Reader views (24)

 Add your view

Guy, yes we all want to get where we are going on time but if you are fed up with "everyone" telling you that you cycle too fast isn't it possible that they are right? Maybe you could leave home a bit earlier and be safer?
You also say that everyone chastises cyclists; I have no quarrel with cyclists who cycle in the road and obey the rules. My problem is with the growing number of pavement cyclists who have no right to make pedestrians anxious and afraid because they feel unsafe in the road.This is a real problem and I know many people who are genuinly scared when walking, especially the elderly and visually impaired.
I would like to see existing cycle lanes kept free of parked cars and new ones constructed, real cycle lanes not "shared paths" or white lines painted down the pavement which is just a cheap way to legitimise lawbreaking. Cyclists and pedestrians don't mix any more than cyclists and lorries do.

- Flora, East London

I am fed up with people chastising cyclists.
I ride every day on the streets of London - and I like to get to work on time. I am fed up with people telling me that I ride too fast, and that I take up too much space.
Well - tough - I have as much right as a London Bus has to be on the road, and to ride at whatever speed I like, taking up as much space as I like as long it is is safe for me.

Guy

- Guy Chapman, Reading UK

As many know to their peril cycling in London is very dangerous for cyclists when compared to walking (In Greater London in 2007: 5260 pedestrians injured in traffic accidents, compared with 2970 cyclists - but consider the relative numbers of both modes of travel) - and unfortunately cycling is now becoming very dangerous for the non-cyclist.

A stranger may think that the law actually allows red light jumping for cyclists - and that they do not need to stop on a pedestrian crossing.

Well said LIza - it is time such matters were addressed.

- Judith Smith, London UK

Thing is - it would be possible to vastly increase the enforcement effort on cyclists which would reduce the incidence of the issues you mention. However it would be a much better plan, if what is required is a reduction in transport casualties, to focus on the mis-operation of motor vehicles. Such mis-operation kills about 10 people a day every day in the UK and injures many times that number. Cyclists cause approximately zero (not exactly zero) deaths and a very small number of injuries.

As a pedestrian I feel a significant and growing apprehension from miscreant cyclists however I think that the reality is that we have become accustomed to dangerous behaviour from drivers and that we are unaccustomed to the slightest missdemenour from cyclists. This leads to individuals focussing on the wrong threat.

We should pay attention to cyclists behaviour however the effort must be proportional to the benifits obtained and it would be iniquitous to have police stand at lights and book cyclists which ignoring motorist offences. This has I believe occurred in The City where it is reported that exactly no motorists have *ever* been prosecuted for violating an Advance Stop Line and apparently cyclists have been targeted in that vicinity.

It seems to me that the only possibility for a long term solution would be to include "Road Use" in the education system, with the aim of teaching vehicle operators what is required for safe road transport.

- James Jones, London

With nearly 3000 people were killed directly by motorists in 2007, and also in this paper, 3000 people in London killed annually by pollution, cyclists are one of the least dangerous, and least polluting forms of trnasport, while ignoring the deaths caused by the most polluting and dangerous, the motor car.

- Martin, London.

1. The extra 40,000 trips is about 10% of what we have now.
2. Cycle helmets don't protect against life-threatening impacts. Even if they did, such impacts are as unlikely when cycling as they are when walking.
3. In street-lit streets (i.e. virtually the whole of London) cyclists are quite visible to anyone who bothers to look, whether or not they have lights.
4. Cyclists injured in road collisions are to blame in about a third of them. So who really needs to improve their road behaviour?

- Colin Mckenzie, London UK

"Helmets should be compulsory " - so anyone who might hire a bicycle for half an hour must always carry a helmet around with them just in case?

- Paul Luton, Teddington, UK

FYI, cycle helmets don't save lives. Nowhere with a helmet law has shown any reduction in risk to cyclists, only a reduction in cyclists. And the population gets fatter, and they die early from obesity-related diseases.

- Richard Burton, Bristol

Helmets offer very little protection from a 20+ tonne vehicle crushing a cyclist. 75% of last yeas London cycling fatalities were caused by left turning lorries. Maybe the real story here is why are there so many more traffic signals than 10 years ago?

- Jk, Finsbury Park

Helen

First automobile 1769 (steam powered) first cycle 1817.

Last week going from the Trafalgar Square concert I and a number of others were nearly run over by a 4 Lycra clad yobs. Not only was it a Green man phase they were on the wrong side of the road which at that point has a kerb in the middle of the road to separate traffic. They then went onto the pavement forcing people out of their way. The bottom end of The Strand on a sunny Saturday afternoon is a crowed piece of pavement. Cyclists should have to have a Licence plate so they can be identified.

- David Burns, Beckenham

> For a start, helmets may not look cool but it's no
> surprise that cyclists who don't wear them are referred to
> simply as "donors" by accident and emergency staff.
> Boringly, helmets should be compulsory.

They tried that in Australia and New Zealand. And guess what. There was no change whatsoever in the number of cyclist head injuries despite all the predictions of helmet fans that they would save lots of lives. What it did do is put a lot of people off cycling but perhaps that's what you are after.

> - so where does that leave the person who is hit by one
> while crossing on green?

Do you know how many people a year are killed in a collision with a cyclist? About one. Do you know how many are killed by cars on pedestrian crossings alone? About 40 (~700 overall on the roads). So what do you think the real risk is?

- Tony, Cambridge, UK

"For a start, helmets may not look cool but it's no surprise that cyclists who don't wear them are referred to simply as "donors" by accident and emergency staff."

You're just making that up.

- Prj45, London

Surely monocyclist is joking? Roads are for all, and in fact, they were for cyclists a long time before cars came along. Monocycles on the other hand, are for circuses, perhaps where monocylist belongs...

- Helen, Hackney, England

I recommend three simple rules to help make our streets and pavements safer:

1. It should be illegal to use a non-hands free phone whilst driving;
2. It should be illegal for cyclists to run red trafffic lights; and
3. It should be illegal for cyclists to cycle on footpaths.
There are some people who claim that these three things are already against the law, but that cannot be correct. I know this because they occur so frequently, and the police do so little about them. If they were already illegal, the police would enforce the law, wouldn't they?

- Peter, Greenwich, London

A few points:
I am fed up of people who step out in the road when the red man is lit, without looking. Most people seem to have a particular blind spot for bikes when on foot. This must cause more accidents then when th cyclist jumps the light.
Also often it is safer to pull away from the lights early as if you don't cars often sideswipe you.
The often quoted line about cyclist undertaking is mostly incorrect, I always have trouble with cars or buses overtaking me then turning left or pulling in before they are past me.
Most of the cyclists on pavements near me seem to be women who don't look that confident on a bike. Probably intimidated off the road by some of the awful car drivers we have in London. They obviously ride there as they fell the road is not safe for them.

Car drivers should learn some respect as they are protected by two tonnes of metal. We have no such protection.

- Tim, Central London

No they must not all share at all !!!!

Road - for motorised vehicles (cars, vans, lorries, motorbikes).

Pavement and lanes on pavements - for all non motorised vehicles. Why not steal pavement space for idiot cyclists, the selfish biggoted fools dont even use the damned things on the roads !

Cyclists are a menace & dangerous !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- Monocyclist, London

Helmets should not be compulsory. Such a rule in Australia has reduced cycling by 25%; The result is an increase in deaths as thousands fail to get the health benefits from cycling. Helmets only offer protection in low level speed accidents and evidence suggests that those wearing helmets have a higher rate of accidents, partly because they take more risks (a consequence of many enforced safety measures) and partly because it is harder to see and hear with most helmets.

Helmets would not have saved any of those killed so far this year who were crushed by lorries.

The nanny states continuous intrusion into our lives aided by the "elf and safety" thought police must be resisted. Let cyclists choose whether or not they want to wear a helmet.

- Paul Canal, Wanstead

I was knocked down on a pedestrian crossing by a cyclist, who then proceeded to physically attack me, screaming abuse. He tore my right arm out of its socket and badly damaged the muscles in my arm and back. By the time the police arrived he had cycled off. His description matched thousands of other cyclists. Cyclists should be made to carry a registration number on their bikes - if my assailant had he would not have got off scott free leaving me still suffering pain and immobity after five years.

- Phil, London

I think the push bike industry needs to up its game. All bikes should come with fitted lights and indicators.

- R.Taylor, london

I think helmets should be PROHIBITED! Helmeted cyclists are more often in -and even causing - accidents than cyclists without head protection.
Most likely because helmeted bikers seem to think they are wearing overall protection and that nothing can hurt them. And so the speed up, unheeding of pedestians, ignoring red lights, one way streets and every other rule and consideration.
L L, Stockholm, Sweden

- L Lonnberg, stockholm, sweden

How bout introducing a peak hour system for bikes as well?

- Jennifer, London

First of all cyclists do need more protection from the laws than motorists. In every European country, it is assumed that the less vulnerable road user is generally at fault in an accident. Not so in the UK - here the opposite is true. For far too long we have been ruled by the motoring lobby, and it's high time that changed. I see selfish drivers every day texting, making calls, turning without indicating, driving too close, speeding through red lights etc. Not to mention the people who thinks it's amusing to shout abuse or hurl things from their cars as they pass you. Why isn't there proper enforcement of the traffic laws? Secondly, with regard to helmets - wearing one gives the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity. It is not. You are far more likely to have a head injury as a pedestrian or even in a car. In fact, research has shown that wearing one actually makes you more likely to have an accident in the first place, as motorists pass closer to you - thereby putting you more at risk. Secondly, cycling helmets are designed for impacts of less than 12 kph and can actually make head injuries worse. That is why they have not been made compulsory. Thirdly, in every country where helmets have been made compulsory levels of cycling have plummeted, making the roads more dangerous for the cyclists left. There is safety in numbers, and the more cyclists there are out there the more motorists will have to get used to us being around.

- Lesley, Hastings, UK

Pedestrians' biggest worry is the number of lorries, buses, cars and motorcycles that ignore advance stop lines and rev their engines threateningly, making crossing the road an intimidating and dangerous experience even on green.

The stats show, as George points out, that motor cars are the biggest killers. I would add that even for pedestrians killed on the pavement, cyclists are responsible for a tiny fraction of those killed by cars. Some cyclists may be annoying (although not more than any other road user group), but in a world with finite resources of space and enforcement, you need to decide whether preventing annoyance or preventing death is the priority.

Three to four cycles can fit in the space of one small car, so it doesn't make sense to demonise cyclists from a motorist perspective.

Re the helmet - I do wear one, but only because so few motorists obey the basic rules of the Highway Code such as Rules 163 and 178. And a helmet won't save me from being crushed against the railings as a murderous lorry driver overtakes me on a gentle bend coming out of an Elephant & Castle roundabout.

- Reg, London

Cyclists have been responsible for 3 deaths in the last 7 years, motorists 21000.

Furthermore, you are more likely to be injured or killed as a pedestrian (in both time spent and distance travelled) than in a bicycle, but I don't see anyone advocating the use of 'walking helmets'.

And no, cyclists don't see themselves as 'kings of the road', we're just too busy trying to avoid cars to whom we are invisible, and errant pedestrians who have developed a fine art of stepping off kerbs while listening to their ipods, or while texting. Our only concern is to get to our destination without coming into contact with pedestrians or cars, and we have a very good track record of acheiving it. Its as simple as that.

The hire bikes are unlikely to be used much by regular cyclists. They will deliberately be designed to be heavy and slow, and regular cyclists will have their own bike anyway.

- George, London

Add your comment