UK 650 persons per Sq mile Australia 7 persons per Sq mile!!! Plenty of space then I am off to Aus

That’s what the opponents are trying to retain; freedom of choice :)

The thing is that imposing mandatory use of cycling helmets will dissuade some people from cycling, women with big hair, young kids, visitors who haven't brought a helmet with them, etc. On balance the benefits of increased take up of cycling outweigh the odd injury that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

The minor falls are the ideal situation where the helmet would make a big difference. I've only fallen once in the last year and thumped my head as I went down. The helmet did its job and spared me a sore head. Until this year I have never worn a helmet and felt a prat for about 5 minutes. , then forgot I was wearing one, now it's second nature when I go for any cycle

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gs-father.html

Didn't want to ruin his hair .

There's a feature on the one show now.

Doing a poll of whether hgv's should be banned or not from the centre of London during rush hour, something that's in force in Paris apparently.

Nik

That's ridiculous, truck drivers have every right to be on the roads at at all times just as much as everyone else.....

Cycle helmets have now become so commonplace that it's the people not wearing one that stand out. Fifteen years ago I wouldn't have dreamed of wearing one, now I never go out without it, twice in the last month alone it's saved me from a (self-inflicted) trip to the hospital :thumb:

The above said, I do not believe that there should be a legal requirement to wear them. Officialdom has to much excuse to dictate how we lead our lives already :nono:

Yup and most of the HGVs are building works derived so have no choice to be where they are.

Agree whole-heartedly; anyone who says its not safer to ride with a lid is clearly a little challenged...there is an argument to be had around their effectiveness to protect from fatal injuries though. However it should be left to the idividual to decide :thumb:

I use a cycle from time to time. Out here in the sticks, I'd say safest bet is no A road use for cycles only B roads. The A419, 429 and 433 around us are not cycle friendly and you always get traffic snarling up on them. You very rarely see horses on the a roads for the same reason i think us cyclists shouldn't be............ Large volumes of motorised traffic. Just my 2p and I have nothing against people using cycles.

This.

It was the same with seatbelts tbh, the same arguments measuring personal freedom versus the safety aspect

The anti seatbelt campaigners kept putting forward the "trapped in a sinking car" argument, as if it was an everyday occurrence for motorists - growing up in London and learning to drive there, l thought it a risk worth taking

I passed my test (first time) a week before the law came in, 30 odd years ago, I simply can't drive without a seatbelt

I wonder if they made it legal to not wear a seatbelt how many people would

Getting the personal freedoms versus community safety debate right is a difficult one

I would continue to wear my seatbelt, as would anyone travelling in my car, or they can walk ;)

By the same token though, if they repealed the law requiring the wearing of motorbike helmets, there are occasions when I would chose not to wear one ;)

Because it's not always the cyclists that's going to get hurt if you run a red light.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...NE-MONTHS.html

thats just wrong on so many levels...1 year! :eek:

At least she can claim some compensation off the compulsory insurance all cyclists have to have to be on the road....ah hang on!

It's more about leaving the scene than going through tje red...

...and this is why insurance should be compulsory for all cyclists who use the road, all other wheeled vehicles are insured, why should bicycles be exempt. :thumb:

No it's about a stupid cyclist who thought it was okay to break the law and having total disregard of others and, as a result, nearly ended up killing a child and only getting a year in jail (but most likely serve less than half of that). A motorist would also have been banned with points on their licence, he'll be back on his bike again in 6 months and still run through red lights.

Would you include children on bikes too?

If the authorities can't ensure every car on the road is insured then they stand no chance with bikes, especially as there's no registration process with regards to bike ownership.

Saying that, I have just renewed my cycle 3rd party liability insurance, £28 a year for claims up to 10 million pounds.
I take out insurance for my own peace of mind.


Nik.

And why exactly wouldn't you insure children to use the road? You have peace of mind for yourself but not for your children? Wouldn't you want peace of mind that if they were insured should the worse happen and there was no fault you'd have financial security to pay for treatment or be compensated? So just because there currently isn't any way to check who has insurance, we shouldn't bother trying to change this situation? So does this mean you're selective with who you tell about whether you're insured or not in an event of an accident so that you don't have a claim made against you?

There are many things which might at first glance seem like absolutely brilliant ideas, or that might in an ideal world actually be brilliant ideas, but which ultimately, when put up against cold hard reality, don't stand a snowball in hell's chance of working in practice. Attempting to make it a legal requirement to be insured to use a type of vehicle for which there is currently:
1. no vehicle licensing regime, and
2. no driver/operator licensing regime
is a perfect example. No political party in the world we live in now is ever going to try and introduce this, because they know that whoever they nominated as transport minister after winning the election would immediately walk to the bottom of their garden and shoot themselves in the face, sooner than face the prospect of having to try and implement it. This would of course be very upsetting to his wife and family, and look pretty bad at the next constituency meeting.

I propose a quick law change as follows:

1) All vigilante cyclists who post videos on YouTube where they yell out car reg numbers and call drivers c**ts would have to publish their name and home address on the account!

2) All cyclists before being allowed to make a complaint about drivers being too close will go for a week's cycling holiday in Jakarta to learn what being too close really is and that if you take the sense of aggression and entitlemnet out of road use and channel that spare energy into self preservation (drivers/riders of all vehicles) very few people fail to get from A to B!

Well put.

P.s. I'm insured as I ride sportives and if I were to bring down a pack of carbon bikes the bill would be horrendous.

That's bollox, politicians will introduce and even u turn on promises and legislation post election and goes against the electorate. It's not that that it would be a vote loser or that it can't be done, it can. For example, there are no laws to have cameras fitted to HGVs, but moves are underway to have them fitted anyway. But would you argue that because there is no legislation for decreasing cyclist/HGV incidents, that HGV firms shouldn't bother fitting additional safety devices? Having said that, it still won't stop stupid cyclist from going up the inside of HGV knowing that they are going into the drivers blind spot.

IMO most lycra clad cyclist like the person in the news article will be against any moves to an introduction to a compulsory register/licence scheme just so they can continue to have complete disregard to road laws/users and continue to run red lights etc.

Right, so the real reason is because of cost to yourself. I'm sure most cyclists would be first to claim against a motorist who caused an accident or refuse to pay for damage to others if was the other way round.

Not sure what your point is?
I insure things to save myself expense when things go wrong, that's how it works doesn't it......

Are you implying insured cyclists would deny being insured in the event of an accident with a car?

I stand by my original point, that so long as push-bikes aren't subject to operator or vehicle licensing, no party that actually wins power in this country will ever attempt to bring in compulsory insurance coverage for their use either.

Since I'm such a fair-minded guy though, I'm willing to stake £20 (to be adjusted for inflation) on my assertion holding true for the next 25 years at least, not only in this country, but in any in the developed world.
Do we have a bet? :cool:

And would that include all the sink hole estates where the "kids" blast about on BMX's all the time (usually with really bad road manners too). Can't see that happening, similar to making them wear helmets, they aren't going to wear helmets and they won't give a stuff if anyone has insured them.