ShareTheRoadUK

airbag

bails87 wrote:

Playing devil's advocate....

What about motorcyclists? Should they have to do the bike test first? And should drivers have to do time on a motorbike and get that licence before they can get a car licence?

Give people a choice of using several methods of transport (that are all low-powered and vulnerable) to do something akin to extended CBT? They could use a horse if they wanted too maybe. If you have no sense of balance, an electric quadricycle has many of the same properties.

Clarion

Excellent sharpshooting if the foot was the target.

Was everyone on holiday when the tea boy signed up for this ill-thought-through campaign, which, if successful, could massively slow the rise of cycling we've seen recently, stop children from cycling, and grow the biggest generation of couch-potato, car-transported, LTC timebombs ever.

No more Walkers crisps or copies of C+/MBUK until this mess gets sorted out when the grown ups take back control.

Unklehomer

So how long do we have to wait for the embarrassing backtrack/climbdown then?

airbag

I expect the article being pulled (which has already happened) is all you'll get. Happy to be proven wrong tho.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Point is a push bike doesn't quite pose the same threat to everyone as a motorised box of metal that weighs a good tonne or two and can easily get up to 70mph.

That's the point. Car drivers don't like it because they feel cyclists all over the place makes them more likely to hurt someone and get blamed for it. The anger people get stems from a fear that if they do hit a cyclist, it's going to be pretty sh!t for them.

This will always remain when cars and bikes spend a lot of time sharing the same space, which, let's be honest, is mainly urban areas and busy roads.

To be fair to motorists, people have been told by the advertising industry that cars are the safe and comfortable ticket to personal freedom and the good life for as long as there has been a car industry. Cars are marketed as high performance wombs that keep you safe from the harsh outside world as they whizz you about to wherever your heart desires.

Being slowed down by having to responsibly overtake something travelling much slower was never part of the fantasy.

rick_chasey

You sound like the Bohemians in mad men...

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

You sound like the Bohemians in mad men...

*adjusts beret*

jds_1981

notsoblue wrote:

Being slowed down by having to responsibly overtake something travelling much slower was never part of the fantasy.

Yes, in most car adverts you can count the number of others cars in fingers on your nose.

bails87

I did like the photo someone put up of a seemingly endless traffic jam disappearing into a tunnel on a drizzly, grey Monday morning. Above the entrance to the tunnel was a BMW advert proclaiming the "pure joy'' of driving

rick_chasey

You need a licence to drive a car since they're very dangerous unless you use them correctly.

Bikes just aren't remotely in the same league as dangers. The main dangers associated with cycling day-to-day are when they come into contact with cars. So if any education needs to be had, it's for drivers, since they're the people in charge of the dangerous object.

And as for cyclists very regularly breaking road rules - perhaps there's a reason!

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

And as for cyclists very regularly breaking road rules - perhaps there's a reason!

Because they're human beings? The same as drivers, who are constantly breaking road rules too.

Edit: Actually, thinking about it, I'm more law abiding on the bike than in the car. On the bike I know I'm vulnerable, so anything that can be used to blame me if/when something goes wrong is something that I want to avoid.

In the car, if I'm involved in a collision while doing 73mph on the motorway I know that I'll be treated as law abiding.

mybreakfastconsisted

Has anyone from Bikeradar commented on this stupid plan? Why have they joined forces with a celebrity in a campiagn that will make the celebrity money and discourage children from cycling?

Unklehomer

No, not yet, It's difficult to form words with your foot lodged in your mouth...

jds_1981

bails87 wrote:

Edit: Actually, thinking about it, I'm more law abiding on the bike than in the car. On the bike I know I'm vulnerable, so anything that can be used to blame me if/when something goes wrong is something that I want to avoid.

I believe that a majority of the people who complain about cyclists jumping lights would do it themselves if they cycled regularly.
The basis for this belief is that the a large number of cyclists I see do jump lights and I make the assumption that they aren't atypical people.
It's like kids at infant/junior school being told about smoking & somehow the ones who made the most fuss about saying they'd never smoke were the ones who started at 15..

vermin

Cyclist - "It's all your fault; you need training to use the roads safely with us"

Motorist - "No, it's all your fault; you need training to use the roads safely with us"

A still small voice of calm - "Would it really hurt for both motorists and cyclists to get some form of training? The slight inconvenience to experienced cyclists might be a small price to pay in order to make the less-aware cyclists safer and, in any event, the experienced cyclists would benefit from sharing the road with fewer unpredictable nodders. Cycle-specific training for motorists could be built into the driving test."

Cyclist - "No. It's all the motorists' fault; they need training to use the roads safely with us"

Motorist - "No, it's all the cyclists' fault; they need training to use the roads safely with us"

A still small voice of calm - "Oh"

Vermin - *Bangs head slowly against brick wall*

rjsterry

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Oh for God's sake.

Look. It's quite simple. Go look up the definition of the word licence... what the hell: I'll save you time and do it myself:

1. (Law) a certificate, tag, document, etc., giving official permission to do something
2. formal permission or exemption

Okay - it means PERMISSION or PROOF that you have permission

As cyclists we do not need permission to use the road. Nor do we need permission to walk on them, or ride a bloody horse. We have that RIGHT.

You need permission to use a motor vehicle on the roads because they're so dangerous, complex and lethal.

FFS talk about blame the f*cking victim mentality.

(as an aside - I agree with everything said in that article except for compulsory education)


(edit: and it looks like my comments parallel those said elsewhere)

Amen. All pretty reasonable, then they go and undermine the whole thing by in effect suggesting a cycling license.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And as for cyclists very regularly breaking road rules - perhaps there's a reason!

Because they're human beings? The same as drivers, who are constantly breaking road rules too.

Edit: Actually, thinking about it, I'm more law abiding on the bike than in the car. On the bike I know I'm vulnerable, so anything that can be used to blame me if/when something goes wrong is something that I want to avoid.

In the car, if I'm involved in a collision while doing 73mph on the motorway I know that I'll be treated as law abiding.

It's a bull argument because they're different rules being broken regularly. Don't think I've ever seen a car coast through a red light that's been red for a good 20 secs and I see it all the time on the bike.

Similarly cars speed regularly - bikes usually don't because they're often not fast enough.

In each case there's a latent demand for their behaviour. The gov't responded to one by lifting the speed limit. They should cater to the other by providing appropriate infrastructure/rules.

Most of the lights I see on my commute that are regularly jumped are pretty safe to for cyclists but not for cars - which explains the discrepancy for RLJ between the two. This one for example: http://goo.gl/maps/qsylA, as long as you give way to bikes turning right onto your road.

If large groups of people across all demographics are behaving in the same way that happens to be against the rules, chances are the rules aren't appropriate.

'Education' won't stop people breaking the rules, since, chances are, 99% of people doing the breaking know what they're doing, but do it anyway. That's what car/anti bike lobbyists think will help. They think somehow bike riders don't know that red lights apply to them, or that holding traffic up is a nuisance. It's rubbish.

dodgy

Rick Chasey wrote:

This one for example: http://goo.gl/maps/qsylA, as long as you give way to bikes turning right onto your road.

And if you twist 90 degrees to the right, you see this bloke

http://goo.gl/maps/XkatX

vermin

Rick Chasey wrote:

'Education' won't stop people breaking the rules, since, chances are, 99% of people doing the breaking know what they're doing, but do it anyway. That's what car/anti bike lobbyists think will help. They think somehow bike riders don't know that red lights apply to them, or that holding traffic up is a nuisance. It's rubbish.

That's not the only interpretation though, is it. People don't need to be taught the rules; people need to be taught the consequences, the tactics, the things to look out for, etc; road sense, if you will.

rick_chasey

vermin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

'Education' won't stop people breaking the rules, since, chances are, 99% of people doing the breaking know what they're doing, but do it anyway. That's what car/anti bike lobbyists think will help. They think somehow bike riders don't know that red lights apply to them, or that holding traffic up is a nuisance. It's rubbish.

That's not the only interpretation though, is it. People don't need to be taught the rules; people need to be taught the consequences, the tactics, the things to look out for, etc; road sense, if you will.

Perhaps.

Personally I think it's crazy that people are OK with having a system whereby you need to be taught the dangers of riding a bike on the road, rather than trying to reduce the dangers as much as possible.

cookdn

Ingenie have started the damage limitation.

http://www.ingenie.com/blog/2012/08/sharetheroaduk

They are painting a picture to suggest that BikeRadar are involved to represents cyclists views. Why haven't BikeRadar done that themselves, they pulled their article after all? :?

Best regards
David

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

Personally I think it's crazy that people are OK with having a system whereby you need to be taught the dangers of riding a bike on the road, rather than trying to reduce the dangers as much as possible.

True, when you think about it, the advice so often given to newbies after near misses: "You should have taken primary through there to prevent tempting the driver into a left hook" is perverse.

"I'm not saying it was your fault, but maybe if you'd worn a burka instead of that miniskirt, the bloke wouldn't have been tempted...."

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Personally I think it's crazy that people are OK with having a system whereby you need to be taught the dangers of riding a bike on the road, rather than trying to reduce the dangers as much as possible.

True, when you think about it, the advice so often given to newbies after near misses: "You should have taken primary through there to prevent tempting the driver into a left hook" is perverse.

"I'm not saying it was your fault, but maybe if you'd worn a burka instead of that miniskirt, the bloke wouldn't have been tempted...."

Exactly.

Like that bloke who was caught under a left turning lorry. A few people were saying WTF was he doing going up the inside of a lorry - despite that the infrastructure tells you to go there, and in many other instances, going up the inside to get to the front of the queue of traffic makes sense.

clarkey cat

sod it - not working

hjghg5

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's a bull argument because they're different rules being broken regularly. Don't think I've ever seen a car coast through a red light that's been red for a good 20 secs and I see it all the time on the bike.

I have. Came up to some traffic lights on my bike which were on red. I stopped. Car stopped alongside me waiting to turn right. We both waited for a little bit then the car driver decided it was clear and he was too important to wait for the lights and just set off.

I'll admit that cyclists do it more often, but it does happen (that's not the only time I've seen it, just the one I remember best).

rick_chasey

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/s ... nse-35028/

vermin

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Personally I think it's crazy that people are OK with having a system whereby you need to be taught the dangers of riding a bike on the road, rather than trying to reduce the dangers as much as possible.

True, when you think about it, the advice so often given to newbies after near misses: "You should have taken primary through there to prevent tempting the driver into a left hook" is perverse.

"I'm not saying it was your fault, but maybe if you'd worn a burka instead of that miniskirt, the bloke wouldn't have been tempted...."

Exactly.

Like that bloke who was caught under a left turning lorry. A few people were saying WTF was he doing going up the inside of a lorry - despite that the infrastructure tells you to go there, and in many other instances, going up the inside to get to the front of the queue of traffic makes sense.

Put yourself in the position of a total novice and choose which scenario you might prefer;

1. Being taught how to look after yourself better on the roads, so that you might avoid making mistakes which might lead to accidents, or;

2. Knowing that motorists will be held liable after they've killed you.

It is very evident that a lot of cyclists do not know how to keep themselves safe on the roads. This goes far beyond the negligent driving that causes dangerous situations; I'm talking about all those silly things cyclists do in front of you and you watch with your heart in your mouth, praying that the worst doesn't happen. It's just like holding a child's hand at the side of the road and going through the stop-look-listen routine - failing to stop, look and listen is not a crime, but a lesson that must be taught to help people avoid getting themselves into trouble.

Kieran_Burns

hjghg5 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's a bull argument because they're different rules being broken regularly. Don't think I've ever seen a car coast through a red light that's been red for a good 20 secs and I see it all the time on the bike.

I have. Came up to some traffic lights on my bike which were on red. I stopped. Car stopped alongside me waiting to turn right. We both waited for a little bit then the car driver decided it was clear and he was too important to wait for the lights and just set off.

I'll admit that cyclists do it more often, but it does happen (that's not the only time I've seen it, just the one I remember best).

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people that Amber means stop as well, not "Oh go on then, you can make it" like a great deal of drivers seem to think it is.

rick_chasey

vermin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Personally I think it's crazy that people are OK with having a system whereby you need to be taught the dangers of riding a bike on the road, rather than trying to reduce the dangers as much as possible.

True, when you think about it, the advice so often given to newbies after near misses: "You should have taken primary through there to prevent tempting the driver into a left hook" is perverse.

"I'm not saying it was your fault, but maybe if you'd worn a burka instead of that miniskirt, the bloke wouldn't have been tempted...."

Exactly.

Like that bloke who was caught under a left turning lorry. A few people were saying WTF was he doing going up the inside of a lorry - despite that the infrastructure tells you to go there, and in many other instances, going up the inside to get to the front of the queue of traffic makes sense.

Put yourself in the position of a total novice and choose which scenario you might prefer;

1. Being taught how to look after yourself better on the roads, so that you might avoid making mistakes which might lead to accidents, or;

2. Knowing that motorists will be held liable after they've killed you.

It is very evident that a lot of cyclists do not know how to keep themselves safe on the roads. This goes far beyond the negligent driving that causes dangerous situations; I'm talking about all those silly things cyclists do in front of you and you watch with your heart in your mouth, praying that the worst doesn't happen. It's just like holding a child's hand at the side of the road and going through the stop-look-listen routine - failing to stop, look and listen is not a crime, but a lesson that must be taught to help people avoid getting themselves into trouble.

The objection I have is where the effort for change is going. They're campaigning for a band aid when they should be campaigning to change the system.

I reckon 2 would save more lives than 1 anyway .

We've already established education, like the education drivers get, doesn't stop them being idiots or driving badly. why would it be different with bikes?

Headhuunter

vermin wrote:

Cyclist - "It's all your fault; you need training to use the roads safely with us"

Motorist - "No, it's all your fault; you need training to use the roads safely with us"

A still small voice of calm - "Would it really hurt for both motorists and cyclists to get some form of training? The slight inconvenience to experienced cyclists might be a small price to pay in order to make the less-aware cyclists safer and, in any event, the experienced cyclists would benefit from sharing the road with fewer unpredictable nodders. Cycle-specific training for motorists could be built into the driving test."

Cyclist - "No. It's all the motorists' fault; they need training to use the roads safely with us"

Motorist - "No, it's all the cyclists' fault; they need training to use the roads safely with us"

A still small voice of calm - "Oh"

Vermin - *Bangs head slowly against brick wall*

I think the point is though that the more cyclists on the road, the safer the roads become for everyone. If motor vehicles were suddenly banned from the road tomorrow, do you think there would be any near the number of fatal accidents and injuries of other road users? As Rick has pointed out, it makes sense for users of potentially dangerous implements (cars, vans, lorries etc) on the road to be licensed and monitored, less so cyclists and pedestrians as they pose relatively little danger. Forcing anyone who wants to ride a bike on the road to have passed some kind of safety test/license (effectively it is a license) would have the same effect on cycling number as making helmets mandatory - numbers would fall. And where would many of those ex cyclists gogo? Into cars... Making the roads even more dangerous...