Cameron backs Times campaign, says more action needed to make cycling safer (+ video)

To have a campaign that projects cycling more dangerous than it really is, is actually good..

Because in the end there will be compromise, therefore its better so set hairy goals that are compromised into alright results, instead of setting alright goals that are compromised into poor results.

I think its good that the PM at least is aware the campaign. Hopefully there will be room in the deficit to do some improvement too!

To have a campaign that projects cycling more dangerous than it really is, is actually good..

Because in the end there will be compromise, therefore its better so set hairy goals that are compromised into alright results, instead of setting alright goals that are compromised into poor results.

I think its good that the PM at least is aware the campaign. Hopefully there will be room in the deficit to do some improvement too!

Well said, John_the_Monkey and Paul M.

Bobbypuke - I'll concur with your first and third comments, you are certainly entitled not to feel threatened personally when cycling and you are almost certainly not alone in being a confident cyclist who presumably weighs the risks and finds them within acceptable limits.

I think you are right also to say that a campaign like this isn't really helping, at least if it misleads people into thinking cycling is more dangerous than it really is - one of the arguments often made against the promotion of, and perhaps one day compulsion to wear, helmets and high-vis. Riding a bicycle on a road is arguably safer per mile than walking alongside it, and safer per hour than many sports including football.

I have to demur on the middle comment though. By no means everyone is persuaded of the relative safety of cycling in the UK, and therefore they do not cycle, where they might do were the roads to be subjectively safer.

I can personally think of one group of road environments where cyclists and pedestrians need not be considered in their design: roads from which cyclists and pedestrians are explicitly prohibited, eg motorways, some toll routes and some bridges and tunnels. Even there, attention needs to be paid to the safety of motorists-turned-pedestrians eg where they have broken down and are walking to the nearest emergency phone.

Otherwise, EVERY SINGLE road in the UK should have cyclists and pedestrians FULLY taken into account throughout their design. Road engineers today actually do a good job in surveying a road's geography and matching it to reported and projected usage stats to produce a workable design. The reason they don't work at all for cyclists and pedestrians is simply that these are excluded from the design brief from the very start, and if ever included, only as an afterthought.

All mouth and no trousers.

Anyone going on the Westminster ride tonight? I would like to think that the momentum is maintained. A press campaign and a series of protest rides will keep the pressure on the government. The spring is coming.

I'm not sure I agree with where this whole Times cycling campaign is heading. I've been cycling regularly on the roads for 30 years and don't feel like "I'm taking my life in my hands".

There are places where cyclists should be taken into account in road design and legislation but these are few and far between.

Having a national newspaper telling the world all cyclists are at fatal risk is really not helping anybody (other than those who want an excuse to get us off the roads onto farcilities)

Another sound-bite from another pretendy-cyclist Tory - never mind the b*ll*cks David, where's the change we need?