Speed Kills?

This phrase cropped up again the other day.  It bothers me.  Similarly, there are signs on some motorways which shout confidently that tiredness kills and that I should take a break.  Maybe it’s the analyst in me that won’t accept these statements at face value, but probably it’s the fact that such statements are well-meaning but misleading.  I’m pretty sure that I’ve travelled at speeds in excess of 500mph many, many times, and that I survived the experience.  (I suppose I could be dreaming, but let’s assume it’s not all in my imagination.)  I’ve also been tired on more than one occasion and, although I have probably opined that I felt like death, it has never actually killed me.

Anyway, the titular phrase cropped up in a debate about – quelle surprise! – cycle helmets and road safety.  Somebody was advocating the wider implementation of 20mph speed limits in certain areas; somebody else (post Bradley Wiggins’s comments the other day) was arguing for the compulsory wearing of helmets by those of us on bicycles.  On the face of it, both of these ideas appear to be perfectly reasonable and beyond criticism.  Surely they will improve road safety and reduce the risk of serious injury to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike.  Surely I would be daft to question the wisdom of such thinking.  Fortunately, I’m convinced that I’m not (yet) daft, at least when such matters are under debate.  The statements should be scrutinised very carefully.

My issue with the speed thing is that it implies that speed is inherently dangerous.  It is not.  As my earlier comment confirms, it is possible to go very fast and survive.  If you doubt me, ask an astronaut.  It’s no different to guns, I suppose; the problems arise when someone pulls the trigger.  My issue with the helmet debate is the assertion, heard all too often, that they will save your life.  Well, as I understand it, a helmet may protect you from a minor injury and maybe even a serious injury, but it may also cause injury.  Most likely is that it will make no difference at all.  A common statement made by those with some knowledge of a cycling accident is that “the helmet saved my/his/her life”.  Perhaps it did, but how do they know for sure without recreating the exact circumstances of the accident minus the helmet?  If you are wearing a helmet, this effectively increases the size of your head, and this may have consequences in a fall.  I had my eureka moment on this several years ago while working on construction sites, wearing the obligatory hard hat.  For several days after first donning said safety device I banged my head on countless occasions.  Nothing serious, but I banged my head time and time again until my body and brain figured out that I had to compensate for the greater dimensions of my head space and for the loss of the sensitivity to close objects offered by my hair.  Rest assured, I am not anti-helmet; I’d just prefer to hear both sides of the argument, rather than assertions that those who choose not to wear a few hundred grammes of polystyrene on their head are in some way irresponsible and only worthy of our collective contempt.  Incidentally, I’m no scientist, but as I understand it, the arguments comparing motorcycle helmets and car seat belts are not valid.  These are proven to have a significant impact in accidents; cycle helmets do not enjoy such empirical evidence.

I’ve rather glossed over the question of speed, but it continues to bother me.  Perhaps we could have a 20mph speed limit in some areas.  In fact, why not make it 5mph?  My view is that it is very dangerous to focus on a headline speed limit.  Frankly, when I’m on my bike, my major concern is that I am not hit by another road user, whatever the speed.  Tell some drivers that the limit is 20mph and you could well be removing their obligation to think about whether even this maximum is appropriate.  I would far rather be passed by a car at 40mph, 12 feet away, than one at 20mph within a few inches.  At risk of labouring the point, it is not the speed that will kill but the impact of the vehicle travelling at a speed inappropriate to the prevailing conditions.  Here is the crux of the matter.  Most drivers are simply not thinking about their driving; most don’t deliberately try to harm cyclists; most have no idea about how close they pass; most have done nothing about improving their driving after having passed their test, one, five, twenty or forty years ago.

I ought to digress for a moment, for reasons which should become apparent later.  Perhaps it’s the latent hippie in me (although I was born about ten years too late to experience genuine flower power), but I fail to understand why we can’t just live happily and take care of those around us.  Peace and love and all that, man.  A few years ago, I was pondering the change to the law dealing with smoking in public places and wondered why we should have to legislate about such matters.  It is barely conceivable that people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking and, more significantly, passive smoking.  If you cared about your fellow man, why would you want to smoke in a place frequented by others?  Imagine if I had a chronic flatulence problem.  Would I park up every evening in my local hostelry and fart loudly and frequently like some malodorous, bean-fuelled gremlin?  I’m pretty sure that most people in our society would find such behaviour rather unacceptable, even though extended exposure to passive methane inhalation is unlikely to be a cause of cancer (although I half expect the Daily Hate or the Daily Express to tell us otherwise fairly soon).

I think it is evident that speed doesn’t kill.  Selfish, irresponsible, arrogant use of speed by those in ton-and-a-half metal boxes is the problem.  I simply don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to do everything reasonable to ensure the safety of fellow road users.  Paradoxically, it would be deemed outrageous for a smoker to enter a non-smoker’s house or car and sit puffing on their 23rd Marlboro of the day.  Can you imagine the kerfuffle this would cause?  In other words, people do care about how their behaviour impacts on others, so why isn’t this applied to the roads?

Wiggins Speaks Out

I’m the first to applaud the fact that Bradley Wiggins, the newly crowned darling of British sport, does not appear to have been to the School of Media Blandness, like so many other high-profile sportsmen and women.  He wears his heart on his (Lycra) sleeve; put a microphone in his face and he answers and speaks as though he actually means it.  Never mind that a few choice expletives have been known to slip through – he speaks the language of the ordinary man.  My guess is that the ordinary man will actually listen to what he says.  Make no mistake, this is a good thing.

Hot on the heels of Wiggo’s astounding win in the Time Trial yesterday, we were shocked to hear of the death of yet another cyclist on the road.  The tragic irony in yesterday’s case was that the victim died under the wheels of an official Olympic bus.  While we absorb and revel in the magnificence of those rides by Wiggins and Froome (please, let’s not forget this year’s quiet and unassuming nearly-man), cyclists around the country will have been instantly brought back down to earth by the bad news of this horrific accident.  Of course, we don’t know the details and the circumstances, and it would be dangerous to jump to conclusions, but the fact remains that cyclists face life-threatening dangers every day.

For some time, I’ve been convinced that the British public simply need to be educated on the risks faced by those of us on two wheels, but the pragmatist in me realises that education on road safety is not seen as a topic of discussion.  It’s just not cool.  Or is it?

This morning I saw a brief clip on the television where Mr Wiggins was speaking about cyclists’ safety; then I heard the same excerpt from the press conference on the radio.  While he mangled his words somewhat, suggesting that helmets should be legalised [sic], it was a first step in the right direction.  Paradoxically, here is where I would like Bradley to have some form of media coaching.  There is a message here which needs to be carefully co-ordinated, carefully communicated and carefully targeted.

Has there ever been a better time to have Hoy, Pendleton, Cavendish, Froome, Millar, Stannard and their ilk joining forces with Mr Sideburns to explain to other road users that cyclists are vulnerable and need some time, space and respect?  With the media power enjoyed by Sky, surely here is the conduit to disseminate the message, but I wonder if I am naive to imagine a day when 70’s style Public Information Messages appear on our television screens or in our tabloids and broadsheets.  The cost to Sky would be minimal in real terms – they have the TV output hours; they have the column inches.  I’d like to see them working with British Cycling, the CTC and other cycling bodies to fund a joined-up policy fronted by these successful, high-profile, charismatic men and women who have brought British cycling to the masses.  Is that so much to ask?

Threatened with a Deadly Weapon

Fort the first time in several years, I decided to have a game of cricket the other day.  Quietly minding my own business down at long leg, some clown walking his dog decided to hurl a hammer at me, just missing me by a matter of inches.  Before I could gather myself and turn to question his motives, he’d already run off into the car park.  He probably did it because I was wearing whites, or I was using the space where he wanted to take his dog.  He was perfectly within his rights to own and use a hammer, but he probably had no concept of the consequences of said hammer coming into contact  with the back of my head.  Clearly, cricket was much more dangerous than I remembered.  Time for a rethink.

So I thought I’d play a round of golf instead.  Now, I play a few rounds every year, and there is an annual family tournament looming, and it seemed wise to remind myself of the handicap from which I suffer, namely that I am consistently inconsistent.  I fear the day when I become incontinent.  No matter.  While standing on the thirteenth green, a spotty, slack-jawed youth, resplendent in nylon sportswear, appeared from the bushes carrying an old golf club.  He made a beeline towards me, swinging the club around his head like some demented wannabe samurai.  He came closer and closer until I realised that he wasn’t interested in me; he simply wanted to take the shortest route from bush A to bush B on the opposite side of the green, and my ball (and by default, my body) happened to be in the way.  As the club head sped round on yet another revolution, I felt the rush of air past my right ear.  I suggested that the lad might like to go around the green, rather than across it.  His look suggested that I may as well have been speaking Chinese.  Never mind the risk of being hit by stray balls, golf had suddenly acquired a danger level matched only by the terrifying range of compulsory hideous clothing found on the fairways or the links.  Time for another rethink, methinks.

My craving for entertainment and leisure ultimately took me to a casino in that London.  I knew I had an aptitude for poker, so I figured it was time to test my skills and nerve against real people, across a real table, rather than through my laptop.  I played it cool and managed to win a few hands.  I knew that I was good at this as I stared into the eyes of the other players around the table, checking for the tell-tale, well, tells.  By just after midnight I was up by over a grand.  Suddenly, the large bearded chap directly opposite decided he’d had enough.  He stood up, pulled out a Colt 45 and shot me.  Fortunately, he was a poor shot, and my left shoulder took the round rather than my head, heart or lung.  Now you’re having a rethink, I think, thinking it’s time for me to stay indoors, out of trouble.

Of course, I’ve imagined all of this.  It never happened, apart form the hideous golf clothing, obviously.  Regular threats with deadly weapons do not form part of the life of cricketers, golfers, gamblers or any other sportsmen and women or leisure seekers.  By now you’ve figured out that this brings me back to my dominant theme.  Why should I have to tolerate the very real threats I experience every time I ride my bike?  If the things I’ve imagined happened on a daily basis, you can be sure that people would sit up and take notice and take action.  What will it take to get this message across to protect the space of road cyclists?  Suggestions on a postcard…

I had a dream

A nightmare, in fact.  I woke up in a cold sweat in the early hours of this morning.  This is genuine, if enhanced a little.  As always with dreams, the details are a little sketchy, but I can recall enough to outline the general thrust of the horror.

I was struggling to control some bloke.  Some pretty ordinary bloke we all seemed to know, but who wouldn’t be controlled.  I was attempting to tie his wrists with those cable ties (zip ties) that I’ve seen people using on t’ telly to restrain crazies or other offenders.  Somehow I couldn’t get them on properly and this bloke remained free to attack me – at least, this is what I feared, although he was not being aggressive or acting in a threatening manner.  The big problem was that I was working alone trying to control this menace, although I was surrounded by dozens of familiar faces, none of whom seemed to share my concern.  None would help.  This is what made the situation so frightening.  Evidently, everyone else knew this bloke and knew that he was posing no threat; why would he?  I was afraid because I was alone, because I was having no success in persuading my friends that I knew that this lunatic had to be controlled or he would eventually become a real danger to us or our children.

I’ve probably over analysed this, but I genuinely woke* in a cold sweat.  You know those dreams where you’re really grateful to have woken up?  Well, this was up there with the worst of them.  Dreams rarely make any sense, but here I am wondering whether this is my subconscious telling me that I am wasting my time, that I’m some kind of idealist (dreamer) and everyone else is simply looking down on me with that look which says “that way lies the funny farm”.

I read part of another blog yesterday in which it is clear that cyclists get scant consideration across the Pond as well.  http://listfulthinking.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/bicycle-races-are-coming-your-way/#comment-2356

*Now that’s weird – at that very moment Radiohead just came on the radio: “Are you such a dreamer to put the world to rights?” sings Mr Yorke.  Top tune, by the way:

Give Cyclists Room

I’m curious about this:

http://www.shinysideup.co.uk/shiny_side_up_about_us/

It’s not unusual to see these signs on the roads around the East Midlands.  Clearly, they are predominantly aimed at the bikers themselves, with some also aimed at drivers, so it strikes me as interesting that there is a campaign designed to plead with motorcyclists to take care of themselves.  I’d be interested to know whether permission is granted to attach the signs/posters to roadside furniture, or if they are effectively illegal.  It seems that Leicestershire County Council support the campaign…

(see: http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/highways/road_safety/motorcycling/bike_signs.htm)

…so I wonder if they are funding it in some way?  

Wouldn’t it be a great idea to have something similar designed to educate drivers about the need to give enough room to those of us on the greener form two wheels?  I like the idea of asking questions; the bikers are asked whether the risk is “To Die For…?”, so how about asking motorists something along the lines of whether they are leaving “Enough Room For Your Daughter…?”.  I’d be willing to bet my house that drivers would not pass their offspring or other loved ones within just a few feet at 60 mph, but because it’s only me and my other Lycra-clad comrades, the allowing of enough space seems to have no importance.

I’d like some help on how to pursue this as an idea.  How should I go about it?  Who should I approach?  Who is likely to care?  Where could I get some funding?  Does anyone have experience of this kind of thing?

 

It’s not just drivers

In the interests of balance, and to reassure you that I am not some anti-driver zealot*, it should not go unremarked that there are many cyclists who give us (responsible cyclists) a bad name.  They’re not hard to spot.  Critically, they  are unlikely to cause the kind of damage you might suffer during an altercation with a ton and a half of metal, so this should be kept in perspective.  Nevertheless, they have the potential to increase the risk to the rest of us through dangerous, selfish and ignorant riding.

No doubt, by now you’re thinking about jumping red lights**.  Yes, you can see this at just about any junction and while I wouldn’t condone the practice outright, there are some circumstances where it makes little sense to stop in the middle of a busy road when getting across to a safer place is readily achievable without inconveniencing other road users or pedestrians.  (Check the data for cyclists being crushed by lorries.)  Some of the worst problems are caused by cyclists simply ploughing on through pedestrians at pelican crossings, and I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of death and serious injury being the outcome of some of these incidents.  Clearly, these are high visibility/high publicity scenarios and many members of the public at large come to assume that we all ignore red lights at crossings.

One of my particular concerns is where the so-called ‘proper’ cyclist upsets drivers through their own inconsiderate riding habits.  If there’s a car at a junction, a cyclist pulling up alongside and blocking the view is almost certain to irritate the driver; failing to raise a hand in acknowledgement of a courteous act is simply ignorant; riding two abreast on a busy road is selfish.  I’d simply appeal to riders to be more aware of other road users and more aware of the impact they may have on other road users.  It takes a few seconds to really irritate a driver and such irritation could quickly develop into a long-standing grudge with the potential to provoke acts of revenge for minutes, hours, days, weeks or years to come.

I have to say that I don’t think the use of ipods (or similar) is wise.  I rely on my ears to provide valuable information about what’s going on around me and I cannot see how listening to music and the consequent impairment of my hearing is justifiable.  I wouldn’t wear dark glasses at night.  The point is that if I am on a narrow country lane and I hear a car approaching, I can turn my head to alert the driver to the fact that I know s/he is there and then take action to ensure that the car can pass as soon as possible.  With earphones in place, I may hear the car much later (if at all), by which time the driver could already be thinking about the ‘ignorant lycra lout’ blocking the road.  Surely it’s better to display awareness and consideration.  I know many riders will disagree with this, but I cannot see how it makes sense to reduce the efficiency of one of the senses.  Yes, cars have radios and motorcyclists use earplugs to protect their ears, but they also have mirrors and are generally travelling at higher speeds.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that there are some terrible drivers out there, but there are also some bad cyclists.  I suspect they are bad drivers, too.

*I’ve been driving for some 32 years and have passed my Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) test, following which I trained with the Sussex police to become an assessor with the IAM.

**Out of interest, when did it become de rigeur for so many motorists to jump red lights?  I can pretty much guarantee that on any given journey (in a car or on my bike) I will witness blatant jumping.  Leicester city is particularly bad.