Cycling UK Forum

I will admit that I haven't read all of the contributions to this thread so this may have been raised before.

In those countries that introduced a mandatory requirement for the wearing of helmets is there any evidence of a reduction of the number of miles cycled along with the reduction in the number of people cycling?

It strikes me that the people using this forum would currently be responsible for a disproportionate share of the miles cycled in Britain. If a helmet law was introduced how many would reduce the miles they cycled and how many would stop altogether. Casual cyclists will ride fewer miles and may be involved in fewer accidents as a result (less time on the roads/paths would present less "opportunities" for accidents). When these cyclists are take out of the pool the number of cyclists would be reduced but the number of miles covered by bike would be only slightly reduced. Would the number of incidents per 1000 miles cycled be reduced?

Unfortunately the jobs of promoting cycle use and designing road layouts are separated by vast distances, both physically and philosophically. It's far too common for the cycling officer to be attached to a councils leisure department and for the highways department to be only vaguely aware of their existence. But this still doesn't excuse the highways apparent lack of common sense. The highways section where I live provided a cycle path through an underpass under a major road. The approach to the underpass is down a ramp with clear segregated marking here and in the underpass. All very good, until you enter the underpass and find that the segregation is the reverse of that on the approach, with no warning and no way of seeing what you are approaching.

While considering who designs these cycle paths, have you ever actually asked how many have been set up using the correct legal procedures. I have a friend who works as a cycling officer. On staring his job he checked to see how much of the legal paper work was in his files, with a view to chasing up any missing. What he found was that there wasn't a single completed order creating a cycle path, despite the council having in excess of 50 miles of the things. Apparently the council is plagued by barrack room lawyers who contest every order issued. One in particular objects to every shared use path on safety grounds and as soon as these objections come in the schemes are quietly forgotten about and no order is issued.

So, if a cyclist has an accident on something laid out like a cycle lane, especially a shared use one, but no order has ever been completed for it's creation, where would they stand in law?

Section 329 of the Highways Act 1980 defines as footway as

"footway" means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;"

It's therefore not a road, having rights on foot only so driving on a footway would be an offence under S 34, parking may or may not be obstruction but as someone already said, how do you get a car onto the footway without driving it. S 34 specifically says that contravention of its provisions is an offence but just try getting the local constabulary to act on it

The relevant part is "not being land forming part of a road" which footways don't, footways are part of the highway but not the carriageway/road

Wire mesh on bridges is simply a bad idea. The wire used tends to be the type intended for small animal enclosures. This wire is too light to be regularly walked on and quickly deteriorates. The result is lots of little pieces sticking straight up. Think yourself lucky your not a dog crossing with bear pars.

If you know of a bridge covered in chicken wire dismount and walk its the only puncture proof thing to do

Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act (1988) says

"34 Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—

(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or

(b) on any road being a footpath or bridleway,

he is guilty of an offence."

which makes it an offence to drive on a footpath, bridleway or footway (a path running alongside a carriageway)

The highway code is only a simplified explanation of the law not the law itself. If a vehicle is exiting or entering a property by a legal means which crosses the footway then the driver must give way to pedestrians on the footway.

It could be worse, I bought a set of own branded mudguards from Halfords. The stays have to fitted into a plastic clip which then connects to the mudguard. These have to be first cut to length, apparently the designer didn't give much thought to how to determine the right length, needless to say none f mine are the same length and a bit of judicious bending as needed to prevent rubbing on the tire. The instructions said that the stays could be cut by scoring the metal and bending the stay backwards and forwards until it snaps. In the end I had to use a pair of fencing pliers, designed to cut high tensile steel fencing wire, and a great deal of effort.

Any way I got them on rode over a rough bit of road and the stays popped out of the clip holding it to the guard. I stopped reattached the clip thinking I hadn't attached it correctly. This and other clips came loose repeatedly over the next couple of weeks.

I wished I bought SKS, they would have been so much easier and no more expensive

Anyone know for sure how many potholes it takes to fill The Albert Hall?