# This Wiggins incident has brought the numpties out...



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

... all over Twitter, the news and various other media sites.

CYCLISTS SHOULD PAY ROAD TAX

Bless them.

Unfortunately, it suggests that some of the bad driving on my commute is down to a prejudice against me as a cyclist, rather than just poor driving.

I think I prefer to think of them as poor drivers, because the thought that people intentionally try to bully me on the road is worse


----------



## fossyant (9 Nov 2012)

Bless.

The £210 pound a year works out at about 5p per mile for me and I don't use the car much. 9 out of 10 BC members have a car. The other 10% are probably junior members !


----------



## BSRU (9 Nov 2012)

It's jealousy, your enjoying your journey to work and getting some exercise at the same time.


----------



## Aushiker (9 Nov 2012)

Reminds me of this video from a couple of enlightened members of the British public ...



Andrew


----------



## Peter Armstrong (9 Nov 2012)

I think the problem is drivers don’t know how to share the road with cyclists. When I was learning to driver I never saw any, and people could have been driving for a while without ever having to deal with them. Their minds are stuck to a mindset where cyclists should not be there as this is what they are used to. When I talk to non-cyclists they say cyclists are a nuisance. Maybe more should be done early on. I would love a run of TV adverts running showing “how to pass a cyclists”, “look for cyclists on roundabouts”, or “cyclist maybe travelling faster than you think”. That type of stuff.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Well, the 'Road Tax' issue is a moot point obviously but I do think cyclists should be registered and display some kind of ID (not sure where on some bikes...).

When there's an accident or a cyclist does something wrong, they can just cycle off and suffer no comeback.

The ONE good thing about the Boris bikes is that they have id numbers displayed on them.


----------



## wiggydiggy (9 Nov 2012)

From Metro this morning: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/917393-...dley-wiggins-and-shane-sutton-hurt-in-crashes

"Chris Peck, from cycling campaign group CTC, said such accidents were far too common with drivers admitting they had not seen cyclists."

I'd change 'not seen' to either 'saw you and didnt care' or 'didnt bother looking'.


----------



## AndyRM (9 Nov 2012)

Were most of them having a chat on 5 Live around 8.30 this morning?


----------



## Teuchter (9 Nov 2012)

fossyant said:


> Bless.
> 
> The £210 pound a year works out at about 5p per mile for me and I don't use the car much. 9 out of 10 BC members have a car. The other 10% are probably junior members !


 
This.

I probably pay more road tax than most single car owners out there, owning both a car and a large motorbike. I cycle almost every day, leaving these taxed vehicles sitting at home not adding to congestion, polution or road wear. The car is used only to transport the kids to things at evenings or weekends (my wife doesn't drive so if I'm not using it, it sits at home) or for the weekly shop and the motorbike probably gets ridden a couple of times a fortnight.


----------



## benb (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Well, the 'Road Tax' issue is a moot point obviously but I do think cyclists should be registered and display some kind of ID (not sure where on some bikes...).
> 
> When there's an accident or a cyclist does something wrong, they can just cycle off and suffer no comeback.
> 
> The ONE good thing about the Boris bikes is that they have id numbers displayed on them.


 
I disagree. It's not worth the effort for the tiny number of such incidents.
Besides, cars all have registration plates, but it doesn't seem to stop them driving like idiots.


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

I think there might be some value in the registration, purely because it might mean that cyclists have to undergo a course before they're allowed on the road?

Maybe it's all a bit too much legislation, but there are a lot of cyclists that don't seem to know where they should be, and surely a course would help that issue.


----------



## carolonabike (9 Nov 2012)

Well my unscientific and very small survey of my journey into work this morning makes me wonder if it may have a positive effect in that motorists seem to be more aware. This morning one van left room for me to get out at a congested junction and waved me out, one pulled over to give me priority in a street full of parked cars and a bus stopped at a roundabout as I was coming round it when I would normally have expected him to pull out. All in a 20 minute journey. I made sure I waved and thanked them all. Pass on the love 
It could be a coincidence, or it could be a temporary thing.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> I think the problem is drivers don’t know how to share the road with cyclists. When I was learning to driver I never saw any, and people could have been driving for a while without ever having to deal with them. Their minds are stuck to a mindset where cyclists should not be there as this is what they are used to. When I talk to non-cyclists they say cyclists are a nuisance. Maybe more should be done early on. I would love a run of TV adverts running showing “how to pass a cyclists”, “look for cyclists on roundabouts”, or “cyclist maybe travelling faster than you think”. That type of stuff.


 This.

I've noticed that on my old commute down the Old Kent Road, drivers were a lot more aware and more comfortable around cyclists and I put this down to the sheer numbers they had to cope with.

On my new commue, where the only cyclists I tend to see are crossing my path on the main routes (like the A21), I find I get more close passes and more beeps questioning my road positioning that I ever got on the OKR. I put this down to drivers on my new route being so used to not seeing cyclists and whilst this is no excuse, a bit of re-education may be helpful.

Just had a conversation with a guy at work about road tax etc. Pointed out it doesn't exist etc. Pointed out that I have the right to use the whole lane (response: "Yes the cycle lane") . His main issue seemed to be the riders in the gutter that suddenly swerve out ("Fair point, said I, "they shouldn't be in the gutter in the first place and you should get used to them being in front of you".) He was a bit shocked when I said that a motorist overtaking me should be at least straddling the white line and preferably further over. He did seem to take my points on board for a think later.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (9 Nov 2012)

dodd82 said:


> I think there might be some value in the registration, purely because it might mean that cyclists have to undergo a course before they're allowed on the road?
> 
> Maybe it's all a bit too much legislation, but there are a lot of cyclists that don't seem to know where they should be, and surely a course would help that issue.


 
That silly, a course, then all people need dog tags, and also must undergo a course before you can walk across a road.


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> That silly, a course, then all people need dog tags, and also must undergo a course before you can walk across a road.


 
What's silly is comparing a form of transportation that uses roads with pedestrians that cross the road.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> That silly, a course, then all people need dog tags, and also must undergo a course before you can walk across a road.


 
I honestly think some people do need lessons in how to cross the road, this basic skill learnt as an infant seems to have been completely forgotten in many. What ever happened to 'find a safe place to cross'?


----------



## Teuchter (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I do think cyclists should be registered and display some kind of ID


While I understand your point, I think calls for this sort of thing have to be balanced with the view that this would put off a lot of potential cyclists. These may not be the committed cyclists who spend time on cycling forums like this one and have a deep interest in issues relating to cycling in general. They may not be confident cyclists and they may not even ride the way we feel they should ride but they ARE cyclists none the less. As has been pointed out, the more cyclists there are on the roads, the more other road users are used to seeing them, the safer it is for all of us.

Let's not make it even harder for people to take up cycling.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

dodd82 said:


> I think there might be some value in the registration, purely because it might mean that cyclists have to undergo a course before they're allowed on the road?
> 
> Maybe it's all a bit too much legislation, but there are a lot of cyclists that don't seem to know where they should be, and surely a course would help that issue.


 
This country is big on over-legislation so why not a bit more? 

I was thinking last night, it would be good if as part of the driving test, people had to complete 10 hours cycling round a town centre. It's not until I re-started cycling earlier this year that I got to appreciate how dangerous it can be and what the perils are - people really need to put themselves in the shoes of others, empathy seems to be lost...


----------



## Peter Armstrong (9 Nov 2012)

dodd82 said:


> What's silly is comparing a form of transportation that uses roads with pedestrians that cross the road.


 
OK theres only one way to settle this!

A silly vote! - Please vote A or B for the sillyiest comment!

*Vote A* :Registration for bikes and cyclists undergo a course to get some sort of cycle licence to cycle on roads

*Vote B* : Comparing a form of transportation that uses roads with pedestrians that cross the road


----------



## 4F (9 Nov 2012)

I think as part of a car driving test you should first have to pass a cycle test in busy traffic. 

This would then give people both basic road craft skills on a bike and also so they can see what effects driving has to a cyclist.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Teuchter said:


> While I understand your point, I think calls for this sort of thing have to be balanced with the view that this would put off a lot of potential cyclists. These may not be the committed cyclists who spend time on cycling forums like this one and have a deep interest in issues relating to cycling in general. They may not be confident cyclists and they may not even ride the way we feel they should ride but they ARE cyclists none the less. As has been pointed out, the more cyclists there are on the roads, the more other road users are used to seeing them, the safer it is for all of us.
> 
> Let's not make it even harder for people to take up cycling.


 
I'm not really saying people need to take a cycling test, just that they be registered. If people can't be bothered to complete a form then maybe they shouldn't be cycling anyway.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> OK theres only one way to settle this!
> 
> A silly vote! - Please vote A or B for the sillyiest comment!
> 
> ...


 
Peter, it's not silly, it's someone elses' opinion that you disagree with.

As I say, registration doesn't necessarily mean a test should be taken... registration makes people more accountable for their actions IMO.


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I'm not really saying people need to take a cycling test, just that they be registered. If people can't be bothered to complete a form then maybe they shouldn't be cycling anyway.


 
I tend to agree.

The issue is that there are a lot of recreational cyclists, for whom this is over the top. But if it helps reduce poor cycling and accidents, then perhaps it's a good thing?

There isn't a right answer with this - so I think it comes down to whether you think the problem is big enough to legislate against.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

dodd82 said:


> I tend to agree.
> 
> The issue is that there are a lot of recreational cyclists, for whom this is over the top. But if it helps reduce poor cycling and accidents, then perhaps it's a good thing?
> 
> There isn't a right answer with this - so I think it comes down to whether you think the problem is big enough to legislate against.


 
I think if someone's spent a couple hundred quid on a bike, they can cope with filling out a form.


----------



## 4F (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I was thinking last night, it would be good if as part of the driving test, people had to complete 10 hours cycling round a town centre. It's not until I re-started cycling earlier this year that I got to appreciate how dangerous it can be and what the perils are - people really need to put themselves in the shoes of others, empathy seems to be lost...


 
I completely agree


----------



## Teuchter (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I think if someone's spent a couple hundred quid on a bike, they can cope with filling out a form.


True... for anyone likely to be reading this forum.

However what about the 30%** of cyclists out there who are riding a bike shaped object with a squeaky chain and badly adjusted gears that they bought 2nd hand for £30 off gumtree because it's cheaper than a bus pass? Maybe as "proper" cyclists we want to legislate these people off the roads. I don't, I'd rather encourage them to get out there (though I would like to get them off the pavement and using lights!).

** This figure was pulled out of my ar$e and has no basis on real facts


----------



## psmiffy (9 Nov 2012)

Registration is not the answer -

Poor cycling no matter how crazy it may look from the perspective of a lot of experienced cyclists (and drivers) is not the cause of the majority of accidents.
Registration of motor vehicles doesn't seem to affect how well people drive.
Various countries have tried it and it doesn't work - After all if the Swiss with their bureaucratic skills could not do it there is no chance it would be viable in this country.
As others have said if enforced it would just reduce the number of people cycling.
 
The key thing is to change the behavior of drivers, it is motor vehicles that are responsible for the majority of the death and injuries of cyclist, motor vehicles are driven by people - it is people that are responsible for causing the death and injuries of cyclists (and too many pedestrians and passengers in cars) - it is people that must be made aware of their responsibilities as drivers and made responsible for their actions.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Peter, it's not silly, it's someone elses' opinion that you disagree with.
> 
> As I say, registration doesn't necessarily mean a test should be taken... registration makes people more accountable for their actions IMO.


 
It was my opinion that his opinion it was silly. So just because your opinion is that his opinion was not silly doesn't mean you can tell me my opinion of his opinion was infact wrong.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (9 Nov 2012)

Ha Ha!! as it was just my opinion!


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Ha Ha!! as it was just my opinion!


 
Touche!


----------



## fossyant (9 Nov 2012)

Registration - baloney.


----------



## fossyant (9 Nov 2012)

I bet there are a number of posters on here that don't have proper 3rd party insurance whilst on their bikes ! Glass Houses and stones ?


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

It's not 'baloney', it's a logical suggestion that has good points and bad points.

If registration is so useless, would you do away with car registration as well?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think it's definitely the answer - I just think it's something that warrants a discussion, because there are huge amounts of cyclists that cycle incorrectly and probably have no idea that they're doing anything wrong.


----------



## fossyant (9 Nov 2012)

Is baloney - won't work ! OK I register the bike, crash into a car, smash a wing mirror and cycle off - made no difference. Dog licences never worked. What difference does registration make ? No purpose. How would you identify a bike ?

PS do you have propper 3rd party insurance when on the bike ?


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

fossyant said:


> Is baloney - won't work ! OK I register the bike, crash into a car, smash a wing mirror and cycle off - made no difference. Dog licences never worked. What difference does registration make ? No purpose. How would you identify a bike ?
> 
> PS do you have propper 3rd party insurance when on the bike ?


 
I do, yes.

It depends what you set up registration to achieve. I think there might be some things that it could help, namely identifying the bike in cases of an accident, and also ensuring that all bike users are identifiable to communicate safe road practice.

I will reiterate - I'm not saying it's definitely the right way to go, I'm saying that rather than dismiss it, it's probably worth a discussion.

Personally, I think that the concept of a cyclist having some sort of acknowledgement - whether it's an agreement, training or even a test - before they're allowed on the road is a credible one.

Don't you think it's a little dangerous that anyone can jump on a bike and share a road with vehicles, without any knowledge of what they should be doing?


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

psmiffy said:


> Registration is not the answer -
> 
> Poor cycling no matter how crazy it may look from the perspective of a lot of experienced cyclists (and drivers) is not the cause of the majority of accidents.
> Registration of motor vehicles doesn't seem to affect how well people drive.
> ...


 
I completely agree about changing the behaviour of drivers (hence the comment about making a few hours cycling a part of the driving test).

However, I wonder if registration might have a positive effect on cyclists' behaviour too, the obverse side of your point 2 seems to be that not insuring/registering a car does appear to have an effect on people's driving:

'These uninsured drivers are 10 times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving, and are five times more likely to have been involved in road collisions, to fail to comply with other road traffic requirements and to be engaged in other criminal activity.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-by-uninsured-drivers-to-keep-no-claims.html


----------



## benb (9 Nov 2012)

dodd82 said:


> It's not 'baloney', it's a logical suggestion that has good points and bad points.
> 
> If registration is so useless, would you do away with car registration as well?


 
No, because bad driving is quite likely to injure or kill someone, but bad cycling is not very likely to.
The problem is so tiny that it's not worth the effort in solving it.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

fossyant said:


> Dog licences never worked.


 
I think they should bring these back too


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

benb said:


> No, because bad driving is quite likely to injure or kill someone, but bad cycling is not very likely to.
> The problem is so tiny that it's not worth the effort in solving it.


 
Fair enough - at what point does it become worth it though? London in particular seems to have seen a real rise in the numbers of people cycling, so is it something that should be monitored?


----------



## fossyant (9 Nov 2012)

dodd82 said:


> Don't you think it's a little dangerous that anyone can jump on a bike and share a road with vehicles, without any knowledge of what they should be doing?


 
Yes, but you can walk across the street doing the same thing. The issue is you won't stop the bad cyclists. Or indeed you actually may stop cycling by many people if they had to register them and the bike and have training.

And just having a driving license doesn't stop the poor drivers does it, even though their cars have visible registration, but who knows !

Really cant see it ever working. Those of us that are sensible and have insurance, and don't ride like an idiot (mainly as I want to be riding till the day I die an old man) will still be here, but those that don't give a monkey's, won't give a monkey's.

I really think the insurance issue should be pushed, rather than registration, but again, it's difficult to get folk to insure a vehicle for 3rd party, never mind a bike.


----------



## fossyant (9 Nov 2012)

I just really can't see how there is a workable solution ? I am not against the idea, but I can't see registration working. To be frank, I'm very easy to recognise on a bike on a daily basis, than, say a lad in a track suit. How would you apply registration to someone like that, who really has no interest in bikes, just that it gets him to college/work cheaply (and the fact they re usually on the pavement - big gripe of mine).


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

What's the ballpark cost of 3rd party insurance for a push bike? I should get some myself to be honest...


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

fossyant said:


> Yes, but you can walk across the street doing the same thing. The issue is you won't stop the bad cyclists. Or indeed you actually may stop cycling by many people if they had to register them and the bike and have training.
> 
> And just having a driving license doesn't stop the poor drivers does it, even though their cars have visible registration, but who knows !
> 
> ...


 
I'm not so sure.

If you gave people the chance to learn that riding on the pavement is illegal, for example, I think many would stop doing it.

I don't think a comparison with a pedestrian is useful, because they're not sharing the road. I appreciate the sentiment, but I do think it's an entirely different thing.

I also appreciate the numbers argument and agree to a certain extent - it's close to being an unenforcable law I'd have thought. But I don't think we want people on bikes, on the road, if they don't know what they're supposed to be doing!


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

fossyant said:


> than, say a lad in a track suit. How would you apply registration to someone like that, who really has no interest in bikes, just that it gets him to college/work cheaply (and the fact they re usually on the pavement - big gripe of mine).


 
Completely with you on that - and this is the crux of the problem.

Not sure how to solve it, but I guess the answer lies in one of three choices:

- Formal legislation and enforcement
- Campaigning and education
- Give up


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Maybe another option is to have more police on the streets who are actually willing to pull people over for bad cycling?


----------



## psmiffy (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> However, I wonder if registration might have a positive effect on cyclists' behaviour too, the obverse side of your point 2 seems to be that not insuring/registering a car does appear to have an effect on people's driving:
> 
> 'These uninsured drivers are 10 times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving, and are five times more likely to have been involved in road collisions, to fail to comply with other road traffic requirements and to be engaged in other criminal activity.'


 
The only reason that the majority (and thankfully that is a relatively small percentage of the overall driver population) of uninsured/unlicensed drivers are unlicensed is because they were bad drivers in the first place - measures to modify their behavior were simply not effective on the first, second, n+1 time.

Does the driving test really teach people to drive safely or is it just a chore to be done to get a licence - people need to know that if they drive badly in an unsafe manner that there will be consequences - an outcome that will only come about if there is a properly funded effective traffic police and effective sanctions in the courts - It should not be like that but unless what may seem to be harsh measures are taken peoples behavior will not change for the better.


----------



## Bromptonaut (9 Nov 2012)

All the pullava around car ownership (registration, licences and mandatory insurance) are a direct result of people dying in thousands. Not now, in today's traffic, but 70-80 years ago. They were a response to a real problem.

Less than two people a year are killed by pedal cycles and 100-120 cyclists die in accidents - mostly caused by motor vehicles.

It's simply not worth the effort to try and treat bikes like cars. And that's before the practical problem like where do you put a registration plate? - presumably it needs to be clearly visible by both eye and camera. How about bikes owned by kids, what's the minimum age to ride/own?


----------



## benb (9 Nov 2012)

dodd82 said:


> Fair enough - at what point does it become worth it though? London in particular seems to have seen a real rise in the numbers of people cycling, so is it something that should be monitored?


 
Yes, it's certainly something we should consider from time to time. I personally don't think it's likely that bicycles will ever be involved in so many hit and runs that such a system will be worthwhile.


----------



## Bromptonaut (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> What's the ballpark cost of 3rd party insurance for a push bike? I should get some myself to be honest...


 
You might find it's covered by your house insurance. Otherwise most obtain it as part of package of being in CTC, London Cycling Campaign or similar. Annual cost for whole package £20-£50.


----------



## Alun (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Maybe another option is to have more police on the streets who are actually willing to pull people over for bad cycling?


 What duties would you take the officers off, so that they could manage this?


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

Bromptonaut said:


> All the pullava around car ownership (registration, licences and mandatory insurance) are a direct result of people dying in thousands. Not now, in today's traffic, but 70-80 years ago. They were a response to a real problem.
> 
> Less than two people a year are killed by pedal cycles and 100-120 cyclists die in accidents - mostly caused by motor vehicles.


 
A fair point indeed.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> What duties would you take the officers off, so that they could manage this?


 
Just asking that they do their existing job. I've seen (the rare) policeman on the street, stand by and watch cyclists run red lights and pavement cycle. As far as I can see, if he's patrolling the street anyway and someone breaks the law, it's his job to act. Or have I misunderstood the point of what the police do?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (9 Nov 2012)

I notice the BBC site Have Your Say was closed pretty quickly.


----------



## psmiffy (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> What duties would you take the officers off, so that they could manage this?


 
I would make traffic policing self funding - supply and demand- People parking wiily niilly was clogging up the town I live in - years ago the council took over the parking control duties - the number of traffic wardens went up from around 2 to over 140 - very profitable and self funding - over a relatively short time peoples parking habits changed for the better and there is now not a parking problem in the town- became unprofitable for the council to run the service and has now been outsourced


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Bromptonaut said:


> All the pullava around car ownership (registration, licences and mandatory insurance) are a direct result of people dying in thousands. Not now, in today's traffic, but 70-80 years ago. They were a response to a real problem.
> 
> Less than two people a year are killed by pedal cycles and 100-120 cyclists die in accidents - mostly caused by motor vehicles.
> 
> It's simply not worth the effort to try and treat bikes like cars. And that's before the practical problem like where do you put a registration plate? - presumably it needs to be clearly visible by both eye and camera. How about bikes owned by kids, what's the minimum age to ride/own?


 
That's people being killed though, is that what it takes for a change to happen? How about the people injured or even those people knocked over and aren't hurt that much or who have their car damaged? There must be tons of incidents that go unreported because the victims know nothing can be done without any way of ID'ing the cyclist.

Re: the minimum age thing, I'd say if they're old enough to ride on the road, they're old enough to be registered


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

psmiffy said:


> I would make traffic policing self funding - supply and demand- People parking wiily niilly was clogging up the town I live in - years ago the council took over the parking control duties - the number of traffic wardens went up from around 2 to over 140 - very profitable and self funding - over a relatively short time peoples parking habits changed for the better and there is now not a parking problem in the town- became unprofitable for the council to run the service and has now been outsourced


 
You've just reminded me of a conversation I had with a police officer a couple of months ago when he was security marking my bike for me.

We were talking about the problem of RLJ'ing cyclists and he said the police are looking in to doing more and it is possible for this to be entirely self-funding. Put a policeman next to a set of traffic lights for the day and they'll more than earn their days' wage back in fines issued...


----------



## subaqua (9 Nov 2012)

wiggydiggy said:


> From Metro this morning: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/917393-...dley-wiggins-and-shane-sutton-hurt-in-crashes
> 
> "Chris Peck, from cycling campaign group CTC, said such accidents were far too common with drivers admitting they had not seen cyclists."
> 
> I'd change 'not seen' to either 'saw you and didnt care' or 'didnt bother looking'.


 http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/wiggins-down.117226/post-2142839


----------



## Alun (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Just asking that they do their existing job. I've seen (the rare) policeman on the street, stand by and watch cyclists run red lights and pavement cycle. As far as I can see, if he's patrolling the street anyway and someone breaks the law, it's his job to act. Or have I misunderstood the point of what the police do?


 The police have to prioritise their work, and whilst it might be satisfying to see an officer chasing a cyclist down the street shouting "Oi, you stop !" I don't think that it would be very effective.
They would have to have dedicated support from other officers in strategic places, maybe a car or motorcycle waiting to assist in apprehending the offender.
They would then be criticised for not catching "real" criminals like bank robbers, drug dealers etc.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> The police have to prioritise their work, and whilst it might be satisfying to see an officer chasing a cyclist down the street shouting "Oi, you stop !" I don't think that it would be very effective.
> They would have to have dedicated support from other officers in strategic places, maybe a car or motorcycle waiting to assist in apprehending the offender.
> They would then be criticised for not catching "real" criminals like bank robbers, drug dealers etc.


 
How about the police sometimes sat on motorbikes at the Trafalgar Sq end of The Mall? I reckon they could catch up with a cyclist in heavy London traffic 

To be honest though, I'm really not sure what the point is in having legislation if it's not enforced, why not just wipe those laws from the books and save everyone the hassle of having to think about it.

Apparently, none of these misdemeanors cause any harm anyway...


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> The police have to prioritise their work, and whilst it might be satisfying to see an officer chasing a cyclist down the street shouting "Oi, you stop !" I don't think that it would be very effective.
> They would have to have dedicated support from other officers in strategic places, maybe a car or motorcycle waiting to assist in apprehending the offender.
> They would then be criticised for not catching "real" criminals like bank robbers, drug dealers etc.


 At the crossroads of Waterloo Bridge Road and The Cut in London, they stationed bike officers at each corner. I saw a roadie go through a red, the shout went up and the copper I was near saw he obviously wasn't going to catch said roadie on a low geared MTB so he just threw the bike in front of the roadie who stopped. Bloke nicked, fined, job done.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

Bromptonaut said:


> And that's before the practical problem like where do you put a registration plate? - presumably it needs to be clearly visible by both eye and camera. How about bikes owned by kids, what's the minimum age to ride/own?


 This is my issue with registration. How are you going to make it visible and if it's not visible it's useless. Someone somewhere has spent a lot of time and money making my road bikes as streamlined as they can be without them becoming TT bikes. I'm not going to strap a sail across the back.

And I'm not opposed to the idea of making individual cyclists accountable which is what registration is for, I just don't see a practical way of doing it.


----------



## Alun (9 Nov 2012)

psmiffy said:


> I would make traffic policing self funding - supply and demand- People parking wiily niilly was clogging up the town I live in - years ago the council took over the parking control duties - the number of traffic wardens went up from around 2 to over 140 - very profitable and self funding - over a relatively short time peoples parking habits changed for the better and there is now not a parking problem in the town- became unprofitable for the council to run the service and has now been outsourced


 
My response was to Davidsw8 who said,
_Maybe another option is to have more police on the streets who are actually willing to pull people over for bad cycling? _​ . If traffic policing were self funding, I don't think that they could catch and prosecute enough "bad cyclists" to make it economically viable


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> At the crossroads of Waterloo Bridge Road and The Cut in London, they stationed bike officers at each corner. I saw a roadie go through a red, the shout went up and the copper I was near saw he obviously wasn't going to catch said roadie on a low geared MTB so he just threw the bike in front of the roadie who stopped. Bloke nicked, fined, job done.


 
That's a mad place to cycle through, the light sequence there is SO confusing for peds.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> My response was to Davidsw8 who said,
> _Maybe another option is to have more police on the streets who are actually willing to pull people over for bad cycling? _​. If traffic policing were self funding, I don't think that they could catch and prosecute enough "bad cyclists" to make it economically viable


 
The conversation I had with a police officer recently would seem to contradict that...

(though clearly, this policeman isn't spokesperson for the entire force... or an accountant  )


----------



## psmiffy (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> My response was to Davidsw8 who said,
> _Maybe another option is to have more police on the streets who are actually willing to pull people over for bad cycling? _​. If traffic policing were self funding, I don't think that they could catch and prosecute enough "bad cyclists" to make it economically viable


 
True - but I suspect that the driving offense trade would be brisk enough to subsidize the cyclist business


----------



## rb58 (9 Nov 2012)

This thread worries me slightly. Once again the victim (i.e. cyclists) seem to be getting the blame. I think we need to be clear that (in my experience) it's, overwhelmingly, bad driving that causes the most incidents, not bad cycling. So why do we look for solutions that place the responsibility at the feet of cyclists? Only yesterday I was subject to loud horn blowing and aggressive driving on London Bridge from a driver (and 'the finger' from his 'lady' passenger) who clearly thought the 5 or 6 cyclists in the ASL was an infringement of his God given right to be in front of everyone else. Totally unecessary and clearly distressing for the lady cyclists riding alongside me. And in case you're wondering, not one of the cylists around me did anything wrong.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> That's a mad place to cycle through, the light sequence there is SO confusing for peds.


 I never had a problem. It's green man controlled and even (if you're in the know) works like a Tokyo junction so you can get across diagonally on the green man.


----------



## Alun (9 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> At the crossroads of Waterloo Bridge Road and The Cut in London, they stationed bike officers at each corner. I saw a roadie go through a red, the shout went up and the copper I was near saw he obviously wasn't going to catch said roadie on a low geared MTB so he just threw the bike in front of the roadie who stopped. Bloke nicked, fined, job done.


So that's 4 coppers on bikes to get one collar!
The police can address the issue, and I would imagine do have purges from time to time.
Their day to day policing however involves prioritization of work, as do many other jobs, and the manpower to deal with cyclists has to come from somewhere else.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

rb58 said:


> This thread worries me slightly. Once again the victim (i.e. cyclists) seem to be getting the blame. I think we need to be clear that (in my experience) it's, overwhelmingly, bad driving that causes the most incidents, not bad cycling. So why do we look for solutions that place the responsibility at the feet of cyclists? Only yesterday I was subject to loud horn blowing and aggressive driving on London Bridge from a driver (and 'the finger' from his 'lady' passenger) who clearly thought the 5 or 6 cyclists in the ASL was an infringement of his God given right to be in front of everyone else. Totally unecessary and clearly distressing for the lady cyclists riding alongside me. And in case you're wondering, not one of the cylists around me did anything wrong.


 In the last couple of weeks, I've instigated a zero tolerance policy. If you beep your horn at me, I will get off my bike, put it down in front of your car and ask you why you are beeping at me. I've not gained any meaningful answers yet, it's usually "You're going too slowly", "You're too far out" etc. I try to explain my point of view and then I let them go on their merry way.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> So that's 4 coppers on bikes to get one collar!
> The police can address the issue, and I would imagine do have purges from time to time.
> Their day to day policing however involves prioritization of work, as do many other jobs, and the manpower to deal with cyclists has to come from somewhere else.


 You've not seen this junction. I saw the one collar and I didn't actually stop. During the course of a rush hour, I'd expect them to get around 100 if they managed to stop every RLJ. That's £8000 for a couple of hours work.


----------



## psmiffy (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> My response was to Davidsw8 who said,
> _Maybe another option is to have more police on the streets who are actually willing to pull people over for bad cycling? _​. If traffic policing were self funding, I don't think that they could catch and prosecute enough "bad cyclists" to make it economically viable


 
and I think this is missing the point - cyclists do not kill and maim the drivers of motor vehicles - It is motor vehicles that kill and injure too many cyclists and pedestrians - plus the number of incidents where cyclists are responsible for their own misfortune is very low


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> So that's 4 coppers on bikes to get one collar!
> The police can address the issue, and I would imagine do have purges from time to time.
> Their day to day policing however involves prioritization of work, as do many other jobs, and the manpower to deal with cyclists has to come from somewhere else.


 
I wonder myself sometimes what the police are spending their money on, I think most of them do a great job but it's a bureaucratic mess and I think they often react to closely to the latest scare invented by the tabloids. I don't feel their work is prioritised especially well at the moment as it is.

I think even just having more police that are visible would deter some miscreants be they on cycle, foot or in motorised vehicles.


----------



## Alun (9 Nov 2012)

psmiffy said:


> and I think this is missing the point - cyclists do not kill and maim the drivers of motor vehicles - It is motor vehicles that kill and injure too many cyclists and pedestrians - plus the number of incidents where cyclists are responsible for their own misfortune is very low


 I am in agreement with you, it is Davidsw8 who sees the need for more coppers to deal with "bad cycling", by which I presume he means RLJ'ers and pavement cycling.


----------



## dodd82 (9 Nov 2012)

rb58 said:


> This thread worries me slightly. Once again the victim (i.e. cyclists) seem to be getting the blame. I think we need to be clear that (in my experience) it's, overwhelmingly, bad driving that causes the most incidents, not bad cycling. So why do we look for solutions that place the responsibility at the feet of cyclists? Only yesterday I was subject to loud horn blowing and aggressive driving on London Bridge from a driver (and 'the finger' from his 'lady' passenger) who clearly thought the 5 or 6 cyclists in the ASL was an infringement of his God given right to be in front of everyone else. Totally unecessary and clearly distressing for the lady cyclists riding alongside me. And in case you're wondering, not one of the cylists around me did anything wrong.


 
I think cyclists riding on the pavement or generally not understanding the highway code are a problem, and thus any solution to that problem is worth discussing.

It doesn't mean that it's more of a problem than bad driving - surely we can discuss more than one problem at a time?


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> I am in agreement with you, it is Davidsw8 who sees the need for more coppers to deal with "bad cycling", by which I presume he means RLJ'ers and pavement cycling.


 
... and not having lights


----------



## Alun (9 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> You've not seen this junction. I saw the one collar and I didn't actually stop. During the course of a rush hour, I'd expect them to get around 100 if they managed to stop every RLJ. That's £8000 for a couple of hours work.


 It's not "a couple of hours work" though is it?
There are arrests, interviews, charges, CPS, solicitors, court appearances and all the rest, all multiplied by 100.


----------



## mickle (9 Nov 2012)

Plenty of numpties in the cycling community too I hate to say.

The argument for cycle registration was lost long ago. Why the fark are we still debating it? And why, when the subject of _*the danger posed to cyclists by drivers*_ rears it's ugly head, does the conversation turn to cyclists on pavements, cyclist RLJing and cycle registration? None of it is relevant to the discussion in hand.

We must make every effort to avoid falling into this trap and remind people that cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.


----------



## Alun (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> ... and not having lights


 Only during the hours of darkness, though!


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> Plenty of numpties in the cycling community too I hate to say.
> 
> The argument for cycle registration was lost long ago. Why the f*** are we still debating it? And why, when the subject of _*the danger posed to cyclists by drivers*_ rears it's ugly head, does the conversation turn to cyclists on pavements, cyclist RLJing and cycle registration? None of it is relevant to the discussion in hand.
> 
> We must make every effort to avoid falling into this trap and remind people that cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.


 
Sorry, twas my fault. The age-old accusation of not paying road tax was raised and I just felt that cyclist registration would go some way to counter that argument (if a moot argument requires countering).


----------



## benb (9 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> You've not seen this junction. I saw the one collar and I didn't actually stop. During the course of a rush hour, I'd expect them to get around 100 if they managed to stop every RLJ. That's £8000 for a couple of hours work.


 
Not sure I follow your maths there. I think it's a £30 fine for RLJ.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

Maybe the discussion should ignore the mode of transport (foot, cycle, car etc.) and focus on people just being more aware and considerate of others?

Zero-tolerance on selfish behaviour!


----------



## 400bhp (9 Nov 2012)

It's quite ironic that we seem to be talking about what to do with cyclists rather than how to potentially make the roads safer for cyclists after what we should be able to assume was a (famous) cyclist involved in a collision riding perfectly legally.

Just an observation - not intended to be opinionated.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> It's not "a couple of hours work" though is it?
> There are arrests, interviews, charges, CPS, solicitors, court appearances and all the rest, all multiplied by 100.


 Fixed penalty notice (although as BenB says I'm probably wrong about the amount) so unless the perpetrator asks for it to go to court, it's sorted more or less there and then. I wouldn't expect many would want to go to court after RLJing at a junction that's crawling with CCTV.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> It's quite ironic that we seem to be talking about what to do with cyclists rather than how to potentially make the roads safer for cyclists after what we should be able to assume was a (famous) cyclist involved in a collision riding perfectly legally.
> 
> Just an observation - not intended to be opinionated.


 I think it may be, as happened to me, that this story has got people talking about cycling and cyclists. During these discussions, if you're a cyclist, what's thrown at you more and more is how irresponsible some cyclists are which is very true.

RLJer et al repeatedly refute that their actions damage cycling as a whole whereas what I'm certainly seeing today is that they do. "Cyclists behave recklessly, they have no lights, they ride on pavements, they RLJ. Of course there are some good ones and I'm sure you're one of those" is what I'm hearing. What we need to do is redefine the conversation to "On the whole cyclists are fairly well behaved but you get some nutters same as with everything else.". Now some one is going to say that the stats show cyclists are 92% well behaved but that's not the perception and it's the perception we need to change if anyone is ever going to listen.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Nov 2012)

Good post.

I've said this before but the perception that cyclists RLJ is because they often do it when traffic is stationary, rather than just after the lights have turned to red and cars are still moving and slowing to a stop. This then means that a lot of car drivers have turned their attention from slowing down, to staring ahead and looking at what's going on at the junction. a front row seat at a cyclist going through a red.


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> Plenty of numpties in the cycling community too I hate to say.
> 
> The argument for cycle registration was lost long ago. Why the f*** are we still debating it? And why, when the subject of _*the danger posed to cyclists by drivers*_ rears it's ugly head, does the conversation turn to cyclists on pavements, cyclist RLJing and cycle registration? None of it is relevant to the discussion in hand.
> 
> We must make every effort to avoid falling into this trap and remind people that cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.


+1001




naaaah - make it 10,001


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> +1001
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I don't disagree that motorists are the ones that pose the danger. However as I've said above, as long as we're perceived as a bunch with no general regard for the laws of the road no one will ever listen to us.

Compare pedestrians to cyclists. We all know that peds walk out from between buses, at night, dressed all in black yet the general perception is that on the whole pedestrians are reasonably well behaved hence society as a whole tends to care when they get mown down at a bus stop. Now look at the general public perception of a cyclist: ignores red lights, rides on the pavement scaring grannies and young children and is a general menace. Until you change that, you won't get public sympathy and you can stand on a box jumping up and down screaming "It's motorists that kill people" and "The stats show that most cyclists obey the law" till you go blue in the face, it won't make the slightest difference.


----------



## mickle (9 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> I don't disagree that motorists are the ones that pose the danger. However as I've said above, as long as we're perceived as a bunch with no general regard for the laws of the road no one will ever listen to us.
> 
> Compare pedestrians to cyclists. We all know that peds walk out from between buses, at night, dressed all in black yet the general perception is that on the whole pedestrians are reasonably well behaved hence society as a whole tends to care when they get mown down at a bus stop. Now look at the general public perception of a cyclist: ignores red lights, rides on the pavement scaring grannies and young children and is a general menace. Until you change that, you won't get public sympathy and you can stand on a box jumping up and down screaming "It's motorists that kill people" and "The stats show that most cyclists obey the law" till you go blue in the face, it won't make the slightest difference.


 
The idea that cyclists must clean up their game before motorists will take them seriously simply doesn't add up. (Aside from the fact that motorists pose two thousand times more danger than cyclists) _by every measure_ drivers break more road traffic laws than cyclists. To motorists we are an 'out group'. Motorists hate cyclists and then they use every example of poor cyclist behaviour to justify that hatred. You're looking through the telescope the wrong way. It's not cyclist behaviour which needs to change but motorist attitudes.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> The idea that cyclists must clean up their game before motorists will take them seriously simply doesn't add up. (Aside from the fact that motorists pose two thousand times more danger than cyclists) _by every measure_ drivers break more road traffic laws than cyclists. To motorists we are an 'out group'. Motorists hate cyclists and then they use every example of poor cyclist behaviour to justify that hatred. You're looking through the telescope the wrong way. It's not cyclist behaviour which needs to change but motorist attitudes.


 It's not about motorists, it's about society. We are *perceived* as rljing, pavement riding nuisances. Until you change that, no one else will give a damn about cyclists. And if no one gives a damn, there will be no action taken to change motorist attitudes. Sorry but as I said you can jump up and down about motorists but until people care about cyclists nothing will change. And people won't care about cyclists until the general perception of them changes.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> It's not about motorists, it's about society. We are *perceived* as rljing, pavement riding nuisances. Until you change that, no one else will give a damn about cyclists. And if no one gives a damn, there will be no action taken to change motorist attitudes. Sorry but as I said you can jump up and down about motorists but until people care about cyclists nothing will change. And people won't care about cyclists until the general perception of them changes.


That begs the question why cyclists are perceived in such a way. I'm a firm believer in the scapegoat theory, aka the ''out-group'' theory.


----------



## mickle (9 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> It's not about motorists, it's about society. We are *perceived* as rljing, pavement riding nuisances. Until you change that, no one else will give a damn about cyclists. And if no one gives a damn, there will be no action taken to change motorist attitudes. Sorry but as I said you can jump up and down about motorists but until people care about cyclists nothing will change. And people won't care about cyclists until the general perception of them changes.


 
My point is that they'll still hate us even if 'we' clean up our act. Therefore cleaning up our act isn't the answer to changing societies' attitude towards cyclists. It needs another approach. I suspect that the solution is education (of drivers) and higher penalties for sh1t driving combined with improved facilities.

I once witnessed a pair of teenagers riding a moped the wrong way down a cycle path in the middle of a pedestrian precinct - and they weren't wearing helmets. No one batted an eylid, in fact, people including old grannies and mums with push chairs happily moved aside. As a Brit familiar with British attitudes it was amazing to watch, but it was The Netherlands, where they have a very much healthier attitude to teenagers for a start off. '_Do what you like as long as it doesn't impact on anyone else_'. We're too quick to judge in this country, too quick to vilify and persecute. They (motorists) need to be very much more tolerant of us (cyclists). It's not the best answer to the problem of driver danger, it's the only answer.


----------



## EltonFrog (9 Nov 2012)

Taxing, registering, licensing and testing cyclists is not going stop inconsiderate cyclist, impatient car drivers, vindictive van drivers using their vehicles as weapons of cyclist destruction.


----------



## ianrauk (9 Nov 2012)

Anything that stops a person from picking up a bike and cycling is a bad thing.
Simple.


----------



## Glow worm (9 Nov 2012)

I'm going to have to stop listening to radio phone ins on cycling (mentioned upthread - a show on R5 this morning) for the sake of my blood pressure. All the usual ill-informed claptrap from motorists among which were these two priceless gems from a couple of petrolheaded Einsteins:

- ''Cyclists should get off *my* road and onto the cycle paths''
- ''No one should be allowed to cycle before they have passed their driving tests''

Genius!


----------



## PK99 (9 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> Plenty of numpties in the cycling community too I hate to say.
> 
> The argument for cycle registration was lost long ago. Why the f*** are we still debating it? And why, when the subject of _*the danger posed to cyclists by drivers*_ rears it's ugly head, does the conversation turn to cyclists on pavements, cyclist RLJing and cycle registration? None of it is relevant to the discussion in hand.
> 
> We must make every effort to avoid falling into this trap and remind people that cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.


 
pity you spoilt that by you last point.

"very low" or "minimal" would be correct and unarguable.

"simply do not pose any danger" is simply wrong - you open any discussion to being taken off track on the semantic point.

You are falling into the trap of making an indefensible* absolutist statement instead of an unassailable comparison.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I honestly think some people do need lessons in how to cross the road, this basic skill learnt as an infant seems to have been completely forgotten in many. *What ever happened to 'find a safe place to cross'?*


The speed and volume of traffic in most towns and cities made it impossible?


----------



## PK99 (9 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> The idea that cyclists must clean up their game before motorists will take them seriously simply doesn't add up. (Aside from the fact that motorists pose two thousand times more danger than cyclists) _by every measure_ drivers break more road traffic laws than cyclists. To motorists we are an 'out group'. Motorists hate cyclists and then they use every example of poor cyclist behaviour to justify that hatred. You're looking through the telescope the wrong way. It's not cyclist behaviour which needs to change but motorist attitudes.


 
you are far too absolutist in you arguments;



> * by every measure* drivers break more road traffic laws than cyclists


 
Are you really sure you can defend that as fact?

numbers of unlit ninja cyclists vs numbers of unlit ninja ninja motorists?

Numbers of cars driving through pedestrian shopping centres vs numbers of cyclists riding through?

How many of us have reflectors on our clipless pedals?

Your arguments would have much more power if you avoided clearly demonstrably wrong hyperbole.


----------



## mickle (9 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> pity you spoilt that by you last point.
> 
> "very low" or "minimal" would be correct and unarguable.
> 
> ...


 
''....... cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.''

On average fewer than one person is killed in the UK by bicyclists every year. Undeniably less dangerous than rain, step-ladders, bees and peanuts. And probably less dangerous than sausages. How close to no danger can you possibly get? Probably marginally more dangerous than daisies.


----------



## PK99 (9 Nov 2012)

Do you j


mickle said:


> ''....... cyclists, on the whole, and when compared to the mayhem wreaked by the automobile, simply do not pose any danger.''
> 
> On average fewer than one person is killed in the UK by bicyclists every year. Undeniably less dangerous than rain, step-ladders, bees and peanuts. And probably less dangerous than sausages. How close to no danger can you possibly get? Probably marginally more dangerous than daisies.


 
Do you not see what you have done? By making an absolutist overstatement instead of sticking with a patently correct comparison you have yourself taken your argument off track and are now making petty points.

I'm on your side on this: Compared to cars cycles pose very low risk. But "on the whole... *no* danger" is wrong and will be used against you.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2012)

Not only are cyclists viewed as an out group by the whole of society they are a minority out group in a society where car ownership and use is normalised, and where cars are seen as conferring status on their owners, and where riding a bike is seen as infantile at best and subversive and utterly inappropriate at worst.

Car drivers are suckered into the idea of the car as an enabler. Of freedom. Of speed. Of choice. But the car can only rarely deliver on these things and even then with strings of anxiety attached. Freedom... will I be able to park when I get there and how much will it cost? Speed.... what if a speed camera catches me? Choice... should I do a u-turn out of this queue now and see if travelling in the opposite direction helps my journey?

Car drivers ride around in their little chariots, kings of their tiny kingdoms, when they come into conflict with other charioteers they reach a compromise, it's what kings do, and only rarely does it boil over into all out war. When a pleb on a bike gets in the way, or is seen to break a law, they react aggressively simply because it is 'their' territory and they 'must' defend it else why are they in a chariot, a power projection of their own egos. (For most drivers their car is the second most expensive purchase they'll ever make so lets not kid ourselves that ego doesn't come into it.)

Sadly a lot of people cycle with a driver mindset. The bike enables them to act out their desire for freedom speed and choice in ways no car can any more. So they jump red lights, ride too fast on pavements and go the wrong way down one way streets and drivers see them do it and go nuts....


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (9 Nov 2012)

It's the car commercials,they enlarge the male ego.


----------



## mickle (9 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> you are far too absolutist in you arguments;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Absolutist? We're having a conversation about the very real and ever present danger posed by drivers to cyclists. I can't speak for where you live but where I live, and wherever I travel I see drivers exceeding the speed limit, driving on pavements, tailgating, talkng on mobile phones, yadda, yadda, yadda. The minimal danger posed by cyclists to society is as a mouse to an elephant in comparison. If you'd bothered to try and absorb what I'm trying to say instead of jumping down my neck in search of an alleged minor error of exaggeration youd realise that you've fallen into the very trap I was trying to identify. When talking about the danger posed to cyclists by drivers - the question of cyclist behaviour in the context of how it affects driver's attitudes to cyclists is not relevant.


----------



## PK99 (9 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Sadly a lot of people cycle with a driver mindset. The bike enables them to act out their desire for freedom speed and choice in ways no car can any more. *So they jump red lights, ride too fast on pavements and go the wrong way down one way streets and drivers see them do it and go nuts....*




It is not as driver but as pedestrian that those things make me go nuts!

One of these days I really am going to just brace and stand my ground when some twat on a bike heads toward me on a pavement or crossing.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Not only are cyclists viewed as an out group by the whole of society they are a minority out group in a society where car ownership and use is normalised, and where cars are seen as conferring status on their owners, and where riding a bike is seen as infantile at best and subversive and utterly inappropriate at worst.
> 
> Car drivers are suckered into the idea of the car as an enabler. Of freedom. Of speed. Of choice. But the car can only rarely deliver on these things and even then with strings of anxiety attached. Freedom... will I be able to park when I get there and how much will it cost? Speed.... what if a speed camera catches me? Choice... should I do a u-turn out of this queue now and see if travelling in the opposite direction helps my journey?
> 
> ...


I think I agree with all of that. All the insurance, VED, MOT, parking charges, etc are part of driving's necessary evil. Cyclists appear as an _*unnecessary*_ evil

About your final point: I've wondered about whether the typecasting of cyclists as RLJing, ninja salmonistas, encourages drivers to actually believe that that's simply what cyclists do. And so, when they get on a bike....


----------



## PK99 (9 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> Absolutist? We're having a conversation about the very real and ever present danger posed by drivers to cyclists. t.


 
I thought he conversion was about the comparative dangers of both to other road users including pedestrians


----------



## 2Loose (9 Nov 2012)

When I moved teams at work I was subject to the usual; Cyclist must RLJ etc. but I recently asked the two car drivers and one motorcyclist to tally up the number of RLJ'ers and other dangerous things they saw while travelling too and from work as I didn't believe what I heard. 

So far this week;
17 RLJ's (including one cyclist)
5 road users without lights when they were needed. Two of which were cyclists  .

All of them have moaned about driving\parking on the pavement near schools, but I can't recall one sighting of a pavement cyclist that wasn't a child this week <clap>.

I think it has changed their prejudices some what.


----------



## benb (9 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> Do you not see what you have done? By making an absolutist overstatement instead of sticking with a patently correct comparison you have yourself taken your argument off track and are now making petty points.
> 
> I'm on your side on this: Compared to cars cycles pose very low risk. But "on the whole... *no* danger" is wrong and will be used against you.


 
Come off it. If I said there was no danger of being struck by a meteorite, it's obvious what I mean, even the danger is slightly more than none.


----------



## PK99 (9 Nov 2012)

benb said:


> Come off it. If I said there was no danger of being struck by a meteorite, it's obvious what I mean, even the danger is slightly more than none.


 
There is a very real danger from being hit by a meteorite, but low risk.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> The idea that cyclists must clean up their game before motorists will take them seriously simply doesn't add up. (Aside from the fact that motorists pose two thousand times more danger than cyclists) _by every measure_ drivers break more road traffic laws than cyclists. To motorists we are an 'out group'. Motorists hate cyclists and then they use every example of poor cyclist behaviour to justify that hatred. You're looking through the telescope the wrong way. It's not cyclist behaviour which needs to change but motorist attitudes.


I actually agree with most of what you say but I think it's too idealistic.

You want change, you need a lever. Now I'm not saying that if from tomorrow every cyclist behaved like Snow White on a bike, you'd get your lever. What I am saying is that you'll never have your lever for as long as we're perceived (and that's an important word) to be the bad wolf (cos I like mixing and matching my fairy stories).


----------



## slowmotion (9 Nov 2012)

Somebody on this forum ( I apologise for not remembering because it was a couple of years ago ) made a very interesting observation about car drivers. He said that some people buy expensive cars to express their status and also because they feel that they are better protected by it. When they see a cyclist happily riding about on a machine that (they think) costs peanuts and affords very little protection, they feel that their values are being challenged having spent so much money. They don't like it all and feel affronted. The person who posted originally put it far more eloquently.


----------



## Herbie (9 Nov 2012)

Aushiker said:


> Reminds me of this video from a couple of enlightened members of the British public ...
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew



Hey...this Tory government has taxed things like pasties etc..i wouldn't put it past them to target us cyclists


----------



## gavintc (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Well, the 'Road Tax' issue is a moot point obviously but I do think cyclists should be registered and display some kind of ID (not sure where on some bikes...).
> 
> When there's an accident or a cyclist does something wrong, they can just cycle off and suffer no comeback.
> 
> The ONE good thing about the Boris bikes is that they have id numbers displayed on them.


 
And I presume you would include pedestrians as well. Pedestrians just walk off.


----------



## gavintc (9 Nov 2012)

Herbie said:


> Hey...this Tory government has taxed things like pasties etc..i wouldn't put it past them to target us cyclists


 
We pay tax on cooked and prepared food, so why not pasties. It might be good for the health of the nation.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> The speed and volume of traffic in most towns and cities made it impossible?


 
How about pedestrian crossings & zebra crossings? Failing that, a place where you have a decent view of what's coming. I think even in the most built up of cities with the busiest traffic, you'd have to walk maybe 15 seconds to find such a place.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

gavintc said:


> And I presume you would include pedestrians as well. Pedestrians just walk off.


 
I think that point has been covered, read the thread back...


----------



## Nebulous (9 Nov 2012)

They don't like us because we are not them. Like immigrants, public sector workers, private sector workers, people on benefits- whatever. It's discrimination pure and simple. Blind, illogical, irrational, hatred, dressed nicely and wrapped in a thin veneer of road tax and traffic lights.

Lots of groups have tried to comply, to be as law abiding as possible, to control their own members who get angry and upset about it and none of it does or will work. The only thing that will work is substantially increasing numbers of cyclists, with commensurate improved infrastructure. We're in for a few years of attacks and anger before we get there, whatever we do.

25 children a year die as a result of window blind cords. Does anyone care? I'm sure they do, but no-one is seriously talking about banning blinds or taxing them for that matter. It doesn't feature because there isn't a flesh and bone person on top of a window blind, that you can focus all your insecurities on by blaming for everything wrong in your life.


----------



## campbellab (9 Nov 2012)

Title of the thread couldn't have been more prophetic from what I've read so far.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Not only are cyclists viewed as an out group by the whole of society they are a minority out group in a society where car ownership and use is normalised, and where cars are seen as conferring status on their owners, and where riding a bike is seen as infantile at best and subversive and utterly inappropriate at worst.
> 
> Car drivers are suckered into the idea of the car as an enabler. Of freedom. Of speed. Of choice. But the car can only rarely deliver on these things and even then with strings of anxiety attached. Freedom... will I be able to park when I get there and how much will it cost? Speed.... what if a speed camera catches me? Choice... should I do a u-turn out of this queue now and see if travelling in the opposite direction helps my journey?
> 
> ...


 

Bloody hell, I'd never really thought of it in that way and you're really onto something there. Perhaps your whole explanation goes somewhere to explaining wy there's been a marked increase in cycling.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

campbellab said:


> Title of the thread couldn't have been more prophetic from what I've read so far.


Particularly with deep, insightful and informative comments like this.


----------



## mickle (9 Nov 2012)

I d


martint235 said:


> I actually agree with most of what you say but I think it's too idealistic.
> 
> You want change, you need a lever. Now I'm not saying that if from tomorrow every cyclist behaved like Snow White on a bike, you'd get your lever. What I am saying is that you'll never have your lever for as long as we're perceived (and that's an important word) to be the bad wolf (cos I like mixing and matching my fairy stories).


i disagree. Whats needed is a big metaphorical stick. With a nail in it.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> I d
> i disagree. Whats needed is a big metaphorical stick. With a nail in it.


No doubt. 

But back in this world I'm afraid we need levers and we haven't got any at the moment. 

I don't think we're that far apart, it's just how to achieve what we both believe is right that differs

Edit: I forgot to add, the biggest lever, in this country at least, is public opinion. Win that and you'll win the media war. Win that and you'll get the attention of the Govt. I don't believe this can be done until cyclists have a positive PR. And I don't believe that will happen until the guy I work with doesn't think all cyclists jump red lights.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> How about pedestrian crossings & zebra crossings? Failing that, a place where you have a decent view of what's coming. I think even in the most built up of cities with the busiest traffic, you'd have to walk maybe 15 seconds to find such a place.


Why should pedestrians be penned and herded and regulated to cross in places intended to inconvenience them for the convenience of drivers?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> It is not as driver but as pedestrian that those things make me go nuts!
> 
> One of these days I really am going to just brace and stand my ground when some twat on a bike heads toward me on a pavement or crossing.


I do so. The score for this year is gregped 4 - 1 numbtylondontwatsonbikes The last incident was a 1 - 1 draw. He fell off and I fell over, and I wasn't, on that occasion trying to have him off. I blame my recent weight loss for his ability to knock me down.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Why should pedestrians be penned and herded and regulated to cross in places intended to inconvenience them for the convenience of drivers?


 
So they can cross the road and live?


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> So they can cross the road and live?


On the whole, they (or we because we are all pedestrians) tend to cross the road where we like and live. There is a small minority of road crossings that result in injury or fatality compared to the daily total achieved without drama.


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> On the whole, they (or we because we are all pedestrians) tend to cross the road where we like and live. There is a small minority of road crossings that result in injury or fatality compared to the daily total achieved without drama.


 
Okey doke


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> So they can cross the road and live?


thus the convenience of the charioteers is achieved at the inconvenience of the plebs.

utterly uncivilised.


----------



## classic33 (9 Nov 2012)

Nebulous said:


> They don't like us because we are not them. Like immigrants, public sector workers, private sector workers, people on benefits- whatever. It's discrimination pure and simple. Blind, illogical, irrational, hatred, dressed nicely and wrapped in a thin veneer of road tax and traffic lights.
> 
> Lots of groups have tried to comply, to be as law abiding as possible, to control their own members who get angry and upset about it and none of it does or will work. The only thing that will work is substantially increasing numbers of cyclists, with commensurate improved infrastructure. We're in for a few years of attacks and anger before we get there, whatever we do.
> 
> *25 children a year die as a result of window blind cords. Does anyone care? I'm sure they do, but no-one is seriously talking about banning blinds or taxing them for that matter. It doesn't feature because there isn't a flesh and bone person on top of a window blind, that you can focus all your insecurities on by blaming for everything wrong in your life.*


EU regulations were changed this year with regards to venetian blinds. There can no longer be any risk of a person getting strangled or entangled in any part of one. You may have noticed vertical blind seem to be coming more popular of late.


----------



## classic33 (9 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> It is not as driver but as pedestrian that those things make me go nuts!
> 
> One of these days I really am going to just brace and stand my ground when some twat on a bike heads toward me on a pavement or crossing.


 Done that & said prat on a bike went into the side of a bus shelter. His other choice was to go onto the road.


----------



## Nebulous (9 Nov 2012)

classic33 said:


> EU regulations were changed this year with regards to venetian blinds. There can no longer be any risk of a person getting strangled or entangled in any part of one. You may have noticed vertical blind seem to be coming more popular of late.


 
I was using it to make a somewhat exaggerated point, not to get involved in a discussion on it, but I wish that were the case.

Regardless of any changes there are millions of legacy blinds that are still as much of a hazard, so surely you are trying to say there isn't any risk of getting entangled in a new one? Vertical ones can have looped cords as well, so could be just as much of a risk.

I'm not aware of the changes to legislation, I thought work was ongoing on a voluntary basis? Can you give me a link to it? I got a report on this at work recently, which is why I remembered the figure, but I don't have access at home.


----------



## classic33 (9 Nov 2012)

Nebulous said:


> I was using it to make a somewhat exaggerated point, not to get involved in a discussion on it, but I wish that were the case.
> 
> Regardless of any changes there are millions of legacy blinds that are still as much of a hazard, so surely you are trying to say there isn't any risk of getting entangled in a new one? Vertical ones can have looped cords as well, so could be just as much of a risk.
> 
> I'm not aware of the changes to legislation, I thought work was ongoing on a voluntary basis? Can you give me alink to it? I got a report on this at work recently, which is why I remembered the figure, but I don't have access at home.


 http://www.conservatoryblinds.co.uk/blinds-article/562/eu-standards-on-blind-cord-safety/
No acrobat reader on this so not able to open the pdf document. Sorry.


----------



## Bromptonaut (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> That's people being killed though, is that what it takes for a change to happen? How about the people injured or even those people knocked over and aren't hurt that much or who have their car damaged? There must be tons of incidents that go unreported because the victims know nothing can be done without any way of ID'ing the cyclist.


 
Fatalities were a starting point, no doubt there were x serious injuries for every death. I dislike the conflation of death with serious injury (KSI). A low speed but hard fall from the bike put me in serious injury territory on 03 July - a pinned hip and six days in hospital. Apart from a residual limp I'm back to normal. Statistically though I'm equivalent to an amputation or life changing head injury.

As for cyclists damaging cars (and scarpering) what are the real numbers? My only experience is my son scraping a parked car with his bar ends at age 13. We left our name/address under the wiper and paid up.


----------



## veloevol (9 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Well, the 'Road Tax' issue is a moot point obviously but I do think cyclists should be registered and display some kind of ID (not sure where on some bikes...).
> 
> When there's an accident or a cyclist does something wrong, they can just cycle off and suffer no comeback.
> 
> The ONE good thing about the Boris bikes is that they have id numbers displayed on them.


Tell me you're taking the piss please.


----------



## Nebulous (9 Nov 2012)

classic33 said:


> http://www.conservatoryblinds.co.uk/blinds-article/562/eu-standards-on-blind-cord-safety/
> No acrobat reader on this so not able to open the pdf document. Sorry.


 
Thanks - it looks somewhat confused to me. It talks about this being voluntary, but also a requirement to provide a safe product. It also says that it needs to be signed off by all EU countries before it takes effect.

So there is a requirement to fit a safety device, even a hook to tie a cord up, but they are still allowed to sell looped cords.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2012)

Let's sum this thread up.

Drivers on the whole behave badly, But hang on they are in a metal box and unlikely to get hurt.
Cyclists behave in different ways, some good, a lot bad.
Peds, behave in different ways. Some good, some bad, some downright idiotic.

The above is I believe accepted. So I go back to my previous post. I think everyone on here wants the roads to be safer for cyclists but that involves change.

To change, you need a lever. There's no point saying "The law says". Yes we know that but it's generally disregarded by both motorists and cyclists. There's also no point saying "Motorists hurt people more than cyclists do". We know that too. 

It's the lever. And you won't get that lever while public perception of a cyclist is a an RLJing, pavement riding, country lane hogging nuisance. Yes, I take a lane frequently but that's my right. We need the public on our side. The public don't see me and you. They see the RLJer. Game over. Seriously. Until the cyclist wins the public support this argument is null and void.


----------



## andrew boaz (9 Nov 2012)

I cycled home from work today on a 21 mile commute, 8 miles on a cycleway which was a fantastic tarmac surface. Then i broke off the cycleway in to the heart of Chester and along a couple of busy roads to get the other side of the City. Some great motorists with respect for me on a bike even in rush hour traffic.

Unfortunately about 4 miles from home i was on a stretch of road with a steady incline and a few miles in my legs that had me down to about 15mph. With on coming traffic a wagon had to sit in behind me for approx 500 yards, he sat 10 feet off the back of me revving his engine and when finally coming alongside me blasted his air horn all the way past me and ran very close to me to make his point.

For every decent driver you get a hero in a metal box (in my case a 20+ ton one with a stinking attitude) i normally acknowledge the patience of drivers who sit back then give me a wide berth by putting my hand up but it only takes one to ruin the cycle/driver relations and potentially put someone at serious risk.


----------



## Firestorm (9 Nov 2012)

The general perception seems to be two fold
Cyclists feel that the majority of cyclists obey the rules of the road Non cyclists feel that the Majority don't
In my 10 minute walk from the station to the office in London i reckon that each journey I encounter
1 bike going the wrong way up a one way street,
two on pavements
4 rljs at a traffic light controlled junction (one of which is often followed by the one way street thing above)
2 rljs on a pelican crossing 
And 1 cyclist signalling correctly
I Reckon that 25% of the cyclists I see are doing something wrong

Its no small wonder that non bike riders in london have a downer on cyclists


----------



## Dan B (9 Nov 2012)

Even if every cyclist stopped jumping red lights tomorrow, they'd still be an out group and still be pilloried for taking the lane, not taking the lane, filtering, not filtering, using pavement shared lanes, not using them, going too slowly, going too fast, locking their bikes where they want to... if you want to change the attitude of Joe Public, get him to try a bicycle himself and realise that 'they' are actually just more of 'us'

But it needs to be a voluntary act on his part, not a requirement - taxi drivers in London all have however many hours experience on mopeds doing the Knowledge, and still all revert to being the most arrogant people on the roads as soon as they get in their cabs, so just the experience of some other form of transport is evidently insufficient...


----------



## Davidsw8 (9 Nov 2012)

veloevol said:


> Tell me you're taking the **** please.


 
Clearly not from the many responses I've posted since that comment...


----------



## PK99 (10 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> . Yes, I take a lane frequently but that's my right. We need the public on our side. The public don't see me and you. They see the RLJer. Game over. Seriously. Until the cyclist wins the public support this argument is null and void.


 
I take the lane regularly too, pinch points passing lines of parked cars etc. i always indicate (point to the bit of road I'm about to occupy) and always give a thumbs up to a driver who drops back or who i am holding up but stays sensibly behind. Yes I have a right to do occupy the lane but having a right does not absolve me of the need to be courteous and recognise courtesy in return.


----------



## fossyant (10 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> I take the lane regularly too, pinch points passing lines of parked cars etc. i always indicate (point to the bit of road I'm about to occupy) and always give a thumbs up to a driver who drops back or who i am holding up but stays sensibly behind. Yes I have a right to do occupy the lane but having a right does not absolve me of the need to be courteous and recognise courtesy in return.



Many of us do that, me too, always thank drivers, but you get the odd one or two that push it too far. We, dunno, they have the problem.


----------



## PK99 (10 Nov 2012)

Herbie said:


> Hey...this Tory government has taxed things like pasties etc..i wouldn't put it past them to target us cyclists


 
As I've said before - three guys come out of the pub one evening with the munchies: one gets a take away pizza, one gets fish and chips and gets a pastie. Two pay VAT but Pasty man get away VAT free - is that sensible?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (10 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> This country is big on over-legislation so why not a bit more?
> 
> *I was thinking last night, it would be good if as part of the driving test, people had to complete 10 hours cycling round a town centre*. It's not until I re-started cycling earlier this year that I got to appreciate how dangerous it can be and what the perils are - people really need to put themselves in the shoes of others, empathy seems to be lost...


 
The most dangerous roads are country ones, faster speeds, hedges etc why limit an unenforceable idea anyway to an urban environment.

Are you proposing those that are physically unable to ride a bike should also be precluded from the freedom and independence an adapted car could give them & at a lesser level what about people that never learned to ride or simply don't want to do so.

The problem is that the driving test and post speeding etc drive aware courses and my Mrs IAM courses barely ever touch on cycling, its not so much empathy missing from the individual driver as a fundamental lack of understanding and officially sanctioned ignorance from the off that needs to change. if the DfT driving instruction attitude is basically one of f**k em then what hope do we have for individuals empathy.

Also are you proposing to rescind the 30 odd million driving licences already in existence and force everyone to retake their test with the 10 hours in a specific environment on a bike or will we just have to wait 60 odd years for every current non forced cyclist driver to have died or retired?
I don't know about you but my driving instruction told me not to speed, how to park, use my mirrors, look and concentrate, be a patient and *christian* motorist, how to do a 3 point turn properly etc and I was tested on these, I guess everyone elses did, yet the moment I & (the vast majority of) everyone else passed our test we began the process of slipping into bad habits and seeing ourselves as the only important journey on the roads. Speed and parking particularly, how often do you see people swing their car round in a road or screw it backwards round a corner like they're in a cop chase. Training very quickly gets forgotten or deliberately ignored.

Do you honestly think that in 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, 26 years etc down the line anyone but existing cyclists and their nearest & dearest will remember 10 hours of forced labour on a mode of transport 97% of them have never routinely used since and behave any differently to how they would otherwise when they're ten minutes late or have had a bad day or the kids are squabbling in the back or they're singing along to the radio and eating a mars bar or they're.............. You seem to think people will ascribe a lifetimes importance to a tiny enforced fraction of their learning experience. I think you couldn't be more wrong on that altruistic view of us as a a tribe of drivers.

Not to mention the (valid if slightly strawman) argument that I'm not made to empathise with Bus Drivers or Artic lorry drivers or local hop WVM by being forced to use their modes of transport to understand how my interaction and casual selfishness affects them and leads in turn to them driving in such a way and using might-is-right to my detriment.


----------



## trampyjoe (10 Nov 2012)

In all the 'discussions' I've read on these here forums about legislation and taxation and registration and generally trying to change peoples perceptions there is something I don't ever recall seeing discussed. Education (but not for drivers!).

My opinion is that the Schools National Curriculum (or whatever they call it these days) should include two things.
1. The modern day equivalent of the 'Green Cross Code' Not as an after thought (I asked around and apparently this is taught but not in great detail - something about hedgehogs?! Please, feel free to correct me if it is taught in a big-in-your-face-if-you-pratt-about-on-the-road-you-die kind of way. From what I've seen of kids and roads I highly doubt this).

And more importantly for the purposes of this forum:

2. Compulsory bikability, and more than just a lunchtime when the kids are 8. When I was at school the cycling proficiency was offered but it was only for people that had bikes at the time (I didn't) and you had to give up your lunch (big disincentive for greedy me).
I seem to recall there being many discussions in the past (not on here I might add) about people being taught road skills, *in a car*, at a younger age than 16/17. Why not do that as a compulsary skill throughout the kids senior school years but on a pushbike. This would have the added benifit of our kids getting excercise and learning (two things kids hate) whilst having a bit of fun.

Well that's my thoughts on it, I'm going to skulk back to my corner now.

Oh and the two discussing cords for blinds ... Legislation is no replacement for good parenting. If a parent doesn't watch their child these sad events happen (for example, whilst I've typed this post, my 17 month old is blowing raspberries at me from her high security playpen - and I've looked over at her at least twice a minute. Maybe a parenting licence should be introduced? <- please please please don't discuss this otherwise I'll start ranting about the scum I see nearly everyday that have kids and shouldn't).


----------



## trampyjoe (10 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> Humans (and taxi drivers) on the whole behave badly, But hang on they are in a metal box and unlikely to get hurt.
> Humans behave in different ways, some good, a lot bad.
> Humans, behave in different ways. Some good, some bad, some downright idiotic.


FTFY


----------



## Davidsw8 (10 Nov 2012)

shouldbeinbed said:


> The most dangerous roads are country ones, faster speeds, hedges etc why limit an unenforceable idea anyway to an urban environment.
> 
> Are you proposing those that are physically unable to ride a bike should also be precluded from the freedom and independence an adapted car could give them & at a lesser level what about people that never learned to ride or simply don't want to do so.
> 
> ...


 

It was just a thought...

I was just saying that it's not until I re-started cycling that I began to understand the problems, putting oneself in someone else's shoes can't be a bad thing.

Based on your argument, there isn't much point in half of the driving test besides your basic operation of a car... who'd remember 20 years later what the stopping distances are? Most people are going to totally forget the Highway Code they spend hours revising for the test... etc.

As I say, it was just a suggestion as to how to make things better.


----------



## Lancj1 (10 Nov 2012)

I got my first bike in the mid sixties,and my first car in the late seventies. I ride and drive happily. 

I do get slightly twitched about the paranoia I am meant to display as a cyclist - threads such as how to report people using mobiles embarrass me to be honest. Accidents happen on roads to all users. A casual look at news websites will show a car full of teenagers died yesterday after a crash with a lorry. All must take care and whilst drivers must be more aware of cyclists - that doesn't mean they all hate us or are out to get us. Most of my non cycling driving associates are slightly envious of the cycling lifestyle. We need to use Brads crash positively.

That said....*Vehicle Excise Duty*, which is paid to the government for a vehicle license and must be displayed on most motor vehicles used on public roads. 

Since 1937 there has been no direct relationship between the tax and government expenditure on public roads.


----------



## Davidsw8 (10 Nov 2012)

shouldbeinbed said:


> The most dangerous roads are country ones, faster speeds, hedges etc why limit an unenforceable idea anyway to an urban environment.
> 
> Are you proposing those that are physically unable to ride a bike should also be precluded from the freedom and independence an adapted car could give them & at a lesser level what about people that never learned to ride or simply don't want to do so.
> 
> ...


 
Also... (sorry ) thinking about the other points.

Disabled drivers: no, of course not. I imagine the proportion of disabled drivers is tiny and the proportion of them that are bad drivers probably even smaller. However, is the standard driving test the same for disabled drivers anyway? i.e. in the same conditions etc? You can at least undergo theoretical/simulated cycle training/awareness if nothing else.

Retaking tests: I think most drivers should have to retake their test every 15-20 years anyway, but aside from that, the test has changed since I did it 25 years ago and I've not been asked to re-take, it's not something people think to do upon change generally is it.


----------



## mickle (10 Nov 2012)

Cmon people its not difficult. Leaflets sent out with vehicle reg docs. Public service broadcasts ont telly. Posters on bus stops. Changes to the driving test 

Combined with the blanket rolling out of twenty mph zones combined with proper prosecution and decent punishments for poor driving. And a change in the presumption of liability in 'accidents' involving bikes vs motor vehicles. 

All paid for out of the savings made from fewer KSIs.


----------



## psmiffy (10 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> All paid for out of the savings made from fewer KSIs.


 
Yup - you can buy a decent slice of public education at £1.8M/fatal and £205k/serious


----------



## martint235 (10 Nov 2012)

Sorry but you still need a lever for change. £1.8m is nothing in the scheme of things.


----------



## psmiffy (10 Nov 2012)

I agree - there needs to be some form of lever for real change - but in the meantime - spending £24M to maybe prevent just 2 fatalities and 100 serious injuries would be money well spent.


----------



## martint235 (10 Nov 2012)

psmiffy said:


> I agree - there needs to be some form of lever for real change - but in the meantime - spending £24M to maybe prevent just 2 fatalities and 100 serious injuries would be money well spent.


Where does £24m come from? Even so, it's small change. The government wants to raise more money from fuel duty and is unlikely to hit motorists with any other change (not suggesting the £24m is raised from drivers). The lever is still missing. 

The question we currently want "what's going on with our roads that two important cyclists can be knocked off within 24 hours". What we're getting "What are cyclists doing on A roads at night, they should be banned". Win the PR battle and you'll win the war. While public perception is cyclists run red lights, ride on the pavement etc, you have no chance of winning PR. Sorry.


----------



## Stamfli (10 Nov 2012)

I1ve just finished reading through this topic and get concerned at the us/ them mentality, we are all road users flung together on poorly planned road/cycleways.
Recently i had an accident that didn't involve other drivers just crap roads , in this case a 'B' road which had a blind bend on which were several potholes and a lot of sandy gravel left from the heavy rains. No drivers involved.
I drive 2 vehicles and cosequently pay 2 lots of road tax I believe that entitles me to use the roads with my bike as well.
I am not a perfect driver and have often seen some idiotic driving and have been caught out once when commuting on my bike by one such idiot escaping with a cut knee.

However I live on a very busy main road and am ashamed at the amount of dodgy cycling that I see.

I see cyclists jumping lights, mounting pavements to avoid stoping, darting across traffic to take a left/right turn. The dark nights are with us now and soon the mornings will be dark as well yet I see 50% of the bikes going past my house with no lights on! how can they be seen? Cyclists wearing Black kit and astride Black bikes what happened to the slogan 'Be Safe Be Seen'? Why wear Black or buy a black bike? --- So as to NOT be seen? 

I see road cyclists out training in poor /dark conditions with no lighting, reflectors on, I light both myself and my bike like a xmas tree, one of these racers told me I'd go faster if I striped the lights and stuff off to save weight. My sport is rowing we believe in resistance training, we even wrap bungees around the hull to add resistance, it makes us stronger and go faster in race trim, why do cyclists have to train with lightest weight bikes and racing lycra? Stop speeding to your meet your maker add a few grams and get lit up!

Let's get our own house in order before blaming others.
I do however agree that drivers should try cycling, mainly because cruising along in their modern cars gives no feel for the road, whereas if they were to have a go on a roadbike along their local high street they'd be horrified at the state of the rough roads which their suspension cushions them from. Bet there would be uproar .

Ride Safe!


----------



## fozy tornip (10 Nov 2012)

Stamfli said:


> The dark nights are with us now and soon the mornings will be dark as well yet I see 50% of the bikes going past my house with no lights on! how can they be seen?


Perhaps, in the way in which you see them going past your house?



> .. one of these racers told me I'd go faster if I striped the lights and stuff off to save weight.


 I don't believe you.


----------



## boydj (10 Nov 2012)

Stamfli said:


> ....................................
> Let's get our own house in order before blaming others.......................


 
Since you are preaching to the converted on this forum, how do you propose to get to all those errant cyclists who are making life so difficult for the rest of us?

The overwhelming problem is bad driving, with a general lack of courtesy and consideration a primary factor. Driver education and some appropriate law changes is the way ahead. By all means include education for the cyclists in a more general education and awareness campaign, but drivers need to be the primary target.


----------



## psmiffy (10 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> The question we currently want "what's going on with our roads that two important cyclists can be knocked off within 24 hours".


I don’t think anything is going on our roads – the two prominent cyclists were not targeted – they were just part and parcel of the regular daily carnage – it could have been you or me.



martint235 said:


> What we're getting "What are cyclists doing on A roads at night, they should be banned". Win the PR battle and you'll win the war. While public perception is cyclists run red lights, ride on the pavement etc, you have no chance of winning PR. Sorry.


I think I have already agreed to agree with you on this - trouble is winning the “PR battle” is not something that is going to happen overnight – or even maybe this decade – not unless someone invents some sort of fairy dust to sprinkle on cyclists not adhering to the PR model – The revolution in cycling in Holland, Germany and Denmark is often quoted as if somehow someone came along with a quick fix in the 70s/80s – not true it was something that took decades – when I was a kid I cycled in Holland and Germany in the 60s and early 70s – it was already happening then – but it has taken 30years for the culture to be fully established in place. In the meantime something has to be done to cut the number of cyclists and pedestrian that are daily being killed and injured on our roads through no fault of their own.



martint235 said:


> Where does £24m come from? Even so, it's small change. The government wants to raise more money from fuel duty and is unlikely to hit motorists with any other change (not suggesting the £24m is raised from drivers). The lever is still missing.


The £24 million would be the saving if just two of the hundred plus cyclists who are killed and a hundred of the nearly three thousand seriously injured cyclists were not involved in accidents (BBC figures but I’m sure that they got them from somewhere reliable 2 *£1.8M + 100 * £205k) - it may be peanuts in the overall context of things but would buy a reasonable advertising campaign highlighting SMIDSY and the dangers of say lorries to cyclists – not the answer I know - but I would say if even just one life was saved then it would be a decent investment.


----------



## Nebulous (10 Nov 2012)

Stamfli said:


> However I live on a very busy main road and am ashamed at the amount of dodgy cycling that I see.


 
Really? Are you also ashamed when you see a driver using a mobile phone? If not why not?
Your main responsibility is for yourself and to your family. You aren't responsible for other cyclists and you shouldn't let people put that onto you.


----------



## wintonbina (10 Nov 2012)

Stamfli said:


> I1ve just finished reading through this topic and get concerned at the us/ them mentality, we are all road users flung together on poorly planned road/cycleways.
> Recently i had an accident that didn't involve other drivers just crap roads , in this case a 'B' road which had a blind bend on which were several potholes and a lot of sandy gravel left from the heavy rains. No drivers involved.
> I drive 2 vehicles and cosequently pay 2 lots of road tax I believe that entitles me to use the roads with my bike as well.
> I am not a perfect driver and have often seen some idiotic driving and have been caught out once when commuting on my bike by one such idiot escaping with a cut knee.
> ...


 Whilst I agree on your sentiments, I was knocked off my road bike which wasn't black, it had 2 front & back lights 'all switched on' and I was also wearing a bright orange top and 2 ankle reflectors and yet the motorist didn't see me!!! And the old bill (god bless PC Tans*y ) didn't want take any further action.
I just wish I knew the answer!


----------



## martint235 (10 Nov 2012)

psmiffy said:


> I don’t think anything is going on our roads – the two prominent cyclists were not targeted – they were just part and parcel of the regular daily carnage – it could have been you or me.
> 
> I think I have already agreed to agree with you on this - trouble is winning the “PR battle” is not something that is going to happen overnight – or even maybe this decade – not unless someone invents some sort of fairy dust to sprinkle on cyclists not adhering to the PR model – The revolution in cycling in Holland, Germany and Denmark is often quoted as if somehow someone came along with a quick fix in the 70s/80s – not true it was something that took decades – when I was a kid I cycled in Holland and Germany in the 60s and early 70s – it was already happening then – but it has taken 30years for the culture to be fully established in place. In the meantime something has to be done to cut the number of cyclists and pedestrian that are daily being killed and injured on our roads through no fault of their own.
> 
> The £24 million would be the saving if just two of the hundred plus cyclists who are killed and a hundred of the nearly three thousand seriously injured cyclists were not involved in accidents (BBC figures but I’m sure that they got them from somewhere reliable 2 *£1.8M + 100 * £205k) - it may be peanuts in the overall context of things but would buy a reasonable advertising campaign highlighting SMIDSY and the dangers of say lorries to cyclists – not the answer I know - but I would say if even just one life was saved then it would be a decent investment.


I don't disagree. And I agree there is no quick fix. But I think you must accept that to get change we need that lever (I honestly don't know what the Germans used) but we do need one. Without it, the status quo remains.


----------



## 400bhp (10 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> I don't disagree. And I agree there is no quick fix. But I think you must accept that to get change we need that lever (I honestly don't know what the Germans used) but we do need one. Without it, the status quo remains.


 
I think it needs some "normal" people to come along and educate, convince and persuade too.

The issue with many campaigners are that they are often seen to be polarised/entrenched in their view and often not taken seriously.

Don't know if this is a separate issue, but I was driving around today and my mind was wondering after I passed a couple of cyclists. Are our viiews to make roads safer a little selfish? 

Perhaps the couple of sentences above go hand in hand. Those with an interest in something are often seen as having conflicts of interest.


----------



## psmiffy (10 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> I don't disagree. And I agree there is no quick fix. But I think you must accept that to get change we need that lever (I honestly don't know what the Germans used) but we do need one. Without it, the status quo remains.


 
I agree there must be a lever – trouble is the only lever that I have observed is safety in numbers– not in the CTC sense – but politically – in the European countries with a cycling culture the numbers of cyclists grew year on year to the point that they were a significant proportion of the electorate – took time but cycling was mainstream politics – I cycled bottom to the top of Germany in the run up to the 2009 election – on every single vertical object – fence, telephone, lamp - posts - trees etc - was festooned thousands, nay maybe millions of election posters showing the candidates – by my reckoning at least 30% were shown with a bicycle


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Nov 2012)

martint235 said:


> we need that lever ...


I don't know the politics behind it, but as I understand that the leverage was on two levels

- public disgust at the rates of death and injury;
- and a simple realisation that a public space managed entirely and completely to preserve the privileges and fragile egos of motorised drivers led inevitably to an extremely unpleasant public space.

I have no problem with cycling safely and responsibly. I have no problem expecting other cyclists to do the same.

But calls "to get our house in order"? That's not leverage. That's wishful thinking; worse - it's a cop-out.


----------



## martint235 (11 Nov 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> - public disgust at the rates of death and injury;
> 
> But calls "to get our house in order"? That's not leverage. That's wishful thinking; worse - it's a cop-out.


Until you get a positive public perception of cyclists they aren't going to be disgusted at the things that happen to us.


----------



## trampyjoe (11 Nov 2012)

Maybe it's just a case that the human race as a whole is turning into a bunch of selfish tw*ts who don't give a fig about others.


----------



## gavintc (11 Nov 2012)

trampyjoe said:


> Maybe it's just a case that the human race as a whole is turning into a bunch of selfish tw*ts who don't give a fig about others.


 
Not helped by idiots like Clarkson who engender the opinion that driving your chav machine 'on the limit' is cool.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Nov 2012)

One thing that stuck me today whilst out and about and doing my usual deep (for me) thinking.

There's a real dichotomy between the relative safety of bikes and what we would like to see improved on our roads.

I see a lot of talk on here (rightly so) about cycling being a relatively risk free activity. Yet, on the other hand, we complain that the roads need to be safer for cyclists.

The 2 possibly don't add up do they, in particular whan we are trying to persuade/encourage others to either cycle more/take up cycling or to driver safer/improve road safety?


----------



## al78 (11 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Sadly a lot of people cycle with a driver mindset. The bike enables them to act out their desire for freedom speed and choice in ways no car can any more. So they jump red lights, ride too fast on pavements and go the wrong way down one way streets and drivers see them do it and go nuts....


 
I think it is more those people do not think of a cyclist as operating a vehicle, but as a pedestrian with wheels, hence they behave like a pedestrian on the bike. Since pedestrians aren't required by law to obey traffic light signals or traffic-related signs, they shouldn't have to either.


----------



## benborp (11 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> One thing that stuck me today whilst out and about and doing my usual deep (for me) thinking.
> 
> There's a real dichotomy between the relative safety of bikes and what we would like to see improved on our roads.
> 
> ...


This dichotomy is common when comparing an individual exposure to risk and the exposure that an entire population faces over a period of time. Cycling can be termed relatively safe for each individual cyclist while at the same time recognising that improvements can be made to lower every cyclist's exposure to risk. Lowering the exposure to risk to every cyclist would result in fewer KSI.

I work in an industry where it is conceivable that I could kill through negligence. There are situations where it would be possible for me to kill a couple of dozen members of the public or more and a couple of high profile names. Even if I was negligent in the execution of my work the risk of this negligence actually killing someone would be tiny and would require a series of errors and omissions by several people. I could probably spend my entire career operating in an 'unsafe manner' without any misfortune. However, expand the risk that I would pose as an individual across an entire industry that has hundreds of millions of interactions with the public and people would die. That is why industries (often jogged by the force of government legislation) work on minimising the risk they pose to the public and their employees. Cutting the risk each individual poses from tiny to infinitesimal pays dividends.
If I didn't work to the appropriate standards I'd find myself in a rather uncomfortable situation. I don't want to be there so I don't cut corners - a bit like driving really.

The big dichotomy is in the general perception of road safety. In the wake of rail and air disasters,over time, countless millions will be spent upgrading equipment, procedures and training in an attempt to reduce the risk of such events being repeated. The reduction in the public's general exposure to risk will result in a handful fewer deaths. Any other response to a disaster would be condemned by public and politicians alike.
However, on the road thousands are killed and seriously injured each year and there are few demands to maintain operating standards, improve the function of the licencing system or for the government to intervene with improvements to infrastructure (some are happening but the government has made clear that this is only at a local level). Recently the biggest conversation in the public sphere about reducing risk revolved around the profitability of insurance companies (who are struggling to pay out for all the carnage). Government can for a modest outlay save thousands of lives and livelihoods - in France tougher enforcement (on the back of an impromptu Presidential announcement) has made a huge improvement to their accident figures. We are heading the other way.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Nov 2012)

benborp said:


> This dichotomy is common when comparing an individual exposure to risk and the exposure that an entire population faces over a period of time. Cycling can be termed relatively safe for each individual cyclist while at the same time recognising that improvements can be made to lower every cyclist's exposure to risk. Lowering the exposure to risk to every cyclist would result in fewer KSI.
> 
> I work in an industry where it is conceivable that I could kill through negligence. There are situations where it would be possible for me to kill a couple of dozen members of the public or more and a couple of high profile names. Even if I was negligent in the execution of my work the risk of this negligence actually killing someone would be tiny and would require a series of errors and omissions by several people. I could probably spend my entire career operating in an 'unsafe manner' without any misfortune. However, expand the risk that I would pose as an individual across an entire industry that has hundreds of millions of interactions with the public and people would die. That is why industries (often jogged by the force of government legislation) work on minimising the risk they pose to the public and their employees. Cutting the risk each individual poses from tiny to infinitesimal pays dividends.
> If I didn't work to the appropriate standards I'd find myself in a rather uncomfortable situation. I don't want to be there so I don't cut corners - a bit like driving really.
> ...


 
I may have mistronstrued your point, but the exposure to risk an individual faces when cycling is directly proportional to the overall exposure to risk a population faces (assuming we calculate it this way). 120 odd cycle deaths against so many miles ridden equals a very small risk exposure to death.

The powers that be have been tackling the KSI / death rate on Britain's roads and have done a reasonable job of reducing it. The deaths/ KSI on Britain's roads have, IIRC, come down almost year on year since the 90's. This is given an increasing traffic density.

I'm in no way being dismissive of what deaths there are out there (cycling/other) and I understand it's clearly not just about deaths, but it's difficult balance when we say on the one hand it's very safe to cycle, then on the other we bemoan the perceived lack of safety on the roads.

Just worth reminding ourselves that risk is the likelihood of an incident occuring coupled with the severity of the incident. For us cyclists, the severity is clearly much much higher relative to road vehicles and I think this is where the dichotomy comes in to some extent.

Apologies to the rambling nature.


----------



## Mugshot (11 Nov 2012)

fozy tornip said:


> Perhaps, in the way in which you see them going past your house?


Got to love this one 
"Tonight I saw a cyclist with no lights on"
"Well you saw him though didn't you, so ner "
What exactly are you suggesting or advocating, that since the cyclist was seen by the poster it therefore means they don't need lights?


----------



## ComedyPilot (11 Nov 2012)

Cycling in the Netherlands, I rode for about 1400km, and spent maybe 15% of that distance sharing a road with traffic. At no time did I feel in danger, and the other 85% was on dedicated off-road, or adjacent cycle paths.

In this 'great' country, we have complete idiots (that don't cycle) designing expensive infrastructure that at best is concilliatory, indirect, dangerous and ill-thought out. At worst lasts for mere metres, goes through impassable gating, is litter/debris/glass strewn, stops/starts like a stammerer's convention, and is meandered on by pedestrians who (bless them) have the spatial awareness of goldfish.

Cycling is relatively safe, and always will be.

It's the cretins in tin boxes killing pedestrians, cyclists, themselves and other motorists at an (unchallenged) rate of 2,000-3,000 per year that make the roads unsafe. I will not accept responsibility for the bad driving of a lot of motorists, and will not let it stop me getting one of the true free pleasures in life - a countryside ride on a bike.

People will not take up cycling in masses in this country till they are (rightly) protected by the system, and the (hallowed) motorist is made to grow the fark up and drive in a responsible manner.


----------



## trampyjoe (11 Nov 2012)

gavintc said:


> Not helped by idiots like Clarkson who engender the opinion that driving your chav machine 'on the limit' is cool.


I'd hardly call supercars 'chav machines'. Clarkson _et al._ are entertainers, they are not really that extreme. Those that fail to realise this are, IMO, beyond help.


----------



## atbman (11 Nov 2012)

Re registration: please read http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc.PDF for a thorough (or even thoro) debunking of the idea.


The admin costs of such a system would be much the same as that of the VED and/or driving licence system
What size registration tag?
Where would you put it?
Would you register each bike separately?
Would you only register the rider?
At what age?
How would you ban riders from the road?
How would you know which riders have been banned without VNPR (on a very small plate)?
How many police would put it on the priority to do list?
What benefits would there be: Reduced number of collisions (majority between bikes/cars are drivers fault at between 60-70%)? Improved behaviour of riders (look how well it works with registered drivers - hoho), not to mention the number of drivers who have no licence/VED/insurance and see how many riders would behave in exactly the same way (see 8 above)?
If you covered the admin costs in your fee, how many people would simply ignore it because of the cost (see 8 & 9 above)
Please feel free to discuss the above with something like a reasoned objection to the above. Bearing in mind that removal of any one of the above conditions implied in the questions would render it utterly impractical.


----------



## benborp (11 Nov 2012)

If you're rambling then I'm on quite a hike.

As you say the risk an individual faces may be proportional to the overall risk, the point I was trying to make is that any changes to the overall risk faced by the population are going to be imperceptible to the individual in terms of danger of death or injury. For example, with 120 cyclist deaths the risk to an individual going on a twenty mile bike ride would be accurately perceived by them as vanishingly small. But if there were 500 cyclist deaths a year the risk to an individual going on a twenty mile ride would still be vanishingly small and could still be accurately perceived as such. Yet if there were 500 cyclist deaths a year there would certainly be more demands made for improvements to cyclist safety.

In recent years we've usually outperformed our European neighbours at reducing our rate of KSI but amongst the overall rate we've often had poor figures by comparison for vulnerable road users. I know there are lots of variables in populations, road types and urban/rural split but I think this is another element in why people have felt there is more that could be done for cyclist and pedestrian safety.

One of the things that people want when they argue for safer roads is, like you said, a recognition that for cyclists it's not just about physical safety. Without a cage a near miss or aggressive behaviour feels far more threatening and dangerous and over time repeated incidents can severely impair someone's perception of cycling actually being safe without them coming to any physical harm. I think there's a hope that action to cut the KSI rate for vulnerable road users would make day to day riding more pleasant. That may or may not be the case - some of the most pleasant, relaxing, enjoyable riding amongst traffic I've done has been somewhere with an appalling road safety record, yet it felt far easier to maintain my own safety than it did in London at the time. I also appreciated the different road culture in France, even though they were killing 12,000 of themselves a year. Would a safer Britain be less pleasant to cycle in?

The issue of cycle safety is a strange thing to get your head round and it's odd seeing so many people around me that previously questioned my sanity taking to cycling around London. For all of them it's involved a rebalancing of their perception of risk and it's interesting seeing the variety of compromises they make. I get the impression that most think cycling is safe enough (some don't and have given up) but that it could be better.


----------



## mickle (11 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> One thing that stuck me today whilst out and about and doing my usual deep (for me) thinking.
> 
> There's a real dichotomy between the relative safety of bikes and what we would like to see improved on our roads.
> 
> ...



Thats a really good point. Its not just about real danger but with the potential danger - of people using mobile phones and such - of the thousands of near misses, punishment passes, thinly veiled aggression, revving engines, and the general lack of respect. Most of which doesn't result in a collision let alone a KSI statistic. But it creates a very hostile environment. And its the perception of danger which is always cited as the number one reason that people give when asked why they dont cycle.


----------



## theclaud (12 Nov 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Got to love this one
> "Tonight I saw a cyclist with no lights on"
> "Well you saw him though didn't you, so ner "
> What exactly *are you suggesting or advocating, that since the cyclist was seen by the poster it therefore means they don't need lights?*


 
He wasn't saying that - he was remarking the logically curious situation in which people complain that they have seen a lot of invisible people. You might think it silly, but it's important to note that when motorists claim they can't see people, it isn't literally true. What they usually mean is "I think you should signal your presence more emphatically." The difference is important because (except in total darkness) there is no universal criterion determining what is and isn't visible - it is about norms and choices. Some of us might argue that in conditions of low light the sensible thing to do is to radically reduce the speed of vehicles and to alter the balance of lighting so as to make their drivers look where they are going.


----------



## mickle (12 Nov 2012)

True dat. When i rode a recumbent in That London the stock response to 'I didn't see you down there'! was 'Can you hear me though? .... Good. fark off'.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 Nov 2012)

Teuchter said:


> While I understand your point, I think calls for this sort of thing have to be balanced with the view that this would put off a lot of potential cyclists. These may not be the committed cyclists who spend time on cycling forums like this one and have a deep interest in issues relating to cycling in general. They may not be confident cyclists and they may not even ride the way we feel they should ride but they ARE cyclists none the less. As has been pointed out, the more cyclists there are on the roads, the more other road users are used to seeing them, the safer it is for all of us.
> 
> Let's not make it even harder for people to take up cycling.


The cost is a boundary enough! 
mixed in with a 20% VAT tax. I pay enough and do enough to cycle freely on the road.


----------



## mickle (12 Nov 2012)

Cycling Dan said:


> ... I pay enough and do enough to cycle freely on the road.


 
Are you missing the point that we don't need to pay or do anything to be entitled to cycle freely on the road.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> Are you missing the point that we don't need to pay or do anything to be entitled to cycle freely on the road.


nope


----------



## classic33 (12 Nov 2012)

When those in charge of vehicles that require both the driver & the vehicle to be licenced to use the public highways apply the rules to themselves and not others. Then we could move onto getting other classes of vehicles & users licenced.
Until then theres not a lot that can be said.


----------



## Mugshot (13 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> He wasn't saying that - he was remarking the logically curious situation in which people complain that they have seen a lot of invisible people. You might think it silly, but it's important to note that when motorists claim they can't see people, it isn't literally true. What they usually mean is "I think you should signal your presence more emphatically." The difference is important because (except in total darkness) there is no universal criterion determining what is and isn't visible - it is about norms and choices. Some of us might argue that in conditions of low light the sensible thing to do is to radically reduce the speed of vehicles and to alter the balance of lighting so as to make their drivers look where they are going.


Really? I have to say that whenever I see that particular statement I always think it's somebody trying to be a smart arse. Which would you argue, that cyclists should be well lit or that (I hope I'm understanding you correctly here) everything else should be less well lit? Or maybe a little of both? I'm not quite sure which particular bit you are suggesting I find silly.


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Really? I have to say that whenever I see that particular statement I always think it's somebody trying to be a smart arse. Which would you argue, that cyclists should be well lit or that (I hope I'm understanding you correctly here) everything else should be less well lit? Or maybe a little of both? I'm not quite sure which particular bit you are suggesting I find silly.


 
I would advise cyclists to be adequately lit, or well lit according to their needs, but not to enter into a lighting arms race. I don't think the road environment is _well_ lit as it is - I think it is very poorly lit, especially when it comes to car headlamps, which mainly dazzle and intimidate. I suspected you found it silly because in a sense it is a statement of the obvious - but sometimes the obvious requires stating.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Nov 2012)

t'other night, as a passenger in a car, we came across Homo Hoodius Numptius Ninjensis whilst travelling at 60mph on the northbound A281 at 23:30.

"Flip me" said the driver, or words to that effect "I couldn't see him"
"Yet you braked in good time, slowed down and overtook him gracefully, which rather gives a lie to your not seeing him. Thank you fpor doing that. He is an arse but you are not."


----------



## Phaeton (13 Nov 2012)

Coming out of the office last night around 17:20 it was already dark, raining & this is in the middle of Sheffield, West Bar roundabout for those that know the area is about 200 yards from where I work. I saw 3 cyclists on the roundabout, the 1st was wearing black on the road going around the roundabout with no lights, the 2nd approached the roundabout on the footpath, proceeded across the road on the pedestrian crossing, went down the pavement at the other side, crossed over through the pedestrian refuges to the junction he wanted & then disappeared out of view on the footpath, again with no lights on. 3rd, had 2 lights on front, 2 lights on back, reflective material in various places including rucksack, was wearing light coloured clothes, came down the road, in a left only lane, but make a very clear arm signal at the bottom that he was turning left, when round the corner on his way.

Just pointing out, not all cyclists follow the rules.

Alan...


----------



## Black Sheep (13 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I completely agree about changing the behaviour of drivers (hence the comment about making a few hours cycling a part of the driving test).


 
many of us motorcyclists feel that car drivers should have to do their CBT before they are allowed to take their tests so that people understand how powered two wheelers move on the road. Not sure if it would actually help, but I'm afraid to say, a bit more realistic to achieve than getting them to cycle.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> t'other night, as a passenger in a car, we came across Homo Hoodius Numptius Ninjensis whilst travelling at 60mph on the northbound A281 at 23:30.


WOW he was doing well to pedal at that speed was it downhill 

Alan...


----------



## Mugshot (13 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> I would advise cyclists to be adequately lit, or well lit according to their needs, but not to enter into a lighting arms race. I don't think the road environment is _well_ lit as it is - I think it is very poorly lit, especially when it comes to car headlamps, which mainly dazzle and intimidate. I suspected you found it silly because in a sense it is a statement of the obvious - but sometimes the obvious requires stating.


Then, and I may be being a bit precious here, if somebody states that they saw a cyclist with no lights then a resonable response would be, to borrow your wording, "I think they should signal their presence more emphatically" not "Well you saw them didn't you?". To borrow your wording again, I think the difference is important because whilst your statement appears to suggest that the person in question could and should endeavour to make themselves more visible the other appears to suggest that cycling without lights is acceptable because you saw them, I find that silly.


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Then, and I may be being a bit precious here, if somebody states that they saw a cyclist with no lights then a resonable response would be, to borrow your wording, "I think they should signal their presence more emphatically" not "Well you saw them didn't you?". To borrow your wording again, I think the difference is important because whilst your statement appears to suggest that the person in question could and should endeavour to make themselves more visible the other appears to suggest that cycling without lights is acceptable because you saw them, I find that silly.


 
Acceptable doesn't really come into it. It's just a way of harumphing about others' foolishness. We all _know_ that people will be on the road with inadequate or no lighting, and therefore should act accordingly. Whether you fume, harumph, or shrug your shoulders about it is neither here nor there, as long you don't plough into them at 60mph. I'm making an issue of the idea of seeing because "I didn't see her" cloaks what is actually nothing more than disapproval in the garb of factual observation. I have adequate, inexpensive, but usually unspectacular lighting, and even that requires not-insignificant spending, maintenance, and backup in the case of mishap (who amongst us doesn't have a drawer-full of temperamental rear lights)- riding in low light conditions is too everyday a thing for me to throw a lot of money and effort at, and I'm relaxed about the fact that every so often I'll drop a light down a cattle grid, get one pinched, or have one go bananas in the rain before packing in altogether. It's possible that the ninjas that everyone complains about are all reckless fools convinced of their invincibility, but it's just as likely that they are people who thought £7.99 was enough to spend on a rear light and are surprised that it doesn't work in the rain, who are skint so they bought one from a pound shop and don't realise that they might as well not have bothered at all, who stayed longer than they planned somewhere and didn't intend to ride home in the dark, who forgot that the clocks went back, who didn't bring spare batteries, who left the lights on the other bike etc etc. Silly, trivial, human reasons for being inadequately lit. Reasons that drivers don't have to worry about, because they have cut themselves off from the human scale. We should adapt road conditions to people's fallibility, not to driver's warped standards of behaviour.


----------



## psmiffy (13 Nov 2012)

Trouble is not that you cannot see ninjas if you are observing diligently - it is when you see them - last week I was driving to work in the early hours - would have had the pavement cycling one that flashed across my front if I had not taken the extra few seconds to check the gloom on my right for a second time


----------



## Mugshot (13 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Acceptable doesn't really come into it. It's just a way of harumphing about others' foolishness. We all _know_ that people will be on the road with inadequate or no lighting, and therefore should act accordingly. Whether you fume, harumph, or shrug your shoulders about it is neither here nor there, as long you don't plough into them at 60mph. I'm making an issue of the idea of seeing because "I didn't see her" cloaks what is actually nothing more than disapproval in the garb of factual observation. I have adequate, inexpensive, but usually unspectacular lighting, and even that requires not-insignificant spending, maintenance, and backup in the case of mishap (who amongst us doesn't have a drawer-full of temperamental rear lights)- riding in low light conditions is too everyday a thing for me to throw a lot of money and effort at, and I'm relaxed about the fact that every so often I'll drop a light down a cattle grid, get one pinched, or have one go bananas in the rain before packing in altogether. It's possible that the ninjas that everyone complains about are all reckless fools convinced of their invincibility, but it's just as likely that they are people who thought £7.99 was enough to spend on a rear light and are surprised that it doesn't work in the rain, who are skint so they bought one from a pound shop and don't realise that they might as well not have bothered at all, who stayed longer than they planned somewhere and didn't intend to ride home in the dark, who forgot that the clocks went back, who didn't bring spare batteries, who left the lights on the other bike etc etc. Silly, trivial, human reasons for being inadequately lit. Reasons that drivers don't have to worry about, because they have cut themselves off from the human scale. We should adapt road conditions to people's fallibility, not to driver's warped standards of behaviour.


There is nothing I disagree with here, but I do not believe it has anything to do with what I was saying originally. We frequently see on these pages a reference to somebody riding without lights, it is almost without exception that somebody will reply to that with, what I consider to be, the rather tiresome "Well you saw them didn't you?" I don't believe that the vast majority of the posters who reply in such a manner are doing so because they are attempting to make a point about infrastucture, driver attitude, social standing or retail expenditure, I think they're doing it because they think it sounds clever. My issue with this is that the extension of it is that riding without lights is somehow acceptable because the individual clearly wasn't invisible. I doubt that anybody reading these posts would take take this as a reason to ditch their lights but I don't personally see it as the witty quip which I'm convinced the majority of people that post it believe it to be, as I said, maybe I'm being a little precious about it.


----------



## benb (13 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> t'other night, as a passenger in a car, we came across Homo Hoodius Numptius Ninjensis ...


 
As a point of order, only the first word in Linnaean taxonomy should be capitalised (e.g. Homo sapiens), so it should be: Homo hoodius numptius ninjensis

Carry on.


----------



## benb (13 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Just pointing out, not all cyclists follow the rules.


 
Thanks for that startling revelation!


----------



## Boris Bajic (13 Nov 2012)

I find that the drivers and cyclists who seem best able to make their way serenely, briskly and thoughfully through streets we all share with other modes of transport are those with some experience driving or riding them. I do not say that drivers who cycle are better drivers or that cyclists who drive are better cyclists...

But I find that a cyclist who has driven trailored vehicles, lorries, cars and so on has some extra protection in the form of anticipation through experience or somesuch similar.

Similarly, drivers who cycle may have a sense of what a cyclist in traffic is planning to do. I do hear cyclists I know getting themselves quite worked up about drivers. It is not an absolute rule, but these tend to be cyclists who do not drive.

Similarly, drivers who bleat about dangerous cyclists tend to be (but are not exclusively) non-cyclists.

As the father of a recently-qualified driver, I do find that other road users occasionally make few allowances for relative inexperience, despite the now-popular P-Stickers on nose and tail of cars. Drivers seem somehow branded by other road users as part of a single group, whether they are elderly, novices or driving in a strange land, seated on the wrong side of the car.

Likewise, some drivers seem to lump all cyclists together.

It doesn't help, but it doesn't detract much either.

There are barmies on both sides of the debate, but in my 40+ cycling years and nearly that many behind the wheel, I've found that we all rub along pretty well together.

I'd prefer it if all road users had some exprience conducting other vehicle types through our streets, but I'd hate to live in a land where it was compulsory.


----------



## Dan B (13 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Drivers seem somehow branded by other road users as part of a single group


My experience doesn't really match yours: my friends and acquaintances routinely distinguish drivers by such attributes as the car they're in (Audi, BMW, Saxo), the branding/company name on the side (Foxtons, Royal Mail), or the nature of the vehicle's use (taxi, minicab). 

I'm sure that someone will be along in a minute to say that this is a bad attitude and we should treat all drivers just the same, as if they were part of a single group


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (13 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> ...
> Similarly, drivers who cycle may have a sense of what a cyclist in traffic is planning to do. I do hear cyclists I know getting themselves quite worked up about drivers. It is not an absolute rule, but these tend to be cyclists who do not drive.
> ...


Whereas, as someone who does both, I find the drivers who wind me up are those who pay so little attention to the road that they would maim themselves were they on a bike.


----------



## Boris Bajic (13 Nov 2012)

Dan B said:


> My experience doesn't really match yours: my friends and acquaintances routinely distinguish drivers by such attributes as the car they're in (Audi, BMW, Saxo), the branding/company name on the side (Foxtons, Royal Mail), or the nature of the vehicle's use (taxi, minicab).
> 
> I'm sure that someone will be along in a minute to say that this is a bad attitude and we should treat all drivers just the same, as if they were part of a single group


 
This is a good point. I'm afraid I've been guilty in the past of branding drivers by vehicle or employer. Sadly, there can be a correlation between marque, model, employment type and road behaviour. I wish it were otherwise.

What I wes referring to in my observation was that other road users (whether cyclist, driver or motorcyclist) will sometimes treat a novice driver, an elderly driver and a testosterone-overdosed youth as one and the same.

I take entirely your point about there being clues in vehicle type, much as I'd prefer to think there are not.

Indeed one might say the same about cyclists... but I don't want to start another comparative debate between brand-obsessed lycra missiles and low-cadence, nodding novices. Nor do I accept that either group even exists in any identifiable form.

Thank you.


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2012)

benb said:


> As a point of order, only the first word in Linnaean taxonomy should be capitalised (e.g. Homo sapiens), *so it should be: Homo hoodius numptius ninjensis*
> 
> Carry on.


 
It should also be italicized...


----------



## benb (13 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> It should also be italicized...


 
Touché


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2012)

Mugshot said:


> There is nothing I disagree with here, but I do not believe it has anything to do with what I was saying originally. We frequently see on these pages a reference to somebody riding without lights, it is almost without exception that somebody will reply to that with, what I consider to be, the rather tiresome "Well you saw them didn't you?" I don't believe that the vast majority of the posters who reply in such a manner are doing so because they are attempting to make a point about infrastucture, driver attitude, social standing or retail expenditure, *I think they're doing it because they think it sounds clever.* My issue with this is that the extension of it is that riding without lights is somehow acceptable because the individual clearly wasn't invisible. I doubt that anybody reading these posts would take take this as a reason to ditch their lights but I don't personally see it as the witty quip which I'm convinced the majority of people that post it believe it to be, as I said, maybe I'm being a little precious about it.


 
Fair enough. The last time a motorist pulled alongside me (dusk, my back light had stopped working and I was unaware of it) and said, quite gently, "I can't see you _at all_", I thought it would be churlish to to take issue with the truth of his observation. But had he addressed me in a more adversarial tone I'd have felt quite justified in doing so. Which is just to say that there are times when sounding like a smart arse is exactly what is called for.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Nov 2012)

benb said:


> As a point of order, only the first word in Linnaean taxonomy should be capitalised (e.g. Homo sapiens), so it should be: Homo hoodius numptius ninjensis
> 
> Carry on.





theclaud said:


> It should also be italicized...


You can both each all take your pedantry and place it discretely and discreetly where it will be safe from UV light.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Fair enough. The last time a motorist pulled alongside me (dusk, my back light had stopped working and I was unaware of it) and said, quite gently, "I can't see you _at all_", I thought it would be churlish to to take issue with the truth of his observation. But had he addressed me in a more adversarial tone I'd have felt quite justified in doing so. Which is just to say that there are times when sounding like a smart arse is exactly what is called for.


There are times when sounding like a smartarse is appropriate. At other times actually being a smartarse is more effective. Verbal interaction with chastising car drivers? Generally the latter, but not usually hard, they set the arse benchmark quite low after all. I find "Shuttit fatty" does the trick.


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> You can both take your pedantry and place it discretely where it will be safe from UV light.


 
I think it should be, "you can _each_ take your pedantry"...


----------



## Dan B (13 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> You can both take your pedantry and place it discretely where it will be safe from UV light.





theclaud said:


> I think it should be, "you can _each_ take your pedantry"...


It should almost certainly be "discreetly".


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> I think it should be, "you can _each_ take your pedantry"...





Dan B said:


> It should almost certainly be "discreetly".


please see #203


----------



## Mugshot (13 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Which is just to say that there are times when sounding like a smart arse is exactly what is called for.


Too right!


----------



## benb (13 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> please see #203


 
You forgot to capitalise the P in that sentence.


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2012)

benb said:


> You forgot to capitalise the P in that sentence.


 
I think the "P" in your sentence should be enclosed in quotation marks, and should in fact be lower-case, as it refers to the uncapitalized "p" in Greg's.


----------



## mickle (13 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> I think the "P" in your sentence should be enclosed in quotation marks, and should in fact be lower-case, as it refers to the uncapitalized "p" in Greg's.


Shes rite u no.


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Nov 2012)

i think i cover the argument well here however i got VED name wrong, wrong audio file derp. Of course some is my opinion but we are all able to know whats fact and opinion by now.


----------



## Arfcollins (15 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> There is a very real danger from being hit by a meteorite, but low risk.


It's one of the main reasons I will always wear a helmet when I'm out and about - Grrrr! Them pesky space rocks!


----------



## StuartG (15 Nov 2012)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Are you proposing those that are physically unable to ride a bike should also be precluded from the freedom and independence an adapted car could give them & at a lesser level what about people that never learned to ride or simply don't want to do so.


Actually disabled people are more likely to be able to use a bike or trike than an adapted car. I'm trying to think of what disability would prevent them using one. Are you aware of these people (linky)?
I too support the idea that you cannot apply for a provisional car license without holding a full motocycle licence and you cannot apply for a provisional motorcycle licence until you have passed a Bikeability test.

Just think about it. Every new driver would know (and hence more likely to respect) the safety needs of more vulnerable road users. It is these new drivers that pose the greatest threat to the cyclist. Also that they may by chance discover these are a better, cheaper and or faster transport mode for at least some of their needs. This would make the roads better for everyone.


----------

