I've ridden central London since 1995. I jump lights, and I've hit pedestrians. I'm a very large guy - 6 foot 2 and mumble stone - and I can tell you, when you hit a ped whose attention is on their mates, or on their damn phone, the ped staggers a bit while you go over the bars and slide down the road, handily lubricated by your own blood. I want a dynamo-powered GSM signal scrambler on my bike...

The idea that anyone other than cyclists can, will or should take responsibility for cycle safety is a complete joke. However, there is definitely some gender problem at work here. I have emergency braked in my car as a female cyclist has crept glacially across the lights (which were against her), not looking left nor right but fully decked out in reflective Sam Brown, helmet - all the "safety gear" and none of the safety thinking.

Steve, London,

Law is upheld primarily through example, not policing.
Running of red lights is not acceptable. The legal system should be guaranteeing equality of all before the law. That means that it protects the weak and vulnerable from the big and powerful.
It is cyclists and pedestrians who have most to lose from reduced law abidance. If the law is failing, let's repair the law, not destroy it.
Motorists have used terror largely to clear the road of non-motorists. Should cyclists transfer that to the footpaths and terrorise pedestrians?

John Harland, Melbourne, Australia

We need to be wary of overseas remedies, however well they work in their place.
Amsterdam also has low speed limits in towns, limits on heavy vehicles, quite rigorous driver training and a legal structure that upholds the equality of different road users before the law.
The bikepaths may be a negative influence masked by the real positives.
Certainly, their style of path may fail badly where infrastructure traditions are different: such as how kerbs, footpaths and guttering are done.
Amsterdam riders largely ride at a similar speed. In a hilly city, riders need to be able to overtake and Amsterdam lanes don't work well.
Overseas ideas need thorough filtering through local culture to be adopted successfully.
Adoption needs to be consistent, too. This is a primary feature of the Dutch system.
Amsterdam lanes in other places will likely be so expensive that only token sections are ever built. This can be worse than useless.

John Harland, Melbourne, Australia

I'd say the answer's simple, and practicable since I've applied it my whole life without even thinking - NEVER EVER sit on the inside of a lorry or bus at traffic lights. If you need to turn, then just hang back and use the large vehicle to (1) shield you from other traffic (useful on right-hand turns) and (2) drag you forward with the immense vortex these vehicles set up behind them. If you're not happy breaking the law, or the junction is such that the lights are unskippable, it's really not losing you much to just hang back, and chances are the drag will get you back up to speed faster than normal anyway (Well, not allowing for the first few grinding seconds when you're just bouncing on your pedals waiting for its refrigerator-sized engine to get the power down.).

Rob Young, London, UK

INDICATE INDICATE INDICATE, car/lorry drives should learn once and for all. The most dangerous situation I've been in is having a car right in front of me and turning left without indicating. If they indicate, at least I can watch out for myself and not rely on others to see me.

Jana, London, UK

It's time Ken Livingstone re-thought London's cycle routes. In Amsterdam, the cycle lanes aren't painted in the gutters of busy roads, most aren't even on the road; they're set in the pavements and given their own kerbs so pedestrians know they're there. London's cycle network lanes are a pain because they usually set on roads where they are more parked cars, pedestrians and junctions to watch out for. Bendy buses are a real danger too. Not only do they block the roads at junctions, you can't hear them coming up behind you as the engine is 18 feet away from the front of the bus. I should know I was recently hit by one. It put me off cycling for a month.

Matt, Berkhamsted, UK

I don't think red light running is the cause of the gender difference in these statistics.

http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/NEL.htm

There are gender differences in the cognative ability to perform spatial orientation rotation.
Perhaps women a less likely to realise they are in a dangerous position.

Cathy Colless, York, UK

All these cycling initiatives will all fail if there's little understanding between bike rider and car driver. I seriously don't think that car drivers think it's a life that they're playing with - just a mere inconvenience in their daily routine!

Helen, london,

We should be careful in saying that it is OK to run a red light. You cannot do that as you are breaking the law and putting yourself in yet another dangerous situation. I cycle daily and don't have any problems with trucks. I stay behind and overtake on the right and stop in the middle of the lane at a traffic light. My biggest problem is with double-deckers riding in the cycle lane - maybe the tfl guys should be looking at driver education and penalty before encouraging cyclists to break the law and incite the rage of car drivers who get upset at these cyclists that just keep going through red lights.

Brent, London, UK

I am one of the lucky ones. I survived being hit and crushed under an 18 tonne truck @ a junction in Brixton 4 yrs ago. He turned left without indicating. His mirrors were wrongly set. The problem is not just with the massive failures of TfL to make cycling safe, but also with the justice system that allows courts to treat these drivers as merely careless instead of culpable. I'm 4 yrs and 17 operations into my survival, permanently disabled and angry. My family had to move from London to cope with the consequences. He got 6 points on his licence and a £250 fine. Where's the justice? He'd have got the same for hitting a lamp post!

Mel Hazlehurst, Dorchester, UK

Dead right. Roads designed to force cyclists to ride directly in the path of motor vehicles don't have a calming effect at all.

Don Shipp, London, England

Education is the key. Before getting a vehicle licence - as part of the training, maybe learner drivers should have four hours of cycling. A three-wheeler would facilitate those with balance issues.
This would give the learner driver the opportunity to 'live' the cyclist's path rather than bump into it at collusion spots. This, coupled with pre-emptive green lights for cyclist at junctions -providing there are no pedestrians or cars crossings and a turn left on Red using the same principles, may ease the problem.
Advertisers using urban landscapes to promote cars could do more by including cyclist. Finally, any driver caught screaming at a cyclist has to cough up £5 for a cyclist charity.
I cycle and drive so I feel the heat of the debate and if we talk more and educate maybe we can find a better balance for all road users.

Teena, London, UK

I agree with the comments of Roger Nicholls. Traffic calming measures are the biggest danger to me on my commute to work. I am forced on to the middle of the road in front of (justifiably) impatient drivers.

The road through the village of Skinflats in Stirlingshire has traffic calming in the shape of chicanes and bollards from one end of the village to the other and cars, vans and lorries are often behind you when you are on your bike for the whole distance. I cycle 13 miles to my work and this is the worst section of road I face.

Alasdair Aitken, Low Valleyfield, Fife

I'm female and I've been cycling in London for 10 years. I'm perhaps more cocky on my bike than some riders but I rarely run red lights. The cycle network has improved over the years but I wish bike lanes were left clear for cyclists. It's especially frustrating when drivers stop in the cycle zone at traffic lights - leaving nowhere for a cyclist to go but sandwiched between the road and the traffic or two lanes of traffic. Could a common sense rule allow cyclists to cross safe junctions (where crossing traffic is clearly visible from all sides) AFTER pedestrains and vehicles with right of way, but BEFORE other vehicles at the red light? This way cyclists would get a head start and be at less risk from impatient drivers and restricted visibiltiy vehicles.

Catherine, London,

No one has mentioned the dangers of obstructions – bollards, chicanes etc which road engineers are legally allowed to construct on our roads to restrict their width, and which force cyclists into the path of cars and HGVs. They may think it is a good idea to slow down motorised traffic by forcing slow moving vulnerable cyclists into the path of the traffic, but do they consider it is morally justified to increase the danger to cyclists to achieve their ends. There are some structures where there is a safe path for cyclists to take to avoid the traffic where the carriageway has been restricted, but they are very rare. I find it very alarming to hear the hiss of lorry brakes behind me as the driver realises that the road width has been restricted and he can’t get past me.

Roger Nicholls, Hemel Hempstead, UK

I am a regular cyclist and am appauled at the poor standards of driving by van and lorry drivers in London. Cyclists who slip through red lights whilst turning left or proceeding ahead at junctions do so because their safety is at risk if they don't.

A law was passed recently banning mobile handsets in vehicles. This, I feel is not enough to prevent drivers of large vehicles from being destracted from driving and causing injury and death to cyclists. Motorists are still driving "without due care and attention" and in many cases are "driving dangerously."

It seems that the pro-motorists lobby feel that cyclists have to be injured or killed before legislation is changed to protect vulnerable road users who are doing something positive to reduce congestion and carbon pollution. This is simply unnacceptable in a civilised society.

Martin Ireland

Martin Ireland, London, UK

I've been cycling regularly in traffic for 15 years. I've never yet felt the need to jump a red light to avoid being hit by a lorry. I do however, go to some lengths to make sure that I stop either behind or in front of, never beside, lorries and other vehicles.

It's quite hard to get flattened by a vehicle that is in front of you and it's quite easy to check that a lorry behind you has seen you by turning round and giving the driver your best cheeky grin. He may not be impressed but he is unlikely to mow you down by accident.

The avoidable death of a cyclist is always a tradgedy but the answer to this issue is surely not the encouragment of behaviour which may well bring cyclists into conflict with pedestrains and opposing traffic and is just as likely to leave inexperienced cyclists in the blind spots of lorries as they race up the kerbline to try and jump the lights before they changes.

Louisa, Edinburgh,

As a person with 12 years daily cycling experience of London, 5 years of driving lorries, 16 driving vans, a life-long pedestrian with no serious accidents in any mode I'm always disappointed to read such debate blaming each other as road users. Large vehicles have large blindspots: an unavoidable fact. If other road users can't see a lorry's mirrors the driver can't seen them. Do not rely on road markings or traffic lights to protect you as a cyclist or as any other road user: use common sense and good road sense, which might require not strictly adhering to the Highway Code or, conversely, asserting your own right of way. If you cycle on pavements or jump lights in self-preservation, accept that you are in the wrong and be courteous to the peds. Make no assumptions out there. Be pragmatic and live. Having said that, I wish motorists would accept the dangers they pose, with far worse potential consequences than any cyclist ever does, and act accordingly.

Jay, London,

Andy Waterman, you are dead right.

As a regular cyclist in London for over 20 years as well as a pedestrian and driver, I can absolutely assure any reader that (provided you are familiar with the timings and make sure there is no other traffic coming), running red lights is very significantly safer than waiting to join in with the phalanx of accelerating cars, lorries and motorcycles on green.

Drivers and pedestrians that get annoyed by this should be aware that cyclists have vastly superior visibility and (assuming they aren't one of the idiots wearing an iPod) hearing compared to drivers. Jumping red lights on a bike is consequently a lot safer than it might appear and a lot safer than it would be if a driver did it.

There is however, no excuse for inconveniencing pedestrians who are on the pavement or crossing on marked crossings. If you are a "cyclist" that does this, please stop as it gives all of us a bad name.

Rob, London,

To John of Oxford: Why should the fact that cyclists sometimes get killed by lorries lead to the conclusion that cyclists need third party insurance?

Frank H. : When has any pedestrian ever been run down and killed on a footpath by a cyclist?

I do not defend illegal riding, but the dangers posed to others by cyclists should not be exaggerated.

Don Shipp, London, England

As a cyclist, motorcyclist, driver and pedestrian of some years standing - just about - I feel reasonably qualified to comment.

The problem here would seem to be in the assessment of risk. The ladies may simply put far too much trust in everyone else's ability, and may simply not understand that you cannot be seen in the blind spot of any vehicle if you are on a pushbike. Get to the front of the queue, or get off the road and push it over a busy intersection - but do not assume that you have been seen. This is a cardinal two wheeler's rule.
Also do not expect to be given any tolerance or sympathy.
I'm afraid as Mod inadvertantly observes, many people in tin boxes will only ever remember being "mown down" by some idiot on a push bike, on the footpath - where he (never she) should not be. Any London cycle couriers out there...

As for you Clive - well at best your entirely misunderstand the holistic nature of all of the constituent elements of these situations. At worst...

Jack, Camberley, Surrey

Other dangers for London's cyclists are a) the appalling state of London's road surfaces and b) the dangerous driving of some of the London bus drivers. The surfaces of many roads have bad potholes as well as large, meandering cracks. There are also protruding drains, invariably in the cycle lanes, as that is where the drains are closest to the kerbs. It is sometimes necessary to swerve to avoid these defects, all of which are potential causes of accidents. It is astonishing that the mayor and TfL encourage cyclists to take to London's roads but don't insist on an upgrade of the dangerous road surfaces first. Moreover, there are many London buses which are being driven too fast and recklessly and too close to cyclists. These buses make no allowance for a "wobble factor". There have been two occasions where the bus was so close that if I had wobbled slightly, I would have been killed.

Davina Haydon, London, England

I use a bike to get around as well as for fun and fitness and fully agree that people (I can't bring myself to call them "cyclists" — as a cyclist myself I feel nothing in common with them) who ride through red lights without slowing down to allow pedestrians their right of way are reckless idiots who deserve all they get.

However, as someone who spends a lot of time riding in traffic, I fully believe I am safer going through red lights if I am confident it is safe for pedestrians, myself and motorised traffic than I am sitting there waiting for the revving hordes behind me to try and mow me down. So far I've never even inconvenienced a pedestrian.

In my view bike lanes give a lot of new cyclists the idea that the safest place to be is up against the curb. My experience shows this to be the opposite of the truth. In most London traffic, riding to the right of traffic seems the safest option.

Andy Waterman, London,

pedestrian are really me, me, me! Here we have an article showing that cyclists need to disobey red lights to survive and a moaning pedestrian brings the myth of all cyclists are dangerous into the debate.

I cross the city of London everyday and pedestrain are crossing everywhere between lines of vehicles and without looking so please stop whinging about cyclists!

Lorries are dangerous to cyclists, especially when turning left. They're big and they fear no one else on the road and often do not check for cyclists before turning. The real issue is how to change that attitude and make cycling safer.

Dana, London,

Perhaps men are jsut quicker setting off than women and so manage to avoid the trucks. The assumption that men inherently disobey the law seems a bit much.

Jon, Glasgow, UK

Mod of London, come down today at about 4.15 and see the "fun" I have everyday trying to cross Oxford Street from James Street and the pedestrians "jumping lights". It seems a cyclist isn't rated as enough of a threat to stop people jay walking out in front of us.

Lisa, London,

An increasing number of local authorities are offering cycle training free of charge or for a very small fee, under the banner of 'Bikeability'. Contact your local Council for more information or visit the Cyclists' Touring Club website (www.ctc.org.uk). In London, most boroughs are offereing Bikeability training for adults and children, funded by TfL. If not, then try contacting one of the cycle training providers--the most popular is Cycle Training UK (www.cycletraining.org.uk). Experience shows that proper cycle training increases confidence and enables people to adopt proper road positioning. So successful is the scheme that public satisfaction is very nearly 100 per cent. The most important thing that transport authorities can do to invest in cycling is to make cycle training widely available.

Richard Lewis, London, England

I'm a cyclist and have never "mown down" a pedestrian even when they insist on stepping out in front of me without warning. Cars forever try and bully me and I have since adopted a very aggressive stance on the roads. Timid cyclists bring destruction down on themselves, by being more assertive you gain the respect of other road users and don't get treated nearly so badly

Tom, Oxford, England

As a (non-London) city based cycle commuter I have a fairly simple attitude: most of the time I'm moving as fast as the traffic* around me, often faster, and so often I overtake it - either on the right or left, whichever I deem safer.

However, I will never pass a bus or lorry (or large van) on the inside, whether at lights or in general traffic - bus and lorry drivers seem to have a particularly detached view of their responsibilities to other road users (and their passengers, frankly) and so this seems to be asking for trouble.

*Although I can't take the credit for this, isn't it funny how everyone in a vehicle sees other vehicles between his/her vehicle and his/her destination as "traffic"....

Tom, Manchester,

I travel by bike every day in London.

In spite of the "Tour de France", Olympic and sustainability hype, TfL find cycling and cyclists an annoying distraction. It is evident that they give little thought to us and when they do, the findings, such as in this study are swept under the carpet.

For a fraction of the cash - and like many cyclists I pay hefty taxes and £1,400 a year community charge - that is spent on powered vehicle priorities in London or indeed the Olymics, we could have a first rate set of bike highways. This would allow us to speed safely to our destinations in the capital and provide a large incentive for the rest of the community to join us.

Bill Watts, London,

It's not true to say that pedestrians are not killed by cyclists riding on pavements, moreover, recently in London a sixty year old man who remonstrated with a cyclist on the pavement died after a punch to the head.

Frank H, London,

Surely the real issue here is not whether cyclists jump red lights or not, but the prevalence of HGV involvement in the deaths. Why do so many of these things need to rumble through our streets, destroying the roads and killing cyclists? Can't they be limited to certain times of day or made safer? Retrofitting the "blind-spot" mirrors required by new legislation might do something, so would fitting under-running guard rails on trucks.

Chris, Worplesdon, UK

This raises many issues: -
1 - Cyclists on the road should maintain proper 3rd party insurance, and be licensed. They do sometimes cause problems for other road users, but are not held accountable
2 - Cycle feeder lanes are a nonsense, why take the lightest, slowest, weakest, most vulnerable road-users and place them directly in the 'firing line' of the heav ier, faster, better protected road user? It defies common sense.
3 - Why are truckers turning into blind spots? If they cannot see what they're driving into, or at, they simply should not drive there. (Pick a different route, or use a different, less dangerous, vehicle if needs be) How stupid do you need to be before you lose your license?

John, Oxford, Oxon

Cycling on footpaths is not the answer; pedestrians actually face a greater risk from motor traffic per mile travelled than cyclists on the road. Cyclists who use the footpaths are therefore actually increasing their chances of an accident, and segregated cycle-paths are no different from footpaths in this respect.
The reality is that cycling is very safe compared to anything else and has considerable health benefits which outweigh such risks as there are. Obviously getting crushed by a lorry is a possibility, but although lorries do kill a disproportionate number of cyclists that number is still very small. Lorries pose the biggest threat when they are turning rather than when they are travelling fast and so are easy enough to avoid; it does not require illegal red-light-jumping to do this, nor a change in the law to allow cyclists to ignore the lights, simply an awareness of where the lorries are and the line they take when turning.

Don Shipp, London, England

I'm confused. Is this a "cyclists stopping at redlight" problem, or a "stupid cycle lanes" problem, or a "lorry speeding away from the lights" problem, or a "poor visibility of lorry-driver's position" problem, or a "lorry turning left and stuff anything else in the way (and btw this can happen at ANY junction with or without lights) problem" ?

Or a "confused transport analyst" problem? Seeing as how the report apparently does not understand the distinction between driving/riding defensively, which is not the same as driving/riding cautiously as my driving instructor pointed out long ago, and driving/riding aggressively?

Hutch, London

Hutch, London, UK

Separate cycle tracks are - regrettably - not safer. In fact a large number of studies show they are far more dangerous than main roads as almost all cycle injuries and deaths happen at junctions, like the HGV incidents in the article. Cycle lanes are maybe nicer to ride in but far more risky at junctions as the cyclist comes from a different place to the rest of the traffic and is often overlooked.

The only solution seems to be education and enforcement for ALL road users including cyclists as well as drivers. Perhaps the driving test should include a bike ride just to make sure everyone knows what it feels like to ride in traffic ?

And, oddly enough, about the same number of pedestrians are killed by cyclists as cyclists killed by pedestrians each year in the UK. Usual cause of death seems to be either head injury or going under a vehicle when knocked over in both cases.

Russell Gasser, Bristol,

Cyclists & drivers are equally road users & should respect each others needs.

The present traffic management style makes things worse. Cycle lanes on the road (I write as a cyclist who has taught children & grandchildren to cycle) are a total nuisance as well as being deadly. They narrow the carriageway, making it hard for cars to allow a cycle room. They corral the bikes on the worst of the road (camber, gullies etc) and make it impossible to ride 2 abreast to safeguard children. The advice to negotiate roundabouts in the LH lane (highway code) is little short of manslaughter.

Cyclists are road users, with all the rights & duties that involves. It is not aggressive cycling to take the appropriate position for RH turns or to make oneself visible: it is correct road use. Motorists (bus drivers apart) are not normally murderers. I have few problems from cars or lorries (nor have my grandsons) when early signals & observations have cleared the way for a manoeuvre.

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

"2. A legal presumption that in a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist, the driver of the vehicle is at fault (or whatever similar form of words is used in Dutch law). "

That would encourage cyclists to behave like total idiots. I was shocked at how cyclists behave when I went back to Holland a while ago! They're all over the place. There's whole crowds of them coming at you from all sides. Cycling there was scary! At least here most cyclists behave (because if they don't, they get killed).

But we do need separate cycle paths, desperately.

And Mod, when a cyclist hits a pedestrian, it is usually the cyclist who ends up with the worst injuries.

My aunt got run over by a bunch of pedestrians (school kids), by the way. I kid you not. She spent 6 months in hospital with a fractured pelvis.

starling, Lancaster,

As a driver of articulated lorries, I feel I have to speak out in their defence. It is just not possible to overtake a lorry on the inside on a pushbike or motorcycle without serious risk. I myself have nearly run over a female cyclist who overtook me on the inside as I was about to turn left, even though I had my indicator going. PLEASE if you ride any form of two wheel transport, overtake only on the right. We don't want nightmares about people we have run over, no more than cyclists want to be run over. Cycle lanes and street furniture are now becoming one of the most serious hazards that local authorities seem to be encouraging, putting all (motor) cyclists at even greater risk. In reply to Emily of South London, we are not oblivious to cyclists, we simply cannot see them once we start to turn.

Mark, Dartford, UK

Having cycled to various jobs for 5 years sometimes up to 20 miles a day I used to find it felt safer to jump a red light than to wait and have a stream of cars overtaking me sometimes coming to close for comfort. The box for cyclists to wait ahead of traffic at lights nearly always has cars in and did not offer enough of a get away.

John, Bristol,

I am a female cyclist and the first time I rode to work in London I was knocked off by a white van which pulled into my lane, I also had some quite scary moments pulling away from the lights. I have since not cycled because I don't want to break the law by jumping some red lights (when I deem it safe to) and have gone back to using the tube.
I believe that the majority of cyclists are sensible people and if laws allowed would jump lights only when safe to do so. This I think would reduce the risk to cyclists as many drivers are nowhere near as aware of their surroundings as cyclists need to be.

Pauline, London, UK

I have ridden to work in London almost everyday for four years (always stopping at red and never riding on the pavement, Mod). The article seems to equate riding assertively with jumping lights but it is perfectly possible to ride assertively while obeying the highway code. From my experience I would agree that women are less likely to ride assertively, but I would strongly disagree that women are less likely to jump red lights.

Paul, Earlsfield,

That's because it doesn't happen. Pedestrians have a particular phobia about cyclists but in realility few collisions take place on the pavement. You are more likely to drop dead of natural causes than be killed by a pavement cyclist. However, 3200 pedestrians are injured and dozens killed each year by by motor vehicles being driven on the pavement, something that doesn't seem to worry anybody.
That is not to say that I think that pavement-cycling (or red-light-jumping) are acceptable, simply that the dangers posed to others by cyclists should not be exaggerated.

Don Shipp, London, England

Part of the reasons many cyclists disregard the rules of the road is that motorists, road planners and engineers disregard the safety of cyclists. In my own city of Derby road schemes are routinely presented as being of benefit to cyclists when in fact they designed in such a way that at best they inconvenience cyclists, at worst put them at risk.

Modernist, Derby, England

Isn't this a lorry safety problem? Lorry designers, to your drawing boards!

Oonagh, Hong Kong,

Not a word about pedestrians stepping happily into the street, ipod on or chatting on their mobiles and looking in the wrong direction either.

I cycle aggressively. You get beeped at by cars who would rather you weren't in front of them, but so long as they are beeping at you they are aware of your position in the road.

TFL has no right to ask me to put my life in danger to meet their antiquated road planning rules and regs. I'll cycle however I need to to keep safe. 15 years on a bike and not a scratch (touch wood)

Jonny, London,

Mod - as a cyclist, I am aware some cyclists behave irresponsibly which I would condemn, but to put things in perspective, a collision between bike and pedestrians is far more likely to result in bruises and cuts than death. And in this case, the article is talking about two young women who lost their lives as a result of trying to be careful riders.

Charlotte, Cambridge,

It's very rare that lorry drivers swing right before turning left,
because of the length of their vehicles they are obliged to go further beyond the turning than a car would need and they always give good warning by use of their indicators.

When we were eleven years old my best friend was killed under a lorry turning left because the brakes on his bike were defective. I do think the cycling proficientcy test should be mandatory and licencing of riders and bikes introduced.

Frank H, London,

I find the worst drivers are ones that do it all day, I.E. Taxi, busses and lorries.
Its too easy too suffer a laps in concentration, forgeting to check before pulling out from a bus stop for example. I've had quite a few close encounters with double deckers this way. I also see a lot of problems with drives thinking that that a cycle is slow enough to pull out infront of them safely, when putting the rider in a very dangerous situation.
Drivers need to be more aware that a lump of metal that weighs can tonnes, whilst moving at high speeds = a killing machine.

Mike, Bristol,

Since the introduction of presumption of guilt on part of motorists, bicycle injuries and fatalities have actually increased as some newly emboldened cyclists have started taking more risks.

Bram, Amsterdam, Netherlands

I come close to hitting pedestrians every day because just walk randomly into the road -on red lights- without looking. I suggest that Mr Mayor takes a trip to Amsterdam and learns a thing or two. 'London made for cycling'. Pha!

Holm, London,

Mod: did you actually read the article? Lorries kill cyclists, not pedestrians on pavements. Speeding though red lights presents a danger to cyclists, not to anyone else. 'Come close' is not the same as actually mowing down. How many pedestrians have been killed by cyclists? Relax, cyclists will try to avoid you for fear of injuring themselves, if nothing else. Pedestrians need to get used to cyclists and protest more about cars.

Nicole Segre, London, UK

Mod, that's utter rubbish and you know it.

David Rothwell, Brighton,

Easy to fix. Review the sentencing strategies for all drivers who are responsible for the serious injury or death of a cyclist. Something draconian should do the trick. How about a lifetime driving ban for the driver and all his/her family ? We are, after all, talking about amending behaviour to reduce the injuries to and deaths of our fellow citizens.

clive, surrey,

What about pedestrians who walk out into the road without looking out for cyclists?? This happens very often. If you ring your bell to remind them of your presence (best to prevent any accidents) you get a mouth full of abuse!

Back to cycling, is it ok to overtake a lorry/bus on the left if it's along a cycle lane? Or are drivers oblivious to these and the cyclists on them?

Emily, south London,

It was the Velocipedes Act of 1888 that banned bicycles, essentially pedestrian-controlled vehicles, from the footway. Road traffic has changed but cyclists are still obliged to mix it with lorries over half of which, as recent HO statistics say, exceed the speed limit by >15mph.

If we want to be green, we need to encourage cycling. We won't do that by forcing riders to use the same bit of tarmac as 48 tonne artics at speed. Is it beyond the reasoning of highway engineers to make footways safe for both cyclists and pedestrians?

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

Alot of the time lorry drivers and bus drivers act like they own the road and cyclists nave no right to be there so they push ahead of the cyclist taking it for granted that the cyclist will move over as far as possible into the kerb. I have seen cyclists who have been forced to pull over next to the kerb and wait for the lorry or bus to pass because they would rather avoid being pushed off the road. This is often why shared bus/cycle lanes do not work, because the bus driver feels he has right of way over the cyclist. I think better education of bus drivers and lorry drivers would go a long way into helping solve this problem and may promote more respect for cyclists as equal road users.

Tim, Glasgow, UK

Two measures that would help:-
1. Segregated cycle tracks
2. A legal presumption that in a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist, the driver of the vehicle is at fault (or whatever similar form of words is used in Dutch law).

The first would cost money and the second would risk upsetting motorists, so what are the chances that either would be adopted?

Stuart Gillings, London,

Since no pedestrians are killed on the pavement by cyclists, why should this article raise it as an issue?

Don Shipp, London, England

Not a word about the pedestrians mown down by cyclists jumping lights and speeding full-tilt off the road on to the pavement when it suits them, and always with no signal. I've never had a lorry worry me when I am walking around London. Cyclists come close to maiming me every day.

Mod, London,

I'm in two minds now as a female London cyclists. Do I print out this article to show to irate drivers when I start jumping lights? Or do I continue to obey red traffic lights?

My advice to other female cyclists is cycle fast, aggressively and pre peak hour where possible. Be extremely paranoid about the intentions of every other road user, never over take if you are in a driver’s blind spot, and wear high visibility clothing. Boring stuff but it should keep you alive.

Lisa, London,

Ride on the pavement - it's that simple.

eddie reader, birmingham, uk

i think someone should set about suing TfL for complicity in the deaths of those killed from July last year to the present date by withholding information pertinent to the risks/ safety. Just goes to show that the government will risk anything to make themselves look good, even their own citizens' lives. Typical.

Marco, bhm, uk

As a female cyclist in Dublin, I would agree with what has been expressed above. I cycle a route into work that has a lot of HVG traffic on it, and I am very cautious of them. At lights, I would always wait behind them, rather than beside them, for the very reasons outlined above. I have been caught on corners by car drivers blind spots, let alone HGV blind spots. I have taught myself to cycle more aggressively, such as not hugging the kerb, which I have found from experience is actually more dangerous, though many drivers still fail to give enough space to a cyclist when passing.

Máire Garvey, Dublin, Ireland