Suicidal Cyclist

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Absolutely.

Just like the cyclists that I pass on my way to the station every morning at 7am, who choose not to cycle on the cycle path marked on the wide pavement immediately to their left (on a long road, no junctions or drives, well maintained, and at 7am, no pedestrians).

Instead they would sooner ride in the road, dressed in black, mostly with inadequate lights.

But they have an absolute right to be there. Just like the cyclist who was taken to A&E in an ambulance when they were hit by a car at the roundabout at the end of the road had the right to cycle on the road.

There is just the small question of, just because you can do something, should you do it if there is a safer alternative.

They don't have a right to be there if their lights are inadequate.

But the conversation needs to be had as to why they are not using the cyclepath. I'm sure they don't want to die young.

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

Okay. Why do you choose to drive to the station with such good cycling facilities available?

A variety of reasons.

I might , but my passenger wouldn't.

Cycle storage is inadequate at the station, with plenty of bikes stolen over the years.

I am usually going direct to clients premises at the other end, and I don't think they would appreciate the cyclist 'look'.

brat wrote: »

They don't have a right to be there if their lights are inadequate.

Inadequate, but probably legal. One dozy cyclist has the lights on the wrong side, so they are obscured by the bike itself. Others wear headlights, great apart from when they are not looking towards the traffic coming towards them.

brat wrote: »

But the conversation needs to be had as to why they are not using the cyclepath. I'm sure they don't want to die young.

If they can't work out that the piece of tarmac 2 feet to their left is a lot safer place to be...

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

A variety of reasons.

I might , but my passenger wouldn't.

Cycle storage is inadequate at the station, with plenty of bikes stolen over the years.

I am usually going direct to clients premises at the other end, and I don't think they would appreciate the cyclist 'look'.

Ah,so valid reasons I wouldnt know just by seeing you driving by?
There is no such thing as a cycling 'look' Though it seems many demand that cyclists must wear some sort of drive approved uniform.

Altarf wrote: »

Inadequate, but probably legal. One dozy cyclist has the lights on the wrong side, so they are obscured by the bike itself. Others wear headlights, great apart from when they are not looking towards the traffic coming towards them.



If they can't work out that the piece of tarmac 2 feet to their left is a lot safer place to be...

Let me tell you a little tale.
I have a great shared path running to the rear of my house. joins an old railway route. Very handy.
However the council don't grit it during the winter. foot/bike traffic drops in winter and as such it becomes ice covered for days at a time.
Now if you passed me on the road,would you wonder why that dozy cyclist wasn't on that lovely safe path?

Norman_Castle

Nick_C wrote: »

Just on the issue of cyclists not contributing to the cost of roads.

Drivers pay around £48 billion a year in Fuel Duty, Vehicle Excise Duty, and associated taxes. The Government spends around £19 Billion a year on building and maintaining roads.

Although taxes on motorists are not ring fenced, it is clearly the motorist that is paying for the roads.

Motorists are taxed because the government chooses to tax them. They do not fund the roads. A large portion of fuel duty will be from commercial use which is paid indirectly by customers.
Taxes are gathered where possible to be spent where needed.

Wealthy people fund the country more than poor people. Should they be entitled to privileged use of the highways or NHS hospitals or public schools?

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Inadequate, but probably legal. One dozy cyclist has the lights on the wrong side, so they are obscured by the bike itself. Others wear headlights, great apart from when they are not looking towards the traffic coming towards them.

Yep, it sounds like they need to learn. I cannot understand, when lights are so cheap and so effective and so long lasting, that anyone compromises on lighting.

If they can't work out that the piece of tarmac 2 feet to their left is a lot safer place to be...

But you're talking about people who are likely to be as well educated as yourself. The average city cycle commuter will be above average intellect, and a car driver, so they will have good reason. I'm sure you can see the reason too if you choose to think about it. It may be as simple as saving time or effort, it may be that the path is on the other side of the road. It may be that the path is potholed, or simply insufficient width for bikes passing each other.
Some of these reasons may not stack up terribly well against the extra risk of dying on the road, but they may not choose to think that way on the day.

My wife chooses to take the 'A' road rather than the motorway if she's going on a course, despite the 'A' road being 6 times more dangerous than the motorway, because she doesn't feel comfortable on the motorway. She obviously thinks that, because the risk of collision are so low in either situation, she can allow other considerations (such as being more relaxed) to have higher value when making a judgement.

The cyclist may think exactly the same way. I know I do. One road I use regularly has a good smooth wideish cycle path along it. However, it's on the opposite side of the road on my outward journey, it deviates into a village adding about half a mile to the trip, it has several private drives and farm entrances across it and three road junction, it has walkers, dogs, leisure cyclists, horses and horse sh*t, quad bikes, etc etc.
I usually choose to use the main road, and stay inside the white road edge line for the most part. Arguably the main road will be slightly less safe than the cycle path, but it's otherwise inconvenient. I have good lights, so I will be seen, and the width of the road is adequate for a motorist to pass safely with offside wheels on the centre line. I get hornblasts from time to time, and shouted at, but I have broad shoulders. The only real problems I have are from those who come intentionally way too close to me because they want to teach me a lesson. I returned the compliment to one or two via a driver improvement course.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

I'm sure you can see the reason too if you choose to think about it. It may be as simple as saving time or effort, it may be that the path is on the other side of the road. It may be that the path is potholed, or simply insufficient width for bikes passing each other.

The cycle path is on the same side of the road as they are. It is immediately to their left.

It is a wide pavement with a properly marked wide cycle path, not one of those pieces of nonsense you see on various websites.

All the bikes are headed to the station, so there is no conflict with cyclists heading the other way.

There are no pedestrians, dog walkers, etc to cause a nuisance.

There are no potholes, rubbish, thorns, etc. It is billiard table smooth.

There are no junctions, drives, entry ways, etc along its length.

It is not 10' long, but 1/4 mile or so, and you can stay on this cycle path all the way to the station, avoiding a double mini-roundabout where numerous accidents have occurred.

Now what is really funny is that this is not the best cycle path to get to the station. There is an even better one (and I know, I have used it), that takes you completely away from the road down dedicated, purpose built cycle path, that is a shorter journey with fewer hills, but virtually nobody uses it.

So what is the reason why cyclists don't use them. I don't think there is a *reason*, just a lack of thought.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

So what is the reason why cyclists don't use them. I don't think there is a *reason*, just a lack of thought.

I've given you my reasons, reasons you (by virtue of you not commenting on them) seem to accept as reasonable.
So if it intrigues you enough, open up a conversation with one of the cyclists on the train, to see what their reasons are.

Nasqueron

Altarf wrote: »

Absolutely.

Just like the cyclists that I pass on my way to the station every morning at 7am, who choose not to cycle on the cycle path marked on the wide pavement immediately to their left (on a long road, no junctions or drives, well maintained, and at 7am, no pedestrians).

As others have said, if it's not gritted, it's not safe to ride on - if there are cycle lanes available I use them though in normal hours they are usually shared spaces near me and pedestrians walk in them. In addition, like it or not, it's not compulsory (HC 63) and there is a massive shortage of them on commuter routes near me.

Altarf wrote: »

Instead they would sooner ride in the road, dressed in black, mostly with inadequate lights.

Depends what you judge as inadequate - the HC states that cyclists must have lights at night, if they have lights, they're not breaking the law, your observation as a driver should cover all potential hazards and you should drive cautiously as pedestrians may also be wearing all black and can just step out in front of you or be running in the road before work

Altarf wrote: »

But they have an absolute right to be there. Just like the cyclist who was taken to A&E in an ambulance when they were hit by a car at the roundabout at the end of the road had the right to cycle on the road.

There is just the small question of, just because you can do something, should you do it if there is a safer alternative.

The one accident I have had (car turned right across the road of incoming traffic drove into the side of me as I was going along) and the near miss I had (car joining a dual carriageway nearly drove into me as I was cycling down it) were both in broad daylight and I was wearing bright / reflective gear, it's just a fact of life that many drivers don't pay attention to the world around them (shown by the sheer number of deaths and injuries caused by drivers) as they're on the phone, adjusting the radio, tired, hungover, thinking about work etc etc so cyclists have to assume they are all like that to protect ourselves

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

The cycle path is on the same side of the road as they are. It is immediately to their left.

It is a wide pavement with a properly marked wide cycle path, not one of those pieces of nonsense you see on various websites.

All the bikes are headed to the station, so there is no conflict with cyclists heading the other way.

There are no pedestrians, dog walkers, etc to cause a nuisance.

There are no potholes, rubbish, thorns, etc. It is billiard table smooth.

There are no junctions, drives, entry ways, etc along its length.

It is not 10' long, but 1/4 mile or so, and you can stay on this cycle path all the way to the station, avoiding a double mini-roundabout where numerous accidents have occurred.

Now what is really funny is that this is not the best cycle path to get to the station. There is an even better one (and I know, I have used it), that takes you completely away from the road down dedicated, purpose built cycle path, that is a shorter journey with fewer hills, but virtually nobody uses it.

So what is the reason why cyclists don't use them. I don't think there is a *reason*, just a lack of thought.

A whole 1/4 of a mile. Impressive infrastructure indeed.

almillar

Really bored of people saying motorists don't pay for the road, there's no such thing as Road Tax, cyclists may VAT too etc.

revenue generated from taxes goes into a big pot (i.e the budget) then it's broken down to what it's spent on

Yes, motorists pay a lot of money, just to be allowed to be on the road. They pay into that central pot, and money is spent from that central pot on roads.
Doesn't give them any more rights than any other road users, but they DO pay handsomely EXCLUSIVELY for that privilege - that's not the same as paying VAT on your bicycle or tin of beans.
Should cyclists be charged to use the road? No.
But please don't tell motorists they aren't paying to use the road, They're paying handsomely!