PDA

View Full Version : Why Cyclists should be registered and insured


Pages : [1] 2

david1300
12th Jan 2015, 01:53
Another example of why cyclists should be registered (maybe even licensed) and insured:

It was the week before Christmas and Emily Greenwood had just finished a celebratory dinner with friends.

As the pedestrian light turned green on the corner of Addison and Enmore roads in Marrickville, Ms Greenwood took one step out onto the road.

Just as her foot hit the bitumen, a cyclist ran a red light and collided with her, leaving Ms Greenwood unconscious, fracturing her collarbone and knocking out several front teeth.

The 24-year-old nurse woke up hours later in hospital with stitches in her lip and swelling all over her body, along with the pain of an estimated $15,000 medical bill, mostly in dental fees.

A police spokeswoman said the offender, a 34-year-old student, was expected to be charged with negligent driving. Should he be found guilty he could face a fine of $67 as well as court costs.

While she is seeking legal advice, Ms Greenwood does not hold out much hope of compensation.

"I am struggling with mounting medical bills as it is," she said.

Like the vast majority of NSW cyclists, according to data from Bicycle NSW, the offender did not have third party or public liability insurance.

There nothing that protects us in this situation. I can't possibly understand why they aren't insured or registered," said Ms Greenwood.

Ms Greenwood's story is not unique.

In 2002, pedestrian Maria Galliano was run down by a cyclist as she walked on a shared path on the Iron Cove bridge.

Mrs Galliano suffered severe head and brain injuries as a result of the accident. The lack of compulsory third party insurance for cyclists meant that her family did not have a clear avenue of compensation. Ms Galliano required full time care for the rest of her life.

Ultimately, the only option for the family was to sue Leichardt Council and the RTA, who built the path. The matter was eventually settled out of court.

Pedestrian Emily Greenwood run down by cyclist (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pedestrian-emily-greenwood-run-down-by-cyclist-20150111-12iii9.html)

fleigle
12th Jan 2015, 02:11
I'm all for a snowplough-like blade on the front of a heavy-ish ute and just sweep the arrogant bastards off the road.
But there again I'm in a mellow mood tonight.
:mad::mad::mad:
f

Skeleton
12th Jan 2015, 02:50
Was the cyclist per chance turning left on a red? Here in Canberra they seem oblivious to the rule you have to give way to pedestrians in those circumstances. Had one idiot tell me that I had seen him coming and it was my job to keep out of his way. Luckily I had seen him and was trying to get out of his way. I had another ranting at me at a junction when in my car, when i enquired as to whether he actually drove a car he informed no he had never passed his test but it didn't stop him ranting at me about the rules of the road!!

onetrack
12th Jan 2015, 03:04
Good idea. And enforce the road rules on them as well. I'm sick of seeing cyclists ignore red lights, pedestrian crossing lights, and blatantly ignoring dozens of other road rules and regulations as well.
The missus and I got a green pedestrian crossing light just a couple of days ago, and as we stepped off the kerb, a cyclist flew past us (through the red light) and missed me by a couple of inches.
It makes you angry when they start ranting about "careless car drivers" and how they are the ones that are always responsible for cyclist injuries.

fitliker
12th Jan 2015, 03:52
The laws regarding cyclists were written back when the bicycles were slow and did not travel much faster than the average person could run. Mostly used by poor people to get to work.
Some cycles are faster through traffic than cars and if you are ever unlucky enough to encounter those who are training for the next tour de France on the parks jogging and walking routes barreling down at sixty miles an hour towards the children's play area's.
Some of those fast


You can buy some very fast bicycles that are expensive and maybe anything that is capable of over twenty miles an hour should carry liability insurance. If they can afford an expensive bike they should be able to afford insurance.
As the damage that they can do can be life altering.
Just like the 50cc 250 cc and unlimited class of motorcycles ,bicycles could be classified depending on how fast the average punter can ride one.
Or maybe they should employ a man with a flag to walk a head of the cycle if they do not want to purchase insurance :)

Anthill
12th Jan 2015, 03:52
Last year a 2-wheeled terrorist collided with my elderly Mother's car. It was afternoon peak hour in inner Sydney. My Mum was making a right hand turn with a green arrow. The cyclist was coming the opposite direction between 2 stationary lanes of cars. 4 witnesses ( 2 in stationary cars at the lights and 2 Ppedestrians) testified that the cyclist had run the red light. An off duty female cop in a car on my Mother's left( not facing the traffic lights) tried to say that my Mother had not given way when required. Mum had to go to court, but it was thrown out. Cyclist was quite badly injured and spent some time in hospital. He was covered, of course, by 3rd party personal injury insurance on Mum's car.

There is a shared walkway near where I live and these morons often have no regard for with the posted speed limit for bikes ( 10 kms/h) or the safety of other pathway users. They also get very aggressive when challenged. I have yelled at a few Of these dicks to obey the speed limit and often get the finger but a few have stopped and dismounted as if for a fight. I am well build and quite athletic and when it becomes plain that I will hand them their ass, they back down.

There seems to be 2 varieties of these clowns: the smug, urban greenies who think that they are ecologically astute and therefore embrace the sense of entitlement to run over John Q Public for being a mass consumer and possible racist LNP voter and alpha male athletes who just think that they have a right to run over pesky 'civilians' who get in their way. In any event, sometimes I feel like jamming a piece of dowl in their front wheel as they ride past

fujii
12th Jan 2015, 03:56
I drive, I walk and I cycle. Whichever I am doing, I follow the law for that activity. Whilst there are cyclists who break the rules, registering and licensing them wil not improve the situation. Many drivers break the law despite being registered and licensed. Try stopping at a stop sign on a bike with a car coming behind. Three weeks ago on my bike, I was nearly hit by three cars at the one round about. Two weeks ago I was clipped on a round about. The driver did even know.

Pedestrians seem to have no idea of their obligation on shared pathways. The concept of keeping left seems to be completely alien to them although painted on the path ways. I always encounter pedestrians on bicycle only paths.
Today I gently clipped a dog running free after heavy braking in an on leash area.

Then there are earbuds. Pedestrians plugged in and no idea of what is around them. I can ring my bell and call out but they only hear what music they have on.

Although some cyclists do break the law, all road and path users must be aware of their surroundings and the rules applicable to each situation.

I carry liability insurance for cycling.

jolihokistix
12th Jan 2015, 05:13
Watch out for salmon!

Some fun background info:
Cycling slang you need to know (http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/cycling-slang-you-need-to-know/)

Anthill
12th Jan 2015, 05:19
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/push-to-shut-clover-moores-city-of-sydney-shared-cycleways-no-risk-assessment-of-citys-shared-paths-increases-threat-of-law-suit/story-fni0cx12-1227116381743)

david1300
12th Jan 2015, 05:53
I drive, I walk and I cycle. Whichever I am doing, I follow the law for that activity. Whilst there are cyclists who break the rules, registering and licensing them wil not improve the situation. .....
I carry liability insurance for cycling.

I'm not for registration being the way to improve the situation of cyclists breaking rules; but rather that registration ensures a required level of liability insurance for when something goes wrong and the cyclist is at fault, be it negligence, recklessness or lawlessness. I wish every cyclist would carry liability insurance as you do.

mikedreamer787
12th Jan 2015, 05:56
Answer's simple - gazette that every treadly sold will come with compulsory liability insurance and the first premium is included in the bike cost.

david1300
12th Jan 2015, 05:57
An extract from the article refereed to in Anthills post earlier:

A PUSH has begun for Clover Moore’s City of Sydney shared cycleways — where pedestrians battle for space with bikes — to be closed down.

Lawyers predict the council could be sued by a person injured in a collision between a bike and a walker because a proper risk assessment of the city’s 51km of shared paths is not in place.

Pedestrian Council of Australia chairman Harold Scruby said a risk management plan for shared paths, prepared for council in 2009, *defines a cyclist as a “rider of a bicycle or a human powered vehicle, with a maximum speed of 15km/h”.

But Mr Scruby said a series of studies show that cyclists are averaging speeds of more than 20km/h on paths that were also used by pedestrians.

He also pointed out that the national Austroads road safety guidelines state they should only be proclaimed if they are used by fewer than 10 cyclists per hour and the maximum speeds are under 20km/h.

Legal advice obtained by the Pedestrian Council, from Slater & Gordon, states: “Local government road authorities may be found to be in breach of duty of care for failing to impose safe speed limits for cyclists on Shared Bicycle Paths”.

Buster Hyman
12th Jan 2015, 06:07
Many drivers break the law despite being registered and licensed.
Very true, and a timely reminder that it goes both ways. The main difference for me though, is that registered vehicles give you a better chance of identifying the purpetrator, should the need arise.

Metro man
12th Jan 2015, 06:35
Have you ever seen bicycle courier riders ? Red lights mean nothing, as do the rest of the traffic laws. They make immigrant cab drivers and the UKs infamous "white van" drivers look like members of the Institute of Advanced Motorists in comparison.

Normally I'm against increased bureaucracy and government interference, but there could be a very good argument put forward for compulsory registration and insurance. Obviously property damage would be less than a car accident, but people can still be seriously injured

Hydromet
12th Jan 2015, 07:26
Excellent principle. As a cyclist, I've frequently been endangered and then abused by pedestrians crossing against the lights in front of me as I'm crossing an intersection. Make pedestrians carry compulsory insurance and wear large identification cards so they can be identified and charged, I say.

Stanwell
12th Jan 2015, 08:07
Well, that may be so, Hydromet.
As a cyclist myself, I've had occasion to counsel fellow cyclists about their antisocial behaviour - particularly on shared pathways.

As for aggressive and abusive, I know who leads the score on that one - and it ain't the pedestrians.

Capetonian
12th Jan 2015, 08:36
France plans crackdown on rogue cyclists - The Local (http://www.thelocal.fr/20141208/france-to-hit-bad-cyclists-with-new-raft-of-fines)

A bit pointless though if they are unidentifiable. They really are a scourge on the roads and pavements in many countries, and their disgusting arrogance elicits contempt.

mixture
12th Jan 2015, 09:57
As a cyclist, I've frequently been endangered and then abused by pedestrians crossing against the lights in front of me as I'm crossing an intersection.

I think you'll find that in most civilised places on this earth, pedestrians have priority over anything on any sort of wheels.

Thus it sounds like you need to review your hazard perception and SLOW DOWN in places where you're highly likely to encounter pedestrians !

joy ride
12th Jan 2015, 10:16
As a regular pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car driver, van driver and truck driver I see criminal and antisocial behaviour from all of them and keep an un-biased mental record of road behaviour.

Car drivers and pedestrians are by the most numerous and worst abusers of other people's safety, rights and convenience.

Stanwell
12th Jan 2015, 10:20
That's because they're on a "Mission from God"* dontchya see?


*Origin of that expression: Movie - 'The Blues Brothers'.

onetrack
12th Jan 2015, 10:28
Anthill - Ahhh, here's a video to sooth your thoughts of "spoking" a lycra loony! You don't need to - they can do it all by themselves! :) 31 seconds in, is where the action is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV9_i9MEnMg

nonsense
12th Jan 2015, 10:36
While I've heard historical explanations, which are all about the interests and political clout of dentists, I've never seen a coherent argument why teeth are the one part of the human body not covered by Medicare.

The Victorian Transport Accident Commission, funded by compulsory third party personal insurance, pays out on a no fault basis for injuries incurred in any road accident involving at least one registered motor vehicle or one motor vehicle which was unable to be identified (eg: the hit-run scenario, where the vehicle is assumed to have been insured).

This doesn't help the pedestrian mown down by a lone cyclist, but it covers most other scenarios, without penalising in any way a motorist who is involved at no fault in a bicycle-vehicle accident that injures the cyclist.

You can quibble, American style, about paying for at-fault cyclists who don't pay premiums, but the reality is that despite carrying the cost of such non-contributors, the scheme is cheaper than, for example, NSW compulsory third party personal insurance.

Then of course there is the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation), which recognises that everyone is at risk of life changing injuries out of the blue and covers all Kiwis, even those mown down by bicyclists, out of taxes paid by all Kiwis.

Both schemes avoid the whole register/insure bicycles nonsense which is impractical and would pretty much eliminate casual cyclists.

fujii
12th Jan 2015, 10:37
Mixture said:
I think you'll find that in most civilised places on this earth, pedestrians have priority over anything on any sort of wheels.


Not necessarily. Here in Melbourne they are not permitted on bicycle only paths or lanes and can be fined yet they ignore this and endanger themselves and abuse the cyclists. They have no concept of keeping left and move unpredictably when alerted. They don't have priority when not using a pedestrian crossing.

joy ride
12th Jan 2015, 11:01
In UK cyclists have to obey all road and pavement laws, and frequently get pulled for the slightest misdemeanour. However, pedestrians are completely free to walk in all cycle lanes and in the road, and drivers are allowed to drive and park in most cycle lanes. That needs to be rationalised.

I have no problem with cyclists having to be registered and insured, but first the authorities have to make proper facilities for them and ensure that they are kept free of pedestrians and motorists.

As a driver and cyclist, the main concern nowadays is pedestrians walking in the road or stepping into it without looking, and usually pre-occupied with their phones.

Lon More
12th Jan 2015, 11:03
From jolihokistix link Bike Ninja

These are the cyclists that like to ride around with no lights on when it’s pitch black outside. They’ve removed all reflective gear to maximise their ninja status. They frequently pop up out of nowhere.

Usually end their journey in the back od an ambulance or hearse.
We have one round here on one of those stupid recliner bikes. Our journey times seem to frequently co-incide. I've nearly had him off aa few times. Shall have to hope there's nothing else incriminating on the dash cam next time he busts a red light across in front of me

FullOppositeRudder
12th Jan 2015, 11:10
I cycle in the rural areas around my 'village' as well as daily trips within for shopping purposes. I have insurance cover as part of my membership of the state cycling organisation. I don't expect to need it, I'm ultra cautious and I stay on the roads with least traffic. I also run a GoPro for serious expeditions (15km +) just in case.

There are exceptions, but I find that the vast majority of motorists are very considerate and leave me plenty of space when they overtake. They get a wave of thanks and appreciation. :ok:

I'm always a little bemused when I read calls for bicycles to be registered. Presumably they would have to fitted with registration plates able to be read clearly by the anti-cycling brigade. Fitting a motor cycle size plate on a pushbike simply does not compute - primarily for safety reasons. Then there is a cost. Setting up a bureaucracy to administer bicycle registration would cost plenty, probably a ludicrous amount to meet even cost recovery. If it's passed onto the rider, it will probably cost more than the bike is worth in some instances. I won't even try to contemplate the risks to all road users caused by wronged motorists writing down the details of cycles which are deemed to be in error.

Tolerance is an asset and one which I try and exercise. I see stupid cyclists; I see stupid things being done by drivers of various other vehicles. It's not a monopoly.

cattletruck
12th Jan 2015, 11:23
All it needs is some smart lawyer sponsored by the vehicle insurance companies to sue the bejeezus out of this recalcitrant cyclist and then you will see cyclists either buying up road insurance or selling the bike for good.

Unfortunately such poor behaviour doesn't do the bike riding pastime any good, and if we can't regulate it ourselves then the lawyers will regulate it for us whether we like it or not.

Gertrude the Wombat
12th Jan 2015, 11:29
As a regular pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car driver, van driver and truck driver I see criminal and antisocial behaviour from all of them and keep an un-biased mental record of road behaviour.

Car drivers and pedestrians are by the most numerous and worst abusers of other people's safety, rights and convenience.
Agreed.


I would however pay particular tribute to the pedestrians round here who wear lights and ankle reflectors when walking at night on unlit cycle paths - good stuff, keep it up!

joy ride
12th Jan 2015, 11:45
I think that those who regularly cycle and drive tend to be better at both because they are aware of the difficulties and frustrations of both activities.

Insuring cyclist/drivers could theoretically be done through motoring insurance....an extra few quid to extend cover to cycling.

Registration is a different matter and in UK would just create even more useless bureaucracy with very little positive result.

For example Holland decided to encourage cycling and within 20 years had created a vast network of legally protected cycle lanes.

In almost the same amount of time Transport for London spent most of the Cycling budget on leaflets, pamphlets, guides, PR and advertising, Focus Groups, committee meetings, feasibility studies, reports, surveys etc. and fewer than 1 road in 1,000 has any sort of cycle lane, and where there IS a cycle, most are part time, full of vehicles and/or pedestrians.

Police, Traffic Wardens, Department of Transport, local Councils and TfL all deny responsibility for keeping cycle lanes clear for cyclists, and all pass the buck between each other.

When cycling I try to be very considerate and obey the law, but it is blindingly obvious that cyclists are exceptionally badly provided for in London, at great danger, an have no-one interested in enforcing the very few cycle lanes that do exist.

I HATE seeing abusive cyclists because they give us all a bad reputation, but seeing how badly they are treated (by the authorities, by some drivers and many pedestrians) I can only say that their behaviour is no surprise.

I have never seen that sort of arrogant cycling i Holland. Where cyclists are treated well they behave better.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
12th Jan 2015, 11:46
Ooh, goody. Another predictable anti-cyclist thread on Proon. Must be all of, err, a month or so since the last one. :rolleyes:

mad_jock
12th Jan 2015, 11:52
I don't see what the problem is with cyclists requiring liability insurance.

david1300
12th Jan 2015, 12:03
Ooh, goody. Another predictable anti-cyclist thread on Proon. Must be all of, err, a month or so since the last one. :rolleyes:
If you perceive the idea that cyclists should carry liability insurance as anti-cyclist :ugh:

I have liability insurance that covers my negligence or recklessness everywhere I go - at home (trip on my path and you can sue me - my insurance company takes the matter up), my car, my motorbikes. If I get hit by a cyclist I'm more than likely on my own as far as costs are concerned :ouch:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jan 2015, 12:08
Big Picture.

Excessive legislation is characteristic of the fall of empires.

In ancient Persia, passports were issued to ducks so they could cross the road.

Hydromet
12th Jan 2015, 12:09
Mixture said:
I think you'll find that in most civilised places on this earth, pedestrians have priority over anything on any sort of wheels.
I don't know what sort of civilisation you live in, but in Australia, pedestrians crossing at intersections with traffic lights are subject to those lights, and are breaking the law if they disobey them. Perhaps you are simply interpreting the rules the way you wish they were.

Of course, everyone also has a duty to avoid accidents even when they have 'right of way', and so far I've always been able to, but if I were to hit a pedestrian in the circumstances I speak of, and be seriously injured, my insurance company would be suing his arse off, and would hope for his sake that he was insured.

joy ride
12th Jan 2015, 12:32
That is the real problem: if you insist on cyclists being registered, then logically pedestrians should be as well. There are far more of them than drivers and cyclists and they are less disciplined than either, especially since mobile phones appeared.

Once you have registered cyclists and pedestrians then the bureaucrats can only extend their schemes to dogs, cats, ducks etc..

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jan 2015, 12:33
'Logic...he said logic!'
'He's a Witch; Burn him!' ;)

Cyclists ignore the rules because obeying the existing rules only penalises them and fails to protect them. Their behaviour is completely normal for humans. The solution is to fix the existing rule system, which in large part in the UK (as others have said) is that the money keeps PR gits in a job whilst completely failing to provide usable facilities. How will more bureaucracy help when bureaucratic failure is already the cause of the situation?

Lon More
12th Jan 2015, 12:37
For example Holland decided to encourage cycling and within 20 years had created a vast network of legally protected cycle lanes.

The Netherlands, of which Holland is part, had compulsory registration of cycles until the 1950s. It was considered to re-introduce this in 2012 mainly to combat the fact thaat bikes were being parked in places where they were causing considerable annoyance to pedestrians and other road users. It was considered unfair to remove the bike but by having a registration the owner could be traced. Didn't go ahead as too much administration was involved so the pavements are still often blocked
I'd just take a large pair of boltcroppers to the rim or frame and chuck it in a skip

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jan 2015, 12:44
Perhaps a slightly nicer and greener solution would be to remove the offending bike to a pound on the edge of (another) town, open alternate Tuesdays between 10am and 10:30am. Not actually impossible, just a complete PITA. If not collected within a month, reissued free to new immigrants/those on low incomes.

Lon More
12th Jan 2015, 12:51
wouldn't work in NL unfortunately Fox3. Another reason registration didn't go through was that a large proportion of bikes here are stolen and therefore would remain registered to the Original owner. Using your idea the little scrotes would just o nick another one. Maybe the best anti-theft device would be to remove the saddle; let them get a foretaste of what awaits them in jail.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jan 2015, 12:59
Amended solution
Remove the offending little scrote to a pound on the edge of (another) town, open alternate Tuesdays between 10am and 10:30am. Not actually impossible, just a complete PITA. If not collected within a month, reissued free to Government work gangs (sewage farm cleaning, etc).

G&T ice n slice
12th Jan 2015, 13:25
I have never seen that sort of arrogant cycling i Holland.

Then I can only assume that you have never been there!

Having averaged 6 weeks per year in the NL over some 30 years I can safely say that as a pedestrian I have experienced a stratlingly large number of surprises from cyclists whilst standing or walking in designated pedestrian areas (such as light-controlled crossings, pedestrian precincts, standing on a station platform waiting for a train, and on one occasion on an escallator).

I believe it got a lot worse when they changed various laws regarding "liability" whereby the driver of any motorised vehicle is 100% liable in all cases involving a cyclist.

Next time you're in Amsterplonk, try crossing the road(s) in front of the Central Station (lovely building looks like a palace, unlike the palace which looks like a station).

Lon More
12th Jan 2015, 13:30
I believe it got a lot worse when they changed various laws regarding "liability" whereby the driver of any motorised vehicle is 100% liable in all cases involving a cyclist.
It did. The motorist is now Always considered the guity party. A very good reason for fitting a dash-cam. I've got a new Black-Vue on order with front and rear cams and a bluetooth link to the Phone

At its most arrogant when the schools come out; five-six abreast on acycle path spilling out on the road and 100% attention on the others in their group 0% on the road

ORAC
25th May 2015, 06:10
o2Q5ldUE-u8

ExXB
25th May 2015, 07:53
For many years it was mandatory to have a bicycle license here. Cost CHF15 a year which gave you a sticker to fix to your bike and third party liability up to a million francs.

Compliance was poor and the police weren't going to waste their time checking every bike in the country.

As every resident must have third party insurance anyway, the scheme was abandoned a few years ago. The insurance companies keep sending me 'renewal forms' for my bike license though, ...

joy ride
25th May 2015, 08:50
If cyclists were to be licenced registered and insured so too should pedestrians.

Many cyclists have been injured and even killed by pedestrians stepping out into the road without warning, just recently a London woman cyclist was left with serious permanent brain damage after a pedestrian stepped into her path. It got no news coverage, and the pedestrian was not even charged with any offence, but imagine the outcry if the cyclist had collided with the pedestrian on a pavement; the cyclist would most certainly have been prosecuted.

Plenty of cyclists have also ended up colliding with approaching vehicles after swerving to avoid pedestrians in the road, this has very nearly happened to me on several occasions. When cycling I now regard pedestrians as more of a threat to my safety than the worst drivers.

SpringHeeledJack
25th May 2015, 09:46
Perhaps we ALL should have 3rd party insurance, but as to how that would be enforced is a conundrum. I watch on a daily basis people engrossed in their electronic comfort blankets wander about their day seemingly oblivious to others and especially traffic. That cyclists are for the most part silent, the chances of said electro-zombie walking into a road thinking that it's all clear is heightened.

The poor little girl that got tangled with the cyclist has my sympathy, he shouldn't have been there, but in daily life cycling somewhat slowly on a short section of mostly empty path is a reality, less so on a saturday high street teeming with shoppers. It is unwise for parents to let young children run out of their property straight onto the pavement as other more serious dangers await, but in this case it was very bad timing with no ill intent from the shocked (and young) cyclist.



SHJ

ExXB
25th May 2015, 09:47
When I was learning to ski one of the instructors told me, if you are behind it is your responsibility to avoid any skiers in front of you. Always assume they will do something stupid, because they will - but it is still your responsibility to avoid them. That includes the idiot that passed you at speed, and decided to stop right in front of you.

I think the same applies to cyclists and pedestrians; and to motorists and cyclists.

ExRAFRadar
25th May 2015, 10:31
Sure its been posted but considering some cyclists can be the most self-righteous tw*ts I have ever met here it is again:
Q.
Is cycling on the pavement against the law?
A.
Yes. Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1888.

If your that scared of the road get OFF THE BLOODY BIKE AND WALK IT till you feel safe enough to get back on it.
I learnt this at school 40 years ago ffs.
Living in Richmond and Twickenham a nice Sunday morning stroll is always an exercise in vigilance. Given the lack of traffic I regularly see cyclists jumping red lights assuming I guess that people actually walking don't have the right to cross at a red light.
That video and story above of the little girl run over on the pavement; my reaction would have been, check daughter alive, breathing and conscious. Then gone and introduced myself to the prick and introduced him to the pavement a few more times.

west lakes
25th May 2015, 11:11
I might have had a bit of sympathy for the cyclist were it not for the highlighted part of this quote

Tiny Lucie Wilding was left sprawled on the ground covered in blood, but the cyclist sped off without checking to see if she was okay.

rans6andrew
25th May 2015, 11:44
It would help if:

a) cyclists and potential cyclists were given the training they clearly need when they are at school. It was a condition of cycling to school that we took the Cycling Proficiency Test, taught by a uniformed police officer who came to the school. I was 8 at the time. I wonder where my badge went.

b) the cycling laws were enforced. Every day I walk into our village and every day I see and confront cyclists on the pavement but the law just motors by all smug in their cars without doing anything.

c) cycle shops were obliged to display some basic rules of the road and how they relate to cyclist and cycling.

Rans6...

ExXB
25th May 2015, 15:07
This may be a problem that will sort it self.

Apparently, in Berne, there is a guy that is paid to teach school children the rules for riding their bikes in an urban environment.

He was quoted recently as saying that 'kids these days' don't know how to ride bikes - they are too busy with their hand held and their headphones - he's lucky to find one who can ride 100m without falling off.

You ever notice, the average cyclist is getting older, and older ...

lomapaseo
25th May 2015, 15:54
You ever notice, the average cyclist is getting older, and older ...

certainly on Jet Blast that is true as the young ones get killed off due to poor skills.

Shack37
25th May 2015, 16:26
The poor little girl that got tangled with the cyclist has my sympathy, he shouldn't have been there, but in daily life cycling somewhat slowly on a short section of mostly empty path is a reality, less so on a saturday high street teeming with shoppers. It is unwise for parents to let young children run out of their property straight onto the pavement as other more serious dangers await, but in this case it was very bad timing with no ill intent from the shocked (and young) cyclist.

How do you know he was (a) shocked, (b) young? It´s not very obvious from the video, unless of course you know him. You also seem to have missed the bit about not stopping to see if the child was alright but of course he was young and shocked so that´s OK.

Having just watched the video again I also disagree he was going relatively slowly, he was not. Unless you refer to the repeat of the incident which is in slow motion.

UniFoxOs
25th May 2015, 16:36
Why do adult cyclists think it's acceptable to ride on pavements?

because :-

the law just motors by all smug in their cars without doing anything.

which I can confirm as I have seen frequently in my local town - and the cyclists are even going the wrong way down a one way street (or perhaps that's why they take to the footpath)

VP959
25th May 2015, 16:36
Sadly this is pretty typical behaviour from a lot of cyclists ( and I speak here as a regular cyclist). Riding on pavements at speed (and this cyclist was riding at speed) has been normal around here for years. Many cyclists presume they have a right of way on pavements, and will yell at pedestrians to get out of their way.

I regularly cycle on a section of road that's designated as a cycle route, meaning that motorists need to be alert for cyclists, although neither has a right of way over the other. I've never had a problem with car drivers on this road, who are unfailingly polite and patient, but very frequently encounter rude, bullying behaviour from some other cyclists.

For whatever reason, there is a growing number of hard-core cyclists who have a view that their right to ride where and how they wish is greater than the rights of all other road users. I've no idea why this is, but it's a growing trend that is making life for other road users more hazardous.

SpringHeeledJack
25th May 2015, 17:29
How do you know he was (a) shocked, (b) young? It´s not very obvious from the video, unless of course you know him. You also seem to have missed the bit about not stopping to see if the child was alright but of course he was young and shocked so that´s OK.

Having just watched the video again I also disagree he was going relatively slowly, he was not. Unless you refer to the repeat of the incident which is in slow motion.

I have no special interest in this scenario, cyclist shouldn't have been on pavement, toddler shouldn't have been allowed to run out of her house onto a street without an adult next to her, yet both these things happened, timed to ill-perfection and a collision/entanglement occurred.

I found this article in the lovely DM. If you filter out the "My life has been destroyed" bit, it appears that the chap on the bike did stop and didn't just ride off after the collision….

Lucie Wilding crash destroyed MY life says 'hit-and-run' cyclist Andrew Holland | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095366/Pavement-crash-destroyed-life-claims-hit-run-cyclist-mowed-girl-three.html)



SHJ

ExRAFRadar
25th May 2015, 17:35
Many cyclists presume they have a right of way on pavements, and will yell at pedestrians to get out of their way.

Please, please, please let them try it with me...

Sorry to come over so harsh but living by the river I see more than my fair share of Cyclists who, quite simply, do not give a flying **** about pedestrians or for that matter any other road user.

ExRAFRadar
25th May 2015, 17:38
Shack mate :
somewhat slowly on a short section of mostly empty path is a reality

For the Love of God, no

YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!!!!

It is as simple as that.

west lakes
25th May 2015, 17:41
Ah some mis-reporting around

Taking that into account I find this statement interesting, particularly the second part

He said he had been cycling on the pavement because the roads were busy with school traffic, adding: ‘I didn’t know it was illegal. I usually use cycle paths or the roads.’
I wonder how many other cyclists an apparent lack of knowledge of the law applies to?

SpringHeeledJack
25th May 2015, 17:53
'The Law' is broken by millions each day, be they small, medium or large transgressions, a simple fact of life. Cycling on the pavement in most situations is both unwise and unsocial towards pedestrians, but as we see with regards to the Police's lack of interest, it's not a law that they are willing to spend time enforcing. An educational effort might help, magazine/internet/TV etc explaining the law and responsibilities, but then once we start down that road pedestrians would need to be tackled, then car drivers, and on and on. It's ultimately all about the individual, those that accord their fellow brethren consideration and courtesy will act in a way that is conducive to a harmonious society and those that don't will do their dysfunctional best.

It's interesting how in many other European countries this problem seems hardly to exist and perhaps that speaks volumes to their mindset, which might take a while to grow in the UK, if ever.


SHJ

ExRAFRadar
25th May 2015, 18:04
SpringHeeled.. You need to have a word with yourself mate

I have no special interest in this scenario, cyclist shouldn't have been on pavement, toddler shouldn't have been allowed to run out of her house onto a street without an adult next to her, yet both these things happened, timed to ill-perfection and a collision/entanglement occurred.My bold.

So it was the kids fault, or the parents, ffs. Get a grip.

You seem to subscribe to the belief that it was some sort of cosmic coincidence. It is not.

This **** was breaking the law. Simple fact.

Ignorance of the Law is not a defence.

To say nothing of PURE BLOODY COMMON SENSE.

From the knob himself:
"He said he had been cycling on the pavement because the roads were busy with school traffic"

So at a time of day when children were more than likely to be on the pavement he decided to ride on that pavement at a speed where he could not stop safely if a child walked or run in front of him.

I would like to say that words fail me, but they don't.

VP959
25th May 2015, 18:20
I've read the bit about Andrew Holland (the cyclist), claiming that he's been misrepresented in the media. Frankly he's an irresponsible idiot who deserves to be charged as well as have his name plastered over the tabloids, although I suspect that all he'll get is a telling off by the police, nothing more.

Being ignorant of the law has never been a defence for breaking it. Acting in a way to endanger life is against the law, as I understand it, irrespective of whether cycling on a pavement is legal or not.

The parents seem to have been acting reasonably and responsibly; the mother went to open the car door, the father was right behind his daughter as she ran across the pavement to the car and they should have had a reasonable expectation that the pavement was only going to have pedestrians or slow moving pedestrian vehicles on it, not a cyclist riding at speed with no concern for the safety of others.

Andrew Holland isn't a stupid person, he's 23 years old and recently finished his university studies. He was, quite simply, deliberately negligent by riding at speed on a pavement, without any consideration for the safety of others. He's only lucky that the child wasn't more seriously hurt, if she had been then I suspect he may well have been facing far more serious charges.

As for his claim that his own negligence has "ruined his life", then tough, that's what happens when you behave like this. If I were the parents then I'd be considering suing him, really just as a public service to get a message to others like him who think the law doesn't apply to them.

Capot
25th May 2015, 19:12
My son stupidly and recklessly rode his bike on a pavement(sidewalk) in France into an old lady who was leaving a Post Office. He was attending the local university at the time. On the basis of the undisputed facts a tribunal decided, some 2 months later, that he should pay her 10,000 Francs (1,500 euros approx). Neither he nor the old lady were invited to be present at the tribunal. There was no appeal against the decision, even if he had wanted to.

It may be a bit Napoleonic, but it is an effective and swift form of justice, and fair to both parties. It makes licensing, insurance etc unnecessary.

Failure to pay the sum ordered by the Tribunal results in arrest and seizure of goods. For a foreigner, it means never, ever entering France again without being arrested and held until payment is made.

I would love to have seen it used on the moron I saw a few days ago, GoPro sticking out of the top of his ridiculous hat to video all the bad driving he sees, riding the wrong way down a 1-way street and hurling abuse at everyone who didn't get out of his way when he had to mount the pavement to avoid a head-on collision.

SpringHeeledJack
25th May 2015, 19:30
SpringHeeled.. You need to have a word with yourself mate

Mr exRAF, I have had a word with myself and come to the conclusion that :

a) You are in a froth about this issue and are deliberately choosing one small part of my several posts to froth about something that is bothering you, namely the situation that happens in your home area on a regular basis according to a previous post by yourself.

b) You are choosing to be sanctimonious about this wayward cyclist breaking of the law (which he did) and yet possibly on a daily basis you might well be 'breaking the law' in several ways without knowing or indeed caring, as the laws transgressed are deemed unworthy of reaction unless directly in front of a police officer.

I do not wish to defend pavement cycling, it happens, but on the whole I don't encounter it in large amounts and as an avid pedestrian you might imagine that I would. In the nationally infamous example we are discussing, an unaccompanied child ran out of her house without a care in the world and got clobbered. It could have been a parent pushing a pram, a jogger, another child on their bike legally cycling on the pavement, a dog walker with their pooch on a long lead that this little girl collided with and she would have sustained injuries, but it was said adult cyclist that she met. Two seconds earlier or later and nothing would have occurred. There should be a harsher regime regarding adult cyclists pavement riding, but once that is put into effect all the other transgressors (pedestrians not on pavements, cars doing 34mph in a 30 zone etc etc etc) will have to be dealt with, both for fairness and cohesiveness. I would be happy for all that to happen but realise that that is a road towards everyone becoming a policeman.



SHJ

ExRAFRadar
25th May 2015, 19:55
a parent pushing a pram, a jogger, another child on their bike legally cycling on the pavement, a dog walker with their pooch on a long lead

My bold

You are wrong mate simple as that. No matter the age if they are on a bike on the pavement they ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
Taken from this website, which I suggest you go read.

"In short, it is illegal to cycle on a pavement alongside a road, unless it has been marked as a cycle track. However, children under the age of 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility. Therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for a criminal offence."

So they are breaking the law, just cannot be prosecuted for it.

Should children cycle on the pavement? | CTC (http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/victoria-hazael/children-cycle-pavement)

And do you really think that a child on a bike, or a parent pushing a pram for God's sake would produce the same injuries as that little girl had?

As for your point that I may be walking around breaking a myriad of laws I was wrong. Words do fail me.

Apart from where I live I also work in the City of London. I can assure you that anything I see re Cyclists at home is nothing, nothing, compared to what I see on my journey to and from work.

However unlike home there are not so many children walking around to get knocked over by these knobs on the pavement, jumping Reds etc etc

radeng
25th May 2015, 20:15
There's also the Cornish hit and run case last week - a 9 year old on the pavement on her way to school with her friends. It became her way to hospital in an ambulance and then home with a cast on her broken arm - and the cyclist rode away.

I really think that cyclists like that should have their bicycle confiscated and crushed and them fined several thousand pounds. Plus a long term damages attachment for the victim to all earnings and benefits.....

There are dangers in cycling. We had the recent case near us where a cyclist, head down, not paying attention, went into the back of a slowing lorry, and died in hospital a few days later. Not that uncommon - some years back, a colleague of mrs radeng cycling to work on a dark wet winter's morning went into the back of a car stationary at traffic lights, fortunately for him without damage except to his ego. Anyone cycling in Cirencester is either suicidal or very brave, considering the number of nasty potholes!

Flying Lawyer
25th May 2015, 21:42
SHJI do not wish to defend pavement cycling, it happens, but on the whole I don't encounter it in large amounts and as an avid pedestrian you might imagine that I would.
That may go some way towards explaining your approach.
I live in central London where it is a very real problem. I encounter it virtually every day and, on many days, several times. In contrast, I can't remember seeing an adult cyclist riding along pavements in the town where we have a house in Wales. (If I have, I've forgotten.)

The cyclist is reported as saying he had been cycling on the pavement because the roads were busy with school traffic. For some reason, most cyclists don't appear to regard the obvious solution (getting off and pushing until it's safe to ride again) as acceptable.

In the nationally infamous example we are discussing
The most recent example may have become "nationally infamous" because it was captured on CCTV and the victim was a little child.
This example is from just a month ago: Woman scarred for life after cyclist knocked her over - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-scarred-for-life-after-cyclist-knocked-her-over-then-grinned-before-speeding-off-10197227.html)


BTW, I have no axe to grind. I drive, ride a motorcycle, cycle and walk in London.

Shack37
25th May 2015, 22:57
In the nationally infamous example we are discussing, an unaccompanied child ran out of her house without a care in the world and got clobbered.


The child was NOT unaccompanied, as said in previous posts, her mother was right in front of her and her father right behind her. In fact it could have been any one of the three who got mangled by that pillock. It would be interesting to see the rest of the CCTV coverage, if it exists, to confirm or otherwise his version, ie that he did stop.

Private jet
25th May 2015, 23:54
Well, when cyclists start paying road tax in the UK I'll start taking their concerns seriously.

Later in the year the road outside my house will be closed for 3 hours so there can be a cycling road race. I won't be able to get to or from my house for the duration. Not acceptable. I wouldn't mind so much if these clowns actually did something useful.

treadigraph
26th May 2015, 00:15
Well, when cyclists start paying road tax


Er, Vehicle Excise Duty. Plenty of cars don't have to pay VED , why should cyclists?

RatherBeFlying
26th May 2015, 03:31
I've moved to a place where the cyclists seem more often to be on sidewalks than the roads :}

My favorite Darwin maneuver is a cyclist riding at speed in a pedestrian crosswalk. Sadly one child came to her end that way in Toronto. The driver was not charged, but has to live with it.

On another hand, a policeman's wife was driving home on a rural road from a bar followed by her husband when she struck three bikes riding abreast (reportedly two with working reflectors) from behind killing one, putting another into a wheelchair and inflicting minor injuries on the other.

She was whisked away while the people who stopped to aid the victims were detained for several hours:mad:

She is suing the dead cyclist's estate for emotional distress:yuk:

Karma calls for her next collision to be with a moose:E

cavortingcheetah
26th May 2015, 05:48
It would be far simpler just to place a curfew ban on cyclists. Any killed or injured while cycling during curfew hours would have suffered at their own liability.
Another option would be to road tax cycles based upon a registration system, which allowed only the registered owner ever to cycle the bicycle. The registered owner would have to provide a BMI reading for a variable fee road tax licence, that being the nearest way a cyclist can approximate an engine power to weight ratio and exhaust fume computation.

cornish-stormrider
26th May 2015, 06:50
Oh please let a cyclist try the pavement with me
Bear in mind I walk my toddler on reins

Cyclist runs into prop forward at speed

Described by witnesses as like hitting a tank
With the exception tanks don't punch back

fujii
26th May 2015, 07:23
The rants here sound like those from horse owners against automobiles in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. Yes cyclists do break the law as do motorists but I doubt many motorists are aware of the different road rules which apply to cyclists whereas most adult cyclists also drive.

Bicycle sales are outstripping motor vehicle sales, city population densities are increasing and traffic getting slower. Some cities have congestion taxes. The bicycle is an obvious commuting alternative.

Stop and think that if you kill or seriously injure a cyclist, can your family do without you and your income when you are heavily fined or imprisoned?

Relax and share.

UniFoxOs
26th May 2015, 07:35
Oh please let a cyclist try the pavement with me

One tried it with me. Nearly knocked me over and called me an ignorant bastard for not getting out of his way. Fortunately (for him) he didn't seem keen to return to discuss it with me when I invited him.

The 4 coppers laughing about something in the panda car passing by were, of course, no help.

Nowadays I have to walk with a stick. If the occasion re-occurs I dare say the stick might "accidentally" find its way into the front wheel.

SpringHeeledJack
26th May 2015, 07:49
No matter the age if they are on a bike on the pavement they ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
Taken from this website, which I suggest you go read.

So, firstly mr exradar, YOU are correct! All cycling on the pavement is illegal, against the law, punishable by the authorities. However, living in an area where there are seemingly many children and therefore many children cycling on titchy bikes and scooters, I have never seen, nor heard of any case whereby a police officer stopped them and any action was taken and this over many years. This law is obviously one of those laws that is on the statute book but effectively neutered in reality. Perhaps a re-vamping is needed in Parliament ?

Perhaps, like yourself, I have been around the block and experienced many things. When I was a little bit older than the little girl in question and running down the street where we lived, another little boy ran out of his house and we collided. Injuries similar and greater to those shown in the photo of the little girl were sustained. We were both shocked by the sudden impact and in pain from the stinging feeling of sustaining 3rd degree burns from the pavement having rubbed on our skins. I still have the scars on one hand if I look really carefully.

I live in central London where it is a very real problem. I encounter it virtually every day and, on many days, several times.

Mr FL (I know where you live ;) ) from the thread a few years ago and that incident nearby and yes in that area and further in, the commuting cyclists do hop up on pavements at junctions and also when the traffic gets blocked by delivery lorries etc. I, as a cyclist think they are stupid and the seconds saved are negated by the disharmony caused. I drive and can see the motorists point of view, but mostly I walk. I walk a minimum of 4miles and up to 10miles a day with the majority on pavements. In my experience aside from children it seems to be mostly older teenagers/young 20's boys in little gangs riding around with no care or concern to the side of road, colour of light, pavement or not.

The child was NOT unaccompanied, as said in previous posts, her mother was right in front of her and her father right behind her.

Mr shack, we must have differing interpretations of accompanied because I see a mother opening the car door which is 5metres away from the garden wall and then there's a path/front garden that is perhaps the same from the front door. Between front door and car is approximately 10metres and that little child was on her own all the way until mr pavement cyclist hit her. In my book that's not good parenting on their part, little children aren't to be trusted in such situations as they are distracted too easily with too many dangers around. Only on friday whilst waiting outside a supermarket a 2 or 3 year old girl walked out and just carried on into the road. The first car swerved, the second braked and an elderly gentleman closer than I ran out to scoop her up. The mother only came out a bit later oblivious to what had just happened. So close….

Oh please let a cyclist try the pavement with me
Bear in mind I walk my toddler on reins

Cyclist runs into prop forward at speed

Described by witnesses as like hitting a tank
With the exception tanks don't punch back

As tempting as that might be you would be assaulting the errant cyclist and would end up in hot water, so the satisfaction would be momentary.



SHJ

G-CPTN
26th May 2015, 08:45
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-31805312)

Girl, 4, told by police not to cycle on the pavement - Cycling Weekly (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/girl-4-told-by-police-not-to-cycle-on-the-pavement-161572)

ShyTorque
26th May 2015, 08:55
Quote:
Well, when cyclists start paying road tax

Er, Vehicle Excise Duty. Plenty of cars don't have to pay VED , why should cyclists?

Treadigraph....Actually, if pedantics are the order of the day, it's vehicle tax! ;)

Buster Hyman
26th May 2015, 09:45
Excellent principle. As a cyclist, I've frequently been endangered and then abused by pedestrians crossing against the lights in front of me as I'm crossing an intersection. Make pedestrians carry compulsory insurance and wear large identification cards so they can be identified and charged, I say.
Thank God for the Internet. Now that cyclist knows the name of the little kid he hit & can make a claim against her!

Ancient Mariner
26th May 2015, 10:31
So the big killer these days are cyclist? Not those ensconced in a steel cocoon, oblivious to to their surrounding while yakking on the phone, texting, reading the newspaper, picking their nose, doing their makeup and/or whatnot.
Who would have thunk.
Per

Capot
26th May 2015, 10:38
I've frequently been endangered and then abused by pedestrians crossing against the lights in front of me as I'm crossing an intersection.Yes, well, if you are a typical cyclist, that would be because you are running a red light, and they are crossing the road on a green light.

VP959
26th May 2015, 11:19
Private jet wrote:
Well, when cyclists start paying road tax in the UK I'll start taking their concerns seriously.

Nobody pays "road tax". There hasn't been any form of taxation on any type of vehicle to pay for roads since the 1930's, when the Road Fund Licence was abolished.

Vehicle Excise Duty, payable on some vehicles, is a duty, like the duty payable on luxuray goods, that is wholly unconnected with roads - it goes into the exchequers central pot that the government use for many purposes. A fair bit of road maintenance costs comes from Council Tax , and all major road building is paid for from general taxation, so cyclists, pedestrians etc pay the same for roads as those driving vehicles.

Flying Lawyer
26th May 2015, 11:19
fujiiI doubt many motorists are aware of the different road rules which apply to cyclists

Which road rules relevant to this discussion (adults cycling on pavements) do you have in mind? :confused:

You give your location as Strathmore. I know some cyclists lobby groups argue that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gives everyone the right to cycle anywhere they wish. I haven't researched it but would be very surprised if the freedoms provided by that Act were not subject to Scottish road traffic legislation.
city population densities are increasing and traffic getting slower. Some cities have congestion taxes. The bicycle is an obvious commuting alternative. True. That's one of the reasons the problems described in this thread have increased and continue to increase.
Unfortunately, in London and some other cities, many converts to cycle commuting appear to think the rules of the road don't apply to them.

Shack37
26th May 2015, 11:52
Mr shack, we must have differing interpretations of accompanied because I see a mother opening the car door which is 5metres away from the garden wall and then there's a path/front garden that is perhaps the same from the front door. Between front door and car is approximately 10metres and that little child was on her own all the way until mr pavement cyclist hit her.

SHJ
How on earth do you calculate those distances from that video? A 5m pavement, don´t think so, 3 paving stones, maybe 75cm wide each at a push. Compare the length of the car or even the woman´s height against the pavement width. As for the "door to garden wall", that´s not even shown and just how soon did the man get to the girl, 2 seconds maybe less?
The child was accompanied IMO.

cattletruck
26th May 2015, 12:06
You can't win. I like to ride on dedicated bike paths, actually I wouldn't call it riding but rather meandering as I enjoy the scenery and sometime get a perv of the gorgeous arses of them young sheilas - bonus.

Every now and then I come across someone doing excessive speed for the bike path (remember that it's adjacent to the footpath). These people should be on the road.

Unfortunately, judging from my own experience with them, these kinds of people are as dumb as they come, and there's very little we can do about it other than spot them early.

fujii
26th May 2015, 12:28
I am not in Strathmore Scotland but in Australia. Here for example, different laws apply to cyclists or cars passing stationary trams. Whereas some have stated that riding on the footpath is illegal for all whilst here, children under twelve may ride on the footpath as may adults accompanying them.

joy ride
26th May 2015, 12:34
Nowadays in UK many drivers and pedestrians seem to be totally dis-concerned about the rights and safety of cyclists, but very quick and eager to criticise. This is partly because cycling has recently grown hugely in popularity, and they don't like or look out for this new addition.

However, following the development of the Safety Bicycle in 1885 and Tarmac a few years later there was a huge cycling boom, for work and leisure. Tjis led to a massive road building and surfacing programme across UK.

When this programme started there were no private cars and by the 1930s there were still very few compared to nowadays. After WW2 mass motoring increased hugely and cars took over the existing roads, driving most cyclists off roads which were originally for them and horse-drawn trade vehicles.

I have just got back from cycling to the shops, with a few shortish stretches of Cycle Lane on wide pavements and a few very short stretches of Cycle Lane on the roads.

Where there was a pavement cycle lane 12 pedestrians were walking in them, even though they have white border lines, green tarmac and white bike icons. Just ONE pedestrian was walking in the pedestrian part of the pavement. This is a bit above the average, but not too unusual.

The very short length of cycle lane on a road was filled with parked cars, as usual.

At the Supermarket all 15 Disabled and Parent and Child spaces near the entrance had cars parked in them, only 3 had Disabled badges and only 2 of the others had children.

On my journey I did not see a single cyclist misbehaving. I saw plenty of vehicles jumping red lights, using the Right Turn Only lanes to overtake others, go straight on, then pull left and cut them up. Plenty of cars were doing well over the speed limit, blocking Box Junctions, cutting corners on the wrong side of the road and one car went partially up onto the pavement to overtake another on the inside.

As a regular cyclist, driver and pedestrian I think I can fairly judge the actual amount of bad behaviour in each of these modes of transport.

I HATE aggressive arrogant cyclists, they give all cyclists a bad name, BUT for everyone of them there are thousands of drivers with the same attitude and they do FAR more damage to everyone and everything (including houses).

People need to get things into perspective!

VP959
26th May 2015, 12:46
joy ride,

I agree with you, as a daily cyclist. I too encounter pedestrians blocking cycle only paths regularly, and motorists who treat cyclists without due care or respect.

However, in the city near where I live there has been a massive growth in very arrogant cyclists over the past few years, so much so that now I believe that I'm in the minority and the arrogant cyclists are far and away the majority.

This is a growing problem, and something that needs to be addressed. I did discuss it last year with a local cycling club, after four of their members (clearly identifiable as they had their club name on their shirts) knocked me off my bike on a hill and just yelled abuse at me because I had, apparently, been holding them up. I'll give that club credit, as they persuaded the cyclists involved to come and apologise to me and said they would be working to ensure their members behaved more appropriately in future.

Blacksheep
26th May 2015, 13:45
I commute to work on the 14 mile direct route between Welwyn Garden City and Luton. This is the B653 Lower Harpenden/Lower Luton Road. It is a "B" road because there are several long stretches 16 feet in width and nowhere is it more than 18 feet wide. There is a sign at each end of the road saying that Goods Vehicles are prohibited unless delivering. Naturally, all the eight feet four inch wide 18-wheeled articulated juggernauts using the road are making deliveries. There is no restriction on the busses running the three bus routes that pass along the B653, nor the Express Coaches running between the airports. At peak travelling times this winding twisting narrow road carries approximately 4,000 vehicles an hour.

That does not deter the Lycra clad MAMILs out on their racing bicycles, getting their daily 25 miles fitness training done on the B653 before work/school run or whatever they do in normal working hours. I just cannot understand why people are willing to risk their lives trying to ride a bicycle in what must be some of the most dangerous driving conditions in the country. Cycling the Lower Luton at 07:30 must be one of life's most terrifying experiences. Why on earth would any sane person even contemplate such a thing?

Oh! I said sane. These people are anything but...

joy ride
26th May 2015, 13:46
Cheers VP, I suppose around here in S.E. London there is less room for high speed cycling. I only usually see it on the main roads, like Old Kent Road, which I generally avoid; even there they are usually not as far above the speed limit as most cars and vans, which often zoom along at 60 or 70 mph despite the 30 mph limit!

Here is a road in Blackheath a few days after it got cycle lanes along both sides of it, and how a cyclist is supposed to use these I really don't know!


http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss260/Captain_Bubble/P1080231_zpsaawwgw2t.jpg

Flying Lawyer
26th May 2015, 13:50
joy ride People need to get things into perspective!I do my best.

I HATE aggressive arrogant cyclists, they give all cyclists a bad name
Cyclists riding on pavements are not necessarily aggressive, and I doubt if they regard themselves as arrogant.

ExRAFRadar
26th May 2015, 13:51
What I do find interesting is given how Cycling is very much being encouraged why there is no compulsory training in schools.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall when I was t'nipper we had the Police come round to the school and we built a strange sort of urban layout on which we learnt the basics of road safety.

Then you had to go and do a test to pass your 'Cycle Proficiency' for which you got a badge/certificate. I think the local council run this.

I think there was a bit of pride involved in getting it as it proved you were 'growing up'. Plus you needed it to get a part time, after school job deliverying for Off Licenses, Green Grocers (remember them) etc.

SHJ - My apologies if I came across as an anti-cyclists Nazi. Very far from the truth as I was an avid cycler until some bar steward stole my bike. The problem is bigger than just cycling and is very much, I believe, a product of the 'Not My Fault/Problem' that seems to permeate society at the moment.

Plus I still cannot get over the fact that cyclists today all seem to be geared up for the Tour de France.....

Next topic we can all agree on - Chelsea Tractors on the school run ;)

Flying Lawyer
26th May 2015, 14:00
ExRAFRadar Then you had to go and do a test to pass your 'Cycle Proficiency' for which you got a badge/certificate. I think the local council run this.
I think there was a bit of pride involved in getting it as it proved you were 'growing up'.

Over 50 years ago in my case, but I remember it well. :)
And yes, there was a bit of pride involved in getting it.


http://www.rushdenheritage.co.uk/images/education/SafeCycleBadge.jpg

It was a government scheme, promoted by RoSPA and, as you say, run by local councils.

My memory may be playing tricks but I think we all knew even before taking the course that riding on pavements was for children only.

DType
26th May 2015, 14:20
Was cycling along a city street when a pedestrian heading the same way (i.e. with his back to me) set off to cross the road diagonally without looking. Slammed on the brakes and straight over the handlebars, executing a flying rugby tackle on the errant pedestrian. Ended up a three layer sandwich, pedestrian, cyclist and cycle. Pedestrian started cursing me in VERY strong terms, but a motorist heading the other way stopped, wound down his window, and advised the pedestrian that he was ****ed lucky I hadn't been a car.

Not quite sure how I survived that and many similar accidents (often with left turning cars) without a helmet. Or maybe that explains a lot!

PS, I was NOT undertaking the cars, they were all "overtaking" me when they turned left.

VP959
26th May 2015, 14:21
I remember getting one of those badges, years ago! We did the test on the school playground, where they laid out fire hoses to mark out roads and made us do a number of tests, including learning the highway code, always signalling your intentions etc. I thought it was run by the school, as it was straight after school hours on the playground.

I do remember having to fix my bike, because before being allowed to take part your bike was inspected to make sure it was safe and you were shown how to fix things, like adjusting the brakes and chain tension.

27mm
26th May 2015, 14:48
Am seeing an increasing number of peeps cycling in pedestrian precincts; add to that the electric trolley users and you have a dodgy mix.

Last week spotted a very large (can't say fat - not pc) lady on her electric trolley, with oxy line in her nose, smoking a fag. You couldn't make it up.....

Octopussy2
26th May 2015, 15:38
Perone of the things that keeps me sane when stuck in Geneva traffic is that is allows me to put a full face of makeup on before I get to work (needless to say, only when the car is NOT moving :))

I do cycle on the pavement, sometimes. (I have no idea whether it's illegal or not). But I do so slowly and carefully and on the assumption that I do not have right of way, the pedestrians do. It seems to work fine, but that's because I take the view it's their space, not mine.

Good manners and consideration are all that's needed. Unfortunately it seems there's a minority of pig ignorant people out there - pedestrians, drivers, cyclists - who mess things up for the rest of us.

joy ride
26th May 2015, 15:39
Hmm, I doubt that picture tells the whole story.

Indeed it does not, it only shows about half the length of the road, if I had taken the photo from either end you would have been able to see the whole length but you would not have been able to see the cycle lanes at all, due to being filled with cars.

west lakes
26th May 2015, 15:48
Sadly yet another one

Jogger dies following Livingston cycle crash - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32883520)

Gertrude the Wombat
26th May 2015, 19:00
Here is a road in Blackheath a few days after it got cycle lanes along both sides of it, and how a cyclist is supposed to use these I really don't know!
From the picture it looks like they are probably only supposed to use them at times when the single yellow lines are active. If they were meant to be full time bike lanes there would be double yellow lines. You will probably find full details in the committee papers.

ShyTorque
26th May 2015, 20:57
Nobody pays "road tax". There hasn't been any form of taxation on any type of vehicle to pay for roads since the 1930's, when the Road Fund Licence was abolished.

Vehicle Excise Duty, payable on some vehicles, is a duty, like the duty payable on luxuray goods, that is wholly unconnected with roads - it goes into the exchequers central pot that the government use for many purposes. A fair bit of road maintenance costs comes from Council Tax , and all major road building is paid for from general taxation, so cyclists, pedestrians etc pay the same for roads as those driving vehicles.

VP959,

Sorry but you are out of date and wrong. There is no such thing as VED, it's an obsolete term. The government do refer to it as vehicle tax and have done so for quite some time. If you aren't convinced, check the relevant website for taxing your vehicle.

VP959
26th May 2015, 21:04
VP959,

Sorry but you are out of date and wrong. There is no such thing as VED, it's an obsolete term. The government do refer to it as vehicle tax and have done so for quite some time. If you aren't convinced, check the relevant website for taxing your vehicle.

Only in terms of terminology. The principle of all I wrote is exactly correct. The tax, that was a duty, has nothing at all to do with roads, and hasn't done since the 1930's, as I wrote.

Local road maintenance (the major issue for many) is paid for from Council Tax (not any form of tax on any vehicles that use the roads) and major road maintenance and construction is paid for from general taxation.

There has been a myth, propagated incorrectly for the past 80 odd years, that car users pay for roads and cyclists and pedestrians don't, which is simply untrue.

Flying Lawyer
26th May 2015, 21:37
VP959 so cyclists, pedestrians etc pay the same for roads as those driving vehicles. There has been a myth, propagated incorrectly for the past 80 odd years, that car users pay for roads and cyclists and pedestrians don't, which is simply untrue.

I agree that hypothecation was formally ended in 1936. In practice, the Road Fund never spent in full and was notorious for being raided for other purposes. It became known in political circles as the 'Raid Fund' for that reason.

However, the fact remains that motor vehicle owners (other than those in exempt categories) have to pay additional tax in order to keep or use their vehicles on public roads whereas cyclists do not.

goldfrog
26th May 2015, 22:06
VP959
However, the fact remains that motor vehicle owners (other than those in exempt categories) have to pay additional tax in order to keep or use their vehicles on public roads whereas cyclists do not.

And all those pedestrians walking on the road, and horse riders riding on it, and the guy who takes his wheelbarrow down my road to his allotment, TAX THEM ALL!

VP959
26th May 2015, 22:12
However, the fact remains that motor vehicle owners (other than those in exempt categories) have to pay additional tax in order to keep or use their vehicles on public roads whereas cyclists do not.

I've owned motor vehicles, and driven them on the roads, for the past ten years or more and not had to pay any form of road tax or excise duty. For the past 9 or 10 months my other half hasn't had to pay any form of road tax or excise duty to drive her car on the road, either. I have never paid any form of road tax or excise duty to ride my motorcycle on the road, and do not pay to ride either of my two bicycles either.

I'm far from being alone in having a fleet of road vehicles, motorcycles etc in the same family that pay no form of tax, as many vehicles are exempt from tax and have been for many years (in the case of my motorcycle it's been exempt from VED/tax for over 40 years).

Flying Lawyer
26th May 2015, 22:25
Anticipating a response along those or similar lines, I was careful to mention "other than those in exempt categories".

goldfrog
26th May 2015, 22:33
Anticipating a response along those or similar lines, I was careful to mention "other than those in exempt categories".

What, like bicycles :)

Ancient Mariner
26th May 2015, 22:47
Octopussy2:
Per, one of the things that keeps me sane when stuck in Geneva traffic is that is allows me to put a full face of makeup on before I get to work (needless to say, only when the car is NOT moving )
Me too, when my bike is not moving. Balancing the bike and the mirror while applying makeup is hell, takes hours of practice.
Per

Flying Lawyer
26th May 2015, 23:30
What, like bicycles
No.
Bicycles (pedal) don't come within the vehicle tax provisions so no exemption is necessary.

The exemptions, subject in some instances to specified conditions, are:
Vehicles used by a disabled person
Disabled passenger vehicles
Mobility scooters, powered wheel chairs and invalid carriages
Historic vehicles
Electric vehicles
Mowing machines
Steam vehicles
Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry.

Carry0nLuggage
26th May 2015, 23:42
Sadly yet another one but a rare one.

In Great Britain between 2009 and 2013, one pedestrian was killed in an incident involving a cycle on a footway or verge, whereas on average, 34 pedestrians each year were killed by vehicles on the footway/verge. - Taken from the most recent CTC cycling and pedestrians briefing.

I don't ride on the pavement because it's illegal and and keep well clear of pedestrians at other time because frankly, pedestrians are an unpredictable menace. If you clip someone with your handlebars you're going to make an unbreakable fall.

G-CPTN
27th May 2015, 00:00
No.
Bicycles (pedal) don't come within the vehicle tax provisions so no exemption is necessary.

The exemptions, subject in some instances to specified conditions, are:
Vehicles used by a disabled person
Disabled passenger vehicles
Mobility scooters, powered wheel chairs and invalid carriages
Historic vehicles
Electric vehicles
Mowing machines
Steam vehicles
Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry.

Police, Fire and Ambulances are exempt from VED, as are MOD vehicles

G-CPTN
27th May 2015, 00:02
If you clip someone with your handlebars you're going to make an unbreakable fall.
I don't know about unbreakable - I broke my collarbone in such an encounter.

VP959
27th May 2015, 08:09
The exemptions, subject in some instances to specified conditions, are:
Vehicles used by a disabled person
Disabled passenger vehicles
Mobility scooters, powered wheel chairs and invalid carriages
Historic vehicles
Electric vehicles
Mowing machines
Steam vehicles
Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry.

Quite a lot of cars pay no tax and aren't exempt vehicles. Both my car and my wife's are not exempt vehicles, we still had to display a disc until last November and now still have to tax them every year without paying any tax, because they are zero rated. The two cars I owned before were also zero rated, but also had to have a disc - it just had "NIL" on it in the space where the fee was supposed to be. They aren't exempt vehicles, just cars that don't emit enough CO2 to attract tax.

One of my motorcycles is exempt, but that is because of its age. The other is not an exempt vehicle but is zero rated because it is an electric motorcycle (aptly called a Zero, as it happens).

Carry0nLuggage
27th May 2015, 09:01
G-CPTN - Ouch, sorry to hear that but you make my point exactly. I've fallen off bicycles in all directions, including vaulting and summersaulting over the handlebars, but the front wheel twitch is the one I fear the most. In all the others I've managed to roll with it or do a break-fall.

Of course, this knowledge comes in handy when faced with a cyclist riding towards you on the pavement. Possibly. :E

BTW, the stuntman who acted the part of the agent who gets shot on his bike at Check Point Charlie in the opening scenes of The Spy Who Came In From The Cold said it was the most dangerous stunt he'd ever performed on account of the awkwardness of the fall.

joy ride
27th May 2015, 09:05
The idea that cyclists do not pay road tax is a common mis-conception. Many cyclists, like myself, DO pay road tax, but choose to cycle unless there are passengers or heavy goods to transport. Therefore many adult cyclists effectively pay MORE road tax because of the reduced use of their car(s).

I have also owned a couple of classic cars which had to display a tax disc, but were free to tax, so it is not just cyclists who "don't pay" !

VP959
27th May 2015, 09:33
In my case I've not paid any VED or road tax for many years now, yet still drive cars, and ride motorcycles and bikes on the road.

I still pay for the roads, as 90% of the roads I use are maintained by the local council, and I pay for them out of my Council Tax, just as others do.

Quite apart from anything else, there has never been a payment in recent history for the right to use a public highway of any type. A vehicular right of way is enshrined in law/local byelaws, and has been for a very long time. It includes the right for cyclists, motorcyclists, cars, horse riders etc to use any public right of way with the appropriate designation.

It annoys me when the anti-cyclist brigade come out with the claptrap about cyclists not paying to use the road, primarily because it's wrong and because it shows them to be discriminatory against cyclists if they have to stoop to spreading such propaganda.

As I've mentioned earlier, there are some arrogant, rude, thoughtless and plain careless cyclists around, and my experience (as a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver) is that the problem is getting worse. I drive around with a dash board camera in the car, and have literally dozens of video clips of very stupid, or downright dangerous, cycling.

One of the worst isn't of one of the "lycra" brigade, but is a lady I see most weekday mornings riding an electric bike towing a trailer with two small children in. She never stops at junctions, and just blithely rides out in front of oncoming traffic, expecting it to stop. Those of us who regularly drive this route know to look out for her, as she's been doing this for around the past year. I'm amazed that her and her children are still alive, TBH.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th May 2015, 09:37
Anticipating a response along those or similar lines, I was careful to mention "other than those in exempt categories".

Which somewhat undermines your point! Why should a bicycle pay this tax when some quite substantial motor vehicles are exempt?

A beef of mine is why does my 7hp Honda C90 attract an annual tax of the thick end of twenty quid, while some road monsters pay nowt?

It seems these offensive bicyclists exist in London. I have never lived there (managed to avoid that!) but have worked there for several days a week at times. Can't say I noticed the cyclists mowing down pedestrians right, left and centre. Maybe it's got a lot worse in the 8 years since I retired?

Up in Cheshire, it's the cyclists who are sinned against by arrogant car drivers who seem to have the attitude (also prevalent on here) that cyclists simply shouldn't be there, cluttering up the motorists' road, and are therefore 'fair game'.

VP959
27th May 2015, 09:44
Which somewhat undermines your point! Why should a bicycle pay this tax when some quite substantial motor vehicles are exempt?

A beef of mine is why does my 7hp Honda C90 attract an annual tax of the thick end of twenty quid, while some road monsters pay nowt?

I don't pay tax yet neither of our cars, nor one of my motorcycles, is exempt, they are zero rated. Exemption and being zero rated are two different things. I have a motorcycle that is exempt, due to its age, and another that is not exempt but which is zero rated.

There are quite a lot of cars around that are zero rated now, and many more that only pay a very nominal amount (I think the car before the present one my other half owned was only £15 a year).

The point is the one I keep making. The right to use a public right of way is not dependent on the payment of a tax, the tax payable is because you own an eligible vehicle. It's why, until recently, it was a duty, not a tax, as I believe that the original thinking was that cars were "luxury goods" that like drink, cigars and perfume, should attract duty for their use.

Flying Lawyer
27th May 2015, 09:58
VP959

See: Vehicles exempt from vehicle tax (https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-vehicle-tax)

And note the introduction. (The bold is theirs.) You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on the following types of vehicle.
You still need to apply for vehicle tax even if you don’t need to pay vehicle tax.
The point is the one I keep making.Why do you keep making the same point? ;)
By now, people will either accept what you say or they won't, and will also have formed their own opinions about how relevant it is to the discussion about how many (not all) cyclists conduct themselves on the roads.


joy rideThe idea that cyclists do not pay road tax is a common mis-conception. Cyclists do not pay vehicle tax in respect of their cycles.
If they also keep/use motor vehicles on public roads, then they pay vehicle tax in respect of those.
If they don't, then they don't pay any vehicle tax.Therefore many adult cyclists effectively pay MORE road tax because of the reduced use of their car(s).It costs them more per mile travelled, just like many others who rarely use their cars. However, vehicle tax is not based on mileage; mileage is relevant only to some of the Exemptions.

SSDWhich somewhat undermines your point! Which point?
Why should a bicycle pay this tax when some quite substantial motor vehicles are exempt? I haven't suggested that they should.

spekesoftly
27th May 2015, 10:03
VP959

in the case of my motorcycle it's been exempt from VED/tax for over 40 years. Please can you explain further. I was under the impression that the exemption scheme for older vehicles started in 1995?

VP959
27th May 2015, 10:06
Please can you explain further. I was under the impression that the exemption scheme for older vehicles started in 1995?

My error, I meant to say because it's over 40 years old (actually it's now closer to 50 years old)...............

VP959
27th May 2015, 10:10
Why do you keep making the same point?
By now, people will either accept what you say or they won't.

Because some here seem to be unable to differentiate between a tax on a vehicle and a tax to use a road.

It seems many believe that vehicle duty, now tax, is actually a road tax, and that this is a reason to not allow cyclists to use the roads in their minds.

ShyTorque
27th May 2015, 11:47
Hurry up, folks. I'm almost out of popcorn. :p

Flying Lawyer
27th May 2015, 11:48
If your point has force it will speak for itself.
It doesn't get any stronger with repetition. ;)
Because some here seem to be unable to differentiate between a tax on a vehicle and a tax to use a road.
Some here may think it's distinction without a practical difference. I include myself.

For example, you said earlier: The right to use a public right of way is not dependent on the payment of a tax, the tax payable is because you own an eligible vehicle.
Unless one of the Exemptions applies, the right to use or keep your vehicle on a public road is dependent upon paying vehicle tax.
You can own a vehicle without paying vehicle tax. (eg If you keep it off road and have made a Statutory Off Road Notification - a 'SORN'.)
There are some exceptions relating to untaxed vehicles, for example, driving to/from pre-arranged MOTs, vehicle identity checks, weight and emissions tests and for motor traders.

Exemption and being zero rated are two different things.They can be, depending upon the tax.
Do you still maintain that assertion in relation to vehicle tax?
If so, please explain why with reference to the link to 'Exemptions' I posted earlier.

radeng
27th May 2015, 12:00
Requiring cyclists to have insurance seems simple - but it isn't. Very hard to enforce, and since several of the people injured or killed recently in collisions with cyclists have been 'hit and run' cases, of little use. Draconian measures against the cyclist if caught and convicted might be a better approach. That means lengthy prison sentences (several years) and large fines used for compensation of the victims - if need be, funded by seizure of the offenders goods and property, as well as seizure of at least a portion of future earnings.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th May 2015, 12:26
Draconian measures against the cyclist if caught and convicted might be a better approach. That means lengthy prison sentences (several years) and large fines used for compensation of the victims - if need be, funded by seizure of the offenders goods and property, as well as seizure of at least a portion of future earnings.

What, you mean like car drivers are when they kill someone (not!). They get a rap on the knuckles usually, and perhaps a few point for 'driving without due care' despite being in poor control of a far more lethal vehicle than a mere bicycle.

Causing death by dangerous driving is a charge rarely applied. And on the rare occasions it is, it doesn't carry those draconian measures.

I haven't suggested that they should. (Cyclists pay road tax).

I'm not suggesting you did. Others are, though.

joy ride
27th May 2015, 12:27
In London the Laws regarding Cycle Lanes, and their enforcement are exceptionally bad jokes.

We have:

Advanced Stop Lanes : a box at junctions reserved for cyclists so that they can get across the road to whichever side they need to be in to turn Left or Right, and to give them a "head start" when the lights go green, so that they can get across the junction before the cars behind them overtake, turn left and run them over (a very common occurrence). Unlike "Box Junctions" where you are not allowed to be stationary in them at any time, the law regarding ASLs is that no motor vehicle must enter them AFTER the traffic lights have gone red. So to obtain a conviction it must be proven that the driver entered the box AFTER the light went red. This law makes effectively makes ASLs unenforceable, and indeed they are invariable blocked by vehicles and thus of little or no use to cyclists they are intended for.

Pavement Cycle Lanes, pedestrians are at full liberty to walk in them, cyclists are not allowed to cycle on pavements cycle lanes. I once had to swerve out of one to avoid a group of pedestrians who ignored my bell, and I was stopped by Police. While chatting to them amiably, and being told not to do it again, I pointed out the cars blocking the adjacent ASLs, but of course, that was "not our responsibility" ! Regular observation over 15 years on this local cycle lane shows an average of 70% of pedestrians walking in the cycle lane, pedestrians seem to prefer to walk between lines. The Law is an ass, and the bureaucrats who design these things should make OUTSIDE the lines for cyclists, and INSIDE for pedestrians, but sadly British Bureaucrats are too thick to recognise a good idea when it is suggested to them!

Cycle Routes, along some quiet roads, no special laws relating to cycling there, but on average about 70% of pedestrians on quiet roads at quiet times prefer to walk in the road, and are so used to doing this that few of them see any reason to get out of the way when they see an approaching cyclist. Many cyclists have been injured in road and Pavement Cycle Lane collisions with pedestrians, but no offence has been committed by the pedestrian, this is not fair, any cyclist who injurs a pedestrian on a pavement will be in very deep trouble.

"Discretionary Cycle Lanes" i.e. those with a broken white line along them. Any vehicle can drive or park in these 24/7/365, so they are completely useless to cyclists, despite the tax, business rates and council tax payers having had to pay for them (see my earlier photo).

"Mandatory Cycle Lanes" with an unbroken white line. Motor vehicles are not allowed to drive or park in them. Many of these have additional signs that limit the times when they are mandatory (usually office hours), and the rest of the time.

Cycle Superhighway: only mandatory during office hours, outside these times motor vehicles can drive or park in them.

So the vast majority of cycle lanes have no legal status protecting cyclist's right of use, and the vast majority of those that are mandatory are for only about 30% of the week, and importantly not at night, ;argely negating the point of a cycle lane.


As for enforcing the few badly written laws covering the very few discontinuous and badly designed cycle lanes, on some roads and pavements they are the responsibility of the local council, some are the responsibility of Transport for London, some Highways Agency and some are Department of Transport and the Regions. Each always denies responsibility and passes the buck to the others.

Enforcing some of the Laws are the responsibility of the police, some are the responsibility of Community Wardens, some the traffic wardens, some the Council's Roads Dept, some TfL, some HA, some DoTR. The experience of every London cyclist that I know has been that every single one of them will deny responsibility for dealing with obstructing vehicles and pass the buck to the others.

The fact that most cycle lanes are available for drivers to park or drive in all or most of the time is absurd.

Does anyone know of roads where drivers have to get out and push their vehicles? Or pavements on which pedestrians are expected to stop walking and push themselves for the rest of the way?

Why are cycle lanes alone singled out for highly discriminatory discontinuous and Part-Time facilities and Laws.

Finally the Law courts themselves often give highly biased sentences: a driver who kills a cyclist will get FAR lighter sentence than for killing a pedestrian. A cyclist who kills or injures a pedestrian can expect a very heavy sentence, whereas pedestrians in the road or cycle lane regularly cause damage, serious injury or even death to cyclists and motorists without committing any offence.

The paucity and woeful design of cycle facilities, their constant abuse by cyclists and drivers, and the discriminatory laws and their non-enforcement do, in my opinion, lead a significant number of cyclists to become aggressive and arrogant. I cycle responsibly and courteously, and I strongly blame the bureaucrats and lawyers far more than the bad cyclists.

radeng
27th May 2015, 12:34
A cyclist who kills or injures a pedestrian can expect a very heavy sentence,

Examples?

Other vehicles have to have insurance which allows some compensation to the victim: cyclists don't and the only approach is a civil case - if it's known who they are. As many of the would doubtless have ensured that they were 'men of straw' by the time it came to court, there still wouldn't be any compensation.

I notice that there's no condemnation of the hit and runs, which seem to be getting more common.....

Flying Lawyer
27th May 2015, 13:37
SSD
Causing death by dangerous driving is a charge rarely applied.That is simply not true.
The charge is used not only when the facts amply justify it but also when the (alleged) nature of the driving was 'borderline' between dangerous and careless.

Sentences upon conviction are severe. They have increased significantly during my 40 years working in the criminal courts in various roles.
The sentence imposed in a particular case will depend upon several factors, including whether there are any aggravating factors: Sentencing guideline - Causing death by driving (http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf)

Bear in mind that most cases are not reported in the press and, when they are, the reports very rarely if ever include all the relevant facts - simply those designed to catch the readers' attention. (Just like press reports concerning aviation, and many other spheres of activity.)

--

You haven't told me in what way you think I undermined my own point.
Nor what point you think I was making.


joy ride
Finally the Law courts themselves often give highly biased sentences: a driver who kills a cyclist will get FAR lighter sentence than for killing a pedestrian.Utter nonsense.

(And see above re press reports.)

VP959
27th May 2015, 15:13
Unless one of the Exemptions applies, the right to use or keep your vehicle on a public road is dependent upon paying vehicle tax.
You can own a vehicle without paying vehicle tax. (eg If you keep it off road and have made a Statutory Off Road Notification - a 'SORN'.)
There are some exceptions relating to untaxed vehicles, for example, driving to/from pre-arranged MOTs, vehicle identity checks, weight and emissions tests and for motor traders.

At the risk of extending a debate about the number of fairies one can fit on the head of a pin, my car is not exempt from vehicle tax, neither is my wife's car, neither is one of my two motorcycles. The second motorcycle is exempt by virtue of its age.

We pay no vehicle tax on any of these vehicles; three are zero rated, because they are below the emissions threshold where vehicle tax becomes payable, one because it is exempt.

As a household, we drive around 30,000 miles a year on the roads, and I probably cycle around another 1000 miles a year. We pay for this road use from a mix of Council Tax and general taxation.

We're probably untypical, but I have noticed that several of my friends, and also one of my neighbours, also drive cars that are zero rated for vehicle tax (none are on the exempted vehicles list).

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th May 2015, 15:37
You haven't told me in what way you think I undermined my own point.
Nor what point you think I was making.

Here's what you posted:

However, the fact remains that motor vehicle owners (other than those in exempt categories) have to pay additional tax in order to keep or use their vehicles on public roads whereas cyclists do not.

The point I thought you were making was that motor vehicle owners have to pay a tax that cyclists don't. The implication being that 'cyclists jolly well should. Why should they be exempted?'.

The undermining of that point was that you also that state owners of exempted motor vehicle do not have to pay that additional tax; which surely undermines your assertion that cyclists should pay such a tax.

Apologies if I misunderstood what you were expressing.

Flying Lawyer
27th May 2015, 16:05
VP959

We disagree about several aspects.
I'm content to agree to differ.


SSD
Yes, you misunderstood.
I have not and do not argue that cyclists should pay vehicle tax.

I readily understand why some people think registration including an identifying number plate & insurance should be required for riding on some public roads (eg central London) but, at the moment, I have an open mind about both suggestions.
The problems in central London have begun to abate, albeit just a little, since both the City and Metropolitan police forces began taking focused action. Although intermittent and only for a few days each time, there are indications that it is having some effect.

The Nip
27th May 2015, 17:14
With the growing amount of vehicles exempt from the 'vehicle tax'. Where is the shortfall going to come from when, eventually, the amount of tax raised falls significantly?
More and larger fines? Or will they re-write the rules regarding why we pay the vehicle tax?

VP959
27th May 2015, 19:37
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but one reason for the old road fund licence being changed to vehicle excise duty in 1936 was that it generated more income than was being spent on roads, so much so that the excess was regularly used for other purposes.

I believe that the same was true of VED, and more recently vehicle tax, this taxation raises significantly more revenue than is ever spent on roads.

Finding the data to see if this is true is probably challenging, because local authorities are responsible for the majority of roads and they fund this from Council Tax plus any general funds they receive from the exchequer. Major roads, trunk routes, motorways etc are, I believe funded from central funds from the DoT.

I'm sure that somewhere buried in the government online data there will be a breakdown of the revenue from vehicle tax versus the money spent of roads. I would be very surprised if the revenue generated from the tax didn't still significantly exceed expenditure on roads, as I think that it's a point that some of the motoring organisations have been using for some time to argue for more road investment.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th May 2015, 19:40
Can anyone say why we do pay this tax, and on what basis an anti-social great hulk emitting diesel particulates that collect in the lungs and cause cancer can be exempt, while a 7hp moped that emits a tiny bit of C02 and no nasty particulates is not?

I suspect it's misguided ignorance on environmental issues. Politicians (Gordon Brown comes to mind) meddling in things they don't understand and thereby allowing the law of unintended consequences to rule unsuppressed.

Tax diesel in cars off the road on health grounds.

Remove tax on tiny motorbikes that do no measurable harm to the environment.

Do not make electric or hybrid cars exempt until there is near-zero climatic impact from battery manufacturing and disposal.

Tax bloody caravans till the pips squeak! The extra carbon they cause through traffic hold ups needs to be delivered to their owners as a tax cost.

Don't even think about taxing the environmentally cleanest vehicle of all - the bicycle.

Gertrude the Wombat
27th May 2015, 19:59
Tax diesel in cars off the road on health grounds.
Yeahbut we all bought diesels because "they" told us to because they were greener.

If "they" have changed their minds and decided that diesels are evil this week then it's fair enough to change the incentives for new purchases, but I don't see how it's fair to penalise those of us who thought we were doing the right thing as "they" were telling us to.

Gertrude the Wombat
27th May 2015, 20:01
environmentally cleanest vehicle of all - the bicycle
Possibly.

But it goes like this:

Suppose you take one van off the road and replace it by two bicycle couriers. Jolly good, one less vehicle.

But your business has just gained the carbon footprint of a second whole family - how does that work out then?

I've never seen anyone attempt to do those sums.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th May 2015, 20:19
If "they" have changed their minds and decided that diesels are evil this week then it's fair enough to change the incentives for new purchases, but I don't see how it's fair to penalise those of us who thought we were doing the right thing as "they" were telling us to.

Why not?

When Gordon Brown introduced inflated tax on cars based on C02 missions (a very narrow view that ignored other factors such as particulates from diesels) the annual vehicle tax on my car shot up, despite the fact I'd bought it before these changes were introduced.

This convinced me that Gordon was not motivated by trying to influence car buying choice (my choice had been made when the rules were different yet I was penalised), just grabbing money where he could (and by crikey he needed to do that). I have not believed one word politicians say about green taxes since that obvious cynical tax grab.

Flying Lawyer
27th May 2015, 21:15
VP959 I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but one reason for the old road fund licence being changed to vehicle excise duty in 1936 was that it generated more income than was being spent on roads, so much so that the excess was regularly used for other purposes.
You are correct about that. See post 107 above and page 4 of www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01482.pdf prepared by a Senior House of Commons Researcher and updated to September 2014.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the extensive (and interesting) Briefing Paper but the author has specialised in transport issues for some decades and when I knew her 30+ years ago she was already an able and impressive lawyer (then at the CAA).

SSDCan anyone say why we do pay this taxHowever it's been dressed up by successive politicians of both hues, it's just another general revenue raising tax.

The abolition of VED was proposed in a White Paper by the then Labour Government in 1978. Even then, 37 years ago, it was estimated that a 20p per gallon increase in fuel duty would be required to make the change revenue-neutral. The Conservative Government (1979) reviewed VED and concluded that it should not be abolished. The official reason given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was that even if the tax had gone, a vehicle register would still have been required for police use/vehicle control and the associated administration costs would have continued. It would also, of course, have meant the loss of a valuable revenue stream!

Exemptions from payment:
Exempt vehicles are summarised at pages 16-17 of the Briefing Paper linked above and listed in full detail in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 as amended (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/contents)
See Schedule 2: Exempt vehicles (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/schedule/2)

They include light passenger vehicles with low CO2 emissions (not exceeding 100 g/km) for which the VED rate is zero.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th May 2015, 22:29
Yes, it would make sense to ditch the tax and raise the revenue from extra fuel duty instead. But that would be politically toxic. Imagine the reaction of the fuel tax lobby if tax on UK fuel went even higher than it is.

That that would only be to compensate for the abolition of annual vehicle tax would be forgotten.

It seems we sometimes get the political decisions we deserve. Except in the case of Gordon Brown's retrospective increases in vehicle tax I mentioned in my previous post! That is quite indefensible. Isn't it?

VP959
27th May 2015, 22:47
Yes, it would make sense to ditch the tax and raise the revenue from extra fuel duty instead. But that would be politically toxic. Imagine the reaction of the fuel tax lobby if tax on UK fuel went even higher than it is.


It's a logical argument, as much of our road costs come from usage patterns, which relate fairly well to the axle loading and mileage of vehicles. Vehicles with a high axle loading cause more road damage per mile, but also tend to use more fuel per mile, so taxation based on mileage makes a lot of sense IF the idea is to raise tax to pay for roads.

One problem is, I believe, the point I alluded to earlier, that vehicle tax most probably raises more revenue that is ever spent on roads, and it would be very unpopular if a new fuel tax was created to replace vehicle tax and generate more revenue than was needed to maintain and build roads.

Personally I've long felt that a tax that was related to road use and wear and tear would be fairer, even though it would mean that we, as a family, would have to pay a lot more (as currently none of our vehicles pays any vehicle tax, yet we drive around 30,000 miles a year on UK roads).

Sadly, fairness and logic are rarely key influencing factors in decisions over new taxes...................

Flying Lawyer
28th May 2015, 09:13
SSD Imagine the reaction of the fuel tax lobby if tax on UK fuel went even higher than it is.Not only the fuel tax lobby.
UK fuel tax is already high by international standards. Fuel Duty & VAT (applied after Duty so we pay tax on tax) currently accounts for about 65% of the price at the pump.

The retailer's margin (petrol and diesel) is only about 5p per litre and often less, except on motorways where there is effectively a captive market. (Gertrude's favourite - and now former - MP sponsored an Early Day Motion a few years ago calling on the Government to take action to increase competition between motorway filling stations but nothing came of it.)

Vehicles with a high axle loading use more fuel so they already generate more tax. Additional taxation would, inevitably and understandably, be passed on so the end-user/consumer of goods delivered would ultimately pay. It would also create further problems for our transport industry which already operates on low profit margins and already faces stiff competition from European hauliers.


VPN959 fairness and logic are rarely key influencing factors in decisions over new taxesI agree.
However, fairness and logic tend to be in the eye of the beholder when it comes to taxation.

VPN959 currently none of our vehicles pays any vehicle tax, yet we drive around 30,000 miles a year on UK roads
I'm envious, and curious. I'd be very interested to learn how you achieve that.
I don't know of any way it can be achieved except through the Exempt vehicles (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/schedule/2) provisions of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act.
Provision 25 states that a vehicle is an exempt vehicle if ... (b) the applicable CO2 emissions figure for the vehicle does not exceed 100 g/km.

VP959
28th May 2015, 09:31
Both cars are under the CO2 limit, one motorcycle is exempt by being pre-1973, the other motorcycle (a Zero) is electric.

Not only do we not pay any vehicle tax, but we don't pay the London Congestion Charge and we get free parking in a few places (and the Zero motorcycle pretty much always gets free parking, and often free charging too).

There are a fair few cars that fall into the free vehicle tax now, and not just small cars like my wife's hatchback. It seems manufacturers have been working hard on getting cars under the limit for some time.

Mind you, the performance of these may not match that which you might prefer!

spekesoftly
28th May 2015, 10:48
If your pocket is deep enough, performance need not be compromised!

BMW i8, Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid and the Tesla Model S are exempt from vehicle tax, and in this context I also have to chuckle at the term "light passenger vehicle".

Oh, and did I mention that they also qualify for a £5000 government grant? ;)

https://www.gov.uk/plug-in-car-van-grants/eligibility

Carry0nLuggage
28th May 2015, 11:23
We chose diesel for our current car for the economy and the engine size for the zero rating (didn't bother with the Cat 5 engine as we don't drive in London.)

I call it our tax avoidance scheme to wind up those who can't or won't distinguish between avoidance and evasion. :E

spekesoftly - until the grant budget runs out, so hurry!

Flying Lawyer
28th May 2015, 11:23
VP959

Thank you.
I was aware of the Exempt Vehicles provisions (see my previous post) but thought you'd found some other way.

the performance of these may not match that which you might prefer!
I briefly considered buying one just for London but decided the capital outlay wasn't worth it for me.
I live about a mile outside the Congestion Charge zone so lost my 90% discount when the Western Extension was (rightly) removed but just a very short detour on my route to/from work avoids the charge.
I rarely need to drive into/through the Zone during the day, about 6 times a year max and most of those are convenience rather than real necessity. I usually use my motorbike, a Boris bike or the tube. Finding a convenient car parking space is a hassle I prefer to avoid.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th May 2015, 12:07
BMW i8, Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid and the Tesla Model S are exempt from vehicle tax, and in this context I also have to chuckle at the term "light passenger vehicle".

Oh, and did I mention that they also qualify for a £5000 government grant?

This is the sort of nonsense that results when politicians meddle in stuff they don't really understand. And don't get me started on bluddy wind turbines!

VP959
28th May 2015, 12:31
Quote:
BMW i8, Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid and the Tesla Model S are exempt from vehicle tax, and in this context I also have to chuckle at the term "light passenger vehicle".

Oh, and did I mention that they also qualify for a £5000 government grant?
This is the sort of nonsense that results when politicians meddle in stuff they don't really understand.

I couldn't agree more.

I cannot see any good reason why my own, fairly large and heavy, 5 seat saloon car, with a large boot and reasonably OK performance, should be free from vehicle tax, and get a £5k subsidy, when most of the time it runs on petrol, just like other cars. However, if the government are going to hand out freebies and subsidies, then I'll take them!

I can see some merit in the free tax for my other half's car, though, as it is small, very economical and probably more closely aligned to some of the reasons for introducing the zero rate of tax for low emissions vehicles.

It does put my car on the same footing as my bike, though, as I don't pay tax to use either on the road............

charliegolf
28th May 2015, 14:44
Possibly.

But it goes like this:

Suppose you take one van off the road and replace it by two bicycle couriers. Jolly good, one less vehicle.

But your business has just gained the carbon footprint of a second whole family - how does that work out then?


Along with the carbon footprint of all the cars trailing along in second gear 'cos the tossers won't ride in single file!

joy ride
28th May 2015, 15:02
I do ride single file when with others but drivers should be more aware of the facts that

Cyclists are allowed to ride side by side
Cycle Trainers encourage side-by-side to discourage "opportunists" overtaking dangerously.

And most importantly the law apparently says that to overtake you should move over to the other side of the road, and it is an offence not to pull fully over, therefore side-by-side cyclists could be saving drivers from a conviction!

Back to discrimination against cyclists: a few years ago in Holborn I was just behind another cyclist approaching a junction with amber traffic lights lit. A car was approaching fast behind us and very close. The fellow ahead cycled across the junction, passing over the white line just before the light turned red, with the car now being beside me, and it continued across the junction after the light went red. Two more cars followed it close behind in the familiar "Red Light Train" formation. All there overtook the cyclist in the junction, which I believe is illegal.

A foot Constable on the other side of the junction immediately stopped the cyclist, paying no attention to the 3 cars which by then were all well above the speed limit.

Once my light went green I cycled over and politely told the Policeman that the cyclist had entered the junction legally on Amber, would have been crushed by the speeding car if he had stopped, was overtaken by all three cars which had all passed the light at red.

I told him that I was prepared to make a statement and appear in court. I also asked hi why he had not done anything about the three drivers who had all committed 3 offences: red light, overtaking and speeding.

He said "There's nothing I could do about them".

Recently a friend found the Cycle Superhighway completely blocked by cars at a time when they were not allowed to be there. He cycled slowly along the empty pavement but got stopped by a police car and cautioned. He asked why they did not take any action against the obstructing vehicles..."Not our responsibility."

Sadly these situations are the daily norm for cyclists in London.

Heliport
28th May 2015, 15:25
And most importantly the law apparently says that to overtake you should move over to the other side of the road, and it is an offence not to pull fully over


Where can I find that law? :confused:

Crashing Software
28th May 2015, 15:45
Highway Code Rule 163

Octopussy2
28th May 2015, 15:46
I don't know why, but cyclists cycling two abreast make my blood boil.

Here they tend to fall into 2 sub-categories: (a) Lycra-clad warriors emulating their Tour de France heroes on narrow winding mountain roads halfway up an Alp - I have absolutely no problem with (and some admiration for the fitness levels of) serious hobby cyclists but you don't need to do it side-by-side to reduce even further the possibility of my being able to get past you on an already narrow road and (b) clueless teenagers (or older) cycling along chatting like they are the only people using the road. Sub-group (b) also think it's a good idea to cycle while firmly plugged in to their i-player which I just don't get, you need ALL your senses to stay safe as a cyclist.

Gertrude the Wombat
28th May 2015, 16:12
make my blood boil... but you don't need to do it side-by-side to reduce even further the possibility of my being able to get past you on an already narrow road
I would disagree.

Anyone whose "blood" has a tendency to "boil" should not, obviously, be in control of a vehicle. So anything that anyone can do to slow them down, or better stop them altogether, is clearly a Good Thing.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th May 2015, 16:19
The sort of discrimination against cyclists described by Joy Ride is all too common. My experience of uniformed plod is that they have no time for cyclists and tend to share the motorists view that they shouldn't be there as roads are for motor vehicles. :rolleyes:

When cyclists endure this sort of treatment day after day in city traffic and busy commuter roads, they soon realise 'the system' excludes them as equel-right users of road space. This is reinforced by road design, attitude of bullying motorists, and indifferent police as JR describes.

It it much wonder that the more rebellious of them will occasionally break a traffic law? Crikey, as JR describes, motorists do it all the time with no such provocation!

dazdaz1
28th May 2015, 16:51
VP959........ "Mind you, the performance of these may not match that which you might prefer!"

Very true, as to the Fiat 500 1200cc that was highlighted on a BBC programme, even the 'Stig' could not go from a standing start up a steep gradient.

A free software upgrade (as I have been informed) cured the problem. I wonder now, has this increased the CO2 emissions? Possible nasty surprises for owners.

joy ride
28th May 2015, 17:03
You are spot on SSD! About 25 years agabout 5 years after I moved to London and regularly left my car at home in favour of cycling. I soon learned that I was expected to obey all rules of the road, but none applying to my rights were systematically ignored by other road users and the authorities.

On one occasion while on a main road a car pulled out of a side road right in front of me, despite the driver having looked straight at me. Having collided with his car, he got out and attacked me for touching it. A passing police car intervened. A witness fully backed my account and was prepared to be a witness in court. The police charged him with dangerous driving and assault, and drove off to the police station. Weeks later I found out that on the way they released him and dropped both charges.

With badly bleeding lips and cheek I had to push my damaged bike 2 miles to the hospital to get stitched up.

I was advised to complain to PCA, did, and got a few hundred pounds compensation, but the driver got off scot-free and learned that driving into and attacking a cyclist are unlikely to be prosecuted. Similar incidents to myself and many acquaintances did indeed lead me to become an arrogant cyclist for several years.

Another aspect of the side-by-side cycling complaint by drivers: I agree that it IS irritating to be slowed down, but why is the irritation so much greater and attract such anger when it is cyclists causing it? Such anger rarely seems to be directed at horse riders, horses and wagons, traction engines, farm vehicles, heavy loads and other slow moving legal users of the road, many of which move far slower than average cycling speed. Drivers HAVE to expect to be held by slow moving vehicles, animals on the road and all sorts of other things, the roads (apart from Motorways) are not just for motor vehicles.

Octopussy2
28th May 2015, 17:10
Gertie - steady, I'm merely pointing out that I'm irritated by the lack of consideration such behaviour implies. However, it may reassure you to know that the extent to which such irritation is expressed is confined to a gentle tutting from behind the wheel - it's not like I try to mow them down or something :=

In contrast, my irritation was expressed rather more forcibly when the second motorist in a row had a good go at killing me during a half-hour cycle ride to work last summer...

I'm a cyclist as well. I don't like prejudiced, blinkered views about motorists or cyclists. However the fact is, both cyclists and motorists (AND pedestrians) sometime behave like nobs. Spouting off about this fact on an internet board doesn't make me a reckless driver.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th May 2015, 17:15
Indeed, one soon realises that as a cyclist you are expected by motorists (who should look to the beam in their own eyes) to obey the law to the letter, but at the same time, while observing motorists not doing so, being totally denied your rights as an equal-status road user. Bullying and self-important motorists with their power, speed, and protection afforded by their metal boxes get away with maltreating cyclists.

The thing is, there's probably very few cyclists who are not also motorists so see it from both points of view. Very few motorists are serious traffic-travelling cyclists so only see it from the motorists viewpoint. No wonder there are so many biased anti-cycling views from many on here. There always are when this hamster wheel revolves again.

Octopussy2
28th May 2015, 17:17
Joyride - that's not a good analogy. It's not the issue of being slowed down, it's being slowed down unnecessarily - of course I accept that on occasion I'll be stuck behind a tractor (and sometimes really thoughtful tractor drivers pull over when they can if they know traffic's piling up behind them) and of course I'm happy to slow down for horses. Because I'm a cyclist, I'm a particularly considerate driver when I'm around cyclists. But I expect some consideration in return. I don't think it's ok to get in people's way and hold them up when you can easily avoid doing so.

VP959
28th May 2015, 19:16
As a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver, I'm always struck by how strongly the anti-bike and anti-car folk feel, and how wound up they get about the behaviour of "the other lot". There are a lot of cyclists who deserve a clip around the ear for their dangerous riding, and there are equally a lot of car drivers who deserve the same for their careless driving. Arguing the toss about either of them on an internet forum isn't going to change their behaviour, though.

When I've been cut up by a thoughtless, or on one occasion a deliberately aggressive, motorist I've just put it down to experience, or on one occasion quietly recorded the incident and reported it. I've adopted the strategy of never saying anything to anyone who gets aggressive, as all it does is inflame things. There seems little point in getting worked up about these things, it's best to either ignore them if they're minor or report them if they are not. Life's too short to be wasted on things that just elevate your blood pressure.

The really aggressive motorist I encountered about three years ago ended up pleading guilty and getting fined. The odd thing was is that he was exceptionally contrite in court and seemed a very different person to the one that had driven a car at me some weeks before. I sometimes wonder if people change character when they get on a bike, or get behind the wheel of a car.

He'd driven the wrong way up a one way street, that happened to be a two way cycle way, just so he could pin my bike against a wall, He threatened me with violence, because, apparently, he didn't approve of the fact that bikes were allowed to ride in both directions on this road/cycle way when cars were only allowed to go down it in one direction. I didn't say a word to him when he was shouting at me, and couldn't get away as he had the front wheel of my bike pinned to a wall with his front bumper, so I just videoed his rant on my phone and called the police when I got away. I sent the video to them and a day or two later they traced him and interviewed him, where he admitted everything. He really wasn't very bright, as when he trapped my car against the wall he couldn't open his door to get at me and scraped the side of his car on the wall, which probably cost more to get fixed than his fine.

One of my former colleagues was a cyclist who spent an inordinate amount of time and effort in trying to change the behaviour of thoughtless motorists. He had lights and reflectors galore, hi-vis clothing and even one of those orange things sticking out from the side of his bike rack to try and get motorists to keep a safe distance when passing, none of which seemed to alleviate his stress from their behaviour; he would arrive at work and rant about motorists most mornings, which probably harmed his health more than the motorists did.

He ended up getting into trouble when he fitted a can of aerosol spray paint to the side of his bike, with an ingenious mechanism that activated the can if a motorist brushed the orange paddle thing he had sticking out the side. This then sprayed a streak of paint down the side of the offending car, but all that did was get him in trouble for damaging cars. Mind you, he got off with a caution, when a police car following him spotted his gizmo spraying the side of a bus. I have a sneaking suspicion that the police officer secretly admired his ingenuity.

VP959
28th May 2015, 19:19
VP959........ "Mind you, the performance of these may not match that which you might prefer!"

Very true, as to the Fiat 500 1200cc that was highlighted on a BBC programme, even the 'Stig' could not go from a standing start up a steep gradient.

A free software upgrade (as I have been informed) cured the problem. I wonder now, has this increased the CO2 emissions? Possible nasty surprises for owners.

I have to say that my vehicle tax exempt, £5k government subsidy, car does perform a little better than that Fiat 500. Slightly better than the old Mini Cooper I owned in around 1972 and a lot better when accelerating up hills from a standing start...................

Gertrude the Wombat
28th May 2015, 20:03
I'm a cyclist as well. I don't like prejudiced, blinkered views about motorists or cyclists. However the fact is, both cyclists and motorists (AND pedestrians) sometime behave like nobs. Spouting off about this fact on an internet board doesn't make me a reckless driver.
Fair enough!

Very few motorists are serious traffic-travelling cyclists so only see it from the motorists viewpoint.
The MD of our local bus company makes his drivers cycle around town as part of a training course.

Since he started this the complaints from cyclists about bus drivers appear to have reduced dramatically.

He ended up getting into trouble when he fitted a can of aerosol spray paint to the side of his bike, with an ingenious mechanism that activated the can if a motorist brushed the orange paddle thing he had sticking out the side. This then sprayed a streak of paint down the side of the offending car, but all that did was get him in trouble for damaging cars. Mind you, he got off with a caution, when a police car following him spotted his gizmo spraying the side of a bus.
A local (Tory!) councillor broke a car's mirror when it was where it shouldn't be and she collided with it "completely accidentally" whilst cycling. She was prosecuted for criminal damage. She was found not guilty.

DType
28th May 2015, 21:19
Was a little gobsmacked to observe a cyclist, with one of those orange spacer flags, deploy his rolled umbrella to hook the flag up and in, so as to enter a narrow undertaking gap, all without stopping. So, "I can be close to you, but you mustn't be close to me".

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th May 2015, 22:38
Was a little gobsmacked to observe a cyclist, with one of those orange spacer flags, deploy his rolled umbrella to hook the flag up and in, so as to enter a narrow undertaking gap, all without stopping. So, "I can be close to you, but you mustn't be close to me".

Perfectly logical. The cyclist is in control of the gap in the scenario you describe as they pass the car at 10mph or so. When a motorist shaves the hairs off your legs as they pass at 40mph your life is in their incompetent hands.

haughtney1
29th May 2015, 11:54
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o3B601Ndsg

joy ride
29th May 2015, 12:23
Octopussy, yup it is not a great analogy and I agree about the "unnecessary" bit, just trying to make a point that when driving we all have to prepare for delays. I (also a regular driver) do my best, where possible, not to get in the way of other road users.

I frequently visit my Dad within the New Forest and am constantly amazed at how fast many drivers go along narrow lanes even though they MUST realise that there could be New Forest Ponies or cows in the road around the very next corner; they clearly have no idea how much damage a horse can do to a car and its occupants! I have seen some collisions there and it is not pleasant for man nor beast.

As a regular driver, cyclist and walker, I honestly believe that if you regularly do all three you become better at all of them, and more conscious and considerate of the others.

One last comment on this: for every anti-social cyclist ( on pavements etc.) how about Impatient Joggers as a better target for complaint.... on crowded pavements and even roads they hustle ceaselessly and even push their way through groups of pedestrians and even cyclists! (Yes, I do sometimes go jogging!)

ExXB
29th May 2015, 12:28
So, it's not the bike, it's not the car, it's not the tandem articulated lorry and it's not the running shoes.

There sure are a lot of jerks out there. Present company excepted, of course.

DType
29th May 2015, 12:44
SSD
Was just stating what I observed, without (too much) bias.
Could be a bit tough on the car driver who finds someone has sneaked into what had been a clear space.
And yes, I do always check my wing mirror before opening my car door, but got caught out once by a cyclist who (I assume) had been cycling close the the kerb but swung out in last few feet to pass my parked car. Fortunately the only damage was to my ear drums.

Octopussy2
29th May 2015, 13:23
DType - funny you should mention that, I have a paranoid fear of someone opening a car door on me when I'm cycling past a line of parked cars. To the point where I leave practically a car door's length between me and the parked cars down one particular stretch of road, which isn't going to endear me to any cars trying to get past (see, none of us are perfect, even me :p).

Gertrude - I love the idea of making the bus drivers cycle round town! Perfect.

I also may need to out myself as an impatient jogger - it's ok here, but jogging by the river in London can be a nightmare because of crowds of tourists (of course it's my own fault for choosing that route, but there's not much choice in central London). I don't shove anyone but I do plead guilty to repeating some choice phrases in my head, only to find that, actually, I may have said them out loud :O

DType
29th May 2015, 14:24
Op2
Yes, nearly lost my daughter that way. The opening car door flung her off her bike and under the wheels of a bus, which just stopped in time.
Parents hear about (some of) these misadventures years later.
DT

radeng
29th May 2015, 16:31
Re Post#171

This occurs more frequently than one would think, and sometimes - as happened near here recently - with fatal results for the cyclist. Where damage is caused, insurance held by the cyclist would be a good idea.....

Flying Lawyer
29th May 2015, 21:31
VP959

Part of the anti-bike/anti-car problem flows from the conflict between those motorists who think 'cyclists shouldn't be there because roads are for motor vehicles' and those cyclists who believe themselves to be in some way morally superior.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the police officer secretly admired his ingenuity.You may be right, but I hope it was momentary laziness.

joy ride the law apparently says that to overtake you should move over to the other side of the road, and it is an offence not to pull fully overI've come across that myth before, in an article written by a 'cyclists rights' activist.
He conceded that the guidance contained in the Highway Code doesn't say that but based his contention on this illustration of one of the guidelines used in the Code. :rolleyes:

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as_much_spac e_as_you_would_a_car.jpg



Paranoia is healthy on two wheels. I've ridden motorbikes and bikes around London since I was a student and, like many bikers, always ride on the assumption that anyone with four wheels or more might be trying to kill me. However, based upon almost daily dealings with police of all ranks for 32 years until relatively recently, and having prosecuted or defended more death by dangerous driving cases than I can remember, I have never encountered any basis for some cyclists' paranoia about police being prejudiced against them as suggested by a few posters here.

What I have encountered is a feeling of frustration that when the police take focused action at accident blackspots aimed at discouraging cyclists from riding through red lights etc, they are criticised by the cyclist lobbies - the very road-users they are trying to protect from serious injury or death.

Gertrude the Wombat
29th May 2015, 22:22
The opening car door flung her off her bike
All the usual stuff about being alert to this, watching what the car occupants are doing, not getting that close to the cars in the first place (only sometimes possible) ect ect ...

... so that if someone opens a car door whilst I'm cycling past I'm ready either to aim for the person (a softer landing for me than hitting the door, even if they do then owe me a new front wheel) or reach out and slam the door shut on them as I pass.

PukinDog
30th May 2015, 07:23
Not only registered and insured, but taxed to the point of pain for emitting high levels of CO2 through all their huffing and puffing respiration. Pedal bike cyclists eat up way more than their fair share of precious Oxygen and dirty-up the atmosphere with foul Carbon Dioxide emissions just because they're too stingy or not mature enough to buy a proper vehicle fit for an adult. The rest of the world shouldn't have to suffer for their addiction to joy-riding.

There could be a Cultural Tax Exemption for any cyclists who ride penny-farthing bicycles attired in normal clothes topped-off with a period-correct hat or cap instead of a ridiculous helmet. Helmets only give cyclists a false sense of security that leads to recklessness and more speed. More speed is gained through more effort fueled by more respiration, which would defeat the purpose of the exemption. If a cyclist isn't constantly thinking he needs to slow down or isn't always fearful of injury even just from tipping over while stationary, then the Law must be changed.

Children under the age of 15 wouldn't have to pay the tax. That financial burden would be rightly shouldered by the uncaring adult(s) who provided them their bicycle, and besides, until the labor laws are changed and liberalized you can't get blood from a 12 year-old stone.

joy ride
30th May 2015, 09:24
Another cyclist killed in London yesterday, another (actually a unicyclist) wedged under a bus:

London cyclist killed in Denmark Hill lorry crash - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32927306)

Interesting to note that Transport for London was set up about 15 years ago, and part of its task and budget was to provide more and better facilities for cyclists, to make cycling SAFER and more attractive, partly to reduce CONGESTION and make life better for those who are driving.

When Holland decided to do this they immediately started building cycle lanes across the country, and backed them with clear legislation and enforcement. Within 20 years the whole country was criss-crossed with a vast network of cycle lanes which are largely (in my experience) kept clear of pedestrians and motor vehicles. In fact many of their cycle lanes are totally segregated from the roads.

By contrast TfL spent their first 10 years making huge promises of imminent improvement, and spent the Cycling budget on reports, studies, guides, leaflets, pamphlets, trips to Holland, adverts, committee meetings, focus groups, consultations, surveys etc..

At the end of all this they finally decided that the best solution was to keep spending most of the budget on their own bureaucracy, and instead introduce a policy called "Road Sharing". So after 15 years little of value has been achieved, except lots of money going to bureaucrats and paper makers & sellers.

Despite an increasing death toll and countless injuries to cyclists, it has still failed to register with TfL that when a motor vehicle choses to share the same road space as a cyclist, the results are usually serious or fatal.

etimegev
30th May 2015, 09:47
If motorised vehicles pay a tax (or whatever words the pedants want to dress it up as) for the building and maintenance of roads then why should cyclists expect dedicated cycle lanes to be provided while paying nothing towards them? (Yes, I know that they will part pay through general taxation but why should non cyclists have to pay to keep the idiots safe?)

goldfrog
30th May 2015, 11:16
If motorised vehicles pay a tax (or whatever words the pedants want to dress it up as) for the building and maintenance of roads then why should cyclists expect dedicated cycle lanes to be provided while paying nothing towards them? (Yes, I know that they will part pay through general taxation but why should non cyclists have to pay to keep the idiots safe?)

How many times do you need telling the the tax motorists pay goes into the general taxation bucket and does not pay for roads except for a small proportion on major highways that are paid for out of that bucket. Most roads are paid for from Council Tax which all adults pay (with certain exemptions) so as a cyclist I pay for my local roads by council tax and, as a wage earner, I pay for the major roads, some of which (motorway) I can't even use on my bike.

I also pay for education despite having no children etc etc etc.

radeng
30th May 2015, 11:18
etimegev

(Yes, I know that they will part pay through general taxation but why should non cyclists have to pay to keep the idiots safe?)

It's probably less expensive to the taxpayers as a whole than the cost of a death or injury when you consider the overall costs of traffic disruption, police and ambulance time, hospital treatment or post mortem, inquest etc.

Gertrude the Wombat
30th May 2015, 11:28
If motorised vehicles pay a tax (or whatever words the pedants want to dress it up as) for the building and maintenance of roads then why should cyclists expect dedicated cycle lanes to be provided while paying nothing towards them?
Every now and then someone here threatens to organise a "no cycling day" just to show petrolheads like you what it would be like if thousands of cyclists left their bikes at home for a day and used their cars instead.

But it won't happen, the cyclists aren't that stupid.

radeng
30th May 2015, 11:42
I find it interesting that in all 10 pages or so of this thread, the pro-cycling lobby has not seen fit to criticise the 'hit and run' cyclist cases that have been mentioned.

Or have I missed it somewhere?

wiggy
30th May 2015, 12:21
Really?

Well just in case - the guy was way out of order.

Though to be honest OTOH thoughts/comments such as " why should non cyclists have to pay to keep the idiots safe?" don't really portray non-cyclists in any favourable light either.

I have to ask what is it about drivers and bikes in the UK -something in the water or a lack of daylight?

ShyTorque
30th May 2015, 12:47
I also pay fro education despite having no children etc etc etc.

Someone else paid for your education. Today's kids have to pay their own way for tertiary education, unlike previous generations from your era, or at least their parents do.

Also, don't forget that today's tax payers are providing you with your state pension and have to wait to get their own pension until reaching a greater age than when you qualified for yours.

Ancient Mariner
30th May 2015, 12:54
radeng:the pro-cycling lobby has not seen fit to criticise the 'hit and run' cyclist cases

Maybe the the pro-cycling lobby can't be bothered with this oft repeated, never ending nonsense? I know I can't.
By all means, do carry on.
Per

Martin the Martian
30th May 2015, 15:04
Nonsense? Really?

Mother's fury after daughter struck by hit-and-run cyclist | West Briton (http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Mother-s-fury-daughter-struck-hit-run-cyclist/story-26582389-detail/story.html)

And as a cyclist who happily and gratefully uses the cycle paths paid for by taxpayers such as myself, can I ask why the hell do some other cyclists ignore them and still cycle on the busy roads they run alongside, particularly at rush hour, putting themselves in danger?

I just don't get it. I really don't.:ugh:

Gertrude the Wombat
30th May 2015, 15:35
And as a cyclist who happily and gratefully uses the cycle paths paid for by taxpayers such as myself, can I ask why the hell do some other cyclists ignore them and still cycle on the busy roads they run alongside, particularly at rush hour, putting themselves in danger?
Cyclists always have that option, except on motorways.

Sometimes there's even a three-way choice - where pavement cycling is allowed, and there's an on-road cycle path, and there's the main carriageway.

A cyclist will make a choice based on various factors including speed and convenience as well as safety. Usually when a cyclist chooses not to use a cycle path it's because the cycle path is, for one reason or another or quite frequently several, crap.

On my ride home from work I use some cycle paths and not others. Along one main road I use the cycle path for some of the route but not all of it ... because along the stretch I don't use it it's got a completely crap surface (lumps and bumps and potholes and gravel), and I can either cycle at walking speed, or get myself and the bike bumped and jolted all over the place and run the risk of not being able to stop or change direction safely if someone steps out into my path. The fact that the cycle path exists along the entire length of road is visible to motorists; the fact that half of it is essentially unusable is not obvious to anyone at all until they've tried cycling down it.

Martin the Martian
30th May 2015, 15:59
I have the option that as a motorist I can drive on the pavement. I don't, because I use the areas provided for cars. When I'm cycling I use the areas provided for bicycles. Even when poor in quality they are safer than venturing out into traffic.

However, the areas that I frequently witness this on my daily commute are very well maintained, fully segregated and quite wide. They feature light controlled crossing areas and are very well thought out. I know this because I use them as well sometimes. But when I drive alongside them in busy traffic I will sooner or later be confronted with somebody's backside raised in the air off their seat, often with an MP3 plugged into their ears and ignoring other traffic on the road. The sensible ones are safely using the cyclepath and wondering why that t*t is using the road instead.

If no cyclepath I use the road or, if it is permitted, a shared pavement. If the pavement is not for use by cyclists I don't use it. Especially when there are little kids walking to school.

Shack37
30th May 2015, 16:12
Maybe the the pro-cycling lobby can't be bothered with this oft repeated,
never ending nonsense? I know I can't. By all means, do carry on.
Per


Congratulations Ancient Mariner.
First prize for probably the most arrogant, unfeeling and selfish post of the thread.

Gertrude the Wombat
30th May 2015, 17:30
I have the option that as a motorist I can drive on the pavement.
Not in the UK you don't.

UniFoxOs
30th May 2015, 17:37
Maybe the the pro-cycling lobby can't be bothered with this oft repeated, never ending nonsense? I know I can't

So why post?

Not in the UK you don't.

I often do. You are confusing legal with possible.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
30th May 2015, 19:23
Cyclepaths - many in UK are useless. If they are separate from the road they are often covered in glass and detritus from the adjacent road, and/or very poorly maintained offering a poor option for cycling. If of the 'painted line by the side of the road' type, again they are usually full of detritus from the road, and often simply stop when they are most needed with the command "cyclists dismount"!

WTFs that about? Do we see "Motorists get out and push"? No! If I wanted to be a pedestrian I'd leave the bike at home. So those 'commands' get ignored and I cycle on the road, as I am legally entitled to do.

Of course the numpty motorists who think they know it all but actually know none of the above get shirty because I'm not using the cycle lane! They should try it! In fact, they should try cycling! Might enlighten them a bit and deter them from posting the ignorant anti-cycling crap that appears in these threads!

Toadstool
30th May 2015, 19:36
TBH

most of the people who hate cyclists are fat lazy middle aged men who get angry at being delayed by 20 seconds when overtaking cyclists.

If this really gets you angry, perhaps you need a different perspective.

I get angry at murderers, paedophiles...you know, things that get normal people angry.

When I drive to work instead of cycle, I just leave early. If you are going to be late at work just because it took you an extra 20 seconds to overtake a cyclist, you may need to change your schedule.

Whats the score anyway between stupid vehicle drivers killing people on the roads verses stupid cyclists killing people on the roads?

radeng
30th May 2015, 23:07
I am not a cyclist. I have no time for those who think they own the roads. Overtaking a cyclist is only done when I can leave a minimum of 4 feet and preferably more between me and the cyclist.

Then I am more than irritated when on a winter's night, on an unlit rural road, I find a cyclist, with no lights and dark clothing, wobbling across the road and it is my responsibility to avoid the twerp.....

or the woman in Cirencester who did not give way to traffic entering the roundabout from her right and gave a lot of foul mouthed abuse to the motorists who expected her to follow the rules of the road

or the gang of lycra loonies who, on a narrow single track road, continued to ride two abreast to stop an ambulance with twos and blues going from passing them.

But then there was the poor woman cycling in Cirencester. Moved over to the left to let traffic go by, got caught in a pothole and went base over apex. If she had stayed in the middle of the road, she might have avoided it...two cars stopped and one of them took her to hospital while the other took her bike home.

Totally unusual......don't expect it, especially if any of the drivers are in a white van.

There's good and bad everywhere. But 'hit and run' is inexcusable, and should receive a harsh punishment. Including a multi-year ban.

Capot
31st May 2015, 11:18
A colleague and great friend was killed in 1982 in North London, riding his bike to work, as he did every day, in Westminster. He was crushed by an HGV after he rode up on its left-hand side at a junction.

Before and since that sad day, hundreds have been killed in exactly the same way.

Why is it so difficult to learn not to do that? What is it about cyclists that they seek to commit suicide in this way, and then blame the HGV driver?

For their own protection, it is cyclists who should be banned from city streets, not goods vehicles.

Think of how nice it would be if there were no more cyclists in city centres; no abuse, no hurtling along pavements among pedestrians, shouting at them to get out of the way, no running of red lights, no dead cyclists, even.

Public Transport is there to be used.

radeng
31st May 2015, 11:25
Cycle paths. There was some time last year a photograph in one of the local papers where a re-routed cycle path had a telephone pole slap bang in the middle of it!

A real 'would you believe it' occurrence......they might as well have just shut down the path.

I can understand cyclists using the pavement in Cirencester, illegal as it is, because of the potholes.....

Ancient Mariner
31st May 2015, 11:58
Congratulations Ancient Mariner.
First prize for probably the most arrogant, unfeeling and selfish post of the thread.


Thank, you much appreciated. I will promptly add it to my long list of distinguished prizes and awards.
Per

radeng
31st May 2015, 13:14
Cycle accidents can happen to anybody......

John Kerry: US secretary of state in Swiss hospital after breaking leg in bicycle crash - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32950173)

Hope he recovers soon. A broken femur is no joke, especially at his age .

Gertrude the Wombat
31st May 2015, 13:35
Think of how nice it would be if there were no more cyclists in city centres
If they all took their cars instead it would be 24/7 gridlock. At least it would be nice and quiet (once everyone had run out of fuel).

KBPsen
31st May 2015, 15:11
http://i58.tinypic.com/j5wiu0.jpg

beaufort1
31st May 2015, 16:12
That makes the assumption of one person per car? You would only require 12 cars to transport 60 people if all seats were occupied. As I'm assuming the one bus would have every seat occupied and the bicycles, let's compare like for like. :hmm:

Gertrude the Wombat
31st May 2015, 16:27
That makes the assumption of one person per car?
Stand by a commuter road in the morning and count - that's not far off.

SWBKCB
31st May 2015, 17:44
A cyclist will make a choice based on various factors including speed and convenience as well as safety. Usually when a cyclist chooses not to use a cycle path it's because the cycle path is, for one reason or another or quite frequently several, crap.

On my ride home from work I use some cycle paths and not others. Along one main road I use the cycle path for some of the route but not all of it ... because along the stretch I don't use it it's got a completely crap surface (lumps and bumps and potholes and gravel), and I can either cycle at walking speed, or get myself and the bike bumped and jolted all over the place and run the risk of not being able to stop or change direction safely if someone steps out into my path. The fact that the cycle path exists along the entire length of road is visible to motorists; the fact that half of it is essentially unusable is not obvious to anyone at all until they've tried cycling down it.

So riding on the road is safer than using the cycle path?

On a separate point, I do get a bit p*ssed off by cyclists who ignore a cycle path and will use busy roads and inconvenience other road users (my own personal favourite was the git who overtook a digger on a dual carriageway during rush hour rather than use the cycle lane) - this happens on two roads I use regularly both in the car and on the bike.

Common denominator? All blokes of a certain age with "all the gear" who don't want to be slowed down (probably trying to beat their best times on one of those stupid apps...) and aren't bothered if everybody else is.

KBPsen
31st May 2015, 17:45
let's compare like for likeOk.

In the UK there's on average 1.57 people in a car per journey, 30 people in a bus per journey and 1 person on a bicycle per journey.

beaufort1
31st May 2015, 17:58
What percentage of roads overall are used by commuting traffic?

Where are you pulling these figures from? Which country? Apples and pears.:rolleyes:

KBPsen
31st May 2015, 18:08
Where are you pulling these figures from? Gov.uk.

Which country? See post #210.

Apples and pears.:rolleyes:No, cars, busses and bicycles.

beaufort1
31st May 2015, 18:11
Have you got a link to this Gov.uk site?

Isn't it buses?:rolleyes:

west lakes
31st May 2015, 18:21
Oh dear!

Cyclists Under The Cosh Again - Page 4 - Cycling - Caravan Talk (http://www.caravantalk.co.uk/community/topic/106297-cyclists-under-the-cosh-again/page-4#entry1191784)

Jumping a red light in front of a police car, does not say a lot for the cyclists understanding of the highway code

KBPsen
31st May 2015, 18:22
Have you got a link to this Gov.uk site?www.gov.uk (http://www.gov.uk)

Isn't it buses?:rolleyes:Yes it is. That of courses changes everything, everything.

beaufort1
31st May 2015, 18:45
Useful link,:rolleyes: I can't be bothered frankly to wade through trying to find the relevant info. I don't commute, I don't cycle, I don't use a bus. I mainly walk. In fact where I live we don't have a single set of traffic lights.

I was just intrigued to see how the stats were compiled. I see two buses have appeared now. Did this graphic come from Gov.Uk?

Gertrude the Wombat
31st May 2015, 19:01
So riding on the road is safer than using the cycle path?
Yes, sometimes.

Hazards on cycle paths that you sometimes get less of on the main carriage way include: broken glass; gravel; potholes; toddlers; dogs; cars pulling out of driveways; tree branches in the face; cyclists coming the other way at you on a path too narrow for two to pass at speed.

And at night on unlit roads it's often easier to avoid accidentally going off the edge of the road than it is to avoid accidentally going off the edge of the unlit cycle path with no white lines and no catseyes.

KBPsen
31st May 2015, 19:03
I see two buses have appeared now. Did this graphic come from Gov.Uk?It was produced by the german city of Muenster in the 90's. I modified it to reflect the UK average since you to exception to the original.

Gertrude the Wombat
31st May 2015, 19:04
Whoever came up with the "1 person per bike figure" hasn't included all the babies carried around on bikes round my way (plus the very occasional tandem, but they seem to be mostly for fun rather than commuting).

SWBKCB
31st May 2015, 19:09
Hazards on cycle paths that you sometimes get less of on the main carriage way include: broken glass; gravel; potholes; toddlers; dogs; cars pulling out of driveways; tree branches in the face; cyclists coming the other way at you on a path too narrow for two to pass at speed.

Familiar with those, all less dangerous than any motor vehicle.

Beats me why a cyclist would want to be on a road when there's an alternative.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
31st May 2015, 20:42
Two words - Try it.

Gertrude the Wombat
31st May 2015, 20:46
Two words - Try it.
Exactly.

On my ride home from work (14 miles, countryside and city) there are quite a few stetches, total several miles, of decent to excellent cycle path. I use these.

There is one stretch of utterly crap cycle path, maybe around half a mile. I don't use it. (Having tried it the first time and discovered how crap it was.)

Makes sense?

Flying Lawyer
31st May 2015, 21:47
Toadstool When I drive to work instead of cycle, I just leave early.
If you are going to be late at work just because it took you an extra 20 seconds to overtake a cyclist, you may need to change your schedule. I often have similar thoughts about many of my fellow cyclists.

Why are so many of them not prepared to wait when the flow is held up by volume of traffic or traffic lights?
Waiting can be frustrating but it an unfortunate fact of life in 'rush hour' periods.
Why do they put themselves at risk by trying to get through?

Capot Before and since that sad day, hundreds have been killed in exactly the same way.

Why is it so difficult to learn not to do that? What is it about cyclists that they seek to commit suicide in this way ..... ?Beats me. One of life's mysteries.
So is continuing to use (and even run red lights) at known accident blackspots.
In London, and probably in other cities, only extremely rarely is it impossible to avoid them by a slight deviation from the preferred route. eg I find using parallel side-roads is not only safer but often quicker.


KBPsen
I fully support encouraging people to use buses instead of driving their cars.

Gertrude the Wombat
31st May 2015, 21:58
Beats me.
On my one (in recent decades) cycle ride through central London a bloody great truck drove straight at me and tried to kill me, completely ignoring trivia like give way signs, rights of way and suchlike.

I've never experienced this anywhere else - trucks (mostly) seen to obey signs and signals just like other traffic (mostly) does.

Is this largely a London phenomenum? In which case could it be solved by locking up homicidal truck drivers?

Flying Lawyer
31st May 2015, 22:18
Is this largely a London phenomenum?
One experience on one cycle ride in recent decades is hardly a basis for suggesting that there's a phenomenon.

My experience, based on driving/biking/cycling a minimum of 150 miles per week in London, is that large lorries (particularly artics) are generally driven impeccably, that smaller lorries (eg tippers) generally obey signs and signals but are not always driven considerately and that delivery vans (large and small) are driven in much the same way as vans are driven elsewhere.

Gertrude the Wombat
31st May 2015, 22:26
One experience on one cycle ride in recent decades is hardly a basis for suggesting that there's a phenomenon.
No, my question was based on regular reports of truck drivers killing cyclists in London and, it seems to me, vastly fewer such reports from elsewhere in the country. But I haven't attempted to find any statistics.

Octopussy2
1st Jun 2015, 10:45
The creeping up the inside of the lorry/bus thing is a constant mystery to me. I just don't get it, it's so obviously dangerous, even if I thought I had the "right" to do it, I wouldn't dream of it.

I have an interesting ride into town tonight. The cycle paths here are plentiful and well-maintained, but there's a junction where a cycle path in the middle of 3 lanes of traffic suddenly ends, and all at once you're a lone cyclist in the middle of 3 lanes of traffic - it's not a good feeling.

[Posted in response to FL's post below! time travel...]

Flying Lawyer
1st Jun 2015, 10:54
(Re-posted because I lost the original while editing to add some comments and to fix broken links. Finger trouble. :()

GertrudeNo, my question was based on regular reports of truck drivers killing cyclists in London and, it seems to me, vastly fewer such reports from elsewhere in the country.

That's even worse.

"truck drivers killing cyclists" ?
Why do you assume the drivers were at fault rather than the cyclists?
They were on some occasions but on other occasions the cyclists were at fault.

There is a serious problem (phenomenon?) in London which, it seems, may not exist or be as serious elsewhere:
Many London cyclists habitually ride along the inside of large vehicles despite the obvious danger, the well-publicised continuing deaths, attempts by both the Metropolitan and City police to deter them, constant road safety campaigns appealing to them not to do it (incl by some cycling organisations) and hazard warning signs on lorries and buses.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/4517/in_content.jpg .... http://lbhf.gov.uk/Images/Never-cycle-on-the-inside-of-a-lorry_tcm21-149934.jpg .... https://www.transportxtra.com/files/14816-l.jpg
https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/offensive.jpg .... http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article9634923.ece/alternates/w620/rear.jpg

NB: There are similar safety campaigns which focus on lorry drivers and lorry operators.

Some cyclists argue that they have the right to do it. ('Filtering')
Being 'in the right' is of no value if they are dead - unless perhaps to their estate.


(Edit)

When I did my Class 1 HGV (artic) course many years ago, one of the 'golden rules' was to approach all traffic lights as though they are red because, even if showing green, they will probably be amber or red by the time you get there. It works.
Motorcyclists learn to approach all vehicles as if they might suddenly pull out. It works – usually.
I wish more cyclists would learn to approach all lorries, whether indicating or not, as if they are about to turn left or move nearer to the kerb (closing the gap).

Every day, without exception, I see cyclists riding along the inside of lorries and buses in slow moving traffic, most commonly when approaching junctions. Sometimes the gap is so narrow that they are unable to pedal so use their feet to push along.
Almost daily, I see cyclists passing/trying to pass on the inside even when the lorries are indicating their intention to turn left.
Lorries move away from the kerb before turning left, for obvious reasons. Many cyclists seem to regard that as a good opportunity to try to get through. :rolleyes:


(Of course some lorries, generally not the largest/longest, overtake cyclists and then cut in. My comments above relate to cyclists putting themselves at risk.)

Gertrude the Wombat
1st Jun 2015, 12:36
This is called "victim blaming". It's like saying "don't wear short skirts if you don't want to be raped".

Shaggy Sheep Driver
1st Jun 2015, 12:53
I wonder why nearly all the London cyclists killed by HGVs turning left are female?

Flying Lawyer
1st Jun 2015, 13:08
Gertrude
This is called "victim blaming". It's like saying "don't wear short skirts if you don't want to be raped".


Don't be ridiculous.

Rape victims are never to blame.
Cyclists sometimes are.

Octopussy2
1st Jun 2015, 14:38
That's very interesting SSD - please share with us where you got the data on this?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
1st Jun 2015, 15:43
I watch the news. You should try it.

Octopussy2
1st Jun 2015, 16:10
No, really - the data that backs up your assertion?

Otherwise, it's difficult to see the point (value) of your remark.

beaufort1
1st Jun 2015, 16:55
A friend of mine lost his 22 year old daughter to a left turning HGV in London Tower Road in Dec. 2011. I was also under the impression that it is mainly young females that get killed but this is more 'of a feeling' than anything based on fact.

Carry0nLuggage
1st Jun 2015, 17:10
A few minutes searching hasn't brought up anything more recent than 2013 but the statistics show the opposite, males are more likely to be killed than female cyclists. This may simply down to the greater numbers of male cyclists.

Perhaps the media make more of it?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
1st Jun 2015, 17:25
Carryon, it's specifically the 'left turn by HGV' accident that seems to attract female victims, not cyclist deaths overall.

From 'London Cyclist' web site:

In 2015, six cyclists have been killed on the capital’s streets – all six of them in collisions involving HGVs. Five of those killed have been women, prompting Edmund King, president of the AA to describe the collision which led to death of Claire Hitier-Abadie in February as bearing “all the hallmarks of a ‘typical’ London cycling death – a female cyclist killed by a tipper truck turning left”.

Carry0nLuggage
1st Jun 2015, 18:50
SSD - I don't doubt you. There was very little reporting of gender and even less of the type of accident.

One could speculate about the reasons but that might be risky := Oh, what the hell!

1, Bad SA
2, Poor understanding of the geometry of the HGVs turn
3, Simply not spotting the danger and blithely carrying on rather than either backing off or getting well ahead of the HGV.

It's not just HGVs. Walking to the station one morning recently a cyclist passed me going in the same direction shortly followed by a car which then turned left into the next road. The driver made no effort to overtake the cyclist in time so just pulled straight across the cyclist's path. Fortunately there was a low kerb allowing escape without injury.

It was one of those acts which is so shockingly stupid that you cannot believe is happening while you watch it.

G-CPTN
1st Jun 2015, 19:06
In Denmark (where there are many cyclists due to the flat terrain), the 'might is right' is reversed in that a collision involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle is presumed to be the motorist's responsibility (unless there is evidence to the contrary).

The same principle applies between cyclists and pedestrians.

Anyone 'changing direction' is expected to give way to those continuing ahead (so vehicles turning right across a cycle lane must wait for cyclists to pass before turning).

You soon get used to looking out for other road users.

sitigeltfel
1st Jun 2015, 20:31
Plonker........


MckKqYHoLJI

G-CPTN
1st Jun 2015, 20:51
I did that very thing when I was a young teenager.

Drop handlebar racing bike - I rode straight into a parked (occupied) car.

The elderly couple were most sympathetic - they had seen me coming.

No damage and no injury (other than hurt pride).

To be fair the sun was in my eyes . . .

Union Jack
1st Jun 2015, 21:26
I'm left feeling that I should have recommended sooner that cyclists, particularly those operating in urban areas, should consider https://www.blaze.cc/laserlight/

Jack

PS Full marks - in more ways than one! - to the young inventor
Emily Brooke , Founder & CEO of BLAZE and winner of the Veuve... News Photo | Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/emily-brooke-founder-ceo-of-blaze-and-winner-of-the-veuve-news-photo/472987500)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
1st Jun 2015, 22:56
It's not just HGVs. Walking to the station one morning recently a cyclist passed me going in the same direction shortly followed by a car which then turned left into the next road. The driver made no effort to overtake the cyclist in time so just pulled straight across the cyclist's path. Fortunately there was a low kerb allowing escape without injury.

It was one of those acts which is so shockingly stupid that you cannot believe is happening while you watch it.

I've had that happen to me a few times; car overtakes then immediately turns left. For some moronic motorists, cyclists just don't exist. Is it any wonder cyclists sometimes lose their rag?

Gertrude the Wombat
1st Jun 2015, 23:07
I've had that happen to me a few times; car overtakes then immediately turns left. For some moronic motorists, cyclists just don't exist.
If it's a white van then you can collide with its side in such a way as to do no damage at all to yourself or your bike but make an extremely loud noise inside the van and frighten the shit out of the driver.

TWT
1st Jun 2015, 23:10
Agreed SSD

40 years ago,as I was riding my bike to school ( 2 lane road,parked cars) I heard/felt the rumble of a large truck behind me.On pure instinct,I ducked into the space between some cars afforded by a driveway.

If that space hadn't been there,at that exact moment, I would have been killed.The truck was motoring along,blissfully unaware of my presence,less than a foot away from the cars :ugh::ugh:

Not on a corner,but a straight stretch of road in broad daylight.

When we're driving cars,we need to be aware of cyclists and pedestrians as well as other car drivers.Only recently,I stopped at a Give Way sign at night to check for other traffic (in my car).I spotted a young woman on a bicycle approaching from the left with her right arm outstretched indicating that she intended to turn into the street I was in.Her bike had a flashing LED headlight which really helped me to see her.As she passed me,she said 'Thankyou'.

That gave me the impression that she was not very accustomed to car drivers giving way to her.

At night,BE SEEN,if you are cycling.

kkkkkk
llllll
llllll

Shack37
2nd Jun 2015, 15:37
From the DT

Video: 'I'll break your f---ing neck!' Driver and cyclist in furious road rage incident - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/11645254/Ill-break-your-f-ing-neck-Driver-and-cyclist-in-furious-road-rage-incident.html)

Carry0nLuggage
2nd Jun 2015, 17:59
I'm not surprised the cyclist's vocabulary was a bit limited. The fear factor of some cretin trying to harm you by accident or design with a 2.5 tonne vehicle is apt to do that.

Earphones dangling round his neck - Driving with due care and attention was he? :=

funfly
2nd Jun 2015, 18:55
Around here we have young children on horses trotting along the road. My own thoughts are for an age limit to ride a horse on a public highway but certainly they need insurance.

A number of years ago just outside of my house in Shropshire Lord & Lady Muck caused a car to get damaged. As the car driver was getting out to access the damage they were to be seen cantering away. At least they could have talked to the driver.

FF

wiggy
2nd Jun 2015, 19:28
Fun fly

FFS it's Shropshire...you don't really expect the local gentry to engage in conversation with the servants do you?


In case you wonder I have no regrets at all for selling the former family home near Ludlow for the square root of XXXX all 30 years ago.....oh no, no regrets at all:uhoh::uhoh:


P

ExSp33db1rd
3rd Jun 2015, 02:11
..............selling the former family home near LudlowSnap !, tho' for Ludlow read Dorset.

If only, but we can all say If Only.

My dad sold a 1935 Morris Eight in 1950, for 20 quid. Wish I had it now.

Octopussy2
3rd Jun 2015, 10:47
[duplicate post from another thread, but I thought it's worth mentioning here]

Today I am living proof that cycle helmets work. I had a painful encounter with a chain link fence, resulting in a bruised and grazed arm, BUT I also smacked my head against a metal post - happily, with no ill effects at all thanks to the helmet.

I should add that this was an entirely unforced error on my part and due to nothing other than my own idiocy :ugh:

It happened at the entry to the office - the only good news is that I don't think anyone saw me!

So for anyone stupid enough to randomly cycle into fences and sodding great metal posts, you'll be pleased to know that a helmet really does work (to that extent at least).

Heliport
3rd Jun 2015, 11:43
Sorry to hear but pleased it wasn't worse.

I resisted a helmet for a long time but eventually accepted it was a sensible precaution although, illogically, I still don't wear it for short journeys.


I should add that this was an entirely unforced error on my part and due to nothing other than my own idiocy
Surely there's someone you can blame?

Accepting responsibility for your own idiocy is very old-fashioned.

mixture
3rd Jun 2015, 14:42
the only good news is that I don't think anyone saw me!

Probably already a shaky video up on ewwToob from someone's phone camera. :E

Your story reminds me of sitting in a bar outside a hotel in Spain and watching one of the locals, phone glued to his ear, walk right into a lamppost at full pace.

dazdaz1
3rd Jun 2015, 15:18
mixture...."Your story reminds me of sitting in a bar outside a hotel in Spain and watching one of the locals, phone glued to his ear, walk right into a lamppost at full pace"

Come on, be honest, you have visited Benidorm:E

Shack37
3rd Jun 2015, 16:08
mixture...."Your story reminds me of sitting in a bar outside a hotel in Spain and watching one of the locals, phone glued to his ear, walk right into a lamppost at full pace"

Reminds me of a cyclist in my, adopted home town, who went through a red light on a zebra crossing just missing me as I was crossing. Wasn't his fault though as he didn't see me cos he was texting on his mobile at the time. If only he had ridden into a lamp post at full speed, or better still, a truck.

mixture
3rd Jun 2015, 18:02
Come on, be honest, you have visited Benidorm

I refuse to go to any destination that is either exclusively or largely served by the LCCs and flying shellsuit airlines.

Nearest I've been to Benidorm is Valencia. :E

The episode in question was in the far more upmarket Barcelona, I'll have you know.

Flying Lawyer
4th Jun 2015, 11:14
Shaggy Sheep Driver says
I wonder why nearly all the London cyclists killed by HGVs turning left are female?

I don't know the stats so can't comment. I offer this video only as a few minutes' amusing viewing.


4wT7zM8XgXQ


And, for balance, this was a man near my home in Wales.


QGhpcVwPCak