PDA

View Full Version : Cycle Races


phnuff
25th Sep 2005, 19:09
<rant on>
This morning, I was minding my own business driving through the lanes about 3.5 miles from EGGW, when suddenly, there appears a car with yellow flashing lights on. Next, appears a motorcyclist gesturing for me to slow down (not that I was going fast anyway). I rounded the next bend and suddenly there was a cycle race - about 40 guys on bikes, on both sides of the lane coming straight at me. Somehow, and I don't know how, they managed to all squeeze onto one side on the road and pass me, leaving me driving past stragglers and those who presumably had hangovers.

Now, I donít know if they pay for the privilege of racing on the highway but it strikes me that if I were to try to arrange a car, motorbike or horse race on the highway I would be up before the beak before I could say "Gentlemen, start your engines". Quite apart from the principal of the matter, rounding a corner to find 40 guys clad power ranger gear , half of which were on my side of the road could be a bit scary for some people.

Am I being a unreasonable or do these lycra clad menaces need banishing to a race track?

<rant off>

STOP PRESS
Apparently, about 15 minutes later Mdm Phnuff managed to find herself driving her horse box in front of them down narrow twisty lanes. I know she will not drive those lanes at > 20mph with her nags on the back so maybe the powerangers will think twice about racing around there again

:ok:

Onan the Clumsy
25th Sep 2005, 19:31
They're a menace that should simply be banned :*

You should have cut a swathe through them. If I was the beak, I'd have let you off.

handysnaks
25th Sep 2005, 20:28
So, this has happened to you once in your whole life (I'm assuming that of course). Yes, you're being unreasonable, forget about it and get on with your life. There may have been a future Tour de France winner in there:O

phnuff
25th Sep 2005, 20:32
Actually, its a well known area for cycle races and is very annoying. I ahve seen about 5 in the last year, but never before on both sides of the road

As for Tour de France winner - nah, they were British. Taking part is what counts, not winning :-)

GASH !
25th Sep 2005, 23:25
Oh yes, a typical reaction. Unfortunately the British public have never understood the sport of Cycling, prefering instead to watch young sweaty men in shorts kicking a ball around a field. :rolleyes:

Ozzy
25th Sep 2005, 23:30
Cyclists should pay road tax. They are all barstewards.

Ozzy

Blacksheep
26th Sep 2005, 06:39
In some parts of the world bicycle racing is a great spectator sport. Huge crowds line the roads to watch...

...whhhheeeeeeeeeeee!!!....

"Oh look! There they go! Did you see who's winning?"

Many people think life in Borneo must be boring and uneventful whereas I'm left wondering what its like to live in a place where a bicycle race is the most exciting thing to happen since last year. :hmm:

C130 Techie
26th Sep 2005, 07:08
I'm a motorist, cyclist and a runner (not all at once).

As I see it these races are run as they are on open roads and lanes to avoid paying for proper organisation.

Most road running races take place on closed off roads with organised stewards and police assistance and are far safer.

Yes cyclists should pay road tax, have insurance, wear helmets and USE LIGHTS!!!!!!!

High Wing Drifter
26th Sep 2005, 07:11
Phnuff,

Funny you mention the horse box in the same rant as cyclists. It has to be pointed out that motors do not have exclsive right to use the highway, as your horsey friends will no doubt agree. Long live a bit of variety and easy going goodwill :ok:

C130,

As I see it these races are run as they are on open roads and lanes to avoid paying for proper organisation.
I fink you'll find the authorities must be notified in advance and that they are organised by official clubs.
Yes cyclists should pay road tax, have insurance, wear helmets and USE LIGHTS!!!!!!!
Nonsense and piffle :)

shortandsmelly
26th Sep 2005, 07:39
Yes cyclists should pay road tax, have insurance, wear helmets and USE LIGHTS!!!!!!!

OK. I use my bike to get around Sydney. It's my main mode of transport.
1)I use lights - one bright white one at the front and a red flashy-one at the back. I also wear one of those big bright high-viz vests.
2) I ALWAYS wear a helmet. Not worth the risk not to in Sydney.
3) I belong to Bicycle NSW which includes cyclist's insurance.
4) OK the road tax one. I drive a car occasionally as well... it costs me about AU$200 every year. Rego fees in Aussie are based on weight. Let's say, for argument's sake, my car weighs 1000kg (it actually weighs considerably less). That's about $1 for 5kg. Let's say my bike weighs 25kg (again, it weighs considerably less). On the basis of the above, that's $5 a year.
I'd be happy to pay that per year for rego etc - PROVIDED decent facilities (dedicated bike paths for example) for cyclists are provided!!!!

Until then - I have as much right as you to use the road. So I'm going to assert that right. :*

amanoffewwords
26th Sep 2005, 07:51
Long live a bit of variety and easy going goodwill

On which planet? :(

Blacksheep
26th Sep 2005, 08:58
Bicycles have a higher pavement loading than cars.

That is, their laden weight divided by the area of the tyre footprint is greater than that of a typical family motor car. Ergo, they cause greater damage to the road surface than a car and should pay for the said damage through road tax, just the same as other road users.

Actually the same applies to ladies damaging the sidewalks while wearing stilletto heels, but by being so much easier on the eye, I do favour a 100% discount. ;)

TheFlyingSquirrel
26th Sep 2005, 09:01
You wanna see the roller bladers in London then - their ring leaders have stupid yellow jackets on and they get in front of you and stop the traffic while all their stupid feckin friends whizz by - holding me up - saw one fall on his arse once - fecking wet myself !

TFS

eal401
26th Sep 2005, 11:58
A few months ago I was driving in the opposite direction (thankfully) to a cycle race being conducted on a main route into Preston.

It was interesting to see the two different groups of cyclists!

1) Those who remained in single file and therefore acknowledged that there were other road users about and

2) Those who were two or three abreast and clearly did not give a flying stuff about anyone other than themselves.

In phnuff's example, the organisers should be charged with dangerous cycling or whatever! What would have happened if a large lorry had round the corner and smeared a load of them into road jam?

Onan the Clumsy
26th Sep 2005, 12:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes cyclists should pay road tax, have insurance, wear helmets and USE LIGHTS!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense and piffle

That's right. I think they should all wear black ninja suits and appear in huge packs on moonless nights.

:}

Groundbased
26th Sep 2005, 12:59
C130, I stand to be corrected, but I believe the problem is that the authorities are not prepared to close roads for cycle races, or time trials, even if the organisers were to pay. (which they patently couldn't because how could they get cash of all the people along a point to point route)

The only times I have seen it done are in Manchester where they used to have keirin races around a city centre circuit some sundays.

pilotwolf
26th Sep 2005, 13:36
I agree an absolute menace!

Had them regularly on the A24 when I lived in Surrey and get them here too.

Why is it illegal for motor vehicle to race on the highway but not these freeloaders???

Still guess it makes a change to see them on the road going the right way instead of on the pavement or against the traffic flow when the one way system doesn't suit the rider...

PW

C130 Techie
26th Sep 2005, 13:48
Why shouldn't cyclists be made to be responsible road users by being insured and complying with basic safety requirements.

They are easily as vulnerable on the road as motorcyclists and in my experience cyclists are often responsible for causing accidents as well as being victims.

This is not just a rant from someone who hates cyclists but from a cyclist who has ridden on the roads in this country for 40 years.

High Wing Drifter
26th Sep 2005, 16:56
Good grief :\
Why is it illegal for motor vehicle to race on the highway but not these freeloaders???
Is the difference between 25mph and 90kg and 90mph and 1300kg too subtle for you to comprehend?
Still guess it makes a change to see them on the road going the right way instead of on the pavement or against the traffic flow when the one way system doesn't suit the rider...
Well I agree, there is no excuse for that. But that is another issue.
Why shouldn't cyclists be made to be responsible road users by being insured and complying with basic safety requirements.
Why stop there, who are these uninsured predestrians who require Pelican and Zebra crossings causing congestion and aggrevation for hardworking motorists. I calculate they cost the country £43bn each year due to lost productivity and fancy pants civil engineering schemes.

FWIW, I think all serious cyclists do comply with basic safety requirements, its the cars on the wrong side of the on a bend travelling at break neck speeds in the oppostie direction that need a little educting. No doubt said motorist is utterly irate at having to lighten the load on the gas pedal for a couple of seconds to negotiate a family on their bikes trying to enjoy the country side in peace and quiet.

pilotwolf
26th Sep 2005, 18:33
Is the difference between 25mph and 90kg and 90mph and 1300kg too subtle for you to comprehend?

25mph???!!! Closer to 45 mph most of the time and racing is still racing... whatever its in. One law for one and one for another maybe? When did you last here of a cyclist gettinga ticket for ANYTHING?

Oh and I m not allowed to do it in my horse and trap either... and that would be around 25mph.

PW

GASH !
26th Sep 2005, 18:47
45 mph? ermmm don't think so mate.

As for the old ' cyclists should pay road tax' argument. Well I have some news for you lot. They do!!!! They just don't choose to use their cars as often. Perhaps you would all prefer it they did? Perhaps you would welcome the additional traffic. Do you all enjoy sitting in traffic jams?

Their is an ancient law in the UK that means closed road closures are not allowed for cycle races, that is why organisers have to make do with the rolling road closure.

Perfectly legal to ride 2 abrest, although most cyclists try and keep as close to the kerb as possible I think you'll find. I've always wondered why motorists quite happily give horse riders a wide berth, but wont move an inch to give a cyclist a bit of room. Then again, if you happen to smash into one whilst driving your car. It's their own fault anyway isn't it? They should have been wearing a helmet!

phnuff
26th Sep 2005, 18:49
I would like to point out that at 50% of this particular bunch of powerangers were on the wrong side of the road doing at least 30mph (because it was downhill) so far from being eco friendly sporting hero's, they were a menace and as such should not be tolerated.


Why the horse box comment.? well, it just so happened that a slow moving horse box (which pays something like £190pa for the right to use the road), on these particular roads would and did delay these guys on their race - but of course, if they wanted a traffic free race, let them rent somewhere.

Shortnsmelly. Good for you. You use your bike, wear a helmet and have insurance. That is a far cry from using the roads for organised races involving maybe 50 people. As it happens, I also have a bike and use it although not always wearing a helmet. Like you however, I do not freeload by re-enacting the Tour de France around the lanes of Hertfordshire on a sunday morning.


Oh yes, a typical reaction. Unfortunately the British public have never understood the sport of Cycling

Well thats not exactly the case is it. I have not critisised the sport of cycling at all: only the fact that it takes place on public roads which have not been closed for the occasion. The issue is that on the roads of today, cycle races are plain dangerous, not only to the competitors, but to other roads users.

Race please, but don't do it on open public roads

High Wing Drifter
27th Sep 2005, 07:25
When did you last here of a cyclist getting a ticket for ANYTHING?
Richmond Park on the down hill stretch to Robin Hood gate. We plummet at nearly 35 mph narrowly missing pedestrians, children and deer.

I would like to point out that at 50% of this particular bunch of powerangers were on the wrong side of the road doing at least 30mph (because it was downhill).
Your somewhat derogatory use of language suggests that you think that cycle racing is just plain silly, that is why you think it should be banned. I really can't grasp the safety argument unless you choose to ignore the lead pace car.

c_u_next_tuesday
27th Sep 2005, 10:48
Quote by phnuff:


"Shortnsmelly. Good for you. You use your bike, wear a helmet and have insurance. That is a far cry from using the roads for organised races involving maybe 50 people. As it happens, I also have a bike and use it although not always wearing a helmet. Like you however, I do not freeload by re-enacting the Tour de France around the lanes of Hertfordshire on a sunday morning".



Well how do you deduct that you're not a freeloader? You have just admitted that you also ride a bike. You're just like the rest of them. Why is it ok for you to ride your bike but if a 'cyclist' is riding their bike then they're a freeloader?

"re-enacting the Tour de France", as you so well-informedly put it, doesn't involve much freeloading at all. How do you think all those racing cyclists, that you so unfortunately encountered, got to the race HQ? Car. Not to mention filling the tank up with petrol to get to the race. Each cyclist needs to purchase a yearly racing licence and then pay an entry fee to race each race. Some may have travelled quite far to get there and may have paid for accomodation to stay overnight the previous night to the race. Maybe even a beer in a local pub the night before. Freeloading you say? I'd say they have contributed to the local economy to some degree. More so than someone who, let's say just for arguments sake, sat at home watching horse racing all afternoon (that's not an anti-horse rider comment, I just tried to think of the most boring TV program I could).

The error that anti-cycling motorists make is a simple assumption that cyclists don't drive cars. Therefore they don't pay road tax. I do not know of any cyclist who doesn't own at least one car. A motorist sees that cyclist at the given time and assumes that they solely ride a bike. Do horse riders solely ride a horse? I don't think so. OK, so a horse box owner needs to pay road tax for it but not all horse riders have one. Should horse riders pay road tax for riding their horse on the road too?

If people had to pay a tax for riding a bike how much do you think the tax should be? Road tax is based on car emissions and engine capacity these days. As a bike doesn't produce any emissions at all and has no engine maybe the government should apply a tax to the amount of CO2 a cyclist emits in their breath as they breathe heavier than a sedate person...maybe then they will think about how hard they ride, as they'll be aware that harder effort = more emissions = more tax, and all slow down a bit eh?

I raced a bike for several years (I also drive a car!). Yes I have ridden on the wrong side of the road, probably scared motorists by overtaking them down mountain roads, cut corners, etc, etc. Many motorists break laws too. It's the reason speed cameras were invented.

I agree that cycle racing shouldn't be conducted on open roads. So I suggest all anti-cyclist motorists petition the government ASAP telling them how much of a menace to society the sport of cycling is on open roads and ask that the gorvernment do something about it.....and change that 200 year old law which won't allow a complete closure of a UK road for cycling races and actually allow for the roads to be closed off completely! Oh no wait, they won't like that will they because then the motorists will have to suffer long delays and diversions when they drive the 200 yards to the shop for a packet of fags!

Some other ignorant poster stated that cycle racing is dangerous. Have you raced a bike? What do you know about it? Tell me. I'd like to hear your well informed educated response. Maybe cycle racing is dangerous. So is driving a car. The statistics prove it. When was the fact that a pursuit could be classed as dangerous been an arugment to have it banned? The argument that cycling irresponsibly could be dangerous to other road users is true. If a cyclist hit a pedestrian then the pedestrian is going to come off worse....most probably. If a racing cyclist is on the wrong side of the road in a race and hit by a car then I doubt that the motorist would suffer any injury at all. Unfortunately this happened to a lad in the same club I raced for and he was killed instantly when he veered over the white lines and a car hit him head on. OK he was over the white lines but the driver was asked to slow down and pull over a bit by a race marshall and didn't. Whether it was the cyclist's fault or not it's not something that would be easy to live with for the rest of that driver's life knowing maybe if he had just slowed a bit that might not have happened. Is it really such an inconvenience to slow down for, what must be, 30 seconds while the cyclists ride past?

A moving cycling 'peleton' is not a rigid structure. The cyclists veer and swerve to avoid knocking into each other and to avoid potholes in the road, dogs jumping out in to the road, sheep, etc, etc. Cyclists make sudden swerving movements that are sometimes necessary. It's why motorists are asked to give riders room when passing. As GASH mentioned, it's always been so apparant that motorists will give room to horse riders but not cyclists.

As for insurance for cyclists, any cyclist who is a member of a club or national cycling body would automatically be insured 3rd party. True, it's not compulsory and any cyclist who isn't a club or national cycling body member would have to take it upon themselves to buy insurance. Some risk not having insurance...but again, so do some motorists.

I've never personally felt threatened by a motorist passing too close to me or pulling out in front of me. I just carry on as if nothing happened. Some cyclists will swear, shout abuse and try to catch the driver up at the next set of red lights but I always feel if you act like a victim you will be treated like one. I've tried not to sound like a victim in this post. I feel I am sticking up for something I believe in. Sometimes when you're in a minority you have to. I realise at the end of the day that some motorists won't like me for no reason other than I'm seen on a bike in the same way that I don't like golfers just because they wear polo neck tops underneath a pastel shades harlequin tank top...such a fashion faux-pas! ;)

But that's life!

Biggles Flies Undone
27th Sep 2005, 11:01
Then again, if you happen to smash into one whilst driving your car. It's their own fault anyway isn't it?
Not true. Enshrined in English law is the fact that 'every cyclist is allowed his wobble'. Motorists must give them room for a wobble or it's 'due care' at the least.

I find that the majority (but not the totality) of racing cyclists act reasonably in pusuit of their pleasure. The :mad:s on 'mountain bikes' tend to be a far bigger problem around my way as they ride their extreme machines far more aggressively. One of the chaps from my local encountered three of them on a fairly narrow lane last year, riding three abreast. A gentle toot brought a digit in response and he had to follow them for nearly a mile before he could get past. When he finally overtook he got a barrage of shouted abuse and jeers - not the brightest thing to do to a bloke in and old Landie who can stop quicker than you can.... (but at least he gave them plenty of room when he overtook).

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Sep 2005, 11:32
I used to ride a push bike a lot a few years ago - do it much less now. Here are some (admittedly subjective) observations:

1) Most motorists are reasonably considerate to the cyclist, but there is a small but lethal minority who don't think you should be there and will cut you up or worse. Some can be very agressive and nasty indeed, but these are mecifully few.

2) As a cyclist, you can be quite invisible despite being 'a big lad' on a big bike and wearing hi-viz clothing (and lots of lights at night). It's a phycological thing rather than a physical one, I think. Cars will pull out of side roads forcing you to brake and /or swerve to avoid a collision, and they will overtake you and then immediately turn left, leaving you nowhere to go.

3) Road engineers do not take cyclists into account. Traffic light sensors don't know you are there (a common reason why cyclists sometimes ignore red lights), and so called 'cycle lanes' are a joke. It's a 'tick-in-the-box' excercise for the road engineer, rather than a thought-through facility for the cyclist. Typically they only exist in locations where thay are not really needed, then they end at the point that they would be useful.

4) Many more female drivers than male drivers will give you no room as they pass. A line of cars may be overtaking you, and most will leave at least a bit of space. the occasional one will brush the hairs on your legs as it passes. Invariably, it is driven by a woman. This isn't, I think, agression - they just don't seem to be aware that you are there.

5) Cylists need to be able to manouvre, hence need roadspace. the road surface is often poor near the edges, with raised manhole covers and other stuff that a car could drive over but the cyclist with fragile wheels and high pressure tyres must avoid. Please give cyclists room!

6) Almost all cyclists are motorists. The converse is not true (I'm talking serious cycling - commuting for instance - not a hour or two in the lanes on a Sunday afternoon), which can lead to a somewhat one-sided view of cyclists by motorists.

7) Dangerous cyclists might get themselves killed and might injure pedestrians and scratch car paintwork. Dangerous motorists in charge of a couple of tones of hurtling metal will kill others while often surving themselves.

SSD

eal401
27th Sep 2005, 11:51
Perfectly legal to ride 2 abrest, although most cyclists try and keep as close to the kerb as possible I think you'll find.
Nope, never found that.

From the Highway Code:

51: You should

keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
not ride more than two abreast
ride in single file on narrow or busy roads
not ride close behind another vehicle
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example by ringing your bell.


The section on bold was being happily ignored on the cycle race i witnessed. Unfortunately, as you can see, it only says "should."

Traffic light sensors don't know you are there (a common reason why cyclists sometimes ignore red lights),
55: You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 154).
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD reg 10, reg 36(1)

Presumably, if there is no speed camera, it's OK for me to speed? No, didn't think so, so stop at the red light. Any problems, find a legal way around it.

Cars will pull out of side roads forcing you to brake and /or swerve to avoid a collision, and they will overtake you and then immediately turn left, leaving you nowhere to go.

It's OK, cyclists do all that too, in slow moving traffic usually, but still a situation that could lead to their hospitalisation and you being "no-win, no fee'd"

They do!!!! They just don't choose to use their cars as often.
Despite comments otherwise, there are plenty who do not have cars. They are easy to spot.

c_u_next_tuesday
27th Sep 2005, 12:14
Brilliant! Well done eal401. Another motorist falls into the trap of 'look what the highway code states'!

The highway code is purely a guide and not law unless it states in brackets the section of the road traffic act which the particular section of the highway code relates to as it does with your example of section 55 of the highway code.

Riding 2 abreast is perfectly legal. There is no law in the road traffic act that requires cyclists to actually 'single out'.

I don't know you eal401 but let's assume you're an intelligent person. Now, in one of your examples the highway code reads:

"be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example by ringing your bell".

Does that sound like a law to you? Ring your bell! Ring! Ring!

In the 13 years that I've been cycling I've never met a cyclist with a bell on their bike. Oh no, my friend's three year old daughter has one on her pink Barbie bike.

That part of the highway code must have been written by a 'not-got-a-clue-about-cycling-motorist'!

As another reader posted, most cyclists drive cars but the same can't be said for most motorists riding bikes. I feel people who don't really know much about a subject shouldn't really try to make uninformed comments in a 'debate/argument' about it to save themselves looking like complete fools.

Windy Militant
27th Sep 2005, 12:57
Arrrrrrrrrgh :mad: Fecking horse boxes! I hate them feckers so fecking much as soon as I finish fitting the SNEB pod to the roof rack I'll give them fecking horse boxes, ow! ooh! where did that dart come fro........... :\ zzzzzzzzzz:zzz:

Quickly nurse! Hurry up with that straight jacket before the sedative wears off!:uhoh:

teeteringhead
27th Sep 2005, 13:45
You're lucky the cyclists were on the road. Never seem to be off the bleedin' pavement (siedwalk) round here ... and on the rare occasions they are on the road, they ignore red lights, one way streets etc etc etc..... :(

High Wing Drifter
27th Sep 2005, 14:48
In the 13 years that I've been cycling I've never met a cyclist with a bell on their bike. Oh no, my friend's three year old daughter has one on her pink Barbie bike.
Believe it or not, all new bikes must be sold with a bell. Imagine the sight of £3500 quids worth of carbon crafted Bianchi with a flippin' bell on the beautifully detailed titantium handle bar :hmm:
You're lucky the cyclists were on the road. Never seem to be off the bleedin' pavement (siedwalk) round here ... and on the rare occasions they are on the road, they ignore red lights, one way streets etc etc etc.....
We could create a Top Trumps game of all the mistermeaners of the various road/pavement users that inhabit this great land. Basically, at the end of the day, when the cows come home and the sun goes down, who is going to decide that three pavement riding mountain bikers are worth one amber gamber?

Onan the Clumsy
27th Sep 2005, 17:06
I'll take you the amber gambler and raise you a "it was red and I should be dead" cyclist.

plus I'll even throw in the one that gets to the STOP sign after the motorist and then magnanimously waves the motorist on as if he's doing him a favour instead of simply obeying the rules :*



btw, most of the motoring examples you could give I already hate anyway.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Sep 2005, 18:31
A bell is not a lot of use on a bike on the road, but IMHO is essential if you ride green lanes and bridleways, as I do. If you are approaching a group of walkers from behind, they just won't hear you. Suddenly arriving unnanounced at their heels will cause fright and offence.

You could shout, but that's a bit uncouth. A gentle trill on the bell while still some distance from them is a polite warning that you are there, and would they please make room for you to pass (pass slowly, of course, with a cheery "good morning/afeternoon", not blast past). I find folk appreciate it.

SSD

Onan the Clumsy
27th Sep 2005, 22:24
Jeeves would issue a polite throat clearing...

...were he to be riding a bike in the first place of course.

eal401
28th Sep 2005, 06:51
Riding 2 abreast is perfectly legal. There is no law in the road traffic act that requires cyclists to actually 'single out'.
No, there isn't and if you could read, you'd see that I never claimed otherwise. But such an action would display consideration and respect to other road users, hence the sniggering reaction from the cyclist fraternity! "Respect for other road users? Do what? Hahahaha!!"
As another reader posted, most cyclists drive cars but the same can't be said for most motorists riding bikes. I feel people who don't really know much about a subject shouldn't really try to make uninformed comments in a 'debate/argument' about it to save themselves looking like complete fools.
I think that comment says more about cyclists than it does car drivers. Jesus, you are well up your own backsides aren't you.

I just base my opinions on the numerous two-wheeled, self-powered individuals who I see ignoring cycle lanes, riding on pavements (often to avoid red lights), just plain running red lights etc on a daily basis!!

I also base my opinions on cyclists on other forums who have stated that it is OK to criminally damage cars, just because there isn't enough room to get past! One proudly said how he had smashed someone's wing mirror off, just because he couldn't get past! (This was a newsgroup at work.)

Trust me, if car drivers displayed the same attitude towards the rules (and the common sense guidance) of the road, the death rates would sky-rocket.

I go out of my way to give cyclists room when I am driving. Given their obvious attitude to me as displayed, why should I really bother? Do a car driver a favour, you get thanked. Do a cyclist a favour, you get nothing. getting the thanks is not a reason for doing whatever, but courtesy costs nothing. For a number of cyclists, even nothing is too expensive.

Cycling. The one activity where your own safety is someone else's responsibility. And I'm fed up of being one of those who has to take it.

High Wing Drifter
28th Sep 2005, 07:22
eal01,
Mate, you are just foaming aren't you! We see transgressions on a DAILY BASIS from all highway and byway users. I'm rather gobsmacked that you think that somehow cyclists are different from anybody else.

Cycling. The one activity where your own safety is someone else's responsibility. And I'm fed up of being one of those who has to take it.
An astonishing comment. Clearly, common sense alone tells you that if you are bigger and faster then you have more responsibility and it applies at all levels including the cyclist and you. Not dissimilar to the Rules of Air.

Widger
28th Sep 2005, 07:37
Oh god, you have got me going on a rant now.

There is a very busy trunk route in Shropshire, that the B*stards regularly race down. Now, I cycle as well, but I have seen so many vehicles almost crash because they were trying to overtake these people. The route in question is full of lorries and watching one of those trying to get past a cyclist doing 30mph is truly frightening.

By all means race, but be sensible in the roads you pick

Blacksheep
28th Sep 2005, 08:11
Your somewhat derogatory use of language suggests that you think that cycle racing is just plain sillyThe cycling may not be silly, but how sensible does one look in a Lycra "budgy smuggler" and pointy crash hat?

Then there's the sight of my old headmaster "Blossom" Cain riding bolt upright on his cast iron Raleigh wearing a suit with the 29" trouser bottoms tucked into his socks...

Cycling may be healthy, fun and environmentally friendly but sensible it certainly isn't. :p

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th Sep 2005, 08:42
Cycling may be healthy, fun and environmentally friendly but sensible it certainly isn't.

Where's the 'scratching head in puzzlement' smilie?

If cycling is 'healthy, fun and environmentally friendly' then by definition it is sensible.

Perhaps you mean that it's not 'cool'? I can live with that. ;)

SSD

eal401
28th Sep 2005, 11:48
I'm rather gobsmacked that you think that somehow cyclists are different from anybody else.
Reading the local paper on a daily basis I read about car drivers caught and charged for speeding, driving without insurance, jumping red lights etc. and rightly being punished for it. Hardly any ever refer to cyclists breaking the law. So, yes, cyclists are most definitely different as they are significantly more likely to get away with illegal activity.
An astonishing comment. Clearly, common sense alone tells you that if you are bigger and faster then you have more responsibility and it applies at all levels including the cyclist and you. Not dissimilar to the Rules of Air.
Believe it or not, I don't disagree with this!! But like I say, I see cyclists on a daily basis who prefer to ignore perfectly acceptable segregated cycle lanes (used happily by many other cyclists!) plus on less regular basis, cyclists who put their life far more at risk than car drivers with some antics. I don't want to be the car driving killer just because some chump feels red lights, give ways, lights in winter etc. are "not cool."

shortandsmelly
28th Sep 2005, 12:09
segregated cycle lanes
Such things don't exist.

Here we call 'em 'suicide lanes'.

You only need one idiot to open their car door without looking. :ouch:

Onan the Clumsy
28th Sep 2005, 12:16
An astonishing comment. Clearly, common sense alone tells you that if you are bigger and faster then you have more responsibility and it applies at all levels including the cyclist and you. Not dissimilar to the Rules of Air. an excellent point, but unfortunately one that hinders rather than helps your position.

Were we to apply this situation to the air, then we would be discussing say an untralight flying a pattern in the reverse direction, landing without clearence, taking the active out of turn etc etc

Would you therefore expect the 737 correctly navigating the airspace to even see, let alone avoid the ultralight and when the accident finally happened, where do you think the readers of these pages, or even the general public would lay the blame?

High Wing Drifter
28th Sep 2005, 12:31
I don't want to be the car driving killer just because some chump feels red lights, give ways, lights in winter etc. are "not cool."
I agree with you. People should be more considerate. I just think it is unfair to focus on cyclists and suggest cycle chastising solutions for generic human infalabilities. Anyway, the problem cyclists I see or usually teenagers who have little regard for the minutiae of the law and scant regard for anybody else - quite possibiliy not dissimilar to how I was. I really haven't seen many wreckless adult cyclists around and about. The London couriers can be a bit flash, but then so can taxi drivers and motorcycle couriers.

Were we to apply this situation to the air, then we would be discussing say an untralight flying a pattern in the reverse direction, landing without clearence, taking the active out of turn etc etc
My statement was within the context of cyclists who more or less stick to the rules in the same way that motorists, motorcylists and pedestrians more or less stick to the rules. Nobody can defend a pillock.

c_u_next_tuesday
28th Sep 2005, 14:50
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riding 2 abreast is perfectly legal. There is no law in the road traffic act that requires cyclists to actually 'single out'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, there isn't and if you could read, you'd see that I never claimed otherwise. But such an action would display consideration and respect to other road users, hence the sniggering reaction from the cyclist fraternity! "Respect for other road users? Do what? Hahahaha!!"


'No, there isn't'? You have no idea! You have assumed that the highway code is the road traffic act, as a lot of people mistakenly do. Maybe I misunderstood why you were quoting the highway code in that case. As I saw it you were putting forward the idea that cyclists have a legal duty to ride in single file by quoting the highway code. You certainly weren't putting forward the argument that cyclists don't try to ride near the kerb, as the part of the highway code that you quoted didn't mention anything about cyclists having to ride close to the kerb. Your ignorance makes me cringe! I almost feel embarrassed for you with your uninformed views about cycling.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As another reader posted, most cyclists drive cars but the same can't be said for most motorists riding bikes. I feel people who don't really know much about a subject shouldn't really try to make uninformed comments in a 'debate/argument' about it to save themselves looking like complete fools.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think that comment says more about cyclists than it does car drivers. Jesus, you are well up your own backsides aren't you.

I just base my opinions on the numerous two-wheeled, self-powered individuals who I see ignoring cycle lanes, riding on pavements (often to avoid red lights), just plain running red lights etc on a daily basis!!


You seem to have missed the point. The point I was making is that most cyclists are motorists. I am a motorist. I also ride a bike. Your comment seems to differentiate between the two groups as if we're different people. I, therefore, can make an informed comment on motoring and cycling. You, however, are solely a motorist and have no practical knowledge of cycling. In that respect your views about cycling are uninformed and ignorant. Naturally, if you have no experience of something what do you really know about it?

As for cycle lanes, they're there for cyclists to use who may not have the confidence to ride a bike in traffic. They're not compulsory for cyclists to use. Most of them are completely unpractical and badly thought out. As much as anything they have been introduced to let motorists know that cyclists exist on the road. To try to get into minds of the motorist's who are blind to the fact that other road users exist. The attitude of some drivers tends to be that they own the road and any other road use shouldn't be there bit a cyclist, motorcyclist, horse rider or pedestrian, etc.


I also base my opinions on cyclists on other forums who have stated that it is OK to criminally damage cars, just because there isn't enough room to get past! One proudly said how he had smashed someone's wing mirror off, just because he couldn't get past! (This was a newsgroup at work.)

Trust me, if car drivers displayed the same attitude towards the rules (and the common sense guidance) of the road, the death rates would sky-rocket.

Well that's fair enough that you find this unacceptable. So do I. I feel that you are bracketing every cyclist into this sort of cyclist. A group of youths batter somebody in an unprovoked attack. Does that make all youths thugs? I don't think I have said in any of my posts that all drivers are law breakers or have no regard for cyclists. You seem to have posted in all your posts that all cyclists have blatant disregard for other road users and road laws.

When we go out as a group of cyclists of course we take up pretty much half the lane of the road that we ride on. We try to single out as much as possible to allow drivers to pass. There is a lot of communication between riders in a group. The riders at the back will shout to the front riders that a car is behind and to single out. Likewise, if riding on a narrow road the riders at the front will warn the riders behind of an approaching car. We always try to wave drivers through who might not be able to see past us to see if the road is clear to pass. The vast majority of cyclists I know do this. Sometimes riding single file makes no difference, for example if the road is narrow and a car can't come past even if we single out. Then we stay 2 abreast purely as there is no point in singling out. Sometimes we single out and the driver just stays behind us anyway. I feel sorry eal401 that you think all cyclists are inconsiderate road users. Most aren't.

I go out of my way to give cyclists room when I am driving. Given their obvious attitude to me as displayed, why should I really bother? Do a car driver a favour, you get thanked. Do a cyclist a favour, you get nothing. getting the thanks is not a reason for doing whatever, but courtesy costs nothing. For a number of cyclists, even nothing is too expensive.

I'm glad you give cyclists room. It will be appreciated by every cyclist you pass. Cyclists don't think that all drivers pass too closely, cut them up, try to run them off the road, etc, etc. Most drivers are fine when it comes to cyclists. I'd say it's improved over the years that I've been cycling. There are some drivers who aren't considerate to cyclists or other road users. As for thanking drivers, again, I think most cyclists do so if a driver lets them out or cross the lane to turn right, etc.

In life some people don't give a sh*t about anybody else anyway regardless of whether they drive a car, ride a bike, go for a drink in a bar and start a fight, walk down a busy high street not looking where they're going as they're too busy thinking about themselves, etc, etc.

Blacksheep
29th Sep 2005, 05:07
Perhaps you mean that it's not 'cool'? I can live with that.Yep, that's what I meant Shaggy.

I used to cycle everywhere until '70 when RAF Changi's SWO confiscated my station bicycle pool bike because it was always parked outside that well known Changi Village hostelry 'The Airfield Bar'. Once, I even made it all the way to Lulu's (at Tampines Junction) and back! Being drunk in charge of a bicycle is a bit safer than in charge of a car and thus arguably more sensible. To the rest of the world that is, if not to the rider.

Never wore spandex budgy smugglers or a pointy crash hat though, or tucked my trousers into my socks. Yet I survived... :}



P.S. I just had this mad image of a randy young fellow striding through the swing doors into the crowd at Lulu's Bar wearing a spandex 'budgy smuggler' suit and a pointy crash hat. The mind boggles :uhoh: