Yet again - Cyclist Killed in London

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Stephen

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.

They told us that it was against the law to cycle on the roads without a cycling proficiency badge, looking back it was a clear attempt to scare us into doing it albeit with the best of intentions. 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.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

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. Having bike insurance won't protect me from being flattened. Nor will a plastic helmet, an MOT and all the other suggested paraphernalia. Training will leave me qualified and dead as opposed to just dead.

On the subject of training and tests, I have a full car and full motorcycle license so I'm fully trained in road craft. But cycling is just not safe. There are some serious lunatics in cars even if the majority of drivers are thankfully considerate.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Kursk

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.

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

Having bike insurance won't protect me from being flattened.

No but it may protect you from being sued.

Nor will a plastic helmet

wear a more substantial one then

Training will leave me qualified and dead as opposed to just dead.

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.

On the subject of training and tests, I have a full car and full motorcycle license so I'm fully trained in road craft.

. 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.

But cycling is just not safe.

Then learning to cycle defensively would be a good thing.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

On the subject of being sued/ insurance it seems to me it's sensible and responsible cyclists should have it, what if the driver who hits them isn't insured or drives of, only a moron would ride regularly without it imo.

Don't think he'll be getting a more substantial hat, has some health and safety gremlins whispering in his ear about helmets being dangerous iirc.

[Kursk]

Sorry, I don't do the pick-apart-every-posted-sentence-thing. Too tedious.
I do have a full motorcycle license and I have no trouble commanding road space on a fireblade. Get on a push bike and it's a whole new ball game.

Fortunately, we cyclists are dictating the agenda. Motorists should continue to form an orderly queue behind us .

[007stuart]

Just to show a bit of balance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-31295774

and no I'm not a militant cyclist

[Osem]

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the Lycra clad, wannabe Tour de France brigade get amongst all the ordinary cyclists clogging up their nice sexy superhighway. Without the cars and buses to blame for everything how long before it's fair weather Boris biker's who start appearing on those tedious YouTube 'bike rage' clips?

[richard s]

Sad but this will always happen when motorised vehicles and non-motorised come together.

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=Kursk;35758052]I find that they are not breaking any laws in doing so.



no there is no law against stupidity

[Ken W]

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

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

no there is no law against stupidity

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 .

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

Originally Posted by Ken W

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

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

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=Kursk;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 .

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



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 .

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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 .

Cycle paths are frequently a bolt-on accessory installed at the time of vehicular improvement schemes - the designers add in a route as an obligation to achieving planning consent. Often this means the cycle path starts randomly and ends abruptly and its 'design' is not as usable as it should be.

This will be resolved when town planners plan cycle schemes as a priority in the infrastructure - and this is beginning to happen at last.

[techguyone]

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

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by techguyone

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

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