We're off and running, then. We've made it into the traffic stream and we're making steady progress.
Observation is important. Eyes and ears connect us with the environment around us. But what we see and what we perceive are not necessarily the same thing. This is true for us, and it's true for other road users as well.
Consider: you are driving a car. It is big, solid, fast, comfortable, and it keeps out rain and noise. It absorbs bumps. And its bodywork will, if it comes into contact with something else, probably be repaired by the insurance company at little cost. So the things you are looking out for are things which are big and fast enough to actually hurt. Other cars, for example.
Of course this breaks down a bit when you find that people have been known to pull out in front of fire engines with blues and twos going, but you get the drift.
So, where on the road should you ride? It's obvious when you think about it. You need to ride far enough out that the motor traffic is conscious of your existence. On most roads you can see a couple of ruts made by the car wheels. But more than being seen, it communicates to drivers that you are a vehicle, not some theoretical construct of zero thickness which can be passed without deviating from straight and level. It says that the couple of feet between you and the kerb is an indication that six inches is not enough space, and you need more room when they pass. If you ride in the gutter drivers think that you only need that tiny strip of road, and they try to squeeze by in the face of oncoming traffic (some do this anyway, but at least if you're far enough out you've got somewhere to go).
Inexperienced riders, graduates perhaps of 1970s Cycling Proficiency, almost always ride too close to the kerb. Their interactions with cars are loud, close and scary. Every drain cover and pot-hole is a cause of concern: will I be deposited on the tarmac in front of Mr. Toad? It's easy to forgive these riders for thinking that cycling ins dangerous - done that way, it is! So, they buy a helmet to "fix" the danger.
Can you see the flaw in that logic?
Helmet laws take that faulty logic and run with it. As Sir Humphrey so aptly put it: "Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done".
So helmet laws fail because they are trying to solve the wrong problem. Helmets are no more a solution to poor riding practice than papering over the cracks is a solution to subsidence.
<< Look before you leap | Why helmet laws fail | The 85% solution >>