# I'm a cyclist.



## artie (30 Jan 2022)

I'm also a pedestrian, but most of my time on the road, I'm a motorist.

Lots of people kicking off about the new highway code rules.

The guy in the vid seems upset, but has anything significant changed?

Pedestrians always had right of way.

There was always an exclusion zone around cyclists

Is the highway code enforceable or is it just advice?


----------



## Droogs (30 Jan 2022)

If it says "must" in the Highway Code, then it is law and enforcible with points and or fines under a charge of contravening the Road Traffic Act. If it says should it is advisory only.


----------



## paulrbarnard (30 Jan 2022)

I agree the changes are only a reflection of what the origional intent was. Unfortunately too many vehicle drivers are either ignorant of their obligations or too arrogant/entitled to ensure they don't endanger others. These updates were very needed to ensure vunerable road users are able to make use of shared spaces safely.
You only need to look at comments in this forum to se why a resetting of drivers expectations are needed.


----------



## thetyreman (30 Jan 2022)

motorists are extremely ignorant of cyclist rights, I see it every day, councils don't help either by deliberately building half pineappled cycling lanes and cutting them off in weird places so you are forced to go into the middle of the road.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jan 2022)

thetyreman said:


> motorists are extremely ignorant of cyclist rights, I see it every day, councils don't help either by deliberately building half pineappled cycling lanes and cutting them off in weird places so you are forced to go into the middle of the road.







__





Cycle Facility of the Month






wcc.crankfoot.xyz


----------



## Spectric (30 Jan 2022)

Rather than change the highway code why not level up by saying that to use the road you need both insurance and an MOT plus add a cycle as a class of vehicle to the driving license so you then need a driving test and the bike has to be registered which would also help with bike theft. Now a cyclist can also collect points on their license for any offences such as jumping red lights just like a motorist.


----------



## Adam W. (30 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> Rather than change the highway code why not level up by saying that to use the road you need both insurance and an MOT plus add a cycle as a class of vehicle to the driving license so you then need a driving test and the bike has to be registered which would also help with bike theft. Now a cyclist can also collect points on their license for any offences such as jumping red lights just like a motorist.


How about getting motorists to pay in full for the total amount of pollution that they emit ?


----------



## Spectric (30 Jan 2022)

Adam W. said:


> How about getting motorists to pay in full for the total amount of pollution that they emit ?


Covered by zero road tax for cyclist but cars etc pay depending on pollution levels. The bit that has escaped since day one has been the energy and pollution created by the actual production of a motor vehicle, it consumes far more than ever gets returned although slight improvement with better recycling.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Jan 2022)

Jeez. Popcorn time again.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> Rather than change the highway code why not level up by saying that to use the road you need both insurance and an MOT plus add a cycle as a class of vehicle to the driving license so you then need a driving test and the bike has to be registered which would also help with bike theft. Now a cyclist can also collect points on their license for any offences such as jumping red lights just like a motorist.


You've missed the point. The highway code, driving test, MOT, licence, insurance and all the other constraints which drivers have to put up with, are because powered vehicles would be even more dangerous without them. It's for their benefit to keep them from danger to themselves and other less dangerous road users too.
Pedestrians are not dangerous at all, runners, horses, cyclist could be but very rarely , so all that road traffic law and regulation would not be needed if it wasn't for powered vehicles. It's the price _they_ have to pay, not other road users.
Also it's assumed that vehicle owners can park on the public roads when not in use. Possibly the biggest mistake made in the history of motor vehicle law.
Or to put it simply - powered vehicles are the problem, pedestrians and cyclists are not.


----------



## Adam W. (30 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> Covered by zero road tax for cyclist but cars etc pay depending on pollution levels. The bit that has escaped since day one has been the energy and pollution created by the actual production of a motor vehicle, it consumes far more than ever gets returned although slight improvement with better recycling.




I'll agree on the huge amount of pollution created by the production of motor vehicles and that is why they should be much more expensive to buy.

The "road tax" doesn't cover emissions because it doesn't exist. No duty that motorists pay covers the cost of pollution emitted or the damage done to local and national infrastructure caused by motorists.

But carry on.


----------



## doctor Bob (30 Jan 2022)

Would it be good to start a thread on cycling every other day. Maybe a sharpening one on the inbetween days. or is it easier if I just go and put my head in a vice till it explodes?


----------



## artie (30 Jan 2022)

Adam W. said:


> How about getting motorists to pay in full for the total amount of pollution that they emit ?


That's an interesting angle, But why just apply it to motorists?

I expect if everyone had to pay for the pollution they cause, many items would disappear pdq.


----------



## selectortone (30 Jan 2022)

Ooh good, another cycling thread.


----------



## Adam W. (30 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> That's an interesting angle, But why just apply it to motorists?
> 
> I expect if everyone had to pay for the pollution they cause, many items would disappear pdq.


Because I can say that legitimately as I own a car and I'm happy to pay the charge for my pollution.


----------



## Daniel2 (30 Jan 2022)

Triple the price of fuel, that would make people reflect on
the necessity of their journey.
Bit tough on those that need their vehicle for work though,
I suppose.
And, no, I don't even possess a bicycle, let alone ride one.


----------



## artie (30 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> Ooh good, another cycling thread.


I thought it was about the highway code.


----------



## Daniel2 (30 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> Ooh good, another cycling thread.



Oh, I thought it was drifting into pollution.


----------



## paulrbarnard (30 Jan 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> Triple the price of fuel, that would make people reflect on
> the necessity of their journey.
> Bit tough on those that need their vehicle for work though,
> I suppose.
> And, no, I don't even possess a bicycle, let alone ride one.


The cost of the job done would need to cover the vehicle cost. There are a number of trades people now that use cargo bikes for transport. They even make it a marketing angle.


----------



## M_Chavez (30 Jan 2022)

Lots of cyclists here it seems.

Can anyone advise what grease I should use for my seatpost bearings?
Or is that topic best avoided, like sharpening and old vs new tools?


----------



## Jacob (30 Jan 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> Triple the price of fuel, that would make people reflect on
> the necessity of their journey.
> Bit tough on those that need their vehicle for work though,
> I suppose.
> .......


Not if it had been introduced gradually, from when the urgency of climate change became apparent 20 years ago or more.
People would have adapted, sought work/supplies from nearer home, changed behaviour, and so on. If it happens at all climate change action is going to be a shock!


----------



## JobandKnock (30 Jan 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> Triple the price of fuel, that would make people reflect on
> the necessity of their journey.
> Bit tough on those that need their vehicle for work though,
> I suppose.


As a tradesman, I concur. My personal "environmental policy" is not to drive whenever I can use public transport. That means I won't work on sites with inadequate night security nor on sites where I can't get a secure lock box in a secure compound for my kit at night. The problem is that there are a lot of sites where that just isn't the case, and a van is the only viable way to get to the job (try lugging a 2m level, a router and a one-piece hinge jig around together with your hand tools and you'll get the drift why we need vans - and no Jacob, you can't make a living doing this sort of thing with a sharpened teaspoon and a mallet any more). I'd like to see some more sensible approaches to fuel pollution instead of idiotic schemes, such as the ones proposed for Bradford, Leeds and Sheffield where private cars will be exempt from the "Congestion Charge" whilst vans, taxis, lorries and buses will be charged. Wrong way! Private cars should really be banned from city centres completely whilst other vehicles allowed in should have a very valid reason for being there. But then I feel the same about pollution from cheap air flights (I gave up flying 20 years ago - the fuel is not subject to much or any duty, unlike road vehicle fule) and unnecessary travel such as cruises (which often use highly polluting bunker fuel outside of EU controlled waters). So improve public transport, put some proper environmental controls on vehicular road users and it may get better for cyclists - but many cyclists also need better training and discipline

I'm both a driver and a cyclist, but I am appalled by the behaviour of many cyclists around larger vehicles with blind spots (e.g. vans, buses and lorries). When I learned to ride a motorbike I was taught to take a defensive riding strategy which included never riding into a vehicle's blind spot and making myself visible. I think that maybe 1 in 5 riders I see in the big cities just don't think the rules apply to them


----------



## Valhalla (30 Jan 2022)

Adam W. said:


> How about getting motorists to pay in full for the total amount of pollution that they emit ?


What - cyclists don't fart????


----------



## powertools (30 Jan 2022)

"" I'd like to see some more sensible approaches to fuel pollution instead of idiotic schemes, such as the ones proposed for Bradford, Leeds and Sheffield where private cars will be exempt from the "Congestion Charge" whilst vans, taxis, lorries and buses will be charged. Wrong way! Private cars should really be banned from city centres completely whilst other vehicles allowed in should have a very valid reason for being there.""


It is a great idea for government to tax business who then have to pass on that cost to customers so that the customers are actually paying tax without realising that they are actually paying tax.


----------



## Spectric (30 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Would it be good to start a thread on cycling every other day.


How about a challenge to build a wooden bike, maybe allow the chain and sprockets but all else in wood, yes maybe rubber tyres as well.


----------



## JobandKnock (30 Jan 2022)

powertools said:


> It is a great idea for government to tax business who then have to pass on that cost to customers so that the customers are actually paying tax without realising that they are actually paying tax.


It doesn't work that way. The construction industry is a lot more about people working for main contractors on fixed-rate/priced-0measure schemes and where it is impossible to pass on that increased cost to the customer. If you want to see the issue first hand go and stand on an overpass into any major city between 7am and 9am in the morning and count how many cars, vans, taxis, buses and taxis there are. Any money that 80% or more of vehicles on almost any road will be private cars, the vast majority of which have but one occupant


----------



## TRITON (30 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> The guy in the vid seems upset,


The guy appears to be a taxi driver. Well known for their adherence to the laws of the road.
The pics he's using appear to come from some sort of driver 'We hate everyone not a car driver' site. Those were in the DM yesterday.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (30 Jan 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> Triple the price of fuel, that would make people reflect on
> the necessity of their journey.
> Bit tough on those that need their vehicle for work though,
> I suppose.
> And, no, I don't even possess a bicycle, let alone ride one.


For a very long time I have been mumbling to myself that fossil fuels are far too cheap...


----------



## Spectric (30 Jan 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> the vast majority of which have but one occupant


What makes this really silly is that not only are there a load of cars with one occupant but they are also passing loads of similar cars going in the opposite direction because a lot of people in town A work in town B and people in town B working in town A.


----------



## JobandKnock (30 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> What makes this really silly is that not only are there a load of cars with one occupant but they are also passing loads of similar cars going in the opposite direction because a lot of people in town A work in town B and people in town B working in town A.


Yes, indeed. I well remember one firm I worked for in the 1980s where every week I travelled from Ormskirk to Reading to collect a works van and then spent the week working on jobs between Swindon and Bristol in the main whilst at the same time a colleague travelled from Basingstoke to Reading to collect his works van, driving up to work on projects in the Liverpool and Southport areas. They also had a 2-man team coming in from Norwich to Reading, then working in the Kent area whilst other guys from Birmingham were workingh in East Anglia during the week. Despite protestations to management this insane situation continued for the whole 6 months that I stuck it out with them (national chain of pubs and restaurants - since subsumed by a larger operator). Eventually I just gave up and left on the basis that you can't cure stupid


----------



## gog64 (30 Jan 2022)

I’m not getting involved in this, except to say that this has been badly introduced and badly thought through by this government. You need to take it on yourself make sure you actually understand the effects of this legislation, which are significant. There are several knowledgeable sources on the internet who can break it down for you. Ignorance of the law is no defence and you will need to change the way you drive (even if you think that you are a considerate and careful driver).


----------



## Jameshow (30 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> How about a challenge to build a wooden bike, maybe allow the chain and sprockets but all else in wood, yes maybe rubber tyres as well.


I started one have yet to finish it! 

I now have the FSA bb30 converter to go forward with it!!


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Jan 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> The construction industry is a lot more about people working for main contractors on fixed-rate/priced-0measure schemes and where it is impossible to pass on that increased cost to the customer.



My experience (about a third of our work is via main contractors) is that every cost - real or otherwise - is passed on to the customer with margin, MCD, and "management fee" added on top. Savings, however, are not.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jan 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> ..... and no Jacob, you can't make a living doing this sort of thing with a sharpened teaspoon and a mallet any more)........


I had a van too before I retired! My name plastered all over it. Peugeot 305 - a smart little mover, went like a rocket and a pleasure to drive!
For bigger jobs hired trailers - furthest took batches of sash windows and doors to County Mayo for instance.
But the point above about travelling in opposite directions was really obvious - I'd be on my way to Nottingham and there'd be a Nottingham joiner on the way to Derbyshire. Plenty of work for both nearer home.


----------



## artie (30 Jan 2022)

Someone posted this on facebook.


----------



## JobandKnock (30 Jan 2022)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> My experience (about a third of our work is via main contractors) is that every cost - real or otherwise - is passed on to the customer with margin, MCD, and "management fee" added on top. Savings, however, are not.


I'm a subbie in the large build field these days. The contractors I work for in general won't increase what they pay us until they can no longer get bodies to work for them. My expenses getting to work are never in their calculations because we aren't paid to drive - we're paid to build


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Jan 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> I'm a subbie in the large build field these days. The contractors I work for in general won't increase what they pay us until they can no longer get bodies to work for them.



Ah - not disputing that, but I bet the main contractor still adds on to the customer at every opportunity!


----------



## JobandKnock (30 Jan 2022)

Maybe so, but they try to screw us at every opportunity in my experience


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Jan 2022)

Oh yes - no argument there.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Someone posted this on facebook.


As someone said a couple of days ago "I was in the right" is virtue signalling from a gravestone.


----------



## JobandKnock (30 Jan 2022)

As the late, great Spike Milligan said on his gravestone, "Dúirt mé leat go raibh mé breoite"


----------



## Valhalla (31 Jan 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> As the late, great Spike Milligan said on his gravestone, "Dúirt mé leat go raibh mé breoite"


and try and say that after a bucket of the black stuff!!


----------



## Kittyhawk (31 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> How about a challenge to build a wooden bike, maybe allow the chain and sprockets but all else in wood, yes maybe rubber tyres as well.



Bamboo bikes - close enough.


----------



## LeeAkeroyd (31 Jan 2022)

Adam W. said:


> How about getting motorists to pay in full for the total amount of pollution that they emit ?



How about vehicle weight too? Heavier electric, battery laden vehicles must be having an impact on road surface conditions.


----------



## Spectric (31 Jan 2022)

Kittyhawk said:


> Bamboo bikes - close enough.


Almost, lets have some fancy wheels.


----------



## joethedrummer (31 Jan 2022)

,, i need to read up on the new rules,, yesterday a big old artic pulled up and blocked the main road to allow a dear old lady to cross over, the driver behind the artic tooted his hooter a few times so the artic driver walked back to him and gave the driver a "motivational chat" which made his nose bleed,, i didn,t see that mentioned in the rules,,


----------



## Droogs (31 Jan 2022)

Valhalla said:


> and try and say that after a bucket of the black stuff!!


I don't think I could say anything after a bucket of Bovril


----------



## artie (31 Jan 2022)

joethedrummer said:


> the artic driver walked back to him and gave the driver a "motivational chat" which made his nose bleed,,


That's real life experience, no amount of book learning makes up for it.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (31 Jan 2022)

joethedrummer said:


> ,, i need to read up on the new rules,, yesterday a big old artic pulled up and blocked the main road to allow a dear old lady to cross over, the driver behind the artic tooted his hooter a few times so the artic driver walked back to him and gave the driver a "motivational chat" which made his nose bleed,, i didn,t see that mentioned in the rules,,



The artic driver was probably feeling out of sorts, not having murdered a prostitute for 15 miles or so.


----------



## JobandKnock (31 Jan 2022)

Kittyhawk said:


> Bamboo bikes - close enough.
> View attachment 128313


Nah! Bamboo is technically a grass - so not wood at all



Sporky McGuffin said:


> The artic driver was probably feeling out of sorts, not having murdered a prostitute for 15 miles or so.


JC would be proud of you!


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (31 Jan 2022)

Do what?


----------



## JobandKnock (31 Jan 2022)

JC = Jeremy Clarkson, as in this clip


----------



## Jake (31 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> Almost, lets have some fancy wheels.



There are solid disk wheels made with plywood rather than carbon. Pain in a side wind though.


----------



## Sandyn (31 Jan 2022)

Kittyhawk said:


> Bamboo bikes - close enough.


Not a good idea!!! would just attract Pandas.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (31 Jan 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> JC = Jeremy Clarkson, as in this clip


I feel suitably ashamed for having thought along similar lines to him.


----------



## JobandKnock (31 Jan 2022)

I wouldn't. I think he is hilarious at times. But then I'm at an age where I feel no compunction to "go with the flow" any more


----------



## woodieallen (1 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> ......
> 
> Pedestrians always had right of way.
> ....



True especially if thy are halfway crossing the road. But where at least one of these new rules is just plain daft is expecting motorists to stop turning into a sidestreet if there is a pedestrian waiting on the corner to cross. Ever been in a city centre? There are always pedestrians waiting to cross.

Cycling two abreast ? Cracking idea...especially down rural country lanes where, according to a recent news item, drivers had to wait for 8 miles before they could safely overtake. Road courtesy works both ways.


----------



## woodieallen (1 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> ....
> Or to put it simply - powered vehicles are the problem, pedestrians and cyclists are not.


Unless you're a pedestrian being mowed down and/or killed by a cyclist. Cyclists are not all angels.


----------



## woodieallen (1 Feb 2022)

Adam W. said:


> I'll agree on the huge amount of pollution created by the production of motor vehicles and that is why they should be much more expensive to buy.
> 
> The "road tax" doesn't cover emissions because it doesn't exist. No duty that motorists pay covers the cost of pollution emitted or the damage done to local and national infrastructure caused by motorists.
> 
> But carry on.



So what would you propose ? A massive hike in the cost of running a private vehicle ? Great if you live in a city or if you can walk to work. But for the rural population ?


----------



## woodieallen (1 Feb 2022)

Adam W. said:


> Because I can say that legitimately as I own a car and I'm happy to pay the charge for my pollution.


You're obviously earning then and not on a meagre pension. I'm Alright Jack.


----------



## woodieallen (1 Feb 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> Triple the price of fuel, that would make people reflect on
> the necessity of their journey.
> Bit tough on those that need their vehicle for work though,
> I suppose.
> And, no, I don't even possess a bicycle, let alone ride one.



Better not go to the hospital anymore then as it's a 100 mile round trip. Or to the shops....another round trip of 60 miles.


----------



## woodieallen (1 Feb 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> .... Any money that 80% or more of vehicles on almost any road will be private cars, the vast majority of which have but one occupant



How else do you think they will get to work ? Oh, silly me....get the bus. What bus ?


----------



## artie (1 Feb 2022)

woodieallen said:


> True especially if thy are halfway crossing the road. But where at least one of these new rules is just plain daft is expecting motorists to stop turning into a sidestreet if there is a pedestrian waiting on the corner to cross.


You have to be a mind reader as well. Are they waiting to cross or just having a look round?


----------



## JobandKnock (1 Feb 2022)

woodieallen said:


> How else do you think they will get to work ? Oh, silly me....get the bus. What bus ?


Yes, silly you! Ever heard of living within accessible distance of where you work? Ever looked at the numbers of buses/trams/trains in cities? There is very little real need for _anyone_ to drive a car within cities. The fact that people do is often because they are lazy, or put their needs before those of the society they live in. FFS I am a tradesman, with a shed load of tools to cart around, not just a laptop and a pen, so if I can do it (i.e the majority of my travel to and from work by public transport) then so can a lot of people. Or is it just that you'd rather sit warming your derriere in a nice warm car whilst the pollution your car produces chokes the planet?

If more people stopped being lazy and driving and used public transport, and asked for better public transport, there would be more buses. Supply tends to follow demand.


----------



## Spectric (1 Feb 2022)

Sandyn said:


> Not a good idea!!! would just attract Pandas.


Good point, bambo can be a highly invasive species, I had some in the gardening shed that looked dead but once it got wet it just grew so what happens if your bambo bike gets left in the rain, you come back to a bush!


----------



## John Brown (1 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> Good point, bambo can be a highly invasive species, I had some in the gardening shed that looked dead but once it got wet it just grew so what happens if your bambo bike gets left in the rain, you come back to a bush!


You're not supposed to leave them out in the rain. That was the main reason I decided not to build one some years back.
When I say "build", it was a mentored workshop type thing. I'd hate to think what I'd end up with left to my own devices.


----------



## deema (1 Feb 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> Yes, silly you! Ever heard of living within accessible distance of where you work? Ever looked at the numbers of buses/trams/trains in cities? There is very little real need for _anyone_ to drive a car within cities. The fact that people do is often because they are lazy, or put their needs before those of the society they live in. FFS I am a tradesman, with a shed load of tools to cart around, not just a laptop and a pen, so if I can do it (i.e the majority of my travel to and from work by public transport) then so can a lot of people. Or is it just that you'd rather sit warming your derriere in a nice warm car whilst the pollution your car produces chokes the planet?
> 
> If more people stopped being lazy and driving and used public transport, and asked for better public transport, there would be more buses. Supply tends to follow demand.


I’m really intrigued, so I have to ask
From the posts I’ve read it would appear that your work is mainly on building sites where materials can be delivered in bulk direct to site. For the trades that service the private sector, maintains private properties Im not sure transporting say a sheet of 8x4 material on a bus is going to be very practical? That’s not including the track saw, dust extractor, drills etc etc at the same time? Do you have a solution that you’ve found practical?


----------



## GLS (1 Feb 2022)

The moment the masses give up their right to individual transport you will see more and more restrictive emplyment conditions creeping in. look at the old Victorian city slums, where the occupants could only live within walking distance and the working conditions they enjoyed. Personal freedom to travel to distant towns to work improved working conditions broke that cycle, surrender it at your peril.


----------



## deema (1 Feb 2022)

The proposed solution of everyone moving to urban areas to reduce private car usage sounds initially like a well thought through idea. However, it lacks consideration of the effect that depopulation of the countryside has. There are lots of really well researched and published articles if anyone is truly interested. By way of example, food production is at the moment reliant on people, from planting and harvesting to picking and sorting. The jobs are relatively low paid and people, taking on board another proposal, need to be close to their place of work. Farmers and their workers need an infrastructure of support both to live in the countryside as well as to make it a viable option for people to wish to remain in the countryside. Buses, trains servicing rural communities are not economic or viable, the levels of service that a city can support is simply not practical, unless buses carrying one or no passengers is seen as acceptable. The only viable solution is private vehicles. Increasing car taxation attacks the very people who allow the people who live in cities to eat. It is a higher cost to live in the countryside which is a well supported and researched fact, therefore any additional costs pushes more food production off shore. The carbon cost of transporting food around the world, unsustainable farming practices or poor animal husbandry (do we really want food contains cocktails of chemicals?) needs to be considered in the balance.
So the push for taking cars off the road although having many merits also needs to be balanced against the greater harm it would do to the environment. 
I am not a farmer, and never have been. However I do appreciate that they maintain the countryside we all enjoy and love, as well as providing the bread that we eat.


----------



## deema (1 Feb 2022)

I’m waiting for the next protest group to realise that by selecting key junctions in any major city, of which there aren’t that many, that a group of say 10 people at each junction can legally just keep crossing the road and bring the city to a total grid locked stop. 
The police will be powerless, they will be acting fully lawfully and attract huge media attention. 
This is where I fear the good intentions of the committee that proposed the new road rules failed to consider the wider implications.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

LeeAkeroyd said:


> How about vehicle weight too? Heavier electric, battery laden vehicles must be having an impact on road surface conditions.


That might be a disincentive to the over weight taking up cycling to get fit


woodieallen said:


> So what would you propose ? A massive hike in the cost of running a private vehicle ? Great if you live in a city or if you can walk to work. But for the rural population ?


you could cycle and reap the benifits of the massive rights taken away from drivers and bestowed on cyclists. Yep I’m a rural cyclist.


----------



## deema (1 Feb 2022)

On another recent thread on here I’ve highlighted and linked the published latest research that highlights that the argument that cycles are inherently safer than other vehicles simply isn’t the case. You are only 40% more likely as an example of being killed or seriously injured (KSI) by a light goods vehicle than by a cyclist. Your only 60% more likely to be KSI by a car than a cyclist. The KSI rate caused by cyclists is increasing and for cars and LCV’s it’s consistently reducing year on year.
The number of KSI incidents would be nearly halved if men aged between 30 and 60 would leave their bikes at home. It highlights that there is a problem with the attitudes or riding rabbits if this group of people. Women are significantly safer on bikes than men. However, I don’t see any moves to reduce KSI caused by cyclists.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> I’m really intrigued, so I have to ask
> From the posts I’ve read it would appear that your work is mainly on building sites where materials can be delivered in bulk direct to site. For the trades that service the private sector, maintains private properties Im not sure transporting say a sheet of 8x4 material on a bus is going to be very practical? That’s not including the track saw, dust extractor, drills etc etc at the same time? Do you have a solution that you’ve found practical?


The point is that those who can use public transport should, leaving space on the over congested roads for those who can’t. For example how many people do you see in cars at school in/out time. The luggage in those cars is actually equipped with legs and could easily move itself. 
If you are really interested in being part of the solution, rather than looking for problems, you might discover that a massive amount of equipment, even 8x4 sheet goods does get moved around cities using cargo bikes. Or even with an existing bike Plywood Rack | Bikes At Work


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Feb 2022)

Use that in Cornwall you'd be blown off the road.

Cost is a big issue - five ten mile round trips to work would cost my wife £50 a week on the bus or £6.50 in diesel, and I don't expect the bank will relocate to the end of our road. Even costing the car at £15 per week (for those trips) to allow for tyres and servicing that's still £1680 per annum cheaper. Cities and large towns have very different problems to the countryside.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> On another recent thread on here I’ve highlighted and linked the published latest research that highlights that the argument that cycles are inherently safer than other vehicles simply isn’t the case. You are only 40% more likely as an example of being killed or seriously injured (KSI) by a light goods vehicle than by a cyclist. Your only 60% more likely to be KSI by a car than a cyclist. The KSI rate caused by cyclists is increasing and for cars and LCV’s it’s consistently reducing year on year.
> The number of KSI incidents would be nearly halved if men aged between 30 and 60 would leave their bikes at home. It highlights that there is a problem with the attitudes or riding rabbits if this group of people. Women are significantly safer on bikes than men. However, I don’t see any moves to reduce KSI caused by cyclists.


A somewhat disingenuous stat in a number of ways. The numbers seem to be from a FOI request to TFL. You have cherry picked LGV which had the lowest incidence compared to all other vehicle types. If you actually include all motorised vehicle it is a massively different picture. Secondly look for stats on Killed not injured and again the difference is a very different story.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Use that in Cornwall you'd be blown off the road.


No one works in Cornwall it’s just a second home resort for Londoners so a moot point really.


----------



## doctor Bob (1 Feb 2022)

Riding a bike seems to make you angry.
I see the stats also say it increases impotence.

So if it reduces the willy function and makes you angry, I'm out, not for me thanks.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Riding a bike seems to make you angry.
> I see the stats also say it increases impotence.
> 
> So if it reduces the willy function and makes you angry, I'm out, not for me thanks.


Actually completely the opposite. Fitter and stronger so can go longer, on the bike as well. That makes me very happy


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> No one works in Cornwall it’s just a second home resort for Londoners so a moot point really.


No need to be insulting.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> No need to be insulting.


Wow someone has thin skin. That was supposed to have been ironic.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Feb 2022)

It wasn't.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> It wasn't.


That was.


----------



## deema (1 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> A somewhat disingenuous stat in a number of ways. The numbers seem to be from a FOI request to TFL. You have cherry picked LGV which had the lowest incidence compared to all other vehicle types. If you actually include all motorised vehicle it is a massively different picture. Secondly look for stats on Killed not injured and again the difference is a very different story.



Interesting comment, I know that you were active in the other post, where not only I provided the link but also posted the relevant graphs. 
The introduction to the report states:-

This short report presents data on those killed in reported road accidents in Great Britain, both in terms of the number of fatalities and fatality rates, for different road user types. This includes the road users themselves, as well as other parties in collisions with them.

It is not about London, it’s the UK. The link to the report is:





__





Reported road casualties Great Britain: road user risk, 2020 data







www.gov.uk


----------



## doctor Bob (1 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> Actually completely the opposite. Fitter and stronger so can go longer, on the bike as well. That makes me very happy


Congratulations but statistically you are a lucky one. R4 reckon 1 in 5 cyclists have experience erectile issues due cycling


----------



## deema (1 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> The point is that those who can use public transport should, leaving space on the over congested roads for those who can’t. For example how many people do you see in cars at school in/out time. The luggage in those cars is actually equipped with legs and could easily move itself.
> If you are really interested in being part of the solution, rather than looking for problems, you might discover that a massive amount of equipment, even 8x4 sheet goods does get moved around cities using cargo bikes. Or even with an existing bike Plywood Rack | Bikes At Work



It used to be, in the UK, that schools had a catchment area, where pupils from the immediate area would go to school. This facilitated children walking and as they became older cycling to school. However, with school league tables starting to be published, properties around the better schools quickly increased in value pushing those of lower means into poor underperforming schools. Deprivation and low achievement were as a consequence a trap that couldn’t be escaped. The rules therefore changed to give every family and equal chance as far as possible to attend a good school. The consequence being that children have on average further to travel. This makes walking and cycling more difficult and the propensity for car travel more likely.
We should also be very cognisant for safety that most schools require parents to hand over children under a certain age to the schools. The rise of both parents working means that not only is it less feasible to walk children distances to school and then to get to work means that it is impractical.


----------



## deema (1 Feb 2022)

It’s been mentioned about using trailers with pedal bikes, something I’d not really considered before and a really interesting suggestion. Pedal bikes can pull trailers, as can Electrically Assisted pedal bikes. However, any form of pedal bike where the motor acts without you peddling cant!
A push Bike can pull a trailer up to 7 meters long and 1.5 meters wide. However, from the legislation, these I believe if used on the public highway must be type approved. A quick check of bike trailers would suggest those you can buy are not, so not legal on the public highway.





__





 The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986







www.legislation.gov.uk





The requirement to carry loads safely also applies to bikes and their trailers, so I suspect that as suggested using one to carrying 8x4 sheet material on a bike trailer is although feasible impossible to carry safely as its centre if mass would be too high and too heavy making it easily topple over / get blown over. An accident or injury caused would be the cyclists liability. I don’t think this is a solution to carrying building materials.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> Interesting comment, I know that you were active in the other post, where not only I provided the link but also posted the relevant graphs.
> The introduction to the report states:-
> 
> This short report presents data on those killed in reported road accidents in Great Britain, both in terms of the number of fatalities and fatality rates, for different road user types. This includes the road users themselves, as well as other parties in collisions with them.
> ...


I missed the link in the other thread. The same observations apply and indeed this report states
“most vulnerable road users fatalities are killed in collisions with cars (in 2020, 68% of pedestrian and 48% of pedal cyclist fatalities were hit by a car). Again, this is perhaps unsurprising given that cars account for the majority of traffic.”

Your statement on relative risk is true at a superficial level but the main issue is the source of the risk to cyclists is not the act of cycling it is the drivers of big metal boxes. That is the entire point of the new Highway Code changes.


----------



## deema (1 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> I missed the link in the other thread. The same observations apply and indeed this report states
> “most vulnerable road users fatalities are killed in collisions with cars (in 2020, 68% of pedestrian and 48% of pedal cyclist fatalities were hit by a car). Again, this is perhaps unsurprising given that cars account for the majority of traffic.”
> 
> Your statement on relative risk is true at a superficial level but the main issue is the source of the risk to cyclists is not the act of cycling it is the drivers of big metal boxes. That is the entire point of the new Highway Code changes.



Perhaps my explanation isn’t very good. The numbers show that If we reduce car usage and increase cycling the number of oriole KSI will reduce as a consequence of cars and increase due to pedal bikes. You at the moment are only 60% more likely to be KSI by a car than a pedal bike based on miles of transport each provide. What isn’t highlighted, is that Car safety is increasing, and with advances in autonomous driving will become far less dangerous than pedal bikes. The same will apply to LGB and HGV.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (1 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> You at the moment are only 60% more likely to be KSI by a car than a pedal bike based on miles of transport each provide.



But bicycles don't do the same mileage as cars, so that's not a valid conclusion.

In the actual world you're far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car than by a bicycle - more than a hundred and eleven times as likely from the report you linked to.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> Perhaps my explanation isn’t very good. The numbers show that If we reduce car usage and increase cycling the number of oriole KSI will reduce as a consequence of cars and increase due to pedal bikes. You at the moment are only 60% more likely to be KSI by a car than a pedal bike based on miles of transport each provide. What isn’t highlighted, is that Car safety is increasing, and with advances in autonomous driving will become far less dangerous than pedal bikes. The same will apply to LGB and HGV.



Of course as a percentage if you reduce one group the other group becomes more significant but look at the absolute numbers. You also need look at all motorised vehicles, not cherry pick the least damaging group.
I'm still not convinced you are reading the stats right. The stats seem to be for incidents _including_ a bike not for incidents of being killed by a bike.
This is a pictorial view of who is killed by what and cycling does not look like a significant contributor of danger to other road users.


----------



## Noel (1 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> I'm also a pedestrian, but most of my time on the road, I'm a motorist.
> 
> Lots of people kicking off about the new highway code rules.
> 
> ...




No need to worry Artie, the changes don't apply to NI as it has it's own version of the Highway Code.


----------



## artie (1 Feb 2022)

Noel said:


> No need to worry Artie, the changes don't apply to NI as it has it's own version of the Highway Code.


Never knew that.

Every day's a school day.


----------



## MarkAW (1 Feb 2022)

I think the main point everyone is missing here is that we're not 'cyclists' and 'drivers'. We're all people with families trying to go about our day, travelling about. You get some stupid people. That happens no matter what vehicle they use. 

We've all experienced stupid people. Don't let them become the stereotype for that road user, assume all cyclists are lyrca wearing, red light jumping nutters. And that all drivers are engine revving speed nutters with no regards for anyone else's safety. 

The change in law is trying to make the roads safer. I personally don't think it's going to help much except in the courtroom.


----------



## Droogs (1 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> Never knew that.
> 
> Every day's a school day.


Brexit in'it, they got to keep all the old rules and live in a normal world, lucky sods


----------



## JobandKnock (1 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> From the posts I’ve read it would appear that your work is mainly on building sites where materials can be delivered in bulk direct to site.


Only in recent times. For more well over 30 years I was a shop and interior fit-out joiner, which means I have travelled way too many miles doing the job (and too many late nights in the shop building it first). But having been brought-up in the country I had the opportunity as a teenager and yoiung man to see the depopulation of the countryside first hand in the 1960s and 70s. I believe (and the social geography I studied at school sort of confirmd that) the majority of countryside depopulation in the UK has been caused by increased mechanisation in farming combined with the locals having been largely priced out of the housing market by people from the bigger towns and cities who want a slice of the country life. Those are the people who then think it acceptable to have 2 and 3 car households where one car is used for overly long commuter runs whilst a second is used for the school run, shopping run (not local, of course), etc. As to bus services in these places _now_ - there are non, just as there are no shops, post offices, local schools, and sometimes even garages or pubs, because the incomers all drive, they don't use the local services and the locals have been pushed out.

I wasn't railing against people who _absolutely need_ a means of transport to do their jobs, but rather trying to point out that the vast majority of people who say they need a car, *don't*. But I also think it is high time for people, and especially some sectors of the middle classes, to consider the environmental impact of their lifestyle on the planet. Going meat-free isn't going to balance out a cruse every 2 years, frequent flights, a 60-mile (or more) commute every day, buying shopping wrapped in far too much plastic, and local car mileage to shuttle the kids to and from school every day. It is now time for individuals to take a look at what they have done to the environment. Or don't people want their grandkids to be able to live past 40 on a planet that isn't dying?



deema said:


> Im not sure transporting say a sheet of 8x4 material on a bus is going to be very practical? That’s not including the track saw, dust extractor, drills etc etc at the same time? Do you have a solution that you’ve found practical?


When I fitted kitchens (something we all do a bit of, I was on it for three or so years) the kitchen units, worktops, etc were all delivered to site by the supplier. My kit went in the van on day 1, was stored on site in a lockbox during the install, and on the last day it was returned to my lock-up in the van. On the intermediate days I often travelled by public transport, motorbike or cycle. To reduce your dependence on driving everywhere takes a lot more organisation and planning as well as trying to reduce one's tool kit. This is not always that easy

BTW one employer (shop fitter/exhibition stand fitter) in the past had an environmental policy which stated that wherever possible the lads all travelled together in a minibus and the truck(s) carrying the first part of a fit-out, or for a smaller 2 man team they'd hire-in a van and trunk the fit to the job on a lorry. You were not normally allowed to drive to site unless there were special circumstances. Nor was there ever much need to.


----------



## Sandyn (1 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> 1 in 5 cyclists have experience erectile issues due cycling


I know exactly what you mean......almost got me arrested!


----------



## Jones (2 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> On another recent thread on here I’ve highlighted and linked the published latest research that highlights that the argument that cycles are inherently safer than other vehicles simply isn’t the case. You are only 40% more likely as an example of being killed or seriously injured (KSI) by a light goods vehicle than by a cyclist. Your only 60% more likely to be KSI by a car than a cyclist. The KSI rate caused by cyclists is increasing and for cars and LCV’s it’s consistently reducing year on year.
> The number of KSI incidents would be nearly halved if men aged between 30 and 60 would leave their bikes at home. It highlights that there is a problem with the attitudes or riding rabbits if this group of people. Women are significantly safer on bikes than men. However, I don’t see any moves to reduce KSI caused by cyclists.


It's quite simple Deema, the ksi statistics you showed were per mile. Cars and vans spend a lot of their milage on motorways and dual carriage ways where there's no pedestrians or cyclists to kill, this makes the figures look good for them. If you used urban milage only where car/ cyclist / pedestrian interactions are most likely the numbers would reflect what really happens when a ton of fast moving metal hits a soft body.


----------



## deema (2 Feb 2022)

Jones said:


> It's quite simple Deema, the ksi statistics you showed were per mile. Cars and vans spend a lot of their milage on motorways and dual carriage ways where there's no pedestrians or cyclists to kill, this makes the figures look good for them. If you used urban milage only where car/ cyclist / pedestrian interactions are most likely the numbers would reflect what really happens when a ton of fast moving metal hits a soft body.



If you can highlight the data / report that supports your suggestion that would be appreciated and facilitates a useful discussion.

I do find it interesting that there is a complete focus on mechanised transport as being the main evil and no comment or interest in dealing with the rising levels of KSI caused by pedal cycles.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (2 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> I do find it interesting that there is a complete focus on mechanised transport as being the main evil and no comment or interest in dealing with the rising levels of KSI caused by pedal cycles.



Look at the numbers in the report you linked to. If I remember correctly, there were 5 from bicycles and 559 from cars. It is entirely right that the bigger killer - by two orders of magnitude - gets more focus.


----------



## Jones (2 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> If you can highlight the data / report that supports your suggestion that would be appreciated and facilitates a useful discussion.
> 
> I do find it interesting that there is a complete focus on mechanised transport as being the main evil and no comment or interest in dealing with the rising levels of KSI caused by pedal cycles.


As pointed out by sporky it's in the statistics that you showed . There's 5 killed or seriously injured by cyclists and 559 by cars. When expressed as a ratio of per miles travelled it is made to look a lot better for cars, I think it was 1 per million miles for bikes and 1.4 for cars. Cars do most of their high milage on roads without cyclists or pedestrians, dual carriage ways and motorways are particularly safe on a per mile basis as traffic flows are seperated. It would be best if all different types of travel were seperated. We already have pavements for pedestrians, railways for trains and should have developed more cycle routes, not just sections of widened pavement when cars took over our roads. In the meantime while we all have to share road space it's best to be considerate and understand the danger of life to others a car presents.


----------



## deema (2 Feb 2022)

I’ve tried to look up the stats to see if the comments have a researched basis as it’s an interesting perspective. The best I can find is stats in the Strategic Road network of the UK, ie motorways, dual carriageway and certain major A roads








Deaths on UK’s major road network reach eight-year high | Auto Express


Official figures reveal an increase in fatalities on Strategic Road Network, with collisions costing over £1 billion in a year




www.autoexpress.co.uk





Doing quick maths, I think the numbers suggest that the proposal of cars travelling in motorways distorts the numbers doesn’t fully hold true. It adds a little more safety, but guessing, that when accidents occur the higher speeds are often more deadly. 

I think we can reject this line of thinking


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (2 Feb 2022)

deema said:


> I think we can reject this line of thinking



Equally we can reject the idea that bicycles are nearly as dangerous as cars, as the numbers in the report you posted show clearly that cars kill or seriously injure more than 110 times as many people as do bicycles.


----------



## artie (2 Feb 2022)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> Equally we can reject the idea that bicycles are nearly as dangerous as cars, as the numbers in the report you posted show clearly that cars kill or seriously injure more than 110 times as many people as do bicycles.


It doesn't look so bad if you consider cyclist cover only 1% of total milage in GB.

But taking off motorway miles would again even it some.


----------



## paulrbarnard (2 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> It doesn't look so bad if you consider cyclist cover only 1% of total milage in GB.
> 
> But taking off motorway miles would again even it some.


Or indeed look at time travelled rather than miles.


----------



## deema (2 Feb 2022)

I shall gracefully bow out of this thread, there is a misunderstanding of what the statistical data is showing and that’s absolutely fine. The nice thing I think about debates is knowing when to stop, a bit like alcohol, great in moderation.


----------



## Jameshow (2 Feb 2022)

Easier getting a consensus on sharpening,Brexit, climate change etc!!!


----------



## woodieallen (2 Feb 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> .......
> 
> I wasn't railing against people who _absolutely need_ a means of transport to do their jobs, but rather trying to point out that the vast majority of people who say they need a car, *don't*.



Let's analyse this little rant



JobandKnock said:


> But I also think it is high time for people, and especially some sectors of the middle classes,



Define 'middle class'? I don;t think we have a class system unless you think that 'middle class' have more money than you do



JobandKnock said:


> . Going meat-free isn't going to balance out a cruse every 2 years,



Evidence? How many people go on a cruise every two years, anyway. Or is it simply that either you (a) cannot afford to go on a cruise or (b) don't want to ? In any case, who are you to be so judgemental ? Where do you go on holiday ? In any case I have no idea what the eco-impact is of a cruse, do you ? I'd have thought carting n-thousand people about was more eco-friendly then them all driving their cars to a beach in the UK



JobandKnock said:


> frequent flights,


Evidence please. 


JobandKnock said:


> a 60-mile (or more) commute every day,



So what would you like them to do instead ? Go poor ? Stop feeding their kids? Get real. Stop getting on your soapbox, please.



JobandKnock said:


> buying shopping wrapped in far too much plastic,



That's nothing to do with 'middle classes'. Or 'any classes'. It's down to the supermarkets.



JobandKnock said:


> and local car mileage to shuttle the kids to and from school every day.



OK...let them walk 10 miles each way.

Suggest you need a reality check.


----------



## woodieallen (2 Feb 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> Ever looked at the numbers of buses/trams/trains in cities? There is very little real need for _anyone_ to drive a car within cities.



Totally agree and probably most don't. I have no idea and neither do you unless you can produce some statistics or reports on which to base your prejudices.



JobandKnock said:


> The fact that people do is often because they are lazy, or put their needs before those of the society they live in.



So you're automatic assumption whenever you see a car in a city is that it shouldn't be there ? That the occupant should be using public transport ? It's not a GP doing a home visit ? A district nurse? A tradesman doing a test inspection...not all drive vans. Someone driving into town to visit a sick relative ? Or even a healthy one

Suggest your bigotry scale needs a recalibration.


----------



## woodieallen (2 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Congratulations but statistically you are a lucky one. R4 reckon 1 in 5 cyclists have experience erectile issues due cycling


I get negative erectile issues listening to Radio 4.


----------



## woodieallen (2 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> That might be a disincentive to the over weight taking up cycling to get fit
> 
> you could cycle and reap the benifits of the massive rights taken away from drivers and bestowed on cyclists. Yep I’m a rural cyclist.


And if you have arthritic hips ? And, of course, there is 'rural' and 'rural'.


----------



## TRITON (3 Feb 2022)

woodieallen said:


> Where do you go on holiday ?


I reckon its a working holiday where they use their teeth and offer a lawn grazing service.


----------



## Blackswanwood (3 Feb 2022)

Oh it’s all got a bit hand baggy on here!


----------



## paulrbarnard (3 Feb 2022)

woodieallen said:


> And if you have arthritic hips ? And, of course, there is 'rural' and 'rural'.


I’ve had surgery on both knees and the non load bearing exercise of cycling is way better than running or even walking. 

I’m rural rural, more likely to encounter horses and cows than cars


----------



## Jacob (3 Feb 2022)

woodieallen said:


> Unless you're a pedestrian being mowed down and/or killed by a cyclist. Cyclists are not all angels.


Cyclists very rarely kill pedestrians. 3 last year. It's a popular idea with the gammons but statistically barely significant.








The road users most likely to kill others driving, cycling or on foot


The report uses road casualty data for 2019 and splits road users into cars, HGVs, vans, buses and coaches, small- and larger-capacity motorcycles and scooters, cyclists and pedestrians.




www.thisismoney.co.uk




_While car deaths are split almost 50-50, the majority of casualties when incidents involve larger vehicles such as HGVs, buses and vans are the other road user (seen below in red).
With pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists being the most vulnerable road users, the majority of casualty cases involve themselves._


----------



## Jacob (3 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Riding a bike seems to make you angry.


Speak for yourself!


> I see the stats also say it increases impotence.
> 
> ...


So that's what worries you so much about cycling!


----------



## MikeJhn (3 Feb 2022)

I really can't get my head around that some on this thread are comparing a cycle to a car as a potential killer, a reality check is needed by those that do, or are they just arguing the case to justify their side of the argument.


----------



## Jester129 (3 Feb 2022)

I gave way to a pedestrian on a corner yesterday and the driver behind me somehow managed to stop in time. Methinks, "Was I right to stop?" and I really don't know if I was. If this is what happens when new laws come in, the insurers are not going to be very happy!


----------



## Jacob (3 Feb 2022)

Jester129 said:


> I gave way to a pedestrian on a corner yesterday and the driver behind me somehow managed to stop in time. Methinks, "Was I right to stop?" and I really don't know if I was. If this is what happens when new laws come in, the insurers are not going to be very happy!


Yebbut denting a car is nothing compared to breaking someone's leg. In any case the driver behind has to take notice too and be prepared for emergency stops.
I don't think it would stand up in court to plead that hitting the pedestrian was the lesser of the two evils.


----------



## Blackswanwood (3 Feb 2022)

MikeJhn said:


> I really can't get my head around that some on this thread are comparing a cycle to a car as a potential killer, a reality check is needed by those that do, or are they just arguing the case to justify their side of the argument.



Come on Mike - don’t start bringing common sense into it


----------



## TRITON (3 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> In any case the driver behind has to take notice too and be prepared for emergency stops.


Yup i know that one.
Riding in the city center some years back, the car 3 in front stopped suddenely(driver has spotted a rare free parking space). The car behind them stopped sharply, but obviously closer, the car behind that closer still and i ran into the back of them making a slight dink in the boot. 
Being a responsible adult,I didnt make a sharp exit stage left, i apologized to the driver, and we agreed I would pay his £100 excess and both agreed it was the car right in front's fault really by puling up so sharply. And promptly sent him the 100 quid.


----------



## doctor Bob (3 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> So that's what worries you so much about cycling!


 Yes, definitely, 2 things I don't want. plus the likely hood of being squashed like a hedgehog on the roads has no appeal to me. Therefore I run and row.
Used to cycle a lot, Norfolk to derbyshire, Norfolk to Bath, in my 20's


----------



## Jacob (3 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Speak for yourself! So that's what worries you so much about cycling!


You could ask a few girls - which would they prefer; a fit and healthy suntanned type who gets out a lot on his bike and enjoys life, or one who lurks inside getting no exercise, in order to protect his bits?


----------



## doctor Bob (3 Feb 2022)

Jacob replying to himself, I think he's finally lost it properly.

  

But in answer to your response, ask a few girls which they prefer, a geriatric cyclist or a someone their own age, I think those girls will pick the boys.
As mentioned previously, which you seem to ignore I'll stick to running and rowing, just because one doesn't cycle doesn't mean one is not fit.

Some may get the hots for middle age cyclists in lycra


----------



## paulrbarnard (3 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> You could ask a few girls - which would they prefer; a fit and healthy suntanned type who gets out a lot on his bike and enjoys life, or one who lurks inside getting no exercise, in order to protect his bits?


Sun tanned arms and legs…


----------



## TRITON (3 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> and rowing


Boat rowing or machine thing ?.
Haven't needed to row for a while but im not bad at it.
Mate who owned the boat was a bit tight and never wanted to pay berthing fees so visiting somewhere like Bute we always used one of the free moorings. Row to shore, get drunk, row back.


----------



## MikeJhn (4 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> Yup i know that one.
> Riding in the city center some years back, the car 3 in front stopped suddenely(driver has spotted a rare free parking space). The car behind them stopped sharply, but obviously closer, the car behind that closer still and i ran into the back of them making a slight dink in the boot.
> Being a responsible adult,I didnt make a sharp exit stage left, i apologized to the driver, and we agreed I would pay his £100 excess and both agreed it was the car right in front's fault really by puling up so sharply. And promptly sent him the 100 quid.


Nope it was your own fault for driving too close to the car in front, the Highway Code is quite clear you should drive at a distance that enable you to stop within your viewing range.


----------



## TRITON (4 Feb 2022)

MikeJhn said:


> Nope it was your own fault for driving too close to the car in front, the Highway Code is quite clear you should drive at a distance that enable you to stop within your viewing range.


No i wasn't too close. You're making assumptions.

Absolutely stoned to the bejesus.


----------



## paulrbarnard (4 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> No i wasn't too close. You're making assumptions.
> 
> Absolutely stoned to the bejesus.


Actually you were for the conditions (Yours)


----------



## Jester129 (4 Feb 2022)

Yes you are all quite right. My point is that the insurance companies are not going to be happy bunnies when all of these incidents take place and the claims come flooding in. In my case the woman stopped crossing but I waved her that I had stopped so she crossed the road as the new law states that she has priority now.


----------



## John Brown (4 Feb 2022)

Pedestrians always had priority in my book. I can't see what all the fuss is about. 
Likewise I've always done my best not to kill or maim cyclists, even if they're wearing Lycra.
If I see anyone rowing, on the other hand, they're fair game. Dr Bob, you have been warned.


----------



## John Brown (4 Feb 2022)

Jester129 said:


> Yes you are all quite right. My point is that the insurance companies are not going to be happy bunnies when all of these incidents take place and the claims come flooding in. In my case the woman stopped crossing but I waved her that I had stopped so she crossed the road as the new law states that she has priority now.


As I understand things, insurance companies just pass on these costs to the consumers. The really big insurance companies get tax-payer funded bailouts, if they sustain llarge llosses.


----------



## Lons (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> R4 reckon 1 in 5 cyclists have experience erectile issues due cycling



Good news then if cyclists breed more cyclists then there might be a reduction in the snotty cyclist population.


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> Good news then if cyclists breed more cyclists then there might be a reduction in the snotty cyclist population.


We are not snotty at all but we are continually under attack from the gammons, who like to moan about everything other people do which is slightly different from what they do themselves. If anything we just feel sorry for them and don't know why they bother.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

Gammons, LOL, here we go. Jacob starts to turn a cycling thread into a political one................................ yawn zzzzzz zzzzz zzzz.

I don't quite get the Gammon ref, surely it's a derogatory term for right wingers, yet there are more right wing cyclist than left wing.
The wealthier tend to be fitter, exercise more and have more free cash to splash on £10k bikes.
Maybe you should start a thread in the closed nutter looney forum, they will love it, frothing at the bit for a bit of cycling politics, keep them happy for a few weeks, how are the loons, I miss some of the bonkerness, venom and anecdotes.
I suspect the looney forum is not radical enough for you, hence the reason you turn every thread you join into left wing political propaganda


----------



## scooby (4 Feb 2022)

There’s definitely a snotty population around here. On my road bike, I sometimes switch to flat mountain bike pedals and shoes (and mtb shorts)…that drives the elites mad 

i‘ve heard of people getting comments for not shaving their legs, I don’t know if that’s weird or flat out disturbing. I’ve not encountered that one yet.
Just to add, cycling doesnt make my angry. The total opposite, it really has been a life saver for me (mentally and physically). Im aware of the risks, but I’d rather be out than sat indoors or smashing my knees to bits running.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

scooby said:


> Just to add, cycling doesnt make my angry. The total opposite, it really has been a life saver for me (mentally and physically). Im aware of the risks, but I’d rather be out than sat indoors or smashing my knees to bits running.



Well done scooby, just some seemed rather angry earlier on, and on the road some appear over aggressive if challenged about behaviour. Yes i've been lucky with running, knees still good.


----------



## scooby (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Well done scooby, just some seemed rather angry earlier on, and on the road some appear over aggressive if challenged about behaviour. Yes i've been lucky with running, knees still good.



Not knocking running as a sport/hobby. I’d be doing it if I could. 
Im a reasonable weight but my knees really feel it before my cardio system even notices.


----------



## John Brown (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> yet there are more right wing cyclist than left wing.


Are there? I think the ones in Lycra might be right wing heavy, but I'm not sure about the mudguard and basket faction.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Are there? I think the ones in Lycra might be right wing heavy, but I'm not sure about the mudguard and basket faction.


I agree, but round here there are 20 lycra's for every basket case.


----------



## Blackswanwood (4 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> As I understand things, insurance companies just pass on these costs to the consumers. The really big insurance companies get tax-payer funded bailouts, if they sustain llarge llosses.



Well as you understand it isn’t quite correct.

Insurance is based on the premiums of the many paying the losses of the few. If the insurance company gets it wrong the shortfall is paid out of shareholder capital and they make a loss or even go out of business. If the latter happens and claims are therefore unpaid a compensation scheme kicks in which is funded by a levy on the insurance industry. The insurance company in question fails and goes bust - it does not receive a tax-payer funded bailout.

If the number of claims goes up insurance premiums will as the risk is higher so that the premiums if the many cover the losses of the few. From what I can see insurers are not currently seeing these changes as a big issue.


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Are there? I think the ones in Lycra might be right wing heavy, but I'm not sure about the mudguard and basket faction.


Cycling has always been very much a socialist thing National Clarion Cycling Club - Wikipedia 
Not surprising really - cheap mass transport for the working class getting to work and for getting out into the countryside.
Also involving various action protecting civil rights for cyclists and others, over access etc


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Cycling has always been very much a socialist thing National Clarion Cycling Club - Wikipedia
> Not surprising really - cheap mass transport for the working class getting to work and for getting out into the countryside.
> Also involving various action protecting civil rights for cyclists and others, over access etc


50 years ago.................... now very right wing, and trendy.


----------



## selectortone (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> I suspect the looney forum is not radical enough for you, hence the reason you turn every thread you join into left wing political propaganda


It's the same old two or three subjects debated endlessly, from entrenched positions, over and over. I'd have more chance of a date with Kim Basinger than I would changing anyone's mind over there.


----------



## TRITON (4 Feb 2022)

Enough of those political ramblings. Come to Scotland and ride our trails. (Midges included for free) And remember due to our laws on freedom to roam, you can ride about anywhere.


----------



## artie (4 Feb 2022)

selectortone said:


> I'd have more chance of a date with Kim Basinger than I would changing anyone's mind over there.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

selectortone said:


> It's the same old two or three subjects debated endlessly, from entrenched positions, over and over. I'd have more chance of a date with Kim Basinger than I would changing anyone's mind over there.



Pretty much what I suspected, what finished me in the end was the anecdotes, little made up storytimes to explain why their veiw is correct, just a load of old codswallop. I think I would rather take up cycling on the centre lane of the M25 than join the looney forum. 

I also got a few PM's perfectly pleasant, explaining where secret info came from and sources. Turns out it was total pinapples.


----------



## Ozi (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Gammons, LOL, here we go. Jacob starts to turn a cycling thread into a political one................................ yawn zzzzzz zzzzz zzzz.
> 
> I don't quite get the Gammon ref, surely it's a derogatory term for right wingers, yet there are more right wing cyclist than left wing.
> The wealthier tend to be fitter, exercise more and have more free cash to splash on £10k bikes.
> ...


Are there really £10K bikes - I'm sure there will be but why? how? who? wish I had a car worth that. I used to work for Aston Martin and I'm still shocked at the £10K bike - it's clearly my problem.


----------



## Tris (4 Feb 2022)

Our local bike shop lists a Trek road bike at £9550, check out Cotswold Cycles


----------



## paulrbarnard (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Gammons, LOL, here we go. Jacob starts to turn a cycling thread into a political one................................ yawn zzzzzz zzzzz zzzz.
> 
> I don't quite get the Gammon ref, surely it's a derogatory term for right wingers, yet there are more right wing cyclist than left wing.
> The wealthier tend to be fitter, exercise more and have more free cash to splash on £10k bikes.
> ...


Gammon is nothing to do with left or right wing. It simply means nonsense. Depending on your particular leaning it is generally applied to the apposing faction. Given the propensity of social media like Twitter et al to be left leaning the use of gammon in respect to right wing is more prevalent.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

Ozi said:


> Are there really £10K bikes - I'm sure there will be but why? how? who? wish I had a car worth that. I used to work for Aston Martin and I'm still shocked at the £10K bike - it's clearly my problem.



No not just you, unless you are semi pro or totally pro then it's just vanity really. To be honest a few laxatives the day before hand is the same effect.
However people are free to spend as they wish and if it gives them happiness then I'm all for it.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> Gammon is nothing to do with left or right wing. It simply means nonsense. Depending on your particular leaning it is generally applied to the apposing faction. Given the propensity of social media like Twitter et al to be left leaning the use of gammon in respect to right wing is more prevalent.



and Jacob, he does like to shout gammon a lot.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (4 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> Gammon is nothing to do with left or right wing. It simply means nonsense.



I thought "gammon" means someone who uses "woke" or "PC" as an insult, and referred to the pink-faced indignance of such a person when in full rant about why they should be allowed to carry on being racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise boorish. 

Risky, of course, for me to post such a suggestion, because gammons are notoriously easily triggered snowflakes. 

See what I did there?


----------



## paulrbarnard (4 Feb 2022)

Ozi said:


> Are there really £10K bikes - I'm sure there will be but why? how? who? wish I had a car worth that. I used to work for Aston Martin and I'm still shocked at the £10K bike - it's clearly my problem.


Mine cost £7000 seven years ago and was the bike I had wanted for many years. I received a bonus from work which paid for it and it was a major reward to myself for losing a lot of weight (35kg) and getting fitter. I will never replace it. It hangs on the wall in my office when I am not riding it. It is an absolute joy to ride and I never fail to get a big grin when I push the pedals for the first time on a ride. The experience of riding a super light weight road bike compared to the typical high street offerings is like jumping out of a Morris Minor into a Farrari.
In contrast I have been driving the same car for 17 years which ironically is actually going up in value now. 
I would love an Aston Martin though  The bike not the car the Aston Martin Stork bike is a paltry $27,000


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

I'm not homophobic, sexist, racist, boorish, yet Jacob loves to shout Gammon at me. Could it also be a term of endearment?
The lady doth protest too much and all that...........................


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> Mine cost £7000 seven years ago and was the bike I had wanted for many years. I received a bonus from work which paid for it and it was a major reward to myself for losing a lot of weight (35kg) and getting fitter. I will never replace it. It hangs on the wall in my office when I am not riding it. It is an absolute joy to ride and I never fail to get a big grin when I push the pedals for the first time on a ride. The experience of riding a super light weight road bike compared to the typical high street offerings is like jumping out of a Morris Minor into a Farrari.
> In contrast I have been driving the same car for 17 years which ironically is actually going up in value now.
> I would love an Aston Martin though  The bike not the car the Aston Martin Stork bike is a paltry $27,000



I couldn't do it on a bike but I'll do a load on a motorbike and never ride it like Rossi, so fair do's.


----------



## paulrbarnard (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> I'm not homophobic, sexist, racist, boorish, yet Jacob loves to shout Gammon at me. Could it also be a term of endearment?
> The lady doth protest too much and all that...........................


I had gammon for dinner last night. It was very good.


----------



## TRITON (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> and Jacob, he does like to shout gammon a lot.


Oh thats just him hamming it up




Ozi said:


> Are there really £10K bikes


Some Ebikes are £13,000 Mine was £5k, so considered mid-range. Though I intend to up the costs by fitting more high end kit i have which will add another £2K to that.


----------



## paulrbarnard (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> I couldn't do it on a bike but I'll do a load on a motorbike and never ride it like Rossi, so fair do's.


I've spent a fortune on motorbikes in years gone by. I would still be doing it if the rest of the family were not so worried. To be fair I had a reputation. I actually had a company motor cycle with one job. The company got fed up with me driving a lorry to work as it filled the car park (I dropped off plaster board at building sites for my Dad on the way in). The company offered me a company car but I had to turn them down as I had not passed my driving test. Them were the days, I even had a Morris Minor van for two years to cart my trials bike about in before I took my test... As the company bike was handed over at the bike shop the owner asked me his usual question "What colour should I order for the replacement?". Yes I had a blue replacement within three weeks. Over enthusiastic motorcycling is actually one of the reasons I cycle now. I damaged one of my knees on a curb while dragging my knee on the road. The other knee got smashed in a skiing incident.

I finally stopped riding motorbikes when my mother saw a news report covering the death of a motorcyclist in the same area with the same name.

It is everyones free choice to spend what they earn on whatever they like and I for one wouldn't begrudge anyone spending £10000 on a Holtey plane if that's what rocks their boat.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

I stopped riding when my son took too much interest in them.
He's 21 now shows no interest nor any of his mates, seems like the kids don't want bikes. So I'm in the process of looking for a KTM RC8R, loved them from the beginning, or possibly a Ducati 888 if funds surfice.


----------



## TRITON (4 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> I for one wouldn't begrudge anyone spending £10000 on a Holtey plane if that's what rocks their boat.


As me 80yr old Mother says. If thats what you want then go for it. Life is too short to worry about not enjoying the finer things in life if thats what you feel you need.

That said, currently I don't need the central heating on


----------



## jcassidy (4 Feb 2022)

I have a 7k bike, mind you I got it for a few hundred euro off my brother who couldn't be bothered trying to sell it. Buying stupidly expensive things and then either abandoning or flogging them for pennies is very much his style since we were kids. I have First dibs on his Rolex Submariner!

I've taught both my daughters to hog the road if there is no bike path. Too many friends have been driven into footpaths and ditches by drivers squeezing them off the road. Screw the drivers they can wait for a minute or two.

High vis jackets, helmets, lights, and big hand signals are also de rigour. And also to assume every driver is a f%%king silly person, because so many, in fact, are.


----------



## Jameshow (4 Feb 2022)

Ozi said:


> Are there really £10K bikes - I'm sure there will be but why? how? who? wish I had a car worth that. I used to work for Aston Martin and I'm still shocked at the £10K bike - it's clearly my problem.


Yeap £10k will buy to a pro bike just, the bigger teams / posher brands will be more. 

Unless your at that level a £1-2k planet X, boardman or Ribble will do much the same. 

90% legs 10% bike!


----------



## TRITON (4 Feb 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Unless your at that level a £1-2k planet X, boardman or Ribble will do much the same.


I thought the gig with road or mtb was you dont have to ride like a pro, if you look like a pro


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2022)

My one extravagance was SpaTitanium Audax at £1500. Won't win me the TdeF (well nothing would unless I could secrete rockets about my person) but very nice to ride.
Prior to that* was Dawes Galaxy Tour about £500. Excellent bike - took from LE to JoG, several cross Europe trips, Mont Ventoux, over the Pyrenees, N sea cycle route, Southern Ireland circuit, Hebrides, most of N france coast, several small island tours.
Cheap holidays! I understand why the poor old gammons find this annoying - thousands out there, all ages and abilities, enjoying themselves at very little cost, not even insured!  
*PS prior to that was a 2nd hand Mercian Superlight, £25, (and was about 25 years old) which took me around Crete, and up and over!


----------



## Ozi (4 Feb 2022)

I did close to 50K miles on a Rally Magnum that cost £125 when I was 15 and that I threw in the tip about 4 years ago - mind you £125 when I was 15 would have got you drunk bought a bag of chips after and a home to go to, kids today............On a serious note what would £125 in 1979 be worth now


paulrbarnard said:


> Mine cost £7000 seven years ago and was the bike I had wanted for many years. I received a bonus from work which paid for it and it was a major reward to myself for losing a lot of weight (35kg) and getting fitter. I will never replace it. It hangs on the wall in my office when I am not riding it. It is an absolute joy to ride and I never fail to get a big grin when I push the pedals for the first time on a ride. The experience of riding a super light weight road bike compared to the typical high street offerings is like jumping out of a Morris Minor into a Farrari.
> In contrast I have been driving the same car for 17 years which ironically is actually going up in value now.
> I would love an Aston Martin though  The bike not the car the Aston Martin Stork bike is a paltry $27,000


If it brings you joy, does no one any harm and was paid for with your hard earned money then good luck Sir


----------



## Droogs (4 Feb 2022)

I've had my current bike since 1998/9 a Giant SCR3. It was one of the first in the UK and even though I have bought 2 Bianchis. a Boardman and a Peugot not pne of them felt as good as the SCR and were all sold. I worked out my bike has done over 150K over the years. It is strating to creak a bit now though


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (4 Feb 2022)

Ozi said:


> On a serious note what would £125 in 1979 be worth now



£679.


----------



## Blackswanwood (4 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> I stopped riding when my son took too much interest in them.
> He's 21 now shows no interest nor any of his mates, seems like the kids don't want bikes. So I'm in the process of looking for a KTM RC8R, loved them from the beginning, or possibly a Ducati 888 if funds surfice.



Is the 888 still made Bob or are you going down the classic route?

I’m seriously considering a Fat Boy (that’s a Harley not a proclivity before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick)

I’m in the US at the moment and visited Milwaukee (which was a mistake to do so in February as it’s colder than a witches t1t and got the sales pitch at the Harley Davidson museum.







That’s the Terminator bike.


----------



## Sandyn (4 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> Come to Scotland and ride our trails.


And we have the wonderful Glasgow to Edinburgh canal ride, about 66 miles really good surface most of the way. Start on the Forth Clyde canal in Glasgow, to the Falkirk Wheel. See some beautiful sights along the way, stop off at a canal side pub for a wee refreshment. See the Falkirk wheel, perhaps a wee detour to the Kelpies, then from Falkirk to Edinburgh on the Union canal. Ending at Fountainbridge near the centre of Edinburgh.


----------



## TRITON (4 Feb 2022)

I've ridden thee forth and clyde many times Glasgow out to Bowling and Loch Lomond. Not quite the full run to Edinburgh, the battery in the bike would go that far unless i use eco, but who the **** wants to ride eco  then theres getting back, though I could use the train. Have done so many times from Lomond.

Its just a shame the Scottish canal doesnt link to the English network (by water) that would make a serious tourist route.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Is the 888 still made Bob or are you going down the classic route?



No stopped in 94, the KTM stopped in 2013. I think I'll go KTM, maybe a future classic but who knows, bought for fun.
I like Harleys but I think you need a build type to look good on them, I'm a skinny one and therefore sportsbikes suit me.
Great believer in do what makes you happy, these days.


----------



## Sandyn (4 Feb 2022)

Fancy a cycling challenge?
Sub 3 hour 100mile


----------



## Sandyn (4 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> I've ridden thee forth and clyde many times Glasgow out to Bowling and Loch Lomond.


I'm really lucky to be about half way between Edinburgh and Glasgow and my house is just half a mile from the canal. It's an amazing facility to have on your doorstep. I've done the Bowling run and up to Loch Lomond a few times, It's a beautiful run. Up in the Trossachs as well. I've done Glasgow to Edinburgh a few times.


----------



## John Brown (4 Feb 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> If the number of claims goes up insurance premiums will as the risk is higher


Passing it on to the consumer.

As far as bailouts go, I seem to remember some Lloyds names, who'd made money hand over fist for years, whingeing when they had to pay out, and there being some sort of bailout involved. It was some years ago, so it's quite possible that I have misremembered the details, in which case I apologise to any Lloyds names reading this forum.


----------



## TRITON (4 Feb 2022)

Sandyn said:


> I'm really lucky to be about half way between Edinburgh and Glasgow and my house is just half a mile from the canal. It's an amazing facility to have on your doorstep. I've done the Bowling run and up to Loch Lomond a few times, It's a beautiful run. Up in the Trossachs as well. I've done Glasgow to Edinburgh a few times.


Sounds a nice spot. not quite super city like Edinburgh or Glasgow(myself form a small village) with everything on the doorstep.
Until my right Achilles tendon gave out i pretty much walked everywhere. cycling kind of made that happen, but now its how i get about. Quite ironic really 
I think this summer I'll see about maybe a holiday with the bike up north, using one of the remoter B&Bs as a base. see a bit of the country by saddle


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Feb 2022)

Sandyn said:


> I'm really lucky to be about half way between Edinburgh and Glasgow and my house is just half a mile from the canal. It's an amazing facility to have on your doorstep. I've done the Bowling run and up to Loch Lomond a few times, It's a beautiful run. Up in the Trossachs as well. I've done Glasgow to Edinburgh a few times.


Beautiful area, I lived in Polmont for quite a while in the 90's, loved it.


----------



## Blackswanwood (4 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Passing it on to the consumer.
> 
> As far as bailouts go, I seem to remember some Lloyds names, who'd made money hand over fist for years, whingeing when they had to pay out, and there being some sort of bailout involved. It was some years ago, so it's quite possible that I have misremembered the details, in which case I apologise to any Lloyds names reading this forum.



There was not a tax payer funded bail out of Lloyds of London. Lloyds raised capital through selling assets (it’s building for one) and applying a levy on their members to create a run off vehicle called Equitas. The DTI had to approve it as it had never been done before and was contentious as there were fraud allegations from some members who had not understood what they were getting into claimed they had been misled. 

It was a massive failure of governance on the part of Lloyds of London to allow the situation to arise but wasn’t a tax payer bail out.

I can point to some less than brilliant things that insurance companies have done (for example add ons, differential pricing based on propensity to pay etc) but your basic premise that claims costs simply get passed on or the tax payer bails the insurer out are not the case.


----------



## John Brown (5 Feb 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> There was not a tax payer funded bail out of Lloyds of London. Lloyds raised capital through selling assets (it’s building for one) and applying a levy on their members to create a run off vehicle called Equitas. The DTI had to approve it as it had never been done before and was contentious as there were fraud allegations from some members who had not understood what they were getting into claimed they had been misled.
> 
> It was a massive failure of governance on the part of Lloyds of London to allow the situation to arise but wasn’t a tax payer bail out.
> 
> I can point to some less than brilliant things that insurance companies have done (for example add ons, differential pricing based on propensity to pay etc) but your basic premise that claims costs simply get passed on or the tax payer bails the insurer out are not the case.


I accept I misremembered the Lloyds debacle, but I still maintain that rising payout costs get passed on to the consumer/premium payer. I would even go as far as to suggest that falling payout costs can be reflected in lower premiums. Isn't this the sort of thing actuaries are paid to work out?


----------



## Blackswanwood (5 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> I accept I misremembered the Lloyds debacle, but I still maintain that rising payout costs get passed on to the consumer/premium payer. I would even go as far as to suggest that falling payout costs can be reflected in lower premiums. Isn't this the sort of thing actuaries are paid to work out?



Ah - this may be down to the phrases being used. I read your initial post as suggesting insurance is a one way bet for insurers which is not the case. 

The expectation of future claims largely determines premiums moving forward. Loss experience is one factor that determines the expectation of future claims costs. 

Historic claims costs however are paid from premiums already collected. The PRA would stop an insurance company trading if they were looking to use future premiums to pay claims already incurred. 

Sorry if I appear pedantic John - I do this stuff for a living and forgot this is only a woodworking forum 

Cheers


----------



## stuart little (5 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Yes, definitely, 2 things I don't want. plus the likely hood of being squashed like a hedgehog on the roads has no appeal to me. Therefore I run and row.
> Used to cycle a lot, Norfolk to derbyshire, Norfolk to Bath, in my 20's


Why didn't you just get a bath installed at home? ..................................... just kidding!


----------



## John Brown (5 Feb 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Ah - this may be down to the phrases being used. I read your initial post as suggesting insurance is a one way bet for insurers which is not the case.
> 
> The expectation of future claims largely determines premiums moving forward. Loss experience is one factor that determines the expectation of future claims costs.
> 
> ...


No problem. You sound like you know your onions.


----------



## clogs (5 Feb 2022)

I used to like cycles until the knee's gave out.....thats caused by kick starting old brit bikes.....I was one of the first to buy an electric start Honda all those years ago...
I did have a go a little while ago but slipped and hurt my Trossachs....it had one of those split ur cheeks saddles....ohhhhh.......no more for me.....
Now I do quite fancy an E bike......we'll see.....


----------



## clogs (5 Feb 2022)

Blackswanwood....
here's my two...Not Harleys..the Scout has been in boxes for over 40 years, the four is nearly ready to rebuild and have been buying parts for a v/long time...still a long way to go tho....they are soon to see daylight.....
When I lived over there in the 70ss -80's I should have bought as many Knuckle and Panheads heads as I could...mmmmm


----------



## hairy (5 Feb 2022)

JobandKnock said:


> instead of idiotic schemes, such as the ones proposed for Bradford, Leeds and Sheffield where private cars will be exempt from the "Congestion Charge" whilst vans, taxis, lorries and buses will be charged. Wrong way! Private cars should really be banned from city centres completely whilst other vehicles allowed in should have a very valid reason for being there.



If only commercial vehicles were allowed in town centres rather than private cars, then as a contractor I would have to have a second vehicle. Same with 95% of the people on site I've worked with. Somewhere like Cambridge where sites became more and more cramped so space outside the building footprint was limited to space for one tool container, main contractor offices, space for one delivery truck and that's it, meant a van from the out of town parking brought everyone and their tools in, which meant getting up even earlier. And out of town sites become a nicer place to work. Insitu reinforced concrete is not something that keeps you employed within 5 miles of your house. People reckon concrete is on the way out, but since it can include the fireproofing, possibly finished surfaces and not just the frame, lift core, etc maybe it's not done yet. If the price of driving goes up so will the cost of big new structures like hospitals, colleges, museums, water treatment, you can't keep the people needed to build them within walking distance. When one finishes everyone goes off looking for the next tower crane, how frequently do you see them?

My neighbour cyclist suffered brain damage despite wearing a lid, but she was run over by a bus. I passed my car test first time after only eight one hour lessons, later passed my direct access bike test and then Class C truck first time so obviously my behaviour on the road is uncriticisable, You can certainly see many people who have no comprehension of what other vehicles need because they have no experience of it. Cyclists in Cambridge has always been one, they have no clue and many are dangerous. An hour or two in another category of vehicle might help during the learning phase for new drivers would be helpful. The Police have trucks that could be used for that maybe. One roundabout during my truck practice and test was so busy, and you approached it on one of the minor on ramps, there was no way you could see far enough into incoming traffic to go when it was going to be clear. Whatever you did you would be getting in someone's way, beeped at, etc but you would need a replacement roundabout to be safe. How many of those in a rush car drivers thought beyond "why is that fxxxxxx silly person pulling out right in front of me?"

Looking to buy a new Highway Code I see it's not out for a few months. Why don't the latest changes tally with a new edition? Not helpful.

My progression back into cycling is at the level of putting on lycra before responding to cycling threads. Off to rest and recover now.


----------



## Blackswanwood (5 Feb 2022)

For a cossover of woodwork and cycling this may be of interest …a hardwood bike frame.





They are made to order and start at $5k apparently. The firm that makes them are a spin off from a company that specialises in wood bending for use in buildings.

From what I could see when I saw it (it’s on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago) it is solid wood as opposed to laminated which is what I would have expected.


----------



## Oakay (5 Feb 2022)

A work of art but I wouldn't risk my life on it.


----------



## rafezetter (5 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Pedestrians always had priority in my book. I can't see what all the fuss is about.
> Likewise I've always done my best not to kill or maim cyclists, even if they're wearing Lycra.
> If I see anyone rowing, on the other hand, they're fair game. Dr Bob, you have been warned.



Pedestrians had priority, of a sort, if they were already crossing then yes motorists had to stop; but that law was written in the days when pedestrians were not walking zombies with an attention span measured in milliseconds and said attention is diverted away from where they are and what they are doing and instead to a small handheld device held sometimes inches from thier face with something clearly so mesmerising that thier own personal welfare and safety is paid no heed.

That's the goddamn problem now.

Oh and pedestrians aren't required to give signals as to their intention of travel.

If some braindead but otherwise still ambulatory tw*t steps directly in front of a moving vehicle doing even 20 miles an hour just scant yards away, without any check if it's clear, then frankly that's called "natural selection" because a smarter person would know better. Before you say the driver needs to be vigilant - how do you be vigilant driving down a main road with a pavement FULL of pedestrians who can and often WILL step out into the road at any moment, without slowing the entire road traffic to a crawl? Drive down Bristols Gloucester Road, a main traffic route into Bristol city centre, on any given day and you'll see what I mean; it's simply not possible yo pay heed to EVERY.SINGLE.PEDESTRIAN. who may step out in front of you without driving at 5 miles an hour.

And now the law has given them the right to not even LOOK, just step out, and often with headphones on so they cannot even HEAR that a vehicle is literally right next to them already making its own lawful manouvre.

I cannot see why so many people are against motorists who simply don't want lemmings walking out in front of them without any personal responsibility.

Yes the new change shows at junctions only etc, but do you think the pedestrians are going to stick to that particular requirment? The answer is a resounding NO, because, I've alreay seen an uptick in people walking out in front of traffic from the pavement, and now even between parked vehicles.

Next they will be saying we have to revert to the oldest motoring law - that of "you must have a man with a red flag walking in front of you, warning pedestrians of your passage and travel not faster than 5 miles an hour".

Many pedestrians now seem to beleive they "rule the road", now yes it's mostly the morons, snowflakes and militant lefties who think this way, but that's still far too many.

OOH here's a good question, are any of you who read this with young children still going to teach them the "green cross code"? Or just tell them they don't need it now and hand over thier personal safety be controlled by a complete stranger who may or may not be driving while: texting, face-timing, watching porn (seen that), doing thier work report last minute before a meeting, on drugs of varying types, flat out stoned (going by the stink of marijuana everywhere), drunk or otherwise intoxicated, doing thier makeup, brushing thier hair, arguing with the children / spouse / lover, reading a map (still happens), reading a book (seen that too), masturbating or receiving fellatio, driving an unfit vehicle who's wheel may fall off at any moment, or brakes fail, or accelerator get stuck or... o...r or... or any 1 of literally THOUSANDS of other ways for a person to be killed or severly injured by a vehicle.

For all of you who are bleating on about "it's all on the driver", answer the above question please, if you can, without sounding like a hypocrite.

I'm reminded recently of something that happened recently in the USA, I've just spent 6 weeks there and I was at a rather posh retreat in the Catskill mountains for a couple of days (Mohonk Mountain Resort for the curious, highly recommended), that has miles and miles of trekking; they had closed off almost all the routes for walkers because "there is some ice" and when I say "some" I really mean "almost none", but the highly litigious nature of the USA is such that rather than simply give an advisory and allow people to make thier own decisions on thier walking ability and expect them to have a few braincells to do this with, instead 90% of the trails, had been closed.

Being English however, my brother, his wife and I said "pineapples" and walked them anyway as we were paying guests and that's what we were there for; the trails were fine, even with a 4.5 year old child, no-one slipped, not even once.

"Personal responsibility" people, either we use and ENFORCE the concept or soon we won't be able to buy sharp implements "in case you cut yourself or someone else" and it's all dogsh*t and downhill for everyone from then on.

Here's a question (before this turns into a /rant (lol) - what's the concensus on car insurance premiums - will they go down now because "everybody's being more careful now" or will they hiked up even more to pay for all the spurious claims?

My money's on UP, way up.

PS - Now I understand why the USA has / had the "jaywalking" law - so pedestrians had to cross at designated places instead of "just anywhere" like we do, so motorists had a fighting chance of at least knowing WHERE the pedestrians would be crossing, instead of blindsided by a phone zombie stepping out from behind a parked van.

I'm getting myself a dashcam, I suggest others do the same.


----------



## paulrbarnard (5 Feb 2022)

rafezetter said:


> Pedestrians had priority, of a sort, if they were already crossing then yes motorists had to stop; but that law was written in the days when pedestrians were not walking zombies with an attention span measured in milliseconds and said attention is diverted away from where they are and what they are doing and instead to a small handheld device held sometimes inches from thier face with something clearly so mesmerising that thier own personal welfare and safety is paid no heed.
> 
> That's the goddamn problem now.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you should take an anger management course before you next get in to a drivers seat. It is exactly this kind of perspective that shows the absolute need for the new changes in protection hierarchy.


----------



## Sandyn (5 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Beautiful area, I lived in Polmont for quite a while in the 90's, loved it.


Not far from where I am and when I worked, Polmont was one of the stops on the journey to Edinburgh. I recently walked through Polmont looking for a fellow cyclist with a working pump. You wouldn't believe how few cyclists there are when you really need one!!


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (6 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> Sounds like you should take an anger management course before you next get in to a drivers seat. It is exactly this kind of perspective that shows the absolute need for the new changes in protection hierarchy.



I enjoyed the irony of someone so easily triggered calling other people "snowflakes". Proper, old-fashioned, unhinged ranting. 8 out of 10, looking forward to the sequel.


----------



## TRITON (6 Feb 2022)

I love the title of this thread. It's almost like a confession


----------



## Jacob (6 Feb 2022)

rafezetter said:


> ............. Drive down Bristols Gloucester Road, a main traffic route into Bristol city centre, on any given day and you'll see what I mean; it's simply not possible yo pay heed to EVERY.SINGLE.PEDESTRIAN. who may step out in front of you without driving at 5 miles an hour.


In that case there should be a 5mph limit or maybe a complete ban


> ............
> 
> Next they will be saying we have to revert to the oldest motoring law - that of "you must have a man with a red flag walking in front of you, warning pedestrians of your passage and travel not faster than 5 miles an hour".


Hmm, yes in your case! 


> Many pedestrians now seem to beleive they "rule the road", now yes it's mostly the morons, snowflakes and militant lefties who think this way, but that's still far too many.
> 
> OOH here's a good question, are any of you who read this with young children still going to teach them the "green cross code"? Or just tell them they don't need it now and hand over thier personal safety be controlled by a complete stranger who may or may not be driving while: texting, face-timing, watching porn (seen that), doing thier work report last minute before a meeting, on drugs of varying types, flat out stoned (going by the stink of marijuana everywhere), drunk or otherwise intoxicated, doing thier makeup, brushing thier hair, arguing with the children / spouse / lover, reading a map (still happens), reading a book (seen that too), masturbating or receiving fellatio, driving an unfit vehicle who's wheel may fall off at any moment, or brakes fail, or accelerator get stuck or... o...r or... or any 1 of literally THOUSANDS of other ways for a person to be killed or severly injured by a vehicle.
> 
> For all of you who are bleating on about "it's all on the driver", answer the above question please, if you can, without sounding like a hypocrite.


Pretty sensible to teach the highway code to all and sundry. Nobody has suggested otherwise. You are whipping yourself into a frenzy about nothing


> I'm reminded recently of something that happened recently in the USA, I've just spent 6 weeks there and I was at a rather posh retreat in the Catskill mountains for a couple of days (Mohonk Mountain Resort for the curious, highly recommended), that has miles and miles of trekking; they had closed off almost all the routes for walkers because "there is some ice" and when I say "some" I really mean "almost none", but the highly litigious nature of the USA is such that rather than simply give an advisory and allow people to make thier own decisions on thier walking ability and expect them to have a few braincells to do this with, instead 90% of the trails, had been closed.
> 
> Being English however, my brother, his wife and I said "pineapples" and walked them anyway as we were paying guests and that's what we were there for; the trails were fine, even with a 4.5 year old child, no-one slipped, not even once.
> 
> "Personal responsibility" people, either we use and ENFORCE the concept or soon we won't be able to buy sharp implements "in case you cut yourself or someone else" and it's all dogsh*t and downhill for everyone from then on.


Safety measures are often about protecting people like you, from yourselves. Mountain areas in winter can change from picture postcard to death trap very quickly. You can even find a route impossible to retreat due to black ice etc. You get it on roads too with black ice or wet snow, when vehicles can't stop at all. I've seen cars accelerate from near zero, down only a shallow slope, with all 4 wheels locked, until they run into something, hopefully the kerb. Worse case would be running into you and your family "boldly going" in a state of total ignorance


----------



## Sandyn (6 Feb 2022)

My name is Sandy. I am addicted to cycling and hopefully will be for a few years yet!   

I'm also a car driver and I tow a trailer at times. worst of all types really. Pedestrians, bicycles, electric bikes, electric scooters, cars and lorries do not mix well on the same carriageway however we are stuck with it. We just have to tolerate each others bad habits until technology can come to the rescue. 
Good road users don't need rules to take care of others, it is just very basic common sense and rules will never make bad road users good.


----------



## Sheptonphil (6 Feb 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Sorry if I appear pedantic John - I do this stuff for a living and forgot this is only a woodworking forum
> 
> Cheers


Only a woodworking forum!!!!!!!

Only!

Not as if it’s important


----------



## rafezetter (7 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> In that case there should be a 5mph limit or maybe a complete banHmm, yes in your case!  Pretty sensible to teach the highway code to all and sundry. Nobody has suggested otherwise. You are whipping yourself into a frenzy about nothingSafety measures are often about *protecting people like you, from yourselves*. Mountain areas in winter can change from picture postcard to death trap very quickly. You can even find a route impossible to retreat due to black ice etc. You get it on roads too with black ice or wet snow, when vehicles can't stop at all. I've seen cars accelerate from near zero, down only a shallow slope, with all 4 wheels locked, until they run into something, hopefully the kerb. *Worse case would be running into you and your family "boldly going" in a state of total ignorance*



My bold.

What point are you trying to make Jacob? Are you saying I'm a dangerous driver or that I'm one of the morons stepping out into traffic? (without any evidence of either, as usual)

I'm neither. I've never been a phone zombie EVER, and I do mean EVER; not even in the last 6 weeks in the USA using the google maps, I check the map make mental notes then put the phone AWAY; I also don't walk with headphones / earbuds and music when walking / jogging skipping or any other form of ambulation while next to a road. When driving I don't do anything other than drive, no phone calls, even hands free, if I have a passenger I don't look at them while talking or any other activity to distract me - having been involved in a near fatal RTA in '97 which left me hospitalised for three months, almost cost me my sight and use of both my legs and both hands, I am, not surprisingly, an EXTREMELY careful driver who would put most other drivers to shame (no fault on the RTA btw). I also took advanced driving courses, mainly to help me drive again after 20 years of not driving after the RTA, because the knowledge of just how bad many other drivers are instilled a fear in me of driving on the road that was VERY hard to overcome. How many other drivers can also say they have taken advanced courses to increase their skillset, knowledge and overall road use awareness? Not many, statistically close to zero, and it's an easy assumption that that also includes you and everyone you know or have ever met.

Of all the people to make your above assumptions about Jacob, you are wide of the mark by many many leagues, I suggest you look elsewhere for your sport - I dare say if questioned one or more inside your own family or social circle would admit to dangerous driving / without due care / driving while distracted AND having been a phone zombie while walking AND possible listening to music at the same time.


----------



## Jacob (7 Feb 2022)

rafezetter said:


> My bold.
> 
> What point are you trying to make Jacob? Are you saying I'm a dangerous driver.......


You said it yourself:
"it's simply not possible to pay heed to EVERY.SINGLE.PEDESTRIAN. who may step out in front of you without driving at 5 miles an hour."
Hmm, maybe time you handed in your keys? Hope that helps.


----------



## selectortone (7 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> You said it yourself:
> "it's simply not possible to pay heed to EVERY.SINGLE.PEDESTRIAN. who may step out in front of you without driving at 5 miles an hour."
> Hmm, maybe time you handed in your keys? Hope that helps.


Good grief Jacob - Even for you that is incredibly crass.


----------



## Jacob (7 Feb 2022)

selectortone said:


> Good grief Jacob - Even for you that is incredibly crass.


Really? Why? He says he finds it extremely difficult to drive safely where there are pedestrians. Maybe he should either pack it in or just stick to motorways. Have I missed something?


----------



## flying haggis (7 Feb 2022)

get real Jacob. Rafezetter makes a good point. Pedestrians HAVE to take responsibility for their own actions, if they step out into the road without looking then that is just tough


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Feb 2022)

Jacob's main aim is to be controversial, regardless of subject. Half of what he posts he doesn't believe but it creates controversy and stirs things up, it's all just an online game to him. He couldn't care less about other people.
He's followed the same format for years, the mans a wally. Just stop feeding him.
Personally I urge everyone to ignore his posts and respond to posts not trying to be controversial.
Apologies if it's blunt but I'm beyond caring, he just ruins threads on purpose. He gets a kick out of it.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (7 Feb 2022)

flying haggis said:


> Pedestrians HAVE to take responsibility for their own actions



As do drivers. But there's an obvious difference between what happens when a pedestrian hits a car vs when a car hits a pedestrian, which is why drivers are rightly held to a higher standard.


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Feb 2022)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> there's an obvious difference between what happens when a pedestrian hits a car vs when a car hits a pedestrian



What's the difference then, I would suspect the outcome is the same.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (7 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> What's the difference then, I would suspect the outcome is the same.



Walk into a car and see how much damage you do it, then have a think about whether you should let a car run into you to see how much damage it does you. I'd suggest you shouldn't. Actually you probably shouldn't walk into a car, it'll hurt, but not nearly as much as having a car hit you. 

I honestly thought that was obvious!


----------



## paulrbarnard (7 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> What's the difference then, I would suspect the outcome is the same.


For the pedestrian yes but killing somebody through your negligence is a very different thing to someone killings themselves through their negligence. 
I would suspect that the risk to self results in pedestrian taking significantly more care than someone sitting in an isolated environment, listening to the radio or chatting on the hands free phone etc.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (7 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> For the pedestrian yes but killing somebody through your negligence is a very different thing to someone killings themselves through their negligence.
> I would suspect that the risk to self results in pedestrian taking significantly more care than someone sitting in an isolated environment, listening to the radio or chatting on the hands free phone etc.


This too, so probably it wasn't obvious.


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Feb 2022)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> Walk into a car and see how much damage you do it, then have a think about whether you should let a car run into you to see how much damage it does you. I'd suggest you shouldn't. Actually you probably shouldn't walk into a car, it'll hurt, but not nearly as much as having a car hit you.
> 
> I honestly thought that was obvious!



Ok. I didn't realise you were talking about walking into a stationary car.


----------



## John Brown (7 Feb 2022)

"The hierarchy places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. *It does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly."*


----------



## Turnersretreat (8 Feb 2022)

Advanced driving courses do not make you a good driver.
They are not compulsory or a requirement to drive in UK.
Insurance companies do not give you discount for having been on one so that tells you what they think of them.
They are a way for private companies to make money from you.
After being gifted and attending one of these courses I found all they were were thrill seeking courses given by the instructors, not a safe driving course. As a matter of fact a lot of it required breaking the speed limit. I could get the same thrills at Blackpool Pleasure Beach without the danger of killing someone taught by some rich egotistical money maker posing as an advanced driving instructor.


----------



## thetyreman (9 Feb 2022)

talking of bad driving, I almost got knocked over today by a white van man whilst walking around, there are some nutters out there.


----------



## Spectric (9 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> To be honest a few laxatives the day before hand is the same effect.


When you look at the price of some of these bike components they are eye watering and I can recal a guy spending over a grand just to save the weight of a can of coke, as you say a good shiete and clearout could deliver the same savings.


----------



## doctor Bob (9 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> When you look at the price of some of these bike components they are eye watering and I can recal a guy spending over a grand just to save the weight of a can of coke, as you say a good shiete and clearout could deliver the same savings.


Maybe you could do some scientific testing, bag it up, waitrose bags are strong and see whether it equals a carbon wheel etc etc. Monday after a big roast could be equal to ally frame v carbon fibre.


----------



## Spectric (9 Feb 2022)

Turnersretreat said:


> Advanced driving courses do not make you a good driver.


But they do deliver a more disciplined way of driving, making you very aware of the little things and really polishing your driving ability so that you have the skills to reconise a potential synario and be prepared to avoid. The hardest part is talking through what is going through your head and at the end of a section the instructor telling you that you missed quiet a few important observations. In the UK you pass a test and away you go until old age, for many the only extra information they get is from speed awareness courses every five or so years, on my last one I actually learnt after fourty plus years of driving the definition of a dual carriageway and that the national speed limit can be easily remembered by thinking no street lights so there will be many out there driving to what they deem as perfect driving but in reality they are very rusty.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (9 Feb 2022)

Turnersretreat said:


> Advanced driving courses do not make you a good driver.



It'd be interesting to see the accident stats for people who've done (for instance) IAM and ROSPA vs people who haven't.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (9 Feb 2022)

Perhaps there is a link between buyers of ultra expensive bikes and woodworking tools, aside from a lot of spending power.

Those at the top of their game may benefit. Spending money for the simple pleasure of owning and using the best is a possible motivator. Status is a less attractive explanation - but understandable.

Too often it feeds the delusional thought that sub-par performance can be fixed by buying very expensive equipment (tools or bikes). It is mostly practice, care and attention to detail that improves performance. Exceptional equipment will not make the unexceptional, extraordinary. 

The best 18th century craftsmen produced outstanding work using a very limited range of tools. Nothing powered (bar limited steam capability). No Li-on batteries. Micron level measurement a dream. No Tormek or Pro-edge for sharpening. Routers, spindle moulders, thicknessers had yet to make an appearance etc etc.


----------



## doctor Bob (9 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Perhaps there is a link between buyers of ultra expensive bikes and woodworking tools, aside from a lot of spending power.
> 
> Those at the top of their game may benefit. Spending money for the simple pleasure of owning and using the best is a possible motivator. Status is a less attractive explanation - but understandable.
> 
> ...



Absolutely true, but if it makes you happy and you get pleasure from using your bike / tool then (for all I've mocked it a bit) I think you should buy what you want as long as you can afford it.


----------



## Spectric (9 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Too often it feeds the delusional thought that sub-par performance can be fixed by buying very expensive equipment (tools or bikes).


That is so relatable to woodworkers, I think we all have tried at some point to up our game by trying different tools only to discover the problem is yourself.

With bikes they will all get you from A to B with maybe differing levels of effort required but you don't buy a full blown race car for the daily commute.


----------



## paulrbarnard (9 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> That is so relatable to woodworkers, I think we all have tried at some point to up our game by trying different tools only to discover the problem is yourself.
> 
> With bikes they will all get you from A to B with maybe differing levels of effort required but you don't buy a full blown race car for the daily commute.


Quite true but with bikes weight is a big factor in effort required. For sure you can reduce your weight rather than reducing the bike weight but assuming you are at your right weight lightening the bike can make the difference between pushing up a hill and riding it up. Weight on a hill really is a killer. On long flat rights rotating weight is the big factor so those carbon wheels make a difference there. When the wind gets in front of you the aero design takes over, to say nothing of the skin tight Lycra. It is of course diminishing returns but the differences are clearly noticeable to anyone riding to their limit, no mater what level that limit is at.


----------



## Spectric (9 Feb 2022)

I just think back to when cyclist did not wear helmets, used leather toe clips and many trained on fixed wheel bikes yet cyclist like my mum happily did the Lands end to john o groats run and for her honeymoon spent a few weeks cycling to Cornwall from Romford. These were the days before motorways and there were cafes doted all along the A roads. She also won many medals in time trials on a handbuilt Rory O Brien bike made in Romford so the bikes may have changed but the fitness was always there.


----------



## Delwood (10 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> Quite true but with bikes weight is a big factor in effort required. For sure you can reduce your weight rather than reducing the bike weight but assuming you are at your right weight lightening the bike can make the difference between pushing up a hill and riding it up. Weight on a hill really is a killer. On long flat rights rotating weight is the big factor so those carbon wheels make a difference there. When the wind gets in front of you the aero design takes over, to say nothing of the skin tight Lycra. It is of course diminishing returns but the differences are clearly noticeable to anyone riding to their limit, no mater what level that limit is at.


Quite right. When I bought a carbon fibre bike after years of riding hand built steel frames it was noticeable that more power from turning the pedals went into forward motion rather than being absorbed by flex in the steel bike.


----------



## Rodpr (10 Feb 2022)

Given that most cyclists are doing it for the exercise rather than to win races, cutting weight becomes counterproductive. You just have to cycle further to get the same benefits. But a smooth running, quiet bike with a slick gear change and good brakes is much more enjoyable to ride


----------



## Jameshow (10 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> That is so relatable to woodworkers, I think we all have tried at some point to up our game by trying different tools only to discover the problem is yourself.
> 
> With bikes they will all get you from A to B with maybe differing levels of effort required but you don't buy a full blown race car for the daily commute.


Thanks you've just burst my aero bike bubble!


----------



## paulrbarnard (10 Feb 2022)

Rodpr said:


> Given that most cyclists are doing it for the exercise rather than to win races, cutting weight becomes counterproductive. You just have to cycle further to get the same benefits. But a smooth running, quiet bike with a slick gear change and good brakes is much more enjoyable to ride


I live in a very hilly area. With a heavier bike I was not able to ride up the hills so it was an excuse not to go out. I live in one of the highest villages in the Mendips so I have an up hill finish to every ride. 
The reality is that you cycle to the energy level you can produce. A lighter/better bike simply converts that energy better into more forwards motion. For sure you could put pedals on a Harley and cycle 100m and get all the exercise you need or you can do a 30 mile loop taking in some fantastic scenery on quite country roads, stop for a coffee at a cafe half way and still be able to crest all the climbs on the way home. 
For sure it is diminishing returns and a cost benifit trade off but I certainly wouldn’t have been capable of or motivated to cycle as much as I have without a decent light bike.


----------



## Jacob (10 Feb 2022)

Yes lighter weight, plus comfort, better gears etc just makes for a nicer ride, higher hills, longer distances, more fun and satisfaction.  
Also you discover the landscape in a very different way from walking or motoring.
Looking forwards to getting out myself, following recent hip op. Probably be April. Snake Pass here I come


----------



## Rodpr (10 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> For sure it is diminishing returns and a cost benifit trade off but I certainly wouldn’t have been capable of or motivated to cycle as much as I have without a decent light bike.


I agree, Paul, it should be about what makes riding more enjoyable. I don't go along with the 'if it isn't hurting it isn't working' school of cyclo-masochism! 

Also, I have bad arthritis in one knee which makes walking any distance very uncomfortable and I live in a part of Devon which has some really beautiful scenery, cycle paths and quiet lanes. You can't beat being out on a bike as a way to enjoy all of this.


----------



## doctor Bob (10 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Also you discover the landscape in a very different way from walking or motoring.



I hope when you're stopped, rather than riding, when admiring these views, you mentioned earlier, if your not concentrating 100% on the road as a motorist you should be disqualified (or something similar) I assume these principles should apply to cyclists as well, in case a pedestrian was to step out.
So I can't see how a view changes whether you're stopped on a bike or walking or stopped in a car / motorbike.

P.S. Jacob has me on ignore so the silly sausage may not respond


----------



## TRITON (10 Feb 2022)

I think I've went the other way. From a full on mtb i built with weight a consideration, as in high end componentry but not so it impacted on ability of the bike to take the rough stuff, to a bike that weighs nearly 52lbs and has an electric motor on it 
Admittedly the ebike has similar and for the important parts, a higher spec but its still heavy. And the run into town,despite being electric I was dog tired when i got home. Maybe not as much as doing the same run on the non ebike, but less of a slog and more of an enjoyable potter. Probably a 20 mile round trip culminating in a long climb homeward.

Not too stealth stealth ad 
I've got a shed load of high end kit im needing to sell. (Sawstop festool saw benches dont come cheap)
Lots of Hope tech kit, pro2,pro4, new tech 3,E4 brakes(£400 inc rotors, all in purple) 26" hope wheelsets, Shimano XT, new hope hubs, mavic rims(26") and a host of other parts too numerous to mention. Loads of new ano parts for Hope brakes, dressage etc etc

Example of the type of kit im talking about, and yes im a complete tart


----------



## Spectric (10 Feb 2022)

Rodpr said:


> and I live in a part of Devon which has some really beautiful scenery,


You also have Porlock hill within easy distance if you are in North Devon on which to test the stamina!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (10 Feb 2022)

Slightly tongue in cheek - when did you last see a jogger or cyclist smiling when jogging or cycling. The wide grins and smiles of relief usually come when they stop.


----------



## doctor Bob (10 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Slightly tongue in cheek - when did you last see a jogger or cyclist smiling when jogging or cycling. The wide grins and smiles of relief usually come when they stop.



I'd agree, makes them less safe as well, exhaustion affects concentration. When I run it's all about times, luckily I can run away from traffic off road.


----------



## John Brown (10 Feb 2022)

Rodpr said:


> Given that most cyclists are doing it for the exercise rather than to win races, cutting weight becomes counterproductive. You just have to cycle further to get the same benefits. But a smooth running, quiet bike with a slick gear change and good brakes is much more enjoyable to ride


That's been my professed excuse for sticking with my rusty old Dawes Countryman.
The real reason is that I'm a giant cheapskate.


----------



## Jacob (10 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Slightly tongue in cheek - when did you last see a jogger or cyclist smiling when jogging or cycling. The wide grins and smiles of relief usually come when they stop.


So many people dedicated to persuading themselves that cycling/running is self punishment for maniacs and masochists!  
Don't knock it if you haven't tried it - you just don't know what you are missing and we feel sorry for you!
In fact we really enjoy it and yes can be seen smiling - as well as the pleasures of the outdoors there's the bonus of endorphin release. Usually starts to kick in after about 10 minutes of cycling and somebody may comment "It's nicer out today than it looked earlier"!


----------



## ian33a (10 Feb 2022)

It looks like we have a house move on the cards - swapping Surrey for mid Devon - a whole load of new hills to explore on my bike - can't wait!


----------



## clogs (10 Feb 2022)

Triton,
pls tell, do u have to wear the same coloured underwear as the bling on ur bike....?...lol...
just jokin....
wish my knees could take the strain of bikin again......

have to say I've done the Snake on a Harley FLH and a super bike.....both made me smile in different ways...
lastly after years of non m/cycle riding other than veteran bikes I found the Advanced Riding Course a life saver which every one should take that and make it compulsary for silly person car drivers to have a few hours driving a HGV....


----------



## TRITON (10 Feb 2022)

clogs said:


> wish my knees could take the strain of bikin again......


Ebike  Up to 340% assistance for whatever effort you put in. I've a vascular prob, and long standing Achilles tendon issue, none of which is now noticeable thanks to my electric motor propelled mtb.


----------



## rafezetter (11 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Really? Why? He says he finds it extremely difficult to drive safely where there are pedestrians. Maybe he should either pack it in or just stick to motorways. Have I missed something?



That isn't what I said and you know it - what I said was it's IMPOSSIBLE to drive down a road, busy with pedestrians, some of whom now seem to feel they have been given carte blanch to just "step out" into the road - without coasting along at 5mph with your right foot hovering over the brake pedal, ready to do an emergency stop AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, thus actually causing an obstruction of sorts and not driving at a speed commensurate with the limit, which iirc is also something the police don't like.

So I either do that or, drive at a reasonable speed for the traffic and the limit, say 28mph as per the limit for Gloucester Road which has about a 3 mile stretch with lots of smaller independant shops on both sides, plus a dozen at least of pubs and general eateries, prolly a couple of dozen takeaways, it's almost always full with parked cars, so delivery vans double park etc etc so it's busy with pedestrians all day, every day until late in the evening, basically it's already a PITA to drive down, and now we'll have phone zombies just stepping out. 

If some pineapple steps out from behind a van or bus without looking because, he, she or whatever identifier they prefer believes they can now "because the new highway code says a road vehicle HAS to give way" and said person also willfully decides to ignore basic physics principles like inertia, then that person WILL get a free ride over my bonnet, no matter how hard I stand on the brakes. It's that simple; there WILL be fatalities, it's inevitable and under the new legislation *I* will be the one who gets crucified for it, because the law will want to be seen taking "affirmative action", even if I can PROVE that there was absolutely now way in hell I could have stopped in time, or otherwise avoided it without crashing into oncoming traffic.

Yes I'm aware of "hazard recognition", but hazard recognition at least assumes that, and this is the crucial bit, _*everyone else is also aware and paying attention.*_

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.


----------



## rafezetter (11 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> You said it yourself:
> "it's simply not possible to pay heed to EVERY.SINGLE.PEDESTRIAN. who may step out in front of you without driving at 5 miles an hour."
> Hmm, maybe time you handed in your keys? Hope that helps.




You know Jacob I'm going to offer a challenge. I offer to pay your expenses to come to Bristol, and drive up and down the full length of Gloucester Road at several different times of the day over 3 days, friday saturday and sunday. I will pay for TWO independant adjudicators to sit in the car and COUNT how many pedestrians we pass, one per side. I will also count and YOU as the driver will also count. At the end of each run you will be asked to tell them how many YOU counted.

For each pedestrian I miss counting off the agreed total from the adjudicators I'll give you £10, for each one you miss you'll give me £10 If you have to brake hard or do an emergency stop even once, you pay me £1000, the test is voided and you leave this forum for good.

Do that and we'll see if you change your tune about not being able to pay heed to EVERY.SINGLE. PEDESTRIAN.

I'll bet you're way off by quite a margin every single time, far more than me because you're too busy driving, and I walk away with a very tidy sum of money. I'll even give 50% to charity.

Oh and if you lose, you pay all costs.

Fancy taking that bet? Fancy putting your money where your mouth is? I've got £6k in the bank right now and you've got a house you can leverage, so we can both afford it, and I'm feeling belligerantly optimistic of my chances.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (11 Feb 2022)

rafezetter said:


> If some pineapple steps out from behind a van or bus without looking because, he, she or whatever identifier they prefer believes they can now "because the new highway code says a road vehicle HAS to give way" and said person also willfully decides to ignore basic physics principles like inertia, then that person WILL get a free ride over my bonnet, no matter how hard I stand on the brakes. It's that simple; there WILL be fatalities, it's inevitable and under the new legislation *I* will be the one who gets crucified for it, because the law will want to be seen taking "affirmative action", even if I can PROVE that there was absolutely now way in hell I could have stopped in time, or otherwise avoided it without crashing into oncoming traffic.



Leaving the gender politics dog-whistle to one side, what you've posted simply isn't true. If someone steps out into the road without due care and attention, and there was no reasonable way you could have avoided hitting them, then you cannot be found guilty. However, if you are driving in an area where you reasonably believe that pedestrians will leap into the path of your car without giving any prior indication then you should be reducing your speed, and as an advanced driver you must be well aware of that.

If you genuinely feel that you can't drive along the road you've mentioned safely and without undue risk to the pedestrians in the area then you have a duty of care to avoid that road - as an advanced driver you should know not to take risks you cannot manage. Out of interest do you have the accident stats for that road?

Your proposed bet with Jacob is ridiculous and counter to all good defensive driving strategies - you are demanding that he drive unsafely by counting pedestrians rather than carrying out correct observation and control.


----------



## Spectric (11 Feb 2022)

I think that we will become like many other countries, ie India where they just use there hooters continously so as you approach a corner just start hitting the horn to give advance warning, infact hoot at anybody who you think might be thinking of crossing the road. 

Two problems here, one are blind people with a guide dog, the dog will sit until the car has passed which is checkmate if the car has stopped for the pedestrian and what about phone zombies, they already run the gauntlet but now they will just assume right of way and become an even bigger hazzard.


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2022)

rafezetter said:


> You know Jacob I'm going to offer a challenge. I offer to pay your expenses to come to Bristol, and drive up and down the full length of Gloucester Road at several different times of the day over 3 days, friday saturday and sunday. I will pay for TWO independant adjudicators to sit in the car and COUNT how many pedestrians we pass, one per side. I will also count and YOU as the driver will also count. At the end of each run you will be asked to tell them how many YOU counted.
> 
> For each pedestrian I miss counting off the agreed total from the adjudicators I'll give you £10, for each one you miss you'll give me £10 If you have to brake hard or do an emergency stop even once, you pay me £1000, the test is voided and you leave this forum for good.
> 
> ...


 Is that what you do when you are driving?
There's nothing in the highway code about counting pedestrians you know, and you wouldn't get tested on it at any point!
Maybe you need a few top up lessons - raise these issues with an instructor? He'd probably point out for starters that pedestrians DO NOT have carte blanche to dash out recklessly in front of cars, they never did and they never will. Where on earth did you get that silly idea from?


----------



## John Brown (11 Feb 2022)

I'm never getting in my car again. In fact I'm never leaving the house. I'm going to sit in a big lead-lined box in a locked room with the lights off and the curtains closed. Let's see how that plays out with those suicidal pedestrians.


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> I'm never getting in my car again. In fact I'm never leaving the house. I'm going to sit in a big lead-lined box in a locked room with the lights off and the curtains closed. Let's see how that plays out with those suicidal pedestrians.


They'll be banging on the doors like the zombies in "Night of the Living Dead"!


----------



## Lons (11 Feb 2022)

Just wait until the no win no fee lawyers get hold of this and the unscrupulous pedestrians and cyclists cotton on to "free" money. All our vehicles have front and rear dashcams and for their own protection I'd suggest all drivers should have them, I'd go so far as to say they should by now be standard equipment.

I own and occasionally ride a bike but am of the opinion that every cyclist over the age of 16 should be required to have 3rd party insurance cover and cycling proficiency tests should be part of school curriculum.


----------



## rafezetter (11 Feb 2022)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> Leaving the gender politics dog-whistle to one side, what you've posted simply isn't true. If someone steps out into the road without due care and attention, and there was no reasonable way you could have avoided hitting them, then you cannot be found guilty. However, if you are driving in an area where you reasonably believe that pedestrians will leap into the path of your car without giving any prior indication then you should be reducing your speed, and as an advanced driver you must be well aware of that.
> 
> If you genuinely feel that you can't drive along the road you've mentioned safely and without undue risk to the pedestrians in the area then you have a duty of care to avoid that road - as an advanced driver you should know not to take risks you cannot manage. Out of interest do you have the accident stats for that road?
> 
> Your proposed bet with Jacob is ridiculous and counter to all good defensive driving strategies - you are demanding that he drive unsafely by counting pedestrians rather than carrying out correct observation and control.



Nope, I was merely pointing out that my previous point about not being able to give attention to every.single.pedestrian was entirely valid for the very reasons you are pointing out - to whit "I'm too busy driving" - so him saying I should no longer drive on the roads, because I cannot give 100% attention to every.single.pedestrian is utterly irrational, and exactly counter to safe driving as you state.

as to the rest - yes of course, I do and I do.

Regarding "cannot be found guilty" for it - well I have a previous court case and an overheard statement from a policeman saying "we're going to make an example of him" to the assembled witnesses for the prosecution outside the court room (heard by my friend while I was inside), begs to differ. All the witnesses had clearly been coached and when I asked for an extention for the case being heard that day because my solicitor did not turn up, I was refused, despite the prosecution having had THREE and delayed the case for TWO YEARS; so I was forced to defend myself in court, against what I found out later to be an extremely biased police officer and coached witnesses.

It wasnt until years later I found out all of that was grounds for a mistrial and have the whole thing thrown out and the hefty £1500 fine (1997) repaid to me.

Without dashcam footage it's your word against thiers and I have absolutely zero faith in the honesty or "justice" or the legal system, based on that and one other case brought against me 35 years ago with police lying in court about my carrying a fishing fillet knife I had just got from a friends whom had sharpened it for me (long before I knew how); some curtain twitcher had seen him giving it to me (in a scabbard), called the police and then the police claimed I had resisted arrest (I hadn't but they were plain clothed and had not initially identified themselves and it was after 5pm in december) and I was going to stab someone with it, they didn't say who or where or why, but merely that "I would" based on no more evidence than carrying a knife automatically means I must be going to stab someone (remember this was 35 years ago long before the rise in knife crime), and I with no prior police contact of any kind, I was fresh out of boarding school and lived right near the River Mole which has good fishing. Even with a statement given by my friend, that he had sharpened the knofe and regularly went fishing with me, oh and that I had a licence to fish in a private lake nearby was all dismissed as not relevant, they still pursued the case to a court hearing, which was summarily dismissed after all statements had been made in about 2 minutes flat - but it got that far (and I got an absolute beating from my father for "bringing the family name into disrepute").

Don't put your faith in the legal system to be true to justice or "fairness" it's a complete crapshoot and now at least the police as a group of people are finally being seen and _proven_ to be just as fallible as everyone else. I don't hate the institution, actually thought about joining myself after my own personal childhood history, but I'm also very aware of the often overlooked, sometimes dangerous foibles of people in it.

No idea of the accident stats, but any stats dated more than a week or two would be invalid anyway because the new code alteration giving pedestrians right of way regardless has only just come into effect.

Just to make sure for those in any doubt, I am not and never would advocate dangerous or even careless driving, I don't drink ANY alcohol when driving, and I'm always the designated driver when with other people, mostly because my personal tolerance for alcohol is low, always has been. I rarely drive over 70 or even 67, because the time saved even over a couple hundred mile journey is a LOT less than most people realise - 5 minutes to be precise and the cost saved in diesel is noticable, roughly 10 MPG for my car.

I've made my viewpoint clear and frankly anyone who even slightly suggests that pedestrians should not have to apply personal responsibility and awareness while near a road is someone to avoid.


----------



## rafezetter (11 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> Just wait until the no win no fee lawyers get hold of this and the unscrupulous pedestrians and cyclists cotton on to "free" money. All our vehicles have front and rear dashcams and for their own protection I'd suggest all drivers should have them, I'd go so far as to say they should by now be standard equipment.
> 
> I own and occasionally ride a bike but am of the opinion that every cyclist over the age of 16 should be required to have 3rd party insurance cover and cycling proficiency tests should be part of school curriculum.



LOL Lons that's almost word for word what a few people have said elsewhere about the lawyers, and you're not wrong either, I'd take that bet. 3 months maybe less before the adverts start in the UK.


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> Just wait until the no win no fee lawyers get hold of this and the unscrupulous pedestrians and cyclists cotton on to "free" money.


Yes they'll be lining up to throw themselves in front of cars - or more likely pushing their elderly relatives in that direction.  
You won't be able to reverse away they'll be piling up behind you and banging on your rear window. It'll be hell out there!  100% gammon nightmare!


> ......
> 
> I own and occasionally ride a bike but am of the opinion that every cyclist over the age of 16 should be required to have 3rd party insurance cover


Damage incurred by cyclists is so minimal that it wouldn't be worth the collection of a few pennies per person


> and cycling proficiency tests should be part of school curriculum.


They are already. Should also be made compulsory for all new vehicle licensees too


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2022)

rafezetter said:


> ......... anyone who even slightly suggests that pedestrians should not have to apply personal responsibility and awareness while near a road .....


But nobody has ever suggested that and nobody is ever likely to are they?
PS just occurred to me - have people been reading some sort of joke version of the Highway Code? Viz Magazine?


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (11 Feb 2022)

rafezetter said:


> Just to make sure for those in any doubt, I am not and never would advocate dangerous or even careless driving



Your proposed challenge was unquestionably dangerous. Are we to take it that it was just internet bluster?


----------



## Lons (11 Feb 2022)

_I said _
_Just wait until the no win no fee lawyers get hold of this and the unscrupulous pedestrians and cyclists cotton on to "free" money. All our vehicles have front and rear dashcams and for their own protection I'd suggest all drivers should have them, I'd go so far as to say they should by now be standard equipment.
_
_I own and occasionally ride a bike but am of the opinion that every cyclist over the age of 16 should be required to have 3rd party insurance cover and cycling proficiency tests should be part of school curriculum. _



Jacob said:


> Yes they'll be lining up to throw themselves in front of cars - or more likely pushing their elderly relatives in that direction.



You silly person  It's very easy to bash into or ride a bike into the side of a car without hurting yourself, the fraudsters are doing it already from bikes and motorcycles as many dashcam videos have shown and it seems you haven't had any bodywork repairs done or you would know exactly how expensive it can be to repair those bashes and scrapes, Of course the perpetrators will instantly claim the usual hard to dispute injuries such as back ache and the mental anguish of " almost being killed so can't sleep for the nightmares". You don't live in the real world and you're still thinking in old pennies rather than current pounds sterling.

*" Damage incurred by cyclists is so minimal that it wouldn't be worth the collection of a few pennies per person" *

Codswallop. A metal or carbon cycle can inflict serious damage to car panels as well as human flesh.

*"They are already. *

I think you're wrong though stand to be corrected as I haven't researched it but from memory the cycle proficiency test I referred to was dumped at least 15 years ago and the current bykeability scheme whilst being available in schools isn't compulsory, I said that IMO it should be!

*"Should also be made compulsory for all new vehicle licensees too"*

It is but in case you don't know it's called driving lessons followed by a test, does that help with your lack of information.


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> .......... It's very easy to bash into or ride a bike into the side of a car without hurting yourself, the fraudsters are doing it already


How would they make a profit from that?


> .......A metal or carbon cycle can inflict serious damage to car panels as well as human flesh.


Even if true it hardly ever happens. But it isn't true anyway. Bike /car collisions can destroy bikes and injure the riders, leaving the car with just light scratches and th driver untouched


> ......
> 
> *"Should also be made compulsory for all new vehicle licensees too"*
> 
> It is but in case you don't know it's called driving lessons followed by a test, does that help with your lack of information.


I meant that cycling lessons should be compulsory for vehicle drivers too.

Strewth you really got a big chip on your shoulder about bikes haven't you! Have you had a particularly awful childhood experience with them?
Maybe you should get together Rafezetter and alternate as driver - rear gunner?


----------



## Lons (11 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> How would they make a profit from that?Even if true it hardly ever happens. But it isn't true anyway. Bike /car collisions can destroy bikes and injure the riders, leaving the car with just light scratches and th driver untouchedI meant that cycling lessons should be compulsory for vehicle drivers too.
> 
> Strewth you really got a big chip on your shoulder about bikes haven't you! Have you had a particularly awful childhood experience with them?
> Maybe you should get together Rafezetter and alternate as driver - rear gunner?


They can make money through fraudulent insurance claims, not difficult unless the driver has dash cam footage to disprove it. If you don't believe that then find someone in the insurance industry and they'll explain it in simple terms even you can understand.

*Light scratches*, you live in an alternate universe pal! I suggest you scrape your bike along the side of you car and take it to a repair shop for an estimate, a proper repair shop which would bill the insurance company not your mate in the pub who owns a spray gun.
Nobody said anything about the drivers being hurt.

Why should cycle lessons be compulsory for drivers who may never ride a bike, ludicrous, all drivers need is the general knowledge and commonsense to observe and take the correct action. Using your logic, all cyclists perhaps should be forced to take driving lessons maybe something to put forward for your next political campaign, might even get you a couple of extra votes. Maybe if your party offered to pay for lessons and tests from the public purse. 

You have a vivid imagination or more likely just trolling again so let me put you straight. I have no chip on my shoulder about cyclists, I am one at least when the weather is half decent and rode a bike without incident throughout the whole of my childhood, I had to take a cycling proficiency test before the school would allow me to ride there.
You're up to your old tricks Jacob, have you been taking side shoe dancing lessons again?


----------



## Jacob (11 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> They can make money through fraudulent insurance claims, not difficult unless the driver has dash cam footage to disprove it. .......


Insurance claims for what? Having scratched their own bikes?  
Wot I'd attack you car with my bike and claim it was your fault and want money for my scratches? Or a puncture? Or broken spoke? Or a lost lamp battery?
Doesn't sound like a get rich scheme.
Not convinced, but this thread has obviously gone into the twilight zone and unlikely to emerge, so don't bother to reply! 
Maybe you should talk to Rafezateer he seems to be in the same boat?
Hope that helps!


----------



## Lons (11 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Insurance claims for what? Having scratched their own bikes?
> Wot I'd attack you car with my bike and claim it was your fault and want money for my scratches? Or a puncture? Or broken spoke? Or a lost lamp battery?
> Doesn't sound like a get rich scheme.
> Not convinced, but this thread has obviously gone into the twilight zone and unlikely to emerge, so don't bother to reply!
> ...


Dozy person, have you not had your Horlics yet tonight?
If you read posts before replying you would realise I stated examples of claims that are not minor repairs to cycles but the very substantial claims that can be made for difficult to disprove physical injuries such as strained backs and mental anguish which are already being fraudulently used in car accidents, buses and even people tripping over pavements, it's big business and costs insurance companies, ultimately the paying customers, £millions.

Does that help you to understand or is it still a bit too difficult for you to comprehend?


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (12 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> difficult to disprove physical injuries such as strained backs and mental anguish



Fortunately our legal system - libel and slander aside - requires the complainant to prove the claim, not the defendant to disprove it.


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2022)

Interesting stuff here When Can a Cyclist Claim Against a Motorist?


----------



## paulrbarnard (12 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> Dozy person, have you not had your Horlics yet tonight?
> If you read posts before replying you would realise I stated examples of claims that are not minor repairs to cycles but the very substantial claims that can be made for difficult to disprove physical injuries such as strained backs and mental anguish which are already being fraudulently used in car accidents, buses and even people tripping over pavements, it's big business and costs insurance companies, ultimately the paying customers, £millions.
> 
> Does that help you to understand or is it still a bit too difficult for you to comprehend?



Scam artists aside, and I’m sure we are not including them in the debate, it is HIGHLY likely that a cyclist will suffer a number of those injuries if hit by a car or indeed if they hit a car. As to who is at fault that is the reason a lot of cyclists wear helmet cams today. Anyone worried about being taken by a faker or scammer should get a dash cam.
We are talking about very different things though. In a car it is a risk to your pocket, which is trivial when compared to physical injury or even death for a cyclist or pedestrian. 
There are idiots who shouldn’t be let out unsupervised both riding cycles and driving cars. The risk to yourself from meeting one of those is inordinately higher if they are driving a car.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Strewth you really got a big chip on your shoulder about bikes haven't you! Have you had a particularly awful childhood experience with them?
> Maybe you should get together Rafezetter and alternate as driver - rear gunner?



Here we go again ................. same out pattern. I thought with age came wisdom.


----------



## TRITON (12 Feb 2022)

I'd a dedicated jogger come across my path at at junction in a urban area- no shops. I shout 'nearly hit you you%$^$£$,@*^&', he shouted back about right of way.
He didnt stop, he basically just continued across the road like he was still on the pavement and did so without looking, so effectively gave me little chance to stop, judge the situation, wave him over etc. 
But fair enough. I suppose when he's sitting in his wheelchair or hospital bed in agony, he can give himself a big thumbs up that he had right of way.


----------



## TRITON (12 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Even if true it hardly ever happens. But it isn't true anyway. Bike /car collisions can destroy bikes and injure the riders, leaving the car with just light scratches and the driver untouched



Er....


----------



## John Brown (12 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Here we go again ................. same out pattern. I thought with age came wisdom.


Why? In my opinion he's making sense. As far as I can see, the new Highway Code is just formalising what most responsible motorists already do automatically, i.e., try not to run down pedestrians or cyclists. Sail before steam.
I really don't see why people are so angry about it.


I don't necessarily agree with everything Jacob says, but on the other hand I don't necessarily disagree with everything he says either. Both strategies seem strangely pointless to me.


----------



## John Brown (12 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> Er....


Do they use the UK Highway Code in Italy?


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> Er....


Nobody says it never happens!
But that photo looks somewhat unbelievable - the amount of force to bend the bumper and dent the boot would need a cyclist fired out of a cannon! He'd be splattered there stuck firmly on, very dead.


----------



## TRITON (12 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Do they use the UK Highway Code in Italy?


I've no idea John
Not sure what a Colombian cyclist who had a horrific accident while TT training in Colombia has to do with the Italian equivalent of the UK highway code.




> Nobody says it never happens!


Perhaps then Jacob you should have stated such in your original post, rather than an adamant refusal to believe it were possible.
Cyclist who did that to the bus is called Egan Bernal, who is a professional cyclist and former Tour De France winner. He is recovering in Hospital.


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> ....
> 
> Perhaps then Jacob you should have stated such in your original post, rather than an adamant refusal to believe it were possible.


But I didn't say that in my original post.
I'm amazed that he survived - which is to the point really, cyclists can't risk causing damage because they are very likely to get the worst of it. Bus gets a dent, cyclist luckily escapes with near-death life-changing experience.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Why? In my opinion he's making sense. As far as I can see, the new Highway Code is just formalising what most responsible motorists already do automatically, i.e., try not to run down pedestrians or cyclists. Sail before steam.
> I really don't see why people are so angry about it.
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with everything Jacob says, but on the other hand I don't necessarily disagree with everything he says either. Both strategies seem strangely pointless to me.


You seem to think I'm talking about bike content, I'm not, I quoted Jacob talking about chips on shoulder and saying they had problem childhoods. 
Not sure what you mean by your strategies of agreeing and disagreeing with Jacob being pointless are. That's down to you.


----------



## hairy (12 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Interesting stuff here When Can a Cyclist Claim Against a Motorist?


" Accidents commonly occur at junctions and in front of property driveways, both places where motorists may pull out in front of cyclists unexpectedly"

Unexpected from junctions and driveways?!?!?!


----------



## John Brown (12 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> I've no idea John
> Not sure what a Colombian cyclist who had a horrific accident while TT training in Colombia has to do with the Italian equivalent of the UK highway code.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure what any of this has to do with the original thread. And I think it's telling that you had to find a picture of a professional cyclist in Columbia to illustrate your point


----------



## TRITON (12 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> I'm not quite sure what any of this has to do with the original thread. And I think it's telling that you had to find a picture of a professional cyclist in Columbia to illustrate your point


Not sure what replying to jacob about his reply to Lons to illustrate that cyclists can and do cause damage to cars in an accident wouldnt be relevant.
Besides this is the topic of this thread and it has been since page one.
And as to finding a pic. I'm on 3 cycling forums, have been for the past 15 years, on them ive probably a total of 40,000 posts, so i didnt need to go find something, we've been discussing it on these forums since the accident happened.

I've been riding near daily for 30 years. And even the lowest estimate would put me on 3000 miles per year, for those 30 years, so you could say I've near 100,000 miles under my belt as a long term cyclist. Think that gives me a bit of expertise when it comes to everything connected to 2 wheels.

Are you upset because you thought this had something to do with Italy, and when pointed out it was in fact Colombian are now having a bit of a tizzy.
I thought tantrums were something only kids did.


----------



## Lons (12 Feb 2022)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> Fortunately our legal system - libel and slander aside - requires the complainant to prove the claim, not the defendant to disprove it.


It would be nice to believe that is so Sporky but it's not applicable in most cases where the drivers' insurance company will just pay up if they couldn't easily prove it wasn't the drivers fault. The main reasons for that i.e. they can't claim knock for knock as very few cyclists have insurance and it's usually far cheaper to pay reasonable claims. These very rarely reach the courts unless it's very likely to get a conviction for fraud.
I stick by my original point that 3rd party insurance cover should be compulsory and as a cyclist I personally would be happy to pay it.;


----------



## John Brown (12 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> Not sure what replying to jacob about his reply to Lons to illustrate that cyclists can and do cause damage to cars in an accident wouldnt be relevant.
> Besides this is the topic of this thread and it has been since page one.
> And as to finding a pic. I'm on 3 cycling forums, have been for the past 15 years, on them ive probably a total of 40,000 posts, so i didnt need to go find something, we've been discussing it on these forums since the accident happened.
> 
> ...


Tantrums? Tizzy?
Give me a break!


----------



## TRITON (12 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> I stick by my original point that 3rd party insurance cover should be compulsory and as a cyclist I personally would be happy to pay it.;


How would they police it, should cyclists should have number plates as cars etc do, and what happens should a cyclist break the law. Can they then be banned form cycling ?

The problem we could run ito is all need to be insured in some way, possibly even including pedestrians. people can cause accidents through their own carelessness. 
Would insurance companies actually go for that ?


----------



## artie (12 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> 3rd party insurance cover should be compulsory and as a cyclist I personally would be happy to pay it.;


I know not everyone owns a house, but for those who do wouldn't house insurance cover damages incurred while cycling?


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> How would they police it, should cyclists should have number plates as cars etc do, and what happens should a cyclist break the law. Can they then be banned form cycling ?



Rather than a ban, make them ride a comedy bike for a few weeks, win win.


----------



## Lons (12 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> I know not everyone owns a house, but for those who do wouldn't house insurance cover damages incurred while cycling?


It used to be the case that cycles and legal cover was an automatic inclusion in home insurance Artie but not the case these days where they are listed as options and you can include or exclude that cover as you wish. In any case household cycle cover is normally fire & theft cover only so the personal liability element would be the only thing that could be used.
Specialist cycle insurance is available to anyone who cares to look.

Triton is correct of course it would be extremely difficult to enforce and the police would definitely not be motivated however that's not a valid reason for it not to be considered. We would never do anything if we worked on the premise that if it's difficult it doesn't happen. I don't see why a cyclist can't be banned but they can certainly be fined. A cyclist who's been drinking or is using a mobile 'phone isn't a responsible bike rider and should be stopped. A certain person will of course say that never happens. 
Insurers will provide cover for almost anything as long as the risk v premiums balance out.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (12 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> Er....



That's not a car.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (12 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Tantrums? Tizzy?
> Give me a break!



Standard tactic - when someone disagrees with you, portray them as irrational. Then you can dismiss them and their argument with one simple logical fallacy.


----------



## TRITON (12 Feb 2022)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> That's not a car.


You know, but for your clarity, I could well have missed that fact.

I'm glad we agree though that it is the type of motorized road vehicle of which cyclists can inadvertently run into causing damage to both in the process.

I like a bloke that holds logic in high esteem


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (12 Feb 2022)

Agreed on all points.


----------



## paulrbarnard (12 Feb 2022)

hairy said:


> " Accidents commonly occur at junctions and in front of property driveways, both places where motorists may pull out in front of cyclists unexpectedly"
> 
> Unexpected from junctions and driveways?!?!?!


The unexpected part is that they do it when you are passing…
SMIDSY…


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2022)

The point it - the actual cost of accidental damage caused by cyclists is miniscule compared to that inflicted by motorised vehicles. 
It's a non issue. 
Not that it never happens, but never to the extent that any action is needed over and above the Road traffic act and other controls.
In any case a cyclist causing damage can be prosecuted just like anybody else, they don't escape the law.
Insurance would make no difference and would be a pointless administrative nightmare. 
It would make as much sense to licence and insure pedestrians, though I suspect our usual suspects would think that was a good idea too!


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> It would make as much sense to licence and insure pedestrians, though I suspect our usual suspects would think that was a good idea too!



That's a great idea. Top it off with officially recognised status of "buswanker".


----------



## Droogs (12 Feb 2022)

Do as the Swiss do and have a yearly tax sticker that you pay for that includes insurance. Then as bobbies walk around in pedestrian areas bikes they see without one get siezed and sold off at auction and the money raised goes to local charities. Just my tuppence worth.


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2022)

Droogs said:


> Do as the Swiss do and have a yearly tax sticker that you pay for that includes insurance. Then as bobbies walk around in pedestrian areas bikes they see without one get siezed and sold off at auction and the money raised goes to local charities. Just my tuppence worth.


News to me! Was phased out in 2012 apparently.




__





Cycling in Switzerland


Children under 7 years old are allowed to cycle on roads in Switzerland, only if supervised by a person at least 16 years of age. Cyclists also have to abide by the general road traffic regulations.




www.ch.ch


----------



## thetyreman (12 Feb 2022)

in reality taxing cyclists is just going to make the gov and local councils even richer they can't be trusted to spend money sensibly, I would also just not pay it, even if it means prison, I don't care, our current gov are already right wing enough as it is, they can get stuffed.


----------



## Droogs (12 Feb 2022)

Well i last lived there in 2008 so was in place then. If everyone pays for the infrastructure they use then none can moan (with any justification) that x y or z is using the roads. The money raised can be ring fenced specifically for cycling infrastructure improvements. As to trusting your local council how about instead of standing as a deadend paperweight somewhere you wont get elected @Jacob stand somewhere you can and then have a positive impact on how things are done instead of being barracks room lawyer. But then of course if things go wrong it would be your fault.

You wouldn't go to gaol Jacob just have to watch someone else get your bike for peanuts or see it destroyed.


----------



## Noel (12 Feb 2022)

thetyreman said:


> in reality taxing cyclists is just going to make the gov and local councils even richer they can't be trusted to spend money sensibly, I would also just not pay it, even if it means prison, I don't care, our current gov are already right wing enough as it is, they can get stuffed.



And will likely put many of people off cycling = more burden on the NHS.


----------



## John Brown (12 Feb 2022)

As has been mentioned many times before:
A. There is no such thing as road tax.
B. Even if there was, 80% of cyclists own cars. Probably a much higher percentage of the Lycra crowd, who seem to be the targets of so much ire.


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2022)

Droogs said:


> ........ If everyone pays for the infrastructure they use then none can moan (with any justification) that x y or z is using the roads. ......


What, if they brought back toll roads everybody would be happy for ever more?  
I wouldn't bet on it!


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (12 Feb 2022)

Droogs said:


> The money raised can be ring fenced specifically for cycling infrastructure improvements.



Is there actually a mechanism for ring fencing in UK monetary policy?


----------



## TRITON (12 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> News to me! Was phased out in 2012 apparently.





Droogs said:


> Well i last lived there in 2008 so was in place then.



I've spotted a flaw in your logic Droogs


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2022)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> Is there actually a mechanism for ring fencing in UK monetary policy?


Yes no prob if govt decide they want to do it. Hypothecated tax - Wikipedia


----------



## Jacob (12 Feb 2022)

Gone very silly this thread!
I'm intrigued by the idea of Lons and Rafezetter doing a charge up the Gloucester Road on a Saturday night:

_Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death

Pedestrians to right of them,
Cyclists to left of them,
Electric scooters and tricycles in front of them

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!_
and so on..

........


----------



## Lons (12 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Gone very silly this thread!
> I'm intrigued by the idea of Lons and Rafezetter doing a charge up the Gloucester Road on a Saturday night:
> 
> _Half a league, half a league,
> ...


It must be well past your bedtime again Jacob, have you forgotten to take your meds again.


----------



## John on the Wirral (13 Feb 2022)

We are now at the stage were all road users must carry insurance. It is fine by me that cyclists claim their rights as road-users but accordingly they should also bear the responsibiltiy of being insured. If they feel they should be able to claim financially against a car driver then the car driver should an equal right to claim from them ie their insurance.. A young cyclist,riding a bike that was too big for her whilst struggling to get off/stop the bike ran down the side of my car her brake lever damaging four panels on my car for which I had to claim on my insurance to get repaired.. At the time, we didn't know what to do - we could have followed her home and suffered a string of abuse from her parents but my point is that I,as the car driver,had no means of claiming which is totally unfair to the motorist. If bikes to be recognised as road- users they should also have regisration numbers as well as insurance.


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Feb 2022)

Just for the record here. My bike IS covered by a fully completed insurance policy. I suspect a lot of owners of expensive bikes also have it.


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Feb 2022)

There is legislation on the way to introduce new penalties for cyclists who cause accidents. It’s a result of campaigning by the husband of a woman killed crossing the road who was hit by a cyclist on a road racing bike which had no brakes a few years ago.









Grant Shapps calls for new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law


The Secretary of State for Transport said that the proposed changes form part of a “balanced package” which includes the impending Highway Code revisions




road.cc


----------



## Lons (13 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> Just for the record here. My bike IS covered by a fully completed insurance policy. I suspect a lot of owners of expensive bikes also have it.


 As is mine Paul but I recently had a conversation with my neighbour who rides a very expensive electric bike after which he checked his comprehensive policy which certainly covered any loss of damage to his bike but not liability to others in the event of an accident, he then checked his household policy and realised he had refused the option of personal liabilty cover so in fact it isn't fully comprehensive in reality, he was horrified and has since amended his house policy. My cover is the same as his btw and was classed as "comprehensive"

While we're at it I'd suggest bikes should have a simple MOT as though the vast majority of riders are careful enough to maintain their bikes for their own safety there appears to be also a sizeable number certainly in a couple of the towns not too far from here, who ride with machines that should be on the scrap heap mostly younger scruffs wearing dark hoodies and no lights at night so that's down to the current laws not being enforced by police.


----------



## Southdownswolf (13 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> Just for the record here. My bike IS covered by a fully completed insurance policy. I suspect a lot of owners of expensive bikes also have it.



My bikes aren't particularly expensive, so have never gone down the individual insurance route. However, being a member of British Cycling provides third party insurance cover and also legal support if needed. Theft is covered on my house insurance.
Would always recommend British Cycling membership to all riders, just for the legal cover alone.


----------



## John Brown (13 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> As is mine Paul but I recently had a conversation with my neighbour who rides a very expensive electric bike after which he checked his comprehensive policy which certainly covered any loss of damage to his bike but not liability to others in the event of an accident, he then checked his household policy and realised he had refused the option of personal liabilty cover so in fact it isn't fully comprehensive in reality, he was horrified and has since amended his house policy. My cover is the same as his btw and was classed as "comprehensive"
> 
> While we're at it I'd suggest bikes should have a simple MOT as though the vast majority of riders are careful enough to maintain their bikes for their own safety there appears to be also a sizeable number certainly in a couple of the towns not too far from here, who ride with machines that should be on the scrap heap mostly younger scruffs wearing dark hoodies and no lights at night so that's down to the current laws not being enforced by police.


My belief is that if we made insurance and an MOT compulsory for bikes, the only cyclists who'd comply would be the Lycra crowd, and possibly a few city commuters. The mudguard and basket folk would give up cycling completely, and the "scruffs" would carry on regardless. As for "road tax", since VED is loosely based on emissions, then maybe car owners who cycle, should receive a rebate for every mile cycled. I don't know how that would work, but then I don't really know how the insurance and MOT for bikes would work either. The police can't cope as it is.


----------



## John Brown (13 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> News to me! Was phased out in 2012 apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder why they scrapped it? Maybe it turned out to be a daft and unworkable idea.


----------



## IZZY (13 Feb 2022)

Ozi said:


> Are there really £10K bikes - I'm sure there will be but why? how? who? wish I had a car worth that. I used to work for Aston Martin and I'm still shocked at the £10K bike - it's clearly my problem.


Not only that but they send their bikes into a dealer for a service. They are PUSH BIKES G*d help us .


----------



## Lons (13 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> My belief is that if we made insurance and an MOT compulsory for bikes, the only cyclists who'd comply would be the Lycra crowd, and possibly a few city commuters. The mudguard and basket folk would give up cycling completely, and the "scruffs" would carry on regardless. As for "road tax", since VED is loosely based on emissions, then maybe car owners who cycle, should receive a rebate for every mile cycled. I don't know how that would work, but then I don't really know how the insurance and MOT for bikes would work either. The police can't cope as it is.


Can't argue with most of that, the police don't crack down on those as it is but difficulties in policing shouldn't automatically stop possible solutions being considered. 
Southdownswolf posting about British Cycling Membership is one possibility maybe that's the way though I don't know the cost of membership, compulsory membership also gives liability insurance. Cycle retailers maybe have to sign you up on any new bike sold is a start perhaps with a cheap once a year safety check plan. 
I'm not sure the "mudguard and basket" users would give up though as the ones I know would be unlikely to object. ( Just remembered my bike has mudguards, no basket though )
I'm not sayin g any of that is what should be done but there are always ways, clearly anything that costs a few quid to those who currently pay nothing is going to be vehemently opposed by the majority.


----------



## Jones (13 Feb 2022)

I doubt licensing cyclists would be practical or effective. I remember dog licenses at I think five bob a year, these were stopped because they were a complete waste of time ,though dogs still kill a few per year.


----------



## Spectric (13 Feb 2022)

What about electric bikes, no longer a true pedal cycle but more an under powered moped so how will this change things, it is now a motorised vehicle so crash helmets should be mandatory and full lighting but also insurance, if for no reason other than to provide legal cover in the event of an incident.


----------



## Lons (13 Feb 2022)

Jones said:


> I doubt licensing cyclists would be practical or effective. I remember dog licenses at I think five bob a year, these were stopped because they were a complete waste of time ,though dogs still kill a few per year.



I don't think that's a good comparison however as immediately after dropping the licence there were consultations and then amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to address the issues with dogs and then 6 years ago it became compulsory to hjave dogs microchipped which is an effective for of registration.


----------



## Lons (13 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> What about electric bikes, no longer a true pedal cycle but more an under powered moped so how will this change things, it is now a motorised vehicle so crash helmets should be mandatory and full lighting but also insurance, if for no reason other than to provide legal cover in the event of an incident.


Scooters as well. Interesting that if you use a mobility scooter capable of 8 miles an hour it has to be registered and licenced even though the cost is nil. A bike can go a hell of a lot faster than 8 mph.


----------



## Spectric (13 Feb 2022)

Had not thought about all those old peoples chariots that as you say can do 8 mph but are also allowed to use pedestrian rights of way and go round shops so even more risk of accidents.


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> Scooters as well. Interesting that if you use a mobility scooter capable of 8 miles an hour it has to be registered and licenced even though the cost is nil. A bike can go a hell of a lot faster than 8 mph.


But only with power as an assist. If there is a throttle then it is illegal, as are motorised scooters beyond those on trial, which do have number plates and insurance.


----------



## JohnPW (13 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> What about electric bikes, no longer a true pedal cycle but more an under powered moped so how will this change things, it is now a motorised vehicle so crash helmets should be mandatory and full lighting but also insurance, if for no reason other than to provide legal cover in the event of an incident.



They are electric assist bikes, they still need to be pedalled. Legally, they are classed as pedal cycles.

Electric bikes which are controlled by a throttle and which don't need to be pedalled are motor vehicles and are subject to to the same regulations as a motorbike.


----------



## Lons (13 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> Had not thought about all those old peoples chariots that as you say can do 8 mph but are also allowed to use pedestrian rights of way and go round shops so even more risk of accidents.


They are legally only allowed to go at maximum 4 mph on footpaths etc. Spectric but up to 8 mph on roads and all those are equipped with a flick switch to select max speed. I've no doubt at all that it's abused however.
The other type is classed as a pavement scooter and have a max speed of 4 mph, they usually are smaller in size and small wheels. This type do not need to be registered or licenced.


----------



## thetyreman (13 Feb 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> There is legislation on the way to introduce new penalties for cyclists who cause accidents. It’s a result of campaigning by the husband of a woman killed crossing the road who was hit by a cyclist on a road racing bike which had no brakes a few years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



great news, punishing all of us because of one accident, that's the tory way, collective punishment at it's finest, I think cyclists should get a vote on whether we let people bring in new laws, give cyclists themselves the voice instead of drivers telling cyclists what they want from them, especially in a democracy, which we supposedly live in, all I see is a right wing tory government who are getting worse and worse and more power hungry, they are deliberately pushing the boundaries as much as possible lately on removing human rights, workers rights, unions, the right to protest, freedom of speech, disabled peoples rights, animal rights and lots more.


----------



## artie (13 Feb 2022)

thetyreman said:


> great news, punishing all of us because of one accident, that's the tory way, collective punishment at it's finest, I think cyclists should get a vote on whether we let people bring in new laws, give cyclists themselves the voice instead of drivers telling cyclists what they want from them, especially in a democracy, which we supposedly live in, all I see is a right wing tory government who are getting worse and worse and more power hungry, they are deliberately pushing the boundaries as much as possible lately on removing human rights, workers rights, unions, the right to protest, freedom of speech, disabled peoples rights, animal rights and lots more.


They do this all the time, pass a new law, to appear to be doing something.
I'm sure there must already be a law on the books against riding someone down by bicycle and killing them.


----------



## artie (13 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> They do this all the time, pass a new law, to appear to be doing something.
> I'm sure there must already be a law on the books against riding someone down by bicycle and killing them.


I just did a quick search and found that a cyclist , Charlie Alison received an 18 month custodial for killing a pedestrian.


----------



## thetyreman (13 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> They do this all the time, pass a new law, to appear to be doing something.
> I'm sure there must already be a law on the books against riding someone down by bicycle and killing them.



yes but how rare is it? it disgusts me as a cyclist because I am so careful, you DO get pedestrians walking into you on roads as a cyclist, that happens regularly, but nobody punishes them do they, would it be my fault or theirs if they deliberately walk into a road? do they do it on purpose? I think some people do, and you'd be surprised how often it happens.


----------



## artie (13 Feb 2022)

thetyreman said:


> yes but how rare is it? it disgusts me as a cyclist because I am so careful, you DO get pedestrians walking into you on roads as a cyclist, that happens regularly, but nobody punishes them do they, would it be my fault or theirs if they deliberately walk into a road? do they do it on purpose? I think some people do, and you'd be surprised how often it happens.


I know pedestrians do it with cars.
It's happened to me, they look at you and step into the road, almost daring you/me to hit them, so I have no doubt they do it moreso with cyclists since the risk is lower.

The reason I posted about Charlie Alison was to show there are already laws, so a new one isn't needed, it's just feel good politics


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2022)

John on the Wirral said:


> .....A young cyclist,riding a bike that was too big for her whilst struggling to get off/stop the bike ran down the side of my car her brake lever damaging four panels on my car for which I had to claim on my insurance to get repaired..


That's the whole point of insurance, what are you complaining about exactly?


> At the time, we didn't know what to do - we could have followed her home and suffered a string of abuse from her parents but my point is that I,as the car driver,had no means of claiming which is totally unfair to the motorist.


Not true - you had insurance and claimed. You could have pursued the poor girl home and sued to recover your lost no claims discount (if anything). I don' think a magistrate would be too sympathetic!


----------



## TRITON (13 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> But only with power as an assist. If there is a throttle then it is illegal, as are motorized scooters beyond those on trial, which do have number plates and insurance.


They're not actually illegal Paul. You can have a throttle on an ebike(pedal assist) but its limit should be 4mph. Probably in line with grannie carriers.

Speed pedalecs(capable of speeds in excess of 15.5mph, I remember hearing somewhere that they might be classed as mopeds and you have to follow the law for mopeds with a lid and having at least a provisional licence and be registered with the dvla

Also throttle ebikes made before the legislation came in are still exempt. But i think its just that theres not enough of a take up yet with ebikes and eventually the rules willl catch up. Currently its a bit like pre seatbelt classic cars.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> That's the whole point of insurance, what are you complaining about exactly?Not true - you had insurance and claimed. You could have pursued the poor girl home and sued to recover your lost no claims discount (if anything). I don' think a magistrate would be too sympathetic!



I think he's complaining because he did nothing wrong, yet he ended up having to organise repair of 4 panels, doing an insurance claim, paying the excess and seeing his insurance going up for the next few years. If you think it's nothing why don't you sent about £800 to him if you won't miss it.
What magistrates have to do with it I'm not sure!!
Just another ___________ comment from you in my opinion


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> I think he's complaining because he did nothing wrong, yet he ended up having to organise repair of 4 panels, doing an insurance claim, paying the excess and seeing his insurance going up for the next few years. If you think it's nothing why don't you sent about £800 to him if you won't miss it.
> What magistrates have to do with it I'm not sure!!
> Just another comment from you in my opinion


Shouldn't park his car near where kids are playing on bikes.
These threads seem to be largely about divine rights for angry motorists!
So if kids bikes should be insured for use in public spaces, what about other toys? You could do some nice scratches with a dolls pram if you put your mind to it.  What about collisions between toy cars and kiddie's trikes?


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Feb 2022)

A free bike number plate registration scheme would be very simple.
Then cameras could catch violations so easy to police.
Red light jumpers, pavements etc


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> They're not actually illegal Paul. You can have a throttle on an ebike(pedal assist) but its limit should be 4mph. Probably in line with grannie carriers.
> 
> Speed pedalecs(capable of speeds in excess of 15.5mph, I remember hearing somewhere that they might be classed as mopeds and you have to follow the law for mopeds with a lid and having at least a provisional licence and be registered with the dvla
> 
> Also throttle ebikes made before the legislation came in are still exempt. But i think its just that theres not enough of a take up yet with ebikes and eventually the rules willl catch up. Currently its a bit like pre seatbelt classic cars.


Quite right on the subtlties but the reality is that the bulk of ebikes available as imports are not legal in the UK.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> You could do some nice scratches with a dolls pram if you put your mind to it.



 hello it's 2022............... I haven't seen a kid in the street with a dolls pram since 1978.
We aren't in the Victorian era anymore Jacob
May be virtual ones in Grand theft auto 5?


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> hello it's 2022............... I haven't seen a kid in the street with a dolls pram since 1978.
> We aren't in the Victorian era anymore Jacob
> May be virtual ones in Grand theft auto 5?


Pavements covered with them around here. Not to mention tricycles, toy wheel barrows, pedal cars, roller skates.
They should all be insured obviously. It'd also improve relationships between children - instead of fighting over damage they could just claim off each other's insurances.


https://www.argos.co.uk/browse/toys/dolls-and-doll-accessories/doll-prams-and-pushchairs/c:30383/


----------



## John Brown (13 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> A free bike number plate registration scheme would be very simple.
> Then cameras could catch violations so easy to police.
> Red light jumpers, pavements etc


Or maybe we could concentrate on something important. Like motorists who drive at 50 in 30 limits, or the SUV drivers who can't be bothered to indicate.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Pavements covered with them around here. Not to mention tricycles, toy wheel barrows, pedal cars, roller skates.


Sounds like a right dump.
Congratulations on establishing communications, how are you managing this when you have me on ignore?


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> Or maybe we could concentrate on something important. Like motorists who drive at 50 in 30 limits, or the SUV drivers who can't be bothered to indicate.


or both, surely that would be better, just because I suggest something doesn't mean I suddenly want speeding to be acceptable. I'm surprised you think red light jumping as a cyclist is un-important, could you explain why it's un-important.
I also said cameras could pick them up, so wouldn't be wasting police time.


----------



## John Brown (13 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> or both, surely that would be better, just because I suggest something doesn't mean I suddenly want speeding to be acceptable. I'm surprised you think red light jumping as a cyclist is un-important, could you explain why it's un-important.


I think it's unimportant simply because you think it's important. Isn't that how this works? Sorry if I've got the rules wrong.

Actually, I didn't say it was unimportant, you inferred that, but I should have said "something more important".
For the record, I think cyclists crossing red lights us wrong, and against the law, but it mainly affects the cyclists themselves. I have never felt endangered by a cyclist crossing a red light. In fact I don't think I've ever felt inconvenienced or even mildly aggrieved. I suspect a lot of anger in this regard comes from motorists who are stopped at a red light seeing a cyclist get ahead of them. I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, Bob, as you generally come across as level headed, except when verbally sparring with Jacob.
I have to go now, I promised to return the wheelbarrow I borrowed from my neighbour across the road, so I'd better do that before I find out it needs lights, insurance, VED and a simplified MOT.


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Feb 2022)

thetyreman said:


> great news, punishing all of us because of one accident, that's the tory way, collective punishment at it's finest, I think cyclists should get a vote on whether we let people bring in new laws, give cyclists themselves the voice instead of drivers telling cyclists what they want from them, especially in a democracy, which we supposedly live in, all I see is a right wing tory government who are getting worse and worse and more power hungry, they are deliberately pushing the boundaries as much as possible lately on removing human rights, workers rights, unions, the right to protest, freedom of speech, disabled peoples rights, animal rights and lots more.



I don’t follow your logic here. 

The proposed legislation is being taken forward by Grant Shapps who is the Transport Secretary and a cyclist. 

Deaths and injuries caused by cyclists are in my view likely to be fewer than those caused by motorists but that doesn’t mean there should not be up to date legislation to deal with it when it does happen. For the avoidance of doubt that doesn’t mean cyclists (and all road users) shouldn’t be afforded protection by The Highway Code.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (13 Feb 2022)

I can understand the frustration, annoyance and even anger directed at cyclists who damage cars. They must be wholly aware of what they have done and lack the decency to own up and pay.

However, proposals for licencing, testing, insuring, number plating are fatuous - two main reasons:

politicians will never sign up to it. It would deter cyclists from cycling, prevent young people ever getting started etc. Only the law abiding and responsible may comply - the rest would ignore it - just as they ignore red lights, bike lighting, helmets etc etc.
expecting the police to enforce the legislation is truly naive. A few ££ damage to a motor vehicle is a trivial offence. It will get the priority given to other minor offences - garden equipment going missing from a shed, a bit of graffiti, peeing in the street after a drunken Saturday night, etc. If you are lucky it may get recorded in the big crime book - but don't get your hopes up
Legislation without both the resources and resolve to enforce it is a largely pointless waste of effort.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> I think it's unimportant simply because you think it's important. Isn't that how this works? Sorry if I've got the rules wrong.
> 
> Actually, I didn't say it was unimportant, you inferred that, but I should have said "something more important".
> For the record, I think cyclists crossing red lights us wrong, and against the law, but it mainly affects the cyclists themselves. I have never felt endangered by a cyclist crossing a red light. In fact I don't think I've ever felt inconvenienced or even mildly aggrieved. I suspect a lot of anger in this regard comes from motorists who are stopped at a red light seeing a cyclist get ahead of them. I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, Bob, as you generally come across as level headed, except when verbally sparring with Jacob.
> I have to go now, I promised to return the wheelbarrow I borrowed from my neighbour across the road, so I'd better do that before I find out it needs lights, insurance, VED and a simplified MOT.



 I hope you haven't got it in for me, or maybe it's just the binary world or possible a little bit of humour is drifting in (very good)
I have a motorbike, I'm pretty sure I filter like cycles, and pretty sure I could nip through a red light quicker (195mph bike). I reckon I may start doing it especially when someone with a level head like yourself doesn't really mine to much.
You ought to buy a wheel barrow, very cheap and it seems a bit tight pestering your neighbour to borrow one. Useful to have sitting around, I use mine to carry my enormous childish sense of humour everywhere.


----------



## TRITON (13 Feb 2022)

Most car drivers i suspect that get triggered about cyclists going through red lights are jealous because they so wish they could do the same.

88% of all cars in the UK break the speed limits on urban roads. The total was over 2,000,000,
There are some 200,000 serious speeding offences committed by motorists each year.
About 105,000 have been banned (on average).
90,000 convicted of driving while unfit through drink(England and Wales only)
in 2019 over 1,000 died as a result of drink driving.
1/5 of all motorists have admitted to driving though a red light in the past year.
42,000+ motorists have been convicted of this offence.

8% of cyclists ride through red lights, when they think it is safe to do so.
Apparently many drivers think this is totally out of order.

It would appear motorists have their priorities wrong, and should look to their own quarter for lawless behaviour on our roads.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> Most car drivers i suspect that get triggered about cyclists going through red lights are jealous because they so wish they could do the same.
> 
> 88% of all cars in the UK break the speed limits on urban roads. The total was over 2,000,000,
> There are some 200,000 serious speeding offences committed by motorists each year.
> ...



Yes thank you both cyclists and drivers need to improve their behaviour. Simple isn't it.


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Feb 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> I don’t follow your logic here.
> 
> The proposed legislation is being taken forward by Grant Shapps who is the Transport Secretary and a cyclist.
> 
> Deaths and injuries caused by cyclists are in my view likely to be fewer than those caused by motorists but that doesn’t mean there should not be up to date legislation to deal with it when it does happen. For the avoidance of doubt that doesn’t mean cyclists (and all road users) shouldn’t be afforded protection by The Highway Code.


The reality is that cyclists who cause death inevitably get very much harsher sentences than car drivers who do the same. This is because the occurrences are very low and they become high profile for the press when it happens.


----------



## John Brown (13 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> I hope you haven't got it in for me, or maybe it's just the binary world or possible a little bit of humour is drifting in (very good)
> I have a motorbike, I'm pretty sure I filter like cycles, and pretty sure I could nip through a red light quicker (195mph bike). I reckon I may start doing it especially when someone with a level head like yourself doesn't really mine to much.
> You ought to buy a wheel barrow, very cheap and it seems a bit tight pestering your neighbour to borrow one. Useful to have sitting around, I use mine to carry my enormous childish sense of humour everywhere.


I do have a wheelbarrow, but on Monday we had a lorry load of wood mulch delivered (dumped in the driveway), and borrowed two extra wheelbarrows to get it shifted out into the berry cage. Then the whole exercise was halted, as our four year old live-in grandson tripped and broke his arm just above the elbow.


----------



## Jacob (13 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I can understand the frustration, annoyance and even anger directed at cyclists who damage cars.


Really? But it hardly ever happens; extremely rare, verging on an urban myth.
There is a simple (selfish) reason for it being so infrequent in that the cyclist is likely to come out of the encounter far worse than the car.
Cyclists are extremely vulnerable, extremely cautious and could even come out worse in an encounter with a hedgehog!


> They must be wholly aware of what they have done and lack the decency to own up and pay.


So you say but I doubt they are any worse than the millions of motorists who will turn a blind eye to an unwitnessed parking scratch.
The anger is there anyway - with a large part of society who like being angry about a lot of things and happily allow themselves to be whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail etc at every opportunity.


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> The reality is that cyclists who cause death inevitably get very much harsher sentences than car drivers who do the same. This is because the occurrences are very low and they become high profile for the press when it happens.



That could well be the case although I expect it’s a subjective view. 

At least if there is a new law passed on the matter (the court case referenced in the earlier post relied on a Victorian law that was written with horse and carriage in mind) there is an opportunity to better reflect the modern day.


----------



## Jameshow (13 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> Most car drivers i suspect that get triggered about cyclists going through red lights are jealous because they so wish they could do the same.
> 
> 88% of all cars in the UK break the speed limits on urban roads. The total was over 2,000,000,
> There are some 200,000 serious speeding offences committed by motorists each year.
> ...


10,000??? Drink driving deaths 

5000 injuries and deaths according to Google so likely 500 deaths. 

Total deaths on roads hovers around 1000pa I believe?


----------



## ey_tony (13 Feb 2022)

ALL ROAD USERS irrespective of whether a pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider or vehicle driver have a duty of care towards others and in theory others have a right to expect responsible and appropriate behaviour from others using the roads. Unfortunately that isn't happening in many instances.

When passing a moving cyclist a driver of a vehicle with a modicum of common sense would leave the width of at least a small car between them and the nearest part of the cycle as they pass them as a margin of safety, otherwise refrain from overtaking until it's safe to do so. They should allow adequate clearance before returning into position. Cyclists on the other hand if they have half a brain would leave at least the width an average car door opened carelessly by a driver or passenger as they pass parked cars in order to avoid the obvious. It happens so why riski it. They would also LOOK BEHIND before overtaking the stationary vehicle and not endanger other road users by their actions.

Motorists when overtaking a cyclist but intending to turn left ahead should not cause the cyclist to change speed or direction, in other words the driver should not cut across a cyclist in a dangerous manner when turning left. Cyclists should not normally 'undertake' moving vehicles unless in a designated lane and should not overtake a moving or waiting vehicle in which the driver has signalled their intention to turn right and in the most appropriate position for the purposes of turning right.

No driver should turn right or left before they have checked the appropriate nearside or offside mirror to ascertain that it's safe to carry out the turn and abandon the maneuver if it is unsafe to carry out the turn turn.

The same logic should apply to not jumping a red light irrespective of whether a cyclist or motorist and a motorist or cyclist failing to correctly respond to a red light should be prosecuted for their safety and the safety of others.

I really don't get all the fuss about these changes. It's hardly rocket science and shouldn't gravitate to cyclists versus cars/vehicles. It should be remembered that a cyclist is the most vulnerable road user on wheels and sometimes they ride stupidly but motorists are very often just as bad so, as road users we should look out for both types and take appropriate action to avoid a collision no matter who is at fault.


----------



## TRITON (14 Feb 2022)

Jameshow said:


> 10,000??? Drink driving deaths
> 
> 5000 injuries and deaths according to Google so likely 500 deaths.
> 
> Total deaths on roads hovers around 1000pa I believe?


Oops, added a zero by mistake. Its all the other figures already in the tens of thousands. thanks for the note,ill amend it.
But no, thats just drink being involved. The figure for killed in all aspects is about 5 or 6 per day on average.


----------



## Jester129 (14 Feb 2022)

@Jacob said "Really? But it hardly ever happens; extremely rare, verging on an urban myth.
There is a simple (selfish) reason for it being so infrequent in that the cyclist is likely to come out of the encounter far worse than the car.
Cyclists are extremely vulnerable, extremely cautious and could even come out worse in an encounter with a hedgehog!"

Total borrocks as usual Jacob. What about the yob on a bike that came riding down a one-way street the wrong way and kicked my door mirror off?
If I had caught him it would have been me in court for gbh!


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2022)

Jester129 said:


> @Jacob said "Really? But it hardly ever happens; extremely rare, verging on an urban myth.
> There is a simple (selfish) reason for it being so infrequent in that the cyclist is likely to come out of the encounter far worse than the car.
> Cyclists are extremely vulnerable, extremely cautious and could even come out worse in an encounter with a hedgehog!"
> 
> ...


Sounds like a very rare and difficult athletic trick to perform. Not something that cyclists do on a regular basis! Were there witnesses?
Car mirrors are hit on every street in the country by other vehicles.


----------



## TRITON (14 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Sounds like a very rare and difficult athletic trick to perform


It can be done, I've seen it happen. The usual gig is to wait till you come to lights and wrench it off.

I've had to kick out at a few cars, more a kind of tap with the outside of the foot than a kick. When they decided to change lanes as i was parallel to them, but nothing too serious. Just a friendly reminder to check properly.
What is easier to do is when at the lights you open the passenger door. They hate that  or fold in the mirror. but actually damaging it I wouldnt do.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2022)

TRITON said:


> It can be done, I've seen it happen. The usual gig is to wait till you come to lights and wrench it off.
> 
> I've had to kick out at a few cars, more a kind of tap with the outside of the foot than a kick. When they decided to change lanes as i was parallel to them, but nothing too serious. Just a friendly reminder to check properly.
> What is easier to do is when at the lights you open the passenger door. They hate that  or fold in the mirror. but actually damaging it I wouldnt do.




It's a fact that van wing mirrors can often be head height and head sized. Designed to whack a cyclist!


----------



## doctor Bob (14 Feb 2022)

this thread is now officially weird. some right odd balls on here who just don't know right from wrong because they must at all costs protect their "side".
Bloody weirdo's the lot of you. Thank god it's the internet and not real.


----------



## TRITON (14 Feb 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> some right odd balls on here


Leave and there will be one less


----------



## hairy (14 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> as our four year old live-in grandson tripped and broke his arm just above the elbow.


Hope it wasn't too traumatic for him! Get well soon.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> That's the whole point of insurance, what are you complaining about exactly?Not true - you had insurance and claimed. You could have pursued the poor girl home and sued to recover your lost no claims discount (if anything). I don' think a magistrate would be too sympathetic!


PS yes come to think perhaps you should have paid her a visit to see if she was hurt and tell her not to worry about the scratch as it was covered by the insurance anyway.


----------



## J-G (14 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Designed to whack a cyclist!


You've said some 'silly' things, Jacob, but that is a corker!

The mirror is designed to provide information about things happening to the rear.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> You've said some 'silly' things, Jacob, but that is a corker!
> 
> The mirror is designed to provide information about things happening to the rear.


Irony gets lost on some people!


----------



## J-G (14 Feb 2022)

That's not irony - it's just stupidity at best, and lieing at worst.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> That's not irony - it's just stupidity at best, and lieing at worst.


Get a grip - I didn't expect anybody to _believe_ that I thought wing mirrors are _designed_ to whack cyclists.  
Nevertheless they are a hazard and I've had similar experience with a mirror wafting past very close to my ear. I described it earlier somewhere, and how it led to me putting on my hi-viz top and discovering that you immediately get given a bit more space on a busy road. I've been recommending hi viz tops ever since.
Hope that helps.


----------



## paulrbarnard (14 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> You've said some 'silly' things, Jacob, but that is a corker!
> 
> The mirror is designed to provide information about things happening to the rear.


I guess you have never been hit by one then. I got hit on the elbow, admittedly not the rear, by a wing mirror while I was walking along a pavement. It hurt like heck. It was in town and fortunately the van was not going too fast or my arm would have been fractured. He pulled in close to the curb as another silly person was pulling out around a parked car on the other side of the road. Needless to say the driver didn't stop. I thought at the time he must have heard it as it made a heck of a bang, but he probably had the radio on and was blisfully unaware of what was going on outside his comfortable bubble.

The problem with vans is that the mirrors stickout well past the wheel line


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2022)

paulrbarnard said:


> I guess you have never been hit by one then. I got hit on the elbow, admittedly not the rear, by a wing mirror while I was walking along a pavement. It hurt like heck. It was in town and fortunately the van was not going too fast or my arm would have been fractured. He pulled in close to the curb as another silly person was pulling out around a parked car on the other side of the road. Needless to say the driver didn't stop. I thought at the time he must have heard it as it made a heck of a bang, but he probably had the radio on and was blisfully unaware of what was going on outside his comfortable bubble.
> 
> The problem with vans is that the mirrors stickout well past the wheel line


Friend of mine had his hand broken by a wing mirror. He was trying to slow down a speeder on a country lane as his wife and child were walking close behind.


----------



## J-G (14 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> I didn't expect anybody to _believe_ that I thought wing mirrors are _designed_ to whack cyclists


So why say it?

I'm well aware that you were saying it for 'comic' effect but that's not an excuse for lieing. 

Have you decerned that I can't abide liars!


----------



## doctor Bob (14 Feb 2022)

anti wing mirror brigade  soon be cameras so the AWMB will be disbanded

I quite like wing mirrors, gives me a better view of cyclists cutting up the inside, it's really the driver and not the mirror which is the issue.


----------



## doctor Bob (14 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Friend of mine had his hand broken by a wing mirror. He was trying to slow down a speeder on a country lane as his wife and child were walking close behind.



For all I understand trying to slow a speeder down, surely common sense tells you holding your hand out in it's path is not a great idea.


----------



## Jacob (14 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> ......
> 
> Have you decerned that I can't abide liars!


I've discerned that you don't seem to know what "a liar" is.


----------



## doctor Bob (14 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> I've discerned that you don't seem to know what "a liar" is.



Someone who says they have you on ignore then reply to your posts .............................


----------



## John Brown (14 Feb 2022)

hairy said:


> Hope it wasn't too traumatic for him! Get well soon.


Thanks. He's doing fine. When you're four, such things mend well.


----------



## Sandyn (14 Feb 2022)

John Brown said:


> as our four year old live-in grandson tripped and broke his arm just above the elbow.


I hope the wee boy makes a speedy recovery!!


----------



## Sandyn (14 Feb 2022)

J-G said:


> The mirror is designed to provide information about things happening to the rear


I can generally tell what's happening to my rear without a mirror....so can my wife sometimes!!


----------



## John Brown (14 Feb 2022)

Sandyn said:


> I hope the wee boy makes a speedy recovery!!


Thanks!


----------



## ey_tony (15 Feb 2022)

There is no obligation to read this post so please ignore and all I can do is apologise for it's length.

No doubt I'll offend many people by saying this but as someone who held an ADI certificate for well over 30 years and instructed on a daily basis over that time period, my experience of other drivers was that probably only 10% of all drivers on our roads actually fully understand/understood what driving correctly actually means or completely comprehends/understand the consequences of their actions if they deviated from what was the correct thing to do and I suspect that it's a similar percentage figure with regard to cyclists.

As an instructor I not only had to contend with tutoring novice drivers on how to negotiate busy town/city driving which can be quite hairy at times but my biggest threat without doubt both in town and on the open roads wasn't from the novices, they were easy to control, it was from those who were termed experienced drivers who were the real danger. 
I was lucky if during an eight-ten hour working day if I hadn't to step in with the controls or take evasive action at least half a dozen times to avoid what would be an either serious or potentially fatal collision with so called experienced motorists who failed to behave appropriately. 
During my working day I would encounter dozens of situations caused by other road users where I'd have to step in to prevent minor collisions. It was just part of my job and I found that a high percentage of drivers simply couldn't be trusted to mover off or emerge from a junction safely. It's mind boggling to even contemplate that some had licences.
I had people coming to me for lessons after being caught by police who had been driving without a full licence illegally for 20 years. Currently it's estimated that there are getting on for three quarters of a million unlicenced drivers on our roads...a worrying statistic. 

While instructing it wasn't for the first time on the open rural roads, I ended up deliberately having to put the car onto the grass verge whilst moving to avoid what would be an undoubted and possibly fatal head on collision through absolutely no fault of our own after the oncoming drivers got it completely wrong when overtaking.

I can remember the government information videos and literature stating that up to 30% of all accidents involved novice drivers in their first two years. (That's why new drivers face going back to being a learner if they break the rules and tot up 6 points during the first two years) 

I wouldn't disagree with those stats regarding novice drivers being involved in accidents but looking at it logically, one would expect that a higher percentage of new drivers would account for the accident statistics but in my opinion the government missed the whole point.
The novice/inexperienced driver has perhaps an excuse for getting it wrong but WHO or WHICH GROUP causes the majority of ALL collisions and fatalities? The answer is simple, it's the experienced drivers who cause the majority of collisions/fatalities on our roads and it's this group who should be targeted by regular retesting and retraining and issued lifetime bans if they can't reach a level of safe competence if we are ever to make our roads safer. After all what excuse have they got?

There is no such thing as a perfect driver and although I probably have a higher level of driving competence and ability than the average driver, proved by holding both an ADI certificate with continued ability-to-train checks every four tests and advanced driving qualifications, it didn't mean I considered myself perfect as a driver by any means. 
Yes I'm competent but like any other driver on our roads, if I dropped concentration or failed to do the right thing or failed to follow the rules of the Highway Code then I could be putting others and myself at risk just like any other motorist. The primary difference between the top 10% of drivers and the rest is that arguably they can be at least be trusted to do the correct thing and stick to the rules and laws. The other 90% of the drivers on our roads is comprised of those who are reasonably competent drivers through to those who I wouldn't trust giving them a TV licence let alone a driving licence.

Some people just don't have the decision making ability to be trusted to do the correct thing or they are unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions whilst driving and I truly believe that they shouldn't be allowed on our roads.

The laws are very strict about gun ownership in this country but life it seems is cheap on our roads. The correct thing to do would be to introduce re-testing of ALL road users every 15 years. Arguably if a driver can't pass a basic competence to drive test after that time then they should either be obliged to take formal training to meet a minimum level of driver safety or surrender their licence. That would solve many problems on our roads.
The problem with that is that no government would ever introduce such rules in the foreseeable future as it would be a complete vote loser but hopefully it will eventually happen. 
I can see the arguments against such a scheme and the logistics involved but re-testing would certainly make the roads safer for everyone. I for one would welcome it if it was introduced.

Unfortunately most drivers do not see driving as a skill which needs to be kept up to date and regularly honed. The vast majority of drivers only learnt to drive because they needed to and not because they wanted to and don't see any need to update their skills once they passed their test. Most saw driving merely as a means of convenience and in many cases experienced these drivers are totally unaware of the potentially serious flaws they have developed over the years, which re-testing would highlight.

I would like to know the percentage of drivers who regularly update their copy of the Highway Code or even consult it to refresh their knowledge of the rules and laws? I suspect that the figure is quite low.
It makes one think of just how many instances of road rage alone could be avoided if the drivers concerned knew the rules and laws contained in the HC and actually obeyed them!


----------



## bluenose (15 Feb 2022)

Great post ey_tony


----------



## Jacob (15 Feb 2022)

ey_tony said:


> ............
> 
> I would like to know the percentage of drivers who regularly update their copy of the Highway Code or even consult it to refresh their knowledge of the rules and laws? I suspect that the figure is quite low.
> It makes one think of just how many instances of road rage alone could be avoided if the drivers concerned knew the rules and laws contained in the HC and actually obeyed them!


Yes agree. It's with that in mind I posted up this tweet a couple of weeks ago. 
not only because knowing about it could makes things safer for cyclists but also make the usual suspects it a little less angry, as it seems to attract a lot of ire.
Not sure if this in the HC as such. Now I'll have to check!
Pre order here: The Highway Code


----------



## ey_tony (15 Feb 2022)

bluenose said:


> Great post ey_tony


Thank you.


----------



## Fergie 307 (15 Feb 2022)

When I had the misfortune to have to work in central London for a few years in the mid 90's I am afraid it wasn't at all uncommon to see cycle couriers deliberately damage cars in response to some perceived slight, often by kicking them, and then ride off through the traffic knowing damn well there was bigger all you could do about it, often accompanied by various gestures. And the way some of them rode really did make you wonder about their likely life expectancy. Red lights, no right turns, one way streets etc, none apparently applicable to them. I am a cyclist myself so not suggesting that these people were in any way representative, but the fact is that amongst cyclists, as in any other group, there will be saints, and there will be right a*******s, and everything in between.


----------



## Fergie 307 (15 Feb 2022)

bluenose said:


> Great post ey_tony


Absolutely spot on Tony, well said.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (15 Feb 2022)

Tony - I broadly agree with a re-test for driver competence every 15 years but some comments seem exaggerated:


assume Novice and Inexperienced drivers passed the test in the last 3 years. If folk hold a licence for (say) 50 years, then ~6% of drivers are N or I. Mathematically the N or I drivers would need to be 16 times less competent to have a higher total accident rate - unlikely.
I also think you are over-reacting if you feel the need to take control from experienced drivers half a dozen times a day. I am sure technique and skills can be improved but these drivers (statistically) crash infrequently.
That said, I will happily concede I am probably less than perfect, do not have a copy of an up to date highway code, and would benefit from an hour or two with an advanced instructor. My last accident (not my fault, although they all say that) was ~15 years ago - bent metal, no injuries! 

Perhaps insurance companies should be encouraged to offer discounts to those who take an advanced test. Also the police to enforce the law requiring insurance and a valid licence to limit the number of "unqualified" drivers


----------



## planesleuth (16 Feb 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Tony - I broadly agree with a re-test for driver competence every 15 years but some comments seem exaggerated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lons (16 Feb 2022)

It's many years since I had advanced training but remember that the instructor had some similar views but he went a bit quiet when I mused he might perhaps be biased because it was how he earned his living and enforced ADI would keep him fully employed.  That said it is a useful excercise and voicing your actions and observations certainly makes you analyse them more closely.
IMO it should be renamed defensive driving instruction however as advanced driving is more akin to learning how to handle a car at speed around a track. Just my opinion, not looking for an argument.


----------



## Jacob (16 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> ......
> IMO it should be renamed defensive driving instruction .....


Better might be "non aggressive" driving instruction.
My driving instructor (50 odd years ago!) was ex military and his whole approach was to drive as though you were carrying valuable glassware or high explosives and you sole objective was to get there safely without breaking anything or blowing yourself up!
This meant first and foremost to stay utterly cool and not panic or be annoyed by anything any other driver did. Then to start/accelerate gently, drive slowly and keep your distance to avoid sharp braking, stay cool, obey speed limits, not be provoked by tail gaters, expect hazards around every corner, etc etc.


----------



## Noel (16 Feb 2022)

Meanwhile it was the outdoor comedy club in South Dublin a couple of years ago:

* Strong language warning


----------



## Lons (16 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Better might be "non aggressive" driving instruction.
> My driving instructor (50 odd years ago!) was ex military and his whole approach was to drive as though you were carrying valuable glassware or high explosives and you sole objective was to get there safely without breaking anything or blowing yourself up!
> This meant first and foremost to stay utterly cool and not panic or be annoyed by anything any other driver did. Then to start/accelerate gently, drive slowly and keep your distance to avoid sharp braking, stay cool, obey speed limits, not be provoked by tail gaters, expect hazards around every corner, etc etc.


You have also just described defensive driving which is anticipating what the other users around you whether on 8,4,2 wheels or on foot are likely to do and be prepared to defend yourself from the silly beggers by taking appropriate action, that could also mean the use of a horn which can sometimes be interpreted as aggression. If I have a tailgater I don't slow down or speed up, certainly don't jam on the brakes just allow him pass when it's safe to do so.
I'll stick with defensive, you call it what you wish we're mostly on the same page.


----------



## MikeJhn (17 Feb 2022)

Dealing with tailgaters in daytime, I switch on my side lights, they think its my brake lights and brake themselves, the thinking time is short enough to fool them.


----------

