Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35757848)

http://www.itv.com/news/london/story...d-from-london/


Another cyclist was killed in London today, and yes, this is NOT the same link.

BUT, this item brought to me the problems that face Lorry drivers, and any vehicle in any road in the country.

I point out the cyclist in this 'photo' NO protection, NO hi vis. I have every sympathy with the person/family.

BUT, instead of Boris spending thousands of pounds of OUR money to have cycle highway's. He must do something abaout educating Cyclist on using roads.

Until this happens, accidents will continue to happen. And no matter what Drivers do on the roads to have equipment that can see cyclist - Cyclist must play there part in the OWN safety

Originally Posted by Sirius:35757867

Simple let the cyclist pay for there own training. why should i have to pay for it with our taxes

Originally Posted by alferret (Post 35757885)

I agree, we drivers have to pay for our training, insurance, tax and mot.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35757892)

Gawd, here we go again. Cyclists already pay tax; vehicle excise duty is not road (maintenance) tax.

Now, do you all really want to discourage cycling to the extent that potential cyclists buy cars instead and block up the roads even more than they are now and do you want kids getting fatter because cycling becomes unaffordable?

Both of these options will be of greater expense to you than the controls you would apply to cycling.

The Highway Code is seldom observed by any group using our roads...

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35757889)

i think if the gov passed a law that made cyclists obey the highway code then we could greatly contribute to cyclist safety this do what the hell you like because we are exempt approach is clearly not working .

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35757895)

there may come a time when the elf n safety brigade step in and ban cycling if the death toll keeps going up .

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35757895)

there may come a time when the elf n safety brigade step in and ban cycling if the death toll keeps going up .

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35757896)

Cyclists do come under the road traffic laws and they are enforced in areas. Of course having sod all traffic Police and general plod being stuck dealing with nonsense doesn't leave much room for enforcement.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35757898)

It is more likely that vehicles will be banned from City centres.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35757897)

And in other news: The Pope's a Catholic and bears poo in the woods.:rolleyes:

Cyclists should think that if I can't see the driver then the driver can't see me.

Originally Posted by alferret (Post 35757885)

I agree, we drivers have to pay for our training, insurance, tax and mot.
Those who ride bikes on the road network need to spend some of their own money on training and more so insurance.

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35757900)

Well Kursk, it's really quite simple. If you use the Highway, follow the code - how hard can it be?

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35757912)

Cycling encourages and enforces the Darwin effect :)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35757914)

but some of them are very skilled i mean i cant ride a bike with my hands in my pockets -i cant judge the right time to go through a red light ,i can't get down the left hand side of a truck that is turning left :)

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35757928)

Its all very well saying cyclists need educated/trained.

However I think you will find that most cyclists know they should be wearing protection. \they just choose not to.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35757931)

Cyclists should get off and walk.

it will be safer for them and less stressful and annoying for car drivers.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35757943)

If you cycle on the road you should need a licence.

You should have to pass a test.

I had to pass a test for car and I had to pass a test for motorcycle, as each have their own issues and things to look out for.

I don't see why a pedal bike should be any different.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35757954)

Nonsense,once again the issue of enforcement and the hugely detrimental consequences of forcing licences and insurance on cyclists is being ignored .

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35757974)

it's not nonsense, what is nonsense is letting people with no training whatsoever onto our ever increasing dangerous roads.

A licence is proof of meeting a minimum required standard of proficiency to operate a bicycle on the road.

I didn't say anything about insurance, however a wise person would insure themselves 3rd party at least, lest you risk losing a few quid if you cause an accident, or in a worse case scenario, you house.

Enforcement, you don't need to enforce it. I have a driving and motorbike licence, I've had them check by the police once in 27years.

But if the police should ever want to check it, i have it.

If you don't want to do any of this then, stick to tow paths and green lanes.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35757978)

I hope the kids enjoy the bikes we bought them for Christmas. Now as soon as we get their license, tax, MOT and insurance sorted out, they'll be able to use them :erm:.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35757981)

did you cough up for lights for the bikes and high viz vests ?

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35757983)

Oops. That'll be licenses, MOT, insurance, tax, lights, hi-vis vests, plastic helmets, a suit of armour, elbow pads, knee pads, and a first aid kit for when they don't get noticed by gormless car drivers :D.

Tell you what, as parity between road users seems to be an important issue to car drivers, as soon as you all have a valid license, MOT, insurance, tax, hi-vis vests and helmets, I'll join in. There again I don't need insurance, I'll be covered by your third party insurance even if I bump into you.

The World's not fair is it?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35757974)

it's not nonsense, what is nonsense is letting people with no training whatsoever onto our ever increasing dangerous roads.

A licence is proof of meeting a minimum required standard of proficiency to operate a bicycle on the road.

I didn't say anything about insurance, however a wise person would insure themselves 3rd party at least, lest you risk losing a few quid if you cause an accident, or in a worse case scenario, you house.

Enforcement, you don't need to enforce it. I have a driving and motorbike licence, I've had them check by the police once in 27years.

But if the police should ever want to check it, i have it.

If you don't want to do any of this then, stick to tow paths and green lanes.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35757989)

the survival rate for bumping my car is pretty low bring your own priest ;)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35757990)

The main point though is that applying restrictions like licences,tests and insurance to what is essentially a recreational pastime will lead to more people using public transport and cars on already overcrowded roads .It makes more sense to restrict cars in towns and cities than to restrict a non polluting and healthy mode of transport

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35757990)

Of course it is ,making rules and not having a means to enforce them is a nonsense

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35758010)

I don't think some guy cycling down the A20 at 6.30 in the morning is doing it for fun though.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35758021)

Causing a traffic jam. that's fun to him

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35758010)

No it makes sense to build cycle routes. Bicycles and cars should not be sharing the same piece of Tarmac.

If they do, there person on the bicycle should be proficient in riding it in traffic, therefore they must be trained and tested and licenced.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35758010)

we have police, pcso, and council officers, all with the ability to issue on the spot fines.

So we can enforce it.

.

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35758023)

THIS is the most sensible comment made so far. Despite what the Lycra Mafioso would have you believe, it's always wise to segregate massively differing forms of transport. In an ideal world you'd widen the pavements some and have shared foot/cycle paths, though I suppose the cyclists wouldn't like that solution either.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35758022)

no problem there's a device you can fit to your bumper that gets them up to 70 mph :)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35758024)

No you can't ,how do you enforce little jonny riding 40yrds to the shop

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35758025)

i find they will not use cycle paths they use the road

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35758030)

My fog horn usually just makes them wobble and fall off :)

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35757966)

When I was at primary school, we got basic clycling saftey lessons from the local council.

I think I still have the wee badge. It was called cycling proficiency. Think I was about 10 at the time.

You can train people all you want but if they hoose not to wear a helmet then that is their decision.

Not all cyclists are idiots though and there are just as many bad drivers out there. Parking on double yellows, parking in disabled bays. Going through red lights, not using indicators. The list could go on.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35758056)

My own view is that there's room for us all on the road if people show a little consideration for each other. That said there should be some responsibility placed on the cyclist, they're the ones not encased in a protective metal shell all vulnerable, they should have insurance and most cycling bodies offer insurance as part of their membership fee.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35758058)

I agree a little mutual consideration is needed. However, because cyclists are vulnerable I think this places greater responsibility upon the motorist i.e. the person in charge of a half a ton of moving metal.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35758065)

No, the most vulnerable look out for themselves.

As you have a motorbike licence, you will know that when you are trained to ride one you are taught to look out for other vehicles that could injure you. You are trained in all your lifesaver observations, you trained to take a commanding position in the road, the skills required to ride a back are totally different than riding a bike.

With a bicycle, you are the hazard, you can't take a commanding position in the road and you can't keep up with other traffic, it is up to you not to be danger to yourself and others


No but it may protect you from being sued.

wear a more substantial one then


Might save your life too, in fact especially if you are new to cycling learning some skills before hand would be better than on the road training where at present there is no requirement to have even read the Highway Code.

. I wonder about whether you have bike one as you would know how totally different the training and the tests are for both and how different a cycling one would/should be.



Then learning to cycle defensively would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35758151)

no there is no law against stupidity

Originally Posted by Ken W (Post 35758163)

I see many cyclist crossing when the traffic lights are red and there is regally a cyclist injured. My local train station I often see cyclists crossing the rail when the barriers are down.
Ken

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35758198)

so you cyclists avoid a purpose built cycle path designed for your safety and you think that your not stupid -i would say stupid and stubborn would about sum it up .

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35758208)

If they used cycle lanes they wouldn't be able to strap on all their surveillance gear and play 'traffic cop' like this guy & so many others.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ily-again.html

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35758214)

Remember that when one of your kids is mown down by a bus driver using a phone whilst driving.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35758216)

you can't get a bus on a cycle path they are only about 4 feet wide

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35758208)

If they used cycle lanes they wouldn't be able to strap on all their surveillance gear and play 'traffic cop' like this guy & so many others.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35758252)

As dash cams become more popular the cameras will soon be focussing plenty more on the cyclists. That's as it should be. No road users should be immune from scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35758294)

This will depend on there being a physical police presence. Well, nothing to worry about there then :D.

You'll be able to sit in your armchair looking at your dash cam video of unidentifiable miscreants. Sounds fun. :dozey:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35758296)

As I've already pointed out the police are there in certain key places and as incidents are reported (or not) their presence will alter accordingly. Of course none of this would be necessary if all road users behaved considerately but we all know they don't and many cyclists are also drivers so they're not without blame whether on 2 wheels or 4. Being an inconsiderate idiot is a mindset and nothing to do with a chosen form of transport but it's great to see you revelling in the prospect of one type of dangerous idiot being able to get away with breaking the law. No doubt you'll continue enjoying the thought that law breakers are unidentifiable when someone you love gets badly injured or worse by a cyclist on the pavement and they're never traced. Perhaps you'll also enjoy having an idiotic pedestrian jump out in front of you or one of your loved ones causing an accident from which you/they suffer greatly as a result of and the cause of the problem runs off into the night. They're untraceable too right. I'm sure that'll make you feel all warm and cosy...

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35758197)

Eh? You think it is stupid of cyclists to use the road? I must have missed the bit in the Highway Code that says that the use of cycle paths is mandatory and that cyclists should not use the road :rolleyes:.

Are cyclists to be criticised for complying with the law as well as breaking it?



Good heavens, your village is a hotspot of law-breaking depravity Ken. Have you thought of moving to somewhere more peaceful?

Originally Posted by Ken W (Post 35758301)

Yesterday I was in a pedestrianized street in Reading which has a no cycling signs displayed a cyclists very nearly hit a pedestrian.

Originally Posted by Ken W (Post 35758301)

Yesterday I was in a pedestrianized street in Reading which has a no cycling signs displayed a cyclists very nearly hit a pedestrian.

Ken

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35758297)

Accidents are an inevitable fact of life. I might have an accident in my car, on my motorbike, as a cyclist or as a pedestrian. Some people have an accident in their pants whilst typing from their armchair :D.

Perhaps all pedestrians should be made to wear a registration plate? They can have personalised numbers like FAT50....

Originally Posted by dave6x (Post 35758308)

Only nearly? They were lucky! I'm a regular walker doing several miles each day and I have been run into twice by cyclists illegally riding on footpaths, and suffered a fair amount of foul verbal abuse for "being in their way" on narrow footpaths! Much more dangerous at night when over 90% of cyclists seem to think that they can ride without lights on the footpath!

One of the safest places to walk locally is on a 2.5m wide combined cycleway/footway constructed 2 years ago at a cost of several £100,000, but cyclists are very rarely seen on it as they prefer the narrow footpath on the other side of the road!!!

Originally Posted by Ken W (Post 35758301)

Yesterday I was in a pedestrianized street in Reading which has a no cycling signs displayed a cyclists very nearly hit a pedestrian.

Ken

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35758307)

I would have pushed him off.

it's the only way they learn.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35758317)

Anyway, carry on avoiding the questions and making yourself feel better by posting puerile drivel.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35758399)

Nah, you don't go out Gary. You're in posting on the internet all day.:sleep:

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35758499)

LOL
If I was there. and if I went out.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35758512)

The wife cycled to collect our youngest from after school club earlier. Helmet, hi-viz jacket, lights front and rear. It's only difficult for some people to be sensible.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35758553)

Actually while we're on the topic the general standard of driving could be better. I can't believe how often I see drivers taking the incorrect lane on a roundabout and I think more than half of drivers don't indicate correctly. It's pretty horrible to have someone hog the outside lane when you're in the middle trying to move out to take an oncoming exit! So often I see people take the outside lane and stay there past 2 exits on a 4 exit roundabout. How stupid are these people!?

Also people who park yards from a junction prevent people from seeing the road onto which they are joining. Or people who hog the middle lane. Or people who 'challenge' racing from behind where there are two lanes merging into one so they can beat you to the punch.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35758581)

after reading this thread its clear why cyclists keep getting killed -its their attitude to other road users .

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35758591)

So it what's I said then - a proportion of all road users. ;)

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35758603)

I hope you aren't called upon to read, digest, summarise and conclude in your working life. Your assessment would seem to be unique to your blinkered opinion not the actual facts :rolleyes:.

At least you acknowledge that cyclists are being killed and are not involved in mass suicides.

A fully 'protected', hi-vis cyclist who obeys all the traffic laws is still at major risk from inattentive and reckless motorists and there are far more of those around than errant cyclists.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35758687)

do you have a link to any facts to back that up.

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35792924)

Paris is making the entirely sensible decision to allow cyclists to treat red lights as give ways.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33773868

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35792926)

just like they are allowed to do here then :(

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35792927)

Well seeing as any road user ignoring a red light is committing an offense then no not just like here.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35792932)

Never heard of a cyclist being done for it though, or wrong way down one way streets or on pavements.

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35792924)

Paris is making the entirely sensible decision to allow cyclists to treat red lights as give ways.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33773868

Cyclists in Paris no longer have to stop at every red traffic light - new rules mean that in certain circumstances they can ignore the signals and keep going. The aim is to make the city's roads much safer.

People end up thinking that just because a light is green it is safe to go - when it might not be... Far better to use all our senses all the time.
"Also allowing cyclists to proceed is safer, because it means they avoid getting caught beside trucks and buses as they wait for lights to change. That is the origin of a lot of accidents."

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35792988)

Goodness me some sense at last! Why did we have to wait for the French to show the way when we've been saying this for years...

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35792992)

I hope that's a tongue in cheek comment.

I can see cyclists using this as an excuse to completely ignore red lights and then blame the driver when they get mullered.

As for the poor driver: Legal speed, you got a green light to keep going and then out of the blue a cyclist dives across the junction right in front of you... Bang! He's dead. Your fault. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35792992)

I hope that's a tongue in cheek comment.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35793034)

Nope. There are dozens of opportunities for cyclists to proceed safely through red lights; all it takes is observation and common sense and if this is seen to be exercised the police turn a blind eye.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35793038)

But how many actually look and also possess common sense? :confused:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35793096)

I know cyclists are being crushed frequently despite obeying the rules.