Bon voyage and bon appetite. As they say in Barnsley...

Regret won't be able to attend. Bit off my patch down here in Darkest Somerset. Looking forward to seeing the book, though.

Indeed! And while we're on the subject of "liability", don't forget that with that £30 we get £10 million worth of 3rd Party insurance. I've no idea what proportion of the £30 the insurance premium represents (neither do I care); whatever it is it's still cheap as chips and demonstrates that the insurance industry has a better take on the risks that cyclists present than the "cyclists are a menace" detractors have. Apparently with our £58 family membership we as a family of four appear to present an even lower risk to the world at large. (Or it might reflect the fact that we only get the one bi-monthly magazine between us...:-))

..."any injury sustained may be the cyclist's own fault" and cyclists themselves could be held partly liable... A common belief. Blame the victim for getting in the way of the motor vehicle. Another symptom of the sad, sick, car-obsessed, bike-phobic culture we are unfortunate enough to find ourselves. When will they ever learn? ...Although the speed of the collision meant the helmet made no difference to the eventual outcome of Mr Smith's case, [because he wasn't wearing a helmet] in which the motorcyclist was held fully liable, it is feared the ruling could open the door to attempts to reduce damages by insurers... This has happened in the past. The CTC fought a similar case and beat off an insurance company trying to dodge its responsibilities. A cast iron reason why everyone who rides a bike should be encouraged to support a campaigning organisation like the CTC.

This helmet business runs and runs, doesn't it! I think that most of us accept that there is no established evidence that helmets save lives, but there is plenty of evidence (New South Wales, for instance) where helmet laws have reduced cycling (thereby reducing cycling casualties, but not in the way intended). Most of us who cycle know that there are greater risks (due to the side-effects of a sedentary lifestyle) in NOT cycling. We accept that a bike helmet is only designed to protect our heads when striking the edge of the kerb at 12mph (19kph). We accept that if we are hit by a tonne of moving metal a helmet might as well be made of soggy cardboard. Having said all that, I'll admit to wearing a helmet most of the time. I don't know why. I think that the helmet serves a similar purpose as a child's comfort blanket; I wear it "just in case". But if a compulsory helmet law is brought in in Britain I'd probably give up cycling. Which is probably what the Bike-Phobic British Establishment and their Daily Mail reading supporters would be delighted to hear. The next thing I'd do would be to leave Britain for good. It would indeed be the final staw. I'm that close packing up and going.

...only when I get the heads-up, as in that article. That's my story and I'm stuck to it. :-) BTW I'm amazed the paper hasn't gone all holier-than-thou on how dangerous it is to ride a bicycle round a supermarket. Damned right! Supposing you collided with some little old lady with a trolley-load of her week's supply of Guinness? There'd be hell to pay for that buckled wheel...

Of course the buffoons at the Daily Star are doing their usual worst by accusing Duffy of "...setting a shocking example to her young fans because she is riding illegally through dark streets without lights or reflectors and is not wearing a helmet..." Idiots. (Before you ask, no I'm not a habitual reader of redtop trash; I picked up the link from the CTC website. :-))

As Charlie and Hungry are post decimalisation people we can forgive the slightly inaccurate "ten bob" title Pre-decimal old gits like myself would know that a "bob" was the nickname for a "shilling" or 5p in decimal money. So, "ten bob" is 50p. "50p Britain" would indeed be a challenge. Totally irrelevant and totally pedantic of course, and in no way detracts from Charlie's project. Good luck, Charlie. Enjoy yourself and looking forward to reading your blog.

Luckily for me and my family there is a very similar family butchers shop just ten minutes walk from where we live. G Mitchard and Sons in Radstock, Somerset, UK is family concern now into its fourth generation of Mitchards. How you describe Buntings very much matches this shop. One of the few places left where shopping is still a social event. Long may it last.

The first port of call would be here: CTC If you're in London this might be of interest: CTUK This is where I took my training course: LifeCycle UK

...i'm not sure your motorway metaphor works... I know what you mean. I was only trying to illustrate that just because it's there does not necessarily mean that you have to use it. Just for the record, I'm just as trapped in the car dependent culture as anyone, as well as being very pro-cycling - Accredited National Standard Cycle Instructor and all that...

It's well to remember that the use of cycle lanes is not compulsory - just like using a motorway is not compulsory should you wish to use the parallel road. It's also well to remember that many cycle lanes are regarded as next to useless and others are either so badly designed that they are either unusable or even dangerous. That's why many cyclists don't and won't use them. The Cyclecraft manual, published by the Stationery Office - essentially the definitive guide to safe cycling - shows that it is usually safer for a cyclist to take his or her rightful place on the road with the traffic. Of course, this implies that the cyclist is skilled and experienced. Cycle lanes might be perceived as "safe" by less experienced and less confident riders. A good case for anyone who wants to cycle "properly" to get themselves some good training from one of the numerous organisations that are springing up around the UK.