• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Cyclists

I think all cyclists should be rounded up and given the cat-O-nine tails for their sins.

Lycra and spandex should also be made illegal attire for men and any bicycle spotted venturing on the public highway should be immediately impounded and then crushed. The correct place for bicycles is either in the park or in the crusher.

Bicycle sales should be subject to a special taxation in line with the highest VED rating of £1000 per year due to the increased emissions they cause through increasing traffic.

Pah, another nanby-pamby liberal.

But perhaps somebody can answer this: Do cycle clubs have to make arrangements with Police or anybody else before arranging a cycle race on public roads?

Every Sunday morning for the past three weeks a field of maybe 100 riders has been doing a circuit around my area on B and minor roads. complete with cars with flashing amber lights and also numpties with no power to stop or direct traffic who constantly wave red flags at passing cars with no clear indication of what, precisely, said motorist is intended to do other than wonder why a numpty with no power to stop or direct traffic is waving a red flag. This causes utter chaos!
 
Not directly related, but... London is generally well lit, and most cyclist do not seem to bother with fitting lights of any sort - back or front.

This is not normally an issue - because as I said, the streets are generally well lit - however I realised a while a go that due to my auto dimming driver's side external mirror, I can not see cyclist when pulling out into the road, if there is traffic coming behind me.

The cars behind me may be far away, definitely enough for me to pull out safely, but with the mirror dimmed I am completely blind to any moving object that has no light on.

Also, even if I wait for the car to pass, there is a period of a few seconds before the mirror goes back to normal - during which, again, I can not see any cyclist without light.

This is very worrying, I do not wish to injure anyone, but I have no idea what can be done about it - I even considered at one point removing the auto dimming fuse - but my other worry that under certain circumstances my insurer might not be happy if I do that - i.e. disable an existing 'safety' feature on purpose - for example if I manage to collide head on with another vehicle at night?

By the way - to a lesser extend this is also an issue when turning right in general - if there are cars behind me, the driver's side external mirror will dim and I can not see anyone without light to the right of my vehicle - again risking hitting an un-lit cyclist.

Luckily the near side mirror does not auto dim, so no problem when turning left...

Has anyone else experienced this problem?
 
Last edited:
Don't agree with that one they have paid for their car but not their cycle, thats like saying I have paid road tax & Insurance on my car so now I can ride my motorcycle on the road for free?

Ye gods, how many times! Provided these cyclists are paying their fair share of council tax, they are funding the maintenance of any roads on which they are ever likely to cycle. And if they are dogding their council tax, they are criminals and ought to be deported to Australia...

Seriously, when are people going to accept that maintenance of anything other than trunk roads and motorways (and private roads, of course) is down to the local authorities.

Insurance is another matter. I agree that cyclists should carry cover for third party liabilities, and would fully support any workable method of implementing this.
 
Ye gods, how many times! Provided these cyclists are paying their fair share of council tax, they are funding the maintenance of any roads on which they are ever likely to cycle. And if they are dogding their council tax, they are criminals and ought to be deported to Australia...

Seriously, when are people going to accept that maintenance of anything other than trunk roads and motorways (and private roads, of course) is down to the local authorities.

And vehicle tax isn't hypothecated to road building or repair at all, nor is fuel duty. Just like National Insurance isn't hypothecated to paying pensions or sickness benefits. They are taxes levied on different economic activities to pay for general expenditure .
 
Derek, I always look out for your wisdom on this forum. Yet this is one of the times you are very wide of the mark.
I'm sure there are plenty of them :)


1. Cycle lanes were put in to encourage people ON to bikes, not really to help existing 'cyclists'

I can't recollect any stated aim , but that is as good a reason as any . I would venture that making life safer for cyclists , pedestrians , motorists altogether by separating them from each other is a very good idea which benefits everyone , including existing cyclists . Even if a mile of cycle lane saves only one life it is worthwhile . Car drivers , too , can make easier progress when they are not 'competing' for space on the road with cyclists moving at lower speeds .



2. You bemoan the 'Chelsea tractor' brigades favouring taxiing their little dahlings about, yet you are putting up a million and one obstacles in front of children getting on their bikes!

I merely mentioned them to illustrate how times have changed over the last 40 years .

I don't advocate putting ANY obstacles in the way of children enjoying cycling . At the same time I do believe that the busy roads we have today , populated by much faster traffic than those of forty years ago , are no place for young children to cycle unsupervised . I have no problem with very young children on small bikes cycling on the pavements , in the park , along the prom at the seaside or on designated cycle paths ( the kind often converted from disused railway tracks ) .

As children grow older , riding bigger and faster bikes , it becomes less appropriate for them to be cycling along footpaths busy with pedestrians ( including vulnerable groups such as the very young , the elderly and the disabled ) but they may not yet be ready to venture onto the roads and 'mix it' with cars , trucks , buses etc . I suppose riding on selected roads under the supervision of a responsible adult would be a good introduction ( much in the same way as learner drivers have to be accompanied by a 'qualified' driver ) as well as off-road instruction , perhaps as part of the school curriculum ( this might be carried out by suitably qualified teaching staff , local police road safety unit , volunteers from organisations like RoSPA .... ) .

I would not suggest that children or parents should be asked to pay ANYTHING for cycle tuition whilst they are still of school age - our taxes are squandered on things far less important than the safety of our young and few could object to this being centrally funded . For the less well off , assistance with items such as helmets , hi-viz clothing , lights could be funded too ?

I still think that , before being able to cycle unsupervised on public roads , passing a test such as the National Cycling Proficiency Test ( thanks to the member on the other forum who confirmed that it still exists ) ought to be mandatory - at least then we can be assured that all roadgoing cyclists have had some practical training and been tested on at least the cycling sections of 'The Highway Code' with a working knowledge of road signs , rules of priority at junctions etc etc .

A pass in the NCPT should then generate a registration number which belongs to the cyclist for life and has to be displayed any time the cyclist ventures onto the road . The pass would be certificated in the form of a credit card sized 'license' . No NCPT pass : stay off the roads ; no registration number displayed - expect to be stopped by the police unless being accompanied by a qualified rider .

Those who are going to continue cycling after school should then pay a nominal annual fee which would cover admin of the system .

Those who don't wish to be tested could still cycle on dedicated cycle tracks , away from other road users , where they are less likely to harm either themselves or others .

All of my suggestions are solely for the safety and wellbeing of those who choose to get around on two wheels .
 
I find the questions of taxing cyclist to be purely academic.

Cyclist will always be exempt from any form of tax, insurance, and obeying traffic rules and regulations. This is not a cynic statement.

The current national mood is to actively encourage cycling. Therefore, nothing that hinders the proliferation of cycling will by passed. Any form of taxation or insurance will require paperwork and bureaucracy and will naturally put some people off cycling, so will not happen.

Similarly, any attempt to make cyclist accountable and obey traffic laws will have to involve some form of licensing and registration - otherwise no sanction is possible against a cyclist who jumps a red light etc - how can they be reported, found, and fined?

So I suggest we all get used to the idea that cycling is a free-spirit type of activity - and therefore can not be bound by any form of registration or bureaucracy, hence the de-facto exemption from road tax, insurance, and traffic laws.
 
Live and let live.

How much were you really inconvenienced, and did it matter anyway?

Why should your convenience take priority over theirs?

Not massively inconvienced in the scheme of life.

My convenience takes priority as my vehicle is a financial contributor and theres is not.

Its not however that, its more the fact they IMHO, in this occasion were putting themselves in undue danger. The extra visibility of the second bike a breast as not an issue, was a nice clear day.

Causing a 10 car queue however is.

If this thread was about middle lane hoggers, who cause tailbacks, I guess the replies would be different no? How much extra hassle is it for someone to move into lane 3 and pass the lane 2 hogger, not a lot, they might have to wait a bit, scheme of life nil. Massively annoying though, why then is the reaction different when I replace middle lane hogger with push bike.
 
Incidentally, I don't cycle myself, but I do not 'hate' cyclists, as some motorists do - yes, they jump red lights, come up against you on a one way street, and do all sort of hair raising nuisance (well, some do, anyway) - but whenever I see a cyclist in Central London, I say to myself that I should be happy that he or she did not drive a car into town...
 
My only worry with regards to cyclists - is that I may injure one, or worse.

There was this woman a couple of years ago that was sent to 5 years in prison because she killed a cyclist while texting on her mobile - in spite of the fact the the cyclist was - according to eye witnesses - jumping a red light, while the lady driver had a green light.
 
Last edited:
Wait unti lI am behind *** in my car.

I pay more road tax
I use more fuel
I can go faster

Ergo, he moves over and lets me pass :)
No I kickdown and cover in black smoke as I see its you out to play...
 
There is a rule in the Highway Code about not throwing things out of a vehicle. Fortunately, this does not include throwing your toys out of the window when caught behind a cyclist.
 
What annoys me is whilst driving on a certain road in SW London, made narrower by the local council so they could install a designated cycle lane as a half width of the footway, the lycra clad crew still insist on holding up traffic and using the road even though they have been provided with a cycle lane making it safer for all concerned! Idots!!

... because Councils sweep roads occasionally but cycle paths very rarely if ever. Bikes are susceptible to punctures and hence it's safer to ride on the road rather than the cycle path...
 
My only worry with regards to cyclists - is that I may injure one, or worse.

There was this woman a couple of years ago that was sent to 5 years in prison because she killed a cyclist while texting on her mobile - in spite of the fact the the cyclist was - according to eye witnesses - jumping a red light, while the lady driver had a green light.

... and was doing 45 mph in a 30 mph zone where she had had two speeding tickets previously and 9 points in total on her licence.

... and was driving a BMW
 
Last edited:
What annoys me is whilst driving on a certain road in SW London, made narrower by the local council so they could install a designated cycle lane as a half width of the footway, the lycra clad crew still insist on holding up traffic and using the road even though they have been provided with a cycle lane making it safer for all concerned! Idots!!


This is also often the case at Tavistock Place near Holborn...
 
... and was doing 45 mph in a 30 mph zone where she had had two speeding tickets previously and 9 points in total on her licence.

... and was driving a BMW

Yes... but had the cyclist not jumped a red light, he would have been alive and she would not have gone to prison...

BMW, you say? Naah, let her rot :D
 
AKA Mamils == MiddleAgedMenInLycraShorts

just a small point of information
:)
 
Re cyclists with no lights, I couldn't agree more. As a fellow cyclist I think it's madness to ride at night with no lights...........

..........almost as mad as driving in fog/heavy rain/at dusk with no lights - especially on the motorway. So let's all be careful out there!
 
... because Councils sweep roads occasionally but cycle paths very rarely if ever. Bikes are susceptible to punctures and hence it's safer to ride on the road rather than the cycle path...

I used to get a fair few punctures on my bike too , but after I fitted Kevlar strips inside my tyres about 10 years ago , I haven't had a single one !

This is a bit like a pedestrian walking on the road because he felt he might trip on the pavement - then complaining when he was hit by a car !

The answer is to petition your council to have the paths swept more regularly ; the ones up here are done frequently and cycle paths are both in good condition and well used , although a few idiots still insist on cycling on the road .

If councils see cyclists ignoring facilities provided at considerable cost , they are hardly going to be well disposed to providing further facilities elsewhere .

My opinion is that you are more likely to be seriously injured as a result of being hit by a car/van/truck/bus than from having a puncture , so it cannot be said that cycling on the road is 'safer' .

It ought to be mandatory to use cycle lanes where they are provided .
 
It ought to be mandatory to use cycle lanes where they are provided .

From the year I cycled to work in London before I stopped as death or serious injury was only one lapse of concentration of some white van man away, the cycle lane network was lethal. Better to remove them frankly, most are unusable because of parked vehicles anyway.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom