First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Quote from: GandhiFirst they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I like to think we are now in stage three and moving towards stage 4.
HOUSE!He's missed a trick there - he should copyright the article publish a set of charges and then claim royalties whenever some hack takes up one of his suggestions.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-terrible-journalists-guide-to-writing-an-article-about-bicycles/ (http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-terrible-journalists-guide-to-writing-an-article-about-bicycles/)
Another good example here, from a local tory councillor:
http://www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/2.2993/hextol/road-hogging-lycra-louts-are-a-law-unto-themselves-1.702474
Another good example here, from a local tory councillor:
http://www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/2.2993/hextol/road-hogging-lycra-louts-are-a-law-unto-themselves-1.702474
Well, if the cyclists really were dawdling (ie less than 10mph), then it's perfectly legal for following vehicles to cross the double white lines to overtake. It's not the cyclists' fault that the moton who wrote that letter didn't know the highway code.
Plus the fact that there are very few roads indeed where it would be safe to overtake two cyclists in a line but not safe to overtake two side by side. Even fewer where there are solid white lines.Quite.
Another good example here, from a local tory councillor:
http://www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/2.2993/hextol/road-hogging-lycra-louts-are-a-law-unto-themselves-1.702474
Well, if the cyclists really were dawdling (ie less than 10mph), then it's perfectly legal for following vehicles to cross the double white lines to overtake. It's not the cyclists' fault that the moton who wrote that letter didn't know the highway code.
Another good example here, from a local tory councillor:
http://www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/2.2993/hextol/road-hogging-lycra-louts-are-a-law-unto-themselves-1.702474
Well, if the cyclists really were dawdling (ie less than 10mph), then it's perfectly legal for following vehicles to cross the double white lines to overtake. It's not the cyclists' fault that the moton who wrote that letter didn't know the highway code.
Since my encounter with the police car of a few weeks back on double white lines, for something to do I occasionally start counting the vehicles that overtake me illegally on double whites. Today on the A422 between Broughton Hackett and Flyford Flavell a distance of about 4 miles, 23 drivers broke the law. As it is slightly downhill for a large part of the way I would be doing well over 10 mph.
It's interesting that when cyclists break laws then they are being a nuisance, but when drivers break laws they are simply 'being pragmatic'
Who gets to decide that it is safe to do so?
Of course the one thing that unites all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc., is that we all believe we are above average drivers ;)
The lines are painted because it has been decided that the views are restricted and you are not fully able to make that decision.
Does this free reign tobreak the lawbe 'pragmatic' extend to passing tractors (round here they drive at about 15-20mph)? Maybe horses? or is this just reserved to 'must pass cyclist' incidents?
This debate appears to revolve around what is pragmatic and what is the littoral interpretation of the law.
This argument will ebb and flow over the same ground. Are we to serve the law or is the law there to serve us?
Of course the one thing that unites all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc., is that we all believe we are above average drivers ;)
Obviously not meant to be serious, but also tosh IMO as I know a few drivers who do not consider themselves above average drivers and limit their driving as a result of this self awareness.
This debate appears to revolve around what is pragmatic and what is the littoral interpretation of the law.
This argument will ebb and flow over the same ground. Are we to serve the law or is the law there to serve us?
Who gets to decide that it is safe to do so?
Double white lines are placed in areas where it is considered unsafe to overtake. Should we just hand that decision making process over to the person behind the wheel, who is also considering whether they are going to be late, or what is for dinner, or far to often, what someone else has just said to them on the phone?
Of course the one thing that unites all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc., is that we all believe we are above average drivers ;)
Illusory superiority is a well known effect, especially with respect to driving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ability).
Perhaps it is also time to consider Illusory Superiority of cyclists or those who contribute to forums?
Who gets to decide that it is safe to do so?
Double white lines are placed in areas where it is considered unsafe to overtake. Should we just hand that decision making process over to the person behind the wheel, who is also considering whether they are going to be late, or what is for dinner, or far to often, what someone else has just said to them on the phone?
Of course the one thing that unites all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc., is that we all believe we are above average drivers ;)
That's why the condition attached to overtaking on double whites is that the vehicle you are overtaking should be travelling at 10mph or less. The distance required to overtake such a slow moving vehicle is much shorter than that required for one travelling at 50 or 60 mph. You may have plenty of visibility to see that the road is clear far enough ahead to overtake something doing 10mph but not something going faster than that.
That's why the condition attached to overtaking on double whites is that the vehicle you are overtaking should be travelling at 10mph or less. The distance required to overtake such a slow moving vehicle is much shorter than that required for one travelling at 50 or 60 mph. You may have plenty of visibility to see that the road is clear far enough ahead to overtake something doing 10mph but not something going faster than that.
So it is better to endanger the cyclist than have the car drivers behind consider them a nuisance! :facepalm:
I would say that the cyclist should slow to 10mph to let the car past. Consideration works both ways. Anyway no one wants a car crawling along behind them for several miles.
What is the difference in distance that you need to be able to see clearly between overtaking someone at 10 mph and overtaking the same person going at 15 mph?That's a how long is a piece of string question. Depends entirely on how fast the car can accelerate. Its going to be a completely different answer for a Nissan Micra and a Porche 911.
It's become clear to me that some drivers see them as a force-field. Some drivers would, on totally deserted road, rather squeeze by me, at 3am, than cross the force-field. They are stupid people, they don't realise it's just paint.
It's just paint.
White lines are just Paint.
Like drivers who drive all the way around mini-roundabouts....it's just paint, they are symbolic, drive across them.
The counter argument, just as it is in the speed awareness courses, is that although the cars might be more developed, there has been no corresponding upgrade of the driver behind the wheel.(My Bold)
What I never thought was I would read comments on this forum from cyclists who are advocating it is okay for motorists to break road laws and put cyclists in danger.
Like drivers who drive all the way around mini-roundabouts....it's just paint, they are symbolic, drive across them.I used to think that, but the wording in the HC has changed to something much stronger, the thrust now is that you should treat the white paint as though it was a real something, unless it is impracticable to do so.
188
Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1) & 16(1)
Alternatively, we could all insist the letter of the law is obeyed in all aspects, including when we cycle, so: pedal reflectors? always come to a complete stop at Stop Lines? Hmm, I'm guilty as charged m'Lord and I freely admit it (also chuffed to bits at setting-off display to show I was doing 38mph in a 30mph zone, but is was downhill at night with no other person or car around). Only hope all those other cyclists I have had the pleasure cycling with can also freely admit their breaking of the letter of the law.I'm interested to know which law you were breaking going at 38mph.
I'm interested to know which law you were breaking going at 38mph.
Over on the other thread (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=78081.msg1600066#msg1600066) you say you are appalled at the antics of other cyclists. Here you are saying you have wilfully caused bodily harm to others through furious riding of your bike. Or perhaps I've got it wrong and you weren't breaking the law after all.
Yes, tell us more about the person that you hit at 38mph.
I was driving through some Surrey lanes in the dark last night, and found myself stuck behind a bloody cyclist for a few hundred metres, until I found a safe place to overtake. He was well lit, reflectives, but no pedal reflectors. All the same I was Not Happy. He was doing a constant 25mph up a gentle incline, and didn't seem to be putting any effort in. Was he deliberately trying to make me feel inadequate? Bastard.POTD material that.
So when you were cycling at 38 you wee rent breaking any law. Thanks for clearing that up.
As for your question, it is so laughable that it requires no answer.
What I never thought was I would read comments on this forum from cyclists who are advocating it is okay for motorists to break road laws and put cyclists in danger.
Did you feel endangered? In reality were you in danger?.
No, not really.So when you were cycling at 38 you wee rent breaking any law. Thanks for clearing that up.
As for your question, it is so laughable that it requires no answer.
Girls, girls, please.
Veloman was going over 30 mph so he was breaking the law. Jaded believes anyone wearing a helmet wants to stop him cycling (simplified for the sake of brevity)
Settled?
No, but my wife felt endangers and yes we were in danger. Laws are not there to be broken contrary to the opinion of yourself and others. I have held a full driving licence for a car for 53 years and for a motorbike for 54 years. In that time I have never had a motoring conviction or any conviction for that matter. There are some on this forum who can testify that I do not break road laws when driving or cycling and expect others to do the same.
No, not really.
Veloman was going over 30 mph so he wasn't breaking the law. Ham believes that Jaded believes that anyone wearing a helmet wants to stop him cycling.
I think that's a better summary.
I was doing 38mph in a 30mph zone
Section 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act says;
"A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence"
69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
Quote69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
And the traffic signs say
According to my sums, the performance of your car makes surprisingly little difference. Of course 0-60 times aren't really relevant here, because we're in a speed range where all ordinary cars show more or less constant acceleration. A quick google for "car acceleration curve" finds graphs suggesting that a Ferrari can accelerate at about 10mph / s, or 4.4ms-2; a 1970 Ford Capri at 5mph/s, or 2.2ms-2.What is the difference in distance that you need to be able to see clearly between overtaking someone at 10 mph and overtaking the same person going at 15 mph?That's a how long is a piece of string question. Depends entirely on how fast the car can accelerate. Its going to be a completely different answer for a Nissan Micra and a Porche 911.
Quite a lot of the highway rules have been the same for decades which is interesting given that the average family car now accelerates faster, has a higher top speed, handles better and brakes quicker than most sports cars at the time the rules were formulated. You could argue that the 10mph rules should be changed to 15mph. The counter argument is that although the cars are much better traffic is heavier so its more likely that something is coming the other way much more rapidly than it would have done in the past.
The obvious conclusion is riding without the required reflectors. (as VM admits to). It can't be speeding, cos he was on a bike.Alternatively, we could all insist the letter of the law is obeyed in all aspects, including when we cycle, so: pedal reflectors? always come to a complete stop at Stop Lines? Hmm, I'm guilty as charged m'Lord and I freely admit it (also chuffed to bits at setting-off display to show I was doing 38mph in a 30mph zone, but is was downhill at night with no other person or car around). Only hope all those other cyclists I have had the pleasure cycling with can also freely admit their breaking of the letter of the law.I'm interested to know which law you were breaking going at 38mph.
erm, subsequent posts showed that he, and he wasn't alone, thought that 38 on a bike was illegal.
erm, subsequent posts showed that he, and he wasn't alone, thought that 38 on a bike was illegal.
So what? How on earth is this a sin worth having an argument about?!?
Don't worry they hate buses today
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/features/fairpoint/10821523.Why_buses_are_driving_me_crazy/
and traffic lights: http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/10813974.Traffic_lights__let_s_bin__em__says_councillor/?ref=ar (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/10813974.Traffic_lights__let_s_bin__em__says_councillor/?ref=ar)The bloodycyclists of Worcester must be up in arms. They'll have nothing to jump.
The obvious conclusion is riding without the required reflectors. (as VM admits to). It can't be speeding, cos he was on a bike.Alternatively, we could all insist the letter of the law is obeyed in all aspects, including when we cycle, so: pedal reflectors? always come to a complete stop at Stop Lines? Hmm, I'm guilty as charged m'Lord and I freely admit it (also chuffed to bits at setting-off display to show I was doing 38mph in a 30mph zone, but is was downhill at night with no other person or car around). Only hope all those other cyclists I have had the pleasure cycling with can also freely admit their breaking of the letter of the law.I'm interested to know which law you were breaking going at 38mph.
Simples! No?
( Now someone tell me how this has been blown into a massive ball of rhetoric and spite... ::-) )
I suspect it is in Richmond Park, where the speed limit for all vehicles (including , probably (though this is open to question), cyclists).You are probably right.
It's a rubbish sign, but probably well-intentioned.
The substantive point is whether we should follow the road rules because it's the law, or whether we should make our own discretionary choice as to which ones to abide by.
Personally, I am not persuaded that because there may be some laws that are rarely followed, and arguably not helpfully followed (e.g. pedal reflectors), that all laws should potentially be discretionary. And in particular, crossing the solid white line to overtake a >10mph cyclist. Of course there will be boundary cases like the 12mph rider at the very start of a solid lined section, but it is a slippery slope. As I mentioned elsewhere, when breaking the law is aided by the additional incentive of apparent personal gain at someone else's expense, it should set off warning bells. And let's not forget that sometimes those solid white lines are placed there precisely because it is not possible for the driver at that point to be able to adequately assess the safety of an overtake manoeuvre (e.g. hidden dips).
How does a cyclist know he/she is breaking a speed limit?
How does a cyclist know he/she is breaking a speed limit?Well it's actually a 2-step flow-chart (at least). Starting with:
How does a cyclist know he/she is breaking a speed limit?
There are already quite a few 20mph zones - and almost anyone on a drop-bar bike seems to regard it as his duty to exceed that limit.
No, Matt, that's not equivalent.Why not? you're asking me/us to stick to a rule that only applies to other vehicle types. Seems the same to me!
There seems to be something of a smug attitude of 'speed limits don't apply to cyclists so we don't need to observe them' thing going on here. It's tantamount to saying we don't care about the rules, or being considerate to others.I don't see how you can assume a lack of consideration. I can ride with immense consideration, irsepective of what rules apply to other road users. You're confusing the issue.
I hardly ever see that, twenty's a fair lick on the flat.Indeed
No, Matt, that's not equivalent.Why not? you're asking me/us to stick to a rule that only applies to other vehicle types. Seems the same to me!
Do you think the HGV speed limit rules are wrong?There seems to be something of a smug attitude of 'speed limits don't apply to cyclists so we don't need to observe them' thing going on here. It's tantamount to saying we don't care about the rules, or being considerate to others.I don't see how you can assume a lack of consideration. I can ride with immense consideration, irsepective of what rules apply to other road users. You're confusing the issue.
To illustrate: I can drive with consideration, despite allowing myself to go over the HGV speed limit where appropriate.
Some tarmac is for bikes but not cars - if I ride in it, I'm not disregarding the rules or the safety of other users.
Are there double white lines on any tidal causeways?This debate appears to revolve around what is pragmatic and what is the littoral interpretation of the law.
This argument will ebb and flow over the same ground. Are we to serve the law or is the law there to serve us?
Are you discussing this littorally? :-)
(She who has been to Millport)
No, Matt, that's not equivalent.Why not? you're asking me/us to stick to a rule that only applies to other vehicle types. Seems the same to me!
Do you think the HGV speed limit rules are wrong?There seems to be something of a smug attitude of 'speed limits don't apply to cyclists so we don't need to observe them' thing going on here. It's tantamount to saying we don't care about the rules, or being considerate to others.I don't see how you can assume a lack of consideration. I can ride with immense consideration, irsepective of what rules apply to other road users. You're confusing the issue.
To illustrate: I can drive with consideration, despite allowing myself to go over the HGV speed limit where appropriate.
Some tarmac is for bikes but not cars - if I ride in it, I'm not disregarding the rules or the safety of other users.
The fact that speed limits don't apply to bikes is an historical anomaly, not an explicit recognition that bicycles are safer than cars.(my bold)
Most definitely none of the above. A cyclist riding at 25 in a residential 20 limit is behaving dangerously and inconsiderately. The fact that it would be worse to be hit by a car, or indeed a meteorite or falling grand piano, is neither here nor there.
Which you would rather be hit by:
HGV at 20mph?
Car at 20mph?
Bike at 25mph?
The argument about being allowed to exceed the vehicular speed limit is facetious and mischievous and adds nothing to the debate about safety; indeed, it makes cyclists appear selfish and uncaring of others.
I'd think that most normal people would be surprised that cyclists can ride faster than the speed limit for cars.
There's an awful lot of non-normal people on this Forum!
There's an awful lot of non-normal people on this Forum!
It's a cycling forum.
How many people have been killed or seriously injured by a bike speeding?
If we continue to generate an "us and them" attitude then behavioural change by both cyclists and drivers will not materialise. We will continue to be warring tribes hell bent on proving supremacy. In the meantime, more deaths as rhetoric is spewed over internet forums.
There's an awful lot of non-normal people on this Forum!
It's a cycling forum.
And by definition are you suggesting that people on cycling forums are non-normal or just stating the obvious?
How many people have been killed or seriously injured by a bike speeding?
I'm aware of at least one fatality due to a cyclist hitting a pedestrian but the cyclist was not speeding.
But that's not the point being made and the rest of your post is stating what is already accepted in terms of metal travelling at speed and human beings not being surrounded by metal.
The point being raised is all about how motorists perceive cyclists and how cyclists perceive other road users and if neither party is prepared to look at their behaviour and how it impacts on other users, then we are less likely to co-exist in harmony.
I can only refer to my earlier comments:If we continue to generate an "us and them" attitude then behavioural change by both cyclists and drivers will not materialise. We will continue to be warring tribes hell bent on proving supremacy. In the meantime, more deaths as rhetoric is spewed over internet forums.
How many people have been killed or seriously injured by a bike speeding?
I'm aware of at least one fatality due to a cyclist hitting a pedestrian but the cyclist was not speeding.
The fact that speed limits don't apply to bikes is an historical anomaly, not an explicit recognition that bicycles are safer than cars.(my bold)
But they ARE :) Number of KSIs caused by bikes (despite all that naughty RLJing and riding without Hi-viz) is TINY.
Which you would rather be hit by:
HGV at 20mph?
Car at 20mph?
Bike at 25mph?
Are you trying to justify cyclists being allowed to ride faster than the vehicular speed limit in urban areas? Why do you want to do that? To show you can? To get some kind of ego boost? To piss off everyone around you? To prove that the 'BMW' attitude can be demonstrated on a bike? I just don't get it!
The fact that speed limits don't apply to bikes is an historical anomaly, not an explicit recognition that bicycles are safer than cars.(my bold)
But they ARE :) Number of KSIs caused by bikes (despite all that naughty RLJing and riding without Hi-viz) is TINY.
Which you would rather be hit by:
HGV at 20mph?
Car at 20mph?
Bike at 25mph?
Are you trying to justify cyclists being allowed to ride faster than the vehicular speed limit in urban areas? Why do you want to do that? To show you can? To get some kind of ego boost? To piss off everyone around you? To prove that the 'BMW' attitude can be demonstrated on a bike? I just don't get it!
I am not arguing that a bike is more, or even as, dangerous than a car. I am arguing that there is NO justification for allowing bikes to travel faster than the vehicular speed limit. And to hold out for that is a completely specious argument that is either an argument just for its own sake (mattc arguing for the sake of it? Never!) or a deliberate effort to be allowed to piss people off.
Of course it sounds reasonable, like many other reasonable things people say. However, as suggested upstream on the thread, it is worth thinking of the unintended consequences if such a law was passed.I don't think anyone's suggested a law being passed. Just that cyclists would probably do well to observe speed limits even if not legally bound by them.
So ultimately another stick to hit cyclists with?No. Ultimately, not that.
Of course it sounds reasonable, like many other reasonable things people say. However, as suggested upstream on the thread, it is worth thinking of the unintended consequences if such a law was passed.I don't think anyone's suggested a law being passed. Just that cyclists would probably do well to observe speed limits even if not legally bound by them.
Here we go. Another argument that is a complete waste of time because a position has been taken simply to be contrarian. I thought Monty Python's reunion was next year.You started it
Now, I doubt mattc, Jaded, or even u-b actually wish to ride their bikes faster than the vehicular speed limit, and would probably roundly castigate any cyclist they witnessed doing so - especially if the result of that action was more general condemnation of cyclists. What I don't understand is why they seek to justify this exception to the law as though it were essential to cycling, or that to do otherwise would be an unreasonable withdrawal of cycling liberties.What law? There is no "exception to the law". What are you on about?
Everyone's freedom is restricted, either by law or common sense, in the interests of those around them. I'm quite sure that your common sense actually gets the better of your need to win a forum argument once you are actually on the road. If it doesn't, and you are actually in the habit of riding faster than 20, 30 or even 40 mph where other traffic is forbidden from doing so, I think we may reasonably regard you as fucking stupid and inconsiderate.So some cyclists are faster than you: get over it. ;D
So explain what the benefits are of having an unenforced fact out there?Safety for a start. I live in a 20mph area. I have no more wish for a cyclist to go down my street at 25 than I do for a car or a kid on a rollerskates. None is likely to be prosecuted, either because there is no law, or because there is no enforcement. It's the behaviour of a twat, regardless of the mode of transport or the legality of the matter.
I have no more wish for a cyclist to go down my street at 25 than I do for a car or a kid on a rollerskates.
TG, I'm not advocating making new laws. I am simply suggesting that cyclists thumbing their noises at drivers because certain laws don't apply to cyclists is totally counterproductive. We will not gain an ounce of respect or co-operation that way. So, it seems common sense to me not to infringe those limits (whether speed or alcohol or anything else) and not to advocate that others do either. We will only gain tolerance for our place on the road if we are seen as a group to be public-spirited. Sadly, my observations in London (and other cities around the world - it's not limited to UK) is that the modern attitude of 'me first, sod the rest of you' will only be tamed by a rather more robust response. And, yes, that applies to all road users.
So to do this you have to publicise it. You have to make sure that all fast cyclists have a means of determining their speed. You make sure that the world knows that cyclists can 'break the law' in another way. There is no evidence that cyclists occasionally going over the motor car speed limit cause death, injury or nuisance. There is no evidence that the wider non-cycling public think that cyclists speed. You simply create another stick that cyclists can be hit with.
A more fundamental point - why do we have speed limits on the roads?
Are there any other rules applicable to motor vehicles that we should be complying with, apart from speeding and boozing? Mobile phone use perhaps? Eating and drinking? That would bugger up audaxes.
what is controversial about suggesting that cyclists remain within vehicular speed limits?
A more fundamental point - why do we have speed limits on the roads?
Because some road users do not always judge what is an appropriate speed to travel.
Jaded, do you own or drive a car?
JHFC, what is controversial about suggesting that cyclists remain within vehicular speed limits? Why is it some kind of sin to suggest that cyclists refrain from boasting that speed limits don't apply to them?It's no more sensible than insisting car drivers stick to 60mph on motorways. And stay out of cycle-lanes. (I don't know where you get this 'boasting' business from. Most riders just want to get on with riding safely. That involves slowing down where hazard trumps time taken.)
What kind of relationship do you want with other road users? Presumably one based on confrontation and bad feeling?I'd like a relationship where road users remember we're all people. Sometimes I drive - I know there are different laws to when I cycle. And that I can do a lot more damage if I hit someone.
You're welcome to that. I won't be joining you.
Jaded, do you own or drive a car?
Are there any other rules applicable to motor vehicles that we should be complying with, apart from speeding and boozing? Mobile phone use perhaps? Eating and drinking? That would bugger up audaxes.
Jaded, do you own or drive a car?
What do you think?
I'm intrigued by the relevance if the question. Perhaps you can say what you are attempting to find out and I can answer that too?
I'm not unwilling to answer, I'm just intrigued as to why you want to know, and its relevance.
Are you trying to justify cyclists being allowed to ride faster than the vehicular speed limit in urban areas?
It's not about going faster than speed limits - most of us can only dream of that. It's about crowing that certain laws don't apply to us, when the pressing need is for a cooperative approach to road safety, not a confrontational one. As 20 mph zones become more widespread, there will be friction as the more competitive cyclists disregard that limit simply because they can. We already have problems getting people on our side because of the irresponsible and anti-social antics of a sizeable minority of commuter and MAMIL cyclists who regularly disregard laws that very much apply to them. But it seems more important to Jaded and others to celebrate those exemptions from speed limits than it is to advocate responsible cycling. Which will get us nowhere.There is no confrontation about speed limits. Drivers in the real world - except possibly TimC - are not troubled by this issue. (and remember that most of us posting here are drivers).
Just because it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily make it OK to go that fast; it's not about what's legal, it's about what's reasonable.
Can we at least look at REAL problems, and road-users who are breaking REAL laws?
Just because it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily make it OK to go that fast; it's not about what's legal, it's about what's reasonable.
Which will is exactly the point TimC is making.Can we at least look at REAL problems, and road-users who are breaking REAL laws?
What do you suggest for RLJ cyclists? They can't really get points on a licence can they? Drivers RLJ need bringing to justice too, but last time I was in London I saw the cars waiting at RL while cyclists went around them and crossed the junction while the lights were red. I agree that cars will RLJ at the end of a traffic light sequence, but few, in comparison to cyclists, go over once the car in front has stopped, which has already been observed and commented upon on this Forum.
How would you address the problems you conisder real?
Just because it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily make it OK to go that fast; it's not about what's legal, it's about what's reasonable.
Which will is exactly the point TimC is making.Can we at least look at REAL problems, and road-users who are breaking REAL laws?
What do you suggest for RLJ cyclists? They can't really get points on a licence can they? Drivers RLJ need bringing to justice too, but last time I was in London I saw the cars waiting at RL while cyclists went around them and crossed the junction while the lights were red. I agree that cars will RLJ at the end of a traffic light sequence, but few, in comparison to cyclists, go over once the car in front has stopped, which has already been observed and commented upon on this Forum.
How would you address the problems you conisder real?
Haven't you got it? The problem isn't cyclists. There are no problems with cyclists. It's all everyone else's fault, and we should keep telling them that until they get better.
.... and if there are problems with cyclists they don't count because they can't kill people as efficiently as motor vehicles can.
Just because it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily make it OK to go that fast; it's not about what's legal, it's about what's reasonable.
Which will is exactly the point TimC is making.Can we at least look at REAL problems, and road-users who are breaking REAL laws?
What do you suggest for RLJ cyclists? They can't really get points on a licence can they? Drivers RLJ need bringing to justice too, but last time I was in London I saw the cars waiting at RL while cyclists went around them and crossed the junction while the lights were red. I agree that cars will RLJ at the end of a traffic light sequence, but few, in comparison to cyclists, go over once the car in front has stopped, which has already been observed and commented upon on this Forum.
How would you address the problems you conisder real?
Haven't you got it? The problem isn't cyclists. There are no problems with cyclists. It's all everyone else's fault, and we should keep telling them that until they get better.
.... and if there are problems with cyclists they don't count because they can't kill people as efficiently as motor vehicles can.
The perceived threat does play a role in how people behave.
I've always noticed how careful drivers are when meeting/passing horse riders on the road. I've seen the damage a horse can do to a car. Horses are unpredictable and can do things the rider is unable to control. Horses really damage cars. Bikes bounce off cars. This probably does have a role on the psyche of drivers and more good reason to not worsen the relationships by behaviour that is not responsible. Again, exemplified by the post of Cris S.
/snip/
Get more people onto bikes as a mode of transport and it not just the cyclists themselves that are affected but those that they are near and dear to, those that they talk to. There is a tipping point where cycling is no longer seen as a slightly odd minority with a suicide wish, but as a standard mode of transport.
Just because it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily make it OK to go that fast; it's not about what's legal, it's about what's reasonable.
Which will is exactly the point TimC is making.Can we at least look at REAL problems, and road-users who are breaking REAL laws?
What do you suggest for RLJ cyclists? They can't really get points on a licence can they? Drivers RLJ need bringing to justice too, but last time I was in London I saw the cars waiting at RL while cyclists went around them and crossed the junction while the lights were red. I agree that cars will RLJ at the end of a traffic light sequence, but few, in comparison to cyclists, go over once the car in front has stopped, which has already been observed and commented upon on this Forum.
How would you address the problems you conisder real?
Haven't you got it? The problem isn't cyclists. There are no problems with cyclists. It's all everyone else's fault, and we should keep telling them that until they get better.
There's plenty of problems with some cyclists and plenty with some drivers too. I'm happy to obey the law while cycling including ensuring that I am not cycling inconsiderately or recklessly as the law requires.
Occasionally I am sure that I will perhaps break the speed limit for motor vehicles while riding my bike, as do most drivers at some point BTW. I'm also sure it won't worry me too much.
Too many people on bikes seem only to want to show that they don't care for their own or others' safety
and it's very difficult to convince drivers that they should give a shit when faced with such anarchy. It's not good enough to say, 'cyclists don't hurt anyone therefore they don't need to play by the rules'.
Just because it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily make it OK to go that fast; it's not about what's legal, it's about what's reasonable.