I agree completely, but we just don't have the money - and in many inner cities there simply isn't the room.
Should a bicycle be on the roads
- Thread starter Surfer
- Start date
we do have the money, as we are carrying out the work anyway. we are widening roads, putting bus lanes in etc. The extra cost for 3ft of tarmac, will be very low.
hence why I keep saying where possible, it should be automatically included, unless there's a good reason.
Spot on. Where work's being done, do it right. There is a lot of room for improvement.
Where possible, certainly. We've finally won a small victory here in Cambridge, after about 2 years of complaining about one road in particular, and about 50 metres (wohoo
) of this road which is badly in need of resurfacing is currently being chopped up to be redone. There isn't room for a cycle lane though 
.It's not always possible on certain stretches of road.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
You do not want to be hit by a horse at a slow trot. A horse moving at a slow speed will have far more kinetic energy than a bicycle moving at a faster speed. Oh and a jogger or runner on the pavement can also carry a fair amount of energy.
You are still missing the point about cyclists having the right to freely use roads.
If it's doing it on existing lanes, total waste of money and time. The cheaper options would be to make drivers learn to be patient and know that they do not own the road.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
I assume you mean the middle of the lane not road? If so then that is where they should be to avoid the gutter and more importantly be visible and riding in a defensive position so car drivers pay them more attention. Riding next to the gutter is dangerous for cyclists.
Sorry if this inconveniences you but that's the way it is.
Since when has behavioural change been cheaper/easier than infrastructure change!? Changing physical infrastructure is far cheaper/easier than making "drivers learn to be patient and know that they do not own the road". We don't even know how to do that.
.... and make cyclists learn to be patient and know that they do not own the road.
Well yes there is the problem of cyclists jumping red lights, and I'm not one of them.
When I see a loony driver I don't instantly label all drivers as loony, but it does seem drivers label all cyclists as law breakers.
This is true, riding in the gutter is very dangerous, especially when it's wet. I heard a cyclist got killed, rode through a puddle, massive pot hole hidden in it, he crashed into it and died.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,245
- Location
- Inverkip
OP = troll
If there is not traffic going across, only pedestrians then it isnt dangerous for cyclists to jump lights. Cyclists have a small agile machine that gives them a complete view of the situation that you dont get in a car. Bikes are tiny and there are very few of them compared to cars so I dont see the problem.
There are a few cyclists that are not very good but they tend to just pootle along the pavements or at the side of the road.
There are plenty of bad drivers who have no respect for cyclists, go out of their way to get in the way of cyclists when it is unnecessary and think that driving under 5 miles to work is ok.
When the government really want to cut down on emissions and our fossils fuels, maybe they will stop all of the short car journeys in the morning and evening from work.
I cycle at the side of the road , let cars out if possible and make sure I dont get in their way.I go on the pavement, jump lights and cycle really fast at times but I have never had an accident or nearly had an accident.
As a general rule, people in cars ignore cyclists, overtake if you give them an inch and quite happily block you from coming on the inside lane towards traffic lights. Things that should just be courtesy seem to pass drivers by.
Some of us do this on purpose when we know the car behind wants to squeeze past in a manner that will be dangerous in a particular spot.
I do sometimes 'take primary' like this but will always pull back in as soon as it is safe and let the revving monster past.
To be fair, nothing wrong with driving to work at anything over a mile, the only time I think you really should cycle is if your workplace has showering facilities. Even cycling pretty steady the amount of sweat is enough to make someone smell, sweat patches all over, and look like they've peed themselves. And the majority of commuters I see ain't taking it steady.
Some cars have as much view as a cyclist, even Motorbikes do, are you saying they should be allowed to go through red lights when there is no traffic moving across?
Some cars have as much view as a cyclist, even Motorbikes do, are you saying they should be allowed to go through red lights when there is no traffic moving across?
If a Cyclist hit a car while crossing a red light...
Let's turn that around shall we, the car would have hit the cyclist. Regardless, the cyclist is going to come off much worse, both the person and the bike.
If the Cyclist had broken the law and jumped a red light, that's a whole other issue, but let's put that to the side and discuss the fact that people do get knocked off bikes, infact a friend of mine recently got knocked off his in London by a Taxi driver, leaving him injured and his bike damaged without even stopping.
What I'm trying to say is that any proper accident involving a cyclist and a motorized vehicle will ALWAYS involve the cyclist coming off worse.
What you seem to be most worried about is your car getting scratched which is a low speed issue that isn't likely to involve anyone getting hurt; it also seems to be the reason that I always see popping up that cyclists should have insurance. Realistically, it's unlikely a cyclist will scratch your car, the only part of a bike that is likely to touch a car is the ends of the handlebars, which should be rubberised, or a deliberated scrape from the bottom of shoe cleat.
I've only ever hit two cars when cycling. The first one I went into the back of because he unexpectedly stopped and my brakes weren't quick enough, so I nudged his bumper. He fully acknowledged it was his fault.
The second one was a white van man, whose wingmirror got lightly knocked by my rucksack, causing no damage as I went past him, however he was half way into a dedicated cycle lane, giving me very little space. He shouldn't have been in it.
As far as scratches on cars go... I think people get too over protective. At the end of the day, my cars have always had more scratches on them just from people opening doors, or brushing against them in car parks, more so than any cyclist is likely to cause. Not to mention, if you've ever had a light bump with another motorist which results in no real damage, most of the time nobody claims for something so trivial. Unless you are driving a supercar, does it really matter so much, but saying that, you wouldn't want to drive such a car in rush hour traffic in a city like London that is full of so many people trying to get to work on both motorbikes, cycles and cars.
Ain't that the truth! I guess it depends whether people see their cars are machines for getting around or some kind of status symbol of conspicuous consumption trying to compensate for psychological insecurities about their height/age/belly/pecker/hair line etc...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
Bicycles shouldn't be on roads, they should be in properly specified, designed and maintained bicycle lanes...