Safe Speed Forums

An interesting forum here - found by searching on "cyclists jump red lights". A fair spread of opinion, varies from the "we are cyclists, motorists hate us, we don't care" Millwall-supporting school to "let's not wilfully put ourselves under the wheels of artics".

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=9080&whichpage=3

I haven't explored very widely, but clearly not all cyclists are of the militant muesli-munching type. THERE IS DIALOGUE TO BE HAD, let's have it.

Incidentally, I don't have a bike, and haven't ridden one in years. Nor do I wish to run over one.

CJB

Still say they are bunch of muesli munchers, especially the one calling himself "speedy611" and this is why

He comes up with such gems:

"... the tarmacing of every public space in sight"

So, he would not complain if he fell off after cycling over a pothole? He likes cycling over fields? He would be quite happy skidding off on horse sh!t on a bridle path?

"Motorists are rude, self aggrandizing, arrogant and often plain negligent. They winge about cyclists and red lights because it is the obvious thing to do"

NOPE! Cyclists who ride the wrong way down one-way streets, cycle down the fast lane of dual carrriageway towards me, hook themselves onto my wing mirror at traffic lights, swing out of sideroads without looking for any traffic whatsoever, deliberately choosing the most dangerous route they can to get from A to B, annoy me! Because that kind of behaviour is dangerous, foolish and arrogant

and

"car drivers want us off their roads"

and

"Their judgement of us is based on our impeding their progress"

and

"Motorists do not have an opinion on cyclists because they have never taken more than 30 seconds to stop and think about the issues"

Think our "speedy611" here needs a speed awareness course before he is allowed out either as cyclist or pedestrian.

Typical "arrogant c**k" to quote from the cycling forum's possible "driver troll" on there!

He says he is not a fan of cycle lanes - but grudgingly admits that they have some benefit.

He is in favour of a retest every 5 years for a driver. But he does not mention any test for a cyclist.

Of course, cyclists should be subject to some kind of test before allowed loose on the main roads. It is in their interests - same as periodic training is in ours (I would reserve driver re-test as last resort for the real numpties out there!)

Yup! Still convinced they are muesli munchers! After all - do turn into one myself when on the push bike

* Dischanted raises her hesitantly...

At the risk of being shot down... I cycle. When it's not siling with rain, or blowing a gale, I can be found out and about on a bike most weekends; if I worked closer to home I would choose to cycle to work, it would be cheaper than driving.

My stance on the issue raised, is that whatever mode of transport I choose, I am a "road user", and as such should understand and obey the rules of the road. I'm appalled by the behaviour of some cyclists I see, they are asking to get themselves killed. I've lost count of the number of times I've been on my bike, waiting at a red light, when some numpty cyclist has sailed past me to play dodgems with the cross flowing traffic. Utter madness!

That being said, I can sympathise with the cyclists who rant about drivers. Some drivers really just don't make allowances for the more vulnerable road user. The roads are for all modes of transport, and no one group should be excluded.

I agree that cyclists should have some sort of guidance before riding on the road. At the risk of showing my age; what happened to the 'Cycling Proficiency Test'? This used to be available at school. Is it defunct?


Kaz

I rode about around Portsmouth a lot while I was at university (as well as using it twice a week to blast out with the MTB club). I never jumped a red light, never rode on the pavement except where it is shared use and never knowingly pissed off a driver. I did ride it across ped. crossings quite a bit, but not to the detriment of pedestrians. Most of them have been probably converted to puffin crossings now.

I can easily see how cyclists annoy car drivers - when you get a wobbly cyclist riding wide on a narrow road and lots of traffic coming the other way it is extremely infuriating. Even when I wasn't a car driver it was easy to tell when you were annoying following traffic - I often used to pull in and let traffic pass when I knew they had no opportunity to safely pass.

I was very near to being hit several times when I rode mine and in retrospect I can see how most of them might have occured (but it was always the car driver's fault).

The most common faults are:

1) Driver turns left across you

2) Driver slowly overtaking in slow moving traffic and pushes up against you (buses are good at this)

3) Driver pulls out of turning and doesn't see you or misjudges your speed (I used to ride pretty quickly)

Gareth

Hi all,

if cyclists actually paid a small surcharge towards uing the roads like motorcyclists then i wouldn't mind them cycling in the middle of the road, jumping lights/jumping onto pavements to jump the lights, getting there own designated lane on OUR roads and just generally a pompous attitude towards the road users who pay to use it. Thing is they know we won't knock them down as we'll get the blame though a quick look at the highway code might open their eyes as it applies to cyclists too.

Andrew

The trouble is, there is NO registration of bicycles (impractical), and NO licencing of riders (might work). There is literally NO qualification required beyond the correct number of limbs for one to buy a bike, jump on it and cycle into the sunset, possibly towards self-inflicted doom. And, of course, they do indeed pay NO tax.

They are the ONLY road users exempt from any test of competence, and I can't help but feel that this colours the attitude of those of us who take time to learn how to pilot our vehicles, and pay through the nose for this learning process. Granted, the end result is of variable standard, but bad drivers can, if pulled in , be banned from the highway, Is there any such sanction against reckless cyclists? I don't think so.

I do indeed remember the RoSPA Cycling Proficiency Test. Our school organised the course and we took the test in school time. I've not heard of my kids' school doing any such thing, and I do wonder if it's passed into history. I remember being told how to signal, how to position myself on the road, to obey traffic signals, how to look out for other traffic, and what a few road signs meant. Brilliant stuff, and useful for when one got four wheels too.

I'd love to hear what people like speedy611 think about this. If he, or any of his friends, is by any chance reading this, please come along and join in.

As much as I hate cyclists, I have to take issue with a few points:


Well, they would pay council tax at exactly the same rate as the rest of us, which is what pays for the upkeep of local roads. I'm almost sure that the vast majority of cycling takes place on these roads. (The other type of road being a trunk road maintained by the highways agency, and you don't see many cyclists on these.)


Horse riders? Pedestrians?


I believe you can get fined for 'furious cycling', and I'm sure they could ban repeat offenders from riding on certain roads through some anti-social behaviour legislation.

Now don't get me wrong, life as a motorist (and pedestrian) would be much better without cyclists allowed anywhere near the roads. Never get held up by one, run over on the pavement by one or have cause to engage evasive manouvres due to a red light being jumped by one.

OK, then. By "pay NO tax", I did mean no ROAD tax, Vehicle Excise Duty or whatever you choose to call it. I fully accept that cyclists pay income tax, NI, council tax, VAT and everything else.

I don't know what the position of horse riders is as regards tests of competency. Can somebody who knows better tell us? And what specific use of the road do you ascribe to pedestrians that needs testing?

Now you remind me, I have heard of "furious cycling", but I don't know what (a) the definition, and (b) the sanction is. I doubt that it's a ban.

All the same, it would be reassuring to know that a cyclist had passed some sort of test before being let out of the parks and gardens and onto the tarmac with the rest of us.

Come on, cyclists, tell us why this shouldn't happen?

I'm pretty sure that you don't need any sort of licence to take a horse on a road.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

From the beginning of the Highway Code section on cycling rules. Does anybody know if that means that the penalty for jumping red lights on a bicycle is the same as for doing so in a car, or does a seperate law apply? Just wondering.

On the subject of bicycle riders and drivers get up each others noses, did anybody read aboutthis guy? Okay, he was justified in being angry about a couple of lousy drivers, but talk about an over reaction. True, a lot of drivers don't pay enough attention to cyclists, but more cyclists should remember that the rules of the road apply to cycles and cars. In fact, they've got rules 45 to 66 all to themselves

I don't mind cyclists not having to pay any VED really. I'd have thought that the wear and tear they cause to the road surface is so insignificant it's not worth bothering with. But I do think that a cycling proficiency test is a good idea. Anyone can have bad habits, regardless of how they're using the road. I don't know when schools stopped doing tests, but I'm sure I never did one when I was a kid. Maybe including a copy of the Highway Code with new bicycle sales would be a start.

As previously said, local councils actually pay for most of our roads, but that aside, you seem to have assumed that cyclists and drivers are mutually exclusive groups. For kids, this assumption is correct, but for adults, this assumption can not be made. Yes, I enjoy cycling, but I'm also a keen driver, and as such pay my road tax, and possess a driving licence (including full motorbike category). As for kids, I've done a little checking, and it seems the Cycle Proficiency Test still exists, but is not as wide spread as it used to be. It appears to have been a casualty of ever decreasing council/school budgets. So it's a post code lottery as to whether a child will be offered the chance to take the test through school. We should be doing more, not less, to teach road safety/awareness to cyclists.




There are indeed sanctions against cyclists, the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) has specific clauses for them.


There are some additional subsections to clause 31., about authorising races, but I don't want to make this too long.

Perhaps Plod, should be pulling dangerous cyclists instead of sitting in his van pointing his dodgyscope at everything that moves on four wheels.


Kaz

Cycling proficiency does still exist in some areas - but has been victim of "cuts"

The teacher in the family (Yeah - got one of those too!) - does actually run cycling profiency and general road safety as part of the PSE programme in her school. Again - she is probably an exception to the rule - but what else do you expect from a car mad/rally driving "deadlier than a male petrolhead!" type! (Actually one of the safest people I have been in a car with! )

Seriously, the funding from this should come from the so-called Road Safety Pratnerships! Instead of using all the fine income on luxury cars for their staff (which they certainly do not need - well - they do keep saying to us that "speed kills!"), and fitting themselves up with fancy offices, and buying more Gatsos - they could use some of the income to help fund compulsory cycling proficiency courses and horse -riding proficiency courses, both of which are optional at present. Our teacher is petitioning her local scammers and authorities for such funding - which she is currently funding from the school's budget - and considers as money well spent!

Speaking of horses, bizarrely Riding Schools are allowed to take children onto main road on horseback with absolutely no licence, nor legislation covering this dangerous practice. They are also allowed to ride two abreast - and horses are unpredicatable beasts no matter how carefully you approach them!

And as for taxes, we all pay them! (but drivers pay more than others!), and cycle lanes and bridle paths do cost money....

Is this in Cumbria?

I saw a story on the local news Ceefax pages about cycle training at Oxford uni. It goes into more depth here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3565459.stm. Shame it's not being offered to all the students, but it's a start. Also, I thought it was interesting that the article says that cars aren't a big problem for the cyclists there, but instead implies that buses are a real hazard.

Got this one in the paper today, sorry it's the sun, but there you go
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004140419,00.html

Now, can you imagine the uproar if a motorist went around doing this to cycles. He put drivers lives at huge risk, some of them drove distances on the slowly deflating tyres.
This "man" is a lunatic and needs locking up for a long time, my God the lives he could have taken.
A true cycle-Nazi.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Unfortunately - no. The young lady teaches in Merseyside!

Speaking of cyclists - there wer two letters in this week's issue of Autocar.

One was from cyclist/driver who reminded us that cyclists are vulnerable and likely to be candidates for "organ donation" if struck by car! Um - that would really depend on where the cyclist was hit! If internal bleeding (usually a vital organ) or vital organ was damaged (and it usually is in these cases) - then organs cannot really be used!

Still - valid point!

The otheer was from chap whose car was damaged by drunken cyclist, who reminded us of all those wonderful things the average numpty on a bike (and sadly these are the majority! ) - no lights, incorrect protective clothing, red light tripping, wrong way down one way street, swinging from pavement to road and back to pavement; cycling down steep gradients and refusing to use brakes at all - ever!

He made equally valid point that bad cycling can injure pedestrians, and cause drivers to swerve etc. He advocated a compulsory cyling test - which means that cyclists, like motorists, would have to produce documents within 7 days if requested by police.

Sounds good to me!

Generally. I have no problem with cyclists, and cyclists don't have any problem with me in my car.

However, besides the occasional examples of cyclists doing something really dangerous, the ones that irritate me most are the ones that want to impose their often over-simplistic view of road safety on the rest of the road-using community (as demonstrated in various posts in their discussion groups).

The whole essense of the SafeSpeed principle requires that the speed is safe for the conditions. I am sure that all supporters of this principle will be driving appropriately slowly/safely where cyclists are around and likely to do cyclisty-things (e.g. kids out of school not paying attention to traffic), so cases where cyclists are cut-up or whatever by motorists has little to do with SafeSpeed, and lots to do with simple bad driving.
What drivers do when no cyclists are around (e.g. on motorways) does not affect them, and is being wonderfully and (most of the time ) maturely discussed on the rest of www.safespeed.org.uk !

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

Read Jennifer Selway's comments on Page 12 of todays (Friday 26th)Daily Express

I do a fair bit of cycling(about 10,000 miles a year!) as I race and I've also been driving for 16 years and I have no time for the stupid cyclists who go through red lights,etc etc. I've also been on the end of bad drivers though and was once hit by en elderly driver going the wrong way round a one way system.She got out of her car,saw i was still alive,said " I can see you're alright",then got back in her car,turned around and drove off!
I've also cycled on the continent,and it's completely different if your a cyclist there as drivers are a lot more tolerant.

I'm a cyclist and a 40,000+ miles a year driver so I can really see the benifits of both.

Motorists should really see that the majority of cyclists are doing them a favor. The more bikes on the road the less cars on the road. The government tries to a small extent to encourage cycling in cities to try to cut polution and traffic.

The no tax argument is just bitter crap! As someone else said I pay my fair share of tax every year, especially on fuel, but that's just how it is, deal with it. I have road tax on my car, and when I'm not using that I'm on my bike.

Bikes and cars are always going to be on the roads, deal with it and move on!