h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's possible to find that something like 80% less women cycled at all after the laws were passed in Australia.

Deterring people from doing an activity that is inherently healthy is highly detremental to the intended outcome of trying to 'save' lives.
Besides, as I said, the worst outcome is the general attitude of 'idiots' not wearing helmets are to blame for their own deaths leading to dangerous drivers *time and again* being let off with a slap on the wrist in the courts when they killed or seriously injured somone through careless/dangerous driving.

Read a piece recently by a woman tasked to increase the number of cyclists at her employer's numerous sites around the country. The simple expedient of supplying hair dryers and hair straighteners led to an almost 30% increase in the number of women cycling to work. A simple step that tbh I'd never even thought of before. But then, sigh, "helmet hair" is never going to affect me.

If I'm on a busy route or in the city, I wear a helmet. If I'm just pootling along on country lanes and farm tracks, I take it off.

I've altered the angle of my handlebar phone holder so that the phone camera now faces the road. It used to be so I can have a sports app running and use it as a milometer and sat-nav.
Here's a short test I did on the way home from the supermarket:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_lKBOmf2TU

As you can see, cities aren't gear for cyclists.

I cant get trhe linh to work

Are you in an older Ripley skin?

It's basically youtube.com and /watch?v=w_lKBOmf2TU

Here's another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJaz2fFR-qE

Across Manchester in rush hour, with notes of what happens when.

The most dangerous things, pedestrians stepping out without looking, or looking and not caring. I should also point out when I cycle I wear a very bright yellow/green jacket and always have my lights on, so not being able to see me isn't an excuse.

"High-viz jackets don’t affect how close motorists pass cyclists"
http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/news/article/high-viz-jackets-dont-affect-how-close-motorists-pass-cyclists-39136/

"The only jacket that appeared to make a meaningful difference to the average passing distance was a jacket with the word 'police' written on it."

Ooh - where do I get one of those jackets then?

Quite. I get so tired of cyclists getting blamed for everything when patently it is not the reality. Oh for contintental laws in the UK were some actual responsibility gets put on those controlling the vehicles that *actually* cause nearly all the harm.

"The only jacket that appeared to make a meaningful difference to the average passing distance was a jacket with the word 'police' written on it."

Wearing a high vis jacket with a blue and white check strip across it and (in very small lettering) the words 'It's nice to be' followed by the very big word 'POLITE' may possibly not infringe any laws?

Drivers, pedestrians and some cyclists may ignore high vis jackets, but at least they see them.

I would tend to go for a better safe than sorry with Hi Vis. I doubt it actually makes people *less* safe around you. So even if it isn't particularly effective it doesn't really cost you anything. And if it helps someone catch you out of corner of eye when they otherwise might have missed you could save oyur bacon no?

FB

I was driving yesterday, following a wee Honda at an annoying 30mph along a country road with a 60 speed limit. I couldn't overtake as the road was a bit windy and there was a bit of traffic. Coming up to a straight bit, I saw a cyclist about 100m down the road so I knew I couldn't overtake. However, it was clear the driver in front of me never saw the cyclist as she didn't alter her speed one iota until she was barely a couple of feet from his back wheel when she violently swerved to the right to go by him, forcing an oncoming car to slam on his brakes and swerve. Her brake lights never even flickered.

If I could see the cyclist 100m away from behind another vehicle, what on earth was the driver in front playing at?

I always think it is crazy that you can pass a driving test at 17, then providing you don't do anything to lose your licence you are considered competent to drive a vehicle for the next 50 years or more.

I went about 3 years without driving once and in truth it probably seems crazy that I was then allowed to get into a hire car and drive the length of the country.

I realise this would never happen but I can't help wondering if licences only last for 10 years and then oyu had to take another test if that might make our roads one helluva lot safer.

FB

I've considered that as well FB, but I'd make it every five years until you're 60 and then every year after that.

Yes, it's a lot more hassle and a lot more paperwork. And yes it would cost more initially.

But, I think that because it would mean fewer dangerous drivers on the road, then insurance costs would go down and the drivers would save money that way. It'd also mean less traffic on the roads, so the cost of upkeep for them would go down.

But all this relies on those not having a license not just getting into a car and driving anyway, so the fines/sentences there would have to go up to be a lot more of a deterrent.

There are and always will be fools on the road, they dont stay alert but a test will never weed out the carless, everyone concentrates on an exam.

Only the truly inept will be weeded out, and that will not include the willfull the dangerous or the manic cyclist haters (and there are some, the game of cut the cyclist close is indemic, and popular with many).

I think as more and more cyclists start filming their rides, and more will when they realise they can use their phones to do it with a reasonably cheap handlebar mount rather than the expensive equipment, then we'll start seeing more video evidence of bad driving. But it then needs to be used to prosecute these bad drivers, and the bad cyclists too.

Adapting an original idea would solve the problem. It should be compulsory for every vehicle to be preceded by a cyclist carrying a red flag.

Would reduce traffic casualties, solve youth unemployment, and make criminals driving away from bank heists easier to catch.

I ought to say I am not a cyclyst, I would like to be, I have 3 cycles including a full sizt folding Honda off road cycle. I just feel its is just to dangerous, all country roads (including the single width with passing spaces) are designated as 60 mph so all cars go as fast as possable, even if they cant see round a corner.

So that means my favourate roads are probably the most dangerous. and are used by the most reckles (the everyday user, the familiarity breeds contempt type).

Thease tracks must be restricted lower the speed somehow to 20 MPH. I would like to see a mandaory mininum 7 day ban and a harsh speeding fine IN EXCESS OF £150 payable by a fixed penality, £300 if you go to court and loose. (the accident is proof of excessive speed) if anyone is involved in a collision with a cycle, if the driver is considered at fault. The ban will carry points and the insurance preimum would rocket.

That will slow down the car user and remove some persistant offenders. Drivers could protect themselves from the dozy cyclest with a dash cam which should be mandatory and attract an 15% discount on an insurance premium if the insurance industury would agree.

I think the insurance industry would agree to dash-cams, they're already trying to bring them in for younger drivers. It helps them prove if a driver was, or wasn't to blame for an accident. Stops claims of "It wasn't my fault" when the video shows the driver clearly not paying attention, or going way too fast.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your post Bobstafford, maybe not so much in the details but that's moot I would contend with the point about cycling being too dangerous.

It is not.

There's something like 2 million cycling miles ridden per death each year and as I said earlier your average cyclist has a 10 year increase in their lifespan compared to the average sedentary motorist.

The perception of danger really needs to be taken in perspective.

Got to admit I posted along such lines a few years back mind because of a couple of incidents I had cycling in Southampton about 15 years ago. Since then I've started cycling mostly because I was getting dangerously overweight and I've lost 4 stone in weight as a result.
Coronary heart disease and diabetes are as serious a risk to one's health as careless motorists.
Alternative forms of exercise exist too of course but it's so easy to just do your exercise riding to work and back it takes the gym out of the equation.