Cycle helmets

[father_and_son]

cyclists are 2unts specially the ones in full lycra regalia......speed-humps, clangers........eeejits......feck.

The Lycra Louts!

 

[TheJasperCo]

Cyclist are under no obligation to do this, lets not forgot that. There is nothing in the highway code about this, I would suggest that often cyclists ride too close in to the kerb allowing drivers to get by when perhaps they shouldn't.

You can't win as a cyclist when it comes to things like this. Too far and drivers moan (rightly); too close and the bike suspension gets ruined going over drains and gutters. Then when you have to pull out a bit to avoid parked cars and buses, even if you wait or indicate, tempers can fray, especially in busy traffic.

 

[Pantani]

You can't win as a cyclist when it comes to things like this. Too far and drivers moan (rightly); too close and the bike suspension gets ruined going over drains and gutters. Then when you have to pull out a bit to avoid parked cars and buses, even if you wait or indicate, tempers can fray, especially in busy traffic.

True, I never ride less than 2 feet from the kerb myself, you need somewhere to go if come across anything in the road that requires you to swerve. I understand why many do not want to ride this far in to the road but there is still ample room for cars to get by.

 

[fcportaloo]

They should be insured and pay road tax if using the highways...............and have wing mirrors on their helmets.

Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937. The ironically-named iPayRoadTax.com helps spread this message on cycle jerseys. Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists - who are sometimes branded as 'tax dodgers' - would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police cars, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED. Many of those who believe road tax exists, want cyclists off the roads or, at least registered, but bicycle licensing is an expensive folly.

 

[Superphil]

Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted .

How so? If I have a V8 1968 Aston Martin, belching out emissions and CO2, I don't have to pay it.

 

[fcportaloo]

Not only compulsory wearing of helmets, also

Hi Viz Vests
Non wearing of i pods
Non use of mobile phones
Stopping at red lights
No cycling on pavements
Terrifying people walking on the under pass to the Brighton Marina.

Why cycle on the coast road between Rottingdean and the Marina when there is a perfectly good cycle track

I may sound like a killjoy, i am far from it.

I assume that a lot of cyclists must like hospital food..........stay safe

Hmm.

Car drivers:

No breaking speed limits - ever
No using mobile phones
No using ipods
No going through red lights (yes car drivers do that too)
No drink driving
No illegal parking

Most 'cycle tracks' are poorly maintained and don't actually take you to a destination

 

[fcportaloo]

It always amazes me how much cyclists complain how drivers risk cyclists safety yet so few wear helmets and hi-viz jackets. At least protect yourself first.

Are you forced to drive a car of a hi-viz colour? No? Thought not. Perhaps you are putting yourself at risk. Car drivers don't look for cyclists because there is little or no consequence should they be in a collision with one

 

[Curious Orange]

How so? If I have a V8 1968 Aston Martin, belching out emissions and CO2, I don't have to pay it.

You should probably address that question to Gordon Brown

For those of us with post 1973 cars the question to ask is why is the tax not based on my cars actual CO2 emissions rather than what the manufacturers suggest they might be.

 

[Superphil]

You should probably address that question to Gordon Brown

Exactly, and people should never forget that, FFS don't let those idiots back in power, ever again. And some should also realise that VED is simply a way of raising revenue, nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 or emissions. Therefore, there is no excuse whatsoever for cycle riders not to pay something, CED perhaps? Likewise insurance, if a cyclist, in a rare event of being in the wrong, hits your car, puts dents all over the bodywork, who's going to pay for it?

 

[brightn'ove]

True, I never ride less than 2 feet from the kerb myself, you need somewhere to go if come across anything in the road that requires you to swerve. I understand why many do not want to ride this far in to the road but there is still ample room for cars to get by.

Same. I was taught in cycling proficiency from a very young age to ride at least a car doors width away from the kerb or parked cars, if a car is behind you, they have to wait. Simple.

 

[fcportaloo]

Exactly, and people should never forget that, FFS don't let those idiots back in power, ever again. And some should also realise that VED is simply a way of raising revenue, nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 or emissions. Therefore, there is no excuse whatsoever for cycle riders not to pay something, CED perhaps? Likewise insurance, if a cyclist, in a rare event of being in the wrong, hits your car, puts dents all over the bodywork, who's going to pay for it?

You pay for it, from your comprehensive cover. If you're so concerned about paying tax, ride a bike or drive a zero emissions rated vehicle. You will then pay less tax on petrol too. You may find a few weeks in the saddle will improve your view of cycling too. Go on Superphil, give it a try

 

[perseus]

Hmm.

Car drivers:

No breaking speed limits - ever
No using mobile phones
No using ipods
No going through red lights (yes car drivers do that too)
No drink driving
No illegal parking

Most 'cycle tracks' are poorly maintained and don't actually take you to a destination

How do you think cars get on the pavements in the first place? Cars driving on pavements, its a national hobby.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Are you forced to drive a car of a hi-viz colour? No? Thought not. Perhaps you are putting yourself at risk. Car drivers don't look for cyclists because there is little or no consequence should they be in a collision with one

Drivers are surrounded by a metal cage with air bags. They are also meant to wear seat belts. Those that don't wear seat belts are complete morons. IMHO cyclists that don't wear helmets or hi-viz jackets fall into the same category as drivers who don't wear seat belts - i.e. morons. At least do everything you can to protect yourself. This doesn't excuse drivers not looking out for cyclists.

 

[Superphil]

You pay for it, from your comprehensive cover. If you're so concerned about paying tax, ride a bike or drive a zero emissions rated vehicle. You will then pay less tax on petrol too. You may find a few weeks in the saddle will improve your view of cycling too. Go on Superphil, give it a try

You see, that's why some car drivers dislike some cyclists attitude. Comprehensive cover is there so that in the event of me causing an accident, or damage to my car, all parties are recompensed financially. When that happens, even if it is not my fault (ie a cyclist running into my car) I am penalised by the insurance company. I have to claim on my own policy and they increase my premium, it is an unfair system, and cyclists get off scott free in those instances.

As for being concerned about paying tax, I'm not, I pay my share, I also ride a bike, and choose a low rated car to minimise my VED cost.

My view of cycling is not in doubt; I enjoy it on occasion, but only do it for leisure, not as a means of transport.

My view when trying to cross the road when the green man lights up, or driving up to a red light, is that many cyclists simply flout the rules of the road because they know they can get away with it.

I've had abuse hurled at me on crossings in London in recent times, twice, by cyclists. Once the cyclist simply was not going to stop under any circumstance even though I was on the crossing, the light was red, and dozens of pedestrians were crossing, it was suggested that I "got the f*** out of the way, muppet". Secondly a cyclist swerved to avoid me, clipped my back and knocked my briefcase as I crossed; he turned round and flicked the finger at me when I voiced my displeasure. Sadly, these actions rest in my memory as much as the occasions that cyclists recall car drivers opening doors on them.

I challenge you to stand by a busy traffic junction of a morning (in London or Brighton would work), I wonder how many (as a percentage) of the cyclists will jump the red lights, rather than stop at them. That doesn't happen with car drivers, as the punishments for being caught are severe, once again, the cyclists know they will get away with it.

For what it’s worth, I have very good friends who cycle daily, I have no beef whatsoever with cycling, and as I said I partake myself. I have a problem with the anarchic behaviour of a lot of cyclists, and I really fail to understand why they are not, as a minimum, required to insure themselves. Government/Councils are banging on about making more people cycle, save money, save the planet, get exercise etc. Cyclists seem to want to ride faster and more recklessly*, on roads that are not getting less busy, it’s about time they were responsible for theirs, and others safety too.

If a cyclist has an accident, injures himself, and/or another person, damages property other than a car, they could be taken to court for damages and repairs, with no insurance, they are opening themselves up to potentially expensive settlements too, especially in the current litigious climate.

* I read this article, and came to the conclusion, that yes, it is too dangerous to "play in traffic", what do others think?

Is Playing in Traffic Too Dangerous?

**inccidently, Chris Lanaway, who took the photo on that link is a good friend of mine.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You see, that's why some car drivers dislike some cyclists attitude. Comprehensive cover is there so that in the event of me causing an accident, or damage to my car, all parties are recompensed financially. When that happens, even if it is not my fault (ie a cyclist running into my car) I am penalised by the insurance company. I have to claim on my own policy and they increase my premium, it is an unfair system, and cyclists get off scott free in those instances.

As for being concerned about paying tax, I'm not, I pay my share, I also ride a bike, and choose a low rated car to minimise my VED cost.

My view of cycling is not in doubt; I enjoy it on occasion, but only do it for leisure, not as a means of transport.

My view when trying to cross the road when the green man lights up, or driving up to a red light, is that many cyclists simply flout the rules of the road because they know they can get away with it.

I've had abuse hurled at me on crossings in London in recent times, twice, by cyclists. Once the cyclist simply was not going to stop under any circumstance even though I was on the crossing, the light was red, and dozens of pedestrians were crossing, it was suggested that I "got the f*** out of the way, muppet". Secondly a cyclist swerved to avoid me, clipped my back and knocked my briefcase as I crossed; he turned round and flicked the finger at me when I voiced my displeasure. Sadly, these actions rest in my memory as much as the occasions that cyclists recall car drivers opening doors on them.

I challenge you to stand by a busy traffic junction of a morning (in London or Brighton would work), I wonder how many (as a percentage) of the cyclists will jump the red lights, rather than stop at them. That doesn't happen with car drivers, as the punishments for being caught are severe, once again, the cyclists know they will get away with it.

For what it’s worth, I have very good friends who cycle daily, I have no beef whatsoever with cycling, and as I said I partake myself. I have a problem with the anarchic behaviour of a lot of cyclists, and I really fail to understand why they are not, as a minimum, required to insure themselves. Government/Councils are banging on about making more people cycle, save money, save the planet, get exercise etc. Cyclists seem to want to ride faster and more recklessly*, on roads that are not getting less busy, it’s about time they were responsible for theirs, and others safety too.

If a cyclist has an accident, injures himself, and/or another person, damages property other than a car, they could be taken to court for damages and repairs, with no insurance, they are opening themselves up to potentially expensive settlements too, especially in the current litigious climate.

* I read this article, and came to the conclusion, that yes, it is too dangerous to "play in traffic", what do others think?

Is Playing in Traffic Too Dangerous?

**inccidently, Chris Lanaway, who took the photo on that link is a good friend of mine.

I have to say this is a well thought out and articulate response and one I completely agree with. Given cycle insurance costs around £30 a year it's hardly too much to ask that all cyclists who use the road are insured.

 

[Goring-by-Seagull]

I don't cycle myself, but if my kids go out without a helmet then what I do to them will be far worse than what would/could happen if they fell off! Not worth the risk, you only have to see one episode of A&E etc to see that.

 

[METALMICKY]

Not only compulsory wearing of helmets, also

Hi Viz Vests
Non wearing of i pods
Non use of mobile phones
Stopping at red lights
No cycling on pavements

You have missed off the biggest issue. Not having lights when riding at night. As a motorist i can tolerate a cyclist being dumb enough to want to endanger their own lives and rendering themselves invisible when the lights fade. However, its pity the poor motorist who knocks that rider down and has to deal with the mental trauma. I would like to see the Police regularly fining riders for not displaying adequate lighting.

Going off at a slight tangent wouldn't you love to be a bike shop owner at the moment! Quids in with not just the consistent sales of MTB/hybrid bikes but surely surely the sale of road racing biles will go through the roof.

 

[fcportaloo]

Superphil - yes your points are well made. I do have insurance, but I don't feel it should be compulsory as it's another deterrent to cycling, same for wearing helmets. Neither make cycling safer. Cycling is safer when more people cycle - cars are naturally forced to slow down, and the sight of cyclists means other road users become aware of them. I cycle in London most days, and I have seen what you describe above, red lights, abuse etc.

I also constantly see car drivers on their phones, texting or browsing the net, including black cab drivers. Almost everybody speeds, drivers turn left in front of me lots of the time, pull out of side roads when they should give way. The one time I was knocked off my bike, the driver drove away without stopping after he saw I was not dead. Reading some of the comments on here, I suppose many would condone driving away. Cyclists are no worse or better than other road users for flouting the laws of the road - however, they cause no environmental damage (pollution, CO2 emissions) very few injuries, other than their own and cycling offers many benefits. Less congestion, less pollution (air and noise) and in a time of morbid obesity, some physical movement. So, let's have a bit of acknowledgment about this, and less disingenuous arguments about VED and idiots generally assuming that a road is the property of a car

 

[Del Boy]

I wish cyclists would pay attention to the give way markings on the seafront. By each pedestrian crossing the cyclists should give way (lane is clearly marked) yet some cycle through it very very fast giving no space for pedestrians with children who have just crossed the road.

 

[tubaman]

There are good and bad cyclist and the bad cyclists (those that jump red lights etc) are probably bad car drivers also. Personally I have always considered myself a carefully cyclist, not wearing too much lycra but wearing a helmet and high vis clothing but this hasn't stopped me being knocked off at least 4 times by ignorant, careless car drivers who look but just DON'T see you. All road users have equal rights to use roads but as there are more drivers than cyclists there will always be more idiots driving cars than stupid cyclists.