Licence or ban cycling in London
Discussion
Vipers said:
Now we bring up helmets, what's the big deal if wearing one was compulsory.
As a motorist and cyclist, one thing I would like to be compulsory is a bell/horn on bikes. Often I go for a walk on a path shared by pedestrians and bikes with clear concise signs telling cyclists to sound the bell, they still zip past with no audio indication of their approach.
Compulsory helmets put people off cycling. Which is bad both for those that are put off, and for all other cyclists, given the well documented safety in numbers effect.As a motorist and cyclist, one thing I would like to be compulsory is a bell/horn on bikes. Often I go for a walk on a path shared by pedestrians and bikes with clear concise signs telling cyclists to sound the bell, they still zip past with no audio indication of their approach.
Bells are compulsory at point of sale. But almost completely unnecessary since pretty much everyone has Human Voice 1.0 which can alert people, when necessary.
However, you can't force people to use a bell, or their voice.
Not giving a warning before zipping past on a shared path is obviously bad form.
okgo said:
popeyewhite said:
Your point?
I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. I'm far, far more likely to run a red, ride on the pavement, undertake etc etc on my pushbike because a. it's much smaller and slower than a bike or car, b. it's worth much less if it gets damaged, and c. I don't risk points/fine. Arguing that everybody else knows the rules but disobeys them just the same is stupid. If that's what you were suggesting.
Are you being serious, its hard to tell? I cycle a lot (10k miles a year) and I don't run reds, or ride on pavements. The same as I wouldn't do those things in my car. I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. I'm far, far more likely to run a red, ride on the pavement, undertake etc etc on my pushbike because a. it's much smaller and slower than a bike or car, b. it's worth much less if it gets damaged, and c. I don't risk points/fine. Arguing that everybody else knows the rules but disobeys them just the same is stupid. If that's what you were suggesting.
Just because its easier to do so, it doesn't mean everyone does. And in fact a HUGE number of people do obey the rules, just like many cars on the road obey rules. Some don't. Some people break the law, some don't. Regardless of mode of transport. Some people take illegal drugs, some don't.
Some cyclists/bike users don't, that's their choice...and I certainly don't condone it. I wish all cyclists were more considerate in this aspect, just as I wish car drivers were too. But I get the impression that some on pistonheads think EVERY cyclist is the anti-christ and they all run red lights and are an utter menace, which just is not the case. I cycle a lot, I drive a lot. I almost hit a cyclist yesterday....7:15am, dark outside and a cyclist was in the road and, without indicating, started turning right as I was about to overtake them. They had no lights, no helmet, no reflective gear. Utter bellend. But that doesn't mean all cyclists are. Even when it's light out, I almost always have a rear light on and some form of reflective gear.
It really is a pointless debate, because no one is going to change their mind on the strength of this thread.
Yes cyclists do some stupid things. But so do drivers. And motorcyclists. And bus drivers. And pedestrians. It's just human nature.
But there are no two ways about it, car drivers doing something wrong - either deliberately or accidentally - is far more dangerous than a cyclist doing it.
Last night I got overtaken (in my car) by a taxi doing about 60 in a 30 zone. That's infinitely more dangerous than a cyclist jumping a red light.
And every single day on my commute, I see far more cars stopped parked part-way into bike boxes (or even stopping at the ASL) than I do cyclists jumping lights. That's counted as driving through a red light and is punishable by three points and a £60 fine. I've never seen anyone done for that - even when there's a police car sat behind them.
As had been mentioned by a few people, when a cyclist does something wrong and it goes wrong, they're the ones who normally end up worse off. So you'll tend to find that most good riders don't put themselves in harm's way. A 20mph accident involving two cars probably won't involve the death of either of the drivers, but it could mean curtains for a cyclist.
Of the deaths in London in recent years, you'll tend to find that a disproportionately high percentage of them have been women. And not lycra clad TDF wannabes. They've been crushed by lorries turning left or by being on the left of a lorry as it drives through a narrow piece of road. This, ironically, is about them adhering to law rather than them being a 'nutter' cyclist.
http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/wh...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
Which is why I said earlier some sort of proficiency test should be offered before you decide to go cycling in towns. But making it compulsory is pointless as it would be prohibitively expensive to police.
Even if you ignore the greater benefits (to the NHS) of having more healthy people in the country, surely even the most blinkered driver can see that more cyclists on the road is better for drivers not worse.
Imagine if every London cycle commuter took their car into the centre of town. There'd be gridlock. Far from holding you up they're doing you a favour.
This sense of privilege and entitlement that most people seem to have that their journey is more important because they're in a car, or that bikes somehow don't 'deserve' to be there absolutely baffles me.
These are the same people that are so small-minded and petty that I bet they don't use 'Merge' signs properly and think that anyone using the outside lane is somehow pushing in. I bet they never let any poor f
ker out of a side-street and instead sit blocking the junction. I bet they'll happily do 35 in a 30 despite all the evidence pointing to how much more dangerous that is, and how much more likely you are to kill a pedestrian. I bet they'll barrel along the motorway at 85 and flash anyone in the outside lane that slows them down. I bet they won't move over in anyone doing 90 comes up behind them and flashes them. And I bet they go to the pub and shout at anyone who will listen (and even those that don't want to) about how they saw some crazed, selfish cyclist breaking the law by going through a red light.
It really isn't about cyclists v drivers it's about idiots - and you get those in all forms of transport.
Yes cyclists do some stupid things. But so do drivers. And motorcyclists. And bus drivers. And pedestrians. It's just human nature.
But there are no two ways about it, car drivers doing something wrong - either deliberately or accidentally - is far more dangerous than a cyclist doing it.
Last night I got overtaken (in my car) by a taxi doing about 60 in a 30 zone. That's infinitely more dangerous than a cyclist jumping a red light.
And every single day on my commute, I see far more cars stopped parked part-way into bike boxes (or even stopping at the ASL) than I do cyclists jumping lights. That's counted as driving through a red light and is punishable by three points and a £60 fine. I've never seen anyone done for that - even when there's a police car sat behind them.
As had been mentioned by a few people, when a cyclist does something wrong and it goes wrong, they're the ones who normally end up worse off. So you'll tend to find that most good riders don't put themselves in harm's way. A 20mph accident involving two cars probably won't involve the death of either of the drivers, but it could mean curtains for a cyclist.
Of the deaths in London in recent years, you'll tend to find that a disproportionately high percentage of them have been women. And not lycra clad TDF wannabes. They've been crushed by lorries turning left or by being on the left of a lorry as it drives through a narrow piece of road. This, ironically, is about them adhering to law rather than them being a 'nutter' cyclist.
http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/wh...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
Which is why I said earlier some sort of proficiency test should be offered before you decide to go cycling in towns. But making it compulsory is pointless as it would be prohibitively expensive to police.
Even if you ignore the greater benefits (to the NHS) of having more healthy people in the country, surely even the most blinkered driver can see that more cyclists on the road is better for drivers not worse.
Imagine if every London cycle commuter took their car into the centre of town. There'd be gridlock. Far from holding you up they're doing you a favour.
This sense of privilege and entitlement that most people seem to have that their journey is more important because they're in a car, or that bikes somehow don't 'deserve' to be there absolutely baffles me.
These are the same people that are so small-minded and petty that I bet they don't use 'Merge' signs properly and think that anyone using the outside lane is somehow pushing in. I bet they never let any poor f
ker out of a side-street and instead sit blocking the junction. I bet they'll happily do 35 in a 30 despite all the evidence pointing to how much more dangerous that is, and how much more likely you are to kill a pedestrian. I bet they'll barrel along the motorway at 85 and flash anyone in the outside lane that slows them down. I bet they won't move over in anyone doing 90 comes up behind them and flashes them. And I bet they go to the pub and shout at anyone who will listen (and even those that don't want to) about how they saw some crazed, selfish cyclist breaking the law by going through a red light.It really isn't about cyclists v drivers it's about idiots - and you get those in all forms of transport.
Vipers said:
What do you base that on? Was there a survey. Just asking.
Massive drop off in cycling in Australia after it became law. Doesn't really improve safety. Can actually put the wearer in more danger through risk compensation. Less safety in numbers. It's surprising that Australia persists with it as it's been a disaster.
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-he...
Interesting link.
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
At the bottom of the page is this.
Statistics from New York City
New York issued a statement on their bicycle safety study including these numbers:
Bicycle lanes and helmets may reduce the risk of death.
Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
Only one fatal crash with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bike lane.
Nearly all bicyclist deaths (92%) occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles.
I am just posting this for interest, wherher it's similar in other cities I don't, only found this one.
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
At the bottom of the page is this.
Statistics from New York City
New York issued a statement on their bicycle safety study including these numbers:
Bicycle lanes and helmets may reduce the risk of death.
Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
Only one fatal crash with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bike lane.
Nearly all bicyclist deaths (92%) occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles.
I am just posting this for interest, wherher it's similar in other cities I don't, only found this one.
Kell said:
It really is a pointless debate, because no one is going to change their mind on the strength of this thread.
Yes cyclists do some stupid things. But so do drivers. And motorcyclists. And bus drivers. And pedestrians. It's just human nature.
But there are no two ways about it, car drivers doing something wrong - either deliberately or accidentally - is far more dangerous than a cyclist doing it.
Last night I got overtaken (in my car) by a taxi doing about 60 in a 30 zone. That's infinitely more dangerous than a cyclist jumping a red light.
And every single day on my commute, I see far more cars stopped parked part-way into bike boxes (or even stopping at the ASL) than I do cyclists jumping lights. That's counted as driving through a red light and is punishable by three points and a £60 fine. I've never seen anyone done for that - even when there's a police car sat behind them.
As had been mentioned by a few people, when a cyclist does something wrong and it goes wrong, they're the ones who normally end up worse off. So you'll tend to find that most good riders don't put themselves in harm's way. A 20mph accident involving two cars probably won't involve the death of either of the drivers, but it could mean curtains for a cyclist.
Of the deaths in London in recent years, you'll tend to find that a disproportionately high percentage of them have been women. And not lycra clad TDF wannabes. They've been crushed by lorries turning left or by being on the left of a lorry as it drives through a narrow piece of road. This, ironically, is about them adhering to law rather than them being a 'nutter' cyclist.
http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/wh...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
Which is why I said earlier some sort of proficiency test should be offered before you decide to go cycling in towns. But making it compulsory is pointless as it would be prohibitively expensive to police.
Even if you ignore the greater benefits (to the NHS) of having more healthy people in the country, surely even the most blinkered driver can see that more cyclists on the road is better for drivers not worse.
Imagine if every London cycle commuter took their car into the centre of town. There'd be gridlock. Far from holding you up they're doing you a favour.
This sense of privilege and entitlement that most people seem to have that their journey is more important because they're in a car, or that bikes somehow don't 'deserve' to be there absolutely baffles me.
These are the same people that are so small-minded and petty that I bet they don't use 'Merge' signs properly and think that anyone using the outside lane is somehow pushing in. I bet they never let any poor fker out of a side-street and instead sit blocking the junction. I bet they'll happily do 35 in a 30 despite all the evidence pointing to how much more dangerous that is, and how much more likely you are to kill a pedestrian. I bet they'll barrel along the motorway at 85 and flash anyone in the outside lane that slows them down. I bet they won't move over in anyone doing 90 comes up behind them and flashes them. And I bet they go to the pub and shout at anyone who will listen (and even those that don't want to) about how they saw some crazed, selfish cyclist breaking the law by going through a red light.
It really isn't about cyclists v drivers it's about idiots - and you get those in all forms of transport.
Great Post Yes cyclists do some stupid things. But so do drivers. And motorcyclists. And bus drivers. And pedestrians. It's just human nature.
But there are no two ways about it, car drivers doing something wrong - either deliberately or accidentally - is far more dangerous than a cyclist doing it.
Last night I got overtaken (in my car) by a taxi doing about 60 in a 30 zone. That's infinitely more dangerous than a cyclist jumping a red light.
And every single day on my commute, I see far more cars stopped parked part-way into bike boxes (or even stopping at the ASL) than I do cyclists jumping lights. That's counted as driving through a red light and is punishable by three points and a £60 fine. I've never seen anyone done for that - even when there's a police car sat behind them.
As had been mentioned by a few people, when a cyclist does something wrong and it goes wrong, they're the ones who normally end up worse off. So you'll tend to find that most good riders don't put themselves in harm's way. A 20mph accident involving two cars probably won't involve the death of either of the drivers, but it could mean curtains for a cyclist.
Of the deaths in London in recent years, you'll tend to find that a disproportionately high percentage of them have been women. And not lycra clad TDF wannabes. They've been crushed by lorries turning left or by being on the left of a lorry as it drives through a narrow piece of road. This, ironically, is about them adhering to law rather than them being a 'nutter' cyclist.
http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/wh...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
Which is why I said earlier some sort of proficiency test should be offered before you decide to go cycling in towns. But making it compulsory is pointless as it would be prohibitively expensive to police.
Even if you ignore the greater benefits (to the NHS) of having more healthy people in the country, surely even the most blinkered driver can see that more cyclists on the road is better for drivers not worse.
Imagine if every London cycle commuter took their car into the centre of town. There'd be gridlock. Far from holding you up they're doing you a favour.
This sense of privilege and entitlement that most people seem to have that their journey is more important because they're in a car, or that bikes somehow don't 'deserve' to be there absolutely baffles me.
These are the same people that are so small-minded and petty that I bet they don't use 'Merge' signs properly and think that anyone using the outside lane is somehow pushing in. I bet they never let any poor f
ker out of a side-street and instead sit blocking the junction. I bet they'll happily do 35 in a 30 despite all the evidence pointing to how much more dangerous that is, and how much more likely you are to kill a pedestrian. I bet they'll barrel along the motorway at 85 and flash anyone in the outside lane that slows them down. I bet they won't move over in anyone doing 90 comes up behind them and flashes them. And I bet they go to the pub and shout at anyone who will listen (and even those that don't want to) about how they saw some crazed, selfish cyclist breaking the law by going through a red light.It really isn't about cyclists v drivers it's about idiots - and you get those in all forms of transport.
Kell said:
Vipers said:
What do you base that on? Was there a survey. Just asking.
Massive drop off in cycling in Australia after it became law. Doesn't really improve safety. Can actually put the wearer in more danger through risk compensation. Less safety in numbers. It's surprising that Australia persists with it as it's been a disaster.
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-he...
Maybe it differs city to city even in U.K., who knows.
Edited by Vipers on Thursday 19th January 12:08
Vipers said:
walm said:
Compulsory helmets put people off cycling.
What do you base that on? Was there a survey. Just asking.Aus
NZ
Aussie data showed 30-40% reduction IIRC? http://theconversation.com/ditching-bike-helmets-l...
Kell said:
...surely even the most blinkered driver can see that more cyclists on the road is better for drivers not worse...
Yeah - good luck with that.You massively underestimate the hate for cyclists.
Drivers, and plenty of PH drivers, really REALLY hate cyclists.
It's completely irrational, and even when you point out the hypocrisy and rampant double-standards, not to mention obvious benefits to motorists... even when you do it nicely... they still reply "whatever, they are all lycra louts who jump lights and should be banned".
E65Ross said:
But I get the impression that some on pistonheads think EVERY cyclist is the anti-christ and they all run red lights and are an utter menace, which just is not the case.
Ross, OK, not "EVERY" but sadly a very large proportion of cyclists do not obey either traffic law or common sense. A simple count (I said count!) sitting at numerous busy traffic light junctions across London wll show anyone with an open mind the percentage of bad cyclists is very high.Vipers said:
Can't argue with that, ompared to my post about New York, seems most odd, any way at the end of the day you choose to either wear one or not.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that if you crash, having a helmet on is a good thing (although there are some kinds of rotation related injuries that can be caused by a helmet). But there's also a lot of evidence that compulsory helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling. More people cycling means more people getting some exercise which is generally considered good for the population as a whole, but quantifying how many people's lives are extended by the exercise vs those that die in accidents is nearly impossible.I think it gets complicated really fast, and cycling culture varies so much between different countries that findings in one place don't necessarily apply in another.
I was working in Holland last year, and it's a completely different culture when it comes to cycling.
- Nobody wears helmets apart form the occasional Brit.
- Pretty much everyone cycles, so car drivers are a lot more aware of cyclists because they also cycle. Middle aged women in business suits on bikes are a common sight for example.
- Cycle path infrastructure is fantastic, I could get to work all on cycle paths with one traffic light controlled crossing, and went 25km along the coast in both directions from where I was living all on cycle paths.
Mind you anyone who drives in London and is getting annoyed by being held up by bikes needs to have a think about how much more congestion there'd be if all the cyclists were in cars instead.
walm said:
Kell said:
...surely even the most blinkered driver can see that more cyclists on the road is better for drivers not worse...
You massively underestimate the hate for cyclists.I've been cycling in London for over 20 years and I've seen it boil up and boil up to the point that even the smallest altercations produce shocking reactions.
Before I start, I'd like to say I've been no angel in the past, and I used to go through lights and probably take more risks than I should. But the last few years I've done everything by the book.
My last altercation came about 2 years ago when I was happily cycling along the road when a van came up alongside me from behind (I wasn't undertaking him). He then started moving over on me and left me with nowhere to go as I was riding alongside parked cars. I actually locked eyes with the guy as he did it so it wasn't that he didn't see me, he clearly just thought 'I'm having you' and he eventually hit the ends of my handlebars and started pushing me into the cars.
Clearly I braked to avoid being crushed, went round the back of his van to his window and smacked his wing mirror, called him a
and cycled off. At that point he floored the accelerator and drove directly at me and tried to mow me down. The only thing that saved me was hopping onto a high pavement. I heard his van crash into it, then the door open and him chase me down the street with what looked like an iron bar, but could have been a large spanner of some sort. The irony of that is that had I been caught riding on the pavement, I'd probably have been done for it.
I've had people threaten to knife me and in the instance I mentioned in a previous post of a car driving on the wrong side of the road straight at me, the two yoofs got out and threatened to drive over me and my bike if I didn't get of out 'their' way.
I really do try to be as considerate as possible, don't swerve through traffic and don't plonk myself in front of cars in bike boxes and yet the hatred for cyclists is incredible.
Other than the presumably very low proportion of people cycling with helmets in NY - nothing in those stats surprise me.
Of course lots of deaths were from head injuries.
Also, if 97% weren't wearing a helmet, then 3% were - way to spin it twice!!
Now if 50% wore helmets and 97% died without one, that would be interesting.
Of course lots of deaths were from head injuries.
Also, if 97% weren't wearing a helmet, then 3% were - way to spin it twice!!
Now if 50% wore helmets and 97% died without one, that would be interesting.
AMG Merc said:
Ross, OK, not "EVERY" but sadly a very large proportion of cyclists do not obey either traffic law or common sense. A simple count (I said count!) sitting at numerous busy traffic light junctions across London wll show anyone with an open mind the percentage of bad cyclists is very high.
Sit on a bike and see how many cars go through lights on red - its amazing. I never would have believed it until I started cycling to work. At almost every light I get to, cars seem to think amber means go and red means go if it hasn't been red long (definition of long seems to vary considerably). This isn't cars which aren't able to slow down, it's cars which are simply bored of waiting at lights.Try and ride around London - the number of cars and busses (busses are the worst) blocking junctions is incredible. A massive proportion of cabs seem to use indicators rather too sparingly, and love a surprise u-turn to demonstrate their 'turn on a penny' ability.
Poor roadmanship is utterly RIFE in London - to the point of it being almost third world. Bikes aren't the best, but nor are cars. It's all f
ked. The difference is, the bike rider ends up with a broken collarbone or worse, while the driver gets away with a(nother) dent. Vipers said:
okgo said:
Each to their own - as you say.
I only wear a seatbelt as my car beeps at me if I don't
Indeed I only wear a seatbelt as my car beeps at me if I don't
Furthermore, despite all the safety measures in cars nowadays, cars are still a large source of head injury, so any thoughts re protecting one's bonce may apply equally to cars.
AMG Merc said:
E65Ross said:
But I get the impression that some on pistonheads think EVERY cyclist is the anti-christ and they all run red lights and are an utter menace, which just is not the case.
Ross, OK, not "EVERY" but sadly a very large proportion of cyclists do not obey either traffic law or common sense. A simple count (I said count!) sitting at numerous busy traffic light junctions across London wll show anyone with an open mind the percentage of bad cyclists is very high.That's 14% too many.
But interestingly enough, 14% of car drivers also jump red lights.
I can't find the link, but here's an interesting article about that - and about how misleading facts and figures can be - even from supposedly credible sources.
The headline news is that 57% of cyclists jump red lights. In fact, 57% of a very small survey have admitted to doing it at least once. Only 14% admitted to doing it regularly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/...
This quote in particular stands out for me:
"As road users we would like to see road traffic laws be enforced for the safety of everyone, but let's not forget that the risk imposed by cyclists is minimal when compared to red light jumping drivers.
Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does. As an organisation representing those two road user groups, CTC suggests IAM ought to call for more road traffic policing to enforce traffic laws, rather than highlighting red light jumping by cyclists."
Edited by Kell on Thursday 19th January 12:35
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff