Cyclist

[Yellow Bear]

41 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

While I totally understand many on here finding cyclist's annoying, especially if they're inconvenienced by them every day

It is not just annoyance due to inconvenience in our area as you get use to that with horses and farm machinery as well.
In many cases the behaviour of these predominantly black clad mamils, is often down right dangerous to other road users, who will undoubtedly get the blame regardless if there is an accident that is not their fault.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Yellow Bear said:

It is not just annoyance due to inconvenience in our area as you get use to that with horses and farm machinery as well.
In many cases the behaviour of these predominantly black clad mamils, is often down right dangerous to other road users, who will undoubtedly get the blame regardless if there is an accident that is not their fault.

If that's the case I can understand your anger, however, my point is those comfortable with breaking the law themselves or comfortable with others doing so, simply because they don't like cyclist's, that's the behaviour of some antis. 

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Cycling isn't only a sport though is it, it's a form of transport that uses roads, roads that have rules, rules that many of cyclists choose to flaunt, and anyone can buy/hire a bicycle and use it as transport.

I don't see what any of that has to do with my post, we use guns, the country has rules ext the point is what? 

[Newbie to this]

38 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't see what any of that has to do with my post, we use guns, the country has rules ext the point is what? 

The point is you are comparing a sport (shooting), to a mode of transport (cycling), the two are not comparable when it comes to more legislation. The calls for cycling legislation, are to bring it in line with other modes of transport using the very same roads, not to further legislation to restict cycling.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Newbie to this

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The point is you are comparing a sport (shooting), to a mode of transport (cycling), the two are not comparable when it comes to more legislation. The calls for cycling legislation, are to bring it in line with other modes of transport using the very same roads, not to further legislation to restict cycling.

Some like you might argue that as shooting is a sport (I totally disagree with that) and that in some ways strengthens the argument to ban shooting and deregulise cycling further as its an essential mode of transport that should be encouraged. I still don't see your argument. 

[Newbie to this]

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Some like you might argue that as shooting is a sport (I totally disagree with that) and that in some ways strengthens the argument to ban shooting and deregulise cycling further as its an essential mode of transport that should be encouraged. I still don't see your argument. 

Oh well, seems we are at an impasse.

I think cycling should be brought in line with other modes transport using the roads, and shooting is a sport.

Not sure how you can 'totally' disagree with the latter.

I have zero problem with encouraging cycling as transport, I just think that it should be brought in line, legislation wise, with other transport using the same roads.

My argument was, it would be a bringing in line, to meet other modes of transport, not extra legislation. It should have always been in place, and that cycling and shooting legislation are not comparable.

But none of that matters, as we will never agree on this subject. 

[Stonepark]

12 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The point is you are comparing a sport (shooting), to a mode of transport (cycling), the two are not comparable when it comes to more legislation. The calls for cycling legislation, are to bring it in line with other modes of transport using the very same roads, not to further legislation to restict cycling.

Cycling is already regulated and in line with other modes of transport as the regulations for transport differ primarily on weight class and speed, with bicycles even it's own section in the highway code and laws regulating it, what you are referring to is to gold plate the legislation where there is no need to such as licences, insurance and number plates, as cyclists do not kill 1800 people, seriously injure 26,000 and injure 126,000 per annum.

[Newbie to this]

15 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Cycling is already regulated and in line with other modes of transport as the regulations for transport differ primarily on weight class and speed, with bicycles even it's own section in the highway code and laws regulating it, what you are referring to is to gold plate the legislation where there is no need to such as licences, insurance and number plates, as cyclists do not kill 1800 people, seriously injure 26,000 and injure 126,000 per annum.

No I just mainly want cyclist's vehicles to be identifiable, the same as other vehicles on the roads. I never mentioned any of the other things, but now you mention it insurance being required would be a good one as well.

The statistics on deaths, serious injuries and injuries, how do they stack up proportionately?

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Newbie to this

[12gauge82]

33 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Oh well, seems we are at an impasse.

I think cycling should be brought in line with other modes transport using the roads, and shooting is a sport.

Not sure how you can 'totally' disagree with the latter.

I have zero problem with encouraging cycling as transport, I just think that it should be brought in line, legislation wise, with other transport using the same roads.

My argument was, it would be a bringing in line, to meet other modes of transport, not extra legislation. It should have always been in place, and that cycling and shooting legislation are not comparable.

But none of that matters, as we will never agree on this subject. 

The latter part where you say cycling is a mode of transport and shooting a sport can be flipped. 

Shooting can be an essential part of countryside management and cycling can be a hobby. 

But I will of course agree to disagree. 

Life would be boring if we all thought the same all of the time. 

 

 

[Newbie to this]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

The latter part where you say cycling is a mode of transport and shooting a sport can be flipped. 

Shooting can be an essential part of countryside management and cycling can be a hobby. 

But I will of course agree to disagree. 

Life would be boring if we all thought the same all of the time. 

 

 

[GingerCat]

I don't see why cyclists should not have insurance, have to pass a test and have mandatory safety kit as well as a registration. They have the same rights as other road users so should have the same responsibility. Its not the car driver that gets injured, costs the NHS millions I'm sure as well as the emergency services investigating the rtc's and reports of stolen bikes. 

Perhaps if helmets were mandatory along with hi viz tops and the cyclists had passed a proficiency test to show they can ride responsibly and not endanger either themselves or other road users it would reduce their injuries. 

As a trained cyclist (there is such a thing) that used to belt about London responding to emergency calls I saw a fair bit of ridiculous behavior from other cyclists and dealt with it accordingly. I can certainly see the benefit. 

[12gauge82]

5 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

I don't see why cyclists should not have insurance, have to pass a test and have mandatory safety kit as well as a registration. They have the same rights as other road users so should have the same responsibility. Its not the car driver that gets injured, costs the NHS millions I'm sure as well as the emergency services investigating the rtc's and reports of stolen bikes. 

Perhaps if helmets were mandatory along with hi viz tops and the cyclists had passed a proficiency test to show they can ride responsibly and not endanger either themselves or other road users it would reduce their injuries. 

As a trained cyclist (there is such a thing) that used to belt about London responding to emergency calls I saw a fair bit of ridiculous behavior from other cyclists and dealt with it accordingly. I can certainly see the benefit. 

What about pedestrians who use the roads, I've seen stupid behaviour by them to, walking along unlit roads in dark clothing at night, walking out in front of cars on nights out etc 

[Newbie to this]

A pedestrian is not on or in vehicle

[12gauge82]

Just now, Newbie to this said:

A pedestrian is not on or in vehicle

What difference does that make, they can still cause a crash, get run over ect

1 minute ago, Newbie to this said:

A pedestrian is not on or in vehicle

What about a child on rollerskates? 

[GingerCat]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

What about pedestrians who use the roads, I've seen stupid behaviour by them to, walking along unlit roads in dark clothing at night, walking out in front of cars on nights out etc 

Can't legislate for stupid. A test, safety gear and insurance would benefit all road users, including pedestrians.

Pedestrians are always a hazard that all road users should be aware of. 

[Newbie to this]

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

What difference does that make, they can still cause a crash, get run over ect

All very true, but pedestrians are mainly on the pavements, mind you so are some cyclists 

Perhaps we need enforced jay walking laws.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Newbie to this

[12gauge82]

Just now, GingerCat said:

Can't legislate for stupid. A test, safety gear and insurance would benefit all road users, including pedestrians.

Pedestrians are always a hazard that all road users should be aware of. 

So what's the difference a stupid person is stupid regardless of if they're on a cycle or on foot. The difference when they're in charge of a car or a lorry or an aeroplane ect is however obvious. 

[12gauge82]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

All very true, but pedestrians are mainly on the pavements, mind you so are some cyclists 

They're also all over the roads and regularly get run over or cause crashes, just like cyclist's do. 

As others have said, the reason vehicles are licensed and insured is relative to the damage and frequency of the damage they cause when things go wrong, the difference between bicycles and cars is vast, hgvs are regulated more than cars, ships and planes more so, it seems obvious to me. 

[GingerCat]

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

So what's the difference a stupid person is stupid regardless of if they're on a cycle or on foot. The difference when they're in charge of a car or a lorry or an aeroplane ect is however obvious. 

Old figures but interesting never the less 

https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/Advice/Cyclists-and-motorcyclists/Accident-rates

 

I wonder how many would have been prevented by some safety measures. 

Your right stupid is stupid however with the increase in popularity of cycling to work etc it should be considered. Some places in London, the elephant and castle for example, are nightmares in a car let alone on a bike. The number of riders cutting in front of cars, squeezing down the side of busses and the like is terrifying and the death rate there reflects it. 

As anyone can get a bike and ride through the centre of town, seemingly ignore another road user either willfully or by ignorance then they should have to take some responsibility. Ie head gear, hi Viz, insurance and when they hit a pedestrian (they often do) then a registration so they can be identified and prosecuted. 

As for pedestrians the highway code and various road traffic acts places the blame on the road users in vehicles, it would be difficult to do anything other than that as typically humans are born with legs and go where they want. The responsibility has been placed on those choosing to travel faster than walking pace and rightly so  as you highlight it causes more damage and requires greater responsibility and accountability. Something some cyclists have neither of. 

 

[Newbie to this]

26 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

What about a child on rollerskates? 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Newbie to this

[Yellow Bear]

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

What about pedestrians who use the roads, I've seen stupid behaviour by them to, walking along unlit roads in dark clothing at night, walking out in front of cars on nights out etc 

Sadly same old/same old "Its not my fault, everybody else is wrong".  My personal view is that All cyclists should wear a helmet/high vis, those over 14 should carry reg details on their cycle similar to motorcycles and clearly visible (and don't come the old chestnut about it causing drag), and those over 16 should be insured,  This should be applied to ALL wheeled vehicles using roads and bridle paths etc.  This would enable riding on footpaths  to be reduced.

As someone has said "Stupid" is not illegal but to your point about pedestrians most can stop, if necessary in less than 2m, usually 1m,  a cyclist , even at 10k/h takes at least 15m.

[Newbie to this]

9 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

As others have said, the reason vehicles are licensed and insured is relative to the damage and frequency of the damage they cause when things go wrong, the difference between bicycles and cars is vast, hgvs are regulated more than cars, ships and planes more so, it seems obvious to me

Many cyclists have caused death and serious injuries. Just because it's less probable (although proportionately I'm not so sure), doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated the same as other vehicles on the road. Seems obvious to me

[Mice!]

45 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

Perhaps if helmets were mandatory along with hi viz tops and the cyclists had passed a proficiency test to show they can ride responsibly and not endanger either themselves or other road users it would reduce their injuries. 

Does my cycling proficiency test at school count? I've probably still got the badge somewhere 😅😅

[GingerCat]

1 minute ago, Mice! said:

Does my cycling proficiency test at school count? I've probably still got the badge somewhere 😅😅

Lol its more than a lot seem to have. 

I can remember being in gridlocked traffic on the old Kent road. Bright summers day and about 25.c with not a cloud in the sky. We all wanted to get back and drop the car off before going to a pub on the Thames. A cyclist sped down between the stationary cars and straight into the drivers side of a car that was trying to go into the opposite flow of traffic. She had been there about 5 minutes and was doing nothing wrong. A lorry had pulled across in front of her blocking her exit and the traffic on the other side was heavy also. 

The cyclist jumped about and was screaming about how she pulled out on him and how he was going to sue her. He was very upset that 5 plain clothed police officers had witnessed him cycling into a stationary vehicle whilst using his phone. Low and behold her car was damaged and he had no insurance or helmet that would have prevented the gash to his forehead. 

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, GingerCat said:

Old figures but interesting never the less 

https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/Advice/Cyclists-and-motorcyclists/Accident-rates

 

I wonder how many would have been prevented by some safety measures. 

 

As anyone can get a bike and ride through the centre of town, seemingly ignore another road user either willfully or by ignorance then they should have to take some responsibility. Ie head gear, hi Viz, insurance and when they hit a pedestrian (they often do) then a registration so they can be identified and prosecuted. 

 

 

I wonder how many injuries could  be prevented by all car occupants wearing helmets (car accidents cause  more head injuries  - nornmally side window impact  than cycling accidents), and how many accidents/injuries could be prevented by all cars and motor bikes being Hi ViZ instead of black (difficult to see in twilight), silver/grey ( disappears in fog) etc etc.

If you want cylcists to meet the standards you raise, then it is only right and fair that you implement the same.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, GingerCat said:

Lol its more than a lot seem to have. 

I can remember being in gridlocked traffic on the old Kent road. Bright summers day and about 25.c with not a cloud in the sky. We all wanted to get back and drop the car off before going to a pub on the Thames. A cyclist sped down between the stationary cars and straight into the drivers side of a car that was trying to go into the opposite flow of traffic. She had been there about 5 minutes and was doing nothing wrong. A lorry had pulled across in front of her blocking her exit and the traffic on the other side was heavy also. 

The cyclist jumped about and was screaming about how she pulled out on him and how he was going to sue her. He was very upset that 5 plain clothed police officers had witnessed him cycling into a stationary vehicle whilst using his phone. Low and behold her car was damaged and he had no insurance or helmet that would have prevented the gash to his forehead. 

I think that is called a good result!