Have we become a nation of cycle haters?

Have we become a nation of cycle haters?

Author
Discussion

Rich_W

12,548 posts

211 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Accidents are one thing. Deliberate disregard for basic rules and humanity are another. Last week some of you may have seen "The Cycle show" on ITV4

The guy that was in a wheelchair after being hit and run by a drunk driver. Think drink/drugs or driving like a in a built up area counts as deliberate.

The guy that did it, they caught him and prosecuted him.

He NEVER apologised for putting the guy in a wheelchair. Matey was remarkably understanding about it. eek

Some people are s. Some s won't ever show remorse which kind of fks Noneed's view of the world doesn't it! rolleyes

And if it had been me or someone I cared about put in a chair for the rest of their life. I'm lucky to be able to afford to pay someone to torture and mutilate the that did it. I'm thinking, ears, all his fingers, feet. nose. tongue. Then if he didn't apologise for his actions. Start taking it out on his family until he did!



But I'm horrible like that laugh

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Dammit said:
There are rules for all - all motorised vehicles are governed by the same regulations.

Bicycles are not motorised, and are therefore treated as carriages.
I am aware of that, and believe it to be an another area of the law that needs to be urgently addressed.


Dammit

3,790 posts

207 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
That's because you are an idiot, as I believe I've mentioned before.

Why would you apply regulations for a 1,500kg motorised vehicle to a 7kg un-motorised one?

Because you have absolutely no understanding of physics, economics or public health.

So I can see why you're keen.

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Dammit said:
That's because you are an idiot, as I believe I've mentioned before.

Why would you apply regulations for a 1,500kg motorised vehicle to a 7kg un-motorised one?

Because you have absolutely no understanding of physics, economics or public health.

So I can see why you're keen.
I see you're back to insults. Considering how popular bicycles have become and how many are now weaving in and out of rush hour traffic which has itself massively grown in number since the regulations were created I belive it's time to review them.

Bikes are capable of killing too and a bike at 30mph+ doesn't weigh 7kg does it, firstly it has a rider that will add may 70kg and when you start taking into account the forces at that speed and above I see a good reason to apply regulations and restrictions.

A pedestrian in a 20 zone can still be killed by a bike at 20mph yet many are capable of double that speed with no requirement for the rider to slow down.



You call me an idiot yet state a bike weighs 7kg, maybe it does in the shed but not on the road it doesn't, you call me an idiot and state I have no knowledge of physics or public health yet quite clearly the reverse is true as bicycles are responsible for many deaths each year.

TKF

6,232 posts

234 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
A 7kg bike weighs 7kg at every speed. Regardless, your relentless campaign is tiresome.

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
TKF said:
A 7kg bike weighs 7kg at every speed. Regardless, your relentless campaign is tiresome.
A 7kg bike would not move as it needs a rider.

gazza285

9,780 posts

207 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
A pedestrian in a 20 zone can still be killed by a bike at 20mph yet many are capable of double that speed with no requirement for the rider to slow
You miss the distinction that while a pedestrian may be killed by a bike, there would also be a very high possibility of death or injury to the cyclist as well, so it is in both parties interest to avoid the collision. This is not the case for an distracted or just plain ignorant driver.

TheLemming

4,319 posts

264 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
There should be, We should have rules for all.


You even said "My position is that this is not desirable in a civilised society as we should have a structure of rules which promote personal responsibility"


I have no idea what brakes and tyres are like on modern top spec bikes like the one I saw, but when I was riding some 10 years ago On my £150 halfords weekend special offer, that sort of speed would have got me hurt sooner rather than later lolbiggrin
Different rules for 2 tonnes of car VS 10 tonnes of lorry VS 70kg of rider and bike.
The law doesn't actually allow for a speed limit to be set for bikes - a local council found this out recently when they tried.
There's no mandatory speedo and very few people aside from the high speed lycra brigade (or the very keen offroad set) have a decent one.

I'll frequently overtake traffic at about 25 in a 20 limit, more normally they are overtaking me while I'm doing 25... (It's gently downhill on a road 3 lanes wide with plenty of space for everyone safely).

Besides if you can hit that speed for more than a few seconds on a BSO either you're a total monster, or its been pushed off a cliff.
Suffice it to say a decent (let alone top end) road bike will be a third of the weight with MUCH better tyres, brakes and kit throughout. Accelerates as hard as you can push it, stops substantially better - the braking distance is still probably 3 times that of a car at the same speed however.

will_

6,027 posts

202 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Without wishing to stir the pot further, sneezing can be an absolute defence to causing an accident. Because it is involuntary it can be deemed to be non-insane automatism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(law))

The case of R v Wholley is an example.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Whoolley.php


will_

6,027 posts

202 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
We should also do something to make sure regular cyclists have a good road sense because what I am seeing more and more recently is a total disregard for any form of traffic regulation from cyclists.
And drivers have total regard for traffic regulations? Of course not, and they are the ones posing the greater risk (to everyone). Focus your wrath on them


will_

6,027 posts

202 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
Dammit said:
There are rules for all - all motorised vehicles are governed by the same regulations.

Bicycles are not motorised, and are therefore treated as carriages.
I am aware of that, and believe it to be an another area of the law that needs to be urgently addressed.
On what basis? That cyclists are suddenly posing a massive risk to third parties? If so, what evidence do you have for that?

How about applying the same rules to pedestrians? Don't they pose a risk too?

Simond S

4,514 posts

276 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
gazza285 said:
NoNeed said:
A pedestrian in a 20 zone can still be killed by a bike at 20mph yet many are capable of double that speed with no requirement for the rider to slow
You miss the distinction that while a pedestrian may be killed by a bike, there would also be a very high possibility of death or injury to the cyclist as well, so it is in both parties interest to avoid the collision. This is not the case for an distracted or just plain ignorant driver.
Exactly this. Cyclists are in the same vulnerable position in an accident as the pedestrian.

Drivers are always cacooned from the impact.

will_

6,027 posts

202 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
as bicycles are responsible for many deaths each year.
How many? Last time I checked it was the same number as bees and baths. I.e. negligible compared to the 10 people killed each day by motorists.

oyster

12,577 posts

247 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
Dammit said:
NoNeed said:
Thank you
You're welcome. However, you shouldn't feel too bad - yes, your apologist, self-serving, contradiction filled opinion is total drivel, and an insult to the cyclists killed by negligent drivers - but, just like a stopped clock you are useful, just not twice a day.

Here's your once a day use- you are (and this is horrifying but sadly true) basically demographically neutral, your lack of any original thought puts you firmly into the majority, which is why we see conviction rates for motorists who kill cyclists free-falling at the moment.

Here's a clue as to why you are wrong- it's NOT ok to kill someone because you sneezed.

You are also a great example of why drink driving had to go from a trial to an "if you exceed this level you are guilty', before that happened and the verdict was court-based people kept getting off due to the "there but for the grace of God go I" issue.

Your final use is to show why we need strict liability in order to actually get convictions for negligent, killer drivers.
The point is, we are not all perfect like you, we cannot all maintain 100% concentration for a whole day like you and we cannot unlike you defy the laws of nature. Mistakes can, will and do happen to us normal people that can't be like you, does that mean your life should be destroyed for an accident? that your family should suffer because somebody elses family are suffering like that will ease their pain.

There will be those that willfully took a risk maybe by drinking or using a phone that deserve to be made to understand the full extent of the risk they took and lost, they though will not be the majority, the majority are normal people doing normal things right up to the point it went wrong, maybe they had the window open and heard a scream or witness an accident on the other carriageway which took their attention for a second and like I said before maybe they sneezed, there could be many reasons for a distraction. to say that only motorists should be aware of these things misses the point I was making that cyclist should ride knowing it could happen and being more aware rather than having this growing anti car attitude and concentrating on owning the road.



Yes I'm an idiot, I cycled to work for more than 3 years and lived to tell the tale.
Can you find an example of where a cyclist has been killed by something as natural as a sneeze because I can't? I see a mixture of negligent and occasionally dangerous driving causing fatalities, but nothing caused by anything quite as innocent as a sneeze.

(in any case in 25 years of driving with hay fever I've sneezed a lot and never come close to hitting anything - you get advance warning of a sneeze you know).

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
TKF said:
A 7kg bike weighs 7kg at every speed. Regardless, your relentless campaign is tiresome.
A 7kg bike would not move as it needs a rider.
A 7kg bike is a 7kg bike at any speed. Now if you want to discuss force why didn't you say?

PS, I love setting off the 30MPH speed warning signs on my bicycle, it takes a bit of doing but god does it feel good when you achieve it cloud9

TheLemming

4,319 posts

264 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
A 7kg bike is a 7kg bike at any speed. Now if you want to discuss force why didn't you say?

PS, I love setting off the 30MPH speed warning signs on my bicycle, it takes a bit of doing but god does it feel good when you achieve it cloud9
There's one near here you can get to display 40 with a bit of effort, the short but REALLY steep hill on the run up to it helps biggrin

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
I see you're back to insults. Considering how popular bicycles have become and how many are now weaving in and out of rush hour traffic which has itself massively grown in number since the regulations were created I belive it's time to review them.
I love statements like this, it's so easy to pick them to pieces. Has there been an increase in 'weaving' since the increase in popularity rolleyes The last major review of speed limits on the roads was what, 1974? Car ownership has increased dramatically in that time but the drivers indicate a preference for higher limits, yet would like stricter controls on otehr road users rofl
NoNeed said:
Bikes are capable of killing too and a bike at 30mph+ doesn't weigh 7kg does it, firstly it has a rider that will add may 70kg and when you start taking into account the forces at that speed and above I see a good reason to apply regulations and restrictions.
Where you see a chance to regulate something you a. don't appear to like very much and b. don't understand most other see an opportunity to create a better environment for all road users. You see cyclists ARE traffic, not a sub section.
NoNeed said:
A pedestrian in a 20 zone can still be killed by a bike at 20mph yet many are capable of double that speed with no requirement for the rider to slow down.
And your point is. So all drivers follow the speed limits. Perhaps as you are so interested in mortality we should introduce a blanket 15mph speed limit in all urban areasm only fair as the average car is about 6-7 times faster than your 20mph limit and has the added danger of weighing 2000kg.
NoNeed said:
You call me an idiot yet state a bike weighs 7kg, maybe it does in the shed but not on the road it doesn't, you call me an idiot and state I have no knowledge of physics or public health yet quite clearly the reverse is true as bicycles are responsible for many deaths each year.
A 7kg bike travelling at 20mph, a 2000kg car travelling at 20mph. Which is the real danger.

The trouble is the more you make an anti cycling case the more it is obvious that the solution needs to be based around traffic integration not mass restrictions on travel.

Yes. We have become a nation of cycle haters.

Rich_W

12,548 posts

211 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
yonex said:
The trouble is the more you make an anti cycling case the more it is obvious that the solution needs to be based around traffic integration not mass restrictions on travel.

Yes. We have become a nation of cycle haters.
I'm not sure we have. what I will say is that the internet allows the vocal inbred minority an opportunity to air their facist and mostly ste views.

It's not perfect, but the vast majority of people on the road IME simply overtake a cyclist without too much effort. They don't worry about it, mainly because they have other things to be worrying about. Sure there's the ignoramus like "jimplop1" and "nobrain" and "stsbiker" who have to hate anything they don't like. The ones that feel they are too important to slow or give a cyclist a bit of space occasionally. And they worry me of course, but the situation is not as bad as the aforementioned s would like us to believe.

Of course if those people do ever become the majority. It'll be worse for car drivers (of which presumably everyone here also is) The governments regardless of colour WANT to reduce car usership. So it'll go like Scandinavian countries. Where bikes have complete priority at every junction and car driving becomes a monumental pain in the arse.

So play nice out there or we'll take your rights away. You think I'm joking?

jimbop1

2,441 posts

203 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Rich_W you really don't help improve the image of cyclists. You just come across as an angry man.

Just to add, not once have I passed a cyclist close, not once have I used my horn or shouted abuse at one. I pass everyone in a safe manner. Just because I dislike the attitude and riding manner of SOME cyclists does not mean I would ever endanger one.

Mr Gear

9,416 posts

189 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
jimbop1 said:
Rich_W you really don't help improve the image of cyclists. You just come across as an angry man.

Just to add, not once have I passed a cyclist close, not once have I used my horn or shouted abuse at one. I pass everyone in a safe manner. Just because I dislike the attitude and riding manner of SOME cyclists does not mean I would ever endanger one.
Well that's a positive change of tune at least.