Agree with CD and 152047 - my cycle to and from work is my "me time" and it's a whole lot more pleasant if I let the idiot behaviour of fellow road users just wash over me. There are times, however, when it's very difficult, especially if they have just tried to run you over. Red light jumpers and pavement cyclists do the rest of us no favours at all and on the few occasions that I've challenged a cyclist about it I get told to F off so I've stopped bothering.

That said, nothing wrong with being helmetless and wearing black! I do wear a helmet but am acutely aware that it will only be of any use to my noggin in pretty minor incidents - and as for the people (and it's mostly small children) I see wearing helmets at a jaunty angle - they (or rather their parents) probably don't realise that unless it's strapped on properly they may as well be wearing a flat cap for all the protection it offers.

I agree wearing black is an issue if it's night and the cyclist has no lights, but as long as you have decent lights (I'm paranoid and have 4 front and 3 back...) then all black is just fine!

Thought you might be interested to read the response I got from Joan Ruddock (local MP), asking her to support to The Times cycling campaign.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding the safety of cyclists following the launch of The Times' 'Cities Fit for Cycling' campaign. I am sorry for the long delay in responding to you. I receive a huge volume of post and emails and this can lead to a delay in my reply. I have signed the Early Day Motion in support of the campaign, but unfortunately I cannot attend the debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday, please accept my apologies.

I agree that we have got to do more to prevent cyclists being killed or seriously injured on our roads and The Times is absolutely right to raise awareness and launch a campaign for cycle safety. Despite the importance of cycling proficiency and awareness, we must never give the impression that the responsibility to prevent collisions simply rests with cyclists. That is why The Times is right to highlight the importance of measures such as improving road junctions, creating alternative cycle routes and improving safety equipment on HGVs.

I know that the shadow Labour team is now looking seriously at each of the ideas that have been proposed in The Times 'Cycling for Cities' cycling safety campaign, including new rules on HGVs, improvements to dangerous junctions, the wider use of 20mph speed limits and how much of our spending on roads is designated to ensure they are safe for cyclists to use.

As a result of a Policy Review, Labour has immediately backed three specific proposals that could make a major difference to the safety of cyclists, particularly in our towns and cities:

* First, a proportion of existing government funding for roads should be set aside to be spent on building new cycle ways, improving junction design and installing traffic light phasing to give cyclists a head start.
* Second, the government's trial of longer HGVs should be axed and income from the proposed HGV road charging scheme used to support the road haulage industry in upgrading safety measures and training.
* Third, the national targets to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Britain's roads, axed by the government, should be reinstated."

Great that she, and her party, are supportive of this initiative. Would like to have heard about pro-active steps rather than "Axing" but appreciate that this is a new initiative and there is an element of party politics.

I'm not wildly keen on segregated cycling paths since at some point presumably I'll need to venture back onto a normal road and both cyclists/drivers need to get used to cyclists being on them. Yes; cycle paths are great at very tricky junctions or really busy bits of road but otherwise, I'm not convinced. They either end up giving way at every junction/driveway so slow you down massively or share space with pedestrians who regularly wander into them so again slow you down.

What I would support is for there to be more education on cycling; extending and publicising the free training more, more public service adverts on TV/print explaining where cyclists should be positioned in the road (for both cyclists and drivers). I hear most adverts about watching out for cyclists on the radio which is fair enough since many drivers listen in their cars but doesn't help with some of the visuals to look out for.

I'd also love to see discounts (insurance-wise) for drivers who have Bikeability training since I do firmly believe that you only appreciate how 'close' a car/van can feel until you've actually done a stint on two wheels. Equally once you realise that a dooring could be lethal, you're unlikely ever to open your door without doublechecking for cyclists again.

However, I make most defensive manoeuvres (braking/steering) around pedestrians (stepping into the road without looking - generally to get past a slower pedestrian - into my path) and animals (kamikaze squirrels in Dulwich Park) and I'm not sure what exactly we can do about that!

By way of an update to my post regarding my response from Joan Ruddock.

According to The Times this morning over 2,000 people have written to their local MP leading to 58 of them signing an early day motion in support of the inititive (JR being one of them).

I'm not particularly fussed about segregated paths either - but then I tend to ride confidently in the middle of the lane, whereas the kind of people that benefit from them are people who tend to ride as far left as they can in mixed traffic. I think that segregated paths are great for local rides too, as they encourage people to get out on their bikes for short trips.

Getting people out cycling for short trips is important for so many reasons, as it reduces the number of cars on the road, and therefore congestion and pollution but also means that the rider will gain bike handling skills and confidence to get out on bigger roads. Not to mention the health benefits and cost savings.

Education though is important too - and measures to deal with HGVs. I personally think that the addition of compulsory sensors for lorries that enter cities/towns are a great idea.

Ryananglem,

Just to confirm your comment "but then I tend to ride confidently in the middle of the lane" - does this mean that you cycle in the middle of the lane thereby preventing traffic from overtaking (the same way a ractor / caravan might).

I believe that cyclist should be mindful of other roadusers, and should cycle as far left as possible without being a cycling in the gutter.

Is saw both sides of the coin on Monday whilst going over London Bridge. A lorry driver cut up a cyclist very badly and then gave him a mouthful. The cyclist unscrewed the lorrys fuel cap and threw it in the Thames then cycled off.

The other was a cyclist who decided to undertake a bus whilst the bus was turning left almost crushing him against the barriers, he then shouted at the bus driver.

It all goes to prove that it's not the form of transport that gets people into danger it is the people themselves.

Wayfarer, I was just about to say the same thing!!!

I am a cyclist myself, I am also a motorist and whether I am on a bike or in a car I cannot stand cyclists who seem to think they can ride in the road the same way a car would. It is cyclists like this that give us (other cyclists) a bad name, just the same as cyclists who ride 2 or 3 a breast, and if you're cycling in the middle of the lane you may as well have 2 of your mates cycling on the inside of you!!!!

Cycle like this and you are inciting road rage in my opinion

This post was last modified: 22-02-2012 12:26 PM by Cheeky.

Wayfarer and Cheeky - there are often very good reasons to "take the lane". I don't imagine Ryanglem means that he cycles in the middle of the lane the whole way into town. If he's pootling along at 2 miles an hour and holding traffic up, then fair enough on other users being irritated but if he's got a halfway decent roadbike and is relatively fit he'll be going just as fast, if not faster, than most other motor traffic and road rage is just inappropriate and the result of a wee willy complex.

The problem is that some drivers seem to think that we should be hugging the kerb at all times and that is a perception that needs to change.

You're quite right though - respect must go both ways.

Agree about needing to show respect no matter how you travel.

A small but important point though, a driver of a car (or larger) will need to enter the lane to their right to some degree in order to safely pass a cyclist no matter where in their own lane that cyclist has positioned themselves. There should be no 'squeezing past' encouraged by cyclists sticking to the kerb.

There is an argument that if a cyclist is aware that they are likely to hold up traffic for a long period of time they should pull off the carriageway temporarily (as tractors sometimes do). I think this has some merit in some circumstances but I don't get the same consideration each day when I'm cycling faster than my motorised fellow road users!

I'm also conflicted about dedicated cycle lanes. I think they have value for some cyclists but I'm concerned about the affect they'd have on people's opinions about 'where cyclists should be'. Unless legislated against we all have to accept and be considerate of the fact that cyclists are not only valid road users but normally obliged to be there. Despite the hatred of 'pavement cyclists' we're still often told to 'get off the road'.

I did indeed mean that I 'take the lane' but as @amfm surmised I also tend to be going at least as fast as traffic. In the mornings on the Old Kent Road, generally a good deal faster.

The point about a caravan and/or tractor is an interesting one though. Why should a cyclist be treated any different to those kinds of vehicles (and yes they should pull over and let traffic past if holding up a long line)? Just because they are going slowly they should be given due care and consideration by other road users and not forced to cower as far left as humanly possible. A cyclist, just like any other road user, and despite what many think, has as much right to be on the road as anyone else.

'Why should a cyclist be treated any different to those kinds of vehicles'

For your own sake I guess, seeings as you're made of flesh and bone and caravans and/or tractors are made of somewhat more solid materials!!!

Still, I believe there are certain forms of conduct each mode of transport should adhear to and if it is done in a safe manner whereby it avoids placing other road users or yourself in danger then there's no reason why everyone can't be happy

I have no intention of "cowering" on the far left hand side of the lane, but I believe there is a balance to be achieved.

On certain strecthes of my commute I can certainly travel faster than a car (e.g. Camberwell New Road), and on the Embankment (if the lights are in my favour) can get up a good head of steam but inreality I would expect to be overtaken by 99% of vehicles. For this reason, I cycle on the left.

I think my original meaning has been slightly lost.

I intended to say that I think that segregated cycle paths are a good idea for those not confident cycling with cars on the same carriageway. For cyclists who are confident sharing the road, normal common sense applies (in addition to the highway code). For me, I make sure that I can see if anyone is going to walk out from behind a parked car, or open the drivers side door and give myself enough room to get out of their way if they do.

Agree. Can't believe that within this forum, the original point beine made has been lost ;-)

And the original point was? Cyclists on pavements, I seem to remember!!!

Many of us have been campaigning for safer cycling for many years.
The issue has been taken up by the Times, there was a flash ride on Wednesday and the subject was debated in Westminster yesterday.

I would therefore, encourage all cyclists who care about safety to come on the Big Ride on Saturday 28 April as part of the UK's biggest ever cycling demonstration. This will be a family day out. The ride will be marshalled and will be safe for children and those who do not normally ride into London. There will also be marshalled feeder rides from all London Boroughs.

Details of the event can be found on the London Cycling Campaign's website:
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-announces...or-cycling

It would also be great if you could sign their petition:
http://petition.lcc.org.uk/ea-action/act...n.id=13331

Many thanks

I wonder how much support that “flash ride” on Wednesday cost the campaign? We’ll make you late getting home to your kids - now you have to support us!

I am disdainful of a campaign that demands, at a time of national economic crisis, that the country commits to finding tens of millions of pounds a year to keep cyclists safe while they commit to doing absolutely nothing whatsoever to help themselves.

So far, despite huge publicity, only 30,000 people have signed up. That’s just over half of one per cent of all UK cyclists, never mind everyone else. A serious campaign, one that included cyclists accepting the same responsibilities as other road users, would have attracted many times that level of support by now, including mine.

Can I suggest we hand out copies of the Highway Code during the event for those who are unsure of it's use.

I am not anticycle btw having peddled a mile or two in my time.

I have no problem encouraging other cyclists to adhere to the highway code