NO...Cyclists don't ride on pavements or jump red lights at all.

rev_henry

Why doesn't someone ring up their local police and ask, to end this ridiculous debate between barrack room lawyers.

Flyboy152

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

I'd have to trawl back through the archives but I'd only get usernames.
That's the thing with the internet, people can post things and it can be quite difficult to prove the truth either way. It's like your statement about the tabards being confiscated and being illegal. Without facts, names, dates, figures it's just unsubstantiated rumour.
The one true fact is, the tabards don't say 'POLICE', you can legally buy police costumes and legally wear them in public,,

or

Anyone that lives in London, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Liverpool will see people dressed like this most weekends on Hen/Stag parties. Some even get their picture taken with REAL Police, how many do you think are arrested for impersonating a Police officer?

But those are not being use to calculate deceipt.

johnfarquhar74

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But those are not being use to calculate deceipt.

I dunno, few times I've been up town(Edinburgh) and been accosted by women in Police costumes wanting fines paid (money in the potty) for a kiss or something similar?!?

Seriously though, if someone was cycling down the road with a high viz tabard with polite written on the back, I think the law would be pretty hard pushed to charge them, after all, people keep going on and on about how cyclists should respect other road users, an indication of the cyclists nature is not a chargeable offence.

Another point, and I'll try to make this my last on this trivial matter, if a cyclist was to wear something with the intention to make them look like a person of authority and the result was a more pleasant, less confrontational and dangerous journey; does that not highlight the utter contempt that some drivers have for cyclists that wear regular high viz and do encounter such unpleasant and confrontational behaviour???

Flyboy152

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

I dunno, few times I've been up town(Edinburgh) and been accosted by women in Police costumes wanting fines paid (money in the potty) for a kiss or something similar?!?

Seriously though, if someone was cycling down the road with a high viz tabard with polite written on the back, I think the law would be pretty hard pushed to charge them, after all, people keep going on and on about how cyclists should respect other road users, an indication of the cyclists nature is not a chargeable offence.

Another point, and I'll try to make this my last on this trivial matter, if a cyclist was to wear something with the intention to make them look like a person of authority and the result was a more pleasant, less confrontational and dangerous journey; does that not highlight the utter contempt that some drivers have for cyclists that wear regular high viz and do encounter such unpleasant and confrontational behaviour???

That's the point though, the word doesn't, at first glance, look like "POLITE." Due to its font, colour and shape of the bar, it is designed specifically to pretend that the rider is a police officer, so that any driver may think they will be charged with a driving offence, if they don't give a wide enough birth. Trouble is though, the driver over-compensates and causes a different problem.

Strider590

^^ To be fair.... There are also certain towns/areas/streets where you'd really not want to be wearing that

JQ.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Trouble is though, the driver over-compensates and causes a different problem.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I just have a picture in my mind of real police officers cycling down the road leaving a trail of devastation in their wake as car drivers "over-compensate".

marleyboy

I should point out that NOT ALL cyclists risk their lives jumping red lights and mounting pavements, the majority do indeed adhere to the rules of the road, likewise OP conveniently omitted the fact that NOT ALL drivers adhere to the rules of the road, happily jumping red lights, mounting pavements or general speeding.

I guess the jist of this thread should be SOME cyclists and drivers are dangerous and DONT adhere to the rules of the road, albeit the majority of cylists and drivers do indeed play it by the book.

In effect, nothing we do not know already but a thread trying to single out one mode of transport against another, with no facts or figures for a fair comparison other than an opinion.

johnfarquhar74

Flyboy152 wrote: »

That's the point though, the word doesn't, at first glance, look like "POLITE." Due to its font, colour and shape of the bar, it is designed specifically to pretend that the rider is a police officer,

Yeah, I get that, I know WHY those cyclists and horse riders wear them, but the fact is, they say POLITE, not POLICE

Flyboy152 wrote: »

so that any driver may think they will be charged with a driving offence, if they don't give a wide enough birth.

Are you saying if a driver does NOT give a wide enough berth then they could be charged if the cyclist was indeed a police person?

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Trouble is though, the driver over-compensates and causes a different problem.

Then the driver shouldn't be on the road if over compensations leads to further problems.

I'll be honest here, I've been on a bike twice this year, I don't think that makes me a cyclist but I do sympathise with them and understand their vulnerability out there. Your last comment basically says that some drivers will give a cyclist a 'wide enough berth' if they think they are police, are you suggesting that the same driver would NOT give a cyclist a 'wide enough berth' if they didn't think they were the police?

If so, that stinks!

thelawnet

janninew wrote: »

I don't understand why people cycle on the roads at all?! There are so many threads on here about how dangerous it is and how there are so many dangerous drivers - why risk it? Yes its cheaper and greener (but who actually cares that much about being green?!) I've seen many on here comment that yes they are cyclist's, but they are also car owners as well. Why not use your car then if cycling is so dangerous?

Cycling for leisure I understand, cycling on the busy roads in rush hour I don't understand!

It's great. My son finished school at 5pm today. I left home at 4:55pm on my bike. The whole road is clogged with 4x4s and parking, but I just cycled up the school driveway and left my bike outside the class room.

Distance cycled: 0.7 miles
Time saved looking for parking spot, walking to and from parking spot - at least 10 minutes

I then had to take him to his swimming lesson, which is at 5:30pm in the swimming pool. Cyled on the main road to town, which was clogged with rush hour traffic, so I filtered through it saving a good few minutes. There are long-term road works on the way to the pool, which means the on-road distance is 4.6 miles, through rush-hour traffic. On a bike however it's 1.8 miles, as bikes are allowed to cycle through the park. Then of course I can leave my bike in the bike shelter right outside the pool rather than in the car park a few minutes walk away (plus finding a spot)

Distance cycled (cumulative): 2.5 miles
Distance I would have otherwise driven (cumulative): 5.3 miles
Time saved looking for parking spots (cumulative): at least 20 minutes
Time saved not spent in traffic and on unnecessary detour: at least 15 minutes

After swimming my son has his choir practice at 6:30pm, I avoided the long-detour due to the road closure, and then took advantage of a brief shortcut across a shared-use pavement to avoid a set of traffic lights, a mini-roundabout and going around in a loop. I then left my bike outside the church (no need to find a parking spot), and dropped him off.

Distance cycled (cumulative) 3.4 miles
Distance not driven (cumulative): 9.6 miles
Time saved not spent in traffic and on unnecessary detour (cumulative): at least 30 minutes
Time saved not parking (cumulative): at least 25 minutes

I then had a meeting at 7pm till 9pm, but I wanted to get a snack so I cycled into town and left my bike outside the shop. I didn't have to queue to enter the multi-storey carpark, and I didn't have to pay to park, and I didn't have to walk from the parking spot to the shop.

Distance cycled (cumulative): 3.9 miles
Distance not driven (cumulative) 10.6 miles
Money saved on parking fees: £2
Time saved parking, walking to and from car park (cumulative): at least 45 minutes (note, had I gone by car I wouldn't have been able to park and make it to my destination for 7pm).

I came out of the shop and then cycled to my meeting (along the main road), about 2 miles away, I had no worries about traffic or delays - I know will cycle at something like 13-16mph, depending on how much effort I put in, so no stress there. Arrived 5 minutes early, before all the car drivers, locked my bike in the bike stand outside.
Distance cycled (cumulative): 6.1 miles
Distance not driven (cumulative) 12.7 miles

Having finished my meeting at 9pm, I was quite hungry so I decided to stop off at KFC on the way home. In order to do this I cycled back along the main road, across a toucan crossing, through the market place, across another toucan crossing, and then along a road. I then left my bike outside the KFC. By car I would have had to drive a longer route, and there would be no guarantee of having a vacant parking spot outside the KFC, so I probably wouldn't have bothered.

Distance cycled (cumulative): 8.5 miles
Distance not driven (cumulative): 15.6 miles

I then cycled home, again taking advantage of toucan crossings to save about 1/2 a mile compared with driving.

In all: distance cycled: 9 miles
distance not driven:16.6 miles
time saved: 65 minutes+


Benefits:

• 45 minutes free exercise (who needs gym membership?) making me fitter, healthier, more alert, and with longer life expectancy
• over an hour saved not sitting in traffic, parking, etc.
• able to meet my schedule, heading to multiple nearby destinations in a congested urban environment, which would have been impossible using a car
• saved at least £5 on car running/parking costs.
• sense of smugness at the end of it all

I'd call that a bargain....

Now ok I will admit:

my bike (second-hand!) and panniers cost me about £350
I have got £150 worth of lights on it
I've spent £50 servicing it in the last 9 months
I have got an £85 hi-vis jacket (this is not really necessary, you can get one off ebay for about £5, but I wanted one that didn't make me look like a binman)

So it's not completely free, and I do still have my car, so the bike is 'extra', but the bike costs are still less than gym membership and I use it a lot more often than I would that. TBH the cost savings to me are not why I do it - I'd still go by bike for all journeys up to about 6 miles even if I got free petrol, insurance and servicing on my car, I eat too much so I need to work it off, it's important to take regular exercise and I really like being fit.

Flyboy152

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

Yeah, I get that, I know WHY those cyclists and horse riders wear them, but the fact is, they say POLITE, not POLICE



Are you saying if a driver does NOT give a wide enough berth then they could be charged if the cyclist was indeed a police person?



Then the driver shouldn't be on the road if over compensations leads to further problems.

I'll be honest here, I've been on a bike twice this year, I don't think that makes me a cyclist but I do sympathise with them and understand their vulnerability out there. Your last comment basically says that some drivers will give a cyclist a 'wide enough berth' if they think they are police, are you suggesting that the same driver would NOT give a cyclist a 'wide enough berth' if they didn't think they were the police?

If so, that stinks!

No, what I wrote was that was the intention of the cyclist who wears them.