What can be done about adult cyclists riding their bikes on pavements? This problem is particularly prevalent @ the bottom of Ecclesall Road and around SHU, and to make matters worse most of the cyclists regard pedestrians as the transgressors in this matter.

It doesn't really bother me too much, because if you look at it from their point of view, it's a lot safe to ride on the pavement rather than the road. As long as they're careful, then I think it's fair enough.

Does anybody think that cyclists should be made more accountable and perhaps have to be insured when using public highways?

I did a fair bit of cycling before I recently learned to drive and although I've not had any dealings with cyclists since I've been driving, I saw alot of cyclists who took their lives into their own hands by running red lights, mounting pavements in very busy pedestrianised areas and speeding through these areas with little regard for anyone.

I did hear someone say that when they asked a policeman about this, specifically running red lights, he said that they take little or no action with cyclists who run red lights due to the danger they are putting themselves in. If a car hits a bike it's obvious who's going to come off worse so they get minimum protection from the police. Fair enough I think.

I do think that if a bike causes an accident, ie. a car swerves to avoid a wandering cyclist and hits another car or barrier then the cyclist should then be held accountable and be reprimanded for whatever is deemed appropriate.

I don't think that cyclists should have to pay insurance to cycle though. As a former non-driver and low earner it's very helpful to be able to hop on the bike and get around to places that would take much longer by walking and/or bus which may not take the route that you need to take.

Yes. I take your point. I still think that they should have to be accountable to some extent. Perhaps an affordable road tax. I don’t know - £10 a year adults £5 a year kids?

They should also be more strictly forced into wearing highly visible clothing, helmets, and front and back lights. They are difficult to see, especially at this time of year when its dark by 5pm.

Had a cyclist kindly run their handlebar down the side of my motor once. Kindly left me with a false name and address plus the spray job tab. Ta!

Agree with fatjohn about the nominal road tax or would the push iron brigade like to purchase their own paint for the cycle lanes.

I'ts just a thought.

claycraft

Originally posted by fatjohn
Yes. I take your point. I still think that they should have to be accountable to some extent. Perhaps an affordable road tax. I don’t know - £10 a year adults £5 a year kids?

fat`silly`john

surely we should be encouraging cycling not billing people for it?

Agree with what t020 says about road safety though.

And as for cycling on the path, even John Prescott will tell you that is down to `filth` discression.

Originally posted by t020
They should also be more strictly forced into wearing highly visible clothing, helmets, and front and back lights. They are difficult to see, especially at this time of year when its dark by 5pm.

I agree:thumbsup:
Sorry But us buses drivers find it hard to see you :(

Originally posted by Mr BusDriver
I agree:thumbsup:
Sorry But us buses drivers find it hard to see you :(

:lol:

Perhaps a shoulder check should be tried then? Most bus drivers (not necessarily you, of course) think it enough to slam on the right indicator and just pull out without checking - afterall, they will always fair better in any crash. Another thing I find annoying about bus drivers is their inability to turn off the right indicator long after pulling out. It gives the impression of wanting to change lane or even turn right. :P

I have been an avid cyclist for many years, having to stop cos it's difficult getting the whole family on the panniers.

The police are at it again I see. If a cyclist runs a red light then he should be arrested and charged. Sure he may come off worse if hit by a car, but it is the car driver who gets into trouble for not driving with due care or whatever.

A cycle road tax fee is silly. But all cyclists should be forced to take a proficiency test and redo them at intervals of say 10 years. Any cyclist who breaks the highway code should have his pedals revoked for a period of time, and then have to retake the test, or something along those lines.

Cycling on paths is sometimes the safest way for a cyclist. The tram lines are a death trap, and many cyclists have accident through no fault of their own. Where there are no cycle paths and the road is busy, a cyclist should be allowed to cycle on the path as long as care and attention are exercised.

Nosferatu
The Real Undead

Originally posted by t020
[B]:

Perhaps a shoulder check should be tried then? Most bus drivers (not necessarily you, of course) think it enough to slam on the right indicator and just pull out without checking - afterall, they will always fair better in any crash. Another thing I find annoying about bus drivers is their inability to turn off the right indicator long after pulling out. It gives the impression of wanting to change lane or even turn right.

I can relie on you t020 to complain about the bus drivers:mad:
Have you ever travelled by bus?. or are you the one the drivers tell me about in your big car blocking the bus lanes on Ecclesall Road?. ( A JOKE )

Anyway to answer your question:
We asked for blind spots to fitted to all bus mirrors so we could see the bike's etc
NO-CHANCE to much money was the reply:loopy:

Originally posted by t020
Another thing I find annoying about bus drivers is their inability to turn off the right indicator long after pulling out. It gives the impression of wanting to change lane or even turn right. :P
What, you have seen a bus indicate before pulling out regardless? Did you get a photo?

They will be indicating before stopping next, or even something really radical - like pulling in to the kerb to pick up passengers. :loopy:

Originally posted by Tony What, you have seen a bus indicate before pulling out regardless? Did you get a photo?

They will be indicating before stopping next, or even something really radical - like pulling in to the kerb to pick up passengers.

God im laughing so much :mad:
Dont worry Tony because of a lack of drivers in Sheffield buses will soon be a thing of the past :D

Originally posted by Mr BusDriver
God im laughing so much :mad:
Dont worry Tony because of a lack of drivers in Sheffield buses will soon be a thing of the past :D

Observational comedy eh :) You know it's true, but I am sure that you are the exception that proves the rule MrBusDriver.
I will take great delight at parking my car on Ecclesall Road at 9.30 precisely this morning :clap:

Originally posted by Mr BusDriver
I agree:thumbsup:
Sorry But us buses drivers find it hard to see you :(
I'm sorry I'd accept Bike riders over Bus Drivers anyday of the week, bus drivers are the worst people IMHO for driving dangerous.

I have a car and prefer to drive but I cycle to work in the centre of town from bungreave. Taxing cyclists is nuts, we all pay enough bloody tax! I also must say that as a cyclist I don't obay the same rules as cars as if I did I would get flattened, I cycle on the pavement for much of the journey, again as I value my life more than getting moaned at by the police or the odd car pedestrian. I I am lucky that the pavements between along my journey are very large and the wicker is wide for cycling along, I stop at any junctions where cars might emerge from and try to be considerate. If I pass people walking I slow right down and keep out of there way. There are some good car drivers about but at 8am to many people are half asleep, tuning the radio, applying makup, yawning, still drunk etc etc . I have had a close encounter with a buss, the driver I am sure saw me but assumed I would get out of the way. It was a shame for him that there was a police car close that watched him nearly kill me who went and had serious words.. As for insurance, how many car drivers who knock cyclists off offer to pay for the damage to the bike and clothes and new helmet??? none would be my guess, they would be to busy worrying about the small scratch on the car.
Pedestrians are also a danger to cyclists as if they cannot hear a car coming they assume the roads are clear with out even looking. consideration is needed on all sides.

Originally posted by fatjohn
Yes. I take your point. I still think that they should have to be accountable to some extent. Perhaps an affordable road tax. I don’t know - £10 a year adults £5 a year kids?

No.

Most cyclists are also car owners and therefore pay road tax, every time I use my bike there is one less car on the road making your car journey faster. The Government should be encouraging people out of cars and onto other more sustainable modes of transport not taxing them.

Good point Dug.

Cyclists do not contribute to pollution, congestion, parking problems or road wear, so they should not have to pay any form of tax.

I'll third that sentiment!
As a road tax payer already, if I were to use my mountain bike it's one less car polluting the atmosphere and wearing down the road!

I'll agree cos I'm not sure if you can 4th something :D

More bikes please! How about we get rid of lots of busses and give each 12 year old a bike?

I cycle to work every day because it keeps me fit and it is quicker. I, like most cyclist, am also a car owner and therefore pay just as much road tax as most drivers (in my case 2 lots of road tax). Insurance? Great idea - more bureaucracy that will achieve nothing and cost more to implement than it would raise and would divert police away from "real" police work.

I agree that cyclist shouldn't ride on pavements but on some occasions I do go through red lights. The reason I do this is because it can actually be safer. Traffic lights are one of the worse places to be "squeezed out" by drivers who don't give you room because they are bunched up and don't notice you until they are right alongside. If it is safe (e.g. no pedestrians crossing or cars coming!), I often head off before a light turns green so I can get in front. This means that by the time the cars reach me they are spread out a bit more, see me quicker and give me a bit more room! Face it, no one is really concerned that about the potential danger - it's the "queue jumping" aspect that really gets up the nose isn't it?!?

People should be glad every time someone decides to ride a bike rather than go in their car. Congestion (the driver’s biggest gripe) isn't because by the shear volume of cyclists on the road is it? It isn't parked bikes that take up whole lanes is it? It isn't selfish cyclists that block junctions is it? And it isn't cyclists that kill and injure people every single day on our roads is it? Think about it.

I'll 5th Dug!

I was busy writing the same thing in more words whilst he made his posting!:roll:

I am sorry but you cannot defend ignoring traffic lights. That is far too dangerous.

Originally posted by fatjohn
I am sorry but you cannot defend ignoring traffic lights. That is far too dangerous.
And I suppose you only cross the road at pedestrian crossing when there is a little green man? The trick is to look first.

I think the situation has got out of hand. I think that cyclists have been allowed to use the roads without any accountability or monitoring for far too long. I think that most cyclists now regard the motorist as having no right to be on the roads.

Originally posted by fatjohn
I am sorry but you cannot defend ignoring traffic lights. That is far too dangerous.
Dangerous for whom?

As a driver who used to cycle 3 miles to work every day, 13 miles is a bit much now imo, I look enviously at cyclists who go through red lights.

Originally posted by fatjohn
I think the situation has got out of hand. I think that cyclists have been allowed to use the roads without any accountability or monitoring for far too long. I think that most cyclists now regard the motorist as having no right to be on the roads.

Don't forget that the bicycle was around long before the car.

In my opinion most drivers get annoyed because they see cyclists getting through traffic a lot quicker than themselves. If you are relatively healthy and live within five miles or so of work what is stopping you commuting on your bike?

I'll also hazard a guess that you break the law almost every time you get in your car, speeding, going through amber lights, driving without due care and attention, driving with illegal tyres etc.?

great comment john, oh for more people like you... nice to see some common sense...:loopy:

Hey fatjohn.... maybe if you cycled more to work n back, you wouldn't be so fat.:D

And you'd understand a cyclists point of view.

Sorry for the dig, just couldn't resist

Originally posted by fatjohn
I think the situation has got out of hand. I think that cyclists have been allowed to use the roads without any accountability or monitoring for far too long. I think that most cyclists now regard the motorist as having no right to be on the roads.
Seeing as most cylists are also car drivers, I find that hard to believe.

Admittedly, you get idiots on bikes but no more than you get idiots in cars or on foot come to that. Most accidents are caused by car drivers and pedestrians - not cyclists.

Should we "monitor" pedestrians too? Perhaps they should be forced to take out insurance, and pay congestion charges at peak times? We could even make them take proficiency tests and ban them for walking if they cross a road without due care and attention?

Originally posted by Zamo


Should we "monitor" pedestrians too? Perhaps they should be forced to take out insurance, and pay congestion charges at peak times? We could even make them take proficiency tests and ban them for walking if they cross a road without due care and attention?

And while you're at it we should tax pedestrians for walking, yeah perhaps per footstep? What do you think?

I don’t think that most cyclists are car owners. Surely not! What makes you think that?

Originally posted by Dug
And while you're at it we should tax pedestrians for walking, yeah perhaps per footstep? What do you think?
Good idea - fit us all with satellite navigation to track us. What about extra charges for wide loads or emission tests to make sure gas levels are with EU limits?

Most cyclists I know own a car too.

Just because they choose to ride doesnt mean they dont drive.

Originally posted by Zamo
Good idea - fit us all with satellite navigation to track us. What about extra charges for wide loads or emission tests to make sure gas levels are with EU limits?

I've got it! An MOT for pedestrians, which would include:

- checking shoes/trainers for wear
- appropriate fluid levels topped up
- general body work sound
- hooter working
- emission test

Of course if you fail you are then not road worthy and it would be illegal to use the footpath.

How about using the existing Road Tax to pay for a national cyclist insurance scheme?

Also, I will revise my free bike to 12 year olds to FREE BIKE TO ANYONE over 12 after completing a 10 hour cycling proficiency test.

If you ever go to germany they are very strict about cycling on the road, you need lights etc and a proficiency certificate.
I think this would be a good idea in the UK.
I also think cyclists should be insured (come on it wouldn't cost much, not like car insurance!)

Originally posted by Dug
I've got it! An MOT for pedestrians, which would include:

- checking shoes/trainers for wear
- appropriate fluid levels topped up
- general body work sound
- hooter working
- emission test

Of course if you fail you are then not road worthy and it would be illegal to use the footpath.
Gordon? Is that you Gordon? I thought we weren't going to announce that until after the next election? For god sake don't mention the plans for lavatory top up fees.

Sorry, I just got an attack of the Tony Blair's. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, cyclist. Gawd bless every one of 'em.

Originally posted by Zamo
For god sake don't mention the plans for lavatory top up fees. The lavatory top up fees have been abandoned in favour of contributions from taxpayers at the bottom end.

Well that’s it then!
Reading through these postings the consensus of opinion seems to be that cyclists can use public highways without any regard for the Highway Code whatsoever and should not be held accountable for any damage or financial loss caused to other road users.

Originally posted by fatjohn
Well that’s it then!
Reading through these postings the consensus of opinion seems to be that cyclists can use public highways without any regard for the Highway Code whatsoever and should not be held accountable for any damage or financial loss caused to other road users.
Cars must cause a million times more death and distruction on our roads than bicycles. Wasn't there a report recently saying that 1 in 10 cars in the UK have no tax and insurance? Wouldn't police resource be better focused on these offending CAR drivers instead?!?

By the way, how much tax and insurance do you think my 4 year old daughter would have to pay to ride her Barbie bike under your scheme?

I have not thought it out in any detail. I am making a general statement that it is time to address the issue that cyclists should be made more accountable as road users. Quite frankly I think that any child cyclist should have to take a test, maybe at school, and be given a certificate of proficiency before being allowed onto a public road.

Originally posted by fatjohn
I have not thought it out in any detail. I am making a general statement that it is time to address the issue that cyclists should be made more accountable as road users. Quite frankly I think that any child cyclist should have to take a test, maybe at school, and be given a certificate of proficiency before being allowed onto a public road.

For most people learning to ride a bike and then being allowed on the roads is all part of growing up, in much the same way you get taught the highway code, to look both ways before crossing the road etc. by mummy and daddy. Anyway schools always used to organise a voluntary cycling proficiency test (not sure if this still goes on).

I gave up cycling in the late sixties because I felt uncomfortable and at risk with the ever-increasing traffic.

But just look at it now.

Traffic must have increased ten-fold since then - and yet still people cycle. I, for one, do not blame a cyclist at all for taking any action deemed necessary by him or her if they think their health is at risk.

If it means zipping off the road now and again and riding on the pavement, getting off at red lights, r whatever - so be it.

Let's face it: we are trying to keep the numbers of cars off the roads, and these people are at least making an effort - unlike the majority - myself included.

I give up! Yet another posting defending the right of cyclists to ignore red lights. Don’t you realise that you are committing a traffic offence and that you are breaking the law?

Originally posted by fatjohn
I give up! Yet another posting defending the right of cyclists to ignore red lights. Don’t you realise that you are committing a traffic offence and that you are breaking the law?
Not if you get off and push, you're just a pedestrian then! :thumbsup:

I didn't mean that they should ignore red lights! - far from it. I actually said that they could get off at them, meaning to dismount with caution and push. If I implied the former, I apologise.

The gist of my post was that I do not object to cyclists, if they use the pavement - with caution, on feeling at all threatened by the traffic around them.

Well cyclists shouldn't really ignore red lights but I can sometimes understand why they do.

The problem with Sheff is that there doesn't seem to have been much thought put into the cycle lane system (in the random places that it exists). The roads shoud have proper cycle lanes that are cleary marked this way everyone knows where they are supposed to be.

Taxing cyclists - no way. Sheffield isn't exactly the easiest place to cycle around with the busy roads and hills so anyone who attempts to make sure there is one less car on the road should be thanked.

Just to note sometimes I do cycle around Sheffield but to be honest not very often as it just feels so dangerous on the roads.

Responding to some much earlier posts...can I sixty-nine Dug?

I think it stops once someones 'fifthed' it.

Originally posted by jackthedog
I think it stops once someones 'fifthed' it.

Really? I always thought that you could 69 someone?

As a cycling commuter i would like to answer a few points raised,
1. we pay our council tax the same as everyone else to give us the right to use the public highways.
2.you do not pay "road tax" it is a vehicle excise licence to allow you to bring a motorised vehicle on to the public highways, this goes to central government and not to the local council who have to maintain the highways.
3. wouldn't you jump on the pavement with a bloody great tram up your a**e to get out of it's way, or would you just hold it up until it can pass you, therefore holding up every vehicle behind it ?.
4. yes i do agree about bikes on the pavements but while going to & coming home down ecclesall road they do seem to students in the majority and without any lights or visible clothing.
5. yes i would stop and issue a fixed penalty for cyclists without lights, they give everyone a bad name.
6. i do not ride on pavements or jump red lights cos i believe what goes around comes around, and always try to get on with all other forms of transport.
7. if you saw me coming home you would think i was a mobile blackpool illumination with the lights i have on my bike, i like to be seen!!!!!!!!!
8. i suppose the state of the roads is also down to all the cyclists on the road wearing it away, but most cyclists i know do not ride on pavements either.........because of all the cars parked on them.
9. in the highway code it states cyclists should be given the same space while being overtaken that you give to other vehicles......do you do that ?
10. there is a fixed penalty for cycling on the pavements this was brought in to counteract all the couriers in london who used the pavements to get around, but the police seem to find it more profitable, ( and probably more fun to pull drivers instead).

I used to cycle to work from Beauchief To meadowhall and dispite being an experienced cyclist I would say it is quite dangerous.On 2 occasions in less than 3 months drivers did not see me and I was nearly knocked off (the Wicker is one area I found particularly bad)

I came to the conclusion that cycling that route especially in the rush hour either via town or the outer ring road was too dangerous and I really believe the odds are to high that at some point I would get hit.

If a tax went dirrectly into providing good quality cycle lanes I might consider it.

Sheffield really does need some decent cycle lanes

Originally posted by fatjohn
I give up! Yet another posting defending the right of cyclists to ignore red lights. Don’t you realise that you are committing a traffic offence and that you are breaking the law?

Hey I agree with you. Cyclists shouldn't be able to get away with running red lights - I've seen many do it at the pedestrian crossings at the Hunters Bar roundabout on Ecclesall Road before. Imagine if an old lady or mother with a small child were just starting to cross as the cyclist goes speeding through - potential disaster. Also, a cyclist running a red light could get in trouble with car traffic coming from other angles and get hit by the car.

If cyclists are to use the roads (for FREE), the least they can do is use them properly by not breaking laws and by being properly visible and wearing the correct safety equipment.

How about this:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1118313,00.html

I know the proposed bill only talks about under 16's but if fines can exist for such as this then why not other offences simliar to what has been already mentioned.

What is this using the roads for FREE s**t. I pay my council tax to be able to use the roads for what you call free! how much council tax do you pay personally ? for the upkeep of the free roads. How many cars go through red lights then, go the wrong way up one way streets, park on pavements, etc...... or is it just that because cyclists are in a minority that we are more noticable. when was the last time you saw a cyclist pulled over for speeding ?. If all us cyclists drove instead the roads would be totally gridlocked all the time.

Originally posted by t020
Imagine if an old lady or mother with a small child were just starting to cross as the cyclist goes speeding through - potential disaster. Also, a cyclist running a red light could get in trouble with car traffic coming from other angles and get hit by the car.
You will find that as a rule cyclists are FAR more aware of what is going on around them than car drivers. It’s necessary to avoid the idiot car drivers that have almost no idea of their environment. I don’t recall seeing many cyclists crashing into cars, but I have seen plenty of cars crashing into cyclists, and have had that myself.

Have a little respect for the cyclist, give them room, remember that they have NO protection and that their crumple zone is their naked legs.

The intolerance shown in this thread towards cyclists is utterly shameful.

Nice one Tony, people moaning about how inconsiderate cyclists are.. at least once a week on the wicker cycling home a car will just stop and park in the cycle and first traffic lane so the driver does not have to walk more than 3 feet to go to the chemist or the shop. As a cyclist I can either crash into it, attempt to pass it whilst busses are thundering past with a 2 inch gap as they were in the same lane as the car, or I can nip onto the pavement, which is wider than the lane it's self and also covered in parked cars.... Then the same person who blocked the road can look at me and mutter as I am on the pavement... If these people bothered to actually think about what they were doing instead of treating their car like there own private impenetrable universe then perhaps they might have more consideration.. but I doubt it.
:loopy: :( :loopy:

Nice one Tony, unfortunately drivers have too many distractions what with having to turn the booming stereo down to make that vital phone call to another driver doing the same, as a cyclist you have to be fully aware of the situation around you all the time because you are so vulnerable.

I cycle ecclesall road each working day in both directions and believe me it is no piece of cake, if you make a mistake driving you get a scratch or bump which is repairable, if we make a mistake we pay with pain & broken bones.

Yes i agree that they should not be on the pavements, but on the pavements they are not in your way, yes lights should be used ( they are cheap enough to buy) and yes if you want to be seen get some reflective clothing. Yes a helmet is a vital piece of kit all cyclists should consider wearing one, but how many drivers used seat belts before they were made compulsory ?

So please spare a thought for us cyclists, we choose to cycle like you choose to drive, we do not moan about the number of cars on the road all we ask for is the right to pursue what we do safely and without the fear and wrath of other road users.

It was mentioned earlier that many cyclists also own cars so I think they are already paying road tax (I certainly am).

Sheffield needs more cycle lanes - plain and simple.

Anywhere like Ecclesall rd, Abbeydale rd - London rd, town centre is very dangerous when you are on a bike.

As you said Playman motorists just have too many distractions in cars. They are just far to comfortable nowadays and drivers don't have any real idea of how fast they are going.

How to make the roads safer - simple - remove seat belts from the drivers side of the car and fit a long steel spike on the steering wheel pointing at the driver !!! I reckon people would be a little more careful then.

People often moan about folk driving round town in four wheel drives but I'd also add that why do modern cars need to be so fast? - is that so they can get from one traffic jam to the next half a second faster than the car behind them.

I don`t think that everyone has quite grasped the concept of road tax yet, have they.

Also think people have been unfair to bus drivers, agreed some of them can be a little enthusiastic.

But remember it is the car driver that does not allow them to pull out, I would call their aggresive, a style of driving to compete with the car driver.

It is a seldom sight to see a bus parked in a car lane though.

And after all they are there for you, whether you use them or not.

Most car drivers do not seem to realise that it is not only them who is going somewhere and running to a time scale.

Leave the well light cyclist alone, and the non-lit foolish ones if you can see them.

In my 14 years of driving from 7.5 tonne lorries down to the push bike, cyclists and motorcyclists need to be shown more respect, buses allowed to move more freely and car drivers need shooting.

Originally posted by Tony
You will find that as a rule cyclists are FAR more aware of what is going on around them than car drivers. It’s necessary to avoid the idiot car drivers that have almost no idea of their environment. I don’t recall seeing many cyclists crashing into cars, but I have seen plenty of cars crashing into cyclists, and have had that myself.

Have a little respect for the cyclist, give them room, remember that they have NO protection and that their crumple zone is their naked legs.

The intolerance shown in this thread towards cyclists is utterly shameful.

You seemed to have missed the fact that I was referring to cyclists going through RED LIGHTS, not cyclists in general. Are you saying you condone such law breakers, who also present a danger to others as well as themselves at every crossing they decide to ignore and run the red light? Also, maybe cars would hit less cyclists if ALL cyclists bothered to make themselves properly visible?

Should cyclists be treated like bikers?

By this I mean, should there be more laws governing and protcting them like bikers.

I think they should be, I think they should be first licensed, and bikes insured. You could put it as an additional item on car insurance to bring the price down. I think it should be law that they wear helmets, and have some form of license plate on the back of the bike.

There are so many cyclist that break the law at present and are untracable except for a discription. They are loads that don;t have lights at night and when they do they only have the flashing ones which are illegal to use attached to the bike.
They ride on pavements (moor and fargate a lot - no veicles except between certain times, this includes bicycles), don't signal their intention, then when you nearly hitting them when they serve in front of you they have a go. The list goes on. I'm sure someone from pedal pushers will respond, or at least I hope. I saw some cyclists blocking a bus lane when we tried to go down it . When we stopped (forced to stop) one of them came up to the window and asked if we knew we were breaking the law, I asked what law and they said about driving in the bus lane. I pointed to the sign next to them that had the hours of operation on it. 0730-0930 mon-fri as it was only 0830 on a saturday we were legal, so they had to move. Shows how some riders don't have brains, btw all had flashing lights on there bikes and no other lights, so did they know they were breaking any laws. The lights when bought new would have had a warning on them.

Look forward to the responses from everyone mostly the riders themselves.

Jubby

Originally posted by t020
You seemed to have missed the fact that I was referring to cyclists going through RED LIGHTS, not cyclists in general. Are you saying you condone such law breakers, who also present a danger to others as well as themselves at every crossing they decide to ignore and run the red light? Also, maybe cars would hit less cyclists if ALL cyclists bothered to make themselves properly visible?

It's not the car hitting the cyclists that worries me its the pedrestian crossing on green that the red light running cyclists will hit.

Originally posted by Zamo
And I suppose you only cross the road at pedestrian crossing when there is a little green man? The trick is to look first.

Yes I do that way my children will learn the green cross code, by example.

Top of moor annoys people because me and my wife and my two boys stand there with a tandem pushchair, and wait for the light while the people cross on red man and get stuck while the lights change and cars etc try and mow them down. If they had waited they'd crossed safely!!!!!

Originally posted by t020
You seemed to have missed the fact that I was referring to cyclists going through RED LIGHTS, not cyclists in general. Are you saying you condone such law breakers, who also present a danger to others as well as themselves at every crossing they decide to ignore and run the red light? Also, maybe cars would hit less cyclists if ALL cyclists bothered to make themselves properly visible?
I don't condone anyone running a red light. I also don't have problems with enforcing lights or helmets.

I also dont have a problem with...
- Cyclists to have priority at all junctions, including being able to move to the front of any standing traffic.
- A national free insurance scheme for cyclists.
- Additional cycle routes.
- Free bikes for anyone that wants one.
- Building secure bike stores throughout cities.
- Increased penalty's for motorists who cause accidents with cyclists, regardless of the circumstances.

All the above to be paid for through the Road Tax.

What do you think?

Merged 2 threads as they were basically posing the same question.

I for one would like to challenge the post by jubby, the bus lane protest was not on a saturday morning and why would they have flashing units on when they were stationary/ how do you know they were just flashing units ? .......how many cars get nicked for parking in designated cycle lanes ? NONE.

There was a police unit outside the town hall a few months ago so i went in and asked about whether using a flashing unit alone on the back of the bike was illegal because the two patrolling officers on mountain bikes had flashing units on and if they were illegal why have they got them ? the answer was they might be but we would not pull anyone over using them because they are the most visible lights available,

also there are no signs on either fargate or the moor stating cycles are not allowed to be used on either thoroughfare. there are signs outside the peace gardens stating no skates, skateboards, cycles may be ridden, and if they are not allowed then why put cycle stands there for you to leave your cycle ?.
are you one of the drivers who do not stop at junctions but cross the white lines and jut out into the road therefore causing cyclists to have to swerve into traffic to get round.

Also regarding signalling, the state of the roads are so bad in places it is so dangerous to take your hands off to signal a turn so please take that into consideration also. It was stated in the star tonight (sat ) there are over 2,000,000 cars without tax, mot, insurance, are there 2 million cyclists out there too ? there are a lot of cyclists with insurance but because you do not see any proof you naturally assume every cyclist is the same, so if you want all cyclists to be insured there should be legislation brought in where you display a disc with details of mot, car tax & valid insurance on all motorised vehicles.

Originally posted by Tony
I don't condone anyone running a red light. I also don't have problems with enforcing lights or helmets.

I also dont have a problem with...
- Cyclists to have priority at all junctions, including being able to move to the front of any standing traffic.
- A national free insurance scheme for cyclists.
- Additional cycle routes.
- Free bikes for anyone that wants one.
- Building secure bike stores throughout cities.
- Increased penalty's for motorists who cause accidents with cyclists, regardless of the circumstances.

All the above to be paid for through the Road Tax.

What do you think?


I think that there are a few things I have to disagree with. Firstly, cyclists moving infront of all traffic - I refer to cycle lanes that, when reaching the stop line at the traffic lights, the cycle lane suddenly spreads across the whole side of the road. What is the point of this? Imagine that (I know this may sound far fetched) there are a few cyclists using the cycle lane, and the lights change to red so the cars stop clear of the cycle lane at the lights. The cyclists then all jump to the front and spread across the whole lane because of the layout. The lights then change to green - cars accelerate much faster than cyclists, so the cyclists either restrict the traffic flow or have to move back to the edge again. What exactly is the point in this silly idea????

Secondly - additional cycle routes? The existing ones are rarely used as it is. The fact that Sheffield is hilly puts a lot of people off using a bike. I'm not sure whether or not they're all ready allowed to do so, but allowing cyclists to use the bus lanes should suffice - there are enough bus lanes in Sheffield for them to choose from.

A free insurance scheme? I presume this would be funded either by the taxpaying public in general or, sigh, the motorist through paying yet higher still premiums for car insurance? No thanks.

Free bikes for anyone who wants one? Don't be silly - everyone likes things for free so most would get one anyway. This would cost an enormous amount of money - how would this be funded exactly? No thanks.

Buidling secure bike stores throughout the city? Not sure exactly how you'd define secure, but I'd be all for a few more high strength, designated 'hooks' where the cycle could be easily chained to the metal, and possibly a few with shelters so the bikes aren't left in the rain all day.

"Increased penalty's for motorists who cause accidents with cyclists, regardless of the circumstances." I don't think penalities need increasing anymore for motorists. Cyclists should, by law, be made to display headlights (even in daylight), wear helmets, and highly visible jackets/waistcoats (even in daylight).

Originally posted by t020
I think that there are a few things I have to disagree with.
It wouldnt be you if you agreed with anything sensible.
Originally posted by t020
I think that there are a few things I have to disagree with. Firstly, cyclists moving infront of all traffic - I refer to cycle lanes that, when reaching the stop line at the traffic lights, the cycle lane suddenly spreads across the whole side of the road. What is the point of this?
You answer your own question here:
Originally posted by t020
cars accelerate much faster than cyclists, so the cyclists either restrict the traffic flow or have to move back to the edge again.

Originally posted by t020

Secondly - additional cycle routes? The existing ones are rarely used as it is.
That’s because there aren’t enough of them and the network is very disjointed.
Originally posted by t020
A free insurance scheme? I presume this would be funded either by the taxpaying public in general or, sigh, the motorist through paying yet higher still premiums for car insurance? No thanks.
This is for EVERYONE’S benefit and the cost would be incidental compared to the benefits.
Originally posted by t020
Free bikes for anyone who wants one? Don't be silly - everyone likes things for free so most would get one anyway. This would cost an enormous amount of money - how would this be funded exactly? No thanks
This would result in huge numbers of people getting “on their bike” (you see how I got that tory phrase in there?) meaning less congestion, a healthier population, reduced policing requirements, etc. It may even quickly pay for itself instead of being a cost!
How radical is that? It would make good Tory policy!

I thought i would wait and see the response to this thread before i replied.
Just what i thought , anti cyclists views from arrogant car drivers who forget we also drive cars.
As a guy that owns a car but uses my bike i see both sides of the coin and my personal views are this.

Traffic light dodging is a very dangerous move. Someone made a good point about going through on amber to get ahead.
I can see all the advantages to the cyclists for the reason he gave and its quite hairy leaving traffic lights because even the best of us wobble a little until we get moving and the cars don't allow for this.

Road tax on a bike is not exeptable, i pay 3 lots of tax as it is and
i am already paying road tax for my car.

Bikes were on the road before cars and i have every right to be on the road as any car driver.

Insurance, wqell this is were i differ my opinion and i would gladly pay £10 a year or so, only if its just an incentive to fight rouge drivers in court when they knock you off.

I could go on and on but all the important points have been mentioned already.

Car drivers, please take more care when passing cyclists, give us more room, have more patients with us, we don't have an engine.

Try getting on a bike for bike week in June and see for yourself what its like to be on the road with todays traffic and maybe then you will see our side.

I bought my car in 1998 and i have done 20,000 miles in it, so i do a lot of mileage on my bike and the chance of encountering and mad driver is super high and i see it every day of the year.

Take care

Originally posted by Tony
It wouldnt be you if you agreed with anything sensible.


And there I was thinking everyone was entitled to their own opinion. "Sensible" is YOUR opinion, in my opinion, your ideas aren't sensible for the reasons stated in my last post. You've also failed to explain why a cycle lane needs to spread across the entire lane at traffic lights, just so car drivers get held up since cyclists are slower to accelerate. This serves only to slow down the flow of traffic, resulting in greater congestion and hence more pollution. Cyclists should have their own lanes, but I fail to see the need for them to spread the whole side of the road at traffic lights.

That is exactly the point T020. It gives cyclists priority and a couple of seconds to get moving before car drivers steam up their rear. Take a look at Cycleracers post above for more thoughts on that. The nanosecond that you are delayed by is totally insignificant anywhere except in your head as a driver.

What do you think about the other points about encouraging cycling and reducing congestion?

Originally posted by Tony
That is exactly the point T020. It gives cyclists priority and a couple of seconds to get moving before car drivers steam up their rear. Take a look at Cycleracers post above for more thoughts on that. The nanosecond that you are delayed by is totally insignificant anywhere except in your head as a driver.

What do you think about the other points about encouraging cycling and reducing congestion?

But the cyclists still have to move back to the left side edge of the road straight away anyway to get back into the cycle lane. If the cycle lane just continued up to the traffic lights as normal, without widening, the cyclists can still set off the same, but they won't hold up car drivers and they won't have to move back to the far left side of the road straight away after the lights. As for being a 'nanosecond', since this is all the lights stay on green for anyway, it means a lot of drivers behind the first 2 cars are stuck on red, whereas if the cyclists hadn't held up the first 2 cars they'd have got through easily. I'm not blaming cyclists and cycling should be encouraged, but I do question the design of having cycle lanes spread the entire lane at the last couple of metres before traffic lights.

Originally posted by playman
What is this using the roads for FREE s**t. I pay my council tax to be able to use the roads for what you call free! how much council tax do you pay personally ? for the upkeep of the free roads. How many cars go through red lights then, go the wrong way up one way streets, park on pavements, etc...... or is it just that because cyclists are in a minority that we are more noticable. when was the last time you saw a cyclist pulled over for speeding ?. If all us cyclists drove instead the roads would be totally gridlocked all the time.

Can you tell me exactly where it says that if I pay my council tax I can use a cycle on the road??? Does this mean you can only use a cycle in an area where you pay your council tax??? So I can only use it in Sheffield, not say rotherham or chesterfield.

As for jumping lights read the highway code and it says if there is a red light you MUST stop. This is all road users, this includes horses. There is a law regarding pavements and lights. They should be a law regarding helmets like there is for horse riders. Many injuries and deaths are caused by not wearign a helmet. How many times have I seen a parent and child out enjoying a cycle ride to see the child wearing a helmet and the parent not. What use is the parent if they do have a accident and the parent gets a fatal head wound that whould not have been fatal if they had been wearing a helmet.

Jubby

Originally posted by t020
But the cyclists still have to move back to the left side edge of the road straight away anyway to get back into the cycle lane. If the cycle lane just continued up to the traffic lights as normal, without widening, the cyclists can still set off the same, but they won't hold up car drivers and they won't have to move back to the far left side of the road straight away after the lights. As for being a 'nanosecond', since this is all the lights stay on green for anyway, it means a lot of drivers behind the first 2 cars are stuck on red, whereas if the cyclists hadn't held up the first 2 cars they'd have got through easily. I'm not blaming cyclists and cycling should be encouraged, but I do question the design of having cycle lanes spread the entire lane at the last couple of metres before traffic lights.

Come on T020, youre being difficult for the sake of it now - I know that you're not as daft as you sound in this thread.

Principle 1 - the cyclist has as much right to the road as you.
Principle 2 - the cyclist (and you) are in less danger if they can get off before the traffic where they can be seen and allowed for.
Principle 3 - When were you last held up by a cyclist? Ever?

Originally posted by Tony
I don't condone anyone running a red light. I also don't have problems with enforcing lights or helmets.

I also dont have a problem with...
- Cyclists to have priority at all junctions, including being able to move to the front of any standing traffic.
- A national free insurance scheme for cyclists.
- Additional cycle routes.
- Free bikes for anyone that wants one.
- Building secure bike stores throughout cities.
- Increased penalty's for motorists who cause accidents with cyclists, regardless of the circumstances.

All the above to be paid for through the Road Tax.

What do you think?

Don't agree with the free insurance because who will pay for it. The law abinding car driver who hits a red light jumping cyclists, not everyone can use a cycle so why should they pay for others to be insured??? Just like not every cyclists can drive so they shouldn't have to pay for the car insurance.

A proper system of cycle paths would help - anyone seen how it works in the Netherlands? Fantastic system of cycle lanes means traffic and bikes rarely meet.

Originally posted by playman
I for one would like to challenge the post by jubby, the bus lane protest was not on a saturday morning and why would they have flashing units on when they were stationary/ how do you know they were just flashing units ? .......how many cars get nicked for parking in designated cycle lanes ? NONE.

There was a police unit outside the town hall a few months ago so i went in and asked about whether using a flashing unit alone on the back of the bike was illegal because the two patrolling officers on mountain bikes had flashing units on and if they were illegal why have they got them ? the answer was they might be but we would not pull anyone over using them because they are the most visible lights available,

also there are no signs on either fargate or the moor stating cycles are not allowed to be used on either thoroughfare. there are signs outside the peace gardens stating no skates, skateboards, cycles may be ridden, and if they are not allowed then why put cycle stands there for you to leave your cycle ?.
are you one of the drivers who do not stop at junctions but cross the white lines and jut out into the road therefore causing cyclists to have to swerve into traffic to get round.

Also regarding signalling, the state of the roads are so bad in places it is so dangerous to take your hands off to signal a turn so please take that into consideration also. It was stated in the star tonight (sat ) there are over 2,000,000 cars without tax, mot, insurance, are there 2 million cyclists out there too ? there are a lot of cyclists with insurance but because you do not see any proof you naturally assume every cyclist is the same, so if you want all cyclists to be insured there should be legislation brought in where you display a disc with details of mot, car tax & valid insurance on all motorised vehicles.

The protest that stopped me was on a Saturday I do known the days of the week and it was 5 cycles, all because you were not one of these 5 does not mean it didn;t take place.

I will check the highway code on the lights and if they have changed it I will stand corrected.

There are signs stating the moor and fargate are resticted to no veicles... I will take pictures and gladly post to the internet if you want.

I am a lawabiding motorist, who sticks to the speed limit, etc. Last year I held up a convoy of cars on the way to Bakewell, it was a very windy section for about 1/2 mile because of two cyclists in front of me. Everyone else was trying to pass me and them. When the cyclists relised we were behind them they pulled over when it was safe to do so and thanked us for not cutting them up on corners. I have nothing against the law abiding cyclists, car driver etc so long as they abide the law. There are cycle lanes in the city centre giving you more routes than the car you don't need to use the pavement. example outside the townhall there are to roads (one surrey street can't remember the other but its the one with maplin on) where the cyclists can go both directions but there are still cyclist riding on the pavement dodging people. The cycle lockups you are meant to dismount and walk or would that be too much trouble to get off your bike and walk a few yards????

Jubby

Well defended jubby.
Many cyclists are very irresponsible.
I wonder what their comments are about the practise of strapping young toddlers into carrying units on the pillion and venturing into busy traffic.

To2o, typical reaction regarding something you do not know anything about! An A S L is for cyclists turning right not for an excuse for taking over the road !
I suppose all the cyclists you pass do what you have said then ? about 90% of drivers do not stop behind the lines anyway but just drive over them to stop any cyclists using them.

Jubby, my council tax pays for the upkeep of the highways like yours does so that does entitle me to use my bike, your road fund goes to central government and not to the local council. So show me anything that says i have to pay for permission to use my cycle like you do your car.
How many cars jump red lights then compared to cyclists ?
Did you wear a seat belt before they became compulsory ? I BET YOU DID !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is a cycle a vehicle ? if not then it is allowed on fargate & the moor, do you have any idea how many cycle lanes compared to roads ? do we have too many that they do not get used ? Why are there so many cycle lanes on pavements if bikes are not allowed on them ?
And as for me walking a few yards to park my cycle............. What planet are you from........ How many drivers pull up on double yellows, bus lanes, pavements etc.... just to avoid having to park THOUGHTFULLY and having to walk a few yards ?????????????

I DO NOT CONDONE ANYONE RIDING WITHOUT A HELMET, LIGHTS (after dark ) and VISIBLE CLOTHING.
But as for To2o's suggestion that every cyclist should display lights even in daylight shows the mentality of the drivers today !
And yes i know people who have a child in a seat on the back of the bike and it shows what the mentality of others are when brought into question the sanity of these people when they prefer that mode of transport and are setting an example to other road users who just go round the corner for a packet of cigs in their gas guzzlers, and we as cyclists are safe enough on our own it is when we have to use the same roads as idiots who do not care who or how they upset people as long as they are in their own little cocoon and can get to where they want as quickly as possible. :loopy: :loopy:

Originally posted by Tony
Come on T020, youre being difficult for the sake of it now - I know that you're not as daft as you sound in this thread.

Principle 1 - the cyclist has as much right to the road as you.
Principle 2 - the cyclist (and you) are in less danger if they can get off before the traffic where they can be seen and allowed for.
Principle 3 - When were you last held up by a cyclist? Ever?


Principle 1 - OK, I will ask to see his road tax disc then shall I?
Principle 2 - They can still do that without sprawling the entire lane at traffic lights.
Principle 3 - It actually happens quite often. Cyclists don't stay far enough to the side of the road, and if there is on-coming traffic, it isn't always possible to overtake, meaning a change down to 2nd and a cruise at about 10mph until it is safe to overtake.


Oh, and Jubby, the highway code strongly recommends lighting and highly visible clothing for both cyclists and motorcyclists even in daylight.

As before you do not need road tax because there is no such thing !!!!!!!!! you pay for a vehicle excise licence to allow a MOTORISED vehicle to be on the road. ( or at least some drivers do )

The operative word is RECOMMENDS lighting and visible clothing.

Does it state in the highway code that motorised vehicles have the right of way over cycles ?

Just how near the kerb would you like cyclists to ride as you complain if they are out too far, you complain if they are on the pavement, what would you recommend as a responsible adult ?

Originally posted by playman
As before you do not need road tax because there is no such thing !!!!!!!!! you pay for a vehicle excise licence to allow a MOTORISED vehicle to be on the road. ( or at least some drivers do )

The operative word is RECOMMENDS lighting and visible clothing.

Does it state in the highway code that motorised vehicles have the right of way over cycles ?

Just how near the kerb would you like cyclists to ride as you complain if they are out too far, you complain if they are on the pavement, what would you recommend as a responsible adult ?

The EDGE of the road, where the cycle lanes are or, if no cycle lane on the road, then where one WOULD be.

My point about road tax was that, since I pay for the right to use the roads, I should have MORE right to use them than a cyclist who doesn't pay ANYTHING.

And yes, the highway code does RECOMMEND. Does that mean such responsible cyclists should just ignore it and persecute the motorist when they get hit by a car through not being visible enough to the driver?

If drivers were not so bloody minded and drive close to the kerb then we would have some room and with the state of the roads why should i cycle over all the grates which are not level just to accommodate some bolshy drivers ?????

HOW MUCH COUNCIL TAX DO YOU PAY TO THE COUNCIL ? if you are still at home you do not pay any, your parents pay it, what you choose to pay to the government to be able to drive a motorised tin can is your problem, my council tax pays towards the upkeep of amenities and services in sheffield what does your vehicle excise licence pay for ??????????????????????

Road tax, supposedly, pays for the upkeep of the roads. Cyclists don't pay any road tax for their bicycles, and as such the roads should mainly serve cars, not bikes.

Vehicle excise licences do not pay for the upkeep of roads, more for building motorways etc..... and you can keep them.

The excise licence does not give you a right only permission to bring a motorised vehicle on the road.

Council tax pays for locally maintaining the highways.

I pays my money I has my rights.

Fine. Stick to the cycle lanes, always be highly visible, and everyones happy.

playman
Who should be given priority on the roads?
Cyclists or motorists?

Originally posted by t020
Road tax, supposedly, pays for the upkeep of the roads. Cyclists don't pay any road tax for their bicycles, and as such the roads should mainly serve cars, not bikes.
T020, normally I find you quite stimulating and entertaining. tonight however, you are behaving like a complete nob.

Originally posted by Tony
T020, normally I find you quite stimulating and entertaining. tonight however, you are behaving like a complete nob.

Fair enough, but in future please send all personal correspondence via Private Messages and not by forum posts.

Hehe, that's more like it - you made me smile there! :D

Fatjohn,
No-one should have priority on the roads it should be respect for other road users regardless of their mode of transport, we all know there are cyclists who do not help matters as well as drivers, if we just allow for some human error and the conditions, instead of a long blast on a horn maybe a second to calm down and realise we are all going somewhere and we all make mistakes, we all see it several times a day so occasionally just a smile and a friendly gesture will go a long way in getting your message across. I personally admit it if i get it wrong and it helps to soothe the situation.

We all know that things are not perfect but we need to be able to travel in relative safety whatever our mode.

Originally posted by jubby
Don't agree with the free insurance because who will pay for it. The law abinding car driver who hits a red light jumping cyclists, not everyone can use a cycle so why should they pay for others to be insured??? Just like not every cyclists can drive so they shouldn't have to pay for the car insurance.

The law abiding car driver - ha come on please! As I stated in an earlier post there is no such thing I bet you break the law every time you get into your car.

Perhaps if you got out of your car and used a push bike you'd appreciate what "us" cyclists are saying - please be considerate.

Originally posted by fatjohn
Well defended jubby.
Many cyclists are very irresponsible.
I wonder what their comments are about the practise of strapping young toddlers into carrying units on the pillion and venturing into busy traffic. For many this is the only form of transport to get there offspring around, i also use a tag-a-long to take my son out for some fresh air.
Now doing this is not iresponsable because why should i not use the road in this way because of the danger of traffic.
It is down to the car driver to ensure that i stay safe by keeping there distance and driving with due care, as long as i stick to my side of the code by not jumping red lights and riding responsibly.

Personally I believe that there are a minority of BOTH cyclists and car drivers that act irresponsibly on the road..thats the way its always been..I happen to use both..car and bike...I aint mister goody goody on the roads but having used both it gives me a respect for either mode of transport..i.e..if i am in a car I try and give space to cyclists I am passing...If they hold me up for a while what exactly have I lost?? a bit of time and thats it...more important things in life than getting wound up over someone that has the same right to use the road as I do. The problem with cycle lanes is that they are not properly designed..the road is still the same width and cars still have to swerve round...then what happens when the cycle lane ends?? a classic example is on langsett road..a cycle lane on a tram route...trams can't swerve round so when your riding down and hear the rumble of trams its fill your pants time for me...Cycle lanes need to be specifically for bikes and totally seperate from roads..like trams tracks but thats another argument :)

Originally posted by playman
To2o, typical reaction regarding something you do not know anything about! An A S L is for cyclists turning right not for an excuse for taking over the road !
I suppose all the cyclists you pass do what you have said then ? about 90% of drivers do not stop behind the lines anyway but just drive over them to stop any cyclists using them.

Jubby, my council tax pays for the upkeep of the highways like yours does so that does entitle me to use my bike, your road fund goes to central government and not to the local council. So show me anything that says i have to pay for permission to use my cycle like you do your car.
How many cars jump red lights then compared to cyclists ?
Did you wear a seat belt before they became compulsory ? I BET YOU DID !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is a cycle a vehicle ? if not then it is allowed on fargate & the moor, do you have any idea how many cycle lanes compared to roads ? do we have too many that they do not get used ? Why are there so many cycle lanes on pavements if bikes are not allowed on them ?
And as for me walking a few yards to park my cycle............. What planet are you from........ How many drivers pull up on double yellows, bus lanes, pavements etc.... just to avoid having to park THOUGHTFULLY and having to walk a few yards ?????????????

I DO NOT CONDONE ANYONE RIDING WITHOUT A HELMET, LIGHTS (after dark ) and VISIBLE CLOTHING.
But as for To2o's suggestion that every cyclist should display lights even in daylight shows the mentality of the drivers today !
And yes i know people who have a child in a seat on the back of the bike and it shows what the mentality of others are when brought into question the sanity of these people when they prefer that mode of transport and are setting an example to other road users who just go round the corner for a packet of cigs in their gas guzzlers, and we as cyclists are safe enough on our own it is when we have to use the same roads as idiots who do not care who or how they upset people as long as they are in their own little cocoon and can get to where they want as quickly as possible. :loopy: :loopy:

Firstly if your coucil tax goes to the upkeep of the highway, does that mean you only have the right to ride within the area that that upkeep pays for, for example to fox house the sheffield/derbyshire boder. Like you say road tax goes to central goverment to be distributed fairly (this I know is debatable but the principle is there) a tax for cycles would therefore have similar distribution. As for did I wear a seat belt before they were comp, yes where fitted.

As to if a cycle is a vehicle here is the definition from dictionary.com - vehicle - A device or structure for transporting persons or things; a conveyance: a space vehicle. So YES a cycle is a vehicle.

Also as to the suggestion that cyclist have lights on all the time, why not. Bikers and scooters are according to the law meant to have lights on at all times, this is why on some bikes they have smaller lights similar to 'side' lights on cars etc.

Please also remember that not everyone is able to ride a cycle so do not just every driver who may use his car to drive 1/4 to the shops for a pint of milk as being lazy. Not everyone can use public transport, my oldest two are both Autistic and do not like crowds so a crowded bus to and from school is impossible, but we are lumped into the School run lazy people. My sons school is 20 mins car journey on the bus even with the bus running on time it would take at 1 hour having to go though town to change buses. It would also be more expensive to do so. £29 on the bus, for one parent @ £13 (Weekly saver) and £16 for the two boys. because the school is within 3 miles as the crow flies we would not be able to get free bus passes for the boys, and they both have molbiluty problems so walking is out of the question.

I look forward to your reply

Originally posted by playman
To2o, typical reaction regarding something you do not know anything about! An A S L is for cyclists turning right not for an excuse for taking over the road !
I suppose all the cyclists you pass do what you have said then ? about 90% of drivers do not stop behind the lines anyway but just drive over them to stop any cyclists using them.

Jubby, my council tax pays for the upkeep of the highways like yours does so that does entitle me to use my bike, your road fund goes to central government and not to the local council. So show me anything that says i have to pay for permission to use my cycle like you do your car.
How many cars jump red lights then compared to cyclists ?
Did you wear a seat belt before they became compulsory ? I BET YOU DID !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is a cycle a vehicle ? if not then it is allowed on fargate & the moor, do you have any idea how many cycle lanes compared to roads ? do we have too many that they do not get used ? Why are there so many cycle lanes on pavements if bikes are not allowed on them ?
And as for me walking a few yards to park my cycle............. What planet are you from........ How many drivers pull up on double yellows, bus lanes, pavements etc.... just to avoid having to park THOUGHTFULLY and having to walk a few yards ?????????????

I DO NOT CONDONE ANYONE RIDING WITHOUT A HELMET, LIGHTS (after dark ) and VISIBLE CLOTHING.
But as for To2o's suggestion that every cyclist should display lights even in daylight shows the mentality of the drivers today !
And yes i know people who have a child in a seat on the back of the bike and it shows what the mentality of others are when brought into question the sanity of these people when they prefer that mode of transport and are setting an example to other road users who just go round the corner for a packet of cigs in their gas guzzlers, and we as cyclists are safe enough on our own it is when we have to use the same roads as idiots who do not care who or how they upset people as long as they are in their own little cocoon and can get to where they want as quickly as possible. :loopy: :loopy:

Sorry didn't answer all your questions.

Cycle lanes on pavements are exactly that CYCLE LANES, they are signposted and sometimes also marked and colour coded tarmac is used to seperate them from the pavement, where it is not marked on the pavement as having a seperate lane it will show a sign showing it is shared with pedestrians, and that you must give way to pedrestrians, which a lot of cyclists view of give way is head for tham and if they don't shift then serve at the last moment round them.

All because some drivers break the law re parking doesn't mean that a cyclists should, as some of these posts are us vs them, you would think therefore that the cyclists would rise above that and respect the law that it seems some car drivers don't.

One thing that does annoy me with cyclists not being licensed if they do break the law and say cause an accident what can you take away?? Their bike, easy buy another for a couple of hundred quid.

I know of a motorist who was caught drink driving and caused death by drink driving. She was convicted and on her release her ban from "driving" started, but she was able to get on a bike and ride and not break a law by doing so (unlike if she had got in a car) she then went on to cause another accident on her cycle and was found to be over the limit and was again covicted of being over the limit while in charge of a vehicle ( yes cycle is a vehicle) what did the court do?? Increase her "driving" ban but she could have left that courthouse and got on a cycle quite legal. Where is the logic in that?????

Originally posted by Dug
The law abiding car driver - ha come on please! As I stated in an earlier post there is no such thing I bet you break the law every time you get into your car.

Perhaps if you got out of your car and used a push bike you'd appreciate what "us" cyclists are saying - please be considerate.

I drive within the law that is why I have NEVER had an accident or made a claim on my insurance and I have been driving for 12 years. I never said every cyclists break the law, so don't assume every motorist does.

As I said in my post NOT everyone is able to use a pushbike, I used to be able to but now even walking up two flights of stairs at work leaves me in pain for the rest of the day, that is why I use the lift. I have had mobility problem since I was 16, and as such am unable to use a mannual car, so am just as unable to use a pushbike. If did it would live up to its name as pushbike as I would be mostly pushing it...lol

Originally posted by Dug
The law abiding car driver - ha come on please! As I stated in an earlier post there is no such thing I bet you break the law every time you get into your car.

Perhaps if you got out of your car and used a push bike you'd appreciate what "us" cyclists are saying - please be considerate.

Again though DUG who would pay for this "free" insurance????

Originally posted by major decker
Personally I believe that there are a minority of BOTH cyclists and car drivers that act irresponsibly on the road..thats the way its always been..I happen to use both..car and bike...I aint mister goody goody on the roads but having used both it gives me a respect for either mode of transport..i.e..if i am in a car I try and give space to cyclists I am passing...If they hold me up for a while what exactly have I lost?? a bit of time and thats it...more important things in life than getting wound up over someone that has the same right to use the road as I do. The problem with cycle lanes is that they are not properly designed..the road is still the same width and cars still have to swerve round...then what happens when the cycle lane ends?? a classic example is on langsett road..a cycle lane on a tram route...trams can't swerve round so when your riding down and hear the rumble of trams its fill your pants time for me...Cycle lanes need to be specifically for bikes and totally seperate from roads..like trams tracks but thats another argument :)

I agree I see the same problem on East Bank Road, the cycle lane is there to "aid" the road users ok if a car goes up still enough room to pass the cyclist, but a bus or other large vehicle, they go in the cycle lane as well so the if there is a cyclist in the lane at the short single carriage bit they have to hold back this is a very steep hill so the fittest cyclist take time getting up there so the large vehicle driver behind gets frustrated and sometimes aggresive. This is why I see cyclist on the pavement out for safety sake, but they should really be pushing in on the path not riding. Can understand why some people do certain things but it doesn;t mean its right.

So a cycle is classed as a vehicle, and therefore it should be taxed, is a pushchair then a vehicle as it transports people ? should they have to pay tax ?, legs could be then regarded as vehicles then as they are used to transport people about what about some leg tax ? pushchairs to have lights fitted to them, every pedestrian should wear visible clothing and have lights fitted ? where would it all end we should all be classed as vehicles ?

We do not get asked where the cycle lanes should be do you not think we would prefer them to be away from traffic ? many cycle lanes are placed in ridiculous places but they are also placed as traffic calming measures and if a driver gets frustrated because they have to slow down for a few yards then they maybe should not be driving, i use east bank road, city road ,gleadless road and all the other big roads to get around and believe me it is not a piece of cake but when i see all the other cyclists and imagine what the system would be like if EVERYONE drove it keeps me going.

What measures would you advocate then for a driver who gets a ban and buys a cycle as opposed to a cyclist who causes an accident you say that anyone can go out and buy another bike for a couple of hundred quid, what about going out and buying an old banger for less than £50 and driving without tax, test or insurance how many cyclists do that ? so should drivers be more responsible and get their house in order before trying to sort others out ?

I have been cycling for many many more years than you have been driving and have never had/ been involved in an accident and always try and stay within the law, only breaking it to accommodate motorised traffic not for any gain on my behalf.
And yes i agree that not all people can cycle but maybe we should then be looking at preserving that not driving them off the roads, in most cases it is the only exercise most people get, and talking to drivers, the only reason they would not cycle is that it is too dangerous! so what message does that convey ?

Originally posted by jubby
Again though DUG who would pay for this "free" insurance????

JUBBY - Please tell me when did I mention "free" insurance????

Look, cycling is already too exclusive, we should not be introducing measures to make it even more elitist but instead try to encourage people to use bikes (and yes I do appreciate that not everyone is able to ride).

I agree that cyclists should obey the law and I personally do not jump red lights, ride pavements (unless I need to take action to avoid getting hurt), and always use lights when dark.

That was me who suggested free insurance. I should clarify that I meant 3rd party insurance. Better insurance is available from the CTC (Cyclists Touring Club) at bargain rates.

Originally posted by playman
So a cycle is classed as a vehicle, and therefore it should be taxed, is a pushchair then a vehicle as it transports people ? should they have to pay tax ?, legs could be then regarded as vehicles then as they are used to transport people about what about some leg tax ? pushchairs to have lights fitted to them, every pedestrian should wear visible clothing and have lights fitted ? where would it all end we should all be classed as vehicles ?

We do not get asked where the cycle lanes should be do you not think we would prefer them to be away from traffic ? many cycle lanes are placed in ridiculous places but they are also placed as traffic calming measures and if a driver gets frustrated because they have to slow down for a few yards then they maybe should not be driving, i use east bank road, city road ,gleadless road and all the other big roads to get around and believe me it is not a piece of cake but when i see all the other cyclists and imagine what the system would be like if EVERYONE drove it keeps me going.

What measures would you advocate then for a driver who gets a ban and buys a cycle as opposed to a cyclist who causes an accident you say that anyone can go out and buy another bike for a couple of hundred quid, what about going out and buying an old banger for less than £50 and driving without tax, test or insurance how many cyclists do that ? so should drivers be more responsible and get their house in order before trying to sort others out ?

I have been cycling for many many more years than you have been driving and have never had/ been involved in an accident and always try and stay within the law, only breaking it to accommodate motorised traffic not for any gain on my behalf.
And yes i agree that not all people can cycle but maybe we should then be looking at preserving that not driving them off the roads, in most cases it is the only exercise most people get, and talking to drivers, the only reason they would not cycle is that it is too dangerous! so what message does that convey ?

Now you're getting silly. The Highway Code and related highway acts state that a cycle is a vehicle and a person (pushchair) etc is not. If you look some of the electric scooters that didabled and old people use are classed as a vehcile if they go over a certain speed, which is why they have restricters on them for use in pedrestrinised areas. The motrised scooters that were the rage this christmas and as featured on the BBC's Watchdog program are classed as a vehicle and are not to be used on the public highway without tax, insurance or a licence. yes I know these are motorised vehicles. If the highways law says yuo shouldn't do then you shouldn't.

My point with the drink driver which is a true story is a case in point that she got banned (rightly so) from driving a car, but got on a bike quite legaly and commited a related offence, and all they did too punish her was increase her car ban, but she could still leave the court house go get ******, and ride her bike without fear she be banned from that.

Now I know there are a lot of dangerous poorly maintained cars etc out there untaxed etc, and these lawbreakers should be dealt with accordingly, but you're not trying to tell me you can't buy a poorly maintained bike and not ride it on the roads now are you. You not trying to say that every bike out there is in A1 condition because I know that can't be true, just like car drivers have either knowingly or otherwise unsafe cars out there I am sure there are unsafe bikes as well.

Originally posted by Dug
JUBBY - Please tell me when did I mention "free" insurance????

Look, cycling is already too exclusive, we should not be introducing measures to make it even more elitist but instead try to encourage people to use bikes (and yes I do appreciate that not everyone is able to ride).

I agree that cyclists should obey the law and I personally do not jump red lights, ride pavements (unless I need to take action to avoid getting hurt), and always use lights when dark.

Sorry DUG it was not who first mentioned free insurance it was TONY.

But you replied to the reply I made in response to that so thats where I have got my wires crossed.

so TONY who would pay for this free insurance??? everyone, or the car driver. I have said in a previous post, for those who cycle and drive add it on to the car insurance, like you do with home insurance for things like moblies and laptops, it wouldn't be that much difference, and for the non car driving cyclists have a seperate insurance scheme. I seem to remember Endsleigh used to do a bike insurance that covered theft and liabilty these was about ten years ago so don't know if they do it now.

We have to admit that accidents are sometimes caused by a cyclists and both the cyclists and the 3rd party should be covered, I just don't see it as fair that if a cyclists does make a mistake and causes damage to a moving or parked vehicle that the vehicle owner should have to pay for it. What happens if a cyclists crashes into another cyclists??? one would be at fault and therefore would have to be took to court for damages, if there was an insurance scheme this would be prevented. There is logic in this, I feel that most people are against it becuase it would cost them money.

Originally posted by Tony
That was me who suggested free insurance. I should clarify that I meant 3rd party insurance. Better insurance is available from the CTC (Cyclists Touring Club) at bargain rates.

Clarify this by 3rd party I see that as if you the 3rd party are responsible therefore it should be covered for free???

If the car driver is responsible they should be insured anyway so you claim of them.

If you cause the accident any claims come out of your pocket in the small claims court and a insurance scheme should be in place (I feel by law) to protect everyone, the same reason car insurance was made compulsary.

As previous mentioned on these posts not everyone is perfect, and accidents do happen. When I was a lot younger enjoying cycling in the park my brake cable snapped and I ended up in a bush. Now what if I was older and that was on a road and I ended up in the back end of a car etc. Damage would be caused it was a accident but who would pay for the damage??? Who would replace your bike??? Who would replace the car back window??? Who would claim of who??? And this is from a accident where no one person was at fault.

Yes, Jubby but I haven't heard of anyone been run over and killed by a drunk cyclist have you?

Cars are far more dangerous because they are bigger, heavier, faster and hurt a lot more when they hit you. Because they can easily (and frequently do) kill people there are laws governing their use, which includes having a licence and insurance. Bicycles do not maim and kill people so there is no need to force cyclists to be licenced and insured.

This doesn't mean that on occasion a cyclist won't do something wrong that may damage someones car or even hurt someone but the same could be said for pedestrians. Pedestrians cause far more accidents than cyclists (who generally feel vulnerable all the time they are riding and are therefore more careful) but you don't call for them to be licenced and insured? Why? Because it would be a worthless exercise and there are better things the police could be doing.

Originally posted by jubby
When I was a lot younger enjoying cycling in the park my brake cable snapped and I ended up in a bush. Now what if I was older and that was on a road and I ended up in the back end of a car etc. Damage would be caused it was a accident but who would pay for the damage??? Who would replace your bike??? Who would replace the car back window??? Who would claim of who??? And this is from a accident where no one person was at fault.

So are you trying to tell us that you never took your push bike on the road when you were younger?

Also are you suggesting that it should be compulsory for my 10 year old niece to have insurance before riding her bike? If so do you really think this is going to encourage youngsters to use bikes?

Originally posted by Zamo
Yes, Jubby but I haven't heard of anyone been run over and killed by a drunk cyclist have you?

Cars are far more dangerous because they are bigger, heavier, faster and hurt a lot more when they hit you. Because they can easily (and frequently do) kill people there are laws governing their use, which includes having a licence and insurance. Bicycles do not maim and kill people so there is no need to force cyclists to be licenced and insured.

This doesn't mean that on occasion a cyclist won't do something wrong that may damage someones car or even hurt someone but the same could be said for pedestrians. Pedestrians cause far more accidents than cyclists (who generally feel vulnerable all the time they are riding and are therefore more careful) but you don't call for them to be licenced and insured? Why? Because it would be a worthless exercise and there are better things the police could be doing.

She only injured them while being dunk on the bike so is that ok then????

Originally posted by Dug
So are you trying to tell us that you never took your push bike on the road when you were younger?

Also are you suggesting that it should be compulsory for my 10 year old niece to have insurance before riding her bike? If so do you really think this is going to encourage youngsters to use bikes?

Yes I did, and I still feel they should be insured. If I had to be insured then I would have been or not rode my bike.

I see kids doing silly things on bikes a lot more often than adults. In the case of your ten year old neice, if she has a accident and it is her fault, it would be her parents who would be claimed against. If she was insured (by her parents) this would not be the case and the claim would be though the insurance company.

I see your point but it would be better all round if cyclists were insured, as it protects them and other road users. Especilay for legal fees, if you were hit by a car and you wanted to take him to court a lot of insuracne compaines will pay your legal fees, without that you may have to do that yourself.

Jubby - I'm sorry but in my opinion the benefits of cycling e.g. health related, reducing congestion, reducing pollution etc. far outweigh the tiny percentage of cycling related accidents that would justify compulsory insurance for cyclists (and thereby reducing bike use and the associated benefits).

Originally posted by Dug
Jubby - I'm sorry but in my opinion the benefits of cycling e.g. health related, reducing congestion, reducing pollution etc. far outweigh the tiny percentage of cycling related accidents that would justify compulsory insurance for cyclists (and thereby reducing bike use and the associated benefits).

Fair enough DUG that is you opinion. And I hope you can afford it if you do mistake and have an accident and that person sues you. As I said before they may need their car so may sue for more than repair bill.

Originally posted by jubby
Fair enough DUG that is you opinion. And I hope you can afford it if you do mistake and have an accident and that person sues you. As I said before they may need their car so may sue for more than repair bill.

Cheers, don't worry I'm a careful cyclist.:thumbsup:

And besides why do you assume I haven't got cycle insurance? - I'm against ideas which stop people using bikes such as compulsory insurance for all cyclists, but that doesn't mean I'm not insured.

I know this is slightly off subject but if as the rider of a horse, is there a requirement for insurance if the animal is taken onto a public highway ?

Interesting thought that one.

Bikes and Horses have the same rights when it comes to public rights of way dont they.

Should it be the same on the highway?

Originally posted by jubby
Clarify this by 3rd party I see that as if you the 3rd party are responsible therefore it should be covered for free???

If the car driver is responsible they should be insured anyway so you claim of them.

If you cause the accident any claims come out of your pocket in the small claims court and a insurance scheme should be in place (I feel by law) to protect everyone, the same reason car insurance was made compulsary.

As previous mentioned on these posts not everyone is perfect, and accidents do happen. When I was a lot younger enjoying cycling in the park my brake cable snapped and I ended up in a bush. Now what if I was older and that was on a road and I ended up in the back end of a car etc. Damage would be caused it was a accident but who would pay for the damage??? Who would replace your bike??? Who would replace the car back window??? Who would claim of who??? And this is from a accident where no one person was at fault.


Ok then. 3rd party insurance would be exactly the same as it is for your car. Is that clear enough? The 3rd party is insured for damage to limb and property. The cost of this through the Road Fund License would be di-minimis

Originally posted by jackthedog
Interesting thought that one.

Bikes and Horses have the same rights when it comes to public rights of way dont they.

Should it be the same on the highway?

Not sure on this one, I know there are some different laws, ie compulsory to wear a helmet.

Are cyclist allowed by law to use a public byway, horeses are not sure on cycles.

I know a cyclist should give way to a horse as well as other road users - thats give way to a horse.

They have the same laws as to due care and attention etc.

Originally posted by Tony
Ok then. 3rd party insurance would be exactly the same as it is for your car. Is that clear enough? The 3rd party is insured for damage to limb and property. The cost of this through the Road Fund License would be di-minimis

So it's not free then it would be paid for by????

Basically cyclists do have to give way to all other trail uses on Bridleways, have no access on Footpaths, and (I think) anyone should be able to use Public Byways - motors included, suprisingly.

The motors access on byways is a difficult one though, cos not all byways allow it. But it's off subject anyway.

Originally posted by jubby
So it's not free then it would be paid for by????
Come on, keep up. You must have read my answer 3 or 4 times aleadt - heavens, you even quoted it. :rolleyes:

THE ROAD FUND LICENCE

Originally posted by Tony
Come on, keep up. You must have read my answer 3 or 4 times aleady - heavens, you even quoted it. :rolleyes:

THE ROAD FUND LICENCE

Originally posted by jackthedog
Basically cyclists do have to give way to all other trail uses on Bridleways, have no access on Footpaths, and (I think) anyone should be able to use Public Byways - motors included, suprisingly.

The motors access on byways is a difficult one though, cos not all byways allow it. But it's off subject anyway.

Sorry I meant to say Bridleway

Originally posted by Tony
Come on, keep up. You must have read my answer 3 or 4 times aleadt - heavens, you even quoted it. :rolleyes:

THE ROAD FUND LICENCE

Excuse my ignorance but what is the ROAD FUND LICENCE and who pays for it???

OK I will excuse your obvious ignorance. :) It is the commonly used proper name for "Road Tax". So the motorist, or "licensed road user" pays.

OK.. maybe this will clear up a few things. The motorist has a legal duty as does the cyclist. Hoever, the motorisit is under a special duty of care to "vunlerable road users".

From the Highway Code. Highway Code (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#139)

How about these...

Rule 139 give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking'
Rule 180 The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, elderly and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.

Rule 187. It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions and at roundabouts. Always look out for them when you are emerging from a junction.

Rule 188 When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rule 139). If they look over their shoulder whilst you are following them it could mean that they may soon attempt to turn right. Give them time and space to do so.

Rule 189 Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as draincovers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room.

See the common thread? - give them time and space!

Originally posted by Tony
OK I will excuse your obvious ignorance. :) It is the commonly used proper name for "Road Tax". So the motorist, or "licensed road user" pays.

OK so (correct me if I am wrong here) you're saying that the car driver should pay for a cyclist "free" 3rd party insurance. This means that if the cyclist has an accident and it their fault than the car driver should pay for this not the cyclist who was at fault??? Where is the fairness in that??? If the motorist was at fault it would be claimed for out of insurance that he has paid to. Why should a motorist have to pay to insure someones errors other than their own???

Well it's the paying licensed road use, so car, lorry, bus, motorbike, in fact everyone except 2 Jags Prescott :). It's impossible and totally impractical to licence all cyclists, and under the present system, there is NO insurance.

A 3rd party insurance scheme would ensure that the motorist, pedestrian, other cyclist, etc would be covered where the cyclist is at fault. At the moment you as a car driver would get didly squat. It's not an freebie advantage for the cyclist - its for everyone else.

I just think that it's a very practical and quite cheap thing to do.

Originally posted by Tony
Well it's the paying licensed road use, so car, lorry, bus, motorbike, in fact everyone except 2 Jags Prescott :). It's impossible and totally impractical to licence all cyclists, and under the present system, there is NO insurance.

A 3rd party insurance scheme would ensure that the motorist, pedestrian, other cyclist, etc would be covered where the cyclist is at fault. At the moment you as a car driver would get didly squat. It's not an freebie advantage for the cyclist - its for everyone else.

I just think that it's a very practical and quite cheap thing to do.

Why as a motorist would I get diddly squat?? I would take the person at fault to court and sue for damages and losses.

I just don't see why I should pay for someones eles insurance thats all. By not paying for it the cyclists gets a freebie. In your view shouldn't it cover pedriatians as well, after all we are all pedrstrians at some point in our life.

I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. We both feel that cyclists should be insurered its just how and who would pay for it that differs.

I take your point, but I don't see how you could ever get 5 year olds insured, or ensure that every cyclist is insured. Therefore, a national automatic scheme would do the trick for everyone's benefit. Think how little this would cost compared to many of the other (often daft) things that we already pay for through the RFL that have nothing to do with motoring.

I actually think that there should also be automatic 3rd party insurance paid through fuel for motorists (I might start a thread on that).

Few motorists have the cash to take an uninsured cyclist to court. Even if they win, what happens if the cyclist is a cyclist because they have no money?

In any case, the cyclist contributes more to the motorist by NOT running a car than any motorist does to a cyclist when you think about it.

Just to clear some other rules up as well this is from the same website tony got his info from.


Rule 46 - At night your cycle MUST have front and rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Law RVLR regs 18 & 24
(I stand corrected that it does not say you can't have thoses flashing units)

Rule 50 - You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD reg 10

Rule 53 - You MUST NOT
- carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
- hold on to a moving vehicle or trailer
- ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
- ride when under the influence of drink or drugs.
Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991

Rule 54 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Do not leave your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct road users or pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement. Use cycle parking facilities where provided.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

Rule 55 - You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 154).
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD reg 10

Rule 56 - Bus Lanes. These may be used by cyclists only if the signs include a cycle symbol. Watch out for people getting on or off a bus. Be very careful when overtaking a bus or leaving a bus lane as you will be entering a busier traffic flow.

This is only a selection of rules for cyclists. It states that these are in addition to the rules for ALL road users. Where it states a statue (spelt wrong) under it; it is law... ie HA (Highways Act), RTA (Road Traffic Act) and therefore you could be proscicuted for breaking it.

The main problem with some cyclists is they have never picked up a copy of the highway code never mind read one. A motorist has to do a theory test and hazard peception before doing there practical. I know there are still careless drivers out there who have passed these but that just means they should know better.

Some of the excuses cyclists have given here for breaking the law (see above it is law) in my humble opinon not good enough.

Originally posted by Tony
I take your point, but I don't see how you could ever get 5 year olds insured, or ensure that every cyclist is insured. Therefore, a national automatic scheme would do the trick for everyone's benefit. Think how little this would cost compared to many of the other (often daft) things that we already pay for through the RFL that have nothing to do with motoring.

I actually think that there should also be automatic 3rd party insurance paid through fuel for motorists (I might start a thread on that).

Few motorists have the cash to take an uninsured cyclist to court. Even if they win, what happens if the cyclist is a cyclist because they have no money?

In any case, the cyclist contributes more to the motorist by NOT running a car than any motorist does to a cyclist when you think about it.

I take your point on board and do see it would be hard to get even all adult cyclists insured unless you had to have a regeristed vehcile or person and displayed that so the police could check if you were insured. And then what about cyclists that own more than one bike...etc. How it would be implemented I'm not sure. I do feel that if the motorist paid for it, it may become more dangerous on the road as some resentment from some car drivers come in towards the cyclists ifyou see what I mean. Some car drivers hate tham "holding" them up, if they paid for their insurance, the horrors hopefully will stay in my mind.

You haven’t seen me condoning cyclists breaking the law anywhere on here. However, there are certain things that cyclists sometimes do because they are more vulnerable and they are protecting their safety against some selfish and stupid motorists.

In simple terms, if motorists simply followed the law and respected cyclists there would be no reason for cyclists to flout the rules of the road.

Sorry, but motorist created and perpetuate this situation. Cyclists are merely responding.

Originally posted by Tony
You haven’t seen me condoning cyclists breaking the law anywhere on here. However, there are certain things that cyclists sometimes do because they are more vulnerable and they are protecting their safety against some selfish and stupid motorists.

In simple terms, if motorists simply followed the law and respected cyclists there would be no reason for cyclists to flout the rules of the road.

Sorry, but motorist created and perpetuate this situation. Cyclists are merely responding.

Sorry I never said you did.

The rules were put there for some who said it was ok for a cyclist to go through red if it was clear. They would't admit they were breaking the law. Yes I agree it needs both sides to abide by the law. It like speed cameras the motorist moans its an extra tax, a "tax" they wouldn't be paying if they weren't speeding!!!

I as a cyclist and a motorist have come across red lights at midnight not a car in sight and waited until it changed. Why because it is law...

I am gald to hear that you, Tony and Dug are law abiding cyclists, we need more like you and for motorists to be more like you as well. I hope one to come across you for you may remember me or my wife as the one that day who gave you room while they safely overtook you. And then the gits behind that we held up cut you up...becuase they are idiots...

Originally posted by jubby
They would't admit they were breaking the law. Yes I agree it needs both sides to abide by the law. It like speed cameras the motorist moans its an extra tax, a "tax" they wouldn't be paying if they weren't speeding!!!

Agreed! I passed in 1987, never had a speeding ticket, don’t hang around, and I will admit to driving to Nottingham in the early hours at 130mph! Importantly, I just totally refuse to drive quickly in built up areas. There are hazards absolutely EVERYWHERE but so many motorists just don’t understand that. I think that long distance cycling on fast roads does teach you to see these things.

I was taught to drive by a police driver so I had to do all the commentary, observation and condition assesment stuff that the Police do when training to drive. That’s probably helped me to never have a speeding ticket or an accident (touch wood) but like most things it’s probably a matter of time.:nono: If it does, will be my fault, not a camera's or the Police's.

Originally posted by jubby
I am gald to hear that you, Tony and Dug are law abiding cyclists, we need more like you and for motorists to be more like you as well. I hope one to come across you for you may remember me or my wife as the one that day who gave you room while they safely overtook you. And then the gits behind that we held up cut you up...becuase they are idiots...

I do little cycling these days (as my waist line shows Hehe) but I’ve been knocked off plenty of times by motorists, normally ‘cos they pass too close too fast. I rarely see bad cyclists, but see bad motorists every minute on the road. Watch the traffic on Ecclesall Road for 10 minutes and you will be amazed.

Originally posted by Tony
Agreed! I passed in 1987, never had a speeding ticket, don’t hang around, and I will admit to driving to Nottingham in the early hours at 130mph! Importantly, I just totally refuse to drive quickly in built up areas. There are hazards absolutely EVERYWHERE but so many motorists just don’t understand that. I think that long distance cycling on fast roads does teach you to see these things.

I was taught to drive by a police driver so I had to do all the commentary, observation and condition assesment stuff that the Police do when training to drive. That’s probably helped me to never have a speeding ticket or an accident (touch wood) but like most things it’s probably a matter of time.:nono: If it does, will be my fault, not a camera's or the Police's.



I do little cycling these days (as my waist line shows Hehe) but I’ve been knocked off plenty of times by motorists, normally ‘cos they pass too close too fast. I rarely see bad cyclists, but see bad motorists every minute on the road. Watch the traffic on Ecclesall Road for 10 minutes and you will be amazed.

I have seen bad cyclists all too often.

The ones who ride in the middle of the road and when I say middle i mean near the centre line!!! Also the ones who go Oh need to turn right here and serve in front of you without looking. We are aware they are there give them room and then they do something stupid like that and cause to do an emergency stop to stop us hitting them. The ones who do go through red lights and we nearly hit because they came trough from beside a bus or other large vehicle so don't see them until they're in front of you.

I have seen just as many bad motorists, cars, buses, lorries as well but i feel that cyclists are too vunrable like bikers to do these things.

There are good cyclists and there are bad cyclists, just like there are good drivers and bad drivers.

However, I think that the roads aren't the place for cyclists as they are too vulnerable there. I think that instead of building cycle lanes on the roads, the pavements next to where lanes need to be should be extended into the road a bit and the lane put on to the pavement, maybe with railings or some kind of barrier to separate the edge of the lane from the road. I think cyclists and pedestrians mix a lot better than cyclists and cars, and pedestrians would still have plenty of pavement space.

I cycle ecclesall road each way daily and yes people do the most strangest of things, this includes drivers who drive so far to the left you could not get a wafer through but the thing is, they are not travelling more than 5mph if they are moving at all, i see cyclists ( not wishing to offend ) but the very vast majority of these are students without lights and most of the time without common sense riding on the pavements, most of the cycling commuters are on the road and highly visible and well lit like myself.
Pedestrians just walking into the road without looking or popping out from between parked cars and this is even when the bus lane is in operation, one colleague of mine was very upset the other week, as she was city bound approaching collegiate cres and wanting to turn left into the cres she did not signal because the state of the road is so bad she was afraid to take her hand of the handlebar to signal, a driver waiting to pull out of the cres gave her such an obscene mouthful cos she did not signal to turn that it upset her for the rest of the day. I find that cars tend to creep out of junctions and into the road causing me to swerve into the traffic. But thankfully not all drivers are like that, i have on many occasions informed drivers about back/brake lights not working and have recieved a very cheery thank you.
The problem lies with the fact that there are too many users for too little roads.

Originally posted by playman
I find that cars tend to creep out of junctions and into the road causing me to swerve into the traffic.


Maybe thats because NO ONE ever lets one join the main road from side roads because everyones in such a mad rush in th 2mph gridlock that they can't bear to sacrifice one cars length. Try joining Ecclesall Rd from one of the side roads, WITHOUT pulling out into the road just that little bit and edging forwards, and you can kiss goodbye to 30 mins of your life because the flow of traffic will simply ignore you.

Originally posted by t020
There are good cyclists and there are bad cyclists, just like there are good drivers and bad drivers.

However, I think that the roads aren't the place for cyclists as they are too vulnerable there. I think that instead of building cycle lanes on the roads, the pavements next to where lanes need to be should be extended into the road a bit and the lane put on to the pavement, maybe with railings or some kind of barrier to separate the edge of the lane from the road. I think cyclists and pedestrians mix a lot better than cyclists and cars, and pedestrians would still have plenty of pavement space.

Good idea. There are lots of pavements where there is a grassed area inbetween the path and road this could be used for the cycle lane space.

Originally posted by playman
I cycle ecclesall road each way daily and yes people do the most strangest of things, this includes drivers who drive so far to the left you could not get a wafer through but the thing is, they are not travelling more than 5mph if they are moving at all, i see cyclists ( not wishing to offend ) but the very vast majority of these are students without lights and most of the time without common sense riding on the pavements, most of the cycling commuters are on the road and highly visible and well lit like myself.
Pedestrians just walking into the road without looking or popping out from between parked cars and this is even when the bus lane is in operation, one colleague of mine was very upset the other week, as she was city bound approaching collegiate cres and wanting to turn left into the cres she did not signal because the state of the road is so bad she was afraid to take her hand of the handlebar to signal, a driver waiting to pull out of the cres gave her such an obscene mouthful cos she did not signal to turn that it upset her for the rest of the day. I find that cars tend to creep out of junctions and into the road causing me to swerve into the traffic. But thankfully not all drivers are like that, i have on many occasions informed drivers about back/brake lights not working and have recieved a very cheery thank you.
The problem lies with the fact that there are too many users for too little roads.

Break lights with cars (and other vehicles) are a problem for everyone.

The problem is if you are on your own how can you check them??? You check everyother light on a motor vehicle except your brake lights. Yet if you drive with one or more out you can get fined (should be a recorded warning) as it is the law. If it wasn't for other road users my wife would not know except at the weekly check we do together. Sods law has it the light will go in between these weekly checks.

Jubby

Originally posted by jubby
Break lights with cars (and other vehicles) are a problem for everyone.

The problem is if you are on your own how can you check them??? You check everyother light on a motor vehicle except your brake lights. Yet if you drive with one or more out you can get fined (should be a recorded warning) as it is the law. If it wasn't for other road users my wife would not know except at the weekly check we do together. Sods law has it the light will go in between these weekly checks.

Jubby

If, whilst parking or reversing, check for the reflection of your brake lights in/on:

garage door
parked vehicles headlights
shop window
wall

I manage to check all lights this way on a daily basis without really havin to think about it. :idea:

Originally posted by claycraft
If, whilst parking or reversing, check for the reflection of your brake lights in/on:

garage door
parked vehicles headlights
shop window
wall

I manage to check all lights this way on a daily basis without really havin to think about it. :idea:

I thought this advice looked familiar. I'm glad someone else can think logically:

Checking lights (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=33530&highlight=lights#post33530)

Originally posted by claycraft
If, whilst parking or reversing, check for the reflection of your brake lights in/on:

garage door
parked vehicles headlights
shop window
wall

I manage to check all lights this way on a daily basis without really havin to think about it. :idea:

Don't have garage, wall or a shop near where I park, and usally when my wife gets in the car everyone has left for work (not many cyclists on my road) so unable to do that except for when she is on the move.

We are looking at some MPV's at the moment (larger family) and a lot of them come with warnings if a light is out. Spoke to a mechanic at one of the dealerships on how they work. Basicly if a light is out the amount of current (amps i think he said) being used changes so there the vehicles computer knows a light is out and which one, a sensor for each light, and therefore can display it on the HUD.

Going down the A 57 Saturday was appalled at the behaviour of a group of cyclists. Travelling down the hill towards Ladybower we encountered a group of cyclists who were not only 2 abreast but maybe 4 or 5 deep going down the hill and when I dared to over take them were seen to give explicit gestures with their fingers. This is not good for a familly travelling out to Derbyshire for a picnic, also may I say these were not the usual people with choppers but people with highly coloured uniforms, clinging to their skin. Have any of you good people encountered these louts?



Geronimo

After you overtook them you should have slowed down in front of them and seen how they liked it,either that or just knock them the hell out of the way.I know if they had given me explicit gestures i would have been straight out of the car for a quiet word. I think its the law the cyclists on public roads are suppose to travel in single file.

Hi all, new member.
Just read this thread, (took a while) laughed for about an hour. Absolutely brilliant, not seen that much tosh in one place since Oakwell. It shows one clear point, that is, that road users are in themselves the most selfish and inconsiderate people around. Take any person, and, when on a particular form of transport they will think that it is king, they the best ever and others are doing it all wrong. I was a driving instuctor, cycled for many years and now ride a scooter daily. It never changes.
The worrying thing is that everyone is a road user at some point, therefore it must just be people who are selfish, inconsiderate, etc. Dont try to change human nature, just take it easy and look after yourself on the road, that way we all stay safe.

Pedrome

I have no problem with cyclists using our roads, provided they meet the following.....


1. There should be a minimum allowable age of 17.

2. They should have to take a driving test apropriate for their vehicle (and pay the fee for doing this) including the theory test.

3. They should be bound under the same rules of the Road Traffic Act as other powered vehicles.

4. Offences should cause pionts on a cyclists licence (which should simply be a caagory on a standard Euro-Licence)

5. All vehicles should pay road tax at a rate relating to the ammount of congestion etc they cause (this would put cyclists right at the top of the bands!)

6. They should require insurance.

7. Bicycles should carry registration plates.

8. Bicycles should have an annual M.O.T. (maybe then we would not see so many going round without working lights!)

Basically, a bicycle is a road vehicle just like any other, so the same rules should apply.

Errr... this last post was a troll wan't it?

Originally posted by Tony
Errr... this last post was a troll wan't it?

Or written by a troll.:loopy:

Do you love them or hate them?

I myself being new to the cycling game am often forced to ride on (un-occupied) pavements in the industrial quarter of my area.

Why? because the motorists seem to think it is my job to cycle in the gutter and the potholes. I have twice this month been forced to stop and take my bike out of the road because cars wouldnt give me any space. The cycle paths are few and far between and the one from hillsborough conveniently shares its space with the bloody TRAM TRACKS!

Are you motorists upset because I can get through the traffic whilst you sit in a gridlock for 20 minutes? I refer particularly to those who queue on Middlewood Road down to catchbar lane every morning.

It is heartening to see that more and more people are cycling to work on my route and it is giving me more confidence to stick to my guns and stay in the road.

So are you a motorist? a cyclist? or a user of public transport?
what do you think?

From your post about being forced into the gutter etc. I would strongly recommend that you read a copy of Cyclecraft by John Franklin (Amazon.co.uk have it)

It teaches more assertive riding, techniques such as making eye contact with drivers and much more. It's really very helpful

I am assertive!!!

And trust me they know Im there, the kind of thing I get is just spiteful, or perhaps they're too busy putting on make-up/shaving/reading the morning paper to be aware of their surroundings.

If a car decides to obstruct me on purpose or come so close it becomes dangerous what can I do?

:(

On the other hand, I saw a cyclist the other morning. He rode straight through the red light (it had been red for some time - not just an ambler gambler) and straight into the traffic flow, causing someone to brake sharply.

If both motorists AND cyclists obeyed the rules of the road, then there wouldn't be a problem!

:nod:

I promise I never do that. I value my life. I have seen it though.

There are some guys (the lycra wearing racer types) who I have seen do this and it will only be a matter of time before they come off worse.

I started cycling to work because the traffic is so bad I can get there on my bike 10 minutes before the tram (which was my previous mode of transport), tram is also stuck in traffic jam.

If you want to point out the odd cyclists riding through red lights (when most of them are well behaved), then I'll quite happily point out:

Cars driving through pedestrian crossings when the lights are red.
Cars driving the wrong way down one-way streets
Cars taking short cuts by driving on the pavement
Cars speeding through zebra crossings when peds are attempting to cross.
Cars not giving right of way to peds when turning into side roads.
Cars running cyclists off the road.
Cars parking in and driving in buslanes.

I see all of these things happen on a regular basis. At least one incident a day - and that's just on my walk into work and back.

Originally posted by fox20thc
The cycle paths are few and far between and the one from hillsborough conveniently shares its space with the bloody TRAM TRACKS!

Theres a nice cycle path for you all the way up East Bank Road !
The majority of cylce paths are very ad hock just start, stop and disapear.

I wish all cyclists had by law to wear a high visibilty jerkin and use much better reflectors than most of them do. Many cyclists are inviting an accident by trying to ride around unseen.. :loopy:

Hi all
Is it me only that thinks trhat there's so much traffic in the major junctions in our city!, Hunters bar is 10 cars deep all the time, same goes for bottom Ecclesall rd & almost everywhere!.
I used to go to Hillsborough, to see the footy( no jokes please) & at the junction of Rivelin Valy rd it always was busy, only at footy games, now it's like that all the time, same gioes for the roundabout just down from the childrens hospital!, the by-pass from Ecclesall Rd to the road that takes you to Pennistone Rd.

Hey all, the country isn't getting bigger, but cars are continuously being made & more people are being born, therefore more people & more cars as people take their test & get cars & take upthe roads!
I have been to Bangkok,a place that is far more populated than Sheffield, but they all go around on 2 wheels. Because they know that if they all went round in cars it would be caos.
We should all take note, instead of being selfish!

Originally posted by Romario

I used to go to Hillsborough, to see the footy( no jokes please) & at the junction of Rivelin Valy rd it always was busy, only at footy games, now it's like that all the


Hello Romario,

You are quite right! Sheffields hilly disposition creates lots of choke points, where traffic tries to squeeze through narrow roadways. Malin bridge is a good example.

I'm a keep cyclist and would love to see more people taking to the bike for their daily travel, alas Sheffields hilly nature mitigates any chance of cycling in Sheffield becoming a mainstream activity, like it is in the Netherlands.

I have a dislike of cyclists due to their arrogant attitude, the belief they should be allowed to take their bike anywhere, and the fact they seem to think traffic lights and other road rules do not apply to them. OK I know it's not the majority but....

As a pedestrian I am fed up with cyclists sailing through red lights on pelican crossings, nearly knocking me down. I keep promising myself that next time it happens they will somehow get their spokes tangled up with my umbrella and go flying. Also fed up with bikes travelling towards me at high speed on pedestrianised areas and pavements with blatant disregard for the safety of pedestrians.

As a train passenger I am fed up with having to stand up because there are bikes on the seats rather than in the proper bike storage area (that must damage the upholstory too)

As a bus passenger I am fed up with getting delayed by cyclists who seem to get some moral satisfaction riding in the MIDDLE of an empty lane at 0.5mph, rather that riding in the left hand side of the road where a) they will be safe and b) we can get past. Also when the bus is about to set off at the lights and has to make an emergency stop because some idiot on a bike rode down our right hand side and suddenly appear in front of us.

If cyclists stuck to the rules and co-existed with everyone else better, I would have respect for them rather than misplaced hatred.

Yes, many car drivers also appear to be bloody stupid and ignore signs and so on (just watch the cars around the railway station for some classic examples) however two wrongs do not make a right.

The left edge of the road is NOT where the cyclist will be safe. This just encourages traffic to try to squeeze past, ending up with the cyclist being forced off the road.

That is why experienced cyclists use the middle of the lane, it's not some conspiracy to cause you personal annoyance.

And I'm still trying to work out how a bus that is "about to set off" can possibly make any kind of emergency stop?

Andy C.. There are always going to be selfish people, but that doesn't make cyclists selfish. You sound as bad as them :P

I think you should try spending a little time as a cyclist, then you might understand the reasons for some of the things that you're moaning about.

You might then be a little less uptight about other people who are doing their bit that makes your journeys a little faster.

to be honest, i want to cycle to uni but i think the roads will be a bit to manic, and id rather ride on the path, but its illegal isnt it in city centres?

its a much better form of travel but cycle paths are hardly everywhere.

Originally posted by Squiggs
The left edge of the road is NOT where the cyclist will be safe. This just encourages traffic to try to squeeze past, ending up with the cyclist being forced off the road.

That is why experienced cyclists use the middle of the lane, it's not some conspiracy to cause you personal annoyance.

Rubbish. On a main road there is room for both, and a cyclist should be riding on the left side of the road (unless turning right of course). If other traffic is forcing a cyclist off the road in this circumstance, the motorists in question aren't fit to be on the road.

If a bike is in the middle of the lane, this is deliberatly disrupting traffic behind, causes frustration and will surely lead to motorists doing something much more aggressive to get past the slow moving bike.

Originally posted by Squiggs


And I'm still trying to work out how a bus that is "about to set off" can possibly make any kind of emergency stop?

The example I am thinking of was from earlier this week on Abbeydale Road. There was 2 lanes of traffic queueing at the lights, the bus I was on was in the left hand lane, and just seconds before the lights went green a bike came sailing down the narrow gap between the 2 lanes of traffic to get to the front of the line and just as the bus was setting off at the green light the bike cut in front of the bus in a kamikazi fashion forcing us to stop.

Originally posted by Steee
to be honest, i want to cycle to uni but i think the roads will be a bit to manic, and id rather ride on the path, but its illegal isnt it in city centres?

its a much better form of travel but cycle paths are hardly everywhere.

Shame we haven't got roads laid out like in Holland, where all roads have a protected cycle lane, segregrated by a curb, between the pavement and main road. Bikes are able to move quickly and safely without conflicting with other traffic movements.

I bet more people would cycle if we had that design. (Or at least on the less hilly routes anyway!)

That's not kamizaze, it's defensive, assertive riding by the sound of it.

From a cyclists point of view, you could either do that, thereby forcing the bus to notice you, or become the jam in the sandwich of 2 lanes of traffic. I know what I would do.

Originally posted by Tony
Andy C.. There are always going to be selfish people, but that doesn't make cyclists selfish. You sound as bad as them :P

I think you should try spending a little time as a cyclist, then you might understand the reasons for some of the things that you're moaning about.

You might then be a little less uptight about other people who are doing their bit that makes your journeys a little faster.

Actually I have tried cycling to work, back when I worked in Sheffield and did shifts. When a 4:30am start came up, obviously there were no buses that early, so I cycled into town from Bradway. I quite enjoyed the experience early morning, and it was pretty much all down hill. Coming back early afternoon was no fun at all though. Main problem was on busy main roads such as Chesterfield Road or Abbeydale Road when you come to a parked car and have to pull out into a busy stream of traffic.

I soon discovered it was much easier to get a train to either Dore or Dronfield and cycle to Bradway from there instead!

Anyway, moving on, whilst cyclists on the road in front of my bus is mildly annoying, I am not driving the bus so no major stress really, and the delay is minor, so that is not my main issue.

My main issue is when I am a pedestrian how I risk getting knocked down and seriously injured. Yes red lights DO apply to cyclists, I do not expect to see bikes tearing towards me when I cross on a green man, as I say, the umbrella/spokes combo is probably the answer!

Originally posted by Tony
That's not kamizaze, it's defensive, assertive riding by the sound of it.

From a cyclists point of view, you could either do that, thereby forcing the bus to notice you, or become the jam in the sandwich of 2 lanes of traffic. I know what I would do.

Erm, the bike could try waiting in line like everyone else!

why should it?

The bike should move over to the potholes and kerbs to let you past. Then after you've passed it on the approach to a red light, it should submissively and subserviently wait in line behind you?

As you said in response to my post, Rubbish!

And imagine the bike is a milk float. That's an even slower moving vehicle - and it takes up a whole lane. So by your logic, the milk float should be banned from the road as it is inciting aggressive behaviour from motorists trying to get around it.

Oh and have you ever tried cycling at the speed you state - "0.5 mph"? - cycling that slow is almost impossible. With your other statement that from "about to set off" (ie not even moving yet) the bus had to do an emergency stop, and your wildly innacurate estimates of speed, one would conclude that your tirade has little basis in thought and fact.

On the speed issue, many regular cyclists tend to travel somewhere between 20-30 mph on the flat - now I've lost count of the times I've been behind a car travelling at 15-20 mph. Should I therefore tailgate them, blow my horn and do everything in my power to get the slower-moving vehicle out of my way?

Can I also point out that I am, primarily, a motorist. I use my bike once or twice a month, as my work often requires me to have my car, I use the car daily. So I'm not some kind of militant critical-mass ban-the-car eco-warrior

As a keen cyclist - one who does obey the highway code and pays for the upkeep of the roads through road tax and council tax - I am amazed at the amount of pedestrians who walk out in front of me without looking! They assume that because they cannot hear the sound of an engine that the road is clear, I was always told to stop, look and listen - not amble out onto the road without looking!

Well they do that with cars too... don't feel bad about it ;)

The pedestrians that annoy me are the ones that amble out and then deliberately slow down when they see you coming in some sort of weird game of dare. :loopy:

Originally posted by Tony
Well they do that with cars too... don't feel bad about it ;)

The pedestrians that annoy me are the ones that amble out and then deliberately slow down when they see you coming in some sort of weird game of dare. :loopy:

It's ok I don't take it personally!

You're right about the game of dare some pedestrians play. mmm I wonder who would come off worse if there was a collision?

I used to cycle in to work. Before that I had cycled happily round several other cities in the country without any problem (including some just as hilly!) but only when I came to Sheffield did I find yobs in cars shouting abuse at me, deliberately trying to push me off as they went past, or indeed in one case spitting on me. I don't know whether any present day cyclists find the same behaviour.

Nowadays I go on the tram. One of the things I asked at the public consultation meetings when the tram was being planned was why the tram tracks were so close to the edge of the road: wouldn't that mean that trams couldn't overtake cycles, and you would get a situation where trams were following about an inch behind cyclists, ringing their bell for them to get out of the way. No way, I was told, our drivers will be trained not to do that. And yet coming up past Hillsborough barracks the other day, we had exactly that: some poor sod struggling up the hill on his bike, and the tram about an inch behind him, with the driver ringing his bell and making rude comments to the conductor about how the chap wouldn't get out of the way. It's fair enough to expect cyclists to get out of the way when there's somewhere for them to go, but in this case there wasn't, short of stopping and getting off. I have to say I find the attitude of tram personnel very arrogant - they believe that nothing should get in their way and that nothing else has any right to be on the road.

Originally posted by Squiggs
why should it?[/i]

OK, how about the bike passes the queue on the left hand side, where it can be seen, rather than suddenly and unexpectedly appearing in front of 2 lines of traffic as the lights turn green, with the potential of causing an accident.

Originally posted by Squiggs

And imagine the bike is a milk float. That's an even slower moving vehicle - and it takes up a whole lane. So by your logic, the milk float should be banned from the road as it is inciting aggressive behaviour from motorists trying to get around it.
[/i]

A milk float does indeed both take up the whole of the lane, this is because of the size of the vehicle. A cyclist has the choice of showing courtesy to other road users and keeping to the left of the lane, allowing room for faster vehicles to pass. You will find drivers of milk floats, tractors etc will pull into the edge now and again to let the queue of traffic built up behind pass them, where the road layout allows.

As I say, this is simple COURTESY.

Originally posted by Squiggs
Oh and have you ever tried cycling at the speed you state - "0.5 mph"? - cycling that slow is almost impossible. [/i] OK, so I exagerated a little! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Dug
As a keen cyclist - one who does obey the highway code and pays for the upkeep of the roads through road tax and council tax - I am amazed at the amount of pedestrians who walk out in front of me without looking! They assume that because they cannot hear the sound of an engine that the road is clear, I was always told to stop, look and listen - not amble out onto the road without looking!

Well, there is no allowing for stupid people.

I used to be a very keen cyclist but once Meadowhall was built things soon changed. Riding to the meeting places for Rutland Cycling Club was always eventful having to ride through the city centre with lots of other traffic.

Since being forced off the road by buses and my mentor being killed by a HGV on the A1 I have given up riding on the roads and just now use my mountain bike on the tpt and canal paths.

I have a heavy goods licence and dont mind waiting for a cyclist to turn right at a junction. Courtesy costs nothing and patience saves lives.

Its just how things are now, selfish and arrogant Sheffield. The council could do a hell of alot more but they have their own agendas.

Originally posted by Hadron


I have a heavy goods licence and dont mind waiting for a cyclist to turn right at a junction. Courtesy costs nothing and patience saves lives.

Its just how things are now, selfish and arrogant Sheffield. The council could do a hell of alot more but they have their own agendas.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there.

Firstly ALL road users should be showing each other courtesy, then everyone would be happy.

Secondly new road schemes should have a physically segregated cycle lane built in for the full length of the road.

the segregated lanes would be a wonderful idea but if they were only segregated by a kerb, you'd just find that cyclists had to use the road anyway, as there'd be delivery vans parked across them etc..

but some cycle routes in Sheffield are ridiculous.

"Oh there's a mile-long busy stretch of road, let's build a cycle path to avoid it...hmm, if we take it off to the right via a crossing, down some quiet streets, up that steep hill, around the corner, down here, up there, around here down the dip and up the hill again, wonderful an up and down hilly 2 mile route to avoid 1 mile of gentle slope"

Originally posted by Squiggs
the segregated lanes would be a wonderful idea but if they were only segregated by a kerb, you'd just find that cyclists had to use the road anyway, as there'd be delivery vans parked across them etc..

but some cycle routes in Sheffield are ridiculous.

The council does'nt really care about the cyclist, the ad hock appearing disappearing routes at junctions etc are only there because they get grants from the government to offset the project cost, so as long as a cycle track or cycle provisions are incorporated in the design breif, they will get government assistance.

Looks like this is a pretty contentious issue. I can understand the frustration of motor vehicle drivers in particular, some cyclists drive with an unbelievable lack of responsibility.

That said, some of the anti-cyclists brigade should consider how many deaths and injuries cyclists cause other road users. Pretty much nil compared to drivers.

Personally I make every effort to keep out of the way of traffic, I don't overtake buses and jump the curb if necessary, and particularly with the tram, which simply can't overtake cyclists.

The council has been attempting to deal with crisis-level traffic for over a decade, they would dearly love to get more commuters onto bikes. Unfortunately the costs of laying cycle lanes is huge. Its got to be laid strategically where it will benefit the most people.

To get Sheffield up to the standards of say Haarlem (Netherlands) which is typically superb at support cyclists, would cost about £2 million per current cyclists. Pretty hard to justify, and personally I'd rather they buy me a helicopter ;-)

You might argue that more cycle paths will entice more people off the roads, but its very hard for council's to take those sorts of gambles.

Its not often that I rant but I saw red this morning over the actions and attitude of a cyclist.

I was walking into town and reached the bus gate at the bottom of London Road, I was standing at the junction about to cross to the 'private road' opposite MFI. The pavement ceases to exist at the crossing point and its only a cycle lane.

I stood waiting for traffic to pass, in the cycle lane, but to one side of it when an old bloke pulled up on a cycle and stopped at the side of me. There was plenty of room.

He condescendingly told me that the lane was for cyclists. I immediately bit back and told him that this was the safest point for a pedestrian to cross. He then barked something back to me which I didn't hear and pedalled off. I wish I'd heard what he said!!!

In the Highway Code pedestrians always have right of way. In this case there was plenty of room for both pedestrian and cyclist to share the space, so why be so rude and patronising?

I've never had a problem with cyclists and pedestrians before, I often admire cyclists and their ability to weave around people walking down cycle lanes. I wince at times when they speed down ramps towards blind corners at roundabouts in case they cannot brake in time if someone was to come round the corner, but have not seen an accident yet.

We are all trying to live together in this city and there are times when cyclists and pedestrians will meet - and if it's a safety issue of a road crossing then there is no reason on this earth to even contemplate debating who should stand where to cross the road! If it's a crossing point and there's only one lane, then the unwritten law of courteousness, politeness and understanding should come into force. :rant:

Jump on this if you will but why can't cyclists use paths instead of roads on places like Penistone Road?
I know there is a small amount of shared path usage but generally the cyclist is forced onto the road. On a road which is busy this just serves to slow down the already impatient and fed up driver who has been stuck in gridlock for 1/2 an hour and endanger the cyclist.. not to mention the direct pollution he must inhale!
The number of cars going along a road like this greatly exceeds the number of bikes+pedestrians .. surely the dynamics of this need to be looked at by the council? I understand that cyclists can be a danger to pedestrians but surely they are less danger to them than a car is to a cyclist?

Originally posted by drp215
Jump on this if you will but why can't cyclists use paths instead of roads on places like Penistone Road?
I know there is a small amount of shared path usage but generally the cyclist is forced onto the road. On a road which is busy this just serves to slow down the already impatient and fed up driver who has been stuck in gridlock for 1/2 an hour and endanger the cyclist.. not to mention the direct pollution he must inhale!
?
I do exactly that, I ride from middlewood road down catchbar lane and parkside road onto penistone road and then straight onto the OLD road, which is industrial and has very little traffic on it, this takes me halfway to town. The I nip onto a path (rarely used by pedestrians) by the river which leads me straight to the cycle paths into town. I don't have to encounter hardly any traffic on penistone road, but then again boys and girls, technically I am breaking the LAW, by utilising paths in an industrial quarter which could easily be kerbed and painted half red! :|

Originally posted by fox20thc
I do exactly that, I ride from middlewood road down catchbar lane and parkside road onto penistone road and then straight onto the OLD road, which is industrial and has very little traffic on it, this takes me halfway to town. The I nip onto a path (rarely used by pedestrians) by the river which leads me straight to the cycle paths into town. I don't have to encounter hardly any traffic on penistone road, but then again boys and girls, technically I am breaking the LAW, by utilising paths in an industrial quarter which could easily be kerbed and painted half red! :|
You do right! My husband cycles.. the same direction - from middlewood to near the ponds forge roundabout. He doesn't take the same route as you but instead follows infirmary road but twice has come off his bike cos his wheels got caught in the tram tracks!

Originally posted by Classic Rock
Its not often that I rant but I saw red this morning over the actions and attitude of a cyclist.

I was walking into town and reached the bus gate at the bottom of London Road, I was standing at the junction about to cross to the 'private road' opposite MFI. The pavement ceases to exist at the crossing point and its only a cycle lane.

I stood waiting for traffic to pass, in the cycle lane, but to one side of it when an old bloke pulled up on a cycle and stopped at the side of me. There was plenty of room.

He condescendingly told me that the lane was for cyclists. I immediately bit back and told him that this was the safest point for a pedestrian to cross. He then barked something back to me which I didn't hear and pedalled off. I wish I'd heard what he said!!!

In the Highway Code pedestrians always have right of way. In this case there was plenty of room for both pedestrian and cyclist to share the space, so why be so rude and patronising?

I've never had a problem with cyclists and pedestrians before, I often admire cyclists and their ability to weave around people walking down cycle lanes. I wince at times when they speed down ramps towards blind corners at roundabouts in case they cannot brake in time if someone was to come round the corner, but have not seen an accident yet.

We are all trying to live together in this city and there are times when cyclists and pedestrians will meet - and if it's a safety issue of a road crossing then there is no reason on this earth to even contemplate debating who should stand where to cross the road! If it's a crossing point and there's only one lane, then the unwritten law of courteousness, politeness and understanding should come into force. :rant:

So the idiot cyclist told you the bit of tarmac was for cyclists only! You were merely crossing the cycle lane the same as if you'd been crossing the main road with one of these red cycle stripes - no different. You should have snapped his spokes.

You refer to speeding down ramps and blind corners - probably the underpass at Ecclesall Road bottom. That's an accident waiting to happen - mixing bikes with pedestrians at those blind bends in the subway. The ramps should be footpath only and the bikes should be pushed.

When will we get pushchair only lanes? I'll bet someone at the town hall is thinking up that one right now.

By way of introduction, hi, I'm Dave from Hillsborough, 32, expat southerner since 1991 (before that I had the misfortune to live there full-time!)

Been following this for a bit - just my 4d...

"That's an accident waiting to happen - mixing bikes with pedestrians at those blind bends in the subway. The ramps should be footpath only and the bikes should be pushed."

I don't think that's necessary. As with so many traffic issues all it takes is a bit of common sense - like keeping your speed down to 5 or 10 mph. After all, you're going to have to take that right-angle bend pretty slowly anyway.

Big parabolic mirrors (like factories have at concealed entrances) might work - for about a day until some idiot gives them a coat of spray paint. In any case, how long would it take the council to do them all..?

Going back to my first point I've always thought mixed-use paths are a great idea in principle. All it needs is a bit of give and take - I won't storm past pedestrians at 25mph, and in return maybe they won't blindly walk out in front of us... ;-)

Given the way that most major roads are fast coming to resemble Paris' Boulevard Peripherique in all but name, there may be a case for waiving the restrictions on pavement riding. I certainly use my own judgement in cases where cycling is a virtual impossibility (Park Square anybody?) rather than clinging to the letter of a law written in the days of the Penny Farthing.

Of course I'd much rather just be treated like any other road user, but I think a few more old Raleighs need to be wheeled out of sheds and overhauled before that happens...

I have been cycling to work and back for 13 years with hardly any problems at all. I think the cycle lane situation in Sheffield is a joke. There are no way near enough of them and the one's we do have stop and start all the time so we do not know if we are coming or going.

Reading through this thread, i have been quite impressed by the amout of support for cyclist's in Sheffield....Apart from Andy C.
I am sure you are a nice person Andy but you have managed to sound a proper Numpty in this thread!.

Firstly: If i was cycling and some pedestrian stuck an umberella in my spokes, i would fall off.....Then (if i was still concious) i would get up and promptly rip the face off whichever pleb had done such a stupid thing. 'Sounds violent' i know, but if someone is going to use violence against me (wether it be pedestrian or motorist), i am going to retaliate with everything i have got. RANT OVER!

So.. Now we are supposed to ride on the left hand side of the road in the gutter with all the pot holes and drains ruining our wheels and on the odd occasion, knocking us off balance.
I have a road bike worth approx £900. Most keen cyclist's will have road bikes worth considerably more than that!. Do we ruin our bikes just to let some impatient driver drive by?...I think not!.

'Cyclist's should wait in line with other traffic'
Right then, look at it like this:
I'm riding home, navigating the one way system from West Bar to the Wicker. The motorist's all stop at the lights and i am 30 cars from the front of the queue so i take up my position in the line.When the lights change to green i set off with the other cars but when i reach approx 10 MPH the cars start to pull away faster than me.
Now we're left with loads of cars behind me, all the drivers cursing and beeping their horns because some "D******d" cyclist is holding up the traffic.
I can't pull over to the left and let the drivers past because the left hand lane is for drivers turning left and i want to turn right!.
So what do you suggest i should do now???

Well listening to a Z list local radio show last night he went on about banning all cyclists off the road.
His words were they cause accidents and should be taken off the road.
Of course the anti cycle brigade and I'll agree with you what ever you say Nick brigade had there two penneth.
So when I rang up to back the cyclists I was cut off before I got started.:rant:
So unable to cut me off here and possible to get my message through to him which I was unable to do last night is that motorists should try and do a bit of cycling and maybe there view will change.
I know some and they are a minority are cycling morons who disregard everybody elses safety but the majority of us do care about safety on the road.
Its usually the car drivers that cause the accidents due to not concerntrating on where there going and not giving us enough room.
I don't want to write a story about the ins and outsa as it will take me all day but next time if your a motorist who hates cyclists because there fitter than you are then get your fat arses out of the seat and try riding a bike.
You will help the enviroment and help your pocket to, not to mention your own health.

They also say cycling hinders spelling, grammar and lead to being unable to write properly... :loopy:

You save money on petrol. Plus it doesn't clog up the atmosphere with toxic fumes. In Europe and many places in the States we have bike paths for the safety of the riders. Not in city centres though. All drivers and cyclists should watch out for each other. Noone owns the roads so everyone should beable to use them freely. Why worry about what people say on the radio anyway? Who cares what a DJ thinks? He's just trying to rile up his listeners to keep people from changing the channel. Usually only like minded people listen to them anyway. Keep on cycling man :)

Well done Briano, but your comments are old hat and rather tiresome.
When I want an English lesson, I'll ask for one though I doubt I could learn from you.
Not a cyclist then.

Originally posted by Cycleracer
Well done Briano, but your comments are old hat and rather tiresome.
When I want an English lesson, I'll ask for one though I doubt I could learn from you.
Not a cyclist then.

I am actually a cyclist, however when I want to put an argument together I'll spell check it and re-read it first!

And you're right, I doubt you could learn from me... ;)

No-one can win here... if you cycle you're a menace in neon, popping outta nowhere and scraping down the side of cars for fun. If you drive you are killing the earth and seeking out cyclists to knock over, just for a laugh.

Some drivers are inconsiderate "road-owners"... but this can apply equally to some cyclists.

There. A bit of fence-sitting!

I fully agree with you, but the issue is about the car drivers that always blame the cyclist when he gets knocked off his/her bike because they don't open there eyes, never use there wing mirrors and come far to close causing the cyclist to wobble.
There will always be a wobble of some degree from a cyclist due to tiredness, riding up hills e.t.c but you have to allow for this.
Dick heads that pip there horn for no reason cause they have to turn there steering wheel an extra half of turn to get round you.
Its true that Britains drivers are ignorant and selfish and don't give a toss about the cyclist unlike the continent who do have time for the cyclists.
We as drivers, I say we as I am a car driver to should have more patients when we have to slow down a little or change a gear because someone who happens to be doing exactly what your doing going from A to B only they are choosing to use a bike.
Seriously if you are a car driver especially an impatient one then try riding a bike and leaving the car at home and sample what we have to put up with.

I agree that every motorist should - at least once - experience riding through a busy city centre at rush-hour, before getting too angry at commuting cyclists.

Originally posted by Cycleracer
motorists should try and do a bit of cycling

Why? I have a car. I pay road tax. I have insurance. Why would I want to ride a bike and cause danger to myself and other road users?

I used to cycle everywhere until I changed careers but I lost count of the amount of cyclists who would cycle past me waiting at red lights and pedestrian crossings, didn't look where they're going while on the road and weaved between pedestrians causing a problem not only on the roads but on the pavements too. I'm sure I was never the model cyclist but I always tried to make sure I knew what was behind and to the side of me whenever I turned or had to stop.

This isn't me having a go at cyclists in general though because it's a great form of exercise and free transport and I'm sure these that I saw were in the minority. There are just as many drivers with no patience or respect for other road users (especially cyclists and learners) and won't give an inch, causing the cyclist/learner to panic and lose control.

Nick, I'm presuming you mean Nicholarse, can bang on all he wants about getting cyclists off the road but putting them on the pavement will create just as big a problem for pedestrians when people get knocked over or decide to change direction suddenly without looking to see if there is a cyclist behind them. Why should they have to worry about this anyway when they're walking where they're supposed to? The bicycle is a vehicle and should be on the road like every other. I'm all for cyclists using the road as long as they stick to the same rules as all other vehicles where applicable and they're given enough room by these other vehicles rather than being seen as annoying road-scum.

Footnote: Sounds to me like Nick was doing his usual trick of trying to wind up a large group of people (cyclists in this case) in order to get them to call up and complain so that he could do his other favourite trick of shouting them down, cutting them off and refusing to let them put their valid points across. Nick wins again eh? Pfft! :roll:

Originally posted by Meaks
Why? I have a car. I pay road tax. I have insurance. Why would I want to ride a bike and cause danger to myself and other road users?

Do you mean that, by riding a bike you automatically cause danger to other road users? What a bizzare concept.

Originally posted by jackthedog
Do you mean that, by riding a bike you automatically cause danger to other road users? What a bizzare concept.

It's not that bizarre! If someone is not used to riding a bike they can be a danger to themselves and others swerving all over the road...

If they're not used to riding a bike yet then they shouldn't be on the road (or the pavement) at all yet. :roll:

Originally posted by Pauly
If they're not used to riding a bike yet then they shouldn't be on the road (or the pavement) at all yet. :roll:

That's my point! :suspect:

Have you read this from the beginning!?

i was listening to Nick last night to and it isnt very often (if at all) i agree with him, and lately he just seems to have got more rude to callers than before. he was still rude with last nights callers but i have to agree that bikes shouldnt be on the road... not because im an angry driver because i dont drive but..... because i have seen silly daft drivers that have gone out of their way to torment cyclists just for fun, it could have quite easily caused a death. and not only that some drivers even tho not on purpose go out to hurt cyclists they do because of their lack of resposibility on roads.
im not saying all drivers are at fault and im not saying that all cyclysts have resposibilty either i just think for their own safety because you never know when an idiot joy rider or what ever might wizz round the next corner that cyclysts shouldnt be on the road

BTW i also think the same for horse riders.

but then again i spose we could say well us people shouldnt walk across the crossings cos we never know if the cars are being driven by resposible people that are infact going to stop for the green man.
eeeep :gag: im shutting up now cos ive gone and confuddled myself but i DID start off knowing what i ment LOL :D

Litha

When was the last time you heard anyone killed by being hit with a bike.
I agree that cycling lanes merged with pedestrised lanes is dangerous in its own right and all cyclists should stick to the road.
I do understand that there is a fair share of muppets on bikes who flowt the law by going through red lights and so on, but they are not above the law.
No ones saying you should leave your car at home and take up cycling either, of course not.
I pay road tax for my car but choose the bike on occations.
Its mainly for my own benefit such as keeping fit but i am also helping with the enviroment to.
Rather than go on about greenissues my argument is soley with disruntled drivers and not the majority who do care for others using the road on two wheels.

I may have a certain dislike for some cyclists, but even I find the idea of banning bikes simply stupid.

At the end of the day, both motorists and cyclists are entitled to be on the road, and both are subject to the highway code.

Pavements are for pedestrians. Bikes should NOT be on the pavement unless the rider has dismounted and is pushing it.

My main gripes with cyclists is that they think the rules don't apply to them, and cause a serious danger to others, especially pedestrians - when I have been crossing on a green man at the lights, a cyclist has gone tearing through the red light nearly knocking myself and others over. Then there are those who weave in and out of traffic kamikaze style, causing cars/buses to have to stop suddenly to avoid hitting them - this risks the vehicle behind running into the back.

Of course not all cyclists are guilty of such behaviour, and of course there are some terrible car drivers, who are impatient and probably have poor awareness on how they should pass cyclists safely.

Thing is if a car is involved in an accident, it is obvious, and the guilty driver can be disciplined with things such as fines, points on licence etc, also car drivers are required to pass a test.

With cyclists the same does not apply.

The ideal solution is for not only education and enforcement, but for roads to be designed to be safely used by everyone, in a segregated manner, like in Holland, with decent width car lanes, then a cycle lane, where bikes are seperated by a curb not just a white line, then a decent pavement.

Can't see it happening though, can you?

Also, who the hell is the idiot who designed the cycle route that goes straight across the middle of the pedestrianised area on Howard Street - bikes quite legitematly come tearing down there straight into the pedestrian area at breakneck speed, and no way is that safe!

Hasn't anyone sussed that pratt of a DJ yet. .

Basically, he's nowt more than a forum troll with a mic.
He basically comes out with "hot potatoe" comments, specifically designed to enrage others and to provoke a re-action.

From that initial re-action, then follows the rest of the generic trolling and general topic bating.

I happen to also know that they screan calls for him, and specifically look for people that are a bit thick, have a points but can't make it clearly or are bound to sound like an idiot on air.

A friend of mine even called in to the show on a couple of occasions and stated his arguements in a plain and neutral format before being allowed on air. . . do you think he got aired. . . ??

I have a car but always go into town on my bike, and every day when I workied in sheffield. I think I'm a good, considerate, cyclist, and that includes me treating every red light as 'proceed with caution', jumping up on the pavement when it'd empty to undertake queues of traffic and zooming down the tram tracks. All totally non-agreessively, stopping for pedestrians, letting out buses and even the odd car.
You defintely reach a zone where you become intune with the traffic and, now I hardly go round the university roundabout because I just don't do it enough to be safe. It is fun tho sometimes weaving between the traffic, when I drive a car it doesn't annoy at all, but you really nice how invisible cyclists are soemtimes unless you're really driving alertly, and that makes me a lot less reckless then when I cycle thru town..

Originally posted by Briano
They also say cycling hinders spelling, grammar and lead to being unable to write properly... :loopy:

That's "leads to", Briano :P

Originally posted by Litha
i have to agree that bikes shouldnt be on the road... not because im an angry driver because i dont drive but..... because i have seen silly daft drivers that have gone out of their way to torment cyclists just for fun, it could have quite easily caused a death. and not only that some drivers even tho not on purpose go out to hurt cyclists they do because of their lack of resposibility on roads.

Hmm, yes, and as for women who go out a night in short skirts... well, they're just asking for it, aren't they?

Originally posted by Cycleracer
Well listening to a Z list local radio show last night he went on about banning all cyclists off the road.
The guy's a prat and that is reflected in his current audience. I listen to that staiton all day, and turn him off. I can't believe you've taken the bait and brought him out on here to further his fame.

Some cyclists are a menace.
Some drivers are a menace.

I'm both, so I decree I have a balanced view :D

Originally posted by DanSumption
That's "leads to", Briano :P

Got me! Lol :hihi:

Originally posted by DanSumption
Hmm, yes, and as for women who go out a night in short skirts... well, they're just asking for it, aren't they?

i beg your pardon ?? what on earth has that got to do with anything.

to answer your question anyway... no of course they are not.

Litha

Originally posted by Litha
i have to agree that bikes shouldnt be on the road... not because im an angry driver because i dont drive but..... because i have seen silly daft drivers that have gone out of their way to torment cyclists just for fun, it could have quite easily caused a death. and not only that some drivers even tho not on purpose go out to hurt cyclists they do because of their lack of resposibility on roads.
im not saying all drivers are at fault and im not saying that all cyclysts have resposibilty either i just think for their own safety because you never know when an idiot joy rider or what ever might wizz round the next corner that cyclysts shouldnt be on the road

BTW i also think the same for horse riders.

but then again i spose we could say well us people shouldnt walk across the crossings cos we never know if the cars are being driven by resposible people that are infact going to stop for the green man.
eeeep :gag: im shutting up now cos ive gone and confuddled myself but i DID start off knowing what i ment LOL :D

Litha

You've just given a very good case for banning cars , Litha :hihi:

Originally posted by Litha
to answer your question anyway... no of course they are not.

Well, you just argued that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on roads, not because there's anything wrong with cyclists, or even the majority of drivers, but just because some drivers have a vendetta against cyclists and therefore it isn't safe to cycle on the road.

Using identical logic:

Women shouldn't be allowed out in short skirts, not because there's anything wrong with women in short skirts, or even the majority of men, but because some men see short skirts as an invitation to sexually harass the women wearing them.

I hasten to add that this is not my viewpoint, just something I use to point out the flaw in your argument.

Well, as a regular pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car driver, and user of public transport, at some time or other...

...I'm hated by somebody!

:D

LOL
Strix and Dan :D
after goin back and actually reading it .. it deffinatly does come across like that, why did it make much sense in my own head ... eekkkkkkkk DONT ANSWER :|

i just hope the radio show fella dunt read this now :suspect:

Litha :loopy:

Cycleracer - it seams like you cant see any other point of view apart from your own. Most cars dont mind bikes so why do you think all cars hate bikes?

Originally posted by f_g
Cycleracer - it seams like you cant see any other point of view apart from your own. Most cars dont mind bikes so why do you think all cars hate bikes? As my last statement said "My argument is with disruntled drivers and not the majority who are'nt" so why do you think I am against all car drivers.?

Originally posted by munky


A friend of mine even called in to the show on a couple of occasions and stated his arguements in a plain and neutral format before being allowed on air. . . do you think he got aired. . . ??

Well, that wouldn't be very entertaining would it?

Cheese wire between two trees should do the trick...

remember to keep it too high for kids though cos they are safer on the pavements...:thumbsup:

Hi, i dont personally mind them as long as they keep to one side and respect it is a public footpath after all!
ive been tempted to ride to work, but been put off by the thought of riding on the road, its just mayhem and would rather walk!!
charlie x

As an occassional cyclist can I point out that there are a number of cycle paths that are effectively on the pavement around SHU. These are marked in red bricks, as opposed to the usual dirty grey type...

Perhaps the adult cyclists are fed up with pedestrians constantly walking along these cycle paths taking no notice of the signs and different coloured bricks underfoot... I know I am!

As for Eccelsall Rd I can't comment... don't ride there!
;)

As a cyclist that sometimes rides on the pavement (because you run the risk of getting squished by a bus sometimes) I can understand why some pedestrians might find it annoying. Which it why I always go very slowly and dismount if there are a lot of people around.

However certain pedestrians seem to behave like startled sheep an jump in an unexpected direction if you come within 40ft of them. Makes it kinda hard to avoid them.

What really annoy me are cyclists that seem to think traffic lights don’t apply to them when they are on the road.

Perhaps the adult cyclists are fed up with pedestrians constantly walking along these cycle paths taking no notice of the signs and different coloured bricks underfoot... I know I am!

Too right :thumbsup:

Fearful: I agree about the dangerous conditions on the roads. I used to cycle to and from work every day and can say I nearly got squished on a daily basis. Drivers dont care!!!

I dont think there is anything wrong with cycling on footpaths as long as you have consideration for pedestrians safety.

Pedestrians dont own the footpaths we are all entitled to use them and to be honest if we are on the subject the ones who cause most problems on pavements are skateboarders.

Anyone complaining..... get over yourselves!!!

Originally posted by technophobe


Pedestrians dont own the footpaths

Oh. But we do!!!:D

Perhaps rather than complain about cyclists tryying to protect themselves by riding away from the hellishly dangerous roads, you should contact the council and pursuade them to build more and better cycle tracks. The cycle tracks normally are far from adequate, I've even just seem them paint give way lines at the ends of paths, thats in durham tho. I believe there are various cycle tracks at the bottom of eccy road and the SU that direct you to ride on the path.
Personally I avoid paths because they have curbs every two meters!
Tim

Originally posted by technophobe
Fearful: I agree about the dangerous conditions on the roads. I used to cycle to and from work every day and can say I nearly got squished on a daily basis. Drivers dont care!!!

I dont think there is anything wrong with cycling on footpaths as long as you have consideration for pedestrians safety.

Pedestrians dont own the footpaths we are all entitled to use them and to be honest if we are on the subject the ones who cause most problems on pavements are skateboarders.

Anyone complaining..... get over yourselves!!!
So by your logic if I find the traffic daunting it's OK for me to drive my car on any pavement or cycle track? What worries me here is an acceptance by most of the cyclists who've reponded that the law is irrelevant to cyclists. Riding a cycle on a public footpath or pavement is illegal. As a car driver I try to be courteous to cyclists and give them room, and many appreciate it, but there are those who arrogantly demand priority whatever the situation, and who give the rest a bad name.

Originally posted by Briano
Perhaps the adult cyclists are fed up with pedestrians constantly walking along these cycle paths taking no notice of the signs and different coloured bricks underfoot... I know I am!


Here here! And the pedestrians who can't walk in a straight line whilst on the cycle paths. Makes them v hard to overtake!

it may not bother some people however cycling on the FOOT path is a criminal offence just like theft.so shall we ignore the laws that suit us but only enforce the important ones like burglary.
the laws were made for a reason & that is to protect the public.

(by the way playing soccer in the street is against the law as well, it's a good job Pele wasn't from England)

I dont give cyclists ANY room, I would knock em off as soon as look at them, they are a chuffing menace, and if you want to whine PAY ROAD TAX like me or get squished! :mad:

Originally posted by algy
So by your logic if I find the traffic daunting it's OK for me to drive my car on any pavement or cycle track? What worries me here is an acceptance by most of the cyclists who've reponded that the law is irrelevant to cyclists.

Ok so the next time someone cuts me up (giving drivers a bad name), knocks me off and i find my head hurtling towards the hard ground, I'll think of how daunted you feel in your comfortable protective metal boxes, listening to music with the heating on.

Originally posted by tim_rutter
Ok so the next time someone cuts me up (giving drivers a bad name), knocks me off and i find my head hurtling towards the hard ground, I'll think of how daunted you feel in your comfortable protective metal boxes, listening to music with the heating on.

I personally would laugh at you.
Buy a car and get ripped off like the rest of us

Originally posted by viking
I dont give cyclists ANY room, I would knock em off as soon as look at them, they are a chuffing menace, and if you want to whine PAY ROAD TAX like me or get squished! :mad:

I wrote an answer to this but then thought.... no, not worth my while. What a :partyhat: lol

Originally posted by Briano
I wrote an answer to this but then thought.... no, not worth my while. What a :partyhat: lol

Good Man :thumbsup:

Originally posted by viking
I dont give cyclists ANY room, I would knock em off as soon as look at them, they are a chuffing menace, and if you want to whine PAY ROAD TAX like me or get squished! :mad:


I would just like to point out that while Viking may sound like me, and lives in the village i will soon be moving to, we are infact different people.

Pavel Olevski.

P.s. Cylcists on pavements... could our city ambassadors not clamp down on these people? You can be find for dropping a ciggie end on the pavement (unlikely to cause injury unless you are an extremely small person) but you can get away with riding a bike on the pavements?

P.p.s. Or can we just push em off their bikes for a laugh?

Originally posted by viking

I dont give cyclists ANY room, I would knock em off as soon as look at them, they are a chuffing menace, and if you want to whine PAY ROAD TAX like me or get squished!

Funny that. I pay road tax for the car I also own. I also deserve to be treated with common courtesy and respect.

Originally posted by willman
it may not bother some people however cycling on the FOOT path is a criminal offence just like theft.so shall we ignore the laws that suit us but only enforce the important ones like burglary.
the laws were made for a reason & that is to protect the public.



We've been doing that for years. Why stop now? I bet you haven't done your 30 minutes daily archery practice today that is mandated by a law still on the statute books.

Lets concentrate on making the roads safer, and then cyclists won't want to cycle on footpaths any more.

Originally posted by Fearful
Funny that. I pay road tax for the car I also own. I also deserve to be treated with common courtesy and respect.

Just a point.
Me. my other half and our lad are all cyclists.

Nice bites though :hihi:

Originally posted by ole1
P.p.s. Or can we just push em off their bikes for a laugh?

You could try that if you fancy a bycyle pump inserting somewhere :)

Originally posted by viking
Just a point.
Me. my other half and our lad are all cyclists.

Nice bites though :hihi:

Dude, you are too well known, nice try though.

we have antagonists in our midst

Originally posted by tim_rutter
we have antagonists in our midst

Just a right lot :heyhey:

Indeed. As I said to the bloke who knocked me off my bike the other week...

Bend over :heyhey:

Don't really mind cyclists on the footpaths provided they take pains to avoid me, rather than expecting me to get out of their way, - as some seem to do :rolleyes:

Are cyclists still legally required to have a bell on their bikes ? I was roundly cursed by one recently who sped silently up behind me and nearly came off when I suddenly changed direction. I kept my temper and pointed out that if he had rung his bell I would have been aware of his approach. Of course he didn't have a bell.