# bike lanes again



## Jacob (28 May 2016)

This is fairly typical and comes with many variations. 
It's actually a serious hazard. 
A cyclist has to slow down and nearly stop to get on it, then negotiate getting off it. If there's more than one the others would have to stop on the road itself and queue up.
These should be avoided like the plague, even if it does annoy motorists. The twerps who designed it should be sacked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL2TigWfh2M


----------



## NazNomad (28 May 2016)

It was designed by someone that pays to use the road. #herewegoagain


----------



## bugbear (28 May 2016)

Jacob":32b6pqep said:


> This is fairly typical and comes with many variations.
> It's actually a serious hazard.
> A cyclist has to slow down and nearly stop to get on it, then negotiate getting off it. If there's more than one the others would have to stop on the road itself and queue up.
> These should be avoided like the plague, even if it does annoy motorists. The twerps who designed it should be sacked.
> ...



Tedious.

BugBear


----------



## NazNomad (28 May 2016)

It's somewhere for cyclists to pull off the road before crossing it, have you never cycled on the road, Jacob?


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2016)

NazNomad":2dnaosdh said:


> It's somewhere for cyclists to pull off the road before crossing it, have you never cycled on the road, Jacob?


No it isn't it's supposed to be a bit of cycle lane.


----------



## deema (28 May 2016)

Being rather contravertial, if only cyclist actually obeyed the rules of the road, cycle lane's would not be necessary. Absolute menace, I wounder how many anti cyclists would support a campaign to ban cyclists off the road and whether it would achieve the 100K to get debated in parliament. I know I'm totally biased!


----------



## NazNomad (28 May 2016)

deema for PM, where do I vote? Get the menace off our streets.


----------



## Fatboy (29 May 2016)

This particular cycle lane is a waste of taxpayers money, i agree its ridiculously short and serves no safe purpose


----------



## gwaithcoed (29 May 2016)

deema wrote ( if only cyclist actually obeyed the rules of the road,)
And if all motorists obeyed the rules of the road -wearing seat belts, talking on phones, using indicators. etc. Don't tar us all with the same brush there's good and bad within all of us.

Alan.


----------



## MIGNAL (29 May 2016)

I see motorists 'stuck' on pelican crossings all the time, then the lights change and pedestrians have to walk around/between them to cross the road. It's so prevalent that I'll guess a good 80% aren't aware of the correct procedure. Drivers of artic's seem to know much better, probably because they are fully aware of the length of the vehicle that they are driving.


----------



## thick_mike (29 May 2016)

I would imagine >80% of adult cyclists are also drivers and therefore pay road tax.


----------



## NazNomad (29 May 2016)

... but Jacob says there is no such thing as road tax, until he later says there is. #confused


----------



## morturn (29 May 2016)

I always wonder what it is with some (you don't pay for the road) car drivers and cyclists. Maybe it’s the Illusory superiority that 80% of car drivers seem hell bent on ingratiating themselves with that just leads to conflict. 

Every bike I see on the road is one less car in the queue in front of me. And if a cyclist ant to dodge around traffic lights (not all cyclists do this) etc then fine with me. Most times they only end up hurting themselves. It not like having a couple of boy racers cutting you up, tailgating or or being a pain in the backside. 

Road tax was done away with over 70 year ago. Those little discs you used put in the windscreen are vehicle excise duty (VED), which based on emissions, meaning ultra-efficient and electric cars, among others, pay nothing.

It nothing to do with the upkeep of the road, in fact market research has shown cyclists tend to be disproportionately higher earning there's a reasonable chance they pay more for road upkeep anyway. Either way, the roads are big enough for everyone if we all take care.


----------



## Finial (30 May 2016)

deema":1kturhc0 said:


> Being rather contravertial, if only cyclist actually obeyed the rules of the road, cycle lane's would not be necessary. Absolute menace, I wounder how many anti cyclists would support a campaign to ban cyclists off the road and whether it would achieve the 100K to get debated in parliament. I know I'm totally biased!



OK deema. Would you care to explain exactly how people cycling are a menace? Try to put it in context, bearing in mind that while drivers kill thousands every year in this country, and are estimated to kill and seriously injure about 20 million people a year worldwide, bike riders in this country kill approximately none.

Your thoughtless victim blaming is not good to see. If you knew anything at all about cycling in traffic you would understand that cycle tracks are necessary because there are too many lawless and incompetent drivers on the road. Obeying the law and following the highway code does not keep bike riders safe, because people like you bring the danger. When you stop drink-driving, speeding, using your mobile and ignoring the highway code, then people riding bikes will be safer.

You want to ban cycling from the road. You are too late. It is effectively banned already. Hardly anyone is prepared to cycle on the road now. Too many careless drivers and too much ignorant foolishness from people like you.


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2016)

Roads are for everybody, not just Mr Toads


----------



## Roughcut (30 May 2016)

Quite simply our roads were not built wide enough which means in the majority of cases a car driver has to go over on the opposite side of the road to overtake.
Loads of cyclists using the roads and country lanes around where I live, some of them riding 2 a breast, chatting away without a care in the world while 2 miles of traffic is building up behind them because it's unsafe to pass on bendy roads. 
To be fair some cyclists I've seen are considerate and will pull off the road in the above situation, some won't.


----------



## Jake (30 May 2016)

Roughcut":2huynd6x said:


> Quite simply our roads were not built wide enough which means in the majority of cases a car driver has to go over on the opposite side of the road to overtake.



Nothing wrong with that - having been a cyclist in the past I try to do that as a matter of course, and don't mind waiting for the opportunity.


----------



## Finial (30 May 2016)

Roughcut":1ngg5awu said:


> Quite simply our roads were not built wide enough which means in the majority of cases a car driver has to go over on the opposite side of the road to overtake.
> Loads of cyclists using the roads and country lanes around where I live, some of them riding 2 a breast, chatting away without a care in the world while 2 miles of traffic is building up behind them because it's unsafe to pass on bendy roads.



Round my way queues of traffic are all too common, but the vehicle in front of me is never a bike. 

The highway code says drivers should always move right over when overtaking bikes. If they followed the rules, cycling would be safer.

When I'm cycling I find that many drivers will pass dangerously rather than wait seconds for a safe passing place that is clearly visible ahead. Many drivers seem to think they have a right to drive as fast as they like regardless of the rights of other people using the road. What stops them is not the fact that it's unsafe to pass (they don't seem to mind the risk to other people) but that it's impossible to pass. That's why the more intrepid riders keep out in the lane.


----------



## Finial (30 May 2016)

Fatboy":2of3oaz9 said:


> This particular cycle lane is a waste of taxpayers money, i agree its ridiculously short and serves no safe purpose



Most of the money spent on cycling is frittered away on things that will never make much difference. Look at the opposite side of that road - sooner or later someone will get hurt by a careless driver cutting the corner at the bend ahead. In most places like that there would also be a significant risk of someone being killed by a driver turning left, but in this case traffic goes straight on.


----------



## Finial (30 May 2016)

NazNomad":2j4xlqmb said:


> deema for PM, where do I vote? Get the menace off our streets.



Vote for proper cycle tracks, then bikes won't trouble you.


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2016)

Finial":3lnjr4x9 said:


> deema":3lnjr4x9 said:
> 
> 
> > . bike riders in this country kill approximately none.
> ...



How can you have 'approximately none'? What is 'approximately none'? One? Two ? A quick Google shows that 'approximately none' is actually more than 'none'.

For example, http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pedestria ... t-5742315/

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ars-169828

I do accept that there are many more cyclists killed or injured although what proportion are directly down to the car or vehicle owner or how much the cyclist themselves contributed to their accident is not known.

And let's not keep blaming the motorist. In fact, the ratio of 'blame' for collisions is almost 50:50 between car drivers and cyclists. 
Source: RoSPA

_In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions._

So maybe a few folks round here should get off their high-horse (or bicycle  )


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2016)

> "*What the available statistics say
> Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists. This is based on 10% of pedestrian casualties being on the pavement or verge as was the case 2007-2008. The ratio of pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles to those killed by cyclists is therefore 121.4:1. The ratio from 1998-2008 is 820.1:3 or 273:1 (uses the same 2007-2008 10% pedestrian casualties figure).
> E&OE. "


Just a random google produced the above. Presumably typical and not exceptional.
Killed by drivers on pavements 60.7
Killed by cyclists on pavements 0.5
Fairly uncommon either way but vehicles kill 121 times as many as cyclists, on pavements alone.

Then according to this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... death-2011 you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

Finial":32hf2eju said:


> Vote for proper cycle tracks, then bikes won't trouble you.



Pay a licence fee and insurance on all adult bikes and I'll vote for that! (hammer)


----------



## Finial (30 May 2016)

Context Roger! By 'approximately none' I mean a tiny fraction of those killed by drivers, one now and again, with long intervals when the number is zero. Not one in London for years as far as I know, and probably no driver has ever been killed by a bike rider. Yet some people say bikes are a menace.

You quote some findings on blame, others have found that motorists and pedestrians cause more accidents than bike riders. But much of the blood is on the hands of the politicians. They have failed miserably over the years to provide infrastructure fit for purpose, that protects people from the mistakes of others and their own. 

I use a bike. I've been hit from behind three times while cycling completely in accordance with the highway code. I've had more near misses than I can count. For example, a driver pulling out in front of me, then another pulling across my path within about 100 yards on the same trip, each leaving me with only just enough room to stop. Another day, two similar incidents plus a driver zooming over a zebra crossing that I was half way across, all in half an hour. I don't see people cycling dangerously, and I've never been caused any problem by bike riders when I'm driving. My experience tells me that drivers are far and away more careless on the road. Many can't overtake a lamppost or even pass a building without running into it, let alone a moving bike or another car. You see damage everywhere, and it's caused by drivers, not bike riders. It annoys me when people say bike lanes are only needed because people cycle badly.


----------



## Finial (30 May 2016)

Lons":331qp7er said:


> Finial":331qp7er said:
> 
> 
> > Vote for proper cycle tracks, then bikes won't trouble you.
> ...



If we didn't have pavements, would you expect pedestrians to pay a licence fee and carry insurance? How much would it be worth to you to get pedestrians and bikes out of your way?

I'd pay more if it got me proper cycle tracks. At present the roads I pay for aren't fit to cycle on because of all the incompetent drivers.


----------



## Wuffles (30 May 2016)

Finial":17c1j58e said:


> Context Roger! By 'approximately none' I mean a tiny fraction of those killed by drivers, one now and again, with long intervals when the number is zero. Not one in London for years as far as I know, and probably no driver has ever been killed by a bike rider. Yet some people say bikes are a menace.
> 
> You quote some findings on blame, others have found that motorists and pedestrians cause more accidents than bike riders. But much of the blood is on the hands of the politicians. They have failed miserably over the years to provide infrastructure fit for purpose, that protects people from the mistakes of others and their own.
> 
> I use a bike. I've been hit from behind three times while cycling completely in accordance with the highway code. I've had more near misses than I can count. For example, a driver pulling out in front of me, then another pulling across my path within about 100 yards on the same trip, each leaving me with only just enough room to stop. Another day, two similar incidents plus a *driver zooming over a zebra crossing that I was half way across*, all in half an hour. I don't see people cycling dangerously, and I've never been caused any problem by bike riders when I'm driving. My experience tells me that drivers are far and away more careless on the road. Many can't overtake a lamppost or even pass a building without running into it, let alone a moving bike or another car. You see damage everywhere, and it's caused by drivers, not bike riders. It annoys me when people say bike lanes are only needed because people cycle badly.



You what?!

Plus, can you please refrain from using the phrase "bike riders", you mean "bicycle riders" and you're tarnishing the good name of us proper road users


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2016)

Wuffles":1qxjxo41 said:


> .....
> You what?!
> 
> Plus, can you please refrain from using the phrase "bike riders", you mean "bicycle riders" and you're tarnishing the good name of us proper road users




=D> =D> =D>


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2016)

Finial":3dnrflr7 said:


> Context Roger! By 'approximately none' I mean a tiny fraction of those killed by drivers, one now and again, with long intervals when the number is zero. Not one in London for years as far as I know, and probably no driver has ever been killed by a bike rider. Yet some people say bikes are a menace.
> 
> You quote some findings on blame, others have found that motorists and pedestrians cause more accidents than bike riders. But much of the blood is on the hands of the politicians. They have failed miserably over the years to provide infrastructure fit for purpose, that protects people from the mistakes of others and their own.
> 
> I use a bike. I've been hit from behind three times while cycling completely in accordance with the highway code. I've had more near misses than I can count. For example, a driver pulling out in front of me, then another pulling across my path within about 100 yards on the same trip, each leaving me with only just enough room to stop. Another day, two similar incidents plus a driver zooming over a zebra crossing that I was half way across, all in half an hour. I don't see people cycling dangerously, and I've never been caused any problem by bike riders when I'm driving. My experience tells me that drivers are far and away more careless on the road. Many can't overtake a lamppost or even pass a building without running into it, let alone a moving bike or another car. You see damage everywhere, and it's caused by drivers, not bike riders. It annoys me when people say bike lanes are only needed because people cycle badly.



Well, what do RoSPA know about accidents then ? You are reporting from a sample of one (which is fair enough). RoSPA look at the complete picture.


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2016)

Jacob":b2f1kh11 said:


> > "*What the available statistics say
> > Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists. This is based on 10% of pedestrian casualties being on the pavement or verge as was the case 2007-2008. The ratio of pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles to those killed by cyclists is therefore 121.4:1. The ratio from 1998-2008 is 820.1:3 or 273:1 (uses the same 2007-2008 10% pedestrian casualties figure).
> > E&OE. "
> 
> ...



That figure is irrelevant. Now factor in the figures in relation to the number of miles driven by each. House of Commons say that 1% of vehicle miles are on a cycle. Therefore the true figure taking into account number of miles travelled is, to be comparable, 0.5 x 100 ie 50%.

So yet again cyclists are almost 50% to blame !!!!


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2016)

What about the mileage up and down stairs? (Factor in age and incontinence.) 
Who would you blame for stair accidents? 
Itinerant Bulgarian carpet-fitters working for cash?


----------



## Finial (30 May 2016)

RogerS":3fj7w1p3 said:


> cyclists are almost 50% to blame !!!!




So who is to blame for all the car/car collisions and the bent lampposts and smashed bollards? Why do the commonest bike accidents happen when someone overtakes a bike and turns left into it, or opens a car door directly in the path of the bike?


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2016)

Roughcut":1uatjrs5 said:


> Quite simply our roads were not built wide enough which means in the majority of cases a car driver has to go over on the opposite side of the road to overtake.....


They were built wide enough for vehicles (including bikes) before the combustion engine came along. Maybe motors should be excluded from all but motorways? It's going that way anyway.


----------



## Fitzroy (30 May 2016)

Was trying so hard not to get involved....... But as both a driver and a regular cyclist (up front clause to justify my position) I witness poor driving and poor cycling, probably in similar measure.
- Cyclists going through red lights, or through a junction when there is a pedestrian green man is the most common, yes at times it may be safer and there is legislation being discussed at present to allow this, but until that is past it is illegal. This is just one example of where cyclists do things to ease THEIR journey. Obey the rules and drivers may give us some more respect. 
- Drivers driving 2 foot behind a cyclist waiting for an opportunity to squeeze past is the most regularly witnessed poor behaviour. This is covered under law as dangerous driving where the highway code is normally presented as evidence of what constitutes "what would be expected of a competent and careful driver", ie giving cyclists the same space as a car when overtaking. Again this behaviour is just one example of drivers trying to ease THEIR journey.

Both of these behaviours are selfish disregard of laws and bring addition risk to other road users and pedestrians. For me personally I get frustrated at bad cycling and it makes me want to rage. Whereas at bad driving it gives me the absolute willies. Until you are the cyclist, with the protection of your foam hat and lycra shorts against that 1500kg of metal, you will have no idea how terrifying it is to have a driver 2' behind you or overtake you within an arms-length at 60 mph.

Most of the people you interact with on the road are parents, brothers/sisters or someone's child do you really want to be responsible for that individual being hurt/crippled/dead? Respect for each other seems to be ever dwindling in society.

F.


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2016)

Jacob":3v4jnd8o said:


> What about the mileage up and down stairs? (Factor in age and incontinence.)
> Who would you blame for stair accidents?
> Itinerant Bulgarian carpet-fitters working for cash?



Irrelevant. You really hate it when you get called up short on your (mis)use of statistics!!


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2016)

Finial":1u3bxmas said:


> RogerS":1u3bxmas said:
> 
> 
> > cyclists are almost 50% to blame !!!!
> ...



You can't simply wipe the statistics from RoSpa et al under the carpet just because they do not concur with your own world view, I'm afraid.

(Not sure what the relevance of your car/car collisions is, either)


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

Finial":1czzk1vr said:


> Lons":1czzk1vr said:
> 
> 
> > Finial":1czzk1vr said:
> ...



The first sentence is irrelevant and a bit silly tbh, we already all pay for the provision and upkeep of pavements through our general and council taxes whether we are motorists or not and in general pedestrians don't walk along the roads forcing vehicles to overtake on the wrong side of the road.

I'm not a cyclist but as a motorist I contribute to the roads even though I know only a small percentage is actually spent on them. If you are a motorist and a cyclist then maybe you should contribute a greater portion. At very least it should be compulsory for cyclists to be insured. 


> How much would it be worth to you to get pedestrians and bikes out of your way?


 Why on earth should I pay extra? It's cyclists who should pay for better and safer cycle routes and though you mention incompetent drivers, which of course there are, you conveniently forget about the equally incompetent cyclists who are happy to ride through red lights and clearly are scared to take a hand off the handlebars to signal once in a while.
There are of course very many compent drivers and cyclist on the roads as well


----------



## andys wood shed (30 May 2016)

Cyclists sign HERE


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2016)

Yes and pedestrians should chip in too. Perhaps rated on weight, shoe size and mileage. And prams and pushchairs. Wheel barrows? Pogo sticks, roller skates? Make the pippers pay!


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

andys wood shed":35e27j81 said:


> Cyclists sign HERE



Hmmm. perhaps there should also be a legislation make it an offence for cyclists to ride 2 or more abreast.


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

Jacob":1yun0vlc said:


> Yes and pedestrians should chip in too. Perhaps rated on weight, shoe size and mileage. And prams and pushchairs. Wheel barrows? Pogo sticks, roller skates? Make the pippers pay!



What a load of ****** Jacob. They already chip in via taxes, or the rest of us on their behalf if they claim benefits. You're on a different planet! :lol:


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2016)

Lons":25x4xkw5 said:


> Jacob":25x4xkw5 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes and pedestrians should chip in too. Perhaps rated on weight, shoe size and mileage. And prams and pushchairs. Wheel barrows? Pogo sticks, roller skates? Make the pippers pay!
> ...


Cyclists also chip in via taxes.
The cost of provision for pedestrians far exceeds any provision for cyclists. Think of those acres of pavement, underpasses, footbridges, zebra crossings, traffic lights, footpaths etc


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

Jacob":1pbbatcw said:


> Lons":1pbbatcw said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1pbbatcw said:
> ...


Yebbut the number of the contributing pedestrians is also vastly greater than the number of cyclists, after all virtually everyone uses pavements and are those cyclists not also pedestrians? You can't make that argument. :roll: 

All pedestrians contribute one way or another for themselves and dependents, or as I said if on benefits we pay for them. They also pay indirectly on everything they buy as transport costs are built into the price. All legitimate motorists pay in RFL, parking and exorbitant fuel taxes plus the levies when buying the vehicle in the first place. Cyclists can pay £ 0 to £ thousands for a cycle and the gear to go with it but nothing over and above that for any road facilities.

I have no problem with cyclists Jacob and I try to be considerate and always give as much room as possible but if they would only drop from 2 abreast to single line it would make it so much safer for them and the motorist. You might not become impatient after sitting at 15 mph behind a cyclist for 10 minutes on a very busy highway but then you're an oddbod :wink:


----------



## andys wood shed (30 May 2016)

Lons":2ff9x8uv said:


> andys wood shed":2ff9x8uv said:
> 
> 
> > Cyclists sign HERE
> ...



Suggest you read rule 66

A good explanation here


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

andys wood shed":32vkpef4 said:


> Lons":32vkpef4 said:
> 
> 
> > andys wood shed":32vkpef4 said:
> ...



I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.

I was already aware it was legal btw so your apparent assumption that I didn't is not correct.


----------



## andys wood shed (30 May 2016)

Lons":352u3bhz said:


> I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.
> 
> I was already aware it was legal btw so your apparent assumption that I didn't is not correct.



So you prefer to rely on acceleration rather than technique for overtaking


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2016)

Motorists are often woefully ignorant of other road users, as we can see from this thread.
Here's some simple stuff which motorists (and cyclists) need to know:
"Simply put, it's safer for cyclists to ride two abreast, it means that motorists usually have to overtake in a proper manner rather than overtaking in the same lane as the cyclists. If a group of cyclists are in single file, motorists will often assume they can overtake in places which are not safe and will not leave the cyclist enough room. Motorists should give cyclists the same amount of room they would give another car when overtaking (please see the Overtaking Cyclists page for more details) which means they should be on the other side of the road and would have to wait until there are no oncoming cars. Being in two files usually forces this scenario but riding in single file can lead the motorist to think they can overtake on the same side of the road if there are oncoming cars thus not giving the cyclist the correct amount of space."

Or to put it another way - for safetys sake cyclists need to be assertive about their road space, even if it annoys our Mr Toads. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

Jacob":3u5bgrv2 said:


>



* That's obviously one of your selfies Jacob* What are you doing reading the Telegraph btw? :lol:


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

andys wood shed":3fkr31a3 said:


> Lons":3fkr31a3 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.
> ...



*Where did I say that?* 
In an earlier reply to Jacob I actually said "* I try to be considerate and always give as much room as possible* ".Being able to accelerate quickly allows you to overtake as quickly as possible, within the law of course, and therefore more safely.
You've just made another incorrect assumption.

You're not one of Jacobs' relatives are you? :lol:


----------



## andys wood shed (30 May 2016)

Lons":31rjen87 said:


> andys wood shed":31rjen87 said:
> 
> 
> > Lons":31rjen87 said:
> ...







*Where did I say that?* 
modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the widtth


In an earlier reply to Jacob I actually said "* I try to be considerate and always give as much room as possible* ".Being able to accelerate quickly allows you to overtake as quickly as possible, within the law of course, and therefore more safely.

*In your opinion as a car driver*


----------



## deema (30 May 2016)

Living bear Delamere forest, I often wonder how we can possible have a shortage of donar organs, we should make it a legal requirement for all cyclists to be compulsory organ donars. I've read the narrative about riding two abreast.....if only......four, six or more completely filling both lanes is common practice. I'm not sure what the collective name is for a lot of cyclists ( I have a few, but there probably not appropriate) on narrow roads is, but there must be one for say approximately 100 fit people riding in a huge bunch filling up the road.

If you should decide to walk in Delamere forest, a stout stick or an umbrella with a nice pointy end is an essential item. Mountain bikes riding around at break neck speed is all too common, and as for the stick, it's the only thing that seems to deter the lovely people on two wheels from running you down. Complete poppycock I here the cry, well having been ridden into twice in the last six months I can tell you its not funny. The last time the young lady stated that she rang her bell and I had the audacious nerve not to jump off the foot path to let here past. We had a pleasant discourse where my suggestion of where she should store her bike didn't seem to be appreciated. 

I used to be a cyclist, so I'm probably rather like a reformed smoker, in my views. A coupe of cyclists enjoying a day out cycling two abrest is not an issue, better still if they don't come down the inside of a car or Larry at traffic lights / junctions especially when they are indicating left and stick to using the road rather than terrorising the pedestrians on the pavements when ever they feel like it. Yep done both of them, and now recognise the complete stupidity of my actions, but I guess that's what age does for you.


----------



## Finial (30 May 2016)

And if we didn't have pavements - there are many places without them - would you be prepared to pay your share to put them in? Pedestrians are entitled to use the roads, but few do. If so, why treat bike riders differently? They are really just faster pedestrians. And if we had proper cycle tracks perhaps you would use them.

Everyone pays for the roads. But most people are unable to cycle (or walk) on them because of fear of motor traffic. They can't use what they pay for, something forgotten by those who complain about bikes holding them up. The roads themselves are fine for cycling. When streets are closed to motor traffic, thousands come out to ride bikes. One reason why there are so few people cycling or walking on the roads now is that motorists have driven them off. Motor vehicles are driven too fast and often too carelessly around vulnerable road users for most people to accept the risk. That's why drivers ought to pay for pavements and bike tracks, on the principle that the polluter should pay. If bikes are such a menace, drivers would benefit too.

You complain about people cycling through red lights, and of course many do. Haven't you noticed how many drivers do too? And some drivers overtake me while I am signalling to turn right.

How is insurance relevant to cycle tracks?


----------



## beganasatree (30 May 2016)

TIME TO PUT THIS ONE TO SLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP


----------



## Lons (30 May 2016)

Already pay my share of pavement costs including H band council tax with few local services in return because I'm lucky enough to live in a nice house in a rural village. Was my choice to work hard to get that and so readily accept it of course!

Pedestrians have to go by foot unless they make the choice to buy a bike or car etc. I'm a pedestrian as well much of the time so also enjoy the pavements I've contributed to.

I hate statistics as they are usually manipulated but the evidence from government figures suggest a total spend on the road system, central and local (at 2012 and after inflation adjustment), is around £ 7.5 billion while revenue raised from VED and fuel duty amounts to £ 30.7 billion and that's excluding many of the other taxes such as insurance tax, company car tax and many others. Even adding in total transport expenditure to include buses, rail and other transport takes expenditure to only £ 21 billion or 2/3rds of the revenue raised. And we already pay for local public transport through our council tax which for my village is a couple of buses a day which I don't use.

Red lights: Many around the country are now fitted with cameras to catch offending motorists and they definitley exist but as much use as a chocolate teapot in identifying cyclists who do it which I personally have seen on many occasions. Stick a licence plate on and they might stop or at least be caught.

Insurance: Just a bee in my bonnet about that one, as a victim on two occasions of a cyclist wizzing up the inside between me and the kerb while I was at in standstill traffic at lights, both scratching my car which then had to be repaired on MY insurance. Why shouldn't cyclists be forced to pay for insurance? Wouldn't be costly and might make the offenders more careful.

Anyway Bobs' bored with this topic now so will leave you to argue with yourself as we're never going to agree.

cheers
Bob


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":22mtf03g said:


> *In your opinion as a car driver*



Yes of course it's my opinion surely that's what discussion and argument is all about, but you can't say with any authority that my opinion is wrong. I consider myself to be as good a car driver as no doubt you view your own capability as a cyclist. All just opinions right or wrong!


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

Lons":2ajfuhge said:


> andys wood shed":2ajfuhge said:
> 
> 
> > *In your opinion as a car driver*
> ...



But my opinion is that of a cyclist and a car driver whilst yours is just of a car driver........


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":igbpgs0j said:


> Lons":igbpgs0j said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.
> ...



The difference is ? You need both.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":3m4e5ffa said:



> ......
> *Where did I say that?*
> modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the widtth
> 
> ....



That is utter nonsense. Think about it...the width of a cyclists handlebars is roughly that of a car seat..so your assertion 'half the width' is just plain daft.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":1nsynyjo said:


> Lons":1nsynyjo said:
> 
> 
> > andys wood shed":1nsynyjo said:
> ...



And so because he never rides a bicycle, his opinion is invalid?

Are you *sure* you're not Jacob's brother ?


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

So after four pages, what have we learned ?

_Source: RoSPA_
In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and *to the cyclist in 43%* of serious collisions at junctions.

_Source: Jacob's link (adjusted so we are comparing apples with apples.)_
Mile for mile ridden or driven, cyclists are just as likely to kill pedestrians as motorists.

If the situations were reversed then I think people would be shouting for some form of insurance for car drivers. Maybe cycle riders should carry insurance, after all?


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

RogerS":cefg03qx said:


> andys wood shed":cefg03qx said:
> 
> 
> > But my opinion is that of a cyclist and a car driver whilst yours is just of a car driver........
> ...


 
His opinion is one sided


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

RogerS":j3xhpxsz said:


> andys wood shed":j3xhpxsz said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



I agree the quote was Lons


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":ducgqe7m said:


> His opinion is one sided



More assumptions Andy!

Because I said I'm not a cyclist doesn't mean I haven't used one. I actually do own one just haven't used it for a couple of years which reminds me, I must dig it out of the shed and get rid of it. :lol:


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

RogerS":1qoh5new said:


> andys wood shed":1qoh5new said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



I don't quite understand that Roger?

An average family car, say a golf is 4.5 x 1.8 mtrs approx ec mirrors, so a couple of cycles one behind the other wouldn't be much longer and as handlebars / rider shoulders are say 500 to 600mm the width is less than half that of the car. How is it nonsense?


----------



## stuartpaul (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":2foj2xpe said:


> Lons":2foj2xpe said:
> 
> 
> > andys wood shed":2foj2xpe said:
> ...


For which you need training, pass a test together with insurance, roadworthyness test and of course taxes (road fund and insurance).

Cyclists need none of these. 

Bit one sided isn't it?


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":dxv6fv7u said:


> RogerS":dxv6fv7u said:
> 
> 
> > andys wood shed":dxv6fv7u said:
> ...



You are assuming that he has never ridden a bicycle


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

Lons":2l76kw25 said:


> RogerS":2l76kw25 said:
> 
> 
> > andys wood shed":2l76kw25 said:
> ...



My bad, lons, although I blame Andy's garbling of your quotes :wink: I thought the reference was to two cycles riding abreast.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

RogerS":3uzj1azb said:


> My bad, lons, although I blame Andy's garbling of your quotes :wink: I thought the reference was to two cycles riding abreast.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: 

I note it was Jacob who started the thread. Maybe because many members now ignore sharpening threads, he hoping to troll another subject :lol: :lol:


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

stuartpaul":yn6dzixb said:


> For which you need training, pass a test together with insurance, roadworthyness test and of course taxes (road fund and insurance).
> 
> Cyclists need none of these.
> 
> Bit one sided isn't it?



I bet we could dig up statistics about how many drivers don't have the above these days or even read the Highway Code since passing their test many years ago

How many cars drivers for instance know about ASL

Cyclists can of course choose to have training and insurance


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

Lons":x9cbxn3d said:


> andys wood shed":x9cbxn3d said:
> 
> 
> > His opinion is one sided
> ...



Perhaps you should dust it off blow up the tyres, oil the chain and go for a spin

Good for the environment and yourself and then your option and attitude to cyclist and other road users might change


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":3tgs966v said:


> ....
> How many cars drivers for instance know about ASL....


Er, a bit vague myself so looked it up. Interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_stop_line


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

Jacob":1qjwawms said:


> andys wood shed":1qjwawms said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Yes Jacob

Whilst car drivers have passed a test their training is so far out of date


----------



## Wuffles (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":2ujeltiw said:


> Jacob":2ujeltiw said:
> 
> 
> > andys wood shed":2ujeltiw said:
> ...



"Out of date", but at least exists. As you said yourself, bicycle riders are not required to do any kind of test at all. What's your point?

I think everyone (bicycles or car drivers) should be forced to do a CBT at the very least, you can feel the terror of wobbling around on an underpowered 50cc bike with a bus brushing past your shoulder.


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

Wuffles":2cc535s3 said:


> andys wood shed":2cc535s3 said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst car drivers have passed a test their training is so far out of date
> ...



I think all road users should be compulsory trained
And reassessed


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":sgchub02 said:


> I think all road users should be compulsory trained And reassessed



One of the few things I wouldn't argue with you about Andy assuming you include cyclists and the larger (licenced) mobility scooters in that.

Drivers at 75 for example shouldn't be allowed to renew every 3 years just by a tick box on line. Disturbingly though a driver could lose his licence due to say dementia but quite legally get on his bike and ride down the main roads. :shock: 

I know the vast majority of cyclists are responsible riders and are usually motorists as well so would of course keep their equipment well maintained, would comply with recommendations in the highway code and wear a helmet however: As general law though local bylaws may differ:

A cycle can be obtained for almost nothing of free without any obligatory checks to roadworthiness and as t the only items of equipment that must be fitted to legally ride a bike on British roads are reflectors, brakes and lights (if used at night), it's very easy for people to ride unsafe cycles with almost no chance of being stopped by the police as they simply aren't interested.

There is no age limit before they can ride on busy main roads and no requirement for training. 

Whilst new cycles are fitted with a bell in the shop there is nothing to prevent a bell / horn being removed, neither is it compulsory to wear a helmet or to use cycle lanes where provided. Interestingly a cyclist can ride over a zebra crossing though he's then not considered a pedestrian and motorists are not obliged to give way - I'll remember that one!

You don't need a licence or anything else to ride an electric assisted cycle under 250 watts and cyclists generally can't be prosecuted for speeding which is ludicrous as it's not difficult exceed the 30mph limit on a modern bike. I wonder what the stopping distance is at 20mph? Or how many cyclists would actually know that?

Neither is there a specific offence for using a mobile phone while cycling though you could be pulled over for a not paying due care and attention offence - STUPID.

The common practice of wearing earphones and listening to music isn't clever either imo as I'd want to hear the traffic around me if I was interested in my safety.

While it is an offence to jump a red light, as I said previously, unless caught in the act there is no chance of being prosecuted whilst a motorist is likely to get a nasty letter through the post 'cos he's quite rightly been snapped by the cameras.

There have been several attempts by politicians to push through regulations regarding compulsory registration and insurance for the use of cycles on public roads and hopefully one day that will come for the benefit of all road users.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":1msvfb7b said:


> stuartpaul":1msvfb7b said:
> 
> 
> > For which you need training, pass a test together with insurance, roadworthyness test and of course taxes (road fund and insurance).
> ...



Irrelevant.



andys wood shed":1msvfb7b said:


> Cyclists can of course choose to have training and insurance



Stuart makes a valid point. It should be compulsory. There is no reason why not. I agree that cyclists don't necessarily need to pay anything like the equivalent of the VED as roads etc come out of the common pot. But there is no reason why they should not be made responsible for their own actions and carry insurance.


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

RogerS":uctobabm said:


> .... But there is no reason why they should not be made responsible for their own actions and carry insurance.


They are responsible for their own actions but don't need insurance because bike incidents are extremely unlikely to incur high cost to any third parties. Ditto pedestrians, dog walkers, pram pushers etc.


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

RogerS":19ls2cik said:


> andys wood shed":19ls2cik said:
> 
> 
> > stuartpaul":19ls2cik said:
> ...



The relevance is although car drivers passed a test (could be many years ago) they are not up to date with the current edition of the Highway Code


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

Jacob":rbj0l42b said:


> RogerS":rbj0l42b said:
> 
> 
> > .... But there is no reason why they should not be made responsible for their own actions and carry insurance.
> ...



Tell that to my insurance company who paid out well into 4 figures to repair the scratches on my BMW. Or to me who had to stump up the excess for those plonkers who did the damage.

I wonder what a visually impaired pedestrian would say to that if he was confronted by a cyclist doing 20 mph with no bell, head down and ears stuffed full of earphones. If you say they don't do that Jacob then you're going around with your eyes shut!


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

Jacob":1mtrgs5c said:


> RogerS":1mtrgs5c said:
> 
> 
> > .... But there is no reason why they should not be made responsible for their own actions and carry insurance.
> ...



I could have written this for you, Jacob, as you are so predictable dragging in red herrings, such as pedestrians, that are not only irrelevant but stupid. 

So you think it perfectly fine for a cyclist to scratch a car causing maybe a couple of hundred pounds worth of damage? Next time it happens to me I'll send you the bill.

And don't come out with some soppy comment such as 'Ooh, £200 for a bit of paint...blah, blah, blah'. It just makes you look even sillier.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":24sny944 said:


> RogerS":24sny944 said:
> 
> 
> > andys wood shed":24sny944 said:
> ...



And cyclists are ?


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":yx846gjq said:


> The relevance is although car drivers passed a test (could be many years ago) they are not up to date with the current edition of the Highway Code



At least they passed a test where cyclists didn't have to and I wonder how many cyclists know the highway code. More assumptions.

Hmmm... must dig out my ancient cycling proficiency test certificate, still have it somewhere. :lol:


----------



## Roughcut (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":1qi8w5fw said:


> The relevance is although car drivers passed a test (could be many years ago) they are not up to date with the current edition of the Highway Code



You see it's with comments like that where the cyclist vs drivers debates always gets silly.
There's no mandatory obligation or law that says a cyclist has to know the details of the current Highway Code so why do you make the assumption that a cyclist will be up to date but a driver wouldn't? :roll:


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

RogerS":zaxcylmn said:


> Jacob":zaxcylmn said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":zaxcylmn said:
> ...


Ooh, £200 for a bit of paint...blah, blah, blah

The sort of damage a bike would do would be in the realm of affordable so insurance does not need to be compulsory.
But bike incidents are so rare that the insurance would cost very little anyway. In fact you get free 3rd party insurance with CTC membership (subject to a bit of small print to check for risk), and the same with many household policies.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

Have you noticed, Lons, how Jacob always ignores anything that disagrees with his world view. Your valid comment that the damage to your car was in four figures, for example. Somehow in Jacobworld, that is 'affordable'. He has totally missed the point (as usual) that cyclists should be responsible for the damage that they cause.

I'm waiting for Jacob 'Never Wrong' to tell you that if you can afford a BMW then you can afford to get it fixed when some clueless cyclist damages it.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

People don't need to pass a test to ride a bike. They need proper cycle tracks, not the kind that Jacob opened this thread with. Then they wouldn't have to ride on the road. Utility cycling on good tracks is as near perfectly safe as can reasonably be achieved. As for insurance and registration, plenty of drivers don't have insurance, and their number plates don't stop hit and runs any more than they would on bikes. Only one of the three who ran into me stopped. To take action against someone for damage, whether or not they have insurance, you would need a witness. Good luck with that.

Some people here are quick to complain about bike riders, but drivers normally only see the ones who ride on the roads. They are mainly young/middle aged male commuters, with some sports riders, who are willing to cycle in traffic. They are likely to be assertive, in a hurry, and sometimes aggressive or they wouldn't be on the road. They are also likely to be experienced and competent, have passed a driving test, to own a car, to pay tax, to have third party insurance and to be very well aware of their vulnerability.

No doubt there are some irresponsible bike riders, though I can honestly say I don't come across any except occasionally a young lad who believes in immortality. You can't legislate for them, just be grateful they aren't driving.

What you don't see many of on the road are people like me, just cycling to the shops or the local woodturning club. Round here, they tend to cycle on the pavement considerately, but illegally, because that is their only safe option. But most people who would like to don't cycle at all, which is one reason why things like obesity, poor air quality and congestion are such problems.


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

Finial":3kocrvvw said:


> .....Round here, they tend to cycle on the pavement considerately, but illegally, because that is their only safe option. But most people who would like to don't cycle at all, which is one reason why things like obesity, poor air quality and congestion are such problems.


In Germany you can cycle on the pavements legally - so at traffic lights you can switch from road to pavement and cross with the pedestrians or vice versa depending on which way the lights are. Seems to work really well. Should do the same here.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

RogerS":336zsur0 said:


> Have you noticed, Lons, how Jacob always ignores anything that disagrees with his world view. Your valid comment that the damage to your car was in four figures, for example. Somehow in Jacobworld, that is 'affordable'. He has totally missed the point (as usual) that cyclists should be responsible for the damage that they cause.
> 
> I'm waiting for Jacob 'Never Wrong' to tell you that if you can afford a BMW then you can afford to get it fixed when some clueless cyclist damages it.



Yep I was expecting that as well and given his twisted views I have no doubt he won't disappoint :lol: He was of course trundling around in a Merc disguised as a Smart car :wink: 

Wonder why he assumes a majority of riders are members of CTC or even that they all have house and contents insurance never mind public liability cover. BTW Jacob to be pedantic, insurance on your house would NOT cover riding a bike as it only covers the structure and fixtures in your property so get your facts straight! :wink: Any cover would be an add on legal liability protection or perhaps part of your contents cover (unlikely).



> They are likely to be assertive, in a hurry, and sometimes aggressive or they wouldn't be on the road.


 Quote taken out of context but isn't that exactly what cyclists are complaining that drivers do?

Maybe London is a little different from our more gentle and slower pace of life in Northumberland, you can keep it!

I'd deport all cyclists to Amsterdam where they can terrorize pedestrians to their hearts content. :wink: :lol: not a place for the faint hearted if you're on foot :lol:


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

Jacob":e6i1mi5i said:


> In Germany you can cycle on the pavements legally - so at traffic lights you can switch from road to pavement and cross with the pedestrians or vice versa depending on which way the lights are. Seems to work really well. Should do the same here.



Is that opinion from your personal experience Jacob?

My cousin and his family in Munich wouldn't agree with that!


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

Jacob":23cmuh0h said:


> In Germany you can cycle on the pavements legally - so at traffic lights you can switch from road to pavement and cross with the pedestrians or vice versa depending on which way the lights are. Seems to work really well. Should do the same here.




In this country it's against the law even for small children to cycle on the pavement. But the government is beginning to understand that cycling has to be encouraged, and has said there is nothing wrong with safe and considerate pavement cycling. 

Enforcement is rare. Not unknown, even though pavement driving and parking is often encouraged. Occasionally a zealous policeman will try to get a small child onto the road, but mostly the police have more important things to worry about.


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

Roughcut":n8rk5ohx said:


> andys wood shed":n8rk5ohx said:
> 
> 
> > The relevance is although car drivers passed a test (could be many years ago) they are not up to date with the current edition of the Highway Code
> ...



Is a previous post I said " I think all road users should be compulsory trained
And reassessed


----------



## John Brown (31 May 2016)

Some drivers are inconsiderate b*st*rds.
Some cyclists are inconsiderate b*st*rds..

There. Problem solved.


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

Finial":20v16bb6 said:


> Jacob":20v16bb6 said:
> 
> 
> > In Germany you can cycle on the pavements legally - so at traffic lights you can switch from road to pavement and cross with the pedestrians or vice versa depending on which way the lights are. Seems to work really well. Should do the same here.
> ...



In my experience the Police will use discretion for young cyclist riding sensibly on the pavement with safety being a guiding principle


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

John Brown":2sx4vfdj said:


> Some drivers are inconsiderate b*st*rds.
> Some cyclists are inconsiderate b*st*rds..
> 
> There. Problem solved.



=D> =D>


----------



## andys wood shed (31 May 2016)

Lons":2dfu5mf1 said:


> Wonder why he assumes a majority of riders are members of CTC or even that they all have house and contents insurance never mind public liability cover. BTW Jacob to be pedantic, insurance on your house would NOT cover riding a bike as it only covers the structure and fixtures in your property so get your facts straight! :wink: Any cover would be an add on legal liability protection or perhaps part of your contents cover (unlikely).



No longer called CTC now known as 'we are cycling UK' :wink:


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

Lons":2cgkatm6 said:


> > They are likely to be assertive, in a hurry, and sometimes aggressive or they wouldn't be on the road.
> 
> 
> Quote taken out of context but isn't that exactly what cyclists are complaining that drivers do?
> ...



Yes, plus often careless and distracted, and generally faster and more dangerous. If you were on foot or on a bike, which would you find worse, being close-passed at speed by one of those bike riders or by a similar person in a car?

I never found bikes to be a problem in Amsterdam. Nor here. But I'm sure most pedestrians would prefer not to have bikes on the pavement. If there were cycle tracks there would be less reason for it. And the tracks would help keep drivers off the pavement too.

I don't know what it's like in Northumberland, but statistically cycling on rural roads is more dangerous than in towns.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

andys wood shed":kjg04jet said:


> Lons":kjg04jet said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder why he assumes a majority of riders are members of CTC or even that they all have house and contents insurance never mind public liability cover. BTW Jacob to be pedantic, insurance on your house would NOT cover riding a bike as it only covers the structure and fixtures in your property so get your facts straight! :wink: Any cover would be an add on legal liability protection or perhaps part of your contents cover (unlikely).
> ...


Change of name but same organisation. I just quoted off Jacobs post as I know he's _"always 100% correct"_ and didn't bother checking so good to see you are saying he's wrong :wink: 




> Some drivers are inconsiderate b*st*rds.
> Some cyclists are inconsiderate b*st*rds..
> 
> There. Problem solved.


Best answer ever John =D> =D>


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

Roughcut":2dup0n6w said:


> [
> There's no mandatory obligation or law that says a cyclist has to know the details of the current Highway Code so why do you make the assumption that a cyclist will be up to date but a driver wouldn't? :roll:



Are you making the assumption that drivers generally follow the code? Because their failure to do so is so completely commonplace that it's almost invisible to many. It's their expected behaviour and often not seen as incorrect. Some are better than others, of course.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2016)

Finial":uhr0j05f said:


> Lons":uhr0j05f said:
> 
> 
> > > They are likely to be assertive, in a hurry, and sometimes aggressive or they wouldn't be on the road.
> ...



Are you saying that cyclists aren't distracted then Andy? The ones I see on our roads often are when chatting side by side, (the highway code if I remember recommends they be considerate and drop to single file when being overtaken as I'm sure you know btw and very few in my experience actually do that). In 30 mph areas when busy they often are just as quick as the cars and sometimes faster.

As a pedestrian I'd rather not be hit by any of them but make no mistake, a bike has sharp and dangerous protrusions that could cause major trauma to a pedestrian.

Lot of cyclists in Northumberland and often events where the roads are clogged for hours during their races but despite my tongue in cheek quips I have no real problem with cyclists except my opinion they should be regulated and accountable on the roads like the rest of us.

I found Amsterdam was hazardous though only been a couple of times you need eyes in the back of your head when it's busy as they come from all directions. Like driving in the centre of Paris. :lol:


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

Lons":11go2fwe said:


> > Some drivers are inconsiderate b*st*rds.
> > Some cyclists are inconsiderate b*st*rds..
> >
> > There. Problem solved.
> ...



Not really. What he says about drivers and cyclists is true. But the problem as I see it is that I want to ride a bike without doing harm to anyone and doing that in motor traffic is objectively and/or subjectively unsafe. And after Jacob showed an example of what passes for cycling infrastructure I'm told that the danger is my fault.


----------



## dc_ni (31 May 2016)

You get idiots on both 2 and 4 wheels. I've seen idiots driving at night without headlights, same way I've seen idiots cycling at night without lights. 

I think the main problem with the anti cycling group is that they feel annoyed when they have to slow down to pass a cyclist, then they get annoyed even more when 2 minutes later the cyclist passes them while they sit in the queue of traffic that they were in such a rush to get to.

I expect the people that use the "I pay to use the roads and they don't so they shouldn't be allowed to use it" argument are the same people that never stop at zebra crossing and sit at pelican crossing revving the engine to hurry up pedestrians (well they don't pay to use the roads either)

The people that think that all cyclists/car drivers should be banned/shot/deported are the problem not the other way round, it's this sort of attitude that causes accidents.

I realise some people are just arguing because it's Jacob that posted the topic, but if you really believe that cyclists should be banned as a whole then you really are the problem and I hate to think how badly you drive (I imagine you believe your the best driver on the road to).


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

Finial":1etpbjuf said:


> People don't need to pass a test to ride a bike.


Why not? Might drum some commonsense into many bad cyclists.


Finial":1etpbjuf said:


> They need proper cycle tracks, not the kind that Jacob opened this thread with. Then they wouldn't have to ride on the road.


Trouble with that, as others have already said, is the narrowness of many of our roads especially in cities. And even when proper cycle lanes are provided, do all the cyclists use them? Certainly not. Back to 'people need to pass a test to ride a bike'.


Finial":1etpbjuf said:


> As for insurance and registration, plenty of drivers don't have insurance, and their number plates don't stop hit and runs any more than they would on bikes. Only one of the three who ran into me stopped. To take action against someone for damage, whether or not they have insurance, you would need a witness. Good luck with that.


So that's a reason for cyclists not to have insurance ? A weak argument.


Finial":1etpbjuf said:


> Some people here are quick to complain about bike riders, but drivers normally only see the ones who ride on the roads.


We get idiots on mountain bikes up on the Malvern Hills. Others have posted about bad cyclists elsewhere. Bad cyclists are not the exclusive 'ownership' of roads. In any event, are we any quicker to complain about bad cyclists then your (and others) posts about bad drivers?


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

Lons":lf9takcv said:


> Are you saying that cyclists aren't distracted then Andy? The ones I see on our roads often are when chatting side by side, (the highway code if I remember recommends they be considerate and drop to single file when being overtaken as I'm sure you know btw and very few in my experience actually do that). In 30 mph areas when busy they often are just as quick as the cars and sometimes faster.
> 
> As a pedestrian I'd rather not be hit by any of them but make no mistake, a bike has sharp and dangerous protrusions that could cause major trauma to a pedestrian.
> 
> ...



'Distracted' is relative. Chatting side by side is a distraction, like it is for a driver. But those riders normally know you are there. How often do you see a bike rider on the phone, checking a map, eating their breakfast or turning round to deal with their children? And round here it is rare to see bikes two abreast unless overtaking.

Only the young and fit go at 30 mph or even 20. Not people like me unfortunately, though traffic queues do hold me up. Cycle tracks should be marked with level changes and coloured tarmac so pedestrians can recognise them. One problem is there isn't yet a standard. Here we mostly have shared use pavements that are not much good for walking or cycling on and often don't have proper signage or even a dividing line.

It's interesting that you grumble about the roads being clogged for hours. Here they are clogged pretty well all day every day by queues of motors.

There are many serious problems with motor vehicles, but I wouldn't have a problem with drivers if I wasn't expected to mix with them on a bike.


----------



## NazNomad (31 May 2016)

Finial":2uefd59p said:


> Enforcement is rare.



Not if I'm walking on the pavement, I'll force them into the road or make them dismount. They don't really have a valid argument for doing it, do they?


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

RogerS":3hqre70a said:


> Finial":3hqre70a said:
> 
> 
> > People don't need to pass a test to ride a bike.
> ...



What test would be appropriate for cycling off the road? Will my grandson have to pass a test before he can ride his first bike? How well is the driving test working to keep drivers on the straight and narrow?

People assume cycle tracks aren't practicable. Yet somehow they get built and work well. Many city roads are plenty wide enough for parallel tracks, and where they aren't there are other solutions. People are entitled to cycle on the road in this country, but if there is a good quality cycle track, why would they? Generally the tracks here are not well designed for cycling on. If people are prepared to cycle in traffic and the road is better for them, they will take it. 

My argument against insurance was not the strongest. Here's another: we need more people cycling to help solve some very intractable problems such as the obesity and ill health crises, poor air quality and others. Making people take out insurance before they use the bike in the shed hinders that, to little advantage. We shouldn't be putting obstacles in the way. Or will my grandson need insurance in case he hits something while riding on the pavement? A car parked in the bike lane for example.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

NazNomad":w5jh6dq0 said:


> Finial":w5jh6dq0 said:
> 
> 
> > Enforcement is rare.
> ...




Charming! But then you don't understand the issues.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 May 2016)

Wide bike if he can ride on the pavement and hit a car in the bike lane - but many of the cyclists round here could manage it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 May 2016)

Finial":2e15sy9q said:


> NazNomad":2e15sy9q said:
> 
> 
> > Finial":2e15sy9q said:
> ...


The last cyclist that presumed I'd get out of his way on a footpath ended up in a river.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

phil.p":a78f1scq said:


> The last cyclist that presumed I'd get out of his way on a footpath ended up in a river.



Perhaps it served him right if he thought he should have priority on a footpath. As bad as some drivers! How do you and NazNomad deal with pavement driving, or is that OK?


----------



## Wuffles (31 May 2016)

Finial":303ne4is said:


> phil.p":303ne4is said:
> 
> 
> > The last cyclist that presumed I'd get out of his way on a footpath ended up in a river.
> ...



What exactly is pavement driving? Is it what I think it is? If so, what a ridiculous question.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

Wuffles":1tawkfnj said:


> What exactly is pavement driving? Is it what I think it is? If so, what a ridiculous question.



What do you think it is?

It's people going in and out of driveways, which is a problem when they don't look where they are going. I've had to jump out of their way several times.

It's people driving onto the pavement to park, sometimes inside another line of cars, or to avoid the double yellow lines, always a problem because it damages the paving, which leads to accidents, and even more so if they don't look first, or if they block the pavement (very common round here), or presume pedestrians will just get out of their way, which of course they have to.

It's people driving lorries onto the pavement to get closer to make deliveries.

It's tradesmen parking on the pavement outside a property and blocking the way for pedestrians.

It's people driving along the pavement to overtake a traffic queue, becoming more common round here now.

It's people losing control of the vehicle and going up on the pavement.

You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers, and it costs a huge amount in repairs. My point is that people take it for granted that motors will be found on the pavement for the convenience of the drivers, but object when people cycle there to avoid danger.


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

Finial":2xoffmq7 said:


> ....
> You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers. My point is that people take it for granted that motors will be found on the pavement for the convenience of the drivers, but object when people cycle there to avoid danger.


You are approximately 120 times more likely to be killed on the pavement by a motor vehicle rather than a bike, according to figures I posted up earlier



> "*What the available statistics say
> Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists. This is based on 10% of pedestrian casualties being on the pavement or verge as was the case 2007-2008. The ratio of pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles to those killed by cyclists is therefore 121.4:1. The ratio from 1998-2008 is 820.1:3 or 273:1 (uses the same 2007-2008 10% pedestrian casualties figure).
> E&OE. "


Just a random google produced the above. Presumably typical and not exceptional.
Killed by drivers on pavements 60.7
Killed by cyclists on pavements 0.5
Fairly uncommon either way but vehicles kill 121 times as many as cyclists, on pavements alone.

Then according to this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... death-2011 you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist


----------



## Wuffles (31 May 2016)

Finial":ysv6g1on said:


> Wuffles":ysv6g1on said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is pavement driving? Is it what I think it is? If so, what a ridiculous question.
> ...



I didn't say it was ridiculous, I said it was a ridiculous question.

Much like trying to explain this to you, ridiculous.


----------



## NazNomad (31 May 2016)

Finial":h3j59uq7 said:


> Charming! But then you don't understand the issues.



Meh!! I understand enough.


----------



## NazNomad (31 May 2016)

Jacob":32j4k4o9 said:


> you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist



... because there are 700 times more stairs than there are cyclists?

Anyway, 43% of all statistics are made up.


----------



## RobinBHM (31 May 2016)

> Anyway, 43% of all statistics are made up.



I dont agree with that


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

NazNomad":1fn73ql0 said:


> Jacob":1fn73ql0 said:
> 
> 
> > you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist
> ...


Stairs get you when you least expect it. :shock:


----------



## Wuffles (31 May 2016)

Jacob":omkqm22u said:


> NazNomad":omkqm22u said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":omkqm22u said:
> ...



Here's hoping.


----------



## Bm101 (31 May 2016)

8 Pages! 
I've never got on on with stairs personally. In my youth, when I was angry and looking for answers to lifes problems I'd often be found arguing with them. All those needless deaths. I felt an answer was owed. Over the years as I've matured and calmed down I've learnt slowly to take them one step at a time.


----------



## iNewbie (31 May 2016)

Finial":397fzlgt said:


> Wuffles":397fzlgt said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is pavement driving? Is it what I think it is? If so, what a ridiculous question.
> ...



Isn't that a pedestrian on pedestrian drive-by?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 May 2016)

"You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers ... " Very nearly all if not 100% will have been by vehicles that have gone off the road by accident.


----------



## NazNomad (31 May 2016)

phil.p":h8smj62z said:


> Very nearly all if not 100% will have been by vehicles that have gone off the road by accident.



Cyclists call that 'pavement driving'

Drivers call it ... crashing!!! :-D


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

phil.p":3u5my712 said:


> "You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers ... " Very nearly all if not 100% will have been by vehicles that have gone off the road by accident.



You can guess that, but do you have any information? And is it relevant? people aren't killed by bikes on the pavement at all, or at least very rarely.

The point is that low risk pavement driving is approved, but when it comes to bike riders, people here want them all banned. We even have fools demanding they are banned from the road. Does anyone ask for all drivers to be banned?


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

Wuffles":ocgusixz said:


> I didn't say it was ridiculous, I said it was a ridiculous question.
> 
> Much like trying to explain this to you, ridiculous.



Go on, try. You can do it. I'm listening.


----------



## Bm101 (31 May 2016)

9 pages of tosh. No Offense intended. 
Whats got hold of people? 
I drive in central London everyday. Its the daftest place to ride a bike or drive a car going. 
Everyday I see cyclists and motorist breaking every rule of the road. Just this morning at 5.30 am I saw a bus driver nearly kill a fella on a bike. Two minutes later I saw the same bus driver have to brake like mad to let a delivery van in. It's madness. This thread is madness. 
Every single day I drive a big old renault traffic on the mirrors. Ive regularly had bikes trying to crowd me out at junctions. Im a pretty considerate driver, even I will will lose my cool. Ive had them cutting me up, in the wrong lanes, jumping lights, turning left and im only on my mirrors mind all of a sudden theres some deathwish silly person slapping the side of my van. Yeh mate its my fault. But theres going to be only one loser in the long term. Same for cars. You name it I've seen it. And there's one answer to it. 
Take a breath.There's only idiots to blame, not riders or drivers or motorbikes in general. 
Whats up with people.
Take a breath, look, take a second. Spot the silly person and steer clear.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 May 2016)

"You can guess that, but do you have any information?" 
And you presumably know of loads of cases of cyclists being killed by people driving on the pavement intentionally? :?


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

Finial":27o446oa said:


> .... but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers, and it costs a huge amount in repairs. ...



Evidence, please.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

Jacob":2rbx7hmi said:


> Finial":2rbx7hmi said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Sigh...How can I explain this in a simple enough way for you to understand? You can't say that unless you factor in the amount of miles driven by each category. Cycling is 1%. Therefore you need to multiply your figure of 0.5% by 100 to be comparable to the deaths caused by drivers. Are you really that obtuse?


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

Bm101":30n0gpj7 said:


> 9 pages of tosh. No Offense intended.
> Whats got hold of people?
> I drive in central London everyday. Its the daftest place to ride a bike or drive a car going.
> Everyday I see cyclists and motorist breaking every rule of the road. Just this morning at 5.30 am I saw a bus driver nearly kill a fella on a bike. Two minutes later I saw the same bus driver have to brake like mad to let a delivery van in. It's madness. This thread is madness.
> ...



Well said. Very well said.


----------



## Wuffles (31 May 2016)

Finial":3ox1c3po said:


> Wuffles":3ox1c3po said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say it was ridiculous, I said it was a ridiculous question.
> ...



Wasn't directed at you Frasier. Wind your neck in*

*is what someone else might say, not me though, nosiree.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

phil.p":1yq0xcbe said:


> "You can guess that, but do you have any information?"
> And you presumably know of loads of cases of cyclists being killed by people driving on the pavement intentionally? :?



No I don't. It's you that made the claim about intention, and I was talking about pedestrians.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 May 2016)

My mistake. OK, then - Do you know of any pedestrians killed by someone driving on the pavement deliberately? Actually that would be murder, not a driving offence.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

RogerS":15svsnpi said:


> Bm101":15svsnpi said:
> 
> 
> > 9 pages of tosh. No Offense intended.
> ...



Not really. Bm101 didn't say anything about the solution. I don't usually travel in the rush hour these days, when it's presumably worse, but I don't have any problem at all with the bikes when I do drive in town. Even considerate drivers make mistakes, and clearly bike riders do too. That's why we need cycle tracks isn't it? Because that would be better for everybody. And that's where this thread started, with a comment about poor quality infrastructure. But at last some improvement is beginning in London.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

phil.p":1dw15d7d said:


> My mistake. OK, then - Do you know of any pedestrians killed by someone driving on the pavement deliberately? Actually that would be murder, not a driving offence.



No. I have no information on that. You are probably right that many of the deaths happened when drivers crashed off the road accidentally or in cases such as the bin lorry incident in Scotland. I hope very few were deliberate attacks, though road rage can be an issue. But why do you think people driving deliberately on the pavement would not cause accidents? They cause them on the roads, and I've had to dodge them myself.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

RogerS":3vn7kgzh said:


> Finial":3vn7kgzh said:
> 
> 
> > .... but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers, and it costs a huge amount in repairs. ...
> ...



You've got the number of incidents from Jacob and the eventual cost of repairing smashed paving is obvious, except that it is often left unrepaired.


----------



## Finial (31 May 2016)

NazNomad":22xyawj8 said:


> Finial":22xyawj8 said:
> 
> 
> > Charming! But then you don't understand the issues.
> ...



I wouldn't know it from your comments. Correct me if I've got it wrong, but you've commented as if people who pay car tax have exclusive rights to the road. You've endorsed foolish comments about the causes of accidents. You've threatened assault, possibly against small children, though I hope you didn't mean that because it will get you in serious trouble. You've shown no recognition that cycling is a legitimate form of transport. You've shown no comprehension of the reasons why people might cycle on the pavement. You've ignored government advice on that issue. You've belittled commenters you disagree with. You've commented as if poor driving is irrelevant to cycling. The reasons to increase walking and cycling seem to have washed right over you. You haven't offered any alternatives that could address those reasons.


----------



## Jake (31 May 2016)

RogerS":3a2zd8gv said:


> So after four pages, what have we learned ?
> 
> Mile for mile ridden or driven, cyclists are just as likely to kill pedestrians as motorists.
> 
> If the situations were reversed then I think people would be shouting for some form of insurance for car drivers. Maybe cycle riders should carry insurance, after all?



How about a more sensible comparison which doesn't dilute the car's impact by dividing the deaths by the extra mph a car has over a bicycle.

Statistics and their creators...


----------



## rileytoolworks (1 Jun 2016)

Maybe cycle riders should carry insurance, after all?

Many, including myself, do.


----------



## John Brown (1 Jun 2016)

RogerS":2onqivei said:


> Jacob":2onqivei said:
> 
> 
> > Finial":2onqivei said:
> ...


Just curious here, no axe to grind(either freehand or with a jig), but why is the miles covered metric necessarily more relevant than the time on the road one? How about bollards, or lamp-posts, surely they are far more dangerous according to the accidents-divided-by-miles-travelled formula.


----------



## Chippyjoe (1 Jun 2016)

Well my two penneth worth, Some cyclists are morons, some car, bus, lorry etc drivers are morons, so this discussion has no winners.

I think Jacob just likes to pour petrol on these kind of debates, then retires while everyone else "fights" there corner.
People, there are no winners in these type of discussions as there are to many people who will always think they are right.

Probably time for one of the mods to lock this thread, and lets move on. life really is to short.

Right, behind the settee now, so start hurling the abuse lol.


----------



## andys wood shed (1 Jun 2016)

Chippyjoe":31bwg43r said:


> Well my two penneth worth, Some cyclists are morons, some car, bus, lorry etc drivers are morons, so this discussion has no winners.
> 
> I think Jacob just likes to pour petrol on these kind of debates, then retires while everyone else "fights" there corner.
> People, there are no winners in these type of discussions as there are to many people who will always think they are right.
> ...



Some cyclists are morons due to lack of training

Some car, bus, lorry etc drivers choose to be morons after their training


----------



## Wuffles (1 Jun 2016)

andys wood shed":1foe068b said:


> Chippyjoe":1foe068b said:
> 
> 
> > Well my two penneth worth, Some cyclists are morons, some car, bus, lorry etc drivers are morons, so this discussion has no winners.
> ...



As you are determined to drag this trolling back up I'll correct that for you.

Some cyclists are morons due to lack of training
However, some cyclists choose to be morons after their training
Also some car, bus, lorry etc drivers choose to be morons after their training

There, that's all tidy now.


----------



## andys wood shed (1 Jun 2016)

Wuffles":1r9n45u2 said:


> andys wood shed":1r9n45u2 said:
> 
> 
> > Chippyjoe":1r9n45u2 said:
> ...



Because cycle trainings in not mandatory ( I believe it should) the cyclists that do seek out and undertake training do so to become better cyclists


----------



## Finial (1 Jun 2016)

Wuffles":10au60xt said:


> As you are determined to drag this trolling back up I'll correct that for you.
> 
> Some cyclists are morons due to lack of training
> However, some cyclists choose to be morons after their training
> ...



Do you see all this as trolling? I call it discussion and see no reason to close it down.

I think you and Andy are both wrong on this point. There are not many morons on the road, cycling or driving, just people. Blaming or getting rid of morons is not going to improve safety. There are plenty of careless people and people who make mistakes. Many are willing to take chances, often perhaps without thinking. Bike riders are risking their own lives, drivers often other people's.

That's why cycling and driving don't mix, though some hardy individuals cycle on the road. The problem is unforgiving infrastructure that generally prioritises motor vehicles over other traffic. We need proper cycle tracks.


----------



## RogerS (1 Jun 2016)

Finial":v58rdi0t said:


> .... We need proper cycle tracks.



So how are you going to get those in cities? Knock them down and start again?


----------



## Jacob (1 Jun 2016)

RogerS":ye8gowkc said:


> Finial":ye8gowkc said:
> 
> 
> > .... We need proper cycle tracks.
> ...


Same way as all the other road developments we all take for granted. Many millions spent on motorways, bypasses, inner/outer ring-roads and sundry traffic schemes in every town in Britain, including demolition of acres of old town centres.
Luckily cycle provision is far less demanding and would be far cheaper and less destructive. Arguably the car has had it's day - we've reached "peak car" and driving is becoming yesterdays mode of transport.


----------



## Finial (1 Jun 2016)

RogerS":35jnsj79 said:


> Finial":35jnsj79 said:
> 
> 
> > .... We need proper cycle tracks.
> ...



No. As Jacob said, that has been done to accommodate motor vehicles, but bikes are far more efficient in terms of space needed. People assume it can't be done here, but it is done in other countries and will work here too.

Cycling first has to be recognised as a legitimate form of transport needing development, which is now beginning to happen. Then roads are categorised either as through routes or as residential streets. 

Residential streets can easily and cheaply be closed to through motor traffic, remaining open for access, so traffic levels are low. The streets become quiet cul-de-sacs with no rat runners, and suitable for cycling. Most residents are happy with that treatment for their own street at least. 

Traffic routes get separate bike tracks, designed for cycling on, which most aren't currently. It takes some width from pavements, motor traffic lanes, central reservations, parking, or all of those, but very many roads have room to spare. When roads don't have space for this treatment, priority is given to bikes and pedestrians instead of motors. For example, the road can be made one way for motors, freeing up a lane. Traffic still moves, though motor routes may be longer. The work can be done when a road or street is resurfaced.

All this is well-known and normal practice in less backward countries. Here, we don't even have a standard, and new roads are still being built the same old way. Parts of London and some other places are making progress, though still getting a lot wrong. The work is cheap compared to what is spent on motoring or the railways, and reckoned to pay for itself, but at present cycling gets only a tiny fraction of the transport budget even where much of the traffic is bikes. 

Most people have some degree of choice in the way they travel. Lots would like the option to cycle, but as cycling is difficult they drive or use public transport. Make it easier and many switch. With good facilities people feel safe and anyone who wants to can cycle, including children and old people. The school run becomes just a busy cycle track. Some of the squeezed motor traffic and congestion evaporates. Conversely, if driving is made easier or given more space, people switch to that and traffic increases.


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2016)

Finial":j9ek7gzs said:


> RogerS":j9ek7gzs said:
> 
> 
> > Finial":j9ek7gzs said:
> ...


Where? Evidence please. Are we comparing like with like? I doubt it.


Finial":j9ek7gzs said:


> Cycling first has to be recognised as a legitimate form of transport needing development, which is now beginning to happen. Then roads are categorised either as through routes or as residential streets.
> 
> Residential streets can easily and cheaply be closed to through motor traffic, remaining open for access, so traffic levels are low. The streets become quiet cul-de-sacs with no rat runners, and suitable for cycling. Most residents are happy with that treatment for their own street at least.


Residents are happy? Evidence please or are you making an assumption? Where do residents park their cars? There is not enough roadside parking in many cities now. Delivery vans? How are they going to deliver?


Finial":j9ek7gzs said:


> Traffic routes get separate bike tracks, designed for cycling on, which most aren't currently. It takes some width from pavements, motor traffic lanes, central reservations, parking, or all of those, but very many roads have room to spare.


Outside cities perhaps.


Finial":j9ek7gzs said:


> When roads don't have space for this treatment, priority is given to bikes and pedestrians instead of motors. For example, the road can be made one way for motors, freeing up a lane. Traffic still moves


I thought you said you lived in London? Removing a lane and making it one way? You're having a laugh! London would really grind to a halt.


Finial":j9ek7gzs said:


> All this is well-known and normal practice in less backward countries.


Where? What are the demographics compared to the UK?


Finial":j9ek7gzs said:


> Most people have some degree of choice in the way they travel.


Not outside the major cities, they don't.


Finial":j9ek7gzs said:


> Not Lots A FEW would like the option to cycle, but as cycling is difficult they drive or use public transport. Make it easier and many switch. With good facilities people feel safe and anyone who wants to can cycle, including children and old people. The school run becomes just a busy cycle track.


Reality check required. Again, OK for some pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Hopeless in the real world. Anyone want to sing Kumbaya ?


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2016)

RogerS":2jfkbpgc said:


> ........
> Residents are happy? Evidence please or are you making an assumption? Where do residents park their cars? There is not enough roadside parking in many cities now. .......


There never was enough room.
When I worra lad (50s) there were _no cars, nothing,_ parked on our wide post-war housing estate street. The only two car owners had their own drives and/or garages. This was normal throughout the country
The assumption that you have the right to park your car permanently on your street is very recent, came from nowhere, and perhaps was a fundamental mistake in early traffic policy. 
Before the explosion of car use _there was nothing at all _parked permanently on the streets and roads. They were empty except for moving traffic and traffic stopped for delivery/visitors etc. Not much of that either - we could play hopscotch in the middle of the road.
I think we are slowly having to return to that very civilised condition.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... in-britain

Arguably if you haven't got space to keep it the right to park a car could be seen in the same light as the right to park a skip - normally charged £50 to £100 per week


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2016)

Jacob":2wo3vco3 said:


> RogerS":2wo3vco3 said:
> 
> 
> > ........
> ...



Wide street? When I were a lad, we had nowt but shoe-box in t'field t'live in. We used t'Guardian to keep our feet warm. All that hot air in it kept ours toes real toastie-like


----------



## NazNomad (2 Jun 2016)

Finial":26nbq0vk said:


> 1. I wouldn't know it from your comments.
> 2. Correct me if I've got it wrong, but you've commented as if people who pay car tax have exclusive rights to the road.
> 3. You've endorsed foolish comments about the causes of accidents.
> 4. You've threatened assault, possibly against small children.
> ...



1. Correct, you wouldn't.
2. You're wrong.
3. Yes, because bike-lane threads on a woodworking forum are foolish.
4. DAFUQ? Seriously? Those sort of accusations will get straight to the top of my ''threatened assault against'' list.
5. It's not where I live, the nearest town is 15 miles away.
6. ... because there IS no reason why they should.
7. I wasn't advised by the Govt. (at least I'm almost sure I never received that letter, maybe it's in the post?).
8. I have? Where?
9. In the same way that poor apples are irrelevant to bananas.
10. They have? You presume a lot.
11. You said earlier that the Govt. were doing that. I'd rather not confuse them further by offering sensible solutions.



... and 12. Take a chill pill and lighten the Hell up, it's all a laugh, innit.


----------



## stuartpaul (2 Jun 2016)

Well I don't care what any of you think or say, - I use a jig for sharpening and will continue to do so!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jun 2016)

I don't care what anyone else does or doesn't do.


----------



## andys wood shed (2 Jun 2016)

NazNomad":17itbd6y said:


> ... it's all a laugh, innit.



What a mindless, irresponsible and stupid comment to post and you received thanks for it :roll:


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2016)

andys wood shed":246s1903 said:


> NazNomad":246s1903 said:
> 
> 
> > ... it's all a laugh, innit.
> ...



Assumption, again. I suspect that the 'thanks' were for the other 11 points.


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2016)

RogerS":17onfika said:


> Finial":17onfika said:
> 
> 
> > .... We need proper cycle tracks.
> ...



[/quote]

Roger, you fell at the first hurdle. If you only look for objections and not solutions the change will appear impossible to you. Or perhaps you prefer the status quo. Clearly the change will be easier in some places than others and it needs traffic engineers to sort it out properly. But the principles I outlined do work, and are being implemented in London and Leicester for example. The motoring world hasn't come to an end there.

As for closing residential streets, if you think people like having you roaring down their street rat running to somewhere else you are kidding yourself. Where are house prices likely to be higher, in a quiet cul-de-sac or on a busy rat run? 

There are plenty of one way roads in London and plenty of very wide ones too.


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2016)

NazNomad":3nw2zpqr said:


> Finial":3nw2zpqr said:
> 
> 
> > 1. I wouldn't know it from your comments.
> ...



It's not all a laugh to me, having been run into three times by incompetent drivers, while cycling legally and fully in accordance with the highway code, then being told here it was my own fault.

And if you wanted to convince me that you do understand the issues, you've failed. Your comments show that you don't have a clue. Why don't you try cycling in traffic for a bit then come back and tell us about it?


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2016)

Finial":19y7ok8n said:


> RogerS":19y7ok8n said:
> 
> 
> > Finial":19y7ok8n said:
> ...



Roger, you fell at the first hurdle. [/quote]
Not at all, you're making assumptions again.


Finial":19y7ok8n said:


> If you only look for objections and not solutions the change will appear impossible to you. Or perhaps you prefer the status quo.


No, I'm a pragmatist and a realist. I don't believe in rose-tinted spectacles.


Finial":19y7ok8n said:


> Clearly the change will be easier in some places than others and it needs traffic engineers to sort it out properly.


It can't work and won't work in far too many areas. 


Finial":19y7ok8n said:


> But the principles I outlined do work, and are being implemented in London and Leicester for example. The motoring world hasn't come to an end there.


Anywhere in London you have in mind specifically? I remember seeing a kerbed off cycle lane near Tottenham Court Road where I used to walk at different times of the day, different days of the week. Statistically over a year, you'd expect me to see at least one cyclist. But I saw none. Zip. Nada. I saw gridlocked traffic though as a result of this.


Finial":19y7ok8n said:


> As for closing residential streets, if you think people like having you roaring down their street rat running to somewhere else you are kidding yourself. Where are house prices likely to be higher, in a quiet cul-de-sac or on a busy rat run?


Have you read what you've written? A cul-de-sac won't have any through traffic. Cycles, horses or landaus. And you still have not answered my question. Where will residents park their cars? How do they get the groceries home? How do they get van deliveries ? 


Finial":19y7ok8n said:


> There are plenty of one way roads in London and plenty of very wide ones too.


Rose-tinted spectacles again. You will find that in many cases the one way roads complement each other. Adjacent roads flow in opposite directions. Your idea is totally impractical for most of London.


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2016)

Jacob":3ta6c0kx said:


> The assumption that you have the right to park your car permanently on your street is very recent, came from nowhere, and perhaps was a fundamental mistake in early traffic policy.



You can see what streets used to be like in old photos. They were almost empty where I lived too. Now many of those streets have a line of parked cars on each side and the remaining two-way single lane has a line of barely-moving vehicles. Many drivers park on the pavement now, either to let motor traffic move or to avoid damage to their cars, and often the council encourages it. So the pavement gets blocked by vehicles (and dustbins) and pedestrians end up walking in the road. But people still say bike riders cause congestion.


----------



## andys wood shed (2 Jun 2016)

Finial":p1zu55nm said:


> It's not all a laugh to me, having been run into three times by incompetent drivers, while cycling legally and fully in accordance with the Highway Code



Was the drivers names RogerS, Wuffles and NazNomad by any chance


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2016)

andys wood shed":20q6ekw8 said:


> Finial":20q6ekw8 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not all a laugh to me, having been run into three times by incompetent drivers, while cycling legally and fully in accordance with the Highway Code
> ...



You do like making assumptions, don't you ?

And unnecessarily churlish.


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2016)

RogerS":i45xhans said:


> Your idea is totally impractical for most of London.



Are we at cross purposes here? People can drive and park on no through roads as much as they like, but they don't unless for access. And yes, one way roads can complement each other. That's the job of the traffic engineer, to work out solutions that are suitable for cycling_ as well as _driving.

If you agree it's practicable for parts of London, start there.

I don't how long ago you saw that cycle track. They are getting busy now. TfL predicts that in some areas cycle traffic will soon outnumber cars. I said before that most bike infrastructure is very poorly designed. Look again at that example Jacob started with. Picture the street in the rush hour, and ask yourself how many people would cycle there. Without a good, linked-up network of good quality tracks you are only going to see the people who are prepared to ride in traffic and who don't want to slow their journey. How many drivers would use a motorway if there were only five yards of it, it didn't go anywhere, and they had to cross a swamp full of alligators to get to it?


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2016)

Finial":2corop5y said:


> RogerS":2corop5y said:
> 
> 
> > Your idea is totally impractical for most of London.
> ...



Totally agree with you.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2016)

Finial":21nyn5kx said:


> ....How many drivers would use a motorway if there were only five yards of it, it didn't go anywhere, and they had to cross a swamp full of alligators to get to it?


 :lol: 
I was surprised at how much cycle traffic there was on busy central London streets (visited last week). Very evident and very confident looking on the whole. More the better; "critical mass" etc.


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2016)

RogerS":38t3qkzj said:


> Totally agree with you.



Now I feel uneasy...


----------



## NazNomad (2 Jun 2016)

andys wood shed":u71ip7wu said:


> NazNomad":u71ip7wu said:
> 
> 
> > ... it's all a laugh, innit.
> ...




Was it as mindless, irresponsible and stupid as the ''cycle lane'' that spawned this thread?

I hope it was more so, I never win anything. :roll:


----------



## NazNomad (2 Jun 2016)

Finial":2cdsu1y7 said:


> How many drivers would use a motorway if there were only five yards of it, it didn't go anywhere, and they had to cross a swamp full of alligators to get to it?



If the alligators were 4 abreast, you could just drive across them ... same as you can with cyclists. :wink:


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2016)

NazNomad":223e68wt said:


> Finial":223e68wt said:
> 
> 
> > How many drivers would use a motorway if there were only five yards of it, it didn't go anywhere, and they had to cross a swamp full of alligators to get to it?
> ...




Like some people actually do.

What this country needs is more properly designed alligator lanes, suitable for all reptiles, but well away from the cycle tracks. Though I doubt if Roger S would agree they are practicable.


----------



## NazNomad (2 Jun 2016)

I would hazard a guess that the more alligators we can introduce into traffic, the less problem we'd have with errant cyclists.



Apparently, cyclists taste like chicken (an alligator told me that)


----------



## RogerS (2 Jun 2016)

Finial":iqzyqfar said:


> NazNomad":iqzyqfar said:
> 
> 
> > Finial":iqzyqfar said:
> ...



Totally practicable - if you put them in the cycle lanes....make 'em pedal a bit faster


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2016)

This photo always makes me laugh. I imagine poor old Clarko stuck behind two cyclists two abreast and chatting away without a care in the world, whilst he's having nasty attacks of dyspepsia, farting and burping, between fits of road rage!

(


----------



## Wuffles (2 Jun 2016)

andys wood shed":iox7t0ig said:


> Finial":iox7t0ig said:
> 
> 
> > It's not all a laugh to me, having been run into three times by incompetent drivers, while cycling legally and fully in accordance with the Highway Code
> ...



Nice one, very adult. 

Loser.


----------



## Finial (2 Jun 2016)

RogerS":2edp61e9 said:


> Totally practicable - if you put them in the cycle lanes....make 'em pedal a bit faster



I'd take the alligators before the drivers. I might be able to reason with them!


----------



## NazNomad (3 Jun 2016)

Finial":7oa7gyus said:


> And if you wanted to convince me that you do understand the issues, you've failed. Your comments show that you don't have a clue. Why don't you try cycling in traffic for a bit then come back and tell us about it?




I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, I honestly couldn't care less if you can't take a joke.

I've cycled in traffic, so what? It's hardly rocket science, is it?


----------



## Lons (3 Jun 2016)

At least your existing cycle tracks are better than this one. :wink: :lol: Although some of the potholes on athe roads around us are nearly as bad. :shock:


----------



## RogerS (3 Jun 2016)

Here's an interesting bit of dashcam footage. At first sight, it seems obvious who is to blame. But then rewind and look again.

http://www.idiotukdriversexposed.com/cy ... on-street/


----------



## Jacob (3 Jun 2016)

Pedestrian was a cause though you can't blame him - the cyclist was probably distracted by him and was pinched in. 
I doubt the taxi would have seen the cyclist until the last second. 
Cyclist was to blame not wearing bright yellow - and going too fast - you have to assume you are invisible and be able to stop in time if the vehicle in front stops suddenly, as this one did. Which is also how most car to car shunts happen. Not particularly a cyclist thing only but cyclists call it a SMIDSY which stands for "sorry mate I didn't see you" which is probably what the taxi driver was saying at the end.


----------



## Bm101 (3 Jun 2016)

Much as I've been ignoring this thread... to me there is no one to 'blame' here. If you drive/cycle/walk in London everyday you should already know cabbies are a law to themselves. They make manouvres that no else is allowed to do, it's part of their job. They can drive in bus lanes but want to cut out as soon as the bus in front stops. Some will stop wherever they want. Yellow boxes, traffic light filter lanes. Wherever they see fit tbh. The pedestrian is not to blame. Far as I know, the pedestrian always has priority. The fella on the bike is powering down that road. Even now there's arguments regarding the bike super highways where 'normal' cyclist are being intimidated by 'lycra louts'. I'm not anti bike, far from it. But that fella clearly fails in my humble, to appreciate the fact, a, there's a taxi (the most unpredictable of all modes of london transport other than tourists on Borris bikes) with his indicators on in front of him. There's a fella crossing the road. Mental. If there's anyone I trust less than than taxi drivers, scooter delivery drivers or night bus drivers its pedestrians. If there has to be a case of blame here apportioned here. It's the cyclist. Yet he's the one in bits on the road. I said before in this thread. Driving, riding walking anywhere is a game of anticipation. If you want to do it in a city centre you better be perceptive and alert. The level of mental idiocy is the same across all modes of transport. Fact is if some silly person dings my van it's insurance. If some silly person who happens to be on a bike goes under my tyres through no fault of mine and gross carelessness on their part chances are I'm treated as guilty by the police. He's dead or severely injured. I've spilt my coffee in my van. But maybe I'm on death by careless even though I spend 99 % of my time scanning. Prison sentence?
People need to wake up. This is not a battle of motorist against rider.. It's a battle against concentration. Be aware ffs. And stop raging cos you're 3 seconds later than you might have been. Or one night don't go home one night to see your kids cos you're locked up or dead.
And while I'm at it stop trolling threads and being an a*se because you have a bee in your bonnet. You know who you are. Its the exact same thing as described above and the reason this thread will rightly get locked soon the same as the last one.

Signed
Tufty The Road Sensible Squirrel


----------



## NazNomad (3 Jun 2016)

:-D I've still got my Tufty badge.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jun 2016)

I am Tufty The Road Sensible Squirrel


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2016)

Bm101":1j5ben99 said:


> This is not a battle of motorist against rider.. It's a battle against concentration.



Quite right, and that's the point I've been trying to make. If you mix motor traffic with bikes, this is what happens. I don't blame the bike rider. He was going at about the same speed as the rest of the traffic. The taxi driver didn't check carefully enough and indicated and turned when the bike was too close to stop. Maybe without the pedestrian one of them would have spotted the danger earlier. I don't think anyone could say that was good driving. But everyone makes mistakes. The driver wouldn't have turned if he knew the bike was there. 

This sort of thing is inevitable and happens all the time, and as usual the bike rider came off worst. That road doesn't allow for human error.


----------



## Bm101 (3 Jun 2016)

Jacob":1adenwqs said:


> I am Tufty The Road Sensible Squirrel



Can you hear goats trip trapping over your bridge Jacob? If you can it's not me. You'll have to do better than that old son.


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2016)

Jacob":1r3i926e said:


> you have to assume you are invisible and be able to stop in time if the vehicle in front stops suddenly, as this one did.



But the taxi didn't stop, it turned into the rider's path. If the taxi had only pulled in the bike would have passed safely. It's not good practice to make a U turn without stopping first and making sure nothing is coming up behind. If someone runs into the back of you it can be assumed to be their fault, but not when they hit the side of your vehicle.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2016)

Where I live it's normal practice not to overtake people signalling right (or undertake people turning left, come to that). The lycra'd king of the road was going to fast and not paying anyone else any attention. If it was a motorbike as opposed to a pushbike, you'd be the first to criticise.


----------



## RogerS (3 Jun 2016)

Finial":2h1a6k72 said:


> Bm101":2h1a6k72 said:
> 
> 
> > ..... The taxi driver didn't check carefully enough and indicated and turned when the bike was too close to stop. .....



There I have to disagree. All vehicles, cars, bikes etc should be driven in such a way that they can stop or react safely. The cyclist was going too fast and did not take into account any concept of adequate stopping distance. My initial thought on watching the video was that it was the taxi driver's fault but on watching it again, there was adequate use of his indicator. 

Looking at it another way, say a child ran out into the road in front of the taxi who braked hard. That cyclist would have been up the back of the taxi.


----------



## andys wood shed (3 Jun 2016)

RogerS":3u579dua said:


> My initial thought on watching the video was that it was the taxi driver's fault but on watching it again, there was adequate use of his indicator.



Unfortunately not 
The taxi performed the manoeuvre after 2 indications only
The minimum recommendation is three
Clearly a case of manoeuvre signal mirror


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2016)

phil.p":2uacggk6 said:


> Where I live it's normal practice not to overtake people signalling right (or undertake people turning left, come to that). The lycra'd king of the road was going to fast and not paying anyone else any attention. If it was a motorbike as opposed to a pushbike, you'd be the first to criticise.



That's true about the overtakes, and I hate it when drivers do it to me. But he wouldn't have started to overtake if the taxi hadn't slowed. He wasn't going any faster than the taxi until then. There was nothing wrong with the taxi driver slowing down. If the bike rider was too fast or too close to react to that he would have been at fault. But he was far enough out in the lane to pass, not directly behind. You could say the pass would have been too close because a driver or passenger might have opened a door in front of him (very common, though against the Highway Code). It's hard to see if he braked before the indicator came on - if not, maybe he was watching the pedestrian, or maybe he planned to pass. If the taxi hadn't turned into his path there would have been no problem. Two questions - did the taxi driver look carefully enough to see what was behind him before turning, and if not, do you think that turn would have got him through the driving test?


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2016)

RogerS":3lclc1ax said:


> Looking at it another way, say a child ran out into the road in front of the taxi who braked hard. That cyclist would have been up the back of the taxi.



Or looking at it this way, say a taxi driver started a U turn without checking following traffic.


----------



## iNewbie (3 Jun 2016)

I think you should take another look at that video. You'll find its cyclist error. Muppet didn't have his hands on the handlebars until it was too late...


----------



## Bm101 (3 Jun 2016)

“When the world is made to be silly person-proof, the world will become overpopulated with idiots.”
- Mark Twain


----------



## Bm101 (3 Jun 2016)

RogerS":2on4guj4 said:


> Finial":2on4guj4 said:
> 
> 
> > Bm101":2on4guj4 said:
> ...


I didn't write that Roger.  Finial wrote that. Beware the internet lol. I'm departing from this thread never to return. Life's too short.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2016)

It's a reasonable assumption in city traffic that unforeseen things happen. That is why, if we wish to stay alive to have another stupid discussion we have to forsee unforseen things happening. If that was a car, a motorcycle, a truck or even a horse overtaking, they would be deemed at fault ... so why not the cyclist?
The cyclist was probably sitting in the driver's blind spot - and riding like a hoon - which might be fine for something with an engine - they've got a hope of acceleration getting them out of trouble (and brakes enough to give them a chance of stopping) but unwise for a cycle.


----------



## iNewbie (3 Jun 2016)

Phil, watch the video again. The cyclist didn't have his hands on the handlebars until the last few seconds - its the equivalent of jay-walking...


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2016)

iNewbie":2h7jmjrb said:


> I think you should take another look at that video. You'll find its cyclist error. Muppet didn't have his hands on the handlebars until it was too late...



I wondered that as well. It did look a bit odd but I decided it wasn't the case. If he was riding hands off I wouldn't defend it. But in any case it was not the primary cause of the crash. It was still a careless turn.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2016)

I didn't write that Roger.  Finial wrote that. Beware the internet lol. I'm departing from this thread never to return. Life's too short.[/quote]
It only grinds you down if you let it.


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2016)

Bm101":n7qskcq6 said:


> “When the world is made to be silly person-proof, the world will become overpopulated with idiots.”
> - Mark Twain



What's your view of motorway crash barriers?


----------



## Bm101 (3 Jun 2016)

Don't start on Nil Carborundum ffs Phil. It'll turn into a sharpening thread. :|


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2016)

phil.p":23si72b1 said:


> It's a reasonable assumption in city traffic that unforeseen things happen. That is why, if we wish to stay alive to have another stupid discussion we have to forsee unforseen things happening. If that was a car, a motorcycle, a truck or even a horse overtaking, they would be deemed at fault ... so why not the cyclist?
> The cyclist was probably sitting in the driver's blind spot - and riding like a hoon - which might be fine for something with an engine - they've got a hope of acceleration getting them out of trouble (and brakes enough to give them a chance of stopping) but unwise for a cycle.



Yes. I suspect he was in a blind spot. Very foreseeable that the driver would miss him, though he didn't try very hard. It's also a reasonable assumption that there might be a bike behind. It had been behind the taxi for some distance and must have been visible earlier. It didn't 'come out of nowhere'.

Again, this is why we need roads that allow for mistakes. It doesn't serve any useful purpose to argue about blame. Anyone on the road can make a mistake or cycle or drive badly.


----------



## iNewbie (3 Jun 2016)

Finial":3vau8nyb said:


> iNewbie":3vau8nyb said:
> 
> 
> > I think you should take another look at that video. You'll find its cyclist error. Muppet didn't have his hands on the handlebars until it was too late...
> ...



Its not a case of _if _he was. He_ was_. Watch the slow motion part -later in the video. He was away with the fairies. I'd call that driving without undue care and attention... 

http://www.idiotukdriversexposed.com/cy ... on-street/


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2016)

I think you've a better screen than me.


----------



## Finial (3 Jun 2016)

iNewbie":yqdhsct6 said:


> Its not a case of _if _he was. He_ was_. Watch the slow motion part -later in the video. He was away with the fairies. I'd call that driving without undue care and attention...
> 
> http://www.idiotukdriversexposed.com/cy ... on-street/



I looked again and you may be right. His position looks different before and after he passes the pedestrian. But I'm not sure. Bear in mind that if he was braking hard it would have thrown him forward. And if he was riding hands-off earlier he would almost certainly have seen the pedestrian and got ready to brake or swerve. Not many people cycle at speed with no hands and not looking either. I doubt if anyone here would.

It was still a bad turn.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2016)

I was on a bike (not a pushbike - an R100RT  ) years ago coming home from work in a hurry and came round a blind bend quickly enough, but I knew the road wasn't 100% and was going into a 30mph limit. No one ever stopped near the bend as it was potentially lethal - but this night ahead of me there was a bus stopped at a bus stop with about 8 cars behind it. Shhit .. I thought as I anchored, I thought someone may well come around behind me. It was unsafe to go up the outside (narrow road) and there was a stack of room on the inside, so I went up on the inside of the last car. No sooner had I stopped than a car came flying round the corner and stopped about three feet from the back of the car I was sitting inside. I wish I had a camera - the guy's face was a picture.
It has always been presumed that if you hit someone from behind you are at fault, but a few years ago there was a letter in The Times from a solicitor who had taken and won five cases in nine months from people who had run up someone's arrse.
Just to change tack a little.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jun 2016)

Come on Fin - play the white man - just admit there is one - that's all we ask for, just one ... silly person on a cycle (see - I've even not called them pushbikes  )


----------



## clk230 (3 Jun 2016)

yeap he's riding no hands !!, he then switches to the bars approx where the 'paper?' is on the road . I think the accident is a little of both to blame as they should both be aware of what is going on around them .


----------



## NazNomad (4 Jun 2016)

phil.p":3hg62tv0 said:


> (see - I've even not called them pushbikes  )



Damn youngsters, I think he means velocipede.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jun 2016)

Ever go to La Belle France and venture out on a Velo Solex?  'king nightmares.


----------



## Lons (4 Jun 2016)

Irrespective of whether or not it contributed to the accident, riding his cycle with his hands off the handlebars is irresponsible and can be construed as an offence as he wasn't in proper control of his machine. he should be prosecuted using the video evidence.



> Dangerous cycling
> An offence committed by any person who rides a bicycle in a manner that would be considered dangerous by a competent and careful cyclist; danger of injury to any person, or of damage to property. The punishment for dangerous cycling is a fine, subject to the court’s discretion, of up to £1,000.
> 
> Careless cycling
> ...


----------



## RogerS (4 Jun 2016)

andys wood shed":14fbzu5k said:


> RogerS":14fbzu5k said:
> 
> 
> > My initial thought on watching the video was that it was the taxi driver's fault but on watching it again, there was adequate use of his indicator.
> ...



Splitting hairs and a predictable response.


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Jun 2016)

Finial.

I have dealt with more than one pedestrian fatality, due to cyclists using the pavement, when they should be on the road. Still the last one was 30 years ago, so maybe they don't count?


----------



## iNewbie (4 Jun 2016)

Finial":30o7s249 said:


> iNewbie":30o7s249 said:
> 
> 
> > Its not a case of _if _he was. He_ was_. Watch the slow motion part -later in the video. He was away with the fairies. I'd call that driving without undue care and attention...
> ...



Fin, he could see the Pedestrian ahead; unless he was not concentrating and his mind was elsewhere - likely... 

The only thing we don't know is whether the taxi drivers brake lights & rear indicator were faulty. Other than that he should have been braking earlier than when he was in the back of the cab, because the cab was slowing down, _he_, wasn't. He couldn't go left of the cab because a car was parked there. 

Maybe seeing a Taxi driver use his indicator had him flummoxed - joke!


----------



## Finial (4 Jun 2016)

phil.p":275cciig said:


> Come on Fin - play the white man - just admit there is one - that's all we ask for, just one ... silly person on a cycle (see - I've even not called them pushbikes  )



An odd way to put it, but yes of course. Maybe this person was one, maybe not. If not there must be others. There are plenty of witnesses to that. I've seen video of a bike ridden straight into the back of a stationary car, posted as if no driver would do such a thing.

Now how about people admit that bike riders aren't always to blame for accidents?

I can tell you that in all my life, in town and country, I don't remember ever seeing a bike ridden dangerously, except once, very many years ago, when a group of kids came towards me with the ones in front looking over their shoulders. That was back in the days when kids were allowed to ride their bikes on the road. I've never hit a bike, been hit by one or been held up by one for more than a minute. They don't seem to be any problem when I'm driving in town. This doesn't surprise me, because bike riders are very well aware that it hurts when you hit the ground.

I've often seen people driving dangerously, and felt it too. I've said before that I've been hit by a car three times and had many near misses. I see dented cars and broken bollards all over the place. Almost every time I go out I see drivers breaking the law or the highway code. That doesn't surprise me, because drivers feel safe. 

I often see bike riders breaking the law and highway code too, though not as many as drivers. It's not necessarily dangerous. 

I know that when I'm cycling in traffic I'm more alert than when driving, and constantly expecting some driver to make a mistake. That it's rare to see a bike on an A road, or the North Circular in London. Also that vehicle emissions kill thousands in London and they don't come from bikes.


----------



## Lons (4 Jun 2016)

Finial":2xxfxb4q said:


> emissions kill thousands in London and they don't come from bikes.



Don't know about that. My brother in law is a keen cyclist and his farts are disgusting. :wink: :lol:


----------



## Finial (4 Jun 2016)

deema":2950oano said:


> Being rather contravertial, if only cyclist actually obeyed the rules of the road, cycle lane's would not be necessary. Absolute menace, I wounder how many anti cyclists would support a campaign to ban cyclists off the road and whether it would achieve the 100K to get debated in parliament. I know I'm totally biased!



Every time someone riding a bike is killed by a lorry in London, there are people like you who blame the victims. They say that if people didn't ride down the inside of the lorry there would be no problem. Here is a comment I've copied from elsewhere. I don't know if what is said is true, but I have no reason to disbelieve it and it wasn't challenged.

_The lorry driver who killed cyclist Alan Neve was uninsured, had toilet rolls stacked against his windscreen, had no licence and had jumped a red light.

The lorry driver who killed Catrona Patel was drunk and fiddling with a mobile phone. He had been banned from driving 20 (twenty) times.

The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.)

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned._


----------



## Finial (4 Jun 2016)

Lons":1k277mnw said:


> Irrespective of whether or not it contributed to the accident, riding his cycle with his hands off the handlebars is irresponsible and can be construed as an offence as he wasn't in proper control of his machine. he should be prosecuted using the video evidence.



You seem very keen to deal with the bike rider, but do you think the evidence is strong enough? What should be done about the taxi driver? Or do you think that turn was acceptable?


----------



## clk230 (4 Jun 2016)

Finial":3ng4x7sx said:


> Lons":3ng4x7sx said:
> 
> 
> > Irrespective of whether or not it contributed to the accident, riding his cycle with his hands off the handlebars is irresponsible and can be construed as an offence as he wasn't in proper control of his machine. he should be prosecuted using the video evidence.
> ...



Generally speaking the person colliding into the other vehicle is at fault due to either driving/riding to quick , leaving to short a stopping distance or not be aware enough.


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Jun 2016)

Finial":23qxa4gp said:


> phil.p":23qxa4gp said:
> 
> 
> > Come on Fin - play the white man - just admit there is one - that's all we ask for, just one ... silly person on a cycle (see - I've even not called them pushbikes  )
> ...



That could be because there are so many more cars on the road at any one time than push-bikes. And it IS necessarily dangerous, because it is often unexpected. 

Some of the things cyclists think they can get away with, boggle the mind. It's as well for them I am retired! Always looked good on the monthly work return.; drunken cycling, furious and careless cycling; running red lights, cycling on the pavements, cycling across pedestrian crossings and so on ad nauseum.


Incidentally few were more enthusiastic cyclists, than me, until I grew my metal knees.

Lons is on safe ground. Generally speaking, for every motoring offence there is a similar cycling offence. Cycling without using your hands is not having proper control of your machine. Just like driving a car with your feet on the steering wheel would be etc. There might now even be an offence of using a mobile phone whilst cycling; but I am unsure about that!


----------



## Finial (4 Jun 2016)

Benchwayze":2t407jtv said:


> That could be because there are so many more cars on the road at any one time than push-bikes. And it IS necessarily dangerous, because it is often unexpected.
> 
> Some of the things cyclists think they can get away with, boggle the mind. It's as well for them I am retired! Always looked good on the monthly work return.; drunken cycling, furious and careless cycling; running red lights, cycling on the pavements, cycling across pedestrian crossings and so on ad nauseum.



Certainly numbers are part of the reason. There are lots of drivers, often in a stationary queue, but just about all exceeding the speed limit at some point in their journeys, very many jumping the lights, driving and parking on the pavements, many texting or phoning, many parking illegally, driving without a licence and insurance, few giving way to pedestrians at junctions (though round here most are good at zebra crossings). All, in the main, for convenience and with impunity.

The two main things that lots of bike riders do illegally is jumping the lights and cycling on the pavement. Both can be dangerous, but don't have to be.

Red light jumping is a factor in only a small proportion of bike accidents. There are some accidents, so clearly they don't always take enough care. Some people probably do it for convenience, others to be safer ahead of the traffic when the lights change. Often they pass the light but don't enter the junction until the lights change. The equivalent of bikes turning left at a red light is allowed in some countries and has been found to improve safety. It seem unlikely to me that many would just go through without checking for opposing traffic, they are like pedestrians in that respect. Would you do it? The primary purpose of traffic lights is to control fast motor traffic, both for safety and for traffic flow reasons. They are much less relevant to pedestrian and bike traffic in most cases. Think of two similar junctions, one with lights and one without. People can turn or cross safely with or without lights provided they wait for gaps in the traffic and don't cut it too fine. In both cases, the need for care is increased when there is a minor and a major road and the traffic on the major road expects to take priority. It's only foot traffic that has to give way at every minor side road.

People normally cycle on the pavement for two reasons. Some at the beginning or end of their journey for convenient access, or to bypass lights, which may be for convenience or for safety. Some do it because they believe the roads are too unsafe. In my experience they do it safely and considerately, and the government advice is that this does not warrant police action. Each one is a person who is not in a car or taking up space on public transport. And pavement cycling is legal on shared paths that may be identical to pedestrian-only ones. Some ride too fast or carelessly on the pavement and a small number of pedestrians are injured and very occasionally killed. Neither the pedestrians nor the bike riders like pavement cycling. 

They are also often accused of cycling through zebras or pedestrian lights. I don't often see that, but don't doubt it happens. There is no justification for it. Drivers do it too of course and are rather more dangerous.

I'm not aware of a no-mobiles law for bikes, though it is under consideration in Holland. There is a law against it for drivers, but it's not often enforced.

I would have no objection to police action against lawless bike riders, provided they deal with the more dangerous lawless driving first. But somehow some people see the bikes as more of a problem.


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Jun 2016)

You won't get argument from me on the necessity or otherwise of laws. However, laws are there for a reason. If you choose not to obey them, you are the person who has to live with the possible consequences. With disregard for the law you get confusion at best and anarchy at worst. If you don't like motorists who break the law, then you can do something about it. A motorists finds it difficult to chase up a miscreant cyclist. Either way you can't choose the laws you want to live by. In other words, for a 'jobsworth' Police Officer there ain't no middle ground. It isn't for Joe Soap to decide when and where he wishes to conform. It's there for everyone's safety. 
I can't really add any more. 
Cheers Fin. 

John 8)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jun 2016)

"There are lots of drivers, often in a stationary queue, but just about all exceeding the speed limit at some point in their journeys, very many jumping the lights, driving and parking on the pavements, many texting or phoning, many parking illegally, driving without a licence and insurance, few giving way to pedestrians at junctions (though round here most are good at zebra crossings)."
I don't know where you live, but I'm surprised there's anyone left alive there.


----------



## Lons (4 Jun 2016)

Finial":b81hdpq6 said:


> Lons":b81hdpq6 said:
> 
> 
> > Irrespective of whether or not it contributed to the accident, riding his cycle with his hands off the handlebars is irresponsible and can be construed as an offence as he wasn't in proper control of his machine. he should be prosecuted using the video evidence.
> ...


Yep I do think the evidence is strong enough. Riding with no hands is not acceptable, riding so quickly was a bit stupid to say the least especially if he was concerned for his own safety, that of the pedestrian and other road users. Not saying the taxi driver wasn't completely blameless but all he has are mirrors while the cyclist has unobstructed vision and the driver definitely slowed and signalled..the cyclist had no chance of stopping in time and had he not crashed into the taxi might well have taken out some innocent on the opposite side of the road Bottom line is that the cyclist was an silly person.

Just one incident which you will find hard to justify no matter how much you try, that doesn't say the majority are like that and statistics are statistics which can be cherry picked as desired.

From my experience that many cyclists seem to have a chip on their shoulder and assume they are above the law which unfortunately for drivers and pedestrians is largely true as the chance of them 'being prosecuted is very slim. Until there are regulations introduced which enforces training, registration and insurance for all adult cyclists that isn't going to change and clearly they give responsible cyclists like you a bad name as well.

Anyway it's a pointless debate which is getting nowhere anytime soon, you stick to your bike and I'll enjoy driving my motor which I try to do respectfully and if you find yourself on a bike ride in Northumberland I promise not to run you over, after all I'd hate to have to wash blood off my shiny paintwork. :wink:


----------



## Lons (4 Jun 2016)

Finial":2ansn2p3 said:


> 1. The two main things that lots of bike riders do illegally is jumping the lights and cycling on the pavement. Both can be dangerous, but don't have to be.
> 
> 2. Red light jumping is a factor in only a small proportion of bike accidents.
> 
> ...


1. Point is that both actions are illegal, the fact you think it isn't dangerous is academic. There is near me on th A1, a temporary 40 mph limit on a long length of dual carriageway where in roadworks the traffic is separated by the central reservation and workforce nowhere near and the road which even with a lane closed each way.is wider than normal two way A roads . Stupid, not dangerous but if I exceeded the limits I would most likely get a ticket. As should cyclists if they break the law.

2. Who says? Statistics can be made to do anything.

3. Your point is? Cycles are NOT ALLOWED to cross a red light.

4. Whatever their reasons, they are breaking the law. Police don't enforce because they don't have the resources and the costs don't warrant the punishment if it went to court. Start issuing £50 fixed penalties and it would shoot up as then self financing.

5. It currently is legal for a cyclist to use a mobile phone. Time that was changed without question.


----------



## RogerS (4 Jun 2016)

Finial's Laws

1) Cyclists are never wrong
2) There is no Rule 2


----------



## Finial (4 Jun 2016)

phil.p":ehwh8m81 said:


> "There are lots of drivers, often in a stationary queue, but just about all exceeding the speed limit at some point in their journeys, very many jumping the lights, driving and parking on the pavements, many texting or phoning, many parking illegally, driving without a licence and insurance, few giving way to pedestrians at junctions (though round here most are good at zebra crossings)."
> I don't know where you live, but I'm surprised there's anyone left alive there.



One day they will all do it simultaneously and then there may not be! But the main death toll in cities comes from air pollution.


----------



## Finial (4 Jun 2016)

Lons":162xymmn said:


> Finial":162xymmn said:
> 
> 
> > Lons":162xymmn said:
> ...




I asked if you thought the evidence that he was riding no-hands was sufficient because the video isn't very clear to me. I agree that doing so in traffic is not acceptable. I don't agree the speed was excessive, though he may have been too close for that speed. But it's clear to me that the driver was primarily to blame. If he'd looked carefully, he would have seen the bike and wouldn't have turned. This is not a case of someone running into the back of a vehicle, the taxi suddenly turned into his path. Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't, they have to wait if necessary until the way is clear and not make a manoeuvre that endangers other traffic.

I agree this is a pointless debate because what is needed here is not blaming one group or the other, nor registration etc, but changing the road.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jun 2016)

"Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't ..."
What exactly was the driver to do if he wished to turn right? Sit in the middle of the road stationary without signalling until there was a gap?
" I don't agree the speed was excessive, though he may have been too close for that speed."
So the speed was OK, he just should have been doing it somewhere else?
Time to stop digging?


----------



## Lons (4 Jun 2016)

Finial":3fuzf0kg said:


> I asked if you thought the evidence that he was riding no-hands was sufficient because the video isn't very clear to me. I agree that doing so in traffic is not acceptable. I don't agree the speed was excessive, though he may have been too close for that speed. But it's clear to me that the driver was primarily to blame. If he'd looked carefully, he would have seen the bike and wouldn't have turned. This is not a case of someone running into the back of a vehicle, the taxi suddenly turned into his path. Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't, they have to wait if necessary until the way is clear and not make a manoeuvre that endangers other traffic.
> 
> I agree this is a pointless debate because what is needed here is not blaming one group or the other, nor registration etc, but changing the road.



The Taxi didn't stop and therefore didn't pull out from the kerb in front of the cyclist who was following the taxi and therefore responsible for an unsafe overtaking manouvre. If you're going to overtake you have to make damn sure it's safe to do so, he didn't! *Cut and dried to blame in my book all day long.*
Doesn't matter though does it as we're never going to agree and I'm not going to lose any sleep over that tbh. :wink: 

What I said about statistics stands as we can all find some to fit our argument if we can be bothered to look and carefully select. Hopefully they're looking at the problem from more than one direction, especially the movement of buses and HGVs and the use of technology but they need to stop cyclists squeezing up the insides, (and don't say they don't :roll: ). Driving a vehicle in heavy traffic in a busy city, possibly unfamiliar with the are means the driver needs eyes in the back of his head, you can look in the mirrors only every few seconds or you're not watching in front and my experience of cycles wizzing up the inside is that they appear very quickly.

Here's a report in the Times I came across a while ago with headlines suggesting police are cracking down on cyclists but like all stats and headlines it's misleading 'cos though the figure has doubled it's only gone from 52 to 125  

Nice legs in the pic though =P~ =P~

Now I just need to do some research on how to organize a petition - subject: *" Time to make registration and insurance compulsory for adult cyclists "*


----------



## iNewbie (5 Jun 2016)

Finial":2k10l023 said:


> *I asked if you thought the evidence that he was riding no-hands was sufficient because the video isn't very clear to me.* I agree that doing so in traffic is not acceptable. I don't agree the speed was excessive, though he may have been too close for that speed. But it's clear to me that the driver was primarily to blame. If he'd looked carefully, he would have seen the bike and wouldn't have turned. This is not a case of someone running into the back of a vehicle, the taxi suddenly turned into his path. Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't, they have to wait if necessary until the way is clear and not make a manoeuvre that endangers other traffic.
> 
> I agree this is a pointless debate because what is needed here is not blaming one group or the other, nor registration etc, but changing the road.



Will Stills' help, Fin. The third pic shows him finally getting into a freehand 30 degree sharpening position. That jig needs to go, mind...


----------



## Finial (5 Jun 2016)

phil.p":1tizdpbr said:


> "Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't ..."
> What exactly was the driver to do if he wished to turn right? Sit in the middle of the road stationary without signalling until there was a gap?




How about:
Mirror
stop
mirror
signal
look
wait, there's a bike behind
all clear both ways
turn, but keep looking.

I can't believe people here think that turn was OK! Though on second thoughts...

Highway Code:

161.Mirrors. All mirrors should be used effectively throughout your journey. You should
 use your mirrors frequently so that you always know what is behind and to each
side of you
 use them in good time before you signal or change direction or speed
 be aware that mirrors do not cover all areas and there will be blind spots.
You will need to look round and check.
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre

167.DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For
example
.
..
when a road user is indicating right, ...(_which the rider did, he had little choice at that point_)
 stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction,
and you intend to turn left (_not relevant here but which drivers often fail to do_!)



168.Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who 
wish to pass.
...

Turning right
179.Well before you turn right you should
 use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic
behind you
 give a right-turn signal
...
180..... Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn.
.
.
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre


----------



## Finial (5 Jun 2016)

iNewbie":2rnvkzjd said:


> Will Stills' help, Fin. The third pic shows him finally getting into a freehand 30 degree sharpening position. That jig needs to go, mind...



Thanks. I reckon he has very long upper arms and had his hands on the top of the bars...

It does look as if his hands were at his sides. Why someone would do that at any speed or in traffic is beyond me. He lacked control. But the accident wouldn't have happened if the driver had looked more carefully. Or if there were a cycle track.


----------



## beech1948 (5 Jun 2016)

You can go on discussing till the cows come home. Human Nature will ensure there are as many bad motorists as bad cyclists as bad lorry drivers. The law can not be expected to cull them all as the task is onerous.

A better solution would be to push a pin into a map of every city at whatever is regarded as the center and measure out 3 miles. I can walk 3 miles in 35 minutes ( 67 yrs old). 

Then to ban all vehicles propelled by petrol and diesel within this area. This would force a change to walking, running, cycling, or foot powered scooters.

Buses would be banned. Electric slow (10mph) vehicles to carry goods in and out would be used. Trains would be OK both overground and underground.

The local population would be fitter. The obesity cris partially averted.

It just takes some brains and some guts to make it happen. 

The rule of the car in cities has become anachronistic and inefficient. Time to ban them from densely populated cities.


----------



## Finial (5 Jun 2016)

Lons":1n3sf6fc said:


> 1. Point is that both actions are illegal, the fact you think it isn't dangerous is academic.
> 
> 2. Who says? Statistics can be made to do anything.
> 
> ...



2: The police.
A _study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

The figures were slightly higher when the cyclist was killed, but in such cases only the driver's account is available.

The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.
_
3 & 4:
In this country a bike rider has to decide whether to break the law and risk a fine or comply with it and risk death.

Don't you think better infrastructure would be a good idea?


----------



## Wuffles (5 Jun 2016)

Finial":3fh3k3ei said:


> 3 & 4:
> In this country a bike rider has to decide whether to break the law and risk a fine or comply with it and risk death.



This excuses cyclists jumping red lights does it? Where do you live, Rio de Janeiro?

I used to chase them down when I rode a motorbike, give them a right mouthful when I lived in the city. Idiots risking themselves and others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerS (5 Jun 2016)

Finial":3ntjmrcq said:


> .....
> Don't you think better infrastructure would be a good idea?




Nah...ban bicycles....much easier and cheaper . :wink: 

Regarding obesity, just stop shops like Morrisons selling three packs of Frosties for a fiver.


----------



## Finial (5 Jun 2016)

Wuffles":15sfedb5 said:


> Finial":15sfedb5 said:
> 
> 
> > 3 & 4:
> ...



I don't know. If they choose the safer option it doesn't surprise me. I'm only guessing at their motives of course, some may do it just to avoid delay, like drivers. Personally I don't think they should have to choose. Did you chase down light-jumping motorists too? Although I have to say I don't think vigilantism is a good idea. 

I'm in London and I've never seen a bike going through the red cause significant risk, let alone an accident. People wait for a gap in the traffic, same as they would without the lights.


----------



## RogerS (5 Jun 2016)

Finial":3nnonnm8 said:


> ....
> I'm in London and I've never seen a bike going through the red cause significant risk, let alone an accident. People wait for a gap in the traffic, same as they would without the lights.



Perhaps you were oblivious to the pedestrians that had to jump out of the way ?


----------



## Lons (5 Jun 2016)

Finial

Those potholes you're digging are getting deeper and deeper and you're going to fall down one if you aren't careful.
Spouting 10 year old "police" statistics isn't much good and as I said we can all find stats that suit our arguments if we can be bothered to keep looking. I have a group of golfing friends all policeman of various ranks and discussed this thread with them at the 19th this afternoon, I'm surprised you didn't hear the laughter as far as London. :lol: Actually what one of them said about you is very definitely not repeatable. :lol: 



> 167.DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example.
> ..
> when a road user is indicating right, ...(which the rider did, he had little choice at that point) stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction,
> and you intend to turn left (not relevant here but which drivers often fail to do!)


Interesting that you quote the above as defence when it was the cyclist who was overtaking not the taxi but then again cyclists are above the law it seems. 
your point that the rider had little choice but to indicate right is pure bullsh*t, he could have stopped but the reality is that he couldn't because he was travelling too fast, something else you can't accept.

I repeat, the cyclist was the one overtaking, the taxi was moving and signalling, the cyclist was too close, travelling too fast and at fault, accept it and live with it ! :roll:


----------



## Finial (5 Jun 2016)

Lons":1g6duffa said:


> Spouting 10 year old "police" statistics isn't much good



The stats just came up on Google. Can you find some that suit you better? It's very easy to dismiss any statistics that don't support your argument, but unless you come up with others and say why they are more valid, you have nothing but your prejudices to go on, do you?

The opinions of your pals don't surprise me in the slightest, though they might make you take the stats a little more seriously. 

The overtaking bit I left in as acknowledgement that the rider was in the wrong. His error was to be too close (and the hands issue), so could not react quickly enough to the dangerous driving. If he had been riding more safely he would have been able to stop in time.

Do you think that turn complied with the highway code? Would it have been acceptable during a driving test? Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that drivers make mistakes?


----------



## Finial (5 Jun 2016)

RogerS":2f0idfp8 said:


> Perhaps you were oblivious to the pedestrians that had to jump out of the way ?



I hear about that all the time. People claim it's a constant menace. Strangely, I've never had to jump out of the way of a bike rider, nor seen it happen.


----------



## Finial (5 Jun 2016)

RogerS":2d3tzpf5 said:


> Finial":2d3tzpf5 said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



It would be more in the public interest to ban taxis.


----------



## RogerS (5 Jun 2016)

Finial":3erc0lhq said:


> RogerS":3erc0lhq said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you were oblivious to the pedestrians that had to jump out of the way ?
> ...



Well, you're a cyclist. I'm a pedestrian and, yes, I have been nearly run over by a bloody cyclist going the wrong way down a one-way street. But I guess it was my fault for not looking as, in your world, cyclists are never to blame.


----------



## Finial (5 Jun 2016)

RogerS":tez09hk6 said:


> But I guess it was my fault for not looking as, in your world, cyclists are never to blame.



You are imagining that. I said I've never had a problem with bikes. So I don't think it can be as common as people claim. Do you think I'm not a pedestrian? But feel free to call for cycle tracks.

There are people here who blame bike riders for all the accidents they are involved in.


----------



## Wuffles (5 Jun 2016)

Troll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lons (5 Jun 2016)

> It's very easy to dismiss any statistics that don't support your argument,


At least you agree with me on something, pretty much what I said so right back at you. :wink: 


> The opinions of your pals don't surprise me in the slightest, though they might make you take the stats a little more seriously.


Hmm.. They might not agree and feel you're also prejudiced against the police. 5 of them there today, I is a traffic cop btw and another an advanced police driving instructor, and you're making assumptions again, I know exactly what they said to me about stats - you weren't there so you dont!


> The overtaking bit I left in as acknowledgement that the rider was in the wrong. His error was to be too close (and the hands issue), so could not react quickly enough to the dangerous driving. If he had been riding more safely he would have been able to stop in time.


Not the way I read it! But agreed with me again - bloody hell are you feeling ok? :lol: 


> Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that drivers make mistakes?


Making things up again as you go along. I've never said that drivers don't make mistakes, actually the opposite and though I said the cyclist was at fault I also said the taxi driver isn't blameless!

You're going around in ever decreasing circles and digging those potholes even deeper. So.... you win....I give up... no sensible arguments possible from a guy with severely restricted tunnel vision and I can't be bothered any more! :roll: 

Bye bye, have fun on your little machine and don't let the nasty HGVs bite you on the backside or you might be missing your head. :wink: :lol: :lol:


----------



## andys wood shed (10 Sep 2016)

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/close- ... ops/020060 =D>


----------



## RogerS (10 Sep 2016)

Here we go again.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2016)

Here Roger goes again! :lol:


----------



## RogerS (10 Sep 2016)

Jacob":2j39224j said:


> Here Roger goes again! :lol:



Well, let's examine that article shall we ?

First off...

The police force statement says "analysis of collisions shows that in ...[crashes on the road involving cars and bicycles] the blame would lie solely with the driver not the cyclist."

Just great. Leaving aside the actual figures that RoSpa provide which contradicts this statement ..thinks "Wonder just what has prompted West Midlands to bring this out now? New Chief 'Cycles-R-Me' Constable perhaps".....we now have the WMP throwing away, by making this statement, the whole concept of English law...viz..innocent until proven guilty.

And what's this all about ? "Pavement cycling might be a nuisance to some but is not, says the police statement, a "priority for a force like our own in a modern day society." Well that says "F**k you, pedestrians, old people, children etc". Brilliant. Just brilliant. Carte blanche? "Only about 20 pedestrians are "seriously injured" each year by riders taking to the pavement." source The Times. 

But we've been here ad nauseam. According to some posters here, cyclists are above reproach and can do no wrong. Pity this thread was resurrected by a pro-cyclist jumping on his soapbox and tub-thumping.

Can we please lock the thread now ?

EDIT: Just Googled the actual press release/blog. http://road.cc/content/news/204164-west ... -motorists 

The article in Woodshed's post is typical reporting by the cycling-fascists. But hey...when did facts get in the way ?

And some definitive reporting here https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com


----------



## Lons (10 Sep 2016)

RogerS":3vi9i141 said:


> Pity this thread was resurrected by a pro-cyclist jumping on his soapbox and tub-thumping.



By a bike riding troll perhaps Roger? :wink: Guess he's feeling bored again and looking to ruffle some feathers. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2016)

You ought to get a bike Roger - I'm sure it'd be good for you! :lol:


----------



## RogerS (11 Sep 2016)

Jacob":3cl9s19w said:


> You ought to get a bike Roger - I'm sure it'd be good for you! :lol:


----------



## andys wood shed (11 Sep 2016)

Jacob":30vzjjpv said:


> You ought to get a bike Roger - I'm sure it'd be good for you! :lol:



He would be panting out of his backside... Instead of talking out of it


----------

