If cyclists realy did follow the same rules as motorists you would get anoyed with us very quickly indeed.
By rights I should ride right in the centre of my chosen lane and expect cars to give me as much room to pass by (overtake) as they would another car. I should give large deliberate signals and change lanes in a safe and considered way.
Imagine if I used the same rules as cars when goin around a trafic island. It is difficult and often dangerous to do so because car drivers will not alow it and get very impatient and agressive. Instad we cyclists stay as far to the left wherever possible and usualy have to traverse islands by degrees, putting ourselves at greater risk but not icuring the wrath of car drivers who are all to ready to run us off the bloody road. (probably my blood)
I could not care less when every time I go out on my bike there is some idiot parked right in the cycle lane. I pointed it out to a policeman once who simply shrugged. This is a lot more dangerous than riding on the path but no one gives a shit.
What does that have to do with any law that states that cyclists have to dismount if traffic is dangerous?
To repeat my previous point, I suggested where a road is too unsafe, just dismount and walk on the pavement until there is a safe stretch to rejoin the road - not just carry on along the pavement which is illegal - therefore, not being allowed to cycle on the pavements means you would have to dismount.
I'd say because we pay so much, we have more right to be on the road than cyclists. Pedestrians as far as I am concerned are not road users, in so much as they may walk across them, but dont use them constantly like your other examples.
I would suggest it is your point of view that makes things worse for other cyclists. You also say that idiot cyclists should be punished. How is this possible when they are untraceable under the current climate. I have to say Ive yet to see a cyclist stop if they break a wing mirror or knock somebody over at a zebra crossing. Why?....well because they know they can ride off without any recrimination.
The amount of money it costs to use a road legally is irrelevant to whether a car has more 'right' to use it. We have equal rights, but the problem is that some motorists and some cyclists abuse them and give the rest of us a bad name.
It's just the way of things. Drivers hate cyclists. Cyclists hate pedestrians. Everyone hates bus drivers.
I've sodding well had it right up to here with car drivers and their bloody self ritious indignation and total lack of proportionate danger faced by various road users.
I am a pedestrian and a cyclist and I was a mini cab driver for 5 years so I have had ample oportunity to asses the real menace caused by cyclists and even when I was a taxi driver cyclists were not the problem. Stupid car drivers were.
To repeat my previous point, I suggested where a road is too unsafe, just dismount and walk on the pavement until there is a safe stretch to rejoin the road - not just carry on along the pavement which is illegal - therefore, not being allowed to cycle on the pavements means you would have to dismount.
Why should we. Why don't you car drivers drive in such a way as not to render stretches of road too dangerous.
If I walked every time it became unsafe there would be no point owning a bike at all unless I got my jollies pushing the damn thing everywhere.
The amount of money it costs to use a road legally is irrelevant to whether a car has more 'right' to use it. We have equal rights, but the problem is that some motorists and some cyclists abuse them and give the rest of us a bad name.
It's just the way of things. Drivers hate cyclists. Cyclists hate pedestrians. Everyone hates bus drivers.
I don't hate bus drivers or pedestrians. I actually don't think buses are that bad. I think that taxi drivers and white van men are definitely the worst.
Why should we. Why don't you car drivers drive in such a way as not to render stretches of road too dangerous.
If I walked every time it became unsafe there would be no point owning a bike at all unless I got my jollies pushing the damn thing everywhere.
Where in this thread did I say I was a motorist?
I don't drive or cycle - I walk / use public transport. As a pedestrian, I'm p'd off at both mindless motorists (parking on pavements) just as much as I am of idiots illegally cycling on pavements. The fact that there are inconsiderate motorists doesn't give cyclists the right to make pedestrians life hard :mad:
Don't forget, pedestrians are the majority here - unless you are permanently attached to your driving seat/saddle
If cyclists realy did follow the same rules as motorists you would get anoyed with us very quickly indeed.
By rights I should ride right in the centre of my chosen lane and expect cars to give me as much room to pass by (overtake) as they would another car. I should give large deliberate signals and change lanes in a safe and considered way.
Imagine if I used the same rules as cars when goin around a trafic island. It is difficult and often dangerous to do so because car drivers will not alow it and get very impatient and agressive. Instad we cyclists stay as far to the left wherever possible and usualy have to traverse islands by degrees, putting ourselves at greater risk but not icuring the wrath of car drivers who are all to ready to run us off the bloody road. (probably my blood)
Not only is all that true but if cyclists were to behave like other motorists they'd keep up with the traffic flow and not ride at 15 mph in a 60 zone. Sheesh, i don't know, peddle faster!
I don't hate bus drivers or pedestrians. I actually don't think buses are that bad. I think that taxi drivers and white van men are definitely the worst.
Well, it was quite a flippant remark really, although I do find myself emergency stopping a fair bit when buses overtake me only to immediately stop to pick up passengers...
No, your comparisons are simplistic. Mine are not. A plastic go-cart is a toy and not a mode of transport. Add into the equation that bicycles can be used on the road. Plastic go-carts cannot.
It's not wholly ideal, but a horse-drawn carriage is possibly the closest thing to a car I can think of....
How can a bicycle and a motorbike be very different? They're not. If you remove an engine from a motorbike and replace it with pedals......which reminds me...
Yes my comparisons were simplistic, that was my aim. Cycles are not the same as motor vehicles besides simple outward appearances.
They don't require much skill to ride...or should we be testing and insuring all our children. They are almost completely unlikely to kill someone in a collision. It's pretty unlikely that you'll kill yourself on one just by falling off. They will often be the worst victim in any road accident.
To suggest cycles are just like any other road vehicle and should be treated as such is simplistic.
I think all drivers should spend at least a year cycling before even being eligable for a driving licence and that regular periods of bike use should be enforced and checked.
This would not only benifit cyclists but would greatly improve the standards of driving across the board. It would teach drivers what it is like to have to cycle everywhere and it would also teach them how to drive defensively and to read the road for hazards. I know that being a cyclist greatly improves general road awareness. Something greatly lacking in many drivers today.
Why should we. Why don't you car drivers drive in such a way as not to render stretches of road too dangerous.
If I walked every time it became unsafe there would be no point owning a bike at all unless I got my jollies pushing the damn thing everywhere.
Equally, why should pedestrians have stretches of pavement rendered dangerous by inconsiderate cyclists? I don't have an issue with pavement cycling on clear path, but I will shout at cyclists if they go past me at speed when I'm walking.
I agree with you regarding driver training though, I certainly think part of the driving test should be learning how to behave around cyclists, perhaps making the issue of feeling unsafe on a road moot in the first place.
Not only is all that true but if cyclists were to behave like other motorists they'd keep up with the traffic flow and not ride at 15 mph in a 60 zone. Sheesh, i don't know, peddle faster!
Not only is all that true but if cyclists were to behave like other motorists they'd keep up with the traffic flow and not ride at 15 mph in a 60 zone. Sheesh, i don't know, peddle faster!
Why should we. Why don't you car drivers drive in such a way as not to render stretches of road too dangerous.
If I walked every time it became unsafe there would be no point owning a bike at all unless I got my jollies pushing the damn thing everywhere.
That's not true. There are plenty of safe places for cycling. But if you're cycling along A or B roads for example (which are designed for use at speeds far higher than even the best cyclists can achieve and sustain), or really busy stretches of road in the city, the fact is, you're taking your life into your own hands as a cyclist and the responsibility for that lies largely with you. You have as much right to be there as cars, but cars are always going to be bigger, faster, and far more dangerous to you if they hit you than the other way round - and with the best will in the world, traffic accidents happen every day. 99.9% of them aren't intentional, if any! If you don't feel safe, then you should dismount and walk, not drive along 'determined to prove all motorists wrong' when the only person you're actually putting in danger by doing this is you. Unless you think all roads should have a max speed limit of 20 mph, there's always going to be a large element of risk for any cyclists - but there's no need to deliberately try and make it more risky still for yourself.
Equally, why should pedestrians have stretches of pavement rendered dangerous by inconsiderate cyclists?
It's much less dangerous for pedestrians to share a pavement with a careful cyclist than it is for a bike to share the road with a careless driver.
I know some people do get hit by bikes but not many and more people get killed on the pavement by cars than by bikes.
You could also argue that some people get knocked over by people out running.
The point is the proportionate danger and the people being the most dangerous is the car drivers who think they have the right to do what they like.
I think all drivers should spend at least a year cycling before even being eligable for a driving licence and that regular periods of bike use should be enforced and checked.
This would not only benifit cyclists but would greatly improve the standards of driving across the board. It would teach drivers what it is like to have to cycle everywhere and it would also teach them how to drive defensively and to read the road for hazards. I know that being a cyclist greatly improves general road awareness. Something greatly lacking in many drivers today.
Well maybe all cyclists should have to hold a drivers license too, so they are fully aware of what its like to drive a car when there are cyclists on the road and also it means they are more aware of what a red light means or a zebra crossing. If you go down that route, it works both ways!
It's much less dangerous for pedestrians to share a pavement with a careful cyclist than it is for a bike to share the road with a careless driver.
I know some people do get hit by bikes but not many and more people get killed on the pavement by cars than by bikes.
You could also argue that some people get knocked over by people out running.
The point is the proportionate danger and the people being the most dangerous is the car drivers who think they have the right to do what they like.
I've been hit by a bike. It ruined the skirt I was wearing! Another problem for pedestrians is cyclists moving amongst stationary traffic - you can't always see them coming round cars etc when trying to cross the roads.
Mind you, when I am cycling, I'm infuriated by the number of pedestrians who obviously rely on their hearing more than their sight when crossing the road, so step out without even looking to see if there's anything coming.
That's not true. There are plenty of safe places for cycling. But if you're cycling along A or B roads for example (which are designed for use at speeds far higher than even the best cyclists can achieve and sustain), or really busy stretches of road in the city, the fact is, you're taking your life into your own hands as a cyclist and the responsibility for that lies largely with you. You have as much right to be there as cars, but cars are always going to be bigger, faster, and far more dangerous to you if they hit you than the other way round - and with the best will in the world, traffic accidents happen every day. 99.9% of them aren't intentional, if any! If you don't feel safe, then you should dismount and walk, not drive along 'determined to prove all motorists wrong' when the only person you're actually putting in danger by doing this is you. Unless you think all roads should have a max speed limit of 20 mph, there's always going to be a large element of risk for any cyclists - but there's no need to deliberately try and make it more risky still for yourself.
I wasn't even talking about A and B roads (which I have as much right to use as anyone) I was talking about roads within city boundaries with 30 mph limits. I don't know where you get the idea that there are lots of safe places to cycle. Not where I live there aren't.
Also when cycling to and from work one cannot really choose where to go. Cycling for me, as for many others is my primary form of transport not just a recreational activity I can take or leave. For me it is an economic nescessity and believe you me I do everything I can to be safe. Perhaps if you had to spend some time as a cyclist in order to be alowed the privalage of a driving licence you would have a better idea of wha I mean.
I'd have thought the vast majority of motorists have ridden bikes before anyway. Saying motorists should try being a cyclist could easily elicit the response, " i was a cyclist until i was old enough to upgrade to a car".
It's much less dangerous for pedestrians to share a pavement with a careful cyclist than it is for a bike to share the road with a careless driver.
I know some people do get hit by bikes but not many and more people get killed on the pavement by cars than by bikes.
You could also argue that some people get knocked over by people out running.
The point is the proportionate danger and the people being the most dangerous is the car drivers who think they have the right to do what they like.
Problem is a lot of cyclists are not careful, as I pointed out in my post yesterday:
There's a difference between a designated shared use pavement where at least pedestrians are aware that cyclists are about as oppsed to them hurtling down sections where they shouldn't be. Sadly, from personal experience, the vast number of those who use the pavement illegally, also cycle at speed and also break the law in other ways by not having lights etc.
As to more people being killed on pavements by cars There have been incidents of pedestrians killed by reckless cyclists - but also take into account there are a lot more people who get injured (rather than killed) and some, particularly old people, who now feel intimidated when walking on pavements.
I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, unless a pavement is designated as a joint cycle/footpath, there's no excuse for people to cycle along it.
I wasn't even talking about A and B roads (which I have as much right to use as anyone) I was talking about roads within city boundaries with 30 mph limits. I don't know where you get the idea that there are lots of safe places to cycle. Not where I live there aren't.
Also when cycling to and from work one cannot really choose where to go. Cycling for me, as for many others is my primary form of transport not just a recreational activity I can take or leave. For me it is an economic nescessity and believe you me I do everything I can to be safe. Perhaps if you had to spend some time as a cyclist in order to be alowed the privalage of a driving licence you would have a better idea of wha I mean.
I cycled to work - 6 miles across central London - and back every day until I got pregnant, so I do know what I am talking about thanks! I drive a car as well, and walk lots, and the fact is that at least 50% of cyclists, probably more, are absolute menaces to everyone on the road, including themselves. IMO the worse offenders are middle aged men on swanky bikes, who are determined to 'race' everyone and see red traffic lights as a challenge to be beaten rather than, you know, a signal to stop!
I know you've got the right to use A and B roads, but you can't force cars to drive them at 20 mph, which is the only way they're really going to be safe for cyclists. You're always going to be vulnerable on a bike, and nothing's going to change that - so either give it up, or put up and shut up! (That's not specifically aimed at you btw, just a general observation).
Comments
Once again, very well said!
I could not care less when every time I go out on my bike there is some idiot parked right in the cycle lane. I pointed it out to a policeman once who simply shrugged. This is a lot more dangerous than riding on the path but no one gives a shit.
To repeat my previous point, I suggested where a road is too unsafe, just dismount and walk on the pavement until there is a safe stretch to rejoin the road - not just carry on along the pavement which is illegal - therefore, not being allowed to cycle on the pavements means you would have to dismount.
The amount of money it costs to use a road legally is irrelevant to whether a car has more 'right' to use it. We have equal rights, but the problem is that some motorists and some cyclists abuse them and give the rest of us a bad name.
It's just the way of things. Drivers hate cyclists. Cyclists hate pedestrians. Everyone hates bus drivers.
I've sodding well had it right up to here with car drivers and their bloody self ritious indignation and total lack of proportionate danger faced by various road users.
I am a pedestrian and a cyclist and I was a mini cab driver for 5 years so I have had ample oportunity to asses the real menace caused by cyclists and even when I was a taxi driver cyclists were not the problem. Stupid car drivers were.
Why should we. Why don't you car drivers drive in such a way as not to render stretches of road too dangerous.
If I walked every time it became unsafe there would be no point owning a bike at all unless I got my jollies pushing the damn thing everywhere.
I don't hate bus drivers or pedestrians. I actually don't think buses are that bad. I think that taxi drivers and white van men are definitely the worst.
Where in this thread did I say I was a motorist?
I don't drive or cycle - I walk / use public transport. As a pedestrian, I'm p'd off at both mindless motorists (parking on pavements) just as much as I am of idiots illegally cycling on pavements. The fact that there are inconsiderate motorists doesn't give cyclists the right to make pedestrians life hard :mad:
Don't forget, pedestrians are the majority here - unless you are permanently attached to your driving seat/saddle
Not only is all that true but if cyclists were to behave like other motorists they'd keep up with the traffic flow and not ride at 15 mph in a 60 zone. Sheesh, i don't know, peddle faster!
Well, it was quite a flippant remark really, although I do find myself emergency stopping a fair bit when buses overtake me only to immediately stop to pick up passengers...
Yes my comparisons were simplistic, that was my aim. Cycles are not the same as motor vehicles besides simple outward appearances.
They don't require much skill to ride...or should we be testing and insuring all our children. They are almost completely unlikely to kill someone in a collision. It's pretty unlikely that you'll kill yourself on one just by falling off. They will often be the worst victim in any road accident.
To suggest cycles are just like any other road vehicle and should be treated as such is simplistic.
This would not only benifit cyclists but would greatly improve the standards of driving across the board. It would teach drivers what it is like to have to cycle everywhere and it would also teach them how to drive defensively and to read the road for hazards. I know that being a cyclist greatly improves general road awareness. Something greatly lacking in many drivers today.
Equally, why should pedestrians have stretches of pavement rendered dangerous by inconsiderate cyclists? I don't have an issue with pavement cycling on clear path, but I will shout at cyclists if they go past me at speed when I'm walking.
I agree with you regarding driver training though, I certainly think part of the driving test should be learning how to behave around cyclists, perhaps making the issue of feeling unsafe on a road moot in the first place.
Kiss my balls.:p
Or cling onto a BMW's wing mirror
Exactly
That's not true. There are plenty of safe places for cycling. But if you're cycling along A or B roads for example (which are designed for use at speeds far higher than even the best cyclists can achieve and sustain), or really busy stretches of road in the city, the fact is, you're taking your life into your own hands as a cyclist and the responsibility for that lies largely with you. You have as much right to be there as cars, but cars are always going to be bigger, faster, and far more dangerous to you if they hit you than the other way round - and with the best will in the world, traffic accidents happen every day. 99.9% of them aren't intentional, if any! If you don't feel safe, then you should dismount and walk, not drive along 'determined to prove all motorists wrong' when the only person you're actually putting in danger by doing this is you. Unless you think all roads should have a max speed limit of 20 mph, there's always going to be a large element of risk for any cyclists - but there's no need to deliberately try and make it more risky still for yourself.
It's much less dangerous for pedestrians to share a pavement with a careful cyclist than it is for a bike to share the road with a careless driver.
I know some people do get hit by bikes but not many and more people get killed on the pavement by cars than by bikes.
You could also argue that some people get knocked over by people out running.
The point is the proportionate danger and the people being the most dangerous is the car drivers who think they have the right to do what they like.
No need when they clip you as they go past although for some reason it's usualy Volvo's
Well maybe all cyclists should have to hold a drivers license too, so they are fully aware of what its like to drive a car when there are cyclists on the road and also it means they are more aware of what a red light means or a zebra crossing. If you go down that route, it works both ways!
I've been hit by a bike. It ruined the skirt I was wearing! Another problem for pedestrians is cyclists moving amongst stationary traffic - you can't always see them coming round cars etc when trying to cross the roads.
Mind you, when I am cycling, I'm infuriated by the number of pedestrians who obviously rely on their hearing more than their sight when crossing the road, so step out without even looking to see if there's anything coming.
I wasn't even talking about A and B roads (which I have as much right to use as anyone) I was talking about roads within city boundaries with 30 mph limits. I don't know where you get the idea that there are lots of safe places to cycle. Not where I live there aren't.
Also when cycling to and from work one cannot really choose where to go. Cycling for me, as for many others is my primary form of transport not just a recreational activity I can take or leave. For me it is an economic nescessity and believe you me I do everything I can to be safe. Perhaps if you had to spend some time as a cyclist in order to be alowed the privalage of a driving licence you would have a better idea of wha I mean.
Problem is a lot of cyclists are not careful, as I pointed out in my post yesterday:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=30447160&postcount=32
There's a difference between a designated shared use pavement where at least pedestrians are aware that cyclists are about as oppsed to them hurtling down sections where they shouldn't be. Sadly, from personal experience, the vast number of those who use the pavement illegally, also cycle at speed and also break the law in other ways by not having lights etc.
As to more people being killed on pavements by cars
I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, unless a pavement is designated as a joint cycle/footpath, there's no excuse for people to cycle along it.
I cycled to work - 6 miles across central London - and back every day until I got pregnant, so I do know what I am talking about thanks!
I know you've got the right to use A and B roads, but you can't force cars to drive them at 20 mph, which is the only way they're really going to be safe for cyclists. You're always going to be vulnerable on a bike, and nothing's going to change that - so either give it up, or put up and shut up! (That's not specifically aimed at you btw, just a general observation).