Cyclists not using hand signals

custardy

just to add
all this talk of lights
all the cyclist deaths in recent times that I have heard of,have been in daylight
the last but one in London,and experienced cyclist(there has just been another cyclist killed April 2nd,who again appears to be a keen cyclist)
the last 3 in Edinburgh were all experienced and enthusiast cylists
my own near death crash was not a visibility issue

Norman_Castle

As a car driver for over 25 years and a motorcyclist for over 6 years I understand how to use the roads. When I ride my pushbike on the roads I am amazed at the poor attitude and ignorance of some motorists toward cyclists. Motorists who berate cyclists should try cycling on the roads.

custardy

Norman_Castle wrote: »

As a car driver for over 25 years and a motorcyclist for over 6 years I understand how to use the roads. When I ride my pushbike on the roads I am amazed at the poor attitude and ignorance of some motorists toward cyclists. Motorists who berate cyclists should try cycling on the roads.

As I have said before
anyone in Edinburgh is welcome to come along for the ride on my commute

thelawnet

Tilt wrote: »

But you seem to be suggesting that motorists are as much as a problem to cyclists as some cyclists are to themselves.

That's a non-sequitur.

Firstly, bad cycling would not be risky if there were no motorists

Secondly, motorists are a problem for ALL cyclists, even if you have 30 years experience and good judgement cycling you can still be killed by bad driving, e.g., http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Pain-death-says-family/story-13077346-detail/story.html. The fact that a few cyclists put themselves at greater risk doesn't change the fact that motorists are a problem.

Sorry, no matter which way you paint it, I will never agree with you fully on that one. There are too many cyclist who do not take the same responsibilities when it comes to safety as you obviously do.

No they don't, but many motorists drive poorly too. Wouldn't you rather they were behaving stupidly on a bicycle than in a 120mph+ 3-tonne vehicle?

Harry_Flashman

thelawnet wrote: »

Secondly, motorists are a problem for ALL cyclists

Just as cyclists are a problem for motorists - so we're equal then?

Norman_Castle

Just as cyclists are a problem for motorists - so we're equal then?

Cyclists can be an inconveniance for motorists. Motorists can be deadly for cyclists. Equal?
Motorist need to pass a test and drive to a certain standard because of the greater risk they are to others. A percentage have a lazy, ignorant indifference to their duty of care. Capable drivers are rarely a problem to cyclists.
This has become the usual dumb motorist verses cyclist argument. As stated before, motorists would understand the problem if they tried cycling on the road.

cyclonebri1

If this hasn't become too much of a private topic/argument I'd like to butt in yeah??

Did someone say temporary indicators?, or that indicators were too expensive??

!!!!!!, what price your survival cyclists??

I have to stake my claim here as I have argued both sides of this as I agree and disagree as and when, but:

A simple cycling accident finished my working life, left me with a broken back, fractured neck and 2 skull fractures,

Get real cyclists and pay your way and accept that as road traffic you have a duty to conform, fit any needed accessories and in esscense, join the motoring fraternaty.

custardy

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

If this hasn't become too much of a private topic/argument I'd like to butt in yeah??

Did someone say temporary indicators?, or that indicators were too expensive??

!!!!!!, what price your survival cyclists??

I have to stake my claim here as I have argued both sides of this as I agree and disagree as and when, but:

A simple cycling accident finished my working life, left me with a broken back, fractured neck and 2 skull fractures,

Get real cyclists and pay your way and accept that as road traffic you have a duty to conform, fit any needed accessories and in esscense, join the motoring fraternaty.

deary me
which part of this is supposed to make sense?
which cyclists arent paying their way?
join the motoring fraternaty? how exactly does that work?

Harry_Flashman

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Cyclists can be an inconveniance for motorists. Motorists can be deadly for cyclists.

So cyclists need to wise up and look after themselves in order to stay safe then don't they. This would be far more effective for them than whinging about inconsiderate motorists.

Licence, tax and insure. Make sure certain devices (indicators, etc.) are mandatory. Only then will cyclists approach equal standing on the road.

cyclonebri1

custardy wrote: »

deary me
which part of this is supposed to make sense?
which cyclists arent paying their way?
join the motoring fraternaty? how exactly does that work?

What planet are you on???????????????


What does any cyclist pay?, insurance...........................No

Road tax?...................................................................No

Compliance with any legislation?...................................No

So as a common motorist I am footing the bill for the risk cyclists pose and paying for them to enjoy our roads, or doesn't that make sense to you either?

Going back, what I said was make cyclist conform to road legislation by having working lights :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:, and indicators:A, heaven forbid we should ask them more than that