Rockets

Not necessarily and I agree with @Penguin68 - as a cyclist myself I am particularly cautious at junctions at night as the glare from headlights can mean even the most brightly dressed cyclist can be lost in the glare wash - especially with some of the new super bright LEDs and if you are passing queuing traffic. Headlights can create blind spots. As much as you would like to you can't pin everything on driving without due care and attention. Any sensible driver or cyclist will understand the challenges and drive and cycle accordingly. I would also challenge you on well-lit city streets - the streets around here are not very well lit at all - it's one of the reasons I have a pulsing front light because other road users will see that long before they see me. Like @Angelina I see people cycling at night with no lights and think - are you crazy? It's actually quite amazing how many people do and I just don't understand it.

Our camera caught two folks doing this. One of them led me to believe the delivery driver was in on it as he left the package in a very odd place that the thief (who arrived about 10 minutes after from a direction where he could not have seen where the driver left it) went straight to it and took it - but he then dumped it halfway down the next road as clearly packets of freeze-dried food for a DofE award wasn't to his liking (karma sucks!). The second time a guy pulled his bike up in broad daylight, walked down to our door, opened the box, threw the empty box down and stuffed what he had found in his backpack and brazenly waved at the camera and then cycled off. Police asked us to upload his picture but we never heard anything back.

It is interesting that many in the Netherlands are worried that there are a generation of youngsters/teenagers who are getting much less exercise due to the popularity of e-bikes. Now, of course, in the UK the starting position is very different as most are not brought up cycling the in the way the Dutch are but I do wonder how many Lime bike journeys (which I am sure make up a huge number of the 43% increase) are actually replacing walking - a net active travel loss if so. If our kids are indicative they are beyond lazy and if they see a Lime bike will jump on it no matter how walkable the journey actually is - this may also be linked to their parents paying rather than them of course! I don't know about you but I did read the TFL headline and thought - is that all and I was shocked how low it was - there are times when I cycle where it feels much more but that does tend to be on cycling arterial routes so maybe it is the funnelling effect?

But not particularly well lit are they?

Yes, of course it is. Do you think the growth is aligned with the spend of £800m in cycling infrastructure in London and promises of a 10x increase in cycling numbers made by those spending the money? Seems a lot of money for not a great return when considering the impact on other transport modes. Yes or no.

@march46 I think the key point you are missing is that people are saying that the commonsense approach is to make sure you do everything so those heavy, large vehicles that have the capacity to cause injury and death can see you. Is that something you don't subscribe to? Making yourself seen is one of the most basic road safety principles - it's why so many vehicles have day running lights now.

@Spartacus yes we do live in strange times where people will scream: "don't tell me what to do" even when people are trying to pass on very sensible advice.... What I really don't understand is the mindset some seem to have of "well if you can't see me that's your fault not mine - you're clearly not paying enough attention". That's a very foolhardy and dangerous precedent to set and one that in the ideal world some live in may work well but in the real world may not work out well at all, I don't know about anyone else but when I cycle I want to give every other road user the best chance of seeing me - that goes for cars and lorries as much it does for pedestrians and other cyclists (particularly those on faster moving e-bikes). No-one needs to tell me to do it - it seems like the most basic of commonsense.

Did anyone actually say that? I don't think they did. I think they said that, even whilst being supportive of the need for safer cycling infrastructure, that at some point you have to look at the ROI - as @first mate says Sydenham Hill is just one massive spend that does not come close to passing the ROI test -a huge chunk of tax-payers money sitting idle most of the time. Since 2019 there has been roughly £800m spent on cycling infrastructure in London and I am not sure a 43% increase is showing that that has delivered what was promised - remember around Covid when Will Norman was lobbying for £ and said that there could be a 10x increase in cycling? The latest numbers basically means that for every two cyclists in 2019 there are now three - good progress but hardly earth shattering - they haven't even got to a 0.5x increase yet. What is also interesting is that in the very same report TFL that cites the 43% increase in cycling it says that buses are getting slower and slower averaging 9.2 miles per hour in London - (slower than they were in the preceding years - pre- and post-Covid yet on a background of lower overall traffic levels that pre-Covid) and there has been criticism of the way TFL and the Major have carved up bus lanes in certain parts of London to install cycle infrastructure - much of these to the detriment to bus journey times. Since the high point in 2014/15 the number of bus journeys taken is a whopping 22.8% lower and year on year saw a decline of another 1.5% (only DLR and Trams were the others that saw a decrease in numbers).

But, if for example, you were walking down a dark country lane with no pavement would you advise wearing brighter colours to ensure you were as visible as possible? I don't think anyone is trying to tell people what to do just that commonsense suggests wearing brighter colours to make yourself as visible as possible. I mean, this was the whole point of the thread was it not?

Are you referring to the different paving near the chicane - the bit that looks like it could have been a pedestrian crossing?

Oh my.....FIFA.....still managing to embarrass themselves. Absolutely. Well said.

But @exdulwicher just look at your first response to Angelina's post. Now you accuse others of posting anti-cycling tirades yet Angelina's post was a statement about selfish, irresponsible and dangerous cycling and your response was very pro-cycling, or certainly anti anything negative being said about cyclists don't you think? There is an almost cultish response to anything that could be deemed critical of cycling from a lot of folks on here. There does seem to be some Pavlovian trigger for many on the obsessional pro-cycling side to launch attacks when they see anything that could be construed as anti-cycling. We see it all the time - let's be honest you didn't need to wade in as you did and that set the tone for the rest of the thread and then there was a pile-on from the usual suspects. Let's be clear, we all know there are selfish, irresponsible and dangerous drivers but Angelina's post was about cyclists yet you, and others, want to conclude that the issue is drivers. A lot of pro-cycling lobbyists love nothing more than to claim there is a culture war being waged against them but a lot of the time the culture war is actually being waged by them. I really don't buy this "restrictions" nonsense. It is something that is used as an out by the leaders of the cycle lobby for every and any measure that is suggested - often even those things that will actually keep cyclists safer (which is one of the things that many cite as the reason not to cycle). You have more faith in drivers than I do - I always wear a high-vis jacket! And bar a ludicrous left-turn cut-up move done by a driver on Battersea Park roundabout it has stood me in good stead all these years! Yes take his advice - wear "high contrast clothing" and "always wear a helmet".....perhaps some folks might listen to him! 😉

Hang on a minute @exdulwicher to be fair, you may be critical now but just look at your post in response to Angelina's first post on the issue where they commented on the number of cyclists at night without lights or bright clothing dangerously weaving in and out of traffic - yours was the first reply to Angelina's post on this thread. You seem to have taken quite a dismissive stance and then the usual suspects jumped on with the "you don't have to wear bright coloured clothes". So it's bit rich for you, some pages later, to be critical - you set the tone from the outset. Why did you feel compelled to take such a dismissive stance? Also, are you not going a bit Dulwich Roads with your picture of the smashed up police car? Are you sure it was hit by an unobservant driver or are you just jumping to that conclusion? You claim I am on some anti-cyclist tirade yet I am a cyclist - does that upset you? Are cyclists supposed to be fully paid-up members of the cultish elements of the sport for their opinions to be considered? Trust me, there are a lot of cyclists, like me, who do not like how the more cultish members of our sports behave or engage with others and who don't agree with the cycle-myopic view of the world and think that is actually doing long-term harm to the active travel transition. And I really don't see how suggesting it is commonsense to wear bright coloured clothing when cycling is an anti-cycling tirade - it sounds like perfectly reasonable advice!

Mal hasn't been deleted. Mal is getting better at self-policing and, I suspect, posted something that, in hindsight, they decided wasn't advisable and they deleted it themselves. And that is the point - making yourself as visible as possible is not a requirement or a law but seems like a perfectly sensible idea to make it easier for other road users to see you. I really could not work out why this perfectly sensible suggestion was so vehemently opposed by some - there seems to be a lot of "how dare you tell us what to do" amongst many mixed with a "the obligation is for other roads users to see us no matter what the circumstances". It seems like a very blinkered and ultimately quite daft approach.

@Earl Aelfheah I, and I suspect everybody else, have lost track on the point you are trying to make and I think you have too - you're tying yourself in knots just to, seemingly, pick a fight. If you've not got anything useful or constructive to say, or are not prepared to debate properly or cannot without taking it into a death-spiral, then just do us all a favour and don't. Your nonsense tactics are wearing thin - it seems everyone probably needs to stop responding to you to starve you of the oxygen of attention.

@first mate it’s nothing more than a distraction technique - deployed in almost every discussion anytime the debate and facts turn against them. Odd but predictable behaviour.

Spot on @first mate - with a subtle tweak to the throttle or the bike's computer a fatbike can be turned from a Fiets to a Snorfiets to a Bromfiets category without anyone being able to tell - it's why the Dutch police have invested so much in those mobile treadmill things all over the country to determine what category of bike it is based on it's maximum speed. They cannot tell by looking at it. And to be honest it is probably why they are favoured by Dutch teenagers as you can buy one perfectly legally and very quickly modify it to go really fast. A similar thing happens over here where some E-bike conversion kits come with a keyfob which controls the maximum power output - one click and you're within legal limits another click (which you will only ever use when you're offroad of course) and you're Warp factor 9. I refer my right honourable friend to my previous post.....the Dutch fatbike is a classic example where speed may be the only obvious indicator. ...it's a bike? 😉

They do @snowy and isn't the issue with Fatbikes that the very same bike (depending on whether it has been modified or not) could fit into any one of those three categorisations?

Oh @Earl Aelfheah - up to your usual tricks again - so predictable - honestly it's just not worth trying to engage in any sort of good-faith discussion with you as you seem incapable of returning the compliment. It's impossible - I have made my points very clearly; you're the one seemingly deliberately conflating things to suit your own agenda. Anyway I am off to buy a legal fatbike and ponder converting it to an illegal fatbike and make a t-shirt that says is it a e-bike or a e-moped and poll the public for their response!

But they are not already illegal - that's the point. As bought off the shelf fatbikes are, in the main, legal in the Netherlands. If the user then modifies the throttle or the computer they then become illegal but you cannot tell without testing them which is why the government says it is impossible to differentiate between them (from a point of law) and why the Amsterdam authorities are saying we have to. You seem to be deliberately missing that key point. Why might that be per chance? 😉What would you suggest as a new name for a legal fatbike and an illegal fatbike.... That wasn't the question I was asking was it - I was asking whether you think we might get to a point where new laws are required.....yes/no answer would suffice! 😉

I am not sure it does - why do you think so? It's pretty clear what it is saying but let me explain it for you - Dutch police have been stopping fatbikes (which are legal) to test their top speed to determine whether they have been modified so they reach higher speeds - they cannot tell just by looking at them. During one set of tests they found around 50% of the fatbikes had been modified but could only determine this when they used their new roadside treadmill contraption to test it. https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/news/dutch-police-have-a-roadside-device-for-identifying-illegally-fast-and-powerful-e-bikes#:~:text=247 new roller test benches,45km/h (28mph). https://nltimes.nl/2024/07/03/half-fatbikes-checked-amsterdam-tuned I am posing the question whether people think we will get to a point (like in the Netherlands) where new laws need to be brought in to protect riders (and other road users) if similar scarily upward trends of injuries to cyclists (especially young cyclists) and those hit by cyclists are seen here as they have been in the Netherlands. Do you think we will get to that point - I suspect we will - we are already, for example, hearing a lot of Lime Bike Break noise coming from A&E departments, surgeons and those who have to treat the long-term impacts of treating victims?

This is the point you seem to have not grasped - there are plenty of UK legal fatbikes for sale that do meet guidelines - not every fatbike does not meet standards - now in the Netherlands a large number of fatbikes are bought legally and then modified - this is why the Dutch police have been stopping fatbike riders and then using roller systems to test the speed of the bikes - as you cannot tell between a perfectly legal one and an illegal one. No, I actually think the vast majority of the UK public will look at a fatbike and think of it as a bike and that it is a tiny percentage of the population (seemingly a large percentage of which are some of the usual suspects on here) that we seem them as e-mopeds. It would be foolish then, by your own assertion, that the masses are "sensible"! Agree 100%. Cycling UK seemed to be suggesting that, especially at night, you may be giving a driver a potential defence if you are not wearing bright clothing and they hit you. Commonsense would suggest that wearing bright clothing at night was a very good idea. The point I was trying to make earlier was whether we are heading, like the Netherlands, to the need for more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle - the Netherlands government has been responding to medical-led calls for change - for everything from the fact that some think there are a generation of Dutch kids who are getting less exercise due to the popularity of e-bikes and those who are concerned by the explosion of injuries (especially amongst teenagers) caused whilst riding e-bikes (many of which have been illegally modified).

Err, you'll have to help me on the points you were trying to make as I just looked at your post and it didn't really make any points at all. So surely the most sensible approach would be to do both? Interesting that the Netherlands government is making it law that some have to wear cycle helmets, does anyone think that, to better protect cyclists, similar measures may need to be taken here? The Netherlands is always held as the beacon of all that is good in the world of cycling so might it be worth pre-empting some of the issues they are having. Interesting that amongst an increase in serious head injuries their A&E departments are also flagging a growing problem with their equivalent of the "Lime bike break" which leaves many with life changing injuries.

I bet they do - it's two wheeled and has pedals.....Oh, it's "there" btw.... A good point. Well made. In darkness things may well be different.

Clearly not in the Netherlands which is, after all, what we are talking about...good grief..... But what you are doing is creating a sub-category for "boy racer" cars within the car category - it's still a car - just a car modified to drive faster often driven by an idiot. Bottom-line remains that in the Netherlands fatbikes are considered e-bikes unless they are modified and the Dutch government says it is impossible to differentiate between a fatbike and an e-bike. Very, very few people will get buzzed by a fatbike in Amsterdam and think - oooh, there goes an electric moped, well maybe @Raeburn would but where they were in Amsterdam everything was "harmonious" so one presumes they weren't buzzed by one! 😉 No-one seems too keen to offer up an alternative category for large cargo bikes - which authorities are also wanting to remove from cycle lanes - anyone got any suggestions or is that still a bike?