Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So far, so predictable! I'll add a few of the routine responses!

1. The requirement for cyclists to complete a proficiency test. I think you will find that most cyclists do hold a driving license. There have been some interesting truck driver training programmes which have put them out on the road on bikes to get a different perspective.

2. Related to that - rules and regulations for cyclists. The general light approach is right because more cycling should be encouraged for health and safety reasons. There are rules of the road for drivers and cyclists but there is a general problem of enforcement viz. the recent furore about phone use while driving.

3. Generalisation. Whenever negative comments are made about cyclists, it's usually a collective accusation; bad vehicle driving is usually particularised - a driver did so and so.

I think there's a lot of truth in the concern that bad manners generally on the road is a consequence of too much haste and pressure and an increasingly individualised society. Otherwise the mixing of cyclists and pedestrians on the same paths (as on the Kennet and Avon canal path) can be ill planned. I live in Milton Keynes which has pride in its redways which take pedestrians and cyclists away from the roads, but there are no clear rules and the sort of mix you get with commuting cyclists and groups of parents and children going to school, not to mention dogs,  can be positively risky.

I am a driver and a cyclist and I do try to follow the rules and be considerate, but sometimes I get impatient in car and on bike, but I do obey the traffic lights!

Clive

Clive - I do agree about  generalsations although motorists tend to get categorised - BMW() drivers, Audi drivers, 4x4 drivers, white vans when of course there's idiots in all types of vehicles.

SKDriver posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

Well, I’m fed up with this element of society. However, I am undecided as to what course of action to take.

Advice ?

Apply Rule # 5.

You mean the 500' part of Rule 5 ? (200' in your rotary)

Probably a good idea !!

Cdb posted:

So far, so predictable! I'll add a few of the routine responses!

1. The requirement for cyclists to complete a proficiency test. I think you will find that most cyclists do hold a driving license. There have been some interesting truck driver training programmes which have put them out on the road on bikes to get a different perspective.

2. Related to that - rules and regulations for cyclists. The general light approach is right because more cycling should be encouraged for health and safety reasons. There are rules of the road for drivers and cyclists but there is a general problem of enforcement viz. the recent furore about phone use while driving.

3. Generalisation. Whenever negative comments are made about cyclists, it's usually a collective accusation; bad vehicle driving is usually particularised - a driver did so and so.

I think there's a lot of truth in the concern that bad manners generally on the road is a consequence of too much haste and pressure and an increasingly individualised society. Otherwise the mixing of cyclists and pedestrians on the same paths (as on the Kennet and Avon canal path) can be ill planned. I live in Milton Keynes which has pride in its redways which take pedestrians and cyclists away from the roads, but there are no clear rules and the sort of mix you get with commuting cyclists and groups of parents and children going to school, not to mention dogs,  can be positively risky.

I am a driver and a cyclist and I do try to follow the rules and be considerate, but sometimes I get impatient in car and on bike, but I do obey the traffic lights!

Clive

 

Just to lighten the tone a smidgen..........Not when Winky is the commentator............

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Clive - I do agree about  generalsations although motorists tend to get categorised - BMW() drivers, Audi drivers, 4x4 drivers, white vans when of course there's idiots in all types of vehicles.

Yes, fair point - especially about the idiots!!

Clive

Don Atkinson posted

 

 

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

I'm not sure if you are being tongue in cheek here, but that does sound rather extreme. I see increased cycling as part of the solution, not the problem. A high proportion of car trips are very short and drivers should be encouraged to walk or cycle. But a lot of people are nervous to cycle because there are so many bad or intolerant drivers, which can make the roads dangerous. 

The idea of charging cyclists would reduce cycle use and increase pollution. And if you want to charge cyclists, what about horses? Mobility scooters? Sheep?

JamieWednesday posted:

winkyincanada posted:

JamieWednesday posted:

Though why a proportion of cyclists riding on the road think traffic lights aren't for them and go sailing through reds (without even a pause) so frequently is beyond me.

It's not beyond me. It's to save time and bit of energy from not having to come to a stop. I actually think it's pretty obvious why cyclists are reluctant to stop at red lights and stop signs when the way is clear.

We all break the road laws, and very often. It's just that we don't see our own rule breaking as dangerous. Take 80km/hr in a 60km/hr zone? "Sure. It's not dangerous. The road is clear and I'm a good driver" . But is a cyclist runs red light? "Unacceptable! Fine them off the road. Get insurance! Get registered. The risks are large and unacceptable. Something must be done!"

Saving time and energy to then get yourself flattened by a bus coming the other way doesn;t seem very sensible. And worse is when they go flying through red lights while pedestrians are crossing. There's a T-junction near me and quite often they come flying downhill, weaving between the pedestrians crossing the road at the lights and are surprised when people don't tolerate it. Crazy.

I see motorists running red lights and turning across pedestrian rights-of-way all the time. They don't seem to give a $h!t about the pedestrians. One difference is that the motorists are able to kill the pedestrians with little consequence.

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

So far, so predictable! I'll add a few of the routine responses!

1. The requirement for cyclists to complete a proficiency test. I think you will find that most cyclists do hold a driving license. There have been some interesting truck driver training programmes which have put them out on the road on bikes to get a different perspective.

2. Related to that - rules and regulations for cyclists. The general light approach is right because more cycling should be encouraged for health and safety reasons. There are rules of the road for drivers and cyclists but there is a general problem of enforcement viz. the recent furore about phone use while driving.

3. Generalisation. Whenever negative comments are made about cyclists, it's usually a collective accusation; bad vehicle driving is usually particularised - a driver did so and so.

I think there's a lot of truth in the concern that bad manners generally on the road is a consequence of too much haste and pressure and an increasingly individualised society. Otherwise the mixing of cyclists and pedestrians on the same paths (as on the Kennet and Avon canal path) can be ill planned. I live in Milton Keynes which has pride in its redways which take pedestrians and cyclists away from the roads, but there are no clear rules and the sort of mix you get with commuting cyclists and groups of parents and children going to school, not to mention dogs,  can be positively risky.

I am a driver and a cyclist and I do try to follow the rules and be considerate, but sometimes I get impatient in car and on bike, but I do obey the traffic lights!

Clive

 

 

Just to lighten the tone a smidgen..........Not when Winky is the commentator............

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

Motorists overwhelming hold each other up. Cyclists hardly rate a mention. It is serious issue that the decision to drive imposes costs on others, as well as on ourselves. Because we don't really care about the costs to others, we all choose to drive, both imposing costs on, and being subject to costs from other drivers.

I'll consider lane rental valid if it is normalised for wear and tear that the particular vehicles produce (including full environmental costs), and ALL on street parking is removed.

I don't. Must just be around your way Winky. 

Don Atkinson posted

 

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

Actually motorists do not pay to use the roads - they pay an excise duty on their car - the commonly called road tax is no such thing and is not hypothecated. The car tax is based on emissions and since bicycles create no emissions they pay no tax. The same may not be said of cyclists but I'm not sure their emissions could be taxed!

Clive

Hungryhalibut posted:

Don Atkinson posted

 

 

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

I'm not sure if you are being tongue in cheek here, but that does sound rather extreme. I see increased cycling as part of the solution, not the problem. A high proportion of car trips are very short and drivers should be encouraged to walk or cycle. But a lot of people are nervous to cycle because there are so many bad or intolerant drivers, which can make the roads dangerous. 

The idea of charging cyclists would reduce cycle use and increase pollution. And if you want to charge cyclists, what about horses? Mobility scooters? Sheep?

Mobility scooters are the scourge of our local pedestrianised high street...!!

What's the tax on fuel for then?

It's just a way of raising money for the exchequer. It's not hypothecated. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Don Atkinson posted

 

 

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

I'm not sure if you are being tongue in cheek here, but that does sound rather extreme. I see increased cycling as part of the solution, not the problem. A high proportion of car trips are very short and drivers should be encouraged to walk or cycle. But a lot of people are nervous to cycle because there are so many bad or intolerant drivers, which can make the roads dangerous. 

The idea of charging cyclists would reduce cycle use and increase pollution. And if you want to charge cyclists, what about horses? Mobility scooters? Sheep?

A) was slightly tongue-cheek, but follows the current trend of putting "the environment" top of any proposed change or tax.

B) as always is deadly serious. Pay to use ! If you want to use the gym to get fit, you pay. If we want safe cycleways we should pay. Start a new political party or get one of the existing to add Sustrans to their manifesto and make it clear how they will fund it. And I don't think Local Authorities are the right medium. It needs to be a National project to provide segregated routes for cyclists.

If enough people want it, it will happen.

Cdb posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

My journey to work takes me on the A413 from Buckingham to Aylesbury - the road is undulating, full of blind curves, horse boxes in abundance, tractors etc.  The cyclists really concern me not least that they have to observe the pot holes and I quite often attract the wrath of following drivers because of my very cautious approach to overtaking cyclists.    

However,  Bucks CC have recently invested in an excellent cycle path at the North end of the route but when I was driving home the other evening I had to manouvere past a cyclist who insisted on using the road - presumably legal but idiot all the same. 

I feel for you having to commute on that road - it's certainly not one to use if you are in a hurry. And it's certainly one I avoid if I'm out on my bike, although I have one or two routes where I cross it.  

Clive

I applaud Strat for a cautious approach to overtaking vulnerable road users. It is the "wrath of following drivers" that is the concern. Why are we all in such a goddamn hurry?

We cyclists get criticised for using roads when there is a "perfectly good bike path". Here's news. If the path was "perfectly good" we'd use it. In spite of how it might appear, we don't enjoy having our lives endangered by incompetent, distracted and impatient drivers.

Strat, I feel for anyone who has to commute by car. Looking at the map there seem to be a number of alternate routes that you could use to cycle to work. The distance is perhaps at the upper end of what most people would consider reasonable (I'd consider it ideal), but an e-bike would make it achievable for all but the most inactive.

As one who was lucky to survive after being mown down on my bike last year by an 89 year old driver who had diabetes, was blind as a bat and should not have been on the road, I'm all for safer cycle routes. 

I'm also all for compulsory medicals every three years for all drivers over 70. And once they get to 85 or whatever, a compulsory test every year. 

Cdb posted:

Don Atkinson posted

 

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

Actually motorists do not pay to use the roads - they pay an excise duty on their car - the commonly called road tax is no such thing and is not hypothecated. The car tax is based on emissions and since bicycles create no emissions they pay no tax. The same may not be said of cyclists but I'm not sure their emissions could be taxed!

Clive

Unless I tax my car, I can't use the roads. Call it what you like, car drivers pay to use their car, cyclists don't.

tax on car fuel generates billions of revenue. It more than covers the cost of cars in our society per-se. Much more than !,!

I'm a motorist and a cyclist. I already pay road tax thank you very much. 

And I get held up by cars quite often. I can get around Torbay quicker on a bike than I can in a car, even quicker if damn lazy motorists weren't blocking up the roads.

I cycled the 100 miles to my father in law's last summer and my average speed was compromised by motorists clogging up the road for the last 20 miles of my journey along the A38. 

I try not to hold up motorists and when I do and then overtaken by one I always hold up my hand to thank them for their patience. Those that try and brush by my right elbow (it happens a lot) won't stop for a chat. How ignorant.

Drewy posted:

I can get around Torbay quicker on a bike than I can in a car, even quicker if damn lazy motorists weren't blocking up the roads.

 

Good point...

I mean how bloody inconsiderate when, having just bust a gut for 5 minutes in order to 'smash' a STRAVA segment and get my name in lights as a KoM holder, some ignorant BMW driver decides to pull out and then have the audacity to stop at a red traffic light in front of me!

Bast@@d!

As a cyclist, my real hate about motorists is the ones that speed up to get past me then immediately turn left right across my path causing me to slam on my brakes. Maybe I should learn how to crash without hurting myself and next time plough into the car, damaging it as much as possible and suing for damages to my bike, clothing and self...

And as a car driver my real hate about cyclists is the ones that wear dark clothing and carry no lights, riding in poor visibility conditions. Maybe ai should just fulfil their evident death wish for them...

Innocent Bystander posted:

As a cyclist, my real hate about motorists is the ones that speed up to get past me then immediately turn left right across my path causing me to slam on my brakes.

I had that this evening when I was out on my bike. From another cyclist. What a tw@t

C.

winkyincanada posted:

Cdb posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

My journey to work takes me on the A413 from Buckingham to Aylesbury - the road is undulating, full of blind curves, horse boxes in abundance, tractors etc.  The cyclists really concern me not least that they have to observe the pot holes and I quite often attract the wrath of following drivers because of my very cautious approach to overtaking cyclists.    

However,  Bucks CC have recently invested in an excellent cycle path at the North end of the route but when I was driving home the other evening I had to manouvere past a cyclist who insisted on using the road - presumably legal but idiot all the same. 

I feel for you having to commute on that road - it's certainly not one to use if you are in a hurry. And it's certainly one I avoid if I'm out on my bike, although I have one or two routes where I cross it.  

Clive

I applaud Strat for a cautious approach to overtaking vulnerable road users. It is the "wrath of following drivers" that is the concern. Why are we all in such a goddamn hurry?

We cyclists get criticised for using roads when there is a "perfectly good bike path". Here's news. If the path was "perfectly good" we'd use it. In spite of how it might appear, we don't enjoy having our lives endangered by incompetent, distracted and impatient drivers.

Strat, I feel for anyone who has to commute by car. Looking at the map there seem to be a number of alternate routes that you could use to cycle to work. The distance is perhaps at the upper end of what most people would consider reasonable (I'd consider it ideal), but an e-bike would make it achievable for all but the most inactive.

The new path from Buckingham to Winslow (to be completed through to Aylesbury) rally is excellent - wide and smooth.  Wouldn't be practicable for me though every day in winter I do the journey morning and evening in the dark, and often have to divert elsewhere.  I actually like driving - love cars - but it does require commonsense and courtersy.

Common sense and courtesy both seem to be in short supply. It's such a shame. When I pootle about in the daytime, whether on foot, on my bike or in the car, everything is fine. People say hello, wave and treat each other with consideration. Then it gets to 4.30 and the world seems to go mad. 

Drewy posted:

I'm a motorist and a cyclist.I already pay road tax thank you very much. 

And I get held up by cars quite often. I can get around Torbay quicker on a bike than I can in a car, even quicker if damn lazy motorists weren't blocking up the roads.

I cycled the 100 miles to my father in law's last summer and my average speed was compromised by motorists clogging up the road for the last 20 miles of my journey along the A38. 

I try not to hold up motorists and when I do and then overtaken by one I always hold up my hand to thank them for their patience. Those that try and brush by my right elbow (it happens a lot) won't stop for a chat. How ignorant.

 

Ah ! a bit like me. I also pay road tax. But that entitles me to take my CAR onto the road. Nothing to do with the bike !!

In fact, as I understand it, you can take your bike onto the road even if you don't have a car and DON'T pay road tax !

You can swim in Chichester Harbour without paying harbour dues if you like. And you can listen to Radio 4 without a TV licence.