bike lanes again

[Lons]

The relevance is although car drivers passed a test (could be many years ago) they are not up to date with the current edition of the Highway Code

At least they passed a test where cyclists didn't have to and I wonder how many cyclists know the highway code. More assumptions.

Hmmm... must dig out my ancient cycling proficiency test certificate, still have it somewhere. :lol:

 

[Roughcut]

The relevance is although car drivers passed a test (could be many years ago) they are not up to date with the current edition of the Highway Code

You see it's with comments like that where the cyclist vs drivers debates always gets silly.
There's no mandatory obligation or law that says a cyclist has to know the details of the current Highway Code so why do you make the assumption that a cyclist will be up to date but a driver wouldn't? :roll:

 

[Jacob]

.... But there is no reason why they should not be made responsible for their own actions and carry insurance.

They are responsible for their own actions but don't need insurance because bike incidents are extremely unlikely to incur high cost to any third parties. Ditto pedestrians, dog walkers, pram pushers etc.

I could have written this for you, Jacob, as you are so predictable dragging in red herrings, such as pedestrians, that are not only irrelevant but stupid.

So you think it perfectly fine for a cyclist to scratch a car causing maybe a couple of hundred pounds worth of damage? Next time it happens to me I'll send you the bill.

And don't come out with some soppy comment such as 'Ooh, £200 for a bit of paint...blah, blah, blah'. It just makes you look even sillier.

Ooh, £200 for a bit of paint...blah, blah, blah

The sort of damage a bike would do would be in the realm of affordable so insurance does not need to be compulsory.
But bike incidents are so rare that the insurance would cost very little anyway. In fact you get free 3rd party insurance with CTC membership (subject to a bit of small print to check for risk), and the same with many household policies.

 

[RogerS]

Have you noticed, Lons, how Jacob always ignores anything that disagrees with his world view. Your valid comment that the damage to your car was in four figures, for example. Somehow in Jacobworld, that is 'affordable'. He has totally missed the point (as usual) that cyclists should be responsible for the damage that they cause.

I'm waiting for Jacob 'Never Wrong' to tell you that if you can afford a BMW then you can afford to get it fixed when some clueless cyclist damages it.

 

[Finial]

People don't need to pass a test to ride a bike. They need proper cycle tracks, not the kind that Jacob opened this thread with. Then they wouldn't have to ride on the road. Utility cycling on good tracks is as near perfectly safe as can reasonably be achieved. As for insurance and registration, plenty of drivers don't have insurance, and their number plates don't stop hit and runs any more than they would on bikes. Only one of the three who ran into me stopped. To take action against someone for damage, whether or not they have insurance, you would need a witness. Good luck with that.

Some people here are quick to complain about bike riders, but drivers normally only see the ones who ride on the roads. They are mainly young/middle aged male commuters, with some sports riders, who are willing to cycle in traffic. They are likely to be assertive, in a hurry, and sometimes aggressive or they wouldn't be on the road. They are also likely to be experienced and competent, have passed a driving test, to own a car, to pay tax, to have third party insurance and to be very well aware of their vulnerability.

No doubt there are some irresponsible bike riders, though I can honestly say I don't come across any except occasionally a young lad who believes in immortality. You can't legislate for them, just be grateful they aren't driving.

What you don't see many of on the road are people like me, just cycling to the shops or the local woodturning club. Round here, they tend to cycle on the pavement considerately, but illegally, because that is their only safe option. But most people who would like to don't cycle at all, which is one reason why things like obesity, poor air quality and congestion are such problems.

 

[Jacob]

.....Round here, they tend to cycle on the pavement considerately, but illegally, because that is their only safe option. But most people who would like to don't cycle at all, which is one reason why things like obesity, poor air quality and congestion are such problems.

In Germany you can cycle on the pavements legally - so at traffic lights you can switch from road to pavement and cross with the pedestrians or vice versa depending on which way the lights are. Seems to work really well. Should do the same here.

 

[Lons]

Have you noticed, Lons, how Jacob always ignores anything that disagrees with his world view. Your valid comment that the damage to your car was in four figures, for example. Somehow in Jacobworld, that is 'affordable'. He has totally missed the point (as usual) that cyclists should be responsible for the damage that they cause.

I'm waiting for Jacob 'Never Wrong' to tell you that if you can afford a BMW then you can afford to get it fixed when some clueless cyclist damages it.

Yep I was expecting that as well and given his twisted views I have no doubt he won't disappoint :lol: He was of course trundling around in a Merc disguised as a Smart car :wink:

Wonder why he assumes a majority of riders are members of CTC or even that they all have house and contents insurance never mind public liability cover. BTW Jacob to be pedantic, insurance on your house would NOT cover riding a bike as it only covers the structure and fixtures in your property so get your facts straight! :wink: Any cover would be an add on legal liability protection or perhaps part of your contents cover (unlikely).

They are likely to be assertive, in a hurry, and sometimes aggressive or they wouldn't be on the road.

Quote taken out of context but isn't that exactly what cyclists are complaining that drivers do?

Maybe London is a little different from our more gentle and slower pace of life in Northumberland, you can keep it!

I'd deport all cyclists to Amsterdam where they can terrorize pedestrians to their hearts content. :wink: :lol: not a place for the faint hearted if you're on foot :lol:

 

[Lons]

In Germany you can cycle on the pavements legally - so at traffic lights you can switch from road to pavement and cross with the pedestrians or vice versa depending on which way the lights are. Seems to work really well. Should do the same here.

Is that opinion from your personal experience Jacob?

My cousin and his family in Munich wouldn't agree with that!

 

[Finial]

In Germany you can cycle on the pavements legally - so at traffic lights you can switch from road to pavement and cross with the pedestrians or vice versa depending on which way the lights are. Seems to work really well. Should do the same here.

In this country it's against the law even for small children to cycle on the pavement. But the government is beginning to understand that cycling has to be encouraged, and has said there is nothing wrong with safe and considerate pavement cycling.

Enforcement is rare. Not unknown, even though pavement driving and parking is often encouraged. Occasionally a zealous policeman will try to get a small child onto the road, but mostly the police have more important things to worry about.

 

[andys wood shed]

The relevance is although car drivers passed a test (could be many years ago) they are not up to date with the current edition of the Highway Code

You see it's with comments like that where the cyclist vs drivers debates always gets silly.
There's no mandatory obligation or law that says a cyclist has to know the details of the current Highway Code so why do you make the assumption that a cyclist will be up to date but a driver wouldn't? :roll:

Is a previous post I said " I think all road users should be compulsory trained
And reassessed

 

[John Brown]

Some drivers are inconsiderate b*st*rds.
Some cyclists are inconsiderate b*st*rds..

There. Problem solved.

 

[andys wood shed]

In Germany you can cycle on the pavements legally - so at traffic lights you can switch from road to pavement and cross with the pedestrians or vice versa depending on which way the lights are. Seems to work really well. Should do the same here.

In this country it's against the law even for small children to cycle on the pavement. But the government is beginning to understand that cycling has to be encouraged, and has said there is nothing wrong with safe and considerate pavement cycling.

Enforcement is rare. Not unknown, even though pavement driving and parking is often encouraged. Occasionally a zealous policeman will try to get a small child onto the road, but mostly the police have more important things to worry about.

In my experience the Police will use discretion for young cyclist riding sensibly on the pavement with safety being a guiding principle

 

[andys wood shed]

Some drivers are inconsiderate b*st*rds.
Some cyclists are inconsiderate b*st*rds..

There. Problem solved.

=D> =D>

 

[andys wood shed]

Wonder why he assumes a majority of riders are members of CTC or even that they all have house and contents insurance never mind public liability cover. BTW Jacob to be pedantic, insurance on your house would NOT cover riding a bike as it only covers the structure and fixtures in your property so get your facts straight! :wink: Any cover would be an add on legal liability protection or perhaps part of your contents cover (unlikely).

No longer called CTC now known as 'we are cycling UK' :wink:

 

[Finial]

They are likely to be assertive, in a hurry, and sometimes aggressive or they wouldn't be on the road.

Quote taken out of context but isn't that exactly what cyclists are complaining that drivers do?

Maybe London is a little different from our more gentle and slower pace of life in Northumberland, you can keep it!

I'd deport all cyclists to Amsterdam where they can terrorize pedestrians to their hearts content. :wink: :lol: not a place for the faint hearted if you're on foot :lol:

Yes, plus often careless and distracted, and generally faster and more dangerous. If you were on foot or on a bike, which would you find worse, being close-passed at speed by one of those bike riders or by a similar person in a car?

I never found bikes to be a problem in Amsterdam. Nor here. But I'm sure most pedestrians would prefer not to have bikes on the pavement. If there were cycle tracks there would be less reason for it. And the tracks would help keep drivers off the pavement too.

I don't know what it's like in Northumberland, but statistically cycling on rural roads is more dangerous than in towns.

 

[Lons]

Wonder why he assumes a majority of riders are members of CTC or even that they all have house and contents insurance never mind public liability cover. BTW Jacob to be pedantic, insurance on your house would NOT cover riding a bike as it only covers the structure and fixtures in your property so get your facts straight! :wink: Any cover would be an add on legal liability protection or perhaps part of your contents cover (unlikely).

No longer called CTC now known as 'we are cycling UK' :wink:

Change of name but same organisation. I just quoted off Jacobs post as I know he's "always 100% correct" and didn't bother checking so good to see you are saying he's wrong :wink:

Some drivers are inconsiderate b*st*rds.
Some cyclists are inconsiderate b*st*rds..

There. Problem solved.

Best answer ever John =D> =D>

 

[Finial]

[
There's no mandatory obligation or law that says a cyclist has to know the details of the current Highway Code so why do you make the assumption that a cyclist will be up to date but a driver wouldn't? :roll:

Are you making the assumption that drivers generally follow the code? Because their failure to do so is so completely commonplace that it's almost invisible to many. It's their expected behaviour and often not seen as incorrect. Some are better than others, of course.

 

[Lons]

They are likely to be assertive, in a hurry, and sometimes aggressive or they wouldn't be on the road.

Quote taken out of context but isn't that exactly what cyclists are complaining that drivers do?

Maybe London is a little different from our more gentle and slower pace of life in Northumberland, you can keep it!

I'd deport all cyclists to Amsterdam where they can terrorize pedestrians to their hearts content. :wink: :lol: not a place for the faint hearted if you're on foot :lol:

Yes, plus often careless and distracted, and generally faster and more dangerous. If you were on foot or on a bike, which would you find worse, being close-passed at speed by one of those bike riders or by a similar person in a car?

I never found bikes to be a problem in Amsterdam. Nor here. But I'm sure most pedestrians would prefer not to have bikes on the pavement. If there were cycle tracks there would be less reason for it. And the tracks would help keep drivers off the pavement too.

I don't know what it's like in Northumberland, but statistically cycling on rural roads is more dangerous than in towns.

Are you saying that cyclists aren't distracted then Andy? The ones I see on our roads often are when chatting side by side, (the highway code if I remember recommends they be considerate and drop to single file when being overtaken as I'm sure you know btw and very few in my experience actually do that). In 30 mph areas when busy they often are just as quick as the cars and sometimes faster.

As a pedestrian I'd rather not be hit by any of them but make no mistake, a bike has sharp and dangerous protrusions that could cause major trauma to a pedestrian.

Lot of cyclists in Northumberland and often events where the roads are clogged for hours during their races but despite my tongue in cheek quips I have no real problem with cyclists except my opinion they should be regulated and accountable on the roads like the rest of us.

I found Amsterdam was hazardous though only been a couple of times you need eyes in the back of your head when it's busy as they come from all directions. Like driving in the centre of Paris. :lol:

 

[Finial]

Some drivers are inconsiderate b*st*rds.
Some cyclists are inconsiderate b*st*rds..

There. Problem solved.

Best answer ever John =D> =D>

Not really. What he says about drivers and cyclists is true. But the problem as I see it is that I want to ride a bike without doing harm to anyone and doing that in motor traffic is objectively and/or subjectively unsafe. And after Jacob showed an example of what passes for cycling infrastructure I'm told that the danger is my fault.

 

[dc_ni]

You get idiots on both 2 and 4 wheels. I've seen idiots driving at night without headlights, same way I've seen idiots cycling at night without lights.

I think the main problem with the anti cycling group is that they feel annoyed when they have to slow down to pass a cyclist, then they get annoyed even more when 2 minutes later the cyclist passes them while they sit in the queue of traffic that they were in such a rush to get to.

I expect the people that use the "I pay to use the roads and they don't so they shouldn't be allowed to use it" argument are the same people that never stop at zebra crossing and sit at pelican crossing revving the engine to hurry up pedestrians (well they don't pay to use the roads either)

The people that think that all cyclists/car drivers should be banned/shot/deported are the problem not the other way round, it's this sort of attitude that causes accidents.

I realise some people are just arguing because it's Jacob that posted the topic, but if you really believe that cyclists should be banned as a whole then you really are the problem and I hate to think how badly you drive (I imagine you believe your the best driver on the road to).