This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
M842 - Motion on Cycle Safety, The Hon. Barnetlad MP
Motion on Cycle Safety

This House welcomes the consultation that is planned by the London Mayor on measure to improve cycle safety, to seek to reduce the number of deaths of cyclists who die as a result of collisions with lorries (seven of the eight cyclist deaths in London so far in 2015). This House notes that deaths of cyclists do not solely occur in London, and that across the UK as a whole in 2014, 113 cyclists were killed and a further 3,401 seriously injured.

This House therefore calls upon the devolved authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to consult upon introducing a range of measures to improve cycle safety, including but not limited to: designated lorry routes and times as a part of planning conditions for large construction projects, larger mirrors, side guards and glass cab doors. This House calls upon the next UK government, when appointed, to conduct a similar consultation for England outside London.

This House also calls for funding to be made available in 2016 and beyond to implement the safety measures proposed, and for a nationwide adult cycle training scheme to be set up.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Those suggestions vary from minimally effective to downright ludicrous.
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Nay
0
Actaeon
Badges: 11
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Aye, I'll echo the call for improved safety for cyclists, and an improvement in the general standard of cycling that is seen on the roads.

You might want to have a re-think about glass cab doors though! I'm not entirely sure how useful or practical they would be, with the likelihood of shattered glass all over the road any time someone slams a door. Transparent plastic might work if you're really set on it, but again it seems a bit of a weird proposal.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Nay.

Too expensive and cyclists are a pain anyway.
0
Actaeon
Badges: 11
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by nebelbon)
Nay.

Too expensive and cyclists are a pain anyway.
Why object to setting up training schemes to make cyclists more responsible road users then? Or are you in favour of banning cyclists from roads?
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Actaeon)
Why object to setting up training schemes to make cyclists more responsible road users then? Or are you in favour of banning cyclists from roads?
The latter.

I'd much rather they weren't on the roads at all.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Actaeon)
Why object to setting up training schemes to make cyclists more responsible road users then? Or are you in favour of banning cyclists from roads?
So cycling proficiency (or whatever they call it these days) has stopped existing over the last decade?
0
Actaeon
Badges: 11
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by nebelbon)
The latter.

I'd much rather they weren't on the roads at all.
That's seems just a bit totalitarian to me! There are a large amount of people who use cycles for competitive sport, recreation, or as essential travel, and they can be perfectly safe on the roads if people act properly. I couldn't get to and from work if I wasn't able to cycle, and that applies to a lot of people. Not to mention the amount of cars and congestion it takes off the roads in cities if more people cycle rather than drive, and all the benefits that brings.
0
Actaeon
Badges: 11
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So cycling proficiency (or whatever they call it these days) has stopped existing over the last decade?
It's been renamed 'Bikeability' by some genius in a marketing office somewhere I think. They hardly seem to have publicised it effectively, really it should be something that all cyclists have to take.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Actaeon)
That's seems just a bit totalitarian to me! There are a large amount of people who use cycles for competitive sport, recreation, or as essential travel, and they can be perfectly safe on the roads if people act properly. I couldn't get to and from work if I wasn't able to cycle, and that applies to a lot of people. Not to mention the amount of cars and congestion it takes off the roads in cities if more people cycle rather than drive, and all the benefits that brings.
They get in my way when I'm driving my car and it is annoying. I'd rather you cycled on pedestrian paths when they are next to the road.
0
Actaeon
Badges: 11
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by nebelbon)
They get in my way when I'm driving my car and it is annoying. I'd rather you cycled on pedestrian paths when they are next to the road.
Technically we're not allowed to - they're reserved for pedestrians, and usually aren't wide enough to accommodate cyclists going in both directions as well.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
Training isn't guaranteed to change behaviour. Seems a pointless motion.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Actaeon)
It's been renamed 'Bikeability' by some genius in a marketing office somewhere I think. They hardly seem to have publicised it effectively, really it should be something that all cyclists have to take.
There's an argument for a cycling licence, yes.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Actaeon)
Technically we're not allowed to - they're reserved for pedestrians, and usually aren't wide enough to accommodate cyclists going in both directions as well.
I'd prefer the law was changed, the most annoying thing is when there is an empty path next to the road yet the cyclist legally can't go on it.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
Bicycles are much better on the roads than the absolute pest they'd be on pavements.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
There's an argument for a cycling licence, yes.
There are also, IMO much stronger, ones against it.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by nebelbon)
I'd prefer the law was changed, the most annoying thing is when there is an empty path next to the road yet the cyclist legally can't go on it.
The more annoying thing is when I'm trying overtake an elderly person then some cyclist zips past and nearly runs us both over:mad:

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Bicycles are much better on the roads than the absolute pest they'd be on pavements.
Hear, hear!

In Germany they seem to like to cycle on the pavement, and when I was there it was a constant attempt to not get knocked down by bicycles.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
There are also, IMO much stronger, ones against it.
Such as?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Such as?
It will dissuade the majority from cycling, which is one of the more accessible forms of exercise and a convenient way of getting around with negligible cost and, if you actually care about it, negligible carbon footprint.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (363)
59.31%
Yes- I don't like it (33)
5.39%
No- I want it (172)
28.1%
No- I don't want it (44)
7.19%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed