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

Generali

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe because they are riding on a public road where normal rules apply?

Rally drivers tend to spend most of their race off road BUT occasionally have to drive on public roads and as such, adhere to the speed limits etc.

The road is closed for Paris-Roubaix. Cyclists in the race have to follow race rules not road rules.

Marco_Panettone

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe because they are riding on a public road where normal rules apply?

Rally drivers tend to spend most of their race off road BUT occasionally have to drive on public roads and as such, adhere to the speed limits etc.

Not seen the Monaco Grand Prix? That's held on public roads. The roads are closed, so 'normal' rules DO NOT APPLY.


Paris-Roubaix is on CLOSED roads. Speed limits do not apply, there is no 'right' side of the road. This holds true for both the riders, and also team cars, neutral service vehicles, tv camera-bikes, EVERYONE.


The race was ahead of schedule at the level crossing due to a tailwind. When the barriers came down the race was neutralised - riders who made it through before they came down gained no advantage over those held up. There was nothing to gain from risking dodging the barriers, and the whole situation could be avoided with double-barriers.

Tilt

Generali wrote: »

The road is closed for Paris-Roubaix. Cyclists in the race have to follow race rules not road rules.

So not rules concerning level crossings then? Plus they can ignore instruction given by a police officer as well? Oh well, you learn something every day! :eek:

Tilt

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Not seen the Monaco Grand Prix? That's held on public roads. The roads are closed, so 'normal' rules DO NOT APPLY.

True (and yes I have seen it) but I can't remember seeing any "live" railway crossings at Monaco.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Paris-Roubaix is on CLOSED roads. Speed limits do not apply, there is no 'right' side of the road. This holds true for both the riders, and also team cars, neutral service vehicles, tv camera-bikes, EVERYONE.

The road may of been "closed" but the railway line was certainly not. So, ok to ignore the rules on level crossings as well then?

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

The race was ahead of schedule at the level crossing due to a tailwind. When the barriers came down the race was neutralised - riders who made it through before they came down gained no advantage over those held up. There was nothing to gain from risking dodging the barriers, and the whole situation could be avoided with double-barriers.

Did anyone think to alert the train driver of this? But in any event, I would of thought that anyone with an ounce of sense (and it appeared there was some cyclists which did have) who saw the lights come on and the barriers start to come down would of realised that they must stop? Plus the police motor cyclist can be seen giving an indication to stop... but as the road was "closed", can they ignore that as well?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

I don't just focus on cyclists... or other motorists for that matter. Just the irresponsible ones. But cyclists tend to get away with more violations than motorists do.

Do they?

For example who do you reckon is more likely to get stopped by the police for not having any lights on at night... cyclist or motorist?

No lights at night is a good reason to stop cars and bikes. I stop more cars because I see more cars set off without lights than I see bikes without lights. It's a good reason to stop to see if they've had a drink.
But I dish out more tickets to cyclists without lights than motorists. Cyclists who ride without lights at night generally have an attitude when stopped which doesn't endear them to me, whereas the motorist is usually apologetic.
Plus, we've had some fun trying to stop cyclists who don't want to stop. It puts the night in.

Marco_Panettone

Tilt wrote: »

True (and yes I have seen it) but I can't remember seeing any "live" railway crossings at Monaco.



The road may of been "closed" but the railway line was certainly not. So, ok to ignore the rules on level crossings as well then?



Did anyone think to alert the train driver of this? But in any event, I would of thought that anyone with an ounce of sense (and it appeared there was some cyclists which did have) who saw the lights come on and the barriers start to come down would of realised that they must stop? Plus the police motor cyclist can be seen giving an indication to stop... but as the road was "closed", can they ignore that as well?

How would the train driver knowing where the race was have changed anything?


Nobody on here has said that the barrier-dodging riders acted correctly in the circumstances. All people have said is that this is NOT a 'typical' event (even for professional cycle racing), and certainly not indicative of anything outside of this particular race. Other people have jumped on the fact that it's a bike race and used the similar type of sporting equipment being used to attack the behaviour of people riding to work.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

So not rules concerning level crossings then? Plus they can ignore instruction given by a police officer as well? Oh well, you learn something every day! :eek:

No-one here has condoned the behaviour. But you do need to look at the situation in the round, not with your black and white blinkers on.

This is a closed road race. It means that these cyclist had an entirely different mindset. They relies on the authorities to do their jobs and to clear the passage for them.

When an unforeseen obstruction occurs, their behaviour is likely to be highly charged and a bit irrational, and they certainly would be thinking that the end justifies the means, especially if the difference between first and 18th is only 30 seconds.

For me, the big questions should be asked of the organisers, because a cyclist could have been killed in that incident.

esuhl

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Nobody on here has said that the barrier-dodging riders acted correctly in the circumstances. All people have said is that this is NOT a 'typical' event (even for professional cycle racing), and certainly not indicative of anything outside of this particular race. Other people have jumped on the fact that it's a bike race and used the similar type of sporting equipment being used to attack the behaviour of people riding to work.

Exactly. It's like posting a news article about a stabbing, and implying that anyone carving a turkey is inherently irresponsible!

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

As has already been said, the cycling forum was created because when it was lumped in with the transport sub forum it wasn't possible for cyclists to discuss cycling matters without some nutjob anti-cyclist derailing the thread by posting nonsense

But it’s not a cycling forum, is it… it’s a public transport forum (with cycling included). If Tilt wants to comment on cyclists’ behaviour, then where else should he do so? If cyclists want to regard themselves as a serious alternative to cars or public transport then they need to be willing to engage in sensible discussions. Nutjob cyclists are no less capable of posting nonsense than nutjob anti-cyclists (as this board clearly shows). Does your wife, or your Chief Constable, read your rants?

Professional racing cyclists as shown in the video are not the same as inner-city commuter cyclists, just as F1 racing drivers are not the same as inner-city delivery drivers.

Cycling is one thing, motoring is another, and commuting is just a competitive rat race.

Norman_Castle

But it’s not a cycling forum, is it… it’s a public transport forum (with cycling included)

Its a money saving forum with a public transport and cycling board. Cycling was removed from the motoring board and added to the public transport board at the suggestion of one forum user who combined cycling with public transport to commute. There were comments at the time from cyclists who never linked cycling with public transport or commuting but mse decided not to create a separate board as it believed there wasn't enough interest.