car drivers should be made to cycle on the roads for minimum set distance, like 3000km, or time period like a year....in order to generate the understanding and appreciation of how dangerous, over aggressive, impatient, and reckless driving can be for cyclist and motorcyclist

@@isftish and the same could also be said of a fair number of cyclists ... we all need to remember that the road network is a shared resource and to politely respect each other. Anyone who can not do that be it a driver or a cyclist has no place on the road network in my book.

@@atffan yup totally agree. I'm both a driver and a cyclist, and i cycled to get to school and work. I have been cycling on the roads since i was 10, until i was 30 +, during the 2000s when i stopped because the aggro i received simply got too ridiculously dangerous, and got me into totally needless accidents. And it's the same incidents/accidents we see today, drivers ignoring right-of-way, ignoring red/green lights, turning or changing lanes without consideration of other road users. But because of lack of onboard camera at that time, most drivers just fked me off, and drove off after knocking me down, and it was because it was so particularly bad, AND deliberate, that i had to stop. But now because of camera technology, since they cannot escape accidents, so now both sides are using social media to defame each other, and it had become a war with cameras. Each side blaming the other, totally forgetting and ignoring, that safety is everyone's responsibility. And IMHO, most of the bad road users, both cyclist and drivers, are mostly those rich buggers, who display the same level of arrogance and inconsideration, whether cycling or driving, just because they pay like 3k road tax a year, or can afford 30k carbon bikes, they seriously think they own the roads.

@@isftish The exact things you say about motorists are what cyclists do - ignore red lights , junctions ,changing from one lane to another no signal overtaking without leaving sufficient room . The advent of cameras has highlighted the problem . The motorists are identifiable by their registration and therfore can be punished and banned if they persist. Cyclists currently can't, so as a cyclist myself, I am in favour of cycle or/and rider registration to bring cycles in line with other road users. They have introduced it for escooters - good time to do the same for cycling- it would remove the majority of the cowboy / boy road racer element that get cycling a bad name.

@@winnie6354 until people start recognising, this is not a motorist vs cyclist vs ped problem, but a general problem of over self-entitlement, and that the science of physics ignores all rules of "right of way", this is only going to get worse and more and more people will simply die until they wake up to reality.

Great advice

how do you know there new cyclist, problem will always be the same for all of them taking not test. simple as

Great advice I do what you said brilliant 🤩 advice and well said

I only cycled as a kid, so cycling as an adult is scary 🤣😳. Never knew how intimidating cars could be. I’ll have to pray before every cycle, especially as a bike courier 😅🏃🏾‍♀️

@ Ross, great advice. Although, the cyclists taking the lane, when close to curb is unsafe, often causes problems for me. Inpatient drivers, beeping and swearing. Even if I’m going to be in front for just a few 100 meters and if I do take position, they often drive on other side of road, to aggressively overtake me. What makes me annoyed most, is that so much of London roads are unsafe for e scooter and bicycles and even if we ride at 20mph which is the legal limit in most of London regular roads, the cars still get angry. I sometimes ride at 25mph and they still blast past at around 35mph in a 20. Whenever there’s police about, people behave but police shouldn’t need to be visible, for people to act normal, on the road. I much prefer to ride along main road because I can be somewhat safe, by myself, in the bus/cycle lane. Apart from arse Bus drivers and Black Taxis blasting past, practically touching me, it’s ok. On side roads it’s much more dangerous. There’s often not enough space for car to pass, even with me practically hugging the pavement. They swerve to other side of road and aggressively overtake. Mostly with added swearing . 😭😒

Yeah I just started and get aggro’d by old people if I’m on the pavement (I always went really slow and safe) and on the flip side the roads without cycle lanes feel like a death trap.

I started by cycling early in the morning after 2am I'd stop at every red light and follow every rule regardless if the roads were empty or not I built my confidence on the road to the point I could ride at normal day time hours When you're on the road just ride stright and always assume cars are just going to drive past you then you kinda just get the feeling for it but obviously be careful and helps having a mirror

Helmets aren't too expensive lol, I don't usually wear them but you'll be glad you did if your head ever hits the pavement I guess lmao

Where do i go when there is a bus lane ? Stay in the cars lane and follow same rules ?

@@advertisingprojects9571 No, you stay in the bus lane

Yellow or reflective glove backs help indicating.

do cyclist take a test? do they give proper consideration to drivers? do they pay road tax?

@@julast6658 yes to the first two questions, and to the road tax question I'm afraid no one pays road tax.

On the contrary , it is high time all road going cyclists had to pass a test before being allowed on the roads .

@@SilvioDiego There is NO mandatory test of competence for cyclists . Most just venture out to cause chaos without any training whatsoever. Many of them do fail to give proper consideration to other road users , not only drivers , but pedestrians too . Cyclists weave through traffic far too close for their own safety , they overtake on the left at the approach to junctions then wonder why they are knocked off , others barge across pedestrian crossings when they are in use and can be seen every day blatantly ignoring traffic lights . It is high time they were tested and registered so that they could be held accountable. Cyclists , as a group , are the most undisciplined road users . What used to be called road tax is now vehicle excise duty and it is high time cyclists were taxed to cover the administration of a registration system for them so that they can be identified and held accountable for poor cycling .

@@derekheeps1244 That's a stereotype and one that's understandable a lot of cyclists are awful, but cyclists actually break traffic laws a lot less than motorists.

That's sad to hear Barry. I live in Notts and the city council are starting to pedestrianise the centre and out in kerb protected cycle lines. Finally!

The police are bloody useless to be honest. I was cycling home when I was hit by a driver who decided not to stop (he slowed down but then sped up to get away). Luckily there were witnesses who got his reg number. I reported him to the police and they said they were not going to do anything about it as "he seemed like a nice man". Really!!!! He hit me whilst I was in the cycle lane and left my in the middle of the road. Doesnt seems that nice to me! But yeh, after that I have no faith in them or their abilities at all.

You were nice... why did you destroy that image by F-ing him off 🤷🏻‍♂️

Uh damn

@@debbiepeter112 # you only said fuck off under breath as police turned the corner !

@@debbiepeter112 the police are not useless they keep us safe and they help us

Training with a qualified instructor is the quickest and safest way to gain this sort of knowledge. Maybe ask your local bike shop for recommendations, or Google "Cycle training for adults" to find your nearest provider.

@@weevilinabox thanks. Will do this now.

Get a car

Me too Cant believe i spent a while cycling on pavements thinking its allowed

@@Ankunda717 same! when I first realised it was illegal I was quite shocked but it definitely makes sense why 👍

Not required by law

@@AT-nj9kr Apart from the laws of physics

Recommend reading these articles about the topic and it might change your view on these helmets: *I Do Not Wear A Bicycle Helmet* (Written by Carlton Reid) *Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars* (Written by Carlton Reid)

Pedro Stephano I

he signalled 3-4 times lol and looked back atleast 3 times hahaha!

The number of us when we drive that don't indicate at all at junctions, roundabout kane changing. We all need to be more considerate more of the time, including me!

Highways? 😂😂😂

@@andrewsampton yes i sound stupid

@@certifiedomlayoo tbh I'm confused... Are you talking about a motorway? If so, you can NEVER cycle on the motorway in the first place 😭

@@andrewsampton just few months ago the gov just said its illegal to cycle on an hw .. so my question is answered

In the UK definitions of roads, what exactly are you thinking of calling the following a highway it means nothing specific here in the UK. Motorway, dual carriageway, A, B roads, bridleway which?

yes this upload should be removed. the guy is telling you just to move in front of a car VERY LATE if you do a car dvla test they will tell you to get in position for you're turn half a mile from the turning. bikes are slower but you still have to manoeuvre for that right or left turn way before it comes. this vid is done by someone with no test, very bad

@@topbanana4013 Bollocks mate. Where did the words "vey late" occur in the video ? Sorry to be rude but that is exactly how you need to turn right. How else do you think it's safer ?

A motorcycle or moped can take the lane, and is much more visible. It's essentially another large vehicle and is treated as such.

Except a motorcycle can actually make the speed limit all the time, hand signalling isn't necessary as you have visible indicators (but still good as an addon). Same stuff applies for blind spots though

Exactly! Just very much slower and straight through red lights and zebra crossings!

hahaha

They're not the police..

Get an electric bike or better yet a motorcycle

Let me guess.. Duel suspension steel monstrosity.

Get a mirror that should be make it easier for you.

Bicycles are more compatible with these type of roads

😂

Im a new driver in london and it honestly does. If a cyclist looks at me I know they're checking to see if its safe to change lane etc I do drop my speed.

@@rossgildea3515 yes but you're not typical of a lot of drivers who can look through you and never actually see you...

At the very worst a positive ID can lead to prosecution most the time, at best, everyone benefits. Have you had a bad experience?

Nope both are unnecessary as falling off is extremely difficult.

@@mikewade777 its not about falling off its about been crushed under a lorry wheel as the bike rider put himself and others in danger for been somewhere he should not. do a test you will learn this

And always wear a stab-proof vest so people carrying knives don't need to be careful either ?

Most cycle helmets do NOT protect against concussion.* It has a great picture illustrating how worthless a bicycle helmet is when a cyclist is in an accident with a vehicle such as a car. I would also recommend these web articles about the topic: *Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars* (Written by Carlton Reid) *I Do Not Wear A Bicycle Helmet* (Written by Carlton Reid)

@@k-rj740 who talking about helmet here lol you not me

Yes helmets encouraged dangerous cycling.

If you don't have the patience to wait for an appropriate time to overtake a slower vehicle then you shouldn't be driving.

@@chris1275cc how many km do i need to sit there?? my record is 53km at 20 to 40 below the speed limit. just HOPING for a opportunity to get past the F@£$

@@chris1275cc btw you know this things is going at 25kmh max right? that's 15mph max speed.. an even at that speed they have made a lot of problems.

@@grapsorz You have to sit there for as long as the cyclist has a RIGHT to be there (which is ALWAYS) . 53km LOL I call bullsh!t what did the road you were on have no places to turn off and take a different route? Or are you just that sh!t of a driver you can only follow one road? Get out of here kid.

@@grapsorz No 15mph is not the "Max speed" of a bicycle not even close I go faster than that off road.

Used too, anyone old enough to remember Tuffty the squirrel or the Green Cross Code Man? BBC needs to step up to its public service responsibilities we pay them for and show this sort of information.

@@colinfletcher7629 Responsibility was moved to the cabinet office.

if a driver can't spot an adult on a cycle, how are they going see a child crossing the road? if you can't see what's in front of you then you're not driving to conditions. I do wear hi vis & have powerful front & back lights, & I still experience illegally close passes every day. It's time far more responsibility is placed on drivers to keep others safe. In some European countries the driver is held automatically liable for any collision with a cyclist or pedestrian, leading to much more careful driving.

And always wear a stab-proof vest so people carrying knives don't need to be careful either ?

Out of the many thousands of cyclists there are some who instead of ensuring their bicycle contains adequate lighting for the road conditions after dark make sarcastic distasteful comments using the horrific subject of knife crime to make childish comments, mean time the genuinely safety conscious make sure their bicycle is adequately lit for the conditions after dark, and yes both of then do ensure their bike is adequately lit after dark

I refuse to be accountable for you're tastes. Meanwhile post your own opinions as you like but don't call me childish.

@@nick-jo3hy If you don't want to be called childish then you could......................................... grow up maybe and stop making childish and infantile comment trivialising the very serious issue of knife crime, if you yourself are incapable of growing up and stopping behaving like an immature childish brat you could either A) Ask an adult to help you comment on and express your opinions in a more grown up, mature and adult way, and B) Stop being such a little snowflake when the grown ups wish to have a serious discussion and call out your lack of maturity.

I thought the same thing!

People have cycled without helmets for decades and cycling is no more dangerous than walking.. Helmets are unnecessary and only encourage dangerous cycling.

Helmets are no necessary.

@@mikewade777 Until you hit the floor.

@@paulflory3532 you'd have to be a total idiot to hit the floor.

@@mikewade777 ridiculous comment - nobody chooses to have an accident. I came off my bike at speed previously and smashed the back of my head on the tarmac - I 100% would be disabled or worse if it wasn’t for that helmet. MIPS exists for a reason.

Helmets are not required by law in Britain.

This sounds to me like a lack of confidence/ experience/skills, try to over time Improve your bike handling skills, be visible, get a bar end mirror, and do apply this practical guidance, so as to be confident. Also UK road surfaces are in the main, imo, dangerously under maintained, do not cycle in the gutter unless you want to lose some teeth. I ride 6,000 miles a year and of the many tens of thousands of vehicles that have passed me using these techniques and strategies only a handful of impatient dangerous humans, over 6 years, have caused any where near misses or acted aggressively, and that's as good as it gets, life is tough but would rather be fit on balance.

Totally unnecessary.

bruh what ahahahah

This is defensive riding. This is what is taught on government run cycle training schemes. This is also how police cyclists are taught. It's also pretty identical to what is taught to motorcyclists for the test. All pretty academic if drivers stick to the new mandated highway code rules for overtaking cyclists, which i'm sure you've not read. I cycle in the city, & i average around 15 mph during rush hour. I would be faster but a rolling roadblock of cars traveling at well under 5 mph get in my way every single day.

Whereas I suppose you think car drivers are all living saints ?

🤡

No it's fine it gives the driver as much space as if overtaking a car.

There are thousands and thousands of cyclists out there and some who are genuinely a safety conscious cyclists do allow plenty space when overtaking other vehicles and passing pedestrians, and yes both of them do always plenty space when overtaking.

Has a cyclist ever broken removed smashed your driver's side mirror whilst you've been driving? There is to me being a driver, cyclist, van driver motorcyclist etc a distinct difference being passed when near stationary by a 100kg pedalled object travelling at 15 mph and a 2000kg + object travelling at 30 or 40 or 50 mph? It's all to do differentials in reaction time, air pressure and shock induced flinching.

Cyclists aren't allowed to take your mirrors off but they can filter through traffic so stop crying

Rule 66 "You should ... never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

Your wrong. Look at rule 66

Andy Reid: It has never been forbidden in the UK, just a bit poorly worded in my opinion. The new wording which was indruduced later is much clearer about the legality of riding two abreast. Quote: The previous version of the Highway Code stated cyclists should “never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads”. The updated code says: “You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders.” The actual rule: Rule 66 You should •be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so

Yes, great, a normal every day activity not requiring special safety equipment. About as risky as walking per mile travelled. The way a Dutch person would look at this clip - 'How sad, terrible infrastructure"....Different emphasis, better results.

Should read an interesting article about this called *I Do Not Wear A Bicycle Helmet* (Written by Carlton Reid)

Helmets are for fucking idiots who don't understand risk and don't bother to find out how pathetic a helmet is, it won't save your life and induces wearers to take more risk and thus are involved in more incidents and get hurt more often than non helmet wearers!

It remains a matter for personal choice.

@@ynotnilknarf39 Nah, they reduce the risk of head injuries by quite a bit. If you've ever cycled for non-commuting purposes ( e.g BMX, mountain, trails, dirt jumping etc) you would know the difference in the injury to your head with and without a helmet.

@@kevinnelson6070 well no shit everybody knows that and knows its irrelevant. An Olympic swimming team ignored the advice given by a shipwreck surviver, on the importance of life jackets.. The event was uneventful 👀... Nobody drowned.

@@mikewade777 Getting hit on the road is more likely than drowning in a swimming pool. The two are not equivalent. According to a US study in 2016, helmets cut the risks of severe traumatic brain injury by half, when riders suffer a brain injury. The report, in the American Journal of Surgery, also concluded that riders with helmets were 44% less likely to die from their injury. Your argument would be relevant if we were talking about wearing a helmet on a stationary bike in a gym, that's the cycling equivalent to your little analogy.

😂 wee Jimmy's just got a bike for his 10th birthday but it turns out the insurance is too steep

What about pedestrians.

@@mikewade777 You want to teach them how to position themselves on the road correctly? A bit of a silly idea.

@@drummerjo571 no silly, I was saying pedestrians should require number plates and insurance.

@@mikewade777 No, I only think vehicles require number plates and insurance.

*"For their safety cyclists should keep to the left."* You mean keep to the left at all times? If so, that is the opposite of what makes cycling safe. Read on and be the wiser: *Riding further out from the edge of the road is safer, faster, and helps prevent motorists from cutting you up.* Never hug the kerb. That's rule one of road positioning on a bicycle. You need to be further out into the road, sometimes right in the middle of the traffic stream. Less assertive cyclists worry that being further out may put them in the way of the traffic. It won't: you are the traffic. Being in the traffic stream helps you to get treated like traffic. *Reducing risk* It can feel safer to ride in or near the gutter. It isn't safer. It vastly increases the chances of drivers buzzing past you with inches to spare. You'll have to contend with drains, cambered surfaces, and debris like broken glass that has been 'swept' to the edge of the road by the action of car tyres. And you're less likely to be seen at all by drivers. The commonest type of car-cyclist collision is the 'Sorry, mate, I didn't see you' variety. You must register in a driver's field of vision. You'll do that best by cycling where they are looking. Drivers look where their vehicle will be in the next few seconds, which is to say: ahead of them. They pay much less attention to people and objects in their peripheral vision. Initially, you may feel exposed riding further out from the kerb. But it's very rare for cyclists to get rear-ended by drivers. Being safe is being seen - and forcing drivers to react to your presence. *Controlling your space* Drivers are obliged by the Highway Code (Rule 163) to give you 'at least as much room as a car' when overtaking. Let that sink in: at least as much room as a car. That means that they should pull out, cross the central, dashed white line, and pull in again. By riding further out from the edge of the road, you force following traffic to overtake you properly instead of squeezing past dangerously close. Are you inconveniencing anyone? Only those drivers who would not have overtaken you safely in the first place. As a rule of thumb, your distance from the kerb is the same distances that drivers will give you when overtaking. *How far from the kerb?* You never want to be closer than 50cm from the kerb. Often you'll be a metre out, sometimes more. The key factor is not so much the edge of the road as the location of the traffic stream on that road; that is, where cars are actually driving in that traffic lane. There are essentially two cycling positions to choose from, relative to the traffic stream. One is the centre of the traffic stream - that is, the centre of the lane, rather than the centre of the road. You'll sometimes hear this called 'the primary position', but it's easier to think of it as 'taking the lane'. The other position is about a metre to the left of the traffic stream, so long as that doesn't bring you too close to the kerb. Sometimes called 'the secondary position', you can think of it simply as 'not taking the lane'. *When to take the lane* If you can keep up with the traffic, such as around town, it's safest to take the lane. It's also the position to adopt when you want to dissuade drivers from doing something stupid, like cutting you up. Here's a non-exhaustive list of situations when it's best to take the lane. • Approaching a pinch point, such as pedestrian island in the centre of the road. • Approaching and negotiating a roundabout. • Approaching Give Way markings. • Approaching a side road, to prevent drivers from 'left-hooking' you and to help drivers on the side road to see you. • Approaching traffic lights. • Approaching a blind corner. • Negotiating a junction. • In queues of stationary traffic. • Overtaking parked cars. *When not to take the lane* If you're not confident in taking the lane, especially when simply riding along, don't feel that you have to. If the road is busy and the traffic is moving faster than you can, either because it's a fast road or a steep hill, you're often better not taking the lane. This is a courtesy to drivers, enabling them to overtake you more easily. Your safety is paramount, so you should not feel pressured not to take the lane. If a driver pips his horn at you, relax in the knowledge that he has seen you. *Changing positions* Unless you're taking evasive action, any change in position should be gradual - particularly when moving out to take the lane. Check back to see where any following traffic is, then gradually move into your new position. If you check back early enough, you may not need to signal to change your position within a traffic lane. Signal when you need to communicate your intention to drives who are closer. Don't assume that you can move left to the secondary position without checking behind you. Around town, another cyclist or a moped rider may be about to 'undertake' you. *Specific to cyclists* Cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast, although most drivers are not aware of this. On fast or busy roads, it is courteous to single out to make it easier for drivers to pass. Cyclists are allowed to stop on double-yellow lines. Again, drivers may be unaware of this. Finally, don't tailgate motor vehicles. It reduces your visibility - in both senses - and bicycles can't stop as fast as cars, so you risk rear-ending a car if it stops suddenly. Source : CycleschemeUK Road Positioning

@@k-rj740 I didn't mean at all times and that is not what I wrote. Read what the petition, don't presume and make youself less objectionable: Change the Highway Code to recommend cyclists keep left in most circumstances The new Rule 72 in the Highway Code should be amended to advise cyclists to keep left at all times when cycling on the road, except when the road narrows sufficiently that it would be dangerous for vehicles to overtake and when approaching a junction or roundabout to turn right. More details The new Rule 72 tells cyclists to "Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible", when on quiet roads or streets, (unless being approached from behind by a faster vehicle), in slower-moving traffic, and at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you. We believe the new guidance on road positioning could put cyclists and other road users in danger, and will also lead to increased pollution and energy wastage from additional braking and accelerating.

@@mdj9765 I was only asking. By keeping left you mean using the secondary position* instead of the primary position? *The secondary riding position is about a metre to the left of moving traffic, but not closer than 0.5 metres to the edge of the road (closer would mean no room for manoeuvre in emergencies and also riding over glass and other kinds of road debris). There are other reasons why someone cycling would be advised to ride in the middle of the lane other than when the road narrows. The info from CycleschemeUK comes into this further down where it says: *When to take the lane* If you can keep up with the traffic, such as around town, it's safest to take the lane. It's also the position to adopt when you want to dissuade drivers from doing something stupid, like cutting you up. Here's a non-exhaustive list of situations when it's best to take the lane. • Approaching a pinch point, such as pedestrian island in the centre of the road. • Approaching and negotiating a roundabout. • Approaching Give Way markings. • Approaching a side road, to prevent drivers from 'left-hooking' you and to help drivers on the side road to see you. • Approaching traffic lights. • Approaching a blind corner. • Negotiating a junction. • In queues of stationary traffic. • Overtaking parked cars. *"We believe the new guidance on road positioning could put cyclists and other road users in danger"* Most accidents between drivers and cyclists happen at junctions and roundabouts (Rospa data*: •75% happen at, or near, a road junction) So being seen is being safer when you are cycling on the road, and by cycling further into the lane makes you more visible to other traffic than cycling as far left as you could. By comparison to accidents at junctions, overtaking accidents and crashes are pretty rare compared to accidents where cyclists and drivers cross each other paths (such as at junctions). This is the reason why cyclists are taught by any cycling program out there (also outside the UK) to use either the secondary road position (which should be the default road position) or the primary position when it is needed, but never ride in the gutter. * "Around 75% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents occur in urban areas, at or near a road junction. In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle." *"and will also lead to increased pollution and energy wastage from additional braking and accelerating."* I don't believe so. I have seen thousands of cycling videos on youtube involving cyclists and drivers. Consider the fact that most cyclists in this world do their cycling in the cities and urban areas where the speed limit is low, there is constant change in traffic (due to all the cars on the road), and there is a constant interruption in the flow of traffic by things like pedestrian crossing and red lights. If drivers stop with that MGIF attitude many seem to have when catching on a cyclist, and instead start to read the traffic ahead (by taking into account all the things mentioned) there would be very little braking and accelerating in regard to passing cyclists on the road no matter their road position.

Especially when you drive. Car accidents are by far the biggest cause of head trauma despite seat belts & airbags. .

I'd rather a helmet that dues not have my blood on it. Why get angry when the decision maker bares all of the consequences. I struggled to get my kids to continue to wear them when they got to 14-15 but realised having grown up in the 70-80s we never wore them.

*"And wear a bloody helmet."* Should read an interesting article about this called *I Do Not Wear A Bicycle Helmet* (Written by Carlton Reid)

Some studies have shown that cars will pass helmet wearing cyclists closer because it makes you look more experienced and they think "if i do hit him/her they are protected so i'll risk it" when you weigh it up though a helmet is still a better option. Good video about it here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iL2YgKicstqwqWQ.html

Wearing a helmet has not been conclusively shown to increase safety. Riders go faster in helmets and can have more accidents - much like drivers drive faster when seatbelts are made compulsory. Also a helmet increases the risk of a serious twisted-neck injury as there is a larger area able to strike the ground or another vehicle. Drivers pass people in helmets closer as they de-personalise the rider. Helmets also only offer limited protection and can cause overheating and ruin hair-dos.

Some laws only require 16yrs or younger to wear helmets, so not everyone has to wear one actually

As others have said, helmets are a massive red herring when it comes to safety. Don't believe the hype and lies. A cycle helmet will barely prevent a low grade concussion if at all, if it breaks/cracks then it will be next to usueless as it isn't compressing as it should. People wearing helmets have a higher incident rate than non helmet wearers, to such a degree that pro racing has more injuries and deaths since helmets were mandated. Countries that introduce helmet rules see increased injury rates and lower cycling numbers.

When you weigh it up a helmet is NOT a better nor safer option, you're completely wrong and that applies whether commuting, racing on roads/track or downhill mountain biking. The facts are very clear, helmet wearing has never ever increased cyclist safer, only made it worse. Helmet wearing in any activity/sport has same results, increases in injury rates, in boxing they removed headgear for exactly that reason, MORE concussions. Why do you think gridiron shows more head injuries than rugby? Skiing despite almost universal wearing shows no decrease in head injuries, cycling, cricket the same. Go check out the facts at cyclehelmet.org

What rules of the road did they brake?

You look like a road biker with an Invalid opinion.

Recommend reading these articles about the topic and it might change your view on these helmets: *I Do Not Wear A Bicycle Helmet* (Written by Carlton Reid) *Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars* (Written by Carlton Reid)

@@k-rj740 Keep posting the same stupid text. suppose another cyclist knocks you off your bike? which happened TO ME! glad i had my helmet and gloves on at the time. It's not just about being hit by cars; you could fall off on a slippery road and bang your head.

If there was a cycling test, the techniques shown in this film is exactly what would be taught, as it follows the governments current "bike -ability" test to a tee. Motorists definitely need stricter testing as they still kill thousands of pedestrians a year, as well as each other & cyclists of course. Some years there are no deaths caused by cyclists, it's never more than a handful, & i've not heard of a cyclist killing a motorist or passenger ever. Just the other day a car driver crashed into a building, killing the driver & three of the buildings occupants when the car exploded. That's why cyclists insurance is a hell of a lot cheaper than a drivers.

@@zivkovicable we need j walking law like USA it's why many pedestrian die.

Nobody is stopping you from wearing a helmet.

And always wear a stab-proof vest so people carrying knives don't need to be careful either ?

why does it? they sit side by side all the time.

No different to overtaking a car since they occupy the same space. So do it!

I'd like to see how angry you get, away from your keyboard when actually trying pass a single line of say 6 bikes when they don't go side by side. UK highway code was updated/changed in 2022 and covers this point from a legality point of view. Take a chill pill Mr angry.

@@gaza_ *"why does it? they sit side by side all the time."* Yes they do, and they can't even single out😁

Motorists can shout all they like it's not going to make them drive faster 🤭

Pretty standard practice for countries that don't have separated infrastructure, where cyclists have to share the roads with cars. Which parts do you have a problem with & why?

Adults don't drive.

I see that despite Harry Potter and Bilbo Baggins, trolls are still thriving as a species !

trekker bob: The law is what matters here, not homemade opinions. The road is a public space and is to be shared. Driving is a privilege that can easily be taken away from you. Cycling however is an inherent right that you can never lose. Btw, most cyclists are drivers themselves according to research. Ride in the gutter? The law and common sense disagree with you there. Here is why common sense disagrees with you: *Riding further out from the edge of the road is safer, faster, and helps prevent motorists from cutting you up.* Never hug the kerb. That's rule one of road positioning on a bicycle. You need to be further out into the road, sometimes right in the middle of the traffic stream. Less assertive cyclists worry that being further out may put them in the way of the traffic. It won't: you are the traffic. Being in the traffic stream helps you to get treated like traffic. *Reducing risk* It can feel safer to ride in or near the gutter. It isn't safer. It vastly increases the chances of drivers buzzing past you with inches to spare. You'll have to contend with drains, cambered surfaces, and debris like broken glass that has been 'swept' to the edge of the road by the action of car tyres. And you're less likely to be seen at all by drivers. The commonest type of car-cyclist collision is the 'Sorry, mate, I didn't see you' variety. You must register in a driver's field of vision. You'll do that best by cycling where they are looking. Drivers look where their vehicle will be in the next few seconds, which is to say: ahead of them. They pay much less attention to people and objects in their peripheral vision. Initially, you may feel exposed riding further out from the kerb. But it's very rare for cyclists to get rear-ended by drivers. Being safe is being seen - and forcing drivers to react to your presence. *Controlling your space* Drivers are obliged by the Highway Code (Rule 163) to give you 'at least as much room as a car' when overtaking. Let that sink in: at least as much room as a car. That means that they should pull out, cross the central, dashed white line, and pull in again. By riding further out from the edge of the road, you force following traffic to overtake you properly instead of squeezing past dangerously close. Are you inconveniencing anyone? Only those drivers who would not have overtaken you safely in the first place. As a rule of thumb, your distance from the kerb is the same distances that drivers will give you when overtaking. *How far from the kerb?* You never want to be closer than 50cm from the kerb. Often you'll be a metre out, sometimes more. The key factor is not so much the edge of the road as the location of the traffic stream on that road; that is, where cars are actually driving in that traffic lane. There are essentially two cycling positions to choose from, relative to the traffic stream. One is the centre of the traffic stream - that is, the centre of the lane, rather than the centre of the road. You'll sometimes hear this called 'the primary position', but it's easier to think of it as 'taking the lane'. The other position is about a metre to the left of the traffic stream, so long as that doesn't bring you too close to the kerb. Sometimes called 'the secondary position', you can think of it simply as 'not taking the lane'. *When to take the lane* If you can keep up with the traffic, such as around town, it's safest to take the lane. It's also the position to adopt when you want to dissuade drivers from doing something stupid, like cutting you up. Here's a non-exhaustive list of situations when it's best to take the lane. • Approaching a pinch point, such as pedestrian island in the centre of the road. • Approaching and negotiating a roundabout. • Approaching Give Way markings. • Approaching a side road, to prevent drivers from 'left-hooking' you and to help drivers on the side road to see you. • Approaching traffic lights. • Approaching a blind corner. • Negotiating a junction. • In queues of stationary traffic. • Overtaking parked cars. *When not to take the lane* If you're not confident in taking the lane, especially when simply riding along, don't feel that you have to. If the road is busy and the traffic is moving faster than you can, either because it's a fast road or a steep hill, you're often better not taking the lane. This is a courtesy to drivers, enabling them to overtake you more easily. Your safety is paramount, so you should not feel pressured not to take the lane. If a driver pips his horn at you, relax in the knowledge that he has seen you. *Changing positions* Unless you're taking evasive action, any change in position should be gradual - particularly when moving out to take the lane. Check back to see where any following traffic is, then gradually move into your new position. If you check back early enough, you may not need to signal to change your position within a traffic lane. Signal when you need to communicate your intention to drives who are closer. Don't assume that you can move left to the secondary position without checking behind you. Around town, another cyclist or a moped rider may be about to 'undertake' you. *Specific to cyclists* Cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast, although most drivers are not aware of this. On fast or busy roads, it is courteous to single out to make it easier for drivers to pass. Cyclists are allowed to stop on double-yellow lines. Again, drivers may be unaware of this. Finally, don't tailgate motor vehicles. It reduces your visibility - in both senses - and bicycles can't stop as fast as cars, so you risk rear-ending a car if it stops suddenly. Source : CycleschemeUK Road Positioning

@@k-rj740 I bet you take your child out on little bikes on roads. You seem the type.

You feminists r cancer

How dare you assume that cyclist identifies as male you bigot.

collect your prize ,for the best pointless comment.

@@tonyrichardson2637 👌

I cycle like this and it is the safest way to cycle by far.

It already is because too many people are in cars

I cycle like this and it’s perfectly safe and fine.

The average speed of a cyclist in town is 10-12mph. The average speed for a car on the same journey is 7.5mph. HOW would it make the country grind to a halt when the cyclists are FASTER!

this comment doesn't even make sense. a lot of the times i'm actually going faster than the cars.. infact when i have to take the lane i have to SLOW DOWN because of the car in front going slower than i can go (because of all the cars in front of that car). as soon as it's safe for me to take primary position again i do and i overtake all the cars in front. the only time your comment is true is on quieter roads where there isn't much traffic, and yes it'll slow the one or two cars behind you down for a couple of minutes, but then as soon as they can safely overtake they will and zoom off they go, delayed by a mere few seconds. in which case.. how is a couple of cars on a couple of quiet roads being inconvenienced for a couple of seconds "grinding the entire country to a halt"? so how does your comment even make sense?

I know you're just being obnoxious, but you must be aware that in lots of areas of the country, people are no longer allowed to use buses. I'm in my 60s and was happy taking the bus. Now if I want to get to my allotment, I have to ride a bike. First time in 20 years, but I'm determined. I am not a threat to pedestrians. If drivers think I'm a nuisance, they need to get over it. We have as much right to go out as they do. I'm a courteous road users, I yield where appropriate, I signal my intentions. All while riding a bike for the first time in 20+ years.

Carol B You, Carol are the exception then & i thank you for being considerate. My intention was not to be obnoxious. I am an ambulance driver and daily I see incidents where cyclists endanger their own lives and those of others and they are all, without exception, completely avoidable. I see the aftermath of their stupidity and ignorance all too often & it makes me sad to see how many people are affected by it. Yesterday i witnessed a group of cyclists on a very twisting and hilly A road cycling 4 abreast whilst travelling at not more that 15 mph. The speed differential between them and vehicles weighing two or three tons or more is often 45mph. I shouldn’t have to detail the possible result of an RTC between the two. All the best to you.

As an ambulance driver I wonder how many strokes, heart attacks etc you get called out to because of obese Britain. Maybe if more people cycled you wouldn't have to see that so often 👍

Mark H 1- why is it so important to you to be on a bicycle on the public highway? Seriously? 2- Why is it such an offensive idea to you to protect yourself by using a static bike? 3- are you unaware that poor air quality is a killer, especially for those who are in close proximity to the source and particularly for those with an elevated respiratory demand? 4-there are no overweight cyclists? 5-there are no cyclists with congenital heart conditions? 6-there are no cyclists with congenital vascular problems, genetic predispositions to stroke etc? 7-there are no cyclists who make other poor lifestyle choices? I would seriously be interested in seeing a professionally written risk assessment for taking a bicycle on a public highway and especially taking into account the attitude that the majority of cyclists so clearly display. Cycling on public roads could realistically be placed in the same class of recklessness as swimming with tiger sharks whilst carrying 10kgs of raw liver in a rucksack.

@@theshootist3873 A static bike doesn't get me places pal. Mine gets me wherever I want to go, when I want to, and for free. I shouldn't have to be able to afford a car to do that. Cycling is correlated with a healthier lifestyle. There's been tonnes of news about this over the years. There's a reason millions of pounds are poured into it up and down the country. I'm sure you know this already. And enough of that melodrama about sharks. The risks of cycling are comparable to walking as a mode of transport. The stats are out there if you care to look.