Why does the UK hate cyclists?

[Liefrich]

Misread - they are not as accountable.

All cyclists above a certain age should need to tax their bikes - let's face it, this would be free, as it is for low emission vehicles, so no additional costs. This would at least force cyclists to make themselves known to the authorities.

Every cyclist should have to have a licence - the same as motor cyclists and car drivers need before they can use the roads.

Insurance should be MANDATORY for all road users, including cyclists. If you run into the back of my car, or damage it in anyway that is no fault of mine, I should not be footing that bill.

Finally, a system needs to put in place similar to number plates to ensure all systems in place to keep motorists in check apply to cyclists too. The chap earlier who said motorists can run red lights... true; however, if that light has a camera attached, they can't without being appropriately punished. If you're a cyclist... WAHAY GOOD DAY!

These measures for motorists keep the overwhelming majority in line on the roads. The same cannot be said for cyclists.

Gumpf...

Mandatory insurance for road users? What about kids on bikes? What about pedestrians walking or running to the road? Where would the insurance need to stop? Got any stats on the amount of damage cyclists cause?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Let's just reduce the speed limit to 10mph and have done with it.

Your point is valid in that motorists have a responsibility to ensure they are driving appropriately, without acknowledging that ALL road users have a responsibility to act responsibility to ensure their and everyone else's safety. Riding two abreast, or even riding in the middle of a lane at a much lower speed than the limit for whatever road you are in is irresponsible in the extreme.

Not if it reduces the risk you are putting yourself in. It’s often safer to ride in the middle of a lane as it improves how visible you are and discourages motorists from attempting dangerous overtakes when there really isn’t room.

I’m not saying riding two abreast is always a good idea, and thinning out on country lanes often makes sense, but of course you came out all guns blazing about cyclists riding two abreast and the fact of the manner is that’s perfectly fine and motorists sometimes just have to deal with it. I have to deal with it from time to time when I’m in my car, and somehow I cope, so I’m sure you can too.

I also never advocated lowering the speed limit, I advocated driving to the conditions. NSL is often shorthand for “no one really cares enough to properly assess the appropriate speed limit for this road” and you shouldn’t have any expectation of being able to drive full bore at 60mph on every B and minor road just because... you have to drive to the conditions, and that means slowing down on bends when you can’t see what’s hiding behind there.

 

[zophiel]

haha 30% of car dont have insurance anyway, so when they crush all there cars there will be much more room on the roads.

 

[Hellsmk2]

Gumpf...

Mandatory insurance for road users? What about kids on bikes? What about pedestrians walking or running to the road? Where would the insurance need to stop? Got any stats on the amount of damage cyclists cause?

Don't be silly -a cyclist is not a pedestrian. And as for age, common sense would put the age a licence is needed at 17 in line with cars and motorbikes.

Stats for damage caused by cyclists? Another stupid request, as no stats would be accurate because cyclists are not accountable - the overwhelming majority of infractions go unreported and unpunished because there is no viable system in place to track or punish them.

 

[Liefrich]

Don't be silly -a cyclist is not a pedestrian. And as for age, common sense would put the age a licence is needed at 17 in line with cars and motorbikes.

Stats for damage caused by cyclists? Another stupid request, as no stats would be accurate because cyclists are not accountable - the overwhelming majority of infractions go unreported and unpunished because there is no viable system in place to track or punish them.

You are the one asking for comprehensive insurance. What difference does it make whether it is a pedestrian causing damage or a cyclist? Using your logic I will anecdotally say that far more damage to vehicles (keying, broken windows etc) is causing by pedestrians than cyclists. I can't prove this, but that doesn't matter, pedestrians cause me to RAGE!!!!1

I will ask again where is your evidence that there are a huge amount of infractions by cyclists that cause damage other than anecdotally biased conjecture? Please find it.

 

[Hellsmk2]

Not if it reduces the risk you are putting yourself in. It’s often safer to ride in the middle of a lane as it improves how visible you are and discourages motorists from attempting dangerous overtakes when there really isn’t room.

I’m not saying riding two abreast is always a good idea, and thinning out on country lanes often makes sense, but of course you came out all guns blazing about cyclists riding two abreast and the fact of the manner is that’s perfectly fine and motorists sometimes just have to deal with it. I have to deal with it from time to time when I’m in my car, and somehow I cope, so I’m sure you can too.

I also never advocated lowering the speed limit, I advocated driving to the conditions. NSL is often shorthand for “no one really cares enough to properly assess the appropriate speed limit for this road” and you shouldn’t have any expectation of being able to drive full bore at 60mph on every B and minor road just because... you have to drive to the conditions, and that means slowing down on bends when you can’t see what’s hiding behind there.

All I see here is another cyclist trying to lay any responsibility squarely at the feet of motorists for their safety. You are equally responsible.

Riding in the middle lane is correct in some circumstances, such as when you are able to maintain a reasonable speed in line with the limits of the road. If you're doing it on a road that has a 60mph speed limit and the fastest speed you can achieve is 20mph, you are a danger to yourself and any motorist behind you. That is as simple as it gets.

At no point did I say I should have the ability to drive, unhindered, from A to B at 60mph consistently either. You do drive to the conditions, and on many NSL roads, 50 - 70 is easily achievable. Even slowing down on a blind bend to 20/30/ whatever is appropriate, the last thing I want is to run into some poor mans Bradley Wiggins doing 10mph in the middle of the road.

 

[Hellsmk2]

You are the one asking for comprehensive insurance. What difference does it make whether it is a pedestrian causing damage or a cyclist? Using your logic I will anecdotally say that far more damage to vehicles (keying, broken windows etc) is causing by pedestrians than cyclists. I can't prove this, but that doesn't matter, pedestrians cause me to RAGE!!!!1

I will ask again where is your evidence that there are a huge amount of infractions by cyclists that cause damage other than anecdotally biased conjecture? Please find it.

Pedestrians don't generally use the road as their primary tool for travel. They use the pavement. I don't see your point?

As for damage caused by pedestrians to cars, your examples are poor. Keying a car? It's a criminal act the same way as it would be for a cyclist doing the same. They should be arrested and appropriately punished. In the cyclists instance, he/ she has a far greater chance of getting away with it by simply riding away.

Again, your requests for stats is completely flawed. There are no accurate stats because there is no viable method to hold cyclists accountable.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The government don’t think it’s worth introducing compulsory insurance, so presumably whatever numbers they have looked the risk of damage from cycling just isn’t worth it. This has been looked at before.

 

[Liefrich]

Pedestrians don't generally use the road as their primary tool for travel. They use the pavement. I don't see your point?

As for damage caused by pedestrians to cars, your examples are poor. Keying a car? It's a criminal act the same way as it would be for a cyclist doing the same. They should be arrested and appropriately punished. In the cyclists instance, he/ she has a far greater chance of getting away with it by simply riding away.

Again, your requests for stats is completely flawed. There are no accurate stats because there is no viable method to hold cyclists accountable.

So basically you have no proof for your assertions?

Don't you think that we should perhaps have some objective evidence before legislating on the issue? That tends to be the way we make laws in this country and not based on the anecdotal points raised by Hellsmk2.

 

[Vonhelmet]

All I see here is another cyclist trying to lay any responsibility squarely at the feet of motorists for their safety. You are equally responsible.

And all I see is another motorist who just wants cyclists off the road. I’m responsible for my safety, yes. You’re also responsible for my safety as I am the more vulnerable road user. Sorry, that’s just how the law works.

Riding in the middle lane is correct in some circumstances, such as when you are able to maintain a reasonable speed in line with the limits of the road. If you're doing it on a road that has a 60mph speed limit and the fastest speed you can achieve is 20mph, you are a danger to yourself and any motorist behind you. That is as simple as it gets.

Being in the middle of the lane on a 60mph country lane makes a whole lot of sense, as it means you are visible to other drivers. If I’m riding along practically in the hedge I am less visible and more likely to be hit. That is as simple as it gets.

At no point did I say I should have the ability to drive, unhindered, from A to B at 60mph consistently either. You do drive to the conditions, and on many NSL roads, 50 - 70 is easily achievable. Even slowing down on a blind bend to 20/30/ whatever is appropriate, the last thing I want is to run into some poor mans Bradley Wiggins doing 10mph in the middle of the road.

No, but you glibly dismissed my suggestion of driving to the conditions as my wanting to drop all speed limits to a stupidly low level, so go figure. And hey, if you’ve slowed down to 20 or 30 and come across someone/something slow in front of you, then you can stop in time. The system works.

Cyclists ride in the country. You have to deal with that. Sorry, I guess?

 

[FortuitousFluke]

All I see here is another cyclist trying to lay any responsibility squarely at the feet of motorists for their safety. You are equally responsible.

Riding in the middle lane is correct in some circumstances, such as when you are able to maintain a reasonable speed in line with the limits of the road. If you're doing it on a road that has a 60mph speed limit and the fastest speed you can achieve is 20mph, you are a danger to yourself and any motorist behind you. That is as simple as it gets.

At no point did I say I should have the ability to drive, unhindered, from A to B at 60mph consistently either. You do drive to the conditions, and on many NSL roads, 50 - 70 is easily achievable. Even slowing down on a blind bend to 20/30/ whatever is appropriate, the last thing I want is to run into some poor mans Bradley Wiggins doing 10mph in the middle of the road.

You don't appear to know what you're talking about. Riding two abreast, if done properly, is taking responsibility for one's own safety. Riding two abreast is usually used to restrict traffic for a short period to avoid any incredibly stupid overtaking, it shouldnt be done regularly but quite frankly if you're coming round a blind bend too fast to stop if there's a pair of cyclists in front of you on your side of the road then you are the problem.

 

[Gixer]

Pedestrians don't generally use the road as their primary tool for travel. They use the pavement. I don't see your point?

As for damage caused by pedestrians to cars, your examples are poor. Keying a car? It's a criminal act the same way as it would be for a cyclist doing the same. They should be arrested and appropriately punished. In the cyclists instance, he/ she has a far greater chance of getting away with it by simply riding away.

Again, your requests for stats is completely flawed. There are no accurate stats because there is no viable method to hold cyclists accountable.

Just as there are no accurate stats to compare damage to cars caused by car park dings etc. Think how many of those go unreported as people don't want their insurance premiums to go up. Two weeks after getting my Audi a very considerate DS3 driver put a dent in my door in a Tesco car park but they drove off leaving no details. I didn't report it. The only damage inflicted upon my cars have been by other car drivers to date When out on the road I see far more situations occur due to poor driving standard than cyclists. That said Sunday evening whilst out driving I did see a numpty cycling on the road with zero lights. Darwin will sort these types out eventually. I wish there were more police presence on the road to catch them.

You do however come across as someone who holds quite a grudge against cyclists just because which won't help you out on the attitude front. Please just try and remember that not all cyclists break the rules, even some of us that wear lycra (me me, but just plain stuff, no team labelled up stuff) follow the rules and are lit up like christmas trees at night.

 

[adolf hamster]

simple solution to the accountability problem: make insurance voluntary but any accident if you don't have insurance it's automatic 100% liability regardless of fault or how much proof you have. apply this to everything regardless of the number of wheels and/or engines.

you can include voluntary bicycle registration in exchange for an insurance premium cut, or better yet just simplify the process even more and have 1 registration/insurance policy to cover all of your vehicles.

there's no point taxing bikes as has been already mentioned, and mot would be impractical as well (especially considering bikes are very simple and don't go all that fast anyway).

as for riding 2 abreast it's a non-issue, no worse than rounding a bend to find a tractor except you can see past a pair of cyclists much more easily.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The cyclists were at it again on the way home! There was a queue of cars nearly a mile long!

I don’t know how the car drivers put up with it, I really don’t.

 

[Bear]

All this hating cyclists because they hold you up is a red herring. Lets face it, the time you get held up by a cyclist is minuscule, and you are far more likely to be held up by being stuck in traffic from motor vehicles anyway.

I think the root of it is that cyclists make male drivers feel the inadequate and less of a man. A cyclist is often far fitter and if the cyclist can happily ride 100kms or more, then they will have incredible endurance/stamina. So a bloke drives down the road and comes across a guy on a bicycle and realises the cyclist is far more of a man in bed, he is riding a bicycle that is probably worth more that the rot box hatchback he is driving and struggles to get past the cyclist because the rot box hes driving cant even pull the skin off a rice pudding.

The angry male car driver gets progressively more angry because he realises he is crap in bed, drives a pathetic joke of a car and has failed in life as a result so takes his anger out on the cyclist. That is why he hates the cyclist.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Even slowing down on a blind bend to 20/30/ whatever is appropriate, the last thing I want is to run into some poor mans Bradley Wiggins doing 10mph in the middle of the road.

I just want to revisit this... Is a cyclist in the road worse than a tractor? Worse than a horse rider? They might both be doing 10mph or less. And if the cyclist is really the worst thing, what should he be doing or where should he be instead?

 

[Nasher]

Cyclists should pay.

Now, to be honest though, I think that only the 'Lycra' brigade should pay! Lol

Hmm, how about a tax on lycra?

 

[Dis86]

I just want to revisit this... Is a cyclist in the road worse than a tractor? Worse than a horse rider? They might both be doing 10mph or less. And if the cyclist is really the worst thing, what should he be doing or where should he be instead?

Driving!

 

[photoshop]

Cyclists do whatever they want.
They dont even stick to the cycle lanes half of the time and ride in the middle of the road.
Its like they own the road that pees me off.

You wouldn't get a pedestrian walking on the road, they stick to the footpath so why dont the cyclists stick to the cycle lane!!!!

I work in York and the place is littered with them.

 

[photoshop]

All this hating cyclists because they hold you up is a red herring. Lets face it, the time you get held up by a cyclist is minuscule, and you are far more likely to be held up by being stuck in traffic from motor vehicles anyway.

The only time i get stuck behind the motor vehicle is when that said motor vehicle is stuck behind a cyclist. Otherwise I'm doing the speed limit plus 10%