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

lutyens posted:

 

And I agree that all cyclists should be insured at least 3rd party ......

 

Why? The risk cyclists pose to others is small. There simply aren't enough insurable events happening to make it worthwhile in a general sense. (FWIIW I have 3rd party insurance covered by my club membership.)

winkyincanada posted:

lutyens posted:

 

And I agree that all cyclists should be insured at least 3rd party ......

 

Why? The risk cyclists pose to others is small. There simply aren't enough insurable events happening to make it worthwhile in a general sense. (FWIIW I have 3rd party insurance covered by my club membership.)

Well I also have insurance through my club too but I am pretty appalled at some cyclists care and attention and seen pretty close calls as they have jumped lights and ignored pedestrians. Not necessarily at the same time. People may feel differently if we took some social responsibility by having at least insurance. A bicycle at even low speeds can be pretty harming. I don't really see the issue here but I know you and I have differed about stopping at red lights at all times in the past so no biggy here. We may just agree to disagree. 

And I can only agree with Drewy that we appear to be a lot more angry as a society than we used to be. Me included I am sure. 

Don Atkinson posted:

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

We’ve just got back from a delightful family weekend at Centre Parcs (Longleat). Don’t ask, it’s not relevant !

We took our bikes and enjoyed cycling around the park. I’m totally satisfied that my lot were completely aware of pedestrians. We slowed down, gave way, dismounted and were pleasantly polite to any pedestrians who eased over to let us pass. I don’t recall any one of us feeling the urge or the need to ring a bell or shout, to inform a pedestrian of our presence. There were 7 of us plus the latest addition in a trailer-buggy.

However, when we were walking, I have lost count of the times I heard an aggressive warning bell just prior to a cyclist, or group of cyclists, whizzing past too fast to cope with a wandering youngster, or simply just “demanding” a mere pedestrian to shift out of their way!

We frequently stroll along sections of the Kennet & Avon canal. Again, cyclists seem to think that sounding their bell (or shouting) is all that is required to ensure that the two of us re-position to line-astern and step aside from the tow-path and into the long grass/nettles/reeds to enable their continued passage at upwards of 15 mph !!

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

Advice ?

I 100% agree with your observations and annoyances. I too, find cyclists' warning bells to be obnoxious (just like car horns). I hate the implied message of "get out of my way" that they convey. That many cyclists ride too fast on shared-use paths is also in accordance with my personal observations. But isn't it a bit of a paradox that many seem to believe that cyclists overtaking pedestrians without due care is unacceptable, yet are prepared to do exactly the same thing to cyclists when driving home from their walk?

I am as courteous and patient when cycling with pedestrians present as I am when driving with cyclists present. I recognize that as a driver, to be otherwise is to significantly place lives at risk.

Another observation on my commute is regarding cyclists and mirrors. The bike path up the Lionsgate Bridge is wide enough for overtaking, provided people ride aware, choose a side and keep fairly straight. Speeds are low on the uphill, so no major safety issues. Some cyclists I approach from behind are cycling right in the centre (preventing overtaking) and remain blissfully unaware of me behind them (I don't use a bell and don't bark "on your left" type orders at my fellow riders). The paradox is stems from an observed a correlation. Having a mirror seems to make cyclists MORE likely to be riding in the centre and LESS aware of what's happening behind them.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

Cyclists can and do cause obstructions just by their mere presence. Encouraging more and more cyclists will increase congestion. I'm simply proposing that making cyclists pay for occupation will help manage this congestion and provide funds to expand the cycling infrastructure.

 

http://bp0.blogger.com/_k8Y0SW.../espacio+coches.jpg?

I'll leave this here.

winkyincanada posted:

lutyens posted:

 

And I agree that all cyclists should be insured at least 3rd party ......

 

Why? The risk cyclists pose to others is small. There simply aren't enough insurable events happening to make it worthwhile in a general sense. (FWIIW I have 3rd party insurance covered by my club membership.)

A friend of mine was run into by a mindless cyclist in Winchester last October. My friend's collar bone was broken. It has taken until now for him to recover. 3rd party insurance to individuals can make a significant difference. The "general sense" is totally irrelevant.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

lutyens posted:

 

And I agree that all cyclists should be insured at least 3rd party ......

 

Why? The risk cyclists pose to others is small. There simply aren't enough insurable events happening to make it worthwhile in a general sense. (FWIIW I have 3rd party insurance covered by my club membership.)

A friend of mine was run into by a mindless cyclist in Winchester last October. My friend's collar bone was broken. It has taken until now for him to recover. 3rd party insurance to individuals can make a significant difference. The "general sense" is totally irrelevant.

The bigger picture is very relevant. We don't insure every risk. The administrative cost of a compulsory third-party scheme would be prohibitive, enriching insurance company executives to detriment of nearly everybody else. Sorry for your friend, but insurance wouldn't have prevented the collision, nor accelerated his recovery.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

lutyens posted:

 

And I agree that all cyclists should be insured at least 3rd party ......

 

Why? The risk cyclists pose to others is small. There simply aren't enough insurable events happening to make it worthwhile in a general sense. (FWIIW I have 3rd party insurance covered by my club membership.)

A friend of mine was run into by a mindless cyclist in Winchester last October. My friend's collar bone was broken. It has taken until now for him to recover. 3rd party insurance to individuals can make a significant difference. The "general sense" is totally irrelevant.

The bigger picture is very relevant. We don't insure every risk. The administrative cost of a compulsory third-party scheme would be prohibitive, enriching insurance company executives to detriment of nearly everybody else. Sorry for your friend, but insurance wouldn't have prevented the collision, nor accelerated his recovery.

I disagree.

I think its possible to add 3rd party insurance to your buildings/contents insurance to cover accidental damage you cause to others. minimal admin costs involved. I do stand to be corrected on this matter.

Regardless, society draws the line somewhere. You wouldn't accept motorists without insurance. I, and many others won't accept cyclists.

We all know that insurance doesn't prevent accidents per-se, it might make some people think more carefully if their premium would increase following an accident, but that's fairly trivial IMHO. The purpose is to ensure adequate treatment and compensation to the victim.

What makes me angry is all the nude cyclists on the road these days, it's really quite disgusting and shouldn't be allowed, can't they afford to buy some lycra?

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

lutyens posted:

 

And I agree that all cyclists should be insured at least 3rd party ......

 

Why? The risk cyclists pose to others is small. There simply aren't enough insurable events happening to make it worthwhile in a general sense. (FWIIW I have 3rd party insurance covered by my club membership.)

A friend of mine was run into by a mindless cyclist in Winchester last October. My friend's collar bone was broken. It has taken until now for him to recover. 3rd party insurance to individuals can make a significant difference. The "general sense" is totally irrelevant.

The bigger picture is very relevant. We don't insure every risk. The administrative cost of a compulsory third-party scheme would be prohibitive, enriching insurance company executives to detriment of nearly everybody else. Sorry for your friend, but insurance wouldn't have prevented the collision, nor accelerated his recovery.

I disagree.

I think its possible to add 3rd party insurance to your buildings/contents insurance to cover accidental damage you cause to others. minimal admin costs involved. I do stand to be corrected on this matter.

Regardless, society draws the line somewhere. You wouldn't accept motorists without insurance. I, and many others won't accept cyclists.

We all know that insurance doesn't prevent accidents per-se, it might make some people think more carefully if their premium would increase following an accident, but that's fairly trivial IMHO. The purpose is to ensure adequate treatment and compensation to the victim.

As a careful cyclist why should I pay into a fund to cover these reckless idiots?

Victims of others' malfeasance have recourse to civil actions in order to receive compensation. Of course, the defendant may have no assets, nor means of paying compensation. I beg to differ on how insurance affects our behaviour. If I am insured and know I won't "lose my house" should I transgress and injure someone, I might be more inclined to take risks. As a student, I drove uninsured for third-party property damage for a while (only third party personal was compulsory and I couldn't afford more insurance). I drove VERY carefully, knowing that even a minor fender bender could bankrupt me. I'd argue that insurance spreads risk, and in doing so actually facilitates higher risk taking (by some) and overall greater loss. It's just that this greater loss is spread out.

Considering now that all 4/5th of us have some sort of debilitating mental issue or illness, I'm always surprised that I'm still alive when I even so much look at a road.

Don Atkinson posted:

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

 

We frequently stroll along sections of the Kennet & Avon canal. Again, cyclists seem to think that sounding their bell (or shouting) is all that is required to ensure that the two of us re-position to line-astern and step aside from the tow-path and into the long grass/nettles/reeds to enable their continued passage at upwards of 15 mph !!

 

Hi Don

Back to the top!

Here's a coincidence. I spoke to my brother earlier - he lives in Melksham and is often on the Kennet and Avon canal towpath. He was cycling on there and there was this really angry man shouting at him - no, no, a different story...

He was cycling on the canal and a 'lycra lout' (his words) came up really fast and close behind him, trying to push his way through just at the point where part of the towpath had collapsed. In reaction my brother veered onto the collapsed path and into the canal, hitting his head and shoulder on a barge on the way (he had a helmet on which probably helped him). Apparently when they tried to get contact details from the cyclist, he started whimpering and saying he was a victim too! My brother has had to pay for physiotherapy and a new helmet etc. So not a story in which a cyclist comes out of it with a good reputation. It will no doubt be grist for the insurance argument too. I do actually think that cyclists should have 3rd party insurance (probably through membership of a cycling organisation) but I can see it's complicated making it compulsory.

Clive

Just to point out that if, as a cyclist, you don't have third party insurance, you could be come personally liable for any injury or damage caused.

Caveat vector!

Huge posted:

Just to point out that if, as a cyclist, you don't have third party insurance, you could be come personally liable for any injury or damage caused.

Caveat vector!

Similarly, as a pedestrian (if you don't have third-party insurance), if you cause a cyclist to crash, you could be personally liable. Similarly if your off-leash dog causes a cyclist to crash, you could be personally liable. Be careful out there, people.

Fortunately, in the UK at least, one isn't liable for the actions of cats!

But as for the rest, quite a few household contents insurance policies include third party liability insurance (excluding motor vehicles) - so some cyclists will be third party insured, even if they don't know it!

Huge posted:

Fortunately, in the UK at least, one isn't liable for the actions of cats!

But as for the rest, quite a few household contents insurance policies include third party liability insurance (excluding motor vehicles) - so some cyclists will be third party insured, even if they don't know it!

This is quite correct, and a good thing it is too.

I've used the legal aid assistance on my household policy on 2 occasions, once due to getting knocked off my bicycle by a careless motorist, and other time due an accident at work which i needed to do in order to disprove the company's belief it was my own fault.

I won both cases, and received agreeable settlements - which goes a long way of getting closure on an unhappy event, and feeling vindicated in an accident that i proved was not my fault.

Cdb posted:

So not a story in which a cyclist comes out of it with a good reputation. 

Clive

What colour shirt was he wearing? Because if it was green, it is also not a story in which a green shirt wearer come out of it with a good reputation. See how that works? Sounds like the guy who knocked your buddy off the towpath might of been a bit of a t$#t regardless of his chosen mode of transportation.

winkyincanada posted:

Cdb posted:

So not a story in which a cyclist comes out of it with a good reputation. 

Clive

What colour shirt was he wearing? Because if it was green, it is also not a story in which a green shirt wearer come out of it with a good reputation. See how that works? Sounds like the guy who knocked your buddy off the towpath might of been a bit of a t$#t regardless of his chosen mode of transportation.

I'm not trying to attack cyclists - I'm one myself - and my story was about a specific cyclist not cyclists in general. Beyond that I don't think there's anything wrong with my logic because the cyclist created a problem for another cyclist - my brother - in the way he rode his bike like an idiot. The incident was specific to his cycling, therefore it related to him as a cyclist not in relation to any other external sign.

Anyhow I posted primarily because Don's original post was about the same canal path and it was a strange coincidence.

clve

Cdb posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Cdb posted:

So not a story in which a cyclist comes out of it with a good reputation. 

Clive

What colour shirt was he wearing? Because if it was green, it is also not a story in which a green shirt wearer come out of it with a good reputation. See how that works? Sounds like the guy who knocked your buddy off the towpath might of been a bit of a t$#t regardless of his chosen mode of transportation.

I'm not trying to attack cyclists - I'm one myself - and my story was about a specific cyclist not cyclists in general. Beyond that I don't think there's anything wrong with my logic because the cyclist created a problem for another cyclist - my brother - in the way he rode his bike like an idiot. The incident was specific to his cycling, therefore it related to him as a cyclist not in relation to any other external sign.

Anyhow I posted primarily because Don's original post was about the same canal path and it was a strange coincidence.

clve

Yeah, but it's in a thread that started as a general rant about cyclists, isn't it?

Really CBA to read through 3 pages of anti-cycling drivel.

The world is full of idiots and morons. Almost all of them need to get around; some drive cars spectacularly badly, some walk too slowly on pavements or stand on the wrong side of escalators. Some of them ride bikes.

Live with it. The morons on bikes do less damage than morons in cars & vans. And there isn't a homogeneous species called 'Cyclists'.

Blah blah road tax blah blah insurance blah blah red lights blah helmets blah. Was that what went on for 3 pages?

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

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

We’ve just got back from a delightful family weekend at Centre Parcs (Longleat). Don’t ask, it’s not relevant !

We took our bikes and enjoyed cycling around the park. I’m totally satisfied that my lot were completely aware of pedestrians. We slowed down, gave way, dismounted and were pleasantly polite to any pedestrians who eased over to let us pass. I don’t recall any one of us feeling the urge or the need to ring a bell or shout, to inform a pedestrian of our presence. There were 7 of us plus the latest addition in a trailer-buggy.

However, when we were walking, I have lost count of the times I heard an aggressive warning bell just prior to a cyclist, or group of cyclists, whizzing past too fast to cope with a wandering youngster, or simply just “demanding” a mere pedestrian to shift out of their way!

We frequently stroll along sections of the Kennet & Avon canal. Again, cyclists seem to think that sounding their bell (or shouting) is all that is required to ensure that the two of us re-position to line-astern and step aside from the tow-path and into the long grass/nettles/reeds to enable their continued passage at upwards of 15 mph !!

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

Advice ?

I 100% agree with your observations and annoyances. I too, find cyclists' warning bells to be obnoxious (just like car horns). I hate the implied message of "get out of my way" that they convey. That many cyclists ride too fast on shared-use paths is also in accordance with my personal observations. But isn't it a bit of a paradox that many seem to believe that cyclists overtaking pedestrians without due care is unacceptable, yet are prepared to do exactly the same thing to cyclists when driving home from their walk?

I am as courteous and patient when cycling with pedestrians present as I am when driving with cyclists present. I recognize that as a driver, to be otherwise is to significantly place lives at risk.

Another observation on my commute is regarding cyclists and mirrors. The bike path up the Lionsgate Bridge is wide enough for overtaking, provided people ride aware, choose a side and keep fairly straight. Speeds are low on the uphill, so no major safety issues. Some cyclists I approach from behind are cycling right in the centre (preventing overtaking) and remain blissfully unaware of me behind them (I don't use a bell and don't bark "on your left" type orders at my fellow riders). The paradox is stems from an observed a correlation. Having a mirror seems to make cyclists MORE likely to be riding in the centre and LESS aware of what's happening behind them.

It's a bit of a shame that the use of an 'audible warning instrument' has been twisted and effectively corrupted by a minority of aggressive arse holes. Polite, considerate use of bell or horn should be encouraged, with pedestrians in particular reminded that it is simply a "I am here" warning, especially to those who seem oblivious of other road/towpath/track users. I totally agree with Don that there are some very rude, selfish cyclists around, matched by some similar walkers, but they are a minority who need educating, rather than being allowed to force me to change my perfectly reasonable behaviour (using bell as per Highway Code - I'm sure there must be an equivalent in Winky land!).

Tim

Timmo1341 posted:

It's a bit of a shame that the use of an 'audible warning instrument' has been twisted and effectively corrupted by a minority of aggressive arse holes. Polite, considerate use of bell or horn should be encouraged, with pedestrians in particular reminded that it is simply a "I am here" warning, especially to those who seem oblivious of other road/towpath/track users. I totally agree with Don that there are some very rude, selfish cyclists around, matched by some similar walkers, but they are a minority who need educating, rather than being allowed to force me to change my perfectly reasonable behaviour (using bell as per Highway Code - I'm sure there must be an equivalent in Winky land!).

I have used 4 means of audible warning depending o circumstances, andgenerally find them effective:

1) Bell- when I bought my current bike it didn't have one, so I added one of those that does a single 'ping'. It is great when still some distance away from pedestrians that are on the same path, just to let them know I am there, and unless on an upward gradient I would slow a bit, and at the same time most pedestrians look round and where possible move to one side, and as I pass I say thank you.

2) Voice, politely: more often than the bell, but only effective when very close so when I am either going slowly (either because uphill or because pedestrians have the right of way so I have slowed to close to their pace as I approach), when I say 'excuse me please', and then thank them when they move aside. (And to date none have failed tommove aside, and surprisingly often even on a pedestrian right of way people say sorry, for being in my way. Smiles all round!

3) Voice, shouting, most often Oi! because it is short, simple, loud, and requires no thought, used because it is quicker than reacting to use any physical device,  and if hands are fully occupied with brakes then may be the only option, used either when a motor vehicle dangerously in front of me, or a pedestrian unexpectedly crosses into bmy path (e.g. Starts to cross a road without looking). 

4) Air horn (I have used a handheld 'foghorn' mounted on the handlebar, which is best but most are not easy to arrange for easy instant access, and recently I found a type designed for a bike, with a pump-up reservoir, just as loud though higher pitched). This is used for motor vehicles doing something that is a danger to me, though sometimes I do succumb to the temptation of sounding it in anger after the event - which has occasionally brought an apologetic reation when the driver clearly realised they had either not seen me or had misjudged my speed etc.

I fail to see how this whole whinge over an 'aggressive' use of a bell became conflated to arguing that 'cyclists' pay additional road tax...

Define cyclist? If it's someone who wears Lycra then I am one; but I don't commute since I cycle for fitness and fun...does that then mean I'm not a cyclist?

I wouldn't be seen dead with a bell on my bikes; in my book real 'cyclists' don't need them!

SKDriver posted:

I fail to see how this whole whinge over an 'aggressive' use of a bell became conflated to arguing that 'cyclists' pay additional road tax...

Define cyclist? If it's someone who wears Lycra then I am one; but I don't commute since I cycle for fitness and fun...does that then mean I'm not a cyclist?

I wouldn't be seen dead with a bell on my bikes; in my book real 'cyclists' don't need them!

I, too, think the road tax argumentbis nothing to do with the OP.

However, re definition of cyclist, it is someone who cycles! That is regarless of whether for commuting, sport, fun, posing or touring, and regardless of the type of bike. 

And with the exception of dedicated tracks circuits or closed roads whenever any cyclist and any other user of the road/path/track are on a potential collision course rules and courtest apply - or should, and that Is the issue here. 

As for "real" cyclists needing bells, that depends on where the cyclist cycles and what other audible means of warning they utilise in the event of needing to let someone know they are there - as I indicated, voice can be very effective, but so also can a bell in certain circumstances. Other than an out-and-out racing cyclist where the 10 grams or whatever a bell weoghs could make a few microseconds a mile difference, there's no reason for not having a bell, unless the cycling is for posing, when of course looks might be considerered the most important factor!

Innocent Bystander posted:

SKDriver posted:

I fail to see how this whole whinge over an 'aggressive' use of a bell became conflated to arguing that 'cyclists' pay additional road tax...

Define cyclist? If it's someone who wears Lycra then I am one; but I don't commute since I cycle for fitness and fun...does that then mean I'm not a cyclist?

I wouldn't be seen dead with a bell on my bikes; in my book real 'cyclists' don't need them!

I, too, think the road tax argumentbis nothing to do with the OP.

However, re definition of cyclist, it is someone who cycles! That is regarless of whether for commuting, sport, fun, posing or touring, and regardless of the type of bike. 

And with the exception of dedicated tracks circuits or closed roads whenever any cyclist and any other user of the road/path/track are on a potential collision course rules and courtest apply - or should, and that Is the issue here. 

As for "real" cyclists needing bells, that depends on where the cyclist cycles and what other audible means of warning they utilise in the event of needing to let someone know they are there - as I indicated, voice can be very effective, but so also can a bell in certain circumstances. Other than an out-and-out racing cyclist where the 10 grams or whatever a bell weoghs could make a few microseconds a mile difference, there's no reason for not having a bell, unless the cycling is for posing, when of course looks might be considerered the most important factor!

Well I was being somewhat facetious; but in all seriousness, when cycling on a road I fail to see how a bell adds value when the main threat is cars...

but of course looks are most important ; )

We were cycling through the park today and there were some people wandering around in front, so a little ding on the bell was very useful. It's a very discreet bell though. I wouldn't want a big shiny one with my little pony on the top. It didn't work nonetheless, so 'get of of the way you f u c k i n g wanker' was deployed instead.