Cycle helmets????

[inky pete]

I don't care if cycle helmets become compulsory or not - if they want to end up dead that's their look out.

 

But I would say that a clearly visible registration number (maybe on a velcro patch with a high viz background) and corresponding third party insurance definitely SHOULD be compulsory for cyclists using the public highways.

 

Surely no law abiding cyclist could complain at that, and the lyca louts who run red lights, ride on pavements and the wrong way up one way streets, and deliberately damage cars, could then be introduced to the concept of there being consequences for breaking the law.

[Evil Sid]

We should petition our Mp's to get this pased in law then there is no excuse. By the way that was Rod's suggestion when I mentioned something similar on the 20's plenty thread. So we should be able to count on his support after all he got the 20 mph zones passed.

[Cleopatra]

Inky, I never did see a lycra clad cyclist riding the pavement. I never did see a lycra clad cyclist riding the wrong way on the one way streets. I never did see a lycra clad cyclist damaging cars. What I did see was 'get out of my f*****g way' yobs on bikes doing all of those things.

[Evil Sid]

Which is all the more reason for having some way of identifying the culprits.

 

As a fairly responsible road user I have to abide by the laws set out for me to use my preferred mode of Motorised transport.

 

1) I had to take a test of competency to show that I was capable of using that mode of transport. If I fail to show sufficient competency then I am not allowed to use my transport except under certain limitations. Cyclist do not have to do that.

 

2) I must ensure that my preferred mode of transport meets certain specifications with regards to road worthiness on a yearly basis if over three years old. Any defects must be rectified before I can use that mode of transport on the road. Cyclist do not have to do that.

 

3) I must carry a minimum of third party accident cover for my preferred mode of transport to offset the cost of any accident I may be involved in. Cyclist do not have to do that.

 

4) I must pay an annual duty to the government to allow me to use my preferred mode of transport on the road. Cyclist do not have to do that.

 

If I fail to observe any or all of the above four conditions I am liable to prosecution and either a fine or term of imprisonment and any vehicle can be confiscated and destroyed. Not so with cyclists.

 

In probably 90% of accidents involving motor vehicles and cyclists it will be more than likely assumed that the driver of the motor vehicle was at fault unless there is overwhelming proof that it was otherwise.

 

Will have to start carrying my camcorder about and film some off the incidents that I see when out on the school run. mat have to blank the sound though as my driver can be quite vocal at times especially when he spots something that annoys him,(which is most off the time)

[middlec]

Inky, I never did see a lycra clad cyclist riding the pavement. I never did see a lycra clad cyclist riding the wrong way on the one way streets. I never did see a lycra clad cyclist damaging cars. What I did see was 'get out of my f*****g way' yobs on bikes doing all of those things.

As an occasional cyclist (but rarely on main roads, I keep to cycle tracks and lanes)I say don't judge all cyclists by the ignorant loutish bad mannered yobs that at times you encounter. They are in a minority. Cycling on the NCR5 on the coast of N.Wales recently we met some fantastic folk on bikes, many of them like us, retired and enjoying being on two wheels. Warrington doesn't have any dedicated cycle tracks, and that could be part of the problem. I have read that crash hats will only protect up to a 5mph impact,so a good idea, but shouldn't be compulsory.

[wolfie]

Good crash hats will protect upto 15mph, but a typical bike crash involves a drop to the pavement not so much by forward speed, so that protection is normally sufficient.

 

BTW Motorcycle helmets are only tested at about 17 -20 mph.

[grey_man]

Cleopatra is right to say it's not usually the 'serious' cyclists you see doing all those things. There was some lunatic from a cycling pressure group on the radio the other day responding to Bradley Wiggins' comments (that cyclists should take reasonable precautions not to put themselves in harms way) by claiming that cyclists shouldn't have to wear helmets and should be allowed to use their phone and iPod while cycling and if anything happens to them it should be any car drivers involved who should be prosecuted. An absolute dead giveaway how many cycling lobbyists think - "we should do as we damn well please and if anything goes wrong we'll blame everybody else and if that means somebody else gets a criminal record even though they may not be at fault, so be it."

[algy]

Cyclists - as has been said there are many riders who cycle the roads responsibly, what really annoys me are the Sunday club riders who ride two abreast on narrow roads/lanes, and when you 'toot' to warn them about your approach, answer with obvious mouthed abuse and gesticulations bordering on road rage, these same louts will also drive vehicles on the same roads but appear to have forgotten the unwritten rule of courtesy on the highway when mounted on their modern day velocipede, I believe someone in an earlier reply suggested some kind of identification by registration on clothing, brilliant idea, then these idiots could be named and shamed. I do wish to emphasise that I'm talking about a minority here and that most cyclist are reasonably well behaved.

Regarding the wearing of protective head gear, until it becomes mandatory as far as I'm concerned it's up to the individual to be responsible for their own safety, personally I don't think I would wear one.

[Bazj]

Will have to start carrying my camcorder about and film some off the incidents that I see when out on the school run. mat have to blank the sound though as my driver can be quite vocal at times especially when he spots something that annoys him,(which is most off the time)

 

I have said before and I have posted videos on here from it; I have what is called an "accident cam" in my car. It records constantly but does not save until it is triggered either manually or by an impact, or a sudden change of speed or direction. It is GPS and time/date stamped and admissable in court.

 

best 200 quid I ever spent!!

[RingoDave]

Speaking as one who has been using bicycles (both human and i.c.e. powered) since 1960 or so, I have to say ;

yes, traffic has increased enormously. and, yes, there are more rules and regulations for road users.

However, as far as I can ascertain, the LAW which states that it is illegal to ride n pavements unless you are 13 or under has never been repealed. I am uncomfortable wearing a cycle helmet (although I do have different helmets for my motorbike riding, dependent upon the conditions), but I ride sensibly and am always aware of other road users.

As one brought up passing the Cycling Proficiency Test before I was allowed out on my first bike, I would always argue that some form of "test" is needed, also identifying marks for the rider.

Algy, you seem to have said more or less the same as I was thinking. Those being complained about are in a small minority, but what worries me is that they are increasing as more owners of bikes see people getting away with totally ignoring traffic laws. (My pet hate is the practice of going through red lights and, thus, endangering themselves and those driving the other way on green).

[Bazj]

My pet hate is the "serious cycling groups" are the ones who always bang on about Councils providing cycle lanes etc. and then you see the same "serious cyclists" totally ignoring the cycle lanes and mixing it with cars on the roads when there is a perfectly good and bloody expensive cycling lane alongside the road they are pedalling on......

 

and as for Bradley Wiggins; someone needs to tell him that those side burns went out with the Wurzels back in the 70's!!