Cyclists going through red lights. Localised colour blindness?

[ads36 219]

no, it's because none of those things would help anything in the slightest.

 

we have real problems, that we can solve.

 

only this week, the WHO told us to get a grip, and do more exercise, physical inactivity is killing us.

 

we could try building a simple network of safe cycle routes, they're cheap, and proven to help old and young and everyone inbetween build more exercise into their lives. but no, let's carry on moaning about road tax.

Edited September 11, 2018 by ads36

[Resident 1,193]

 

Is it a fear that if you can be identified it might actually make a cyclist act more responsible? Is there a nugget of rebellion inside every cyclist just waiting to break out and not being able to be identified pushes that ever so closer to the surface?

 

It could only be that and the fact that they are so unyielding in their view that cyclists shouldn't be as easy to identify as cars can only mean they're persistent offenders.

 

I posted a link earlier in the thread to an article that had researched and found that the number of people killed or seriously injured by cyclists had doubled in recent years.

 

This was dismissed by the cyclists in this thread by stating more cyclists are killed by cars, whilst a sad fact not relevant to the argument that was being made but they clung to it as if that made it OK. They are completely blinkered.

[Black Brick 10]

Not in so many words, no, but the implication is always there. Because when you cannot be identified the temptation to break the law increases.

 

What IS it that really frightens cyclists so much about being able to be identified that they feel the need to come out with rubbish such as "well motorists sometimes break the law", "you dont expect pedestrians to wear identifying signs" or the ever popular "pedestrians dont pay VED so why should cyclists".

 

Is it a fear that if you can be identified it might actually make a cyclist act more responsible? Is there a nugget of rebellion inside every cyclist just waiting to break out and not being able to be identified pushes that ever so closer to the surface?

 

I'm not quite sure what is going on in your head about not being able to be identified and breaking the law but it is worrying. If cyclists wore unidentifiable clothing and balaclava's then you may have a point, as such you don't.

[Resident 1,193]

I'm not quite sure what is going on in your head about not being able to be identified and breaking the law but it is worrying. If cyclists wore unidentifiable clothing and balaclava's then you may have a point, as such you don't.

 

So by that, so long as I wear bright clothing I don't need a number plate on my motorcycle/car as by your own words I'm identifiable because of them and no-one could possibly be, by chance, wearing the same.

 

Here I am. I'm wearing a bright red shirt. Easy to find. I'll give you a fiver if you can spot me

 

https://goo.gl/images/fCRwgS

Edited September 11, 2018 by Resident

[alchresearch 215]

They are completely blinkered.

 

No, the only thing blinkered is your view of cyclists. You just can't help yourself tarring them all with the same brush. You've been made to look on fool on this thread time and again by people with common sense, like here when you thought you were being clever by attacking my post about why I don't always use cycle lanes.

 

My bike and I are insured, I don't wear lycra and I've no problem with being registered as I don't break the law when cycling (other than the one time I did 34 in a 30 zone going down a very fast hill).

 

But ask yourself how this would work. Number plates on all bikes? A high vis vest with a registration number on it?

 

And what about the cost to set up a "DVLA for bikes"? It would be just like dog licences where it cost more to implement and operate than the income gained from the licence.

 

And if you're going to make cycling expensive, people just aren't going to bother and will return to their cars, buses and trains and cause further congestion.

Edited September 11, 2018 by alchresearch

[stifflersmom 11]

It could only be that and the fact that they are so unyielding in their view that cyclists shouldn't be as easy to identify as cars can only mean they're persistent offenders.

 

I posted a link earlier in the thread to an article that had researched and found that the number of people killed or seriously injured by cyclists had doubled in recent years.

 

This was dismissed by the cyclists in this thread by stating more cyclists are killed by cars, whilst a sad fact not relevant to the argument that was being made but they clung to it as if that made it OK. They are completely blinkered.

As more people cycle there will be more accidents, that is logical. But, look at the numbers. The numbers killed rose to 3 and injured to 105, but the fact remains that 99% of road deaths are caused by motor vehicles. On that basis calls to act on cyclists can be dismissed by rational people as being really not worth the bother compared to the bigger problem. Comparing cycling related injuries to motor related injuries is absolutely relevant if you want to decrease the number of road deaths and injuries and make society a better place. Of course it's not relevant if you feel that motorists are hard done by and need a scapegoat group to share their perceived pain.

I'd be interested in seeing the statistics for a period of time where smartphones are commonplace; I'm willing to bet that a significant proportion of accidents involving pedestrians have a contributory factor involving looking at a smartphone and not concentrating on surroundings.

[Cyclone 10]

Not in so many words, no, but the implication is always there. Because when you cannot be identified the temptation to break the law increases.

You aren't wearing a name tag when you walk out of the house, does it tempt you into a bit of mugging or some light burglary?

 

What IS it that really frightens cyclists so much about being able to be identified that they feel the need to come out with rubbish such as "well motorists sometimes break the law", "you dont expect pedestrians to wear identifying signs" or the ever popular "pedestrians dont pay VED so why should cyclists".

There is no issue with being identified, but identification isn't in the slightest your aim. This is simply an attempt to make cycling more difficult. And raising barriers to cycling reduces numbers and that directly makes the roads more dangerous for the remaining cyclists.

[The Joker 10]

I saw a cyclist pass through a red light today, the first one I've seen in years.

 

He must have been doing nearly 30mph downhill, with no helmet.

 

I half-expected the tram to come round the corner and pancake him, but no. It would have been funny if it did, I'm ashamed to say

 

Not funny for the cyclist though, it would have been lethal

[WalkleyIan 10]

I saw a cyclist pass through a red light today, the first one I've seen in years.

 

He must have been doing nearly 30mph downhill, with no helmet.

 

I half-expected the tram to come round the corner and pancake him, but no. It would have been funny if it did, I'm ashamed to say

 

Not funny for the cyclist though, it would have been lethal

 

at 30mph a cycle helmet is next to useless. The European standard EN 1078 is particularly weak in this respect as manufacturers strive to meet the minimum standard required while keeping them cheap. Seem to recall it is equivalent to a 11- 12mph impact. The American snell standard is better . Then again the US has one of the highest rates of cyclists fatalities v distance travelled so possibly the helmet isn't the answer

[Jog_on 10]

No , because of the amount of times cyclists scratch vehicles because they cant wait ,and feel they have the right to jump to the front of the queue.

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

 

They do have the right, and it's called filtering, not jumping to the front of the queue.

[WarPig 78]

I filter all the time, whether I'm on my pushbike or motorbike. Its perfectly legal if done correctly, but the onus really is on the biker to do it safely. Cars aren't expecting you to come alongside them, and they often pull out in readiness to change lane when the traffic starts moving/speeding up. If theres an accident while filtering then the biker has to accept part of the blame, even if done correctly.

[Cyclone 10]

Given that filtering is legal and expected and that cars shouldn't maneuver without checking their mirrors, it's really not the fault of a filtering rider (of either kind) if a car driver maneuvers without checking it's safe to do so.