FAO Town Hall Cyclist

[WalkleyIan 10]

should have just knocked the cyclist of...

 

that's not a clever comment on today of all days is it? Care to remove it?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-27714292

[Fogey 10]

I have to admit to gritting my teeth more and more with pedestrians who choose to swerve in front of me at the last minute without watching where they are walking despite the constant ringing of my cycle bell as I slowly approach ( the bell is surprisingly necessary for this as it is very easy to cycle up to a pedestrian unheard). They can't all be deaf.

 

The lane in question has always baffled me as a cyclist, but then trying to get across the city centre on a bike, using the cycle network, is a difficulty likely to result in you wondering how the hell you got wherever you happen to end up.

[native son 10]

Too right i am .

 

You sad little man

[Cyclone 10]

There are "cyclists" and there are people on bikes. There is a difference. There are those with helmet, gloves, high vis garment, back pack on, and riding with a purpose, probably to/from work on a decent bike, and then are the casually dressed people on any old bike that are just popping to the shops for a pack of fags. Cyclists are the former, people on bikes are the latter, and because of the danger that cyclists pose to pedestrians and motorists is so negligible, cycling remains, thankfully, an informal, unregulated form of transport; it is a rare example of the prevailment of common sense.

 

How confusing for me. I ride to work (so with a purpose), but I do it in casual clothes. Sometimes with a backpack, and sometimes without. I don't wear gloves unless it's cold.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 07:28 ----------

 

A great answer, shows you have time to think while youre maybe not concentrating on the pedestrians! ;-)

 

If a one way street is a one way street then it should be for all vehicles, then the ops observed incident would not have occured would it and upset that poor cyclist.

The rules in place for hgv vs car or motorcycle are there because of the limitations of the vehicle.

 

The rules in place for car vs cycle are there because of the limitations of the car. It's too big to fit into the cycle lane that runs in the opposite direction.

 

It's not a blanket one way street, it's a one way street for motorised traffic.

 

There is no reason that this shouldn't be the case in many cases (and it will be, as more counter flow cycle lanes are created).

They also get to pass through bollards where cars cannot, and there are no entry signs for cars in some places, with a cycle path for bikes to get through.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 07:33 ----------

 

Ill be honest and say i dont really give a monkeys toss enough about cycles to be bothered with getting into the symantics of the various arguements.

Its plain that cyclists will argue to the death about this, thats become very clear already.

 

I think they should be registered and display some form of registration plate so the bad apples can be caught,prosecuted and fined.

What a ridiculous idea.

How much money would this cost the country? And what do you tell your children, they aren't allowed bikes, they can't learn to cycle on your quiet village side street, or they have to take a test at the age of 7 before displaying a number plate?

And how does a number plate make it easier to catch, prosecute, etc... It's not like the police have a problem with cycles 'escaping' from them as they try their best to catch them!

 

It's become quite clear that you are anti cyclist and will continue throwing out silly ideas about how the 'problem' should be curbed.

I also think it ridiculous that you dont have to pass some form of test, should be compulsary for all road users.

A pedestrians test? Or do they get a special dispensation?

 

And the point re: £0 VED is that even if bikes were subject to the same VED rules as cars, they would be free... £0.00 what is the point of increasing an already massive bureaucracy in order to collect £0.00 from many people and to achieve absolutely nothing.

The arguments about testing and VED are bogus.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 07:36 ----------

 

I do however think that it should be one way for everyone, if its not classed as such an inconvenience for a car or motorcycle to drive a different route then its not such an inconvenience for a cyclist either.

Ha. Because cars get tired, and go everywhere at an average of 12 mph.

 

 

The cyclist was in the wrong in this case.

 

That's unclear, the OP hasn't been back to clarify what happened.

Given which, maybe it never happened at all.

[yellowperil 10]

I think its a good idea for cyclists to be licenced and registered the same as a car or motorcycle, of course youd be against it as a cyclist.

There should be some form of mot too really.

A badly maintained cycle or an inexperienced rider is a hazard to other road users and pedestrians obviously.

What if a cycle cant stop because of inefficient or non existant brakes? Or has things protruding from the bike that could harm a pedestrian in a collision?

An inexperienced rider with no training how to use the road or what the rules of the road we all have to follow is a hazard.

At the moment with no registration its a free for all for cyclists to be abusive, ignore road rules and run red lights if they wish to.

Registration and licensing costs would be met by the cyclist as would the mot, just the same as it is with cars.

Surely youd feel more at ease if you knew the 7 yr old daughter you mentioned had an understanding and respect for the highways you wish her to be able to use?

If you pass a car or motorcycle test then the entitlement would be included as youve shown that you have an understanding of the road rules and signs.

Any fool that can ride a cycle can ride an automatic moped, a moped rider has to pass at least basic compulsory training and ensure that their moped is road worthy for their own safety as well as other road users, why should it be different for a cyclist do you think?

If a cyclist runs a red light or fails to obey the rules then they can be fined and have points imposed upon them as an encouragement to be a better road user, repeat offenders and dangerous riders can be banned to protect the safety of other road users.

All makes perfect sense.

Im sure youll think its just bogus though for some reason.

Any proficient cyclist who follows the rules and maintains their vehicle properly has nothing to fear do they!

Would remove alot of the problems that some drivers have with them too, they would truly be entitled in everyones eyes to use the highway.

[Stegwah 10]

Wow this got angry FAST!

 

the cylist was approx 10m away from the pedestrians travelling fairly slow, more of a gentle ride than a late for work speed.

 

it took him a good 6-7 seconds to even reach where they were stood, and had ample time to break at the speed he was going at

[Cyclone 10]

I think its a good idea for cyclists to be licenced and registered the same as a car or motorcycle, of course youd be against it as a cyclist.

I'm not against it as a motorist, for motorists, so I'm not sure I follow your logic.

I'm against it as a cyclist because it's a terrible idea.

There should be some form of mot too really.

Bikes should be road worthy, but the only person at risk from one that isn't, is the cyclist.

A badly maintained cycle or an inexperienced rider is a hazard to other road users and pedestrians obviously.

If there were a large number of road users and/or pedestrians being injured due to badly maintained bikes then I would agree.

Since there are not, it is clearly not an issue.

Evidence driven policy, not policy made up because you dislike cycles.

What if a cycle cant stop because of inefficient or non existant brakes? Or has things protruding from the bike that could harm a pedestrian in a collision?

Do these things happen, and at a frequency that requires a legislative response? Or are you speculating about possibilities that don't occur in the real world.

An inexperienced rider with no training how to use the road or what the rules of the road we all have to follow is a hazard.

And when does this happen?

How do you imagine that people learn to ride motorbikes? (Just as an aside).

At the moment with no registration its a free for all for cyclists to be abusive, ignore road rules and run red lights if they wish to.

No it isn't. Registration wouldn't alter the ability of the police to stop this behaviour.

Registration and licensing costs would be met by the cyclist as would the mot, just the same as it is with cars.

The motorist does not fund the DVLA. General taxation does.

Surely youd feel more at ease if you knew the 7 yr old daughter you mentioned had an understanding and respect for the highways you wish her to be able to use?

I can't imagine how you'd expect children to learn to cycle if they aren't allowed to cycle before knowing how to cycle!

If you pass a car or motorcycle test then the entitlement would be included as youve shown that you have an understanding of the road rules and signs.

Any fool that can ride a cycle can ride an automatic moped, a moped rider has to pass at least basic compulsory training and ensure that their moped is road worthy for their own safety as well as other road users, why should it be different for a cyclist do you think?

The MOT requirement is not neccessary because it's not a motorised vehicle and is unlikely to injure anyone except the cyclist. CBT demonstrates that a motorcyclist can keep the bike upright and maneouver it, and very little else.

If a cyclist runs a red light or fails to obey the rules then they can be fined and have points imposed upon them as an encouragement to be a better road user, repeat offenders and dangerous riders can be banned to protect the safety of other road users.

This is already the case.

All makes perfect sense.

Im sure youll think its just bogus though for some reason.

Lots of reasons, as just explained.

Any proficient cyclist who follows the rules and maintains their vehicle properly has nothing to fear do they!

Except that barriers to cycling retard the uptake of cycling, and increased numbers improve the safety for all cyclists.

Oh, and the massive waste of tax payers money, and complete ineffectiveness of all that you suggest.

Would remove alot of the problems that some drivers have with them too, they would truly be entitled in everyones eyes to use the highway.

They truly are. There's no helping for stupid drivers being jealous, we can't inject intelligence into their heads.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 09:20 ----------

 

Wow this got angry FAST!

 

the cylist was approx 10m away from the pedestrians travelling fairly slow, more of a gentle ride than a late for work speed.

 

it took him a good 6-7 seconds to even reach where they were stood, and had ample time to break at the speed he was going at

 

So the pedestrian was stood stationary in the cycle path? And you think the correct response is for the cyclist to stay silent and come to a stop?

[yellowperil 10]

The points are all valid as im sure you know.

Protecting people from potential and hypothetical danger is all the rage these days dont you know.

The inexperienced rider on the ill maintained cycle may not be such a great hazard in your eyes but what if their erratic behaviour and lack of road sense makes a car or truck have to take action to avoid them which causes an accident?

 

You point about the cbt test only reinforces what i suggested, it doesnt counter it.

 

Your opposition is a weak one really.

How can a car driver learn to drive a car if they are not allowed to drive a car in the first place! Same could be said for any form of transport!

I passed my cycling proficiency test at my old school after hours on a set out course and away from the road,im sure the same would apply today. Just like cbt takes place at a facility and off the road.

 

Do you think it right that a person who has never ridden a cycle before can get on one and take to the highways? I dont.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 09:32 ----------

 

The red light jumpers could be subject to being caught by cameras if they were registered and licenced, also could be reported for any behaviour deemed dangerous and sanctioned accordingly.

[onewheeldave 22]

I think its a good idea for cyclists to be licenced and registered the same as a car or motorcycle, of course youd be against it as a cyclist.

There should be some form of mot too really.

A badly maintained cycle or an inexperienced rider is a hazard to other road users and pedestrians obviously.

What if a cycle cant stop because of inefficient or non existant brakes? Or has things protruding from the bike that could harm a pedestrian in a collision?

An inexperienced rider with no training how to use the road or what the rules of the road we all have to follow is a hazard.

At the moment with no registration its a free for all for cyclists to be abusive, ignore road rules and run red lights if they wish to.

Registration and licensing costs would be met by the cyclist as would the mot, just the same as it is with cars.

Surely youd feel more at ease if you knew the 7 yr old daughter you mentioned had an understanding and respect for the highways you wish her to be able to use?

If you pass a car or motorcycle test then the entitlement would be included as youve shown that you have an understanding of the road rules and signs.

Any fool that can ride a cycle can ride an automatic moped, a moped rider has to pass at least basic compulsory training and ensure that their moped is road worthy for their own safety as well as other road users, why should it be different for a cyclist do you think?

If a cyclist runs a red light or fails to obey the rules then they can be fined and have points imposed upon them as an encouragement to be a better road user, repeat offenders and dangerous riders can be banned to protect the safety of other road users.

All makes perfect sense.

Im sure youll think its just bogus though for some reason.

Any proficient cyclist who follows the rules and maintains their vehicle properly has nothing to fear do they!

Would remove alot of the problems that some drivers have with them too, they would truly be entitled in everyones eyes to use the highway.

 

More cyclists=good.

 

The more cyclists out on the roads, the less environmental pollution and, the bigger the improvements in national health, plus major savings in healthcare costs.

 

Clearly, at the moment, cycling targets are not being met, so we need more cyclists on the roads.

 

A major impediment to people taking up cycling, is anything that increases rules or costs to taking it up. Hence why every major cycling advocacy group opposes compulsory helmet wearing, as, in every country that has introduced such a rule, cycling numbers have dropped.

 

MOTs, licences/registration or anything that involves cost, will inevitably reduce cyclist numbers even further- for that reason, I oppose all such requirements for cyclists.

[Stegwah 10]

 

So the pedestrian was stood stationary in the cycle path? And you think the correct response is for the cyclist to stay silent and come to a stop?

 

No the pedestrian had cleared the path of the cyclist by the time they reched them, by a good 2-3 feet. but he kept his triade of abuse up even when he went passed them

[onewheeldave 22]

No the pedestrian had cleared the path of the cyclist by the time they reched them, by a good 2-3 feet. but he kept his triade of abuse up even when he went passed them

 

Maybe he was having a bad day? Maybe he's just a nasty bad tempered individual?

 

Let's be thankfull he was on a cycle, not driving a car, where he could do some real damage.

 

It's not that common that cyclists verbally abuse pedestrians- compared to the verbal and physical abuse that cyclists commonly experience from car drivers.

 

Do some googling and see how common it is for cyclists to have plastic bottles of urine thrown at them- that's way more abusive and dangerous than the incident in question, and, way more common. Yet nothing gets done about that.

[Cyclone 10]

No the pedestrian had cleared the path of the cyclist by the time they reched them, by a good 2-3 feet. but he kept his triade of abuse up even when he went passed them

 

How strange.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 09:52 ----------

 

Do some googling and see how common it is for cyclists to have plastic bottles of urine thrown at them- that's way more abusive and dangerous than the incident in question, and, way more common. Yet nothing gets done about that.

 

What kind of freak drives around with a bottle of pizz in the car ready to be thrown?