Husband just been knocked off his bike

[Squiggs]

I don't think that anyone has claimed that cyclists are never at fault, they make bad judgement calls just as car drivers do, but my point was that controlling a car on the roads is a lot more difficult and dangerous than controlling a cycle, a skill that most people pick up by the time they leave junior school. It's this lack of difficulty that contributes to my opinion on compulsory testing, amongst the other reasons laid out on this thread.

 

I do think that the idea of offering voluntary training for cyclists is a great idea, however.

 

I think the bold (my bold) might be particularly relevant though...

 

Do kids really pick up this skill ON THE ROAD anymore or is it just "how to stay on and not fall off"

 

My dad used to tell me what he was doing and why he was doing it, as he drove. Then when I got a bike I never did "cycling proficiency" but I was taught roadcraft as well as just pedalling.

 

Cycling everywhere as a teenager (properly) when I took driving lessons at 17 my instructor said that I had a head start because I had a lot of the road sense down already, observation, anticipation, lane discipline etc.

 

I'm not sure if that's the case anymore, sure kids can ride bicycles in the park or along the Tissington Trail but can they ride along a city street?

 

So...on to the bit about voluntary training. Ideal for those who haven't learned use of the roads on a bicycle and free to those living and working in Sheffield..

http://www.pedalready.co.uk/2014/01/learn-to-ride/

[gimp27]

I don't think that anyone has claimed that cyclists are never at fault, they make bad judgement calls just as car drivers do, but my point was that controlling a car on the roads is a lot more difficult and dangerous than controlling a cycle, a skill that most people pick up by the time they leave junior school. It's this lack of difficulty that contributes to my opinion on compulsory testing, amongst the other reasons laid out on this thread.

 

I do think that the idea of offering voluntary training for cyclists is a great idea, however.

 

I do agree with that. There are loads of cyclists over here on the East coast, but I suppose its because its flat and fairly easy to navigate. When I lived in Sheff, it was more hilly and not as many cars as there are today. Last time I was over to see the folks, the roads were shocking, and I can honestly say that I would hate to ride in Sheffield, as with other busy cities. I suppose drivers and riders will always have the "Tom and Jerry" attitude, which will always be weighed against the cyclist for injury, and against the driver for the blame. Its a lose/lose for everyone, which is sad and negative, but I think pretty true of todays right of passage.

[gluedtopc]

I agree with Doom regarding training for cyclists. The roundabout on which the accident happened is in my opinion one of the most dangerous in Sheffield, it's too small to handle the busy traffic and I'm glad it's being improved.

[mrswilson22]

Glad your husband is ok I really wouldnt wish it on anyone to have a loved one seriously hurt or worse in a bike accident THINK BIKE!!!!!!!

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2014 at 15:27 ----------

 

Sorry I thought you were talking abt motorbike.

Edited March 16, 2014 by mrswilson22

[denlin]

I wish I had a pound for every cyclist i see coming along Ecclesfield Wood bottom towards Meadowhall and when they reach the traffic lights at the end on red they simply go on to the footpath and on the inside of the lights rendering themselves liable to be hit by those cars who quite properly are going though the opposing lights on green. Its a miracle one hasn't been knocked off. If you challenge their idiotic behaviour you usually get a load of verbals

[mrswilson22]

There are good car drivers, cyclists bikers theres also bad ones of each all need to take extra care on the road to make sure noone gets seriously hurt or lose their life the families are left having to cope with aftermath of such accidents.

[Cyclone]

I know that very well- no need to repeat it.

 

Taking a positive road position is legal, running a red light is not

 

but-

 

Taking a positive road position is not always going to maximise the cyclists safety, running a red light sometimes will maximise the cyclists safety

 

i.e. breaking the law is, in some instances, safer than blindly obeying it.

 

As it's the cyclist who dies/gets maimed if they get hit by a car (whoever is at fault) I can understand why they go for the safer option, rather than the (less safe) legal one.

 

Much as many smoke cannabis, despite knowing full well it's illegal- to them the pros outweigh the negatives, to them the law is wrong (or stupid), so they happily disobey.

 

And like I said, the cyclists that I see run red lights (and there are a few that do it routinely) do not do so for safety reasons. They do so for speed and convenience, although the fact that I catch them up again suggests that they gain very little by doing it.

 

The law is not wrong regarding cycles and red lights.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 07:39 ----------

 

I think the bold (my bold) might be particularly relevant though...

 

Do kids really pick up this skill ON THE ROAD anymore or is it just "how to stay on and not fall off"

I think they do. Assuming that they do any cycling where traffic is involved.

Personally I did the cycling proficiency thing at junior school and cycled safely around my village and the surrounding villages and then university for many years.

 

I think schools still run the cycling proficiency classes don't they?

[PRESLEY]

Can someone tell me why cyclist on a country lane with the width for two cars have to hog one lane riding three abreast, they want nicking because the are impeding traffic with their slow speed and making vehicle users take unecasary overtaking risk, these people must be ignorant and selfish, get into single file.

[steveh]

Actually if you're overtaking the cyclists legally them riding 2-3 abreast actually reduces the time needed to overtake them. Legally you should have your whole vehicle the wrong side of the white line to overtake a bike (or many bikes) so if you have a lot of them in a big line single file you need a lot of clear space to overtake them. Where as if they ride in a group the length is reduced so you can overtake them with less space and more quickly.

 

It is you who is ignorant and selfish if you feel you are too important to wait to overtake them safely and legally. No one else MAKES anyone take unecessary risks overtaking.

[JFKvsNixon]

Can someone tell me why cyclist on a country lane with the width for two cars have to hog one lane riding three abreast, they want nicking because the are impeding traffic with their slow speed and making vehicle users take unecasary overtaking risk, these people must be ignorant and selfish, get into single file.

 

This is a classic case where cyclists are doing something for their safety cycling two abreast on a country lane, something that isn't illegal, but something that car drivers find really annoying. Maybe because it forces them to overtake safely, rather than sneaking past without crossing the central white lines.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 08:34 ----------

 

Actually if you're overtaking the cyclists legally them riding 2-3 abreast actually reduces the time needed to overtake them. Legally you should have your whole vehicle the wrong side of the white line to overtake a bike (or many bikes) so if you have a lot of them in a big line single file you need a lot of clear space to overtake them. Where as if they ride in a group the length is reduced so you can overtake them with less space and more quickly.

 

It is you who is ignorant and selfish if you feel you are too important to wait to overtake them safely and legally. No one else MAKES anyone take unecessary risks overtaking.

 

This explains what you're trying to say. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UHSjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAAk/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/both.bmp