Safe Speed Forums

...HERE.

I was interested by the views held by one police contributor - they did not seem likey to be in harmony with cyclists!

Has anyone any comments on the wisdom of riding two abreast on a busy NSL dual carriageway?
I probably wouldn't do it - and because our cycle lane is acceptable, choose to stick to it except at night.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Riding in pair along a road is a pet hate as both a cyclist and motorist. I find it frustrating whether i'm on my bike or in my car, it makes it hard to overtake and often the people riding in two's are those going slowest as they are having a good all chinwag.

I strongly disagree with some of the comments. One chap on there who says

"Most cyclists i've seen go through red lights."

Well, no - not quite. Most cyclists you stop have been because they've gone through red lights. You just don't pay attention to those cycling well.

This is probably the major problem, people only notice cyclists when they are doing something to annoy them - if they paid more attention in general they'd see the amount of responsible cyclists is astonishing. Given how unprotected we are it's amazing how many manage to make journey after journey without getting hit.

---

Also, these (I can't think of any other word) wankers who keep pushing the "cyclists should have insurance" "cyclists should have road tax" - FUCK OFF. I drive + I ride. I pay my fucking road tax, I pay incredible amounts of fuel duty and vat on everything to do with motoring, just because I choose to cycle some journeys does not mean I havent bloody well paid my way you ignorant tits (this is to anyone who thinks the above)! Or would they rather I drove everywhere doing more damage to the road and contributing more to traffic jams? Pfffft!!!

I don't agree with you about cyclists not requiring insurance and some form of registration (not road tax). The fact that you pay tax for undertaking other activities is irrelevant to my arguments:

- the purpose of insurance would be to provide funds to pay for damages awarded to people hurt due to the actions of cyclists. If this were provided through general taxation, I, and all other non-cyclists, would be paying.
- registration is essential to be able to trace dangerous and irresponsible cyclists who cause the above accidents - just like drivers.

By the way, I don't think you could reasonably describe me as an "ignorant tit".

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

sorry can't be bothered to read that entire thread... going on the OP

as with alot of these gripes it's very hard to be black and white about it.

i frequently ride two abreast and depending on the route we can do so for many miles without seeing or inconveniencing a single car.

as to doing it on a NSL DC.... whilst i might be prepared to take the risk individually for a few miles, i'd certainly avoid riding it in a group.... and if we did i expect we'd all single up for safety until reaching a quieter route.

that said about 50% of motorists tend to leave you alot more room on a DC than on SC because they can mostly straddle the two lanes.... those that don't scare the willies out of you however.

on SC at times riding two abreast doesnt put the 2nd rider any further out than a single rider in the primary position and if a car can't pass you safely in that situation i'd rather they waited until they could... whether its a single rider or two abreast.

there's also the case where 4 riders riding in two pairs drop into line to allow a car past only for that car to then be more hesitant to overtake as the pass will take longer to do safely... obviously that is totally dependant on more factors than we can generalise about..... hence i don't think this is ever a black and white do or don't.

at the end of the day i beleive it is legally allowed...and i wouldnt want to remove that option, if trafpol want to use their discretion to justify a warning of charge of causing an obstruction or undue care & attention fair enough, lets not generalise.

Surely a matter of common sense and courtesy.

I try not to inconvenience any other person so how I travel or so what I do. Maybe I am just a polite person. Manners and courtesy to another cost nowt anyway. I keep part of the C of COAST into Courtesy and Consideration to others. It must work as I do not seem to either be tailgated that often and I never seem to get rude gestures.. even if I have erred a smidgeon above the lolly on the odd occasion..

Manners and courtesy do rather beget the manners and courtesy they receive

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Of course cyclists don't need insurance, provided they have the means to pay, immediately and up-front, for any damages they cause to others, why should they? What do you mean your average cyclist can't afford to pay for lifelong care for someone they permanently maim? Oh, maybe they should then, and while we're at it, it would be a rather good idea if motorists had a minimum level of insurance to indemnify against the damages they may cause others. They already do? Oh, that's alright then!

Oh, you know who really grinds my gears? These (I can't think of any other word) wankers who hamper my self-serving agenda!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Its just one thing after another, insurance for this insurance for that - insurance for every bloody thing... including death. It's abso ridiculous. We've covered this before on car insurance, if I didn't have to have it, I doubt I would unless they made it a lot cheaper - because I'm arrogantly confident that I won't crash - same applies to my bike. God knows how many years of riding on the road have avoiding being hit untold amounts of times but motorists. If I was hit would I mess about trying to claim insurance fees off them? No, probably not (I suppose if it was so severe it was out of my hands someone else might for me though) - accidents are a part of life IMO.

As for it not being relevant that I pay plenty of tax which goes to the upkeep of roads - of course it is relevant. The tax goes (supposedly) to the road network which cyclists are allowed on, I've therefore paid for the upkeep of the roads and the right to use them be it with my car or my bike.

---

PS - I apologise for being overly brash and calling anyone a wanker. I got pissed off by the comments of some morons on the thread linked. I still despise the idea of needing or people suggesting i need insurance for every activity I undertake. And the idea of needing to flipping register my bike so that yet another aspect of my life becomes tracked remotely without me having the blindest say in it. I find it frustrating enough I can't drive through pointless red lights thanks to the stupid great plates on my car, it'd not be worth having a bike if I could no longer shortcut traffic by bypassing (yes yes only when it's clearly safe to do so and all peds have crossed etc etc snore) all the congestion creating methods that've been installed

Flawed argument mate. I pay RFL and insurance on my car, but I also have to cough up for my motorcycle as well. It has only two wheels and does very little damage to the road. It is not ridden on pavements or through red lights, however. I am just as vulnerable, if not more so, as a cyclist.
As with all things, the few make it difficult for the many and those irresponsible louts make it necessary for cyclists to be identifiable so as to be made responsible for their actions and have the ability to settle up for damage that they cause.

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

Very unwise. When I ride into nearby Marlow, I take a route which avoids the A404 NSL DC. In fact I've just got my Honda scooter, and even on that will be avoiding the A404 DC. On two wheels, I've come to realise that many car drivers are in one heck of a hurry. Twice this week on the scooter I've been crusing along in a at the legal limit in my "dominant position", and have had cars pull right over to the other side to get past me. Admittedly, at least one of those 30s was a new-style political speed limit. The other was on the road passing the front of Reading University.

If you're riding a bike at 10-15mph on a road where cars are expecting to do 70, the risks are obvious! And even worse for two abreast.

Just because you pay it twice doesn't mean the argument is flawed. To me it just demonstrates the system is flawed, why should you contribute twice? Having two vehicles does not mean you do more mileage over all, you just obviously spread journeys between the two, therefore one RFL contribution should be all that is required.

Lets take a regular car commuter, covers 30,000 a year by car
Take myself, cover < 6,000 by car, maybe 750-1,000 by bicycle

Lets say we have the same car, we both pay the same RFL - why does he not pay more? He uses more of the road, and contributes more to the damage to the road. He doesn't pay more cos we accept that the RFL contribution is a flat rate, even though per mile I pay a lot more in RFL than he does. Given that you might not even cover 30,000 by car and by bike it's disgraceful you have to pay twice! Given that I cover a lot less by Bike + Car I'd be extremly aggreived for someone to decide they could get some extra revenue from cyclists too.

The instances where I'd say the argument applies is where a cyclist is not also a motorist too. In that instance then yes I'd agree it is unfair they use the road without paying an RFL for it. Though I suspect this isn't a majority of the time. Something people often forget when saying "cyclists vs motorists" --- cyclists ARE motorists (in a lot of cases) and motorists ARE cyclists (in some cases), it's just those ignorant to how the other group use the road that is the problem

Personally I dont want tax or insurance on cyclists. What I do want is adult cyclists to abide by the highway code and not use pavements unless they are designated duel use. In the vicinity of pedestrians they should ride with respect for the pedestrians. When they exit pavements they should only use desiged access points. they should dismount to use pedestrian crossings.

As an engineer I often drove through parks and pedestrian precincts. When I did this I drove in an ultra defenceive mode. That is how I expect cyclists to ride when in pedestrian zones.

What use would insurance be to a cyclist anyway if they were breaking the law. surly the insurer could state that the insurance was for the road risk, not cycling through a pedestrian zone?

I regularly fear that one day I will be watching two hoodies doing a doubler on the pavement of the high street trying to decide if they are to diagonaly cross infront of me and that will distract me from the road legal cyclist waiting in the middle of the road waiting to turn right.

as for two abrest on a busy duel carriageway, no. on a quiet DC we would ride as a large pack 2x6-10. On country lanes we used to cycle typicly 2x4 as a cycle club If there were too many of us we would split into packs 2x4 and 2x3 we would controll the traffic alowing people to pass where it was safe. but that was 25 years ago! There was not the level of agression to cyclists then because we played by the rules.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Yes, I'd also like world peace and an end to famine.

On a further point related to Anton's, why is is deemed to be acceptable for cyclists to use our "dangerous" streets without first having some compulsory training in safe cycling (and self preservation)?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Good question. I did some silly cycling thing at secondary school but as with my car driving relied on my dad to teach me how to cycle safely on roads (and a damn good job he's done too). Obviously it's because there is no registration but could also be because if they cycle on the pavement it's illegal and they can be stopped. Cycling on the road a bad cyclist is more of a risk to themselves than to anyone else - just an extreme annoyance to anyone else.

For the record, the only pavement I cycle on (honestly, only one at all) is one which runs for about 2 miles along the side of 3 lane A3 where cars are travelling at 50mph +. There is a pavement which no one uses to walk on (everyones driving this section) most of the time yet on a daily basis some nutters (usually in Lycra... thinking they are faster than they actually are) decide it's a better idea to cycle on the road. This is extremly dangerous cycling. If the cyclists gets hit in this instance the car will get damaged and the cyclist will probably die, no plastic on their head is gonna help on this A road. It all just comes down to individual judgements, how on earth some cyclists think it is safe to cycle on dual carriageways/tripple carriageways with speed limits of more than 30mph is beyond me. But then how some people think it is safe to drive is also beyond me.

Fuel duty?

I'd say your 'regular car commuter' pays a lot more than you do in your example personally.

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

It is WRONG to refer to it as ROAD tax.
It is VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY, and as such is simply.... A TAX.

The thinking is that if you can afford a car, you should be able to pay extra tax, which if it is linked to fuel consumption (sorry EMISSIONS) will make you drive responsibly!
At the end of the day it is a TAX, to help the Government balance it's books. And guess what it is you are balancing on the other end of the beam!
If they could prove cyclists had the money, or if car drivers gave up their cars, cyclists would be the ones doing the balancing, paying tax, carrying registration plates and documents, and paying road charging fees!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I've passed cyclists on the elevated A40 coming into london. political 50mph but actual speeds can be far more- no peds to worry about, good visability. Why, as a cyclist, you'd want to be on this road is beyond me, I'd have thought the buffeting from passing 50+ lorries alone would be terrifying.

I had an intresting discussion with a cycling family the other day as I was doing some work for them. When asking about how she felt with the baby seat on a cycle she replied she won't use certain roads and plans a route. This seems like a good idea- is there such thing as a "cyclists map" grading roads on their desirability to cyclists? If not there should be. Although I doubt it'd stop many- one particular road I use, Agar Grove in camden is very busy and quite narrow- lorries and busses have to slow right down to pass- and passing a cyclist safely is not possible if theres oncoming traffic. But despite the entire housing area alongside being an enviromental area with cycle entrances & routes all the way round, providing a safe haven, cyclists still insist on using this precarious road...

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Cyclists Majority only there for kids, people who like showing off their lycra,fitties who cant afford those silly look at me look at me gyms, the 'greenies', and people who use them for work with few other viable options. All road users and very very many of them who should never be on the road in or on anything.Very few follow any rules of the road and too many of them dangerous and arrogant. Tax payer spends a fortune on cycle paths that they rarely use is one example. We live in a pretty un-disciplined nation so its hardly any wonder. Do I hate cyclists? No! Do I do all the right things around them? Yes! Do I think a large number of cyclists need a ruddy good slap? Absolutely! Long gone are the cycling proficiency tests and a long time comming is a new method of testing and protecting and getting the message through some very very thick cycling skulls.(some of which are so thick they dont need a helmet)

On the subject of insurance - I insure bicycle and thus myself when using it.. as it makes sense given I shelled out far too much money on it!

Also - insurance means that if by any chance I do happen to damage something belonging to a third party - they have some redress for their loss just as I have on them if they happen to "knock me off my bike!"


Cycling tw0-abreast


OK .. fine if on a quiet road. However, I tend to go with Highway Code rule 66 which tells me never to ride more than two abreast and to ride in single file on busy roads or on narrow roads and when riding around bends.


I call it courtesy and basic common sense

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I went to a place today and while I was there had 2 hrs to kill, so I went for a walk in this resort. Its very busy this time of year but I remembered this thread and decided to pay complete attention to cyclists and what I witnessed in my 2 hr walk was as follows.

1. Cyclist on footpath nearly hits old lady, same cyclist clips a bloke.
2.Cyclist (lycra clad) came on pavement to avoid red lights and rode across pedestrian crossing clipping me as he passed. ( he didnt wish to stop when I challenged him about it)
3. Cyclist nudged a car wing mirror out of position as he squeezed his way through to the front.
4. Cyclists who continued through red lights= 3
5 Cyclists who ignored Zebra Xing in use =4 (2 others rode on pavement to avoid)
6 Cyclist pushes his bike between parked vehs out ahead of him into the road causing traffic to stop, then he crosses the road (Zebra was 5yds away)
7 Cyclist rides down pavement disgarding his drink bottle over his shoulder when he is about to pass a bin.
8.Cyclist busy reading something with his bike straddled the full width of pavement fails to notice mothers with prams waiting to get by, when he finally realises he barely moves enough for a young twiggy to get through.
9.Cyclist rides down wrong side of road (in traffic) for about 100yds before skipping onto pavement and going to a open vendor where he sits on his bike in the queue barely able to keep his bike upright as he fiddles and causes people to give him a wide berth.
10. Cyclists 2 abreast and yakking to each other wander all over the road causing obvious alarm to motorists fortunately in slow moving volumes.
11. Within my 2 hr walk I saw only 2 cyclists riding in what I would call a reasonably considerate and safe manner.

Now this was what I saw, I took great pains to be observant and fair and I did this purely for this thread and others regarding cyclists, but what I saw is what i saw. Perhaps the cycling fraternity should be a little less eager to sound the praises of cyclists whilst condemming those who dont.All I saw was a majority of arrogant, ignorant couldnt give a toss cyclists. Perhaps I will do this exercise again in the hope I will see a majority of responsible safe and considerate cyclists next time do you think I will?

does car insurance cover you when you're driving illegally ?