# Why is riding on the footpath an offence?



## mobi (21 Jun 2014)

I am not saying one should ride on footpath in crowded London streets, but there are footpaths in other parts of country where you hardly see any pedestrian most of the time. 

Don't you think law should be updated?


----------



## roadrash (21 Jun 2014)

No


----------



## CopperCyclist (21 Jun 2014)

Yes, I suppose it's a shame that on some of the quieter, wider footpaths where it would be safe they don't do something like put up a sign to let you know. It could be a blue sign with, say a bike and a person sharing the path or something.

Worth considering ;-)


----------



## Nigelnaturist (21 Jun 2014)

Cycle paths are a death trap to pedestrians, period, they should be outlawed forthwith, wheels belong on roads not paths who ever came up with the idea of sharing a path with a vehicle that can kill someone wants shooting, I rode a couple yesterday and boy people really have no sense, cyclist that is, and today I saw the worst RLJ I have ever seen cyclist are a death trap.


----------



## CopperCyclist (21 Jun 2014)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Cycle paths are a death trap to pedestrians, period, they should be outlawed forthwith, wheels belong on roads not paths who ever came up with the idea of sharing a path with a vehicle that can kill someone wants shooting, I rode a couple yesterday and boy people really have no sense, cyclist that is, and today I saw the worst RLJ I have ever seen cyclist are a death trap.



The problem there would be with the cyclist rather than the cycle path. 

A simile could be drawn with roads, cycles and lorries. Lorries can be a death trap to the more vulnerable cyclists, but the problem there is the lorry drivers, not the roads. 

Cycle paths are safe if the cyclists using them realise they are now the most dangerous vehicle on them, and it's for them to look out for the pedestrians. If you want to go faster than allows for this, no probs - get on the road! 

For what it's worth I rarely use shared paths for the above reason (I want to travel faster), however I have friends who feel safe tootling along safely with the pedestrians.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jun 2014)

mobi said:


> I am not saying one should ride on footpath in crowded London streets, but there are footpaths in other parts of country where you hardly see any pedestrian most of the time.
> 
> *Don't you think law should be updated?*



it is, when they create shared use footpaths.


----------



## KneesUp (21 Jun 2014)

There is a shared use path I use regularly, and it's ridiculous - pedestrians don't expect bikes to be on it, even though it's signed and painted red, so they wander all over it and quite often scowl at you no matter how slowly you go - presumably because they think you are riding on the pavement - which of course you are - it's just a red pavement with a sign saying it's for pedestrians and bikes.

The fact that it's a fairly steep hill and is crossed by the entrance/exit to a car park that goes on to a one-way street (so drivers don't always look both ways) and that entrance/exit has bushes obscuring it make it particularly exciting.

That said I'd like to think no-one would object to you cycling along an otherwise deserted footpath next to a busy road.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (21 Jun 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> The problem there would be with the cyclist rather than the cycle path.
> 
> A simile could be drawn with roads, cycles and lorries. Lorries can be a death trap to the more *vulnerable cyclists*, but the problem there is the lorry drivers, not the roads.
> 
> ...



Only if they let themselves be, but a lot of cyclists dont realise how dangerous the speed they can travel at can be, nor the danger of undertaking so many things, so maybe as motorists point out it is time for some legislation, I am against it but something needs to be done for the idiots on bikes.


[QUOTE 3142785, member: 45"]How many deaths?[/QUOTE]
Has it ever been recorded, but the behaviour of cyclists I have seen in the last month mainly on paths is worse than any I have seen from motorists. i am not the greatest cyclist and I mean from a safety point of view not performance, but I actually feel safer on the road than any shared path/cycle lane I have ever used, but then I @CopperCyclist I drove HGV's for a living, it peoples lack of understanding of how the other uses the ROAD that is the issue that needs addressing.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (21 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> There is a shared use path I use regularly, and it's ridiculous - pedestrians don't expect bikes to be on it, even though it's signed and painted red, so they wander all over it and quite often scowl at you no matter how slowly you go - presumably because they think you are riding on the pavement - which of course you are - it's just a red pavement with a sign saying it's for pedestrians and bikes.
> 
> The fact that it's a fairly steep hill and is crossed by the entrance/exit to a car park that goes on to a one-way street (so drivers don't always look both ways) and that entrance/exit has bushes obscuring it make it particularly exciting.
> 
> *That said I'd like to think no-one would object to you cycling along an otherwise deserted footpath next to a busy road*.


I would its against the law, you want motorists to get it right, let us start getting it right, but we can't the problem doesn't lay with the likes of most us on here that actually care but with those that dont' and i think you know the bike riders I mean, but seeing a woman on the phone in a sleepy village on her bike, is that right when car drivers can't (but do I know)


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jun 2014)

The "Danger" is often irrelevant

The proportional difference in speed is what gives people a "perception" of danger

If a pedestrian walks at 3 mph and a bike passes at 6 mph, the differential is insufficient to cause concern, however at 12 mph, the differential is 4 fold, and this will seem fast and unsafe.

To the pedestrian, a perceived danger is real enough to cause concern


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jun 2014)

The other point about the "Law" is interpretation..

In 1999 the then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued the following guidance:



> *“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”*



This is still being seen as relevant and practical advice


----------



## User6179 (21 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3142848, member: 45"]So it's not a death trap then.

You'll find that it shared use works well across the country, with minimal problems and certainly not at the level of risk to pedestrians that you claim.[/QUOTE]

You have obviously have never ridden a pavement in a suburb of Glasgow , lets say take your bike to Easterhouse and ride along the pavement in full Mamil apparel then report back!


----------



## User6179 (21 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3142908, member: 45"]You're reducing it now to a particular set of circumstances.

Care to quantify the "danger" to pedestrians?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, in my scenario the danger is to the cyclist!
Thought the argument was " pavements are a death trap"


----------



## User6179 (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3142915, member: 30090"]Whilst anecdotal a lot of cyclists I see on a shared path ride at a speed meant for the road and do not adapt to the conditions.

Prime example is on the commute with a road through hyde park closed all cyclists are now diverted onto a shared path. Very few lower their speed treating the peds with utter contempt, underaking with no call. ****ers the lot of them.[/QUOTE]

Yes but can you quantify the dangers to pedestrians ?











Sorry misterpaul


----------



## fabregas485 (22 Jun 2014)

I tend to find that some times people do not notice they are walking on a shared bike path, so they tend to get a shock when someone cycles past them or end up shouting at the cyclist.


----------



## User6179 (22 Jun 2014)

fabregas485 said:


> I tend to find that some times people do not notice they are walking on a shared bike path, so they tend to get a shock when someone cycles past them or end up shouting at the cyclist.



Well then the cyclist is at fault for not slowing down or shouting ahead to warn the ped !


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Jun 2014)

mobi said:


> I am not saying one should ride on footpath in crowded London streets, but there are footpaths in other parts of country where you hardly see any pedestrian most of the time.
> 
> Don't you think law should be updated?



The quick answer from me is *Yes.*

There has been a serious collision between a lorry and a cyclist on a road that is almost entirely devoid of 'peds on the accompanying pavements, the road has no cycling provision e.g. wider lanes or optional/mandatory cycle lane. At least one person I have talked to about this has admitted they illegally use the pavement as they feel unsafe on the road. They are not alone in that as I see at least one cyclist using the pavement everytime I travel down this road.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/incoming/serious-crash-wakefield-road-causes-7303155


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

wiggydiggy said:


> The quick answer from me is *Yes.*
> 
> There has been a serious collision between a lorry and a cyclist on a road that is almost entirely devoid of 'peds on the accompanying pavements, the road has no cycling provision e.g. wider lanes or optional/mandatory cycle lane. At least one person I have talked to about this has admitted they illegally use the pavement as they feel unsafe on the road. They are not alone in that as I see at least one cyclist using the pavement everytime I travel down this road.
> 
> http://www.examiner.co.uk/incoming/serious-crash-wakefield-road-causes-7303155



I now ride on the pavement of the road on which I was hit and run last year. There are occasionally other cyclists, runners or peds on it, but more often than not it's empty. It borders farmland and an RAF base with some housing miles behind a huge chain link fence. It might be shared use but I'm not sure, regardless though I'm on it as cars and all sorts of vehicles floor it down this road so the likelihood of being deaded is very high. I am even close passed on the pavement as it is not very wide but idiot drivers who think it's funny to scare cyclist by driving with one wheel in the gutter. Whippet buses are the worst, total w*^£%?s! Most pavements in Cambridge are shared use unless in the busy centre which is fair enough you can't having eejit cyclists weaving in and out of lots of peds chewing on burgers and struggling with big bags of shopping.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

Eddy said:


> Well then the cyclist is at fault for not slowing down or shouting ahead to warn the ped !



Simple solution - get an airzound. They work, no more wondering whether dithering or obstructive peds are going to move, trust me they move and quickly, even dozy weekend nobber or mamil cyclists riding head on toward you on your side of the path get out the way pronto.


----------



## User6179 (22 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Simple solution - get an airzound. They work, no more wondering whether dithering or obstructive peds are going to move, trust me they move and quickly, even dozy weekend nobber or mamil cyclists riding head on toward you on your side of the path get out the way pronto.



Only nobbers have airzounds , where can I buy one


----------



## summerdays (22 Jun 2014)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Cycle paths are a death trap to pedestrians, period, they should be outlawed forthwith, wheels belong on roads not paths w*ho ever came up with the idea of sharing a path with a vehicle that can kill someone wants shooting,* I rode a couple yesterday and boy people really have no sense, cyclist that is, and today I saw the worst RLJ I have ever seen cyclist are a death trap.


I couldn't decide whether that was written with your tongue in your check or not until I read your other answers on this page. 

Couldn't exactly the same be said about bikes and cars?


----------



## Steady (22 Jun 2014)

Slightly, to a degree, but overall no to making footpath cycling okay. It requires the power in be to have some common sense, unfortunately they don't, nor the cycling or walking experience to properly access anything. 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody from using the footpath on a very busy road, but all foot path cyclists I see are on very quiet side street roads and should be encouraged to move onto the road.

The only times in adult age that I've used a footpath was uphill on busy roads on a heavy bike doing barely 5mph at the time and rarely is the path actually ever used. Perfect opportunity to turn a barely used path into "shared use" with little chance of pedestrians or cycles ever clashing on it, but that will never happen.


----------



## summerdays (22 Jun 2014)

Every day at least 5 miles each way of my commute is on cycle paths (beside a very busy dual carriageway) I've not seen a single bike/pedestrian accident, though I have seen bike /bike ones and they are pretty rare.

On the same route I've seen bike /car accidents and lots more car/car accidents. In fact the junction that I've seen the most accidents at is currently undergoing a major redesign (lasting till Nov), due to the problems there. Thinking about it the last accident I saw this week was the aftermath of looked like a lorry had sort of left hooked a car - everyone but the car looked ok.

I don't see a problem with the idea of cycle paths (though I'm currently experiencing problems with the vegetation over growing the path which was already too narrow at that point).

There is also a path that isn't a cycle path that I do cycle on. It's 10% uphill and I do it about 4 mph, it is narrow and twisty so it's extremely difficult to pass cyclists safely. I would say at least half the cyclists I see cycle of that bit of path including the Lycra clad mob, only the fastest ones stick to the road. I'm not safe from the cars even then as every year a couple of cars take the worst bend too fast and then end up crossing the onto the other side of the road, over the path and end up either in a ditch or a tree. I cycle down the hill on the road because my speed is similar to the cars (well after the nasty camber corner). I'm prepared to state my case and be fined if necessary. And I'm lucky if I'm going fast enough to be able to overtake a pedestrian.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (22 Jun 2014)

summerdays said:


> I couldn't decide whether that was written with your tongue in your check or not until I read your other answers on this page.
> 
> Couldn't exactly the same be said about bikes and cars?


Yea it could, but the point I am trying to make is many cyclists seem to have this righteous attitude, I do about 7,000 miles a year and I see more disregard for road/path rules committed by cyclists, I also see per 100 more bad cycling that is likely to cause injury than per 100 cars/vans/trucks, last night on my way home from Wakefield, I saw a guy on a mountain bike go down the out side of a waiting queue of traffic of which i was part of, go through a red light at speed, then speed up the central part of a crossing cross on the pedestrian crossing and then re join the road, I have had bike jump of paths into my path, I have seen a cyclist riding a bike on a FOOTpath no hands drinking smoking and on the phone (better rider than me I couldn't do it) I see cyclist on paths cross a junction as in from one path to the next, then use a zebra to get to the other side, so many things its no wonder car drivers have no respect when I as a cyclist see all this, you may say but these are not cyclists but they are, like I said I dont use cycle paths I personal think most cycle lanes are a waste of money certainly the one from here to Wakefield is car its a discretionary one not maintained as a cycle lane surface breaking up ect and stops where it would be needed most on a slight climb but quite steep which has the narrowest of footpaths next to it single file pedestrians at best. I know that most uses of shared path ways are responsible like most road users, but cyclists have a bad reputation, why do you think that is, and how can we as cyclists correct the bad cycling, dont get me wrong I am not a perfect cyclist, quite bad sometimes but I never try to put others at risk.


----------



## summerdays (22 Jun 2014)

Cyclists do not have a bad reputation because of a few bad ones, they have a bad reputation because of the way the press and motorists look for the bad behaviour of the few and stigmatise the entire group of people together as being bad. Does it happen to car drivers? No - apart from some moans on cycle forums, but usually there will be comments critiquing anyone who says all drivers are bad. That doesn't happen the same way with cyclists!

And I will see more unsafe driving than cycling ever day (I see over 100 cyclists every day and perhaps a few do something daft, I think I would be safe in saying 1 in 10 motorists would be doing "wrong" things if you take into account: seat belt wearing, red light jumping, mobile use, eating at the wheel, stoping in the ASL, and speeding.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (22 Jun 2014)

summerdays said:


> Cyclists do not have a bad reputation because of a few bad ones, they have a bad reputation because of the way the press and motorists look for the bad behaviour of the few and stigmatise the entire group of people together as being bad. Does it happen to car drivers? No - apart from some moans on cycle forums, but usually there will be comments critiquing anyone who says all drivers are bad. That doesn't happen the same way with cyclists!
> 
> And I will see more unsafe driving than cycling ever day (I see over 100 cyclists every day and perhaps a few do something daft, I think I would be safe in saying 1 in 10 motorists would be doing "wrong" things if you take into account: seat belt wearing, red light jumping, mobile use, eating at the wheel, stoping in the ASL, and speeding.


I don't read the press ( I know what its like) just what I see, RLJ I have seen more cyclists than cars do it, mobile use seen that on a bike more than just a few times, if memory serves me well the ASL can be crossed if unsafe to stop before it, like an amber light that actually means stop, cyclists eat whilst riding which actual is as dangerous if not more so than behind a wheel, you have the right to wear a helmet or not car drivers dont wrong in law yes a safety issue to a cyclist probably as it can give an indication to mind set of the driver.
I get passed quite close on numerous occasions only two spring to mind that I was a little apprehensive, a couple of times on coming vehicles who I presumes had not really checked the road ahead and when you consider the number of cars vans trucks that pass you this is actually low in comparison to the number of bikes I see with no regard at all to junctions and lights and regulations. 
I have ridden and driven most things including trucks so I am just going from experience.
And I wish these dam doves would stop trying to commit suicide against my window. 
Having said all this I might get  tomorrow or the next day


----------



## fabregas485 (22 Jun 2014)

Eddy said:


> Well then the cyclist is at fault for not slowing down or shouting ahead to warn the ped !


 Even if you were to shout ahead, you get people with headphones, music at max. They have no chance of hearing you.

I agree though, speed should be limited on a shared walkway


----------



## summerdays (22 Jun 2014)

fabregas485 said:


> Even if you were to shout ahead, you get people with headphones, music at max. They have no chance of hearing you.
> 
> I agree though, speed should be limited on a shared walkway


You shouldn't assume the person in front can hear, I've cycled with a number of deaf people, though they do tend to be better at looking than your average cyclist.


----------



## mobi (22 Jun 2014)

The law which prohibits riding bike on pavement was introduced in 1835!

If mobility scooters are allowed on pavement, then cyclist at slow speed should also be allowed IMHO.


----------



## gavroche (22 Jun 2014)

I think pedestrians are to blame for not knowing how to use shared paths. They tend to walk using the full width of the path and people with dogs with extending dog leads are the worst! Those leads are lethal as usually, their master is on one side of the path and the dog on the other, with that thin lead between the two.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3143142, member: 30090"]The speed of scooters is limited....[/QUOTE]
some can be quite reckless though.... sometimes 8mph is too fast.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

gavroche said:


> I think pedestrians are to blame for not knowing how to use shared paths. They tend to walk using the full width of the path and people with dogs with extending dog leads are the worst! Those leads are lethal as usually, their master is on one side of the path and the dog on the other, with that thin lead between the two.


 This is a perfect example of someone who doesn't know how to interact with others... the trick is to 'proceed with caution'.


----------



## byegad (22 Jun 2014)

Allow legal riding on the footpath and you have taken a huge step towards us being banned from roads. 

We are the traffic!

Remember this and insist on roads fit for cyclists, horses AND motorists. Anything else is the thin end of a wedge that would see us banned.


----------



## byegad (22 Jun 2014)

Eddy said:


> Only nobbers have airzounds , where can I buy one


You can borrow mine. My 'into town' trike has one.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Jun 2014)

byegad said:


> Allow legal riding on the footpath and you have taken a huge step towards us being banned from roads.
> 
> We are the traffic!
> 
> Remember this and insist on roads fit for cyclists, horses AND motorists. Anything else is the thin end of a wedge that would see us banned.


And, particularly in rural areas, roads fit for pedestrians too.


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Jun 2014)

Ah but do you say hello to cyclists on the road when you are riding on the pavement, *thats* the real question!


----------



## SpokeyDokey (22 Jun 2014)

I know it's a cycling forum but there are some real cycle-centric views of the world here (as expected I guess).

As far as I can make out cars and all other motorised transport are a PITA despite the fact that without them we would be back in the 19C pretty damn quick. I accept they need to be cleaner but the continual demonising of them is way OTT.

Horses & their riders are a PITA. Dogs are a PITA. Pedestrians are a PITA.

Roads need narrowing at the cost of billions to benefit cyclists.

We need punitive motorised traffic speed limits to benefit cyclists - although on no account must cyclists be expected to obey the limits And we mustn't dare mention enforced helmet wearing to bring cyclists into line with other road users (motor cyclists).

We are now asking for cyclists to be allowed on quiet footpaths that walkers like myself actually like to use because they are quiet.

Where's it going to end.......?

Seems a tad biased to me.


----------



## Sara_H (22 Jun 2014)

mobi said:


> I am not saying one should ride on footpath in crowded London streets, but there are footpaths in other parts of country where you hardly see any pedestrian most of the time.
> 
> Don't you think law should be updated?


Whats needed is proper cycling infrastructure that would allow everyone age 5 - 95 to cycle safely without breaking the law.
Our roads are very often not safe for inexperienced cyclists. Especially very busy roads or complicated junctions. In these situations I often take to the pavement, particularly if I'm with my son who is 11. One stretch we regularly cycle the pavement is as you describe - a busy dual carriageway, speed limit meant to be 40mph, but majority breaking that by at least 10mph extra, no cycling provision, deserted pavement along side. All the times we've ridden doen there we have never seen a pedestrian, but to put myself and my son where we should be legally would be suicidal.
Sadly our roads have now been dominated by motor vehicles, which have been prioratised for many years now. Until safe infrastructure is provided for me and my child I'll continue to break the law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not riding down pavements at 20mph skittling old ladies out of my way - we ride slowly, carefully and give a wide berth or stop for anyone on foot. If its a busy pavement we get off and walk.


----------



## PK99 (22 Jun 2014)

Sara_H said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not riding down pavements at 20mph skittling old ladies out of my way - we ride slowly, carefully and give a wide berth or stop for anyone on foot. If its a busy pavement we get off and walk.



unlike many pavement cyclists i encounter in SW19 - one of these days i will simply stand my ground and let the aggressive pavement cyclist bounce off my shoulder


----------



## summerdays (22 Jun 2014)

Every side wants a bias towards them, it's human nature. 

We need to devise schemes to enable the different groups to co-exist together as safely as possible. Up till now one group has tended to be prioritised above the others, hence why we need to redress the balance, especially as it is biased to the most dangerous form of transport.


----------



## Sara_H (22 Jun 2014)

PK99 said:


> unlike many pavement cyclists i encounter in SW19 - one of these days i will simply stand my ground and let the aggressive pavement cyclist bounce off my shoulder


LOL, don't cut your nose off to spite your face, though I get your point, I often stand my ground with feckless drivers in situations where I'd no doubt come off worst if they didn't give in!

The Boeteng guidance and it's recent re-issue (if thats the correct term) is a bit of a mixed blessing in my opinion. It's a acknowledgement that our roads aren't safe for cyclists, yet fails to properly address the situation.
I don't want to ride on the pavement, its slow going and a pain in the arse, but very often the favoured alternative to the very hostile environment on the road.


----------



## byegad (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3143264, member: 45"]Nonsense.[/QUOTE]
I've considered your well thought out rebuttal. And reply.

No!


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

if 20 mph speed limits in urban areas were widespread and properly enforced, then the pavement may cease to be the sanctuary of safety that many cyclist perceive it to be.... just a thought.


----------



## PK99 (22 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> if 20 mph speed limits in urban areas were widespread and *properly enforced,* .



Enforced for cyclists too?


----------



## PK99 (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3143349, member: 45"]They'd have to change the law first.[/QUOTE]

True, but if motorists find themselves limited to 20mph and have cyclists overtaking them, the scope for resentment increases (see various discussions on Richmond Park)


----------



## swansonj (22 Jun 2014)

wiggydiggy said:


> The quick answer from me is *Yes.*
> 
> There has been a serious collision between a lorry and a cyclist on a road that is almost entirely devoid of 'peds on the accompanying pavements,* the road has no cycling provision e.g. wider lanes or optional/mandatory cycle lane.* At least one person I have talked to about this has admitted they illegally use the pavement as they feel unsafe on the road. They are not alone in that as I see at least one cyclist using the pavement everytime I travel down this road.
> 
> http://www.examiner.co.uk/incoming/serious-crash-wakefield-road-causes-7303155


I understand what you mean, so it's slightly unfair to pick on you. But actually, the fact that you can write this simply demonstrates how far cyclists have already lost the battle. The road DOES have cycling provision - it has a tarmac surface, it has the edges marked, it quite possibly has lighting, it has street signs to tell you where you're going, it has priority markings to let you know when you need to give way to other vehicles and when they should give way to you.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

PK99 said:


> Enforced for cyclists too?


Why not? Bearing in mind '_we are the traffic_', then traffic rules should apply to all forms of transport, not just motorised transport.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> No speedo.


Most of the cyclists i see round these parts have never ridden anywhere near 20mph (on the flat anyway)... and a lot of cyclists do have those little computers these days.

The speed of the traffic in a 20mph zone is a good indication of what 20mph is. There's no need to enforce all bicycles to have a speedo fitted in order to apply a little common sense.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Come on, you know how speeding law gets caught up on technicalities.


There's a _drunk in charge_ law too... with no 'maximum' blood/alcohol unit to back it up... it's down to the officers discretion as to whether one is in breach of this law or not. What's wrong with just saying "Cyclists in a 20mph zone must not travel at a greater speed than the traffic." ?


----------



## theclaud (22 Jun 2014)

PK99 said:


> True, but if motorists find themselves limited to 20mph and have cyclists overtaking them, the scope for resentment increases (see various discussions on Richmond Park)



The poor dears.


----------



## Learnincurve (22 Jun 2014)

This whole debate could be ended if councils were to actually sort out the bike paths. It is very obvious that we have got to the point where many sections of road are so overloaded with cars, vans and lorries that they could very easily be a death trap to cyclists, especially inexperienced ones. It's madness to suggest that cyclists share the road with HGVs barrelling along on narrow roads round blind bends, anyone who has been near chatsworth house will know what I'm talking about, or very busy junctions where car drivers and cyclists have got into this insane loop where car drivers think it's too dangerous for a cyclist to be there so assume they won't be there and therefore don't pay enough attention which is the very reason these junctions are dangerous in the first place.

It's about showing some common sense and thinking for yourselves, you know if a stretch or road you use is dangerous, you know if the stretch of pavement is quiet enough for you to safely ride on or if you should be getting off and pushing your bike. You also know your own level, the simple fact is that someone who has been riding on roads for 5/10/50 years is going to be able to go where a newbie cant. It should also be noted that even in the 1990s people only had one car per household and not one car each, so people trying to learn today have far more to contend with than even someone in their 30s who learned as a teen.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> You would be creating a new offence of overtaking another road user at a speed below the stated limit.


well... not really... bearing in mind most drivers drive 'at' the speed limit, and quite often a bit faster. I'm taking about guidelines, you seem obsessed with creating new laws.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> What did you teach them to do if they needed to get the other side?


it's posts like that that make me wonder if the poster is really worth engaging with.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3143565, member: 45"]I taught my children to walk on the pavement and not in the road down the A38. It's not really a good comparison.[/QUOTE]
What about roads with no pavement, did you teach to walk on the side of the oncoming traffic, as you should, I see people getting this wrong as some roads round here don't have pavements.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (22 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Most of the cyclists i see round these parts have never ridden anywhere near 20mph (on the flat anyway)... and a lot of cyclists do have those little computers these days.
> 
> The speed of the traffic in a 20mph zone is a good indication of what 20mph is. There's no need to enforce all bicycles to have a speedo fitted in order to apply a little common sense.



Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.

At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets, compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test and a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.

Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3143598, member: 45"]Yes. You are aware that you can walk on whichever side you choose to though?[/QUOTE]
I am aware.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (22 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.
> 
> At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets, compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test and a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.
> 
> *Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.*


Totally agree.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> You don't let children loose on the road without an understanding of how to cross roads, judge car speeds etc. You don't let people loose in cars without some rudimentary training. Why not the same for cyclists?


Regrettably, all the cycle training in the world won't keep the slower cyclist safe if motorized traffic does not also play by the rules.
I dare say not even the faster cyclist is safe.
Show me a way not to be beeped off the road when I cycle in primary - as per cyclecraft suggestion - at 7/8 mph loaded with groceries, uphill on a left filter lane or primary at 15mph on a double carriage lane approaching the junction, again following cyclecraft's advice.
Show me a way not to be passed simultaneously both on the right and on the left when I'm in the correct lane and correct position to go straight.
Show me a way not to have a car on my right and a motorbike on my left in the bike box when I'm in the centre of it.
Apart from the dangers of impatient drivers, getting shouted at or beeped at is not pleasant.
I will continue to illegally ride short stretch of pavement when I feel it's necessary or walking and pushing the bike.
Did I mention, once I got shouted at by a cyclist on a shared path for being in his way


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.
> 
> At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets, compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test and a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.
> 
> Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.


did you read the last sentence in the post you're replying to? It mentioned something about common sense... something your rant lacks.


----------



## morrisman (22 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.
> 
> At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets, compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test and a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.
> 
> Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.



a speedo to be fitted - *NO* - in my experience it just makes you go faster
compulsory helmets - *NO* - no scientific proof they do any good
compulsory third party insurance - *MAYBE* - I have some
a compulsory test - *NO* - Mainly because it would put people off cycling, plus at what age would it be needed
a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads - *NO* - calendar age has little to do with maturity

But apart from that I agree with all you said


----------



## Learnincurve (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> You don't let children loose on the road without an understanding of how to cross roads, judge car speeds etc. You don't let people loose in cars without some rudimentary training. Why not the same for cyclists?



Waaay way back in the 1980/90s Derbyshire pumped a lot of time and effort into doing just this, if you had a bike then schools both primary and secondary would send you for cycling proficiency lessons, iirc they were run by police and council, and you would get a sticker to put on the bike when you passed (in fact the bike I collected from my parents has one, I'll show a picture in a bit) and if your bike did not have a sticker and the police saw you on it you would be sent home and school/your parents would be told. Everyone I knew had a sticker, because not only did you get out of school one afternoon for 6 weeks, the council closed the main car park in the village for us and the guy running it made it fun so we learned to brake by doing races and he made a big race track for us as well. They wouldn't do this kind of thing now to this extent, mostly because the car park isn't free any more so they would lose too much money.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (22 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> did you read the last sentence in the post you're replying to? It mentioned something about *common sense*... something your rant lacks.


Problem is most people don't have any.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Problem is most people don't have any.


the clue is in the name... most do.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (22 Jun 2014)

morrisman said:


> a speedo to be fitted - *NO* - in my experience it just makes you go faster
> *compulsory helmets - NO - no scientific proof they do any good*
> compulsory third party insurance - *MAYBE* - I have some
> a compulsory test - *NO* - Mainly because it would put people off cycling, plus at what age would it be needed
> ...


ask @Mo1959 what she thinks, insurance what if your actions cause a major incident, something like a CBT for motor bikes is no bad thing.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Two things. Firstly, it isn't a speed thing. Secondly, you have identified the problem that needs addressing.


It is partly a speed (and dexterity on the bike) thing. I'm referring to Cyclecraft as it is the text book for the National cycling standard. Emphasis is on speeding up at junctions, keeping up with the traffic flow, having 2 eyes in the back of your head 
Apart from the fact that if your time is up your time is up, no bikability will save you (but that can be said for all activities) some motorized traffic free cycling provisions must be incorporated in our road system, for those not so confident or not so Adrelanine driven in their cycling.


----------



## fabregas485 (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3143130, member: 30090"]FFS, then you slow down to their walking pace and pass giving room. It aint hard.[/QUOTE]


summerdays said:


> You shouldn't assume the person in front can hear, I've cycled with a number of deaf people, though they do tend to be better at looking than your average cyclist.


 
I was a little lazy with my comment to be honest. Both are very valid points. The way I see it, pedestrians are the ones who would end up worse if anything were to happen. People can sometimes lack 'common sense' but every effort should be made to reduce the risk of accidents.


----------



## summerdays (22 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets


For motorists and pedestrians too?


----------



## summerdays (22 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> Waaay way back in the 1980/90s Derbyshire pumped a lot of time and effort into doing just this, if you had a bike then schools both primary and secondary would send you for cycling proficiency lessons, iirc they were run by police and council, and you would get a sticker to put on the bike when you passed (in fact the bike I collected from my parents has one, I'll show a picture in a bit) and if your bike did not have a sticker and the police saw you on it you would be sent home and school/your parents would be told. Everyone I knew had a sticker, because not only did you get out of school one afternoon for 6 weeks, the council closed the main car park in the village for us and the guy running it made it fun so we learned to brake by doing races and he made a big race track for us as well. They wouldn't do this kind of thing now to this extent, mostly because the car park isn't free any more so they would lose too much money.


How would cycling in a car park help today's children? They learn on the roads as mine all did at school.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.



Absolutely... look at how effective they have been in stopping motorists from speeding!




> At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets



Absolutely an imperative.... compulsory helmets for motorists is an essential given that 8 times as many car occcupants are admitted for head injuries than cyclists... Then there are pedestrians who have 16 times the number of admissions than cyclists



> Compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test



Another superb idea... look once again how these measures have stopped dangerous driving and accidents in motorists


> A minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.



Again an absolute imperative, then there all those negligent children being run over by cars to consider... why don't we just lock all children indoors until thet y reach the age of 16?





> Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.



... or maybe we should look at the facts and reality?

The majority of accidents, injuries and deaths are NOT The fault of cyclists


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

summerdays said:


> How would cycling in a car park help today's children? They learn on the roads as mine all did at school.


I did my cycling proficiency in the school playground (aged about 7 or 8 i guess). It helped me to navigate junctions and learn to signal properly and with confidence, before going out on an actual road and trying... they even had traffic lights. It was great fun.


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Jun 2014)

swansonj said:


> I understand what you mean, so it's slightly unfair to pick on you. But actually, the fact that you can write this simply demonstrates how far cyclists have already lost the battle. The road DOES have cycling provision - it has a tarmac surface, it has the edges marked, it quite possibly has lighting, it has street signs to tell you where you're going, it has priority markings to let you know when you need to give way to other vehicles and when they should give way to you.



Does a road have anything to stop a lorry crushing me like in my link?

You're right, it is unfair, you havent listened at all to my point > where unsafe and at a high risk of death then pavement cycling is fine by me.


----------



## Learnincurve (22 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> I did my cycling proficiency in the school playground (aged about 7 or 8 i guess). It helped me to navigate junctions and learn to signal properly and with confidence, before going out on an actual road and trying... they even had traffic lights. It was great fun.



This is basically what we did, they started with races so we could learn to turn and brake, then we did signals, road safety, signs, lights and different kinds of crossings and so on and so forth. I distinctly remember our local policeman hiding in his own car and then revving his engine as we went past in a group on the way back to the school and the kids who freaked out being put back a week, this may have been just us with a really bored village policeman though.


----------



## summerdays (22 Jun 2014)

I too did mine in the playground with cones. Strangely enough I found it rather a different experience when I went out on the road. I think it's good that the kids today learn on the road.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

User13710 said:


> Sorry about your injury @wiggydiggy but the answer is not removing you from the road, but making the road safer for you.


why can't the answer be both? A mixture of shared use paths and safer roads.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jun 2014)

summerdays said:


> I too did mine in the playground with cones. Strangely enough I found it rather a different experience when I went out on the road. I think it's good that the kids today learn on the road.


of course it's not the same as on the road... there's no 'strangely enough' about it. 

Looking back, i recall really struggling to do a shoulder check without also steering in the same direction, and my first few hand signals were really wobbly too (especially for left turns)... I'm glad i got the hang of that in the school playground as opposed to the main road on the other side of the railings.


----------



## byegad (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> The exclusion fear is not just the fear of legal exclusion. Build a crap cycle path by the side of a road, complete with give way signs at every junction and many drivers expect you to use it. That expectation will get increasingly tested by drivers' insurance companies. Sooner or later it will erode our simple right to use our roads.



I was about to write something like this. 

IF the cycle paths that were built in the UK were clear of obstruction, had right of way over side roads and were properly maintained including gritting in the winter, then maybe I'd agree with our using footpaths that came up to that standard. But they don't and they don't by a huge margin. Riding on a footpath is damn dangerous in a built up are with lots of side roads. Out on the open road where little if any foot traffic ventures they can be littered with glass, litter and have a surface akin to riding on rubble. 

If we are not happy about riding on a particular road then maybe using an under used footpath will make you feel safer. But in the long run it raises the already common perception that we shouldn't be on the road.


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Jun 2014)

User13710 said:


> Sorry about your injury @wiggydiggy but the answer is not removing you from the road, but making the road safer for you.



You've not read it either then

Not me, someone I dont know - crushed on Friday 1530ish in a 'serious' accident....


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Jun 2014)

I will say BTW I agree completely with sticking to the road, as I am allowed to, but I do go out of my way to avoid certain roads like this one I highlighted.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Yea it could, but the point I am trying to make is many cyclists seem to have this righteous attitude, I do about 7,000 miles a year and I see more disregard for road/path rules committed by cyclists, I also see per 100 more bad cycling that is likely to cause injury than per 100 cars/vans/trucks, last night on my way home from Wakefield, I saw a guy on a mountain bike go down the out side of a waiting queue of traffic of which i was part of, go through a red light at speed, then speed up the central part of a crossing cross on the pedestrian crossing and then re join the road, I have had bike jump of paths into my path, I have seen a cyclist riding a bike on a FOOTpath no hands drinking smoking and on the phone (better rider than me I couldn't do it) I see cyclist on paths cross a junction as in from one path to the next, then use a zebra to get to the other side, so many things its no wonder car drivers have no respect when I as a cyclist see all this, you may say but these are not cyclists but they are, like I said I dont use cycle paths I personal think most cycle lanes are a waste of money certainly the one from here to Wakefield is car its a discretionary one not maintained as a cycle lane surface breaking up ect and stops where it would be needed most on a slight climb but quite steep which has the narrowest of footpaths next to it single file pedestrians at best. I know that most uses of shared path ways are responsible like most road users, but cyclists have a bad reputation, why do you think that is, and how can we as cyclists correct the bad cycling, dont get me wrong I am not a perfect cyclist, quite bad sometimes but I never try to put others at risk.



So what do you expect us to do about these errant cyclists you claim to have seen?

You clearly have a car and are a driver, so how do explain that being a driver that you are part of a group that kills over 2000 people every year and seriously injures thousands more? I see so many drivers speeding, tail gating, driving and dialling, drink driving, driving with defective cars, over taking on blind bends, RLJing, crashing off the roads, crashing into other cars, cyclists and pedestrians; it's all your fault! Come on, what you going to do about these errant drivers?!

"dont get me wrong I am not a perfect cyclist, quite bad sometimes but I never try to put others at risk"

You are a troll.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3143071, member: 30090"]No, no and no. Peds sit above cyclists in the give way of things. If you have to use an airzound on a ped then YOU are doing something wrong. Why revert to some 110db horn when an 'excuse me' or 'on your right' will suffice?[/QUOTE]

Because you live in this nostalgic 1930s Britain where cyclists wear tweeds and every one greets each other as if in a Jane Austen novel "How do you do?" You carry on with your antiquated geriatric "Excuse me" and I'll carry on with my Airzound but I bet you will have a collision before me. Your approach is totally inadequate in this modern age of travel be it on the roads or cycle paths. Given that most peds and cyclists have ear phones glued into their heads how do you suggest that you attract their attention to your presence or a car, van, bus or tipper truck about to drive over you?


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

gavroche said:


> I think pedestrians are to blame for not knowing how to use shared paths. They tend to walk using the full width of the path and people with dogs with extending dog leads are the worst! Those leads are lethal as usually, their master is on one side of the path and the dog on the other, with that thin lead between the two.



Agree with all the above and especially the latter. They are a frikin' menace. Some months ago now some stupid woman was doing just this on the GBW and I unwittingly cycled between her and dog, unfortunately didn't use the Airzound on this occasion and didn't see the long extendable lead going diagonally across the whole width of the path, ended up dragging the mutt along, the long lead becoming all tangled in my front wheel and mudguard and bringing me to stop. I was not happy, bending my front mudguard and she was shouting all sorts of abuse at me, at me, when it was her bloody fault! The dozy *&£$! I think the dog was ok. It was one of those small yappy things that won't shut up. Anyway it could have been a salami sausage dog if it had gone through my wheel.


----------



## Glow worm (22 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Because you live in this nostalgic 1930s Britain where cyclists wear tweeds and every one greets each other as if in a Jane Austen novel "How do you do?" You carry on with your antiquated geriatric "Excuse me" and I'll carry on with my Airzound but I bet you will have a collision before me. Your approach is totally inadequate in this modern age of travel be it on the roads or cycle paths. Given that most peds and cyclists have ear phones glued into their heads how do you suggest that you attract their attention to your presence or a car, van, bus or tipper truck about to drive over you?



I don't think it's anything to do with the 1930's just common decency surely? I can't imagine any possible circumstance where use of an airzound on peds could be deemed necessary. Peds dawdle- it's what they do- and have every right to do, and it's our responsibility to look out for them I would have thought. 

Tomorrow morning, instead of a blast on the horn Crankers, try a 'morning, lovely day' instead- you might find you prefer it!


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

Glow worm said:


> I don't think it's anything to do with the 1930's just common decency surely? I can't imagine any possible circumstance where use of an airzound on peds could be deemed necessary. Peds dawdle- it's what they do- and have every right to do, and it's our responsibility to look out for them I would have thought.
> 
> Tomorrow morning, instead of a blast on the horn Crankers, try a 'morning, lovely day' instead- you might find you prefer it!




No chance. I would prefer to stay up right. And I do look out for pedestrians. When I see them and where I think there is a potential for collision I warn them using my horn, which is what you would do in a car. In any case you haven't explained how you would alert other road users like cars, vans, etc to your presence? Where do you ride, some sort of idyllic village in Midsummer Murders?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (22 Jun 2014)

User13710 said:


> the answer is not removing you from the road, but making the road safer for you.


Any viable ideas on how to achieve this?
Personally, on my commute, that is when I'm cycling to go places not bimbling about taking pictures  I dislike having to detour through parks, shared paths, dubious cycle tracks, but what can I do?
Getting beeped off the road, righteous with my cycle training, is stressing me out. Accommodating traffic gets you close passes, proper road positioning gets you shouted at from car windows.
Drivers don't want cyclists on the roads, walkers don't want them in the parks - see the recent proposal by Glasgow City council to limit bike speed in parks at 5mph.
Really, more dedicated segregated infrastructures seem to be the solution for us utilitarians. The roadies could of course carry on as they are, I think the fear of not being allowed on the roads if there are other facilities is a bit far fetched.
Did this happen in other countries where cycling is more mainstream?


----------



## Glow worm (22 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Where do you ride, some sort of idyllic village in Midsummer Murders?



Probably not very dissimilar spots to you I guess. I just don't go out every day spoiling for a fight!


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

Glow worm said:


> Probably not very dissimilar spots to you I guess. I just don't go out every day spoiling for a fight!



No, you just start them on internet forums. Your assumptions and prejudices not mine claiming that I go out spoiling for a fight. I don't, but perhaps you would if you had one. You wouldn't be retired or over 60 years old by any chance?


----------



## Dan B (22 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> I do look out for pedestrians. When I see them and where I think there is a potential for collision I warn them using my horn, which is what you would do in a car.


What _you_ would do in a car, perhaps. What _I_ would do in a car is what I would do on a bike, which is slow down and be prepared to stop or to take avoiding action.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

Dan B said:


> What _you_ would do in a car, perhaps. What _I_ would do in a car is what I would do on a bike, which is slow down and be prepared to stop or to take avoiding action.



Where have I said that I do not do this? It is my impression that your assumption of me is that I don't do this which is wrong. Just because I have an Airzound doesn't mean I don't take care around pedestrians. The wrong assumptions are yours. And in a car you have a horn to alert others to your presence where there may be a risk of collision. Use of it does not mean you drive less cautiously or prudently. Get over it, it is a horn a warning device!


----------



## Glow worm (22 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> You wouldn't be retired or over 60 years old by any chance?



No and no. Must do better!


----------



## SpokeyDokey (22 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> did you read the last sentence in the post you're replying to? It mentioned something about common sense... something your rant lacks.



No need to be rude. I think it is all common sense so we'll have to agree to differ.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (22 Jun 2014)

morrisman said:


> a speedo to be fitted - *NO* - in my experience it just makes you go faster
> compulsory helmets - *NO* - no scientific proof they do any good
> compulsory third party insurance - *MAYBE* - I have some
> a compulsory test - *NO* - Mainly because it would put people off cycling, plus at what age would it be needed
> ...



So what if a test puts people off of cycling - if they are not competent enough to be on the road then they shouldn't be on it. That's the same as saying that we shouldn't have driving tests for cars etc in case it puts some people off. 

So a 5 year old or 10 year old on an A Road is ok? 

Why a 'maybe' for insurance? What would make a cyclist different to other road users?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (22 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Get a criminal justice system that is prepared to enforce the law properly from top to bottom.


Utopia imo.
Cycling laws would be at the bottom of the list anyway.
Any more concrete suggestions, for the here and now?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144282, member: 45"]Competent enough for what? Competent enough to ride amongst drivers who do what they should be doing, or competent enough to manage the roads as they are today?[/QUOTE]

I think that's a good question tbh and one that applies equally to the tests applied to car drivers.

As far as I know the current driving test equips new drivers to manage current road conditions and give them a decent platform to grow their skills from as it would be impossible to legislate for every scenario in a driving test. I realise we can split hairs on this until the cows come home but I don't think I am too far off beam.

The same could/should be applied to new road users who are cyclists - it seems odd that someone can go buy a bike and immediately start using it on a road without having a clue as to what the content of the highway code is and how to actually use a road properly.

I'm not saying that all car drivers are saints and I recognise that many cyclists are drivers too but there's a gap that maybe ought to be filled.

My original point was/is that many cyclists are happy to wax lyrical about how other road users should behave but as soon as there is mention of imposing some control eg testing and some sensible precautions eg insurance then there is resistance.


----------



## Dan B (22 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Where have I said that I do not do this? It is my impression that your assumption of me is that I don't do this which is wrong.


My assumption is based on your claim upthread that pedestrians don't know how to use shared use paths. Here's a free clue: any pedestrian walking along a shared use path who can avoid walking into other pedestrians, infants, and street furniture knows all they need to know about how to use a shared use path as a pedestrian. If you can't ride a bike in the same space as them without hitting them, then get off and walk because that's your fault not theirs. If you bring the risk, you assume the responsibility.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (22 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144298, member: 45"]When I'm on the Camel Trail I'm very relaxed. I'm not tense when riding the A38, but it requires a very different state of mind.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I can't face my version of the A38 when I'm tired from work, or the visibility is poor, or it's rush hour.
So I cheat using a wee bit of pavement hardly trafficked by pedestrians, or I'll walk the bit.
Of course at 6am it's road all the way, downhill complex right turn and all


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

Dan B said:


> My assumption is based on your claim upthread that pedestrians don't know how to use shared use paths. Here's a free clue: any pedestrian walking along a shared use path who can avoid walking into other pedestrians, infants, and street furniture knows all they need to know about how to use a shared use path as a pedestrian. If you can't ride a bike in the same space as them without hitting them, then get off and walk because that's your fault not theirs. If you bring the risk, you assume the responsibility.



Maybe you should go back up the thread and check again who posted this as it wasn't me.


----------



## theclaud (22 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Just because I have an Airzound doesn't mean I don't take care around pedestrians.



True... but it's a relatively reliable indicator that you cycle like a right nobber.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2014)

theclaud said:


> True... but it's a relatively reliable indicator that you cycle like a right nobber.



Yeah and you're a nobber/nobbette too …………. You been on the vodka or meths again, you would have to have been to make such nasty spiteful childish insults unless you are actually a nasty spiteful person?


----------



## theclaud (22 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Yeah and you're a nobber/nobbette too …………. You been on the vodka or meths again, you would have to have been to make such nasty spiteful childish insults* unless you are actually a nasty spiteful person?*



It's not me that blasts airzounds at strolling lovers...


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> So what do you expect us to do about these errant cyclists you claim to have seen?
> 
> You clearly have a car and are a driver, so how do explain that being a driver that you are part of a group that kills over 2000 people every year and seriously injures thousands more? I see so many drivers speeding, tail gating, driving and dialling, drink driving, driving with defective cars, over taking on blind bends, RLJing, crashing off the roads, crashing into other cars, cyclists and pedestrians; it's all your fault! Come on, what you going to do about these errant drivers?!
> 
> ...


F you I ride over 7,000 miles a year on my bike, how far do you ride.
http://www.strava.com/athletes/760167

I don't claim it, it is what I see, and neither I am a perfect cyclist, none of us are, as none of us are perfect car drivers truck/buses drivers.
I have had a very close incident with a car RLJ, been nearly forced off the road by a learner PSV (whos fault was his or the instructor), been nearly took out by an on coming overtaking car at speed (that was scary because it was so close), I passed my driving test first time my HGV with only 2 minor faults (can't remember what they were now) on the HGV I had to do the theory test with 34 out of 35 on the highway code and I can't remember the hazard perception score but the guy doing the test said I had one of the highest scores ever to go through Gillingham, it was drilled into me about the use of mirrors whilst learning to drive a truck, I have driven in most counties & cities in this country up to 80,000 miles a year, driven in some of the worst weather this country can through at you in winter, talking of winter here you are my bike from last winter after a 20 mile or so ride.





What is your experience


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> I think that's a good question tbh and one that applies equally to the tests applied to car drivers.
> 
> As far as I know the current driving test equips new drivers to manage current road conditions and *give them a decent platform to grow their skills from* as it would be impossible to legislate for every scenario in a driving test. I realise we can split hairs on this until the cows come home but I don't think I am too far off beam.
> 
> ...



1. We have a driver in the house that passed his test just a few years ago and I feel safer when he drives than when with his mother. 
2. A very valid point, probably why so many jump red lights as they don't know its an offence. 
3. I think I covered this re. insurance on a previous post.

@User article in the Times

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3986796.ece


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jun 2014)

theclaud said:


> It's not me that blasts airzounds at strolling lovers...



Yeah, but watching them dance the Funky Pedestrian when you give a full blast at 3 paces is good fun


----------



## swansonj (23 Jun 2014)

theclaud said:


> True... but it's a relatively reliable indicator that you cycle like a right nobber.


I had an Airzound for a while. I used it infrequently enough on motor vehicles, which is why I took it off; but to even contemplate using it on pedestrians would to be in a mindset that is alien to all the reasons I cycle in the first place.


----------



## Mugshot (23 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Because you live in this nostalgic 1930s Britain where cyclists wear tweeds and every one greets each other as if in a Jane Austen novel "How do you do?" You carry on with your antiquated geriatric "Excuse me" and I'll carry on with my Airzound but *I bet you will have a collision before me*. Your approach is totally inadequate in this modern age of travel be it on the roads or cycle paths. Given that most peds and cyclists have ear phones glued into their heads *how do you suggest that you attract their attention to your presence or a car, van, bus or tipper truck about to drive over you?*


Bet you're glad you had the airzound to attract the attention of the driver that nearly knocked you off at at the back end of last year, could have been nasty otherwise.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144520, member: 45"]Thanks. Some interesting points in that. It seems that the safest option for pedestrians, given the interpretation of the statistics, is if cyclists are on the pavement with them.[/QUOTE]
Not quite sure about that from my point of view.


----------



## byegad (23 Jun 2014)

My 'into town' trike has three warning sounds, a polite little dinger bell. A big loud Dong-Dong bell and an Air Zound. The Zound has twice saved me from a collision. Once when a car started to pull out of a junction without looking my way, I was touching 30mph as it was down a slight hill in Darlington. (All 'hills' in Darlington are slight. The second time in Durham City, where there are some goodly hills, a bus tried to left hook me coming up alongside and then swinging in towards me. Both times the driver's first response was to brake hard, then look for what made the sound. As my Kettwiesel has a fairly imposing on road presence, made larger by the Streamer fairing and me in a bright red top, there really was no excuse for them not seeing me.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144529, member: 45"]Most cyclist-ped collisions are on the road, and 60% of cyclist-ped collisions are the fault of the pedestrian.[/QUOTE]
I know where you were coming from. The point I was making or trying to make from my point of view is that I actually feel less safe on a shared cycle path than the road, but as I said in a previous post I have a lot of road experience, and for the most part I know what cars ect are doing just from their road position, I can't take into account cars just pulling out even though they should have seen me (as has happened, no damages apart from a broken water bottle cage), getting left hooked this too has happened but usually I have presence of mind to understand, check the vehicle overtaking check if any indicators are on and brake hard if need be, that's possible saved my life at least once and maybe twice.
However in the distance I ride I still see more bad cycling than bad car driving, it tends to be less dangerous though, but still can be dangerous, as @SpokeyDokey says its down to knowledge or rather lack of it, and whilst most riders on this forum are sensible ( I hope) out in the real world a lot of cyclists are not and it's this that gives cyclists a bad reputation. 
I have had on numerous occasions had words with cyclists, whilst on my bike for jumping red lights, going down the inside of traffic, one set of lights near me is so dangerous that I have been nearly taken out on it, seen other in the same situation and we on both occasions were on green, you simple can not see up the roads from the white line its why it has a set of lights. The guy I recently had words with about going up on the left, told me he had been knocked off and had got plates ect, and I thought I am not surprised. 
I know a little away from cyclists on footpaths, but foot paths are foot paths, I will get into B.O.A.T.'s if you want.
There is a clear definition in this country or there was as to the level of path/road use

Footpath - people only
Bridleway, horses and people
B.O.A.T. - byway open to all traffic
Roads - open to all
Motorways - vehicles only.


----------



## morrisman (23 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> So what if a test puts people off of cycling - if they are not competent enough to be on the road then they shouldn't be on it. That's the same as saying that we shouldn't have driving tests for cars etc in case it puts some people off.
> 
> So a 5 year old or 10 year old on an A Road is ok?
> 
> Why a 'maybe' for insurance? What would make a cyclist different to other road users?


You assume that people will who are put off are also incompetent. I know people who are perfectly competent at tasks who would fall to pieces if you said they had to pass a test before doing the task. Plus to carry on your car analogy would we need a fleet of tandems to allow 'learners' to be controlled by a 'licensed' rider whilst they build their competence?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

morrisman said:


> You assume that people will who are put off are also incompetent. I know people who are perfectly competent at tasks who would fall to pieces if you said they had to pass a test before doing the task. *Plus to carry on your car analogy would we need a fleet of tandems to allow 'learners' to be controlled by a 'licensed' ri*der whilst they build their competence?


Motor cyclists don't pass their test like that.


----------



## swansonj (23 Jun 2014)

Nigelnaturist said:


> There is a clear definition in this country or there was as to the level of path/road use
> 
> Footpath - people only
> Bridleway, horses and people
> ...


Correction - motorways are for certain motor vehicles only, not "vehicles only". You may think that's a needless pedantry and it's obvious that's what you meant. But slipping into the habit of assuming that "vehicle" means "motor vehicle" and that cycles are not vehicles is all part of the slide into evicting cyclists from the roads, and, for those of us who want to retain use of the roads as much as possible, something to be resisted. There are oh so many instances from history where the first step to victimising a group of people was to relabel them.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144582, member: 45"] But, and I said this yesterday, if drivers drove as they're supposed to then a cyclist would be able to wobble around, dawdle and generally ride at their own pace without any powered vehicle coming anywhere near them. *As it is, most drivers don't give cyclists the amount of space that they should* and so cyclists have to become over-competent. And many of them would be angered at the sight of a wobbler and complain that they shouldn't be on the road as they're not competent enough.[/QUOTE]
I agree but is this down to the understanding of how other road user need to use the road or just bad manners, I suspect its both, and is the new style driving test having an overall improvement as to awareness of new car drivers. I would say it has, but I can't back it up much other than in that I notice those that tend to wait behind me seem to be on the younger side, though all ages do, again its not a major problem for me, and I try and thank those that do. 
A lot of drivers are unaware of the vortex (especially at speed) a moving vehicle creates, again awareness and this is something as far as I am aware is not taught to drivers, but I could be corrected on that point. 
I knew the highway code inside and out when I was 10-11 years old, maybe kids should be tested on it as part of the school curriculum at least then they would have a basic understanding of the guide lines (The Highway Code, being just that not law) so no matter on what level their competence to ride a bike at least they would know what's the right and wrong thing to do, also maybe a regular test for other road users, not a full test but a competence test which would include the theory test as I am pretty sure many would fail it.

I try and support the rights of all users if following basic guide lines, I go on rides to try and raise awareness of the cyclist to other road users.

I am not anti car/bike/truck/bus (though I am a little concerned about the oil dependency thing, but thats a different issue), but if we all follow the basic guide lines there should be no animosity between road users, but that is a utopia its not going to happen, so as cyclists we have to ride to the best of our abilities, concentrate on what's next not what's just happened as it's the next one that's likely to kill not the one that's just past.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

swansonj said:


> Correction - motorways are for certain motor vehicles only, not "vehicles only". You may think that's a needless pedantry and it's obvious that's what you meant. But slipping into the habit of assuming that "vehicle" means "motor vehicle" and that cycles are not vehicles is all part of the slide into evicting cyclists from the roads, and, for those of us who want to retain use of the roads as much as possible, something to be resisted. There are oh so many instances from history where the first step to victimising a group of people was to relabel them.


Fair point, more me forgetting to put it in than not knowing. 
They also have to be able to maintain a speed which does not cause problems to other road users so this actually counts out most other vehicles i.e. mopeds (though like horse drawn vehicles, these are actually prohibited ), large and slow moving vehicles need special permits and sometimes police escort, extended lorries (usually steel guiders) i.e. 60-70 ft need to follow set route more for the ability to get round certain junctions, runabouts, high loads to avoid low bridges, if you get these wrong you face hefty fines.


----------



## swansonj (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144604, member: 45"]Horses aren't vehicles and are "traffic".

Really, we need to stop trying to put cycles alongside powered road vehicles. There is no comparison, and to try to do so is restricting the bicycle to only one of its many roles. There is never going to be a law which prevents cyclists from using the road. Let's focus on what we should be rather than the fear of something that's not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
But it's not just laws, is it (though I am not as relaxed as you about the impossibility of laws). It's the bloke who shouts out of his window at you "you should be on the cycle path" as he passes you too closely. And it's the highway engineer who uprates a road to near motorway standard without providing alternatives for non-motorway traffic. Never mind future laws, both of those happen now.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144637, member: 45"]That's not strictly true, seeing as a scooter with an engine capacity of 50cc and above is permitted on the motorway.

But saying that, slow speed on the motorway should not cause a problem to other users if they're doing it right. There's that old assumption again.[/QUOTE]
No you can be ask to leave the motorway if your speed is sufficiently low to cause problems to the movement of other road users, which is why slow moving vehicles need permits, anything with an engine above 50cc is not a moped, or even an unrestricted 50cc because its not engine size that determines a moped these days but the restriction, at one point mopeds were unrestricted but had pedals (which is were the term came from motorised with pedals) then they were restricted but could lose the pedals but the term stuck to 50cc motorised bikes.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144604, member: 45"]*Horses aren't vehicles and are "traffic".*

Really, we need to stop trying to put cycles alongside powered road vehicles. There is no comparison, and to try to do so is restricting the bicycle to only one of its many roles. There is never going to be a law which prevents cyclists from using the road. Let's focus on what we should be rather than the fear of something that's not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
They are if pulling something. Traffic is anything moving along a given area.
I don't have a problem with any vehicle using any road/byway open to them. I just think shared cycle paths are not the best thing we have come up with. I can understand M.T.B. on trials, but again this is a grey area in law.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144682, member: 45"]As I said, motorcycles of 50cc and above are permitted on motorways. I said scooters because I know what the definition of a moped is and there are far more 50-125cc scooters than what we'd call motorcycles.

How many vehicles legally using the motorway are asked to leave it?[/QUOTE]
Probably not many but the police have that power. 
They are not restricted on the motorway as they can maintain a reasonable speed as could an unrestricted moped, but as these are restricted and can not maintain a sufficient speed they are not allowed to use them.
Trying to persuade the young fellow here to get a motor bike rather than a scooter, fashion thing I guess.


----------



## vickster (23 Jun 2014)

It's always bus drivers who seem to shout this at me...pure bloody impatience as if I hold them up more than traffic, lights, zebra crossings, not to mention the pesky passengers who want to get on and off the bus, making them stop every 500 yards!


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144683, member: 45"]A horse is not a vehicle.

Cyclists need to stop bickering over whether A is better than B, recognise that this is subjective, and get together to support the protection and growth of both. It doesn't have to be, and certainly shouldn't be, one or the other.[/QUOTE]
"Horse drawn vehicle" springs to mind, like I said they are part of a vehicle if pulling something, the engine if you like, like your the engine on your bike which is a vehicle.

I do agree about getting along and sharing.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144710, member: 45"]The point is that a 100cc scooter would struggle to maintain what those with an engine mindset would consider an appropriate speed on a motorway, whether uphill or with someone riding pillion.[/QUOTE]
It will maintain 50mph easy enough. My truck would do no more than 53mph on the flat unloaded. We are taking about maintaining a bear minimum of speed so as to keep traffic moving (though there are probably more accidents that slow it down anyway), I have seen signs on certain stretches of urban motorways that have or did have the minimum blue speed sign, if memory serves me right these were usually 30mph, they weren't common and are more used on trunk and other major roads.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

I am off to do some photograph, obviously we will disagree about certain things, but I think we both agree about better awareness and willingness to share all round, is the way we need to go for all road uses.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144726, member: 45"]Some 100c scooters will struggle to maintain 40mph climbing a hill of the gradient that you can find on a motorway with someone on the back.[/QUOTE]
So would my truck fully loaded 20mph on some of them, so 40 is quite fast.


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Jun 2014)

User said:


> As far as I am concerned, the overwhelming of all of this is about educating drivers.


I think we all agree on that... especially the nobber drivers like a very close relative of mine who criticises cyclists for being on the road instead of on a dedicated cycle track, then criticises them for being on the pavement instead of on the the road  Make yer fecking mind up!!!

But educating drivers shouldn't be instead of creating a decent cycling infrastructure, it should be as well as.... the main problem is they are creating a cycling infrastructure of sorts, but not really addressing the issue of educating drivers.

I suggest all drivers undertake re-training/refresher courses every five years in order to retain their driving licence. These courses should be free, compulsory, and the syllabus determined by representatives from various groups of road users (utility cyclists, road/race cyclists, horse riders, HGV, PCV, mobility scooters, the Tufty club and so on). How would our driver/cyclists feel about this?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (23 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> I think we all agree on that... especially the nobber drivers like a very close relative of mine who criticises cyclists for being on the road instead of on a dedicated cycle track, then criticises them for being on the pavement instead of on the the road  Make yer fecking mind up!!!
> 
> But educating drivers shouldn't be instead of creating a decent cycling infrastructure, it should be as well as.... the main problem is they are creating a cycling infrastructure of sorts, but not really addressing the issue of educating drivers.
> 
> I suggest all drivers undertake re-training/refresher courses every five years in order to retain their driving licence. These courses should be free, compulsory, and the *syllabus determined by representatives from various groups of road users* (utility cyclists, road/race cyclists, horse riders, HGV, PCV, mobility scooters, the Tufty club and so on). How would our driver/cyclists feel about this?


The current driving tests are specific, questions relating to PSV or HGV.
It shouldn't be free to retain your license as it should be a matter of keeping up with current regulations, it shouldn't be down to tax payers to fund it.


----------



## Dan B (23 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Maybe you should go back up the thread and check again who posted this as it wasn't me.


OK ...


gavroche said:


> I think pedestrians are to blame for not knowing how to use shared paths. [rant]





Crankarm said:


> Agree with all the above [more rant]


----------



## Learnincurve (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3144673, member: 45"]

The latter is an interesting proposition. Do you have much evidence of this emerging? I'm seeing the opposite -that there's more and more cycling provision going in with new roads. It's not always the best design, but much of it is pretty good.[/QUOTE]

Chesterfield, just chesterfield in general. I'm not sure of the exact details because I can't drive and it all started happening a couple of years before I moved back here but they made two roads duel carriageways, extended something near Hasland (you can see a lot more mess on google maps to the east side of chesterfield towards bolsover as well) and recently opened some motorway shopping junction thing. On the west side we have chesterfield to chatsworth/the rest of Derbyshire which has two roads running parallel to each other a nice safe B road and then an A road with HGVs thundering along on it, it becomes a problem when the two roads merge. On top of that there is a regeneration scheme that seems to have halted and taken out one of the bike paths with it because the council are saying cutting back the nettles is the regeneration people's problem. 

In a nut shell chesterfield cycling campaign seem to be playing catch up with all the road works.


----------



## summerdays (23 Jun 2014)

There is a new (ish) road in Bristol without cycle provision!!! The link road from the A38 to the Mall. It even has signs saying there is a cycle path up in the overgrowth at the side of the road. The signs were put up 3 years ago when Bovis started building and they have failed to provide the cycle path or even a path. That is why you see the more in experienced and pedestrians cycling along the central raised area in the middle of the road. It really annoys me as it means the easiest ways to get to the Mall are either the car or the bus.


----------



## Learnincurve (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3145120, member: 45"]Thanks. So what does the council cycling network say about these roads and alternative routes?[/QUOTE]
http://www.chesterfieldcc.org.uk/node/4 the summer 2014 pdf gives a good overview of the campaign in general 

http://www.chesterfieldcc.org.uk/publications/cycleinteractiveframe.html shows the glaring gaps in the town centre cycle network, bottom right corner just after the roundabout you will see an L and vicar lane, that is the start of the main shopping centre and in actual fact there is a very wide pedestrian pathway running under the duel carriageway leading to it, everyone cycles on that bit of pavement.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (23 Jun 2014)

morrisman said:


> You assume that people will who are put off are also incompetent. I know people who are perfectly competent at tasks who would fall to pieces if you said they had to pass a test before doing the task. Plus to carry on your car analogy would we need a fleet of tandems to allow 'learners' to be controlled by a 'licensed' rider whilst they build their competence?



I agree that's how it reads but it's not what I mean't ie all those who are put off by tests are incompetent. That clearly would not be the case.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (23 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> I think we all agree on that... especially the nobber drivers like a very close relative of mine who criticises cyclists for being on the road instead of on a dedicated cycle track, then criticises them for being on the pavement instead of on the the road  Make yer fecking mind up!!!
> 
> But educating drivers shouldn't be instead of creating a decent cycling infrastructure, it should be as well as.... the main problem is they are creating a cycling infrastructure of sorts, but not really addressing the issue of educating drivers.
> 
> *I suggest all drivers undertake re-training/refresher courses every five years in order to retain their driving licence. These courses should be free, compulsory, and the syllabus determined by representatives from various groups of road users (utility cyclists, road/race cyclists, horse riders, HGV, PCV, mobility scooters, the Tufty club and so on). How would our driver/cyclists feel about this?*



I'd be happy with refresher courses tbh - I think that everyone drifts off the pace over time esp' as road conditions are rapidly changing as each decade rolls by.

I'm of the opinion that a refresher course should mimic the current test.

I have no idea what user groups have any input into the current test arrangements suffice to say that any group who has an input should be part of the same testing process otherwise the proposition veers down an anti-car route which doesn't work for me.


----------



## Learnincurve (23 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3145181, member: 45"]Is there any info on the roads you mention?[/QUOTE]

Full map is a pound from the shop, 

proposed route: http://www.chesterfieldcc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file/maps/ugmap.jpg

Derbyshire county council's smaller map:
http://www.chesterfieldcc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file/maps/cyclederbyshiremap-may2011.pdf

If you look to the west of chesterfield on the council map you can see the A619 to baslow, with the b roads running above it and then the bit that they merge. That part is legitimately the most terrifying bit of road you will ever even drive down let alone ride.


----------



## theclaud (23 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> I'd be happy with refresher courses tbh - I think that everyone drifts off the pace over time esp' as road conditions are rapidly changing as each decade rolls by.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that a refresher course should mimic the current test.
> 
> I have no idea what user groups have any input into the current test arrangements suffice to say that any group who has an input should be part of the same testing process otherwise the proposition *veers down an anti-car route which doesn't work for me*.



It works great for me. Cars are a more-or-less unmitigated disaster for social life, public space, health, the ecosystem and the individual imagination. Perhaps the only thing to be said for them is that without them there'd be even fewer places for teenagers to have sex.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (24 Jun 2014)

theclaud said:


> It works great for me. Cars are a more-or-less unmitigated disaster for social life, public space, health, the ecosystem and the individual imagination. Perhaps the only thing to be said for them is that without them there'd be even fewer places for teenagers to have sex.



Social life: not an unmitigated disaster for me quite the opposite in fact.

The ecosystem: where do you stop? Think of the footprint of a bicycle from obtaining the raw materials through to production and transportation to end-user etc. And then there's all the associated paraphernalia of cycle ownership/use and then there is the impact of any current cycle infrastructure that exists and any that may come to fruition.

Public space: not sure what you mean?

Individual imagination: you've lost me!


----------



## SpokeyDokey (24 Jun 2014)

Re #206 & #207

I didn't say a bicycle was worse for the ecosystem I just said where do you stop?

Cars & car users seem to take a fair share of stick on this forum but it's ok to use a bicycle that has created a much bigger carbon footprint than going about your daily business on a pair of bare feet?


----------



## Markymark (24 Jun 2014)

I love my cars.

I love my bikes.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (24 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3146715, member: 45"]Why are you comparing bicycles with walking? We're talking about bikes and cars.[/QUOTE]

No - you are talking about cars and bicycles but I am talking about where do you stop in terms of ecosystem impact which was my point in #205.

Seems to be that there is a whole heap of selectivity going on by some of the cycling community who are happy to bang on about the damage caused by cars to the ecosystem but neglect the fact that their cycle(s) have an environmental impact too. I mentioned bare feet as the truly saintly would spurn bikes and walk everywhere on them.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (24 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3146795, member: 45"]Don't be daft. You can't compare the hugely greater environmental impact that a car has with that of a bike, so you compare a bike with walking. It makes no sense. It's not about being selective at all. It's about the best compromise.

69% of car journeys are less than 5 miles. 19% are less than 2 miles, which at a stretch is a walkable distance. That leaves _50% _of car journeys that are too far to walk but less than 5 miles and so easily cyclable. Those are the kind of stats you need to think about. We could eradicate an enormous number of car journeys if people were to cycle instead, having a significant impact on the environment.

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/w...ost-peoples-transportation-or-commuting-needs[/QUOTE]

Don't be rude - I'm not daft.

Again: the point I am making is that people bash cars for their environmental impact but choose to ignore the environmental impact of their bike. I am not talking about comparative size of impact. I mentioned feet as the logical conclusion as to where you stop re minimising said impact. I said this as I think that some people are selectively righteous - they can have slightly hypocritical opinions when it suits.

I agree with your last para' to an extent. However, where I live I can tell you that a 5 mile journey by bike would not be an easy journey for a large number of people. There are a lot of old people in the village where I live - how would they be able to cycle up steep hills and get their shopping home? We have no bus service btw. Same with the young families who need to get their children to school. If they cannot cycle and shouldn't use a car what are they supposed to do - walk? I wouldn't want my wife to walk the 4 miles to town down a lonely country lane on a pitch black morning with rain pouring down (many mornings in winter are like this up here). A car is a god-send for us and most of the people that live here.


----------



## theclaud (24 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Public space: not sure what you mean?
> *
> Individual imagination: you've lost me!*



My work here is done.

_The habitual passenger cannot grasp the folly of traffic based overwhelmingly on transport. His inherited perceptions of space and time and of personal pace have been industrially deformed. He has lost the power to conceive of himself outside the passenger role. Addicted to being carried along, he has lost control over the physical, social, and psychic powers that reside in man’s feet. The passenger has come to identify territory with the untouchable landscape through which he is rushed. He has become impotent to establish his domain, mark it with his imprint, and assert his sovereignty over it. He has lost confidence in his power to admit others into his presence and to share space consciously with them. He can no longer face the remote by himself. Left on his own, he feels immobile._


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jun 2014)

Hows about some proportionality

The "truly Sainted person" would be naked and starve to death within a few weeks.

This about the "scale" of one's contribution, and taking appropriate measures to reduce one's impact.

There will always be a choice, and it is indisputable that buying a bike and using it will have a massively less environmental impact than buying a car and using it for the same journeys.

Lets take another example... does anyone buy "Fair Trade" produce???


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Jun 2014)

Some of this debate seems to miss the fact that bike sales have recently been outstripping car sales. And where are they? They're making shed loads of bikes already and they're there filling up sheds because of bad provision for cycling safely and enforcement of responsible civic driving. Or because of helmet hair. And so it goes....

Point being that a shift to more cycle use does not even lead to a waste of resources, it leads to a better use of resources. The real waste is when someone gets on the bike that's already been made and bought, gets harassed into the gutter - equally estranged from pavement and road - decides it's too dangerous to cycle and henceforth goes for the car keys as a reflex.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (25 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3146882, member: 45"]Sorry, but your argument is ridiculous. Ridiculous unless you can pull out all of the journeys which we could cycle (and to do that you can exclude the exceptions you're picking, there will still be loads left), and then compare the environmental impact of that with driving the same journey. It's incomparable.

To answer your initial question, you can stop there and you've made a huge difference.

Picking out selective examples rather than looking at statistics and the wider issues is going to get you nowhere. You're well aware that there is a massive number of journeys which could be cycled rather than driven, so I really don't understand why you're trying to play it down.

50%. That's 50%. Can you not appreciate that?[/QUOTE]

Yes - I get your maths.

My point still remains that there are a number of cyclists who berate car owners for their choice of transport but conveniently choose to ignore their own choice which also has an environmental impact. Albeit smaller!

How about instead of buying a bike for all those <5 mile journeys; walk instead?


----------



## summerdays (25 Jun 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Yes - I get your maths.
> 
> My point still remains that there are a number of cyclists who berate car owners for their choice of transport but conveniently choose to ignore their own choice which also has an environmental impact. Albeit smaller!
> 
> How about instead of buying a bike for all those <5 mile journeys; walk instead?


But if I have a bike already for the 20 + miles I did today then it is good use of a resource I already have?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (25 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3149142, member: 45"]You choose to see that as hypocrisy. It's not.

We all have to compromise somewhere. The argument you're using is the same old same old that comes out when someone doesn't like what is being said but can't really fault it - that you're better off doing nothing than something because something is not as good as something more.

And walk a 5-mile commute? Really?

As I've posted in another thread, a friend has just been given a bike that is about 30 years old. It will go for another 30 years, and in 30 years time will be relatively as efficient as a new bike. I don't see many 30-year old cars on the road. Do you?[/QUOTE]

Yes we all compromise somewhere - but your compromise merely suits you. The car owner who drives a few miles has made a compromise that suits him.

Re 5 mile walking commute - 1.5 hours. That would be a lot less time than a lot of people commute so why not? Anyone who cycles that distance as a commute has made a choice because it suits them - same as the car owner. It might be a better choice than the car owner but it's a worse choice than walking.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (26 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3149142, member: 45"]
As I've posted in another thread, a friend has just been given a bike that is about 30 years old. It will go for another 30 years, and in 30 years time will be relatively as efficient as a new bike. I don't see many 30-year old cars on the road. Do you?[/QUOTE]

@SpokeyDokey It has been said it takes more energy to create something than it is ever likely to be used in its life time, and as even the smallest car costs in terms of energy to make is many times more than a bike, the real environment damage is caused during the build, a car is inefficient till it warms up ( a little like the human body) short journeys in cars therefore do even more environmental damage than do longer ones, per mile, where as the bike has virtual none.


----------



## Learnincurve (26 Jun 2014)

You know what the worst car in the world for environmental damage and general all round evil is?

Toyota Prius. Parts of the battery are made from rare earth minerals, mined in china, by children, for pennies a day. There are other sources of rare earth minerals but they are mostly in Australia and the location is very deep in the ground, in the arse end of no where, where the sun personally wants you dead. You can't drive a bio-fuel car either because they are clearing forests and killing all the Orangutans to make it.

Most environmentally friendly car is any that has decent mpg that you intend to run until it falls apart, I would go for a ford focus because my mother had the third ever brought into this country, it's still going and has only ever had the clutch fixed and gearbox replaced once (edit: in 145,000 miles).


----------



## Learnincurve (26 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3149622, member: 45"]The first generation Prius was a waymaker. It wasn't by any means perfect and those frightened of the technology jumped on this to extol its failings.

Without the Prius we wouldn't have progressed to where we are today, with more efficient hybrids and a fairer view of whether the hybrid idea is more efficient than alternatives like smaller engines.[/QUOTE]

The prius is betamax, where we are today is either cars where the engine is electric powered by a petrol generator or a petrol engine with a small secondary electric engine running in tandem to give a HP boost when needed. The future is hydrogen powered cars. 

But that's beside the point, when your failings are that you are using a child slave labour force to dig up rare earth minerals during the manufacture of your car then we are into "PETA: we hate people" territory.


----------



## Profpointy (26 Jun 2014)

My understanding is that the prius isn't particularly economical - is it? (compared to a.modest diesel say - obviously its better than a bentley or whatever) . Isn't it just to give some spurious tax fiddle benefit rather than being in any sense greenn


----------



## Learnincurve (26 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3149926, member: 45"]Much of what you're wearing, using, eating, driving is a result of child labour abuse. Why single out the Prius?[/QUOTE]

I don't mean to sound like a smartarse but I'm a seamstress and the material I use is sourced from europe. Technology you have to be careful with granted but I try to not to buy from evil, I only buy food made in the UK, (because my mother's family are farmers) and I can't drive. I'm not some sort of beatnik hippy, it's just that since I had my own kids I've become more horrified with the idea of an 8 year old sat in some sweatshop making my children's shoes and clothes when they should be outside playing with them instead.

edit: I singled out the prius because we were discussing cars that have an environmental impact, and the prius has a terrible one even if the minerals were mined by adults on a fair wage, not discussing primark


----------



## Profpointy (26 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> The future is hydrogen powered cars..


...
so how does that help green-ness - given most electricity generation is still fossil fuels? And wouldn't it perhaps be better to use fossil fuels such directly rather than converting to hydrogen first.

Ok perhaps if we fully go nuclear - but not until then surely


----------



## Learnincurve (26 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> ...
> so how does that help green-ness - given most electricity generation is still fossil fuels? And wouldn't it perhaps be better to use fossil fuels such directly rather than converting to hydrogen first.
> 
> Ok perhaps if we fully go nuclear - but not until then surely



Because the aim is to ultimately convert from water directly, right now the hydrogen they are using is a byproduct of many processes and the only emissions from the engines are water. It's all fascinating stuff but I have the school run.


----------



## Profpointy (26 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> Because the aim is to ultimately convert from water directly, right now the hydrogen they are using is a byproduct of many processes and the only emissions from the engines are water. It's all fascinating stuff but I have the school run.



I was afraid you'd say that - you do realise you have to put energy in to "convert from water directly" ? 

And I'm very sceptical about spare hydrogen being a bi-product


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

IMO if people aren't confident to cycle out on any legal road they shouldn't be allowed to drive either.

It's not that cycling is dangerous or hostile, it's that most people want to drive cars places. It's that simple. They know that if cycling reached a critical mass that the number of cars could be driven down to a comfortable level, but they don't care, because they want to drive. As cyclists we need to learn to accept that we are not a priority and ensure that our relations with other traffic are as smooth as possible.

On another note, if I had kids I would certainly teach them to walk down a road like the A5, because if they could cope with such a busy road they would be fit to cope with anything. And parents should think the same way for young cyclists. You can choose whether to think of motorists as a threat or users to get along with.


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

I'm not a cyclist because I'm not driving one right now. I'm only a cyclist when I'm physically on a bike.

I hope you're not browsing the forum whilst being a cyclist, that would be pretty dangerous.


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Don't be silly


You're being silly by using the definition of cyclist that constitutes being part of your fanclub.


----------



## MontyVeda (29 Jun 2014)

Paspie said:


> ...
> As cyclists we need to learn to accept that we are not a priority and ensure that our relations with other traffic are as smooth as possible.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you're getting at here... but I'll have a try at paraphrasing it (AKA, putting words in your mouth)

as a cyclist, i should accept that the car is king of the road, and as a cyclist, i should ensure i don't get in the way of a car.​
I've probably grabbed the wrong end of the stick, but as i say, it's unclear what you're saying.


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3155013, member: 45"]A5 - how old?[/QUOTE]Over 90 years old; the designation probably dates from the early 1920s.


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

User said:


> I wasn't though. I was more thinking in terms of someone who rides a bicycle.


Most people can ride a bike, I think you'll find...some choose to do it more often than others.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Jun 2014)

Cyclist: A person who rides a bicycle.

(Note that it's usual to _ride _a bike, not to _drive_ one.)


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Read what I wrote, not can ride a bike, do ride a bike.


Well I'm afraid that's too vague a definition for me to work with. What does it mean?


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Cyclist: A person who rides a bicycle.


They mean a person who is riding a bike.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Jun 2014)

Paspie said:


> Well I'm afraid that's too vague a definition for me to work with. What does it mean?


It means you're going to have to write your own personal dictionary.


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

No, it means you are free to make up your own interpretation of any definition you like.


----------



## summerdays (29 Jun 2014)

There are a lot of people who don't have the confidence to ride on the roads, I know I was one of them 8 years ago. Doesn't matter what it is, if you haven't done it before generally you lack confidence. Now put that together with a knowledge that people can be killed on the roads and it is understandable that they are wary of going on the roads.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Jun 2014)

The definition I gave is a link to Oxford Dictionary's definition.


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

You are supposed to be wary because you are more vulnerable than others, that is in our nature. Whether I'm a pedestrian or cyclist I'm going to take the necessary precautions because of that.


----------



## Dan B (29 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3155061, member: 30090"]No, no, no. Divert the thread onto the topic of Green laning and let the fireworks begin.[/QUOTE]
Have the fireworks been carbon-offsetted?


----------



## Paspie (29 Jun 2014)

Remarkably, I found an almost identical argument on another cycling forum I frequent:



> how do you define a cyclist?
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=71875.0

Oxford still hasn't provided me a way to distinguish rides as in rides frequently or unfrequently, or is actually riding a bike in present time.


----------



## morrisman (30 Jun 2014)

Paspie said:


> Oxford still hasn't provided me a way to distinguish rides as in rides frequently or unfrequently, or is actually riding a bike in present time.



The beauty of English is that we have a whole subset of words called adjectives that add information to nouns. So I think you are looking for - keen cyclists - infrequent cyclists - long distance cyclists - nobber cyclists, etc etc.


----------



## Paspie (30 Jun 2014)

But if the term does imply the frequency of cycling trips, where is the threshold between cyclist and non-cyclist? Where would children (who may not ride much later in life) fall? The black and white variant ('someone who is _riding_ a bike') is much simpler and shouldn't need any questioning.

It shouldn't matter for the sake of discussion anyway. I had other points earlier, if you're going to cherrypick one of them and lead an endless debate on it then I don't see why I should bother.


----------



## Dan B (30 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3155080, member: 45"]Horses are rubbish.[/QUOTE]
But what else is there to do in Cheltenham? Apart from riding "PTW"s of course


----------



## Paspie (30 Jun 2014)

I'm comfortable with my definition, you're comfortable with your definition. There's no need to argue over it, that wasn't my intention.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (30 Jun 2014)

Paspie said:


> I'm comfortable with my definition, you're comfortable with your definition. There's no need to argue over it, that wasn't my intention.


The fact that there's no need to argue about it begs the question why bother quibbling about it in the first place. I do believe you started it. What was your intention then?


----------



## MontyVeda (30 Jun 2014)

since that silly chat is out of the way... can i ask this again?



Paspie said:


> ...
> As cyclists we need to learn to accept that we are not a priority and ensure that our relations with other traffic are as smooth as possible.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you're getting at here... but I'll have a try at paraphrasing it (AKA, putting words in your mouth)

as a cyclist, i should accept that the car is king of the road, and as a cyclist, i should ensure i don't get in the way of a car.​
I've probably grabbed the wrong end of the stick, but as i say, it's unclear what you're saying.


----------



## Paspie (30 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> since that silly chat is out of the way... can i ask this again?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here... but I'll have a try at paraphrasing it (AKA, putting words in your mouth)
> ...


You can't paraphrase it and then answer the paraphased version, that is dishonest.

I didn't imply that cars were superior, what I mean is that cyclists are not the only fish in the sea. As road users we are all equal.

As for the definition debate: I was the one who gave a definition to begin with, others decided to be offended and questioned it.


----------



## Scoosh (30 Jun 2014)

MOD NOTE:
This has been going round in circles for a few pages, so it's probably time to lock it.

Hope you enjoy other threads on CC - and, yes there are _lots_ of them !


----------

