malumbu

In deed, I understand that in the 1950s rock and roll was considered to be just a fad by many. And in the 1860s the same thing was said about the new fangled bicycle

Yes it is good that cyclists numbers are increasing and it is a good investment. All government investment has to go through an assessment on the return. That will be measured in terms of reduced motorised traffic, benefits to the environment, health and wellbeing. Here's government policy under Johnson to promote walking and cycling under 'social prescribing' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/walking-wheeling-and-cycling-to-be-offered-on-prescription-in-nationwide-trial

@4l3x5pr1n63r (do explain why you chose that!) There are standards for the level of friction on road surfaces, I came a cropper two times in quick succession on a brand new surface near the Heygate estate twenty years ago in the rain. First time I was just enjoying the new surface and next thing sliding down the street. I hadn't realised why, but going the other way turned right in the rain and front wheel went. Ironically it was the cycle lane markings. In those days you could meet with the highway engineer, which I duly did, and demonstrated with a plant spray - road dry, wheel stays upright as I lean (static) 25 degrees, road wet and bang goes the bike. It was easier to engage in those days as local authorities has more staff. Otherwise the main issue has been black ice, only five times since I have lived in London spread across five boroughs and only twice a cropper, one as I crossed from Lewisham into Bromley as the latter hadn't gritted and once by Burgess Park as by the entrance it was a few degrees colder. Bikes going down every where. I've stupidly fallen off on very smooth surfaces such as station concourses but that was when I was much younger and even more foolish and shouldn't have been cycling.

Fair point. Most people can't pronounce Farage (as in rhymes with garage). Perhaps that explains his behaviour as a child as he was upset that people pronounced it in the continental way. Maybe that is the reason we had Brexit. Shame schools didn't take a more pastoral approach in those days. Maybe he just needs a hug.

But surely it is good news if more people are cycling. Yes or no?

The points that at least three of you continue to miss, I really don't know why is, in London is far more important than lights and clothing that.: (a) the cyclist being in an appropriate position and being aware of what is going on (b) drivers both see cyclists and giving them enough space Our streets are lit. The local boroughs are all 20 mph, there is virtually no excuse for not seeing a cyclist. If you disagree you should not be driving and please make an urgent visit to your optician. Or surrender your license. Obviously having lights is right, and wearing all black, on a black bike, with no reflectors, is a bit daft. I think we surely all agree on the above, And as such this thread has served its time. The title of the thread is cyclists visibility. There are other threads for you to moan about poor cycling. If you feel so inclined.

There is a good discussion about how cyclists can make themselves more visible to other road users and also how they can improve their awareness and understanding of other road users. The article by the RAF chap is useful but not the be all or end all. I will decide whether to wear high vis and a helmet, and I will make my own informed decision. It is much better than I use the correct position, in effect as well as making myself more obvious telling the person behind not to overtake me until there is enough space (in urban roads I am usually as fast as the traffic around here). Government guidance: The primary road position is that of the general flow of traffic (ie in the centre of the lane). Contrary to what inexperienced [and most experienced] cyclists may think, this is where they are often safer, as it is where they can most easily see and be seen. Telling other road users what I am doing is also essential through signaling, body language, occasionally speaking, is important, and do not underestimate the importance of a 360 degree awareness ie looking, and getting eye contact with other road users. It those road users who are in the wrong position and not aware, that I know that they will do something suddenly. You can often tell someone is on a mobile when following them, no signaling, wrong road position, sudden movements and cutting corners. The article above seems to be from the starting point of "don't trust anyone" and blames some of this on relying on peripheral vision. Peripheral vision is valuable, walk down the road with a hood up and you will understand tunnel vision. Most drivers subconsciously are capable of passing 30 cm from a parked car, using a fair amount of peripheral vision. It's the ones that drive like that when passing a cyclist, whether I am lit up like Trafalger Square or not, that worry me. As Ex and others have said this is much more about all drivers improving their awareness around vulnerable road users.

Just wondering how many people have been killed, particularly non-combatants, since the peace prize winning president was inaugurated?

They have repurposed some former elevated railways to cycle lanes and ten years or so the concept of having cycle lanes in tunnels such as disused tube lines was proposed https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/05/bike-paths-abandoned-tube-tunnels-london-underline

Cheers, they could also publicise the filming there - Entertaining Mr Sloane in particular. That's Beryl Reed, a friend of my late uncle.

Yes, you are quite happy (or perhaps unaware) that you are stoking up this nonsense that there is a culture war the poor drivers vs the rest of the world. As for your cycling you, and most adult cyclists, would benefit from some training. That applies to all road users, including pedestrians crossing the road. I could say a lot more but then I'd need to reread and would have to delete it. Thankfully others are not so guarded.

Funnily enough the first thing i thought when I saw the thread was FFS. And I rarely use any suggested profanities on this site. I'd actually thought of going to the US for the World Cup. STFAGOS.

Strange comment at the end. Government wants to encourage people to cycle, and any restrictions such as compulsory helmets and clothing will put some people off. Some drivers will not take notice of lights as they are driving on autopilot hence my comment that is it not just boy racers that are responsible for my many close passes (ie less than 50 cm gap), other near misses and the two times drivers actually knocked me off. One hit and run, the other a hire box van. The decision to wear hi vis is up to the individual. At night I have some, but not in the day as I expect drivers and other road users should use their eyes. @exdulwicher thanks for the link

Vehicles left idling is a wider problem than one private school. Action is rarely taken, some authorities have campaigns, but you never get critical mass. I used to be vociferous about this, and would have shared views in the old days on the Lounge, but eventually knocking on car doors and asking them to turn their engine off just got too much. The police were some of the worse offenders, I videoed a police car with the doors open and four cops eating takeaway with the engine running on summer's day in central London. That is the "I give up moment". It's totally daft but indicative of how, for some, behaviours are entrenched. I was therefore pleased that on the one occasion Alleyn's did take action. If you have any answers to addressing this across the country then I would be most interested. I responded to a motoring journo once, who said when he was test driving a car, the first thing he did was turn the stop start off. Probably considered by some, and maybe the masses, to be "woke nonsense". Back to the 'war on motorists' populist rubbish. Oh, I deleted that post on another thread.

Deleted

Not sure why this thread has mutated to e bikes. Here's a thread I posted last year with BA interest. Meanwhile as said before if it quacks like a duck..... As I've posted before for most of the population it is easy to distinguish an illegal e-bike - speed and no, or limited, pedaling. Many don;t even look like a conventional bike. Really don't understand how you can confuse a legal bike with a powered two wheeler. The legislation above didn't go through. Not really sure why the Tories bothered in their dying days. What is Reform's position? If you have free time tonight it would be better spent reading around the subject eg in the Lord's debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-06-10/debates/3C570E41-D69F-43B9-8789-02449033FDCB/ElectricCyclesIllegalUseOnRoads

Disagree, they took action. I've regularly walked past there when the coaches are parked and only seen one idling in recent times. As said I phoned them and they came out to speak to the driver. More effective than going onto social media It is an offense under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicle Regulations 1986 to leave your vehicle's engine running unnecessarily while stationary

Why don't you start your own thread on cycling in Amsterdam?

Most of them are not aggressive drivers in the conventional sense, they are unaware or oblivious, the speeding ones are doing what many do, exceeding the 20 mph limit. The anklets because they are moving may attract more attention. As can reflectors in the pedals

You've avoided my points, yet again!! Anyway, to move on, and returning to the point of this thread, evidence reviewed by Cycling UK is interesting: I've highlighted key points If wearing hi-vis helps people feel safer when cycling and more willing to do it, that is only to be welcomed. It is, though, hard to prove whether hi-vis makes any significant impact on cyclists’ safety, and there is very little convincing evidence to support the argument that it does. Research suggests that hi-vis may help drivers spot cyclists more readily, but it appears that spotting is one thing and driving safely around them another. One academic study, for example, found that whether a cyclist is wearing hi-vis or not makes very little difference to how closely motorists overtake them. On the other hand, research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark – especially anything that moves when you pedal (e.g. ankle straps) – are probably worth the investment. Overall, Cycling UK believes that improving cyclists’ safety is best served not by making hi-vis clothing compulsory, but by improving driving behaviour, lowering speeds, reducing traffic volume, and providing high-quality facilities. We also believe that all road users, including cyclists, should behave legally and responsibly, which includes obeying lighting regulations. Rather than dismiss the above please do read the reports first: News item: https://www.bikeradar.com/features/tech/hi-vis-is-not-silver-bullet-for-cycling-safety Cycling UK briefing: https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2023/08/21-03_ca_hi-vis_brf_1.pdf And Written parliamentary question https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-01-10/23174/ Government has no plans to introduce compulsory wearing of hi-vis I cycle maybe 250 days a year, mainly in Lewisham and Southwark, and experience several near misses a week, mostly in daylight. The drivers simply make no effort to give you space, and I expect that many do see me, Something that particularly annoys me is those coming towards you when space is a little tight. Neither party has priority, but some rather than do the sensible and courteous thing and slow down to ensure we pass each other safely do the opposite. someone coming at you at 30mph on a narrow road with parked cars on either side isn't fun.

Perhaps have a look at the review first before making such a judgement. Maybe you could do better, please do contact Number 10. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

It does surprise me that you are so supportive of the above as most of your posts give a very different image. Looking at three of the above; cyclists' visibility - you seem to have used this as a stick to beat cyclists; school streets - perhaps I am confusing you with others but there is a narrative here that this is all about Southwark ripping off the poor driver, with poor signage, inappropriately placed; 20 mph, I love the prefix 'pragmatic' - I recall you complaining about some 20mph roads rather than championing them.

Not sure how you define overtaxing, I expect most of the population would like to pay less tax. One of the panel on Kuensseberg, not the young influencer, nor the unreconstructed old man (the opposite of 'new man') Piers Morgan), was fairly knowledgeable and explained that measures to improve growth such as an improved deal with the EU and trade agreements, are done elsewhere.

So because he said something you believe isn't the truth he shouldn't have introduced measures to improve air quality, and reduce deaths and ill health associated with pollution. Odd logic.