Call to make cycling safer (From Daily Echo)

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 !

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?

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

Shoong wrote:
Charge of the Lycra Brigade.

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.

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?

downfader wrote:

Shoong wrote:
Charge of the Lycra Brigade.

And how does a comment like that help the debate on road safety, Shoong?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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! :)

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...

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

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.

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