bike lanes again

[RogerS]

People don't need to pass a test to ride a bike.

Why not? Might drum some commonsense into many bad cyclists.

They need proper cycle tracks, not the kind that Jacob opened this thread with. Then they wouldn't have to ride on the road.

Trouble with that, as others have already said, is the narrowness of many of our roads especially in cities. And even when proper cycle lanes are provided, do all the cyclists use them? Certainly not. Back to 'people need to pass a test to ride a bike'.

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.

So that's a reason for cyclists not to have insurance ? A weak argument.

Some people here are quick to complain about bike riders, but drivers normally only see the ones who ride on the roads.

We get idiots on mountain bikes up on the Malvern Hills. Others have posted about bad cyclists elsewhere. Bad cyclists are not the exclusive 'ownership' of roads. In any event, are we any quicker to complain about bad cyclists then your (and others) posts about bad drivers?

 

[Finial]

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:

'Distracted' is relative. Chatting side by side is a distraction, like it is for a driver. But those riders normally know you are there. How often do you see a bike rider on the phone, checking a map, eating their breakfast or turning round to deal with their children? And round here it is rare to see bikes two abreast unless overtaking.

Only the young and fit go at 30 mph or even 20. Not people like me unfortunately, though traffic queues do hold me up. Cycle tracks should be marked with level changes and coloured tarmac so pedestrians can recognise them. One problem is there isn't yet a standard. Here we mostly have shared use pavements that are not much good for walking or cycling on and often don't have proper signage or even a dividing line.

It's interesting that you grumble about the roads being clogged for hours. Here they are clogged pretty well all day every day by queues of motors.

There are many serious problems with motor vehicles, but I wouldn't have a problem with drivers if I wasn't expected to mix with them on a bike.

 

[NazNomad]

Enforcement is rare.

Not if I'm walking on the pavement, I'll force them into the road or make them dismount. They don't really have a valid argument for doing it, do they?

 

[Finial]

People don't need to pass a test to ride a bike.

Why not? Might drum some commonsense into many bad cyclists.

They need proper cycle tracks, not the kind that Jacob opened this thread with. Then they wouldn't have to ride on the road.

Trouble with that, as others have already said, is the narrowness of many of our roads especially in cities. And even when proper cycle lanes are provided, do all the cyclists use them? Certainly not. Back to 'people need to pass a test to ride a bike'.

As for insurance and registration, .......

What test would be appropriate for cycling off the road? Will my grandson have to pass a test before he can ride his first bike? How well is the driving test working to keep drivers on the straight and narrow?

People assume cycle tracks aren't practicable. Yet somehow they get built and work well. Many city roads are plenty wide enough for parallel tracks, and where they aren't there are other solutions. People are entitled to cycle on the road in this country, but if there is a good quality cycle track, why would they? Generally the tracks here are not well designed for cycling on. If people are prepared to cycle in traffic and the road is better for them, they will take it.

My argument against insurance was not the strongest. Here's another: we need more people cycling to help solve some very intractable problems such as the obesity and ill health crises, poor air quality and others. Making people take out insurance before they use the bike in the shed hinders that, to little advantage. We shouldn't be putting obstacles in the way. Or will my grandson need insurance in case he hits something while riding on the pavement? A car parked in the bike lane for example.

 

[Finial]

Enforcement is rare.

Not if I'm walking on the pavement, I'll force them into the road or make them dismount. They don't really have a valid argument for doing it, do they?

Charming! But then you don't understand the issues.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Wide bike if he can ride on the pavement and hit a car in the bike lane - but many of the cyclists round here could manage it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Enforcement is rare.

Not if I'm walking on the pavement, I'll force them into the road or make them dismount. They don't really have a valid argument for doing it, do they?

Charming! But then you don't understand the issues.

The last cyclist that presumed I'd get out of his way on a footpath ended up in a river.

 

[Finial]

The last cyclist that presumed I'd get out of his way on a footpath ended up in a river.

Perhaps it served him right if he thought he should have priority on a footpath. As bad as some drivers! How do you and NazNomad deal with pavement driving, or is that OK?

 

[Wuffles]

The last cyclist that presumed I'd get out of his way on a footpath ended up in a river.

Perhaps it served him right if he thought he should have priority on a footpath. As bad as some drivers! How do you and NazNomad deal with pavement driving, or is that OK?

What exactly is pavement driving? Is it what I think it is? If so, what a ridiculous question.

 

[Finial]

What exactly is pavement driving? Is it what I think it is? If so, what a ridiculous question.

What do you think it is?

It's people going in and out of driveways, which is a problem when they don't look where they are going. I've had to jump out of their way several times.

It's people driving onto the pavement to park, sometimes inside another line of cars, or to avoid the double yellow lines, always a problem because it damages the paving, which leads to accidents, and even more so if they don't look first, or if they block the pavement (very common round here), or presume pedestrians will just get out of their way, which of course they have to.

It's people driving lorries onto the pavement to get closer to make deliveries.

It's tradesmen parking on the pavement outside a property and blocking the way for pedestrians.

It's people driving along the pavement to overtake a traffic queue, becoming more common round here now.

It's people losing control of the vehicle and going up on the pavement.

You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers, and it costs a huge amount in repairs. My point is that people take it for granted that motors will be found on the pavement for the convenience of the drivers, but object when people cycle there to avoid danger.

 

[Jacob]

....
You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers. My point is that people take it for granted that motors will be found on the pavement for the convenience of the drivers, but object when people cycle there to avoid danger.

You are approximately 120 times more likely to be killed on the pavement by a motor vehicle rather than a bike, according to figures I posted up earlier

"*What the available statistics say
Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists. This is based on 10% of pedestrian casualties being on the pavement or verge as was the case 2007-2008. The ratio of pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles to those killed by cyclists is therefore 121.4:1. The ratio from 1998-2008 is 820.1:3 or 273:1 (uses the same 2007-2008 10% pedestrian casualties figure).
E&OE. "

Just a random google produced the above. Presumably typical and not exceptional.
Killed by drivers on pavements 60.7
Killed by cyclists on pavements 0.5
Fairly uncommon either way but vehicles kill 121 times as many as cyclists, on pavements alone.

Then according to this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... death-2011 you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist

 

[Wuffles]

What exactly is pavement driving? Is it what I think it is? If so, what a ridiculous question.

What do you think it is?

It's people going in and out of driveways, which is a problem when they don't look where they are going. I've had to jump out of their way several times.

It's people driving onto the pavement to park, sometimes inside another line of cars, or to avoid the double yellow lines, always a problem because it damages the paving, which leads to accidents, and even more so if they don't look first, or if they block the pavement (very common round here), or presume pedestrians will just get out of their way, which of course they have to.

It's people driving lorries onto the pavement to get closer to make deliveries.

It's tradesmen parking on the pavement outside a property and blocking the way for pedestrians.

It's people driving along the pavement to overtake a traffic queue, becoming more common round here now.

It's people losing control of the vehicle and going up on the pavement.

You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers, and it costs a huge amount in repairs. My point is that people take it for granted that motors will be found on the pavement for the convenience of the drivers, but object when people cycle there to avoid danger.

I didn't say it was ridiculous, I said it was a ridiculous question.

Much like trying to explain this to you, ridiculous.

 

[NazNomad]

Charming! But then you don't understand the issues.

Meh!! I understand enough.

 

[NazNomad]

you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist

... because there are 700 times more stairs than there are cyclists?

Anyway, 43% of all statistics are made up.

 

[RobinBHM]

Anyway, 43% of all statistics are made up.

I dont agree with that

 

[Jacob]

you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist

... because there are 700 times more stairs than there are cyclists?

Anyway, 43% of all statistics are made up.

Stairs get you when you least expect it. :shock:

 

[Wuffles]

you are 700 times more likely to be killed falling down stairs than by being hit by a cyclist

... because there are 700 times more stairs than there are cyclists?

Anyway, 43% of all statistics are made up.

Stairs get you when you least expect it. :shock:

Here's hoping.

 

[Bm101]

8 Pages!
I've never got on on with stairs personally. In my youth, when I was angry and looking for answers to lifes problems I'd often be found arguing with them. All those needless deaths. I felt an answer was owed. Over the years as I've matured and calmed down I've learnt slowly to take them one step at a time.

 

[iNewbie]

What exactly is pavement driving? Is it what I think it is? If so, what a ridiculous question.

What do you think it is?

It's people going in and out of driveways, which is a problem when they don't look where they are going. I've had to jump out of their way several times.

It's people driving onto the pavement to park, sometimes inside another line of cars, or to avoid the double yellow lines, always a problem because it damages the paving, which leads to accidents, and even more so if they don't look first, or if they block the pavement (very common round here), or presume pedestrians will just get out of their way, which of course they have to.

It's people driving lorries onto the pavement to get closer to make deliveries.

It's tradesmen parking on the pavement outside a property and blocking the way for pedestrians.

It's people driving along the pavement to overtake a traffic queue, becoming more common round here now.

It's people losing control of the vehicle and going up on the pavement.

You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers, and it costs a huge amount in repairs. My point is that people take it for granted that motors will be found on the pavement for the convenience of the drivers, but object when people cycle there to avoid danger.

Isn't that a pedestrian on pedestrian drive-by?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"You may think it's ridiculous, but perhaps you forget that a significant number of pedestrians are killed on the pavement every year by drivers ... " Very nearly all if not 100% will have been by vehicles that have gone off the road by accident.