Cyclist

[12gauge82]

10 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

"they pose a low risk of harm to the general public" this may have been the case when they mostly travelled at 8/9 mph, these days they fly around the lanes and bridle paths here at 15/20mph plus causing risk to people and animals both.

"How about ID cards for all while we're at it"  I have no problem with this whatsoever, the majority of world countries have them including most of Europe and you do not hear of problems.  In fact it may well reduce fraud.

"use facial recognition" already in use in most town centres.

Well we have a fundermental difference in how we view freedom and we're obviously not going to agree, which is fine, I'm just glad most in this country don't want to see that level of government interference yet. 

[Raja Clavata]

good luck with facial recognition for someone wearing a helmet, sun glasses and perhaps even a buff too. 

[discobob]

Saw this on Facebook and thought of this thread!!

[Rim Fire]

i haven't got involved in this thread until now my mate over the weekend was on his bike he used to be a member of a cycle club but not now he decided to wipe the cobwebs off it and take it out trying to get fit again.

He was out on Saturday with it and woke up in hospital some other cyclists came around the bend in the lanes and was on the wrong side of the road knocking him off he had an operation to repair tendons and may have to have pinned if all don't go to well i got to say they are  the bain of my life where i drive to go shooting three abreast no lights 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Rim Fire

[southeastpete]

On 10/10/2020 at 00:18, Raja Clavata said:

Your cycling fallacy is…

“People frequently break the rules of the road when cycling (ignoring red lights, etc.)”

The response

Regardless of the mode of travel used, some people will break traffic rules. People are no more likely to break traffic laws when they are cycling than when they are driving or walking.

But there is also some evidence to suggest that where the road design is poor – usually because the environment has been designed only with motor vehicles in mind – intentionally and carefully violating a traffic rule may be safer. For example, the most visible form of red light jumping by people cycling is when someone sets off before the traffic signals turn green, in order to safely pass through the junction before motor traffic begins moving. Therefore some rule-breaking behaviour could be a reaction to a dangerously-designed environment, although of course this doesn't absolve someone who cycles in a manner hazardous to others.

Good public infrastructure, designed with cycling in mind as a valid mode of transport, makes rule-breaking less attractive and/or necessary. The bad behaviour of some should not be used as an argument against improving conditions for all (a point that doesn't even need making for other modes of transport).

 

Your cycling fallacy is…

“People cycle on footways, causing danger to those walking”

The response

Although cycling on footways can be prevalent in some areas, it is almost always a symptom of poor conditions for cycling.

The best and most permanent way to tackle this problem is to create attractive places for cycling away from the footway, either in the form of cycleways separated from motor traffic, or by making the road itself a pleasant place to cycle by reducing the speed and volume of motor traffic to a low level.

And while cycling on the footway can be genuinely annoying, scary and inconvenient for those walking, the danger it causes should not be overstated either – the vast majority of deaths and injuries on the footway are due to motor vehicles. People in the UK are over 50 times more likely to be killed by someone driving a motor vehicle on the verge or footway, than by someone cycling.

 

Your cycling fallacy is…

“Cycling involves a risk of collision and therefore should require insurance, like motoring does”

The response

As a mode of transport, cycling does not present substantial risk to people or property, which is what mandatory insurance is designed to mitigate.

This fallacy suggests some sort of parity between cycling and motoring, but the danger posed by driving a motor vehicle is far, far greater. This is why driving commonly requires some form of minimum third-party liability insurance – the risk of causing property damage or serious bodily harm to others in the event of a collision is so high.

Added to this are the logistics and costs of enforcing such a requirement, the question of whether children would need insurance before being allowed to cycle, and what exactly counts as a cycle – for example, many people use such vehicles as mobility aids.

The likely outcome of requiring insurance for cycling would be fewer people cycling – and as cycling is a mode of transport which can greatly benefit society in general, suppressing it by adding barriers to entry would not be a good thing.

These are from cyclingfallacies.com - no doubt someone will be along shortly claiming they are a far left, antifa backed organisation, or something similar...

 

Not far left or antifa, but a cyclist. It would be like a blm member defending the rioting and looting. From their point of view it’s ok. 

But it’s not.

I always found it safer to go faster on my motorbike, as then I really only had to worry about what was ahead of me and not behind me. Does that mean I’m allowed to break the law because I feel safer?

 

[Raja Clavata]

58 minutes ago, southeastpete said:

I always found it safer to go faster on my motorbike, as then I really only had to worry about what was ahead of me and not behind me. Does that mean I’m allowed to break the law because I feel safer?

 

It's all about personal choice and trade offs between perceived risk and reward as well as consequences of those choices.

The point is there is a difference between a cyclist blatantly riding through a red light and a cyclist preempting the red to green transition to get clear of the junction before a car can turn into them. If a traffic cop witnessed the former I would expect, and hope, that they would stop haul the cyclist over and in just the same way suspect they wouldn't bat an eyelid in the latter case.

[Gordon R]

I have seen many awful cyclists, many awful motorcyclists and many, many more awful car drivers. That's life. When I see cyclists taking chances, I wonder if they ever consider how vulnerable they are. 

I don't believe we will ever get compulsory insurance or "number plates" for bikes, but the Police should enforce the law regarding cyclists with the same vigour that they pursue motorised vehicle users.

[39TDS]

33 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

That's life. When I see cyclists taking chances, I wonder if they ever consider how vulnerable they are.

Always puzzles me too. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it matters who is going to come worse off. The complete lack of self preservation in so many people these days startles me and I don't only mean cyclists. Joggers in dark clothing on country lanes in the rain with no footpath. Joggers that will not move out of the way when you approach in a car when there is no reason not to. What are they thinking? 

As a child I was always told to keep out of the way of cars, that seems to have been replaced with "you have equal rights on the road and you should stand in the way of the car that might kill you in order to exercise and demonstrate those rights".

Live and let live but don't be a door handle.

Edited October 12, 2020 by 39TDS

[Yellow Bear]

54 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Police should enforce the law regarding cyclists with the same vigour that they pursue motorised vehicle users.

t would be a good start

[Gordon R]

Quote

Live and let live but don't be a door handle.

I think I am slowing up - took a second for the penny to drop. 😀

[Mice!]

4 hours ago, 39TDS said:

As a child I was always told to keep out of the way of cars, that seems to have been replaced with "you have equal rights on the road and you should stand in the way of the car that might kill you in order to exercise and demonstrate those rights".

Live and let live but don't be a door handle

I like might has the right, a cyclist or jogger is always going to come off worse when involved with a car, but some seem to think they won't. 

[12gauge82]

6 hours ago, 39TDS said:

Always puzzles me too. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it matters who is going to come worse off. The complete lack of self preservation in so many people these days startles me and I don't only mean cyclists. Joggers in dark clothing on country lanes in the rain with no footpath. Joggers that will not move out of the way when you approach in a car when there is no reason not to. What are they thinking? 

As a child I was always told to keep out of the way of cars, that seems to have been replaced with "you have equal rights on the road and you should stand in the way of the car that might kill you in order to exercise and demonstrate those rights".

Live and let live but don't be a door handle.

That's spot on, but goes both ways, when driving and have come across the odd idiot on 2 wheels, i alow for the fact he's vulnerable and no matter how annoying give them space as no amount of annoyance is worth taking someones life. 

I think some on here need to calm down, what's a couple of minutes on a journey. 

 

[Yellow Bear]

7 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

That's spot on, but goes both ways, when driving and have come across the odd idiot on 2 wheels, i alow for the fact he's vulnerable and no matter how annoying give them space as no amount of annoyance is worth taking someones life. 

I think some on here need to calm down, what's a couple of minutes on a journey. 

 

You are perfectly correct no amount of annoyance is worth taking someone's life.   It is normal to leave an extra 10 minutes on a journey to allow for the tractor, horse rider, and many idiots on 2 wheels,  However the first 2 will generally be polite and when safe move over and let you pass.

The worst "minor annoyance", but by no means uncommon, occurrence was a missed appointment (30 minutes late) resulting in a £80 bill because a "peloton" of would be Bradly Wiggins mamils caused a traffic gridlock on a narrow road of 45 minutes whilst they completed a hill climb up to 3 abreast and 100m length covering the group.  I suspect that you too would be a little less calm and laisse fair. 

 

[Bobba]

Now that the nights are drawing in we will now doubt be subjected to additional cyclists behavioural problems i.e. their idea of correct lighting, or otherwise.

This week I have seen ones with no lights, bikes with tiny little lights of no use whatsoever (except if they're knocked over they can say I did have lights guv) and the ones that really get my goat are those brighter than car headlights, sometimes worn on the helmets so that they are way over the height limit for cars. And, some are stroboscopes in design which could be detrimental to pedestrians with problems with epilepsy.

I've seen advertised the Niterider 3600 Pro which, shining at 3600 lumens, is currently the brightest bike light. Whereas a typical car headlight produces about 1500 lumens. OK for night mountain biking in the countryside perhaps but not in the city where it distracts drivers.

Without legislation on brightness, which will never happen, it's yet another problem we will have to put up with.

[southeastpete]

10 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

It's all about personal choice and trade offs between perceived risk and reward as well as consequences of those choices.

The point is there is a difference between a cyclist blatantly riding through a red light and a cyclist preempting the red to green transition to get clear of the junction before a car can turn into them. If a traffic cop witnessed the former I would expect, and hope, that they would stop haul the cyclist over and in just the same way suspect they wouldn't bat an eyelid in the latter case.

well have to agree to disagree.

the way I see it the law is the law. If you break it, good reason or not, be prepared to pay the fine or whatever. 

Jumping a red light, because it’s safer. Even if it works for that one cyclist (which can’t be guaranteed, as there is often a reason for the delay, what if a driver from the other direction in a rush to see his dying wife at hospital thinks I just saw my light go red, the other one won’t change yet, I’ll blast through?

what if a driver opposite turning right thinks, I have a faster car than that guy over there, I’m going to watch the other light and as soon as it turns I’m going.

But probably kore importantly, what about the 30+ people who see that cyclist jump the light. It makes people think, cyclists are tools. Perhaps several are less experienced cyclists and children who think, oh it’s ok for bikes to run reds. 

Laws are there for a reason. Break them at your own peril. If you get knocked off as a result, don’t whine that the other driver ran the red light as well, because two wrongs doesn’t make you right. It also doesn’t make you less dead or injured. 

As for the thought of a kid copying you and getting run down... You’d probably just think tough luck they should have been smarter.

[Scully]

I don’t care if cyclists jump lights or don’t abide by the law in other ways;  I don’t care if they wear helmets or not; I don’t care if they refuse to fit a bell because it adds weight or creates drag ( 😂 ) I don’t care if they come to grief by doing something illegal anymore than I care about any other road users doing the same ( rather them than some innocent party ) I just want them to be identifiable so they can be prosecuted, just like any other road user. 

[Raja Clavata]

43 minutes ago, southeastpete said:

well have to agree to disagree.

OK

the way I see it the law is the law. If you break it, good reason or not, be prepared to pay the fine or whatever. 

That's basically what I said above, not sure what we're agreeing to disagree on

Jumping a red light, because it’s safer. Even if it works for that one cyclist (which can’t be guaranteed, as there is often a reason for the delay, what if a driver from the other direction in a rush to see his dying wife at hospital thinks I just saw my light go red, the other one won’t change yet, I’ll blast through?

I don't consider preempting the change in red to green as "jumping a red light". 

In such a scenario the cyclist would perceive this threat and not set off. When you are on a push bike your situational awareness has to be much higher than when you're sat in the bubble of a car.

what if a driver opposite turning right thinks, I have a faster car than that guy over there, I’m going to watch the other light and as soon as it turns I’m going.

Lots of what ifs and I refer to the above and the preemption I was giving an example of is not necessarily applied at every junction.

But probably kore importantly, what about the 30+ people who see that cyclist jump the light. It makes people think, cyclists are tools. Perhaps several are less experienced cyclists and children who think, oh it’s ok for bikes to run reds.

Like I mentioned previously the last abuse i got on a bike was for stopping on a red light. Also, where did these 30 people appear from... 

Laws are there for a reason. Break them at your own peril. If you get knocked off as a result, don’t whine that the other driver ran the red light as well, because two wrongs doesn’t make you right. It also doesn’t make you less dead or injured. 

Absolutely but you're preaching to the choir here.

As for the thought of a kid copying you and getting run down... You’d probably just think tough luck they should have been smarter.

Strange thought process there, but insightful none the less.

Out of interest, how long ago was it that you were bombing around on your motorbike?

21 minutes ago, Scully said:

I don’t care if cyclists jump lights or don’t abide by the law in other ways;  I don’t care if they wear helmets or not; I don’t care if they refuse to fit a bell because it adds weight or creates drag ( 😂 ) I don’t care if they come to grief by doing something illegal anymore than I care about any other road users doing the same ( rather them than some innocent party ) I just want them to be identifiable so they can be prosecuted, just like any other road user. 

Except pedestrians, horse riders, horse and carts and the occasional chav on an off road bike / quad... etc.

[Scully]

21 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

 

Except pedestrians, horse riders, horse and carts and the occasional chav on an off road bike / quad... etc.

I’d be quite happy to include them all, ( don’t forget farmers 👍)  with the exception of pedestrians, who aren’t exactly ‘road users’ in the same sense, even though some can be a pain in the rear. 🙂

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, Scully said:

I’d be quite happy to include them all, ( don’t forget farmers 👍)  with the exception of pedestrians, who aren’t exactly ‘road users’ in the same sense, even though some can be a pain in the rear. 🙂

Pedestrians are a major concern and threat to cyclists and both are considered vulnerable road users in the big scheme of things.

[Scully]

8 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Pedestrians are a major concern and threat to cyclists and both are considered vulnerable road users in the big scheme of things.

Which makes me wonder why they act the way they often do. 

[southeastpete]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Which makes me wonder why they act the way they often do. 

Because then when they get run down they can sue someone and get a really nice wheelchair, and more importantly that smug feeling they love when they don’t get done for jumping a red but the car driver does....

[Raja Clavata]

Getting ridiculous now.

[Demonic69]

On 09/10/2020 at 16:52, AVB said:

I don’t agree with point 1. I also don’t agree with compulsory motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts. Would I wear one, absolutely, but don’t believe it is the states job to enforce. 

While I prefer less state intervention I have to disagree with this. The State is expected to pick up the bill if/when a cyclist comes off and cracks their skull open, a biker does the same or a car driver has a minor bump, that causes more serious injuries due to not having to wear a belt. If those people were waiving their right to top notch medical care, then  fair enough. But they'll fully expect to be looked after their entire life by a State that only asked them to be sensible.

I've been a biker for over 20 years, I'd make full protection mandatory. I've had low-speed accidents that shredded my leathers, damaged my boots and ripped my gloves. If I wasn't wearing my gear I'd have been at the mercy of the NHS, possibly for a very long time. Aside from the odd occasion, I'm an All the Gear, All the Time kinda guy now as I've seen first hand what the results are.

I suppose it comes down to risk and the likelihood of accident and injury. If your chosen activity is classed as dangerous, should you need to be told to protect yourself? Experience says, sadly, yes.

[AVB]

24 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

While I prefer less state intervention I have to disagree with this. The State is expected to pick up the bill if/when a cyclist comes off and cracks their skull open, a biker does the same or a car driver has a minor bump, that causes more serious injuries due to not having to wear a belt. If those people were waiving their right to top notch medical care, then  fair enough. But they'll fully expect to be looked after their entire life by a State that only asked them to be sensible.

I've been a biker for over 20 years, I'd make full protection mandatory. I've had low-speed accidents that shredded my leathers, damaged my boots and ripped my gloves. If I wasn't wearing my gear I'd have been at the mercy of the NHS, possibly for a very long time. Aside from the odd occasion, I'm an All the Gear, All the Time kinda guy now as I've seen first hand what the results are.

I suppose it comes down to risk and the likelihood of accident and injury. If your chosen activity is classed as dangerous, should you need to be told to protect yourself? Experience says, sadly, yes.

I understand that point of view but how far do you go? Banning ‘dangerous’ sports, stopping people walking in the hills etc. I prefer education rather than legislation. 

[Demonic69]

1 minute ago, AVB said:

I understand that point of view but how far do you go? Banning ‘dangerous’ sports, stopping people walking in the hills etc. I prefer education rather than legislation. 

I get you mate, that's always the worry. Even with rules in place, some will ignore them, to the detriment of everyone else. I do think education should be a major focus, start teaching kids the things they need to know!