Are Londoners Better Cyclists?

[blazed]

In general are those who cycle in London better than the rest of the country? I think you have to put up with the most in London and are probably somewhat hardened by this and develop better instincts.

 

[ianrauk]

As apposed to cycling in Manchester or Birmingham or Liverppol or Glasgow are come to think of it any big city? What do you mean by most?

 

[marinyork]

Someone I know who moved up here from London still thinks London's a more pleasant place to cycle. It also took him 18 months to get used to going from somewhere with no hills to a few.

 

[blazed]

As apposed to cycling in Manchester or Birmingham or Liverppol or Glasgow are come to think of it any big city? What do you mean by most?

Well to be honest i dont class any of those as big citys not when you look around the world. And they are nowhere near the size of London certainly.

 

[ianrauk]

Doesn't matter the size of a City as to how busy it is. And I know that the City's I mentioned are just as busy as London for cycling.

Well to be honest i dont class any of those as big citys not when you look around the world. And they are nowhere near the size of London certainly.

 

[summerdays]

I doubt they are better cyclists - I think you adjust to your environment and often get to know what the dangers are. Country roads have different dangers. And from the comments about RLJ'ing in London, it sounds worst than anywhere else.

 

[blazed]

Doesn't matter the size of a City as to how busy it is. And I know that the City's I mentioned are just as busy as London for cycling.

Whenever you see studies on the worlds worst trafficked cities i never see any of the ones you mentioned, yet London is always up there. They are not even close to being as bad. Excluding Liverpool, London is also the most densely populated out of the ones you listed.

I think Londoners are also in better shape in general so it would stand to reason there would be better cyclists.

 

[summerdays]

I think Londoners are also in better shape in general so it would stand to reason there would be better cyclists.

What in your terms would be a better cyclist ... in mine it wouldn't be the fittest certainly, I had assumed you meant from a safety point of view.

 

[aJohnson]

I think he's just trying to stir up an argument.

 

[blazed]

What in your terms would be a better cyclist ... in mine it wouldn't be the fittest certainly, I had assumed you meant from a safety point of view.

Well speed is top of my priority list not safety, however i am talking in general day to day terms who are the better cyclists. So obviously fitness and safety etc all come in to it.

 

[blazed]

I think he's just trying to stir up an argument.

A debate not an argument.

 

[RedBike]

I think Londoners are also in better shape in general so it would stand to reason there would be better cyclists.

After all, Londons known for it hills!

 

[summerdays]

Well speed is top of my priority list not safety, however i am talking in general day to day terms who are the better cyclists. So obviously fitness and safety etc all come in to it.

You don't have to be fast to be safe - though it helps to be able to accelerate quickly if necessary. Far more important would be your general road craft skills, observation and positioning etc. Knowing an area also gives you a distinct advantage (potholes, what lane to be in, are you likely to be left hooked at a particular junction etc).

 

[gaz]

either your a bad cyclists or a good one, traffic doesn't change you in my mind.

 

[Paulus]

After all, Londons known for it hills!

Central London maybe pan flat, but go a couple of miles north or south from the centre and you will find quite a few steep ones.