Jake, when you say: "Pay some road tax like the rest of us chavs, taxi drivers, lorry drivers, and Top Gear fans. "

A common misconception, I'm afraid. Nobody pays "road tax". It was abolished in 1936. When we walk, ride or cycle on the PUBLIC highway we do so by right, enshrined by law. When we drive a motor vehicle we do so under permissive licence, which can be revoked. Motoring taxes are not ring-fenced for use on the roads. Road maintenance is the responsibility of the Local Authorities, financed by council tax and grants from general taxation - so we all pay. Studies have shown that if all the negative aspects of private motoring is taken into account, not least the cost of medical care of crash victims (how do you put a price on an unnecessary death?) then motoring taxes cover just 27% of its cost to the taxpayer.

So, please, lets have a little less "us and them" and learn to share the roads safely. Roads, like oil, are a finite resource,

Nigel, Bath, UK

"assert yourself by claiming a proper position in the road" - There's a much better way of doing so. Pay some road tax like the rest of us chavs, taxi drivers, lorry drivers, and Top Gear fans.

Better yet, leave your toys at home, and drive. It's a lot safer, not to mention quicker and warmer. I wouldn't take to the road in a FisherPrice red and yellow coupe, nor would I encourage a 'Pogo Stick to Work' scheme, and yet cyclists feel free to take a space on the road with their toys, and complain about it.

Jake Legg, Newcastle,

The stats don't really support Carlos. In a car-bike accident, the motorist is several times more likely to be at fault, so maybe people should drive like they ride! That's consistent across research in several countries. Also, in practice, adults don't really get on bikes without taking road tests, because car ownership is higher among cyclists than among the population in general.

Nonetheless, and even though the statistics suggest it wouldn't actually save many accidents, there is room to improve cycling standards (whilst concentrating more on motoring ones). My theory is that the general failure to recognise that a bike is in every respect a "proper" vehicle under the law leads people both to ride and to drive as though bikes somehow don't matter.

David, Hitchin,

My stance on cyclists who don't stop for pedestrians on crossings is that they are entirely in the wrong.
My stance on cyclists who ride on the pavement is that they are acting illegally and that there is no excuse for it.
My stance on cyclists who ride several abreast on narrow roads is that this can be either the right thing to do or very inconsiderate; it depends on the circumstances.

Many cyclists do drive. (Including me.)
Cyclists are not required by law to pass a test. There is simply no reason why they should.
Cyclists are not required by law to have 3rd party insurance. Again, there is no reason why they should.

All the danger comes from motor traffic. No reality check needed. If cyclists were more careful and law-abiding it wouldn't make any noticable difference to the accident figures. If motorists were more careful and law-abiding it would.

Don Shipp, London, England

Carlos, I certainly didn't have you pegged as a non-cyclist, in fact most of my arguments are with cyclists. I merely picked up on the points you made that I disagree most strongly with.

Don Shipp, London, England

Mr Shipp, in dismissing my comments as prejudices and phobias you’ve pegged me as a non-cyclist and thus my points have no value.
I have 25+ yrs of cycling experience (I haven’t cycled for a few years now). When I was cycling everywhere, I too held the mantra that bicycles=good, cars=“evil”. A few years of walking have given a road-side perspective. I posted some points based on what I witness several times a week, which you choose to ignore.
In stating that motorists “kill” 3200 people a year, you make it sound intentional – a bit like those who label cars “killing machines” comparing them to guns. Most road deaths are accidents (i.e. unintentional), of which some will be “true” accidents and other due to bad driving. To state that all are due to the latter is not helpful. If a cyclists jumps a red light and is then hit by a car – whose fault is that? Cyclists would use the stats to show that cyclists are the victims (personal experience).

Carlos, Basel, CH

Cyclists who blatantly break the law, even if it's a law that they don't agree with, will not change public opinion about cyclists, they will confirm it.

Don Shipp, London, England

After many years as an off/on cycle courier in London in my early 20s, I am adamant that it is safer for a cyclist to safely negotiate a red light junction rather than suffer the 'Traffic Light Grand Prix' - an inevitable consequence of frustrated motorists.
The key here is the cyclist crossing the junction in a safe and responsible manner, not causing any other road user to brake or change direction and also not putting pedestrian safety at risk. It can be done, and is a far safer option than having streams of traffic hurtling past you, or even worse, getting hit by a left turning vehicle when you go straight on in the inside lane. Trust me – that hurts.
Once again, it is down to cyclists to change public opinion on this practise by acting responsibly and not causing undue concern to other road users.

bob harris, cirencester,

In central London you won't be a lone cyclist.
The dangers of stopping at lights are always over-stated by people who simply don't like to wait. It is possible to share the road with motor vehicles and stay within the law without getting killed.

Don Shipp, London, England

Whatever your prejudices and phobias are, Carlos of Basel, cyclists don't need to take a test or buy insurance because a bike is not a significant threat to others. Motorists take a test then kill 3200 people in Britain a year.
You are more likely to be killed or injured on a pedestrian crossing or even on the footpath by a motorist than a cyclist. In fact you are more likely to drop down dead from natural causes than be killed by a cyclist.
I do have 3rd party insurance and for £5,000,000 worth of cover the premiums are negligible; that is because insurance companies deal with the real world and know that bikes simply aren't that dangerous.

Don Shipp, London, England

I can't condone jumping red lights (although there'd be something to be said for campaigning to changethe law to allow cyclists to turn left on red as in other countries) but it's certainly true that cyclists are in far greater danger than motorists and car drivers should remember that. Also, it's perfectly legal to cycle in the road even if there is a cycle lane, and this is often a good idea, for example if the cycle lane is next to parked cars - many cyclists have found out the hard way what happens if someone opens their car door at the wrong time.

Tim Steele, Cambridge, Cambs

Iagree that it is safer at times to ride through a red light as long as you take extra care around you i also think that you should be able to ride on the pavements as long as you are not disregarding pedestrians right to walk as there is usually room for both and it is safer than most roads and cycle lanes

ian geddes, smethwick, west midlands

Where do you stand on:
- brushing past pedestrians at pelican crossings (i.e. not stoping for them)
- brushing past pedestrians at pedestiran crossings (i.e. not stoping for them when the light is red - surely no need to get a jump start here?)
- cycling down the pavement so that you don't have to queue in the traffic (and I don't mean just nipping on and off, I mean for 1-2 miles swerving around pedestrians)
- cylcing 3-4 abreast on narrow roads?

If cyclists drove like they cycle, road mortality figures would be much higher... thank God they're only on a bike. Why can you get on a bike without a) taking a test, and b) insurance?

Those (cyclists) who claim this issue is all due to drivers need to take a huge reality check - in most cases I've seen (as a pedestrian, former cyclist and occasional driver [I now have the luxury of being able to walk to work]), cyclists are as much at fault if not more so than drivers - because the later at least stick to the rules (a bit) more.

Carlos, Basel, CH

Let's get one thing straight. Riding a bicycle at all in London traffic can hardly be described as completely 'sensible'.

The question is how to survive at all.

The main rule is simply 'Self Defence is No Offence.'
If staying alive means offending traffic etiquette. Tough. And only the cyclist can make that decision based on personal experience and the circumstances at the time.

The trouble is that many cyclists are convinced that the rules naturally work in their benefit, which they often do, but in the case of the starting grid which is the traffic lit junction, they don't.
Many cyclists find it far safer and less intimidating to be where the revving hordes can at leasst see them, and away from any left-lurching lorries.

Little Richardjohn, London, London

Years ago I used to cycle across London to catch trains between
Kings Cross and Waterloo, and motorbike to a summer job at the British Museum from Hounslow, the answer to survival was to eye-ball the
bus driver at the lights, and race ahead. Blindspots are definitely killers.
Although I still cycle I wouldnt attempt the cross London journey
anymore.

This was confirmed by a touring motorcycle trip into central
london recently when even maintaining standing space for a
motorcycle weighing over 600 pounds proved a challenge at the lights.
One woman driver arriving at the lights insisted in edging so close
see was rubbing my knees whilst a 4X4 was drove up to my titanium toe caps before running a red itself.
I have never used cycle lanes that put you at a disadvantage by losing
priority escpecially to following traffic.
My feeling is every roaduser should progress up the chain with a cycle proficiency and bike licence before the chance of driving a car.

G Harper, Dorset, UK

As an experienced commuter by Car, Bike and Bicycle, I fully agree with Paul Nuki. I have myself been squeezed off the road by articulated lorries or buses turning left, occasionally having to leap off and onto the pavement in order to avoid been crushed into the kerb. In particularly scarey cases of misjudged angles, the articulated lorries actually mount the kerb as well, making it a real scramble to get away from those huge tyres. Far better to quietly and carefully jump the lights and get on with it.

During my motorcycle commutes I have noticed that since the Advanced Stopping Lines are not being used by cyclists, sensible motorcyclists are taking advantage of them instead. This is for similar safety reasons - it is far safer for a motorcylist to pull quickly away from the front of a phalanx of traffic, than to get caught in the middle of a bunch of cars and trucks jockying for position as the lights change. Time the highway code caught up with sensible practice ?

David Leslie, london, England