Norfolk police...

Michael Edney, Norfolk Police , on 01953 424832

I'd be very interested to see a breakdown of figures for cycling KSI's
where the cyclist's clothing or lights was considered a copntributory
factor.

"He said cyclists not taking enough care
was often the cause,"

Source please Officer Edney.

Two flashing LED's front and back, reflective tyrewalls, reflective
saddle and reflective pedals, cycle clips, frame tape and backpack have
no discernible effect on the number of times I'm sliced up or
sideswiped.

Very sad Blame-The -Victim mentality.

Anyone wishing to pass their thoughts along to the Norwich Evening News...

[email hidden]

Cheers, helen s

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:23:07 +0100 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

See

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED26%20Apr%202006%2010%3A18%3A25%3A283

or

http://tinyurl.com/mwknh

Blaming the victim for wearing the wrong clothes again.

The journalist's e-mail address is at the end of the article, it
might be worth trying to enlighten them.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wafflycat said:

Anyone wishing to pass their thoughts along to the Norwich Evening News...

[email hidden]

ITYM [email hidden] to which my e-mail has just winged its way.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff€y€cat*@€btco*nn€ect.com>

Quoted message said:

PC Edney said: "It's quite simply because they can't be seen a lot of the
time. The clothing they are wearing isn't visible enough for road users to
see them."

I've sent an email asking how often he blames cyclists and inviting Norfolk
Police to several events in King's Lynn. They are invited already, but
either send apologies or just don't turn up to every event I've attended.
So to see Norfolk Police preaching in the press at cyclists beggars belief.

--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden]

ITYM [email hidden] to which my e-mail has just winged its way.

Ditto from me. For those that don't have the stats to hand:

Cycle-Car "accidents":
Overall at fault: Motorist 57%, cyclist 25%, both 8%, neither 10%.

(Source: Pedal Cycle Accidents, RR220, TRRL, 1989)

R.

Richard said:

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden]

ITYM [email hidden] to which my e-mail has just winged its
way.

Ditto from me. For those that don't have the stats to hand:

Cycle-Car "accidents":
Overall at fault: Motorist 57%, cyclist 25%, both 8%, neither 10%.

(FWIW, I kept to the "at-fault" message. I'm leaving the helmet facts
to others, on the KISS principle).

R.

Richard said:

(FWIW, I kept to the "at-fault" message. I'm leaving the helmet facts
to others, on the KISS principle).

R.

Me too. Simply asked if they blamed rape victims for their clothing or
car drivers in crashes for driving cars that weren't bright orange and
why should they blame me for riding my bike in normal clothes.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

wafflycat said:

It's the fault of cyclists that they are being killed and injured on
Norfolk's roads. Why? Well they can't be seen - they aren't visible
enough... so said PC Edney.

I trust a suitably worded letter is on its way to the Chief of Police?
I see in the North Wales case, the occifer who made the dumb comments,
about four cyclists being killed being just one of those things, has
been removed and the case put under PCC management following a flood of
letters about his comments

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

[email hidden]

who's that then?

"Phil Clarke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

[email hidden]

who's that then?

Professional Standards Dept, I think.

Cheers, helen s

wafflycat said:

It's the fault of cyclists that they are being killed and injured on
Norfolk's roads. Why? Well they can't be seen - they aren't visible
enough... so said PC Edney.

Quoted message said:

On a personal note, I'm a great fan of high-viz/bright clothing and
multitudinous use of lights but am appalled (but not surprised) by the
apparent excusing of what is often bad motoring behaviour by putting
blame on the victims' shoulders... Even when I'm doing my low-flying UFO
impersonation at night and my giant GM wasp impersonation during the
day, I am still too often apparently invisible to motorists.

He has a point to a degree. There's some dumb-ass cyclist that travels
along the A40 from Highnam to Huntley (between Gloucester and Ross on
Wye) on his bike. He wears the same clothes all through the year: black
trousers, a black jacket and a high-vis. vest that's now grey with black
stripes, over which he puts his rucksack. No lights, no reflectors, no
streetlights.

Conversely, there's another chap that does the same route (before
loading his bike on to his car for the last 8 miles back to RoW) and I'm
sure helicopters must confuse him for the landing pad at Staverton. I
can see him from about a mile away through Churcham.

It's clear that drivers either don't give a [censored] about cyclists, don't
realise how fast cyclists might be travelling, or gamble far too often
with them. I see a lot of bad driving on my commute (I drive), from
people changing lanes without indicating to red-light runners at GCHQ.
At least the cars with "Baby on Board" signs give other motorists fair
warning that the driver is paying no attention to driving.

--
Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/

wafflycat said:

Professional Standards Dept, I think.

that'll do.

" .... If the article fairly represents the views of the Casualty
Reduction Officer for Norfolk Police then too many cyclists were
involved in accidents "because they can't be seen a lot of the time" and
that cyclists not taking enough care was often the cause.

"Pedal Cycle Accidents" (RR220, TRRL, 1989) says motorists are at fault
in 57% of cycle-car accidents, cyclists only 25% (both 8%, neither 10%).

Is Norfolk Police advocating blaming the victims of unobservant drivers,
or is the article misrepresenting Norfolk Police?

regards ... Phil Clarke C.Eng"

balanced, I hope. 🙂

Hywel Jenkins said:

wafflycat said:

It's the fault of cyclists that they are being killed and injured on
Norfolk's roads. Why? Well they can't be seen - they aren't visible
enough... so said PC Edney.

He has a point to a degree. There's some dumb-ass cyclist ...
No lights, no reflectors, no streetlights.

Only in relation to lack of lights when legally required.

Drivers are required not to run into things, whether they're lit or not.

For cyclists, being seen is mainly a matter of being where drivers are
looking, not how reflective you are.

And being seen from a mile off is far less important than being seen a
few tens of metres away.

Colin McKenzie

wafflycat quoted:

Quoted message said:

"People have survived quite high impacts with cycle helmets," said PC Edney.
"Make sure it's in good condition - if it's had an impact throw it away and
get another one, make sure it has a British Standard kitemark ...

Is there a British Standard for cycle helmets now, then? I must have
missed that one.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone wishing to pass their thoughts along to the Norwich Evening News...

[email hidden]

Cheers, helen s

Thanks for the link. Sent:

Dear Editor,

your recent article about cyclists being put in danger by not being seen by
drivers was extremely interesting. It quotes PC Edney, who would appear to
be misinformed about most aspects of cyclists' safety. He does not mention
once being lit according to the Highway Code, and the lights he does mention
are not covered by the code. He also recommends cycle helmets, apparently
oblivious of the fact that nowhere that has introduced a helmet law has seen
any reduction in risk to cyclists, in fact the opposite has occured, the
risk has increased.

PC Edney is also apparently ignorant of the fact that cyclists safety
improves if drivers take more care, something he neglects to mention at all,
only recommending that the victims (cyclists) take more care.

Well pardon me PC Edney, but it is a universally accepted law that those
with the most power should take the most care, and in this case, he is
seriously mistaken to tell cyclists to take more care - he should be telling
drivers to take more care.

As a lifelong cyclist, it disturbs me that a policeman can spout the
nonsense that PC Edney does, which goes contrary to all the evidence - or
perhaps the police don't bother with little things like evidence any more.

How in God's teeths name did someone as igorant of the facts become casualty
reduction officer for Norfolk police?

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie said:

Hywel Jenkins said:

wafflycat said:

It's the fault of cyclists that they are being killed and injured on
Norfolk's roads. Why? Well they can't be seen - they aren't visible
enough... so said PC Edney.

He has a point to a degree. There's some dumb-ass cyclist ...
No lights, no reflectors, no streetlights.

Only in relation to lack of lights when legally required.

Try driving that stretch of A40 at 5:30pm in December. I'm sure you'd
agree that lights are legally required at that time of evening.

Quoted message said:

Drivers are required not to run into things, whether they're lit or not.

Indeed, but my point is that some cyclists don't help themselves by
wearing inappropriate gear.

Quoted message said:

For cyclists, being seen is mainly a matter of being where drivers are
looking, not how reflective you are.

And being seen from a mile off is far less important than being seen a
few tens of metres away.

Though if you can see a cyclist from a mile away odds are you'll be
able to see it when it's 30 metres away.

Feel free to continue on the defensive and dismissive about my point
that cyclists needs to be more sensible when choosing clothing. I'm a
cyclist and, like wafflycat, am lit up like a Christmas tree when I go
out, but I do make a point of riding out from the kerb and make every
effort to remain aware of what's going on a around me.

I suspect that you've taken the high ground because I mentioned that I
drive to work and am therefore to be grouped with the trolls from the
drivers' groups that occasionally pop in to annoy you. I have
considered cycling, but the road is a test track for cretins in souped
up Saxos, so I've elected to take myself out of the line of fire.

--
Hywel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Feel free to continue on the defensive and dismissive about my point
that cyclists needs to be more sensible when choosing clothing. I'm a
cyclist and, like wafflycat, am lit up like a Christmas tree when I go
out, but I do make a point of riding out from the kerb and make every
effort to remain aware of what's going on a around me.

The bit I find appalling about PC Edney's comments in the original article
is that he makes no mention at all of the need for motorists to be aware of
and positively look out for more vulnerable road users. PC Edney puts the
entire responsibility on one category of vulnerable road user to make sure
he/she remains safe. I'd argue that those of us who do take steps such as
wearing high viz clothing/reflectvies/lights are still too often not seen or
even aimed at by the terminally unobservant or downright psychotic idiots
that seem to infest the roads in greater numbers of motor vehicles these
days. One of the main reasons I wear acres of highviz/reflectives and use
many lights is that if I am ever knocked off my bike and someone such as PC
Edney visits the scene, he cannot even vaguely make an attempt to
legitimately say I was responsible for my own demise as I 'could not be
seen'...

Cheers, helen s