Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

George_Michael

And what about cyclists also being required to have a duty of care or simple manners towards pedestrians and other road users?
It works boths way you know.

Any road user, whether using a motorised vehicle, human powered vehicle, or one powered by animals should be required to prove that they are safe to go on the public highway, and should have enough insurance to cover any accident that they cause due to their negligence.

custardy

George_Michael wrote: »

And what about cyclists also being required to have a duty of care or simple manners towards pedestrians and other road users?
It works boths way you know.

Any road user, whether using a motorised vehicle, human powered vehicle, or one powered by animals should be required to prove that they are safe to go on the public highway, and should have enough insurance to cover any accident that they cause due to their negligence.

I never said otherwise? do you see me posting that anywhere?
given I cycle on the road,I have very little interaction with pedestrians

George_Michael

I never said otherwise? do you see me posting that anywhere?

I agree that you didn't, but why did you specify that

its being highlighted as some rational that it absolves all drivers of any duty of care or simple manners around cyclists.

Why not simply state that all road users have a duty of care to all other road users.
Cyclists should have exactly the same duty of care as any other road user, so why pick them out as a special case?

So do you agree that cyclists and other road users that are currently not tested or insured should be required to take some form of testing and pay for indeminity insurance before being allowed to use the roads in the UK?

Gavin83

To be honest I think all road users should carry a camera of some sort, they could prove extremely useful and pay for themselves several times over.

As someone who has used all 3 modes of transport at some point (car, cycling and pedestrian) I have encountered bad versions of each. I've been hit by a cyclist before when crossing a green pedestrian crossing and similiarly I've had someone physically jump over a barrier and onto the bonnet of my car.

I do think that cyclists should have licence plates similar to cars but I think the cost of implementing such a scheme would outweigh the positive aspects.

andyguk

Steer73 wrote: »

Why is everone arguing? There are good driver and bad drivers, just like there are good cyclists and bad cyclists.

The on-bike footage shown on BBC breakfast was very scary indeed.

Well said :T

I see a lot of crazy drivers (mainly those in white vans and some buses too) and a lot of courteous drivers who give us cyclists a bit of space.

There are certain sections of the main road I ride to work on which I refuse to ride because they are just too narrow. I experienced too many occasions when I had someone trying to get past me and I had to slow down to a crawl, or risk being slammed into a wall on my nearside. The narrow sections are short, so why people can't just hold back for those extra few seconds, I'll never know :think:

I dismount and walk those risky sections but if it's very early in the morning and the pavement is clear, I'll take a slow ride down there instead of risking my life on the road.

I like to think I'm a considerate cyclist. When I'm on the road, I obey all the rules as if I was driving. However I do see some cyclists running red lights which makes me fume, as it gives the rest a bad name and ends up fueling the cyclist haters out there :mad:

Andy

custardy

George_Michael wrote: »

I agree that you didn't, but why did you specify that

Why not simply state that all road users have a duty of care to all other road users.
Cyclists should have exactly the same duty of care as any other road user, so why pick them out as a special case?

So do you agree that cyclists and other road users that are currently not tested or insured should be required to take some form of testing and pay for indeminity insurance before being allowed to use the roads in the UK?

I raised it since on these threads you always get drivers stating its the cyclists fault because they will suffer greater injury in a car v bike collision.
your 2nd part is moot. totally unenforceable without registering all bikes in the UK,then the riders etc etc

paddedjohn

andyguk wrote: »

Well said :T

I see a lot of crazy drivers (mainly those in white vans and some buses too) and a lot of courteous drivers who give us cyclists a bit of space.

There are certain sections of the main road I ride to work on which I refuse to ride because they are just too narrow. I experienced too many occasions when I had someone trying to get past me and I had to slow down to a crawl, or risk being slammed into a wall on my nearside. The narrow sections are short, so why people can't just hold back for those extra few seconds, I'll never know :think:

I dismount and walk those risky sections but if it's very early in the morning and the pavement is clear, I'll take a slow ride down there instead of risking my life on the road.

I like to think I'm a considerate cyclist. When I'm on the road, I obey all the rules as if I was driving. However I do see some cyclists running red lights which makes me fume, as it gives the rest a bad name and ends up fueling the cyclist haters out there :mad:

Andy

i wondered how long it would be before some clown started on 'white van man',

you're a considerate cyclist but you ride on the pavement?
is it any wonder you get bad press when you cant obey the law but you hark on at other road users

George_Michael

your 2nd part is moot. totally unenforceable without registering all bikes in the UK,then the riders etc etc

I didn't ask if you thought it was enforcable or not.
I asked if you thought cyclists should be tested and insured.
Just because you think it's unenforcable doesn't mean that you can't state your opinion.

Azari

George_Michael wrote: »

I didn't ask if you thought it was enforcable or not.
I asked if you thought cyclists should be tested and insured.
Just because you think it's unenforcable doesn't mean that you can't state your opinion.

It's weird the way some drivers will use some good news about making some bad road users accountable for their actions to launch into a series of rants about something that has nothing to do with the news in question.

Cyclists can now use affordable technology to help bring aggressive or otherwise dangerous motorists to book.

There is no realistic prospect that cyclists are ever going to be required to be registered or insured.

Both of these facts have to be accepted by motorists whether they like it or not.

Azari

paddedjohn wrote: »

i wondered how long it would be before some clown started on 'white van man',

Well we've had a lot of clowns starting on 'cyclists on pavements' and 'cyclists jumping red lights' which are similarly unrelated to the news topic in question so I suppose it's fair enough that some other unrelated group should come in for some stick.