Has this as it’s top story (presumably its front page too).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/save-our-cyclists-clamour-for-flood-of-avoidable-road-deaths-to-be-stemmed-2268135.html

Which is good. But then this is the most read article at present, which sums things up to some extent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/the-50-best-cars-2265058.html

Bought a copy this morning just for this article

Why does that sum things up? i love fast cars and my bike and i commute too. i dont know what you mean by that?

What I mean is that despite the fact the bike story is at the top of homepage, an article about cars that’s buried away towards the bottom is still read by more people, suggesting that (in an admittedly small sample of people) there’s much more interest in the motor vehicle than the pedal cycle at present.

I’m not suggesting that you can only have a bike or a car, or aren’t allowed to like cars, fast or otherwise, if you ride a bike.

Guy on Radio London talking about it and how amsterdam was better for some reason – but no mention of the difference in the insurance regime – I believe that in an accident with a bike it is automatically at least 50% the cars fault, or something like that…

The ages of the cyclist killed were alarming; 20, 20, 22, 30. Obviously I’m not suggesting that older people are more deserving of death! But these people had hardly lived.

Tragic, I wonder how many HGVs which injure or kill cyclists are transporting cars?

turnerguy – in an accident the least vulnerable road user is deemed at fault unless they can show otherwise – so in a car / bike collision the car driver is deemed at fault unless they can show the bike was at fault

there’s much more interest in the motor vehicle than the pedal cycle at present

Really? 😆