This is the impression I always get. Cyclists are a nuisance for cars and tend to be treated as such. To be honest, all the people I know who take care with cyclists, cycle themselves in some capacity. They realise that sometimes cyclists have to swerve to avoid potholes and people opening their doors onto you and drive accordingly.
Strict Liability Law - Drivers to be auto blamed for all accidents with cyclists
- Thread starter Richie
- Start date
This is the impression I always get. Cyclists are a nuisance for cars and tend to be treated as such. To be honest, all the people I know who take care with cyclists, cycle themselves in some capacity. They realise that sometimes cyclists have to swerve to avoid potholes and people opening their doors onto you and drive accordingly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,477
My point being that other than the bicycle nothing else is mandatory. Whereas vehicle users have to pay VED, insurance, MOT etc in order to legally use the highways.
+ they have to have a licence.
I do understand what you are saying but by that logic you have to say that those with more expensive cars are more entitled to the roads than people with cheap ones as they have paid more.
Bikes don't damage the roads either which I would assume is part of the reason there is no road tax. I wonder if all the drivers would be happier if everyone drove everywhere and there were 20% more cars on the roads.
Just to be clear, I don't think that is a valid argument. We, the drivers, are wrong. Most of us won't accept we're wrong because we're stubborn and few of us will admit the real reason because it'll show how wrong we are.
I actually did some lessons and a test to cycle on the roads when I was a kid. I have no idea if it's mandatory, but it's something I did in an after school thing.
Still, one needs to consider the amount of damange a car can do compared to a bike. Theres a great deal of difference. Some will argue that a bike can still do damange to a pedestrian, which is true, but you're unlikely to remain completely unscathed yourself on the bike, while drivers make decisions based on their own relative safety.
There is a different level of need, and let's be honest, we'd have a better country if more of you chubbers got on a bike to work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I presume you mean they causes LESS damage to the roads. If they caused no damage bike lanes would last forever and never need maintaining.
A good deal of cyclists are fine but we all know the elite group of spandex clad monkeys who think they are on Tour de France on a wet Thursday evening - they are the real issue. Red means go, Orange means keep going and green means go faster and preferably up the inside of the vehicle that's turning left.
That's the kind of attitude that gets these nut jobs to try and pass these laws.......
Anyway, what the country needs rather than silly laws like this is a proper cycling infrastructure like Holland.
Less accidents with cars and more people likely to cycle.
With recent events like the Olympics and winning the tour de France, cycling is on the up.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Funny as a regular driver around exeter where I often do deliveries, the number of idiotic cyclists I see on a daily basis who completely ignore the highway code just baffles me. It's a wonder more aren't run over.
This seems to be descending into a bit of a moan thread, and missing an opportunity to have a moan about cyclists is unforgivable.
The worst ones, by far, are the cyclists who think they're some kind of super speedy cycling god. The ones clad head to toe in lycra who ride pretty much in the middle of the road, head down, completely oblivious as to what's happening around them, slowing everyone behind them down and generally not giving a **** about anyone apart from themselves and their 'speed'.
I used to be on dual-carriage ways to and from work and nearly all of them had cycle lanes running parallel. The amount of these super cyclists who would completely ignore the cycle lane and just sit in pretty much the middle of the left lane on the dual-carriage way was unreal, just pootling along at around 30-40 on a NSL road. Of course, in rush hour that either leads to massive traffic build up behind them, or people dangerously swerving into the other lane in an attempt to get around them and drive at a decent speed.
I've been behind tractors and such on country lanes and quite often they're aware that they're holding everything up behind them and pull over at a convenient point to let people go past them. I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist let anyone past. Okay, maybe they don't have to, but it's pretty damn inconsiderate not to when you're holding up dozens of people.
I don't really understand why cyclists are allowed on dual-carriage ways to be honest. The speed limit is the same as the motorway and they're not allowed on there (thankfully), presumably because it's too dangerous both for the cyclists and the motorists around them, so I'm not sure why the same doesn't apply for dual-carriage ways. Luckily I'm on the motorway for the majority of my journey now.
Correct me if I'm wrong but our roads were designed to be used by cars, not by cars and bikes at the same time. It's hardly surprising that we have these issues, the infrastructure just isn't good enough. The majority of roads aren't wide enough to allow for safe overtaking of cyclists and the majority of cyclists aren't fast enough to keep up with the majority of traffic.
The worst ones, by far, are the cyclists who think they're some kind of super speedy cycling god. The ones clad head to toe in lycra who ride pretty much in the middle of the road, head down, completely oblivious as to what's happening around them, slowing everyone behind them down and generally not giving a **** about anyone apart from themselves and their 'speed'.
I used to be on dual-carriage ways to and from work and nearly all of them had cycle lanes running parallel. The amount of these super cyclists who would completely ignore the cycle lane and just sit in pretty much the middle of the left lane on the dual-carriage way was unreal, just pootling along at around 30-40 on a NSL road. Of course, in rush hour that either leads to massive traffic build up behind them, or people dangerously swerving into the other lane in an attempt to get around them and drive at a decent speed.
I've been behind tractors and such on country lanes and quite often they're aware that they're holding everything up behind them and pull over at a convenient point to let people go past them. I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist let anyone past. Okay, maybe they don't have to, but it's pretty damn inconsiderate not to when you're holding up dozens of people.
I don't really understand why cyclists are allowed on dual-carriage ways to be honest. The speed limit is the same as the motorway and they're not allowed on there (thankfully), presumably because it's too dangerous both for the cyclists and the motorists around them, so I'm not sure why the same doesn't apply for dual-carriage ways. Luckily I'm on the motorway for the majority of my journey now.
Correct me if I'm wrong but our roads were designed to be used by cars, not by cars and bikes at the same time. It's hardly surprising that we have these issues, the infrastructure just isn't good enough. The majority of roads aren't wide enough to allow for safe overtaking of cyclists and the majority of cyclists aren't fast enough to keep up with the majority of traffic.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,477
Indeed, and that is why BMW drivers and mums in their big merc Chelsea tractors often drive like it
VED is based on emissions, I don't think it has any bearing on road damage caused by your vehicle. It was a clever way for the government to shaft drivers even more. They keep moving the goal posts too, which is nice of them.
Even riding a motorbike that is euro compliant and has low emissions, I still have to pay over £75 a year VED. Apparently the government don't want motorcycles to be classed by emissions or something silly. The reason why? I guess it is because they know they would lose a lot of revenue because a lot of bikes have similar or lower emissions than the £0-£20 VED band cars. If true, it debunks the government reasoning that VED was a measure to reduce emissions. It is just a money making scheme and that is why they keep moving the goal posts by annually reducing the emissions bands in order to maximise income from VED. (but that is another discussion)I don't hold the view that I am more entitled than a cyclist by the way. I'm just guessing as to why some drivers have an attitude towards cyclists. I do, however, get frustrated that I have to sit behind cyclists because I cant safely overtake them.
But then I suppose I have to ask if that is their fault? The government try and promote cycling to work for instance but have been lacking (in my opinion) in providing a good enough infrastructure. It creates friction between drivers and cyclists. I don't think you will ever get around that because neither group is completely innocent in their use of the roads. The only way around it is to separate cyclists from drivers by way of a separate infrastructure.
Or the outside bet is to try and re-educate all parties to offer mutual respect.....I have to say that seems unlikely!
I did that too. I think it was called a Cycling Proficiency Test. It was actually comedy mixed with horror. I recall my friend trying to turn right in front of a great big double decker bus and nearly killing himself. Try doing that these days and the schools would ban it due to health and safety and/or Sanjay not being able to fit his turban under his helmet.
The very nature of "it's your fault unless you prove otherwise" is the complete opposite of common laws we Brits have grown up with. It's just a ludicrous idea.
I also think that cyclists spark a massive amount of hate on here. I don't really get it. There are idiot cyclists and drivers. So?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Isn't that the cyclist who undertook a lorry as it was turning left. Pretty much the cyclists fault for doing such a stupid thing in the first place. In those scenarios specially when your up against a 26-44t truck, stay back. Why put yourself at risk in the first place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Buffetslayer, re: number of cyclists
I can only talk about London as that's where I ride and where there are the most figures but there are about 600,000 cycle journeys per day in London. When Oz introduced a mandatory helmet law I think, if I remember right they saw cycle numbers drop by over 50% and I don't think anyone wants those journeys transferring to cars or PT.
I can only talk about London as that's where I ride and where there are the most figures but there are about 600,000 cycle journeys per day in London. When Oz introduced a mandatory helmet law I think, if I remember right they saw cycle numbers drop by over 50% and I don't think anyone wants those journeys transferring to cars or PT.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
What a crash, stupid, thoughtless comment. Not even funny if that was its intent.
Not too many problems with cyclists where I live as were rather hilly in places but you do see some close calls. Generally kids though. I try my best to give cyclists a wide birth and to pass when only safe but you do see people passing bikes on blind bends and brows of hills which is just pure crazy.
Took my kids for a bike ride with the wife which turned out to be a nightmare. You would think that drivers would give us a wide birth when passing as our kids are 6 & 8.
Took my kids for a bike ride with the wife which turned out to be a nightmare. You would think that drivers would give us a wide birth when passing as our kids are 6 & 8.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Our highways? Are you refering to motor vehicle owners? Because the highways belong by right to pedestrains, animals and cyclists. Motor vehicles use them by license.
So yes, anybody can jump on a bike because they are afforded that privilage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Indeed, and that is why BMW drivers and mums in their big merc Chelsea tractors often drive like it
VED is based on emissions, I don't think it has any bearing on road damage caused by your vehicle.
I thought it was emissions and axel weight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,477
[DOD]Asprilla;24127689 said:
OK thanks for the information. Is there a break down of how many of the 600,000 journeys are by separate individuals? IE does the 600,000 roughly equate to 300,000 cyclists per day with a return journey to work? Does it include business journeys as I know some cyclists in London are operating in a commercial capacity.
Also, what was the reasoning for the drop in cyclists? Why did mandatory helmet law mean that people didn't cycle? Was it simply a cost issue? Or some American style freedoms/liberties thing?
I just noticed this on Wikipedia:
Seems to refute what you were saying?
It boils down to incompatibility of bicycle with the rest of current road users. Bicycle is incompatible with pedestrian traffic, everyone understands that. And yet we do insist that it should be part of motorised traffic. It shouldn't. Purely as a method of locomotion it will never behave predictably and safely enough to fit with motorised traffic.
Unlike motorbikes, bicycle doesn't have speed, low center of mavity and does not move along sustainable, predictable path to guarantee safety of the "driver". I can overtake other cars in city traffic with 10mph speed difference between us and 30-50cm between our mirrors. I can overtake motorcyclist in city traffic with 10mph speed difference and 30-50cm between our mirrors and be sure nothing happens to him. I can not safely overtake cyclist with 30-50cm of the road to spare. And I simply do not have any more road to offer them for safety. Not in London. Not in most places in UK. It's not that I, as a motorised commuter don't want to. There is simply no way to do this.
And it can just slow motor traffic down. You can't just have chain of cars tailing in second gear behind someone moving at 10 mph. We understood it once, which is why we banned slow harvesting vehicles and tractors form public roads in rush hour. We don't let pedestrians walk down motorways, for the same reason. But we now insist on road traffic entertaining small minority of cyclists holding up and endangering lives all around major arteries of capital (and now Westway/A40 towards Oxford is being prepped for cycle lanes) at the massive cost to time, safety and air pollution.
I want cyclists to be able to ef around capital all they want, but this cannot be always one way ticket. I cannot guarantee their safety because it is them who create this lack of safety. Not me. I cannot be automatically responsible for the things they do. And they are not compatible with motorised traffic. And they do not want to be. They want to be jumping lights. They want to be squeezing between cars. They want to undertake. And they do not want to follow the same rules, safety measures and behaviour as the rest of the traffic. Make them their own separate pathways.
And it does not have to be that way. Cycle lanes do not have to be part of motor traffic roads. We could just sacrifice few small roads in city, pedestrianise them with separate cycle lanes. Build them perspex tunnels along rivers. Crossing ramps and separate paths through parks. We don't mix cars with trains, underground with boats. Let's not mix bicycles with cars and motorbikes. Sounds harsh, but you know it's the only sensible way out of this situation.
One of the girls in office next to us cycles to work for several years but she's partially colour blind. She can only see yellow in addition to black and white. There is nothing preventing her from using bicycle on public roads at the moment. My heart cries for her, but surely that's not motherloving right, is it?
Last edited: