[andyd]

12 yrs , 24miles 4/5 days a week, BUSY roads = one RTA (and I got a decent compo for it as well!), You get to work relaxed, faster than in a car, you don't catch other peoples colds on the train/bus, you stay in shape and it saves money. Well worth the level of risk involved.

However the demographic commenting here today represent the lucky ones.

[miso soup]

I have been a cyclist in other cities but now I live in London and just drive my car because that's hectic enough and it's too cold for me.  On the subject of lights - by all means have loads of them all over your bike but I really don't think they need to be flashing.  Coming round a corner into a bunch of cyclists all strobing at you like a horde of paparazzi is just a bit disorientating. 

[Tom de Gay]

Lezyne Micro Drive lights, though not cheap, are flippin' bright and charge through usb.
For puncture proof tyres, Armadillo's are pretty decent, but I find Maxxis ReFuse have a better balance of toughness, weight and grippiness.
I bought a cheapish pair of water proof trousers and regretted it, as they weren't very waterproof and also quite heavy, so I rarely bought them with me (making them even less effective).
A waterproof bag is a good idea too.
Winter climbing double mitts for when it gets really cold.
Riding in all weathers through the winter really teaches you how to suffer. (I think that's a good thing?)

[Muenchener]

On the subject of lights - by all means have loads of them all over your bike but I really don't think they need to be flashing. 

 

Flashing lights were maybe of some relevance once upon a time  when battery powered lights were either utterly feeble, or nicely bright halogens that ate batteries in half an hour. Modern led lights are so bright and long-lasting that flashing really isn't necessary or useful any more.

You do want one or two good rear red reflectors in addition to your lights though.

[tomtom]

Got to disagree... flashing lights are really annoying.. which is my point - you notice them...

Emergency services use flashing lights for a reason....

[slackline]

12 yrs , 24miles 4/5 days a week, BUSY roads = one RTA (and I got a decent compo for it as well!), You get to work relaxed, faster than in a car, you don't catch other peoples colds on the train/bus, you stay in shape and it saves money. Well worth the level of risk involved.

However the demographic commenting here today represent the lucky ones.

Some statistics from the Professor of the Public Understanding or Risk David Speigelhalter. 

One of the biggest risks is being too cautious

[Evil]

Cool video. I've been quite into the BBC's radio show More or Less. Prof Spiegelhalter appeared on that once talking about risk and bicycles. There was another one about micromorts too. All the episodes are online - http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/all.

The bicycles one is from "Do free school meals work? 20 Sep 13"
Micromorts are on "Gay Britain 01 Oct 10"

[Johnny Brown]

Commuted by bike most days for about seven years, the first four on a shitty mountain bike I got for my 14th birthday, the last three on a nice 'winter' road bike bought 2nd hand on UKB. ABout three miles each way, downhill in the AM, up in PM.

Pros are it is typically quicker, especially in the morning. You get to work wide awake and in a good mood.

I never bothered with different clothes or shoes, just wore what I was wearing - i.e. jeans, hoodie etc. If it was raining I'd swap the jeans for some light waterproof pants - Marmot precip cheap from CCC. The main problem is if it is raining, or the roads are very wet, you'll get wet feet. It is surprising how dry the UK actually is, though MCR is wetter than Sheff.

Hi-vis top is a must obvs, and decent lights. I found being seen is less of a problem than being ignored or given too little room. Bus lanes are great, gutter cycle lanes are too narrow and encourage vehicles to pass too close.

It's very tempting to keep refining a faster route down the main roads, beating all the traffic etc. However after a couple of outrageous incidents with being cut-up (inc being clipped), presumably for daring to share a roundabout with cars racing the 200yds from one queuing section to the next, I started following off-road cycle lanes as much as possible. It's a bit slower but safer, and the pain of swerving round peds and dogs is offset by a nicer setting - parks etc.

Motivation can be tricky, its easy to crumble in the morning and get in the car. I tried to not consider the car as an option unless it was really foul, and leave it too late to use the car (which takes longer in the morning). Getting back is not such a problem as you are a) committed and b) going home. The downside is I was about the only person to make it in in heavy snow.

[SA Chris]

Riding in all weathers through the winter really teaches you how to suffer. (I think that's a good thing?)

My mate Scott loves to suffer, and commutes regardless of weather.



(camera is mounted on seatpost btw, not what it looks like!)

[Evil]

The downside is I was about the only person to make it in in heavy snow.

Haha yeah, I've done that - gone to work in the snow with my bike, only to arrive and find no one else is there, and the building is all dark and shut, and had to turn around and go home again.

[slackline]

More statistics on the safety of cycling

[Snoops]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html

I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'

[slackline]

I wear headphones cycling (but not at max volume).  I'm certainly not about to look over my shoulder just because a vehicle is approaching.  I'll look behind me before signalling to manoeuvre and not wearing headphones would not change this one bit.

Should deaf or hearing impaired people not be allowed to cycle because they can't hear whats going on around them? (which is presumably the logic behind proposing a ban on headphones).



Shame they didn't analyse all the data they collected (which included headphone usage).

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

Like Slackers I wear headphones quite often whilst riding, not at max volume. My rational is I can hear over them anyway, you have to look all the time, modern cars idle almost silently before you consider Prius etc and never in 30+years of cycling has a car driver usefully beeped at me for my benefit eg. to warn of a hazard.

Can't believe the media is blaming the cyclists for their own deaths, sounds like there is a massive fucking elephant in the room in the shape of an HGV....

[petejh]

More statistics on the safety of cycling

Couple of things.
Slackers -  Cherry picking research which supports your beliefs per chance? You should know better than that 

And that other link - What relevance does an Australian study on cycling have to cycling in a busy British city with different road design, driver habits, cyclist habits, weather, light, etc etc etc.

After reading this report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24987425  I'm still no wiser about what the statistics are for serious injuries and deaths for cyclists in busy cities versus serious injuries and deaths among cyclists nationwide. To see the difference you have to dig a bit deeper.

Would you use nationwide crime statistics when looking at a particular area for buying a house? No. You'd use what's relevant to the specific area. Why would it be any different for cycling? Cycling is specific to a local area with its own unique set of circumstances and thus statistics.

These figures for the whole of London from the DfT 2012 report are quite eye-opening to me:
Number killed or seriously injured by vehicle type:
Pedestrians 5,272   Cyclists 4,619   Motorcyclists 4,653   Cars 12,298


Taking those figures and combining it with what I saw in central London yesterday:
There are obviously hundreds (thousands?) times more pedestrians than there are cyclists in London.
There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists.
There are more (but not many) motorcyclists than cyclists.

When you look at the report's statistics for Central London boroughs it looks like this:

Deaths & serious injuries 2012, by borough:
Camden
Pedestrians 208   Cyclists  246  Motorcyclists 170   Cars 160                               
City of London
Pedestrians 102   Cyclists  150  Motorcyclists 73   Cars 66                     
Kensington and Chelsea
Pedestrians 159   Cyclists  190  Motorcyclists 187   Cars 161
Lambeth
Pedestrians 202   Cyclists  301  Motorcyclists 290   Cars 322

The ratio's are far worse.

Also interesting is how the ratios of deaths/serious injuries between Pedestrians and Cyclists almost reverse between Central London boroughs and Greater London boroughs. I.e. the figures are higher for pedestrians and lower for cyclists in Greater London boroughs.


If I were to consider commuting by bike in a busy built-up area like Central London (or any other area) I'd want to know some bits of information. Firstly I'd want to know the likelihood of being in a serious accident for that area - not the likelihood nationwide or even in neighboring boroughs which have different dynamics. Secondly I'd want to know the likely consequences of that accident.
Common sense already tells me the consequences of being in an accident on a bike - not good. Going off the above figures combined with common sense about the number of cyclists you see around you versus the number of pedestrians, cars and motorbikes, I'd estimate commuting by bike in Central London to be too risky to me to make it worth the other benefits it brings. And I love relatively hard winter climbing...

[slackline]

Couple of things.
Slackers -  Cherry picking research which supports your beliefs per chance? You should know better than that 

No linking to things I found in two seconds searching the internet.

I didn't even read it because its not my place to peer-review for UKB, you're all capable of reading them for yourselves and judging their relevance, validity and so forth.  Had I read it I might have included my thoughts/comments/critiques rather than just linking to it.

And that other link - What relevance does an Australian study on cycling have to cycling in a busy British city with different road design, driver habits, cyclist habits, weather, light, etc etc etc.

Its called "Generalisability", yes there are differences in the things you highlight, but one would expect there to be common themes across geographical locations, Melbourne, whilst being in Australia is a big city with traffic and cyclists co-existing.  By reporting one study it might encourage others to repeat the study in their locality and compare and contrast. 

This may even have been done, but I didn't look at the papers listed which cite the one I linked to because despite outward appearances I do work as well as post on UKB.

[petejh]

Fair enough, point taken.

[slackline]

Sorry if that came across as overly defensive, not meant that way at all.

[SA Chris]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html

I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'

Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?

[Ti_pin_man]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html

I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'

Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?

Stats show that most deaths on the bike are caused by other factors not attributed to head collision and therefore helmets wouldnt have stopped it.  As such making it compulsory wont help as much as people think.  Personally I always wear one and would always advise to wear one as every little helps. 

[tomtom]

In Londinium as 64% of this years fatalities are caused by trucks - that are 5% of traffic - it seems quite clear that the two need to be separated - either spatially, temporally or both....

[slackline]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html

I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'

Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?

Depends whether you consider the proximity with which cyclists are passed by cars is a factor.  If so you could just grow your hair long and look like a girl....

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/

Usual caveats of sample size, reading the paper yourself and drawing your own conclusions apply, and of course there may be spatial differences due to the factors that petejh highlighted which are discussed in this blog post.

http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html

[SA Chris]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.html

I think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'

Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?

Stats show that most deaths on the bike are caused by other factors not attributed to head collision and therefore helmets wouldnt have stopped it.  As such making it compulsory wont help as much as people think.  Personally I always wear one and would always advise to wear one as every little helps.

Well OK, not necessarily death, but reduce chance of serious head injury.

[i.munro]

These figures for the whole of London from the DfT 2012 report are quite eye-opening to me:
Number killed or seriously injured by vehicle type:
Pedestrians 5,272   Cyclists 4,619   Motorcyclists 4,653   Cars 12,298


Taking those figures and combining it with what I saw in central London yesterday:
There are obviously hundreds (thousands?) times more pedestrians than there are cyclists in London.
There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists.

The figures quoted here
 http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/move-over-amsterdam-the-london-cycling-revolution-is-in-top-gear-8671069.html

would suggest that your impressions are simply wrong & that in some locations, during rush hour, cyclists not only outnumber private cars but
all other road vehicles (private cars , lorries, taxis motorbikes buses) to constitute 64% if vehicles.

[tomtom]

IIRC, the whole 'helmets makes you worse off' debate is based on one Australian study (where its compulsory) where they measured how close people drive to cyclists with and without helmets. They showed (nto sure how well) that motorists drove closer to those with helmets - to which the paper 'interpreted' this to mean that motorists assumed those wearing helmets were protected to a degree so they could drive closer to them.

I know of no other study that supports these (oft cited) findings - but am happy to be corrected otherwise..

In the meantime - all mention of people wearing helmets being worse off is bollocks (IMHO..)