Roads getting safer or more dangerous ?

Cyclists should not be a subject of this discussion and there are some very ignorant posters in this thread that need to take a good look at themselves and their behaviour in a public forum.
 
Just a shot in the dark but are you a cyclist roadie? :D

Edit: quick catch up on the thread and I've only seen one unreasonable thing aimed at cyclists. Before anyone acuses me of being a hater I cycle as much as I drive so have seen both ends of prats.
 
Last edited:
Everyday I see people with a disregard for those around them. By this I mean that they do what they want (parallel parking on busy streets, joining round-a-bouts, merging, changing lanes etc.) with little or no effort to ensure that they're not making other drivers brake suddenly or take evasive actions. It's so common I don't even think about it anymore, it's just a part of day-to-day driving.

Today, on one 100m stretch of road, I slammed on the brakes for a car parallel parking and swinging the nose into my lane, evaded an illegally parked white van opening his door into the road and both braked and evaded a car pulling out of a side lane. It's nuts. Oh and a guy on a different road that almost rear ended me three times while texting.
 
Last edited:
Liefrich said:
It's not a bad idea in theory but there are significant problems. Firstly cars can cause millions of pounds of damage so compulsory insurance is obviously necessary. It is extremely rare for a cyclist to cause much damage to individuals or property so the requirement of insurance is not as important. It's also just as likely for a pedestrian to clip a wing mirror than it is a cyclist. So do you want all pedestrians compulsory insured?

In any event this type of damage may be covered by household insurance and you are of course entitled to bring a claim against the cyclist personally.
Click to expand...

A pedestrian damaging a car is very hard to consider an "accident" therefore its covered under criminal damage laws.

The speed some cyclists ride, and the lack of consideration ive seen when it comes to cyclists v pedestrians (ie nearly mowing people down and shouting ******** as they fly by at breakneck speeds) is what leads me to think that its only a matter of time before some poor old fella gets mowed down and killed by a cyclist.

Bringing a personal claim is a ridiculous notion, after all just because you can afford to run a car doesnt mean you can afford to bring a courtcase against someone.

I dont in general have a problem with cycling, even folk riding 2 abreast (i can see why you do it and its no more inconvenience than a tractor to overtake so i see no problem), and the lights issue/not obeying the highway code is very much a case of bad apples spoiling the bunch, but i dont see how a vehicle on the road should be immune from the requirements of every other vehicle on the road just because of the number of wheels or power source.
 
One of the most annoying things I see is drivers not looking far enough ahead of them. Hard braking on an empty roundabout when I've already assessed the traffic 100 yards back :mad:

I think everyone who hasn't sat the hazard perception test should be required to do so.
 
Perhaps not insurance, but lots of arguments against cyclists is they have no accountability, they can simply mouth off and cycle away, I'm sure some do too. There is no reg you can make a note of if they don't want to be civil with you. Maybe some type of compulsory i.d. card if you intend to cycle on the roads, drivers can be identified by their reg and driving licence, perhaps cyclists should have some form of identification, incase you are involved in an accident with one, it could be an offense to not provide this information. Its certainly not a fall proof idea and I'm not having a pop at cyclists, I just and respect them and their vulnerability but just a thought.
 
adolf hamster said:
A pedestrian damaging a car is very hard to consider an "accident" therefore its covered under criminal damage laws.

The speed some cyclists ride, and the lack of consideration ive seen when it comes to cyclists v pedestrians (ie nearly mowing people down and shouting ******** as they fly by at breakneck speeds) is what leads me to think that its only a matter of time before some poor old fella gets mowed down and killed by a cyclist.

Bringing a personal claim is a ridiculous notion, after all just because you can afford to run a car doesnt mean you can afford to bring a courtcase against someone.

.
Click to expand...

Afford to bring a Court case against someone?? It would be a small claim so the legal costs are capped at a very low level crica £80. I am sorry but you seem to know very little about all this. FYI I am a solicitor so do have some understanding about the legal process before you respond ;)
 
Crpwned said:
That's odd, I'm pretty sure when I was being taught to drive a car that the instructor always mentioned checking over your shoulder when doing any kind of manoeuvre. In fact he told me to even overexaggerate the checking of mirrors and blind spots because these were always picked up on by the final examiners :confused:
Click to expand...

Same for me. That was one of the first things I was taught O_o

In fact I'm pretty sure you can fail the test if you change lanes without checking over your shoulder...
 
Liefrich said:
Afford to bring a Court case against someone?? It would be a small claim so the legal costs are capped at a very low level crica £80. I am sorry but you seem to know very little about all this. FYI I am a solicitor so do have some understanding about the legal process before you respond ;)
Click to expand...

Initially to open maybe, but if it gets drawn out into a long he said/she said, or the person refuses to pay regardless of judgement its not exactly going to end up being cheap. And depending on the damage its not hard to see how itll end up costing more to do the case than to fix the damage, as opposed to the car variant of ringing up the insurance and letting them deal with it.

What is your response to the cyclist v pedestrian scenario? Its not just minor bumps and scrapes against cars but a cyclist flying along at 30mph in a busy town centre is going to be as much a risk to a pedestrian as a moped doing the same (who at least does have to have insurance)
 
adolf hamster said:
there's a lot of young folks round here passing their test, going out with their mates, and finding out they're not sebastian loeb and that their ancient vw lupo is not a rally car but sadly they find this out by intrudcing themselves to a hedge.
.
Click to expand...

Mini Coopers, Triumph Heralds, Golf GTIs, Peugeot 205s and their ilk have been conveying boy racers into ditches since the 1960s.

For the two-wheeled hooligans, the Yamaha RD250LC was the villain for the piece as you were able to trade your "40mph if you were lucky" 50cc moped in for one when you turned 17.

Not unlike learning to drive in a VW Up and getting an M3 for your 18th birthday.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Mini Coopers, Triumph Heralds, Golf GTIs, Peugeot 205s and their ilk have been conveying boy racers into ditches since the 1960s.

For the two-wheeled hooligans, the Yamaha RD250LC was the villain for the piece as you were able to trade your "40mph if you were lucky" 50cc moped in for one when you turned 17.

Not unlike learning to drive in a VW Up and getting an M3 for your 18th birthday.
Click to expand...

My 1969 Suzuki Super Six 250cc was a guaranteed 90mph'er on an L-plate. went from a Honda CB90 to that. A few mates came to terminal (sorry) grief.
 
Interesting seeing the comments about cyclists and lights. I was having a conversation about this subject the other day and the overriding view was that powerful lights are needed to help spotting problems with the road surface. On a dark night, especially if it is wet, you really need a good beam on the road in front of you. So many bike lanes pass over manhole covers for example, which can be like ice in the wet.

The interesting thing though with lights is the newer cars with the high powered LED lights. As a cyclist I find that they are perfectly positioned to completely blind me as I cycle towards an oncoming car.


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
 
I say this as a cyclist - cyclists with bright lights aren't a problem as long as they aim them down. I've shouted at plenty myself for their dazzling lights.

Not to say that there isn't also a problem with some drivers doing a similar job with their headlights.
 
I am 43 and have driven since I was 17. I moved out of Surrey 20 years ago and yesterday spent a lovely day in Kingston upon Thames with my new wife. I can say the roads are far more dangerous than when I lived there. I rode a motorcycle but even as a car almost got wiped out at least twice.

The roads are certainly more dangerous in that area.
 
squired said:
Interesting seeing the comments about cyclists and lights. I was having a conversation about this subject the other day and the overriding view was that powerful lights are
Click to expand...

no problem with that but

AIM IT AT THE ****ING ROAD

Not drivers eye balls.


You know like the incredibly powerful by comparision headlights of cars and motorbikes that dont blind every other driver


The interesting thing though with lights is the newer cars with the high powered LED lights. As a cyclist I find that they are perfectly positioned to completely blind me as I cycle towards an oncoming car.
Click to expand...

Incandescent, HID or LED all car headligjts have to have the same cut offs ao it ahouldnt mayter unless its a bad retrofit
 
FrenchTart said:
I say this as a cyclist - cyclists with bright lights aren't a problem as long as they aim them down. I've shouted at plenty myself for their dazzling lights.

Not to say that there isn't also a problem with some drivers doing a similar job with their headlights.
Click to expand...

But at least the drivers lights willl get flagged up come MOT time and should only be wrong if theyve replaced a bulb badly themselves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom