We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists
Comments
-
It's down a bit, only 1901 fatalities last year, up slightly from 2010. Cycle fatalities were down to 107 in 2011.My understanding is that around 2,800 people are killed on our roads every year. How many of those are killed by unidentified cyclists? It must be a huge number if a system of registering every bike in the country is required to rectify this massive problem.
I read somewhere, and I'll try to source it, that deaths of pedestrians caused by cyclists on pavements is somewhere around one every three years.
Still too high of course...Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
Not sure this is relevant... I never mentioned anything about people being killed by unidentified cyclists. But as it happens, I do remember of at least one case where a racing cyclists collided with a pedestrian while speeding across a paved area and the pedestrian was killed. The cyclist was prosecuted but not as a motorist would of been (causing death by dangerous driving) but under a draconian and outdated law which hopefully will be changed. Although such incidents are rare, they do happen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/10/death-dangerous-cycling-law-government-support
because the law isnt in place
so its a case of the law needing adjusted to cover/create the scenario
as for motorists
http://road.cc/content/news/60396-coach-driver-cleared-causing-death-cumbrian-cycling-brothers
how about that
I started a thread on this very subject
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/40464270 -
Yet you seem not to have worked out why pedestrians are not expecting a cyclist in a pedestrian zone???Why are you making such a fool of yourself with this. I cycle legitimately and responsibly. I can read signs that tell me I can use the pedestrian zone. There are signs at the start and throughout the pedestrian zone to say that cyclists are allowed. Please accept that I know the road I'm cycling on.
Now is this when you weave down the pedestrian zone or when you swing between them on a pelican?I accept they will pass reasonably close. I try to give at least a metre.
Intentionally - probably not. Arrogantly and inconsiderately - quite likely in some cases. Please accept that I know the pedestrian crossings I am walking on.I bet a red light jumper might get to within about two feet, but to suggest that they intentionally avoid by half an inch is just silly hyperbole, only suited to those who feel the need to criticise without reason.
The reason I'm sticking up for some motorists is because of the barrage of criticism that they get landed with as a group because some others break the rules - especially from holier-than-thou cyclists who believe they are justified in breaking rules because a) "motorists are worse" or b) "but we're in more danger" or c) "we don't put anyone in danger because we are alert and have superior judgement". Thankfully we haven't had any cases of d) "but we don't pollute like cars do so there" yet.The reason I'm sticking up for cyclists here is only because of the barrage of criticism that they get landed with as a group because some break the rules.
Just because you declare yourself a legitimate and responsible cyclist does not mean the illegitimate* and irresponsible ones are figments of every drivers imagination. Tilt's post at 2.01pm explains it well.
(*) i.e. stupid bar-stewards
Like the ones custardy just described? Quite right.I get much more angry at careless, inconsiderate dangerous motorists, because not only to they turn a blind eye to road safety, they have serious killing momentum.I need to think of something new here...0 -
because the law isnt in place
so its a case of the law needing adjusted to cover/create the scenario
as for motorists
http://road.cc/content/news/60396-coach-driver-cleared-causing-death-cumbrian-cycling-brothers
This is a dreadful case, which I also mentioned in post 43.
A driver error that puts a dent in the back or side of another car often results in no criminal prosecution, because the driver only made a simple mistake.
A similar degree of negligence is all that is needed to kill a cyclist.
Unfortunately, this case highlights the fact that the killers of cyclists are generally compliant law abiding motorists who usually drive fairly sensibly, but make a simple mistake, like failing to observe or driving too close. A jury member could easily conclude that he may make the same error - there but for the grace of god...
These were lovely lads. My heart went out to their family and friends.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
There's been quite a few mentions on this thread of requiring registration of bicycles, so I did some quick "back of a fag packet" calculations.
It currently costs circa £600m per year to run the DVLA - that's to licence 31million cars.
There are 3.5million bikes sold every year, with the number rising every year. It's very difficult to estimate how many bikes there are in existance as many cyclists own several bikes - there are 7 in our household of 4 people. But a rough estimate I have seen is that there are 50million.
On a pro-rata basis it would cost circa £1billion per year to run such a registration scheme for bikes, and that totally ignores the absolutely massive fixed start-up costs that such a proposal would incur.
Value for money?0 -
You don't often see youths driving cars, fortunately. The rules and laws involving push bikes and cars are enforced differently because of the much greater risk posed by poorly driven cars.I have just seen a youth on a mountain bike ride the wrong way around the island and then cycle for about 50 yards on the wrong side of the carriageway to mount the pavement on the other side of the road (there is a skate park over there).
My point? You don't often see a car doing the same thing.0 -
No I perfectly understand that. But that wasn't the point. You were taking issue with the legality of my use of the ped zone, but it seems you've got that confusion squared in your head now.Yet you seem not to have worked out why pedestrians are not expecting a cyclist in a pedestrian zone???
If I have to weave, I weave. As you already know, I don't cross pelicans when I shouldn't. I don't know why you insist that I do.Now is this when you weave down the pedestrian zone or when you swing between them on a pelican?
Ok, so on your very own pedestrian crossing, cyclists buzz you within half an inch of your briefcase. If you say so...Intentionally - probably not. Arrogantly and inconsiderately - quite likely in some cases. Please accept that I know the pedestrian crossings I am walking on.
I see them too, and I deal with them when I can. I don't see why they wind you up so much, because their actions don't affect you. The real danger on the road is from your fellow motorists, especially those who choose to drive illegally.The reason I'm sticking up for some motorists is because of the barrage of criticism that they get landed with as a group because some others break the rules - especially from holier-than-thou cyclists who believe they are justified in breaking rules because a) "motorists are worse" or b) "but we're in more danger" or c) "we don't put anyone in danger because we are alert and have superior judgement". Thankfully we haven't had any cases of d) "but we don't pollute like cars do so there" yet.
Just because you declare yourself a legitimate and responsible cyclist does not mean the illegitimate* and irresponsible ones are figments of every drivers imagination. Tilt's post at 2.01pm explains it well.
Cyclists cause the death of one pedestrian every three years.
Motorists cause the death of at least 500 other road users every year.
Ah, agreement at last!Like the ones custardy just described? Quite right.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
Spending £1billion enforcing current laws would be a better use of the money.There's been quite a few mentions on this thread of requiring registration of bicycles, so I did some quick "back of a fag packet" calculations.
It currently costs circa £600m per year to run the DVLA - that's to licence 31million cars.
There are 3.5million bikes sold every year, with the number rising every year. It's very difficult to estimate how many bikes there are in existance as many cyclists own several bikes - there are 7 in our household of 4 people. But a rough estimate I have seen is that there are 50million.
On a pro-rata basis it would cost circa £1billion per year to run such a registration scheme for bikes, and that totally ignores the absolutely massive fixed start-up costs that such a proposal would incur.
Value for money?0 -
Norman_Castle wrote: »You don't often see youths driving cars, fortunately. The rules and laws involving push bikes and cars are enforced differently because of the much greater risk posed by poorly driven cars.
although
http://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/injury-lawyers-blog/2012/08/21/a-rise-in-deaths-of-18-25-year-old-drivers/0 -
Norman_Castle wrote: »Spending £1billion enforcing current laws would be a better use of the money.
a billion quids worth of Policing would address most peoples complaints, on both bike and motoring front0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards