Why is riding on the footpath an offence?

[SpokeyDokey]

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

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"]

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]

[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]

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"]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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.