The Times Cycling Campaign

^^^^ drivers should be asked to pass cyclists like they would horses, milkfloats, or tractors.

Problem (not quite) solved, progress though.

They are: Rule 163 of the Highway Code:
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)

it's written down, but they're not really asked to do it are they?

on a tangent, cyclists should be made to "dip" their headlamps on towpaths etc, unnecessary dazzling all winter has been no fun.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311705.ece

^ nice article and video about tonights Bikes Alive protest, also got a mention in the bike show podcast, along with discussion of Londoners on Bikes new campaign

http://thebikeshow.net/londoners-on-bikes-with-votes/

^I thought that tonight was the third "Bikes Alive" protest ride?, the article suggests it was only the second. I might be wrong though...

Edit

http://bikesalive.wordpress.com/ says I'm correct, the 9th of Jan, the 23rd of Jan and the 6th of Feb. Still nice to see this sort of thing covered in The Times though.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. You could just as easily argue that the typical fixie skidder look is equally off-putting to some. I think there are so many different types of cyclist in London people aren't put off by the day glo Lycra tribe.

How on earth does attire maintain bike thefts?

I don't think anyone is going to see someone on a bike in fixeh skidder mode and think - I won't ride a bike to work. They won't look at the skidder and think, if I start cycling to work, I'm going to end up looking like that. It's too 'sub-cultural' a look for that to happen. But they might look at a melt in fluoro and think, shit, if I start cycling to work, I'm going to end up looking like a right bell-chief. They associate our shit weather and cycling in general, with the need to look like a highlighter pen on wheels.

I agree with you about the variety of people cycling in London though, so I reckon it's more of a consideration outside of London, up in Glasgow for example.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. You could just as easily argue that the typical fixie skidder look is equally off-putting to some. I think there are so many different types of cyclist in London people aren't put off by the day glo Lycra tribe.

How on earth does attire maintain bike thefts?

French Touch has beaten me to it. A fixie skidder's attire is almost impossible to separate on and off the bike and blends in with street wear- certainly they aren't getting changed when the're off the bike. However years of poor marketing and literature for cycling (and I include cycle training) means you automatically associate fluro as requisite for cycling.

I don't think I was clear enough; I was talking about buying flashy bikes that are a little too much for purpose. That is what helps keep the interest in theft.

And the eager market which awaits the stolen goods.

TfL are reviewing cycle safety at all junctions on Barclays Cycle Superhighways and major junctions on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN)
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/22780.aspx

I'm talking buying flashy bikes that are a little much for purpose. That is what helps keep the interest in theft.

So if I buy something nice it is my fault that people want to steal it?

I don't think anyone is going to see someone on a bike in fixeh skidder mode and think - I won't ride a bike to work. They won't look at the skidder and think, if I start cycling to work, I'm going to end up looking like that. It's too 'sub-cultural' a look for that to happen. But they might look at a melt in fluoro and think, shit, if I start cycling to work, I'm going to end up looking like a right bell-chief. They associate our shit weather and cycling in general, with the need to look like a highlighter pen on wheels.

.

Are you serious?

And the eager market which awaits the stolen goods.

Mos def

So if I buy something nice it is my fault that people want to steal it?

What do you think??

I think that is some of the worst reasoning that I have ever heard.

[QUOTE=Multi Grooves;2681008]
[QUOTE=Bobbo;2680992]
[QUOTE=Multi Grooves;2680966] I was talking about buying flashy bikes that are a little too much for purpose.

So if I buy something nice it is my fault that people want to steal it?[/QUOTE]
What do you think??[/QUOTE]
I think that is some of the worst reasoning that I have ever heard.[/quote]

It's a shame that the last bit of Multi Groves paragraph got lost

I was talking about buying flashy bikes that are a little too much for purpose. That is what helps keep the interest in theft.

The interest in flashy bikes, for a silly cheap price is to an extent what drives the theft of them. Lots of people feel (rightly or wrongly) that they don't have a lot of money, and see cycling as something that will save them money. To get into it though, they don't want to throw a lot of cash at it, and if they can get a nice looking bike from a guy at a market they will do. They are most likely not even considering that the bike might have been stolen. The thieves steal what they think that they can sell, and a flashier bike will sell for more.

To an extent, the trade in stolen brooks saddles bears this out. They are expensive, desirable, and virtually untraceable. Much like bikes. In fact I'd almost go as far as to say that cars having numberplates (large, and readable by anyone) may help in preventing car thefts but I bet that there are no stats to back that up, as I'm unaware of anywhere with a car orientated culture that doesn't have registration plates.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a flashy bike, just if you do, you need to be prepared to spend a bit more on protecting it, because thieves will, and do target that sort of bike.

Guy from the Times was on BBC Breakfast this morning. He did a good job in my opinion. Didn't shirk from helmets, RLJing etc but addressed them full-on. Said essentially that cyclists can certainly help themselves but that this paled in contrast to what other changes needed to be made.

In my opinion if cyclists go in too hard and frothing straight away you alienate drivers. Whilst this "them" and "us" atmosphere might serve someone's purpose I think the Times seems to have it pretty right going a bit more "softly softly" in the hope that instead of alienating all drivers, some will actually be won over.

Why not tweet or email your MP and ask why they haven't signed this: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/2689

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a flashy bike, just if you do, you need to be prepared to spend a bit more on protecting it, because thieves will, and do target that sort of bike.

Completely agree with this, however, if you take every reasonable precaution to stop your bike being stolen and it still gets nicked it is not your fault is it?

Why not tweet or email your MP and ask why they haven't signed this: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/2689

er, because its not worth it.
theres even an MP curently tabling an EDM on why EDMs should be abolished at present
theres irony for you

Ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife?

Like raiiiiiiiiin on your way to work.

Completely agree with this, however, if you take every reasonable precaution to stop your bike being stolen and it still gets nicked it is not your fault is it?

It wouldn't technically be your fault if you left it unlocked and someone stole it. Would it, really?

You have the right NOT to have your property taken however you decide to treat it. But that's not how it works in the real world. Even the police essentially say you are to blame if you are a victim of crime, hence all the adverts "don't advertise your phone to thieves" etc. Society has decided that crime is acceptable to a certain extent and that you carry a large part (if not all) of the responsibility to avoid it yourself.

If that works, he's proved himself wrong. If it doesn't work, he's proved himself right, but failed. I am confuse.

few crumbs off the Daft table, somethings in the air
http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/baker-20120207/

equates to about 3 miles of motorway building

Society has decided that crime is acceptable to a certain extent and that you carry a large part (if not all) of the responsibility to avoid it yourself.

Rubbish if this were case then we would not punish people who commit crime, would we? Depending on your point of view you could argue that the judiciary system is too lenient on petty criminals but that is a different argument altogether.

The fact of the matter is, even if 99.99999999999% of bikes sold in this country were never stolen, then a tiny minority would still be stolen and some people, myself included, would consider it prudent to ensure this did not happen to them. If you take Japan as an example where the level of petty theft is tiny people still lock their bikes, why do yo think that is?