Kamikaze Cyclists!

itch_for_a_glitch

wheelz wrote: »

'Tilt' have you ever given the following some thought.

In the UK we don't prioritise cycling and have not like in some other countries like the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany reversed the domination of the car in the public realm.

There simply is no safe place to go for cyclists so where they should be given priority or should get through easily on the road it can't be done. They get frustrated and find ways. Don't blame the cyclist if the infrastructure and investment etc. is not there (yet).

In 2011, an all-party Parliamentary cycling group commissioned the Get Britain Cycling report (pdf) which set out the bold aim to increase the proportion of cycle journeys in Britain from two per cent in 2011 to 10 per cent by 2025, and 25 per cent in 2050. They estimated that this would require a cycling budget of £10-£20 per person per year, or 4-8 per cent of the current transport budget. England presently spends less than £2 per head on cycling and Scotland roughly £4.

There is a long way to go before the UK is even close to being a cycling-friendly nation.

Please don't blame the cyclist they have to brave enough as it is. But they should use their lights.

Show some compassion Tilt.

Seriously? You think we should spend £10(or more!) per head of population, on cyclists?
How much is that per cyclist ?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Oh dear... and we were doing so well. I havn't posted this on the motoring forum so who am I trying "to bait and antagonise"? I doubt if any responsible cyclist (or any other road user for that matter) would be "antagonised" by a thread about reckless cyclists... why on earth would they be? Unless they condone reckless cycling... :eek:

Tilt, I look forward to next years instalment of "Hi, my name's Tilt and I'm a good driver. Here's a little anecdote In your cycling forum showing just how stupid I think most cyclists are."

The great thing about it is that we know you only trouble yourself to do this because you have cyclists' best interests at heart. #notworthy

:cool:

brat

itch_for_a_glitch wrote: »

Seriously? You think we should spend £10(or more!) per head of population, on cyclists?
How much is that per cyclist ?

If £10 spent saved £50 in health and transport benefits, would it not be money well spent?

modsandmockers

wheelz wrote: »

'Tilt' have you ever given the following some thought.

In the UK we don't prioritise cycling and have not like in some other countries like the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany reversed the domination of the car in the public realm.

There simply is no safe place to go for cyclists so where they should be given priority or should get through easily on the road it can't be done. They get frustrated and find ways. Don't blame the cyclist if the infrastructure and investment etc. is not there (yet).

In 2011, an all-party Parliamentary cycling group commissioned the Get Britain Cycling report (pdf) which set out the bold aim to increase the proportion of cycle journeys in Britain from two per cent in 2011 to 10 per cent by 2025, and 25 per cent in 2050. They estimated that this would require a cycling budget of £10-£20 per person per year, or 4-8 per cent of the current transport budget. England presently spends less than £2 per head on cycling and Scotland roughly £4.

There is a long way to go before the UK is even close to being a cycling-friendly nation.

Please don't blame the cyclist they have to brave enough as it is. But they should use their lights.

Show some compassion Tilt.

I think that is the most realistic post on the thread...

In the UK, we pay lip-service to the politically-correct idea of cycling, but very little is provided by the taxpayer in order to make cycling a seriously attractive option.

Wherever motorists and cyclists are required to share the same road space, there will be conflict - the needs, requirements, expectations and capabilities of the motorist are completely at odds with the needs, requirements, expectations and capabilities of the cyclist.

Where I live, cyclists without lights tend to ride on the pavement, and it is increasingly common to see cyclists (of all ages) riding on the pavement during the daytime. It is possibly only a matter of time until the conflict moves from the roads onto the pavements.

For a few decades during the 20th century, cycling was the transport of the masses, but those days have long gone. Today's cyclists are, imho, exploiting a historic loophole in the laws and traditions of the 'Public Highway' - if today's bicycles, and their riders, were to be subjected to the same legal requirements as motorists, then they would probably disappear overnight.

These days, I am an occasional cyclist, and mainly a pedestrian and a bus user - I sometimes feel extremely threatened by cyclists riding on the pavement.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

I think that is the most realistic post on the thread...

In the UK, we pay lip-service to the politically-correct idea of cycling, but very little is provided by the taxpayer in order to make cycling a seriously attractive option.

That's true, there are moves to increase the per capita taxpayer provision to £10, but it's likely that cities will benefit most from any such extra investment.

Wherever motorists and cyclists are required to share the same road space, there will be conflict - the needs, requirements, expectations and capabilities of the motorist are completely at odds with the needs, requirements, expectations and capabilities of the cyclist.

I don't agree with the premise that there has to be conflict. This is a mindset that could and should change. Plenty of motorists give cyclists consideration and space, and understand their needs. The others need to find the ability within themselves to be patient around cyclists, and not to put themselves under too much pressure to get past.

Where I live, cyclists without lights tend to ride on the pavement, and it is increasingly common to see cyclists (of all ages) riding on the pavement during the daytime. It is possibly only a matter of time until the conflict moves from the roads onto the pavements.

Often cyclists use pavements in towns and no problems arise from it. If cyclists bully their way past pedestrians, then yes, that is an issue. Such problems tend to arise more when there is a shared use path where cyclists are legally allowed to ride but are confronted with groups of walkers with dogs on the same path. that's one of the reasons I often stick to the road rather than take the cycle path on one of our main roads.
Our town centre has a shared use (pedestrian priority) zone which works really well between the peds and cyclists.

Today's cyclists are, imho, exploiting a historic loophole in the laws and traditions of the 'Public Highway' - if today's bicycles, and their riders, were to be subjected to the same legal requirements as motorists, then they would probably disappear overnight.

Cyclists are subject to very similar laws covering negligent use of the road, eg careless/dangerous cycling/driving, cycling/driving while impaired etc. The punishments reflect the risk inherent in such behaviours.

If you're talking about registration, and insurance etc, then these are not 'loopholes'. A loophole is an anomaly brought about by a flaw in the legal wording or occasionally a judicial misinterpretation. The lack of a legal requirement for bikes to be registered and insured is NOT a loophole. It is a conscious decision by the lawmakers.

These days, I am an occasional cyclist, and mainly a pedestrian and a bus user - I sometimes feel extremely threatened by cyclists riding on the pavement.

I've never felt threatened by a cyclist on a pavement. But I accept that the cycling pedestrian mix can evolve very differently in different areas around the country. If cyclists are making pedestrians feel threatened then the police should get involved.

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

That's true, there are moves to increase the per capita taxpayer provision to £10, but it's likely that cities will benefit most from any such extra investment.


I don't agree with the premise that there has to be conflict. This is a mindset that could and should change. Plenty of motorists give cyclists consideration and space, and understand their needs. The others need to find the ability within themselves to be patient around cyclists, and not to put themselves under too much pressure to get past.


Often cyclists use pavements in towns and no problems arise from it. If cyclists bully their way past pedestrians, then yes, that is an issue. Such problems tend to arise more when there is a shared use path where cyclists are legally allowed to ride but are confronted with groups of walkers with dogs on the same path. that's one of the reasons I often stick to the road rather than take the cycle path on one of our main roads.
Our town centre has a shared use (pedestrian priority) zone which works really well between the peds and cyclists.


Cyclists are subject to very similar laws covering negligent use of the road, eg careless/dangerous cycling/driving, cycling/driving while impaired etc. The punishments reflect the risk inherent in such behaviours.

If you're talking about registration, and insurance etc, then these are not 'loopholes'. A loophole is an anomaly brought about by a flaw in the legal wording or occasionally a judicial misinterpretation. The lack of a legal requirement for bikes to be registered and insured is NOT a loophole. It is a conscious decision by the lawmakers.


I've never felt threatened by a cyclist on a pavement. But I accept that the cycling pedestrian mix can evolve very differently in different areas around the country. If cyclists are making pedestrians feel threatened then the police should get involved.

I agree that there shouldn't have to be conflict, but I believe that there always will be conflict, and not only between cyclists and motorists. There is frequently conflict between motorists and motorists, and many cyclists are extremely critical of other cyclists' behaviour.

I think that cycling on the pavement should as unacceptable as queue-jumping on the motorway hard shoulder, and I also think that if there is a cycle track (shared or otherwise) running parallel to the road, then it should be compulsory for cyclists to use it, and illegal for them to stay on the road. I think 20mph zones should be paved over and designated as a shared zone for all - pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles alike. I also think that major interchanges should be designated as being extremely cyclist-unfriendly, and the same should apply to dual carriageways which use motorway-style slip roads.

Nevertheless, cyclists regularly do things which most motorists would never dream of doing, and if a motorist were to bump up onto the pavement, or zigzag across several lanes of traffic, or go the wrong way up a one-way street, then it is quite possible that a cyclist would have recorded the manoeuvre on a head-cam so that he or she could publicly expose the offence even though most of those manoeuvres are much more commonly undertaken by cyclists. Most motorists will wait for several minutes at a red light at 3am even though it is perfectly obvious that there is no other traffic approaching the junction. But pedestrians and cyclists will simply ignore the light, and continue on their way. Many pedestrians and cyclists also ignore red lights during the daytime, safe in the knowledge that they will be unidentifiable by the cameras.

I think the loophole exists because the lawmakers buried their heads in the sand - they allowed the situation to develop, and are now powerless to make the necessary changes - there is neither the money nor the will to provide a useful network of cycleways. They are equally powerless to change the legally and politically correct idea that cyclists should be able to continue to regard themselves as rightful and equal users of the public highway. Horse-riders use the highway rarely and reluctantly because they accept the fact that the public highway is a completely inappropriate environment.

I reported my concerns to the Town Council, and received a reply from the County Cycling Officer, who is very likely to be a cycling evangelist. I was quoted a Government document from around 2002/3 which stated the official policy that there are occasions when cyclists should be allowed to ride on the pavement (unfortunately, I failed to keep the details of the document). I replied with my idea that 20mph zones should be re-branded as some kind of shared space for all types of road user, but received no response.

Somebody mentioned that sometimes cyclists have no choice about riding without lights because bicycle lights are so easily stolen. Many moons ago, whilst motorcycling home from work at around 3am, I was stopped for having no tail-light. I always checked my lights before setting off, and therefore had no idea that the bulb had failed at some point during the previous 3 or 4 miles. The copper told me to park the bike and walk the last mile or two to get home, but needless to say, I hung around for 20 minutes or so, before getting back on the bike and continuing as before.

Cycle manufacturers should be required to provide, as standard equipment, an effective lighting system which is not easily stolen or vandalised.

There is a growing clamour that the motorist should automatically be held responsible for any collision between a cyclist and a motor vehicle (and, correct me if I am wrong, but I think I remember reading that in France that rule is already in force). There is also a growing demand for lorries to be equipped with a whole new battery of cameras and sensors so that cyclists will be able to creep up the nearside of a truck with impunity.

But, imo, as a retired truck driver with 15 years experience, the mirrors which are standard on modern HGVs are perfectly able to eliminate all blindspots except the one which is immediately behind the vehicle. But truck drivers are not trained in the correct positioning of their mirrors. When I was training for my artic licence, the instructor refused to allow me to move the nearside blindspot mirror because he needed it himself in order to see what was in the immediate nearside.

HGV blindspots are caused by damaged mirrors and driver ignorance - I have tried many times to engage both cycling campaigners and truck drivers in some kind of discussion or experiment, and I look forward to the time when a highly paid legal person will take the trouble to investigate and challenge the unavoidability of HGV blindspots.

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

I was quoted a Government document from around 2002/3 which stated the official policy that there are occasions when cyclists should be allowed to ride on the pavement (unfortunately, I failed to keep the details of the document).

Details including Home Office guidance. http://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement

Norman_Castle

These days, I am an occasional cyclist, and mainly a pedestrian and a bus user - I sometimes feel extremely threatened by cyclists riding on the pavement.

The threat you feel from inconsiderate pavement cycling is much less than the threat motor vehicles pose to cyclists. Cyclists are as vulnerable as pedestrians but are expected to share the same space as motor vehicles. Ask yourself why cyclists use the pavements.

For a few decades during the 20th century, cycling was the transport of the masses, but those days have long gone. Today's cyclists are, imho, exploiting a historic loophole in the laws and traditions of the 'Public Highway'

For tens of thousands of years walking and riding horses was the only way to travel. Its only in the last 5? decades motoring has become available to the masses. What should be a luxury and convenience has been indulged by everyone and is now considered a right and necessity.

I find it odd that many people who get access to a car suddenly forget how to be a pedestrian or cyclist and are allowed to dominate the highways.

modsandmockers

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Details including Home Office guidance. http://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement

Thanks for the link. The paragraph which most caught my eye was this one -

That guidance from Mr Boateng, issued in 1999 said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

Why would a responsible cyclist feel 'obliged' to ride on the pavement? IMO, a responsible cyclist who is in fear of traffic should not be there in the first place - what is the distinction between 'traffic' and 'responsible cyclists'? And why are children allowed to get anywhere near sharing road space with buses, trucks, vans and motor cars? - Of course they get scared, and police discretion should, arguably, consist of taking the child home and advising the parents against allowing their children to place themselves in such a position ever again.

The resurgence in commuter-cycling began around the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I can remember that the biggest discussion was about how many days in the year cycling to work would be made impossible by the weather conditions. The health benefits and the green issues were secondary to saving time and money.

It is not uncommon on threads like this for cyclists to come on and tell about how they have been knocked off their bike more than half a dozen times in the last 2-3 years through no fault of their own. I found a similar mindset when I started looking into qualifying for the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Most of them had been hit by other motorists, sometimes several times, but I had never been involved in a moving traffic accident in my life. After 3 or 4 two-hour-long sessions with an IAM observer, I decided that I was already a safer driver than the IAM observer.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

The threat you feel from inconsiderate pavement cycling is much less than the threat motor vehicles pose to cyclists. Cyclists are as vulnerable as pedestrians but are expected to share the same space as motor vehicles. Ask yourself why cyclists use the pavements.

For tens of thousands of years walking and riding horses was the only way to travel. Its only in the last 5? decades motoring has become available to the masses. What should be a luxury and convenience has been indulged by everyone and is now considered a right and necessity.

I find it odd that many people who get access to a car suddenly forget how to be a pedestrian or cyclist and are allowed to dominate the highways.

I well understand why cyclists use the pavements, but I don't understand why they are allowed to use the pavements.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

I agree that there shouldn't have to be conflict, but I believe that there always will be conflict, and not only between cyclists and motorists. There is frequently conflict between motorists and motorists, and many cyclists are extremely critical of other cyclists' behaviour.

Like I said, I don't accept the premise. It's a non sequitur.

modsandmockers wrote: »

I think that cycling on the pavement should as unacceptable as queue-jumping on the motorway hard shoulder, and I also think that if there is a cycle track (shared or otherwise) running parallel to the road, then it should be compulsory for cyclists to use it, and illegal for them to stay on the road. I think 20mph zones should be paved over and designated as a shared zone for all - pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles alike. I also think that major interchanges should be designated as being extremely cyclist-unfriendly, and the same should apply to dual carriageways which use motorway-style slip roads.

Ultimately, we can do what's legal, and we shouldn't do what's illegal. Your opinion has no bearing on this.

Nevertheless, cyclists regularly do things which most motorists would never dream of doing, and if a motorist were to bump up onto the pavement, or zigzag across several lanes of traffic, or go the wrong way up a one-way street, then it is quite possible that a cyclist would have recorded the manoeuvre on a head-cam so that he or she could publicly expose the offence even though most of those manoeuvres are much more commonly undertaken by cyclists. Most motorists will wait for several minutes at a red light at 3am even though it is perfectly obvious that there is no other traffic approaching the junction. But pedestrians and cyclists will simply ignore the light, and continue on their way. Many pedestrians and cyclists also ignore red lights during the daytime, safe in the knowledge that they will be unidentifiable by the cameras.

What bothers you about the illegal behaviour of cyclists. The danger? The fact they get away with it? The unfairness?
I recently read that motorists commit on average between 20,000 and 100,000 moving traffic offences before they are caught for one. Given that they are also 10,000 times the threat risk of cyclists, any thought that cyclists are gaining any unfair advantage is not only wrong, but petty.

I think the loophole exists because the lawmakers buried their heads in the sand - they allowed the situation to develop, and are now powerless to make the necessary changes - there is neither the money nor the will to provide a useful network of cycleways. They are equally powerless to change the legally and politically correct idea that cyclists should be able to continue to regard themselves as rightful and equal users of the public highway. Horse-riders use the highway rarely and reluctantly because they accept the fact that the public highway is a completely inappropriate environment.

THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE! :wall:

Your view that a cyclist's equal right to use the public highway is a politically correct loophole is, thank goodness, a view that most in responsible office would see as, erm... unrepresentative;)

I reported my concerns to the Town Council, and received a reply from the County Cycling Officer, who is very likely to be a cycling evangelist.

Or, more likely, just an ordinary guy.

I was quoted a Government document from around 2002/3 which stated the official policy that there are occasions when cyclists should be allowed to ride on the pavement (unfortunately, I failed to keep the details of the document). I replied with my idea that 20mph zones should be re-branded as some kind of shared space for all types of road user, but received no response.

hhmmmm.... :think:

Somebody mentioned that sometimes cyclists have no choice about riding without lights because bicycle lights are so easily stolen. Many moons ago, whilst motorcycling home from work at around 3am, I was stopped for having no tail-light. I always checked my lights before setting off, and therefore had no idea that the bulb had failed at some point during the previous 3 or 4 miles. The copper told me to park the bike and walk the last mile or two to get home, but needless to say, I hung around for 20 minutes or so, before getting back on the bike and continuing as before.

So now you're as bad as those you're berating! Tsk.

Cycle manufacturers should be required to provide, as standard equipment, an effective lighting system which is not easily stolen or vandalised.

No thanks.