Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35886092)

Injuries aren't seldom at all

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece

I'd have thought you'd be very keen to protect other more vulnerable road users, regardless of if their stupid, reckless, thoughtless, irresponsible behaviour causes collisions with cyclists

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886093)

Fair play, a cracking idea:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886083)

It's possible to hypothesise ad infinitum.

What happens if a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist who is simply riding along? Should all pedestrians have insurance too as the potential perpetrator of accidents?

What about the lethal buggy owner who bashes your ankles and causes you to trip? Insurance?

What about wheelchair users? Are they insured? What if when crossing the road they cause an accident because they move less freely than the ambulant?

Do we need to insure all our kids who are the most unpredictable users of just about everything?

Does my neighbour need insurance in case he drops a paint pot on my head when he's up a ladder?

Insurance benefits the money men. Do you want them to be creaming in policy payments for occurences that seldom happen? We don't do things that way in the UK but we'll end up that way if we're stupid enough.



Most people learn to ride at a young age and get parental training in safety (not just for cycling!). It works. Anyone taking up cycling later will know roads are dangerous and it will be part of their decision as to whether they choose to cycle or not.

What is the stopping distance at 50 mph on a wet road and in potentially icy conditions?

No-one reading this post will know the answer because all that theory is forgotten and because all road conditions cannot be predicted (it won't stop some members scurrying off to the highway code to try and find a smartass answer though!). Cycle training is real-time road experience which is why we need other road users to take special care of our safety. Learning a few metronomic hand signalling skills in a classroom won't protect us nor will it make good cyclists out of bad ones.

Protective clothing will protect you if you fall off your motorbike at speed. Protective clothing will not protect a cyclist hit by a car, lorry or van. Especially those little plastic helmets that can cause rotational neck injury; the jury is still out on that one.

Bike MOT - bicycles are simple machines, easily maintained. Do you remember the first time you had a bike for christmas or whatever? Was the occasion ruined because your Dad forgot its MOT, or rider insurance, or its pedal tax, or because he forgot your kevlar body restraint, helmet, gauntlets, shinguards, chest brace and condom? Cycling is supposed to be fun and healthy. We need people to cycle so let's not make it harder.

See above re insurance but, also, did you ever ride someone's else's bike to the shops? Would you have preferred to walk because you didn't have the required insurance? Would you like to miss out on riding in deserted country lanes because you don't have insurance and all the other paraphernalia? All that stuff will discourage cycling and that is crazy.

I know bikes and cars don't mix but I wish someone (and this is not aimed at you) would come up with workable alternatives instead of bleating that "bikes get in my way" all the time. Besides, you ride a motorbike...who most endangers you, cyclists or car drivers? I know the answer to that one: extra training for motorists. :D

I'm throttling back; ride safe mate!:)

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35886100)

i understand your points BUT if you look back to when you learnt to ride a motorbike (not sure if you had to go the CBT/MOD1/MOD2 route as i did?) it was about positioning, shoulder checks, life savers, major to minor junctions and minor to major, hazard avoidance etc. ) I see no harm in a cyclist who particularly could be using the bike in an urban high transport volume area spending half a day learning this sort of information. If only to give themselves a better chance against inconsiderate motorists.

I'm struggling (i'm tired!!) to see the difference in terms of speed and danger levels between a cyclist and a 50cc ped rider...... yet ped riders still in most cases have to do at least a CBT

Back to the protective gear thing, to me it's about minimising risk of injury. Taking cars etc out of the equation you still have things like oil/fuel spills which could cause an accident at a not inconsiderate speed.

Yup, cars endanger me most, but thats why we have combat filtering ;) to get our own back :D

I think the only option is for cycles to be segregated where possible in cycle lanes that are properly maintained (not full of crud as they are now) and for cagers to understand just how exposed people on two wheels are how that be achieved I don't know

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886099)

.....the construction of dedicated facilities to keep cyclists out of conflict with other road users.
Prison :shrug:

Originally Posted by MarieOHMarie (Post 35886115)

I actually had to give the police cam footage of a cyclist and car in a accident together. Basically a Skoda car was approaching a junction and a cyclist was approaching the same junction from a different approach.

For some reason the cyclist decided to speed up and approached the junction shouting Oi Oi OI Oiiii and got hit by the car. The cyclist is now in a wheel chair and will never walk again. Yet from my dashcam footage and and witness accounts no one could understand why the cyclist decided to speed up and basically ride into an on coming vehicle. The courts found "inconclusive" and I didn't have to appear in court.

I can never post the footage online, but it literally looks like the cyclist deliberately wanted create a dangerous situation. Had the cyclist maintained their safe and current speed they would still be walking today.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------




So should the car driving test be optional? You think training and education would stop people buying a motorbike? Please explain why you think this...

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35886119)

I could be wrong mind.

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35886207)

Yes this is why we have pavements, to segregate slow traffic from fast, what we really need is something like that for bicyclists.... Now what could we call it...

hmmm

Oh I know!

A Cycle lane

And to show we're really serious the Govt of the day will spend millions in creating these dedicated bicyclist places for them.

And then we'll make it mandatory for cyclists to use them where they exist - for their safety of course, segregation remember.
---------------------------------------------

Oops we seem to have forgotten to action that last bit.

Bicyclists and lemmings seem to occupy a similar evolutionary niche - ah well Darwin rules supreme there.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35886209)

You only have to visit the pollution riddled gridlock that is Brighton to see where that policy leads. If you halve the road capacity in an already busy city....

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35886219)

Sorry Pal can't see.
:rofl:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886212)

And there's been record sales of new cars year upon year in the U.K. You do the math.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35886231)

But if the solution to the housing crisis is to build more houses why isn't the solution to the traffic crisis to build more road capacity? :shrug:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35886231)

But if the solution to the housing crisis is to build more houses why isn't the solution to the traffic crisis to build more road capacity? :shrug: