More than half of motorists single out drivers as biggest threat to cyclists' safety, says The Times

I was aware it was fine with stationary traffic but I confess I wasn't aware it was allowed at speed.

Some time on two wheels (bicycle/moped/scooter) as part of earning a licence would seem a hugely sensible and effective idea - as would a cycling proficiency test which included a ride in an HGV.

Yep, filtering on a motorbike is allowed in the UK though many car drivers don't know this and cause many accidents by not using their mirrors the way they're supposed to. The cars do not have to be stationary for filtering to be allowed, as long as the motorcyclist isn't breaking the speed limit in doing so. The rule of thumb advised by motorcycle instructors is generally that riding up to 10mph quicker than the cars is ok, as this gives you sufficient time to react should the car driver switch lanes without indicating or looking (and you'd be surprised how many do). Some riders (not me) filter faster than this and they're pushing their luck if you ask me. To be honest, if most car drivers had some experience of riding a motorcycle, the reduction in motorcycle accidents would be enormous.

Filtering on a bicycle on the inside is also allowed, as long as the traffic in the lane beside is moving at a slower pace, which is about as vague and unspecific as the Highway Code can be in parts. Again, not all vehicle drivers are aware of this or carry out proper observation, resulting in still more accidents. But anyone filtering on a bicycle on the inside should do so with extreme caution, particularly around HGVs (hopping the kerb and detouring along the pavement to get around a stopped HGV isn't allowed, but it's safer and I'd be telling an untruth if I said I don't do this when the pavement's clear and I want to get ahead). Again, if most motorists had more recent experience of cycling in traffic, the accident statistics would be much reduced.

On powered two wheels your allowed to filter between lanes of stationary
traffic - even though it peaves the hell out of some car/lgv drivers. Filtering
in between moving traffic, the old zig-zag or barrelling up the middle -
is downright dangerous because your doing something that is unexpected, which
causes some drivers to make sudden movements that cause accidents. But i
still think that every driver should have to participate in compulsory cyclist awareness
training (ie on a bike in traffic - a reality check).

On powered two wheels your allowed to filter between lanes of stationary
traffic - even though it peaves the hell out of some car/lgv drivers. Filtering
in between moving traffic, the old zig-zag or barrelling up the middle -
is downright dangerous because your doing something that is unexpected, which
causes some drivers to make sudden movements that cause accidents. But i
still think that every driver should have to compulsory cyclist awareness training.

Yup, all true, and let's not forget that many motorcyclists don't bother with staying in lanes either - eg there's a magical hidden third lane along the A3 all the way through Guildford which many motorcyclists seem to be privy to, even if the other two lanes are moving at the speed limit. Seen - and had - a few near misses there. Couriers are especially bad for this (no surprises).

A lot of two-wheelers' dangers come from people inventing lanes that don't exist, IMO/IME - whether it's cyclists finding their way up the gutter, any two-wheeler going up the middle of two lanes, or car drivers forcing themselves into an insufficient gap alongside a two-wheeler that's in the lane.

Bez, yep some cyclists don't pay enough attention to what's going on around them. I've even had people in cars try and overtake me on the inside when I'm on my motorbike on various occasions. Here's me keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front on a wet day for instance and riding to the right of the centre of the lane and planning to overtake when it's safe, when some spoon squeezes past on the inside. It's happened several times. Car drivers see a supposed gap and go for it, not bothering to engage the brain and wondewr why the gap is there A - because I'm about to overtake the car in front and B - because I'm keeping my distance from it. I generally then make a double overtake and leave the spoon in the car safely behind at the next set of lights. Too many road users, cyclists as well as car drivers, are simply impatient and travel aggressively, despite the fact that it makes not a jot of difference to how long they take to get from A to B and that in doing so, they put others as well as themselves at unnecessary risk.

I guess if I wanted a discount on my VED, then I could always SORN my car for the summer when I ride my bike to work.

The 40% of motorists who feel that roads are primarily for cars are no doubt what I consider to be the same 40% who are a danger to cyclists, pedestrians and the other 60% of motorists who try their best to share the roads.

I came around a roundabout yesterday signalling as I should and driver waited for me to pass her junction rather than speeding into the roundabout to cut me up. The next driver in line witnessed her waiting for me to pass before joining the roundabout and was incandescent with rage. It's this kind of pressure on decent motorists doing the right thing from those who either don't know or care about the highway code which also needs to be addressed before segregation.

Segregation is a good idea for cities and I support it but only if motorists realise that segregation is to protect cyclists - not to allow them to keep pushing the limits of chance and brake pads - On country lanes where segregation is impossible sharing is the mindset that needs encouraging.

Various studies carried out in Europe say that if 10% of car drivers were to switch to using motorcycles in any European city, then congestion would be reduced 40%. I'd assume that the same would hold true should car drivers switch to bicycles for the majority of commuting needs - or if that 10% of car drivers making the change were to choose between either a motorcycle or a bicycle. Therefore, car drivers who choose instead to cycle (or use a motorcycle) are helping reduce congestion and road wear. Therefore those car drivers opting to make the switch should surely be awarded with a reduction in the VED for their cars? As VED is calculated on the average vehicle travelled/year and the emissions produced/band for that vehicle, motorists who commute by bicycle or motorcycle are effectively paying a penalty for the emissiosn produced by those high mileage car drivers.

I don't think enough is made of the fact that the more drivers who switch to two wheels rather than four, the greater will be the improvement in traffic flow and the reduction in road wear and traffic jams. Cyclists (and motorcyclists) are part of the solution to congestion, not the problem. More people should be encouraged to convert to two wheels, rather than those two wheeler riders having to pay even nominal sums for licensing. Charging cyclists will discourage people from switching away from car use, increasing congestion and wear and tear to roads.

Anyone who believes cyclists should pay even a nominal sum, simply doesn't understand the facts.

"... four in ten bike riders claim that improvements to cycling infrastructure aimed at improving their safety should be funded by a tax on cyclists themselves ..."

Isn't this what income tax, VAT and the rest of the taxes we pay is for?

I could also be cynical and suggest the cost of some improvements to cyclists' infrastructure would pay for themselves in the medium to long term by saving money, i.e. reducing days off work due to injury, reducing sick pay, reducing costs incurred by the NHS, etc.

I hereby authorise the government to take appropriate amounts from the VED paid on my motor carriage to improve cycling facilities.

Yours,

Coleman.