Omg! Cyclists please take extra care.

[megalithic 10]

Is that because you've read and can follow the highway code? Or just that you're not so far up your own backside you can recognise other road users are human beings in control of a vehicle, not just a vehicle?

 

Haha. It's just commonsense and courtesy isn't it.

I personally think a lot of the angst is due to cyclists being able to make progress when we motorists can't.

It's a bit silly really isn't it.

[Squiggs 11]

Haha. It's just commonsense and courtesy isn't it.

I personally think a lot of the angst is due to cyclists being able to make progress when we motorists can't.

It's a bit silly really isn't it.

 

Quite

 

Like heading along Shalesmoor towards town, there were a couple of large vehicles in the nearside lane - I do NOT filter down the nearside of such vehicles, cycle lane or not, so I filtered through the standing / occasionally crawling traffic between the 2 lanes.

 

A motorcyclist was ahead doing just the same but SOME cars seemed to deliberately pull across just so that the motorcyclist couldn't pass. Despite the fact that he'd have been well away and cause zero hold-up for them, just an infantile "It's SOOO UNFAAAIIIR!" attitude to anyone else being able to make progress

[megalithic 10]

Quite

 

Like heading along Shalesmoor towards town, there were a couple of large vehicles in the nearside lane - I do NOT filter down the nearside of such vehicles, cycle lane or not, so I filtered through the standing / occasionally crawling traffic between the 2 lanes.

 

A motorcyclist was ahead doing just the same but SOME cars seemed to deliberately pull across just so that the motorcyclist couldn't pass. Despite the fact that he'd have been well away and cause zero hold-up for them, just an infantile "It's SOOO UNFAAAIIIR!" attitude to anyone else being able to make progress

 

We're all just trying to get somewhere aren't we. Would be nice if we could help each other do so safely.

[dvp82 10]

Haha. It's just commonsense and courtesy isn't it.

I personally think a lot of the angst is due to cyclists being able to make progress when we motorists can't.

It's a bit silly really isn't it.

 

I think they could very well be a lot of truth in that.

[RootsBooster 24]

Lots of maybes and mights in there.

No, not a single one

Cars DO cause accidents and DO kill people.

Of course they do, not sure why you mentioned this, I haven't claimed anything contrary to it.

Oh and also, cyclists DO cause accidents and DO kill people. Might as well both play that (irrelevant) game.

Cyclists, even good ones, are most likely to be the victim of an accident than the cause, and even bad ones that are the cause are most likely to hurt only themselves.

Again, I haven't said anything contrary to this.

You asked a question and I gave an answer, that's all.

[Jew Boy 10]

Hence my caveat when posting the link. But in the context of the question, and the fact that it is in Hansard, I take it as meaning access to a car that they can drive.

 

A more useful question would have been "how many cyclists also have a full driving licence?" Unfortunately, the MP didn't actually ask that.

 

I couldnt agree more. It would have made things far more clear and would have been a much better question.

[foxforcefive 10]

So the cyclist was filtering, passing the line of stationary traffic using the centre of the road, and a car pulled out from the left between stationary cars and didn't see the cyclist until it was too late for either of them to avoid the collision...

 

Probably 50/50 by the sounds of it, the cyclist was not doing something they shouldn't, but possibly should have been going slower. The car was also not doing anything wrong, but needs better observational skills. It could just as easily have been a motorbike, which would probably have been going faster than a cyclist.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2013 at 14:29 ----------

 

 

In the same way that all motorists are like the idiot who went through the tram gate, then a red light over a pedestrian crossing and then tried to make an illegal right turn over another pedestrian crossing yesterday.

 

I assume you won't be objecting to this generalisation since you're so fond of them. (AskMID said that car was uninsured btw, and DVLA says there is no record of the number plate).

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2013 at 14:30 ----------

 

Yes, it's a simple question. Are you going to answer it?

Try again. What do you think an L plate on a motorbike means?

 

I probably could. I won't as evidence clearly isn't of much interest to you.

 

Oh remove your anal rod!!

 

I'd rather our roads are safer for everyone because accidents can be devastating, you see that as something to pick at, good for you, I'm sure the world is a better place for you being in it.

[Cyclone 10]

I'd rather the roads be safer for everyone as well. What you suggest would increase the danger though.

 

---------- Post added 24-10-2013 at 11:42 ----------

 

No, not a single one

Of course they do, not sure why you mentioned this, I haven't claimed anything contrary to it.

Oh and also, cyclists DO cause accidents and DO kill people. Might as well both play that (irrelevant) game.

Again, I haven't said anything contrary to this.

You asked a question and I gave an answer, that's all.

 

I asked several questions, you answered one of them.

 

It's hardly irrelevant when discussing road safety to identify the group of road users that cause most accidents and injuries.

[RootsBooster 24]

I asked several questions, you answered one of them.

...because the other two questions didn't apply to me...

How would it be safer for anyone other than the cyclist? How do you propose that they learn if they can't go on the roads? Don't most cyclists hold full driving licenses (I'll help you out here, yes they do).

I don't make any proposition about how they learn, it wasn't my idea and I'm not particularly fussed about cyclists having to take such tests.

I have no interest in the amount of cyclists who have driving licenses and it has no bearing on the question I answered.

 

It's hardly irrelevant when discussing road safety to identify the group of road users that cause most accidents and injuries.

No, but it's irrelevant to the question you asked, which I responded to

[Cyclone 10]

So you answered my question in isolation, ignoring the context. Fine, whatever.

[RootsBooster 24]

So you answered my question in isolation, ignoring the context. Fine, whatever.

 

How so ?