and keep safe on a bike.

Hiding away on the left and between cars, and thoughtlessly following poorly 'designed' cycle lanes, whilst all legal, are some of the most dangerous examples of cycling that I see.

I'd rather take the lane (when necessary) and advance well beyond the stop line at certain lights where experience has taught me it is safer to do so (probably to the annoyance of the 'road-tax payer' behind me).

Someone may have commented on this already but I really don't have the energy to go through the rest of the comments. I used to be a cycling instructor and the "national curriculum" (Bikeability) for cycle training does cover these issues.

It trains you where to ride on the road to make yourself visible (it's not in the gutter); the importance of communicating your intentions to other road users. It shows you the best and safest way to filter through traffic (it does n' t involve going beyond the stop line).

What feet disappoints me about Trott's, Wiggins' and Cavendish's comments is what they could have said that could genuinely save lives. They could have talked about all the things I have mentioned above. They could have spoken about avoiding drivers' blindspots. They could have told drivers to look out carefully before proceeding.

Instead they just spout a load of misinformed nonsense that will only make people feel the roads are too dangerous to cycle on which they are not.

Oh, and while I'm in rant mode, what's this talk about "cars" being at fault or not. The car is an inanimate object. It is the driver of that vehicle who may or may not be at fault in a specific. One thing that Bikeability teaches you is that you are dealing with other human beings, not robots.

Personally I think all the money that gets wasted on pointless segregated bike lanes should be spent on training people how to ride bikes properly (including drivers).

+1 for Bikeability - the type of cycle training I'd be happy with. However, it won't educate drivers (which I think is a bigger problem). I also agree with the rest of your comments.

So Hillboy, you are saying that it is NEVER the cyclist's fault? Even the cyclists I see everyday in London cycling dangerously, jumping red lights, cycling the wrong way down one-way streets? It is NEVER their fault?

Saying that it is SOMETIMES the cyclist's fault is not the same as saying it is ALWAYS the cyclist's fault or even MOSTLY or OFTEN the cyclist's fault.

It drives me mad watching cyclists ride so badly because the motorists and pedestrians don't remember the 9 cyclists who waited at the red light, they only see the 1 who charged through and so fed the ill conceived view that 'all cyclists are dangerous, law breakers.'

Laura Trott has been an integral part of the successful British Cycling scene that has encouraged more, and particularly younger, riders to get onto bikes. I applaud that. I can't see anything that she has done that equates to 'harbouring contempt for tax payers'. Perhaps you can explain in a rational way what you mean.

There is undoubtedly a growing level of animosity between motorists and cyclists caused by an entrenched and irrational minority from both types of road users. Your posts seem to put you in one of these groups.

Attempts to improve matters to the benefit of all, by rational debate is blocked by both of these parties because, to quote the excellent Ben Goldacre, 'You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.' The longer these attitudes exists the more people join each extreme faction and the worse the situation gets for all.

paulfg42 wrote:

If cyclists stopped riding through red lights, would the negative view of cyclists improve?

After re-reading your comment with a different interpretation, my other response is to answer sensibly - I agree, no it wouldn't improve, as the real gripe that car drivers have with cyclists is not jumping red lights, just like it is not the lack of helmet compulsion nor the non-road tax payment.

ChairRDRF wrote:

I am glad to see that most people posting have got it right.

She is just wrong. Racing cyclists generally know nothing about safety for ordinary cyclists - the exception being Chris Boardman.

Which is why the Government did not make him the UK Champion for Cycling.

Which world do you live in? Is your world one in which racing cyclists only ever get on a bike when they've a number on their back?

Mine isn't. I race, live and and ride in London - and most racers I know around here do just the same.

I also know that there are a lot of shit riders around. Some of the these are consciously shit and the others are just incompetent.

An excellent comment, Andy.

bikeboy76 wrote:

Some of the weasel words used against Laura Trott herself on this thread are terrible. She is a professional athlete who rides harder, faster and further than anyone here, yet you call her naive as a cheap way of dismissing her point.
Accusing anyone who disagrees with you as pontificating, or that they should 'do some research' is a classic argument from authority. There is plenty of pro-helmet research, yet you say the comments of a neurosurgeon are just anecdotes of course.

Cheapening the debate by trashing anyone who is pro-helmet law is a sure fire way to ensure it happens. And isn't cool.

I am thinking of changing my signature to 'Having said that, I am against compulsion.' Sometimes I wear one sometimes not.

And remember road.cc stay classy.

Right with you bikeboy76. Fed up of the propagandist nonsense spouted out here.

Trott is being used/using her high profile to get a point across. But each day I ride in London and see twats breaking red lights, poor positioning and generally bad behaviour I don't think 'bloody drivers, what a bunch of a-hole', I'm much more of the mind that they set a poor example, give cyclists a bad name, are a menace to pedestrians, a menace to myself and piss off other road users.

If you can't hear the words of others why would anyone bother listening to you?

stumps wrote:

Feel free to lambast me with your own personal views just as Laura presented her own personal views.

I suppose if it was made law your lot would have a cracking time making boat loads of easy pulls.

Huw Watkins wrote:

I also know that there are a lot of shit riders around. Some of the these are consciously shit and the others are just incompetent.

There are also lots of shit drivers around, and nearly every driver breaks the law (many do it every day) - yet we don't have a constant stream of negative articles about drivers in the media!

Why is there a general media obsession with knocking cyclists?

Pro cyclists need to get wise if they want to make comments in the press - they need to be careful not to feed this obsession.

I wouldn't be surprised BTW, if some of Laura's quotes were taken out of context and if other things she said were left out completely.

farrell wrote:

stumps wrote:

Feel free to lambast me with your own personal views just as Laura presented her own personal views.

I suppose if it was made law your lot would have a cracking time making boat loads of easy pulls.

No, not really. If you want to be stupid and not wear one and get caught, if they are compulsory, thats your own fault. However i have much more important things to deal with than stopping people on bikes.

Its not just the science or the difficulty of collecting stats around helmets but the safety standards are sub-standard and haven't changed in yrs.

On the whole though i still wear one, especially after what the A&E doctor told us after my GF was hit by a car and she suffered a grade 3 concussion. 'The helmet is difference to you walking out of here or me explaining to your boyfriend on how to feed you with apple sauce for the rest of your life...'

and here is another example..

http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/21/teenage-cyclist-who-didnt-wear-helmet-beca...

How is being made to wear a seatbelt different?

Nick T wrote:

If, in the vast majority of cases the cyclist has absolutely no blame whatsoever, why is it typically females in their 20s or 30s involved in accidents?

A bit too much of a coincidence that all these dizzy round women are the ones that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, every time, if you ask me.

Pretty sure that studies have shown that female cyclists are more likely to play by the rules and stay where they are "supposed to", whereas males will push forward, past stop lines and put themselves in front of and in view of other traffic. Whilst this is breaking the rules, it is actually the safer place to be.

I'm pulling this from my addled memory so it may need checking for bad science.