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

Hungryhalibut posted:

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. 

Ahh so it's you giving us 'Canal tow-path marauding Lycra louts' a bad name...although I have been known to drop the 'C Bomb' at the odd driver in my time though.

Hungryhalibut posted:

We were cycling through the park today and there were some people wandering around in front, .............................so 'get of of the way you f u c k i n g wanker' was deployed................. 

I have taken the liberty of removing the superfluous text..........

I was astonished, and horrified at the event of your day.

Please tell us all that you...........

didn't mean it that way

have been misunderstood

were joking

I'm sure you didn't really mean the guts of your post !!

winkyincanada posted:

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?

No. The thread started as a request. How might an innocent pedestrian deal with ill-mannered cyclists ?

I provided an outline of two recent incidents involving myself, my wife and some of my wider family, so as to give guidance regarding the area of my concern.

Like many others here, I enjoy cycling, but i'm not obsessed with it. I've previously posted a few pictures in the "Nice Photo" thread which happen to illustrate the type of family cycling outings we take - including the Kettle Valley railway line that i'm sure you are familiar with. We frequently dis-mount on narrow tracks, rather than expect walkers to move aside. However, I find many, many cyclists ringing bells our shouting, even when it is blatantly obvious the only thing I, as a walker, could possibly do to let them pass, is to leave the path and cope with slippery banks, bushes, nettles, reeds, boggy ground etc etc. Similar feeling towards cyclists who "ding-ding" then "whoosh past" at > 15mph, even when there are kiddies in the walking party.

Now I could easily cope with a "single ding" followed by a quick "Ooopps ! my mistake sir ! I didn't realise the path was so narrow", followed by a dis-mount until the way ahead was clear. But this hardly ever happens.

So, how do we deal with this ever-increasing set of cyclists who are nasty, selfish,  moronic, idiots ?

I genuinely don't think you can tarnish groups of people as nasty, selfish, moronic and idiots (ok I accept a few exceptions such as extremists, racists etc), but at the end of the day, the people on bikes are just out for some fresh air like the walkers, they are not committing mass atrocities.

Misguided, uneducated, naive yes.  The answer? I don't have one... I personally wouldn't risk getting stung by nettles!

These discussions do seem to always go the same way.  I too am a cyclist and, dare I suggest, an advanced driver (in that I actively pursue improvement and have had many hours of training since passing my test several decades ago).  

In regard to "road (fund) tax" it was abolished in 1937.  What we pay is effectively an annual vehicle ownership tax that has had little to do with funding roads for a long time (perhaps emphasised by recent changes to increase vehicle tax revenue following the successful incentivisation to less polluting  vehicles in addition to the state of our roads). Nonetheless, since I own at least one car, and maybe three, I have paid.  When I am on my bike I ain't using a car, so it's a win/win from a tax and road use point of view.  As someone pointed out most cyclists are also car owners.

I do believe there should be suitable insurance for cyclists, although I imagine the political will to introduce such a legal requirement is non-existent.  I get over that by being a member of whatever the CTC now call themselves, that provides 3rd party insurance and some legal assistance.

I agree though with the concept of treating others as you expect to be treated, which would improve a lot of behaviour if applied regardless of circumstance, or when driving, riding or walking.  That would be my response to the OP question about what to do, and maybe influence those around you by example and not focussing on the outliers.

I'm a cyclist, walker and driver, I race on and off road and have a bell on all my bikes, even the time trial machine. I walk the dog on MTB tracks and drive on heavily cycled roads on the hills close by me. 

I'd suggest that most people can occasionally behave rudely and probably deserve / need to be reminded that they are being a dick. So my advice would be a firm vocal reminded or simple shout of 'Dick' or "Tosser" would be appropriate.  

That said any true cyclist will, like Judge, be a member of the CTC or British cycling which provides 3rd party insurance as part of membership, which is useful, unless the other party is also a member and it doesn't cover for claims against other members, or at least didn't when I was last in the UK and part of it. 

SKDriver posted:

I genuinely don't think you can tarnish groups of people as nasty, selfish, moronic and idiots (ok I accept a few exceptions such as extremists, racists etc), but at the end of the day, the people on bikes are just out for some fresh air like the walkers, they are not committing mass atrocities.

Misguided, uneducated, naive yes.  The answer? I don't have one... I personally wouldn't risk getting stung by nettles!

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not referring to ALL cyclists as nasty, selfish, moronic, idiots. Just the ones that fit the preceding descriptions. There are quite a few of them and their numbers appear to be on the increase.

Holmes posted:

 

That said any true cyclist will, like Judge, be a member of the CTC or British cycling which provides 3rd party insurance as part of membership, which is useful, unless the other party is also a member and it doesn't cover for claims against other members, or at least didn't when I was last in the UK and part of it. 

???????

I think there are millions ot cyclists in Britain, let alone elsewhere, who have never heard of such organisations let alone thought of becoming members! And the lack of that knowledge or thought does not make them unture or inferior cyclists. That membership may be appropriate for those who see cycling as a sport or serious hobby, but for many people a bike is a form of transport or leaisure, and have given membership of a club or association no more thought than the average person does to joining a walkers's club or association.

Motorised transport is a little different, being well recognised as one where incorrect or inappropriate behaviour can be devastating to others, and there are numbers of organisations to which people can and do belong to help improve the standard of their driving (I belong to one whose motto is "skill with responsibility"), but even with motorised transport it is only a minotity of people who are members of such organisations, and that does not make others any less real or serious as drivers - and  of course with driving, as with riding a bike or walking, there  is also a minority who are inconsiderate or rude or thoughtless or downright dangerous.

unture=untrue!

We went for a lovely walk over at Virginia Water this morning with the dog. Cyclists, Joggers, Families with dogs / kids all happily co-existing in the same space which is just how it should be. Re-reading this thread just makes me realise we all need to let a few things go and show a bit of courtesy to each other. Much nicer 

Don Atkinson posted:

I could walk along the A4 if I wished to. I don't mean the footpath alongside the A4, but the actual road itself. I wouldn't have to pay any tax to do so.

Not sure why this might be relevant, but it does seem to align with swimming in Chichester harbour !!

My proposal is that CYCLISTS, not pedestrians, should club together, buy the land and invest in safe cyclepaths. I'm sure that if there are enough like-minded cyclists, they could lobby parliament and get funding for such schemes. I think Sustrans is already up and running so might be a suitable starting point.

Alternatively, simply pay to use the current highway system. If enough people transfer from cars to cycles, the Gov will have to charge cyclists anyway, otherwise there will be a wacking big hole in Gov funding for education, NHS, water, gas, electricity etc etc.

I really can't see why cyclists feel entitled to have access to the road system, free of charge !

Don

You are such a wind up merchant you do make me chuckle from time to time!!

I presume that you are also proposing pedestrians should be charged a tariff for use of Her Imperial Majesty's footpaths.  Perhaps with finger print monitored charging for use of pedestrian crossings....??!!

Peter

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

My proposal is that CYCLISTS, not pedestrians, should club together, buy the land and invest in safe cyclepaths. I'm sure that if there are enough like-minded cyclists, they could lobby parliament and get funding for such schemes. I think Sustrans is already up and running so might be a suitable starting point.

Alternatively, simply pay to use the current highway system. If enough people transfer from cars to cycles, the Gov will have to charge cyclists anyway, otherwise there will be a wacking big hole in Gov funding for education, NHS, water, gas, electricity etc etc.

I really can't see why cyclists feel entitled to have access to the road system, free of charge !

Don

Your suggestions for cyclists and road tax imply a complete overhaul of the UK's taxation system which is not currently based on hypothecation. The logic of your approach is that we only pay for the services we want, whereas the taxation system is supposed to provide for the greater good and that the rates of tax, etc and the direction of its spending is decided democratically. 

In particular your logic requires the licensing and registration of pedestrians - alternatively they could club together to provide pavements and bridges (or underpasses) to help them get across the roads which they wouldn't be allowed to venture on. And what about those pesky children who get access to state schools completely free of charge?
Clive

In this thread, and previously, I have suggested that cyclists might democratically seek to get funding to pay for sustainable cycle-based transport (Sustrans) and its associated infrastructure. A bit like people with children have persuaded the Gov to provide schooling, free at the point of delivery, paid for by taxation on the wider population. Seems democratic and fair to me.

So far as roads are concerned we pay an annual tax to have access to the road system and we pay tax on fuel. Combined, these cover far more than the cost of providing, opperating and maintaining our road system.  I am merely proposing that cyclists contribute to the Gov revenue system based on occupancy of a finite resource or to fund a resource for their exclusive use.. Seems to me to be as fair a revenue earning system as any other. It doesn't constitute a complete overhaul of the UK's tax system, which might be a sensible suggestion but is a different topic.

My logic doesn't extend to pedestrians. It extends to cyclists. It's cyclists who insist on having access to the finite-capacity road system. Not pedestrians.

 

 

Indeed Don, here's the thing - Your logic!!!

Peter

northpole posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

My proposal is that CYCLISTS, not pedestrians, should club together, buy the land and invest in safe cyclepaths. I'm sure that if there are enough like-minded cyclists, they could lobby parliament and get funding for such schemes. I think Sustrans is already up and running so might be a suitable starting point.

Alternatively, simply pay to use the current highway system. If enough people transfer from cars to cycles, the Gov will have to charge cyclists anyway, otherwise there will be a wacking big hole in Gov funding for education, NHS, water, gas, electricity etc etc.

I really can't see why cyclists feel entitled to have access to the road system, free of charge !

Don

Your suggestions for cyclists and road tax imply a complete overhaul of the UK's taxation system which is not currently based on hypothecation. The logic of your approach is that we only pay for the services we want, whereas the taxation system is supposed to provide for the greater good and that the rates of tax, etc and the direction of its spending is decided democratically. 

In particular your logic requires the licensing and registration of pedestrians - alternatively they could club together to provide pavements and bridges (or underpasses) to help them get across the roads which they wouldn't be allowed to venture on. And what about those pesky children who get access to state schools completely free of charge?
Clive

In this thread, and previously, I have suggested that cyclists might democratically seek to get funding to pay for sustainable cycle-based transport (Sustrans) and its associated infrastructure. A bit like people with children have persuaded the Gov to provide schooling, free at the point of delivery, paid for by taxation on the wider population. Seems democratic and fair to me.

So far as roads are concerned we pay an annual tax to have access to the road system and we pay tax on fuel. Combined, these cover far more than the cost of providing, opperating and maintaining our road system.  I am merely proposing that cyclists contribute to the Gov revenue system based on occupancy of a finite resource or to fund a resource for their exclusive use.. Seems to me to be as fair a revenue earning system as any other. It doesn't constitute a complete overhaul of the UK's tax system, which might be a sensible suggestion but is a different topic.

My logic doesn't extend to pedestrians. It extends to cyclists. It's cyclists who insist on having access to the finite-capacity road system. Not pedestrians.

 

 

Indeed Don, here's the thing - Your logic!!!

Peter

I haven't seen much evidence of anything other than "my logic" in this thread, or many other threads in the Padded Cell.

Same applies to debates in the Commons and PM's Question-time and elsewhere in politics

Anyway, my proposals regarding cyclists paying for access to our road system is designed to counter the growing trend whereby many cyclists seem to think the panacea for all our ills is to eliminate cars and convert to bikes or buses.

Don Atkinson posted:

Obviously cyclists who use the roads to commute and for recreational trips will object to the introduction of ANY form of substantial payment rather than continue the current system of free access. That's just selfish. Arguing to pay on the basis of CO2 emmissions or wear-&-tear etc is just obfuscation.

Arguing that we should ALL ditch our cars and move to cycles isn't practical and would simply mean the Gov would need to raise the lost car-use revenue elsewhere !

Most of us accomodate cyclists sensibly and with tender loving care. A few motoring idiots don't.

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.

Meanwhile, I am still pissed-off by inconsiderate cyclists who whizz past pedestrians on narrow footpaths. This must stop !

I suspect the last sentence in your post has permitted your veil to slip a bit Don and reveal your true identity.....   drum roll.....  Toad of Toad Hall....  Beep Beep....  out of my way cyclists....  can't you see my three pointed star...  my journey is much more important than yours.....!!

I live not far from central London and commute daily by bike.  Over the years I've lived in London, various political initiatives have increasingly stiffled the ability of people to travel through the city.  These include bus lanes which continue to be cynically expanded to reduce major routes to single lanes (at best); reprogramming of traffic lights to reduce average speeds and increase journey times; and the latest initiatives are trying to expand the cycling infrastructure by introducing dedicated cycle paths across central London.

To get to and from work I'm in 'cyclist mode' and you might expect me to welcome the new paths with open arms.  But I'm afraid I don't.  Even when they are provided to me free of charge.  There's a wider perspective which I think needs to be considered.  In London, there is simply insufficient space to accommodate dedicated lanes for cars; buses; bikes; pedestrians.  I travel across Blackfriars Bridge every day.  As a cyclist I find it terrifying in the new cycle path - the lanes run opposite direction side by side and are rather narrow.  When a pack of cyclists come towards you in the opposite direction, there is usually at least one keen cyclist/ moron who believes they can easily pass the pack but they require the use of my lane to do so and there is no space for them to retreat into their own lane.  Mark my words, there will be fatalities on these lanes with head on collisions.  That's the cyclists problem partly portrayed.  To create the cycle route on one side of the bridge has required a pinch point at the southern approach to the bridge forcing buses into the same lane as cars.  The tailbacks can be quite extraordinary.  These initiatives are having a significant negative impact upon average speed of motor vehicle journeys.  This combined with the fiction of motor vehicle emissions must surely be having a significant impact upon the quantum of pollution in Central London.

There is simply insufficient space available in many areas of Central London for dedicated lanes for bikes/ buses/ other vehicles and their introduction is merely making a significant problem worse.  Crossing Blackfriars Bridge I felt much safer prior to the creation of the dedicated cycle lane and the incredulous number of cycle traffic lights the designers have included.  Unfortunately, there is such a concentration of them that far too many cyclists are already more or less ignoring them.  I'm not condoning this but highlighting incredibly poor design.

In my experience, there is another significant problem with dedicated cycle lanes running alongside highways. They tend to act as a dustbin for much of the rubbish, including sharp stones and glass which gets picked up and spat out by motor vehicle tyres.  This would not be such a problem were it not for the inability or simply no action taken at all for road sweeper vehicles to maintain the surface clear enough to permit road bike tyres to use them without numerous p*nctures.  This is the single largest factor in cyclists in UK failing to use cycle lanes when they are provided.

I am a member of British Cycling, the main reason being that they provide 3rd party insurance cover and I do believe there is merit in cyclists being required to have a minimal level of cover should they ever find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to argue who was right or wrong following an accident.

I could go on but I'll take a break here if that's okay.

Peter

Don Atkinson posted:

SKDriver posted:

I genuinely don't think you can tarnish groups of people as nasty, selfish, moronic and idiots (ok I accept a few exceptions such as extremists, racists etc), but at the end of the day, the people on bikes are just out for some fresh air like the walkers, they are not committing mass atrocities.

Misguided, uneducated, naive yes.  The answer? I don't have one... I personally wouldn't risk getting stung by nettles!

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not referring to ALL cyclists as nasty, selfish, moronic, idiots. Just the ones that fit the preceding descriptions. There are quite a few of them and their numbers appear to be on the increase.

There are many cyclists who fit your description Don.  One passed me during the week on my way to work.  He shouted at me to 'keep in to the left' (where all the road gulley covers live!) as he hussled past me.  I was gently slowing down as I approached the junction between Farringdon Road and Clerkenwell Road.  I couldn't understand his reason for pressing on until I realised he had no intention of stopping at the red light.  He just sailed on through in support of his nomination for the 2017 Darwin Awards!  You have to see these muppets to believe the stories, for I acknowledge my description sounds slightly far fetched.  Particularly if you know that particular junction and the driving that tends to occur there!!

Unfortunately they do exist.  But the description is not limited to a selection of cyclists.  It extends by demonstration to all other road users - bus drivers, taxi drivers, car drivers, lorry drivers, pedestrians, you name it, I'll find you examples from the same gene pool!!  A recent interesting example was a lady in an SUV brushing past just outside Potters Bar supping her breakfast - a bowl of porridge no less!  And so it goes....

Peter

Don Atkinson posted:

 

Anyway, my proposals regarding cyclists paying for access to our road system is designed to counter the growing trend whereby many cyclists seem to think the panacea for all our ills is to eliminate cars and convert to bikes or buses.

As someone who has made the suggestion of decreasing private car use in favour of these other modes of transpotr, I feel I should clarify that as well as being a cyclist I am a motorist, and I walk, and can count on my fingers the number of times I have travelled by public transport (excluding in foreign countries on holiday) in a typical year - my suggestion is made because pollution is increasing and roads are getting increasingly congested - or rather have already become unacceptably.congested in many places. I don't see it as a panacea for all our ills, but as the logical solution to these specific problems.

northpole posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Obviously cyclists who use the roads to commute and for recreational trips will object to the introduction of ANY form of substantial payment rather than continue the current system of free access. That's just selfish. Arguing to pay on the basis of CO2 emmissions or wear-&-tear etc is just obfuscation.

Arguing that we should ALL ditch our cars and move to cycles isn't practical and would simply mean the Gov would need to raise the lost car-use revenue elsewhere !

Most of us accomodate cyclists sensibly and with tender loving care. A few motoring idiots don't.

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.

Meanwhile, I am still pissed-off by inconsiderate cyclists who whizz past pedestrians on narrow footpaths. This must stop !

I suspect the last sentence in your post has permitted your veil to slip a bit Don and reveal your true identity.....   drum roll.....  Toad of Toad Hall....  Beep Beep....  out of my way cyclists....  can't you see my three pointed star...  my journey is much more important than yours.....!!

I live not far from central London and commute daily by bike.  Over the years I've lived in London, various political initiatives have increasingly stiffled the ability of people to travel through the city.  These include bus lanes which continue to be cynically expanded to reduce major routes to single lanes (at best); reprogramming of traffic lights to reduce average speeds and increase journey times; and the latest initiatives are trying to expand the cycling infrastructure by introducing dedicated cycle paths across central London.

To get to and from work I'm in 'cyclist mode' and you might expect me to welcome the new paths with open arms.  But I'm afraid I don't.  Even when they are provided to me free of charge.  There's a wider perspective which I think needs to be considered.  In London, there is simply insufficient space to accommodate dedicated lanes for cars; buses; bikes; pedestrians.  I travel across Blackfriars Bridge every day.  As a cyclist I find it terrifying in the new cycle path - the lanes run opposite direction side by side and are rather narrow.  When a pack of cyclists come towards you in the opposite direction, there is usually at least one keen cyclist/ moron who believes they can easily pass the pack but they require the use of my lane to do so and there is no space for them to retreat into their own lane.  Mark my words, there will be fatalities on these lanes with head on collisions.  That's the cyclists problem partly portrayed.  To create the cycle route on one side of the bridge has required a pinch point at the southern approach to the bridge forcing buses into the same lane as cars.  The tailbacks can be quite extraordinary.  These initiatives are having a significant negative impact upon average speed of motor vehicle journeys.  This combined with the fiction of motor vehicle emissions must surely be having a significant impact upon the quantum of pollution in Central London.

There is simply insufficient space available in many areas of Central London for dedicated lanes for bikes/ buses/ other vehicles and their introduction is merely making a significant problem worse.  Crossing Blackfriars Bridge I felt much safer prior to the creation of the dedicated cycle lane and the incredulous number of cycle traffic lights the designers have included.  Unfortunately, there is such a concentration of them that far too many cyclists are already more or less ignoring them.  I'm not condoning this but highlighting incredibly poor design.

In my experience, there is another significant problem with dedicated cycle lanes running alongside highways. They tend to act as a dustbin for much of the rubbish, including sharp stones and glass which gets picked up and spat out by motor vehicle tyres.  This would not be such a problem were it not for the inability or simply no action taken at all for road sweeper vehicles to maintain the surface clear enough to permit road bike tyres to use them without numerous p*nctures.  This is the single largest factor in cyclists in UK failing to use cycle lanes when they are provided.

I am a member of British Cycling, the main reason being that they provide 3rd party insurance cover and I do believe there is merit in cyclists being required to have a minimal level of cover should they ever find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to argue who was right or wrong following an accident.

I could go on but I'll take a break here if that's okay.

Peter

 

 

Hi Peter, I'm afraid your assessment is completely wrong. I usually drive 30 miles or so to work along the A 343 between Newbury and Andover. I encounter quite a few cyclists each day and I would never endanger them (eg by reckless overtaking), or threaten them in any way( eg by blasting my horn or closing in behind them).

Like wise the few horse riders. I slow down and wait for them to acknowledge my presence and wave me by when they are ready.

Sure it takes me a bit longer some days, but I leave home in plenty of time, and enjoy the relaxed country drive.

Of course there are some right pillocks on their bikes. And I could well imagine some motorists getting vexed with them hogging the road, or concentrating on their i-Tunes and StarBucks-to-Go coffee. But as we all know, that's life. And a subject for another thread.

Your break is OK by me............

For every pillock on a bike there must be 100 pillocks in a car. Though I must say that when I went out on the bike this morning everybody was lovely. Cyclists smiled, car drivers waited, and I saw a buzzard in the woods, flying only a metre from the ground. All very civilised. 

Looking forward to the 93 mile bike ride home from Center Parcs tomorrow (honestly can't wait to get out of this place). 

Hope I don't hold up too many Dons though. 

Drewy posted:

Looking forward to the 93 mile bike ride home from Center Parcs tomorrow (honestly can't wait to get out of this place). 

Hope I don't hold up too many Dons though. 

We went via Stourhead.

We didn't take the Mercs, we had a mix of X3's and X5's so I didn't see any cyclists at all on the way home, although Mrs D recalls seeing about a dozen but assures me we missed them all by a few inches, so no probs.

Having the bikes on the back probably gave a bit of reassurance to those cyclists that if we had hit them, it wouldn't have been on purpose.

Anyway, looking forward to Tuesday and Wednesday (my days off) and a quiet stroll along the Kennet & Avon. I do hope none of those cyclists who seem to think the towpath is theirs,  wind up in the drink................

Hungryhalibut posted:

For every pillock on a bike there must be 100 pillocks in a car. Though I must say that when I went out on the bike this morning everybody was lovely. Cyclists smiled, car drivers waited, and I saw a buzzard in the woods, flying only a metre from the ground. All very civilised. 

From the statistics of the West Sussex County Records Office ?

Hmm, interesting, I didn't know buzzards were that civilised!

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't seen much evidence of anything other than "my logic" in this thread, or many other threads in the Padded Cell.

Same applies to debates in the Commons and PM's Question-time and elsewhere in politics

Anyway, my proposals regarding cyclists paying for access to our road system is designed to counter the growing trend whereby many cyclists seem to think the panacea for all our ills is to eliminate cars and convert to bikes or buses.

Don

You claim that you have a monopoly on logic but you haven't engaged seriously with many of the counter arguments on this thread. In any case you seem to have switched from your not unreasonable question about inconsiderate cycling on paths shared with walkers to an assertion that cyclists hold up traffic without any great evidence this is a significant problem on the roads. There has been counter evidence about the latter claim. I made some comments on your proposed solution to the supposed problem of cyclists holding up other vehicles, but you simply ignored these, and I think that are practical and therefore logical queries. Here they are again, below.

Clive

I'm sorry, Don, but all this just reads like a scheme to drive cyclists off the roads altogether in order supposedly to free up space for cars. Whatever is the case against dodgy cyclists who jump red lights, harass pedestrians, and so on, I don't think there is any evidence that it is the number of cyclists on the road who cause congestion. Where I live in Milton Keynes there is congestion at peak driving times - the rush hour and school runs - and there are very few cyclists on the main roads as they mostly use the separate paths.  So the limit of the resource is primarily about motorised vehicle use not cyclists. 

You suggest two options. 1 - to charge cyclists to use the roads. How much do you think such a charge should be, bearing in mind that cyclists are banned from all motorways? How much would the charge need to be, to cover setting up a whole bureaucratic structure to register and collect the charges? Of course once cyclists were charged for using the roads, they would have greatly raised expectations about the quality of the provision for cyclists and their rights in relation to all other users. And why should I have to pay for a car and a bike when I can only occupy the road with one of them at a time? Apart from these practical considerations, charging cyclists to use the roads would be to undermine the health benefits of cycling while also punishing children and less well off citizens who use cycling as a cheap means of getting to work (a necessity in many areas with inadequate bus services).

Option 2. To get Parliament to pay for a completely separate cycle infrastructure. First I cannot see any political party being willing to pick this up given the current shortage of funds for basic services, like the NHS. And the cyclists' lobby is unlikely to have the weight to persuade them otherwise. At the moment the lobby is unable to get much done to help cyclists. But how practical would this be anyhow? You mention Sustrans, but the routes they develop are either primarily on existing roads or off-road, although there are some adaptations such as ex-railway lines, or canal towpaths. But these routes are often leisure routes and not much use for commuting - in towns there's not really any room for a separate infrastructure and where it is developed it's likely to reduce road space for motorised vehicles. It can be done in new developments - and I mentioned Milton Keynes earlier. But here the alternative is a combined cycle/pedestrian network which creates different problems.

In Cambridge and surrounding areas the cycle ways are very good. With a few of the main routes of east Anglia crossing through. Most are wide enough and with little signs dotted about to remind that cyclists are on one side and walkers on the other. Even the towpaths along the river are plenty wide and usually kept well enough to avoid nettles or bramble bushes.

Always plenty of both riders and walkers and I have never come across any standoffs or incidents of mobs.

The cycle lanes on the main roads in Cambridge are generally good, but can be hair raising when it's next to a bus lane.  I leave it to the students to ride about in the centre which is very wild.

When you can catch a nice day in early May this is best for a good jolly around on a cycle.

Take in the majestic beauty of the candle blossom on old Horsechestnut trees, and the wild pretty hedgerow flowers before they get burnt off by the summer sun.   Stopping of for a few real ales. Not getting too bugged out by bugs that haven't yet taken over. Maybe spot a kingfisher.