A cyclist's rant to incompetent road users...

Strider590

^^ Cyclists don't normally hit parked cars for no reason..... Young children can be a little unstable on a bike, other cyclists have been known to hit parked cars when another car passes them too closely.

GillsMan7

esmerobbo wrote: »

I had agreed to disagree whoooosh

But I haven't seen a Lawnmower doing 20mph along a pavement. I have also had to stand the loss when a cyclist hit my parked car.

Yes, and I had to stand the loss when some kid kicked his football against my car. So maybe kids playing football should get third party insurance as well? The reason cyclists aren't forced to carry insurance is that they present a far far far lower risk than motorists.

They do carry some risk - as do children with footballs, lawnmowers, trees, the wind, your mum, everything around us - but not so much that insurance should be mandatory.

rev_henry

Are cyclists not covered for 3rd party risk on normal home insurance policies, which most will have?

Gloomendoom

Strider590 wrote: »

^^ Cyclists don't normally hit parked cars for no reason..... Young children can be a little unstable on a bike, other cyclists have been known to hit parked cars when another car passes them too closely.

One dark, rainy night in my yoof I ran into the back of a parked Mk 3 Cortina when I was cycling. No other car was about.

I ended up on the vinyl roof. Rather embarrassing, and I bent the front forks on my bike.

esmerobbo

Strider590 wrote: »

^^ Cyclists don't normally hit parked cars for no reason..... Young children can be a little unstable on a bike, other cyclists have been known to hit parked cars when another car passes them too closely.

Agreed would have no problem if a child while playing on their bike caused a little damage to my car. But in my instance it was a man 20ish tried to pass between my car and a tree on the pavement. ground uneven though the tree roots came off his bike he hit tree bike hit car. First concern his condition. 2nd telephone ambulance 3rd damage to my car. Its a piece of metal so low down in the pecking order. But seeing its on lease I have to return it in good condition so I needed to repair it lucky I only have £70 excess so that's all it cost.

The point about children playing ball or any other games that could unintentionally damage your car I fully except as it has happened. I have had and do have marks on my car off kids playing.

But a grown man riding on a pavement and causing damage is that justified?

esmerobbo

GillsMan7 wrote: »

Yes, and I had to stand the loss when some kid kicked his football against my car. So maybe kids playing football should get third party insurance as well? The reason cyclists aren't forced to carry insurance is that they present a far far far lower risk than motorists.

They do carry some risk - as do children with footballs, lawnmowers, trees, the wind, your mum, everything around us - but not so much that insurance should be mandatory.

Also agreed there is a risk in everything we do, However given your argument that you don't need to be insured because it doesn't happen often. A lot of insurance is mandatory even when claims are rare.

Rossy.

My opinion to it all is that you have various different rider types. Let me explain.

You get your young, fit competant rider who will wear proper gear, have the safety equiptment i.e light, hi-vis etc and will comforatably ride at 15-20mph, They generally abide the law and don't smash it through red lights as if on a death wish - I'm comfortable about manouvering my car around/past them.

Then you get your young, asbo immenent youth who think's it's cool to ride on the pavement, wrong side of the road etc. Also usually completing a 2 mile wheelie. They irritate me as one slip up would result in him/her either dying or getting seriously injured. Whilst i agree it's a "serves him/her right" example it still would cause endless suffering to the motorist/family of injured party etc.

So we move onto our elder generation of silver haired riders. Whilst they may have been around donkey years and mostly abide the law, they still cause utter confusion and disaster when riding on the road simply because:-

A) they take far too long to set off (agree it's age/fitness)
their balance isn't what it used to be and thus they usually swerve like a drunk on 20 pints
C) they still think it's 1920 in the essance that there are no motor vehicles on the road and thus pull out or change direction without a whiff of an indication.

Then lastly you have kids. Kids will be kids and usually until they get to 15-16 years of age they'll usually compound themselves to the fact that they are unbreakable and thus don't have the common sense to spot danger as effectively as an adult. (this is just my opinion btw). Kids get riding courses in Primary school, i know i did, but what did it really teach us? I mean wow i learned how to mount my bicycle correctly and that i should always push my bike accross the road but how many of us really utilised this training? Hardly any just as we don't usually drive at ten to two. We all have individual habbits and no two riders/driver will be the same.

In my driving life i've racked up a few categories on my license and have quite a few miles under my belt. Does that make me a better driver than most car drivers? I'd say i prob have more road awerness especially when driving a bigger vehicle but i wouldn't call my driving style and manner light years ahead.

The trouble with most car drivers is purely simply down to the fact that because you drive an hour a day it makes them think they are superb drivers. HGV drivers regardless of someones opinion will drive more hours per day than the average motorist will do in a week. thus coupled with the fact that they've sat a harder examination and drive something that demands skill i'd say they are leagues above an ordinary car driver. Just because they pull out into the middle lane or whatever and it irritates the average car driver just think about it. How many on here could comfortably say they could get into a cab of an artic and reverse it? take it down the road around town utilising the full road etc.

It's horses for courses. This debate about car vs bikes could go on forever but what would it achieve? the same slagging match endlessly with little results. We all use the road regardless if i pay tax and a cyclist doesn't. Common courtesy goes a long way and the sooner we all as civilians get along and respect each other the sooner the roads would be a more pleasant place to be

esuhl

timbo58 wrote: »

The higher quality bikes have different sorts of pedals to match your cycling shoes that clip into specific types...

Unfortunately those clip-in pedals usually mean that it's illegal to ride the bike on the road: bikes are required to have pedal reflectors, but the clips don't usually have them.

esmerobbo wrote: »

Oh and lights should be a legal requirement!

Why?! The vast majority of cycle journeys are made in broad daylight!

esmerobbo

"Why?! The vast majority of cycle journeys are made in broad daylight!"

So does my car but it is still a legal requirement to have lights fitted, Remember there are times during the day that lights could be required!

custardy

esuhl wrote: »

Unfortunately those clip-in pedals usually mean that it's illegal to ride the bike on the road: bikes are required to have pedal reflectors, but the clips don't usually have them.

reflective panels in the SPD shoes are just as if not more effective

Why?! The vast majority of cycle journeys are made in broad daylight!
how exactly do you come by that gem?

today i was sitting at lights in the car.
a cyclist goes through the red and turns left
across the other side a i see a cyclist waiting
a recycling bin blows into the middle of the road.he dismounts and takes it to the side of the road.
while doing that the light changes to green for him
by the time he gets back on the bike its red
he waits again.
he is in full yellow hi viz
law abiding and helping all road users
what more do you want?