bike lanes again

[Jacob]

Yes and pedestrians should chip in too. Perhaps rated on weight, shoe size and mileage. And prams and pushchairs. Wheel barrows? Pogo sticks, roller skates? Make the pippers pay!

What a load of ****** Jacob. They already chip in via taxes, or the rest of us on their behalf if they claim benefits. You're on a different planet! :lol:

Cyclists also chip in via taxes.
The cost of provision for pedestrians far exceeds any provision for cyclists. Think of those acres of pavement, underpasses, footbridges, zebra crossings, traffic lights, footpaths etc

 

[Lons]

Yes and pedestrians should chip in too. Perhaps rated on weight, shoe size and mileage. And prams and pushchairs. Wheel barrows? Pogo sticks, roller skates? Make the pippers pay!

What a load of ****** Jacob. They already chip in via taxes, or the rest of us on their behalf if they claim benefits. You're on a different planet! :lol:

Cyclists also chip in via taxes.
The cost of provision for pedestrians far exceeds any provision for cyclists. Think of those acres of pavement, underpasses, footbridges, zebra crossings, traffic lights, footpaths etc

Yebbut the number of the contributing pedestrians is also vastly greater than the number of cyclists, after all virtually everyone uses pavements and are those cyclists not also pedestrians? You can't make that argument. :roll:

All pedestrians contribute one way or another for themselves and dependents, or as I said if on benefits we pay for them. They also pay indirectly on everything they buy as transport costs are built into the price. All legitimate motorists pay in RFL, parking and exorbitant fuel taxes plus the levies when buying the vehicle in the first place. Cyclists can pay £ 0 to £ thousands for a cycle and the gear to go with it but nothing over and above that for any road facilities.

I have no problem with cyclists Jacob and I try to be considerate and always give as much room as possible but if they would only drop from 2 abreast to single line it would make it so much safer for them and the motorist. You might not become impatient after sitting at 15 mph behind a cyclist for 10 minutes on a very busy highway but then you're an oddbod :wink:

 

[andys wood shed]

Cyclists sign HERE

Hmmm. perhaps there should also be a legislation make it an offence for cyclists to ride 2 or more abreast.

Suggest you read rule 66

A good explanation here

 

[Lons]

Cyclists sign HERE

Hmmm. perhaps there should also be a legislation make it an offence for cyclists to ride 2 or more abreast.

Suggest you read rule 66

A good explanation here

I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.

I was already aware it was legal btw so your apparent assumption that I didn't is not correct.

 

[andys wood shed]

I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.

I was already aware it was legal btw so your apparent assumption that I didn't is not correct.

So you prefer to rely on acceleration rather than technique for overtaking

 

[Jacob]

Motorists are often woefully ignorant of other road users, as we can see from this thread.
Here's some simple stuff which motorists (and cyclists) need to know:
"Simply put, it's safer for cyclists to ride two abreast, it means that motorists usually have to overtake in a proper manner rather than overtaking in the same lane as the cyclists. If a group of cyclists are in single file, motorists will often assume they can overtake in places which are not safe and will not leave the cyclist enough room. Motorists should give cyclists the same amount of room they would give another car when overtaking (please see the Overtaking Cyclists page for more details) which means they should be on the other side of the road and would have to wait until there are no oncoming cars. Being in two files usually forces this scenario but riding in single file can lead the motorist to think they can overtake on the same side of the road if there are oncoming cars thus not giving the cyclist the correct amount of space."

Or to put it another way - for safetys sake cyclists need to be assertive about their road space, even if it annoys our Mr Toads. :lol: :lol:

 

[Lons]

That's obviously one of your selfies Jacob What are you doing reading the Telegraph btw? :lol:

 

[Lons]

I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.

I was already aware it was legal btw so your apparent assumption that I didn't is not correct.

So you prefer to rely on acceleration rather than technique for overtaking

Where did I say that?
In an earlier reply to Jacob I actually said " I try to be considerate and always give as much room as possible ".Being able to accelerate quickly allows you to overtake as quickly as possible, within the law of course, and therefore more safely.
You've just made another incorrect assumption.

You're not one of Jacobs' relatives are you? :lol:

 

[andys wood shed]

I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.

I was already aware it was legal btw so your apparent assumption that I didn't is not correct.

So you prefer to rely on acceleration rather than technique for overtaking

Where did I say that?
In an earlier reply to Jacob I actually said " I try to be considerate and always give as much room as possible ".Being able to accelerate quickly allows you to overtake as quickly as possible, within the law of course, and therefore more safely.
You've just made another incorrect assumption.

You're not one of Jacobs' relatives are you? :lol:

Where did I say that?
modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the widtth


In an earlier reply to Jacob I actually said " I try to be considerate and always give as much room as possible ".Being able to accelerate quickly allows you to overtake as quickly as possible, within the law of course, and therefore more safely.

In your opinion as a car driver

 

[deema]

Living bear Delamere forest, I often wonder how we can possible have a shortage of donar organs, we should make it a legal requirement for all cyclists to be compulsory organ donars. I've read the narrative about riding two abreast.....if only......four, six or more completely filling both lanes is common practice. I'm not sure what the collective name is for a lot of cyclists ( I have a few, but there probably not appropriate) on narrow roads is, but there must be one for say approximately 100 fit people riding in a huge bunch filling up the road.

If you should decide to walk in Delamere forest, a stout stick or an umbrella with a nice pointy end is an essential item. Mountain bikes riding around at break neck speed is all too common, and as for the stick, it's the only thing that seems to deter the lovely people on two wheels from running you down. Complete poppycock I here the cry, well having been ridden into twice in the last six months I can tell you its not funny. The last time the young lady stated that she rang her bell and I had the audacious nerve not to jump off the foot path to let here past. We had a pleasant discourse where my suggestion of where she should store her bike didn't seem to be appreciated.

I used to be a cyclist, so I'm probably rather like a reformed smoker, in my views. A coupe of cyclists enjoying a day out cycling two abrest is not an issue, better still if they don't come down the inside of a car or Larry at traffic lights / junctions especially when they are indicating left and stick to using the road rather than terrorising the pedestrians on the pavements when ever they feel like it. Yep done both of them, and now recognise the complete stupidity of my actions, but I guess that's what age does for you.

 

[Finial]

And if we didn't have pavements - there are many places without them - would you be prepared to pay your share to put them in? Pedestrians are entitled to use the roads, but few do. If so, why treat bike riders differently? They are really just faster pedestrians. And if we had proper cycle tracks perhaps you would use them.

Everyone pays for the roads. But most people are unable to cycle (or walk) on them because of fear of motor traffic. They can't use what they pay for, something forgotten by those who complain about bikes holding them up. The roads themselves are fine for cycling. When streets are closed to motor traffic, thousands come out to ride bikes. One reason why there are so few people cycling or walking on the roads now is that motorists have driven them off. Motor vehicles are driven too fast and often too carelessly around vulnerable road users for most people to accept the risk. That's why drivers ought to pay for pavements and bike tracks, on the principle that the polluter should pay. If bikes are such a menace, drivers would benefit too.

You complain about people cycling through red lights, and of course many do. Haven't you noticed how many drivers do too? And some drivers overtake me while I am signalling to turn right.

How is insurance relevant to cycle tracks?

 

[beganasatree]

TIME TO PUT THIS ONE TO SLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP

 

[Lons]

Already pay my share of pavement costs including H band council tax with few local services in return because I'm lucky enough to live in a nice house in a rural village. Was my choice to work hard to get that and so readily accept it of course!

Pedestrians have to go by foot unless they make the choice to buy a bike or car etc. I'm a pedestrian as well much of the time so also enjoy the pavements I've contributed to.

I hate statistics as they are usually manipulated but the evidence from government figures suggest a total spend on the road system, central and local (at 2012 and after inflation adjustment), is around £ 7.5 billion while revenue raised from VED and fuel duty amounts to £ 30.7 billion and that's excluding many of the other taxes such as insurance tax, company car tax and many others. Even adding in total transport expenditure to include buses, rail and other transport takes expenditure to only £ 21 billion or 2/3rds of the revenue raised. And we already pay for local public transport through our council tax which for my village is a couple of buses a day which I don't use.

Red lights: Many around the country are now fitted with cameras to catch offending motorists and they definitley exist but as much use as a chocolate teapot in identifying cyclists who do it which I personally have seen on many occasions. Stick a licence plate on and they might stop or at least be caught.

Insurance: Just a bee in my bonnet about that one, as a victim on two occasions of a cyclist wizzing up the inside between me and the kerb while I was at in standstill traffic at lights, both scratching my car which then had to be repaired on MY insurance. Why shouldn't cyclists be forced to pay for insurance? Wouldn't be costly and might make the offenders more careful.

Anyway Bobs' bored with this topic now so will leave you to argue with yourself as we're never going to agree.

cheers
Bob

 

[Lons]

In your opinion as a car driver

Yes of course it's my opinion surely that's what discussion and argument is all about, but you can't say with any authority that my opinion is wrong. I consider myself to be as good a car driver as no doubt you view your own capability as a cyclist. All just opinions right or wrong!

 

[andys wood shed]

In your opinion as a car driver

Yes of course it's my opinion surely that's what discussion and argument is all about, but you can't say with any authority that my opinion is wrong. I consider myself to be as good a car driver as no doubt you view your own capability as a cyclist. All just opinions right or wrong!

But my opinion is that of a cyclist and a car driver whilst yours is just of a car driver........

 

[RogerS]

I didn't say it wasn't legal, I suggested it should be. The "explanation" is outdated, modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the width therefore so what's the problem.

I was already aware it was legal btw so your apparent assumption that I didn't is not correct.

So you prefer to rely on acceleration rather than technique for overtaking

The difference is ? You need both.

 

[RogerS]

......
Where did I say that?
modern cars in general are capable of fast acceleration and perfectly capable of overtaking 2 cyclists in line who would normally take up no more than the length of a family car but only half the widtth

....

That is utter nonsense. Think about it...the width of a cyclists handlebars is roughly that of a car seat..so your assertion 'half the width' is just plain daft.

 

[RogerS]

In your opinion as a car driver

Yes of course it's my opinion surely that's what discussion and argument is all about, but you can't say with any authority that my opinion is wrong. I consider myself to be as good a car driver as no doubt you view your own capability as a cyclist. All just opinions right or wrong!

But my opinion is that of a cyclist and a car driver whilst yours is just of a car driver........

And so because he never rides a bicycle, his opinion is invalid?

Are you sure you're not Jacob's brother ?

 

[RogerS]

So after four pages, what have we learned ?

Source: RoSPA
In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.

Source: Jacob's link (adjusted so we are comparing apples with apples.)
Mile for mile ridden or driven, cyclists are just as likely to kill pedestrians as motorists.

If the situations were reversed then I think people would be shouting for some form of insurance for car drivers. Maybe cycle riders should carry insurance, after all?

 

[andys wood shed]

But my opinion is that of a cyclist and a car driver whilst yours is just of a car driver........

And so because he never rides a bicycle, his opinion is invalid?

Are you sure you're not Jacob's brother ?

His opinion is one sided