New safety campaign for cyclists

A NEW safety campaign for cyclists is hoping to make an impact on roads around Redditch, Bromsgrove and Droitwich.

The ‘What Matters Most’ campaign, which has been organised by the Safer Roads Partnership in West Mercia, is aiming to focus drivers’ attention on cyclists by highlighting some of the distractions faced by drivers, that can prevent them from concentrating and lead to accidents involving cyclists.

Vicki Bristow, communications manager at the Safer Roads Partnership, said: “A significant proportion of collisions occur when someone makes a simple error or a poor decision just before impact. How guilty would anyone feel if they caused serious injury or loss of life, only because they glanced at a text, failed to look properly at a junction, or grabbed a sandwich on the move? On today’s busy roads, the centre of attention should just be drivers driving safely and cyclists riding safely.”

The campaign is using van carrying giant posters travelling on key routes in Droitwich, Bromsgrove, and Redditch over the coming weeks, in the hope of being seen by a significant number of road users in the area. People can also visit the campaign website at whatmattersmost.org.uk.

The campaign has also been endorsed by the national cycling charity the Cyclists Touring Club (CTC).

Professor David Cox OBE, chair of CTC, added: “With an increasing number of cyclists on our roads, it is crucial that drivers see them early, take extra care when passing and remain particularly vigilant at junctions. CTC is delighted to be associated with the What Matters Most campaign and hope it will nurture better understanding, highlight cycling issues and ultimately, save lives.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:17pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Hwicce says...

It would be a good start if cyclists didn't jump red lights, cycle on the pavement, suddenly cut across in front of you to go across the road, signal their intentions, not come up the inside of you.

If fact follow the Highway Code.
It would be a good start if cyclists didn't jump red lights, cycle on the pavement, suddenly cut across in front of you to go across the road, signal their intentions, not come up the inside of you. If fact follow the Highway Code. Hwicce
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Tue 19 Mar 13

i-cycle says...

HWICCE

I quite agree cyclists shouldn't be breaking the law.

However...

"A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissio
ned study has discovered."

Quote from The Guardian
Full report here >
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/lifeandstyle/2
009/dec/15/cycling-b
ike-accidents-study

What would be really helpful is if motorists and cyclists listened to and supported the spirit of this campaign.

We need to learn to share the road better and make sure we do everything to stop accidents.

Slipping into unfounded stereotypes is both unhelpful, bigoted and dangerous.
HWICCE I quite agree cyclists shouldn't be breaking the law. However... "A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissio ned study has discovered." Quote from The Guardian Full report here > http://www.guardian. co.uk/lifeandstyle/2 009/dec/15/cycling-b ike-accidents-study What would be really helpful is if motorists and cyclists listened to and supported the spirit of this campaign. We need to learn to share the road better and make sure we do everything to stop accidents. Slipping into unfounded stereotypes is both unhelpful, bigoted and dangerous. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Tue 19 Mar 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

Ditto. If cars stopped jumping red lights, changing lanes without signalling, turning without signalling, cutting bikes up, driving too close to bikes and driving too fast when overtaking bikes. It only takes a little wobble on a bike and it can be game over. THINK!
Ditto. If cars stopped jumping red lights, changing lanes without signalling, turning without signalling, cutting bikes up, driving too close to bikes and driving too fast when overtaking bikes. It only takes a little wobble on a bike and it can be game over. THINK! ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Tue 19 Mar 13

i-cycle says...

See we're all to blame!

So lets all start acting responsibly and obey the Highway Code.
See we're all to blame! So lets all start acting responsibly and obey the Highway Code. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Hwicce says...

The one I almost got at the end of Sherriff Street must of been a mirage then.

I suppose the fact he waved as he almost bounced of my bonnet makes it all ok.
The one I almost got at the end of Sherriff Street must of been a mirage then. I suppose the fact he waved as he almost bounced of my bonnet makes it all ok. Hwicce
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Jay1981 says...

Fixing the roads would be a good start. I went down a pothole last week. That deep I needed a rope to get out
Fixing the roads would be a good start. I went down a pothole last week. That deep I needed a rope to get out Jay1981
  • Score: 0

12:12am Wed 20 Mar 13

i-cycle says...

HWICCE

And the cars that regularly cut me up are figments of my imagination?

Cyclist should abide by the Highway Code.

Motorists should do the same.

Simples.

I'll do you a deal.

I'll drive your car. You can have a go on my bike. Perhaps then we'll both respect each other more.

The difficulty with this is that like most cyclists I'm also a driver so I already see both sides and am therefore in a better position to take an objective view about whether cyclists or motorists are on average better and safer road users
HWICCE And the cars that regularly cut me up are figments of my imagination? Cyclist should abide by the Highway Code. Motorists should do the same. Simples. I'll do you a deal. I'll drive your car. You can have a go on my bike. Perhaps then we'll both respect each other more. The difficulty with this is that like most cyclists I'm also a driver so I already see both sides and am therefore in a better position to take an objective view about whether cyclists or motorists are on average better and safer road users i-cycle
  • Score: 0

8:03am Wed 20 Mar 13

Hwicce says...

I-CYCLE

Lets just stick to the blatant disregard of the law.

A red light means STOP.

I see way more cyclists either just go straight through a red light, treating it as some sort of give way sign, than I do cars. I do see cars rush at an amber and then carry on through a red, but I don't see them come up to a solid red and keep going.

I also see loads of cyclists come up to a red light and then hop onto the pavement, go round the left hand side of the post and then back onto the road on the far side. I have NEVER seen a car do this.

In fact I am impressed when I see a cyclist actually stop and wait at a red light because it is so rare to see one.

As I see way more cars on the road than I see cyclists the percentage of offences per cyclist compared to car is phenomenally higher.

You can trot out all your mumbo-jumbo as much as you like but what I see on the roads is a wilful disregard of the most basic traffic laws by the majority of cyclists.

If you want to have a good case for getting a better regard for cyclists then get them to start obeying the basic laws, then we can move on to the road positioning, looking at junctions etc.
I-CYCLE Lets just stick to the blatant disregard of the law. A red light means STOP. I see way more cyclists either just go straight through a red light, treating it as some sort of give way sign, than I do cars. I do see cars rush at an amber and then carry on through a red, but I don't see them come up to a solid red and keep going. I also see loads of cyclists come up to a red light and then hop onto the pavement, go round the left hand side of the post and then back onto the road on the far side. I have NEVER seen a car do this. In fact I am impressed when I see a cyclist actually stop and wait at a red light because it is so rare to see one. As I see way more cars on the road than I see cyclists the percentage of offences per cyclist compared to car is phenomenally higher. You can trot out all your mumbo-jumbo as much as you like but what I see on the roads is a wilful disregard of the most basic traffic laws by the majority of cyclists. If you want to have a good case for getting a better regard for cyclists then get them to start obeying the basic laws, then we can move on to the road positioning, looking at junctions etc. Hwicce
  • Score: 0

8:18am Wed 20 Mar 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

OK we all agree there are idiot cyclist and idiot car drivers. The difference is when an idiot cyclist jumps the lights or goes on the pavement usually there is no problem or damage done (other than car drivers getting peeved off because they cant do it). However when in idiot car driver does something wrong they can easily kill a cyclist.
As a car driver and a cyclist I know which is more dangerous. I cant remember the last time i saw a headline that said "Car driver killed by reckless cyclist." However all to often i see headlines saying "Cyclist kill by car".
As a side not pedestrians are just as bad. The amount of times i have had people step out in front of me while cycling just amazes me.

We all need to be careful especially people that are travelling in large metal killing machines.
OK we all agree there are idiot cyclist and idiot car drivers. The difference is when an idiot cyclist jumps the lights or goes on the pavement usually there is no problem or damage done (other than car drivers getting peeved off because they cant do it). However when in idiot car driver does something wrong they can easily kill a cyclist. As a car driver and a cyclist I know which is more dangerous. I cant remember the last time i saw a headline that said "Car driver killed by reckless cyclist." However all to often i see headlines saying "Cyclist kill by car". As a side not pedestrians are just as bad. The amount of times i have had people step out in front of me while cycling just amazes me. We all need to be careful especially people that are travelling in large metal killing machines. ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

8:34am Wed 20 Mar 13

Hwicce says...

ispywithmylitleeye wrote:
OK we all agree there are idiot cyclist and idiot car drivers. The difference is when an idiot cyclist jumps the lights or goes on the pavement usually there is no problem or damage done (other than car drivers getting peeved off because they cant do it). However when in idiot car driver does something wrong they can easily kill a cyclist.
As a car driver and a cyclist I know which is more dangerous. I cant remember the last time i saw a headline that said "Car driver killed by reckless cyclist." However all to often i see headlines saying "Cyclist kill by car".
As a side not pedestrians are just as bad. The amount of times i have had people step out in front of me while cycling just amazes me.

We all need to be careful especially people that are travelling in large metal killing machines.
So you're happy if the law is broken as long as no one is hurt? Dangerous precedent that.

In my mentioned case the cyclist (who jumped the red) was only not hurt because I was in a slow car. If I had been in another car he would have been run over. Not "no problem" then. Did he know I was in a slow car when he jumped the red? I doubt it, he hadn't looked.

If you want to preach to car drivers about taking more car with cyclists then you need to do it from the moral high ground. Cyclists do not have this moral high ground because they can't/won't follow the basic obvious laws of the road.

Until cyclists put their house in order then all the "cars should respect us" whinges will just be treated the same way cyclists treat red lights - ignored.

It's your choice....
[quote][p][bold]ispywithmylitleeye[/bold] wrote: OK we all agree there are idiot cyclist and idiot car drivers. The difference is when an idiot cyclist jumps the lights or goes on the pavement usually there is no problem or damage done (other than car drivers getting peeved off because they cant do it). However when in idiot car driver does something wrong they can easily kill a cyclist. As a car driver and a cyclist I know which is more dangerous. I cant remember the last time i saw a headline that said "Car driver killed by reckless cyclist." However all to often i see headlines saying "Cyclist kill by car". As a side not pedestrians are just as bad. The amount of times i have had people step out in front of me while cycling just amazes me. We all need to be careful especially people that are travelling in large metal killing machines.[/p][/quote]So you're happy if the law is broken as long as no one is hurt? Dangerous precedent that. In my mentioned case the cyclist (who jumped the red) was only not hurt because I was in a slow car. If I had been in another car he would have been run over. Not "no problem" then. Did he know I was in a slow car when he jumped the red? I doubt it, he hadn't looked. If you want to preach to car drivers about taking more car with cyclists then you need to do it from the moral high ground. Cyclists do not have this moral high ground because they can't/won't follow the basic obvious laws of the road. Until cyclists put their house in order then all the "cars should respect us" whinges will just be treated the same way cyclists treat red lights - ignored. It's your choice.... Hwicce
  • Score: 0

8:42am Wed 20 Mar 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

Hwicce wrote:
ispywithmylitleeye wrote:
OK we all agree there are idiot cyclist and idiot car drivers. The difference is when an idiot cyclist jumps the lights or goes on the pavement usually there is no problem or damage done (other than car drivers getting peeved off because they cant do it). However when in idiot car driver does something wrong they can easily kill a cyclist.
As a car driver and a cyclist I know which is more dangerous. I cant remember the last time i saw a headline that said "Car driver killed by reckless cyclist." However all to often i see headlines saying "Cyclist kill by car".
As a side not pedestrians are just as bad. The amount of times i have had people step out in front of me while cycling just amazes me.

We all need to be careful especially people that are travelling in large metal killing machines.
So you're happy if the law is broken as long as no one is hurt? Dangerous precedent that.

In my mentioned case the cyclist (who jumped the red) was only not hurt because I was in a slow car. If I had been in another car he would have been run over. Not "no problem" then. Did he know I was in a slow car when he jumped the red? I doubt it, he hadn't looked.

If you want to preach to car drivers about taking more car with cyclists then you need to do it from the moral high ground. Cyclists do not have this moral high ground because they can't/won't follow the basic obvious laws of the road.

Until cyclists put their house in order then all the "cars should respect us" whinges will just be treated the same way cyclists treat red lights - ignored.

It's your choice....
No i don't condone jumping lights for cars or cyclist. I know they both do it. I cycle to work and see it every day on city walls road. If you see i use the term "idiot cyclist" when referring to lights. What i am trying to put over is that in a car you are much more likely to kill a cyclist. I very nearly did!
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ispywithmylitleeye[/bold] wrote: OK we all agree there are idiot cyclist and idiot car drivers. The difference is when an idiot cyclist jumps the lights or goes on the pavement usually there is no problem or damage done (other than car drivers getting peeved off because they cant do it). However when in idiot car driver does something wrong they can easily kill a cyclist. As a car driver and a cyclist I know which is more dangerous. I cant remember the last time i saw a headline that said "Car driver killed by reckless cyclist." However all to often i see headlines saying "Cyclist kill by car". As a side not pedestrians are just as bad. The amount of times i have had people step out in front of me while cycling just amazes me. We all need to be careful especially people that are travelling in large metal killing machines.[/p][/quote]So you're happy if the law is broken as long as no one is hurt? Dangerous precedent that. In my mentioned case the cyclist (who jumped the red) was only not hurt because I was in a slow car. If I had been in another car he would have been run over. Not "no problem" then. Did he know I was in a slow car when he jumped the red? I doubt it, he hadn't looked. If you want to preach to car drivers about taking more car with cyclists then you need to do it from the moral high ground. Cyclists do not have this moral high ground because they can't/won't follow the basic obvious laws of the road. Until cyclists put their house in order then all the "cars should respect us" whinges will just be treated the same way cyclists treat red lights - ignored. It's your choice....[/p][/quote]No i don't condone jumping lights for cars or cyclist. I know they both do it. I cycle to work and see it every day on city walls road. If you see i use the term "idiot cyclist" when referring to lights. What i am trying to put over is that in a car you are much more likely to kill a cyclist. I very nearly did! ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

10:01am Wed 20 Mar 13

Arthur Blenkinsop says...

Just a point - around Warndon, there are a lot of cycle paths. Why then, do cyclists still ride on the busy roads, holding up the traffic and putting their lives at risk?
We do need more practical cycle routes/paths around Worcester, but we also need cyclists to use them and not wobble around in the traffic, not looking over their shoulders, not using hand signals when swerving across the road, not just riding in and out of slowly moving traffic.
It's not all cyclists that ride inconsiderately and dangerously, but a good proportion of them do!
Just a point - around Warndon, there are a lot of cycle paths. Why then, do cyclists still ride on the busy roads, holding up the traffic and putting their lives at risk? We do need more practical cycle routes/paths around Worcester, but we also need cyclists to use them and not wobble around in the traffic, not looking over their shoulders, not using hand signals when swerving across the road, not just riding in and out of slowly moving traffic. It's not all cyclists that ride inconsiderately and dangerously, but a good proportion of them do! Arthur Blenkinsop
  • Score: 0

10:27am Wed 20 Mar 13

i-cycle says...

HWICCE

There you go again.

Misrepresenting what people say in an attempt to 'peddle' you're mantra which suggests all cyclists jump red lights and use pavements.

1. Most cyclists do act responsibly
2. No one is saying they should break the law
3. Motorists are the by far the biggest culprits in terms of breaking the Highway Code

You quote one example. I see at least one motorist breaking the law almost every time I go out.

Not that I condone it, but the number of cyclists that don't follow the highway code are many times less than car driver that do - all you have to do is look at how many speeding fines are issued and how many motorist's park on or use bus/cycle lanes.

The County Council doesn't help. Its owndedicate budget for providing new cycle lanes next year is £nil. It doesn't even bother to have a regular maintenance programme for the ones that have been installed using Government and Lottery funding.

They've spent £ millions on introducing bus/cycle lanes in Worcester where the traffic lights at the end can only be triggered by a bus. A cyclist is expected to wait patiently behind a red for however long it takes for a bus to come along. And that is on a dedicated cycle lane. On one route the lights have been switched to red permanently as none of the buses use it. Theoretically a cyclist could stay there for ever waiting for a green light...or are the expecting us to break the law and jump a red?

I really hope you can agree to stop fuelling a blame culture which sets motorists and cyclists apart.

I'd welcome you and other reader's to read the 'What Matters Most' website and encourage all motorists and cyclists to act responsibly and respectfully to other road users by following the useful guidance it suggests.

Latest statistics are 208,150 injured on UK roads in 2011. 24,770 of these were killed or seriously injured.

Instead of lapsing into the usual blame culture surely its better that we all pull together to respect other road users and drive and cycle responsibly.
HWICCE There you go again. Misrepresenting what people say in an attempt to 'peddle' you're mantra which suggests all cyclists jump red lights and use pavements. 1. Most cyclists do act responsibly 2. No one is saying they should break the law 3. Motorists are the by far the biggest culprits in terms of breaking the Highway Code You quote one example. I see at least one motorist breaking the law almost every time I go out. Not that I condone it, but the number of cyclists that don't follow the highway code are many times less than car driver that do - all you have to do is look at how many speeding fines are issued and how many motorist's park on or use bus/cycle lanes. The County Council doesn't help. Its owndedicate budget for providing new cycle lanes next year is £nil. It doesn't even bother to have a regular maintenance programme for the ones that have been installed using Government and Lottery funding. They've spent £ millions on introducing bus/cycle lanes in Worcester where the traffic lights at the end can only be triggered by a bus. A cyclist is expected to wait patiently behind a red for however long it takes for a bus to come along. And that is on a dedicated cycle lane. On one route the lights have been switched to red permanently as none of the buses use it. Theoretically a cyclist could stay there for ever waiting for a green light...or are the expecting us to break the law and jump a red? I really hope you can agree to stop fuelling a blame culture which sets motorists and cyclists apart. I'd welcome you and other reader's to read the 'What Matters Most' website and encourage all motorists and cyclists to act responsibly and respectfully to other road users by following the useful guidance it suggests. Latest statistics are 208,150 injured on UK roads in 2011. 24,770 of these were killed or seriously injured. Instead of lapsing into the usual blame culture surely its better that we all pull together to respect other road users and drive and cycle responsibly. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

10:51am Wed 20 Mar 13

i-cycle says...

Arthur Blenkinsop wrote:
Just a point - around Warndon, there are a lot of cycle paths. Why then, do cyclists still ride on the busy roads, holding up the traffic and putting their lives at risk?
We do need more practical cycle routes/paths around Worcester, but we also need cyclists to use them and not wobble around in the traffic, not looking over their shoulders, not using hand signals when swerving across the road, not just riding in and out of slowly moving traffic.
It's not all cyclists that ride inconsiderately and dangerously, but a good proportion of them do!
Hi Arthur

I'm one that uses the roads. I'll explain why:

1. I have a right to.
2. The cycle paths aren't maintained - rough surfaces, glass, litter
3. Its far quicker - most of the lanes have been badly designed and frequently cross roads where a cyclists has to stop
4. Its safer as there are fewer occasions where you have to cross traffic
5. Some wobble deliberately as there are so many motorists who don't give you enough room when passing. Its actually far better to ride further out in the road and wear bright clothing as this has a better effect, but you get more abuse from motorists and occasionally they deliberately cut you up.

That said I use those lanes that do make sense and get me from A to B in a reasonable time.

Like you I'd love it if Warndon was like Holland. Unfortunately the Government and County Council pay lip service to catering for cyclists.

If they did it would actually benefit motorists. More would cycle. There would be much less congestion and more parking spaces. People would also be much fitter and less of a burden on the tax payer.

With limited funds the biggest and quickest thing the County Council could is make all residential streets 20mph. It has so many advantages including motorists. When asked in independent polls 60-75% of motorists supported 20mph for the streets around where they live.

So next time you see a cyclists please give them plenty of room and start to think, if there were more of them and they were better provided for you'd have to cope with lots less traffic congestion.

Please read and support 'What Really Matters' - if we all do, we all benefit and the roads will be safer to use.
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Blenkinsop[/bold] wrote: Just a point - around Warndon, there are a lot of cycle paths. Why then, do cyclists still ride on the busy roads, holding up the traffic and putting their lives at risk? We do need more practical cycle routes/paths around Worcester, but we also need cyclists to use them and not wobble around in the traffic, not looking over their shoulders, not using hand signals when swerving across the road, not just riding in and out of slowly moving traffic. It's not all cyclists that ride inconsiderately and dangerously, but a good proportion of them do![/p][/quote]Hi Arthur I'm one that uses the roads. I'll explain why: 1. I have a right to. 2. The cycle paths aren't maintained - rough surfaces, glass, litter 3. Its far quicker - most of the lanes have been badly designed and frequently cross roads where a cyclists has to stop 4. Its safer as there are fewer occasions where you have to cross traffic 5. Some wobble deliberately as there are so many motorists who don't give you enough room when passing. Its actually far better to ride further out in the road and wear bright clothing as this has a better effect, but you get more abuse from motorists and occasionally they deliberately cut you up. That said I use those lanes that do make sense and get me from A to B in a reasonable time. Like you I'd love it if Warndon was like Holland. Unfortunately the Government and County Council pay lip service to catering for cyclists. If they did it would actually benefit motorists. More would cycle. There would be much less congestion and more parking spaces. People would also be much fitter and less of a burden on the tax payer. With limited funds the biggest and quickest thing the County Council could is make all residential streets 20mph. It has so many advantages including motorists. When asked in independent polls 60-75% of motorists supported 20mph for the streets around where they live. So next time you see a cyclists please give them plenty of room and start to think, if there were more of them and they were better provided for you'd have to cope with lots less traffic congestion. Please read and support 'What Really Matters' - if we all do, we all benefit and the roads will be safer to use. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

11:27am Wed 20 Mar 13

Arthur Blenkinsop says...

i-cycle.
I can see your point - as an occasional user, time doesn't really bother me. The litter, glass and potholes do, but isn't that the same, or worse on the roads?
I always give cyclists plenty of room (a lot of motorists don't - especially vans and taxis!), not the least because i don't want to damage my car in a collision!
More must be done re. cycle paths and i also think that bringing back something like the old Cycling Prociency Test would be a good start for a lot of cylclists!
i-cycle. I can see your point - as an occasional user, time doesn't really bother me. The litter, glass and potholes do, but isn't that the same, or worse on the roads? I always give cyclists plenty of room (a lot of motorists don't - especially vans and taxis!), not the least because i don't want to damage my car in a collision! More must be done re. cycle paths and i also think that bringing back something like the old Cycling Prociency Test would be a good start for a lot of cylclists! Arthur Blenkinsop
  • Score: 0

11:59am Wed 20 Mar 13

i-cycle says...

Arthur Blenkinsop wrote:
i-cycle.
I can see your point - as an occasional user, time doesn't really bother me. The litter, glass and potholes do, but isn't that the same, or worse on the roads?
I always give cyclists plenty of room (a lot of motorists don't - especially vans and taxis!), not the least because i don't want to damage my car in a collision!
More must be done re. cycle paths and i also think that bringing back something like the old Cycling Prociency Test would be a good start for a lot of cylclists!
The difference is that the roads are regularly inspected and maintained.

Cycling Proficiency still exists, but under another name. It's now called Bikeability. The County has just got a grant which means that all school children who want it will have an opportunity to get trained.

The County have also started to offer it as a paid service for adults. Details here > http://www.worcester
shire.gov.uk/cms/cyc
ling/bikeability.asp
x
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Blenkinsop[/bold] wrote: i-cycle. I can see your point - as an occasional user, time doesn't really bother me. The litter, glass and potholes do, but isn't that the same, or worse on the roads? I always give cyclists plenty of room (a lot of motorists don't - especially vans and taxis!), not the least because i don't want to damage my car in a collision! More must be done re. cycle paths and i also think that bringing back something like the old Cycling Prociency Test would be a good start for a lot of cylclists![/p][/quote]The difference is that the roads are regularly inspected and maintained. Cycling Proficiency still exists, but under another name. It's now called Bikeability. The County has just got a grant which means that all school children who want it will have an opportunity to get trained. The County have also started to offer it as a paid service for adults. Details here > http://www.worcester shire.gov.uk/cms/cyc ling/bikeability.asp x i-cycle
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Arthur Blenkinsop says...

Roads regularly inspected and maintained? :-(
Let's hope kids take up the offer! I remember doing cycling proficiency in the very early 70s!
Roads regularly inspected and maintained? :-( Let's hope kids take up the offer! I remember doing cycling proficiency in the very early 70s! Arthur Blenkinsop
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree