Bikes make Potholes?

mcj78

I reckon the biggest danger idiotic cyclists pose is to themselves, fair enough pedestrians are sometime injured by the inconsiderate actions of these people, however there are already plenty of laws in force to prevent people tearing down the pavement or weaving through red lights. To administer even a simple database of all existing & new bikes would require a completely unjustifiable amount of time & money for very little perceived gain in my humble opinion.

j

Thewaylander

Yup I used to be known to be on the road,

And it is simples you just supply a removablle collar, and who needs to check you just get a scanner and when a bike passes the parked police car full of scanners it's one more item those are poor reasonings when technology basically makes it very simple.

And percentage whise i would say the same percentage of cyclists on the road that are complete idiots is the same percentage as car drivers, because thats roughly the percentage of idiots in the world(Wickedly high these days).

Common sense rules but knoledge is king, And if you read what i'm saying most people could easily pass what i'm suggesting. not all schools do road safety for bikes and it's certainly not compulsory which puts cyclists at risks and motorists open to problems because if they catch a poor cyclist by accident and kill him they could have some horrible experience that could have been easily avoided with clear knoledge.

In this i'm not car vs Bike as i've tried to state, just keen that all people that use the road and will end up in places like a duel carriage way (have one if i commute) and so on have all the information they need to ride drive safely.
Also i'm not saying what i'm proposing is right, but i'm saying current ways of providing this information are not good or thorough. and that i'm making constructive suggestions in ways to put something in place to ensure all road traffic users are safe because cars are dangerous and they are all over the roads you know

bails87

Thewaylander wrote:

motorists open to problems because if they catch a poor cyclist by accident and kill him they could have some horrible experience

A good driver shouldn't hit anything else on the road. There's no excuse. When overtaking there should be a wide gap so any 'swerve' by the cyclist is avoidable. When at junctions use of mirrors and checking blind spots before moving mean that the driver should know who and what is around his/her car.

If the same proportion of cyclists and drivers are idiots, then what exactly will testing acheive?

When you're driving, how often are you put in danger by cars? And by cyclists?

When you're riding on the roads, how often are you put in danger by cars? And by cyclists?

Kaise

"bails87 wrote:

A good driver shouldn't hit anything else on the road. There's no excuse.

+potato

Thewaylander

Did you read my example earlier, with me about to turn left at a round about witht eh cyclist sneaking up my blind spot to come to my inside to go straight on, I can only assume he didnt know his highway code for undertaking and needed a theory test.

it's easy to miss one item with in many especially someone who is alot smaller than all the other moving objects around good awareness and knoledge on both sides help, My guy may not have been a driver, so may not realise there are clear blind spots on a car that can hide you briefly and to be aware. Information is key.

And my point here is a misinformed or un-educated cyclists are a danger to themselves i could have killed the guy but i'm a cyclist and very aware of them. And saved myself a messy blood stain/ scratch in the process.

See i'm convinced your missing my point entirely on purpose, I'm about cyclist safety, Driver well being and just generally having the most informed traffic flow as possible. Your idea that everyone can see everything 100% of the time is just not realistic. people miss things in there field of vision all the time, if we were all perfect i'd have had 100% in all my exams always and i didn't same applies to all walks of life..

And the test basically then say you've been trained you know, you don't listen we can use solid responses up too the ban stick

BG2000

shm_uk wrote:

Cyclists are not required to have a license and are not required to purchase a tax disc to use the roads, but they have just as much right to as a car driver

No one using a motor vehicle has a right to the road. They have permission to use it if they pass a ridiculously simple test, have their vehicle tested to check it's roadworthy, insure themselves againt the damage they can cause and pay a duty to compensate the rest of us for their emissions.

That permission can be and is removed if they misbehave.

The only people with a right to the road are pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. And pedestrians have their own little roads called "pavements".

best reply I've seen to a topic in ages....

as you say, cars were last on the scene. roads were paved for carriages/bikes decades before the rich and lazy took to their oil guzzling machines...

bails87

Thewaylander wrote:

Did you read my example earlier, with me about to turn left at a round about witht eh cyclist sneaking up my blind spot to come to my inside to go straight on, I can only assume he didnt know his highway code for undertaking and needed a theory test.

it's easy to miss one item with in many especially someone who is alot smaller than all the other moving objects around good awareness and knoledge on both sides help, My guy may not have been a driver, so may not realise there are clear blind spots on a car that can hide you briefly and to be aware. Information is key.

And my point here is a misinformed or un-educated cyclists are a danger to themselves i could have killed the guy but i'm a cyclist and very aware of them. And saved myself a messy blood stain/ scratch in the process.

From the Highway Code:
187
In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to:

cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so

Yes, the cyclist shouldn't really have put himself there. But if a driver failed to make the checks you did then they'd be negligent and they'd have caused the death/injury. Remember Mirror, Signal, Manouver? First thing you do before even signalling, let alone moving is check your mirrors and blind spots. Then you see the cyclist and either carry on because it's safe, or let him/her get out of the way.

See i'm convinced your missing my point entirely on purpose, I'm about cyclist safety, Driver well being and just generally having the most informed traffic flow as possible. Your idea that everyone can see everything 100% of the time is just not realistic. people miss things in there field of vision all the time, if we were all perfect i'd have had 100% in all my exams always and i didn't same applies to all walks of life..

But if you fail a question on an exam, you accept responsibility for that, and you accept that it's your fault. you might not have done it on purpose, but you're the one to blame.. If a driver runs a cyclist over because they haven't looked properly, it's a bit rich to then demand licenses for cyclists. If I get a gun and shoot you, it's wrong to blame you for not getting a certificate in Advanced Bullet Dodging.

bails87

I should add, of course there are reckless cyclists. But as the bigger, heavier, harder things on the roads, it's up to us drivers not to squash the easily squashable, whether they're on foot, on bikes, in wheelchairs or prams.

But then maybe I'm biased because this happened yesterday:

bails87 wrote:

Grrrrrr, f*cking bell-end trying to squash me this morning.

Overtaking a queue of traffic, on the right, at 14mph according to Endomondo. Right here. There was a single queue of traffic due to parked cars in the box on the left.

I was on the right hand side of the hatched markings, overtaking the stationary traffic when a car suddenly pulled out to turn right at the RAB ahead. He didn't look in his mirror or start indicating until after he was moving.

I was next to his driver side window so said "Whooooaaaa, use your indicators before you turn" and just put it down to carelessness.

Next thing I know, after I've very clearly signalled right on the approach to the RAB, with him now behind me, he's trying to overtake. I'm 'taking the lane' so he's on the wrong side of the roadhere. I give a quick glance to see what he's doing, then have to slow down because there's 2 cars in front, also turning right. He tucks back in behind me.

I signal right again, just so he's clear.

The 2 cars in front move off, so it's my turn next, still being wary to 'take the lane' to stop him doing something stupid.

Final signal right, check all round then move off. And all of a sudden I'm next the entrance to the car park here (looking the other way in StreetView now), he's on my right hand side turning into me, pushing me into the car park. It was either that or hit the car.

So I followed him in.

He parked up. Got out. I'd got off the bike. And calmly asked what he was doing. He said he hadn't realised I was there and that he hadn't seen me.

Despite almost hitting me once before, trying and failng to overtake, sitting behind me in the queue for the roundabout, and the fact I was wearing a bright yellow jersey, a bright orange backpack and I had a flashing Smart 1/2 watt on the rear.

Two colleagues were in a car behind him and saw the whole thing, they said they thought I was a 'goner'. So I may be paying a visit to the police at lunchtime.

C*nt.

And to answer the OP. No, bikes don't cause potholes,

Road wear goes as the fourth power of axle load. Say a bike is 100kg and a car is 1tonne and is balanced the same, then a car does 10,000 times as much wear

Read more: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/r ... zz1Ly4CJ0s

cooldad

bails87 wrote:

And to answer the OP. No, bikes don't cause potholes,

Road wear goes as the fourth power of axle load. Say a bike is 100kg and a car is 1tonne and is balanced the same, then a car does 10,000 times as much wear

Read more: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/r ... zz1Ly4CJ0s

Except bike wheels are much thinner, so the pressure on the tarmac for any spefific weight would be increased. Skinny road bike tyres probably dig deep grooves into the tarmac so should be banned.

But to sum up (especially if you read the commuting forum)

Some car drivers are useless d1cks.
Some cyclists are useless d1cks.
Licensing cyclists is impossible/impractical.

bails87

cooldad wrote:

bails87 wrote:

And to answer the OP. No, bikes don't cause potholes,

Road wear goes as the fourth power of axle load. Say a bike is 100kg and a car is 1tonne and is balanced the same, then a car does 10,000 times as much wear

Read more: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/r ... zz1Ly4CJ0s

Except bike wheels are much thinner, so the pressure on the tarmac for any spefific weight would be increased. Skinny road bike tyres probably dig deep grooves into the tarmac so should be banned.

Road wear is based on axle load, not kg/cm or anything like that. Don't make me get yeehaa to explain physics to you!