Cyclists

[gkerr4]

Well , in the event of a cyclist being hit by a car because he was on the road when he should have been on the path - it would be evident he had broken the law . If cyclists riding on the road where a path was available found themselves automatically liable for the ( entirely avoidable ) damage to the other vehicle , the impact on their pockets would also be incentive to comply with the rules .

There are now cops on bikes and small motorcycles who are going after cyclists for disregarding traffic lights etc - so enforcement is possible .

please tell me this is a joke?

no cyclist wants cycle-lanes - they have only been dreamed up by the driver-lobby groups - the need getting rid of - there are hundred of cycle lanes all across the land - they are called "roads" and they are for sharing!

what we need is stiff jail penalties for drivers who cause acidents to cyclists then maybe they will open their eyes and use them!

or do you think that road users who dare to hold drivers up for a few seconds should be punished by death under a 2ton cage of steel?

always remember - the cyclist has priority on the road - always! - you (and I) pay road tax in order to compensate cyclists and pedestrians for the inconvenience YOU cause - i.e. damaging the road and polluting the environment.

 

[Stratman]

I'm a cyclist and I want cycle lanes if only to protect me from the likes of ***, white-knuckled, foaming at the mouth as he's delayed for literally some seconds on his vitally important journey.

 

[trapperjohn]

It is not the "few seconds" that get to me. I will always be courteous and very aware to a single rider going about his/her passage home. I will give him/her heaps of space, pulling well wide as I overtake in case of any sudden moves to their right to avoid something I may not have seen in the road. Usually road slippage into the grass verge at the side of the road causing a massive pot hole which they have to avoid.
It is the deliberate riding side by side (particularly on B Roads, or country roads) just having a yap on the way home from work totally oblivious to showing any courtesy for a "few seconds" to the cars and vans they know are behind them on the B Roads. It’s only a "few seconds" where I would like them to ride in file. Yes I know it is their "right" to ride two abreast. Good road sense and I use the old fashioned word here, manners, cuts both ways.
Big Edit/Addition. This concerns me greatly.
Oh, I live on a hill on a busy A Road. Some cyclists have adopted the footpath as a cycle track. Swooping down the hill at great speed on the pavement zipping across the end of our drive. Usually no lights, hi viz or helm. Quite a few have nearly come to grief over the bonnet of the 124. I do edge gently out but the speed they come at must be in law as "furious pedalling"
The real cyclists stick to the road in their hi viz’s, helms and lights. The "traffic calming" measures on the A6 just outside our house do not leave much room for a bus or an HGV and a cyclist to pass side by side in any comfort whatsoever in their given direction.
I often wonder who would be at fault if a cyclist was knocked off whilst on the pavement (God don’t let it be me) and thrown into the on-coming traffic on the A6.
Not intended to inflame anyone. I live and let live as best I can.

 

[blue gnome123]

Cycle paths do work even for keen cyclists. Belgium is a great example of this. It's illegal to cycle on the road when there is a cycle path available and if you don't you will be pulled by the police. However the big difference to the vast majority of UK cycle paths is that the Belgian cycle paths are wide, regularly cleaned and generally great to ride on.

 

[buccal]

It is certainly highly effective and , if we ever get to the stage where cycling is subject to further regulation then compulsion of items like hi-viz , lights after dark and helmets being worn would seem like common sense .
QUOTE]

I agree entirely Derek,

However what terrifies me on a daily basis is that i'm 6ft 1,

decked literally from head to toe in hi-viz, with constant/flashing lights etc etc

and STILL both motorists and pedestrians don't see me

 

[st13phil]

It is not the "few seconds" that get to me. I will always be courteous and very aware to a single rider going about his/her passage home. I will give him/her heaps of space, pulling well wide as I overtake in case of any sudden moves to their right to avoid something I may not have seen in the road. Usually road slippage into the grass verge at the side of the road causing a massive pot hole which they have to avoid.
It is the deliberate riding side by side (particularly on B Roads, or country roads) just having a yap on the way home from work totally oblivious to showing any courtesy for a "few seconds" to the cars and vans they know are behind them on the B Roads. It’s only a "few seconds" where I would like them to ride in file. Yes I know it is their "right" to ride two abreast. Good road sense and I use the old fashioned word here, manners, cuts both ways.

I agree entirely. A combination of good manners and good road sense exhibited by all road users results in less potential for conflict and a more pleasant experience for everyone. Too many people seem to confuse doing something that's legal with doing something that's sensible. Putting yourself in a potential conflict situation with fast moving, heavy bits of metal through inappropriate road positioning may be perfectly legal, but is certainly isn't sensible.

While there are quite obviously a large number of sensible, considerate, cyclists (just as there are a large number of sensible, considerate, drivers), there are also an increasing number who - for whatever reason - think that they can do precisely as they please on the roads and that everyone else has to modify their behaviour so as not to mow them down. This attitude is neither sensible nor conducive to longevity. If these morons were to devote as much of their feeble intellect to considering their responsibilities as road users as they do to shouting about their rights, peaceful coexistance without conflict would be much easier for everyone.

 

[bluevenetian]

Have I cycled two abreast, having a chat? - yes... would I revert to single file if I was holding a car or any other vehicle up? - yes... Its just decent manners in my book, regardless of the law.

 

[ss201]

When I was in Italy a few years ago (ironically as a spectator following the Mille Miglia), in all the old towns and cities where the streets were so narrow that motor vehicular traffic was not allowed, there were so many people using bikes it was amazing. The variety of ages of people using them was even more surprising. I never saw anyone cycling at much more than walking speed, weaving in and out of the pedestrians - just generally mingling with everyone else and no-one seemed put out in the slightest. Just shows it can be done if everyone just chills out a little and shows respect for each other. Italians are pretty cool by nature, so it must be a culture thing.

 

[219]

please tell me this is a joke?

no cyclist wants cycle-lanes - they have only been dreamed up by the driver-lobby groups - the need getting rid of - there are hundred of cycle lanes all across the land - they are called "roads" and they are for sharing!

This one does - I am ALWAYS glad of them , and the relative safety they provide from the danger of being clipped by a truck going by at 50 mph , or whatever .

what we need is stiff jail penalties for drivers who cause acidents to cyclists then maybe they will open their eyes and use them!

I'm sure that deterrent already exists

or do you think that road users who dare to hold drivers up for a few seconds should be punished by death under a 2ton cage of steel?

No , but cyclists who flout all the rules of the road run risk of bringing that fate upon themselves .

always remember - the cyclist has priority on the road - always!

Cyclists are subject to the same rules of priority as others - that attitude , expressed by those who blatantly run red lights as though they don't apply to them - brings nothing but danger , and contempt from all other road users - including other cyclists .

you (and I) pay road tax in order to compensate cyclists and pedestrians for the inconvenience YOU cause - i.e. damaging the road and polluting the environment.

'Road Tax' , back when it was called that , was invented to fund the building of roads for motor vehicles . VED , as it is currently described , is just another tax levied by the government to plug the hole in the economy .

 

[gkerr4]

This one does - I am ALWAYS glad of them , and the relative safety they provide from the danger of being clipped by a truck going by at 50 mph , or whatever .
can't agree - they are a pain in the **** - you have to give way to everyone!


I'm sure that deterrent already exists
i'm not sure I agree either - the papers would make it seem that it is perfectly acceptable to use a car to kill a motorcyclist - in a kind of "oh well, he was probably in the way anyway" - fine at most is dished out - look at the high-profile cases of road racers in the last year or so!


No , but cyclists who flout all the rules of the road run risk of bringing that fate upon themselves .
true - completely agree.



Cyclists are subject to the same rules of priority as others - that attitude , expressed by those who blatantly run red lights as though they don't apply to them - brings nothing but danger , and contempt from all other road users - including other cyclists .

well agree on road usage (red lights, stop signs etc) that is just common sense - but most drivers seem to think that even travelling along a straight line the cyclist has less priority - the fact is that pedestrians, horses, cyclists (in that order) have priority on the road.


'Road Tax' , back when it was called that , was invented to fund the building of roads for motor vehicles . VED , as it is currently described , is just another tax levied by the government to plug the hole in the economy

doesnt matter what it is called - VED is (from an economist p.o.v.) an "externality charge", i.e. you have to pay it becuase the actions you wish to pursue have a negative impact on other people. In this case it's damaging the roads and polluting the environment - agree that the term VED places more emphasis on the polluting side of things and yes, i agree it gets ramped up to plug a whole in the budget - although in fairness there are a sizeable chunk of motorists who pay very little or even zero to this "cause" (not talking about old cars, but rather those low emissions things that everyone except merc seem to be producing these days!)

.

added comments to your response, i think..

 

[LTD]

Given the apparent poor visibility of cyclists, their poor road manners and flagrant flouting of the law ....

..... why do we still see more accidents involving two or more cars ?

 

[219]

Because there are A LOT more cars on the roads than bikes ?

 

[LTD]

Because there are A LOT more cars on the roads than bikes ?

Same amount of cars yet they seem more prevalent to crash in to each other than bikes - despite the extra benefits of size, visibility etc.

Is it just that car drivers don't care who or what that they hit ?

 

[st4]

Same amount of cars yet they seem more prevalent to crash in to each other than bikes - despite the extra benefits of size, visibility etc.

But there is not.

Drive along any road, and you will count many more cars than there are pushbikes.

As you have said, car drivers are often not upto the job, given my efforts to commute to work, by car, I am inclined to agree. I narrowly avoided being killed by checking a junction I was about to clear (passing through a green light I was and someone was running a red). I could see what the dozy **** was doing so braked and avoided it.

If I had not had the foresight to OBSERVE, I may be typing this from a hospital bed or someone typing for me.

So, two halftwits withing feet of each other in a metal box they don't have full control of, of course trouble will happen. If car drivers cannot accept the risk of driving, they should not drive or travel in a car.

Cylists, by nature of keeping the thing upright, and having to oberserve for their own self preservation, will anticipate a hazard better. They also, due to their reduced speed, have a greater chance of seeing a hazard and take appropriate action.

Its entirely reasonable to say a car will more likely be involved with another car in an accident, and at low speeds the odds for the two drivers are ok, but for a cyclists this is not the case and they should take every step to make themselves more visible, and not put themselves in danger (running red lights being my prime rant-great western road and Byres road junction, busy right, yet more often or not, cyclists run this light). Going through red lights is a dangerous manouver and only emergency service drivers, police have the training, skill and the extra illumination/sirens to do this safely. A bike is at the other end of the spectrum, its only a matter of time before its game over for red light running cyclists, and you know what, its just Darwin theory in action.

 

[LTD]

Steve

Yes, the number of cars is far greater than bikes but the point I am making is that there are far far many accidents involving multiple cars than bikes and cars.

I think that the biggest problem that car drivers, in the main, have with cyclists is that the car drivers are simply not up to the job of mainainting the level of care and attention that they need to in order to prevent an accident.

Drivers take the high road on morality instead of looking at their own failings. Phones, music, roadside adverts etc.

I'd rather have training than accountability.

 

[st4]

Steve

Yes, the number of cars is far greater than bikes but the point I am making is that there are far far many accidents involving multiple cars than bikes and cars.

But there would be, due to the greater number of cars. All things being equal, and I do not have the statistics here, with a lesser number of bikes, car to car has to be the most common accident.

I think that the biggest problem that car drivers, in the main, have with cyclists is that the car drivers are simply not up to the job of mainainting the level of care and attention that they need to in order to prevent an accident.

Drivers take the high road on morality instead of looking at their own failings. Phones, music, roadside adverts etc.

This applies also to car to car accidents. I personally have been subjected to some scandalous displays of other peoples car driving. The woman in the red light was only the last one and that was Yesterday.

I'd rather have training than accountability.

So would I.

The DSA test is woefully inadequate for preparing those with driving a car in the UK.

I remember my test, I wee run around Dumbarton and a crappy few manouvers to do.

The next day I would be entitled to drive ANY car on ANY road here.

Imagine tackling the M6 and M25 as a new driver (4-5 lanes) lots of lane swapping, off and on ramps. A lot of concentration is needed.

The only car I had driven really was a 1200cc Corsa, then imagine me 1 day later in the car I have now (thankfully not in reality) but bar financial limitations it could be and that is not right.

There should be a "big" car test rather like the motorbike system to prevent people driving cars that are really beyond their controls. Imagine someone driving for 10 years nice hatches, then they get something like an M3 and have not really sampled a powerful car, they could well get burnt and take others with them, or someone (there is someone like this at my old work) who just potters about Glasgow, and she then suddenly has to drive to Birmingham on Motorways that she has had no training or grasp on how to handle (this did happen, her words were I loved the M6 I could stay on the middle lane most of the way).

We cannot prepare for every adverse scenario, but we can do a lot better than we are doing just now.

 

[LTD]

There should be a "big" car test rather like the motorbike system to prevent people driving cars that are really beyond their controls.

Have a look at any coachbuilder - it ain't full of high performance cars being repaired ...........

Most drivers have cars beyond the scope of their control.

 

[st4]

Have a look at any coachbuilder - it ain't full of high performance cars being repaired ...........

Most drivers have cars beyond the scope of their control.

Again, volume of mass vs high performance cars but agreed, most cars these days have more than enough capability to out gun a novice.

 

[219]

I can't remember who once said " any idiot can drive fast enough to be dangerous " .

 

[st4]

I can't remember who once said " any idiot can drive fast enough to be dangerous " .

True, above 10mph the body is not designed to go this fast, so thats pretty much EVERY production car.