should cyclists be treated as road-users, or pedestrians?

Idiophreak

Dekazer wrote: »

My husband says I should 'use it or lose it', but I'm not that principled

Meh, I'd be perfectly happy to lose 90% of the on-road cycle lanes where I live...Unsuitable for use, encourage people to turn left across you and just cause drivers to get narked when I'm not in them - so they literally do me more harm than good.

Dekazer

Idiophreak wrote: »

Meh, I'd be perfectly happy to lose 90% of the on-road cycle lanes where I live...Unsuitable for use, encourage people to turn left across you and just cause drivers to get narked when I'm not in them - so they literally do me more harm than good.

Ah, yes, I actually meant the off road ones, but you're right about them crossing side roads. Massive pain in the neck.

...Time_for_a_brew_then..

1. Bring back the cycling proficency test.
2. Make the driving test harder.
3. All motorists convicted of serious offences, Must retake an extended test - EVEN if they were not banned.
4. All drink drivers banned for life. NO exceptions.
5. All road using cyclists must have insurance (cyclists who also have a car/motorcycle could add the cycle insurance to their existing policy maybe...)
6. All road users should carry an upto date copy of the highway code with them.
7. A flourecent jacket and helmet will not give cyclist eternal life when they ride through red lights or up the left side of articulated vehicles - this should be printed on the packaging when they purchase them.


All of the above are just my opinions/ideas. They might not be workable, but with some tweaking, some of them might be...

podperson

Cyclists should definately be classed as 'road users' and actually have to obey the same rules as everyone else. I'm sure this isn't the majority so apologies to those responsible ones but I am really sick of seeing cyclists (and this is at least a few times every week not a one off) running through red lights or pedestrian crossings as they seem to think they just don't apply to them. Two days ago I was waiting at a pedestrian crossing - the green man came on, I stepped out and a woman on the opposite side stepped out - a cyclist came speeding through the red light and literally knocked her off her feet. Luckily she was ok but if it was a child or someone elderly they might have been injured. I did find it quite amusing though that a police car just happened to be waiting at the lights and pulled him over afterwards

Idiophreak

Dekazer wrote: »

Ah, yes, I actually meant the off road ones, but you're right about them crossing side roads. Massive pain in the neck.

Oh yeah...they can all go, too

Why I'd want to ride on poorly maintained, narrow pavements and have to give way to side roads every 100 yards is quite beyond me

I think the only semi-workable option for improving motorist-cyclists harmony is to enforce an enhanced cycling proficiency test as a pre-requisite to a driving test...So until you've done, say, 100 hours on a bike, you just can't drive a car. Would greatly increase the empathy motorists have towards cyclists (and motorcyclists, for that matter)...

Idiophreak

podperson wrote: »

I'm sure this isn't the majority so apologies to those responsible ones but I am really sick of seeing cyclists (and this is at least a few times every week not a one off) running through red lights or pedestrian crossings as they seem to think they just don't apply to them.

Why do you choose to think that's why they do it? I don't understand why our natural reaction is to think the worst of other people.

I've gone through a pedestrian crossing before, a second or two after it's turned red, a second before it turns green or when someone's pressed the button then crossed already by the time the lights change... Why? Because it saves me stopping then having to get back up to speed again. I can quite safely move into the middle of the road, far from where anyone might step off the kerb and trundle through (prepared to stop, naturally) and keep going without bothering anyone. In fact, in the case of a red light, I also get a few seconds rest from cars trying to force their way past me...

I'm sure everyone will flame me for not thinking the law applies to me, I'm such an idiot...and the rest...but I am well aware that red lights apply to me. I'm also aware, however, that there's significant effort associated with stopping and starting...So, if there's no good reason to stop (yes, I know, a red light *is* a good reason to stop...), sometimes I don't. Of course, there are plenty of cyclists that *are* idiots and just cycle through red lights routinely...But I like to try and keep my default motorist reaction of "oh my goodness! they've gone through a red light! the scum!" in check a little, by asking myself why I think they've gone through it and whether they're actually hurting anyone by doing so....

More often than not, when you actually think about it, they're not anarchistic mentalists out to make motorists' lives miserable and maim pedestrians...they're just normal people trying to keep moving.

Dekazer

I once read some really interesting (yes really!) academic literature about non-compliance with regulations. You can fit the example of cycling through a red light to the theory...

1) Some people, on some occasions, break rules because they perceive that the benefit (to them) outweighs the cost (likelihood of being caught plus worse-case consequence) to them*. They cycle through a red light because their journey will be quicker, they're unlikely to be censured, and the cost if caught will be low.

2) Some people break rules because they aren't aware of the rule, or don't understand the potential consequences of breaking the rule**. They cycle through a red light because they think they're allowed to, because they're not in a car.

3) Some people break rules because they don't think the rule should apply to them, or that the rule is immoral in some way. This group would be the group to campaign for a change in the rules***. They cycle through a red light because they believe that vulnerable cyclists should be allowed to cross an empty pedestrian crossing in order to keep them ahead of traffic, more visible and therefore safer.

I suspect that any one of these could apply to the person you just saw cycle through a red light.

Further, the theory suggests that the most effective rules/regulations will work on all three groups. Clearly the Highway Code ain't cutting it...

*'Amoral calculators' - some large scale corporate pollutors fit this category.
** 'Incompetent' - some industrial accidents through negligence fit this category.
*** 'Objectors' - Rosa Parks fitted this category.
(With thanks to Kagan & Scholtz, 1984 I think)

aileth

Road users ofc, but need to abide by rules.

There is a bloke near us who cycles to and from work every day wearing a freshly pressed suit, no helmet, no lights, no fluorescents (as everyone will know its getting darker mornings and evenings!), and he wiggles about on it, zigzagging across the road and swerving around parked cars or obstacles without a shoulder check, pelting down very narrow footpaths while swerving about and almost taking out a couple of unwitting pedestrians. There's a big crossroads which cars are going all different ways and he goes straight through the red lights without so much as a glance and has almost caused many a collision and much tooting. I'm waiting for him to get run over or the rozzers to pounce.

xcarlyx

To me they are road users as they have 2 wheels.

mr_fishbulb

xcarlyx wrote: »

To me they are road users as they have 2 wheels.

How about unicyclists?