More cycling deaths
Discussion
oyster said:
Stevanos said:
vonuber said:
Decent cycling infrastructure requires money. We have to spend this money on other important things like vanity projects and lucrative private sector contracts for previously nationalised industries that will provide a decent second job for a mp.
It's all about priorities.
In West Sussex, the council has provided dedicated cycle lanes just off busy roads, but cyclists choose to use the road instead and I'm not talking about a few, it is most of the lycra wearers. The rest of the cyclists, average day-to-day users are fine with it. It's all about priorities.
Cycle lanes are not compulsory. Just like it's not compulsory for a car to go on a motorway next to an adjacent A road.
FFS, this is simple.
Like many motorists I struggle to grasp the logic of a cyclist using a busy road, and putting themselves at a much higher risk, when a perfectly good, much safer, special path is just a few feet away.Pedestrians are legally allowed to walk up the road, but we have pavements to make it safer.
I know they can do what they want, but I just feel the logic is strange.
eccles said:
oyster said:
Stevanos said:
vonuber said:
Decent cycling infrastructure requires money. We have to spend this money on other important things like vanity projects and lucrative private sector contracts for previously nationalised industries that will provide a decent second job for a mp.
It's all about priorities.
In West Sussex, the council has provided dedicated cycle lanes just off busy roads, but cyclists choose to use the road instead and I'm not talking about a few, it is most of the lycra wearers. The rest of the cyclists, average day-to-day users are fine with it. It's all about priorities.
Cycle lanes are not compulsory. Just like it's not compulsory for a car to go on a motorway next to an adjacent A road.
FFS, this is simple.
Like many motorists I struggle to grasp the logic of a cyclist using a busy road, and putting themselves at a much higher risk, when a perfectly good, much safer, special path is just a few feet away.Pedestrians are legally allowed to walk up the road, but we have pavements to make it safer.
I know they can do what they want, but I just feel the logic is strange.
Just yesterday driving along an A road near where I live that has a shared cycle way and coming the other way we're 4 cyclists riding 2x2 along the road with about a mile of traffic waiting to get past. The cyclists showing no consideration for other road users at all.
This gives cyclists a very bad reputation, increases frustration in other road users that can and does lead to poor driving such as get posted up on YouTube by cyclists regularly.
You need to use judgement when deciding whether to use the cycleway or the road;
Highway Code says
61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
I can't find info at moment but I believe there is an advisory of 15mph max and the recommendation is that the road should be used if cycling above 18mph.
Highway Code says
61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
I can't find info at moment but I believe there is an advisory of 15mph max and the recommendation is that the road should be used if cycling above 18mph.
Zigster said:
From your tone, I'm guessing you're not a cyclist...
There are several reasons why "lycra wearers" might choose to use the roads rather than cycle lanes:
Cycling facility of the month
Government guidance
Out of interest, what West Sussex cycle lanes were you thinking of?
I am very much a cyclist. There are several reasons why "lycra wearers" might choose to use the roads rather than cycle lanes:
Cycling facility of the month
Government guidance
Out of interest, what West Sussex cycle lanes were you thinking of?
I am talking about the cycle lane that was built at vast expense between Chichester and Havant on the A259, up until quite recently I would commute along that road everyday and would see cyclists completely ignoring the cycle lane that was built for them and opt for the road. As someone else said, you can't force them to use the cycle lanes but it does show that there are quite a few who put themselves and others in harms way which I think is a bit selfish.
Stevanos said:
I am very much a cyclist.
I am talking about the cycle lane that was built at vast expense between Chichester and Havant on the A259, up until quite recently I would commute along that road everyday and would see cyclists completely ignoring the cycle lane that was built for them and opt for the road. As someone else said, you can't force them to use the cycle lanes but it does show that there are quite a few who put themselves and others in harms way which I think is a bit selfish.
Why is cycling on the road 'putting themselves in harm's way'?I am talking about the cycle lane that was built at vast expense between Chichester and Havant on the A259, up until quite recently I would commute along that road everyday and would see cyclists completely ignoring the cycle lane that was built for them and opt for the road. As someone else said, you can't force them to use the cycle lanes but it does show that there are quite a few who put themselves and others in harms way which I think is a bit selfish.
Stevanos said:
vonuber said:
Decent cycling infrastructure requires money. We have to spend this money on other important things like vanity projects and lucrative private sector contracts for previously nationalised industries that will provide a decent second job for a mp.
It's all about priorities.
In West Sussex, the council has provided dedicated cycle lanes just off busy roads, but cyclists choose to use the road instead and I'm not talking about a few, it is most of the lycra wearers. The rest of the cyclists, average day-to-day users are fine with it. It's all about priorities.
Saddle bum said:
Stevanos said:
vonuber said:
Decent cycling infrastructure requires money. We have to spend this money on other important things like vanity projects and lucrative private sector contracts for previously nationalised industries that will provide a decent second job for a mp.
It's all about priorities.
In West Sussex, the council has provided dedicated cycle lanes just off busy roads, but cyclists choose to use the road instead and I'm not talking about a few, it is most of the lycra wearers. The rest of the cyclists, average day-to-day users are fine with it. It's all about priorities.
Diderot said:
Saddle bum said:
Stevanos said:
vonuber said:
Decent cycling infrastructure requires money. We have to spend this money on other important things like vanity projects and lucrative private sector contracts for previously nationalised industries that will provide a decent second job for a mp.
It's all about priorities.
In West Sussex, the council has provided dedicated cycle lanes just off busy roads, but cyclists choose to use the road instead and I'm not talking about a few, it is most of the lycra wearers. The rest of the cyclists, average day-to-day users are fine with it. It's all about priorities.
Following a recent cyclist death in January a bike shop owner was quoted as below.
Article on A40 Golden Valley cyclist death said:
Graeme Lewis, co-owner of Eastgate Cycles in Gloucester, said: “We all have to take precautions for our own lives and I personally wouldn’t cycle on the Golden Valley Bypass. There’s other options to get to Cheltenham and it’s better to spend an extra five minutes on a B road and still be alive.
Common sense doesn't apply apparently.As a pedestrian, I have the right to paint myself black and walk the wrong way along L2 of the A14 at 3am. I don't because it's a f
king stupid thing to do, and there are other routes available to me.
Unfortunately, the lycristae don't see things like that. They see "it's my right" and ignore the rest of the potential issues.
king stupid thing to do, and there are other routes available to me. Unfortunately, the lycristae don't see things like that. They see "it's my right" and ignore the rest of the potential issues.
oyster said:
Stevanos said:
vonuber said:
Decent cycling infrastructure requires money. We have to spend this money on other important things like vanity projects and lucrative private sector contracts for previously nationalised industries that will provide a decent second job for a mp.
It's all about priorities.
In West Sussex, the council has provided dedicated cycle lanes just off busy roads, but cyclists choose to use the road instead and I'm not talking about a few, it is most of the lycra wearers. The rest of the cyclists, average day-to-day users are fine with it. It's all about priorities.
Cycle lanes are not compulsory. Just like it's not compulsory for a car to go on a motorway next to an adjacent A road.
FFS, this is simple.
It is about time there was some sort of compulsory training for cyclists who are found to be in breach of the highway code, in the same way the motorists go on speed awareness courses.
NoNeed said:
There is a cycle lane next to the footpath on the opposite side of the road where I live and rather than the road or the cycle path so many cyclist cycle on the footpath.
It is about time there was some sort of compulsory training for cyclists who are found to be in breach of the highway code, in the same way the motorists go on speed awareness courses.
Sounds like you need some training if you think that's against the rules. This is what makes cyclists angry - the complete hypocrisy of being criticised, by someone who doesn't know the rules and certainly doesn't follow the rules they do know (don't bother claiming you're law-abiding in a car - I don't believe you), then being criticised again for following the rules and being killed anyway. Whilst the person who did the killing is given a pass.It is about time there was some sort of compulsory training for cyclists who are found to be in breach of the highway code, in the same way the motorists go on speed awareness courses.
I completely fail to understand why any cyclist would bother with the highway code any more. It clearly gets you the sum total of jack s
t in return.paranoid airbag said:
NoNeed said:
There is a cycle lane next to the footpath on the opposite side of the road where I live and rather than the road or the cycle path so many cyclist cycle on the footpath.
It is about time there was some sort of compulsory training for cyclists who are found to be in breach of the highway code, in the same way the motorists go on speed awareness courses.
Sounds like you need some training if you think that's against the rules. This is what makes cyclists angry - the complete hypocrisy of being criticised, by someone who doesn't know the rules and certainly doesn't follow the rules they do know (don't bother claiming you're law-abiding in a car - I don't believe you), then being criticised again for following the rules and being killed anyway. Whilst the person who did the killing is given a pass.It is about time there was some sort of compulsory training for cyclists who are found to be in breach of the highway code, in the same way the motorists go on speed awareness courses.
I completely fail to understand why any cyclist would bother with the highway code any more. It clearly gets you the sum total of jack s
t in return.paranoid airbag said:
Sounds like you need some training if you think that's against the rules. This is what makes cyclists angry - the complete hypocrisy of being criticised, by someone who doesn't know the rules and certainly doesn't follow the rules they do know (don't bother claiming you're law-abiding in a car - I don't believe you), then being criticised again for following the rules and being killed anyway. Whilst the person who did the killing is given a pass.
I completely fail to understand why any cyclist would bother with the highway code any more. It clearly gets you the sum total of jack st in return.
You will see my posts above, on the route I have mentioned A259 the local council has gone to great lengths and expense ( Tax payer) to build cycle routes because the belief was that cyclists needed a safe route, now whilst the most reasonable people in our society chose to use this new infrastructure, there are others who chose not to. At the same time, they cycle down the main road and when they encounter a bollard (part of the cycle route) they are on the outside of it, or sometimes they use the cycle path and then swerve out in to the road. I completely fail to understand why any cyclist would bother with the highway code any more. It clearly gets you the sum total of jack s
t in return.It is totally dangerous behavior, most cyclists are safe, yes, but there are many who risk themselves, motorists and the wider public but being so erratic and not using the highly expensive infrastructure put in for them.
Someone above mentioned cycle routes are only intended for 18mph or below, well get used to it because roads will only accept cars doing 70MP, so in essence, I guess car drivers need to campaign for speed limits for bikes if they won't use the highly expensive bike routes being put in for them.
Speaking as a cyclist, before some f
kwit jumps in!!paranoid airbag said:
NoNeed said:
There is a cycle lane next to the footpath on the opposite side of the road where I live and rather than the road or the cycle path so many cyclist cycle on the footpath.
It is about time there was some sort of compulsory training for cyclists who are found to be in breach of the highway code, in the same way the motorists go on speed awareness courses.
Sounds like you need some training if you think that's against the rules. This is what makes cyclists angry - the complete hypocrisy of being criticised, by someone who doesn't know the rules and certainly doesn't follow the rules they do know (don't bother claiming you're law-abiding in a car - I don't believe you), then being criticised again for following the rules and being killed anyway. Whilst the person who did the killing is given a pass.It is about time there was some sort of compulsory training for cyclists who are found to be in breach of the highway code, in the same way the motorists go on speed awareness courses.
I completely fail to understand why any cyclist would bother with the highway code any more. It clearly gets you the sum total of jack s
t in return.I just checked the highway code and you are wrong, very wrong indeed as cyclist must keep to their side of the walkway paragraph 62. Law HA 1835 sect 72
Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 31st May 21:50
Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 31st May 21:52
swerni said:
OpulentBob said:
As a pedestrian, I have the right to paint myself black and walk the wrong way along L2 of the A14 at 3am. I don't because it's a fking stupid thing to do, and there are other routes available to me.
Unfortunately, the lycristae don't see things like that. They see "it's my right" and ignore the rest of the potential issues.
You appear to be repeating this pointless comment.king stupid thing to do, and there are other routes available to me. Unfortunately, the lycristae don't see things like that. They see "it's my right" and ignore the rest of the potential issues.
Change the tune
It is an extreme example but he is pointing out a behaviour that is frequently displayed especially at the weekend.
I am not anti cyclist, just anti being inconsiderate.
With regard to road use...I bike, a lot and I'm often on the road - however there are certain roads I just won't ride on - it's too bloody dangerous. Do I have the right to ride there? Absolutely...but will I? Absolutely not. "But I had right of way" is a very, very poor epitaph indeed.
Frankly the problem is there are too many assholes in cars and there are too many assholes on bikes: too many militant fkwits and not enough respect for one another.
My neck of the woods it actually seems pretty serene most of the time, don't really see much in the way of grief. Maybe I'm lucky.
Frankly the problem is there are too many assholes in cars and there are too many assholes on bikes: too many militant f
kwits and not enough respect for one another.My neck of the woods it actually seems pretty serene most of the time, don't really see much in the way of grief. Maybe I'm lucky.
Does this all come down to the death of common sense really?
You have a right to take you're 7 year old cycling on a busy A-road, you have a right to walk your dog along a footpath through a field of cows, you have a right to ride you're horse at rush hour on a main road even if the horse is terrible in traffic.
All of the above a bloody stupid and no normal person would do them, but you are within your rights to do so. Just seems to me that for some people what is there 'right' trumps what is sensible.
You have a right to take you're 7 year old cycling on a busy A-road, you have a right to walk your dog along a footpath through a field of cows, you have a right to ride you're horse at rush hour on a main road even if the horse is terrible in traffic.
All of the above a bloody stupid and no normal person would do them, but you are within your rights to do so. Just seems to me that for some people what is there 'right' trumps what is sensible.
rohrl said:
One thing is for sure.
Anyone in a thread about cycling who uses the word "lycra" is not going to make any point worth reading.
No? What is the material that all these fat men wear while out playing Lance Armstrong then? Spandex? Polyester? Please let me know and I'll make a more accurate statement. Lycra appears to be the best description of it. Unless it's cotton, in which case, buy a bigger size! Anyone in a thread about cycling who uses the word "lycra" is not going to make any point worth reading.
I would say "lycra" holds more weight than a pro-cyclist (I don't mean professional cyclist, but not an "anti") who calls cars "killing machines", or who calls drivers "cagers", or who suggests that the number of cars that run red lights is in any way comparable to the number of cyclists who do.
I have no issue with whoever wants to use the road in a responsible and safe manner - for ALL concerned (In fact, it's in my professional interest that more do, on all forms of transport). I do have an issue with a group of people who could and should know better, but refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for their actions or the actions of those who share their hobby, to the point that you can have a video of someone running a red light, hitting a bus, and STILL defend them as not being in the wrong. Want to ride as fast as you like with your head down, and f
k everyone else? Go hire a track, or do it where you are going to be the only one who gets hurt. The A14, for example. You won't hit any pedestrians there, or find any red lights to slow you down, and if you're going fast enough to undertake a truck, then fair play to you! Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff