Cyclists going through red lights. Localised colour blindness?

[ads36 219]

I've walked / run along lots of roads.

 

Sometimes for miles.

 

(And skateboarded, even occasionally pogo-sticked)

Edited August 23, 2018 by ads36

[dnbraver1 10]

on a daily basis? do you walk up and down dual carriageways, main roads, every day do you? some people really are special!

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 16:52 ----------

 

you shouldnt be on the roads. thats what paths are for, for pedestrians!

[WalkleyIan 10]

on a daily basis? do you walk up and down dual carriageways, main roads, every day do you? some people really are special!

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 16:52 ----------

 

you shouldnt be on the roads. thats what paths are for, for pedestrians!

 

round our way, the paths are where the cars park. The roads are where you walk.

[dnbraver1 10]

thats only round your way. im major cities people use the path and cars and bikes use the roads

[WalkleyIan 10]

thats only round your way. im major cities people use the path and cars and bikes use the roads

 

last time I checked Sheffield was a major city, albeit lots of it built before cars

 

head over to the to the parking on pavement thread in general discussions and have your say. You'll find loads of drivers who say they have no choice but to park on the pavement

[dnbraver1 10]

dont think we are talking about cars on pavements. we are saying cyclist should pay insurance. esp when a lot dont follow the rules of the road!

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 17:58 ----------

 

your talking about little estates. but do you go running up eccy road? do you walk on the roads in town?

[Resident 1,193]

dont think we are talking about cars on pavements. we are saying cyclist should pay insurance. esp when a lot dont follow the rules of the road!

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 17:58 ----------

 

your talking about little estates. but do you go running up eccy road? do you walk on the roads in town?

 

You'll not win an argument with a cyclist on here. They have a similar mentality to that of Charlie Alliston, no matter how wrong they are they're always right.

 

They clamour for cycle lanes to be built for THEIR safety then refuse to use them claiming that they're an inconvenience due to the fact that they have to, and heaven forbid with this reason, occasionally obey the law and give way at junctions and/or to pedestrians.

 

They argue that pedestrians shouldn't be in cycle lanes yet kick off when vehicle users argue that they should be using cycle paths/lanes, again built for them under the guise of THEIR safety.

 

There's DOCUMENTED evidence that cyclists are becoming an increasing danger on the roads, I've even linked to examples previously but once again that one-track mentality gets in the way.

[ads36 219]

Mr resident,

 

The important thing we should be talking about, is what will it take for *you* to use your bike for the occasional short journey.

 

If we're going to do anything about congestion, air pollution, physical inactivity, transport poverty, AND increase our transport capacity, we need to persuade 'normal' people ( who don't identify as 'cyclists') to sometimes use their bikes as transport

 

There's simply no way past our current / future transport problems without increasing cycling participation. And that means high quality cycle lanes. They're cheap, they have huge capacity, the exercise is fantastic for our health, they release huge amounts of money from our personal finances, they improve our air quality, they allow the old and young to enjoy transport independence, etc. etc.

Edited August 23, 2018 by ads36

[Resident 1,193]

Mr resident,

 

The important thing we should be talking about, is what will it take for *you* to use your bike for the occasional short journey.

 

If you can magically find a cure for my, as it stands, uncureable physical & neurological disability then I'll get back on a bicycle.

[Cyclone 10]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

 

https://road.cc/content/news/230427-number-pedestrians-killed-or-maimed-cyclists-doubles-decade

 

Yes, well done, we all know about that single incident and the general figures.

It makes it abundantly clear that motor vehicles pose a risk that is magnitudes larger, and yet all you can do is bang on about bikes.

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2018 at 07:25 ----------

 

pedentrians only cross a road. they dont walk on the road like cyclist and cars do. wow some people are stupid!

 

Did you even believe that as you typed it in?

It's certainly not true is it.

I regularly travel on foot on roads with no footpath...

 

Seriously, are all the anti-cycle people a little bit slow or something?

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2018 at 07:26 ----------

 

on a daily basis? do you walk up and down dual carriageways, main roads, every day do you? some people really are special!

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 16:52 ----------

 

you shouldnt be on the roads. thats what paths are for, for pedestrians!

 

So now you're having to invent extra rules for pedestrians and try to find excuses for why they shouldn't have insurance.

 

Just accept that there is no basis for cycles to have insurance.

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2018 at 07:27 ----------

 

dont think we are talking about cars on pavements. we are saying cyclist should pay insurance. esp when a lot dont follow the rules of the road!

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 17:58 ----------

 

your talking about little estates. but do you go running up eccy road? do you walk on the roads in town?

 

Why are you even bothering. You're point has been disproven almost as soon as you got it out there. Pedestrians DO use roads. You can't keep narrowing it and narrowing it in an attempt to find a road they don't use. I'll help you out though, neither pedestrians nor cyclists use the M1.

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2018 at 07:29 ----------

 

You'll not win an argument with a cyclist on here. They have a similar mentality to that of Charlie Alliston, no matter how wrong they are they're always right.

 

They clamour for cycle lanes to be built for THEIR safety then refuse to use them claiming that they're an inconvenience due to the fact that they have to, and heaven forbid with this reason, occasionally obey the law and give way at junctions and/or to pedestrians.

 

They argue that pedestrians shouldn't be in cycle lanes yet kick off when vehicle users argue that they should be using cycle paths/lanes, again built for them under the guise of THEIR safety.

 

There's DOCUMENTED evidence that cyclists are becoming an increasing danger on the roads, I've even linked to examples previously but once again that one-track mentality gets in the way.

 

It's like the rant of the uninformed all squashed into a single place. You've only missed out road tax.

Cyclists don't 'clamour' for cycle lanes, you've made that up.

Cyclists don't always use cycle lanes, they aren't obliged to and you've had the reasons explained multiple times.

Cyclists who ARE using cycle lanes do dislike pedestrians in them, that seems reasonable. That's not an excuse for you to be unable to tolerate other road users.

And as to your documented evidence, from your own link

Importantly, the newspaper notes that its data “does not apportion blame for the accidents in question”.

Conveniently forgot that bit did you?

 

Also if you thought about the figures in that article, you'd realise that they've ignored the increase in cycling as a reason for the increase in accidents.

Traffic counts suggest that the number of miles cycled in 2016 - 3.5 billion - is around 23% above the figure ten years before

Cycling up 23% in a decade.

 

"One crash on pavements or roads now takes place every day as the number of cyclists increases. The total number of accidents rose to 408 in 2015, according to official figures, a significant jump from the 274 in 2009."

 

In that year, of 406 collisions in which a cyclist and someone on foot was involved – slightly lower than the Mail’s 408, possibly due to subsequent database updates – two pedestrians were killed and 100 seriously injured. The other 304 sustained slight injuries.

 

There were more incidents involving most other types of vehicle – 16,415 involving cars, for example, leaving 3,433 pedestrians seriously injured and 212 dead.

 

And even when the total number of casualties was lower, the outcome could be significantly different. There were 381 pedestrian casualties involving a heavy goods vehicle, with 105 seriously injured – but 44 people lost their lives.

 

Perhaps that puts it in context, but as you're entirely immune to facts or reasoning I doubt that it will make any difference to your anti cycle crusade.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Cyclone

[alchresearch 215]

You'll not win an argument with a cyclist on here.

 

You certainly won't with your tired stereotypes.

 

You were quick to jump on my post and attack me, funny how its gone all quiet when you were presented with photographic evidence of cycle lanes not fit for purpose isn't it?

[alchemist 37]

Like the fool on the cycle who ran into a group of students out side the train station yesterday. The fool then had the front to verbally abuse THEM!!!

He made some racist comments then rode off into the sunset

 

Ahh well, it was their fault for getting in the way of a lycra god

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2018 at 15:00 ----------

 

You certainly won't with your tired stereotypes.

 

You were quick to jump on my post and attack me, funny how its gone all quiet when you were presented with photographic evidence of cycle lanes not fit for purpose isn't it?

 

Question of curiosity, if cycle lanes are no use, not used by cyclists and not compulsory for cyclists to use, what the heck is the point of them?