Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

hugheskevi

Hmmm, the title of one of those articles cited by custardy is "Nearly 50,000 motorists in Britain were issued with court summons for speeding last year - up almost 10% on the previous year."

Based on that, can I make a crass generalisation which is almost identical to the one made by the Institute for Advanced Motorists (IAM) in the Daily Mail article...

‘It is putting lives at risk. Motorists are not above the law. If motorists want to be taken seriously on the road they must also obey the law and the rules of the road.

‘We welcome the fact that the police are taking action against motorists who break the law by speeding in substantial numbers. They have got to expect the police to enforce the law if they break it.

Motorists must play their part by behaving responsibly on the road and obeying the law. If they want to be taken seriously they must also behave responsibly towards pedestrians and other road users.’

I'm not sure this fatuous statement makes much sense. Just because one motorist breaks the law, it does not affect anyone other than themselves - each road user is responsible for their own actions and not the actions of others.

Very disappointed by the naive comments from IAM in the Daily Mail article

custardy

hugheskevi wrote: »

Hmmm, the title of one of those articles cited by custardy is "Nearly 50,000 motorists in Britain were issued with court summons for speeding last year - up almost 10% on the previous year."

Based on that, can I make a crass generalisation which is almost identical to the one made by the Institute for Advanced Motorists (IAM) in the Daily Mail article...



I'm not sure this fatuous statement makes much sense. Just because one motorist breaks the law, it does not affect anyone other than themselves - each road user is responsible for their own actions and not the actions of others.

Very disappointed by the naive comments from IAM in the Daily Mail article

For many,your argument makes utter sense for anything but cyclists.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

Would that be Biggest Threats to Cyclists? So undertaking left turning lorries and jumping red lights isn't regarded as a bit of a threat?

What about cycling on the pavement?

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

What about cycling on the pavement?

What about it? It's illegal isn't it? (unless signs indicate otherwise).

Taken from the article;

’Cyclists must play their part by behaving responsibly on the road and obeying the law. If they want to be taken seriously they must also behave responsibly towards pedestrians and other road users.’

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

What about it? It's illegal isn't it? (unless signs indicate otherwise).

Taken from the article;

’Cyclists must play their part by behaving responsibly on the road and obeying the law. If they want to be taken seriously they must also behave responsibly towards pedestrians and other road users.’

So its not a threat to cyclists?
Is it a threat to pedestrians in some instances? Well yes.
Always illegal? No. feel free to look into such things as core paths in the cycle network
however
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/goodwill-reiterates-footway-cycling-guidance

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

So its not a threat to cyclists?
Is it a threat to pedestrians in some instances? Well yes.

No? Not even the threat of prosecution then?

custardy wrote: »

Always illegal? No. feel free to look into such things as core paths in the cycle network

I did say "It's illegal isn't it? (unless signs indicate otherwise)".

hugheskevi

I often look at cyclists going through red lights whilst I wait at red signals where it would be safe to proceed through the red (normally during all green pedestrian times when there are few if any pedestrians). They go through without any sniff of either danger or consequence, which raises the question of why I don't do the same.

The only answer is a moral sense of duty to obey road rules (and a very small chance of a Fixed Penalty Notice). It would be no more dangerous to go through red lights in a slow, controlled fashion than it is to obey them, and some evidence suggests it may even be safer to jump the lights.

If even the Institute of Advanced Motorists are saying I can't be taken seriously as a law-abiding cyclist, then I have to question what exactly am I achieving by obeying road rules out from a sense of moral obligation?

With these sorts of attitudes, is there any reason not to wave two fingers at the law, if "I am not going to be taken seriously" even by established organisations?

And the more who think like that, the more breaking of laws there are, the more entrenched positions on all sides get, and so it goes on...

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

No? Not even the threat of prosecution then?



I did say "It's illegal isn't it? (unless signs indicate otherwise)".

There’s a rider to section 129(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (which is the provision that bars cyclists and horse riders from footways and footpaths) to the effect that the provision doesn’t apply “where there is a specific right so to drive, lead or propel”. It would therefore seem to follow that if a route is designated as a core path then provided that it is stipulated in its creation then both cyclists and horse riders can use the path.

Meanwhile, a number of access authorities have been progressing matters within their own areas in discussion with local access forums.

The City of Edinburgh Council has investigated these issues in relation to cases such as Portobello Promenade and Jawbone Walk on the Meadows, which arose following adoption of the core paths plan. It was subsequently reported to the Edinburgh Access Forum (Sept 2010) that:

Following a review of roads and access legislation by Legal Services, it was agreed that signage prohibiting cycling should be removed. All signage to be reviewed for Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 compliance, and where appropriate replaced by advisory notices.

No signage or lack of,isnt explicit in its legality (the paths mentioned here still display no cycling signs).

Going by the stats,ironically getting hit by a car on the pavement seems a bigger risk.

Tilt

Seems that there were a lot of cars, taxis and buses driving along pavements in London between 1997 and 2007 then! :think:

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

No signage or lack of,isnt explicit in its legality (the paths mentioned here still display no cycling signs).

Going by the stats,ironically getting hit by a car on the pavement seems a bigger risk.

I was almost knocked over by a speeding cyclist recently while walking through a busy pedestrian area in Great Yarmouth. There were "cycling prohibited" signs present.