- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
IAM Letters Page At It Again
While I appreciate what IAM attempt to do for driving standards, it seems to me that someone at the top really doesn't like cyclists. 10 years ago they actually had a cycling division and published a cycling handbook.
Anyway, they've just let another Nigelesque letter through their letters page. Amusingly accompanied by a picture of a cyclist in Hi-Viz.
Fancy helping composing a witty reply?
Be safe, be seen
Cyclists' lack of concern for their safety worries me; whilst most wear helmets, too many
wear dark clothing. The Highway Code advises wearing reflective accessories, fitting white front and red rear lights etc, but most riders fail to do this. Why are they allowed to contravene the law that is for their own safety? Cyclists have every right to expect other road users to look out for them, yet they are not prepared
to comply with a legal requirement to keep them safe.Lawrence Walton
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Dogless 38 min 24 sec ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- Simon E 47 min 41 sec ago
Red lights are frustrating but you either obey the rules or you don't. Like drivers (sorry!), you shouldn't pick and choose the rules you wish to...
- ktache 1 hour 10 min ago
Or any other item that has recently had 5p taken off it's tax.
- mattw 3 hours 18 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 3 hours 35 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 4 hours 1 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
- andystow 4 hours 11 min ago
But now you don't have to. Allegedly.
- Patrick9-32 4 hours 19 min ago
Since Kona's rebirth after they kept the stinky for waaaay too long they have been one of the most consistently desireable mountain bike brands. If...
- luk 4 hours 56 min ago
Device with built in battery?? Shocking!!
Add new comment
5 comments
It's not necessary to comment on a stupid letter displayed on a stupid website designed for stupid people (I can think of a better word for A in IAM), but I'll give it a go.
https://upride.cc/incident/px68nhc_toyotatrailer_redlightcross/
The Highway Code is pretty definite about stopping for amber and red lights, but there are still loads of drivers who don't do it- that's a 'must', if there are any IAM ****holes reading this.
Lawrence Walton does not grasp the difference between "should" and "must" in the Highway Code. Cyclists are not under a "legal requirement" to protect themselves against dangers presented by motorists, well meaning though such advice may be.
When motorists endanger cyclists it is the motorists who "contravene the law".
It is worrying that IAM members hold such views, since inevitably it feeds into the idea that cyclists are outside the law, bring the dangers upon themselves, and have no one to blame but themselves.
Screenshot!
With those black shorts, legally his arse isn't covered...
You sure that's not the Letterbocks page off of Viz magazine?