You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Another sad step to helmet compulsion.
The Met are apparently stopping cyclists who are not wearing helmets to offer them [i]"education and advice"[/i]:
A worthy exercise or a complete waste of resources that could have been spent tackling road users who were actually doing something illegal!
.
(Note: Let's not get into [i]yet another[/i] helmet debate - I think we've established that the majority of people on here are anti-compulsion/pro-choice, regardless of whether or not they always wear one themselves)
I hope they're stopping any drivers not in an NCAP 5* rated car too, and recommending they upgrade their cars as they're putting themselves at risk 🙄
I do always wear a helmet though, for all the good it'll do me in a lot of accidents, I do believe it will help in others, but each to their own 😀
[Edit]oh and to answer your question, imo a waste of time[\Edit]
Some good stats, clouded by overempahsis on the same old boring helmet/hivis compulsion thing.
Scotland Yard said that the intention was not enforcement and when asked if, for example, a cyclist riding through a red light would be issued a fixed penalty notice, said that no fixed penalty notices had been issued to cyclists.
police at one location have stopped 20 HGVs and found a total of 60 offences, including vehicles in dangerous condition and drivers who had been working too long.
Why didn't we have:
"In the week after 5 cyclists were killed by large vehicles, a Met polica operation to check legality and dispense safety advice to lorry drivers and cyclists finds an average of 3 offences per HGV, no offences at all for any cyclist. "XXX" demands action."
?
Definitely would be better dealing with idiot drivers and idiot cyclists to try and reduce the accidents that may require a helmet
Are they stopping car drivers who don't wear helmets?
What if you tell them to get stuffed? Is the re-education compulsory?
The Baroness is going on about it on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones/status/402400788720267264
Meanwhile, in Camberwell an hour ago, a cyclist has been killed by a left-turning lorry...
http://www.lfgss.com/thread117573.html
Dear Police & Politicians: it's not the ****ing helmets that's the problem you utter bunch of ****s!
Time would be better spent catching people on their mobiles whilst driving in my opinion.
Ah bless. I'm sure they are doing it with the very best of intentions but it's ironic that an "education exercise" is based on such a lack of education about even the basic facts.
Yeah I liked that little detail ned:
"If you're going to cycle in London, [s]wear a helmet, wear high-vis, make sure your bike has the right lights, don't wear headphones and obey the rules of the road.[/s] [b]stay away from the scores of illegal HGVs[/b]That way you will be a lot safer."
FTFY Chief-Superintendent Glyn Jones.
Feel sick about yet another dead cyclist.
For safety advice, what about "Wear whatever you like, but stay the **** away from left turning lorries." or "All the helmets and hi-viz in the world are no good to you if you're being crushed to death by a lorry whose driver couldn't see you were there."
And some alarms for the lorries, too, cos you can't reach everyone.
Exactly, GrahamS. I started typing before I saw yours.
what an odd decision as just another example of how we must be blamed when someone crushes us
Every report says whether the cyclist did or did not wear a helmet
Mr Johnson and TFL have blood on their hands I'm afraid. Another senseless waste of life.
As mentioned on another thread, please write to your MPs, coucillors, and the Mayor of London to express your utter disgust at the lack of action. They have the power to ban HGVs but just refuse, or rather don't have the balls, to do it.
I can't see how you can make alarms on lorries effective though - if they were just proximity alarms then they'd go off all the time (e.g. whenever the lorry stops next to a lampost, bin, pedestrian on the pavement etc)
And if they rely on cyclists having transmitters then it puts those without them at greater risk.
IMO the better solution is to lift the ban on HGVs at night and ban HGVs from city centres during the day, or at least at rush hours. And make haulage companies liable too.
IMO the better solution is to lift the ban on HGVs at night and ban HGVs from city centres during the day, or at least at rush hours.
That does sound a potentially viable solution. It does appear to be a fact that most deaths have an HGV involved. Not having them on the London roads during the day would surely greatly reduce the number of incidents.
While I agree with the general consensus about victim blaming, to take a slightly different position (not on the helmet bit, rather the victim blaming)
People are being killed now. We aren't going to change the problems with HGVs/etc in London or elsewhere quickly. Anything that is actually effective (and that's key - telling people to wear helmets isn't effective) in teaching people about the high risk situations (eg HGVs turning left) if a good thing in helping to stop deaths until better solutions can be found.
It's just a shame that these initiatives seem to be run by people who don't really understand the real issues.
If I was in that there Lahndahn I'd be deliberately riding around without a helmet to see how many times I could get stopped.
+1 nedrapier.
I hope they are also stopping people cycling without lights. It is getting stupid round my way; the number of people not using lights in the dark.
It seems to be from all sides too; old dears on shoppers, kids on BMX's, blokes commuting on 20yr old Halford specials, road riders who are caught out by the fact it's not summer anymore......
If I won the lottery, I would buy a massive box of front/rear lights and multi-packs of batteries to hand out to people who I saw riding without lights.
I have to cross a dual carriage way and recent road works means that it backs up a bit.
As I wait for a gap in the slow moving traffic it's alarming the amount of ladies who are texting with their phones on their laps.
Makes running through the gap scary as you wrongly assume the motorists are looking where they are going.
Far harsher penalties for mobile phone use would help.
Stumpy They'd use them until they went flat (if at all...) and then sue you when they got squashed...
People are being killed now. We aren't going to change the problems with HGVs/etc in London or elsewhere quickly. Anything that is actually effective (and that's key - telling people to wear helmets isn't effective) in teaching people about the high risk situations (eg HGVs turning left) if a good thing in helping to stop deaths until better solutions can be found.
I agree - which is why stopping people for not wearing helmets is so saddening, as they could be doing something a lot more useful. As non PC as it might sound, stopping every woman cyclist (and educating about lorries etc.) might be more effective - given that whatever the sex of the recent victims, the long term stats suggest women are at higher risk, and anecdotally they're far more likely to put themselves in a dangerous position (that and the blokes who put themselves in dangerous positions are less likely to listen).
As an aside, a guy I work with who cycles was questioned outside work by a colleague who queried his lack of helmet. She was given a soliloquy about his right as an individual to not wear a helmet, how they promote a false sense of security (questionable), how they reduce vision (eh? We're not talking full face here)and how much he hates/resents helmet fascists. Essentially he was right that it is his choice, but his reaction was somewhat over the top and it caused a bit of wry amusement. Anyway, that was on the Friday afternoon. Come Monday morning he's called in sick. Turns out he was riding along a canal towpath, misjudged a low bridge and rode slap bang into it. Upshot = 6 stitches in his head and a load of grief (of the banter variety) when he sheepishly returned to work. Still refuses to wear a helmet though 🙂
FWIW I think that anyone who doesn't wear a helmet whilst cycling is somehwhat foolish. Head injuries are rare, but when they do occur they can be life-changingly (if not end-ingly) serious. Why take the risk? But it is also true that the vast amjority of cyclist deaths are caused by people undertaking long vehicles that then turn left. Seems there is an issue with visibility, but also one with educating cyclists. The amount of times I've winced on my daily commute seeing other cyclists thoughtlessly putting their lives at risk with buses/lorries is incredible. Problem is in the vast majority of cases they're oblivious. I've actually been knocked off my bike by a car cutting the corner and forcing me off the road. I fell/stepped onto the kerb. I can't help wondering how much of a role the pedestrian barriers you get on the corners of big junctions play, as if you fall into them you're just going to get bounced back under the lorry...
So police educating cyclists re helmets does seem to be a bit of a waste, I'd rather they were educating them about road habits, whilst at the same time educating lorry drivers. As an aside, apparently the sheer cabs are a big part of the problem. This in turn apparently stems from a European directive on max lorry length, without differentiating between cab area and load area. Hence cabs are as short and abrupt as possible in order to make load area bigger...
FWIW I think that anyone who doesn't wear a helmet whilst cycling is an idiot. Why take the risk?
To stop this thread veering off... Please everyone ignore this bit 🙄
[s]
his reaction was somewhat over the top and it caused a bit of wry amusement
Perhaps it is a reaction to people calling him an idiot? Not that you'd do that..
FWIW I think that anyone who doesn't wear a helmet whilst cycling is an idiot.
Oh there you go. 😀
FWIW I think anyone who doesn't wear a nice high-viz helmet cover, flouro jacket and leggings, handlebar mirrors, neck brace, spine protector and a neon sign is an idiot.
And that's just for riding on the pavement. ;)[/s]
Edit: taking clubber's advice.
Any initiative to help drivers and cyclists be more aware of those around them - and make them more visible - is worthwhile. I'm not going to get hung up on the relatively minor helmet-wearing bit. If a police officer saw a cyclist riding safely and visibly, but with no helmet, I'd be [u]very[/u] surprised if they went to the trouble of stopping them.
isn't wasting police time a criminal offence?
maybe i should make a citizens arrest on a plod.
Agree with clubber, we've done that do death, for want of a better word. As said above, the amount of people, and I have to say particularly women, that i see texting whilst driving is getting out of control. Quite frightening at 30mph.
Why would the Police stop people wearing helmets when there's no legal requirement to do so, but then not actively pursue motorists not wearing set belts, texting, talking on the phone, driving without insurance, parking on double yellows, driving illegal vehicles or speeding?
because whoever dreamt this up is a ****ing moron.
i'd love to see a crackdown on left-hooking vans [s]in sheffield[/s], but that'll never happen.
If a police officer saw a cyclist riding safely and visibly, but with no helmet, I'd be very surprised if they went to the trouble of stopping them.
The suggestion is that that's exactly what they are doing - otherwise they would be being stopped for being an idiot, when they clearly say that people are being stopped for not wearing a helmet.
ah, see, you're only looking at the buurds 🙂particularly women, that i see texting whilst driving is getting out of control.
Why would the Police stop people wearing helmets when there's no legal requirement to do so
Well, it [i]could be[/i] argued that those without helmets may not be the more experienced rider, most of whom choose to wear one. As such, it could be one indicator of the sort of rider who might benefit from some additional education and information about using the road in a better, safer way.
but then not actively pursue motorists not wearing set belts, texting, talking on the phone, driving without insurance, parking on double yellows, driving illegal vehicles or speeding?
They do. At least once a week on the Embankment I used to see a police stop going on, primarily for commercial vehicles as it happens.
Why would the Police stop people wearing helmets when there's no legal requirement to do so, but then not actively pursue motorists not wearing set belts, texting, talking on the phone, driving without insurance, parking on double yellows, driving illegal vehicles or speeding?
Because it's easier, and general public perception is not only that helmets are more important for safety, but also that cyclists are the ones causing danger on the roads.
whoever dreamt this up is a ****ing [s]moron[/s] [b]politician[/b].
Though I guess it's the same thing really.
Apparently most of the ones stopped near me were mostly for riding on the pavement. Not for no helmet. A lot of them just happened not to have helmets.
Personally I would like to see all HGVs banned at peak hours. This would alleviate a great deal of congestion and make roads safer at the busiest times. I simply do not see the need for these when they could arrange deliveries at night and distribution via smaller vehicles during the day.
Any death is a tragedy but think there may be contributory factors from cyclists such as poor positioning in some instances, it is tragic but education and action is needed to stop this happening again. We won't stop it all but its starting to be like a war zone. I advocate helmets and visible clothing BUT it won't save you being crushed by 40 tons of truck.
Condolences to all the victims family and friends.
how hard is it just to say,
'i am very sorry officer, but until it is made law, i shall carry on regardless?'
IMO the better solution is to lift the ban on HGVs at night and ban HGVs from city centres during the day, or at least at rush hours.
Precisely!
The recent spate of London Cyclist deaths seem to have a common thread:
Large vehicles, being operated in a busy traffic environment at peak hours... That's not to blame the HGV drivers, but it's clearly an issue sticking such a mix of vehicles in that environment, as evidenced by the number of Deaths...
The current [url= http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/london_lorry_control_scheme.aspx ]LLCS[/url], is more of a noise control measure than a congestion or road safety thing, and easy enough for HGV operators to apply for an exception to operate in the exclusion zone between 21:00 - 07:00...
A Peak Hours HGV Exclusion may not be popular with the construction industry, but might just be what London needs TBH...
As for the OP about the MET's new helmet "Education" exercise, I suppose their intentions are good, but the response would have to be [I]"which type of helmet will protect me from being crushed between a Left turning aggregate lorry with faulty indicators, and a not very yielding steel barrier?"[/I]...
Helmet debate aside, the issue that I can see is that behaviour on the roads in general is appalling.
Pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclist, cars, vans, lorries - they're all at it. (And a business trip to London, last week, reminded me that train users can be twunts, too)
The absolutely ridiculous, selfish, behaviour that I see everyday on my 30 mile (each way) commute is beginning to really annoy me. Most things that people do have no point whatsoever as they don't usually result in the offender getting there quicker (I know, because I often see them again 10 miles further on) and all they do is slow things down [u]for everybody[/u].
Can't help thinking that we need some more 1970 style road safety campaigns on TV - just to explain to the hard of thinking, just how wrong their decisions are. Top Gear would be an excellent platform for such advice, but I don't think that it would fit in with their macho image.
(Hatching a plan)
P.S. The news of another cyclist death makes me very unhappy.
London is largely a residential city, it's not just the City and West End. As such, the whole concept of "Let's just get all the trucks in at night" isn't going to work.
So, it goes back to education and common sense for ALL road users. Above all, for cyclists - Bigger vehicles will ALWAYS come off better than you. Don't pick a fight you can't win, and stay well clear.
(Veteran of many, many years on the London frontline, with not a single scrape to my name. Thankfully)
IMO the better solution is to lift the ban on HGVs at night and ban HGVs from city centres during the day, or at least at rush hours.
I'm guessing you don't live anywhere near a supermarket or other large establishment that needs daily deliveries... Still, banning them during rush hour and permitting them to deliver until midnight could be a reasonable compromise.
"Something must be done. This is something."
The suggestion is that that's exactly what they are doing
Maybe on STW, but I read no such suggestion in the article.
Can someone point me to the paper that assesses that safety or otherwise of wearing a cycle helmet, the fact that they don't work is often cited on here but I would like to read the study myself.
"Why would I need Hi-Viz? You saw me well enough to pull me over!"
The absolutely ridiculous, selfish, behaviour that I see everyday on my 30 mile (each way) commute is beginning to really annoy me.
Careful! I've had to catch myself a few times recently. Started to get instantly very angry and at other people getting instantly very angry for next to no reason. Driver in front slows while indicating, takes a short while tofind his spot and pull in to the side of the road, driver behind can't wait the extra second (road completely clear apart from them and me) so revs hard, leans on the horn as he goes past. I got cross at him. And now I've spent 90 seconds typing it out. 🙄
My take on it is that they're a bit like footballer's shin-pads - if you were lying down and some very large bloke jumped on your leg with both feet, the pad would have very little effect, but people still wear them, because there are definitely occasions where you'll be glad that you did.
this seems to be true and is pretty ****ed up when thinking by joe public.Because it's easier, [b]and general public perception is[/b] not only that helmets are more important for safety, but also [b]that cyclists are the ones causing danger on the roads.[/b]
Wonder how polite/tactful the police will be with stopping cyclists for no good/legal reason and whether if you are a bit robust in your "please let me get on with my day" response you'll get some spurious careless cycling allegation made up on the spot.
Headphones mentioned in the article aswell, I'd assumed it was just the haterz who went on about them but seems the police dislike [s]road users[/s] cyclists listening to music too.
@NedRapier - yes, I'm aware of the effect that you describe, so am thinking of a way to channel my annoyance without over-reacting.
something must be done to stop cyclists getting killed by motor vehicles, this is something that may help if a cyclists falls off their bike. So this exercise is something that will not help with the current main problem."Something must be done. This is something."
It's also liable to piss cyclists off and develop a bit of resentment for the police, lovely 🙄
BTW if they were stopping people riding like twunts and offering them education that's fair enough.
Lots of lorry's being stopped by the police between Westminster and Tower Hill this afternoon.
I don't think that the vehicles themselves are dangerous, just the person behind the wheel. Stay away from tippers, bin/skip/scaffolding lorry's and you've got half a chance, low quality drivers.
Didn't stop another cyclist being killed in London at lunchtime today...perhaps why lots of lorries being stopped this afternoon?
WOuld be better off to stop riders without lights, although apparently they were recently and allowing them a couple of weeks to gets lights.
They should also run a national, or at least London, campaign, showing that video about how big the blind spot is in a lorry. Like this one, or there was another one around somewhere:
wonder why they haven't already, it is damn scary when you see it for the first time. Maybe someone is worried the general public will all say "WTF?!!1!! Why are they on our streets then?"They should also run a national, or at least London, campaign, showing that video about how big the blind spot is in a lorry
They should also run a national, or at least London, campaign, showing that video about how big the blind spot is in a lorry. Like this one, or there was another one around somewhere:
Maybe they can show it to the traffic engineerers and ask them why ASL and feeder lane match a hgvs blind spot so well.
Headphones mentioned in the article aswell, I'd assumed it was just the haterz who went on about them but seems the police dislike road users cyclists listening to music too.
Wonder if they will pull all the "chavs" in their corsa's for having stupidly loud i.c.e. systems??? Or how about parents with kids in the back seat fighting????
Stay away from tippers, bin/skip/scaffolding lorry's and you've got half a chance, low quality drivers.
I don't think it is the driver's fault. They are only human.
Anyone would find it challenging to drive a vehicle with blindspots this large:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Through city streets that are this busy:
[img] 
[/img]
The two are simply not compatible.
As yet another person found out to their cost...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/18/sixth-london-cyclist-killed-camberwell-lorry
Whilst I'm a supporter of wearing a helmet it is a ridiculous 'initiative' for the police to be doing. All cyclists know about helmets and hi-viz, if they don't have one then it's because they've chosen not to wear one (or forgotten them that day). I bet if they stopped 10,000 people not one would have a revelation and change their behaviour.
They should focus on HGV's for a bit and carry on with catching red light jumpers (whatever mode of transport they're in/on). And yeah the amount of idiots about at the moment without lights when it's dark needs addressing to (with fines not advice).
Wasnt there a study about helmets increasing rotational forces on the head, or making them more likely? Rotation being the bigger issue rather than impact. Had a dutch guy out last week telling me about some new helmet which allows the outer skin to rotate but the inner stays put.
Maybe helmets in a redesigned form would be better than the toy ones we have now? Protect the head in a wider range of forces and scenarios.
Maybe on STW, but I read no such suggestion in the article.
"He also acknowledged that officers were stopping riders who were not wearing helmets"
Maybe helmets in a redesigned form would be better than the toy ones we have now? Protect the head in a wider range of forces and scenarios.
I don't think it would make any odds as deaths from HGVs etc involve being crushed by huge forces. 🙁 Motorcycle helmets are considerably more robust than cycle helmets but they still die in large numbers.
My Colleagues father invented this : [url= http://www.truckview.net/ ]http://www.truckview.net/[/url]
It used to be given away free for all LHD trucks entering through British Ports.
It was used for truck in the Olympics to try accidents.
Seems to me it should be mandatory on all trucks/vans.
I've never had an incident involving a road vehicle as i cycle on the path whenever possible. I'd urge all of you to do the same. You may make a nuisance of yourselves but at least you are safe from cars and lorries. I'd imagine there's more chance of getting a dedicated cycle network by taking on the pedestrians. The cars aren't going anywhere.
Allmountainventure
''Had a dutch guy out last week telling me about some new helmet which allows the outer skin to rotate but the inner stays put.''
Its coming out in a few helemts now, its known as MIPS:
EG
As others have said - Helmets are almost a 'side issue' here..
The behavior of many cyclists/HGV Drivers/Car Drivers/Bus drivers/motorcyclists in London is shocking.
The behavior of many cyclists/HGV Drivers/Car Drivers/Bus drivers/motorcyclists [s]in London[/s] is shocking
They are without doubt a side issue and just being used as a political/self promotional tool. What I meant was that if we are going to be forced to wear them shouldnt they be redesigned because as it stands they have very limited use and in certain sutuations more likely to give you a head injury.
Thanks for that link.
If I could find a way to arrive at work and go through the day without absolutely RIDICULOUS helmet hair, then I'd probably wear a helmet on my commute just to assuage the tiny, niggling little voice in the back of my head that wants to make me think it's a worthwhile thing to do in case I'm being crushed to death by a motorist who's looking the other way/can't see me...
As others have said - Helmets are almost a 'side issue' here..
The whole lot (helmets, hi-viz, lights and for some of the more militant areas of the press, registration and insurance) are a way for everyone to neatly sidestep any and all issues. Everyone knows how easy it is to get cyclists and/or the press into a big frothy mess about helmets so they do it and sure enough, the massive elephant in the room just disappears.
The only thing that will cause real proper action is if a prominent figure (maybe Boris) gets hit by a lorry.
You would have thought it would be very simple to come up with a better mirror system to remove the blind spot completely.
I'm voting FOR the Plod to stop cyclists and advise them to wear helmets, some of the eejots I see riding around barely know how to walk straight never mind ride a bike.
And another thing, get some stuffing lights on!! Dear God the amount of folks riding in this grim dark weather at night without basic lights is utterly confusing and I feel they need a swift finger point telling off.
Last week at the Bow gathering I rode home and counted 6 folks on bikes without lights hacking down the highway towards Limehouse, this was 8pm'ish.. most were Kids and I see no reason NOT to stop them and give em' a right telling off.
Borris came pretty close already
nothing much changed
The Met are apparently stopping cyclists who are not wearing helmets to offer them "education and advice":
Gosh, almost worth moving back dan saff for a week or two with some facts and figures to counteract their "education and advice"
the amount of folks riding in this grim dark weather at night without basic lights is utterly confusing and I feel they need a swift finger point telling off.
Lighting is a different issue though. Cyclists are required by law to have lights so the police are completely justified in stopping cyclists and telling them to get some lights. I'm quite happy with that.
Likewise I'm quite happy for police to stop cyclists who are actually breaking the law by RLJing or riding dangerously (provided of course they direct as much, if not more, attention to the actions of drivers on the same roads).
The only thing that will cause real proper action is if a prominent figure (maybe Boris) gets hit by a lorry.
Win, win.
I've been caught in the blind spot of HGV's a number of times and have had to hop up the kerb to get out of the way. No big deal really. Those things are a total nightmare to drive around city centres. If I couldn't bunny hop up a kerb I don't think I'd ride a road bike. I'd have been squished a number of times by crap drivers.
If they were removed there would be no cornflakes in Tescos and then you would see a public disturbance!
I've been caught in the blind spot of HGV's a number of times and have had to hop up the kerb to get out of the way. No big deal really.
So what happens when you are the rider four from the front in the green top when the HGV pulls up alongside you at the lights. How do you hop up onto the kerb when there are other cyclists there?
[img] [/img]
Or if the council have thoughtfully provided sturdy railings to block your escape route?
More to the point, being able to sideways bunnyhop a road bike from stationary [i]shouldn't[/i] be a required skill for someone that just wants to cycle to work!
+1.Lighting is a different issue though. Cyclists are required by law to have lights so the police are completely justified in stopping cyclists and telling them to get some lights. I'm quite happy with that.
Time spent bollocking people who dont use lights at night is time well spent. They are exposing themselves [b]and others[/b] to a whole extra level of danger compared to those who choose to not wear a helmet.