Castelli Espresso 2 Cap Unisex

This is a common sense idea that could and should have been implemented 50 years ago. Unfortunately successive governments just haven't had the guts to do it. Hopefully a younger and more climate-aware electorate will give them the support they need for this measure. I've noticed a lot more young parents teaching the kiddies to cycle on our local bike trail recently and our office cycle parking (120 spaces) is nearly always full, even with WFH. There would inevitably be pushback from the petrolhead/entitled motorist/Far Right/NIMBY lobby, there was some pushback in the Netherlands in 1974; but this last 6 months has shown just how vulnerable we are to oil supply disruption and climate change. It's set a lot of people thinking.

I suggest that you look up "physics", particularly the bit about the difference between a 10kg bicycle and a two-tonne tin box on wheels.

@Rendel Harris yup - it's about the big picture, balancing safety, convenience, what we can actually persuade people to do and all the other things we want from transport. But clearly many people with no particular interest in cycling or active travel *are* open to the surface arguments about "same rules for everyone, fair's fair" *. Ideally in a stable system (eg. behaviour in public spaces - the roads) perception and facts should be in reasonable if imperfect alignment... * Indeed that's one reason why I very much doubt that the "just share the road" arguments get us very far - cyclists simply can't follow some (unwritten) rules (keep at or near the speed limit) and others aren't helpful - or even needed if cyclists have their own space eg. no need for traffic lights or roundabouts!

20 mph limits make traffic flow more smoothly. It's a pro-car policy.

On balance I’m probably now against the e-bike hire services like lime / voi etc. Although the idea / principle is a great one, the reality is rather different as the services seem to mostly attract selfish a-holes. As a pedestrian / parent it’s a nightmare in local parks and on pavements as the voi / line bike users just cycle through people on paths at full tilt and expecting everyone to leap out of their way. As a cyclist in local bike lanes, the speed of the e-bikes and unwillingness of riders to slow down around other riders makes for a lot of conflict. As a driver the road craft or lack of it is very frustrating due to like bike users completely ignoring traffic lights, pedestrian crossings or recognising rights of way when turning etc. Then there’s the quite evident use of lime and voi for dodgy purposes - with a good number of local riders at night wearing balaclavas and clearly being involved in drug distribution in local parks. I’ve also gone into co-op and nearly been knocked over by a kid riding out of the store entrance at full tilt on a voi scooter.

@Muddy Ford They don't understand what 'left' means either.

@migex I've been guilty of this previously - that's a simplification. E.g. not all the energy is transferred. I think it's a reasonable proxy, but the collision dynamics are important. There are different risks either way. Motor vehicles are wider, modern ones often with higher fronts so more danger of people going under them, cyclists quieter / often "unexpected", some vehicles may have frontal energy absorbing measures, cyclist quite likely to be injured also etc. I'd guess the main reason that motor vehicles are more dangerous is that it's just much easier for drivers to reach (much) higher speeds. Then exposure factors. Not certain but i guess cyclists may be more likely to interact with pedestrians in the UK and in more informal environments (shared use, pavement cycling). However there must be much greater exposure to motorists (given the fraction of people driving for x time).

You have that the wrong way round, the advanced stop line is, as the name suggests, after the "normal" stop line, not before it. As for the legality of crossing the motor vehicle stop line on amber, that is only legal if the driver is already over the stop line when the light changes or is so close to it that to stop would potentially cause an accident, otherwise it is mandatory to stop, HC 175 "You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision." Drivers can be, and sometimes (though not nearly often enough) have been, given fines and points for driving without due care and attention for deliberately accelerating when the light turned amber, even though it was not red when they went through the stop line.

@mdavidford I don't know if this is the view of the poster but I believe those in the "vehicular cycling" camp would incline to that view.

@mdavidford Wait - is that suggesting we need to take into account whether the *amber* was ... established?