Do they still do the cycling proficiency badge? I did it at school. Something has to change.
Its known as the bikeability scheme now. Not sure if all the schools do it though. I know a couple of guys through my old cycling club that used to be involved with the scheme.
I'm 17 and I did it at primary school, so yes I think they still do it in some form.
This happened last month, apparently the woman in the car turned right from Sydenham Road, into Mayow Road, whilst putting on make-up AND using her mobile phone, going through when the light was on red.
I had to go around that crash scene on the way to 6th form, there was a massive skull shaped dent on the outside of the car's front windscreen. I do hope that they are alright now. The car was on the wrong side of the road to.
Another cyclist dead today - six in London in a fortnight. I know statistics are, by their very nature, prone to aberrant blips - but this is starting to get a bit worrying now. I guess part of the problem is that there are a much larger number of cyclists on the roads, so the figures will inevitably go up - but I do think something needs to be done, because as well as the fatalities, I'd guess there are a damn sight more serious injuries from accidents too.
Cyclists (and motor cyclists come to that) undertake cars and lorries and that is the reason for a lot of accidents.
There are reckless car and lorry drivers to be sure that cause accidents but 40 years on the road, and 30 of those years spent driving 25,000 miles plus a year, have taught me that the assertion in my first paragraph is true.
Cyclists (and motor cyclists come to that) undertake cars and lorries and that is the reason for a lot of accidents.
There are reckless car and lorry drivers to be sure that cause accidents but 40 years on the road, and 30 of those years spent driving 25,000 miles plus a year, have taught me that the assertion in my first paragraph is true.
Undertaking lorries is ridiculous, as is undertaking buses. Any cyclist who does this needs their brain examined (which, sooner or later, it will be - during a post-mortem). Undertaking cars is a completely different matter. You need to use common sense as a cyclist - this includes whether it's safer to undertake or overtake. In my experience, on my commute (A23 from Redhill to Kennington, then over Westminster Bridge), passing cars has always been more dangerous on the outside - because drivers are even less likely to check their mirrors when pulling out to overtake slowing/turning traffic in front of them than they are when turning into side roads. Cycling in London (or any other area where there is a large amount of stop-start traffic controlled by traffic lights or constrained by congestion is a totally different kettle of fish to cycling on quiet roads, where there is light or minimal traffic. Obviously you should overtake in preference to undertaking, but it just isn't practical to follow this advice when commuting in London.
Tonight's cycle home illustrates perfectly both sides of the spectrum.
Firstly, coming down Regent Street and turning into Haymarket, some fuckwit in a white van attempts to murder me by pulling across all three lanes of traffic into the outside lane to avoid a bus. No indicator, no look in the mirror - and its only sheer, dumb luck that I manage to avoid being sideswiped into a TNT lorry parked outside the theatre.
Then, halfway up Brixton Hill, a woman cycling on a bike that looked like it had been magically brought to life from a famous five book decides she's going to turn right into the road just after the prison - no hand signal, no warning to the traffic coming down the hill towards her and no warning to the bus behind her.
I agree, I rely on hearing traffic coming behind me, from the side and even up ahead of me when I cannot see round a bend. Headphones would prevent that.
The real changes in infrastructure and HGV design/safety seem to be drowned in minor stuff around behaviour. The cyclists who jump lights aren't the ones who end up under HGVs, nor will a helmet save you from the internal injuries which kill most cyclists involved in crashes.
Until HGV's have been safety equipment or are banned in rush hour, and proper segregation on major roads, people will keep dying at the same rate they are now.
I agree, I rely on hearing traffic coming behind me, from the side and even up ahead of me when I cannot see round a bend. Headphones would prevent that.
It amazes me the number of people that ride with headphones, especially the big Beats by Dr Dre-type ones. Ridiculous. Its essential to hear the traffic around you. But then again, it amazes me the people that ride without helmets. I was fortunate that when I was 14 when I went over the handlebars of a mate's racer at 25mph, I survived. Dont remember anything of the incident, just have a scar on my face which has been massively reduced from a skin graft but its a daily reminder when I look in the mirror to always wear a bloody helmet.
I agree, I rely on hearing traffic coming behind me, from the side and even up ahead of me when I cannot see round a bend. Headphones would prevent that.
It amazes me the number of people that ride with headphones, especially the big Beats by Dr Dre-type ones. Ridiculous. Its essential to hear the traffic around you. But then again, it amazes me the people that ride without helmets. I was fortunate that when I was 14 when I went over the handlebars of a mate's racer at 25mph, I survived. Dont remember anything of the incident, just have a scar on my face which has been massively reduced from a skin graft but its a daily reminder when I look in the mirror to always wear a bloody helmet.
Me too Johnboy, I was taken out by a car that turned right in front of me and I finished up under another car looking at his gearbox after going over the handlebars. I dread to think of the head injury I would have suffered without a helmet so it is always a must for me.
I ride with headphones. Provided I can hear the traffic around me, I don't see the problem with it. You hear far more traffic noise on a bike than you do in a car. Admittedly, 'in ear' headphones are a different kettle of fish as they cancel out ambient noise - same goes for those stupid 300 quid fashion statement Dre headphones - but wearing ear buds (i.e. not the ones designed to sit in your ear canal) are fine. I saw the old bill were out yesterday stopping cyclists and telling them off for not wearing hi-vis. Not much fucking point being 'highly visible' if you aren't visible at all to trucks and buses!
There no law against riding with headphone, so Boris is again trying to shift the problem away from stuff TfL should be doing, to really minor stuff, same with Helmets, I wear one, but I'm well aware that if I'm hit by HGV and dragged under it, I'll be dead for internal injuries, but my hair will still be nice.
Boardman is suggesting HGV's off certain roads at certain times, but I can't see that being the answer. Why penalise one set of road users for the benefit of another. Where's does that one stop?
A decent infrastructure and education is what's needed. You're right Rothko he's absolving himself once again. Fat twat. (Boris, not you).
I ride with headphones. Provided I can hear the traffic around me, I don't see the problem with it. You hear far more traffic noise on a bike than you do in a car. Admittedly, 'in ear' headphones are a different kettle of fish as they cancel out ambient noise - same goes for those stupid 300 quid fashion statement Dre headphones - but wearing ear buds (i.e. not the ones designed to sit in your ear canal) are fine. I saw the old bill were out yesterday stopping cyclists and telling them off for not wearing hi-vis. Not much fucking point being 'highly visible' if you aren't visible at all to trucks and buses!
Yep, they're on a mission of zero tolerance, and I can guess who the 'easy nicks' will be.
The really easy nicks yesterday were HGV drivers, from the LBC website
"As well as cyclists, 20 HGVs were stopped and 60 offences were found to be committed, including vehicles in dangerous condition and drivers who had been working too long."
That's an average of 3 offences per HGV stopped & they want to tell cyclists to wear helmets & hi-vis jackets. Of the 20 HGV's stopped only 5 were found to have either no faults or no illegal hours. 75% were faulty or illegal and they want to continue blaming dead cyclists.
Boardman is suggesting HGV's off certain roads at certain times, but I can't see that being the answer. Why penalise one set of road users for the benefit of another. Where's does that one stop?
A decent infrastructure and education is what's needed. You're right Rothko he's absolving himself once again. Fat twat. (Boris, not you).
so according to Boardman lets penalise the HGV's (road tax / insurance paying) in favour of cyclists?
Boardman is suggesting HGV's off certain roads at certain times, but I can't see that being the answer. Why penalise one set of road users for the benefit of another. Where's does that one stop?
A decent infrastructure and education is what's needed. You're right Rothko he's absolving himself once again. Fat twat. (Boris, not you).
so according to Boardman lets penalise the HGV's (road tax / insurance paying) in favour of cyclists?
Really? Again?
This 'road tax' argument has been done to death. There is no such thing, and hasn't been for about eighty years. 'Road tax' is paid by everyone through general taxation.
Saved me typing that Leroy, and if it were to be levied, it would be at the same rate as zero emission vehicles, which is £0.
As for banning HGV they make up 5% of all traffic, yet are involved in 50% of serious accidents. There not just a menace to cyclist, but also to pedestrians
You get clumsy cyclists, clumsy motorcyclists and clumsy drivers.
The difference being that at least the drivers and motor cyclists have passed a test to say they are reasonably proficient for the task in hand. 95% or so of the so-called cyclists arent proficient enough to be on the road.
(I'd like to think that I'm in the 5% that are btw!)
Comments
Cyclist riding the wrong way up a 1 way with no lights on his bike.
Cabbie went mental at him and the cyclist still argued his case somehow.
There are reckless car and lorry drivers to be sure that cause accidents but 40 years on the road, and 30 of those years spent driving 25,000 miles plus a year, have taught me that the assertion in my first paragraph is true.
Firstly, coming down Regent Street and turning into Haymarket, some fuckwit in a white van attempts to murder me by pulling across all three lanes of traffic into the outside lane to avoid a bus. No indicator, no look in the mirror - and its only sheer, dumb luck that I manage to avoid being sideswiped into a TNT lorry parked outside the theatre.
Then, halfway up Brixton Hill, a woman cycling on a bike that looked like it had been magically brought to life from a famous five book decides she's going to turn right into the road just after the prison - no hand signal, no warning to the traffic coming down the hill towards her and no warning to the bus behind her.
Positively frightening.
BBC London - Boris Johnson considers cyclists headphone ban http://bbc.in/Ie2Z2w
Until HGV's have been safety equipment or are banned in rush hour, and proper segregation on major roads, people will keep dying at the same rate they are now.
Its getting safer, but that's true for all road users. There is still a lot of work to do.
A decent infrastructure and education is what's needed. You're right Rothko he's absolving himself once again. Fat twat. (Boris, not you).
"As well as cyclists, 20 HGVs were stopped and 60 offences were found to be committed, including vehicles in dangerous condition and drivers who had been working too long."
That's an average of 3 offences per HGV stopped & they want to tell cyclists to wear helmets & hi-vis jackets. Of the 20 HGV's stopped only 5 were found to have either no faults or no illegal hours. 75% were faulty or illegal and they want to continue blaming dead cyclists.
#bloodycyclists eh? Ha, that'll teach her
This 'road tax' argument has been done to death. There is no such thing, and hasn't been for about eighty years. 'Road tax' is paid by everyone through general taxation.
As for banning HGV they make up 5% of all traffic, yet are involved in 50% of serious accidents. There not just a menace to cyclist, but also to pedestrians
As for the answer of safer cycling etc in town, I haven't got a clue what they can do.
You get clumsy cyclists, clumsy motorcyclists and clumsy drivers.
95% or so of the so-called cyclists arent proficient enough to be on the road.
(I'd like to think that I'm in the 5% that are btw!)