This has been covered lots. Motor vehicles and cyclists can live together just fine - sure off-road cycle lanes would be nice if they were sensibly
constructed but generally they're full of junctions with no right of way, pedestrian crossings and additional lights. That makes them useless
for anyone who doesn't want to just go for a sunday tootle with the kids. Likewise on-road cycle lanes are useless, pretty much universally.
All of these items are put in because people can't use common sense and follow road rules (both sides of the argument), not because
they're required for safety. Literally hundreds of millions of pounds spend because people won't follow the rules.
Hawww That's Hilarious.
China is losing it's multi millions fleet of Bicycles as fast as the inmates can possibly manage.
Whilst 'Some' western countries are reverting to Bicycles as fast as they can.
Clearly some are getting Richer while some are becoming poorer.
Don't think it's really anything to do with economics, though clearly it helps. Cycling is so much better for you (even counting road
deaths/injuries into it and ignoring the fact that they'd decrease massively if there were fewer cars and more bikes) and would work twards
reducing the increasing average weight of people too, which would take load off the NHS, which would make life cheaper for all. Plus you
wouldn't spend a fortune a week in fuel.
quote:
Where cyclists have their own road they refuse to use it. Bloody stupid.
And this is an example of a problem driver. Cyclists are traffic just like cars and motorbikes, we share roads quite happily when people take a little
time and consideration for others, rather than thinking they have more of a right to be somewhere than someone else. Off-road cycle lanes are provided
for those who don't feel confident enough to ride on road, or for those location where cyclists are not allowed on the road. They're not
there so cyclists don't use the road.
Seriously I can't believe the childish and stupid attitude of some road users. How would you like it if cyclists started pointing out that cars
are a waste of space and slower than cycling around towns, so suggesting cars should be limited to A roads and motorways - I suspect you'd be
upset at that.
What's worse is there's a whole bunch of idiotic road users who not only believe they're right at all times, but also don't
have the slightest idea of road usage rules. I had a GLASS bottle thrown at me by a passing car driver (who looked about 45) because he thought I
should be on teh cycle path next to the dual carriageway. The cycle path was a pavement, not only would it have been illegal for me to use it but also
dangerous - commuting 34 miles a day on bike would take me a LONG time if I were to stick to pavements and a safe speed on the pavement.
Blatent lack of care by the driver behind there - you were lucky to get out of that walking.
What people don't seem to realise is that cyclists have the right to use the roads by default. Motor vehicle drivers have to take licenses to
prove they are safe to use the road because of the threat they pose to others (cyclists and other motorvehicles, as well as peds). Cyclists
don't really pose that risk in most cases, hence they're not required to be licensed. But most people forget they have to earn the right
to drive a motor vehicle on the road and assume that having a license gives them the right to OWN the road.
I would happily see people applying for a driving license be forced to spend a year cycling in heavy traffic first - that way they'd see how
vulnerable cyclists are and how infuriating it is to see so much poor road use. I genuinely think it makes you a better driver when you regularly see
the stupid moves people pull without even realising they're doing it.
Of course the same applies for cyclists who run reds and filter inside the left of left turning traffic as it pulls off - they'd be first
against the wall when I come to power.
And please no-one pull the road tax question out of the box of straw arguments - I pay more VED than most drivers, on top of the fact that VED
doesn't pay for roads and the fact that cyclist infrastructure accounts for a tiny fraction of the annual road construction costs - you'll
find if you do the sums that most car owning cyclists actually subsidise car owners who don't ride.
This situation is all too common... "I didn't see you" rubbish:
My favourite so far is "I wasn't expecting you to be going so fast so I pulled out". Really. You didn't assess how fast I was
moving? I was only doing 20mph on a normal 30 limit A road - I wasn't expecting you to not spend half a second longer to actually judge my speed
before pulling out.
Photo Archive
Building: MK -INDY 2 LT ON zx9r bike carbs Now sold
posted on 7/12/12 at 04:14 PM
At the top of my road they have just built a new cycle path costing god knows how much money its been put there for safety of the bikers and do the
bikers use it NO i have only seen 1 bike use it in 3 weeks of it been open
It was a wast of tax payers money
Also i see 3 or 4 bikers every morning with no lights or high -vis coats on how can they expect to be safe in the dark
Its madness
It is indeed a waste, most cyclists want to be considered traffic and treated like traffic, they don't want segregating with poor facilities,
and so most don't use them. We should stop wasting taxpayers money and just educate people better to live with each other on the road. What
we're currently doing is building garden walls to prevent a tank invasion, we might as well deal with it with deplomacy instead. It's
cheaper and more sense.
There's no reason to force bikes to use lights and high vis 24/7, that's just daft. Same with insurance and tax, such a request shows a
fundamental misunderstanding of the problems and a knee jerk reaction.
Photo Archive
Building: MK -INDY 2 LT ON zx9r bike carbs Now sold
posted on 7/12/12 at 07:44 PM
So if there is a nice safe cycle path / track made for you / bikers or a busy road with buses, cars, vans' lorry's etc you would rather
ride on the road ? I'm puzzled
Well if you have children i hope you don.t teach them the way you ride your bike
All what i have posted i have been thinking of adults And children
quote:Originally posted by jacko
So if there is a nice safe cycle path / track made for you / bikers or a busy road with buses, cars, vans' lorry's etc you would rather
ride on the road ? I'm puzzled
Well if you have children i hope you don.t teach them the way you ride your bike
All what i have posted i have been thinking of adults And children
Jacko
If there was a nice safe cycle path it would be used, if it isn't any good then it wont be used.
Photo Archive
Building: Dare I say it, a Haynes Roadster, bit by bit!
posted on 7/12/12 at 08:43 PM
I can't stand cycle lanes that jump on and off of the road, it is ALWAYS quicker to just use the bloody road, and most of the time it is not
even an unsafe bit of road.
If anyone has been to stevenage and seen their cycle lanes, they are amazing! It's like a mini road network, it goes underneath the roads so you
are not constantly stopping to cross bloody roads. If you want to make a cycle lane network you have to do it well otherwise it becomes like those
pictures.
The problem is that most cyclists demand consideration without being considerate themselves. They expect cars to leave them filtering space when they
won't allow space for faster moving cars to overtake. They expect car drivers to looks out for them coming up the inside at junctions when they
don't pay the slightest bit of attention to cars coming past them, swerving around or cycling two abreast. I see this when driving or cycling.
They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at junctions.
Its the attitude of most of the regular cyclists I know that cars can cause more damage therefore drivers should be more careful. It's that
attitude that leads to them putting their lives in other peoples hands and subsequently deaths. Unfortunately in the real world it is those that are
most vulnerable that must be most careful and considerate.
quote:Originally posted by coyoteboy
It is indeed a waste, most cyclists want to be considered traffic and treated like traffic, they don't want segregating with poor facilities,
and so most don't use them. We should stop wasting taxpayers money and just educate people better to live with each other on the road. What
we're currently doing is building garden walls to prevent a tank invasion, we might as well deal with it with deplomacy instead. It's
cheaper and more sense.
There's no reason to force bikes to use lights and high vis 24/7, that's just daft. Same with insurance and tax, such a request shows a
fundamental misunderstanding of the problems and a knee jerk reaction.
Photo Archive
Building: Dare I say it, a Haynes Roadster, bit by bit!
posted on 8/12/12 at 12:44 AM
quote:Originally posted by phelpsa
They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at
junctions.
If the car is stationary I'd squeeze through a small gap but if the car is moving, i'm not particularly well visible to them. As far as
I'm concerned if you can't dive up the side in traffic there aren't many plus point to having a bike.
In Portsmouth (the islandy bit) there are still thousands of people who haven't twigged that driving anywhere is completely futile, you can
actually keep up/beat a car into town in many cases, they then have to park, you just dump your crap worthless bike on a rail with a token bike lock
and go about your business.
quote:Originally posted by phelpsa
They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at
junctions.
If the car is stationary I'd squeeze through a small gap but if the car is moving, i'm not particularly well visible to them. As far as
I'm concerned if you can't dive up the side in traffic there aren't many plus point to having a bike.
So the cars then start moving, who's the one in a vulnerable position? And who has to take the avoiding action to get around the pillock
that's now cycling down the middle of the road? I see it every time I drive or cycle around Bath, Oxford, Reading etc.
Next time you squeeze between cars at a red light, think about who's hands your life is in and whether it is a sensible idea to do it at the
time.
Dedicated cycle paths/lanes are bit like foot paths, you wouldn't expect to see a mother pushing a pram down the middle of the road if
there's a foot path provided, so why do bikes if there's a cycle lane/path provided....
Because pedestrians are not meant to walk down roads, they're meant to walk down footpaths. On the other hand, cyclists are meant to be on the
road, the cycle path is an optional lane (and usually shared with pedestrians) as I explained earlier. They're also usually covered in broken
glass bottles and not kept clear, unlike roads.
For info, I had a 17.5 mile commute not long ago, which had about 60% of its length "served" by a cycle path that looked like the one
above, broken every few hundred yards by a dismount. Utterly pointless.
quote:
Hi Gareth.
Sorry, that literally flew over my head. I've no idea what joke you were making there!
quote:
So if there is a nice safe cycle path / track made for you / bikers or a busy road with buses, cars, vans' lorry's etc you would rather
ride on the road ? I'm puzzled Well if you have children i hope you don.t teach them the way you ride your bike All what i have posted i have
been thinking of adults And children Jacko
Don't be puzzled, try it yourself on a regular basis and you'll understand. I don't see it as unreasonable to expect to be treated
as traffic. As a kid I was taught how to use the roads on a bike and how to do it safely, I didn't need lanes to segregate me from traffic and I
won't expect my kids to need to use them. I find the notion of "drivers are useless so we should keep everyone away from them, oh but they
still have right of way" to be the most backward, brain dead solution to a problem I've ever heard. And quite frankly you have no idea how
I ride my bike, just as I have no idea how you drive, so please try not to make judgements on things you have no idea about.
quote:
The problem is that most cyclists demand consideration without being considerate themselves. They expect cars to leave them filtering space when they
won't allow space for faster moving cars to overtake. They expect car drivers to looks out for them coming up the inside at junctions when they
don't pay the slightest bit of attention to cars coming past them, swerving around or cycling two abreast. I see this when driving or cycling.
They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at junctions.
There is indeed a bit of contradiction in many situations - it IS safe for me to filter to the front (I rarely do as I don't like cars having to
overtake me again 3 seconds later) when the cars are stopped, I wouldn't do it if I were doing 15mph more than them, likewise when they're
doing 15+mph more than me I don't like them being a foot away - not really surprising.
quote:
Its the attitude of most of the regular cyclists I know that cars can cause more damage therefore drivers should be more careful. It's that
attitude that leads to them putting their lives in other peoples hands and subsequently deaths. Unfortunately in the real world it is those that are
most vulnerable that must be most careful and considerate.
What you don't seem to see is that it IS the drivers responsibility to look out and be more careful because they are the heavy, person-killing
item on the road. If you want to go down the route of smallest vehicle takes most care you're going a bit mental, what you're asking for
is the same rule that exists in India. Do you have any idea what it's like driving or cycling (or walking) in India where largest vehicle has
right of way? Checkout their road death stats and tell me it's sensible to say the smaller people that must be more careful. This is why road
rules exist the way they do and this is why when you get in charge of a car you need to take extra care around more vulnerable road users -
that's why it is EXPECTED of you as someone licensed to drive a vehicle. Watch this video and tell me if you'd like to drive in those
situations, let alone cycle - it creates an "every man for himself" attitude which we see the beginnings of already here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxHM_oPj_5E
I really don't understand why peope find this so hard, I'm a driver and a cyclist - I don't find the two roles clashing when both
sides obey the rules of the road which are laid out to prevent problems. When people stop following the rules on either side it gets dangerous.
However the default position of driving carefully around cyclists means they rarely pose a problem even when they don't follow the rules. As a
cyclist I've nearly been killed a number of times when drivers don't follow the rules, no matter how carefully I'm cycling.
quote:
The problem is that most cyclists demand consideration without being considerate themselves. They expect cars to leave them filtering space when they
won't allow space for faster moving cars to overtake. They expect car drivers to looks out for them coming up the inside at junctions when they
don't pay the slightest bit of attention to cars coming past them, swerving around or cycling two abreast. I see this when driving or cycling.
They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at junctions.
There is indeed a bit of contradiction in many situations - it IS safe for me to filter to the front (I rarely do as I don't like cars having to
overtake me again 3 seconds later) when the cars are stopped, I wouldn't do it if I were doing 15mph more than them, likewise when they're
doing 15+mph more than me I don't like them being a foot away - not really surprising.
The problem is that you rarely see cyclists thinking ahead... 'in 10 seconds these cars will be going 10mph faster than me, and I'm
trapped between them'. What you see is a cyclist sprint off from the lights, swerve across the front of traffic that is by that point travelling
faster than they are, then having left the car no room, they get angry that they are being passed so close. There are two party's that could
have stopped the situation arising, the cyclist (by waiting on the left and putting himself in a suitable size gap), or the driver (by allowing the
cyclist to move away and waiting for a gap large enough gap to pass). The consequences for the cyclist are much greater, so who do you think would
have more of a 'vested interest' in ensuring it doesn't arise? What the cyclist has done is put their life in the hands of a party
that has no vested interest. Stupid? I certainly think so. Yet I see it every time I drive through a city.
quote:Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:
Its the attitude of most of the regular cyclists I know that cars can cause more damage therefore drivers should be more careful. It's that
attitude that leads to them putting their lives in other peoples hands and subsequently deaths. Unfortunately in the real world it is those that are
most vulnerable that must be most careful and considerate.
What you don't seem to see is that it IS the drivers responsibility to look out and be more careful because they are the heavy, person-killing
item on the road. If you want to go down the route of smallest vehicle takes most care you're going a bit mental, what you're asking for
is the same rule that exists in India. Do you have any idea what it's like driving or cycling (or walking) in India where largest vehicle has
right of way? Checkout their road death stats and tell me it's sensible to say the smaller people that must be more careful. This is why road
rules exist the way they do and this is why when you get in charge of a car you need to take extra care around more vulnerable road users -
that's why it is EXPECTED of you as someone licensed to drive a vehicle. Watch this video and tell me if you'd like to drive in those
situations, let alone cycle - it creates an "every man for himself" attitude which we see the beginnings of already here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxHM_oPj_5E
I really don't understand why peope find this so hard, I'm a driver and a cyclist - I don't find the two roles clashing when both
sides obey the rules of the road which are laid out to prevent problems. When people stop following the rules on either side it gets dangerous.
However the default position of driving carefully around cyclists means they rarely pose a problem even when they don't follow the rules. As a
cyclist I've nearly been killed a number of times when drivers don't follow the rules, no matter how carefully I'm cycling.
You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that in an ideal world that is how it should be. In an ideal socialist world, everyone would take
equal responsibility for the safety of each other. That doesn't exist anywhere.
Any cyclist/driver who is relying on any other cyclist/driver to consider their safety during any manoeuvre is just plain stupid.
When driving I will leave cyclists space because I like my car and I don't want them damaging it, very few drivers think like that. When cycling
I will give any car/lorry/bus a wide birth because I quite enjoy being in one piece (and I'm a wimp), and it would appear that very few cyclists
think like that! It's the same thing that makes me extremely cautious when passing lorries on the motorway, or getting up the inside of buses on
roundabouts etc in my car.
Cyclists CAN help themselves, but the vast majority choose not to!
quote:
You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that in an ideal world that is how it should be. In an ideal socialist world, everyone would take
equal responsibility for the safety of each other. That doesn't exist anywhere.
It works pretty well in the places that have taken the stance that cyclists have right of way and in many european countries who are more cycle
friendly.
quote:
Any cyclist/driver who is relying on any other cyclist/driver to consider their safety during any manoeuvre is just plain stupid.
I agree, but not all cyclists are also drivers and many are youngsters, and pedestrians are often even more unpredictable. This is why we must INSIST
that motor vehicle drivers take care. Of course everyone needs to look after themselves and respect each other but what I am saying is that no-one
should be above the other, which is the position most drivers assume. The number of times I've been told bikes should be on the pavement not the
road drives me mad (and I can happily sit at 20ish on the flat.), and I'm not even a slow cyclist and I use lights and follow the rules. I guess
part of the trouble is that "bike users" are not always "cyclists", and we must all take care around them.
quote:When driving I will leave cyclists space because I like my car and I don't want them damaging it, very few drivers think like
that.
I think most drivers just don't think much at all, but I'd hope that when driving you leave cyclists room because you don't want to
kill them, not because you don't want your car damaged?
It's quite interesting how /most/ people discuss it quite reasonably both in forums and in the pub (with the odd nutcase suggesting banning one
or the other and refusing to accept any blame), but that doesn't seem to translate onto the road.
Photo Archive
Building: MK -INDY 2 LT ON zx9r bike carbs Now sold
posted on 8/12/12 at 04:44 PM
quote:
So if there is a nice safe cycle path / track made for you / bikers or a busy road with buses, cars, vans' lorry's etc you would rather
ride on the road ? I'm puzzled Well if you have children i hope you don.t teach them the way you ride your bike All what i have posted i have
been thinking of adults And children Jacko
Don't be puzzled, try it yourself on a regular basis and you'll understand. I don't see it as unreasonable to expect to be treated
as traffic. As a kid I was taught how to use the roads on a bike and how to do it safely, I didn't need lanes to segregate me from traffic and I
won't expect my kids to need to use them. I find the notion of "drivers are useless so we should keep everyone away from them, oh but they
still have right of way" to be the most backward, brain dead solution to a problem I've ever heard. And quite frankly you have no idea how
I ride my bike, just as I have no idea how you drive, so please try not to make judgements on things you have no idea about.
[Edited on 8/12/12 by coyoteboy]
Yes you are right i should not make judgement's on you or your family i hope you all stay safe in your cycling
Just some thing i have just seen I have just been to pick my Daughter up from work 3 miles and in that 3 miles i have seen 3 bike riders on main
roads [ with a good cycle path next to it ] with no lights or high viz Its very dark out side all i can say is God help them
Jacko
