A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[Wolfshade]

There was an article (here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3986796.ece) that looked at pedestrian safety. To be honest I am not sure why pedestrians aren't forming a lobbying group the same way that cyclists have done, but that is a by-the-by.

From figures from the DfT it showed that there were 21 pedestrian KSI per billion km cycled compared with 24 pedestrain KIS per billion km driven.

(I have issue with the calculation of both number of cyclists and distance cycled, unlike cars where MOTs and insurance figures give a fair estimate of annual mileage).

Of the incidents that occur on the pavement only 2% involve cyclists, leaving 98% by motorists, which flies in the face of the dangers of cycling on the pavement.

I have issues with the advanced stop lines, they are a pet peeve. Firstly they encourage cyclists to filter on the left, which isn't a good place to be, especially at junctions. Then you have ones where there is no filter lane so no one can actually use it. Then even if you use it properly, you end up being in large vehicles blind spots!

Lorry blind spot:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f0bkF80p_Hs/UW3OND1965I/AAAAAAAABPs/hcV3JhLVpr4/s640/blindspot.jpg
ASL:
http://beyondthekerb.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/asl.jpg?w=450&h=338

It is worrying how similiar the design matches the blind spots...

[Wolfshade]

“If cyclists were more safety-conscious then families would not have to see [a policeman informing them that they had died].” - PC Deborah Gray, Essex police.

Victim blaming anyone?!

Imagine the outcry had a police spokes person had used the word "rape victim", or "stab victim" in lieu of cyclist.

This is how Operation Bluenose is launched. Notionally, the operation is to increase the cyclist safety, though the article in the Essex Chronicle(http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Men-don-t-like-wear-helmets-Crackdown-unsafe/story-20659647-detail/story.html) details how cyclists are being stopped and spoken to for doing legal things like not wearing ni-Viz and not wearing a helmet, yet there is no mention of the greatest risk to cyclist, the motorist.

Certainly, yes there is a requirement for cyclists to look after their own safety, but when the greatest risk is external factors there is only so much that you can do.

[Psychosplodge]

Idiot caught cycling on motorway (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-26336618)

[Wolfshade]

Not the first, won't be the last. I do like how he blamed the sat nav he used. Like those people who drive into ponds (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7362254.stm), or those people on mobilit scooters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5207465/Pensioner-on-mobility-scooter-rescued-from-motorway.html). Of course my all time favourite is Belgium woman drives 900 miles through 5 countries to pick up friend from station 38 miles away (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262149/Belgian-woman-67-picking-friend-railway-station-ends-Zagreb-900-miles-away-satnav-disaster.html).

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, technology is great but if you give it to an idiot...

[Wolfshade]

Never underestimate the ability of a sufficiently talented idiot.

[Wolfshade]

My new saddle:
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_900_nocrop/images/Clem%20Chen%20Saddle%20Sculptures/Clem%20Chen%20-%20Bike%20Seat%20Sculpture%20-%20Bite%20It%20Front.jpg

[60-second swordsman]

If people want to be cyclists in private, behind closed doors, then that's fine. I just don't want to hear about it.

[Wolfshade]

But it is beneficial for society!

won't somebody please think of the children...

[Wolfshade]

http://zapatopi.net/blog/self_protection_on_a_cycle-4.gif
http://zapatopi.net/blog/self_protection_on_a_cycle-1.gif
http://zapatopi.net/blog/self_protection_on_a_cycle-5.gif
http://zapatopi.net/blog/self_protection_on_a_cycle-6.gif
http://zapatopi.net/blog/self_protection_on_a_cycle-3.gif
http://zapatopi.net/blog/self_protection_on_a_cycle-7.gif

[Wolfshade]

Welll thoughout infrastructure:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/porteouverte.jpg

[Wolfshade]

A cyclist was forced to dial the emergency number to be rescued from the tray of a utility truck that he was flung into in a freak collision.

The Australian rider was overtaken by a 'ute' driver which turned in front of him at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, flinging him over his handlebars and into the back of the truck.

The rider was unharmed but was unable to attract the attention of the 61-year-old driver despite banging on the roof of his cab.

The driver failed to notice, continuing along his way with the cyclist standing in the tray of his vehicle.

Eventually the 26-year-old cyclist dialled 000 on his mobile phone to tell police of his predicament.

“The cyclist was reunited with his pushbike and the driver will receive an offence notice for failing to give way,” a police officer told the Brisbane Times.

[Psychosplodge]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-london-cycle-lanes-that-hate-cyclists

[Wolfshade]

And people wonder why cycling infrastructre is not used often.

True story today, I was feeling a little tired so decided to go onto the cycle lane rather than the road, and got a puncture :( Sad times. also pedestrians don't like it when you fly past them at 40mph...

[Wolfshade]

“I just don’t care because I’ve already been through a lot of bull**** and my car is like pretty expensive and now I have to fix it,” an Australian driver told police when she was questioned about a collision that resulted in a cyclist suffering severe injuries including a fractured spine.

“I’m kind of pissed off that the cyclist has hit the side of my car. I don’t agree that people texting and driving could hit a cyclist. I wasn’t on my phone when I hit the cyclist”, 21 year old Kimberly Davis said when interviewed by police in the Australian state of Victoria about the collision.

Her trial was told that Davis - who was driving on a provisional licence - had exchanged 22 text messages during her journey before hitting the cyclist and had used her phone 44 times in all. She originally faced 47 charges with one charge for every use of her phone.

It later emerged that between the time of the incident and this week's court hearing Davis was caught drink driving, registering a blood alcohol content reading of .07.

The 21-year old had been driving her friends to a local night club, and defense counsel Tony Robinson said that she had decided to drive because she was going to lose her license anyway.

After her collision with the cyclist Davis proceeded to drive on for 100 metres before pulling her car over to report the incident to the police.

She did not offer the cylist any assistance the court was told she remained in her car until the police arrived.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it wrong that I kinda like her attitude: Drink driving because she was already going to lose her licence.

[Psychosplodge]

Well you might as well be hanged for murder as opposed to a loaf of bread...

Idk what .07 means compared to our breath limit?

[Wolfshade]

As a provisional driver they have a 0 limit, but owing to natural fermentation in the gut and cough medicienes etc it isn't actually set at 0.

[Wolfshade]

The owner of a £2,500 GoCycle electric bike that was stolen in London got it back – after the thief phoned him up to ask for help in recharging it.

The 30-year-old happens to own e-bike online retailer Fullycharged.com and recently opened a shop on Old Street roundabout.

He’s also the authorised GoCycle dealer for the area, making him a rather obvious – if poorly-thought-out – point of contact for the person who had taken his bike once it ran out of power.

“The thief called me, unaware that it was my bike,” he said.

“He asked for a charger for a Go Cycle and I knew straight away it had to be the thief.

“I took down as many details for him as possible and then set about tracking him down.

“One of the guys at our warehouse has an old army truck so we piled in to that and turned up at his house.

“He was out, but his bemused mother was in and she got straight on the phone to her son to demand to know why he wanted an electric bike charger.

“A minute later he called me and asked why I was at his house and I said ‘you stole my bike.’

“He hung up and 20 minutes later the bike arrived at the warehouse in a taxi.”

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_600/images/News/Ben%20Jaconelli%20reunited%20with%20his%20GoCycle. jpg

[Wolfshade]

Change occurs when enough people outcry against injustice. While a lot of this thread is quite light hearted, there is a serious side to it, other than cycling is awesome and you should do it for the benefit of yourself and the rest of the world. But when a cyclist, or even a pedestrian, is killed or maimed using the road in a legal way there is a massive disparity between sentencing.


A Nottingham lorry driver who failed to stop after hitting a cyclist and causing massive life-threatening injuries has been jailed for 16 weeks and banned for five years.

Now this is really at the upper end of the spectrum.

Getting the Police to gather evidence to support this is rare, getting the CPS to prosecute with evidence is rarer still (The CPS has recently failed to prosecute despite the victim wearing a camera filming the whole incident).
So sucessfully getting a prosecution is quite an achievement, after all low sun is a perfectly acceptable excuse to kill people. (http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/category/offender/dazzled).
The usual is up to a year suspended sentence, with a driving ban for a further year.

It cannot be right that you can "accidentally" kill someone with a car and get less of a sentence then "accidentally" killing someone with any other object.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't know.
If I hit and killed someone in my car, and it wasn't my fault, but I couldn't prove that all that could be proved was there was half a cyclist on the wrong side of my windscreen, I wouldn't be chuffed with serving time for it.
And depending on the circumstances its possible to accidentlly kill and not serve time with other objects.
I dunno, maybe its a danger all road users accept as they essentially know this happens?

[Wolfshade]

But that would be the same for any crime, you would hope that you would not be convicted if you were not guilty of doing it.

I completely disagree about "accidents", the only time a collision occurs there is always someone at fault. Either you drive into someone or they drive into you. Or, a failure of those maintaing traffic controls.

At the moment there is presumed liability to take into account a number of circumstances, either if you rear end someone or pulling out from a minor road to a major, in those circumstances you are pressumed guilty unless you can prove that it wasn't.

If you were running around carrying a revolver with a hair trigger you would be careful in way that people who are driving aren't. Consider the number of people that talk on 'phones, eat cereal, put on make up etc rather than driving. Heck, watch Barely Legal Drivers on BBC3.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but I'm using your own words, you referred to accidentally killing someone.

I watched it. Once, I don't like shouting at the tv...

[Wolfshade]

Sorry, the accident was referring to the death, rather than the collision which you were at fault for.

[Psychosplodge]

So here we assume its the lycra louts fault correct?

[Wolfshade]

The law usually goes on the side of the more vulnerable. Statiscally, a cyclist is less likely to be at fault.

In this scernario, it was the driver who causes the collision and the cyclist dies. The death is the accidental consequence of the collision.

But again, certainly, if the cyclist causes the collision and they die because of it, the driver shouldn't be liable to prosecution because it.

But the issue is the number of incidents which get dismissed with the SMIDSY "Sorry Mate I Didn't See You" and that isn't an acceptable reason for any collision regardless of what the outcome.

[Morgrim]

In this case the driver failed to stop after being involved in a serious road accident. That's automatically taken as an admission of fault since if it was a genuine accident or even if it was caused by a cyclist being an idiot any decent person would stop and render assistance. So given that one party died and the other fled the scene I find it unlikely that the cyclist was the one responsible. It's possible! But given similar cases statistically unlikely.


What I really hate are cyclists that don't follow the rules and give the rest of them a bad name. There are dual use paths where I live and I walk on them to get to the city, and sooner or later I know I'm going to get run into by one of the idiots that race past far too close with no warning. You have a bloody bell, use it! If you are going fast enough that your wake blows my hair in my face and close enough to brush the tails of my coat, you are going to collide with me if I happen to do something as innocent as raise my elbow at the wrong moment. And given I was thoroughly within my marked lane and there was no sound of anyone approaching I am not going to check behind me before I make a motion.

I am seriously not looking forward to having a bone broken by those idiots but I'm scared it's only a matter of time.

[Psychosplodge]

I assumed as its a wagon he never noticed as opposed to fled, A wagon driver once told me he wrote off an army 4ton truck and never even noticed it had hit his 40 ton-er. I assume with your road trains this would be an even more likely occurrence.

[Wolfshade]

What I really hate are cyclists that don't follow the rules and give the rest of them a bad name.
I think that this is the same in most groupings. Like the motorists who runs the red light, or the lorry driver who drives over his legal hours etc. It is unfortunate that in a society such minorities come to to be crystalised to form a majority stereotyped view.

Like all australians being BBQing sport mad outdoory types.


There are dual use paths where I live and I walk on them to get to the city, and sooner or later I know I'm going to get run into by one of the idiots that race past far too close with no warning. You have a bloody bell, use it! If you are going fast enough that your wake blows my hair in my face and close enough to brush the tails of my coat, you are going to collide with me if I happen to do something as innocent as raise my elbow at the wrong moment. And given I was thoroughly within my marked lane and there was no sound of anyone approaching I am not going to check behind me before I make a motion.

Dual use paths are inadequate, and often ill concieved. They fail to take into account pedestrian requirements or cyclist requirements.

There are ones near me and they are segregated with one side being pedestrain the other being cyclist and I will always meet someone on the wrong side. This is before you take into account any street furniture and bus stops in the way.
Like this:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/springfieldroad.jpg

or
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/doughiska_galway.jpg

- - - Updated - - -


I assumed as its a wagon he never noticed as opposed to fled, A wagon driver once told me he wrote off an army 4ton truck and never even noticed it had hit his 40 ton-er. I assume with your road trains this would be an even more likely occurrence.

Surely, this says that there is something significantly wrong. If a lorry can take out a 4 ton army truck what can it do to a pedestrian?

There needs to be better cab visbility and better collision zones that push things away rather than drag them underneath.

- - - Updated - - -

Lorrys are involved in statistically higher number of road fatalities than cars even taking into account their much lower flow rate.

[Psychosplodge]

Surely, this says that there is something significantly wrong. If a lorry can take out a 4 ton army truck what can it do to a pedestrian?

There needs to be better cab visbility and better collision zones that push things away rather than drag them underneath.

- - - Updated - - -


Lorrys are involved in statistically higher number of road fatalities than cars even taking into account their much lower flow rate.


Yes. That makes sense. Was it here you posted something about a redesigned cab shape?

[Wolfshade]

Yes, the one that UKIP voted against.

Here is the design approved: http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/Truck_Final_update2.pdf

Basically,more shpaed nose to increase areodynamics 3-5% estimated saving which would then incorporate a crumplezone to lessen damage in collisions (instead of hit engine block...) the rounded shape also pushes things around rather than just being dragged down,

- - - Updated - - -


What I really hate are cyclists that don't follow the rules and give the rest of them a bad name.

Actor Alec Baldwin was led away in handcuffs yesterday after being arrested in New York City for riding the wrong way up Fifth Avenue.

http://static1.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1790265.1399993784!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/alec-baldwin.jpg

a police source said that after the 56-year-old was stopped by officers at around 10.15am yesterday morning and asked for identification, "He became belligerent, yelling and screaming at the officers, 'I don't have ID. Just give me the f*cking summonses.'"

[Wolfshade]

The Insitute for Public Policy Research published a rather interesting read:

Why the UK needs to reform motoring taxes (http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/publications/pdf/The-long-road-to-ruin_May2014.pdf)

In summary:

The burden of VED and Fuel Duty lies heaviest on the poorest, so this is a regressive measure that has been unreformed for the past century. The fairer system would be to replace these two systems with a new one based on teh road usage of each individual driver. (Sounds like pay-per-mile motoring to me...)

With the average cost of owning a car running at £90.70 per week, and average fuel costs at £32.10 per week. This leaves the poorest forced out of the car ownership market and outside of central london the public tranposrt is often inadequate, meaning that they are left using taxicabs to take journeys. Indeed research shows that the poorest quintile of the population take more expensive taxi trips each year than any other income quintile.

The biggest trouble is that the forecast revenue from fuel duty, ved and vat on fuel duty £37.82 billion, which is twice the transport budget. So to re-address this issue the government needs to find a new revenue to generate this level of tax.

However, this status quo cannot continue, even if one is not concerned with the fairness of the system, with 2/3rds of the worlds largest economies taking carbon emission controls this has lead to car manufacturers developing cleaner and more efficient engines. These more efficient engines therefore use less fuelk meaning those buying fuel buy lesss of it, so the treasury gains less fuel duty & vat on the fuel duty, indeed in 2010 fuel duty reciepts halved, (though this is in at least part down to the economic down turn and scarp for cash schemes).

Current cost forecast look principally at the congestion Cost to the economy (£22 billion by 2025) and damage to the road surface (£10.5 billion to get the roads back to a "reasonable" condition currently). But ignore many other factors such as air pollution, which is currently regarded as the second biggest public health hazard in the UK after smoking, attributable to more deaths in 2008 than obesity and alcohol abuse combined. The most recent annual health costs for air pollution are £16.3 billion, and the economic costs £22.7 billion. These are then worsened by congestion both generally and those who are stuck in congestion suffer greater exposure to these than those who don't. The British Medical Association has stated that the annual cost of transport-related physical inactivity in England is £9.8 billion, in addition to the £2.5 billion annual healthcare costs of obesity.

[Psychosplodge]

If it makes my motoring cost more I'm against it.

[Wolfshade]

If it changes your behaviour it would minimise it. Moreover it would save the NHS billions, so why motiring itself might increase the cost of the NHS would go down and could reduce your general tax bill

[Psychosplodge]

I already drive a minimal amount due to rising costs, I can't really reduce my car use further.

[Wolfshade]

Well this is the point, you spend proportionally more of your income on your car than a rich person, and such regressive taxes are unfair (hence income tax is stepped). And with more efficient engines this means that revenues from from fuel must decline so unless usage massively increases, which given the cost and the "cost of living crisis" people getting into cars isn't increasing as quickly as efficiencys are, in order to maintain the same level of tax revenue the tax and duty on fuel must similiarly increase (this is not taking into account how the price of oil rises externally anyway).

[Psychosplodge]

I can't see it working out cheaper.
It never does.

[Wolfshade]

One would hope it would be, though how you assess people's income bracket at the petrol pump is beyond me. It is a ticking bomb though that will need some address.

The bottom line is two opposite pulling factors. 1) Revenue is declining and 2) The cost of the revenue is increasing (so while the governement makes more money by people motoring, in the long run the health costs associated with the inactivitiy and air polution means that it ends up a net cost)..

[Wolfshade]

One model:

For example, by abolishing VED, reducing fuel duty by 50 per cent and introducing a price-per-mile charge of 9.5p on all roads except minor ones, the Treasury would stand to gain a net benefit of £120 million per year.

Back of the envelope calculation:

Annual Average Mileage: 8,200 (the RAC)
Average MPG of cars sold: 46 (the AA)
Average Emissions of cars: 133 g/km (2001-2011; Gov.uk)
Average cost of fuel: 129.5p/l (AA, May 14)
Fuel Duty : 57.9p (Gov, Unleaded) + VAT ;)

Therefore the average car is band E costing £130

So using the average MPG and mileage and costs you can work out the cost of fuel.

So the current "average" car is about £1,179 per year.

Under the model described above, without VED and half duty you end up with a total cost of £1,505 per year, or a 28% uplift in cost.

Working through the rough numbers still assuming the average VED costs, you only end up cheaper if you do under 2,400 miles...

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah I do 15k a year...

- - - Updated - - -

So I imagine I'd be worse off.

[Wolfshade]

What is your VED band (or amoutn you pay at the moment) and average MPG?

[Psychosplodge]

£265 for 12months iirc
and 30-32 MPG according to the trip computer.

[Wolfshade]

£250 more, or an extra 8%

With my more economic, (higher mpg, lower VED band) and slightly less miles 12k, it would cost me an additional £700, 53%.

[Psychosplodge]

:confused:

shouldn't yours be lower?

[Wolfshade]

In actual £s mine is a bit cheaper, but comparing rises, I would be better off with a big inefficient car!

[Psychosplodge]

Its not inefficient, Nobody reaches these published figures :D

[Wolfshade]

Only because you drive at real world conditions, with the air con attached, dashboard and alternator connected...

[Psychosplodge]

So if I just half dismantle the car I might get more mpg?

[Wolfshade]

Yup, you weren't really using the airbags, internal lighting, rear seats, carpeting, et al.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, my back seats really don't get as much use as they should...

[Wolfshade]

Yeah, my back seats really don't get as much use as they should...

Not sure if that is a euphamism or not...

- - - Updated - - -

Because I like reading financial results, here are some snippets from Halfords (or Hellfails if you prefer, and I do.)

The bikes-to-car-acessories group’s total sales increased by 8 per cent in the year to 28 March 2014 to reach £940 million, with pre-tax profits after non-recurring items rising 2.3 per cent to £72.6 million.

Shares in Halfords were lifted nearly 10% to 484p as the company revealed a 42% rise in underlying sales of cycling-related goods in the most recent three months.

Attributed to the warm summer, the olympics, the cyling agenda, the common wealth games and the Tour de Yorkshire.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/22/halfords-sales-shares-surge-cycling-summer

- - - Updated - - -

Also, how the Norwegians do Traffic Safety

It is rather good and makes a rather blunt point that how some people behave behind the wheel of a car is totally removed from how they would behave in the rest of their


http://www.youtube.com/embed/5Vb0S3W6yOs

[Psychosplodge]

It could be :D

The Tour de Yorkshire is going to be terrible, they've picked the worst bits of Sheffield to go through originally with an intention of finishing at a venue that isn't there anymore... should have gone out to the peaks to the west and come in through huntersbar and to finish in the city centre...

[Wolfshade]

It gets better, last month, the Association of Train Operating Companies announced details of the carriage of bicycles on long-distance services around the weekend of the Grand Depart on Saturday 5 July, saying that people without a reservation for their bike would be unlikely to be able to board the train they wanted. Which is a nice gesture as they don't need to do that sort of thing. Now, local operators including Northern Rail and Grand Central have confirmed that no reservations can be made for bikes on their services, and that none of the companies involved plan to provide additional carriages for bicycles, and that only two bikes are allowed on Northern Rail’s services. As a result, fans of the race travelling by train are being urged not to bring a bike with them.

[Psychosplodge]

The council hasn't even announced a full list of road closures and times yet. Apparently they've been available for the west yorkshire section for ages.

[Wolfshade]

There is this lovely tome: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310060/consultation-document.pdf

It basically lays out all traffic control measures, both existing, new and recommendations.

Reading through it, as I know you will there are some lovely little tidbits like removing the requirement to illuminate some signs...

But the meaty stuff as (with my cycling hat on) starts at Section 5, pp22. "Measures to improve cycling facilities". Now remember this is only a consulation document.

Measures that will be prescribed that have not been in use before:
1 The removal of the requirement for a lead-in lane or gate at ASLs. This will permit cyclists to cross the first stop line at any point, allowing them to position themselves where they feel it is most appropriate ASLs at crossings as well as at junctions
2 Removing the requirement for signs indicating off-road cycle routes to be lit
3 Allowing smaller signs for off-road cycle routes (these proposals are not included within the draft Schedules but will be in the final version)
4 Allowing zig-zag markings at pedestrian crossings to be offset from the kerb by up to 2m, to allow cycle lanes to continue through the controlled area
5 Where pedestrian zone signs include the “no motor vehicles” sign, the zone will now be referred to as a “pedestrian and cycle zone”. This will help people's understanding of the difference between the “no vehicles” and “no motor vehicles” signs


Now lets see.
#1 - Brilliant idea. Currently there are several places without a feed in lane so the ASL is unusable. Also, nothing is worse than swinging to the very left to enter an ASL to try and turn right especially if you are doing this as the lights change, you end up on the wrong side of the road for your turn and no chance to get back into position before the lights change again (unless the traffic is light).

#2 & 3 - Meh

#4 - Makes sense, and stops having to merge and de-merge (yes that is the techincal term) so fair enough

#5 - I am not sure about this and might cause confusion of when is a pedestrian zone a pedestrian zone.


There is a proposal for a new zebra crossing that also includes a cycle crossing to the one side of the black and white striped pedestrians. With changes to the law to mean that road users will have to give way to mounted cyclists as well as pedestrians. While I am technically in favour of this change, it would be easier (and take up less space) to enable cyclists to cross on the existing zebra crossing, my concern is that if cyclists on an off-road cycle lane have priority at this crossing that they will continue at speed onto the crossing without giving the road users sufficient time to see them and react.


There is a proposal for low level traffic lights for cyclists, like normal traffic lights only at about 1.5m with the cycle sign being illuminated by the red amber and green. This could be used to give cyclists a head start at junctions whihc could be very important especially during right hand turns.


Now the big one. Cycle Streets

The idea is to create zones of "Cycle streets"

We will be taking forward the opportunity to trial the “Cycle Streets” concept within the revised TSRGD. This is a bold initiative, which is being considered by some of the Cycle Cities and London, possibly including a ban on overtaking on lightly trafficked roads where cycle flows are high. Subject to any scheme trial, this prohibition could be accompanied by an advisory speed limit of 15 mph.

So this is a mandatory 15 mph zone with no overtaking of cycles. How this will be enforced I am not sure, and the wording is that it would be used on roads where cycle flows are high, but these seems a little strange. If the goal is to get more people cycling then this infrastructure would need to be placed where they want people cycling and not where they are currently. I hope that the idea would be something a kin to a parrallel route but on a sideroad/rat run rather than the main through roads.

[Psychosplodge]

No. 20MPH zones are bad enough. 15MPH is a joke.

[Wolfshade]

Yup, a bad joke. Most existing road cyclists (those on road bikes, not moutnain bikes) do much quicker than that, so it is fine as long as cyclists can overtake slow cars.

I imagine a lot depends where they are implemented. Most side roads and residential roads shouldn't have a 30mph zone anyway.

[Psychosplodge]

Those that do that on roads not upto it would break whatever limit was there anyway.

[Wolfshade]

Just for some perspective, the Dutch, (yes as always the dutch) only use cycle streets where cycles out number cars 2 to 1.

[Wolfshade]

South Oz police threaten to fine unhelmetted riders on anti-compulsion protest ride.

Background: Australia has compulsory helmet laws. This annual cycle rally rides in protest against this. Police say they will ticket people ($153 fine).

Firstly, are the Police right to fine them? Yes. The law is the law no matter how you feel about it and flouting it to make a pont may be correct thing to do morally speaking, the Police have little compulsion but to enforce the law as it is written.

So why are they protesting?

The argument goes, "Cycling casualties are too high, so making them wear a helmet will protect them". This is akin to saying "Stabbings are too high, so we will make people wear stab jackets". It address the symptom not the cause.

The evidence that wearing a helmet makes one safer, unlike in the case of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, is sketchy. Published papers go from saying it improves safety, to it makes no difference, to it makes things worse.

The big issue is that compulsory helmet wearing decreases cycling participation, which consequently has a negative impact on the public activity levels and the cost to the state of these obsece issues.

Examples from around the world show that improved infrastructure increases safety more so then any helmet law does and addresses the issue of "fear of cycling on roads", which a mandatory law only helps to enforce.

Associate Professor Robert Atkinson of the Australian Medical Association SA states that "Overseas experience is not necessarily directly applicable here". So the experiances of New York, Israel, the Netherlands etc. just doesn't work in Australia.

Indeed not even New Zealand's experiance is apparently valid. Below is a graph to show injury rates and participation rates:

http://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg

The studies quoted at the bottom of the graph summarise the NZ experiance as follows:

1. Lower cycling rates owing to incovinence of having to wear a helmet, and "dangerising" cycling (i.e. making it appear more dangerous than it really is.
2. Reduction of cyclists also means that "Safety In Numbers" affect is lessened which itself causes participation drop off. [This is why there tends to be hubs of high participation]
3. Risk compensation. Internally: those wearing a helmet feel safer so take additional risks, leading to more injuries and Externally: those seen to be wearing a helmet are percieved as "safer" so motorists take additional risks around them.
4. Effectiveness of current helmet design.

Hopefully, this law can be repealed and some common sense take prevail.

[Wildeybeast]

I take on board your points, but surely the fundamental argument is 'wearing a helmet offers your head more protection than not wearing one'. That should trump any other concerns shouldn't it?

[Wolfshade]

Unfortunately the "fundamental answer" is no. It doesn't, either from an indivdual point of view or a societal. Studies advocating helmet wearing will show that it is safer to wear one, other studies show it offers no addtional protection and some even argue that it actually makes head trauma worse. Not to mention provinding 0% protection for the rest of the body...

Wearing a helmet should be an individual's choice.

I wear a helmet whenever I cycle for two reasons:
1. Somewhere to mount my camera
2. Avoid arguments about whether or not I should wear my helmet

But I shouldn't have to wear it for protection.

There are three ways that I would need a helmets protection:

1. Going too fast for road conditions - in which case the helmet, rated up to 12 mph, is useless.
2. Defective road surface - again chances are I will be going quicker than 12mph and the issue is that the road should be safe to use.
3. Involved in a collision - this is massively more likely to be because another vehicle hits me rather than it being my fault, and again being hit by a vehicle doing 30mph is beyond the helmets remit.

In cases 2 & 3 a helmet serves as a flakk jacket against being stabbed, it deals with the symptom but not the underlying cause. Universal helmet wearage (I am not sure that that is a word) will not resolve these issues.

From a societal view, the cost of lethegy is staggering.

Estimates of the direct costs to the NHS for treating overweight and obesity, and related morbidity in England, have ranged from £479.3 million in 1998 to £4.2 billion in 2007. Estimates of the indirect costs (those costs arising from the impact of obesity on the wider economy such as loss of productivity) over the same time period ranged between £2.6 billion and £15.8 billion.

Now, I grant you that this is caused by a lack of cycling, availability of high calory convinence food is certainly a driver.

The British Medical Association has stated that the annual cost of transport-related physical inactivity in England is £9.8 billion, in addition to the £2.5 billion annual healthcare costs of obesity. If we get people out of cars and onto bikes or walking for their small journeys (Of all trips made in 2012, 20% were less than one mile in length, 66% less than 5 miles and 95% were less than 25 miles.) You would make significant in-roads to the obsecity issues (and do a big step forward for congestion reduction and air pollution).

If people are scared into thinking cycling is dangerous then this puts people off taking it as a method of transport. Cycling is less dangerous than gardening, yet we don't have mandatory protective equipment to gardening (though most people make some form of risk assessment, not mowing the lawn in flip flops, wearing gloves when handling thorns).

Injury rates go down where there is proper infrastructure. That is more effective than mandatory helmet laws, which decrease participation and increase the fear. Proper safe on road cycling infrastructre makes riders safer, reduces the fear (which is a significant blocker to cycling) and is good for the eceonomy and environment.

[Wildeybeast]

1) gardening may be more dangerous in terms of number accidents, but the number of head trauma accidents is almost certainly higher in cycling.

2) cycling may not be inherently dangerous, but the helmet is there for protection in case. People don't wear seat belts expecting to have an accident, they wear them in case they do.

3) I agree that more should be done to encourage and improve cycling for a variety of reasons, but anyone who wouldn't cycle because they have to wear a helmet is just looking for an excuse.

[Wolfshade]

1) There is no data
2) There is no conclusive evidence that helmets actually help improve KSI rates, unlike wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1071.html in fact the latest paper 2011, Alberta Canada brought in mandatory helmet laws. Result? Reduction in cyclists, increase in head injuries. With only 44% as many children cycling, there should have been only 44% as many injuries – i.e. 44% of 1676 = 744. The observed post-law number of injuries – 1676 per year – is 2.37 times higher than would have been expected for the amount of cycling. In contrast, the safety of adult cyclists (who were not affected by the law) improved. Now I do agree that this is totally counter intuitive.
3) The evidence time and time again shows that mandatory helmet laws decrease cycling rates, so knowing that and knowing that they don't improve KSI rates, why add another barrier?

Why stop at cyclists, far more pedestrians are killed or injured than cyclists so what do you propose pedestrians wear helmets and body armour?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh found some data for head injury
Hospital admissions for head injury:

All causes: 30,533
Cyclists: 2,183
Cycling represents 7.1% of all head injuries

Proportion of all injuries that involve head injury:

All causes: 34.2%
Cyclists: 37.6%
Pedestrians: 43.7%

- - - Updated - - -

So any argument that cyclists need helmets for safety is a weaker argument than a pedestrian needs a helmet...

[Morgrim]

Unfortunately I have no clue where to find it online, but there was a study done on australian cyclists under the age of 18 that suggested head trauma is by far the most common form of serious injury and that helmets do significantly help avoid that. I suspect that the difference in studies is because kids are a lot more likely to be involved in falls or collisions that don't require another person. After all you're mixing inexperience, recklessness, stunts etc with a group that tends not to be in areas where cars and pedestrians are.

Speaking of personal experience I know a kid who arguably had their life saved by a helmet, it was part of a school bike ride and his front wheel came off at speed (turns out the quick release bolt was defective). Straight over the handlebars and head smashed against the concrete, ended up in hospital with a broken jaw and concussion. Helmet was smashed. The police officer accompanying us got gifted the shattered helmet to use as a visual aid for other school kids.

All that said, while I firmly believe that helmets should be compulsory for under 18s, I can see the logic of making them optional for adults where the greatest threat is motor vehicles and not trees.

[White Tiger88]

I hate the local Bicyclers they cut off cars,taunt drivers & Scream at people for fun........The sad part being most are over the age of 40. (Also had a few yell "MEAT IS MURDER" well cutting of people......)

[Psychosplodge]

tasty tasty murder...

http://i58.tinypic.com/anfuoy.png

[Wolfshade]

I am sure that there are examples where it was useful, but if the crash was at speed, then the helmet is only designed to withstand impacts of 12mph so anything above that you are on your own... Unfortunately, the stats on compulsory helmet laws are quite quite clear, it decreases participation, and in some cases like Alberta, New Zealand, it increases injury rate.


From the Insitute for Public Affairs, Australia

The most extensive study of the real-world effects of MHLs[Mandatory Helmet Law] on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found ‘enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries'.

Even after 20 years and plenty of research, there is still no compelling evidence that Australia's compulsory helmet laws have reduced injury rates on a population-wide basis.

While there is evidence that wearing a helmet will provide some protection from a knock to the head, the benefit is small. Severe head injuries amongst cyclists are not particularly common, and helmets do not prevent all or even a high proportion of those that might occur, but rather provide some marginal decrease in the likelihood of injury.

...
MHLs change people's behaviour and perception of risk. Some cyclists take more risks while riding with a helmet than they would without, while studies have shown that some motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists, than unhelmeted ones. This tendency for individuals to react to a perceived increase in safety by taking more risk is known as risk compensation.

Importantly, helmet laws severely reduce the number of cyclists on the road, leading to increased risk among those who remain through reduced safety in numbers, a researched and acknowledged influence on cyclist accident and injury rates.

Unsurprisingly, compulsory helmets have also discouraged cycling.
...
MHLs are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are inconsistent. Pedestrians and car occupants are each responsible for more hospital patient days for head injuries than cyclists. Despite this, few argue that compulsory walking and driving helmets are essential for safety.

How serious injuries are designated they of course skew rates to head trauma as this is by and large teh most sensitive area of the body.

WT88 - Unfortunately, you get dicks everywhere.

[Wolfshade]

Latest news from the Crown Prosecution Service - Professional drivers colliding with cyclists does not fail the standard of being a “competent motorist” while using a Donnachadh McCarthy, co-founder of Stop Killing Cyclists, said: “This alarming news about faulty sensors on a truck working for the Mayor’s own Crossrail project highlights the wider failure of the Mayor to crack down on the shocking estimated 30 per cent of London’s trucks that are believed to be faulty.hands free device.

(http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/nursing-assistant-who-died-cycling-to-work-at-hospital-was-killed-by-a-crossrail-truck-9450239.html)

Sigh.

After pressure from Boris, all construction vehicles working on CrossRail are required to have sensors fitted to make them more safe around cyclists (given the totally out of proportion number or KSI involving consruction vehicles). unfortunately 2 out of 3 weren't working. Though this is of course not an offense as it is a voluntary agreement.

Donnachadh McCarthy, co-founder of Stop Killing Cyclists, said: “This alarming news about faulty sensors on a truck working for the Mayor’s own Crossrail project highlights the wider failure of the Mayor to crack down on the shocking estimated 30 per cent of London’s trucks that are believed to be faulty."

[This 30% comes from a stop and check operation performed by VOSA last year in the city]

Bear in mind that Crossrail Programme Director, said: “HGVs that do not comply with our increased requirements will be refused entry to Crossrail worksites and turned away incurring financial cost to individual contractors." So it looks like this is just more vapourware. Words and not actions, otherwise the defective sensors would have been picked up when it arrived at site. Who knows how many months it had been driving without them working.

[Wolfshade]

Two Things.

1st: Cyclist in Virginia has watched too much Breaking Bad, upon being stopped it was found that he had a mobile meth lab in his back pack.

2nd:

In February, a joint statement from the Road Danger Reduction Forum (RDRF), CTC, London Cycling Campaign, RoadPeace and the Association of Bikeability Schemes called for the stickers, which have appeared on HGVs, vans, taxis and buses, to be removed by the end of March from all vehicles other than lorries, as originally intended.

However, this has not been done. A spokeswoman said that it would require a “substantial amount of time and money to remove the existing stickers from circulation, effort that would otherwise be devoted to improving the safety of vulnerable road users.”

Roger Geffen, campaigns and policy director at CTC, quoted on the RDRF’s website, said: “TfL says it knows of no evidence that these stickers are changing drivers’ behaviour, but that’s only because nobody has looked for the evidence.

“However an inquest has been told that a deceased cyclist had failed to observe a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker, as if that somehow meant they were at fault.

“We also know of a case where a cyclist, who had been cut up and abused by a left-turning lorry driver, phoned up the company’s ‘How’s my driving’ reporting line, only to be told that he was in the wrong because the lorry had a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker.

“If that’s how these stickers are affecting people’s attitudes, it seems pretty obvious that they will worsen people’s behaviour too.

“It is ironic that Transport for London is working hard alongside CTC and others in pressing the government to give cyclists greater priority and safety at junctions,” he continued.

“Yet these stickers are clearly giving drivers the impression that it’s up to cyclists themselves to stay out of harm’s way. Instead of denying that there’s a problem,

“TfL really needs to act before these stickers cause yet more deaths and injuries to cyclists because of drivers turning left without looking properly,” he concluded.

[Wolfshade]

In a rather worrying prescience (.

A lawyer nicknamed ‘Mr Loophole’ who has helped a string of celebrity clients avoid being convicted of motoring offences says that pedestrians should have to wear high-visibility clothing at night. The lawyer, Mr Feeman, had been representing a client who ran over a rabbi and killed him.

Mr Freeman said: "Had Mr Steinberg been wearing something reflective[he was wearing black as is the tradition with orthodox jews], this tragic collision might well have been averted.

"Sadly, because he was invisible, Mr Steinberg has lost his life.

"His family are left distraught, the community has been robbed of a much loved and respected rabbi and a young man must now live with the guilt for the rest his life.

"The time has now come for the government to require pedestrians to effectively light up at night.

"We are now living in hard-pressed economic times, when councils are saving money by switching off street lights at night.
"I'm not suggesting everyone must wear a hi-vis jacket - but something reflective that would give them a visible presence, such as a vest, arm bands or belt.

"Pedestrians, motorists and cyclists all share road space and in my view must assume responsibility for their visibility."

[Psychosplodge]

That's his job though isn't it?
To make the best case for the defence.

[Wolfshade]

I agree that is his job, but I find the whole concept behind the idea repugnant. It is arguing that 12 year old girls wouldn't be victims of peadophilia if they didn't dress so provocatively.

It is victim blaming, and is abhorrent.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah there is that aspect of it.
But its basically what he's famous for isn't it?

[Wolfshade]

Yup, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman

Disgusting. Like tax evaders

[Wildeybeast]

In a rather worrying prescience (.

A lawyer nicknamed ‘Mr Loophole’ who has helped a string of celebrity clients avoid being convicted of motoring offences says that pedestrians should have to wear high-visibility clothing at night. The lawyer, Mr Feeman, had been representing a client who ran over a rabbi and killed him.

Mr Freeman said: "Had Mr Steinberg been wearing something reflective[he was wearing black as is the tradition with orthodox jews], this tragic collision might well have been averted.

"Sadly, because he was invisible, Mr Steinberg has lost his life.

"His family are left distraught, the community has been robbed of a much loved and respected rabbi and a young man must now live with the guilt for the rest his life.

"The time has now come for the government to require pedestrians to effectively light up at night.

"We are now living in hard-pressed economic times, when councils are saving money by switching off street lights at night.
"I'm not suggesting everyone must wear a hi-vis jacket - but something reflective that would give them a visible presence, such as a vest, arm bands or belt.

"Pedestrians, motorists and cyclists all share road space and in my view must assume responsibility for their visibility."

Perhaps he is imagining an armband with a bright blue star on. That would definitely have saved the rabbis life.

Round my way, the council has upgraded all the street lights to 'artificial sun' status, so there's no chance of not seeing anyone.

[Morgrim]

Unless someone is actually walking on the road - in which case yeah, I can understand how a driver could hit someone wearing all black at night - a car should never be in the same area a pedestrian is. So there is no point wearing a reflective article of clothing because the car is supposed to stay ON THE ROAD and there are lots of non-reflective non-person things that are not on the road at well. Like trees. Or power poles. Or large rocks. And nobody is saying they should be made reflective.

[Wolfshade]

Yes, I think it is an issue of shifting responsibility. If it is dark and you cannot see a non-illuminiated object with your lights on there are two concerns here:

Firstly, are the headlights to legal standards.
Secondly, is the person's eyesight good enough to drive at night.

Unfortunately, like the helmet debate, there is a lot of propaganda and the car lobby is a very stong one (I mean come on, how can you crimininalse crossing the road for example (So much for freedom of movement)).

It is like these signs:
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_600/images/News/Cyclists%20stay%20back%20sticker%20(CC%20licensed% 20image%20by%20happy%20days%20photos%20and%20art:F lickr).jpg
Originially, these were intended purely for the large construction vehicles that are horredus in terms of there KSI rates. Concerns were raised that these would lead to cyclists being treated as a second class road user. TfL argreed with the concerns and said they would remove the stickers on all but the construction/tipper trucks. However, now TfL say its too costly to do as they are now on Buses, Taxis, Vans etc.
Now spin on and we hear reports of an inquest has been told that a deceased cyclist had failed to observe a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker, despite them having no legal bearing. We also know of a case where a cyclist, who had been cut up and abused by a left-turning lorry driver, phoned up the company’s ‘How’s my driving’ reporting line, only to be told that he was in the wrong because the lorry had a ‘cyclists stay back’ sticker.

It seems that there is an issue of risk mitigation occuring once again, just as pedestrian KSI rates increased when mandatory seat belts were introduced. The stickers in these two examples made the driver feel more safe around cyclists and so engaged in much riskier behaviour.

Maybe I need a sticker on my arse saying "Cars stay back".

[Psychosplodge]

Not "please pass wide"?

[Wolfshade]

I thought you were going to say "Wide Load"

[Psychosplodge]

lmao, i'd imagine with cycling everyday you'd be thinner than me so how could I possibly make that joke? :D

[Wolfshade]

Encouraging people to walk or cycle to work instead of driving cars would reduce the £10 billion a year “burden” on the NHS spent tackling diabetes, according to MPs.

A cross-party group of MPs took part in the annual parliamentary bike ride from Kensington to Westminster this morning, convening in the House of Lords for a debate on cycle safety.

“At a time when we have millions of pre-diabetic adults, if cycling was a pill, every GP across the country would be prescribing it,” said Mary Creagh, the shadow transport secretary.

“In terms of added value, in terms of concentration for kids in lessons, in terms of massive health benefits - get more people walking and cycling and we’ll have gone some way to reducing that £10 billion a year burden on the NHS from diabetes.”

Dame Sally Davies, the government’s chief medical officer, said last year: “Cycling for all or part of your 150 minutes of physical activity each week can help to prevent or manage over 20 long-term conditions, including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and mental health problems.”

---

This comes in the same week where it was annouced that parents could save £642 per annum by walking/cycling/scottering their children to school rather than driving. Let alone the fringe benefits on congestion reduction.

[Wolfshade]

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_600/images/News/Trans%20Am%20Bike%20Race%20logo.JPG

I am sure that you have all been following this cross america race with keen interest!

Yorkshireman Mike Hall wins the inaugrial race in the early hours of the morning.

The race is quite an ecclectic mix of endurance and strategy. For instance Hall's average pace is 13.1 mph, yet 2nd place man Canadian Jason Lane is 14 mph. Hall decided to spend more time cycling and less time sleeping to gain a large advatange, at the end spending about 27 hours longer in the saddle over the course of the 2.5 weeks.

Interesetingly, Juliana Buhring, is currently in 4th.

[Wolfshade]

The number of people killed on Britain’s roads fell by 2 per cent to 1,713 in 2013 – the lowest level since national records were first kept in 1926, according to the Department for Transport (DfT). Drops were recorded in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured, but the DfT says it’s unclear whether that reflects an ongoing downwards trend.
During 2013, there was an 8 per cent fall in cyclist fatalities, which stood at 109 compared to 118 in 2012. The DfT pointed out, however, that during the past six years, the number of cyclists killed has fluctuated between around 100 and 120, making it impossible to assess whether the latest year-on-year reduction reflects a long-term trend, or whether it is a one-off fluctuation.

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/preview_500/images/News/GB_cyclists_killed_or_seriously_injured,_2000-13_(source_DfT).JPG
Set against the 2005-09 average, while the number of deaths of cyclists last year recorded a fall of 16 per cent, the number of those who were seriously injured was up by nearly a third at 31 per cent. Total cyclist casualties were up 18 per cent in 2013 compared to the average for 2005-09.

[Psychosplodge]

So is it a case off bar some new technology we've reached a point were thats how many deaths we get a year?

[Wolfshade]

Possibly.

If we were to ban lorries then the death rate would drop dramatically....

There are several things that could be done about it more seriously, with existing levels of technology.

+ Segregated infrastructure - that would remove conflict between the two quite well.
+ Dual use roads - That is rather than fully seperate infrastrucutre, just road designs being made taking into account the different methods that are using it, e.g. ASL at busy right hand turns, cyclist lights etc.
+ Increase cycling numbers - There is a safety in numbers affect, if you get a steady stream of cyclists on roads then people become more familiar with them, how to navigate past them and stuff
+ Ban lorries in urban centres during morning/evening peaks
+ Redesign lorries to make them safer (this has just passed through EU law)
+ Cycle training (cycle profincey and include a unit of bike awareness as part of car driving lessons)
+ Shoot people who use the term "Road tax"

[Psychosplodge]

But all of that will still leave the human element involved, and there will always be error as a result.

[Wolfshade]

Well the other extreme is to ban all private vehicles...

But yes, collisions will always occur and the more vulnerable will always be worse off.

The google self driving cars are good at cyclist detection and avoidance, though I would worry that the car would take me back via some shops that I am interested in...ad revenues to the extreme!

[Psychosplodge]

That's why you never shop/browse with google logged in

[Wolfshade]

A good little desciption of the issue with the term "cyclist" from Peter Walker (of the Guardian [ugh]), responding to this article (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/05/worst-thing-about-cycling-other-cyclists)

Apparently, there is a new kind of reckless cyclist “who is giving cyclists a bad name”, Anonymous says. This is something we hear often. Curiously, the man with a large suitcase who pushed me out of the way to get onto a rush-hour train isn’t going to be accused of “giving train passengers a bad name”. Similarly, kids who play tinny music at ear-bleeding volume on the number 12 are never told they’re “giving bus passengers a bad name”.

There’s no such thing as cyclists. Just people who used bikes, and who for the most part also walk, drive, and take public transport. The ones who shove through crowds of pedestrians on a bike are most like rude idiots elsewhere.

Now there is an argument for saying that bad cyclists tarnish the “cycling brand”, as Anonymous puts it. Many people will, given half a chance, happily explain their distaste for cyclists on the basis of almost being taken out on a zebra crossing.

The trouble is – and we’re getting into nuanced argument territory here – is that this extrapolation to all cyclists still isn’t really fair. Yes, some people might adopt a better view of cyclists if from tomorrow none ever jumped a light. But plenty of others would still dislike the two wheeled: they don’t pay “road tax”; they wear funny Lycra clothes; they get in my way on the road. I hear all these almost weekly.

As argued several times before on this blog, cyclists are viewed in Britain as a social outgroup. That’s why they get lumped together as an amorphous mass and blamed, collectively, for a small minority’s ills. Drivers, who are seen as normal, as everyone, generally don’t.

So with all respect to Chris Hoy, quoted by Anonymous, not just a great rider but possibly one of Britain’s nicest people, his advice to those riding bikes – “if you want respect, you have to earn it” – is to miss the point.

This is one of those descriptions that you could replace the term cyclist with any outgroup

[CoffeeGrunt]

I cycle to work 4 miles there and 4 back daily. If only I could lay off the cakes they keep leaving in the office upstairs, I'd be like a rake.

Since we're here, I've bought tow bikes from Halfords - talking Blighty here - and both have collapsed into a pile of failure, rust and general worthlessness within a year, and start going downhill pretty much from the off. What Brands would you recommend to someone who doesn't cycle as a sport, just needs it for A to B, and doesn't wanna spend a bomb?

Also preferably not from Halfords. Most useless guys ever for repairs.

[Wolfshade]

I cycle so I can eat cake :)

Does who you work for do the cycle to work scheme? It is run by the government and through salary sacrifice you buy the back over a 12 month period, but it is taken out of gross so your net is less, basically saves you around a third on the price.

The other questions are how much are you willing to spend and what sort of surfaces do you ride?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Typically on roads/pavements, so nothing too rough. I dunno what price to spend, I'm a little loath to spend £500+ for something that would rust in a year, but then if I buy cheap bikes, that'll happen anyway.

[Wolfshade]

For some guide my commuter bike is a Scott Speedster 60 which was £499 and I do about 5-10 miles each way depending on the weather, but that is an out and out road bike.

For visibility maybe a hybrid would be better than a road bike, but then it all comes down to what you feel most comfortable on.

I know you dislike Halfords, but they do carry Boardman bikes which are good with the Boardman MX Sport Fi Bike 2014 499.99 or Boardman Hybrid Sport Fi Bike 2014.

Failing that someone like Evans Cycles go in and talk to them about your requirements.

I must admit I do tend to ignore female bikes as a whole, but there was a good article here: http://totalwomenscycling.com/commuting/urban-bikes/how-to-get-the-best-womens-urban-commuter-bike-for-your-budget-7295/

That might help focus

I like Scott bikes I've been riding them for years, my one cross country bike is celebrating it's 15th birthday this year and despite being a bit on the heavy side now it hasn't let me down. Specialised make very pretty bikes, Trek, ooh the Pinnacle Dolomite things like that

[Mr Mystery]

In case anyone visits my neck of the woods with their velocopide.

http://www.porc.uk.com/

[Wolfshade]

Off Road, psh, Can't (or shouldn't) wear my lycra while doing that :p Though I do need to come down and do box hill.

[Mr Mystery]

PORC have (or at least had, when I was a yoof) a really good reputation.

Really need to get me a bike, but buying my mate's motor off him first (it's an estate, allowing me to take bike with me places, stashed in the back).

[Wolfshade]

Good News : Bad News

Men over 50

Good News:

There is no link between cycling and infertility
There is no link between cycling and erectile dysfunction

Bad News:

Cycle for 30mins per week and double your chances of prostate cancer
Cycle for 8hr45mins per week and and it is six times the likelihood of prostate cancer

Dr Mark Hamer, of UCL’s School of Epidemiology, said: “It’s tricky to interpret. Obviously the men who are cycling for the most amount of time are more health aware so they may be just more likely to be diagnosed. Or there could be a genuine biological link between trauma in the area of the prostate associated with bike riding. We were quite surprised by the size of the finding for prostate cancer so it does warrant further investigation, but we can’t draw any conclusions from this study.”

[Deadlift]

Get a nice big Geltec seat. The seat that came stock with my Marin was like sitting on a razor blade.

[Wolfshade]

http://thewolfclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/bikeseat.jpg


I don't know, I want a tiny fi'zi:k saddle.

[Psychosplodge]

get one of those with a reclined seating position?

[Deadlift]

I'd fall asleep in one of those.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm sure a helpful motorist would beep you :D

[Wildeybeast]

Just been sat at traffic lights behind yet another car stopped in the designated cyclists box. This one made me laugh as he had a sticker in the rear window saying 'British Cycling'.

[Wolfshade]

Just been sat at traffic lights behind yet another car stopped in the designated cyclists box. This one made me laugh as he had a sticker in the rear window saying 'British Cycling'.

Brilliant, love the irony.

It is like seeing a Car v Motorbike and in the back window of the car is the "THINK BIKE!" sticker.

[Wolfshade]

A drunk driver who killed a Sussex cyclist and continued to drive for five miles in her damaged car has been jailed for seven years.
Alison Bowen, aged 61, told police that she believed her Fiat Punto, the front end of which was badly damaged, had struck a badger.

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_600/images/News/Alison%20Bowen.jpg
(Regular badger damage that ^^)

She pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court to causing death by driving without due care and attention while over the prescribed limit, and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
Bowen was also banned from driving for two years, and will have to take an extended retest before she can get her driving licence back.

Two things, firstly, this is one of the longest gaol terms and probably owing to being over the drink drive limit.

Of course the other issue is whether or not this killer should be allowed to drive again. Yes, she will need to pass an extended test again, but the flip side is that if she had killed with a gun, however accidentally, she would have had her licence revoked and banned from owing firearms.

[Psychosplodge]

Thats unacceptable.
To continue to drive in that condition she must have been significantly over the drink drive limit.
Should have been death by dangerous driving as well. She should have gone down for at least a decade.

[Wolfshade]

A breathalyser test found that she was more than twice over the drink-drive limit, with 85 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres.

"Fortunately" there were witnesses. Other cases have found the driver just guilty of driving under the influence.

[Psychosplodge]

When you drink and drive to that extent and cause death its wrong the sentence is so light.

[Wolfshade]

It is a worrying trend in all cyclist fatalities...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/40-cyclists-killed-4-drivers-jailed-exclusive-investigation-reveals-only-one-in-10-drivers-are-jailed-after-being-involved-in-cyclist-death-9034187.html

[Wolfshade]

An MP in response to a cyclist being killed during a time trial near Uttoxeter

MP Andrew Griffiths told the Uttoxeter News: “I can completely understand why residents want to start this petition against the cycling time trials. We’ve seen deaths on the A50 and I’ve seen myself near misses. I think unfortunately cyclists bring it on themselves. Many time trials aren’t well run and aren’t signposted. Safety measures aren’t in place and unless cyclists start taking it more seriously these calls for cyclists to be banned will only continue. It would be a shame for cyclists but they desperately need to do something to protect themselves from other road users. One option would be to put warnings and signs at every junction. You can get onto the A50 and before you know it there is a cyclist right in front of you.”

So let's have a look: "I think unfortunately cyclists bring it on themselves"

This is the cyclists cause the issues by using the road in a law abidding manner...

Next part: "You can get onto the A50 and before you know it there is a cyclist right in front of you"

This is the troubling part, you join the road and then blame a road user for being right in front of you. This is perplexing to me. You could replace the cyclist with motorist and it becomes an issue.

What I do not understand though is that if you cannot spot a road user why oh why would you spot a sign on the carriageway.

Regardless, it comes down once again to victim blaming

[Psychosplodge]

Having used the A50 I'm surprised cyclists are allowed on it, though I don't think I've ever seen one on it.
It's a national speed limit dual carriageway.

[Wolfshade]

I often cycle on them.
Generally speaking, bid open wide dual carriageways are safer, it is the quiet country lanes that are issues where you cannot see them and you fly round a blind corner and blam! slow moving object, motorist, horse, etc.

The trouble is that if you arbitarily say no cyclists on dual carriageways with national speed limits then you can end up with a problem that you cannot navigate between two points, in a way that doesn't happen with motorways. You also end up with boundary issues so that the road network instead of enabling people to commute between places you end up with these fencing locations off. Indeed, the Highways Agency over here have been criticised for this.

[Psychosplodge]

idk about that, but the example cited feels like a two lane motorway for much of it, even if its only an A road.

[Wolfshade]

I have no doubt. A bypass that I use makes a nice loop is indistinguishable for an (M) road or even a Mway.Indeed, in terms of enginerring coeds they are very similiar, especially once you have a central reserve with the crash barriers etc.

[Psychosplodge]

But as you say you should be looking for traffic when joining, and I think it's up near york they have cycle track which leaves the carriageway and lets you lycra louts cross the slip road perpendicular to traffic flow so joining cars don't not see you.

[Wolfshade]

But like railway lines, people aren't forced to use them ;)

[Wolfshade]

Helsinki: 2025
The vision - to make private car ownership pointless.

The plan is ambitious, though not vastly radical. The Finns are planning to scheme a major overhaul to its public trasnport network by 2025. Using multi-modal transport that dovetails well and leverages smartphone apps to allow users to plan the end-to-end journey and pay for it. The scheme aims to rival private car ownership not just in financial terms but also flexibility and user-friendliness.

The authority says that the four central aims of its Vision 2025 are:
Intelligent: We provide our customers with services that enhance the travel experience and are based on intelligent technology.
Number one choice: An increasing number of people use public transport for commuting and leisure journeys. In the target state, over 50 per cent of the increase in traffic due to population growth in the Helsinki region is managed by public transport.
Safe and sustainable: Increasing use of public transport improves traffic safety, reduces the amount of space for traffic and road erosion. Public transport is based on sustainable energy sources and low-emission vehicles.
Bellwether: We want to strengthen the position of the Helsinki region as one of the best public transport organisers and developers in Europe. We develop public transport together with our customers and both domestic and international partners.

Vision 2025 follows the launch by the Helsinki Regional Transport Authority last year of a minibus service, Kutsuplus, that enables users to select their pick-up point and destination through a smartphone app then collates information to select the most viable route for a number of passengers.
The minibuses have no fixed routes or timetables, and in May this year saw nearly 4,500 journeys, with customer satisfaction scores averaging 4.6 on a scale of 1-5, according to the authority.
The Guardian points out that Kutsuplus costs more than a normal bus journey but less than taking a taxi, but also cautions that public transport providers “have an inherent obligation to serve the entire citizenry, not merely the segment who can afford a smartphone and are comfortable with its use.”

While a car-less city is probably not going to happen, after all an interconnected urban environment is great, but doesn't cater for visitors to outside of the urban environment, like on holidays.

[Psychosplodge]

Just been a report on radio.
Wife of cyclist killed by a drunk driver over the limit from the night before condemns her four year sentence as too lenient. Too bloody right it is.

[Wolfshade]

I thought you were going to post the video of the russian woman being run over my a skip lorry...

[Psychosplodge]

lols no but how about this?

http://i62.tinypic.com/wmeeso.jpg

[Wolfshade]

Where we find the bike was fine until the police turned up.

Talking of the police turning up.

Surry cyclist knocked off his bike, breaks his leg, calls police who are too busy to attend owing to the minor injuries sustained...

A spokeswoman from Surrey Police told GetSurey.co.uk that they had logged a call from him at 5.57pm on the day in question.
“Due to the minor nature of his injuries, and other operational priorities, officers did not immediately attend the scene,” she said.
“However, a call was made to Mr Preece around 20 minutes after the original call, offering him three options – to wait where he was to be seen by a police officer, for a police officer to visit him at home, or for him to attend his nearest police station.
“At this point Mr Preece ended the call.”

- - - Updated - - -

I blame Contador setting some expectations of how cyclists can handle a broken leg. (http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/07/news/alberto-contador-crashes-heavily-abandons-2014-tour-de-france_336241)

- - - Updated - - -

The majority of drivers convicted of killing cyclists escape jail time, the BBC has found.

Fewer than one in five cycling fatalities led to a prosecution and of those drivers found guilty, only 44 percent went to jail; 26 percent were not even banned from driving.

Across all road deaths, however, around 60 percent of drivers found guilty of causing a fatality go to jail.

BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat obtained the information via freedom of information requests to all 45 UK police forces.

In the last seven years 148 drivers were charged with offences arising from the death of a cyclist. In that period there were 804 cyclist fatalities, according to Department for Transport figures.

The average sentence was less than two years, while the average length of driving ban was 22 months.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh it gets better, commenting on the article a spokesman from the AA, Lorna Lee, says that this is fine and equitable.

I bet she would think that it was fiar and equal if a male counterpart earner more money doing the same job too. Oh wait, probably not.

[Houghten]

A broken leg is minor? What do you need to be considered major - ritually sacrificed?

[Wolfshade]

I think to be fair it was discovered that it was broken after the fact, once he hobbled and hitch-hiked to hospital, oh yes the paramedic response couldn't fit his bike in so couldn't take him.

[Psychosplodge]

Where we find the bike was fine until the police turned up.


Technically, they rammed him as he refused to stop and was carrying a firearm...

[Wolfshade]

#notallcyclists

I have no idea what news story that is from.

- - - Updated - - -

A volunteer reserve police officer in Southern California has been placed on administrative leave and may face disciplinary action after posting a video to YouTube that starts with her saying, “I hate bicyclists, every single one of them.”

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Santa-Paula-Police-Reserve-Officer-on-Administrative-Leave-After-Video-Posted-Online-Mocks-Bicyclists-267793431.html

- - - Updated - - -

Jeresey has now passed a manadaotry cyclinng helmet for all under 14s.

Deputy Green, whose nine year old son received a brain injury when he was knocked off his bike said: “I am delighted that this vital piece of legislation has been passed and I congratulate my fellow Members in the Assembly for taking this bold but necessary decision.”

Of course Deputy Green automatically, blames the victim even when it is his son as it is easier to blame victims then enforce the law because politicains are too spineless to take the more difficult options and address anti-social driving.
Of course with 14s not being legally culpable it would raise the question of whether or not a single fine could ever be issued.

Meanwhile the people of holland continue to mop up their mountains of dead under 14s as they all die on the roads as none of them wear helmets..

[Psychosplodge]

#notallcyclists

I have no idea what news story that is from.


This (http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/man-charged-with-possessing-gun-in-sheffield-1-6733921) is what I can find at moment, how I said it ended up under the car was how it was reported on radio on friday

[Wolfshade]

A driver who killed a cyclist as she chased her boyfriend’s car through a Sheffield suburb at 69 miles an hour and while over the drink-drive limit has been jailed for four years – a sentence that the victim’s widow described as “disgusting,” adding, "this is not justice."
Beauty therapist Emma Egan, aged 26 and from Dewsbury, pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to causing the death by dangerous driving of 55-year-old father-of-two Eric Codling in November last year. She was also banned from driving for six years.

Mr Codling’s widow, Karen, was in court to see Egan, who is likely to serve only half the four-year jail term, sentenced. She said: “This is not justice - is Eric’s life only worth four years? I know nothing will bring Eric back, but four years is disgusting. To only serve two years for killing somebody just doesn’t make sense. Why is what she did any different to murder? We don’t feel there has been any justice.”

During the trial it emerged that Egan’s own sister had been killed by a drunk-driver eight years ago, which Mrs Codling said “added insult to injury.” She added: “Egan’s own mum at the time said a four-year sentence for the driver who killed her daughter was an outrage, and she is right - it is.”

Clearly, the loss of her sister owing to similiar circumstances was not enough to make her aware of the possible result of her actions. I am sure 2 years in jail and 6 years not driving will change all of that...

[Psychosplodge]

that's the detail of the one I referenced in #368 I think.
It really is outrageous.

[Wolfshade]

Yeah I think it is too.

But it is fine she showed genuine remose so that makes it all better....

[Psychosplodge]

Genuine remorse she got caught...

It's not like its an "accident" its drink driving and dangerous driving.

[Wolfshade]

It might be my slightly perverted world view, but I can't see what difference that "remorse" has on it.

"Yeah, I defrauded HRMC of £3.6bn of revenue, but I am geninuely sorry"
"Oh, that's fine, just pay £2.50."
"Ok if that makes amends it seems fair..."

Really, it is stupid, plus the law discriminates against pyscopaths who can't show remorse

[Psychosplodge]

Well its that one isn't it, if you maintain your innocence you're not showing remorse so can't get parole. Or receive a stiffer sentence as you're not showing remorse for your actions...

[Wolfshade]

Facta non verba

-Which is actually quite confusing if you swap between classic and medieval latin where it can be read to mean the opposite, but that is an aside for another day...

It doesn't matter what you say, it is the works that matters.

[Wolfshade]

Jaguar, who regularly help teamsky troll other professional teams have just given teamsky their latest support car:
http://images.teamtalk.com/14/07/Others/840404.jpg

Oh that's right a modified F-TYPE Coupé.

[Psychosplodge]

Very nice.

[Wolfshade]

Suddenly the role of support driver got more fun...

[CoffeeGrunt]

Given the content of the thread lately, isn't "crash course" kinda bad taste now?

[Wolfshade]

Possibly. Unfortuately, it is the negative things which make the news, so the fatalities etc. It is quite interesting that the death of cyclists is still news worth, whereas motorists deaths very rarely make national news or even regional news.

The title is an obvious ape of the feminism and lgbt thread, it was supposed to be more light hearted but it never stayed that way. In the same way that feminism thread has issues with the privilidged males, and the lbgt thread with privilidged hetros, so this thread highlights the issues of privildige of the motorist within the society.

Where you have people from the AA stating things like they don't think that courts are too lenient with their sentencing of murdering motorists only 1 in 5 seeing gaol time, whereas if they were to kill another motorist then it rises to 6 in 10. It is clear that the cyclist is treated like a 2nd class citizen.

[Wolfshade]

So slightly less fatalistic.

Elevation! Everyone likes elevations, well unless it is a song by U2... Googlemaps has just rolled out an update to their service which should enable everyone to see the evlation of their route this is on the smart phone version. It isn't currently not on the play store but can be found here! http://www.androidfilehost.com/?fid=23578570567714420

- - - Updated - - -

Now for something shocking:

People living near a cycle path are more likely to do more exercise overall, according to a new study published today in the American Journal of Public Health.

:eek:

Who would have thought easy access to infrastructure would encourage people to use it....

The study also found that the increase in walking and cycling was not offset by a reduction in other physical activity.
The benefits were equally spread between men and women and between adults of different ages and social groups, but was more likely to benefit those who did not have access to a car.

[Wolfshade]

3 years after being rented in london a Boris bike has arrived in Wolverhampton. I am not saying that that is how long it would take an otherwise 12 hour ride on one of those heavy beasties but you know...

[Wolfshade]

West Yorkshire is to give free bikes to job starters who are coming off the dole and have no other way to get to work. This comes from a £2.8 million grant from the government. However, most of the money will be spent on a public tranposrt card.

I am in favour of these schemes, quite often one of the factors stopping people from working is that it is very difficult for them to actually get to work on time. Especiially outside of urban sprawls where the public transport is often not frequent enough meaning that you have to travel by car, essentially trapping the non-motorist in their homes and on dole.

Where this has been trialled there has been fairly positive responses with the receipriants using the bikes to get to work and not just quitting the job and selling it on fleebay for a quick turn around. Though they are small scale trials so efficacy statistics are essentially meaningless.

These schemes are quite neat as they have cheap bikes and re-cycled cycles. Often constructed by volunteers who themselves can end up with an apprentiship in bike building, not the most universal skill but Halfords for instance are looking to hire an additional 500 bike mechanics

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-27407345

[Wolfshade]

The recent widespread introduction of 20mph speed limits in built up areas has been welcomed by road danger reduction campaigners, but it might turn out to be inconvenient for cyclists. That’s the prospect in the London borough of Southwark, where the council plans to include cyclists and horse-drawn buggies in the scope of the 20mph limit to be introduced at the end of July.

Linney (of the Met's Traffic Enforcement Unit) wrote: "Introducing speed limits where traffic speeds are too high places an unrealistic expectation to enforce on the Metropolitan Police. Whilst any reduction in speed is of benefit, the number of offenders will increase significantly in the roads which presently have average speeds of over 24 mph, placing an expectation on the Police for enforcement which we do not have the extra resources to fulfil. The Metropolitan Police objects to a 20 mph speed limit on any road in the London Borough of Southwark where the mean speed is above 24 mph. We also object to the implementation of the 20 mph limit where it is not obvious to the motorist through the look and feel of the road that the speed limit is 20 mph."

However, given that there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers it makes it a bit difficult for them to be aware of their speed, and thus makes enforcement more challenging.

The big thing is that it makes a strange equivalency between vehicles and bikes. If they were to hit anything at 20mph the affects are staggeringly different.

A typical ford fiesta is about 1000kgs so travelling at 20mph has about 40kJ of energy, a bike (and rider) at 20mph has an energy of about 4kJ a whole magnitude different, in order to have the same energy the bike would need to be travelling at a mere 200mph.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah but on the otherhand, 20mph zones are generally ridiculous.
The places where they are appropriate you generally couldn't go faster if you wanted anyway.

[Wolfshade]

Exactly, but that is the point of speed limits, or it was, that they are inline with the average speed on the road.

[Wolfshade]

Southwark "zany" council accused of over reaching their legislative power. So #392 talks of Soutwark wanting to apply the 20mph speed limit on horses and cyclists because reasons. however, Roger Geffen (of the CTC) says:

Highway authorities can only use traffic regulation orders to apply speed limits to motor vehicles on public roads. There are enough other offences that can be used for cyclists who are riding at speeds which are inappropriate for the conditions, whether on or off-road. Southwark Council officers need to improve their understanding of what they themselves are and are not permitted to do under the law, before they try inventing rules for cyclists.

For road law nerds, the legislation that applies to the creation of 20mph speed limits is section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which says:
Speed limits on roads other than restricted roads.
(1)An order made under this subsection as respects any road may prohibit—
(a)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order,
(b)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order during periods specified in the order, or
(c)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding the speed for the time being indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the order.

[Wolfshade]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2703045/Terrifying-moment-cyclist-hurtles-air-collision-car-caught-head-cam.html

A cyclist in a cycle lane, (not sure that is important) gets swipped by a car turning right across his path.

As a side note, I have no idea how he manged the landing on wet ground wearing cleats.

From the rider CyclingJack:
"At the time the driver was apologetic and was informed by the police that I was recording my ride and seemed to admit fault.

But when it came to my insurance claim against her she disputed it.

Safe to say the video has saved me a lot of hassle and 3 weeks later the cheque has already arrived from the insurance company.

My four week old Giant bike was written off but thanks to the guys at Cycle Store they put me one of the two they had left aside and I’m looking forward to getting back out there."

And that there ladies and gentlemen is privilidge in action.

I might stress, that cycling is no more dangerous than doing your gardening, it's just sunny rides don't make the news...

[Psychosplodge]

Don't read the comments.

[Wolfshade]

I haven't let me guess:

Victim blaming
frothing over the mouth about road tax (abolished 1937)
Somehow the cyclist was at fault despite having right of way

[Psychosplodge]

Are you sure you haven't read them?

Its clearly the motorist at fault here, there's literally no grey area. And yet there are still people condemning the cyclist.
I mean I'm not exactly pro cycling but come on lets call a spade a spade.

[Wolfshade]

Oh my life!

If only he had insurance and a yellow jacket and a peice of paper telling him he was safe he could have avoided it.

I particularly liked the one which accused the cyclist of going for it as an opportunity to make a point.

- - - Updated - - -

The comments are sad and predictable. Missing the point and blaming the victim.

That bloody road tax is a curse, worse still is that most people driving today never paid it, nor their parents or their grandparents! But the name stuck, unlike poll tax. It is why every time I hear road tax used in advertising I write to the ASA to complain, but they think it is fine and doesn't encourage road users to think of it as ownership of the road, they really need to adjust their attitude.

[Wolfshade]

So imagine you are the most sucessful British Olympian Ever.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/5live/medal.jpg

Sir Chris Hoy.

Now imagine that they build a velodrome and name it after you.

http://www.visitscotland.com/cms-images/5x3-large/commonwealth-games/emiratesarena-sir-chris-hoy-velodrome

Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome.

Then imagine you enter your namesake and get asked for ID.

Now what would you do?

a) Make a big fus on the "Do you know who I am?" routine
b) Quietly show ID making snarky comments
c) Fly on to twitter to criticise
d) Be Chris Hoy.

Being Chris Hoy you naturally do D, show your ID without any trump or sarcasm, then go onto to twitter to defend the person asking for ID when social media starts to rip them.


She was just doing her job!! RT “@Daily_Record: Sir @chrishoy stopped and asked for ID trying to get in...to the Sir Chris Hoy velodrome!"
— Chris Hoy (@chrishoy) July 24, 2014

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and a final grunt for Southwarks

Councillor Mark Williams, cabinet member for transport:

The council sees the establishment of a 20 mph borough as significant step forward in ensuring the safety of all road users not least cyclists and pedestrians. To achieve this we feel that all vehicles should limit their speed to 20 mph.
The report published on the 18 July to determine the statutory objections relating to a borough-wide 20mph speed limit makes it clear that orders made under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can apply to motor vehicles only and as such any prosecution by the police for breaches of the speed limit under that Act would be limited to motorised vehicles only. Accordingly the traffic order will be amended to make reference to "motorised vehicles" only.
The council does not have powers to prosecute cyclists who travel in excess of 20 mph and recognises that dangerous cycling is a matter for the police alone. Nor are we seeking to " target" cyclists for enforcement, rather to reflect the concerns raised by pedestrians about the problems caused by a small minority of cyclists whose speed endangers other road users.

Addtional Des Waters, the main proponent of trying to limit velocipedes also muttered something about having a new strategy to encourage cycling like in Denmarkand Holland

[Psychosplodge]

Surely a comedy routine is the most appropriate response?

[Wolfshade]

The one day the secuirty guards wen through the "do you know who I am"- deathstar canteen act with me when I ndeeded a visitors pass. It was most excellent.

[Denzark]

Just coming back from Battle Brothers at Warhammer World. Nottingham this time seems prolific with lycra clad imbeciles. I stopped at lights, one of them, didn't even go into the red cycling box at the front, which I didn't even encroach on even thought they slow me down just to convenience the 2 wheeled numpties. Did he stop there? No, just blazed through the red lights.

People like this, I don't mind being knocked off.

[Wolfshade]

You get red light jumpers on all forms of transport unfortunately, though I dodn't see you advocating for those to be involved in potentially life threatening situations, despite the result of car/bus/lorry drivers skipping them being far more fatal than bicyclists.

[Wolfshade]

Actor Alec Baldwin was led away in handcuffs yesterday after being arrested in New York City for riding the wrong way up Fifth Avenue.

[image removed]

a police source said that after the 56-year-old was stopped by officers at around 10.15am yesterday morning and asked for identification, "He became belligerent, yelling and screaming at the officers, 'I don't have ID. Just give me the f*cking summonses.'"

The actor Alec Baldwin has been cleared of charges for cycling the wrong way up a Fifth Avenue in New York City.

The judge whose comments are awesome in their own right and include:

- "Can you stay out of trouble, Alexander?"
- "Be a good boy now, have a good day."

[Wolfshade]

Councillor John Andrew Quinn (Conservative) who represents the village of Embsay on Craven District Council claimed cyclists riding ahead of the Tour de France acted as “a law unto themselves”, rode through the village at 40 to 50mph and hinted they were responsible for knocking off car wing mirrors.

On June 29, Quinn stopped at the scene of a crash on Skipton Road, where a motorbike and side car had left the road, seriously injuring the rider. Although Quinn was not involved in the crash, police speaking to him at the scene noticed alcohol on his breath, Skipton magistrates court heard.

Quinn tested positive for alcohol in a roadside breath test and at the police station was subsequently found to have 61 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35. He was banned from driving for 18 months, fined £420 and ordered to pay costs of £85 and victim surcharge of £42.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

[Psychosplodge]

I do find the victim surcharge wrong.
Unless there is an identifiable victim, and in that case there's a compensation system anyway.
All it is is an attempt to claw money out of third parties because they fail at enforcing compensation from people the courts have ordered to pay it.

[Wolfshade]

Yes, it is very strange the victim surcharge especially in the cases where there is no readily identifiable victim.

[Wildeybeast]

Does it not go into pot to compensate other people?

[Psychosplodge]

But thats the point, the people being hit with it haven't any victims, and the people with victims are normally ordered to pay compensation.
They're hitting people convicted of (not necessarily this individual case) relatively minor offences (like littering or speeding) with extra costs to cover for their failure to enforce compensation awards.

[Wolfshade]

No, that would be through a civil case and damages


Revenue raised from the Victim Surcharge is used to fund victim services through the Victim and Witness General Fund

A court must order the Victim Surcharge when it deals with an offender in respect of an offence committed on or after 1 October 2012.

List of funded organisations: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/victims-and-witnesses-funding-awards

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see why they don't include that in any fine and just make it clear that it is proportioned to state and to fund vicitim services

[Wolfshade]

Stop me if I have done this one before.

As part of the Glasgow Games, Malawi sent across a pair of cyclists who took their bikes into FLBS (Billy Bilsland Cycles) for repairs, after explaining what they were for, the shop repaired and replaced as necessary to get the bikes into good working order. Then thinking about it contacted the team and lent them two of their top of the range bikes to ride for the competition (which were signficantly better than those they brought in to be mended).

The bike shop was founded by Bill Bilsland (former British pro-cyclist, who competed in the 1968 Commonwealth Games) and now run by his son.

The news has flooded the cycling newsites with general adoration for this simple act by the shop.

In response to this overwheling internet love Bilsland said:
“We have been humbled by the amount of interest our small gesture has generated. We have decided to donate the 2 Genesis Volare 20 road bikes to Leonard and Missi.”

It also provided a link to the Scotland Malawi Partnership charity, in case “any of our lovely customers would like to help out as well.”

http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/charity-web/charity/finalCharityHomepage.action?charityId=1002718

[Psychosplodge]

I saw a carbon fibre bike at weekend in a shop, so had a go at lifting it.
They're practically weightless, was amazed. But it was £1100 :eek:

[Wolfshade]

Worryingly that would be one of the heavier cheaper CF bikes.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a beautiful bike which if money were no object I would be riding:
http://images.evanscycles.com/product_image/image/e5d/20f/962/116936/large/scott-foil-premium-di2-compact-2014-road-bike.jpg

Scott Foil Premium Di2 £8,999

Frame+fork 340g +/- a few g depending on sizing

Then add all the kit on and it bulks up to a UCI defying 6.57kg.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah I can believe it.

[Wolfshade]

But the technology is getting cheaper all the time, so you can ride a professional frame for as little as say 4 grand, then you add the components and it puts the price up.

There are a couple of sub £1000 CF bikes out there at the moment, 5 years ago there was none.

The biggest draw back at the moment is the rules which specify a lower weight limit so there is no point building a bike that would be used by professionals, only they can't as they are underweight.

[Denzark]

You get red light jumpers on all forms of transport unfortunately, though I dodn't see you advocating for those to be involved in potentially life threatening situations, despite the result of car/bus/lorry drivers skipping them being far more fatal than bicyclists.

For a couple of reasons Wolfy. Firstly, I didn't advocate for the cyclist to be involved in a potentially life threatening situation, I just said i don't mind if people like that are knocked off. A subtle difference to be sure, but I am not advocating it in the statement above. Not minding something is different from 'I am casting the knuckle bones and beseeching my gods to bring him crashing down'.

Secondly, this thread is not about buses/cars/lorrys - so I have not commented on them. Tbh I wouldn't mind if light jumping examples of any of these forms of transport were involved in accidents, especially BMW/Audi drivers. Were this the 'Crash course in bus driving' thread I would similarly comment.'

Finally, as a supporter of the Darwin Awards I really don't care if any road user removes themselve from the genepool and simultaneously provides a real life example of why breaking the laws imposed by a democratically elected government is a bad thing. Especially if it is all attributable to their own action and an ordinary decent road user is not liable.

[Wolfshade]

I still find it hard to fathom that you are ok with the idea of someone who breaks the law being assaulted.

[Psychosplodge]

Tbf I wouldn't wish the inconvenience on the innocent party.
Though I would laugh (wrongly) to see one of those chav mopeds they ride with three on and no helmets under a couple of tons of defender...

[Wolfshade]

Quick! They haven't paid their TV licence, lets hobble them!!

[Denzark]

I still find it hard to fathom that you are ok with the idea of someone who breaks the law being assaulted.

Assault is an unlawful thing that may not even consist of physical battery/pain. Even if they were flogged as a matter of law, it would not be an assault - being legal like.

However if people are insufficiently in charge of their own self discipline to avoid breaking the law, a short sharp burst of agonising excruciating pain may do the trick - a bit like electric fences stopping sheep getting out of the field.

[Wolfshade]

But when someone is knocked off a bike is statstically most likely to be the victim of being hit by a motor vehicle, which is an assault with a deadly weapon. If I were hit by a tonne or more of metal I would feel assaulted.

And moreover, our justice system is a non-capital punishment system. It certainly would be cheaper if it were mind.

[Wildeybeast]

I think Denzarks point is simply that if you are stupid enough to break the law and jump red lights, you deserve whatever happens to you, a sentiment I'm sure we can all agree with.

[Wolfshade]

But even by that measure of "justice" if I was driving a several ton tipper truck and I drive through the red light, I could collide with a vast number of cars and have nothing adverse happen to me, though those unfortunates in the cars would suffer a much different fate.

Just is is about fairness and equality. Yes people who drive through red lights should be punished by the law, but the outcome should be the same and not dependent on what vehicle you were on when you did so.

[40kGamer]

But even by that measure of "justice" if I was driving a several ton tipper truck and I drive through the red light, I could collide with a vast number of cars and have nothing adverse happen to me, though those unfortunates in the cars would suffer a much different fate.

Just is is about fairness and equality. Yes people who drive through red lights should be punished by the law, but the outcome should be the same and not dependent on what vehicle you were on when you did so.

In a perfect world people behaving badly would receive equal punishment but that's not how an overly arbitrary justice system works.

Cyclists I encounter routinely ignore the rules of the road... Not to mention how poorly they behave on shared walking paths. Another symptom of the ever growing entitlement mentality we seem to be living under at the moment... or the mentality that "everyone can sod off as long as I get what I want."

[Wolfshade]

Firstly, shared pathways don't work, the infrastructure is shocking, the constant give ways and seemingly the only onus is on the cyclist to keep on their side but not the pedestrians. Not to mention all the street furniture in the way.

The speed difference cyclists and pedestrians causes conflicts in the same way that the speed difference between cyclist and cars.

While you notice these cyclists who flout the rules, how many motorists do you notice? Or is it that it has become so common place that you no longer observe it. Or rather you have a perception bias so you see the cyclists who break the rules and not the ones that don't? That isn't meant as a derogatory statement, we all have a tendency to observe and notice things that fit our world view, like you don't notice many of a make/model of car then you buy one and you see them everywhere.

It is quite interesting you mention entitlement, since it is my view that the biggest threats to a cyclist livelihood is motorists mentality. You can see such things as a clear cut motorist at fault collision and see the comments made saying how it is the cyclist fault, or somehow they should given way when there wasn't enough time to do so or indeed the responsibility was on the car not to pull out as they didn't have right of way. Or how the thought that paying "road tax" or insurance, that those meaningless bits of paper would make you safer.

Given that there are over 1 million cars that have been seized for not having insurance, I am pretty confident that it is motorists who break the law more frequently.

[40kGamer]

I would not be willing to bet that more motorists break the law as I am too fond of my money to give it away! However if I take the ratio of the number of times I've been left cursing and making rude gestures at a motorist/cyclist to the total number of each I meet on the road it may be a toss up. Cyclists in the US are generally screwed as they mostly have to share everything. I gave up riding in favor of mountain hiking as cycling just wasn't worth the risk anymore.

Not sure if it came off this way but the entitlement comment was meant to be universal, not targeting any specific group... it seems more people feel everything should go there way all the time. Not sure if this is more prevalent in the US or simply people being people. :)

[The_Gonk]

I would not be willing to bet that more motorists break the law as I am too fond of my money to give it away! However if I take the ratio of the number of times I've been left cursing and making rude gestures at a motorist/cyclist to the total number of each I meet on the road it may be a toss up. Cyclists in the US are generally screwed as they mostly have to share everything. I gave up riding in favor of mountain hiking as cycling just wasn't worth the risk anymore.

Not sure if it came off this way but the entitlement comment was meant to be universal, not targeting any specific group... it seems more people feel everything should go there way all the time. Not sure if this is more prevalent in the US or simply people being people. :)

People being people, I'd guess. :)

[Wolfshade]

The only US place I know of with significant infrastructure is New York and that has loads of problems

[40kGamer]

The only US place I know of with significant infrastructure is New York and that has loads of problems

In order to ride around in the US you either have to have an adamantium spine or a severe lack of common sense... the roadways here are NOT friendly.

[Psychosplodge]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8265131008/h5CB45D37/

[40kGamer]

I can't believe they need a sign that says "sign in the way". These are the things where you either laugh or cry.

[Wolfshade]

I would love to do the Trans-Am race that would be awesome.

Love the sign :)

Apparently, there is a city in america, I was talking to a Canadian co-worker where all teh hippies migrated to and there has good infrastructure and recycling schemes and renewable systems

[Wolfshade]

The Jersey Compulsory Helmet Law

Earlier this month Jeresey made it a legal requirement for any under 14 year old to wear a helmet or risk their parents suffering a £50 fine.

So before we re-hash the old argument about the efficacy of helmets which is counter inntuative. Let us instead consider why Jersey made the move and why.

Firstly, the law only applies on public routes, so on the path through the park, you need a helmet, on the grass parallel to the path you don't.

Secondly it wil be enforced by the honorary police (an elected unpaid law enforces based in and from the local community). Those brought to court will face a parish hall enquiry, again an informal community based method of youth justices. The islands cheif civil servant for transport says that he assumes most children will appear before the parish and get told off and adivsed to wear them rather than being fined.

The man behind the law is a chap called Andrew Green a member of the States of Jersey (a combined legisture and executive), who wanted it originally for all.

Green, despite evidence from AUS, NZ, US, Canada believes that not only will it not curb cycling rates, but might improve them with is anecodotal "evidence":


Those figures [about helmet compulsion hampering cyclist numbers] don’t stack up, and I’m even more confident when we’re talking about children. I can only talk from Jersey experience, but I believe children participating in cycling will increase after the law, based on the number of phone calls I’ve had from parents saying, ‘I want little Johnny to wear a helmet. He won’t wear it because his friends won’t wear one. Therefore I won’t let him have a bike.'

So, hopefully, this will address the issue of 1-5 11 year olds being overweight or obese.

So once again we have the issue that someone thinks that their own anecodtoes are worth the same as research invovling thousands of cases, conducted scientifically.

This issue is further compounded by the research by Jersey's scrutiny office, they commisioned TRL to do a metadata analysis. Which fails to offer the views coined by Green. Throughout the report the authors stress that much of the evidence, particualary with regards to helmet laws is mixed and contradictory.

The strange part is, in Jeresey child helmet wearage (? if it wasn't a word it is now) is already 84% so increasing this by a mere 16% will not have a terribly large impact on the injury rates. Indeed in 2013 there was 1 cyclist injury, who was over 14, so it is seriously unclear how this can be improved.

The report also drops sentences in which seem to be unsupported or just bizarre like "[helmet laws] can be expected to have a beneficial effect on the injury rate" so what have negative injury rates!? or "[it] seems unlikely to have a major impact on cycling activity[rates] in Jeresey" and that is the start and end of the evidence.

The evidence of Australia is that in the 1990's helmet laws caused a plummet in those doing it, which is widely disregarded as a blip (and indeed with enough time it may well be re-normalised as people grow up believing it to be normal) however, Terry Mulder, minister for roads in Victoria states that bike usae fell between 1986-2010 which he states as a "social trend" rather than helmet laws, again despite offering no proof.

Green is also quoted as saying "If you just save one life, or save one life from being blighted it's worth it" and this is part of the problem, anecdotes are all given very emotively, it hard not to feel sorry for those who have lost loved ones because of head injuries while cycling and it is only someone who is socially inept (Hello!) would turn around and tell them that they are infact wrong and it is not the lack of helmet that was to blame but the person who caused the collision.

I am not entirely opposed to this law, and quite frankly, being over 14 and not living in Jersey it doesn't really affect me. The rationale behind it is fairly sound, young riders are mostly likely to fall off because of something they have done and therefore be doing slower speeds at which helmets might be useful. It is just given the 0 injury rate it seems a little strange as this is the first British territory that has passed helmet laws.

:Thin end of the wedge warning:

[Wolfshade]

The Daily Mail and what it tells us towards attitudes towards cyclists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714260/Billie-Piper-quizzed-police-pulls-crash-puts-cyclist-16-hospital.html

The background: 2nd August 2014, Billie Piper doing an u-turn hit a cyclsits causing injury to the cyclists shoulder and hospitalisation.

Title: Billie Piper quizzed by police and pulls out of show after crash puts cyclist, 16, in hospital

So we already notice that Ms Piper chosing not to perform in a show is more important than the hospitalisation of a person.

We actually have to get into the 6th paragraph before we learn that the issue is that Ms Piper was doing a uturn.


Ms Piper’s sons Winston, five, and Eugene, two, were in the back of her black Volkswagen Golf as she attempted a U-turn on a steep section of road behind King’s Cross station in the London borough of Camden.

She is understood to have been driving at under five miles per hour as she crossed Goods Way into the path of the teenage cyclist who was travelling downhill at a significant speed

Strangely, we now have a situation whebry the perp. is the one who is being painted as the innocent party, "she was driving at under 5 mph" comapred with the scoff law cyclist who was travelling "downhill at signficant speed". Seriously, what does any of this have to do with the simple fact that she drove into the cyclist.

The cyclist could have been doing any speed under the sun and it would still be the fault of the vehicle turning. (Ok, if the cyclist is doing like 50mph round a blind corner than fine fair enough but this is unlikely).


The bike slammed into the back of the car and the boy was thrown to the ground.

Notice how the bike is violently attacking the car...



The Mail on Sunday understands that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet.
Seriously, what place does this have in this peice? Is the inferance that had the cyclist been wearing a helmet it would have a) prevented the collision or b) caused the shoulder injury not to occur?


But there were also calls last night for cyclists to take greater responsibility for their actions and to ensure they wear helmets.

Again, there were two lines saying 8 cyclists have died in london and that the Mayor has pleged money for cyclists, but then back to this. Why would there be calls for cyclists to take greater responsibility for their actions on the basis of a car causing a collision?
What? Really? A car causes a collision and it is the cyclists fault? And again with the helmets.


Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign said: ‘When doing a U-turn you are expected to give way to everyone.

'Every crash highlights the need for all road users to take care. Wearing a cycle helmet is a personal choice – the evidence is mixed as to the protection they provide.’

A spokesman for Billie Piper declined to comment.

One sensible bit.

[Mr Mystery]

Speed isn't even negligence in a road traffic accident.

Mostly because 1) If you're established in the road you're established in the road 2) Nobody has speed capture devices attached to their vehicles. Nobody.

Doing the U-Turn would put Ms Piper at fault, 100%. Cyclist was seemingly on their side of the road, correctly proceeding.

Stupid Daily Mail. Did it mention what Ms Piper was wearing? Because if not, that's probably a first innit?

[Wolfshade]

I am used to reading biased journalism, but this was something else. The only thing it missed out on cycling bingo was road tax and insurance, the other boxes were ticked.

[Mr Mystery]

Even the wording - she crossed into the path. Who is at fault there? Kid minding their own, or the car attempt a hazardous manouvre?

[Denzark]

On the subject of bias, I notice you write that 'Seriously, what does any of this have to do with the simple fact that she drove into the cyclist.' He went into the back of her car. She was doing a U-turn. That is not her driving into him, that is him cycling into her. That is not to comment on who is at fault - it is just pointing out that bias works both ways. It is possible for the person in front to be at fault.

Next, a U-turn. We drive on the left here. Whatever lane he was in, if he was on the left hand side it would have been very hard for him to go into the back of her with her at fault. I base this on the following:

The report claims she was moving at 5mph - which works out at 2.2 recurring metres per second (60 mph =1600 metres in 60 seconds. 1600 divide by 60 = 26.6666667 divide by 12 (to get 5mph) = approx. 2.2 recurring).

So how the hell did lycra boy, not spot the object moving at a slow jogging speed, in his way, until such time as he went into the back of her? Which implies her turn was complete?

16 yo kid, travelling at 'considerable speed'. Not wearing helmet. Probably as attentive to life as all 16yos. If he had gone into the side of her car, I would probably have thought she was at fault 100%. But because he went into the back, implying her (possibly illegal, I don't know the road signage there) manoeuvre was complete, coupled with her slow speed, he probably has to accept some responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -

HA!

Would you believe it? I have just gone down Goods Way on Google Maps to see what the conditions are. At one point, if you start from the A5200 end and follow the road west, you can follow a cyclist. Follow the nice, responsible helmet and dayglo wearing cyclist.

Watch as he weaves all over the road.

Watch as he encroaches on a zebra crossing that people are already using.

Ha. No sympathy.

- - - Updated - - -

[Wolfshade]

Of course my reporting has bias! But then I am not a national newspaper presenting "news".

I have no idea how they figured the speed. But it is really irrelevant. Especially as it was found between 23:08 with no record of who she contacted.

If I pull out of a side road and you drive into the back of me, would you really blame yourself or me doing the manoeuvre?

How did the driver not spot the cyclist already on the road?

If the car finishes its move directly infornt of the cyclist they don't really have much choice other than to break and perhaps hit them.

The helmet wouldn't help with a shoulder injury, also, if you think that helmets work for cyclists then they are a must for pedestrians and car drivers!

[Denzark]

My massive swede is protected by a nice airbag if I prang my car, no need for a helmet. But soft fleshy cyclists are a different matter. The matter of him not wearing a helmet more points to his level of common sense.

I notice you did not deign to comment on the law breaking cyclist visible on google street view on the very stretch of road this incident happened on...

[Wildeybeast]

I'd challenge your assertion on helmets for pedestrians Wolfie. I don't have any statistics to hand, but I imagine they are far less likely to be hit by cars than cyclists and even when they are, they are travelling at a much slower speed than cyclists so the force of impact is less. It's all about levels of risk and appropriate responses. By your logic, everyone should wear a crash helmet all the time to avoid any possible head injury. We don't do this because it is a daft response. We do ask people to wear helmets where there is an increased risk of head injury, such as rock climbing, on a building site or on some sort of mechanical two wheeled device (or four wheeled as someone who has fallen off a quad bike can attest). As Denzark has mentioned, devices such as airbags and seatbelts vastly reduce the chances of head injury in a motor vehicle, meaning helmets are not necessary.

[Wolfshade]

My massive swede is protected by a nice airbag if I prang my car, no need for a helmet. But soft fleshy cyclists are a different matter. The matter of him not wearing a helmet more points to his level of common sense.

I notice you did not deign to comment on the law breaking cyclist visible on google street view on the very stretch of road this incident happened on...

Normal part of driving does not infact result in a collision. Helmets are ineffecitve in collisions at speed and most do little more than just transmit the full trauma through the helmet to the head. For what it is worth I wear one, mostly to avoid this convesation.

I do not deign to comment on the encroaching of the pedestrian crossing because there is no point. I am sure if you look on street view you will find many more cars breaking the law. Indeed, if I did a quick search I am sure I could find data showing that many tens of thousands of vehicles daily break the speed limit. But that apparently is no reason to treat them as second class citizens.


I'd challenge your assertion on helmets for pedestrians Wolfie. I don't have any statistics to hand, but I imagine they are far less likely to be hit by cars than cyclists and even when they are, they are travelling at a much slower speed than cyclists so the force of impact is less. It's all about levels of risk and appropriate responses. By your logic, everyone should wear a crash helmet all the time to avoid any possible head injury. We don't do this because it is a daft response. We do ask people to wear helmets where there is an increased risk of head injury, such as rock climbing, on a building site or on some sort of mechanical two wheeled device (or four wheeled as someone who has fallen off a quad bike can attest). As Denzark has mentioned, devices such as airbags and seatbelts vastly reduce the chances of head injury in a motor vehicle, meaning helmets are not necessary.

Unfortunately if you look at DfT stats you will find that pedestrains are invovled in more KSIs vs motorvehicles than cyclists, indeed car occupants die in even higher number (around 8 times more than cyclists)
Cycling is not an inherently dangerous activity, indeed, the injury rate is less than gardening for instance.

I think if people are doing an activity that has a probable outcome of them hitting their head they should wear a helmet. Otherwise it should be down to the individual.

It is an old argument, seat belts have a proven efficacy of reduction of KSI rates, worryingly though the introdcution of them coincided with an increase in accidents (though these were less fatal). The number of head injuries though suffered by drivers are higher than those suffered by cyclists, so if you argue cyclists should have them you then have to say well by that logic cars and pedestrains would have a greater reduction.

Let us look at Holland (it has been a while) they have by far the highest cycling population by % (China may have more bikes but Asian driving is not comparable with western driving). Helmet usage is low, very low. Indeed, it is almost only the tourists that wear helmets and yet the KSI rates for cyclists is very low.

Then take NZ, AUS, parts of the US and Canada and what do we see with mandatory helmet laws, 2 things:
i) Reduction in cyclists
ii) Increasing KSI rates

So by wearing a helmet you are at greater risk.

Indeed, a proffesor from the University of Bath did some research and by wearing different outfits (indeed dressing up like a woman at times) discovered that the more you look like you know what you are doing, hi-viz, helmet etc. the closer cars pass to you. This is risk mitigation, so the drivers see someone with a helmet and think, "Hmm, this person is responsible and knows what they are doing" and so pass closer and invariably someone will pass too close and hit the cyclist.


Some facts and figures: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9280/rrcgb2011-complete.pdf

[Mr Mystery]

In terms of liability - Car doing the U-turn would be found at fault, as speed is not relevant, or provable.

Doesn't matter who was riding or driving what. One was correctly established (in this case, the cyclist). Once correctly established, you can ride or drive as badly as you wish. Anyone hitting you whilst you're on your side of the road is at fault.

[Wildeybeast]

Normal part of driving does not infact result in a collision. Helmets are ineffecitve in collisions at speed and most do little more than just transmit the full trauma through the helmet to the head. For what it is worth I wear one, mostly to avoid this convesation.

I do not deign to comment on the encroaching of the pedestrian crossing because there is no point. I am sure if you look on street view you will find many more cars breaking the law. Indeed, if I did a quick search I am sure I could find data showing that many tens of thousands of vehicles daily break the speed limit. But that apparently is no reason to treat them as second class citizens.



Unfortunately if you look at DfT stats you will find that pedestrains are invovled in more KSIs vs motorvehicles than cyclists, indeed car occupants die in even higher number (around 8 times more than cyclists)
Cycling is not an inherently dangerous activity, indeed, the injury rate is less than gardening for instance.

I think if people are doing an activity that has a probable outcome of them hitting their head they should wear a helmet. Otherwise it should be down to the individual.

It is an old argument, seat belts have a proven efficacy of reduction of KSI rates, worryingly though the introdcution of them coincided with an increase in accidents (though these were less fatal). The number of head injuries though suffered by drivers are higher than those suffered by cyclists, so if you argue cyclists should have them you then have to say well by that logic cars and pedestrains would have a greater reduction.

Let us look at Holland (it has been a while) they have by far the highest cycling population by % (China may have more bikes but Asian driving is not comparable with western driving). Helmet usage is low, very low. Indeed, it is almost only the tourists that wear helmets and yet the KSI rates for cyclists is very low.

Then take NZ, AUS, parts of the US and Canada and what do we see with mandatory helmet laws, 2 things:
i) Reduction in cyclists
ii) Increasing KSI rates

So by wearing a helmet you are at greater risk.

Indeed, a proffesor from the University of Bath did some research and by wearing different outfits (indeed dressing up like a woman at times) discovered that the more you look like you know what you are doing, hi-viz, helmet etc. the closer cars pass to you. This is risk mitigation, so the drivers see someone with a helmet and think, "Hmm, this person is responsible and knows what they are doing" and so pass closer and invariably someone will pass too close and hit the cyclist.


Some facts and figures: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9280/rrcgb2011-complete.pdf

But you need to look at the reasons behind the statistics. Based on what I've seen of Amsterdam, bikes massively outnumber cars and they have a well established metro system. There aren't less KSI's simply because they don't wear helmets and drivers are more careful as a result. Significant proportions of their transport system are geared around cyclists, with plenty of dedicated cycle routes (that are on pavements rather than roads). Put simply, their risk of accidents with motor vehicles is much lower than somewhere like London. There is a different attitude amongst drivers towards cyclists there, but that is not because they don't wear helmets.

I'm not advocating compulsory helmet laws (except with children, but they shouldn't be cycling on roads anyway) as I believe it addresses the symptoms not the cause, in the same way I wouldn't advocate all women should have to carry rape alarms. That said, I think not taking easy and sensible precautions to minimise your risk of accident/damage from an accident is just daft.


In terms of liability - Car doing the U-turn would be found at fault, as speed is not relevant, or provable.

Doesn't matter who was riding or driving what. One was correctly established (in this case, the cyclist). Once correctly established, you can ride or drive as badly as you wish. Anyone hitting you whilst you're on your side of the road is at fault.

Mystery, that isn't strictly true. Whilst yes, any driver should be able to stop to avoid an accident with a vehicle in front of them, if it can be established that vehicle is doing something careless/dangerous the fault is on them. So if you are driving (or riding) erratically/suddenly braking etc. because you are putting your make-up on/drunk/stupid and I crash into you, the fault is most likely to be yours since I could not have been reasonably expected to predict your actions.

[Wolfshade]

. There is a different attitude amongst drivers towards cyclists there, but that is not because they don't wear helmets.

There is a different attitude because they decided in the 70s and 80s to plow millions into funding cycling. It is because of this and that cyclists are treated as fully integrated road users that they do not need to wear helmets. They are not considered an out group.

In the UK they are, they are seen as an obstacle to get around as quickly as possible and not a road user with equal rights and responsibilities.

It is this attitude that is worrying. You have cyclists killed in this country and the argument falls down to that they shouldn't be on the road as they don't pay "road tax" (despite it not existing since before WW2), or that they don't have insurance (which a number do) or that they aren't wearing a helmet. As if a peice of paper or polystyrene can prevent a collision (look hear! I have this magic rock that keeps away tigers! Want to buy it? I've never been eaten by a Tiger while carrying it!)

There is a public attitude that treats them as second class, because after all, they will just get knocked off.

What we need to do, if we want to keep cities moving is to heavily invest in proper cycling infrastrucutre. We need to see cycling as a normal everyday thing, not just a persuit by the poor and the middle-class eco-warrior. We need to teach people to cycle safely. We need to teach motorists to pass cyclists. We need mutual respect and application of law. We need to stop killing cyclists.

[Wildeybeast]

I agree entirely. I am also interested in how much you want for this magic anti-tiger rock.

[Wolfshade]

With regard to post #396 (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?35731-A-Crash-Course-in-Cycling-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-cyclist)&p=439339&viewfull=1#post439339)
[Right turning car hits cyclist on Daily Mail website and the venom that followed]

It turns out that the driver has now been caught and faces a couple of charges:

suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving,
driving while disqualified,
being the driver of a vehicle which failed to stop after a road accident,
being the driver of a vehicle involved in a road accident who failed to report that accident,
using a motor vehicle on a road/public place without third party insurance and
fraud by false representation.

Looks like the Daily Mail haters had the right idea, just the wrong person (He shouldn't be on the road without tax or insurance!).

- - - Updated - - -


I agree entirely. I am also interested in how much you want for this magic anti-tiger rock.

The trouble is that in the 60s we built cities and roads for cars and not for people and/or bikes.

It is a two way street and nothing irritates me more than seeing a red light jumper, ok maybe cars in the ASL (oh wait they are technically red light jumpers too!) Anyway, "fun fact" my 2nd collision involved a stunning start from red lights by myself only to get side swiped by another rider flying through a red light yay!

It would be nice if we could all get along, certainly it would help to make cycling less dangerous and therefore encourage others to take it up, which means less car driving and less congestion on those who have to use them.

I understand living in rural locations that car ownership is essential, but in large cities they start to become a bit optional. I know I only tend to drive my car if I am travelling with the other half, (I have suggested a tandem, I was told know. I suggested a cargo bike, I had a week of peace and quiet...) travelling with stuff, i.e. 40k, or going over 20 miles away. Most journeys are under 5 miles so, why not go by bike? It keeps you fit and healthy so you cost the NHS less money, means you can eat cake (I think I might be doing it wrong), takes cars off the road, so there is less congestion and better air quality, plus I look fabulous in lycra!

[Denzark]

In terms of liability - Car doing the U-turn would be found at fault, as speed is not relevant, or provable.

Doesn't matter who was riding or driving what. One was correctly established (in this case, the cyclist). Once correctly established, you can ride or drive as badly as you wish. Anyone hitting you whilst you're on your side of the road is at fault.


Don't be silly.

For a start, there is no blanket law banning all u-turns in the UK, it depends on the road markings and signage, having used street view on this road I didn't see any signs or markings prohibiting u-turns.

Secondly, speed is both relevant and provable (if you mean provable in general ie to a UK evidential standard - although this may not be achievable in this case - I note there is nothing evidential to deny the Mail's asserted 5mph any more than there is to confirm it evidentially). The relevancy is whether or not the injured party had time to see and react to whatever they crashed into.

Next, in UK law, there is never a case where 'you can ride or drive as badly as you wish' and legally you bear no liability for your actions.

Lastly, the comment 'anyone hitting you whilst you're on your side of the road is at fault' is to my opinion inaccurate - the vast majority of cases when one party going forward hits the rear of another party in front also going forward, in UK, tends to find responsibility sit with the party doing the rear-ending for failure to maintain enough distance.

[Wolfshade]

It is quite interesting as there is a bi-section of two presumed liability cases.

i) Running into the back of a vehicle the presumption is on the party who hits the other
ii) A person turning is liable for any collision that entails during (and shortly after) their turn.

So if she had completed the move and was travelling at "normal speed" then I would err on the fault of the cyclist, if she were still doing the turn it would be her fault.

I imagine it was a case of look but didn't see the cyclist so did the move and cyclist is like, oh crap no where left to go. We must assume that cyclists don't want to get hurt and therefore will do their utmost to avoid collisions where possible.

- - - Updated - - -

Bit from the Washington Post stating the obvious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/08/07/with-bike-lanes-fewer-riders-on-sidewalk/

If you build infrastrucutre people will use it rather than the pavement (sidewalk).

Which really says everything you need to know.


There have been similar decreases in pavement cycling with increases in bike use in Denver and New York after protected lanes were introduced, PeopleForBikes said.
“People bike on sidewalks for two main reasons: because they’re looking for a space that’s physically separated from speeding cars and trucks, or they’re traveling against traffic on a one-way street,” the group said in a statemt.
“Well-designed, protected bike lanes, which use posts, curbs or parked cars to divide bike and auto traffic, create a safer solution to both of these needs. In project after project, adding a protected bike lane to a street has sharply cut sidewalk biking even as it greatly increased bike traffic.”

[Wolfshade]

Police in Surrey have fined a 74-year-old woman £50 for cycling on the hard shoulder of the M25 motorway.
The woman, from New Haw near Weybridge, was apparently using what is one of Britain’s busiest stretches of road as a shortcut, according to a tweet from Surrey Roads Police.
She was stopped on Wednesday afternoon between junctions 10 and 11.

[Morgrim]

Don't the motorways have signs specifically stating that cyclists shouldn't use them? I can fully understand not wanting bikes there, we have similar with our freeways (although the ones I use also have a designated bike and pedestrian lane separated by a barrier from the zooming cars, which is nice).

[Wolfshade]

No, or at least not normally. Where a road becomes a motorway without an intersection, there is usually a sign telling all non-motorway traffic to exit, but if you are joining the motorway there is no specific signage. However, you know it must be a motorway as it is detailed as an M* or A*(M) and the signage is blue rather than green or brown/white.

[Wolfshade]

According to the comments on his original YouTube posting, cyclist Ali Choudhry (19) from Ilford, was riding through London with a friend on August 2 when they noticed they were being tailgated by a Golden Tours bus.

“This driver decided to spice things up a bit for us with a blend of typical road rage," said Choudhry. "He tailgated us at literally 3 feet and got angry for being held up for a few seconds but had all the time in the world to stop and vent his fury.”


http://youtu.be/Iy-4B_nY1Xo

A tweet from Golden Tours says that the driver in question is no longer with the company.

Of course if you read the article on the daily mail somehow the poor bus driver is the victim.

Certainly, we do not know what went on immediately before the video started however regardless of what he did or didn't do was the response of mounting a pavement a good thing to do.

[Wolfshade]

How to stop at a red light. Bus edition:
http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b489/_wolfshade_/IMAG1441_zpsf529416c.jpg

[Denzark]

Whereas the cyclist's edition is where they just zip off the road and onto the pavement, because clearly red lights don't apply on pavements! Straight through the junction, back on the road the other side, and wahey.

[Wildeybeast]

I would suspect the proportion of cyclists who ignore the red lights is at least comparable with the number of drivers who fail their 'amber gamble' and go through on red.

[Wolfshade]

If they dismount it isn't illegal. I was foot traffic at the time of the photo. Though I do have issues with this bus company having had them fail to give way to me on numerous occassions.

But if the path is dual use then of course they don't need to stop.

There is an interesting point here though, if the crossing is dual use, can you join the road through the junction? I mean you are already infront of the stop line so theoretically, you can. Though I have no idea about the legality of this.

On the subject of ASL (or boxes of death), there is some local infrastrcuture where teh shared use path ends about 2 foot before a traffic light, there is no dropped curb or anyway to join the road so you have to dismount and to join the road, then there is a dropped curb leading to a pelican crossing and asl. It is weird.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf

Accident rates involved by factor p195

Disobeyed automatic traffic signal,
Cyclist 180 1%,
Motorbike 112 1%,
Car 1751 1%,
Bus/Coach 33 1%,
LGV 119 1%,
HGV 28 0%.

Now admittedly these are only the ones that were a) caught and b) involved in collisions but clearly it shows that more cars are at fault than bikes.

[Denzark]

Oh come on Wolfy, now get the figures to crunch it and show it as a percentage of user type - we know there are thousand more cars on the road. In fact you would probably need to crunch in some type of distance/red lights on the road figure to see who actually goes past more.

[Wolfshade]

I did try and find the numbers this was the best I came up with initially.

While the numbers of cars is relatively well known the estimates for bike usage is less well known.

This becomes worse when trying to estimate rates in terms of per km.

Also, you have issues that not all red lights are measured so you end up with a higher proportion of urban monitoring, which isn't representative as they have slightly higher than average cycling and motoring rates and traffic lights rates.

A FoI request to the Met (sorry it's London centric)

2007/08 - 536 cyclists, 89,833 motorists
2008/09 - 1,085 cyclists, 89,495 motorists
2009/10 - 1,872 cyclists, 79,851 motorists

It is also worth noting that camera enforced traffic lights are able to automatically capture motorists but not cyclists and it is hard to determine who is the owner of a bike and thus who is at fault. There are also the increase in safety campaigns so that could account for the massive increase in cyclists being fined. Then there is an argument that operation safeway targeted cyclists more frequently than motorists for similiar offenses.

It is unfortunately, one of these stats which we won't ever know the true number or rates.

[Psychosplodge]

When you get chance wolfie read this tumblr post (http://itswalky.tumblr.com/post/95164904602/bike-theft-and-crazy-coincidences).

[Wolfshade]

Coincidental indeed.


Trying to find an unbiased sample is really quite hard 'zark. My feelings are that like Wildeybeast suggests that the numbers are quite comparable in terms of journeys made. After all getting behind a wheel or a handlebar doesn't really affect you being an arse or not.

I have the same chance of running a redlight in my bike as I do my car. I don't risk it, but that is just me.

I have come across one instance where to navigate a junction the only way to do it as a cyclist would be to run a red light. There is a main road with two minor roads on the one side and one on the other. The whole junction is traffic light controlled. They are all on timers aside from the second junction on the one side as it is from a very minor road, instead that is activated by going over an induction loop and unfortunately, bikes don't have enough metal to cause the induction loop to activate. Though I am please to say that latterly, they have introduced a push button for the cyclists/others so that they can register that they are at the junction without needing to jump it.

There are some people that try and justify why the run the red lights, whether they are the amber gambler or whatever. In terms of cyclists, there are those who cite that one of the most frequent locations for having an accident is pulling off from a stationary start, which I think is bore out by the document referrenced in #459. Indeed the whole point of ASL is to try and relieve that issue. Indeed a study at one set of lights in Birmingham showed that while there were 0 red light jumpers (technically) the junction was very seldom used by cyclists and of the few that did a high proportion dismounted and navigated the junction on foot.

I do agree though it is frustrating and infuriating. It is such a blatant violation that is easily seen, unlike people on 'phones or driving without insurance/mot/ved indeed even speeding is the norm now. Unfortunatley, perception bias will see those cyclists who don't abide by the law and largely ignore those that do, it is like all those audis you pass in the left lane, they are just invisible, or the white vans that don't sit 14 microns from your bumper, you don't recall them because of unconcious brain choices.

There is no way that I am going to even attempt to defend all cyclists, but by the same token, I do not think that the dangerous behaviour exhibited by some motorists is the normal. There is a dangerous attitude that some have and this is seen over and over again in the way that they treat cyclists as a 2nd class citizen, one only needs to read in clear cut cases of car vs cyclist where the car is in the wrong and the public comments about how they shouldn't be on the road, don't pay road tax, don't have insurance, don't have an MOT. While clearly missing the point that they are legally allowed on the road and any of those bits of paper do not protect or prevent collisions from occuring.

The AA believe that around 1 in 25 motorists don't have insurance (another thinks it is 1-20 (https://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_068758.pdf)), (for some context 3 million people use a cycle 3 times or more a week) and yet we consider that what between 1-10% of red light jumping cyclists to be worse than those ~ 4/5% without insurance, the 5.6% without VED (source DVLA) ~2.5% without full licences (though that is an old stat c.1999 unsourced from the beeb) now there will of course be some overlap between that group as we see in those lovely motor police shows.

But you are certainly much more likely to come across a driver without those legal requirements than a cyclist on the pavement or running a red light.

It just seems that those things are highlighted much more frequently and it should not be the case.

We live in a society that is running out of room, London's air quality earlier this year was so poor that it was failling to meet emission standards which has a detrimental affect on everyone's lives. The cost of obseity is staggering and now mortality rates relating to be over weight are the single largest cause of death. Not to mention the cost to the economy of wasted minutes/hours in congestion. What we need is to do something about that. For years and years we have seen that improving roads, increasing capacity leads to one thing, more road users and thus more congestion. So we cannot build our way out of this problem with adding bypasses or hard shoulder running or extra lanes. We need a complete see change in transport. We need to get people walking again, we need to get people cycling, or on the 'bus, train, tram, canoe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7909497.stm). The only way to get people to do that is to make them feel safe and encourage them to do that.
That means proper infrastructure, (not things like this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728248/Is-Britains-deadliest-bike-lane-Path-takes-cyclists-suicide-alley-streams-traffic.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490), this (http://www.theguardian.com/cities/bike-blog/2014/apr/24/cycle-path-fails-world-bike-lanes-guardian-readers), etc (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-london-cycle-lanes-that-hate-cyclists) etc (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/)) getting beyond the arguments pro/anti helmet law, not creating barriers (both social, economic and physical) to cycling, this means mutual respect and a change in culture.

[Wolfshade]

POLICE have appealed for witnesses after a six-year-old girl was caught across her throat while riding her bike in Titchfield Common.


The cable was fixed deliberately to catch people using the path, and could have caused serious injury. I am very keen to trace those responsible to ensure there is no repeat incident, and to make them aware of how dangerous this could have been.

I would like to appeal to anyone using the park who may have seen anyone fixing the cable in place or tampering with an abandoned purple and white child's BMX which has been left at the scene. In particular we would like to speak with two boys, aged around 15 or 16, who were sat in the nearby play park at the time of the incident, as they may have vital information.

[Psychosplodge]

They're doing it wrong.
They should do it on the path the dickhead chavs race their stolen uninsured scooters up and down .

[Wildeybeast]

Why would anyone insure a stolen scooter?

[Wolfshade]

I think the bigger question is why would anyone have a scooter in the first place

[Psychosplodge]

they wouldn't but i really should have included a /

[Morgrim]

I think the bigger question is why would anyone have a scooter in the first place
Can legally get one at 16 instead of 17 or 18?

Semi-on topic question, anyone know a good technique for getting a bike up and down 3 floors of stairs? I don't ride much mostly because I lack the arm strength to carry mine easily.

[Psychosplodge]

A carbon fibre bike that is light enough to lift?

[Wolfshade]

The best answer is get a lighter bike, which isn't really any help.

My personal favourite is like this:
http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/cyclocross-worlds-2010-women/vos2.jpg

Shoulder under the cross bar, arm coming round holding the forks.

You can also do this backwards, but the handlebars might hit your head.

There are some other options though.

You can get a little strap so you can carry it under your arm pit:
http://designyoutrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/frame-handle-bike-handle-walnut-studiolo2.jpeg

Or a shoulder strap:
http://cdn.gajitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lift-strap-2.jpg

If you are going to carry it on your shoulder and it is a bit on the heavy side / your shoulder a bit on the boney side to get some foam (or even a bath sponge) to pop between your shoulder and top tube to really cushion it.

[Psychosplodge]

Are the wheels the wrong size ratio to the steps to just roll it up or down them?

[Wolfshade]

Oh that is a good point, if there is a skirting or ramp at the far edge rolling up them is a great tip.

If not see if the building's super with install accessbility ramps.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/ff/5d/85/ff5d8595e70740781b0916d57b7e60dc.jpg

[Morgrim]

I may have to try that shoulder under the crossbar method this weekend if the weather fines up a bit. I normally try under the arm but the pedals smack into my shins painfully, and unfortunately the stairs are the wrong depth and angle to wheel it up or down.

[Wolfshade]

Any excuse to post a picture of Marianne Vos :D

We had previously the bedfordshire roundabout that was allegedly "dutch" style, despite many observers stating that it was not like anything in Holland, but it did mark the first time that the routing of cyclists around a roundabout had a different need than motorists in the UK.

Well, we have another one:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00754/7d653a68-289e-11e4-_754275c.jpg

Britain’s first roundabout to incorporate separate cycle lanes is to open next year, though some safety campaigners claimed that it would confuse cyclists.

The roundabout is at Queen’s Circus in Battersea, south London, near to the Battersea power station redevelopment and site of the new US embassy.

Cyclists and motorists will have separate traffic lights at key points on the roundabout to ensure that vehicles do not turn across the path of cyclists.

Stretches of raised kerb will also separate the lanes for parts of the junction where cyclists make left turns off the roundabout. The £2.4 million project, unveiled yesterday by Wandsworth council, is also designed to aid pedestrians, with crossings installed at a junction that is difficult to navigate on foot.

Though looking at it, it does look massively complicated and if it is it will take a long time to get people used to using it.

Jonathan Cook, Wandsworth council’s transport spokesman, said: “This is an innovative design and we expect it will be the first major roundabout in London which separates cyclists from other traffic in this way.”

Garrett Emmerson, a spokesman for Transport for London, who worked with Wandsworth council on the designs, said that they knew of no other roundabout in Britain designed in this way.

“These ambitious and innovative plans for Queen’s Circus will deliver improvements for cyclists while also making the environment better for pedestrians and other road users,” he said.

Again I wonder why we don't just re-use dutch designs where mixed-mode roundabouts are fairly common place.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/ontwerpvoorbeelden/rs_1.%20Enschede,%20rotonde%20knalhutteweg.jpg

Though I myself don't like these very much as it creates 3 times the number of intersections and since we all know that intersections are where collisions are most likely to happen.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, BMJ states the bloomin' obvious:
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887

Cycling to works makes you thinner.

The investigation, performed by researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and University College London, took a sample of around 7500 individuals and analysed the relationship between their body fat percentage or Body Mass Index score and their chosen method of transport to work.
The results showed that men who traveled by public transport or were active for part of their commute had respective BMI scores (weight ÷ height) of 1.10 and 0.97 points lower than those who drove.
Meanwhile, women who commuted via public modes of transport had BMI scores 0.72 lower, and those who commuted actively were 0.87 points lower than those who made their way to work through private means of transport

Dr Flint states "Because the predominant mode of transportation in Britain is the car, if we can affect a large modal shift away from private transport toward public or active modes of transport, there really is great potential to reap large population health benefits on overweight and obesity."

[Wolfshade]

As discussed in the Off-Topic Thread, with the cost of public transport being significant and seemingly increasing year on year and the cost of car ownership being out of reach many people on low incomes and those on benefits. Indeed, the situation is so bad that in some cases a worker is better off being on benefits than when working because of the transport costs.

Consequently, there have been various schemes to provide bikes to those on unemployment benefit when they get a job to help reduce this cost.

A Nottingham Logisitics firm has taken this scheme to "the next level" and have bikes for its workers that have been refurbished from the local prison.

The inmates learn bike maintence and produce something that is useful with their menial labour and these bikes are used to help the logistics firm's employees move around.

- - - Updated - - -

Driver looking at photos on phone hits cyclist – then snaps fatally injured victim, court told

A court has been told that a minibus driver who struck a cyclist, fatally injuring him, had been looking at pictures of vintage cars on his mobile phone prior to the collision – and that he them used the device to photograph the victim as he lay on the ground.
Andrzej Wojcicki, aged 44 and from Blackwood, has pleaded not guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to causing the death by dangerous driving of cyclist Owain Richard James from Oakdale on the A472 at Newbridge on Sunday 21 July 2013. Mr James, aged 30, died in hospital of severe injuries sustained in the crash.
Wojcicki told police following the incident that the cyclist had veered out in front of the left-hand drive minibus he was driving, reports BBC News South East Wales (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-28853144), but that version of events was disputed by eyewitnesses

The trial continues

[Denzark]

Now this fella was lucky. In the interests of fairness, this shows it ISN'T always the cyclist's fault...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10986016/Terrifying-headcam-shows-cyclist-land-on-his-feet-after-being-hit-by-car.html

[Wolfshade]

I thought it was going to be that video :) Nails the landing in cleats and wet ground, brilliant.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?35731-A-Crash-Course-in-Cycling-(or-why-everyone-should-be-a-cyclist)&p=439339&viewfull=1#post439339

It was discussed ^^

If you read the Daily Mail's comment section you will be surprised (or not given it is in the DM) the number of comments who blame the cyclist.

But that really sums up some of what the point of this thread is.

The person driving the black car either didn't see the bike, or looked and chanced it anyway.

[Wolfshade]

http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/latest-news/traffic_light_loophole_may_have_been_exploited_by_ st_ives_cyclists_1_3732001

Cambridgeshire County Council has changed the way a set of traffic lights aimed at giving priority to buses using the guided busway in St Ives operates – because cyclists have discovered how to trigger the sensors and get themselves a green light too. The local authority says the issue is adding to congestion in the town.

Some research showed that in a 2 hour wind traffic was stopped for a total of 23 minutes. Although it is unclear if this was because of bieng triggered by the bus or cyclists legally using the bus lane.

Observers from the area claim that using the button to trigger the lights "properly" for cyclist or pedestrian, they have to wait "bloody ages" however long that is. It is a known fact that certain lights will ignore button presses for pedestrians (and cyclists) in urban areas at busy times to prioritise traffic flow. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23869955)

[Wolfshade]

A petition calling for the banning of surface dressing — the technique of resurfacing a worn road by spreading a layer of tar and stone chips on it — has reached over 10,000 signatures on the Government's e-petitions website. (Sign it here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67408)

While not strictly just a cycling issue. Indeed, MCN has been sharing this on Facebook and elsewhere.

The issue is that the stones which aren't stuck in the tar flick up and can chip paint work and if you need to do an emergency stop the whole layer of chippings can just shift with you.

If you are unfortunate enough to then put your wheels where others haven't already driven, the chippings are loose and cause problems.

Also, having those loose chipings flying up into your shins can be quite painful.

Though having said all that, it is quicker and cheaper and using some measures causes less desruption than a full closure and re-lay.

Some highway engineers have weighed in on this and point out that if done properly it is good, cheap etc but does rely on people actually doing 10mph which is unenforced (and indeed ACPO will not bother enforcing that speed). Though some have pointed out that some contractors do not sweep the surface frequently enough to prevent build up of excess loose materials.

[Psychosplodge]

Shins? I hate the damn things cause of the dickheads not doing the 10mph and spraying your windscreen with chippings.

[Wolfshade]

My only experiance of this, my shins got a-peppering, nowhere near as bad as passing a gritter going in the opposite direction. Literally firing salt into open wounds...

But I can well imagine that it goes much higher.

[Psychosplodge]

I got several surface chips on my old car that were noticeable but not deep enough to repair from the dam things. And I've got a big gouge in the paintwork on the bonnet of this one from it.

[Wolfshade]

So sign the petition :)

[Psychosplodge]

I probably will.

[Wolfshade]

Alastair Dudgeon died after being hit by James Sneddon's Vauxhall Astra at about 2am on January 6, 2013 near the Kincardine Bridge in Fife. Alastair had lights on his bike and was experianced cyclist who regularly cycled to and from his job as a baker and he sustained a broken neck, rib fractures and internal injuries, including to the aorta — the main artery from the heart — when he was hit from behind by Sneddon.

The Police on scene testified that the light from Alastair's bike was visibile from over 200m when arriving on scene stating that that should be more than enough time for someone to see and react safely. The weather conditions were clear and visibility was not hindered, though the road was unlit.

Sneddon denied the charge of causing death by dangerous driving, and was found guilty of the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving.

The prosecution dismissed claims that Alastair contributed to his own death by not wearing a hi-viz jacket as Sneddon would have seen the rear light before the hi-viz and should have reacted early enough to avoide the collision.

The defense stated that Sneddon showed "genuine remorse".

Sentencing Sneddon recieved 300 hours community service and 4 year driving ban. While this is within the recommended sentencing range for causing death through careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors, it does seem a little "cheap" for killing someone, regardless of how "accidental" it was.

[Wildeybeast]

Yep. Sentences for driving offences are far too lenient. Always have been and there seems to be no intention to change this.

[Wolfshade]

Yeah, it is off when you consider this was in the same week that a man was sentenced to 33 months prison time for recording Fast & Furious 6 and uploading it to the interwebs.

[Wolfshade]

Oh no!

1 in 4 guide dogs in London have been struck by a cyclist, says charity :(

Note: as mentioned in the comments, Guide Dogs withdrew its claim that one in four London guide dogs had been hit. It has admitted supplying incorrect information, and many people have noted that its survey was deeply dodgy.

In a survey conducted by the association, of 33 guide dog owners in London who responded, 14 said they had been involved in a collision and 25 said they had been involved in a "near miss" with cyclists on pavements or jumping red lights.

A further five blind people without guide dogs said they had been in collisions with cyclists - out of 16 who responded to the survey.

There are 41,060 people registered blind or partially sighted in London with just over 320 using guide dogs in the city.


Eitherway, still should avoid red light jumping and it highlights the dangers of use of shared footpaths.

[Wildeybeast]

By shared footpaths, I assume you mean ones with cycle paths and foot ways next to each other? I didn't think cyclists were allowed on normal pavements. Either way, I don't think they are major issue if done correctly. Amsterdam seems to work fine with them, but they are twice the size of our pavements so have plenty of room on both sides.

[Wolfshade]

Yes you assume correctly.

There is no pavements! Just footways/paths and cycleways/paths.

And you are quite right, they are not an issue if done correctly, unfortunately as you seem to infer they are usually not done very well at all.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Oj1QhYSaVKc/TSDcr54XYUI/AAAAAAAAAhA/pkwrX_zopDk/s1600/WhitworthSt1.JPG

So you have to content with all kinds of street furniture, let alone what happens if you have a bus stop in the cycle lane and the number of people milling about.

There arises a conflict because the pedestrians can wander freely across either the foot part or the cycle part legally, the issue is that the cyclist technically should not leave the cycle way so can end up impeded by pedestrians and if you are in an area where the cycling density is quite low, (i.e.not cambridge/oxford) then ringing bells and calling warning is seen as quite a hostile action.

Indeed, I have been berated for "not getting out of the way" of oncoming pedestrains, I remain on the cycleway stationary waiting for the pedestrian to move, when I pointed out that I was on the only part I was allowed to be it was suggested that I "go forth and multiply"

The Dutch don't technically have shared facilities, they are each dedicated and appropriate to each others needs.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S14OZTjvsKk/T2hHSCgkirI/AAAAAAAAMIM/NLqVHZxxoqU/s1600/SAM_0687.JPG

This is as close as they get to shared use. As you can see the pavement is for the pedestrians and the cycle route is for the cyclists and is demarked in a seperate colour, with a different surface. The pedestrians do not have a right of way on the cycle path and the cyclists don't have a right of way on the pedestrain path.

The closest to a shared provision is outside of urban areas where low speed mopeds (25kph or slower) are permitted to use cycle paths.

[Morgrim]

There was an article in the paper today about how a group of local truck drivers hate cyclists to the point that they will deliberately overtake them, then once the cyclist is clear of the cabin drift left to force the cyclist off the road. And not care if they cycling can't and collides because the body of the truck isn't going to show any markings from a crash so they can't be blamed or proven at fault. :||||

[Wildeybeast]

Yeah, I saw those mopeds on the outskirts of Amsterdam. They weren't going much faster than most of the cyclists, so it didn't seem much of an issue. As you say, when done properly these sorts of things work fine. There are some dedicated cycle lanes on newer road systems that are pretty good, but they are isolated pockets. I don't understand why councils bother with them at all if they are going to make such a half-arsed pigs ear of it.

[Wolfshade]

Exactly, it only causes resentment. I stumbled across one that was literally mind boggling:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mAUDgEgSPaU/UDY70qmZyQI/AAAAAAAAAGU/cIOHsPjxrT4/s1600/Untitled2.png

What is the point? 246ft.

Really.

Sigh. Though apparently it is scheduled for a massive overhaul and being joined up to a large network.

The worst ones are ones that are dangerous because they pass too close to objects or are a perfect "door zone". Then people see cyclists not using a cycle lane and then go, "well you should be using that" and yet they don't understand why you don't, or indeed that you are perfectly valid not to.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-G7IHAWcuc-s/USC3l_m8sAI/AAAAAAAAAEI/oJieP0faTms/s1600/harlow-dismounts.jpg

^^ This is an example, 5 crossings where you have to give way, may as well go on the main road and have right of way throughout, it would certainly save on paint and signs.

I think councils do it to make a big show of their "green" endeavours. Unfortunately, a lot of the traffic engineers do not understand traffic flow let alone how pedestrians and cyclists use the space.

Then when it doesn't get used they go "well we did our best, we shan't bother again".

- - - Updated - - -


There was an article in the paper today about how a group of local truck drivers hate cyclists to the point that they will deliberately overtake them, then once the cyclist is clear of the cabin drift left to force the cyclist off the road. And not care if they cycling can't and collides because the body of the truck isn't going to show any markings from a crash so they can't be blamed or proven at fault. :||||

Urgh, it is reasons like this that I have my gopro, yeah i look like a tool with it a top my helmet but sometimes video evidence is all you have.

Oh btw Any joy with the different carrying options on the stairs?

[Morgrim]

Oh btw Any joy with the different carrying options on the stairs?
Sadly not, it's been raining heavily and pretty miserable, given the main bike path I like is by the river I'd like the river to stick to its own waterlane and not invade the bikepath first.

[Wolfshade]

Bristol, has a desire and appetite to become a cycling city and has been putting a fairly pro-cycling agenda forward.

One of it's flag ship projects is the Bristol and Bath Railway Path (http://www.bristolbathrailwaypath.org.uk/home.shtml) [A fairly flat route along a disused railway] shared use pedestrian-cyclist route. Since it has opened it has been recieved plaudits for being a good use of disused railway but even from the get go there were complaints that "cyclists were going to fast" or that "pedestrians wandered unaware all over the path".

A survey for the Royal Geographical Society in London has discovered how much the two groups really but heads.

600 users were surveyed

+ over half of users said that they had experienced frustration as a result of other people using the route on the day they were questioned.
+ over three quarters said that they kept their feelings to themselves and did not confront the other users.

Presenting the findings of the research Delaney stated that: “Government guidelines for shared-use paths are based on research that focuses on the observable conflicts that take place and thus the consensus is that conflict between users is rare. However, this research shows that when shared path relations are examined in more detail there are a great deal of frustrations bubbling beneath the surface.

The survey highlights the difficulty of designing facilities for a mix of mode users. The majority of cyclists would like more information and guidance provided to all users on how to share the path, whereas some pedestrians would prefer to be separated from cyclists. There was also a feeling that some cyclists need to slow down.”

The research showed that cyclists were most likely to experience frustration as a result of other people using the path [this is probably because they would have a higher interaction rate, as cycling is quicker than walking] but they were also the most common cause of complaint.

However, only about a third of respondants said that they would enjoy their journeys more if people on foot and on bike were physically segregated.

This research, which is the first that I am aware of, is set to continue to try and better understand where conflicts and frustation occur and therefore what can be done to resolve these.

[Wolfshade]

Today is National Cycle To Work Day!

https://www.cycletoworkday.org/

Some news coverage for it:
https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dDYr4SHO00QZX8MrLHm6Y9ghRJAqM&q=cycle+to+work+day&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XSsIVJOfA9TX7Aa50IDACw&ved=0CDIQqgIwAQ

[Wolfshade]

Couple o bits of news from states side.

California passes 3' rule.

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_600/images/road.cc%20pics/3ft%20UK%20back.jpg

The current law states that you should pass a cyclist at a "safe distance", (similar to the UK law). However, new laws have been passed after two previous versions have failed.

Under the law, if traffic or roadway conditions prevent motorists from giving cyclists 3 feet of clearance, drivers must “slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent” and only pass when the cyclist will not be endangered.

Fines run to $35 for violations, but this rises to $154 with additional fees. Drivers who collide with cyclists and injure them while violating the law will be subject to a $220 fine.

The impact of cycling lanes in NY

Since 2007, NY has put in 31 miles of protected cycle lanes. The point of the scheme was to protect the cyclists and make a safe environment in order to try and encourage cycling use, anything to try and reduce the car usage to try and get the city moving again.

So, firstly, what was the impact of the lanes on safety:

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/LPJ19pa43OVLIfsZd8g234ZB1JM=/775x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/688954/Screen_Shot_2014-09-08_at_11.48.03_AM.0.png

So, overall a 20% decrease, so that is a good thing. The lowest reduction is cycle vs cycle. There are two things to remember here, firstly, cycle lanes don't actually impact the nmber of cycle v cycle interactions and secondly there has been a large upswing in cycling since the routes were put in.

There was also a fringe benefit on motorists

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/J_eOUdwkkJvewTfWTKqC7hmugOc=/775x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/688874/Screen_Shot_2014-09-08_at_10.32.56_AM.0.png

While this isn't in all areas, in another area there was a 35% increase and in all other areas there was at worst a 0 impact.

Which is a bit weird really, so how was it achieved:

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/sAf4DSyvHcVdb1G5YzW88CeODF4=/775x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/688894/Screen_Shot_2014-09-08_at_11.12.43_AM.0.png

In most places the cycling lane didn't take out a driving lane to begin with. Normally smaller lanes lead to lower speeds, but on these roads average speed was down at 11mph anyway so the impact of the smaller lanes was negligable.

Another improvement was something called a pocket lane for left-hand turns: a devoted turning lane at most intersections that takes the place of the parking lane, which gets cars out of the way of moving traffic when they're making a left.

This is shown below on 8th avenue.
http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/7LpzgKo9e4mwOGbpHwzPBJ7J9LI=/775x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/688896/3901806062_47c79e95f8_o.0.jpg

So, we have sensible infrastructure that has no impact on the traffic flow, it has increased cycle usage and decreased injury rates

[Psychosplodge]

is the 5' buffer necessary when they're to the left of a parking lane though?

[Wolfshade]

I don't really know to be honest, from the photograph it looks like "left over" road space that gets eaten up by the pocket lane so that the left turning vehicles have the 5' barrier