JohnB said:I've had at least two instances where having nearly been taken out by a motorist I've had the retort that I should have been wearing a helmet.
IMO it seems that motorists are seeing cyclists as fair game if they
are helmetless and that by not wearing one it gives them immunity from
any responsibility.
If you don't wear a helmet *you* are to blame for the motorists'
dangerous driving.
John B
Similarly I had a driver cut across my path such that I had to brake to avoid being side-swiped into the culvert. I chased after the driver and caught up with him when he stopped at a house nearby. I was angry and went on the verbal offensive telling him that he had almost taken me out by cutting in front of me. His response - (at this point my eyes roll skyward) "well you should have been wearing a helmet." What's that supposed to mean? Surely he wasn't suggesting that he wouldn't have cut in front of me if I was wearing one? Was he implying that it's OK for him to endanger me by cutting in front and I have to accept that and armour up?
That sort of response is infuriating but it's difficult to put into words or try to argue against - how on earth can you reason with unreason?
Firstly the retort from the driver shows that he's engaging in the sort of reasoning that one might expect from a child or a imbecile. I'm confronting this person who has shown a complete disregard for my safety - he was using his vehicle in such a way (cutting in front of me) that it amounted to using his vehicle in a dangerous manner. His act of reckless disregard was the transgression that I was confronting him about - and what is his reasoning - that somehow his behaviour is excusable because I wasn't wearing a helmet?
This is the aspect of this hullabaloo about helmets that makes me sick. Even before cycling helmets became compulsory in NZ I had experienced more than a few instances of motorist's complete disregard for my safety (as a cyclist).
My experiences of motorists acting in a manner of callous indifference to my safety wasn't unique to me. It seems to be every cyclist's lot. The biggest threat to my safety on the road seemed to me to come from motorists who either seemed oblivious to the presence of cyclists, or seemed to get some satisfaction from intimidating cyclists by cutting in too close or other similar actions. But what happens? Rather than initiatives being taken to change motorists attitudes and behaviour with respect to cyclist safety (no, that would be too difficult) we the cyclists are being charged with responsibility for the results of motorists contempt for us on the road.
This is the detrimental downside of this helmet business - what we cyclists need most from motorists is for them to afford us due care and consideration for our safety. The emphasis and attention given to helmets puts the onus onto cyclists to protect ourselves (and of course helmets offer s.f.a. protection) and convenniently takes the focus away from what would really give us the best improvement in terms of safety - motorists treating us with due care and consideration.
That's what sucks about this - the greatest threat to our safety is motorists continued callous disregard for us - and what does this helmet hoopla do? It transfers responsibility away from them and puts it onto us to don a poly-bonnet, which does squat to address and reduce the greatest threat to our safety.
That brings us to the truly sad part of this charade - that many cyclists amongst us not only accept this state of affairs but are strong voices in support of a measure that is effectively deleterious to our safety on the road.
Unfortunately these cyclists are allowing themselves to be duped by accepting the exaggerated claims of helmet protection.
If we are asked what measure could be taken to improve our safety on the road wouldn't having motorists being held more to account for their carnage on us - wouldn't that be more likely to give us the sort of safety that cyclists in various countries on the continent enjoy?
Roger
