Who's right of way on the pavement ?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Another common occurrence in Cambridge (in addition to many cyclists jumping red lights, or cycling on pavements) is to cycle with no lights when it's dark... dangerous for themselves *and* for others (especially combined with the red light jumping or the pavement cycling).

That happens everywhere and is not specific to Cambridge alone.

All cyclists should have to pass a riding test for a licence have to get an mot for their bicycles and pay road tax and insurance because as road users they are just as liable as any other road user but without any of the above which is crazy.

Each bike should have a number plate as per other road vehicles as well.

[squealy]

Originally Posted by Masque

All cyclists should have to pass a riding test for a licence have to get an mot for their bicycles and pay road tax and insurance because as road users they are just as liable as any other road user but without any of the above which is crazy.

Each bike should have a number plate as per other road vehicles as well.

Presumably you're including children in this, seeing as they can also ride bicycles? It's hardly going to encourage exercise and public health.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Masque

That happens everywhere and is not specific to Cambridge alone.

All cyclists should have to pass a riding test for a licence have to get an mot for their bicycles and pay road tax and insurance because as road users they are just as liable as any other road user but without any of the above which is crazy.

Each bike should have a number plate as per other road vehicles as well.

Asking cyclists to pay road tax is lunacy. Many cyclists already pay road tax for their car that is sitting at home all day because they have decided to use pedal power.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

Asking cyclists to pay road tax is lunacy. Many cyclists already pay road tax for their car that is sitting at home all day because they have decided to use pedal power.

Considering the increased lunacy we are seeing from cyclists who blatently flout the law I see this as the only way forward, probably just on adult cycles but as you use the road the same as a motorcyclist then I see no reason for such measures not to be brought out.

If this does come about it will be because of the idiots not the person who abides by the law but even some so called law abiding cyclists in all the gear will still take risks and illegal shortcuts just to shave a few seconds of their journey.

Also if the is an accident and it was caused by the cyclist how do we claim from them and why should my insurance pay out for something they caused.

Look to your fellow cyclists first as they are the problem as to many think that they can do what they want without any regard for other road users or even pedestrians.

[squealy]

Increased lunacy from cyclists? Surely the "lunacy" is just the same as it has been for years.

The obvious way to encourage cyclists to obey the law would be for the police to actually enforce the laws as they relate to cyclists. While they're at it they can enforce the laws on mobile phone use in cars.

[jb66]

Folk cross the road when the green man isn't on, cyclists cycle through red lights. Both put themselves in slight danger so what's the difference?

[Angua]

Doesn't help when cars go through on amber/red when there is a very small margin of time to go from a side road (without traffic lights) across a junction (when the lights are all on red). The side road is so narrow pedestrians blithely walk down the middle.

I always hope there are pedestrians waiting to cross in order to get a bit longer.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by squealy

Increased lunacy from cyclists? Surely the "lunacy" is just the same as it has been for years.

The obvious way to encourage cyclists to obey the law would be for the police to actually enforce the laws as they relate to cyclists. While they're at it they can enforce the laws on mobile phone use in cars.

Quite right on both counts and they should confiscate the vehicle if caught using a mobile phone as that would be a wake up call to them.

---------- Post added at 08:09 ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 ----------

Originally Posted by jb66

Folk cross the road when the green man isn't on, cyclists cycle through red lights. Both put themselves in slight danger so what's the difference?

I think the danger is more than slight in both cases but everytime the driver would be blamed which is wrong.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

Asking cyclists to pay road tax is lunacy. Many cyclists already pay road tax for their car that is sitting at home all day because they have decided to use pedal power.

Then there's cars that don't attract road tax due to low emissions. Surely, no emission vehicles should be included in that category...

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Masque

That happens everywhere and is not specific to Cambridge alone.

I live in Cambridge. I don't know if it happens everywhere, but I know it happens here, hence the specific reference.

---------- Post added at 15:33 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------

Originally Posted by jb66

Folk cross the road when the green man isn't on, cyclists cycle through red lights. Both put themselves in slight danger so what's the difference?

They put others in danger too.

If I cross the road when the green man is not on, it is only when I can see that the road is clear in both directions and it is safe to cross (Green Cross Code and all that).

If I or another pedestrian were to cross when it isn't safe, it's a potential danger not just to the pedestrian but also to others. it's stupid and should not be done.


Many times I have seen cyclists jump red lights even though pedestrians are crossing. That doesn't just put the cyclist in "slight danger", it puts the pedestrians in danger.

Just as when they cycle on the pavement & cut up pedestrians, it isn't simply "slight danger" for the cyclist, it is danger for the pedestrian.

Also, when cyclists go through red lights, I believe they are actually violating the Highway Code? Ditto for cycling on foot-only pavements?

Originally Posted by jb66

Folk cross the road when the green man isn't on, cyclists cycle through red lights. Both put themselves in slight danger so what's the difference?

The difference is, the pedestrian is not committing an offence. The cyclist is.

[danielf]

In the BBC article that Matt linked to earlier, someone stated that cyclists run the red light to get a 'head start' to avoid being left-hooked by cars or lorries turning left. As someone who does a lot of cycling this just strikes me as incredibly stupid. What you do to avoid being left-hooked is the following:

When you come to an intersection and the light is red. You either move to the box in front, if there is one, or you take your place in the queue in the *middle* of the lane so you are clearly visible, and a car will have to run you over squarely rather than left hook you. When the light goes green, you move with the traffic and stay in the middle of the lane until you reach the point where there is no risk of left-turning traffic. Only then do you move to the left to make way for other traffic. At the speeds around traffic lights, you will not be moving much slower than cars (well, they might have to wait a little), but it's much safer all round. Both for yourself and pedestrians/other traffic that don't expect a cyclist to come sailing through a red light.

I never run red lights. It's stupid, and gives cyclists a bad name.

/lecture over

[bonzoe]

Originally Posted by Matt D

I live in Cambridge. I don't know if it happens everywhere, but I know it happens here, hence the specific reference.

---------- Post added at 15:33 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------



They put others in danger too.

If I cross the road when the green man is not on, it is only when I can see that the road is clear in both directions and it is safe to cross (Green Cross Code and all that).

If I or another pedestrian were to cross when it isn't safe, it's a potential danger not just to the pedestrian but also to others. it's stupid and should not be done.


Many times I have seen cyclists jump red lights even though pedestrians are crossing. That doesn't just put the cyclist in "slight danger", it puts the pedestrians in danger.

Just as when they cycle on the pavement & cut up pedestrians, it isn't simply "slight danger" for the cyclist, it is danger for the pedestrian.

Also, when cyclists go through red lights, I believe they are actually violating the Highway Code? Ditto for cycling on foot-only pavements?

You missed out pedestrians walking on marked cycle tracks, often with a dog on long lead.......but I don't suppose that sits very well with your dislike of cyclists.

[Tezcatlipoca]

That's not something I see regularly, unlike seeing cyclists jump red lights, cycle on pavements, or cycle with no lights on...

Cambridge has an very high number of cyclists. Locals, students, tourists, etc.

Many are perfectly fine, cycle safely, obey the Highway Code, etc.

But many others are an absolute menace, and give the rest a bad name (as well as endanger themselves and pedestrians)...

I dislike Cambridge's dangerous cyclists because they have given me good reason to do so, many times.

[Derek]

Of course being a law abiding member of society I'd never dream of sneaking through a red light on my bike

I can however see why this is justified in some cases. If a cyclist can go through to avoid cars turning left I'm all for it.

That said there are some cyclists who are an absolute menace on the roads.