Get fit and cycle to work! (From Bournemouth Echo)

It might be a good idea for you to go to Whitecliff and remind the cyclists there of the rules!

Thanks for your blog, Julian. A few points:

"• It's illegal to cycle on a pavement unless it's marked as a shared use cycle path BUT guidelines also say it's ok to cycle on a pavement if it's safer than cycling on the road. "

Unfortunately not. There was a note from a minister from when the fixed-penalty notice for pavement cycling was introduced that it should be applied with thought as to whether the cyclist was scared to go on the road, but if you are cycling on the pavement it is illegal. I would argue that in a lot of places it makes a lot of sense, and is the wise thing to do. But it is illegal.

"• It's not a law to wear cycle helmets, but why not if it protects you - you should hear some of the horror stories my wife tells me about cyclists who don’t wear them!!!!! "

The questions is "if it protects you". It's not going to protect you from serious impacts, and the data is extremely inconclusive about whether they prevent serious injury. Statistically you're doing much better for your health cycling without a helmet than going by car. If someone is cycling a couple of miles to work then wearing a helmet is going to mess up their hair, which might actually stop them cycling. Repeating the myth that cycle helmets do much (if anything) for safety makes it less likely that these people will cycle.

There seems to be an attitude that you need all sorts of equipment to cycle. This isn't true. According to the council, about half of journeys to work in Bournemouth of under 2km (1.25 miles) are made by car. This is crazy, and more likely to remain so if people feel they need a helmet, hi-viz accessories, hi-spec jacket etc to cycle down the road. They should be able to cycle there gently in their work clothes, lock up their bike and walk into the office ready for work.

Anyway, rant over. Thanks again for the blog, and for raising the profile of cycling around Bournemouth.

The weather determines if you 'need all kinds of equipment to cycle'!

It really is nice to read a positive and enthusiastic report on cycling for a change as we have been subject to some very strange remarks recently from possible cyclists.Yesterday in a letter it was stated "but they have no choice than to use the seafront,or risk life and limb on our county roads" earlier this month we had "many who would like to cycle are afraid to and most parents are afraid to let their children go out on bikes"the amount of cycling that has been going on lately during the jubilee celebrations and several charity events both comments seem to be untrue and send out wrong impressions of the safety on our roads which in my opinion is not as bad as is made out perhaps Julian you could give a comment on this

Absolute mediocre tripe. Just to keep the cycle haters happy.
Sick!
A list of directions and rules.
Cyclists have to be whiter that white or the same old manipulative abuse will begin.
Give it up m8.

All pavements should be shared routes, most pavements are deserted most of the time and much safer for cyclists.

Avengerboy wrote:
The weather determines if you 'need all kinds of equipment to cycle'!

If you've got mudguards then the only time your trousers should get wet is when it's actually raining. And if you're only travelling 1.25 miles then you're going to be there in 10 minutes at most. There are very few times when it's raining hard enough to get you soaked in 10 mins.

Plus, even if it's raining hard then a normal 3/4 length coat should be fine to keep you dry if you're going 1.25 miles or less.

It,s Tarrant Rushton don,t you know.

Seems a rather over-long and circuitous route to get the local Big Wheel back on the front page again.

I have been reading your blog with interest Julian. You have made a very good start and have done your research.

Any chance you could mention the change of use on the promenade from the 1st July 2012?

a.g.o.g. wrote:

jobsworthwatch wrote: All pavements should be shared routes, most pavements are deserted most of the time and much safer for cyclists.

metal and meat don`t mix.

Yep, cars and cyclists don't mix. More than 100 cyclists killed a year by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists a year so lets have all pavements shared routes!

I read with interest your blog, im a pedestrian who uses a busy pavement everyday. I especially like the the rule that its ok to use the pavement if its safer than using the road. Thats a very grey area I would say and its not safer for the pedestrians in some cases. Also really like the law that its illegal for a cyclist to jump a red light, that experience happened to me only last thursday. I was crossing a road on my way from school to the library in hamworthy as were several others when a man on a bike continued to proceed despite a red light. No it was not safer for him to do this especially as he had to cycle around me and a 4 year old. My husband regularly cycles and im all for using bikes instead of cars but i really do get mad at the few ignorant ones and would set a challenge to anyone to accompany me on a school run or walk to poole.

hamworthygirl wrote:
I read with interest your blog, im a pedestrian who uses a busy pavement everyday. I especially like the the rule that its ok to use the pavement if its safer than using the road. Thats a very grey area I would say and its not safer for the pedestrians in some cases. Also really like the law that its illegal for a cyclist to jump a red light, that experience happened to me only last thursday. I was crossing a road on my way from school to the library in hamworthy as were several others when a man on a bike continued to proceed despite a red light. No it was not safer for him to do this especially as he had to cycle around me and a 4 year old. My husband regularly cycles and im all for using bikes instead of cars but i really do get mad at the few ignorant ones and would set a challenge to anyone to accompany me on a school run or walk to poole.

Those ignorant ones you refer to are the main problem of the increasing rift that exists between road/pavement users,in you recent letter where, in my opinion you made a reasonable request it was greeted with such negative attitude by i assume by a few cyclists.Other letters from readers have been published who have pointed out the attitude problem and until somebody tries to educate these few the situation will snowball.There is a guy (unfortunately it usually is ) who uses the Ensbury Park one way system in reverse regularly and anyone be it motorist/pedestrian or cyclist that he has to avoid gets the old victory sign,now thats is going to rile anyone not just the rudeness but the total disregard of other people travelling on the roads not expecting something travelling in the opposite direction illegally.As a cyclist and motorist i know that others will say if you are a competent road user you will be prepared for the unexpected i wouldnt be i just hope if i do meet him while driving my reflexes are sharp enough to avoid him.Education is needed badly, parents first then they can pass that on to their children and harsher penalties for all that disregard the law in a dangerous way (that does not mean handing out fines to the under tens because they are cycling on the pavement) common sense its what is needed.Sorry its so long but i have very strong views on safety in and around our town and i apologise for the grammatical errors that someone will no doubt pick me up on.

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

jobsworthwatch wrote: All pavements should be shared routes, most pavements are deserted most of the time and much safer for cyclists.

metal and meat don`t mix.

Yep, cars and cyclists don't mix. More than 100 cyclists killed a year by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists a year so lets have all pavements shared routes!

And reverse the statistics?

a.g.o.g. wrote:

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

jobsworthwatch wrote: All pavements should be shared routes, most pavements are deserted most of the time and much safer for cyclists.

metal and meat don`t mix.

Yep, cars and cyclists don't mix. More than 100 cyclists killed a year by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists a year so lets have all pavements shared routes!

And reverse the statistics?

Always someone quotes statistics, they are meaningless towards the safety of us all they are just a tool used by some to endorse their point of view completely and utterly useless unless your life is governed by statistics if that is the case DONT VENTURE OUT

Hello Julian, thanks for taking-up the BLOG, I hope you don't let yourself get worn down by what will inevitably follow in the next few months, acid comments etc.

I have typed these next words a few times, and won't stray onto these pages very often.

Our painted cycle lanes are excuses for really supporting cycling. We need euro-type cycle paths, everywhere; there's even room for one all along wallisdown road (where the 'scrub' trees are) - amazing, just how much 4-wheeled traffic could this ease?

You don't need hi-vis, you shouldn't need a helmet. If the driver cannot 'see' you, they shouldn't be driving, daylight-running lamps or not (!). Our roads are too narrow (mainly) to share with cyclists, and vehicles far too big these days (look at the SUVs).

There are as many idiots on Bikes as in cars, but they don't kill, don't use fossil fuels, and (never mentioned) NEVER pamper the owner into a "I'm important/cool/faste
r/bigger/better" frame of mind that seems to associate itself with the UK driver.

I really hope one day that some enlightened person sees our beautiful conurbation in the light it could be seen in, and not merely an ever increasing situation of gridlock.

Drivers: You're not 'stuck in traffic' - you ARE traffic!

retry69 wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

jobsworthwatch wrote: All pavements should be shared routes, most pavements are deserted most of the time and much safer for cyclists.

metal and meat don`t mix.

Yep, cars and cyclists don't mix. More than 100 cyclists killed a year by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists a year so lets have all pavements shared routes!

And reverse the statistics?

Always someone quotes statistics, they are meaningless towards the safety of us all they are just a tool used by some to endorse their point of view completely and utterly useless unless your life is governed by statistics if that is the case DONT VENTURE OUT

The facts are meaningless? A reversing of the statistics wouldn't happen, most pavements ARE deserted and most of the time it's not necessary to share them but the option should be there in law and not be a grey area as the result of a 'nod' from an MP, it would save lives.

"The facts are meaningless?" as a question mark has been included i assume perhaps wrongly that it was directed at me,that being the case i did not say facts i stated statistics which are and have been manipulated in the past again to try and impress a point it does not help towards the safety of cyclists which is the aim of most drivers/motorists.Ag
ain and again through inappropriate comments it is implied that the driver/motorist does not care about cyclists, it is complete nonsense brought about by the comments left on blogs such as previous ones on here and i hope this one does not revert to that

retry69 wrote:
"The facts are meaningless?" as a question mark has been included i assume perhaps wrongly that it was directed at me,that being the case i did not say facts i stated statistics which are and have been manipulated in the past again to try and impress a point it does not help towards the safety of cyclists which is the aim of most drivers/motorists.Ag

ain and again through inappropriate comments it is implied that the driver/motorist does not care about cyclists, it is complete nonsense brought about by the comments left on blogs such as previous ones on here and i hope this one does not revert to that

Retry, I sincerely doubt you do much cycling on the road. If you did you would realise that although the majority of motorists are reasonably considerate towards cyclists, there is a minority that aren't. Let's be massively generous, and say that 1 in a 100 motorists drive inconsiderately towards cyclists. If you cycle 5 miles to work then you are likely to be overtaken by at least 100 cars, so are likely to encounter one such motorists, who will overtake too close. And being overtaken too close twice a day will give you an impression that the roads are dangerous. This is the situation that most cyclists I know are in.

retry69 wrote:
"The facts are meaningless?" as a question mark has been included i assume perhaps wrongly that it was directed at me,that being the case i did not say facts i stated statistics which are and have been manipulated in the past again to try and impress a point it does not help towards the safety of cyclists which is the aim of most drivers/motorists.Ag

ain and again through inappropriate comments it is implied that the driver/motorist does not care about cyclists, it is complete nonsense brought about by the comments left on blogs such as previous ones on here and i hope this one does not revert to that

Take a look at www.rospa.com/roadsa
fety/adviceandinform
ation/cycling/facts-
figures.aspx
These are facts and figures for 2010 not statistics. perhaps you should check out the meaning of the word 'statistics' on wiki.

jobsworthwatch wrote:

retry69 wrote:
"The facts are meaningless?" as a question mark has been included i assume perhaps wrongly that it was directed at me,that being the case i did not say facts i stated statistics which are and have been manipulated in the past again to try and impress a point it does not help towards the safety of cyclists which is the aim of most drivers/motorists.Ag


ain and again through inappropriate comments it is implied that the driver/motorist does not care about cyclists, it is complete nonsense brought about by the comments left on blogs such as previous ones on here and i hope this one does not revert to that

Take a look at www.rospa.com/roadsa

fety/adviceandinform

ation/cycling/facts-

figures.aspx
These are facts and figures for 2010 not statistics. perhaps you should check out the meaning of the word 'statistics' on wiki.

Dont tell me yet another compilation of deaths and accidents that many people on here like to revel in, try having a exchange with FNS he loves that sort of thing

retry69 wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:

a.g.o.g. wrote:

jobsworthwatch wrote: All pavements should be shared routes, most pavements are deserted most of the time and much safer for cyclists.

metal and meat don`t mix.

Yep, cars and cyclists don't mix. More than 100 cyclists killed a year by cars, less than 1 pedestrian killed by cyclists a year so lets have all pavements shared routes!

And reverse the statistics?

Always someone quotes statistics, they are meaningless towards the safety of us all they are just a tool used by some to endorse their point of view completely and utterly useless unless your life is governed by statistics if that is the case DONT VENTURE OUT

So when you cycle along the pavement of a major road does it the in your book give you precedence over road traffic seeking to enter or cross that major road?

Hello everyone

Please can I remind you to keep it civil and avoid directing personal remarks at other commenters.

Thank you

retry69 wrote:

jobsworthwatch wrote:

retry69 wrote: "The facts are meaningless?" as a question mark has been included i assume perhaps wrongly that it was directed at me,that being the case i did not say facts i stated statistics which are and have been manipulated in the past again to try and impress a point it does not help towards the safety of cyclists which is the aim of most drivers/motorists.Ag ain and again through inappropriate comments it is implied that the driver/motorist does not care about cyclists, it is complete nonsense brought about by the comments left on blogs such as previous ones on here and i hope this one does not revert to that

Take a look at www.rospa.com/roadsa fety/adviceandinform ation/cycling/facts- figures.aspx These are facts and figures for 2010 not statistics. perhaps you should check out the meaning of the word 'statistics' on wiki.

Dont tell me yet another compilation of deaths and accidents that many people on here like to revel in, try having a exchange with FNS he loves that sort of thing

I love cycling, and the freedom it should give everyone, not just the confident/brave.

I do not love that when members of my family go to work/uni/shops on their bike that I worry that they are going to get knocked off because cyclists and motorists are forced into conflict on our roads. When it's reported that another cyclist has been killed in Bournemouth I think every time that it could have been a loved one of mine. It should not be like this.

I cycle every day on the roads. How often do you cycle?

FNS-man wrote:

retry69 wrote:

jobsworthwatch wrote:

retry69 wrote: "The facts are meaningless?" as a question mark has been included i assume perhaps wrongly that it was directed at me,that being the case i did not say facts i stated statistics which are and have been manipulated in the past again to try and impress a point it does not help towards the safety of cyclists which is the aim of most drivers/motorists.Ag ain and again through inappropriate comments it is implied that the driver/motorist does not care about cyclists, it is complete nonsense brought about by the comments left on blogs such as previous ones on here and i hope this one does not revert to that

Take a look at www.rospa.com/roadsa fety/adviceandinform ation/cycling/facts- figures.aspx These are facts and figures for 2010 not statistics. perhaps you should check out the meaning of the word 'statistics' on wiki.

Dont tell me yet another compilation of deaths and accidents that many people on here like to revel in, try having a exchange with FNS he loves that sort of thing

I love cycling, and the freedom it should give everyone, not just the confident/brave.

I do not love that when members of my family go to work/uni/shops on their bike that I worry that they are going to get knocked off because cyclists and motorists are forced into conflict on our roads. When it's reported that another cyclist has been killed in Bournemouth I think every time that it could have been a loved one of mine. It should not be like this.

I cycle every day on the roads. How often do you cycle?

If you read peoples comments before you react,criticise misquote as you have done numerous times you would know the answer to your question but it gets so tiresome when someone continually quotes deaths,risking life and limb etc.etc. its spreads negativity someone else using it now on the article of the latest cyclists death for what purpose?Apparantly the unforunate man has always cycled to work i bet he didnt have that thought in his head any morning he left for work.Nobody wants to read comments made by you or anyone else about tragic accidents it has no purpose if you find some rewarding in that sort of thing leave your email as i have said before and we can discuss it.By the way since you wont look back on my comments i have cycled everyday without fail since your onslaught against me back a few months so lets knock it on the head it really is getting boring

Motorists get killed on the road, motorcyclists get killed on the road and cyclists get killed on the road - what is the difference?

Serious question now and no answers from the usual bunch of bilge spillers.The Canford Bottom lights, any cyclist using that area regularly? Like to hear their point of view.

hammer wrote:
Motorists get killed on the road, motorcyclists get killed on the road and cyclists get killed on the road - what is the difference?

Errr, how about the fact that one of the above will pretty much always come out uninjured when in collision with the other two, therefore it's important that they use there vehicle with consideration for the other modes of transport.

Was that a serious question or a stupid one?

ragj195 wrote:

hammer wrote:
Motorists get killed on the road, motorcyclists get killed on the road and cyclists get killed on the road - what is the difference?

Errr, how about the fact that one of the above will pretty much always come out uninjured when in collision with the other two, therefore it's important that they use there vehicle with consideration for the other modes of transport.

Was that a serious question or a stupid one?

typo - "their" not "there" zzzzz

ragj195 wrote:

hammer wrote: Motorists get killed on the road, motorcyclists get killed on the road and cyclists get killed on the road - what is the difference?

Errr, how about the fact that one of the above will pretty much always come out uninjured when in collision with the other two, therefore it's important that they use there vehicle with consideration for the other modes of transport. Was that a serious question or a stupid one?

So why do cyclists take stupid risks on the road if they are so vulnerable? (i.e. obeying the rules of the road!) I thought the Tour de France was in France? may be some of them took the wrong turning and ended up in Bournemouth /Poole

hammer wrote:

ragj195 wrote:

hammer wrote: Motorists get killed on the road, motorcyclists get killed on the road and cyclists get killed on the road - what is the difference?

Errr, how about the fact that one of the above will pretty much always come out uninjured when in collision with the other two, therefore it's important that they use there vehicle with consideration for the other modes of transport. Was that a serious question or a stupid one?

So why do cyclists take stupid risks on the road if they are so vulnerable? (i.e. obeying the rules of the road!) I thought the Tour de France was in France? may be some of them took the wrong turning and ended up in Bournemouth /Poole

Don't you mean to say - "So why do PEOPLE take stupid risks on the road if they are so vulnerable?"
.
Doesn't matter if you are on foot, on a bike, a motorbike, in a car, lorry etc - you have to be responsible.
.
No point trying to point the finger at one group and ignoring the fact that it is not the mode of transport that makes the person irresponsible - it it the nature of the person themselves.

hamworhtygirl,you will find that people are creatures of habit and if you contact hamworthy safer neighbourhood they may patrol outside the school at the end of the day 07795401420

hammer wrote:
Motorists get killed on the road, motorcyclists get killed on the road and cyclists get killed on the road - what is the difference?

Is the answer....
Only two of the have got a bike.

How refreshing to see an interview with a cyclist of 50 years and CTC member giving out positive vibes for once on cycling and not the doom and gloom of the Bournemouth Cycling Fraternity