Speed cameras are in the news again, so what better time to gather by the roadside to watch the glorious parade of naked, self-interested human deceit?
So there’s this guy, right?
Recently the Bicycle Helmet Initiative trust (BHIT) rebranded itself as “Cycle-Smart”. But what did this change of name actually signal?
Get in and buckle up, we’re being taken for a ride again.
I’ve already covered a number of aspects of the harmful use of language in reporting collisions. But some articles are particularly bad, and demonstrate particular points.
Sometimes a single remark encapsulates a whole raft of misguided thinking.
What part does infrastructure play in lawbreaking? Let’s ask the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
Language is a funny old thing: it can be beautiful yet brutal; trivial yet pivotal. At the very least, it’s always a product of the author’s thoughts: a symptom of an attitude; a barometer of a mindset. But—more than that—whether subtle or strident, malign or mendacious, it remains our main tool of influence. What you say, what you write, is important.
But sometimes, it’s a car crash.
Let’s take a look at it, pull it apart, see if it needs fixing, and then put it back together.
Who’s the master of disguise? Sherlock Holmes? No! It’s you! (Provided you’re not in a car.)
Low sun. When do we get our collective heads around this apparently unfathomable phenomenon?
This morning I tweeted a link to this oft-cited article which explains saccadic masking, with the suggestion that perhaps the explanation of it—the understanding of why that first look isn’t enough, even though you absolutely think it is—ought to be a part of mandatory training for drivers.
Back came the response, “How about a compulsory driving [sic] test for all cyclists as well?”
Well, why not?
Amazingly, an MP has stood up in the House of Commons and argued the case for lifetime driving bans as protection from particularly dangerous drivers.
The use of headphones is just one of many aspects of cycling behaviour which generates lively debate; but debate which rarely braves the cold world of data and quantitative study, preferring to inhabit the opinion columns of newspapers and the soundbites of politicians.
Let’s try and move it on a little.
Pop quiz time! Two scenarios, each with some questions.
Here we are once again: The sun exists, therefore fatal road collisions are legally inevitable.
Here’s a joke:
Q: When is a facetious comment not a facetious comment?
A: When you don’t have a legal team and a big pile of cash.
OK, it’s not a funny joke. Maybe it wasn’t a joke. I don’t know. I wonder if The Telegraph can help us out.
A grim vignette of commercial operators’ attitudes to road laws and other road users.
Look, I’ll make this simple.
When it comes to anyone broadcasting road safety messages to the public about the risks to people on bicycles, there’s a pattern of behaviour that’s been apparent for a long, long time.