Cycle helmets

[teaboy]

This.

The roads are there for both cars and cyclists, if you get stuck behind a bike, f***ing wait.

That's twice you have stated this on this thread, it this an important premise to you in riding a bike to ensure car driver are inconvenienced?

I think it's fairer to say if you (a driver) get stuck behind another road user (car, bus, tractor, horse, bike) wait until it is safe and legal to overtake, then do so slowly and considerately.

 

[yxee]

I can happily tolerate cyclists, and feel a lot of sympathy for them at the state of the cycle lanes. The council's attitude seems to be to continuously make minor patchwork investments aimed at making individual roads safer one-by-one, and as a result there's no consistency whatsoever. The Old Shoreham Road development - which should be nominated to the Guinness world records for "least amount of work done whilst closing a major road for 6 months" - isn't the same colour as the Kingsway route and there are still junctions where the route mounts the kerb in the places where pedestrians are most likely to be standing to cross the road. I can't make sense of it.

 

[The Wookiee]

I am off on my bike today from Worthing to Saltdean, I will use the cycle lane all the way, except that stupid bit that takes you round the houses in Shoreham. I will let you know how I got on !

Have just landed in Saltdean, must say had no problems with motorists but as mentioned was a bit tricky with pedestrians around the pier, can see this would be a real issue for your serious speed cyclist. All being said a thoroughly enjoyable ride !

 

[public school boy]

Being a keen cyclist myself I would like to raise the following points.

Bad cyclists

1. Too many cyclists wear dark clothing which can make them difficult to see. Part of this problem is the fault of those who design cycling clothes. Brighter colours are needed.
2. Poor bicycle lights. Some of the lights on sale are useless and should be banned.
3. Bicycles in bad repair. Look after your bike and learn basic bike maintence.
4. Poor positioning on roads.
5. Poor indication before turning.
6. Not paying attention to other road users and what is going on around them.
7. Not paying attention to the laws of the highway.
8. Use of ipods/MP3s and phones whilst riding.
9. More than one person on the same bike. 10. Not taking into consideration the weather conditions.

I've only included cyclists and not drivers/ pedestrians because I'm involved in the training of cyclists. We all know that drivers of car, vans, buses, coaches , lorries and pedestrians cause accidents and need be more aware of cyclists and courteous towards them.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

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.

I agree. I tried using the cycle lanes when I lived in Hove and gave up for the same reasons. I have been pleasantly surprised at how cycle friendly New York is. Owning a car in NYC is not really practical because of cost and parking issues so a lot of people own bikes. The city has put their money where their mouth is and invested a lot of money in cycle lanes and it shows. There is an almost continuous Greenway round Manhattan and most of the major bridges have lanes, the only place it doesn’t really work is Brooklyn Bridge because there are too many dozy tourists taking photos . It’s not just the money, they have thought it through, developed a plan and coordinated it. Always seemed that the cycle lanes in B&H were haphazard. If a city the size of NYC can get its act together and provide an integrated cycle network surely Brighton and Hove can, especially now it has it own green MP.

 

[brightn'ove]

That's twice you have stated this on this thread, it this an important premise to you in riding a bike to ensure car driver are inconvenienced?

No, but cars do nt have priority over cyclists, people on bikes should not have to put themselves in danger cycling in the gutter or very close to car doors because of an impatient driver.

 

[Garage_Doors]

No, but cars do nt have priority over cyclists, people on bikes should not have to put themselves in danger cycling in the gutter or very close to car doors because of an impatient driver.

Absolutely agree, no one should put into danger, and especially not riding in the gutter, But motorised vehicles should have priority on the roads for which they were intended.

 

[teaboy]

Absolutely agree, no one should put into danger, and especially not riding in the gutter, But motorised vehicles should have priority on the roads for which they were intended.

Eh? Are you claiming that there were no roads before motor vehicles, or that motor vehicles are the only things ever designed to use roads? Whichever it is, you're wrong, both factually and legally.

 

[bigjon]

The flip side of the argument, is motor vehicles should be fitted with some kind of device that lets people know which way they are turning. With today's technology I'm sure we could develop some form of light fitting that could flash on one side of a vehicle that let's other road uses know which way they are turning. Could be operated by a lever where you don't have to take your hand off the steering wheel so that it would take absolutely no effort to use. I'm sure everyone would use it if these were fitted.

and when we've done all the cars we could do bikes so that we could let people know which way they are turning. With today's technology I'm sure we could develop some form of light fitting that could flash on one side of a cycle that let's other road user/pedestrians know which way they are turning. Could be operated by a lever where you don't have to take your hand off the handlebars so that it would take absolutely no effort to use. I'm sure everyone would use it if these were fitted, just a thought eh

 

[Woodchip]

Absolutely agree, no one should put into danger, and especially not riding in the gutter, But motorised vehicles should have priority on the roads for which they were intended.

So pedestrians should have priority over everything then. They were using highways first. Cars are the last thing that have used roads, yet feel they own them. Err, think again Buster.

Why do you think it is only car drivers penalised for using them? Because you're not wanted or liked by any other user group.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Eh? Are you claiming that there were no roads before motor vehicles, or that motor vehicles are the only things ever designed to use roads? Whichever it is, you're wrong, both factually and legally.

Am I ?

 

[Garage_Doors]

So pedestrians should have priority over everything then. They were using highways first. Cars are the last thing that have used roads, yet feel they own them. Err, think again Buster.

Why do you think it is only car drivers penalised for using them? Because you're not wanted or liked by any other user group.

Did i not understand it correctly that prior to cars, cycles, pedestrians,horses etc used dirt tracks / cinder paths "buster"

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

No, but cars do nt have priority over cyclists, people on bikes should not have to put themselves in danger cycling in the gutter or very close to car doors because of an impatient driver.

Mirrors then lol. I digressed from the point earlier. If mirrors were fitted to bikes you wouldn't have to whip further into the road and risk colliding/being hit by someone. By all means move into the road if you're avoiding parked cars/obstacles, but when the obstacle is gone, go back to the left.

This is what motorists are supposed to, and do. Cycles are the only vehicles you see not fitted with mirrors or indicators (conventional road vehicles that is).

Double standards are rife on all fronts though.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

Why do you think it is only car drivers penalised for using them? Because you're not wanted or liked by any other user group.

Is any other user group just cyclists and pedestrians then? Or just cyclists? I've never seen pedestrians or motorists Put themselves or others in danger by being reckless. No sooner does I read about 'cyclist who ignores red light and nearly hits a ped on the crossing' then is happens outside work. A twunt on a bike, no helmet, satchel bag...etc...runs the red, slowly moves onto the crossing, then this lady has to stop, mid crossing, so he can saunter off into the junction and wait in the middle of it. He didn't say sorry. He Just f***ed off. If a motorist did that? Yeah, penalised, points on the licence.

Ask yourself.

 

[sten_super]

I see that a cyclist was killed last week just outside the Olympic stadium, run over by a bus carrying journalists. Very sad.

The bike blog on the Guardian is now calling for cycling proficiency to be a mandatory part of the driving test. I can't really see the benefit myself.

One thing that I don't understand, as a cyclist or a car driver. A lot of accidents seem to happen when vehicles (particularly HGVs or buses) are turning left; is the issue here that they are cutting up cyclists (which happens to me frequently, and I have a lot of sympathy for) or that cyclists are trying to zoom up the inside of slowing vehicles (which seems a rather stupid thing to do in the first place, but equally I see a lot of)? Or is it a mixture of both?

edit to add: I see in this case that in fact the problem was a shared cycle path/pavement. These are exactly the kind of cycle path that regular cyclists are complaining about, because they are complete death traps. I very rarely use any cycle path of this kind, because they are far too dangerous; I much prefer to cycle in the road (and that's saying something, because the roads that they are next to here are open, so cars tend to speed down them).

It's also worth noting that a lot of the most severe accidents are of this kind, where a helmet would in fact make very little or no difference to the injuries suffered by the cyclist. I'm not sure that making them mandatory is a particularly good idea - although I liked the suggestion earlier on the thread that they could be mandatory to purchase.

 

[zfleas]

Did i not understand it correctly that prior to cars, cycles, pedestrians,horses etc used dirt tracks / cinder paths "buster"

Roman roads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

500BC was waaay before cars

 

[Albumen]

There are shit car drivers.
There are shit cyclists.
Some people are shit, some people are not. But hey, way to go with the generalisation people!

 

[Albumen]

Is any other user group just cyclists and pedestrians then? Or just cyclists? I've never seen pedestrians or motorists Put themselves or others in danger by being reckless. No sooner does I read about 'cyclist who ignores red light and nearly hits a ped on the crossing' then is happens outside work. A twunt on a bike, no helmet, satchel bag...etc...runs the red, slowly moves onto the crossing, then this lady has to stop, mid crossing, so he can saunter off into the junction and wait in the middle of it. He didn't say sorry. He Just f***ed off. If a motorist did that? Yeah, penalised, points on the licence.

Ask yourself.

Eh?? I've seen hundreds.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

It's also worth noting that a lot of the most severe accidents are of this kind, where a helmet would in fact make very little or no difference to the injuries suffered by the cyclist. I'm not sure that making them mandatory is a particularly good idea - although I liked the suggestion earlier on the thread that they could be mandatory to purchase.

Never been convinced about the argument for making cycle helmets compulsory. I think it gives an illusion of safety. Being aware of your environment and other road users and staying in control are much more important. Most cycling injuries are thankfully minor involving hands, arms and knees where obviously the helmet makes no difference. And in this tragic case it would have made no difference either.

By all means make them compulsory for children, but adults should have a choice.

 

[Left Back]

There are shit car drivers.
There are shit cyclists.
Some people are shit, some people are not. But hey, way to go with the generalisation people!

I reckon I'm a considerate driver, probably like 95% or drivers.
I reckon I'm a considerate cyclist, probably like 95% or cyclists.

.. and I reckon, if the 5% of shite driver (some of which are posting in this thread) were to get on a bike,
they would be just the sort of shite cyclist they hate.

or to paraphrase @Albumem, there aren't shite drivers or shite cyclists, just shite people.