If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

No - I was given the name by one of my stalkers, and copied it precisely.

You don't have any stalkers. You have carers who are concerned about your sanity.

Tobster86

wealdroam wrote: »

Is this a suitable opportunity to introduce the concept of whether a cyclist is actually a pedestrian when riding their bike across the road on a pedestrian crossing?

That's an easy one; no they're not and they should dismount.

But common sense on the motorist's point of view should dictate giving way anyway, they'd be out of the way sooner by riding their bike instead of pushing it, and 'having right of way' isn't worth killing someone for.

Likewise, cyclists on the road should give way to pedestrians on the crossing.

I always dismount and walk, and give way in the car.

esuhl

Tobster86 wrote: »

Likewise, cyclists on the road should give way to pedestrians on the crossing.

One of the pleasures of cycling is the look of surprise and cheerful grin that little old ladies give you when you stop to let them cross and tell them not to rush.

It's nice to be able to able to talk to people, rather than being locked inside a metal box, where aggressively revving the engine seems to be the main form of communication.

armyknife

esuhl wrote: »

One of the pleasures of cycling is the look of surprise and cheerful grin that little old ladies give you when you stop to let them cross and tell them not to rush.

It's nice to be able to able to talk to people, rather than being locked inside a metal box, where aggressively revving the engine seems to be the main form of communication.

This post deserves a 'thanks' for each of the two good observations.

modsandmockers

It used to be the case that, because the bicycle is officially classed as a vehicle, you weren’t supposed even to walk your bike across a pedestrian crossing.

And, in any case, why would a cyclist ever need to use a pedestrian crossing unless he/she was already riding on the pavement on one side of the road, and intended to continue riding on the pavement on the opposite of the road? The idea that a cyclist should dismount for the brief duration of his/her presence of the highway is, ummm - well, I can’t think of a suitable word…

Tobster - you started a thread with a 12-second video in which you acted as judge and jury on a motorist’s behaviour which you accepted was not particularly dangerous. You included the vehicle’s registration. You later told us that you were happy to ride your bike on the pavement when your unsafe load posed some kind of threat to, presumably, your own comfort and safety on the highway. You now tell us that you always dismount when moving from the pavement onto the highway, with the implication that you then get back on your bike when you reach the safety of another pavement.

It’s no wonder that little old ladies get confused and make funny faces - I do the same myself.

armyknife

Trolling/attention-seeking reaching desperation levels.



Back in the real world, I had a nice cross-country ride to do some shopping; despite the occasional drizzle it was hat off weather. :-)

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

It used to be the case that, because the bicycle is officially classed as a vehicle, you weren’t supposed even to walk your bike across a pedestrian crossing.

It used to the be the case that, because motor vehicles can be lethal, a man with a red flag would have to walk in front of a car to warn oncoming pedestrians.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

It used to be the case that, because the bicycle is officially classed as a vehicle, you weren’t supposed even to walk your bike across a pedestrian crossing.

You write stuff like this, and to the unthinking layperson, it sounds like it has a degree of plausibility about it.
But as far as my knowledge extends, there has never been any legal restriction on pushing a bike across a pedestrian crossing, certainly not because it is a vehicle - which it is, as are prams.

So, please open your mock-law book and tell us where you found this little gem.

Indeed, the only law applicable to cycling across a pedestrian crossing is that it may be construed to be dangerous, careless or inconsiderate. There is no specific law which says that a cyclist must not ride across a pedestrian crossing.

TRL/TfL research

And, in any case, why would a cyclist ever need to use a pedestrian crossing unless he/she was already riding on the pavement on one side of the road, and intended to continue riding on the pavement on the opposite of the road? The idea that a cyclist should dismount for the brief duration of his/her presence of the highway is, ummm - well, I can’t think of a suitable word…

Are you aware of shared crossings? We have lots of them.

Tobster86

Sort of beaten to it, but to entertain modsandtosser's question; when there's a cycle path on either side of the pedestrian crossing.

As the only relevant pedestrian crossing in Worcester may demonstrate (although this does a lot more to demonstrate how ambiguous and pointless the token cycling facilities in Worcester are):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.194319,-2.22751,3a,75y,181.6h,68.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1skLhJazfcs0iqBzl7F_rkzw!2e0?hl=en

modsandmockers

QUOTE - You write stuff like this, and to the unthinking layperson, it sounds like it has a degree of plausibility about it.

Most pedestrians are indeed unthinking laypersons, and as far as cyclists’ behaviour goes, there is no requirement that they should be any different. They do not understand why cyclists are able to exploit the glorious ambiguities of bike regulations in order to make up their own set of rules which nobody dares to challenge. It’s too easy for cyclists to play the vulnerable road user card when it suits them, and then take to a busy dual carriageway for a 20-25mph sprint whilst deliberately obstructing the free passage of the motor vehicles behind them.

QUOTE - Are you aware of shared crossings? We have lots of them.

Yes - but we are talking about pedestrian crossings.

QUOTE - Sort of beaten to it, but to entertain modsandtosser's question; when there's a cycle path on either side of the pedestrian crossing.

Clever! I hadn’t thought of that one.

QUOTE - Back in the real world, I had a nice cross-country ride to do some shopping; despite the occasional drizzle it was hat off weather. :-)

That’s the sort of bike ride that makes sense. Enough time and space to keep out of the way of those pesky motorists, and probably little sign of any pedestrians (or anything else to argue about, such as yet another expensive and useless attempt at persuading cyclists to stay on their own ‘infrastructure’ whenever it exists).