UK an offended nation

[mugwuffin]

I like Jeremy Vine, you get a more sophisticated class of whinging.

I like Jeremy Vine too, but his callers are (to quote brass eye) "rabid", "pig-ignorant" and "stultifyingly ill-informed".

 

[LordSplodge]

i would like to see cyclists have some form of insurance as mandatory though.

I asked another poster but got no response, so I'll ask you. What does having insurance for cyclists achieve? Do horse riders need it too?

Insurance would discourage cyclists and that's a bad thing. As I have said a few times in this thread we should look at the Dutch way of making cyclists and motorists co-exists.

So you should, they're not supposed to do that and can be fined for it.

They can cycle two abreast and how would they get fined for doing 10MPH? Just show some patience and overtake when safe to do so. It isn't hard and a few minutes delay won't kill you, unlike what could happen to the cyclist if the car driver overtakes at the wrong point.

 

[Tefal]

I asked another poster but got no response, so I'll ask you. What does having insurance for cyclists achieve? Do horse riders need it too?

means if they crash into my bike it gets paid for along with my physio/treatment/loss of income/rehabilitation/care?

The exact same reasons cars and bikes have it tbh.

I'd personally say horses tend to be too slow to be a threat that is out of your control where as a bike can easily be fast enough to remove your chance to react.


I'll ask you why should they be exempt from it?

Insurance would discourage cyclists and that's a bad thing

Some would argue it would only discourage the irresponsible ones.

 

[Johno please?]

I agree attitudes must change. This thread says they aren't though.

As for 'predicting' it is like a sixth sense that long term cyclists get. Like the morning when I knew a car was going to ignore me and turn in front of me despite my bright orange top, lights, defensive road position (and all that)

Any long term road user should be able to (to a certain extent) predict what another car is going to do by looking at their speed and road position.

As for being offended, its normally the religious that winge and moan the most.... or in extreme cases, kill.

 

[John40]

I'd personally say horses tend to be too slow to be a threat that is out of your control where as a bike can easily be fast enough to remove your chance to react.

As the owner of 3 horses I can tell you that horses on the road are very much a threat.

 

[Tefal]

As the owner of 3 horses I can tell you that horses on the road are very much a threat.

yes they can be of course, but i mean you generally have lots of time to make yourself safe from the very occasional horse that you see walking on the road.

There are significantly more bicycles and they tend to be much harder to see, much faster and less attentive than horse riders.

 

[Tefal]

LordSplodge how would you feel about the mandatory addition of wing/bar end mirrors?

a lot of cyclists are oblivious to whats behind them, and tend to weave dramatically when doing over exaggerated shoulder checks.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

Other cyclists get stuck behind slower moving cyclists too. It's irritating, but I can count the number of times a cyclist has performed a close or dangerous pass on me on one finger. I can count the number of times they've passed me ringing their bell constantly or shouting at me for no apparent reason on no fingers. The same cannot be said of drivers.

I'm both a motorist and a cyclist and I like to think I'm one of the better of each. I don't jump lights, I obey the laws of the road, if I feel like I'm causing an obstruction I may even remove myself from the situation to make life easier for road users (there's a stretch of my journey where I move from road to cycle path even though I know it's more work for me and increases the risk of tire damage due to poorer surfaces. I do this because it's a large incline with no safe overtaking spots, being stuck behind me is likely to be an annoyance for drivers).

The proportion of cyclists who are idiots is likely to be identical to the proportion of drivers who are idiots. I'd go so far as to say that they're probably the same idiots.

I agree with the poster above, the dream is to move to a system akin to the one used by the Dutch. Cycling factors into all of their road planning and as such it's much easier for cyclists and drivers to co-exist.

With regards to the insurance thing, you might find that a surprising proportion of the more serious bike commuters actually do hold insurance. It's certainly on my radar at the moment, even if I've yet to take the plunge and buy it.

 

[platypus]

There are significantly more bicycles and they tend to be much harder to see, much faster and less attentive than horse riders.

Can you quantify or prove that?

LordSplodge how would you feel about the mandatory addition of wing/bar end mirrors?

a lot of cyclists are oblivious to whats behind them, and tend to weave dramatically when doing over exaggerated shoulder checks.

Has mandatory rear view mirrors stopped lots of drivers being oblivious to whats behind them? I have had a car pull out on me several times - both when cycling and driving - because people don't use their mirrors. My father in law was almost killed on the motorway because a driver didn't check his mirrors before pulling out.

And lets just take that last sentence at face value - firstly you're unhappy that "a lot of cyclists" are oblivious to what's behind them (again, quantify this please); yet you're unhappy when they make efforts to look behind them? Can you quantify for me what an "over exaggerated shoulder check" is - as what I've read in your post is that you want to require cyclists to check behind them, but when doing so also manage to find fault with it?

Your posts are entirely indicative of the problem of attitude. You make sweeping assumptions about cyclists without any actual proof or quantitative evidence. You don't seem to care about making the roads safer. You certainly don't seem to care about the more vulnerable road users, just about making out how much it is their fault - and for what? For being more vulnerable than a car? I don't really care that you don't like cyclists (or certainly seem to have an agenda against them), I'm concerned by your attitude, and the wider attitude in society. This is what needs to change.

 

[LordSplodge]

means if they crash into my bike it gets paid for along with my physio/treatment/loss of income/rehabilitation/care?

The exact same reasons cars and bikes have it tbh.


I'll ask you why should they be exempt from it?

Cars and bike can do much more damage and thus insurance is a no brainer there. Personally I don't think cyclists (and horse riders) should require insurance because they really don't cause much damage to vehicles and mostly when they do it is the vehicle drivers fault (statistically, not every case)

I'd go for laws that encourage cycling (hence why insurance is not a good idea) like they do in Holland. Making car driver more cautious of cyclists is a good thing IMHO.

Bike-friendly public policy, planning & laws
The needs of cyclists are taken into account in all stages of urban planning. Urban areas are frequently organised as woonerven (living streets), which prioritise cyclists and pedestrians over motorised traffic.
The Netherlands employs a standards-based approach to road design, where conflicts between different modes of transport are eliminated wherever possible and reduced in severity as much as possible where elimination is not possible. The result of this is that cycling is made both objectively and subjectively safe. Towns have been designed with limited access by cars and limited (decreasing over time) car parking. The resulting heavy traffic and very limited car parking makes car use unattractive in towns.
A form of strict liability has been law in the Netherlands since the early 1990s for bicycle-motor vehicle accidents.[10] In a nutshell this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver's insurer is deemed to be liable to pay damages (n.b. motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) to the cyclist's property and their medical bills as long as 1) the cyclist did not intentionally crash into the motor vehicle, and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way.[10] If the cyclist was in error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages — though this doesn't apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages.[10] If it can be proved that a cyclist intended to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or his/her parents in the case of a minor.)[10]
No compulsory bicycle helmet laws.[11] In the Netherlands, bicycle helmets are not commonly worn; they are mostly used by young children and sports cyclists who ride racing bikes or mountain bikes. In fact, the Dutch Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union) summarized existing evidence and concluded that, for normal, everyday cycling (i.e. not sports cycling), a compulsory helmet law would have a negative impact on population health.[12]

As the owner of 3 horses I can tell you that horses on the road are very much a threat.

I used to be a horse rider and they could do more damage to a motor vehicle than I could on a pushbike!

 

[LordSplodge]

a lot of cyclists are oblivious to whats behind them, and tend to weave dramatically when doing over exaggerated shoulder checks.

Don't see the need.

Motorcyclists can weave when doing the lifesaver too. I don't weave unless my speed is slow when checking behind me but as a driver you should be wary that a cyclist may weave or wobble (they may have to suddenly avoid a pothole, for example)

 

[BuffetSlayer]

I try and give cyclists as much room as I can.

But I feel that they are road users. As such there should be some kind of way to police them. True, they do not pose the same kind of threat as someone in a car but they do pose a threat, both to themselves and pedestrians. If a cyclist careers into your car and causes damage, what recourse do you have? None. I do not feel that is right. And yes cyclists can cause damage to vehicles - dents, stratches, broken wing mirrors etc. Also, anyone that has ever had a cyclist ride into them will twll you that they can cause injury too. So it is disingenuous for anyone to try and argue that cyclists do not cause damage or injury. Granted, they wont cause as much damage as a car, but nonetheless they can and do cause it.

I have seen examples of bad cycling and bad driving in bucket loads. The truth is both groups of people have their good and bad members, and they are just as bad as each other. The crux of this issue, though, is motorists tend to feel they have more right to be there because of the amount of money it costs and the hoops they have to jump through with getting a license and insurance etc. I personally don't subscribe to that point of view, but I know people who do, and in some ways I can understand their frustration when a cyclist flaunts the highway code with no regard to others.

But lets face it, when it is cold, wet and windy the drivers out there are grateful they have spent all that money as they drive past a cyclist and inwardly shudder, thinking rather you than me mate

Swings and roundabouts and all that malarky

 

[platypus]

I try and give cyclists as much room as I can.

But I feel that they are road users. As such there should be some kind of way to police them. True, they do not pose the same kind of threat as someone in a car but they do pose a threat, both to themselves and pedestrians. If a cyclist careers into your car and causes damage, what recourse do you have? None. I do not feel that is right.

I agree completely, I just do not see it as workable. We all ready have a certain number of motorists avoiding compulsory insurance, how much more difficult and costly would it be to police for cyclists? Again it goes back to the question of infrastructure and attitudes. Holland has no need for cyclist insurance.

I have seen examples of bad cycling and bad driving in bucket loads. The truth is both groups of people have their good and bad members, and they are just as bad as each other. The crux of this issue, though, is motorists tend to feel they have more right to be there because of the amount of money it costs and the hoops they have to jump through with getting a license and insurance etc. I personally don't subscribe to that point of view, but I know people who do, and in some ways I can understand their frustration when a cyclist flaunts the highway code with no regard to others.

Ironic isn't it then that a lot of the road network was built for bicycles, certainly in the post war period when it was the most common form of transport.

I take your point about the highway code, but I think all road users are bad at adhering to this, and its unfair to point out cyclists as having no regard for it and other road users whilst not indicating its actually all road users.

But lets face it, when it is cold, wet and windy the drivers out there are grateful they have spent all that money as they drive past a cyclist and inwardly shudder, thinking rather you than me mate

Puts hairs on your chest .

 

[Judgeneo]

Why would cyclists need insureance?

I see a huge amount of complaining about some cyclists flounting the rules of the road, but never about any damage caused - unless that is the death of the cyclist in question.

 

[ubersonic]

They can cycle two abreast and how would they get fined for doing 10MPH? Just show some patience and overtake when safe to do so. It isn't hard and a few minutes delay won't kill you, unlike what could happen to the cyclist if the car driver overtakes at the wrong point.

Deeeeeeeeerp

Nobody said we couldn't cycle two abreast, the point was about cycling three abreast and holding up traffic (which we can be fined for).

Technically a cyclist could also be fined for riding two abreast if they were holding up traffic as they should have the sense to move over and make it easier to pass as per the HWC, but I doubt an officer would do anything unless it was a very severe case.

 

[LordSplodge]

Nobody said we couldn't cycle two abreast, the point was about cycling three abreast and holding up traffic (which we can be fined for).
.

I'd like to see a cyclists fined for actually holding up the traffic.

 

[ubersonic]

I'd like to see a cyclists fined for actually holding up the traffic.

Well cycling two abreast while the are cars queueing to pass you would constitute careless and inconsiderate cycling for which the fine is up to £1000, but AFAIK nobody has been done for it, only for causing accidents, I know the police in some areas were handing out leaflets a while back making cyclists aware of the road laws and the offences/fines you can commit on a bike (some cyclists don't have driving licenses so have never looked at the HWC, I would like to stress I am not one of those ones lol).

 

[rickjames]

Was expecting to read a thread about how we as the British public are easily offended, but instead got drivel about cyclists. Excellent work all round.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

I agree completely, I just do not see it as workable. We all ready have a certain number of motorists avoiding compulsory insurance, how much more difficult and costly would it be to police for cyclists? Again it goes back to the question of infrastructure and attitudes. Holland has no need for cyclist insurance.

I agree it could very well be unworkable on a cost/benefit analysis basis, but with the increasing automation of our highways and how we manage them a simple identifying number plate style thing for bicycles is not beyond the realms of possibility.

But point taken, I would much prefer to see a more wholesome approach to the infrastructure and that starts with changing hearts and minds, and attitudes. The problem is, we have invested on a car focused infrastructure for so long that rectifying the problem is a mammouth task. That is not to say it cannot be done, it is just going to cost a lot more.

Ironic isn't it then that a lot of the road network was built for bicycles, certainly in the post war period when it was the most common form of transport.

I agree, but times change. You could argue, if you go far enough back, that the road network was built for moving foot soldiers and horses/carts. We need to move with the times.

I take your point about the highway code, but I think all road users are bad at adhering to this, and its unfair to point out cyclists as having no regard for it and other road users whilst not indicating its actually all road users.

I think there are elements within the different road user groups that are bad for this. I would rather not tar everyone with the same brush as if everyone was so bad at following the highway code there wuld be death and destruction everywhere. I think the truth is there are some bad apples and as human nature prescribes, we only focus on the bad rather than the good. To that end I should mention I have also seen bucket loads of good driving and cycling

I am not unfairly picking on cycclists, but it goes back to my earlier point about perceived entitlement. Some drivers feel more entitled to be on the road than their cycling counterparts. The amusing thing is that many cyclists also have cars or motorbikes too, so that is the main reason I do not subscribe to the entitlement point of view. But, even if it is flawed, that does not stop others from holding the view that they are more entitled.

Puts hairs on your chest .

No thanks, motorbiking in winter is bad enough! I will stick to my lovely heated motor vehicle that costs me a fortune but is better than being **** wet through and freezing cold

 

[ubersonic]

Was expecting to read a thread about how we as the British public are easily offended, but instead got drivel about cyclists. Excellent work all round.

Sorry if it offended you