LadyDeliah

What about cyclists who are deaf? Should they be banned from cycling? I listen to Radio 4, podcasts and music on my bike, but I only wear the left small ear plug type headphone. I have been doing this for years and I do not believe it's impeded my ability to cycle defensively at all. As davidk says above, we can all filter out unnecessary noise to concentrate on what we need to hear and the level of noise is low in anycase. Plus experienced cyclists will use their vision far more than their ears or they will fail to notice cyclists coming up behind / beside them or pedestrians stepping out etc.

Are they going to be cracking down on motorists on phones too? I doubt they will stop as many drivers as cyclists because cyclists are easier to stop and don't block up the road as much when they are stopped. I'd also like to see a crackdown on HGV drivers who haven't had the breaks in driving required by law with prosecutions for breaches.

Injuries and deaths to pedestrians per mile driven is not particularly useful because huge amount of miles are clocked up on motorways and other roads where pedestrians are excluded.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > When I cycle, I'm lit up like a Christmas tree > but > > I still have drivers, who clearly see me, > pulling > > out in front of me because they don't appear to > > think they should give priority to bikes as > they > > do to other vehicles. > > And there's nothing you can do about drivers who > are texting or fiddling with iPhone/satnav/mp3 > player etc etc. Other than lobby for a crackdown on these dangerous lawbreakers.

When I cycle, I'm lit up like a Christmas tree but I still have drivers, who clearly see me, pulling out in front of me because they don't appear to think they should give priority to bikes as they do to other vehicles.

And the reason most cyclists end up on the left hand side of any vehicle is because that's where the cycle lanes are. Junctions are the most dangerous places for cyclists and something as simple as phased lights, allowing cyclists to go before other traffic, could potentially save lives, but idiots like the van man think cyclists should get even less priority than they do currently, because the deaths are 'sad' but he needs to get where he's going 5 minutes faster.

So here we go again. Blame the victim. The fact that drivers of any vehicles are so much more dangerous when tired is why the inherently more dangerous HGV's drivers are legally obliged to take breaks. If you think that's a minor breach, then you are totally missing the point. Plus, why aren't the 'all laws must be obeyed' lobby all over this like they are with pavement cycling?

50% of HGV drivers stopped this morning were driving illegally. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hgv-drivers-caught-in-bike-safety-operation-8946997.html So you guys still think it's the cyclists who are the main culprits of road rule breaches?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another tragedy. My sympathies to his family and > friends. > > As someone who cycles daily to and from Victoria, > the issues surrounding cycling saftey are > numerous. A few thoughts below: > > - Cycling infrastructure is poor to atrocious. > There are almost no segregated cycle lanes and the > sooner major junctions are given "cyclist > priority" phased lights the better; > > - Cyclists can be their own worst enemy. I see far > too many "bike ninjas", all dressed in dark > clothes and no lights going as fast as possible, > weaving through traffic. In an urban environment > I'm ambivilent about the benefits of high-vis but > wearing headphones seems utterly bonkers despite > what DJKQ will tell you; > > - The arguments continue to be a vicious circle. > Cyclists will continue to ride in > aggressive-defensive manner until roads are > designed with them in mind and drivers begin to > recognise us as legitimate road users. BUT by not > riding in a courteous and sensible manner cyclists > continue to damage their own reputation, endanger > their own safety and the chances of better > infrastructure provision; > > - Drivers are still poor at 'thinking bike' and > appreciating vulnerable road users. I think > further training as part of the driving/HGV test > on cycle awareness is a good start; > > - I don't like the way that it is deemed to > constantly be the requirement of cyclists to > 'make' themselves safe i.e. helmet, high-vis, > endless lights etc etc. It would be as ridiculous > to ask all cars to be painted white as they are > easier to spot in the dark. Or for every driver to > wear fire proof overalls to eliminate any deaths > due to fire in crashes. Pedestrians aren't > expected to dress like a quarterback to cross the > road despite the inherent danger in doing so and > the high number of pedestrian deaths every year. > The heaviest burden or responsibility for safety > should rest with those in charge of the vehicles > causing the most harm in an accident from HGV to > car to motorcycle to bicycle to pedestrian in that > order. Agree totally.

annabel42 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The cyclist killed in Croydon was my son. I > understand it is thought that, for some reason, he > lost control and fell off his bicycle, then was > hit. One paper appears to have given a misleading > account, based, I understand, on the statement of > some-one who phoned that paper, which has upset me > a great deal. My son, Roger, was fanatical about > safety and could never be described by anyone who > knew him as an aggressive cyclist. How awful for you. Comments by arseholes blaming cyclists for being a victim always seem to follow cyclists' deaths. It makes me sick and I'm sorry you have had the same treatment re your son's death. I can't imagine how you must be feeling.

Agree with all of that Peckhambog, but isn't it also time that other road users took proper responsibility for their actions on the roads and planners started to include the needs of cyclists in all infrastructure projects?

Laddy Muck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are concerned over the recent spate of > cyclist deaths and would like to see an > improvement in infrastructure, then PLEASE sign > this e-petition. It takes only seconds. > > http://petition.lcc.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.cli > ent.id=1745&ea.campaign.id=23782 > > DONE. Done also. Cycling provision in the UK is appalling and these deaths are totally avoidable, but no-one in power wants to make the necessary changes.

I'd second the sun-lamp and vitamin D tabs. Going for saunas every so often helps too.

Social housing tenants are entitled to take in a lodger with the permission of their landlord. Subletting is renting the whole property to someone else. It is subletting, not renting one of your rooms that is not allowed.

Sorry to disappoint you Alex K, but if someone has a valid asylum claim, i.e. an accepted liklihood of death or persecution if returned, they are not going to be deported for accidently damaging someone's car whilst drunk.

Mason Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But then many of the people on benefits living in > the stae funded home enjoy Sat TV proberbly have > the LED Tvs and enjoy the takeaway, and a regular > time at the Pub, but when they run out off the > money they receive, they resort to the food bank. > I have seen this happen and am really shocked at > how much money is actually wasted. You know this for a fact do you? The people I know on benefits rarely have enough for a takeaway unless it's a portion of chips and can't afford to go to the pub either. They can just about get through the week/fortnight without running out of (cheap) food.

I must have missed that. Do you know which specific bit of legislation it was that changed this?

The UN Special Rapporteur made some pretty damning comments on the rise of food poverty in the UK and other developed countries: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/un-official-alarmed-by-rise-of-food-banks-in-uk-8498791.html http://huff.to/138jSQ8

Something from a Human Rights law perspective: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/10/18/should-we-have-an-enforceable-right-to-food-professor-geraldine-van-bueren/#more-19893

More on this from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-nasty-party-is-back-sneering-at-food-banks-and-those-who-use-them-8884442.html

No worries a fish, you said you can prove it, you proved nothing of the sort, I think this little challenge has come to it's natural end.

So you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your assertion that Lycra louts regularly scatter pedestrians and abuse them then?

The Trussel Trust, a food bank charity has called for an official inquiry into the fact that use of food banks by people who need them to feed themselves, has tripled in one year. This in one of the richest countries in the world. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/16/charity-inquiry-food-bank-use-triples

That wasn't the assertion I called you on. You said you regularly see Lycra louts scattering pedestrians and abusing them. That is what you claimed, that is what I disbelieved and asked you to prove, so either retract or prove it.

Anyway a fish, I'm really busy with life right now, so I will endeavour to check on your progress in a week or so.