Stupid Cyclist!

How does this work, I don't pay "Road Tax" for my bike, but I also don't pay "VED" for my >100g CO2/km car...?

As both a cyclist and driver, I don't see any issue with sharing the road with cyclist. Their hinderance is less than being stuck behind a tractor on a NSL, SC road. Let admit it, everyone don't like being stuck behind a tractor, but which is easier to pass safely?

And in the case of stupid cyclist, unfortunately there are a good handful of them on any commute. The same can be said for drivers. If everyone (inc cyclist) respect the highway code, then there shouldn't be any argument.
 
Mr Jones said:
How does this work, I don't pay "Road Tax" for my bike, but I also don't pay "VED" for my >100g CO2/km car...?
Click to expand...

You're a "rude word" :) . As a cyclist you should at least have the decency to drive something decent, ie tax band K minimum.
 
platypus said:
Where are you taking the figures from?
Click to expand...

Naturally since this is a GD forum on the inter-web, any figures are of course Anally Extracted! :D :D :p

More Seriously... :)

The KE bit is basic 11+ (Or even younger) science (I am assuming you knew that)

The efficiency/fuel consumption figures are a guestimate based on anecdotal data...

In particular that one of these will produce around 4 KWhr/Litre of Diesel (At the flywheel). and, despite being rather old technology are considered really quite efficient.

I would expect a modern truck engine to do as well, or even better, (At the flywheel) at its optimal design load/speed but at the same time it then has to drive gearboxes, wheels,tyres etc and during WOT acceleration will not be operating optimally which will then drop the efficiency of the overall power train somewhat.

I am assuming that with one set of "Real World," factors cancelling out another the 4KWhr/L (Tank to Tyres) result is going to be a reasonable ball park figure.

(If anybody knows better I would be delighted to know)


Even if the actual numbers for a modern truck are different, I doubt if they will be much different and the overall statement that the fuel consumed (By the Cyclist) as a result of compelling the truck to slow right down and then accelerate back up to speed is definitely non-trivial!

It is going to be about a quid a pop!

Whilst this is not going to be a big problem on urban roads, or even extra-urban DC's where passing without slowing is likely to be easier It could be a big problem on busy SC routes or those which might have become popular recently with cyclists.

It would be interesting if the likes of "Eddie Storbart" have noticed if the fuel costs on certain regular routes have inexplicably risen over the last couple of years!
 
The other thing to consider is that while decelerating, the trucks etc will use less fuel than normally, thus cancelling out some of the effect - how much depending on how far in advance the truck driver decided to start decelerating.
 
Orionaut said:
Cyclists DO produce emissions. In some cases rather more than one might think!

Consider A NSL SC road with traffic traveling in both directions.

Consider an HGV traveling at 40 coming up behind a cyclist.

The HGV will require a gap in the oncoming traffic in order to pass the cyclist. Sometimes there is one, sometimes one can plan for one, but if the road is busy more often than not one will not be available when it is needed so the truck will have to slow down and wait for one,

Slowing from 40 to (say) 12 and then accelerating back up to speed will consume around half a litre of fuel that would not otherwise have been consumed!

If in the course of (say) a 7 mile cycle ride this scenario is repeated more than a couple of times our cyclist would have produced less "Emissions" by leaving his bike at home and driving a Range Rover Sport instead!

The same scenario also applies to cars. though the overall effect on lighter vehicles is less dramatic individually. overall the effect is quite large owing to the large numbers of such vehicles. Though it would be difficult to quantify I suspect that only a small increase in the use of cycles on extra urban highways, unless proper segregated cycle lanes are provided, will actually significantly increase national emissions and fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

Utter clap trap:rolleyes:
 
divaboy said:
Utter clap trap:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Good come back.

The point about cyclists increasing fuel usage for faster road users is true but completely unavoidable and pointless thinking about. Plus it's overshadowed by all the other obstacles on our road networks. E.g. other slow traffic (lorries, tractors) traffic lights, junctions etc. Until the roads are fully automated (like something from iRobot!) it's just a fact of road transport.
 
As a cyclist myself, the cyclist is 100% at fault.

Technically, you had right of way turning left anyway but the cyclist should have seen the potential hazard in the first place. A car doesn't normally stop without good reason.

I've grown to learn over the years that all road users are bad as each other, neglecting general rules of the road and common sense.
 
Malc said:
Good come back.

The point about cyclists increasing fuel usage for faster road users is true but completely unavoidable and pointless thinking about. Plus it's overshadowed by all the other obstacles on our road networks. E.g. other slow traffic (lorries, tractors) traffic lights, junctions etc. Until the roads are fully automated (like something from iRobot!) it's just a fact of road transport.
Click to expand...

Look at this another way.

Urban fuel consumption is typically rather higher than extra urban fuel consumption. This is because on urban roads one is always speeding up and slowing down (Loosing energy through brakes That's why they get hot. using extra fuel energy to get back up to speed again. Thats why yo use much wider throttle openings to accelerate than you do to maintain a steady speed)

The reason why hybrids give good urban mileage is because they have a degree of regenerative braking which helps to reduce the impact of this. One day, perhaps, larger and heavier vehicles (Buses have had this sort of thing for some time in various parts of the world) may have this technology. but I suspect it would be prohibitively expensive for a heavy truck.

Even a modest increase in cycling on extra-urban roads which were previously not so obstructed will make them more like urban ones, with a consequent increase in pollution and fleet fuel consumption.

An increase in cycling on shared extra urban roads will increase fuel consumption for other vehicles. In some cases significantly. It is a mathematical certainty!

It is also Highly likely that your typical extra-urban cyclist will be using as much fuel as he would have been driving his own car, it is just he is burning in other peoples engines and having other people pay for it.

There may well be many reasons for cycling as an alternative. But unless full segregated cycle ways are widespread it is unlikely that such a shift will result in national fuel savings or an overall reduction in pollution.

This is not to say that other obstructions (Traffic lights etc) do not also have tha same effect but more cyclists means more stop/start driving and will add to the effects that are already there.

Like I suggested earlier. The "Acid test" would be to see whether large fleet operators, who will keep detailed records of fuel consumption and routes, are beginning to notice this effect (or will begin to notice it in the future)
 
Idiots exist in all forms of transport.
Some worse than others....

This was something I had last year.
Definitely the bikers fault on this one! :o

 
I have no issues with good cyclists. Such as the ones that don't undertake when I'm turning left, or that stop at red lights or that don't behave like a tool and have some road sense. In return I always leave them a lot of room and let them pass if it's safe and easier for me to do that. Don't get any thanks though it must be said - but that's okay, I'd rather they concentrated on the road.

However, my pet peeve is those that do not behave properly and put their lives at risk for no reason. So what... they can get 1 car length ahead and then be over taken?

I was run into as a pedestrian when crossing the road (it was green for pedestrians to cross) and he came flying off his bike and gashed his chin open. He was screaming he was going to sue me and that I saw him coming and could have got out of the way - I told him it was a red light - tough luck. Needless to say he didn't apologise, or apologise for bruising me or potentially injuring me more.

I'm afraid I'm very vocal towards cyclists that behave like that and have no hesitation to have a word with them.

However, it is also important to note that cyclists are very vulnerable, and should be given the space and the benefit of doubt.

I ride a motorbike and have to be careful about cars and bikes, but would never undertake on a bike - it's so dangerous.

Also it's about observation - you should always assume a car is going to change direction, and if they slow down, be ready for a change in direction. Too much blame given not enough responsibility taken.
 
Fuzz said:
Idiots exist in all forms of transport.
Some worse than others....

This was something I had last year.
Definitely the bikers fault on this one! :o

Click to expand...


I get that all the time where I live (When trying to enter the side road where I live).

Maybe one of the Motorcyclists here could enlighten me as to why So Many Bikers take "Slowing down and indicating right" as an invitation to overtake??

Of course if you HAD turned and he had hit you it would have been your fault for "Not Looking Properly" :rolleyes:
 
No it would have been 50/50 - but even that's not a guarantee, might have gone against the motorbike, but he would have probably been a cripple or died. Eitherway Fuzz would have to have lived with the fact he was involved (even though it wasn't his fault) in a fatality (probably), which is worse than any other end result.
 
Freefaller said:
I have no issues with good cyclists. Such as the ones that don't undertake when I'm turning left, or that stop at red lights or that don't behave like a tool and have some road sense. In return I always leave them a lot of room and let them pass if it's safe and easier for me to do that. Don't get any thanks though it must be said - but that's okay, I'd rather they concentrated on the road.
Click to expand...

What about cyclists that undertake whilst in a segragated, but not seperate cycle lane? Eg:
lanef.png
?
 
Freefaller said:
In return I always leave them a lot of room and let them pass if it's safe and easier for me to do that. Don't get any thanks though it must be said - but that's okay, I'd rather they concentrated on the road.
Click to expand...

Don't begrudge them too much for this - if a driver gives way to me or goes out of their way to make things easier for me, I will always try and nod/wave a thank you, but when your cycling it's not always easy or safe to lift a hand from the handlebars to do so, so you might not always see it.

It's not a lack of manners, just a matter of practicality :)
 
platypus said:
What about cyclists that undertake whilst in a segragated, but not seperate cycle lane? Eg:
lanef.png
?
Click to expand...

That's different, I was talking about a regular road - however, if I'm a decent distance ahead I'd expect them not to be too annoyed that I decided to turn left as I would be indicating with plenty of time for them to realise my intentions - but I wouldn't turn if I thought it was too soon or dangerous. As a motorbike rider, I know the issues that cyclists face.
 
Last edited:
Conscript said:
Don't begrudge them too much for this - if a driver gives way to me or goes out of their way to make things easier for me, I will always try and nod/wave a thank you, but when your cycling it's not always easy or safe to lift a hand from the handlebars to do so, so you might not always see it.

It's not a lack of manners, just a matter of practicality :)
Click to expand...

As I said I don't begrudge them, I said I'd rather they concentrated on their riding. :)

Same as when I'm on my motorbike, I give a head nod, but taking a hand off the handle bars isn't particularly safe or sensible in town.

I just cannot abide the cyclists that don't have any common sense and expect everyone the bow to them either - their arrogant attitudes do annoy me, but I have to take the higher ground as they are the vulnerable road users. Fortunately I've only ever had a couple of altercations with cyclists (100% their fault) but whilst they were aggressive at first, they walked away with their tails between their legs, and an apology.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that as a cyclist, you have to try and maintain your momentum. Whereas coming to a halt in a car is no big deal, for a cyclist it's much harder and more tiring to get going again from a stop. When cycling I try and keep rolling as much as I can and position myself so I keep momentum up, but I wouldn't dream of flying through a red light or across a pedestrian crossing just because of that. I think a lot of cyclists do and justify their actions using the argument that they need to maintain speed.
 
Freefaller said:
That's different, I was talking about a regular road - however, if I'm a decent distance ahead I'd expect them not to be too annoyed that I decided to turn left as I would be indicating with plenty of time for them to realise my intentions - but I wouldn't turn if I thought it was too soon or dangerous. As a motorbike rider, I know the issues that cyclists face.
Click to expand...

I know it was different, I was just interested to know your opinion. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to smash on the brakes because a car has come into the cycle lane to go around the car in front (stopped to turn right for example). Drivers not using their mirrors is my greatest concern usually. Most don't seem to remember they have a passenger side mirror.

And yes, in regards to the "thanks" from cyclists, I do my best to thank courteous driving but its not always possible. Also - you may not always see it :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom