Cycle Roundabouts

[Stalker62]

I stopped commuting by bike after just too many instances of being over taken on blind bends, when you just know that an oncoming vehicle will cause the automatic reaction to swerve left and crush me. 5 seconds delay to get round the bend to see clearly, or risk my life.

Did try the old cycle to work gag.
Two things eventually caused me to sack it off.

1) The A1 into London towards Stirling Corner is downhill. You will not know this if you drive. If you cycle into work it's a hoot - not so funny after a sixteen hour shift on the way home.
2) Waking up for the second time in Edgware General. OK now - I can take a hint...

 

[Alantoo]

Sometimes there is a "valid" reason.

Same situation driving a tatty 110 and towing. The lady with which I am "tet a tet" is quite simply refusing to reverse into the passing place she has just passed.
Long short.
I dismount and have a chat.
Turns out she simply does not know how to select reverse gear - the stick had a catch you had to lift to stick it in R.

I actually reversed her car for her into the passing place, jump back into my truck and on we all go.

Been there done that a few times! Also pulled a few out of the ditch they had reversed into...some grumpily some terrible grateful!

It is a 350metre stretch between passing places...the reason I was reversing 200metres was because usually it is quicker for me to control the situation and reverse 3/4 of the way than wait for them to sort themselves out...

But there is a difference between deliberately driving past a passing place or like last week stopping beside one blocking it off so I could not get on to it on their "side" of the lane! They could have gone back a couple of car lengths we ended up going back 100metres...

Alan

 

[kes]

Highways are for the passage of all without let or hindrance, some categorisation since that fundamental truth.
Sheep use highways, cattle and horses use highways without too much complaint. Cyclists are the ones who want to own them, closing dual carriageways down to single lane roads so they can carry out time trials without charge, without insurance. The cost of road provision/maintenance etc is far exceeded by VED and fuel duty receipts, so to say motorists don't pay for their roads is fictitious.
All this would be immaterial if cyclists were just another highway user, argued their corner, but cared about other road users.
Some do, many more dont - and in this age of 'militant entitlement' it upsets the other users.
Maybe u tube has a few "angry cyclist" videos.
I'll have a look.

 

[Alantoo]

so to say motorists don't pay for their roads is fictitious

Who said that?

I for one did not. I said that 87% of cyclists were also motorists so they cannot be accused of not contributing to the roads.

All this would be immaterial if cyclists were just another highway user, argued their corner, but cared about other road users.
Some do, many more dont - and in this age of 'militant entitlement' it upsets the other users.
Maybe u tube has a few "angry cyclist" videos.
I'll have a look.

What evidence do you have for the “many more don’t” proportion?

As only 13% of cyclists (which includes children) are not motorists as well, it would be a surprise if more than half of all cyclists changed their character and became rabid anti-motorists as soon as they swung a leg over the saddle.

Alan

 

[Lickashot]

Cyclists stage 'funeral procession' to highlight bike rider deaths

Protesters staged a symbolic funeral procession across central London ending in a die-in in Trafalgar Square to highlight the need for measures to protect cyclists.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[BryanDC]

Highways are for the passage of all without let or hindrance, some categorisation since that fundamental truth.
Sheep use highways, cattle and horses use highways without too much complaint. Cyclists are the ones who want to own them, closing dual carriageways down to single lane roads so they can carry out time trials without charge, without insurance. The cost of road provision/maintenance etc is far exceeded by VED and fuel duty receipts, so to say motorists don't pay for their roads is fictitious.
All this would be immaterial if cyclists were just another highway user, argued their corner, but cared about other road users.
Some do, many more dont - and in this age of 'militant entitlement' it upsets the other users.
Maybe u tube has a few "angry cyclist" videos.
I'll have a look.

I am pretty sure that any club holding a time trial on British roads will be governed by the "Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Cycle Racing on the Highway Regulations, 1960" and I am also pretty sure that an club affiliated event will carry insurance as it is almost impossible to imagine a club not being insured. I believe that they also have to pay for policing etc. if necessary.

 

[andyk]

I am pretty sure that any club holding a time trial on British roads will be governed by the "Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Cycle Racing on the Highway Regulations, 1960" and I am also pretty sure that an club affiliated event will carry insurance as it is almost impossible to imagine a club not being insured. I believe that they also have to pay for policing etc. if necessary.

My understanding is that time trials were conceived as, for a long time, it was illegal to race on British roads (when I say 'race' I mean race in a group like the Tour de France). Time trials, which only involve an individual seeing how quickly they can complete a course, didn't fall under that ban as the participants were not directly racing one another (even if the aim is to then compare a leaderboard of times).

From a legal perspective I'm not convinced they are treated any differently to individuals going out for a ride on their own. That said, when I used to do the odd time trial, you were always required to have insurance through one means or another (I guess much like for shooting, there is no legal obligation to be insured but the many shoots/landowners will want you to be).

 

[gixer1]

Cyclists are usually not trained sufficiently, I would say it should be a legal requirement for helmets and all club events should be banned from the road as the hordes of them are a bloody nuisance.

I cycle on the road myself but never in large groups and I know well enough to move for motor vehicles, common sense over entitlement!

Regards,
Gixer

 

[geoffw]

"I do think cyclists have been involved in a few accidents and there is no cert of competence, so many are arrogant, uncaring and determined to control vehicles by using whole lanes rather than sufficient space. "


There are bad drivers and bad cyclists.
However, since cyclists will always come off worse in an accident, young males aside (see general survival stats), this doesn't obviously square with being "uncaring".
Determined to control whole lanes- yes, when we need to ensure we are seen or control the whole lane, this is the - the same holds for motorcyclists

Its a funny old World. An hour ago I stepped out of the local post office and was run into by two teenagers racing along on the pavement on bikes. and they were going plenty fast enough. The first one hit me and his mate hit the both of us.

To say I was bloody annoyed is inadequate. Not a word of apology , they just rode off.

( I dare say one or two on here would say it was my own fault for going to the Post Office in the first place. )

Most likely been told by Mummy not to ride on the road... Grrh

Perhaps more a (male?) teen issue than a cycling issue per se?

 

[kes]

I am pretty sure that any club holding a time trial on British roads will be governed by the "Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Cycle Racing on the Highway Regulations, 1960" and I am also pretty sure that an club affiliated event will carry insurance as it is almost impossible to imagine a club not being insured. I believe that they also have to pay for policing etc. if necessary.

Some clubs maybe, some maybe not.
Then why not insured individually in the normal course of events one wonders ?

 

[kes]

Who said that?

I for one did not. I said that 87% of cyclists were also motorists so they cannot be accused of not contributing to the roads.



What evidence do you have for the “many more don’t” proportion?

As only 13% of cyclists (which includes children) are not motorists as well, it would be a surprise if more than half of all cyclists changed their character and became rabid anti-motorists as soon as they swung a leg over the saddle.

Alan

Lat para, have you never been a pedestrian and sworn at an uncaring motorist, despite being one some of the time?
Its worth a look at Mikey vidoes on u -tube that's the cyclist a lot of people see.

 

[Kjf]

All cyclists should be forced to have comprehensive insurance, number plates, and helmets by law.
That way they will be treated as any other road user which to me seems only fair.

I agree, a cyclists damagages your car ,

Your paying , not them

No way of tracking them at all,

Kjf

 

[Grannysmith]

I watched an aggresive cyclist shout abuse at a doddery old lady who didnt hear him coming and he half frightened her to death if it had been a motorist someone would rightly have took his number and reported him.
He was reported as a man with a red tee shirt whom they never traced!

 

[andyk]

I agree, a cyclists damagages your car ,

Your paying , not them

No way of tracking them at all,

Kjf

I take your point but only so far.

The last 2 cars I’ve owned prior to my current one were quite seriously damaged (one on 3 occasions) by other drivers hitting them when they were parked. B&@tards never left details so I had to pick it up (one was a write off on account of it being fairly worthless anyway). Compulsory car insurance helped me not one jot. Even if I’d seen them do it then I’d have to have hoped they weren’t in the 4% estimated not to bother with insurance.

In reality I doubt property damage was the main factor behind compulsory insurance for cars, more likely the 25,000 plus killed and seriously injured each year.

 

[Alantoo]

Lat para, have you never been a pedestrian and sworn at an uncaring motorist, despite being one some of the time?
Its worth a look at Mikey vidoes on u -tube that's the cyclist a lot of people see.

Lat Para? What mean you by this? I tried looking it up...

If Lat Para means cuts both ways then yes, see my posts above...I gave up cycling on the local roads because of the number of murderous motorists, and was not able to resist venting my irritation at a cyclist recently...well loudly questioning his consideration for other road users...

Alan

 

[kes]

We are all what we drive or ride at the time. Militancy tends to be a thing favoured by one group though who, from the videos, go looking for trouble and creating it. If this is not typical, why post it - probably a need for "celebrity" status maybe ?

 

[Dalua]

so to say motorists don't pay for their roads is fictitious.

It is a complete fiction: just because motorists had to give HM Treasury the money doesn't mean their owed anything for it! You might as well say smokers and drinkers 'pay for the roads'.

Non-motor traffic uses the highways by right.
Motorists have to pay to use the road because they are a literal nuisance - polluting with noise and fumes, damaging the road surface and not infrequently blocking the roads themselves solid. In that context, to say that they have more right over them than the non-motor users who have an actual right seems beyond preposterous.

 

[Alantoo]

We are all what we drive or ride at the time. Militancy tends to be a thing favoured by one group though who, from the videos, go looking for trouble and creating it. If this is not typical, why post it - probably a need for "celebrity" status maybe ?

The thirst for celebrity is a weird one I agree.

But it is still a jump from a few angry YouTube posters to claim that more than half of all cyclists share their attitude...

Alan

 

[kes]

It is a complete fiction: just because motorists had to give HM Treasury the money doesn't mean their owed anything for it! You might as well say smokers and drinkers 'pay for the roads'.

Non-motor traffic uses the highways by right.
Motorists have to pay to use the road because they are a literal nuisance - polluting with noise and fumes, damaging the road surface and not infrequently blocking the roads themselves solid. In that context, to say that they have more right over them than the non-motor users who have an actual right seems beyond preposterous.

To you perhaps but I can guarantee its the view taken by many motorists.
Road Fund Tax (rather than VED) was specifically raised to fund road works and linked motorists charges to improvements in their mode of transport, the name gives a clue. Read it here- a hypothecated tax no less. Road Fund - Wikipedia. May be historic but so are deer forests.
Nothing of the like has happened for cyclists who are seen as 'parasitic' upon an asset largely paid for by motorists themselves. I think if you read my post earlier, horses cows and sheep also have transit rights when under control and being made o behave safely - ........................
Finally, design of road pavements is based on lorry axle weights which are significantly more damaging than car axle weights so, for very many roads therefore, cars do no significant to little damage.

 

[kes]

The thirst for celebrity is a weird one I agree.

But it is still a jump from a few angry YouTube posters to claim that more than half of all cyclists share their attitude...

Alan

I think its fair to say quite a lot of cyclists are the more militant type but, as you say, that's an opinion based on u-tube and personal experience.