Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

GwylimT

So I'm cycling to school today and I get knocked of my bike, no damage done to me, but it means I'll need a new helmet and a new back wheel, turns out to be a pupils parent, a parent who is on the board of governors and wants to ban parents driving their children to school, but its fine for him to do it while hitting other road users! It happened at traffic lights, not sure how you can miss huge red flashing lights or the luminous clothing.

Heycock

AndyBSG wrote: »

Well, it appears a lot of coppers are completely clueless on the laws then because last week on CS2 when they had police everywhere I saw one ticket a driver who was in the ASL and the police man did not see him enter it because he strolled out of the local Newsagent with a coffee while the lights were already red and the car was already there!

The lesson is, never assume someone knows what they're doing just because they're wearing a uniform.

andrewf75

COOLTRIKERCHICK wrote: »

deluded no....There will come a time where there will be a tax on push biker riders, riding on the roads, an YES I think there should be a test for them too, And as for the car with 0 tax, yes I hate that too, as that was all a gimmick to please the EU to show that we are trying to do something about emissions, its not free, its just shifting payment to someone else.. push bike riders can still get arrested for riding a bike on the road while drunk, so if the same rules apply for road users, they should be licensed and taxed...

I can't believe people come out with this argument.

There is no road tax! The roads are paid for out of general government funds! You pay car tax to compensate for the damage that driving a tonne of metal around does to the country. Congestion, road deaths, pollution etc

What are you proposing taxing cyclists for? Cycling is beneficial to the whole country. If you look at it in terms of net benefit/cost, they should be refunded money because cyclists already pay for the roads yet get very little for their money.

I appreciate that the fact that cyclists don't need a license or insurance is a minor issue, but bikes are more comparable to pedestrians than motor vehicles. Are you going to propose a pedestrian license as well?

custardy

COOLTRIKERCHICK wrote: »

deluded no....There will come a time where there will be a tax on push biker riders, riding on the roads, an YES I think there should be a test for them too, And as for the car with 0 tax, yes I hate that too, as that was all a gimmick to please the EU to show that we are trying to do something about emissions, its not free, its just shifting payment to someone else.. push bike riders can still get arrested for riding a bike on the road while drunk, so if the same rules apply for road users, they should be licensed and taxed...

So given the DVLA runs at a loss now
how do you see this bike tax working?

you seem really het up about this.
where has drunk cyclists come into this?
As usual we have a thread about the threat to cyclists
which is apparently all down to the the cyclists themselves

So you dont like 0 rated cars?
So what do you pay a year?
The highest rate? If not,then arent you ashamed?

why 'should' cyclists be taxed?
whats the point?
Would this be for cyclists on the roads exclusively or what?

andrewf75

I think all that sitting in traffic goes to some motorists heads. I had to drive to work today instead of my usual cycle and it was hellish. If I had to do that every day I think I'd be losing the plot and ranting hysterically as well....

Norman_Castle

You pay car tax to compensate for the damage that driving a tonne of metal around does to the country. Congestion, road deaths, pollution etc

VED exists to encourage buyers to choose less polluting vehicles. Its just another tax. It doesn't pay, or compensate for anything.

brat

AndyBSG wrote: »

Well, it appears a lot of coppers are completely clueless on the laws then because last week on CS2 when they had police everywhere I saw one ticket a driver who was in the ASL and the police man did not see him enter it because he strolled out of the local Newsagent with a coffee while the lights were already red and the car was already there!

MOst coppers who ticket for ASL offences will know what they're doing. If an offence is suspected, they have the ability to ask questions to confirm that an offence has been committed before issuing the ticket.
I'm guessing you didn't hear the conversation they had?

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

Well we can only hope he reads my post and not yours, appeals and gets the fine overturned.

If the driver committed the offence why should he appeal?

Guesthouse

Norman_Castle wrote: »

^ I hope I could stop at that speed. I checked today, 18 mph is normal for me on that road. 99% of my rides will be at probable 8-10 mph. I was doing 25mph because I was aware of the car behind and was trying to avoid slowing them. I know if I had braked the car would not have any time to react.
I had a similar problem this weekend. Another daft woman trying to overtake and undertake. Six feet behind me at 25-30 mph for 1/4 mile. This time it was just a distraction as I had 8 feet of car behind me. Some drivers have little interest in driving safely.

...and the car behind you should be following at a safe distance with enough room to stop safely...etc, etc Highway Code & Roadcraft Driving Manual

Guesthouse

Altarf wrote: »

Unfortunately many local authorities have decided to meet their "safer cycling" obligations by designating many pavements shared use, with only infrequent signs indicating this.

Therefore many pedestrians are unaware that the "pavement" is now a shared pavement / cycle path (and yes I know that cyclists must defer to pedestrians, but the mere presence of a cycle on a "pavement" seems to send some people into a rage, no matter how you courteously the cyclist is behaving).

In some places, the pavement varies every few metres between being a pavement, and a shared pavement /cycle path, without any apparent logic. It is understandable that some cyclist are likely to think that if it is acceptable to cycle on this "pavement", then it is equally acceptable to cycle on similar pavements.

To give you an example in a town I was visiting recently, would you consider the pavement where the lady on the right is walking a pavement or a shared pavement / cyclepath (taking account of the shop entrance, the postbox, the parked cars, etc).

https://maps.google.com/?ll=52.217599,-0.281224&spn=0.021744,0.038366&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.217522,-0.289389&panoid=6QO8FZSyzTcLBAy4Yyfoaw&cbp=12,0,,0,0

The answer, it used to be a pavement, but has now been designated by the local authority to be a shared pavement / cyclepath, but I expect more than few OAPs that step out of the Post Office complain about the cyclists on the pavement.

Yet ironically 100 meters away from that location, where Google Maps has captured someone cycling on the pavement, that is still a pavement and is not a shared pavement / cyclepath, despite it being a much safer place to cycle, both from a cyclists point of view (the pinch points in the road) and a pedestrians point of view (no stepping out of shops, wide grass verge, etc).

https://maps.google.com/?ll=52.215101,-0.28131&spn=0.021745,0.038366&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.215174,-0.289492&panoid=3K8FRJzmr4PBq2g7FtDapg&cbp=12,13.06,,0,16.38

One of my routes has an on road cycle lane that guides me onto a cycle path (marked as such and I've checked lots of times) which everyone walks on and they've now built a pile of houses next to it. Now I'm not having a rant against pedestrians but they shouldn't be there because it's clearly marked as a cycle lane/path. Just saying, for the sake of balance.