It's clear that comment facilities on news website and radio call-in shows attract a level of rabid input that hopefully doesn't represent society at large.
If only these people would bother to think and listen to evidence.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Wiggins (and now Sutton) in hospital after crash"
(88 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
"If only these people would bother to think and listen to evidence."
Nah, people don't want their prejudices messed with.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think the BBC should consider carefully before raising the hate level too much on this subject considering that hit and runs with no action are all too common.
The BBC love to incite hatred towards cyclists, they know exactly what they are doing. That is when they are not just getting motorists revved up about all the roads they personally pay for.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Just watched interview clip with the women who worked in the petrol station. she mentioned his bike with lights 'all flashing' and then again, when asked what he had on, said "sky kit, helmet and lights".
Posted 12 years ago # -
Does Wiggo have to wear a helmet at all times during training to keep his insurance valid?
Edited to Add: this is a genuine question, not trying to stir anything. But it occurred to me that he probably would, just wondered if anyone had seen such a thing stipulated in their insurance. (there is something similar for horse riders)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Does Wiggo have to wear a helmet at all times during training to keep his insurance valid?"
No, but he is still 'working', so I would say he is obliged to because of his/team sponsors.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Wiggo is no idiot he'd never get on a bike at night without lights and a helmet after his comments earlier in the year. He's well aware of the media hay-day that would follow a crash he'd "caused" by not having lights.
Woman said "There are loads of cyclists around here, this is a main route for them"
That's pretty interesting too.Posted 12 years ago # -
Hope Sutton will be ok. Bruising/bleeding on brain - and BBC reports that he was wearing a helmet. Who was it who naively said recently that a bright jacket and a helmet would "ensure your safety"...?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Broken ribs is not serious then? Can cause punctured and subsequent collapse of lung(s)requiring assisted breathing apparatus and chest drain. Duh! He is only a cyclist after all so that is alright then! That'll be at least six weeks off work or the bike at the very least but then that's not serious is it considering it is his livelihood?
More concerning is Sutton's head injury and brain bleed. He could die at worst, be left with all sorts of motor/mobility/memory problems depending on which part of the brain is affected and/or personality change.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Home » Motoring »If even Bradley Wiggins isn't safe what hope is there for the rest of us?
"
Posted 12 years ago # -
That's a very annoying article in the telegraph.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think it makes a fair point.
Posted 12 years ago # -
which is?
(was surprised to see you tweeting it after that comment about not reading the red tops!)
Posted 12 years ago # -
That the greatest responsibility for cyclists' safety on the roads lies with the source of greatest danger.
I don't block the Torygraph.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Cycling safety campaigners fear effect of Bradley Wiggins crash"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/08/bradley-wiggins-shane-sutton-cycling-accidentsPosted 12 years ago # -
"
The businesswoman, who owns a Porsche garage, later told a pal: “I just didn’t see him.”"
Posted 12 years ago # -
Boardman was on the telly this morning. Couldn't hear what he was saying but the accompanying footage of lots of cyclists and the aggressive tone of the presenter led me to assume it was on this sort of subject.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Tom, sorry if I sounded snarky (I have tweeted some good torygraph articles recently too), but that article really annoyed me.
Maybe it was one of those things that was badly edited, or hastily written (or both), but honestly, every single line in it struck me badly.
The idea that cycling safety has climbed up the agenda because of increasing casualties, well yes, but also because of increasing numbers of cyclists - that is, he makes it sound like it's all about 'danger' but some of it is also about a broader range of people cycling too.
Then the thing about 'until now its been reasonable' to advocate more training. well no. I don't think it was reasonable.
he then talks about 'think bike' - wasn't that about motorcyclists? at least here he is getting the point (somewhat implicitly) that it is about drivers, not just about cyclists. Then he briefly mentions trixi mirrors and is critical of govt policy. Good!
But then says (paraphrasing) 'since we can't share road space, we need segregation'.
Which I think sends all the wrong messages about segregation. We will never have 100% segregation - no one does. What we need is to have cycling INTEGRATED into road planning - in the form of segregated cyclepaths, safer junctions etc. It is not an option of whether or not to share roadspace, but HOW we share it.
Posted 12 years ago # -
#SRD Do you mean it's off-putting to people who might be thinking of taking up cycling? I can see that, yes. On a day to day basis my immediate concern is for myself I'm afraid. If that sounds selfish then can I blame drivers for making me like that? I'm not selfish in the way I cycle btw.
Posted 12 years ago # -
No, I think he completely misunderstands the point of segregated infrastructure. and a lot of other stuff too. may have to write a blog post on this i think.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I found the utter gobsmacked astonishment in the Telegraph that perhaps, just perhaps it MIGHT not have been the cyclists fault very annoying. There is a possibility - a tiny one -that maybe motorists should pay more attention. Though mainly by fitting extra mirrors. Who could have thought such a thing?? And it is only the fact that it is a pro who has been hit that has made that single neuron flicker.
I agree with the guy in the Indie article.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Of all the people to hit, bloody Bradley Wiggins."
This seems to describe perfectly the laissez faire attitude of British society towards people who ride bicycles. That it is a trifling inevitability that one should be knocked off one's bike by a motorist, and that if one is not in the public eye—possessed of celebrity status, no less—it will be hardly newsworthy, and will be certainly nothing for the motorist worry about in day-to-day life, because people on bicycles do not exist on the road until it's too late, and that it is their fault for being there in the first place.
I wonder if the great British public will see the irony in the potentially massive injuries suffered by Sutton, who was wearing a helmet, and the apparently less massive injuries suffered by Wiggins, who was similarly protected.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The Independant article is good.
Posted 12 years ago # -
#SRD My last post was written before yours appeared so though it was responding to yesterday it looks like I don't follow what you're saying, ah well. I still think it makes a good point, though the later point about greater segregation is a cause of debate.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@WC On the helmet thing. He has broken ribs and a damaged wrist, not sure there's any relevance whatsoever in it being mentioned.
Well, the relevance is that he doesn't seem to have a head injury. Maybe there was no impact on his head or maybe his helmet offered some protection. Surely that's relevant?
Sadly, it seems Mr. Sutton has a head injury. Again, it is relevant that he was wearing a helmet since it obviously didn't offer sufficient protection but may well have prevented an (even more) serious injury or even made the damage worse.
(I did advise a one word answer....)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Posted 12 years ago #
-
"(I did advise a one word answer....)"
You did, but a one word answer would be particular pointless.
If someone said yes what would it add to the discussion? If someone said no what would it add to the discussion?
If your answer to that is then theat it has relevance because did he hit his head etc etc etc. then the debate naturally gets opened up beyond the single-word answer anyway and so renders the single-word answer, once more, pointless because it is immediately superceded.
Why not, instead of fannying about, just get to the point of reading to see if he hit his head, reading to see if he was wearing a helmet, then offering the opinion over whether you are of the opinion that the wearing of a helmet would have helped or not on the basis of that? (I'm a well-known agnostic 'wear one or don't, I don't care, it's a personal choice' person, so I'm not going to castigate either opinion).
What I don't personally like is asking for a one-word answer on an issue that, with the intro to the question, is something that you know is much much bigger than a one-word answer.
Just a personal opinion, I may be being grumpy, but I just don't see what me saying 'yes' or 'no' would have added to the thread (which is perhaps why no-one else answered).
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Okay. here's my thoughts on strange bedfellows and be clear about what we want"
In a remarkable 'boot-other-foot' moment following editorial principles applied to citycycling articles, and maintaining my grumpy streak...
"Here are my thoughts..."
In the article "Wiggin's" should probably be "Wiggins'" (though Wiggins's might be possible, there's a rule about hard ans soft endings that I never quite got my head around).
And there are two instances of "its" that should be "it's".
Don't worry, if and when I get citycycling back running there will be plenty of typos for you to go to town on... ;)
(I do like the idea of calling it 'integration' rather than 'segregation')
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
