Call to make cycling safer in Southampton

Daily Echo: Dilys Gartside Dilys Gartside

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

9:26am Wed 22 Feb 12

G0Rf says...

how are they going to ban "huge lorries" from southampton city centre?

What about the shops that need deliveries oh and the port?
how are they going to ban "huge lorries" from southampton city centre? What about the shops that need deliveries oh and the port? G0Rf

9:32am Wed 22 Feb 12

Family Man says...

Decent road surfaces without potholes might be a good start. At least cyclists seem to be exempt from obeying traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and can use pavements as an alternative to roads so they already have many advantages.
Decent road surfaces without potholes might be a good start. At least cyclists seem to be exempt from obeying traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and can use pavements as an alternative to roads so they already have many advantages. Family Man

9:33am Wed 22 Feb 12

British asian says...

So more cyclists jumping red lights, minting pavements to cross junctions with pedestrians then jumping back onto the road in front of buses and cars. One irony is they wear helmets but have no lights!!! They claim they get bullied by cars but they intimidate pedestrians legally walking on pavements. Urban cyclists a ruddy hazard to all other highway users - they have no regard for the Highway Code - I would not spend 2 rupees to help urban cyclists let alone £2 million !!!!
So more cyclists jumping red lights, minting pavements to cross junctions with pedestrians then jumping back onto the road in front of buses and cars. One irony is they wear helmets but have no lights!!! They claim they get bullied by cars but they intimidate pedestrians legally walking on pavements. Urban cyclists a ruddy hazard to all other highway users - they have no regard for the Highway Code - I would not spend 2 rupees to help urban cyclists let alone £2 million !!!! British asian

9:38am Wed 22 Feb 12

British asian says...

Stereotype of todays cyclists are that they are going round thieving other bikes and breaking into motor vehicles. They wear hooded tops and hang around car parks and cycle racks trying to see which they could pinch. Cyclists! Huh !
Stereotype of todays cyclists are that they are going round thieving other bikes and breaking into motor vehicles. They wear hooded tops and hang around car parks and cycle racks trying to see which they could pinch. Cyclists! Huh ! British asian

9:49am Wed 22 Feb 12

freefinker says...

British asian wrote:
Stereotype of todays cyclists are that they are going round thieving other bikes and breaking into motor vehicles. They wear hooded tops and hang around car parks and cycle racks trying to see which they could pinch. Cyclists! Huh !
.. no, that's a stereotype of a bike thief.
[quote][p][bold]British asian[/bold] wrote: Stereotype of todays cyclists are that they are going round thieving other bikes and breaking into motor vehicles. They wear hooded tops and hang around car parks and cycle racks trying to see which they could pinch. Cyclists! Huh ![/p][/quote].. no, that's a stereotype of a bike thief. freefinker

9:50am Wed 22 Feb 12

AndyAndrews says...

Eastleigh BC has spent a fortune creating cycling paths and putting up ugly cycling signs and it's very rare that I see any cyclict using them. Don't waste people's money Southampton Council!
Eastleigh BC has spent a fortune creating cycling paths and putting up ugly cycling signs and it's very rare that I see any cyclict using them. Don't waste people's money Southampton Council! AndyAndrews

9:53am Wed 22 Feb 12

thedavie says...

If the police paid more attention to cyclists that cycle dangerously
I think motorists would have more respect for the police
Also I would hope being a pedestrian may be safer as a result
When walking I feel more in danger of being struck by cyclists than a car
When I challenge cyclists that pedal across pedestrian crossings they just give a lot of verbal abuse
Ah the joys of getting older and failing eyesight
If the police paid more attention to cyclists that cycle dangerously I think motorists would have more respect for the police Also I would hope being a pedestrian may be safer as a result When walking I feel more in danger of being struck by cyclists than a car When I challenge cyclists that pedal across pedestrian crossings they just give a lot of verbal abuse Ah the joys of getting older and failing eyesight thedavie

9:55am Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

G0Rf wrote:
how are they going to ban "huge lorries" from southampton city centre?

What about the shops that need deliveries oh and the port?
Its not actually about "banning" but better management of the road space. "Ban" gets newspaper inches but the subtext is very different.

In London the Lorries, tippers and HGVs are EVERYWHERE and have posed considerable risk to pedestrians as well as cyclists. Boris got support from these two groups because of his near miss with one, and the installment of the SuperHighways...

...however he has recently had more criticism on how he prefers "traffic flow" over safety and KSIs have risen. Theres actually a big march in London today where pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are all standing together and calling for change that will lead to safety.

We need to focus on what places like Paris have done in most of our cities and learn from that. They had zero deaths last year because of good road management.
[quote][p][bold]G0Rf[/bold] wrote: how are they going to ban "huge lorries" from southampton city centre? What about the shops that need deliveries oh and the port?[/p][/quote]Its not actually about "banning" but better management of the road space. "Ban" gets newspaper inches but the subtext is very different. In London the Lorries, tippers and HGVs are EVERYWHERE and have posed considerable risk to pedestrians as well as cyclists. Boris got support from these two groups because of his near miss with one, and the installment of the SuperHighways... ...however he has recently had more criticism on how he prefers "traffic flow" over safety and KSIs have risen. Theres actually a big march in London today where pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are all standing together and calling for change that will lead to safety. We need to focus on what places like Paris have done in most of our cities and learn from that. They had zero deaths last year because of good road management. downfader

10:02am Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

thedavie wrote:
If the police paid more attention to cyclists that cycle dangerously
I think motorists would have more respect for the police
Also I would hope being a pedestrian may be safer as a result
When walking I feel more in danger of being struck by cyclists than a car
When I challenge cyclists that pedal across pedestrian crossings they just give a lot of verbal abuse
Ah the joys of getting older and failing eyesight
I and others I've seen have challenged them too. And we're on bikes ourselves.

What you've seen is a visible minority. This is not about "encouraging more unlawfulness" as another person on here infered, this is about making cycling mainstreem and acceptable again. Making people feel safe so that they will take the bike instead of the car for that 75% of all journeys (which studies show are under 5 miles, 25% are under 2)

You ask for more Police involvement - I agree. But from my experiences it doesn't happen a lot, and where it does I've never seen a collision occur.

I also think that if more were done to settle the roads down, tackle the speeders, the nuisance drivers, etc then that too would encourage more lawful cycling. There would be more legal riding going on and the naughties wouldnt fit in
[quote][p][bold]thedavie[/bold] wrote: If the police paid more attention to cyclists that cycle dangerously I think motorists would have more respect for the police Also I would hope being a pedestrian may be safer as a result When walking I feel more in danger of being struck by cyclists than a car When I challenge cyclists that pedal across pedestrian crossings they just give a lot of verbal abuse Ah the joys of getting older and failing eyesight[/p][/quote]I and others I've seen have challenged them too. And we're on bikes ourselves. What you've seen is a visible minority. This is not about "encouraging more unlawfulness" as another person on here infered, this is about making cycling mainstreem and acceptable again. Making people feel safe so that they will take the bike instead of the car for that 75% of all journeys (which studies show are under 5 miles, 25% are under 2) You ask for more Police involvement - I agree. But from my experiences it doesn't happen a lot, and where it does I've never seen a collision occur. I also think that if more were done to settle the roads down, tackle the speeders, the nuisance drivers, etc then that too would encourage more lawful cycling. There would be more legal riding going on and the naughties wouldnt fit in downfader

10:04am Wed 22 Feb 12

teamgreen says...

here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why? teamgreen

10:08am Wed 22 Feb 12

Shoong says...

Charge of the Lycra Brigade.
Charge of the Lycra Brigade. Shoong

10:10am Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

Shoong wrote:
Charge of the Lycra Brigade.
And how does a comment like that help the debate on road safety, Shoong?
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: Charge of the Lycra Brigade.[/p][/quote]And how does a comment like that help the debate on road safety, Shoong? downfader

10:17am Wed 22 Feb 12

Big Mac says...

It amazes me that a vast number of cyclists are either totally arrogant, or totally stupid. No lights has got to be the number 1 problem. How can they value their own safety, (let alone that of others), if they can't even make an effort to be seen? Add to that, dark clothing, using mobiles and 'no hands ridding', then the total disregard for any detail of the rules of the road, then it's no wonder that there is little consideration from car drivers to their needs.
It amazes me that a vast number of cyclists are either totally arrogant, or totally stupid. No lights has got to be the number 1 problem. How can they value their own safety, (let alone that of others), if they can't even make an effort to be seen? Add to that, dark clothing, using mobiles and 'no hands ridding', then the total disregard for any detail of the rules of the road, then it's no wonder that there is little consideration from car drivers to their needs. Big Mac

10:18am Wed 22 Feb 12

jazzi says...

It is a shame that some drivers see cyclists as pariahs .

When i first moved to Southampton I,d cycle everywhere ! After being knocked out by a wing mirror and abused for being in their way I decided enough was enough.
Sadly even my children have to wait until we are on the city outskirts to cycle. They will never enjoy cycling around their city unless safer measures are taken for cyclists.

If you are annoyed a cyclist can go through a red light safely, then get on your bike and you will understand why they do it.

Southampton is a world leader in road traffic management, shouldn't be too hard to con jour up a greener cycling system. Just cash to implement is obviously none existent.
It is a shame that some drivers see cyclists as pariahs . When i first moved to Southampton I,d cycle everywhere ! After being knocked out by a wing mirror and abused for being in their way I decided enough was enough. Sadly even my children have to wait until we are on the city outskirts to cycle. They will never enjoy cycling around their city unless safer measures are taken for cyclists. If you are annoyed a cyclist can go through a red light safely, then get on your bike and you will understand why they do it. Southampton is a world leader in road traffic management, shouldn't be too hard to con jour up a greener cycling system. Just cash to implement is obviously none existent. jazzi

10:21am Wed 22 Feb 12

The Salv says...

Got to say it's great that this is going to be discussed in Parliment and hopefully measures will be made to make cycling safer.
.
Unfortunetely it doesnt help when you have these green party militant types that dont wear helmets heading these campaigns.
.
You cant ban huge lorries, simple as that. The simple fact of the matter is that cyclist and busy roads do not mix.
.
Best thing to do is to ban cyclist from using these roads and install purpose built cycle paths away from the roads. It does annoy me when I still see cyclists on busy roads when there is a perfectly safe usuable cycle path or road nearby.
.
More people are cycling both socially and for the commute we should aim at providing first class facilities. Before people start the same old road tax rubbish, road tax doesn not exist, general taxation can pay for this + lottery grants, charities etc.
Got to say it's great that this is going to be discussed in Parliment and hopefully measures will be made to make cycling safer. . Unfortunetely it doesnt help when you have these green party militant types that dont wear helmets heading these campaigns. . You cant ban huge lorries, simple as that. The simple fact of the matter is that cyclist and busy roads do not mix. . Best thing to do is to ban cyclist from using these roads and install purpose built cycle paths away from the roads. It does annoy me when I still see cyclists on busy roads when there is a perfectly safe usuable cycle path or road nearby. . More people are cycling both socially and for the commute we should aim at providing first class facilities. Before people start the same old road tax rubbish, road tax doesn not exist, general taxation can pay for this + lottery grants, charities etc. The Salv

10:23am Wed 22 Feb 12

AlfredJones says...

Unless I am much mistaken Dilys doesn't seem to be wearing a helmet?
Surely after the other campaigning lady got so badly injured it is now time to be shown wearing one?
Southampton will no doubt spend it's money on useless cycle routes rather than actually making the roads any safer. Simply painting a pedal bike on the road does not make a safe cycle lane (nor does it mean you should have to fight motorcycles!!).
Oh and Charge of the Lycra Brigade - I quite like that!
Teamgreen is right - showing some respect for the laws and rules of the road would make them much much safer!
For the sake of clarity: I have been a cyclist on the cities roads (and been knocked off, chased, punched off my bike for NOT jumping a red light and holding a car up), yes I am married to the mother of my children, no I am not a Roystonite (I have no political colour at all), no I don't earn much more than the minimum wage, but I do work full time and claim no benefits
Unless I am much mistaken Dilys doesn't seem to be wearing a helmet? Surely after the other campaigning lady got so badly injured it is now time to be shown wearing one? Southampton will no doubt spend it's money on useless cycle routes rather than actually making the roads any safer. Simply painting a pedal bike on the road does not make a safe cycle lane (nor does it mean you should have to fight motorcycles!!). Oh and Charge of the Lycra Brigade - I quite like that! Teamgreen is right - showing some respect for the laws and rules of the road would make them much much safer! For the sake of clarity: I have been a cyclist on the cities roads (and been knocked off, chased, punched off my bike for NOT jumping a red light and holding a car up), yes I am married to the mother of my children, no I am not a Roystonite (I have no political colour at all), no I don't earn much more than the minimum wage, but I do work full time and claim no benefits AlfredJones

10:25am Wed 22 Feb 12

Big Mac says...

"If you are annoyed a cyclist can go through a red light safely, then get on your bike and you will understand why they do it."

Please enlighten us all as to how?
"If you are annoyed a cyclist can go through a red light safely, then get on your bike and you will understand why they do it." Please enlighten us all as to how? Big Mac

10:31am Wed 22 Feb 12

teamgreen says...

The Salv wrote:
Got to say it's great that this is going to be discussed in Parliment and hopefully measures will be made to make cycling safer. . Unfortunetely it doesnt help when you have these green party militant types that dont wear helmets heading these campaigns. . You cant ban huge lorries, simple as that. The simple fact of the matter is that cyclist and busy roads do not mix. . Best thing to do is to ban cyclist from using these roads and install purpose built cycle paths away from the roads. It does annoy me when I still see cyclists on busy roads when there is a perfectly safe usuable cycle path or road nearby. . More people are cycling both socially and for the commute we should aim at providing first class facilities. Before people start the same old road tax rubbish, road tax doesn not exist, general taxation can pay for this + lottery grants, charities etc.
well done sir,when i use the cycle paths its amazing how many cars,vans parked on them,dog wlkers and people walking in them and yet i am made to move on to the road or pavement.the worse place is on the avenue near the common down past the pizza place to the courts.and yes the old road tax rubbish is true people will not go and look it up.its the same when i cycle down past the shops in above bar between footlocker to argos.its not a pavement so dont have ago at me moan at the council for not getting permission to close that area via parliment.thats why the street vendors must keep moving and the police will not stop cyclists as it is you who are in the wrong by ''walking in the road''.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: Got to say it's great that this is going to be discussed in Parliment and hopefully measures will be made to make cycling safer. . Unfortunetely it doesnt help when you have these green party militant types that dont wear helmets heading these campaigns. . You cant ban huge lorries, simple as that. The simple fact of the matter is that cyclist and busy roads do not mix. . Best thing to do is to ban cyclist from using these roads and install purpose built cycle paths away from the roads. It does annoy me when I still see cyclists on busy roads when there is a perfectly safe usuable cycle path or road nearby. . More people are cycling both socially and for the commute we should aim at providing first class facilities. Before people start the same old road tax rubbish, road tax doesn not exist, general taxation can pay for this + lottery grants, charities etc.[/p][/quote]well done sir,when i use the cycle paths its amazing how many cars,vans parked on them,dog wlkers and people walking in them and yet i am made to move on to the road or pavement.the worse place is on the avenue near the common down past the pizza place to the courts.and yes the old road tax rubbish is true people will not go and look it up.its the same when i cycle down past the shops in above bar between footlocker to argos.its not a pavement so dont have ago at me moan at the council for not getting permission to close that area via parliment.thats why the street vendors must keep moving and the police will not stop cyclists as it is you who are in the wrong by ''walking in the road''. teamgreen

10:38am Wed 22 Feb 12

Urbane Forager says...

Hoorah for the council spending more on cycling and cycle lanes!
Boo! To the nay sayers who just point pout the few bad examples of the idiots who ride on pavements and without lights when it's dark. They conveniently ignore the majority who ride responsibly.
I cycle every day but I do have lights, reflective tape all over my bike, a flourescent rucksack cover and cycle on the road.
I always tell the idiot adults who ride on the pavement to grow up when they aproach me when I'm walking. A common place for this is over Cobden bridge, where there is a cycle path already!
In the same way, many drivers give cyclists a good berth when passing them, but the inconsiderate few endanger lives on a regular basis by; passing at speed with inches to spare, pulling out in front of cyclists, over taking then turning left, not looking at roundabouts, cutting corners when turning right etc. etc. etc.
I vocally berate these fools on an almost daily basis.
I cycle assertively, as safely as I can and within the law and will continue to do so.
Hoorah for the council spending more on cycling and cycle lanes! Boo! To the nay sayers who just point pout the few bad examples of the idiots who ride on pavements and without lights when it's dark. They conveniently ignore the majority who ride responsibly. I cycle every day but I do have lights, reflective tape all over my bike, a flourescent rucksack cover and cycle on the road. I always tell the idiot adults who ride on the pavement to grow up when they aproach me when I'm walking. A common place for this is over Cobden bridge, where there is a cycle path already! In the same way, many drivers give cyclists a good berth when passing them, but the inconsiderate few endanger lives on a regular basis by; passing at speed with inches to spare, pulling out in front of cyclists, over taking then turning left, not looking at roundabouts, cutting corners when turning right etc. etc. etc. I vocally berate these fools on an almost daily basis. I cycle assertively, as safely as I can and within the law and will continue to do so. Urbane Forager

10:38am Wed 22 Feb 12

Lockssmart says...

I am sick to death of swerving out the way for cyclists with no road sense. They very rarely indicate what their intentions are. Most jump red lights and the really stupid ones cycle wearing ipods.
I am sick to death of swerving out the way for cyclists with no road sense. They very rarely indicate what their intentions are. Most jump red lights and the really stupid ones cycle wearing ipods. Lockssmart

10:43am Wed 22 Feb 12

10 Minute Man says...

Need to sort out mixed use paths for pedestrians and bikes along busy roads. The Avenue has this but often cyclists use the road, which is too narrow for drivers to pass them safely. Mind you I wouldn't fancy my chances with people backing out of their driveways or emerging from roads.

When I see cyclists weaving in and out, no lights, no helmet, dark clothing, and not looking around them, I just think "have you no idea how difficult it is to see you ?". Same with car drivers: just this week I've noticed loads of cars failing to turn lights on either early in the morning or in the evening. Perhaps they think its OK because they can see where they are going......
Need to sort out mixed use paths for pedestrians and bikes along busy roads. The Avenue has this but often cyclists use the road, which is too narrow for drivers to pass them safely. Mind you I wouldn't fancy my chances with people backing out of their driveways or emerging from roads. When I see cyclists weaving in and out, no lights, no helmet, dark clothing, and not looking around them, I just think "have you no idea how difficult it is to see you ?". Same with car drivers: just this week I've noticed loads of cars failing to turn lights on either early in the morning or in the evening. Perhaps they think its OK because they can see where they are going...... 10 Minute Man

10:53am Wed 22 Feb 12

Dresnez says...

Cyclists are the most impatient of road users. They avoid the cycle tracks because they are too dangerous. Other cyclists are a serious worry apparently. They expect every other person to get out of their way! They pay nothing in road tax/insurance and are totally lawless. They cycle at night in dark clothing and weave all over the road. They are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. Many accidents to cyclists are their own fault and frequently there are no vehicles involved. They ride racing bikes (thin tyres) and use the road as a race track. If cyclists want cycle lanes - LET THEM PAY FOR IT and make it a legal requirement for them to have insurance as well. So many of them are a dangerous menace to others and themselves!
Why should we the motorist who pay dearly to use the roads have to worship these 'cyclists'. More political pressure groups that want appeasement at the expense of the rest of us. More regulation regardless of how useful it is. More micro management. Ban cyclists from major roads and make them use cycle tracks.
Cyclists are the most impatient of road users. They avoid the cycle tracks because they are too dangerous. Other cyclists are a serious worry apparently. They expect every other person to get out of their way! They pay nothing in road tax/insurance and are totally lawless. They cycle at night in dark clothing and weave all over the road. They are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. Many accidents to cyclists are their own fault and frequently there are no vehicles involved. They ride racing bikes (thin tyres) and use the road as a race track. If cyclists want cycle lanes - LET THEM PAY FOR IT and make it a legal requirement for them to have insurance as well. So many of them are a dangerous menace to others and themselves! Why should we the motorist who pay dearly to use the roads have to worship these 'cyclists'. More political pressure groups that want appeasement at the expense of the rest of us. More regulation regardless of how useful it is. More micro management. Ban cyclists from major roads and make them use cycle tracks. Dresnez

11:04am Wed 22 Feb 12

bazzeroz says...

Oh Christ or mighty......... here we go again! Persecute the motorist for a b.loody cycle.
Oh Christ or mighty......... here we go again! Persecute the motorist for a b.loody cycle. bazzeroz

11:24am Wed 22 Feb 12

Torchie1 says...

teamgreen wrote:
here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
[quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group. Torchie1

11:28am Wed 22 Feb 12

Shoong says...

downfader wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Charge of the Lycra Brigade.
And how does a comment like that help the debate on road safety, Shoong?
Ummm... it doesn't.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: Charge of the Lycra Brigade.[/p][/quote]And how does a comment like that help the debate on road safety, Shoong?[/p][/quote]Ummm... it doesn't. Shoong

11:30am Wed 22 Feb 12

dand_uk says...

If cycle routes were safe, direct and convenient for all we could have -->

More cycling, such as children cycling to school-->

Less mothers driving their kids to school or fathers burning a pint of petrol to pick up a pint of milk-->

Less congestion on the roads for the remaining motorists. Healthier population, less NHS spend on obesity.

How can anyone object to that?
If cycle routes were safe, direct and convenient for all we could have --> More cycling, such as children cycling to school--> Less mothers driving their kids to school or fathers burning a pint of petrol to pick up a pint of milk--> Less congestion on the roads for the remaining motorists. Healthier population, less NHS spend on obesity. How can anyone object to that? dand_uk

12:07pm Wed 22 Feb 12

good-gosh says...

Cycles are only one of many groups of road users, but they are not special and are not entitled to special priority over other groups. Progressive city improvements need to address the requirements of all groups, with priority given only to pedestrians and the disabled.
Cycles are only one of many groups of road users, but they are not special and are not entitled to special priority over other groups. Progressive city improvements need to address the requirements of all groups, with priority given only to pedestrians and the disabled. good-gosh

12:09pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

Ok lets clarify a few points:

-HELMETS
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

-RED LIGHT JUMPING
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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset
s/downloads/business
andpartners/traffic-
note-8-cycling-red-l
ights.pdf

(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.
Ok lets clarify a few points: -HELMETS 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 -RED LIGHT JUMPING 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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset s/downloads/business andpartners/traffic- note-8-cycling-red-l ights.pdf (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. downfader

12:12pm Wed 22 Feb 12

lightsouth says...

Does anyone know a good recipe for a good 'three bean salad'?
Does anyone know a good recipe for a good 'three bean salad'? lightsouth

12:15pm Wed 22 Feb 12

teamgreen says...

Dresnez wrote:
Cyclists are the most impatient of road users. They avoid the cycle tracks because they are too dangerous. Other cyclists are a serious worry apparently. They expect every other person to get out of their way! They pay nothing in road tax/insurance and are totally lawless. They cycle at night in dark clothing and weave all over the road. They are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. Many accidents to cyclists are their own fault and frequently there are no vehicles involved. They ride racing bikes (thin tyres) and use the road as a race track. If cyclists want cycle lanes - LET THEM PAY FOR IT and make it a legal requirement for them to have insurance as well. So many of them are a dangerous menace to others and themselves! Why should we the motorist who pay dearly to use the roads have to worship these 'cyclists'. More political pressure groups that want appeasement at the expense of the rest of us. More regulation regardless of how useful it is. More micro management. Ban cyclists from major roads and make them use cycle tracks.
again, the dont pay road tax brigade.go look it up you might learn something.
[quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: Cyclists are the most impatient of road users. They avoid the cycle tracks because they are too dangerous. Other cyclists are a serious worry apparently. They expect every other person to get out of their way! They pay nothing in road tax/insurance and are totally lawless. They cycle at night in dark clothing and weave all over the road. They are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. Many accidents to cyclists are their own fault and frequently there are no vehicles involved. They ride racing bikes (thin tyres) and use the road as a race track. If cyclists want cycle lanes - LET THEM PAY FOR IT and make it a legal requirement for them to have insurance as well. So many of them are a dangerous menace to others and themselves! Why should we the motorist who pay dearly to use the roads have to worship these 'cyclists'. More political pressure groups that want appeasement at the expense of the rest of us. More regulation regardless of how useful it is. More micro management. Ban cyclists from major roads and make them use cycle tracks.[/p][/quote]again, the dont pay road tax brigade.go look it up you might learn something. teamgreen

12:16pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Higginz says...

lightsouth wrote:
Does anyone know a good recipe for a good 'three bean salad'?
Looks rank, but hope you find what you're looking for --> http://simplyrecipes
.com/recipes/three_b
ean_salad/
[quote][p][bold]lightsouth[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know a good recipe for a good 'three bean salad'?[/p][/quote]Looks rank, but hope you find what you're looking for --> http://simplyrecipes .com/recipes/three_b ean_salad/ Higginz

12:19pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

teamgreen wrote:
Dresnez wrote:
Cyclists are the most impatient of road users. They avoid the cycle tracks because they are too dangerous. Other cyclists are a serious worry apparently. They expect every other person to get out of their way! They pay nothing in road tax/insurance and are totally lawless. They cycle at night in dark clothing and weave all over the road. They are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. Many accidents to cyclists are their own fault and frequently there are no vehicles involved. They ride racing bikes (thin tyres) and use the road as a race track. If cyclists want cycle lanes - LET THEM PAY FOR IT and make it a legal requirement for them to have insurance as well. So many of them are a dangerous menace to others and themselves! Why should we the motorist who pay dearly to use the roads have to worship these 'cyclists'. More political pressure groups that want appeasement at the expense of the rest of us. More regulation regardless of how useful it is. More micro management. Ban cyclists from major roads and make them use cycle tracks.
again, the dont pay road tax brigade.go look it up you might learn something.
And indeed, if motorists DID pay a hypothecated taxation on their vehicles - they'd be bankrupt due to the externalities (Policing, pollution, congestion - which alone costs over £20bn a year, you name it)
[quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: Cyclists are the most impatient of road users. They avoid the cycle tracks because they are too dangerous. Other cyclists are a serious worry apparently. They expect every other person to get out of their way! They pay nothing in road tax/insurance and are totally lawless. They cycle at night in dark clothing and weave all over the road. They are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. Many accidents to cyclists are their own fault and frequently there are no vehicles involved. They ride racing bikes (thin tyres) and use the road as a race track. If cyclists want cycle lanes - LET THEM PAY FOR IT and make it a legal requirement for them to have insurance as well. So many of them are a dangerous menace to others and themselves! Why should we the motorist who pay dearly to use the roads have to worship these 'cyclists'. More political pressure groups that want appeasement at the expense of the rest of us. More regulation regardless of how useful it is. More micro management. Ban cyclists from major roads and make them use cycle tracks.[/p][/quote]again, the dont pay road tax brigade.go look it up you might learn something.[/p][/quote]And indeed, if motorists DID pay a hypothecated taxation on their vehicles - they'd be bankrupt due to the externalities (Policing, pollution, congestion - which alone costs over £20bn a year, you name it) downfader

12:24pm Wed 22 Feb 12

teamgreen says...

Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
still the bash the bike time. at no place in the highway code does it state/say you can exceed the maximum safe speed limit set for that type of road.i see every day equal amounts of law breaking car drivers and bike riders.your helmet comment is not a legal requirement and lights are only needed at night or in poor weather.do you think everybody would get on better if a safe cycle route was there and riders wouldnt need to use the roads. so car drivers wont need to have a bash at the bike brigade.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]still the bash the bike time. at no place in the highway code does it state/say you can exceed the maximum safe speed limit set for that type of road.i see every day equal amounts of law breaking car drivers and bike riders.your helmet comment is not a legal requirement and lights are only needed at night or in poor weather.do you think everybody would get on better if a safe cycle route was there and riders wouldnt need to use the roads. so car drivers wont need to have a bash at the bike brigade. teamgreen

12:39pm Wed 22 Feb 12

dango says...

Ban cycles.
Ban cycles. dango

12:48pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Lockssmart says...

Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
My tractor won't do 70mph......even downhill. Maybe off a cliff?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]My tractor won't do 70mph......even downhill. Maybe off a cliff? Lockssmart

12:49pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Big Mac says...

teamgreen wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
still the bash the bike time. at no place in the highway code does it state/say you can exceed the maximum safe speed limit set for that type of road.i see every day equal amounts of law breaking car drivers and bike riders.your helmet comment is not a legal requirement and lights are only needed at night or in poor weather.do you think everybody would get on better if a safe cycle route was there and riders wouldnt need to use the roads. so car drivers wont need to have a bash at the bike brigade.
Emergency vehicles often have to travel at excess speed. If a cyclist ignores a red light, then they are putting others potentially at risk.
Wearing a helmet or not, lights on or not, in this example they are in the wrong. The majority of motorised vehicles would stop at a red light.
So, in answer to your question, yes, the two modes of transport need to be provided for separately, though how it's funded is a big question.
[quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]still the bash the bike time. at no place in the highway code does it state/say you can exceed the maximum safe speed limit set for that type of road.i see every day equal amounts of law breaking car drivers and bike riders.your helmet comment is not a legal requirement and lights are only needed at night or in poor weather.do you think everybody would get on better if a safe cycle route was there and riders wouldnt need to use the roads. so car drivers wont need to have a bash at the bike brigade.[/p][/quote]Emergency vehicles often have to travel at excess speed. If a cyclist ignores a red light, then they are putting others potentially at risk. Wearing a helmet or not, lights on or not, in this example they are in the wrong. The majority of motorised vehicles would stop at a red light. So, in answer to your question, yes, the two modes of transport need to be provided for separately, though how it's funded is a big question. Big Mac

12:58pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

Lockssmart wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
My tractor won't do 70mph......even downhill. Maybe off a cliff?
Wouldn't apply, its not a designated roadway ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]My tractor won't do 70mph......even downhill. Maybe off a cliff?[/p][/quote]Wouldn't apply, its not a designated roadway ;-) downfader

12:58pm Wed 22 Feb 12

dango says...

Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :) dango

1:10pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

OK in my mind from looking at the various DfT and some of the council spending figures I think there IS money to improve cycling.

In the UK, through general taxation if we divide the sums up per-person we see that everyone is paying only a couple of quid.

France and Germany have spent triple per head compared to us in the last year. Perhaps a reason why there were no cyclist fatalities in 2010 in places like Paris (similar densities of motor traffic and cyclists as London).

Read the Hembrow blog and you'll see that countries with very low KSI figures, high numbers of cyclists, and a record of healthier people - eg The Netherlands - spend is about £27 per person a year just on cycling.

It is saving their health services and economy money.

From what I can see the money is there, but it is being sucked up for motoring and other things. We also have to remember that unlike with motoring that once it is properly sorted there is low upkeep compared to motorways etc.

There is massive provision that can be given to 20mph zones.

There is a massive amount that can be done to encourage safe routes within Southampton already - I could draw preferred parallel routes on a map quite easily
OK in my mind from looking at the various DfT and some of the council spending figures I think there IS money to improve cycling. In the UK, through general taxation if we divide the sums up per-person we see that everyone is paying only a couple of quid. France and Germany have spent triple per head compared to us in the last year. Perhaps a reason why there were no cyclist fatalities in 2010 in places like Paris (similar densities of motor traffic and cyclists as London). Read the Hembrow blog and you'll see that countries with very low KSI figures, high numbers of cyclists, and a record of healthier people - eg The Netherlands - spend is about £27 per person a year just on cycling. It is saving their health services and economy money. From what I can see the money is there, but it is being sucked up for motoring and other things. We also have to remember that unlike with motoring that once it is properly sorted there is low upkeep compared to motorways etc. There is massive provision that can be given to 20mph zones. There is a massive amount that can be done to encourage safe routes within Southampton already - I could draw preferred parallel routes on a map quite easily downfader

1:22pm Wed 22 Feb 12

teamgreen says...

dango wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)
was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)[/p][/quote]was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ? teamgreen

1:46pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Dresnez says...

Trying to avoid running them over means cars have to wait behind them (until they can overtake them safely) so in that sense they are 'eating up' road space ... I always give them a very wide berth. The times I have nearly been knocked over on pavements is also a concern. They don't use their bells any-more to warn you they are approaching you from behind. Then they laugh at you in an intimidating way.

They are slow going uphill and exceed the speed limit going down hill (I know because they over take me at great speed)

They have lanes just for them etc. why do they not have to pay a bike tax to use these? Then they have the cheek to ignore the highway code and the 'rules of the road' just ridiculous...
Trying to avoid running them over means cars have to wait behind them (until they can overtake them safely) so in that sense they are 'eating up' road space ... I always give them a very wide berth. The times I have nearly been knocked over on pavements is also a concern. They don't use their bells any-more to warn you they are approaching you from behind. Then they laugh at you in an intimidating way. They are slow going uphill and exceed the speed limit going down hill (I know because they over take me at great speed) They have lanes just for them etc. why do they not have to pay a bike tax to use these? Then they have the cheek to ignore the highway code and the 'rules of the road' just ridiculous... Dresnez

1:49pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Niel says...

downfader wrote:
"RED LIGHT JUMPING 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 (edit) 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)."

I think you will find there's a 'reasonable time' element to the above, that is you have to STOP and if after a reasonable time (never specified, but minutes not seconds) the lights have not changed you may PROCEED WITH CARE. Of course it helps if you stop over the sensor loops, the one's at the end of University Road in the 'advanced stop box' for cyclists rarely pick up a bicycle, as most riders go beyond them into the junction proper, if they stop at all, often blocking the pedestrian crossing...
downfader wrote: "RED LIGHT JUMPING 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 (edit) 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)." I think you will find there's a 'reasonable time' element to the above, that is you have to STOP and if after a reasonable time (never specified, but minutes not seconds) the lights have not changed you may PROCEED WITH CARE. Of course it helps if you stop over the sensor loops, the one's at the end of University Road in the 'advanced stop box' for cyclists rarely pick up a bicycle, as most riders go beyond them into the junction proper, if they stop at all, often blocking the pedestrian crossing... Niel

1:55pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Niel says...

jazzi says...
"Southampton is a world leader in road traffic management"

Really? They have a system for managing traffic? Oh you mean the 'SLOW EVERYTHING DOWN' button in the control room at the first sign of problems on the M27...

It works so well the queue to get off at J5 was back past West End this morning!
jazzi says... "Southampton is a world leader in road traffic management" Really? They have a system for managing traffic? Oh you mean the 'SLOW EVERYTHING DOWN' button in the control room at the first sign of problems on the M27... It works so well the queue to get off at J5 was back past West End this morning! Niel

2:00pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Niel says...

Actually it would be good if Southampton City Council invested in decent roads for all users, keep the heavies going to the docks out of the city and repair the roads to a good standard. I regularly report hazards that affect cyclists, the standard SCC answer is "it doesn't meet our intervention levels", pot holes, long split joints, sunken manholes, their criteria is for cagers, not two wheelers. One swerving cyclist trying to avoid a hazard, is a cagers lycra lout for doing so!
Actually it would be good if Southampton City Council invested in decent roads for all users, keep the heavies going to the docks out of the city and repair the roads to a good standard. I regularly report hazards that affect cyclists, the standard SCC answer is "it doesn't meet our intervention levels", pot holes, long split joints, sunken manholes, their criteria is for cagers, not two wheelers. One swerving cyclist trying to avoid a hazard, is a cagers lycra lout for doing so! Niel

2:03pm Wed 22 Feb 12

freemantlegirl2 says...

Banning lorries from the city centre with a huge shopping centre and port, cruise ships... won't work! I agree they pose a huge risk to cyclists but I do feel that there should be more education in schools for cyclists and beyond school, many do not even know the laws of the road. Cyclists steaming through red lights are committing suicide, but I've seen plenty of 'cars' do it too.... one this morning overtook me (in my car) to run a red light, I couldn't believe it! I have also seen two cyclists knock into pedestrians on pedestrian crossings, which is unforgiveable!

people should be encouraged out of their cars. One of the reasons I stopped using my bike so much was that I didn't feel 'safe' - cars travelling through the city centre (I mean right in teh city centre) should perhaps to give way to cycllists, taxis and buses - but i don't know enough about traffic management to know whether this is feasible or not. I think there should be less cyclists v car drivers and more proactive constructive thinking about how to make our roads safer and have less cars on. I have to use ours because of my disabled children as I've said before, but would dearly love to take up more cycling again.
Banning lorries from the city centre with a huge shopping centre and port, cruise ships... won't work! I agree they pose a huge risk to cyclists but I do feel that there should be more education in schools for cyclists and beyond school, many do not even know the laws of the road. Cyclists steaming through red lights are committing suicide, but I've seen plenty of 'cars' do it too.... one this morning overtook me (in my car) to run a red light, I couldn't believe it! I have also seen two cyclists knock into pedestrians on pedestrian crossings, which is unforgiveable! people should be encouraged out of their cars. One of the reasons I stopped using my bike so much was that I didn't feel 'safe' - cars travelling through the city centre (I mean right in teh city centre) should perhaps to give way to cycllists, taxis and buses - but i don't know enough about traffic management to know whether this is feasible or not. I think there should be less cyclists v car drivers and more proactive constructive thinking about how to make our roads safer and have less cars on. I have to use ours because of my disabled children as I've said before, but would dearly love to take up more cycling again. freemantlegirl2

2:08pm Wed 22 Feb 12

bigfella777 says...

Of course drivers of motor vehicles always obey all traffic laws don't they? They never break the speed limit,never jump red lights or mount the pavement do they.
And no cyclists don't pay motor vehicle excise duty because they are not a motor vehicle nor do they pollute the planet, some of you fat muppets should try it.
Of course drivers of motor vehicles always obey all traffic laws don't they? They never break the speed limit,never jump red lights or mount the pavement do they. And no cyclists don't pay motor vehicle excise duty because they are not a motor vehicle nor do they pollute the planet, some of you fat muppets should try it. bigfella777

2:21pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

Niel wrote:
downfader wrote:
"RED LIGHT JUMPING 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 (edit) 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)."

I think you will find there's a 'reasonable time' element to the above, that is you have to STOP and if after a reasonable time (never specified, but minutes not seconds) the lights have not changed you may PROCEED WITH CARE. Of course it helps if you stop over the sensor loops, the one's at the end of University Road in the 'advanced stop box' for cyclists rarely pick up a bicycle, as most riders go beyond them into the junction proper, if they stop at all, often blocking the pedestrian crossing...
Very true.
[quote][p][bold]Niel[/bold] wrote: downfader wrote: "RED LIGHT JUMPING 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 (edit) 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)." I think you will find there's a 'reasonable time' element to the above, that is you have to STOP and if after a reasonable time (never specified, but minutes not seconds) the lights have not changed you may PROCEED WITH CARE. Of course it helps if you stop over the sensor loops, the one's at the end of University Road in the 'advanced stop box' for cyclists rarely pick up a bicycle, as most riders go beyond them into the junction proper, if they stop at all, often blocking the pedestrian crossing...[/p][/quote]Very true. downfader

2:30pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
Banning lorries from the city centre with a huge shopping centre and port, cruise ships... won't work! I agree they pose a huge risk to cyclists but I do feel that there should be more education in schools for cyclists and beyond school, many do not even know the laws of the road. Cyclists steaming through red lights are committing suicide, but I've seen plenty of 'cars' do it too.... one this morning overtook me (in my car) to run a red light, I couldn't believe it! I have also seen two cyclists knock into pedestrians on pedestrian crossings, which is unforgiveable!

people should be encouraged out of their cars. One of the reasons I stopped using my bike so much was that I didn't feel 'safe' - cars travelling through the city centre (I mean right in teh city centre) should perhaps to give way to cycllists, taxis and buses - but i don't know enough about traffic management to know whether this is feasible or not. I think there should be less cyclists v car drivers and more proactive constructive thinking about how to make our roads safer and have less cars on. I have to use ours because of my disabled children as I've said before, but would dearly love to take up more cycling again.
And as I often say - no one should feel bad for driving in such a situation (just as with workmen/vans, deliveries in lorries etc).

We can better manage lorries coming from the docks. Most do actually head right towards the M27 anyway from what I gather, through Millbrook/Redbridge etc.

I think most of the city centre around Queensway, Bargate street, Bernard Street, the bus routes around the shops etc.. could all be 20mph as one block area.
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: Banning lorries from the city centre with a huge shopping centre and port, cruise ships... won't work! I agree they pose a huge risk to cyclists but I do feel that there should be more education in schools for cyclists and beyond school, many do not even know the laws of the road. Cyclists steaming through red lights are committing suicide, but I've seen plenty of 'cars' do it too.... one this morning overtook me (in my car) to run a red light, I couldn't believe it! I have also seen two cyclists knock into pedestrians on pedestrian crossings, which is unforgiveable! people should be encouraged out of their cars. One of the reasons I stopped using my bike so much was that I didn't feel 'safe' - cars travelling through the city centre (I mean right in teh city centre) should perhaps to give way to cycllists, taxis and buses - but i don't know enough about traffic management to know whether this is feasible or not. I think there should be less cyclists v car drivers and more proactive constructive thinking about how to make our roads safer and have less cars on. I have to use ours because of my disabled children as I've said before, but would dearly love to take up more cycling again.[/p][/quote]And as I often say - no one should feel bad for driving in such a situation (just as with workmen/vans, deliveries in lorries etc). We can better manage lorries coming from the docks. Most do actually head right towards the M27 anyway from what I gather, through Millbrook/Redbridge etc. I think most of the city centre around Queensway, Bargate street, Bernard Street, the bus routes around the shops etc.. could all be 20mph as one block area. downfader

3:16pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Torchie1 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Of course drivers of motor vehicles always obey all traffic laws don't they? They never break the speed limit,never jump red lights or mount the pavement do they.
And no cyclists don't pay motor vehicle excise duty because they are not a motor vehicle nor do they pollute the planet, some of you fat muppets should try it.
Using your poorly thought out argument opens the way for mothers and toddlers to use roadways for their prams, or a keen gardener to drive his ride-on mower, neither of which need to pay VED. Cyclists are one rung above pedestrians in the food chain and when they decide to cycle assertively they should do so in the sure and certain knowledge that any accident they're involved in will see them injured to a greater or lesser degree. Carry on as you like but don't complain about the results.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Of course drivers of motor vehicles always obey all traffic laws don't they? They never break the speed limit,never jump red lights or mount the pavement do they. And no cyclists don't pay motor vehicle excise duty because they are not a motor vehicle nor do they pollute the planet, some of you fat muppets should try it.[/p][/quote]Using your poorly thought out argument opens the way for mothers and toddlers to use roadways for their prams, or a keen gardener to drive his ride-on mower, neither of which need to pay VED. Cyclists are one rung above pedestrians in the food chain and when they decide to cycle assertively they should do so in the sure and certain knowledge that any accident they're involved in will see them injured to a greater or lesser degree. Carry on as you like but don't complain about the results. Torchie1

4:14pm Wed 22 Feb 12

AlfredJones says...

downfader wrote:
Ok lets clarify a few points:

-HELMETS
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

-RED LIGHT JUMPING
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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset

s/downloads/business

andpartners/traffic-

note-8-cycling-red-l

ights.pdf

(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!
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Ok lets clarify a few points: -HELMETS 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 -RED LIGHT JUMPING 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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset s/downloads/business andpartners/traffic- note-8-cycling-red-l ights.pdf (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.[/p][/quote]...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! AlfredJones

4:39pm Wed 22 Feb 12

dango says...

teamgreen wrote:
dango wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)
was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?
it doesn't matter where it was, it was said that bicycles won't exceed 70Mph, I say that is not the case.
[quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)[/p][/quote]was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?[/p][/quote]it doesn't matter where it was, it was said that bicycles won't exceed 70Mph, I say that is not the case. dango

4:58pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

AlfredJones wrote:
downfader wrote:
Ok lets clarify a few points:

-HELMETS
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

-RED LIGHT JUMPING
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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset


s/downloads/business


andpartners/traffic-


note-8-cycling-red-l


ights.pdf

(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?
[quote][p][bold]AlfredJones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Ok lets clarify a few points: -HELMETS 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 -RED LIGHT JUMPING 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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset s/downloads/business andpartners/traffic- note-8-cycling-red-l ights.pdf (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.[/p][/quote]...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![/p][/quote]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? downfader

5:03pm Wed 22 Feb 12

SaintM says...

All cyclist should pay insurance and adhere to the laws which 99% do not, no lights etc.Compulsory to use cycle paths although beter still if these were banished as they are amenace to all. Give them a number plate and the same point system for car drivers and within a month they will be off the roads for good.
All cyclist should pay insurance and adhere to the laws which 99% do not, no lights etc.Compulsory to use cycle paths although beter still if these were banished as they are amenace to all. Give them a number plate and the same point system for car drivers and within a month they will be off the roads for good. SaintM

5:06pm Wed 22 Feb 12

ohec says...

I fully support cycle paths/lanes provided that where a cycle path/lane exists they are banned from using the road, i had this argument many times when i lived in Dorset after they spent many thousands on cycle paths that never got used and the reply you get from the lycra brigade is they can't go fast enough on cycle paths/lanes. I also think that insurance should be compulsory. Cycle inspections to ensure they are roadworthy with on the spot fines, and the use of those racing style handlebars where the hands are in the middle should be banned hands should be a minimum distance apart to ensure proper control.Cyclist have been ignored by the police for too many years and its about time they were brought into the 21st century.
I fully support cycle paths/lanes provided that where a cycle path/lane exists they are banned from using the road, i had this argument many times when i lived in Dorset after they spent many thousands on cycle paths that never got used and the reply you get from the lycra brigade is they can't go fast enough on cycle paths/lanes. I also think that insurance should be compulsory. Cycle inspections to ensure they are roadworthy with on the spot fines, and the use of those racing style handlebars where the hands are in the middle should be banned hands should be a minimum distance apart to ensure proper control.Cyclist have been ignored by the police for too many years and its about time they were brought into the 21st century. ohec

5:19pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

SaintM wrote:
All cyclist should pay insurance and adhere to the laws which 99% do not, no lights etc.Compulsory to use cycle paths although beter still if these were banished as they are amenace to all. Give them a number plate and the same point system for car drivers and within a month they will be off the roads for good.
Another idiotic statement with no relevance to fact.

- what are the risks cyclists pose that warrants compulsory insurance? Source? (and by that statistical evidence not one or two news stories)

- so you'd be happy for a cyclist like myself to ride 20-25mph mixed with pedestrians?

Why is pavement cycling unacceptable, but forcing cyclists onto "shared use" is?
[quote][p][bold]SaintM[/bold] wrote: All cyclist should pay insurance and adhere to the laws which 99% do not, no lights etc.Compulsory to use cycle paths although beter still if these were banished as they are amenace to all. Give them a number plate and the same point system for car drivers and within a month they will be off the roads for good.[/p][/quote]Another idiotic statement with no relevance to fact. - what are the risks cyclists pose that warrants compulsory insurance? Source? (and by that statistical evidence not one or two news stories) - so you'd be happy for a cyclist like myself to ride 20-25mph mixed with pedestrians? Why is pavement cycling unacceptable, but forcing cyclists onto "shared use" is? downfader

5:23pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

ohec wrote:
I fully support cycle paths/lanes provided that where a cycle path/lane exists they are banned from using the road, i had this argument many times when i lived in Dorset after they spent many thousands on cycle paths that never got used and the reply you get from the lycra brigade is they can't go fast enough on cycle paths/lanes. I also think that insurance should be compulsory. Cycle inspections to ensure they are roadworthy with on the spot fines, and the use of those racing style handlebars where the hands are in the middle should be banned hands should be a minimum distance apart to ensure proper control.Cyclist have been ignored by the police for too many years and its about time they were brought into the 21st century.
Cyclists havent been ignored by the Police. Far from it.

Bournemouth stops up to 400 two or three times a year to advise on clothing and tackle lighting issues. In Oxford the number is around 300, Bristol about 200.

Do you not accept that with a 3% modal share in all traffic in the UK that it would be suicidal for cycling if more regulation came in?

And the same questions to you as I asked in my previous above. I await your answers
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: I fully support cycle paths/lanes provided that where a cycle path/lane exists they are banned from using the road, i had this argument many times when i lived in Dorset after they spent many thousands on cycle paths that never got used and the reply you get from the lycra brigade is they can't go fast enough on cycle paths/lanes. I also think that insurance should be compulsory. Cycle inspections to ensure they are roadworthy with on the spot fines, and the use of those racing style handlebars where the hands are in the middle should be banned hands should be a minimum distance apart to ensure proper control.Cyclist have been ignored by the police for too many years and its about time they were brought into the 21st century.[/p][/quote]Cyclists havent been ignored by the Police. Far from it. Bournemouth stops up to 400 two or three times a year to advise on clothing and tackle lighting issues. In Oxford the number is around 300, Bristol about 200. Do you not accept that with a 3% modal share in all traffic in the UK that it would be suicidal for cycling if more regulation came in? And the same questions to you as I asked in my previous above. I await your answers downfader

6:27pm Wed 22 Feb 12

thedavie says...

Yes Downfader but perhaps the freedom of information could advise the number of fixed penalty charges issued by police or council to cyclists
Pleased to see Portswood area acknowledge the problem of pavement cycling
I wish Eastleigh would take similar action
Yes Downfader but perhaps the freedom of information could advise the number of fixed penalty charges issued by police or council to cyclists Pleased to see Portswood area acknowledge the problem of pavement cycling I wish Eastleigh would take similar action thedavie

6:45pm Wed 22 Feb 12

teamgreen says...

dango wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
dango wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)
was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?
it doesn't matter where it was, it was said that bicycles won't exceed 70Mph, I say that is not the case.
in that case cars have been known to break the sound barrier.does that make for sense for against the cyclists
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)[/p][/quote]was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?[/p][/quote]it doesn't matter where it was, it was said that bicycles won't exceed 70Mph, I say that is not the case.[/p][/quote]in that case cars have been known to break the sound barrier.does that make for sense for against the cyclists teamgreen

7:21pm Wed 22 Feb 12

SaintM says...

Downfader , insurance so they pay for cars they hit ie wing mirrors and knocks and dents to sides of cars as they bash them to squeze through stationery traffic.Cycing on pavement is liable to fines as it is illegal unless designated otherwise. Insurance to cover death caused by cyclist killing pedestrians ala Itchen Bridge. Why mst a cycist speed at 25mph anyway, i thought cycling was for leisure.
Downfader , insurance so they pay for cars they hit ie wing mirrors and knocks and dents to sides of cars as they bash them to squeze through stationery traffic.Cycing on pavement is liable to fines as it is illegal unless designated otherwise. Insurance to cover death caused by cyclist killing pedestrians ala Itchen Bridge. Why mst a cycist speed at 25mph anyway, i thought cycling was for leisure. SaintM

7:30pm Wed 22 Feb 12

dango says...

teamgreen wrote:
dango wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
dango wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)
was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?
it doesn't matter where it was, it was said that bicycles won't exceed 70Mph, I say that is not the case.
in that case cars have been known to break the sound barrier.does that make for sense for against the cyclists
you make no sense.
[quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)[/p][/quote]was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?[/p][/quote]it doesn't matter where it was, it was said that bicycles won't exceed 70Mph, I say that is not the case.[/p][/quote]in that case cars have been known to break the sound barrier.does that make for sense for against the cyclists[/p][/quote]you make no sense. dango

7:41pm Wed 22 Feb 12

bigfella777 says...

Torchie1 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Of course drivers of motor vehicles always obey all traffic laws don't they? They never break the speed limit,never jump red lights or mount the pavement do they.
And no cyclists don't pay motor vehicle excise duty because they are not a motor vehicle nor do they pollute the planet, some of you fat muppets should try it.
Using your poorly thought out argument opens the way for mothers and toddlers to use roadways for their prams, or a keen gardener to drive his ride-on mower, neither of which need to pay VED. Cyclists are one rung above pedestrians in the food chain and when they decide to cycle assertively they should do so in the sure and certain knowledge that any accident they're involved in will see them injured to a greater or lesser degree. Carry on as you like but don't complain about the results.
How is a cyclist in the food chain you prat, and its perfectly ok to ride a sit on mower on the road if you want to on your car driving license.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Of course drivers of motor vehicles always obey all traffic laws don't they? They never break the speed limit,never jump red lights or mount the pavement do they. And no cyclists don't pay motor vehicle excise duty because they are not a motor vehicle nor do they pollute the planet, some of you fat muppets should try it.[/p][/quote]Using your poorly thought out argument opens the way for mothers and toddlers to use roadways for their prams, or a keen gardener to drive his ride-on mower, neither of which need to pay VED. Cyclists are one rung above pedestrians in the food chain and when they decide to cycle assertively they should do so in the sure and certain knowledge that any accident they're involved in will see them injured to a greater or lesser degree. Carry on as you like but don't complain about the results.[/p][/quote]How is a cyclist in the food chain you prat, and its perfectly ok to ride a sit on mower on the road if you want to on your car driving license. bigfella777

7:44pm Wed 22 Feb 12

bigfella777 says...

SaintM wrote:
Downfader , insurance so they pay for cars they hit ie wing mirrors and knocks and dents to sides of cars as they bash them to squeze through stationery traffic.Cycing on pavement is liable to fines as it is illegal unless designated otherwise. Insurance to cover death caused by cyclist killing pedestrians ala Itchen Bridge. Why mst a cycist speed at 25mph anyway, i thought cycling was for leisure.
Why do cars speed at 50mph round town, I thought cars were a means of transport.
[quote][p][bold]SaintM[/bold] wrote: Downfader , insurance so they pay for cars they hit ie wing mirrors and knocks and dents to sides of cars as they bash them to squeze through stationery traffic.Cycing on pavement is liable to fines as it is illegal unless designated otherwise. Insurance to cover death caused by cyclist killing pedestrians ala Itchen Bridge. Why mst a cycist speed at 25mph anyway, i thought cycling was for leisure.[/p][/quote]Why do cars speed at 50mph round town, I thought cars were a means of transport. bigfella777

8:09pm Wed 22 Feb 12

SaintM says...

Sorry bigfeller. Do not understand your drift, must be one of those ineducated cyclist, can not read or see colours ie red to stop, no cycling signs to be ignored etc
Sorry bigfeller. Do not understand your drift, must be one of those ineducated cyclist, can not read or see colours ie red to stop, no cycling signs to be ignored etc SaintM

9:42pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

SaintM wrote:
Downfader , insurance so they pay for cars they hit ie wing mirrors and knocks and dents to sides of cars as they bash them to squeze through stationery traffic.Cycing on pavement is liable to fines as it is illegal unless designated otherwise. Insurance to cover death caused by cyclist killing pedestrians ala Itchen Bridge. Why mst a cycist speed at 25mph anyway, i thought cycling was for leisure.
Why shouldn't I ride at 25mph, it keeps me fit after all?

Come on, what proof, you have yet to provide any statistical evidence.

I've not heard of any pedestrians being killed on the Itchen Bridge by cyclists. 3 cyclists have died there in the past 10 years however.

Lastly, and this is for all the detractors... what has any of this naysaying got to do with getting more people on bikes? Anyone would think you didn't want that to happen.
[quote][p][bold]SaintM[/bold] wrote: Downfader , insurance so they pay for cars they hit ie wing mirrors and knocks and dents to sides of cars as they bash them to squeze through stationery traffic.Cycing on pavement is liable to fines as it is illegal unless designated otherwise. Insurance to cover death caused by cyclist killing pedestrians ala Itchen Bridge. Why mst a cycist speed at 25mph anyway, i thought cycling was for leisure.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't I ride at 25mph, it keeps me fit after all? Come on, what proof, you have yet to provide any statistical evidence. I've not heard of any pedestrians being killed on the Itchen Bridge by cyclists. 3 cyclists have died there in the past 10 years however. Lastly, and this is for all the detractors... what has any of this naysaying got to do with getting more people on bikes? Anyone would think you didn't want that to happen. downfader

9:47pm Wed 22 Feb 12

teamgreen says...

dango wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
dango wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
dango wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?
The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.
Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)
was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?
it doesn't matter where it was, it was said that bicycles won't exceed 70Mph, I say that is not the case.
in that case cars have been known to break the sound barrier.does that make for sense for against the cyclists
you make no sense.
the world land speed record for a car caused the sound barrier to be broken therefore breaking the speed of sound.the same as the fastest speeds for cycles have all been behind a speeding car,down the side of a volcano,down a ski run etc.but still the question is how will this and the b/s comment make a case for or against a safe area for cyclists to ride along side cars ?
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: here we go again bash the cyclist.no lights,riding on pavements,going through red lights etc.what about the car drivers parking on pavements,on mobile phones,drink driving,going through red lights,,mounting pavement corners,reading the paper,putting on make up etc etc etc.we all should use the road with respect to each other but everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere.the speed limits in this country are set at 20,30,40,50,60,70 mph on differant roads yet we still have cars made that can double or triple the limit.can anyone tell me why?[/p][/quote]The only road vehicle made that won't exceed the maximum speed limit is.....a bicycle. Everything from cars, coaches, vans and trucks will easily exceed the maximum limit of 70 MPH if required. Luckily, like cyclists riding with no lights or helmets or through red lights, this very rarely occurs as motorists like cyclists are a law abiding group.[/p][/quote]Sam Whittingham 2009 133 km/h (83 mph), Barbara Buatois 2010 121 km/h (75 mph), Fred Rompelberg 1995 268 km/h (167 mph). All on bicycles, so don't give us that B/S that they won't exceed 70! :)[/p][/quote]was this on open roads or is this just a b/s comment from a car driver who pays his road tax and will not look up the truth ?[/p][/quote]it doesn't matter where it was, it was said that bicycles won't exceed 70Mph, I say that is not the case.[/p][/quote]in that case cars have been known to break the sound barrier.does that make for sense for against the cyclists[/p][/quote]you make no sense.[/p][/quote]the world land speed record for a car caused the sound barrier to be broken therefore breaking the speed of sound.the same as the fastest speeds for cycles have all been behind a speeding car,down the side of a volcano,down a ski run etc.but still the question is how will this and the b/s comment make a case for or against a safe area for cyclists to ride along side cars ? teamgreen

10:47pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

So many cyclists without lights, so many with inadequate lights, so many without helmets, so many which ignore red lights.

The time has come to require all cyclists to be taxed and issued with a registration plate.
It would bring in revenue which could fund cycle safety schemes, and enforcement, eg tickets for those not displaying adequate lights, etc
So many cyclists without lights, so many with inadequate lights, so many without helmets, so many which ignore red lights. The time has come to require all cyclists to be taxed and issued with a registration plate. It would bring in revenue which could fund cycle safety schemes, and enforcement, eg tickets for those not displaying adequate lights, etc Sotonians_lets_pull_together

10:52pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

If I drive around dusk (a dangerous time) in 20 mins I will typically see a dozen cyclists without lights.

They are a danger to themselves, and to all other road users.

Without bobbies on the beat pulling them over and fining them, this will NEVER change.

If bobbies were able to fine litter louts, drunks, and cyclists with no helmets or lights etc, it would go a long way to covering the cost of putting them on the beat.
If I drive around dusk (a dangerous time) in 20 mins I will typically see a dozen cyclists without lights. They are a danger to themselves, and to all other road users. Without bobbies on the beat pulling them over and fining them, this will NEVER change. If bobbies were able to fine litter louts, drunks, and cyclists with no helmets or lights etc, it would go a long way to covering the cost of putting them on the beat. Sotonians_lets_pull_together

11:11pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
So many cyclists without lights, so many with inadequate lights, so many without helmets, so many which ignore red lights.

The time has come to require all cyclists to be taxed and issued with a registration plate.
It would bring in revenue which could fund cycle safety schemes, and enforcement, eg tickets for those not displaying adequate lights, etc
2% of all UK traffic is cycling.

How is that going to bring in "revenue"? Dont you think regulation would actively SCARE cyclists and potential cyclists away?

And no, I dont see that many cyclists breaking the law. 2 weeks back I did a count from 7am and saw over 60 cyclists pass through the city centre - only about 3 didnt have lights or ran red. Fine, get the Police out there, I dont have an issue with that but it isnt that many.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: So many cyclists without lights, so many with inadequate lights, so many without helmets, so many which ignore red lights. The time has come to require all cyclists to be taxed and issued with a registration plate. It would bring in revenue which could fund cycle safety schemes, and enforcement, eg tickets for those not displaying adequate lights, etc[/p][/quote]2% of all UK traffic is cycling. How is that going to bring in "revenue"? Dont you think regulation would actively SCARE cyclists and potential cyclists away? And no, I dont see that many cyclists breaking the law. 2 weeks back I did a count from 7am and saw over 60 cyclists pass through the city centre - only about 3 didnt have lights or ran red. Fine, get the Police out there, I dont have an issue with that but it isnt that many. downfader

11:12pm Wed 22 Feb 12

downfader says...

Gah I mean 3% not 2.
Gah I mean 3% not 2. downfader

12:56am Thu 23 Feb 12

The Salv says...

Wear cycle helmets kids, they do save lives. If i was wearing a helmet when i came off as a teenager i wouldnt have spent the weekend in hospital. Later on in life was knocked by a motorist opening her door. I escaped serious injury thanks to safety helmet and was praised by the police and ambulance for wearing it. If you want insurance for cyclist then you are making a rangerous decisioh. It will lead to mandotory personal liability to all people with the only winners being the insurance companies.
Wear cycle helmets kids, they do save lives. If i was wearing a helmet when i came off as a teenager i wouldnt have spent the weekend in hospital. Later on in life was knocked by a motorist opening her door. I escaped serious injury thanks to safety helmet and was praised by the police and ambulance for wearing it. If you want insurance for cyclist then you are making a rangerous decisioh. It will lead to mandotory personal liability to all people with the only winners being the insurance companies. The Salv

12:56am Thu 23 Feb 12

The Salv says...

Wear cycle helmets kids, they do save lives. If i was wearing a helmet when i came off as a teenager i wouldnt have spent the weekend in hospital. Later on in life was knocked by a motorist opening her door. I escaped serious injury thanks to safety helmet and was praised by the police and ambulance for wearing it. If you want insurance for cyclist then you are making a rangerous decisioh. It will lead to mandotory personal liability to all people with the only winners being the insurance companies.
Wear cycle helmets kids, they do save lives. If i was wearing a helmet when i came off as a teenager i wouldnt have spent the weekend in hospital. Later on in life was knocked by a motorist opening her door. I escaped serious injury thanks to safety helmet and was praised by the police and ambulance for wearing it. If you want insurance for cyclist then you are making a rangerous decisioh. It will lead to mandotory personal liability to all people with the only winners being the insurance companies. The Salv

8:09am Thu 23 Feb 12

bigfella777 says...

SaintM wrote:
Sorry bigfeller. Do not understand your drift, must be one of those ineducated cyclist, can not read or see colours ie red to stop, no cycling signs to be ignored etc
I think you meant uneducated and cannot you illiterate chav.
[quote][p][bold]SaintM[/bold] wrote: Sorry bigfeller. Do not understand your drift, must be one of those ineducated cyclist, can not read or see colours ie red to stop, no cycling signs to be ignored etc[/p][/quote]I think you meant uneducated and cannot you illiterate chav. bigfella777

8:24am Thu 23 Feb 12

downfader says...

The Salv wrote:
Wear cycle helmets kids, they do save lives. If i was wearing a helmet when i came off as a teenager i wouldnt have spent the weekend in hospital. Later on in life was knocked by a motorist opening her door. I escaped serious injury thanks to safety helmet and was praised by the police and ambulance for wearing it. If you want insurance for cyclist then you are making a rangerous decisioh. It will lead to mandotory personal liability to all people with the only winners being the insurance companies.
Have you been drinking - perhaps you should wear a helmet as per my quote of the statistic earlier!

And it is a shame the Police didn't educate you on the door-zone! All cyclists should ride well clear of this area by a good 1.5m or over.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: Wear cycle helmets kids, they do save lives. If i was wearing a helmet when i came off as a teenager i wouldnt have spent the weekend in hospital. Later on in life was knocked by a motorist opening her door. I escaped serious injury thanks to safety helmet and was praised by the police and ambulance for wearing it. If you want insurance for cyclist then you are making a rangerous decisioh. It will lead to mandotory personal liability to all people with the only winners being the insurance companies.[/p][/quote]Have you been drinking - perhaps you should wear a helmet as per my quote of the statistic earlier! And it is a shame the Police didn't educate you on the door-zone! All cyclists should ride well clear of this area by a good 1.5m or over. downfader

8:59am Thu 23 Feb 12

The Salv says...

downfader wrote:
The Salv wrote: Wear cycle helmets kids, they do save lives. If i was wearing a helmet when i came off as a teenager i wouldnt have spent the weekend in hospital. Later on in life was knocked by a motorist opening her door. I escaped serious injury thanks to safety helmet and was praised by the police and ambulance for wearing it. If you want insurance for cyclist then you are making a rangerous decisioh. It will lead to mandotory personal liability to all people with the only winners being the insurance companies.
Have you been drinking - perhaps you should wear a helmet as per my quote of the statistic earlier! And it is a shame the Police didn't educate you on the door-zone! All cyclists should ride well clear of this area by a good 1.5m or over.
Was on the generic PC tablet last night, not always great for typing on.
.
Its great that you have an opinion on something that happened to me a few years ago that you never witnessed and also interesting on reading your assumptions on matter also.
.
Dont listen to this person, ALWAYS ALWAYS wear a cycle helmet. They can be the difference.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: Wear cycle helmets kids, they do save lives. If i was wearing a helmet when i came off as a teenager i wouldnt have spent the weekend in hospital. Later on in life was knocked by a motorist opening her door. I escaped serious injury thanks to safety helmet and was praised by the police and ambulance for wearing it. If you want insurance for cyclist then you are making a rangerous decisioh. It will lead to mandotory personal liability to all people with the only winners being the insurance companies.[/p][/quote]Have you been drinking - perhaps you should wear a helmet as per my quote of the statistic earlier! And it is a shame the Police didn't educate you on the door-zone! All cyclists should ride well clear of this area by a good 1.5m or over.[/p][/quote]Was on the generic PC tablet last night, not always great for typing on. . Its great that you have an opinion on something that happened to me a few years ago that you never witnessed and also interesting on reading your assumptions on matter also. . Dont listen to this person, ALWAYS ALWAYS wear a cycle helmet. They can be the difference. The Salv

9:04am Thu 23 Feb 12

The Salv says...

Just so you know Downfader I was cycling on a designated cycle path (not lane) and the motorist had illegally pulled into bus stop infront of me, as one of the witnesses said I dint stand much of a chance avoiding the door.
.
You could have actually used this incident to back up some of your claims but chose to go on the offensive instead.
Just so you know Downfader I was cycling on a designated cycle path (not lane) and the motorist had illegally pulled into bus stop infront of me, as one of the witnesses said I dint stand much of a chance avoiding the door. . You could have actually used this incident to back up some of your claims but chose to go on the offensive instead. The Salv

9:10am Thu 23 Feb 12

downfader says...

The Salv wrote:
Just so you know Downfader I was cycling on a designated cycle path (not lane) and the motorist had illegally pulled into bus stop infront of me, as one of the witnesses said I dint stand much of a chance avoiding the door.
.
You could have actually used this incident to back up some of your claims but chose to go on the offensive instead.
I'm not going on an "offensive" I'm trying to demonstrate defensive riding to you and others.

If the driver did as you suggest then I hope the police did him for it.

And no, people should never be emotionally bullied into wearing a helmet. They should do so out of informed choice. Otehrwise it leads to misinformation where good riding/driving practice can prevent the vast majority of incidents.

As I said above - read the studies. Dont take my word for it...
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: Just so you know Downfader I was cycling on a designated cycle path (not lane) and the motorist had illegally pulled into bus stop infront of me, as one of the witnesses said I dint stand much of a chance avoiding the door. . You could have actually used this incident to back up some of your claims but chose to go on the offensive instead.[/p][/quote]I'm not going on an "offensive" I'm trying to demonstrate defensive riding to you and others. If the driver did as you suggest then I hope the police did him for it. And no, people should never be emotionally bullied into wearing a helmet. They should do so out of informed choice. Otehrwise it leads to misinformation where good riding/driving practice can prevent the vast majority of incidents. As I said above - read the studies. Dont take my word for it... downfader

10:41am Thu 23 Feb 12

AlfredJones says...

downfader wrote:
AlfredJones wrote:
downfader wrote:
Ok lets clarify a few points:

-HELMETS
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

-RED LIGHT JUMPING
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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset



s/downloads/business



andpartners/traffic-



note-8-cycling-red-l



ights.pdf

(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?
What a daft statistic!
qualify your stats!
I think you will find that most cycling accidents (not just collissions) do not involve a direct hit to the head, rendering your statistic meaningless.
Don't be calling people ignorant. You will be quoting that a helmet doesn't save every motorcyclist next.
They make a difference when you hit your head on something hard.
I am not talking about NHS drinking stats, or stats for people getting drunk, so again useless stats (you arn't a local councillor are you??).

Of course motorists have a higher incidence of head injury. Look how close the B-pillar is to your head!
It isn't some great conspiracy theory, and no I don't think there needs to be a law to try to make - wear a helmet don't wear a helmet, your choice. I will continue to do so as I know that they work!
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredJones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Ok lets clarify a few points: -HELMETS 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 -RED LIGHT JUMPING 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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset s/downloads/business andpartners/traffic- note-8-cycling-red-l ights.pdf (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.[/p][/quote]...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![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]What a daft statistic! qualify your stats! I think you will find that most cycling accidents (not just collissions) do not involve a direct hit to the head, rendering your statistic meaningless. Don't be calling people ignorant. You will be quoting that a helmet doesn't save every motorcyclist next. They make a difference when you hit your head on something hard. I am not talking about NHS drinking stats, or stats for people getting drunk, so again useless stats (you arn't a local councillor are you??). Of course motorists have a higher incidence of head injury. Look how close the B-pillar is to your head! It isn't some great conspiracy theory, and no I don't think there needs to be a law to try to make - wear a helmet don't wear a helmet, your choice. I will continue to do so as I know that they work! AlfredJones

12:52pm Thu 23 Feb 12

downfader says...

AlfredJones wrote:
downfader wrote:
AlfredJones wrote:
downfader wrote:
Ok lets clarify a few points:

-HELMETS
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

-RED LIGHT JUMPING
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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset




s/downloads/business




andpartners/traffic-




note-8-cycling-red-l




ights.pdf

(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?
What a daft statistic!
qualify your stats!
I think you will find that most cycling accidents (not just collissions) do not involve a direct hit to the head, rendering your statistic meaningless.
Don't be calling people ignorant. You will be quoting that a helmet doesn't save every motorcyclist next.
They make a difference when you hit your head on something hard.
I am not talking about NHS drinking stats, or stats for people getting drunk, so again useless stats (you arn't a local councillor are you??).

Of course motorists have a higher incidence of head injury. Look how close the B-pillar is to your head!
It isn't some great conspiracy theory, and no I don't think there needs to be a law to try to make - wear a helmet don't wear a helmet, your choice. I will continue to do so as I know that they work!
But if it "saves just one life" why should motoring be exempt from helmet use?

http://www.wales.nhs
.uk/ourservices/unsc
heduledcarecondition
s/headinjury

^^For the 65% alcohol relation^^

And I accept that in statistics correlation is not proof - but that should be take equally for cycle helmets, should it not.

There is a definite effort to raise helmets and co when ever this debate comes up. How do they prevent accident and collision?

They don't. Its a point of logic.
[quote][p][bold]AlfredJones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AlfredJones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Ok lets clarify a few points: -HELMETS 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 -RED LIGHT JUMPING 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: www.tfl.gov.uk/asset s/downloads/business andpartners/traffic- note-8-cycling-red-l ights.pdf (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.[/p][/quote]...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![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]What a daft statistic! qualify your stats! I think you will find that most cycling accidents (not just collissions) do not involve a direct hit to the head, rendering your statistic meaningless. Don't be calling people ignorant. You will be quoting that a helmet doesn't save every motorcyclist next. They make a difference when you hit your head on something hard. I am not talking about NHS drinking stats, or stats for people getting drunk, so again useless stats (you arn't a local councillor are you??). Of course motorists have a higher incidence of head injury. Look how close the B-pillar is to your head! It isn't some great conspiracy theory, and no I don't think there needs to be a law to try to make - wear a helmet don't wear a helmet, your choice. I will continue to do so as I know that they work![/p][/quote]But if it "saves just one life" why should motoring be exempt from helmet use? http://www.wales.nhs .uk/ourservices/unsc heduledcarecondition s/headinjury ^^For the 65% alcohol relation^^ And I accept that in statistics correlation is not proof - but that should be take equally for cycle helmets, should it not. There is a definite effort to raise helmets and co when ever this debate comes up. How do they prevent accident and collision? They don't. Its a point of logic. downfader

1:08pm Thu 23 Feb 12

Niel says...

"There is a definite effort to raise helmets and co when ever this debate comes up. How do they prevent accident and collision?"

By studies and regression to the mean analysis, IIRC, wearing a helmet was actually more likely to cause over-confidence in the riders ability by drivers leading to more TOO CLOSE passes, and over-confidence by the rider and more risk taking by the rider as they felt protected...

One message I've seen recently sum's it up, "cars have bumpers, riders have bones, share road space responsibly".
"There is a definite effort to raise helmets and co when ever this debate comes up. How do they prevent accident and collision?" By studies and regression to the mean analysis, IIRC, wearing a helmet was actually more likely to cause over-confidence in the riders ability by drivers leading to more TOO CLOSE passes, and over-confidence by the rider and more risk taking by the rider as they felt protected... One message I've seen recently sum's it up, "cars have bumpers, riders have bones, share road space responsibly". Niel

10:15pm Thu 23 Feb 12

Dan Soton says...

Southampton's average car journey speed is below 17.8mph

-

a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will be no hardship for me

-

who's gonna give a whatever if it puts a stop to reckless car drivers speeding between and though traffic lights

-

Increased congestion means the average speed in our towns is now 17.8mph
-
by RAY MASSEY
Last updated at 19:09 26 July 2007
-
Britain's gridlocked roads are getting worse with traffic up as the average speed in major cities drops to just 17.8 mph.
Motorists are facing greater congestion as the gap widens even further between the Government's pledges on transport and the reality.
-
Today figures showed that of the 18 largest urban areas in England, excluding London, average peak speeds were lowest in Leicester, Bristol and Southampton.

-
Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
471022/Increased-con
gestion-means-averag
e-speed-towns-17-8mp
h.html
Southampton's average car journey speed is below 17.8mph - a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will be no hardship for me - who's gonna give a whatever if it puts a stop to reckless car drivers speeding between and though traffic lights - Increased congestion means the average speed in our towns is now 17.8mph - by RAY MASSEY Last updated at 19:09 26 July 2007 - Britain's gridlocked roads are getting worse with traffic up as the average speed in major cities drops to just 17.8 mph. Motorists are facing greater congestion as the gap widens even further between the Government's pledges on transport and the reality. - Today figures showed that of the 18 largest urban areas in England, excluding London, average peak speeds were lowest in Leicester, Bristol and Southampton. - Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 471022/Increased-con gestion-means-averag e-speed-towns-17-8mp h.html Dan Soton

10:18pm Thu 23 Feb 12

Dan Soton says...

Southampton's average car journey speed is below 17.8mph

-

a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will be no hardship for me

-

who's gonna give a whatever if it puts a stop to reckless car drivers speeding between and through traffic lights

-

Increased congestion means the average speed in our towns is now 17.8mph
-
by RAY MASSEY
Last updated at 19:09 26 July 2007
-
Britain's gridlocked roads are getting worse with traffic up as the average speed in major cities drops to just 17.8 mph.

-
Motorists are facing greater congestion as the gap widens even further between the Government's pledges on transport and the reality.
-
Today figures showed that of the 18 largest urban areas in England, excluding London, average peak speeds were lowest in Leicester, Bristol and Southampton.

-
Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
471022/Increased-con
gestion-means-averag
e-speed-towns-17-8mp
h.html
Southampton's average car journey speed is below 17.8mph - a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will be no hardship for me - who's gonna give a whatever if it puts a stop to reckless car drivers speeding between and through traffic lights - Increased congestion means the average speed in our towns is now 17.8mph - by RAY MASSEY Last updated at 19:09 26 July 2007 - Britain's gridlocked roads are getting worse with traffic up as the average speed in major cities drops to just 17.8 mph. - Motorists are facing greater congestion as the gap widens even further between the Government's pledges on transport and the reality. - Today figures showed that of the 18 largest urban areas in England, excluding London, average peak speeds were lowest in Leicester, Bristol and Southampton. - Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 471022/Increased-con gestion-means-averag e-speed-towns-17-8mp h.html Dan Soton

8:55am Fri 24 Feb 12

downfader says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Southampton's average car journey speed is below 17.8mph

-

a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will be no hardship for me

-

who's gonna give a whatever if it puts a stop to reckless car drivers speeding between and though traffic lights

-

Increased congestion means the average speed in our towns is now 17.8mph
-
by RAY MASSEY
Last updated at 19:09 26 July 2007
-
Britain's gridlocked roads are getting worse with traffic up as the average speed in major cities drops to just 17.8 mph.
Motorists are facing greater congestion as the gap widens even further between the Government's pledges on transport and the reality.
-
Today figures showed that of the 18 largest urban areas in England, excluding London, average peak speeds were lowest in Leicester, Bristol and Southampton.

-
Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

471022/Increased-con

gestion-means-averag

e-speed-towns-17-8mp

h.html
I believe Populas (the team who do research for the AA or RAC) may have made similar conclusions. Often I will ride along from one set of lights, or even a junction, get overtaken and catch up with the overtaker at the next stopping point.

I have a workmate who drives a similar distance/route to me. 6 miles across the itchen and through the city centre over to shirley. They get there in about 25 mins. I get there in 35 mins when taking it easy on the bike.

Piece of cake.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Southampton's average car journey speed is below 17.8mph - a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will be no hardship for me - who's gonna give a whatever if it puts a stop to reckless car drivers speeding between and though traffic lights - Increased congestion means the average speed in our towns is now 17.8mph - by RAY MASSEY Last updated at 19:09 26 July 2007 - Britain's gridlocked roads are getting worse with traffic up as the average speed in major cities drops to just 17.8 mph. Motorists are facing greater congestion as the gap widens even further between the Government's pledges on transport and the reality. - Today figures showed that of the 18 largest urban areas in England, excluding London, average peak speeds were lowest in Leicester, Bristol and Southampton. - Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 471022/Increased-con gestion-means-averag e-speed-towns-17-8mp h.html[/p][/quote]I believe Populas (the team who do research for the AA or RAC) may have made similar conclusions. Often I will ride along from one set of lights, or even a junction, get overtaken and catch up with the overtaker at the next stopping point. I have a workmate who drives a similar distance/route to me. 6 miles across the itchen and through the city centre over to shirley. They get there in about 25 mins. I get there in 35 mins when taking it easy on the bike. Piece of cake. downfader

5:02pm Fri 24 Feb 12

Fell Jogger says...

Helmets...
Are designed (and tested) to deal with the impact of a cyclist falling vertically downwards and hitting his head on a concrete kerb.
Hitting a car at 20 or 30 mph ? A helmet is going to be a fat lot of good. As downfader says, far more use to the "falling-down-drunk" brigade".

Just because one person broke his helmet rather than his head proves nothing.

I used to wear one - until I read some of the scientific & statistical literature, now I don't bother, and FWIW I've come off my bike twice (skids on ice or diesel slicks) and been knocked off by a motorist coming too close once.... On none of those occasion did I hit or hurt my head. Doesnt prove anything either way.... but read the statistics PLEASE.
Helmets... Are designed (and tested) to deal with the impact of a cyclist falling vertically downwards and hitting his head on a concrete kerb. Hitting a car at 20 or 30 mph ? A helmet is going to be a fat lot of good. As downfader says, far more use to the "falling-down-drunk" brigade". Just because one person broke his helmet rather than his head proves nothing. I used to wear one - until I read some of the scientific & statistical literature, now I don't bother, and FWIW I've come off my bike twice (skids on ice or diesel slicks) and been knocked off by a motorist coming too close once.... On none of those occasion did I hit or hurt my head. Doesnt prove anything either way.... but read the statistics PLEASE. Fell Jogger

7:25pm Fri 24 Feb 12

DanWeston says...

Lockssmart wrote:
I am sick to death of swerving out the way for cyclists with no road sense. They very rarely indicate what their intentions are. Most jump red lights and the really stupid ones cycle wearing ipods.
Why is that a problem?

I find the biggest cause for being unable to hear what is happening is car stereos blazing away!
[quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: I am sick to death of swerving out the way for cyclists with no road sense. They very rarely indicate what their intentions are. Most jump red lights and the really stupid ones cycle wearing ipods.[/p][/quote]Why is that a problem? I find the biggest cause for being unable to hear what is happening is car stereos blazing away! DanWeston

8:17pm Fri 24 Feb 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Southampton's average car journey speed is below 17.8mph

-

a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will be no hardship for me

-

who's gonna give a whatever if it puts a stop to reckless car drivers speeding between and through traffic lights

-

Increased congestion means the average speed in our towns is now 17.8mph
-
by RAY MASSEY
Last updated at 19:09 26 July 2007
-
Britain's gridlocked roads are getting worse with traffic up as the average speed in major cities drops to just 17.8 mph.

-
Motorists are facing greater congestion as the gap widens even further between the Government's pledges on transport and the reality.
-
Today figures showed that of the 18 largest urban areas in England, excluding London, average peak speeds were lowest in Leicester, Bristol and Southampton.

-
Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

471022/Increased-con

gestion-means-averag

e-speed-towns-17-8mp

h.html
A safe blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton


-
thanks downfader for that one, here's the latest congestion statistics from the Department for Transport, no Southampton times as yet... http://www.dft.gov.u
k/statistics/release
s/congestion-on-loca
l-authority-managed-
a-roads-oct-to-dec-2
011/

-
anyway.. I hope someday to buy an affordable (£7,000 or less) electric car.
-
I say hope because some say (could be big oil/petrol heads hyping the dangers up) whisper quiet electric cars are safety hazards to cyclists/pedestrians
.. but what the hay, most of the time Southampton's streets generate a din that drown's out any single car/lorry/bus that might hit you.
-
if electric cars are a danger it's reasonable to assume that a safe blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will accelerate their introduction.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Southampton's average car journey speed is below 17.8mph - a blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will be no hardship for me - who's gonna give a whatever if it puts a stop to reckless car drivers speeding between and through traffic lights - Increased congestion means the average speed in our towns is now 17.8mph - by RAY MASSEY Last updated at 19:09 26 July 2007 - Britain's gridlocked roads are getting worse with traffic up as the average speed in major cities drops to just 17.8 mph. - Motorists are facing greater congestion as the gap widens even further between the Government's pledges on transport and the reality. - Today figures showed that of the 18 largest urban areas in England, excluding London, average peak speeds were lowest in Leicester, Bristol and Southampton. - Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 471022/Increased-con gestion-means-averag e-speed-towns-17-8mp h.html[/p][/quote]A safe blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton - thanks downfader for that one, here's the latest congestion statistics from the Department for Transport, no Southampton times as yet... http://www.dft.gov.u k/statistics/release s/congestion-on-loca l-authority-managed- a-roads-oct-to-dec-2 011/ - anyway.. I hope someday to buy an affordable (£7,000 or less) electric car. - I say hope because some say (could be big oil/petrol heads hyping the dangers up) whisper quiet electric cars are safety hazards to cyclists/pedestrians .. but what the hay, most of the time Southampton's streets generate a din that drown's out any single car/lorry/bus that might hit you. - if electric cars are a danger it's reasonable to assume that a safe blanket 20 mph speed limit across Southampton will accelerate their introduction. Dan Soton

2:04pm Sun 26 Feb 12

Dan Soton says...

Lead.. Face-Saver for Fluoridation supporters ?

-

First off I like to thank everyone who made yesterday's Southamton Solent University anti Fluoridation meeting possible and listing to my concerns
-

My concern is.. Southern Waters meter is connected to my internal stopcock Via 80 feet of decaying 100 year old lead piping, similar to many of Southampton's older inner city houses.
-

The Fluoridation of Southampton's water supply will leach lead from from these pipes resulting in extremely high levels lead contaminating everyone's drinking water.. i.e. backing up into the main Water supply
-

I find it verging on the criminal that no has informed Southampton and all Fluoridated areas in England.
-

For their sake I hope Fluoridation advocates/supporters didn't know of this on going disater because they will be sued to hell and back.
-

Read Arkansas Water district operator.. http://www.carrollco
news.com/story/18171
01.html
-

Water district operator takes up anti-fluoride fight.
-

Sunday, February 19, 2012.

By Becky Gillette Special to the Carroll County News.
-

There are concerns that highly corrosive fluoride added to the water could leach lead from distribution pipes, which could cause lead contamination of drinking water, said Rene Fonseca, a licensed operator with the CBWD.
-

Fonseca said experience in other areas of the country with aging infrastructure has shown that fluoride chemicals added to the water supply can result in extremely high lead levels in children. In 2004, an investigation by the CDC found that 42,000 children in Washington D.C. 16 months old and younger had blood levels 2.4 times higher than normal.
Lead.. Face-Saver for Fluoridation supporters ? - First off I like to thank everyone who made yesterday's Southamton Solent University anti Fluoridation meeting possible and listing to my concerns - My concern is.. Southern Waters meter is connected to my internal stopcock Via 80 feet of decaying 100 year old lead piping, similar to many of Southampton's older inner city houses. - The Fluoridation of Southampton's water supply will leach lead from from these pipes resulting in extremely high levels lead contaminating everyone's drinking water.. i.e. backing up into the main Water supply - I find it verging on the criminal that no has informed Southampton and all Fluoridated areas in England. - For their sake I hope Fluoridation advocates/supporters didn't know of this on going disater because they will be sued to hell and back. - Read Arkansas Water district operator.. http://www.carrollco news.com/story/18171 01.html - Water district operator takes up anti-fluoride fight. - Sunday, February 19, 2012. By Becky Gillette Special to the Carroll County News. - There are concerns that highly corrosive fluoride added to the water could leach lead from distribution pipes, which could cause lead contamination of drinking water, said Rene Fonseca, a licensed operator with the CBWD. - Fonseca said experience in other areas of the country with aging infrastructure has shown that fluoride chemicals added to the water supply can result in extremely high lead levels in children. In 2004, an investigation by the CDC found that 42,000 children in Washington D.C. 16 months old and younger had blood levels 2.4 times higher than normal. Dan Soton

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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