Can cyclists answer me why??

Avoriaz

Altarf wrote: »

It seems that you (and lots of cyclists) fail to understand that the whole pavement is pavement, even if cyclists are permitted to cycle on part of it.

It seems to me that a lot of pedestrians think it is ok to walk (or even stand) in large groups, blocking the way for all other path users, not just cyclists but other pedestrians, wheel chair users, pushchairs etc.

A bit of common sense and consideration would go a long way to making everyone's life easier.

The laws on the use of shared paths are vague but this source suggests that "a pedestrian does have a legal duty to take care on a shared path".

Walking along in a large gang fooling around and blocking the entire path is not "taking care."

Nor is suddenly switching from one side to the other without looking.

custardy

skivenov wrote: »

And more to the point, since when were cyclists allowed to use blue strobing front lights? There seems to be loads around here lately.

23rd October,2005
No time,sorry

Twiggy_34

brat wrote: »

Both of those people could be me!

I'm just back from a 35 mile ride, where for much of the ride I was on the 60mph road rather than the cycle path. When there was the opportunity and the cycle path is convenient, and is not one that I know to be dangerous for a cyclist who is happy to sit at 20 to 25 mph, then I will get on it, but otherwise I will stay on the road. I do occasionally get horn blasts by those who feel they know better, and an arm directing me onto the cycle path, but I value my safety, and overall, if I feel safer on the road, I'll stay on the road.

Regarding the give way, you often find that cyclists have already sussed that a give way crossroads is crossable even before a motorist has seen you. I often take the opportunity to go straight across a give way without slowing very much, because I know the manoeuvre is going to be completely safe. I'm sure a few car drivers might think they had to slow down for me, but the truth is their observations were slightly lacking, so they responded to being taken slightly by surprise rather than any actual considered risk avoidance.

I do understand what you're saying, in this scenario the cycle path runs alongside a bypass road on the outskirts of the town and is, usually, clear from other users, certainly at the times when I'm on my way to and from work. Therefore, IMO, it's not really a question of safety. Most likely it's a question of convenience as there are a few side roads that come down to meet the bypass that cyclists would have to negotiate (it probably would have been more sense to have put a seamless cycle path on the opposite side of the road), but again, they would rarely encounter traffic coming from these side roads to hinder their journey significantly.

With regard to the give way issue, again I completely understand, it's no different to the way other road users behave at give way junctions and roundabout exits. However, the last time this chap did it to me he merged on to the main road at almost the exact time as I was passing the junction. Having seen him do it before I did modify my behaviour for fear of what he was going to do, not only did I have to slow down but I had to go around him at the point at which he came on to the road. Admittedly, and fortunately, there wasn't anything coming the other way, but this is not normal/safe behaviour and one day he will encounter someone who expects him to use a give way junction correctly who will not correct their position/speed to account for his actions and will consequently result in an accident.

Twiggy_34

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

So if I shot someone it might be their fault for not wearing a bullet-proof vest?!?!

I'm post migraine here so the brain is a little fuzzy, but I think the voluntary and pre-meditated act of shooting someone with a tool designed to maim/kill (regardless of bullet-proof vests) is a slightly different argument to accidentally knocking someone off their bike when they weren't as visible as they might have been. As would be choosing to intentionally collide with a cyclist, regardless of their choice of protective and/or visibility gear.

[Deleted User]

howill wrote: »

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

You MUST NOT cycle on a footway or footpath unless on a cycle track where one has been provided.
Law RTRO Art 3

The above is the law and a direct quotation from the Highway Code for Cyclists.
The fact that the police these days can't be bothered to enforce the law, or that about cyclists obeying traffic lights or not riding on pavements, is neither here nor there.

OK Victor M, if that is the law, how come every cop will drive on by if they see someone either on the pavement or not displaying some degree of light front and rear. Not much of a law is it ? The law does nt even state the luminosity of the light. It could be the dullest little red/white glow to comply or even a dynamo stopped at lights and junctions. The Police never bother the miscreant because they cant be bothered to waste their time on such small fry, probably because they can only issue a caution.
Our present Prime Minister got my vote last election because in the Tory manifesto they were going to make OUR lives safer by getting rid of the pavement cycling "law "and allow us to get to safety and share with pedestrians. I have cycled all through Europe many times. Many cycle paths are just a white line painted down the middle of the pavement. Thats what needed here, at least it would shut all the Victor Meldrews up

Twiggy_34

sacsquacco wrote: »

OK Victor M, if that is the law, how come every cop will drive on by if they see someone either on the pavement or not displaying some degree of light front and rear. Not much of a law is it ? The law does nt even state the luminosity of the light. It could be the dullest little red/white glow to comply or even a dynamo stopped at lights and junctions. The Police never bother the miscreant because they cant be bothered to waste their time on such small fry, probably because they can only issue a caution.
Our present Prime Minister got my vote last election because in the Tory manifesto they were going to make OUR lives safer by getting rid of the pavement cycling "law "and allow us to get to safety and share with pedestrians. I have cycled all through Europe many times. Many cycle paths are just a white line painted down the middle of the pavement. Thats what needed here, at least it would shut all the Victor Meldrews up

Thought I'd share this as it seems to be on topic http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-cyclists-handed-50-fine-riding-lights/story-20222833-detail/story.html

[Deleted User]

Twiggy_34 wrote: »

I completely disagree with this and your attitude. Don't get me wrong, while I understand and agree the point that cyclists should be quite visible in well-lit streets, that same argument could be used about all vehicles being driven in well-lit streets, and yet I still use my headlights driving at night regardless of street-lighting. It brings us back to a comment made by another user about lighting being as much about being seen as it is about being able to see.

I do feel quite sorry for the OP after a few individuals have virtually ganged up on them, the OP raised a valid frustration/query (albeit not money saving) and some of the responses have demonstrated well the ignorance of many road users.

Personally, while having lights on may not be a necessity (regardless of it being night or day), I have found myself to be very grateful to all cyclists and motorcyclists who take the sensible extra precautions to ensure they maximise their visibility. There can be a lot of information to take in when on the road, especially in some well-lit streets, whether it be because you're not familiar with the area, or that there is a lot of traffic on the road, or any other reason people might be able to come up with.

And I don't think its about discrimination against cyclists either, or about drivers having an excuse to moan at them. Firstly, I know that I would struggle to come to terms with the idea of having hit, injured, or even killed a cyclist, regardless of whether or not it was the fault of the cyclist for not wearing suitable protective wear or for not having/using lights. Secondly, while the rule applies to other road users as well (yes, we've all seen numpties driving around without lights in dark and/or foggy conditions), I think it's reasonable to assume that in most scenario's a cyclist (or motorcyclist) is going to come out worse if hit by a vehicle due to poor visibility than a person in another vehicle.

By the way, I haven't cycled for quite a few years but have previously had plenty of experience with both cycling in towns and countryside lanes. My daily drive to and from work also consists of driving through towns and countryside roads, fortunately most of the cyclists I encounter do make themselves very visible. My frustrations lie more around those who choose to cycle on a 60mph road when there is a dedicated cycle path for them to use alongside the very same road; and the chap who, on 2 occasions now, has decided that the give way sign at the end of the junction that joins the road I drive on doesn't apply to him, and so just comes sailing straight out into the main road completely disregarding oncoming traffic (sorry, just had to slip my own personal little rant in there)!

You have got to realise that its optional for us to use the cycle path, not mandatory. I have a busy main road near me with a cycle track alongside, ( which ends half way and crosses to the other side ) which in my view may put me in more danger. I have to stop at many little junctions where I have to check for traffic turning left. My 1 mile run then becomes a series of stop start mini risks at the dozen or so junctions whereas I would ve had right of way. I will use tracks and pavements but sometimes its less risky to just join the main traffic as is our right
Cyclists are mainly getting killed in the daytime by HGVs and buses with poor nearside view in their mirrors, out there on the Mways the foreign trucks are often shunting into cars in the 2nd lane,with no offside view in their mirrors, killing many every year. Overtake a foreign truck with fear, get into the third lane if possible. The answer is a camera /video installation but they wont spend the few quid to get one installed.

armyknife

So has anyone had their mind changed by the arguments in this thread?

Or did we just kill a few thousand more electrons and a pee-away a load more of our lifespans?

hugheskevi

So has anyone had their mind changed by the arguments in this thread?

Looking through the other cycling threads as well as this one, the things that I've learnt/changed my mind about/found most interesting are:

• Reflectors in pedals are a legal requirement
• There is a surprising instinct to immediately blame others - many seem unable to understand how to attribute fault in accident causes and instead revert to ranting and blaming people for things they perceive they should have been doing, even though it has no basis in law or the Highway Code.
• There was an article from a city designer linked and a short film from a Dutch cyclist about London. They showed the damage caused by a vehicle centred design - pedestrians routinely cross on red as they wait so long for a green man, cyclists do the same as there are many red lights that prevent progress, that all irks drivers, who are already irritable due to very slow progression from heavy traffic and it all causes a hostile relationship between highway users. I found his insights interesting.
• Fast cyclists are not good for central areas in cities - perhaps controversial, but this was one of the comments from the city designer which I at first thought silly, but on reflection sympathise with. His point was that there are few older or occasional cyclists in UK cities, and so cyclists tend to be those who cycle regularly and due to the lack of dedicated infrastructure and constant string of red lights to control traffic they tend to be fast and aggressive, some/many not observing the law, both to make progress and to be safer. He thought a better infrastructure would encourage many more cyclists, and mean cyclists would be able to make steady progress and be held at a more controlled pace due to higher volume of cyclists. That would reduce friction between cyclists and pedestrians and is needed if space is to be shared.
• Many prefer to simply cite existing law and propose new rules, without appreciating that regulations may well be worse than useless if they are neither observed nor enforced.
• Many don't consider the consequential impact of proposals. For example, proposals which increase the cost of cycling (eg a cycle tax) would dissuade some from cycling. That reduces health benefits and increases congestion, both of which are undesirable and costly to other areas of the Exchequer. Especially as 83% of cyclists have cars, there is a significant risk that if you make cycling less attractive/more expensive, it would result in a simple switch to more car use and more congestion.
• There is a tendency amongst many to base proposals on their personal experience rather than robust studies, statistics and evidence.
• I'd hate to be a politician responsible for transport. Realistically, would I change anything significantly? Not if I wanted to be re-elected based on the many comments in the threads - you would alienate too many.

redmike123

I am a cyclist and wear a cycling helmet and have lights on both the front and back of my machine. I also have reflective stips on my pedals, and usually wear reflective clothing. I am therefore morally superior to all, car , van ajd HGV drivers, other cyclists and of course pedestrians. Each morning I cycle 100 metres to my local railway station, get the usual train every day to London, make a fuss about stowing my bike with any passenger unfortunate enough to get in my way, and then at the other end , I cycle 350 metres to my office, where I shower and change.