Caporegime
Because of the potential for harm. Most bikes that will regularly hit 30mph will be sub 10kg. A moped will be around 200kg. What's going to cause more damage?
What do you guys think of number plates for cyclists
- Thread starter chaparral
- Start date
Because of the potential for harm. Most bikes that will regularly hit 30mph will be sub 10kg. A moped will be around 200kg. What's going to cause more damage?
Soldato
4mph on a moped requires a licence, training and insurance... do we need the same to walk about too?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,339
bike+rider hitting a pedestrian at 30mph is not going to be a good day for anyone, and that's before we get into the damage done to cars by cycles clipping them.
it's not a big deal, you wanna use the road pay insurance and follow the rules of the road like the rest of us.
Caporegime
Suggest if you're that paranoid about it you should look at the statistics for cyclists injuring others. You'll then realise you're making a storm in a teacup.
As for following the rules? You taking the ****? Drivers never break the law, right? That's drivers with number plates, a license, insurance. Doesn't stop people driving like morons every single day. Heck, saw a head-on crash today because some stupid cow tried to overtake with oncoming traffic. Thank god she had that license and number plate to prevent that eh?
Well the cyclist I saw earlier this afternoon was achieving neither of those aims.
Fortunately he was going the other way, but he had over 40 vehicles behind him strung out over a quarter of a mile or so.
The nature of this particular stretch of road means that most of these drivers would have been stuck behind the inconsiderate little turd for several miles.
So the "Congestion" claim fails.
And given that cars grinding along at around 8-12 MPH probabally consume 2-3 as much fuel as they do per-mile than when traveling at 30-40 means that the "Reducing Pollution" one fails too.
Cycling is only beneficial (On ALL counts) if it can be done on completly segrageted highways.
(And yes actually, I would like to see that)
Caporegime
Well the cyclist I saw earlier this afternoon was achieving neither of those aims.
Fortunately he was going the other way, but he had over 40 vehicles behind him strung out over a quarter of a mile or so.
The nature of this particular stretch of road means that most of these drivers would have been stuck behind the inconsiderate little turd for several miles.
So the "Congestion" claim fails.
And given that cars grinding along at around 8-12 MPH probabally consume 2-3 as much fuel as they do per-mile than when traveling at 30-40 means that the "Reducing Pollution" one fails too.
Cycling is only beneficial (On ALL counts) if it can be done on completly segrageted highways.
(And yes actually, I would like to see that)
Completely agree some cyclists are inconsiderate pricks. I have a great stretch of cycle path near me that stretches uninterrupted for 2 miles. They'll still ride on the road alongside it. Muppets.
However...drivers do the same. I don't know how often I get stuck behind some berk doing 40 in 60 or 70. The road I've just mentioned is a 50 limit and I can guarantee every time I drive along it I'll be in a queue behind some doddery git doing 30.
Then you get those who sit at junctions awaiting what I can only assume is an invitation.
They cause far more issues than the odd self important cyclist.
I was in a hurry so was running on the pavement. When I approached the end of the road a cyclist who was riding on the pavement nearly struck me as I crossed his path. He continued to ride away. He didn't even apologise.
No number plate.
No number plate.
I guarantee you that cyclists are not ignoring a 2 mile long cycle path without very good reasons and, with all due respect, if you don't cycle you probably won't understand what those reasons are likely to be.
Cycling infrastructure in this country is frequently poor (even if it does cost a lot of money) and it was only when I started cycling that I began to understand why.
Caporegime
I do cycle. I cycle on that path daily.
isn't that the average in London anyway ?
sounds like near me, cycle path itself is dangerous(uneven/debris) for anything more than 4mph,
equally folks on the road want to get to warp speed/60mph, wasting fuel, to save a few seconds on a 60mph stretch, before the 30mph section.
I cycle .. thats's the cardinal sin giving cyclists a bad name, so obvious to motorists ? I usually call them out, benefits of a lfhd car !
correlation does not imply causality, they did not study if dehuminization of other motorists was similarly problematic
agree they should indicate , but, as a motorist, many motorists do not pay attention to potholes or the road surface
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,339
Better than zero accountability.
Caporegime
They don't have zero accountability. They have the same accountability you or I would have if we committed a crime.
But I am not talking about London am I.
This was an extra-urban A road.
A "Single" cyclist can easily turn many miles worth of extra-urban, 40MPH+ SC highway into an urban road.
With all the congestion, fuel consumption, delays and frustration, and pollution that might be associated with it!
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,339
I aint talking about crime, i'm talking about making use of the public highway consistently regulated for all vehicles.
And yes that does mean i'd be in favour of registration plates for horses too.
Man of Honour
Obviously not in Dis86's case because he cycles down the cycle lane but here in Stoke our cycle lanes are useless.
For example right outside the hospital where I work we have what looks like great cycle lanes either side of the road for about 1.5 miles however you need a full suspension MTB and not go more than 10 mph because you'll wreck your bike. By every tree the roots have bought the path up so it's awful for riding on.
I can link to other cycle paths where they jump from road to pavement to road to pavement and so on - awful.
Caporegime
This is such a pathetic British problem.
Honestly get over it.
Humans are idiots. Some drive cars and some ride bikes.
If I can list all the utterly dumb **** that I look back at in the uk, this is easily in the top 5.
Honestly get over it.
Humans are idiots. Some drive cars and some ride bikes.
If I can list all the utterly dumb **** that I look back at in the uk, this is easily in the top 5.
Soldato
Several miles and no place to pass a cyclist? Really? Can you link to this road?
Yes, the statistics are very interesting indeed.
In urban areas, as a pedestrian, the risk of being killed by a cyclist (On a fatality per million vehicle miles basis) is greater than the risk of being killed by a light commercial vehicle (Yes, "White Van Man", who is also the most likley road user to exceed the posted speed limit. Ho Humm)
Cycling on the public highway does not reduce congestion. It does not reduce fuel consumption, it does not reduce pollution, and it is not particularly benign either
Not even for the cyclists themselves.
(Risk of death per mile traveled is 15-20 times that of driving. This is not only comparable to DUI, it is actually somewhat more dangerous. And dont be too quick to blame everybody else. "Most" cycling casualties do not involve other third parties. most cycling casualties are Cyclists who fall off and cripple/kill themselves entirely on their own)
A325 between Bordon and Farnham
A Busy SC road in both directions. With several sections of double solid white lines. Stuck behind a selfish git cyclist who will not pull over to let other traffic pass can easily result in traffic queues building up to more then a mile. I have seen it many times. Yesterdays was only a minor example.!
Oh, and PS
Its a bit of a switchback road too.
On the hilly bits one gets the jerks insisting on doing the "Must not stop and walk, must keep pedaling" thing at speeds that are too low for drivers to maintain without having to slip their clutches.
So they are actively damaging other peoples vehicles too!
Last edited: