Freedom at last...

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

When cycling was widespread, and motoring was in its pre-1970s infancy, then drivers would instinctively ‘think bike’, but those are the days which have gone. Drivers today think ‘ME’, and it is naive to expect them to think otherwise.

So... you're saying that the recent increases in the number of people who cycle are good because, as more bikes take to the road, drivers will learn to "think bike", making the roads safer for everyone?

If the whole problem is ignorant self-centred motorists, then, rather than accepting the fact and allowing them to be a menace on the roads, wouldn't it be better to do something about it? Mandatory penalties for hitting a cyclist, or cycling to be included as part of the driving test...? Cameras and sensors in all cars to automatically ban speeders and other dangerous drivers?

fred246

I dream of the day when every motorized vehicle will have a black box recorder in it. The number of lives saved and injuries avoided will be phenomenal. I hope it's within my lifetime.

Si_Clist

modsandmockers wrote: »

... I would really like to hear from you about what advice you would give to a class of 10-year-olds and their parents who might be thinking about copying your choice of lifestyle.

I wouldn't give them any advice. I would never be called upon to do so.

It's up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their own children in their own localities. If they feel that they're unsafe riding on the roads as an ordinary everyday bicycle rider and/or that they daren't let their kids ride bikes on the road, it's up to them to make waves - not me.

Incidentally, if anybody reading this thread is interested in an eminently sensible approach to the whole business of ordinary people riding bicycles on the roads but is unaware of the London Cycling Campaign, check it out here.

(Yes I'm a member, no I don't live in or near London)

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

So... you're saying that the recent increases in the number of people who cycle are good because, as more bikes take to the road, drivers will learn to "think bike", making the roads safer for everyone?

If the whole problem is ignorant self-centred motorists, then, rather than accepting the fact and allowing them to be a menace on the roads, wouldn't it be better to do something about it? Mandatory penalties for hitting a cyclist, or cycling to be included as part of the driving test...? Cameras and sensors in all cars to automatically ban speeders and other dangerous drivers?

Your post makes perfect sense, and so does this -

So... you're saying that the recent increases in the number of motorists are good because, as more cars take to the road, cyclists will learn to "think car", making the roads safer for everyone?

If the whole problem is ignorant self-centred cyclists, then, rather than accepting the fact and allowing them to be a menace on the roads, wouldn't it be better to do something about it? Mandatory penalties for hitting a car, or cyclists to be given a driving test...? Cameras and sensors on all bikes to automatically warn cyclists of what is happening behind them?

Nebulous2

modsandmockers wrote: »

I started the thread because I am very interested in road-user behaviour, and I would really like to hear from you about what advice you would give to a class of 10-year-olds and their parents who might be thinking about copying your choice of lifestyle.

Did you read the Sustrans article I linked to about the work they are doing? Both in school and with parents?

One of the reasons I was pleased to be able to give up driving was because of the ever-increasing plethora of regulations (and penalties for non-compliance) which drivers in general (and truckers in particular) have to deal with whenever they take to the roads.

The reduction in road casualties which has taken place in recent years is mostly due to better vehicle design, better road layouts and better regulation. Cyclists have none of these advantages.

What makes you think that? Both cyclists and pedestrians have gained from all of these, just not as much as motorists have.

One poster on this thread celebrated the fact that he/she was protected by the the requirement for motorists to carry insurance at all times

I'm really not getting this at all. I cannot see anybody in this thread celebrating the fact motorists have to carry insurance. Now presumed liability would give something to celebrate!

- if he/she had hit a child who had run out from between two parked cars, then who would have been liable?

I'm sorry, but again this is just totally confused thinking. You're mixing so many things here I barely know where to start. There is no difference between a car and a cyclist hitting a child in terms of liability. Liability rests with whoever the court decides is liable (at fault). That could be the cyclist, as much as it could be the car driver. Equally it could be the child. Or it could be apportioned between them.

Another poster made it clear that he/she was not prepared to use the cycle lanes because of the risk of getting a puncture, whilst also objecting to being criticised by motorists for invading the motorists’ space. Strider - get better tyres!

When cycling was widespread, and motoring was in its pre-1970s infancy, then drivers would instinctively ‘think bike’, but those are the days which have gone. Drivers today think ‘ME’, and it is naive to expect them to think otherwise.

I've tried to tell you that cycling is much safer now than it was in the 1970s. Look here <

---

This shows the dramatic reduction in deaths over time. Cycling has roughly doubled in London in 20 years, yet deaths and injuries are about the same. See section 3.3

I like many other cyclists do carry insurance. It costs me around £40 a year from British Cycling.

modsandmockers

Si_Clist wrote: »

I wouldn't give them any advice. I would never be called upon to do so.

It's up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their own children in their own localities. If they feel that they're unsafe riding on the roads as an ordinary everyday bicycle rider and/or that they daren't let their kids ride bikes on the road, it's up to them to make waves - not me.

Incidentally, if anybody reading this thread is interested in an eminently sensible approach to the whole business of ordinary people riding bicycles on the roads but is unaware of the London Cycling Campaign, check it out here.

(Yes I'm a member, no I don't live in or near London)

I would happily give advice to a group of ten-year-olds and their parents, and it would go like this -

Cycling used to be a good way to get around, but the roads have now been completely taken over by motor vehicles, and there is no serious intent to create a safe alternative for cyclists.

A child cyclist, or a family of cyclists, is as likely to receive abuse f

modsandmockers

modsandmockers wrote: »

I would happily give advice to a group of ten-year-olds and their parents, and it would go like this -

Cycling used to be a good way to get around, but the roads have now been completely taken over by motor vehicles, and there is no serious intent to create a safe alternative for cyclists.

A child cyclist, or a family of cyclists, is as likely to receive abuse f

I'm not sure what happened to my last post, but I am about to start it again...

modsandmockers

Si_Clist wrote: »

I wouldn't give them any advice. I would never be called upon to do so.

It's up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their own children in their own localities. If they feel that they're unsafe riding on the roads as an ordinary everyday bicycle rider and/or that they daren't let their kids ride bikes on the road, it's up to them to make waves - not me.

Incidentally, if anybody reading this thread is interested in an eminently sensible approach to the whole business of ordinary people riding bicycles on the roads but is unaware of the London Cycling Campaign, check it out here.

(Yes I'm a member, no I don't live in or near London)

I would happily give advice to a group of ten-year-olds and their parents, and it would go like this -

Cycling used to be a good way to get around, but the roads have now been completely taken over by motor vehicles, and there is no serious intent to create a safe alternative for cyclists.

A child cyclist, or a family of cyclists, is as likely to receive abuse from another cyclist as from a motorist.

But if you are determined to exercise your legal rights, against all instincts of common sense, then please learn to give highly-exaggerated hand signals (especially when moving to your right). If you are not familiar with hand signals, then please google an early version of the Highway Code. And please learn the importance of knowing what is happening behind you, as well as the importance of making eye contact with other road users (eye contact is the best way to communicate with other road users).

Pulling a trailer, and riding in groups, is a good way to ensure that motorists will notice you and make allowances for you, but, above all, please don't ride on the pavement - pedestrians have not yet been drawn into this debate, and many of them are even more vulnerable than cyclists.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

I would happily give advice to a group of ten-year-olds and their parents, and it would go like this -

Cycling used to be a good way to get around, but the roads have now been completely taken over by motor vehicles, and there is no serious intent to create a safe alternative for cyclists.

Thankfully, your advice will only have a limited audience, because it is ill considered factually incorrect nonsense. Cycling is twice as safe now as it was when you were teaching it to kids.

There is a serious intent to create a safe alternative for cyclists. As always, it's hampered by lack of resources.

A child cyclist, or a family of cyclists, is as likely to receive abuse from another cyclist as from a motorist.

What are you on about??!

please learn to give highly-exaggerated hand signals (especially when moving to your right). If you are not familiar with hand signals, then please google an early version of the Highway Code. And please learn the importance of knowing what is happening behind you, as well as the importance of making eye contact with other road users (eye contact is the best way to communicate with other road users).

This is reasonable advice, if a bit numb. Eye contact is not "the best way" to communicate. It is one of many methods.

I wouldn't encourage a 10 year old onto a busy road without the guardianship of a responsible cyclist. They're not ready for it. They don't understand enough about the road rules and relative traffic speeds.

That said, I've taken my children cycling on the road since they were 7. It's a great way to learn about road awareness and road safety. There are roads I use every day as a 20-25mph road cyclist that I wouldn't dream of using on an 8-10mph family pootle. You just have to wise up to what you can and can't do on a bike. But don't let that cause you to discourage your grandchildren from taking up one of the most life enhancing sports.

Strider590

modsandmockers wrote: »

please learn to give highly-exaggerated hand signals (especially when moving to your right). If you are not familiar with hand signals, then please google an early version of the Highway Code.

I prefer to keep my signals short and close to my body, I wear high vis gloves for this and I take the full lane before a turn or pinch point..

Why? is it because i'm a militant cyclist?
Or is it because I lose count of how many times (years ago when drivers were better) I had my arm driven into by drivers who were determined to overtake regardless of my signals?

When your body is unbalanced and you have only one hand in control and then some pr*ck drives into your extended arm, your chances of staying upright are very slim indeed.

Cyclists have far more experience of bad drivers than other drivers do, purely because they see more cars on their journey.
If that's hard to understand, then think about this...... How many cars do you see traveling in your direction with no lights on, compared to those coming the opposite way?