Why do we hate cycling in this country?

platypus said:
I know you're going to be somewhat glib, but what is your plan for Pedestrian outfits?
Click to expand...

Valid point, had a near miss once from someone wearing green trousers, a dpm jacket and a green hat walking along a country road at night.

As can be expected i didnt see him until i'd nearly hit him, and even then only because he was moving.

I would interject and say though i would feel guilty if i had, but i would logically conclude that wearing camoflage at night on a dark country road it would be considerably more his fault than mine.

Theres plenty of dog walkers around where i live, and its amazing how you can see the stripes of a high vis vest long before the rest of the person or even a light coloured dog like a labrador.

So at night yes, pedestrians should be expected to wear some form of high vis in unlit areas, or at least i would expect no legal comeback to a driver if he accidentally hits someone who's not wearing it.
 
Rotty said:
Insurance and some sort of training needs to be compulsory to ride on public roads
Click to expand...

Insurance, definitely, at least 3rd party but how could it even be enforced? I don't want a plate on my bike... especially since bikes are so easy to steal, even when secured to something... Whatever happened to the cycling proficiency test? I think I did it when I was 6. Certainly before I moved schools in '86. And we had the police come down with some mobile traffic lights, a bunch of cones to set out a road layout in the playground and it was great fun.
 
ianh said:
The "attitude" change is required by a minority on both sides. Both sides should remember that cyclists are soft fleshy things that don't react well to fast moving metal objects and, for the vast majority they do and everyone gets along but there's is always a minority that are morons :D

The insurance issue becomes "you damaged my car by riding into it so why should I have to pay for your mistake".

Currently, someone with no formal training on the roads (no license), no check of the mechanical safety of their vehicle (no MOT) and no cover for any damage they may cause (no insurance) can legally join a 60mph A-Road and potentially cause an accident because they have no idea what traffic signs are or they have no brakes fitted etc.

If you use the roads, at a minimum, I think there should be some form of license to ensure that you at least have some knowledge of how to use the roads safely (similar to the Theory driving test). I also think, after seeing HGV's roar past three 5-8 year olds following their Mum on the 60mph A20 in Kent, no-one under 16 should be allowed to cycle on a road with a speed limit over 30mph, just to protect them.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that a huge percentage of cyclists will also be drivers, so to contend they have no training or experience is wrong. Insurance is a valid point and I do believe all cyclists should have sufficient 3rd party cover.
 
Jono said:
Insurance, definitely, at least 3rd party but how could it even be enforced? I don't want a plate on my bike... especially since bikes are so easy to steal, even when secured to something... Whatever happened to the cycling proficiency test? I think I did it when I was 6. Certainly before I moved schools in '86. And we had the police come down with some mobile traffic lights, a bunch of cones to set out a road layout in the playground and it was great fun.
Click to expand...

A plate could be like a race number used by Pro Cyclists. Small and more importantly, aero :D
 
All gay lycra should be banned, nothing worse than middle aged men wearing lycra riding at 10 mph - honestly, that lycra doesn't make you go faster unless you're competing in the Tour de France - perhaps.
Also Ninja cyclists wearing all black in the dark should be killed which would then leave only people dressed like me

dimplecycle.jpg
 
SexyGreyFox said:
All gay lycra should be banned, nothing worse than middle aged men wearing lycra riding at 10 mph - honestly, that lycra doesn't make you go faster unless you're competing in the Tour de France - perhaps.
Also Ninja cyclists wearing all black in the dark should be killed which would then leave only people dressed like me

dimplecycle.jpg
Click to expand...

What about straight lycra, is that allowed?
And you are aware that lycra isn't worn primarily add a means of making you go faster?
 
Conscript said:
What about straight lycra, is that allowed?
And you are aware that lycra isn't worn primarily add a means of making you go faster?
Click to expand...

I vowed never to be be part of the Lycra crowd. Then I realised a base layer of Lycra could provide the same warmth as a jumper and jeans minus the risk of getting caught in the chain. Now I'm a right skintight tart.
 
So I've taken up cycling as a form of exercise recently, I approach a roundabout therefore check traffic behind me, give a signal then move to the centre of the lane, and what am I greeted with? A bus driver horning me:confused: I don't like to stereotype.. but clearly this guy needs to read the Highway Code again if he hasn't already (for numerous reasons).
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Craghopper pants tucked into sock on chain side. Don't care what anyone thinks :)
Click to expand...
That you look like a chav that's probably stolen the bike :)

I don't care what anyone thinks I look like, because I know I look like a potato stuffed into a stocking :(
 
adolf hamster said:
So at night yes, pedestrians should be expected to wear some form of high vis in unlit areas, or at least i would expect no legal comeback to a driver if he accidentally hits someone who's not wearing it.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, and this might sound crazy, you could perhaps slow down and use your eyes? If you're driving so fast on an unlit road that you have no time to react to seeing something late, then perhaps you're the problem and not the pedestrian?
 
FishFluff said:
Alternatively, and this might sound crazy, you could perhaps slow down and use your eyes? If you're driving so fast on an unlit road that you have no time to react to seeing something late, then perhaps you're the problem and not the pedestrian?
Click to expand...

Both, I think here. FF... any person that's on the road, whether on a bike or on foot in the dark, wearing dark clothing with no high (or any) visibility clothing/accessories or lights is just a ****.

Whatever happened to the Be Seen, Be Safe campaign? Or just plain common sense. You can't (though you should) always drive as though the unexpected is going to happen. It's just not practical.
 
Heh :D

Back to the OP question, I think it's just that we are a nation of drivers and a lot of us have the misplaced opinion that the roads exist purely for motorised traffic and that cars somehow have priority. This is not the case and never has been - the roads are meant to be shared equally by different forms of traffic. Yet because people can't get their heads around, this they get wound up about anyone daring to use a form of transport slower than the car and place the blame for their frustration on the existence of said form of transport, rather than their lack of understanding of how the road space is meant to be shared by all. This is an immature point of view which at best is ignorant, but at worst, is dangerous.

Case in point, from a post earlier in the thread:

LiE said:
Nothing more exciting than a 5 mile tail back because someone is cycling down a twisty country road. I just love coming round a bend to be greeted with a cyclist going 50mph slower than my car, forcing me to have to either slam my breaks on or go onto the other side of the road.
Click to expand...

Here is someone who seems to be implying that if they round a blind bend 60-65MPH and are forced to slam on/swerve because of a cyclist, that is's somehow the cyclists fault for simply being on the road, rather than his own fault for an abhorrent lack of observation and anticipation.

Surely its a fundamental of driving that if you can't see around a corner, you don't go barrelling into it in case there's something which you might have to react violently to - it might be a cyclist, but it could just as easily be a pedestrian in the road, a horse rider, or even another car which is blocking the road due to an accident. Yet, because it's a cyclist, the tone of this post implies that it's somehow not the drivers fault for driving like a a bit of a tit in the first place that they have to brake hard or swerve.

Also, we all seem to think we are fantastic drivers, yet when a discussion comes up about cyclists, everyone moans about how they hold them up, and I suspect this complaint is being greatly exaggerated to prove a point; I've rarely had a problem overtaking cyclists on main roads, and even on smaller roads, I can't think of a time when I've been held up more than 20-30 seconds or so. "5 mile tailbacks" is hyperbole in the extreme, unless it's 5 miles of some of the most terrible drivers on the planet who are unable to observe and anticipate well enough to overtake a single person on a bicycle swiftly.
 
Last edited:
I'm a cyclist and can't stand the lycra crew. Morons.

I've mentioned already in this thread but if you have buildings insurance you likely already have liability cover which includes cycling.
 
Jono said:
Both, I think here. FF... any person that's on the road, whether on a bike or on foot in the dark, wearing dark clothing with no high (or any) visibility clothing/accessories or lights is just a ****.

Whatever happened to the Be Seen, Be Safe campaign? Or just plain common sense. You can't (though you should) always drive as though the unexpected is going to happen. It's just not practical.
Click to expand...

I look forward to all future cars being painted fluorescent yellow then.
 
Driving home yesterday a cyclist undertook me while waiting to turn on a roundabout. Luckily I spotted him in the nearside mirror but they should know that's exactly the time a car driver is focused on traffic to the right, looking for a gap. And strictly speaking he should also give way to traffic on the roundabout, dorky helmet and lycra outfit does not absolve responsibility for the highway code and laws.

Quite a tight turn at that location and if I hadn't seen him coming up there wouldn't have been enough clearance and he'd have been off.
 
McGray said:
I'm a cyclist and can't stand the lycra crew. Morons.

I've mentioned already in this thread but if you have buildings insurance you likely already have liability cover which includes cycling.
Click to expand...

I find the opinion that you hate cyclists based on them simply wearing appropriate clothing bizarre.
Do you think joggers wearing jogging bottoms and trainers are morons?
Do you think horse riders wearing jodphurs and riding boots are morons?
If you saw someone in a car wearing driving gloves would you think them a moron?

Why is this hatred of wearing activity specific attire reserved for cyclists? How does it have any effect on you whatsoever?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom