The strange things cyclists do

[ajm434 10]

needs to get 'on er bike!'

[stressconsul 10]

I am thinking of becoming a cyclist but am not sure about a helmet? There is quite convincing evidence that motorists give cyclists without helmets much more room, especially if they are a bit wobbly, and old, and female - like me.

[Scozzie 10]

How many car drivers get killed by a cyclist running into them? There's your answer.

 

lol. that isn't the point I'm making.

 

If my lights on my car dont work - it isn't roadworthy. So why do some cyclists think that they don't need safety features that make them visible at night?

 

Motorists need to wear a seatbelt so they are secure if they are in an accident.

Some cyclists dont feel the need to even protect their heads incase they are in an accident.

 

I just think that if most cyclists understand road safety, then why can't they all?

[babyboom 10]

lol. that isn't the point I'm making.

 

If my lights on my car dont work - it isn't roadworthy. So why do some cyclists think that they don't need safety features that make them visible at night?

 

Motorists need to wear a seatbelt so they are secure if they are in an accident.

Some cyclists dont feel the need to even protect their heads incase they are in an accident.

 

I just think that if most cyclists understand road safety, then why can't they all?

 

As far as I'm aware it is law that cyclists have lights on both front and rear of their bikes if they ride after dusk. There is divided opinion on helmets, but I know my hubby was saved by his when he fell off last winter after hitting a patch of black ice and hit his head on the kerb, if he hadn't had his helmet on he would have cracked his skull. I think on trails they aren't so necessary but on roads they are.

As for all cyclists understanding road safety it's the same with drivers, you get really good ones and others who treat the roads as a rally track.

[Squiggs 11]

lol. that isn't the point I'm making.

 

If my lights on my car dont work - it isn't roadworthy. So why do some cyclists think that they don't need safety features that make them visible at night?

 

Motorists need to wear a seatbelt so they are secure if they are in an accident.

Some cyclists dont feel the need to even protect their heads incase they are in an accident.

 

I just think that if most cyclists understand road safety, then why can't they all?

 

You aren't very clear at all on the point you are making.

 

You mention lights - yes, "ninja" cyclists at night with no lights are both dangerous and illegal and quite frankly it defies logic why anyone would - but some do.

 

But then you go on about helmets which is a COMPLETELY different subject to lighting which is required by law

 

"Motorists need to wear a seatbelt so they are secure if they are in an accident.

Some cyclists dont feel the need to even protect their heads incase they are in an accident."

 

No. Motorists driving cars which required seatbelts at the time of manufacture need to wear seatbelts by law

 

No such law exists in relation to cycle helmets - the situation is the same with a cycle helmet as it is for a car registered prior to 1965. Fitting and wearing is not mandatory by law

 

There are discussions which get quite technical (and long winded) regarding the pros and cons of helmet wearing but in the context of the discussion here, some cyclists choose not to wear a helmet and are quite within their rights and the law not to.

[Tony 10]

et's not do the helmet discussion. Even cyclists can't agree on that one despite the evidence (I wear one 90% of the time BTW)

 

lol. that isn't the point I'm making.

 

If my lights on my car dont work - it isn't roadworthy. So why do some cyclists think that they don't need safety features that make them visible at night?

 

Motorists need to wear a seatbelt so they are secure if they are in an accident.

Some cyclists dont feel the need to even protect their heads incase they are in an accident.

 

I just think that if most cyclists understand road safety, then why can't they all?

This evening on a 2 mile journey home I encountered 2 cars with no lights on, which isn't unusual.

 

Which one presents the bigger danger to others - a bike or a car?

Which one presents a bigger danger to the law breaker - the bike or the car?

 

 

Most cyclists have a heightened sense of self preservation due to the number of lousy motorists. Just trust me on this one and if you don't believe me just commute by bike for a week and see how your road sense increases exponentially.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Tony
tyop

[tigsthecat 10]

Why have all drivers suddenly become the safest people on the road. There are far more car and van drivers on the road doing far more silly and strange things than cyclist. Most of the time a cyclist has to do strange and bizare things due to other road uses. I am both a cyclist and driver, mid 30's and have to say some drivers have no consept of cyclists on the road. Driving to fast and too close to cyclists, cutting cyclists up, not allowing room for cyclists to pass during stationory traffic are a common occurance. By the way most cyclist also pay road tax as most also drive. If drivers had more awareness of other road uses then there would be know problem. Have to say the best people on the road and show courtesy and give room to cyclists are lorry drivers. Mind you they are more professional.

[Dogs Of War 10]

Why have all drivers suddenly become the safest people on the road. There are far more car and van drivers on the road doing far more silly and strange things than cyclist. Most of the time a cyclist has to do strange and bizare things due to other road uses. I am both a cyclist and driver, mid 30's and have to say some drivers have no consept of cyclists on the road. Driving to fast and too close to cyclists, cutting cyclists up, not allowing room for cyclists to pass during stationory traffic are a common occurance. By the way most cyclist also pay road tax as most also drive. If drivers had more awareness of other road uses then there would be know problem. Have to say the best people on the road and show courtesy and give room to cyclists are lorry drivers. Mind you they are more professional.

 

I`ve never claimed to be the best driver on the road , BUT drivers have ,by law to undertake training and pass a test to be deemed capable of driving on the highways.

 

Cyclists have to do NO compulsery training , DON`T have to have a licence to use the roads ,meaning any muppet can get a pushbike and use the roads.

 

Now in my opinion EVERYBODY should have to undergo training before being issued a licence to use the roads.

 

OK , some cyclists are also motorists ,so are trained to use the roads ,and have passed their driving test , BUT a large percentage of cyclists have no road training at all.

 

Its these who are the dangerous cyclists .

 

How can someone , be it a driver or a cyclist be allowed on the roads without a licence is beyond me .

[Tony 10]

You have a good point about training as it can never be a bad thing. But you do need to look at what it would achieve since everything in life is a balance of risk and reward.

 

First, the real danger with bikes is to the cyclist so there's an element of personal responsibility for your own safety. There is virtually zero risk to other road users. Everything backs this up, there is no intelligent argument to the contrary. Since I know you're a smart bloke I know you'll agree with that even if it galls you.

 

The evidence shows that imposing rules on cyclists causes a reduction in cycling. Now you might like that idea at first sight but the actual truth is that with more cyclists the roads become safer, less congested, there are fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities and the overall health of the population goes up as does life expectancy.

 

So although you might think that cyclists are a nuisance they are actually helping you get around more safely even if you aren't one - even the nuisance cyclists.

 

On balance, regulating cycling would do more harm than good and that is why it will never be regulated. There is no overall benefit.

 

Motorists really should be over the moon that there are more people wanting to get on their bikes.

[fedup1234 10]

This morning I saw a female cyclist, in a filter lane turning right, in heavy rush hour traffic. Nothing unusual in that I hear you say. But....she was on foot, walking with her bike next to her!

 

Fair enough that's what you might have to do if you get a puncture or buckle a wheel, but get off the bloody road, don't walk around in the middle of traffic like you're still on you're bike, you're not!

 

bloody pain in the neck the lot of em why dont they use the pavements an stop getting in motorists way there always slowing ya down when your in a rush mind you thats one good reason for bull bars

:rant:

[Squiggs 11]

bloody pain in the neck the lot of em why dont they use the pavements an stop getting in motorists way there always slowing ya down when your in a rush mind you thats one good reason for bull bars

:rant:

 

One good reason for all us cyclists to gridlock the city for one day.

No, not by a "critical mass"

By us all using our cars that day, then let's see how much traffic is slowed down.

 

 

If you are in a rush, you should have set off earlier, shouldn't you?

[flanyo 10]

Bikes are great and brilliant exercise. People are dangerous on the roads, especially women!! There should somehow be a compulsory road safety course when you buy and bike and should have to register it for insurance etc etc...