Cyclist

[silver pigeon69]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Sorry I felt it needed correction. Where I now reside there are few lights but I still see cyclists daily that "bend the rules".

I stand corrected.

[The Heron]

Raja you must have a degree with honours in stupidity. 

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, silver pigeon69 said:

Can you explain how please? 

Road junctions are typically set up for motorised vehicles, for obvious and very understandable reasons. 

However, at numerous junctions throughout London there are traffic lights which allow the cyclists to set off from the lights in advance of motorised vehicles. This provides separation and allows the cyclists to clear the junction and protect them from motorised vehicles turning left at the junction across them as they travel straight ahead.

Even where the revised traffic sequencing is not implemented there are often bike only boxes at the head of the junction intended to facilitate the same thing. 

Where the sequencing of lights is not provided, the slight bending of rules with the cyclist setting off just in advance of the lights transitioning from red enables the same separation.

The June before last I participated in a through the night cycling event in London, I was employed by the organisers as a "Knight Rider" providing support, help and guidance to the paying participants, the vast majority of whom were riding for charity purposes (often in memory of lost loved ones through various causes). There were several junctions on the route which involved forks in the road after a set of lights and I don't know how all the participants got through them without incident given the impatience and scant regard for others welfare exhibited by a minority of car and van drivers at those junctions.

34 minutes ago, The Heron said:

Raja you must have a degree with honours in stupidity. 

Would you care to expand on this? I suspect not, but figured it was worth asking...

[Raja Clavata]

Personally I have no issue with people on bikes who blatantly jump red lights being issued with a fix penalty fine just in the same way pedestrians wandering into cycles lane or the road whilst fixated on their phones, or whatever, should be subjected to the same treatment.

I cannot really see how it would ever be practical to annotate bikes with a registration number readily visibly recognisable by traffic enforcement cameras. That said with future smart city infrastructure it's very plausible for every road user to have a uniquely identifiable digital signature which makes them traceable.

It's equally conceivable that in such a scenario every road user, including pedestrians, would only be "insured" in such an environment if they too were carrying (and transmitting) a similar unique digital signature. It could even be illegal for any person to step out into the street without such a device / mechanism in hand.

All of this is coming but some people should be cautious of what it is that they wish for as it's likely that by then the only access to firearms for the "man in the street" will be through illegal means.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Raja Clavata

[The Heron]

40 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Road junctions are typically set up for motorised vehicles, for obvious and very understandable reasons. 

However, at numerous junctions throughout London there are traffic lights which allow the cyclists to set off from the lights in advance of motorised vehicles. This provides separation and allows the cyclists to clear the junction and protect them from motorised vehicles turning left at the junction across them as they travel straight ahead.

Even where the revised traffic sequencing is not implemented there are often bike only boxes at the head of the junction intended to facilitate the same thing. 

Where the sequencing of lights is not provided, the slight bending of rules with the cyclist setting off just in advance of the lights transitioning from red enables the same separation.

The June before last I participated in a through the night cycling event in London, I was employed by the organisers as a "Knight Rider" providing support, help and guidance to the paying participants, the vast majority of whom were riding for charity purposes (often in memory of lost loved ones through various causes). There were several junctions on the route which involved forks in the road after a set of lights and I don't know how all the participants got through them without incident given the impatience and scant regard for others welfare exhibited by a minority of car and van drivers at those junctions.

Would you care to expand on this? I suspect not, but figured it was worth asking...

Ask away suggesting that not complying with the rules of the road makes it safer reminds me of a man who I used to work with who thought he could drink his self sober enough to drive. 

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, The Heron said:

Ask away suggesting that not complying with the rules of the road makes it safer reminds me of a man who I used to work with who thought he could drink his self sober enough to drive. 

The rules of the road are not up to date with the realities of the current road environment, they reflect the past, a bit like the views of a lot of contributors on this forum.

[Newbie to this]

21 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

The rules of the road are not up to date with the realities of the current road environment, they reflect the past, a bit like the views of a lot of contributors on this forum.

Oh dear

[Raja Clavata]

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...

 

[The Heron]

8 hours ago, 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...

 

I refer to my original statement. 

[Scully]

8 hours ago, 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...

 

....and full circle we come! Motorists are accountable because they are readily identifiable, whereas cyclists aren’t accountable because they aren’t readily identifiable.  Ah well. 

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

....and full circle we come! Motorists are accountable because they are readily identifiable, whereas cyclists aren’t accountable because they aren’t readily identifiable.  Ah well. 

As is the case with numerous aspects of life. There is also the vicious circle of the fact that a minority of people riding bikes behave badly, a minority of drivers brand all cyclists morons and treat all cyclists with contempt. This affects the otherwise decent cyclists who in response harden their views and behaviour against drivers which makes more drivers have a negative view of cyclists, and so on...

[Scully]

17 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

As is the case with numerous aspects of life. There is also the vicious circle of the fact that a minority of people riding bikes behave badly, a minority of drivers brand all cyclists morons and treat all cyclists with contempt. This affects the otherwise decent cyclists who in response harden their views and behaviour against drivers which makes more drivers have a negative view of cyclists, and so on...

None of which makes the unaccountability of cyclists right of course, and possibly one of the reasons they attract such negative reactions. 
 

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, Scully said:

None of which makes the unaccountability of cyclists right of course, and possibly one of the reasons they attract such negative reactions. 
 

The right or wrong of the unaccountability of cyclists is subjective. If sufficient people feel strongly enough about it then an online petition might get the Governments attention although, as I've said all along, the impracticality of making cyclists accountable in the same way "powered" vehicles on the road are would probably mean Government would throw more money at cycle friendly infrastructure.

Given COVID and the net zero agenda (which this Government is firmly behind) cycling is in ascendancy compared to other forms of personal and mass transportation systems. In my opinion this is all for the right reasons too.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

As is the case with numerous aspects of life. There is also the vicious circle of the fact that a minority of people riding bikes behave badly, a minority of drivers brand all cyclists morons and treat all cyclists with contempt. This affects the otherwise decent cyclists who in response harden their views and behaviour against drivers which makes more drivers have a negative view of cyclists, and so on...

Betari box! 

[Raja Clavata]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Betari box! 

Indeed.

[mowdy]

Just as a matter of interest to some. Yesterday afternoon a lady cyclist was knocked off her bike on the A689  and suffered a broken arm .She was knocked of her bike by another Cyclist  who never stopped at a junction and plowed straight in to Her!! on the main road!!!.

Edited October 10, 2020 by mowdy

[Scully]

20 minutes ago, mowdy said:

Just as a matter of interest to some. Yesterday afternoon a lady cyclist was knocked off her bike on the A686  and suffered a broken arm .She was knocked of her bike by another Cyclist  who never stopped at a junction and plowed straight in to Her!! on the main road!!!.

Which junction? 

[mowdy]

 sorry meant to say 689  between Milton and Farlam nr Brampton  

[Walker570]

Inconsiderate cycling is not a new phenomenon. I remember one of my Traffic Dept colleagues booking a whole bunch of club cyclists on the road between Knowle and Balsall Common in Warwickshire for obstruction. They failed/refused to retuirn to single file and allow other traffic to pass.   It made the newspapers at the time.  errrr about 1965 / 66 if I remember. My last ticket went to a postman who came hurtling round a corner on the footpath and almost wiped up an elderly lady. I just happend to be about two yards behind said lady. Believe that was back in the late 60s as well.

In the main the cyclists using our lanes around here are pretty good, but like motorists there are always those who should not be driving. 

[12gauge82]

The thing is, the laws are already there to deal with dangerous cyclist's, making further legislation will only punish the decent people. I can think of another sport like that, shooting anyone? 

[Yellow Bear]

27 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The thing is, the laws are already there to deal with dangerous cyclist's, making further legislation will only punish the decent people. I can think of another sport like that, shooting anyone? 

True, so the only legislation required is that to ensure dangerous cyclists are tracible so that the current legislation can be used.  This would not punish the decent people any more than you having a valid registration on your car does.

[12gauge82]

12 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

True, so the only legislation required is that to ensure dangerous cyclists are tracible so that the current legislation can be used.  This would not punish the decent people any more than you having a valid registration on your car does.

So you wouldn't be against airgun licensing then, after all its only so the offenders could be punished so wouldn't punish the decent people. 

[Yellow Bear]

9 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

So you wouldn't be against airgun licensing then, after all its only so the offenders could be punished so wouldn't punish the decent people. 

As has been posted elsewhere you are comparing apples with bananas.  Taking your viewpoint the other way should we abandon registration of all road vehicles because it punishes the decent people? 

[12gauge82]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

As has been posted elsewhere you are comparing apples with bananas.  Taking your viewpoint the other way should we abandon registration of all road vehicles because it punishes the decent people? 

No I'm not, there's no need to licence cyclists as they pose a low risk of harm to the general public, a nuisance seems to be the issue and I value living in a free society. 

How about ID cards for all while we're at it and why stop there, let's GPS tag everyone and use facial recognition, after all, if you've nothing to hide there's nothing to fear. 

[Yellow Bear]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

No I'm not, there's no need to licence cyclists as they pose a low risk of harm to the general public, a nuisance seems to be the issue and I value living in a free society. 

How about ID cards for all while we're at it and why stop there, let's GPS tag everyone and use facial recognition, after all, if you've nothing to hide there's nothing to fear. 

"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.