Ok guys, Ive got to put my head above the parapet here. I dont particularly agree with the allowing of cyclists using the roads these days - not because Iam anti - cyclist, but because any one who can pay, can buy a bike, and use them on a public road, without training, competence testing, insurance, or vehicle condition testing, or any input to the roads infrastucture. That having been said, Its a good healthy pursuit for those conciencious few. However, I have just witnessed the bold Boris on breakfast telly, waffling on about the new grab a bike system in London. Not only does he say (and I praphrase here) the doesn't really worry if people wear helmets or not, he says that cyclist should get in front of the traffic and "assert their position" . No mention of competency, insurance, or anything else about the London traffic. Put your credit card in the slot, and get a bike. Does anybody else worry about this?? The only thing they were worried about was the bikes possibly being stolen. I myself recently had a near miss with a young cyclist up here, by the Bonny Banks. I was about to pass "the fit family" on a rural road. It was ma, pa, and the 2 kids, and cycling 2 abreast. I reduced my speed to a crawl, and went completely over the other side of the road to pass them. As I was passing, the younger girl (around 10 years old or so) she veered over and although there was no real danger of a collision, the father had to grab her saddle, and pull her back up and straight beside himself. Let me paint you a picture......Suppose she hits me on the side of the car. She's injured or worse, I'm regarded as at fault, despite an unblemished record for around 35 years Licence endorsed, car repairs, and possible career issues. She is obviously untrained and would not be considered competent, they are not following the highway code, unlikely to have insurance and when was the last time someone had their cycle tested for mechanical fitness. You would have to challenge the parents common sense for letting the kids ride their bike on such a buy road - perhaps he should have kept her nearer the footpath, rather than to his right. I would certainly not ban cyclists that not the purpose of this particular rant, but what I would like to see is a standard competency test for cyclists ( and their machines) and a minimum requirement for third party insurance. Ok then ..... Its on the floor for a BALANCED debate, and I'd be interested on the viewpoints.

Firstly, I am a keen cyclist, so am definitely not in the 'anti' brigade either. In my opinion, the Cycling Proficiency Test' that most of us probably did at Primary School should be compulsory. The system is fairly robust, and gives children sensible and safe training on how to behave on the road. I stand to be corrected, but is a cyclist were to be involved in an accident, I believe that a claim could be made against that person's household insurance (if they have any...). I do agree though that some kind of third party insurance should be in place for cyclists using the highway. With more and more cyclists on the roads these days, together with the increase on cars/ vans/ lorries on the roads, accidents are by their very nature likely to be on the increase. Therefore, having some kind of insurance in place would make perfect sense to me.

When i was 10 years old i took a bike proficency course run by my local council Islington in London, they made a special fuss over all those who passed, we went to a special presentation at the town hall, and the major gave us certificates, i still remember it now, and im almost 50, so 40 years ago!! However i hardly ever rode my bike on the roads even though i knew the highway code etc.... More investment needs to be put in to cycle lanes if more and more people are going to use this form of transport. I live in Liverpool now, as a cyclist it has to be one of the worse places to cycle in the country, the potholes are enormous, driving a car through them is bad, cycling would be on par with deep sea diving for the danger it poses!!

Before this thread gets too out of shape, could I input some facts here? 1. The old cycling proficiency scheme has now moved on and there is now a competency base scheme which includes road use. See: http://www.ctc.org.uk/De...pDefault.aspx?TabID=4135 2. Many cyclists do have third party insurance through membership of organisation such as CTC, Audax UK or British Cycling. 3. Historically bicycles have used our roads longer cars and the modern motor can be traced back to the bicycle.

I ride a bike, but try never to ride on the road, I'd rather take my bike on the car rack to a safer place i.e. along the sea front. Much better views, fresh air etc. If I had to cycle to work however that would be a problem as I would ride on the pavement whenever possible, and that would annoy pedestrians, they hate cyclists. Vehicle drivers hate cyclists. Cyclists hate pedestrians and vehicle drivers. There is an excellent car free route on the Wirral called the Wirral Way, it has its own community of pedestrians and cyclists, you should see/hear the abuse passed between them. I think the grab a bike scheme is a good idea but the roads are not safe these days. An idea I have is cycle paths alongside all motorways, protection provided by a sturdy fence or similar. That could allow cyclists to ride long distances fairly uninterrupted by traffic.

Having just seen a pool cycle scheme - riding for work introduced into my organisation (Local Council) and me asking about everything from PUWER, PPE, Insurance, Maintenance, Competence, Working alone, Use of vehicles at Work Policy etc etc. the Sustainable Transport lobby will have their way. Being a greeny and a bikey I'm OK in my private life but I'm waiting for the accident reports to come in and the HSE's response to accidents re vehicles at work. An employee accepting volenti non fit injuria may be alright in common law but what defence in the statutory world of HASWA?

I saw an excellent Disnel cartoon film many years ago about Mr Walker and Mr Driver. Goofy was both people and it was really interesting to see how his personality changed when alternating from driving the car to being a pedestrian. They didn't include Mr Mobility Scooter or Mr Biker however. For the cyclist a bell is essential and to use it when approaching pedestrians. Some may be hearing impaired or listening to the walkman so may not even hear the bell. I agree that slowing down when approaching pedestrians is also essential. There is another factor - the dog! They are so unpredictable that slower than walking speed is required when passing animals.

I appreciate there is a debate around cycle helmets but i know a few people as we used to attend mountain bike events that wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the foam on their heads. If you don't wear a helmet then you must be mad any accident and you are putting your life at risk from head injury. I'm not saying they are going to be enough to save everybody depending on the seriousness of the crash but they have made enough difference they should be forced by law. Similar arguments are always around for any type of safety device like seatbelts or airbags and there are a very few rare occasions where they cause more harm than good but on balance they save more lives than they cost. Not sure about having bells or horns on bikes as you are then seen as being aggressive or impatient when you use them. Same as a car driver using there horn at people on a pedestrian crossing. We still have cyclists on the road at night riding with no lights on their bikes in the middle of winter sadly they are often kids so the parents must know they don't have lights but still let them go riding at night. I think whether you are a pedestrian cyclists or car driver you all have responsibilities for your action when out and about so ensuring you can be seen at night take care when crossing the road and able to hear for traffic is your responsibility not that of the motorist, cyclist or pedestrian to allow for your lack of consideration or ignorance. phil

Possibly your reasoning might stand up if the only accidents involving cyclist where when cars are overtaking but i would imagine the vast amount of accidents are when cars pull out of junctions or onto roundabouts with out looking. In which case you would be going HEAD first over the bonnet or head first into the door. if you are knocked off your bike when been overtaken you would more than likely fall of to the side of the road rather than going head first into the car. i would rethink on the idea of not riding with a helmet. When I've come across riders on the road my consideration is the road, the road conditions and make a judgement on the rider ability and age and then give as much room as possible. It could be that rider wearing a helmet would be seen more competent than a rider not wearing a helmet? Phil

Firstly, we need to establish the legal position; cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders have a right to use the public road except where they are expressly forbidden. Motor vehicles have no right to use the roads, their drivers have a licence, which confers permission, this is not a right. In most western European countries cyclists are treated as rightful road users by motorists, even in coutries with considerably higher traffic densities than in the UK. Here they are treated as an obstacle. I believe the problem is the attitude of UK drivers, and not the cyclists. I have cycled in 9 European countries, and except (occasionally) in Germany & Italy I have been treated with respect in all of them. The idea of banning cyclists from public roads would be treated as an absurd idea throughout the EU, but here it's raised frequently by sensible and even moderate people, John

Phil, Vehicles in Band A (up to 100g/km) pay £ zero rate of Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax) and if bicycles fell within the scope of VED, they would fall within this category! Is this not a level playing field without the additional bureaucratic cost?

Let’s try and open this helmet debate up with one basic fact. Whilst the majority of cyclists in the UK use helmets and in Holland these are hardly ever used, however the UK has a much higher incidence of cycling related head injuries! Cycle helmets have do have their benefits (as I can verify this having split one on Wrynose Pass earlier this year), however these are not designed for high impact collisions such as a motor cycle helmet. As for pavement use, as well as this being a greater risk to pedestrians, if you apply the Helsinki study into cycle paths, the risk of serious injury is likely to be considerably greater than road use. Competence and how we use our bike has a greater impact on cycle safety, however when you ride a bike it is much easier to see the mistakes that other road users make.

Good points Arran. My experience with cycle helmets is actually that they shoud be worn at all times; my skull was saved when I was standing outside a pub and a sun-umbrella was picked up and spun by the wind to come cracking down on the top of my head with some force; fortunately I hadn't got round to taking my helmet off so no injury. I don't like 'multi-use' cycle/footpaths, they're OK for casual cyclists but not much use for people wanting to make any speed, and yes, they can be dangerous for all their users, John

Phil, I mentioned fule duty, still not sure it all adds up to the amount spent on roads and traffic management and so on. I agree about the white lines, but I have to utterly disagree with the contention that it would be too difficult to put cycle ways in everywhere. If they can manage it in Switzerland (and they have Alps to contend with) and crowded Holland, and in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg... they can manage it here, John

I kind of agree Simon, I drive about 20K a year, but I do tend to think of myself as a cyclist and a pedestrian. I agree there's no excuse for cyclists breaking the highway code, except in life or death emergencies, same goes for motorists and pedestrians. I never run red lights, john

I think it's a kind of chicken and egg really; if there were the paths there would be more demand, and as you say Phil, if there was demand there might well be more paths. It's partly to do with national culture, and I really would be interested to undrestand why cycling is viewed so differently here compared to, say, Germany. I mean, the Netherlands is flat and distances are small, but Germany is a big country, and believe me it's got big hills; some of them (such as the Zugspitze and Watzmann) are considerably bigger than anything we have got, and yet Germany has a huge number of cyclists of all descriptions, John

There is a similar scheme in Dublin and haven't heard any issue regarding helmets.

If we look at the statistics for hospital admissions in 2002/3, cycling represents 7.1% of all head injuries and 6.5% of all serious head injuries; however the based upon a study undertaken at that time, the statistics for pedestrians with serious head injuries was ten times greater. Based upon these statistics there is a hypothesis that pedestrians should also wear helmets.

Dave, that was very brave! watch out mate! Friday or no Friday im glad im not in your shoes!! Watch the replies you get to that comment!!!

If the cyclist was to do the risk assessment - oils and grease that the camber will push towards the side of the road, dust and debris, pot holes to cycle over, then there are impatient drivers / bad drivers / people parking on corners etc. Add in the great British weather, and the fact that they will cycle in between 2 lanes of slow moving traffic? Sorry to the cycling fraternity - but I cant see any enjoyment in all that David