Hampshire cyclists toast Wiggo's safety message (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Hope Bradley Wiggins' Olympic success will help make Hampshire safer for cyclists
10:29am Friday 3rd August 2012 in Travel
By Tom Moseley, Parliamentary Correspondent
Bradley Wiggins during the time trials on Wednesday
MORE cyclists were hurt on Hampshire’s roads last year than anywhere outside London, the Daily Echo can reveal.
A total of 816 riders were injured in 2011, up from 690 the previous year – and higher than every other police force area apart from the capital.
Campaigners hit out at the county’s record a day after Olympic hero Bradley Wiggins spoke out on cycle safety.
Lindsi Bluemel was left fighting for her life after a cycle crash in Bournemouth last year.
She said: “I think it’s shocking and it’s time that greater priority was given to cycle safety, as Bradley Wiggins said.
“We need to put this higher up the agenda.”
Hampshire’s accident record was revealed in figures given to Parliament by Transport Minister Mike Penning. Outside Greater London, Hampshire had the highest total of any police force area – ahead of Greater Manchester on 765.
Wiggins, who added the time trial to his Tour de France crown on Wednesday, called for more attention to be paid to cycle safety.
Southampton Cycling Campaign spokesman Dilys Gartside said it was “wonderful” he had brought the issue to the nation’s attention, but said helmets were not a “panacea for all ills”.
Ms Gartside called for segregated cycle lanes and lower speed limits on cycle routes, adding: “What’s going to make cycling safer is more people cycling.”
She welcomed the publicity brought by Wiggins’ success and agreed that cyclists should always wear helmets, but said her friend and fellow Southampton Cycling Campaign member Mark Brummell had been wearing one when he was killed after being in a collision with a car in the New Forest in May.
Mrs Bluemel, who is now back on her bike after recovering from her injuries, had had her helmet stolen in the weeks before the accident – and tried to buy a replacement.
However, she did think wearing one would have made a dramatic difference in her case as the impact had been on the side of her face.
She said: “It’s possible that it may have lessened the impact, I don’t know.”
Mrs Bluemel agreed helmets were important, but said it would be “ridiculous” if police were asked to enforce it.
It would be better for resources to be spent on providing free or cheap lights for cyclists, she said.
She added: “Junctions should be improved as well. That is more important than the helmets issue.”
Earlier this year 56 per cent of people responding to a Daily Echo poll said more needed to be done to encourage people to get on their bikes.
Mrs Bluemel agreed that cyclists sometimes “do ridiculous things”, putting themselves in danger.
Separate figures published by the Department for Transport show two cyclists were fined last year in Hampshire for riding through a red light, 21 for riding on a footpath, and two for “dangerous riding”.
What Wiggins said on cycling safety
OLYMPIC champion Bradley Wiggins has backed the idea for cyclists to wear helmets and be more safety conscious after a man died in a crash near the Olympic Park.
He was asked his views on the safety of London’s roads after Daniel Harris was hit by an Olympic bus on Wednesday.
It has not been revealed if the 28-year-old was wearing a helmet, but Wiggins said forcing cyclists to take precautions would make the roads safer. Wiggins, speaking after winning his gold medal in Wednesday’s time trial, said making it illegal to cycle without a helmet would make the roads safer “because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain’t got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue.”
He added: “[People] shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on and [they] should have lights and all those things.
“So I think when there’s laws passed for cyclists, then you’re protected and you can say, well, I’ve done everything to be safe.”
He later said he wasn't calling for a change to the law, but just saying what would he thought would help more people stay safe on the roads.
Comments(74)
bigfella777
says...
11:04am Fri 3 Aug 12
sotondude wrote:Here we go again, car drivers are perfect never break the rules blah,blah,blah.
I am not surprised at all that Hampshire has the highest rate of cyclists injured outside London.
Everyday i come across someone on a bike racing through Red Lights.
Even had a near miss last week, when some woman riding along the pavement decided to go straight across the road in Hamble Lane to get to the otherside, she claimed she never saw me, broad daylight, Sunny (for a change) and i drive a bright coloured car. Glad i was keeping a responsible eye on the road, otherwise she would have been flat as a pancake. She did have a cycle helmet on, so i'll give her that.
Its time the government legislates and forces all cycles to have third party insurance. Had i hit this woman, it would be my insurance premiums rising, not hers.
Boatman
says...
11:09am Fri 3 Aug 12
"Everyday i come across someone on a bike racing through Red Lights."
Why do you suppose Hampshire cyclists ride more recklessly than elsewhere?
In my view neither Hampshire CC nor Soton CC take cycling and the provision of tracks seriously. There have been attempts for years by local councillors to get a cycle path from Marchwood to Totton. Guess how much closer we are?
sotondude
says...
11:11am Fri 3 Aug 12
My point is i have to have insurance so why can't cyclists.
Its always the minority that are in the wrong but its the majority that have to pay in higher insurance premiums.
sotondude
says...
11:15am Fri 3 Aug 12
Boatman wrote:I'm not saying Hampshire cyclists ride more recklessly, i'm making a point that i see it everyday in Hampshire, i assume that it happens everywhere.
sotondude said: "Everyday i come across someone on a bike racing through Red Lights." Why do you suppose Hampshire cyclists ride more recklessly than elsewhere? In my view neither Hampshire CC nor Soton CC take cycling and the provision of tracks seriously. There have been attempts for years by local councillors to get a cycle path from Marchwood to Totton. Guess how much closer we are?
Torchie1
says...
11:21am Fri 3 Aug 12
__KTF__
says...
11:25am Fri 3 Aug 12
If it was all of them then its a bit of a non-story.
Georgem
says...
11:29am Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777
says...
11:33am Fri 3 Aug 12
Wearing a helmet wouldnt have helped that guy in London this week who was squashed under a coach.
Ciaran
says...
11:40am Fri 3 Aug 12
sotondude wrote:And what about children? How would they pay for cycle insurance?
I never say car drivers never break the rules, any car driver that says they dont break the rules are lying.
My point is i have to have insurance so why can't cyclists.
Its always the minority that are in the wrong but its the majority that have to pay in higher insurance premiums.
hulla baloo
says...
11:59am Fri 3 Aug 12
Ciaran wrote:They have parents, who are probably the people who also bought the bike.
sotondude wrote:And what about children? How would they pay for cycle insurance?
I never say car drivers never break the rules, any car driver that says they dont break the rules are lying.
My point is i have to have insurance so why can't cyclists.
Its always the minority that are in the wrong but its the majority that have to pay in higher insurance premiums.
nedscrumpo
says...
12:02pm Fri 3 Aug 12
southampton999
says...
12:06pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:Brilliant and very true.
Someone once said to me "Wearing a cycling helmet is the difference between taking a couple of Nurofen, and learning to walk again"
southampton999
says...
12:07pm Fri 3 Aug 12
nedscrumpo wrote:Hopefully you are joking!!!
Simple; ban them from the roads and save thousands of lives and even more scratch-damaged cars we have to pay for ourselves. Same goes for horses!
Ciaran
says...
12:09pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Brilliant.
This is of course before we explore how bike insurance would be policed.
For example, would bikes need registration plates?
Would cyclists need to carry documents with them at all times?
Would insurance companies need cyclists to have equivalents of MOTs and driving tests?
If a parent insures a child, who is liable - would it impact upon the parents' NCB?
The idea is a non-starter and is nowhere near being considered a realistic policy for government anyway, so it makes no difference - but it can be frustrating when people come up with ideas such as this without thinking beyond their own existence.
ecuk268
says...
12:10pm Fri 3 Aug 12
I believe that there's a cycle lane from Rushington roundabout into town, yet, on my way home from work, every night there's some bloke who insists on using the Totton by-pass and then Mountbatten Way.
Free country and all that, but he's really taking his life in his hands with the amount of HGV traffic on that route.
Georgem
says...
12:13pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777
says...
12:14pm Fri 3 Aug 12
ecuk268 wrote:Who's hands should your life be in if not your own?Ridiculous comment.
It would help if some cyclists used the cycle lanes provided.
I believe that there's a cycle lane from Rushington roundabout into town, yet, on my way home from work, every night there's some bloke who insists on using the Totton by-pass and then Mountbatten Way.
Free country and all that, but he's really taking his life in his hands with the amount of HGV traffic on that route.
TEBOURBA
says...
12:24pm Fri 3 Aug 12
It should be made obligatory for all cyclists to have third party insurance, wear a safety helmet and high viz clothing, and have their bikes fitted with an audible warning device and front and rear lights.
Last but not least it should be made an offence for cyclists to wear ear phones, text, or make phone calls when in motion!
Traffic wardens and police should enforce it --- not as happens now police, simply ignoring cyclists riding without lights, in the black of night,
hulla baloo
says...
12:29pm Fri 3 Aug 12
TEBOURBA wrote:Agreed.Will give cpo's something constructive to do.
Cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in and out of pedestrians on busy pavements, riding without lights at night, having no warning device ( a bell in my day) chucking their bikes down on the pavement obstructing shop doorways are an absolute menace.
It should be made obligatory for all cyclists to have third party insurance, wear a safety helmet and high viz clothing, and have their bikes fitted with an audible warning device and front and rear lights.
Last but not least it should be made an offence for cyclists to wear ear phones, text, or make phone calls when in motion!
Traffic wardens and police should enforce it --- not as happens now police, simply ignoring cyclists riding without lights, in the black of night,
Shoong
says...
12:29pm Fri 3 Aug 12
ecuk268
says...
12:36pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777 wrote:You've never heard that expression before?
ecuk268 wrote:Who's hands should your life be in if not your own?Ridiculous comment.
It would help if some cyclists used the cycle lanes provided.
I believe that there's a cycle lane from Rushington roundabout into town, yet, on my way home from work, every night there's some bloke who insists on using the Totton by-pass and then Mountbatten Way.
Free country and all that, but he's really taking his life in his hands with the amount of HGV traffic on that route.
I'll educate you. It means putting yourself at risk unnecessarily. Which is what he's doing.
bigfella777
says...
12:44pm Fri 3 Aug 12
TEBOURBA wrote:Why dont we just ban anything that is fun altogether and have some sort of Taliban regime.
Cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in and out of pedestrians on busy pavements, riding without lights at night, having no warning device ( a bell in my day) chucking their bikes down on the pavement obstructing shop doorways are an absolute menace.
It should be made obligatory for all cyclists to have third party insurance, wear a safety helmet and high viz clothing, and have their bikes fitted with an audible warning device and front and rear lights.
Last but not least it should be made an offence for cyclists to wear ear phones, text, or make phone calls when in motion!
Traffic wardens and police should enforce it --- not as happens now police, simply ignoring cyclists riding without lights, in the black of night,
Lone Ranger.
says...
12:55pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777 wrote:... So 62% are not caused by that
38% of all accidents are caused by a failure to look properly.At the end of the day the recession has caused more people to ride bikes to save money so obviously there will be more accidents if there are more bikes.
Wearing a helmet wouldnt have helped that guy in London this week who was squashed under a coach.
hulla baloo
says...
1:07pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777 wrote:As far as I am aware, the circumstances for his tragic death have not been confirmed.The helmet may not have helped him, but he may have ridden across a red light, cut inside the coach or ridden off the pavement, so for all we know, it may well have been his fault.
38% of all accidents are caused by a failure to look properly.At the end of the day the recession has caused more people to ride bikes to save money so obviously there will be more accidents if there are more bikes.
Wearing a helmet wouldnt have helped that guy in London this week who was squashed under a coach.
teamgreen
says...
1:08pm Fri 3 Aug 12
TEBOURBA wrote:you tw@t what about the cars that do the same or dont have a mot or road tax.as for the bell it is only legal to sell a bike with a bell but no law to use one.its people like you who upset car drivers and cyclists if you dont like it dont drive use the bus and get a life.
Cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in and out of pedestrians on busy pavements, riding without lights at night, having no warning device ( a bell in my day) chucking their bikes down on the pavement obstructing shop doorways are an absolute menace. It should be made obligatory for all cyclists to have third party insurance, wear a safety helmet and high viz clothing, and have their bikes fitted with an audible warning device and front and rear lights. Last but not least it should be made an offence for cyclists to wear ear phones, text, or make phone calls when in motion! Traffic wardens and police should enforce it --- not as happens now police, simply ignoring cyclists riding without lights, in the black of night,
bigfella777
says...
1:17pm Fri 3 Aug 12
hulla baloo wrote:The cycle lane around this busy junction had been closed to make way for the Olympic lane,thats why it happened.
bigfella777 wrote:As far as I am aware, the circumstances for his tragic death have not been confirmed.The helmet may not have helped him, but he may have ridden across a red light, cut inside the coach or ridden off the pavement, so for all we know, it may well have been his fault.
38% of all accidents are caused by a failure to look properly.At the end of the day the recession has caused more people to ride bikes to save money so obviously there will be more accidents if there are more bikes.
Wearing a helmet wouldnt have helped that guy in London this week who was squashed under a coach.
hulla baloo
says...
1:25pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777 wrote:A cycle lane is closed so thats your conclusion for the reason to the accident?
hulla baloo wrote:The cycle lane around this busy junction had been closed to make way for the Olympic lane,thats why it happened.
bigfella777 wrote:As far as I am aware, the circumstances for his tragic death have not been confirmed.The helmet may not have helped him, but he may have ridden across a red light, cut inside the coach or ridden off the pavement, so for all we know, it may well have been his fault.
38% of all accidents are caused by a failure to look properly.At the end of the day the recession has caused more people to ride bikes to save money so obviously there will be more accidents if there are more bikes.
Wearing a helmet wouldnt have helped that guy in London this week who was squashed under a coach.
mercrocker
says...
1:33pm Fri 3 Aug 12
gazdance
says...
1:42pm Fri 3 Aug 12
I see many motorists do stupid things. Many cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
I do wish cyclists would use cycle lanes where provided though. Bassett Avenue is a busy dual carriageway with cycle provision in either direction but you still get the inconsiderate few all over the road, causing congestion as they wobble all over the place.
Get on the cycle lane where you belong!
good-gosh
says...
1:44pm Fri 3 Aug 12
sotondude
says...
1:49pm Fri 3 Aug 12
good-gosh wrote:Thats a good one, keep one metre clear, i assume that also means cyclists keep a 1 metre distance from cars. BEST SUGGESTION YET!!
My perception is that cyclists of all ages are well aware of the protection that helmets provide. Those that don’t wear them go without from choice. I believe they should have that choice and not be forced to wear them by law. Let's not forget that many cyclists are youngsters and they should not be subjected to criminal proceedings for forgetting to, or choosing not to wear a helmet. If there has to be added law to protect cyclists, I would suggest it should be that motorists keep one metre clear of cyclists at all times.
bigfella777
says...
1:55pm Fri 3 Aug 12
hulla baloo wrote:Apparently so,and the coach driver was arrested.Why dont you read about it yourself instead of asking me, thats what I read myself ok.
bigfella777 wrote:A cycle lane is closed so thats your conclusion for the reason to the accident?
hulla baloo wrote:The cycle lane around this busy junction had been closed to make way for the Olympic lane,thats why it happened.
bigfella777 wrote:As far as I am aware, the circumstances for his tragic death have not been confirmed.The helmet may not have helped him, but he may have ridden across a red light, cut inside the coach or ridden off the pavement, so for all we know, it may well have been his fault.
38% of all accidents are caused by a failure to look properly.At the end of the day the recession has caused more people to ride bikes to save money so obviously there will be more accidents if there are more bikes.
Wearing a helmet wouldnt have helped that guy in London this week who was squashed under a coach.
hulla baloo
says...
1:59pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Torchie1
says...
2:13pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777 wrote:If you think back to the death of the child in the camp at Holmsley earlier this year, her parents were also arrested as is standard procedure with an unexplained death. One of the witnesses on the bus involved explained that the cyclist moved up alongside the bus with the intention of going straight ahead but placed himself in danger as he could not see the indicators on the bus showing that it was going to turn left. As the cyclist was also in the drivers blind spot, the accident was inevitable. Positioning himself in line with the rear of the bus would have been the safest and most sensible thing to do and I doubt whether any prosecution will follow the arrest as long as the paperwork is all in order and the driver hadn't been drinking. A sad end but a bit of an own goal.
hulla baloo wrote:Apparently so,and the coach driver was arrested.Why dont you read about it yourself instead of asking me, thats what I read myself ok.
bigfella777 wrote:A cycle lane is closed so thats your conclusion for the reason to the accident?
hulla baloo wrote:The cycle lane around this busy junction had been closed to make way for the Olympic lane,thats why it happened.
bigfella777 wrote:As far as I am aware, the circumstances for his tragic death have not been confirmed.The helmet may not have helped him, but he may have ridden across a red light, cut inside the coach or ridden off the pavement, so for all we know, it may well have been his fault.
38% of all accidents are caused by a failure to look properly.At the end of the day the recession has caused more people to ride bikes to save money so obviously there will be more accidents if there are more bikes.
Wearing a helmet wouldnt have helped that guy in London this week who was squashed under a coach.
OSPREYSAINT
says...
2:35pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Georgem
says...
2:53pm Fri 3 Aug 12
gazdance wrote:Further, a lot of cyclists are also motorists. By extension, then, a lot of motorists are also cyclists.
Cyclists aren't perfect. Motorists aren't perfect.
I see many motorists do stupid things. Many cyclists do whatever the hell they like.
I do wish cyclists would use cycle lanes where provided though. Bassett Avenue is a busy dual carriageway with cycle provision in either direction but you still get the inconsiderate few all over the road, causing congestion as they wobble all over the place.
Get on the cycle lane where you belong!
voiceinthewilderness
says...
3:06pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Boatman wrote:Don't make me laugh.
sotondude said:
"Everyday i come across someone on a bike racing through Red Lights."
Why do you suppose Hampshire cyclists ride more recklessly than elsewhere?
In my view neither Hampshire CC nor Soton CC take cycling and the provision of tracks seriously. There have been attempts for years by local councillors to get a cycle path from Marchwood to Totton. Guess how much closer we are?
How often do you see selfish lycra clad cyclists NOT USING THE SPECIALLY BUILT TRACKS>
They are a waste of money until cyclists have to PAY insurance etc.and are made to use the tracks.
Mark Asred
says...
3:14pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777 wrote:I first poster did not say car drivers were perfect only aired the problem he had with a cyclist.
sotondude wrote:Here we go again, car drivers are perfect never break the rules blah,blah,blah.
I am not surprised at all that Hampshire has the highest rate of cyclists injured outside London.
Everyday i come across someone on a bike racing through Red Lights.
Even had a near miss last week, when some woman riding along the pavement decided to go straight across the road in Hamble Lane to get to the otherside, she claimed she never saw me, broad daylight, Sunny (for a change) and i drive a bright coloured car. Glad i was keeping a responsible eye on the road, otherwise she would have been flat as a pancake. She did have a cycle helmet on, so i'll give her that.
Its time the government legislates and forces all cycles to have third party insurance. Had i hit this woman, it would be my insurance premiums rising, not hers.
Can I suggest that on your journey home today (that's drivers and cyclists) count the number of law breaking and errors by each group of road users and then see who are the victims.
When I try this I usually end up with many more cyclists at fault.
My personal hate, cyclists riding two or three abreast down a country lane and refusing to drop back to single file forcing the driver to either create a follow along at 12mph or trying to overtake using what little of the road is available.
Bradley Wiggins success will result in loads more 30 somethings trying to regain their youth by donning the lyrca and helmet and treating the roads as a race track.
good-gosh
says...
3:28pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777
says...
3:40pm Fri 3 Aug 12
And I wont be wearing a helmet or stopping at junctions either.
sampton
says...
3:44pm Fri 3 Aug 12
If you can't be bothered to mitigate injury by wearing one, then you probably shouldn't be cycling/motorcycling
/snow boarding/skate boarding etc etc anyway.
I don't see what the big fuss is about making them a legal requirement? They take 5 seconds to put on and take off and could save your head/brain from a serious impact.
Obviously there is only so much you can do to avoid injury in a cycling accident, but surely donning a lid is one of the best things you can do?
With regards to cyclists going through red lights/2 abreast and the like:
Anyone who goes through a red light is taking a huge risk, cyclists especially as it's rare that you (or me) vs over a ton of moving machinery will ever end in your (or my) favor.
As for riding 2 abreast, this is perfectly legal in fact; although understandably annoying in some cases. It doesn't take a lot for a cyclist to drop back a few metres and let the vehicles past. The problem is, when you do let them past there is sometimes one moron who does it at 60mph screaming past with barely any space given, which doesn't instill a lot of confidence.
Again, stupid people will do stupid things all the time. Be it driving, cycling or testing a shotgun trigger mechanism while simultaneously licking some dust off the barrel.
Can't we all just get along? haha
freemantlegirl2
says...
6:03pm Fri 3 Aug 12
agree with the last poster, car driver and a cyclist myself and I see people doing daft things all the time, includiing people on foot, motorbikes etc. that's human nature to some extent. If only people would respect their own safety and that of other road users and there really would be no problem!
Torchie1
says...
6:10pm Fri 3 Aug 12
bigfella777 wrote:Habits of a lifetime and all that?
Cant wait to cycle home from work tonight as I ride past all the lazy fat muppets sat in a queue polluting the planet and financing wars.
And I wont be wearing a helmet or stopping at junctions either.
TEBOURBA
says...
6:34pm Fri 3 Aug 12
The reason is that seat belts protect drivers and their passengers in the event of an accident.
The same would apply to a cyclist,who by wearing a helmet, high viz clothing, showing lights at night and obeying traffic signals, would dramatically reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries.
As for compulsory third party insurance I sincerely hope that those who disagree do not have their elderly relatives or young children bowled over by a bike and seriously injured or worse and have no recourse.
The first to complain would be the cretin contributors to this column who brag about riding with no helmet and not stopping at junctions let's hope they don't meet an Antar tank transporter coming the other way.
Boatman
says...
6:36pm Fri 3 Aug 12
sotondude wrote:So if Hampshire cyclists ride no more recklessly than in the country at large, to what do you attribute the higher than average casualty rate?
Boatman wrote:I'm not saying Hampshire cyclists ride more recklessly, i'm making a point that i see it everyday in Hampshire, i assume that it happens everywhere.
sotondude said: "Everyday i come across someone on a bike racing through Red Lights." Why do you suppose Hampshire cyclists ride more recklessly than elsewhere? In my view neither Hampshire CC nor Soton CC take cycling and the provision of tracks seriously. There have been attempts for years by local councillors to get a cycle path from Marchwood to Totton. Guess how much closer we are?
wizard
says...
6:51pm Fri 3 Aug 12
TEBOURBA wrote:So hi viz clothing would have the same effect as a seat belt???
The number of cars on the road has increased massively since seat belts were made compulsory and yet the number of fatalities has reduced --- FACT!
The reason is that seat belts protect drivers and their passengers in the event of an accident.
The same would apply to a cyclist,who by wearing a helmet, high viz clothing, showing lights at night and obeying traffic signals, would dramatically reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries.
As for compulsory third party insurance I sincerely hope that those who disagree do not have their elderly relatives or young children bowled over by a bike and seriously injured or worse and have no recourse.
The first to complain would be the cretin contributors to this column who brag about riding with no helmet and not stopping at junctions let's hope they don't meet an Antar tank transporter coming the other way.
You are a numpty if the highest order! Im betting you never ride a bike and you have a seriously fat ar**, do you have kids? Im betting not! as for meeting a transporter coming the other way is that a threat?
Torchie1
says...
7:28pm Fri 3 Aug 12
SaintM
says...
7:34pm Fri 3 Aug 12
TEBOURBA
says...
9:13pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Anyone who thinks that wearing a safety helmet, a high viz vest, displaying front and back lights, having an audible warning on their bike and obeying traffic signals isn't in the interests of cyclists' own safety is a complete and utter cretinaand should be confined to the nuthouse
Georgem
says...
10:00pm Fri 3 Aug 12
wizard wrote:You can tell all that about someone from one post? Wow!
TEBOURBA wrote:So hi viz clothing would have the same effect as a seat belt???
The number of cars on the road has increased massively since seat belts were made compulsory and yet the number of fatalities has reduced --- FACT!
The reason is that seat belts protect drivers and their passengers in the event of an accident.
The same would apply to a cyclist,who by wearing a helmet, high viz clothing, showing lights at night and obeying traffic signals, would dramatically reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries.
As for compulsory third party insurance I sincerely hope that those who disagree do not have their elderly relatives or young children bowled over by a bike and seriously injured or worse and have no recourse.
The first to complain would be the cretin contributors to this column who brag about riding with no helmet and not stopping at junctions let's hope they don't meet an Antar tank transporter coming the other way.
You are a numpty if the highest order! Im betting you never ride a bike and you have a seriously fat ar**, do you have kids? Im betting not! as for meeting a transporter coming the other way is that a threat?
wizard
says...
10:09pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:I can spot a complete kno* a mile away!
wizard wrote:You can tell all that about someone from one post? Wow!
TEBOURBA wrote:So hi viz clothing would have the same effect as a seat belt???
The number of cars on the road has increased massively since seat belts were made compulsory and yet the number of fatalities has reduced --- FACT!
The reason is that seat belts protect drivers and their passengers in the event of an accident.
The same would apply to a cyclist,who by wearing a helmet, high viz clothing, showing lights at night and obeying traffic signals, would dramatically reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries.
As for compulsory third party insurance I sincerely hope that those who disagree do not have their elderly relatives or young children bowled over by a bike and seriously injured or worse and have no recourse.
The first to complain would be the cretin contributors to this column who brag about riding with no helmet and not stopping at junctions let's hope they don't meet an Antar tank transporter coming the other way.
You are a numpty if the highest order! Im betting you never ride a bike and you have a seriously fat ar**, do you have kids? Im betting not! as for meeting a transporter coming the other way is that a threat?
Georgem
says...
10:38pm Fri 3 Aug 12
wizard wrote:What's a kno*? Is it anything like a knob?
Georgem wrote:I can spot a complete kno* a mile away!
wizard wrote:You can tell all that about someone from one post? Wow!
TEBOURBA wrote:So hi viz clothing would have the same effect as a seat belt???
The number of cars on the road has increased massively since seat belts were made compulsory and yet the number of fatalities has reduced --- FACT!
The reason is that seat belts protect drivers and their passengers in the event of an accident.
The same would apply to a cyclist,who by wearing a helmet, high viz clothing, showing lights at night and obeying traffic signals, would dramatically reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries.
As for compulsory third party insurance I sincerely hope that those who disagree do not have their elderly relatives or young children bowled over by a bike and seriously injured or worse and have no recourse.
The first to complain would be the cretin contributors to this column who brag about riding with no helmet and not stopping at junctions let's hope they don't meet an Antar tank transporter coming the other way.
You are a numpty if the highest order! Im betting you never ride a bike and you have a seriously fat ar**, do you have kids? Im betting not! as for meeting a transporter coming the other way is that a threat?
gristle
says...
11:06pm Fri 3 Aug 12
OSPREYSAINT
says...
7:13am Sat 4 Aug 12
bigfella777 wrote:Where would you want the wreath sent?
Cant wait to cycle home from work tonight as I ride past all the lazy fat muppets sat in a queue polluting the planet and financing wars.
And I wont be wearing a helmet or stopping at junctions either.
good-gosh
says...
9:45am Sat 4 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist
says...
12:11pm Sat 4 Aug 12
Torchie1 wrote:Good thing I have liability insurance for IF I ever have a lapse in judgement or concentration. ;)
Car drivers required legislation to first of all require the fitting of seat belts and then to make their use mandatory. Motorcyclists put up all the same arguments against being forced to wear helmets as today's cyclists are doing because at the time it was more of a 'poor mans' form of transport. Injuries to car drivers and motorcyclists have plummeted as a result of this sensible legislation. Cyclists will whinge and moan the same as motorists did but the benefits will be there long after the cost of the helmet is forgotten.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
12:19pm Sat 4 Aug 12
TEBOURBA wrote:Not all cyclists do those things and it is already illegal to use a hand held device while riding as when riding you are in control of a road vehicle... which is why I ride on the road, also check for blue signs with a picture of a bike and people together on it while using a path, if a cyclist rides on a path marked with such signs then they're legally allowed to ride on that path, though I wouldn't, too many chatty mums who think the extra width is for them to walk 3 abreast with 2 seat wide buggies to have an overly loud chin wag.
Cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in and out of pedestrians on busy pavements, riding without lights at night, having no warning device ( a bell in my day) chucking their bikes down on the pavement obstructing shop doorways are an absolute menace.
It should be made obligatory for all cyclists to have third party insurance, wear a safety helmet and high viz clothing, and have their bikes fitted with an audible warning device and front and rear lights.
Last but not least it should be made an offence for cyclists to wear ear phones, text, or make phone calls when in motion!
Traffic wardens and police should enforce it --- not as happens now police, simply ignoring cyclists riding without lights, in the black of night,
Ginger_cyclist
says...
12:20pm Sat 4 Aug 12
ecuk268 wrote:Probably uses it because it's much quicker.
It would help if some cyclists used the cycle lanes provided.
I believe that there's a cycle lane from Rushington roundabout into town, yet, on my way home from work, every night there's some bloke who insists on using the Totton by-pass and then Mountbatten Way.
Free country and all that, but he's really taking his life in his hands with the amount of HGV traffic on that route.
ohec
says...
12:31pm Sat 4 Aug 12
teamgreen wrote:It seems to me teamgreen has a life and is thinking of protecting others, he can also make his point without using abusive expletives which in my book makes him/her far more intelligent than you.
TEBOURBA wrote:you tw@t what about the cars that do the same or dont have a mot or road tax.as for the bell it is only legal to sell a bike with a bell but no law to use one.its people like you who upset car drivers and cyclists if you dont like it dont drive use the bus and get a life.
Cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in and out of pedestrians on busy pavements, riding without lights at night, having no warning device ( a bell in my day) chucking their bikes down on the pavement obstructing shop doorways are an absolute menace. It should be made obligatory for all cyclists to have third party insurance, wear a safety helmet and high viz clothing, and have their bikes fitted with an audible warning device and front and rear lights. Last but not least it should be made an offence for cyclists to wear ear phones, text, or make phone calls when in motion! Traffic wardens and police should enforce it --- not as happens now police, simply ignoring cyclists riding without lights, in the black of night,
Ginger_cyclist
says...
12:34pm Sat 4 Aug 12
good-gosh wrote:I'd say increase that distance to a whole car width at speeds over 30mph even though the highway codes rule 163 suggests a car width no matter what.
My perception is that cyclists of all ages are well aware of the protection that helmets provide. Those that don’t wear them go without from choice. I believe they should have that choice and not be forced to wear them by law. Let's not forget that many cyclists are youngsters and they should not be subjected to criminal proceedings for forgetting to, or choosing not to wear a helmet. If there has to be added law to protect cyclists, I would suggest it should be that motorists keep one metre clear of cyclists at all times.
ohec
says...
12:35pm Sat 4 Aug 12
ohec wrote:Sorry i made a mistake in my last post teamgreen should read TEBOURBA sorry.
teamgreen wrote:It seems to me teamgreen has a life and is thinking of protecting others, he can also make his point without using abusive expletives which in my book makes him/her far more intelligent than you.
TEBOURBA wrote:you tw@t what about the cars that do the same or dont have a mot or road tax.as for the bell it is only legal to sell a bike with a bell but no law to use one.its people like you who upset car drivers and cyclists if you dont like it dont drive use the bus and get a life.
Cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in and out of pedestrians on busy pavements, riding without lights at night, having no warning device ( a bell in my day) chucking their bikes down on the pavement obstructing shop doorways are an absolute menace. It should be made obligatory for all cyclists to have third party insurance, wear a safety helmet and high viz clothing, and have their bikes fitted with an audible warning device and front and rear lights. Last but not least it should be made an offence for cyclists to wear ear phones, text, or make phone calls when in motion! Traffic wardens and police should enforce it --- not as happens now police, simply ignoring cyclists riding without lights, in the black of night,
Ginger_cyclist
says...
12:35pm Sat 4 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:Agreed but only when it's not a shared use path, it also annoys me when I see pedestrians on cycle only paths.
Sorry but when I see cyclists on pavements it's quite annoying.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
12:47pm Sat 4 Aug 12
voiceinthewilderness wrote:No, the term "Build it and they will come" springs to mind, that's what happened in the Netherlands and it's been a raging success, they've even had to ban cars from many places because most people there don't even drive anymore, they cycle instead.
Boatman wrote:Don't make me laugh.
sotondude said:
"Everyday i come across someone on a bike racing through Red Lights."
Why do you suppose Hampshire cyclists ride more recklessly than elsewhere?
In my view neither Hampshire CC nor Soton CC take cycling and the provision of tracks seriously. There have been attempts for years by local councillors to get a cycle path from Marchwood to Totton. Guess how much closer we are?
How often do you see selfish lycra clad cyclists NOT USING THE SPECIALLY BUILT TRACKS>
They are a waste of money until cyclists have to PAY insurance etc.and are made to use the tracks.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
12:55pm Sat 4 Aug 12
TEBOURBA wrote:Just make it a legal requirement to sell a british cycling membership with all bikes, the membership comes with liability insurance and for the ride membership it's only £2 a month but it's paid annually so £24 a year and with that you also get discounts on stuff including insurance cover for your bike and yourself and a breakdown service for bikes.
The number of cars on the road has increased massively since seat belts were made compulsory and yet the number of fatalities has reduced --- FACT!
The reason is that seat belts protect drivers and their passengers in the event of an accident.
The same would apply to a cyclist,who by wearing a helmet, high viz clothing, showing lights at night and obeying traffic signals, would dramatically reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries.
As for compulsory third party insurance I sincerely hope that those who disagree do not have their elderly relatives or young children bowled over by a bike and seriously injured or worse and have no recourse.
The first to complain would be the cretin contributors to this column who brag about riding with no helmet and not stopping at junctions let's hope they don't meet an Antar tank transporter coming the other way.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
1:00pm Sat 4 Aug 12
Torchie1 wrote:I'm never going to trust motorists while riding my bike, not after a bluestar driver almost did to me what that bus driver did to a cyclist in London but while they were overtaking me while I was going 30mph in a 30 zone on Burseldon Road.
If cyclists put as much effort in to riding safely and legally as they are prepared to put in to arguing against any change that may affect and even help them, the injuries would be non-existent. If the government threatened to outlaw the wearing of cycle helmets, cycle lights, hi-viz vests etc I imagine cyclists would die in the rush to wear them. Just put your trust in the motorists and they'll look after you without any cost or inconvenience to yourself.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
1:07pm Sat 4 Aug 12
SaintM wrote:I have lights, helmet, hi-vis vest from the skyride, 115Db air horn and soon a helmet camera, I also obey traffic laws and signals, the registration and licenses wouldn't be policed due to being too expensive and the fact they already have to police half a billion drivers as it is and that's already difficult enough without adding more licenses to an already ever increasing amount.
I walk to work about 2 miles and not yet once seen a cyclist abide by the highway code and I mean NOT ONE. They are constantly hitting people on the pavement and never apologise and dare you ask them to ride properly, the language and yet they are in the wrong. I agree they should be givn a registration number plate and fined money and points that may change their attitude.
Torchie1
says...
5:58pm Sat 4 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Heaven forbid that the witness on the bus is telling the truth but they stated that the cyclist moved up the side of the bus with the intention of going straight ahead. Had he positioned himself correctly behind the bus where he could have seen the indicators and been fully visible to the driver, he may still be alive today. I admit to being in full admiration of your beliefs that you knew you were right all along even as the motor vehicle is squeezing your last breath from your tortured body. How satisfying it must be but what sort of idiot stands their ground when confronted by several tons of metal when the outcome can only ever be bad for you and your two wheeled friend?
Torchie1 wrote:I'm never going to trust motorists while riding my bike, not after a bluestar driver almost did to me what that bus driver did to a cyclist in London but while they were overtaking me while I was going 30mph in a 30 zone on Burseldon Road.
If cyclists put as much effort in to riding safely and legally as they are prepared to put in to arguing against any change that may affect and even help them, the injuries would be non-existent. If the government threatened to outlaw the wearing of cycle helmets, cycle lights, hi-viz vests etc I imagine cyclists would die in the rush to wear them. Just put your trust in the motorists and they'll look after you without any cost or inconvenience to yourself.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
6:33pm Sat 4 Aug 12
Torchie1 wrote:I agree that going up the left side of any, especially large vehicles is a terrible idea when it's in the left most lane because they may not indicate until right before the lights change or they may not look for you but so is overtaking a cyclist in the same vehicle when there obviously isn't enough room to do so safely because you don't know if the road surface will make the cyclist wobble into you or even make them fall off under your wheels.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Heaven forbid that the witness on the bus is telling the truth but they stated that the cyclist moved up the side of the bus with the intention of going straight ahead. Had he positioned himself correctly behind the bus where he could have seen the indicators and been fully visible to the driver, he may still be alive today. I admit to being in full admiration of your beliefs that you knew you were right all along even as the motor vehicle is squeezing your last breath from your tortured body. How satisfying it must be but what sort of idiot stands their ground when confronted by several tons of metal when the outcome can only ever be bad for you and your two wheeled friend?
Torchie1 wrote:I'm never going to trust motorists while riding my bike, not after a bluestar driver almost did to me what that bus driver did to a cyclist in London but while they were overtaking me while I was going 30mph in a 30 zone on Burseldon Road.
If cyclists put as much effort in to riding safely and legally as they are prepared to put in to arguing against any change that may affect and even help them, the injuries would be non-existent. If the government threatened to outlaw the wearing of cycle helmets, cycle lights, hi-viz vests etc I imagine cyclists would die in the rush to wear them. Just put your trust in the motorists and they'll look after you without any cost or inconvenience to yourself.
Torchie1
says...
8:44pm Sat 4 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Again I have to ask about the mentality of the cyclist who engages in a race with several tons of metal, not sure whether it's going straight on or turning left? At what point do you accept that cyclists can't enjoy the moral high ground while they're waiting for the Fir Brigade and Ambulance to rescue them when they could have sensibly hung back until it was safe to proceed.
Torchie1 wrote:I agree that going up the left side of any, especially large vehicles is a terrible idea when it's in the left most lane because they may not indicate until right before the lights change or they may not look for you but so is overtaking a cyclist in the same vehicle when there obviously isn't enough room to do so safely because you don't know if the road surface will make the cyclist wobble into you or even make them fall off under your wheels.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Heaven forbid that the witness on the bus is telling the truth but they stated that the cyclist moved up the side of the bus with the intention of going straight ahead. Had he positioned himself correctly behind the bus where he could have seen the indicators and been fully visible to the driver, he may still be alive today. I admit to being in full admiration of your beliefs that you knew you were right all along even as the motor vehicle is squeezing your last breath from your tortured body. How satisfying it must be but what sort of idiot stands their ground when confronted by several tons of metal when the outcome can only ever be bad for you and your two wheeled friend?
Torchie1 wrote:I'm never going to trust motorists while riding my bike, not after a bluestar driver almost did to me what that bus driver did to a cyclist in London but while they were overtaking me while I was going 30mph in a 30 zone on Burseldon Road.
If cyclists put as much effort in to riding safely and legally as they are prepared to put in to arguing against any change that may affect and even help them, the injuries would be non-existent. If the government threatened to outlaw the wearing of cycle helmets, cycle lights, hi-viz vests etc I imagine cyclists would die in the rush to wear them. Just put your trust in the motorists and they'll look after you without any cost or inconvenience to yourself.
downfader
says...
12:12pm Sun 5 Aug 12
Torchie1 wrote:You're making JUST as many assumptions about an ongoing investigation.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Again I have to ask about the mentality of the cyclist who engages in a race with several tons of metal, not sure whether it's going straight on or turning left? At what point do you accept that cyclists can't enjoy the moral high ground while they're waiting for the Fir Brigade and Ambulance to rescue them when they could have sensibly hung back until it was safe to proceed.
Torchie1 wrote:I agree that going up the left side of any, especially large vehicles is a terrible idea when it's in the left most lane because they may not indicate until right before the lights change or they may not look for you but so is overtaking a cyclist in the same vehicle when there obviously isn't enough room to do so safely because you don't know if the road surface will make the cyclist wobble into you or even make them fall off under your wheels.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Heaven forbid that the witness on the bus is telling the truth but they stated that the cyclist moved up the side of the bus with the intention of going straight ahead. Had he positioned himself correctly behind the bus where he could have seen the indicators and been fully visible to the driver, he may still be alive today. I admit to being in full admiration of your beliefs that you knew you were right all along even as the motor vehicle is squeezing your last breath from your tortured body. How satisfying it must be but what sort of idiot stands their ground when confronted by several tons of metal when the outcome can only ever be bad for you and your two wheeled friend?
Torchie1 wrote:I'm never going to trust motorists while riding my bike, not after a bluestar driver almost did to me what that bus driver did to a cyclist in London but while they were overtaking me while I was going 30mph in a 30 zone on Burseldon Road.
If cyclists put as much effort in to riding safely and legally as they are prepared to put in to arguing against any change that may affect and even help them, the injuries would be non-existent. If the government threatened to outlaw the wearing of cycle helmets, cycle lights, hi-viz vests etc I imagine cyclists would die in the rush to wear them. Just put your trust in the motorists and they'll look after you without any cost or inconvenience to yourself.
You also cant bleat about "moral high ground" whilst using the guilt by association paradox.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
12:35pm Sun 5 Aug 12
downfader wrote:Indeed.
Torchie1 wrote:You're making JUST as many assumptions about an ongoing investigation.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Again I have to ask about the mentality of the cyclist who engages in a race with several tons of metal, not sure whether it's going straight on or turning left? At what point do you accept that cyclists can't enjoy the moral high ground while they're waiting for the Fir Brigade and Ambulance to rescue them when they could have sensibly hung back until it was safe to proceed.
Torchie1 wrote:I agree that going up the left side of any, especially large vehicles is a terrible idea when it's in the left most lane because they may not indicate until right before the lights change or they may not look for you but so is overtaking a cyclist in the same vehicle when there obviously isn't enough room to do so safely because you don't know if the road surface will make the cyclist wobble into you or even make them fall off under your wheels.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Heaven forbid that the witness on the bus is telling the truth but they stated that the cyclist moved up the side of the bus with the intention of going straight ahead. Had he positioned himself correctly behind the bus where he could have seen the indicators and been fully visible to the driver, he may still be alive today. I admit to being in full admiration of your beliefs that you knew you were right all along even as the motor vehicle is squeezing your last breath from your tortured body. How satisfying it must be but what sort of idiot stands their ground when confronted by several tons of metal when the outcome can only ever be bad for you and your two wheeled friend?
Torchie1 wrote:I'm never going to trust motorists while riding my bike, not after a bluestar driver almost did to me what that bus driver did to a cyclist in London but while they were overtaking me while I was going 30mph in a 30 zone on Burseldon Road.
If cyclists put as much effort in to riding safely and legally as they are prepared to put in to arguing against any change that may affect and even help them, the injuries would be non-existent. If the government threatened to outlaw the wearing of cycle helmets, cycle lights, hi-viz vests etc I imagine cyclists would die in the rush to wear them. Just put your trust in the motorists and they'll look after you without any cost or inconvenience to yourself.
You also cant bleat about "moral high ground" whilst using the guilt by association paradox.
Torchie1
says...
6:58pm Sun 5 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Oddly enough the only assumption I made was that the witness from the bus who gave a truthful statement to the Police.The same witness then talked to the Press and the story appeared in the newspapers where it was widely read by many people including Wiggins who then went on to make a statement about his own fraternity and your foibles. If any of the statements were untrue then it will be revealed at the inquest just before the verdict of 'Death by misadventure' is announced. You argue from a very weak and exposed position trying to defend a poor soul who largely contributed to his own demise, don't try to change it to anything else.
downfader wrote:Indeed.
Torchie1 wrote:You're making JUST as many assumptions about an ongoing investigation.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Again I have to ask about the mentality of the cyclist who engages in a race with several tons of metal, not sure whether it's going straight on or turning left? At what point do you accept that cyclists can't enjoy the moral high ground while they're waiting for the Fir Brigade and Ambulance to rescue them when they could have sensibly hung back until it was safe to proceed.
Torchie1 wrote:I agree that going up the left side of any, especially large vehicles is a terrible idea when it's in the left most lane because they may not indicate until right before the lights change or they may not look for you but so is overtaking a cyclist in the same vehicle when there obviously isn't enough room to do so safely because you don't know if the road surface will make the cyclist wobble into you or even make them fall off under your wheels.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Heaven forbid that the witness on the bus is telling the truth but they stated that the cyclist moved up the side of the bus with the intention of going straight ahead. Had he positioned himself correctly behind the bus where he could have seen the indicators and been fully visible to the driver, he may still be alive today. I admit to being in full admiration of your beliefs that you knew you were right all along even as the motor vehicle is squeezing your last breath from your tortured body. How satisfying it must be but what sort of idiot stands their ground when confronted by several tons of metal when the outcome can only ever be bad for you and your two wheeled friend?
Torchie1 wrote:I'm never going to trust motorists while riding my bike, not after a bluestar driver almost did to me what that bus driver did to a cyclist in London but while they were overtaking me while I was going 30mph in a 30 zone on Burseldon Road.
If cyclists put as much effort in to riding safely and legally as they are prepared to put in to arguing against any change that may affect and even help them, the injuries would be non-existent. If the government threatened to outlaw the wearing of cycle helmets, cycle lights, hi-viz vests etc I imagine cyclists would die in the rush to wear them. Just put your trust in the motorists and they'll look after you without any cost or inconvenience to yourself.
You also cant bleat about "moral high ground" whilst using the guilt by association paradox.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
3:59pm Mon 6 Aug 12
Torchie1 wrote:As you said, we don't know that the "witness" is telling the truth so it's not anyones place to say who was at fault except the court of law, for all we know, the cyclist could have even been in overtaking safely but in the images I've seen, it seems most likely that the cyclist was riding on what seems like it could well be a shared use path and was crossing a road when he got hit which would account for the story of him going under the wheels which would point to the driver being at fault but then the cyclist might have been using the left olympic lane even though everyone's been told that it's against the law for the duration of the games, who knows, all I'm saying is that you shouldn't instantly blame one person but instead weigh up all the possibilities and that it could even be both parties at fault.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Oddly enough the only assumption I made was that the witness from the bus who gave a truthful statement to the Police.The same witness then talked to the Press and the story appeared in the newspapers where it was widely read by many people including Wiggins who then went on to make a statement about his own fraternity and your foibles. If any of the statements were untrue then it will be revealed at the inquest just before the verdict of 'Death by misadventure' is announced. You argue from a very weak and exposed position trying to defend a poor soul who largely contributed to his own demise, don't try to change it to anything else.
downfader wrote:Indeed.
Torchie1 wrote:You're making JUST as many assumptions about an ongoing investigation.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Again I have to ask about the mentality of the cyclist who engages in a race with several tons of metal, not sure whether it's going straight on or turning left? At what point do you accept that cyclists can't enjoy the moral high ground while they're waiting for the Fir Brigade and Ambulance to rescue them when they could have sensibly hung back until it was safe to proceed.
Torchie1 wrote:I agree that going up the left side of any, especially large vehicles is a terrible idea when it's in the left most lane because they may not indicate until right before the lights change or they may not look for you but so is overtaking a cyclist in the same vehicle when there obviously isn't enough room to do so safely because you don't know if the road surface will make the cyclist wobble into you or even make them fall off under your wheels.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Heaven forbid that the witness on the bus is telling the truth but they stated that the cyclist moved up the side of the bus with the intention of going straight ahead. Had he positioned himself correctly behind the bus where he could have seen the indicators and been fully visible to the driver, he may still be alive today. I admit to being in full admiration of your beliefs that you knew you were right all along even as the motor vehicle is squeezing your last breath from your tortured body. How satisfying it must be but what sort of idiot stands their ground when confronted by several tons of metal when the outcome can only ever be bad for you and your two wheeled friend?
Torchie1 wrote:I'm never going to trust motorists while riding my bike, not after a bluestar driver almost did to me what that bus driver did to a cyclist in London but while they were overtaking me while I was going 30mph in a 30 zone on Burseldon Road.
If cyclists put as much effort in to riding safely and legally as they are prepared to put in to arguing against any change that may affect and even help them, the injuries would be non-existent. If the government threatened to outlaw the wearing of cycle helmets, cycle lights, hi-viz vests etc I imagine cyclists would die in the rush to wear them. Just put your trust in the motorists and they'll look after you without any cost or inconvenience to yourself.
You also cant bleat about "moral high ground" whilst using the guilt by association paradox.
sotondude says...
11:01am Fri 3 Aug 12
Everyday i come across someone on a bike racing through Red Lights.
Even had a near miss last week, when some woman riding along the pavement decided to go straight across the road in Hamble Lane to get to the otherside, she claimed she never saw me, broad daylight, Sunny (for a change) and i drive a bright coloured car. Glad i was keeping a responsible eye on the road, otherwise she would have been flat as a pancake. She did have a cycle helmet on, so i'll give her that.
Its time the government legislates and forces all cycles to have third party insurance. Had i hit this woman, it would be my insurance premiums rising, not hers.