A "Cycling Utopia"

oh yeah this reminds me had a great one yesterday in Manchester, going down kings way a 40mp dual carriageway major road through the city darkish and coming straight towards me, along the dashed white lines was a cyclist, thats right riding the wrong way down the center of a dual carriage way, as in between two oncoming cars at a time.


weaving all over the place (clearly ****ed off his face im guessing) ok not so much of an issue for the tin boxes, but if it had been darker (he had no lights just a shopping bag hanging off one bar) and i hadn't noticed hi man given an ultra wide berth if he'd hit me i could have been a gonna on a motorbike, same for any of the other guys who ride around there.

i do think if they want to be on the road, then insurance and a plate of some kind is needed.

atm, no traceability =do what they like putting others at risk.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;25573146 said:
Most cyclists are insured on their household insurance.
Click to expand...

That's not third-party liability insurance though.

Most serious cyclists will have 3rd party insurance though. Everybody i ride with is insured, if you ride in a group and take out 3-4 people, that could easily be £10k worth of bikes trashed.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;25573108 said:
You felt the need to throw in an arbitrary made up figure if 80% of cyclist jumping redI see it., but don't feel the need to do the same for divers jumping zebra crossings?

I spy someone with an agenda.
Click to expand...

Yes my arbitrary 80pc is clearly and openly arbitrary and very clearly and openly my own opinion as stated. I rarely see cars jump red lights but it does happen. in fact I was almost hit by someone jumping a red light at a junction two months ago and I had to emergency stop with my kids in the car to avoid the idiot. I do frequently see drivers crossing zebras when they should't.

I have absolutely no agenda. I have driven cars, bikes and motorcycles on the roads. I am simpIy stating my opinion as I see it. I spy someone trying to make a point when there isn't one and indeed it seems to me that you have an agenda.
 
Hades said:
Yes my arbitrary 80pc is clearly and openly arbitrary and very clearly and openly my own opinion as stated. I rarely see cars jump red lights but it does happen. in fact I was almost hit by someone jumping a red light at a junction two months ago and I had to emergency stop with my kids in the car to avoid the idiot. I do frequently see drivers crossing zebras when they should't.

I have absolutely no agenda. I have driven cars, bikes and motorcycles on the roads. I am simpIy stating my opinion as I see it. I spy someone trying to make a point when there isn't one and indeed it seems to me that you have an agenda.
Click to expand...

I see cars jump stop lights all the time. Are you saying that amber gambling is rare in your parts.

I do have an agenda; it's mainly based around promotion of facts in debates such as this rather than biased opinion and anecdotal evidence.

Mentioning 80% in one point and then not in another is classic Daily Mail editorial as the one with the figure is remembered and given more weight.
 
Last edited:
[DOD]Asprilla;25573206 said:
I see cars jump stop lights all the time. Are you saying that amber gambling is rare in your parts.

I do have an agenda; it's mainly based around promotion of facts in debates such as this rather than biased opinion and anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

That's nice for you.

Yes I rarely see cars jump red lights but as I openly admit it does happen. They jump amber stop lights more frequently than reds but in my opinion the percentage of cyclists deliberately ignoring lights massively outweighs the percentage of car drivers doing so.

Your opinion may be different.
 
Theophany said:
This should be in the Motors subforum for ultimate lulz. ;)

HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO MOW DOWN THESE SELF-RIGHTEOUS LYCRA MORONS IF THEY'RE NOT ON THE ROAD? THEY DON'T EVEN PAY ROAD TAX! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
Click to expand...

We have cycle paths here, doesn't stop them still cycling on the dual carriage ways :confused:

MW
 
Mr-White said:
We have cycle paths here, doesn't stop them still cycling on the dual carriage ways :confused:

MW
Click to expand...

The Department for Transport guidelines suggest that cyclists DO NOT use cycle paths if they ride over 18mph.

As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.
Click to expand...

I dont know everybody who is contributing to this thread but i know that this applies to [DOD]Asprilla and Grudas
 
As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.
Click to expand...

Isn't that for those silly pavements where they've just put a white line down the middle?
I mean the Bus/Cycle lanes, surely buses are going faster than 18mph.

I've recently started cycling (since September), and I must admit I certainly have a new found respect for cyclists. I used to get particularly annoyed behind stuck behind a cyclist (in the car), and there was a cycle path/pavement next to them. I find a lot of the shared pavements are too dangerous for me to cycle on, as a lot of pedestrians don't carry lights at night.
The majority of the roads around my commute, have reduced widths due to these extended pavements, so if I use the road the motorists get very close when overtaking (usually whilst honking at me).

I really feel like I can't win, I would rather cycle on the road all of the time but I don't always feel safe, and I always annoy some motorist. If I go on the bicycle/pedestrian pavements, I risk injuring a jogger or something.
As an ex-motorist I do try to show as much consideration to other road users as possible, stopping at red lights etc. I agree that there are some rubbish cyclist out there though which gives the others a bad reputation.

Perhaps a dedicated level like suggested in the London is the best solution for the long term, I'm not sure it's worth the cost though.
 
Back to the original topic.

It seems like a good idea. What gets me is the staggering costs that are being quoted for it!

£55 Million/Mile is nearly double the costs of building a Motorway!:eek: and when you factor in the fact that no grading work is going to be needed (It is just mostly a lightweight viaduct built over existing railways) where the hell is all the money going??

It is like HS2! There seems to be some sort of bizarre competition on for seeing who can propose the most preposterously expensive project for infrastructure improvements! (Its mostly only taxpayers money after all) :(
 
When you look at the Limehouse Link the inflation adjusted price would be £445m for 1.1 miles. Pricey.

touch said:
That's not third-party liability insurance though.

Most serious cyclists will have 3rd party insurance though. Everybody i ride with is insured, if you ride in a group and take out 3-4 people, that could easily be £10k worth of bikes trashed.
Click to expand...

I'm covered for £5m personal liability on my house and contents (and another £2m on my bank account).
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
so two vehicles quite a far apart both went around you and through? you sure you weren't looking at the wrong lights?
Click to expand...

Yep, everyone else waited and people were going left/right. Lucky there wasn't an accident tbh.

The van and motorbike appeared to be travelling together, although one had pulled over a bit earlier so must have been playing catch up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom