Report this comment
  • "
    AlfredJones wrote:
    downfader wrote:
    Ok lets clarify a few points:

    There is no conclusive proof that helmets offer the levels of protection claimed by either people like BHIT, Headway or Brake. (As a point in note Brake have calmed their campaigns for a change in law)

    There is no law for compulsory helmet use. Everyone has a right to chose. Helmets do not actually deal with the origin of the problem - behaviour. At best, if the claims were true, they'd deal with the result - but it is highly unclear that they do.

    see www cyclehelmets org for studies, research

    A study by the Traffic Research Laboratory in London did an evaluation on this and found 87% of cyclists DIDNT jump the lights

    You can legally pass through a red light with a bicycle on one of two criteria -

    1. The light isnt functioning (this includes ground loops that don't recognise carbon or aluminium bikes, and there are a lot of loops/detectors that dont - Medina Rd and Bargate Street being two examples)

    2. If you get off and walk. Then remount when through the junction.

    More details on RLJs:





    (Or google: "RNPR Traffic Note 8 June 2007" -Proportion of Cyclists Who Violate Red Lights in London)

    @Dreznez - you are not helping the debate.

    A cyclist still has the right to the road even where there is a cyclepath: this is enshrined in case law (the Cadden case).

    By moaning in such a way you're actually saying you're unwilling to listen to legitimate concerns many cyclists have had with the off-road routes. It would be beneficial for ALL road users to
    - have a read of rules 59-80 of the Highway Code
    - go on Directgov's website and read the "cycling safely" guide.
    ...and lets clarify the Helmet issue.
    For anyone who has come off, and smashed their helmet instead of their head - they make a difference.
    Until you have done that don't be making rash "conclusive proof" comments. Of course it isn't conclusive - how are you going to prove it?
    There are not many people prepared to have an accident with and without a helmet.
    They make some difference - and in many cases save lives, and for that reason they should be worn. It would only be a hugely arrogant cyclist who said that there was no conclusive proof so I am not going to bother!
    Behaviour isn't the only cause of cycle accident - many are just that accidents!
    Absolute bumkiss.

    It is an attempt of the ignorant or the misdirectional to say that cyclists should wear helmets. You know where the biggest calls for helmet legislation and co come from - the motoring lobby!

    How ironic.

    Offer up proof that a helmet makes even a difference. Otherwise you havent proved your case.

    The figures I've personally read suggest that a helmet "may" have helped in between 1-2% of all bicycle collisions.

    There is more risk of head and brain injury from alcohol. The NHS has a statistic that shows 65% of their admissions for A&E are drink related.

    Perhaps Saturday night revellers should wear a helmet?

    Another statistic suggests that the incidence of head injury for motorists is 5 times higher a risk than for cyclists.

    So why single out cyclists?"
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory
  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.

  • Enter the above word in the box below

Call to make cycling safer in Southampton

Dilys Gartside

Dilys Gartside

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by

A 20MPH speed limit, segregated cycle lanes and a ban on huge lorries – all are vital to make cycling in Southampton city centre safer.

That’s the call from a local pressure group ahead of a parliamentary debate tomorrow.

And as the membership of Southampton Cycling Campaign soars, the group is also pleased that talks with the city council are proving successful.

After growing national pressure, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling has secured a three-hour debate at Westminster Hall tomorrow. It will give MPs the chance to put forward safety measures for consideration by the Government.

“We are absolutely delighted that the debate is happening,” said Dilys Gartside, spokeswoman for Southampton Cycling Campaign.

“Our MP, Alan Whitehead, has always been very supportive of these sorts of initiatives and I suspect he’s been inundated because all of the local cycling groups have been lobbying him to attend on Thursday.”

Meanwhile, an Early Day Motion tabled by Cambridge MP Julian Huppert, signed by over 35 MPs, expresses concern about a seven per cent rise in the number of cyclists killed on Britain’s roads.

The petition “calls on the Government to take further action to improve cycling infrastructure and reduce the number of casualties on roads.”

In Southampton, the city is looking to spend £2m on cycle routes and provision in the next year.

While Ms Gartside says Southampton has “certainly got a long way to go” in terms of cycling safety, she says she is encouraged by talks with the city council.

“I’m very excited about what’s happening in Southampton now and I’m even more excited that groups like ours are being listened to at last.”

“We’ve been going for decades but in even the last year our membership has rocketed. Our meetings that would be attended by six or seven hardcore members, are now being attended by around 25

Cycling Facts

• 42 per cent of Brits own a bike.

• 3.1bn miles were cycled in Britain in 2010.

• 111 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads in 2010, up seven per cent on 2009.

• 26 per cent of cycle deaths involve a lorry or a van.

• 2,660 cyclists were seriously hurt in 2010.

Comments (86)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree