Search results

So why do drivers still hit cyclists who are wearing hi-vis and have lights? And why do the police and courts accept "sorry mate, I didn't see you" as a valid excuse? Hi-vis is a state of mind - there are plenty of things you can do with your riding position that is better for being seen than...

If it happens it'll be in somewhere like Berlin, where the last few records have been set.

The redesign was criticised by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, as stated in the article, so to say it is now 'cycling-friendly' seems to be wide of the mark: Cambridge Cycling Campaign chairman Martin Lucas-Smith told the cycling website road.cc: "Stuffing evermore traffic through this...

That doesn't help though - cyclists (wearing full hi-vis, with lights and helmet, and reflective bits on clothing) still get hit by drivers not driving responsibly, and knowing that the courts seem to think driving is a right that shouldn't be taken away.

It'll be like the last fuel strike/blockade - bloody lovely on the roads that week!

There are plenty of activities I don't like, and can't understand why anyone would. There are also plenty of clothing types I have no interest in. I could never bring myself to "loathe" a disparate 'group' because of it though. Other than that there's a certain danger in your attitude that is...

I'd probably make you explode in a shower of your own hypocrisy. Why does someone else's mode of transport, or hobby (or both) bother you at all? You do realise that cyclists are just people on bikes, right?

Exactly! Today I shall mostly be riding around like Miss Marple.

So 1 injury to 1 cyclist in 1 incident means everyone on a bike is dangerous? Would you like me to find the statistics for people killed by motor vehicles yesterday, and thus prove that letting anyone on the road is a terrible idea?

They can reduce certain brain injuries in certain specific circumstances. In others they can actually increase other certain brain injuries. A badly-fitted helmet can also increase risk of strangulation (especially in children). If you choose to wear one, make sure it fits properly and is fitted...

Fair enough, but a helmet is certainly the very last line of protection, and is only any use post-crash, and only if you hit your head. Prevention of the accident in the first place is much more useful, and helmets can give people (riders and motorists) a feeling of invincibility. I ride with a...

Entering into the doomed area of the helmet debate. Wear one if you want, don't wear one if you choose not to. Just understand the risks and make informed decisions either way.

Based on what? More car occupants are killed by head injury than cyclists - is it "idiotic" to get into a car without one? Cycling is not inherently any more dangerous than travelling by foot. I agree about the lights issue though. (Sorry, SB!)

Private sale of an old car before buying another from someone else doesn't count as PX.

It's not just lazy though - it's stupid. How much is fuel? How much is parking? Why spend that money on a journey you can make in the same time by bike, for free?

CSC?

Cash. Personally I very rarely drive - long journeys back to sunny Sussex, and the occasional trip to the middle of nowhere for events. If the OH didn't do shift work we probably wouldn't have one. ALL local journeys, including my commute, are done by bike.

It's a brilliant law - it isn't about 'no car' days, just about not using cars for journeys that can easily be completed by bike. Why drive 2 miles to work and back? Why drive 1 mile to the shop? Combined with the investment in infrastructure it'll be great. It's just a shame a law is needed for...

Triathlon? ;-)

How much actual time did it take you? And how much actual time did it used to take? And what were you planning to do with the 'lost' minutes? And why do you think you're the only person that roads are for?