Half Cyclist????

[Night Train]

All road users have a responsibility and drivers are, or at least when I taught them, taught to take account of other road users who may be travelling eratically or to do unexpected things. That would include all other road users a a part of hazard perception and defensive driving. I don't know what cyclist or hosre riders are taught for road use.

So I think whatever your mode of transport, 'expect the unexpected and assume all the other people are out to get you'. That way you don't have an incident because someone else did something wrong, as we all sometimes do.

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

All road users have a responsibility and drivers are, or at least when I taught them, taught to take account of other road users who may be travelling eratically or to do unexpected things. That would include all other road users a a part of hazard perception and defensive driving. I don't know what cyclist or hosre riders are taught for road use.

So I think whatever your mode of transport, 'expect the unexpected and assume all the other people are out to get you'. That way you don't have an incident because someone else did something wrong, as we all sometimes do.

Here Here!!!

 

[mickle]

.......and realise that one is not more important or more entitled to be on the road than the other.

Wrong. You seem to have ignored my point brainiac. Cyclists are entitled, motorists require licences, one for themselves and one for their veehicle. Their veehicle is required to pass regular safety inspections in line with Ministry of Transport regulations. Oh and the vehicle needs a valid VED, oh and insurance.

Cyclists are entitled to use the road.
Motorists are not entitled to use the road.

It's the law. Simple.

And your attitude simply proves my earlier point, that many motorists feel they have more right to use the road than cyclists.

 

[mickle]

Oh., and calm the feck down by the way.

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

Just to clarify, I have not ignored nor missed your point.

My point is that all road usersd should be equal. Just because cyclist are 'entitled' to be there and drivers are not, does that mean that their life is any less precious??? Think not!!

Oh, and I'm perfectly calm now that I dont have to drive 16 tonne bendy buses and swerve out of the way of unruly car drivers and cyclists, thanks.

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

Theres just no reasoning with people on here sometimes is there.

I try to make a fair point which most people agree with. Get rid of the "Blame Game" attitude from both sides and roads will be safer. But theres always some guy who feels aggrieved and has to point out that car owners must pay "this" and have "that" to be on the road. Well D'uh!!!
Everyones known it for years and if thats the only sort of mince that Senior Member 'Mickle' can spout well then I'm ashamed to have become a regular cyclist, as he seems to have a pretty serious 'beef' with car users.
As stated earlier, most cyclist do actually still own cars and use them regularly.
EQUALITY MATE, NOT BIAS!!!!!!!

 

[hubgearfreak]

My point is that all road usersd should be equal. Just because cyclist are 'entitled' to be there and drivers are not, does that mean that their life is any less precious???

sorry, am i right in understanding that cyclists or pedestrians kill motorists?

certainly when i'm in my car, i never feel my life threatened by cyclists or pedestrians....but sadly when i'm on my bike, i do feel threatened by motorists. it's not all of them, and i made it clear that it was only some in my first post

all road users aren't equal. those on foot, on bikes and on horses have a right to be there. those in/on motorised things are enjoying a privilege that can be removed

 

[hubgearfreak]

EQUALITY MATE, NOT BIAS!!!!!!!

there is no equality. some are vulnerable, others are driving around in powerful and protected passenger safety cells. and a few of those bully the first group.

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

I just find it a bit weird that so many people think that because they are 'entitled' to be there that the law doesnt apply to them.

Baldy tyres, lane hopping without care, running red lights, road rage?? We are ALL road users supposedly abiding road laws. Just because we are 'entitled' to be there does not mean we get to flout laws.

I sat at traffic lights on my new 18 speed yesterday, they were at red. Being a car driver aswell, a sense of guilt would go through me if I went through a red. But I saw a van and a cyclist go through a blatant red.

Now, are you going to tell me the cyclist was allowed to do that because he is entitled to be there??? No chance.

It cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another, it CANNOT work.

And yes, cyclists CAN cause accidents every bit as much as drivers, although it is a very common fact that statistics show drivers have more accidents.
If a cyclist was to go through a red light or wander across a lane, the drivers of other cars would, I hope, have to take the same evasive action to avoid hitting the cyclist as he would to avoid hitting a car that wandered around a lane or run a red light.
What would happen?? Slam on the brakes!! A cyclist may fall and injure themselves doing this, maybe even be killed. A driver may skid and nothing will happen. Then again, they may skid, lose control, mount a pavement, hit a pedestrian or a lamppost/wall, injuring or killing themselves.
Equality is what I keep saying but it goes unnoticed.
Most people on this forum agreed with Dr Dave Brennan on the news and I believe he was aiming for the same ideals.
So whats the difference here??

 

[Noodley]

Having just picked myself off the floor, I have to clarify something: are you the bloke from "soapbox" a wee while back? Who was complaining about your son being named? If so, I shall fall down on the floor once again...

Good to hear of your "conversion"...and ignore Mickle

 

[Night Train]

there is no equality. some are vulnerable, others are driving around in powerful and protected passenger safety cells. and a few of those bully the first group.

And even when they are not bullying the first group it is still risky for them, the cyclists an motorbikers, as mistakes get made and incidents happen.

When I was doing my driving instructor training I had an argument with the trainer about left shoulder checks.
He said not to do them as it was dangerous.
I said that I did it if saw there was a bike somewhere to my left before I wanted to turn left. I want to know where it has gone if I can't see it in my mirror, and if I can't see it I will have a quick look before I decide if it is safe to proceed.

It was something I learnt doing my HGV that cars, motorbikes and cyclists can, for whatever reason, drive up the nearside blind spot so it must be checked as best as possible before turning and then checked again afterwards to make sure they haven't inadvertantly been hit.

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

sorry, am i right in understanding that cyclists or pedestrians kill motorists?

certainly when i'm in my car, i never feel my life threatened by cyclists or pedestrians....but sadly when i'm on my bike, i do feel threatened by motorists. it's not all of them, and i made it clear that it was only some in my first post

all road users aren't equal. those on foot, on bikes and on horses have a right to be there. those in/on motorised things are enjoying a privilege that can be removed

And why does everyone on this forum act like I'm attacking them when I'm not?
I am now using a bike and seeing a problem too and only call for all road users to respect each other which takes equality!!

If you done the same thing as someone in your workplace and he got paid ten grand more, would you respect him??? Damn right you wouldnt!!

But if you all done the same job and respected each other, happier times would be normal practice

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

Hey Noodley, not sure what soapbox is, but yes, have converted, well halfway anyway, to cycling. Like I said, I enjoy it and understand problems, but too many inflated egos on here make it impossible to suggest any reasonable and practible solutions to problems

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

And even when they are not bullying the first group it is still risky for them, the cyclists an motorbikers, as mistakes get made and incidents happen.

When I was doing my driving instructor training I had an argument with the trainer about left shoulder checks.
He said not to do them as it was dangerous.
I said that I did it if saw there was a bike somewhere to my left before I wanted to turn left. I want to know where it has gone if I can't see it in my mirror, and if I can't see it I will have a quick look before I decide if it is safe to proceed.

It was something I learnt doing my HGV that cars, motorbikes and cyclists can, for whatever reason, drive up the nearside blind spot so it must be checked as best as possible before turning and then checked again afterwards to make sure they haven't inadvertantly been hit.

In my PSV test, we had 5 checks to do b4 moving off. Rear left over shoulder, left mirror, straight ahead, right mirror, rear right over shoulder. So i agree with you there.

 

[Night Train]

If you done the same thing as someone in your workplace and he got paid ten grand more, would you respect him??? Damn right you wouldnt!!

I must say that I would still respect the person earning significantly more then me. I might have less respect for the practices of my agency or my employer though.

It isn't about equality on the roads - it would be great if all were equal in every way but that can't happen unless we all rode bicycles of the same type and there was no other transport sharing the space.
As that isn't going to happen on the public roads then the best that can be hoped for is a good level of mutual respect for the limitations of each type of vehicle and the skills of the driver/rider.