Opinions on this leaflet please

[HorTs]

Is it about the content or the design or both?

 

[jefmcg]

Also, I'm not sure about the "tone". You can really get a bicycle without having to feel like you've joined the cycling fraternity. And that concept might put people off, as they don't like the association. Under that, the words "vulnerability .... steel ... body" leapt off the page at me. Seriously, I had a flash of vulnerable cyclist being smashed by hard steel.

 

[sazzaa]

Is it necessary to hand out leaflets with new bikes.......personally, I'd feel somewhat patronised by this, but I know I've been cycling for a number of years and am familiar with the messages. I wonder if those who would benefit from these points would read them in the first place.

Sorry, I can't be more positive.

I'd be much happier to receive a copy of the highway code with my new bike than this badly worded nonsense.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

Also, I'm not sure about the "tone". You can really get a bicycle without having to feel like you've joined the cycling fraternity. And that concept might put people off, as they don't like the association. Under that, the words "vulnerability .... steel ... body" leapt off the page at me. Seriously, I had a flash of vulnerable cyclist being smashed by hard steel.

I agree. If I was a new cyclist, the first few paragraphs would put me right off cycling on the roads. I think in general there is too much emphasis on hi-viz, helmets and not enough on how much fun cycling is.

(+1 on the Highway Code idea btw Sazzaa)

 

[summerdays]

It seems more sensible than many bits of 'advice' I've seen.
The bit that is a bit daft is this:
View attachment 37904
It implies that even if you are on a main road (as in the photo), you should stop and let a car out if you haven't made eye contact with the driver.

I thought it was daft at first but reflecting that it is sort of what I do, that if I really don't think they have seen me I get slower and move further out into the road, beyond primary if necessary.

 

[StuartG]

Last two bikes I bought (2006 & 2010) both from different high profile specialist London cycle shops were not fitted with a bell. One wasn't even fitted with pedal reflectors. Which would suggest this is a law not enforced amongst the specialist breed of dealers whose customers would most likely ditch them.

I presume mass market suppliers such as Halfords are compliant (or don't have the manpower to remove them).

 

[jonny jeez]

My local city cycling forum has posted a draft leaflet which they intend to put in bike shops to be handed out with new bikes. Thoughts please.

http://s10.postimg.org/xiwwrnbqx/leaflet1.jpg
http://s18.postimg.org/e04yhbmzd/leaflet2.jpg

Feel free to print out our own city cycling guide and leave that on all new bike.(its a sticky right at the top of this section)

 

[totallyfixed]

If you asked 100 CC'ers to re-write that leaflet I would be surprised if any 2 were the same. Hilarious.

 

[Sara_H]

I'd say the bit about bells is factually incorrect and the bit about jumping red lights giving cyclists a bad name (collective responsibility) is patronising and inflammatory.
I think anyone following the advice to only proceed if you're sure a driver has made eye contact will not get very far on their journey.

 

[glenn forger]

The roundabout advice is stupid and dangerous. Who made that leaflet? How come a search on the url only links to this forum, it's never been posted anywhere else?

 

[MarkF]

I feel that the whole thing is daft! There's so much more useful and concise information out there, what if someone reads this and then completely ignores all other advice?

I think they are a good thing, although I don't agree with all that is on them. I'd like to see a "better" one sold with every bike as a condition of sale.

There might well be more useful and concise information out there but that is not much good. The people that I see every single day, viewing gaps down the side of HGV's with the thrill of a ferret spotting a hole to dive in, are not going to see that information. They are just using a bike to get to work, quicker or cheaper, or maybe the journey is opportunity to get fit/lose weight. They are not going to seek out safe cycling practice on the internet because many are not interested in "cycling", safely or not.

 

[snorri]

The whole tone is patronising and a bit daft and sounds as if it has been written by a car driver who has not done a lot of cycling.
The paragraph 'Advantages of cycling' is particularly odd in that they compare cycling with driving a car, but fail to compare other modes of transport, ie walking, skate board, scooter, motorbike or bus etc..
The suggestion of readily available cycle parking in towns is rubbish.
Trying to convince cyclists not to rlj because it gives cyclists a "bad name" is pathetic.
The only positive comment I can make is the omission of the usual h***** nonsense.

 

[StuartG]

When you buy a new car, do you get a patronising little leaflet with photos of people driving cars properly and lots of advice about how to stay safe on the road? (I've never bought a new car, so I wouldn't know.)

You usually do get a thin pamphlet about the car and how to operate it safely. Except for the audio system instructions which come in a separate and much fatter booklet. Priorities sorted!

 

[400bhp]

Who cares what it says, no-on will take any notice of it anyway.

 

[glenn forger]

I don't think the leaflet exists anywhere except on this thread.