Forum Topic

"You are not wearing a helmet!"

What I am keen to know is why drivers typically - but unfathomably - respond with:"And why aren't you wearing a helmet?"; or even"You are supposed to be wearing a helmet"after being told to get off their phone by me (or any other cyclist). It has been said to me twice in consecutive days. It is a defenceless argument. If the driver believes that it is ok to be using a phone whilst driving then they should not be driving.

Ben Owen ● 4163d76 Comments

Make another call and find out Ben, I have no clue.

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d

Why did the IAM ditch their cycling development officer?

Ben Owen ● 4157d

If that's what Hounslow are obliged to do, then yes.Same I suppose as Guildford Borough Council are obliged to do for the CTC and Southwark do for the London Cycling Campaign.

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d

just checked the website - they are a charity - didn't realise that. does that mean Hounslow gives them business rates discount for their HQ in Chiswick?

David Eales ● 4157d

DavidNo hijacking at all.To cut through the marketing hype it is a way of securing a discount on insurance if you are prepared to do the extended test.I am of a vintage that joined before 'Pass Plus' was introduced and both of my children took the latter route.

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d

sorry to hijack the thread, but I always struggle as to what the IAM is for. They have dabbled with horse riding and cycling. Still - looking forward to tomorrow as it "National drive to work day" - can't wait. http://drivetoworkday.org/ - shame the AA and RAC won't support it. I must approach the IAM and see if they are interested.

David Eales ● 4157d

Pyrrhic victory given the statement had already been changed.Award yourself a 'fractional point' and a wasted phone call!

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d

I rang IAM and spoke to their Press Officer about this. She got her knickers in a twist and had to continually correct herself, and then getting flustered because she knew, privately, how contentious the stats were. No wonder they went onto reissue the press statement (done before I rang the Press Officer).Motoring organisation 0 Cyclists 1

Ben Owen ● 4157d

The IAM - they have form...http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3716.html

David Eales ● 4157d

Very much so.I am tall and ginger (ginger hair is not common in Holland) so was greeted with this most times that I went to see my sister-in-law in Voorschotten.It got to the point where we had a standing joke at the local store where I would walk in an say, in English, "I still have no idea where his bleeding bike is!"Cue laughter from the shopkeeper, bewildered locals, a coffee and a minimum of twenty minutes to buy anything! :-)

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d

Fascinating Nigel - I now remember this also from my dim and distant past!So in the 70s the culture of cycling was a recent memory and therefore the campaigners were to some extent pushing at an open door.

Sam Salisbury ● 4157d

I am actually an IAM member (since 1980) and have done the full 'commentary' drive twice (glutton for punishment) - a frightening experience even for the most 'experienced' driver.It does teach you to be really observant but I still got caught out by the "what was the last warning or informational sign that we passed?"  I missed the 'end of a 20mph zone sign' and was still happily pootling along at around 18mph!My 'techy device' maps speed limits and alerts me when speed limits change.As to pissing off other road users, I guess I am one of the few who does not exceed 30mph on Boston/ Boston Manor Road (six schools discharge onto the road). Cue much flashing from those who want to go much, often much, faster.

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d

It could be that you go over Three Bridges and down Windmill Lane past the Garden Centre and onto the A4. If I am right, that little section is barmy! Can I ask a question: How do you know when to change your kit if the signs aren't clearly marked?It is probable that you will need to improve your observation skills to pass the Advanced Driving Test. Here, you have to do a running commentary for five minutes of observing potential hazards, and explaining the road conditions as they are to a serving traffic copper.One example might be: "I am about to move into a 40mph speed limit zone, on a single carriageway, and am approaching a dip in the road where they might be a large puddle of water as it has been raining so hard."Interesting too to note that you like to piss off other road users. One thing the Advanced Driving Test teaches you is not to piss off other road users.

Ben Owen ● 4157d

BenI use my techy piece of kit where the speed limits change and to piss off those who insist on speeding.As example, in the journey from my home to my dentist the speed limit changes thus. 20, 30, 40, 30, 40 very briefly, 30, 50, 20, 30 and then 40. Not all of these limits are at all clearly signposted.

Nigel Brooks ● 4158d

In Ealing Broadway this evening I asked a driver to finish his phone call pointing out that he wouldn't be very happy if his father, son or uncle was injured as a consequence of the driver paying less attention to the road than his phone call.I was predictably thrown a tirade of everyday abuse "Eff off, she said. 'You're not wearing a helmet and you shouldn't be riding in the middle of the f..k..g road anyway. You should cycle on the left hand side of the road at all  times.' Then a pause to think before yelling more verbal garbage; 'You don't own the bl..dy effing road"'.A life in the day of a London cyclist. There you have it. Amen.I might share that I still don't understand why I can keep to the speed limit without relying on some tekky piece of kit to do it for me.

Ben Owen ● 4158d

Declan.If you see somebody doing something in a public place that endangers the life of you, your loved ones and those around them would you not say something?I always have a word, and ALWAYS report the drivers of livered vehicles to their employers, the latter I'd recommend everybody do so to help make all drivers be safer.

Paul James ● 4158d

Sorry can I ask why you have to ask a driver to put his phone down?While its breaking the law but thats up to the police to deal with, whether they do or not.Sort of understand why you get some abuse, slightly different when a bike goes through a red light, he is placing himself in direct danger as well as the driver

Declan Devine ● 4158d

1/The inference was there.2.Not at all save that a motorist jumping a red light is both less likely and ANPR can identify them should they break the law. Would that it were the same for cyclists.3.I am not at all surprised given the behaviour of a minority of road users to simply obey the law, the same type of people who would render abuse.

Nigel Brooks ● 4158d

Nigel, you've missed the point.1. Of course somebody jumping a red light is wrong, did anybody suggest it wasn't?2. Do you think it's OK to generalise about people that ride bikes, or people that drive cars?3. Why should declan be surprised getting abuse from the person on the bike when i get abuse all the time asking people in cars to put their mobile down (not every time mind you, same for people on bikes who i remostrate with for jumping red lights)

Paul James ● 4158d

Two  wrongs etc. Or was the cyclist not wrong?

Nigel Brooks ● 4158d

I tell you declan, i could write pages and paged of abuse i get when asking drivers to put down their mobile phones, why would you think a law breaking cyclist would behave any differently when pulled up for it?

Paul James ● 4158d

Maybe I just generlised but it may come from my frustration of driving everyday and having to put up with idiots on bikes who think they are above the law.Good example this morning waiting at the lights at Westlea road to turn on to Boston Road, lights go green for me as I am pulling out a bloke on a bike goes straight through the red, giving me the sign when I dare to sound my horn, maybe next time I will just carry on straight out !!These kind of things are a daily occurrence,

Declan Devine ● 4158d

Thanks Nigel and Sam for your interesting observations 'bout Dutch cycling. The Dutch are such sensible people imo.Yes Sam, you can't beat a good cycling thread.

Gerry Tan ● 4158d

Actually the popularity of cycling in the Netherlands goes back to well before World War 2.When the Germans invaded the 'confiscated' many bikes from adults to reduce personal mobility and prevent the adult men from using alleys and tracks to move around and meet.Up until the 1970's a whole generation if shopkeepers would greet anyone they 'suspected' of being German with "waar is de fiets van mijn vader ?"  "where if my father's bike?" and then serve everyone else first.

Nigel Brooks ● 4158d

The Dutch case is very interesting - it wasn't always thus. It's a result of campaigning in the 1970s and a relatively receptive government.http://lcc.org.uk/pages/holland-in-the-1970s

Sam Salisbury ● 4158d

The Dutch seem to have the best "national personality" about cycling. And now the Danish appear to be the same - they believe cycling is the best thing for busy city dwellers. I warm to this thought.

Gerry Tan ● 4158d

You can't beat a good cycling thread!What is it about this simple, healthy, useful activity that so raises the hackles?“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle I no longer despair for the future of the human race.” ~ H.G. Wells

Sam Salisbury ● 4158d

>Declan Divine>The issue I have on this selection of posts is that the cyclist never is wrong !!Where are yu reading this declan? I can't see it.I think might be giving you this impressions is that people seem happy to see an individual cyclist behaving badly and apply that to all cyclists (we see you Nigel and Keith doing that on here), but individual car drivers behaving badly seemingly doesn't mean all car drivers behave badly.So I think what you're seeing and misinterpreting is a reaction to this predjudice (which you yourself might not see). It's not that people on bikes can do no wrong, they can, they are people, just like people who drive cars, or people that walk.

Paul James ● 4159d

No, I do not.I have a speed limiter on my car and use it extensively as I neither want to break the law nor pay any fines for so doing.Next.

Nigel Brooks ● 4159d

Hi Nigel, do you ever exceed the speed limit?

Paul James ● 4159d

and cycling instructors will tell you to wear a helmet at all times, not use a phone or MP3 and to always have lights.And do they.As I said before the law needs to be applied evenly and really it should not even need to be law as it is plain common sense.

Anthony Waller ● 4159d

A cyclist ignoring the rules of the road, surely not, Keith :-)

Nigel Brooks ● 4159d

A good example of the arrogant 'I'm never wrong I'm a cyclist' which is expressed on this thread happened to me yesterday. I was driving along and saw a cyclist coming out from my left about 15 yds in front of me and he did not look right as he should so I just touched the car horn with  short 'beep' to let him know I was there...cue a tirade of foul abuse and fist waving even though I had right of way and was being considerate. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered trying to warn him...but if I had hit him no doubt he would have tried to make out it was my fault.

Keith Iddon ● 4159d

In truth you do see drivers everyday using mobile phones, also I see cyclists everyday running red lights and riding on the pavement, or going straight in a lane that is left hand turn only etcThe issue I have on this selection of posts is that the cyclist never is wrong !!

Declan Devine ● 4159d

I honestly thought my remark was reflective and sensible. Like it or not, there has always been a different set of rules for:HGV driversbus driverscar driversmotorcyclistscyclistshorsespedestriansThere is danger of driver distraction being caused if a phone rings. It is far safer not to have it on at all. For a very good reason, you should find that no driving instructor teaches with the radio on.

Ben Owen ● 4160d

I should add that I can answer a call in my car without moving my hands from the steering wheel as can drivers of many modern cars, I simply choose not to do so unless parked or stationery. I have no problems with cyclists doing that as well just to be clear.

Nigel Brooks ● 4160d

"You are all way too childish and smug"What a wholly stupid remark. Sorry Ben but I am offended by this, I have already made it very clear that I am in favour of much harsher penalties for the use of hand held mobiles by drivers and the prosecution of cyclists who do the same (who are currently exempt). Which part of that was not clear to you?

Nigel Brooks ● 4160d

This really has deviated from the original post. You are all way too childish and smug! Who is more self righteous?  I would love to cast us all in Aladdin. Other forum members can be the casting director. Since you can't answer a call, what is the point of having your phone on when you jump into your car? Train drivers can't drive and, believe it or not,  pilots can't fly with their phones on, so why are car drivers? One rule for one group and another for car drivers. Inconsistent. So confusing. All in charge of a moving transport.If I can turn it off (and change my voicemail if I'm expecting a call to "I won't be able to listen to your call until 3.45 as I'm driving") then why can't everyone else do the same? I know that I'm a great example to others, so please keep the congratulation messages to yourselves. If manufacturers can detect that one is not wearing a seatbelt, then I bet that they could also devise a device that makes a sound alert for the driver to turn their phone off before driving.

Ben Owen ● 4160d

Unfortunately Gerry driving or riding while using a mobile phone is normally only punishable by an endorseable offence (and even not that in the case of cyclists) this is 3 points and a £100 fine (or up to £1000 if you contest and lose the subsequent court case).It would like to see it prosecuted as, at a minimum, driving without due care and attention (up to 9 points and up to a £2500 fine) but this would need a change in legislation as use of a mobile alone does not constitute an offence under current laws.

Nigel Brooks ● 4160d

Whatever the comparisons, car driving or cycling should not be done whilst using a mobile 'phone - its dangerous, nay potentially lethal imo.  I wish the police would heavily fine or better still arrest drivers for dangerous driving.

Gerry Tan ● 4160d

No I can't understand the difference. If anything the concept of a moron on a bike using a hand held mobile phone appals me more than a moron in a car doing the same.You can be neither in control of a car nor a bike while doing this and should therefore be prosecuted.Your comparison is, at best, specious but is what I would, sadly, expect from anyone with such a blinkered view.

Nigel Brooks ● 4160d

Someone cycling and using a phone is not concentrating on the road as they should and may cause an accident by careless riding.

Keith Iddon ● 4160d

You can't understand the difference between somebody on a bike using a mobile phone and somebody in a car?I wouldn't do it myself, but equating it is like suggesting somebody waving an iron bar around in a crowd is the same as somebody waving around a roll of newspaper.

Paul James ● 4161d

From the UKPolice website"Using a hand held mobile phone whilst cycling is not illegal per se, however, you could commit an offence of careless riding or riding without due care and consideration. It is also not advisable for the obvious safety reasons."So one law for one set of road users and cyclists, again, get away with it!

Nigel Brooks ● 4161d

ROFL! I'm so happy for your glee Ben...it must have made your day!

Keith Iddon ● 4161d

Interesting that not one has responded to Cyclists using mobile phones.Just hobbling up to Ealing this morning, frosty side roads and still seen several cyclists riding one handed , phone in hand, or using the earpiece.  More than I saw motorists doing the same. But  this was 4 out of 15 cyclists. A few hundred motor vehicles must of passed me but  I only clearly saw two using a device.The law has to be enforced evenly as any road user needs to be aware of their own safety and their obligations to all other road users..and pedestrians.

Anthony Waller ● 4161d

Too many and nowhere near enough!Some people compare hands-free use to having a conversation in the car, it is not.If you talk to someone in the car they are aware of their surroundings and pause or change their conversation accordingly. Some calling on the phone is not aware and carries on regardless.Fortunately I can reject a call by moving my thumb to a button on the steering wheel and would never take a call unless I was stationery, parked or on a clear stretch of road and then only very briefly.Strange isn't it that this thread which has raised the normal cycling 'hackles' has, turned into a universal condemnation of drivers using mobile phones.

Nigel Brooks ● 4161d

Using hands-free phones whilst driving is as bad as hand held.It still diverts your attention away from the road.Both should be banned but how many people do you still see using their phones and how many times have you seen the police stop a driver for this?

Kevin Hemming ● 4161d

What is the point, Keith, of posting your opinion five times if you think the whole discussion is pointless?!Gleefully, the thread has produced the evidence that I went fishing for. If I no longer hear it mentioned to me again then I will have gained a victory.     The debate can still continue...

Ben Owen ● 4162d

As has already been mentioned, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that making helmets compulsory would kill more people than it would save.

Dave Robertson ● 4162d

When I start walking at about 10-15 miles per hour on the road with motors whizzing by me and quite often in the dark then yes, I will be wearing my walking helmet Michael. Count on it.

Keith Iddon ● 4162d

Keith Iddon asked:If someone asked me :A: Would you rather fall off a bike and bang your head concrete whilst wearing a cycle helmet ?orB:Would you rather fall off a bike and bang your head on concrete whilst not wearing a cycle helmet ?  it would be A every time for me whatever statistics say...............................................But exactly the same could be said of pedestrians who, more especially as there are many more of them and some of whom may well be infirm, are equally if not even more at risk of head injuries as a result of tripping over paving stones, slipping on wet leaves etc etc.Can I take it that you yourself always wear your pedestrian helmet, whenever you leave your house ?And even at home what about tiled kitchen floors ? I personally wouldn't fancy slipping over on on some spilled kitchen oil and cracking my head on the quarry tiles. michael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 4162d

You are probably right Phil but I can dream.Before it was illegal I used to use a hand held mobile and my driving was not impaired, it was cr*p while using the phone. I got a hands-free kit as soon as they were available.My phone is now 'connected' to my car but I use it only when parked or not moving as I find it a distraction.What worries me are the latest in-car systems which enable mobile computing via the car's display. I can just imagine now some numpty 'Googling' in the fast lane!!!

Nigel Brooks ● 4162d

I wouldn't argue with YOUR logic there, Nigel, but the money would go in the general pot and be used to pay back some of the 1914-18 bonds or the outstanding debt re the South Sea Bubble.Can't imagine a sensible decision being made in the current climate.I still have mixed views on cycle helmets.  I always wear one myself and I don't consciously feel any more invincible than, for example, using my seat belt when driving.There was a research scientist on Radio 4 yesterday saying how successful car maufacturers have been in making people wear seat belts simply as a result of cars emitting annoying noises if they aren't used.  He suggested something similar might deter people from using their mobiles illegally.When the seat belt law first came in, it was common to see people flouting it, doing up their seat belts behind their bodies etc but I hardly ever see that now.

Phil Kay ● 4162d

True, but the fines levied would go into the MoJ 'pot' and could only serve to increase, albeit indirectly, available budgets possibly paying for some more front line posts.I figure one day, at maximum fine rates, on the Uxbridge Road would cover a PC's salary for a year!

Nigel Brooks ● 4162d

If someone asked me :A: Would you rather fall off a bike and bang your head concrete whilst wearing a cycle helmet ?orB:Would you rather fall off a bike and bang your head on concrete whilst not wearing a cycle helmet ?  it would be A every time for me whatever statistics say.

Keith Iddon ● 4162d

Given that the maximum fine is £1000 and the police claim to be underfunded I am amazed that the law is not rigidly enforcedUnder the current "hypothecation" rules, I don't think the police are able to keep any of the fines collected for catching drivers holding mobiles whilst driving.  Following up on this would boost their detection rates and remove a certain level of danger from our roads but would, perhaps, detract from their other priorities.

Phil Kay ● 4162d

Thanks Chris - you beat me to it.

Sam Salisbury ● 4162d

Well, what d'ya know!  Thanks.

Gerry Tan ● 4162d

Gerry - here:http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia%27s-helmet-law-disasterhttp://www.cycle-helmets.com/ - the evidence is that introducing mandatory helmet use:- increased hospital admissions per cyclist on the road- reduced the popularity of cycling- damaged public health- increased all road casualties

Chris Martin ● 4162d

"...there's evidence to suggest that legislating helmet use curtails cycling"Sam, with respect, where could I find this so called evidence? Please tell us.

Gerry Tan ● 4162d

It's sad if wearing  a helmet puts some off cycling.

Keith Iddon ● 4162d

On an individual level, of course you're right. But at a macro level, there's evidence to suggest that legislating helmet use curtails cycling. The effect of this could be greater than the individual and undeniably tragic cases that can occur.The evidence is not conclusive.

Sam Salisbury ● 4162d

I've posed that question before to my next door neighbour who is a PC.  A few bobbies on bicycles (with helmets obviously) peddling up and down the A4 in rush hour could probably make £100k a day.

Andy Vaughan ● 4162d

All well and good Sam but if I had an accident on a bike and had to spend the rest of my life eating my fish and chips through a straw I might think, if I was still able to, 'I wonder if a helmet might have minimised the damage'. Just a thought..

Keith Iddon ● 4162d

It's not you imagination Gerry.I can stand outside my home most evenings during he rush hour and get into double figures pretty quickly for the number of drivers using hand held mobiles.Given that the maximum fine is £1000 and the police claim to be underfunded I am amazed that the law is not rigidly enforced.

Nigel Brooks ● 4162d

Cyclists generally take a lot of care on roads because the consequences of accidents are typically high for them, much higher than for car drivers.An eminent economist, Gordon Tullock, apparently once suggested that drivers would be more careful if a large spike was fitted to the steering wheel, pointing at the driver's heart. I guess he was trying to make the point that if the risk is clear and apparent, more care is taken.Many drivers see, whether consciously or not, behaviour such as mobile phone use, speeding, jumping red lights etc as risk free.As for helmets, I'm please it's a personal choice here in the UK and not legislated.

Sam Salisbury ● 4162d

Btw, is it my imagination but are more and more drivers using handheld mobile 'phones illegally while driving? I seem to observe this dangerous use of mobiles increasingly by careless drivers and they appear to be getting away with it.

Gerry Tan ● 4163d

And precisely the same advice applies to motorcyclists (or any road user for that matter) who are thinking about seeing their next birthday - it is vital to assume that everybody else is a nutter out to kill you until proved otherwise.The less steel you have surrounding you the more important it is never to forget this rule.And no, it is not "victim blaming" (to quote the popular vernacular) to point this out - just simple common sense.I rode high speed motorbikes for many years back in the eighties (and before that I did ten years on a pushbike) and I am only still alive today precisely because I rigidly applied this rule without fear or favour to every single other road user - invalid carriages included.Sadly, many of my contemporaries never made it.

Tony Colliver ● 4163d

Nigel Brooks explained:As to helmets, it's your call. I personally would make them compulsory if only from the personal experience of my daughter's ex-boyfriend having his life saved (or at least avoiding critical injury) when some idiot pulled out in front of him. His helmet left a dent in the 'A' pillar of the car, had he not been wearing one, well, let's not go there....The first rule for survival as a cyclist is always to assume that any approaching motorist is quite possibly drunk or deranged and to act accordingly until proven otherwise. This also involves constantly anticipating the worst that can possibly happen and being prepared to act accordingly.Basically the fact that he was going so fast that his helmet left a dent in the pillar simply meant he can't have been paying sufficient attention. Blind corners are no excuse as they're something which should always be looked out for and anticipated. And unlessa car actually slows down and stops its bestto assume they haven't actually seen you. (Thisis a well documented phenomenon - physicallythey've seen you but it hasn't registered.The Gorilla experiment)By the same token I very  much doubt that wearing a helmet was of much benefit to the London cyclists who regularly manage to get themselves killed by riding inside heavy lorries while the latter negotiatebends in the road.Rather than forcing everyone to wear helmets, its maybe better to admit that under present traffic conditions a lot of people would be better persuaded not to ride bicyclesat all, if they're not going to use a bit ofcommon sense.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 4163d

What's the point of another motorist v. cyclist discussion?

Keith Iddon ● 4163d

And what about cyclists and even pedestrians who wear headphones and either engrossed in phone conversation or oblivious to their surroundings?Also a minority but also equally dangerous both to themselves and others.I was nearly flattened by a cyclist in Ealing just two days ago,who ignored the pelican crossing at the High Street and am now limping around with a sprained ankle. In fact, the only reason he did not hit me is because I heard him arguing on his phone.  One hand on the handlebars and one holding the mic on his headphones.  No lights, no mudguards no hi viz.Next time I will swing my bag ahead of me and let him or his ilk take the consequences. Even if it busts his bike and bones.These cyclists give the rest of us who cycle and obey the highway code an appalling reputation They need to be indentifiable, fined and penalised in the same way a motor vehicle user can.

Anthony Waller ● 4163d

I have launched into too many tirades about the minority of cyclists who ride on pavements, through red lights etc. I would love to see them prosecuted. But their illegality pales into insignificance against the drivers who hold their phone to call or text while driving. The £1000 maximum penalty for this is not invoked often enough and three points for not being in full control of the vehicle is inadequate. Make it six points and then a second transgression will their licence revoked for a year, that should get the message home.

Nigel Brooks ● 4163d

Well at least it makes a change from "You don't even pay Road Tax!" (ignoring the fact that there is no such thing, so nobody does).

Dave Robertson ● 4163d

What riles me are cyclists at night with no lights on their bike.  Selfish bar stewards. Collide with the sods, and naturally it'll be the driver's fault. Often I yell "CAN'T SEE YOU . . . " as I give them a wide berth.

Andy Horridge ● 4163d

Keep telling them to get off their phones Ben (that makes two of us). I will happily continue to swallow the 'fat bastard' abuse if it makes one iota of difference.I think that 'The Met' could have a field day and pay a few copper's salaries if they actually rigidly enforced the law regarding the use of mobiles while driving.As to helmets, it's your call. I personally would make them compulsory if only from the personal experience of my daughter's ex-boyfriend having his life saved (or at least avoiding critical injury) when some idiot pulled out in front of him. His helmet left a dent in the 'A' pillar of the car, had he not been wearing one, well, let's not go there.

Nigel Brooks ● 4163d