Suicidal Cyclist

Strider590

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'm not disputing any of this at all.

I was just pointing out that for most motorists, if they want to drive their car on a road maintained at the public's expensive they have to pay to do so. I'd originally made this point just to clarify something, but wasn't asserting anything more

But cyclists pay just as much.... If not more.

I mean a bike can cost £100 to £20'000. Most cyclists have at least one car and therefore do pay VED and insurance and all the costs of a motorist.

Roads are maintained by local councils using money from council tax, which everyone with a house has to pay.

Basically if you get out of a car and walk down the road, that's ok, but if you get on a bike then suddenly you have no right to be there?

Altarf

Nasqueron wrote: »

As others have said, if it's not gritted, it's not safe to ride on

Prior to Christmas, 6-10c at 7am, why would you grit it, as the road certainly wasn't.

Nasqueron wrote: »

In addition, like it or not, it's not compulsory (HC 63)

It may not be compulsory, but it might be sensible.

Nasqueron wrote: »

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

So you want to place your life in the hands of someone you hope can see your inadequate lights. Good risk assessment.

Nasqueron wrote: »

The one accident I have had...I was wearing bright / reflective gear

So you would think that cyclists dressed in black with inadequate lights might perceive themselves to be at a greater risk on the road, and take steps to mitigate that risk, such as use a provided cycle path.

custardy wrote: »

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

It is merely one example. The town is covered by miles and miles of cycle path and if you wished to cycle from one end of the town to the other without leaving a cycle path, it would be perfectly possible.

Avoriaz wrote: »

No pedestrians? Really?

At 7am there are lots of cars and bikes heading to a station but no pedestrians?

I find that hard to accept.

It is true. The majority of people drive (there is no bus service), and those that walk take a more direct shared footpath / cycle route, that these cyclists strangely avoid.

andrewf75 wrote: »

probably because it doesn't integrate with the road system at either end. This is where the authorities usually get it wrong.

But not in this case. The cycle path takes you directly to the station where they are headed, and instead of dropping them into a dangerous double mini-roundabout, keeps them away from it.

It would seem from the responses to this thread that the best thing the government can do since cycle paths are considered to be the work of the devil, is to save their money and stop installing any more, and take out all the ones that have been installed.

Cyclists can then live, or more likely die, on the roads.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Nasqueron wrote:

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

So you want to place your life in the hands of someone you hope can see your inadequate lights. Good risk assessment.

This is what you're getting wrong. No-one here is suggesting that dull, harder to see clothing is a good option.

What we are saying is that, because it is legally permissible, drivers should drive in the expectation that they might have to deal with a less visible cyclist.
This means being cautious when entering the situations that you have described yourself where cyclists (or other slower moving vehicles) may be harder to see.
In taking that added level of caution, you will provide an extra level of safety for those vulnerable road users that do use good visible clothing etc.

Nasqueron

Altarf wrote: »

So you want to place your life in the hands of someone you hope can see your inadequate lights. Good risk assessment.



So you would think that cyclists dressed in black with inadequate lights might perceive themselves to be at a greater risk on the road, and take steps to mitigate that risk, such as use a provided cycle path.

Like it or not, if you hit me because you are not following the highway code and not driving with due care and attention and I am road legal, you will be getting a PI claim against your insurance for thousands of pounds, you will get a prosecution/points on your license, you will get increased premium and anything more than that, potentially death by dangerous driving prison term and on your conscience for ever.

We have one, short, life, I intend to take the opportunity to use each day as much as I can, I take precautions such as reflective gear and lights that make me seen but I accept I am at the risk of idiot motorists who blame cyclists who are following the law for their own mistakes - if drivers bothered to wait until passing was safe instead of rushing around like 10 seconds was the difference between a billion dollar pay rise and getting sacked and drove with due care and attention and observed the road around them, the car accident rate (against cars, cyclists and pedestrians) would be almost non-existent.

I drive a car and I hate cyclists who don't have lights or wear dark clothing on a dark bike at night but, I drive with care knowing they are out there, just as I take care watching for pedestrians who are all in black and just as I take care when cycling watching cars to avoid danger (so many on phones or just not looking while fiddling with radio, stuff on seat etc etc) - that is why I consider myself to be a careful and safe driver.

Strider590

Altarf wrote: »

It is true. The majority of people drive (there is no bus service), and those that walk take a more direct shared footpath / cycle route, that these cyclists strangely avoid.

Last time I rode down a shared path, an old boy stood in the middle of it, shouting waving his walking stick around, tried to ram it into my wheel as I rode past.

Oh and have you ever experienced dog sh** on your bicycle tyres? In case you haven't, let me just point out that it has this great way of spraying itself all over the bike and rider, another good reason to avoid shared paths.

andrewf75

Altarf wrote: »

But not in this case. The cycle path takes you directly to the station where they are headed, and instead of dropping them into a dangerous double mini-roundabout, keeps them away from it.

That does seem like an unusually well thought out cycle path for the UK. We certainly don't have those where I live, only the usual half-arsed paths which are next to useless - although personally I still try to use them out of principle.

But part of the problem is that because our road planning has always been very pro-motorist and anti-cyclist, cyclists have responded to their marginalisation by being aggressive and confrontational. Go to somewhere like Holland and look how people cycle. People adapt to the conditions provided for them. Treat cyclists well and they will cycle well. Treat them with utter contempt (as they are in the UK) and they will behave accordingly.

It would seem from the responses to this thread that the best thing the government can do since cycle paths are considered to be the work of the devil, is to save their money and stop installing any more, and take out all the ones that have been installed.

The answer is surely to follow the lead of countries like Holland, who have integrated cycle paths properly into their entire urban road network. Its a no-brainer really as it improves health, reduced congestion and makes cities a more pleasant place to be.

And we shouldn't expect an overnight shift in attitudes, it will take a generation or two for the changes to take effect.

almillar

I don't think adouglasmhor and Norman Castle read all of my post, or they chose to ignore the part where I acknowledged there's no such thing as road tax, and that the taxes motorists pay, isn't DIRECTLY EXPLICITLY funding roads.
So I just said it again, for their benefit.
If I don't tax my car, it's not allowed to be on the road. If I want to drive anywhere on that road, the fuel is taxed too. Just 2 examples of drivers CONTRIBUTING to the costs of roads - again, I acknowledge, not directly.

Motorists do not pay to use the roads. They pay taxes as demanded by the government.

Those 2 statements are no mutually exclusive.

brat -

It's only ever mentioned in response to the ignorant "Cyclists don't pay Road Tax" comment

I'm bored of that one too. I've already said that everyone has an equal right to be on the road.

Norman Castle:

If they make their own beer they don't pay any tax on it.

I think they'll be paying VAT on the kit and some of the ingredients...

All the tax everyone is talking about, there's a product at the end of it. You know, the packet of cigarettes, the pint of beer, the flatscreen TV. When I pay to tax my car, what is the product I get at the end? The right to be on the road. A car driver has to pay for that right (or acquire it for free if exempt) whereas a cyclist doesn't. That's absolutely fine by me. But to say that drivers aren't paying for the roads, just because it's all not ringfenced, is just plain wrong.

Nick_C

almillar wrote: »

... just 2 examples of drivers CONTRIBUTING to the costs of roads

Not just contributing to the cost of the roads; taxes on motoring raise more than double the amount spent on road building and maintenance. Motorists are paying for the roads, and making a huge additional contribution to government income.

adouglasmhor

almillar wrote: »

If I don't tax my car, it's not allowed to be on the road. If I want to drive anywhere on that road, the fuel is taxed too. Just 2 examples of drivers CONTRIBUTING to the costs of roads

If I buy a cake I am contributing to the costs of roads. If I drive a low emision car I pay no tax on that so amn't. You are paying towards the upkeep of the roads not to use them, there is a difference, so your big long post was a bit of a waste of time but showed you still don't get it. Sorry the bad man makes you pay taxes like everyone else.

Throbbe

Altarf wrote: »

It would seem from the responses to this thread that the best thing the government can do since cycle paths are considered to be the work of the devil, is to save their money and stop installing any more, and take out all the ones that have been installed.

Cyclists can then live, or more likely die, on the roads.

On a personal level I would be very happy with that approach.

With one notable exception where I can commute around 13 miles on a well surfaced bridleway free of motorised traffic I tend to stick to the road as the safer and more convenient option. The overwhelming majority of drivers pass me considerately and the small handful that don't may well be thinking I should be off the road. Removing cyclepaths would (I hope) overcome this mindset.

However, not all cyclists are as confident in traffic, or want to travel at the paceI do. For people like my grandmother, who can no longer drive, such facilities mean that she can still maintain her independance and cycle to the shops with confidence.

When my daughter starts cycling to school I'd want her to use cyclepaths until she feels competent on the road, which may not be for years.

The other alternative of course is to bite the bullet and build cycle facilities that meet all those needs, on which I can safely do 20mph while passing my grandmother and daughter and being passed by proper sport cyclists. At current investment levels that is unlikely to happen soon.