ban cyclists from roads
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 TAXRide Safe! Keep Safe!
Specialized Roubaix Comp 2017
Cube Agree Pro 2014
Triban 7 2013
RockRider 8.0 2011
http://www.whitestar1.co.uk0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
I've just signed it.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
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!)0 -
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 1050 -
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.0
-
volociroldster wrote: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.0 -
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.0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote: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.0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote: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.
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.0 -
"and we petition our Government to make it so"
Does he have some sort of Jean-Luc Picard delusion ?0 -
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?0 -
ChrisAOnABike wrote: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.0 -
ChrisAOnABike wrote: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.0 -
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!0
-
"You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul0
-
volociroldster wrote: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 Young0 -
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!)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?- if I was forced to pay for insurance or not ride at all then in all likelyhood I would've ditched the bike.
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?0 -
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 inMTB: 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 Remo0 -
ChrisAOnABike wrote: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.ChrisAOnABike wrote: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.0
-
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
Unfortunately not, they've usually already mated and produced kids by the time they die.0 -
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 ...
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...0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
Southgate wrote:Insurance for cyclists is therefore a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
... but ...
it is a much smaller risk than that of motorists ...0