Cycle helmets

[Twinkle Toes]

It's a little known fact that many track cyclists are direct descendants of Pterodactyls. The shape of their helmet is the dead giveaway.

And not a lot of people realise that.

 

[Left Back]

The cycle lane is very badly layed out. Most pedestrians assume having crossed the road they are safe and have right of way, but the square dotted line at the edge of the cycle lane is a "stop and give way" for pedestrians. (The same as is used where a path crosses a level crossing).

As had been mentioned before, pedestrians regularly wander in to the cycle lane by accident.
As a cycle lane in the summer it is a fail.

 

[kano]

Had no idea cycle insurance was so reasonable. I will be getting some asap.

One thing i would say about the cycle lane along the seafront is that whoever decided that it was a good idea to put it on the pavement is a clown. I cycle along it every day and I know pedestrians should be more aware and not wonder along gormless but even when paying attention you have huge crowds of people that need to cross it to get from beach -> town and town -> beach. How was it ever going to be safe?

Sometimes I actually use the road but I am aware that as there is a cycle lane close by I am likely to be hit by some angry road warrior who has been annoyed by that so not very often. Roll on the winter when I wimp out and get back in the car.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

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

so what about some cyclists who assume they can share the road despite the fact there is a cycle lane beside them? Cyclists should only use the carriageway when a cycle lane isn't an option..

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I do have insurance, but I don't feel it should be compulsory as it's another deterrent to cycling

Why would it be an deterrent ? It's considerably cheaper than car insurance and compulsory insurance for car drivers has never proved to be a deterrent to driving. There was an article on the BBC website last week where a cyclist hit a car and it cost them over £1k because they weren't insured. If a cyclist seriously injured a pedestrian then they could be looking at hundreds of thousands in compensation. Only an idiot would cycle on the road without insurance and it should be compulsory.

 

[Spiritualised]

Mobile phones? - bit harsh on cyclists - its a law I see car drivers flout almost every day (along with speeding and parking) not to mention seeing people smoking, eating, yesterday for goodness sake I saw a bloke going down the A23 eating his lunch from a tupperware box held balanced on the wheel with one hand and a fork in the other (looked good to, pasta with pesto i think)- So all very well making rules/laws- but its clear that people wont stick to them. And I would not believe a driver who said they had never ever done any of the above or similar (hopefully no one else doing the pesto )

Ipod?, not sure of the difference to having music on in the car- both take away any external sound, in the end its about respect for others, and sadly there are plenty of eejits to go round. I use a car/motorbike and cycle, the last two make you much more aware of others, as you have to work on the basis that everyone is trying to kill you.

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

i think you'll find they are, theres a government run lab that does tests for CO2 and MPG.

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.

care to speculate what would happen to cycle insurance if it were compulsory? i'd wager it certainly wouldnt go down. we should probably consider insurance for pedestrians, in case they trip and fall in a cars path, indemnify local authorities and business, or incase they cause someone to injury themselves through evasive walking. those below 5'8" would be charged a "eye gouge risk" suppliment for when using an umbrella.

 

[teaboy]

so what about some cyclists who assume they can share the road despite the fact there is a cycle lane beside them? Cyclists should only use the carriageway when a cycle lane isn't an option..

Cyclists have every right to share the road, cycle lane or not.

Rules for cyclists (59-82) : Directgov - Travel and transport

Insurance is one of the benefits of British Cycling membership: British Cycling / Membership

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

Cyclists have every right to share the road, cycle lane or not.

Rules for cyclists (59-82) : Directgov - Travel and transport

Insurance is one of the benefits of British Cycling membership: British Cycling / Membership

then for the sake of biased litigation (if a cyclist makes an error, gets injured, and sues the driver, which I highly doubt that polar extreme of cyclist would care about), why not use the cycle lane? why use the road instead? what motif is there?

 

[£1.99]

These threads on cycling always seem to bring out strong opinions from both anti and pro cyclists. The answer is simply,
if everyone obeyed the rules of the road we could all travel safely using whatever form of transport chosen.
Oh and of course the government need to invest more in cycle lanes, slowing traffic down and keeping cars out of town centres.

 

[teaboy]

then for the sake of biased litigation (if a cyclist makes an error, gets injured, and sues the driver, which I highly doubt that polar extreme of cyclist would care about), why not use the cycle lane? why use the road instead? what motif is there?

Several reasons - potholes, road metalwork, pinch-points, less visible to vehicles, overtaking other cyclist, reducing the chances of pedestrians stepping out into your path, cars parked in it, etc. How would a car driver injure a cyclist that makes an error unless they're driving too close to the vehicle (ie the cyclist) in front?

 

[Birdie 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.

As somebody else has pointed out, these are square dots which mean give way. If the pedestrian is on the cycle path first, they have right of way, if the cyclist is first, they have right of way. Presumably you are a driver and need to brush up on your highway code.

 

[Birdie Boy]

Cyclists have every right to share the road, cycle lane or not.

Rules for cyclists (59-82) : Directgov - Travel and transport

Insurance is one of the benefits of British Cycling membership: British Cycling / Membership

Teaboy, thanks for this, I will get membership tomorrow, it will be worth £24 just to shut people up who demand you should have insurance!

 

[Pantani]

then for the sake of biased litigation (if a cyclist makes an error, gets injured, and sues the driver, which I highly doubt that polar extreme of cyclist would care about), why not use the cycle lane? why use the road instead? what motif is there?

The reason cyclists (especially those on racing bikes who can easily achieve speeds of 20 mph) use the road instead of cycle lanes, is that the vast majority of cycle lanes are unusable. Take examples from Brighton alone:

1. The seafront cycle lane. Always full of pedestrians, and as has been mentioned the pelican crossings let people straight across the road in to the cycle lane. It is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians alike.

2. The cycle lane from The Level to Old Steine. Brilliant at The Level end, it is wide, allows plenty of room for pedestrians and cyclist alike, superb. Then it gets to St Peter's Church, narrows down to a metre so two bikes cannot pass without going in to the pedestrian section. Goes round the back of a bus stop where it is less than two foot wide, and there is invariably someone stood in it waiting for a bus. Then it crosses to the next bit 50/100 yards later at another crossing where it is slightly wider, but now there are trees every ten yards forcing pedestrians in to the cycle lane again. Then another crossing, this time the path goes round the west side of Victoria Gardens more trees, though less pedestrians. Then the path ends at that crossing, bottom of Church Street and you have to join the flow of traffic at the busiest point for buses in all of Brighton.

3. The Level up Lewes Road to the Vogue Gyratory. A cycle lane full of parked cars, interspersed with bus stops and people pulling out on you from side roads. As bad going the other way, the day I see a traffic warden here doing anything about the continual parking infractions on this road will be a great day.

4. Top of Dyke Road. You come off the roundabout, you are going downhill it is very fast. What is this? A little traffic island? It is very close to the pavement, not much room here. In fact less than a foot between the pavement and the traffic island, the cycle lane goes between the traffic island and the pavement. It would be funny if it was not so dangerous. Incidentally the cycle lane up Dyke Road is gone now, I think, because it was such a joke the number of cars parked in it.

So you see why we do not use cycle lanes. The vast majority of them are unworkable for anyone who actually wants to get anywhere, and it is actually safer for us to ride in the road where we are at least fully aware of what the dangers are. On a cycle lane we have no idea what crazy idea is going to be thrown at us next.

 

[Pantani]

Oh and I forgot to mention one other reason why cyclists use the road over cycle lanes. Speed, a cyclist on a road bike will be going 16-20mph, around half the speed of cars in most city/town centres. Compare this to cyclists vs pedestrians where the cyclist will be going four or five times the speed of the pedestrian. Drivers and cyclists are expecting things to happen at a certain speed and have that level of awareness as a result. A pedestrian will never expect things to happen as quickly, as they do when a cyclist in a neighbouring cycle lane comes past them.

 

[krakatoa]

The reason cyclists (especially those on racing bikes who can easily achieve speeds of 20 mph) use the road instead of cycle lanes, is that the vast majority of cycle lanes are unusable. Take examples from Brighton alone:

1. The seafront cycle lane. Always full of pedestrians, and as has been mentioned the pelican crossings let people straight across the road in to the cycle lane. It is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians alike.

2. The cycle lane from The Level to Old Steine. Brilliant at The Level end, it is wide, allows plenty of room for pedestrians and cyclist alike, superb. Then it gets to St Peter's Church, narrows down to a metre so two bikes cannot pass without going in to the pedestrian section. Goes round the back of a bus stop where it is less than two foot wide, and there is invariably someone stood in it waiting for a bus. Then it crosses to the next bit 50/100 yards later at another crossing where it is slightly wider, but now there are trees every ten yards forcing pedestrians in to the cycle lane again. Then another crossing, this time the path goes round the west side of Victoria Gardens more trees, though less pedestrians. Then the path ends at that crossing, bottom of Church Street and you have to join the flow of traffic at the busiest point for buses in all of Brighton.

3. The Level up Lewes Road to the Vogue Gyratory. A cycle lane full of parked cars, interspersed with bus stops and people pulling out on you from side roads. As bad going the other way, the day I see a traffic warden here doing anything about the continual parking infractions on this road will be a great day.

4. Top of Dyke Road. You come off the roundabout, you are going downhill it is very fast. What is this? A little traffic island? It is very close to the pavement, not much room here. In fact less than a foot between the pavement and the traffic island, the cycle lane goes between the traffic island and the pavement. It would be funny if it was not so dangerous. Incidentally the cycle lane up Dyke Road is gone now, I think, because it was such a joke the number of cars parked in it.

So you see why we do not use cycle lanes. The vast majority of them are unworkable for anyone who actually wants to get anywhere, and it is actually safer for us to ride in the road where we are at least fully aware of what the dangers are. On a cycle lane we have no idea what crazy idea is going to be thrown at us next.

All true. Makes me smile when motorists (of which i'm one) complain about the occasional twit cycling on the pavement, when round me the pavements are littered with cars parked half way across them, leaving little room to cycle, push a buggy or even walk two abreast. Beats me how on earth they're allowed to get away with it.

 

[RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased)]

I live in Southend now, and I recently competed in the London to Southend bike ride, it's the third year I've done it. While doing a little training through June and July I would be regularly beeped and had abuse thrown at me for "daring" to cycle in the road. Because of the abuse I receive on the road and being knocked off my bike a couple of times over the years I've taken to the pavement a few times and received abuse from pedestrians. Even cycling in bike lanes I've had abuse from people walking in them. What can cyclists do? Abuse from motorists, abuse from pedestrians. But even worse the twats having a pop at "smug" cyclists. all I want is to get to work and back without getting sworn at or run over. But I do agree it should be law that cyclists wear helmets, it most certainly saves lives

 

[jackanada]

Now I can't be arsed to look up the figures but I am sure a few studies have been done showing that the more people cycle the safer it becomes, the mechanism hypothesised that drivers become used to seeing them and having to drive appropriately (also a higher percentage of drivers who also cycle)
To me this means that any measure that is a barrier to participation should be resisted - i.e helmets and insurance.
Visit holland and you'll see schoolkids from the age of 6 upwards cycling about, without helmets. Also everyone rides a sit up and beg bike at a usually moderate pace, though if drivers showed them increasing agression with every mph under 30 they went they might take up racing bikes and lycra too.
My personal crusade to raise cycle awareness is to use the roundabout by the pier as often as possible. I've seen the aftermath of 3 cyclists being hit there in the last couple of years, and nearly get taken out myself quite frequently, still I think it's improving slightly.

 

[del_boy]

no offence but cyclists do my head in, specially in those stupid skin tight shorts.

 

[seagurn]

I think helmets should be compulsory but thats my opinon ,our transport minister doesn't though as this would put poeple off cycling. Surely it would put you off more if you got hit by something , i fell off my bike when i was 14 had 20+ stitches and lost 3 teeth we didn't have helmets back then but if we had i'd of worn one.Perhaps Norman Baker has landed on his head ......that would answer some of his past decissions!