ban cyclists from roads

2

Comments

  • Raffles wrote:
    you can just imagine redfaced, angry, baldy fat bob behind the wheel of his X5 mouthing at cyclists whilst he putters along the roads

    People are truly odd. I was waiting for a space at a Tesco Metro on Sunday when a Jag tried to force its way up the inside of us (single lane) and ended up blocked in by a park car. My Fiance in the passenger seat put her hands up in a shrugging motion as we then moved passed, as if to ask 'What are you doing?' as it was a truly bizarre and somewhat dangerous maneuver, one that nearly resulted in him hitting us and a parked car.

    It was no more aggressive than a shrug and a mouthing of 'what are you doing?'

    The guy proceeded to jump out of his car, start screaming 'F*CKING COME ONE THEN C*NTS' and chased us down the service road that houses the Tesco.

    Now what the hell is wrong with these peoples lives that have them so angry? I truly believe he was prepared to get in a fight simply because he pulled a hair brained piece of driving, as apparently his time was that much more important than ours, and only we should have to wait for a space.

    Doesn't make me angry anymore, just makes me laugh. Apart from the fact he is the type of guy who would try and pass a cyclist too close, or end up battering one.
  • passout
    passout Posts: 4,425
    TomOdell wrote:
    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35274

    is it just me, or do some people not deserve to use the internet ?
    it's just so damn uninformed, stupid, opinionated etc etc

    I'll just stick to the pavement then.....

    More generally, though I think many motorists are rude to everyone not just cyclists - we just happen to be an easy target.
    'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.
  • whitestar1
    whitestar1 Posts: 530
    Wow can't believe that people can be so dumb! Doesn't the person who put the petition up in the first place not know that we all pay, wait for it...
    ROAD TAX :lol:
    Ride Safe! Keep Safe!
    Specialized Roubaix Comp 2017
    Cube Agree Pro 2014
    Triban 7 2013
    RockRider 8.0 2011
    http://www.whitestar1.co.uk
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,473
    A word about cycle paths... I live in Finland, and there are cycle paths everywhere. It's crap! The ones in busy urban areas are often shared with pedestrians, and every time they cross a minor road (even if you are on the main road) you have to give way or wait for the crossing, and the kerbs are usually not completely lowered so that there is a significant bump going over them. In suburban areas and even in quite remote areas in the countryside near the city, there are "proper" cycle paths separated from the road, but they are still crap. Often they dip down and then up again when the road itself goes over a flat bridge, and they are too narrow for fast descending going downhill. Oh, and like the town ones they are also often shared with pedestrians, inline skaters and dog walkers...

    A couple of my favourite rolling country roads have recently had cycle paths built alongside them, so now when I cycle on the road as I have always done, I get dirty looks from some drivers. Fortunately most Finns are polite, non-confrontational and drive carefully around cyclists, and also the roads are usually pretty quiet, so it's not such a problem. But I often pick my routes specifically to avoid cycle paths, and generally dread new ones being built alongside roads that have little traffic on them to begin with.

    I think in the U.K. as cycling becomes more popular and more money is spent on cycling infrastructure, we have to be very careful that we don't lose the right to cycle on many roads as more cycle paths are built. I suppose there are areas (especially in the S.E. of England) where the roads are so busy that cycle paths are the best solution to separate cyclists from motor traffic, and also some busy urban streets and big junctions probably require separate provision. In most areas however it's just a case of drivers and cyclists needing to learn better how to coexist and act around each other.
  • jagx400
    jagx400 Posts: 132
    I got the 'You dont pay road tax' from an uneducated workmate. I always tell them I do about 3000 miles a year in my car as I use my bike everywhere, if they use theirs for work then they do a lot more miles than me, so affectively I pay a lot more than they do. Soon shuts them up. :lol:
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    I've just signed it. :D
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • Lycra-Byka
    Lycra-Byka Posts: 292
    Somebody said "it doesn't make me angry, it makes me laugh"

    Exactly,it's the same with this petition.

    Have we not heard it all before?

    This petition is clearly no threat, the only valid point in it is about insurance.
    How cycle insurance could be enforced, I don't know. I think it's advisory to take liability insurance just incase somebody pursues a claim against you.
    If that's the case, all road users should have to have insurance. In my opininion I'd say it was unnecessary to have pedestrians, wheelchair and pushchair users (yes by law pushchairs are wheeled and therefore should use the highway! I know!) to pay insurance.
    But you could argue that any road user could be at fault on a claim, therefore, must be insured.
    I would have no qualms about HAVING to pay insurance to cycle. I'm sure some of you would though(awkward gits love squabble)

    On the plus side, if by magic the proposal is granted, we may get a few more cycle lanes, race tracks and 'dromes(velodromes-it might catch on-I'm the innovator, remeber that!)
  • Raffles
    Raffles Posts: 1,137
    TomOdell wrote:
    Pituophis wrote:
    Hey... I fit 1,2 whilst going up hill, 7 and 9 and have no intention of signing it! :shock:
    What have I done? :(

    balding whilst going up a hill ? that's a new one


    maybe at the bottom of mow cop he is like a long haired hippie and at the top resembling William Hague.
    2012 Cannondale CAAD 8 105
  • Pituophis
    Pituophis Posts: 1,025
    Raffles wrote:
    TomOdell wrote:
    Pituophis wrote:
    Hey... I fit 1,2 whilst going up hill, 7 and 9 and have no intention of signing it! :shock:
    What have I done? :(

    balding whilst going up a hill ? that's a new one


    maybe at the bottom of mow cop he is like a long haired hippie and at the top resembling William Hague.

    :o That is exactly what happens! :oops:
    TomOdell wrote:
    and on a completely different note... is your name Pituophis because you keep snakes?

    Yes. It was either that name, or something else. :roll: :mrgreen:
  • To say this chap/chap-ess shouldn't be on the internet and to then completely dismiss ALL of the points ( as some have done) is probably why there is a significant lack of empathy and common messaging between pro-cycling and pro-car lobbyists. This only contributes to a crap network that meets no-one's needs effectively. For obvious reasons i wouldn't support such a petition but there are many, many ill equipped, poorly skilled and down right dangerous cyclists who are free to carry on what they do doing as if it were a God given right. Some form of mandatory awareness and testing should be introduced for ALL road users and even cyclists should (to my mind) register their eqpt through DVLA - paying a very modest admin fee to do so. It is ridiculous that a cyclist who might never have passed a driving test can get straight onto the network having never, ever been tested on basic highway code awareness and road positioning. I shall sit with clenched teeth waiting for the vitriol to come forth but this seems entirely reasonable.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    To say this chap/chap-ess shouldn't be on the internet and to then completely dismiss ALL of the points ( as some have done) is probably why there is a significant lack of empathy and common messaging between pro-cycling and pro-car lobbyists. This only contributes to a crap network that meets no-one's needs effectively. For obvious reasons i wouldn't support such a petition but there are many, many ill equipped, poorly skilled and down right dangerous cyclists who are free to carry on what they do doing as if it were a God given right. Some form of mandatory awareness and testing should be introduced for ALL road users and even cyclists should (to my mind) register their eqpt through DVLA - paying a very modest admin fee to do so. It is ridiculous that a cyclist who might never have passed a driving test can get straight onto the network having never, ever been tested on basic highway code awareness and road positioning. I shall sit with clenched teeth waiting for the vitriol to come forth but this seems entirely reasonable.

    The debate isn't one about pro-car vs pro-bike. Most cyclists drive and many drivers cycle. Enforce the existing laws and share the road; everybody has equal rights.

    Now, unclench those teeth.
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    neeb wrote:
    A word about cycle paths... I live in Finland, and there are cycle paths everywhere. It's crap!

    .

    This is why just whacking down cycle paths and signing shared use paths willy nilly isn't a good idea. You need to do it properly.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    neeb wrote:
    A word about cycle paths... I live in Finland, and there are cycle paths everywhere. It's crap!

    .

    This is why just whacking down cycle paths and signing shared use paths willy nilly isn't a good idea. You need to do it properly.

    Near where I live there's been a "cyclepath" around the outside of a 1 way system/roundabout - for the cyclist it's a nightmare - as Mark says, you're forever stopping/starting and giving way to everything else.
    Anyone who is a "cyclist" tends to ignore the cyclepath and get in the road as a rider can generally go around quicker than the cars anyway.

    It's ok there being cyclepaths everywhere - but do we want to encourage cyclists doing 20mph+ along a path shared with pedestrians.
  • bazzer2
    bazzer2 Posts: 189
    TomOdell wrote:
    bazzer2 wrote:
    Obvious troll is obvious.

    are you saying i'm trolling or the petition starter ? if you mean him, yeah.. he needs to try again

    The person who made the petition. Obviously a cyclist laughing into his latte.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,473
    neeb wrote:
    A word about cycle paths... I live in Finland, and there are cycle paths everywhere. It's crap!

    .

    This is why just whacking down cycle paths and signing shared use paths willy nilly isn't a good idea. You need to do it properly.
    The problem is that to really do it properly, you would effectively need to duplicate the current road network, which isn't feasible.

    One issue is that cyclists are pretty diverse. Most people who ride bikes in Finland do so for transport over short distances on very heavy, upright, old bikes and travel at about 12mph. For this majority, the cycle path network is great and works pretty well. For serious cyclists it doesn't work however, and to be fair I think there is an understanding amongst many drivers that proper road cyclists often need to be on the road. This sort of understanding is what needs to be fostered and protected.
  • dsoutar
    dsoutar Posts: 1,746
    "and we petition our Government to make it so"

    Does he have some sort of Jean-Luc Picard delusion ?
  • chrisaonabike
    chrisaonabike Posts: 1,914
    Just out of interest, is there a good reason not to insist that a cyclist has at least 3rd party insurance? Don't we get that simply by joining British Cycling?

    One of the more arsey LBC presenters was ranting on about number plates and 3rd party insurance for bikes, and although you'd be pretty hard pushed to find a universal way of attaching a number plate to a bike that was big enough to allow someone to ID the bike as the perp escaped from the scene of the accident, I did think he had a point.

    If we have equal rights on the roads as the car drivers, it's hard to argue that we shouldn't also have equal responsibilities.
    Is the gorilla tired yet?
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Just out of interest, is there a good reason not to insist that a cyclist has at least 3rd party insurance? Don't we get that simply by joining British Cycling?

    One of the more arsey LBC presenters was ranting on about number plates and 3rd party insurance for bikes, and although you'd be pretty hard pushed to find a universal way of attaching a number plate to a bike that was big enough to allow someone to ID the bike as the perp escaped from the scene of the accident, I did think he had a point.

    If we have equal rights on the roads as the car drivers, it's hard to argue that we shouldn't also have equal responsibilities.
    Absolutely. And all of this applies to pedestrians too, make them all wear number plates.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Just out of interest, is there a good reason not to insist that a cyclist has at least 3rd party insurance? Don't we get that simply by joining British Cycling?

    One of the more arsey LBC presenters was ranting on about number plates and 3rd party insurance for bikes, and although you'd be pretty hard pushed to find a universal way of attaching a number plate to a bike that was big enough to allow someone to ID the bike as the perp escaped from the scene of the accident, I did think he had a point.

    If we have equal rights on the roads as the car drivers, it's hard to argue that we shouldn't also have equal responsibilities.

    We do have equal responsibilities ... if you damage someone or their property then you can be liable for damages. Insurance is just a way of paying for those liabilities. Have an accident whilst uninsured just means you may have to find a way of paying for the damage (assuming it's your fault!)

    If you're going to insist on 3rd party insurance - what criteria are you going to use? Do kids need insurance? what if they're on stabalisers? Or just a balance bike? How about if you just use a mountain bike on a mountain bike course and never go "on the road".

    Many ppl will cycle very few miles each year - do they need the same level of insurance of those who travel 0000's of miles have?

    Like many, I'm insured 3rd party through British Cycling - and I intend to keep that up - but only because I'm riding a few thousand miles each year and the small fee goes to more than just paying for insurance. I'll take the risk of paying for any damage to my own ride. But before I started really riding, I didn't cycle far - the bike only came out of the shed once in a blue moon - if I was forced to pay for insurance or not ride at all then in all likelyhood I would've ditched the bike.
  • NITR8s
    NITR8s Posts: 688
    Its strange how you never hear people moaning about horse riders having no insurance and not paying road tax, and they leave poo all over the road!
  • charlie_potatoes
    charlie_potatoes Posts: 1,921
    NITR8s wrote:
    and they leave poo all over the road!

    Some marathon runners also do this :D
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • Team4Luke
    Team4Luke Posts: 597
    To say this chap/chap-ess shouldn't be on the internet and to then completely dismiss ALL of the points ( as some have done) is probably why there is a significant lack of empathy and common messaging between pro-cycling and pro-car lobbyists. This only contributes to a crap network that meets no-one's needs effectively. For obvious reasons i wouldn't support such a petition but there are many, many ill equipped, poorly skilled and down right dangerous cyclists who are free to carry on what they do doing as if it were a God given right. Some form of mandatory awareness and testing should be introduced for ALL road users and even cyclists should (to my mind) register their eqpt through DVLA - paying a very modest admin fee to do so. It is ridiculous that a cyclist who might never have passed a driving test can get straight onto the network having never, ever been tested on basic highway code awareness and road positioning. I shall sit with clenched teeth waiting for the vitriol to come forth but this seems entirely reasonable.

    generally all this sort of stuff needs administering, or at the least overseeing and would involved creating public sector jobs which the public constantly winge about thus the PS is seeing massive job losses. But too, let's have compulsory insurance for pedestrians and dogs, car passengers opening doors they should have insurance.......
    Two faced britain.
    Team4Luke supports Cardiac Risk in the Young
  • chrisaonabike
    chrisaonabike Posts: 1,914
    Slowbike wrote:
    We do have equal responsibilities ... if you damage someone or their property then you can be liable for damages. Insurance is just a way of paying for those liabilities. Have an accident whilst uninsured just means you may have to find a way of paying for the damage (assuming it's your fault!)
    Hmm. Although we're liable for damages, that's not the same as having equal responsibilities under the law, and this is at least part of what the motorists complain about.
    If you're going to insist on 3rd party insurance - what criteria are you going to use? Do kids need insurance? what if they're on stabalisers? Or just a balance bike? How about if you just use a mountain bike on a mountain bike course and never go "on the road".
    These examples are strawmen, in reality - bikes with stabilisers and balance bikes aren't usually on the road, and if we're talking about responsibilities as a road user, off-road biking is also irrelevant....
    Many ppl will cycle very few miles each year - do they need the same level of insurance of those who travel 0000's of miles have?
    ... but yes, this is where it gets more complicated.
    - if I was forced to pay for insurance or not ride at all then in all likelyhood I would've ditched the bike.
    ... as is this.

    Including a few quid in the new sale price as a one-off premium for a transferable insurance policy (if you sell the bike, for instance) would go some way to providing at least a minimum level of 3rd party insurance.

    But I agree it's not a simple issue - administratively it's difficult, and as Team4Luke says, it brings with it the implication of a whole swathe of public admin and enforcement issues.

    Be all that as it may, we're never going to convince the motorists that we have equal rights, when there is no requirement for cycling equivalents (no matter how difficult some would be to administer) to the driving test, MOT tests, number plates, and insurance.
    Is the gorilla tired yet?
  • CStar
    CStar Posts: 63
    Raffles wrote:
    I can envisage those who would instigate or sign such a petition:

    1 balding
    2 red faced
    3 big gut sitting over waistband
    4 big jowls of fat on face
    5 double chinned
    6 high blood pressure
    7 stressed out
    8 impatient
    9 desperately in need of a holiday

    welcome to living in the UK in 2013

    On the plus side these folks will all die much younger than most, so Darwin kicks in :D
    MTB: Self-built Santa Cruz Highball Alloy 10 Spd Deore.
    Winter: Emmelle 1980's Reynolds Steel retro
    Summer: Specialized Secteur Elite w. upgrades.
    Commuter: Fausto Coppi San Remo
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Including a few quid in the new sale price as a one-off premium for a transferable insurance policy (if you sell the bike, for instance) would go some way to providing at least a minimum level of 3rd party insurance.
    Then why bother? Why not just have government funded 3rd party insurance ..
    Be all that as it may, we're never going to convince the motorists that we have equal rights, when there is no requirement for cycling equivalents (no matter how difficult some would be to administer) to the driving test, MOT tests, number plates, and insurance.
    Generally I believe we have MORE rights to the road - after all, we don't have to be licensed or pay tax to be there - we don't even need to be registered. They're the ones who can loose the RIGHT to drive a vehicle .... afaik you cannot be banned from cycling ...
  • dodgy
    dodgy Posts: 2,890
    CStar wrote:
    Raffles wrote:
    I can envisage those who would instigate or sign such a petition:

    1 balding
    2 red faced
    3 big gut sitting over waistband
    4 big jowls of fat on face
    5 double chinned
    6 high blood pressure
    7 stressed out
    8 impatient
    9 desperately in need of a holiday

    welcome to living in the UK in 2013

    On the plus side these folks will all die much younger than most, so Darwin kicks in :D

    Unfortunately not, they've usually already mated and produced kids by the time they die.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,473
    Slowbike wrote:
    Generally I believe we have MORE rights to the road - after all, we don't have to be licensed or pay tax to be there - we don't even need to be registered. They're the ones who can loose the RIGHT to drive a vehicle .... afaik you cannot be banned from cycling ...
    And quite rightly too - you can't compare riding a bike to driving a car any more than you can compare driving a car to flying an F-22 armed with tactical nukes. Controlling several cubic meters of metal powered by an internal combustion engine should be something that is heavily controlled and licensed, unlike riding a bicycle... While it's quite possible to cause serious damage to 3rd parties while riding a bike, the chances of doing so are an order of magnitude less. The costs of enforcing and administering compulsory insurance for cyclists would probably outweigh the total value of all payouts.

    Remember, it's nearly always motor vehicles that directly cause damage to other people and property on roads, irrespective of who is at fault. Asking cyclists to have 3rd party insurance is a bit like asking people to have 3rd party insurance against getting mugged, just in case the mugger accidentally cuts himself...
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    neeb wrote:
    While it's quite possible to cause serious damage to 3rd parties while riding a bike, the chances of doing so are an order of magnitude less.
    Technically, they're about 3 orders of magnitude less.
  • Southgate
    Southgate Posts: 246
    Cars weigh a ton, are powered by a motor, can do very fast speeds and routinely cause death, serious injury and thousands of pounds of damage when crashed - sums which your average motorist doesn't have sitting in his bank account. Hence the requirement for third party insurance - it ensures the innocent party gets compensated for the damage caused.

    Cyclists, skateboarders, pedestrians etc do not require insurance, because they cause so little damage, the admin costs of implementing a compulsory insurance scheme would vastly exceed the two quid premium. If a cyclist scratches your car or knocks off a wing mirror in a crash, sue 'em for small change if you are so minded, just as you are free to sue a pedestrian or a skateboarder. Or claim under comprehensive cover, if you have it.

    Cars are not at danger from cyclists. Cyclists are at danger from cars. Insurance for cyclists is therefore a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It's just another way of the car lobby and the tabloid press trying to demonise cyclists and drive bicycles off the taxpayer-funded public highway by creating wholly unnecessary obstacles.

    The current law applies equally to everyone. If you choose to drive, for good reason you must be insured. When you choose to cycle or walk, you don't have to be. I'm not forcing anyone to drive a car. They have the same choices as me, and face the same financial consequences.
    Superstition begins with pinning race number 13 upside down and it ends with the brutal slaughter of Mamils at the cake stop.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Southgate wrote:
    Insurance for cyclists is therefore a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
    Not entirely - you can do quite a bit of damage whilst riding (or falling off anyway) - you can put a serious dent in the body work of a vehicle - that vehicle may cost 00000's ... but more seriously, you may collide with a pedestrian and cause permanent injury - which is where insurance may help.

    ... but ...

    it is a much smaller risk than that of motorists ...