Your views: Should cyclists be allowed to pedal with headphones on?

This Is Local London: Your views: Should cyclists be allowed to pedal with headphones on? Your views: Should cyclists be allowed to pedal with headphones on?

Boris Johnson is considering a ban on cyclists using headphones. But what do you think? Alessia Nava went to Kingston town centre to find out what south Londoners thought.

This Is Local London:

 

Morato Silva, 44, a Supercut hairdresser in the Bentall Centre who lives in Wimbledon said: "Headphones aren't the only danger only for those who are in the street but mobile phones too. I don’t think they should be banned."

This Is Local London:

Ross May, 31, a forensic science student who lives in Kingston said: "I see people wearing headphones and I’m like you can’t hear the traffic and they just don’t care. I would absolutely agree if headphones were banned.   I think we should have a culture where cyclists are safe on the road."

This Is Local London:

Judy Easton, 65, who lives in Epsom Downs and is retired said: "I think it’s a good idea, you shouldn’t have headphones on the road, you can’t hear the traffic. A lot of them don’t even have their lights on this time of the year. It just gets more difficult for drivers."

This Is Local London:

Ben Yeates, 21, a Kingston University architecture student who lives in Villiers Road, said: "I think it’s really dangerous to have headphones on when you cycle. It’s worse than talking on the phone while you’re driving. It just stops you from being aware of what’s around you."

This Is Local London:

Tara Hjersinj, 21, an international relations and politics at Kingston University who lives in Villiers Road said: "I think it’s a good idea. It’s really dangerous because you can’t be alert.

"Even where I’m from, back in Norway, they’re having the same debate; it’s not a situation that is restricted to London. So I very much agree that if the Mayor of London were to ban headphones it would be a great idea."

This Is Local London:

Anais Silk, 18, a travel and tourism student at Kingston College who lives in Croydon said: "If someone’s in their car, they can listen to the radio. So why shouldn't cyclists be allowed to listen to music through their headphones? Just look out what’s around you."

This Is Local London:

Kojo Ahenkorah, 20, a rapper who studies finance at Kingston University but lives in Wimbledon Park said: "If you have your headphones in, it’s down to you to know how loud the music should be. If you have it on so loud that you can’t hear what’s going on around you, you know you’re in danger. It’s down to your own safety and responsibility, so I don’t think that they should be banned."

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:18am Tue 3 Dec 13

PeterM says...

This is a red herring, and is trying to shift the blame away from the real cause of cycle collisions.

In a modern car with the windows up and radio on, you can hear even less than a cyclist with headphones in. Should you therefore also ban car radios? How many times has a car gone past you and you've heard the boom boom of their music? Both much can they hear from outside of their car?
This is a red herring, and is trying to shift the blame away from the real cause of cycle collisions. In a modern car with the windows up and radio on, you can hear even less than a cyclist with headphones in. Should you therefore also ban car radios? How many times has a car gone past you and you've heard the boom boom of their music? Both much can they hear from outside of their car? PeterM

8:19am Tue 3 Dec 13

RP_CPN says...

PeterM wrote:
This is a red herring, and is trying to shift the blame away from the real cause of cycle collisions.

In a modern car with the windows up and radio on, you can hear even less than a cyclist with headphones in. Should you therefore also ban car radios? How many times has a car gone past you and you've heard the boom boom of their music? Both much can they hear from outside of their car?
Have you counted how many cars go past with the radio on at reasonable levels and hence are able to listen to the surrounding noise?

Considering the inherent risk you take by cycling around a modern city, why do some choose to increase that risk by wearing headphones, dark clothing, not displaying lights etc?

You can't blame government, Boris et al for your personal actions.
[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote: This is a red herring, and is trying to shift the blame away from the real cause of cycle collisions. In a modern car with the windows up and radio on, you can hear even less than a cyclist with headphones in. Should you therefore also ban car radios? How many times has a car gone past you and you've heard the boom boom of their music? Both much can they hear from outside of their car?[/p][/quote]Have you counted how many cars go past with the radio on at reasonable levels and hence are able to listen to the surrounding noise? Considering the inherent risk you take by cycling around a modern city, why do some choose to increase that risk by wearing headphones, dark clothing, not displaying lights etc? You can't blame government, Boris et al for your personal actions. RP_CPN

8:25am Tue 3 Dec 13

sonicsol says...

I am deaf in one ear, that's a bit like riding with earphones on. Should I be banned too?
Totally agree with PeterM above! Stopped behind a car yesterday who had the music so loud that the back bumper was rattling! There is no way he could have heard ANYTHING from outside!
I am deaf in one ear, that's a bit like riding with earphones on. Should I be banned too? Totally agree with PeterM above! Stopped behind a car yesterday who had the music so loud that the back bumper was rattling! There is no way he could have heard ANYTHING from outside! sonicsol

8:29am Tue 3 Dec 13

CyclistsPayTaxToo says...

"Considering the inherent risk you take by cycling around a modern city, why do some choose to increase that risk by wearing headphones, dark clothing, not displaying lights etc?"

Its exactly that a personal choice, that the individual makes aware of the risks, why should that choice be taken away from them.

I cycle a lot, and I have a single headphone in my left ear - I can hear some background music, I can hear if my phone is ringing and I can hear traffic noise behind me, I dont think that is dangerous. When you hit 25mph+ all you can hear is wind noise anyway.
"Considering the inherent risk you take by cycling around a modern city, why do some choose to increase that risk by wearing headphones, dark clothing, not displaying lights etc?" Its exactly that a personal choice, that the individual makes aware of the risks, why should that choice be taken away from them. I cycle a lot, and I have a single headphone in my left ear - I can hear some background music, I can hear if my phone is ringing and I can hear traffic noise behind me, I dont think that is dangerous. When you hit 25mph+ all you can hear is wind noise anyway. CyclistsPayTaxToo

8:29am Tue 3 Dec 13

Cyclist_1 says...

None of the recent accidents in London were caused by cyclists wearing headphones. This is a made up problem. Of all the risks that cyclists face each day, headphones are miles down the list. If you are genuinely concerned about cyclist safety, why not campaign against pot holes, or drivers changing lane with no warning?

We live in a city with some of the worst air pollution in Europe. Cyclists are doing us all a favour. Stop picking on them.
None of the recent accidents in London were caused by cyclists wearing headphones. This is a made up problem. Of all the risks that cyclists face each day, headphones are miles down the list. If you are genuinely concerned about cyclist safety, why not campaign against pot holes, or drivers changing lane with no warning? We live in a city with some of the worst air pollution in Europe. Cyclists are doing us all a favour. Stop picking on them. Cyclist_1

9:42am Tue 3 Dec 13

squired says...

It isn't a widely discussed topic, but the level of noise from busy roads is loud enough to damage your hearing. In fact, cyclists should actually be wearing something to reduce noise from vehicles to protect themselves from long-term damage.

If I cycle into London (for example, my ride this morning) I know that 95% of the time I'll have a car next to me, in front of me or directly behind me. Being able to hear them will make absolutely no difference whatsoever, although I don't use headphones myself.

Would someone riding to work later this week listening to Test Match Special via one earphone really be making their journey any more dangerous? I certainly don't think so. They would be in more danger if they didn't do simple things like looking over their shoulder regularly or having poor lights (or none at all).
It isn't a widely discussed topic, but the level of noise from busy roads is loud enough to damage your hearing. In fact, cyclists should actually be wearing something to reduce noise from vehicles to protect themselves from long-term damage. If I cycle into London (for example, my ride this morning) I know that 95% of the time I'll have a car next to me, in front of me or directly behind me. Being able to hear them will make absolutely no difference whatsoever, although I don't use headphones myself. Would someone riding to work later this week listening to Test Match Special via one earphone really be making their journey any more dangerous? I certainly don't think so. They would be in more danger if they didn't do simple things like looking over their shoulder regularly or having poor lights (or none at all). squired

9:47am Tue 3 Dec 13

CROYDON RESI says...

Cyclist_1 wrote:
None of the recent accidents in London were caused by cyclists wearing headphones. This is a made up problem. Of all the risks that cyclists face each day, headphones are miles down the list. If you are genuinely concerned about cyclist safety, why not campaign against pot holes, or drivers changing lane with no warning?

We live in a city with some of the worst air pollution in Europe. Cyclists are doing us all a favour. Stop picking on them.
Not saying you are wrong but can you quote the evidence or media reports you read to support that none of the accidents were caused, or contributed to by the wearing of headphones? This is not an attack on you but considered factual information is needed for such a debate surely. I really hope you can quote your source(s) as it would be valuable but I am guessing you can't?

The wearing of headphones makes the journey much more bearable, I get that. But they are right in your ear and are therefore much more able to cover the noise around you. So whilst sad, I think it must surely be true that you are less aware of your surroundings than someone in a car listening to a stereo. Not that thise people are blameless either.

Regards
[quote][p][bold]Cyclist_1[/bold] wrote: None of the recent accidents in London were caused by cyclists wearing headphones. This is a made up problem. Of all the risks that cyclists face each day, headphones are miles down the list. If you are genuinely concerned about cyclist safety, why not campaign against pot holes, or drivers changing lane with no warning? We live in a city with some of the worst air pollution in Europe. Cyclists are doing us all a favour. Stop picking on them.[/p][/quote]Not saying you are wrong but can you quote the evidence or media reports you read to support that none of the accidents were caused, or contributed to by the wearing of headphones? This is not an attack on you but considered factual information is needed for such a debate surely. I really hope you can quote your source(s) as it would be valuable but I am guessing you can't? The wearing of headphones makes the journey much more bearable, I get that. But they are right in your ear and are therefore much more able to cover the noise around you. So whilst sad, I think it must surely be true that you are less aware of your surroundings than someone in a car listening to a stereo. Not that thise people are blameless either. Regards CROYDON RESI

10:18am Tue 3 Dec 13

a.jumper says...

If you ban cyclists from wearing headphones, you must ban cars from having in-car stereos that are capable of going so loud as to block external noises in urban areas.

Also, if you ban cyclists from wearing even an earphone or bone conductor, how are they going to hear their sat-navs over the noise of all the motor vehicles queuing in Kingston? Are we ready for more lots last-minute lane changes by bikes in the town centre - or that they attach high-powered speakers to their bikes?
If you ban cyclists from wearing headphones, you must ban cars from having in-car stereos that are capable of going so loud as to block external noises in urban areas. Also, if you ban cyclists from wearing even an earphone or bone conductor, how are they going to hear their sat-navs over the noise of all the motor vehicles queuing in Kingston? Are we ready for more lots last-minute lane changes by bikes in the town centre - or that they attach high-powered speakers to their bikes? a.jumper

11:43am Tue 3 Dec 13

worldlyman2013 says...

Of course they should be allowed. Cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want. They own the road. It is all the fault of the nasty drivers, all of them, for not being good drivers.

Cyclists are all so roadworthy, knowledgeable when it comes to the Highway Code, polite and sensible that they should have the freedom of our roads.

Ban cars, that's what I say.

What a ridiculous article.
Of course they should be allowed. Cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want. They own the road. It is all the fault of the nasty drivers, all of them, for not being good drivers. Cyclists are all so roadworthy, knowledgeable when it comes to the Highway Code, polite and sensible that they should have the freedom of our roads. Ban cars, that's what I say. What a ridiculous article. worldlyman2013

11:53am Tue 3 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

all road users should pay attention when on the road, so headphones, radios and mobile phones, including hands free can be detrimental. Some replies seem to be more interested in winning the argument rather than trying to solve the problem.
all road users should pay attention when on the road, so headphones, radios and mobile phones, including hands free can be detrimental. Some replies seem to be more interested in winning the argument rather than trying to solve the problem. dellboy twick.

11:57am Tue 3 Dec 13

a.jumper says...

worldlyman2013 wrote:
Of course they should be allowed. Cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want. They own the road. It is all the fault of the nasty drivers, all of them, for not being good drivers.

Cyclists are all so roadworthy, knowledgeable when it comes to the Highway Code, polite and sensible that they should have the freedom of our roads.

Ban cars, that's what I say.

What a ridiculous article.
I think you're being sarcastic, but just in case: there are good and bad people riding and good and bad people driving, but when a rider gets it wrong, they're at the most risk and when a driver gets it wrong, everyone else is at risk. Motorists are to blame for most collisions involving a bicycle http://www.ctc.org.u
k/blog/chris-peck/wh
os-to-blame-in-crash
es-between-cyclists-
and-motorists but even when the rider made a mistake, should the penalty really be a death sentence? The authorities should design roads in towns like Kingston better and it would benefit everyone: fewer walkers and riders killed, and fewer drivers having to live with the sickening knowledge that they have killed.
[quote][p][bold]worldlyman2013[/bold] wrote: Of course they should be allowed. Cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want. They own the road. It is all the fault of the nasty drivers, all of them, for not being good drivers. Cyclists are all so roadworthy, knowledgeable when it comes to the Highway Code, polite and sensible that they should have the freedom of our roads. Ban cars, that's what I say. What a ridiculous article.[/p][/quote]I think you're being sarcastic, but just in case: there are good and bad people riding and good and bad people driving, but when a rider gets it wrong, they're at the most risk and when a driver gets it wrong, everyone else is at risk. Motorists are to blame for most collisions involving a bicycle http://www.ctc.org.u k/blog/chris-peck/wh os-to-blame-in-crash es-between-cyclists- and-motorists but even when the rider made a mistake, should the penalty really be a death sentence? The authorities should design roads in towns like Kingston better and it would benefit everyone: fewer walkers and riders killed, and fewer drivers having to live with the sickening knowledge that they have killed. a.jumper

12:12pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Mikey Blu says...

Cyclists should be made to take a test, just like other road users have to.
Cyclists should be made to take a test, just like other road users have to. Mikey Blu

12:34pm Tue 3 Dec 13

CyclistsPayTaxToo says...

Mikey Blu wrote:
Cyclists should be made to take a test, just like other road users have to.
And there is the inevitable response an article like this always gets, amazed it took this long.

Should they not be banned "because they don't pay road tax" too? Mikey, are you one of THOSE people?....
[quote][p][bold]Mikey Blu[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should be made to take a test, just like other road users have to.[/p][/quote]And there is the inevitable response an article like this always gets, amazed it took this long. Should they not be banned "because they don't pay road tax" too? Mikey, are you one of THOSE people?.... CyclistsPayTaxToo

12:45pm Tue 3 Dec 13

kingstonpaul says...

Common sense dictates that you need all your sensory faculties if you're riding a bike - that means sight and sound. If cycles weighed as much as cars, were powered by an engine, if they were clad in metal and if they went the same speed, then probably no need. Irrespective of the behaviours of car drivers, CYCLISTS ARE VULNERABLE. My ple to cyclists is please, please try to mitigate that vulnerability by being fully aware of what is happening around you.
Common sense dictates that you need all your sensory faculties if you're riding a bike - that means sight and sound. If cycles weighed as much as cars, were powered by an engine, if they were clad in metal and if they went the same speed, then probably no need. Irrespective of the behaviours of car drivers, CYCLISTS ARE VULNERABLE. My ple to cyclists is please, please try to mitigate that vulnerability by being fully aware of what is happening around you. kingstonpaul

1:16pm Tue 3 Dec 13

LiberalsOut says...

Of course they should be banned
They should also be fined for riding on the pavement which is against the law
The sooner they are taxed,licensed and take a test the better
Belgium has such a scheme and it works well there
The argument that cyclists pay tax too does not wash - road tax is per vehicle not person
Of course they should be banned They should also be fined for riding on the pavement which is against the law The sooner they are taxed,licensed and take a test the better Belgium has such a scheme and it works well there The argument that cyclists pay tax too does not wash - road tax is per vehicle not person LiberalsOut

1:19pm Tue 3 Dec 13

bstark says...

@Croydon Resi "Not saying you are wrong but can you quote the evidence or media reports you read to support that none of the accidents were caused, or contributed to by the wearing of headphones?"

It's not Cyclist1's job to provide evidence none of the recent accidents were influenced by wearing headphones, it's your job to provide evidence that they were. You shouldn't have to produce evidence that people weren't doing something... otherwise you might as well demand evidence the cyclists weren't juggling at the time, or eating a cream cake, and maybe that's why they died? The burden of proof is on your completely unfounded claim.

Not a single report I've seen indicates any of the 14 cyclists killed so far this year were even wearing headphones at the time. So why should he have to find evidence they weren't... if you think headphones were a contributory factor, you find evidence of it.

Banning headphones may seem sensible, but find me statistical evidence that it has been a contributory cause in accidents, I dare you. The evidence actually shows the most significant factor in cycle accidents is driver error:

http://road.cc/conte
nt/news/94789-dft-st
atistics-show-cyclis
t-casualties-continu
e-increase-sharp-inc
rease

I quote: "Only 36 percent of cyclist crashes had rider error as a factor, compared to 48, 46 and 44 percent for van drivers, motorcyclists and HGV drivers respectively. Those road users are all trained and licensed, of course, which makes the apparent lack of road sense here doubly surprising."
@Croydon Resi "Not saying you are wrong but can you quote the evidence or media reports you read to support that none of the accidents were caused, or contributed to by the wearing of headphones?" It's not Cyclist1's job to provide evidence none of the recent accidents were influenced by wearing headphones, it's your job to provide evidence that they were. You shouldn't have to produce evidence that people weren't doing something... otherwise you might as well demand evidence the cyclists weren't juggling at the time, or eating a cream cake, and maybe that's why they died? The burden of proof is on your completely unfounded claim. Not a single report I've seen indicates any of the 14 cyclists killed so far this year were even wearing headphones at the time. So why should he have to find evidence they weren't... if you think headphones were a contributory factor, you find evidence of it. Banning headphones may seem sensible, but find me statistical evidence that it has been a contributory cause in accidents, I dare you. The evidence actually shows the most significant factor in cycle accidents is driver error: http://road.cc/conte nt/news/94789-dft-st atistics-show-cyclis t-casualties-continu e-increase-sharp-inc rease I quote: "Only 36 percent of cyclist crashes had rider error as a factor, compared to 48, 46 and 44 percent for van drivers, motorcyclists and HGV drivers respectively. Those road users are all trained and licensed, of course, which makes the apparent lack of road sense here doubly surprising." bstark

1:47pm Tue 3 Dec 13

PeterM says...

LiberalsOut wrote:
Of course they should be banned
They should also be fined for riding on the pavement which is against the law
The sooner they are taxed,licensed and take a test the better
Belgium has such a scheme and it works well there
The argument that cyclists pay tax too does not wash - road tax is per vehicle not person
Dear LiberalsOut, how much 'Road Tax' does the owner of a Toyota Prius pay? I'll give you a clue it's £ZERO. The same as some Fiat 500 owners, Peugeot 206, Audi A3, Volvos etc as well as owners of pre-1973 cars. They all pay £ZERO road tax. The Police and other emergency services are also exempt from paying 'Road Tax'.

If cyclists were forced to display a tax disc on their bicycles, for which they would pay £ZERO as bicycles produce no emissions at all (which is what VED is based upon) it has been estimated that everyone that does pay for their tax disc would have to pay an additional £10 a year just to cover the administration costs. Would you be happy to pay £10 a year extra just to satisfy your desire to see cyclists as equals.

As for tests, according to figures from the DfT, it's estimated that 85-90% of cyclists also have a driving licence, so not only have they passed a test already, they are also likely to have purchased 'Road Tax' on their cars or motorbikes.
[quote][p][bold]LiberalsOut[/bold] wrote: Of course they should be banned They should also be fined for riding on the pavement which is against the law The sooner they are taxed,licensed and take a test the better Belgium has such a scheme and it works well there The argument that cyclists pay tax too does not wash - road tax is per vehicle not person[/p][/quote]Dear LiberalsOut, how much 'Road Tax' does the owner of a Toyota Prius pay? I'll give you a clue it's £ZERO. The same as some Fiat 500 owners, Peugeot 206, Audi A3, Volvos etc as well as owners of pre-1973 cars. They all pay £ZERO road tax. The Police and other emergency services are also exempt from paying 'Road Tax'. If cyclists were forced to display a tax disc on their bicycles, for which they would pay £ZERO as bicycles produce no emissions at all (which is what VED is based upon) it has been estimated that everyone that does pay for their tax disc would have to pay an additional £10 a year just to cover the administration costs. Would you be happy to pay £10 a year extra just to satisfy your desire to see cyclists as equals. As for tests, according to figures from the DfT, it's estimated that 85-90% of cyclists also have a driving licence, so not only have they passed a test already, they are also likely to have purchased 'Road Tax' on their cars or motorbikes. PeterM

2:08pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Henshaw11 says...

And of course, the deaf don't cycle.. *rolls eyes*

Headphones make no difference if you're paying attention to your surroundings - at a decent speed I hear little other than wind and other traffic noise. One's ears may tell you that there's sort of traffic somewhere behind, but without any better information that's all but useless. Just assume there's traffic there regardless. Regardless of the presence of traffic you still need to look over your shoulder/use a mirror to see what's there - it could be a car, but it could be a (quiet) cyclist - ears are a *very* poor aid. Headphones are just a red herring - the argument against them seems to be one used by those with not a great deal of cycling/commuting experience (ditto helmets, hi-viz). Headphones are at least a passive device, a driver holding a conversation even with hands-free doesn't usually completely ignore the other person.

From what I tell, Belgium no longer has cycle registration, and the Swiss recently ditched it.

Oh, and for the hard of understanding - there is no 'road' tax , it's vehicle excise duty, if you dislike paying it then drive a low emissions vehicle !
And of course, the deaf don't cycle.. *rolls eyes* Headphones make no difference if you're paying attention to your surroundings - at a decent speed I hear little other than wind and other traffic noise. One's ears may tell you that there's sort of traffic somewhere behind, but without any better information that's all but useless. Just assume there's traffic there regardless. Regardless of the presence of traffic you still need to look over your shoulder/use a mirror to see what's there - it could be a car, but it could be a (quiet) cyclist - ears are a *very* poor aid. Headphones are just a red herring - the argument against them seems to be one used by those with not a great deal of cycling/commuting experience (ditto helmets, hi-viz). Headphones are at least a passive device, a driver holding a conversation even with hands-free doesn't usually completely ignore the other person. From what I tell, Belgium no longer has cycle registration, and the Swiss recently ditched it. Oh, and for the hard of understanding - there is no 'road' tax , it's vehicle excise duty, if you dislike paying it then drive a low emissions vehicle ! Henshaw11

2:08pm Tue 3 Dec 13

CyclistsPayTaxToo says...

LiberalsOut wrote:
Of course they should be banned
They should also be fined for riding on the pavement which is against the law
The sooner they are taxed,licensed and take a test the better
Belgium has such a scheme and it works well there
The argument that cyclists pay tax too does not wash - road tax is per vehicle not person
Liberalsout - I suggest you read up on the subject. I was being flippant because 'road tax' does not exist, and hasn't for many decades. Upkeep and maintenance of the road is provided by the government through general taxation - therefore we all pay 'road tax'....

What you pay is vehicle excise duty, based upon the emmisions of your vehicle - the more you pollute the more you pay - as PeterM states some cars pay nothing at all, some pay loads.

So on that basis, I ride but I also drive an X5 and pay stupid amounts of VED, by your logic am I more entitled to use the road than say a driver of a Prius?.... Of course not, what a stupid comment.
[quote][p][bold]LiberalsOut[/bold] wrote: Of course they should be banned They should also be fined for riding on the pavement which is against the law The sooner they are taxed,licensed and take a test the better Belgium has such a scheme and it works well there The argument that cyclists pay tax too does not wash - road tax is per vehicle not person[/p][/quote]Liberalsout - I suggest you read up on the subject. I was being flippant because 'road tax' does not exist, and hasn't for many decades. Upkeep and maintenance of the road is provided by the government through general taxation - therefore we all pay 'road tax'.... What you pay is vehicle excise duty, based upon the emmisions of your vehicle - the more you pollute the more you pay - as PeterM states some cars pay nothing at all, some pay loads. So on that basis, I ride but I also drive an X5 and pay stupid amounts of VED, by your logic am I more entitled to use the road than say a driver of a Prius?.... Of course not, what a stupid comment. CyclistsPayTaxToo

2:20pm Tue 3 Dec 13

QPR4Me says...

Cyclists must realise that they are vulnerable and taking simple steps would go a long way to keeping them alive.

1. DO NOT undertake. Going down the inside of a vehicle is a death wish just waiting to happen. At the junction of Lavender Hill and Latchmere Road, I was on G1 bus turning left into Latchmere Road on Nov 25th . The lights were with us and the bus had indicated left, yet a cyclist deliberately tried to ride up the inside. He was only saved from causing his own death by the bus driver who stopped in time. They cyclist tried to blame her for his mistake but was shouted at by passengers for his stupidity.

2. DO NOT JUMP RED LIGHTS. On Monday 2nd Dec, as I was walking along Broughton street in Battersea, a cyclist ran the red light and turned right on to Queenstown Road into the path of a black cab. Again this cyclist's stupidity almost cost him his life.

These are just two examples of the dangerous, stupid risks that cyclists take. The must realise that they must take steps to ensure their own safety. Taking risks like the two examples that I have outlined will get cyclists killed or severely injured. In these two cases, had that happened, there would have been no-one to blame but the cyclists.

As for head phones, anyone stupid enough to ride a bicycle with them is inviting trouble.

We won't go into the lack of care they show to other road users, nor the lack of respect for pedestrians as cyclists generally don't give a toss about anyone but themselves as they delight in ignoring every chapter of the Highway Code.

For the record, I cycled to school for 6 years, have held a full car and motorcycle licence for more than 30 years, as well as having driven vans and small lorries and am free of licence points and accidents. The reason? I observe to rules of the road and drive/ride defensively, i.e. do not drive aggressively, do not stake stupid risks and prefer to be a little late home to not getting home at all.
Cyclists must realise that they are vulnerable and taking simple steps would go a long way to keeping them alive. 1. DO NOT undertake. Going down the inside of a vehicle is a death wish just waiting to happen. At the junction of Lavender Hill and Latchmere Road, I was on G1 bus turning left into Latchmere Road on Nov 25th . The lights were with us and the bus had indicated left, yet a cyclist deliberately tried to ride up the inside. He was only saved from causing his own death by the bus driver who stopped in time. They cyclist tried to blame her for his mistake but was shouted at by passengers for his stupidity. 2. DO NOT JUMP RED LIGHTS. On Monday 2nd Dec, as I was walking along Broughton street in Battersea, a cyclist ran the red light and turned right on to Queenstown Road into the path of a black cab. Again this cyclist's stupidity almost cost him his life. These are just two examples of the dangerous, stupid risks that cyclists take. The must realise that they must take steps to ensure their own safety. Taking risks like the two examples that I have outlined will get cyclists killed or severely injured. In these two cases, had that happened, there would have been no-one to blame but the cyclists. As for head phones, anyone stupid enough to ride a bicycle with them is inviting trouble. We won't go into the lack of care they show to other road users, nor the lack of respect for pedestrians as cyclists generally don't give a toss about anyone but themselves as they delight in ignoring every chapter of the Highway Code. For the record, I cycled to school for 6 years, have held a full car and motorcycle licence for more than 30 years, as well as having driven vans and small lorries and am free of licence points and accidents. The reason? I observe to rules of the road and drive/ride defensively, i.e. do not drive aggressively, do not stake stupid risks and prefer to be a little late home to not getting home at all. QPR4Me

2:21pm Tue 3 Dec 13

SteveC1964 says...

Boris Johnson simply wants media attention to shift to the issue of personal stereos rather than the disastrous way that his Barclays Cycle Superhighways have been designed and constructed. And look! he's succeeded. The Barclays Cycle Superhighways (let's NOT forget the banker sponsors, eh?) were introduced by the Mayor in a manner that would not inconvenience drivers, but he could nevertheless point to and say "that's what I've achieved for cyclists". Sadly it's been fatal for some people and it's left Boris and Andrew Gilligan sour and embarrassed tryingt to deflect criticism. On the occassion of the ninth fatality they were maintaining that the risk was lower than previous years. There have been another five deaths since and the risk seems unimproved to me.
Boris Johnson simply wants media attention to shift to the issue of personal stereos rather than the disastrous way that his Barclays Cycle Superhighways have been designed and constructed. And look! he's succeeded. The Barclays Cycle Superhighways (let's NOT forget the banker sponsors, eh?) were introduced by the Mayor in a manner that would not inconvenience drivers, but he could nevertheless point to and say "that's what I've achieved for cyclists". Sadly it's been fatal for some people and it's left Boris and Andrew Gilligan sour and embarrassed tryingt to deflect criticism. On the occassion of the ninth fatality they were maintaining that the risk was lower than previous years. There have been another five deaths since and the risk seems unimproved to me. SteveC1964

2:30pm Tue 3 Dec 13

CyclistsPayTaxToo says...

QPR4ME "These are just two examples of the dangerous, stupid risks that cyclists take. The must realise that they must take steps to ensure their own safety. Taking risks like the two examples that I have outlined will get cyclists killed or severely injured. In these two cases, had that happened, there would have been no-one to blame but the cyclists."

Do you not think this is a bit of a sweeping generalisation?. Some cyclists do stupid things, but not all, Lots of drivers do stupid things, but not all. I work in London and see cars / taxis jump lights, do illegal 'U' turns etc just as much as cyclists do. Base you argument on fact if you wouldnt mind in future. As Bstark quoted from RoadCC "Cyclists are often accused of riding carelessly, yet the data on contributory factors shows that the road users who make the most mistakes leading to crashes are light van and HGV drivers and motorcyclists." this based on DfT Statistics and is irrefutable.... If you disagree provide evidence to back up your argument.
QPR4ME "These are just two examples of the dangerous, stupid risks that cyclists take. The must realise that they must take steps to ensure their own safety. Taking risks like the two examples that I have outlined will get cyclists killed or severely injured. In these two cases, had that happened, there would have been no-one to blame but the cyclists." Do you not think this is a bit of a sweeping generalisation?. Some cyclists do stupid things, but not all, Lots of drivers do stupid things, but not all. I work in London and see cars / taxis jump lights, do illegal 'U' turns etc just as much as cyclists do. Base you argument on fact if you wouldnt mind in future. As Bstark quoted from RoadCC "Cyclists are often accused of riding carelessly, yet the data on contributory factors shows that the road users who make the most mistakes leading to crashes are light van and HGV drivers and motorcyclists." this based on DfT Statistics and is irrefutable.... If you disagree provide evidence to back up your argument. CyclistsPayTaxToo

2:41pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Henshaw11 says...

2. DO NOT JUMP RED LIGHTS.

That accounts for about 2-3% of KSIs in Greater London. It's more an issue of perception by others than of genuine danger - people tend not to cross when there's trafific coming the other way. Similarly other countries ban/frown on 'jaywalking', which we all do in the UK. Here in Surrey I see a lt of cars running reds, and funnily enough no-one's making a fuss about that.

@Surrey Comet - identifying cyclists and non-cyclists in the poll would be rather more illustrative, I wouldn't go asking a teetotaller advice on beer..
2. DO NOT JUMP RED LIGHTS. That accounts for about 2-3% of KSIs in Greater London. It's more an issue of perception by others than of genuine danger - people tend not to cross when there's trafific coming the other way. Similarly other countries ban/frown on 'jaywalking', which we all do in the UK. Here in Surrey I see a lt of cars running reds, and funnily enough no-one's making a fuss about that. @Surrey Comet - identifying cyclists and non-cyclists in the poll would be rather more illustrative, I wouldn't go asking a teetotaller advice on beer.. Henshaw11

3:57pm Tue 3 Dec 13

kingstonpaul says...

I cycle and I drive and I know that a key requisite of good cycling technique is anticipation. And I will swear to all you dunderhead cyclists who see banning head phones as an incursion on your personal freedoms, that being able to hear what is going on around you allows you to anticipate more effectively than if you can’t hear.
This is how it works. Your hearing sends signals to the brain; by responding to these signals, your brain is helping you survive. Survival… that is the brain’s primary purpose. What don’t you now get? Forget the evidence, or lack of it - just engage brain, use some common sense.
I cycle and I drive and I know that a key requisite of good cycling technique is anticipation. And I will swear to all you dunderhead cyclists who see banning head phones as an incursion on your personal freedoms, that being able to hear what is going on around you allows you to anticipate more effectively than if you can’t hear. This is how it works. Your hearing sends signals to the brain; by responding to these signals, your brain is helping you survive. Survival… that is the brain’s primary purpose. What don’t you now get? Forget the evidence, or lack of it - just engage brain, use some common sense. kingstonpaul

4:22pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Culverin says...

Boris Johnson is simply deflecting the argument onto cyclists by suggesting that they should not wear earphones. This has been typical of his approach to the recent cycling deaths because he doesn't want to spend the money on making the roads safer for cyclists.

What next? Cycling to only take place between the hours of 04h00 - 06h00?

Personally, I think that increasing the congestion zone would make an enormous difference but he'd never consider that because of the votes. I think Boris's main problem is that he's scared and weak.
Boris Johnson is simply deflecting the argument onto cyclists by suggesting that they should not wear earphones. This has been typical of his approach to the recent cycling deaths because he doesn't want to spend the money on making the roads safer for cyclists. What next? Cycling to only take place between the hours of 04h00 - 06h00? Personally, I think that increasing the congestion zone would make an enormous difference but he'd never consider that because of the votes. I think Boris's main problem is that he's scared and weak. Culverin

4:38pm Tue 3 Dec 13

QPR4Me says...

CyclistPaysTaxToo

I take your point to a degree. However, you must realise that as a cyclist, you cannot afford to take any stupid risks at all. A car driver will end up with a dented car. A cyclist will end up with a lot worse.

Cyclists must take action to ensure their safety, and that includes, abiding the laws of the land and the Highway Code.

Just spend an hour at the junction of Queenstown Road and Battersea Park road in the rush hour to see the suicidal actions of the two-wheeled brigade. You will also see the lack of respect these cyclists have for pedestrians etc.
CyclistPaysTaxToo I take your point to a degree. However, you must realise that as a cyclist, you cannot afford to take any stupid risks at all. A car driver will end up with a dented car. A cyclist will end up with a lot worse. Cyclists must take action to ensure their safety, and that includes, abiding the laws of the land and the Highway Code. Just spend an hour at the junction of Queenstown Road and Battersea Park road in the rush hour to see the suicidal actions of the two-wheeled brigade. You will also see the lack of respect these cyclists have for pedestrians etc. QPR4Me

4:45pm Tue 3 Dec 13

PeterM says...

QPR4Me wrote:
CyclistPaysTaxToo

I take your point to a degree. However, you must realise that as a cyclist, you cannot afford to take any stupid risks at all. A car driver will end up with a dented car. A cyclist will end up with a lot worse.

Cyclists must take action to ensure their safety, and that includes, abiding the laws of the land and the Highway Code.

Just spend an hour at the junction of Queenstown Road and Battersea Park road in the rush hour to see the suicidal actions of the two-wheeled brigade. You will also see the lack of respect these cyclists have for pedestrians etc.
I would suggest that ALL road users abide by the Highway Code. Just because a minority, yes it is a minority, of cyclists jump red lights, then it's okay that an HGV runs over and kills someone on a bike.

Also take a look on YouTube and you will see countless videos which feature horrendous actions by some motorists who seem completely oblivious to what they have done wrong.

Simply type your registration number into YouTube (try it with and without spaces) and you never know, you may feature there yourself.
[quote][p][bold]QPR4Me[/bold] wrote: CyclistPaysTaxToo I take your point to a degree. However, you must realise that as a cyclist, you cannot afford to take any stupid risks at all. A car driver will end up with a dented car. A cyclist will end up with a lot worse. Cyclists must take action to ensure their safety, and that includes, abiding the laws of the land and the Highway Code. Just spend an hour at the junction of Queenstown Road and Battersea Park road in the rush hour to see the suicidal actions of the two-wheeled brigade. You will also see the lack of respect these cyclists have for pedestrians etc.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that ALL road users abide by the Highway Code. Just because a minority, yes it is a minority, of cyclists jump red lights, then it's okay that an HGV runs over and kills someone on a bike. Also take a look on YouTube and you will see countless videos which feature horrendous actions by some motorists who seem completely oblivious to what they have done wrong. Simply type your registration number into YouTube (try it with and without spaces) and you never know, you may feature there yourself. PeterM

5:19pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Henshaw11 says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
I cycle and I drive and I know that a key requisite of good cycling technique is anticipation. And I will swear to all you dunderhead cyclists who see banning head phones as an incursion on your personal freedoms, that being able to hear what is going on around you allows you to anticipate more effectively than if you can’t hear.
This is how it works. Your hearing sends signals to the brain; by responding to these signals, your brain is helping you survive. Survival… that is the brain’s primary purpose. What don’t you now get? Forget the evidence, or lack of it - just engage brain, use some common sense.
>I cycle and I drive and I know that a key requisite of good cycling technique is anticipation. And I will swear to all you dunderhead cyclists who see banning head phones as an incursion on your personal freedoms, that being able to hear what is going on around you allows you to anticipate more effectively than if you can’t hear.

Funny how the Institute of Advanced Motorists require those they're examining to maintain a running commentary of of their observations as part of the process...
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: I cycle and I drive and I know that a key requisite of good cycling technique is anticipation. And I will swear to all you dunderhead cyclists who see banning head phones as an incursion on your personal freedoms, that being able to hear what is going on around you allows you to anticipate more effectively than if you can’t hear. This is how it works. Your hearing sends signals to the brain; by responding to these signals, your brain is helping you survive. Survival… that is the brain’s primary purpose. What don’t you now get? Forget the evidence, or lack of it - just engage brain, use some common sense.[/p][/quote]>I cycle and I drive and I know that a key requisite of good cycling technique is anticipation. And I will swear to all you dunderhead cyclists who see banning head phones as an incursion on your personal freedoms, that being able to hear what is going on around you allows you to anticipate more effectively than if you can’t hear. Funny how the Institute of Advanced Motorists require those they're examining to maintain a running commentary of of their observations as part of the process... Henshaw11

5:28pm Tue 3 Dec 13

squired says...

If there was an actual ban on wearing of headphones and in the next five years statistics proved that it made absolutely no difference to injury/fatality rates would they re-visit the ban?

On less busy roads I can understand the benefit of not having headphones in, but given that you are constantly surrounded by cars on busy streets being able to hear them is irrelevant.

Personally I don't wear earphones while on the bike, but then I don't like the radio on if I drive because I find it distracting (more so the louder it is). However, I do wear cotton wool in my ears year round when on the bike, to lessen the battering my eardrums take. Irrespective of that, I rank my hearing as one of the lowest priorities when it comes to my safety on the road. More important is looking ahead of me for potholes, bus stops, side roads, etc. As is looking over my shoulder regularly and at night having lights that are more than just adequate.
If there was an actual ban on wearing of headphones and in the next five years statistics proved that it made absolutely no difference to injury/fatality rates would they re-visit the ban? On less busy roads I can understand the benefit of not having headphones in, but given that you are constantly surrounded by cars on busy streets being able to hear them is irrelevant. Personally I don't wear earphones while on the bike, but then I don't like the radio on if I drive because I find it distracting (more so the louder it is). However, I do wear cotton wool in my ears year round when on the bike, to lessen the battering my eardrums take. Irrespective of that, I rank my hearing as one of the lowest priorities when it comes to my safety on the road. More important is looking ahead of me for potholes, bus stops, side roads, etc. As is looking over my shoulder regularly and at night having lights that are more than just adequate. squired

5:49pm Tue 3 Dec 13

tonyfinerty says...

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets at all times when on a bike!
Cyclists should be made to wear helmets at all times when on a bike! tonyfinerty

5:58pm Tue 3 Dec 13

PeterM says...

tonyfinerty wrote:
Cyclists should be made to wear helmets at all times when on a bike!
And what help will a piece of plastic and polystyrene be when 38 Tonnes of tipper truck runs over a cyclist?

Cycle helmets are only of any real use up to 15 mph, above that and they can actually make matters worse.
[quote][p][bold]tonyfinerty[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should be made to wear helmets at all times when on a bike![/p][/quote]And what help will a piece of plastic and polystyrene be when 38 Tonnes of tipper truck runs over a cyclist? Cycle helmets are only of any real use up to 15 mph, above that and they can actually make matters worse. PeterM

7:37pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Cyclist_1 says...

These are both side issues to the one in the article, but as they've been mentioned, I'll discuss them.

1. Compulsory crash helmets
The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the dangers. Which is why so many of us do it. The NHS estimates around £5bn is spent each year treating obesity related illness. In places where crash helmets are made compulsory, such as Australia, bike use drops dramatically as a result, and the health benefits to the nation are reduced. Please see Chris Boardman's excellent campaign against compulsory crash helmets for statistics. Also, a helmet makes little difference if an HGV drives over you. Personally, I always wear one.

2. Cyclists jumping red lights
An all too common cause of death involves cyclists who have waited patiently at a red light and then been flattened by a large vehicle making a turn. One in Holborn last month, for example. This is a constant danger for all law abiding cyclists in any city. However, in Belgium and the Netherlands, cyclists are allowed to pass red lights and cross a junction as a pedestrian would. This has proved so successful that it is currently being trialled in Paris. Belgium, Netherlands and France are pretty much the home of cycling and have far better cycling safety records than the UK.
These are both side issues to the one in the article, but as they've been mentioned, I'll discuss them. 1. Compulsory crash helmets The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the dangers. Which is why so many of us do it. The NHS estimates around £5bn is spent each year treating obesity related illness. In places where crash helmets are made compulsory, such as Australia, bike use drops dramatically as a result, and the health benefits to the nation are reduced. Please see Chris Boardman's excellent campaign against compulsory crash helmets for statistics. Also, a helmet makes little difference if an HGV drives over you. Personally, I always wear one. 2. Cyclists jumping red lights An all too common cause of death involves cyclists who have waited patiently at a red light and then been flattened by a large vehicle making a turn. One in Holborn last month, for example. This is a constant danger for all law abiding cyclists in any city. However, in Belgium and the Netherlands, cyclists are allowed to pass red lights and cross a junction as a pedestrian would. This has proved so successful that it is currently being trialled in Paris. Belgium, Netherlands and France are pretty much the home of cycling and have far better cycling safety records than the UK. Cyclist_1

9:32pm Tue 3 Dec 13

cl0ud says...

Nothing like a cycling story to get the Wimbledon Guardian going!
Nothing like a cycling story to get the Wimbledon Guardian going! cl0ud

9:53pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Twotonted says...

Just bsck from Belgium, which many cyclists praise as being better than the UK. What did I notice?
1. Cyclists stop at red lights
2. Cyclists use a cycle to get from A to B - not as an exercise machine.
3. Cyclists give way to pedestrians.
4. Cyclists do not undertaken turning vehicles.
5. Cyclists do not use headphones.
6. Cyclists dress normally - not in lycra racing kit.

Maybe this is why there is more respect between ALL road users, Cars, Cyclists and pedestrians.
Just bsck from Belgium, which many cyclists praise as being better than the UK. What did I notice? 1. Cyclists stop at red lights 2. Cyclists use a cycle to get from A to B - not as an exercise machine. 3. Cyclists give way to pedestrians. 4. Cyclists do not undertaken turning vehicles. 5. Cyclists do not use headphones. 6. Cyclists dress normally - not in lycra racing kit. Maybe this is why there is more respect between ALL road users, Cars, Cyclists and pedestrians. Twotonted

9:22am Wed 4 Dec 13

jeremyhm says...

NB - 8 people are killed in road accidents in the UK EVERY DAY. Perhaps we should turn our attention to that?
NB - 8 people are killed in road accidents in the UK EVERY DAY. Perhaps we should turn our attention to that? jeremyhm

10:10am Wed 4 Dec 13

DB says...

I must admit, I do think it is a bit hypocritical that some cyclists seem to think they should be able to listen to music just because car drivers do, but don't think they should be treated the same as drivers when it comes to being tested, paying insurance, obeying red lights etc etc.

The priority here must surely be to promote road safety for all road users and especially cyclists and I can't see how safety is improved by the wearing of headphones, but perhaps I am missing something.
I must admit, I do think it is a bit hypocritical that some cyclists seem to think they should be able to listen to music just because car drivers do, but don't think they should be treated the same as drivers when it comes to being tested, paying insurance, obeying red lights etc etc. The priority here must surely be to promote road safety for all road users and especially cyclists and I can't see how safety is improved by the wearing of headphones, but perhaps I am missing something. DB

10:21am Wed 4 Dec 13

DB says...

Twotonted wrote:
Just bsck from Belgium, which many cyclists praise as being better than the UK. What did I notice? 1. Cyclists stop at red lights 2. Cyclists use a cycle to get from A to B - not as an exercise machine. 3. Cyclists give way to pedestrians. 4. Cyclists do not undertaken turning vehicles. 5. Cyclists do not use headphones. 6. Cyclists dress normally - not in lycra racing kit. Maybe this is why there is more respect between ALL road users, Cars, Cyclists and pedestrians.
I see a much better attitude from cyclists abroad as well.

I am not sure I agree with your points about not using bikes as an exercise machine and wearing lycra, though. I think that people should be absolutely free to do those things as long as they obeying the other rules of the road.

I will regret saying that next time I am stuck in Richmond bark behind three slow cyclists all riding abreast with more faster cyclists behind me shouting because they can't get past.
[quote][p][bold]Twotonted[/bold] wrote: Just bsck from Belgium, which many cyclists praise as being better than the UK. What did I notice? 1. Cyclists stop at red lights 2. Cyclists use a cycle to get from A to B - not as an exercise machine. 3. Cyclists give way to pedestrians. 4. Cyclists do not undertaken turning vehicles. 5. Cyclists do not use headphones. 6. Cyclists dress normally - not in lycra racing kit. Maybe this is why there is more respect between ALL road users, Cars, Cyclists and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]I see a much better attitude from cyclists abroad as well. I am not sure I agree with your points about not using bikes as an exercise machine and wearing lycra, though. I think that people should be absolutely free to do those things as long as they obeying the other rules of the road. I will regret saying that next time I am stuck in Richmond bark behind three slow cyclists all riding abreast with more faster cyclists behind me shouting because they can't get past. DB

10:48am Wed 4 Dec 13

a.jumper says...

DB - I think you can find car drivers who have never passed a test, don't have insurance and/or jump red lights too, but I don't blame all drivers for those, so please don't blame all riders for the minority of scofflaws. I've been tested, I have insurance and I obey red lights (even the stupid "green wave for cars" ones that punish bike riders by slowing us to 3mph average if we can't keep our speed above 20mph) - so would you let me listen to my satnav on an earphone?
DB - I think you can find car drivers who have never passed a test, don't have insurance and/or jump red lights too, but I don't blame all drivers for those, so please don't blame all riders for the minority of scofflaws. I've been tested, I have insurance and I obey red lights (even the stupid "green wave for cars" ones that punish bike riders by slowing us to 3mph average if we can't keep our speed above 20mph) - so would you let me listen to my satnav on an earphone? a.jumper

11:40am Wed 4 Dec 13

CyclistsPayTaxToo says...

DB "I will regret saying that next time I am stuck in Richmond bark behind three slow cyclists all riding abreast with more faster cyclists behind me shouting because they can't get past."

- David Millars not been up to his old tricks again has he.......

Seriously, I think the parks should be the place where cyclists feel safe to ride three abreast, after all it is a recreational area and I dont think it should be used as a rat-run or a cut-through by drivers. *can of worms?*.

Close the park on a Sunday morning till say 10am to general traffic, buy lots of doughnuts so the Police turn a blind eye and let cyclists train all they like at their own pace for the morning - thats what I think.

Its the safest place, apart for avoiding Bambi, Fenton and Rudolph I dont see any downsides to this plan.
DB "I will regret saying that next time I am stuck in Richmond bark behind three slow cyclists all riding abreast with more faster cyclists behind me shouting because they can't get past." - David Millars not been up to his old tricks again has he....... Seriously, I think the parks should be the place where cyclists feel safe to ride three abreast, after all it is a recreational area and I dont think it should be used as a rat-run or a cut-through by drivers. *can of worms?*. Close the park on a Sunday morning till say 10am to general traffic, buy lots of doughnuts so the Police turn a blind eye and let cyclists train all they like at their own pace for the morning - thats what I think. Its the safest place, apart for avoiding Bambi, Fenton and Rudolph I dont see any downsides to this plan. CyclistsPayTaxToo

12:35pm Wed 4 Dec 13

DB says...

CyclistsPayTaxToo wrote:
DB "I will regret saying that next time I am stuck in Richmond bark behind three slow cyclists all riding abreast with more faster cyclists behind me shouting because they can't get past." - David Millars not been up to his old tricks again has he....... Seriously, I think the parks should be the place where cyclists feel safe to ride three abreast, after all it is a recreational area and I dont think it should be used as a rat-run or a cut-through by drivers. *can of worms?*. Close the park on a Sunday morning till say 10am to general traffic, buy lots of doughnuts so the Police turn a blind eye and let cyclists train all they like at their own pace for the morning - thats what I think. Its the safest place, apart for avoiding Bambi, Fenton and Rudolph I dont see any downsides to this plan.
I'd love to see Richmond Park traffic-free. I think it would be one of the best things that could happen to the area.

The problem is that it will never happen. When the proposal of charging people to park in the Royal Parks came up a year or so ago there was absolute outrage. I dread to think what would happen if it was actually proposed the park should be closed to traffic!

I think it is sad that the experience of these great parks for some is driving into the car park, having a quick picnic next to the car and driving back out again. If you go to Home Park, you will find there is rarely anyone in there at all because there are no car parks. Cross the border into Bushy Park and it is mobbed!

Don't get me wrong, I fully encourage cycling in the parks (and on the roads) and I enjoy doing it myself, but Richmond Park can be a nightmare to drive through on a Sunday morning if you get caught between a group of full-bore aggresive cyclists and anoher group of slightly more sedate ones.
[quote][p][bold]CyclistsPayTaxToo[/bold] wrote: DB "I will regret saying that next time I am stuck in Richmond bark behind three slow cyclists all riding abreast with more faster cyclists behind me shouting because they can't get past." - David Millars not been up to his old tricks again has he....... Seriously, I think the parks should be the place where cyclists feel safe to ride three abreast, after all it is a recreational area and I dont think it should be used as a rat-run or a cut-through by drivers. *can of worms?*. Close the park on a Sunday morning till say 10am to general traffic, buy lots of doughnuts so the Police turn a blind eye and let cyclists train all they like at their own pace for the morning - thats what I think. Its the safest place, apart for avoiding Bambi, Fenton and Rudolph I dont see any downsides to this plan.[/p][/quote]I'd love to see Richmond Park traffic-free. I think it would be one of the best things that could happen to the area. The problem is that it will never happen. When the proposal of charging people to park in the Royal Parks came up a year or so ago there was absolute outrage. I dread to think what would happen if it was actually proposed the park should be closed to traffic! I think it is sad that the experience of these great parks for some is driving into the car park, having a quick picnic next to the car and driving back out again. If you go to Home Park, you will find there is rarely anyone in there at all because there are no car parks. Cross the border into Bushy Park and it is mobbed! Don't get me wrong, I fully encourage cycling in the parks (and on the roads) and I enjoy doing it myself, but Richmond Park can be a nightmare to drive through on a Sunday morning if you get caught between a group of full-bore aggresive cyclists and anoher group of slightly more sedate ones. DB

12:42pm Wed 4 Dec 13

DB says...

a.jumper wrote:
DB - I think you can find car drivers who have never passed a test, don't have insurance and/or jump red lights too, but I don't blame all drivers for those, so please don't blame all riders for the minority of scofflaws. I've been tested, I have insurance and I obey red lights (even the stupid "green wave for cars" ones that punish bike riders by slowing us to 3mph average if we can't keep our speed above 20mph) - so would you let me listen to my satnav on an earphone?
Of course there are plenty of wrong-doers in both groups, but there seem to be a lot of cyclists who don't see a problem with it. I was reading an article in the Evening Standard the other week where some cyclists were justifying why they routinely go through red lights.

Some of the reasons were actually very valid and need looking into, but I just can't see car drivers who jump red lights or don't have insurance admitting it so freely or trying to justify it.

As usual, a lot of the improvements will come from enforcement. The recent police initiative to protect cyclists at London junctions resulted in a lot of penalties for both drivers and cyclists who were in the wrong, and I think if members of both groups felt a bit more likely to get caught, they wouldn't do it as much in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]a.jumper[/bold] wrote: DB - I think you can find car drivers who have never passed a test, don't have insurance and/or jump red lights too, but I don't blame all drivers for those, so please don't blame all riders for the minority of scofflaws. I've been tested, I have insurance and I obey red lights (even the stupid "green wave for cars" ones that punish bike riders by slowing us to 3mph average if we can't keep our speed above 20mph) - so would you let me listen to my satnav on an earphone?[/p][/quote]Of course there are plenty of wrong-doers in both groups, but there seem to be a lot of cyclists who don't see a problem with it. I was reading an article in the Evening Standard the other week where some cyclists were justifying why they routinely go through red lights. Some of the reasons were actually very valid and need looking into, but I just can't see car drivers who jump red lights or don't have insurance admitting it so freely or trying to justify it. As usual, a lot of the improvements will come from enforcement. The recent police initiative to protect cyclists at London junctions resulted in a lot of penalties for both drivers and cyclists who were in the wrong, and I think if members of both groups felt a bit more likely to get caught, they wouldn't do it as much in the first place. DB

12:43pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Henshaw11 says...

DB wrote:
I must admit, I do think it is a bit hypocritical that some cyclists seem to think they should be able to listen to music just because car drivers do, but don't think they should be treated the same as drivers when it comes to being tested, paying insurance, obeying red lights etc etc.

The priority here must surely be to promote road safety for all road users and especially cyclists and I can't see how safety is improved by the wearing of headphones, but perhaps I am missing something.
>I must admit, I do think it is a bit hypocritical that some cyclists seem to think they should be able to listen to music just because car drivers do, but don't think they should be treated the same as drivers when it comes to being tested, paying insurance, obeying red lights etc etc.

I don't condone it, but as I've said, RLJing is more an issue of perception than any significant cause of KSIs. There's talk of trialling things for cycles like the 'right on red' that you get in the states - likewise some junctions that are straight ahead - it works elsewhere.

You can't compare cycles and cars - a car has a *lot* more kinetic energy, which is why there's 20 and 30mph limits - it's relative to the fatality rate. If you're hit by a cycle -even at speed - there's a far lower risk of serious injury becuse there's far less energy involved.

A lot of us already have insurance though the CTC or BC membership - might even be covered by your home insurance. 3rd party motor insurance is a legal nicety - really it's recognising the amount of a damage a vehicle is capable of. You can still be personally liable if you don't have insurance.
[quote][p][bold]DB[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I do think it is a bit hypocritical that some cyclists seem to think they should be able to listen to music just because car drivers do, but don't think they should be treated the same as drivers when it comes to being tested, paying insurance, obeying red lights etc etc. The priority here must surely be to promote road safety for all road users and especially cyclists and I can't see how safety is improved by the wearing of headphones, but perhaps I am missing something.[/p][/quote]>I must admit, I do think it is a bit hypocritical that some cyclists seem to think they should be able to listen to music just because car drivers do, but don't think they should be treated the same as drivers when it comes to being tested, paying insurance, obeying red lights etc etc. I don't condone it, but as I've said, RLJing is more an issue of perception than any significant cause of KSIs. There's talk of trialling things for cycles like the 'right on red' that you get in the states - likewise some junctions that are straight ahead - it works elsewhere. You can't compare cycles and cars - a car has a *lot* more kinetic energy, which is why there's 20 and 30mph limits - it's relative to the fatality rate. If you're hit by a cycle -even at speed - there's a far lower risk of serious injury becuse there's far less energy involved. A lot of us already have insurance though the CTC or BC membership - might even be covered by your home insurance. 3rd party motor insurance is a legal nicety - really it's recognising the amount of a damage a vehicle is capable of. You can still be personally liable if you don't have insurance. Henshaw11

1:14pm Wed 4 Dec 13

a.jumper says...

It would be good to see more police on the streets, as long as they're enforcing the LAW and punishing stuff like red light jumping, not lecturing people with the bad advice about cycling added to the highway code in the last few years. The highway code currently does things like encouraging people to dress funny and use cycle facilities like those bad bike lanes up the left of lorries waiting at traffic lights: Cameron and Boris should hold the last Labour government to account for helping cause the recent deaths like that, while getting some experts like Chris Boardman to help fix the highway code.

In the first week of the recent crackdown, the met ticketed nearly twice as many motorists as cyclists, despite being stationed at bad-cycling junctions. Long may it continue, but bad drivers don't need to speak for themselves in public. They have high-profile champions to lead the backlash for them: cue Pickles about war on motorists again, any day now.
It would be good to see more police on the streets, as long as they're enforcing the LAW and punishing stuff like red light jumping, not lecturing people with the bad advice about cycling added to the highway code in the last few years. The highway code currently does things like encouraging people to dress funny and use cycle facilities like those bad bike lanes up the left of lorries waiting at traffic lights: Cameron and Boris should hold the last Labour government to account for helping cause the recent deaths like that, while getting some experts like Chris Boardman to help fix the highway code. In the first week of the recent crackdown, the met ticketed nearly twice as many motorists as cyclists, despite being stationed at bad-cycling junctions. Long may it continue, but bad drivers don't need to speak for themselves in public. They have high-profile champions to lead the backlash for them: cue Pickles about war on motorists again, any day now. a.jumper

4:25pm Wed 4 Dec 13

QPR4Me says...

Peter M.

Nice try at laying a guilt trap. However, I can safely say that I have never jumped a red light in my life. Not on a Bicycle,or motorcycle, nor in a car, van or lorry.

Can you?

That said, yes I should have made my point a little clearer. All people who use the roads, and pavements, need to abide by the Highway Code. If people did and stopped taking stupid risks, we might see a reduction in deaths and injuries.

However, my point about cyclists having to recognise their own vulnerability and risk of terrible injury from the slightest mistake, or brazen act of stupidity, still stands.
Peter M. Nice try at laying a guilt trap. However, I can safely say that I have never jumped a red light in my life. Not on a Bicycle,or motorcycle, nor in a car, van or lorry. Can you? That said, yes I should have made my point a little clearer. All people who use the roads, and pavements, need to abide by the Highway Code. If people did and stopped taking stupid risks, we might see a reduction in deaths and injuries. However, my point about cyclists having to recognise their own vulnerability and risk of terrible injury from the slightest mistake, or brazen act of stupidity, still stands. QPR4Me

9:17pm Wed 4 Dec 13

PeterM says...

QPR4Me wrote:
Peter M.

Nice try at laying a guilt trap. However, I can safely say that I have never jumped a red light in my life. Not on a Bicycle,or motorcycle, nor in a car, van or lorry.

Can you?

That said, yes I should have made my point a little clearer. All people who use the roads, and pavements, need to abide by the Highway Code. If people did and stopped taking stupid risks, we might see a reduction in deaths and injuries.

However, my point about cyclists having to recognise their own vulnerability and risk of terrible injury from the slightest mistake, or brazen act of stupidity, still stands.
I can honestly say that I have never jumped a red light on my bicycle over the past 45 years that I have been cycling, and only twice with a motor vehicle. Once on my moped in 1976 in St Helier Avenue and once in my car about three years ago in Beddington Lane (I had stopped at a Puffin Crossing let the pedestrians cross then treated it like a Zebra and drove on. Once across I realised what I had done, but it was too late).

I accept that when I'm on my bike I'm vulnerable, but the whole headphone issue recently raised by Bumbling Boris the Buffoon is just a smoke screen to deflect criticism away from his appalling record on cycle safety.
[quote][p][bold]QPR4Me[/bold] wrote: Peter M. Nice try at laying a guilt trap. However, I can safely say that I have never jumped a red light in my life. Not on a Bicycle,or motorcycle, nor in a car, van or lorry. Can you? That said, yes I should have made my point a little clearer. All people who use the roads, and pavements, need to abide by the Highway Code. If people did and stopped taking stupid risks, we might see a reduction in deaths and injuries. However, my point about cyclists having to recognise their own vulnerability and risk of terrible injury from the slightest mistake, or brazen act of stupidity, still stands.[/p][/quote]I can honestly say that I have never jumped a red light on my bicycle over the past 45 years that I have been cycling, and only twice with a motor vehicle. Once on my moped in 1976 in St Helier Avenue and once in my car about three years ago in Beddington Lane (I had stopped at a Puffin Crossing let the pedestrians cross then treated it like a Zebra and drove on. Once across I realised what I had done, but it was too late). I accept that when I'm on my bike I'm vulnerable, but the whole headphone issue recently raised by Bumbling Boris the Buffoon is just a smoke screen to deflect criticism away from his appalling record on cycle safety. PeterM

9:36pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Tobermory says...

Mikey Blu wrote:
Cyclists should be made to take a test, just like other road users have to.
What like pedestrians and horse riders you mean?
[quote][p][bold]Mikey Blu[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should be made to take a test, just like other road users have to.[/p][/quote]What like pedestrians and horse riders you mean? Tobermory

9:41pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Tobermory says...

Ban headphones, what a great idea I can see that really working! Maybe they should also make it a crime to jump red lights, cycle at night with no lights or ride on the pavement....oh hang on it is and no one obeys the law or enforces it so what is the point of even more ridiculous laws????
Ban headphones, what a great idea I can see that really working! Maybe they should also make it a crime to jump red lights, cycle at night with no lights or ride on the pavement....oh hang on it is and no one obeys the law or enforces it so what is the point of even more ridiculous laws???? Tobermory

9:45pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Tobermory says...

LiberalsOut wrote:
Of course they should be banned
They should also be fined for riding on the pavement which is against the law
The sooner they are taxed,licensed and take a test the better
Belgium has such a scheme and it works well there
The argument that cyclists pay tax too does not wash - road tax is per vehicle not person
Road tax was abolished in the 30s we now have an emmisions based duty which I'm sure all cyclists would be happy to partake in when you consider they would be rated as zero and pay no duty. These sort of comments just show how ignorant some people really are of even the most basic of arguments regarding cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]LiberalsOut[/bold] wrote: Of course they should be banned They should also be fined for riding on the pavement which is against the law The sooner they are taxed,licensed and take a test the better Belgium has such a scheme and it works well there The argument that cyclists pay tax too does not wash - road tax is per vehicle not person[/p][/quote]Road tax was abolished in the 30s we now have an emmisions based duty which I'm sure all cyclists would be happy to partake in when you consider they would be rated as zero and pay no duty. These sort of comments just show how ignorant some people really are of even the most basic of arguments regarding cyclists. Tobermory

11:38pm Wed 4 Dec 13

onyerbike88 says...

How about Boris stop faffing about with who should or shouldn't be wearing headphones and sort out the actual problems, like his stupid cycle super highways?! People are dying on them, because they make the roads safer in no way for cyclists. Get your priorities straight Boris, then sort out the nitty gritty!
How about Boris stop faffing about with who should or shouldn't be wearing headphones and sort out the actual problems, like his stupid cycle super highways?! People are dying on them, because they make the roads safer in no way for cyclists. Get your priorities straight Boris, then sort out the nitty gritty! onyerbike88

11:03am Thu 5 Dec 13

PeterM says...

In a seven mile round trip this morning I saw four motorists on their mobile phones, and precisely zero cyclists with headphones in.
In a seven mile round trip this morning I saw four motorists on their mobile phones, and precisely zero cyclists with headphones in. PeterM

12:21pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Mind the gap says...

The best time to cycle in Richmond Park is early in the morning or evening time when the gates are closed to cars. Much more enjoyable and you don't get aggresive motorists deperately trying to overtake then cutting in in front of you to avoid the oncoming traffic. Also you don't get to witness the yobish behaviour of motorists in the car park fighting over spaces.
The best time to cycle in Richmond Park is early in the morning or evening time when the gates are closed to cars. Much more enjoyable and you don't get aggresive motorists deperately trying to overtake then cutting in in front of you to avoid the oncoming traffic. Also you don't get to witness the yobish behaviour of motorists in the car park fighting over spaces. Mind the gap

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree