But to cycle in the middle of a city centre is just suicide. There's already enough hazards on the road, and enough fatal accidents. In my opinion It's not worth risking your life for.
I don't cycle, I either walk or drive, but do notice that most of the cycle lanes in my town seem to have cars parked everywhere in them. If I did cycle I think I would feel far safer on the path.
Once you have got to a certain level of fitness, leg strength and confidence, city centre cycling is fine. Getting to that stage can be quite hairy, though.
However I did purchase a road bike the other day. Since I live in a very big city having a car is unnecessary and a waste of money for me. So getting a bike was a great option, I also love going on long cycles with friends. Great fun. If that makes me a self righteous do gooder then I am happy to be one
To annoy both camps may I place another vote for an electric bike.
Having got well past 60, buying an electric bike meant I could revisit my past and go off for a 40 mile cycle whereas i would be knackered by the end of the road on my old cycle.
Interesting article, but it does make me agree with the OP, the BBC and other media have gone way too far toward the pro cycling campaign.
London and other major cities are too compact and busy to cycle safely, there's not a lot the government can do to improve the safety as the roads and infrastructure were designed hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Its just too dangerous and your life is at risk. The BBC should be campaigning for people not to cycle in busy city centres.
I love cycling but there is a time and a place for it.
Once you have got to a certain level of fitness, leg strength and confidence, city centre cycling is fine. Getting to that stage can be quite hairy, though.
Wouldn't you agree that its dangerous to promote it to those who are not as experienced, fit and confident as you though?
Maybe consult the cyclists a bit more as to where lanes are a good idea and, more importantly, keep them clear. Some of the ones near me are perma full of broken glass. And speed bumps which frankly make them too slow.
but apparently they do and a lot of schemes are carried in junction with people such as Sustrans (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/) and the public are heavily consulted.
Wouldn't you agree that its dangerous to promote it to those who are not as experienced, fit and confident as you though?
I don't think people are daft enough to think that they would be able to go from nothing to a confident road cyclist without a transition period. A year ago I was not fit, nor experienced, nor confident, and I didn't* as an example, try to negotiate traffic islands. Now, it's second nature. What I would say is that anyone with a desire to take up cycling should try it first, see how they get on, and then as they get fitter and more confident take on more if they feel happy to do so. I don't see a problem encouraging people to do that.
It wasn't that low impact when I flew off two drops last week that were somewhat larger than I anticipated, shot off the side of a berm and ended up in a field
Ah, yes. I'm a mountain biker too and have suffered a number of heavy impacts with the ground - the most recent being when I clouted a tree root at speed on a rather technical trail. As a result, I'm beginning to wonder if flat pedals might be a better choice than SPDs for some of the stuff I do...
But these impacts were all caused when I left the bike, rather than whilst I remained on it!
Nice to see the old chestnut about cyclists contributing to congestion though. Tell me, how many times do you get stuck in traffic behind cars compared to a bike?
Cyclists slow down the pace of traffic on narrow roads and lanes, cars do not. Fact.
but apparently they do and a lot of schemes are carried in junction with people such as Sustrans (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/) and the public are heavily consulted.
I didn't say there was no consultation - but a brief survey of some of the cycle lanes reveals that while some are great some are ludicrous. And a great many are very poorly maintained.
In London they cycle in the bus lanes and when the buses stop the cyclists swerve into the other lanes without looking, like flies into the swatter. What unhinged loon would promote this? The highly evolved flies coast on the line between the lanes so you never know what lane they're in so they take up two.
It's no wonder their icky yellow insides end up stuck on the road.
Interesting to see how OP considers that if you have a bike you're expected not to own or run a car.
The point of cycling is that it can replace a number of journey types where it's more suitable than a car. It's not an instruction to cycle 40 miles round the M25 to your office; encouraging cycling is a nudge to get people to consider that where a journey involves transporting just one person and nothing of any weight a "short" distance, cycling could or should be given more serious consideration. Short for you might mean less than a mile, for some it might be 30. That's not the point. If you just need to move yourself a short distance and don't have anything of note to carry with you, a bike is as good a means of doing it as a car. Once a few million people start thinking like that, congestion starts to drop away.
There's some stat that I saw last week that suggests that if 5% of drivers swapped to 2 wheels congestion reduces by 20%. Apart from the small-brained who think that cars are the only things that should be allowed on the roads, there are virtually no down-sides to getting people cycling instead of driving "short" distances.
Cyclists slow down the pace of traffic on narrow roads and lanes, cars do not. Fact.
It's not even a fact. On narrow roads & lanes there's generally very little oncoming traffic so passing a cyclist is a non-event and they won't hold you up by any noticeable amount. Next time you do encounter a cyclist try counting how many seconds you're held up for.
Like our friend Tealady points out, being held up by ditherers and dawdlers in cars is much more common, esp on NSL roads.
I've been cycling to work for a few months now. It has definitely improved my fitness, but contrary to what many seem to believe, the weight hasn't just fallen off (15 mile round trip before anyone asks).
I am quite lucky as my ride in is pleasant and for the most part, keeps me off the road. There is an excellent network of paths where I live.
If there's one thing I haven't changed my mind about, it's that some cyclists are absolute tools. You know the sort, usually the spandex wearing wiggins wannabes who insist on going as fast possible everywhere, and their delicate little racing bikes can't go off road so they have to hold the traffic up even when there's a decent cycle path parallel to it. And because they want to get to their destination as quickly as possible at all times, these are generally the ones who nearly run people over. I don't always cycle, but sometimes do walk the same route and some of them will tear past at 20 mph just 6 inches away. Absolute ****ing morons. The fact they look as camp as a row of tents in their see through, skin tight Lycra is probably why they don't want to be seen.
I on the other hand, have a more continental style of riding. I maintain a decent pace when I can but slow down for people, dogs etc. Most pedestrians seem to appreciate this. I see no need to get dressed in spandex either, what's wrong with a pair of tracks bottoms or a pair of normal shorts and a t-shirt?! I stick to the designated cycle paths too as my Halfords bike is capable of handling a few potholes unlike seemingly the stupidly expensive racing bikes.
So in summary, I do think cycling is a good thing, but overall, I don't see the need for going overboard either, and showing some consideration for your fellow man never goes amiss.
...You know the sort, usually the spandex wearing wiggins wannabes who insist on going as fast possible everywhere, and their delicate little racing bikes can't go off road so they have to hold the traffic up even when there's a decent cycle path parallel to it. And because they want to get to their destination as quickly as possible at all times, these are generally the ones who nearly run people over...blah blah...
Interesting how you tell us that people who drive to work in cars have an absolute right to get a move on, but choosing to do the same journey by bike means that it should be done much more slowly. You'll excuse me for pointing out the obvious but it takes longer to cycle anyway; why would you want to make it take even longer by ambling along? My journey to work should take as little out of my day as is feasible whether it's by car or bike. As long as it's done safely there's no problem in getting a move on.
That's why a lot of cycle commuters wear the right kit, not because we fancy ourselves as Wiggins or because we imagine we look great in it, it's the right kit for the job. You're welcome to jogging bottoms and a cotton t-shirt; I'll stick with comfy sweat-wicking shorts and a top that has well-placed pockets to carry my stuff.
And humble apologies for buying a 'delicate bike', but y'know, it's better. It goes faster, it's nicer to ride and doesn't limit me in the way that big fat chunky-tyred heaving supermarket bikes do. It will survive being used on a canal tow-path actually, but I don't want to travel at 6mph. 22 is better.
The rest of your post is just the same tired old anti-cycling diatribe that always crops up. Surprised you didn't mention road tax.
The rest of your post is just the same tired old anti-cycling diatribe that always crops up. Surprised you didn't mention road tax.
Try being in charge of a thirty ton vehicle and watching these lycra flies darting about in mad zig zags in front of you. It's not like it's just the kids on their BMX that do this, it's the everyday experienced commuters too. Some of these people must have driving licenses, it's just bizarre how clueless they become on two wheels.
Yes, it says that half of British adults believe their local roads are too dangerous to cycle on.
The solution in most places (busy city centres at busy times of day excepted) is to cycle carefully and considerately on the pavement, to avoid dangerous stretches of road. Government and ACPO guidance to police forces recognizes this sad fact (which is due to inadequate investment on cycle routes).
The BBC were at it again this morning, forcing cycling down our throats as the saviour to all our health problems. Its all very well for young fit people but older people are not going to take up cycling long distances to do their shopping in the rain.
I actually think this is more about being anti motorist. The government have still not worked out a way to move us all on to a green fuel that doesn't pollute the environment so they are resorting to slipping back in time again.
They're hardly doing that. But it is very good for you. I did 6 miles yesterday:D
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28093374
Me neither.
However I did purchase a road bike the other day. Since I live in a very big city having a car is unnecessary and a waste of money for me. So getting a bike was a great option, I also love going on long cycles with friends. Great fun. If that makes me a self righteous do gooder then I am happy to be one
Having got well past 60, buying an electric bike meant I could revisit my past and go off for a 40 mile cycle whereas i would be knackered by the end of the road on my old cycle.
Interesting article, but it does make me agree with the OP, the BBC and other media have gone way too far toward the pro cycling campaign.
London and other major cities are too compact and busy to cycle safely, there's not a lot the government can do to improve the safety as the roads and infrastructure were designed hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Its just too dangerous and your life is at risk. The BBC should be campaigning for people not to cycle in busy city centres.
I love cycling but there is a time and a place for it.
Wouldn't you agree that its dangerous to promote it to those who are not as experienced, fit and confident as you though?
??? Nobody of any age does their shopping in the rain on a bike.
I do.
but apparently they do and a lot of schemes are carried in junction with people such as Sustrans (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/) and the public are heavily consulted.
I don't think people are daft enough to think that they would be able to go from nothing to a confident road cyclist without a transition period. A year ago I was not fit, nor experienced, nor confident, and I didn't* as an example, try to negotiate traffic islands. Now, it's second nature. What I would say is that anyone with a desire to take up cycling should try it first, see how they get on, and then as they get fitter and more confident take on more if they feel happy to do so. I don't see a problem encouraging people to do that.
*knew I couldn't, more accurately
But these impacts were all caused when I left the bike, rather than whilst I remained on it!
Cyclists slow down the pace of traffic on narrow roads and lanes, cars do not. Fact.
Infrequently and usually for short periods of time.
I've yet to come across a 5 mile line of stationary bikes. Cars and other motor vehicles, on the other hand...
I didn't say there was no consultation - but a brief survey of some of the cycle lanes reveals that while some are great some are ludicrous. And a great many are very poorly maintained.
It's no wonder their icky yellow insides end up stuck on the road.
The point of cycling is that it can replace a number of journey types where it's more suitable than a car. It's not an instruction to cycle 40 miles round the M25 to your office; encouraging cycling is a nudge to get people to consider that where a journey involves transporting just one person and nothing of any weight a "short" distance, cycling could or should be given more serious consideration. Short for you might mean less than a mile, for some it might be 30. That's not the point. If you just need to move yourself a short distance and don't have anything of note to carry with you, a bike is as good a means of doing it as a car. Once a few million people start thinking like that, congestion starts to drop away.
There's some stat that I saw last week that suggests that if 5% of drivers swapped to 2 wheels congestion reduces by 20%. Apart from the small-brained who think that cars are the only things that should be allowed on the roads, there are virtually no down-sides to getting people cycling instead of driving "short" distances.
Or stuck behind a tractor in a queue because the first car in line won't or can't overtake?
Like our friend Tealady points out, being held up by ditherers and dawdlers in cars is much more common, esp on NSL roads.
I am quite lucky as my ride in is pleasant and for the most part, keeps me off the road. There is an excellent network of paths where I live.
If there's one thing I haven't changed my mind about, it's that some cyclists are absolute tools. You know the sort, usually the spandex wearing wiggins wannabes who insist on going as fast possible everywhere, and their delicate little racing bikes can't go off road so they have to hold the traffic up even when there's a decent cycle path parallel to it. And because they want to get to their destination as quickly as possible at all times, these are generally the ones who nearly run people over. I don't always cycle, but sometimes do walk the same route and some of them will tear past at 20 mph just 6 inches away. Absolute ****ing morons. The fact they look as camp as a row of tents in their see through, skin tight Lycra is probably why they don't want to be seen.
I on the other hand, have a more continental style of riding. I maintain a decent pace when I can but slow down for people, dogs etc. Most pedestrians seem to appreciate this. I see no need to get dressed in spandex either, what's wrong with a pair of tracks bottoms or a pair of normal shorts and a t-shirt?! I stick to the designated cycle paths too as my Halfords bike is capable of handling a few potholes unlike seemingly the stupidly expensive racing bikes.
So in summary, I do think cycling is a good thing, but overall, I don't see the need for going overboard either, and showing some consideration for your fellow man never goes amiss.
That's why a lot of cycle commuters wear the right kit, not because we fancy ourselves as Wiggins or because we imagine we look great in it, it's the right kit for the job. You're welcome to jogging bottoms and a cotton t-shirt; I'll stick with comfy sweat-wicking shorts and a top that has well-placed pockets to carry my stuff.
And humble apologies for buying a 'delicate bike', but y'know, it's better. It goes faster, it's nicer to ride and doesn't limit me in the way that big fat chunky-tyred heaving supermarket bikes do. It will survive being used on a canal tow-path actually, but I don't want to travel at 6mph. 22 is better.
The rest of your post is just the same tired old anti-cycling diatribe that always crops up. Surprised you didn't mention road tax.
Tell me about it!!
BBC Look North love it, and I now time how long it takes for Harry Gration or Amy Garcia (fit though she is) to bore us with it!
Yes, it says that half of British adults believe their local roads are too dangerous to cycle on.
The solution in most places (busy city centres at busy times of day excepted) is to cycle carefully and considerately on the pavement, to avoid dangerous stretches of road. Government and ACPO guidance to police forces recognizes this sad fact (which is due to inadequate investment on cycle routes).
They're hardly doing that. But it is very good for you. I did 6 miles yesterday:D