AA president's branding of cyclist-hating drivers as "idiots" wins fans on social media

About 3 months ago, someone at the RAC Foundation (the RAC's charitable research wing) had the good sense to consult CTC over a cycling policy paper the RAC was about to publish. It had been drafted by one of their trustees - I won't name names.

It was dreadful. It said virtually nothing about the economic, health, environmental, congestion-reducing and other benefits of cycling. Instead it focused primarily on the risks of cycling and the need to address cyclists' behaviour. It even contained the myth about cyclists not paying "road tax" (see www.ipayroadtax.com if you need the background on this).

We pointed out everything that was wrong with it, and that it would go down like a lead balloon among the many cyclists who also own cars if they were to publish it.

I suspect the person who sent it to us had realised this, and simply wanted us to back him up as a voice from outside the RAC itself. I do know however that, for whatever reason, the document so far hasn't been published...

Roger Geffen
CTC, the national cycling charity
www.ctc.org.uk/campaigns

I've just read on cyclehelmets.org that it has found numerous flaws with the NSW report although the site doesn't seem to be that balanced, going into great detail as to why reports promoting helmets shouldn't be believed but doesn't seem to have gone into the same detail on the reports against helmet use, it is an interesting read though.

Just to clarify, I was simply posting something I read in a magazine that i thought was relevant and saying that if it's accurate, it reaffirms my position on wearing helmets, I don't know if it's the same paper your thinking of, I was just quoting what was written (I thought I'd made it fairly clear). The other stat it says, that arm injuries have gone up 145% in the same period that head injuries has only gone up 20% also seems to encourage helmet use.
I understand that some people don't want to wear helmets and it's not compulsory here so they're entitled to their opinion, for me though, I don't see a reason not to, just quite a few reasons to, such as the fact there is a layer between my head and whatever it'll hit, the pros where them and they go much faster than me, the stories you here of people attributing credit to their helmets after a crash, no one I've spoken to has said that they regretted wearing one in a crash. That's just my view on it though, I'm sure others have their own reasons which are just as compelling not to wear one.

I see Cav has just tweeted about a road rage incident! It seems no-one is immune.

I never did get a satisfactory answer re this:

Me and Blue-Van-Man Show AA Driving Instructor How to Pass a Cyclist... (GL12 PXR)

Perhaps Mr E. King can sort his staff out.

sim1515: If that's discussing the paper I think it is, then:

1. 3 times a very very small risk still results in a very small risk.

For comparison, walking is something 3 times more dangerous than cycling if compared by distance, but cycling is circa 4-7 times more dangerous than walking if compared by exposure time (making some assumptions about average speeds). (Is my memory of the last time I calculated this - full details are somewhere in a comment of mine here on road.cc).

2. Their statistical analysis is quite simple (1st year undergrad level stuff) and shallow. Possibly cause all the people involved appear to be medical people (and 1 admin), or possibly cause they have an agenda. That doesn't make it invalid, but their analysis is lacking any consideration of other factors. E.g. I believe that in the Netherlands and in the USA cycling fatalities are somewhat correlated with alcohol intoxication. Further, I suspect alcohol intoxication also correlates negatively with helmet use.

Basically, from what I know of USA and NL, it is likely that some of the additional fatalities in the non-helmeted group over the helmeted group had alcohol intoxication. They should have done further analysis to examine this (BAC would surely have been in the data-set they drew from). For some reason they didn't (mathematical naivety, agenda, or something else).

3. The really interesting figure in that paper was the number of fatalities which involved motor vehicles. It was 77% for helmeted cases and 78% for non-helmeted (or perhaps other way around, doesn't really matter).

For me, the last point is much much more telling than the risk calculation...

Sorry sim1515, I think you are completely wrong, but now is not the time for my fiftieth repsonse on the helmets red herring. Take a look at cyclehelmets.org web site for the evdience. It will take a whiel to read through, but worth it - if you are interested in the evidence.

@mike 262 " THANKS A BUNCH "! JUST F''CKED MY DAY WITH 25MB of unnecessary " publicity ! ALSO THERE ARE CHEAPER CAMERAS ELSEWHERE ! THE MUSIC on the ad IS NOT EVEN ENJOYABLE !! I do not need to know that someone last used this product in 1997 , to know that i would be ripped off !

I pay road Tax has been quiet in recent times , are they still active . Not all would ride to the office , considering they could be called on to do Media , look at LOndon Cyclist s appearance this week , sent the wrong message tp non cyclists IMHO .

I wouldn't get taken in by this - it is basically a way for the AA to raid some cyclists who are RAC members, and Danny has fallen for it.

The AA is still not going to do anything real to control danger from motorists to cyclists. It has a history of supporting rule and law-breaking motorists, resisting proper amounts of fuel tax etc. Most recently it had the grotesque cheek to stage a stunt giving out helmets and hi-viz to cyclists: see http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/04/18/what-a-nerve-how-dare-the-aa-lecture-cycli... for this episode.

The only half way reasonable organisation for motorist with a conscience is the ETA. See ww.rdrf.org.uk for some blogging on this.

I like the cut of his jib. Maybe it's all part of Edmund King's cunning plan to replace Boris as Major of London when Boris replaces Dave.

The RACV here in Victoria also tends to try to keep a bike-friendly bublic image with its name on the bikeshare scheme and sponsoring of big bike events.
But there is something else going on if you read between the lines.
All those organisations encourage the use of helmets. In Victoria the RACV were actively involved in putting in the helmet law. In fact central to the whole thing. This had an immediate effect of reducing the use of bikes by about 40%. Utility cycling, like we hear about in Europe, completely died and cycling only ever revived as a sport.
Our car advocate organisation maintains an appearance of being friendly and caring about cyclists while working hard to prevent any laws that might restrain the behaviours of drivers around bicycle users, like the laws that exist in the Netherlands, and to prevent any public money that might otherwise go to vehicle roads being used for bike infrastructure.
Back in 1978 a government study had concluded here that improvements in infrastructure and laws would help with bike safety but that also there was this idea of helmets.
We only ever got helmet law and absolutely nothing else.
In the meantime the Dutch worked on laws and infrastructure and reduced thir bicycle casualty rate by up to 95% while increasing modal share of bikes. Statistically we in Australia achieved nothing. In fact went backwards.
Your motoring advocate groups want to look like they care but they are wolves in sheeps clothing.

Both cyclists and vehicle drivers need to respect the law and one another. There were people from both lobbies on the programme who need to learn this and not set themselves up as upholders of what they consider right and proper.

I must admit that when you ride on the road, and I have never ridden in such a congestion situation you experience drivers who seem to deliberately skim close to you which is terrifying! The only conclusion I can reach is that such drivers see a cyclist and develop a hate moment, whether that is because they feel guilt because the cyclist is exercising and they are not or whether its just an insane hate of Lycra, cycle gear, helmets et al I don't really know!

www.hedcamz.com if you want a bullet cam, like I'm getting for Christmas

St Albans to the West End is 21 miles. If that journey doesn't warrant I bike ride I don't know what does.

Ignore last comment, senior moment...

"Cycling blogger says he'll switch from RAC to AA"... shouldn't that be the other way round... I'm confused

Is the AA still part of Saga? Since privatisation, it's been owned by British Gas, venture capitalist job-axers and Saga. Who next?