Licence or ban cycling in London
Discussion
Rich_W said:
Yipper said:
Cycling is by far the most dangerous form of mass-transport. It causes many unneccesary road deaths and irreversibly damages the male reproductive system. It is a mystery that more countries or authorities do not license, restrict more, or ban it.
Here's some facts for your bulls
thttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
2013
Fatalities on the Roads of the UK
Car Occupant 785
Cyclist 109
Just for balance
Pedestrian deaths 398
Lets ban the one that cause the most deaths. Would be a real winner.
Cycling is 5 to 15 times more deadly than driving a car.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29878233
Yipper said:
Rich_W said:
Yipper said:
Cycling is by far the most dangerous form of mass-transport. It causes many unneccesary road deaths and irreversibly damages the male reproductive system. It is a mystery that more countries or authorities do not license, restrict more, or ban it.
Here's some facts for your bullsthttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
2013
Fatalities on the Roads of the UK
Car Occupant 785
Cyclist 109
Just for balance
Pedestrian deaths 398
Lets ban the one that cause the most deaths. Would be a real winner.
Cycling is 5 to 15 times more deadly than driving a car.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29878233
I'd suspect the cyclists are a higher percentage.
jamoor said:
Licence is the wrong word, they should undergo mandatory training like motorcyclists on L plates do.
Cyclists should be able to demonstrate they know how to use a road like the rest of us do.
Cyclists know full well how to use the road like the rest of us. They choose not to sometimes, because they can get away with it.Cyclists should be able to demonstrate they know how to use a road like the rest of us do.
ecs said:
What about when a pedestrian takes out a cyclist?
P.S. lots of cyclists have insurance.
Most do not have insurance. Cyclists are far more likely to injure a pedestrian than the other way around. This is for two reasons - they travel faster and a significant proportion ride like selfish fP.S. lots of cyclists have insurance.
ktards and do not stop for pedestrians on pedestrian crossings or ride unlawfully on footpaths where pedestrians are not expecting them. Jimboka said:
I would have thought more cyclists would be encouraged there, but maybe too hilly etc .
Less cars on the road would surely help your journey..
There have been cycle lanes introduced including in central Sydney. They sit unused. I think you could go several minutes without seeing a cyclist. Less cars on the road would surely help your journey..
Cycling is a waste of time and space for mass commuting. People with limited mobility can't use it and it is difficult to carry things on a bike and most people don't like to do it when it is raining or too cold. Better public transport and better roads are good for mass transport.
popeyewhite said:
Cyclists know full well how to use the road like the rest of us. They choose not to sometimes, because they can get away with it.
As do *everybody* else.creampuff said:
1. There have been cycle lanes introduced including in central Sydney. They sit unused. I think you could go several minutes without seeing a cyclist.
2. Cycling is a waste of time and space for mass commuting. People with limited mobility can't use it and it is difficult to carry things on a bike and most people don't like to do it when it is raining or too cold. Better public transport and better roads are good for mass transport.
1. Possibly due to the helmet law, which was recorded as dropping the numbers of cyclists massively. Australia now has a much bigger killer on it's hands - obesity.2. Cycling is a waste of time and space for mass commuting. People with limited mobility can't use it and it is difficult to carry things on a bike and most people don't like to do it when it is raining or too cold. Better public transport and better roads are good for mass transport.
2. f
k me, that's caused me to cough my tea all over the keyboard. This is a car enthusiasts site, have you never heard of Alex Zanardi?!You could not be more wrong though. The cycling infrastructure of the the countries next door (you don't need to go clear to the other side of the world to see how cycling works, just skip across the channel and feast your eyes), the infrastructure of the low countries and Denmark, Germany etc, allows the disabled access to *s
t* loads of miles of cycle path - they can travel from town to twon on their motabilty scooters, as far as their battery charge allows them I imagine. You couldn't be more wrong, cycling infrastructure gives freedom to the young, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, freedoms that those in the UK can only dream of. One time recently in Netherlands I happened to notice two very elderly people, (I'm going to say 80 yrs old), cycling side by side in the sunshine on a path situated well away from the road. That freedom to cycle safely and peacefully is just so beneficial on so many levels, physically, mentally, psychologically.
The freedoms that the young in The Netherlands have contribute to them consistently being recorded as the happiest children in the world, whereas British children are consistently recorded as the unhappiest and unhealthiest in Europe and/or the developed world.
This is the problem so many British drivers have about cycling imo. Devoid of experience (of driving elsewhere than the UK often enough) and (it seems) common sense, they make the most preposterous conclusions about cycling, and then drive bloody accordingly!
heebeegeetee said:
As do *everybody* else.
Your point?I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. I'm far, far more likely to run a red, ride on the pavement, undertake etc etc on my pushbike because a. it's much smaller and slower than a bike or car, b. it's worth much less if it gets damaged, and c. I don't risk points/fine. Arguing that everybody else knows the rules but disobeys them just the same is stupid. If that's what you were suggesting.
creampuff said:
Cycling is a waste of time and space for mass commuting. People with limited mobility can't use it and it is difficult to carry things on a bike and most people don't like to do it when it is raining or too cold. Better public transport and better roads are good for mass transport.
So, chicken and egg time... How many of those people with limited mobility wouldn't even have limited mobility if they'd been cycling to work all their lives?As for it being difficult to carry things on a bike, what things did you have in mind? I can carry my laptop, spare clothes, waterproof jacket, wallet, keys, etc, etc, etc all in a single pannier bag. I've got a second pannier bag at home, but I've never needed to carry enough kit to work to need it.
popeyewhite said:
Your point?
I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. I'm far, far more likely to run a red, ride on the pavement, undertake etc etc on my pushbike because a. it's much smaller and slower than a bike or car, b. it's worth much less if it gets damaged, and c. I don't risk points/fine. Arguing that everybody else knows the rules but disobeys them just the same is stupid. If that's what you were suggesting.
Are you being serious, its hard to tell? I cycle a lot (10k miles a year) and I don't run reds, or ride on pavements. The same as I wouldn't do those things in my car. I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. I'm far, far more likely to run a red, ride on the pavement, undertake etc etc on my pushbike because a. it's much smaller and slower than a bike or car, b. it's worth much less if it gets damaged, and c. I don't risk points/fine. Arguing that everybody else knows the rules but disobeys them just the same is stupid. If that's what you were suggesting.
Just because its easier to do so, it doesn't mean everyone does. And in fact a HUGE number of people do obey the rules, just like many cars on the road obey rules. Some don't. Some people break the law, some don't. Regardless of mode of transport. Some people take illegal drugs, some don't.
As a commuter of some 20 years in London here's my two penneth...
Yes, some cyclists are a danger. I regularly see cyclists put themselves in harm's way by doing stupid things. I certainly think some sort of cycling proficiency test would be useful if not compulsory. Why?
I've been knocked off my bike about 6 or 7 times in 20 years and in every instance, I was in the 'right' - in that what I was doing was legal, or I was in the right lane or I was in a cycle lane.
Three or four of those times were pedestrians stepping out without looking, crossing at lights against the lights, and a couple were people jumping off/on the old routemaster busses without looking.
Those instances don’t come close to the number of near misses I’ve had – which must number in the hundreds. I've had cars coming directly at me going the wrong way after they’ve decided to overtake a line of stationary traffic because they’re too impatient to queue.
I could probably count on one hand the number of near misses that have been caused by other cyclists – there are some, obviously – I’ve not had any near misses with lorries, maybe one or two with a bus, and none at all with motorbikes.
Every other one has been a car driver. Someone late for work. Someone too impatient to wait. Someone not bothering to look properly.
Every single instance has been SMIDSY – Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You.
I don’t hate cars – I drive to the station every day, but I certainly wouldn’t choose to drive in London. I don’t hate cyclists either, but I do think there should be some sort of compulsory education if only for the cyclist’s safety. What I do hate are idiots - whatever type of transport they're on/in. On the days I don't cycle, you get just as many rude people on the tube pushing in in front of you as you get car drivers being amber gamblers as you do get cyclists jumping reds.
For what’s it’s worth, I was in my 20’s when I first started commuting and adopted the “I’m in the right, so fk you” approach to cycling. Now I’m in my 40’s I realise that it’s possible to be dead right. That is, both dead and right. So these days I ride far more defensively, assume that no one ever sees me and try to ride with a constant ‘out’ escape route. But I shouldn’t have to.
The sooner they ban cars from the city centre, the better.
Yes, some cyclists are a danger. I regularly see cyclists put themselves in harm's way by doing stupid things. I certainly think some sort of cycling proficiency test would be useful if not compulsory. Why?
I've been knocked off my bike about 6 or 7 times in 20 years and in every instance, I was in the 'right' - in that what I was doing was legal, or I was in the right lane or I was in a cycle lane.
Three or four of those times were pedestrians stepping out without looking, crossing at lights against the lights, and a couple were people jumping off/on the old routemaster busses without looking.
Those instances don’t come close to the number of near misses I’ve had – which must number in the hundreds. I've had cars coming directly at me going the wrong way after they’ve decided to overtake a line of stationary traffic because they’re too impatient to queue.
I could probably count on one hand the number of near misses that have been caused by other cyclists – there are some, obviously – I’ve not had any near misses with lorries, maybe one or two with a bus, and none at all with motorbikes.
Every other one has been a car driver. Someone late for work. Someone too impatient to wait. Someone not bothering to look properly.
Every single instance has been SMIDSY – Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You.
I don’t hate cars – I drive to the station every day, but I certainly wouldn’t choose to drive in London. I don’t hate cyclists either, but I do think there should be some sort of compulsory education if only for the cyclist’s safety. What I do hate are idiots - whatever type of transport they're on/in. On the days I don't cycle, you get just as many rude people on the tube pushing in in front of you as you get car drivers being amber gamblers as you do get cyclists jumping reds.
For what’s it’s worth, I was in my 20’s when I first started commuting and adopted the “I’m in the right, so f
k you” approach to cycling. Now I’m in my 40’s I realise that it’s possible to be dead right. That is, both dead and right. So these days I ride far more defensively, assume that no one ever sees me and try to ride with a constant ‘out’ escape route. But I shouldn’t have to. The sooner they ban cars from the city centre, the better.
okgo said:
popeyewhite said:
Your point?
I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. I'm far, far more likely to run a red, ride on the pavement, undertake etc etc on my pushbike because a. it's much smaller and slower than a bike or car, b. it's worth much less if it gets damaged, and c. I don't risk points/fine. Arguing that everybody else knows the rules but disobeys them just the same is stupid. If that's what you were suggesting.
Are you being serious, its hard to tell? I cycle a lot (10k miles a year) and I don't run reds, or ride on pavements. The same as I wouldn't do those things in my car. I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. I'm far, far more likely to run a red, ride on the pavement, undertake etc etc on my pushbike because a. it's much smaller and slower than a bike or car, b. it's worth much less if it gets damaged, and c. I don't risk points/fine. Arguing that everybody else knows the rules but disobeys them just the same is stupid. If that's what you were suggesting.
Just because its easier to do so, it doesn't mean everyone does. And in fact a HUGE number of people do obey the rules, just like many cars on the road obey rules. Some don't. Some people break the law, some don't. Regardless of mode of transport. Some people take illegal drugs, some don't.
popeyewhite said:
I don't think it's knowing whether I'm serious or not, which I am, I think you simply don't understand my post you've missed the thrust by such a margin. Same old!
From what I can tell you're saying more people break the law on bikes because its easier to do so. Yes, it is easier, but many people do not think like that and they do not break the law on a bike, the same as they would not in a car. And despite cars being trackable to people, people break the law to huge levels, these people probably would do the same on pushbikes. The potential outcome of a bike breaking the law and a car breaking the law are vastly different in terms of outcome generally. Hence the number of people killed by cars has always and will always be higher than bikes.Its a non problem, hence nothing has been done about it, cars clogging up and polluting a city is a problem, cycling is a good solution to that, hence things have been done about it. Not rocket science to my mind. The only problem is the attitude of the UK public to change. Pathetic.
upsidedownmark said:
Er, don't feed the trolls?
Besides, the OP rides a GS, therefore is a complete ttwaffle, wannabe euan mcgregor, gets in everyones way by not being able to filter and should shove his oversized touratech paniers up his a**e ;p
Thats a bit strongBesides, the OP rides a GS, therefore is a complete t
twaffle, wannabe euan mcgregor, gets in everyones way by not being able to filter and should shove his oversized touratech paniers up his a**e ;pI bet in reality he has a GSX600F in beige, or possibly yellow
popeyewhite said:
Arguing that everybody else knows the rules but disobeys them just the same is stupid. If that's what you were suggesting.
I think arguing that one section of society should obey the laws that everybody else breaks is stupid. It's not going to happen it's not in human nature.There is probably no bigger law-breaking section of people on the planet than car drivers. I know that in my 40 years of driving I don't think I've obeyed all speed limits on so much as one single journey.
Where the hell does this expectation come from, a huge section of people globally all breaking laws while at the same time expecting others to obey all laws? It's barking.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff